:
That's great. And from the lawns I saw as we came through yesterday, you'll probably need to have the lawn mowers out very soon.
We have travelled here this morning as part of our study of the public broadcaster here in Canada. I'm very pleased to see that the witnesses who put their names forward could be here. We do have, I hope, a fair bit of time this morning.
We are waiting for Ms. Fry. She will be here or, I guess, won't be; whatever.
Welcome to Ms. Savoie and Ms. Bourgeois.
I will begin by thanking Ms. Bourgeois. One presentation that will be made--by the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting--is printed out, but it's not in both official languages. I would like to thank Ms. Bourgeois for saying that we can use that particular material here this morning, because I think there are some important graphs in there that could be useful.
I would like to try to hold the introductory presentations to around ten minutes, somewhere in there. Then we can open it up to questions. At the end of that particular time, if we've pursued the different avenues and we still have five, ten, or fifteen minutes at the end, I might ask our parliamentary experts from the parliamentary library if they have any questions for the witnesses. In all fairness, these gentlemen, or this group, will be writing up the report, so if that's suitable to our witnesses, I would hope we could go forward with that.
I would like to welcome this morning, from the Alliance for Arts and Culture, Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles; and from the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, Ian Morrison, the spokesperson, and Anne Ironside.
Following the order on my list, perhaps you would go first, please, Mr. Wilhelm-Boyles.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to have this intervention on behalf of the Greater Vancouver Alliance for Arts and Culture, which represents artists and cultural organizations in the 22 municipalities of the Greater Vancouver regional district.
I found last night that I had written long, so I'm going to read short. The complete text has been distributed, but regrettably not in French. But we'll get it done.
We do not propose to answer all the questions asked in the invitation document. The committee will hear from many intervenors who have expert knowledge in all the areas of this study. In that regard, we commend to you the excellent submission of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, with which we concur in every respect.
Our purpose is to address in more general terms the essential role of the public broadcaster in reflecting, nurturing, supporting, and advancing the Canadian experiment, which is, as we see it, the creation and maintenance of a pluralistic society that is distinctive, humane, harmonious, equitable, compassionate, creative, vibrant, healthy, and prosperous. It is our view that the arts and culture have everything to do with achieving that laudable goal and that the public broadcaster has everything to do with enabling them to do so.
When we use the term “arts and culture”, we refer to both the broad definition of culture, often described as the UNESCO definition, which is the “distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society [...] it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs”, and the more narrowly focused one, which includes performing, visual, and literary arts and heritage--and we add the media.
The second will be seen as a formalized encodification of the first. If we ignore the first, we dismiss what motivates people, what gives them identity and meaning, what connects them to their fellows. If we ignore the second, we forfeit the most powerful vehicles of imagination, creativity, inspiration, enrichment, and expression known to humanity. It is our view that in Canada the CBC is likely the single most important vehicle for the nurture, support, and promotion of the arts and the exploration and creation of identity at local, regional, and national levels.
Pier Luigi Sacco is a professor of cultural economics at the University of Bologna. Over the past several years, he has developed a relationship with Vancouver in which he has experienced, explored, and investigated the cultural ecology and economy of the city. Professor Sacco posits that since at least the Second World War, societies--at least those in the developed world--are no longer driven by scarcity or the search for daily necessities, but by a search for identity. He further posits that identity is primarily found in two ways: in the acquisition of things, which he calls identity through objects, and through the experience of significant relationships and occurrences, and this he calls identity through experience. The latter, he suggests, is what leads to the development of healthy, creative, effective, fulfilled communities.
As Canada welcomes the world in increasing numbers and our communities become increasingly diverse, there is an increased need to share our experiences through our stories. A recent newspaper article suggested strongly that if we are to develop harmonious relationships among all sectors of our society, rather than laying down rules of behaviour for those newly arrived in our communities--other than the rule of law, of course--we should welcome them into our homes and our gatherings; otherwise, how can they know how we live and what we value? Likewise, how can we know in any meaningful way about their values unless we encounter them where they live?
Since, realistically, most of us will not enter the homes of most of the rest of us, it falls to our public broadcaster to take us there, because it enters our homes, our living rooms and our bedrooms, and it can and should be a vehicle that enables us to tell our stories to each other with sensitivity, honesty, and humour. These stories are told by Canada's artists in all the disciplines. We believe it is incumbent on the national public broadcaster to maintain space on all its platforms for the expression of the works of Canadians artists as a priority.
In a paper entitled “Cultural Policy Beyond Aesthetics” by Professor Tony Bennett of the Economic and Social Research Council of the U.K., in reference to a study conducted in Australia in the mid-1900s by him and two colleagues, we read: “...viewed in terms of the democratic profiles of their publics as measured by their class, educational, gendered and ethnic compositions, public broadcasting led the field as being the most socially inclusive...”. It is not unreasonable to assume that a similar case could be made for the CBC in the Canadian cultural ecology.
In this regard, we fully support the existing mandate of the CBC. It needs no modification. However, it is a demanding mandate, one complicated by the fact that in the interests of responsible journalism the CBC must sometimes bite the hand that feeds it, and the CBC is no longer funded to carry it out with distinction. It is disturbing to realize that at a time when demands on the public broadcaster are expanding and the costs of doing business in nearly every aspect of life are increasing, the Government of Canada is funding the national public broadcaster at the same level as 30 years ago.
The CBC has a history of great achievement in the creation and promotion of Canadian art of all kinds. Indeed, the very existence of a strong, vibrant Canadian cultural sector--and its excellence is acknowledged by audiences and commentators around the world--can be attributed to the historic investment made in Canadian artists by the Government of Canada through the CBC and the Canada Council for the Arts.
Excessive cuts to CBC's appropriations over the past three decades, however, has resulted in seriously diminished investments in Canadian arts and reduced reflection of the regions and localities of the country and the world.
It is instructive to read the following from the 2003 report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Our Cultural Sovereignty, the Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting:
There is also cause for serious concern about the production and exhibition of English-language drama. Except in Quebec, where audiences are entertained and invigorated by original, home-grown dramatic productions, American programming dominates the airwaves to an extent that is largely unknown and unimaginable in any other country outside of the United States itself.... Canadians seldom have the opportunity to see their own lives and communities reflected in non-news programming in the places where they live.
Four years on, not very much has changed.
A word of caution: We live in the age of metrics, in which increasingly it is felt that anything worth supporting can and must be measured. So we spend a great deal of time, effort, and money measuring anything that can be measured, and a lot of things that really can't. In the arts we can measure all kinds of things, but we have no way of measuring the impact of that moment in the relationship of artists with audience or a participant with activity when a person gains a new understanding of herself or himself or another person, of a community, or the world at large--that electrifying moment, perception or realization, that can alter belief or behaviour or transform a life. That is not susceptible to measurement, and that ultimately is the purpose and meaning and highest value of art, whether live or broadcast. We need to acknowledge the value of what is not measurable and support it precisely because its value is beyond measurement.
What is true for the arts in general is true of the public broadcaster. While its reduced means has rendered the CBC a shadow of its former self with regard to its promotion of Canadian arts and culture, it retains the potential to be the most significant arts and culture institution in the country and the most pervasive purveyor of Canadian arts and culture.
Two decades or so ago, we, the arts sector, swallowed whole the idea that the way to long-term sustainability was to make strong financial arguments in support of our activities. So we did that, and with some success. However, in making those arguments, we too often neglected the other compelling arguments on the arts--those associated with the quality of life in our communities, salutary effects on health, public safety, education, the justice system, urban regeneration, community pride, social cohesion, and the personal and social development of young people, as well as the nature of our relationships with ourselves and one another, the nature of our humanity, and our place in the world--those things that defy easy financial analysis. We are concerned that a preoccupation with measurement will become simply another excuse to ignore what makes art special and irreplaceable. So we ask the committee to remain open to those elements and values of art, and the public broadcaster's role in creating and promoting them so they are accorded the value they deserve.
With specific regard to the role of the CBC, we believe the following--and more, but for now.... We believe there is a need for the CBC to be more active in commissioning and presenting new work by Canadian artists and performances by Canadian performers, and paying them properly. The CBC must continue to take a leadership role in providing as appropriate on all its platforms a diversity of programming, including historic and contemporary arts of all kinds, that has as its hallmark artistic excellence, intellectual rigour, and Canadian origination.
The making of art necessarily involves risk. The CBC must be prepared to take risks also and it must be supported in doing so. We believe the CBC must present a distinctively and honestly and unabashedly Canadian perspective. We believe that important cultural activities take place in every community in this land and that the CBC needs to be more present in the regions and localities of Canada to recognize, capture, and reflect these activities to the communities themselves and to the people of Canada.
We believe it is time to relieve the CBC of the necessity and the responsibility of competing with commercial broadcasters for advertising revenue. The CBC does not exist to deliver ears and eyes to commercial interests. It exists to be and do all that is set out in the mandate as described in the Broadcasting Act of 1991. The CBC should be held to that mandate and should be provided by the Government of Canada with sufficient funds to do the job properly. A properly funded and strongly supported public broadcaster is a fundamental element of a modern, democratic, autonomous, and sovereign nation.
I'll give the last words to some others deeply concerned about the health of this country and its arts. From an artist in Vancouver:
I love the CBC. It's ridiculous, really, but it's true. I feel it is wounded right now, but I have sincere faith in this creation of ours. Canadian culture is a vital, living culture that is the equal of any in the world. Its work should be broadcast to the people of our country and to the whole world.
And from writer, critic, advocate, and now Mayor of Lions Bay, Max Wyman, in The Defiant Imagination, Why Culture Matters:
The issue is the authenticity of the idea of Canada, which rests in the books it is able to read, the music it is able to make, the TV and film it is able to watch. It has to do with what the bureaucrats and politicians call “creative capital”—the ability of Canadians to write those books and make those films, to create and innovate. Ideally, what should emerge from this environment is work that is intelligent, truthful and sceptical, work free to shine a uniquely Canadian light on the issues of the day. Quality must be given fair opportunity to find its place.
We suggest that a greater investment in the CBC would achieve that.
Thank you very much.
:
I will be summarizing the main recommendations contained in our brief of February 26. If you wish, we would be pleased to discuss them further.
[English]
As an additional contribution to your important work, we have also commissioned, and we offer you today, a research report from CMRI, the Canadian Media Research Inc. The title is Trends in TV Audiences & Public Opinion, 1996-2006, with special reference to CBC English television.
This report provides data on such topics as TV set ownership, direct-to-home satellite subscription trends, over-the-air reception and new video technologies. It also features trends in TV viewing levels, market share, and audiences for Canadian programming, as well as a review of public opinion regarding television, and CBC in particular.
I would like to touch, Mr. Chair, on highlights from this research. First is the necessity of maintaining over-the-air transmission facilities in all parts of Canada. CMRI's report indicates that 10% of Canadians depend on over-the-air transmission to receive their TV signals, which is three million Canadians. This is not expected to change in the coming years. Because they access fewer channels, these Canadians account for only 7% of viewing hours. The percentage of over-the-air TV reception is much higher among French-speaking viewers, approximately 15%.
Fourteen per cent of the viewing of CBC's English television network is over the air: in Windsor it's 51%; in Leeds--Grenville, 32%; in Peace River north, 24%; in the Kootenays, 17%; Fredericton, 11%; here in Vancouver it's 10%.
According to BBM, there are 26,100 people who watch TV off-air in Okanagan-Kamloops--our friends in Save our CBC Kamloops are on your agenda this afternoon--and here in Vancouver there are 188,700 people receiving their television over the air.
In view of the importance of over-the-air reception to three million Canadians, we were more than somewhat concerned to read in a CBC television policy submission to the CRTC last August that “over-the-air transmission will remain a viable distribution technology for the distribution of television programming only in major urban centres”.
CMRI conducted a special survey of the CRTC last autumn among a representative sample of 1,000 Canadians who do not subscribe to cable or satellite TV. In the survey CMRI asked: If you could receive only one station off-air, what would that be? Forty-five per cent of English-speaking respondents said CBC TV and 49% of French-speaking respondents said SRC TV, far ahead of CTV, Global, TVA, TQS.
Friends therefore urges you to take up this matter with CBC next week and to remind their management that all Canadians pay for the corporation and all are entitled to receive its programming, whether they live in major urban centres or elsewhere.
We also wish to raise with you some questions about cbc.ca. That's another subject you've announced as a priority for you: the new media. This arises from CMRI's research. According to BBM--that's the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement--data, Canadians use the Internet for non-work purposes for an average of fewer than four hours a week, far less than the 26 hours they spend watching TV. Even teenagers spend twice as much time watching TV as they do surfing. Including usage at work, Comscore reports that Canadians spend five and a half hours weekly on the net.
Now, cbc.ca ranked 20th among Canadian domains in March 2006. Its monthly reach was 4.2 million users, but it had only 475,000 daily users, and they spent an average of fewer than seven minutes on cbc.ca. This represents one five-hundredth of all the Canadian web traffic. At any given moment in March 2006, cbc.ca was serving only 2,200 users, approximately the number of viewers assembled by a very small specialty TV channel.
The corporation has not been forthcoming with Canadians about the cost of cbc.ca. We estimate that cbc.ca costs at least $20 million net of revenues, and employs 5% of CBC's workforce. It's a legitimate question for parliamentarians to find out the extent of taxpayer subsidy to cbc.ca at a time when, for example, the English television network is retreating from its commitment to air Canadian programs in prime time. We urge the committee to probe management on this topic. You will be asserting Parliament's right to determine priorities for the expenditure of taxpayers' money.
As you know, CBC television's prime time schedule depends heavily on sports to the exclusion of other programming. Over the 2005-06 year--the broadcast year ends on August 31--23% of CBC television's schedule was sports. This accounted for 48%, so almost half, of the total CBC prime time audience. Most of this was for professional sports. By contrast, less than 5% of CBC TV's prime time audience watched Canadian drama series or movies of the week. Foreign dramas, on the other hand, accounted for three times the audience of indigenous drama on CBC TV.
Friends recommends that the committee insist that CBC television present Canadian programs in prime time as it did just seven years ago, when 96% of its prime time schedule was Canadian compared with just 79% today. This represents a quintupling of foreign programs in prime time on CBC television over those seven years.
We've given you a little chart in this presentation that shows what CBUT Vancouver was offering in prime time seven years ago, in a representative period, and what it is offering today.
Friends has published red charts over the past two decades to map Canadian and foreign programs offered by over-the-air broadcasters in ten Canadian cities. We wish to table with this committee today our most recent red chart. I think you should have a copy. It depicts what has been available over the air here in Vancouver during the past three weeks. CBC's Canadian offerings in prime time compare with 39% for CHUM/City; with 30% for Global Vancouver; with 18% for CTV; and with 16% each for Global Victoria and CHUM's A-Channel in Victoria.
Some of us were present seven years ago when CBC's president was invited before this committee to explain why he had decided to terminate CBC's regional supper-hour programs. I distinctly recall your colleague Mr. Scott's intervention on that occasion. This committee mobilized a huge outpouring of public sentiment then, forcing Mr. Rabinovitch to compromise with 30 minutes of regional news during the supper hour. We find it an ironic but positive development that CBC has now come to its senses and has announced plans to restore 60-minute supper-hour regional news.
The CMRI research we have tabled today may explain this turnaround. When CMRI's 2006 TV quality survey interviewed Canadians about their interest in various types of programs, 61% said they were “very interested” in local news. No other program category came close. The second most popular category was national news, at 46%. The third was international news, at 33%, followed by Hollywood movies, at 27%. CMRI's research revealed that local news on television is the top priority of the Canadian people.
[Translation]
I would like to thank you for your attention. I would also like to thank you for inviting us to take part in your hearing here, in Vancouver.
[English]
We would be pleased to make ourselves available if you would like to explore these issues with us on future occasions. We wish the committee great success in this important investigation.
My name is Bob D'Eith. I'm the executive director of Music BC. We're a non-profit society that supports and promotes the spirit, development, and growth of the B.C. music community provincially, nationally, and internationally.
I'm also a music lawyer. I've been a music lawyer for 17 years. I'm on the national advisory board for FACTOR, the Foundation to Assist Canadian Talent on Recordings. I'm also a board member of CIRPA, the Canadian Independent Record Production Association. Amongst other things, I'm also a recording artist. Hopefully I bring an interesting perspective to the table today, and I'll try to keep my comments as brief as possible so that we can get to questions.
In terms of the mandate, one of the things that we feel is very important, obviously, is to have Canadian subject matter in CBC's mandate. But we really think it's very important and it's incumbent on CBC to stress world-class production first.
Without question, it's important to have Canadian subject matter. That's what happens with CBC news. It's world-class and world-respected. It's a unique Canadian perspective on the world. We don't have the same jingoistic flavour as the U.S. has with their network news. We have one of the best newscasts in the world.
That's why we have so many great comedians. We have a unique perspective. Anything we produce is uniquely Canadian, inherently. I think it's really important for CBC if they can recognize that you don't have to produce something that gets points on the mandate.
A good example might be Little Mosque on the Prairie, which gets a lot of points on the mandate. It's ethnic, it's the Prairies, and it's regional. It gets all these things, but I think CBC has to flip a bit and think more in terms of excellent production first that is Canadian. It's more about strategic planning.
This applies to music as well. My primary focus is on the music industry, not on other sides, so I'll try to focus on that.
The mandate of CBC should be developing and promoting Canadian recording artists, composers, and live performers, whether they're in an orchestra, a rock band, a jazz band, or whatever. Whatever genre they are, the fact that they're Canadian and producing music makes the music inherently Canadian itself. On multicultural, French-language, and aboriginal music, I obviously think CBC has to play a stronger role in making sure these art forms are expressed not only to Canada but to the world, because we have an incredible mosaic of music within Canada.
The music industry is challenged right now by digital technology. Digital technology has caused a massive contraction in the music industry in terms of the industry side. Retail stores are closing down. Major labels are losing billions of dollars. Right now we're in a position in which we're looking at major layoffs and major problems in the music industry, so we're in a transition. However, what has happened on the positive side is that the major labels have lost their stranglehold on the music industry, and that has given an opportunity for the independent community to grow.
The business model itself is changing, and the Internet is really driving that right now. While the majors are only reporting 5% of legitimate download sales, in some cases the independent sector is reporting that 50% to 60% of its sales are online. Terry McBride of Nettwerk Records is now saying that maybe only 15% of a record label's revenue should be from traditional sales.
In my report, I gave a press release that just came out from one of our local promoters. The whole thing was about MySpace and YouTube. There was nothing about anything else but the impact that was being made by the Internet.
What does all this mean to CBC? We've already seen cbc.ca, galaxie.ca, and of course, Radio 3. I would really encourage CBC to continue to enhance and develop the Internet presence, to create a community within this society, because right now we are seeing Canadian music going out all over the world on the Internet, and I think CBC could play a major role in that.
The challenge, I think, in listening to CBC Radio 3 is that it jumps around from folk to rock to everything. It's very hard to do that. Then they broadcast it on satellite radio, and I think the problem is that's not the way most people experience music. They don't jump around the way CBC Radio 3 is doing in terms of its broadcasts. If they are broadcasting on satellite radio through Sirius--I'll have some comments about that--I just think it's extremely important for CBC to continue developing online communities.
As for the traditional English radio, CBC Radio One and CBC Radio Two, in my report I printed out basic programming in a given week, and there's a clear emphasis, it seems, on classical and jazz music, which we support 100%, but I really believe that contemporary music, especially popular music, tends to be relegated to midnight, four in the morning, and other shows. It doesn't seem to be as much of a priority. I don't think just having it on the Internet on Radio 3 is enough. I think Radio 3 is only broadcast on Sirius satellite radio, and we don't think this is a sufficient commitment to all genres of Canadian contemporary music.
That brings up the CBC's involvement with Sirius radio. We definitely feel there are two points here: that CBC being involved with satellite radio really undermines the basic mandate of CBC. Satellite radio plays 95% American programming. There are a few Canadian channels on satellite radio, but Canadian music becomes ghettoized, in my opinion, and what happens there is that again the U.S. influence has dominated. I think satellite radio has really gone around the CRTC Cancon regulations. Of course it's been approved, but I don't think CBC should be involved in Sirius because of that.
The second thing is that the whole industry knew that satellite radio had a limited market potential. Huge amounts of money are being thrown out the window on satellite radio, and we don't feel that Canadian taxpayers should be involved in investing in satellite radio for the CBC.
One thing I thought I'd bring up in my report as well is that there seems to be this feeling that commercial radio can take care of genres that are on commercial radio. I've given a number of examples of commercial radio, and you'll see by some of the percentages that only 6.1% of all commercial radio is independent music. In fact, with indie rock it's only 1.7%; all the rest are major labels. Most artists out there are independent, and they're growing more and more. As the majors collapse, they're all becoming independent. We're seeing sometimes 2% of commercial radio supporting our budding recording artists. I think CBC needs to fill that gap more. I think it's very important to do that.
One of the things CBC could do is dovetail with Canada Council and FACTOR. We're putting millions of dollars into the music industry, so let's support them. Let's support FACTOR, let's support Canada Council, and let's do some programs around FACTOR and Canada Council. We're putting money into developing these artists; why don't we do something with CBC? Perhaps Radio Two could be involved with that in a more committed way.
Another point we'd like to make is that we really think the BBC is a wonderful model for the CBC to look at. I think I've given some examples of what the BBC director-general, Mark Thompson, has said with regard to music and their mandate. It's really interesting to see, with BBC, because the focus of their purpose and values, the way they set it out, is quality. They want to be a world leader. The word “British” only appears once on the entire page. BBC is distinctly British, but their focus is on quality first. They want to be a world leader in production.
CBC is known for some things--incredible news services, Hockey Night in Canada, documentaries--but I don't think the world sees it on the same level as the BBC. That is the challenge for CBC. I think it can be up there with BBC, as our Canadian artists are some of the best in the world.
As for BBC's support of music, they really embrace all genres throughout all of their programming. One thing that's really interesting is the way they weave music into the fabric of their productions. They really go out of their way to make sure British music is throughout all of their productions and is promoted in such a way.
Another thing the BBC does very effectively is digital services. Their multimedia marketing is excellent. We should really look at that model.
Another point is that on CBC television there isn't one program devoted to showcasing new Canadian musical works. This needs to change. BBC has weekly television series with live music, sometimes in prime time, sometimes late at night. It's a constant throughout BBC television programming.
I have a couple more points. First, on CBC records, I've tried very hard to find in the annual report any statistics on the financial success of CBC records. My understanding is that it's not a profitable business. If there were some statistics to go against that, I'd be happy to look at them. We have a very vibrant independent recording industry, and I don't think CBC should be subsidizing Canadian music in competition with independent labels. CBC should focus more on production and recording, and let the industry deal with the commerce of music.
Finally, I'd like to address the CBC and artists' rights. I talked with the prior to this and I did not bring up copyright, but this is very important. One thing the CBC should never do is ask artists to waive their rights. A case in point is CBC Radio 3, which recently asked artists to waive their rights to receive royalties. It's our opinion that certainly with CBC this should never happen. We expect it from the commercial broadcasters, but we don't expect it from CBC.
I know there are a lot of things there. I'd like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to come here. We had only a week to prepare, but we did our best to put something together for you. If there are any questions on any of those topics, I would be very happy to answer them.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to present this morning.
I'm Lynda Brown, the president of New Media BC. I'm joined by my colleagues Adam Gooch and Phillip Djwa.
We'd like to do a couple of things today. We want to show you some of our visual media and what's happening in Canada. We want to give you an overview of how the sector is growing in this country, because it's quite critical to this discussion. Then we'd like to give you some real-life examples with a small- to mid-sized enterprise that Phillip represents, and then discuss in some detail any questions you may pose.
First I'm going to show you a DVD, and then we're going to move into the formal part of the presentation.
[DVD Presentation]
So that's, in part, how our sector is seen by the rest of the world at this point: as a leader in digital entertainment production, which is one of the subsectors in digital media.
I'm just going to switch over to our PowerPoint presentation now so we can walk through an overview of the Canadian sector.
“Digital media” is really the term we're using these days. “New media” has become a little bit redundant. So when we talk about “new media”, we're really talking about “digital media”. They've become one and the same.
Nationally, we have agreed across the country that digital media falls into five dominant subsectors, and the six that are presented there. Generally we combine mobile content, digital film and animation, e-learning, web design--or what's called interactive design--and video games to represent the digital media industry. It's predominantly seen as the use of interactive digital content for the purposes of informing, entertaining, and educating. The term “interactive” is obviously very key to this definition and to the terminology of “digital media”.
Today—very briefly, because I know we're running short—we're going to give you a quick overview, look at some of our strengths, and tell you what we're working on as a national strategy. First of all, though, because we're all from Vancouver, we wanted to give you an idea of what's happening here.
Vancouver represents Canada's largest digital media cluster, with over 1,100 companies working in the region, generating about $2.1 billion. We're home to four out of the five world-leading game publishers. We have an over-25-year history in this sector. We also have some very prominent and internationally renowned e-learning tools, such as WebCT, and a strong reputation in the e-learning sector.
We have great strength in digital film and animation. Vancouver, as you may know, is the third largest North American production centre for film and television. The digital film and animation sector that we represent has definitely benefited from that. Now, with the merger of Rainmaker and Mainframe, we have the largest digital effects and animation studio in Canada, a world-recognized studio. We're launching a graduate program--the first of its kind, a master's degree in digital media--that will start in September of this year. We also have electronic arts largest studio in the world. It has 2,000 employees currently and is growing quickly.
We've been recognized internationally as a hub, a hot spot of digital media, right here in Vancouver. A very popular business magazine called Fast Company looked at the bohemian index to find clusters to watch. Vancouver, along with Montreal, was noted as being very prominent.
If we look at Canada overall, we have some very particular strengths. I think the first video showed you that we have huge and internationally highly recognized strengths in digital entertainment, but that's not all we're doing. We also are known for strength in new IP--or intellectual property--and original content production, and that's becoming increasingly key in this multi-billion-dollar market.
There is the emerging mobile factor. There is a growing market for the information and entertainment that you use on your BlackBerry and on your mobile phone. Canada is seen as leading some initiatives in this area.
If we look across Canada, we've got approximately 3,200 companies working in this sector, from coast to coast. We just completed a study called the Canadian Interactive Industry Profile, which goes into detail on this industry. I'd be happy to provide that after this presentation.
By and large, the industry across Canada is generating a significant amount of revenue, but I think it's important to note that the majority of our companies are still small to mid-sized enterprises, staffed at the under-20 or under-30 employees mark.
We have approximately 52,000 people working across Canada in this sector. Our friends in Montreal are also well recognized as a leading visual entertainment centre. And Toronto, of course, with its strength in film and television, has become the hot spot for convergent activities.
We're also seeing some very nice incubation programs out of Alberta and Manitoba, such as the Fortune Cat Games Studio, which is an investment program in original IT for game developers. That has been very successful and has been looked at internationally as a viable model.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you about the CBC mandate.
My company, Agentic Communications, is a web development company. It's very representative of the majority of companies across Canada, as far as the interactive profile has revealed. We're a small business employing fewer than 20 employees, but we are still generating a significant economic impact across Canada.
As we know, the CBC needs to offer Canadian programming to all citizens. To remain relevant to Canadians, the CBC should be reaching out to address Canadians where they are. And that often is through different platforms, as we've seen. As the CBC's Robert Rabinovitch reported in his October 27, 2005, statement to this committee, CBC must be a leader in developing “specialized content for new platforms, like podcasting, satellite radio, and the Internet”. To some degree, this is actually occurring. CBC Radio 3, Bande à Part, the sadly defunct Zed television program, and the powerhouse that is cbc.ca have all provided additional value to Canadians online.
However, this is not the only opportunity that CBC has to offer Canadians. Many of the web initiatives on CBC are directed to supporting broadcast on radio and television. A project such as the CBC website Censor This!, which was an online initiative investigating issues of censorship that supported over 17 radio programs over a week in March 2007, is an excellent example of how an online initiative can support a larger vision of programming. None of the programs themselves could have supported the large-scale vision of censorship.
The CBC citizenship website is another example of unique Canadian content that's been created specifically for the web. CBC Aboriginal, which is another website property that CBC has launched recently, provides another example of how the CBC, in an online environment, can reach out to new audiences.
There is excellent online content being created at CBC North. As you may have seen in your trip recently, it has generated content specifically for the web on Canadian issues of interest to all Canadians, as has the new media pod in Halifax.
However, this is not enough. I think a key issue is that there's a lack of original Canadian content directed and developed specifically for the web. CBC has indicated to our industry, through informal conversations, that they would be willing to support further commissioning of original and unique Canadian content for the web if there were a revenue model for it.
I think, members of the committee, that there is a way, and that is to develop potentially an Internet broadcast licence. While this is probably a larger issue than this committee can address, I think there needs to be a coordinated effort to potentially complete the following.
First, amend the Broadcasting Act to include digital media as well as radio and television in the CBC mandate to encourage that unique digital media development. This would be different from the original proposal released last year in regard to supporting digital media as an adjunct or supportive role in radio and television. I think it's really clear to see, as we've seen in the presentation that Lynda provided to the committee, that there is significant activity in this sector that can really be addressed online and only online. There are enough content providers across Canada that can actually pull this off.
Second, encourage the development and distribution of an Internet broadcast licence that would be targeted to creating original Canadian content for the web. This could be achieved in a number of different ways, and we could talk about that as we get to some questions.
Last, encourage the private industry telecommunications providers to develop and sustain a fund to provide grants--not recoupable advances--to Canadian Internet content providers to create original Canadian programming online.
That concludes my brief presentation to the committee. Again, I'm very happy to be here to explain, or to talk, and to take any questions on those issues.
Thank you.
I'm really pleased about the digital presentation, because I think this is key to where we need to go if we're going to distribute Canadian content that will be respected around the world. So I'm pleased to see you bringing this forward and some ideas on how we need to make this so--for instance, amending the act, etc.
I think Bob touched on something that is very important. Most of us sit here and talk about the CBC, and we continue to talk about CBC radio and CBC television, but those are not the only media anymore. If the world is going to see CBC and listen to CBC, we can no longer limit ourselves to just getting a million people watching Little Mosque on the Prairie. We have to look at how we are seen around the world as an international entity. To do that we have to talk about this new digital media.
You haven't mentioned something that Bob mentioned. Music is key, but I think Bob mentioned the idea of a copyright act. The U.S. has strong copyright legislation and we don't. If we're going to start getting into digitalization, we need to talk about how we can protect the creator and find a balance between protecting the creator and at the same time distributing broadly and widely.
I just want to ask Bob a question about the Copyright Act, and if you have a comment on it. I think it's key. How do we do it? We should have done it 100 years ago--well, I'm just kidding, but we should have done it yesterday. Talking about doing it tomorrow, I gather that digital media is changing every day as we speak. We're running to catch up. So I think this is a very key part of how the CBC can sustain itself.
Everyone talks about funding. You talked about a new way of funding, and I remember that the 1996 Canadian broadcasting report on the CBC talked about it. People said earlier that we should no longer do commercials--the BBC doesn't do commercials--because having to get commercial advertising means we have to do the great dumbing down. We have to be popular and go into some sort of competition, with the dumbing down of the media we get from around the world--some of these really ridiculous programs we see.
If we're going to have programming integrity and deal with quality, as Bob said, so people around the world can eventually look to the CBC as a place where you can have quality, everyone will want to watch the CBC. It's not only about Canadians telling stories to each other, but Canadians seeing the world from a Canadian perspective and presenting the world to others from our perspective. That is a huge piece of what we have to do.
So I would like to hear Bob talk a little bit about how we could deal with funding the CBC without having to go to advertising. There have been many suggestions. One of them in 1996 was to have a communication distribution tax levy, which the BBC does. The BBC is funded through a levy. Each person in the United Kingdom pays a tax to allow the BBC to exist. The BBC is then responsible directly to Parliament, and it reports every year to Parliament on how it is fulfilling its mandate.
I would like to hear someone discuss how we could do this with the CBC and create a body that is responsible to Parliament. Parliament would decide who was going to be the head of the CBC and who was going to run it. They would need to have the ability to do so and not just be some bureaucrat whose name is put forward, but somebody with an understanding of broadcasting, all digital media, etc.
How you see that happening? Do you think it's a good idea to create the CBC as a body that's directly responsible to Parliament, reports once a year, does away with advertising, and gets a tax levy from Canadians to fund it? It's a big question. Every time you talk about a tax levy everyone says, “Oh my gosh, no more tax.” But if we want to create something that can stand on its own and be like that great body, the BBC, then we need to be able to talk about the CBC and its future, and not just how to keep it running along on its old track that it's been running along on for so long.
I'm going to open it up for you guys to just throw in what you have.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
I will be making my presentation in French.
Thank you for this invitation and for the opportunity to share our thoughts on the role of public broadcasters in the 21st century.
As you know, the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique is the advocate for the francophone community in BC. Our role is to promote, represent and defend the interests of francophones as well as protect our community's linguistic and cultural heritage.
Our federation includes 37 members, organizations like the Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver. The centre's representative will be addressing the issue of Radio-Canada's cultural expression mandate. We, for our part, will focus on the way in which it reflects the francophone communities' reality in BC.
There are 64,000 francophone community members in BC. We now have new statistics and by next December, we'll know the actual number of francophones, those that qualify as francophones and those that are francophiles. For the time being, we know that the 2006 figures show our community is growing.
It is also important to add that there are many bilingual people in British Columbia, which broadens the francophone environment in the province. There are over 270,000 who can communicate in French, representing 7 % of the population in BC. That amount is not negligible, especially given the fact that these 270,000 people make up Radio-Canada's listenership.
These days, all broadcasters are in a state of flux. That is what we heard this morning: there is this pressure of new technology being brought to bear on them, forcing them to make technological changes and other more fundamental changes.
Consumers like ourselves are left with no other option but to comply or to change our listening habits. Clearly, the questions you are asking us are of great importance for the entire Canadian public, but they are also of specific concern to francophone-minority communities.
French-language options we have are very limited. The decisions made by broadcasters serving us therefore have an even more direct effect on us. Official language communities depend almost exclusively on Radio-Canada and on the way in which the Crown corporation carries out its mandate.
Our communities need their national broadcaster, perhaps even more so than the majority would. Radio-Canada gives us a chance to hear our own voices. It is the medium which allows us to know ourselves and to be known.
When it comes to providing services, I would like to start by answering this seemingly self-evident question. Radio-Canada radio and television must be available everywhere in Canada even in remote regions. By definition, a national broadcaster does not simply justify its existence based on ratings, and its presence throughout the country is a societal decision. Canada is not the only country to have put forward this basic premise. Moreover, I would add that the people who came here this morning told you the same thing.
The same goes for RDI. Access to this channel ought not to be a costly option for viewers which would be offered by cable distributors who don't see the point in it.
CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate is national, and the Crown corporation must make sure it covers all of the Canadian territory, even where our geography makes its broadcasting somewhat costly at times.
Let's now move to the issue of content. To carry out its mandate and to show the government that it is meeting its responsibilities, the Crown corporation is constantly making adjustments to its website, its program schedules, its broadcasting times, its content and the length of its shows, focusing on the importance of partnerships it is developing with its English-language counterpart and on the structure of its administrative or human resources sections. Everything is in constant flux.
It appears to us that federal budgets are too often the engine behind these frequent upheavals. When the federal budget made deep cuts in 1995, production was centralized in Montreal. Regional productions are increasingly rare, thus reducing regional representation.
In reality, communities like ours, which receive the service, receive very little advance notice and are not consulted. Decision makers simply organize an annual tour to inform the community of upcoming changes. But our community turns to Radio-Canada not only for news, entertainment and general culture, but we also consider it as a transmission, growth and development tool.
The Crown Corporation is one of the pillars of Canada's official language policy. It is the instrument which should allow francophones in nine provinces and three territories to speak with Quebeckers and create a greater degree of solidarity within the Canadian francophonie.
That is why the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique created a media committee in 2002. The committee's mandate was to consult francophones and francophiles in British Columbia to find out what their opinions, perceptions and needs were regarding broadcasting. We also wanted to basically assess how the community was reflected within a larger context.
In 2002, as in 2007, most of the criticism we received was directed at the content of our programs. For instance, francophones don't feel the regional news really addresses their daily lives or concerns. The newscast out of Vancouver swings, with few exceptions, between two very different poles, namely a French version of the CBC newscast with basically the same issues being covered. French regional news looks like a translation of the English news, or sometimes like a diluted version of the national newscast out of Quebec, with too much information about Quebeckers and very little or non at all from other francophone communities.
People have said that the national broadcaster has become “montrealized”. Our communities are not reflected in the programs they watch. They don't relate to the issues because they don't see how national or provincial events affect them, either socially or politically. Things which affect our community are not reported often enough or even identified.
Radio-Canada seemed to have partly understood this when it created shows such as L'Ouest en direct, which allowed us in British Columbia to know when and where to watch TV to find out what was happening in the western francophonie, and not only what was happening in Quebec. Unfortunately, the broadcaster decided to cancel this reliable show. So the program is gone, and our regional news is drowned out by national news. However, some people like this, and the new model lives on. For instance, Ontario does not receive the same regional news as the Outaouais or Ottawa.
I would like to continue this digression with the theme of regionalization. Our communities are never as well served as when they hear their own artists or experts, or local folks speaking about local, national or even international events.
That is why radio programs, especially the three program schedules which are currently broadcast live from Vancouver, are the strands which help weave together our francophone community in British Columbia. These programs allow their hosts to talk about local events or to give a local perspective on national or international events. The programs address issues affecting our community, our school and our community centres. They report on news events which reflect our concerns, and they provide analysis about our reality and its richness. Lastly, they meet the particular needs of our region.
It is obvious that this local programing requires financial resources for every region, for every province or territory that can at times seem excessive.
I come back to our initial assertion, namely that the national broadcaster cannot only be a slave to its ratings. People cannot continue, in the offices of Radio-Canada in Montreal, to repeat that a disproportionate percentage of the Crown corporation's audience lives in Quebec and that therefore we must be realistic. The Crown corporation must reflect the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities as the Broadcasting Act tells us.
I would like to make a few recommendations. It seems to us that the CBC/Radio-Canada should develop an accountability framework in cooperation with the CRTC that would allow for the definition of both qualitative and quantitative objectives in a better reflection of the regions, whether it concerns the content, the newscasts, drama or variety shows. The appropriations allocated to Radio-Canada by the federal government could be subject to rigorous accountability on the part of the Crown corporation, which would involve the implementation of measures and of producing a better reflection of the regions and of the French linguistic minorities.
In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about technological changes. CBC and Radio-Canada have created an exceptional broadcasting tool for themselves that continues to contribute to the enrichment of the programing and to the broadening of news broadcasting; I am referring here to their website.
On these sites we have unlimited access to what is broadcasted and researched across the country and beyond our borders. It is no longer possible to say that what is said and what happens in Newfoundland is never heard on the West Coast. All one has to do is go find that information.
This tool is of course not used by the entire population for all kinds of reasons, but public broadcasters were quick to see what the benefits would be to the general public, and the investments they make in this would certainly be money well spent, and it contributes to supporting the public broadcaster's mandate.
I thank you for having listened to me and I am ready for your questions, if any.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
:
Is there technical support available? I have a PowerPoint presentation, and I just need it hooked up so I don't have to worry about it.
[Translation]
I would like to welcome all of our visitors.
I am pleased to welcome you in French. Welcome to the fresh Pacific air and welcome to the counter media from homeland of adbusters.org and Greenpeace. Welcome to the Media Carta, the charter of the media, of adbusters.org. Welcome to Tyee.ca, which is the last media to stand up to CanWest, in English. Welcome from the last resisting Gaul who is operating the only new independent media in the entire Canadian West.
[English]
Welcome, fellow citizens, francophiles.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee, I would first of all like to thank you for your willingness to listen to my comments amongst the three other representatives of the organized francophonie.
I prepared an eight-page brief of which you probably have a copy. I will give you an overview of it in the following PowerPoint presentation.
As a new media that is somewhat of a “go-getter”, I will carefully present my credentials. At the outset of the presentation, I will do a preliminary analysis of the media situation: setting the context in a minority situation. The next four components will deal with the main themes of the study, mainly the public mandate of the CBC/SRC, the fiscal situation, the services offered and the emergence of new media.
Let us move now to my credentials. I am a citizen, a professional and a member of this community in western Canada for the last 27 years. I am very much a cross-breed and I married outside my culture. My two children are francophiles. My wife is an anglophone, originally from the West Island of Montreal. I am a tech worker. I work in telecommunications in the private sector, on electronic issues for small and medium-size businesses. I have never worked in French. My training is in engineering and in requirements analysis.
I consider myself to be both a digital migrant and a digital native. I live with two children who are now grown up who truly are digital natives. I would point out to the committee that I do not believe there is a single digital native in this room. That is quite worrisome.
I consider myself to be a digital migrant through my profession. I was of course born with a mechano set in my possession and not with a personal computer, as is the case with the generation of digital natives.
I am a big fan of public radio. I reconnected with my French some years ago. I thank Radio-Canada for having allowed me to keep my French after 27 years.
There is a proverb that saysSpare the rod and spoil the child. Also, I am a fierce critic of the new media, in terms of the services offered here, and this has been the case for several years, as the decision was taken not to regulate in this area. I said that I reconnected with French: I can therefore say that I am an activist. The alternative is to be assimilated. That is what Statistics Canada will reveal next December when they publish their statistics on francophones.
I have been running Le Canada Réincarné for three years now. It attracts between 30 and 40 visitors a day. I have a Google ranking that compares with that of Radio-Canada in the region, that is to say a six. That is comparable to a Tyee, to our friends at the CRTC and to the Association de la presse francophone. My new media is largely a blog. It participates in a forum, and an aggregation of web feeds RSS. I have dabbled in Internet radio and podcasts. I offer a community calendar, polls, manifestos and campaigns.
As you can see, I like to stir things up. I write articles. For example, the brief has now been available for comment for several weeks. I am not operating in a vacuum. I have the support of Impératif français, a Quebec non-governmental organization that is dedicated to the defence of the French language. I'm associated with the Réseau des médias alternatifs du Québec, the RMA. I am also associated with the Express du Pacifique which recognizes the contribution of blogs: how we can now re-engage francophones. I am quite active on the Net, compared to other media, which gives me a Google ranking of six.
The next component deals with preliminary analysis. I believe that several of you have already seen the brief and that several have seen the PowerPoint presentation.
I will not be telling you anything new, after two hours of presentations this morning, in saying that our world is fundamentally a multimedia one. I will probably not be telling you anything new either in saying that there's a greater and greater number of digital migrants and digital natives.
Perhaps I will be teaching something new to those who are listening less attentively this morning as far as Web 2.0 is concerned. I will sum it up as an active and selective commitment to the media. Perhaps I could inform you that we are very far behind as compared to the majority, be they anglophone or francophone, whether we are talking about Quebec or France.
I could count on my fingers the number of francophones who are active on the Web in the entire Canadian West. I can count on my finger tips the number of letters from western readers that are on the pages of our papers. I can tell you that there is absolutely no hot-line in all of the Canadian West to take the pulse of our community. I consider these to be significant delays by comparison with the majority.
I would say now that in a minority context, there are really two groups. There is one group that I think of as the organized francophonie, that lives somewhat in a bubble, in a certain way, and is not assimilated. There is the other group of young people, entrepreneurs, professionals and high-tech workers, who are being assimilated at a worrisome rate. And I believe that the public broadcaster has played a part in the assimilation of francophones from the first group that I described, that is the young professional entrepreneurs and workers from the high-tech sector.
Radio-Canada's dominant position has always been that the Crown corporation has maintained a linguistic connection, but I believe that as far as digital migrants and digital natives are concerned, the linguistic connection has not been maintained. Therefore, if there is a message I would like you to take back to Ottawa, it is that our public broadcaster has to bear some of the responsibility for the assimilation of francophones and the Canadian West.
Let us now talk about the public mandate. I would remind you that the regulatory body, the CRTC, chose some years ago not to regulate new media. I believe it is because they in no way recognize that a minority linguistic situation exists. I am not talking about the regions, I'm not talking about the north shore or the Gaspé; I'm talking about a minority context in which Radio-Canada is our only linguistic and cultural connection.
The CRTC also did not recognize that Web 2.0 really is a means of cultural expression. The new generation of digital natives and even the digital migrants will express themselves in this way.
In the mandate, there is a reference to making services available throughout Canada by the most appropriate means. This of course is decided by Montreal and Ottawa. There really must be some recognition, some new way of proceeding, once it is recognized that a minority context is threatened.
We have a dysfunctional governance structure whereby the people making the decisions largely live in a majority context and understand very little about what happens in a minority context, and undeniably, what happens in the Canadian West.
There is talk of a public mandate that would be strengthened through partnerships with private broadcasters. I would like to tell you that there must first of all be a recognition of a citizen space, a non-governmental organization space perhaps, before talking about the private broadcaster. Before having private broadcasters, there has to be a market.
The second lesson: you cannot put the cart before the horse in a minority situation.
In truth, there is no financial portrait. Perhaps there might have been one had there been regulation a few years ago, in terms of new media and if we had created a market, if we had managed to create a citizen media. We did not do so.
As far as we are concerned, at this point in time, new content is really required in order to interest francophones in a minority situation, that is the digital migrants and, in particular, the digital natives.
I will remind you of the environment now. We know that people see themselves on sites like Wikipedia, Meetup, MySpace and PaceBook. This is becoming somewhat commercial, but there are presently very few spaces where people can meet using these new methods which, of course, will bring about physical encounters. We do not live only in the virtual world.
I will make one comment on the financial portrait. I would like to talk about Web traffic. Web traffic is fundamental. We cannot talk about a financial market if our public broadcaster does not share their Web traffic with us. They do not share their ratings with us very much either. Web traffic, for an entrepreneur, is fundamental. In my small business, I took my Web traffic into account. I think that this should be recognized by our regulatory agency. If we play catch-up to compensate for the fact that there was no regulation earlier on, there may perhaps be a financial portrait.
Regarding the services offered, I will not be telling you anything new by saying that the media that is most often used is accessible in virtual time with a menu of subjects, and a community of interest that is dispersed. Time is a limited resource, in Vancouver as well as in Montreal or in Ottawa. We do not watch the news over a family dinner, if we are able. People who are in their cars, who are mobile, will always have a need of what we call hot media, and that will very likely be traditional radio. Those media will stay.
I may be teaching you something new in telling you that audience commitment to media must be encouraged, to the public broadcaster. With the new media model, the presenter becomes a kind of blogger who puts information into context and seeks commentary from the audience. That truly is a Web 2.0 situation, where interaction is created. The most fundamental change is that the audience determines the programming and the content. That is a good way to appropriately reflect regional diversity.
The fourth lesson: with the new media, it is the audience that leads, even in the minority situation, if we can obtain their commitment.
As far as the emergence of new media is concerned, the problem is not really emergence, but urgency. The regulatory agency is always slow to react to changes in the market. There was no regulation. We must catch up and do so now, we must talk about urgency, transparency and the obligation to base its services on Web 2.0 structure, rather than an extended bureaucracy that is out of touch or a regulatory framework. We must realize that the world is now in a Web 2.0 framework.
The paradigm shift is enormous and the process is slow for organizations like the CRTC. This has brought about the creation of broadcasters, in Quebec, like RadioPirate and XFM. The paradigm shift is also enormous for the public broadcasters and the interest groups. In the past, in terms of the rhythm of the Internet, one year was an eternity. Now, one year is a millennium. We are talking in terms of months today, and the regulatory body is carrying out studies that take an eternity.
The paradigm shift in terms of citizen media and programming is also enormous. Citizens have always been accustomed to listening to what their public broadcaster told them.
On that note, you may believe that there is a great temptation in the Neo-Conservative and Neo-Liberal program to do some clear cutting, to cut everything. The deregulation of new media, where there were never any regulations, has not worked. At this point in time, we must update our linguistic and cultural connection.
In conclusion, even if our public broadcaster is our main lifeline, the majority will have to stop treating us like leopards by continually sending missionaries to our media. Majority must ensure that the public broadcaster recognizes the citizen space, their new media and the potential for renewal for francophones living in a minority situation.
I thank you for having listened to me.
:
Good afternoon. Everyone is hungry and therefore you'll be pleased to hear that my presentation will be brief.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today. It is a great pleasure for me to speak on behalf of the Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver about the role for a public broadcaster in the XXIst century.
Allow me to begin by briefly describing the organization I represent, the artistic community in British Columbia, and the proportion of francophones and francophiles of metropolitan Vancouver.
Since 1975, the Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver has been programming annual French language cultural activities. These include activities such as the Coup de coeur francophone series, the Nouvelle Scène concerts, an art gallery, library and video library services, educational services and programs, children's day camps, integration and reception services for new arrivals, a community Internet access site, and the list goes on. The Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver therefore provides professionally crafted cultural activities and shows. We give the people of Vancouver access to francophone linguistic or cultural artistic products in the areas of visual arts, media arts and the performing arts.
At 24,100 artists, British Columbia is the province of the highest percentage of its population involved in artistic professions—1.1%. Artists make up 0.08% of the total active population in Canada. Out of all the major Canadian cities, Vancouver has the highest concentration of artists. Seven thousand two hundred and fifty artists live in Vancouver, that is 30% of British Columbia artists.
In the Vancouver region, francophones represent 2% of the population. That population is increasing. The francophone population in metropolitan Vancouver went from 27,245 people in 1996 to 29,795 people in 2001, that is an increase of 10%. That represents 50% of the francophone population in British Columbia. Furthermore, there were 133,525 individuals speaking French in metropolitan Vancouver in 1996, and 147,775 in 2001, that is an increase of 10.5%. That is equivalent to the size of the population in cities such as Abbottsford in British Columbia, Kingston in Ontario or Trois-Rivières in Quebec. The metropolitan Vancouver region therefore contains a sizable poll of francophones and francophiles searching for a cultural life that takes place in French.
For more than 30 years the Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver has been ensuring French language arts and culture broadcasting in its municipality. We are dedicated to the development and vitality of a francophone cultural space in Vancouver. Our initiatives frequently involve close collaboration with CBC/Radio-Canada. We think it is important to share with you our thoughts on how CBC/Radio-Canada fulfills the responsibilities under its legislative mandate, but also on our own involvement.
First, we are of the opinion that CBC/Radio-Canada is principally and typically Canadian by both the proportion of its programs with Canadian content and its ability to provide programing that reflects the interests and values of Canadians.We believe that Radio-Canada reflects Canada inclusively and we must acknowledge that it takes the country regional diversity into account, at both the national and regional level. We acknowledge that it attempts to meet specific regional needs. Including television and radio programs that cover the western regions provides us with an opportunity to appreciate regional diversity. On the other hand, providing greater coverage of the country can make it difficult to ensure listener loyalty and to achieve that critical level of local visibility that is necessary for insuring that local viewers relate to those programs.
I will come back to that aspect of Radio-Canada's mandate during my presentation when I talk about the relevant of regional programing.
We all agree that Radio-Canada actively contributes to cultural expression and exchanges in various ways. There are local programs such as Zigzag, which covers artistic activities in the four western provinces; Ceci est un TEST, which gives a platform to young musicians; ONVIVA, in which youth from western schools talk to us about their culture; the MUZIKLIPS competition, which gives a new artist an opportunity to record a sound tape and to produce a first videoclip; and the Arts et spectacles clips in the Téléjournal/Colombie-Britannique, which provide the Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver with an amount of visibility, which is never enough for a producer, but which is satisfactory.
Radio-Canada provides services in French and in English and we acknowledge that it attempts through these services to reflect the specific situations and needs of both official language communities. One of the immediate consequences of the draconian reduction in its budget in the mid-1990s was its inability to meet the specific needs of the minority francophone communities. Centralizing operations in large urban centres often involves budget cuts that affect its ability to provide adequate coverage to these communities.
We are of the opinion that Radio-Canada holds the same quality standards for its services in French and in English. Radio-Canada contributes to a shared-collective conscience through its historical programs as well as its news coverage in all its shapes. Providing visibility to individuals who embody our hopes, and to events that foster community relations and solidarity can only serve to inspire and stimulate our feeling of national identity.
In order to ensure the survival of minority communities Radio-Canada must maintain its services throughout Canada. That would be difficult if those services were no longer included in its basic services. Through the diversity of its programming, the active involvement of diversified cultural communities in its programming from its design to its broadcasting, Radio-Canada reflects the multicultural and multinational nature of Canada.
In conclusion, I would like to point out to committee members that it should no longer be necessary to prove that regional programming is relevant. It is obvious that ensuring Radio-Canada's active regional presence as well as significant visibility to those individuals contributing to the vitality of these communities can only foster their development.
Thank you.
:
We would both like to answer that question, Ms. Savoie. I'll respond first and then I'll ask Ms. Sotteau to talk about the quantitative and qualitative side of things.
Now, section 41 of the Official Languages Act sets out the terms of reference. Section 41 is a little more substantial than it was before the new legislation came into effect. Section 41 states that departments and agencies, such as CBC/Radio-Canada, must contribute to enhancing the vitality of francophone communities, not only within Quebec, but also in francophone communities outside Quebec, as you pointed out.
We've seen the effects caused by attrition since the 1990s. So, we would like to see a change. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, which you've perhaps heard from or will be hearing from shortly, advocated the development of an accountability framework. We agree entirely with the federation on this point. Such a framework may improve the situation or enable us to make choices which better reflect the community here, where we live, and help others, including Quebeckers, get to know us better.
You gave the example, Ms. Savoie, of news broadcasts about the Mont-Orford Park. Something very important happened in Vancouver last fall, it had to do with water. Based on the most recent statistics, there are three major cities in Canada: Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. On our television news they talked about the water problems we were experiencing. I would hardly be exaggerating when I say that the news reached French speakers just a tad later, and appeared as just a regular news item.
Now, that's not an editorial comment, but I do know what Canadians want when they "channel surf", as digital migrants, to use Mr. Beaulieu's expression looking for as much news as possible, which is what most viewers do. As francophones, we certainly have Radio-Canada. And I think that the accountability framework may be helpful in this regard.
I'm sorry, I thought I had introduced Ms. Sotteau earlier. She works with us at the federation and she may be able to say a little more about quality.