HERI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 1, 2002

1305

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

1310

1315

The Chair

1320

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

Mr. Wes MacAleer

1325

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

1330

Mr. Wes MacAleer

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Wes MacAleer

1335

The Chair

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

1340

Mr. Wes MacAleer

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Wes MacAleer

1345

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Wes MacAleer

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Wes MacAleer

The Chair

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

Mr. Wes MacAleer

1350

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Wes MacAleer

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Wes MacAleer

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Wes MacAleer

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

1355

Mr. Wes MacAleer

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Wes MacAleer

1400

The Chair

Mr. Wes MacAleer

The Chair

Ms. Gretha Rose (President, Cellar Door Productions)

1405

1410

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

1415

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. Abbott

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Abbott

1420

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Gretha Rose

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Gretha Rose

1425

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

1430

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Gretha Rose

1435

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Gretha Rose

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1440

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Gretha Rose

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Gretha Rose

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Gretha Rose

1445

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Gretha Rose

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Gretha Rose

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Gretha Rose

1450

The Chair

1500

Ms. Maria Bernard (President, Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin)

1505

The Chair

Mr. Abbott

1510

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Maria Bernard

1515

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1520

Mr. Dominic Langlois (Liaison Officer, Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Maria Bernard

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Maria Bernard

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Maria Bernard

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Maria Bernard

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Dominic Langlois

The Chair

Mr. Dominic Langlois

1525

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Dominic Langlois

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Ms. Maria Bernard

The Chair

Ms. Maria Bernard

The Chair

Ms. Maria Bernard

The Chair

Mr. Dominic Langlois

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1530

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Steve Stapleton (President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Steve Stapleton

1535

Mr. Ian Petrie (President, Canadian Media Guild)

1540

1545

The Chair

Mr. Ian Petrie

The Chair

Mr. Dan Viau (President, Local 21M, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada)

1550

The Chair

Mr. Abbott

1555

Mr. Dan Viau

1600

Mr. Ian Petrie

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Ian Petrie

The Chair

Mr. Dan Viau

1605

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Ian Petrie

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Ian Petrie

Mr. Dan Viau

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Ian Petrie

1610

The Chair

Mr. Dan Viau

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Dan Viau

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Ian Petrie

1615

Mr. Dan Viau

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Steve Stapleton

Mr. Ian Petrie

The Chair

1620

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Ian Petrie

The Chair

1625

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Dan Viau

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Ian Petrie

1630

The Chair

Mr. Ian Petrie

1635

The Chair

Mr. Dan Viau

The Chair

Mr. Ian Petrie

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 059

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 1, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

· (1305)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'd like to declare open this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, le Comité permanent du patrimoine canadien, which continues its meeting in Charlottetown regarding the study of the Canadian broadcasting system.

We are extremely pleased today to greet a colleague from the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, the Honourable Wes MacAleer, MLA.

Mr. MacAleer, the floor is yours.

Mr. Wes MacAleer (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

À vous qui parlez français, bienvenue à l'ÎIe-du-Prince-Édouard.

My French is limited, but I do want to welcome you to Prince Edward Island and say I appreciate the fact that you've come here to hear our views on this national issue.

I have a written statement here. I probably have done it in a bit of a hurry, but I do think it contains some thoughts that I'd like to express to you. I'll read it to you.

My name is Wes MacAleer. I'm currently a government member in the provincial legislature. I represent District 14, Charlottetown--Spring Park, and in previous administrations of government I have served as the Minister of Development and Tourism. I've also been the provincial Attorney General.

In terms of media experience, I helped pioneer the development of cable television in the Northwest Territories. I was the founding partner in a company in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, and I was the owner of that company from 1970 to 1996. I also had a brief but interesting experience as the publisher of the Charlottetown Guardian in 1995-96. At that time it was owned by the Thomson Corporation.

At the outset, I declare support for the private broadcaster. I've been one, and I owe much to being a private sector operator. An important role exists for the private broadcast entrepreneur. To be recognized is that the private broadcaster has financial limitations in what programs can be provided. Pure and simple, the private broadcaster must make money, and this overriding concern limits the private broadcaster from entering unprofitable markets or promoting ideas such as nation-building, which is a long-term payback.

This presentation supports a Canadian public broadcasting system and notes the importance of its role. The media defines the values of a nation and of a community, and that role is being fulfilled by CBC radio, television, and Internet services.

In this presentation, the terms “CBC” and “public broadcaster” are meant to be interchangeable.

I must note these views are a personal perspective. They are not intended to reflect the views of the organizations I belong to or the persons I may represent as an elected official.

The principal role played by public broadcasting in Canada is to promote Canada to Canadians, and Canada internationally. The task of the Canadian public broadcaster is multi-dimensional. As a fundamental Canadian institution, the CBC should play a central role in Canadian public life. It has a responsibility to provide a national focus, assisting Canadians to understand themselves and their values. Except for personal visitations, the public broadcast medium stands out as being the most influential player in promoting Canada to Canadians.

As Canada grows and develops as a multicultural country, its citizens require a media that not only acts but also is perceived to represent a multicultural society. This is achieved by having persons of various cultural backgrounds employed, not only behind the camera, but also in front of the camera as interviewers, guests, and performers.

As the country is populated by persons of various backgrounds and cultures, there is an increasing need to have Canadian organizations and activities that foster a common Canadian focus and help create unity in the Canadian community.

To build a Team Canada, whether in sport or in socio-economic terms, we need a broadcast organization to promote its story, recognize its heroes and heroines, and create an enthusiasm for Canadian achievements. Canada is a land rich in diversity in terms of geography and people. Only by knowing about each other will we come to understand and appreciate the strengths of combining those differences.

The message of the Canadian story must reach other countries as well, including the United States. As Canada increases its economic links and military cooperation with the United States, it becomes even more imperative that Canadian values and the Canadian way are protected and promoted.

To know, understand, and appreciate the differences that might divide Canadians, a broadcast medium must create a distinct form of program content that appeals to what I would call “the thinking person's audience”. Canada needs a public broadcast medium that maintains a level of intelligent discussion and debate about social, economic, and political issues. While this type of programming may be listened to by a minority of Canadians, it is essential that those who may be in a position to influence public policy have available, and are exposed to, this type of broadcast content.

To help Canadians develop this consensus about what we want this country to be, input must begin at the local or regional level. Support for the public broadcaster will only be meaningful for Canada if the broadcast means something to grassroots Canada. Canadian communities and their membership need to know about their homegrown public affairs in order to make informed decisions about their future. To ensure that communities know themselves, the public broadcaster must present local programming content that assists this to happen.

Commitment to a common vision for Canada can only happen if Canadians first understand and appreciate their communities. But Canada needs to be more than a community of communities. We must share common values and a vision that defines us as Canadians.

While this would appear to be a bewildering task, the CBC has been successful in performing this function. Just as Canadians are slow to recognize that the United Nations has determined that Canada is the best country in the world in which to live, Canadians are slow to recognize the CBC as having accomplished, over the generations, much of what we have come to expect a public broadcaster to achieve.

In May and June of the year 2000, P.E.I. residents lobbied vigorously to prevent a reduction in the presentation time provided by a local CBC television news program called Compass. For a supper-hour news program, Compass enjoyed the highest rating in the country. While audience participation in CBC supper-hour news programs was declining in large urban centres in Ontario, the CBC program in Charlottetown gained an outpouring of support. Part of the reason for this difference in viewership numbers could be attributed to the fact that Islanders get home for the supper hour, while those who live in large urban settings such as Toronto are still on the road from work during that time period.

· (1310)

The outpouring of support for this popular television news program represents the demand Islanders have for information about issues, events, and people in our community. To fulfill this need to know is essential to the survival of a community. Community members may disagree on the teams they work for and play for, and may disagree on the process of reaching the final goal; however, the common objective of wanting to create a safe, economic, viable association is overriding.

To debate issues, understand the differences in others, and arrive at a consensus, members of a community need a medium of exchange. This is one of the principal roles of the broadcast medium. That was the role being played by CBC Compass. As a public broadcaster, the CBC needs to strengthen its local programming content.

Prince Edward Island and Charlottetown are not unique. Canadian communities I have known support their local broadcast mediums both public and private. An excellent example of this type of programming is the 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Island CBC radio show hosted by Wayne Collins and Karen Mair. The program presents a broad cross-section of Island issues, personalities, and events. On a national level, my wife tells me the national morning radio programming on CBC features the same informed discussion of social, economic, and political issues.

When I was a cablecaster in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories serving a small community, our local cable channel was a popular feature. The community did not consider that channel as competition for either local or national CBC television. While our cable system offered, by the 1990s, a mix of over 100 American and southern Canadian channels, the local channel was our most talked-about program offering.

In achieving this success, our system was enhanced by the cooperation received from the local CBC staff. I stress the word “cooperation”, because I read that the current private broadcast sector views the CBC as a competitor instead of a partner in delivering a broadcast service to Canadians. This uneasy attitude is not good for broadcasting and is not serving Canadians well.

A major contributor to this unease is the dependence the public broadcaster has on its current public-private financing formula. The CBC is squeezed between a decreasing contribution from the public purse and competition for commercial ad revenues. The CBC is faced with a funding dilemma. The federal treasury cuts its contributions while insisting the organization fulfill an ever-increasing public service role and gain additional revenues from advertising. Much better equipped to pursue ad revenues, the private sector broadcaster claims ad revenues to be its only source of money and urges that the CBC back off.

Canadians need to appreciate the extent of the task CBC performs. Considering the per capita operating income of that organization, the scale of geographic coverage, and the cost of operating the many transmitters needed to reach its audience, the CBC does a very credible job. Not only does it broadcast in English and French, but also in a number of first nations and Inuit languages.

Over the generations, the CBC has accomplished much in fulfilling the mandate I have just described as being the responsibility of a Canadian public broadcaster. I think it's worth supporting through the public purse.

The best funding formula would be to have a single source of funds from the public purse based on an incentive type of formula that would recognize the public service mandate of the organization. You cannot ask anyone to run an organization with the level of public service I have described and finance it with a high proportion of ad revenues. This funding arrangement should be protected in part through legislation, to prevent the erosion of the service to be provided.

In closing, two institutions define Canada currently: medicare and the CBC. The time has come to restructure the funding formula for the CBC. That time is now.

Thank you.

· (1315)

The Chair: Mr. MacAleer, I know you expressed in your presentation that you were appearing as an individual and not as a member of the legislative assembly or any group. At the same time, I would like to express the special appreciation of the members here that you took the time and trouble to ask to be heard, because obviously with your political background and the fact that you've been in the media before, your presentation is important to us--especially as you touch on a question that last year became a very important one for the committee.

We had a special hearing on the cancellation of the supper-hour programs in various parts of Canada, and the Atlantic region MPs were extremely vocal, including Wayne Easter, who appeared at the time to impress upon CBC the importance of programs like the CBC's Compass and others. So I'm glad you referred to it and you produced particular suggestions regarding CBC funding. I think this is really useful to us.

I'd like to open the floor to questions. Mr. Abbott.

· (1320)

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

I too would like to thank you for being here. I'm known around the committee for asking questions that other people won't ask, so let me put two questions to you. One relates to the other.

First, I mean absolutely no offence, but the size of the population of Prince Edward Island is less than I couldn't tell you how many metropolitan areas or cities in Canada, so there is a question I feel compelled to ask. In your judgment, truly, recognizing that Prince Edward Island is unique, at what point would the financial resources of the CBC be best put to Prince Edward Island specifically in order to continue the kind of funding you're talking about? I think this is a question that as a pan-Canadian group representing all parties and all parts of Canada we have to be able to answer for our constituents off the island.

The second question flows from that. With your background in cable, which you enunciated for us, if we were to try to think outside the box, can you imagine some kind of a relationship between the CBC and the current local cable provider along the lines of your experience in Yellowknife, which well might take care of the problem without putting the same dollar resources to give the local input, recognizing that all of us on this committee are fully aware of the fact that we have had nothing but the plea for the recognition of local issues and local service? I'm certainly onside, and I believe all the rest of the committee are onside with that, and I'm trying to think outside of the box as to a way of being able to do that.

Mr. Wes MacAleer: In terms of your first observation, concerning justifying how small populations can justify receiving from the public purse money when on a per capita basis they really don't represent the larger population, I think the challenge we have in Canada is that we've never really defined this country in terms of population. We've defined it in terms of geography. We have a huge country that covers a land mass, the biggest in the world probably, or second biggest, and when you start trying to define what the people who populate that mass of land should receive in the way of services, if you did it on a per capita basis we wouldn't have a country today.

I don't know when it began, but certainly if we were to look at laying claim to the vast territory that is to the north of us, and I say the north of Canada, if you use a per capita basis of distributing income, we won't have that country. So I think you have to look at it from the point of view of whether it is important for Canada to have claim to that geography.

Is it important to have a Canada that is populated sparsely in regions? Is it worth it to people in urban centres to have those areas populated by people they call fellow Canadians? I think the decision has been made by others who have come before us that it's worth while to have those areas populated by people they call fellow Canadians. They're willing to pay the price to have people occupy those areas, even though they may be sparsely populated and don't have the services. It's somehow worth something because there's future potential.

If we had looked at the Northwest Territories back even 50 years ago--even in my lifetime living there--would we have recognized the fact that we had diamonds in Contwoyto Lake or massive oil and gas reserves in the Beaufort Sea at that time? Yet Canada will be richer for having those resources and having people up there who say they're Canadians.

You specifically talked about Prince Edward Island. The challenge you have when you recognize a place like Prince Edward Island is it follows within somewhat the same framework. But we also have some historical significance in this community, as it's the birthplace of the country. We also have protections within the Constitution legislation, within which we have to decide whether or not the same levels of protection are available to others in the country. If they are, then they're also available to people on Prince Edward Island.

Can cable operators and the CBC operate more cooperatively? Yes, I think they can. We did it in Yellowknife in a small community, but we did it at a time when maybe the structure of broadcasting wasn't quite as clear. Maybe the people who lived there and worked for the CBC and our company knew one another. I'm just saying that within my own experience we had an opportunity to work in a cooperative fashion, and we did that.

I daresay that at the current time in larger centres you couldn't achieve that, because the institutions, both public and private, are structured in such a manner that they divide one another. They're separate, and you don't tramp on somebody else's turf.

Can it be overcome? It can, but it has to be done at a higher level. In other words, if you're asking the private broadcaster and the public broadcaster to work together, it has to come from those who have the bigger vision of what they want these parties to achieve, and it has to be mandated and clearly defined. I would think that would come from our federal leaders.

· (1325)

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): You said that CBC, over the years, had fulfilled its mandate. On the other hand, some people have told us that Radio-Canada is not quite meeting theirs, through a lack of funding or because of programming trends, and that fewer and fewer of its shows reflect the various Canadian realities.

You talk about a shared perspective, but I have noticed since the beginning of our hearings, that this shared perspective is not very obvious in the different comments we've heard. For example, a new Young Offenders Act has been passed which was largely opposed by Quebec society. In the Canadian Alliance member's region, people were opposed to the firearms regulations, whereas in the urban centres of Quebec people supported it. So it's difficult to get a sense of this common perspective, which may explain why people have trouble seeing themselves in the different realities that are part of Canada today.

I would like to hear your comments on these shared values that are so difficult to grasp today. There are all kinds of trends, but I think that every community tries to get the greatest benefit from the decisions that are taken.

· (1330)

[English]

Mr. Wes MacAleer: I think that in my presentation I said that if you're going to use the public broadcast medium to bring about unity in the Canadian community, it must begin with that medium being in contact with grassroots Canada--the local community. That's really important, because the resources to create unity in Canada are available to us at the local level. I'll give you some examples.

Who would ever think that the humour Newfoundlanders have might be appealing to somebody living in Kelowna or Vancouver? Who would ever think that somebody singing in French, like Céline Dion, would be a world leader, in addition to being very popular in Canada? Within the communities of Canada we have performers and content that, if shared with other areas of Canada, can be made quite appealing. I don't think we have to go looking for that magical drama or performer who suddenly arrives, created by the national perspective.

These people get their creativity and appeal from being popular in the communities in which they live, whether it's the French community, the Sikh community, or Vancouver. That person may have come out of a cultural experience or a regional experience, but if the opportunity is given for that talent, skill, and presentation to be exposed to other Canadians, I would bet that in many cases that presentation would be applauded and appreciated. But there has to be a medium, a mechanism, a technology that allows that to happen, and that's where the public broadcaster enters the scene.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Several witnesses have told us that they want to see their reflection and their community's reflection in television programming. As regards radio, the comments were less assertive, because it is easier to create radio programs.

We've been told that what people see comes from the national networks, from Toronto and from Montreal. People are asking for more local broadcasting of local and regional productions. How can we strike a balance between what comes from the national network and what comes from the region? People are not asking for local productions to be broadcast on the national network, but that the regional network have the capacity to produce and broadcast news and shows that reflect their realities. It would be more difficult to do the reverse, that is to broadcast local and regional programming over the national network. People outside of Manitoba and Quebec told us that they didn't want to know what was being said in those two provinces. Quebeckers said the same thing. They wonder why news from Manitoba or Alberta would be broadcast in Quebec. Quebeckers want to know what's happening in their own regions of Quebec the same day. On weekends, they don't even have Radio-Canada anymore.

Those are the kinds of comments that we have heard throughout our hearings. I'd like to know how you perceive this.

[English]

Mr. Wes MacAleer: It always comes down to a question of money. If the money or resources are there, it seems to be able to happen, and if the resources are not present, how do you substitute? Well, you either lower the quality of your presentation, the quality of the product, or you have a contribution in kind by either the performer or the distributor of the programming.

Your point is that it's difficult to take local programming and send it out over a national feed because maybe the local programming isn't of interest to people in Vancouver. It's true. Maybe in terms of news or items that may only be of local interest you're correct in saying that, but there are aspects about this country that are of national concern, of a federal nature. We probably want more of those. There are certainly issues that bind us together, and those are the issues that need to be dealt with at the national level.

When I think about entertainment as it might occur at the local level, my thoughts are that you can distribute that type of entertainment and it may appeal to many communities other than the community in which it originated. If you're talking about news, you're talking about political, social, and economic news. Yes, I may not be interested in what happens in Trois-Rivières or Kelowna, but I would be very interested, for example, in knowing about how the people of Trois-Rivières and Kelowna may be affected by the softwood lumber issue, whether or not these people have a concern about medicare, or what they think about taxation or free trade. There are issues that impact on us all if we want to call ourselves Canadians, and those are the issues that should be dealt with in the national media.

There's also the aspect of representing Canada and what Canada stands for in terms of how those issues are dealt with by other countries. How are Canadians dealing with the death of four soldiers from that regiment in Edmonton? That's a national issue. Who is there saying something about that issue as it may be dealt with by the commission that's dealing with that? Somebody has to be saying something positive about the Canadian participation in that, and in my experience it has been the CBC that has carried out that function. It did it just recently. That kind of relationship is important to all Canadians, no matter where we live and what language we speak.

· (1335)

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.): Thanks for coming, Mr. MacAleer.

I too am a strong supporter of public broadcasting, so we don't have to talk about its merits. I do want to talk to you about how we finance it, though.

I spent 18 years at the CBC. I know some of the history of the CBC, and I think that the funding arrangement as it existed back in the fifties and sixties worked fairly well. But like so many things, the CBC grew to a point where the federal politicians became alarmed at giving a billion dollars for public broadcasting. There have been reactions to that, and unfortunately I think that to a great extent it's regional broadcasting that has had to bear the brunt of the cuts. I think that's unfortunate, because I think regional broadcasting is as important to the national fabric or the national network as any other component part.

I'm wondering whether we should be looking at a different way of financing the CBC. I'm not suggesting taking the federal government out of it, but I'll just talk about my own problem, which is Manitoba.

Manitoba is quite a large province, at least in terms of land mass. Thompson is a mining community 500 miles north of Winnipeg. Dauphin is a farming community about 250 miles northwest of Winnipeg. Brandon is a city of a little over 40,000 that's 130 miles straight west of Winnipeg. Do those communities really have anything to say? Do they have any input when it comes to putting together the CBC budget? I don't think so, not in any direct way. Sure, you'll have the regional director of the CBC contributing her thoughts on what it takes to cover the province, whether it's in news or in other areas, but I don't think it really cuts the mustard.

There are voices like yours in my province, many voices that support public broadcasting. They may be municipal councillors, provincial MLAs like yourself, and of course some federal politicians. How do we bring these people into the loop so that they can have an impact on not only the size of the budget, but how it's going to be distributed across the country?

If there is as much support as I hope there is—and I'm sure you're the same—at the municipal level for public broadcasting, maybe we should be allowing the municipalities to put their money where their mouths are and make some contribution. It's the same with the provinces. There would still be a federal broadcast act and a federal public broadcast system, but we would find a way of involving other entities in the country to give greater support to the corporation.

Unless we find a different way of financing the CBC, I don't think these problems are going to go away. In fact, if anything, I think they'll get worse. Is there going to be some kind of epiphany on Parliament Hill that causes the federal politicians to increase the budget from say $1 billion to $2 billion? Not in my lifetime. You're a lot younger than I am, so maybe you'll see it, but I don't think I'm going to see it.

Do you have any thoughts?

· (1340)

Mr. Wes MacAleer: First of all, you made a comment that whatever the funding arrangement was in the past, it seemed to work, in your experience. And I think it did.

What's happened is that Canada has changed. The private sector broadcasting community has become much more refined, much more sophisticated, and much more capable. They're out there trying to do somewhat the same thing the CBC is doing, whether it be entertainment or news programs, and I think that in large urban centres they service that community not badly.

Where it breaks down is in the extremes of this country, where these private broadcasters can't operate as profitably as they can in urban centres. We have to decide, as Canadians, whether it's worth having the extremes of this country, whether it be the north of Manitoba or Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland or the islands off British Columbia.... Is it important to have these geographic land masses, thinly populated by Canadians, within what we would call the greater Canadian vision?

Mr. John Harvard: You and I agree on that. There is a place for them.

Mr. Wes MacAleer: Yes, okay. If you start with that premise, then how do we service these people? How do we give them the same capacity to have input into the bigger picture? The problem is money and the problem is getting out to these people. Does the private broadcaster have some of the responsibility to ensure that these people are plugged in? I think they do, but right now, my presentation here was working on the public broadcast dimension. I don't know; I have yet to hear anybody say that the CBC does have a national mandate, that there is a responsibility there, and this is what we think it's worth, having the public purse pay for that mandate being serviced.

We've always talked about the CBC as being overstaffed and overpaid, and so forth, but nobody seems to be talking about the mandate that we expect of this organization. I think the first mandate of the CBC is to promote Canada. That's very broad, and I know the task is bewildering, but I think intelligent people can sit down and say we want to build an institution here that services Canada, makes Canadians proud of themselves, and represents Canada internationally. That is the first task. Now the question is, who do you include and how do you include people in that role? I think it's just to the extent that the people who control the public purse want it to happen.

You say, well, there's a way in which municipalities or small cable channels or small broadcasters can participate. I think that's an excellent idea, and we did it in Yellowknife. But where it breaks down is that the CBC itself is not very receptive to that kind of idea. There's where the problem is. You may disagree with that, but--

· (1345)

Mr. John Harvard: I'm not saying going to bed with the private broadcasters will take us very far. There may be some cooperation, but I would like to believe the public broadcasting system could stand on its own two feet.

I think the funding model we have just doesn't work any more. Certainly from a regional point of view it doesn't work, and I for one would like to somehow get through this forest and find a way out. I don't see it happening at Parliament Hill.

I think there are a lot of Wes MacAleers in the country, a lot of them.

Mr. Wes MacAleer: Well, I would hope so.

Mr. John Harvard: I think there are, but you're not in federal politics. I'm not holding that against you. You'll probably live a long time. But we have to find some way that the people who feel the way you and I do can have not only a hand in policy-making, but also rejigging the budget so that a bigger chunk of it goes to regional programming. It's a conundrum for me.

Mr. Wes MacAleer: Yes, and as Canadians want it to happen, it will happen.

You're asking me, how do we increase the enthusiasm of Canadians for the public broadcasting system? All I can say is it's a challenge.

I know in this community, when reductions in the local service happened, there was an outpouring of support, because it meant something to the community. It was their affair that was being eroded.

Mr. John Harvard: Do you think, Mr. MacAleer, that in Prince Edward Island, to save the program, to keep it at 60 minutes, if it meant, let's say, an extra $250,000 from Islanders, or maybe $500,000, they would have dug into their pockets?

Mr. Wes MacAleer: That's a very interesting question. I would think there would be a positive response. I would not want to determine the degree to which it was made. I'm sorry, I don't know, but I know there would have been a positive response.

The Chair: Meanwhile, we'll clone Mr. MacAleer and Mr. Harvard many, many times.

Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.): If I could depart from your presentation a little bit and ask you to wear your provincial hat for a moment, I'd like to get at maybe artists' development or even some development in TV and film here in P.E.I. We've seen in various other provinces that some opportunities are available to develop ideas and projects. Are those opportunities afforded here in P.E.I. through some of the government departments, or...

Mr. Wes MacAleer Currently, we have a $20-million IT centre being constructed on the main street in Charlottetown that is going to cater to sound and visual production.

· (1350)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Who are the players in that?

Mr. Wes MacAleer: It's the province.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: The straight province?

Mr. Wes MacAleer: Well, when I say “the province”, I mean the province is the initial funder. The private sector players on this are being announced periodically, but there's a hope companies involved in software and Internet production will rent space. Currently, probably three-quarters of the building is being rented out.

We have had productions here--the Anne of Green Gables family of productions, a number of TV commercials. The challenge on Prince Edward Island has been that our colleagues in the other provinces have taken a lead on this. Nova Scotia is very active. We hope to be able to cooperate with them in other areas, in other provinces, to do some portion of the productions, as they are successful. To date, we've not had a facility of, I would say, the most modern technology to carry out that activity. We've had a hit-and-miss approach. I think we've taken a more focused one by having this all in one building. We'll be participating in that area, and more so in the future.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Are there requests from other areas of the creative community to get involved? Of course, being a government member, you get requests from everywhere, but are there other directions you're being pushed in as well?

Mr. Wes MacAleer: There are two aspects to this. There's the technology, which allows you to create an impression, an expression of what it is. There's also the creative or the human element. P.E.I. is blessed by some of the most creative people you would ever meet. The challenge you have, of course, is how to take that creativity and turn it into something somebody's going to appreciate. We have storytellers; we have writers; we have other people. That's partly because the creative community tends to be those who are not particularly well off. They come to a place like Prince Edward Island because we're an inexpensive place to live and we also have a good quality of life. If you're going to be poor, you're probably better off being on Prince Edward Island, but you can also express--

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I'm from Cape Breton, okay? We're pretty creative down there, too.

Mr. Wes MacAleer: I think that's true of Atlantic Canada.

We have a number of people on Prince Edward Island who really can compete at the national level when it comes to the arts--and international level--and they have, in fact. We need a way to get their creativity out there to be appreciated. We hope this centre will allow us to do that, at least in part.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: That's very interesting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for coming here today. I was interested in the interchange between you and Mr. Harvard and the whole issue about funding the CBC. I think it's important to bear in mind the BBC spends $7.5 billion on its public broadcasting system and our government puts in $750 million. That's one-tenth. We have a much larger country. We have a huge landmass and an even greater need to communicate the very varied parts of this country. So my belief is that we need an enormous commitment--political, social, cultural commitment--to public broadcasting, and part of it means dollars.

I see you as somebody who's well informed and thoughtful, and you're interested in the national scene, so I want to know what you think about how successful the public broadcaster has been in representing persons with disabilities, representing native people in this country, and representing the multi-ethnic nature of this country. Those are three areas of our population where we're not hearing great things from the constituent groups. As a Canadian who's interested in all facets of this country, what do you think?

· (1355)

Mr. Wes MacAleer: I would refrain from making a comment with regard to people with disabilities, partly because I'm not as familiar with that area as I'd like to be.

In terms of Prince Edward Island, I think one of the most successful presentations we have in this community on an annual basis is what they call the Easter Seal show, which is hosted by the CBC. It raises money specifically for children who are physically and mentally challenged. In fact, it's so successful that this year people came all the way from Vancouver just to appear on the show, and they did so because they're convinced of the mandate but also for the exposure they would receive as a result of the CBC providing an outlet for their talent. As to how that may be dealt with at the national level, I can't comment. I can only speak about the local level.

When we were in the north, one of the aspects I participated in was the development of television in northern Canada, TVNC, which ended up being headquartered in Iqaluit. It had three uplinks, which were put together with Telesat, to broadcast native programming out of the eastern Arctic, Yellowknife, and Whitehorse. I left the north before 1996. Although I helped in developing that network, I felt at the time that the big problem was then going to be content. The technologies were there to distribute the programming. I have seen productions from that network that were quite successful, such as the Arctic Winter Games in Iqaluit. So I think that in terms of native programming on television, major strides have been made.

One of the biggest challenges we had in participating with the CBC in the delivery of native programming was simply getting people who could perform on the radio in the various languages. We were just dealing with radio. As you know, in the north the first nation languages are not homogeneous. There are about six or seven of them. Whether it's Dogrib, Slavey, Hare, or Inuktitut, you need to have people perform at those levels. Getting individuals who could be trained and could perform on the medium was the biggest challenge. The technology was there to deliver it. I thought the CBC did a very credible job. Some of the best shows I heard in the north were done by native broadcasters. I'm just quickly trying to think of their names. I'm sure some of them are still there.

My experience with native broadcasting is that it was very successful. I'll measure it by saying that when I left the north, I was hearing complaints from the white population that the natives had too much time on the radio.

Was there another point?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Another part of CBC's mandate is multi-ethnic programming. Again, as somebody who is out there listening and monitoring what's going on, I'm just wondering if you feel they're being well served.

Mr. Wes MacAleer: What stands out in my mind, of course, is where we all were on September 11. If you turned to the American channels and saw how they handled the events around that particular happening, you had on the American networks white, Anglo-Saxon individuals commenting on what had occurred. When you turned to the CBC, you had people from different cultural backgrounds being interviewed and commenting, which I think was a very tasteful, different, and distinct approach.

I did not see that as a substitute for what we may have listened to or viewed on the American channels, but I think it was a very refreshing contrast to what was being offered there. It gave, at least to me personally, a perspective about an event I wouldn't have had if it hadn't been for the presentations made by the CBC. I think that defines us as Canadians. We see that there are maybe several sides to a story, and we expect the public broadcaster to give them to us.

I think we're a questioning people--or I hope we are. I hope we want to develop a democracy that in fact looks at an issue in a multi-dimensional manner.

¸ (1400)

The Chair: Mr. MacAleer, we would like to thank you very much for appearing here today and helping us with our work. It's been extremely useful to hear you. We hope we can keep in touch, and if you have any future thoughts about CBC funding or any other matter, please don't hesitate to get in touch with the committee.

Mr. Wes MacAleer: I just want to comment on the fact that I think your work as a national body looking at Canada is very valuable and worth while, and I certainly wish you all the luck in getting the views of Canadians on this issue.

The Chair: Thank you very, very much.

I'd like to call Mrs. Gretha Rose of Cellar Door Productions. Ms. Rose, thank you for appearing. We heard about you yesterday when we visited Digital Bliss. They told us to be really attentive to what you have to say because you have a lot to say. So we really appreciate your presence here. We leave the floor to you.

Ms. Gretha Rose (President, Cellar Door Productions): Thank you very much.

I guess I'm somewhat known. Mr. Abbott says I have a tendency to say things that maybe some others won't, so hopefully that will be of benefit to the committee.

First off, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for extending the invitation for me to participate in the study on the state of the Canadian broadcast system with regard to the terms of reference that were forwarded to me.

Today I'm going to address the central issues of the state and future of Canadian content and cultural diversity, particularly the study questions, namely the present state and the future direction of the Canadian broadcast system. I do that within the context of the CBC and all private broadcasters as well as other content providers such as the Internet, and I've tried to do this inside the proposed discussion themes--which is not a small job, by the way, people.

I will be presenting in English only, so I do apologize for that.

The Chair: You don't have to apologize for not speaking both languages.

Ms. Gretha Rose: Okay.

I present to you today from the perspective of the owner of a Canadian production company, one who resides in Atlantic Canada, creating and financing children's dramatic and lifestyle television properties through provincial, interprovincial, and international co-productions. Cellar Door also handles internally the majority of our own distribution, which we do in the international marketplace.

I have knowledge of the industry and its workings. In my opinion, I have a viewpoint that is representative of what I hope is the whole, not just of one constituency. I've been an entrepreneur for twenty years, of which five have been in this industry. I have a strong working knowledge of business models within the confines of private-public policies.

One has to examine the central issues and focus of the study for the many facets of the various regulators, programs, funders, and their individual purposes and criteria. It is a web that I, as an owner of a production company, cannot attest to being an expert. Since being in this industry, I've learned in a short time that no one is really an expert.

In many ways, the current structures, acts, and policies were in and of themselves honourable, with good intent. But combined with many of the current federal-provincial policies and programs--such as CAVCO, CTF, and other provincial and private funders, and current corporate fiscal policies regarding profits and recruitment of Canadian broadcasters and distributors--these are now contrary. In my opinion, they do not safeguard, enrich, or strengthen the cultural, political, social, and economic fabric of Canada. They do not encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming. They do not create an environment where a Canadian talent or star system can emerge, and they are not readily adaptable to scientific and technological change.

We have seen fail similar attempts in the U.K. to protect cultural policies. They have been replaced by a more industrial policy, built on the strength of preserving, maintaining, and growing a strong indigenous production base. This serves a need for free artistic expression--not content policies, which impede industry, corporate, and public-private broadcaster growth.

Currently, it is almost impossible for myself and many others in this country to finance shows that meet 100% of the Canadian content requirements, due to the conflicting needs of equity funders, the broadcasters themselves, and the distributors. Not only do CAVCO, CRTC, and CTF have various conflicting mandates and requirements, but also the windows to the world--broadcasters--do not embrace nationally and internationally an economic model on something as restrictive as Canadian content and cultural diversity.

The cost of getting the carriage licence is based on providing a minimum of number of hours of Canadian content. The minimum has now become the maximum. The focus is on profit, and that means acquiring as many commercial projects with talent of international cachet. In many ways, these are U.S. shows.

The cost of licensing and participating in the Canadian production is viewed as the price one has to pay to have the financial privilege of being the Canadian network or broadcaster. This is not a very empowering or supportive environment in which to grow an industry, culturally based or not.

Globalization and international co-productions are now used as a very complicated and expensive means to finance our projects. The appeal in many cases is to get around the Canadian content system. In part Canadian broadcasters want large-budget productions to be certified as international co-productions, so that their licence fees are lower and they are able to score higher points. They want access to talent from other countries that they can deem Canadian through these certified co-productions, and at the same time benefit from the LFP top-ups and other financial incentives.

I have several projects where I have been requested, as part of the development, to find an international partner to open the Canadian content requirements. This is done to attract talent from outside of Canada--to have others from outside Canada work on the project--so that it can be qualified as a Canadian production and receive broadcast funding and support. This is for both public and private broadcasters.

I have one major series of over $5 million for every 13 episodes. We've now done three seasons and are entering our fourth. In it, I've had to take a majority of work from Canada and do an international co-production to qualify for triggering broadcast percentage and for Canadian funding.

The numbers of mergers are minimizing the gatekeepers--the windows to the world--and many licences are now granted to large corporations with proven track records in funding in the international marketplace. The regulations are seen as an impediment, and licences are given to productions that are not CTF high-risk, or constricted by Canadian content regulations. This affects national diversification and cultural representation.

How can you depict visibly Canadian content and cultural diversification with the majority of productions being led out of central Canada, or allowing international stars and talent to be considered Canadian?

¸ (1405)

There are no requirements for broadcasters to carry a portion of their programming from the regions. The regions do not normally have access to central Canada where all the decisions are made, let alone the international marketplace to put together international co-productions. Regional representation does not exist, in my opinion.

With respect to a star system strengthening the talent base, we've had one of the worst environments for growing this recognized talent base. There is no Canadian star system. There's no money spent on promoting Canadian shows or stars. If we have no alignment with distributors, and there are all these Canadian elements to meet, there's no interest in the international marketplace.

Why not create an environment where strong commercial stories can get told, where production increases, and talent gets an opportunity to develop international exposure? Can successful companies and talent not be part of our Canadian identity? Ratings are a key part of financing and part of the funding criteria for the CTF. I'm told this will be weighed even more heavily in the next funding rounds. Yet the CRTC does not regulate the networks to promote their productions and their stars so that our productions and talents rise to the top.

Currently, EIP or Telefilm and other funders have recoupment requirements. How did we do this? How does a cultural policy have an industrial requirement for recoupment? New technologies are making the current situation with broadcasters more trying. Broadcasters are now trying to secure the Internet portions of the productions and are undermining the Internet rights. This is a fear factor and not based on a strong business model for more stringent exploitation. It is the same throughout history: TV was to be the death of radio, computers the death of TV, videos the death of theatrical releases.

These new technologies should serve as an additional means of distribution, a new way to interface with new and repurposed properties; yet we're not allowed to embrace and realize the full potential. The advent of several new broadcast programs that deal with convergent properties are providing more fodder to the mix. Internets are being more neutralized. It is currently viewed as a way to basically take copyright and force producers not to use the current CTF funds.

It is not a question of whether the current method of determining Canadian content requirements is still appropriate in relationship to new media. This once again may be of good intent in a vacuum or in principle, but we will never be innovative, advanced, or lead the way under this type of structure; we won't even get to the starting gate.

I step back from the question of why we would want to define Canadian content in such a way. How do the visible elements predict culture? Can a cultural policy and industrial policy co-exist? Why is it that I have to depict a Canadian theme or situation? Creativity does not exist inside this paradigm. You can't regulate story-telling. I don't do documentaries or factual programming, and these regulations fly in the face of artistic creativity. They also in many ways do not allow the current themes, such as love, or hope conquering fear, to be considered.

The question is, what is the cultural fabric of Canada? It was one posed. I believe it is strong companies, and the individuals committed to living and working in Canada who tell stories, whether factual or dealing with universal themes, to the world. It is allowing companies to grow and have access to a fair system that supports the web of policies we're currently operating under. I believe more focus should be on the strength of the business, growing our production companies to do more productions, possibly allowing exemptions--and I believe, in this case, for private broadcasters, not the public one--for more commercial properties, using Canadian talent and appropriate roles. Maybe the increased exposure will do naturally what we try to regulate.

Realizing the corporate and economic needs for private broadcasters to make a profit, allow the industry to focus on strong, universal themes and projects that are viable. Focus on Canadian elements that make a project feasible or attractive to foundational stakeholders.

In summary, I believe the basic principles of the current act are not being realized. In many ways, the current act may be the very thing that does not allow Canadian culture and its people to thrive.

Thank you for your attention.

¸ (1410)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Rose. I think you produced a very provoking brief, which will be very interesting for us all, especially Mr. Abbott, I'm sure.

Mr. Abbott, there you go.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Actually, I would like to spend an entire day with you--

¸ (1415)

Ms. Gretha Rose: You'd have to buy lunch.

Mr. Jim Abbott: --because there's so much in this brief that, I'll be candid, is over my head. I need to have a far better understanding of the basics so that I can take in the information. So excuse me if I just deal very lightly or very topically with some of the...

I think this witness has a tremendous amount for us. That's what I'm trying to say.

I think we are in agreement. This is from the top of page 4:

What is the cultural fabric of Canada? I believe it is strong companies and individuals committed to living and working in Canada that tell stories, whether factual or dealing with universal themes to the world. It is allowing companies to grow and have access to a fair system that supports the web of policies we are currently operating under.

We both agree in the English... Or hopefully we both actually agree. In other words, sometimes there are misunderstandings in the words.

On page 3, the third paragraph was a simple piece of your complex brief that I thought I would try to get a better understanding of:

Ratings are a key part of financing and part of the funding criteria for the CTF. I am told that this will be even weighed more heavily in the next funding round. Yet, the CRTC does not regulate that networks promote their productions, stars, so that our productions and talent rise to the top.

My intuition says this is an area where we may have a difference. Are you suggesting by that paragraph that the CRTC should be regulating how the programs and the stars are going to be promoted? I rather thought the thrust of your presentation was to let the producers decide. In other words, get the CTF, the CRTC, and Canadian content regulations out of our hair--I thought that was the direction in which you were going. If it was, then you turn it around in this paragraph, where it appears you're saying that what you'd like the CRTC to actually do is regulate how the networks are going to promote their productions and stars. Those seem to be contrary to each other.

Ms. Gretha Rose: It was meant actually as a statement. I am not a believer in regulation. I don't really think it fixes the problems, because I don't think we've asked the proper questions. But again, it's one piece. So if we have, under Heritage Canada, programs now in regard to a funding mechanism where they're going to have ratings as one of the top weightings, and we do not have a commitment inside of our public-private....

I have to be careful, because the public and the private broadcasters have two very separate mandates, but I believe the economics are the same. One is profit-driven; the other one still has to be able to sustain itself.

So if the regulations state that there have to be eight hours of Canadian programming per day--I think that's what they currently state--if the Canadian programming is not focused on, and the broadcasters continue to promote their big U.S. productions such as The West Wing and all the ones where there is profit, it will greatly affect Canadian funding being able to fund their properties. It will more adversely affect because we won't have that type of rating, because there is no promotion.

I know the CTF, the board, is grappling with this, and I know they're looking at trying to put some pressure on the CRTC to have some sort of regulation in regard to minimum PSAs and things like that.

Is there any easy answer? There isn't, but it is an area that will have a huge effect.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm a little confused about something. I'm grasping for some information here. In other words, we aren't on different sides of this question, but I'm trying to understand something here.

If we took a program like The Associates, for example, and that's part of the Canadian content mandated by the CRTC, is it not rational to believe that the network, because they have to show that program anyway because that is part of their Canadian package, would naturally be promoting the heck out of it?

In other words, they can mention The West Wing, and because it's popular anyway, people... I will admit that because I'm in different time zones in my job, I will actually be watching on CTV to see what time of night on the Wednesday night that's shown in the location I'm at. I'm looking for the promotion. So it doesn't seem reasonable that The Associates wouldn't get more advertising than The West Wing.

¸ (1420)

Ms. Gretha Rose: Probably in that context The Associates would get more advertising. But there are probably eight programs at that level currently on any form of broadcast network in Canada. That one probably would, but what about all the other types of programs that are there?

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm thinking of Da Vinci 's Inquest, Cold Squad, and so on and so forth. What I'm trying to button down here is to confirm that you are indeed saying that this type of promotion for those Canadian productions should be mandated and pushed by the CRTC, that the CRTC would stipulate to the Canadian broadcasters that they had to do this kind of advertising.

Ms. Gretha Rose: I can't say that because again it's a piece. If some of the regulations there are now that make it impossible for a network to be involved in what we feel is maybe a commercially viable property, one that could be sold into the international marketplace and can get that kind of calibre of international cachet, were different in the beginning, then would this even be an issue? You can't address one without addressing all the rest of it.

So do I think regulating ratings is the answer? No. But I don't think Heritage Canada coming up with a funding system that's weighted heavily on ratings is the answer inside of this present context either. It's a morass.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You spoke of the importance of broadcasting Canadian productions on the English networks, and the fact that over the years we have preferred American productions. The impression we often have in Quebec, is that English Canadians don't like these shows or that these shows do not reflect what the people want to see in English productions. In Quebec, we have managed to build a strong relationship with Quebec artists who create these shows, these television series. They deal with Québécois stories, and this helps to build strong bonds. We watch these shows every week. I am a great fan of all these programs.

How could English Canada manage to build such bridges with its artists? I am sure that in fact, it is not a reflection of what we believe we are seeing from the outside. We always hear that even CBC is not watched that much. I heard that when American shows arrive at the broadcasters, there were even ads that said “The Canadian television that you watch...”. I don't know who puts together that kind of publicity, but in people's minds... We know when we are watching American shows, but do English Canadians know when this or that is American or when it is a Canadian production?

I'd like to hear your opinion on that, and also on the Canadian Television Fund, particularly its inherent difficulties regarding support for the production and broadcasting of Canadian programs.

[English]

Ms. Gretha Rose: That second one is a big one. I want to be clear that I have your question correct, so if it's not, please let me know.

In regard to the first one, it's something that's very common and spoken about quite often in our industry that English Canadians will not watch their own programming. But in French programming, there's a very strong support, a very strong relationship with the productions, the talents. There's also a very strong global community. They do extremely well, in many cases, with selling internationally to French-speaking countries. It's something we speak about all the time. I don't know if anybody ever knows exactly why, if it's just a cultural issue, but there is not a lot of support from English-speaking viewers or audiences of English programming that's produced here.

The second one is the Canadian Television Fund. The Canadian Television Fund, as you know, holds the licence fee top-ups, the LFP and the EIP, which is Telefilm Canada. I could speak for months on this. I say I have a CTF degree now, a master's degree.

There are so many contradictory issues around the CTF. Even given that those two programs do not interrelate well, the EIP does have recoupment. They're equity partners or profit participants. It's expected that if you're going to access money, it has to be triggered by a certain amount of broadcast licence and it also has to have strong international sales capability so that the money can be recouped.

That flies in the face of many of the cultural conditions, such as being visibly Canadian and the attachment of Canadian talent, of which I am a big supporter. Distributors refuse to give you distribution advances because it is not commercially viable in the international world. So there's always that conflict.

As I said, I think the CRTC in itself, in its pure form, works. But the contradiction of all the other funders and their needs no longer makes any sense as a whole.

I tried to explain one example, and this has happened to many of us across Canada. It was quite devastating for the Canadian industry. It was quite devastating for me, even at an emotional level. We do $10 million to $15 million of production a year, quite a bit for a small company out of Prince Edward Island. But with the regulations from the CTF, to get federal money through the CTF, we have to certify as international coproductions. That allows the broadcaster's licence to go against the Canadian portion of the budget only, so it gives us higher points. The higher your points, the more likely you're going to get money from CTF. It's all based on a 59-point structure. So the more work done overseas, the higher your points are and the more likely you are to get Canadian money.

I had to take literally $1.5 million out of Cape Breton and give it to Hong Kong to get federal money and to get a broadcast licence. That's Heritage Canada's policy. That's the alignment with broadcasters. So if you're regulating broadcasters, public and private, if they don't buy what the original intent and purpose of it was, then who are the regulations for? The broadcast community has to live by them. That's not really the case with the partners we have to deal with in regard to how we get our shows to the world.

¸ (1425)

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming today.

I'm not sure I understand everything you've been saying. Let me ask you whether you want the CTF at all. You're basically saying that when it comes to accessing the CTF, the broadcasters, who you say “do not embrace an economic model on something as restrictive as Canadian content and cultural diversity”, play little games to get around the regulations so that they can find ways and means of creating productions that will have an appeal on the international market. Am I right so far?

¸ (1430)

Ms. Gretha Rose: I would change the words “play little games”--

Mr. John Harvard: What would you call it?

Ms. Gretha Rose: --because you have a broadcaster with a profit margin it has to meet, so it's a very high risk for them to deal with parties that have access to that fund.

Mr. John Harvard: But they do try to get around the regulations so that they can produce what they think will be profitable.

Ms. Gretha Rose: Yes, for a commercially viable project.

Mr. John Harvard: All right.

Then you say on the bottom of page three:

“Why is it that I have to depict a Canadian theme or situation? Creativity does not exist inside of this paradigm. You can't regulate storytelling. I don't do documentaries or factual programming. These regulations fly in the face of the artistic creativity.”

Are you saying have CTF with regulation or no regulation or no CTF at all?

Ms. Gretha Rose: I think those bodies absolutely serve a purpose in assisting in financing. I question how they're weighed with regard to the sort of point system they give you. When it comes to the criteria you have to meet in the CTF for content, if I am doing some of the great Shakespearean works, I'm disqualified.

I had a first window on a national broadcast channel, but it was shot 100% in P.E.I. with a Canadian director. There was a fight with the distributor over my wanting to put Canadian and international talent on. It was based on the story of the struggle of a father and son in overcoming grief. It was not considered Canadian content, because there is no place to hold a universal theme. It would have to depict an actual event, be based on published works, all of those elements. So you're being penalized. No weight is given to something that is more universal. All of those elements--

Mr. John Harvard: What criteria would you put in place so that there is some Canadian rationale behind it? If we have CTF with no Canadian content requirement, the money is just simply there, then the folks from Hollywood, who probably don't have access to too many government funds, would just come up here and do a great Hollywood story, a story about some Bavarian minstrel, Shakespeare, or whatever, and they'll get their hands on our money. So I don't think that would work. Would you agree?

Ms. Gretha Rose: I don't think they can get their hands on our money. You're only looking at tax credits there, and there are ways to protect that.

There are different types. I'm not saying get rid of all the Canadian content, but I think how we weigh that is quite important. What weight do you put on corporate longevity? Currently, it's a crapshoot in this business. There's no corporation that can tell from year to year whether they're going to get shows financed. It has taken the large companies, such as Alliance Atlantis, to be successful, allowing them to be self-supported.

There should be something that really assists the regional voice and the national voice and the growing of that talent base to have more and more production.

Mr. John Harvard: So in that case you do want some regulation to protect the regions.

Ms. Gretha Rose: No, I don't represent the region in this.

Mr. John Harvard: No, I'm not suggesting you do. But you would like to see some kind of--

Ms. Gretha Rose: There are some very small things with regard to small and medium-sized companies.

Mr. John Harvard: But not enough.

Ms. Gretha Rose: I'm talking about ways of being able to shoot in Canada and to grow strong companies.

As I say, I'm a firm believer in Canadian talent, and this one has always confused me. But to regulate that you have to have your highest-paid actor as Canadian, when you have your distribution community saying absolutely not--

¸ (1435)

Mr. John Harvard: Let me ask you this so I can get it straight, then. You're drawing up the regulations--you. Just give me your top two or three criteria that you would put in place to promote Canadian culture and diversity. What would you put in place, then?

Ms. Gretha Rose: Well, probably even taking that a little bit bigger, I think I would take CBC's mandate and the private broadcasters' mandate and treat them a bit differently, because I think one of the roles of CBC is to promote Canadian culture and talent. I think they do that quite well, given the confines they're faced with. Believe me: as I say, I have no expert ability to figure all this out; maybe there are two separate funding aspects. But if we're looking at just doing commercially viable properties that are driven by Canadians, produced out of Canada, employing Canadian people--

Mr. John Harvard: That should be it?

Ms. Gretha Rose: I think there should be strong weight to it. Also, with respect to having a long-term view and some sort of participation.... This is something I know the board of the CTF is looking at: how do they monitor corporate growth, and at what point should they be taken off the breast? That should occur. If you continue to have something where the only people who can access those funds easily are the large production companies that are also broadcasters and also distributors, of course they're the ones who can access that fund the most.

We have oversubscribed funds. The small and medium companies in this country really don't have much of a chance to compete, and they do extremely well, given what we're up against.

Mr. John Harvard: How do we--

The Chair: We'll come back to you, John.

Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Could I get just some clarification on two portions on page 3? Concerning the recoupment of funds, could you further expand on the idea that if a production does really well, then the funding has to be repaid? Do you see a problem with that?

Ms. Gretha Rose: No, there is no problem. Where it becomes problematic is that this is a cultural policy. That's why we get all this money available to us, because it is a cultural policy; it's not an industrial policy. You have situations where in many ways we cannot create programs that are commercially viable in the international marketplace. They're not wanted because they're not of a commercial nature. You have those kinds of criteria, and then your federal funders--and this is done out of Heritage Canada as well--have a recoupment policy. Every time you do an international sale, their portion of their equity investment is pari passu with the other funders.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Most of them are equity positions in the productions, are they?

Ms. Gretha Rose: Yes. LFP is a license fee top-up, but Telefilm Canada--which is EIP under the CTF--is an equity partner. They expect to be recouped. So there is a weighting given to your ability to recoup. If you have no ability to sell your project internationally, you will not get Heritage Canada's money to fund the property that is supposed to go on the broadcast network.

You'll be getting briefs, I'm sure, from the CFTPA, from the distribution... I can't remember the acronym for the Canadian distributor system we have here. This is something that is problematic, and that over many years we have been trying to work through. What happens is there are more policies and criteria that get put in place.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: You get your acronym straightened out ASAP, or you're going to be SOL.

Ms. Gretha Rose: Well, that's right.

I firmly believe that as a Canadian who loves to create, I can walk out my door and take two steps forward and two steps left and find a phenomenal story that's going to be of interest to the world. All of my productions do extremely well in regard to sales internationally. They're all Canadian; they all use Canadian talent. They've done extremely well, but I've had to finance them very differently and have had to do things that were really against my own personal integrity to be able to access those funds.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Just being nosy, the one with the 13 episodes, with the $5 million, what production is that?

¸ (1440)

Ms. Gretha Rose: That's called Eckhart. It's an animated children's special that right now is sold all around the world. It's in 39 different countries, and 13 different languages. All of the actors, the 100-and-some actors in that, are from Prince Edward Island, except for one. He's the mean person, and he's from Ontario--Boussmouse.

Right now we've just developed another project called Doodlez, which is being distributed by Disney around the world. It's all being done here. But to come with the visibly Canadian content for animated series, as well, that's a whole other thing that I didn't get into here.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: With regard to the technology, you identify that we haven't been able to be allowed to embrace or realize the full potential of some of the new technologies. Could you be specific? What are the impediments? What has impaired our ability to realize its full potential?

Ms. Gretha Rose: The broadcasters are currently going after those rights. They don't know what the value is, as most of the world does right now, of those rights. So when they go to grant you a licence they take Internet rights. We fought them. It has been fought a lot in our industry. Some have been successful, but not many. Those rights are really just neutralized; they're held.

So as I've asked national broadcasters to show me their business plan and why theirs is better than mine, there is no business model; there's just a fear factor.

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you so much for coming here and giving us this paper. I apologize for not being here during the questioning. I had to make some phone calls, and I couldn't get away.

Ms. Gretha Rose: They were good questions.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I mention that because if I ask you the same question, you just let me know.

Yesterday we talked with some people who are working on animation at Kaleidoscope Theatre. You probably know them. They talked about the fact that if this committee could recommend anything, one of the important things would be to make sure that CTF money couldn't be accessed by networks, so that it's still possible for small-sized and medium-sized companies to produce and to gain that. I'd like your comment on that.

You made a point about the fact that there are no requirements for broadcasters to carry a portion of their programming from the regions, which seems to be a problem for you. So in a way it seems like the big bad broadcasters are somehow--I throw this out--out there, making it difficult for little and medium-sized creative companies.

Ms. Gretha Rose: A lot of what I've said here will be very similar to what the broadcasters association will present to this board as well. Broadcasters, like any corporation, have a fiscal responsibility to make profits. That's the cost of doing business.

There's just a certain reality in which we live, and the broadcasters now being able to access the funds is problematic, because there is already an oversubscription on all of those funds that are through Heritage Canada. So you still have the large corporations being able to access, the broadcasters being able to access, and in the next I think it's two years to three years the distributors are going to be allowed to access that.

What will occur is those funds will be given in many cases to large, centralized, huge conglomerates. It does stop the SMEs from being able to participate, which then affects.... In many ways the SMEs are in the regions. They're in Ontario as well. They're in Quebec as well. But you're going to get a certain point of view that's going to be quite skewed and that I don't think represents Canada. I think it represents big companies.

Ms. Wendy Lill: It's always good to provide solutions, because problems just make everybody nuts. So if you could provide some kind of recommendation about the CTF, and the way it is constructed, and how it has to in fact...

Ms. Gretha Rose: And I have. There have been many hearings. I'm very strong in policy. I've been involved for several years now with the CTF--

¸ (1445)

Ms. Wendy Lill: Then I'll ask you another question. Why is it the way it is now, if you have been very strong in putting forward the way it should be, because of some political problems--

Ms. Gretha Rose: Then you go back to the legitimacy of how those boards are put together. If you look at the CTF board, a board is supposed to be responsible for its own makeup and composition. It's not supposed to represent any constituency; it's supposed to always represent the constituency at large, which is the Canadian public in this case, and in many ways it's Canadian culture. But that's not the case with the CTF board.

The CTF allows a certain number of broadcasters, a certain numbers of producers, a certain number of large companies. There's one independent producer. So the composition, I have always said, and been quite public, is illegal. A board that cannot be responsible for its own composition and to be able to represent the Canadian public is weighed heavily in the voice of broadcasters and distributors. It gets quite big. But I trust that one always has to go back to the original acts and their policies they adhere to.

The Chair: I think we'll have to move on, but just before we do, you mention that sometimes you were having to use methods that went against your personal integrity.

Ms. Gretha Rose: Yes.

The Chair: That's is a very strong statement, and it's very unfortunate that we have to go that way.

I wanted to ask you, because it seemed to us, after listening to what we did yesterday and before that, that the purpose of the CTF would be to foster the creators who don't have the means to sustain themselves from the base or haven't the power. So, in effect, what you're saying is that SMEs are very poorly represented at the board level and should be better represented.

Secondly, in your case, with your $5 million project, you would have preferred not to have had to go to Hong Kong, of course. I wanted to ask you, would your product have been just as successful otherwise?

Ms. Gretha Rose: Absolutelly, and deliver on many of the true mandates of Heritage. And part of that is employing Canadians.

The Chair: Thirdly, we heard again yesterday how the bigger players sometimes would buy a small player in the region just to access the regional points through CTF and equity funding and so forth.

Ms. Gretha Rose: Yes.

The Chair: If you have put these thoughts already before the CTF, if you could just let us have this in practical form it would be extremely useful to us, because I think these are key issues of governance of these institutions.

Lastly, we've heard also that access to the CTF is extremely bulky and bureaucratic. Perhaps you could address as well how we could sort of streamline this whole thing.

Ms. Greta Rose: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Along the same lines, if you could very simply walk through the process of why you had to do that Hong Kong thing.... We won't take the time right now, because of the time constraint, but I think it's really key.

Ms. Gretha Rose: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Why did you have to do that? What is the failing of the CTF that forces you to do that?

Ms. Gretha Rose: I will say it again, and I can reiterate that in just a couple of sentences. Access to Heritage Canada money is based on the major points. Up to 40 out of 59 points come from the percentage of the Canadian broadcaster's licence toward the budget. But it was changed to have that be toward the Canadian budget. So the lower you put your Canadian budget and the more you put overseas, the higher your broadcast points are and the more likely you are to access Heritage Canada's money.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, hopefully the researchers are going to be able to explain that to us.

Ms. Gretha Rose: And it's very common. It's been presented. People understand that this is presented all over the place. That's the weird thing. We have great access to politicians here and strong representation in Parliament, and to be able to debrief what really makes no sense is a very tough thing for people to understand, but I will.

Who would you like me to send that to?

¸ (1450)

The Chair: To the clerk of the committee, Ms. Fisher.

You know, Ms. Rose, you're the first person to have really articulated for us one of the basic sources of the problem, the composition of the boards. In other words, how can something be weighted in favour of SMEs if there are none there? That's a very big point.

We would like to thank you very, very much for being here, and we'll wait to hear from you. We really look forward to it.

We'll now take a five-minute break before we restart. The meeting is suspended for five minutes, and then we'll proceed with the Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin.

¸ (1450)

¸ (1455)

[Translation]

The Chair: We are resuming the hearing of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome Ms. Maria Bernard, President of the Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin of Prince Edward Island, and its liaison officer, Mr. Dominic Langlois.

Good afternoon, Ms. Bernard and Mr. Langlois. We are very pleased to have you here.

Ms. Bernard, you have the floor.

¹ (1500)

Ms. Maria Bernard (President, Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make the presentation, but you may ask questions of either Mr. Langlois or myself.

First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for having invited us to speak to the subject of French-language broadcasting today.

The Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin represents our francophone and Acadian population which, in the 1996 census, stood at 5,700 people. Although our community is small, we have long shown a very innovative sense of development. For your information, a little over 10% of the total population of the province of Prince Edward Island would be likely to use French broadcasting services.

Although vulnerable, the francophone population of Prince Edward Island has made great progress over the last few years. However, the Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin and all the members it represents, must watch carefully over all areas of development for our community, and the communication sector is no exception to this rule. We are particularly concerned by the content in broadcasting and telecommunications services, which do not often reflect our reality.

In order to ensure our survival, it is critical that we have access to the communications tools that will help us to better know and appreciate our cultural and social wealth. In that regard, we are happy with the morning show on Radio-Canada, L'Acadie c'matin, the only French-language program produced here, at the Charlottetown studio. This program is one of the tools we refer to above, and it contributes to the blossoming of the Island francophonie.

As others have mentioned previously, we feel obliged to reiterate that with the exception of this program, the product broadcast by the Crown corporation is all too often made by and for Quebeckers. In order that they also reflect Acadian reality, we would like to see greater prominence given to local productions. Quebeckers are often unaware of the existence of other French-speaking populations outside of their province. It would be as much in the interest of Quebeckers as of island Acadians to see and hear more about Acadia on the national network.

Community radio. We also believe everything should be put into place to promote the development of a community radio network within each of the minority French-language communities. This year, the Island community radio establishment project made some progress. We have a coordinator to develop the second phase of the project. As you are certainly aware, community radio stations represent an excellent development tool for minority communities. We support their development, because through their mandate and the public that they reach, community radio stations complement the work of the public broadcaster.

In this regard, we support the recommendation made by theFédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, to “set up a process whereby FM frequencies would be set aside for the potential creation of French-language community radio stations”.

In our case, obtaining a frequency is not the only problem. We feel obliged to point out to you that Heritage Canada does not have a fair financial support program to encourage small communities such as ours to move forward with community radio projects. As we are scattered about several regions on the Island, our francophone community is not easily reached and the cost of the facilities are often astronomical. It is unfortunate that when national regulations are established, they often do not take regional realities into account. This is why we would like to see the CRTC intervene with the federal government in order to rectify this situation, which too often leaves us on the sidelines.

New technologies. On another subject, we've become aware of Société Radio-Canada's application for a licence so that Radio-Canada's cultural network would be able to serve Prince Edward Island. We enthusiastically support the establishment of cultural network services for our region. This project meets the real needs of francophone listeners by offering an interesting choice to those who wish to know more about francophone culture through music and art in all its forms.

However, this project prompts us to support once again a request made by the FCFA asking you to “ensure that there be a standing organization whose mandate would be to promote French-language stations for francophone and Acadian communities in Canada”.

With the speed with which changes are presently taking place in the area of broadcasting, it is not always easy for the public to get their bearings. As it is possible to have access to hundreds of television and radio channels, it is critical that the CRTC take the particular needs of francophone and Acadian communities into account.

In order to be seen and heard, a new francophone station will need to be known. If we want to put an end to assimilation, we must present a quality French product to our youth, one that meets their high standards, both on radio and on television.

Moreover, we believe that the Broadcasting Act should be amended in order to leave no doubt as to the CRTC's mandate to watch over the development of French-language communities living in a minority situation, as described in part VII of the Official Languages Act. The act clearly recognizes the existence of these two communities and their rights. As an organization that regulates all broadcasting and telecommunications, the CRTC has a duty to respect the legislation.

We encourage you to continue playing a leading role in the development and blossoming of francophone minorities in this country, and to continue your efforts. The work that is devoted to the area of broadcasting and telecommunications is essential because it supports that done by the Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin, which is work towards the goal of all francophones and Acadians being able to live and blossom individually and collectively in French on Prince Edward Island.

Once again, thank you for giving us the form whereby we can promote discussions between yourself and our community.

¹ (1505)

The Chair: Ms. Bernard, you must be aware of the fact that during our hearings, over the last year, we have met with many francophone groups outside of Quebec. They have all expressed the same concern on the subject of community development and community radio stations, and the role of Radio-Canada. We are very pleased that you are here today to reinforce that message.

We will move on to questions. I will ask Mr. Abbott to start.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

I thank you for coming.

I wonder if you could help me do an immediate inventory so I know what our starting point is. I'm not concerned about whether it's regional or national, just the access to either radio or television in French. What is the present status for people in Prince Edward Island?

¹ (1510)

[Translation]

Ms. Maria Bernard: On Prince Edward Island at the moment, we have the radio service of Radio-Canada. We have one program broadcast from PEI; we also get two or three programs out of Moncton, and the others come from Montreal. The same goes for television; there is a one-hour program, l'Atlantique Ce Soir, which is broadcast in the Atlantic region. No television programming originates in Prince Edward Island.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Is it broadcast on the channel that would normally be carrying English?

[Translation]

Ms. Maria Bernard: No. It is the French channel of Radio-Canada. The other programs come to us from Montreal and Quebec City.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: What I'm trying to arrive at here, so that I understand where we are, is what you're stipulating or what you're asking for. I believe the number was 5,700. These would be French-speaking people, which would be mostly Acadians and some Métis.

Ms. Maria Bernard: No. It would be francophones who come from other provinces.

Mr. Jim Abbott: So what you would like is to have either AM or FM radio as a community station en français.

[Translation]

Ms. Maria Bernard: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: What about television?

[Translation]

Ms. Maria Bernard: As regards television, we would like to have more local programming. There's very little programming out of Prince Edward Island. In fact, there is none except for the two or three minutes of news out of Prince Edward Island for the l'Atlantique ce Soir show. There's nothing else.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm trying to think outside the box, as they say. I'm trying to be creative in coming up with a solution that might not be a perfect solution but might go some distance to where you want to go. First, do you have any idea of what percentage of people on Prince Edward Island would have access to or are presently on cable? I know you're not an expert on it, but I'm just wondering if you have any idea.

[Translation]

Ms. Maria Bernard: We don't have the statistics.

¹ (1515)

The Chair: How many people have cable television on Prince Edward Island?

Ms. Maria Bernard:The majority of the francophone population has cable. There are a few isolated villages that do not have cable. Often, those that don't have cable can get Radio-Canada by satellite. That is my case.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: As I mentioned, I'm not saying that what I'm going to suggest here is the solution. I'm just trying to think creatively, even on an interim basis. If the cable companies were mandated by the CRTC to give access, on a daily basis, to one or two or three hours of French programming that would reflect the French reality on Prince Edward Island, can you see that there would be some benefit to that?

[Translation]

Ms. Maria Bernard: Yes, because if you talk about local issues, people will listen. At the moment, I'm not convinced that very many people listen to French radio or watch French television. They listen mostly to local programs. They prefer the community radio station which is more local, but they also listen to shows that interest them like hockey. If the Canadians are playing, most of the francophone communities will listen to the game in French because it's a subject of interest to them, except they can't right now because of the strike.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Sure, I understand that. Other than when we're into summertime and there are other events taking place, I'm trying to think of a low-cost way of perhaps immediately being able to satisfy some of the concerns you have presented to us today.

[Translation]

Ms. Maria Bernard: In English, there's a local show called Compass. Everyone watches that show. We ourselves do not have access to a local television show. One solution would be to have a local show. Everyone watches Compass, even the francophones, because it is local. However, if we had a local French program, people would listen to it in French. There is no local television production on Prince Edward Island.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you for your presentation. As the chairman was saying, having met with most francophone communities, be it out west or in the east, we know that the problem is related to the percentage of the population. It seems as if there is no structure or infrastructure.

If memory serves me well, I made a comment during our trip out west: the fact of defining oneself as a percentage of the population takes away the notion of being a founding people and also the role that public television should play. Earlier you mentioned that Heritage Canada does not have a specific program to better support French- language communities and that this has been the situation for several years. Today, everyone wants to be connected and have the chance to talk about themselves. Whether it is the anglophone or francophone community, everyone wants to be able to see their reality reflected on television and be able to talk about their community and their concerns.

You stress that Quebeckers seem unaware of the existence of francophone communities outside of Quebec. I think that that view of the situation is rather short-sighted. As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I consider it my duty to always speak French first during question period and debates in the House, to promote francophone communities. In Quebec, of course, we are a larger community, but we're always being reminded of our percentage, and over the years, this percentage continues to decrease because of assimilation. In Quebec, we're very vigilant in this regard.

What could possibly bring about...? We heard, for example, about community radio stations which are a better reflection of local expression, of the local situation.

One of the problems is to ensure that francophone communities in the same area can connect, talk to each other and get news of each other.

Do you have this same problem on Prince Edward Island, where you live more in one area, are less scattered? We were told yesterday that that was true of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Do you have the same problem of a widely scattered community, or is it located in one area? If this is the case, community radio is better able to...

¹ (1520)

Mr. Dominic Langlois (Liaison Officer, Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin): I apologize for interrupting. We have exactly the same problem here. On Prince Edward Island, the Acadian population is scattered around five different regions. That means it would be very expensive to develop community radio infrastructures. Heritage Canada does have a program to foster the development of these infrastructures that is of use to communities that are located more in the same area, as in Chéticamp, for example, where such a service has been provided. The number of francophones in that area is the same as in this province, namely about 5,000. The program was very suitable because the francophones were living in the same area. The problem with the Island is that we are scattered about, and as a result, it would be far too expensive to develop the infrastructure required to try to reach... That is where we are at the moment. We are wondering how we could subsidize a community radio station on Prince Edward Island, given that the Acadian and francophone population is so scattered.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Someone gave us an idea yesterday. In Nova Scotia, there could be a repeater transmitter that could connect community radio stations. Have you thought about a solution of this type?

The financial resources do not seem to be available. We are going to have to find other solutions, but I find it unacceptable that in the year 2002, one of the communities that founded Canada do not a voice. Some may say that Quebec does not see you as a francophone community outside Quebec, but I think you also have to connect within your community. If your community accounts for 10 or 15% of the population, you must have cultural programming that reflects your unique reality.

Ms. Maria Bernard: Even now, our networking is poor. There are some remote regions in the western part of the Island that have trouble getting the FM service, l'Acadie c'matin. Some areas even have problems of this type. Our network is not strong enough to reach all our communities. We want a community radio station that could reach all the francophones on Prince Edward Island. That is what we are working on to find out what could be done to get a community radio station that would reach all the francophones on the Island.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You spoke about radio, but the television situation must be even more catastrophic than that of radio programming.

Ms. Maria Bernard: Television in French is not that well known; we need to make it better known. People watch things of interest to them, but we need to make television in French better known.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Is there any television production done here?

Ms. Maria Bernard: No. From time to time, there is a program produced here. Last year, for the celebration on August 15, there was a show produced here in Prince Edward Island.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Broadcast by which...

Ms. Maria Bernard: It was broadcast by Radio-Canada. That happened once in five or six years. It is very rare, but from time to time there is a special program produced here.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: But here you have French Radio-Canada and English CBC.

Ms. Maria Bernard: Yes.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: So what is French television doing here, if it is not producing programming?

Ms. Maria Bernard: The only program we have is l'Atlantique Ce Soir, which is produced here, in Moncton. So it covers Acadian life in New Brunswick very well, but has very little about Acadian life in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The other provinces are covered somewhat, but the program is broadcast mainly in Moncton.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: How many people here work for Radio-Canada television?

Ms. Maria Bernard: Of the people who are here, there are two. The woman who works on television is there.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: So the teams are very small.

Ms. Maria Bernard: Yes, she is over there.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: So they do mainly news programming.

Ms. Maria Bernard: She works on television, and the other person works on radio. It is difficult to cover the whole Island.

Mr. Dominic Langlois: The only French-language television channel, Radio-Canada, produces its programming and broadcasts out of Moncton, and the only representative we have is the journalist who is here in the room and works for Radio-Canada French television.

The Chair: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...at this time?

Mr. Dominic Langlois : It is a long story. They're not in the same union.

¹ (1525)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: It is the Canadian Guild.

Mr. Dominic Langlois: Exactly. They work in the same building as the people from CBC, and that is why they are not on strike.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yes, I represent Chéticamp, the area Dominic made a comment about. The community station in Chéticamp is a phenomenal success, very much embraced by the people of Chéticamp. As well, we've got a very active and vibrant community television station. They do a great amount of programming at the cable station.

With your FM station, approximately what percentage of the French population are you reaching now with it, and in order to take it to the next level, what are some of the costs involved?

Oh, you don't know? Okay.

Do you have some private partnerships, or are you garnering any kind of commercial support for the station? Maybe you can give us an indication as to where you are financially, and as far as your reach is concerned right now, and where you have to go?

[Translation]

Ms. Maria Bernard: We have only Radio-Canada, and we have no sponsor. We have nothing. All we have is Radio-Canada, and we depend on it.

[English]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Oh, you don't have the FM station yet?

[Translation]

Ms. Maria Bernard: Radio-Canada is broadcast on FM. That is all there is.

[English]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Okay. So you don't have your community station yet?

Ms. Maria Bernard: No.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Oh, I'm sorry.

Ms. Maria Bernard: We have one coordinator who's working on it, trying to establish what we have in Chéticamp. But we don't have it.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Are we getting close or...

Ms. Maria Bernard: No.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Have you been liaising with the group from Chéticamp? It's an excellent group of people.

Ms. Maria Bernard: Angus Lafort.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Angus is great, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Dominic Langlois: They are currently doing a study to look at the various options and try to find the best one and the most economically feasible one for the Island. That is what we call phase two. This is being studied at the moment. There are various options. Obviously, they will be meeting with the people from Chéticamp and others. They have done a number of things, and the process is underway. They have not yet decided on an approach, because the costs are too high. They have not yet found the best strategy. That is where the issue is at right now.

[English]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: You have a great model to emulate. Certainly geographically, with the numbers spread out a little bit more, I know you'd have different challenges, but they've got a very successful station there.

Ms. Maria Bernard: And also it's going to be broadcast on the Internet.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yes.

Ms. Maria Bernard: We can hear it through the Internet. We were just in Louisiana last week and we're going to be able to listen to Cajun music in Chéticamp.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: It's great exposure for the artists.

Ms. Maria Bernard: We want the same here on the Island so we can diffuse.

[Translation]

The Chair: It is also a question of money, is it not?

Ms. Maria Bernard: Yes.

The Chair: Where do you go for funding?

Ms. Maria Bernard: To Heritage Canada.

The Chair: How much would a community radio station cost you?

Ms. Maria Bernard: I do not have the answer to that. The people doing the study are working on that. We do not have the answer.

The Chair: So once the study is finished, you will go to Heritage Canada for funding.

Mr. Dominic Langlois: There is a committee that is in the process of establishing a community radio station. Neither Maria nor I are on this committee, but it could certainly give you the answers to these questions. We could tell you how to get in touch with this committee.

The Chair: Yes, I think it would useful to us if you would ask the people on the committee to send us those figures. That would give us an idea of the cost of establishing a community radio station.

Mr. Dominic Langlois: It is very detailed. They have clear documents that answer all the questions you raised.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, I think Heritage Canada does not support community radio stations in Canada. I do not think it provides funding for establishing a radio station. I may be wrong, but I think that it does not provide funding for the establishment of community radio stations. That is not where the community radio station in Quebec City gets its funding. It goes to the provincial sources, particularly the Quebec government. It also does some fundraising. But this may be an approach. That is one of our requests: that Heritage Canada support community radio stations.

Ms. Maria Bernard: Yes, that is a request we are making: that it support community radio stations.

¹ (1530)

The Chair: Here, this may also be an issue involving the official languages.

Ms. Maria Bernard: Yes.

The Chair: It is possible.

We are very pleased that you came here today and we thank you for your presentation, which strengthens the message we have heard from a number of communities in the west, as Ms. Gagnon mentioned. We also heard it many times here as well. We support you in your endeavours. Once we get these documents, we may have a better understanding of the problems you face. Thank you very much for coming.

Ms. Maria Bernard: Thank you very much. Thank you for listening to us.

The Chair: Heritage Canada does not provide funding for community radio stations in Quebec, because this comes under the minorities program. I think that is where such stations go for funding.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: But people in other francophone communities told us that Heritage Canada had no money for that.

The Chair: Is that so?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I was not saying that with reference to Quebec. We were told that Heritage Canada had no money for that.

The Chair: We will have to check on that.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would be very pleased if it did have money for that.

The Chair: I hope it does.

[English]

We're pleased to welcome the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada in the person of Mr. Steve Stapleton, president of Local 911M, and Mr. Dan Viau, president of Local 21M. We also have the Canadian Media Guild, with Mr. Ian Petrie as spokesperson.

Mr. Stapleton, we'll start with you. Are you speaking for both of you, or are you splitting your time with Mr. Viau?

Mr. Steve Stapleton (President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada): No. Dan has his own presentation. Ian and I are presenting for the CBC side here.

The Chair: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Stapleton.

Mr. Steve Stapleton: My name is Steve Stapleton. I am the president of Local 911M, CEP, in Charlottetown. I am a videographer with the CBC in P.E.I. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation.

On Prince Edward Island, public broadcasting can be described in one word: community. The CBC on Prince Edward Island is part of what we call here the “Island way of life.” We're connected with our listeners and our viewers. We tell their stories and broadcast information about what's happening in our island community.

CBC Charlottetown has been called the model for public broadcasting within the corporation, because it's so connected with the people here, not only in the capital city Charlottetown, but in our bureau at Summerside as well. We provide a service to Islanders and the Canadian people, which is the mandate of the CBC. This service, however, has been eroded over the past 15 years by government budget cuts. The promise of stable funding by government has never materialized.

The CBC's plan to create a national supper-hour program was protested loudly by Islanders, who feared a loss of identity as stakeholders in the public broadcaster.

As employees at the CBC in Charlottetown, we have been burdened by a lack of resources in the production of our supper-hour program, and this has affected us in other ways, too. In the past four years we have had two labour disputes at the CBC, and we currently have one at the CBC with Radio-Canada. The management claims it's playing hardball because of money issues. If that's the case, then government needs to increase its monetary support.

I can tell you from having been at the negotiating table for the union that our demands have been more than reasonable. What we don't know is whether we're dealing with a simple lack of resources or poor management. Management surveyed its employees about the working environment of the CBC. It culminated in the Hay report, which showed that employees were distrustful of management. That was a year ago. Nothing has really changed.

We also had the spectre of CBC president Robert Rabinovitch saying to your committee that he was disappointed and concerned with the Canada Now program, which doesn't give us much confidence in the future.

Now I'll turn it over to Ian.

¹ (1535)

Mr. Ian Petrie (President, Canadian Media Guild): Thank you very much.

My name is Ian Petrie. I'm a journalist here with CBC in Charlottetown. I'm the local president of the Canadian Media Guild, and we appreciate this opportunity to say a few words about what happens here on P.E.I.

As you just heard, P.E.I. is a place where the Broadcasting Act generally is working quite well. There's a good mix of public and private broadcasters. It's clearly not a large enough market to attract a lot of private sector involvement, particular in high-cost areas like television news coverage.

In regard to public broadcasting, when I first joined the CBC, and probably the same for Steve, essentially we were looking for a job. It was certainly a privilege as a journalist to work for the CBC--for me, it goes back to the 1970s--because you were given that sense that you were there to just do the stories, not worry about ad revenues and upsetting your customers that were doing ads, but simply to go out and get the best story that you could and present it in as credible a way as you could. That's a great privilege.

I must say that working here on Prince Edward Island, we are very fortunate. We have a large audience. We don't have a lot of direct private sector competition. That's not to say that our program is better than anybody else's. We are simply in a situation where the CBC is well regarded, and it's a great privilege as a journalist to work in a place where people hear your work, where you can have some impact on public policy.

I do feel for a lot of my colleagues in the CBC who work on supper-hour shows in other parts of the country where nobody watches. These are very talented people, and it is upsetting they don't get to work in a place where their work is listened to. So I just want to say that right off the top.

A lot has changed. So much has changed in the 15 years that I've been here on Prince Edward Island. When I first got here, there were three teletype machines on P.E.I. The CBC had one, the newspaper had one, and the private radio had one. It would churn out news of things that had happened around Canada. So when you did a newscast on the radio, you really were giving people news.

Now, of course, with the Internet, news is available to everyone virtually all the time. So this is an enormous change. I can sit in rural P.E.I. and get the New York Times crossword on a Sunday and do it. That, I think, reflects not so much things in the Broadcasting Act but may have an impact on what journalists do in the future. Obviously there's a huge quantity of information out there. The issue is, journalists may be required to be able to be involved in the quality of that information, in terms of telling people what matters and why it matters, and so on. I'm going to talk a little bit more about this quantity of information in terms of the local stations like Charlottetown.

The CBC has changed dramatically, too. It used to be that the local supper-hour show Compass, the one that Steve and I worked on since the late 1980s, drew on the resources of the CBC. The CBC made national and international stories available to us that we could then put on our hour-long program. Now that has changed completely. Our mandate really is to provide network for the network. It's sold by CBC management as allowing local and regional stories to get to a national audience.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It's a good thing for P.E.I. stories to be seen by a national audience. But it also changes, to some extent, the story selection and development. So now, rather than thinking strictly about what our local audience needs or requires, the issue becomes, what would interest a national audience? What kind of tweaking or story development can you do to carry out that mandate?

I'm not saying this is a totally negative thing. I'm just saying it has changed subtly how we talk about stories at story meetings in the morning, what kinds of stories get the go-ahead. We now really have to have the sense they would be interested in this in Toronto or Vancouver. I'm just saying it does alter, to some extent, the kinds of stories we do.

Living beside what many have called a sort of cultural death star certainly focuses the mind on the importance of public broadcasting. I don't have to give you all the details of that. Canadian governments over the years have recognized the need for public support and regulations to ensure Canadian music and stories are heard and seen. Creating and continuing to support the CBC is obviously a large part of this.

I hope the CBC provides a kind of bottom-line quality of journalism in all parts of the country. At its best, it ensures that the privates have to provide at least adequate coverage as well, coverage they might try to short-change if the CBC weren't there. I have heard this from private broadcasters in this region: that if the CBC weren't here covering stories in a particular way, or covering particular stories, they simply wouldn't do it. But because the CBC is doing it, because the resources are there to do it, they will.

Recently, after more than 15 years of cuts by both the Conservative and Liberal governments, the current government increased the funding to CBC by $60 million per year. There was an effort by CBC president Robert Rabinovitch to guarantee this money in a five-year block. That didn't happen. We here in Charlottetown keep hearing that as long as the $60 million increase is there, Canada Now and Charlottetown's own half-hour local supper-hour program have some chance of continuing, so I obviously encourage the committee to suggest the government continue with this additional money.

But let me add this. I think within the Broadcast Act there are parallel regulations that give private broadcasters a good bit of cash to work with, too. This, obviously, is the broadcasting of popular U.S. programs and being able to replace the U.S. channel signal with the Canadian one and all the ads and ad revenue that go along with that during these broadcasts. In some ways, when you work with the CBC, this seems like more secure money year-to-year than what the CBC has been receiving.

Now if these companies--and this is obviously Global, CanWest, and Bell Canada Enterprises--have been borrowing on and investing these profits to enter the world of convergence, that's their business. Clearly the dust hasn't settled on this.

When we heard the little spat between Izzy Asper and Robert Rabinovitch over supper-hour shows and ad revenues, clearly at this moment CanWest Global Communications is losing a lot of money and they would like to get those ad revenues. I guess I want to encourage the committee not to pass any changes or pass judgment on all of this at this moment, because I think we can all appreciate that neither of these companies, Bell Canada Enterprises or CanWest Global Communications, are going to continue to lose tens of millions of dollars. The landscape will change again. We should let that happen, or allow it to happen in its own way, before changing the Broadcast Act or CRTC regulations or anything.

Obviously, these companies freely got into these enterprises because they thought they would make a lot of money. All the experts were saying convergence is the future. It hasn't happened yet; maybe it will. But it's not up to the government to ensure these companies are profitable.

Let me talk a little bit more about the role government plays in public broadcasting in the CBC. This is tricky, because two years ago when we first heard the CBC was looking at getting rid of the local supper-hour shows and going to one national show, obviously we didn't appreciate it very much. We were told there would be six employees--back from about 32--in Charlottetown.

I had to get into a very awkward situation. My credibility, if you want, as a journalist is that I have a sort of arm's-length relationship with local MPs and with the provincial government. I had to change that relationship, because we wanted to fight this change at the CBC. We had to call on our federal MPs and our local provincial government. I know I even talked to members of this committee about trying to fight this.

I certainly appreciated your committee at least holding hearings and bringing in Robert Rabinovitch and at least putting their feet to the fire, asking the questions and trying to make it as public as possible. That obviously helped in trying to get a different resolution. I'm not saying it was the perfect resolution, but certainly a different resolution.

¹ (1540)

Two years ago, when all this came out, we felt that we did have to go to war with our bosses in Ottawa and Toronto. What I learned through that was that maybe we need to think about different ways of funding the CBC, that at the moment the CBC tends to be on a year-by-year thing--you know, ask Sheila Copps for a favour and pay a little bit more this year and hope that she'll be the minister next year. It's not a particularly good way of funding the CBC.

There was a conference last fall in Ottawa that the Canadian Media Guild hosted. There were people invited from all over the world to look at different ways of funding public broadcasters. I would encourage the committee to at least get the results of those hearings--I think there were some papers that came out of it--and consider a more stable way of funding the CBC that doesn't require the largesse of the government of the day. It's not a particularly good way to fund a public broadcaster.

Thank you very much.

¹ (1545)

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

The result of the forum, the brief, do we get it from your head office?

Mr. Ian Petrie: I can make sure that you get it from head office. I'd be happy to arrange that for you.

The Chair: Yes, if you could do that for us, and make sure that copies are sent to our clerk, it would be extremely useful. Thank you very much.

Mr. Viau.

Mr. Dan Viau (President, Local 21M, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada): Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Dan Viau. I'm the president of Local 21M of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. I represent on-air video journalists, technical, maintenance, commercial, and production employees at ATV-CTV in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Cape Breton, and New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, as well as traffic and accounting and clerical employees at ATV-CTV in Halifax. In a sense, I'm looking at being here on the private broadcasters' side, as opposed to the CBC, which may help put it in perspective as to why we're giving separate presentations.

To give you an idea of who Steve and I represent, CEP is a 150,000-member trade union, with workers in diverse industries. Twenty thousand of our members work in media--television, newspapers, radio, and independent film production. We are Canada's largest media union. Our members are the faces you see and the voices you hear on television and radio across the country and the people who write the newspaper articles. They are also people behind the scenes operating the cameras, doing the creative production and technical and administrative work at media facilities in every province and territory.

CEP members are employed by CTV and the Globe and Mail, CanWest Global, CHUM, Craig, Rogers, Shaw, Corus, Standard, CBC, TVOntario, and many other smaller broadcasters and smaller newspapers.

I will focus today on the decline of local and regional programming here in the Maritimes under your terms of reference, the themes of cultural diversity and regional representation and broadcasting policy and the role of the CRTC. The national vice-president of CEP's media division, Peter Murdoch, will be appearing before your committee later this month, and he will address the national picture.

Over the last five years or so, the CRTC has developed a policy by its decisions of allowing traditional off-air broadcasters to shift or transition their operations to specialty channels to allow them to compete in the multi-channel universe. The terms “mature industry” and “sunset industry” are now used to describe off-air broadcasting. This is having a devastating effect on local and regional programming. For example, in the 1980s ATV employed approximately 100 of our members in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Today, within those operational areas at ATV, that number has been reduced to 22.

Now, while the number of people employed to deliver local and regional content for our maritime viewing audiences is certainly a concern, it is the loss of the local and regional programming those people helped to produce that I believe should be your concern.

The CRTC is allowing public and private broadcasters to get out of local programming, which doesn't make sense. The infrastructure and technology of off-air broadcasting is now being used to deliver national programming. Unfortunately, most of that national programming is in fact American programming. Satellite and cable television delivery systems are better suited to national feeds. Off-air broadcasters have a huge advantage over satellite and cable, in that they are the only ones who can provide distinct local and regional content. The popularity of regional newscasts among both public and private broadcasters supports this view. But while the newscasts may be financially successful, the private broadcasters apparently lack the imagination and/or the motivation to do any non-news local and regional programming.

For example, in the 1980s and early 1990s, ATV--I've been employed at ATV for 22 years--produced a significant variety of local and regional non-news programming for its Maritimes audience. This programming included entertainment and variety shows like Up Home Tonight, Up and Coming, Maritime Country, The Andy Winters Show and the The Joan Kennedy Show, and New Faces. These locally produced shows featured Maritimes musicians, singers, dancers, comedians, and storytellers, providing them exposure to the Maritimes audience and fostering and enhancing the creative atmosphere within the entertainment industry in this region.

For instance, today, despite tremendous success playing in clubs and at dances and charity events, bands like New Brunswick's Glamour Puss Blues Band, instead of having local programming where they might get exposure, are faced with trying to convince programmers in Toronto to book them on CTV's Open Mike with Mike Bullard show. As far as I know, in several years of trying, and despite amazing talent and a large following in our region, the band has not been able to do that.

Other examples of local and regional programming that have disappeared, at least in part, because of the CRTC's new policy include the children's science show produced at ATV in Halifax called Wonder Why and sports shows like Atlantic Grand Prix Wrestling and the harness racing show At the Track.

While it may be argued that these shows might no longer be viable, given today's audience expectations, there's no longer any motivation for off-air broadcasters to develop new programming to deliver locally or regionally generated content to local and regional audiences. Those shows have just disappeared. They weren't replaced by anything, and it doesn't look like they're going to be.

Closer to home, Prince Edward Island has a wonderful and distinct culture that Islanders want to see reflected by their off-air broadcasters. The huge audience for CBC's supper-hour news show Compass and the public outcry over its demise demonstrate the community's desire for local programming.

I believe the desire for local and regional programming reflecting the culture and talents of maritimers extends throughout the three maritime provinces. However, if current trends continue and the federal government, through the Broadcasting Act and the CRTC, does not require a strong and meaningful commitment to local and regional programming by off-air broadcasters, the Maritimes community will probably never again see itself on television outside of news shows.

In conclusion, the most interesting and viable Canadian content for Prince Edward Islanders and people across the Maritimes is local and regional programming. The CRTC ideal of Canadian content that must be able to compete and sell internationally, effectively eliminates local and regional programming. Without local infrastructure, staff, and facilities, there is virtually no capability for broadcasters to represent Maritimers to a national audience. A Toronto production of Anne of Green Gables does not portray today's Prince Edward Island culture or people to the rest of Canada.

Allowing the concentration of ownership in private broadcasting has not served P.E.I. or the Maritimes very well. ATV delivered far more local and regional programming, as I've indicated, to this community than ATV-CTV is now delivering. The reduced delivery of local and regional programming by the private broadcasters has also allowed CBC to cut back its local and regional programming. If the CBC is strong in the community, it encourages private broadcasters to compete on a community level.

Thank you for your time, and I urge you to have the political will to act in the best interests of Prince Edward Islanders and Maritimers.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate presentations, the three of you.

Mr. Abbott, continue with your questions.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

I noticed that a couple of you at least, if not all of you, had been listening to the previous presentations. You'll recall that I mentioned that one of the key items this committee is grappling with is this whole issue of local broadcasting and local availability to people.

I'm not really sure that it's a given, but maybe for the sake of this discussion we can take it as a given that because of convergence, because of the realities the private broadcasters are facing, and because of the funding situation the CBC is facing, in the foreseeable future the availability on traditional private broadcasters and the CBC--let's talk television--is going to continue to be limited. If we can just take that as an assumption, I'd like to float the same idea with you that I did with the people who were just presenting from the French community.

Recognizing that you have an axe to grind as people who represent people who are working in the industry, maybe this is an unfair question to ask you, but I'm going to ask it anyway. If there were a slot, a period of time, four hours a night, from 5:30 to 9:30, where the local cable company, through some kind of regulation or direction by the CRTC, or whatever it was, had to make time available--so there was a local company, possibly a for-profit company, or a local group of volunteers who could pull together the newscasts and pull together some entertainment shows--it strikes me that there might be some way of people in Cape Breton and people in Prince Edward Island being able to see themselves represented on their television sets if they chose to tune in to that channel.

Now, that's a bit of a challenge to you, and I recognize that it's a particular challenge because you represent the livelihoods of people working in the industry. Undoubtedly that's going to colour your comments, but I would really appreciate some kind of a feedback on that, just as a genesis of an idea of thinking outside the box.

The Chair: Mr. Viau.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Dan Viau: Thank you.

I hear what you're saying. I think that the strength the traditional broadcaster brings is we are certainly interested in jobs, yes, and I personally don't think those jobs necessarily have to be within private broadcasting or public broadcasting; they can be independent production houses, perhaps. But I think the private and public broadcasters, the traditional broadcasters, bring a level of expertise and quality to that programming, and to reduce it to cable television and perhaps volunteer-generated programming really does a great disservice to the people.

I don't want to pick on anyone, but we have had a local entertainment show on cable television here for a long time, the equivalent of a Country Jamboree show. It's a wonderful show, and people like it, but to look at that show and compare it to, for instance, the show that we used to do at ATV called Up Home Tonight, the production values--there's no comparison. The calibre of performance, the quality of the show itself, was on a completely different level from a local cable-TV-generated community show. That show was delivered from ATV to a Maritimes audience, not just an island audience.

I guess what I would say is that to be performing on a show like that, done by a traditional broadcaster in the studio facilities that we have, with the expertise and the professionalism we bring to that, really makes a huge difference. It's a whole other level for the performers and the audience. I think it does a disservice to both sides--the performers and the audience--to say we can fill that gap by allowing a community access channel to serve that need. Certainly it eliminates the disappearance of that opportunity for local content, but it's a very small step at filling a very big loss.

º (1600)

Mr. Ian Petrie: Let's just add a couple of other points.

One immediate issue is that not everybody on P.E.I., for example, gets the local cable channel. We had a lot of discussion when this whole issue came up two years ago of losing the local supper-hour show. There was a lot of discussion among a lot of creative and interesting people who were looking at what we were going to do instead. Some ideas were kicked around. I'll say two things.

One of the things that struck me when Peter Gzowski died was how people recognized the sense of his stories that he brought to Morningside, that he really went out into the rural areas to get a lot of his stories. This is where the interesting stuff happens in Canada. The people in cities--even though it doesn't directly affect them--find stories that happen out there.

I suspect that you're from Alberta, I would think--

Mr. Jim Abbott: B.C.

Mr. Ian Petrie: You know yourself that although the numbers of people may not be large, a lot goes on out there where people are fishing and lumbering and so on. This is what makes up Canada.

Sure, I'm not disputing that we were trying to protect jobs and all the rest. I'm just saying that unfortunately, the cable news we generally see in this region--I don't know about other parts of Canada--is very amateurish. I've participated in some of the shows on a volunteer basis.

I would say the national networks, including the CBC, through the money they get from the government and the privates, such as from putting on The West Wing and so on, have an obligation to reflect these stories.

It's not just Islanders seeing themselves. It's that Island stories are seen by other Canadians too. While I know I presented this as a kind of negative earlier, I also tried to balance it by saying that it has subtly changed what we do.

Sure, there are a hundred different ways to do this. You can carry around a video camera or put stuff on the Internet to tell a story about a fish plant in Souris opening or closing, or whatever. Getting information and getting it out there isn't impossible. There are many other ways of doing it, and cheaper ways, I'm sure, than what are being done right now. Do they serve the community well? Do they serve other Canadians well? I would argue that right now, no, they don't.

Mr. Jim Abbott: As I say, I'm trying to think outside the box, because Mr. Petrie, as you yourself said, the news is always available on the Internet--

Mr. Ian Petrie: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: --which is a change. We not only have a change, in some instances, of convergence, but we certainly also have a change today in terms of technology. As a result, you can have one or two people at a station now who can literally do the job of eight or ten people. So I am trying to think outside the box. I appreciate your--

Mr. Ian Petrie: Yes. Two years ago we lost a third of the people who worked here, for that very reason. We have video journalists now. Rather than two people, we now have one.

There's no doubt that will change yet again in the next few years. We'll be sitting in Souris and feeding an edited item over the Internet to go on the air, rather than driving back and forth. All of this is going to happen. Probably the numbers of jobs will change as a result.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Good. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Viau wanted to make a comment.

[English]

Mr. Dan Viau: Certainly convergence technically is a reality. There's no question we don't need master control operators, and we don't need tape people the way we used to. This will continue. But I think the flaw has been the corporate reality or approach to this. Because they can technically converge and reduce their costs and their operations, the flaw has been the jump to think that they can also reduce and converge their content, and where it originates.

You can put a live camera on the top of a building in Charlottetown and can now broadcast that signal to viewers across the Maritimes or Canada. But without a person to describe what's being seen and to put it into perspective, it doesn't mean much.

º (1605)

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Good afternoon. I apologize thatI was not here to hear your testimony; I had to do an interview with Radio-Canada, the French network. So I will proceed with caution in asking my questions.

In my view, the saddest aspect regarding local and regional production is that ultimately, we will lose the perspective of workers in the information and television and radio production fields. I think this is one of the significant impacts that will result from the reduction in regional and local broadcasting.

If more money were to be invested to increase the number of local and regional productions, would you have the infrastructure and the human resources you require?

[English]

Mr. Ian Petrie: I'll pick up on that.

Excusez-moi, mon français n'est pas très bon, so I'll speak in English.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That does not matter.

[English]

Mr. Ian Petrie: I'm sure everywhere you go in the country, you're going to hear people saying they want more money, more funding, and so on, and I appreciate that's the world you guys live in. What I keep hearing from people who work in Charlottetown and other places, who are part of larger networks like the CBC or CTV, is that it's a proportional thing. As the CBC shrunk, we had to take our hits along with it. But as the funding increases, we'd like to see our portion, what we get, increase as well.

I mean, yes, I think there are a lot of talented people--Gretha Rose was here--who would be more than happy to work on arts programming or whatever. It's a mindset right now within CBC, and currently within the privates that are losing a lot of money on this convergence and so on, that they have to keep cutting. Are we going to hit bottom sometime? Are things going to turn around? Hopefully.

The lifestyle in the Maritimes is terrific. If you have a job, it's a wonderful place to live. And I don't think there'd be any problem attracting talented people to do that kind of programming. Steve and I are in our fifties, you know, and we don't have that much longer to go, and I do worry about the next generation coming up, whether they'll have the same opportunities we did. So I think it's an unknown. But I think if the funding were there, sure, there are talented people more than willing to put out that kind of spoken word and artistic and cultural content that you might be looking for.

Mr. Dan Viau: While I come at it from the perspective of representing a union, and we believe in good working conditions and what have you, I'm not saying that the people who deliver this programming necessarily have to be within the private broadcaster or public broadcaster facility or employ. This can be independently produced.

If I'm concerned about the working conditions and the rights of those workers, it's our job as a union to go out and unionize. If they're in a private production house, if they're not within the public broadcasting realm, that's up to us. The people are here and the facilities remain. I think the production facilities, expertise, and technology to deliver that local regional content has not disappeared. It hasn't all been sold off.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like to hear what you think about a percentage that Radio-Canada gave us. Apparently the program Canada Now is watched by 65% of the television viewers on Prince Edward Island. Many broadcasters would be jealous of such a rating.

Does Canada Now accurately represent the community on Prince Edward Island? I am not familiar with the program; actually, I am more familiar with programs from Quebec, but the fact remains that it does seem to be quite popular. Do people find that a program such as Canada Now speaks to them and about them?

[English]

Mr. Ian Petrie: I'd be happy to try to answer that. Yes, I think Islanders do see them. I think where CBC has lost a lot in this is in our regional stories.

We used to have an hour's program, where we would have local news, regional news, and national and international and current affairs. We're now down to half an hour. Take away the ad time, and we're down to something like 18 to 22 minutes. It's almost like This Hour Has 22 Minutes. By the time we do our local newscast--which we try to do in 12 to 15 minutes--and the weather, and an interview, that's it.

So we don't get to see stories from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland on the CBC. There used to be The Maritimes Tonight, which was the 11 o'clock regional newscast. You could tune in to it and see what went on in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. That program is no longer there.

I would like P.E. Islanders to see stories that happen here. We get to send our stories to the network, which get played on Canada Now, or The National, or whatever. But what has been missing in all of this at the moment are any kinds of regional stories. So something has certainly been lost.

º (1610)

The Chair: Mr. Viau.

Mr. Dan Viau: Looking into the window at the CBC from a private broadcaster's view, I think it's important to recognize what the ratings were before the change. For its supper-hour news show, CBC's ratings here went down 17%. So while a 65% rating is wonderful, it was far higher. They lost that audience. Perhaps some of that audience came to us. But we and Global did not put any more resources, effort, or money into filling that gap.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Yes, well, that's true. That's not very surprising.

One of the interesting things about this debate is that in the last 10 to 15 years there have been a lot of technological changes to the benefit of the owners of broadcasting facilities. They've garnered huge cost savings as a result of technology. One would have thought that if they had been committed at all to local and regional programming, or to better news programming, or to programming outside of news programming, they would have taken some of those savings and put them into these kinds of programming. But they didn't do that. They just took it all, and put it into their pockets.

One of the problems we have is that the person outside, the viewer, doesn't really know when he's getting perhaps a bad story. It takes money to research a story. It takes money to provide context.

Now you're a video journalist here on P.E.I. You're the only one for CTV. You've got a hell of a challenge. Here you are, going around with a camera and a pencil. You're trying to do a story. Unless you're Superman, you're not going to be able to do a very good job, unless your employers says “Okay, Dan, we're going to give you a week with your camera and pencil, and you can do a job”. My guess is you're not going to get a week, right? You're going to have to do it in one day--and maybe do even more than one story.

I don't know what I'm asking you, except that I have taken the view for some time that we have a funding problem here. You asked, how do we find more funds? I can see a way of getting more money to the CBC, but I don't know how you get money to the private broadcasters, or how you force them to do more in the way of regional programming.

You can take a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. You can say to CTV or Pay-TV or whomever, “All right, you ought to do this kind of program”. Well, if there's no money in it, they'll either go bankrupt or they'll do it in such a way that the production value will just be so rotten that nobody will be watching it.

Do you want to respond to that, Dan?

Mr. Dan Viau: I don't know what the answer is.

I think the CRTC does have a role in forcing the private broadcasters to produce and deliver content on a local and regional basis.

Mr. John Harvard: How do you do it?

Mr. Ian Petrie: It used to be that if you were going to draw local ad revenues in Sydney or Charlottetown, you had to have a local news program on. That changed about six or seven years ago.

Certainly when Compass had its full hour and the big ratings that we talked about earlier, we were making $1 million a year in ad revenue here. I'm not saying that the CBC made money off this; perhaps the show cost $1.2 million, or something like that. But we had a lot of ad revenue.

I keep hearing from the board of directors at CBC that one of the things that may keep Canada Now in its current form--which isn't working very well, as I think Mr. Rabinovitch and others have said--is that they can't afford to give up any more of the local ad revenue.

There is fairly good money to be made in that supper hour. You bring a lot of local viewers to television sets. Other than in Charlottetown, CTV owns those local supper-hour shows. They make a lot of money off them.

Clearly, until there's some severe competition for Dan's show, they're just going to keep chipping away at the resources, because where else are people going to go? If you're going to make money off a local pizza place in Halifax, you have to have a local news show on to get that ad revenue, which, as I say, used to be the way business was done. I think your comments are dead on, and the answer you're looking for is elusive.

º (1615)

Mr. Dan Viau: I want to offer a thought outside the box--if I can put it this way.

The Eaton's store in Charlottetown was closed a couple of years ago. Strangely enough, the Eaton's store in Charlottetown made money. It made a profit. However, it didn't fit the corporate view of what Eaton's should be or the corporate view of what the level of worthwhile profit should be, and therefore it was closed. It's strange to close a store that makes money because it doesn't fit some bigger-picture view of how much money it needs to make in order to be worth worrying about.

I am afraid that the convergent network private broadcaster mentality is that if it doesn't make enough money, it's too small for us to continue with. I think that is to some degree what you're seeing.

I don't know how you take that to the CRTC. Does a Maritimes-generated variety show make money? Is that the question? Or is the question whether it makes enough money for the bean-counters in Toronto to consider that it's worth the trouble of doing?

Mr. John Harvard: Let's look at it realistically. Private broadcasters are not philanthropists. They're business people, and they're going to do things in such a way as to maximize their profits. If they're on the Toronto Stock Exchange, they're going to have to be competitive with other enterprises that draw investor money. If my return is 5% or 10% and my competitors' return is 15%, 20%, 25%, or 30%, where's the investor going to put the money? The investor is going to put his money over there, and before I know it, the value of my stock is going to be down somewhere below the toilet. That's the reality of capitalism, and that's what we have.

I think we dance around these things. We lament and we cry and so on, but the fact of the matter is that we face certain unalterable facts. It's a conundrum.

Mr. Steve Stapleton: This is like a parallel with the CBC. We have great ratings here. We're a very small province--138,000 viewers--but we have the best ratings in the country. We had to suffer under the same cuts as everybody across the country; it was countrywide. They might have left us alone, but they couldn't.

I don't know how you get around that, us being so small. It's the same as in Newfoundland; they were just behind us. We don't have much of a population, and unfortunately the rest of the country is what they see and what they go by.

Mr. Ian Petrie: I would add that when Steve and I talked about public broadcasting.... I would think that's where the role of the public broadcaster becomes even more important, if it's not a market that is going to draw the private broadcaster.

You're absolutely right, private broadcasters are going to go places where they can make money, and there's nothing wrong with that. They're going to do a hell of a good job because they want people to watch their shows. In B.C. and other places like that they make a lot of money and they do a good job.

Part of what we were trying to get at--and this isn't a big surprise to any of you--is that part of the CBC's role with public money should be to come to a place like Prince Edward Island and offer some kind of television news service.

The Chair: Can you leave it off after some other questions, because we only have 15 minutes left. We have to go to Moncton.

Mr. Cuzner, you have an opportunity to say what you want.

º (1620)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I certainly recognize the change with the staffers at CBC over the last number of years. I remember you'd go to a news event back six or seven years ago and three people would jump out of the CBC truck, a cameraman and a journalist, while the private guys would be doing it all, that sort of thing. But certainly there have been a great number of concessions.

We have Frank King over in Sydney. Frank gets in, sets his camera up, does the interview. He has to go back and edit the interview, but before he does that he changes the oil in the truck. Multi-tasking is alive and well in the broadcast industry here.

If I were sitting down with union reps from the UMW, and I asked the boys what the managers at DEVCO were doing wrong--where can there be savings had, what can they do better, what should they not be involved in at all--they could certainly list a number of things where some ideas were ill-conceived on management's part or their efforts should maybe be redirected.

Should we be looking at this? Can you offer anything, from the national broadcaster at least, where... Is there some misguidedness there? Are there areas to improve?

Mr. Ian Petrie: I remember--I think it was the late 1980s--reading a Jeffrey Simpson editorial in The Globe and Mail. Having worked on Prince Edward Island, which is a great privilege, as I say, I had no idea--and it was just naïveté on my part--that CBC supper-hour shows were so poorly watched in most parts of the country. It was the first time he sort of put forth the idea that the CBC shouldn't be in these other markets spending public dollars where no one is watching. It should be doing a good national newscast.

Obviously that's a very compelling idea. This Canada Now concept that came out a couple of years ago didn't just fall out of the sky. CBC has been faced with severe cuts since 1985, and from 1995, like all public institutions, it suffered massive cuts.

What we keep looking for, I guess, is some confidence that as long as we are doing our job, that people are watching.... Our worry, to be frank with you, Rodger, is that we went from the hour to the half hour. What we're hearing from Mr. Rabinovitch and others in the CBC is that this half-hour thing is not working well either. Audiences have been lost. Kevin Newman's show on Global is winning in most parts of the country over Ian Hanomansing's show and so on.

We're worried about what comes next. They're not going to go back to the hour. They're not going to say it didn't work--you guys were right in P.E.I. and you should have your hour-long show. What's next? Is it a regional show out of Halifax, the way that Dan works? Is it a national show for an hour with six people in Charlottetown?

I'm not answering your question because I think CBC management had to make some changes. I think obviously when Mr. Rabinovitch took the job he told Eddie Goldenberg or the Prime Minister or whoever cooked up the deal that, yes, he was prepared to make some changes. I heard him on As It Happens the very first day he had the job, and he said that he liked CBC radio and didn't like CBC television, particularly CBC supper-hour television shows. He's been very consistent since day one of landing that job.

I worry about whether there will be tradeoffs with the private broadcasters along the lines of we'll give you the supper-hour shows if you lay off our sports. Is there going to be that kind of arrangement? I have no idea. I'm not privy, obviously, to any of this.

I guess what we're arguing for is the recognition that if you're on P.E.I.--and I think in Fredericton and some other places--we provide a service that otherwise wouldn't be here. We pay our freight. We provide material for the network. We're not a burden. We're not a problem for the CBC. We'd like to hear that occasionally from our masters in Toronto. We don't very often.

I guess whatever your group can do to say that local programming--not regional, because that's a kind of loaded word in this area... It's more like a show out of Halifax that covers all of this region. That's not what we mean. We do mean local.

The Chair: I think you're off on a--

Mr. Ian Petrie: I know. I'm losing it.

The Chair: No, you're not losing it. You're getting more and more passionate as time goes on. We understand, so don't worry and don't apologize.

Ms. Lill.

º (1625)

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much for coming here.

I should say something. I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the New Democrats are unionized members; they're a CEP local. We're the only employees on the Hill who are unionized.

I'd like to say to my comrade across the table that the CRTC has a role to play in directing public broadcasting, to deliver local and regional content. The question asked is why should the big private players, the broadcasters, be involved? Well, it's set out in the Broadcasting Act that because they have the use of the public airwaves they have a responsibility to give something back. It's payback time; it's the cost of doing business. That's the reason the private broadcasters have to play a role in nation-building, and it's in our Broadcasting Act. It's what the whole house is built on. If you don't buy into that then you have to change the entire idea around the Broadcasting Act, but that's what the Broadcasting Act is built on.

You refer to decisions that have been made by the CRTC. We hear about all sorts of things the CRTC has done that have caused problems for every sector of the broadcasting system. I'd like to know what new policy you're referring to--I think it was you, Dan, who referred to it--that has led to the disappearance of leading local and regional programs. Is it something recent that has caused he disappearance of such shows as Wonder Why and Atlantic Grand Prix? If we could get a sense of what steps they're taking, then we'd have something really concrete to consider.

Mr. Dan Viau: In consideration of the time that would be involved, I would urge you to put that question again to Peter Murdoch when he appears before you at the national level.

I think the best way for me to put it at this point is that over the last four or five years there has been a constant sliding away from enforcing the responsibility broadcasters have, since this is a regulated industry, from insisting that, yes, in exchange for the privilege of having that licence, you do have a responsibility.

On how it's measured, let's let Peter tackle that, because I believe that's part of what he's going to be bringing forward from a national perspective.

Ms. Wendy Lill: That's great.

I would just like to make one more comment, especially to you, Ian.

We had Greg Malone come before us in Newfoundland, and he made a point I thought was really important. You refer to being beside the cultural death star, and you refer to the fact that the American media--this is one of Neil Macdonald's comments--have become producers of patriotic journalism. They're very uncritical, and this puts an even greater burden on the CBC to bring critical, objective journalism to the continent--to the whole continent, in fact. It's a huge task. The whole idea of living in a democracy is all about having an informed public.

I think you know the fact that the BBC has put $7.5 billion into their public broadcasting, and we put $750 million, yet we have a much vaster and more multi-ethnic country. It's a huge, daunting task, but if you believe it's important, then you have to invest in it.

Mr. Ian Petrie: It's difficult for you guys, partially because in the Maritimes--you know this, Wendy--the CBC matters. People listen to the radio and watch the television. If you get into Ontario and certainly out west, it's not a player, and most people couldn't care less whether it were there or not.

I don't know how you balance that. I'm certainly not calling for this to be subsidized or anything like that. For whatever reason--and there are all kinds of historical reasons--the private sector has not provided a lot of television news and current affairs coverage in this region. That's just the reality. The CBC fills that vacuum. The CBC and its existence will be justified for all the things you just talked about, the convergence and so on.

Obviously as the CBC went through changes over the last couple of years, a lot of incredible things have happened in the world where the CBC has proven its value. I'm not in any way implying that I hope more incredible things happen so we can continue to prove our value. But I think it does prove its value on a day-to-day basis and certainly here in this region.

º (1630)

The Chair: Thank you very much, the three of you.

I wanted to ask you a couple of questions regarding this whole problem of how you make it happen in the regions and locally.

I understand that three cases are of interest. First of all, there was one licence issued to CTV in northern Ontario and then they decided to close or reduce the impact of the station, which I understand is not in accordance with the terms of the licence of the CRTC. There's another case of Shaw buying WTN and then moving it out of Winnipeg. There's another case of a station out of Halifax bought by Alliance Atlantis and then gradually merged into a bigger picture. I don't know the details exactly, but this is what people have told us.

There's also the whole question brought up by CBC. I don't know if you have looked at section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, but there's a very subtle and confusing element in the act. If you look at the wording of the act--and I'm now talking about the CBC, the first three were private enterprise--in section 3 of the act, which is the objectives, it says “the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should...be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources”.

But then there's another, separate section that has to do with the CBC, which says “the programming provided by the Corporation should...reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions”.

These are two separate sections, and the CBC today interprets it as its mandate to provide broadcasting to the regions, because that's what it says.

The other argument that could be put is, isn't the CBC part of the overall Canadian broadcasting system, which then brings down a provision to provide local broadcasting? I think this is a conundrum. Mr. Rabinovitch say, “I don't have to provide local...”. Maybe this is one of the issues we have to wrestle with ourselves. But I think this is where the confusion started in the first place, and where the CBC has been able to say we don't have this mandate for local broadcasting; ours is a regional broadcasting mandate.

Secondly, I believe that the CRTC can have an impact through the licensing. The problem is that once the provisions of a licence are not observed, there is no enforcement. It seems that people just close their eyes and it goes on.

So perhaps these are two areas we should be looking at.

Mr. Ian Petrie: The language and the careful listening to words and viewing of words is so important. When you talk about reflecting P.E.I., let's say, that could be Dan. If Dan is out there as a video journalist doing a story a week on CTV, that could be reflecting P.E.I. It may not be adequate, or it may not be very good, or it may not be as much as Dan wants to do, but--

The Chair: It respects the law.

Mr. Ian Petrie: --it's within the law. Obviously, as you say, this is part of what you're wrestling with in terms of amending the Broadcasting Act or putting more specific targets in.

This is very difficult, because clearly, as we heard from Mr. Harvard and yourself, when you're dealing with big money, big-ticket issues.... I don't know, I often say that you should take Global's presentation to the CRTC and wallpaper it somewhere, because that's about as much as the paper is worth. Obviously they say one thing and do something very different. Do you punish them? Do you go after them? I don't know.

º (1635)

The Chair: You said that we didn't.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Dan Viau: I'd like to echo your comments that it's very much the case that if the private broadcasters were not regulated the amount they are, they would certainly take advantage of the opportunity to spend less and do less. I think there is a responsibility the CRTC has that this be part of what broadcasting in Canada should entail. The broadcasters should have a responsibility to be there to be representative, to be present at the local level, at the regional level, and the CRTC has a responsibility to make sure that this happens. I think both of those responsibilities have been allowed to erode.

The Chair: On this note, we are going to close.

Mr. Petrie, you've made a promise to us, right?

Mr. Ian Petrie: Yes, I will get that to you.

The Chair: And we would like to thank you very much for appearing today. It was extremely useful to us. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.