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

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

0905

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

Mr. Richard Zurawski (President, East West Media)

0910

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

Mr. Richard Zurawski

0915

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Mr. Richard Zurawski

0920

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Richard Zurawski

The Chair

Mr. Richard Zurawski

The Chair

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

Mr. Richard Zurawski

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Richard Zurawski

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Richard Zurawski

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Richard Zurawski

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Richard Zurawski

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Richard Zurawski

The Chair

0925

Mr. Richard Zurawski

The Chair

Mr. Richard Zurawski

The Chair

Mr. Richard Zurawski

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Richard Zurawski

The Chair

Mr. Richard Zurawski

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Richard Zurawski

The Chair

Mr. Richard Zurawski

The Chair

Mr. Richard Zurawski

The Chair

Mr. Stephen Comeau (President, Collideascope Digital Productions Inc.)

The Chair

Mr. Stephen Comeau

0930

0935

0940

The Chair

Ms. Sonya Jampolsky (President, Nova Scotia Film & Television Producers Association)

0945

0950

The Chair

Mr. Mark Laing (Chairperson, Directors Guild of Canada)

0955

1000

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Stephen Comeau

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Stephen Comeau

1005

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Mark Laing

The Chair

Mr. Mark Laing

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

1010

Ms. Sonya Jampolsky

1015

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Sonya Jampolsky

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Stephen Comeau

1020

Ms. Sonya Jampolsky

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Stephen Comeau

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Stephen Comeau

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Stephen Comeau

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1025

Mr. Mark Laing

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Mark Laing

1030

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Mark Laing

The Chair

1035

Professor Stephen Kimber (Director and Associate Professor of Journalism, School of Journalism, University of King's College)

1040

1045

The Chair

Professor Bruce Wark (Associate Professor of Journalism, University of King's College)

1050

1055

The Chair

1100

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

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

1105

Prof. Stephen Kimber

Mr. Jim Abbott

Prof. Bruce Wark

1110

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Prof. Stephen Kimber

1115

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Prof. Stephen Kimber

Prof. Bruce Wark

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1120

Prof. Bruce Wark

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

1125

Prof. Bruce Wark

Prof. Stephen Kimber

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Prof. Bruce Wark

1130

The Chair

Mr. Melvin Augustine (Owner, CFTI-FM Big Cove; Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc.)

The Chair

Mr. Melvin Augustine

The Chair

Mr. Gary Farmer (President, Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc.)

Mr. Melvin Augustine

1135

1140

The Chair

Mr. Gary Farmer

1145

The Chair

Ms. Catherine Martin (Filmmaker, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network)

1150

1155

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

1200

The Chair

Mr. Gary Farmer

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Gary Farmer

Mr. Jim Abbott

1205

Mr. Gary Farmer

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Gary Farmer

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Gary Farmer

The Chair

Ms. Catherine Martin

1210

The Chair

Ms. Norma Augustine (Educator, Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc.)

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Gary Farmer

1215

Ms. Catherine Martin

The Chair

1220

Ms. Catherine Martin

The Chair

1225

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Gary Farmer

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Melvin Augustine

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1230

Mr. Gary Farmer

Ms. Wendy Lill

The Chair

Mr. Mark MacLeod (Director, Development and Licensing, Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc.)

The Chair

Mr. Gary Farmer

The Chair

Mr. Gary Farmer

The Chair

Mr. Gary Farmer

1235

The Chair

Ms. Catherine Martin

The Chair

Mr. Gary Farmer

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 056

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I would like to declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, le Comité permanent du patrimoine canadien, which meets today in Halifax to continue to study the state of the Canadian broadcasting system. We are extremely pleased to be in this part of the world. It's nice to travel and meet people at the grassroots, in their field of work and endeavour. We really appreciate your presence here today.

I understand that Mr. Richard Zurawski from East West Media has a commitment at ten o'clock. We've agreed to hear him first and perhaps put questions to him after he speaks, so that he can meet his commitment at ten o'clock, after which we'll ask the three of you to make your presentations and questions will be put to you.

We'll start with you, Mr. Zurawski.

Mr. Richard Zurawski (President, East West Media): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, everyone else, for accommodating me, and Christine Fisher for getting me in on such short notice.

I'm a small producer in Atlantic Canada. I produce children's shows and factual documentaries, usually under science. There are a number of issues that I have as a small producer. The first is in dealing with the large organizations for funding, like Telefilm. Yesterday, we received notice that the only children's show in Atlantic Canada up for EIP funding did not get funded. The money went to a Toronto company from the Atlantic Canada office, even though we had exceeded all thresholds and got 59 out of 59 points on the CTF round of funding. It absolutely baffles me.

My experience with Telefilm funding has not been good. I've never been funded by Telefilm in the eight years I've been an independent producer. As far as I'm concerned, Telefilm is becoming less and less a resource for me in any way. I find the office getting bigger and bigger, costing more and more, and if the envelopes are being administered out of Toronto, then we might as well shut down all the regional offices and save the expense.

The other thing is things like the CINAR debacle, which tarred the rest of the industry. Telefilm played a role in this by not doing due diligence. Because my time is so short, I'll just make quick points on that. That's my Telefilm input.

On Canadian content, we find it very difficult to do factual documentaries because of the Canadian content restrictions. We don't qualify for CTF, again Telefilm, and very often for provincial funding, if we want to do documentaries that relate to another part of the world. Even though there are Canadian perspectives, Canadian crews, under the existing guidelines we don't qualify. If we were treated more like music, where if it was produced by a Canadian, written by a Canadian, or performed by a Canadian, we would qualify. Especially in the region of documentaries, it's very difficult to sell your material worldwide if it is only Canadian-centric. A lot of people in other countries just aren't interested in a story on the tundra of Canada per se, but they might be interested in a story that relates to the Arctic tundra and the Antarctic tundra from an Asian perspective.

I find CanCon to be backward-looking. It's based on what we have defined as Canadian. Canada is a mosaic that is changing all the time, and CanCon today is not CanCon tomorrow. My family is an immigrant family who came to Canada in 1954. If we were to apply those rules to the perspective we had when we came here, we wouldn't be called Canadian. Yet we are now part of the mosaic. I feel that CanCon should be forward-looking as well as backward-looking.

In terms of the separation of streams and convergence, convergence is happening but the streams are still separate. Movies, such as those shown on Movie of the Week, have very little to do with what I do in the way of documentaries. It has nothing to do with a series.

The similarities revolve around the technology. It's very difficult for me to relate to someone who primarily does movie production and is financed by the same organization where I have to compete for the same pool of money. I would like to see more separate streams in all funding organizations.

The next part is about the marketing of our products. We like to support the production, but because of the CanCon rules, it's very difficult to market our products worldwide. We try to stay within the boundaries of Canadian content, but sometimes that's very prohibitive for us when we try to sell so that we can justify taking money from equity investors. The major part of the applications from equity investors is what kind of market you have out there. We find ourselves bending the rules, and I'd rather not do that. If we're not going to be selling to foreign markets because of CanCon rules, I don't want to bend the rules.

As far as the CRTC is concerned, I don't understand the organization trying to predict the future. I think the markets do a much better job. The CRTC sets up rules for broadcasters and vertically integrated companies. I find it to be restrictive, as an independent producer, to try to figure out who does and does not get a licence. In addition to that, I find that when broadcasters do violate their licence agreements with the CRTC, they're rarely enforced. An example in Atlantic Canada would be the ASN-ATV stream. A lot of the programming is duplicated between ASN and ATV, but I understand they're supposed to be two distinct streams. I would like to hear the CRTC's opinion on that.

The last part is that we all live and die on money, and in Atlantic Canada it's tough. Between the bridge financing, the funding organizations, and the licensing, it is very difficult to do business. Everything is becoming much more paper oriented. I'm finding that I'm spending more money on legal items. Ten percent of my budget goes to intangibles that have nothing to do with the production, and I would like to see a solution to that. If we're going to issue tax credits, perhaps we could also issue bridge financing for those tax credits.

I think that pretty much covers it. Thank you very much.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Mr. Zurawski, I think that in a few minutes you've highlighted some very important points for us, especially the fact that it's so much more difficult in regions to get access to funding and the ear of the people in our big centres, such as Toronto and, to a degree, Montreal. We've heard this before, certainly during our travels west. We've also heard before what you mentioned about CanCon. So you've reinforced many of the big issues we face every time we have hearings. We are most grateful for your very clear and concise presentation.

I'll ask the members if they have questions for you before you leave us.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I would like to ask a small question. I would like to know...

[English]

Do you speak French?

Mr. Richard Zurawski: No, I'm sorry, I don't.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I'd like to know where you can sell your products.

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Our children's show is sold worldwide. We have dubbing facilities and translation facilities that allow us to translate our product, and we sell it in other markets. For children's shows, it's not that difficult to re-purpose things, especially if you have a fair amount of animation. For instance, the Spanish markets in South America are interested in a children's show on mathematics, which is what I'm currently doing.

When I get into science documentaries, that's when the issue starts happening. If it's too CanCon, if it relates too specifically to Canadian content, it is not of any interest to, say, South Africa.

Mathematics is a worldwide issue for teaching, but the spruce longhorn beetle, which is now invading the east coast of North America, is not an issue in South Africa, nor are people there interested in it. While I can't do a show on the killer lakes of Cameroon that explode carbon dioxide, which would be of interest to them, I can do a show on the spruce longhorn beetle, but none of the funding agencies has a hope of recouping any of their equity investment. That is the problem.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): The whole issue of Canadian content is very interesting. I know the NFB used to do documentaries galore that were made by Canadian filmmakers. They would be studying things internationally, or looking at abortion around the world, you name it. Various films used to be done quite regularly that had an international perspective but were made by Canadian filmmakers.

It would be useful if you could present us--not necessarily right now--with some kind of alterations, some suggestions, around Canadian content that would work for documentaries. You talk about them being forward-looking, not backward-looking. Obviously, there has to be something about Canada and Canadian artists in the world. Just in terms of language, we're open for suggestions that protect our artists but also allow them to work abroad and market their films abroad.

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Perhaps I could respond by saying I don't understand the word “protect”. Any time you produce a product you can market to the world, I think that's the best possible way of representing our artists, our creators of documentaries. If we restrict how they're going to produce it, for instance, how we define music, whether we have a Canadian artist singing it or a Canadian artist writing it or a Canadian producer producing it, it becomes Canadian music. It doesn't have to be fiddle music from the east coast. I find that in documentary production, if you look at the guidelines, you're pretty much relegated to that sort of thinking.

The reason I mention CanCon is funding. I can get a licence from a broadcaster who is very interested in the killer lakes of Cameroon, but I can't get funding from the CTF or Telefilm or local funding agencies because it doesn't fall within the CanCon requirements. Even though the story is compelling, fascinating from a Canadian perspective, and may have Canadians involved, without the funding I can't do the documentary. Without the documentary we have no presence. We can say we want to protect our artists all we want.... NFB is unique. It receives an envelope from the federal government to produce whatever it wants. I don't. I have to cobble together financing.

My last project was 13 half hours of a children's show. I had 14 separate investors. The legal bills are staggering. The converging rights from the equity investors are boggling. That's where I'm coming from. I would like to see more production. The more we produce, the more we put in the global marketplace, the more we fund, the more jobs we create.

¿ (0920)

Ms. Wendy Lill: I do hear you, and I have no problem with any of that, but you know they're always looking for solutions, not simply problems. If you have some suggestions around changes to the wording around “Canadian content” and “documentary films”, it would be really excellent if we could have them because that would help the researchers and it would help us in putting together....

Mr. Richard Zurawski: If it's Canadian, it's CanCon. It's that simple. If it's written by a Canadian, if it's performed by a Canadian, if it's shot by a Canadian crew, if it's a Canadian idea, it's CanCon.

The Chair: Mr. Zurawski, I should mention that the Minister of Canadian Heritage commissioned a specific hearing on CanCon, which is going to be run by Mr. Macerola, where they will feed their recommendations into our committee's work. I think they'll finish in September. So if you can send your thoughts to them it might be useful, because eventually all these recommendations will be turned over to our committee to be inserted into our study.

Mr. Richard Zurawski: I am preparing the questions that Christine had sent to me. I will e-mail them by the end of the week. Then I will get in touch with the committee. Hopefully I can express myself there sometime after that.

Thank you for that.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.): Have you accessed Telefilm funding in the past?

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Not for any of the productions I've done.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Have you applied for Telefilm funding in the past?

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Every production I've done, and I've done now probably close to 40 hours of production, I have not qualified for one reason or another. I find it demeaning to keep applying to an organization that likes to have a lot of applications on their desk to justify their existence. I am quite critical of Telefilm.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: If the Telefilm...if that domino doesn't tumble, then there's no CTF funding either, is there?

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Actually, no. The CTF covers the Telefilm envelope. The Telefilm is the equity investment and CTF covers equity and licence. The first round is usually for the licence fee. On this particular round we received 59 out of 59 points. We received the maximum allotted from the CTF, yet we did not qualify. We were the only Atlantic Canada production, and this office in Atlantic Canada gave the only money from their envelope to Alliance Atlantis, Salter Street, which I find outrageous.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Do they give any justification? After having scored that high, do they give any kind of profile as to...?

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Yes. I spoke with Ralph Holt yesterday, and even though I exceeded the maximum threshold of the broadcaster input--we had APTN as the major broadcaster and we had 23.02% of our financing coming from the broadcaster, which allowed us an excess--we were told we didn't have enough broadcaster support. Either I've misheard something or Mr. Holt is reading from the wrong application.

I have a meeting with him a week Thursday to go over the application to find out where we missed. But I have the distinction of being the only application; it's like being the only hockey team that shows up and it still loses the game.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Could we be specific to Nova Scotia here now too? Are there any seed moneys available even prior to Telefilm? Telefilm funding would help develop the idea, the concept, you have for a production. That's the intent of the Telefilm funding.

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Telefilm is both the development of the idea and production money, and they do have a marketing envelope as well.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Is there seed money before that?

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Yes.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Available on the provincial level?

Mr. Richard Zurawski: On the provincial level there's the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation, which is an entirely separate provincially funded organization. They do development and production. Unfortunately, the requests exceed the envelopes.

The tax credit is very good in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada, which offers incentives. You're not able to get tax credits for development, so development money can be difficult to get sometimes because it's basically an idea that you're trying to finance, not a licence per se.

So the development is a long, onerous process and can sometimes take four or five years, depending on how tenacious you are.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Zurawski, when you applied for the EID, was Canadian content a question that came into play, and played against you in this particular case?

¿ (0925)

Mr. Richard Zurawski: In my conversations with Telefilm, CanCon did not. I'm perceived to be a recognized Canadian host. I've hosted a number of children's shows. Wonder Why? is an international show that was done by CTV. I created it and concepted it.

That part did not appear to be an issue. It may well be, but not to my knowledge.

The Chair: Without taking sides, because that is not our role, but at the same time, I think your case is extremely interesting. Would it be possible for you to file any papers with the clerk so that we have it in sort of a case study?

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Absolutely. That was my intent. I will happily do so.

The Chair: And we'll ask our researchers to be in touch with you. So if we can look into it, we certainly will--not to take up your particular case, because it's not our role, but at the same time, using it as a case study would be really interesting.

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay.

Madame Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: What do you mean by 59 points? You said you had 59 points. If you pass through that specified admissibility of....

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Basically, for each organization, they allocate a number of points for each category that you fall under in the request for funding.

In our case, we made sure the broadcaster input exceeded the maximum threshold so that we could get the maximum number of points, and the broadcaster agreed to do that. So APTN, TVOntario, SCN and Télé-Québec all agreed to fund the project, and their input exceeded the maximum that would have given me a certain number of points. Because of that, we did get the CTF funding, which is a very quick, objective process.

The Telefilm process is much more subjective, and that is what we're trying to find out. In that subjectivity, what happened?

The Chair: Do you know how many points Alliance Atlantis got?

Mr. Richard Zurawski: No, and I'm not sure that I will ever find out or am allowed to find out.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: But it's a maximum of 59 points.

[Translation]

The Chair: Yes, the maximum is 59.

[English]

Mr. Richard Zurawski: That is for CTF.

For Telefilm, they have a scale of 130 points. It's the same categories, but they allocate subjectively rather than objectively.

The Chair: So you don't know how much you got with Telefilm.

Mr. Richard Zurawski: In my questions, Mr. Holt told me he would discuss them with me and perhaps show me some of it, but he would not be sending me a form saying this is where I scored and where I didn't score. That's not their policy.

The Chair: Are there any more questions?

If not, I'd like to thank you very much for coming today, Mr. Zurawski, and making open to us some very important issues.

Mr. Richard Zurawski: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, board.

The Chair: I'd now like to welcome Mr. Stephen Comeau, the president of Collideascope Digital Productions Inc.; Ms. Sonya Jampolsky, the president of the Nova Scotia Film & Television Producers Association; and Mr. Mark Laing, the chairperson of the Directors Guild of Canada.

We'll start with you, Mr. Comeau.

Mr. Stephen Comeau (President, Collideascope Digital Productions Inc.): Good morning. I hear you all got back from St. John's, Newfoundland. Did you have a good time over there?

The Chair: I wasn't there, but I understand the others had a great time.

Mr. Stephen Comeau: Excellent.

I've been given specific instructions by the interpreter to talk slowly so he has the opportunity to convert all the big buzzwords I'm going to use into proper English and French.

My name is Steve Comeau, and I own and operate a company here in Halifax called Collideascope Digital. We're what you call a convergence company. We do new media, interactive television, traditional television, and the combination of all of the above. What has made us successful is that we're one of the few companies in the country who have managed to successfully migrate from new media into television and be successful in that medium.

I don't want to sit here and grind away at specific issues. You've probably heard those a million times over from all over the country. I just want to talk about the Canadian world of television from a new perspective, hopefully to encourage you to think of it in a different way, and what I really want to talk about is innovation.

Innovation is a quality that is essential to success in both art and business; therefore it's of supreme importance to Canadian broadcasting. Unfortunately, the concepts of innovation aren't ones you hear discussed a lot when talking about television and issues such as Canadian content, foreign ownership rules, the value of the CBC, etc. But innovation, I believe, is the key to success in this industry.

First I want to state why I feel television is so important. To me television is the most important communication media out there in shaping the views, attitudes, politics, and values of our culture in society, more so than film, the Internet, or print. It's like a mainline to the consciousness of the people.

All you have to do is see the effect that CNN's coverage on the collapse of the twin towers had on people, or listen to people talk about Rick Mercer's “Talking to Americans” the day after to understand that television is an incredibly powerful phenomenon.

Consequently, maintaining and growing Canadian television into a vibrant and relevant media is not only paramount in maintaining our national identity, but I also say it creates a better society and a better culture for Canadians.

I think this is controversial, and you might think I'm crazy, but I do believe that a lot of the societal problems the United States has are due to the media they consume, and I feel as a society we could have a positive effect on our culture and its values by maintaining control over the media we consume. I think there's incredible power there, and with that power comes responsibility. So that's why I got involved in television--because I think it is a very powerful medium.

I'm going to get back to innovation. To me, to innovate is to introduce new ideas and change. We need innovative programming to engage audiences in a relevant way, therefore creating an audience for Canadian programming. We need innovation in the industry so it can remain profitable and viable in an ever-changing and globalized economy, and we need an innovative business to serve the audience.

Without innovation in the content we create and the way we run our business, you're always going to have audiences in Canada looking elsewhere for their programming, and you're going to have businesses that aren't going to be able to respond effectively to changes in the global marketplace.

It's my belief, having experienced much of the discourse around Canadian broadcasting.... I should say that I'm involved in a lot of different organizations. I'm the chair of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, where I co-chair the new media committee and I chair the Atlantic council. I'm involved in Telefilm's new media advisory committee. I've been sitting in an advisory context to the Cultural Trade Advisory Board, specifically with new media. I've spoken with many different organizations, from the Academy of Canadian Film and Television right through to the Directors Guild here locally. So I've been involved in a lot of discourse about television, and I really believe that one of the things I very rarely hear about is innovation.

The challenge for government in creating policy, in creating regulatory devices, is to create a Canadian television system that has enough production that it can exist in the shadow of the behemoth of the States, but still has enough incentive and competition within it to spur innovation that theoretically a purely free market industry would have. And I view this as not being an easy or an enviable task, one that is open to very many viewpoints. But since I have the mike and it's mine, I think I'll just inflict a few of mine on you.

At the core of it, Canadian television is about programming. I really believe that the success of American programming in Canada and internationally is not so much about production value, which you hear a lot about, that the reason Canadian television can't compete with American television is purely because the Americans spend millions and millions more than us--I believe that's a part of it, but more importantly, American television is far more innovative when it comes to subject matter, delivery, and genre, and I think that is because they have a much simpler system in the sense that it's much more of a free market economy.

¿ (0930)

I believe we have to put systems in place with our broadcasters and distributors that encourage risk-taking--which is an important part of innovation--and encourage people to actually push the envelopes when it comes to programming.

A lot of this has to do with how broadcasters operate in this country. The CRTC creates a system, in my opinion, that helps protect in a lot of ways the bottom line of different broadcast entities, via subscription fees, and particularly via bundles within various packages on cable and satellite providers. Because of this, it's more important for the broadcaster to receive a greater level of certainty and confidence for their programming--more so than take risks in the nature of the programming, particularly if the programming they are acquiring is purely in relation to quotas being set up for them.

So a system doesn't exist within the Canadian broadcast spectrum that creates adequate competition for audiences to, in turn, create competition within programming. At the end of the day, the Canadian public is the audience that television serves. Therefore, broadcasters, through many different channels, are responsible to the Canadian public.

An example of this is a friend of mine who was producing a show for a broadcast-affiliated company, which had a relationship with the distributor. The broadcaster was using its broadcast licence as leverage to try to force this producer to distribute with the associated distribution company and make the producer accept a lesser deal. While this might make good business sense for that vertically integrated company, it does nothing to help create viable production companies and viable content. So one has to be really careful about vertical integration and the value it provides with audiences in getting great programming.

Another issue that I think is very viable for innovation is consolidation of media assets. I think it's inherently bad for audiences or the Canadian public, because it reduces competition in the marketplace and places too much power in few hands. We only have to read the various discussions going on about CanWest ownership of newspapers across this country to get a great indication of that.

What I think is positive is the concept of the independent producer in creating innovation in the world of television. Outside the vertical integrations and consolidation of media assets, independent producers follow the tradition and the legacy of entrepreneurs throughout history. The one person with the great idea, the commitment, and the drive to bring that great idea to reality is what is going to create vibrant, relevant, interesting, and engaging programming for audiences.

I believe great programming in Canada is exportable around the world. But we have a problem, if not a crisis, in Canada right now with the distribution of our television content to the international market. The international market for television is bottoming out right now. It's in a really bad state. Because of that, a lot of leverage that producers have used over the years to help create their programming is disappearing.

As part of your analysis of Canadian broadcasting, I think it's important to go through all the different elements of the value chain, in particular distribution, to say what can be done here to help provide an outlet for Canadian content into the international world, enabling us to make content for Canadian audiences and bring a lot more leverage to the table.

¿ (0935)

Another positive thing is that Canadian producers have been very innovative when it has come to financing their programming. In comparison to a lot of other countries, Canadians are world-renowned for their ability to put together very interesting deals and overcome adversity when putting together the financing for the programming. I think we can capitalize on this, as independent producers and as an industry, take that expertise and continue to grow, if the right regulatory and policy measures are put in place.

That's about it. I just wanted to briefly touch on a few topics and put the idea in your heads that maybe while you're looking at the different processes and procedures, innovation is key to the success of this industry.

¿ (0940)

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

Ms. Jampolsky.

Ms. Sonya Jampolsky (President, Nova Scotia Film & Television Producers Association): Good morning, and welcome to Halifax.

I'm pleased this committee is here at this particular time because what you're doing is of great significance to the Nova Scotia Film & Television Producers Association.

The NSFTPA was created in 1990 as an organization to lobby on behalf of the interests of film and television producers. We share many of the same concerns of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, but we are independent from them. Many of our members are also members of that organization.

While the majority of our members produce for television, we represent companies that make corporate videos, feature films, and material for the Internet. We represent medium-sized companies, like Steven Comeau's, IMX Productions, and Ocean Entertainment. We represent small companies that are single-person entities, like ZG Entertainment, and we represent Salter Street Films, the very largest company in this community.

I'd like to brag a little for a moment and tell you what the members of my association have made. They've made the CBC mini-series Trudeau; the Showcase series Trailer Park Boys; the CBC's This Hour Has 22 Minutes; Food Network's Chef at Large; Gemini award-winning documentaries Breakaway and Loyalties; the comedy series Liocracy; the Discovery series Oceans of Mystery; the children's series Ollie's Under-the-Bed Adventures; the feature film New Waterford Girl; and many more. I hope some of you recognize and have seen some of the programs I've mentioned.

In many ways we've had a remarkable 20 years of production and growth in this region. But this success in no way guarantees we're going to be able to continue this for the next 20 years. There's a real lack of confidence right now about our ability to continue. I'd like to explain why, and then give you some ideas on how you can help us. Perhaps this will help you understand how we go about doing our business.

As Steve said, we all start with an idea. In order to bring that idea to fruition, you need to develop it; you need to research it and write. Development funds are very limited in this country. If you're dealing with a group like the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation or Telefilm, a plethora of paperwork immediately needs to be done to acquire that money. But if you make it through development and want to create a TV show or film, then you need a licence. I think the irony right now is that in this multi-channeled universe, broadcast licences are very difficult to get.

Our national broadcasters are licensing fewer and fewer programs, and they're also licensing them for smaller and smaller fees. If you get a licence, you're probably barely able to trigger the threshold for the CTF. But say you've made it through that and you've acquired CTF, inevitably you're going to need multiple other partners to put together your full financing.

So many of us have very similar formulas. We turn to Telefilm for equity; we turn to tax credits. In Nova Scotia we're fortunate because we have provincial tax credits as well as the federal. We turn to private investors. We turn to cable production funds like the Shaw Fund, and we look for distribution advances. I'm sure there are other scenarios out there of how we do this.

The problem is that none of the organizations are going to give you enough money up front to start paying those bills that are already mounting. Those bills are from the lawyers who have had to review all the contracts that start from the moment of development, from the people who are doing the research, from the people who are filling in the proposals. And so you run into a cashflow problem.

So we go for interim financing. The banks aren't very interested in us any more. I'm sure you've heard this across the country. Who can blame them? We're really not that profitable to them. We're a lot of work. I think many of them have been stung by some very large bankruptcies. Many of us are still getting interim financing, but what's happening is if you do get that interim financing, the banks are asking for completion guarantees. That completion guarantee can be as much as $20,000. That's $20,000, whether you have a $200,000 production or a $2 million production.

Let's suppose now that you get past that point and you have your completion guarantee. You make your program. You pay everybody who has offered their services. Then what you do is you wait, and you wait at least a year to receive your tax credit so that you can pay yourself back for everything you've done for the last two years. I think I'm being very generous when I say you wait a year, because the producer is the last person to get paid. Very often there are people who sit on the verge of bankruptcy as they wait for that money to come in.

The industry is not lucrative for us, but we choose to do it because most of us are very passionate about what we do. We appreciate the fact that Canadians value what we do and they will subsidize our efforts to tell our stories.

There are ways, I believe, that you can help us make it easier to do our jobs. I'm going to cover a few of them.

The first is the definition of an SME, a small and medium-sized enterprise, must be redefined to suit this industry. A company that makes $50,000 a year is competing in that same category with a company that makes $24 million a year.

If we're going to make special provisions to promote the development of small and medium-sized companies, we have to make them realistic. If you want the industry to flourish, there has to be another way to do bridge financing. This might seem crazy, but it's something we've been talking about in Atlantic Canada. Perhaps Telefilm should be in the business of bridge financing...so it makes it possible for young filmmakers like myself to get into the business, because it's next to impossible.

Canadian content restrictions need to be revised. What is Canadian content? Wendy, here's your definition: we believe it's a story told from the point of view of a Canadian. We have to be very careful about what our regulations restrict, particularly the freedom for us to express ourselves.

A large part of my work this past year as president of the NSFTPA was in relationship to the purchase of Salter Street Films by Alliance Atlantis. We had absolutely no objection to the purchase of the company. What we were very concerned about was the purchase of the Independent Film Channel, which had just been licensed to Salter Street Films. We felt very strongly about this, and it was very clear in the decision by the CRTC that this was a regional licence. It was awarded to an Atlantic Canada company to increase the diversity of voice in broadcasting in Canada.

So we intervened on the acquisition of that channel. We stated these points. In the decision by the CRTC to award the channel to Alliance Atlantis, they very clearly stated that the commission wanted Alliance Atlantis to maintain the head office for the Independent Film Channel here in Halifax.

I don't know if most of you know this, but less than six months afterwards, last week, Alliance Atlantis closed down the production office of the Independent Film Channel.

If the CRTC is going to be a regulatory body, they must also police what they do. They must enforce the promises that are being made by broadcasters, which leads to my final point, which has already been made.

¿ (0945)

Broadcast licences need to increase both in quantity and in value. The cost of production is increasing, and so should the cost of licensing the productions. If this is to be a regulated and supported industry, it has to be so for all the players involved, and broadcasters must be made to carry out their promises.

Anyhow, I thank you very much for your time and your consideration of the points I've made.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: We thank you.

Mr. Laing.

Mr. Mark Laing (Chairperson, Directors Guild of Canada): Thank you. Welcome to Halifax.

The Directors Guild of Canada is a labour organization representing the key creative and logistical personnel in the film and television industries. It was created 40 years ago this year to represent film and television directors, and it now has over 3,300 members covering occupational categories in the areas of direction, production, editing, and design of film and television programming in Canada.

I'm an art director by profession. I believe Mr. Comeau is even a member of our organization.

The DGC is a national organization, but it's made up of seven district councils that are mandated by the national organization's constitution. The Atlantic Regional Council represents the four Atlantic provinces, and as the chair of the Atlantic Regional Council I sit on the National Executive Board, which is the DGC's governing body. It's not unlike Canada.

Generally, the role of the district council is to deal with collective bargaining and professional development, and the role of the national office is to deal with issues of public policy. To this end, the national office prepared a comprehensive submission to the committee in August of last year. This submission is the result of ongoing consultations with our membership, and it reflects, we believe, something approaching a broad consensus among the key creative people in Canadian film and television.

I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding the submission, and I will go through the executive précis. I may have to refer some of the questions to our president, Mr. Alan Goluboff, and our national executive director, Ms. Pamela Brand, who will also be making an oral submission to this committee, presumably when it meets in Ottawa.

Because of our role in the audiovisual field, we have decided to focus our remarks on the impact of the Canadian broadcasting system on the audiovisual sector. As will be evident from the discussion, the Canadian broadcasting system continues to be the principal means for supporting Canadian audiovisual expression, and the regulation of it is essential to preserve Canada's cultural sovereignty.

We're well aware of the constraints being placed on Canada by virtue of technological developments, and we're also well aware of the U.S. agenda through trade-related actions to whittle away Canada's scope to protect and enhance its cultural sovereignty. These issues are discussed further in the submission, but I'll just go through the essential points.

U.S. interests and others have brought increasing pressure on Canada to limit Canadian government involvement in the cultural industries to pure subsidy measures. As a matter of fact, we've seen even more recently that groups have, before the U.S. Department of Commerce, attacked even the direct subsidies in their action of attempting to impose a countervail duty or petitioning to apply a countervail duty.

However, this pressure must be strongly resisted. Canada's cultural sovereignty in the audiovisual field vitally depends on so-called structural measures. By this we mean CRTC licensing and regulation, investment rules, and other measures that discriminate on a structural basis in favour of Canadian programs and Canadian service providers.

A continuance of structural measures to support the Canadian broadcasting system, as well as subsidy measures, is fully consistent with our current trade obligations and is consistent with support in the long term from like-minded countries around the world that wish to enhance cultural diversity on the information highway. Our structural measures are also entirely consistent with freedom of expression, given the incredible openness of the Canadian market to foreign programs.

To enhance cultural sovereignty, the focus by the Canadian government, both in regard to subsidy programs and in regard to structural measures, should continue to be on the so-called priority Canadian programming, that is, Canadian drama, comedy, children's music and variety, and long-form documentary.

The CBC, despite its many problems, remains a fundamental underpinning of our cultural heritage and must have increased financial support to provide priority Canadian programming.

The private broadcast sector, including both conventional television broadcasters and the pay and specialty programming services, should continue to be obligated to make a significant contribution toward the creation and exhibition of priority Canadian programming, particularly Canadian drama.

In addition to its support for television drama, the Canadian broadcasting system should provide more support for the production and exhibition of Canadian feature films. This should come not only from the pay-television licensees, but also be considered a fundamental obligation of the free-to-air television producers.

The government should take a wide view of what is embraced by the concept of broadcasting. In particular, the definition should continue to embrace broadcast distribution undertakings and video on demand.

The 1999 CRTC exemption of Internet broadcasting should be reviewed by 2004 to ensure that any impact on traditional broadcasting is properly taken into account and to monitor the development of Canadian new media.

The emergence of competition between broadcasting distribution undertakings in Canada should not erode their support for Canadian programming services and their financial support for priority Canadian programming, particularly through the CTF, the governance of which should include creator representation.

Finally, Canada's stance on international trade negotiations must be to insist on its ability to maintain both subsidy and structural support measures in the broadcasting sector, including broadcasting distribution undertakings and foreign investment restrictions. In that connection, full support should be given to the concept of a new international instrument on cultural diversity to protect the right of countries to protect and assist their cultural industries.

These are all points from a presentation that could be elaborated on when the president of the guild makes his submission in Ottawa.

There are a few points, however, that I would like to underline here because they were brought up by speakers earlier this morning. The first is that in our submission we make the case for removal of what are referred to as “subjective criteria” for Canadian content, while sticking with and continuing to support “objective criteria” for Canadian content.

The second point I'd like to underline is that.... It was interesting, and also slightly embarrassing, to listen to Mr. Zurawski speak at the beginning, because I discovered, as he started talking, that I'm in fact the designer for the show he was referring to by Alliance Atlantis, which in fact was created here in Halifax by the writer of the Theodore Tugboat series, who came to me last year and we put this idea together. We went to Salter Street and it was developed here in Halifax. However, Salter Street has been acquired by Alliance Atlantis.

¿ (0955)

It's a very complex issue, but it most certainly deals with what Mr. Comeau was speaking about, vertical integration and the consequences of that for this country.

That's the extent of my submission. Thank you.

À (1000)

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

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You have touched on numerous aspects of the review of the Broadcasting Act, namely the impact of convergence. Mr. Comeau, you gave us interesting examples of the effects of convergence. Could you give us a little bit more detail as to the negative impact of convergence in cases, for example, where other media are joined with a corporation and the choices to be made can be different? Other corporations become affiliated. There is, for example, the case of a cable operator who joined ranks with a production channel as well as with a television company. I am asking you this question in order for us to understand the negative impact of the choices being made in order for there to be no negative impact on other companies belonging to the same corporation.

[English]

Mr. Stephen Comeau: To me there's a difference between convergence as described in a technological or creative movement of separate media towards a single, unified, digitally delivered medium and the vertical integration and consolidation of media assets in the industry. Convergence, as a technological or creative phenomenon, offers tremendous opportunity for independent producers and creators of all kinds by enabling people to create value-added products and services on top of their original television creation and access an audience with them.

One of the problems being faced right now in the world of convergence, from both a technological end and a business end, is who owns what. When I make a TV show and I put an interactive component on it, that interactive information is carried with the TV signal, but it's something you don't see on TV. There's a debate going on right now between broadcasters and cable providers of who owns that space in the signal you're putting your interactive stuff on. Is it the independent producer who made the program, is it the broadcaster you're watching on TV, or is it the cable person who's distributing the television station or the broadcaster to the home? This is an incredibly complicated problem, and it continues to get more complicated as intellectual property laws don't keep up with the pace of technology.

Getting back to the convergence aspect as it relates to businesses owning and operating multiple media, it just opens up a level of abuse in the sense that publicly traded corporations tend to serve the shareholder and not their audiences, if there is a discrepancy there.

I do believe independence in different levels of the value chain, from the producer to the distributor to the broadcaster, is imperative for each level on that value chain to service the audience to the fullest of their ability. In a vertically integrated environment, all these different levels of the value chain tend to want to service each other for increased profitability for the corporation, and not necessarily for the audience.

Does that answer your question?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: How might we better define things in the Act in order for the directives to be clear and for there to be protection of both consumers and creator-producers?

[English]

Mr. Stephen Comeau: I think continued CRTC pressure in the broadcast environment for independent production will help keep a viable and profitable independent production sector going and therefore produce the best ideas and the best programming available to audiences. I think the CRTC putting pressure on broadcasters to respect their audiences and obey the rules, their “Promises of Performance”, and their licences, which are adjudicated on the basis of serving a Canadian audience, is very important. The IFC was one example that was mentioned. To me, the WTN's removal from the west and replanting in Ontario, and the rollover of the staff, is a blatant disregard for the CRTC's desire to have diversity in ownership geographically. The fact it went through more or less unopposed is, to me, detrimental to indicating that the broadcasters are under pressure to service the audiences more than their bottom line.

À (1005)

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Laing, would you like to answer this question as well?

[English]

The Chair: Do you want to make a comment, Mr. Laing?

Mr. Mark Laing: With respect to vertical integration?

The Chair: Well, yes, with respect to the question from Ms. Gagnon on vertical integration and convergence. You don't have to.

Mr. Mark Laing: It's a very difficult question. I share Steve's concerns with it. The widespread feeling among the people who create content is that vertical integration has the tendency to limit the choice that's available. It tends to reduce the diversity of the small producers.

I was thinking when Sonya Jampolsky was speaking that no one in their right mind would want to be a film and television producer in Canada. We have the cliché view of them as fat cats who smoke cigars. In fact, they're more like the used book store owners.

It's very difficult to be a content provider in this country. Vertical integration makes it all that much more difficult, because you're competing with one very large animal--no names mentioned--and it tends to constrict our capacity to produce diverse product, diverse cultural expression--I'd rather use “cultural expression” than “product”.

As for solutions to that, I don't have any, except that I think funding mechanisms have to be structured such that they recognize that there are very large players and a lot of small players and there needs to be, as a social value, the encouragement of those small players. The rules have to encourage and recognize that there are large differences of scale.

For example, very quickly, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is lobbying very heavily for broadcaster access to the Canadian Television Fund. If they are allowed to access those finances directly, it makes a lot of independent producers redundant in the grand scheme of things. It's very threatening to us, as a community, in our ability to bring innovative, interesting, and relevant content to an audience.

The Chair: Ms. Jampolsky, you mentioned--I was pondering your intervention--the dichotomy between the very small producers and the $24 million.... Maybe you could just give ideas to our researchers later on as to where you see that cutoff happening. There must be some sort of benchmark. How do we sort it out? If you have any ideas, please, feel very free.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much.

We were in Newfoundland yesterday and we got a real earful from some independent producers there, including Greg Malone. He said very succinctly, there's no money, there are no licence fees, there's no broadcast time, and we're dying here; we just can't survive. I have a sense that this market is more vibrant; it's bigger, and there seem to be more options. There are no options there, it appears, or they don't feel there are. They're very nervous. I'm not saying they don't do some wonderful work and they don't continue to have things in development.

Following Sonya's progression of how a film is made, and then two years later you may or may not get a tax credit and so you just struggle along.... Again, Clifford mentioned the idea of getting some very concrete ideas of how small and medium enterprises can get the protection they need in this kind of environment. I'm also interested in your comments about the Alliance Atlantis takeover of Salter Street Films, because I, too, made a submission to the CRTC about the importance of keeping that as a regional operation.

It raises an issue around the CRTC and their ability to police their licensing. We see it all the time across the country, people saying the CRTC makes decisions and then they just wander off and they don't seem to be policing them.

There is now a bill, which is quite old actually--it's been knocking around for several years now--called Bill S-7. It's a bill that will allow public intervenors at the CRTC around important broadcasting decisions. It's not exactly what we're talking about here, but how is it that the Directors Guild of Canada, or your different organizations, can go after decisions that haven't been held up by the CRTC? How can you have the money and the research capacity and all of that? I think you're raising some really important issues here that we're hearing and we'd like to continue to push for.

À (1010)

Ms. Sonya Jampolsky: I'll go back to your first comment and talk about some of the ideas we've been throwing around about making it easier for producers to work. Having a better cashflow is what it comes down to.

One of them is very simple. We all work on what's called a drawdown schedule. You start to receive your financing upon completion of the long-form contract. The next stage, generally, is the first day of principal photography, the next stage is at rough cut, and the next one is at delivery. What we need is a much larger sum of money up front, at the beginning. What we're doing is waiting far too long for the biggest chunk of money to come down.

This is just a perception; another producer brought this up a few weeks ago. He said it seems like in the early days, when we were working with Telefilm, we were all working together to build a community. It was a consultative process. You went to the Telefilm office and you said, I have this great idea, what do you think? And you started working together on how to make that come to life. If there are police in our community, it's Telefilm. The rules and regulations and playing by the game...many producers have said, I don't want to go for Telefilm financing; it's not worth the trouble.

I'm not sure if I've very clearly stated this, and in fact maybe I left it out, but under a Telefilm budget the producer is only allowed to take home 10% of the B and C portions of the budget. What that means is, again, if you have a $220,000 project, in the end all the producer can take home is $22,000. But $22,000 for 18 months of work is poverty level.

Telefilm needs to start working with us to make it possible for us to make a living. It doesn't have to be a lucrative living, but we need to make a living at what we do.

I'd now like to go to Alliance Atlantis. As most of you know, when something changes hands and is moved from one region to another, there has to be a benefit package that is given to that region.

We went to both Salter Street Films and Alliance Atlantis and said, if you want to help us out, there are a couple of things you can do. One of them is to help us start a fund for a producers' association. We're a voluntary body. We all work full time as producers. We don't have a full-time office. So you can help us establish some mechanism so that we can all work together and lobby on behalf of our needs.

The other was to establish a production fund that producers could access to develop their products. They did that, but that production fund is tied directly to the independent film channel and the products they license. It's accessible to all Atlantic Canadians. But that is of very little help to independent producers in the region.

À (1015)

Ms. Wendy Lill: Did they also say they were starting up a film school?

Ms. Sonya Jampolsky: They did. Everybody has a different point of view, and I have to respect that. From the producers' association's point of view, we didn't feel that was necessary. We felt there were enough entry-level educational opportunities in this area for many divergent groups. I had to say respectfully to Michael MacMillan that we're not learning how to make films--we know how to make films--we just need support at a much higher level.

Also, a small sum of money was given to support the Atlantic Film Festival, which was very good.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I have a question for each of Steven and Sonya. I'll just lay them out and then back out.

A friend much wiser than myself categorized people in three ways: finders, minders, and grinders. You've spoken about the finders, the innovators, and the fact that there should be some opportunity to access some support with risk. You mentioned that if the right regulatory policies and rules were put in place, it would greatly assist the innovators, which are much needed as well. Perhaps you could give me one or two examples of specific ways those finders could be supported. That question is for Steven.

Then to Sonya, I think you made some good recommendations with regard to cashflow from Telefilm and how we could best help the producers with more upfront money. The other thing, and we heard this last night, is that sometimes the timing of the Telefilm announcements really impedes the creative and production processes. I'd like you to share with us your experience with the outlay of those.

Maybe Steven would go first.

Mr. Stephen Comeau: To me it's a fairly simply equation. It's open for debate. Step number one, you structure the CRTC in the granting of broadcast licences and the way cable and satellite subscriptions work to put more pressure on broadcasters to compete for audience as an indicator of the revenue source. Step number two is to put more pressure on the broadcasters themselves to put on more Canadian content and to pay well for it during prime viewership hours.

Right now the broadcasters get a certain level of security by virtue of their subscription fees and channel bundles, which removes them from an environment as competitive as it could be. By putting pressure on them to put on more Canadian content during hours when people watch TV, Canadian content will carry the banner of success in the competition between these channels.

À (1020)

Ms. Sonya Jampolsky: I don't know what to say to you about the issue of deadlines and having a user-friendly system. It's crazy out there. You receive your Telefilm financing, your EIP, and you have a limited time in which that financing is available to you. Meanwhile you're scrambling to make up the other 25% portion of your budget. You just about have it, but then the deadline for the Telefilm financing comes in. You have your Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation money. It's a constant paper game. It's remarkable. I think there has been some effort by provincial groups and some of the groups to set the funding rounds at logical points, but it's a mess.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: The one that was shared with us last night is that the Telefilm announcements come out--there was an announcement yesterday--and it coincides with some of the production companies winding down their season. So now facilities are becoming available. But now that they have some Telefilm money, there's a mad rush to try to secure writers, producers, or the technical.... So how do we fix the mess?

Mr. Stephen Comeau: My theory is that in some ways the CTF policies are a red herring. It doesn't matter how you juggle the rules. You're just juggling those people who are left out in the cold. There's a fundamental lack of resources in the system that is just getting more and more competitive as more and more channels come on line and require Canadian programming.

As to a lot of these shortcomings that you're talking about--the funding deadlines, the announcements--the nature of these things is it's just stop-gap and band-aid, trying to solve the problem that there's way too much demand than there are resources to access. These measures are just trying to address that in some way. If there were more resources in the system for the creation of Canadian programming, there'd be more flexibility about how these resources are distributed to the community, and therefore you would have far fewer complaints about that sort of thing.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Everything that faces government now, everybody can state, whether it's health care or whether it's the military or whatever it is, you can throw more money at it. But there have to be some changes in the system that would make it a little bit more efficient. What we heard last night...if they're announcing funding once a year, I see a whole stress.... It doesn't matter. Take it out of the television or film industry. We're putting our people up against timelines and deadlines. There's a mad rush for everybody to go out and get things done in this window of opportunity. There has to be a better way than that.

Mr. Stephen Comeau: I think there may be. But if it were a fairly easy answer, people would have figured it out by now.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I guess if the answer is simple, then it's probably wrong.

Mr. Stephen Comeau: Things need to be looked at again. Things like tax credits are great, because they revolve. Although you give someone a credit for activity, you may not collect that tax revenue. But there's activity there that does provide benefit to the community. Whereas if you remove that tax credit, you have no activity and no revenue. So I think tax credits are a great way of creating--

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Okay. But in some funding areas, there are quarterly allocations. There are announcements March 21, June 21, and September 21. Maybe a writer gets the nod--gets contracted--in September. He does a set and then the logical thing would be that in the December 21 announcements, maybe he picks up another job. All of a sudden, this guy's got a full-time job. Of course, I know a lot of writers don't want that.

I'm only kidding, Wendy.

Go ahead.

À (1025)

Mr. Mark Laing: I can suggest four, and I hope they aren't necessarily wrong simply because they don't necessarily cost more money. These are what I would call encumbrances on what you called the “finders”. One of the encumbrances that could be removed is the subjective criterion in CanCon regulations, the maple syrup factor. We don't need it and it's an encumbrance. Canadian content, as many people across this country will tell you, should be based solely on objective criteria: how many Canadian taxpayers were involved in the making of this project?

The second is.... I don't know if Steven is right, that this was so simple we should have thought of it earlier, but the funding cycle with Telefilm has set up an unusual market distortion with respect to the availability of crew, resources.... It's made film and television production in this country more seasonal than our weather, and it need not be. Surely this is something we can change. We can even out, flatten out, the humpty-humpty of the waiting all night to hear what Telefilm results come in.

The third has to do with.... The CRTC made what the DGC believes was a regrettable decision a couple of years ago, to remove expenditure rules. The CRTC has rules with respect to hours of programming--hours in prime, hours of this, hours of that--but at the same time it removed the expenditure rules. Well, that has had the consequence of having broadcasters funneling more time into cheaper, cheaper, and cheaper shows, more reality-based shows and fewer difficult shows, Canadian dramas, things that are culturally much more important to us, though. That was a mistake, one cited in our submission, and if expenditure rules were reinstituted for the CRTC, that would provide more resources for the finders.

The fourth one is also really quite simple. The Canadian Television Fund in its governance should have representation from creators. Currently it doesn't. It doesn't have a place for the directors, for the artists, the people who actually make these shows. That voice is conspicuously absent, and it would be the voice of Canadian culture on the CTF board as opposed to the dollars and cents voice.

The Chair: That was very useful, Mr. Laing.

We are going to have to move on because we have a lot of other groups coming, so speak very briefly, Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You brought up a very important point relating to Canadian content yesterday, in St. John's. Witnesses told us that within the Canadian content framework, room should be set aside for renewal, for new production voices. We can have Canadian content, but it is a very broad concept. Is there room for renewal? Is there room as well for different productions that are not simply commercial by nature? Is there room for products that are more cultural and closer to the people working in the field? This is what we were told yesterday. Do you agree that Canadian content is very broad but that at the same time it would perhaps be wise to better define it, without talking only about the maple leaf, but of less narrow criteria?

[English]

Mr. Mark Laing: Personally, I believe--and I think this view is widely shared--that it is not possible for a funding agency or for public policy creators to subjectively determine what constitutes Canadian content.

I had one producer tell me quite irreverently that this is what Stalin attempted to do with heroic materialism--establish a state style. I don't believe we're quite to that level, but I don't think there's a place for subjective criteria. It's not a question, in other words, of simply having a better definition of what can constitute Canadian subject matter. Canadian content should be the stories that are told by Canadians--in other words, just the objective criteria.

À (1030)

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have one quick question to you, Mark. You mentioned that U.S. interests are putting more pressure on the government to limit subsidies. I'm wondering if you could tell us if there are any cases on the horizon or that you're facing right now where we're seeing countervail challenges in the audiovisual industry.

Mr. Mark Laing: There was a petition made to the Department of Commerce that was to impose countervail on Canadian cultural product, presuming that it was analogous to a material good, as opposed to a service. That petition was poorly formed and weakly supported and was withdrawn from the Department of Commerce.

We believe it is being regrouped with new legal advice and will be resubmitted in the new year in a massive and very powerful way. We do not believe, and our legal counsel does not believe, they have a legitimate legal case under international trade rules. However, we are also fully cognizant that international trade rules don't amount to a hill of beans when you're talking about powerful, vested American economic interests. I predict that in the next year we will see a trade conflict with the United States that will be on par with or surpass softwood lumber. The Canadian government is aware of this and should be prepared for this enormous case.

Now, we do have powerful allies on the other side of the border. The Motion Picture Association, Jack Valenti's group, is very much opposed to countervail, because as the world's largest exporter of cultural product, they most certainly do not want cultural product treated as a material good instead of a service. This would not serve their interests. But it will be one wicked war in the coming year.

The Chair: Mr. Laing, you mentioned that during Mr. Zurawski's presentation he put on a case about which you have heard many comments from the point of view of the other side. It would be really helpful if you could also be in touch with our researchers to tell them your side of the story, because we are here to find the objective conclusions to these issues, not to take sides. So that would be extremely important for us, and we would appreciate it.

Mr. Mark Laing: Thank you.

I would be more than happy to speak with the researchers and tell them what I know.

The Chair: We'd like to thank all of you for appearing today. I think it has been an extremely useful session for us, very informative, and at the same time you've brought up concrete suggestions that are extremely helpful to us.

Thank you very much.

We'll now call on Professors Stephen Kimber and Bruce Wark.

We should mention to you, Professors Kimber and Wark, that we have two other large groups to appear after you. We have one and a half hours left, so please be concise to leave a large part of the remaining time to these two groups. Unfortunately, that's the way it goes. That time is very precious to all of us.

So I'll leave it to you, Professor Kimber.

À (1035)

Professor Stephen Kimber (Director and Associate Professor of Journalism, School of Journalism, University of King's College): I'll try my best.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Stephen Kimber. I'm the director of the School of Journalism at the University of King's College. I'm speaking today as a journalist and as an interested consumer of news and information, as well as someone who teaches journalism.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you, but I'm disappointed at the same time, because the issues I want to talk about today have to do with media concentration and cross-media ownership issues, which, I understand, your committee is considering only in the context of a much narrower review of Canada's broadcasting system.

In March of last year, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Heritage announced that a red- or blue-ribbon panel of experts would be established to examine the impact of media concentration. But the federal government very quickly decided to scrap that idea, in favour of asking your committee to consider the issue as one part of its review of broadcasting policy. Your chair has been quoted as saying that newspaper ownership is not on the table in this review, and that "what we are not going to do is make recommendations to do with the print media”.

It is impossible, it seems to me, to fully consider the issue of media concentration without looking at, and perhaps making recommendations on, issues concerning newspaper ownership.

I would hope that the first and most urgent recommendation your committee will make to the federal government is to set up either a royal commission or a select Senate committee to examine those issues in their larger context. I know I'm not alone in arguing this. However it's constituted, we need an independent public inquiry into the impact of media ownership so that Canadians will, at the very least, better understand the ways in which ownership of their media affects what they read, hear, and see.

That said, I think there are clearly aspects of media concentration and cross-media ownership that are affected by the broadcasting policy and are therefore within your purview.

Why should we be concerned with what everyone acknowledges is the increasing concentration of ownership of our media and the decreasing number of cities in which readers have an opportunity to read a local newspaper not owned by a corporation that also owns a television station in this same market?

There is a difference between what may be in the commercial interest of media owners and what is in the public interest. I don't think we can simply leave it to the marketplace to determine. Consolidation, concentration, convergence, and conformity suits investors very well. Of course, media owners don't make their cases for the freedom to do all this simply on the basis of commercial self-interest. They claim that there are in fact public service benefits in allowing them to freely gobble up newspapers, television stations, and websites and converging them all into one huge content provider. By pooling their resources, they claim the combination of economies of scale and synergies will enable them to offer consumers more and more ambitious journalism.

Let's measure those claims against reality. With the exception of so-called community benefit spending mandated by the CRTC during recent ownership transfer applications, how many additional resources has CanWest or BCE really committed to providing more ambitious and better journalism? The answer, it seems to me, is remarkably little. Look at what has happened at the Halifax Daily News since it was taken over by CanWest Global as part of its acquisition of Conrad Black's newspaper empire in 2000. CanWest, of course, already owns a television station in this market. How many additional journalists has the newspaper hired? How many joint investigative projects has it undertaken with its sister TV outlet?

In reality, the newspaper's newsroom has shrunk. So too, I believe, has the Global newsroom. The closest the two have come to investigative projects are a few joint public opinion polls and a Valentine's Day special report. Global TV's meteorologist now writes a daily column for the newspaper, but this has more to do with cross-promoting the television station than in adding editorial value for readers.

Reporters for the Halifax Daily News do occasionally appear on Global's local TV newscast, but the result is not so much an increase in news coverage as a decrease in the number of different points of view consumers have to choose from. The real goal, again, is cross-promotion.

This is as true nationally as it is locally. Tune in to CanWest Global's national TV newscasts and you'll see commentators like CanWest Global's National Post columnist Andrew Coyne. CanWest Global is not alone in this, of course. CTV's national news often sounds as if its prime source of information is the next morning's edition of the Globe and Mail.

When your newspaper is owned by the owner of a television network, how can you have faith that its television columnist isn't simply recommending programs based on the fact that they appear on the paper's sister station? How can you have faith that a commonly owned broadcast outlet or newspaper will report fairly on issues affecting the other?

Current media ownership and convergence almost inevitably results in diminishing credibility and polluting quality, because media owners see them primarily as ways to save money and extend their brand. Media owners speak hopefully of a future in which reporters will go to an event, take photos and video, write one story for the newspaper, another for radio, another for the web, and even appear on television for a debrief at the end of the day. This is not nearly as positive a development as the owners would like you to believe. Will it result in improved news coverage? Will it result in greater diversity of information? Neither. And because the media owners will attempt to do this while spending as little money as possible on news gathering, the ultimate result will be a further decline in journalistic standards and credibility.

The likelihood that concentration and cross-ownership will diminish the variety as well as the quality of news and information is one of my concerns. Another is that concentrated cross-owned media conglomerates will be able to control the range of viewpoints we can read and hear. This is already more than a hypothetical concern.

I'm one of a number of columnists across Canada who resigned from CanWest newspapers in recent months because of head office censorship of views that did not correspond with those of the owners. The major flashpoint has been the Middle East conflict; criticism of Israel is not permitted in CanWest newspapers because CanWest's owners support Israel. But that is not the only issue on which the company's owners have strong views. The owners, as I'm sure you're all aware, also support the federal Liberal Party.

I'm sure you're also aware that CanWest has recently established a national editorial policy. Under that policy, all of its metro newspapers must run head-office-mandated editorials. While that may not be unreasonable, head office has also dictated that none of those local papers can take a contrary position, regardless of local circumstances or regional interests. What if in the next federal election CanWest not only endorses the federal Liberal Party but decrees that none of its 14 metropolitan dailies, its 126 small daily and community newspapers, its Global television network, its National Post, its Canada.com, and its collection of specialty channels can disagree? I'm guessing that some of you might believe there would be no problem with that, but I'm sure you would also concede that such use of editorial power in general is an abuse of power and that our democratic institutions would be much better served if Canadians are given the chance to consider the merits of a range of options on the issues of the day.

It's not just opinions that are now being censored. Consider recent events at the CanWest-owned Regina Leader-Post, where editors there didn't simply censor critical views and editorials in opinion columns, they actually deliberately rewrote the lead of a news story to make it appear that a speaker was endorsing CanWest's stifling of opinion when in fact he was criticizing it.

À (1040)

If we allow companies to buy up more and more media outlets, to transform independent newspapers, television stations, and websites into integrated multimedia platforms and journalists into mere content providers, we will ultimately create a situation in which there are so few alternatives that we will not likely even know when news stories are being distorted and we are being misled by our media.

How should all of this affect your deliberations on broadcast policy? Well, I think you can and should consider how cross-media ownership reduces the diversity of voices and views Canadians receive. You can recommend that government introduce legislation, such as exists in several other industrialized countries, to prevent the same company from owning newspapers and television stations in the same market area or from owning national television networks and national newspapers.

The United States has had a rule against cross-media ownership for more than 25 years. Although it has served the public interest very well, media conglomerates are now lobbying to eliminate it. As you know, there is an intense debate going on in that country right now about the future of the FCC rule. There is a similar discussion going on in Australia. Interestingly, those who defend the cross-media ownership rule in both of those countries point to Canada and CanWest's oppressive editorial policies to demonstrate what happens when governments abandon their responsibility to safeguard the public interest and allow corporations free and unfettered opportunities to merge and converge their way into a monopoly or a near-monopoly position.

It seems to me we've already waited too long to address this question, so I would urge this committee to take up that challenge now before it is too late. Thank you.

À (1045)

The Chair: Mr. Wark.

Professor Bruce Wark (Associate Professor of Journalism, University of King's College): Some of what I have to say overlaps with what my colleague Stephen Kimber has said. You should have a printed copy of my speaking notes, so I'll skip over some parts of that first part. I've divided my talk or speech into two parts: first, the concentration of English-language media ownership and the effects of this on journalism and public debate; and second, and no less important, the increasing lack of regional and local services in broadcasting.

On April 17, a full-page ad appeared in the National Post, The Globe and Mail, and all the larger daily newspapers across Canada. The ad, paid for by federal taxpayers, celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the Charter of Rights and its guarantees of freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. The ad proclaimed proudly: “The Charter. It's ours. It's us.”

As a professor of journalism who is worried about the concentration of media ownership in Canada, I saw this ad as strikingly ironic. Most of the daily newspapers it appeared in are owned by one of Canada's largest private media organizations, CanWest Global Communications Corporation. That corporation, controlled by the Asper family, also operates the country's second-largest English-language television network. If you've been following the news and listening to what my colleague Steven Kimber has just said, you will know the Aspers have imposed restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression.

I see this as just one symptom of the concentration of media ownership, including the cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcasting outlets. It's sad to say, but we have reached the point in Canada where about a dozen rich men have the power to control much of what we read, see, and hear.

Decades ago the Canadian communications scholar, Harold Innis, wrote about the increasing concentration of media power in the hands of an elite few. Innis argued that the free press clause in the U.S. Constitution did not prevent this from happening. In fact, he thought it served as a kind of licence for this concentration of power. Legal guarantees of freedom of the press and free expression are obviously not enough on their own to ensure the free flow of opinion and debate. Regulations limiting media ownership are also needed.

As Frank Scott pointed out in his essay, “Freedom of Speech in Canada”, the search for truth is socially useful and free speech assists in the discovery of truth. Scott went on to write:

...freedom of speech is to be protected because if an idea is true, we should know it; if it is not true, public discussion will most quickly destroy it; if it is partly true and partly untrue, discussion alone will separate the truth from the error.

Both sides of a question must be heard before it is possible to make a fair or reliable decision upon the point at issue. And Mr. Izzy Asper at this point is not allowing us to hear both sides of certain issues in his newspapers and his broadcasting outlets.

I'm not trying to argue here, however, that a few corporate owners have hijacked free expression in Canada. Obviously things are more complicated than that. It would be extremely naive to assert that media ownership does not influence what gets reported and which views get heard. That's why diversity of ownership is preferable to concentration. That's why broadcasting stations and newspapers should not be in the same hands. If we allow widespread media cross-ownership, we jeopardize free speech for the many in favour of property rights for the few.

Fortunately in Canada we've had the CBC to serve as both counterweight and competition, yet in the last decade, about a third of the CBC's budget has been stripped away. As the private broadcasters become bigger, more powerful, and less accountable to the public, we've perversely weakened the one agency that was supposed to serve as an alternative. This flies in the face of many decades of broadcasting policy.

I've set forth the main goal of the 1991 Broadcasting Act. As scholar Stuart Adam puts it:

Journalism is one of the products of a legal and philosophical tradition which confers rights of freedom of expression on individuals.

So journalism is one of those essential aspects of the cultural fabric that the Broadcasting Act talks about strengthening.

I'm hoping, therefore, that in its study of the state of the Canadian broadcasting system this committee recognizes that a renewed financial commitment to public broadcasting is an essential first step in strengthening journalism, while also honouring the charter's guarantee of freedom of opinion and expression.

I turn now to my second theme, and it's related to my concerns over local and regional broadcasting. As you know, Nova Scotia is a small province, but it has a strong sense of its own culture and identity. Unfortunately, that culture and identity are reflected less and less in our broadcasting system.

First I'll discuss television. Most regional television programs produced here are in the news and current affairs category, but only CBC Television covers Nova Scotia for Nova Scotians. The two privately owned channels broadcast to all three maritime provinces. This means that neither station can go into great depth in covering Nova Scotia news because they risk alienating their viewers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. This would not matter that much if CBC Television were doing the job required of it under the Broadcasting Act. The act states that the programming provided by the corporation should reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences while serving the special needs of those regions.

CBC Television now attempts to serve those special needs with a half hour of Nova Scotia news every weekday evening. As you know, the regional supper hour programs are now half as long as they used to be, with the other half of what they call Canada Now beamed in from Vancouver.

The cutting of the CBC's supper hour programs also involved sharp reductions in staff.

I think it's fair to say that in journalistic terms, CBC Television is a pale shadow of what it used to be.

In the summer of 2000, I and about 25 other concerned Nova Scotians filed a complaint with the CRTC, pointing out that not only is CBC contravening the Broadcasting Act, it is also ignoring the conditions the CRTC imposed on it when its licences were renewed in January 2000. And I've attached a copy of that complaint.

For example, the commission decision stated that:

35. An accurate reflection of the diversity of Canada can only be achieved with a permanent journalistic presence in all parts of the country. The Commission encourages the Corporation to maintain and strengthen its coverage of regional issues in both news and public affairs programs....

The CRTC went on to require the CBC to honour its commitment to provide one and a half hours of regional local news programming every weekday, not one half hour but one and a half hours. It also required the CBC to reintroduce regional local weekend news programs by the second year of the new licence term. Instead, the CBC responded by cutting its regional news.

In radio the situation is somewhat different, but it is still far from satisfactory.

À (1050)

In deregulating privately owned radio stations, the CRTC dropped most of its news and community service requirements. Private radio's obligation was limited to playing Canadian music. Stations here responded by eliminating news reporting and current affairs programming, and this left CBC Radio to do the more expensive news and current affairs programming at taxpayers' expense. At the same time, CBC Radio budgets were slashed, and as a result CBC Radio spends much of its time broadcasting the happenings in and around Halifax and Sydney to the rest of the province.

Moreover, the lack of competition, never a healthy thing in journalism, made CBC Radio complacent. As one critic noted recently, Halifax is an increasingly interesting and cosmopolitan city, but you'd never know it from listening to the local CBC morning program.

I'm hoping the committee will take note of the sorry state of local and regional broadcasting. CBC television should be required to honour the Broadcasting Act, its own licence renewal commitments, and the CRTC requirements imposed in 2000. Private radio stations should be required to do more than play Canadian music in return for the privilege of holding a broadcasting licence. And CBC Radio needs the resources to get out of town more often.

I suspect the committee could find similar observations in all of the smaller provinces and smaller centres. While it could be argued that Torontonians and Vancouverites are well served locally and regionally, it is definitely not the case here.

In closing, I would like to note that the discussion of media issues often focuses on rapidly changing technologies, on the wonders of the 500-channel universe, or visions of web-based media convergence. Techno-visionaries proclaim that new technologies have eliminated the need for regulation; that the coming media explosion will satisfy all of our needs. “Don't worry; be happy”, the visionaries say.

In their recent book: The Social Life of Information, John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid warned against paying too much attention to these confident and frequently wrong prognosticators. They write: “The way forward is paradoxically to look not ahead, but to look around.” I would add that when we do look around, there's ample cause for concern, with the concentration of big media on the one hand and the increasing abandonment of local and regional audiences on the other.

Thanks very much.

À (1055)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Professors Kimber and Wark. You've touched on two, of course, of the key issues that face us. To start with local and community broadcasting, which is one of the themes that has come up most frequently in our hearings, as you know, when the CBC started to cut back on its regional and local programming there was a hearing in Ottawa that received a lot of attention, and certainly this is one of the issues we're looking at very carefully and closely.

I should mention to both of you, so that you understand where this committee comes from, how the context is important. Our committee had decided last year, at the beginning of the spring, to embark on a study of the Broadcasting Act, which hasn't been touched for 10 years. As you know, there was the Caplan-Sauvageau commission, which was strictly on broadcasting. It led to a separate study by a committee of the House, which eventually led to the 1991 Broadcasting Act.

We had been asked by various parties, including the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to see how relevant the Broadcasting Act was in today's context, and this was the basis on which we decided to work.

At about the same time or a little later, the department decided it would set up some form of commission of experts to look at media in general and the concentration of media. After a discussion within our committee--and of course by our committee with the Minister of Canadian Heritage--it was felt that two of these issues going parallel, two of these commissions and committees, would create a tremendous amount of confusion in the minds of people, and they would overlap in many ways; that just to look at the revisions to the Broadcasting Act as such was such a huge task in itself, considering that TV and broadcast media are by far the overwhelming part of media, that we should concentrate on it, but not to the exclusion, of course, of the question of cross-media ownership.

I can't agree with you more that you can't look at one without looking at the other. At the same time we appreciate that print media are not regulated today. This is a key question: should print media be regulated? That's another big issue in itself. They are not.

So on June 4 and 6 we are going to have specific panels on foreign ownership and cross-media ownership, which will include a whole cross-section of journalists from print media and broadcast media to discuss this issue. I concede 100 percent that we can't separate the two.

At the same time, we are not going to touch specifically on print media in our recommendations. I can tell you from this point that we have had talks with various other parties, following our report in December, and there will be a more specific address of print media. Senator LaPierre has already hinted at it in the Senate, and I've talked to him in this regard. But what we don't want to do is have two commissions or committees overlapping each other and causing a tremendous amount of confusion, because what we find with the resources of the parliamentary committee and the fact that we are concentrating ourselves on trying to update legislation is that this is really where our problem is. I can assure you that the other part is certainly not going to be neglected, because it's a huge issue in itself.

Mr. Abbott.

Á (1100)

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): I'm a little taken aback with the chair's announcement about these meetings. I was unaware of those dates--

The Chair: Which meeting was that?

Mr. Jim Abbott: The June 4 and 6 meetings.

The Chair: Well, we've just set dates tentatively. We have already agreed on the meetings themselves; it's just the dates we are going to circularize.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, we'll discuss that in a different forum.

Gentlemen, I think, as the chair has indicated, the issue of local and regional is definitely on our plate. My sense of the committee, at the risk of speaking for them--and I'm sure they can speak for themselves--is that this is a very big issue. Rather than going into an area where we probably have a lot in common, I'd like to explore this whole issue you're into in convergence.

For example, you quote, from the recent book The Social Life of Information, “...warn against paying too much attention to these confident and frequently wrong prognosticators.” I can't use that quote in the context of what I'm about to say, except that to me that's exactly where I see myself sitting, relative particularly to Mr. Kimber's assertion about convergence.

AOL Time Warner just suffered a $54 billion loss. BCE, which took over The Globe and Mail and CTV, has just suffered a massive setback. The prognosticators and the forecasters like yourself who are saying, “This convergence is a terrible thing; it's going to grow; it's going to stifle everything in sight”, in the face of a $54 billion loss for AOL Time Warner and the virtual disintegration of BCE, it strikes me, are suggesting an intellectual argument when in fact the marketplace--what real life is for the companies that have engaged in this convergence activity--is, to use the quote back at you, warning “against paying too much attention to these confident and frequently wrong prognosticators” as well--only in the opposite direction to what you're suggesting.

How can we, as politicians, end up dictating what news organizations are going to be doing? Do you really want the Government of Canada and elected politicians to be dictating what's going on in newsrooms--I mean, really? Isn't the marketplace going to end up taking care of itself, particularly on the basis of these absolutely gigantic losses and maybe a liquidation of companies, in any event?

Á (1105)

Prof. Stephen Kimber: I think the AOL Time Warner and the BCE situations are indicative of the fact that the prognosticators, which were primarily those media companies, were wrong in terms of what would happen with convergence, certainly in the short term. I'm not arguing they may not be right in the long term. I think these situations support the quote Bruce read in his comments. I also think that in newsrooms they've paid a huge price already for this belief in convergence--this sense that it is the only way to go, that you can merge and converge and make great profit--and the people who will pay for the failure of it will be in the newsrooms and, therefore indirectly, beyond that, among the public.

I don't want the government in the newsrooms, but I think where the government has a role is in policy. We should be saying we want competition in the marketplace and competition among media; therefore, we will have regulation on cross-media ownership. That doesn't get you into the newsrooms. That, in a sense, protects the newsrooms from the problems.

Clearly, competition makes a big difference. If you look at The Globe and Mail today compared with The Globe and Mail ten years ago, it's a much better newspaper--because of the National Post, in large measure. The same is true here in Halifax with the Halifax Herald. It's a better paper today because the Daily News came onto the scene. But I think in terms of cross-media ownership, there is a role for government to play in setting policies about what is acceptable and what isn't.

Mr. Jim Abbott: As a Canadian Alliance member of Parliament, I'm not really crazy about Asper and his Liberal leanings, and so on and so forth, either. Let's be clear. But we'll also recall that when the National Post was started and the Southam chain was consolidated, Conrad Black at that point was the villain du jour. Now it's the Aspers who are the villain du jour.

With this whole issue of the encroachment of print media into the broadcast media, which is our concern--which is what we're engaged in here--it seems to me if an owner decides they are going to be putting in one of 35 editorials on a national basis, it is hardly an overkill. Let's be clear. They want one editorial out of 35 across the country. I'm not really uptight about that, because if you take a look at what Black did, he was the first person who insisted that on the editorial page you have two completely conflicting points of view side by side. And to this day that continues in the National Post.

I guess where I'm coming from is I think the people of Canada are very intelligent people. They are understandably and justifiably cynical and analytical about reporters, about journalists like yourself, about politicians like myself. I'm very frustrated with this, and I need you to help me understand how the marketplace and the intelligence of Canadians isn't going to take care of this issue.

Prof. Bruce Wark: Mr. Abbott, I prefer not to talk in terms only of the marketplace. That is the area where we talk about consumers and their choices among media. I prefer to talk about citizens and democratic theory. We've had the Senate committee, the Davey commission, and we've had the study of the Royal Commission on Newspapers, both affirming in strong terms that we must prevent too much cross-ownership of media--in fact prevent it all, except in certain circumstances--precisely because of that risk to citizenship of a lack of diversity in views, which we're seeing now in the Asper newspapers and the Asper broadcasting outlets.

This democratic theory is not rocket science. It goes well beyond the marketplace and it relates to a diversity of views. My quote from Frank Scott, the distinguished legal scholar.... The free public debate and opinion, which is essential in a democracy and which we are not doing enough as a country to safeguard.... Certainly they are not doing enough in the United States and other major industrialized countries. This is the challenge we're facing.

We have the CBC, fortunately. That is one thing we could do immediately--strengthen the CBC as an alternative and as a competitor to these private broadcasters, so that we have what is traditional in the Canadian broadcasting system, a mixed system with the widest possible diversity of news and views.

Á (1110)

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: It is very important that the committee study the problem brought up by Mr. Kimber and Mr. Wark. We have tabled a letter with the Chairman, asking that the committee, in its study of the act, examine the concentration of the written media and its effect.

This morning, you have given us examples and spoken about a situation such that the concentration of the written media has brought about not a diversity of voices but rather a single viewpoint.

When we were in Winnipeg, I asked Mr. Asper a question with regard to editorials. Apart from the matter of editorials, I believe there is also the question of the ideology within certain boxes, such that bureau chiefs would tend to choose reporters who more or less share management's opinion or who at least would fall in with the dominant ideology of the corporation. In my opinion, this situation is most damaging. The problem is not just limited to editorials, as Mr. Asper's corporation seems to be saying; there is all sorts of contamination inside. I believe that this has very perverse effects on freedom of expression.

I wonder if, as MPs, we have the power to undo financial agreements between corporations. How can we go about finding solutions to better define the freedom of the press within a corporation that owns several media outlets? We cannot tell Mr. Asper that he can no longer manage his corporation the way he is. But, at the same time, how can we go about ensuring that this entity remains? In your view, would it be possible to establish certain benchmarks, a tribunal, for example, that reporters could call upon if they are being pushed out the door of the corporation, while at the same time allowing the corporation to continue to exist? Is that doable in your opinion?

[English]

Prof. Stephen Kimber: I think we can't abandon the need to do something because all of these things have happened already. If you go back, we've had a Senate committee, a royal commission that has looked at these issues...and at that point things weren't nearly as bad as they are now. I think we have to decide at some point--and some point should be now--that we need regulations on cross-media ownership.

We need to do things that will reduce the impact of concentration. I think a tribunal where journalists could go might get us too far into government regulating the internal workings of the newsroom, which I don't think anybody really wants. I think we have to operate at another level, which is the level of the question of ownership. Can this be imposed? I think probably it can. I think the company can be instructed to divest itself; there can be ways of making those kinds of arrangements. It's gotten past the stage now where we can simply keep having parliamentary committees or royal commissions look at the issue and then not doing something about it. I think now we actually have to do something. I don't know if that answers your question.

Á (1115)

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes and no, but I believe that what you are telling me is that we should be very vigilant as to these effects; we are beginning to discover that they can be quite damaging. Clearly, in the beginning, people were enthusiastic and did not know what this would lead to; but today, in my opinion, we are seeing the negative impact of concentration. We have asked the Chairman for a task force. In the beginning, we were somewhat reticent; we thought that this would be like taking the Asper family to court.

When we visited Globemedia, I asked a question on freedom of the press for the Globe and Mail, and the answer I was given was that the Globe and Mail was a good family. I believe that this should not be analysed in terms of families that are open or not to freedom of expression; rather, we should be looking at this much more broadly because tomorrow morning it will not be the same family that will be the owner, and the new family might be more restrictive as to freedom of expression.

I believe it is important that people such as you, who are active in the field and who feel the effects, express your viewpoint.

The Chair: Yes, I know, but...

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You made quite an introduction, but...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Kimber, go ahead.

Prof. Stephen Kimber: I'm sorry, my translation didn't work on that particular question. Bruce, can you...?

Prof. Bruce Wark: Yes. I would say two things. We should not put the Aspers on trial. They are only one manifestation of a problem that is always there. It was there in 1970 to a more limited extent. It was there again in the eighties when Kent looked at it. Instead we need to look at it in a broader way. What is happening is, in Lord Acton's famous dictum, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What is happening is that when you give over too much power to one particular group of owners of about a dozen rich men, you are inviting them to exercise that power in the way they see fit. There's nothing strange about their doing so. I think if you or I were the media moguls, we would be tempted to do the same. But one thing you can do is make sure the public sector of broadcasting is not weakened. In countries where there is a strong public sector--and I think of Great Britain--the private sector is often better too, because the public sector sets the standards.

So I would urge you--perhaps grappling with ownership issues is a longer-term thing--in the short term, what the committee could do is recommend that the CBC be given the resources to carry out its proper function in competition with the private sector.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Let me first agree that we have a strong CBC. Mr. Kimber has made the case with the Middle East crisis. I think one thing that has really shone through is CBC's coverage of the Middle East crisis. It's something we should be proud of as a nation, the way they've looked at that crisis.

Let me go back to what Mr. Abbott was speaking of, though.

Back through the 1990s, as convergence really took on a life of its own, I guess everybody sort of looked over the fence, and I don't think they had a great deal of faith in the prognosticators. Everybody felt that they had to grab this and grab that. They didn't know what the end result was going to be between technology and what have you, so everybody just grabbed as much as they could, and now I guess it's starting to rationalize itself and sort itself out.

What I'm getting from your testimony is that you're more fearful that the convergence was less a function of business and a function of the market and more of editorial control. Do you see now with the recent events, with AOL and Time Warner, and BCE and the losses experienced there, that maybe such isn't the case, that it was more or less just them trying to establish themselves in the marketplace?

Á (1120)

Prof. Bruce Wark: When we're talking about technology, things were brand new in the 1990s, or they seemed to be. But that's not really the case. That's an illusion.

I think back to--and I mentioned him in passing in my speech to the committee--the great Canadian communications scholar Harold Innis, who died in 1952, before the introduction of television in Canada, but who warned very prophetically about the concentration of media power from the centre out to the margins. Canada, in Innis' terms, was a marginal country to the United States' media megalith, that huge engine of media that is the United States.

From our marginal position, we can see certain things here. We can see the effects of homogenization of media, of cultural homogenization, of a lack of diversity, those kinds of things that have been called the “Disney-fication” of culture, and so on. We're talking specifically about that part of culture that we call news, or current affairs, or public affairs, which is related directly to charter rights and democracy, where journalists act not just on their own behalf but on behalf of the public, to bring to the public news and views but also to give individuals a voice.

Our media, whether it be television or radio, those centralized kinds of media that Innis warned about, have the tendency to consolidate and centralize power in the centre. We're seeing that very much with what's happening with CBC today.

So there needs to be a counter-thrust from public policy, in legislative terms, in parliamentary oversight of the CBC, to make sure these centralizing tendencies, whether of more modern, converged technologies or of television itself, or of radio, don't take over in a completely centralized form.

It is not a new problem. It goes back a long way.

The Chair: Mr. Wark....

Prof. Bruce Wark: Sorry. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much for coming here today. I'm very glad we're in the Maritimes right now, because we're learning things every minute.

We were in Newfoundland yesterday, in St. John's, and we saw up close and painfully the impact of cuts to the CBC. A place that had 10 local programs in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s has no local programs now. Rogers Cable is providing three hours of local programming, called Out of the Fog, quite apologetically wishing there was still a real public broadcasting presence there.

Now we are in another very special part of the Maritimes--Halifax--where we have some very critical issues happening, and the people we have before us now are right in the middle of them. It has to do with diverse voices. So let's not worry about the platform right of way. Let's just talk about the fact that Mr. Kimber is a professor at the university, and so is Bruce Wark, in journalism, but both of them....

Bruce Wark has been a national reporter for the CBC, a producer of Media File, and has seen the cuts to the CBC close up; and Stephen Kimber has left the Daily News.

Stephen Kimber is not alone in leaving theDaily News. He left on issues of principle, as did Stephanie Domet. Peter March, who was a professor at Saint Mary's and used to be the Halifax resident philosopher, left also because he was not able to express his views. Parker Barss Donham left because of problems with the CBC cuts and with the concentration of ownership.

So we have right here a brewing pot of this problem, and it's not one we should shy away from.

But to keep it focused on broadcasting, I would like to ask you--because both of you are working now with young people who are choosing as a profession to be workers in news and current affairs, and given the situation that now exists in the city where they're training--what are the platforms that exist for them to have diverse views? Surely they must feel pretty grim at this point, given the fact that one of their profs has left the only journalistic print organ in the city. What is the future for them? And what is the future for you two very mature, very valuable, and diverse voices in the broadcast media?

Á (1125)

Prof. Bruce Wark: Wendy, I would say that I'm optimistic and pessimistic--it depends on what's happening. It's very hard to see. There may be a reaction to this concentration. That's what I'm hoping, that finally parliamentarians will wake up and see the devastating impact of this.

From a journalistic point of view, if you're working for, say, the Halifax Daily News, you are very aware of the restrictions on what you can say and the kinds of stories you can report. I know someone who spent a year working at Conrad Black's Ottawa Citizen, where the news agenda was very much set by a certain ideology and by what the editors thought would please Mr. Black.

When, on the other hand, you work for the CBC--and this is why I'm so big on the CBC; I worked there for 19 years on CBC-Radio and not once was there ever any editorial control from above or an attempt to exercise any kind of censorship. As a journalist, you were responsible in the CBC to your immediate supervisors and to your peers. That allowed the maximum scope for journalism and the exercise of your skills. That is less and less true now in the private media. So we emphasize that to students.

Recently, Palagummi Sainath, the Indian journalist, came to speak to us. He said as journalists we still have to work in the public spaces that exist in private media, because they still do. We still are aware of those public spaces in the Asper media, and it's still important to work within them and to fight to maintain what is left there.

Prof. Stephen Kimber: I think our students are basically idealists who want to work in the media, who want to do the kind of journalism they're capable of, and who will do it as much as possible within the context that they're allowed. It's a tough business to be in and it's a business in which people don't last for a long time, but it is still a worthwhile thing to do, and I think most of our students feel that way.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Professors Kimber and Wark. I can assure you we don't have to wake up; we're pretty wide awake in Parliament most of the time.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'd like to find out from these gentlemen the reaction to the concentration. Of course, as I've expressed, it's my belief that the reaction amongst the public will dictate what will occur. You don't necessarily agree with that, so therefore the statement you made about the reaction to concentration I believe was more within the context of what the political reaction should be. Maybe you've been clear, but I haven't quite totally understood it. In your judgment, what reaction to the concentration should the political process take?

Prof. Bruce Wark: Mr. Lincoln talked about the Broadcasting Act. I would say the 1991 Broadcasting Act is a good one and it should be enforced. That's the first thing. You have to make sure the CRTC, the regulator, is enforcing it. From my perspective, in the parts of the act I'm concerned about, I don't think they need a lot of tinkering. Enforce it. That's one reaction you could take.

The other is to go back and read the Kent royal commission report and consider some of the recommendations that Pierre Trudeau moved partway, in a minor way, to implement. Then he backed off them altogether when he got the concentrated opposition of the newspaper publishers of the day.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Professors Kimber and Wark. We appreciate your presence here.

I'd like to call on Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc. and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. We would like to welcome, on behalf of Aboriginal Voices Radio Incorporated, Mr. Gary Farmer, its president, and Mr. Melvin Augustine. What is your function, Mr. Augustine?

Mr. Melvin Augustine (Owner, CFTI-FM Big Cove; Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc.): I'm the director and owner of CFTI, a small FM radio station in Big Cove, New Brunswick.

The Chair: Mrs. Norma Augustine, you are in the same group?

Mr. Melvin Augustine: Yes, she is part of my communications group.

The Chair: Mr. Mark MacLeod is the director of development and licensing of Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc. On behalf of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, APTN, we have Ms. Catherine Martin, a filmmaker.

We'll start with you, Mr. Farmer.

Mr. Gary Farmer (President, Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc.): Good morning, members of the committee. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to make our contribution to your review of the Canadian broadcasting system.

As you know, my name is Gary Farmer and I am the president of Aboriginal Voices Radio Incorporated. Joining me today is Aboriginal Voices Radio's director of licensing and development, Mark MacLeod. I'm also pleased to introduce Melvin Augustine and Norma Augustine from Big Cove, New Brunswick.

AVR is concerned with the development of native radio broadcasting across Canada. I think it is appropriate that we meet with you here today in the Atlantic region, where native Canadian radio is the most severely underdeveloped.

Before I share my words with you about the state of the Canadian broadcasting system from AVR's perspective, I would ask Melvin and Norma to welcome you to the land of the Mi'kmaq and to share their knowledge of native broadcasting.

Mr. Melvin Augustine: Good morning to you all. Chair and members of the committee, I am honoured and welcome the opportunity to appear before you today and provide you with a native perspective.

By way of introduction, let me state my name. My name is Melvin Augustine. I am a member of the Mi'kmaq Indian first nation community at Big Cove, New Brunswick. At present, I operate a very low-powered FM radio station on Big Cove reserve, serving the membership of the first nation community and also a neighbouring first nations community near Big Cove. It is, I believe, the first such aboriginal radio station to be founded in the history of our province, and it broadcasts to its listeners, for the most part, in the Mi'kmaq tribal language.

The station was approved for operation by CRTC on September 20, 1994, and it has been trying to provide our 2,300-plus residents with important cultural and informational programming since that time. The station is controlled by a three-member, not-for-profit communications society--key community members interested in local, provincial, and national issues.

At present, financial and equipment-imposed restraints limit our broadcast programming. The community of Big Cove would very much like to see the operation--our building and equipment--upgraded to prevailing industry standards in order to ensure that the important voice of the people does not fall silent.

Big Cove is an Indian community that I'm justly proud of, but it's also a community beset by many social ills. I believe our radio station will contribute in a positive way to redressing these social conditions through fostering emergency preparedness; broadcasting that conveys information on suicide prevention and is generally informative; serving as an open forum on community issues; and acting as an instrument of cultural preservation that promotes our vision.

CFTI's responsibility is to provide a community-based, non-commercial radio service for people living in areas covered by our signal. CFTI broadcasts programs designed to serve the needs of those who are not fully served by other broadcast media. It will be a voice offering a wide variety of people an opportunity to share their experiences, concerns, and perspectives with our neighbours over our airwaves. Our principles will provide a broadcast service to listeners that is friendly, informed, and positive in spirit, while maintaining the highest standards of technical and programming excellence as a community-oriented radio station.

CFTI will predominantly broadcast programs that are locally produced, with a global as well as a local content focus. CFTI will seek the bulk of its financial support from its local coverage area. Its programming success will be its service to its listeners' community; that service will be measured through listener feedback.

As the voice of many voices, CFTI celebrates diversity in the community and its airwaves. It will seek to increase its diversity by striving to reach new listeners while maintaining service to existing listeners. CFTI is committed to volunteerism as an essential element in its operation and programming.

Á (1135)

It all sounds good and it looks good on paper, but without proper equipment and training, I feel our efforts are in vain. On the contrary, strategic considerations should be outlined that could have a significant impact on determining the outcome for the first nations radio here in the Atlantic provinces.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Mr. Farmer, in the interest of time, I wonder if you could perhaps highlight the main parts of your brief and concentrate on your recommendations, if possible, instead of reading it line by line. That will give members a chance to question you.

Mr. Gary Farmer: Of course.

I want to begin our comments today by introducing the Aboriginal Voices Radio. I certainly want to thank Melvin and Norma for taking the time today.

According to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1.4 million Canadians, or 4.5 percent of all Canadians, have aboriginal ancestry. This fast-growing national population currently has scattered radio service. In virtually all of Canada's major urban centres, where a majority of aboriginal people now live, there is no aboriginal radio voice whatsoever.

Aboriginal Voices Radio is a grassroots not-for-profit corporation founded in 1998 to address this need by facilitating the development of a national radio service. To date, the CRTC has granted the AVR a licence to operate the national aboriginal radio network, as well as a licence for flagship stations in Toronto, from which programming for the network will originate, and licences for over-the-air rebroadcasters in Ottawa, Calgary, and Vancouver.

AVR's next phase of development includes applications for licences to operate new stations in other major urban centres including Victoria, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Montreal, and Halifax, subject to CRTC approval. AVR ultimately intends to expand its national service to include 27 major urban centres across Canada.

I currently serve as the president and am one of the organization's founders. Since the 1980s I've helped establish many on-reserve, community-based radio stations, including my own community, CKRZ-FM for Six Nations near Hamilton, Ontario. I also led the team responsible for the development of the successful application for the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network and have served as a member of its board.

AVRN will launch this summer in Toronto, and in the fall in Ottawa, Calgary, and Vancouver. These four stations alone will reach over 11 million Canadians and an estimated quarter of a million urban aboriginal people. AVRN represents the culmination of years of hard work and planning by our dedicated radio team, with the input and support of hundreds of members of aboriginal, Métis, and Inuit communities across Canada. The development of AVR is a giant step toward completing a national native radio service.

The federal government has long recognized that the Canadian broadcasting system has a vital role to play in supporting Canadian civil society by reflecting our multilingual and multiracial character. This has always been the essential value of the CBC and the reason why the CBC continues to be recognized as an important investment for federal government funding.

It is for this same reason that a much more modest investment in native broadcasting can play a vital role in the long needed and currently absent reflection of aboriginal Canadians in the Canadian broadcasting system.

The completion of the native broadcasting system does not require any changes to the Broadcasting Act, nor to the CRTC policies that spring from it. It does require a modest investment to complete the development of native radio infrastructure, in order to deliver native broadcasting where it is not yet available, and an investment in the development of a self-sustaining national radio programming service that can reflect aboriginal Canadians and address their needs and desires.

I have a list of AVR's recommendations for you. In order to move towards completion of the Canadian native broadcasting system, AVR provides the following seven recommendations: one, that Canadian native broadcasting be recognized as a cornerstone of Canadian programming in the Canadian broadcasting system; two, that the priority of developing and maintaining a Canada-wide native-controlled broadcasting system is affirmed in federal government broadcast policy and legislation; three, that the essential value of both local and national components of the Canadian native broadcasting system be recognized; four, that the native Canadian broadcasting system receive a sufficient investment of government funding to be able to carry out its vital national cultural mandate; five, that the federal government establish a new aboriginal broadcast fund, ABF, that would provide an annual investment in the Canadian native broadcasting system; six, that each year the new aboriginal broadcast fund be allocated the equivalent of 4 percent of federal funding provided to the CBC--4 percent was chosen, of course, as an estimated percentage of the Canadian population that is aboriginal, for those who stand to be counted; seven, that the new aboriginal broadcast fund provide AVR with the funding necessary to complete development of urban native radio infrastructure within two years and to sustain the continued development of AVR into a high-quality national programming service.

This is a time of great challenge to the Canadian component of the Canadian broadcasting system. Converging technologies and other multiplying non-Canadian choices are diluting Canadian-relevant content. AVR and Canada's other native broadcasters continue to be dedicated to locally relevant Canadian programming. The Canadian native broadcasting system should be a place where all Canadians in every region of the country, rural and urban, French and English, can see a reflection of aboriginal Canada.

Members of the committee, thank you for your attention and interest. On behalf of AVR and other native broadcasters across Canada, I trust that my words were clear and that you have understood me. I welcome your comments or questions.

Á (1145)

The Chair: I think we have understood you very clearly. Your recommendations are well set out and they certainly are very clear in their intent. We appreciate it very much.

Ms. Martin.

Ms. Catherine Martin (Filmmaker, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network): [Editor's Note: Witness speaks in her native language]

I'd like to welcome you to Mi'kmaqi, to our territory.

I'm a member of the Millbrook Band, which is about 60 miles from here, and a member of the Mi'kmaq Nation. I thank you for the opportunity to present some of my personal views as a member of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, as the first and probably only aboriginal filmmaker using 16mm film and 35mm in the Atlantic region.

As an educator and as a person who has worked on many levels to effect change within private, government, federal, and provincial institutions, basically my presentation serves to support the recommendations you were provided by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network on March 1--not only to support those, but perhaps to try to give you more of a regional perspective on the situation here in Nova Scotia.

My notes, which I've provided to you, are just notes. The formal presentation is being presented to you later. I suppose when I looked at the criteria and the kinds of things this committee is looking for, I felt there was something that really needs to be heard if you are to understand from my perspective and a perspective that many people from within the first nations probably share.

You wanted us to comment on the evolution of the Canadian Broadcasting Act since 1928. I just pointed out in some of my notes that the evolution of the Canadian Broadcasting Act could never have, since 1928, ever involved a first nations--Mi'kmaq or Maliseet--perspective. It could never have evolved over the years with us as equal partners, since, in 1929, a year after the Broadcasting Act was put in place with the creation of Canadian radio, our communities were certainly not concerned about how we could participate in your act when our communities were fighting to keep our children from being taken to the residential schools here in Nova Scotia.

The year 1929 was the beginning of our struggle to maintain our identity, to retain our language, and to try to pass on the stories and the traditions and the things that our people needed to continue to train...and ensure that our language and our stories, the original stories of this land, were maintained.

To speak to how we may have evolved in this Canadian cultural fabric is like comparing apples and oranges; it's two roads. How could we have even participated up until 1960, when first nations Mi'kmaq people were only given the right to vote in Canada in 1960? The evolution of this act has excluded first nations people. We had a lot to catch up on when in 1960 we began to be heard and listened to as Canadian citizens. We have quite a gap.

While there's been quite a bit of progress in terms of including some programming in some way, some producers, some directors, some technicians, in the Atlantic region I could count on one hand the names of those people who have in any way contributed to the development, production, the technical and creative aspects of anything to do with the CBC, radio or television, in the entire Atlantic region in terms of first nations people.

I don't think it's enough any more for our stories to be appropriated by the finest broadcasting system that's available to us. That's not what we're asking for. We're asking to tell our stories ourselves, by ourselves, with the support of the finest broadcasting system. In order to do that, there needs to be a corporate cultural change within the corporate culture that exists within CBC.

While it is evident that there is a change, the change can only take place by looking at examples like the HRDC's example here in the Atlantic region, where HRDC and a couple of other federal government agencies partnered to bring first nations people into positions of management and senior management to work under the deputy minister or ministers directly, to begin to not only learn from the best and from the highest but to begin to have the ear of those who would help to effect corporate cultural change.

Until CBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Act includes and insists upon people being given that kind of place in this institution, under policy and regulation, all other attempts to make a change and have inclusion.... Really, if you do a study you will find that the only way is to bring us in as a partner at an equal level.

The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network has been a great response and answer to the needs of the producers, directors, and all of the aboriginal people who have struggled to make a living in this industry. But just because the Aboriginal Peoples Television has been developed does not mean that everything is okay and they're taken care of.

Á (1150)

When you look at the history and the number of years that we and the CBC and the act have been in existence and you count the number of full-time people in CBC or that have been brought in under policy, it's appalling. In this region it doesn't even make it on your stats. But I will tell you an interesting thing now happening with the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. CBC is seeking out our people to go to CBC. We're very proud of that at the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. We're proud of it and we're happy to see people move on. That's the whole point.

But we shouldn't have to prove ourselves first before we get in. We should be given.... As a first filmmaker here, Germaine Wong of Asian ancestry, who believed so much in getting some programming though the National Film Board produced by first peoples, took a risk on me back in 1988 and thought that perhaps I could direct a film. I say a risk, because people do have to take a risk and support us all the way through and be with us throughout all of the challenges that one will face when they go into an institution that does not reflect the faces and the languages and the world views they come from.

The only recommendation today that I'm focused on is corporate cultural change and how policy, how the Broadcasting Act, is going to do that. You've heard from Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. I fully support my fellow colleagues here today in saying we need to get up there in our radio, in our communications. In fact, we can be leaders. We can assist. We as aboriginal people can do so much for everybody. We've helped the northern broadcasters and communicators. Not just the CBC, but the independents have opened the north and have partnered and given the southern aboriginal first nations people not only a look but hope that you can do what you want to do against all odds.

In terms of affecting policy, I recommend that at all levels policy be in place to ensure that aboriginal and first nations people are at all levels--at the board of governors, at the senate. We need a lobbying party to be very strong in the lobbying end when Telefilm and all the other funding agencies that come from this act get out there. We need lobbyists to protect and increase and develop more for our people, for first nations. In the end, the stories of this country are not being told because it's the original people's stories that are lacking in this cultural fabric that we're trying to redefine.

Thank you.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: When we were in Winnipeg, all of us were very impressed with the thrust, the dedication, the impact of APTN. Certainly the idea of the Aboriginal Voices Radio, if it has the same potential for impact within the first nations communities, I think has to be supported.

I speak as a supporter of what we've been hearing this morning, but I'm trying to get this clear in my mind. As I mentioned to Mr. Farmer, I'm sure that I've seen him in other television productions, but the one that stood out in my mind was the recent time when he was in West Wing, where there was such a tremendous multi-million person exposure on probably one of the most popular programs in North America. When you're talking about the aboriginal stories not being told, it seems to me that we're up against viewers' choices to view what they are going to view.

Are you actually asking for, or are you actually suggesting, for example, in terms of the corporate cultural change and the stories that are not being told, that there should be more exposure of aboriginal stories on CBC? How would you propose we overcome this problem of people making the choices of what they're going to view?

Â (1200)

The Chair: Mr. Farmer.

Mr. Gary Farmer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're talking specifically about trying to...we've had no resources. I've tried to work within the CBC for years--on the Canadian history project, for instance, the one they spoke of in their presentation to you. They wanted me to be involved. But it's all a point of view of history.

I had a speech, as an actor, as a voice-over, about inherent right, and this particular character had a little comic introduction where--this is back in 1820, I guess--he said something to the effect of “Where are my presents? You didn't bring me my presents. Where are the presents, first, before we talk?” Later he goes on to talk about his inherent right to the land.

So when it came down to having to save 20 seconds out of this speech, they cut out the section about inherent right. I said to the producer-director, “That's the reason for the speech. That's the basic element of the speech that needs to be communicated, and you're serious here. Why don't you cut the little funny part at the beginning, about the presents?” And they said, “No, we can't. We're not going to do that. We want to cut this part--inherent right.”

I turned to them and asked who their cultural consultant was for the project, and they said it was Olive Dickason; I recognized Olive Dickason from the national aboriginal foundation, from John Kim Bell's operation. I asked where she was, and they said she wasn't there. I asked if we could call her on the phone, and they said no.

So I told them I could no longer participate then. I could no longer participate as the actor communicating that speech, because that was the essence of it. That was what needed to be communicated.

That's been going on for 25 years. I've dealt with that kind of thing all the time. It has to do with political view, and the fact that 50% of this land is still under land claim. That's the issue. It's very political for the CBC in relation to native people. What we need is our own broadcast system, and that's what I've spent the last 20 years doing.

Mr. Jim Abbott: But who is your audience? I guess that's really my question.

Mr. Gary Farmer: In our marketing surveys, 82 percent of Canadians said they would tune in to our national aboriginal radio broadcast--82 percent were in favour of supporting our efforts. Everywhere, every Canadian...Quebec is classically native people. I mean, Canada is native. Every city you have in this country is native-named.

You've come to this country, and you don't understand where you've come from or who you've come to. That's the essence of our networks, to socialize and educate the people in this country so they understand the relationship between native people and the Department of Indian Affairs, which Canadians do not know about. They don't understand that relationship, which we've endured for over 100 years. In order for Canadians to understand the relationship between Canada and its native peoples, they have to understand that issue.

You're my audience, sir.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay. I'm not entering into argument at all, but I'm honestly trying to understand this. Most radio is the background noise when somebody's changing the oil in a service station or when somebody's drinking a cup of coffee in a small café somewhere. That is where radio is.

I guess I'm questioning whether people would really be interested, over a cup of coffee or while they're doing whatever it is they're doing, driving to work or whatever the case may be.... I'm not suggesting for a second that your story is not of value, but I wonder if they would really be interested in dealing with the meat and potatoes. Aren't they more interested in just the background distraction, the background noise? Is your message really going to get through?

Â (1205)

Mr. Gary Farmer: Well, why don't we give it a chance? What's the issue with that? Let's give it an opportunity. This should have been done 50 years ago. We're 50 years behind here. We have a lot of catch-up ball to do.

Mr. Jim Abbott: What I'm suggesting, I guess, is that my own visualization of Aboriginal Voices Radio.... I want you to understand that I am being supportive, but my vision of it is that as much as you are able to communicate with the aboriginal people who are interested in listening to their own language on the radio--

Mr. Gary Farmer: Not necessarily. This is like the telephone fund. First you spend 150 years taking our language away from us, and now that we all speak English and French, you won't allow us to work in those languages. We have to work in our first nations languages in order to access the funds for film. You just kind of dick us around. That's what it comes down to.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay. I'm sorry, I--

Mr. Gary Farmer: And 98 percent of the music that's going to play on this aboriginal network has never been heard on any airwave in Canada. We're going to expose a whole new genre of music. I think it has a lot of potential.

Mr. Jim Abbott: So your feeling is that the disc jockey, speaking in whatever the tongue is, is going to hold the English-speaking audience with the music?

Mr. Gary Farmer: We have to develop a local community to nurture the language. We can't speak 53 languages on the air. Sure we can, but it's going to be incidental. That's why their work is so important. The low-power FM in the communities is what's going to maintain the integrity of the languages. We're going to communicate to all of those people in English and French and Spanish and incidental aboriginal languages that we can pick here and there from day to day--you know, words of the day in 54 languages. There's a lot of work to do, and this process needs to be sped up a bit so we can get to work.

The Chair: I'll let Ms. Martin make a comment, and then we'll go on to Madame Gagnon.

Ms. Catherine Martin: Who is our audience in terms of radio or television? Mr. Farmer mentioned that, first of all, we need to develop our community. Our community has to have access to their own community cables and then in turn be able to communicate with one another, with other communities on these cables, and with radio. We should not just have a closed community cable, but have it so we can communicate.

Robert Nault from the Department of Indian Affairs is spending billions of dollars trying to find out how he can get us all to communicate. Then the Department of Indian Affairs can tap into that to have a true consultative process, an opportunity to consult with each and every first nation on all issues. How do you do that? Well, you start at the community level. You provide the community with a place that's safe, that's done and taught by their own people in their community. They start to get a little taste for this industry and know they can do it, and then they move on and start to work in the industry and maybe even get out to the bigger guys later.

Our audience? Right now I spend a lot of time on the APTN board of directors. I'm on the executive. I'm very well known in my communities, in the community in the Atlantic region. A lot of elders come to me and tell me exactly what they want to see, thinking that I can go and do that for them, that I can go and put Joe's story from 1920 on that show tomorrow. But they also tell me they'd love to listen. They don't even care that they can't.... Some of them have a closed caption ability, but a lot of them don't.

You have to look at the economics of our community if you want to know who's your audience, who can tap into certain channels, certain things. The people love just to see the pictures of the trappers in the north, going around and doing the things they do. They love that. The elders are telling me they love it. They wish they could understand what they're talking about, but for now that's fine.

But the most important question, I believe, is who will be your audience. One out of every four Canadians born in this country is aboriginal. So I have a funny feeling, as we speak, that they will be our audience. One out of every four Canadians is our audience. They start to watch TV at age one week old.

So they are our audience, and who are they? They are people who are going to be computer literate and are going to know technology by the time they're five, because that's where we're all going as a society.

I'd say that aboriginal people are, and will be, a very big part of the CBC audience. In order to address your audience, you're going to need to make some corporate cultural change.

Â (1210)

The Chair: Madame Gagnon....

We're going to have to accelerate. If everybody speaks for five or ten minutes, we're going to run out of time.

So go ahead.

Ms. Norma Augustine (Educator, Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc.): I'm Norma Augustine. I've been a teacher in Big Cove for over 30 years now. I'll just be talking about community-based radio in Big Cove itself.

Big Cove is plagued with a lot of suicides. This afternoon we buried one of our 16-year-olds. We had our first suicide in 1993. That same year about 20 people killed themselves.

We thought we needed radio, as radio is the cheapest way to get into people's homes. But we need funding for our radio, as we have limits to what we can do. We've been trying. We need money for our radio programming to see and do what our people need, and to bring it to them. They need to feel good about themselves, to have role models, and to be educated. If our school system failed to educate our children, I say our community radio can do it--with cultural content and what we can be proud of. Things like that can be produced by our radio.

The only listeners who matter are our people at Big Cove. That's all that we can base our programming on. If other people benefit as well, all the better.

That's all I have to say, because I find that when we start dealing with the nation itself, we'll never get anywhere.

The Chair: Very well said, Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor.

Mr. Farmer, what you have said about freedom of expression touches me. Earlier on, we heard other witnesses talk about convergence and ownership concentration. People say that the CBC and Radio-Canada could perhaps be a model for greater freedom of expression, but you are telling us that your stories are censured when they are produced within the CBC. Ms. Martin tells us that their stories were being taken and reshaped. I would like to have more detailed information about the way in which these stories are highjacked.

I believe it would be preferable for your experiences to be told as you have lived them; in my view, that is how societies evolve. You therefore must place your debate in the context of freedom of expression, describe what you have lived through and tell us how you see yourselves as a nation. All of these issues that concern you touch me very deeply.

[English]

Mr. Gary Farmer: Merci. I appreciate your comments.

Yes, it's happened for years.

I've always been in the media business, either as a communicator in publishing or broadcast media. Of course, acting is how I sustain myself. Things became clear to me during the 1990 Oka conflict. Unbeknownst to the CBC, I used to go into the CBC Radio building on Jarvis Street in Toronto to edit my programs, when I used to work as a freelancer. I sometimes did this for Sunday Morning, although nothing I've produced for them ever got broadcast.

I used to use the facilities to edit and provide my programming for other community radio stations throughout the north and for some of the upstart stations in the Ontario region. Even though it was produced by CBC, it never made it onto the air. I would always give it to the local community to broadcast.

It became clear as I listened to Peter Gzowski day in and day out during that conflict, as he brought in French and English journalists to discuss our future and the conflict without ever including our journalists, our people. I was there in the very building but was never consulted. It became so clear to me.

I tried so long after the demise of Our Native Land, which was the only content CBC ever provided native people. It was a half-hour program; it used to be an hour program, but they closed it and closed it, and finally took it off the air around 1986, and never replaced it. There was that frustration of not having my voice heard.

Back in the old days, in the 1970s on the reserve, you could never get any media to come to your community to cover anything, unless we were voicing our opinions very loud in some protest or unless there was a murder or some kind of delinquent thing like chasing car thieves. That was when they would come down.

Outside of that, throughout the 1970s and 1980s we could never attract media to our communities to deal with some of the hard-time issues we were dealing with--not until they were able to exploit it at a level like that of the situation up in Labrador.

It became increasingly frustrating for me as an artist in this country that I'd have to spend my time not being an artist. I had to help develop systems to put in place to protect us and our lives. The right to communicate with each other is basic infrastructure for us, like roads, water, and housing. How can we even govern ourselves if we can't communicate with each other? We can't begin to govern ourselves until the communication system is in place.

I'm extremely frustrated. I can't believe that Indian Affairs isn't knocking down my door to help put the system in place, but they're not. We did all this without one government cent, and we have gotten this far. Aboriginal Voices Radio has had no money from the Canadian government, and that's appalling. I've had to suffer. It's been me who has financially put this system together, me and my partners here. We're the ones who are suffering. My family has suffered to put this system in place.

Excuse me, Chair, for being so frustrated.

The Chair: Please don't apologize.

Mr. Gary Farmer: I'm just at my wits' end as to where to turn any more. Now it's finally going to get on board, but try to find some support in the banking system to give us some bridge financing. We've heard so much about the filmmakers in this country, but trying to find bridge financing to launch an aboriginal radio network is impossible for us.

I'm thankful there's the 6 percent or the minus 1 percent we can access through the CRTC. They've been our biggest supporter. I know there are a lot of things said about them, but as far as native broadcasting goes, they have really brought us to the table here. It is only because of them that we are actually here today to speak before you, through their contributions and through NewCap Broadcasting in Newfoundland, who believed in our vision and stood behind us.

It's the private broadcasters who have helped bring us to the table, so I appreciate them and want to acknowledge them. I want to acknowledge the CRTC. They made a lot of recommendations about the CBC. We put comments in too about the CBC and about the frustrations I've been feeling, but of course when they were mandated out to the CBC from the CRTC, they were ignored by the CBC. They've done their best, I suppose, to upscale some training activities for native people recently, but that has just been under the pressure we've put on them.

Â (1215)

Ms. Catherine Martin: In terms of freedom of speech, I think there are two examples, but I won't try to tell the story here today.

I do want to just mention that my original time was slotted for one o'clock, but I was asked to share this panel. I was told not to worry, that this group would be willing to sit through lunch since I was accommodating you.

The Chair: Ms. Martin, that is so, but we've postponed two groups from this morning to one o'clock to allow for more time here.

Â (1220)

Ms. Catherine Martin: But I was the one o'clock.

I want to say it's very difficult for us to tell our stories in the required format of any panel hearing and within any already established format that doesn't fit with our ways. I don't know, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network is a great answer for some of what we want, although it is not the answer, and thanks to CRTC they sought to give that opportunity. But I think we always need to begin at the community level, at the grassroots level. It's a cliché, but it's a cliché that's worthy of studying.

You just heard from the grassroots voice that when we put the karaoke up at 10 p.m., after the traditional powwows, we have our youth just coming out and doing some amazing things, and people are just finding themselves by having an opportunity to have a voice.

In terms of freedom of speech, in terms of telling your stories in your own way, there are two examples that are very new that you can look to as a committee to study. One is after the Oka crisis, Alanis Obomsawin, our most experienced native woman filmmaker in this country, put together a program to speak about the stories behind Oka, and CBC did not broadcast it because it was said to have been one-sided journalism with a biased opinion. But when it won an award in Germany and became world-renowned for its journalism and the story it told, CBC was then shamed into putting it out and broadcasting it.

That's a story we need to hear. I don't know if the rest of the country wanted to hear it, but we are a percentage of the population and that's the audience.

That story has gone on to win awards all over the world. It didn't do anything bad to anyone to know that story. It might have made some different institutions look a little different, but that's the perspective. I'd say that all CBC wants to do is follow journalistic ethics, but how can you always be unbiased and have not one perspective or a subjective perspective? It's coming from another group.

The other example that you need to look at.... It's like I told you with ABTN. We train our people and then CBC wants them. Zacharias, a filmmaker from the north, has just put out an award-winning film. He told the story against all odds the way he wanted to tell the story. He fought, he argued, he scraped by to get the story told, and he won an award at the Cannes Film Festival. It was the first time a Canadian won that award ever. After winning the award at the most prestigious festival that most people would like to have won an award at, then his film became popular.

Why do we have to prove ourselves? Why isn't everybody behind us in the beginning? And that story is not told in your traditional way. It's very popular, and it's playing tonight if you want to see it. It's on at the Oxford Theatre downtown.

I'm just saying in freedom of speech, there are all kinds of ways to tell stories, and, unfortunately, among Mi'kmaq people, like many other first nations, our stories don't have an ending; they continue. They continue. We're taught to add to our stories, to bring them into today, and it's not in 24 minutes or 50 minutes or with a beginning, middle, and end. It's a very different way, and that is what I wanted to say about those two examples that are relevant for CBC and CRTC to look at.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Â (1225)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Perhaps my question is somewhat redundant, Mr. Farmer. It was going to be: have you been able to find a champion within the federal government to help with your cause? But as of yet, you haven't been able to find a friend, let alone a champion.

I have two Acadian communities within my constituency. A number of years back one started up an FM station. They were able to secure funding, but perhaps it was because it was all French. That's not where you guys want to go. You want to have a mix of native language and non-native language.

Would you qualify for those types of programs, or is the criteria too restrictive?

Mr. Gary Farmer: This document tells you how we came across our funding. It's not that we are not going to get some funding. It's just that it's a slow, painful process. If we have to go through this process as long as it has taken us to get where we were before we “radio-ized” native Canada, it's going to take us 20 years.

All I'm saying is that it needs to happen yesterday in order to deal with the issues in the local communities, such as suicide, diabetes, AIDS, and literacy. Those affect all of us, not just native people.

If you believe that indigenous languages are the true study of nature based on observation over centuries, there's knowledge there that's really important to us as Canadians. As you know, in 1977 Hamelin cut the country in half and said that only three aboriginal languages would survive to 2000. Of course, we still have 54. We want to maintain those languages. That's the basis of the integrity of the people. That's what's going to lead them into the future. We understand that now as a state.

But we need some support in order to get this system in place right across the country, because for the first time we're going to have programming. I have set up a lot of community-based radio stations. I realize that it's going to take 10 or 15 years for that station to be able to feed the social fabric of the community. Where are they going to get the money for programming if 250 people are sustaining the radio station? That's not enough to enable a station to produce programming that's relevant to the social fabric of that community. That's when it became obvious that we would have to go to the large urban centres and sell national advertising, especially to the government, because they're trying to reach us, and that was how we would sustain programming in the smaller communities. We need basic infrastructure to set up those small communities to receive our signal. That's the kind of support that really needs to be sped up. It's going to take too long. The need is now and it's so pressing.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: You talked about the volunteer support at the station, but have you had some success commercially?

Mr. Melvin Augustine: Since last September, 14 clients have come to me and expressed interest in fundraising for their organizations, such as the Christmas Daddies, International Pow Wow 2002, and Youth Initiative, just to name a few. Those 14 organizations are fundraising by my selling air time to them at the actual cost. We've generated over $500,000 in revenue by selling air time. And all of these are non-profit organizations.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Lastly, is there a station in Eskasoni? Are they moving forward? Would you guys know that?

Mr. Melvin Augustine: Yes. CICU is owned by Greg Johnson.

Â (1230)

Mr. Gary Farmer: We expected them today, but they're unable to make it. They were going to be here with us.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I want to thank you for coming here. I'll just make a quick comment. I hope you don't have to spend a whole lot of time dealing with red herrings such as who is going to be your audience for your broadcasting, because it clearly has been stated thousands of times. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has stated very clearly that the government, including aboriginal government, recognize the critical role of the independent aboriginal print and broadcast media in the pursuit of aboriginal self-determination and self-government. It has been written and has been spoken. Thousands of people across the country have made submissions on this issue. It's something that this government has to finally come to grips with.

The New Democrats completely support the recommendations of the RCAP report. It's clearly way past time that there is a very strong mandate for aboriginal programming in this country. That's all.

Mr. Gary Farmer: Thank you. Merci.

The Chair: Mr. Farmer, Ms. Martin, and colleagues, I think your message is a very, very powerful message, and I think you articulate it extremely well.

I know from trying to help some young aboriginal producers, Jennifer Podemski and her partner Laura Milliken, to try to find funding--she's looking for funding now for the third episode of Seventh Generation--how difficult it is to go from ministry to ministry and spend so much time trying to get $50,000 here, another $50,000 there. So your recommendation of some fund that would be dedicated to aboriginal broadcasting is really an interesting one.

I would like to get a few practical figures, so that we know what we're talking about. From what I read in your brief, you raised $4 million. Then you were saying you would need another $6 million to really do what you would want to do. Is that correct?

Mr. Mark MacLeod (Director, Development and Licensing, Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc.): Yes. As Gary said, it's an issue of the speed of the incremental change--of the incremental development. That's really what it's all about. As Gary said, we've done this with no support up until now . Really we're here today not because we have to--we're going to keep going--

The Chair: I understand.

Mr. Mark MacLeod: --but because the funding, that $6 million, is essentially a giant step forward. We can do in two years what otherwise we project is going to take us 10 to 20 years to do.

The Chair: But should the aboriginal fund get 4% of what CBC gets, roughly looking at it, it seems to me that would be $35 million, $40 million, somewhere around there.

Mr. Gary Farmer: We are just channelling a proposal to the federal government. It's in the neighbourhood of $6 million right at the initial kick at the bucket and then $7 million a year for seven years. So it totals actually $55 million, which is the exact cost of RCAP. It's the same figure--about $55 million--over the next seven years. That is what we are putting forward to the federal government.

The Chair: But it would be interesting for us to know, for instance, if you had a separate fund, how much you felt, talking about television and radio--

Mr. Gary Farmer: Currently, the television portfolio is at $1 million, and it has to be in the aboriginal language.

The Chair: APTN's budget is now $23 million plus or minus, I think, and yours is $4 million. It would be interesting to know how much an envelope would have to carry to help significantly radio and TV.

Mr. Gary Farmer: I think idealistically 10% of what you're kicking in for CBC would be sufficient. But in that neighbourhood would be good. I think we could really get something going then. That's reality, right? I also want to let you know that I don't think any proposal from APTN has ever been funded by Telefilm and/or CTF.

In fact, probably the biggest mistake made by that fellow who was first up here was to go for an APTN licence, because they've never been funded through the current system. That's just the way it is. There is a cultural arrogance we need to kind of break through. It's really difficult for us. It's the bulk of our problem.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Ms. Martin, we'll go to you.

Ms. Catherine Martin: There's something I would just love to leave with everybody. Ryerson has a new fund. They're listening to the senior--and we're seniors in the industry--producers and directors saying we need professional development opportunities. We're spending a hell of a lot of time running around helping everybody get that in there and finding ways, but on the professional experience--as young as some of you think we are--we still need our own opportunities. As Gary said, when will he get to actually be the artist he is and contribute to the cultural fabric?

I ran a program through the community college and trained seven aboriginal people to edit on non-linear systems because the industry in this city was screaming for editors. They were trained on non-linear systems and couldn't get assistant editing positions with anybody anywhere, let alone get access to Telefilm money. We have a different base. A lot of us are tax exempt, and the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation and Telefilm are a rather different language to us.

But there's one thing I'd like to say. Let's start with 10% of the budget. It wouldn't be separate; it would be parallel, in partnership with an agency, an institution, under a policy that is already working for most Canadians. It would make sense, if we had a 10% budget, that some of it would go to having a real lobby group, to make sure wherever else there was money we could have it.

But all of the criteria would have to be developed and designed by us. We need to be the writers of how you use this kind of money. A percentage of it would have to go toward training at the elementary, junior high, and high school levels, with post-secondary programming--none of those schools, but just community training. There's no sense in having these facilities if they don't come in. So training is the section I'd work on.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you all very much for appearing here today. We've heard your messages loud and clear.

Mr. Gary Farmer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We just want to add that we would be happy to provide your researchers with a further breakdown of our suggested fund, if you'd like.

The Chair: Absolutely. I think that would be important. Thank you.

Mr. Gary Farmer: Thank you.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.