;

HERI Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 2, 2002

0900

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

0910

Ms. Christiane Vaillancourt (Municipal, Industry and Community Relations, Rogers Cable Inc.)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Marshall (Vice-President and General Manager, Atlantic Region, Rogers Cable Inc.)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Marshall

0915

0920

The Chair

Mr. Ken Marshall

0925

The Chair

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

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt (Manager, Publicity & Promotions--Rogers Television, Rogers Cable Inc.)

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Mr. Ken Marshall

Mr. Abbott

0930

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Mr. Pierre Fortin (Regional Station Manager, Rogers Cable Inc.)

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Mr. Ken Marshall

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

0935

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Pierre Fortin

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

0940

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

The Chair

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

Mr. Ken Marshall

0945

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Ken Marshall

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

Mr. Ken Marshall

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

0950

The Chair

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

Mr. Ken Marshall

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

0955

Mr. Ken Marshall

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Mr. Ken Marshall

1000

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Ken Marshall

The Chair

1005

Mr. Robert Thibeault (President of the Local Émilie-Leblanc Section, Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick)

1010

1015

1020

The Chair

Mr. Robert Thibeault

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1025

Mr. Robert Thibeault

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1030

Mr. Robert Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Robert Thibeault

Mr. John Harvard

1035

Mr. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Robert Thibault

1040

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Robert Thibeault

1045

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Robert Thibeault

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Robert Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marie Pitre

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marie Pitre

The Chair

1050

Mr. Jean-Marie Pitre

The Chair

Mr. Roland Bryar (Director General, Association des radios communautaires acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick)

The Chair

Mr. Roland Bryar

The Chair

Mr. Roland Bryar

Mr. Daniel Levesque (Coordinator, “Radio Miracadie”)

1055

1100

1105

1110

The Chair

Mr. Roland Bryar

1115

1120

The Chair

Mr. Gilles Arsenault (Director, Radio Beauséjour Inc.)

1125

1130

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Roland Bryar

Mr. Gilles Arsenault

1135

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Gilles Arsenault

Mr. Roland Bryar

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Roland Bryar

1140

The Chair

Mr. Gilles Arsenault

Mr. Daniel Levesque

Mr. Roland Bryar

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Gilles Arsenault

Mr. John Harvard

1145

Mr. Gilles Arsenault

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Gilles Arsenault

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Gilles Arsenault

Mr. John Harvard

M. Gilles Arsenault

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Daniel Levesque

Mr. John Harvard

1150

Mr. Daniel Levesque

Mr. Roland Bryar

Mr. Daniel Levesque

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Daniel Levesque

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Gilles Arsenault

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Gilles Arsenault

The Chair

1205

Mr. Alf Walker (Individual Presentation)

1210

1215

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Flanagan (Individual Presentation)

1220

The Chair

Mr. Maxim Atanassov (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

Mr. Maxim Atanassov

1225

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Abbott

1230

The Chair

Mr. Alf Walker

The Chair

Mr. Alf Walker

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Flanagan

Mr. Maxim Atanassov

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1235

The Chair

Mr. Maxim Atanassov

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Maxim Atanassov

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Maxim Atanassov

1240

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Patrick Flanagan

Mr. John Harvard

1245

Mr. Patrick Flanagan

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Flanagan

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Patrick Flanagan

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill

1250

Mr. Patrick Flanagan

The Chair

Mr. Patrick Flanagan

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 060

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 2, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I would like to call to order the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, le Comité permanent du Patrimoine canadien, which meets today to continue its study on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system.

We're very pleased to welcome, on behalf of Rogers Cable Inc., Madame Julie Vaillancourt, who is manager of publicity and promotion of Rogers Television--bonjour, madame Vaillancourt--and Mr. Pierre Fortin, who is the regional station manager, Rogers Television in New Brunswick—bonjour, monsieur Fortin—and Ms. Christiane Vaillancourt. I believe no relation, right?

¿ (0910)

Ms. Christiane Vaillancourt (Municipal, Industry and Community Relations, Rogers Cable Inc.): I'm a distant cousin. We only now found out about it.

The Chair: Well, that's interesting.

She is responsible for municipal, industry, and community relations.

And we have Mr. Ken Marshall, who is vice-president and general manager for the Atlantic region.

We're pleased to welcome you.

Who wants to start? Mr. Marshall?

Mr. Ken Marshall (Vice-President and General Manager, Atlantic Region, Rogers Cable Inc.): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: The floor is yours.

Mr. Ken Marshall: We're delighted to have the opportunity to present here today, having hosted the parliamentary committee in Newfoundland this week and given a tour of the facilities. We're now taking a broader view of some of the concerns with the cable industry here today.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. My name is Ken Marshall and I am here in my capacity as Vice-President and Director General of Rogers Cable for the Atlantic Provinces. I would also like to introduce my colleague, Julie Vaillancourt, who is Manager of Publicity and Promotions for Rogers Television across the country, as well as Pierre Fortin and Christiane Vaillancourt.

Thank you for being here. Rogers enthusiastically welcomes your committee's study on the Canadian broadcasting system. As you know, the broadcasting industry has undergone significant changes over the last few years and continues to evolve at an incredible pace.

Here in New Brunswick, things have really changed. In fact, in the recent past some viewers subscribed to cable through small cable businesses such as Terra Cable, Kings County Cable and Câble Guerette et Fils. Others managed to tap into their neighbour's television signal by running cables from tree to tree. This is a fact.

¿ (0915)

[English]

Fundy Communications actually started to modernize the cable systems in New Brunswick in the mid-1980s, having consolidated most of the small systems and built new ones in order to upgrade them to a common standard throughout the province. But upgrading is a very a capital-intensive process, and Fundy recognized that they could not afford to bring the suite of services being offered cable subscribers in the provinces. We had also attempted to develop long-haul facilities in the telecommunications sector. So Shaw Cable took over the challenge in the fall of 1999, and then, through a transfer process, that challenge was transferred to Rogers Cable.

In the two years since Rogers has opened for business in New Brunswick, we certainly haven't shied away from the challenge. We've invested more than $90 million to enhance New Brunswick's communications infrastructure. The investment includes upgrades to the existing cable network, the construction of 21 transmission towers to improve our cellular telephone service here in the province, the opening of five video stores, and the relaunch of two community channels, one in French and one in English. Julie Vaillancourt will outline more on the community channels in just a few moments. We're also building a $30-million state-of-the-art call centre here in Moncton to service all of the Rogers Communications companies, which is scheduled to open in July of this year, and we'd be pleased to host the committee later this afternoon in touring this facility should time be available.

Our significant investment in the province has enabled us to offer many new products and services to New Brunswickers, including digital cable, high-speed Internet, impulse pay-per-view movies, and in the future we hope many, many more services.

Our investment has also resulted in employment opportunities for New Brunswickers. Rogers Cable currently employs over 345 people, Rogers Video employs another 70, and within five years it's projected that the new call centre will employ close to 700 people, and that doesn't include Rogers AT&T Wireless and the third-party retailers we use to assist us in distributing our products. That will make us one of the largest employers in this province--not bad for just a two-year stay in the province.

But as we make all of these investments and commitments to the province, operators from across the border, as we've seen, have been taking away business. In last week's buyer flyer in Saint John, for example, of ten advertisements offering satellite systems for sale, seven were for American systems with HU cards for either black-market or grey-market systems. We have no problem with competition, as long as there's a level playing field.

The selling of decoders in grey-market satellite dishes and black-market dishes is a huge business in New Brunswick due to our proximity with the American border. It's not only an Ontario phenomenon.

In a recent newspaper article, a Fredericton marketing analyst estimated that there are 3,000 grey-market TV satellites, not to mention black-market ones, in the capital region alone. It represents close to 10% of the homes in Fredericton. It's no longer a whispered secret in Moncton, Bathurst, and other markets. People talk openly and freely of black-market satellite availability.

As we all now know, last week the Supreme Court ruled that American satellite dishes, both black and grey market, were illegal in Canada. Rogers worked cooperatively with the licensed satellite operators. Other broadcasters, satellite retailers, film and television producers, writers, actors, composers, and everyone else whose Canadian jobs are jeopardized by the theft of satellite signals, believe unauthorized systems, whether black or grey, must not be allowed to operate in Canada.

Industry Minister Allan Rock said we're not going to have a strong broadcasting industry if people can steal. Swiping the signals from the sky is not much different from shoplifting or other forms of theft.

Any company wanting to do business in Canada must be licensed along the same lines as Canadian cable and satellite operators. We must have a level playing field.

Now that the Supreme Court has rendered its decision, we believe every effort of government, heritage, industry, and CRTC, should push the law enforcement agencies, both provincial and federal, to crack down on this growing epidemic. Just as illegal satellites threaten to undermine the Canadian broadcasting system, lack of funding for community channels threatens quality local programming.

I would now like to ask Julie Vaillancourt to explain the challenges facing Rogers Television in New Brunswick.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ken.

Rogers Television has a brief history here in New Brunswick, but already we're making an impact. In two short years, we have completely overhauled and relaunched the province's two community channels, Rogers Television, the English-language community service, and Télévision Rogers, serving the needs of New Brunswick's francophones.

[Translation]

Rogers has invested $1.6 million in community television equipment and facilities since their arrival in New Brunswick. Rogers Television and Télévision Rogers stations located in the cities of Moncton, Saint John, Fredericton, Edmundston, Bathurst and Miramichi have undergone changes and improvements in order to be able to offer first-rate local and regional programming.

We have hired local people. Our team now numbers more than 50 and includes producers, cameramen, and technicians as well as a volunteer coordinator. Moreover, we are actively recruiting volunteers and have established a training program in order to allow these people to acquire the necessary television production skills.

[English]

There are 387 volunteers now involved in producing local programming at Rogers Television and Télévision Rogers in this province. We're actively recruiting more. Thanks to our new recent venture developed with the Educational Partnership Centre of Greater Saint John, even more New Brunswickers will now be trained in television broadcasting.

I think, most importantly, in the two years since our arrival in New Brunswick, Rogers Television has demonstrated a commitment to local matters. The programming seen on Rogers Television and Télévision Rogers is as diverse as the places we serve. Our programming is timely and our programming is relevant.

Our information magazines, Focus NB and Momentum, provide the only comprehensive look at New Brunswick's daily information, sports, community events, and entertainment. There are also live call-in shows, like Melanson Live and Point de vue that let viewers have a say on local issues of the day, therefore creating a valuable local dialogue for the people of New Brunswick.

[Translation]

Each and every one of the programs presented on Télévision Rogers is a mirror of the culture and concerns of people in the region. The local perspective is our cornerstone. It is the common thread running through all of these programs which makes our service unique and essential to the 170,000 households that we serve throughout the province.

Our two local community stations are made imperative by their unique content, a content that is vital to all of these communities whether we are showing local news, broadcasting the junior hockey Calder Cup live, presenting meetings at city hall and debates at the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick or participating in the organization and broadcast of 30 bingo benefit evenings, which are significant fundraisers organized to help out the local Knights of Columbus and Lions Clubs.

We are proud of our achievements, and we want to do more. This is why we would like to encourage the redistribution of funds in markets where the cable distributor is running two stations in order to meet the needs of both anglophone and francophone communities. This redistribution would allow for a fair investment in order to serve bilingual markets.

Currently, 2% of Rogers Cable gross broadcasting revenues are dedicated to supporting local community television. In markets where Rogers operates two separate and distinct television stations, English and French, those revenues or funding must be shared between the two operations.

[English]

Currently, 2% of Rogers Cable's gross broadcasting revenues are dedicated to supporting local community television. In markets where Rogers operates two separate and distinct television stations, English and French, those revenues or funding must be shared between the two operations.

Rogers has proposed that 2% of the 5% gross broadcasting revenues be provided towards a production fund to assist cable companies operating a second community channel serving the needs of a minority official language in the same market. This proposal will directly benefit the residents of New Brunswick and will also benefit those of Ottawa, Ontario, and serve to form an essential component of a French language programming production industry outside of Quebec.

Rogers strongly believes the redirected funding, which would amount to $998,000 a year, is essential to maintaining and further enhancing the local programming available to bilingual markets. No compromises, no question, the additional resources that this fund will provide are key to sustainable local television in New Brunswick's two official languages.

In the digital world, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of channels to choose from--new channels. Ironically, however, fewer and fewer of those channels are dedicated to the local issues. At Rogers Television, local matters.

[Translation]

Télévision Rogers stations produce an incredible amount of exclusively local programming: 12,000 hours of programming per year, which includes 3,000 hours produced right here in New Brunswick by local people.

Every year, more than 14,000 community organizations deliver their message to regional viewers through Télévision Rogers. Some 300 community organizations participate in community television here, in New Brunswick.

[English]

Our mandate is to produce local, timely, and relevant programming to the communities we serve. It's a very big world out there, and it's getting bigger. It's easy for some viewers to get lost. Someone needs to show them the way home, and community television, Rogers Television, is here to do just that.

I thank you. Merci.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Ken Marshall: Rogers Cable's mission is to provide our customers with the most advanced entertainment and communication technologies available, at good value. It is just as important, however, for Rogers to support the communities we serve. Rogers employees strive to make a difference where they live and where they work.

Last fall, for example, 130 employees from Edmonton, Bathurst, Miramichi, Moncton, Saint John, Fredericton, and St. Stephen patrolled the streets in their neighbourhoods on Halloween as part of Rogers Pumpkin Patrol, to ensure children had a safe and happy Halloween.

Later in the year, another 50 or so employees spent a couple of Saturday afternoons hosting Christmas skating parties for disadvantaged children living in Saint John and Moncton.

[Translation]

At Christmastime, another group of employees showed movies for disadvantaged children in the Bathurst region. In February, staff in Saint John put together a skating team in order to raise money for MindCare, New Brunswick. Thanks to their fundraising activity and many laps around the rink, these employees raised $2,500 to assist mentally challenged people.

When Child Find New Brunswick came to Rogers for assistance with their office renovations, the Fredericton employees were quick to get their scrapers and paint brushes to help rejuvenate the old building.

[English]

As kids head to class in September, employees from across the province outfit the less fortunate with books and materials collected during the annual Rogers school supply drive.

I can go on and on, but suffice to say, Rogers provides community support through corporate funding, charitable activities, sponsorship programs, donations, major initiatives like Cable in the Classroom, and, as Julie explained, coverage of local community events on Rogers Television.

We are proud to play a role in the communities we serve. Can the black- and gray-market satellite providers say the same?

Thank you very much for your attention here this morning. We did have a brief video. Unfortunately, there are no facilities to produce it, but should you wish to have a copy, we can certainly make it available to the committee at a later time.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Marshall, et merci, madame Vaillancourt.

It should be no surprise to you that a lot of the presentations and the questions and answers during our study, which has lasted a year now, have related to local and community broadcasting. It's been a steady concern of people right across Canada. So we are really pleased that you've put the accent on this, and it'll give an opportunity to our members to concentrate on what obviously is a very serious concern on behalf of all Canadians.

On vous remercie beaucoup d'avoir fait cela.

We will turn now to questions.

Mr. Abbott.

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

There were a number of numbers you used, and I just need to get a little clarity. About how many dollars--would we say how many dollars or would we say what percentage of your gross revenue--would you spend specifically on local programming?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt (Manager, Publicity & Promotions--Rogers Television, Rogers Cable Inc.): The percentage value is 2% of gross broadcasting revenues currently.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay, so that was the 2%?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: That's right, 2%. That's existing.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Where's that spent primarily--in the studios, on the equipment, or all of the above?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: All of the above--studios, and equipment, which is expensive. To keep up with today's technology, our stations are outfitted in Betacam SP format, a professional format, so that has been an upgrade, particularly here in the Atlantic provinces. There are also non-linear editing suites, which are an efficient way to present local information bulletins, for example.

It also goes beyond the infrastructure and the facilities, if you will, to pay for professional staff. Although our stations in New Brunswick do involve 387 volunteers, those volunteers need to be surrounded by professionals to learn the skills, because a lot of these people come to us with some very enthusiastic attitudes, but the skill is not something you just pick up anywhere. So they have to be provided with very specific training. For example, here in New Brunswick we have hired a dedicated community television volunteer coordinator.

So it's all of the above. That 2% covers the purchase of video cassettes, tapes, sets, props, you name it--everything that goes into producing a television program.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Your people who are helping probably would be doubling in another capacity? They wouldn't be exclusively doing this job?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: If you're referring to the volunteer coordinator--

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, the volunteer coordinators and the trainers.

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: No. For the volunteer coordinator in New Brunswick, that is her exclusive role. It's one person. It is a full-time position. She has to crew some of our programs--bring in those volunteers, make phone calls, get them involved, provide the training.

You mentioned that in some other cases it's a dual role. It's a real-life scenario. The volunteers really appreciate the experience. It's not a classroom. When you come to Rogers Television, it's real. We have a show to put on the air.

So, yes, as a matter of fact, our producers end up doing some multitasking, because they're committed to putting on the show; the show must go on. But in the course of their daily activities, they do have exchanges and opportunities to work with volunteers and share their knowledge.

Mr. Ken Marshall: I'd like to add one comment.

I don't want to leave the impression that in every community it's strictly restricted to just 2% of the gross revenues, because in many small communities 2% would amount to virtually nothing to operate a community channel. So we do exceed that in many small communities and hope that the whole balances out.

Mr. Jim Abbott: That would be 2% of the New Brunswick revenue?

Mr. Ken Marshall: Right.

Mr. Jim Abbott: How many facilities do you have in the whole province?

¿ (0930)

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: Perhaps you can ask Pierre, our regional station manager in New Brunswick, to elaborate on the different installations we have. We have a number in the bigger markets. Pierre.

Mr. Pierre Fortin (Regional Station Manager, Rogers Cable Inc.): That's right. We currently operate six facilities in New Brunswick--Moncton, Saint John, Fredericton, Bathurst, Miramichi, and Edmunston.

We have some representation in other regions. For example, we have a camera in the Acadian peninsula. We also do some production out of Woodstock and Sussex. These are not Rogers-owned installations but partnerships with the local community college or school, or something like that. They've given us a room in their facility to set up.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Would you be at liberty to give us an idea of approximately what your capital costs would be? Or is that private company information?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: As far as Ken has suggested to me, we have invested $1.8 million since our arrival in New Brunswick. This includes a huge outlay of capital for building the fibre network.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm sorry, I'm thinking specifically of the capital that would be involved in this community programming. If it's company confidential information you cannot provide us, we would understand that, but if you can't provide it this second, it would still be helpful if it were made available to us.

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: Well, I don't currently have this information. I will make a note of it and we will provide it to the committee.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Is this community programming you're doing in New Brunswick unique to Rogers Cable? That I'm aware of, it is not something we have run into anywhere else in Canada. Is the community programming, and the obvious importance of it to your operation--at 2%--unique in New Brunswick to Rogers?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: I'm not sure which program--

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm referring to your community programming.

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: The fact that we have two stations?

Mr. Jim Abbott: No. Is the fact that you're doing 2% of your gross revenues on community programming--and you have the kind of impact you have in New Brunswick--unique in the Rogers system? We're accepting what you said to us totally at face value.

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: In my experience, what tends to happen is that the impact is phenomenal in smaller markets. It is very strong. You can mostly explain this quite simply. The broadcasters in these markets either aren't there or don't have resources to do hyper-local programming the way we do. So in New Brunswick it is a fairly strong phenomenon.

Mr. Ken Marshall: When we look at the Rogers world, New Brunswick and Newfoundland are unique because they are small markets. The 2% is a challenge. By the way, the 2% operating cost from gross revenues is just for the operating costs of the channel. The capital is provided by Rogers Cable over and above that. So the total cost is certainly more than 2% of our gross revenues.

In the smaller markets, it gets tougher and tougher. In markets like Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, and other large municipalities, 2% may be sufficient to operate a community channel. But throughout the Atlantic provinces it gets tougher and tougher. So we do push that envelope a little bit. In many provinces, such as Newfoundland, for example, I know we significantly exceed the 2%.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): You referred to 2% for community television. Did the CRTC not decide on 5% of revenues?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: No. In 1998, I believe, there were changes to the legislation whereby these percentages were set, and there was a reduction. We went from 5% to 2%. We have gone to the CRTC several times. In the markets where we operate two stations in order to serve both the French and English communities, we can only dedicate 1% to each of the two stations, for a total of 2%. This is why we are asking for permission to set up a local 2% production fund, for a total of 4%.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Currently, this is distributed not according to the percentage of each of the populations, but according to what each community represents.

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: That's correct.

¿ (0935)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Therefore, you allocate 1% to the francophone station without taking into account the percentage of francophones.

Mr. Pierre Fortin: The 2% is a fixed percentage and has no direct relationship with the population figures. For example, if only 30% of the population is francophone and we offer a community channel, it has nothing to do with the percentage received by the French station. It's a fixed rate.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: As regards the programming you mentioned, you said that French and English communities had access to community productions. Is the percentage of programming fair?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: It is perfectly fair. In fact, Pierre launched a whole range of programs in February of this year. We managed to produce programs that mirror each other in terms of format. Of course, certain subjects that might be very significant for one community might not be on the front burner for the other. That is reality: the issues that are important to the francophone community might be less so for the other community.

We have an English daily news show called Focus NB, and also a show that is the same length in French, a news bulletin called Momentum. This is a French show and it is broadcast daily.

We use the same format because the needs of the local communities are similar. People want sports and local news; they want to know what their artists are doing and what is happening on the local music scene. The needs are the same, but within that framework, there are different priorities. As a result, we set up a schedule that can meet those needs, and within these programs, there is some flexibility which allows us to put the emphasis where we need to.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: A criticism has been levelled at the community networks since the new policy was set out by the CRTC: the community channels broadcast licences are held by broadcasters such as Rogers and Vidéotron. Some people are telling us that they no longer have truly local community programming and that community television no longer reflects what it did in the past when it was independent.

Could this be said of you? What percentage of your programming is local? There are regional and national networks who create their own programming and then broadcast it in different locations. Therefore, there are fewer locally involved people to put together these productions, which are created elsewhere, at the national networks.

For example, there are a lot of programs that are made in a Montreal studio which are then broadcast in Quebec. People are saying that there is less local production being done, that people are less involved and that the station no longer has local facilities. People feel that they have lost a lot. Some community stations have had to shut down. Therefore, people in these areas are disappointed. In other areas, the opposite is true, and there has been a positive impact because the community networks and production teams have been structured.How do you see this change?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: Ms. Gagnon, at Rogers, we have changed our way of doing things somewhat. The reduction of percentages for the funds has been an unfortunate and difficult event for us, but in spite of that, we have managed to find a solution which seems to work very well for our system. We've created magazine-type programs that have given access to far more people. We seem to have been successful in training our teams and in giving them a mandate to organize things a bit better.

Therefore, we don't dedicate an hour of air time anymore to discussions of insignificant and boring issues. Make no mistake: no one wants boring television. It has to be interesting. Regardless of whether it is local, international, rock music or folklore, it has to be interesting. That is the key: it has to be local and it has to resonate with the viewers.

I think that our programming format allows us to make television more accessible to more people. More people come to us and our doors are wide open. People come to us with programming proposals and they suggest various subjects for news features.

As Pierre said earlier, here in New Brunswick, we have studios in six cities, but we also have cameras and we establish partnerships with organizations and schools in order to be able to go and see people in their neighbourhoods, where they live, at home, so that we can present the stories that they want to hear about.

At Rogers, the experience has been positive. People tell us that they appreciate our programming, through our talk-back line and our website. I think we've had some success. We could do more. If we had more resources, we could create more programming, but what we already have at the moment is solid.

Pierre, do you have any other comments to add to that?

¿ (0940)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You have not answered my question concerning the percentage of local programming compared to general programming. You referred to a number of hours, but that does not give the percentage of this programming in comparison with total programming.

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: As I was saying, here in New Brunswick we launched parallel programs in English and French in February. I don't know what the current percentage is, but I can tell you that in September, it will be 60% local and 40% regional programming. These programs are produced in one area and distributed throughout the province.

In New Brunswick, people have told us—and Pierre can go into more detail—that they are interested in knowing what is happening in neighbouring communities. Broadcasters may not have enough time or resources, but it seems that they never do enough. People want other options elsewhere and the local station provides them with local and regional programming from a New Brunswick point of view. We don't go beyond the suburbs. So, as of September, our production will be 60% local and 40% regional.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

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

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming today.

The way you talk about the community programming indicates to me the community programming you're doing is really not unlike what others are doing around the country. We visited other parts of Canada, and it seems your programming is not that different. I don't say that in a pejorative sense; that's just my evaluation.

One of the problems that at least I have when you talk in terms of percentages of revenues spent on programming, or when you give an absolute number like $900,000, is it's rather meaningless to someone like me, because I don't know how the money stretches.

When you say you spend $900,000, it means nothing to me. It's like talking about so many thousand cubic feet of water going through a pipe. I don't know whether it's a lot, or more than usual, or low--whatever--because I have nothing to reference it against.

Do you have information for us that indicates how much you spend on salaries and how much you spend on hardware, so we could get some sense of where this money is going and how it is being spent?

Mr. Ken Marshall: We can provide some information. We have to do that with our production fund summaries at the end of the year, so we can provide information on that.

Suffice it to say, though, in the community channel world, where we are trying to evolve the programming from the cooking type of show and fly-tying shows to these Focus NB shows--as we saw last week, Out of the Fog in Newfoundland, and Melanson Live--we're trying to really be a focus on the community.

And $900,000 is a lot of money in community programming in New Brunswick--in any community--because it operates on pretty much a shoestring budget, as I'm sure Pierre will tell you, with 370 volunteers in the province. We have 345 employees at Rogers Cable and 370 volunteers assisting us who don't have salaries, and $900,000 would certainly go a long way towards improving the programming efforts in the province.

But we can certainly provide the information we have to file every year for the production fund applications, and this should illustrate where the money has gone. Having worked in the business for 12 years and seen the challenges the community channels have gone through, I can assure you that the money's not wasted in community programming.

¿ (0945)

Mr. John Harvard: I'm not suggesting money is wasted. I just want to get a better sense of whether that's a lot of money or just a drop in the bucket, as it were.

Also with your programming, do you have a good printout on each program you're doing and information on your weekly or monthly programming so we could take a look at a sheet and get some sense of whether it's 20% cooking shows or 20% what's coming up next, sort of community calendar shows, which are quite low maintenance?

Mr. Ken Marshall: We relaunched the community channels in February. We can provide the full schedules we're currently involved with. We can probably send them over by the time the committee wraps up today.

Mr. John Harvard: The other thing is, we always hear a lot of talk about how popular these shows are. I'm sure for the volunteers involved, it's very popular with them and they feel they're doing something worthwhile, and I'm sure they are. Do you ever take polls of the shows and compare their ratings to your regular commercial programming?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: Mr. Harvard, we have done some trends research, not specifically in New Brunswick because we're new here and we had to really focus the limited resources on actually launching the channels and making sure the programming was sound. In Ontario, we have done some trend researching, comparing community channels to broadcast, and we have good results.

Mr. John Harvard: What's your definition of “good”?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: I'd be remiss to quote some stats. Again, it's trending information. It's very cost-prohibitive to do that kind of viewership research and it's not something we can afford to do. The research we have done shows that we have comparable viewership with some of the new digital channels, for example. The footprint is different, so that's what complicates things.

The viewership research mechanism in Canada is a national. It doesn't relate. You're comparing apples to oranges, really, with our markets and programming being very local, and in some cases at times regional in nature. The footprints don't match with the research. So the sample studies are very fine, and it's difficult. We call it trending information, at best.

Mr. Ken Marshall: If I can add to that, taking a regional perspective, the BBM type of measurements are designed for the broadcast specialty services to engage in paid advertising so they can talk to their potential clients about where they're getting best value for money. Community channels, which don't have advertising possibilities, are not included in those BBM studies, so it's difficult for us to do an apples to apples comparison.

From a regional perspective, I've been involved with the Newfoundland systems as well, and we have actually engaged a private researcher--actually, BBM did some of the studies for us. Some of the popular shows prior to this year--the local hockey team, for example--were drawing one out of three television viewers. Some community events were drawing one out of two, as were special civic holidays where we broadcast the proceedings.

So those specific research events over the past four or five years have shown us that a community channel is very well received when it provides information that is current, timely, local, and important to the local viewership. Out of 75 analog channels, it is the only one exclusively devoted to local matters.

Mr. John Harvard: I have one more question on advertising and promotion.

Commercial networks recognize the value in the advertising and promotion of their programs. You've said the programming you do is vital to the community. I accept that. Do you spend much money on advertising or promoting those programs so that people develop an even better understanding and appreciation of what you're doing at the community level?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: That's my area. I wish I could spend more. But the fact of the matter is we have to have shows in order to promote them. So we do spend a lot of money and resources and elbow grease spreading the word and making sure there are photocopies of our schedule. We have a website where people can go and get a detailed listing of the programming in their local areas. We've done some printed advertising, Mr. Harvard, but nowhere near what a traditional broadcasting station would do, with costs again being the issue here.

We take great pride in our community relations effort, and I guarantee you that every time we're out in the community, you'll see a Rogers tent and we have photocopies of our schedule. We really want to spread the word and let people know when they can watch our programming. As I said, the bulk of the money goes into that programming, so it's in our best interest to make sure people can watch it and know when it's available.

Mr. John Harvard: Thank you.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: I should mention, Mr. Marshall, that some of us couldn't travel to Newfoundland on Monday, so some questions might have come up that could have been dealt with in Newfoundland, and especially through the visit to your station there. So that might explain it.

Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.): I'm fairly impressed with one out of three TV sets being tuned into your junior hockey games. Imagine if you had a really good hockey team like the Cape Breton Screaming Eagles. It would be limitless.

A voice: We're going to get into that.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: We saw a great success story in community programming when we were in Newfoundland--Out of the Fog. And almost everybody who came forward to give testimony talked about what was lost with the CBC cutbacks, but almost to a person, they identified the success of Rogers coming in with Out of the Fog.

Do you anticipate moving toward that type of programming in the regions? Is the success of that just very specific to the Newfoundland community, to that area, or would something like that be tried in the other areas?

Mr. Ken Marshall: I think that speaking with Bruce Matheson and Pierre earlier as well...it's an example of where we pulled back. We have received a number of comments from people saying they would like to see...we used to do 10 shows, cooking, fly-tying, and music. We tried to do it, but you can't be all things to all people.

We wanted to pull back and create a show that was meaningful and relevant. The issue is, we're only doing one show, and we have a very heavy repeat schedule to ensure that it gets wide viewership.

The feedback we're getting, as we indicated, is...we're probably getting more phone calls and e-mails from that one show in St. John's than any other show we have in Rogers nationally.

So there'll be a long hard look to see if we can create shows that are in that type of format. I think Pierre and company in New Brunswick are doing a terrific job with a lot of the new programming, Focus NB and the Melanson Live show. They are doing a great job of bringing those community groups in and giving them an opportunity and a voice to explore those.

Again, the advantage here in New Brunswick is that we can create local programming, but we can distribute it regionally through the fibre ring throughout New Brunswick. We have a kind of provincial audience here in New Brunswick, so we want to create a provincial show, if that's the way we're going to do it.

In Newfoundland we have unique stand-alone systems, so we launched Out of the Fog in St. John's last year. We actually launched in Corner Brook, just on Tuesday night this week, Go West at Main, which is a show that will try to mirror Out of the Fog in a smaller setting in a community that's about 10% the size of St. John's.

So, yes, it is a focus in Newfoundland, and we would certainly take a long hard look at it in other communities in the province.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Let me follow up on this, and I appreciate Ms. Vaillancourt's assessment that there's $900,000... you're stealing out of that envelope of money and it is costly to do any type of measurement. Is there a time that viewers are more apt to tune in to community-based programming? Are those habits identified or are they more program specific? Or do we see nationally that more people might want to watch a community channel on a Saturday morning or a Sunday evening? Are those types of trends identified?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: Much like for traditional broadcast stations, our viewership tends to be in prime time; it tends to be from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. We get a small share of it, but much as it is for other stations, it is also a peak viewing period for us.

In general, though, Mr. Cuzner, I have to tell you that community television shines when things happen in the community. An example is the 1998 ice storm in Ottawa, which also affected eastern Ontario and western Quebec. In that case, the community channel, instead of shutting down the lights and sending everyone home, brought everyone in. We said, this is an emergency; this is important.

So in cases like that, people know where to turn. They know that there won't be any commercial interruptions; they know that we have the flexibility to just turn over our schedules to whatever issue is at hand and that we're out there and we really operate at a grassroots level.

So in cases like that, and in happier circumstances such as the Calder Cup, and Pierre can certainly elaborate on that.... When the Saint John Flames went to the championship, the place was sold out. People wanted to see their team--desperately wanted to see their team--and Rogers Television brought it to them.

In cases like that, there's no question that people in our viewership would likely respond accordingly, I suspect. Certainly our phone lines and our e-mails light up when that's the case; people appreciate the coverage.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Ken Marshall: I think the time of day may work to our advantage because the prime time viewing hours are 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. eastern, which is 9 o'clock to midnight here. So with people tuning in to the 6 p.m. national newscasts, and then not getting the prime time full network programming till 9 p.m., we have a good window between 6:30 p.m. and 9 p.m. in the evenings where we try to put our strong programming, because that's when we have the greatest share of mind.

The Chair: Great. Thank you.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming to the committee.

I want to start with the issue of the Supreme Court ruling that has closed the loopholes around grey- and black-market transmission, which I think is a very good thing. I understand there's an appeal going on, but hopefully that won't get anywhere.

It looks to me like there's going to be a huge new amount of money coming into the cable stations if that loophole is closed. So maybe you could talk about the additional revenue that is going to be coming to cable stations because of the closing of the black and grey markets.

I want to find out more about this CRTC ruling in 1998, which seems to have changed the act to allow for cable companies to go from 5% down to 2% in terms of their community responsibility. I have heard different stories all over the country about this; about whether they have to put in 2% or 5%, whether they can put in one part to CTF, or whatever. I don't know what the criterion is that says where they have to put it.

Finally, would you agree that there is a huge range in the quality of community cable programming being offered by different companies? We seem to hear that. It sounds like you're doing a good job, but as regulators, as a committee, how do we assure quality, which goes with the responsibility of having a cable licence? How do we recommend that? What's the language around that? It's a real struggle for this committee.

Mr. Ken Marshall: Let's start with the first question on the Supreme Court ruling. I'm not convinced that there's going to be a huge influx of new money. I know what's happened is that the industry has gotten very competitive, and we have no difficulty with that. We've long been calling for competition. We think it's good for consumers; we think it's good for us. It keeps us on our toes. We just want a level playing field.

One of the concerns, of course, is that if there's a non-level playing field.... There's been an injunction by the Ontario Supreme Court concerning the grey-market satellite operators, but we're not sure where that will go. In terms of what's been lost to date, for example, if you lose a thousand subscribers based on today's statistics, that's a fairly significant value in the company that's been gone.

And again, from a purely competitive standpoint, we have no problem losing customers to our licensed competitors if we haven't done our job providing good service to them. Hats off to them and congratulations.

However, I don't know if we'll see a huge new influx. We certainly hope we can provide the products and services. As you've seen here, for example, just in the first two years we've invested $90 million in the infrastructure thinking that hopefully customers will want to avail themselves of the services we offer and the new services we bring in. We've invested $30 million in a call centre to try to provide top-quality customer support.

So in the face of this black and grey market, we certainly haven't shied away, even without that Supreme Court ruling.

In terms of the production fund, my experience has been that with the change in ruling--the 5% or the 2%--the 2% applies to class I systems serving more than 6,000 subscribers, which primarily is where we operate community channels here in New Brunswick. The 5% would be for the smallest systems.

That's where it get challenging, because in a very small system of 500 subscribers, 5% of your gross revenue doesn't enable you to offer a community channel. Many times, operators would elect to send the full 5% to the production fund as opposed to trying to use it to operate a community channel, because it may amount to $10,000 a year, which is virtually impossible.

Systems with between 1,000 and 6,000 subscribers have a little more flexibility and may be able to devote 3.5% of their funding to the community channel. But again, in truly small systems, that doesn't enable you a terrific opportunity to properly fund a community channel.

But at greater than 6,000 subscribers, you're capped at 2%, and there's been an application go forward to lift that 6,000 subscriber limit to 20,000 subscribers.

Have you got anything further?

A voice: It's confusing.

À (1000)

Ms. Wendy Lill: It is.

Do a lot of people lose out because of these numbers? Do communities that just happen to be 100 below the cap not see the kind of programming you're seeming to be offering in some of the bigger communities?

Ms. Julie Vaillancourt: I can only speak for Rogers, Ms. Lill, but in Rogers systems I don't think they lose out. I think we have a presence in all the markets. In all the communities where there is Rogers Cable service, they have a community television service as well. But as Ken said, our services are class I services.

In going forward with requesting an additional 2% to go toward a production fund, in markets where we operate two distinct services those markets could certainly stand the additional investment in funding, to provide what will end up being an equitable service for both of those distinct communities.

The Chair: You may have one last question.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Could I just suggest to the committee that maybe we need a briefing on this whole issue of funding to community stations. We could get the CRTC to come in and talk about what kind of funding is being put into communities. Based on our own experience now, from going across the country, we have some thoughts on that and could probably challenge them on it.

The Chair: Mr. Abbott wants to clarify some information, just briefly.

Mr. Jim Abbott: If you could find it within your time, I wonder if you could give the committee something in writing on how you go about controlling the content. In other words, if you have people who come to your community channels and you deem that they probably wouldn't be suitable, how do you do it?

The second part, related to that, is this: is there any possible way, in your judgment--or what would have to be put in place--to expand to some kind of light local news, in other words, where journalism would actually be required?

We're out of time. That's why I'm asking if you could provide that information to the committee. It would be very helpful.

Mr. Ken Marshall: I'll quickly comment on Madame Lill's last question.

In terms of the quality, we want to be proud of the product we turn over. We don't want to turn over our cameras and our operators to just anybody who walks in through the door, because we want to ensure there's quality: our name is associated with it. We certainly want to work with every community group out there to ensure they have access. But access and quality have to go hand in hand, so we would like to retain some element of control, certainly.

We will have a look at that and provide you with some comments in writing.

The Chair: We have to break now. I would like to thank you very much for appearing today. It was an extremely useful session, especially regarding the testimony you brought about percentages in funding, which is the key to the existence and enhancement of local and regional broadcasting--a key issue for all of us. We really appreciate it.

I would like to mention, too, how impressive it is to find people who are so fluently bilingual they can switch from one language to another with so much ease. That's very impressive. Merci beaucoup. All the very best.

[Translation]

We will now hear from the representatives of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick.

Mr. Thibeault, if I understood what I was told correctly, you are on a tight schedule and must leave at 10:30. So without further ado, we give you the floor.

As you know, if you make a long presentation, there will be less time for questions, whereas if you make a brief presentation, we will have more time for questions from members; how we proceed is up to you.

Mr. Thibeault, you have the floor. If you wish to stay past 10:30, that's fine.

À (1005)

Mr. Robert Thibeault (President of the Local Émilie-Leblanc Section, Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick): Ideally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief presentation followed by a brief question period, but not necessarily because I'm on a tight schedule. However, I'll take whatever time is needed.

To begin, I must admit that I was not supposed to make this presentation. That's why, in fact, I should be in two places at the same time. Furthermore, I am not an expert in rebroadcasting matters. However, I will give this presentation.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of the House of Commons for holding these consultations on the state of Canadian broadcasting and the mandate of the Broadcasting Act.

We are here today to deal with the fact that it is important for the New Brunswick Acadian community to receive fair services from cable companies and satellite broadcast providers, as well as the fact that our regional characteristics should be fairly represented within the vast world of television.

It is in this spirit that we would like to present a series of measures which we believe will help remedy the discrepancies and unfairness which are still the bane of the New Brunswick Acadian community and all of Canada's minority francophone communities.

Our communities' vitality is largely dependent on the availability of adequate broadcasting services. Unfortunately, whether you're dealing with radio or cable or satellite television, the services provided to New Brunswick's Acadian community are a far cry from what the anglophone community receives.

In certain areas of the province, many francophone television stations, when they are available, are relegated to the 100-channel universe. For instance, the new English Canadian channels, such as the Life Chanel, Bravo and Musimax, are often available for the entire anglophone population of the province, but there is only a French equivalent in certain areas, and sometimes only in a single area of New Brunswick.

À (1010)

To this day, ARTV, the Arts Channel, is only available in one area of New Brunswick. The same situation holds true for a couple of other specialty francophone channels which are part of Télé Franco. Despite the fact that these are Canadian channels, they are not always available to the Acadian community, even though some American stations with similar content are available.

The situation is not much better with regard to satellite digital television. The signal of Radio-Canada's regional Moncton station was only picked up within Star Choice and Bell ExpressVu programming after carriers were given very strong incentives. However, the local station, CHAU-TV, which is part of the TVA network and located in Carleton, still is not part of Bell or Star Choice's programming.

The same thing is happening in public radio. CBC's arts station, Radio-2, has been available for ever in every anglophone area of New Brunswick. But as for its francophone counterpart, it has only recently been made available in the north, northeast and southeast parts of the province. The northwest and southwest parts of the province should be receiving a transmitter in the not-too-distant future.

The reason this will come to pass is due to, on the one hand, a long fight, and on the other, to the crown corporation's legal obligations.This all points to the great obstacles our society faces and to the tenacity which is needed to be heard in the area of broadcasting, even when the law is on your side.

I will now speak to Acadian programming on television. Since the drastic cutbacks were made to Radio-Canada's regional television programming, it is almost impossible for an Acadian from New Brunswick to identify with anything on television or in the movies. Virtually everything we watch reflects either the culture of Montreal, the United States or English Canada. We feel that it is the federal government's mandate to create legislation enabling all Canadians, whether anglophone or francophone, to have access to quality radio and television programming which reflects the wealth of Canadian experience.

As it stands, the situation is unacceptable because most of the big French-language networks have abdicated their responsibilities and view the minority francophone and Acadian communities as something which is never more than quaint.

I would now like to address language rights, broadcasting and community development. Under the Broadcasting Act, the Canadian broadcasting system must provide an essential public service to maintain and promote our national identity and cultural sovereignty. The same act says that the Canadian broadcasting system should safeguard, enrich and strengthen Canada's economic, social, political and cultural structure.

As for the Official Languages Act, it says that the federal government should promote the development of francophone and anglophone minorities throughout Canada.

Section 16.1(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

16.1(1) The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities.

These three facets, combined with the fact that the Department of Canadian Heritage encourages and coordinates the implementation of the federal government's commitment to official languages, eloquently demonstrate that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of the House of Commons should seriously consider making the Broadcast Act subject to the Official Languages Act in the drafting of its bill.

I will now make some recommendations on behalf of the SAANB. There are more than a dozen.

One, the law should stipulate that all Canadian television stations should be made available, as a priority, by television distributors. Further, with regard to minority francophone communities, the law should stipulate that any French-language station available in Quebec should also be available in our communities.

Two, RDI, Radio-Canada, TVA, TV5 Québec/Canada, RDS and TFO, as well as ARTV, should be included in the basic package of television programming distributors.

Three, RDI, Radio-Canada, TVA, TV5 Québec/Canada, RDS and TFO as well as ARTV, should be included in the 30 first stations offered by television programming distributors.

Four, the Broadcasting Act should call upon the CRTC to legislate the services currently provided by satellite digital television distribution companies to ensure that subscribers may receive regional programming produced by the Société Radio-Canada and other interprovincial networks.

Five, at least 25% of Radio-Canada and Radio-Canada FM's programming should be regional.

Six, private Canadian stations should be obliged to have at least 50% musical content and at least 75% of spoken Canadian content.

Seven, under the new Broadcasting Act, the Chaîne culturelle de Radio-Canada should be available throughout francophone New Brunswick, as well as in the provincial capital, as is already prescribed by the CRTC.

Eight, 25% of the content of national stations should be produced by established organizations in Canada's minority francophone and Acadian communities.

Nine, at least 50% of regional programming broadcast nationally should be aired in prime time.

Ten, community programming should take into account the country's regional diversity and actively contribute to the cultural expression of minority francophone and Acadian communities in Canada, and these programs should be broadcast to francophone and anglophone Canadians.

Eleven, regional programs should contribute to a single national identity and conscience and help promote minority artistic communities.

À (1015)

Twelve, that under the legislation, the CRTC be given a mechanism to evaluate the content of Canadian channels to ensure that they respect their commitment to diversity.

Thirteen, that the Broadcasting Act direct the CRTC to implement stricter measures than those contained in Public Notice CRTC 2001-129 to require television service distributors on Canadian territory to operate a community station and to invest the necessary funding in order to provide a quality product to the francophone and Acadian audiences.

Fourteen, that the Broadcasting Act, in accordance with its mandate and with the principle of English-French linguistic equality in New Brunswick, be subject to the Official Languages Act in order to promote the development of the Acadian community within the province to the same degree as the English-language community.

In conclusion, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage should, following these consultations, be in a position to clearly define the framework for the Canadian broadcasting system as it relates to the francophone community of New Brunswick, as well as other francophone communities across Canada.

These hearings will guide the committee in drafting a bill which will ensure that the Broadcasting Act will truly fulfil its mandate, which is to ensure that the Canadian broadcasting system provides an essential public service for the purpose of maintaining and promoting Canada's national identity and cultural sovereignty. The issue of national identity involves both of Canada's cultural communities, namely its French-speaking and English-speaking populations.

As for the promotion of our national identities, in the view of our organization, this idea only makes sense if the representatives of Canada's francophone communities can identify with radio and television programming, because a person's national identity is different, based on whether one is a francophone or an anglophone, or whether one is from New Brunswick or Montreal.

It is imperative to take cultural sovereignty into account in addressing the French fact. New Brunswick's Acadian community is part of Canada's francophone identity and it is part of what distinguishes Canada from the United States. If ever there was an important national trait, this is it and any broadcasting legislation must take it into account.

That is why it is essential that both English and French radio and television programming be on the same footing and that French-speaking citizens not be given short shrift.

If we want to promote the development of a Canadian vision, we must take into consideration both of Canada's language communities. Canadians want more Canadian content and the respect of regional identity. It is in that spirit that the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick hopes that its recommendations will help improve the Broadcasting Act to help it fulfil its mandate. We would like to thank the Committee on Canadian Heritage of the House of Commons for giving us the opportunity to make our views known.

Thank you.

À (1020)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Thibeault. Before moving on to questions, we should perhaps find out how much longer you can stay with us. How much longer do we have? We would like to work around your schedule.

Mr. Robert Thibeault: Thank you very much. I can still stay a good half hour.

The Chair: Fine. We'll be here until 10:45. Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Thibeault. You have repeated some of the things we heard in other provinces, be it Saskatchewan or elsewhere. But we did not hear from any francophone minority groups in Vancouver.

I had asked a question to help the anglophone community understand the urgency of the situation of Canadian minorities. When you spoke of national identity, I felt you were referring to the anglophone community. We are a majority in Quebec, but a minority in Canada.

When we raise questions and try to help others understand our need for tools to develop our communities, we are always referred to the percentage we represent within the population: 3%, 10%, 15%. I feel this type of answer plays down the importance of the role francophone communities play in our cultural, social and economic development.

I know that if you talk about the founding peoples today, of the communities which built Canada, you are being exclusive, and not inclusive, in terms of the new communities who have joined us.

Do you feel that this plays down the important role francophone communities have played in the development of Canada?

À (1025)

Mr. Robert Thibeault: Of course, a minority has to constantly struggle, and it is sometimes hard to make the majority understand what the problem is.

When I read the local newspaper, the MonctonTimes & Transcript and L'Acadie Nouvelle, which speaks for Acadians across the province, I sometimes have the impression that we are living in two different worlds.

There is a big debate right now in New Brunswick about health services. We are wondering whether the system will be bilingual or whether the anglophone and francophone networks will be separate. We are up against the wall: there is a total of lack of understanding about communication and the place francophones want to occupy in society. It is always like that.

How can we reach an understanding among ourselves and make others understand what is important? I receive a unilingual English form from a hospital where I am going to be admitted and where services are supposed to be offered in both languages. I feel this is a very important issue, but if I tell an anglophone about it, he will tell me that it is a detail and ask me what the problem is. Our place in society is determined by power relationships .

Canada being a very large country, how can you make someone in Calgary or Vancouver understand that there are 250,000 francophones and Acadians in New Brunswick that want to be heard and seen and that want to see themselves represented on the radio, the television and the movie screens.

Hearings are held. We present you with a brief and try to answer your questions; we try to make you aware of these issues and hope that you will be receptive to what we say, but our values are not necessarily the same as yours. We want to get to some sort of negotiations where, at least, people could say that they understand what we mean and that they can identify with our experience. We are in a minority situation. Of course, we talk about two communities that are the founding peoples of Canada, but I am certain, without knowing you, that some of you will tell me that their background is neither English nor French. In western Canada, as we know, many people arrived from Europe and other countries after Canada was established. Maybe they find it difficult to identify with this whole issue of francophones and anglophones. From my own perspective, I see on television that the Lithuanian community has its festival, its dances and that it is also trying to keep its traditions. I suppose that it is as important for them as it is for us.

That kind of sums up the message that we want to get across and how we see ourselves and what we want to make you understand about our situation.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Thibeault, we know that employees working for Radio-Canada in Moncton earn less than their counterparts at the CBC. That is a message being sent to the corporation both in Quebec and in Moncton. The francophone community is more active but, on the economic front, it has to fight to get...

How is the francophone community perceived here in Moncton by the Acadian and francophone community?

À (1030)

Mr. Robert Thibeault: To begin with, it seems to us that if it was the CBC in Toronto that was on strike, there would be pressure somewhere to get the dispute settled a little more quickly. From what we can see—and this is what has happened in the past—if television and radio are not working very well in Montreal and the rest of the French network, what difference does that make to English Canada? It is a detail. It seems to us that if the same thing happened elsewhere, the politicians would get involved. Someone could decide right now that Radio-Canada will stay closed for a year. Who would that bother outside the francophone community? Will it have any political repercussions in Ottawa? Not really, it would seem to us.

Because there is no real will to resolve the problem, there are no negotiations under way. The employees have been locked out, and those responsible have nothing to lose in all this, since Radio-Canada is a not-for-profit corporation, if I understand correctly. If this was a private company, with a focus on profit and loss, there might be a tendency to want to resolve the dispute a little more quickly.

Moreover, in order to be heard, we have to use Radio-Canada. Although there is community radio and television, Radio-Canada is the main player. I know that we have the Rogers community channel, but if Radio-Canada is not there, it is a great loss for us, unfortunately. Right now we have an issue in the health sector, and we cannot make our voice heard very well because the primary means of communication are unavailable at this time.

It is the francophone population that is being put at a disadvantage by this dispute, by what is happening right now between the employer and employees at Radio-Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, do you have any questions?

Mr. John Harvard: We heard some testimony from Rogers a few minutes ago--I think you were in the room. How do you feel about the community programming service, as a francophone?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Thibeault: Over the past few years, the local television station has changed hands three or four times, and the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes has made representations to each new owner to try to get better services. I must say that we have had the most success with the current owner, Rogers.

We met with a few of the people who have appeared before the committee, Mr. Fortin, Ms. Vaillancourt and another person who was not here, and I believe that Rogers have shown more openness than the other companies, in part because the people that Rogers sent here are bilingual and because the team includes Franco-Ontarians and Acadians who are better able to understand the issues involved in bilingualism and the representation of francophones in the programming.

To come back more specifically to your question, to community television, serious efforts are in fact being made. There has been an improvement since Rogers came on the scene. There are people responsible for the volunteers, and a volunteer training program has been set up. So our relations with Rogers are very positive, and I must applaud the efforts being made by that company.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: But you were saying that even though Rogers has improved the community service, it's the CBC service that is far more important to you. Is the CBC service far more important to you largely because it's done by professionals who can do better, higher-quality programming?

In other words, it's rather difficult to do community programming with largely volunteers, God bless their souls. We all need volunteers, but there are many subject matters that do require professionally trained people to get the best from the material. What would you say?

À (1035)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Thibault: Community television is one aspect of the information equation. But we cannot expect it to play the same role as a network with more resources and specialists. The French television network of Radio-Canada has a higher viewership, but community television plays a role in providing information; it is more of a complementary role and not quite the same as that of Radio-Canada.

The community television station will broadcast, for example, the Moncton and Dieppe municipal council meetings. There are people interested in that type of programming, and they can watch those proceedings for two or three hours. National and regional television programming cannot use that material since it cannot do in-depth reporting and lengthy stories of that type.

That is why, in my opinion, the two should not be compared or put in the same basket. They do not have the same role. Community television really plays a complementary role. The fact that it tries to train volunteers at the same time should not be ignored either. Radio-Canada's television network, of course, does not have that mandate.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Lill, do you have any questions?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

I want to thank you for coming here.

I think you make a very interesting point about the fact that the francophone side of the health care debate is not being expressed publicly, in your estimation, because you don't have the vehicle to enter the debate. I think that's a really important issue around the goals of the Broadcasting Act, to reflect the regions to one another and people across the country to one another. I think that's a dramatic example, if you don't feel you can be part of the national debate on that issue, a very important issue.

Also, I want to agree with you that community TV plays a complementary role to a public broadcaster. We don't want a voluntary broadcasting system any more than we want voluntary hospitals or the military. There is a very major distinction between the role of community broadcasting and the very important role of professional and private and public broadcasting.

You made the point that the act should give the CRTC an assessment mechanism to assure that community channels respect their commitment to minority language groups. I'd like you to elaborate on that a bit, because I think that's a really concrete kind of suggestion that we may want to take forward in our study.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Thibault: Something can happen by accident, or it can happen because the political will exists to make things happen in a particular way. Since we have no political clout and we lack critical mass, we want to ask you to legislate in this area. It needs to be decided that things will happen in a particular way.

That said, we are here to say what we would like to see happen. Once we have done that, in order for these things to become reality, we understand very well that there are certain constraints. It is not possible to legislate everything all the time.

Nonetheless, between your power to legislate and the power relationship that is bound to develop among those who give or offer these services, we hope that we can get to a situation which, even though it is outside our control, will give us what we want.

To answer your question, we are asking you to legislate or to ask the government to legislate in order to have more services for francophones or to have the services offered on an equal basis, that is, to enable local francophones to have access to the same services as anglophones.

À (1040)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Could I ask first, where's the cameraman from? Who are you with?

A voice: Radio-Canada.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Really.

We had Radio-Canada yesterday in P.E.I., and Radio-Canada in Halifax. The only TV coverage we've had is with Radio-Canada. I guess the point is that you're not in a dissimilar situation from a lot of other communities. We're seeing the same in the anglo community. Local issues, whether they be French or English issues, aren't being brought forward. I know some witnesses yesterday brought out the fact that Radio-Canada does it better than the CBC, that they seem to have a better formula for bringing forward local and community issues than the CBC or local stations. That's been a point too.

It blows my mind that with 250,000 people--that's a big block of people--there hasn't been some commercial move to accommodate and reach them. These are 250,000 consumers. It blows my mind that there hasn't been any movement in that direction. I'm sure it surprises you too.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Thibeault: In a way, it does not surprise me and, as I said earlier, we say what we want to see happen, but once we have done that... It is true that we hear— and it is a fact and therefore a problem—that the 250,000 francophones and Acadians in New Brunswick are scattered over a wide area. As a result, and I do not want to repeat the arguments of those we are trying to get services from, there is no doubt that, from a technical and economic standpoint, it is easier to serve places where the population is more concentrated. But there are not really any large Acadian centres in New Brunswick. The largest ones are Saint-Jean, Fredericton and Moncton. There is also Dieppe, which is right beside Moncton. The largest concentration of Acadians in New Brunswick is in Moncton. There are about 20,000 Acadians there, but we are still looking at a minority situation because Moncton is much like the rest of New Brunswick. We are still one third of the population. It is still the same problem.

Mr. Jean-Marie Pitre (Communications and Research, Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick): The problem is that the CRTC regulations stipulate that a market can only be considered a francophone market if half the population is francophone. But that is not the case in any of the Acadian regions of the province. Moncton falls into that category as well. That is why there are francophone areas that are less well served than others in the province where broadcasting is concerned.

À (1045)

The Chair: A very short question, Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: My question will be very short. One of the recommendations in your brief is to make the Official Languages Act apply to the Broadcasting Act. What would that do to help? Would it give the act more teeth to ensure broadcasting services in francophone areas?

Mr. Robert Thibeault: In New Brunswick, in view of our present difficulties with the government, our ultimate recourse is to take the government to court and this means that our position must be based on the law. In New Brunswick when no progress is being made at the political level, we refer either to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or to Act 88, which stipulates that the two communities are to be on an equal footing.

What is the situation with respect to health, for example? Here, in Moncton, we had a francophone institution, the Dr. Georges-L. Dumont Hospital. Because we want to retain the francophone status of this hospital, we find ourselves before the courts. If we are in this situation, it is because, in our opinion, the government is attempting to concentrate services. With new legislation relating to the health boards, we would have combined English and French language service.

I've just come from Saint John where, according to the legislation, service is to be provided in both languages. Unfortunately that is not what is taking place at the Saint John Hospital. If I show up at the reception and say my name is Robert Thibeault and that I've come for an x-ray, I will be told in English: “Have a seat, we'll call you”.

Even when stipulations are made in the law, that does not mean they are put into practice. That is why we find ourselves before the courts. We've just obtained a ruling from the court, the Charlebois decision, stipulating that the municipalities must translate municipal bylaws so they are available in both languages.

In the field of education, the situation is not really different. In Moncton, for example, there is no French-language high school. Parents have been calling for one but the government says it is not necessary, that children can go to the school in the neighbouring municipality. This dispute is before the courts.

The case of the Dr. Georges-L. Dumont Hospital is before the courts, as well as that of the francophone hospital. Mr. Mario Charlebois has taken the provincial government to court because it does not respect its own legislation.

To answer your question, if we had a law stipulating that such and such is required or not required, we could demonstrate that in fact the law is not being followed and we would at least have the ultimate recourse of going before the courts.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Doesn't the Official Languages Act enable you to follow the process, either to make a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages because the broadcasting system is not in keeping with this reality and the development of francophone communities is being limited?

Mr. Robert Thibeault: When the provincial government set up the health boards, we asked for legislation stipulating that services must be provided in both languages. The government responded that such legislation was not necessary because it was already contained in the New Brunswick Official Languages Act. We often have no choice but to try to get in through that door. We could certainly deal with this problem by pointing out to Ms. Adam that in certain circumstances the Official Languages Act is not being respected. But in our view, it would be preferable for the organization concerned to have its own legislation setting out the requirements expected of it.

The Chair: Mr. Pitre and Mr. Thibeault, you presented two briefs and the recommendations are not exactly the same.

Mr. Jean-Marie Pitre: They were abridged for the purposes of the speech.

The Chair: So I assume that we are to take those that were read by Mr. Thibeault.

Mr. Jean-Marie Pitre: The brief that we presented contains all the recommendations. We only had 10 minutes and we didn't want to take too much time. The brief is more thorough than the presentation.

The Chair: We have two of them. The researchers have to know whether Mr. Robert Thibeault's presentation was more elaborate than the brief you presented.

Mr. Jean-Marie Pitre:There was less content in Mr. Thibeault's speech than in the brief.

The Chair: Look, Mr. Pitre, I can read both of them. There are far more recommendations here than in the brief. That is why I raise the subject. It is quite obvious. Some of the proposals Mr. Thibeault read are not in the brief. That is why I want to know which document is the right one. It's important for our researchers.

À (1050)

Mr. Jean-Marie Pitre: I'm sure it is the brief because I wrote it and I remember.

The Chair: I see. It's up to you to decide, after all. I'll ask a researcher to talk to you about it at the end of the meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Thibeault and Mr. Pitre. We are happy to have you with us. Thank you for coming.

We'll now hear from the New Brunswick Association of Community Radios, Radio Miracadie and CJSE 89.5-Radio.

Mr. Roland Bryar (Director General, Association des radios communautaires acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick): Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to welcome all the members of the committee.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Bryar. For the record I must announce that we have appearing before us Mr. Daniel Levesque, representing Radio Miracadie, Mr. Roland Bryar, the Director General of l'Association des radios communautaires acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, and Mr. Gilles Arseneault, Director of Radio Beauséjour.

Mr. Bryar, are you the one who will begin?

Mr. Roland Bryar: That is what I wanted to explain to you, Mr. Lincoln. Since we'll all be talking about community radio, we wanted to make our three presentations in a row and then have the question period.

The Chair: That was what I was going to suggest. You're familiar with the system. We would appreciate it if each one of you would limit yourself to a maximum of 10 minutes including the amount of time set aside for the question period.

Mr. Roland Bryar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We suggest that Mr. Levesque begin. I will be second followed by Gilles.

The Chair: The choice is yours. Mr. Levesque, you have the floor.

Mr. Daniel Levesque (Coordinator, “Radio Miracadie”): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, ladies and gentlemen, good morning to all of you and welcome to Moncton. My name is Daniel Levesque and I am the Coordinator of the Radio Miracadie project as well as a development officer with the Carrefour Beausoleil Community Centre in Miramichi.

Radio Miracadie is one of a dozen French-language community radios throughout Canada working in a minority context.

Because its attempt at setting up goes back to 1979, Radio Miracadie is certainly a notorious example of the difficulties faced by minority communities as well as an ideal candidate for consideration by the hearings of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Setting up a community radio gives rise to challenges that are not often faced by our communities. Communities such as Beauséjour that have successfully accomplished this feat of putting into service a community radio deserve our respect, particularly in view of the impressive number of stages they must go through, the cumbersome formalities, the significant financial commitments as well as the legal requirements. It should be mentioned that Canadian regulations are probably among the strictest in the world.

The employees and volunteer workers who take on the task of running a community radio must be familiar with the Canadian Charter, various pieces of legislation, including Bill S-32, the Beaulac case, the Charlebois ruling, which was mentioned previously, the CRTC's regulations as well as the Broadcasting Act, and they are also required to be aware of the many public notices from the CRTC and the rulings of the Supreme Court, all this in addition to the necessary technical expertise.

We realize that many studies have been carried out by groups such as yours, by parliamentary committees and experts who have heard from the leading players of all the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors, both public and private, and we must admit that in spite of our previously mentioned expertise, we could easily feel intimidated when coming before you, wondering what we can add to what has already been said.

Nonetheless, since we live in a world where communications are pervasive in all these spheres of our daily life, we consider that it is essential for an Acadian and francophone community living in a minority context such as ours to continue to struggle to maintain a community radio as an accompaniment to its development and we feel it is our duty to defend our interests whenever the opportunity arises.

Radio Miracadie is anxious to take every opportunity to advance its cause and appears here before you today in order to defend its interests and to give you a local perspective, in the knowledge that the collective and national interests will be defended by the various experts and interests groups that will certainly be heard by your committee.

Here are our concerns. First of all, the regulations and the licence application procedure of the CRTC contribute to the creation of an adversarial climate rather than encouraging cooperation among the different stakeholders. In our area, as a result of the transfer of the private local station CFAN from AM to FM, the installation of a tower will make it possible for this station and our own to have our respective antennas located on the same tower. However, because of the confrontation that occurred between the private radio stations of this business and the community radios in past hearings of the CRTC, the climate is certainly not one that would facilitate our negotiations, even though both parties could derive a significant financial advantage from this type of sharing.

In the Miramichi area at the present time, there are only two frequencies that are still available. Knowing that the private local station CFAN already applied to the CRTC and that this application, like so many others from the private sector, will probably be given unconditional acceptance, you will understand that we are very worried that the last frequency may be reserved by someone else before we are able to appear before the CRTC with our own licence application.

In the preamble of this brief, we already referred to the various stages we must go through and the cumbersome formalities to be completed by our minority communities before a radio station can go on air, one of these procedures being the presentation of an application to the CRTC. My question to you is: is this really necessary? The question is a simple one for us but of great significance. We would like to see the committee give serious consideration to this question because of its consequences for our minority communities.

À (1055)

In our area, for some time now, we have been talking about the concept of "twofold minority status". In laymen's terms, this means that francophone communities in a predominantly francophone region, even if they are in the minority at the national level, do not face the same challenges as communities which are in the minority both at the national level and at the provincial level. In our opinion, this should be considered in the development of all broadcasting assistance and regulation programs.

We now come to our fifth and final concern. In just a few months' time we will be submitting our licence application to the CRTC. We have several concerns which have already been raised before your committee by various associations, including the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.

We would like to focus specifically on two of our concerns. Firstly, the lack of commitment of the CRTC to minority communities. Secondly, CRTC rulings, which appear to advantage the private sector. This was especially evident on two occasions, when Toronto community radio was refused a licence.

Consequently, from developments like these, you can see that when community radio appears before the CRTC, it is in a precarious position.

I would like to move on to our recommendations now. Firstly, I would like to preface these recommendations with a short introduction. Some of our recommendations are drawn from a paper drafted by the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada in response to directive C.P. 2000-511 and CRTC PN 2000-38. These decisions are relevant to our concerns and to the success of our initiative. You will notice also that most of the recommendations target the CRTC. However, our recommendations also deal with other issues impacting the development and operation of community radio.

Our first recommendation deals with frequency allocation and minority francophone communities. We would call on your committee to urge the CRTC and Industry Canada to provide one non-commercial FM frequency for community radio in areas where minority francophone communities are to be found. This would enable francophone communities to develop tangible and viable schedules for creating a community radio station, and this would address the issue of the availability of a dial setting, which is an obstacle to the access to air waves.

The second recommendation that we would make deals with enhancing people's access to the Réseau francophone d'Amérique throughout Canada. Radio-Canada is available throughout Canada, even in areas such as Whitehorse and the Yukon or Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. The Department of Canadian Heritage has in the past provided $50,000 in subsidies to francophone organizations in these regions to cover capital costs relating to the broadcasting and reception of French CBC in their respective communities. We would ask your committee to urge the CRTC to ask Heritage Canada to promote the purchase and installation of receivers and transmitters in those francophone communities in Canada which have requested access to the Réseau francophone d'Amérique.

This ARC Canada recommendation would go a long way to safeguarding and enhancing the French language in Canada, by providing communities with access to a basic service specifically tailored to their expectations and needs. This would also encourage these communities to set up their own community radio station.

Our third recommendation deals with cooperation and potential exchanges between Radio-Canada and minority francophone communities. It reads as follows: That this committee urge Radio-Canada to enhance access to transmitter facilities in an attempt to expedite the creation of new community radio stations. In addition, access to broadcasting facilities would significantly reduce the capital costs borne by new community radio stations. The crown corporation should also allow new community radio stations to tap into its technical and radio expertise. This type of support would strengthen ties between Radio-Canada and the communities that it serves.

Our fourth recommendation deals with digital broadcasting. It reads as follows: That this committee urge the CRTC and Industry Canada to confirm their digital transmitter allocation plan. Indeed, it is important to note that space should be provided for community radio stations on these digital transmitters. We must make every effort to avoid a situation whereby digital broadcasting becomes the playground of commercial broadcasters and CBC.

Á (1100)

The fifth recommendation deals with Canadian Heritage funding criteria. It reads as follows: That this committee urge the CRTC to ask Canadian Heritage to relax its funding criteria for capital costs. Indeed, the Canadian Heritage 50% funding ceiling for these costs disadvantages applicants from provinces other than New Brunswick, because New Brunswick is the only Canadian province with an assistance program for this type of initiative.

The Department of Canadian Heritage should commit to fund up to 75% of set-up costs. If it fails to do so, most community radio initiatives in Canada will be jeopardized.

Heritage Canada should facilitate the creation of new community radio stations in minority francophone communities. It should adapt its funding criteria to address the specific situation of these communities, based on their revenue-generating capacity.

The department should also allow Canada-community agreements to cover part of the capital costs of new community radio stations. This would enable Heritage Canada to cover more than 50% of costs without the need to amend its funding criteria, as we said earlier.

The sixth recommendation deals with nation-wide advertising. It reads as follows: That this committee urge the CRTC to press the government of Canada to include community radio stations that are members of ARC du Canada and Réseau francophone d'Amérique in all its radio-based advertising campaigns. This additional revenue source would strengthen those radio stations already in existence and would serve as a source of encouragement for new radio station initiatives. This move would increase potential earnings and make revenue more easily identifiable.

I am sure that many other witnesses have made the same recommendation that I am about to make. It deals with the official language aspect of broadcasting. It reads as follows: That this committee subject the CRTC to the Official Languages Act and that the CRTC be mandated to facilitate and promote the creation of community radio stations in minority communities.

On the issue of cable broadcasting—it's a shame that the representatives from Rogers had to leave— we would like to make the following recommendations to this committee.

Firstly, in response to a call for input on CRTC PN 2001-19, a review of community and low-power radio policy, Radio Miracadie sent the following recommendations to Ms. Ursula Menke, Secretary General of the CRTC.

Firstly, francophones in the Miramichi area and in other minority regions, which do not have French-language cable services, are unable to access proceedings at the provincial Legislative Assembly in French. This is because the English interpretation provided for the predominantly anglophone audience prevents them from hearing the original French.

Secondly, the quality, regional relevance and amount of French-language programming falls far short of an acceptable level. Although we are always pleased to hear reports on what is happening to francophones outside New Brunswick, locally-based reporting would enhance the interest of the local population—given the relevance of this locally-based reporting—and would raise viewership for programming provided by cable companies in francophone minority communities.

Thirdly, if francophone community channels were provided as part of the cable network to minority communities, this would address the shortcomings set out in points 1 and 2. In addition, a local community channel would promote the development and use of local labour. It would also increase the relevancy of the service and would help to counter minority francophone assimilation.

Fourthly, the CRTC should, as a condition for licence approval, require cable companies, regardless of whether they provide French-language service or not, to provide programming produced by the local francophone community radio station. This would enable these francophone stations to reach a wider audience, without requiring costly and complex broadcasting infrastructure.

In conclusion, I would like to say that in general, our presentation was designed to raise awareness in your committee as to the situation that our minority communities, or should I say communities with a twofold minority status, are facing in terms of setting up French-language community radio stations.

Á (1105)

We hope that you have understood our concerns and that you will consider our recommendations.

Radio Miracadie would like to thank your for providing us with this opportunity to promote our initiative. We hope that our efforts will be beneficial for other community radio initiatives throughout Canada. Thank you very much.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Mr. Bryar, the floor is yours.

Mr. Roland Bryar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In our concise brief, we at the ARCANB will demonstrate that the organization's members have complied with the goals of subsection 3(d) of the Broadcasting Act. In addition, we will focus on development possibilities which we hope will be of some use to members of this committee. In essence, we are asking the federal government to promote and support community radio in francophone and Acadian communities throughout Canada.

We would like to thank Heritage Canada for allowing us to speak to the issue of broadcasting development in Canada.

Our approach is based on the community radio system. It is somewhat surprising to see that community radio was not mentioned, not even once, in the draft forwarded to us by the Parliamentary Research Branch. The draft paper refers only to "the private and public sector".

We would like to point out that the CRTC does indeed have a policy on community radio. In New Brunswick, as in other francophone and Acadian communities throughout the country, community radio is central to social, cultural and economic development in those areas. In our opinion, it is important the committee realize that community radio means local basic radio. We would also like to underscore the fact that community radio is a model in terms of subsection 3(d) of the Broadcasting Act. I would now like to get into the so-called balance between cultural, social and economic goals of the Broadcasting Act.

We believe that over the past few years, the CRTC has often made decisions in favour of private radio to the detriment of the development and creation of community radio stations, which also have a cultural and social rationale. This has created an imbalance between the rights of minority communities and those of private enterprise.

The ARCANB believes, as do other francophone and Acadian community organizations and individuals, who made presentations during the CRTC consultation process—CRTC PN 2000-74, May 31, and directive C.P. 2000-511, etc.— that the CRTC is hampering the development of community radio. In our opinion, this approach has jeopardized the expression of Canadian culture, especially in terms of the globalization of the airwaves.

The ARCANB is an organization with the mandate of promoting and defending its members. In addition to promoting the various facets of life in Acadian communities, it also furthers cooperation and consensus-building among its members. The organization is a forum which assists in developing our communities and promoting their accomplishments.

The members of the ARCANB serve the community and promote pride, culture and various facets of life in our Acadian communities. ARCANB also fosters economic development through the promotion of entrepreneurship. In particular, it showcases artists from the various Atlantic provinces.

Just like our counterpart in Ontario, the Mouvement des intervenants communautaires radiophoniques de l'Ontario, MICRO, members of the ARCANB are also members of the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada, known as ARC. We are all affiliated to the Réseau francophone d'Amérique. We operate a satellite-based news system focusing on the francophone and Acadian communities in Canada. However, we also offer national and international news content.

It is important to point out that the ARCANB is active at the international level. One of the main issues we are currently working on is the creation of a permanent secretariat for Radio Jeunesse, and to create a radio network which would cover international francophone events, such as Francophonie summits. Indeed, that is why our president could not be with us here with us today. He is currently in France, where he is presenting and advocating this issue to the Agence de la Francophonie.

I would ask you to excuse the fact that Roger Ouellette couldn't be with us today.

We are currently dealing with other important issues such as the creation of a business bureau for the Union des radios communautaires de l'aire francophone, based in Shediac, New Brunswick; support for the Rencontre internationale Radio Culture Formation program, which is an initiative put forward by Micro Voyageur of Montreal. Under this initiative, world community radio stations would get together to undertake exchanges and training.

In addition to working on other issues together with international community stakeholders, the ARCANB is able to provide the international francophone community with its expertise in developing and running community radio. These issues have enabled us to address issues such as changes in technology; globalization; new types of media and of course, international points of view.

In terms of cultural diversity, the ARCANB has become a necessary partner for the Acadian community. The seven radio stations which are members of the ARCANB have no problem with the issue of cultural diversity. In addition to developing very high quality news services and programming which is adapted to their viewership, they have been successful in complying with CRTC requirements in terms of Canadian content, French-language radio broadcasting, minority and cultural diversity-based radio broadcasting and regional representation.

Where music is concerned, the ARCANB put on an Acadian gala celebrating artists from the Acadian music industry. On a weekly basis, the association also puts out an Acadian version of the top 40, which reflects the popularity of Acadian artists.

In terms of broadcasting policy, Heritage Canada is the guardian of official language minority community development. It seems to us that Heritage Canada is in a good position to promote those minority official language rights which are set out in the Canadian Constitution, as a way of restoring a balance which more accurately reflects the reality of our communities.

We join ARC du Canada in urging the committee to propose amendments to the mandate of the CRTC to promote the development and enhance the vitality of minority official language communities, as provided for under sections 41 and 42 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. These amendments to the Broadcasting Act should clearly state that the CRTC is subject to the provisions of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

We would also like to suggest that the federal government earmark the necessary funds to extend the Department of Canadian Heritage minority community radio program for at least five years.

Undoubtedly, francophone and Acadian community radio plays a determinant role in developing francophone and Acadian listenership. We believe that any broadcast policy should consider the relevancy of community radio, particularly in New Brunswick. It should also consider the relevancy of expertise developed by these radio stations.

We believe that funds should be invested in maintaining and developing these radio stations and associations. We believe that this money should be used for the following issues: the training and professional development of volunteer and permanent staff; the updating of electronic and technical equipment; the design and production of community, provincial or national cultural events; support for professional associations, which develop common initiatives for our member radio stations; special support for initiatives which foster the transfer of radio expertise at a provincial or international level.

In terms of ownership, community radio stations belong to the communities that they serve. Associations, such as the ARCANB or the ARC are made up of members of these particular communities. The problem of ownership, as we see it, does not lie here. Indeed, our community radio stations have committed to remain locally based but at the same time to provide content which effectively complies with the Broadcasting Act. Once again, we would urge the committee to recommend that Heritage Canada recognize and promote the community radio ownership system.

Á (1115)

With respect to the public and private sectors, we suggest that the committee place the same focus on the community, as on the public and private sectors. This is for a very simple reason: community radio stations reflect the aspirations of the community in which they operate, and reflect the objectives of paragraph 3(d) of the Broadcasting Act.

In addition, the RFA is a tool used solely by francophone and Acadian communities, and only public radio has a rebroadcasting system for radio signals that is as extensive. Since community radio stations enjoy respectable ratings, our network is an enviable leader in francophone communities.

Like ARC du Canada, ARCANB requests that the committee ask the federal government to insist that the CRTC reserve bandwidths in major cities for Canada's francophone minorities. The cities in question are Toronto, Saint John, New Brunswick, and Halifax. This will enable our communities to develop harmoniously, within the spirit of paragraph 3(d) of the Broadcasting Act.

My last point is on production and distribution.

As we noted, our members broadcast the RFA signal. This means that they operate the full Dalet brand audio-digital system. They recently installed version 5.01, which enables greater versatility in production, use, broadcasting and programming exchanges. However, as in many other industries, individual stations occasionally take some time to implement and adjust to new technologies. This is why we mentioned the need for training and professional development.

Since member stations operate in partnership with organizations in their communities, and since our provincial associations, ARCANB, MICRO and ARC, operate with other partners, we often have the opportunity to develop wide-ranging radio products. However, the high cost of such activities and the lack of equipment often hinder such development, particularly in the production, recording and broadcasting of musical events for provincial, regional or national consumption; CD and performance launches; production, recording and broadcasting of the ARCANB Gala; recording of major performances for RFA or interested members; creation, production and broadcasting of general-interest stories and programs on health, education and the environment, produced by Canada's francophone and Acadian communities; development of specialized radio promotion services; and development of Internet services for radio stations and associations.

Community radio assistance programs, or any other type of assistance the committee proposes, could include this kind of initiative; it could also highlight the role that associations play in the development of member stations, particularly with respect to advances in radio broadcasting technologies and export of skills; francophone-oriented international perspectives and globalization; support and promotion of Canadian content, cultural diversity and minorities, as well as regional representation, and an intellectual property model that enables stringent application of the Broadcasting Act, and propose amendments that are in line with new trends while preserving services that are geared to audience needs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryar.

Mr. Arsenault.

Mr. Gilles Arsenault (Director, Radio Beauséjour Inc.): Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for giving us this opportunity to explain a community radio channel that has been on air for eight years, and to describe the impact it has had on our communities.

Radio Beauséjour is a non-profit corporation, like all community radio organizations. It is managed by a board of directors made up of community representatives from southeastern New Brunswick. Its main goal is to contribute to the development of francophone communities in our region. To that end, it operates radio station CJSE, at 89.5 FM, which was launched on July 26, 1994. We hope that Radio Beauséjour will one day be able to launch a second community station in the region so that it can offer more diversity.

Before CJSE came on the scene, French-language radio in southwestern New Brunswick was limited to CBAF, the CBC's French radio station in Moncton. In the early 1980s, CKUM—Moncton University's student radio station—served Greater Moncton. At the time, however, most Acadians in southwestern New Brunswick—85 to 90% of the Acadian community—listened to English radio.

CJSE has managed to reverse that trend in less than 10 years. The last BBM study showed that CJSE captured an audience of 44,200 people, out of a total population of 71,000 francophones. This success is largely due to close communication with the community. Over the years, CJSE's permanent and volunteer staff has listened to the community and adapted its programming to reflect local taste, while encouraging audiences to discover new things. We have also developed a high-caliber news program to keep people up to date on what is going on locally and outside the community.

CJSE is also a member of ARC and ARCANB, which were discussed at length earlier. It should be noted that community radio stations in Canada's francophone and Acadian communities are local, front-line services. This is very important in southeastern New Brunswick, since few francophone radio stations had succeeded in capturing large audiences; francophones were becoming quickly assimilated.

For linguistic minority communities, community radio is the only communication tool that belongs to the community. Private, independent radio stations did play a similar role in New Brunswick for many years, but there are very few of them left. Nowadays, private radio is dominated by major corporations which compete for the majority of radio stations. Stations are becoming difficult to distinguish from one another. This does not happen in community radio—community radio stations want to reflect their own involvement in and the nature of their communities. More than ever, we need to continue developing community radio, because it offers broadly diverse programming, as well as news.

In addition, through their partnerships with many segments of the community they serve, community radio stations are an extremely important instrument for awareness and development. Radio must design, produce and broadcast services that reflect the local community. People identify with radio news shows that talk about them, and with radio programming that reflects their interests, as well as showcase the local language and music. Even if hundreds of additional Internet radio stations and other broadcasting sources were to appear tomorrow, people would continue to listen to a radio station that talks about them and reflects them.

The success of CJSE and other ARCANB and ARC du Canada community radio stations, as well as other community radio stations across the country, should be encouraged and supported by Canadian Heritage and the CRTC. They are superb models for the preservation, enrichment and strengthening of Canada's cultural, political, social and economic structure, in spite of an environment frequently hostile to the development of minority interests. More than ever, we need the committee to ensure that the CRTC is fully subject to Part VII of Canada's Official Languages Act.

It is high time for Canadian Heritage to implement ongoing programs ensuring the development of emerging and existing community radio stations. That support is necessary to ensure the continuity of these stations as development tools for minority communities across Canada.

Á (1125)

For the same reasons, CJSE believes that it is essential that we keep our public network, Radio-Canada. We look forward to seeing the strike come to an end, because Radio-Canada complements us well, and we miss it sorely.

Radio stations and cable distributors are also having to change. In recent years, there have been major changes. For all practical purposes, Rogers controls the east and Shaw controls the west, except for niches served by satellite TV. We have yet to see who will have the last word in radio, and what the impact will be on how the Broadcasting Act is applied.

CJSE believes that Canadian Heritage made a good investment supporting the development of community radio. Given its success with that investment, it should be easy for Canadian Heritage and CRTC to formulate a clear and committed policy that ensures the survival of community radio, an essential communication tool in the development of communities targeted by the Official Languages Act.

Thank you.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

We will now move to questions. Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Welcome, and thank you for clarifying some aspects of community radio. We know full well that community radio is first and foremost a school, an open environment—not only within the community but also from an international perspective, given the music that you broadcast. It is often music that private stations do not air. Well done!

I'm involved in community radio stations in Quebec City; there are four lively community stations operating there. They are all different, but they complement each other. From what I understand of francophone community radio outside Quebec, francophone communities are very scattered and this creates a problem, because it is difficult for any individual community to access information from other communities, and to raise its own profile.

In your view, what means would enable community radio stations to communicate with each other, and acquire rights to some programs that you produce, and be heard outside their own communities? Is that one of your goals? This problem has been brought to our attention in several regions of Canada. We would like to be heard by francophone communities elsewhere in the country. Do you consider that a desirable goal?

Mr. Roland Bryar: I would like to provide a clarification before Gilles answers that question. We have to highlight the difference between community radio in Quebec and community radio in francophone and Acadian communities outside Quebec. We pointed this out in our brief. We want to be recognized as a local, front-line station, which is not the same thing as in Quebec, where the situation is different. Our role is much more front-line. This does not consist solely in playing Arabic or other kinds of music, helping the audience discover new things and complement private radio, which is well established in Quebec. Here, things are different. Community radio has far closer links to people's day-to-day lives, particularly with the news programs. The educational aspect is no less important than in Quebec, but the permanent status of the radio station is important as well. Before the committee, we have tried to highlight the difference between community radio in Quebec, and community radio in francophone and Acadian communities outside Quebec, which play a more front-line role.

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: One of the basic reasons underlying community radio stations' decision to establish the Réseau francophone d'Amérique—which has now been in existence for a little over two years, and has made it possible for us to bring many partners together and establish the network in spite of the inherent difficulties—was the ability to exchange programming. We have not yet perfected our exchange methods, but some radio stations are already benefiting from exchanges, particularly the smaller ones—those that broadcast for five, six or eight hours a day and which now have access to programming produced across Canada and broadcast over RFA for the rest of the time.

Moreover, in New Brunswick, we have regions with lots of affinities and we would like to be able to develop exchanges on a more local level. We did set up Radio Beauséjour, a project to reach other communities outside our province, like the Magdalen Islands and the Gaspé peninsula. We work in conjunction with the Quebec office to try and set up exchanges where we have affinities. Above all, our responsibility as a community radio station is to be there for the 71,000 people to whom we have made a commitment to provide quality service. After reaching 44,200 of these people, we must also, while providing local services, be open to other regions and to the world as well, and our network enables us to do that.

Á (1135)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I do not want to upset you, Mr. Bryar, but Quebec also has this front-line service. I mentioned, among other things, music from here and elsewhere, but there is also the link we have with the community. They often provide politicians who do not have access to the information networks with a forum to talk about their values and their positions on different pieces of legislation. I think community radio stations in Quebec do a very good job of that; that is why they are different.

I would also like to ask you a question. Does Canadian Heritage provide you with financial support for official languages?

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: Canadian Heritage does have a community radio component, but it is always ambiguous. From one year to the next, we do not know if funding will be available or not. Sometimes there is not enough and sometimes the funds are used elsewhere. Yes, Canadian Heritage has been there. It has enabled radio stations that are now on the air to develop, but on a year-to-year basis; we would like the department to implement a renewable five-year program. As Mr. Levesque said earlier, organizing and preparing these radio stations is a lot of work. It took almost seven years to set up Radio Beauséjour. There were CRTC moratoriums. Canadian Heritage did not have programs or did not have funding that year. We lost about three years because of problems like that. We could have easily given up, but fortunately, we persisted, as we understood the importance of having that communication tool.

We are not deluding ourselves: if we do not have communication tools for our communities, we do not exist. In the past, the southeast of the province, here, did not exist. It was interpreted by others, which often interpreted it very badly. Today at least, with this radio, people hear their concerns, listen to each other, present arguments, and debate issues on the air on their radio stations. That is fundamental for people to be able to simply exist. I hope that one day, the same thing will be done with television. Fundamentally, the success of community radio is simple: it's a basic need.

Mr. Roland Bryar: It is important to point out that Canadian Heritage funds are primarily for capital costs. Once a radio station is on the air, it receives no further funding. Each radio station is accountable. It is not like in Quebec where they have a provincial fund.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That was my third question.

Do you not receive funds from the province?

Mr. Roland Bryar: Some, yes, but only for capital costs. It covers 25% of the capital costs. Canadian Heritage covers 50% and the radio itself must cover 25% through community participation.

Á (1140)

[English]

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): On that issue of funding, what funding mechanism and what ongoing support would you like to see from the different levels of government? Obviously, capital costs for starting up are not going to carry you through.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: First of all, given that Canadian Heritage has invested in setting up some radio stations, I think that advertising revenues, fundraising activities...

As for us, we have a radio bingo that brings in almost $150,000 a year. We are currently organizing annual shows that will bring in about $50,000. It is good to have these kinds of activities. Naturally, we also sell advertising revenues. That enables us to support the radio station in its daily operations. However, when it comes time to renew equipment, to change technology, for small- and medium-size radio stations that have annual revenues of about $50,000 to $60,000, it is very difficult when a console or a transmitter breaks down.

New digital technology is on its way. What will we do? Will we stay behind and work with our old equipment, or will Canadian Heritage be there to ensure continuity? I think that we must always continue to look for funds in the community and that the community must invest in its radio station, but there is a limit to what small-and medium-size communities can do. It is important for community radio stations to keep up with technology and be as modern as all other services that are available to the public.

Mr. Daniel Levesque: I could perhaps add that for radio stations that are being set up, human resources are an area that could perhaps be targeted by federal assistance programs. Very often, these radio stations succeed thanks to partnerships with other local organizations or thanks to involvement by politicians who successfully sidestep the criteria of certain existing programs, and come up with staff, but it is always difficult for a period of time that can range from two to five years, during which period a group of volunteers must do everything it can to come up with funding to establish the organization.

I am employed by a community centre in Miramichi, but I have been lent to the radio station project, which led to difficulties for the community centre that sacrificed an employee.

So, if I had a suggestion to make, personally, it would be that you have programs tailored to this clientele, with respect to human resources, for the startup phase.

Mr. Roland Bryar: If I could add to that, I would also say that there is the issue of federal government advertising. I think that advertising sold to the federal government by the RFA and CAB automatically benefits each of the radio stations that broadcast it. These are advertising revenues. So this is one way of operating where everyone comes out a winner. I do not think that any radio station wants handouts or unnecessary money. I think that radio stations want to be independent, because that is the nature of communications, but as a minority recognized in the Charter, we would like to have programming that reflects that. That is why we have raised this with Canadian Heritage, and with your committee. It is to ensure that this is well understood by the CRTC and reflected in Canadian Heritage's programs.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

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

Mr. Arsenault, when did CJST go on the air?

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: We've been on the air for eight years. It'll be eight years on July 26.

Mr. John Harvard: Have your budgets been rather static over those eight years, or have they grown?

Á (1145)

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: Yes, they've grown. Actually, we started with seven employees; we now have 18 full-time staff. Every single cent is reinvested in the station. We have many projects we want to develop and when we do have the money we...on fait ces programmes-là.

Mr. John Harvard: Do you recall how much your annual budget was the first year and how much it is, say, in the year just past?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: Yes. It was around $600,000 the first year, and is about 1,3 million now.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: So it has a little more than doubled in eight years.

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: Now all the money you raise for the programming part of your operation is from the communities. You don't get any government money for programming, as I understand.

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: No, none.

Mr. John Harvard: When you went on the air eight years ago, did you get 50% of your capital costs up front from the heritage department?

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: Oui.

Mr. John Harvard: All in one lump sum, or were you paid over a period of years?

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: It was a lump sum.

Mr. John Harvard: And how much was that?

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: It was $200,000.

Mr. John Harvard: And another $100,000 from the Government of New Brunswick?

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: What was the total capital cost?

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: Add another $100,000; it was $400,000.

Mr. John Harvard: Where did you get that money from?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: It took us about four years to come up with that money. We sold memberships and held fundraising drives, and we also borrowed $25,000, which we were able to reimburse in short order.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: You have to sort of keep going around cap in hand, raising money one way or the other, to stay on the air, I gather.

[Translation]

M. Gilles Arsenault: Fundraising activities are ongoing. We live within our means. CJSE has become the biggest community radio station in Canada, and is probably one of the ones that cost the least to set up. Currently, we don't own the building we are in; we rent our space. We hope to be able to move into a more accessible building at some point, and are presently saving money to that end. We have a reserve fund that we will be investing in our infrastructures.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: Now I want to ask one or two questions of Mr. Levesque. You mentioned in your presentation, Mr. Levesque, that the CRTC has a bias in favour of commercial operators, or perhaps a bias against you. I think you described it as a bias.

Could you explain a little bit more about why and how this plays out and why it is?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Levesque: I certainly can. The example I give in my brief is one involving a community radio station in Toronto. And there are others. CJSE recently experienced a similar situation when another community radio station was set up in its territory. There seems to be a double standard. In the end, a community radio station ends up having to provide community support that goes beyond what is required of a private radio station. It is burdensome. It can go as far as to be required to provide a list of members, a list of letters of support for the community radio station from municipalities and organizations. These are examples of requirements that are not imposed on private radio stations. It is our position that beyond the commercial viability of the two entities, in minority situations, the CRTC should be required to take into account the difficulties minority communities face, which is currently not done under CRTC regulations.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: Regarding the CRTC, I'm really surprised, and I'm disappointed in them, that they don't take you at face value and that the kind of work you do is not only important to the communities you serve but to the entire country. You'd almost think the CRTC should be given some cultural sensitivity training or something.

Any comment?

Á (1150)

Mr. Daniel Levesque: I'm pleased to hear that comment.

Mr. Roland Bryar: I'm very pleased too.

Mr. Daniel Levesque: As I mentioned, I'm representing radio that's in the implementation phase. I think if--

Mr. John Harvard: You'd be cutting your own throat.

Mr. Daniel Levesque: If you were to address the same question to our national association, I'm sure the list of examples would be much longer and more exemplary of what I'm stating.

[Translation]

But that is a reality that we have to face. We are preparing to table the list in the fall, and it is intimidating to think that we will be subject to this process. As I mentioned, it puts us in a situation where we have to fight with our neighbours, a neighbouring radio station with which we could have a partnership. Because of the regulations, we are often required to battle it out with them, and even if there is the lure of a gain, in our situation, both radio stations could save an enormous amount if they could set up on the same tower, as I mentioned in my presentation. It is not easy.

I do not want to criticize Maritime Broadcasting, but we know that they have gone to the CRTC on several occasions and that they have quarrelled with community radio stations. So that would indicate that when we go to the CRTC, that company will not likely be very receptive. We have nevertheless taken steps and we are going to continue. They have been somewhat open to listening to our suggestions, but we are not overly optimistic.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I think I'll ask this. There are no commercial French stations in New Brunswick, or are there?

Mr. Roland Bryar: Yes.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: There are? Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: There are currently three private radio stations in New Brunswick: two in the north, one in Madawaska and one in Moncton, here, which opened a year and a half ago and which did not exist prior to the arrival of CJSE. I think that our success has been good motivation for private companies, which have been able to see that there was good business to be done. There was an attempt to set up a private radio station in the 1980s. The station remained on the air for two years and then it closed. I do not know if this one will last much longer; we will see.

[English]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Are the private stations doing all right?

Mr. Gilles Arsenault: We don't talk to them very often.

I suppose if you would ask me, based on what we hear publicity-wise, I would say we're doing much better.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Arsenault, first of all, congratulations for having succeeded in very difficult circumstances. We hope that Mr. Levesque will be as fortunate and successful as you. I think that the three of you have provided some very important briefs that reflect the difficult situations you are facing on the ground in starting up and continuing to operate your community-based businesses. We will, of course, consider all of this very seriously in our research and our deliberations. Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Bryar, Mr. Levesque and Mr. Arsenault. Good luck and thank you.

[English]

We are going to take a five-minute break and then we will have the last segment to do.

Á (1153)

Â (1204)

The Chair: The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage will now resume its meeting of May 2 regarding its study on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system.

We have three individual presentations.

There are some members and support staff who need to get to the airport early this afternoon.

Mr. Flanagan, I see your brief is longer than the others. I would ask you to summarize parts of it, especially because we have a third presenter. Mr. Atanassov has asked to appear this morning. I think it would be really interesting to hear him.

There are three of you. If you can split your time so we have time for questions and members can get to the airport on time, I would appreciate your indulgence.

We'll start with you, Mr. Walker. Go ahead.

Â (1205)

Mr. Alf Walker (Individual Presentation): Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, welcome to Dieppe. It is with great pleasure that I make an appearance before you today. I feel, as a member of this community, it is my responsibility.

I am retired from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and have had a long-time interest in Canadian broadcasting, both private sector and public. In my presentation today I will confine myself to the area of English television broadcasting media.

Although there are other areas of the broadcasting industry in need of address, I will restrict myself to what I believe is the health of this part of the industry in the Moncton and surrounding area. I will talk to you about how broadcasting has gone from a local perspective to a regional one. I will also include in my discussion today comments on the quantity of foreign television shows used in broadcasting today.

I want to make it clear that I have a genuine respect for the people who work in the industry in the television media. The people who work in this media, in this area, are dedicated journalists. I feel they are a vital group of people who work hard to bring stories that reflect a community.

I also want to state that when I mentioned local, I meant the Moncton and surrounding area. My definition of regional means New Brunswick and the rest of the Maritimes. I have heard many definitions used, and some of them even contradict themselves.

I welcomed you to Dieppe in the opening paragraph of my presentation. I wanted to make you feel welcome in this community. I also wanted to make a point. Dieppe is a separate municipality from Moncton. It's easy to blur the edges of what Moncton and Dieppe are.

Smaller communities can lose their identity to larger ones. This is what is happening in our society in the Moncton area. We are losing our distinctive flavour and identity to someone else. We are being consumed by a larger community. In this case, the private sector broadcasters, to some extent, have assumed that we are part of the Halifax area.

Moncton and area has three English television transmitter points that I know of. One is fed from Fredericton and the other two are fed from Halifax. All three stations develop revenue in the Moncton area market but originate programs from outside of the Moncton area in a regional format. Regional broadcasting also creates problems with news and how it is put together in the newsroom.

News directors, when putting their daily shows together, have to consider the larger Metro Halifax market and the number of smaller communities to be included in the daily news programs. Each has to decide how much regional news the larger metro audience will stand. The metro audience has a need for local news, and I understand that. The stories that are important to the Moncton area may not get air time because of the demands of the larger Metro Halifax audience for news focusing on their area. This problem will exist and will not go away no matter how much money broadcasters have or how much time they have for their news shows. The regional aspect of broadcasting will not work.

There is someone to blame for this. The blame can be placed on big business and on government financial decisions. We had a private sector CTV affiliate station here in Moncton. This was a station that had an eye on the Moncton area. I won't go into the details of the corporate history, but it moved its news production budget from Cape Breton and Moncton to Halifax. I was told at that time that with the superior resources in Halifax the product would be better. I must admit the news hour and the one hour of the magazine evening show demonstrate higher resources and are possibly better products than before, but they have a problem speaking to me as a person living in southeastern New Brunswick.

For example, in stories on their news show, an announcer will refer to “Sackville”, yet just saying “Sackville” leaves me guessing. Is this the town in New Brunswick where my home is, or is it the larger community just outside Halifax? This type of thing leaves me concerned as to what else is being left out or what else is being misinterpreted.

Global and the CBC transmitter points were once part of a station owned by the Irving family. CBC at one time put on the air through this station a produced-in-Moncton evening news show at suppertime. Now Global produces its programs in Halifax and CBC produces its programs in Fredericton using the same transmitter points they did before.

The past argument for CTV holds true for Global as well--newsroom considerations and that sort of thing, dealing with a major metro area--but they still broadcast through a Moncton transmitter.

The CBC has a station in Fredericton, and for the last two years it has had only one half hour to reflect the Moncton area to itself among all the news stories it has for all parts of the province of New Brunswick. Both Global and CTV use a great deal of foreign television programming in their broadcast day.

I was going to take the television guide, photocopy it, and bring it to you just to demonstrate the amount of foreign broadcasting in the day. But with the hockey games on, I had to revert to calling the stations and asking them for a broadsheet of their programs. I have included that and have highlighted the foreign product in the prime time area, Monday through Friday. Also, I took a CBC chart off the Internet to show foreign broadcasting.

As I stated earlier, it was my understanding that the product was to be better with the move from local to regional broadcasting. In fact, the ownership has changed. Now large corporate entities are the producers of the news product and the programs of the broadcast day. Some have had to become broadcasters in a hurry.

I believe that broadcasting is now in the hands of big business. The deficiencies in the news will continue to grow, and the days will be dominated by foreign shows. Foreign products will continue to be used even though most of us can access the same program on its originating network via cable or satellite.

Â (1210)

Railroads brought radio to Canada. At that time the foreign broadcasters lined up to be players in this new business. The government of the day was strong and kept Canadians in charge of the Canadian industry.

We in the Moncton area will have to have a new strategy to stay on the local news map and to bring Moncton entertainment and arts programming to the Moncton area viewers, Canadian-made programs for Canadians.

In conclusion, I would very much like to see the strong presence of a public broadcaster. A public broadcaster with proper resources can bring a good local news product to the Moncton area and arts as well. Thank you very much.

Â (1215)

The Chair: Mr. Flanagan, if you could summarize parts of your brief, it would be appreciated.

Mr. Patrick Flanagan (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Although I'm speaking in a personal capacity, I also work as an advocate for young people for the New Brunswick public service, and I'm a member of the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting steering committee.

This morning my daughter came downstairs and found me reading my comments out loud to get my timing down, and she said, “Dad, are you doing a book talk today?” This won't be as animated as her book talk, unfortunately, but I'll cut and paste and do the best I can.

I want to focus on the issue of regional and local expression. Mr. Walker, who I've just met this morning, has put it very well. In this part of the country, most of what we receive comes from elsewhere. That's not a surprise, because we're a small place, but the concern is that we're getting less from here than we have previously. It's a very modest share of the programming on television and radio where we see ourselves and are able to express ourselves.

As a father of young children, I'm greatly concerned about how little of what we receive through our audio-visual system is about Canada, especially this part of Canada. I wish the CBC were setting a better example in this regard, but that's not the case. I know you've heard from Friends and probably many others, and certainly from Mr. Walker in his visual demonstration, about the paucity of locally produced programming. It hasn't gotten better since September 2000. We have, as he said, 30 minutes of local TV programming. If you take out the commercials, it's considerably less, and much of it is from Nova Scotia.

The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting tracked the audience data for the supper hour shows, and the results are really disturbing. Since October-November we've experienced a considerable drop in viewership for the supper hour shows. Here it means that the audience viewership for Canada Now is 26% lower today than the supper hour show's audience before the change was made. For the regional part it has dropped by 24%.

Some might say this is an indication that Canadians in this part of the country are less interested in Canadian content, but I don't think that's the case. Here in New Brunswick, according to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, prior to the change the one-hour CBC supper hour show had a 12% audience share. That dropped to 7% in 2001. The New Brunswick audience share for the supper hour show used to be much higher than for The National at 10 o'clock. Today the supper hour show audience share is well below that of The National. Our analysis of this data shows clearly that the audience for the supper hour show has been stronger in the east than in the west and that the numbers for The National are just the opposite. One might conclude from this that CBC's reliance on NHL playoff hockey--we risk getting things thrown at us for calling down NHL hockey in the middle of the season--most of which is broadcast in prime time in central Canada, has crippled the audience for the supper hour show in the west and for The National here. I know that my watching The National goes down considerably when hockey is being aired.

It all comes down to resources, from my perspective. We know we can't rely upon the private sector to spotlight local programming during peak viewing periods, and the CBC, by chasing professional sports revenues and starving regional programming--and I think it's clear that has happened here--has impoverished the local reflection in our part of Canada, and undoubtedly elsewhere as well.

I know the committee has already expressed itself strongly on the importance of regional and local broadcasting, and we really appreciate that. Many people were very involved at the time when that was being discussed a couple of years back. I think we were somewhat successful, with your support and that of others, in breaching that somewhat, but we're still suffering from it. What I guess I'm asking you to do is consider addressing this in your report on at least three fronts.

First, underline the importance of the Broadcasting Act's regional values--regional in the sense of local as opposed to regional in this very large, somewhat artificial sense of lumping Newfoundland and Labrador, Metro Halifax, Sackville, and New Brunswick all together and saying it's all regional. It is, but it isn't. And we know it isn't.

Second, ensure the CBC is funded so that it can discharge its regional responsibilities. I think it's common knowledge that resources have been removed from the CBC, and that has to be reflected in what they're able to provide locally--reflection of local realities.

Third, press the CRTC to ensure that private radio and television stations do their part.

I think the charts Mr. Walker is showing here clearly reflect the disparity between what the CBC is at least trying to do and what the local broadcasters are trying.

I conclude with a brief reference to press reports on changes to CBCRadio's schedule. You've noticed, I'm sure, in recent press coverage that CBC Radio may be planning to shave 30 minutes off its local and regional coverage each morning by starting network programs at 8:30 rather than 9 in the morning. I ask you to use your influence to make sure CBC management knows that cutting local reflection under the guise of programming changes is just not on.

Thanks for listening to me, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I wish you well in your deliberations.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Before I pass on to Mr. Atanassov, who has a different viewpoint to bring forward, I would like to thank you, Mr. Walker and Mr. Flanagan.

By the way, Mr. Flanagan, tell your daughter you did very well. It's very difficult to summarize briefs when you're prepared to read them. I think you made your points very clearly, and the main ones came out very well.

Mr. Patrick Flanagan: Thank you.

The Chair: I'd like to thank you for bringing forward an issue that has been raised with us time and time again. Every time we hear it, it just reinforces the importance it has in Canadian broadcasting. So we are most grateful to both of you for articulating it so well.

Mr. Atanassov, when I was reading your brief I couldn't help smiling to myself when you described how you were scared to come here, thinking a witness meant somebody's guilty of a crime. But as you can see, we are pretty friendly people, except for some people like Mr. Black here.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We're very pleased to welcome you here, so we'd be pleased to hear you.

Mr. Maxim Atanassov (Individual Presentation): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear in front of the committee.

The Chair: Is there any chance you could do the same as Mr. Flanagan--because you look just as smart--and just summarize parts of it, so we can get on to questions?

Mr. Maxim Atanassov: I will do my best.

My name is Maxim Atanassov. I'm a founding partner with Cinelogic, which is a video production and post-production company based in Saint John, New Brunswick.

The reason I'm appearing in front of the committee today is twofold. On one side I want to represent the smaller business owners, the smaller production companies faced with the challenge of not having an outlet or a medium of expression for their productions. On the other side is me, as an immigrant in Canada, being faced with the impossibility of maintaining or preserving my cultural heritage. I chose New Brunswick and I chose Saint John as a place of residence because I love this place. I love the city; I love the province. But not having cultural content that addresses my needs might force me to go to central Canada where I can find it.

In my mind, a bilingual province or a bilingual country means a country that supports a multicultural environment, including being Canadian-Bulgarian or Bulgarian-Canadian. It is English and Bulgarian or German and Canadian.

Technology today allows for a very customized streaming of media that addresses the individual needs of people. It can be unicasting; it can be multicasting.

I was working for a company out of Saint John, a software development company that develops software for digital television. Through my involvement in the company I found out that analog broadcasting in Europe is going to cease in 2005; a year later it's going to cease in North America. This opens up a whole new area where Canada can jump on this opportunity to develop content that addresses the individual needs of different ethnic groups within Canada.

I would also like to see the CRTC having more flexible rules for allowing foreign satellite channels to be rebroadcast in Canada. In my mind, this does not lead to weakening of the Canadian cultural identity, but the opposite: it leads to improvement, enrichment, and strengthening of the Canadian cultural identity.

On the business side of the equation, I have had an experience where, through my company, we had secured a large amount of government funding for production of a TV show that never materialized, because of not having the right connections, being just an emerging company, to secure a broadcast licence--which was a condition of the government agency that was securing the funding.

I've tried to provide a brief synopsis to allow the committee members to get on their airplanes. In conclusion, I would just like to see a little more flexible rules by the CRTC and a little bit more cultural sensitivity to the much smaller minorities in Canada. Thank you for your time.

Â (1225)

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

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

I appreciate the presentations of the three of you, because they've not only been solid but have also presented what appears to be not a serious conflict but something for which we would have to create a balance. We've heard earlier representations from people from the French-speaking communities. We've heard about the requests for the possibility of more intervention on the part of the CRTC with respect to programming and accessibility for smaller communities, or the recognition of smaller communities. Now we've heard a very eloquent presentation on taking a look at more potential input from yet at least a third group of people, who would again fragment into Bulgarians, Italians, and people from Pakistan, and so on.

Given that as a challenge, I wonder if the three of you could give us some suggestions as to how you get the balance. Do we have the CRTC get more involved? Do we have more government regulation? You have also heard that there's the problem with so much red tape, so many forms to be filled out, that people are saying they don't want the CRTC involved.

So you can see, it seems that we have absolutely valid perspectives. I'm not putting down any one of those perspectives. I'm just saying they're all competing, and I'm wondering if, between the three of you, you want to comment on how you would see getting that balance.

Â (1230)

The Chair: Who wants to answer?

Mr. Walker, I see you're eager.

Mr. Alf Walker: To answer your question, to me it's obvious that we need a single, strong public broadcaster. In a lot of what we've heard today with Rogers, which is a huge company--and I commend their ability to get into the communities, the smaller communities, with community television and volunteers--and also with the Acadian groups that were represented here--and I congratulate them on getting their radio stations going--they are taking what used to be a strong public broadcaster's revenue or funds that were provided by the government. The pie is being split into smaller and smaller pieces. From one or both of the Acadian groups we heard that Radio-Canada plays a big role in their society and their product complements Radio-Canada's.

If you take a look across the country, from Cape Breton to Vancouver Island, north and south and east and west, the public broadcaster's funds are being whittled away. They've had to make do with what they've had, and they have done very well. The 30-30 has been the local or regional news of 30 minutes on a daily basis and then a national news with Ian Hanomansing from Vancouver, which has done very well, but it was something designed to meet a budgetary crunch.

In my mind, I don't know if there is a middle ground. I certainly like the cable channels. I view EastLink; I watch their cable channel from time to time. In fact, I watched Cape Breton and Halifax play junior hockey recently.

Mr. Jim Abbot: Who won?

Mr. Alf Walker: Well, I'm not sure who's winning. I guess I'll leave that up to....

The Chair: If I may say very kindly, if the three of you answer at that length, multiplied by five here, I think some people might miss their plane. So if you could be a little bit more concise....

Mr. Alf Walker: My point is, financially, we're taking away from a strong public broadcaster to provide funding for a lot of other special interest groups, and I would rather see that funding stay with the public broadcaster to make it even stronger.

The Chair: Fair enough.

Mr. Patrick Flanagan: I wouldn't add anything at this point.

Mr. Maxim Atanassov: As far as the CRTC is concerned, I grew up in a communist country where everything was regulated. I think a successful path that the broadcasting system can take is to allow for self-governance, but also the CRTC to provide the ground rules that have to be followed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Atanassov.

You are challenging me this morning. You say that a bilingual country is one where people speak English and another language, Italian or your language, and the language of the cultural communities that have chosen to live in this country. I do not have the same view of bilingualism. For me, it is English and French.

Moreover, you are asking for satellites that can capture foreign programs. That may be a good thing to wish for, but as someone who is contributing to the development of Canadian society, don't you think that it would be better to produce programs from your perspective here, since you are providing added value? You decided to move to Canada and you chose Moncton, which has strong French and English communities. Why don't you propose producing programs instead of bringing programs in from somewhere else that do not contribute to reinforcing Canadian culture?

In itself, I think that it is good to have news from abroad, but we are talking about local and regional broadcasting. How will what you want translate into local and regional productions? I would like to hear your comments on that. I am very open. I have travelled widely and I am always impressed by people who choose to come and live here, by people who leave their countries and re-establish themselves somewhere else.

Â (1235)

[English]

The Chair: You have a challenge now.

Mr. Maxim Atanassov: I'm actually not on the opposite side of the fence in this situation. I have a production company; my business interest is to produce local and Canadian content, and I would love to see more of this.

But this is a francophonie country, and I have no problem with the French language. It's not as if it's Bulgarian versus French. French exists. Canada is definitely bilingual, which in Canada means English and French, but in the Constitution it's laid out that there is room for a multicultural society. We would all be better off as a society if we allowed for the other cultures to intertwine and interact.

I'm going to Europe from May 21 to 24 for a production show in London, and then on June 3 I'm going to Vevey in Switzerland for the MITIL Conference. I'm not someone who just wants to bring content in from other parts of the world. I want to use other parts of the world to produce content that addresses the needs of the people living within Canada, something that addresses their interests and their opinions.

I love CBC, and I would like to see a CBC-2, a service that is not so much entertainment-oriented and does not have as much TV-show-type stuff, but rather is a medium where Canadians can find something they really want or like. It would fully address their needs, or at least to some extent it would keep them close to where they came from.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Don't you think that broadcasting what is happening abroad is the role of Radio-Canada International? I can understand you may be interested in issues other than Canada, but Radio-Canada International provides us with the foreign perspective in terms of vision, conflicts, etc. TV5 also provides us with a host of programs from Europe.

[English]

Mr. Maxim Atanassov: I absolutely agree that Radio Canada International is such a vehicle. CBC Television has BBC feeds that provide a European perspective. I just think there could be more of it.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Atanassov, you want more foreign language programming. A couple of months ago I was in an East Indian restaurant in Winnipeg, and I noticed that they had a television set there and the owner of the restaurant had programming service from Pakistan and India. Now, I assume that was not from the local cable company, which is Shaw, but from a satellite. I don't know which satellite.

From what you know...there are those programs, whether they're Indian, Pakistani, German, or French, and they're somewhere up there in the sky, available through satellite. You'd like the cable companies to provide the same service, would you?

Mr. Maxim Atanassov: In Canada I understand there is a mandatory package that cable companies have to provide and then there is an optional package.

I don't see a reason why the individual should not be left to select the channels to include in this mandatory package. I absolutely believe that the CBC should be one of these channels. But in New Brunswick, I don't see the value of The Shopping Channel or the Public Broadcasting Service of Maine.

I don't understand if it's legal to use a satellite to bring content from Europe. There is a Bulgarian satellite channel, and if it's legal, I can get it. But recently the issue of American channels coming into Canada and using black-market dishes was in the news. So I'm just not familiar with the situation.

Â (1240)

Mr. John Harvard: I have one question for Mr. Flanagan.

Mr. Flanagan, I'm a strong supporter of public broadcasting. I think we've heard a number of presentations this week with regard to local and regional programming. In a way, it's really akin to motherhood: everybody loves it.

But we can't seem to find a way of restoring it, some of what has been lost. As a committee, we will have to struggle at some point to come to a position on how it might be refinanced or of finding a different way of financing local and regional programming.

The commercial people are not going to do it because there's no money in it, at least according to them. And as for the CBC, I suppose if you gave it several hundred million dollars more and said spend it on local and regional programming, I guess it would do it. I just don't see this happening either.

Is there some other kind of funding paradigm we could think about that would be a better resource for local and regional programming? If we get some local money in, provincial money, municipal money--and I'm not talking necessarily government money but any kind of money--if people want this kind of programming, are they prepared to pay for it, or do they want it all to come from either the private sector or the federal purse?

Mr. Patrick Flanagan: I know it is and has been a challenge. Despite what I say here, I think things are a lot better than they were at one point a long time ago. When I was a lot younger I saw even less local stuff.

As a musician who worked full time in the 1960s and 1970s, it was very tough to get any kind of visibility. CanCon and all of the things that have been implemented have made things much more accessible than they used to be.

However, we see it moving away from us. You say we could give the CBC an extra couple of hundred million dollars. Much more than that has been taken away from them. I'm sure this has a great deal to do with it. I wasn't clear from what you said what it is you think is unlikely to happen, that the money will go to the CBC or that the CBC will actually use it for regional programming. I'm not certain what the decision would be there either.

But therein lies part of the problem, from my understanding--the management at the CBC and its direction. Is it pulling in the same direction as the one people want it to go in, in terms of regional programming? I'm not certain that just giving the CBC money would see it go in the direction of more local programming. I don't know that this is what it would do with more money.

In terms of where the money would come from, I'm not really that familiar with all of the various approaches one might take to raising money publicly, and so on and so forth.

Mr. John Harvard: I just think that the current funding arrangement is not going to make it happen.

Mr. Patrick Flanagan: No.

Mr. John Harvard: And I'm not talking about the amount; I'm talking about the arrangement that we now have for public broadcasting. I don't think it's going to work. It's not providing the answers to what we want. So if the current arrangement doesn't work, do we look at some other kind of arrangement, and what might that be? That's really my question.

Â (1245)

Mr. Patrick Flanagan: Well, I think it is a resource question. I would agree with you there in terms of writing off the government. I'm not prepared to do that in terms of their being a major source for this. I think it's that important for my kids and for the country as a whole, given where we are and the influences kids face these days from everywhere else. I think we need to do something more and I think we need some leadership on behalf of government.

The Chair: If I understand Mr. Harvard correctly, I don't think he was suggesting that we should write off the government, but we should perhaps look at ways whereby this could happen more effectively than it does today, including, of course, the government.

Mr. Patrick Flanagan: Yes, I'm in agreement with that. I'm sorry, I don't have the answers to provide. I wouldn't be adverse... I don't think it should only be government. I'm not trying to suggest that either. I'm not sure that there is a very clear path forward without the government to continue to provide leadership as opposed to providing questionable leadership and support for the CBC.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner, do you have any questions?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: First, for the benefit of the rest of the committee members, I want to let you know that Mr. Atanassov made the comment about The Shopping Channel. Our researcher, Joe Jackson, made the comment last night that this was his favourite channel because there were far fewer commercials. So I'm sure we'll share that with him when he gets back.

We've seen people step up through the testimony--and I'm a supporter of the public broadcaster for sure--and it's been Canadians telling Canadian stories.

I know in my little part of Canada where I come from the spring brings the opening of lobster season and the NHL playoffs. And life isn't right, the planets aren't aligned, if Peter Mansbridge does the news before Don Cherry and Ron McLean do their post-game wrap-up.

I know we get beaten up with...sometimes the CBC is for the intellectually elite, but sports is a big part of what we are as Canadians. We are the very best at the sport of hockey and we are the very best at CBC with broadcasting the sport of hockey and many other sports. And I don't think we have to apologize for anything. Canadians take their hockey and their playoffs very seriously, and it's CBC that does the very best job with it. So I think part of Canadiana is the inconvenience that's had during the month of May. Anyway, I want to let you know that's the part of CBC most Canadians appreciate.

Mr. Patrick Flanagan: Canada has placed it upon hockey today.

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you so much for coming today. I think this trip to the east has been a real eye-opener for everyone on the committee. I'm the representative for Dartmouth and Mr. Cuzner represents Cape Breton, so we do understand the profound differences there are in terms of the impact of pulling the CBC out in different regions.

In Toronto you can probably get quite a diversity of voices and coverage of all sorts of things from the many stations available. In places like Corner Brook, Newfoundland, in places like rural New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, it's very difficult, and you're really identifying some of the important issues here that we have to address as a committee.

I think the idea is that lack of sensitivity to what local means, to what it does to Sackville when they put out Sackville. Do they mean New Brunswick or do they mean the outskirts of Halifax? The fact is that's a big difference. It pinpoints a laxness and a casualness about what the CBC bosses are thinking about this thing called regional and local programming.

Do they take it seriously? Quite frankly, I don't think we're seeing that they do. If we are serious about public broadcasting in this country, we have to invest the resources to make sure the people who are living in the far stretches of this country feel they're being heard, no matter what ethnic group they represent or what their situation in life or their location is. So that's a comment. If you want to... [Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

Â (1250)

Mr. Patrick Flanagan: I would just add that I think your comment isn't so much a reflection on the announcers, who would make every effort to stretch between giving people something that gives them the impression of it being local.... They want you to feel like this is your station or this is your public broadcaster, but at the same time they would slip by, just using Sackville and not trying to raise it to a level where they really distance themselves from the audience. It creates these kinds of situations. It does highlight the challenge that on-air people would have to face because of decisions that are being taken.

The Chair: Mr. Walker, Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Atanassov, it's easy for us to welcome institutions and associations. It is part of their work to appear before us, but it takes a lot more determination for individuals to take the time and trouble to come here and meet us. We really appreciate your presence, especially as you've brought a very important message.

With a name like Patrick Flanagan, I suppose you must have a prime place in the St. Patrick's parade every year in Moncton.

Mr. Patrick Flanagan: I'm actually from Fredericton, but my mother is a Barrieau, so I have a number of affiliations.

The Chair: Is that right? You have the best of two worlds.

Good luck, Mr. Atanassov, in English, Bulgarian, and en français, for the future.

Thank you very much for appearing here. We really appreciate your presence and your thoughts.

The meeting is adjourned.