HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 8, 2001

• 0907

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. I'd like to declare open this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[Translation]

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is meeting today to continue its study of the state of the Canadian broadcasting system.

[English]

We are here to study the state of the Canadian broadcasting system.

Today, we are very pleased to have the Minister of Canadian Heritage with us. She is accompanied by two witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage. Mr. Michael Wernick has appeared before us several times before. He is the assistant deputy minister for cultural development. Mr. Marc O'Sullivan is director general for broadcasting policy and innovation.

[Translation]

Madam Minister, we are particularly delighted to welcome you here given the importance of our study of which you are a staunch supporter. We're happy to have you as our first witness for these public hearings.

[English]

We are really pleased that you are going to launch our public hearings. As you know, we took a long time to prepare for this day. It has been nearly a year since we started working on it. I think we have been very thorough in our preparations, and we are ready for the public hearings. Thank you for being here. The floor is yours.

Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here. I especially want to thank the committee for the incredible work it did on a different piece of legislation in a different context.

One of the things that is fascinating about the work in Canadian Heritage—and something that I think is especially fascinating about this committee—is that we do work primarily based on consensus. We have examined issues as wide-ranging as Canada's national parks system, Canada's marine and conservation areas, and, now, broadcasting in Canada. We have members of Parliament who have a wide range of experience, Mr. Chair, and I believe this work you are undertaking will be the most important work ever undertaken by a parliamentary committee in my time in Parliament.

• 0910

Broadcasting is of extraordinary importance in a country as diverse and as geographically large as Canada. We live in a country that brings together citizens from more than 150 national cultures. We live in a society that has never had a civil war, a society in which citizens from different religions, different regions, different ethnic backgrounds, and different walks of life communicate with each other and, through that communication, make Canada a beacon of hope in the world.

[Translation]

Broadcasting is the principle medium through which Canadians learn more about themselves, their fellow Canadians and the world. Broadcasting is the principle medium through which our children discover our country's history, values and diversity. In the coming months, I hope that we will keep these timely considerations in mind and that you will take an overall view of the situation.

Let us start by taking a closer look at the various broadcasting sectors in Canada.

[English]

Much has changed since the Broadcasting Act was adopted a decade ago. We're dealing with new digital technologies, new services, globalization, media mergers, convergence, the Internet, and the World Wide Web. These are incredible new horizons that we need to chart. As we seek to advance Canadian values, we do so in an area in which the scope of change and the pace of technologies are unprecedented.

In just one decade, the world has undergone a geopolitical transformation. When Parliament last amended this act ten years ago, there was no Internet, no World Wide Web, and no 500-channel universe. A decade ago, who would have thought MTV would be the largest broadcasting network in the world, reaching 340 million preteens and teens every day? A decade ago, who would have thought a telephone company would be paying Lloyd Robertson's salary?

You will be examining the means of distribution. You will be looking at vertical convergence and horizontal convergence.

[Translation]

I urge you to remain vigilant because the task at hand is among the most important ever undertaken by a parliamentary committee since my election to Parliament. Ongoing cooperation has enabled us to make some real progress in a number of areas, as evidenced recently on the issue of marine conservation areas.

Consider, for example, your report on culture, A Sense of Place, A Sense of Being. This report led to the announcement last May by the Prime Minister of $560 million in new investments in the fields of arts and culture. The news of this investment spread quickly not only in Canada but around the world.

[English]

And I can tell you that when I attended the meeting of culture ministers in Switzerland, a number of them said they had heard about the investment made by the Prime Minister, and they were asking us what our magic recipe was.

[Translation]

The government takes your work very seriously. Your report on the book industry, The Challenge of Change, led to the creation of a more dynamic aid program for the industry. In addition, your report on sport, Leadership, Partnership and Accountability

[English]

more commonly known as the Mills report, permitted us to put an emphasis on a new sports policy, and to make a new investment in sports. That was the first investment we made after the last election.

You're setting aside eighteen months for this study. That seems like a long period of time, but the history of broadcasting indicates that it's a short period of time. You need to get to the bottom of things, but certain questions need to be developed even more quickly.

In television, the availability of Canadian programming increased throughout the 1990s, notably with the introduction of new specialty and pay services. In 1991, 32% of all English and French broadcasting in prime time—that is, from seven to eleven o'clock in the evening—was Canadian. By 2000, this share had risen to 41%. Viewership—and this is a very positive statistic—of Canadian prime time programming in English and French has also increased from 31% of hours watched in 1991, to 40% in 2000. This increased programming offers Canadians a better diversity of choice.

• 0915

We have more than 580 private radio and television services. We have a strong public broadcasting system. We have educational services. We have aboriginal television and radio. We have services for official-language minorities, multicultural and third-language services, community channels, and a wide range of U.S. and other foreign product.

Over the years, we have developed Canadian programming and content regulations for radio and television. In radio, those rules have helped to create an extraordinary domestic and international success for Canada's music industry. In television, private licensees must generally achieve a yearly Canadian content of 60% overall. Together, Canadians are determined to have access to the best the world has to offer, while preserving spaces for Canadian stories.

The Canadian Television Fund has ushered in a new era of partnership, and other countries look to Canada for leadership on broadcasting issues. I was very pleased that the International Network for Cultural Diversity was founded here, in the capital of Canada, only three years ago. That network now has 45 countries around the world examining key issues. They are issues that are key not just for Canada, but for other growing and developing democracies: space for domestic voices; production capacity; a balance of public and private funding; and appropriate regulatory streams. Our efforts to negotiate an international instrument to protect cultural diversity reinforce the fact that Canada is seeking balance with broadcasting policies.

I hope you will keep in mind throughout your examination that countries that do not regulate to preserve space for their own stories will find their broadcasting systems dominated exclusively by foreign content. For example, New Zealand has no domestic content requirements, and only 24% of television programming in that country is of national origin. Austria does not have domestic content requirements for television. Since 1991, foreign television has steadily increased its share of viewership in Austria. The Austrian government is now revising its TV policy to enact a stronger public service mandate and an independent regulator, and it has looked to Canada for examples.

[Translation]

I would now like to focus your attention on three major questions facing the broadcasting industry: how to maximize resources in order to offer higher quality Canadian programming; how to diversify voices within the broadcasting system; and how to ensure that local broadcasting successfully meet the needs of communities.

We have scored a number of victories. Together, the radio and television industries have injected over $8 billion into the Canadian broadcasting industry.

[English]

It's funny. People say Canadian Heritage is not an economic portfolio, but radio and television industries have injected $8 billion into the Canadian economy.

[Translation]

In addition, the Canadian Television Fund has been an overwhelming success story.

[English]

Since the creation of the Canadian Television Fund only four years ago, these funds have aided in more than 2,000 projects representing 10,900 hours of Canadian television programming in the under-represented categories of children's, documentary, and drama.

[Translation]

This has resulted in $991 million being allocated to projects with budgets totaling $3.35 billion.

[English]

To repeat that in English, that investment by the Canadian Television Fund has resulted in $991 million worth of public and parapublic investment in projects that total over $3 billion.

We are putting Canadian shows on Canadian screens. This year alone, the CBC received $60 million in additional funding, geared solely to programming, for a total of $985 million in parliamentary appropriations. Roughly 70% of the CBC's total budget is set aside for the main English and French radio and television services.

• 0920

A number of elements have contributed to the building of Canadian programming: the CRTC regulatory framework; conditions of licence; benefit packages; federal and provincial tax credits; and incentives for advertisers under section 19 of the Income Tax Act. Just as we've created a space for Canadian stories, so we have seen Canadian productions that have been accepted around the world. Just this Sunday, Canadians saw global success as Canadian programs won ten Emmys.

Programming is the heart of the broadcasting system, but what can we do to ensure that the maximum amount of resources are being directed by broadcasters, by cable, by satellite, by independent producers, and by government, to the creation of distinctively Canadian stories, as well as to industrial Canadian programming? Are there measures that we can take to enhance the economic viability of high quality Canadian stories? Are there measures that we can take to build larger audiences for Canadian stories?

[Translation]

In addition to taking steps to increase the level of Canadian programming, we have moved to increase the diversity of voices. Citizens feel empowered when the hear the voices of their community, not just those of people in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. When they see their own community representative on television, they feel truly a part of the scene. It is a matter of affirming oneself and of feeling like an integral part of the community.

I want to share with you some of the concerns that have marked my career. I'm very proud to be able to say that during my current mandate, we have made some progress.

[English]

Currently, Canada has fourteen ethnic radio stations, two ethnic television stations, and five ethnic specialty services. In my view, in a country in which one-third of the population claims neither French nor English as their mother tongue, this is not enough. Canada now has the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, the first of its kind ever in the world. What's significant about APTN is that it not only encourages the interconnection of aboriginal peoples, it also permits all Canadians to turn on their televisions to see the tremendous depth of culture amongst aboriginal peoples.

We have new services for the visually impaired and the hearing impaired. We have new services for the lesbian and gay community. We have new services for official-language minorities. Our daughters are starting to see their role models in sport. We have introduced new services in Cantonese, Mandarin, Italian, and Greek, and a variety of services for the range of the South-Asian communities. Among the 262 new digital specialty channels, 42 will provide programming in languages other than English or French. In July, the CRTC launched an additional 19 non-Canadian services for digital distribution.

But despite our successes, we need to do more. We all knew and felt the real frustration of the black community in Toronto when an FM frequency was set aside not for their voices, but for the voices of the CBC. You may also recall that, in Vancouver last year, a request for a multicultural service was denied once again by the CRTC, in favour of the conventional service.

We need to do more to ensure that all communities, and particularly visible minorities, feel that sense of inclusion. That's why I'm proud to be the person who recommended the first visible minority to sit on the CRTC. It's important not only that we see ourselves reflected on our television screens, but also that the decision-makers and the halls of power reflect the balance of who we are as a country.

But we need to go beyond multicultural to intercultural, particularly in the wake of September 11. We need to have broadcasting services that build bridges, not walls—bridges between cultures, bridges between religions, bridges between communities, and bridges between regions. We need to explore the rich diversity not just in our regions, but amongst our regions.

• 0925

How can we give better access to the broadcasting system? How can we ensure that our system truly represents the full diversity of Canada's population? How can we ensure that ethnic services speak not only to their communities, but to all Canadians?

[Translation]

The third issue is local broadcasting. Canadian communities are served by 522 radio and 121 television stations. Just as Canadian programming is vital to the nation's interests, so too is local programming vital to the interests of our regions, cities and towns.

[English]

I'm concerned that small-market broadcasting is experiencing difficulties, and local programming is being cutback. As one whose father was born in Haileybury and raised in Timmins, I can tell you that a signal coming out of Sudbury is not a signal coming out of Timmins. A signal coming out of Timmins is very far from Sault Ste. Marie. And Sault Ste. Marie is very far from Thunder Bay. I sometimes fear that as we sit in corporate offices, in the Parliament of Canada, in Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal, we forget the fact that the regions need their voices represented.

Everyone in this room remembers the powerful clash of views when CBC moved to cut back local programming, and I know the concerns that have been expressed about CTV cutbacks. What measures can and must therefore be taken to ensure that local broadcasters thrive? Can we assist the private sector in turning a profit while at the same time offering creative, first-rate, local programming? Do we need different policies, better policies, or new policies?

[Translation]

Your study will evaluate the timeliness of the legislation, its regulatory structure as well as support mechanisms. Your report will highlight some of our successful initiatives and recommend changes to others.

I want to stress at this time the importance that must be assigned to content throughout the process. Ultimately, it is the content that educates our children, inspires them, touches them and helps them to learn more about themselves, their neighbours, their country and the world.

I'm delighted at the thought of being able to follow your proceedings closely, to hear what Canadians have to say and to receive your recommendations and I'm very happy to offer you my assistance. I hope today's exchanges will lead to changes and further secure Canada's ability to ensure that the voices of its citizens are heard.

[English]

More than a hundred years ago, by a decision of Parliament, we built this country from east to west. We built the infrastructure of the day against the grain, against the tide, against the pull that would have had us create only the north-south linkages. Today, the infrastructure of choice for Canadians is the broadcasting system. If you have a mandate as members of Parliament, it is that in this review of the broadcasting system, you can give us the keys to ensuring that in the 21st century, visionaries here in the Parliament of Canada will have the same sense of interconnection that really prescribed the start of our country by Canada's first visionaries. The visionaries of today can help to build those linkages, or we can allow the inexorable forces of north-south integration to continue by wiping out our voices.

I don't think we should be wiping out those voices. I think it is the role of this Parliament—and particularly this committee—to ensure the voices that link British Columbia and Newfoundland, that link Ontario and Quebec, that link northern Ontario with southern Saskatchewan, and that link northern Alberta with southern Prince Edward Island, are heard. Those are the decisions you have to make to decide where we go as a country into the next century.

Thank you.

• 0930

The Chair: Thank you very much for your inspiring message, Minister.

I would like to remind members that when we turn to questions, we start with two members of the opposition, the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Québécois. We move over to the Liberals for two questions of five minutes each. We then go back to the NDP and the Coalition, and then back to the Liberals for two rounds. It's then a free round for all of us.

I will start with Mr. Abbott.

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

Madam Minister, I appreciate it very much that you came in to address us today. I know you're a very busy person, and I also know this is a very important issue to you. Since you are uniquely positioned to tell us what part you will be taking in this review, though, I wonder if you would bear with me as I take a look at a little history.

In terms of current events, yesterday I was going through the Hamilton Spectator, of all papers. If I could just read this, it says:

Meanwhile, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada will meet November 19 and 20 in Ottawa, and the Tivoli Theatre

—you'll be familiar with that issue—

will be on the agenda. One function of the board is to determine if sites such as the Tivoli qualify for historical designation, which, in turn, can open doors to government grant money for restoration projects.

The board will present its findings and recommendations to Heritage Minister Copps, but the final decision isn't expected until at least February.

You're attributed to have said:

“We'll still proceed if we get (the designation) or not. The long-term goal is the restoration of the Tivoli.”

In other words, you are a very hands-on person. You make things happen come hell or high water, damn the torpedoes. But part of the problem...if I go back to the copyright issue, you'll recall that under copyright—something this committee is now going to be faced with trying to clean up in terms of some of the parts left over as a result of your unseemly haste in getting that through....

If I could just remind you of something, under the headline “Copyright law changes create storm in Cabinet”, I'll just read one small part of this clipping:

Michael McCabe, president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Thursday accused arrogant Heritage bureaucrats of purposely leaving the public in the dark about the final dimensions of the bill and of trying to manipulate Parliament. McCabe said last-minute amendments could cost his industry six million dollars or more, and accused Heritage Minister Sheila Copps of going back on her word. Copps and her officials were also charged with cobbling together amendments on the run, without prior approval of Cabinet.

I said at the time:

This has proven to be a most undignified process. This minister wanted to ram this legislation out of committee before parliamentary break, and in order to achieve that objective, the minister and her parliamentary secretary had to work in collusion with Bloc Québécois heritage critic, Gaston Leroux. Mr. Leroux achieved a disproportionate protection and advantage for a small number of Quebec artists in exchange for speedy passage from Minister Copps.

And that showed up, by the way, specifically in sections 30.8 and 30.9 of the Copyright Act. Right now the broadcasters are faced with an unintended double royalty that they're having to pay when they transfer media.

Very frankly, Minister, my question is this: Considering your current performance relative to the Tivoli Theatre and other issues that we see you involved with, and considering your past performance in terms of ramming things through, I would like to know that this committee and the work we are going to be doing is going to be treated with the respect it deserves. More than that, I'd like to know we aren't going to see you simply imposing what you want at the end of this eighteen-month process.

Ms. Sheila Copps: If you go back, I'm not sure how many members were actually on the committee when the copyright legislation came forward. Maybe a show of hands would be good for the history books.

The copyright legislation had actually been on the books for ten years. It started in 1988, I think, when Lucien Bouchard was the Secretary of State, and it went through a number of ministers. The reality at that time was that there were two schools of thought. One represented the artists who believed their work should be protected, and the other represented some other groups that felt the work should continue to be had for free. A clash of ideas and a clash of ideologies took place. At the end of the day, the amendments put forward were actually not only supported by myself and by this committee, they were also supported by the cabinet and the Prime Minister.

• 0935

There is no doubt that there were two schools of thought, but having fought against Mike McCabe in that particular battle and having had the privilege of working with him over a number of years—I am actually going to his retirement party tonight, and I'm going to be singing a song and singing his praises—I have to tell you that I think legitimate differences of opinion should be explored and can be explored in a parliamentary process.

On that one, if you recall, Jim, there was a distinct difference of opinion between the Liberal Party and the Reform Party at that time. The Reform Party did not believe artists, performers, and producers should be paid when their works are played on the radio, and the Liberals believed they should be. As a result of that decision of the Parliament of Canada, a whole group of artists are now actually being paid for works previously played on the radio for free.

In a way, if I can call it this, this was the reverse of the intellectual property argument that some parties vigorously defend. Intellectual property in drugs is something for which parliaments pass legislation saying that when you create a product, you will have that product protected by statute for a period of years. In a sense, what we were looking at for the artists was the protection of their intellectual property. You call it copyright, but it has a different name and it has a different series of statutes, but that was a legitimate policy difference.

In fact, Jim, if you go back to the history of copyright, that bill had something like 89 lobbyists attached to it. It had more lobbyists than any piece of legislation in the history of Canada. The fact is that we were actually able to end it. When it passed, it was actually the last bill to go through before the dissolution of the last Parliament of 1997, so I think it was very widely debated. It wasn't rammed through by anybody. There was a legitimate difference of opinion, which sometimes separates political parties.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Without getting into debate, Minister, you've mischaracterized the position of myself and the Reform Party and Canadian Alliance—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Oh, sorry.

Mr. Jim Abbott: —but I want to go back to the issue.

You made the statement that this committee wants to work primarily on consensus. Indeed, we do have goodwill on the committee. Unfortunately, the collective memory of the committee is just between the chair and myself relative to Bill C-32. The fact of the matter is, the department put in seventy amendments. Absolute chaos reigned with those seventy amendments coming right at the very tag end of that process. Some of those amendments were reflective of the great non-partisan work the committee had actually accomplished.

Our committee worked together very well, in a way that I didn't realize could be done. I'm looking forward to the same kind of cooperation with all of my friends on this committee. But in taking a look at the historical performance of yourself in the portfolio, though, that's what concerns me. It's my judgment and my characterization that while we had this consensus, and while the committee was working well and we were challenging your officials and the Department of Industry officials with the very creative work we were doing on a non-partisan basis, then right at the end, you determined it was going to be finished by December 14. That was it, that was all, and that was over.

I'm concerned about that as history on your part in the way you manage the heritage department. Going into this, I'm concerned that we're going into this long involved process—one in which we are hopefully going to be able to build a consensus—and that we aren't simply going to be overridden by you and the ideology you may have.

Ms. Sheila Copps: In terms of ideology, the fact is that for all of the bills that I've brought before this committee, we've had numerous amendments. Your party is the first party to say we shouldn't ram things through, and we don't. The marine act, for which we had report stage in the House yesterday, had 28 amendments. Those amendments came about when the committee looked at the work, found deficiencies, and repaired them.

If you recall the process for the Copyright Act, the reason we were moving to get the thing through was that we were afraid that, after ten years of trying to achieve copyright, the thing would get shelved again when the election came along. It was the last bill, and it had 80-odd.... Believe me, it had been debated for ten years. If you go out and speak to the people in the constituency or in the community, you'll find that a legitimate difference of opinion existed between certain people about who was entitled to receive payment for their work. The artists and the broadcasters had a legitimate difference of opinion. I supported the artists, and other people supported the broadcasters. Those are choices that define us in politics, but that doesn't mean we don't work together on other issues once a decision was made.

• 0940

I have worked together very closely with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters on multiple issues. That includes one of the big issues that will be before us now—just to bring us back to the point we're on. That issue is how we are going to amend the broadcasting act in 2001 and forward, to ensure that the diversity of voices that has exploded in the last ten years is not diminished and, indeed, obliterated by the waves of technology and intercontinentalism that we're facing.

[Translation]

The Chair: You have the floor, Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Thank you for coming today, Madam Minister. I was only recently appointed to this committee and I am very enthusiastic about the idea of studying the Broadcasting Act. I know that it is a complex piece of legislation.

As a new member, I was somewhat perturbed by two announcements that you made last week. While they may have been desirable, we were in the process of studying the Broadcasting Act and of listening to a presentation by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. You endorsed disproportionate telecommunications and broadcasting fees. You also spoke out in support of copyright and the impact of the Internet. Do you have any good news or similar announcements for us this morning?

As a member of this committee, I would appreciate an answer to this question, because I learned that another committee had been struck in Montreal to examine the Heritage Act. Apparently, your officials are reviewing this legislation with the help of certain organizations in Montreal. I don't know whether my sources are reliable or not, but I would like to know if you intend to amend the Heritage Act without bothering to consult the committee? Is there anything in this committee's mandate that might impact some of the provisions of the Broadcasting Act? That's something I would like to know.

One component of our mandate is to examine the role of the CRTC. What role do you see the CRTC having in the process of issuing certain licences, drafting regulations and in particular, applying certain principles to programming? Do you feel that discussions on the quality of programming should take place in another forum?

You are very concerned about ensuring a diversity of voices, but as we know full well, the local reality... We will likely hear a great deal about this reality over the course of upcoming hearings. I'm certain many people will be telling us that because we purchase programming produced by the major networks, local radio programming is steadily declining. Fewer resources are allocated to radio and television. Moreover, fewer reporters are working in the field. We are witnessing the fallout from the minimal support given to local broadcasting, which must be more than just an objective. Different regional stations need to receive the necessary resources to achieve your stated objective.

I have another question for you concerning the diversity of voices. You expressed your interest in close-captioning for the hearing impaired. Our spokesperson on cultural issues, Caroline St- Hilaire, tabled a bill calling for more widespread use of close captioning. Close captioning is available for CBC's English language programming, but not for the network's French programming. Only 40 per cent of French programs are close-captioned. How can we support this bill that has been introduced in the House by the Bloc Québécois and how can we get the government to support it, since it appears to be in line with one of your stated objectives?

• 0945

I have no further questions for the time being.

The Chair: Go ahead, Madam Minister.

Ms. Sheila Copps: To begin with, the announcement was about section 131 of the Copyright Act. It had nothing to do with the legislation now under review. Admittedly, the Department of Canadian Heritage covers a broad range of areas. Even my mother isn't quite sure what we do. She wonders if I do anything else besides issuing cheques.

I wish we had the opportunity to conduct more in-depth studies into other subjects. There are many topics that we could examine.

Earlier, you mentioned our heritage. For the past three years, we have been working to identify ways of preserving our heritage. This is also part of the department's mandate. In the last budget and Throne Speech, there was talk of introducing a tax credit to help taxpayers maintain their heritage property. This would be in addition to the measures already available through the national historic sites and monuments fund. For instance, there are over 900 national sites in Canada, only 100 of which are managed by the government. Other sites are struggling to get by, but maintenance costs are very high.

For the past three years, we have been working to bring in this type of tax credit. Efforts in this area are ongoing. I would like the committee to look into this, but it can only study one or two issues at the same time.

When I was sitting in opposition, there were 26 parliamentary committees in all. Since there were only 40 of us, we had to do the rounds of the various committees. It was difficult for us to make any progress on a particular matter because we served on six or seven different committees. Given that there are now five parties represented in the House, there are fewer government members serving on each committee. It's impossible to do everything, even though I would like more issues examined.

We mustn't wait until our heritage vanishes. Since 1960, Canada has lost 21 per cent of its heritage. If the federal government doesn't adopt a heritage conservation policy, who will take on this responsibility? These are separate considerations.

Regarding my announcements concerning section 131, let me just clarify that the review was undertaken some time ago. We're trying to curb opportunities to pirate television, Internet and radio signals. If we had to wait until this work was completed, we would be waiting 18 months. Then we would move on to the legislative phase. In the meantime, pirating activities would continue. We want to take steps immediately to counter this threat. However, this doesn't mean that you can't make recommendations for the long term.

On the subject of close-captioning, I fully agree with your statement that Caroline has done a considerable amount of work in this area. If you feel it might be opportune to include a provision on close-captioning in the Broadcasting Act, I don't see a problem with doing that.

Themes and issues have become so complex that if we don't take the time to do the work in committee... I prefer to have the committee do the work, not a blue ribbon panel of individuals who may have a business interest in broadcasting, but not necessarily the interests of Canadians at heart. That's why your work will lay the ground for any future broadcasting initiatives.

In the meantime, work is continuing in other areas. For example, we are currently working on the network of national parks. We want to fulfil the promise we made in the Red Book, namely to settle the issue of our parks system once and for all. We cannot call a halt to the work that is needed simply because the committee has too much on its plate. It's all part of what we do.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick, followed by Mr. Mills.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for an excellent presentation that lays the footing for what will be a sizeable job taken on by this committee. I couldn't have been more pleased to hear some of the points you raised, and I want to correct the record as I see it.

• 0950

I've sat on this committee for four years. I think it's important that we recognize that under the stewardship of the chair, this has likely been the most effective and cooperative committee I've sat on or that I've seen in the last four years of Parliament, save and except for a couple of individuals.

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: We have had a relatively free hand to explore possibilities and to explore ideas with witnesses from coast to coast to coast. We have had the bureaucracy in to explore policy implementations whenever we have so desired. We have never once been turned down when making a request for a ministerial visit. To start the preamble with a speech and insults when we have such a lengthy job ahead of us is therefore an unfortunate situation.

Mr. McNally and I were chatting on the way over on the bus, saying that this is going to require as non-partisan an approach as possible on behalf of the committee. Starting the committee off in that respect...I'm discouraged. I'm not not surprised, but I am discouraged.

On the presentation itself, Madam Minister, I was extremely pleased to hear you draw a comparison between yesterday's infrastructure and today's by speaking specifically about the railway. I couldn't agree with you more.

When you were presenting your speech, you presented three main challenges—again, rightly so—those being Canadian programming, diversity of voices, and local broadcasting. We all recognize that many of the major players within the broadcasting system are from the private sector. I'd like to put forward for your consideration a fourth challenge that I believe needs to be incorporated as well, and that's economic viability.

The government can only do so much, so I'm suggesting that there is an obligation on behalf of the committee as well to ensure an environment in which the private sector has the ability to be profitable. That is a challenge in an ever increasingly competitive circle. I'd be interested in your opinions on incorporating that as a fourth challenge.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Obviously, the notion of a private sector that is not profitable is not possible. Part of the challenge that we're going to have in looking at the whole system...if you look at the past system, in a sense, when the original regulatory process gave licensing possibilities to certain television stations, they were basically able to feed their content requirements by selling advertising in the pre-direct-to-home world.

One of the things we learned very recently, in the last couple of days, is that a number of local channels are being starved out of local advertising in the new world of DTH, because instead of actually carrying the local channel, distributors are carrying other channels. We can find models to change that. In the United States, the FCC allows veto power for local stations if somebody else is coming in on a signal with a certain one-on-one ratio.

I don't think you can claim to be a regulatory system for a diversity of voices on the one hand, and starve out the local private broadcasters from the advertising dollars they need to make the private system work on the other hand. They obviously have to make money. When I look at the regulatory side, that's why I think that has to be part of the equation as well.

When it comes to the 21st century, the old rules, even going back to pre-1996.... When we created the Canadian Television Fund, it was the first time we ever had any direct assistance for private broadcasters. It converged at the same time when we were launching a whole new slew of specialty channels. As a parent myself, I want my daughter to be able to see herself reflected on many channels, not just on one channel. The thinking, therefore, was that as we were going into the multi-channel universe, we would make the decision to go to the Canadian Television Fund. It was available to the CBC and private broadcasters for independent production in order to grow the programming, and I think it's had an incredible result in four years. When you look at some investments that are made by the government, and at the fact that this fund has actually created almost 11,000 hours of programming, there is a way that we can partner.

• 0955

At the same time, as we have gone into new specialty channels, we know the viewing habits of the average members of the Canadian viewing public have been more and more fragmented. Ten years ago, we were all tuned to, CBC, CTV, Global, and some of the local television families. Some of us are now watching HGTV, Canal Vie, etc. That's fragmenting the audience when the population is obviously a fixed population. That represents certain challenges as well in terms of the programmers seeing what sells.

I found something to be very interesting when Mike McCabe had his retirement breakfast with the newsmakers. When we started in speciality television launching—and I remember it clearly, because I was at the original launch—we launched something like nine Canadian channels and eight foreign channels, or somewhere in that neighbourhood. It was on a one-to-one ratio. At the time, it was widely believed the foreign channels would absolutely zoom and the Canadian channels would not fly. In fact, we've seen that the appetite has been the opposite. We have actually seen a greater appetite for Canadian programming.

How to keep that appetite fed while making a profit and attracting advertisers at the same time is part of all of those pillars, when you look at the fact that DTH can substitute a signal from another part of the country and basically have no direct support for the local programming system and advertising. On the one hand, we're saying to come to the table with local programming. On the other hand, we're starving local programmers of the advertising dollars. These issues are going to have to frame the basis. If you're going to have healthy television and diverse voices in diverse regions, you obviously have to be able to support those things through advertising dollars.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I found myself actually agreeing with the Canadian Alliance this morning when they said the minister is a pusher, is a doer, is hands-on. I like ministers who are hands-on. I like it when the political culture activates itself in a department. In fact, I wish more ministers around here would follow Minister Copps' example when it comes to pressing the political culture through the system.

Madam Minister, you talked about local programming. You gave the example of Timmins and Sault Ste. Marie being different. Last year, this committee supported a unanimous motion that the CBC not cut back on its regional supper-hour news broadcasts. The view of this committee, from all parties and all members of this committee, on being regionally sensitive is well known.

Last summer, a number of us hosted a water summit an hour and a half north of Toronto. One of our guest speakers was Dr. David Schindler, who, as we all know, was just recently acknowledged as probably one of our country's greatest scientists. The media person on our team was putting out the notice, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation said it couldn't send a camera operator because the summit was an hour and a half away from Toronto. In Toronto, we are spoiled in a way. As you walk down Danforth on any given day, you'll see some network television crews on the street. But it was at that moment in time that I became flabbergasted that we cannot afford to send a camera operator an hour and a half away to do something on a man of the stature of David Schindler.

• 1000

When we have that example on the eve of this study of the state of broadcasting in Canada, and when we hear of the cutbacks in Sault Ste. Marie and North Bay, I ask myself about what's going on here. As the minister responsible for culture in Canada, for heritage, you are hands-on and you are readily accessible. How do these corporations, both public and private, say to justify this? What point do they make to you so that this has to happen?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Well, that's a mouthful.

When you go into the issue you spoke about, Dennis—that being that you could not convince them to send a camera from Toronto to the water summit—I think those of us who live outside...I would put myself in the category of people who live outside the major urban metropolitan areas. Even though I'm from 65 kilometres from Toronto, I have no national network in my community.

If you go to the public broadcaster, no or very few reporters actually work in the area between Toronto and Windsor, an area with about six million people. What you end up with is a situation in which reporters only come to report on a national story when there is either a scandal or an explosion. When we had the fire in Hamilton, you can rest assured they were covering that fire. They showed the smokestack over and over again in my community. They don't know the number one employer in Hamilton is now the medical sector, for example, or that we have a business school that is considered to be one of the top hundred business schools in the world, or that we have a fibre optics capacity within one square kilometre of the downtown core that is greater than any fibre optics capacity of any place in North America. Why do they not know these things? Because they don't live in the community. They basically come to the community for the big story, and then they leave.

Years ago, we actually had reporters in the community. Over the years, though, partly caused by government cutbacks and partly caused by a decision to create infrastructures in the major centres—i.e., Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Halifax in terms of infrastructure—most of the regions feel they're out of the loop. So that's one challenge.

The other challenge is that creating that network of people around the country also involves an investment. At the moment, both the CBC and the privates are struggling with their relationship with each other. Even as recently as ten years ago, you basically had the CBC for the big national stories, and you had the CTV—or CHCH in my case, or whatever the case may be. In a sense, if you look at television, they were competing with each other. Now we're in a situation in which both CBC and CTV face shrinking audiences because people are moving over to other channels. It may therefore be a very good time for them to establish the kind of partnership in television that has led to the differentiation in radio.

Why do people love CBC radio? People love CBC radio because no matter where you are on the dial, no matter where you're travelling, no matter where you are in a car, when you turn that dial and hit CBC radio, you don't even need the signal to know you're listening to CBC radio. There's an interconnection. On Cross Country Checkup, you can hear what people are thinking in Newfoundland and Vancouver. It's right there on the airways. CBC radio has differentiated itself, it is commercial free, and it has really found its unique space on the dial.

I think CBC television is moving in that direction, but they're struggling. They're struggling from the point of view of investment by the government for example. If you are cut by 25% and are then asked to carry on the same amount of activity, challenges are associated with that.

I learned only last week that CBC television has just signed an agreement with TQS in Quebec, to actually have CBC reporters working in TQS stations. I see that as an innovation. I see that as a way for the public broadcaster to be present in the regions without necessarily having to establish the whole infrastructure. If CBC and CTV were able to work out a similar arrangement in northern Ontario, I would see that as a win-win for everybody.

• 1005

As I understand it, though—and I've spoken to the local communities—the CTV stations are trying to meet some budgetary targets. They lost $4 million in the last fiscal year, and they're now going to lose $2 million even with the changes they're proposing. They're in the red. And the CBC has no reporters there. None. Wouldn't it make sense to take some of the CBC personnel and actually have them working in CTV stations and truly partnering? If they can go in that direction, that might help us to take some small steps toward finding the rationalization amongst the public and private broadcasters that will allow us to invest in both, in a strong way.

What we've had in the past is the public broadcaster not wanting any money to go to the private broadcaster because it is seen as competition. Meanwhile, the private broadcaster is asking why we're continuing to pay the public broadcaster, because we're their competition. But I think the two can actually interconnect with each other in a way that could help us to return stories from across the country.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you.

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming before us. I'm heartened by the fact that you are speaking extensively about local and community programming. I think some excellent research has been done by the Parliamentary Research Branch, and it clearly shows that public and community elements are the most Canadian. They are producing the most Canadian content. You really just have to turn on your TV to find that out.

The CBC is clearly the most efficient producer of Canadian programming, spending 78.8% of its revenues on Canadian programming in 2000. That's up from 57% in 1991. That's fabulous, and very heartening. By contrast, the private networks spent just 27% of their revenues on Canadian programming in 2000, down from 31.2% in 1991. Those are very interesting figures.

What I want to see happen in this committee is for us to certainly follow the Canadian Television Fund, to follow where that money goes, and to see what it actually means down the road. For the people who have an analogue TV and who are watching conventional TV, what are they seeing from those dollars going into the TV fund? At this point in time, nobody here is really happy with the kinds of statistics we're getting on that, because we don't think the process is really following the money very well. We can't really get a handle on it, so I'm sure it's going to be something coming out of this study in terms of our requests and our need to be better business people in regard to the federal money going into culture.

I have to echo a couple of comments that have been made. I am also concerned about the landscape in which we're working. You did come here in May, and you said you would basically make sure no major announcements were made. As you know, the CRTC, supported by the cabinet, approved a seven-year licence renewal for CanWest Global and Bell Globalmedia, effectively entrenching cross-media ownership and united news gathering services.

As well, the CRTC has started to allow cable companies to buy station licences. Although we don't always believe them, press reports have also said the TV fund will be renewed and that the CRTC licence fee system will be changed. We need to know what other fundamental changes to the broadcast landscape are going to be occurring within this eighteen month-period, because it certainly does undermine both the work we're doing and our credibility.

I'd like to have your response to that, please.

Ms. Sheila Copps: First of all, the broadcast landscape is changing irrespective of the role of Parliament and government. It's not possible for Parliament and government to turn the tap off in terms of broadcast changes. The changes are largely driven by technology that really puts us in a new industrial age. We're living, and we have been living in the last ten years, with an incredible revolution of information and experience

[Translation]

that extend beyond our borders,

[English]

that is actually bigger than Canada. I don't think it's possible to suggest we can somehow freeze everything in time as technologies move forward and as we're able to access the simple issue of specialty television, which was not even technically possible ten years ago.

• 1010

Those are issues being visited upon us. We're not creating those issues, but we have to continue to work in the framework of the legislation that we have until we change it. We have to change it in a thoughtful way, while looking at a lot of these different issues.

Of course, the issue is not just cross-media ownership. The issue is also cable companies versus telephone companies. Saying cable companies should not have any of these ownerships is fine. On the one hand, we know the telcos are doing it now, so where do we take this? These are very complex issues that we have to discuss in a public forum.

I don't think it was any secret that one of the reasons why I really wanted this issue brought to Parliament was that lots of other people wanted this issue studied by a blue-ribbon panel. I feel very strongly that the job of Parliament is to hear all the voices. That's not the job of a company with its own interests that are not always completely in tandem with the public interest. It's not a company's job to have a blue-ribbon panel outside of the political process, so I brought this forward because I have confidence that parliamentarians will give us the right recipe.

When it comes to television and who spends what on what, I think you have to be cautious and separate the distinction that's made between Canadian content, programming, and stories. It's certainly clear that 78.8% of CBC's money is spent on Canadian programming, but I can tell you I had a meeting just in the last few days with the Writer's Guild of Canada and a number of other cultural groups, and they basically said the English CBC does very little drama.

The drama the CBC does now is dependent upon getting money from the CTF, and that was not the original condition of licence. You have to separate out what is called fact-based television—which is very important; in the post-September 11 period, people did look to the national public broadcaster for clarity in what I call fact-based programming—but looking at other programming is also important.

When we set up the CTF, we said that when you look at drama, children's programming, and documentaries, those cost a lot of money and they don't necessarily get picked up because they can't always turn a profit. Bringing in a Hollywood sitcom or a Hollywood drama is a lot cheaper than creating a made-in-Canada drama. The CTF was structured to target those under-represented categories, not to simply create fact-based programming.

When you look at the numbers, I think you have to look at the numbers for fact-based programming. You also have to look at the capacity to partner. I know that when we set up the CTF, only $25 million out of the CBC's budget actually went to independent productions in English-language television. They had very little independent production, but because of the CTF, we have had an explosion in partnerships that have also been good for the CBC.

For the CBC to be the public broadcaster that people turn to in the 21st century, it also has to learn to partner. If we get into what I think characterized the discussion in the past, that being the privates versus the CBC, we're all going to lose, because the privates and the CBC will be fighting it out while we basically lose our system to foreign interests that have no interest in either the content on private or the content on public. I say that because of all the statistics that are coming out. The statistics position the CBC to fight the privates.

From my perspective, I think we're going to have a great challenge to keep fact-based journalism elevated, to keep Canadian content in stories elevated, and to support Canadian generic programming. Nothing is wrong with the fact that Canadian stories can actually win Emmys. Why is that good? It's good because if you look at the development of what we used to call industrial production in Canada, that has also provided us with the springboard for Canadian content. In the past, we positioned ourselves so that if you supported the CBC, you could not support the privates; if you supported Canadian content, you could not support industrial production; if you supported industrial production, you were anti-Canadian. It seems that we have a system that has these different legs that create the table to jump off of. That's probably a bad analogy coming from me, but—

• 1015

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

An hon. member: Good point.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Can I ask just one more question?

It seems that every time you come before this committee, I ask you about culture and trade. I have to say I'm very supportive of the idea of a separate cultural instrument under the UN. I need to know this new instrument has some teeth, and that culture as we know it is not completely out of the other trade deals.

For example, is the government willing to change the current provisions of NAFTA so that we don't have repeats of the magazine fiasco? What is Canada proposing to do with the telecom and broadcasting definitions in the WTO and the GATT, so that a separate cultural instrument will be able to protect culture in an age in which computer and television technology is merging, as you know? I don't see culture as sitting on an island. We know telecommunications is out there. It's a service and commodity that our American neighbours would definitely like to see on the table. So I need some assurances on that.

Ms. Sheila Copps: On that issue, we basically have two challenges. One is for us to sustain the legal rights that we have to protect our culture. One of the positive impacts of the magazine wars was that the United States government signed an international treaty obliging them to respect our right to protect our culture. That was the first time they've ever done so in the modern world, and it was something significant.

We had discussions back and forth regarding the preamble to the Doha declaration. I must tell you we were persuaded by the arguments of the French, who have long experience in this area in terms of their own audiovisual protections. It doesn't extend beyond that to some of the other cultural industries we've been engaged in, because they have the protection of language that we don't have in terms of the English language. But we were persuaded by their argument that if you put a preamble in the Doha declaration, that preamble will set itself up to be amended. What we were concerned about was in the intent. The intent was to ensure that we do not undertake any new cultural limitations or obligations in the Doha WTO discussions. We might inadvertently set ourselves up to do that, though, if the Doha commitment contains a declaration. We have actually taken a position as a cabinet that we will be undertaking no new obligations affecting broadcasting or culture in the declaration, including telco changes.

The other challenge that we have—and a challenge that I know you share, because you've come to some of the international meetings—is that many of the developing countries that are looking to get citizenship and full participation in international commerce organizations like the WTO are in a way required, as a price of admission, to renounce their capacity to build these instruments that we already have. On the one hand, we have our instruments and we want to keep those instruments. On the other hand, a whole slew of other countries joining the WTO club are required, as the price of admission, to renounce those requirements.

That's why the work of the broadcasting committee of the International Network for Cultural Diversity is very important. Brazil has taken on the chairmanship of a broadcasting study or broadcasting request in the International Network for Cultural Diversity. That study will actually formulate a policy for developing countries in order to ensure that they don't have to give up national protection of their culture.

The Mexicans, who have absolutely no indigenous system, have come to Canada and have asked us to help them frame their new cultural policy, and they're using our broadcasting system as an example. Colombia has asked Canada to send experts down to see if we can help them build their television system.

So while we're trying to keep our system strong on the one hand, lots of these international issues are out there on the other. There's no doubt that while we retain the right not to undertake new obligations ourselves in the WTO, it's not up to us to tell other countries what to do. They have to come to that decision themselves. That's why we're looking for the new instrument on culture to be signed by about a dozen countries at the meeting in South Africa next year. It's to launch a process that will say there is a way to protect and promote cultures outside the WTO that is not inconsistent with our belief in global citizenship.

• 1020

Certainly Canada is a good example of how we have protected our culture. We have protected diverse languages in the law. At the same time, we're probably one of the most open countries in the world. So there is a good model.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to brief in my questions, because I have a few. Maybe we could have a bit of interchange back and forth.

I want to welcome you here, Minister. I would also like to start with a comment. You mentioned not wanting to go with a blue-ribbon panel on this. We commend you for the fact that it has come here before the committee. I'm wondering if you might send a message to your former rat pack colleague and current colleague Mr. Boudria, because this would be a good approach for the Access to Information Act. We had to develop an ad hoc parliamentary committee of all members, because there was that model to have this behind-closed-doors approach, rather than the open one you are taking.

I think you mentioned New Zealand. You said the New Zealand industry didn't have a lot of regulation, or very little at all, and that 24% of their programming was of national origin. What are the numbers here in Canada? Some would say we have lots of regulation, and some would say we don't have enough, but how do our numbers compare? What's our total in comparison to New Zealand?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I think our total is about double theirs.

Mr. Grant McNally: So it's around 40% or something.

Ms. Sheila Copps: But then you get into the discussion about what I was talking about with Wendy. There is fact-based programming, drama, what I would call imagination programming, and industrial programming. You have to split them up to see what your true numbers are.

Mr. Grant McNally: So is it your belief that the regulatory policy that we have at the CRTC accounts for that difference of content here in Canada, as opposed to other jurisdictions that have less regulation?

Ms. Sheila Copps: It's a combination. That's why I mentioned some of the instruments that are in place, including the Income Tax Act, the CTF funding, the regulatory framework, and the public broadcaster. The combination of regulation, financial support, and financial incentives actually creates the synergies.

Mr. Grant McNally: You talked about the north-south integration leading to our voices being wiped out, or something along those lines. What evidence do you have that would lead you to believe that? You also said we won ten Emmys in the States, so obviously Canadian programming competing in the American market did very well. Those two comments seem to be a bit at loggerheads with each other.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I think you have to look at it from the perspective of, say, Royal Canadian Air Farce versus The X-Files. That's a simple way of putting it. Royal Canadian Air Farce is not going to win an Emmy, because most people don't even know who Luba Goy is—and that's in the United States, of course.

The X-Files is basically an industrial product that was shot in Canada for five years because we had the right climate, the right personnel, the right combination of things, plus Vancouver is within the Los Angeles time zone. What does The X-Files do when that show is shot in Canada? Or I could use Lassie.

[Translation]

I believe the program Lassie was filmed in Montreal and in Saint- Jean-sur-Richelieu.

[English]

Lassie was shot in Quebec, recently, okay? Lassie is obviously not Canadian content, but it's creating jobs in Canada.

What I'm trying to put forward.... When I first came into this job, it struck me that we're probably the only industrial group that spends most of our time shooting at each other. If you take the oil patch, differences of opinion may exist between various members of the oil patch, but when they come to government, they manage to collectively speak with one voice.

We need to underscore the benefit of jobs that are created by industrial productions. At the same time, we have to recognize and ensure that voices like Royal Canadian Air Farce or This Hour Has 22 Minutes—which are my personal favourites, as a political junkie—

Mr. Grant McNally: I think we've all been on them once or twice, although you may have been on more than us.

• 1025

Ms. Sheila Copps: Those stories are the stories that will only come with the right mix.

Mr. Grant McNally: So you're saying it's your opinion, it's what you think will happen, that if we have too much north-south integration, we'll lose our voices. It's not necessarily that we can go to some facts and say this has happened over the years, and we therefore have less programming.

I'd like to move to one last question on the foreign ownership issue. What is your feeling on that as we get into our own industry and its ability to be able to capitalize and compete head to head? I think we're very good in many areas, particularly in children's programming and documentaries. What's your feeling or the government's feeling on that particular issue?

Ms. Sheila Copps: One of the benefits of having a Canadian ownership system in broadcasting to date has been to ensure that when decisions are made around broadcasting investment—whether it's Canadian content or industrial investment—those are decisions made in Canada, by Canadians.

I think it's important that we ensure that the stories we tell continue to be told across all of our airwaves. Is it possible that there might be another way of ensuring that this happens for the next 25 years? Probably. That's something you're going to have to take a long, hard look at.

I can tell you that if you took the road of simply wiping out the regulatory framework we have put in place, in favour of a market-based system for which some would argue, I guarantee you that within the next generation, not only would we not have our stories told, the very essence of who we are as a country would be put at risk.

Mr. Grant McNally: And these are the things that are important.

Ms. Sheila Copps: You can get the statistics on Greece. Greece is probably one of the oldest living examples of democracy, with the original Athenian city-state, the development of Hippocrates, all the great philosophers, etc.

Mr. Grant McNally: I would just say I don't disagree with you, but for the committee, rather than being—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Anecdotal.

Mr. Grant McNally: —anecdotal, it would be very helpful to actually examine the other systems to see what the regulatory regimes have been and how regulation has affected the ability for production of content in a particular country. We can look at it through a very objective lens.

Because we do have a good spirit going within this committee, I hope we'll be able to make some solid recommendations that the government can then put into place so that we don't get into the pattern of spending all this time doing this and then having nothing happen. I think you have tasked us with something important, and I think we can do a good job if we're allowed to do that.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I would hope you would.

Having spoken on several occasions with the minister who is responsible for broadcasting in Greece, Evangelos Venizelos, I know that it used to be run by the state in Greece, but when they went to private broadcasting, they had no regulations. They basically put out the licence to the highest bidder. As a result, over a very short period of private broadcasting, they've gone from basically totally Greek content to a point at which about 97% of what they watch on their televisions is not their own. If you want to see the effect that has had...I can't tell you now what effect that it can have, but I can tell you that when you're looking at it, you have to have a basic understanding of the fact that....

Well, on children's programming, when I met with representatives of the Association canadienne des unions et associations culturelles—an association that was just launched in the last week—they told me that in children's programming and animation, about 70% of the animation done right now in Montreal for the French market in France is done in the English language.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right, but I'm wondering if we can—

Ms. Sheila Copps: That's being done because they want to sell it elsewhere. Is that increasing the capacity to tell our stories, or is it increasing our capacity to export products? We probably need to do both, but if you do one to the exclusion of the other, you're going to end up with a system that may be very top-heavy with great stories like Lassie and The X-Files, but the stories that we hold dear won't be told. That's why it has to be both.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi and Mr. Abbott.

• 1030

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to extend my thanks to the minister for appearing before the committee, along with Mr. Wernick and Mr. O'Sullivan.

For approximately an hour and a half now, we have been discussing broadcasting. That's the issue of the day here. As a relative newcomer, I've enjoyed it and I look forward to embarking on this entire issue. It's certainly proving to be more than interesting.

This is televised, and there is a community out there that has a broader interest in heritage. I would therefore ask that you bear with me on my preamble, and then I will get to my question. I don't think it will be any surprise to the minister where I'm going to be coming from.

Whether it pertains to parks, historic sites, monuments, buildings, or broadcasting, heritage efforts have been going on with really active community involvement in preservation for about the last ten or fifteen years. It has been an uphill struggle partly because a slumping economy in the early 1990s had to be dealt with. There were always priorities in other areas. Indeed, I think the heritage community was very patient and understanding. We seemed to have been turning it around, but then we witnessed the tragedy of September 11—and again, I don't think any person on this committee or involved in heritage in this country doesn't realize our priority really now has to focus on issues of security and law enforcement and those things.

During all this time when we've taken a back seat to other issues, heritage has still persevered. People have gone out in their communities and have been successful in teaming up with the private sector, showing it that it has a place in heritage. As a result of that partnership, heritage is no longer just about recognizing an event that took place, putting up a monument to what happened on a particular piece of ground and calling it a park, or putting up a plaque and just hoping you get x number of people putting a dollar in the cup to view this. It has evolved to a point at which we know it can be revenue-generating. We've proven that, and that should be of interest to all levels of government. We can put money in the coffers through this public-private partnership. I know it has happened in my riding quite recently, with some substantial investments.

As a federal government, as we go about trying to take our place in the pecking order, how might we be able to support this, whether it's through new initiatives, the private-public partnerships, or cooperation with the provinces, which are definitely stakeholders in this? What do you see our role being as far as new initiatives are concerned, or in terms of publicizing initiatives that have been there all along, in order that these groups may take advantage of that? Those are my questions.

Ms. Sheila Copps: You're touching on some broader issues of heritage, and I hope I have a chance to come back when the committee has more time, because obviously you have a lot things on your plate.

The reality is that we're coming into our own as a country. I don't think it's a coincidence that in the last ten years, we've seen a tremendous increase in interest our roots, whether that has been an interest in our physical roots by way of the preservation of historic buildings, or in our ephemeral roots, if I can put it that way. Great work is being done by genealogy groups across the country to open up the census pre-1911. Why has this become an issue? I believe that when Gro Harlem Brundtland gave us the template on the environment, she said to think globally and act locally. As a country, we're looking and acting and thinking globally, and that also encourages people to go back to their roots in their communities. This really is a part of communities.

• 1035

In my own community of Hamilton, we had a railway station that was literally sitting empty for sixteen years. It had pigeons and snow in the roof. Everybody said to tear it down because it was an eyesore, it was a dump. In fact, the local labourers' union saw the vision. They rebuilt the station, and that station is now employing 120 people in the downtown core. They've taken what was a completely non-productive area of our community and have made it productive again.

We've had some work done with the Department of Finance—it actually started three years ago—to look at how heritage tax credits are actually revenue-neutral. What they will do is take what is now an unproductive area of the community and they will give it life again. They've had several examples of that locally, so we are actually looking at the establishment of a heritage tax credit that would permit private-sector renovation or restoration of heritage buildings that would add to the national list by supporting regional designations.

There are certainly certain provinces...I note that the province of Quebec already has a fairly good system. We want to complement that system, but you could never expect the government to singly and solely support the restoration of all heritage buildings. Right now, it's much cheaper to take over a piece of farmland and turn it into a strip mall than it is to actually support heritage development. We have to level the playing field in the same way that we did for the environment. We brought in environmental legislative changes so that recycling proved to be as financially beneficial as using unrecycled materials. That's what we're looking at with the Department of Finance, and I'm hoping we'll move forward on that. That's part of the process of trying to find ways that aren't going to cost the government money, but ways through which we can actually put value back into communities.

The Chair: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I'd like to discuss the issue of the CRTC. As one member of the committee, I am particularly a little confused about what your expectations are with respect to this committee taking a look at the CRTC.

I suggest that to study the state of broadcasting in Canada while ignoring the CRTC is to ignore the elephant in the living room. From 1990 forward, it has been suggested that the CRTC has seen fit to move into what they perceive to be a vacuum of policy. They have thus become more and more of a factor outside of political control—outside of your control, and certainly outside of the control of Parliament.

They've made some bad decisions. For example, I cite that TV Ontario has TFO. I know you're aware TFO was declined access to cable in Quebec. It is only through the fact that TFO is now appearing on satellite in Quebec that people see French-language programming in Quebec that is from a source other than those within the province, and that gives a different dimension for the people in Quebec.

Earlier, you announced there was going to be a review of the CRTC. I understand that has now has been set aside. What I'm looking for, and perhaps what the committee is looking for, is to get some direction from you. Just how deeply would you expect the committee to be delving into the CRTC, particularly in relation to the state of broadcasting in Canada?

The Chair: Minister, I want to mention to members that the bell we are hearing is a half-hour bell. We're going to be called to vote after 11 o'clock. I think we can finish our session with the minister by that time, and then we'll go to vote. Thank you.

Minister.

Ms. Sheila Copps: The CRTC exists as a result of the Broadcasting Act, so your work includes looking at the whole gamut. This is the review. This is the process and the place. People who have ideas to bring forward on regulatory changes or regulatory issues should come to this table.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Is that the reason why...? Am I incorrect that sometime during late winter or early spring, you were talking about having a specific review of the CRTC?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Some discussion was held about having a white-ribbon or blue-ribbon panel to discuss this issue. I believed it would be better brought to this table, which is why we are bringing it to this table.

• 1040

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, I think we're all in agreement that the CRTC does form a very important part of what's happening.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Absolutely.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you. I appreciate that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Duplain is next, followed by Ms. Gagnon.

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Thank you, Ms. Copps, for coming here to meet with us. You've answered several of the questions I was planning to put to you. However, I am concerned about something you said, because the subject is near to my heart.

Mention was made of the opportunities Canadians have to express their views on local programming and of community television stations. Some of these are very active in their community and are a true reflection of the wishes of the community. However, remote communities seem to have some difficulty getting their voices heard. How can we, through the work we have undertaken, acknowledge their demands and give a voice to members of the community so that we can work together?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Let me give you an example. Several years ago, the CRTC decided to give cable companies the choice of either funding a community radio station or of putting the money into a bigger fund to be used to provide broader programming choices. As a result of this decision, money which in the past had gone to community radio stations was now being used for more commercial purposes. Certainly you can take it upon yourself to review this decision and to determine if it was a wise one. Should the role of community radio be enhanced in 2001-2002? Should the role of regional commercial radio stations be enhanced? It's a well known fact that community radio stations aren't the only ones to be having problems, as evidenced by the situation in regions outside Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto and other large cities. These are a few of the issues that you could look at more closely.

The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We too feel that radio and television are focussed too much on large urban centres, because programming is often bought in Montreal. In the past, elected officials were entitled to more sound bites on community television. Now, we get only one or two per week. In any event, we are not as motivated because our statements make less of an impact.

Getting back to the CRTC, I don't know if the subject has been broached, but the role of the CRTC should be reviewed in light of complex new technologies such as the Internet, and in light of the follow-up that must be given to programming quality and cultural content. Do you think it would be a good idea to have another body undertake an independent follow-up of your decisions?

When the CRTC issues a licence or adopts regulations, it is difficult for it to ensure proper follow-up at the same time and basically, to be critical of its own decisions. It would be similar to finding fault with oneself. The situation is complex and the CRTC receives many applications. Can it really do all of these analyses? Shouldn't there be two independent bodies, one to make the rulings and another to do the follow-up? You claim to be very concerned about programming quality and to want communities to be represented through various communications media. Can the CRTC really act as a watchdog when it comes to ensuring the quality of broadcasting?

[English]

The Chair: Madam Minister, just before you answer, I have requests from Ms. Lill and Mr. McNally.

Madame Gagnon, why don't you put your questions now? We only have a few minutes left before the vote?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: No, I'm... [Editor's note: inaudible]

• 1045

The Chair: The minister will take note of them and answer all of the questions together.

[English]

Mrs. Lill, do you have any questions? No?

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: I just have one brief request, and that's for the information we were asking for earlier. I know I also asked about the foreign ownership rules, and I'm not sure whether the minister said they should stay the same or should increase. That's it.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'll deal with those in reverse order.

The intent of the foreign ownership requirements is to ensure a diversity of voices. If these objectives can be achieved in another way, I don't think we should preordain that review, but I think you should be reviewing that.

When it comes to the first question—

Mr. Grant McNally: We were just going to get information on those different models.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, and from the point of view of the committee and the research staff, we will obviously be very happy to provide you with whatever information you need. If you look around the audience, you'll see lots of people from various sectors of the radio and television world who can also help you help us, and who can maybe provide some of this. It is not just a tremendous learning experience, it takes about six months to figure out just what the system is.

[Translation]

First of all, on the subject of community radio, commercial radios are experiencing the same problems. The more centralized the system, whether it be in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, the less there is in the way of regional and local programming. That's why I find it very interesting that Radio-Canada has signed an agreement with TQS to hire regional Radio Canada reporters. This allows for a true partnership between the public and private sectors.

As I see it, this innovative approach is the way of the future. We are not sure exactly how this is going to work, but there is no question that you will do a more in-depth study than a blue ribbon panel would have done, because in that case, there would have been a constant tug-of-war between the various interests. What is the French expression for tug-of-war, Christiane?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: What's that?

Ms. Sheila Copps: A tug-of-war is when two groups pull against each other on a rope.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Something like “tirer la couverture”?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Something like that.

The Chair: The other question had to do with the CRTC's ability to act as a watchdog.

Ms. Sheila Copps: When the Broadcasting Act was drawn up, no thought was given to the possibility that the signals could originate from a wide range of sources. Obviously, the CRTC has made some good, as well as some bad decisions. Is there now some way of making the regulations safer? That's something the committee will have to look into.

In the past, we looked to the courts for guidance. Now, we look to Cabinet and unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be working too well, as I see it. For instance, a committee such as this one takes the time to review a matter thoroughly. However, when Cabinet considers a CRTC ruling, it lacks the same degree of expertise. Perhaps there could be another way to appeal a decision. Maybe it's not Cabinet's role to rule on this appeal. This also warrants further consideration.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mills would like to ask a brief question.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Sheila, I think of the Davey commission of many years ago. It was really the last comprehensive look into this realm, and that commission dealt with the whole issue of concentration of ownership, etc. We now see this concentration of ownership more than ever before. What are your thoughts on that? Does it concern you in terms of the way we essentially have four people basically running the entire media broadcast system in our country?

• 1050

Ms. Sheila Copps: Of course it concerns me, and I think the whole theme of this review is that diversity of voices. But I think we also have to look at it in the context of the world. We don't live on an island. The reality is that many of the old ways of getting our message out have been supplanted by broadcast signals coming from every corner of the globe. We therefore have to be realistic in framing a policy that will also stand the test of time not just domestically, but internationally. I don't think we want to create a policy that will have great Canadian voices if they're voices that nobody watches or hears.

When I go back to the old days, when...I'm sorry Gary Pillitteri's not here, but Tony is from Niagara region. At one time, Canadian wine, along with Canadian television, was the subject of many funny stories. Over the course of the last ten years, as Canadian wine has matured and has actually gone to international heights, so has Canadian television. I remember that even fifteen years ago—and you would remember this, Dennis—you'd turn the channel and say snidely, “That's Canadian.” That's not the case anymore.

The quality of the product now coming out of this country is superb. We have to ensure that we continue in that direction, and that we do not also hamstring the investments. That's the challenging issue, because a lot of these big conglomerates are competing against other big conglomerates that have very deep pockets and are able to....

Look at the Hollywood movie scene. On average, $25 million is spent on promoting a movie that comes out of Hollywood, and our kids are watching them. Those movies have a set format. You could argue that they are more or less creative than other areas, but the reality is that $25 million compares with the $700,000 that was used to promote The Sweet Hereafter—which was an internationally award-winning film—or with the full budget of the Inuit filmmaker who just won an award at Cannes. But those are the realities we are facing. And we have to face them, not just hide behind them.

The Chair: Excuse me, Minister, but we just got the signal that a vote is taking place in minutes.

Thank you very much for coming, Minister, Mr. Wernick, Mr. O'Sullivan.

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.