Canadian Heritage Committee on May 25th, 2007

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

We have a very similar situation with the Algonquin Nation. I worked with the Algonquin Nation for a number of years in Quebec. We had a radio station in the Lake Temiskaming region. It was not able to compete for broadcasting advertising because they kept the signal short. I always felt that a lot of non-natives would enjoy the programming, because it was a lot more fun. But they couldn't compete, so they were very hampered in their ability...and yet we had 10 communities spread across the Abitibi region, down to La Vérendrye Park, that were unable to speak to each other, probably 8,000 people spread out.

Is this basically a similar situation? Do you have communities spread out over a large territory?

[Tim Paul]

Yes, they are all over the place.

We'd like not only to educate our own people; we also want to educate the non-aboriginals within our communities and the surrounding areas who are listening to us--about why we have treaty rights, for instance, or why we do certain things. It is important for non-aboriginals to understand that concept. They don't hear that on CBC; they hear it from us. When a Supreme Court ruling comes down, people want to know why and what happened. We can tell that story from our perspective.

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

We had presentations in Manitoba of the northern Manitoba aboriginal radio network, which seemed to me to be extremely successful. In fact, it had replaced private broadcasting in certain areas for native and non-native because of the kind of programming they were doing, and they were being heard across a vast territory.

Have you looked at other models to emulate or to get ideas from? Are you in conversation with various organizations?

[Tim Paul]

We're pretty much just doing it on our own. We've been doing it right from scratch. I got a personal loan from my bank. We went to the federal government and all the federal agencies, and nobody would give us a penny toward starting up the radio station. I took a personal loan out at the bank to do this. That was a little over three years ago, and I brought it to the point where we have it today without any government help.

[Christopher Collrin]

We are aware of the Manitoba situation, but at this stage we're just trying to get the network moving. Certainly we'll be consulting with those successful networks across the country once we get our own foundation in place and begin to build the network. Then we'll be looking at other models to see what has worked. We'll be following best practices and even consulting with those network managers who have been successful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome.

Mr. Côté, you said something very interesting in your presentation, that sport was a form of expression that was part of the culture of a country, in other words, an element that was used to forge the collective identity. It is interesting that you recall that here, but we can see that Canadians know it already, since the CBC covers a lot of sport. In fact, it covers a lot more than Radio-Canada. You said that, in the past few years, the proportion of programs on sport, federated sport among others, appearing on Radio-Canada had declined quite significantly. Today there are virtually none.

In your first recommendation, you suggest that Radio-Canada be given an additional mandate including a responsibility to contribute to the proportion of federated sport and healthy living habits. When we talk about instilling healthy living habits, we know that federated sport is indeed an important tool. Given that Radio-Canada's present mandate enables it to find ways of not covering sport, you've decided to include a much more restrictive criterion that would require it to do so. I find that recommendation very interesting and I congratulate you for it.

As regards my question, I'd like to know whether someone at Radio-Canada told you at some point that sport was no longer really important and that the corporation intended to quietly withdraw from all that. How did things happen?

[Michelle Gendron, Coordinator, Sports-Québec]

What they tell us is more the contrary, that is to say that federated sport is going to be reincluded and that new programming will be created. But we're still waiting for that, and that's what's a bit unfortunate. In our brief, we specifically state everything we've lost over the years, not only on television, but also on Radio-Canada radio. We don't want to take anyone's place: we want to take back a role that we consider important in the promotion of healthy living habits, the promotion of important aspects of federated sport in Quebec and the athletes who excel, more particularly Francophone athletes. They are the ones suffering from a lack of visibility and promotion to Francophones. The brief serves to show that.

Every time we meet Radio-Canada people—and Raymond has done that on a number of occasions—they tell us they intend to reinclude certain aspects and recommend that we take a look at the next round of programming. However, they are still at the intentions stage. When we analyze the program Au-dessus de la mêlée, the only remaining magazine, we say to ourselves that, in the context of that magazine, they could talk about us, about the highlights of high-performance athletes and the major achievements in federated sport. Instead they talk over and over about hockey and again and again about professional hockey. We think that important aspects of sport can have an emulation effect on Canadians. We don't want to usurp anyone else's place, but rather to take back our own.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

How were the previous cuts justified to you? What reasons were you given?

[Raymond Côté]

Nothing was justified. It's more subtle than that. Federated sport, of course, doesn't sell and isn't profitable. It's not for no reason that TVA and TQS aren't involved: it's not profitable for sponsors. When you don't believe in it, it's so easy not to cover it, not to talk about it and gradually not to go to it. You see in the few bits of information we've given you that the withdrawal has been gradual. A program was replaced. The introduction of Au-dessus de la mêlée is fantastic; it concerns sport. But it doesn't replace the newscast. They don't talk about federated sport on it; they mainly talk about professional sport, particularly hockey or boxing, because it sells more. That's the path they've taken.

So there has to be a will, a belief or an obligation for Radio-Canada to carry out a mandate that concerns federated sport. That is why we have recommendations that are much more specific concerning healthy living habits. There are mandates that are identified when there are specific revenues coming from sport. We have nothing against professional sports coverage, but let's use that to support federated sport. In that respect, I think we're reflecting a will and a desire to be part of a culture that is a culture of sport.

[Michelle Gendron]

At the same time, we've noticed, in Radio-Canada's annual reports, that the Olympic Games coverage was profitable in terms of advertising revenues. We see that advertising revenues on the Anglophone and Francophone sides are significant. They are generated by the Olympic Games, which are in the field of federated sport. We're saying—and this is one of our recommendations—that we have proof that federated sports events can be profitable for Radio-Canada, that we have proof that partnerships can be established with other broadcasters, again by Radio-Canada. The Olympic Games proved that. We say to ourselves that this model can be used in other driving-force events in federated sport. On the other hand, a portion of those revenues, since they are significant, should be reinvested in the promotion of federated sport and healthy living habits. So we're starting with a profitable model, a win-win model. Radio-Canada unfortunately lost the right to cover the Vancouver Olympic Games, and we are convinced that it will be in the running again for the rights to cover the next Olympic Games.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Talking about the Olympic Games, could you tell me about the consequences of Radio-Canada losing the broadcast of the Games for Francophone athletes and the Francophone audience?

[Michelle Gendron]

Among other things, Adrénaline was a program that made it possible to introduce Olympic athletes who were going to represent us at future Olympic Games. We learned about their environment, we watched them in their competitions, we followed their performances. That program was completely dedicated to Olympic sports; it no longer exists. And yet the half-hour time slot has been occupied by a daily program, Au-dessus de la mêlée, which now tells us about professional sport. We've been deprived of a promotional forum. That promotional forum was recurring. It was there all season long and thus made it possible, between two Olympic Games, to follow the careers of our Olympians and to create those emulation models that are important for us with regard to businesses. When we approached a business, it knew that we could regularly talk about athletes who were distinguishing themselves in federated sport. We no longer have that forum. The same fact has been observed on radio. The loss of programs also followed this apprehension that we had of losing coverage of the Olympic Games. We clearly see that the withdrawal is now almost total.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

So would you be prepared to say that there were sponsors who were ready to help athletes go as far as the highest Olympic levels and that those sponsors withdrew because they had less coverage?

[Michelle Gendron]

It is harder to solicit them.

[Raymond Côté]

We couldn't speak that precisely because we obviously aren't in Radio-Canada's shoes. However, we know that we can pick a few stars among the young developing athletes. But they aren't the only ones in federated sport. The others are less visible, less seen; they're covered less. That's less appealing for viewers. If we want to make a program on federated sports, sponsors will wonder exactly who it will reach. So it becomes a very narrow clientele.

When you think about a culture, you have to understand that that doesn't refer solely to the elite. The culture presents a reality, that is to say the reality of young people who are engaged on a path to achieve athletic excellence.

The program Adrénaline covered all of that network, or all of those top athletes. When coverage is limited to a few individuals, the market becomes much thiner, and sponsors feel that, unless some of them are given coverage, they won't take part. That represents a loss for us.

A will is needed, a requirement for an organization like Radio-Canada to present sport as an element of culture, thus in its reality in the field, in what it is every day or regularly, not just when international championships are covered. That is the reality that should be presented and that should reach people. When you see athletes grow up, you take a greater interest in them and you follow them. On the other hand, when you only see them once or when such and such a sports personality is not being exploited, that doesn't have a major impact. That's the case of the Olympic Games. You see the athletes for 15 days, then they disappear and reappear four years later. We would like Radio-Canada's mandate to be demanding in that regard and to be present constantly and on a daily basis.

The newscast is a good example, magazines as well. There can also be advertising presentations in which important elements for Canadian society are recalled. There are 1,001 ways of doing it. That definitely involves certain amounts of money. I think that the only network that we can influence or require something of is Radio-Canada, since the others are private networks, and so, unless we have money to finance them, it's impossible.

It's hard to get away from that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Do you want one small question?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Among our youths or younger children, that is to say those in whom we must instill healthy living habits, because a sedentary lifestyle has been established, did you see a difference in practice, in the field, between the time when the program Les Héros du samedi was broadcast on television and the moment they stopped broadcasting that type of program?

[Raymond Côté]

We are obviously less sensitive to what we don't see. However, we know that there are reactions following international championships or Olympic Games. Just think of the 1976 Olympic Games: tens and tens of Nadia Comanecis were born. In 2005, we had the aquatic championships: registration soared. If we cover a speed skating competition, what do you see in the clubs? An increase in registration for that discipline.

If we don't see or we don't cover a sport, we definitely lose significant impact. Seeing it frequently has an effect on practice and participation. Youths see it and identify with models. We regularly hear youths say they discovered a sport by seeing so and so play it. It is becoming extremely important to see athletes regularly. We can't rely on sponsorships to present these kinds of images. This responsibility belongs to a corporation like Radio-Canada.

[Michelle Gendron]

Since we now have to turn to the specialty channels to secure that kind of visibility, that puts significant financial constraints on us. When Radio-Canada was at our events, we didn't have any costs. Now we have to pay to be on television.

Yes, RDS covers us well, but we have to pay. When we sollicit our sponsors, when we go looking for money for federated sport, we use part of the money we collect for television promotion. That used to be a service that was given to us. Consequently, all the money could go to organizing events, developing sport and supporting athletes. Now we also have to ensure there is promotion by paying for it.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

That point is very interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for those presentations. I must say that aboriginal peoples getting their radio and television broadcasts out is a topic dear to my heart.

Sports are also very close to my heart. I played softball, fastball, and a little bit of baseball, hockey, and football when I was in high school. About three weeks from tonight, at around this same time, I have the honour to throw out the first pitch in a fastball game between Team Canada and Team Australia. It will be played in my little hometown of Sebringville, Ontario. If you have an opportunity to come, that would be great.

I played slow-pitch up until about five years ago. I should have kept playing; I have gotten a little bit out of shape since then.

[Michelle Gendron]

It's never too late to start again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, never too late.

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

Mr. Chair, I have to intervene here.

I had the honour to throw out the first pitch at the national Little League championship in Timmins last year. However, before I threw the pitch, they had to give everybody in the crowd catchers' masks.