Canadian Heritage Committee on May 11th, 2009

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

But if you did have a chance to give your opinion, what would it be? This is your chance to say what you think. Someone is listening.

[Chantal Larouche]

It is clear that regional services are important. However, the most critical point—maybe I will be deviating from my focus somewhat—is that, given the cuts that have already been made, Friday's announcement has put CBC/Radio-Canada's ability to carry out its mandate in danger.

It is our opinion—the Fédération nationale des communications, which held its convention last week—that this is a purely ideological decision that has nothing to do with money and everything to do with a desire to marginalize the public broadcaster. Let us not forget that it was not so very long ago that our government raised the possibility of providing direct financial support through subsidies to private companies. That makes absolutely no sense. How are people on the ground supposed to react to that? How are they supposed to feel? Our members are really angry. They know that, in time, if things go as planned, everyone will say that we no longer need CBC/Radio-Canada. That is the sense we get from the government's current plans.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

You said that CBC/Radio-Canada would no longer be able to carry out its mandate.

[Chantal Larouche]

That would be the case, particularly in terms of regional service throughout Canada—

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

There would be fewer local broadcasts.

[Chantal Larouche]

There would be fewer local broadcasts and more acquisitions.

Major cuts to original made-in-Canada programs were announced for French programming in Quebec and probably for the English network too. Right now, the only option is acquiring foreign-produced programs.

There is another issue: it is clear that there will be a shortfall in news programming. With as much territory to cover as there is in Canada, and with the requirement to provide service in both official languages, we cannot provide adequate coverage with so few resources. This will clearly result in a democratic deficit for Canadians.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I want to make sure that I understand. Do you really believe that the Conservative government is financially suffocating CBC/Radio-Canada so that it can then say the broadcaster should be gotten rid of because it cannot fulfill its mandate?

[Chantal Larouche]

That is how it looks. That is how we see it.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Laurin, what do you think?

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

I agree completely. Everything points to the fact that the current government is taking advantage of the economic crisis to make things difficult for the broadcaster. As I mentioned in my presentation earlier, CBC/Radio-Canada's budget has been cut year after year. The broadcaster has fewer and fewer people and can do less and less.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Excuse me, but I would like to hear what the others have to say. As you know, I have just five minutes.

Mr. Levasseur.

[Alex Levasseur]

I want to point out something important that I have realized over my 30-year career with CBC/Radio-Canada. I have seen and felt a lot of cuts. When CBC/Radio-Canada leaves a region, stops covering a region, private companies that were in the same region follow suit. They feel that they no longer have to compete with CBC/Radio-Canada, since it is no longer there. So they take off. They pack up and leave. The effect is twice as bad because CBC/Radio-Canada is no longer there, and the private broadcaster figures that it does not have to stick around and spend money; there is no need to.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Murdoch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Angus, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very sorry I only have five minutes, because I have so many questions. I'm going to move very quickly and I'm going to be very impatient. It's not that I don't want to hear long answers; it's just that I have no time.

Madame Lareau, getting an answer from the government on the CBC is like sticking your tongue out in a funhouse mirror. Everything comes back really distorted, and they tell us it's not. We just heard that this $56 million cut is not really a cut, that in fact it has been planned for years, and that there was something nefarious with the CBC in not coming forward and making the government look bad.

My understanding was that CBC was singled out last week for this strategic review. Is that correct?

[Lise Lareau]

My understanding is that the CBC was informed last week or the week before. The staff at the CBC were informed last week, and it should be clear that it hasn't been singled out. A lot of government departments are subject to this review.

At the same time, it's strange to us that the CBC is seen as a government department. That seems to poke a lot of holes in the issue of the arm's-length relationship, and that worries me, on top of the $50 million and all the rest of the problems.

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

Mr. Murdoch, I remember when we were talking back in 2006, when they had the bold merger in which CTV decided to swallow its number two rival in the city of Toronto and pick off a whole whack of valuable stations. At the time, they made it clear that they were not interested in 'A' Channel. They wanted to dump those. The CRTC came back and said they were going to impose some strict conditions on CTV because they were allowed so much massive media concentration. Here we are two years later and the nature of the crisis is the 'A' channels, which they never wanted in the first place.

Have they followed their licence?

[Peter Murdoch]

I think the crisis is at the CRTC. Look, these local stations were given licences. They have been described by broadcasters, the unions, citizens, and public interest groups as the very foundation of Canadian broadcasting. If Parliament or the CRTC can't find a way to ensure that these stations keep going, we are abandoning Canadians. It's not a question of whether or not CTV wanted them or didn't want them. We're not talking about a Christmas present; we're talking about licences, the foundation of the broadcasting system.

For the past 40 years, various royal commissions, committee hearings, and inquiries have been recommending against consolidation of ownership, every one of them. Yet the CRTC has allowed this consolidation to continue, and now we see Canada's largest media empire $4 billion in debt and on the brink of CCAA. It's a national embarrassment. Where was Parliament, and where were our regulators? You have made some wonderful recommendations. We just need to ensure that they're adopted and put in place.

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

Mr. Murdoch, CRTC decisions are always predicated on the fact that we need to help local, we need more mergers, we need to give them the specialty TV. Yet every time a licence renewal comes up, we find the restrictions are way too onerous to allow any broadcaster to operate profitably. When we look at how much they're being obligated to come through with, to us--and we're just amateurs--it doesn't seem like it's all that much.

As to the onerousness of the licences, I was trying to find the last time a television station had been charged with non-compliance, and I don't see anything in the last 20 years. What is the percentage of stations that have been out of compliance with their licence? Are you aware of that? When they are breaching their obligations, does the CRTC have any tools, any steps that it takes to make them comply? Clearly, the message we've heard is that the CRTC obligations for local and for Canadian content are much too onerous for this business climate.

[Peter Murdoch]

We are aware, as all Canadians are, that there's an economic downturn right now, so this business climate is unique. It will pass; broadcasters will come back, the economy will come back, and away we go. Right now we're in a moment unique in our history. It's not a matter of being onerous.

First of all, very few broadcasters have local programming and local news as a condition of licence. They make promises and commitments that cannot be enforced. There's no penalty; they just make these. When CTV was looking at the last round for the Citytv stations, it brought up broadcasters. I'm sure many of you were in Parliament when they had all their anchors in Parliament to greet everybody. How wonderful local news was! Three cheers! What happened after that? They're closing stations and they're reducing local news.

Come on, which is it? They'll say one thing at the time of trying to get the licences and try to woo you when it seems necessary, but once they have the licence, those commitments end up being abandoned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

As the presentation has been going on, I've been doing some basic math. I'm a finance guy; at least that's what I took at school. I basically figured out that since the funding low of the Liberals that occurred in the late 1990s, the funding at CBC is up 38%, based on figures that you've given to me. You indicated 5% of the budget was $58 million, or could be as much as $58 million. That would indicate funding from the government of $1.16 billion.

I took the funding low of about 10 years ago of $800 million under the Liberals, applied at an annual inflation rate of 3% compounded over 10 years, and I came to a total funding number of $1.075 billion, which would have been the amount under the Liberals, keeping pace with inflation. We know that we've actually exceeded that, based on your testimony here today, and that was if inflation was at 3%. But we know the Bank of Canada has had a target rate of 2%, and I don't remember the annual inflation rate ever being at 3% since 1998.

So I just wanted to make the point. The only reason I've gone through some of the finance calculations, which I've been doing while you've been here, is to indicate that half of your argument that says the government funding hasn't kept pace with inflation actually isn't true. Based on your own numbers, it has more than kept pace with inflation. Now, you may be making the argument that it hasn't been adequate, but that's different from saying that it hasn't kept pace with inflation.

The other thing that is really troubling--and I saw Ms. Larouche, Ms. Lareau, and Mr. Laurin nodding--is that you think the current government has got it in for the CBC. I'm just going to paraphrase. I have something here from the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, which I received on October 31, 2000—I just ran this off today—and it says that the Liberals cut about $400 million or 33% from the CBC's budget. I'm told 4,000 people lost their jobs, and that the president of CBC quit. Does the Liberal Party have something against the CBC as well? Is that what we're establishing? The Liberals had a vendetta to eliminate the CBC? Is that why they cut 33% from your funding?

[Lise Lareau]

I'll start with this.

Look, I didn't answer the last question, and what I have been saying--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay, so then I'd like Ms. Larouche to answer.

[Lise Lareau]

Excuse me.