:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Jacqueline Turgeon, and I am President of the Syndicat des employés de bureau de Radio-Canada, of the Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique. With me is Michel Bibeault, Union Advisor and Coordinator, Communications Sector at CUPE. We are pleased to be able to discuss with you a very important issue, the role of the public broadcaster in the twenty-first century. From the outset, we would emphasize that the role of a public broadcaster will be all the more relevant for twenty-first century issues. Media fragmentation, specialty channels, on-demand services and the Internet will mean fewer gathering places where citizens can meet and discuss their communities, be they local, regional or national.
In this new media universe, consumers will increasingly have access to an enormous selection of audiovisual products. The question that will then arise is this: what product do you choose? In a fragmented market, Radio-Canada has a not negligible asset: recognition of a brand name that is an expression of our identity values and a guarantee of high quality in programming and information.
In the name of social cohesion, we must ensure that this public place, the public broadcaster, continues to exist. It is our view that the mandate set out in the Broadcasting Act adequately reflects the mission of a truly national public broadcaster. However, the Broadcasting Act, more broadly, could be amended to give clear priority to news programs and information. Section 3 states the objectives of Canada's broadcasting system as a whole. An amendment of the wording to reflect the importance of that type of programming would be desirable.
The communities far away from major centres such as Montreal regularly express their dissatisfaction over the more frequent broadcasting of the information from Montreal. There is a decline in the spread and especially gathering of local news. In Quebec, we call that the “Montrealization of the airwaves”, and Radio-Canada's airwaves are no exception.
A similar recommendation was made by the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications in its final report on the Canadian media, published in June 2006. Promoting information in that way would be beneficial not only for Radio-Canada, which excels in this niche, but also for the broadcasting system as a whole. We must now ensure that the necessary tax and regulatory parameters are put in place to support and defend the values expressed in the Broadcasting Act. The annual subsidies paid by Ottawa to Radio-Canada declined from $946 million to $877 million between 1994 and 2004. This gradual withdrawal by the government leads us to fear the worst, particularly at a time when it should be more of a presence on a larger number of platforms.
For the public broadcaster to be effective, it must be independent of political influence. Thus, to ensure its stability, parliamentary allocations should be paid on a multi-year basis. In addition, Radio-Canada's budget has been cut, to the benefit of independent producers, and the impact of that on the industry as a whole has never been measured. Independent producers are benefiting from a system that continues to favour them, despite the fact that they are not accountable to taxpayers. To understand the scope of the problem, consider the following example.
Our members who work in the television production field have informed us that a program that used to be produced by Radio-Canada and that today is produced outside the corporation now costs approximately 25% more to make.
A program produced outside undeniably costs Radio-Canada less because it only pays 20% of the production budget to broadcast it over its airwaves. However, the question must be asked: is that the best way to spend public money?
Thirty-seven percent of the Canadian Television Fund budget is reserved for independent productions that are broadcast on its airwaves. However, we believe that Radio-Canada should be able to access this money for its own productions in order to foster creation and production by public broadcasting artists.
This change would be even more pertinent seeing that the CTF funds four distinct categories of programs: drama, documentaries, youth programs and variety and the performing arts. Radio-Canada's mandate requires it to broadcast exactly these types of programs. Consequently, it should be granted the means to carry out its public function and fulfil its mandate, thus doing its duty to society.
As an introduction to our discussion today, we simply wanted to reiterate our main ideas and concerns. We are now available to discuss with you the subjects we have just raised or any other question concerning the role of the public broadcaster in the twenty-first century.
:
My name is not Chantal Larouche, but rather Pierre Roger, and I am General Secretary of the Fédération national des communications.
FNC is affiliated with the Confédération des syndicats nationaux and has 7,000 members from roughly 100 unions. In that respect, FNC is the largest and most representative union organization in the communications sector in Quebec. The federation represents member technicians, journalists and presenters of the main private and public Francophone broadcasters, that is Radio-Canada, Télé-Québec, TVA, TQS, Radio Nord, Astral and Corus.
As I said at the start of my presentation, Ms. Larouche could not be here today. I will be making the presentation for her.
The current context is such that the relevance of and need for a strong public broadcaster as an alternate source of news and information programming are greater than ever. We believe that the public broadcaster has to do more and to it better as far as the regions and communities are concerned, but we realize that the CBC sometimes has to make unpopular choices because of its situation.
The problem is not so much the CBC's mandate as the framework in which the CBC has to operate. On the subject of governance of the public broadcaster, criteria and guidelines must be established for appointments to the CBC.
It is hard for the CBC to fulfil its legislative mandate with its current parliamentary votes and revenue. Since 1990, the corporation's financial capacity has diminished significantly. The CBC needs stable, continuous funding so that it can remain a public benefit not-for-profit corporation.
The public broadcaster is known especially for its general programming and news and information services. Amid today's proliferation of broadcasting platforms and new media, there is a high risk of Canadian society becoming fragmented. In that context, the public broadcaster can play a determining role in ensuring social cohesiveness and protecting cultural identity by using the different broadcasting platforms.
The melding of radio, television and the Internet can work in the broadcaster's favour relative to other competing services. However, this strategy must not be applied at the expense of the quality and credibility of content. The CBC must endeavour to provide television viewers with programs that offer Canadian content, which tend to be under-represented in the programming schedules of Canadian broadcasters, especially in dramas, music programs, children's programs and documentaries, which the CRTC recognized when it renewed the CBC's licences in 2000. The CBC cannot be compelled to focus on complementary programming without adequate, stable public funding.
The emergence of new media poses many new challenges for conventional media. The new order is not only having a financial impact, but is bringing about cultural changes as well. Preserving the current funding rules for television production could make it extremely hard for the CBC to position itself on new media.
The allocation of payable royalties creates real problems, however, and could ultimately foster a return to in-house production. The current system also raises the important issue of the future of Canada's television heritage. The government has chosen to place the production and ownership of television programs in the hands of private independence. What this means is that we are using public funds to deprive Canadians of ownership of material some of which has great heritage value. We believe that the television production funding system is no longer in tune with reality and that it needs to undergo a comprehensive review to make sure that it is meeting national cultural objectives as a priority and that it actually takes the latest changes into account.
In conclusion, public broadcasting remains an extremely important tool for ensuring the viability and vitality of a strong and unique national culture. The cultural sovereignty of states is being threatened at a steadily growing pace because of technological and industrial changes, in particular the concentration and joint ownership of media outlets.
The need for Canada to have a strong and effective public broadcasting system demands a more comprehensive and systematic assessment of the obligations we have to set for a public broadcaster and the financial resources it needs to meet its objectives.
While the cohabitation of public and private broadcasting services has proven itself, we have to keep it going, especially in a context where private sector media outlets, which are highly concentrated, tend to subscribe more and more to the notion of shareholder return over public interest.
The objectives of democracy set out in the Broadcasting Act mean that the CBC has to be supported as it should so economic ups and downs do not affect its choices at the expense of the public interest.
Finally, the Fédération nationale des communications believes that it would be good for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage studying broadcasting and the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to act on the analysis and recommendations made in the past decade.
We believe it is essential that these major exercises, carried out at taxpayers' expense, be taken more seriously by government representatives.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, my name is Robert Fontaine, and I am outgoing President of the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada, which represents nearly 1,500 Radio-Canada employees in Quebec and Moncton.
I would like to introduce the people here with me: Alex Levasseur, the union's president elect, and Wojtek Gwiazda, our union's delegate to Radio-Canada International and spokesperson for Radio-Canada International's Action Committee.
Our committee is aware of the importance that the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage attach to the role that Radio-Canada should play in order to reflect and better serve the various regions of the country. That concern is not new. It has been conveyed for years by parliamentarians concerned with Canadian Heritage, and our union shares it entirely.
On March 22, the President and CEO of Radio-Canada asked you to determine as precisely as possible the priorities that you would like to see the public broadcaster meet in a contract that it proposed to establish for the next 10 years. He asked you to set priorities, but, when you questioned him about the way in which Radio-Canada could be more present in the regions and you told him your wish that Radio-Canada would open more to the regions that serve them better, Mr. Rabinovitch systematically took refuge behind the corporation's budget constraints.
Don't go thinking that the union is unaware of our employer's financial problems and that it does not support its demands for increased funding, particularly for the funding it says it wants to allocate entirely to increasing its regional budgets. The Syndicat des communications is pleading in favour of granting those additional votes, but given Radio-Canada's current centralizing tendencies, it is also arguing that those additional votes be combined with a rigorous form of control, so that you and Canadians have assurances that that special budgetary envelope will actually be spent for the benefit of the regions.
While the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage reaffirms the importance it attaches to the need for Radio-Canada to better reflect the regions, and Mr. Rabinovitch does his utmost to convince the committee that its priorities are or will also be his, Radio-Canada's regional stations are constantly make cheese-paring economies in order to make ends meet.
Last month, Radio-Canada Atlantique decided to stop broadcasting a regional newscast on statutory holidays. However, in the week preceding the Easter holiday, seven soldiers from the base in Gagetown, New Brunswick, were killed in Afghanistan. The reactions of the families and other soldiers on the base were widely covered. They made the headlines on the ATV and CTV news broadcasts, but not Radio-Canada. Radio-Canada Atlantique had decided not to broadcast a news program on Good Friday or Easter Monday. Our journalists in New Brunswick are wondering whether Radio-Canada's decisions for the Atlantic Region are not designed to assimilate the Acadians.
The Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada would also like to make you aware of the fundamental changes that have been made on the sly at Radio-Canada International. When the Broadcasting Act was amended in 1991, the CBC's obligation to provide international service was one of its conditions of licence. That amendment became law just after the virtual disappearance of Radio-Canada International, which was ultimately saved thanks to Canadian parliamentarians. The future of the CBC's international service is still under threat. The Radio-Canada International Action Committee sounded the alarm in 2002, and it was sounded again the following year in the report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Until the Broadcasting Act has been amended to protect RCI's mandate, which is to present the Canadian reality to foreign audiences, there will be nothing preventing the CBC from changing its international service. In fact, that has already started. In 2005, the CBC's board repealed all its policies requiring Radio-Canada International to present a program designed for a foreign audience. Last fall, the resources and priorities of the international service were amended mainly in order to serve newcomers to Canada.
That was a break with an information and public affairs tradition that had made the reputation of Radio-Canada International for more than 60 years. On the RCI Web site, for example, instead of finding new background items for foreign users, as used to be the case, you now see links to other CBC news sites intended for Canadians. We think that the erosion of the CBC's international service must stop and that the original mandate of Radio-Canada International must be reinforced.
The Cree-language northern service is another component of the CBC that seems to be going to the dogs. Its employees are already overworked, and the CBC tells us that it is abolishing the position of the only journalist who writes the news broadcasts for the radio programs broadcast in Cree. You must decide whether CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate in the twenty-first century should be a second class mandate for the country's Aboriginal communities.
Despite the little time at my disposal, I cannot pass over in silence the other important points that we have shed light on in the brief that we submitted to the committee. As you will see, if you have not already done so, we are very much concerned, as are our colleagues, with the virtual almost disappearance of programs other than information programs by CBC/Radio-Canada television and the increasing privatization of the content of public affairs programs. CBC/Radio-Canada programming currently includes only one drama which it produces itself and four entertainment programs. Even excluding the information programs, that original production does not even represent 15% of the public broadcaster's programming schedule.
CBC/Radio-Canada management recently stated that it was going to give renewed prominence to youth programs, a sector in which original in-house production clearly distinguished Radio-Canada from other broadcasters, but which has since been abandoned. Will Radio-Canada be producing these new youth programs itself, or will it contract them out to independent producers, who offer their concept to both public and private broadcasters?
Without questioning the promotion of private production that was decided on in the late 1980s, we consider the system to be in need of rebalancing. This private production is very expensive for taxpayers. As you know, independent producers in Quebec are reinvesting only 3% of their own funds in production.
Furthermore, the exodus of advertising revenue to the new media and the imminent massive arrival of high definition television via the Internet are threatening the funding of our broadcasting system and the country's cultural sovereignty. In this context, a reaffirmation of the crucial role of the public broadcaster is necessary.
The way the CBC operates must also be reviewed. The members of the board, holding no real power over the administration of the day, are chiefly persons appointed on the basis of political considerations. Furthermore, these persons are rarely known for their personal commitment to the public mission of the broadcaster. We unreservedly support the following recommendation made by the Heritage Committee four years ago, and I quote:
In the interest of fuller accountability and arm's length from government, nominations to the CBC board should be made by a number of sources, and the CBC president should be hired by and be responsible to the board.
Lastly, the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada believes that the public broadcaster's presence in new media should be part of its mandate in the twenty-first century. In this century, it is likely that the Internet, which is not regulated and the Canadian content of which is beyond any control, will replace television as Canadians' main source of information. It is high time the competent authorities realized this and provided the CBC with the means to distinguish itself on these new platforms without jeopardizing its other services.
Thank you.
:
With your permission, I'll answer that question. The Fédération nationale des communications has conducted two studies which are consistent with the one my colleague mentioned. It isn't the same study, but I could send the committee copies of those studies, which have been conducted since 2000. In fact, the introduction of independent production has occurred gradually since 1986, with the advent of Télévision Quatre-Saisons, whose licence was related to the fact that production had to be done using independent producers.
However, I would like to draw your attention to one factor that I referred to in my presentation. It indeed costs less for broadcasters, but it costs more for the public, because these subsidies are granted out of public funds. One of the dangers lies in the ownership of those programs. This is a danger for Canadian heritage. If Radio-Canada no longer owns the rights to those programs, who will? It is the producers who will get them. As Mr. Bibeault said earlier, they will continue making money on derivative products and a lot of other things. They can even resell a program to another broadcaster.
For example, the program Catherine was broadcast on Radio-Canada about four years ago. But we have just learned, in the newspapers this morning, that it will be rebroadcast on TQS, whereas Radio-Canada invested large amounts of money in that production. But it doesn't hold the rights to it. The producer has a right to leave with the program. What happens to the amounts of money that are invested in those productions, if the producer disappears after a certain number of years?
Fortunately, before it was possible to use independent producers, Radio-Canada had extensive archives in place. As we're currently seeing, it has put a large part of its archives up for sale in the form of DVDs and derivative products, and the profits go to Radio-Canada. It can do that because it owns the rights to those programs, which it produced within its infrastructures. Let's take the example of the children's program La boîte à surprise or Les belles histoires des pays d'en haut and a whole series of programs; there are tens of them at Radio-Canada. It can do that in the case of programs that it itself has produced entirely.
We said that the structure for funding television productions had to be reviewed and that the broadcaster had to be allowed to have this access to that funding as an independent producer. We're not saying independant production should be stopped, but the television or radio broadcaster must be allowed the choice whether to produce in house or to opt for independent production.
:
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.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Committee members, thank you for receiving the members of Réalisatrices équitables here this morning. I am here with Lucette Lupien, Marie-Pascale Laurencelle and Isabelle Hayeur, who have come here with with me this morning and who will also be able to answer questions following our presentation.
First of all, I won't dwell at length on the obligation to fund Radio-Canada adequately, as Ms. Simard has so brilliantly shown. In our opinion, that is very important. Radio-Canada must not be forced to follow the same dictates as commercial television broadcasters. It must be different, have its own voice and reflect the values of all Canadians in the world, and not be confined to genres that would be “more popular”, but that would marginalize everything else.
Having said that, we are going to address our main subject, which is the place of women, particularly women directors, in our public broadcaster. Although the description of its mandate is praiseworthy, Radio-Canada, among others in the case of cultural diversity, fails to mention the importance of representing more than half the population, that is to say women. Last year, Statistics Canada announced again that we formed 51% of the population. Since all the citizens of our country are deemed to be equal, someone might respond to me by saying that, in the view of Radio-Canada and the government, women are included in that designation.
However, when I look at the statements in greater detail, I see that in (ii), it says that the corporation must “reflect Canada and its regions”, that, in (iv), it states that it must reflect the needs and circumstances of each official-language community and that, in (viii), it states that it must “reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.” Why was it necessary to name these realities? No doubt because parliamentarians realized that, without specific rules, the major centres tended to be favoured to the detriment of the regions, as was said earlier. They also probably tended to think that the citizens of different cultures might not find their place and that the two official languages might be unfairly represented. They thought it wise to state that specifically in the mandate.
Now we would like the government to concern itself with the unfair amount of space made available to women's imagination on the screen and the unequal presence of women directors on our national television network.
It is my turn to apologize, Mr. Chairman, because we had to change our brief slightly, particularly the tables, which are easy to understand. If you read La Presse, you should be able to find your way through it very easily. These are mainly figures. Table A represents the CBC/Radio-Canada's current situation, in the spring of 2007, and Table B represents other aspects of the system that are unfavourable to women directors from a production standpoint. As you can see, the gaps are quite significant, 63% and 37% for Radio-Canada. These tables are on pages 9 and 10.
Do you have Tables A and B on pages 9 and 10?
:
In my opinion, those gaps, which are in the range of 90% and 10% for fictional feature films at Telefilm Canada and 63% and 37% at CBC/Radio-Canada, all genres included, and for all members of Réalisatrices équitables, these figures are unjustifiable in 2007, in a sector that is 100% subsidized by the government. We haven't noted everything, but these figures, among many others, confirm that the existing systems are highly unfavourable to women and result in unequal incomes for women directors, not to mention the unequal representation of women's imagination on the screen. I entirely agree with regard to cultural diversity, but it is also essential that we think about half of the population.
The figures in Table A were compiled from the spring 2007 programming schedule. As you can see, the CBC/Radio-Canada is far from giving women directors the same amount of room as male directors. In addition, most women directors are confined to magazines. There are virtually no women in the drama sector: 1.5%.
Some will tell us that a number of women screenwriters often see their fictional works put on the screen. That's true. We might be pleased about that if we didn't see that the vast majority of screenplays written by women are directed by men, whereas the reverse is not true.
The director's trade is poorly known, and it is just as essential to the creation of a work as its writing. It isn't just the story that is different, but also the treatment, the viewpoint, the approach and the 1,000 artistic choices that that entails.
Of course, the CBC/Radio-Canada is not solely responsible for the present situation of half the population and of women filmmakers, but it has a very great influence and is part of a set of systems that do not favour women, even in everything that is done and funded by other bodies in “private industry”. We put the words “private industry” in quotation marks because, in a way, that industry is virtually non-existent in Canada, being subsidized in one way or another by the taxes of all of us, that is 50% or more by women.
In Table B, you see the gap between the amounts invested by Telefilm Canada and SODEC in Quebec in projects by men and women directors. Why does our national broadcaster have such a decisive role in these figures? Because, under the rules laid down by the Canadian industry, television, by the purchase or pre-purchase of licences, determines the projects that will be produced and the people who will produce them. Television also very often dictates production budgets, because they are calculated based on the licence granted by the broadcaster. Radio-Canada is thus part of the decision-making process that judges and gives its approval to the production of a large number of so-called “private” projects. It is also its managers and staff who discuss the orientations of the projects and target audiences that will be favoured. All those decisions are clearly decisive in the choice of programs, films, series and documentaries produced in Quebec, even for projects financed mainly by other bodies. In particular, the CBC/Radio-Canada manages nearly 40% of the Canadian Television Fund's budget.
The current imbalance does not just harm women who have decided to choose direction as an occupation. The impoverishment of content, lack of diversity of viewpoints and the shrinking of imagination have obviously had an impact on society as a whole. In 2005, a group of women actors stated that claiming a greater place for women in the collective imagination was an essential battle for the democratic and economic survival of our society. We agree. The battle of the imagination is just as important as the battle for wages and support for families.
We also believe that the inadequate place granted to women on our screens and behind the camera does much to influence the perceptions of the public, who tend to believe that women are less important than men in our society. The stories and concerns broadcast on television are models for all young Canadians, girls and boys. For everyone, but particularly for our children, we must build a national television that fairly represents society as a whole. It must give as much space to the girls and women of this country as it does to its boys and men. According to a recent survey conducted by the Association for Canadian Studies, 94% of Canadians said that gender equality was one of their priorities. In fact, in the minds of Canadians, gender equality is the second most important value, immediately after health. For Quebeckers, it apparently ranks first, even before health.
The shortcomings. After what we've just revealed, we believe that the CBC/Radio-Canada is failing to meet a number of its statutory obligations.
Paragraph (ii): the CBC/Radio-Canada does not reflect Canada, since 51% of the population is under-represented.
Paragraph (iii): the CBC/Radio-Canada does not contribute actively enough to the flow and exchange of cultural expression. Gender diversity, in our view, is essential.
Paragraph (vi): the CBC/Radio-Canada does not contribute adequately to shared national consciousness and identity, since equal rights for men and women are a core element of Canada's national identity. We already knew that, but that was confirmed in a poll the results of which appeared this month.
In a concern for fairness toward all women and to address a public priority, we recommend the following amendments to paragraphs (v) and (viii), which should read as follows:
(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French and to achieve balanced funding for, and broadcasting of, work by men and by women;
(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial character of Canada, also taking into account the equity between men and women in this country.
Concrete measures. In order to quickly correct the present imbalance, bolstering of the mandate's principles should go hand in hand with concrete measures. We suggest that the CBC/Radio-Canada urgently adopt incentives that openly promote the achievements of women in all production sectors where women directors are under-represented, particularly for dramatic series and fictional feature films, where they are even scarcer.
Rules requiring real representation of women's imagination would not hurt freedom of expression, so dear to some, or diminish the quality of products on the small screen. On the contrary, we would find ourselves with even more diversity and a real plurality of perspectives and talents.
As was the case in 1991, when the Broadcasting Act was amended to request that a larger share of productions be done by the private sector, and we witnessed an explosion in the number of production companies and independent producers, we think that incentives such as including in the act an obligation to call on more women directors in all sectors will result in an explosion of female expression and talent. In addition to having a positive impact on the industry as a whole, that will benefit the entire population, of all ages, origins and languages.
We are convinced that an equitable presence of women's viewpoints, stories, concerns, backgrounds and roles on television would be a tremendous stimulant for a society that wants to encourage equality of opportunity in all areas of human endeavour. Society has everything to gain from promoting women's imagination as much as that of men. All Canadians would benefit from having a national broadcaster that showed equity leadership.
In closing, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, it is definitely important to discuss new technologies and funding for the CBC/Radio-Canada, but we believe that it is even more urgent to examine this significant imbalance, which has only been aggravated in the past 20 years, believe it or not. This concerns us in our capacity as directors, but also affects us, like the majority of the population of Quebec and Canada, as spectators and citizens.
On a personal note, I would add that this also concerns me as a mother of twins, a boy and a girl 10 years of age. I hope that, in 20 years, they will see Canadian society representing them equitably and offering them both the same opportunities.
Thank you very much for your attention.
:
Thank you for your presentation.
[English]
I find this discussion fascinating. In fact, I'm going to diverge from my normal course. I usually leave philosophical thoughts to my good friend Mr. Kotto, and I usually just ask precise, technical questions. But I feel this morning I need to adopt some of his grand vision.
We're talking about the role of a public broadcaster in a fragmented media universe. The argument has been laid out that in a world of massive fragmentation...and clearly there's less fragmentation in the Quebec market, for specific reasons, than we've seen in the English market. But what role is there, what need is there for the voice of a public broadcaster when we have a thousand channels? When we had Mr. von Finckenstein here, he referred to all the other voices out there. We have ten million blog sites. Where we used to have reporters and documentary producers, now we have ten million opinions.
I'm fascinated by this discussion, because it seems that more than ever there's a need for coherent, engaged, intelligent--not intellectual, but intelligent--discourse. What we see in a thousand-channel universe.... I'm not disrespecting the specialty channels, but I watched television last night, and there was a program on teaching yuppies to put their plumbing together for an hour and a half. The other night we saw the reality TV show about a tattoo parlour that went on for about two hours. Where are we as Canadians in this?
So my question is twofold.
Number one, is there not a greater case now, in a multi-channel universe, for a coherent public broadcaster than even before?
Secondly, we are now on the verge of a major upheaval in terms of the BitTorrent capacities of people to download whatever they want, whenever they want. At a time when we as a nation should be ramping up to meet, I don't believe the challenge, but the opportunity to get our product into the international realm on the Internet, actually instead of ramping up as a national broadcaster and as a nation, we seem to be in retreat. We're talking about further deregulation. We're talking about letting whoever do whatever, and we're going to sit behind this little blanket on the beach and wait for the great tsunami to wash over us in terms of what's coming down in the digital realm.
What role do we have to have in utilizing our resources to meet a 21st century challenge in terms of the media, not just in a thousand-channel universe, but across the web?
:
In response to your two questions, I can't say anything other than what you just said, because that's precisely my first point. The fourth point of my presentation is that, now more than ever, in this fragmented era, we need it. In fact, the unimaginable constellation of channels, Web sites, blogs and so on won't necessarily give you a whole picture. Everyone will look for it a bit in what I call the specialized ignorances: people focus on small fields. They don't expose themselves to more.
We are obviously living in a free country where we are all free to go and look at what we want, but we nevertheless live in a society. We are still a country, a complex, changing society. What kind of tool does that society create in order to be cohesive? What kind of tool does that society acquire in order to try to share a certain number of values and criteria, including representativeness, obviously. I talked about cultural diversity, but there is also gender representation: male, female and other.
Otherwise, why are we here, around this table today? I think that new technologies and new broadcasting platforms are, on the contrary, extraordinary tools for expansion and visibility that must be used. There may be a little marking time, but we have nevertheless done a fairly good job in using them to date. The CBC/Radio-Canada must be encouraged to move more toward that side. That's central to the debate.
Personally—if I may be a little philosophical, as you are—I think that the problems we are currently experiencing on the planet are partly attributable to the fact that we confine ourselves to closed, specialized worlds, in closed groups. So other people's understanding of reality escapes us. We don't have the means to understand or see that. So, in a way, we have to force a break-up.
:
Mr. Chairman and committee members, my name is Marc Simard, and I am the President of CKRT-TV Ltée, which owns CKRT-TV, the CBC/Radio-Canada affiliate in Rivière-du-Loup for the past 45 years. I'm accompanied today by Raynald Brière, President and CEO of Radio-Nord communications, which owns CKRN-TV, the CBC/Radio-Canada affiliate founded almost 50 years ago in Rouyn-Noranda. Also with us is Pierre Harvey, Executive Vice-President of CKRT-TV.
We want to thank you for taking the time to listen to us here today. We feel that your committee's work is essential in order to orient CBC/Radio-Canada's future activities and to ensure that all Canadians have free access to this public service.
Our submission will not deal with all the issues raised in this investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the twenty-first century. We will be talking about certain issues of particular concern to us as CBC/Radio-Canada affiliate television stations in Quebec operating primarily in the regions for almost 50 years.
On June 2, 1952, the first test pattern (an Indian head) appeared for the first time on television screens on CBFT-Montréal, which presented its first program a few weeks later, on July 25. At that time, the Government of Canada and CBC/Radio-Canada wanted to make the French-language and English-language television service available to all Canadians free of charge and as quickly as possible. For economic reasons, CBC/Radio-Canada television was established in the country's large cities.
To extend its services to the regions, CBC/Radio-Canada, which did not have the financial resources, would have to call on local individuals or companies who would set up the first private television stations in the region, as affiliates of CBC/Radio-Canada, thus giving the vast majority of Canadians the country's first French-language and English-language television service.
In Quebec in particular, the arrival of television in the regions was made possible by major amounts of local capital and a colossal effort by people who wanted to develop their community by giving it an unparallel means of communication and exchange, television. At the same time, they were responding to the government of the day's desire to give all Canadians access to television as quickly as possible. It is worth nothing that most of these families are still active in the communications field today and that their contribution to extending and maintaining CBC/Radio-Canada television in the regions, even today, is inestimable.
:
The development of television in small markets in Quebec was facilitated by flexible regulations and the desire of the CRTC to bring the maximum number of television services to the regions. Subsequently, because of the great fragility of the small markets, the CRTC encouraged the owners of the television stations to obtain licences to operate television stations affiliated to the other two French-language television networks in Quebec in order to provide local populations with additional television signals and local services.
Now more than ever, the operation of regional CBC/Radio-Canada affiliates represents an essential contribution to the viability or profitability of all the television services offered in our small markets.
The French-language CBC/Radio-Canada affiliates in Quebec currently serve 20% of CBC/Radio-Canada's audience in Quebec. The markets of Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, Saguenay, Rouyn-Noranda and Rivière-du-Loup represent a total population of 1.4 million people aged two or more.
Taken together, the affiliates represent an audience of 4,300,000 viewing hours/week out of a total of 20,700,000 viewing hours/week generated by all the programming presented by CBC/Radio-Canada. That represents a contribution of almost 21% of CBC/Radio-Canada's total viewership generated by the affiliates in Quebec.
The five CBC/Radio-Canada affiliates have local production commitments of 15 hours and five minutes a week, representing a minimum commitment of almost 800 hours of local programming content a year.
Local programs consist primarily of local news, interviews with local celebrities and community bulletin boards for the many communities we serve. The local reflection is thus continually present, hour after hour and day after day, through the free messages on local activities in our communities or the advertising offering services or products available from companies in our regions.
Point 2 of CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, as mentioned in the study themes and questions suggested by your committee, says that CBC/Radio-Canada must reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.
We think that CBC/Radio-Canada has fulfilled this part of its mandate very well, thanks in particular to the affiliates that serve a number of Quebec regions. We think that it is extremely important that the affiliate stations continue to fulfil their role by ensuring a regular, daily presence.
:
Point 7 of CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate mentions that it must be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and resources as they become available for the purpose.
We feel that the best and most effective way of attaining this objective, which we consider fundamental, is to continue to broadcast CBC/Radio-Canada programs over the air to all Canadians without exception. Indeed, even with the arrival of HDTV and other distribution platforms, all the countries of the world have chosen to continue digital over-the-air broadcasting.
Even today, in 2007, certain households still cannot receive cable or high-speed Internet, because they live in regions too far away from telephone exchanges or in areas that the cable companies do not consider profitable to serve. Even in the medium term, it is highly likely that these areas will not benefit from high-speed Internet or cable because of the cost involved. Moreover, many Canadians, including lower-income Canadians, do not want to pay to subscribe to a television service when the free signals they receive over the air suit them perfectly.
Economically speaking, it will cost our industry less to implement HDTV in a few years than it did, comparatively, to implement analog television in the fifties and sixties for the following reasons: developed transmission sites and access routes already exist; and the infrastructure, such as towers, antennae and buildings, already exist.
Obviously, when we assess the overall cost of implementing HDTV, it may represent a significant amount. However, when we consider the cost of replacing obsolete analog broadcasting equipment, which will have to be replaced in any case, this cost seems more acceptable and justified to us, given that it will make the first public television service available, free of charge, to all Canadians.
We fell that CBC/Radio-Canada, as the public broadcaster, should exercise leadership in the field of digital over-the-air (HD) broadcasting in Canada and thus set an example for the country's private broadcasters.
Once again, we firmly believe that no new platform or new medium will ever replace conventional television around the world. Indeed, according to a number of experts and observers, conventional television will continue to occupy pride of place among consumers as a mass medium for years to come.
If it is possible for the affiliates to renew reasonable affiliation agreements with CBC/Radio-Canada, we plan to invest to convert our broadcasting equipment to HD in a few years in order to continue to properly service the entire population of our regions free of charge.
:
As for section C, on the challenges facing the various CBC/Radio-Canada services, we want to emphasize the following elements of the programming offered.
Given that CBC/Radio-Canada has significant human, technical and financial resources and a mandate as a public broadcaster serving the Canadian public, the programs produced or broadcast by CBC/Radio-Canada should always be of high quality and offered free or charge, by over-the-air broadcasting, to all Canadians without exception across Canada.
That will not stop CBC/Radio-Canada from positioning itself on new communication or information platforms as it is currently doing. However, the principle of free and accessible service from CBC/Radio-Canada, financed largely by public funds, should be maintained by using digital over-the-air (HD) broadcasting for the next few years.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, these are the elements of our presentation that we would particularly like the Committee on Canadian Heritage to remember.
The affiliates of CBC/Radio-Canada French-language network currently serve 20% of CBC/Radio-Canada's audience in Quebec.
Twenty-one percent of CBC/Radio-Canada's viewership in Quebec is generated by its affiliates.
For 50 years, our CBC/Radio-Canada affiliates have been broadcasting local content during the vast majority of its station breaks, six times an hour, 18 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
Local television has allowed our regions to forge their own identities by preventing them from being flooded by messages from the major centres like Montreal and Quebec City.
If the affiliates can renew reasonable affiliation agreements with CBC/Radio-Canada, we plan to convert our equipment to HD broadcasting in a few years in order to continue adequately serving the entire populace in our regions.
No other distribution platform, including the Internet, will ever be able to equal the technical broadcasting quality offered by digital over-the-air (HD) transmitters.
According to a number of experts and observers, conventional television will continue to occupy pride of place among consumers as a mass medium for many years to come.
As a national public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada should exercise leadership in over-the-air HD broadcasting, setting the example for the country's private broadcasters. CBC/Radio-Canada should provide high definition conventional television, free of charge, to all Canadians without exception.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we would like to mention that, as an affiliate, we want to continue playing the role that we have played over the past 50 years.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
With me is François Lewis, who is a member of the coalition's steering committee and President of the Syndicat des techniciens et artisans du réseau français de Radio-Canada. He is an active member of the coalition. For my part, I am the coalition's spokesperson, although that is not how I earn my living. I am a contract employee of the Télé-Québec public network in Quebec. I am organizing a magnificent international competition called “La Dictée des Amériques”. I won't be telling you about the dictation today.
[English]
And I'm going to stick to the rules and keep my presentation short, so we have more time for questions.
[Translation]
The Coalition pour la radiotélévision publique francophone was established on December 14, 2005, on the initiative of the unions and associations that represent the employees of the French-language arm of the CBC/Radio-Canada—radio and television—as well as Télé-Québec. It is made up of individuals and organizations representing various sectors of Quebec and Canadian society that consider public broadcasting to be an essential service, an invaluable tool for democracy and social development.
Essentially, we want to argue in favour of the public radio and television broadcasting system consisting of the large CBC/Radio-Canada network as a whole and, to a lesser extent, Télé-Québec and, in Ontario, the small TFO network.
What are the coalition's objectives? The coalition wants to raise public awareness and put pressure on decision-makers so that: a stop is put to any weakening of French-language public broadcasting; a public debate is held on the future of French-language public broadcasting; French-language public broadcasting receives adequate and stable funding; public funding for private independent production is not done at the expense of French-language public broadcasters; the system of public funding for French-language television production is recognized so that the broadcasters have access to all available production grants; French-language public broadcasting has the means to promote distinctive in-house production, using its most valuable asset, the tradition and expertise of its craftspeople, in order to preserve our cultural heritage; residents of all regions, and all the various groups that make up Quebec and Canadian society, enjoy high-quality, pluralist services free of charge from public broadcasters.
On these points, I have just heard the words of my distinguished colleagues, and I believe we are quite in agreement.
In the coalition's view, the facts clearly show that general-interest public broadcasters are still the heart of the Canadian broadcasting system, and guarantee its uniqueness. The current system cannot continue without substantial involvement by government in its funding, whether through grant funds or general interest public broadcasters.
The regulatory framework for the Canadian broadcasting system should reflect this undeniable reality. More specifically, the coalition believes that general-interest public broadcasters must have the same access to grant funds, on the same conditions, as the so-called independent producers, which, incidentally, are not independent in the slightest because they are dependent on public funding. Moreover, today I'm going to make a statement that will surprise you, committee members: all television production in Canada, particularly in the Francophone community, with the exception of information and public affairs programs, is financed out of public funds.
When we hear Pierre Karl Péladeau say that it is unfair that CBC/Radio-Canada receives public funding and that is unfair competition, that's rubbish. Moreover, we saw what happened when Shaw Cable and Vidéotron decided not to pay their contribution to the Canadian Television Fund. Vidéotron pays $14 million into the Fund, but it gets $18 million back. So don't tell me that private television isn't receiving public money. That's an unmitigated lie.
In addition, the broadcasting rights for subsidized productions should belong to the institutions that provide the subsidies and assume the marketing risks, that is the grant funds and the general-interest public broadcasters. Technological developments have made it possible for productions funded by the government with commercial risk shouldered by the general-risk public broadcasters to cannibalize the Canadian broadcasting system if they are widely broadcast via unregulated media such as the Internet.
The coalition considers that the government must make recommendations, or impose requirements, for stable, multi-year public funding for general-interest public broadcasters. Situated as they are at the heart of the Canadian broadcasting system, the general-interest public broadcasters are trustees and guarantors of the public property represented by almost entirely subsidized production, which is the key characteristic of the Canadian audiovisual industry.
The coalition also considers that the CRTC must insist to the government and to the general-interest public broadcasters that the latter themselves produce a significant portion of the audiovisual content they broadcast in order to maintain a high level of competition and quality throughout the industry.
Thank you.
:
A local television station is, first of all, the information centre: it broadcasts the news. With increasing media concentration—and that won't stop—Canada's Francophone market has witnessed a certain standardization of content. Information is manufactured in Montreal and redistributed in the regions.
We think that local life exists. The softwood lumber problem in northern Quebec, for example, had virtually no impact in Montreal. If I live in Outremont or Westmount, the softwood lumber or mining problems in northern Quebec don't concern me. However, if live in Rouyn-Noranda, my life and my family are affected. So I need a community life so that I can talk about and debate those issues. That's it for information.
As for cultural life, an important festival was held in Rouyn-Noranda, at the International Film Festival in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. In Montreal, there's little interest in it, because there's already a major film festival in that city, and there's an even bigger one in Cannes. The Rouyn-Noranda film festival, who cares? But it's important for the people who live there.
There's also the guitar festival in Rouyn-Noranda. There are local cultural activities. These people are entitled to a community life. Television is like the church steps: it enables people to gather and talk. Economic promotion, community works, all that is disappearing because we live in big cities and that's where decisions are made.
And yet half the population lives outside those major cities. We're a kind of economic, cultural, social and information driver. One hundred percent of our news is local. No one can do it; the networks can't do it anymore because that's no longer their purpose. Their economic model is built on something else. That's the big difference.
:
Allow me to add something. In fact, conventional television in our regions provides a service to the public day after day, free of charge. There are volunteers who organize all kinds of activities in our regions, which we announce on our airwaves free of charge.
I'm trying to understand the meaning of your question. Of course, if they announce their activities through a community station, on cable, on channel 82, for example, and we announce an important activity of a musical organization in the evening, in the slots that we have left, on a network program, you'll understand that, if there are 50,000 listeners listening to the free message that we've just broadcast, there's no comparison with the message that would be broadcast by a community station, with all due deference to the community stations.
In addition, our infrastructures are in no way comparable to those of the community stations. As affiliates, we have to have production equipment that is virtually as state of the art as the equipment in Montreal. Imagine you're in one of our regions or in another region of Canada and you're listening, on a small station, to a half-hour program that comes from the network and that was produced at a cost of $250,000. To produce local programs, we have to have adequate equipment. We have equipment similar to that of the major networks to produce programs of very good quality, but it's not comparable.
Conventional television, which is mass market television, gives our population a high profile. That's what is important. People can take advantage of a mass medium to advertise our activities to everyone.
I have just a couple of comments I'd like to make, although they might show my age a wee bit.
I can remember very well the Indian-head test pattern back in the early fifties. I remember we'd sit there in front of the television and just watch that. Whether it was CBC or CTV or Global--I don't think I missed an opening in our area--we'd watch that test pattern for the longest time.
Back in those times--yes, I come from southwestern Ontario--CFPL London was a CBC affiliate, and they did serve the region well. As time went on, I watched that with newspapers too. A local newspaper would serve a region and then would maybe be bought out by a conglomerate or whatever. Pretty soon, if you bought the Toronto Star, you knew what was in all the newspapers across the way; there was very little regional.
This is something we've heard, whether in Newfoundland or in Yellowknife or in Vancouver or in Winnipeg: regional, regional, regional. I know there are a lot of public broadcasters in small areas; for instance, in our area, Rogers Cable has a very good regional area. They look into those little things--a 100th birthday party for someone or whatever--that are very important.
I know from talking with the Corus group, they have a couple of affiliates, one in Kingston. I know how those things can work together. The affiliates end up getting squeezed a little wee bit sometimes, but if we're going to solve some of the regional programming with the public broadcaster, CBC/SRC, I think we may have to look that way a little bit more.
Another question that has been brought up is, should the CBC be transmitters of programming or should they be programmers? Should there be a public-private partnership, with maybe the distribution of the signal shopped out in some way, and they concentrate on the programming? I know that works in some hospitals, where someone builds the beautiful hospital and someone else rents the system and carries on. There are various things like that.
I found the presentations this morning to be very interesting. I hope I haven't bored you with anything I have said. Thank you for your presentations and thank you for your frankness in answering the questions.
The meeting is adjourned.