Official Languages Committee on June 20th, 2006

[Serge Paquin]

There are actually four committees, four stages involved in the campaign-approval process. It takes one year to approve that advertising, which is very discouraging for everyone. How much do all those committees cost, how much does it cost to ensure accountability and transparency with respect to the $33 million? It would not be surprising to find out that approximately the same amount is spent on ensuring that there is accountability. There are limits to transparency and accountability. If it ends up costing more than the program itself, then that's a little ridiculous.

[Béatrice Lajoie]

The $71 million includes everything, that is, planning, agencies, and so on. It doesn't only include the advertising costs. For example, a $50,000 campaign might have cost a $150,000 before it reaches us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Ms. Lajoie.

Mr. Harvey, your questions are very interesting but unfortunately your time is up.

Ms. Brunelle, you have the floor.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

First, I want to congratulate you on the work you have done to preserve the language. Also your comments on literacy are critical.

There seems to be a lot of movement at the CRTC. At one time, radio was said to be dead. However, there is a great deal of movement. In fact, Corus has absorbed a number of stations. There seems to be many new radio stations.

Where are you in relation to this? We are talking about market shares. Are you experiencing particular difficulties finding sponsors? Has your market shrunk? Have I hit pay dirt? Does that make sense to you?

[Roger Ouellette]

We worked closely with the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec in preparing our brief for the CRTC and during our meeting with the Deputy Minister of Heritage Canada. Our colleague from this association produced an interesting table — I don't have it here, but we can send it to you — which shows that community radio stations make up 20 per cent of francophone radio stations, but only 1 per cent of revenues. There is a major imbalance between major networks and independent stations. Advertising revenues are concentrated within the major networks.

During the 1990s, private-sector commercial radio stations were making noise, saying that they were about to disappear and that regulations needed to be relaxed. The CRTC did so. As a result, the press and radio stations in Canada are now concentrated. For all practical purposes, there are four major radio networks, and the concentration is continuing.

Community radio stations in Quebec are falling through the cracks somewhat, if I dare say so. We fill the space that commercial radio stations are ignoring. Someone asked if we are competing with commercial radio stations. The document presented, about the situation in Quebec, shows clearly that the vast majority of community radio stations are not competing with the commercial sector. As evidence, they are earning only 1 per cent of revenues, although they represent 20 per cent of all stations. Consequently, we need to find alternatives for community radio stations since they are unable to obtain funding based only on commercial advertising. Revenues are not sufficient. That is why the federal government's contribution to our revenue stream is important to us.

Furthermore, independent radio stations, particularly community radio stations broadcast local news. I invite you to try and get local news from the major radio networks. They play songs by the same 10 artists and repeat the same news from Montreal.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You are one hundred per cent correct. Television shows were often done in Trois-Rivières, in my riding, and we lost them due to a concentration of the press. As a result, jobs and the regional aspect were lost. The situation is even worst in francophone communities throughout the country.

[Béatrice Lajoie]

I want to add to your question. My job is to meet with people from the departments to lobby them and explain who we are. At the time, I had met with representatives of Communication Canada, and I was told that they knew who we were but not where to put us, because we were different. We are a radio network but, at the same time, we are a not-for-profit organization. We reach the community; our station represents communities. We get lost among the major players. They don't really know what to do with us. Not because they didn't want to help us, but because they didn't have any solution. Consequently, we are trying to find one with you. That is why we are here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Ms. Brunelle. Your time is up. There will be a third and final five-minute round. Then we will go in camera to discuss committee business.

Mr. Simard.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our guests. I apologize for not getting here sooner.

I want to talk about the solution, because that is why we are here. It was no coincidence that the committee proposed 5.4 per cent. There was a precedent. This was done with film producers. For example, Productions Rivard, a producer from our region, and producers in Ottawa and the Maritimes were not getting their fair share of funding. They were getting only 7 p. 100, when their share should have been between 11 per cent or 12 per cent. So we proposed 12 per cent, and I think that it was ultimately set at 10 per cent.

If we talk to those producers today, we find that they are delighted with this solution. It has worked very well. We have tried to do the same thing with community radio stations, but it didn't necessarily work.

You feel that this solution still has merit. However, when I went to your annual meeting three weeks ago in Winnipeg, I met a participant from France who represented some several hundred community radio stations. He had another solution under which private radio stations set aside a certain amount of money for community radio stations.

If you had to choose between these two solutions, which one would you prefer? They are two different things, are they not?

[Serge Paquin]

We proposed creating a fund that would be funded in part by the surplus generated by private radio stations. To this end, we may be in agreement with the proposal put forward by the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec to the effect that the ten largest networks, including Astral Media, Corus, etc., provide $5 million, because they are making a lot of money, due to mergers.

Yesterday, we met with the deputy minister of Heritage Canada, Ms. LaRocque, to ask her to strike a committee to study the future of community radio broadcasting in Canada, including francophone and anglophone community radio stations. We are seriously considering having the government inject approximately $10 million into the fund, even if we asked for $18 million, just as it is investing in television through the Canadian Television Fund. If they invest in television, why not invest in radio?

The order-in-council stipulates that cable and satellite distributors must allocate a portion of their gross revenues to the Canadian Television Fund. This does not apply to private radio stations. The CRTC has been asked to make private radio stations contribute to the fund. Last year, the government invested nearly $140 million in the Canadian Television Fund, for the production of Canadian shows. We produce 80,000 hours of Canadian programming, and we get nothing. We are one of the rare industrialized countries not to provide support to community radio.

We are proposing that the federal government provides funding through a community radio fund or initiatives by which we would get a portion of unspent advertising budgets. We are not talking about new money. We are simply asking to get a percentage of this budget in order to promote Bill S-3 or the Official Languages Act. These are different initiatives, but have to knock on a number of doors, because the CRTC will have trouble telling the private sector to set aside $5 million, and the government will hesitate to invest $10 million in our fund.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

That is what I was going to say. It seems to me that the CRTC option is much more difficult to achieve. Rather, the committee could indicate clearly to the government that it wants 5.4 per cent of the funds to be set aside. That would be simpler for us. In addition, that recommendation is justifiable, given that there is a precedent.

This committee should take another look at this option and ensure that it is clearly 5.4 per cent that we're dealing with and not the diluted percentage that we're speaking about here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Simard, I am sorry but your time is up.

Ms. Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I'm going to speak to you about a system that may interest you.

Generally speaking, community groups are dealing with a problem — and I imagine that this is your case as well — that is to say, that people are not really aware of the effort made by the population to support community radio. They have a vague idea, but they do not know precisely how many people are involved.

I noticed, in the case of certain community groups, that after having seen the financial report, auditors agreed to add the number of volunteer hours carried out in the form of a note, while specifying what that work represented in terms of money. By doing that, they make sure that funders do not get the impression that these groups are begging for funding for operations. They see that people have already done their part and that it is fair for the government to provide a contribution. I do not know if you find the idea interesting, but I must say that for myself, in similar cases that I have seen, I have been able to have a better idea of the real work being done and the participation of people from the community.

You also talked about the cost of auditing. Your recent answers lead me to believe that it is not included in the $71 million. Am I right?

[A voice]

No.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

So, the $71 million has not been fully spent. You are telling us that that is due to the slowness of procedures. Given that some of your needs have not been met, do you have more specific measures to recommend so that that money is spent?

[Serge Paquin]

As you heard in our presentation, there is a whole range of committees that intervene, whether it be Treasury Board, Privy Council, the cabinet, the departments themselves or the Department of Public Works. There is an accreditation process. The committees meet to approve campaigns. One committee will refer the matter to another committee, which then approves what the other committee approved previously and so on. That process mobilizes public servants, politicians and many other people. It ends up generating enormous costs, and we haven't even yet added the cost of auditing. In Public Works, that type of expenditure, especially in the area of advertising, is given a great deal of scrutiny. The Auditor General dedicates a lot of resources to audit a $33 million expenditure. We suspect that it costs several million dollars.

If our hypothesis that it costs 25 or $30 million, or even more, to ensure accountability in all of that is correct, then we could say that those measures are rather excessive. We therefore recommend that Treasury Board take concrete steps and grant us $500,000. We would use a simple, effective and transparent process that we would be responsible for, and that would allow us to avoid going through four committees, three agencies, and so on.

When it comes to ad campaigns, the departments get discouraged. In fact, they have to wait a year or more between the time they decide to plan that campaign and the time at which it is broadcast over the television or on radio. People must therefore decide what their department's priority will be and what programs they will want to emphasize a year later. That discourages them.

[Béatrice Lajoie]

I would like to comment on that. As Mr. Simard and Mr. Rodriguez have said, even if we still used the process, having a percentage set aside solely for us in the short term would at least have the benefit of providing us with some funding. That would not preclude us from eventually studying the process. It is not essential that we settle that problem today.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

One solution could be to have an auditing process over a number of years instead of redoing an audit every year. More long-term planning would perhaps yield the same results and reassure people, even more so since the auditing process required now is very thorough.

[Béatrice Lajoie]

We must make sure that we receive ongoing funding.

[Serge Paquin]

We need to limit the number of levels of government. As you saw, there were three or four committees to approve the same thing. At one point...

[Roger Ouellette]

The federal government, its departments and its programs are less and less heard and less and less visible in communities. Money is being spent, but the process is such that we're not the ones spending it. As a result, people in communities are hearing less and less about you, MPs and the federal government. And that's essentially what this means. People are not informed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Ouellette.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Lemieux. He may ask one last question.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Spending by the federal government has decreased in the past four years. In 2005-2006, this was because of the elections. Prior to the elections, people were wondering whether or not there would be elections. Departments were also asking themselves questions. They were wondering whether it was worth the effort to continue with such and such a program, or whether it would be approved or not. This anxiety began in November and continued on through December, January and February, because the government did not start to sit until April.

That is probably why there was only $33 million in spending.

[Béatrice Lajoie]

We had the same problem six or seven years ago, even before the sponsorship scandal.

The only time it worked was when we went knocking on the door of what was then Communication Canada. We asked for equal treatment. Departments were running three-week ad campaigns on all radio stations, including Mix-Media and others. Three weeks later, they ran the same campaign, but only on our radio stations. So they had set aside $500,000 and were using that money to redo the campaign on our radio stations to get greater visibility. In addition, that is the only year that radio stations received approximately $200,000 in ad placements.

Yes, there were problems because of the sponsorship scandal; yes, there were the elections and the minority government, but the problems were there before.

We're still here. I have been fighting for seven years to say that there's a problem. There's a very simple solution. We have to simply agree to implement it.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank you for coming to meet with us. You help to promote linguistic duality, which is one of the objectives of our committee.

You spoke about social economy. Community radios are also a vital tool for regional development. It's important. In my riding, we have Radio Bellechasse.

You recommended solutions and we examined them. You spoke about the percentage of funding that must be dedicated to minority-language community radios. You want to make this document binding, but I pointed out that it does not mention percentages. You are also recommending short-circuiting the entire process by suggesting that a distinct 500,000 dollar amount be set aside directly for you. That is what this is about, I believe.

You also drew attention to other aspects that were raised by various people. Sylvie asked a question about a fund for all community radio stations. That is one possible solution, but it goes a bit beyond the mandate of our committee. Other committees will be able to examine it further.

To summarize, by making this document binding, you will have more control over the budgets of departmental bodies.