HERI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

·

1340

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.))

·

1345

The Chair

Mr. Paul Rigg (President, Digital Bliss Inc.)

·

1350

The Chair

·

1355

Mr. Jean Léger (Director General, Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse)

¸

1400

¸

1405

The Chair

Mr. Jean Léger

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jean Léger

The Chair

Mr. Jean Léger

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Jean Léger

¸

1410

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Chris Zimmer

The Chair

Mr. Paul Rigg

¸

1415

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Paul Rigg

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

Mr. Paul Rigg

The Chair

Mr. Paul Rigg

¸

1420

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Jean Léger

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

¸

1425

Mr. Jean Léger

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Jean Léger

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Jean Léger

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Jean Léger

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.)

Mr. Chris Zimmer

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Chris Zimmer

¸

1430

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Jean Léger

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.)

Mr. Jean Léger

¸

1435

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Mr. Jean Léger

Mr. Chris Zimmer

¸

1440

Ms. Wendy Lill

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Jean Léger

¸

1445

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

---

NUMBER 057

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

·  (1340)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which is meeting in Halifax today to continue its study on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system.

    First I would like to apologize profusely to the witnesses for causing you all this inconvenience. With these things, it's almost inevitable. We have many people to hear, and unfortunately we finished after one o'clock. I'm terribly sorry.

    Without further ado, I would like to turn the meeting over to imX communications, Mr. Chris Zimmer.

    Mr. Chris Zimmer (President, imX communications Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

    I'm a film and television producer here in Halifax. We've had our company going for some 16 years, and have been working with broadcasters and the Canadian funding system very happily throughout that time.

    I was at first pleased and then puzzled when asked to present some thoughts on the state of the Canadian broadcast system to you. I principally do feature films, but I also do some television and have been active on the CFTPA. Now I'm pleased to be able to express some private observations, comments, and opinions, in the hope they'll find consideration and merit in your eyes.

    I was puzzled whether it would be better to keep my mouth closed and encourage only the status quo, or open it and hope that what emerged was coherent and constructive, and provoked thoughts on both the present and future of Canadian broadcasting in our country.

    In terms of focus here, I was only going to spend a little time on the means or technologies of how we pass the message from the creators to the audience. I think there are a lot more qualified people who would be able to comment on a lot of the politics. It's not that it's not important to your consideration, but given the short time available, I'll choose to focus my remarks on what I know best, and that's the creation of the content of what gets presented. I'll be happy to answer any specific questions on my ideas about the system and the business aspects afterwards.

    Content is that body of ideas, stories, commentaries, and information that informs the people of Canada about who we are, and the rest of the world about Canada's people, and indeed creates an image of Canada as a country.

    I like to think of television and its gawky family of offspring--the Internet, interactive television, and video devices--as they are now known or are going to be imagined, as the well in the centre of a town around which the villagers gather to exchange gossip, stories, and news, while drawing the water for their families' daily needs.

    It's not a particularly vivid and imaginative metaphor, but it's apt for broadcast technologies, and only partly applicable to theatre, literature, and music. This activity--the exchange of ideas on an informal or popular cultural basis--is essential to a culture and culture. What actually gets exchanged is only what interests the people themselves. It is very diverse and constantly changing, yet over time certain ideas, stories, myths, and patterns of thought become enshrined and retained for the society.

    I think that you, as representatives of the government and of Canadian people, have the job of seeing that the well and the square surrounding it are a clean, healthy, and attractive place for this to happen. What you've said is only a reflection of what is happening in the greater society. Attempting to control or to direct ideas, whispers, stories, or news will only cause a society to find other places and other ways to exchange the daily information they need.

    Television is clearly an immediate media. It's something where people want to see what's happening now. It's not a media particularly well adapted to literature or, sometimes I think, even deep thought.

    Clearly, I do not think there can be any system of regulation devised that will be able to really control the content of what gets presented to Canadians over time. What needs to happen is for everyone to have a chance to present their stories. Whether anyone listens will depend on the power of the writers, the producers, the actors, and the Canadian content creators.

    We can encourage Canadians to develop the skills and the means to stand out. Programs and policies that do this can and will work. We have many successful examples of this in Canada. Programs that seek to define or to direct the actual content will fail. Audiences have a keen sense of what is true, what comes from the heart of the teller, and what a message is. If you want to get a message across, take out an ad. The broadcasters, the publishers, and the finance people will love you for it, but don't try to use the system for broadcasting direct content to deliver a specific message.

    For the past 16 years I've been involved in various international film and television projects, and I've seen many attempts to regulate content. I feel the most successful ones are those where the films' creators were encouraged, assisted, or--dare I use the term--subsidized, where the idea, not the content, was left to the filmmakers' imaginations.

    Empower Canadian content creators and you will see Canadian content. Create a set of rules and all you'll see is clever lawyers finding a way to circumvent them. I think that's what we're facing in Canada right now.

    With regard to one of the other subjects you wanted to talk about, diversity, I think we have a wonderful country made up of many places, many people of different backgrounds and traditions, and a rich variety of ideas. Although unruly at times, it is this diversity that will be our strength and the future of Canada in a global culture.

    To me this seems simple and indeed something we would call common sense if we were not so unsure and insecure about the fact that a simple idea can be the best. Monoculture and genetic engineering do not work, neither for what we eat nor for what we think and see. We may be able to devise the perfect apple--it's pretty to look at, ships well, stores forever, and is more profitable than all the other varieties--but it's always less satisfying than the original. I think we all have seen this.

    If there were a disease that wiped out the orchards some day, then we would be without apples altogether. This is true for fish, for wheat, for potatoes, and for television and new media. Specialization is fine as long as you have an infinite variety of specialists, and losing any one will not affect the whole.

    In summary, rather than go on too much further, I have a few recommendations. One is to simplify the regulatory framework in which we work. Right now it is one of the most complex and arcane systems in the world. It's a system of negotiations, deals, and special considerations. Get Canadian content out of the control of the political and social engineers and back into the hands of the storytellers in Canada. Make it simple.

    Invest in Canadian content creators, and let them define content. Trying to do it any other way is just not going to work, because once you define content, it won't be true for next year.

    Redefine the marketplace of ideas. This is important in your discussions on the broadcasting world and how it might change. Putting the control of ideas into the hands of a few corporations will only lead to abuse of this privilege. This is true for both the public and the private sectors.

     Finally, empower a diversity of ideas, linguistic, cultural, and territorial. I'm avoiding the R-word, “regional”, because I believe that ends up putting a structure on Canada, but I think it has to empower a diversity of ideas right across the country, east and west, north and south. Do this through access to international content--don't be afraid of outside ideas--support of Canadian content creators, regardless of where they live or, the scary part, what they want to say.

    The Canadian government's role here has to be standing on guard for the future of all Canadians. It's not just about money or the corporate bottom line, or indeed about present political conceptions of who we are, but about keeping the area around the well clean and accessible to all, ensuring that the water in the well is clear so people continue to come there, and maintaining an open society where ideas and stories can define who we are.

    Thank you.

·  (1345)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmer. Coming from somebody like you, with so much experience and an impressive catalogue of achievements, it's appreciated.

    Mr. Rigg, what a wonderful title your firm has: Digital Bliss. So give us the digital bliss, Mr. Rigg.

    Mr. Paul Rigg (President, Digital Bliss Inc.): Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here this afternoon.

    Really, just a very clean point for me is technology and content, and relevance to Canadian broadcasting. So this title is keeping it relevant in the age of 16 by 9 and high-definition.

    As president of Digital Bliss Inc., as a private business owner, I have to make decisions and spend money based on policy in place, and it affects how I make decisions on equipment I procure for clients such as Chris and capabilities going forward.

    So these are some points. I'm just going to go through these, and we can talk after that.

    Technology is the tool, not the master. That's the main point. But we look at 16-by-9 technology, and it's really a new canvas. In my opinion, in the Canadian system, we really have to take hold of that and move forward. We see rapid development and a lot of changes happening internationally. I'm concerned that Canada is falling behind in this area at this time.

    When we look at policy for implementation of HD and 16 by 9, for example, 30 months ago I was in Toronto and a friend of mine from Virginia called me and described a situation where he had a choice of 15 high-definition and wide-screen sets somewhere in Virginia, at Circuit City. I took him up on the offer and I went down to Bay Street and went into a Toronto location, a very substantial technology outfit, and they had one set there, and in questioning him on that, he said there was no demand for the product at that time.

    It's now two and a half years later, and virtually anywhere today, you can walk in and find a vast array of wide-screen and high-definition products. If you do due diligence, as I do, you question the commercial market about what people are asking for. What's really driving this at the moment is client demand for a set that's going to be wide screen and more than standard definition. So we see that consumer education is now starting to develop and is actually pushing forward.

    We also see a situation now where the main manufacturers internationally are phasing out four-by-three television, so every year you're going to see fewer and fewer models. We're in a situation where, I predict, two years from now it will be high-definition and wide-screen products.

    We're looking at consumer acceptance. There was a point where someone said the home viewer will never know the difference. That's not true at all. What's really happening is the resolution of a DVD played in a DVD player onto a 16-by-9 wide-screen set with 1080 resolution looks very, very good. We find people buying these products because that's what they're after. They want a cinematic experience at home.

    We've seen Japan develop and fully implement high-definition now. You won't find standard definition broadcasting there.

     We saw Europe adopt wide screen four years ago. They are in the PAL format, and that system is all digital, so the quality is very high.

    In the United States, I can't quote on this, but I think the mandate is earlier than ours. We need to address nationally 16-by-9 format and the implementation of high definition in Canada.

    Looking at the current status of the system, somebody who wants to have television at that level really only has two choices at the moment, namely, one channel on Star Choice or one channel on Bell ExpressVu. At this time, we see a very limited choice there. Cable is trying to get there; it's not there yet. Again, that's going to be through a digital set top box, and at the moment they are still not there. When will they be there? There's no indication of when. Consumer choice is limited at the moment. For producers of programming, that way is limited.

    In the Canadian market, for 16-by-9 production, where do we stand? Independent producers are really budget-driven. The prime motivation is to save money and avoid the extra costs of these increased production technologies. It's true. The cameras are more expensive. A make-up person has to do make-up at a much higher level to create the realism at that resolution. The quality threshold changes. These factors impact on productions, and costs go up. We see a producer base in Canada focused on saving money and avoiding that production format due to its extra cost.

    As to international markets, if you are producing a dramatic piece, and you have a substantial budget, internationally--due diligence--you owe it to yourself to then at that point explore those media. Are we going to rely on a four-by-three medium or go to 16 by 9?

    I feel Canadian producers need incentive and some policy to foster production for 16 by 9 and high definition. For Canadians, as I say, it was only 24 to 30 months ago that we went from no choice to a huge consumer acceptance. And 24 months from now, where do we see ourselves and those demands? With the CRTC, 1991 was the last time these reviews took place, and ten years from now.... You have to realize that a lot is going to happen in ten years. Technology is going to advance, and is advancing, constantly every year. Every six months the cycle is increasing.

    At some level here, to risk losing further ground, I feel that we need some policy implementation that really does recognize the need to set that for 16 by 9 in wide-screen in high-definition products and broadcasting. Do we start with the CBC? How do we set that in motion?

    To summarize, I see it as a weakness in current policy. As somebody who works in the industry and is very close to it at a very high level, there's no information from the CRTC regarding policy or direction.

    Thank you.

·  (1350)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rigg.

    Our next guest was telling me a moment ago that if he were from southern Nova Scotia, his name would be pronounced Jean “Léger”, but as he is an Acadian from northern Nova Scotia, it is pronounced Jean “Légère”.

·  (1355)  

    Mr. Jean Léger (Director General, Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse): I would like to give you the precise details, Mr. Chairman, if I may. The southern Acadians, that is to say those in Louisiana, in the United States, are called “Léger”, and most of the northern Acadians, in the Atlantic region, pronounce it “Légère”.

    The Chair: In New Brunswick as well?

    Mr. Jean Léger: Yes. In Quebec, on the other hand, it is “Léger”.

    The Chair: Mr. Léger, you have the floor.

    Mr. Jean Léger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of Parliament. First of all, I would like to thank you for having invited me here today to talk about French- language broadcasting. This is a very important issue for francophone and Acadian communities; this is why our organization wished to appear before the committee today.

     My name is Jean Léger, and I am the Director General of the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, for which we use the acronym FANE. The FANE is an umbrella group of regional, provincial and government organizations and it is the main voice for the Acadian and francophone community of our province.

    I have spent almost 12 years in the media world over the course of my career, including the print media, student and community radio, the private sector and approximately eight years as an announcer and columnist at Radio-Canada here, in Halifax, as well as having studied communications at the university level and having done public relations work.

    I would like to give you some background on the Acadian community in Nova Scotia. Our history goes back to the 17th century, when 100 French families settled right here, on the shores of the Bay of Fundy and around Grand-Pré. Nowadays, according to the 1996 census, the 36,311 francophones represented 4% of the population of the entire province, which was 900,000 people. Our numbers as a community have been stable over the last 50 years, but our percentage as a whole is shrinking. While our demographic weight is slight, we are concentrated in rather homogenous communities, which gives us some political clout. For example, in the Argyle and Clare regions, in the southwest of the province, the Acadians form the majority.

    Today, my presentation will deal with the three outstanding issues in communications: broadcasting, content and infrastructure.

    First of all, on the issue of broadcasting and accessibility, I would like to share my concern with you regarding the absence of French media in the rural regions. Although our television services in French are respectable thanks to cable and satellite distribution services, French radio remains a rarity in the Acadian regions. Apart from two community radio stations, CIFA-FM in Baie Sainte-Marie, CKJM-FM in the Chéticamp area, and Radio-Canada Atlantique services, whose radio signal is not always very good, Acadians have little access to this form of mass communication. And yet it is said that the Acadians are a people with an oral tradition because of their isolation and their roots going back almost 400 years.

    Nowadays, unfortunately, listening habits for francophone stations represent a real challenge for the broadcasters we have just mentioned. Assimilation has already made great inroads and the mass media of the North American anglophone majority continues to exert excessive pressure on linguistic communities living in a minority situation.

    I would like to point out that as far as television is concerned, other than in the Chéticamp and Baie Sainte-Marie areas, there is no community television. Furthermore, the latter have very modest means. Our communities would be better off if the concept of community television were to be strengthened with the support of the authorities.

    As regards content, our community radio stations are doing a wonderful job with very modest means. It would therefore be advisable to see federal departments given a mandate to support these stations. Moreover, the content offered by Société Radio-Canada to the Canadian population, with the means it has at its disposal and which are funded by Canadian taxpayers, is not up to scratch. Montreal monopolizes almost the entire content on the network. Regional stations see their role pushed into the background and our Acadian regions suffer because of this situation. Our regional stations are not given sufficient means, and the content broadcast by Radio-Canada, apart from a few regional shows, represents Canadian reality very poorly, and this is even truer where Acadian reality is concerned.

    I personally fear that Radio-Canada, given the current state of affairs, is contributing to the assimilation of Acadians and perhaps even of francophone communities living in a minority situation. People say that the media are the mirror of society. As an Acadian, I want to see the reflection of my community in the mass media.

     I have nothing against the people of Quebec. On the contrary, they play a great role in preserving the French fact in North America. But when I listen to the radio or when I watch TV, the news and content relating to the Quebec “nation” do not help me to feel more Acadian, like the people that I am here to represent today with both humility and a great sense of pride, nor do they help to foster values that are dear to Canadian society. When people find nothing in the content to which they can relate, then, dear committee members, they lose interest in the media that we are discussing. Quebec's regional content becomes the national content for Radio-Canada, and this fact is clearly harmful to the Canadian identity of our Acadian citizens.

    Therefore, the Radio-Canada program content does not really respect its mandate. Moreover, the Radio-Canada program grid does not respond to the needs of minority communities. As an example, and perhaps for financial reasons, there are few children's programs. Committee members might be interested to know that I have two young daughters, Mylène and Josée, who are two and four years old. On weekday mornings, since they don't yet attend school, they watch programs originating on the CBC, or maybe PBS, from Boston, or WGBH, from the U.S. The regular morning Radio-Canada television program, and this is not because of the lock-out at the corporation, something we deplore, is the same news program that they broadcast on their news network, RDI. I believe it is called Matin express. Let's not mince words: is Radio-Canada saving money at the expense of children living in minority language communities, children who, quite often, only have Radio-Canada as a source of French television programming?

    Besides a few weekend programs, we are far removed from the great pioneers of French-Canadian television programming, who recognized how important it was to produce high-quality television for children. It is high time we reviewed our priorities. Our children are becoming Anglicized and even Americanized because of the SRC and its decisions that do not take into account the needs of minority community viewers. Radio-Canada must consult with our communities.

    In terms of infrastructures, there is room for improvement. We feel that the federal government is responsible for strengthening the digital broadcasting infrastructures. This would allow for a greater range of French-language services in the regions.

    Moreover, the role of the National Film Board must also be strengthened in order to better respond to the needs of francophone communities. The limited resources operating out of Moncton to serve the Maritime Acadian population mirrors what Radio-Canada has done by centralizing resources to the detriment of the regions, and, as a consequence, to the detriment of content as well.

    Save for a few Acadian filmmakers who, on occasion, have the privilege of producing a few documentaries, regional initiatives to develop an interest in the audiovisual field are clearly far too timid. This represents a danger for our communities, as they will lag far behind in the communications industries and the content will no longer meet their needs; they will eventually turn to content with which they cannot relate, and become detached from their regional and national Canadian identity.

    In closing, I would say that Société Radio-Canada and all of the other public media operating in a minority situation should not be at the mercy of the ratings trap. Their main purpose must be to serve Canadian society, first and foremost, rather than help the economy or garner profit. That vision, to my mind, is much too narrow and does not benefit Canada's society as a whole.

    By way of example, and at the risk of exaggerating, just because a television program like La Petite Vie, broadcast on the French CBC network, has broken all of the ratings records, it doesn't mean that we should expand that type of content to develop our Canadian values, nor should we encourage the proliferation of this type of programming simply because the private sector finds its ratings appealing. The Canadian government has a responsibility to educate and strengthen its society.

    In an ideal world, we would be able to decentralize content while maintaining our Canadian identity, to support what our Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, called: “Unity in diversity”.

    The recommendations of the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse are as follows: strengthen and more adequately fund community radio stations, making them easier to establish, and giving financial support to the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada; strengthen the CBC and NFB mandate in minority francophone regions in order to help them fulfill their mandate; encourage regional production of television content and expand the broadcasting of such content over the national networks; ensure that a permanent body be created with the mandate to promote French-language networks within the francophone and Acadian communities in Canada, working in cooperation with the groups representing these communities; build infrastructures to create greater access to various digital services; amend the Broadcasting Act in order to expressly state the mandate of the CRTC to monitor the development and encourage the growth of minority official language communities, pursuant to part VII of the Official Languages Act; set up a mechanism to bring together the CRTC and francophone communities to examine matters relating to broadcasting, so as to properly apply part VII of the Official Languages Act.

¸  (1400)  

    We hope that your committee will agree with our recommendations.

    We hope that your stay in our province, Nova Scotia, will be a pleasant one. Thank you very much.

¸  (1405)  

    The Chair: Mr. Léger, I would like to congratulate you on your French, both written and spoken. It is something that you should be proud of.

    Mr. Jean Léger: Thank you, sir.

[English]

    The Chair: I'll open the meeting to questions.

    Mr. Abbott.

    Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    All three of you gentlemen have been very thought-provoking. I'll try to ask three quick questions.

    Mr. Zimmer, you were talking about simplifying the regulatory framework, and from what I can understand, we're talking about investing in Canadian-content creators. I'm not necessarily a proponent of that, but if we're going to do that, do we not have to have some kind of regulatory framework? We can't just be doling out money; there has to be some kind of standard. For example, in broadcasting we have the MAPL system--the music, art, publisher, and lyricist, or whatever MAPL stands for.

    I guess what I'm asking from you is an answer to the question. You've said--and I agree with you--that we should be simplifying the regulatory framework. My question is, how?

    To Mr. Rigg, talking about technology and content, I'm a real Luddite when it comes to this kind of thing, so you'll be able to enlighten me.

    VHS won over Beta. It was in the marketplace that that took place. When digital is being transmitted, is it being transmitted to an identical standard--in other words, VHS versus Beta, if you will? And when it's being received and translated so that it ends up on the screen, is there a standard, or are we going to see a fight in the marketplace? If so, are you suggesting the federal government should actually become involved in regulating it or stipulating what that standard should be?

    The final one is to Mr. Léger. I'm rather curious, you said you have 36,311 francophones. I understand, from the translation--and I apologize that I'm unilingual--you have CIFA-FM and CKJM-FM. You also have Radio-Canada Atlantic. All three of those services are in French. I guess my point is in understanding that there's a significant difference between the French issue and the issue in my constituency, where unfortunately we're predominantly unilingual. The point is, in my constituency I have over 50,000 people, and we have only two radio stations, plus CBC.

    Are you saying there should be more radio stations available in French? The people in my constituency would say they don't get that, because we have only two commercial stations, plus CBC.

    Do you understand my question?

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean Léger: Firstly, I would like to know—

    The Chair: Mr. Léger, if you wouldn't mind waiting a minute please, we will begin with Mr. Zimmer, Mr. Rigg and then...

    Go ahead, Mr. Léger.

    Mr. Jean Léger: First of all, I don't know if I properly understood your question, and I am not familiar with the riding you have described, nor with the province that you represent. Therefore, I really can't visualize...

[English]

    Mr. Jim Abbott: British Columbia.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean Léger: British Columbia? Okay.

    I don't know if we should deal with the issue of provincial populations. In some areas, if there are 50,000 francophones, they might all be living in the same region. That is not the case here in Nova Scotia; the Acadian and francophone community is quite decentralized. Between Sidney and Yarmouth, which is quite a distance, there are pockets of francophones. The private sector is not involved in this particular case because the radio stations would not be lucrative enough.

     In fact, this is something that is wanted by the communities in those two regions. Yes, we have two stations and we are proud of them, sir, but we would like to have even more, since mass media are so important for our Acadian society and culture.

¸  (1410)  

[English]

    Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you. That clarified it. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Mr. Zimmer.

    Mr. Chris Zimmer: It's clarity and simplicity. You have to set some standards, whether it's a point system that you have, but once you've defined who is Canadian then what they actually write, what they actually think, what they actually present is, by virtue of their being Canadian, Canadian content. By trying to use regulation and systems of various arcane and subjective judgments to decide which variety of this content is more Canadian or less Canadian is where I think there's a great danger. And I think at some point, as we do live in a global village, you have to recognize the fact that Canadian authors, writers, and thinkers are going to have a wide subject matter. I think what we have to invest in is those people, and what they write about will be a Canadian work of film or literature.

    Michael Ondaatje's Anil's Ghost , for example, is a Canadian book. Michael Ondaatje happens to be Canadian. Anil's Ghost does not take place in Canada. It's not visibly Canadian. That's the particular issue we're facing, and by trying to direct content to serve other ideas is where we're starting to run into dangerous ground. And I know that there's another study, another examination of Canadian content that Heritage Canada is doing specifically, but I think it's particularly germane to the Broadcasting Act and what the broadcasters do and who actually controls that content.

    So I think it has to be a wide variety. It has to be Acadians from Chéticamp. It has to be Chinese and Japanese people from your riding. It has to be whatever makes it Canada. And I think it's a danger to have, whether they be politicians, bureaucrats, or whatever we have, government decide now what is Canada, because it's going to be changing. It is changing.

    So that's my opinion.

    The Chair: Mr. Rigg.

    Mr. Paul Rigg: Regarding your question on a digital standard, several years ago, I believe it was five years ago, internationally they determined there would be 16 high-definition standards. The Japanese were the first to invent or propose high-definition wide-screen television. I believe the U.S. was looking for more variety and didn't want one standard and intelligently broke it out to cover a whole range of mediums--computer display and a lot of different technologies.

    So that was a good decision, but now we have 16 formats to choose from. Manufacturers of display systems appear to be incorporating all 16 as far as I'm concerned, because it's a simple.... That's probably incorrect, actually. Probably they have something like 1080i, which is one of the highest resolutions, and offer one of the medium resolutions, so maybe there are three choices.

    Within the U.S. now, broadcasters in the big markets like Los Angeles and New York have a choice of formats they can actually work with, and they're actually selecting two--1080i and maybe 720p. So at least people are making decisions and then implementing a system by which the home viewer can actually access something that is 16 by 9 or high resolution.

    And where do we stand in Canada with those decisions? That's a question I have. Perhaps I haven't done enough research at this moment, but I certainly haven't had the feedback through industry papers or anything else that's indicated this.

     To qualify that further, for Canadian producers to stay relevant five years down the road is to say you're making an excellent television production that could sell in an international market. However, it's an older format. So the purchaser then has to reconfigure this four by three, which is what we're all used to, to this 16-by-9 wide format. Again, it's a matter of what we can do industry-wise to embody the desire to make wide-screen productions.

¸  (1415)  

    Mr. Jim Abbott: To drive it to a conclusion, I would like you to make a recommendation. Should standards be established by the government, or should the industry make that determination?

    Mr. Paul Rigg: That's a hard question. I would suggest that in the case of Canada it's probably stronger for standards to evolve from the CBC. From there they would get disseminated, and then the Canadian system would have something to hang a hook on.

    With the rapid development of these technologies, five years from now we could be looking at broadband, high definition on fibre optics for.... I was at a conference about a year and a half ago in Halifax where Marconi described a test they ran in Atlanta. They actually wired up about 500 homes. Each home had its own fibre optic link, as opposed to say a cable television link. They said the results were astounding. The test was a very successful indication of where things could go. The home user has this mass of choices. It's exciting. There is a lot of potential. But obviously a lot of cost is involved in doing that.

    The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Thank you for your comments, even though some of them made me feel that we seem to be living in a two-tiered society, in terms of technological development. A number of witnesses have stated that the Radio-Canada and CBC signals are not accessible throughout the country. Moreover, demands are being made at this time to increase the local and regional content, although very little money is available. People want to see themselves reflected on television, and you have mentioned the 16:9 format. I can see the consumer being pressured here. A number of people will have to change all of their technical equipment. I don't know if the market is ready for that type of a change just yet, or if it is, then it might be only a small fraction of the market.

    There are people who can't afford cable. Do you think that these new technologies will be more accessible, and cheaper, and would the various signals be readily accessible with the new technology? When you ask a consumer to buy a new television set, and, on top of that, to subscribe to all of the various services that are available, that represents quite a financial investment, even though some may not find it expensive.

[English]

    Mr. Paul Rigg: That's a good question.

    The Chair: Maybe when you answer Madame Gagnon you could also touch on what the cost would be to producers like you as well as to consumers. What does it cost you to re-rig and such?

    Mr. Paul Rigg: I can't sit here as an expert. I just have an overview of the industry from my perspective in digital pulse production.

    Those are good points. These are not cheap. I don't own one of these systems myself, but if I were going to the store today to purchase such a set, knowing what I know I would certainly be asking about whether I could accommodate a DVD 16 by 9. We can do that for perhaps $1,500 today. Four years ago that would have probably been $5,000. So the price is definitely coming down. The DVD players that just came into the industry have been rapidly implemented, and the price came down very quickly. So those technologies are actually dropping in price and becoming broadly available.

     Also, there seems to be a desire, from what I gather, among a lot of individuals to want to have more of these types of technologies and this kind of quality. That's an overall observation I would make--among colleagues and peers, really. Then, I would consider that there is probably a substantial part of the population that wouldn't want to spend the money, but the issue there revolves around my feeling that, say five years from now, a standard definition television set--four by three--will be hard to find. I think manufacturers internationally will say this is where we're going. If the vast majority of consumers worldwide are selecting these products, then I'm confident you'll see further decreasing costs, as well as a broader variety. To delay the inevitable is, you know.... That's my feeling.

    The Chair: Okay. Madame Gagnon.

¸  (1420)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Léger, you raised an important issue, that is, the lack of concentration of the Acadian population. That is a phenomenon that requires a larger number of radio broadcasting structures. The francophone population in Saskatchewan expressed the same concerns. The committee was asked to examine the broadcast range, in terms of watts. Would you recommend increasing the range in order that the community radio stations be able to reach your communities, which are widely dispersed, as is the case for Saskatchewan? What should be done to connect all of the Acadian communities that are dispersed throughout Nova Scotia?

    Mr. Jean Léger: That is an excellent question. Thank you for asking it. I think that one of the things that could be done would be to strengthen the existing community radio stations in their own region and facilitate exchanges between the various community stations throughout the province. We could start with the two existing radio stations, since they are quite solid, and establish other community radio stations, as a first step, while also sharing content among them. A region like Chéticamp, for example, could have a repeater set up close by to serve the neighbouring community. I think that the Canadian government should encourage that type of creative solution for francophone and Acadian communities in the future.

    There's something important that must be said, and that is that these community radio stations operate with $50,000  here and $40,000  there, which means that they have trouble developing and becoming stronger. There are a lot of people taking communications courses. As we heard earlier with respect to the aboriginal people, this training is very important; it serves as a foundation for the industry.

    Another important factor is the support of the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada, which plays an extraordinary role in helping to establish these radio stations. They would be very much in favour of the type of solution that I have just put forward, that is, installing repeaters. I think there might be a creative way to go about that.

    If I may, Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Lincoln, if time permits, I would like to point out that Radio-Canada plays an extraordinary role in our regions. Despite its limited budget, community radio also has a role to play, although it is different and on another level. Community radio works with the grassroots, as they say in English; it comes from the people, from the heart, while Radio-Canada operates at another level, with Canada-wide broadcasting of news, Canadian content, and other material. But at the local level, we must strengthen broadcasting in and of the region. That is the context of my answer to your question, Ms. Gagnon.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Is TFO, the Ontario French television network, broadcast in your area? They have educational television for children.

¸  (1425)  

    Mr. Jean Léger: Non, we don't get TFO at home. If I had digital service, I might have access to it, but I haven't checked that. In any case, I don't feel that the availability is really what it should be. As a Canadian taxpayer, and not an Ontario taxpayer, I think that my crown corporation should afford me those services for my bilingual children. My wife is an anglophone; I am a francophone and our children are fluently bilingual. We live in an anglophone community. It is therefore very, very important for us to have programming and content that will allow our children to grow in a bilingual environment, but particularly in French.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Léger.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: TFO is French television. It shows educational programs for children.

    Mr. Jean Léger: But it is from Ontario, is it not?

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes.

    Mr. Jean Léger: I don't live in Ontario. That is what I meant.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I simply wanted to hear your comments.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Jean Léger: We have Télévision Quatre Saisons and TVA. We also have TV5 and, of course, Radio-Canada.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

    Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to get a few more comments from Mr. Zimmer with respect to his comments regarding ideas and content.

    You differentiate between the two. You somehow suggest that the way the regulations are set up there's too much attention paid to content and really not enough on ideas. You would be happier with a looser subject arrangement, I guess, to leave more scope for ideas.

    Are you suggesting that Canadian content should be defined by, let's say, the right system, who performs it, and where it's done, but once those criteria are met, after that it's an open ball game?

    Mr. Chris Zimmer: Yes, essentially. I'm sure everybody here has been across this country and is aware of the huge diversity of Canadians. If you're going to regulate anything with the Broadcasting Act, it has to be regulating the transmission, the communication that goes back and forth, the means of exchange of ideas. If you're going to regulate and subsidize or assist in any way the creation of it, you should regulate it and have rules over who does it. I think it's on very shaky ground--and we've seen many other governments that we criticize heavily go into that--once you start to regulate what it is those people are saying.

    Mr. John Harvard: I understand that, but at the same time we do live in a globalized world now. Even though there are, I guess, a gazillion good Canadian stories out there, the nature of the marketplace is that the larger the audience you can find, the more profitable it is. And of course if you can appeal to not just Canada, but North America, and perhaps not even just North America, but Europe and Asia, that's where the big bucks lie. So I guess I'm wondering why you would feel so certain that if we were to take off all the constraints with respect to subject-matter and leave them to these other criteria that I mentioned, that the Canadian idea, the Canadian creators would meet the demand we want, and that is doing great Canadian stories.

    Mr. Chris Zimmer: Well, they would be great Canadian stories if they were those stories that were written, created by Canadians. I have a great deal of faith in the viability, the creativeness of our artists, our writers, our filmmakers, our musicians. Without a question, I think we can compete on an international scale very successfully. I actually have a lot of faith that Canadians will do work that will be germane to Canadians here at home.

     It goes back to the metaphor of the well. Television, especially, is an exchange of popular ideas: what's current, what's happening. I think you see that, because it's a media that likes the soap opera; it likes gossip; it likes news; it likes things that are current--hot subjects, things that are going to change.

    You're going to have a regulation that you hope will be effective ten years from now. I'll guarantee you that the world of broadcasting, whatever it may be ten years from now, will be quite different. I don't think anyone around this table has a really clear concept of what it is.

    So that's regulation.

¸  (1430)  

    Mr. John Harvard: I wish I were as certain as you. Maybe I'm the one who is unduly pessimistic, but why don't you just talk about, say, the Television Fund or Telefilm or the National Film Board?

    Let's take the Television Fund. The way I understand it, a producer comes up with the idea. Now, he has to get it by someone who's prepared to actually disseminate the story once it's made. Under the Television Fund, are we getting great Canadian stories, or are we getting a lot of productions that are saleable beyond the Canadian border?

    If you take the last year as an example, you can go back and look at what actually got LSP--and, very soon, EIP--funding from this fund. There was a grid, a system, and the vast majority of this money went to a very small number of players who were able to solve the puzzle and make it happen. Is this good quality? Is it good for diversity? Is it good for Canada? I don't think so, but it's very complex. How do you define the puzzle, this puzzle you refer to?

    Mr. Jean Léger: How do I define it?

    Mr. John Harvard: Yes. What is the puzzle?

    Mr. Jean Léger: It's a points grid that the CTF has devised to define both what is and what isn't Canadian and what is and what isn't acceptable. It's like any other system. If you write the rules for the system, you can pretty well direct what way you want that content to go. As you're probably all aware, quite a lot of the specialty channels', and a lot of peripheral--or if you will, small--ideas won't get funding. They won't get made, won't get presented to Canadians, won't be presented by Canadians to Canadians and to the world, because they don't particularly fit this one grid.

    If you have the six lawyers on your staff so you can solve that, perhaps you win. But I don't think film and culture actually is done very well that way. It's a much more business- and political-oriented system, and I think it's become too complex. I think you can solve it and retain what Mr. Abbott was concerned with: how do you make it still Canadian and have some faith in the Canadian creators?

    The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.): I'd like to thank all three witnesses today. It's very informative.

    Our trip to Nova Scotia--our morning--has been very worth while. Just the quality of the presentations has been very impressive and....

    A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible].

    Mr. Rodger Cuzner: And Wendy and I will take the bow for that, yes.

    This is for Mr. Léger specifically. Chéticamp is in my constituency. The community takes great pride, the radio station is such a vital part of their community. I know that programs were available for the initial set-up of the station. There are some funding tools that are at your disposal to keep the French language alive and at least to share the Acadian message. Which of those tools have proven to be effective? And is there more that should be done, specifically for the community stations? Is there something missing there right now? I know we've been able to help with a couple of capital projects, but I'm just wondering, is there something else that's missing there to help assure their viability?

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean Léger: Thank you for your question, Mr. Cuzner.

    The Chéticamp region does indeed have a very homogenous and highly concentrated population. Community radio is very successful in that region, but that success is due to the tireless efforts made by the community that supports its radio station. However, as you mentioned earlier, sometimes the community can be on the brink of exhaustion. After that, it becomes difficult for the community to maintain their radio station with the same energy. Furthermore, to ensure the radio station survives, you need money.

    Naturally, people have to submit requests for funding to both the Nova Scotia and federal governments. But I am sure you know that when they do so, community organizations must find their way through the bureaucratic maze. So when I say that the community supports its radio station, there is nonetheless some burnout. If the programs are not better targeted to ensure the survival of community radio, then there is the risk of fatigue.

    I must say that there is one department that is doing an excellent job, extraordinary work for our community radio stations, and that is Heritage Canada. Heritage Canada does a lot to help radio stations thrive. But it must do even more, especially in terms of continuity. Heritage Canada helps a lot with the implementation, but there must be a sustained effort afterwards, and that is not always easy.

    In closing, Mr. Cuzner, I would say that the federal Department of Industry should play an additional role in drafting Canada's broadcasting policies and in supporting community radio. Funds are available, but not enough. Moreover, the burden of finding one's way through the bureaucratic maze becomes very wearying.

¸  (1435)  

[English]

    The Chair: Merci.

    Ms. Lill.

    Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming here today, all three of you.

    I just want to say to Mr. Léger that I think you've spoken very clearly about the Acadian pride and the need to have programming for your children and for your community. We've heard that.

    I wanted to just ask you one question. I know the CRTC made recommendations last January for an increase in programming for francophones outside of Quebec, and I'm wondering if you've seen any sign of that actually occurring at the CBC. They specifically directed the CBC in that regard.

    Maybe I'll just ask my other question. It's to Mr. Zimmer. I just have to take my hat off to you, because you have done very courageous and tenacious work in creating incredible Canadian stories like Margaret's Museum and New Waterford Girl and The Divine Ryans. It's the sense of creating something universal and just not worrying about whether it's going to fit anywhere else. It obviously will fit if it's universal and a good story.

    In your third recommendation, you say putting the control of ideas in the hands of a few corporations will only lead to the abuse of this privilege. Before you came here, we were listening to the problems apparent in CanWest Global and BCE having such a stranglehold on print media and network systems. I don't know whether that's what you're talking about, but maybe you could clarify what it means to you in the film industry, that same kind of concentration.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean Léger: Thank you for your question, Ms. Lill.

    With regard to the new CRTC regulations, I think the CRTC is doing the right thing in taking steps to increase the broadcasting of French programs in Canada.

    You asked whether we have noticed any change. I personally have not. In an attempt to answer your question, I might say that the request was made to the CRTC a short time ago. So the process required for a change will take at least one or two years, perhaps even five. I hope it will not take that long, but I think that in the area of broadcasting, content cannot change over night. It takes time, based on my knowledge of electronic media.

[English]

    Mr. Chris Zimmer: I think, as I understand it, the question was what's the broadcast analog of Stephen Kimber's roasting of publishers. And in Canada I think every year there are increasingly fewer choices that we're faced with. We have a smaller number of broadcasters. There are no--and I repeat, no--local broadcasters left with decision-making powers in Nova Scotia. I think there's one in Newfoundland, and that one doesn't make any decisions or any contributions, as far as I've been able to ascertain, on the implementation of Canadian content on the air.

    So I think right now we have Alliance Atlantis Corporation with Global. To some extent there's CHUM. There's the CBC and there's CTV-BCE. And our choices are pretty well limited to that to lever the funds. And those broadcast groups, if you will--and they're getting closer--are the ones that actually control what is going on the air and being presented to Canadians. Beyond that, there is no real competition. There's the CBC and then there's the corporate bottom line, which is defining pretty much all the rest.

    As you are all aware, what was the one local digital channel within a year was allowed to become part of the Alliance Atlantis Corporation, an AC network, and last week they reduced the local presence from thirteen to three or four staff members and cut it down. This was something that one of the government regulatory agencies finally approved, accepted, and it went through. And I'm not sure that's good for the health for Canada as a whole, when you end up taking what was a local initiative and make it so it's not going to work.

    You look at all the much-vaunted specialty channels and I'm sure you're all aware of who owns what and how few people do.

    I know time is very short here, so I'll stop. I don't know if that answers your question.

¸  (1440)  

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Yes, it does. Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Gagnon, you want to ask a very short question.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, and it is not political in nature. It is on the CRTC policy.

    The Chair: Go ahead.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: In my view, the recommendation made by the CRTC that the CBC should have more French programs is a step in the right direction, but do you have any follow-up plan, a plan to determine which productions would satisfy the Acadian community? Is there any way to tell which plan they would have implemented and what the results would have been? You said you will be able to tell in perhaps two years or a year and a half, but do you have any control over what is going on at the CBC in order to make adjustments?

    Mr. Jean Léger: Once again, thank you for your question, Ms. Gagnon. I would like to go back to the issue of the CRTC being involved in broadcasting throughout Canada. If it is up to a national organization, namely the CRTC, to award licences in Canada, don't you think French national networks such as TVA and TQS should have more content coming from the Canadian regions?

    In answer to your question, as far as the Société Radio-Canada is concerned, I would answer as follows. We have excellent relations with the managers of the Société Radio-Canada in our region. They are important for our communities, but what I would ask them is that they consult us more on measures they plan to introduce to increase regional content, and I invite them wholeheartedly to use our services at the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse.

    But to give you a simple answer, I would say that no, the SRC has not approached our organization.

¸  (1445)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Léger, for your very clear and eloquent presentation.

[English]

    Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Rigg.

    We've listened to literally hundreds of witnesses across Canada, and every time we hear new witnesses we learn something new, which is really remarkable. So we appreciate your presence here and your input and your wisdom. Thank you very much for appearing.

    The meeting is adjourned.