:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to introduce to the committee Mr. Tony Porrello, executive vice-president and chief operating officer.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we would like to thank you for your invitation and congratulate you on holding this hearing, which deals with the major issues that will have a direct impact on the future of television in Canada.
We are appearing before you for the first time, because Remstar Diffusion took ownership of TQS on September 5, 2008, after the network had gone through a period of technical bankruptcy starting in December 2007.
My brother Julien and I founded Remstar Corporation 12 years ago, its mandate being to finance, produce and distribute films and television shows for Canadian and international markets. We have been creating and distributing Canadian and foreign cultural content since 1997.
Remstar's film catalogue clearly shows our desire to strike a balance between entertainment and social issues.
The production of films such as Elles étaient cinq, Ma fille, mon ange, Battle in Seattle and more recently Polytechnique attests to the type of risks that we have taken to create cultural products that make a contribution by raising public awareness of major social issues.
Remstar's record shows how passionate we are about the entertainment industry, and this passion that has led us to accept the challenge of getting TQS back on track.
Our acquisition of TQS represents a major investment and a considerable risk. This is something we thought out carefully over the long, complex and difficult process we have been through.
We saw the acquisition of TQS as an opportunity to support the development of high-quality cultural content for the Quebec market.
TQS has become known for taking risks and innovating, but also for its serious financial problems that forced the former owners to place the network under the protection of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act on December 18, 2007. With annual losses of close to $18 million, TQS could no longer fulfill its mandate as a conventional broadcaster without making major changes. These changes were especially needed in our news department, which was losing considerable money and was no longer able to compete with Radio-Canada or TVA, which can have their all-news speciality channels bear some of the costs of their news rooms.
The issues that you raise in this hearing are some of the key concerns that we too are facing.
TQS operates five stations in Montreal, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Saguenay and Sherbrooke, and its signal is retransmitted by affiliate stations in Gatineau, Rouyn-Noranda and Rivière-du-Loup.
Each year TQS invests over $30 million in the development and acquisition of original French-language productions, which contribute to the development of our culture.
Those investments provide work to our 200 employees as well as nearly 1,000 artists and artisans, whose creativity, talent and energy help create the various productions with which audiences identify.
Our new positioning targets a younger audience, whose lifestyles and consumer habits we have to take into account.
Information today is disseminated faster and is more accessible on the Internet or mobile phones than on television or other traditional media.
Ensuring a diversity of voices and reflecting regional realities do meet people's needs, but account for a significant part of broadcasters' costs.
As for entertainment, although there are more and more broadcasting platforms, television remains the vehicle of choice to produce and finance high-quality content.
Just as cinema needs theatres to launch its films and create the buzz that will attract crowds and ensure success, creators of content for the small screen need conventional television to launch the high-quality shows that will draw broad audiences and, in one way or another, will be distributed on a host of other platforms.
Although today's audience is more fragmented, major television events, whether they be cultural, sporting, social or political, play an important part in our social lives.
Quebeckers greatly enjoy dramas, comedies and reality TV as well as quality entertainment shows.
To succeed, TQS will offer programs that are more interactive and event-based, project a strong brand identity that is youthful and daring, and consider the Internet and social networking sites as potential allies.
We have been working to revive the fortunes of TQS since September 2008, and our efforts are already paying off, but the main impact of our plan will be felt starting next September.
Despite the extremely difficult economic context, we are investing in our programs on an ongoing basis and every day we are increasing our market share of our target audience of people between the ages of 18 and 49.
Between the weeks of March 9 and April 20, our market share in the evenings has already increased from 6.4% to 10.6%, an increase of nearly 66%. During that same period, La Première Chaîne of Radio-Canada saw its market share decline from 15% to 12.5%. Such results show the relevance and value of content provided by a second private conventional broadcaster in the Quebec market.
TQS's substantial financial losses and the implementation of its recovery plan have clearly confirmed that the current television financing rules are jeopardizing the survival of private conventional broadcasters and compromising their ability to fulfill their obligations. The imbalance, which now must be corrected, was caused in part by the exponential growth of cable and satellite television, together with the increase in the number of specialty channels.
By obtaining exclusive access to revenue from carriage fees and increasing access to the advertising market, the specialty channels have benefited from this dual revenue stream and become increasingly profitable. At the same time, the conventional broadcasters, which must offer local programming, are seeing their advertising market drop off steadily because of the centralization of advertising decisions, a result of the growth in national and international banners and the skyrocketing use of the Internet and other new media.
In concrete terms, the profit margin of private conventional broadcasters has plummeted from 14.5% in 2003 to 0% in 2008, while profits at specialty channels jumped from 12.6% to 23.6% over the same period. This reality is particularly puzzling, considering that the conventional broadcasters are still investing $1.4 billion, or approximately 30% more in Canadian programming and production than the specialty channels. Our industry absolutely must make those investments in order to reflect the values, realities, talents, aspirations and creativity of our society.
The diversity of programs and the requirement to create local productions lead to substantial costs for the private conventional broadcasters, whose sole source of revenue is advertising. Their situation cannot be compared to that of the public broadcasters, which receive significant and guaranteed public funding every year. The competitive advantage of the specialty channels and the public networks is considerable and creates an imbalance on the advertising market.
In fact, in hard economic times, those channels, which have a guaranteed stream of revenue, can sell their advertising spots at reduced rates in order to maximize their revenues at the expense of the private conventional broadcasters. Moreover, when public broadcasters, which benefit from substantial public funding, acquire and broadcast U.S. entertainment series, such as Desperate Housewives or Lost, they go beyond the scope of their mandate, and this has a direct impact on private conventional broadcasters and their ability to offer popular programs.
In order to explain the major impact of the distribution of carriage fees, we would like to remind you that in 2008 those fees amounted to over $250 million for Quebec's specialty channels alone. Astral Media received $107 million in carriage fees before earning a single dollar in advertising revenue. Their carriage fees alone are greater than all of TQS's advertising revenue for the same year.
Cable and satellite television has become a fact of life for almost all Canadians. Claiming that conventional broadcasters should be excluded from receiving carriage fees because the distributors offer them a privileged-distribution channel amounts to saying that television content is of secondary importance.
It is therefore essential to restore the balance in the allocation of carriage fees among all television content providers and distributors. That is why our brief contains a specific recommendation on reallocation of carriage fees. The recommendation reads as follows:
To ensure the long-term viability of the general-interest television industry and of sustainable investments in local broadcasting, we recommend that the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage provide general-interest broadcasters with a new source of revenue by giving them access to fees associated with the carriage of their signals.
As for the Local Programming Improvement Fund, the CRTC's initiative is essential.
However, it is important to determine the rules of the fund as soon as possible and to increase its resources substantially. The structural crisis that our industry is undergoing forces us to be realistic and to request that this fund be reserved for the private general-interest broadcasters and that its resources be used to maintain the current programming commitments, no more. Simply maintaining the current regional and local programming commitments is an enormous challenge for a private general-interest broadcaster such as TQS, and this fund should help us meet that challenge.
Finally, to encourage production in the regions and television news at the regional and local levels, we suggest that a tax credit be introduced for regional productions and people working in the regional news industry. This tax credit would be for independent television broadcasters and producers. The introduction of this type of program would help ensure a diversity of voices in the public arena, would encourage the training and development of local talent, and would contribute to the quality of local television. There are several programs that have been developed for the film industry and other types of television production that could be used as a model.
The transition to digital broadcasting also represents a major challenge that will require TQS to make significant investments. The purchase of new transmitters and the costs of this technological transition could reach $15 million. In several regions, installing these transmitters is not a profitable investment. That is why we are suggesting that a program be established similar to the federal government's program to provide high-speed Internet service in remote areas of the country.
The television industry is undergoing a revolution but it remains a driving force essential to the culture and vitality of our country. The production of original Quebec and Canadian content is the key to ensuring our industry's future and to maintaining our national identity. The television industry is flexible and resilient, and it generates significant economic benefits. However, it needs a critical mass of activities in order to remain dynamic and vital, as well as focused measures in order to ensure its presence throughout all regions of Quebec and Canada.
In Canada, this industry invested $2.5 billion in programming and production in 2008. A new allocation of carriage fees among all content broadcasters and distributors is absolutely necessary if we want to have a dynamic industry made up of television broadcasters who compete on creativity and talent, without unfair regulatory distortion. We hope that your committee's work will lead the Government of Canada and the CRTC to make the appropriate decisions in order to ensure that this necessary rebalancing takes place.
Thank you.
:
Yes, certainly. With me today are Jean-Pierre Blais and Judith LaRocque from my department. They accompanied me when I appeared before you a few months ago.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, I do have to leave at 5:30. I was here at 4:30. I know you started late because of the bells and all that and because of a moment of popular display here, a popular uprising, but I'm pleased to come back to the committee at some time in the future as well.
Shall I go ahead?
The Chair: Go ahead, sir.
Hon. James Moore: I first want to thank the committee for inviting me here today as part of the study on the future of television and broadcasting in Canada. Given the structural shift the broadcasting industry has been undergoing and the global economic situation, this study is very timely, and I welcome your efforts to examine this issue. The impact of the current situation on our television and broadcasting industry in general is high on my list of concerns, as it is on the list of concerns of Canadians.
The terms of reference for the study at hand speak to the tremendous complexity of the issue facing Canadian broadcasting. As everyone in this room knows, the Canadian broadcasting system is unique. The challenges of geography, language, and proximity to the largest cultural exporter in the world have shaped our system. We broadcast in Canada's two official languages, many minority languages, and we also provide programming that meets the needs of our diverse cultural population.
The English and French markets have distinct challenges and opportunities. Whereas Canadian English-language programming faces tough competition in the domestic market, it is more readily exportable. On the other hand, home-grown French-language programming is highly successful and has far fewer foreign competitors, but it also has fewer export opportunities.
[Translation]
Canada has a well-established broadcasting system that makes an important contribution both to our society and to this country's economy.
Nevertheless, this system is undergoing a period of significant transformation. And in recent years, the pace of change has intensified. Technology has forever changed the way we create, access, and use content. Digital technologies are offering Canadians an unprecedented abundance of choice in terms of how and when they obtain information and entertainment.
And as we have seen over the last few years while many of these new technologies bring the promise of new services and content, they sometimes also supplant existing products and services and cause disruption and instability in the traditional industries.
[English]
Consumers have adapted to the new environment. We've embraced our PVRs, on-demand programming, and the Internet. Canadians expect more from entertainment and are moving toward a more interactive experience. Experiences with content, creation, and access are becoming richer, more meaningful and relevant. New Canadians are using these new platforms to share their stories, engage fellow citizens, and facilitate cross-cultural understanding.
In essence, new technology is providing Canadians with new opportunities to participate in our society. Canadian companies are adapting to these changes. Traditional competitors are partnering, merging, and exploring new business lines and strategies. We've seen the development of converged media companies involved in a wide spectrum of telephone, cable, satellite, broadcasting, and Internet services. There are lower barriers to entry, and that means opportunity for competition from new entrants and better services for Canadians.
[Translation]
The current economic situation is clearly having an impact on the broadcasting industry. As your current study clearly indicates, conventional television broadcasters are facing challenges. However, other stakeholders, for example, pay and specialty services, continue to experience strong growth in revenues and profitability. In today's environment, consumers want what they want, when they want it, and how they want it.
And businesses are in the process of adapting to the changing consumer and business environments. And against this setting of unprecedented transformation within the broadcasting industry, our government has played and will continue to play a strong role in this changing industry. And as always, we will place Canadians at the centre, as citizens, as consumers, and as creators.
[English]
At this point, I would like to speak about our government's support for public broadcasting. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I have taken every opportunity to express my support for a strong national broadcaster that serves the interests of all Canadians.
[Translation]
And as the Minister of Official Languages, I am sensitive to the important role Radio-Canada plays for francophones in Canada. In fact, it operates the only French-language national radio and television networks that are offered to all francophone communities across the country.
I am proud to say that CBC/Radio-Canada is one of our government's biggest investments. By giving CBC/Radio-Canada more than $1 billion a year, I believe the Government of Canada provides adequate funding for our public broadcaster.
[English]
As well, since 2001, CBC has received an additional $60 million for Canadian programming, funding that has been renewed several times, including this fiscal year. Groups across the country, public and private, small businesses and individual families, have had difficult decisions to make during these tough economic times. The CBC is not immune to the realities of these economic times. It has been required to make some difficult decisions.
Last month the corporation's CEO and president, Hubert Lacroix, announced actions that would be taken to deal with the current situation. We will work closely with the CBC to ensure it remains a strong national broadcaster and reflects Canadian diversity, protects our official languages, and is a platform for Canadian content.
[Translation]
Our government supports broadcasters because we understand that they provide a public service to Canadians in the form of news and other content that informs, enlightens, and entertains. While the current situation poses challenges, it also brings opportunities for our broadcasting industry. That is particularly true for stakeholders who take an innovative approach to meet the needs of consumers and the conditions of the current economic environment. There is tremendous opportunity for Canadian broadcasters to harness these new trends in digital technology, to become more innovative and consequently more profitable.
The efficiency of digital technologies and the dropping prices should leave room for effective solutions.
[English]
In the meantime, our government has provided, and continues to provide, strong support for the industry. For example, last month I announced the creation of the Canada Media Fund. Our support of $134.7 million per year, along with the additional financial contribution that cable and satellite companies make to the fund, will bring the combined investment to more than $310 million by 2010. The new fund will support the industry, Canadian content, and official-language minority communities. It will help provide the content Canadians want to watch on their preferred platform, whether it's television, the Internet, or mobile devices.
This government also recognizes the benefits of a strong, vibrant, and successful film industry. That's why we invested more than $300 million in the audio-visual production industry through the Canada film or video production tax credit and the film or video production services tax credit.
[Translation]
As well, in 2007-08, we provided approximately $90 million through the Canada Feature Film Fund, which supports the development, production, distribution and marketing of Canadian feature films. Last year alone, more than 40 feature films were created thanks to this fund. And it triggered an additional $153 million in feature film financing from other public and private sector sources.
[English]
In conclusion, the Canadian broadcasting industry has played a critical role in telling Canadian stories and shaping our national identity, and it will continue to do so. The Government of Canada provides significant support to both our private and public broadcasters and will continue to be a strong supporter of the Canadian broadcasting system.
[Translation]
We believe there are opportunities for the Canadian broadcasting industry. And if we look at companies like RIM and Lionsgate productions, it is clear that Canadians have the capacity to lead the way with new technologies. Canadians deserve quality, choice, and access to services at fair prices. They need to continue to find deep value in a broadcasting system that has served them well throughout the years.
[English]
As for industry stakeholders, I have no doubt that meeting the needs of the public will drive them as they work at innovative ways to re-engage the market to deal with the longer-term transformation that is happening. Advancements in technologies have always been followed by an evolution in the way business works. These times are no different. Moving forward, the government will do what it has always done. We will put Canadians first as citizens, consumers, and as creators.
In closing, I want to again thank the committee for the work that you're doing. I think the wide-ranging scope of witnesses you heard from will only serve to help this committee as it examines this, because they certainly represent the complexity and the diversity of this industry. So I look forward to reading your report, hearing what you have to say, and now taking your questions.
Good day, Minister Moore. I am very pleased to have you with us today. I just want to remind you that, under a specific motion, we invited you in the last week of March to come and talk about CBC/Radio-Canada. I'm going to try to psychoanalyze you, and I would like you to help me a bit. In fact, I only have five minutes to try and understand the difference between what you say and what you do, and when I say "you", I'm referring to your government.
Is it the funding or the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada that you disapprove of? There are many things that you should have done for CBC/Radio-Canada, but you did not. If you really cared about your public broadcaster, you would have supported it through difficult times. Last year, when this committee submitted a report asking basically for three things, namely, for a memorandum of understanding plus stable funding over seven years, for the $60 million to automatically become part of the budget, and for the creation of a budget representing $40 per capita you reportedly welcomed these suggestions wholeheartedly and said you would act on them. But you did not do so.
Mr. Lacroix wrote a letter to your Prime Minister at the end of February, but he never received any reply. However, the week that the private broadcasters informed you of their financial difficulties, not only did they receive a favourable response from you, that is, that they would be receiving assistance, but they were also invited to dinner by the Prime Minister. So you walked the talk.
You have been asked time and time again to help CBC/Radio-Canada. You say that you have never given it so much money, but CBC/Radio-Canada says it has had a shortfall of $400 million in constant dollars since 1990.
Your members seem to have the same mindset. When the subject of CBC/Radio-Canada's possible disappearance is brought up in the House, the Conservative members applaud. Earlier, when Mr. Petit put a question to the representative of Remstar, he seemed to disapprove of the billion dollars that you were giving to CBC/Radio-Canada, stating that it was a lot of money. But we know that their mandates are not the same.
In short, is there something in CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate that does not suit you?
:
I believe that your question has six or seven points.
I know that in the past, your committee has underscored the importance of this $60 million investment in the programming of CBC/Radio-Canada. Each of our four budgets that were passed by the House of Commons included the $60 million, including this year's budget. We therefore complied with this committee's opinion.
As I said to Mr. Rodriguez, we promised, during the election campaign, to maintain or increase the budget of the Corporation. We have honoured that commitment every year in each of our budgets.
I cannot be responsible for the schedule of the Prime Minister, just as you cannot be for that of Mr. Duceppe. The Prime Minister has stated on several occasions in public that our government understands the importance of CBC/Radio-Canada, whether in terms of culture or the future of our country. My office staff and I often discuss these concerns with Mr. Lacroix. We have a good relationship and we work together to prepare the future.
Lastly, you stated that certain members of the Conservative Party are not concerned about CBC/Radio-Canada's survival. I can tell you that that is completely false. Each of our members voted in favour of our budget, which has increased the funding for CBC/Radio-Canada every year. I would also like to point out that in the past, the Liberal Party stated that it had difficulty balancing the federal budget. In reality, the federal budget was balanced in 1997-1998. In 1998-1999, that is, the following year, CBC/Radio-Canada's budget was $896 million, but even though the budget was balanced, the Liberals cut its funding by $16 million.
Now, despite the global economic crisis and as part of a budget intended to counter that crisis, we are continuing to invest in CBC/Radio-Canada, and we have even increased funding for public broadcasting. That is the difference.
You are joining forces with the Liberal Party and with Mr. Rodriguez. Despite your document, and your [Note de la rédaction: inaudible], the fact remains that it was the Liberals who cut the CBC's funding. They cut 4,000 jobs and $400 million; we are the ones who have been supporting CBC/Radio-Canada.
:
Sure, but I really would like to continue to try answer Charlie. He's interested in continuing question period rather than having an answer. I'd be glad to explain the quote and glad to explain the question of the loan, but he's more--
An hon. member: [Inaudible--Editor]
Hon. James Moore: Well, sure, I'd be glad to.
As is always the case, Mr. Chairman, in this place, as you know, it's a tactic of opposition politics to take a quote, take it out of context, throw it back, and ask, “Did it happen?” I was answering a question from a reporter about a different conversation; it was taken entirely out of context, both in the newspaper article itself and in the way in which, of course, Charlie Angus is using it here.
I have a complete and full understanding of the financial situation at CBC/Radio-Canada and a complete and full understanding of the request that was made by CBC/Radio-Canada. We have a very healthy, strong working relationship. The decision that was made was entirely, in my judgment, in the best interests of taxpayers, in the best interests of the corporation, and in the best interests of the long-term reality of the broadcasting industry.
Now, with regard to the Canada Media Fund, this is a modernization that needs to happen. When you're going through cyclical changes in the economy and a cyclical downturn and structural changes in an entire industry, I think one of the most responsible things for the government to do is ensure that the kinds of funds and programs they're setting up are flexible and can adapt to the realities of the future.
That's what the Canada Media Fund is about. We've merged the Canadian Television Fund and the Canada New Media Fund into the Canada Media Fund. It is done in such a way as to rebuild the partnership with private broadcasters and in a way that will allow more money and more flexibility over time for the creation of Canadian content on multiple platforms. This is what's needed. I did the announcement at the studios of Flashpoint, a CTV show that's available in streaming online. It's available on the Internet. You can watch it on Friday nights as well.
I also give the example all the time of the CBC. I really think CBC is to be commended and is really leading the way in multimedia, multi-platform content provision. I give this example all the time. I don't know that I've ever listened to Q with Jian Ghomeshi, but I watch it all the time. I download his video podcast and I watch his show all the time because they film it in such a way that they actually show it by video, but I've never listened to it. I almost never watch Don Newman's show Politics, but I always listen to it, because it's available on audio podcast.
This is sort of the new reality, where you have what is traditionally a television show available in multimedia platform so you can download it and listen to it at your convenience, but it's only available in audio format, and a radio show that's broadcast across the country but is available online in video format. So on the concept of a television show versus a radio show, these things are entirely converging, as are, of course, movies, podcasts, and radio shows. All these things are converging into what used to be called “new media” but now is just media.
So we've updated and improved the fund. We've merged the Television Fund and the New Media Fund to create the Canada Media Fund to support these kinds of productions. These funds are going to be available. There's going to be a set-aside for official language and minority content. There's going to be a set-aside for production in French to ensure that there's equal distribution in both official languages.
This is what we need more of: the government stepping up, modernizing, and improving the kinds of investments that we make for media creation so it's available on multiple platforms. CBC has really led the way, and we want to encourage private broadcasters and those creators on the ground to have access to funds in order to create the kind of content that Canadians want to watch on the platform in which they choose to watch it.
I want to thank the minister for coming to meet with us today.
The minister made a speech, and there are a couple of things I wanted to pick up on. Here in this session we're talking about the future of television in Canada, and he made comments with regard to digitalization and what it is going to do for the future of television, not only in Canada but around the world. Well, this is true; however, currently CBC cannot reach Kamloops, never mind a world reach. It is unable to reach Kamloops because it doesn't have the infrastructure that it needs, for instance, to convert its current.... The last time the CBC had any infrastructure was in the sixties. This is old. CBC needs that infrastructure.
The reason I'm speaking to CBC is not that I want to pick a fight with CBC. CBC is the public broadcaster. There is a responsibility on behalf of the Government of Canada to be able to fund CBC appropriately.
I want to talk about digitalization. The CBC has not had any ability to do the kind of digital reach that it could do and that the private broadcasters have had the ability to do. When the private broadcasters were given the ability to increase their fees to their clients or their customers, they were able to get into the digital world quickly. CBC does not have that ability. It is a public broadcaster. It is dependent on the government to help it to do the reach, and it cannot reach Kamloops. That's the first question.
The second question is this. The BBC, which is a public broadcaster, has now been digital for so long that it only talks about digital. We have let our public broadcaster down. We are actually ranking 16th out of 18 in all of the countries that have a public broadcaster--our funding is 16th. If you're going to be committed to the public broadcaster, then one cannot lump it in with the other broadcasting industry. You have to talk about the public broadcaster's ability to be digital.
Secondly, you also talked about the new media fund that will allow everyone to make a large number of new films. The problem with films in Canada, if we are to be able to get our films around the world, is that we absolutely need to have a distribution model, and we don't. The BBC has used its digital model for distribution; the CBC could do that. It could be great at getting Canadian films to the rest of the world. It cannot do it because it does not have a digital infrastructure.
I'm speaking with regard to commitment to the public broadcaster under two headings. The first one is digitalization, for its ability to reach all areas of Canada and the world. Secondly, with regard to digitalization and your new media fund, how will you see the distribution model given to the CBC to allow it to function in the way that one of the great public broadcasters of the world functions, and that is the BBC?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a brief comment and a brief question, but the preamble to it may be long.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I am a francophone who dabbles from time to time in anglophone culture, because I occasionally watch TV in English, read a book in English, and I read the Globe and Mail three times a year. So I dabble in anglophone culture, but I am not really part of it.
I have the strong impression that Canadian culture has been disappearing over the past 30 or 40 years. All the movies that I see in English are more and more American and less and less Canadian. As for TV series, they are almost all American. The music I hear is almost all American. And so are most of the books available. Even though I don't know English well, it seems to me to be more and more Yankee and less and less British.
It seems to me that, overall, the Canadian government is having more and more trouble sustaining Canadian culture. That's my impression. I'm talking about the government, not the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party may have slashed CBC/Radio-Canada's budget, which will result in the loss of 800 jobs, but the Liberals did much worse, even as the economy was booming.
It's really the Canadian government that appears to have this problem, this problem sustaining Canadian culture. There doesn't seem to be any real political commitment, in my opinion, to maintaining culture, to investing the funding required. The government is prepared to spend billions on weapons, but when it comes time to give $200 or $300 million to CBC/Radio-Canada, they hesitate.
Even Margaret Atwood, who is not francophone, has said that if she had to choose between voting for the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, she would vote for the Bloc Québécois. That's not because we're any nicer than the others, but because Quebec seems to attach more importance to culture, especially as a profitable industry. That's something that does not seem to exist in English Canada.
My question is of a political nature. If the Canadian government is not capable of ensuring the survival and advancement of its own culture, then why should Quebeckers trust it to ensure theirs?