CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 2, 1998

• 1108

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), which is the continuation of our study on Canada's cultural policy.

[Translation]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is continuing its study of Canada's cultural policy.

[English]

We're privileged today to welcome Mr. Perrin Beatty, president and CEO of the CBC; Mr. James McCoubrey, executive vice-president and chief operating officer; and

[Translation]

Ms. Louise Tremblay, First Vice-President, Resources.

[English]

I think I would be remiss in not saying a brief word about our main guest, the Honourable Perrin Beatty. I would remind parliamentarians of something they no doubt know: he has held several senior portfolios in the administrations of Mr. Joe Clark and Mr. Brian Mulroney. In 1979, when he was appointed a minister by Mr. Clark, he happened to be the youngest minister in Canada at that time.

• 1110

He has taken a personal interest in communications and culture from a very young age, and I think it was fitting that he was appointed to the CBC, one of our key cultural institutions. He has been extremely interested in what the committee is doing in regard to our study.

As you know, we were invited to the CBC. Unfortunately, it clashed with votes and so forth, so few members could be there. I think those who did attend, however, were extremely interested in what we learned. Mr. Beatty took part in one of our round tables, but today we have him and his colleagues all to ourselves for questioning for the next two hours.

I'd like to turn the floor over to you and welcome you very warmly to our committee, Mr. Beatty.

Hon. Perrin Beatty (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and particularly for those very kind words of welcome.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here today.

We are pleased to respond to your request that we give a brief overview of our corporate planning and offer some thoughts on the issues you are reviewing: the impact of new technologies, the evolution of the global economy, and the liberalization of trade.

[English]

First, Mr. Chairman, let me take a couple of minutes to describe how far we have come in the last three years, and some of the new initiatives that we intend to take in the months ahead. I think they will be of interest to members of the committee.

On April 1, 1995, when I joined the corporation, it was in deep crisis. My predecessor had just resigned in the face of major budget cuts, and the government had announced that it would appoint a review committee to consider the corporation's mandate. The last three years have been turbulent. During that time, government cuts to the CBC's budget increased substantially; there was a dramatic increase in the amount of competition to establish broadcasters; and we entered into negotiations with our unions that would have led to our going dark if they had failed. We had to reinvent our program schedules, restructure our organization, and introduce new services and technologies. We made the deepest cuts in the CBC's history, reducing our staff by more than 3,000 positions and overcoming a financial challenge of over $400 million.

It has been an enormously difficult period, and I don't want to minimize the human cost for our employees or their frustration at not having the resources that we needed to serve Canadians to our full potential. But, Mr. Chairman, we have surmounted these challenges and we are entering the new fiscal year stronger, more focused on our mandate, more confident, and more determined than ever to serve our audiences.

With the government's commitment to stable financing for the next five fiscal years, we have now entered a period of relative calm. There's good reason to be optimistic. We have achieved a corporate turnaround and can now redirect our creative energies into what we do best, broadcasting high-quality radio and television, and not into how to prepare for the next round of cuts.

We've come a long way. We have dramatically reduced the costs to Canadian taxpayers, but we are also more faithful to our mandate of helping Canadians see themselves and the world through Canadian eyes. Our national schedules are both more Canadian and a more faithful reflection of Canada's regions than ever before in our history. Additionally, our programs continue to win domestic and international competitions. In the most recent Geminis, which took place last month, CBC won more than three times as many awards as our closest competitor.

Although we substantially reduced our staff over the last three years, we did not close one regional station. Some programs were cancelled, while others are now being produced on smaller budgets. I eliminated several vice-presidential positions, sold our headquarters building here in Ottawa, and reduced head office staff by over half. We introduced new technologies to reduce costs, while providing better service. And we're the only Canadian broadcaster to have established a strong presence in new media.

[Translation]

Let me give you some concrete examples of how we have been able to improve service to Canadians at the same time as we have reduced costs.

This February, Franco-Newfoundlanders finally got something that they have been asking for more than ten years. Where they had once received their supper-hour news program from Montreal, they can now see Moncton's Ce soir, complete with reports from a journalist based in St. John's—giving the Moncton Ce soir greater local roots. Radio-Canada has also added reporters in Kapuskasing, and Hawkesbury, Ontario as well as Victoria, British Columbia.

• 1115

[English]

In radio, we're looking at better ways to serve current audiences and to win new ones. With the new $10 million from the government, with important advances in technology, and with having negotiated the freedom to introduce multi-skilling, we can do more than ever before.

Just yesterday we opened a new two-person bureau in Cambridge Bay. The bureau will serve and reflect the Kitikmeot region of the eastern Arctic and is part of CBC North's preparations for the creation of the new territory of Nunavut a year from now.

By the beginning of June we'll open a new Radio-Canada pocket bureau in Trois-Rivières and another in Sherbrooke. In June we'll be launching a Radio One bureau in London. Later this year, we'll also be opening a new Radio One station in Victoria, the only remaining provincial capital without this basic CBC service.

And to improve reception of our signals, we're moving a number of our radio services to the FM band in Canada's two largest cities. The process has already begun in Montreal, and Radio One will be doing the same in Toronto this month.

[Translation]

In January, we dealt with a very different kind of crisis. In response to one of the worst ice storms in a hundred years, we transformed our radio operations in Montreal and in Ottawa into a lifeline service—providing information from how to use a generator to where to find a shelter; from reports on the whereabouts of the Canadian Army to thoughtful conversations in the middle of a cold night, perhaps sometimes the most welcome relief of all.

In the Montérégie region, we even opened a new radio station to meet the needs of those locked by darkness in the Black Triangle. CBC Television provided round-the-clock information and news bulletins—offering help to those directly affected by the storm, and keeping the rest of Canada up to date on the latest developments. CBC's response to this crisis proves, as it had during the Saguenay and Manitoba flooding, that Canada's national broadcaster plays a vital role in every region of Canada.

[English]

In February, we took our audiences to Nagano, providing the coverage of choice for critics and viewers from all over North America. In the first week, the market share for our English and French services on television was an amazing 28.2% and 35.2%, respectively. In fact, in the first week of the games some 17 million tuned into our English television services alone to share in the Olympic spirit. In the wee hours of the night, an average of 1.3 million Canadians were glued to CBC television.

And not only was it good, it was efficient. CBC's participation in the Olympic Games was covered by self-generated revenues and not funded through the parliamentary appropriation. We provided our coverage for our six services and assisted the Japanese government in supplying host broadcaster services with a staff complement that was between one-quarter and one-third that of CBS. We broadcast—all television services together—over 600 hours as compared to 135 hours for CBS.

Our immensely popular Olympic website, in partnership with Bell Canada, gave Canadians and international visitors an opportunity to learn much more about the athletes they were watching.

We're very proud of our coverage of both the Atlanta and Nagano Olympic Games and I'm pleased to tell you that Canadians can look forward to the same standard for at least the next decade. As you may have heard recently, the IOC has awarded the next five Olympic Games to the CBC in partnership with Netstar.

Finally, on another front, we've also embarked on a project to ensure our financial systems remain functional for the year 2000 and to provide the information we need for a more accountable, modern and efficient corporation. This year, for the first time in our history, we produced an on-air annual report which we broadcast to our shareholders from coast to coast.

What about the year ahead? What are the initiatives that we're taking? Looking ahead over the next 12 months, we expect a good year. Our parliamentary appropriation has now been stabilized at $822 million. In addition, we've projected net revenues of about $271 million.

• 1120

There are more details in material we will distribute to you shortly that will show you the breakdown and evolution of the CBC's budget.

I might simply add, as an aside, that although we are a crown corporation, we are far from being insulated from the realities of the marketplace. This year, for example, we will generate over $411 million in the market.

I'd like now to outline some of our main strategic directions for this fiscal year. First, in television, this year we'll be increasing the distinctive nature of CBC English television by continuing to Canadianize our schedules. Going all-Canadian in prime time meant replacing about 200 hours of programming. Canadianizing daytime means replacing nearly 1,000 hours of programming each year.

[Translation]

As regards French-language television, we will be introducing several new series, developing new programs for young people, and increasing the overall Canadian content level.

Common to both English and French television, we will broadcast several new cross-cultural programs, and continue our efforts to maintain a strong regional reflection. With the support of the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund, we will continue to partner with the private sector to produce quality Canadian programs which reflect all parts of Canada.

[English]

Most importantly, we are now embarked on producing A People's History of Canada, the most ambitious history project ever undertaken in this country. This co-production of our English and French television networks will help us mark the millennium and will be a permanent record of an epic story.

Either by ourselves or in partnership with others, we've applied to the CRTC for six new specialty channels that will provide new instruments we can use to reach our audiences.

Now I'd like to mention our priorities in radio.

[Translation]

As regards French radio, we will increase the number of exchanges between regions, complete the repositioning of its two networks, and develop a national policy for music broadcasting.

[English]

On the English side, we will continue to improve service to Canadians by providing information they need when they need it, and to air more new voices on both of our networks. Both radio services will see the launch of digital radio broadcasting. We will be looking at additional initiatives to serve new or under-served audiences.

For its part, Radio-Canada International has received the assurance of long-term funding from the government, which has allowed us to look at how to most effectively present Canada's face abroad.

We will also use new media to serve Canadians more fully. We'll add to the number of program sites uniquely designed for the Internet. These sites will cover areas such as news, sports, youth, culture and la francophonie. We will develop new sites that will offer Canadians the chance to give us feedback—forums and other sites designed to engage and interact with our audiences. In addition, we'll continue to use the Internet to promote on-air programs and to simulcast on-air content.

Let me turn specifically to some of the topics the committee is reviewing. In particular, you've asked us to describe technology's impact on the cultural sector.

Like the citizens of other developed countries, Canadians are engaged in a highly vocal debate about the benefits and costs of new technology. To the optimists, digital technologies can miraculously cure most of society's ills. To the critics, these technologies will overwhelm us, leaving us enslaved to our machines like helpless robots.

These days it's hard not to be dazzled as our machines and appliances get faster, smaller, and cheaper, and even vacuum cleaners come with on-board intelligence. Those of us who are interested in preserving Canada's culture need to keep our focus on content, treating technology not as an end in itself but as a means to an end.

The ever-growing power and ubiquity of the microchip, along with the convergence of computing, communications, and consumer electronics, have created remarkable new tools for creating and reaching audiences. Some of these, like direct-to-home satellites, are delivering familiar content in unfamiliar ways. Others, like the World Wide Web, are changing how we think about access to information, production values, and personal control over content.

Just think of some of the ways in which technology is opening up opportunities.

First, the power to communicate is becoming ever cheaper and faster for individual citizens.

Second, the rapid decrease in the cost of digital intelligence has allowed enormous amounts of computing power, which was once so expensive that only governments and other large institutions could possess it, to flow into the hands of both small organizations and individuals. The result is that individuals can have much greater control over all elements of the creative process. Technical constraints on the amounts and kinds of information that we can process, transmit, and store are disappearing, allowing us to do things that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

• 1125

Competitive businesses are replacing regulated monopolies. Broadcasting and telecommunications services now offer new choices to their audiences and customers at a record rate, but the benefits that technology brings are not without their costs. Modern communications technologies are dissolving national borders. They've challenged our cultural sovereignty by making government regulation to protect culture much less effective.

As they present greater choices to our citizens, they also reduce our sense of shared experiences as a community. They leave many consumers feeling overwhelmed by choice rather than empowered by it. They create an unprecedented turbulence in our cultural industries and overthrow many of our heartfelt assumptions about how to finance, make, and deliver cultural products.

[Translation]

The central question is: how should we react to this turbulence?

Technology is a critical element for our industry. We depend on it for making programs, sending them out over the air, preserving our music and other assets, and reaching audiences in their homes through both traditional and new media.

Also, competition, open borders, deregulation and audience fragmentation have shaken our industry. As the range of choices available to audiences grows, conditions get considerably more difficult for broadcasters. Growing competition drives up the cost of program rights, while the audiences broadcasters need to generate their revenues are split into dozens of smaller segments.

Most importantly, the public broadcaster is particularly sensitive to changes in audience needs, and we must bear the cost of providing services using both traditional and new technologies.

[English]

Despite all of these challenges, I think the new technology brings important advantages to the CBC.

First, new digital technologies invite a high degree of participation and personalization on the part of the audience. They make a passive media experience much more active and involving. These are the attributes that we've always cultivated in our own audiences. As cheap access devices like WebTV become more plentiful, new media will help us strengthen and enrich our relationship with our audiences.

Second, as a country of regions, Canada has always struggled to communicate over great distances and provide a voice to a wide range of communities, including those isolated by geography. Now public networks like the World Wide Web offer broadcasters a new set of tools to reach these communities. They also help those in smaller localities or operating in a minority language to communicate with like-minded people, wherever they live.

Finally, the new technologies allow us to provide better service at a lower cost. For example, they let journalists in the field work closer to deadline, produce their pieces on light, portable equipment, and transmit them to network headquarters more efficiently.

The new technologies facilitate doing our job more effectively as long as we have a clear understanding of who we are and what our job is. Simply put, we are our programs. Our primary mission is to show Canada and the world to Canadians through Canadian eyes, and we do it through our programs. We have other roles, but telling Canadian stories in our drama, journalism, and music is the most important of them.

Technology is the instrument that we use to do our job, but it should never be confused with our mission. I don't want to leave the impression that CBC has all of the new technologies all figured out. One of the paradoxes we face is that we must become masters of many technologies even as we concentrate on the more important issues of creating and distributing content. Over the air, cable, specialty services, disks, websites, and other delivery platforms, like cable modems and ADSL, all offer pathways into the homes of our audiences.

• 1130

This cross-media approach is challenging for a conventional broadcaster like the CBC, because our major assets and reputation are so closely tied to our main networks. Part of the legacy of old technology is our commitment to the hardware and the tools that help us make and distribute the programs. As we invest in new technologies, we must stay current but be careful of the risks associated with being early innovators in areas like high-definition television.

We led innovation in digital radio and we're steadily replacing analogue links in the TV production chain with digital equipment. It's just a matter of time before the final link between our transmitters and the viewer also becomes digital. But in high-definition TV, which consumes vast quantities of bandwidth and dollars, we should slipstream the Americans, given the huge marketing, programming and technical risks involved. We will let them determine whether a market exists for HDTV, but we will be close behind, watching attentively and ready to move quickly.

[Translation]

A moment ago I mentioned audience fragmentation—a reality broadcasters have had to learn to live with in the 1990s. From the broadcasters' vantage point, it has been a painful learning experience. But of course, audiences themselves don't talk about the 'problem' of fragmentation, and why would they? They have been courted as never before by programmers, delivery providers, consumer electronics companies and regulators, all of whom are outdoing each other to bring choice to Canadian audiences.

The irony is that every positive step taken in the direction of increased channel choice seems to reflect the challenge to our policy and regulatory framework for broadcasting. We have just discussed the challenges posed by technology. In some ways, those posed by the whole move to trade liberalization can be even more daunting. While policy makers and regulators have some control over the introduction of new communications technologies, in the realm of international trade, we are dealing with much larger economic and political forces.

[English]

I see three distinct developments: First, the deployment of NAFTA and other treaties that remove protectionist trade barriers; second, the increasingly aggressive stance taken by Washington on efforts by other countries to preserve their national cultures; and third, and perhaps the most powerful of the three, an international climate that puts a premium on open competition and the global economy.

NAFTA and other multilateral treaties have hastened the decline of protectionist measures and gradually changed thinking about the idea of national cultures. While direct government spending on purely cultural activities may not be at issue, such treaties may call into question a range of other measures, including both indirect subsidies, such as federal spending on broadcast programming, and protectionist measures like the exclusion of many U.S. cable networks. Successive governments have fought to preserve their right to support culture under international trade law. In the field of broadcasting, they have been largely successful, but it's vital that they continue to be vigilant.

It's important to note, Mr. Chairman, that as a federal institution, the CBC is an added protection against attacks on Canada's cultural policies. If the CBC did not exist, Canadians would have lost one of the few instruments of Canadian culture that remains sustainable under international trade law.

In these matters, it is important to understand the dividing line between culture and cultural industries. Our southern neighbours take a much narrower view of what constitutes culture than do Canadians. Because of the size of the American market and the strength of its cultural industries, it has an enormous advantage over its competitors in a totally unregulated marketplace.

The tide is turning against protectionism in fields closely related to the cultural industries. In early 1997, multilateral agreements were concluded in both the telecommunications and information technology industries. In January 1997, the Information Technology Agreement lowered trade barriers for equipment vendors and suppliers. A month later, telecommunication services were liberalized under the auspices of the WTO-GATS. A few years ago, such developments would have had little effect on a content industry like broadcasting, but this is the age of convergence, and the push for open borders in one sector will inevitably undermine protectionism in all of the convergent industries.

• 1135

Because the new technologies ignore political and geographic boundaries, the interplay between Canada's domestic and international policy instruments is vital. Domestic policies that overlook international conditions can leave Canada vulnerable to politically and economically motivated trade actions by our trading partners.

While the move to open borders threatens many established cultural policies, it's not simply the product of trade economics. Indeed, the inexorable spread of technologies like direct-to-home satellite television service has allowed foreign companies to bypass national borders and national regulations, even when satellite spill is not part of their formal business plans. The ubiquity and anonymity of the Internet make it even easier to efface national borders.

To be fair, the move to open borders also provides opportunities for Canadian content producers looking to compete internationally. The export records posted by Canada's largest film and television production houses, for example, are impressive. But while we're thinking of the success stories, the CBC would also like to remind the committee that Canada's very successes in the global entertainment business raise some very serious problems.

First, let's be clear about the difference between producing television for business reasons to make a profit for shareholders, and for cultural reasons to serve the interests of the audience and foster a sense of what it is to be a Canadian. The difference is reflected in industrial policy on one hand and cultural policy on the other. There's an enormous difference between a conspicuously Canadian program made for Canadians and a product made in Canada that camouflages its origin to make it more marketable in other countries.

There's nothing wrong with making money, creating jobs and building prestige for Canada in world film and television market—far from it. However, the move to open borders will ensure that our cultural industries experience more and not less competition from foreign services. As a result, there's a real risk that private Canadian broadcasters will eventually find themselves put out of the profitable business of importing American TV programs for exhibition in Canada. Not surprisingly, many in the private sector have been talking more about the importance of developing Canadian programming as a business rather than just as a regulatory obligation.

Canada's broadcasting policies have long favoured maintaining private and public broadcasters that are both healthy and active. I am a firm believer that we would be poorer as a country if we were to lose either. I believe the need for a mixed public-private system will remain at least as great in the future. The protections afforded private broadcasters, such as simultaneous substitution, to generate revenues and cross-subsidize their efforts in Canadian programming are important. However, the more these protections are called into question, the more important it becomes for Canada to have a public, non-profit-making broadcaster like the CBC, whose mission it is to make culturally significant, conspicuously Canadian program material.

Having a healthy public broadcaster is important, not only because the protectionist framework that supports the private sector is at some risk, but also because, whatever the outcome of the trade debates, private broadcasters are less likely than the CBC to take chances with unprofitable program genres. That's not a criticism of them, it's simply a recognition that we were created for different reasons and serve different masters.

The activities of profit-making broadcasters, production houses and other such businesses deserve the support of the federal government. But the efforts of cultural institutions like the CBC need a different kind of support, based not on protectionism but on funding through the corporation's parliamentary appropriation, as well as through mechanisms like the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund.

What should we be trying to accomplish with these precious taxpayer resources? The CBC sees two vital tasks ahead as we learn to cope with the lessons of open borders and the global economy. First, we must create more shelf space for Canadian programs. This is becoming particularly important in the broadcasting sphere. Since we can no longer keep out competition, we have to be present in as many places as possible—on the conventional broadcasting dial, in specialty and pay audio services, and in cyberspace, whatever form that may take in the next few years.

• 1140

Second, we must do everything possible to enhance the quality of distinctively Canadian programming. That will require public money, because this kind of programming is less likely to attract American buyers. Our programs must be of high quality so that they can compete on their merits for the Canadian audience. We have no right to expect Canadians to watch or to listen to our programs out of a sense of duty.

Given the enormous influence of American television and film-making around the world, creating shelf space will not be easy. But the CBC is well suited for the task, provided that it has the resources and the operating flexibility, such as the ability to increase its outlets in both regulated media, like speciality television services, and unregulated media, like the web.

Let's turn to the question of the changing demographics of Canada.

While we were in the midst of change at the CBC, our country was changing as well. Our major cities are more diverse than ever and the cities themselves are only getting larger. The population bulge created by the boomers is still there, but right behind it are smaller successive waves of young people with a completely different relation to Canadian culture.

I'm proud of the multicultural face of the CBC. From on-air reporters to people working behind the scenes, we've improved the diversity of our representation. In fact, we've just introduced a new, twice-weekly program on Radio One called Out Front, which celebrates new voices. In specific time slots you can hear the best of world music.

But we can't become complacent, especially in attracting younger audiences to the CBC. Their world view is one that's deeply informed by their own multicultural and, in many cases, bilingual experience. I know we have to do more to be in tune with Canada today. While our traditional audiences are older than the population as a whole, to be relevant tomorrow we'll have to find ways to attract and maintain younger Canadians. New technology will let us develop new pathways to the 18 to 35 age group. We'll be looking for new methods to improve our service to this important market.

[Translation]

What role should the Government perform?

As I mentioned before, by putting innovative mechanisms in place, such as the Canada Film and Television Production Fund, the Government is contributing greatly to the development of a vibrant, exciting Canadian culture. We hope it will also look in this direction to help support other facets of the industry, which are instrumental to the provision of quality Canadian content. A Fund for feature film development production and distribution would assist this genre to flourish. We have already expressed to the Government that we want to see the Canadian feature film become the success story that it deserves to be, and that CBC is more than ready to play its part.

I think that the new media sector would also benefit from such a fund. New media markets know no borders. A fund to foster the creation of conspicuously Canadian, but internationally appealing, new media products would mean that our children could at least stay connected to Canada's rich cultural heritage. Of course, such a fund would greatly assist the creation of French- language material and strengthen that emerging industry right here in Canada. As a key producer of French-language content, CBC stands ready to assist the Government in increasing the volume of French material on the Internet, and particularly of material with a Canadian focus.

[English]

On another front, the government, in its capacity as regulator, must help to sustain our national cultural industries during a period of enormous change. For example, it has a vital role to play in the areas of copyright reform and spectrum allocation.

Finally, in the case of the CBC, both Parliament and the government must continue to support its status as a public broadcaster owned by the citizens of Canada. As a journalistic and cultural institution, we have to ensure that audiences have confidence in the credibility and integrity of our programs; otherwise, our ability to function will be destroyed.

• 1145

The difference is whether we're perceived as a public broadcaster, an agent of democracy, or as a state broadcaster, an agent of bureaucracy. Parliament was very careful to enshrine in law our arm's length relationship to government for that reason. We must continue to support that principle if Canadians are to have a public broadcaster whose journalism and entertainment provide the standard for excellence for the industry in Canada and around the world.

These, then, are our thoughts on the issues that you asked us to address today. The period through which we've just passed has not been easy, but with the vision to see how we could achieve a more secure future, with our employees' courage in embracing change, we've succeeded. In many ways the challenges for all of us who believe in Canadian culture are the same. We face enormous uncertainty, but if we have the vision to know where we want to go and the courage to set out on the journey, we will succeed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and I would be delighted to respond to members of the committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Beatty, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for an in-depth analysis of what you see as the role of CBC in regard to our study, in regard to the future of Canadian culture. The many questions and challenges you have placed before us are the advent of a new world of the satellite and the Internet and digital technology.

Also, I think you articulated the connection between that and the opening of world markets generally and how we have to be thankful for the new technology and all it brings and, at the same time, the tremendous challenge it places before us to keep that heritage of Canadian identity and culture. There is also the challenge of the changing nature of our country, the new demographics and the increasing multicultural nature of our country.

[Translation]

Your analysis will prove useful to the Committee and will facilitate the work we have undertaken. We will definitely consider what you have said with respect to wanting the CBC to continue to be a public broadcaster, rather than a state broadcaster. I want to thank you once again for coming today, and tell you that I agree with what you said about the extraordinary job done by the CBC and Radio-Canada during the ice storm, and their efforts to provide information to people living in affected areas. I saw the almost round-the-clock ongoing coverage you provided, which was certainly a big help to us under the circumstances.

We will now open it up for questions.

[English]

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Thank you.

Mr. Beatty, as you well know, the Reform Party sees a total reconfiguration of the CBC as being an assistance in the area of Canadian culture, and it has long been an advocate of privatizing CBC television. This isn't based on any malice toward the corporation itself, although I must admit the prejudice of the CBC, under the thin veneer of entertainment, of applying the label of fascist and demagogue to my leader— to be doing malicious attacks like that under the guise of satire depreciates the meaning of words, and it is an insult to those who suffered under fascism that it would be attributed to my leader, and I find it highly offensive.

However, rising above that, we believe CBC television, unlike CBC radio, no longer provides Canadians with a unique service that is easily distinguishable from the private sector. While you may argue that you provide more Canadian programs than your competition, we know your most successful programs such as Hockey Night in Canada, the Olympic coverage, This Hour Has 22 Minutes, The Royal Canadian Air Farce*or, and Venture, for example, have many strong suitors in the private sector. As a matter of fact, I believe there was something of a bidding war over The Royal Canadian Air Farce.

So my question is why are we asking the taxpayers to foot the bill for CBC television, hundreds of millions of dollars? How does providing these programs fit with your mandate to provide a unique service that Canadians cannot obtain elsewhere, when we have private television broadcasters who want the programs?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Thank you very much, Mr. Abbott. Let me try to respond to your question.

• 1150

First of all, a number of the programs you've mentioned are in fact our best revenue generators. The impact of our simply giving that up would leave CBC with those programs that are most costly in terms of our ability to put them on air and produce them. It would take away those programs that are most successful in terms of generating a return on the investment the taxpayers have put in.

You're quite right, when it comes to programs that are profitable, profit-making entities would be glad to take them over. But would they be willing to take over the broad range of activities that the CBC provides, which are not profitable, where we're serving needs in the marketplace that can't otherwise be served? Would they be looking, for example, at many of the cultural programs that we have on, which we recognize are not going to generate mass audiences across the country but which are important in terms of giving Canadians exposure to culture?

Would they be prepared to make the investment at the same level as we have in our journalism? I don't believe they would, and evidence demonstrates this fact.

We could take two approaches. The first is to say simply that these areas that can't generate large commercial audiences aren't worth trying to sustain, and that we as Canadians should simply give them up. I don't believe most Canadians would support that position.

The other option is to say that we will keep the CBC but reserve it as a broadcaster of last resort, which will only do those things that nobody else wants to do. The impact of that would be to dramatically drive up the cost to the Canadian taxpayer and result in our having to turn back to Parliament to ask for much more financial support.

As I indicated earlier, we're generating this year in the marketplace about $411 million. We've done so successfully because we've been able to produce programming that is attractive. We've generated money through program sales. We've done it through commercials. We've done it through cable fees and through other activities as well.

I believe it's important that the CBC should be a generalist broadcaster, owned by all Canadians, putting on programming that's of interest to all Canadians. We should not be the broadcaster of last resort. And I do believe, Mr. Abbott, that the programming we have on CBC television, which would not be picked up by the private sector, not because it isn't attractive or worth while but because it doesn't generate large commercial audiences, is still of enormous benefit to Canadians.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I would suggest to you that we might want to take a look at The National over the last two nights, which had a program on Vietnam 30 years later. What in the world does that have to do with Canadian culture? These are editorial choices that are made.

The point I'm making is, why are we continuing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on CBC television when it doesn't perform a service other than what could be performed by the private sector, or when it goes into its own tirade and rants and has its own political agenda?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Let's pick up exactly the example that you just supplied to us, because I watched last night with an enormous amount of interest the documentary that was done on My Lai some 30 years later. I thought it was a superb piece of journalism. It's an example of the sort of thing that only the public broadcaster can do in this way.

If you say that we were doing something that would have been done by the private sector, where was it? Where did you see anything comparable in the private sector?

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm asking what that has to do with Canadian culture. You are here basically saying that the reason for CBC television, and the continued funding of hundreds of millions of dollars to CBC television, is support of Canadian culture. I'm not just picking on this one program, we are simply using it as an example.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Mr. Abbott, the point of our journalism is not to report only on things that are Canadian, but to allow Canadians to look at the world as well. I think Canadians have an interest in what goes on outside of their borders. I think the piece of work that was done on My Lai thirty years later was a superb piece of journalism, and one of which I'm very proud.

I met last week with our foreign correspondents. Giving Canadians the opportunity to see events in the world, and to interpret world history through Canadian eyes, is something I think that's very important, and I think most Canadians agree with this.

Mr. Jim Abbott: But you're in direct competition with the private sector. For example, you were talking about the Olympics; you're going to be spending $22 million, a 37% increase over Nagano, to get the Olympics from Salt Lake City.

Please correct me if I'm wrong—this is an open question—but my understanding was that in the competition for the broadcast rights for the Atlanta Olympics, indeed the publicly funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation outbid CTV by a very substantial portion in order to get them. In other words, what you basically did, using your position of having Canadian taxpayers' money in your pocket, was to go out and outbid the private sector, who would have gotten the same advertisers you got and who would have made a profit, which would have paid the taxes going into your corporation.

• 1155

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I'm sorry; are you referring to Nagano or to—

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm referring now to the Atlanta Olympics.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Let's take a look at all of the Olympics. Our goal, in making our Olympic bids, is to do so on a cost-recovery basis, to make sure we cover our costs. Nagano is the most recent of them. In case—

Mr. Jim Abbott: But why are you outbidding the private sector?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I'm sorry, but—

Mr. Jim Abbott: That's my question.

The Chairman: In fairness, Mr. Abbott, if you ask a question, I think you should give Mr. Beatty a chance to answer it.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Mr. Abbott, as I indicated in my remarks earlier, our business plan—in the case of Nagano, for example—was to recover all of our costs and not to use a penny of the parliamentary appropriation. I believe we've achieved that.

We followed exactly the same formula in bidding for the next five Olympics, and we successfully won with a bid comparable to that of our private sector competitors, who saw a similar business case. The IOC felt that our bid was preferable, that we offered a better bid, even if the dollar amounts were similar, than did our private sector competitor.

Let's deal for a minute with the question of the Olympics. I believe the Olympics are entirely appropriate on CBC. If part of our function is to tell Canadian stories, the stories of young Canadian athletes are as appropriate as any stories about this country. If there's one time that we as Canadians set aside all of our regional grievances and see ourselves just as a country and as one people working together, it's at the time of the Olympics. I can't think of another type of program that is more appropriate for the national public broadcaster to have.

That's quite apart from the fact that on every comparison made by any commentator I've seen, comparing our coverage with not only what there's been historically in Canada but also with other broadcasters in other parts of the world, particularly to the south of us, CBC's coverage has been preferred hands down. It's superb coverage, and I believe it belongs there.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I would suggest to you that with respect to your television coverage of sports, if you were to take the Canada Games as an example, with the greatest respect, TSN, which is a private enterprise, has done a far superior job in the coverage of the Canada Games than the CBC ever even came close to. So I don't agree with your perspective.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Of course that's your right, Mr. Abbott. You're shifting, though, of course, from the discussion we were having of the Olympics.

You'll be pleased to hear that Netstar is our partner in bidding on the Olympics. We've joined with them in a joint bid. As a result, then, for the next five Olympics, Netstar will be our partner. It's something that I think strengthens both of us.

I think Mr. McCoubrey would like to add a comment.

Mr. James McCoubrey (Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): I think, Mr. Abbott, your question is a good one, and it's a difficult one for many people to understand.

One of the reasons we were able to bid more than the private sector, or to at least bid the same as the private sector, and win, based on the quality of coverage, is because of our ability to run the Olympic Games in prime time or in live time and get larger advertising revenues than the private sector, who are reluctant to destroy their prime time schedule, which is the most profitable part of their business. It's generally American programming. They benefit from the ability to have the cable companies replace the American signal with their signal, thereby deriving full revenue for the full audience that would have been delivered by both the U.S.- and Canadian-originating signals.

We don't have the same difficulty in interrupting our prime time schedule to put the Olympics in prime time. Therefore, we deliver a much larger audience for the Olympics and derive larger revenue for it. There are other reasons, of course, but in a business sense, that's one of the reasons we have a commercial advantage, I think, over the private sector.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I want to remind Members of the role of this committee.

[English]

CBC is at complete arm's length from the government. The programming of CBC is the role of CBC to do. It's not for us to tell the CBC what programs to use. It's for Parliament to eventually decide whether the CBC does a good job and appropriate accordingly, but we are at arm's length with regard to programming, as far as I can see.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I would like to begin by making a comment, and then ask some questions.

First of all, I am very pleased to note that the CBC is aware of the fact that Canadian culture is not limited to what is going on in Canada and is not some sort of straightjacket. It realizes that Canadian culture benefits by Canadians, knowing what is going on elsewhere. In that respect, I definitely disagree with Mr. Abbott, and I encourage you to continue to allow Canadians to be open to the rest of the world, particularly in the current context of globalization.

• 1200

I have a question about the Olympics. In most countries of the world, television networks are partnering now. That was the case with the European Community and in Japan. There are only two countries in the world where networks still compete for the right to cover the Olympics, thereby raising the bidding: Canada and the United States. That the U.S. has such a system is understandable, because Americans are quite individualistic, but in Canada, it seems to me your association with the TSN and RDS networks could have been further developed, and that you could have got all of the networks more involved. Since there would have been no competition, Canada could simply have said it was prepared to pay $100 million for the Games, period, and its offer would have been accepted. It would not have had to spend an extra $60 million over the next ten years.

Indeed, there were lengthy discussions about greater partnership with private enterprise when it came time to save Radio-Canada. An effort was made in that area—for instance, with respect to dramas. And that is commendable. But you're stuck with a ten year deal. In future, would you not consider broadening that partnership and including all production companies that are interested in a less costly deal that would benefit Canada?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Ms. Tremblay, we have made good progress in terms of establishing partnerships with the private sector. We now have more private sector partnerships than ever before, whether they involve program production or applications for specialties networks. I see these partnerships as an important tool for the future. As for the Olympic Games, we have established a partnership with Netstar that will greatly benefit our audience.

The possibility of an alliance with other broadcasters, such as the one you're suggesting, raises legal and other issues. On the one hand, we are regulated by the Competition Act, and furthermore, the International Olympic Committee is putting up strong resistance to any effort on the part of broadcasters to form partnerships in order to eliminate competition.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, of course.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Yes. These initiatives have met with a great deal of success in other countries. That is why we have established a partnership with the private sector, but we have not tried to eliminate all competition. However, we are expecting to broaden our partnership with the private sector. We see that as absolutely essential.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: When we were in Nagano and, in the company of Ms. Copps, met with journalists at the press centre, there was a lot of talk about Radio-Canada and all the problems between Anglophones and Francophones, between radio and television, and between the news and sports sections. That was the main topic of discussion for a good fifteen minutes. There seemed to be a lot of unhappiness there. Although we are not supposed to interfere in management issues, can you make a moral commitment to Committee Members to investigate—I'm not talking about a legal investigation, but more of a fact-finding mission— so that this does not happen again at future Olympic Games? Since you have established partnerships with other broadcasters, if there were to be internal disagreements at the CBC, these kinds of problems would be that much more difficult to manage once your new partners, CSN and RDS, were on board.

• 1205

There seems to be some discrimination against Francophones and radio, and a major problem between the news and sports sections. Can you undertake today to find out to what extent the complaints we heard are justified?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: When I was in Nagano, I had an opportunity to meet with all of our employees there, both Francophones and Anglophones. I noted that the two services were working well together. That kind of cooperation can always be improved, and it is our intention to do whatever we can to make it more effective and encourage closer cooperation. In my view, our coverage of the Olympic Games, both on the French language and English language networks, was terrific.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Pardon me for interrupting you, Mr. Beatty, but I was not referring to your coverage; I was referring to a couple of examples of petty behaviour—for example, when parking spaces were given to Anglophones and television crews, rather than radio crews.

When we were there, it was wonderful. The atmosphere was really special. But we were visitors. And where there are visitors, people tend to behave. However, as far as their ability to work together on a daily basis, there seemed to be some problems between the crews. Could you tell us to what extent those complaints are founded?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I cannot give you a specific answer about the parking spaces, but since you raised the issue, I will be happy to ask our vice-presidents to provide me with the facts. In any case, we intend to encourage closer cooperation between our French-language and English-language networks. That job falls to Mr. McCoubrey, who is responsible for all media. That is certainly a priority for us, and I know it is for Mr. McCoubrey.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Just one other brief question. Is the Corporation subject to the Official Languages Act?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Yes.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Well, for your information, at a meeting of the Sub-Committee on Sports, the CBC presented a paper in English only, while Radio-Canada provided one only in French. They were two different papers. I want you to be aware of this so we can avoid a recurrence.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Thank you for raising that with me.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, that is all for now.

[English]

The Chairman: Before I go on to Ms. Lill, I just wanted to suggest this to members: we have a study of the estimates and if we want to look at CBC from the administrative point of view and what works and doesn't work in the administration, then maybe we should call the CBC back. But today I'm hoping that we look after what the study is about, the three key questions, because it's a chance to have the heads of the CBC here to sort of define what we are about. It's just the cultural segments that were addressed.

I just wanted to tell you about that notion.

Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I'm going to let Mr. Beatty off the hot seat for one second because I would like to direct a question to you. I'm wondering why I am looking at Mr. Abbott's leader on the wall here and—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Wendy Lill: —I'm wondering how appropriate that is. Everything else seems to be archival pictures—

An hon. member: That will be archival!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Wendy Lill: —and I'm just wondering why we have Preston Manning's picture there. It's just a question. This is a room that's used publicly and I'm wondering— maybe you know the answer to that.

The Chairman: No.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I do.

[Translation]

It is a caucus room.

[English]

This is their caucus room.

Ms. Wendy Lill: This is their caucus room?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: They can decorate it the way they want to.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I see. So we're in their caucus room—

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's the only thing they have to decorate.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Now you know what Mr. Abbott's inspiration is derived from.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I see. Well— that's an answer. Thank you.

Mr. Beatty, I would like to ask you a question. You are the president of the CBC. Given the fact that everybody and their brother has been asking for a piece of the fiscal dividend which we're hearing about, I'm wondering why you did not ask for the April 1 cuts to be cancelled.

• 1210

I would use the model such as that of the Medical Research Council of Canada, which is a similar model to that of the CBC. As a major federal agency, they have a major mandate. They had their budget trimmed by the same process as that of the CBC. They managed a major campaign that allowed them to have $100 million restored in the budget. I think there are questions about how hard you are fighting for the CBC's budget. I would like to put that forward.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Thank you for raising the question, because throughout the whole of the last three years, the position of the CBC—and my position as president—has been very clear. We sought relief from government for the reductions that were being made to our budgets. But once the decision is taken by government as to what that budget is to be, our legal obligation is to ensure that we can pay our bills and live within the budgets provided to us by Parliament.

We have demonstrated that we're as efficient as we can possibly be, and we continue to look for new ways to improve our efficiency. We continue to make the argument for adequate levels of funding for the corporation, but we also have the obligation to ensure that we live within the appropriation that you, as parliamentarians, provide to us. We've done so successfully.

But as you'll recall from my remarks earlier, part of our goal is to ensure that the public broadcaster is adequately funded to do the things that need to be done in Canada. This is one of the few sustainable instruments that Canadians have under trade law and the change in technology that can continue to promote and to strengthen Canadian culture.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Well, I'm of the opinion that the amount of money that's now going into the CBC in fact has endangered the CBC's abilities to undertake their mandate. I would like to just look at that for a second. I'm coming to a question.

One of the things that happens when you cut budgets and start moving into sort of public-private partnering is you do look toward industry-driven things. You've been talking about that yourself. You pushed very hard for the film and broadcast fund, which is something really important at this point in time, given the fact that we've been seeing almost equal cuts to the CBC now going into the fund.

This in fact is skewing the content of the CBC away from some very important aspects, such as current affairs and news, and into the area of drama. That's one thing that I think is regrettable.

I also wonder in this big picture what happens to the emerging artist? What happens to the voices that in fact you are saying you are protecting, which means Canadian voices. I have heard from several radio hosts—I know several of them—that Ashley McIssac, Bryan Adams, and some of these wonderful people we like to hold up as examples of people that can compete in the marketplace without any help whatsoever in fact would not have got where they are if they didn't have those 4 p.m. CBC radio spots.

They don't exist in the same way they do now. They don't have the resources or the sort of developmental money to get that new talent and those new voices out.

My question comes right down to the fact that we have, at this point in time, one half-hour slot that CBC TV calls Canadian Reflections. That is at 3 p.m. on Friday. That is the window for independent filmmakers in this country.

Is that it in terms of our commitment to new voices in this country? If the CBC is committed to new voices in this country, then are you committed to an emerging creators fund? Are you committed to an emerging creators slot. What about a decent time slot, not a 3 p.m. throwaway slot on a Friday afternoon?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: You've asked many questions. I'll try to respond to them as succinctly as possible.

The first is, are we skewing away from journalism toward drama? My answer on that would be no, but I would not for a minute, particularly to you, make the argument that increasing the level of Canadian drama on Canadian television isn't essential. I'm very concerned about the level that it's at today. It's very much an undersupplied category in Canadian broadcasting. It's something with which we have a very real commitment to do whatever we can.

Have we been driven by the fund away from providing journalism and into providing drama? No, we have not. We continue, I think, as a balanced schedule.

In some ways, you put me in a difficult position. If you were asking whether I could use more money and use it effectively, you bet. If you're asking me whether the last three years have been painful years for all of us associated with the CBC, you bet. If you ask me whether I will continue to make the argument, now we have a floor underneath us, that we shouldn't have a ceiling put over top of us, you bet. We certainly will. Will we be looking for new ways to serve Canadian artists and conserve our audiences? You bet we will. We will do everything we can to do that.

• 1215

But let's not lose sight, as well, of what's been achieved in the last three years and where we stand today. The fact is we didn't close a single station in dealing with the $400-million challenge we were faced with. We kept them all open, unlike a few years before when I think nine stations across the country were closed in response to a challenge that was one-quarter of the size.

Today we are producing more Canadian content than ever before in our history. Our national schedules are more Canadian and more regionalized, presenting a better reflection of Canada, in all its diversity, than ever before in our history.

We have introduced new technologies. We have introduced new services. I mentioned, for example, some of the pocket bureaus we've been able to put into communities that were not adequately served before. We have the ability, for example, to go into Victoria, British Columbia, and open up a new radio station, which had been promised for years. We can now finally deliver on that because we've set new priorities within the corporation.

On our presence in new media, we're the one Canadian broadcaster with a strong presence on the Internet. We did so at the very same time as we were coping with this $400-million monster.

I don't want for a minute to minimize the achievements we have made and the contribution our employees continue to make to reflect Canada. We are enormously proud of it, and we continue to win record numbers of awards for the quality of both our journalism and our programming in general. But could we build on that and use more money to do so more effectively? You bet we could.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Just a quick—

The Chairman: We'll pass on to Mr. Muise. I have a lot of requests. I'll come back to you in the second round, Ms. Lill.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned earlier that you'd like us to stay on the cultural policy aspect, but there's one question I'd like to ask first because I think it will have an impact on where we go.

The Chairman: I don't want to cramp your style. I was just saying let's not make it an administrative session here.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay.

Mr. Beatty, I've heard there's a bill that will come before the House that will try to attempt to put the finances of public corporations under public scrutiny. I have a bit of concern with that, and I'd like you, for the benefit of the committee, to address how that could impact the CBC. It's a slightly different crown corporation from other crown corporations. It's important that the CBC be able to do its work the way it should.

I have other questions, but I'd like you to address that first.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Mr. Muise, I think what you're alluding to is Bill C-216 and similar bills and motions on the order paper today.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: They would have the effect of including a number of crown corporations, including the CBC, which are currently exempt from access to information under the act.

I don't want to talk specifically about a particular bill, but bills of this nature—and there are a number of them on the order paper at the present time—are of great concern to us in a couple of key areas.

First, as a journalistic organization it is essential for us, to be able to do our job, that reporters' notebooks, out-takes, confidential sources, and a whole range of contacts we have with people can be done in confidence. The impact of bringing us under the act would be to severely damage our ability to perform our journalistic function.

For example, members of the committee will have heard in the last few weeks about a series we did with regard to Hell's Angels, the ports, and organized crime. Let me ask members of the committee, if we wanted to do an interview with you with regard to organized crime and something where people's lives could literally be in danger, would you feel comfortable if there were not a guarantee that we could keep your comments private? Would you talk to us? We would be the only journalistic organization in Canada that would be subject to that sort of restriction and it would severely damage our ability to undertake our journalism.

• 1220

In looking at how the act would apply to us, with some of our investigative work that we're doing that can stretch out over months, we would be finding ourselves releasing information to individuals or organizations whose activities we were investigating before we actually aired the material.

There are often instances, Mr. Chairman, where our journalists find themselves before the courts on the issue of whether or not they're prepared to reveal sources, or whether or not we'll have reporters' notebooks or out-takes compelled for production by the courts. In an instance like this, the court looks very carefully at all of the facts and weighs carefully where the public interest lies. In the case of the access to information legislation, you do not have that sort of adjudication. The issue is whether or not there is a specific exemption that applies in your case. If not, you're expected to produce the material.

As I mentioned earlier, the other area that is of concern to us stems out of our anticipated generation of about $411 million in the marketplace this year. Clearly there would be a good deal of interest in any work we've done in terms of audience research, in terms of any strategies we're developing for positioning the corporation within the marketplace. Under access to information, there is a commercial exemption if you can demonstrate that the specific piece of information being requested would have a tangible impact upon your commercial position. Can you demonstrate that, with all of the information, with each morsel of information, in a viewer survey you've done? Can you prove there's a tangible, damaging impact on your competitive position?

In the case of CBC Radio, where we don't have commercials, how could we argue that we're at a commercial disadvantage if our competitors have information related to our strategy, as related to audience surveys and so on, if we're not generating revenues in the commercial marketplace forum? It would be enormously damaging for us in terms of our ability to compete for listeners.

So we have very serious concerns about what the impact of this sort of initiative would have upon our ability to do business. That does not mean, though, that we don't have an obligation to be transparent and responsive in our activities. We are accountable, as we are today, to the parliamentary committee, to the government, to the Auditor General, who is our auditor and who can report to Parliament. We have created ombudsmen on both the English and the French sides. This year, for the first time, we've instituted an on-air annual report. We're trying to conduct ourselves with a transparency in our operations that far outstrips anything that's done by any other broadcaster in Canada.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I asked that question is that I sometimes find bills come up and we might miss a certain point that could really hamper or make the situation bad for corporations or whoever comes forth.

In travelling across the country, there is one thing I've noticed when it comes to national unity issues. Once people get together, regardless of where they come from, they quickly realize that even though we come from the west or from the east or from central Canada or Quebec, we are very much the same. When we don't get a chance to have those links, we sometimes think we're different, that we have very different views and can't stay together as a country.

During a recent visit to the west, I spoke with some people who mentioned that we have the CBC, which is a crown corporation, and that maybe it could, by virtue of certain programming, have the ability to put a certain national unity spin on their programming. I'm just wondering if that could be done. What are your thoughts on that?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Mr. Muise, you raise an important question. When the Broadcasting Act was amended by Parliament and the new act was brought in, Parliament changed the obligations of the CBC under the Broadcasting Act. Previously the Broadcasting Act had conferred on the CBC the obligation to promote national unity. A concern that Parliament had at that time was that when there was a national debate taking place, it would potentially put CBC in the position of having an editorial position as a journalistic organization, one that would colour the coverage and the confidence people would have in our reports. Instead, what Parliament did was write into the act an obligation for the CBC to encourage a shared national consciousness and identity. I think that was what you were talking about earlier.

• 1225

My experience has been that when Canadians know their country, they love it. Our obligation is to give them exposure to their country, to talk about what's good and what's bad and to do so in a way that's honest and without bias, and to respect their ability to take their own decisions with regard to key political issues.

When I talked earlier about the difference between a state broadcaster and a public broadcaster, I think that's really the difference. We exist for one reason, and that's to talk about Canada, tell Canadian stories, let Canadians see the world through Canadian eyes. Then we step back and allow Canadians to take their own decisions as to what positions they take on public policy issues. I think that's the best way for us to proceed.

We'll be doing more than ever before in our history to reflect Canada to Canadians, to reflect the regional diversity of Canada, and to encourage cross-cultural knowledge among Canadians as a result of our programming. It is a conscious part of our strategy for programming. We felt that we drifted away from that mandate. Frankly, we're focusing on it much more strongly now.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien, followed by Monsieur Saada and Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Beatty and your colleagues, I appreciate your presentation.

I have some brief comments, Mr. Chairman, and then as many questions as you'll allow me.

On Vietnam, having gone to UWO in London with draft dodgers and grown up in the protest music of the sixties, which started in the States and was very popular in Canada, the direct impact on Canadian culture of the Vietnam experience was very obvious to me. I thought your program was excellent. And as I did the coverage of the Olympics and the recent Celtic show, with my cultural background it was much appreciated. So I think you've had some outstanding programs. Others I haven't enjoyed as much. But I'm not here as a critic of CBC programming but more to ask some questions.

It struck me personally about a year and a half or two years ago, when I was asked to do an interview with CBC— I represent a London, Ontario, riding, as you know, and I guess the lady I was speaking with didn't know the geography, but she said “I'm in London at 2.15. Could you get to Toronto by four for an interview?” I said “I'm not sure if you've driven the 401 at that time, but even if I could and wouldn't get a ticket, I'm not sure it's that big a priority for me right now.”

This leads me to the whole area of southwestern Ontario. That's a very densely populated area, as you well know. I was pleased to hear your announcement about the radio one bureau in London, but specific to the TV market, are there any plans there? I realize the budget constraints Ms. Lill spoke to, but I think people between Toronto and Windsor have a sense that they're kind of being forgotten a little bit by CBC TV. Could you address that for me?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Yes, Mr. O'Brien, I'd be pleased to do that.

I can't promise you that we'll be able to establish a TV station in London at this point. We don't have plans for that. I have a prejudice that I'll confess to: having been a student at Western about the same time as you were there and having a particular attachment to London, I'm pleased that we're able to take the step forward with the radio bureau, which will help us do breakouts on Ontario Morning for newscasts aimed directly at the London area market and also feed into regional and national programming.

As it relates to TV, you've put your finger on an issue that's a difficult one: that regions of the country that don't have production facilities right there often get bypassed in programming. It's something we have to be very sensitive to.

When I was at Western a couple of weeks ago, the point was made to me by some of the members of the faculty that in those places where CBC or where other broadcasters have facilities it's easy for a member of the faculty to be called upon as an expert to go on programming. It's much harder if those facilities aren't there.

It may be that as new technologies come along it will be more cost-effective and easier for us to allow at least a double-ender or other participation like that, but in the short term we don't have plans for a TV station in London.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I appreciate that. I just make the additional point, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Beatty knows that we're so close to the American border in that area, and you feel the presence of the U.S. very closely, particularly if you happen to live in say Sarnia or Windsor, because of the tremendous media outlets in Michigan and Detroit and so on. It just adds to the concern that that part of the province of Ontario we hope will some day be a little better served.

• 1230

On the mandate of the CBC vis-à-vis analysts, that's been touched on a couple of times by my colleague Mr. Abbott and I think one of our other colleagues. Without dictating to people what they say, are there guidelines of any sort that are given to analysts? Let me go back to the infamous Mr. Cherry. I like him as a hockey analyst. I'm not sure I'd pay much attention to him as a political analyst. Are there any guidelines given to people like him and others that they should perhaps stick to their area of perceived expertise?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I thought that was very gently put, Mr. O'Brien.

Yes, that's my preference, obviously. When we have an analyst who has a particular expertise in a specific area, we would like them to concentrate on the area where they have knowledge. And in instances where they stray, it's our obligation to ensure there's balance in the programming.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you.

You mentioned, Mr. Beatty, when we had the round table—I noted that and so did the researchers, because they have it in their suggestions to us—that you hoped government would not impose legislative impediments of an artificial nature. Can you detail the concern you had with that comment—and if there's not enough time now, then perhaps later on?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I'm trying to think exactly what the context was.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Well, it was in the round table and it was something to the effect that you were concerned that government not put “artificial legislative impediments” in the way of the industry and that it would allow the industry the flexibility it needed to deliver cost-effective programming and so on.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I guess it was a fairly general comment that I was making, and that was that as these new technologies become that much more pervasive in our lives they drive us in one direction, and that's away from regulation and toward the marketplace.

I think it's very important if we're going to succeed as a corporation and if we're going to succeed as Canadians in promoting Canadian culture that we use tools that are effective and well suited to the challenge that's facing us. In the past it was possible to try to regulate, to restrict what Canadians could see and hear. The power to do that is dissolving. Any strategy that would be built on building an electronic wall around Canada is destined to fail.

I guess the argument I would like to make is that the government maintains the power to spend, to use its resources wisely through instruments like the CBC or like the production fund. And that's far more effective if we can then allow those people who are in the business to develop programming that is attractive, to bring people the Canadian content, rather than attempting to restrict what people will have exposure to otherwise.

Also, as a corporation—if I can talk very selfishly here—we need to ensure that our hands are not tied and that as Canadians move to new media and as they move to specialty channels, as their patterns of usage change, we can be there delivering Canadian content where they are, and not have our hands tied behind our backs, being restricted to old traditional media that may not be as effective as they were before.

I see our role— To paraphrase Mr. Clinton, it's the content, stupid. Our function is not the hardware, it's not the buildings, it's not the transmitters; it is the content. When you take one example, the case of Ben Heppner, the brilliant Canadian tenor, he was one of those people Ms. Lill was talking about earlier who got his start in part through a CBC radio competition. He's been recognized in competition. He's performed in our Newsworld studios. We've had him, I believe, on our main networks as well. And we've put out a compact disc of his recordings.

I don't care how Canadians get exposure to Ben Heppner. I care that they get exposure to him. We want increasingly for our activities to not be limited by a particular technology but rather to see our activities as crossing various technologies to connect Canadian eyes and ears with Canadian content.

• 1235

The plea I think I was making at that time, which I would repeat now, is don't tie our hands. Please give us the flexibility to be able to do that and to respond rapidly as changes in technology and the marketplace take place.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Saada, you have the floor. Mr. Bélanger will be next.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you for making such a passionate presentation. It was quite impressive.

I have two fairly brief comments to make and then a question. My first comment is directly related to what Ms. Tremblay said about Mr. Abbott's remarks. It seems to me that the way Canadians view the world is part of Canadian culture. If we don't have our own world view, we will necessarily see the world through the eyes of the United States, France or other countries, and I don't think that will fit with our way of thinking. As far as I'm concerned, it's essential to remain open to the rest of the world, rather than closing ourselves off from it. I find Mr. Abbott's comments rather frightening. I don't know whether he really considered their deeper meaning. Personally, I find them rather worrisome.

Secondly—and I would repeat something the Chairman said right at the outset about the ice storm—I have a very brief anecdote that I simply must recount, because it provides a very good illustration of the quality of your work during that difficult time.

At a shelter I was visiting, I stopped at one point next to a group of people. An older gentleman of about 88 or 90 said to me that it reminded him of the radio broadcasts out of London during the war. That sort of thing is very powerful. In times of distress, panic or uncertainty, people tend to gather around a radio because it provides a link with the rest of the world. I find that absolutely fascinating.

My question has to do with what I call social communication—communication for the purposes of development. I don't believe I've heard mention of the CBC's playing a particular role in the area of international development assistance. I am mainly talking about in African countries, where many other nations have set up radio stations that also play a role in development—for example, on health issues, in the area of basic education, prevention, and so on. Some examples would be Vatican Radio, Danish radio or others of a similar nature, such as French radio, France Inter, etc.

Has the CBC not considered this—if that is in fact the case—for philosophical or rather for financial reasons? I am wondering whether there is any chance something could be done in that area. Having a presence in developing countries is also part of Canadian culture.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Thank you for your question.

No, it is not a matter of philosophy or principles. We do collaborate with other public broadcasters from around the world. We are members of international broadcaster organizations, and we use Radio-Canada International to provide programming to other broadcasters or directly to their population.

From time to time, we collaborate with other broadcasters by providing training to their journalists, for example, but it's rare. The reason it's rare has to do with budget constraints. We would like to be able to do more, but because of budget cuts, it would be very difficult. Our priority must be to serve the domestic audience.

The news we have received from the Government with respect to permanent funding for Radio-Canada International is good news as far as we are concerned. It is an essential tool for providing service to Canadians residing in other countries and to the populations of those countries as well.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, I understand. Thank you. Perhaps my question was not precise enough. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me Radio-Canada International's role is to reflect the Canadian reality abroad. I'm referring here mainly to communication for development purposes by transposing our reality, if you will, for the benefit of those who are interested in it abroad, be they Canadians or otherwise.

• 1240

[English]

I'm really referring specifically to the development of populations in countries in development.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: In response to that, what we do there or what we're able to do is very limited, for financial reasons more than any other.

We would like, through international organizations, to be able to assist more in instances like that, but financially our priority has to be on providing our traditional services, and I don't anticipate in the short term we'll be able to substantially increase our efforts in that area.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I will try to confine myself to the specific subject of this meeting, which is Canadian cultural policy, it being a given that the CBC plays an essential leadership role in the broadcasting field.

It seems to me—correct me if I'm wrong—that in recent months, probably in part because of budget cuts, CBC in particular, as opposed to Radio-Canada, RDI or Newsworld, has begun to focus more on regional production. I want to know whether I'm right about that or not. I must admit I am not a frequent television viewer.

Has CBC made the decision to obtain programming from the regions that is then broadcast over the network? I'm interested in finding out, because I am one of those who believe the CBC can act as a catalyst in encouraging local production, helping independent producers, and so on. Is that in fact the case?

[English]

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Yes, Mr. Bélanger, but I want to be clear about the impact.

As a result of reductions to our budget, we have had to reduce the amount of locally produced television aimed at a local market—

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, I understand.

[English]

Mr. Perrin Beatty: —less programming originated in Ottawa, aimed at Ottawa.

In part, to compensate for that, what we've done is take a look at our national schedules and say we will regionalize the national schedules to an extent never done before. We would deliberately move out from Toronto and Montreal a lot of the production we're doing, into the regions, to ensure that we have production produced in the regions, reflecting the regions both to themselves and to a national audience—

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, I see.

[English]

Mr. Perrin Beatty: —and increasingly we'll do it with private sector partners.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So, CBC is calling on the regions to produce more programming to be broadcast on the network. Is that right?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Am I right in thinking that is not the case, at least certainly not to the same degree, for Radio- Canada?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: No, it is also a priority for the French- language network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It may well be a priority, but what is the reality? Are there many regionally-produced programs broadcast on Radio-Canada's network?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Well, I could get the exact figures, and would be happy to do so. Generally speaking, our priority is to provide programming that is diversified and represents all the regions of Canada. In the case of our radio service, for example, we have increased the number of hours of regional production.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: With all due respect, some people think—and I happen to be one of them—that outside of Montreal, there is not a great of French-language programming being produced.

An hon. member:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, exactly. I have said the same thing myself in this Committee on a number of occasions. I am perfectly willing to believe that you consider it a priority. I accept that; but the facts are quite different. It would seem that if a Francophone producer is not located in Montreal, he has little chance of success.

The question in my mind is: if that argument can be made for CBC—namely that we have to encourage regional production and broadcast it nationally; that this is a priority for the entire CBC network—then why—and correct me if I'm wrong—does there seem to be such a marked difference between what is produced for CBC, as opposed to Radio-Canada?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: If you're asking me whether the Canadian reality reflected by our French-language service is based more on programming produced in Montreal or Quebec City than in the case of the English-language network, my answer would be yes. That is in large part due to the fact that most of the industry is concentrated in the Quebec City and Montreal regions. However, if—

• 1245

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, I think we're talking at cross purposes here.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Take Manitoba, for example.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If the CBC network decides it wants to encourage regional production for national broadcast purposes, that is a decision I would respect, admire and encourage. It is not up to me to tell you how to manage your affairs, but I can certainly comment.

However, the French-language service does not seem to be doing that with quite as much enthusiasm as the English-language network. If a Francophone producer is not located in Montreal, he is not likely to get much work out of Radio-Canada. That seems to be the reality. But if ever that were your intention, I would certainly not want you to limit French-language independent production to Quebec.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: No, no.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There are a great many Francophones in Acadia.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Yes, of course.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Just as there are in Manitoba and in this region.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I never said that. What I said was that the production capacity on the Francophone side is more concentrated than on the Anglophone side. That is a fact.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, I understand, but it will remain that way if nothing is done to make it less concentrated.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Yes, and that is what we are in the process of doing.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine. Thank you.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: That is very much a priority for us.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would be interested in seeing the numbers, Mr. Beatty. I would very appreciate it if you could send them to the Clerk of the Committee.

In your presentation, you referred to cross-cultural broadcasts. I think I know what you are referring to, but I would like you to take a moment or two to explain exactly what you mean by that. What are your intentions in that area? And what resources do you intend to devote to this?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: The best example I can give you would be the history of Canada that is currently being co-produced by our two networks. For the first time, the French-language and English-language services will be working together on an interpretation of the history of Canada. This will be the biggest initiative ever with respect to our history. It will last 32 hours and will cost $20 million. So, it is really a major initiative.

We will also continue to be involved in co-productions using the skills available in both networks. That is a must, particularly because of cuts. We have to become more effective. As regards our policy of service to the public, an essential part of our mandate is indeed to provide that bridge between cultures in Canada.

We have radio competitions, such as Les jeunes compositeurs, which is a co-production of both networks. We will continue to broadcast programming produced by one network on the other network. For example, on the English-language network, we have started to see in evening hours programs produced for the French- language television network. We have every intention of increasing our efforts to produce and broadcast cross-cultural programming.

At the present time, we are working on a number of projects involving new programs.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm running out of time.

[English]

I'm not sure I understood everything on this one, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Do you want to take another stab at it? I'd be glad to try to respond.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: May I?

The Chairman: Considering that the time is running short, could I suggest, Mr. Beatty, that you could give Mr. Bélanger some time after the meeting, just a few minutes to—

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Okay. Particularly when he's my member of Parliament, I'm available at any time.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

• 1250

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I know if I ever complain or need something for the CBC, he'll be there.

The Chairman: I have a request from five more members. Time is running short, so I would ask you to be concise both ways so that everybody gets a chance to ask a question.

Mr. Bonwick, Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Muise, Madame Tremblay, and Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for being late. The agriculture committee was running late.

Greetings, Mr. Beatty. Thank you very much and your assistants for showing up.

I'm going to take a little different tack. First of all, I have more of a sense of appreciation for the CBC than my colleagues from the Reform Party, and I want to emphasize the importance I put on the CBC in conveying the Canadian message you referred to, to Canadians. I think it's important that we understand as parliamentarians that it's a vehicle, if I may, for Canadians from all the different regions and all the diverse areas within the country to bring forward their message. I use my own area, Simcoe—Grey, which you know very well, as an example.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I'm acquainted with it.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: It provides people in my area—and I cite, for example, Ian Chadwick—within my own riding, an opportunity to come forward once a week and bring forward a Canadian message with a Simcoe—Grey slant, which is extremely important to the cultural mosaic we try to produce as a country as a whole.

My line of questioning is about how as a government we need to understand the importance of that and, in my opinion, support it. Therefore, I would ask how we can help to strengthen the CBC against its competitors, which I guess is in direct opposition to the thrust of the Reform questioning.

How can we better support the CBC in order to help it expand and provide itself as a vehicle to Canadian journalists like Mr. Chadwick and those right across the country to enhance the opportunity for them to bring forward on the macro level that Canadian message but on the micro level the influences from the various diverse regions of the country? How can we play a more active role in supporting the CBC? That is my first question.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Mr. Bonwick, the single most important way is obviously through Parliament's willingness to have an appropriation that is of sufficient strength to allow us to do our job. We have now reached stability in the commitment from the government so that we have stable funding for the next five years, but we were reduced to stability instead of rising to it.

As the finances of the country improve, I hope that both for us and for other initiatives in Canadian culture the government will be able to put new funding in. There are an enormous number of things we could be doing in improving services for Canadians if you have the fuel to run the car, and that is absolutely critical.

I mentioned a couple of other areas earlier, I think before you came in, in my remarks. One is in copyright reform. The whole issue of rights is going to be a vital issue for all of us interested in the whole field of Canadian culture. Other issues are spectrum allocation and policies that relate to satellites. There is a range of other international issues such as international trade negotiations and making sure there's a carve-out of culture to protect the ability of the Canadian government to support culture. All of those will be important initiatives.

The other is to ask for your support in not tying our hands, and it was a question that was raised earlier by Mr. O'Brien. It's our job at the end of the day to connect with audiences. If you don't tie our hands, if you give us adequate funding to do that, we will go out, we'll produce dynamite programming, and we will attract the audiences to Canadian content that are essential. But I hope you'll continue, as the government has, to resist calls by others to restrict the CBC, to hedge them in, and to say that the CBC should somehow become the broadcaster of last resort.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I have one small rebuttal and then I would pass it over to Mr. Godfrey. It is that I just want to emphasize the importance of journalists like those in my riding and affording them the opportunity to bring forward that message. Whether I do or don't agree with them all the time, I think it's important that they be provided with the opportuntiy to bring forward a message from the various regions.

• 1255

I challenge you to do one thing: try to ask the question—and I think you'll get the appropriate answer, whether it be from government or from the Canadian populous—of whether they see the Canadian government ensuring that there is a vehicle, guaranteeing that there is a vehicle, for the Canadian people to bring forward their message. I think the answer will be very clear to you. I certainly hope so, at least.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Thank you very much, Mr. Bonwick.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We have heard from several Liberal Party members in succession. I will now recognize you, Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: With all due respect, and without wanting to seem picky, I want you to know that the document you provided does not comply with the requirements of the Official Languages Act. About 25 per cent of it is in French, whereas 75 per cent of it is in English. Could the Committee please have it translated so that we can have a complete version in French and a complete version in English?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I'm a little surprised that you were given a copy of my opening remarks, because it has quite a lot of mistakes in it that have yet to be corrected. It was intended for my own personal use.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: For you only.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: It was probably provided as a courtesy only, but was not meant to be an official version.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I see. The other two here are fine.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: We will have a complete text in both French and English.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to come back to the question Mr. O'Brien asked earlier with respect to the controversy about Mr. Cherry. The ombudsman's conclusions are very clear; he says that the CBC has a policy which was not followed in this case. It states that when the Corporation does this sort of thing, it must be done in the context of public affairs programs. The guests expressing their views on controversial issues must be from outside. At the very least, the report I have here states that programs dealing with controversial issues must ensure balance by providing a full range of relevant opinions, and the CBC is asked to follow its own policy in future.

Mind you, we were rather surprised by these conclusions, because it recommends different treatment— The CBC's ombudsman is not the same as the one Radio-Canada has. On three separate occasions, Mr. Bourgault has been the victim of Radio-Canada's policy, although his comments were far less problematic.

In fact, Mr. Cherry is being criticized not for attacking separatists, but for having branded Mr. Brassard a separatist. So, he is basically being let off the hook for making comments that were completely out of line, based on statements that I am reputed to have made and which are utterly false. It is rather upsetting.

Is it your intention, as President, to ensure that people are treated the same way by the CBC as they are by Radio- Canada—in other words, that Mr. Cherry would be dismissed, as Mr. Bourgault was three times?

On one occasion, a CEQ ad was refused because Mr. Bourgault was the spokesperson. Another time, Mr. Bourgault's interview with Ms. Bazzo was scrapped. After that, the program Ici comme ailleurs was also scrapped—or rather, the program was not scrapped, but after seven weeks, Mr. Bourgault was asked to stay home because he had attacked the Catholic Church and the Bishop of the Montreal Diocese.

On the other hand, Mr. Cherry has attacked French Canadians all across Canada. It seems to me that this is serious enough for the Corporation to take whatever steps are required under the circumstances. Is it your intention, as President, to ensure that Mr. Cherry shows some respect for the different groups that make up Canada?

[English]

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I think the finding of the ombudsman was very clear, Madame Tremblay, and we support entirely his finding. His conclusion was that Mr. Cherry went well over the line in terms of the comments he made, and also that the CBC fell short.

We have an obligation, if someone makes comments of a political nature, to ensure balance in our programming. It is not our function to censor people who are commenting on our airways, and we want to encourage a diversity of points of view, but our function is to ensure that there is balance in comments and that people hear a wide range of points of view.

Our undertaking is to implement the report of the ombudsman. We certainly accept his findings. First of all, we will encourage people who are hired for their expert advice to offer that advice in areas where they have expertise. Secondly, where they stray beyond that, our obligation is to ensure that there is balance in the comments made and that we allow other points of view as well.

• 1300

Our ombudsman found that comments made about Mr. Brassard were unfair and inaccurate.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It was because he was associated with the separatists. It was not because of the comments themselves, but because it was—-

Mr. Perrin Beatty: No, it goes beyond that. Many of the comments were simply inaccurate. Our obligation is to ensure that in our program, particularly if we stray into the area of political commentary, what we have is balanced and gives a broad range of points of view, not just simply one point of view.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I have just two brief editorial comments that you will probably want to respond to.

First of all, I, like Mr. Saada, was really disturbed by Mr. Abbott's world view, or whatever view it was. This is partly because of this sort of notion that things happening outside Canada have no impact on us, but also because of the sort of things that CBC covers so well, such as the My Lai event last night, which was from a Canadian perspective. That's what really struck me about it. It was something that would have been useful I think for the Americans themselves.

There's also the coverage by CBC Radio of the Maurice Papon trial, which I don't think commercial radio would ever have touched. Indeed, earlier this week, in the field of drama, there was Ken Finkleman's More Tears, which I thought was one of the most extraordinary and effective pieces of prime time television I've seen in a long time. I was just stunned. I thought it was just terrific.

It just doesn't happen elsewhere. I don't think we'll have any fight on this.

The second comment is to Ms. Lill as she leaves the room. It's quite simply this. Madame Tremblay and I were here for a previous incarnation of this study. You see, I can get them all if they leave.

I'm going to make this comment. I think the CBC is a better organization today because of program review and because of the fact that you were forced by circumstances to reduce your headquarters staff by half and drop 3,000 people. It's a brutal thing to say, but I don't think it would have happened otherwise. I think the programming today is better, at least on the English television side. I think the radio is more creative than it was. Certainly, administratively, I don't think there's any discussion.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I disagree.

Mr. John Godfrey: Well, I thought if I was going to beat up on you, I had better do it before you left the room.

The third comment is really a reflection of what Mr. Bonwick said. As I went through your remarks, I was trying to imagine what our report would look like at the end. What is it we're going to say about the various cultural sectors we're dealing with? If I were to take something out from this, my general impression is, first of all, that we should keep the cheques coming.

Second, let you have access to new sources of revenue, wherever they may come from, on a fair basis, like the cable production fund.

Third, in the field of regulation, of course we don't deal with it directly, but we have to use the agency of the CRTC mostly. I didn't hear you saying to do anything dramatically different except to allow you the opportunity to have access to different modes of distribution as the technology evolves. Don't tie your hands. But overall, I didn't hear you say we have to change the Broadcasting Act. I didn't hear you say we have to revisit Canadian content.

Basically I didn't hear you calling for a radical shift of policy or policy instruments providing we're attentive to issues of copyright, spectrum allocation, satellites, and trade. This is more or less going in the right direction. One shouldn't do anything that might inadvertently cause you grief, but I didn't hear a call to the committee to come up with a radical shift of anything. I just don't want to put words in your mouth, but is that a fair assessment of what you said?

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I think we said the same thing, but you took about 25 minutes less than I did to say it.

Mr. John Godfrey: Good. We'll call it a deal.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: The only place I guess where I might quibble is with Canadian content. I guess I'm not making an argument in terms of Canadian content because we have already taken that decision. We Canadianized and refocused on the whole issue. It's our raison d'être.

Mr. John Godfrey: Sure.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I'm not sure, other than giving us assistance to do what we see as being essential to our mandate, what else I would look for in—

Mr. John Godfrey: Well, I guess the issue would be that, in certain parts of your presentation, you referred to yourself as being part of the broadcasting system. So you said, for example, about the private sector, that you think it's good they're there. We think we have to make sure there are instruments to keep them, including simulcasting, for instance.

But you were silent on the other issues. By the way, if we think it's good for the system on a quid pro quo basis, they should still do Canadian content. They should do it in prime time, on radio, or all the rest of it. That's a systems approach in which you are part of the system, but not the whole system.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: I'd be glad to come back another day and offer more thoughts on that. I tried to stick to our own thing, perhaps out of sensitivity for when other commentators have strayed into other areas of expertise.

• 1305

Mr. McCoubrey, for example, has made a presentation to the CRTC with regard to radio and what the role is of both the CBC and others within the system. I've made presentations as well, and any of that material is available, or we could elaborate on that.

We do see ourselves as part of an integrated system, playing a different, complementary role from that of our private sector colleagues, but all of us have obligations toward the system. I wanted to focus today on our obligations and what we can contribute, perhaps uniquely.

Mr. John Godfrey: Sure. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Beatty and colleagues, thank you very much for coming.

I know I'm supposed to be impartial as a chairman, but at the same time if I can use some licence, I would put the question as to where we would be as Canadians without the CBC and Radio-Canada. I think all of us would think we would be much poorer for it.

If we can help you in any way as parliamentarians, as my colleague Mr. Bonwick was suggesting, to improve what you do to the greatest extent possible, of course, this is what our role is and we would be very happy to do that.

Mr. Perrin Beatty: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate the presence of the three of you here very much.

The meeting is adjourned.