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

Thursday, April 25, 2002

0910

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

Mr. Bill Roberts (President and CEO, VisionTV)

0915

0920

The Chair

Ms. Colette Watson (President and General Manager, Cable Public Affairs Channel)

0925

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

Ms. Colette Watson

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Colette Watson

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Colette Watson

0930

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Bill Roberts

0935

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Colette Watson

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Bill Roberts

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Bill Roberts

The Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.)

0940

Ms. Colette Watson

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Mr. Bill Roberts

The Chair

0945

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

Ms. Colette Watson

The Chair

Ms. Colette Watson

The Chair

Mr. Bill Roberts

The Chair

0950

Ms. Claudette Paquin (Director General, TFO-TVOntario)

The Chair

Ms. Claudette Paquin

0955

1000

The Chair

Ms. Claudette Paquin

The Chair

Ms. Claudette Paquin

The Chair

Mr. Louis Paquin (President, TFO - TVOntario)

The Chair

Mr. Laurent de Combrughe (Director General, Association des professionnels de la chanson et de la musique en Ontario)

1005

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Lagacé (Director, Institutional Affairs, Télé-Québec)

1010

1015

The Chair

Mr. Wayne Robert (General Manager, Knowledge Network)

1020

1025

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Wayne Robert

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1030

Ms. Claudette Paquin

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Claudette Paquin

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Lagacé

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jacques Lagacé

1035

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Ms. Claudette Paquin

1040

The Chair

Mr. Mario Clément (Director General of Programming, Télé-Québec)

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Claudette Paquin

1045

The Chair

Mr. Wayne Robert

The Chair

Mr. Mario Clément

Mr. Jacques Lagacé

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

1050

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Wayne Robert

1055

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Lagacé

The Chair

Mr. Louis Paquin

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 054

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 25, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

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

We'll start with a group of two witnesses. From VisionTV, we have Mr. Bill Roberts, president and CEO. From CPAC, we have Ms. Colette Watson, president and general manager.

We'll start with you, Mr. Roberts.

Mr. Bill Roberts (President and CEO, VisionTV): Bonjour, monsieur le président et membres du comité. My name is Bill Roberts, president and CEO of VisionTV.

As an independent, not-for-profit broadcaster, VisionTV brings a perspective very different from most that you have heard over the past months. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system.

At VisionTV we see three major areas of concern to be addressed.

The first is the need for continued support of our national public broadcaster, Radio-Canada, CBC, and its central role in the system.

The second is the need for continued regulation to ensure that Canadian programming services have access to viewers, and that viewers have access to Canadian stories.

The last, and by no means the least, is the need for recognition of the role played by Canadian public service broadcasters. It is to this third point that I will direct the majority of my comments today.

In our submission, we recommend that the Broadcasting Act be amended to create a new category of broadcaster, the public service broadcaster, recognizing services specifically mandated to address civic rather than commercial interests.

This category would include the provincial public broadcasters as well as channels controlled by not-for-profit charities, such as the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network and VisionTV. It would also include the CBC specialty networks, Newsworld and Réseau des informations, along with public policy-driven services, such as Télé-Cinq. An argument could also be made for including CPAC, Access Alberta, and local broadcasters that provide community programming.

To understand why we at VisionTV consider ourselves to be a public service broadcaster, it may be helpful to know a little more about who we are.

VisionTV has been and remains the only multi-faith and multicultural broadcaster in Canada, or indeed anywhere in the world. We were licensed by the CRTC in 1987 to answer a public policy need--namely, to provide an outlet for single-faith viewpoints within a pluralistic, multi-faith context. As a registered charitable organization with a volunteer board of directors, VisionTV answers not to the demands of private shareholders but to our public mandate and the needs of our audiences.

That mandate is to offer balanced programming that speaks to the spiritual lives of Canadians. We are committed to reflecting this country's tremendous diversity and to promoting tolerance and understanding between people of different backgrounds and cultures.

Approximately half of our schedule consists of paid “mosaic” programming that is produced and presented by groups representing a variety of denominations, including Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Baha'is, Sikhs, and Hindus. As many as 75 different faith groups purchase air time from VisionTV every year.

The balance of our schedule is given over to content that complements and balances the “mosaic” stream, including: point-of-view documentaries; current affairs shows; and a selection of family-oriented movies, comedies, dramas, and inspirational music programs--all concerned, in one way or another, with matters of faith, culture, morality, non-violence, and social justice.

VisionTV presents viewpoints seldom heard elsewhere on television, and caters to views that few other broadcasters serve. A sizeable portion of that audience, for example, consists of Canadians over the age of 50, a demographic that holds limited appeal for advertisers, despite its rapidly growing size. We also carry unique programming for many underserved cultural and faith groups, as evidenced by the diversity of our schedule.

In accordance with the conditions of our broadcast licence, VisionTV devotes more than 60 percent of its schedule to Canadian programming--one of the highest levels of Canadian content among the specialty services. We have historically spent more than half of our revenues on Canadian programs.

We are also committed to gender equity, and this year won the Canadian Women in Communications Award for Employer of the Year.

Given who we are and what we do, I believe we are correct in categorizing ourselves as a public service broadcaster. Public service broadcasters create diversity in the marketplace, allow distinctively Canadian voices the opportunity to be heard, and ensure real choice for viewers. For example, during the last federal election, VisionTV partnered with CPAC on a live broadcast that examined the place of ethics and moral values in the campaign. We have also collaborated with APTN and CBC Newsworld on a two-part special and interactive website devoted to the aboriginal residential schools issue. Most recently, our network has offered alternative perspectives on the events of September 11 and its aftermath.

Public service broadcasters also make a significant contribution to Canada's independent production sector.

At VisionTV, for instance, we dedicated nearly 60% of our income to Canadian content, and 20 percent of our budget over the past seven years to new programs by independent producers. Many of these were ambitious, award-winning projects that might never have made it off the ground without our support. These include the documentaries Made in China and Shadows of War, the dramatic short A Feeling Called Glory, and the acclaimed Inuit feature film Atanarjuat.

If anything, public service broadcasters are more important to this country now than ever before.

Moreover, it is clear that the vertical and horizontal integration we have seen within the broadcasting industry is unlikely to reverse itself any time soon. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission has recently been ordered to reconsider the rules that prevent any broadcaster from controlling more that 35 percent of the television market. Here in Canada, the CRTC has loosened the restrictions on specialty channel ownership by cable operators. The big, it would seem, are destined to grow bigger.

While some are understandably concerned by the growing concentration of media ownership, there is no readily apparent alternative if we wish to remain a thriving broadcast sector in this country. But in a system dominated by massive diversified companies, Canada's independent, not-for-profit, and charitable television services are at a profound competitive disadvantage. They cannot avail themselves of the technological synergies, the economies of scale, or the cross-promotional opportunities that come from belonging to a large corporate family.

Nor do they enjoy the clout necessary to win favourable terms from distributors for packaging and carriage. When VisionTV launched in 1998, our most serious difficulty was securing the best possible programming with limited resources. Now, for independent public service broadcasters, the greatest challenge by far is procuring carriage and reaching viewers.

The dawning of the digital era has only added to the uncertainties. Cable, satellite, and wireless operators now opt to distribute all their channels on a pick-and-pay or pick-a-pack basis. The established public service broadcasters require carriage on low-price, high-penetration tiers to remain economically viable. There may be little hope for their public space survival in a commercial, à la carte universe.

Commercial networks of course deserve every opportunity to pursue profitability, but viewers also deserve to enjoy a rich diversity of distinctly Canadian voices. Surely we can find some way to accommodate both needs.

We at VisionTV believe it is possible to preserve the kind of quality and choice that Canadians have come to expect on television, without compromising the free flow of competitive forces or constraining the growth of our industry leaders.

It would require just two straightforward measures.

First, as I have noted, we recommend that the Broadcasting Act be amended to recognize the category of “public service broadcaster”. We propose that such recognition be extended to those broadcasters that have been specifically licensed to address public policy goals, that air a minimum of 60 percent Canadian content, and that spend a minimum of 50 percent of their revenue on Canadian programming. In addition, public service broadcasters should be wholly Canadian, or at least be under supra-majority control by Canadians.

We would also suggest, in evaluating licensees seeking recognition as public service broadcasters, the CRTC should give preference to those that are controlled by not-for-profit corporations, collectives, cooperatives, or charitable institutions--services that exist to fulfil a public policy mandate rather than inflate shareholder value.

Secondly, we recommend the creation of an affordable foundation tier exclusively for public and public service broadcasters, as well as local channels providing community programming. This low-cost, all-Canadian package would be the basic must-buy offering from every cable, satellite, and wireless provider in the country.

In effect, we would be creating a civic oasis within the market-driven environment, a green space, if you will, for independent and not-for-profit services that meet a public need. With such provision, public service channels would no longer be compelled to devote their modest resources to negotiating or contracting for space on the dial or zapper and undertaking major communications and marketing campaigns to reach viewers.

VisionTV has found support for the foundation tier concept in a number of quarters, from parliamentarians, from academics, from associations of creative professionals like ACTRA, and even from private players such as CHUM. We believe it has the potential to create significant benefits for viewers, for distributors, for other broadcasters, and for the system as a whole.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage, as we all know, has identified a need to ensure that shelf space exists for Canadian content within the Canadian broadcasting system.

¿ (0915)

Our foundation tier proposal will accomplish this objective. In so doing, it will also help to address the concerns of Canadian producers and performers who fear the loss of job opportunities in an increasingly globalized industry.

The foundation tier, as we envisage it, would be smaller than the existing must-carry basic package. This would be a plus for viewers, who would enjoy ready access to programming that enriched their experiences as Canadians, without having to subscribe to an extended range of services they might not wish to have.

The foundation tier would also have the advantage of affordability for viewers. With penetration rates of over 80 percent in both English and French households, the per-channel fee could be kept at a reasonable level, while still ensuring a base of subscriber revenues large enough to support quality programming.

For distributors, this relatively small must-carry selection of Canadian services would mean greater flexibility in the packaging and pricing of channels. For example, many of the services now included in the existing basic tier, in particular the major U.S. services, could be packaged and sold at prices determined by market demand.

We recognize that there would also be a need to accommodate those broadcasters who were not included in the foundation tier. This might mean, for example, relaxing foreign ownership restrictions for private commercial channels. In this scenario, broadcasters that were part of the foundation tier would be wholly Canadian, while those that were not would be permitted a significant degree of foreign ownership.

It might also take the form of reduced Canadian content obligations, which would give for-profit services increased flexibility in scheduling, more freedom to compete with foreign broadcasters, and a greater ability to attract advertising revenues.

Finally, this proposal would help to resolve the significant concerns some public broadcasters, including APTN and ourselves, have with regard to channel placement. The foundation tier could be structured to mandate greater consistency of placement for public service broadcasters, and to ensure these channels, and the uniquely Canadian stories they tell, were more readily available to all viewers.

Overall, we believe our notion of a foundation is at least in step with recent cultural policy trends. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has been at the forefront of international efforts in preserving cultural diversity and identities in a global economy--the so-called special instrument for administration by a body like UNESCO or a new world cultural organization.

Beginning at home and establishing a modest green space for Canada's public service broadcasters is entirely consistent with this principle. The foundation tier would enshrine in the Broadcasting Act shelf space for Canadian content, and would make certain that all Canadians could reach those shelves.

It should also be noted that in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission has maintained a green space policy for the last 50 years. Currently, more than 20 percent of the analog spectrum in many states, and as much as 7 percent of the digital spectrum, is designated for public service channels.

In a speech last year, FCC commissioner Gloria Tristiani affirmed the importance of public, educational, and governmental broadcasters in an age of large-scale media consolidation. Access to these services, she said, “empowers individuals and groups to use the media to educate and enrich their communities. It is television by the people and for the people.”

There is no question that private broadcasters have produced many distinctively Canadian programs of exceptional quality. But commercial players are inevitably constrained by their need to pursue the large, demographically attractive audiences that drive advertising and share value.

In the public service category, decisions are made on very different criteria. These broadcasters devote air time to programs on spirituality, civic affairs, social justice, and first nations issues because it fulfils a civic need, not because it increases commercial or stock market value.

The audiences for these programs are relatively small and often hold incremental appeal for large mainstream advertisers. It is by no means certain, or even likely, that private broadcasters will rush to fill the gap should public service channels vanish from the Canadian television landscape. Is it fair and reasonable to simply abandon these viewers and the issues that concern them because the market deemed them commercially unattractive?

Canadians have consistently shown great willingness to support institutions that make a demonstrable contribution to our social well-being. Many more of us visit shopping malls than wilderness reserves, but we can all still recognize the importance of protecting our national and provincial parks. VisionTV's recommendations on public service broadcasters are in keeping with this tradition.

In summary, it is our position that public service channels make an invaluable and irreplaceable contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system. They treat viewers as citizens rather than consumers, and provide for a wealth of strong and vibrant Canadian voices on television.

To ensure the continued viability of these channels, VisionTV recommends two simple measures: formal recognition of the public service sector within the Broadcasting Act, and the creation of a foundation tier for Canadian public and public service broadcasters.

Thank you for your attention. I would be more than pleased to respond to your questions.

Merci.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Ms. Watson.

Ms. Colette Watson (President and General Manager, Cable Public Affairs Channel): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¿ (0925)

My name is Colette Watson, and I am president and general manager of the Cable Public Affairs Channel, known to most of you as CPAC.

[Translation]

I am pleased to appear before you today to talk about the vital and essential role played by CPAC within the Canadian broadcasting system.

[English]

As Canada's only bilingual, national, satellite-to-cable, commercial-free, not-for-profit service, CPAC occupies a distinct niche in the Canadian broadcasting system, and performs an important function in Canada's civic life. CPAC as a service is now distributed to approximately 7.4 million cable homes and 1.5 million satellite and MDS subscribers across Canada.

Today, 99.6 percent of the subscribers of the class 1 cable distribution undertakings receive the CPAC service, and nearly 89 percent of all subscribers to class 2 cable undertakings--those systems with between 2,000 and 6,000 subscribers--receive CPAC. Even within the small class 3 systems--generally those with fewer than 2,000 subscribers--nearly 60 percent of their subscribers receive the CPAC service.

[Translation]

In all, approximately 84 percent of all cable and DBS subscribers receive CPAC.

[English]

CPAC is owned and funded in large part by a consortium of Canadian cable companies. This consortium was created to provide continued distribution of the Canadian parliamentary channel, after the CBC withdrew from the service due to budget constraints. Thus, CPAC was created in 1992 as a not-for-profit television channel, delivered to Canadians as a public service by the cable industry.

In the last 10 years, the cable industry has invested over $40 million to fund CPAC's operations. In 10 years, CPAC has evolved into a full-time, bilingual, national public affairs channel delivering uninterrupted, live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the proceedings of the House of Commons, hundreds of hours of House and Senate committees, and over 3,000 hours of related public affairs programming each year.

Today, CPAC is a feature of the Canadian broadcasting system and Canadian political life. More and more, Canadians have come to recognize the importance of having access to the public affairs programming aired on the channel, as demonstrated by the fact that nearly 3 million Canadians tune in to CPAC every month.

As well, a recent national survey conducted on behalf of CPAC by the strategic council found the following. A phenomenal 81 percent of respondents to the survey believed it was important for Canadians to have access to the daily proceedings of the House of Commons, including Question Period, and believed CPAC to be a valuable service. CPAC's complementary public affairs programming was valued almost as highly by Canadians, as 77 percent of respondents to the survey--and those of you who work in surveys know that these numbers are astoundingly high--believed it was important for Canadians to have access to a service like CPAC, providing coverage of public commissions, enquiries, and other similar public affairs programing. Also, 72 percent of respondents believed that CPAC provided a valuable alternative source of news to mainstream alternatives currently available.

I draw your attention to the three charts in the submission that take you through these totals and break them down by demographics, as well as by those Canadians who voted in the last federal election.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Will we be receiving the French version soon?

Ms. Colette Watson: It will not be long in coming. The French version is on its way.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: It is on its way, but it is not here this morning.

Ms. Colette Watson: No, it is coming.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: When will it arrive? This morning or...

Ms. Colette Watson: At about 10 o'clock.

[English]

The last chart deals with the value of programming on CPAC, including the prime-time programming provided by us. Prime-time politics and talk politics, almost two-thirds of Canadians find these services valuable; House of Commons and Question Period, more than half; and jurisprudence, which is gavel-to-gavel coverage of Supreme Court proceedings, more than half of Canadians find valuable.

Based on its findings, the Strategic Council concludes in its report that Canadians attach significant importance to the availability of CPAC and its specific coverage of activities of the federal government. Not only is CPAC deemed to be an important source of information about government activities, including coverage of the House of Commons, Question Period, and government activities, its programming is also viewed as providing a valuable service to Canadians and a valued counterpoint of alternative sources of information to mainstream and commercial media services.

The findings clearly suggest that Canadians want to have the service available as a means of observing firsthand the full and unedited activities of Parliament and the federal government.

CPAC plays a crucial role in the Canadian broadcasting system by providing a forum for diversity of voices. CPAC's mission is to create a television destination where Canadians can become informed on public policy initiatives and form their own opinions without editorial direction from a corporate or government entity. Now more than ever, as convergence takes its toll on the number of editorial voices in Canada, CPAC plays an important role in providing a forum for public policy debate and in ensuring the presence of a diversity of voices and viewpoints in a broadcasting system.

[Translation]

CPAC's programs capture the raw activity of Canadian democracy at work and the very essence of Canadian political life while providing a forum for dialogue on public policy at all levels: debates in Parliament, general meetings, interviews with the main decision-makers and representatives from lobby groups, phone-in programs where all Canadians can have their voices heard.

As it looks ahead, CPAC wants to build on its original wrap-around programming, both in terms of depth and length, and expand its regional scope. Over the next seven years, CPAC's programming strategy will focus on the need to have, in Canada, a diversity of voices and viewpoints on public policy issues. CPAC's objective will be to present a broader discussion on public policy issues as they develop nationally, regionally and locally.

[English]

Based on the success of its first 10 years, its strong partnership with the House of Commons, through the Speaker's office and the House of Commons Broadcasting Service, and the increasing demand for CPAC cameras to record public events throughout the country, CPAC has filed an application to the CRTC to renew its licence for a further seven-year term.

We appear before the commission the week of May 6. The proposals in the application, which renew the partnership with the House, would enhance CPAC as a television service in the areas of linguistic duality, closed captioning, and regional coverage. The application also proposes a stable, long-term financing plan designed to maintain CPAC's role as a vital, non-profit window on Canadian democracy, and confirm our role as a public service to Canadians.

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. I'd be pleased to answer your questions.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Watson.

In view of the length of presentations and the time constraints before us--we have no choice, since we have to give up the room to another committee at 11 o'clock--we'll allow just one question from each party, if that's all right.

I would like to take the opportunity to welcome our colleague, Chuck Strahl, from the Canadian Alliance, who is joining the committee.

We are really happy to see you here, Mr. Strahl. Thank you for coming. You have the first question.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Lincoln, and fellow colleagues on this important committee, for the work you're doing.

I'm new to the committee, obviously. Maybe having one question is a good thing for me the first time out.

I have a question for Mr. Roberts, if I can. Welcome to the committee, and thank you for your testimony.

I'm interested in your idea of establishing the foundation tier. Who do you think should pick who should be on the foundation tier?

Secondly, if there was a foundation tier in place that included public service broadcasters, you could foresee changes to the Canadian content rules for the other commercial networks and even some changes to the foreign ownership rules.

Why do you think, if the foundation tier is in place, the other current rules would no longer be necessary, or at least could easily be changed?

Mr. Bill Roberts: On the first question, with regard to who should establish the parameters of the foundation tier and who qualifies for the foundation tier, I think it's consistent with the sense of the tier that this be a full public process, a public process I would imagine best conducted by the CRTC under instruction from the minister.

With regard to the flexibility outside of the foundation tier, I think it's important for us to appreciate that the private sector, the commercial broadcasting sphere, needs more flexibility with regard to not only North American but also global competition.

I'm trying to propose a notion that would ensure a going-forward, structural distinctiveness within the Canadian broadcasting system of things that are distinctly Canadian, and would never happen anywhere else on this planet, other than in Canada, while at the same time ensuring commercial viability for our private sector partners.

There's a longer answer here. There seems to be a notion, as well, that tomorrow is going to look a lot like yesterday within the broadcasting and communications sphere. It simply isn't true, as you know. Pressures of trade, pressures of technology, pressures of convergence, and pressures on the public purse for matters of security, education, and health are going to change the environment for broadcasting in this country.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like to make a comment to Ms. Watson of CPAC.

You talked about linguistic duality. This morning we did not receive the French version of your text at the same time as the anglophones received theirs, and therefore what you do contradicts what you say. We can understand this happening when people appear before the committee as individuals, but a company such as yours should have foreseen the need for linguistic duality. Everyone really likes to talk about linguistic duality, but in practice, we often see that it is not applied to the letter.

Ms. Colette Watson: I accept your comments. We had a technical problem with the printer.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: All right.

Mr. Roberts, you say that you provide public television. I would like you to elaborate on the public television that you present in your programs. What distinction do you make between the public television provided by Radio-Canada and Télé-Québec in Québec with respect to the content that you broadcast? How would you define your type of programming by categorizing the public?

Mr. Bill Roberts: I will respond in English if that's all right with you.

[English]

The difference between VisionTV, with regard to our programming mandate and our programming output, and Radio-Canada and CBC flows from our commitment to exploring spiritual, non-fiction, social-justice, multicultural concerns. The CBC's mandate is much broader, and I won't comment on that mandate specifically. But that is primarily the difference between the two of us.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would first of all like to make a comment. We visited your station when we were travelling in the Canadian West. We were welcomed in quite a personal manner. It was very nice.

Several Christian groups that appeared before us stated that multiculturalism leads us to the realization that there is a dominant Christian culture. They would like that more Christian programming be broadcast. Do you agree with this request? I know that the type of programming that you produce is aimed at all religious faiths and really reflects the various religious denominations. Would you agree that some television programming should be based primarily on the Christian religion?

[English]

Mr. Bill Roberts: We have developed over the years a code of ethics and standards for VisionTV that takes a very strong position with regard to proselytizing and employing television with regard to conversion, etc. My position and the position of VisionTV is that we should be using television and the power of electronic media to create dialogue between faith groups, not to create separate silos between faith groups.

There are several Christian evangelical groups that have radio and television outlets. They are governed by licences pursuant to the conditions of the CRTC. The role of VisionTV is not to advance any particular faith, but to create understanding amongst faiths.

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Thank you both for coming.

Ms. Watson, you noted in your paper that your licence is being renewed. One of the concerns that was brought before the official languages committee was that while your station may reach many communities across Canada, CPAC is not necessarily available in the official language of a person's choice, especially in the minority-language communities.

How is your application addressing that issue? Again, since you are broadcasting government proceedings--and I understand you're funded by the cable companies--and all of our broadcasts are supposed to be available in both official languages, how are you addressing that issue? I truly believe it is a very important issue.

¿ (0940)

Ms. Colette Watson: It is a very important issue. As you know, it appeared before Federal Court, and the CRTC dealt with it in November. It's really a distribution issue. We receive the feed from the House of Commons broadcasting system with three feeds: English, French, and floor sound. This is put up on the satellite transponder, and then it's taken down by cable operators or satellite companies and they choose the language in which they offer it to their subscribers in the majority of their subscriber base.

So CPAC and the House make the audio options available to the distributor. The distributor now must take it and make it available to the end user. That is not something we can control. It is something we can influence, but it's not something we can control. We, therefore, are pleased with the CRTC's decision last November that obligates all distributors to provide both audio feeds through what's called a secondary audio program. We appeared before the joint committee on official languages last May or June to discuss what the secondary audio program is. It uses the menu button on a television receiver that allows the viewer to choose whether he or she would receive it in French or English.

This is now in about 65 percent of Canadian homes. It must be in all class 1 markets by September 1, 2002. If it isn't, it becomes a compliance issue between the CRTC and the distributor, and CPAC and the House are no longer part of that issue.

The Chair: Ms. Lill, you have one question.

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

I'm sorry I wasn't here for your presentation, although I certainly read your presentation. I'm glad you've come before us today so we can hear more about the issues facing educational TV.

I'd like to go to the whole issue of the green space, because we have asked questions across the country on this from all different directions. We've asked people, what is this going to look like for you? Does this make sense to the public broadcaster? What do the cable companies think? Lots of people have comments about it.

I guess I'm wondering how you would promote this right now. If the Canadian Association of Broadcasters were here right now, if the CRTC were here right now, how would you make your case that this is, in fact, the best model for us to move into in a new Broadcasting Act and a new century?

Mr. Bill Roberts: I have a feeling that was directed at me, not Colette.

In response to an earlier question, I indicated there were things coming at us at sort of full steam. Those are issues of trade, issues of technology, issues of convergence, pressures on the public purse. Indeed, if you look at the asset valuation of the AOL Time Warner deal, that single deal in the U.S. context, that asset valuation exceeds the entire asset valuation of the Canadian broadcasting industry. So we're dealing in things of scope and scale that mean change.

The notion of a green space, or a foundation tier, is just an idea. It's an idea to try to provide a structural response to how we maintain something that is distinctive and indigenously and inherently and obviously Canadian and at the same time allow our commercial and private sector colleagues to compete in that very, very competitive North American and global environment.

So part of the presentation details some of the flexibility that would be afforded to the commercial sector and to the distribution sector, and other parts indicate the kind of criteria the public service broadcasters would need to step up to in order to qualify for the foundation tier, but it's really about how we might go about making sure that what is distinct about us continues to be distinct about us. If the green space is a way of enhancing public space and entrenching that distinctiveness, then I think it's a good case.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me welcome Mr. Strahl to our cultural coalition; it's good to see him here.

Just before I ask a question, I think we could give Vision a plug. As we approach Christmas, you're going to see a great show on mummering in Newfoundland. If you're lucky, you might even hear me sing a song in that; they dropped in to the house. It should be an interesting show.

With the various cable companies and groups like Bell ExpressVu more and more promoting their packages throughout the country, I am wondering what part your stations play in their packaging. Are you an integral part of the different packages they put together, or are you sort of an add-on? Do you see your position improving in the eyes of the public in their demand for stations such as yours?

Perhaps both of you would like to comment, briefly.

Ms. Colette Watson: CPAC is the basic service, so we are carried on what is basic television for all cable subscribers.

I have worked in a senior management team of Canada's largest cable company for the last 12 years, so perhaps I approach it from a different perspective. The smaller the package, the less it works. À la carte programming doesn't work with customers. Wanting to be on “big basic” is the objective of every broadcaster.

The commission, in response to consumer reaction, is trying to shrink the size of the basic package in order to keep costs in line, but by and large for $20 a month a Canadian cable subscriber will get about 45 to 65 channels. We are a part of that.

What's at issue is, are you on channel 3 or on channel 303? It varies by region, and it also varies by history. How long have you been around? Have you always been on channel 3? There are many, many factors that go into how a channel is placed, not the least of which is technology and regulation.

As for satellite distribution, we are part of news and information packages, which we're happy with. It would be interesting to see how this foundation package would be applied equitably across distribution mechanisms, because it's more of a cable distribution package and less of a satellite distribution package. I would encourage the committee to look at packaging as equitable across distributors and not just at a cable solution.

The Chair: Before we close here, I've heard from some quarters that CPAC may not be in compliance with its licence requirements. How would you respond to that?

Ms. Colette Watson: We disagree with those claims. We feel that we are in compliance, and we have provided our rebuttal to the commission as part of the intervention process. Hopefully, when it's our turn at the hearing on May 6, we will be able to lay those claims to rest.

The Chair: Thank you.

Very briefly, Mr. Roberts, because time is up.

Mr. Bill Roberts: VisionTV has what's called dual status. That is, if carried, we must be on basic unless we give our permission on the discretionary tier. That has proved to be a bit of a problem for us in the past. Several years ago we were on channel 24 in the Toronto area. Then we were sort of bumped into the stratosphere, the nose-bleed section, and given channel 60. We would like to change that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Ms. Watson, for appearing today.

Télé-Québec and TFO and TVO had asked us if they could appear in separate segments.

[Translation]

Unfortunately, given the amount of time left, namely, one hour and ten minutes, we can only have one session, one panel to enable committee members to ask more questions, if you agree.

¿ (0950)

We will be able to ask as many questions as we like until 11 o'clock. We have one hour and ten minutes. It's unfortunate, but we will have to leave the room.

Is Mr. Denis Bélisle present?

A voice: No.

The Chair: I will now introduce our witnesses. I would like to welcome Ms. Claudette Paquin, Director General of TFO-TVOntario, Mr. Louis Paquin, President of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, and Mr. Laurent de Combrughe, Director General of the Association des professionnels de la chanson et de la musique franco-ontariens.

I would also like to welcome Télé-Québec, represented by Mr. Mario Clément, Director General of Programming, and Mr. Jacques Lagacé, Director of Institutional Affairs.

[English]

We also acknowledge the presence of the Knowledge Network, represented by Mr. Wayne Robert, the general manager.

[Translation]

Finally, I would also to welcome Mr. Claude Morin of Télé-Québec.

[English]

So without any further delay,

[Translation]

I will give the floor to either Mr. Paquin or Ms. Paquin.

Ms. Claudette Paquin (Director General, TFO-TVOntario): We are not related, even though we share the same name.

Honorable committee members, Mr. Chairman...

The Chair: Ms. Paquin, may I interrupt you?

Ms. Claudette Paquin: Yes.

The Chair: The briefer your presentation is, the more time we will have to ask questions.

Ms. Claudette Paquin: We will be fairly brief.

Thank you for hearing us today. You received our brief this summer. I hope that you read it. For this oral presentation, I will simply focus on the more important aspects.

I would like to thank both Mr. Paquin and Mr. de Combrughe for accompanying me. By being here, they are representing the creativity and business aspects of our presentation before your committee.

Your mandate is to review the Broadcasting Act. In many respects, this act has become outdated and several groups have already spoken about this issue at great length. As a broadcaster, I too am obviously concerned by cross-ownership, the Internet market, etc.

However, I am here today to point out the anomalous status of TFO within the current legislation and the need for the legislator to rectify the situation by clarifying, in the legislation, the notion of public interest and the role of real reciprocity between the majority francophone community and the minority communities in order to better serve this public interest.

I was also deeply interested in the presentations that were made to you on April 9 as part of your hearings focusing more specifically on the services provided to minority communities. I would like to point out that the signal from TFO which is the only francophone channel that is based in a minority community and operates exclusively there, is already provided in its own minority community in Ontario.

Furthermore, through cable, telephony and direct broadcast satellites, TFO is currently accessible to nearly 80 percent of all francophones living outside Quebec. Consequently, we will not be focusing on access to minority markets in our presentation today. Rather, we would like to talk about real access to the majority French-language market, namely Quebec.

Although TFO is currently accessible to nearly 1 million Quebeckers, the fact remains that we are still shut out of most of this market, thereby confirming the anomaly of our position in the Canadian television landscape. Indeed, TFO is the only French-language network to come out of the francophone Canadian minority community and the only French-language network that currently is unable to distribute in the majority francophone market.

Why is this so important to us, since we are, after all, an Ontario educational network? Well, while for many years this situation was of little consequence to TFO, the drastic changes that have occurred in the Canadian television world over the past few years have completely changed the rules of the game. And TFO has been caught up in this whirlwind.

Today, francophone channels in Quebec, like TFO, broadcast nationally via the direct broadcast satellite services. Companies that have acquired the rights to French-language products, sell them with a national licence, and the cost of this francophone market in Canada is determined by the majority market, namely Quebec, and certainly not TFO, which saw its programming costs soar, regardless of its status as an Ontario channel.

The rules of the game have changed and the legislation must be amended in order to establish what we refer to as to a level playing field for TFO. Market forces alone will not do this and the progressive weakening of TFO will ultimately lead to less diversity in the francophone voices in this country.

The world of television is not the only thing that has changed. Minority francophone communities have changed as well. They may be experiencing an alarming rate of assimilation, but, thank God, they are also demonstrating exceptional creative vitality. Our communities are producing high calibre creators, whether they be singers, musicians or producers and they are making a name for themselves. Quite naturally, it is absolutely essential that they be given business opportunities, greater visibility in the Canadian francophone market and that can be found in Quebec, prime time Quebec.

A few interveners have said that they would be in favour of allowing TFO to be distributed in Quebec, but without royalties. One of the witnesses advocating such a position was the Commissioner of Official Languages. Although the position demonstrates a lot of goodwill, I must say that it corresponds to a very Québécois perspective of the francophone television landscape in this country, which comes as no surprise since, for many people, Canadian francophone television is still perceived as being essentially a Quebec product.

In her document, the commissioner recommends free access to the educational channels.

¿ (0955)

First of all, I can assure you that, financially speaking, it will be very difficult if not impossible for the public anglophone educational channels to acquire national rights to their programs with their current budget.

I would remind you that, in the public educational channel sector, only Télé-Québec receives revenue from television advertising and has already acquired, if I'm not mistaken, the national rights to its programs. Consequently, it can only benefit from a broader distribution, whether it be free or fee-charging. That is not the case for the anglophone channels, and I find it highly unlikely that they would have supported such a position.

Furthermore, and this is the most important distinction, TFO is the only educational channel that makes significant investments in the independent francophone production industry in the regions where its signal is distributed, whether this be in Acadie, Quebec or Manitoba. It can no longer be argued, and this has been the case for some time now, that the money from Quebec taxpayers should not go to Ontario. Rather, TFO fully reinvests its Quebec revenue and has made a formal commitment to invest in the independent industry of these regions, with all of the economic spin-offs that this will entail.

Is not public interest, for each and every one of us, the opportunity to practice our trade in French in each of our communities? Our investments are beneficial to the francophone industry throughout the country, to TFO, of course, and especially to the francophone consumers from all of the regions, who will have access to a French-language channel and a much richer diversity of editorial opinion and to the francophone cultural and artistic undertakings of this country.

Without the opportunity to earn revenue from the market, it is difficult to invest. And why would we do this? As for Quebec, the situation is becoming just plain unfair.

On a personal note, I would like to tell you that I have travelled from the east to the west on several occasions and many francophones, like myself, would be delighted to pay for francophone channels. We are not impoverished. We are not looking for charity. I couldn't care less about the free channels; I am prepared to pay in order to get what I want. The problem is that there is no legislation that compels the cable operators to provide us with these francophone channels in analog mode, even on an optional basis. We are prepared to pay, we want to buy; the Quebec consumer wants to do so as well, and he does so when the product is offered to him.

Since then, I have discussed the matter with Ms. Adam, and she has given me permission to tell you today that she understands and fully agrees with TFO's position on this matter. Were she appearing today, her brief would perhaps have been different.

Finally, we are not asking you to consider TFO's interests as a provincial educational channel today, but rather, TFO's interests as the only francophone channel from a minority community. It is in this capacity that we are investing outside of Ontario; namely, we are broadcasting, at prime time, the myriad of francophone faces of this country. After all, 15 percent of Canada's francophones live outside of Quebec, they have a face, accomplishments and creative talents to be showcased throughout Canada.

Today I am asking you to ensure that the Broadcasting Act acknowledges the principle whereby channels from minority francophone communities must be given access to the majority market, namely the Quebec market, so as to facilitate their existence and development within this market. Television, artistic expression: these are realities that probably could have benefited from images and songs. I simply hope that, with my words, I have been able to inspire you with some notions that will guide you in your recommendations.

I asked Mr. Paquin and Mr. Combrughe to be here with me and perhaps spend one or two minutes talking about what this means to them. I can give you my point of view, but ultimately, these are the people who need this help and who will derive the most benefit from it.

À (1000)

The Chair: Ms. Paquin, we have to give the floor to the other witnesses. If we have enough time, we will come back to you. As a matter of fairness, we have to listen to the two other groups and have time to ask questions. We will come back to Mr. Paquin and Mr. de Combrughe if there is enough time.

Ms. Claudette Paquin: I would, however, like to say that these two individuals are part of my group and I shortened my presentation to give them a brief opportunity to speak for one minute each.

The Chair: But you know that one minute each does not amount to one minute each.

Ms. Claudette Paquin: In our case, I think that this would be true.

The Chair: We will see. If Mr. Paquin goes beyond one minute, I will cut him off, that is all.

Mr. Paquin, what do you have to say?

Mr. Louis Paquin (President, TFO - TVOntario): I'll be brief.

To set out the context in which we're working, I'd say that over the last five years, francophone production outside of Quebec has increased in a major way. The important thing is that we're a reflection, a sort of mirror of our communities.

I'm sure you already know that Quebec has a policy to bring communities closer together. Since the 1966 États généraux, there was a separation between the francophone communities outside of Quebec and the francophone communities inside Quebec. So the Quebec government is undertaking a rapprochement.

Heritage Canada, the Canadian Television Fund, Téléfilm and all federal institutions want to support francophone production happening outside of Quebec. TFO is the only broadcaster who has decided on a schedule that is a real reflection of the francophone community outside Quebec.

I think it's extremely important for TFO to be broadcast everywhere in Canada because that way the francophone producers outside Quebec will be able to bring in more productions; there will be more co-productions with Quebec producers because there will be an exchange; the Quebec government will be able to improve the implementation of its policy to bring closer together the francophone communities outside Quebec and inside Quebec with program content; the artists will be able to develop an audience; and the government of Canada will also benefit from the fact that the Canadian francophone community will be viewed as one single community rather than two.

The Chair: Mr. de Combrughe.

Mr. Laurent de Combrughe (Director General, Association des professionnels de la chanson et de la musique en Ontario): The association I'm speaking for today represents Ontario's francophone authors, composers and interpreters. I'll give you an example of one of our projects we set up in cooperation with TFO and that was broadcast beyond Ontario's borders. Last year, we produced the first Gala de la chanson et de la musique franco-ontarienne. It was broadcast live on TFO and also on the Première chaîne de Radio-Canada, its four stations, as well as on Radio-Canada, which was the co-producer for the Ontario-Outaouais region.

The fact that TFO was also broadcast in New Brunswick allowed us to reach the whole Acadian francophone community. The request TFO made to be broadcast in Quebec would open a window that I think is indispensable. I would like to point out once again that for us, culture has no borders and this opening must happen in the area of broadcasting. Our local television is often the only opportunity our artists have to make themselves known elsewhere. The gala, which was broadcast live on television during prime time, between 8 and 9, was an extraordinary opportunity for us.

À (1005)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Lagacé.

Mr. Jacques Lagacé (Director, Institutional Affairs, Télé-Québec): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, it was a pleasure to accept your invitation to exchange views with the members of the Standing Committee on Heritage concerning the future of the Canadian broadcasting system.

I'm Jacques Lagacé and I am the Director of Institutional Affairs for Télé-Québec; Mario Clément is Director General of Programming, and my colleague Claude Morin is also with Institutional Affairs. I also bring you greetings on behalf of our President and Director General, Ms. Paule Beaugrand-Champagne who had to be in Quebec City this week to defend her budget.

We won't be able to answer all the questions raised in the document setting out the terms of reference of your committee, Mr. Chairman. We will address only three questions that seem important to us and they are Canadian content, the role of public television and the impact of new technology on the Canadian broadcasting system.

First, we'll address the requirements broadcasters face concerning the proportion of Canadian content broadcast.

We are of the opinion that the objectives pursued by the imposition of those requirements have played and will continue to play a fundamental role on the Canadian TV scene. First of all, together with both the selective and tax measures put in place to support production and broadcast of Canadian content—and we're talking here about the sector we know best which is that of francophone television—they have brought about the emergence of original and high-quality television production as well as the development of a very dynamic private sector production. They have also encouraged a major number of craftsmen and creators to develop world-class expertise and given them a place to express their art in this country. Finally, they have provided an alternative to omnipresent American television.

Also, while we're on that subject—and we agree with the position expressed by the CBC before this committee—we believe that we must maintain Canadian content requirements for television. However, we would emphasize, and this is even more true for the francophone market because of its small size, that the choice of maintaining high-quality Canadian programming leads to major costs that require our maintaining public support for this broadcasting.

Some wonder about the relevancy of the criteria that allow us to determine what content is Canadian. The criteria now used are certainly subject to improvement. Thus, we intend to answer the invitation of Heritage Canada to make Télé-Québec's views known on this matter in coming weeks during the consultation process.

I will conclude about Canadian content by pointing out that we believe it is essential to maintain the existence of a regulatory organization such as the CRTC. Taking into account the pressure exercised in the Canadian broadcasting system in the double context of globalization and the convergence of technology, self-regulation by the industry is an ineffective approach. We think it's essential for the government to maintain its regulatory capabilities.

I will now look at the question of the role of public television in balancing Canada's broadcasting system.

Public television plays an essential role in providing balance for Canada's broadcasting system. An organization like the CBC fulfills a public service mandate that goes far beyond meeting the strict requirements as to the percentage of Canadian content. However, a general broadcaster like the CBC cannot fulfill all roles. Thus, in Quebec, in the francophone universe, EEC-Québec, through its educational and cultural mission, plays an irreplaceable role in the television sector. Think only of EEC-Québec's youth programming which, way beyond the non-violent entertainment offered to our children, also promotes positive values, contributes to their socialization and provides common cultural references. We should remember that EEC-Québec broadcast Passe-Partout for more than 15 years. Today, this tradition is carried on in programs like Cornemuse, Macaroni tout garni or Ramdam.

EEC-Québec's youth programming pursues clear educational objectives established in consultation with Quebec's education department. EEC-Québec offers a range of services to support the action of teachers in schools.

In the same vein, it's not happenstance if EEC-Québec is the broadcaster who most supports the production and broadcasting of personal documentaries that throw a critical and sometimes enlightening look at reality as we know it. Those works whose social relevancy needs no further demonstration, are costly to produce, and except in rare cases, are not very commercially profitable. Only public television can and must make them known otherwise a whole level of audiovisual creation would simply disappear.

À (1010)

Generally speaking, public television develops and broadcasts under-represented genres, including, in large part, the Quebec cinema. Finally, the presence of public television on the market contributes to maintaining quality standards.

Télé-Québec has a tradition of daring and innovation. It's a hothouse of talent and a laboratory that gives life to new television genres. It's not the only one supporting the creation and emergence of such things, but it has constantly, as a broadcaster, taken risks and developed talent in Quebec.

Télé-Québec invests 85 percent of its programming budget in producing and broadcasting Canadian programs and 70 percent of that same budget goes to private enterprise production. So, for us, it is essential that the rules tying support for private production to Canadian content production and broadcasting objectives be maintained.

In the same way, the rules concerning different measures for production support pose a certain number of problems for television broadcasters and in particular for public television broadcasters. These rules mean that the producers keep rights to their products, no matter the financial support of the television broadcasters to their production.

On the matter of rights, there are two points I would like to draw to your attention. As educational television, we think that Télé-Québec should be able to, at the outset, obtain the rights for the distribution of its programs for educational and non-commercial markets. Even if we manage to negotiate a certain number of points to that effect with our producers, we think that because it is essentially—if not totally—public funds that support the production of educational programs and that the francophone market, because of its smaller universe, isn't really a commercial market, then those programs should be accessible to all markets at no cost.

As for commercial copyright, taking into account the television broadcaster's financial support, there could be criteria that would allow co-ownership of the copyright, other than for broadcasting on Canadian territory, for the producer and the broadcaster.

First of all, it's often difficult if not impossible for a certain number of producers to bear alone the costs of developing a production in a commercial market. I have in mind certain documentary producers, for example. The producers could benefit from the expertise and resources of the broadcaster and the latter could maximize his investment. That could lead to stimulating business partnerships.

In our view, it is urgent to look at this matter especially in the context of the deployment of new technology and the Internet so that public television like Télé-Québec will also be able to develop in the new media and use those products it contributes to.

Thus, by ensuring more involvement of broadcasters in intellectual property rights, we could remedy a situation we foresee as catastrophic concerning the conservation of our audiovisual heritage. Traditionally, our public broadcasters have ensured the conservation of our audiovisual heritage. They have no interest in doing so anymore as the products don't belong to them anymore.

We're celebrating our 30th anniversary at Télé-Québec and we've noticed that in our archives, because we kept them, we can get our hands on Télé-Québec's whole history and this is an important part of Quebec's audiovisual heritage. From 1994-95 on, and this represents between 60 and 80 percent of our heritage, we don't have access to that heritage anymore. Its state of conservation could be qualified as worrisome or at the very least uncontrollable.

Still with a view to offering a public service to the greatest possible number and taking into account the nature of the service offered and the importance of the public funds that are involved, Télé-Québec also considers that all broadcasting distribution enterprises, no matter the technology they use, should be under the obligation to offer cost-free to their subscribers, on their basic service, the signal from educational television broadcasters over the territory they serve.

À (1015)

Here, we're talking about educational television whose signal is received directly and whose operation depends on an educational authority appointed by the province.

Finally, concerning the broadcasting of educational public television signals, I'd like to say that Télé-Québec already submitted, in October 2000, a brief to the CRTC where it expressed the hope that its signal could be offered cost free or on an operation cost-recovery basis only to francophone communities all across Canada. To this end, Télé-Québec, since 1995-96, has been ensuring that it gets broadcasting rights for its programming all across Canada.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments on the far-reaching changes to be expected by the Canadian broadcasting system in the wake of the current technological revolution.

Concerning the consultation process undertaken by the CRTC on the transition from conventional to high-definition television, we think it's important to remember that we must demand, for the transition period when analog and digital broadcasting will coexist, that the distributors distribute the television broadcasters' digital signals according to the same rules that apply for analog signals. Thus, Télé-Québec's digital signal should be offered without charge as part of the basic service and the relative positioning strategy of the broadcasters' signals should be similar in the digital universe as to what they are in the analog universe.

We can understand that it might be difficult to regulate emerging technologies like the Internet. However, we can see an evolving trend towards distributing, through the Internet, audiovisual content as is or accompanied by more or less major transformations. This content has often benefited from measures to support Canadian content production. We think it could be of interest to initiate a process to look at the best way of favouring the emergence of Canadian content on the Internet and regulating its circulation.

For the time being, we think it is unacceptable to see producers trying to act as broadcasters over the Internet and offer content for which we already hold copyright for broadcasting over our network.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that in the present context where the private sector is setting up major integrated media groups, it is essential to maintain a pluralistic voice. Public television is an instrument of choice to play that role. Moreover, public television can help Canada in a major way to protect and promote its cultural diversity in the context of globalization.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you once again for having allowed the representatives of Télé-Québec to make these comments. We will be pleased to answer your questions.

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

Mr. Robert.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Robert (General Manager, Knowledge Network): Thank you.

My name is Wayne Robert, and I'm the acting general manager of the Knowledge Network, British Columbia's public educational broadcaster and the service of the Open Learning Agency.

For 21 years Knowledge Network has provided high-quality television experiences designed to engage and inform British Columbians with relevant, credible, and compelling content. We broadcast educational television content aimed at changing behaviour, not consumer behaviour as advertisers do, but behaviours that improve the quality of life through the development of the person as a whole.

We are able to develop, foster, and produce material for smaller, targeted audiences whose education in turn creates a greater effect on the economy and the community. An informed and educated public translates into motivated and self-directed individuals who are able to make informed decisions in our changing economy and culture.

To this end, the current Broadcasting Act ensures that a provincial educational broadcaster enjoys freedom of expression and journalistic, creative, and programming independence. It also differentiates educational programming with the understanding that it will be aimed at the acquisition or improvement of knowledge or in the enlargement of understanding of members of the audience. And it mandates that, taken as a whole, it shall be designed to furnish educational opportunities and shall be distinctly different from general broadcasting.

The role of provincial education television was not specifically referenced in the terms of reference for this review. And we agree that education is distinct from other broadcasting initiatives and indeed should be reviewed independently within the study themes proposed.

The current Broadcasting Act states that educational programming, particularly where provided through the facilities of an independent educational authority, is an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system. Equally important, public educational television affords access to audiences for educators, societies, institutions, NGOs, and others with the need to disseminate information and knowledge for the public good.

Knowledge Network understands that at times serving the needs of the few benefits the many. Various constituencies may need information that is not targeted to mass audiences. However, the benefits result in concrete improvements to the life of all citizens--for example, programs targeted to help address drug abuse; provide critical information to home care providers; offer language training for new Canadians; update professionals on recent developments in their fields; and supply information to foster and form decisions on complex initiatives, such as community revitalization and the changing economy.

As a broadcaster serving the province and headquartered in B.C., Knowledge Network has a responsibility to deliver programming that provides British Columbians with an opportunity to become literate about their province, its geography, ecology, and climate, and its social, political, economic, and cultural histories, issues, and concerns. This is our definition of regional information programming.

With regard to educational programming, in the current broadcast system, created through a combination of market forces and regulatory intervention, there's been little attention paid to sustaining educational programming. Our interest is in working within the broadcast system to address this, in balance with the commercial concerns of the industry.

It's our position that educational and regional alternatives must be supported in the Canadian broadcasting system. Further, for-profit broadcasters should not take unfair advantage of their economic strength to unduly influence the development of programming and prevent access to educational programs by public educational broadcasters.

I'd like to discuss now the current situation regarding funding of alternative programming.

Conventional broadcasters have focused on the convergence of media and resources. Digital delivery has allowed for a proliferation of new specialty channels and increased competition for programming and audiences. The business needs of national broadcasters and national speciality channels dictate that they spend their production and pre-licence dollars first on programming that is of the broadest appeal. It is clear that economic success means focusing efforts on programs that appeal to the largest and most commercially appealing demographics. However, some of the broadcasting system's profits must support productions that do not fit commercial broadcasters' mandates, but rather advance the regionally unique social, cultural, and educational agendas of people in each area of Canada.

The existing Canadian production funding system is intended to support a variety of genres. However, the emphasis on trigger licence fees from national broadcasters or the cumulative licence fee from numerous regional broadcasters continues to mean that programs with the widest possible appeal are the most likely to be funded. While it continues to be a mixed blessing for independent producers in B.C., the current system means that the production supported by these funds have little impact on the efforts of Knowledge Network to provide British Columbians with a regionally relevant, alternative schedule.

À (1020)

Vertical integration results in corporations having control over all the elements of the broadcast industry, from development to distribution. Through funds like the CTF, these private sector companies are able to access programming that is funded in part by public money. If these programs are exclusive to a second-tier broadcaster, the viewer may have contributed to the production three times, as a consumer of advertising, as a subscriber, and as a taxpayer. Indeed, some taxpayers may never see these programs at all.

Commercial broadcasters in the new market are paying higher licence fees to trigger the nationally oriented program funds, leveraging longer periods of exclusivity and shutting out second windows in an effort to build brand loyalty for their networks.

In the 10 years since Knowledge Network began pre-licensing Canadian programming, supply and demand has changed dramatically. For the same fee, we have gone from sharing first windows to taking a second window a year after delivery to no longer having access at all to some documentaries that are being produced through the Canadian production funding system. As a result, though these funds continue to support conventional and specialty broadcasters in the development of their industry, the amount of funding for programming directed toward the public interest is diminishing. In spite of all the good these funds do, they are not an appropriate vehicle for ensuring an adequate supply of regional information programming.

I'll now explore some ideas about the possibilities for a sustainable model for provincial educational broadcasting.

By its very nature, educational broadcasting is a collaborative effort rather than a competitive one. Knowledge Network has consistently partnered with producers and other broadcasters to provide educational experiences for viewers and to allow educators to access audiences as efficiently as the television medium allows.

For example, Knowledge Network does not currently pursue exclusive windows when investing in pre-licences. We consider our broadcast an alternative to national and local services, available on the first tier, to maximize availability to those most in need of our service and driven by an information economy rather than a need to capture an ever-larger consumer demographic.

Indeed, 30,000 British Columbians enrolled in our Partners in Knowledge program support our efforts by providing $1.5 million per year to have commercial-free, alternative educational television programs of their choice--programs that would not otherwise appear on the first tier of service. They have joined our station and vote with their dollars to ensure that we can provide a broad range of programming. They expect a world view in addition to regionally produced and targeted programming. We cannot expect these donors to also bear the entire cost of production of B.C. programming.

We are supported in the production of broadcast of educational content as a result of our relationship with the educational system in the province. We shop in the same markets as national broadcasters, often only succeeding by working together with our partners for general and curriculum educational programming. As acquisition costs rise and appropriate programs and proposals become scarce, more of our budget from the province's education system is consumed to meet this portion of our mandate, leaving less money for development, pre-licensing, and production of original educational programming. Using provincial funding provided for educational programming to produce regional information programming is inappropriate.

Regional broadcasting has been left behind in the rush to develop and sustain a viable commercial television industry across Canada. Although we salute the industry's accomplishments, we are eager to participate in the next necessary steps to ensure the same sustainability and vitality in public regional broadcasting. We want to explore new business models to continue to deliver high-quality television experiences, designed to inform and engage British Columbians with relevant and enlightening regional content.

In conclusion, our interest lies in working with our colleagues in the Canadian broadcasting system to ensure a wide range of programming and program funding alternatives. Knowledge Network understands the need for large television and multimedia integrated corporations to generate profit to stabilize and grow the industry in Canada.

It's our position that there needs also to be investment in productions that do not necessarily fit commercial mandates or meet only the needs of large national audiences. Exciting possibilities could include development or redirection of funds for specific regional production. New models could also involve subscription fees for provincial broadcasters in recognition of their role as regional broadcasters.

As we begin the next decade of our broadcasting life, we seek the flexibility to support a Knowledge Network that can deliver both educational and regional programming for the viewer and financial support for the independent B.C. producer. We hope the current imbalance will be rectified by guaranteeing that the industry as a whole meets its responsibilities by funding public interest programming. These funds can then, through the Knowledge Network's regional, educational, and public service mandate, ensure that current, relevant, targeted British Columbian programming is available for British Columbians.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning.

À (1025)

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

We have half an hour left for questions, which would give members a fair time to ask questions and receive answers.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do we have one question or maybe a couple this time?

The Chair: Well, why don't you start and we'll see.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you all for coming today.

Just to follow up, Mr. Robert, you talked about the need for guaranteed funding for the Knowledge Network. Of course, I like the name. The name alone makes me want to watch the programming, and maybe I should do more of that. But I need to know how you see the funding for a regional-based Knowledge Network, like your own, should be enhanced. You talked about the need for commercial broadcasters to help you out. Do you see a way in regulation? How do you see that coming about?

Mr. Wayne Robert: I didn't necessarily mean just commercial broadcasters, but actually the entire system.

There are options, such as cable subscription and special funding models, which could be directed to the kind of work we do. Some of my colleagues in provincial educational broadcasting have described us as being pressed against the window looking at commercial revenue and saying, “That's not available to us because of our mandate”, and looking at the cable subscription fees, which, until now, have not been available to us. And some of the other models--because of our mandate or specific regulation--we're not able to access. So we're looking to explore these options and looking for new models.

I don't think I necessarily propose a solution at this point. I just think there needs to be a commitment on behalf of the industry to examine these possibilities.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. I would suggest that specificity might be in order fairly quickly, given the status of this review. If you have specific suggestions, I would be interested to hear the specifics of them.

On the other question of TFO--I don't know who to address this to--has there been any support, or is there lack of support, from the Ontario or Quebec provincial governments for your problem in trying to target the market that you need to in order to access revenues, and so on? Has there been support from any provincial governments in your presentations to the CRTC?

À (1030)

Ms. Claudette Paquin: For our presence in other provinces, we've had support, of course, from the Government of New Brunswick and the Government of Manitoba, through the Ministry of Education of Manitoba.

Regarding entry into the Quebec market specifically, support was expressed when we made an application to the CRTC. I think there were 1,500 expressions of support for, and about eight against.

We're convinced of the support of Quebec consumers, simply because we already reach 1 million Quebeckers. We get feedback to estimate that.

Certainly, the independent producers in Quebec have understood that the more I invest in this industry, the better it is for them. A dollar that I put on a licence to an independent producer is multiplied by Telefilm and the Cable Production Fund. So the more I can invest in that market, the better it is.

So I would say we certainly see this as a win-win situation.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: My question is, though, are Ontario and Quebec provincial governments in support of what--

Ms. Claudette Paquin: The Ontario government certainly supports what we're trying to do. The Quebec government has not made a formal intervention at the CRTC. I have not had direct communication from them, so I'm not quite at ease to answer that part of the question.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lagacé, can you answer that question? Do you get support from the government of Quebec? Naturally, yes, but how much? What kind of support do you get from the province?

Mr. Jacques Lagacé: Do you mean Télé-Québec, or concerning TFO's situation?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, you were not referring to the TFO question; you were trying to find out how much the provincial governments support tele-education, is that right?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, I was thinking in terms of do they support the position by TFO--

The Chair: Oh, I see. Okay.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: --before the CRTC or in its current brief in terms of what it's trying to access in the Quebec market. Does it have the support of the Quebec provincial government in its efforts to bring TFO programming to Quebec? Or is it just not an issue?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Lagacé: This is indeed an issue for us. Télé-Québec did put forward a brief when TFO appeared before the CRTC. Télé-Québec's position on this issue is now relatively clear. For us, it goes without saying that TFO should have much the same access as any other provincial public TV station. Consequently, they should be allowed to provide a free service within their market. In this current case TFO is breaking into a different market and they want current provincial broadcasting rules to be reviewed.

When TFO applied for access to the Quebec market, for cable fees and for inclusion in the basic cable package, all the specialty and broad-based TV channels said that the same rules should apply across the board. By that, they meant that TFO should apply to the CRTC and, as a specialty channel, should apply for cable fees to the CRTC. If ever the rules were changed, Télé-Québec would also like to apply for cable fees, because we are entirely funded by the government of Quebec.

The whole TV industry in Quebec shared this position. We said that our services were free across Canada because we had decided to negotiate our fees on that particular basis. Consequently, it goes without saying that we would have liked to have seen greater cooperation with TFO in terms of establishing partnerships and co-producing programming, rather than competing with TFO for the same market.

I would like my colleague Mario Clément to talk to you in greater detail about the challenge arising from TFO's break into the Quebec market.

À (1035)

The Chair: Mr. Clément, could I ask you to hold off from that for a moment because I would like to move on to other questions, just so that other people get a chance to ask questions? I will let you comment as soon as we have a moment.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like to pick up on more or less the same line of questioning in terms of TFO, because we have figures in front of us that I would like to be able to make sense of. Basically, it isn't TFO's break into the Quebec market that has created a problem, but rather the whole issue of fees levied on cable subscriber revenue. TFO has applied for 28¢ per person. In other words, this means that over six years, Quebeckers will have to pay $29 million, whether they want to have access to the TFO station or not.

At least, that's the way I see it. For example, TFO is available in New Brunswick, but in that province there are no educational television stations, such as we have in Quebec with Télé-Québec. The government of Quebec allocates $54 million to educational television. I think what we're dealing with here is the whole economic issue and the whole question of ensuring the survival of educational television. Cable fees in New Brunswick for TFO stand at 13¢. Consequently, I fail to understand why in the province of Quebec, these fees should be set at 28¢. That would be the equivalent ...

Indeed, the government of Ontario has cut its support for TFO and, at the same time, Quebeckers are being asked to pay more in order to fund TFO.

I would just like to try to make some sense of these figures and I wouldn't want people to think that Quebec does not want TFO. That would be quite wrong. This is not the issue that we're dealing with here today. I think what we are talking about however is the whole issue of survival and justice and fairness in terms of the money allocated by Quebec. We're talking about $54 million here. It costs the Quebec government 61¢ per head to fund Télé-Québec.

I think that we are dealing with a question which is far more complex than just simply acceptance of francophone communities outside Quebec. I'm very aware of francophone communities outside Quebec and I am also very well aware of the challenges facing these francophone communities outside Quebec and what they have to do to survive. I would like you to explain this whole issue so that we can really grasp it and so that people can understand the whole question at stake here.

The Chair: I think that you've just kicked off the debate, Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Just like in the House, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We shall begin with Ms. Paquin and then we shall go to Mr. Clément. Ms. Paquin, you have the floor.

Ms. Claudette Paquin: I don't think this is the time or the place to get into a debate which could take two hours. I would, however, just like to set the record straight and to clarify some issues.

Firstly, we did not apply to be included in the basic cable package in Quebec. We have never asked for that and we've never applied to the CRTC for such a status. However, we did apply for inclusion in the optional package, mainly to allow cable subscribers a choice and also because we readily acknowledge that Télé-Québec is already part of the basic cable package. We wanted to be included in the optional package.

Secondly, we never asked for 28¢ cable fees in our application to the CRTC. It goes without saying that Vidéotron has a virtual monopoly over the cable market in Quebec. I doubt very much whether it would be willing to give up its monopoly. Consequently, we did not give any indication of a potential fee in our submission to the CRTC.

I would also like to clarify the fact that the government of Ontario has not at all cut its funding since 1995. Indeed, the government, which is perhaps perceived as having cut the most, has not cut TVO's budget. Our budget for the provision of television services to Ontarians has not changed. What has changed, however, are the ground rules for purchasing French-language programming. By that, I mean that Quebec is the market for Canadian-produced French-language programming. The Quebec market has changed significantly. This has meant that TVO now finds itself in the quite untenable position of being forced to apply for nation-wide fees for its own programming. This is quite different from the situation that existed when TVO was created in 1970. The face of the Canadian television industry has changed radically. TVO's Ontario-based funding has remained stable. However, changes in the television industry have meant that TVO is no longer on an equal footing.

I just wanted to set the record straight here.

À (1040)

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

Mr. Mario Clément (Director General of Programming, Télé-Québec): This is a complex issue. The television market is constantly changing. We are now facing mergers and concentration. Télé-Québec and TFO-TVOntario only exist because of public funding. I think that all the witnesses have underscored the importance of promoting public interest programming. This type of programming is expensive. This type of program is often under-represented. We are keeping specific skills and types of programming alive. No matter whether we're talking about young people, documentaries or cultural programming, they are all entirely funded by broadcasters and by public money. Each time that we have appeared before the CRTC to discuss a specialty channel or channels of this type put forward by the private or public sector, we have always focused on the fact that these channels would be supplementary to others.

For example, when Astral came forward with Historia, Canal Z and other such channels, we have always adopted the position of looking at the relevancy and complementarity of such programming in a small market. We have taken the line that legislation should apply across the board. TFO is a television station which provides youth, documentary, cultural or magazine-type programming. This is exactly the same market segment as Télé-Québec. Consequently, this is why we are taking issue—given the current market—with competition between two television stations offering the same type of program in the same market.

What we are saying here today is that we have not even attempted to try to complement each other in our respective marketplaces. By that, I mean that I am going to say to Claudette that we should sit down together and try to establish whether she really needs the Quebec market to enhance the relevancy, the quality or the volume of her Canadian programming. We should sit down together and we should establish how we can share our programming and how we can come up with ways, if we are so inclined, which will enable us to bridge the gaps in the programming of both our companies. There are very simple things that can be done, which will not mean that we'll have to turn a market—which is already extremely volatile—upside down.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Along with everyone else, I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing here this morning.

There is increased competition out there, and we've heard about the Internet. I have a daughter who is 12 and who used to watch her fair share of television, but I've noticed in the last year that she's moved more away from that to the Internet, probably because of the dual role it can play. She can be entertained and educated by the Internet, but at the same time she can have input by chatting with her friends or logging in to something to retrieve information specific to what she's working on. Of course, as a parent I have to be aware that aside from that there are certain evils out there.

I'm just wondering how you find this technology has had an impact on the way you present your programming. And if indeed that is the case, what are you doing to address that?

Ms. Claudette Paquin: To whom are you addressing the question?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I would imagine that to a certain point it would impact on all of you, so whoever would feel most comfortable, please take that question.

Ms. Claudette Paquin: We are using the Internet a fair bit for educational purposes, mostly for children and teachers. We looked at the technology and the way it complements what we do on air. You know, there are products that suck on the air and are really good on the Internet, and vice versa. So instead of duplicating the same product on both technologies, we simply tried to say, who do we serve with what product, and which technology will we use?

Sometimes it's a print document for teachers, sometimes it's an Internet site for young children learning French, and sometimes it's for parents or for the public at large. It depends on the need of the client that we want to serve, and then we chose the technology. But we have a sizable presence on the Internet, and our site for children is on AOL, on Bell Sympatico, and now on Disney France.

À (1045)

The Chair: Mr. Robert, do you want to intervene?

Mr. Wayne Robert: Yes, I'd like to address that.

One of our concerns is that this is also one of these questions of not only your desire, but also your ability. One of the things we would like to see is, when we look at special educational programming development funds, there be a requirement that they include development of a component for use on the Internet.

The Knowledge Network is part of the Open Learning Agency, which is one of the leaders in development of Internet content, structured educational content. So we've been working hard on this area.

Part of the problem is that as we work with outside producers and with other partners, they may not necessarily have that same motivation to it. So we'd like to be able to put a little bit more impetus behind that. But that's certainly what we'd like to see going in the future, every educational program with a further component on the Internet.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Clément, would you like to say something?

Mr. Mario Clément: In our case, it goes without saying that technology has a major impact on our viewership, as Claudette was saying earlier. We're all facing the same situation.

We have to use new technologies to retain or to bring back viewers, who have gradually given up television to move over to so-called structuring products.

A lot of money has been invested in youth programming. These are original productions. On a daily basis, we broadcast three youth-oriented programs for the 3-to-5, 6-to-7 and 9-to-12 age groups. The scale of investment in these types of program requires a complementary strategy. Television programming is very structured and highly developed. However, it is relatively easy for us to use original material to obtain and pass on information in a different way. It goes without saying however, that we require the necessary funding to make this new programming attractive. This is key here.

Last year, we developed a game show. In fact, it was an interactive television news show offered over the Internet. It boiled down to a live television event with real time Internet-user participation.

We try, each year, to constantly improve and to provide products which are complementary to our television programming. We have done much the same thing in terms of documentaries and cultural programming. We are currently attempting to produce cultural agendas to buttress our television-based cultural magazines. In our opinion, this is fundamental. We really now have to see how we can enhance these types of products over the coming years. In our opinion, this is the current issue that we are grappling with.

We have to decide whether we are going to reassign funds to Internet-based programming. If we decide to do that, we have to see how we in fact do reassign this money, because we will not receive any new funding for these activities even if, in actual fact, this is all part of our goal for the coming years.

Mr. Jacques Lagacé: I would just like to add that the performance of youth programming, in the 2-to-12 age group, has enabled us to increase our youth viewership. We just organized a Ramdam chat room on the Internet. Our servers were not able to cope with the numbers of young people who wanted to talk to television producers about the topics, etc. In our opinion, this is the way to go in the future.

[English]

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I can appreciate that.

The Chair: We have nearly 12 minutes left. There are three questions and answers left, so by my math, that makes four minutes for questions and answers each.

Madam Bulte.

À (1050)

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'll give my questions first. If you're not able to answer them, perhaps you could forward them.

Mr. Robert, you're one of the first people I've actually heard, sitting around the table, who's come before us to talk about being a regional broadcaster. I'm quite interested, because one of the things this committee is also looking at is the relationship between regional and local. How do you fit into that? I very clearly heard you speak proudly of being a regional broadcaster. Do you see that there is some need to perhaps amend the Broadcasting Act to have local, as opposed to regional, programming reflected, which is what's in the act right now?

I'm also interested in following up on what Mr. Strahl said on your funding models. Please supply them to us so we can look at them. How are your educational programs produced? How do you provide funding? Do you access CTF? You talked about cable companies. Cable companies pay the CTF; I mean they already contribute through their broadcast distribution undertakings. We've heard the broadcasters say that they're already overpaying for broadcast fees. Where are we going to find that money otherwise?

To Monsieur Lagacé, just very quickly, am I correct to understand that you feel you should retain the distribution rights to the productions that are produced? If so, are they in-house productions, are they independent productions? Is that not something you negotiate with your independent producers? And by retaining their distribution rights, you're talking about the exporting market. Why should it be you as opposed to the...?

So I'm quite interested. Perhaps I misunderstood that you wanted to keep some of the distribution rights from the producers.

As well, do you access the fund? And what are your sources of funding for production?

I put the same question to Madam Paquin.

The Chair: May I suggest that Ms. Lill and Mr. Hearn put their questions down, and then the witnesses will just bear those in mind and answer the three of you.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I was actually going to ask exactly the same question. I was going to ask Mr. Paquin about the whole issue of the economics of production.

Do you access the CTF, Telefilm, film development production bodies? What exactly are your methods of financing film and TV for minority francophone programming?

[Translation]

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I would like to ask a couple of questions of Ms. Paquin.

[English]

In relation to getting into the Quebec market, is it the regulations generally that prevent you or is it the strong objection from Quebec? And shouldn't there be open accessibility generally across the country for networks like your own?

The Chair: Okay, we have all these questions. We'll start with you, Mr. Robert.

Mr. Wayne Robert: Thank you.

I'm glad to hear that the differentiation I stressed about regional programming compared to local and national programming was heard. Indeed, we see that as a way to go further in-depth into teaching the region about the rest of the region, even possibly teaching the rest of Canada about British Columbia, but especially rising somewhere between the local programming, which I see as community oriented, essentially, to regional orientation. So we'd be looking at issues such as ecology, geography, and the economy in-depth, as opposed to being reported on for the news.

I hope that clarifies what I feel we need to see as regional broadcasters. That's what I see supported in the act. I just don't see it currently supported in the system.

That leads to your question about funding models. We are actively exploring new funding models for provincial educational broadcasting and regional broadcasting, which would be in addition to our provincial educational mandate. We've risen to that because we felt the need was there, and no one else was going to be able to do that in a reasonable way. Certainly, people could put programs that were of interest to British Columbia on national channels, but we feel they're not going to devote the time and energy to nurture those kinds of programs and to grow them and to find out what the real needs of the province are.

Currently, our funding is from the provincial educational system. As I was trying to express, we don't want to rob Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, and take away from our educational funding in order to provide it under a regional mandate, although there is certainly an overlap in those kinds of areas.

We're saying that perhaps we should be looking to the broadcasting system for something, possibly cable subscription fees or other new models we haven't even begun to discuss. That's why I couldn't get really specific. But certainly cable subscription fees are one thing that is currently in place and might be available to us.

The last thing was your question about current funds, such as CTF. CTF has been terrific. We do pre-license through there and help to trigger licences. We usually aren't able to pay a high enough fee to actually trigger a production on our own. Often, we combine with ATEC partners in order to do that.

The difficulty we have with that, as far as reaching a regional mandate is concerned, is that the first ones that are going to be funded are the ones with the broadest national appeal. There are lots of productions that don't rise to the top in that kind of model. We'd like to see another model that would do that.

Incidentally, we'd also like to see--

À (1055)

The Chair: Mr. Robert, please finish your answer.

Mr. Wayne Robert: Sorry.

That funding also includes Internet production.

The Chair: Monsieur Lagacé.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Lagacé: We are really talking about non-commercial markets here. By that, I mean school and education markets. The limited nature of the French-language market means that this is a non-commercial sector. Few broadcasters have succeeded in breaking into the Quebec school market in a significant way. Quebec has purchased a great deal of programming from TFO and CNDP in France.

Consequently, in many ways, it's the very fact that purchases of television material by schools is subsidized, that has meant that we now find ourselves in a somewhat ironic situation, whereby the entirety of Télé-Québec's production is funded with public money, but cannot be freely used by schools. We are talking about a freely available system here. We don't make any money through the Quebec education system.

The Chair: Ms. Paquin or Mr. Paquin, could you please wrap up? Please answer Mr. Hearn's question at the same time.

[English]

Mr. Louis Paquin: I can respond to your question about the funding. For the past four or five years now Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund have recognized French producers outside of Quebec. The biggest challenge is working with our broadcasters. I ask the committee to be very pragmatic when it talks about broadcasters, because it's not true that in Quebec francophone broadcasters are open to our productions. When our points of reference are not from Quebec, they have trouble seeing why they're going to program the project.

That is why is TFO is so fundamental. When you compare educational TV, we have to realize that what TFO has done in the past four or five years is look at branding itself as being really a reflection of the French communities outside of Quebec. The content is not at all like Télé-Québec.

CBC is doing a bit more. But it's very hard for the French producers outside of Quebec to penetrate the French broadcasters in Quebec. Even though Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund have done everything within their means, such as giving incentives to French groups outside of Quebec, it's difficult. I'm not saying it will not happen.

What TFO is asking is to allow us to show our product in the larger market. We need to look at the market. When TFO is only distributed in Ontario, New Brunswick, and a bit in Quebec, we lose points. Sometimes we lose projects because they are not distributed in Quebec. So we still have a lot of work to do.

The Chair: I would like to close with two items.

[Translation]

First of all, I would like to ask you whether you have any suggestions in terms of the funding arrangements of both your TV stations.

[English]

Mr. Robert, you alluded to it. If you have any thoughts, any suggestions, please send them to the clerk so we can pass them to the researchers and the members.

[Translation]

Secondly, if you think that the committee might be used as a vehicle for bringing the very divergent positions of TFO and Télé-Québec together—because as you know we are mandated to put forward recommendations—please do not hesitate to forward your suggestions to us. We would be quite willing to look at them in greater depth.

I think it's been a wonderful session.Thank you very much for coming here today. I'm sorry that we didn't have more time.

The meeting is adjourned.