HERI Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 27, 2002

0900

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

0905

Ms. Connie Edwards (President, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association)

0910

Mr. Nic Wry (Broadcast Chair, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association)

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. Nic Wry

0915

0920

Ms. Connie Edwards

0925

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Nic Wry

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Nic Wry

0930

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Nic Wry

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Nic Wry

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. Nic Wry

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Connie Edwards

0935

Mr. Nic Wry

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon (Québec)

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. Nic Wry

0940

The Chair

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

Mr. Nic Wry

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Nic Wry

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Nic Wry

Ms. Connie Edwards

0945

Mr. Nic Wry

Mr. Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Nic Wry

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. Nic Wry

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. Nic Wry

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Nic Wry

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Nic Wry

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. Nic Wry

The Chair

Ms. Lill

0950

Ms. Lill

Mr. Nic Wry

Mr. McNally

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. McNally

Mr. Nic Wry

Mr. McNally

Mr. Nic Wry

Mr. McNally

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. Nic Wry

Mr. McNally

0955

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. McNally

Mr. Nic Wry

The Chair

Mr. Nic Wry

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Nic Wry

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. Nic Wry

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Connie Edwards

Mr. Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Nic Wry

1000

The Chair

Mr. John Grogan (Individual Presentation)

1005

The Chair

Mr. John Grogan

1010

The Chair

Ms. Kathryn Fraser (Individual Presentation)

1015

Mr. Brian Staples (Individual Presentation)

1020

The Chair

Mr. Brian Staples

The Chair

Mr. Brian Staples

1025

The Chair

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

Mr. John Grogan

Mr. Jim Abbott

Ms. Kathryn Fraser

Mr. Abbott

1030

The Chair

Mr. John Grogan

The Chair

Mr. John Grogan

The Chair

Ms. Kathryn Fraser

The Chair

Ms. Kathryn Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Brian Staples

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Gagnon (Québec)

1035

Mr. John Grogan

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. John Grogan

The Chair

1040

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Brian Staples

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Brian Staples

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Brian Staples

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Kathryn Fraser

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Kathryn Fraser

Mr. Harvard

1045

Ms. Kathryn Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Kathryn Fraser

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Kathryn Fraser

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Ms. Kathryn Fraser

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Brian Staples

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Brian Staples

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Brian Staples

Mr. Gallaway

The Chair

Ms. Lill

Mr. McNally

1050

Ms. Kathryn Fraser

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

1055

Mr. John Grogan

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Mr. Richard Zyp (Representative, Local 1900, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada

The Chair

Mr. Richard Zyp

1100

1105

Ms. Nancy Wahl (President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada)

1110

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Richard Zyp

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Richard Zyp

1115

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Richard Zyp

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Nancy Wahl

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Richard Zyp

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Richard Zyp

Mrs. Hinton

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon

Ms. Nancy Wahl

1120

Mme Gagnon

Mr. Richard Zyp

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Nancy Wahl

1125

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Nancy Wahl

The Chair

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Richard Zyp

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Richard Zyp

1130

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Richard Zyp

Mr. Gallaway

The Chair

Ms. Lill

Ms. Nancy Wahl

Mr. Richard Zyp

Ms. Nancy Wahl

Ms. Lill

Mr. Richard Zyp

The Chair

Mr. McNally

1135

Mr. Richard Zyp

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Wahl

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Wahl

1140

Mr. McNally

Ms. Nancy Wahl

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Wahl

The Chair

1150

Ms. Jill Bonenfant (Director, Learning and Skills Television Alberta)

1155

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mrs. Hinton

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon (Québec)

The Chair

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

The Chair

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

1200

Ms. Gagnon

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

1205

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Lill

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. McNally

1210

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. McNally

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. McNally

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. McNally

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. McNally

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

1215

Mr. Harvard

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mrs. Hinton

The Chair

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mrs. Hinton

The Chair

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

The Chair

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

The Chair

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

The Chair

Mr. Boname

The Chair

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

The Chair

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

The Chair

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

The Chair

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

The Chair

Ms. Jill Bonenfant

1220

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux (Director General, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta)

1225

1230

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

1235

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

1240

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

1245

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

1250

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mr. Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

1255

The Chair

Ms. Lill

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

The Chair

Mr. McNally

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mr. McNally

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mr. McNally

1300

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

1305

The Chair

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mrs. Hinton

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mrs. Hinton

Ms. Gagnon (Québec)

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mme Hinton

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

The Chair

1310

Ms. Helen Neufeld (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

Ms. Helen Neufeld

1315

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 039

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 27, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): It's nine o'clock, and I would like to declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which meets today to continue its study on Canadian broadcasting.

We are extremely pleased to be here in Edmonton. We were in Vancouver yesterday, and it was a really fruitful meeting. I'm sure that trend will continue here.

Before we proceed with our witnesses, I would like to mention to the audience and to the witnesses that we work in the two official languages, English and French. Some members may want to put their questions in French, so there is translation equipment available to everyone who needs it.

We're pleased today to be able to hear from an extremely important Canadian industry, our motion picture industry in Canada, which has been extremely successful.

We welcome, from the Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Mrs. Connie Edwards, the president, and Mr. Nic Wry, the broadcast chair.

Ms. Edwards, you have 10 or 15 minutes to present your case. Then it will be open to questions by members. The floor is yours.

¿ (0905)

Ms. Connie Edwards (President, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association): Thank you very much. I'd like to thank you all very much for allowing us to come and present today. This is a very important committee, and we appreciate the opportunity.

I'd like to start by giving some background on Alberta Motion Picture Industries. For the past 28 years the Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association--we call it AMPIA--has represented independent producers and members involved in all aspects of the film and television industry in Alberta.

The mandate of the association is to ensure the growth and development of the indigenous industry at the producer, technical, talent and craft levels, to encourage their growth. Central to this mandate is maintaining an environment in which Alberta producers can initiate, develop, and produce films and programs over which they have creative and financial control.

AMPIA plays an important role in this sector of the economy, representing film and television professionals, disseminating information to them, lobbying and marketing on their behalf, and advocating for indigenous production.

AMPIA has a total of 245 members, representing a cross-section of more than 3,000 industry professionals--as I say, producers, directors, performers, writers, craftspeople, distributors, broadcasters, suppliers, and exhibitors.

As the industry association for Alberta, AMPIA represents the interests of its membership with respect to the broadcasting environment. AMPIA has appeared before the CRTC several times in recent years to bring forward the concerns of our membership. In addition, AMPIA has regularly submitted interventions and comments to the commission on licence renewals, changes to broadcast licences, issues of cross-ownership, regional representation, and ensuring there is a diversity of voices on the national broadcasters.

We've worked with other regional industry associations, as well as with the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, on matters pertaining to the industry, to ensure that independent producers can continue to create quality programs for the Canadian global marketplace. AMPIA has worked diligently to develop relationships with the different broadcasters, the regulatory bodies, and the federal government to ensure that Alberta productions continue to have a visible and participatory voice in Canada and internationally.

We really appreciate the opportunity to speak before the committee and to present the perspectives of the association and its membership with regard to the current state of the Canadian broadcasting system and its future direction.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Nic Wry (Broadcast Chair, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association): We believe there are four key pillars in the future of a Canadian broadcasting system that has recognizable Canadian programming telling our history and stories with world-class production values that are well promoted so that people know where to find them.

Number one, majority ownership and control of broadcasting undertakings must be in the hands of Canadians. The level of foreign ownership is not the issue as long as Canadians have a majority ownership and real effective control.

Number two, there needs to be shelf space on Canadian broadcasting undertakings for a reasonable amount of recognizably Canadian programming, especially in the areas of drama, documentary, variety, music, and dance. How this is accomplished is not important, but that it is accomplished is vital.

If we want recognizably Canadian programming on our screens, there must be government and private sector support to create and promote that programming. The government must believe in this initiative and believe it's worth significant support, and the private sector must contribute as they're making money on the public airwaves.

Our history and stories are every bit as compelling as the Americans', but we don't spend the money to ensure that our children know as much about Grey Owl as they do about Davy Crockett. I still have my coon-skin hat and can sing the Davy Crockett song--I won't sing it for you--but ask me why the Jesuits were persecuted and I'd be hard-pressed for an answer.

Number three, there also need to be bonuses for producing in the regions, simply because it's more expensive to carry on business there. If there are going to be regional stories told by regional storytellers, they need extra support simply to run their businesses, as they must make regular trips to Toronto to be players on the national scene.

Lastly, we very much need to promote our programming as the Americans do, not because the Americans do it, but because it works. The rough American rule of thumb is to spend as much money promoting a program as you spend creating it. In the 500-channel universe, we must follow this model by making high-quality, high-production-value programs, and then promoting them so that viewers know where to find them; otherwise, the money spent on creation is wasted.

Ms. Connie Edwards: If ever we were looking for an example of the power of the Canadian broadcasting system, we had it last Sunday, February 24. For three hours, the streets of Canada were deserted as Canadians were glued to their television sets watching our men's Olympic hockey team play the Americans for the gold medal. Beaming the signal out to homes across this great country was our public broadcaster, bringing Canadians together.

In essence, this is what our broadcasting system can and should do, provide programming to Canadians that is about Canadians and our place in the world. Canadian content, regardless of its form--hockey, news, current events, drama, documentary, and lifestyle programming--is the distinguishing feature of the Canadian broadcasting system. It is the critical element that will ensure that Canada will retain a distinct broadcasting system in the future.

There is a direct link between the state of the Canadian broadcasting system and our independent production industry. The broadcasting system is largely a delivery system for content, content that in large part is developed and created by independent producers and production companies. It must be stated that Canada has much to be proud of in terms of its broadcasting system and the corresponding production industry. Canada has created two diverse and noted industries.

Over recent years we have witnessed the creation of a third national broadcaster, as well as a plethora of specialty channels. The federal government has taken a leading role in fostering production by creating a partnership with private industry to create the Canadian Television Fund, as well as continuing to support Telefilm Canada. Through the CRTC, Canada has a regulatory body to oversee the developments in the broadcasting industry and to promote the production of Canadian programming for Canadian audiences. With the CBC, Canada has a public broadcaster providing a mirror for Canadian audiences to reflect on Canadian issues.

In combination, Canada has created a framework for success, yet success has, to some extent, eluded us. Despite the efforts of the Canadian government, the industry is not achieving all that it could, nor is it achieving what it should by the promises of the public and private broadcasters. We have built a framework, but we have not reinforced the foundation. AMPIA has gone on record with the CRTC to emphasize these points previously and welcomes this opportunity to present these issues to this committee.

This presentation concentrates upon the issues facing our membership, independent producers of film and television projects, as well as the human and technical resources that support independent production. It is our opinion that the key to a diverse and successful broadcasting system is the content that the system distributes. As the content providers, independent producers have a pivotal role in ensuring the future of a vibrant and distinct Canadian broadcasting system.

However, there are two main issues of concern to be addressed here: the centralization and consolidation of broadcasters and the loss of regional broadcasting voices, as well as the financing and licensing of production. We will touch briefly on the issue of vertical integration, but it's our understanding that the committee has already received a submission from the CFTPA that effectively addresses that issue for our membership.

We have witnessed a growing trend by broadcasters to consolidate their operations to central Canada. From an operating standpoint, this move is understood as a means of building corporate efficiencies, reducing overhead, and growing shareholder profits. AMPIA has gone on record at CRTC hearings indicating that we do not wish to stand in the way of progress, nor of effective and cost-efficient business practices. The difficulty is that by reducing or in some cases eliminating regional offices, Canadians are losing regional voices, since the broadcasters' base is Toronto.

This happens in two ways. In many cases, broadcasters no longer have shelf space for regional broadcasts other than news. The demands for product for the national airwaves has resulted in a steady reduction in the broadcast time available for local and regional stories and storytellers. This diminished ability to tell local stories is a loss to Canadian communities. News programming does not accurately reflect the artistic or human nature aspect of a regional community.

There appears to be a belief by some broadcasters that regional programming would not be of interest to national viewers. AMPIA respectfully disagrees. It is only by telling the stories of the unsung Canadian that we as a country can truly come together. Prior to recent consolidations, relationships with broadcasters at the regional level have allowed stories from Alberta to be developed and told to the rest of Canada and to the world. It is difficult now to find a program decision-maker in our region.

As AMPIA said in its intervention at the BCE-CTV hearing--and we have also said this at other hearings; I don't want to single them out:

“Unless each broadcaster takes care to preserve the diverse voices from across this country through firm commitments to develop and license original works from a variety of writers [and] producers, we will not have true creative representation of Canadians speaking to Canadians.”

Mr. Nic Wry: The financing system for Canadian television is a maze of well-meaning but poorly coordinated programs of growing complexity. Six years ago, a typical financial structure for a given production would have had perhaps four different parts. Today it's not uncommon for a production to have over ten different financial partners, each with its own application process, guidelines, and reporting system. The broadcasters' participation in the system has diminished significantly, generally to the level required to trigger the support of the CTF, the Canadian Television Fund.

¿ (0915)

As a broadcaster of 27 years and a former member of the board of the CTF, I was sad to see this happen, as the CTF contribution was supposed to be incremental money to the system, not a way for broadcasters to lower their licence fees.

Interim financing costs for independent producers have skyrocketed, as they have tried to balance the needs of the production with the reporting criteria of the banks and various funding bodies. As a result, the floor for broadcast licences has in effect become a ceiling, and the independent producers are carrying the increasing risk, as broadcasters limit their investment in content. That's creating a very real threat of less and less production from the small and medium-sized producers, especially in the regions.

In Canada, we're privileged to have several funds for our television productions. The Canadian Television Fund has been an enormous success in stimulating Canadian production. In Alberta, we once had the CFCN Fund and the CFRN TV Fund. We continue to have the A Channel Drama Fund and now the CanWest Independent Producers Fund. There are also regional funds from Corus and Shaw.

Unfortunately, as funds are created as benefits, they tend to come when a transfer of ownership occurs. Once the initial term of the licence is over, they're usually not renewed commitments. The station licence is renewed and the community they serve loses out on the benefits that were promised for the transition.

Across the country are several other funds that assist and enable dramatic and documentary productions. Again, most have come about due to CRTC regulation, and few work in concert with one another. Conflicting deadlines, application forms, and qualifications criteria make the paper trail a nightmare. Once applications are completed, there's no guarantee of funding. This makes the business of producing Canadian television programming extremely unstable, and makes it difficult for us to deal with our partners in the United States and other countries, because we can't guarantee what the financing of our productions will look like.

We urge the committee to ensure that each broadcaster right on conventional television, specialty television, the Internet, etc., be licensed separately, with a separate market-value licence paid. The trigger amounts for the CTF should be increased, and terms of trade with each broadcaster should be created. The CFTPA is attempting to do that, and hopefully it's being finalized with the CBC. I think they've been trying to get that done for three years, but I've been told it's almost done.

This will ensure the independent producers are compensated for each right granted to the broadcaster for the duration of a licence, and will standardize the terms of the licence. The problem is that the broadcasters now say, “Here's one amount of money, take it or leave it” for everything we own, and it's very often what they used to pay for just their conventional rights.

Now Connie will speak.

¿ (0920)

Ms. Connie Edwards: Through the CFPTA, several proposals have been developed and submitted for the government's consideration, to amend the current flaws in the federal supports for the industry. At this point, it appears that these proposals have not been adopted.

We recommend that the government work with the CFPTA and regional associations like ourselves to ensure its programs for the industry reflect the needs of the industry. We are very thankful for what has been done, but it can be more effective.

More than ever, the CRTC has a vital and crucial role to play as the guardian of independent storytellers across this country. We do not think that bolstering corporate profit margins through vertical integration should come at the expense of the Canadian independent production community and its independent voice.

We urge the committee to use the CRTC to establish clear public policies that avoid potential self-dealing practices for all broadcasters. We also recommend exploring reasonable limits to company ownership, so independent producers truly remain independent. As we have indicated many times before the CRTC, AMPIA believes that a truly independent producer is 100 percent independent.

To ensure a more equitable and smooth process, AMPIA urges the committee to ensure that regional commitments of licences and development dollars become part of an ongoing CRTC policy focus, and not only a consideration when television stations are bought and sold.

These benefits are one-time endeavours and have a devastating effect on regional production when the money flows back outside the region. We further recommend that in their licensing decision the CRTC include all regional benefits as conditions of licence.

We would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to present the concerns of our membership and some of our suggested solutions. AMPIA continues to believe that Canadians want to watch and learn about themselves. We wholeheartedly support the concept of Canadian content on our airwaves. Our own voices need to be heard and our faces should be reflected. Whether we are sharing the joy of the winning goal or the grief of our nation as we mourn with our neighbours, Canadians have a distinctive point of view, a distinctive voice, and distinct stories that should not be sacrificed to shareholder value.

Some benefits and qualities in life cannot be quantified in dollars. The Canadian identity and voice is such a benefit. We urge this committee to bear this in mind as they prepare their report to Canadian Heritage. There must continue to be room on Canadian screens for diverse Canadian voices from coast to coast to coast.

We'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Edwards.

We are most grateful to you for your presentation because you've reinforced what we've heard many times about Canadian content and the place of local and regional broadcasting. It comes up all the time. We're also grateful because you've added many important recommendations about ownership, about financing and licensing, which we are going to take into account very seriously. So we are most grateful to you.

I will now open the floor to questions.

Ms. Hinton.

Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Good morning, and thank you for appearing today.

When we were touring on the eastern side, gathering information from witnesses as well, I noted something, and I just would like to ask if it applies to you as well.

You're making productions for television here. One of the things that was pointed out to me on the tour was the fact that in the past, when they were producing a television program, they could use plastic moulding, for example, and they could use, for lack of a better phrase, fake things in their television production, which was a lot less expensive. With the coming of digital, because of its closer look, shall we say, they were telling us that those things are not going to be possible any more, so the production part of it is going to increase as well. I wondered if you would agree or disagree with that.

Mr. Nic Wry: The introduction of high-definition television, especially in the United States, where they're aggressively rolling it out, is making that happen very quickly. The Olympics were just done in high-definition, both on the network and on satellite, 24 hours a day. What we're finding is that, as with colour television, the Americans are going into high-definition very quickly and in a big way. If we don't move quickly, we're going to find people tuning back to the American stations, as they did when there was colour in the United States and not Canada. So we have to move very quickly, both in broadcast and in production, for high-definition.

We were just at the NATP conference in Las Vegas, which is the programming conference of the United States and Canada, and it's clear. If you don't make your show in high-definition, you won't be able to sell it to the Americans in a couple of years.

One of the good things is that in the MOU that was given to the CTF this time by the Ministry of Heritage, they recommended that the CTF look at supporting the production of high-definition programs and that if that costs a little more in the producer's budget, they should look at subsidizing that. The Department of Heritage thought it was very important that productions were capable of high-definition and recommended that the CTF look at making sure that happened by subsidizing it to the extent necessary to produce that way.

As you say, it's now like creating a feature film on a big screen: everything has to be real and look real.

Ms. Connie Edwards: Just to follow up, that does mean an increase in production budgets, and that gets to the crux of it. We need to see licence fees that are reflective of the increased budgets we need to put together.

As Nic had mentioned, now we have to dance with ten or eleven partners to fund our production. According to the Canadian Television Fund application guidelines and so on, a broadcaster in some productions can come in for as little as 10 percent, all the way up to 25 percent, and you're still trying to find 75 percent of your production budget.

Quality is the key. I know our members are really dedicated to quality production. Quality production costs money. We used to be able to cheat and take some shortcuts, but we can't do that any more.

Mr. Nic Wry: And we have to have that quality because we're competing with the Americans. If it looks Canadian, they just won't watch. They'll watch an American production.

¿ (0930)

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Bite your tongue...it looks Canadian.

Mr. Nic Wry: It didn't look Canadian any more when we had enough money to do it.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: There are good Canadian programs.

The Chair: We should look Canadian, no?

Mr. Nic Wry: Of course we should look Canadian.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: It needs to look Canadian.

Mr. Nic Wry: For production value, only production value.

The Chair: Mrs. Hinton.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I know this is very difficult, and you don't have a crystal ball, but could you give me some percentage figure as to what you think the costs are going to increase to? For example, is it going to cost 20 percent more, 50 percent more?

Mr. Nic Wry: People are doing budgets already. In fact, it's about 20 percent more because of the film stock and equipment that you need to do it and slightly larger departments for art direction and things like that. But because we produce so much for the United States, the service producers doing things for the United States are doing it now. They're shooting in 24p--in high definition--with those budgets, because that's only what the Americans will accept.

So we're learning all that technology. The problem is that if the funding system doesn't give you enough money to produce with that technology, then you're just going to be left behind.

Ms. Connie Edwards: Also, for let's say documentary production, again you want to be producing quality. Canada has a great reputation as a premier producer of documentary programming.

If we're going to do a really good job, those budgets need to be increasing. One of the key things that's increasing our costs, about which our members have been calling me as recently as yesterday, is the funding difficulties in trying to dance with all the partners. What happens is you need to go to get interim financing. I can tell you that I personally have had to put up a guarantee to get a credit line of $10,000 just to cashflow my production. It's lunacy, because I've been in business for a number of years. I'm proven to my bankers. I end up paying more in interim financing charges. Other productions are having to put up bonds and completion guarantees, so that all of the people are comfortable, even though you have papers saying it's 100 percent financed.

Those costs drive up the cost of your production by 10 percent to 20 percent, and it doesn't go on the screen; it goes into the bank vault. Our concern is let's put it on the screen, because we want to sell our programming into the international market. We want to tell Canadian stories to the Europeans, to South America. We have something to say. We just need to organize ourselves better fiscally to get the quality production out there.

Mr. Nic Wry: Often the banks want personal guarantees from producers. So what they're risking is not their company; they're risking their family's house and whatever assets they have when they're making a show.

Peter O'Brian did John and the Missus in Newfoundland. His financing fell apart. He personally guaranteed it, and he lost everything and was in bankruptcy for I think ten years.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I have one last question and I'll try to be quick here.

The Chair: Please be quick.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: It's just about the dancing partners you refer to. It says that due to CRTC regulation, few work in concert with one another. You're talking about conflicting deadlines, application forms, and qualification criteria. You're talking about red tape. I'll give you an opportunity to speak a little bit more fully on that.

Ms. Connie Edwards: Thank you.

I want to make it very clear that we're very grateful for those funds, because without those funds we could not produce Canadian programming. I want to be very clear about that.

It's just the process. As you say, it's the red tape. It's when the deadlines for Canadian Television Fund are on a certain date and then you don't hear if your program has been funded. But let's say for another fund they need you to prove that you're 80 percent financed or 60 percent financed. Well, you won't know until they make up their mind, and they're not going to make up their mind until after the date of this next fund. So you've missed out getting that particular fund's dollars, because you can't guarantee them that you've already got 40 percent of your financing. It really is red tape.

The other important part of that is, as we have mentioned, it's wonderful to have those benefits, but once those licensed years are over, there's no guarantee that those benefits will continue. Suddenly you're left with the fact that you have a 20 percent hole in your financing because that fund is no longer available to you.

And of course, as I'm sure you all know, there's a huge over-subscription, a huge desire for the funds available. From a business sense, without even talking about allowing ourselves to tell our Canadian stories, but speaking as a business person, when I have to do up my business plan and I don't know if I'm going to get $100 next month to do my show, it's craziness.

We would very respectfully suggest--and I've heard this across the country--if there is a way, that the process be streamlined so the funds speak to each other. I would suggest the funds would be open to this. I spoke to this at the Telefilm summit. Streamlining would allow you to fill out one application form. Dates could be staggered so they are logical, because production season in Canada is basically in the spring. Once all those funds have been dealt with.... We now have a fall launch for some programming, which has alleviated this stress, but it really gets in the way of just telling our stories.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Nic Wry: The other trick is there's amazing duplication and waste in the federal system. CAVCO, Telefilm, and the CTF all have people analysing the same information. All of them are asking producers like Connie, who have a small office with a desk and a phone, for information and things to come back--often the same things. So we have three agencies doing the same work.

They are trying to work on this. We've talked to CAVCO. They're certainly working at ways of streamlining it. But at the moment we have three administrations with three big budgets analysing the same data and making basically the same decisions. It would make a huge difference if we could put that on the screen.

The Chair: I'd like to ask both members and witnesses if they could be concise. We really have a time restraint. There are several people who want to be heard this morning, so if both groups could be concise, we'd really appreciate it.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I used to work with the film producer associations in Quebec. Hearing you today brings me back to that whole dimension of the difficulties involved in being an independent producer. I believe that this has always been the situation here. In regard to the new trend toward centralization, I would like to know if the situation has worsened. Probably so, but I would like to get an idea of proportion. For example, are there independent producers who have gone out of business? You mentioned that one person went bankrupt. I used to hear this type of story about twenty years ago when I was promoting independent producers from Quebec.

First, I would like you to give us a more accurate picture of the situation. Second, I would like to know how your production potential is minimized. For example, could you produce 30 or 40 films per year with the associations that are your members? I would like to get a more accurate picture of your restricted potential.

[English]

Ms. Connie Edwards: I'll speak very briefly to the financial issue and I'll let Nic speak to the potential.

A lot of our members go from project to project, even some of the larger producers of dramatic programming, so it is difficult. We have a lot of small and medium-sized businesses. And I don't mean people who are earning $10 million from their companies, I'm talking people who have one- or two-person offices, some five; it depends, year to year. It's so unstable we just never know, and because of the system of funding, it is very, very difficult.

In Alberta, I'm not aware currently of a company that has shut down, but I am aware from the calls I receive that people are very nervous from production to production, from season to season. There are no guarantees.

Mr. Nic Wry: They're close to shutting down.

The potential is there. Alberta at one stage had a great deal of support. The AMPDC was one of the very early provincial funding agencies. We had a great deal of work happening in Alberta. The government of Alberta is working with us, but to be fair, for a while there was very little provincial support.

Production is fluid and can move to wherever it makes sense. You'll find that it moves from province to province to a certain extent, depending on what the support of the province is towards production. But we certainly are capable of doing something like 10 series, 15 movies, in Alberta in a typical season. That will be a whole raft of things--documentaries, children's programs, and two or three dramatic series. Tom Stone, on CBC, which just premiered after the Olympics, is being done in Calgary with a Calgary producer. There's huge capacity. It's totally tied to the ability to finance.

The other thing that's changed dramatically, the thing that built the public sector companies--the publicly traded companies--is the cutbacks to Telefilm. In its original format, Telefilm Canada agreed that it would be the last investor. It would certainly be an investor. If your show was a big hit, the government would recover some of the money it had put in. As Telefilm has been cut back, it's been more and more aggressive about the recruitment, and the only place the money it wants can come from is the producers.

More and more over the years, producers are getting a smaller and smaller portion of the money from the sales of their product, so they have not been able to build infrastructure. If you look at Alliance Atlantis and that whole group of companies, this was how they built their infrastructure, by being the distributor who could take their fees and expenses and then their advance and fees before Telefilm received its money back. And without this, the small or medium companies are not going to grow.

The other interesting point is that--when this survey was done--Telefilm recoups about 10 percent of its income, and it cost it about 12 percent in administrative costs to recover the 10 percent.

Thank you.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

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

Either of you can answer the question.

There is a claim being made, largely I think by some private broadcasters, that Canadian production is on the verge of what you might call a golden era. And they attribute this to the multi-channel, many-hundred-channel, universe out there, the so-called specialty channels. The claim is that with this proliferation of specialty channels, Canadian production will have added value, so the day is coming when there will be this plethora of Canadian productions and we won't be swimming in the sea of American programming.

Do you believe this?

Mr. Nic Wry: The first problem is they then say here's our licence fee, which covers all of the specialities we own. And if you look at the broadcasters, they probably own the predominant number of the specialties. So as for that plethora of programming, you've given up your rights forever when you sign a document.

The other trick is that at current market value, the new digital specialties were paying $1,000 a half hour to license a program. That was pretty consistent, because I spoke to all of them. This year they're spending virtually nothing because their subscriber bases are so low that they're going to use shelf product this year to get them through.

The concept is right. The shelf space is there, but the problem is that without the money to do the shows, the shelf space is totally irrelevant. If you have a channel about transportation and they give you $1,000 a half hour, you can't make a show for them. They're right, in that there will be a place for all that programming, but the question is how will it get financed?

Mr. John Harvard: So financing is the big if. And how does this financing occur without large subsidies of one kind or another from the public purse?

Mr. Nic Wry: We are good, as Canadians, at making foreign sales, both to the United States and to other countries. Part of the mix is bringing this money in for those programs. But we might as well be realistic: if you want Canadian stories told with high production values, they're going to have to be supported, and if they're not--

Mr. John Harvard: With subsidies.

Mr. Nic Wry: With subsidies.

Mr. John Harvard: Because the marketplace is simply too thin.

Mr. Nic Wry: That's absolutely true. There are foreign sales, but not enough to recover the costs. And if you don't want to do that, we could be quite successful doing what's called industrial Canadian. We'll figure out what Tribune wants next year, and we'll shoot it. We'll make it six out of ten so it qualifies as 125 percent Canadian broadcaster content for CRTC; there just won't be any Canadian stories or Canadian reflection. But we can do Earth: Final Conflict and make money.

Ms. Connie Edwards: Although, Nic, just to be very clear, we don't want to do this sort of production.

Mr. Nic Wry: No, no.

Ms. Connie Edwards: Certainly it makes business sense, and we're capable and we do that kind of production. We're here today to say we want to do Canadian production.

As we've said, sometimes you can't quantify what benefit this is to the public. I can't tell you that if you spend a dollar on my production, the Canadian public will get two dollars' worth back. But I can tell you they get more than that, because they are reflected on the screens across this country, and we have an opportunity to reach the world marketplace and to tell our stories and to share who we are as Canadians. I think that has more value than the one dollar.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Nic Wry: And the Canadian history project on CBC proved it. They had huge numbers of viewers and Canadians really enjoyed it.

Mr. John Harvard: Are we out of time? You are such a ruthless timekeeper.

The Chair: Yes, today I am ruthless.

Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia--Lambton, Lib.): You talk about bonuses for regional productions. How would you deliver those bonuses? Would it be through tax credits, or are you talking about cash?

Ms. Connie Edwards: No, what happens is this. Right now, through the Canadian Television Fund, there already are some bonuses in place. It does recognize that it is more expensive to produce in the regions. We would urge that this continue if there's an opportunity to enhance that. It allows us to participate on a level playing field with some of the larger companies and with some of the companies in the larger centres for production.

Mr. Nic Wry: And it's done as a percentage of your budget. You get an additional percentage of your budget if you're producing in a region, which is defined as outside Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Secondly, you're talking about all of these production funds. Suppose that was your observation--I won't call them complaints--about the Canadian banking system. Much of what you said would be heard at the finance committee, coming from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business or some group such as that. People pledging their homes for all sorts of business reasons is not unusual in this country. In terms of the bureaucratic reporting system, which is more onerous, the production funds or the banks?

Ms. Connie Edwards: That's a tough question.

Mr. Nic Wry: The paperwork is far worse from the funds, but taking your house is far worse from the banks.

Sorry, carry on.

Ms. Connie Edwards: I was going to say in our experience it's equal, because you get so tripped up in some of the minutiae, whether it's from the bank or whether it's from the fund. It's equally complicated.

Mr. Nic Wry: Anyone else is willing to take a risk. They leave you hanging out in the wind and they say “Until we have long forms from these 150 people, we won't advance ten cents. We know you're in production--use your credit card.”

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Is that banks?

Mr. Nic Wry: The banks are saying they don't have all the papers so they can't. Everyone else is saying--

Mr. Roger Gallaway: What about the production side?

Mr. Nic Wry: It's the same thing. They say they need long form agreements. They won't accept short forms. So we have long forms that have to go through our lawyers who are on holidays, or they won't advance money.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: How do you remedy this? There's nothing you can do about banks in this country per se--

Mr. Nic Wry: There's the banking committee.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: --but how do you resolve this problem with production funds?

Ms. Connie Edwards: Again, as we discussed, I think the mechanism of the fund is sound in terms of helping to foster Canadian production. That's great. What we need to do is a bureaucratic, red-tape dance. How do we make it so that it makes sense for production, so that it doesn't inhibit getting that program out the door, and so that it doesn't beggar the producer while they're trying to get that product to the Canadian public?

Mr. Nic Wry: And someone in government has to be charged with making it work. Cut the duplication, make it work, so there's somebody responsible you can look at and say: “You're the one. Have you fixed that problem?”

The Chair: Yes, we have heard you. Bureaucracy and banking--the joys of life.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for your presentation.

We have heard over and over, and we're hearing it from you as well, that private broadcasters are reducing their participation in Canadian programming. We heard that Canadian broadcasters earned $6.5 billion in 1999-2000, yet we have seen a reduction in spending on Canadian content by 5 percent in real dollars, constant dollars. There was an increase in non-Canadian spending by 56 percent.

So you're saying that the CTF fund is in fact turning into a little of a race to the bottom, in that you're finding that the broadcasters are now trying to put less and less money into productions from that fund.

I guess our question has to be this. How do we get the participation of private broadcasters into this very important task, which it's all about here, and that is, creating a Canadian content reflecting Canadian reality back to one another?

On that same line, I'm interested in the fact that you talk about industrials and the importance of recognizable Canadian content. What percentage of the CTF fund is in fact going to industrials, as opposed to what we really want to see as speaking to each other?

Ms. Connie Edwards: I'm going to put on my idealistic cap, and I beg your indulgence for that.

I believe we as a society should value that we are Canadian and that we have stories to tell. Again it comes down to dollars, and I appreciate that the private broadcasters are in business, as the producers are in business, but as a society.... I'm hoping the reason your committee is going across the country is to say that it is important to have Canadian programming and that part of the responsibility of having access to the airwaves in Canada is to take the responsibility to tell and show the Canadian people about themselves.

I know that's very idealistic. It does not necessarily make fiscal sense. I will let my colleague talk about the financing.

¿ (0950)

Ms. Wendy Lill: So you start with the ideals, and then you flesh it out with practicality.

Mr. Nic Wry: But having been a broadcaster, the problem is that it is very rich business, with high profits, and they're used to 30 percent EBITDA . They now have huge debt, including that they all went out and bought newspapers. So they're now carrying big debt, and the problem is that they're publicly traded, so the market is totally watching what their next quarter is going to be.

In terms of their making more of a contribution, the only way they can put more money into production--and they can--is to take it out of their bottom line. They're being watched by the market like crazy, so I have some sympathy for the fact that if they don't meet their quarterly target, their stock price will go down and they'll be replaced by someone who will do The Love Boat III, which will be six out of ten Canadians.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney--Alouette, PC/DR): Does every production that goes ahead have to have Telefilm funding? What percentage go ahead without it?

Ms. Connie Edwards: I don't know the percentage. I guess what we're talking about today is specifically Canadian production. The Canadian Television Fund is there specifically to encourage and help bring Canadian stories to the screen. When Nic talks about six out of ten points--

Mr. Grant McNally: I was just wondering. You and your colleague are in the industry, so you know the players. Are productions going ahead with individuals who aren't accessing these...?

Mr. Nic Wry: There are a lot of people who go ahead with the CTF and without Telefilm, because it's subjective and makes the bureaucracy at the CTF look like a piece of cake.

Mr. Grant McNally: So they just get financing--

Mr. Nic Wry: They take CTF and tax credits.

Mr. Grant McNally: But there are bigger risks in financing elsewhere?

Ms. Connie Edwards: Yes, or they go into the international market. We are certainly now really starting to go into the co-production market. So whether you're co-producing with England, Germany, or whoever, you can start to make up some dollars that way.

Normally what happens, though, is that everyone brings something to the table, so as a Canadian producer, you do need to bring some dollars to the table. It isn't like investing in widget-making. You can't go out and raise venture capital that way, so you do bring some funds to the table, but you can stack licences. You can pre-sell your programme, co-produced with another partner in another country. Those things are moving forward, but they're not--

Mr. Nic Wry: Connie was just on the Prime Minister's trip to Germany on Team Canada, and making those kinds of contacts, but the key is Telefilm's recruitment. If they'll go to the back of the line again and let people build their companies, we could build them. But with them taking the money from us, it just doesn't work and it costs--

Mr. Grant McNally: Let me challenge your presupposition. You're working in an environment where this is the framework that has been built. It's now the framework; this is the way it works. Is there another?

Our job is somewhat to try to look at the big picture without the expertise that you bring, and we have to balance competing interests from all milieu of the country and competing dollars for health care and all the other big issues.

As maybe a big-picture question, is there another framework that you see that might be able to address the inherent difficulties with the paperwork? Is there another way to look at getting more competitive, or getting into production in ways that are maybe different from the ways we've thought of already?

¿ (0955)

Ms. Connie Edwards: I'm sure there are, and I believe very much that a lot of the associations, be they national or regional like ours, are looking into them. I know AMPIA is looking at the investment community. We're speaking with folks like that. We're trying not to rely so heavily on those funds, because of the problems we've discussed.

What we have to keep in mind is that our country has a finite number of eyeballs, and the trick is to get as many of those eyeballs onto a particular screen as possible. We simply do not have the people to support the advertising revenues that you need to support our productions. This is where the Americans--and I really don't like to dwell on this--have a huge marketplace with a huge number of people. They can sell the advertising for $1 million for the Super Bowl. We don't have that kind of structure here. Thus the difficulties in trying to find the pieces of the puzzle, because as financiers, people are going to say, “What do I get for my dollar? Who's going to watch? What's my payback? Where's my recoupment?”

Mr. Grant McNally: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Nic Wry: Just let me finish quickly.

The Chair: Briefly.

Mr. Nic Wry: The private investor is the answer. We should be getting money out of the private investor, and if the government agencies would push back and let them get their money back first, we could.

The Chair: I'll allow two brief questions that have been asked of me.

Ms. Hinton and Mr. Harvard, briefly.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: No.

The Chair: Very quickly, Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: You made reference in your written remarks that news programming does not accurately reflect the artistic or human nature aspect of a regional community. I agree with that, because I think the phrase “telling the Canadian story” is very often misconstrued. You can't tell the Canadian story through just the work of journalists. You have to tell that story through music, drama, satire, comedy, the whole host of things.

When we were on the west coast yesterday, we went to BCTV, which has a wonderful reputation for local programming. They have a plethora of local programming, but it's all information, nothing else.

Somehow Canadians have to understand that you can't get the Canadian story just through hard information or soft information. You have to go well beyond that, and that's where you people come in.

Mr. Nic Wry: True, and that's what all broadcasters are doing.

Ms. Connie Edwards: That's in fact the problem, because if you're trying to find local time, regional time, in our provinces there is none available to tell those regional stories not though news.

Mr. Nic Wry: It's backed up just to news.

Ms. Connie Edwards: But you're right.

Mr. John Harvard: The other thing is that what you have to do, or want to do, costs a lot of money. News and information are really cheap: you just stick a microphone up to their mouths and tell them to talk.

Ms. Connie Edwards: It does cost a lot of money, but you know what? To tell a regional story well, you can still do that.

It's two things. It's finding the shelf space, and finding the money. But the shelf space is also important.

Mr. John Harvard: It's a supermarket problem.

The Chair: Before we close, I want to ask you one brief question, because I think it's important.

Your recommendation number one says “Majority ownership and control of broadcasting undertakings must be in the hands of Canadians.” Witnesses have told us that it's okay to allow to foreigners control of investments into the infrastructure part of broadcasting as long as we keep the content in the hands of Canadians. Do you agree with this, and how do we manage to ensure that this happens without the two becoming a problem?

Mr. Nic Wry: Having listened to the CCTA's presentation, I think they had drawn a good line, which was if it's distribution it's on one side of that line, and the Canadian ownership is not the issue; if it's about broadcasting undertakings, clearly it has to be majority owned and controlled by Canadians.

If a company had both, they would have to split it into two parts, and only the distribution holding could hold higher foreign investors. The broadcasting undertaking would still have to be majority and effectively controlled by Canadians. I think that split makes some sense. Who owns the wires and how it gets there doesn't really matter; it's what's on it. But we have to make sure that doesn't slip into them owning the content in some way. As long as it doesn't, we're okay.

À (1000)

The Chair: I want to thank you very much for your very thoughtful presentation. We appreciate it very much.

I will now call on three individual presenters, Mr. John Grogan, Ms. Kathryn Fraser, and Mr Brian Staples.

Welcome, and thank you for appearing. The value of these hearings for us is to have time for our members to question you. As there are three of you, I was wondering if, instead of reading your presentations line by line--the researchers and ourselves will have them and will be able to read them in detail--you could perhaps summarize your recommendations as much as you can so that we can have time for the members to ask questions. As you can see, our time is unfortunately limited.

We'll start with Mr. Grogan.

Mr. John Grogan (Individual Presentation): Good morning. My name is John Grogan. I live in the rural area of Valemount in British Columbia. I was born and raised in New York City.

When I was a youth in Cub Scouts, we used to go on field trips to places like NBC studios. I appeared on TV as a youth in the 1950s and 1960s on the Bozo the Clown Show and the Howdy Doody Show, and I think I was on the Arthur Godfrey set. On one of those visits there was a fellow in the studio who had a big kettledrum, and he asked me if I would like to bang on that drum. I did, and he played that sound back. It had an amazing effect on my life because he suggested to me that a seven-year-old had the capability of having an impact on something as important as television.

In the 1960s in New York, UHF was introduced, and with another antenna you could get quite a few different television channels, including the U.S. equivalent of Access. Later I visited and immigrated to Canada. Part of the reason I chose Canada as my home was that I was inspired by Canada's dream for community access television. It was mandated that the cable companies would provide a channel for people to be able to express themselves in creative pursuits, etc.

The community I live in has about 1,200 people. At one time they only had one television station, CBC. The people got together and through referendum funded a very low-power rebroadcast system. Some years later they thought if they were a cable company, they would be mandated to have community access television, and they found the inner vision to pursue that.

I have three things I was hoping to talk to you about today: community access television, corporate concentration of media, and the 12 minutes of commercial messages per hour broadcast on television. I find that to be a misuse of the resource, and I equate it to usury.

I've briefed this down just as much as I could. The electronic comments are points, and I hope maybe they'll stimulate someone to ask a question.

Community access television is a refuge from the corporate media and it creates a place where citizens are nurtured, rather than consumer culture.

Media literacy.... The studio was used by all sorts of youth in our instance.

Public airwaves--I think that's important to note. I think many of the presentations you've received have to do with cable distribution.

Electronic villages: Marshall McLuhan taught us about the global village. Well, our villages don't have the opportunity for the people in the village to speak among themselves. We can send information out over the Internet, etc. We can receive and give information, but very infrequently have we an opportunity to speak among ourselves.

In the United States they have PEG--public, educational, governmental--as a model for community access television. They also have something called the Community Media Association. They have a strong lobby group in the United States, whereas in Canada it appears that we have no lobbying whatsoever and that the statutory obligations for community television have been diminished by the lobbying of the cable industry.

Community access television serves the community's needs with simple things like emergency notices and the weather forecast. Avalanches are a concern in my community. We're so far removed from any city broadcast that we're able to disseminate that information.

Youth played a huge part in community television in my community. It gave them an opportunity not just to participate in the studio, but to encourage their peers to participate in their homes by phoning a music request line or something like that.

Kim Goldberg wrote a book, The Barefoot Channel. In the preface of the book, she suggested there were no resources to help people establish a community television station. She says:

“And most importantly, this is a book about one small step we can take in the journey to reclaim a consciousness and a culture that distributes power broadly among the citizenry and enables us to build a new and healthier social order. Community access television is one of the tools we'll need along the way. It is now time to pick up the tools, redesign it to better fit our requirements and start to use it for the work ahead.”

There's so much more I want to say about community television, but--

À (1005)

The Chair: I know, but I don't think you'll be able to.

Mr. John Grogan: I understand.

The Chair: I think we've gotten your point, loud and clear.

Mr. John Grogan: On my second point, I should not have to take as much time. Corporate concentration of media equals fewer voices. There's a concern that if we only have one or two or three or even five stations, as they have in the States, basically if corporations own the means to disseminate information, only the corporate agenda will be heard.

And the third point I wish to raise is that 12 minutes of commercial messages per hour, which is a model we've adopted--and the United has the same, I believe--does not have to be the only model to be considered. I hope you will have the motivation to consider other models, such as in Great Britain or Ireland or--

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you for your input, Mr. Grogan. I think you have made your three points quite clear: community television, concentration of media, and too much advertising. You've expressed yourself quite clearly. So I think your points are taken and will certainly be examined by us. Thank you.

Ms. Fraser.

Ms. Kathryn Fraser (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear here today. I'll be very brief.

I currently teach film studies at the University of Alberta. but I've also worked in broadcasting as a story editor, a consultant, and a development writer. And though I am a member of the steering committee for the watchdog group, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, I appear to you today as a concerned citizen and as an Albertan.

I'd like to focus my comments on an issue I find troubling in our Canadian broadcasting system, namely, substantial federal political contributions for a very few large and increasingly powerful broadcasting organizations. The crux of my concern is quite simple: these are the very same broadcasters upon whom we, the public, rely to deliver responsible news about the federal government.

You may be aware of a recent research report published by the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting entitled Follow the Money, Part II, Federal Political Contributions by Canada's Broadcasting Industry, 1993-2000. It was reported in some parts of the media earlier this month. In the event that you haven't seen it, I've brought copies for each of you. There are also additional copies on the reception table outside.

First, I'd like to direct your attention to a few facts. Broadcasters' federal political contributions have doubled over the past decade, reaching almost $1 million in the year 2000. Since 1993, broadcasters' donations have totalled $3.5 million, of which more than $2 million has gone to the governing party.

Elections Canada data from the period of the recent general election, 2000, show that two-thirds of this money came from just three integrated media companies: Bell Canada Enterprises, CanWest, and Rogers. These three companies were also among the top 20 donors to the Liberal Party during the last election. And some of them extend their donations to individual cabinet ministers. CanWest, for instance, gave four-digit contributions to 23 members of the federal cabinet.

A little closer to home, here in Edmonton, Shaw Communications donated $5,000 to Minister McLellan's campaign. That works out to about 8 percent of her total spending in the 2000 election.

The biggest broadcaster contribution Friends identified went to former minister Brian Tobin, who banked $10,000 from Regional Cablesystems. That's about 15 percent of his total spending.

So what do I find so unpalatable about all this? Broadcasting, as we're all aware, is a regulated industry, highly dependent upon Ottawa for protection against foreign and even domestic competition. Broadcasters benefit greatly from federal policies on simultaneous substitution. They enjoy tax and other subsidies. And when they acquire other broadcast licensees they require federal approval.

Recent acquisitions by the three biggest companies I mentioned earlier have each been in the $1 billion range.

Because of their reliance on federal policies and decisions, it's understandable that shareholders of these companies might consider these donations an advantageous business expense, since we all know money counts in politics.

The problem is public confidence in the integrity of broadcast decision-making can only suffer by the perception that those who benefit most from federal broadcast decisions are those who make hefty political contributions.

Another point to be considered is that these big broadcasters are important sources of news about what's going on in Ottawa. Moreover, they're important sources of news to Canadians about those same politicians they are simultaneously funding. Public confidence in both the media and the political recipients of their donations can only be compromised, and this at a time when our faith in the democratic process needs all the help it can get. It is not at all unreasonable for the public to wonder about the integrity of the news we are receiving, when we know that large sums of money are changing hands between media owners and the politicians they cover. One could argue that no federally regulated industry should be permitted to make political contributions.

My point, however, is that public confidence in the integrity of news and current affairs is far more important for our democratic way of life than any of the services provided by other regulated industries. We can expect concern over this issue to grow when fewer and fewer companies are controlling more and more of our news outlets.

My proposal to the committee is that you recommend that the government clean up this problem by amending the Broadcasting Act to prohibit corporations or individuals who control broadcasting licences from making financial contributions to a federal political party or to candidates for federal office. At the cost of removing $1 million of broadcasting money from the funding of federal candidates and parties each year, it gives the opportunity to reinforce public confidence in the integrity of our democratic process.

I sincerely hope that you will give this recommendation your sympathetic consideration.

I thank you for coming to Edmonton and allowing me to appear here today.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Ms. Fraser.

Mr. Staples.

À (1015)

Mr. Brian Staples (Individual Presentation): Thank you.

I'll give you a thumbnail sketch of my background. I'm a retired person. I've worked for the province for many years in the field of education on an interdepartmental basis. I've been a mayor and a school trustee. At present I'm president of a seniors group called SALT--Seniors Action and Liaison Team--and we have been in the forefront of every political campaign in the last ten years. I'm not talking about the actual election campaigns, but the issues that have come up here. We have struggled against Bill 11 and all its precursors. We've looked at all kinds of different issues. However, I'm not here as a representative of SALT; I'm here simply as a citizen.

I have given you, in brief form--and it's on the screen over there--my comments, everything I'm going to say, right here on this little green piece of paper.

The Chair: You'd better explain it to us.

Mr. Brian Staples: I'll try to do that.

I'd like to begin with number one, and indicate to you that I really do appreciate the fact that you people are here and that you're concerned about this issue. I think this is extremely important.

I'm also pleased that I got a chance to speak. I tried to speak to the Kirby commission on health care, and I was not allowed to because I was simply a citizen. So I very much appreciate the fact that I'm here, and I say to you, merci mille fois for that.

I want to focus my comments on the CBC.

When I was a little guy growing up near Drumheller, Alberta, we would hear on the radio CBC, Radio-Canada. I want to focus on the CBC because I am extremely aware of how difficult it is to foster the public interest in all kinds of issues. We certainly see that in spades here in this province. That's what number three is all about: the idea of the public interest versus the private interest in broadcasting. There are all kinds of private outlets in radio and television in our country, but there is only one CBC fostering the public interest.

The private operations do programming of all kinds of things, but I have seen very clearly that the owners of the private broadcasting corporations certainly seem to subtly get their political point of view across. If you're listening to the radio here in Edmonton, there's a station called CHED, which has two very loud male vociferous phone-in people called Rutherford and Stafford, versus one woman, who gives a much more progressive point of view on all of this. I suppose that's not a bad match: two men against one woman. But you can certainly see the bias of the broadcaster in the operations they're putting on.

I've also noticed the bias that's coming through in our newspapers. You'll see attached to my yellow document a letter that I wrote some time ago to Izzy Asper about his national editorials in the newspapers. I think that's just a total disaster. I have not heard back yet. That letter is well over a month old, and I've haven't heard a thing back from him.

I am here to be an advocate for a very strong, passionate voice for the public good, an educative voice, and I think that should be coming through the CBC.

I want to indicate to you that there are a number of things that need to happen in regard to the CBC. I am appalled at the political pressure that is put on the CBC. I can tell you it has an impact.

In the battles we've had over medicare and all the myriad issues we've had to face here, we have relied on the CBC to be an educative voice, to be a researchful voice, but we have found that they simply don't have the resources, and there is a kind of a subtle intimidation in their perspective where they will bend over backwards to give the private perspective in contrast to the public issue that's under consideration.

They just don't have the people to do the research, and that's a real blow against democracy in this particular province.

I've heard Mrs. Copps talk about providing stable financing for CBC. Well, it might be stable, but it's paltry.

We need adequate, long-term, effective financing for the CBC, and it hasn't been there. I can tell you I know of really bright, creative young people who have lost jobs from the CBC through this hacking away at their budgets.

I've also noticed a real lack of focus on local issues in the CBC, and that again is budgeting. That is what point seven is all about--Edmonton, and the focus on some of the things that are happening here and in the province. I know that CBC wants to do these kinds of things. It's like they have one hand tied behind their back.

I also believe that the CBC, not only the radio, but the television also, should be publicly financed--totally. There should be no fostering of the perspectives of Nike and all the other people who make money out of that advertising.

I'm not against advertising. I have a son who has an advertising company. But I am against it on CBC. It puts a different bias, a different message, and you can see that particularly with the effect on children. These little guys--and I have three grandchildren--are absorbed by those ads. They want the latest thing that comes out of Japan, whether it's a Nintendo game or whatever, and that's a bad thing for those kids. They need to have a really effective alternative where that isn't rammed down their throats.

Moving to my fifth recommendation, I think the CBC needs to do a lot of work in participatory television.

Some years ago, at the date of the first Quebec referendum, CBC teamed up with the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education and put on a live, cross-Canada series of broadcasts called “People Talking Back”, where people would form study circles right across country, listen in to this program, and phone in afterward. That was a tremendous initiative at the time of the initial referendum. The CBC did not take sides, but they certainly did encourage people to be involved in research, watch the television, and phone in, and that's the kind of thing we need to do much more.

We need to know more about places like Val-Jalbert, Waterhole, and Owlseye. Owlseye, incidentally, is a little community in Alberta.

I also think we must not neglect the--

À (1020)

The Chair: Mr. Staples, could you accelerate a bit, please?

Mr. Brian Staples: I'm accelerating almost full speed here. I'm almost going to blow up.

The Chair: Just go super-speed.

Mr. Brian Staples: I want to emphasize the business about the Internet. I think that's an important thing. The CBC is doing a good job there, and it needs to continue and improve on that.

I take great exception to the idea that the CBC must be different from commercial broadcasting. I think they must foster the public interest, but it's possible that private broadcasters will do token programming in the public interest and then say “We're doing this, so CBC can't do this any longer because they're not being different from us”. This has happened to some degree. That's a real Catch-22.

I'd like to say also, on number 12, that the CBC as a corporation must really work out ways to be more democratic and participatory within its own walls, within its own confines.

I want to give a real commendation to CBC programming with regard to number 13. All you need to have done is watched the broadcasting of the sports during the Olympics, where even Americans, across the northern tier of their country, were tuning in to CBC because the programming was so wonderful.

I'm quite concerned about media concentration. I've already said that about Asper. I certainly do not like the idea of cross-media ownership.

Now I'll make my recommendations. On number 15, recommendation 1 is to have a really strong and effective CBC in the interests of every single Canadian, not just those of us who have a lot of money.

There should be no chain newspapers in this country. That speaks to the business of media concentration and cross-media ownership.

There should be no cross-media ownership. There needs to be a print voice in the public interest. We need something similar to CBC in the print domain. We're certainly not getting any choice when we look at our newspapers right across the country. They all give the corporate perspective, every single one.

Finally, and most importantly, I don't know this lady and I never knew what she was going to say when she came here, but I would endorse in spades what she said. Our political system is grievously flawed because we allow private money to run the thing. People run for leadership campaigns, whatever. The election campaigns and the running of our political system should be community financed. That means from government, right through. There should be no private money. The government must be of, for, and by the people. By golly, my experience is that's not the case in Canada.

Thank you.

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Staples. Thank you for your passion. You certainly make your point with a lot of conviction. We really appreciate your appearing here.

We have three citizens who have given different perspectives, and extremely interesting ones. We thank you very much.

We'll now open the meeting to questions.

Mr. Abbott.

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

I would just make three quick comments on the presentations, and perhaps you want to respond to my comments, just so we can expand it a bit.

Mr. Grogan, I presume you travelled from Valemount here to Edmonton to meet with us.

Mr. John Grogan: That's correct.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I thank you very much for that extra effort. It's part of our democratic process and you've availed yourself of that opportunity. I commend you for it.

I would be inclined to agree with you about the 12 minutes. I find it somewhat bothersome sometimes. But to do the comparison with the BBC, I would respectfully point out that what they have there is that if you have a television in your home, you pay for the fact that you have a television in your home. I really don't think Canadians would be prepared to buy into that.

If we were to reduce the number of minutes, again, this is something that would have to be worked out on the part of the people who are in the business of broadcasting, including the CBC, to be able to figure out where they would make up for lost revenue. They might be able to charge more for their advertising or whatever the case may be. But the fact that the advertising is there, I would respectfully suggest to you, is the reason we get to watch, rather than having to pay for the having a television in our home.

If I may, I'd just like to go one, two, three, and perhaps you'd like to respond to what I prompt there.

Ms. Fraser, I would be prepared to take a look at the position you've taken of prohibiting corporations from making contributions to political parties. That isn't just because the Reform/Alliance happens to be at the bottom end of the feeding chain here and there's nothing much left over.

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: I thought the NDP and the Bloc are at the bottom end of the feeding chain.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I suggest, and I'd appreciate your response to this, that there could very well be a serious constitutional problem with that.

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: With my recommendation, or...?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, and I'll just develop it as quickly as I possibly can here.

First, the reality is that if the corporations don't give, they would find a way of giving through giving money to their.... In other words, there is a freedom issue here.

The second part is this. The one thing I think we are doing right in Canada, as far as politics and politicians are concerned, is that to the greatest extent possible money coming into the political system is being accounted for. We can take a look at these numbers. I think it's good that the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting look at these numbers--that citizens do look at the numbers. That's what they're there for in the first place.

Mr. Staples, I would just suggest to you that in your letter where you say “Your initiative to have chain-wide editorials fostering more of the perspective of the Alliance Party” is an interesting perception of yours, because we don't at all see it that way in any way, shape, or form. As a matter of fact, our concern is that with Mr. Asper's long history with the Liberals we have seen a perceptible change. Sometimes perception in politics may be reality, but sometimes it is just perception.

À (1030)

The Chair: Okay, we'll start with Mr. Grogan briefly and then Ms. Fraser and Mr. Staples.

Do you have three pages to read there, Mr. Grogan?

Mr. John Grogan: No, sir, but I do have something very important that needs a voice, not so much the issue of the model for financing community television, but rather for the issue that Ms. Fraser brought up. I addressed it and I really need to give voice to it.

Taken as an example of the corporate interference in the electoral process, indeed the heart of our democratic principles and the rule of law, corporations are able and permitted--

The Chair: Excuse me, you're not going to read a statement there, because we don't have time. I'm very sorry. Could you make your point, just explain what you're about?

Mr. John Grogan: Corporations are giving fantastic amounts of money to political candidates and skewing the results of the political process. They're propagandizing a population by skewing the political process. This practice is not permitted in some jurisdictions, because it is recognized as corrupt. I bring to your attention that the province of Quebec I believe does not permit corporate donations of any kind. But we're speaking about the broadcast industry here today. I understand that Manitoba has concerns and legislation with regard to corporate political contributions.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. John Harvard: Manitoba has the same kinds of laws as Quebec.

The Chair: Ms. Fraser.

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: Well, I can't really speak to the question of legality. You speculated as to whether or not it would be an infringement upon people's democratic right to make contributions.

The Chair: It's something for us to look at.

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: I really can't speak to that. So I'm not really sure whether there's anything else I can add to what I've already said.

The Chair: Mr. Staples.

Mr. Brian Staples: To add to what she was saying, I don't think political parties can make contributions to judges. Maybe they shouldn't be making them to politicians.

In terms of your comment about the chain-wide editorials giving the perspective of the Alliance Party, I just listened the other day to some Alliance Party stuff on the leadership and heard people--Alliance members--saying with great delight that the Liberal Party has taken many of their perspectives. So maybe I'm not that far off.

Mr. Jim Abbott: They certainly take their perspective as far as how they run a leadership campaign.

The Chair: Okay, we don't want to start a political battle here. We are about something else here.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I can add that it is true that there is a law governing political party funding in Quebec. It is sure that the companies are not funding this. It's the people within the companies. There is a difference between a company that directly contributes and someone who works within the company. Funds are somewhat limited. Our funding comes primarily from our members, political party members. Most of our funding comes from our members. It is based on our political orientations. This could be used to inspire application elsewhere in Canada.

With the federal government, we were obliged to change the rules of the game because we were not fighting with the same ammunition. When a political party has thousands of dollars to mount a political campaign with funding from our members, we are limited as to what publicity campaigns we can use during the election campaign to confront our federal colleagues. That is another thing entirely.

Let's come back to community television. Mr. Grogan, since the new regulations on community television, what has changed regarding the community stations that you were talking about? Has the programming been reduced? Is the lack of equipment more flagrant than before? How are you dealing with the change in CRTC regulations in relation to broadcasters where you are?

À (1035)

[English]

Mr. John Grogan: In my own community it's owner-operated by the community in a non-profit society. They had full range to do whatever it was the community standard required.

As regards the cable companies, if we can use Vancouver's Shaw as an example, I believe there were people who presented themselves to you with regard to a battle to be able to get access to the community television. That's not an isolated instance in Vancouver. In Prince George, we wanted to have a program. I was involved with the Internet society there, the FreeNet. We wanted to encourage a half-hour program to teach people how to use that facility. Shaw told us no, that we could have one or two minutes in short blocks.

What ends up happening up is we develop a shortened concentration span. They spend more money on advertising per minute than they do on programming. I'm sorry, I've digressed just a little bit. But it used to be that people could come in, walk in off the street and say “I want to be a volunteer”. They could volunteer to run a camera, for script writing, producing, editing. Now, basically, all they're allowed to do is very basic things. That discourages people from participating the next time. They say that wasn't a stimulating or rewarding experience.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: The CRTC is currently consulting people regarding the strategic framework that has been submitted. Do you have a group that will present arguments to the CRTC favouring the survival of independent television? Have you already appeared before the CRTC to present this? This is important because the recommendations are made by the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes de Québec. You must have a federation. Are you currently appearing before the CRTC?

[English]

Mr. John Grogan: There is no federation in English Canada. The example in Quebec is a shining light. We need to celebrate that initiative. I've had some association with the Alliance for Community Media down in the States. They suggested that Canada should have a chapter. I withdraw from that idea. I believe that we really do have to have a Canadian standard. Their reason for community access is about free speech to a fault.

Yes, I have made presentations to the CRTC in writing on two occasions. They should be available on the Internet. But I've never appeared before anyone before this day.

The Chair: Mr. Grogan, thank you very much.

Mr. Harvard.

À (1040)

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

I have a question for Ms. Fraser in a moment, but first I have one or two for Mr. Staples.

First of all, I don't think the issue around the ownership of chain newspapers really is within the purview of this committee. I think that's beyond our mandate.

Did I hear you right, Mr. Staples--did you say that CBC programming should not be different from programming of private broadcasters?

Mr. Brian Staples: In my view, the CBC's mandate should be to be the electronic voice of, for, and by all Canadians, and it should be directed at the public interest. I make the point that when you use that term “different from”, if the private sector does token broadcasting in public affairs, then they are in a position to be able to argue that CBC has to get out of that, because they're not different any longer. That's my point.

Mr. John Harvard: I think you applauded CBC and its coverage of the Olympics, and in particular the coverage of the gold medal game between the U.S. and Canada. Do you think that the coverage of the hockey game or the Olympics is really a tribute to public broadcasting? I don't see it that way. To me, public broadcasting should be doing things outside of what can be done by the private interests, either those things they can't do or won't do. I'm often troubled by there being hockey coverage at all by the CBC.

Mr. Brian Staples: I think the domain of the CBC should be all of life in Canada, cultural, sports, fostering that kind of thing. Therefore the idea of really doing an effective job on something as important as the Olympics to me fits in with that.

Mr. John Harvard: I appreciate that, except that the private networks can do it as well and even make a buck at it.

Mr. Brian Staples: Yes, they can. One of the difficulties, of course, is those private signals don't reach with the same scope as CBC does. But regardless of that, even if it did, I think there is a different perspective that comes from that public broadcaster, and I think you could see that. To me, it was just a wonderful Canadian experience, which I think CBC should be in the business of.

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

Mr. John Harvard: Yes, I do.

Again, I don't know whether the financing of elections or the financing of political parties is a part of our mandate. I doubt it very much. But I can understand why your comment is germane to the kind of work we do.

Do you believe that federal general elections should be financed 100 percent, totally, out of the public purse, or should there be some individual contributions, as there are in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba?

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: I'm reluctant to actually answer that from my own personal beliefs.

Mr. John Harvard: Let me ask you this then. If the contributions of broadcast interests are to be either restricted or eliminated completely, how would you envision them expressing themselves? Because after all, they are a big part of the economy, and they should have a voice. How would they use that voice?

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: Let me answer by recourse to something that I think--

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Abbott?

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: --no, Christiane Gagnon said. The problem is because of the way the funding is set up, that there isn't any democratic representation in terms of funding. So you have, for instance, the NDP and the Bloc, who don't get the kinds of financial contributions. I'm not going to draw conclusions about what that might mean, but I think there is something that is a little untoward about it.

Mr. John Harvard: I can understand the troubled perception that we have. People draw a conclusion from adding two and two, and they see that first there's a political contribution and down the way comes some decision that's in their favour.

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: But you're asking me how do we handle the broadcasters without giving....

Mr. John Harvard: Without denying these people some democratic rights, how do we do it?

À (1045)

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: That's a good question, but I don't think it has to be done by broadcasting. There are other sources of contributions for political parties.

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: If a donation is made to the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, do you get a tax receipt?

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: Yes.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: So as a not-for-profit association, you are not required to reveal your books and records publicly. Is that correct?

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: I wouldn't know about that, but I'm not here as a member of the steering committee of the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: You referred to their documents, so--

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: Okay, fair enough.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I know there are people out there who make contributions to the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting because it represents their particular philosophical direction. But what is the difference between the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting--who on one occasion I know threatened to picket my office--as a lobby group, and other interests that happen to be corporate interests, making donations to individuals?

In this life, there are all kinds of pressures. Some of it is through organizations such as Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, and others through corporate organizations. Tell me, what's the difference?

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: The donations that come to Friends of Canadian Broadcasting are from individuals. Individuals vote, corporations don't.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: All right.

I have a final question for Mr. Staples. You stated you were appalled at the political pressure put on the CBC. Could you be a little more specific? What is the political pressure and where is it coming from?

Mr. Brian Staples: To start with, it comes from the Liberal government. They are not very supportive of the CBC, and it shows up in subtle ways. People read that message in the broadcast business, and they know not to cross the line. It happens in newspapers also. That's what I'm talking about.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Is it not possible that the CBC expresses political theories that offend other members of the public who don't ascribe to those theories? For example, it's deemed that the CBC takes sides on certain gender issues and on certain international issues, where certain countries are in dispute. As somebody in public life, I hear this from other groups.

Mr. Brian Staples: Can you tell me how they take sides on gender issues?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I don't think we have enough time to get into that, but I can tell you there are reactions from the public on that, and I hear about them.

Mr. Brian Staples: I see across from me a sign that says “research”. I think the function of the CBC is to research issues, to encourage participation in that research endeavour, and to see, as far as they possibly can, that as many Canadians as possible know both the pros and cons of issues.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Okay.

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you. I have a couple of comments to make.

First of all, I just want to thank you very much for coming here today. I have heard from your comments some of the highest-quality reflections throughout this entire hearing process.

Mr. Staples, you're a senior and have been an activist all your life. You're concerned about young people and about the impact of advertisement.

Mr. Grogan, you're concerned about media concentration, the impact it has on communities, and where our community access programming is happening.

Ms. Fraser, you spoke on the whole issue of who owns the media and who owns the politicians.

Those are central issues to the entire process we're undertaking, and I just want to thank you. What you have said is now on the record, and it is going to be part of our deliberations.

There's nothing more important than having individuals come before this committee. I want to thank the individuals who have come out today to be here, to listen, to take part, and to show the interest it really needs.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Mr. Grant McNally: I too want to thank you for your presentations. It was refreshing to hear your perspectives on an important issue.

I find it interesting that although we're talking about broadcasting, the common theme coming up here is the whole issue of campaign finance reform. Who would have thought this morning when we woke up that we'd be hearing an important issue like that brought up here?

I want to add, as well, that I'm one of those seven independent members of Parliament right now. I'm no longer associated with a political party at this time.

I would just note on this whole issue of financing of campaigns and what not that even with individual contributions, from an individual in a local riding or....

I'll relate a bit of a story to you. This is from the MP who was in the riding previous to me, and a board member who was on the board of the riding association previous to me and on the board when I showed up. It's about an individual who wasn't connected to any corporation, any broadcast company. He was a private citizen who donated a fairly large sum of money for an individual--I think it was $1,000 or something like that--not ever knowing the MP. The person got elected, and he showed up on their doorstep--I don't even know what the issue was, but it was their issue--saying, “Remember me? I gave money and I want this addressed”. And the MP said “It doesn't work that way. You contributed. That's great. I appreciate that. That does not make me beholden to you on your particular issue.”

Do you think that is a possibility for others making contributions, that there's that connection that now the elected officials are beholden to that interest, that group, or that perspective? I certainly don't disagree with what you're raising on this whole issue of campaign financing.

À (1050)

Ms. Kathryn Fraser: Absolutely. We see it all the time. We see it in the United States all the time--all kinds of scandals.

I don't want to debate the merits of political funding. My concern really is with public perception. We rely on the media. One of the things that makes us somewhat distinct in Canada is that we have a little bit of faith in the integrity of our media outlets.

American news is very homogenous. We are moving in that direction. But if the public perception is such that there's the sensation that broadcast licences require federal approval, and big broadcasters who keep acquiring more licences are also giving money, they're going to wonder about that. That's my concern, really, the perceptual consideration.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Hinton.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Good morning. Thank you for appearing.

I would like to make some comments, especially to Mr. Grogan, regarding small areas, small communities that have community broadcasting. I'm very, very supportive of that. I went through that myself. I was the mayor of a small community for a while, a place called Logan Lake, which had a community channel. At every single council meeting, everything you did was filmed, and if you made a mistake, you heard about it. You even got comments about how your hair looked, or what you were wearing. So it made the community very aware. Anything that was happening within that community was broadcast. I think that is an important role, and I support community broadcasts wholeheartedly here.

To answer a question that you were reluctant to answer, I think the answer you would have given, if you had been feeling more comfortable, would have been the word “influence”. Whether that's a perception or a reality doesn't matter. If someone is paying great gobs of money to one individual or another, there's influence there.

I guess those are the only two comments I really wanted to make. I do appreciate you coming--especially you, you've come a long way. Thank you for your input.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon, briefly, please.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, I will be brief.

I would simply like to thank you for having shared your point of view with us. Within the committee's mandate, in relation to the Broadcasting Act, we wanted to hear from the consumers and the small communities that are experiencing more specific problems than the larger centres because of their distance and the lack of funds. Media concentration is also a problem that has a different impact depending on where one lives.

Thank you very much. I appreciated your comments.

[English]

The Chair: I think we'll conclude this part of this session, but not before I thank everyone of you very much. Mrs. Lill expressed the feelings we all have very well, that it's really encouraging to see that private citizens have taken the time and trouble to express their thoughts very forthrightly on issues that are crucial to our democratic system--community broadcasting, the place of public broadcasting in our lives, and this whole question of elections. I think Mrs. Hinton possibly hit the nail on the head that the answer is that an association doesn't hold a broadcasting licence. I think that's the big difference.

We really appreciate your presence, and we'll certainly take your suggestions and recommendations very much into consideration.

Thank you very much for appearing here.

À (1055)

Mr. John Grogan: Mr. Chair, may I have 30 seconds, just to let you know that I have some audio-visual resources for your researchers, if they would be of any use to them, with regard to community-access television?

The Chair: Very much so.

Mr. John Grogan: One was a conference at Langara College last year specifically about community access television; another, a radio--

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Just give your resources to them, and they'll be very pleased to receive them.

I should mention to all the witnesses who appeared before and are appearing now that whatever you want to send to us, in the way of supplementary information that arose out of this meeting, for example, Ms. Fraser, or Mr. Staples, or if questions were put to you that you want to research afterwards, by all means send the information to our clerk. It will be translated and distributed to all the members. So by all means leave this with the researchers.

Mr. John Grogan: Thank you.

The Chair: We appreciate it. Thank you very much.

We'll now call on the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Mr. Richard Zyp and Ms. Nancy Wahl.

I should mention to the members that we managed to reorganize our schedule because it was so congested in the morning. We're going to allow more time for the hearings this morning, and instead of two visits this afternoon we'll have one between 2 o'clock and 3:30. We'll go to A-Channel on Jasper Avenue, and have one visit this afternoon instead of two, so we can have more time for the hearings this morning.

Mr. Zyp.

Mr. Richard Zyp (Representative, Local 1900, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada: I'll start off and Nancy will speak after me.

The Chair: You know the format. You've seen the others appear.

Mr. Richard Zyp: Yes. I'll try not to take too long with my prepared statement.

The Chair: We can then give more time to the questions.

Mr. Richard Zyp: I want to thank you for hearing me today. I'm going to speak from the perspective of someone who's worked in one television station for 21 years here in Edmonton.

The television station is now known as Global Edmonton. It was an independently owned station called ITV when I started to work there in 1981. I was fresh out of college and excited about working in the broadcast industry. The station was a vibrant beehive of activity.

The first year I was there, SCTV was being produced in Edmonton and was in the first season of a network-wide run in the U.S.A. The show required 24-hour production facilities and around-the-clock staffing. At the same time, ITV was airing Edmonton's NHL team, the Edmonton Oilers. Approximately forty games a year were broadcast and produced locally. ITV in the following years produced dozens of in-concert series music programs. These featured many international stars, such as Nana Mouskouri, Tony Bennett, Tina Turner, and Lighthouse with the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra. The long and the short of it was that Dr. Charles Allard, the owner of the station, believed that world-class production could be done in a Canadian city on the prairies. All these shows were very successful, generating revenues and healthy profits for the station.

In the ensuing years ITV was involved in many other film projects, including movies and episodic television, many using scripts written by local talent. Throughout these years ITV also broadcast a two-hour local morning show that highlighted local entertainment and community issues.

In the early nineties the company was sold to Western International Communications of Vancouver. Program production had already begun to slow down, and the company focus began to turn to news gathering. The new management kept the live sports capabilities in Edmonton but dropped just about all locally produced shows except for the news. In 1996 WIC began to lay off employees involved in creating local programming. These people were lighting technicians, directors, camerapersons, and graphic artists. Many of the very talented people who are left working at the station are being underutilized and underchallenged.

In the year 2000 CanWest Communications gained control of WIC. ITV became Global Edmonton, and SuperChannel became Corus Premium Television. Since then, Global's master control for the province has been centralized in Calgary and traffic for the province in Edmonton. Global runs five signals out of these centres. The move also added up to net job losses across the province. Not only unionized employees were affected; many managers lost their positions as well. The next thing to go was the mobile production facility. This removed the opportunity to produce and staff live events out of our station.

Currently, almost all the department managers reside in Calgary. When Global announced they were laying off the station manager for Edmonton, it was the news director who was appointed as his replacement. This makes it clear to me that we are to become a news-only station. With key managers making decisions by long distance, it's hard to react to local conditions and the peculiarities of the Edmonton market.

Something else I found very disconcerting was that when the call went out for a dedicated national news reporter, the position was to be based in Calgary. Seeing as Edmonton is the provincial capital, I feel this move can only serve to minimize the coverage of provincial affairs that make it onto the Global national newscast. Other Canadians will not be getting accurate and complete information on Alberta's political scene. This does nothing to encourage and enrich diversity of opinion.

Corus Premium Television is now also managed out of Calgary and Toronto. The local Edmonton general manager at Corus was also recently let go and not replaced. Again, decisions appear to be made by long distance.

I just want to say a few things about the CBC, even though I don't work there. As the private sector continues to change, it becomes more important that there be a voice that tells the stories of Canadians. These institutions cannot be driven strictly by the profit motive. To quote Mark Starowicz on the joint CBC-SRC production, Canada: A People's History, “No other institution would ever have undertaken such a perilous enterprise”. He goes on to say: “Unless we protect and nurture this extraordinary institution today, the Canada of 20 years from now will be a poorer place.”

The only way to tell some Canadian stories is through a truly national institution. We have one, and we should support it.

Á (1100)

I feel that there must be new outlets for smaller and more narrowly focused expressions of opinion. This is the only way to get the diversity of thought that exists in this country out into the public eye. I feel we must support and develop locally focused ideas and expressions of opinion. I suggest that this may be achieved by licensing viable non-commercial broadcast media.

It is clear to me that the private broadcasters with their heavy debt loads and slavish attention to the bottom line are not the ones to take the risks required to reflect the circumstances and aspirations of Canadian men, women, and children.

On cross-media ownership, the advent of a media conglomerate that owns both newspaper and broadcasting outlets in the same city has only served to dilute the diversity of opinion in this country. Most television newsrooms already use the newspaper for research and story concepts. Now the duplication of news will be more tightly coordinated. The one-sided research being done by newspapers will now be reiterated on the competitors' airwaves as well. In short, media concentration eliminates diversity of opinion and a wide-based analysis of information.

One fear at my place of employment is that news anchors will become news readers. They will be based at a newspaper and be shot with fixed cameras. They will become talking heads to be duplicated on television and on the Internet. They will read news created by a single, homogenous newsroom that will put out the same stories and opinions in the newspapers, thus eliminating more jobs, diluting diversity, and shutting out minority points of view. This process threatens to undermine democracy. What we need is more diversity of information--not less--on which to base our decisions and to run our daily lives.

I'll do my conclusion later, and Nancy is going to speak now from her perspective.

Á (1105)

Ms. Nancy Wahl (President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada): Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My apologies that I do not have a written submission. It wasn't until a day and a half ago that I found out that I was able to come here today.

I am the president of CEP, Local 899. I represent the employees at CFRN in Edmonton and CFCN in Calgary. I'm a 15-year employee at CFRN TV.

Before I continue I'd like to offer my apologies that I'm not as eloquent as my partner here, and if you'll please forgive me, I'm reading from hastily crafted notes.

When I started at CFRN 15 years ago, it was independently owned by Dr. Rice. Dr. Rice was extremely committed to local and Canadian programming. Most of this showcased local and Canadian talent, and these productions were done in-house at CFRN TV using CFRN staff. Over the last ten years, CFRN has gone through a number of changes in ownership. We are now owned and operated by CTV, a division of Bell Globemedia.

After the Broadcasting Act was changed in 1991, CFRN eventually stopped doing all productions except news. Local programming that was produced at the station in the community went the way of the dinosaur. This resulted in a number of layoffs. A few years ago the work of the traffic department and master control went to Calgary. All of this has resulted in our bargaining unit going from--and this is only in Edmonton--approximately 170 full-time employees to 60 full-time employees.

Although we are not against the company being profitable--if it wasn't profitable we would not have jobs--the reduction in staff no longer allows us to produce anything but news. More than that, our news department no longer has the resources to do the in-depth investigation it once did. Instead we have now become the morning paper with moving pictures. How can this possibly serve the community? It means there are fewer voices and opinions. Is this giving people all sides of any story, or just further serving the corporate agenda? Is it enriching the cultural, political, social, or economic fabric of Canada? Or are we just seeing and hearing only a small part of the bigger picture? We seem to no longer have any decision-making power here in Edmonton.

How can Toronto, or even Calgary, truly understand the Edmonton community or its needs? We have to wonder if this community is even being taken into consideration when decisions are being made.

Local and Canadian content was further reduced by a loophole in the CRTC regulations. Not many people realize that the news breaks that are placed in front of a commercial cluster are put there for a reason. Once a news break appears before a commercial cluster, the whole commercial cluster becomes Canadian content. This has enabled the stations to further reduce Canadian content programming by up to 30 minutes per day.

I'd like to talk about the CFRN program production fund briefly. The independent program production fund was established by CFRN-TV. The fund gave away approximately $1 million a year to independent producers and it was specifically designed for Edmonton and Alberta-based independent producers. Over time, only productions with a national licence from CTV or one of their speciality channels were considered eligible for accessing the fund. More and more only eastern-based projects appeared to be considered for licences by CTV. In order to access the fund, the project required an Alberta producer to be attached to the production. That was done by the eastern producer forming a co-production with an Alberta producer. Unfortunately, more often than not, the Alberta producers are there in name only. They are not using Alberta or Edmonton talent, freelancers, or resources. The majority of the work is being done in the east. I don't believe this is what the CRTC envisioned.

If an Alberta independent producer is lucky enough to get funding and to complete a project, the next hurdle is where it will air. Due to programming decisions being made outside the community, there is no effort being made to place these programs where they will be seen. Instead, they are being put into slots where almost no one is watching. It doesn't seem like much of a commitment to our community or the talents of the independent producers in the area, not to mention the regional commitment.

I would also note that the CFRN program production fund will be discontinued as of August 2002.

Thank you for hearing me.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wahl and Mr. Zyp.

We'll now turn to questions. Mrs. Hinton.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Thank you for your presentations.

I watched ITV for years. I was in a community called Elkford.

Anyway, there are a couple of comments I would like to move on here. In your presentation portion, when you're talking with regard to the year 2000 and CanWest Communication controlling things and how things have changed, how much of that was due to technology change? That would be the first question.

The second question would be about something on page 3. You used a phrase I find interesting because I've heard it repeatedly. You're saying here, in your second paragraph under “Cross-Media Ownership”, that your fear is “They will read news created by one single homogenous newsroom that will put the same stories...”, etc. But you used the word “created”. It used to be that when we talked about news, we talked about reporting, not creating, the news.

I would be interested to hear your answer to both those questions.

Mr. Richard Zyp: As far as the technology thing goes, I don't know the exact numbers, the statistics, so to speak. Some of the layoffs were due to some technological change, the fact that master control for all four of the Global stations in Alberta is now in Calgary. I think they laid off 30 people in Edmonton and they hired two in Calgary when master control went to Calgary. CFRN and CFCN have the same situation, where their master control is run out of one location.

For the traffic people, because traffic is where they book all the commercials and do time slot, all of those things, again, it's centralized here in Edmonton. The net loss was probably about ten people, because all the people in Calgary, Lethbridge, and Red Deer are gone.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: That would basically be technology, then?

Mr. Richard Zyp: Those two would be technology, yes.

Prior to that, as far as programming staff are concerned, which are cameramen and lighting people, technicians basically, there are probably another 40 to 50 people who were lost.

We used to have three full crews of people on every day, and now we're down to two. These people used to work on hockey games. We used to have carpenters there. We used to have graphic artists there, set builders, staging people. All of those people are gone.

The studios sit empty all the time. It's amazing how much physical stuff is there to do production. The lights and all of the hardware is there, but there are no people. And there are no independent producers banging on the door to use the facilities.

Next door, part of our operation is CanWest Studios, a sound stage built to be dedicated to film production. There have been some film productions in there, but I'd say it sits empty probably 75 percent of the time. They just laid off the person who managed this facility because they weren't making a profit. So we lost two more people there.

Á (1115)

Mrs. Betty Hinton: So would it be fair to say that roughly half the people were laid off due to technology and half due to business decisions to cut costs?

Mr. Richard Zyp: I'd say the percentage because of business decisions would be higher. Technology would be the smaller number; it would be maybe 40-60.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Okay, 40-60. Thank you.

Ms. Nancy Wahl: Could I address this, as well?

Ms. Betty Hinton: Sure.

Ms. Nancy Wahl: From our station's perspective, it's not so much technological change. Technological change allowed them to move master control to Calgary. However, it was the ownership change that allowed them to move our traffic department, approximately ten people.

Once CTV owned and controlled both stations it was allowed to amalgamate the departments. So it was a doubled workload once the stations became owned by the same company. It was not technological change for all of the jobs at our station.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: And how about commenting on the use of the word “creates” rather than “reports”, which I've heard many times.

Mr. Richard Zyp: Yes. It may be a personal thing. As editors or cameramen, we still consider ourselves somewhat to be artists, in that we are creating even when we report the news. It's the actual putting it together, and how you put it together still requires a great deal of creativity. That's why I use that word. You're right--I'm not saying we manufacture the news.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I've heard from other sources that this was a concern. I wanted to know whether it was your concern, and you're talking about a different form of creation.

Mr. Richard Zyp: No. This is not a specific concern I wanted to address.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Thank you. That's fair enough.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We hear different things from the different organizations that we meet. We met with CTV and Globemedia yesterday, and apparently, they are concerned about local and regional broadcasting. Therefore, we wanted more clarification on what “local broadcasting” means. According to your statements and the statements made by CTV and Globemedia, I think that the concept of local broadcasting differs widely depending on where one lives. In the large centres, there is a very different view on local broadcasting.

I would like to know if publicity that is national in scope in fact reflects the local scene, or whether the advertising companies are more national, depending on the company. Does a percentage of revenues go back to production? Could it be a way to support local production? If advertising is coming from the large companies that are concentrating, do you have a share to ensure that local production survives?

[English]

Ms. Nancy Wahl: Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question, but as far as the revenues go there's a certain portion that is a national sale. I'm not sure whether the national sales are distributed over all of the CTV network.

We do have local sales. We also have regional sales for outlying areas that we service. Again, I'm not sure how those are distributed. We no longer have commercial production. We no longer produce anything commercially in-house. Those departments were also shut down four or five years ago.

Did that answer any of your questions?

Á (1120)

[Translation]

Mme Christiane Gagnon: In part.

We are told that the concentration phenomenon is irreversible that there have to be concentrated structures to meet the realities of globalization, but at the same time we forget about the local realities in the local news and in more local production.

I wonder if it is irreversible. If it is irreversible, we have to find another solution to allow, either through funding or by decentralizing activities...According to the arguments that we have hear from the large conglomerates, they have to be strong to meet the global dynamics in communications and the media. Do you have any solutions? If it is irreversible, how can we ensure survival for local expression, local production and the reflection in the news of the concerns of various localities? Should we allocate a certain percentage of advertising revenues to localities to ensure local broadcasting?

[English]

Mr. Richard Zyp: I certainly feel that without some sort of change in rules these companies aren't going to do that on their own, for sure, because the movement already is towards more national commercials, discounting national commercials. Local commercials are going to end up paying higher prices than national commercials, because they want to sell volume.

They're also streamlining all of that. They have more national shows. They want everything to be what I call cookie-cutter or hamburger television stations, where they just churn out the exact same product. They want the overhead to be extremely low.

About the actual solution--whether there's a percentage there--without some other sort of change before that, I think local ad revenue is going to dry up as well, because it's going to be car dealerships and whatever. These types of small retailers or local retailers are not going to have enough money to buy the advertising on any of our nationally run programs, because they're making it actually prohibitively expensive. The only time slot they seem to be able to afford, or go into, is the local news shows, because they're more local in scale. But even then, whether there are rules made that force them to spend some of that money locally, I'm not sure. I haven't contemplated that long and hard enough to actually have a solution.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

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

Ms. Wahl, your description of what has happened at CFRN and CFCN in the last ten years or so really just underlines our dilemma. You talk about local programming. There's really nothing left but news--nothing around the news hour or the news half-hour. You can attribute it to technology. You can attribute it to greed. You can attribute it to concentration of ownership. I suppose there are a number of origins of what has happened. But what do we do?

Can we turn the clock back five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years? Can we somehow impose, as legislators? Can we tell CanWest or Bell Globemedia to go back ten years and do better local programming of one kind or another? Or do we turn to someone else, namely the CBC, and perhaps beef up so-called local access programming? That seems to me to be our dilemma.

Ms. Nancy Wahl: I agree. I don't think you can turn back the clock.

Mr. John Harvard:Then what do we do?

Ms. Nancy Wahl: I think you can make changes to affect the next ten years. I think we can put the brakes on.

Mr. John Harvard: Through regulation?

Ms. Nancy Wahl: Partially. I think through promise of performance, through licence renewals, etc. I think the last ten years have decimated local programming. We can't turn that back.

The question today, the question at these hearings, I think, is what do we do for the next ten years? I think we can legislate so they will stop the bleeding of local stations. I'm not talking about the bleeding of the staff or anything else, I'm talking about the bleeding from taking the local programming or the news reflection out of the community. I think we need to put restrictions on so they continue to be a viable player in our communities.

Mr. John Harvard: But how do you do that, Ms. Wahl?

Ms. Nancy Wahl: They have performance promises, do they not, where they have to do so many hours of local programming, so many hours of regional programming, all of those things?

Mr. John Harvard: And you want to see that increased?

Ms. Nancy Wahl: I'm not necessarily saying to increase it, but I don't think we can lessen the restrictions. If we lessen the restrictions any more, we're going to see more of those resources leaving the communities.

Á (1125)

Mr. John Harvard: I agree with you. I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems to me that they don't want to do anything more than they're already doing. So you either give them the money, that's one thing--do this, do that--or you impose some kind of regulation that forces them to do it.

I'm trying to come to grips with this dilemma, because I don't know whether we can. Take, for example, the concentration of ownership. We've just gone through that. Are we going to, as politicians, turn around and basically say “Ah, we made a terrible mistake two, three, four, or five years ago. That's off. We're going to unscramble the egg.”?

Ms. Nancy Wahl: You can't unscramble it, but you can stop them overcooking it, in my opinion.

Mr. John Harvard: But listening to you, there's really no egg left.

Ms. Nancy Wahl: No, I'm not saying that. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying if we pull off any more of the regulations or give them any more latitude on what they can or cannot do, we are going to see further breakdowns.

I think if we hold to what we have right now, there's a chance they will continue, and possibly even improve, the service they're giving their communities. I'm asking that you please look at not loosening the restrictions any more than they have been.

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Zyp, you referred to the history of ITV and how you've produced a number of shows--you referred to the “In Concert” series. You make the point that it was all profitable.

Mr. Richard Zyp:Yes.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Then you talked about it being sold to WIC of Vancouver, and that they discontinued it. Why would a company just move in and discontinue a profitable series or profitable production?

Mr. Richard Zyp: The “In Concert” series was a series of music programs. They were not created on a weekly or monthly basis; they were put together as individual shows and then aired as specials.

I think the reason a lot of these things started happening is that's when the current Broadcasting Act came into effect. There are a number of issues around it.

The fact that originally Dr. Allard was on location and was determined as an entrepreneur to create Canadian programming in Canada that could be viewed around the world and was of an international standard is a clear indication that if you move the decision-makers away from where the things are happening, the bigger, important decisions don't happen there.

The management for WIC was in Vancouver. Most of the production and money they put into development of production was in Vancouver, because they were the guys who held the purse strings. I think that had a lot to do with it. When the man with the money was in Edmonton, a lot was happening in Edmonton.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: So in your opinion, it's based around where management or the shareholders are located?

Mr. Richard Zyp: To some degree. The thing is, it's still possible to create world-class production in these cities. It's whether there's the will in the management now; of that I'm not sure.

Á (1130)

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Now, here's the second question. You feel--and I'm quoting from your brief--“there must be new outlets for smaller and more narrowly focused expressions of opinion.” Then you call for “licensing viable non-commercial broadcast media.” I'm not certain I understand what you're saying. Tell me what you envision.

Mr. Richard Zyp: That's a fairly broad term. I'm talking about things like the Internet and community-based television. I don't have, again, a researched solution here. I just think smaller players...if the people making the decisions are on the ground here, then you'll hear more about what happens here.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

It's just been a delight to hear you talk, because we are trying to get at this thing that is disappearing rapidly in our broadcasting system. What you're saying is that it has to do with those shows that used to be produced and with the commitment that used to exist on the part of individual owners who started up a radio or TV station with a vision about telling the stories of the community. It was a very simple recipe.

Certainly what the Broadcasting Act put forward, the premises of the Broadcasting Act, remains absolutely solid in terms of the vision of a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty. Your early experience in TV and radio was exactly what this whole exercise is about and is the sort of thing we're trying to make sure continues to exist into the next ten years.

It seems that there are all sorts of reasons why this has disappeared: the issue of centralization of ownership and the movement of control over radio and TV stations to another city--in this case Calgary, or it could be Toronto; the disappearance of people who actually make decisions in that community; and this idea of local and Canadian content being further crippled by decisions by the regulator.

I'd like you to elaborate on that decision you mentioned, Ms. Wahl, about up to 30 minutes per day disappearing because--I think you said--advertising clusters are now being considered Canadian content. I'd like you to comment on that, and I'd like any other comments you might want to make on numbers.

We hear from the private broadcasters that, no, no, no, they're putting more resources all the time into their stations and into their plants, but we don't hear that from people on the ground who work in the stations. We really need to see those numbers, because that's what part of our study is, coming up with the quantitative data. Could you give us numbers on that very important aspect?

You also mentioned the CTF and your concern that there's a decrease in the use of western talent and in the directing and production of programs in the west. Again, those number are essential to our work, so do you have any comments on all those?

Ms. Nancy Wahl: I don't have specific numbers, and I apologize that I have nothing.

I can comment on the commercial clusters. That came to light at CFRN, I think, approximately eight years ago. I'm sorry that I don't even know where the loophole is, but what they found was that if they aired a news update or a news break before the commercial cluster, then the commercial cluster became Canadian content. Now, if you watch a one-hour program, you'll normally have two or three news updates. Is that right, Richard?

Mr. Richard Zyp: It would be one an hour.

Ms. Nancy Wahl: One an hour.

If you add that up during the entire day, an approximate commercial break would then become three to three and a half minutes if you're including the news break. You only need 10 of those updates per day or even per week, let's say 30 new updates per week, to total 30 minutes of Canadian programming they no longer have to produce.

Does that answer your question on that?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Can I just ask if our research department could look into when that change occurred? I'm sure we could find that out. It's really startling that such a small change can make such a major difference.

Mr. Richard Zyp: I was just going to say I know this to be true at our station as well. My understanding is they don't necessarily even have to be live, as long as they're news breaks shot locally. We're talking 30 seconds in front of the camera, and this makes three minutes Canadian content.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'd like to ask you a bit about this local programming issue, which we're hearing wherever we end up going. You talked about ITV and Dr. Allard and the start-up of what was going on there, and the high-quality programming that occurred. It seems to me that any successful model like this is mainly due to an individual with a vision and a willingness to take risks, sometimes really big risks. Perhaps you can make the argument that some of the bigger private broadcasters might be into minimal risk in terms of their investments in local programming and what not.

We were in Vancouver yesterday and the day before. We talked to individuals who spoke about a market for local programming. There was less local programming, but now some stations are seeing this as a niche they can get into to do some high-quality local programming. Do you see this as a possible solution too?

I'm not sure how we regulate people who are in the industry already to do this local programming, versus encouraging or seeking out those who have been successful in other areas to have that vision and take the necessary risks. I believe there's a market, always, in any city, for this.

How do we, as legislators, encourage this? What would your suggestions be? Is it through regulation? I don't know if that's the way to go. Or is there some other model for encouraging these individuals who were successful in the past or others who have experience in the field to take some risks to create this vision and be successful?

Á (1135)

Mr. Richard Zyp: One thing that is clear is that it obviously takes very deep pockets as well. The money thing is going to be the deal maker or breaker here in the long run. I don't have the definite solution either. I'm hoping you guys can figure this out, you know. But it's going to have to do with money.

The corporation has given us a wide-open playing field. It's not going to put any money into local programming. I can tell you that absolutely and for sure from my point of view. Everything will end up being done in Vancouver and Toronto. So if you want those corporations to do some local programming, it's going to have to be regulated. I think that's for sure, without a doubt.

It can be a two-track process. There can be other funding for smaller groupings, like the film funds and the types of funds the AMPIA people talked about earlier. This whole process could be streamlined to make it easier for people to get to funding to bring out the local stories. Then you need a place to air it. Maybe the corporations air these things--if they have to run them--and there's funding for small independents to create them.

This is just an off-the-cuff sort of answer, but regulation and funding are two very key things that have to be part of it.

The Chair: Ms. Wahl.

Ms. Nancy Wahl: I'm sorry. I promise I'll be brief.

The Chair: No, no, that's fine. I was just giving you the floor.

Ms. Nancy Wahl: When you talk about the local programming, how it's very expensive and all the rest of it, my fear when I say we can't unscramble the egg but we need to stop the cooking is that we need the local stations to still be regulated as to the amount of news they do. I've heard there are actually newscasts being done in one centre, and when they finish packaging it, they roll in the city skyline of another centre and package it as another newscast.

I would hate to see an anchor in Calgary package a newscast and then stop and move in the backdrop of Edmonton and have Edmonton's newscast sent from down there as well.

Those are the things I'm talking about where I think we need to make sure we still have a local presence.

Á (1140)

Mr. Grant McNally: The local viewers, I would imagine, are not going to put with that. They are not going to watch that.

Ms. Nancy Wahl: Do you know what? If they don't know, they will put up with it. I hate to say that, but I have heard of that happening, and that's my fear. I think we need to make sure we maintain a presence and we need to make sure we reflect our community back to itself.

I think if the corporations or the companies are given more latitude and they're able to etch out more and more of our local--for instance, our local newscast is now an hour. If we continue to eat away at it, are we going to be a ten-minute spot in a national package? In that way we can regulate, and we can ask you to look at those things and to stop the cooking.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Zyp and Ms. Wahl, I think you've brought forward before us a very important issue, which comes up, as members pointed out, time and time and time again: the whole question of regional and local broadcasting and how to preserve it. Perhaps, as Mr. Harvard said, it's not an easy question; we don't have magic formulas. At the same time, I think you've made your point very clear, and certainly you can be sure we have to address it. We want to address it, and we will.

So thank you very much for appearing. We appreciate it very much.

Ms. Nancy Wahl: Thank you for your time.

The Chair: We will take a five-minute break, but members have to promise me they will come back in five minutes.

Á (1136)

Á (1145)

The Chair: We will now resume the meeting.

We are pleased to welcome Canadian Learning Television in the person of Ms. Jill Bonenfant, the director of programming.

Ms. Bonenfant, the floor is yours.

Á (1150)

Ms. Jill Bonenfant (Director, Learning and Skills Television Alberta): I'm here this morning actually on behalf of Learning and Skills Television Alberta. We operate a unique situation here in Alberta, in that we operate two private educational networks, ACCESS Television and Canadian Learning Television. I'm the programming director and have been with the company for 13 years, so I was there prior to privatization. ACCESS was privatized in 1995. Subsequently we launched Canadian Learning Television in 1999 and two digital services, Book Television and CourtTV Canada, in September 2002.

The privatization of an educational network is certainly unique, and it's unique to Alberta. As far as I know, it certainly hasn't been done anywhere else in Canada. It has been very successful. I've distributed two documents. The first document was written by Ron Keast, our CEO, and is just a brief history of educational television. The second document is the ACCESS privatization story, and I'll just deal specifically with the second-last page, which is the successful privatization of ACCESS.

The partnerships and working relationships between ACCESS and the Ministry of Education and educational institutions in Alberta have been outstanding. We have gone a long way since privatization to working with post-secondary institutions and with the government. The key factor in the privatization of ACCESS was this partnership--a private-public partnership with the government. The situation is significantly different from what it was. Originally, ACCESS network was given grants to operate. The situation currently is that we are a completely private company that then provides the services for the Government of Alberta. We do that both with the K to 12 sector and with the post-secondary sector of education. Our schedule is 50 percent purchased by the Ministry of Education. So we work together with the Ministry of Education to provide programming in those time slots, both in daytime programming as well as in prime time.

As to the success of ACCESS, there are several points. The look, style, and programming mix of the new ACCESS attracts a new audience and looks very different from the old ACCESS. Innovative new programs--we provide L & J News and Help!tv, which are live local productions that are education-related. Those are provided by LTA.

LTA also provides hundreds of hours of entertaining new programming, both acquisitions and original productions, and co-productions, in prime time, and over 80 percent of our schedule is actually accredited in some way. So even though only 50 percent of the schedule is actually purchased by the ministry, 80 percent of our schedule is formal programming that is accredited and tied to courses at universities or colleges, or K to 12.

Probably the biggest success of ACCESS has been--and I mentioned this before--the post-secondary relationship that we have and the way we've developed. We've developed both productions and acquisitions that are related to courses and that are also of interest to a general viewing audience. So that's been one of the big successes.

I'll stop there and you can ask questions. Everything is in the document.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Yes, we have your documents. We have the two documents, and they've been circulated to members and the researchers have them.

I will open the floor to questions. Mrs. Hinton.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Thank you.

Thank you for appearing today.

As someone who spent ten years as a school board trustee and has an avid interest in education, I find this very fascinating. But I do have one question for you, because this is a unique approach that you have here. The public-private partnership, would it work for CBC?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: That's an interesting question, and not one I've really thought about. I think our partnership works in terms of education because we don't really deal with the government as such; we deal with post-secondary institutions and we're programming directly into courses at universities and colleges. I'm not sure how that would work with CBC, or what kind of a partnership it would be, and who the partnership would be with.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: No, that was probably not a fair question, but it was a thought.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: That's all I had to ask. Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: It is a bit embarrassing to ask questions. You seem very satisfied and you have improved your situation compared to what it was previously.

I could ask you a question. Before, what was the system you had compared to your new private-public system? What were the problems then compared to what you have today?

I understand that you had your private educational station. Therefore, you didn't have problems with broadcasting your local productions. Therefore, you don't seem to have any problems with the Broadcasting Act regarding your survival and use of the local network, if I have understood you correctly.

[English]

The Chair: Did you get the gist of it?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes, I do, I think.

You're correct, there are no irritants in terms of the Broadcasting Act. We're able to accomplish that without any problem. And I'm not really here as an intervenor or to address issues, but rather just to present information on our situation here.

The Chair: I think what Madame Gagnon was trying to hint at was what was happening before and what is the difference today. What went wrong before and what--

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes.

Prior to privatization, ACCESS was an educational authority in Alberta at arm's length. It was run by a board. The government provided the funding for the operation of ACCESS. That funding was then controlled by ACCESS and we worked with the government to decide how we would spend those dollars.

Since privatization, the budget has probably been cut in half. It's significantly less than what it was originally. There are fewer staff than originally, and basically we operate to provide a service for the government. The government is actually purchasing air time. It's a client situation versus a direct-funding association. The money for air time then comes to us as a private company and we use it for operating expenses. There are also production dollars identified for productions and acquisitions to go into its broadcast time. So it is actually purchasing the programming going into those times and we work together to do this.

Â (1200)

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Here is one small final question.

Regarding content, how has that changed? Did you have less latitude than before regarding content? Do you have more latitude in this regard?

[English]

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: To some degree we do have more latitude in terms of content; however, we still work very hard to make sure all the programming is in some way tied to courses of study and is related to education.

We've also expanded the mandate of ACCESS from that of the previous ACCESS. Due to cutbacks in ACCESS, originally it was no longer doing any kind of post-secondary. It didn't have a relationship with post-secondary institutions. We've developed this extensively since privatization. So a number of benefits have occurred since then.

In terms of content, I suppose we do have more latitude, but we're also working constantly with teachers, post-secondary institutions, and the government itself.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Thank you very much.

Help me to better understand what you might call the interface between LTA and CLT, the Canadian Learning Channel. Tell me what kind of relationship they have, if any.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Learning and Skills Television of Alberta is the parent company. It's basically the company that owns ACCESS Television, Canadian Learning Television, and then the two digital services, Book Television and CourtTV. So it's basically the company name.

Mr. John Harvard: And do a big chunk of the programs you create show up on a specialty channel elsewhere in Canada?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: CLT is a national, adult-focused service.

Mr. John Harvard: And how much of the programming generated in Alberta would show up, say, in Winnipeg? Would we see much of it in Winnipeg, or any?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: In terms of productions, yes, you would. HELP!tv is on Canadian Learning Television. There is some other programming, though there's only a crossover of 20 percent at the same time on both services. But it could happen further down the road, maybe after it's no longer in an area of ACCESS. ACCESS may have a window for a year and then we'll put it on CLT.

Mr. John Harvard: And where does CLT get the rest of its programming material?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Basically, CLT is a bit different. It's structured as a private company but we also work with post-secondary institutions across the country. We have what are called charter partners, Athabasca University, Mount Saint Vincent University, University of Waterloo, and some of the programming actually comes directly from those institutions. We have an academy time slot that specifically airs professors teaching their courses.

Mr. John Harvard: Now you're really a deliverer of educational television programs on behalf of the Department of Education in Alberta.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: Does the ministry then set the curriculum for you, if I can put it this way?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: We work with the ministry to choose programming that's going to meet its goals.

Mr. John Harvard: But you have to work within its curriculum.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: And you get 50 percent of your revenues from the government.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: And where does the other 50 percent come from?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: It comes from advertising and sponsorship.

Mr. John Harvard: And there are no cable fees or anything like that.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: No, there aren't with ACCESS. With CLT, we have subscriber fees.

Mr. John Harvard: Yes. Is that because LTA is over the air?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: ACCESS is over the air. There are four stations under LTA. LTA is the parent company and then there are four services operated here in Edmonton.

Â (1205)

Mr. John Harvard: Do you have a lot of comment, input, or complaints from parents about your educational service? God, they sure get it in the ordinary, conventional classrooms, though. Parents are quite involved in what their kids get from the conventional classroom.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes. Basically, much of the curriculum programming that was on ACCESS when it was originally privatized was programming that had been produced specifically by ACCESS for the Ministry of Education, so that in terms of curriculum programming--math courses, physics courses--there was no question that it was going to meet the needs of the students.

In the last year that has changed slightly, in that the goals of the ministry have changed to reflect lifelong learning. So right now the daytime schedule, which is curriculum-related, is related to all kinds of nutritional issues, parenting issues, and a whole variety of things. So basically we're addressing personal--

Mr. John Harvard: Eat your vegetables.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Right.

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: He's dull to talk to until food is mentioned.

As I understand it, I'm trying to wrap my mind around the ownership of this, but the Alberta Educational Communications Corporation was a crown corporation then?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: All right, and then it was rolled into the private corporation called ACCESS?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: It was called ACCESS, but now it's actually ACCESS TLC, the ACCESS Network versus ACCESS Television.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Anyway, you mentioned that it was privatized in 1995, so who are the shareholders then?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: There's a variety of shareholders. Some 60 percent is owned by CHUM Television, and then a variety of people like Moses Znaimer, Ron Keast, and Peter Palframan. There is a variety of owners, shareholders.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: This is going to sound very provincial, but the ACCESS part, then, is only available in Alberta. Is that correct?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Right, correct.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: So some of what is developed here under the auspices of ACCESS is channeled into CLT. Is that correct?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Some of it, yes, eventually.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you.

I have a final question. Is ACCESS in Alberta on cable?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes, it is.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: It is on cable, but it's free?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: It's not mandatory?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes, it is.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you.

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you for spending some time with us.

Yesterday we had the opportunity to tour CBC in Vancouver, and we heard some really exciting work that they're doing in terms of the Internet. It's called CBC 3. It's their whole Internet initiative. I'm interested in knowing whether your learning TV network is doing work in interactive media, because this seems to be the model of what CBC 3 is doing.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Right. Yes, definitely, we have a multimedia department, but it's been developed over the last year. We're working very closely with the Ministry of Education, which is developing an object repository in which they're trying to provide objects to teachers--objects meaning anything from video to a specific graphic, or whatever, it could be anything--and actually providing those to teachers on demand. So we're in the beginning stages of that, and in the process of piloting a project here in Alberta to provide those for the ministry.

Also the ministry and ACCESS are very much interested in trying to find some kind of interactive element where we can interact between the Internet and television, find some kind of compatible....

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to ask you a bit about the commercials and sponsorships one would see on the programming. Do you get any complaints? I was a teacher for ten years, and there was always this issue at the elementary, junior high, middle school, and high school levels about the commercialization of education--Coke machines in the hallways and those kinds of things. Obviously that's not the kind of advertising we're going to see, but can you explain a bit what the advertising and sponsorship arrangements are?

Â (1210)

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Originally we did get some complaints just because the service looked different from what it had previously. But any of the educational time slots, any of the ministry-purchased time slots, don't have any commercials. They are commercial-free. Of course, so is the pre-school programming. Probably 60 percent of our schedule is commercial-free. In the remainder you may well see the same commercials you would see anywhere else, such as Procter & Gamble types of commercials.

Mr. Grant McNally: So in many ways it would look much like another channel, with the same kinds of ads.

Is every hour filled with educational broadcasting, or are there other types of programming?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: It's all educational in one way or another. Either it has been accredited by a post-secondary institution, we have tied it into that, or it is an informal educational program.

Mr. Grant McNally: Are there parameters as to what can be shown in terms of the licensing and what qualifies as educational? What might be educational to one person might not be educational to another as an objective criterion.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: When we were privatized, there were actually two things the CRTC did that were different with respect to conditions for the majority of the other educational networks. The first was that we're not allowed to air any drama unless it is accredited. It has to be specifically tied to a course of studies with a university, a college, or K to 12. Second, the definition of educational programming for us is formal educational programming: it has to be accredited. We have to have some kind of documentation or a letter from a post-secondary institution saying that it is part of a course.

Mr. Grant McNally: Do you have any difficulty getting sponsorship or advertising, or is it not a problem?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: It has taken us six and a half years to get to the point where the commercial time we have is sold out. It's been a growing process, and right now we're in the same process as Canadian Learning Television, gradually re-educating advertisers and getting them to recognize that we have viewers who aren't going to be found anywhere else.

Mr. Grant McNally: I have one final question. Do you keep records of how many complaints you get? I received a few complaints about certain things when I was teaching. Is there a process in place for people who are watching a program and who may have an issue with the ads? Obviously, people can choose not to watch, but if it's on an educational channel and if there's not another avenue for them to view that kind of programming, is there a process your company has for dealing with those complaints satisfactorily? Do you get a lot of that?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Not a huge amount, but the ones we do get come directly to me for response. They are also then passed on to the whole management team for future consideration.

The Chair: I have a request from Mr. Harvard for a brief second question.

Mr. John Harvard: Your information is most welcome. Is your company happy with the broadcast policy as it currently stands and as it relates to the kind of service you are providing? Are you quite happy?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes, we are able to meet our conditions of licence without any problems. I'd say we don't have any issues with that.

Mr. John Harvard: There's just one more thing. Give me an example of a program outside the provincial curriculum you deliver over the air or via cable. What would be a program?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: National Geographic.

Mr. John Harvard: Do you have another one?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Champions of the Wild. A lot of nature, science-related programs, documentaries.

Â (1215)

Mr. John Harvard: I see, okay. Thanks.

The Chair: Mrs. Hinton, briefly.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Thank you.

I was going to ask you what the ownership structure was, but Mr. Gallaway pretty much touched on that.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: I don't have the formality of it. I can certainly provide that.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: That would be helpful. I'd appreciate that.

The Chair: You can send it to the clerk.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Sure.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I do have one question, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. Star Trek was on last night on ACCESS. How does that qualify as educational programming?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: It's part of a pop culture course at Athabasca University.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: A pop culture course.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes. It takes a look at television and its influences on culture and society, and how it reflects culture and society.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I'll have to tell my son that. He could ace that one.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Exactly.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Thank you.

The Chair: Could I ask you a question about the before and after or the before and now? Before, when the Government of Alberta owned it 100 percent, there was no advertising.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Right.

The Chair: So I imagine that because there was no advertising and the government owned it 100 percent, 100 percent was educational programming.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Yes.

The Chair: So now it's 50 percent private, and you collect 50 percent of your revenue from advertisers and sponsorships.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Both are private. It's 100 percent private.

The Chair: It's 100 percent private, but 50 percent of the revenues are coming from the Government of Alberta, which have been cut back 50 percent, then 50 percent from sponsorships and revenues.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: It's probably more 60-40, with 60 percent from government.

The Chair: Does that mean in effect that instead of having 100 percent educational programs right through when it was owned fully by the Government of Alberta, now you have 30 percent or 40 percent, which must be...? There must be some time for the--

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: No, we still have 100 percent educational programming.

The Chair: Yes, but surely you're taking time for the advertising.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Oh yes.

The Chair: Also, do not these advertisers in a way influence your content to a certain extent when you have to market your product to entice an advertiser?

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Well, I think we've been quite creative with Star Trek fitting into a popular culture course. We have movie film genre packages--movie packages that basically tie in specifically with either pop culture, film genre, or film production courses at post-secondary institutions.

For instance, we air a movie package that is actually tied to Red Deer College. They look at it from the perspective of casting, production, anything that has to do with the production side of it. We have an actual instructor who comes into the studio, does an introduction, and that actually goes to air with the movie at the time it's on. It's still tied directly to.... It is in a commercial time slot. We do sell commercial time for it, but it is educational and it is tied directly into Red Deer College.

I don't know if that addresses your question.

The Chair: What I'm trying to get at is this. Could the Government of Alberta tomorrow morning say, well, our 50 percent is too much, we're going to cut back by 2 percent? Then you have to go--certainly I'm not blaming you, very much the contrary--and find another 25 percent through advertisers and sponsors.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Well, the goal is to become less and less dependent on the government for funding as much as we can. But I don't know if we'll ever get to the point where we can actually eliminate that. That partnership is extremely important. We have just recently in the last year signed a second deal. The first was five years with the ministry. We now have another five-year agreement. We are relying on that as an ongoing means of keeping it viable.

Mr. John Harvard: Why would you want to pull away from the government? What's wrong with--

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Oh no, we wouldn't. I think the idea was more if they made the decision that they didn't want to, if it wasn't of benefit to them any longer.

The Chair: I certainly hope that public pressure will force them to stay in, because it seems to me that if anything is of public interest, it's education.

Anyway, thank you very much for your explanations and being very forthright about your answers. We appreciate it very much. It's a huge issue. It's very important. Thank you very much for being here.

Ms. Jill Bonenfant: Thank you.

Â (1220)

[Translation]

The Chair: We are please to welcome Mr. Raymond Lamoureux, Director General of the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta.

Mr. Lamoureux, thank you very much for meeting with us and giving your time to explain somewhat the position of people living in the minority language in Alberta, and how you cope with all the constraints that you surely encounter.

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux (Director General, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta): I would like to thank you as well for giving us this opportunity to express our needs in terms of French radio and television in our province. I would like to have been accompanied by other colleagues. We had little time to prepare. Therefore, I will present you with a brief summary of our needs.

The Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta has been speaking on behalf of francophones there since 1926. Our province has 178,000 bilingual individuals, of whom 60,000 have French as their mother tongue. I would also like to inform you that in Alberta, we have French second language programs in our schools and that there are a considerable number of students learning French as a second language. For example, we have approximately 30,000 students taking French immersion. These youths have a good command of French starting in their third year. We have over 110,000 students also learning French as a second language.

I insist on mentioning this within the context of the discussion that is taking place here regarding French television and radio because these individuals are clients who can be added to those whose first official language is French.

In Alberta, we also have a francophone clientele that has always experienced assimilation. Very few families have been able to maintain their French language.

Few people know that French was the first European language spoken in our province. You only need to look at a road may to discover the many French names. Today, nearly 200 interest groups organize French language activities in 10 of our regions. Since Francophones are dispersed over the entire Albertan territory, the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta has been interested in communications from the very start.

Starting in the 1940's, it set up a committee to create French radio. In 1949, CHFA was created, which was sold to Société Radio-Canada in 1973. At the time, there had been discussion of putting a clause into the sales contract that would have ensure a minimum number of hours of local production. The Société had protested by arguing that any major change would be made in consultation with the community. When the budget cuts occurred, we bitterly regretted not having been more demanding at the time.

In 1970, French television entered our homes thanks to the political pressure from thousands of francophones. Société Radio-Canada is an essential element for our community. It is one of the main conductors of our cultural vitality. I mentioned that we have suffered much assimilation. Lately, our Francophone school boards have been working with many groups of organizations at maintaining our language and culture.

French radio and television are important elements in maintaining and regaining lost ground. Even though they are imperfect in certain ways, we could not do without them. CBC detractors seem to ignore that the satisfaction rate of francophones in regard to or crown corporation is very high. At a time of increasing media company concentration, it is imperative to keep, promote and develop Société Radio-Canada.

We believe that guaranteed multi-year funding is a step in the right direction. However, the Parliament of Canada would have to find a way to ensure that Société Radio-Canada would continue to invest a sufficient part of its budget in the regions. We are confident that our legislators will be creative in finding a solution to this problem.

When you constitute 6 percent of the population, you see, and you are in a country that is officially bilingual, you expect a proportion of programming that exceeds the percentage of the population in relation to the total population.

Société Radio-Canada is the only corporation that produces a news program in French with which we can identify. If we compare the resources assigned to the Francophone portion of local production, we can only find that Francophones do not receive their equitable share as an official language community in Canada. We also hope that supplementary resources will be allocated to regional stations so that they can help make a significant contribution to the national network.

I have heard other presentations in the little time I have spent here this morning, and much has been said regarding local production. For us, local production is very important because this is where we self-identify. This is where we find our identity in relation to what is happening in our community, to what the others in our community are saying. This is where we can say as a group that we are reacting in a certain way, that we are reacting as Francophones.

For many decades, Société Radio-Canada has been promising to invest more in regional programming. Each new round of consultations at the CRTC allows us to hear the same litany of excuses. This time, we are being asked to understand that from now on we have to concentrate on the expansion of the second channel of SRC, the FM channel, while it is still impossible for Francophones in Banff, Canmore, Jasper and Lake Louise to tune into CHFA. We should also mention that there are reception problems in Beaumont and Saint-Paul.

Our national parks host many visitors, from one end of the country to the other, from everywhere in the world, from Francophone countries, the province of Quebec, and other Francophones. When we visit the national parks, we should be able to see the local colours of the Franco-Albertans.

We can hardly count on the support of the SRC's board members, about whom the least that can be said is that they are very shy when it comes to supporting our communities. We have noticed this with each round of budget cuts. Our absence at the table where decisions are made is hurting us. The federal government has to appoint more Francophones outside Quebec to the board of directors of SRC and the CRTC, Telefilm Canada, the NFB and the Canada Council.

Cable distributors are not any more favourable to us. We only have to compare the list of French channels with the list of channels available in English to find that we are still the poor cousins of the Canadian cable distribution system. Too often we have to use the petitions under the well-known rule of obligatory broadcasting to get meagre results. There, still, we have to fight to avoid losing a French language channel when the new specialized service starts up.

Â (1225)

Whether it be TV5, RDI, ARTV, Vrak.tv, Canal Famille, RDI, Réseau des sports, Canal D, Histoire or Évasion, all these channels are difficult to receive, or simply inaccessible, except for those individuals who subscribe to satellite services.

As for support measures to assist creating community radio, we believe it to be very important for the Department of Canadian Heritage to continue its support program and increase the financial resources that have been put at its disposal.

We now have community radio in some of our communities, and these have been very successful. Youths are starting to express themselves in public. Often, the community becomes increasingly interested in local broadcasts. They also like to hear youths talk about their reality, and the youths learn to be aware that they are talking to the community.

The increased interest of young people in French music, and the potential to use a communications tool like community radio, have literally created miracles in some of our communities. Creation of CKRP-FM in Rivière-la-Paix and projects in Saint-Paul and Plamondon have shown how useful these programs are.

I would like to conclude by stating that to start a community, to recreate a community, to strengthen a community, takes many tools. The media, radio and television can do a lot of work with a community to strengthen and reinforce a sense of identity.

Thank you for your attention.

Â (1230)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lamoureux. I find that you express yourself very clearly. Your message is very, very clear to us. You raise important questions, for example, the fact that the cable companies don't reach you. This is something we didn't know.

We will now go to questions. Mr. Abbott.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

I appreciate your presentation very much, and you'll be able to help me understand a couple of things.

I'm given the impression that as a proportion of the expenditures of the CBC as a total corporation, the percentage of money that is spent on anything to do with broadcasting en français is equal to or even greater than the percentage of people whose mother tongue is French in Canada. Now, I don't know if you would contest that, but I think that it's a fact. My question, then, would be do you believe that people with French as their mother tongue in Alberta are seeing more a reflection of the French-Canadian fact in Quebec than of the French-speaking people of Canada outside Quebec?

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: I think that you are right. We ask for more local programming, that we get the chance to recognize ourselves more in regard to what is happening in our community. Surely, what is happening in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada is part of our reality and helps us to develop our sense of identity, but even so, there are differences between the Quebec reality and the Western reality.

It is important that we be able to recognize ourselves as members of our community. This becomes more relevant when, in broadcasts, we can recognize regional and provincial personalities. It helps us develop as a community.

Â (1235)

Quite simply we do not reject what is going on in French elsewhere. This is a question of proportion it is a question of local content that serves development and advancement of the community.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Lamoureux, I would like to very gently argue with you that if we take a look at the presentations, even from this morning in Edmonton, which are very much a reflection of the presentations that we've received in Vancouver, indeed, anywhere outside central Canada, people are begging for more local access, more local programming, more local reflection of the reality. I can't help but wonder if this isn't a problem of local access, perhaps, more than it's a problem of the French-speaking people in Alberta not being able to have a local access. In other words, I'm wondering if this isn't just a common problem, not exclusively a French problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: I found it very interesting to hear the other groups claiming more local programming. I wasn't here long enough to hear what their reasons were for asking this.

I can tell you that we would like to get a plan that is well understood, a plan that would serve to help and develop the community. We are working in all spheres of Francophone life in Alberta: economic, cultural, educational. All these domains are interconnected, and the media and communications are certainly an integral part of the whole.

What we see as our needs lead us to look for the maximum number of tools that can help us. I will give you an example. We can use the media to bring youth into the world of art. We can give artists of the spoken word the chance to present themselves through the media. We can use the media to get la francophonie to express itself in the artistic domain, through drawing, for example.

The media, television and radio provide all kinds of means to express ourselves to our community. It is through listening to our fellow citizens express themselves that we can identify with what they are saying, in what they are showing us in their drawings, through drama, in various fields. It is not just a question of getting the news each day. It is more than that. It is a useful tool for community development.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: But isn't there a worldwide problem of what I would call, for lack of a better term, the imperialism of English around the world? As I've travelled in the Far East, and I've done a moderate amount of travel there, I've noted that I would be perhaps in Beijing, Shanghai, or Tokyo, wherever, and they would have the local programming, the drama, whatever it is, which was a reflection...but I was astounded at the number of times there were advertisements, even newscasts, and things in English that broke in.

Please, don't misunderstand my intervention. I'm not suggesting for a second that we don't have an issue here, in that we are truly a bilingual country. I'm not contesting that. I'm just wondering if the problem of the imperialism of the English language around the world isn't really part of the problem you're looking at in Alberta.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: In Alberta, Francophones, like everybody, are influenced by many things. There is certainly the omnipresent Anglo-american influence in our everyday lives. In relation to what is happening in French, what I have been able to hear today and what is happening, as I see it, is that there are probably strategies in the field of communications for reducing programming costs or making programs more profitable. I don't know what is the best terminology.

Â (1240)

I think that when we try to serve a sparse minority community, which nevertheless has the status of being an official language community in Canada, if we wish to serve this community well, we must listen to it. We have to listen to its needs and reflect on the merits of what it is demanding. Then, if we wish to maintain this community and enhance its development, we have to recognize that there will be a cost.

I think that what you are saying is true. There are external influences that are certainly evident.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you for your comments. I have listened with much emotion. Being a Francophone from Quebec, I can understand the context in which you are defending your own culture. Since I have been on this tour on broadcasting, I am discovering the entire problem of Francophones outside Quebec.

There are some problems that come to mind. When we speak about Francophone communities--this is how and what I call you--, we are talking about Francophone populations. I find that using the term Francophone populations dilutes the importance of your community as a founding people of Canada. When we talk about diversity, we include you in the minority dynamic. I am very sensitive to that school of thought.

Immigrants who choose Canada as a host country must understand that you are not the minority but one of the founding peoples. The Bloc Québécois and Quebec are very concerned that you should be considered as a founding people.

I can tell you that often, when we are meeting as a committee, I remind my colleagues in power who are sitting in Parliament that when we establish support to Francophone communities based on numbers, whether it be Radio-Canada or other institutions, we do not recognize that this is the community that helped build Canada. I find that this approach leads in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, we have been doing this for years.

Today, we hear things that we don't usually hear in the House of Commons regarding your demands. You have put on the Order of the Day items that are enormously important to your survival, and I hope that this will be understood. Be assured that you have my support for your demands. If we are to give the community a chance to develop instead of being assimilated, we must provide it with the tools, the appropriate budget and also the required broadcasting space. The media are one way to achieve recognition and allow our grandchildren to learn about community traditions and history.

I would like to get back to the broadcasters. You say that you need access to other Francophone channels. In Quebec we have TV5 and we are happy to have it, and we can get private stations as well. I understand that Radio-Canada is your lifesaver, because other than that, there is no other private French television. I don't think you have one, in any case. Other than Radio-Canada, there is not much.

I think that there should be a support framework for broadcasters from here. Francophone channels should be allowed and we should allow you to produce. Do you have Francophone community television here?

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: We do not have Francophone community television per se. What we deplore even more, is the very access to CHFA in the Rockies, where we don't have guaranteed reception.

Â (1245)

We don't even have the basic elements and that is worrisome. Quite clearly, it should be available throughout the province. In the current situation, in Bonnyville, for example, if I remember correctly, the community had to spend approximately fifty thousand dollars that could have been spend otherwise to increase its access to the French CHFA channel. In communities nearby, 115 or 120 miles away, the signal is not clear at all. When the weather is cloudy, you can't hear anything at all. These are worrisome complications.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: What should broadcasters do to improve signal transmission? I don't know if the new digital context will improve broadcasts for communities such as yours.

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: Unfortunately, I am not a technician. Therefore, I wouldn't be able to tell you what it takes. But we need something more, that's for sure.

I would very much have liked to bring people who know more about the service and technical aspects. Unfortunately, we did not have the time to prepare.

The Chair: Mr. Lamoureux, if you should have additional information for us, feel free to contact the clerk. and if you wish to appear at a later date, in Ottawa, with other resource persons, please let us know.

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

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

I strongly support bilingual services, and I applaud your efforts to strengthen the French-language radio and television services in this province.

I come from Winnipeg, where there's a not-insignificant francophone population, and I also worked at the CBC for many years. From my knowledge--and this is historical--francophones do not flock to French-language services on radio and television, at least in the Winnipeg market. I don't know what the situation is in Alberta. They don't.

I know that when we were in Vancouver just yesterday, we were asking about the kind of listenership or viewership they had, and they professed that they didn't know. They could tell us about the francophone population throughout British Columbia, but they had no idea--according to them--how many of them were listening. I suspect that they probably do know something and don't want to say because the numbers are poor.

I don't say that in a pejorative sense at all, Mr. Lamoureux, but perhaps you can explain, because there is a need for this, why French-speaking Canadians don't flock to these services. Why is it?

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: I think....

[Translation]

I will continue in French, but I could speak to you in English, sir.

I think that the answer to your question lies in the omnipresence of English in the lives of our children. Where children are concerned, in Alberta, we can say that they catch English, and that they often learn French with difficulty.

Personally, I have six children, and I insist that French be spoken at home. I have never had to speak once to them in English for them to learn English. As soon as they are out of the house, everything is in English. Most of their friends are Anglophones.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: Is English cool?

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: Yes, precisely.

To give this matter a more personal tone, I will tell you that I have a son who doesn't really want to speak French in the family, which in fact is very French. He wanted to be an American. He wanted to be an American pilot because American pilots have their own plane, with their own name. Today, now that he has spent more time in a French language home, and that he has gone to French schools, he is very proud of his identity.

He is very proud to be Canadian and he no longer talks about being an American. However, he has experienced what many other young people go through: as soon as you leave the house, everything is in English, and it's cool, as you say, to speak English.

The songwriters that they hear are mostly Anglophone artists. They learn to appreciate and like them even before knowing about Francophone artists.

Community radios, where we bring our kids to work on preparing broadcasts, get them to appreciate Francophone songwriters. They start listening to the messages in the songs and find them rather interesting. They discover that it is interesting to have Francophone songwriters.

I think that this is part of the answer I can give you. The omnipresence of English in the lives of all these kids and even their parents. You know, many parents don't know the effects of assimilation. In Alberta, we have parents who are very happy to send their kids to immersion schools. Immersion schools are very interesting. Young Anglophones who learn French as a second language in a school where French is spoken. We claim that it is the best of both worlds because the kids that go to such a school have the chance to learn English and French. Too many parents don't know that they can very well learn English in French schools and that immersion is a school that reflects the Canadian presence, the Canadian reality.

Therefore, the poor parents don't know, when they put a young Francophone in kindergarten, that this is the small child who will help the small Anglophones to learn French. These poor kids spin wheels for two or three years, until the others catch up. They take up bad work habits. Sometimes, they develop serious learning difficulties.

It is a bit like this in other domains, sir. You know, it is often a lack of awareness by parents themselves regarding the importance of the French language that has had a negative effect. So, when we talk about community development, we have to work taking into account all the sectors of this community: parents, schools, the media, and all the factors on which we can have some influence. We have to work on establishing a common vision, a common goal.

Â (1250)

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: Can I get a tiny, perhaps shorter, answer to the following question?

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: That is, given the pervasiveness of the English language and the English culture, do you really think there would be much of a change even if we as a government were to pump in millions and millions of dollars more into French radio and television?

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: Sir, the Franco-Albertan community is organizing. Each year now we have a strategic planning session. We try to give ourselves the means to meet our needs, and we see radio and television as very important elements. We are counting a lot on these services, and I think that in the future, they will be seen by the entire community as even more important.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: Thank you.

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

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Just a quick one, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to ask you, Mr. Lamoureux, about your statement that you're the poor cousins when it comes to the cable system. What are you looking for? Are you looking for more mandatory French-language channels in Alberta?

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: We have to target more varied programming. I would like to respond that yes, a greater French experience would be much appreciated.

I would like to repeat what I said at the beginning, that we also have an increased number of Anglophones who are learning French, who speak French fluently.

Access to the French channel not only provides an experience to minority Francophones in Alberta, but also the chance for Anglophones learning French as a second language to have a choice of programming.

There are 30,000 students who are in an immersion program in Alberta, and this number increases by about 3,000 each year. In a few years, Alberta will have a considerable number of people who will be able to speak fluent French. The numbers are constantly increasing. This proves that there is another need. Our clientele includes not only the French language minority, but also those who in Canada wish to become fluently bilingual.

Yes, we would like to access more channels. I recognize that this is not always profitable because the numbers are small. I am sure that the funding is not the same.

Â (1255)

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I want to thank you for coming.

We have heard a great deal about the impact of cuts to the CBC budget across the country and the impact this has had on regional programming, resulting in the loss of local voices. I'm very glad that we're now hearing from you, a francophone from outside Quebec, about the even more drastic impact you and your community have been feeling. I want to thank you for that.

I also want to say that we hear what you're saying about the need to have more francophones outside Quebec on the boards of the CRTC, the CBC, the Canada Council, and cultural bodies in this country. That is one important way of keeping the desires and needs of francophones outside Quebec front and centre.

Again, thank you very much.

[Translation]

M. Raymond Lamoureux: Thank you, Ms. Lill.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks.

I was a teacher for ten years on the English track in a French immersion school. I'm working on learning French. I don't want to display my lack of competence in it yet, but it's my desire to get there eventually.

Obviously the francophone population in Alberta is spread out across the province. Is that part of the problem, to have individuals able to access services through cable or station, having Radio-Canada carried on air? That's probably a big part of the issue right there.

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: The problem, if we are to compare Alberta to Manitoba, is that in Manitoba the French are more clustered, while in Alberta we're scattered all over the province. I don't think the mountain ranges help either, and that's a major problem. I would imagine that the problem in St. Paul could be more easily rectified.

Mr. Grant McNally: What would the answer be--maybe in two parts--as to the increased funding levels you'd like to see for Radio-Canada? And do you see that there may be an emerging market for some francophone entrepreneurs who might capitalize on the opportunity that's there because a market is not being served? You mentioned a bit about that on the digital side. So really, there are two questions there, one about the funding levels for Radio-Canada and one on how to get more people involved in supplying that unserviced market.

[Translation]

M. Raymond Lamoureux: I guess...I am so used to speaking English, that today, I am going to indulge in speaking my own language.

The market is somewhat restricted, as you say. Everything bears on costs for these services that would meet our needs. I am not even sure that the market can meet our needs. When we talk about the survival and enhancement of a small community, the costs of the required services are perhaps not entirely recoverable by the funding companies. Therefore, we probably need government intervention.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

· (1300)

The Chair: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. Hinton, and Mrs. Gagnon.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Speaking of resources, I'm just wondering, because of the advancement of technology, if there isn't an answer to your concern about cable.

I'm not here in any way, shape, or form as a cable spokesperson, but in the marketplace, because of all the channels now available on satellite, if I were in a position such as yours, rather than spending my $30 on cable, I would simply spend my $30 on satellite. In other words, I would go to the medium that would actually answer the problem you've raised vis-à-vis cable. Isn't that a very pragmatic solution to the problem you've raised?

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: I'm afraid I cannot answer that question. If there's an answer there, it should be explored, that's for sure. I don't think it will necessarily answer the question you have raised. I don't think what you're suggesting reflects the needs of local programming. You're talking about access to--

Mr. Jim Abbott: Access to French programming.

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: Right.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I believe when you were speaking about cable you were speaking about access to French programming. I'm saying if cable isn't providing it, the consumer now has a choice, with a small initial cost, of putting a satellite dish on their home and providing the wiring. The monthly cost is approximately the same as for cable, so they should just simply switch mediums.

I'm just wondering if that isn't a practical solution to the problem of poor access to French-language programming.

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: I think it's something that should be explored.

The Chair: Mrs. Hinton.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: It's quite obvious he and I didn't talk, because we're going to talk about the same thing here.

I want to assure you there are two licensed satellite systems in Canada. One is ExpressVu, the other is Star Choice, and both of them carry French programming. I speak from experience, because in my house we have one fully bilingual French-immersion-educated child, one who isn't, and two parents. Like Mr. McNally, I'll spare you my pronunciation of French, which is why I'm speaking to you in English.

I agree with what you're talking about, but I thought you wanted more local programming. So you may want to look at alternatives, in the interim. If a community channel is available here, you may want to speak to the people who are in charge of it or help start one, and maybe have part of a day or one day in French, which may also meet your needs.

Although French is the founding language of this country, that was over a hundred years ago, and things have changed. When we were in Vancouver yesterday, you would have seen very little support for the French language, but tremendous support for Chinese and East Indian dialects.

So things are changing, and the community channel is probably the venue people who want to maintain their ethnic language should be pursuing. But in the interim you have an option, not just in television, but in radio channels in French, as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: Madam, are you proposing a service that would be available throughout the province? Do the local channels only apply to the urban centres? We are talking about needs that apply to the entire provincial community.

· (1305)

I am not sure that what you are saying refers to a service that is available throughout Alberta.

Second, Alberta Francophones constitute more and more a multi-ethnic French language community. We recognize and wish that it be recognized that we are a founding people and as such, we do not only want to be recognized as an ethnic group. We have a special status that we would like this group to recognize. Franco-Albertans would never accept to lose their status as a founding people and an official language community in Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: May I just for one second...?

I don't want you to leave here with the impression that this group of people doesn't recognize--

[Translation]

M. Raymond Lamoureux: Thank you, Madam.

[English]

Mrs. Betty Hinton: We do.

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: Okay.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: What I'm trying to find for you is a short-term solution, and perhaps a long-term solution.

[Translation]

M. Raymond Lamoureux: I appreciate these suggestions and I think that the solution of a satellite could perhaps lead to reaching more francophones everywhere in the province. We would probably have to further explore the issue.

The other service that you referred to, local production, would apply only to the large urban centres but not the small communities.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like to specify something for Mr. Harvard concerning the ratings for Radio-Canada; I asked Société Radio-Canada yesterday about its percentage of listeners. The problem is that the population is widely dispersed. It is not designated as a Francophone community, but as a Francophone population. They claim that it would be very costly to take a sample survey. It would also be very complicated to define what is a Francophone; is it origin or are there other aspects? They already wanted to conduct a survey but it would have cost too much to conduct in all the communities everywhere in Canada.

Do you think that such a tool would be very useful or is it not necessary to know how attached Francophones are to Radio-Canada?

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: I think that any information that would allow us to be better informed about these services would be useful.

As for costs, I don't know what they would be. Perhaps we could study the various ways of getting information. Perhaps there are less costly ways that would be just as useful. I would not object to such activities, but I think we have to be reasonable and responsible regarding costs.

The Chair: Mr. Lamoureux, I would like to thank you very sincerely. If I have properly understood your message, you have asked us to review the scope of Radio-Canada's broadcasting activities in certain regions that currently have problems. You have named them as being: Lake Louise, Jasper and others. You have also talked about appointments to the boards of certain key agencies, cable companies and broadcasters in regions served by Radio-Canada.

I congratulate you on your courage and the determination you and your association have shown in defending your culture, your heritage and French as an official language.

I congratulate you for being here, and thank you. We are very happy that you could meet with us today. If you have other information or other documents that you wish to submit, we are here to listen. Thank you very much.

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: I thank you very much, as well, Mr. Chairman, as well as all the federal members of Parliament who have taken the time to hear us and discuss with us. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Members, there is a private citizen here, Ms. Helen Neufeld, who has been here since this morning. She wants to make a brief statement on an issue that she feels is very important to us. So I would ask the indulgence of the members to listen to Ms. Neufeld. We'll give her five minutes.

Ms. Neufeld.

· (1310)

Ms. Helen Neufeld (Individual Presentation): Yes, I will be brief.

The Chair: Yes, because we have another appointment at two o'clock--

Ms. Helen Neufeld: You've been here a long time.

The Chair: --and we have to have lunch in between.

Ms. Helen Neufeld: It has been a very informative panel, and I've enjoyed it immensely.

I thought I could bring a bit of international perspective to how Canadians and Canadian programs are viewed in various parts of the world.

In this conversation or presentation, maybe I'll start with Hong Kong. Hong Kong rarely gives standing ovations, but the French-Canadian production of Cirque du Soleil got a long one.

At the Edinburgh International Festival, it was the French-Canadian production of Erwartung and Bluebeard's Castle operas that won the day over many countries with much more experience in operatic production. So I was just sitting here thinking we must value the offerings of our French culture, even if they don't spread west very often.

I'm actually an educator and an observer, and I travel quite a bit. We live near the university, so we sometimes accommodate the anthropologists who come here to trade research. A Swede, a Norwegian, and a Russian have come, off and on, and when they leave, they leave with regret, not because of the fine research they've done or the fun they've had with it, or the wonderful city this is or their accommodation; they hate to miss another episode of North of 60 . I thought that was rather amusing. It's right up there with Mats Sundin and Forsberg and Fedorov, the hockey players from their countries. They love that CBC production for its localness and its nationalness, and it's becoming international.

In Israel, their favourite programs are Due South and W5. Australians love Canadian movies, and they can't get enough of them. Europeans really like Canadian movies and CBC productions, and of course we know the Japanese travel halfway across the world, partly for our skiing, partly for our industries, but they adore Anne of Green Gables.

So I'm wondering if we're not once again underestimating our abilities and the value of our local or national programs. If we look around and see how others appreciate us, maybe it will increase our will to not let this bureaucratic wrangling tie us in knots over, in each of these cases, very unique statements about our country and about our ability to produce programs.

The Americans have 98 percent content in their productions or programming. We have what, 56 percent or something? But they guard theirs so religiously. Should we be trying to crack into their market, or should we be looking at these countries where we are viewed with high esteem? They would accept us very readily, I'm sure.

Thank you for letting me say that. Sometimes we get so close to our problems that they become bigger than they should be. I was sitting here thinking, oh, it's all about money again. We have a play going on over at the Varscona Theatre by an author, Stewart Lemoine, who turns out as many good comical satires as SCTV ever did. SCTV got taken away.

I think Stewart Lemoine has produced about 10 or 12 plays. They're all successes. They do well at the Edmonton Fringe Theatre Festival, which is teeming. It's next to Edinburgh now as a festival. Surely somebody can produce those on TV at a very low cost and have extremely high interest in the content of what's being done. His content cuts through local, provincial, and international themes, so there you'd get quite a bargain, local programming and beyond.

So that's my suggestion. If we let all this money stuff get up here, we may lose ourselves. Keep the content right here, and that will lead us into much more economical productions.

I don't think those Swedes or Norwegians cared if North of 60 was done in digital, black and white, or yellow and white. They wanted to see that program because of its content, and because it expressed a very unique Canadian situation. Our north is very unique.

Thank you.

· (1315)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Neufeld. I appreciate your presence.

The meeting is adjourned.