:
Good afternoon, and a good sunny Friday in Montreal.
Mr. Chairman, in an increasingly fragmented media universe, where the number of classic broadcasting services as well as the number of new broadcasting windows and platforms are increasing, it is more essential than ever to preserve this anchor point which connects all Canadians, the national public broadcaster. A broadcaster whose distinctive, diverse and predominantly Canadian programming is widely available in every region of Canada, in both the official languages, and on radio and television as well as the new media. Recognition of this principle is crucial. For it is at the heart of what has characterized the Canadian broadcasting system for decades and what should continue to characterize it in the coming century, that being the existence of both public and private components that are strong and solidly rooted and that complement and emulate each other, thereby offering Canadian citizens a true diversity of programming and editorial voices.
It goes without saying that such a national public broadcaster cannot fully play its role unless it has the appropriate financial resources at its disposal. In our view, it is very important that the majority of those resources come from the State, from parliamentary appropriations. Essentially, what distinguishes a public broadcaster from a private broadcaster is that the former is not primarily dependent on market forces and commercial revenues. It is this independence that allows it to give precedence to the public interest and the social and cultural objectives of the Act. It is this independence that guarantees the distinctive and complementary character of its programming and its capacity to fulfil its public service mission.
Furthermore, the financial resources that come from the State must be substantial enough to allow the CBC to carry out its mandate under the Broadcasting Act in full. On this subject, if it is true, as CBC/Radio-Canada maintains, that between 1990 and 2005 its parliamentary appropriation increased by only 2.3% in current dollars and decreased by 33% in constant dollars, that is, by close to $375 million, that is matter for concern. An adjustment is urgently needed: CBC/Radio-Canada must be restored the resources to realize its ambitions and full capacity to fulfil the mission it has been entrusted by Parliament. It is also essential, in our view, that the CBC’s core television networks continue to be general-interest and to offer the Canadian public a diverse and balanced range of information and entertainment programs in all genres.
The CBC must attempt to reach all of the socio-economic segments and age groups of the Canadian population by offering programming in a variety of genres likely to meet the needs, tastes and expectations of Canadian men, women and children. Of course, this generalist mission is not incompatible with the need to assign priority to certain programming categories that are not sufficiently represented in the private component of the broadcasting system or that are of exceptional importance in promoting Quebec and Canadian artistic creativity and cultural identity. In the current context, we feel that the CBC should make special efforts to encourage the production of original Canadian programming in the following sectors: drama, children’s programs, documentaries and cultural programming.
The Broadcasting Act stipulates that the programming offered by the Canadian broadcasting system must make substantial use of Canadian independent producers. This obligation is contributing to an essential diversification of producers and in return offering thousands of freelance Canadian creators, artists and artisans a variety of entry points into the Canadian broadcasting system. These are essential gains, which must not be called into question or compromised.
In this era of constantly rising private-sector concentration of ownership, convergence, vertical integration and multimedia cross-ownership, it is essential that the national public broadcaster play a heightened and exemplary role supporting the development of a versatile, varied and dynamic Canadian independent production sector.
That is why we believe that a growing portion of CBC/Radio-Canada’s annual spending on original Canadian programming should be allocated by statute to funding independent programs produced by a wide variety of Canadian producers in every area of programming that we have identified as a priority.
Claire, do you want to conclude?
:
Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I would like to introduce Lise Lachapelle, who is Director General of the Association des réalisateurs et des réalisatrices du Québec. Thank you for having us.
We could simply walk away because we agree with what the producers have just said. Moreover, who will say that we don't agree with them? So there will be unanimity, in a way, between what we have to tell you, what we have written for you and what the producers have just told you.
I would remind you that we represent approximately 550 freelance film and television producers in Quebec and that we are recognized for all of Quebec for all films made in all languages, except those made in English, which belong to the Quebec Chapter of the Directors Guild of Canada. So we are Radio-Canada's first customers. We are in the front line with the producers. For that reason, we virtually hope that the same things will continue on both sides and that they will increase in other sectors.
I will briefly read the preamble that you no doubt have in your hands. Every since its founding, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has unquestionably played an historic and crucial role in the development of communication and creativity in Canada. This may be even more true in Quebec, where the French arm of the CBC has made it possible for a language and culture unique in North America to take root and to blossom.
Certainly the landscape of television, which is what concerns us directly, has been substantially transformed over the past 40 years with the arrival of private networks, pay TV, specialty channels and the Internet. These upheavals, however, far from threatening the CBC’s role have on the contrary demonstrated its absolute necessity. They have shown that, like the model on which Canada’s public broadcaster was originally based, the BBC, it must remain the preferred locus for democratic exchange and creativity free from political and commercial constraints. We would even assert that the CBC will survive only on condition that it stand out from its direct and indirect competitors and that it open its airwaves to the diverse peoples and cultures that inhabit Canada, from sea to sea to sea.
Lastly, while the television landscape is our topic here, we consider that the CBC Radio model, with its various -- and varying -- channels, points the way to follow, by largely devoting itself, so appealingly and effectively, to news and culture.
I won't read the 11 principles and recommendations that you'll find in our brief. We want the CBC to be independent, pluralist, that it not be privatized, that it be a state-of-the-art television network that leads by example, a popular network, but not populist.
I will perhaps emphasize one point, recommendation 8, which states:
The CBC must do more to assist the growth of Quebec and Canadian cinema by investing substantially in film development, production and distribution; this could perhaps be made mandatory for it.
It is curious to say, but I think that would help it a great deal, especially in English Canada, if such a measure existed. You know that English Canada has a lot of difficulty making contact with its audience. Quebec is much more successful. Nevertheless, it could also benefit from a joint venture between the private feature film industry here in Canada and the Crown corporation.
That system exists in a number of other countries in the world. The French model, in particular, produces an incredible number of feature films for television. We have always seen it as a way to put forward larger numbers of productions and also train technicians of all levels, actors and even the public.
In conclusion, we say that Radio-Canada must be the preferred vehicle of information, knowledge and culture among and for all Canadians. We emphasize the fact that, as I said, it can be a popular television network, but it must avoid the traps of populism at all costs.
Without Radio-Canada, without the CBC, we do not see how culture could be maintained and progress in Canada. Culture is something that is cultivated, that is taught. Look at the state of gastronomy in Toronto today, relative to 40 years ago, and you will realize that English Canada has made an extraordinary leap. So we must not consider giving people the cultural fast food they demand at any cost, on the pretext that it's more profitable than culture. We must not fall into that trap. On the contrary, the CBC and the federal government must increasingly affirm their mission as informers, Canadian cultural agents for all and among all Canadians.
That was the essential part of what we had to tell you, in addition to what I didn't read. Thank you very much for your attention.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome and thank you for your presentations.
In fact, I believe that everyone here is on the same wave length. We all understand the role of the public broadcaster, and we want it to affirm culture, diversity of opinion and general interest, not superficial programming. We are all in agreement on that point.
Obviously, a lot of groups like yours are appearing before us, in some instances, to request additional funding to support their public broadcaster. Some would say that you are lobbying for your own interests. You say you want to develop more products, and CBC/SRC is the only network interested in Canadian cultural works. That has to be said, I believe. So, since the government is the distributor of funding, you would like it to give Radio-Canada more. You mentioned the idea of granting a dedicated budget envelope to film production. I think you are right in that sense.
In addition, we have to talk a little about accountability. Perhaps you didn't mention it, but others said that, at the same time, advertising is being taken away because the commercial imperative must be removed if we want a really good cultural product. So where does accountability come from? In the long run, who will judge the relevance of the product that CBC/SRC broadcasts? Who would prevent CBC/SRC from diverging into a field where Canadians no longer are, so that that plays against its long-term interests? Canadians might say, at some point, that, since they are not watching it, why should it be subsidized? We have even heard from people who hate CBC/SRC. I know a lot of people who don't watch CBC/SRC. They increasingly wonder why we subsidize it.
In the interests of everyone, how could we guarantee accountability? Perhaps advertising should be retained in order to determine whether sponsors find the programming relevant, though without going too far and without that becoming a commercial imperative.
I'm asking you a kind of philosophical question.
[Translation]
Thank you for your presentation. I believe that today's conversation will be profitable. Of course, we've been told that we had to increase funding, contribute to the development of television drama and variety shows, and we've listened to that message. However, today I would like to discuss the need to develop a plan for new media.
[English]
We have heard from our good friends at Vidéotron that they would like to change the CTF because they think they are being hampered in their ability to take programming and have it in all the multi-platforms because of the rights issue, and they would like to have all the ancillary rights.
There is another question we also have to raise. We've seen that the entire catalogue of the BBC can be viewed at any time of the day or night because the BBC has all its rights. Wherever you are in the world, you can watch BBC.
And yet we still have a system here in Canada in which we're paying for shows that may be shown two or three times, and then they sit in a vault. Clearly, our question has to be how we can be ready for the 21st century if we haven't addressed that issue. We've been trying to get an answer here about how we get our programs into every multi-viewing platform.
Some of the broadcasters blame the producers, and some of the producers blame the broadcasters.
We don't know what the financial value of online viewing is yet. It's all speculative. But is there not a simple percentage formula that can be worked out to ensure that a production, if it's independent, can be shown forever and a day, based on a percentage basis, or shown for 10 years, or five years, so that at least we can be assured that the product is available online wherever?
:
It's an option; of course it is an option. In the ideal world, the broadcasters, producers, and rights holders would be successful in establishing among themselves what they feel is fair treatment. If we start with the fact that everybody is reasonable and of good faith, fine. But to do that, we have to look at the whole economic...or at every step of the exploitation.
I'll give you an example. You talked about Vidéotron. We know this thing about Illico and so on and so forth. Let's say my producer produces a show for TVA, and TVA puts it on Illico, video on demand, but decides to charge nothing to the viewers at home for downloading the show. Viewers can watch the show he produced at any time of night or day, any day of the week. They're not charged anything.
So TVA tells my producer that TVA is not getting any revenue from it. But down the road they are. They're selling the technology and the machine. You pay $87 a month to get the machine at home so that you can download at any time of the day or night.
It's not true, then, that there are no revenues. A corporation is benefiting from that technology somewhere. It's the same thing with the Internet. That's why everybody in the industry is willing to reopen and revisit the whole system. Everybody just wants to make sure that it's not going to be the same thing as in the past 50 years. The major people who made the money in the past 50 years are broadcasters and film distributors. Unfortunately there's never been....
I have been a broadcaster. I have sold advertising to finance my programming. Never have I as a broadcaster called an independent producer and said to them: You know that show you sold me? I was expecting to make 600,000 viewers, but guess what--I made a million. I generated more advertising revenue than I expected, so I'm sending you a cheque; the performance went way above.
I've been in this business for 35 years, and I've never done that. I've never seen it.
:
I'm going to continue in the same vein. When the government enters the picture, with considerable subtlety—I won't name one as opposed to the other or anyone in particular—because it has the power to do so, to appoint to its head decision-makers whom it mandates to achieve such and such an objective with regard to the Crown corporation, and that mandate is never public, do you think there is any reason for us to ask ourselves some questions?
We were faced with that situation under the previous Liberal government, and, this time, under the Conservative government. We asked what the actual mandate was that was given to such and such a person appointed to an important decision-making position, but were never able to extract any information whatever. It was a total stonewall. That's why I asked you the first question, which wasn't an innocent question.
Normally, when someone is given a mandate to direct a corporation such as this one, it should be a transparent exercise, but it isn't in actual fact. That's what caused the fears over the proposal that the parliamentary appropriation for the Crown corporation should be increased.
Elsewhere, at the BBC, for example, or even in Australia, the public broadcaster is funded out of television fees, which makes it possible to maintain a certain degree of independence. In Australia, the public broadcaster's mandate even states that it must remain independent of political authority, which is not the case here. It isn't a public television network, but, without impugning anyone's motives, the facts, from a historical perspective, show us that it's a state television network, whether we like it or not.
In view of the fact that we are currently engaged in what can be characterized as group think, market logic, which applies even in public institutions with considerable finesse, where that logic would take over the Crown corporation, that is to say where the government would gradually reiterate its duty to support the CBC/Radio-Canada financially, in this case, what other types of funding should be considered, apart from advertising? This is anticipation; it's a scenario.
We know the consequences that can have on a public broadcaster. The more advertising there is, the more you acquire the profile of a private broadcaster and the more you cast off Canadian content, in this instance, and the more it loses its specific characteristics. So, apart from advertising, are there any other funding options, in your view?
:
I'm going to address the main points of the document instead.
The position of the Union des artistes is that of artists, but also that of Canadian citizens. In a world where convergence is increasingly a fact, the role of the public broadcaster is major, if not fundamental. The mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada is very broad: it must cover the regions, linguistic duality, indeed plurality. This mandate must also ensure that all regions and Canadian values, our Canadian identity and regional identities are represented right across the country. I don't think that private broadcasting or television corporations are able to fulfil the role carried out by CBC/Radio-Canada. In our opinion, it is important that CBC/Radio-Canada be maintained and extensively funded, perhaps even more than it is now, in view of the scope of its mandate.
In addition, I'd like to talk about the presence of women. Gender equity is one of the values advocated by Canada. If that equity exists, under CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, we must ensure that it is visible on the screen. That is important for the Union des artistes and, I think, for all Canadians.
In addition, the CRTC has recently deregulated a number of objectives related to the production of television serials, serial dramas, dramatic programs and youth programs. We note that, since that deregulation, programs of that kind have been on the decline. However, if there's one place where CBC/Radio-Canada could distinguish itself, it is in those fields.
We also see that our television, generally—and I'm not talking about CBC/Radio-Canada here, which is broadcasting increasing numbers of programs in foreign formats—is broadcasting programs that are slightly adapted to audiences here. We think that is harmful for Canada's identity as a whole.
You'll find our position on most of the rest of the issues in the brief we have submitted to you. I could read it to you, but I imagine you've had the opportunity to read it yourselves. Repeating it to you would add virtually nothing to what we've said or written thus far.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
We represent writers, who form the bottom of the pyramid of television culture, since it is our members who write the scripts. Among other things, the Broadcasting Act provides that the broadcasting system should:
(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming [...]
That act has been in existence since 1991, and we feel it is still entirely current. Radio-Canada's culture mandate is very important. It has served the Francophones of Canada well, particularly in Quebec. It is often said that English-language television doesn't operate as well, which suggests that French-language television has no problems. In our view, that idea is false.
In the case of French-language television, nine of the 10 most watched programs in 2001 were dramas. In 2005, that figure fell to three. So there has been a decline. Of course, I'm talking about dramas because, of all the priority areas, drama counts the most for our members, the writers. It makes it possible to express Canadian culture through stories written by and for Canadians.
The CBC/SRC played its leadership role well in the twentieth century, and we believe it should continue to do so in the twenty-first. With regard to the creation of dramas, it should consider culture as the very basis of its existence. It must of course be granted the funding that will enable it to pursue its mandate, but it must also be ensured that the cultural objectives are the same for the new technological platforms. A business model must therefore be found that will enable the new platforms of the twenty-first century to be profitable for everyone, so that everyone can live off it and Radio-Canada can receive from those platforms the funds enabling it to continue generating dramas. Let's not forget that both private and public general-interest television networks, including CBC/SRC, are, in 95% of cases, those that generate the funds for the licences that make it possible to create the programs that are watched by Canadians.
In 2005, the specialty channels allocated only $1.9 million out of $41 million to the creation of dramas. They cannot be expected to increase that figure considerably. Nor can we expect private general-interest producers to think of culture first rather than their shareholders. Consequently, to protect this cultural universe, there is still CBC/SRC. That is why we strongly support the past, present and future mandate of the CBC/Radio-Canada.
These are good words indeed, but if the necessary money is not there to support them, what happens when a pipeline is closed down will happen to our culture. In 15, 20 or 30 years, it won't be there anymore.
Thank you.
:
On the specialty channels, but especially on the available private sector television networks, there are increasing numbers of American television programs that have been translated and dubbed. I'm also talking about purchased American formats. The format is purchased and redone to suit audiences here.
Le Banquier is an example of that. That's what I was alluding to. I don't mean that these programs shouldn't exist, but, with the disappearance of CRTC regulation and with the new objectives regarding youth and drama programs, these types of programs are entering into Canadian content.
So, with deregulation, we have witnessed a shift in air time occupied by the stations. It is therefore becoming all the more important in my mind that there be a public television network and that it keep the objectives with regard to what Marc Grégoire said earlier, that is to say concerning a culture from here, writers from here, and that they be able to find a place where they can express themselves. I'm thinking of high-cost series, which are probably more costly, but the quality of which is higher than what is done on the whole. I'm thinking very much about the BBC model in England. The BBC's funding enables it to produce high-quality programs that are sold around the world. So I don't think that investments in high-quality programs are necessarily a losing proposition.
There are markets for television in the world. The new platforms that are developing increasingly need content. This could be a good opportunity for CBC/Radio-Canada to produce programs with what could be global content, somewhat like the BBC model. The BBC is obviously subsidized to a large extent out of television fees. Could we possibly think of other models that would enable the CBC to get the money that would enable it to carry out this mandate? The mandate is so broad, but at the same time, within that very broad mandate, I think there is an opportunity to find ways to fund even more production by a corporation or organization that is more neutral and less subject to the laws of the market in terms of profits and shareholders.
Currently, in the context of the development of new technologies, I can even see an opportunity. I've often had occasion to go on the Canada Web site, and even that of Quebec. All the information provided there is phenomenal. This affords each region of Canada an opportunity to have a window through which it can display its specific character, since Canada is a very big country. Vancouver is very different from Montreal, Moncton and Fredericton. These new technologies can accommodate the contribution of a vision that we could have of Canada's regions as a whole. If CBC/Radio-Canada, which is already present on the Internet, is able to find other ways to enhance the regions' presence at lower cost... Managing to have each region present on CBC/Radio-Canada television is often a problem under the CBC/Radio-Canada mandate.
Throughout this discussion we've been having across this country, there has been an underlying sense for many people that there was a glory period of CBC, especially in English Canada, and that now we've lost that. They tell us about how much people used to watch. Well, I remember those days too: we all watched because we had only one station. The shows weren't necessarily fantastic, but when that was all you watched, everybody watched.
Now we have a thousand-channel universe. So if we have 10% of that thousand-channel market, people say, “You used to have 40% of the market when you had two channels, and now you have 10% .” We're trying to find the validity of having a public broadcaster in the multi-platform, multi-channel, multi-station world. It seems to me that more than ever the need for a public broadcaster should be self-evident.
Take radio, for example. I live in my car mostly, because my riding is the size of Great Britain. I listen to the radio all the time. What I hear from private radio stations is that people listen to radio because they want to hear their own voice; they want to hear their community; they want to hear their announcements. In the morning and afternoon, there's lots of great local programming. And then it sounds like a switch is flicked, and suddenly that radio station sounds like 600 other radio stations across the country, because the owner of that station owns 600 other radio stations. We have vertical integration of media. Now we have the same columnists in 300 newspapers, because one owner owns 300 newspapers. Why have 300 columnists? Just have one, and he'll be in every single paper.
So there's a homogenizing of voice and a disappearance of place. It seems to me that radio with CBC and Radio-Canada has become extremely effective because of its distinctiveness. People listen to it because it has content.
I'm wondering again why, with television, we are still struggling to replicate what radio has done so well. In a world where all the voices are starting to be the same, and there's a flattening out of a thousand choices--meaning going nowhere--there is a need to have a strong broadcaster with distinctive programming that will actually naturally attract people, because people want content.
I'd like your perspectives on this.
:
You talked about radio. Of course, the golden age of radio, when there were serial dramas on the radio, is over. I don't believe it will be back soon, unless we want to have nostalgia radio. So I think that radio is no longer the most appropriate medium for writers or for stories to tell.
However, Radio-Canada's French-language radio has been an enormous success for a number of years, first because the content is important and people who take part in it are of high calibre from an intellectual standpoint, and second because there is no advertising. You have to realize that advertising is a monstrous irritant on television and radio. We're forced to live with it, since our system has been modelled somewhat on that of the Americans, but if we had modelled it on the BBC, we might be better off today. But that's the way it is. So one of the major arguments of French-language radio, at least here, is that, when there is no advertising for 60 minutes, there is 60 minutes of content, which is wonderful.
With regard to news on the economy, culture and the life of the Quebec community as a whole, radio is extremely prominent and listened to. Radio-Canada's morning program C'est bien meilleur le matin was number one in the ratings a few months ago. Last year, it was second or third. So it's extremely dynamic radio.
However, I don't think we can go back to dramas. At SARTEC, contracts received for dramatic works on radio don't even amount to $100,000 a year. In my opinion, it has disappeared, and I don't see how it will come back.
:
Good Lord! The issues are major right now. In fact, I think it's very much an economic issue. Everything is a matter of balance. What we are apprehensive about is that Radio-Canada's mandate has changed as a result of economic issues. I am more familiar with the Quebec situation.
General-interest television has of course lost viewers, even though the number of viewers is still large. Advertising revenues have declined and, in my opinion, will continue to do so. This isn't just a problem with general-interest television networks, it will also be a problem concerning specialty channels, because people increasingly have digital recorders and cut out commercials. People who do on-air advertising will increasingly opt for other media or other ways of doing advertising. So there is a risk that advertising revenues will decline, not only for general-interest television networks, but also for specialty channels, in favour of other media, perhaps more the Internet, hence the need for any broadcaster, whether public or private, to look as well to the Internet, to speciality channels, to ensure it has a multiple-stream revenue base.
In the circumstances, what we fear is that there is always a link. We've seen the turnaround at Radio-Canada. There used to be a lot less advertising time, choices were... Now a lot of choices are economically viable choices. By that I don't mean that a high-quality program doesn't necessarily have an audience, but sometimes there is a direct link. Programs, high-cost series have been cut because revenues were not sufficient. That's our fear. We fear that economic logic will put enormous pressure on Radio-Canada. Pressure has already been applied, at the Canadian Television Fund, among others, where it is considered unsatisfactory, in any case by the private broadcasters, that Radio-Canada can receive 37% of the Canadian Television Fund's budget. It is pressures of this kind that make us fear and dread that pressure will ultimately change CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate. That's our fear about that, and that's what we dread.
:
We think it is quite absurd that a double standard is applied to special interest and specialty channels. Specialty television was vulnerable at first. So extremely particular conditions were created to enable those channels to establish themselves in the television universe. Today, specialty channels—you and I both saw the reports of the companies, Astral Media, which is very prominent in Quebec—make a lot of profits and remit quite little in terms of production licences. As I said earlier, it's in the order of perhaps 10% or 15%.
So as Mr. Legault said, with advertising declining as a secondary source of funding, we thought it was at least logical that part of the fees paid to DHT and cable providers should be remitted to CBC/Radio-Canada, because the value of CBC/Radio-Canada raises the value of the bundle offered by Vidéotron, Cogeco and Bell ExpressVu. It was said that part of that money should go back to CBC/Radio-Canada, of course, but provided part of that new fee was required to be put back into priority programs and especially into dramas in order the make the wheels go round.
You talked about the Internet earlier. We agree on that: nothing is free. If writing, acting and directing were free, I don't see why people would do that, unless they were gentlemen artists. That makes no sense. It is necessary, of course, to legislate the Internet, to make it so our conventional structures with those people are reproduced in one way or another, since the only way for an artist to earn a living is to get paid for the work he does. If he is not paid, I don't see why he wouldn't be a taxi driver or something else. So it's the death of creation and of a general culture if a society cannot support its artists.
The Internet changes nothing in the situation other than... There used to be large forges, horses and people highly equipped with nails and horseshoes. Today, they no longer exist: we sell tires. You can have the most beautiful forge in the world, which would be the old television, if no one watches it; you have to take the path of culture in order to express yourself.
:
Since you've received the brief, I'm going to address its content briefly.
Sports-Québec is a private corporation that represents 64 federations and 17 regional sports and recreation units. It is important for us to remind you that we are not a government organization, but rather a private corporation that reaches 800,000 members, Quebeckers, 60,000 coaches and 400,000 volunteers.
This issue is a particular interest and challenge for us. Current investments in sport are minimal. No major and significant investment is currently being made in sport, and that has an impact. It leads us to solicit private businesses. However, those businesses are increasingly raising their requirements. As there is a lot of competition, more choices are being offered to them. That increases their requirements even more, and it is difficult to meet them. Since investment is minimal, we are required to seek new funding in order to finance ourselves. The expectations and requirements of our clientele, whether they be grassroots participants, beginners or high-level athletes, are great, which puts pressure on the system as a whole.
The needs of businesses are greater as well. Since they have a number of choices, they demand that we offer them a lot of benefits. They say they need visibility and want the money invested in us to be profitable. In the past, we had much more significant relations with Radio-Canada. The corporation offered certain services free of charge. It has not only stopped its subsidies and support in the area of visibility, it has simply withdrawn from the sector. For example, it is absent, or virtually absent, from the Quebec Games and Canada Games and national and international championships.
In our view, Radio-Canada has responsibilities as a Crown corporation. With regard to healthy living habits, it can be said that sport is a major solution. In that sense, the role played by Radio-Canada is really inadequate.
In our brief, we've emphasized certain specific moments. In 2002, Radio-Canada terminated the program Les jeux sont faits. In 2003, the televised sports news program was removed from the network, to which we reacted strongly. That was a major loss, in view of the fact that it was broadcast on the Radio-Canada national network. In 2005, the weekly magazine Adrénaline was also removed from the airwaves, and a single daily 30-minute program, Au-dessus de la mêlée, was broadcast. However, it is almost entirely devoted to professional sports. Lastly, in 2005, Radio-Canada did not win the rights to broadcast the Vancouver Games. And yet this is an event that will be held in Canada. For us, this is a significant loss and will have a significant effect.
We will have to watch the English-language network in order to see our own athletes. It makes you wonder. The amount of air time devoted to federated sport is constantly declining, and, where that is not the case, fees are levied. This situation is becoming difficult, even untenable, for organizations at our level. Non-profit organizations must secure funding, but that is becoming all the more difficult in view of needs and expectations.
With regard to Radio-Canada's mandate, we are going to focus on subparagraphs 3(1)(m)(ii), 4 and 7, on which we have some comments to make. We feel that sport is part of the culture of a country. When we say culture, we naturally think of the arts. For us, sport has the same meaning within the culture of a country. In this area, Radio-Canada is not really playing its role. It is not active enough in the area of federated sport.
When we say amateur sport, we're talking about federated sports, that is to say those attached to federated organizations. They are given little coverage in Radio-Canada's programming schedule. There is indeed a gap. This is not a comparison between the CBC and Radio-Canada, but rather an observation. There is really a world of difference between the amount of time devoted to sport on CBC and that devoted to sport on Radio-Canada. In this regard, certain aspects of the mandate are not being met, if we're talking about Anglophone and Francophone presentations. We think that sport, for all Francophones outside Quebec, is given insignificant or no coverage. The information that we have comes from communities to which we provide services across Canada.
I'm coming to the recommendations because I think this is an important aspect. We recommend that the legislative mandate of Radio-Canada/CBC include the responsibility to contribute to the promotion of healthy living habits and federated sport. We want it on the record, recognized and specifically stated that Radio-Canada has a responsibility toward Francophones, including those outside Quebec.
We recommend that all revenue generated by coverage of the Olympics and professional sport be systematically reinvested in the production of programs promoting healthy living habits and federated sport.
We also recommend that Radio-Canada establish partnerships with other broadcasters. That has been done. Let's take the example of RDS. As it is always a matter of costs, we think it is possible for the corporation to be active and intervene in a manner consistent with its financial means.
We recommend that a genuine sports service be established at Radio-Canada. We know about the pooling of resources and technologies. Federated sport has more of a presence on the Internet, but is virtually absent from radio and television. We think that the integration and introduction of a genuine sports team at Radio-Canada would be an advantage and that it would result in maximum use of the skills of all journalists. That is being done and that should be done in the field of sport.
We recommend that sports programming be dedicated to federated sport and provided by Radio-Canada on the conventional and specialty networks. For example, we know perfectly well that not everyone in Montreal has cable. Consequently, the Première Chaîne must really be able to reach those people.
We recommend that Radio-Canada contribute to promoting federated sport by producing and broadcasting sports news programs divided fairly between federated and professional sport. We would like the corporation to return to prime time news broadcasts. They appear on the specialty networks such as RDI, of the Radio-Canada station itself, and reach the conventional network. There's little coverage of, or few references to, federated sport.
We recommend that Radio-Canada produce and broadcast promotional material on improved physical fitness for Canadians: advertising spots, special programs, regular series, specialty magazines, use of inspiring sports models, highlighting our athletes. When you want to change the culture and the ways in which the people as a whole do things, you present them with known and recognized models.
Lastly, we recommend that programming for children and youth include segments popularizing healthy living habits. We must take advantage of these programs, which are aimed specifically at youths, to broadcast messages concerning healthy living habits.
We think that, by touching all these elements, Radio-Canada will truly play its role as a national general-interest corporation for Quebec and Canada.
:
I am here today with Tim Paul, who is president of Maliseet Nation Radio Inc. I have been working with Tim for the last couple of years to expand the radio station throughout New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada.
I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to present.
I'll just give a quick overview of our few-minute presentation today, which will be to bring out the main points of the brief we presented. We will first talk about the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada as it relates to first nations people of Canada; second, give a bit of background on Heritage Canada's response to the need for the revitalization of first nation languages in Canada; and finally, talk about Maliseet Nation Radio Inc.'s network, which we are attempting to establish to speak to the need to revitalize first nations languages.
To begin, the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada, as set out in paragraphs 3(1)(l) and 3(1)(m) of the Broadcasting Act of February 1991, does not appear to deal in any significant way with serving the broadcasting needs of Canada's first nations people. The mandate deals specifically with the particular needs of English and French linguistic minorities; however, it does not address the nearly 61 first nation languages currently used within Canada, including several that are listed as endangered, based upon the findings of the Heritage Canada task force report on aboriginal languages and cultures of June 2005.
Maliseet Nation Radio Inc. believes it is imperative that the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada be expanded to include the different needs and circumstances of various commonly spoken languages of the first nations people across Canada and to include specific reference to the needs of Canada's first nations people.
These needs include, but should not be limited to, issues of language instruction, mother tongue programming, and programming related to culture, heritage, history, and intergenerational transmission. The CBC mandate needs to be expanded to deal with these issues directly and/or indirectly, possibly through sharing of resources and infrastructure and/or via a public-private partnership.
In an effort to respond to the current lack of first nations radio content, Maliseet Nation Radio Inc., MNRI, has created and operates a successful first nations radio broadcasting model that reflects the express needs identified in the 2005 task force report on aboriginal languages and cultures. This radio station is dedicated to first nation language instruction as well as programming related to those issues I mentioned above: culture, heritage, history, and intergenerational transmission.
Based on the recommendations of the task force report and the success of MNRI's operating model, MNRI has developed a strategy that would see the establishment of an Atlantic aboriginal radio network, referred to hereafter as Wabanaki Voices East, possibly as a precursor to a national network, in an effort to bring the first nations' message to all first nations people.
I would like to give some background now on the developments within Heritage Canada relating to the revitalization and perpetuation of first nations mother tongue languages.
In December 2002, the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced that Canada would establish an aboriginal languages and culture centre as part of the commitment in the 2002 Speech from the Throne to help preserve, revitalize, and promote first nations, Inuit, and Métis languages and cultures. In early 2003, the minister took the next step by creating the task force on aboriginal languages and culture as a body whose advice would help set the direction for this new initiative. In June 2005, the task force published its report. In February 2007, Maliseet Nation Radio Inc., operating as CKTP-FM, developed a concept paper for the establishment of Wabanaki Voices East, a first nations radio network dedicated, as I mentioned, to first nations mother tongue programming and language instruction.
That concept paper arose from the success of Maliseet Nation Radio Inc., the network model, and as a response to the main points and recommendations within the task force report of June 2005. This task force report articulates a number of needs, priorities, and objectives with respect to the revitalization, preservation, and perpetuation of first nation, Métis, and Inuit languages and cultures, and offers some strategies with which to achieve these most noble goals and objectives.
The Wabanaki Voices East radio network is guided by the recommendations of the task force report and provides, in my opinion, a cost-effective and efficient means of speaking to many of the recommendations of the task force report, which, without such a network of first nations radio stations, would be virtually impossible, if not cost-prohibitive.
I'd like to conclude with some main points from the task force report to illustrate how Wabanaki Voices East speaks directly to the revitalization and perpetuation of first nation languages. You have these in your brief, but I wanted to highlight three or four.
First, the diversity of first nation, Inuit, and Métis language vitality ranges from flourishing to critically endangered. Even languages with a large number of speakers may be flourishing in some regions or communities and be in a critical state in others. The studies and surveys give a multi-dimensional picture of first nation, Inuit, and Métis languages. Some are spoken by only a few elders, others by tens of thousands. Large language groups such as the Cree, Ojibway, and Inuktitut are viable, having at least 25,000 speakers ranging from the young to the elderly. However, all languages, including those considered viable, are losing ground and considered endangered.
The Wabanaki Voices East network allows for the strategic placement of its stations and repeaters. So that's the model--a station where the programming is developed and broadcast from, with a number of repeaters on the various reserves that are in need of that language instruction and that can enjoy the cultural and mother tongue programming.
These stations can be set up, and the interesting thing is that you can set up the station where the language is viable and, through the repeater, actually broadcast to those areas of the region where the language might be endangered. So you can specifically target the endangered language groups with your programming.
Another point I want to mention is that the focus of language conservation and revitalization efforts must shift from formal institutions to communities, families, and social networks. This is a recommendation of the task force report. Of course, the network accomplishes this by creating programming by the people, for the people.
What we do is we go on to the reserve, we find the language experts, and we utilize institutions--in our situation, the Mi'kmaq-Maliseet Institute at the University of New Brunswick--to work on the development of language curricula to speak to the various levels of language vitality. Think of it as a grade one language lesson for an area of the region where the language is endangered, and perhaps as grade four or grade five language instruction, so more sophisticated, for areas where the language is being spoken with much more fluency.
There are a couple of more points. Another recommendation of the task force report is that elders emphasize that language, culture, spiritual values, and the first nation, Inuit, and Métis sense of identity are inseparable concepts. I would agree that the language is critical to any culture. When the language is lost, the culture is lost, and when the culture is lost, the people are basically lost. They've lost the very roots of their existence. When we lose our language and our culture, we've lost the roots of who we are.
The network enlists the involvement of language experts in each community to design and develop language instruction and programs. Such persons are by their nature already sensitive to this connection between the language and the spirit of who the people are.
My final point is that the task force report emphasized that there was a consensus on the need for a community-driven revitalization strategy based on community commitment to identify priorities and develop and carry out plans that would involve all age groups.
What we've done at Maliseet Nation Radio Inc. with CKTP, our FM station, is to require each participant in the network to broadcast a minimum of six hours a day of first nations content, which will include a minimum of 10 hours per week of mother tongue language instruction. This will ensure that the project will have a community-driven revitalization strategy.
So our recommendation to this committee is that the federal government and/or the CBC consider the possibility of a public-private partnership to pilot the development of a first nations radio network throughout Atlantic Canada and ultimately throughout all of Canada.
Thank you very much.
:
We're aware of the costs and of what that represents, but we also know that a corporation like Radio-Canada has a responsibility that it must bear. We've named a few for you, including the promotion of physical activity. When you think of the problems of obesity, excess weight and inactivity, there is a responsibility there for Radio-Canada, but also for Canadian society.
Canadian society has little control over private broadcasters. They are supported by private financing. From the moment we talk about public funding, I think we have to identify major targets for Canadian and Quebec society. So, in that sense, we have to go back to coverage of federated sport in order to present the models we have as often as possible, in the best context and at the lowest possible cost.
Just think of people like Alexandre Despatie, the swimmers, and so on. We're currently creating the Centre for Excellence in Aquatic Sports in Montreal, where we've brought four sports together. There is no coverage of this, and yet this is a major event; this is a special situation in Canada. We would like these events to be covered.
As regards newscasts, if we don't keep people regularly informed and support their interests, we lose a significant amount of influence, particularly since the information is readily available. In Quebec, we've put in place an organization called Sportcom, which is an amateur sport communications agency. All the information is known. The athletes, coaches and organizations can reach the network 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So if we want to spread information, we don't necessarily have to have people on the spot; we can use what already exists. Collaborative efforts with RDS, among others, will be possible. That is another way of using public funds in an appropriate manner.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome.
Mr. Côté, you said something very interesting in your presentation, that sport was a form of expression that was part of the culture of a country, in other words, an element that was used to forge the collective identity. It is interesting that you recall that here, but we can see that Canadians know it already, since the CBC covers a lot of sport. In fact, it covers a lot more than Radio-Canada. You said that, in the past few years, the proportion of programs on sport, federated sport among others, appearing on Radio-Canada had declined quite significantly. Today there are virtually none.
In your first recommendation, you suggest that Radio-Canada be given an additional mandate including a responsibility to contribute to the proportion of federated sport and healthy living habits. When we talk about instilling healthy living habits, we know that federated sport is indeed an important tool. Given that Radio-Canada's present mandate enables it to find ways of not covering sport, you've decided to include a much more restrictive criterion that would require it to do so. I find that recommendation very interesting and I congratulate you for it.
As regards my question, I'd like to know whether someone at Radio-Canada told you at some point that sport was no longer really important and that the corporation intended to quietly withdraw from all that. How did things happen?
:
We couldn't speak that precisely because we obviously aren't in Radio-Canada's shoes. However, we know that we can pick a few stars among the young developing athletes. But they aren't the only ones in federated sport. The others are less visible, less seen; they're covered less. That's less appealing for viewers. If we want to make a program on federated sports, sponsors will wonder exactly who it will reach. So it becomes a very narrow clientele.
When you think about a culture, you have to understand that that doesn't refer solely to the elite. The culture presents a reality, that is to say the reality of young people who are engaged on a path to achieve athletic excellence.
The program Adrénaline covered all of that network, or all of those top athletes. When coverage is limited to a few individuals, the market becomes much thiner, and sponsors feel that, unless some of them are given coverage, they won't take part. That represents a loss for us.
A will is needed, a requirement for an organization like Radio-Canada to present sport as an element of culture, thus in its reality in the field, in what it is every day or regularly, not just when international championships are covered. That is the reality that should be presented and that should reach people. When you see athletes grow up, you take a greater interest in them and you follow them. On the other hand, when you only see them once or when such and such a sports personality is not being exploited, that doesn't have a major impact. That's the case of the Olympic Games. You see the athletes for 15 days, then they disappear and reappear four years later. We would like Radio-Canada's mandate to be demanding in that regard and to be present constantly and on a daily basis.
The newscast is a good example, magazines as well. There can also be advertising presentations in which important elements for Canadian society are recalled. There are 1,001 ways of doing it. That definitely involves certain amounts of money. I think that the only network that we can influence or require something of is Radio-Canada, since the others are private networks, and so, unless we have money to finance them, it's impossible.
It's hard to get away from that.