HERI Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 28, 2002

0900

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

0905

Ms. Cindy Béland (President and CEO, Saskatchewan Motion Picture Association)

The Chair

Ms. Cindy Béland

0910

Mr. Michael Snook (Board Member, Saskatchewan Motion Picture Association)

0915

0920

The Chair

0925

Mrs. Yelich

Mr. Michael Snook

Mrs. Yelich

The Chair

Mrs. Gagnon

Mr. Michael Snook

0930

Ms. Gagnon

Mr. Michael Snook

0935

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Michael Snook

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Michael Snook

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Michael Snook

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Michael Snook

Mr. Harvard

0940

Mr. Michael Snook

The Chair

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Michael Snook

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Michael Snook

0945

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Michael Snook

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Michael Snook

Mr. Gallaway

The Chair

Ms. Lill

0950

Mr. Michael Snook

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Michael Snook

0955

The Chair

Mr. McNally

Mr. Michael Snook

Mr. McNally

Mr. Michael Snook

1000

Mr. McNally

Mr. Michael Snook

Mr. McNally

Mr. Michael Snook

Mr. McNally

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Michael Snook

Mr. Harvard

The Chair

Mrs. Gagnon

Mr. Michael Snook

1005

The Chair

Mr. Michael Snook

The Chair

1010

Mr. Michael Snook

The Chair

Mr. Michael Snook

The Chair

1015

Ms. Merran Proctor (Individual Presentation)

1020

1025

The Chair

Ms. Merran Proctor

The Chair

Ms. Merran Proctor

The Chair

Ms. Lill

Ms. Merran Proctor

1030

Ms. Lill

Ms. Merran Proctor

The Chair

Mrs. Yelich

Ms. Merran Proctor

1035

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Merran Proctor

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon

Ms. Gagnon (Québec)

1040

The Chair

Mrs. Gagnon

Ms. Merran Proctor

The Chair

Ms. Merran Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

1045

Ms. Merran Proctor

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Merran Proctor

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Merran Proctor

1050

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Merran Proctor

Mr. Harvard

Ms. Merran Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Merran Proctor

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Merran Proctor

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Merran Proctor

1055

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Merran Proctor

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Merran Proctor

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Merran Proctor

Mr. Gallaway

Ms. Merran Proctor

The Chair

Mr. McNally

Ms. Merran Proctor

Mr. McNally

1100

Ms. Merran Proctor

Mr. McNally

Mr. Proctor

Mr. McNally

Mr. Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Jim Deane (President and CEO, Access Communications Co-operative Ltd.)

1105

Ms. Marj Gavigan (Senior Manager, Access Communications Co-operative Ltd.)

1110

Mr. Jim Deane

1115

The Chair

Mrs. Yelich

Mr. Jim Deane

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon

Mr. Jim Deane

Ms. Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Jim Deane

1120

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Jim Deane

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Jim Deane

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Jim Deane

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Jim Deane

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Jim Deane

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Jim Deane

Mr. Harvard

The Chair

Mr. McNally

1125

Mr. Jim Deane

Mr. McNally

Mr. Jim Deane

Mr. McNally

Mr. Jim Deane

Mr. McNally

Mr. Jim Deane

Mr. McNally

1130

Mr. Jim Deane

Mr. McNally

The Chair

Mr. Jim Deane

The Chair

Mr. Jim Deane

The Chair

1140

Mr. Denis Desgagné (Executive Director, Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise)

1145

1150

1155

1200

The Chair

Mrs. Yelich

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Ms. Francine Lacasse-Powers (Communications Officer, Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise)

The Chair

Mrs. Yelich

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mrs. Yelich

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mrs. Yelich

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon

Ms. Gagnon (Québec)

1205

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Ms. Gagnon

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Ms. Gagnon

Mr. Denis Desgagné

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

1210

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Denis Desgagné

The Chair

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Denis Desgagné

1215

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Gallaway

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Gallaway

1220

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Roger Gallaway

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. McNally

1225

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. McNally

The Chair

Ms. Gagnon

Mr. Denis Desgagné

1230

Mrs. Gagnon

Mr. Denis Desgagné

The Chair

Mr. Denis Desgagné

The Chair

1235

Mr. Allan S. Taylor (Individual Presentation)

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 040

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which meets today in Regina to continue its study of the broadcasting system in Canada.

Before we start, I would like to welcome all of you here and say how pleased we all are to be in Regina and have the chance to travel west to hear from people at the grassroots level on their own home turf. We had a really interesting meeting in Vancouver, then Edmonton, and we really look forward to this session today.

We are very pleased to welcome, on behalf of the Saskatchewan Motion Picture Association, Ms Cindy Béland, the president and CEO, and Mr. Michael Snook, a board member and CEO of Westwind Pictures. Ms. Béland, the floor is yours.

¿ (0905)

Ms. Cindy Béland (President and CEO, Saskatchewan Motion Picture Association): Thank you.

The Chair: We have a presentation for 10 or 15 minutes, to allow members to have time to question you.

Ms. Cindy Béland: Thank you very much. I'll be very brief.

I'm new to this industry, and I would like to introduce myself. I'm here in support, of course, of our board member Michael Snook. I'm heading the Saskatchewan Motion Picture Association, and I just want to let you know that we have an extremely vibrant organization here in support of the production of film, television, and new media in Saskatchewan. Its main focus is to enhance the economic and cultural vitality of the industry in Saskatchewan. The mission of its members is a commitment to the intrinsic cultural and economic value of motion pictures, and they work together to create and advance opportunities for the production, promotion, and appreciation of motion pictures in Saskatchewan.

I'll turn it over to Michael.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Michael Snook (Board Member, Saskatchewan Motion Picture Association): Thank you, Cindy.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to address this committee this morning.

Because SMPA represents a group of independent producers, freelance crafts, creative and production management people, and production teams, we have a very particular point of view when it comes to addressing the kinds of issues that you are examining. In a brief presentation to you over the next few minutes I would like to express a number of comments from that point of view, and then make ourselves available for as many questions as you might have of us.

The point of view we are speaking from, again, is that of independent producers and freelance people who work in the film and television industry as independents. We do not have broadcasters among our members, and so we are speaking from a different point of view from a broadcaster's. The critical issues among those you have highlighted--and they're all very pertinent issues--are international trade and globalization, which we tie together in our minds; concentration of ownership and vertical integration of large companies, which we tie together in our minds; the continuing, non-stop historical debate about whether our industry is primarily cultural, industrial, or some hybrid of both, which has affected policy at all levels in the development of this industry, both provincially and nationally; the considerations about public versus private ownership of the broadcasting industry; and the current extraordinary impact of technology on the industry, and thus on the work that we, as independents, are expected to do for both private and public broadcasters. I'll take those briefly one at a time.

I was recently in Ottawa, and I heard Mr. Pettigrew, the Minister of Trade, express the view that the time had come in the film industry in Canada for promotion, not protection. Approximately three hours later I heard the noted speaker Mr. Valenti from the U.S. say that while he was an avid admirer of our tax credit support system for the industry in this country, he lamented profoundly our protectionist approach and felt it was inappropriate in a global and free economy. It was actually quite astonishing to see the ease and complete glibness with which the American assumptions flowed from Mr. Valenti's lips, but then, he's famous for that as a public speaker. It highlighted for many of us at that gathering, which was a national convention of television and film producers, one of the dilemmas we face as independent producers, a marketplace that is not national or even North American, but global. There is no film or television production company in the world, particularly in Canada, that can exist without marketing its intellectual property around the world. Without that, we simply cannot survive economically. By the same token, we live in Canada, we live next door to the largest purveyor of popular cultural property in the world. There isn't a country that hasn't been Coca-Cola-ized by the American culture to some degree, and it's a process that continues, and Mr. Valenti is a very apt spokesman for it.

To think that film and television producers creating cultural artifacts within an industrial setting in this country could continue to develop and flourish without some form of both provincial and federal policy that nurtures and encourages the development of that industry would be, at this point in the development of the industry, an error. It is necessary still. The need for it is only accentuated by the trends in globalization and trade discussions. It was pointed out to us quite clearly that culture is up for discussion in the pending round of WTO. It was also pointed out to us that largely as a result of a Canadian initiative, there is now a proposal being circulated internationally for cultural industries to be taken out of the strict WTO context and placed in a context where they would be given their own international instrument. Rather than simply defending against the efforts to completely place cultural industries in a free trade context, this would create a new instrument within which they can be dealt with internationally. That's a very interesting initiative.

At home one of the two trends we have seen significantly increase over the past half-decade or so is the vertical integration of large companies, which are now broadcasters, producers, specialty channels, mainstream broadcasters, distributors, owners of hardware, developers of new media, etc. At the same time as this vertical integration has taken place, its corollary, bigness, has also, of course, taken place, and you've all seen all the examples and are very familiar with them. The impact on independent producers is that we have, in a way, fewer customers. The concentration of ownership makes us far more dependent on a few large companies than we were in a marketplace where there were many smaller companies with whom we could deal.

The advantage of dealing with a large company, of course, is that the resources they could bring to a project are considerable, and the support they can bring to a project is considerable as well. The disadvantage is that there are, in that concentration, tendencies for those companies to wish to take more and more of the rights to intellectual property, which producers have traditionally attempted to retain as their stock in trade. That's what we sell around the world, our intellectual property. It becomes increasingly difficult for us to sell that property if the Canadian broadcast licence takes the majority of those rights, and that has been the trend.

I can give you one example that may illustrate this clearly. A few years back we sold a documentary to a Canadian specialty channel. Their requirements at that time were that we give them an exclusive licence for four years, that we agree not to put streaming video on the Internet, and that we restrict our sale of the programming into the United States, so that they were not placed in direct competition with an American broadcaster that is brought back into Canada through satellite or cable services. Their most recent contract extended their rights period to six years, required all of our Internet rights, and limited our ability to sell our products to the United States, one of our primary markets, so that there was one remaining broadcaster to whom we could sell, period, in the entire American market. That is the trend. It is a serious trend that needs to be looked at by the broadcasters, as well as by our elected representatives.

Finally, I would like to look at a couple of even more home-grown debates. The first is the notion that this industry is either intensely cultural or intensely industrial, and ne'er the twain shall meet. In fact, the reality is that film and television programming is made by large collaborative groups of people who work in teams--it is an industry. You cannot make a movie sitting in a garret with a pen and a pencil. You particularly cannot participate in today's technological world of the Internet, the web, high-definition television, direct-to-home television satellite distribution without being highly technical, including at the level of content producers, which is what our members are; they make content. Without a sense that our industry is both cultural and industrial at the same time, it's difficult to make clear policy that nurtures the industry on a national or provincial level. If we are told, as makers of content, that our mandate and the mandate of those who would support our development is purely cultural, we run into problems on the business side.

¿ (0915)

One of the unfortunate classic examples is, the more specifically, dramatically, clearly, visibly Canadian we are required to be, the more we are required to imprint the Canadian flag on all our actors, the less likely it is that we are going to have a market for our products overseas. If you look at other filmmakers from around the world, the Australians, those from the U.K., who have enjoyed significant success in recent years, their success has not been because they have chosen a bureaucratic method for defining Australian or U.K. content, it has been because they have unabashedly celebrated who and what they are in stories that are universal and appealing to all cultures. That, I think, needs to be the goal of policy in regard to independent production and broadcasting in Canada.

Finally, there is the notion of public versus private. I'm a former CBC radio broadcaster. I worked for that corporation for a number of years. Before that I was involved as a private sector person in the music business, before Canadian content--I'm dating myself here, but I was around before the famous CanCon regulations came into place. Since 1991 I have been back in the private sector. I've worked both sides of that particular fence. My view, and the view of most of our peers, is that the blend that we have of public and private is still an essential component of the broadcast and production industry in this country. The reasons for that, we think, are clear. There are requirements for private companies. I am the chief executive officer of one, I have a responsibility to our bankers, to my partners. Publicly traded companies have a responsibility to their shareholders, which is primarily the making of money, and there's nothing the matter with that ambition. I wouldn't be a private independent producer if I didn't want to make a living at it and if I didn't want to make a profit from it.

On the other hand, there is no question that in the documentary field, in the exploration of issues of social, spiritual, political, and economic impact, the bottom-line motivation that must be part of any private broadcaster's or any private corporation's modus operandi is not necessarily fully harmonious with the seeking of truth in documentary, with the seeking of objectivity, with the seeking of a very broad perspective. There's certainly nothing preventing private broadcasters from dealing with these issues, but their primary responsibility is to please the broadest possible audience, to gain the largest possible ratings, so that their bottom lines serve the needs of their shareholders and their owners.

That is not necessarily the interest of a public broadcaster, and by that I mean not only the CBC. We have a number of regional public broadcasters operating in a very difficult environment these days who also are motivated as much by the desire to provide a venue for the creative output of their population as they are by the profit they can make from commercials. The provincial broadcasters are, in fact, largely non-commercial. So the blend we have right now allows the independent production community to take advantage of the strengths of both of those factors. It is common in this province for the public sector broadcaster, the Saskatchewan Communications Network, to be the triggering broadcaster for our projects, the broadcaster that helps us get projects started. That is not a role that traditionally has been taken, in large measure, by the private broadcasters, who do not license Saskatchewan productions for use in Saskatchewan very often. They're simply not equipped or funded to do so.

Finally, I want to talk about technology. The impact of the Interet, of the web, of notions of streaming video, of our ability to deliver our intellectual product to a global audience without intervening agencies through the web will be profound on the broadcasting and independent production industries in this country. It already has been. There have been two instances, as you know, where private businesses have attempted to rebroadcast material that has been previously created for public and private broadcast use, to put it on web. Both of them have run into copyright problems, as they should. The stock and trade of independent producers is copyright in their intellectual property, and technology is now making that issue an extremely complex one. Therefore, public policy needs to address, as it has been doing in the past, the protection of that intellectual property from the completely normal threats that accrue when technology changes.

At that point I'd like to pause and say that we appreciate very much the opportunity to address this committee. We're happy to take any questions you have. I would be pleased to speak both from the point of view of the industry, as a member and board member of SMPA, and as the chief executive officer of a private independent production company. Thank you very much.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Béland., thank you, Mr. Snook.

We've listened to a host of witnesses over the last few months, literally scores of them, and I think I'm not exaggerating in saying, Mr. Snook, that your presentation today was one of the most challenging and thought-provoking for us. It was well put together for identifying some key issues that we have all to wrestle with. We're most grateful to you for explaining your position so clearly and challenging us to address issues that are at the core of what we're about. We're really grateful to you.

I'd like to open the questioning with Ms. Yelich.

¿ (0925)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I'm just sitting in today. I'm from Saskatchewan, and I'm sitting in for my counterpart who couldn't be here. So this is very new to me, very foreign, but very interesting. I was really interested in your presentation.

I'm just wondering whether in Saskatchewan--because we're in Saskatchewan and this interests me--there are any roadblocks. Are they encouraging the independent broadcasters? Do you find there are any roadblocks with Saskatchewan, or do you find there are good incentives here? I'm just curious.

Mr. Michael Snook: The province has taken great strides in the last two years to both encourage and nurture the industry. We have one of the better tax credit programs in Canada. We have identified clearly and are in current discussions with our provincial government about equity investment programs, which is a weakness in this industry nationwide. As you probably know, and as I think you'll get a chance to see shortly, we are in the process of completing construction of a sound stage in the province, which allows us to produce more complex productions year round. It's not fun shooting at 40 below. There are lots of camera people, directors, and producers who won't miss that a bit when the sound stage opens. So there are significant strides towards encouraging the industry.

As for the remaining obstacles we face, aside from geography, most of the broadcasting industry is not centred in Saskatchewan. I don't think there are any head offices here, nor do we expect to see any in the near future. Our business is almost exclusively done in Toronto or Vancouver. The cost of doing that business is increasing because of the current state of the airline industry.

We, like all members of the industry nationwide, have a perpetual problem as independent producers attempting to create content for broadcasters, because they are our main clients, with licence fees that have not increased in years and a lack of equity investment in our project. Money is always an obstacle. It is not getting easier to finance our projects, it is getting more difficult.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): A few moments ago you referred to the issue of copyright and intellectual property. I would like to tell you that a bill on copyright was tabled in the House of Commons last week, and that the committee will be reviewing the regulations related to the legislation being proposed by the government.

Could you give us some guidelines as to what the regulations should contain in order to better protect intellectual property?

[English]

Mr. Michael Snook: Thank you for asking.

There are two issues we commonly encounter related to copyright. The first is the difficulty of protecting copyright interests in the face of technology, in the face of what is possible with the Internet, with the web. We've seen the two particular examples recently involving companies that wish to do web broadcasting, and the results of their attempts have been, in our view, the correct ones, our copyright interests have been protected.

The second is that the degree to which, in order to finance our projects--and I realize this is not a matter of copyright legislation so much as it is a broadcaster issue--our copyrights can be divided for sale in all the markets around the world with co-production partners, with broadcasters etc., is an increasingly complex matter. Our desire, as producers, is always to retain full ownership of our copyright and full control of it, so that we can, in fact, market our wares independently around the globe. Our rights to do so are increasingly being affected by the fact that technology has essentially erased boundaries, and so the conventional protections that broadcasters have enjoyed around their licences. When broadcasters were essentially terrestrial or cable, it was fairly straightforward to protect their licence rights to our copyright. They were not facing competition, because no one could get signals from anywhere else. Now almost anyone can get signals from almost anywhere. So how do the broadcasters protect their licence rights on our copyright, and how do we ensure that our copyright remains viable as a marketable device around the world in the face of those technological advances? I don't have an answer or a suggestion for you, I just know that it is a very clear and present problem for us.

¿ (0930)

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I forgot to mention that the bill that was tabled refers to copyright and intellectual property on the Internet. It is to cover Internet broadcasting generally. This is Bill C-48. This bill is important for you. I think we need to strike a balance between intellectual property and broadcasting, because this can provide you with considerable amounts of money that will help support creative activities and those involved in production.

You referred earlier to the presence of the Canadian flag. The legislation refers to Canadian content. In Quebec, a number of individuals told us that the requirements of the Canadian television fund were an irritant as regards the percentage of Canadians who must be involved in the production, direction, and so on. Is this also an irritant for you in your efforts to produce products that are acceptable or attractive abroad?

[English]

Mr. Michael Snook: It's certainly a challenge. Our company is, in fact, engaged in putting together this week a co-production with a production company based in Quebec City, a major feature film, and because, in order to finance that film, we must successfully market it outside Canadian borders, we will no doubt be talking about precisely those issues. This is an interesting project, because it was developed by a French filmmaker in Quebec, but is an English-language project. So we're really quite curious about how we're going to make it all work.

The challenge we face is to provide product that is universally appealing, because we must compete in a global marketplace. Do I think it's impossible to be Canadian and do that? Absolutely not. I think the Canadian stories are wonderful stories, universal stories, just as Australian stories are, just as British stories are, just as French stories are, just as German stories are. I think the point at which we begin to impair our ability to deal internationally is when, in order, frankly and justifiably, to protect a public investment in the industry, such as that made by Telefilm or the Canadian Television Fund's licensee program, we begin to make rules that attempt to solve the problem, which is a complex one, in which we are saying, as Canadian filmmakers, if we are going to have access to Canadian taxpayers' money, we must be telling Canadian stories. How do you prove you are doing that? So the rules that are in place are what must be considered.

For example, under Telefilm and Canadian Television Fund rules documentarists are sometimes forced to have lengthy discussions with those two agencies regarding the shooting of their films, because one of the considerations for funding is that they be shot in Canada. That's fine if the documentary subject is a purely Canadian subject, but if a Canadian documentarist wishes to document a natural science or science issue, a political issue that is a global issue, if we wish to be relevant in a world whose issues are global issues, then a significant amount of what we shoot may have to take place outside Canadian borders. We may lose those points for being a Canadian production because we are not shooting a significant portion of what we do within Canada. That is an issue Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund have proven most willing to discuss, but they are in fact bound by the rules currently in place.

¿ (0935)

[Translation]

The Chair: I will give you the floor again later, Ms. Gagnon.

[English]

Mr. Harvard, then Mr. Gallaway.

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

Mr. Snook, you pointed out that the U.S. is the largest purveyor of pop culture, and that certainly is true. You say you need policy to support the industry. Can you give us one or two examples of the kind of policy you want to help your industry?

Mr. Michael Snook: I believe the examples are already extant and simply need to be maintained and improved: the kind of incentive to the industry that is present in the policies regarding Telefilm, both on the feature film side and on the television side, with the Canadian Television Fund, the kind of incentives that result from the federal tax credit program.

Mr. John Harvard: When you use the word incentive, is it a euphemism for more money?

Mr. Michael Snook: We have no choice but to spend money to make our products, and it is the single largest obstacle Canadian producers face in getting their products both created and to market, the financing of them. We are in a market that is one of the smallest in the world domestically. Therefore, we have no choice but to be highly aggressive in finding our funding elsewhere than in Canada. So those particular policies are extremely important.

Mr. John Harvard: Can you tell me, Mr. Snook, in comparison with other countries, are Canadian subsidies to your industry fairly niggardly? How would you describe our supports in comparison with other countries?

Mr. Michael Snook: My experience to this point is that they are about in the middle of the range. Australia's are considerably more generous than Canada's. Some of the European countries are less generous. Some are about the same. There is a great difference in the way those policies are applied around the world. In some cases they are, as here, done through things like tax credits, as well as direct support from agencies such as Telefilm. In some countries there is very little in the way of tax credits, and it is much more an arts council granting system. But in general, Canada sits pretty much in the middle of the range.

Mr. John Harvard: To do the job properly, in your opinion, would we have to double the subsidies or triple them? Have you thought about it in that regard?

Mr. Michael Snook: I don't think I'm either equipped or informed enough to give you that kind of number. I know that at their present level of financing, all the public funds are oversubscribed by a significant percentage, 50 percent or more. That oversubscription is in part a response to market forces. Producers can't produce what broadcasters won't broadcast, we can only produce what there is a market for. The current broadcasting environment, with the proliferation of channels and opportunities and the demand for content, has driven the producer population in this country up. Six years ago at Banff there were--I'm going by memory here--slightly over 1,000 registered delegates, the majority of whom were registering themselves as independent producers; last year at the Banff Television Festival in June there were in the neighbourhood of 2,000 delegates, of whom some 1,700 were self-declared independent producers in Canada. That's a direct response to the explosion in the broadcasting industry. All 1,700 of those are after the same small pool of funds.

Mr. John Harvard: And yet you pointed out earlier that because of concentration of ownership and vertical integration, you have fewer customers--you being these 1,700 or so. So because of the proliferation of your numbers, which I would think breaks the market up even more so, while you have fewer customers, you must be under even more pressure than before?

¿ (0940)

Mr. Michael Snook: There's a great deal of pressure on independent producers with the market we face right now. The vertical integration and concentration of ownership is an interesting phenomenon, because what you have now is a few companies controlling many outlets. It's not that there are fewer broadcasters around. Alliance-Atlantis, for example, owns quite a large number of broadcasting outlets, any one of which our company could produce for. But we are dealing with a single corporate entity, its policies, its ability to finance, and its range of licence fees, rather than a more competitive environment in which all those outlets are separately owned and managed. So the usual problems we have with concentration of ownership apply here.

What we have found is that there has been no significant increase, by and large, a noticeable decrease in some cases, in licence fees for our projects within Canada. The usual increased costs all industries are faced with through normal rates of inflation, however small, increased costs for international marketing, because that is not an inexpensive activity to undertake, those things combined have put a great deal of financial pressure on the industry.

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia--Lambton, Lib.): You talked about the number of independent producers nationwide growing in six years from 1,000 to 1,700, and you talk about fewer customers. Do you have any idea of the magnitude of decrease in the base of customers?

Mr. Michael Snook: The actual number of potential customers for us has increased as the television world has splintered into dozens of specialty channels, now dozens of digital specialty channels. However, the financing available to those channels to buy our products has also splintered. Their marketplace, their ability to gain commercial revenue, has been divided into smaller and smaller slices of the pie, as we all know. Therefore, the amount of money they are able to provide to fill half an hour or an hour of broadcasting time is far less than the cost of producing a quality Canadian product. While we have a lot of customers, they don't have a lot of money.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Let me ask you this, then. Rather than being identified as a problem in the marketplace, could this not be identified as just healthy growth in the marketplace, as the adjustment, to use the stock market term, is going to take place anyway, so there's really nothing any government policy or agency can do about it?

Mr. Michael Snook: There are two parts to your question. I think the answer to the first part is that there will be a settling-out in the industry. If the number of independent producers from the country is beyond the tolerance of the industry to sustain, there will be a falling away. I think we can anticipate the same thing for broadcasters. If there are too many digital channels people don't want to watch, they will not sustain them. Certainly, there is an adjustment period, and we're going through it right now.

The second part of your question, letting the marketplace simply have its way, rather than attempting to solve at a governmental level a problem that is insoluble, I would answer like this. There is never a perfect answer to that market forces question. However, the one power that governments do have in looking at the industrial base in their countries, one all western nations have used for dozens, if not hundreds, of years, is the ability to moderate, to channel, to direct, and to cultivate the growth of their economies by finding ways of assisting those industries to navigate through periods of change. That may involve specific policies that are non-monetary, but it almost always involves policies that are financial in nature as well. I don't see that changing in the near future. I don't see our industry as so strong that it no longer needs to be consisting of a strong public and private partnership. I do not see our market as large enough to sustain that. And I see the role of government as being a moderating and a nurturing one, rather than a strictly regulating one.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I'm trying to understand your statement about verticalization for your customers. We do have a limited number of competition laws in this country. Do you think that with this marketplace to which you refer, there's a need for new laws, because these are new phenomena? Do you think the government needs to step in, then, and limit the acquisition of various media by certain companies? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Michael Snook: I think there's a public responsibility to ask that question. I don't think you can look at the effect technology has had on the broadcast industry, its partners in print, or its partners in the production industry, the content creators, and simply say, we don't have to examine this, we don't have to worry about these problems. I think questions have to be asked by government. What are the implications? Is it necessary for us to impose controls, and if so, what should they be? I think government needs to ask those questions. Do I know the answers? No, I don't.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: You're here on behalf of an association. Do they have a response?

Mr. Michael Snook: I think that response would be somewhat variable. The people I've talked to in our association in an attempt to try to get a flow of opinion have said to me, basically, they feel there is a continued need for government monitoring and careful management of the process. Nobody I have talked to is a huge fan of more rules and regulations that would make our jobs, as independent producers, yet more burdensome. The amount of paper we have to generate as it is has become extraordinary. We're not looking for more rules and regulations. However, it is clearly in the public interest to monitor and to determine what's necessary to best manage the trends we're facing in technology, and not simply say, let it take its course.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming here. The last time I saw Michael Snook, he was a soft-spoken, reflective producer at CBC, and I was a playwright, so we're both in a different chapter in our lives right now.

I want to ask you about your comment on international trade, and I guess that has to do with globalization and foreign ownership. I know at the end of this week there's a conference in Montreal and there'll be papers given at that point. I guess the leading expert on this topic will be talking about foreign ownership regulations and how the whole telecommunications sector is going to fare under possible trade agreements. We are working away in our very dedicated way here, and we are hoping we are going to be able to have a major impact on the future of our broadcasting environment, but obviously, if a trade agreement comes into play that changes the nature of what telecommunications is about and the doors are swept open, we are looking at a different world altogether. I'd like your comments on that.

I'd also like to share with you that we met with the creators of Nelvana in Toronto, and we really loved that story. In 1973 these young, creative geniuses got together, put together a company, and they started making cutting-edge animation. They very much benefited by the programs in place, Telefilm, the Canada Council, all the things our government, in its wisdom, decided we needed so that we could be cutting-edge and world-class. Now, 30 years later, they've sold out to Corus, and they do not seem to have any trouble with foreign ownership restrictions being dispensed with. Our chair asked, do you mean to say you don't mind being owned by Disney at this point? It didn't appear that was a threat to him. It stuns me. I'd like to hear your comments on that. How do you see the foreign ownership restrictions being lifted? What about this possible sweeping away of all our protections?

¿ (0950)

Mr. Michael Snook: I met with a representative of Disney Corporation two years ago at a major north American television production event, NATP, which was at that time held in New Orleans. He said he was anxious to do business with Canadian companies such as ours, but he said, I want to tell you a Canadian joke, and I hope you won't be insulted. We said, of course not. He said, we deal with Americans, and they're just gung-ho and want the best for themselves in the world, while the problem with the Canadians is that their slogan is, “Go for the bronze.” It was a very interesting illustration of how Canadian companies are perceived, at least by some of the larger American companies.

Nelvana is an extraordinary success story. I believe that through the earlier stages of their development as a small and medium-sized company they could not have achieved what they have achieved, which is truly a sterling achievement, both in their ability to create extraordinary content and in their business skills, if it were not for the policies that support the Canadian cultural industries. Those policies would, in all likelihood, disappear under rules such as complete free trade, such as NAFTA.

It concerns me greatly, because it is not a level playing field. All we need do to see that is simply follow the daily news stories on the softwood lumber industry. It is not a level playing field. That was made clear in the message Mr. Valenti had for the producers in Ottawa. While praising us to the hilt for the kind of development we have created with our tax credit programs across the country and saying he fully intended to take them to Washington and copy them verbatim, if he could, he also said that so far as he was concerned, if the Americans were bigger and better and faster , they deserved to win, and all this cultural protectionism was just nonsense, because the true test is whether or not somebody wants to go and watch your movie. The fact is, people only get to see what they're allowed to see on the screens. We're still, in Canada, in a situation where 97 percent of our motion picture screens are not available to Canadian motion picture producers. That's not a level playing field. If the playing field were truly level, if we all had completely equal access to all the customers, all the sources of money, and all the advantages that every other country in the world has, regardless of our small size in comparison to the Americans, or even in comparison to the European Union, the comments might be absolutely appropriate. That is not the reality. The reality is, there isn't an even playing field.

I was in the music business in this country before the Canadian content regulations were put into place. I worked for the CBC during the time those Canadian content regulations had their most profound impact, and I watched the careers of a dozen, two dozen, three dozen Canadian musicians soar. I watched it to the point where they are now internationally recognized. There are probably some Canadian performer-musicians who would say we don't need that Canadian content stuff any more, because of the level of success they have achieved on the back of that policy.

The same thing has been true of the film industry. Our market domestically is far too small to be dependent only on our ability to raise capital in the market in Canada. Nelvana didn't do that, they took full advantage of policies at Telefilm and so on. They were able, through their genius, to parlay that into a position of great strength. If we want the small companies coming up today, the new multi-media companies, the kids who are making their first documentary, to become the Nelvanas of 2040 or 2050, what policies will support them? If the market place is not truly yet a level playing field, and it is not, what will enable them to be here 40 or 50 years from now, when people like me are long gone?

Ms. Wendy Lill: On that same thing, if Disney had owned Nelvana back in 1971, would we have seen that kind of creative genius? I'm wondering how you feel Canadian content would fare if head office were in Hollywood.

Mr. Michael Snook: I think the Walt Disney Corporation--not to pick on them, but they are a prominent example--has had a genius throughout its corporate history for nurturing creative brilliance. It has put on the world stage some of the best product ever made. However, I'm not sure a Canadian telling Canadian stories would come up with Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. What is the Canadian sensibility that would be in place if the power, the control, and the money were in the hands of those who do not live in our climate, who do not live with our history, who do not live with our unique social and linguistic background, who do not live in our political climate? It's so easy for us, as Canadians, to feel that the projects we create, the ideas we come up with, are somehow not as good as what Mr. Disney can produce.

Again, I'll go to the Australian example. Their film industry, which came from almost nothing to being an absolute star on the international stage, did so by producing unabashedly Australian stories of universal appeal. That's the task facing every Canadian filmmaker, to make a story rooted in your own place and time and sensibilities that will speak to the world. If we can prevent the bureaucracy from impeding our ability to be universally appealing, and at the same time nurture our industry, so that we are telling Canadian stories, not American westerns, we will have accomplished something significant. It's a very difficult thing to make a policy that would do that. We're not doing badly right now. We actually have policy instruments that achieve that reasonably well. Unproblematically? Absolutely not. But do they act in a way that has enabled an industry to grow and achieve what Nelvana has done? Absolutely.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

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

I'm encouraged by your presentation today, and I agree with much of what you've had to say. It seems to me those who are successful in any industry are those who have a vision and want to promote it, take some risks in getting there, are smart in taking advantage of all the systems in place, whether they like them or not, and produce something of high quality. I think you've laid out for us a very good example of how an independent producer can be successful, and that's encouraging.

Yet you've mentioned the Canadian content rules, you've alluded to the paperwork issue. Others have mentioned this as well, and that it takes a considerable amount of time away from being able to focus on the other part, the more important part, getting on with the vision, the production, and the business side of it. Could you give us some of your insights into where there may be an ability to streamline in that particular area?

Mr. Michael Snook: There is a crying need--and I suppose that the leadership, in addressing it, could equally well come from the federal presence as from any province--for harmonization of the rules that apply to the programs Canadian independent producers and broadcasters can avail themselves of. Right now, for a typical independent producer to create a product a Canadian broadcaster can put on the air, we are generally looking at four, five, six, seven, eight, as many as ten funding sources. Each of those funding sources will have its own particular set of policy, bureaucratic, and paperwork requirements. Some of those requirements will be in conflict, so part of my job is to navigate and negotiate to get the broadcaster and the bank and Telefilm Canada and Rogers and the CanWest independent production fund to agree to compromise their policies so that they fit with each other, so that we're not breaching one contract in signing another. The result of this paperwork jungle is that one-third of our staff at Westwind Pictures is exclusively occupied on what we call business affairs.

Mr. Grant McNally: Administrivia.

Mr. Michael Snook: Administration of paper. Administrivia.

The simplest way to make that better is one we've spoken about with all the agencies, public and private. We've certainly heard from Telefilm, from the Canadian Television Fund, from our own SaskFilm, from other provincial agencies, from the private funds, that they would like to do this. It would be to harmonize and streamline so that many of the rules are the same. We are, after all, all working in the same industry. The expectations of our financiers are not dramatically different one from the other. Canadian law is Canadian law. Although there are some obvious variations from province to province, the overarching notions of that law are not foreign from Ontario to Quebec to Newfoundland. So the streamlining is an extremely important initiative, which seems not to have a champion at the moment.

À (1000)

Mr. Grant McNally: Right.

This leads me to my next question--maybe you've already answered it. What agency do you see as the best able to spearhead that? It's going to take leadership if it's ever to happen, and given that there are so many different entities....

Mr. Michael Snook: My own suggestion in that regard, and I think it reflects the views of a number of my peers, would be that since, in a way, the grandfather of these agencies is Telefilm Canada, it should be the federal public agency to take the rule in that regard. There is another wisdom in this, in that while all of us across the country have our provincial programs that we subscribe to and must come to learn the regulations of, we all have in common the federal regulations around CAVCO, Telefilm, and the CTFLP.

Mr. Grant McNally: So you've found that this bureaucracy and paperwork has impeded your ability to produce.

Mr. Michael Snook: It reduces our efficiency considerably. It's a very costly, time-consuming process that is not improving. It is getting more complex, more time-consuming, and more costly as time goes on. I must say, I'm not casting stones at any particular agency. I don't think it's Telefilm's fault or CAVCO's fault or SaskFilm's fault or the Manitoba Film Organization's fault, but the result of a system that has grown like Topsy, willy-nilly. It evolved in response to a very vital and fast-moving industry, and no one has championed the solution at this point.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, did you want another question?

Mr. John Harvard: I have one question, Mr. Snook. If I didn't hear you incorrectly, you seem not to object to making Canadian productions that are marketable around the world. I can certainly see, from a business point of view, that makes a lot of sense. However, from a Canadian point of view, is there not a risk, if that's taken too far, of diluting the Canadian brand, so that over time it might be really difficult to tell a Canadian production from any other, because it has to have this global brand on it?

Mr. Michael Snook: My two favourite examples are a fairly aging one and a very contemporary one. The aging one is the Crocodile Dundee series from Australia. There could be no mistaking where that came from or what culture it represented, and yet the story it told was as universally appealing as an American western or a British-produced war story. The universal storytelling elements in that would appeal in any culture.

My most favourite recent example is a new series on Canadian television, Canadian-produced, clearly based in Calgary, Tom Stone, of which I've just seen the first two episodes. I believe that although it is clearly set in the context of Calgary's oil patch, it would, because of the quality of production, the style of production, the nature of the stories, be competitive in many markets in this world. I hope it is, because one of the most difficult things to do is sell a dramatic series outside Canada. That's proved to be a very difficult thing in the past. Nowhere in that production was there any overt and deliberate reference to say, this is Calgary, this is southern Alberta, we are Canadian production, we are speaking with a Canadian accent. They simply told a good oil patch detective story, told it well, produced it brilliantly, wrote it well, but you could recognize the Calgary skyline, you could recognize the setting, you could certainly tell it had a feel and a cultural characteristic that was as Canadian as Crocodile Dundee was Australian. I think that's the achievement we have to make.

Mr. John Harvard: You're right.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like to know whether the independent production industry has a market with the CBC. In the case of Radio-Canada, there are agreements entered into for the purpose of seeking independent production. Is that a market that can guarantee revenue for you?

[English]

Mr. Michael Snook: Saskatchewan's actually had a very positive relationship with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over the years. A number of the production companies in this province have been able to produce their first national series through licences to the CBC. We were involved in one of the first programs, called What On Earth, which ran on CBC's network for 595 episodes. Another producer in this city was able to produce a program called Utopia Cafe, which ran for several years on CBC. CBC's Rough Cuts has purchased a number of documentaries from our documentary makers, and Saskatchewan is nothing if not a documentary-making province. Our company currently has in an advanced stage of development a major series for preschoolers, which is also being developed with, and could not be developed without, the assistance of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They continue to be a part of our market. They are, like all Canadian broadcasters, limited in the financing they can bring to a deal. Their licences do not cover 100 percent of our expenses in production, nor do the private broadcasters. However, they are invaluable to us, in that they are collaborators, they assist us in development, and they have done so in this province for most of the 11 years that I have been involved as an independent producer here. We would miss them if they were not in that market.

À (1005)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Snook, could I ask you a couple of questions? You referred to the industry as a sort of hybrid of industry and culture, and you said, of course it's industrial, for obvious reasons. Is there a conundrum there for us, in that protection for the industry has got to veer on the cultural side? This is where we're going to get, hopefully, protection from the WTO through a new convention or protocol. Yet the more we admit that it is an industry, the more we are caught in the WTO fix, because then we're seen as an industry, which is what the Americans will want. So from a tactical point of view, wouldn't it be better for us to treat the industry as a cultural industry, in the hope that the cultural diversity idea we're floating becomes a reality, so that we can escape the WTO?

Mr. Michael Snook: It's a tricky problem, isn't it? It's a very tricky problem. There's no question that it has been an effective strategy to this point to, for example, define Telefilm's and the Canadian Television Fund's objectives in pretty much exclusively cultural terms, in order to avoid the issues of direct subsidies to an industry. I only become concerned, and my peers become concerned, when we see documents that say such things as, it is time to dispense with the economic aspects of this policy entirely. We have seen those suggestions made regarding such agencies as Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund in recent years. We continue to tussle with a blend, and a blend that obviously is a balancing act. Go too far in one direction, you impede our ability to operate as an economically viable enterprise. Go to too far in the other direction, you risk the wrath of the free-traders south of the border and elsewhere. It is a very tricky thing. I believe what's necessary is a balance. We become very concerned when we see language that suggests our industry is either exclusively this or exclusively that, when in fact it's both.

The Chair: Yesterday we had an extensive point of view about financing. One of your colleagues from Edmonton was pointing out that financing has become a nightmare. She described, I think, the story of a Mr. O'Brien from Newfoundland, who went broke having to mortgage his house and everything, losing all his assets, to obtain financing from the bank. Is this your reality? The Export Development Corporation guarantees backing for interim loans. Should we have such a system to avoid having people put their personal assets on the line while they wait for financing, or would the overhaul of the bureaucracy, as suggested by Mr. McNally, clear that problem altogether?

À (1010)

Mr. Michael Snook: Where to start? Your story rings true. I don't know anybody in this industry who hasn't come close to taking, if not having done so more than once, a second mortgage on their house to finance a project. I don't know of a single company that hasn't had regular cashflow panics several times a year. Our relationship with the banks is a very interesting one. Not all the Canadian banks will provide financing to this industry. Banks, as you know, are essentially zero-risk institutions, and they make no bones about it. So they will ask for whatever security they feel reduces their risk to zero. However, they have made our lives more difficult of late.

Several of the major banks have imposed upon smaller producers, those who produce projects at values of less than $1 million, a requirement of something called a completion bond, which is a form of insurance that is simply not available to most smaller producers of projects in this country. So now young documentary makers, not only in this province, but elsewhere, are scrambling to find alternative bridge financing for their projects, because they're too small to do business with the banks and they have no alternative source. Some of our provincial agencies are looking at alternative means of bridge financing for our productions, and we would encourage those agencies that are doing so to continue doing so, because it is a problem that seems to be getting worse.

As to where government policy or regulation would be of assistance, I've already raised the matter of an agency like Telefilm taking the leadership in streamlining the processes and ensuring that the safeguards that are put in place by such agencies as Telefilm over a producer's copyright ownership, for example, and financing structures are consistent across the country. That would be useful.

A second thing that would be useful would also relate to agencies such as Telefilm. They do this to a degree now. Some of the Telefilm rules we must abide by as independent producers are actually there to prevent us from taking deals that are not in our best interest from those who would take advantage of our financial straits. Those kinds of rules--and I won't bore you with the details--are valuable to us. Agencies such as Telefilm can moderate the climate in which we finance our projects and protect us in very useful ways from less than useful business practices.

The Chair: I have just one final question. You seem to suggest that the point system now on Canadian content is a hindrance to production. What would you suggest to us as an alternative to the present point system?

Mr. Michael Snook: I'm not sure I would overhaul the point system per se. I think what I would do is encourage a reasonable and analytic approach to the way in which the points are applied, and I'll use the documentary production as the example once again.

When the rules were first published, they were very clear and very simple, and they caused me to immediately pick up the phone and call the Canadian Television Fund's office in Toronto and say, I have pending an international documentary, an international treaty co-production, that must travel to seven countries in the world in order to cover its content. One of those countries is Canada, but only about one-tenth of the content can be shot here, because of the subject matter. Under your rules it appears that I will not get the points for Canadian content for shooting in Canada, in fact, I will lose half of the Canadian content points available to me. I'm sure that there were many such calls when those rules first came out. There has been some movement on the part of the Canadian Television Fund to acknowledge the difficulty documentary filmmakers face in making their projects both intellectually accurate and internationally marketable. It is that approach that I would urge be applied to all genres.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Béland and Mr. Snook. This has been extremely informative for us. We appreciate it.

I'll call on Ms. Merran Proctor. Ms. Proctor, I would like to welcome you. We really appreciate individual citizens appearing before us. You represent the grassroots in a way. That's what we're here to make contact with, so we really appreciate your presence. We're ready to hear from you.

À (1015)

Ms. Merran Proctor (Individual Presentation): Good. When I picked up your terms of reference, my original intention was not necessarily to come, but to encourage people to come, because I think this is an important area. If I'm to identify myself, I would say I am fiercely Canadian. I am keenly interested in democracy and the participation of citizens in public broadcasting. I want us to stay Canadian and I want to keep a unique Canadian culture.

So I downloaded the terms of reference and took them around to people I thought might have something to say to you. I didn't cover broadly, but I went to the university, I went to a couple of citizens groups. What I heard was, oh, this is so complex, there is so much of it, it will take too much time--how will we do it, we only have three weeks? Or I heard things like, there are only a couple of employers here, why would I want to comment on public or private broadcasting? So I said I'd do it, and of course, I got up at 4 this morning to finish it.

I started off by just going through your questions and thinking about things. As I worked through those and I worked through some questions of my own, I came up with some recommendations. I'll start by giving you my recommendations, and add some colour. You can ask me about why I thought this way, but at least we can get through it.

I've divided my recommendations into two types, short-term recommendations about what I think you should do now and a longer-term recommendation. For the short-term, let's do first things first. Let's protect and enhance the instruments you already have. I know there are a lot of complicated technical questions you're facing, there's some uncertainty about regulating more or regulating less. You've got to keep studying those questions, and you may pick up some good information.

But first let's look at the good things you've got. You've got to continue to support the goals of the Broadcasting Act and the Canadian broadcasting policy in section 3 of the 1991 Broadcasting Act. After reading through and talking to people, I tested it a little bit. I gave you a little questionnaire I did with an evening introductory political science class. These are students taking a first-year course. They cut across a fairly broad spectrum. You have people who have worked for years and are back studying, we have some aboriginal people in there. If you go through and look at the findings of this little group of 41 students, you'll find that your goals are supported.

I was surprised, actually, to see the support for CBC television: 100 percent of the people who thought we should support Canadian broadcasting thought we should do that. I prefer the radio myself, but that was the result. I think one of the biggest instruments we have is the CBC. You have to recommend restoring funding and significantly enhance the capacity. We need more and better quality, more diversity. We need a decent regional production budget for both CBC radio and television. And when we talk about new funds, regionally and centrally, I'd like to see it used for innovation in programming and to capture diverse bilingual and multicultural aspects of Canada. Especially in respect of Saskatchewan, I'd really like to make a strong plea for the traditional kind of work that CBC has done, which is to train people for the industry, to include our aboriginal people, and to deal with some of the questions we don't get enough coverage about here.

For example, there's a lot been written about undercovered stories, areas we don't talk a lot about, working people, labour, first nations, the environment. I think there's a responsibility. We should ask the CBC to delve into this. We don't need to turn to CTV news, CBC news, Global news and see exactly the same story on everything. I want, as a Saskatchewan person, to hear a lot more about Quebec, and not just through filtered lenses. I want to hear about it through the people's voices. Did we need the clarity bill? Were there two sides? The polling in Quebec showed that people felt insulted. Explain this to us. Let us talk. Let us have a dialogue.

So what I'm saying very clearly is that your policy and some of your instruments are very good, but I think you need to fix the current administrative machinery. The problem is not the policy contained in the Broadcasting Act, but some of the existing regulatory and administrative instruments. When I talk about strengthening regulatory and administrative instruments, I want to mention that I teach part-time in the Faculty of Administration, and I've worked in government. Administrative instruments do not have to see a poor person trying to make films going to 10 different agencies to try to cobble together a package. Good administration is streamlined, is clear, is confident, business knows what to expect, it's found in one place.

The basic principles have to be enforced for both public and private sectors. We need a transparent and democratic approach to selecting boards for our main administrative agencies. I went to a CRTC meeting the other day. It was the first time I knew of this person on the CRTC board, who I'm sure is fine talking to journalism students, but I think there are a lot of people here who would like to have some input on who these people are and how they're selected.

There's a whole bunch of other administrative instruments. Put a break on the concentration of media ownership and the vertical integration of media. Allow for the clear separation of public and private production financing to ensure safeguards. It doesn't mean they can't work together, but they should work as equal partners, they should both be able to bring things to the table. Develop and implement the concept of citizens' editorial boards and citizens' participation in administration. Increase transparency in government operations under a single department; that would be a start to streamlining things. Eliminate corporate media donations to political parties; whether they affect the decision that political parties make or not, the appearance is everything. I talk to young kids who aren't bothering to vote every day. I teach political science part-time, as well as public administration, and these kids don't have faith in our system. The appearance to them is not working. Continue to protect democracy and public space on the Internet, and withdraw from trade agreements that impinge on our cultural sovereignty.

À (1020)

For a longer-term recommendation, I'm saying let's set up a royal commission to develop, in consultation with Canadians from coast to coast--and I mean talking to Canadians at an ordinary level, not through seven pages of terms of reference--an integrated set of policies on broadcasting, telecommunications, print media, and new media, to sustain Canadian values, culture, ownership, sovereignty, and public space.

À (1025)

The Chair: That was a breath of fresh air.

It's most interesting what you've done and backed up with your survey and everything else. I think it's just great what you've produced here. So it's nice that you came and took the time and trouble.

Ms. Merran Proctor: I'd like to add one more recommendation too, after listening to Mr. Snook. I might as well make it comprehensive.

Although I'm not concentrating on the film industry and I'm not a big expert on it, I'd really suggest that there are some short-term things you can do to level the playing field for the film industry. I've seen some great little documentaries produced in Moose Jaw, and I wanted to say to people in Regina, go and see these things, they're just great, but there's no place for them to be shown.

The Chair: Are you talking about distribution of movies?

Ms. Merran Proctor: Yes. Most Canadian films can't even get into our regular film houses, as he commented.

The Chair: Well, thank you very much.

Mrs. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much. I have to agree with the chair that what you have to say is fresh and clear, and it's backed up with your own research, which is really pure gold, to get the comments you had from a group of students at the university.

Your first recommendation is to protect and enhance the instruments we have. I've read the Conference for the Arts paper to the committee. They represent 100,000 creators in the country, and that's number one on their list as well. The Broadcasting Act works, the goals there are solid, and they're words to live by and to build the structure with.

I'm interested in your comments about people's hesitancy in coming here and the fact that there are two employers in this town, and you have to be careful what you say. So I'd like you to talk a bit more about the impact of media concentration on your community and what it means to you.

Ms. Merran Proctor: When I went to listen to the person from the CRTC, she was meeting with journalism students. So I went in, and I had given the information to the journalism people I taught. Afterwards I talked to a couple of students and said, are any of you going to say things, as you're going to work in the industry? One said, CanWest Global owns everything, Izzy Asper owns all the main print media, and CBC is our other chance of some decent employment. Even though I've got views, what can I say?

The vertical integration question came from them, and it came in an unusual way. I heard them ask the woman from the CRTC, can't you do anything about this cross ownership? And they were actually worried about what a lot of young people are worried about now, our lives, where people are working day and night. They want some quality education. What they were talking about as prospective working journalists was the feeling that they would be on call 24 hours for different industries.

À (1030)

Ms. Wendy Lill: So you're saying that increased concentration has made them, reporters, on-air people, subject to that multi-tasking factor right now.

Ms. Merran Proctor: Multi-tasking was the thing that came up, the day that's never going to end. The other thing that really came up is a loss of autonomy, because they don't have many options for changing jobs. If somebody doesn't like the work I do or if I say something in the wrong way, I'll be in trouble.

I wrote a letter to the editor about two or three weeks ago. The national editorial policy of Mr. Asper particularly affected one of our columnists, Doug Cuthand, who is one of the very few first nations columnists we have here. A column of his was withdrawn because, so the word was, he compared Palestine to life on reserve. It just so happened I'd been on a tour a year ago to Palestine, and everybody who was there said, this reminds me of our Canadian reserves. His column was cut locally, and then there were some insulting words about it. I thought, this is not something that can be said nationally about somebody I respect so much; if I saw that about me in the paper, I'd quit. But I thought, where could he go? My reason for writing the letter was to say, please, I've learned so much about first nations issues from the only first nations person who writes in the Regina Leader Post, don't force him out. He's still there so far--I saw his column.

That captured for me what the journalist students were fearing about employers. When there's only one employer, if something goes wrong, how can you be an independent journalist?

The Chair: Mrs. Yelich.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Should the current public and private mix in Canadian broadcasting be maintained or modified? The way it is, do you want to modify it, or do you think it should just be the way it is right now?

Ms. Merran Proctor: I'm not going to be an expert on any of this, but what I have seen is that the amount of access we have generally to television all over is wide. We don't have as much variety as might appear, but that private sector has expanded hugely since maybe the late 1970s, 1980s, whereas the public sector has remained about the same. So I think there is a logical argument to be made for more public space. I also think it's very important that we encourage a lot of quality. So as we put new funds into developing the public space, you'd have to weigh all of those things. I don't know that there's an easy answer.

À (1035)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I just want to go back to your remarks on Mr. Cuthand. I thought that when Mr. Asper went after him, it was because of the quality of work Mr. Cuthand was doing. I think there are very good aboriginal writers. I personally have done some interviews with a gentleman out of Saskatoon who writes for an aboriginal paper. I always see his articles, and I'm really very impressed with a lot of them. I thought Mr. Asper was particularly going after the quality of Mr. Cuthand's work. If I followed Mr. Cuthand, I'd be out of a job, because he doesn't like us. I was not disappointed when Mr. Cuthand was reprimanded, because I don't think he does the quality of work that a lot of aboriginal writers do. There are some very good ones out there, and I would like to see more of them. I'm disappointed that he represents all the writers for the aboriginals.

Ms. Merran Proctor: I've been reading his column for 10 years. I think it is of high quality, and it's presented some different views to me. You don't have to agree with the columnist's views. I've never noticed that lack of quality, but if you have something to say to your employee, you don't have to say it in front of the whole country.

The Chair: Maybe we are getting onto a slippery slope by discussing a particular individual. I think we should really avoid that.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Good morning. As the chair said, your remarks are like a breath of fresh air, but I can tell you that a number of other witnesses have made some comments similar to yours. They came to remind us that there must be greater public participation and greater transparency, and that we must get the support of the media and the political parties and get out of trade agreements. When I hear that Canada's sovereignty is compromised, it makes me think about something else. This hearing about Canadian sovereignty is new for me, and it is particularly in the context of globalization that we hear such comments. As a sovereignist, this reminds me of our concerns about our own sovereignty and our ways of protecting our institutions.

I come now to the issue of concentration. You say that you would like to know why Quebeckers were outraged by Bill C-20. I could talk to you about that this morning, but I do not think this is the time to talk about the veto we wanted for young offenders and that we were unable to obtain when the bill was passed in the House.

Will media concentration make it possible to explain to English Canadians outside Quebec the issues at stake in Quebec? We can talk about the percentage of support for sovereignty, but I think we need to go beyond that. We must take into account the desire of a people to be free and to maintain their way of seeing and interpreting the world. All expressions of culture are important in the context of sovereignty, and Canada raises this issue precisely in the context of globalization. It feels threatened. Personally, I am very moved when I hear from the francophone communities outside Quebec during this trip. I can tell you that you are encouraging me to think more deeply about the urgency of understanding the issues that will face us in the future as a society if we do not maintain our cultural assets.

I would like to ask a question about the vertical concentration of the press, cross ownership and centralization. Personally, I think that all the concentration that could be done has been done, unless something gives somewhere and we find a different model, because the current model is not working.

How can we set some guidelines on all of this? We are trying to provide more support for freedom of the press and cross ownership in the print and electronic media. How can we go about this? We cannot prevent this trend, it has already happened. We have already signed. I think we should have been more proactive earlier. So we are dealing with a situation that is already cast in stone. We cannot prevent private stakeholders from making certain purchases, but do you think we could make a breakthrough in regulations on the freedom of the press to ensure that journalists can continue to enjoy their right to freedom of the press without any influence from the print or electronic media?

Are you pessimistic about this? Are you saying that this should be prevented? There have already been some significant mergers. Most television networks and newspapers have been bought up. We may see a little more of this, but how far can we go? Should there be a moratorium? Give me some solutions to shed some light on this matter for us so that we can make some proposals to the government.

À (1040)

[English]

The Chair: That was a short question.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Political science is a very broad field.

[English]

Ms. Merran Proctor: It moved me very much that you hear western Canadians who care about you.

What can I do? I'm just one voice. That's why I have the long-term recommendation for a royal commission. There have been plenty of times when government, especially right after the Second World War, stepped in and took charge. English Canadians and French Canadians have to hear each other. You have to be allowed to present your case. It's Quebeckers who will try to make those decisions about how you're going to do it, not me. I can think what I would like, and I think what's important is that English Canadians listen to you, because we have to listen to each other to be together.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon will go back and say, see, I was in Saskatchewan, they're all for the sovereignty of Quebec.

Ms. Merran Proctor: I'm one of those emotional people who would like to connect more with Quebec.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I have a couple of observations before I ask you a question. You mentioned earlier that you would have liked to have the opportunity to share in the debate over the clarity act from a Quebec perspective. I understand that, but I think your observation simply shows our inability to leap the chasm between the two language services, French and English. Unfortunately, because of our public broadcast system, French-speaking people talk to themselves in their language, English-speaking people talk to themselves in the English language. The crossover doesn't happen as often as I would like to see it happen.

Second, you mentioned young people losing faith in the electoral system. I know you didn't intend to be glib about it, and you may be right in your observation, but I'm not sure about that. We were all much younger at one time, and I suspect it's not so much a case of alienation or estrangement, but one of not yet opting into the system. I was, perhaps, a bit more politically motivated when I was in my early and middle twenties than others, but I'm not too sure whether I had opted into the system, at least to the degree that I opted in when I was 35 or 40.

Getting to the question, it has to do with your suggestion about more minority programming, more diversity, which I think we're all in favour of. It's more or less motherhood. The problem I think we have, though, is that we've never had a debate about that. If we're going to turn CBC public broadcasting into a true alternative to commercial broadcasting--which I support, by the way; I really think the CBC should have an entirely different look from commercial operations--it probably means it's going to have much weaker ratings, smaller audiences. I am prepared to accept that, some Canadians aren't, but I think we should have that debate. If we're going to have that kind of public broadcasting system, we wil have to answer some questions first. What do you think?

À (1045)

Ms. Merran Proctor: I think audiences are changing, and I don't think quality is going to drive down the numbers of people you have participating. That's a long debate. I know, historically, in the entertainment business there are certain canned things. But I talk to my 16-year-old son, and those kids are going to alternative media, because they want to put together things that represent quality for them.

Mr. John Harvard: I know quality is going to do it all, but there are a number of things that perhaps you and I are not interested in. I'm not that interested in physics. I'm sure you can have a program of quality about physics. Would I be drawn to it? Probably not.

Ms. Merran Proctor: Yes, I think you're right. If they put on a program about physics, which I think would be probably okay to put on once in a while, you wouldn't have a huge audience.

I think the notion of a public broadcaster being half in the commercial sector and half in the public sector is a difficult one for them too. Maybe there would be some accommodations if we could fully fund a CBC now and leave the private advertising market to the private sector, with some rules about continuing Canadian content, development of people, and so on. I thought about that as a recommendation, but I wondered, would they take that as just a way to cut off another source of revenue to the CBC--not you people personally? I haven't thought through all the ramifications, but I think it would be good if it weren't commercial.

Mr. John Harvard: I have just one more thing before we go to Roger, and that concerns your suggestion of developing citizen editorial boards and citizen participation in administration. Is this a reference to public broadcasting, and just how would that work? Or is it a reference to both public and private broadcasting?

Ms. Merran Proctor: I'm coming at it as somebody who wants to have a lot of informed citizens in Canada. I think we'll have the best country in the world if we have our citizens exposed to a lot of different views, being able to make decisions, not having things happen in back rooms, where policy decisions are made. Take the clarity bill. The media didn't even have a chance, even if you overcome the language barriers, to really present an open story. It was there and it was rammed through.

À (1050)

Mr. John Harvard: The New Democrats supported it, so they obviously knew enough about it.

Ms. Merran Proctor: Who am I to say if the New Democrats supported it or not? I felt there should have been discussion on that particular thing.

Mr. John Harvard: On the editorial board, how would they get on the air?

Ms. Merran Proctor: I think there are some things that have to be called public good or common good, and our airways are among them. So with the notion of editorial boards, how would you start it, as an administrator who works in a strong single department that was simplifying things for people? You'd probably start it the way you always do, with a little bit of incentive money to help people set it up. You'd have elections. In the private sector, it would probably be more citizen-based, advisory. I know some of the private media already bring people together for that kind of thing. You would do things to encourage democratic input into both public and private broadcasting. I know that's difficult for some private broadcasters. I know some of them have as much on their plate as they can handle. But I think, for the common good, the public good, we have to find ways to get citizens saying, this is what we need to know, this is what we have to hear, this is what I want to know.

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: That's an interesting point, because if this is what the citizens want to know, if this is what they want to see, isn't that called the marketplace, isn't that what they'll follow? They'll watch what they want to see. They'll demand what they want.

Ms. Merran Proctor: Many of us believe there is manipulation in the marketplace and there's not as much choice. Take the question of music, and I'll use my 16-year-old son again. He was downloading music from Napster. I said, Ben, that's stealing, don't do that; you have an allowance, and you can buy things. He said, Mom, couldn't we change things? Why couldn't they just pay the singer money similar to what you make, and we could download this stuff, so all of us, even poor people, could listen to good songs, and the singer could still go around and do concerts? It's a different way of looking at the marketplace, isn't it? It's a different way of looking at selling CDs. If people want a CD, if they want to hear a song, they have a certain way to do it. So it's not just that the marketplace is responding, the marketplace responds in certain ways to maximize profit, and that's fair.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I understood you to be saying that people will watch what they want, people will search for what they want. You're talking now about a very specific argument as to what is legal.

Ms. Merran Proctor: I just used that as an example.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I'm referring to the big band called Canadian television in particular. People will watch what they want, and so it's tough for government to regulate that and say, this is what you will watch.

Ms. Merran Proctor: I'm not saying just that, I'm saying the goals in the Broadcasting Act suggest a lot of diversity, choice, and that type of thing. If that were really happening out there, there would be no problem, but I don't think it is. I don't learn a lot about first nations people from the media myself, and my children don't, though they are interested too.

À (1055)

Mr. Roger Gallaway: How do you account for the suggestion that CBC Television is becoming largely irrelevant because no one is watching it when, at the same time, you've brought us a survey that would suggest that people want CBC Television?

Ms. Merran Proctor: Well, in terms of, say, a political science class or an administration class, when I ask them to find out something, they end up going to the CBC some of the time. Perhaps that's what made 100% of them say, “Yes, I think we should keep CBC Television”.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: You've made the point that you think there should be a more democratic approach to the selection of boards of such things as the CRTC and CBC. What do you envision? What do you think would make it more democratic in that selection process?

Ms. Merran Proctor: I think I'd like to see.... I'm not 100% certain how it would work, but the ideal way would be if you could combine a meritorious selection process that was transparent and open, maybe an all-party committee or something like that, with some local elections. You know, any people interested would go to the Regina Inn, and so on.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: So you would maybe have a director of the CBC for Saskatchewan, one for Alberta....

Ms. Merran Proctor: I'm talking about the board.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: But you'd have an election.

Ms. Merran Proctor: Yes, sure, you could have an election. You would need to balance criteria in terms of the ability to do the job, because those are not easy jobs. Probably the candidates would have the backing of people like Mr. Snook, people who know more than I do about particular competencies in that area.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Could I just--

The Chair: No, sorry, I think we have to close now.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for your presentation. That might be an interesting project for an upper-level political science class to take on, how to reform the system.

I'm certainly supportive of your notion on transparency, democratizing the system, and taking a look at what needs to be fixed. I think that's a good suggestion. Obviously, none of us have the answers at this point, but before we get to answers I think we have to do what you're doing and broach the topic, and get into that whole area.

As MPs, we get people coming to us on all kinds of competing issues. Spending is a concern for a lot of people. We're basically holding taxpayers' dollars in trust to allocate them to different priority areas. I get people coming to my office with this exact comment, saying, listen, we need to fix health care, we need to focus on education, other priority areas, and I don't think we should be spending a plugged nickel on the CBC.

What would your response be? Obviously, you have perhaps a different perspective on that.

Ms. Merran Proctor: I'm certainly a strong advocate of a strong health care and education system as well, but I guess I don't want us to be commercialized. Our culture is us. It's an essential service. It's a public good.

Mr. Grant McNally: And going back to Mr. Harvard's comment, about the CBC in many ways needing to find a different niche and to look different from other broadcasters, do you find that it is, or is it very similar? I'm talking about commercials, which we see a fair number of on CBC. Others will make the argument that if it's a truly public broadcaster, we won't see that. We could get into this whole argument about funding and whatnot, but we don't need to go down that road.

Would you like to see the CBC go in that direction, the one described by Mr. Harvard and mentioned by others, with less commercials and...?

Á (1100)

Ms. Merran Proctor: I have to constantly say that I'm not an expert. I haven't totally studied this. However, my inclination is, yes, I would like to see an adequately funded, commercial-free CBC. That would allow revenues to go to the private sector through advertising. But I do not want to see their ability to raise money through commercial means taken away from them without adequate basics, without the funding they need to do a good job.

Mr. Grant McNally: So before moving to that part, we have to be sure--

Ms. Merran Proctor: Absolutely. I would want to see an instrument that gave the core public funding and that would be an arm's length relationship, or as much as you can, tied to growth in broadcasting or something else.

I haven't thought everything through. I just wanted to come here and say something.

Mr. Grant McNally: Great. We're glad you did. Thanks.

Ms. Merran Proctor: Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Proctor, for coming. We really appreciate that you took the time and you made the effort. By the way, if you ever want to communicate with the clerk and send documentation at any time before our report gets issued, feel free.

We'll now call on Mr. Jim Deane, president and CEO of Access Communications, and Ms. Marj Gavigan, the manager.

We're pleased to welcome you here, especially as you are a cooperative and occupy a special niche in the system. As you know, we're going to be visiting you this afternoon, so in the interest of time, as I think the clerk has suggested to you, perhaps you could just summarize your presentation so that we'll have time for questions.

Mr. Jim Deane (President and CEO, Access Communications Co-operative Ltd.): Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to members of the committee for the opportunity to speak to you this morning about the state of the Canadian broadcasting system. With me is Marj Gavigan, our senior manager of communications and community development.

You did hear a presentation from the Canadian Cable Television Association last week. Our purpose this morning is to augment that presentation and to provide you with the views of a medium-sized cable television operator. I know that's a bit of an oxymoron with the consolidation that's gone on in the industry--they're either small or large now--but we're the last of the medium-sized operators.

As you said, Mr. Chairman, Access Communications is rather unique among cable television operators. We are a non-profit service cooperative, locally and community owned. Our members are both individuals and community organizations, not necessarily customers, within the communities we serve.

Just by way of information, last week we announced a merger or an amalgamation with the Battlefords Community Cable Cooperative in serving the Battlefords and ten communities in northwestern Saskatchewan, effectively amalgamating our two cooperatives. The new Access Communications will serve 84,000 cable television customers and 30,000 Internet customers, and will employ nearly 200 people in technically skilled, well-paying jobs throughout the province.

Today 90 percent of our customers have access to high-speed Internet, broadband Internet, and digital cable television, and 12 percent of our customer base are now digital cable television customers. Over 16 percent are broadband Internet customers.

As I'm sure you're aware, during the past few years our industry has changed rather dramatically. We've had to make the transition to digital technology and, more importantly, from a monopoly to the fiercely competitive reality of today.

To remain competitive--and I know you heard this from the Canadian Cable Television Association--cable operators, no matter what their size, must offer the products and services available to our customers from competitors. In Saskatchewan, despite our relatively small and geographically distributed population, we'll be the most competitive market in the country once our Crown-owned, monopoly telephone company begins providing service to Saskatchewan cities later this year.

The cost of providing digital cable and high-speed broadband services is significant, as I'm sure you're aware, and the capital-intensive nature of our business will not change. For Access Communications, our most pressing priority, as with many small operators, is the channel capacity in our cable systems.

Our class 1 system in Regina and our class 2 systems in Yorkton, Weyburn, Estevan, and the Battlefords are all 550-megahertz systems, with no analog and few digital channels available for new services. Our part 3 systems, for the most part, are 300-megahertz systems, and are fully utilized with analog channels right now. So our immediate priority is to increase the channel capacity in each system in order to provide additional services when they're licensed.

Small and medium-sized cable operators face similar challenges to remain viable. We can, and I think we will, meet these challenges; however, it would be of enormous assistance if the regulatory framework in which we operate recognized these challenges and were relaxed slightly. As you know, the largest six cable television companies serve 90 percent of Canadian cable television customers, and regulatory flexibility for small and medium-sized cable television operators would therefore have very little impact on the Canadian broadcasting system.

We recommend that smaller cable operators be granted flexibility in terms of carriage requirements. For example, while we wholeheartedly agree with the licensing of such new services as digital services, provided on the basis of consumer choice, those services licensed as category 1 services must be offered in class 1 and class 2 systems, taking up valuable channel capacity regardless of consumer demand.

We have the same situation with the new minority language requirements. Allowing small and medium-sized cable operators to add these services on the same basis as the category 2 digital channels--that is, on consumer demand--we believe would have little impact on the Canadian broadcasting system.

Second, we need to operate under the same rules as other service providers. To remain competitive, it is essential that we have a level playing field. For example, DTH providers were able to offer distant Canadian services and additional American “4 + 1” network services long before cable operators were similarly licensed.

Third, we think the licensing of some mandatory carriage services could be relaxed for smaller operators--again, that would allow consumer demand to dictate carriage.

Finally, easing the rules for migrating services currently provided on analog to digital would be of benefit to smaller operators such as ourselves. Such services would remain available to customers through low-cost digital subscriptions, in either packages or individually.

Before I turn it over to Ms. Gavigan, I'd like to discuss briefly the grey market and black market DTH and the impact on our business and the Canadian broadcasting system. The reality is that many Canadians are continuing to opt out of the Canadian broadcasting system by purchasing black or grey market DTH equipment. It's estimated that anywhere from half a million to one million Canadian households are already opting out of the Canadian broadcasting system.

We believe Canadians do so for two reasons--and we're losing our customers for these reasons. The first reason is to gain access to popular U.S. services not eligible for distribution by Canadian service providers. The second reason is that black market equipment provides service without payment to distributors or rights holders. You only have to look at the classified ads in any major Canadian newspaper to learn that black market and grey market DTH is a growth industry in Canada.

We would strongly recommend that the wording of the Radiocommunication Act be amended to clarify the intent of the government's policy. If the intent, as we understand it, is an absolute prohibition on signal pirating, then we must give law enforcement and revenue and customs the necessary tools to stop this criminal activity. We believe it's crucial to the future of the Canadian broadcasting system.

I'll now turn it over to Marj Gavigan, who will outline for you Access Communications' contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system by way of community programming.

Á (1105)

Ms. Marj Gavigan (Senior Manager, Access Communications Co-operative Ltd.): Thank you, Jim, and thank you to the members of the committee.

Access Communications is committed to and operates a distinct community channel in each of the communities we serve. The programming on each of those channels is reflective of the community and the people who live there. Whether viewers are watching a rolling, text-based program of upcoming events in that community, taped or live programming of events that are happening , or have already happened, they are grateful for that local content.

In the broadcasting year 2001, Access Communications aired an average of 150 hours of new, first-run local programming each month in all of our communities served. I can assure you, the programming reflects, if I can quote from the brief you provided to us, “Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values, and artistic creativity”. It also facilitates Canadian talent, both in front of and behind the cameras.

Permit me to outline the talented human resources we do employ. Access Communications provides full-time and part-time jobs in developing and producing community programming. We also rely on a pool of over 200 volunteers, who devote almost 4,500 hours each year to operating cameras, audio and lighting equipment, editing or directing, and on-air hosting. Many of these volunteers have become employed in and move on to significant positions in the Canadian broadcasting system.

In addition, we hire, under contract, a representative in each of the communities without an Access office to act as a liaison between the community programming and the community groups. These representatives collect information for us about upcoming events and facilitate the airing of that information on the local community channels.

Eighteen months ago we made a renewed commitment to community programming, and part of that commitment was to re-balance the percentage of programming conceived and produced by employees and the percentage produced by community groups. Providing local community access to our community channels is a priority for us.

As a result of our efforts, we now have more and more individuals and groups coming to us with ideas for programming. As an example, a couple in Regina approached us to do a cooking show. The recipes reflect local customs. They use local suppliers for their sponsors, and all we provide is camera direction and editing.

The Businessmen's Full Gospel group produces 26 hours of programming in a weekend, using our facilities, but the scripting, hosting, and direction is done completely by themselves. That program, called Good News, is now shown nationally on the Miracle Channel.

The five Rotary clubs in Regina recently scripted, operated cameras and audio equipment, and did the line-up and hosting for a series called What is Rotary. Access Communications provided training and technical advice and the facilities to produce and air the programs. After seeing the results, Rotary clubs in Winnipeg are interested in duplicating the efforts.

Telethons organized and produced by such community groups as the Regina Humane Society, AIDS Saskatchewan, and the United Way in Estevan and Weyburn have been able to raise significant dollars by accessing our facilities and the community channels.

Smaller communities that we serve have always relied on community channels to provide local coverage. Most of the small communities we serve, and even smaller cities such as Estevan and Weyburn, do not have broadcasters providing local coverage and a reflection of the people living there. Community channels are the only option, in many of our communities, to reflect the circumstances and aspirations of Canadian men, women, and children--your friends and neighbours.

To accomplish all this, Access Communications has made, and continues to make, a significant dollar commitment to our community channels. We have invested over $3.6 million in capital and operating expenses for community programming over the past three years.

Access was successful in obtaining a condition of licence allowing us to retain required contributions to the Canadian Television Fund for community programming. We successfully argued that Access Communications is creating Canadian programming right here in our communities. Those dollars are valuable to this community, because they provide jobs, community access facilities, and an opportunity to reflect and promote local culture. We would recommend that granting this option to all cable operators would have a direct, positive impact on local programming across Canada.

Finally, I would just like to mention that we do support the Canadian Cable Television Association's recommendation to you that licence fees for class 2 cable systems be re-evaluated and then stopped. If those fees were redirected towards local community programming, additional dollars would be available in our smaller markets, providing additional hours of programming and additional jobs within the Canadian broadcasting system.

Á (1110)

Mr. Jim Deane: Before we conclude, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to briefly summarize our recommendations to you this morning.

First, Access Communications recommends that the regulatory framework within which small cable television systems operate needs to be relaxed. Less stringent carriage requirements and analog-to-digital migration rules would be of enormous benefit to small cable operators, and it would not, in our view, negatively impact the broadcasting system.

The regulatory framework within which we operate also must provide a level playing field for all service providers.

Secondly, we strongly recommend that necessary steps be taken to enforce the prohibition of signal pirating in Canada. We believe this to be critical to the future of the Canadian broadcasting system.

Finally, we recommend that consideration be given to allowing cable television operators to repatriate some of the production fund contributions for the purpose of local community programming. Similarly, as Marj has said, we recommend that the class 2 licence fees that currently go into general revenues be redirected directly to Canadian broadcasting by way of increased funding for class 2 community channels.

We're pleased that the government has taken steps to review the Broadcasting Act in an effort to strengthen and protect the Canadian broadcasting system. Our recommendations are put forward with that in mind.

We thank you for the opportunity to present to you this morning.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you for being so succinct in the presentation of your brief.

I would like to ask Mrs. Yelich to open the questions.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you very much.

Yours was a very good presentation, and I'm pleased to have sat in on this one today.

I have a couple of questions for you. First, do you know what your costs are to comply with regulations? Have you done a study on that? You were saying that they have to be relaxed, but do you know what kinds of costs are involved? Is it a huge cost for you economically?

Mr. Jim Deane: I think what we're asking for most in terms of regulatory relaxation is a relaxation of carriage requirements. For example, when the 16 category 1 digital channels were launched, they all had to be put on. Consumer choice was obviously available to consumers, but we had to carry them. Channel capacity is an issue for us on all of our systems.

With the relaxation of carriage requirements, we're saying that perhaps we would put them on and then test whether consumer demand was there for those services. So you might see two or three of them disappear off our service lineup a year from now, freeing up channel capacity for other services as they're launched. I can't put a cost to that other than to say it's enormously expensive to increase channel capacity.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Okay, that's fine.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Last week, the CRTC heard from representatives from community television regarding the strategic framework that should be put in place. The not-for-profit and the for-profit community television stations have put forward an idea. What would that change, in your view? Would it change anything? Have you made any suggestions to the CRTC by E-mail, because I think this could be done by E-mail as well, or did you travel to the hearings? Please explain what is involved here for you.

[English]

Mr. Jim Deane: We did participate in the public policy notice issued by the CRTC on the future and the role of the community channel and community television across the country. We understand where the commission was coming from with respect to local access. We have taken a bit of a different direction in the last 18 months at Access Communications by strongly promoting local access onto our community channel by community groups producing their own programs.

One of the concerns I think the CRTC put forward is that there weren't as many opportunities across the country on community channels for local community groups to actually produce their own programs. Some of the examples that Marj outlined earlier are, I think, graphic examples of community groups coming forward and producing their own programs and of us providing opportunities for local expression on our community channel.

With respect to community-based low-power services, off-air services, that have asked for carriage on cable television operations, we've also recommended to the commission that if they do license those for carriage on cable television operations, they do so on a digital basis. There's simply not enough analog channel capacity to put those types of services on an analog channel.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you. That will do.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

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

Mr. Deane, let me just get some clarity on a couple of points with respect to your request for what you call “less stringent” carriage requirements. At your cable company, for every service you carry, whether it's tier 1 or tier 2, you have to pay a fee for each service. Is that right? Explain to me the costs you face and the additional costs because of the regulatory requirements.

Mr. Jim Deane: Again, coming back to the relaxation of carriage requirements, yes, we do pay per channel to the networks, the specialty services, for each customer that's on. What we're asking for, and what small cable system operators are asking for across the country, is some relaxation on the requirements that eat up channel space. The commission is licensing new digital channels, new specialty channels, on an ongoing basis, and we expect more to launch soon. We need to be able to provide the services and products that our competitors do. Therefore, when the available channel space is used up by channels that we have to put on and that don't necessarily have a lot of consumer demand, we're necessarily precluded from putting on new services that may have a lot of consumer demand.

Á (1120)

Mr. John Harvard: Does this mean that because of a low demand for one service you would perhaps like to drop one and replace it with something else?

Mr. Jim Deane: That's correct, yes.

Mr. John Harvard: Would there be a lot of that?

Mr. Jim Deane: There would be some of that, most definitely. There are some channels, for example, that are mandatory carriage on analog and that may or may not be appropriate for some of the smaller markets. For example, Aboriginal Peoples Television is a service that is mandatory carriage on analog, on basic. It has a lot of appeal in our markets, and it's not something we would contemplate dropping, but other services we would.

Mr. John Harvard: So in a sense, what you're suggesting is a bit more of a market-oriented approach to these requirements, right?

Mr. Jim Deane: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: What criteria does the CRTC use to tell you which ones you have to carry and which ones you don't? What are their criteria?

Mr. Jim Deane: Well, some in the industry think it's a bit of a black science, but I think their criterion is whether or not it's in the national interest. And we understand that. At the same time, I think we have to recognize that channel capacity is an issue across the country for small cable operators.

We fully subscribe to the new method of licensing new channels in a digital environment where consumer choice is paramount. The 260-odd category 2 channels that have been licensed have been licensed with the view in mind that local distributors will determine consumer demand and put them on--or not.

Mr. John Harvard: There are capital costs here as well, right?

Mr. Jim Deane: They're very significant, yes.

Mr. John Harvard: Are cooperatives like yours--and I have a lot of time for cooperatives, by the way--particularly sensitive to capital costs such that you can't go out into the marketplace and, say, raise funds, as does Rogers, for instance? They do a very good job of raising funds, which shows up in their debt column.

Mr. Jim Deane: Yes, it does.

Access to capital is a significant challenge to all cooperatives, as you know, and particularly to our cooperative. Anything we do underwrite or finance is either financed through working capital or debt-financed. The option of issuing shares does not exist for cooperatives.

Mr. John Harvard: You seem to be quite proud of your community programming. The fact that you are a cooperative, that you're not privately owned, that, sure, you have to meet expenses, I can understand, but perhaps you don't need the profits that the privates expect. Does that mean you can be a bit more sensitive to community programming?

Mr. Jim Deane: In part, yes. Without a doubt it's one of the founding principles of Access Communications and Regina Cablevision, the cooperative that was founded back in 1975.

At the same time, though, I think providing a community channel is simply good business in this day and age. I think a quality community channel, one that's reflective of the community it serves, has a distinct competitive advantage when our competitors do not provide a similar service.

Mr. John Harvard: Is your cable service similar in concept to Westman in Manitoba?

Mr. Jim Deane: Conceptually, yes, it is.

Mr. John Harvard: If you were even more financially successful than you are today, would there be a possibility that in the future the privates would come along and say, “Hey, you have a pretty good service there, we'd like to buy you out and make some money”? Is that possible?

Mr. Jim Deane: Oh, I'm sure every non-profit community operator's been approached at one time or another across the country by the privates in terms of an offer to purchase, just as Access Communications has in the past, but our members are adamant and passionate about local ownership and community ownership.

So unless access to capital or some of the other issues and challenges that we face going forward motivate that, then I don't contemplate that happening.

Mr. John Harvard: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

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

Thanks for your presentation. I'd like to focus on this grey market, black market issue, because it's come up a number of times. It came up when we were back in Ottawa. I spoke strongly along the same lines you did, that this needs to be addressed.

I think the minister would probably be open to that. And let's hope that happens, but it came up in a debate in the House of Commons last week as well.

Do you have any idea how that affects you in Saskatchewan, or your coverage area? It's a hard one to put a figure on, I imagine.

Á (1125)

Mr. Jim Deane: It is difficult to put a figure on that. I know the industry association is undertaking a survey of members across the country right now, even as we speak, to determine the kind of loss to the grey market and to the black market, but it is significant.

We experience a larger loss the closer our systems are to the U.S. border. For example, in Estevan, which is only a few minutes from the American border, our losses are substantially higher than in, say, Yorkton. But it is significant. I think the comment was made earlier that people will watch what they want to watch, and I think any restrictions on that--by definition--drive more people to black market and grey market. Our customers, at least out here, tend to rebel when they're told what they can and can't watch. They tend to opt out of the Canadian broadcasting system.

So I would strongly encourage that consumer choice be one of the fundamentals, that whatever changes are made to the act, consumer choice be built in.

Mr. Grant McNally: I would certainly agree with that notion. In the end, the consumer does choose, either through continuing to subscribe to your service or going elsewhere, whether it be grey market or black market or a satellite service.

So you're going head to head with satellite service, are you? It's interesting, then, that although they're your competitors, you're speaking in favour of shutting down the grey market and black market side of things. It would seem that the licensed satellite distributors are also your competition.

Mr. Jim Deane: I think so. I think we share a community of interest with respect to that. With the direct-to-satellite providers and licensed providers, we're strong supporters of the Canadian broadcasting system and we want to keep them in the system. At the same time, when they opt out, I think they opt out from both of us as potential customers.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's good to hear, because many will argue that people in your industry don't really care about those aspects of Canadian culture and Canadian content and are just looking to drive the bottom line and make more profit, and those kinds of issues. It's good to have your comments on the record to present the other perspective.

On this whole issue of analog and digital, of course technology is rapidly changing. Are all your services digital? Are you capable of carrying everything digital, or not yet? What's the timeframe for that, or do you know?

Mr. Jim Deane: We're in the process of launching digital in our part 3 systems, smaller communities serving 400 or 500 customers where digital is not yet available. Up to 90 pourcent of our customer base today has access to digital cable, and we hope to undertake a rapid buildup this summer. I would hope that 95 percent of our customers would have access to digital by the end of the summer.

Mr. Grant McNally: As the digital side increases, does that then take away the earlier concern you talked about in terms of carriage on analog stations? As the digital world expands, is that less of an issue in terms of what gets covered on the analog side?

Mr. Jim Deane: I think it's less of an issue, but at the same time, channel capacity continues to be an issue. We're building the part 3 systems out to 550 megahertz, not to 860 megahertz or 750 mergahertz, so the same capacity concerns that exist right now in the cities that we serve will exist in the smaller communities at the same time.

Mr. Grant McNally: I would just close by saying that it's good to hear about the community programming that's going on, because this is a concern we're hearing as we travel across the country, too, that there's this balance between local programming and the cookie-cutter programs everybody gets, and different markets not having access to local programming.

It's my belief that there is a huge market for local programming and that because of the readjustment going on in the industry over this rapidly changing environment, those individuals who are able to target that local programming market are going to be very successful in many different ways. There is a big opening out there right now in terms of individuals who are providing local programming now and those who are looking at doing so in markets where there isn't a lot of local programs.

Á (1130)

Mr. Jim Deane: I couldn't agree more. The view in the industry over the years that a community channel was simply a licence fee that had to be met is changing. I think now it's simply good business to provide a relevant community channel to the communities we serve.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks.

Mr. Jim Deane: Thank you.

The Chair: I have just one question before we close.

Perhaps you can explain to us what you mean by this, from page 12 of your brief:

...we would recommend that consideration be given to allowing all cable television operators to repatriate their production fund contributions for the purpose of local community programming.

I suppose you are referring to the 5 pourcent in the CTF. Can you explain what you are about, and what you're trying to say, so that we're clear?

Mr. Jim Deane: Access Communications was successful in applying to the CRTC for a condition of licence to allow us relief from contributions to the production fund, and I think we successfully argued that we were making Canadian programming right in the service areas on our community channels in the communities we serve.

I think one of the reasons we've been able to operate as successfully as we have as a community channel, and we've been able to roll out community channels with distinct programming for every single community we serve, is that this money had been repatriated. The money that we ordinarily would have had to contribute, we were able to keep right here. For us that amounts to $750,000 per year, which is a significant amount.

That way we have a unique community channel in Kamsack, Saskatchewan, Kenora, Saskatchewan, and Regina Beach, Saskatchewan. Our recommendation is that consideration be given for other operators to do the same thing, because I think community programming is an important aspect of a healthy Canadian broadcasting system.

The Chair: Thank you. That clarifies it for us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Deane and Ms. Gavigan. We look forward to visiting your station later on today, and we appreciate your presence here. It's a very important issue for all of us.

Mr. Jim Deane: Thank you.

If I may, I have just one final observation. We heard that debate among Canadians and informed citizens is important. I'd like to put in a plug for the Cable Parliamentary Channel, CPAC, which is 100% paid by the cable industry for precisely that purpose. And we're a founding member of that.

Mr. John Harvard: We could use better actors.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We'll take a short break.

Á (1129)

Á (1136)

The Chair: Order.

[Translation]

We are particularly pleased to welcome the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise, represented by Mr. Denis Desgagné, the Director General, and by Ms. Francine Lacasse-Powers, the Communications Officer. We are very pleased to have you here.

We will give you as much time as you need, Mr. Desgagné. Please proceed. I should mention in passing that your flag is magnificent.

Á (1140)

Mr. Denis Desgagné (Executive Director, Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise): Thank you.

The Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise found out about the public hearing in Regina just a few days ago. We would like to thank Radio-Canada for broadcasting this information.

In our view, it is essential to meet with the members of the Standing Committee to tell them about the reality of the francophone minority in Saskatchewan as regards the Canadian broadcasting system.

This brief highlights the importance of francophone communities knowing each other, and of the anglophone majority better understanding the language, culture and presence of the French Canadian community and the contribution it makes.

Francophones are not the only people who are interested in the francophonie. There is a wide audience that is interested in French language and culture and the country's linguistic and cultural diversity, and which understands the minority community quite well. For example, I am thinking of the 30,000 francophiles in Saskatchewan and all the families involved with immersion programs.

For us, it is important to begin by speaking about what we have achieved, starting with radio. This year, the Fransaskois community is celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of French-language radio in Saskatchewan. This significant achievement was obtained after a long, hard fight, but one that was worthwhile for preserving French language and culture in Saskatchewan.

The leaders of the francophone community in Saskatchewan in the 1930s and 40s realized the negative impact of broadcasting in English as soon as it began in Saskatchewan. At that time, it was thought that French Canadian homes were protected against the threat of assimilation. However, people realized quite quickly how pervasive these English-only media were.

The champions of French language and culture at the time wanted to do something to deal with this growing threat, whatever the cost, by providing radio that spoke to us in our language. The urgency of providing elements of our identity—our language and culture—in the content of the material broadcast was recognized from the beginning. After more than 10 years of demands to the former CRTC—I do not remember its former name—and many fundraising drives in the Fransaskois community, Saskatchewan saw the first community radio station come into being. This is what we call the first community radio.

Once they were well established, the two private French radio stations were sold to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This allowed for wider distribution and more diversified programming.

When French-language radio began in Saskatchewan, the objective was to get more French Canadian content on the air, because we all identified ourselves as French Canadians.

Despite the distance between francophones throughout the country, the francophone content from Quebec or any other province was quite suitable. Today, however, for our young people, who are two generations or more removed from their ancestors in Quebec, Belgium, France, Britain, etc., we are trying to achieve a more Fransaskois content, one that better reflects our situation in society. The issue of proximity plays an increasingly vital role in the development of French language and culture.

The radio service of Radio-Canada has always played a key role in our community, and we are concerned about the erosion of programming produced in Saskatchewan in the last decade caused by a shortage of funding.

You must understand that for us, the Fransaskois, when we talk about broadcasting in French, we have no choice. The radio service offered by Radio-Canada is the only service in our language. So when there is a cut in programming, the impact is very different than for anglophones in Saskatchewan when there are cuts to CBC Radio, or even the closing down of a private radio station. When there is a cut at Radio-Canada, there is a direct cut to the resources of the francophone community, there is a blow to our hope of maintaining the French language and culture in Saskatchewan. We are in no way encouraging cuts to CBC Radio, because it is the only English-language public service for the anglophone community, and we think it is fundamental for issues regarding Canadian content.

We therefore think that it is essential to guarantee the maintenance and enhancement of existing Radio-Canada radio services in Saskatchewan to ensure the preservation of the French language and culture in our province.

The probable arrival of Radio Two in the west is definitely good news, but we are told that the service will be available only for Regina and Saskatoon. Ladies and gentlemen, assimilation is rampant throughout Saskatchewan. Even though we are pleased about this news, only when Radio Two is available throughout the province will we feel that we achieved something that can make a difference.

Television is our second broadcasting asset. We must remember that the majority of francophones in Saskatchewan did not grow up with Bobino and La boîte à surprises. Some are lucky to have seen only the bilingual program Chez Hélène.

The lack of this support for our identity has long worked against French Canadians. Consequently, the arrival of French television in Saskatchewan through Radio-Canada, at the end of the 1970s, is definitely seen as an achievement. However, if we really want television to be a winning tool in the development of francophone identity outside Quebec, more emphasis must be placed on regional creative projects. If there is to be a real impact on people's identity, programs from our regions about people living in minority situations must be developed. Rather than reducing Radio-Canada's capacity, the government should recognize the role that Radio-Canada plays in developing and sharing the culture of the various French-language communities in Canada and should provide it with the resources it needs to play this role.

Á (1145)

We are firmly convinced that the government must provide proper funding for Radio-Canada's french television service so that it can carry out its programming role, namely, to reflect all of Canada while meeting the particular needs of the regions, and reflecting the unique situation and needs of the two official languages communities.

The Corporation must be given the resources it needs to increase the number of hours of local production. If the Corporation wants to make the situation of the Fransaskois better known through all ofCanada, it must be allowed to produce local programming for people here, programs that talk about the people from here, and it must broadcast them on a national network.

With respect to regional programming, we must definitely not question the achievements that have been made. They are appreciated, even if they are not enough. All the activities of the new talents development program, the presentation of special shows and partnerships, such as the Francothon and the Gala de la chanson, to name but a few, are achievements that must be maintained and to which we must add.

The activities mentioned in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's action plan regarding the implementation of Section 41 of the Official Languages Act are essential to supporting the development of our community. For several years, we have had the impression that Radio-Canada will disappear and be replaced by private channels such as TVA or TV5, where French Canadians living as minority communities are not represented.

On another television-related matter, what will happen to stations with which we can identify and which could make a genuine contribution to developing and promoting our small, fragile communities? There are a number of such stations, stations that offer cartoons in French for children, educational stations, stations that present music in French for teenagers, on so on.

With respect to digital technology, the multiplication of digital television services can and must become for francophone consumers, wherever they live in the country, an opportunity to have access to all French-language television services, both Canadian and foreign. The digital revolution can support both the objective of ensuring Canada's linguistic duality, a principle that flows out of the Canadian Constitution as well as the Broadcasting and Official Languages Acts, and the for-profit objectives of companies seeking to obtain operating licences.

The francophones of Saskatchewan are at the mercy of cable companies, which only increases the unfairness that exists throughout the province and the country. They are many small cable companies, and there is no protection for the minority community. If it is not the bilingual markets working against the small, scattered population of Saskatchewan, it is the costs related to access to French channels. Even when they pay for service, francophones in Saskatchewan do not always have the French channels they would like to have.

Let us speak for a moment about bilingual markets. Defining markets as sufficiently, almost or barely bilingual enough to get additional services in French is a threat to the Fransaskois community. We think additional services must be offered to consumers in all markets served by the existing technology.

The francophones of Saskatchewan continue to hope that there will be a regulation about bilingual markets that will be to the advantage of minorities. The demographic imbalance is in no way advantageous to Saskatchewan. In previous briefs, the ACF, the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise, has already recommended that the CRTC identify as bilingual markets at least those areas served by cable companies in which francophone educational institutions and community centres are located.

Á (1150)

I will now make a few comments about community radio.

We are surprised that there is no reference to community services in the documents on the Heritage Committee's study of the state of the Canadian broadcasting system. The fact is that when it comes to safeguarding, enriching and strengthening the cultural, political, social and economic structure of Canada, community radio plays an essential role. It goes without saying that even Radio-Canada could never provide all the content that the communities could obtain, and that is why we recommend that community radio be developed.

Since there are no other French channels, francophone community radio in Saskatchewan is complementary to the radio services offered by Radio-Canada. This is a necessary solution, and one that is being developed in Saskatchewan. The change made by the CRTC in the criteria for community radio licences will be beneficial to the establishment of a network of francophone community radio stations in Saskatchewan.

The CRTC now gives developing radio stations the right to broadcast for three years with a maximum power of five watts. In communities in Saskatchewan, and in the west generally, in remote rural regions, five watts would cover only a tiny part of the area we are trying to serve.

Consequently, the CRTC must agree to change this aspect of its new policy to allow up to 250 watts to be used in such situations, with the same licence conditions as for units with 5 watts of power. In addition, the federal government will have to adapt its support program to better meet the demographic and geographic requirements of francophones living in Saskatchewan.

The policy on support by the Department of Canadian Heritage refers to a 1988 regulatory framework. Since that time, community radio, CRTC policies, technology and the francophone community have all evolved a great deal.

In Saskatchewan, we are currently working to establish a network of small, community radio stations connected by satellite and supported by a provincial cooperative. This is a unique concept which provides a solution to the challenge we face because of the scattered, small population in Saskatchewan. This concept combines provincial institutions such as the weekly newspaper, the French school board, and the cultural and economic organizations that represent and support small Fransaskois community radio stations. The Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada is also one of our partners.

The lack of funding for community radio from Heritage Canada is not helping us establish this cooperative or this network. In spite of everything, a few communities go on the air for brief periods. However, a number of other small communities would also like to develop a community radio station. Six communities took part in a network test last year, but 11 communities demonstrated an interest in such a possibility. However, without the support of the federal government, particularly Heritage Canada, it will be difficult for us to achieve the objectives we have set.

In order to reach our broadcasting objectives and provide the minority francophone community in Saskatchewan with the development tool that will be very useful in fighting assimilation and in enhancing the identity and pride of francophones in Saskatchewan, we would urge Heritage Canada to establish quickly a support program geared to the development needs of the network and elsewhere in the country.

Á (1155)

In closing, I would say that the Fransaskois minority community's involvement in access to a wider range of broadcasting services in French will be guaranteed by measures that are international in scope, rather than regional or local. We hope that the advancement of broadcasting will result from a political initiative, rather than a legal requirement.

I would like to thank you for coming out into our region to give communities an opportunity to express their views.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Desgagné. We are very pleased to have you here.

I will now give the floor to Ms. Yelich.

[English]

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Just listening to you, I'm thinking.... At the table earlier today was a local community station, Access Communications. Do you see yourself working closely there? You talked a lot about getting into small communities. Would you say that would be a route to start with or to be involved in, or to try to work closely with, to get to the demographics you are complaining about, or are upset about?

As well, how do you see satellite and Internet services affecting you?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: With respect to your first question, the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise as well as many other francophone organizations are members of Access Communications, but I believe that our main partner is Radio-Canada. They represent the easiest way to bring together both our needs as well as our goals.

Ms. Francine Lacasse-Powers (Communications Officer, Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise): I would like to add that the communities that belong to Access Communications are larger than our small communities. We are too small for Access Communications. Our francophone communities are quite small, widespread and remote, and I don't think that Access Communications extends that far.

[English]

The Chair: Do you not have another question?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes. I was just wondering how they saw satellite or Internet services affecting them or helping them or....

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Satellite communications represent part of the solution for the francophone community, when it comes to community radio. We could not imagine having community radio in Saskatchewan without satellite service.

With respect to the Internet, I think that, for the time being, it can only be used as a type of support, although we are continually seeking ways to use the Internet for radio programming.

[English]

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: All right.

I just want to confirm something. You said there are 30,000 francophones in Saskatchewan. What about francophiles? You mentioned both francophiles and francophones.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: According to the latest statistics, that would be 30,000 francophiles and 20,000 francophones.

[English]

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you.

You have raised a number of points that were also raised yesterday by the Association francophone d'Edmonton. You have also alluded to the difficulty in reaching the francophone population and in even being able to call the francophone community a population. That represents an irritant, to my way of thinking. Do you not think that this diminishes the historic importance of the founding people of the community? The brief that was presented to us yesterday in Edmonton refers to the two founding nations. It stated that the francophone and anglophone nations were the founders of this country.

There is another aspect to this issue. It is all very well to call oneself a nation when, for example, one has to go before a committee to request more funding for francophone communities. When you ask for money, you are told that you only represent a certain percentage of the population and you are given a budget in keeping with that percentage. I believe that skews the historic aspect to a certain extent. We must not forget that what is at stake here is survival against assimilation. I would like to hear what you have to say about that. Anglophone parliamentarians tell us that in any case, we have been given a share that is proportional to our number. Things are different when we call ourselves a population.

I would like to hear what you have to say with respect to the political aspect of the matter, in terms of the funding that has been given and your participation as one of Canada's founding nations.

Â (1205)

Mr. Denis Desgagné: A large number of towns and villages in Saskatchewan still have French names. Some have faded away. It is true that the francophone community arrived when the territories were just being discovered. If we look at things in terms of numbers, we always feel that we are trying to defend something. Had the francophone communities been given their rightful place in Saskatchewan, had there not been policies to contribute to our assimilation, there would be many more of us than there are today.

There is an assimilation rate of 70 pourcent within the Fransaskois community. The programs to help us develop and maintain what we have now are barely a few years old. There is talk of immigration. That affects a number of sectors. It is such a broad issue that I could use up all of the time I have been given to discuss not only communications but also all of the other sectors, such as health care, the economy, etc.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: With respect to radiobroadcasting, would you prefer to have the funding allocated according to your position as representatives of a community rather than according to the size of the minority? Would that be acceptable to you? The witness we heard yesterday in Edmonton said that francophones should be given the tools that they need to develop and if these tools were allocated according to the percentage that they represent as a minority, the community would be poorly served. In order to develop a community, one must have tools, money, a structure and institutions. That is essentially the argument that he was putting forward. That is what I say at all community meetings with respect to the various aspects that you have raised. Francophones represent one of the founding communities in Canada and they must be given the tools that are commensurate with a community and not with a minority.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Exactly. I would like to add one thing. Because we are few in number, we should not see things according to size, but rather according to the complex nature of this situation, because it is difficult for us to reach those francophones. This would give us arguments to strengthen our capacity to reach those people. We must not forget that they are not only francophones. They are also francophiles and all of those who are associated with emerging programs, making the situation even more complex. Those people have another challenge; they must ensure that our present services fulfil their mandate.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: In any case, if you are stronger, you will be better able to reach the francophiles who want to learn French. So they will have more support.

You have given us good examples to show how we should change certain aspects or certain irritants. The transmitters come to mind. I understand that the community is widespread, and that the broadcasting services cannot all be regulated through the same type of licences. I think you have managed to help us understand some viewpoints. It has been very interesting and we will take good note of the concerns that you have expressed as francophones.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

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

Your talk about French community radio is of interest to me, because I think perhaps it makes a lot of sense, a lot of practical sense.

I say that because we have heard from a lot of English-speaking groups who are complaining about the paucity of English language programs on either very much a local level or a regional level. If the English-speaking groups in, say, the more remote areas, or the rural areas outside the major centres, are complaining about a lack of English programs, I can just imagine how it must be for you. It must be just so much worse.

The idea of a French community radio interests me, because you're talking about a really small unit, 250 watts. Now you run up against this CRTC requirement of, what, five watts? It just blows you away. This is absolute nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

When the CRTC demands or puts this ceiling, this cap on wattage, what are they afraid of? Are they somehow afraid that if a small French communitysets up a small radio station of 250 watts, which might serve a couple of hundred people, they'll steal hundreds of thousands of listeners away from English-speaking commercial radio? What are they worried about? Why did they lay down this stringent demand? Do you know?

Â (1210)

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: In order to ensure that I am properly understood, I would say that the francophone population in Saskatchewan have no complaints at this time about the CBC's French language content; what concerns them, rather, is the amount of French language content that reflects their identity, their life, what is happening in Saskatchewan.

With respect to the CRTC authorizing a maximum of five watts for the transmitters, this applies to radio stations that are being developed. It is a three year permit to set up a radio service. As the Fransaskois community is, for most part, rural, with farms that are constantly expanding, a five watt transmitter would not be strong enough to reach the francophone community. Five watts is just not realistic. With that type of transmitter, you could only broadcast in a small village and you would not have the desired impact on the community.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: I agree with you, Mr. Desgagné, but I don't understand the requirement put down by the CRTC. I cannot see how a 250-watt French language community radio station can pose any kind of a threat to anyone. It just seems to me--and I haven't asked you about how you would finance this--that even if you did accept commercials, if you could sell any, you would be the tiniest of flies in the ointment. I just can't see how you are a threat.

Why doesn't the CRTC embrace your concept? Why don't they say, “Go for it, set up your 250-watt station and get your 1,000 or 1,200 listeners”? Where do the objections lie? That's what I want to know.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: I cannot answer for the CRTC, but...

The Chair: Did the CRTC explain why they will only allow five watts?

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Yes. They said that the national limit was five watts. But the impact would not be the same for Toronto as compared to Zenon Park.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: The policy is not adapted to small numbers, it is a national standard. Do you understand that, Mr. Lincoln?

Mr. Denis Desgagné: I might add that this time there are 18 community radio stations outside Quebec and that whenever the francophone community has applied for a licence to operate a community radio station, the majority has seen that as a threat.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: Where would you, for example, set up a French community radio station in Saskatchewan, as a beginning--Gravelbourg? Where?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: In Gravelbourg, Regina, Saskatoon, Zenon Park, Saint-Denis--

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: As a network, or would you just go one by one?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné We would go one by one, but we need a network to virtually connect the community, if I can put it that way, to give the community more weight. A community radio station depends on volunteers and we must not impose on them too much. To be a francophone in Saskatchewan means that you are a member of the community radio station. You must be active within your parish, and belong to the regional committee. By bringing people together via satellite, we are sharing the volunteer programming. It makes it easier for us to commit and to work together to develop a truly representative community radio service.

Â (1215)

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that when we have the CRTC before us sometime in the future, we're going to have to pursue this, because there's something here that's.... Either I've missed something completely or the CRTC is--

The Chair: Micromanagement at its worst.

Mr. John Harvard: Yes. I would have thought that this was an opportunity...because I don't see this as a high-priced operation. I haven't heard from these people that they want millions of dollars from the taxpayer to operate this kind of a radio station, or radio stations. So I would hope that we would pursue this.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.

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

I'll follow up on what Mr. Harvard was saying and I'll ask a question. At the end of your presentation, you talked about the need for Canadian Heritage to become involved and put together a program. In terms of a program, are you looking for regulatory certainty in terms of, for instance, let's have a 250-watt station, or are you looking for a program that involves money?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: With respect to programs, in 1988, the Department of Canadian Heritage had a program for community radio stations with a budget of $5 million, if memory serves. Today they have something called a component—it is no longer a program—and the funding is discretionary. So, last year, it was not possible for us to make any headway in developing community radio. The previous year, our total budget was $450,000 for community radio. Therefore, at this time, it isn't really the CRTC that is preventing the development of community radio services; rather, it is the absence of a well-defined program that is adapted to today's new technologies.

[English]

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Okay.

One other point you made in your presentation has to do with cable companies. It's about the choice that you would like to see. How many French language channels are there on cable...? I don't know anything about the cable system; is there one company in Saskatchewan? But for those who are serviced by cable, how many French language stations would they receive?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: There are so many small cable companies in Saskatchewan that it is difficult to... We conducted a little survey a year or eighteen months ago, and some operators offered TV5 and TVA. We can't understand why, but a small group of them had Musique Plus and RDI. It depends upon the cable company. In some areas, we even had to fight to have Radio-Canada.

[English]

Mr. Roger Gallaway: But as you know...and I'm aware that in Saskatchewan in certain areas there are these very small companies that are serving perhaps less than 1,000 customers, and that the CRTC, and I think in this case for good reason, has said they can't enforce national standards on these very small companies, which are in a sense cooperatives. But in terms of choice, where...and I'm assuming that in Regina and Saskatoon, as two examples, they're serviced by a large company, and there are the mandatory channels, which are on basic, including a number of French language....

The observation, if I can call it an observation as opposed to a complaint, that you're making about the lack of choice in programming is a complaint that is made across the country, regardless of language. So it's really no different here.

That said, do you not think it will be solved by what you've already observed, and that is technology? At some point we're going to enter what is called this “pick-and-pay” universe, and with the advent of satellites, DTH, ExpressVu, and all these things your problem will be solved, will it not?

Â (1220)

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: As we said in our brief, we can't understand why, with the technology that is available today, this problem cannot be solved, particularly in view of the Constitution and the Official Languages Act. This involves three founding peoples and two official languages.

How can we get the same digital service that they have in Quebec, for example? They have an enormous amount of choice. That has an impact on identity and culture. With today's new technology, why can we not have a minimum number of digital channels and a minimum number of analog services?

[English]

Mr. Roger Gallaway: So you're looking for some type of guaranteed minimum service. That's what you're saying.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Oui.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Do you think this is a failure of either the CRTC or the policies of Canadian Heritage, or do you think it's just a question of the small populations spread out across a great area?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: I'm not sure I understand your question.

[English]

Mr. Roger Gallaway: With regard to the minimum service you are seeking in terms of French language, do you think the failure to deliver this service is as a result of government policy? And I'm talking about Canadian Heritage--

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Now I understand.

[English]

Mr. Roger Gallaway: --or the CRTC. Do you understand?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Well, we are at the mercy of the cable companies. I have a feeling that some regulations and some laws are being ignored.

Is there some type of agency that will enforce the minimum rule? As I said in my brief, since the 1930s, western francophone associations have been making annual representations to the CRTC as well as making their demands know to all kinds of similar groups.

We have members working for these cable companies in order to ensure that management will at least respect what is already in place.

[English]

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks for your presentation. I just want to make sure I understood you in terms of local programming, the ability to do French language programs on local programs versus Radio-Canada.

Yesterday, when we were in Edmonton, Alberta, we heard a different perspective. The local Alberta francophone community didn't always see themselves reflected back in Radio-Canada, although there were many stories about francophones in Quebec.

Do you find that same sort of balancing act going on here?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Absolutely.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: And from your perspective, is the answer to that not only increasing resources to Radio-Canada but also increasing the access to local programming? I mean, there is a bit of a problem there, even if you were able to do that, because the francophone community is so spread out in terms of individuals even being able to access the cable programming. I'm not sure how we come together on those two....

Do you see an answer to that, on how to balance that out--to be able to get more local programming, and then have it accessible to a community that's spread out and so far away it might not actually have the technology, via cable, to get to that?

Â (1225)

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Desgagné: With respect to the CBC, despite the fact that our Saskatchewan communities are somewhat dispersed, most of them do get the CBC signal. When we have local content, the local ratings increase, but as we move away from the generations living in Saskatchewan, the ratings drop, because we can't identify with the programs where the host is discussing the traffic problem in Montreal, for example. The people living in Hendon or Zenon Park are not terribly concerned about the traffic in Montreal. If local content were increased, it would be extremely beneficial for our cultural identity in Saskatchewan, and would help us to maintain our language and culture.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: Perhaps I could quickly concur with Mr. Harvard in his concern about the CRTC and the sort of cookie-cutter approach, the made-in-Ottawa decisions that don't take into account the regions.

That reminds me of a story. I have a friend who owned some English radio stations in my area, and he wanted to apply for a repeater on top of a mountain; he couldn't broadcast through it. The communities were less than 50 miles apart from each other. The application was turned down, because on the flat map, of course, looking at it from Ottawa, why would you need another repeater when the communities were only 50 miles apart? Well, it wasn't until the individual came out and saw the mountain blocking the two communities that the lights went on.

It's almost the same kind of issue going on here. There's a need to take into account the communities and to tailor-make it rather than just make a decision apart from where it's having the biggest impact.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon, you have one final question.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like to come back to the CBC and the cuts to radio programming. The same must apply to television. We visited the CBC broadcasting centres in Montreal and Toronto. I think that today’s concentration, where the larger centres are quite powerful, must have an impact on a number of communities. Fewer resources are given to the regions, and local programming remains the poor relation. You say that it is because there is less money, but I think the concentration factor must be taken into account as well. We had a look at the newsrooms.

Do you think that in programming, there is more national news and that the regional or local programming has become less important over the past four or five years?

Mr. Denis Desgagné: I have a hard time understanding how they make their decisions. I will try to answer your question with an example.

On September 11, in Saskatchewan, everyone was glued to Radio-Canada, hoping to hear more details. Suddenly, the programming was interrupted, and a female host from Montreal came on air, across the entire network. That’s when people lost interest. They weren't quite sure what they were doing but… it’s as if we were not important enough. However, radio is of extreme importance during that type of crisis. You are listening to the morning host, the one that you hear when you wake up, the one you have come to know, and all of a sudden, he is cut off. The rug is pulled out from under you and you fall into the great unknown. It creates an extraordinary void.

The Assemblée communautaire received a number of telephone calls and complaints.

I am trying to explain the importance of the presence of Radio-Canada, of our media, the services that we created and have worked with for 50 years. A few years ago there was talk of centralizing the western stations. That would cause us to lose all of the impact that these people have within our communities, with all of the other services such as sound recording activities, community fundraising, etc.

We have a feeling that the thinking is mathematical rather than taking into account the needs and impact that such decisions can have on our lives, our identity, the way in which we see ourselves, etc. I don’t know if that answered your question.

Â (1230)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You seem to be saying that there is no comfort in listening to the national network. The local population does not feel that the national network is closer to the action. We visited the large modern newsrooms where they have access to all of the information that comes from abroad. They have a multi-platform: radio, television, and newspapers. The information is concentrated.

Do you not think it would be beneficial for the population to feel that they are connected to the action as it is unfolding? No?

Mr. Denis Desgagné: It might be beneficial to a certain extent, but I can't understand why, with all of the technology… they would only have to fax a message to our local radio hosts who would then be able to pass on the information. These people are professionals. There is also the Internet. There are so many means to transmit information, and the best way to do it is through these people. The closer you are, the better it is.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon:Thank you.

The Chair: I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Desgagnés. What you have done as a community of 20,000 or 30,000 is quite extraordinary. The material you distributed as well as your presentation are wonderful. I'm quite impressed with what you have managed to accomplish.

You might know some of my Fransaskois friends. Their name is Campagne.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Absolutely.

The Chair: They had to leave Saskatchewan to reach a larger market in Quebec. Paul and Michelle live in Quebec. They were uprooted because of the market.

The more vibrant your culture, the greater the chances that people will stay here, in Saskatchewan. That is your greatest wish. But they return often, do they not?

I have a question to ask on something that I found a little paradoxical, particularly in light of the answers you gave a few minutes ago to Ms. Gagnon's question. You said in your conclusion:

In conclusion, the availability and access to a broader range of French radio services by the Fransaskois minority community will only be ensured through national rather than local or regional measures.

Should there not be a little of both? How are you presenting this? You just said that on September 11, the national network pulled the rug out from under you.

M. Denis Desgagné: No. This conclusion relates more to policy. If we are left with our cable companies, there must be national measures to ensure that they will have to fulfill certain obligations. I am not talking about the programming but rather the policy itself.

The Chair: Now I understand. It means that we must not leave you to your own devices.

Thank you for coming. We were very encouraged to see you. We hope that we will be able to give you greater means to express yourself. Thanks to all of you for appearing before us today.

[English]

There is a gentleman here, Mr. Allan Taylor, who has asked us for just a few minutes. He doesn't have a brief, he just wants to make a remark or two.

Mr. Taylor, we have a really tight schedule. We have to go and have lunch--we hope--and then visit some places. If you can, then, make it short and sweet. I know it's going to be sweet, but if you can be short as well, it would be nice.

Â (1235)

Mr. Allan S. Taylor (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm getting hungry too.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for giving me this short time. I shouldn't admit that we really came down here because of the very good coffee and just to hear what was being said. But I am a member of and make donations to Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. They sent out a letter, and I decided it would be a good idea to make some quick comments to you.

My name is Al Taylor, and I live in Regina at 413 17th Avenue East--although I guess you don't need all that. I'm considered to be an environmental activist, which I don't use as a pejorative term; I figure it's the only way we can be in the world as it is.

I hope your committee makes great recommendations, and I hope you get a lot better reception in Ottawa than the committee that wrote up the changes in SARA, which will be voted on shortly, I hope. My MP has a letter from me on how to vote. He happens to be Mr. Goodale, and I hope he votes against the party's will.

The Chair: Don't hold your breath.

Mr. Alan Taylor: I won't.

My comments are going to be quick, Mr. Chairman.

CBC Radio is great. Keep it. Do everything you can to support it. If it weren't for CBC Radio, I guess I probably wouldn't be informed.

With regard to CBC TV, I would argue that they should get a lot more money and become ad-free. We should be able to have one national television network in this country where we don't have to put up with constant ads blaring away at us, telling us to consume, consume, consume, when the real solution should be less consumption by all of us.

I have three quick recommendations with regard to the CRTC. First off, maybe to help our French community, the headquarters should be moved to Saskatchewan. They'd find out what isolation really means in this country. Secondly, I want the CRTC to prevent cross-media ownership. With the private radio broadcasters, I can't really make a comment, because I never listen to them; they're just too noisy.

With media concentration, I would suggest, stop it right now and try to do something about it. Democracy needs many, many voices, and we're just getting less and less rather than more and more.

Cross-media ownership I've already commented on. Prohibit it. We need those voices.

Internet broadcasting I use very rarely, so I can't really make a comment. I do refer to it periodically when some news item comes on that I really am interested in.

Thank you. I wish you well in your deliberations and your good recommendations. As I say, I hope you get much better results than SARA has up until now.

Short enough?

The Chair: That was great, Mr. Taylor. It was short and it was sweet, so thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.