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

Monday, April 29, 2002

0905

Mr. Hearn

0910

0915

Mr. Leo Furey (President, Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation)

0920

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Paul Pope (Vice-President, Newfoundland Independent Filmmakers Cooperative; Producers Association of Newfoundland and Labrador)

0925

0930

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

Mr. Paul Pope

Mr. Leo Furey

0935

0940

Mr. Paul Pope

Mr. Leo Furey

Mr. Paul Pope

Mr. Ken Pittmen (Director, Producers Association of Newfoundland and Labrador)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Mr. Leo Furey

Mr. Paul Pope

0945

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Paul Pope

0950

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

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

Mr. Leo Furey

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Paul Pope

0955

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Ken Pittmen

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Leo Furey

1000

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Leo Furey

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Paul Pope

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Ken Pittmen

1010

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Leo Furey

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1015

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Paul Pope

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Paul Pope

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1020

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Paul Pope

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

1030

Mr. Jack Harris (Member of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Leader, New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador)

1035

1040

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

1045

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Jack Harris

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1050

Mr. Jack Harris

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Jack Harris

1055

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Jack Harris

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1100

Mr. Jack Harris

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Jack Harris

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

1105

Ms. Katie Nicholson (St. John's International Women's Film and Video Festival)

1110

1115

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

1120

Ms. Gagnon (Québec)

Ms. Katie Nicholson

Ms. Gagnon (Québec)

1125

Ms. Katie Nicholson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Katie Nicholson

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Katie Nicholson

1130

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Katie Nicholson

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Katie Nicholson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1135

Ms. Katie Nicholson

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Katie Nicholson

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Katie Nicholson

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Katie Nicholson

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Mike Hickey (Representative, Eastern Edge Gallery)

1140

1145

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Jim Maunder (Individual Presentation)

1150

1155

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1200

Mr. Ernst Rollmann (Program Director, CHMR-FM)

1205

Mr. Michael Rossiter (News Director, CHMR-FM)

1210

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Michael Rossiter

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Michael Rossiter

1215

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Wendy Lill

1220

Mr. Ernst Rollmann

1225

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

1230

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

1235

Mr. Greg Malone (Individual Presentation)

1240

1245

1250

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Anita Best (Associate, Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador)

1255

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Anita Best

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. John Hutton (Chair, Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador)

1300

1305

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Stan Pickett (Treasurer, St. John's Folk Arts Council)

1310

1315

1320

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Stan Pickett

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Susan Knight (Individual Presentation)

1325

1330

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Monique Tobin (Individual Presentation)

1340

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

1345

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Greg Malone

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. John Hutton

1350

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Susan Knight

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Wendy Lill

1355

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Greg Malone

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Anita Best

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

1400

Ms. Heather MacLellan (Assistant Deputy Minister, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador)

1405

1410

1415

1420

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Eleanor Dawson (Cultural Officer, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Heather MacLellan

1425

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Heather MacLellan

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Heather MacLellan

Ms. Eleanor Dawson

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Heather MacLellan

1430

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 055

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, April 29, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)): Good morning, everyone. Bonjour, mes amis.

We're very pleased to be here in St. John's, ladies and gentlemen. We're not in St. John's actually; we're in St. John's West. If you cross the street, you're in St. John's East.

We have here this morning with the committee Rodger Cuzner, who is a member from Cape Breton. Rodger is a member of the government Liberal Party.

On my left is Wendy Lill, who is also from Nova Scotia. Wendy is with the NDP Party. And then we have Christiane Gagnon, who is with the Bloc Québécois.

These people are members of the heritage committee. Ordinarily we'd have several others. We have hit a very bad day to have our hearings here, because there are a few extremely important votes in the House, including some on the bill that affects everybody. Some of us are on standby, so you may be losing one or two more of us before the day is over. If the flights are not going out or are filled, then you're stuck with us.

¿ (0910)

We're joined by a number of the staff and translators. These little machines on the tables mean we'll have translation into English or French.

The committee has been travelling the country listening to people who are concerned about broadcasting. Here in Newfoundland we are probably affected more than anybody else. So we're extremely pleased to be here to hear the presentations from the different groups.

There will be questions. As I mentioned to some people this morning, if any of you in the audience or any of the presenters want to get in your own two cents' worth informally, don't hesitate at all. The committee members are great people. They don't mind being dragged off to the corner to get a little bit of extra advice, because sometimes that's what it takes to get decisions changed.

The committee structure in Parliament is one of the most important elements I have seen for effecting change. While we have people here who can, hopefully, make the Broadcasting Act a much better piece of legislation, take every advantage you can, or if there are side issues you want to talk about, don't hesitate to do that either.

The first presentation is from the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation, Mr. Leo Furey. We also have with us the Producers Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Paul Pope and Mr. Ken Pittmen.

We ask all presenters to try to stick to 10 minutes roughly. We won't cut you off if you're almost finished, unless we don't like what you're saying, which is usually not the case. Then we'll have questions and answers for as long as people are willing to question and answer.

Mr. Furey, you may begin.

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

Mr. Leo Furey (President, Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation): Thank you, Mr. Hearn. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

It is a great pleasure for me to be here today. I'm pleased and grateful for this opportunity to speak on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador's local artists. Thank you. The occasion is even more special for me because my friend Wendy Lill is here. It's a delight to be in the company of a great dramatic artist.

Thank you very much.

[English]

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this morning. It's wonderful that the committee could find time to travel to the most easterly part of Canada to hear our concerns, which are very serious concerns regarding broadcasting in this country.

I'm just going to touch upon one or two points. My colleagues Mr. Pope and Mr. Pittmen will speak with respect to what's been happening in the industry. For the last 25 to 30 years, they've been the heart and soul of filmmaking and television in this province in many respects, representing NIFCO and the Producers Association.

In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s in Newfoundland, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was alive and vibrant with activity. Today it is dying, and there are many Newfoundlanders--indeed, many Atlantic Canadians--who feel deeply that the CBC television network in fact is dead. The same is not true of radio, but those are the feelings that many Atlantic Canadians experience.

The loss of CBC in-house production activity has had a dramatic impact here. The CBC studio functioned at one point, particularly in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, as an incubator, giving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians an opportunity to pilot projects that could be picked up nationally. This is no longer possible.

[Translation]

Currently, it's very difficult, if not impossible, for a Newfoundlander to obtain a broadcasting licence. The process involves travelling to either Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto. This is a major problem for any Newfoundlander working in this industry.

[English]

The historic importance of the CBC in Newfoundland is such that, in the past, we had very little opportunity to get our stories out. Anybody who knows anything about the history of Newfoundland understands that we have a history that is greater than the history of this nation.

At breakfast this morning, the librarian at Memorial University was talking to some of our guests about the condominiums that are going up in Quidi Vidi and what a marvellous place it was with such historic importance. In fact, the French and English fought battles around that cove in the 1600s. Before the existence of the United States or Canada, the French and the English were duking it out on Signal Hill.

We have, we're proud to say, the greatest history of this continent, and we're very happy to share this history with our fellow Canadians. Our only voice, notre seule voix pour ça, c'est le CBC. Mais il n'existe plus maintenant. It doesn't exist any more, and the reason for that is because people have rationalized that the voice for Canadian broadcasting can in fact occur out of Toronto, and everything now is Toronto-centric.

Newfoundlanders in particular do not have an avenue whereby local producers can acquire this licence. It's bad enough that producers can't obtain a licence in this province, but it's now abundantly clear that it's virtually impossible to get a broadcast licence anywhere in Atlantic Canada. How then are we supposed to get our stories out?

[Translation]

It's quite simple really, if not tragic. We do not have a voice in our culture. Imagine for just a moment the province of Quebec not having a voice in French Canadian culture. That would really be tragic. Newfoundlanders find themselves in exactly that same situation. We have a great culture with a long history, but there is no means for us to give expression to our stories and tales. It's truly a tragedy.

[English]

As committee members are only too aware, those best equipped to tell local stories are the people who live and work here, the people who were born and bred here.

During the past, the CBC has built a solid reputation addressing all regional concerns. At present it appears that the regions do not count. The trend is toward a centralized policy for running “the people's” broadcasting system. This, as I mentioned in French a moment ago, is a great tragedy.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairperson, the mandate of the CBC requires the prominent use of Canadian creators and talent as a means of promoting our culture. This is a clear mandate. It is one that is an ideology of inclusivity, not exclusivity. It's vital, therefore, that the CRTC honour its mandate to protect regional interests by maintaining the delicate balance in the public interest between cultural, social, and economic goals of legislation on broadcasting.

Merci beaucoup.

¿ (0920)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Mr. Furey, for a brief but very pointed presentation.

I'll now go to Mr. Pope.

Mr. Paul Pope (Vice-President, Newfoundland Independent Filmmakers Cooperative; Producers Association of Newfoundland and Labrador): I would like to begin by thanking your committee for coming to Newfoundland to seek our views on the state of Canadian broadcasting.

The Broadcasting Act has been critical to the development of the film and video industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Confirming the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's mandate as a national broadcaster and its sensible interpretation of “national” as meaning all parts of the nation, not just a couple of major centres, has provided a vehicle for our ideas, talents, and programming.

Last year, our film and television industry was worth $22 million and included programs such as the Random Passage mini-series and the feature film Rare Birds. These projects were only possible because of the participation of the CBC. It has taken a lot of time and energy to get to this level of production.

Independent television production started here back in 1975, when NIFCO, the Newfoundland Independent Filmmakers Cooperative, was formed. These early years involved a lot of basic training and experience-building. From 1975 to 1980, expenditures on independent production averaged $50,000 per year. Everyone in mainland Canada basically ignored us, hoping we would go away, except for the Canada Council, the National Film Board, and the CBC, which all provided much assistance.

From 1980 to 1985, independent production grew to $150,000 per year, with an industry milestone occurring in 1983--the first investment by Telefilm Canada and the first sale of an independently produced Newfoundland drama to a national Canadian network, the CBC.

From 1986 to 1990, independent production grew to an average of $500,000 per year, with a couple of very important milestones. The year 1986 brought the premiere of the first indigenous Newfoundland feature film, The Adventure of Faustus Bidgood. This film, which received major critical acclaim at Canadian and international film festivals, finally silenced our critics in more developed film centres who said a film industry in Newfoundland was an impossible idea, a Newfie joke. We had our stories and the people on the mainland ate them up. The same period saw the creation of the Producers' Association of Newfoundland, which has become an important organization in the development of our industry.

On the national scene, individual provinces were creating their own incentives to grow their industries. To level the playing field, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador created an equity investment program through Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador in 1988. The results were immediate; the industry had its first million-dollar year.

From 1990 to 1995, independent production increased to $1.5 million per year, with virtually all of it triggered by the CBC. Interestingly, it was during this time that private broadcasters made the occasional visit to Newfoundland to check us out. But it was cheaper for them to produce in major centres and our business case was weak, so off they went.

The years 1995 to 2000 saw the creation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation, the implementation of a film tax credit, and the publication of an industry guide. The creation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation has been instrumental in the growth of our industry. The fact that the CBC had developed a history of doing business with Newfoundland producers and that national audiences were receptive to our television shows was a key factor in this important provincial initiative. Independent production during this period grew to $12 million per year.

Last year, our value of production was $22 million. In a province of 500,000 people, that is quite significant.

The Broadcasting Act is a vital piece of legislation that helps define Canada and benefits every Canadian, regardless of where they live. It is an important means of strengthening Canada's cultural, social, and economic structures. The reasons that such an act was required in 1928 are still true today, and will likely continue into the foreseeable future. They are the threat of foreign control and the resulting exclusion of Canadian material from the Canadian broadcast system.

The airwaves are public property, and licences to broadcast must include conditions that guarantee benefits and value to the public that owns them. It is critical that we have a strong national broadcaster able to do the heavy lifting in areas that are important to Canadians but are seen as too risky--and I'm talking clearly about prime-time television here--and that the private broadcasters find difficult or are unwilling to do.

The trend toward media consolidation and the emergence of new technology, such as the Internet and digital television, really increase the need for a strong broadcast act that will help protect Canadian sovereignty.

The truth of the matter is that it will always be cheaper to buy foreign programming than to make our own. Canadian content requirements must be strengthened and the CBC must be given long-term support, or Canada as a country will have no voice on the international scene.

¿ (0925)

I always stand amazed when I read in the paper or see on the TV news some private broadcasting executive spouting the wisdom of open markets and free enterprise and so on. I know full well that the same guy will appear in front of the CRTC and he will fight like crazy to keep a competitor from getting a licence in their market.

It is a two-way street. Not only must the CRTC regulate the issuance of broadcast licences to protect the private stations, but the private stations must also agree to protect the communities' interests.

Thank you.

¿ (0930)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you, Mr. Pope and Mr. Pittmen.

For those who don't know, Mr. Pittmen is one of our cultural gurus, and his name is synonymous with the word “culture” in the province. We're glad to have him here this morning.

Okay. We can get into our questioning round.

Madame Gagnon to start.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): You've related your experiences to us. People from the regions have told us that with the cuts to the CBC, local production has become a problem. Why are you having problems obtaining a broadcasting licence to feature Newfoundland productions? Your work is produced and aired locally, yet you need a licence from head offices in Toronto. I can't quite comprehend that. Why must you obtain a licence from Toronto, rather than from the local CBC station?

[English]

Mr. Paul Pope: The reality of that is the CBC is one network. Sometimes we refer to the time slots on the network as real estate, and there are no time slots for Newfoundland only or for Atlantic Canada only. So whatever we produce in Newfoundland or in Nova Scotia has to be for consumption by the main network. This then means the network, depending on the section you're dealing with, whether it's variety, children's, or drama, basically has to bless this in order for it to move forward into production.

Ironically, because of Newfoundland's time zone, there were three instances in the year when pre-emptions at the network would open up a brief window that we got to use. On a regular basis you cannot produce on the CBC just for one region any more. So Toronto is implicated in all decisions.

[Translation]

Mr. Leo Furey: Back then, a local producer went down to the local studio and requested a licence to produce a pilot project. That's no longer an option today because funding and programming has dried up. We no longer have a CBC affiliate here. We deal with the Halifax office, which doesn't have any funding and programming for national and international projects.

[English]

It's a very difficult situation. We used to go over to the local in-house studio, to people like Ron Crocker and Jim Byrd, and pitch our stories. And people would buy them and they would be bought up by Canadians and they would sell out. Witness This Hour Has 22 Minutes. Besides Hockey Night in Canada and The National, there's nothing in the country that has the numbers.

Right now, our producers have to go, cap in hand, to Toronto. There's another network here, but the producers will tell you it may as well not be here. We have nowhere to go to get our stories out. We have to talk to Global in Toronto and CTV in Toronto and CBC in Toronto and wine and dine them and say, “This is a great story”. Then the tragedy is that you may get a story that's distinctly Newfoundland, that is precious historically and culturally. And unless they have the cultural integrity that people like Paul, Ken, and the rest of our producers here have I'm sure too, the producers often write off or manipulate it in such a way that it doesn't look like a Newfoundland story. You're embarrassed to see it. I'm sure Cape Bretoners can say the same thing, and New Brunswickers and Prince Edward Islanders. I'm sure Wendy would have thousands of stories on that front.

The tragedy is that somebody, somewhere, who makes the decisions with respect to CBC has written off the regions in the name of the dollar. And it's not working.

¿ (0935)

The latest I've heard--

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Leo Furey: Well, it's partly correct.

The truth is that even the cutting out of the suppertime shows.... We have an aging population, and we have suppertime shows that are big winners in Charlottetown. They had huge numbers, and in Newfoundland they had huge numbers. The latest I heard is that Mr. Rabinovitch is actually rethinking that now, and the CBC is rethinking it. That is a way of binding the country; it's a way of bringing together the stories from outside the centres like St. John's and Corner Brook, the outports and so on.

Paul may beg to differ on parts of this, so I'll yield to him to hear what he has to say.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Paul Pope: The statement that we have to go cap in hand to Toronto, that there's no regional presence, is not correct. The regional presence of the CBC is important. It's in Halifax. There's a reasonable presence here in Newfoundland. They're quite available. They are quite helpful in terms of positioning our projects as we get into the network.

You have to understand that the CBC national gets projects from the good, the bad, and the ugly. The regional directors do an excellent job in terms of helping expedite their projects. The decision of the CBC to broadcast one stream, the national stream, meant that regional windows across the country were eliminated. That meant there was a certain element of developmental programming that wasn't happening. That was a choice forced upon them by budgetary cuts.

Mr. Leo Furey: I think it's fair to say that while there is a regional presence, and while there is a presence here, and while we have terrific support from people like Ron Crocker and others, the reality is there's not a lot of dough being put into this region with respect to CBC. Would you not agree, Paul? You might get a small $5,000 licence to polish something, but you can't get the big stuff. When you're talking Random Passage, when you're talking about a broadcaster for Rare Birds or whatever, you really have to get people at the head office in Toronto and get their ears. Is that not correct?

Mr. Paul Pope: Rare Birds has a full third in from the CBC. What can I say?

Mr. Ken Pittmen (Director, Producers Association of Newfoundland and Labrador): There's a really fundamental problem that was there in the beginning, in terms of interpreting the CBC's application of its mandate. That's one aspect of it. Secondly, there's a fairly recent history of our experience with the local CBC branch.

To go back to the fundamental question of the CBC nationally applying its mandate within the Broadcasting Act, from the beginning it seems to have taken a particular philosophy of disseminating cultural expression for a country. They have taken a centralist or a centre-of-voice kind of approach to delivery rather than recognizing and acknowledging the active fabric that makes up this country across its breadth and its depth, and letting that voice bubble up and express itself all over simultaneously, from the country, from its various specific and detailed parts.

What it has chosen to do as a method is to channel out of those parts and details the core, in some respects, and then digest it and package it and put it back out to the ears of the people who actually expressed it. As one person producing in the audiovisual medium and as a Canadian who watches our screens and listens to our radio, I think that's a mistaken vision for a public broadcaster. It was mistaken when it started and it's mistaken now. It's mistaken particularly in its struggle to try to address economic realities and still keep that kind of a philosophy.

The second point of the recent history is what Leo is describing and what Paul is describing. They seem to be different realities, but they are actually the latest development on what used to be a fairly genuine access that the local CBC could represent for local producers and for Newfoundland viewers and Newfoundland listeners. There was a more direct access because there was more local broadcasting time on the screen, where you could watch Newfoundland subject matter and Newfoundland talent and Newfoundland genius, if I dare say so, on the screen in your own living room, coming from your own province. That now is very rare, and the freedom for the local CBC decision-makers to encourage that is limited by economics, of course, and by the new restructuring that has put that decision-making in Halifax and not in St. John's.

I'd just like to reiterate that it's a question of the fundamental approach to carrying out a public communications mandate, and I think it's mistaken. Then you have the kinds of things that Leo and Paul are talking about, which is the outcome of that, with some of it being good but a lot of it being really unacceptable.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much. I think we could probably get a good debate going on this topic, and it might be to our overall edification to do so. However, hopefully more of this will come out during the questioning.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you. I think it's been very interesting to hear what both the presentations have said about the production of Newfoundland art and culture and history. There is some dispute going on here about whether the move has been to Toronto or to Halifax, but clearly there's a disappointment and a real sense of betrayal that the decision-making has gone off the Rock at a time when it needs to be there more than ever. I'd like to get some facts on that, if I could.

Leo, as the head of the Film Development Corporation, do you have any figures on whether there has been a decline in dollars for Newfoundland production? I'd like to know whether we can see a decline in dollars for producers and also for writers and actors in Newfoundland because of the decisions that have been made to centralize CBC operations.

Mr. Leo Furey: The response I would give to that is somewhat paradoxical. As Paul pointed out, we've had an incredible year and we've experienced growth around the level of $22 million, which is very special and very significant. But I don't think what Paul and I are saying is necessary antithetical. Ken's point is bang on. The common denominator here is that there are serious philosophical changes at the CBC with respect to regionalism. The same kind of spirit that prevailed in the sixties and seventies and the early eighties in Atlantic Canada just is not here right now with respect to the CBC.

Paul is much better equipped, as a hands-on producer, to talk to you about what kind of money is being accessed. He's had great success with Extraordinary Visitor and Rare Birds and some other films.

Yes, we're certainly getting out there, but at the same time it's somewhat paradoxical because we are also a growing industry. We have more producers, we're going to other networks, we're meeting with distributors we didn't meet with before. The film corporation is building bridges to co-production communities using our tax credit leverage, which can get you up to $1 million on a production. So it's not an easy question to answer, Wendy. Maybe Paul can shed more light on this.

Mr. Paul Pope: In terms of the seventies and eighties, there was very little production originating independently in Newfoundland that migrated to the network, and that was happening across the country. In terms of the last couple of years, as I said, the CBC has basically been behind all our big projects, and they are network based. There is a network development fund, called the TransCanada Development Fund, that's administered by the regional directors. With the exception of drama, it's an autonomous fund that the regional directors operate. They use it quite reasonably to stimulate production and to get projects to the point where they can be reasonably evaluated.

¿ (0945)

Ms. Wendy Lill: You happen to have two productions that we've all seen and enjoyed in the last year, and those are Rare Birds and Random Passage. I don't know whether there are other shows in production, but it may actually be a blip that we're seeing right now.

I have spoken with people from the Writers' Guild about your concern with the fact that the amount of Canadian drama, new Canadian content, has dropped considerably. In 1999 there were 12 hours of drama in production, and this year there are five hours of drama. Across the country we are seeing concerns from film development corporations and local producers that we're not creating the same amount of Canadian content.

Mr. Paul Pope: If the CRTC makes the decision to permit the Globals of the world to do no prime-time Canadian content drama--I think they're at one show this season--then the pressure on the CBC to follow likewise will be even greater. The requirement for the broadcast licence and what the privates have to do is a really critical part of this. If they're not prepared to tell our stories and if we're not willing to force them to do it, for the right to have our broadcast airwaves, how do we expect the CBC to do it?

It's not a CBC problem alone; it's a broadcasting issue. All the broadcasters that want that little licence to print money--I don't think too many of the terrestrial broadcasters are broke in this country, certainly not the ones I know--are required to make Canadian drama as a cost of doing business, like insurance, like rent, like taxes.

¿ (0950)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, Lib.): First, I have to commend the chairman that we're almost 45 minutes into the proceedings, here in your hometown, and you haven't mentioned the nose and tail or the Flemish Cap. I admire that restraint.

I'd like to welcome you. The presentations are similar to what I'm hearing in my community in Cape Breton.

There seems to be a little difference of opinion between Mr. Furey and Mr. Pope. The sense I'm getting is that there are regional moneys and there is regional support. I guess it's the local opportunities on the ground. Here in Newfoundland, the more developed producers and professionals in the field have access to some of the regional opportunities out of Halifax. But it's those entry-level opportunities. There's just nothing there now where up-and-comers or...there's very little opportunity, very little risk-sharing, going on at the local level.

Maybe you could give us a snapshot of where we were 10 years ago in the CBC with access by local producers and local artists, and where we are now.

Mr. Leo Furey: I guess that's the point, if I may jump in.

I'm not really disagreeing with Paul. He's an experienced producer. He moves and shakes, and he knows what he's doing and gets people to listen to him.

I think you're hitting the nail on the head. We're trying to build an industry. We have about 30 projects in development. We have a lot of young people. We had a presentation the other day on new media with 30 people, most of whom were extremely young. All I'm trying to do is focus the committee's collective intelligence and concentration on the fact that in the sixties, the seventies, and the early eighties, the CBC presence in this province and this region was something to behold. It was awesome. It was a phenomenon. It was great. It was buzzing all the time. Every time you turned on the TV, there was Pigeon Inlet, or Gordon Pinsent was doing something, and lots of this stuff was getting out in a national way.

There are producers in this province who have been very successful. Ken is one. Paul is another, and Barb Doran. There are others. I really am not so much focusing on the fact that our production community, which is on a bit of a roll right now, isn't going to go forward. I'm sure it is. I'm concerned, as a citizen, as a person who's trying to help build bridges to places to grow this industry, that the CBC--and I stand corrected--has essentially written off the regions, in some respects.

I leave that open for debate.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Just before I let Paul comment on this, give us a little history lesson here. Before you blessed the rest of Canada with CODCO, obviously that group got their feet wet somewhere in the local community and would have cut their teeth with some local programming opportunities.

Mr. Paul Pope: In the period 1965 to 1988...it was 1992 that production activity ceased here. Prior to that, it was basically produced out of St. John's. There was some daytime TV programming that was produced, a couple of half-hour talk shows, on a regular, daily basis. There was a kids' show that was produced Saturday mornings, Skipper and Company. That brought kids in to play. It was a daily show.

Then they produced at any time up to an hour, or an hour and a half, of prime-time television. The root of the CODCO series started in Up At Ours, which was a little sitcom. Then it became The Root Cellar, which was a more contemporary music show. They also did variety and sports through that period too. Then that became the Wonderful Grand Band show. At the end of the Wonderful Grand Band show there was a brand-new studio built in Halifax by the CBC. It was a large facility, 100% paid for by the CBC. That was when Telefilm started the private independent production activity and the broadcast fund, and the CODCO show was produced in Halifax to fill that studio through Salter Street Films, as a CBC co-production. But the shows that led up to it were those. And of those shows--I'll stand corrected--what migrated to the network were six episodes of Wonderful Grand Band and three episodes of S & M Comic Book. I believe all the rest were domestic only, except for possible repeats in the summer.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: But those opportunities aren't there now is what--

Mr. Ken Pittmen: The children's is gone. The general interest interview midday show is gone. The All Around the Circle show or music variety window is gone. The extended new show with opportunity for good solid documentary investigation is gone. So there is a real change. We saw those presences as an opportunity to build on, and not only has the building stopped, but those bases are gone.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I appreciate your comment as well as your concession. It will always be cheaper to buy the foreign productions--the U.S. productions. It'll always be cheaper to buy Big Macs rather than a filet or a good feed of cod tongues. But in the Canadian cultural diet we certainly need more than Big Macs. The committee shares your opinion that it's important that we tell the whole story of Canada.

You guys would really uncomplicate things if you just packed your bags and moved to Ottawa or Toronto.

You spoke about the impediments of the licensing. You're not able to get licensed here to produce. What are the greater impediments? Is it just dollars?

Mr. Leo Furey: Yes. I don't want to be misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. Ralph Holt of the Telefilm office in Halifax, which represents the Atlantic region, has been fantastic in this province and indeed the whole region. We have great friends at the CBC who have been more than willing to stick their necks out big time to help us get a lot of our stories out. But the brutal fact--the raw truth of the matter--is that we are 700 miles out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

Our strategic plan as a corporation to try to grow this industry is to look to the Irish and the Australians and the New Zealanders in our effort to build a self-sustained industry. It's certainly not looking towards the kind of productivity you see in Nova Scotia, which the corporation there claims is at $170 million last year. We feel that if we can get it up to about $30 million and sustain it, we can employ 1,000 Newfoundlanders annually--or at least 700 or 800--and create close to a small paper mill. And it's a renewable resource. God knows, Loyola can keep you here till the cows come home talking to you about the talent--the writers and the actors and the musicians. Every time we turn around the musicians in Newfoundland are winning another prize. It's amazing.

But our biggest impediment is geography. I wish there was another committee in the next room that we could go to and talk about Air Canada and the horrific problems we have with flights. Loyola and I were talking earlier. We do a bit of travelling, and it's just outrageous what's happened in transportation in the last while.

So when you look at the impediments of geography...we want to live here; we love every grain on this island and in Labrador, but the truth of the matter is there are impediments. As I see it, at least in general philosophical terms, unless somebody at the political level politicizes and champions the philosophy and the mandate of the CBC in terms of the regions, I think we're going to be in trouble. I hope I'm wrong, but I think even for experienced producers like Paul, it's going to get more and more difficult.

À (1000)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you, Mr. Cuzner, gentlemen.

I'm going to ask one question before we finish up. However, having said that, before I do, just looking back at, as some of you mentioned, the number of programs that we had in the 1970s and 1980s, when we had practically nothing going for us at the time.... I remember growing up on southern shore with a young fellow by the name of Ron Hynes, and what amazed everybody was that Ron had a guitar and he could actually play it. Even though there was a lot of raw talent around, we didn't have much support at the time, or any type of support, even musical instruments, because most of us couldn't afford them, I suppose.

Times have changed tremendously, but instead of being able to build on the basics, as you said, we're not able to do that. Now with the amount of support we have, and the increase in talent and the opportunities for our talents to display themselves, we could do so much more here given the proper support.

That's the one question I have, and I'll ask each of you to comment. If we happened to be the genie in a bottle this morning and you had one wish, what is the one thing you would like to see changed that would help us enhance our opportunities here in the province?

Mr. Furey, do you want to start?

Mr. Leo Furey: I think I'd respond to this as a Canadian, that parliamentarians should reflect upon what this great country is. I think it was Laurier who said we don't want a melting pot. He thought of Canada as a great cathedral, where the stone remains stone, the marble remains marble, and the oak remains oak.

That's regionalism. I think that kind of reflection, that kind of philosophical determination, has to supercede how the money is divided. I'm not necessarily opting for a quota system or whatever, but I really believe that parliamentarians need to look very closely at the power and the importance of the medium. It is, as McLuhan said, the message, and becoming increasingly more so in the multi-channel universe. Paul hit the nail on the head when he said it's a two-way street. Who speaks for Canada, not to mention Newfoundland, or Quebec, or P.E.I.?

I think unless some very serious reflection is done about broadcasting in this country in the next while we may have difficulties that we really don't want to have. I think it's a golden opportunity, and this committee's work is incredibly important because I think it can show a direction that the country can take with respect to nationalization in particular.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Mr. Pope.

Mr. Paul Pope: I would want to see every licensee who holds a broadcast licence in Canada pulling their weight in terms of the responsibilities of that licence. And I'm sorry if the brilliant capitalists lost their shirt in convergence, I'm sorry if their $300 million value in some Internet start-up company is worth nothing, I'm sorry if their newspapers are losing money, but that should not remove their responsibility to produce Canadian television. That's what's clearly happening. They're becoming unprofitable virtually, and the people who will pay for it are the viewers who will not see Canadian stories. They'll see versions of stories, knock-offs of stories, but not legitimate, dramatic television that should be a condition of their licence.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Mr. Pittmen.

Mr. Ken Pittmen: There are just two points I would like to see as a result of your work--if we could dream. One would be that the government and governments of the future should maintain a vision whereby support and investment in their public broadcasting system will be ensured. I refer to the broadcasting system generally but include its pre-eminent force, the public broadcasting system. I would like to see them do that by supporting and revitalizing the CRTC for the important duties it has, as well as the CBC and Radio-Canada, the best choice that could ever have been made historically for an approach to public broadcasting. I want to see the governments revitalize those aspects of our country, stick with them, and invest in them. That would be my dream at the national level.

At the local level I would hope that as a result of changes that are proposed, CBNT St. John's will return to its status as a production partner with independent producers to form a production source. Then Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can see themselves and be proud of the expression they are seeing as it overflows into the eyes and ears of the rest of the country.

À (1010)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Mr. Pittmen and all of you.

I believe it was Mr. Furey who said that the energies of the country should meld together as the waters flowing from the west join with the waters of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Canada. The energies of the people should come together as such. Strictly in a case like this, with people from all over the country and our committee being able to make the proper presentations and listening to people like yourselves, heaven knows, maybe we'll reach that vision Mr. Pittmen talked about. You do have to dream, and unless people who are affected by what's happening make their case--and we can make it for you directly to the decision-makers--nothing will happen.

Madame Gagnon, you had a point you wanted to raise?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Does the provincial government invest in television production? Do you receive any provincial government funding to support cultural endeavours and if so, what is the level of that funding?

Mr. Leo Furey: Yes. The province administers two programs for television and film production. A $1 million fund and a tax credit are available. Funding mechanisms are the same as the ones in place in Quebec, Ontario and elsewhere.

[English]

In a nutshell, these programs function to help the producers get their projects in development and get their projects out to the other venues whereby they can access other money from the Feature Film Fund and the Canadian Television Fund and private funds, and so on.

So yes, certainement they exist. With the corporation having opened its doors almost five years ago, we've found this has been une grande occasion pour l'industrie locale.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you.

Madam Lill, do you want to take a brief time with each? We can work it in.

À (1015)

Ms. Wendy Lill: I just have two brief questions.

Mr. Pope, you've referred to the fact that you're not happy with private broadcasters' commitment to creating content here. Could you speak briefly about that and where your disappointment lies?

I would also be interested if you could talk about a profile of community television in the region, because we're concerned about that issue and are hearing some pretty disturbing things across the country. I'm wondering what role community TV plays here in Newfoundland.

Mr. Paul Pope: The broadcasting by the private broadcasters is not a local issue; it's a national issue. I think you just have to look at the LFP renewals to see what broadcasters are active and not active. The bulk of them are coming to the CRTC and asking to be relieved of some of the requirements for prime-time dramatic production.

Let's face it; it's very pointless to make Canadian content for time slots that nobody watches. Making low-end, low-budget material for those time slots is irrelevant. We're talking prime time here.

I've pitched to all the private broadcasters over the years, and they have no requirement for.... The only time they're really actively pursuing a region is when they want a licence, which we saw two years ago. Lo and behold, CHUM and CTV were in a bidding war over who could buy the most feature films in Vancouver. Now that the CRTC broadcast licence has been settled, there's no activity from those stations there this year, from my knowledge of the recent list published on the Canadian Television Fund's website.

The role the broadcasters play is a national problem. If you study all of their submissions to the CRTC, each and every one of them contains clauses and requests and positions to reduce the amount of dramatic television production in prime time. They basically want to do reality shows like Who Wants to be a Canadian Millionaire?--it's apparently worth more because of the exchange--and these particular shows. We'll take Survivor and put them on the prairies because it's cheap. You don't have to pay these guys, they're so excited to be on TV.

I think that is an absolute shame. This is largely being driven by their convergence platform. They're basically taking television to finance their other activities. It's a by-product of convergence and should be watched very closely.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Mr. Cuzner, you have a point?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I appreciate your frank opinion on the convergence.

I guess there's a contention with the private broadcasters that one of the reasons they don't go head to head against Friends or Frasier or some of the established American shows is that when they invest a fair amount of money into a Canadian production, they want to see that production succeed. They're very specific that they don't put it head to head with one of the big hitters. They try to find an appropriate spot in the scheduling week, whether it's a Sunday evening or whenever it is. So that's why they don't go prime time with a lot of the Canadian productions.

What's your comment on that?

Mr. Paul Pope: That's absolute nonsense because they're going head to head with that all the time with their own version of foreign products they purchase. If they're unable to make a product that can go head to head with it, perhaps they should not be in the broadcasting business.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Well, the broadcasting business should be the production business. That's what the airwaves are there for. You and I could start a television station if we just bought a catalogue and stuck it on. It would be fine, it would serve you and me fine, but who else would it serve? If they don't have to produce, they shouldn't have their licence protected. If they really believe in the free system, then open the doors and they'll drop like flies. The problem is that they want it both ways.

À (1020)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): There's one question that was thrown out that we didn't get to touch, and that was the state of community television in the province. I wondered if you have a quick comment. Then we will have to cut off this section.

Mr. Paul Pope: I will tell you that the Rogers Out of the Fog show is incredibly popular in this city and in this particular geographic area.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): I know; I was on it one night.

Mr. Paul Pope: It's incredibly popular. If you're on that show and you're on other shows, in informal surveys the number of people who come up to say they saw you on it is quite strong. It clearly demonstrates there's a desire for that material.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much. I hate to have to call this session to an end, because it's been extremely informative. I'm sure all of you have a lot more you can offer, and we have a lot more we can ask.

Maybe, Mr. Cuzner, we can push for a special series on overfishing on the nose and tail. An investigative series would be interesting.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming in this morning. You certainly have enlightened us tremendously. I suggest you keep in touch with the committee generally--any of us as individuals--and let's hope some of the things you talk about can work out in the end.

Thank you very much.

I don't think Mr. Langlois from the Association francophone de Saint-Jean is here. So, Mr. Harris, if you wish, sir, we'll hear you.

Before we move on, in case I have to leave a little early, I'd like to again publicly thank Eleanor Dawson for coordinating a lot of what's happening here today and certainly for this morning. Thank you very much, Eleanor.

As everyone is still moving around, we'll take another couple of minutes to give people a chance to get coffee; then we can get right into our hearing. We'll pause for five minutes.

À (1021)

À (1025)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Our next presenter will be Mr. Jack Harris. Jack is the leader of the New Democratic Party in the province. We thank Jack for taking time out to come this morning. He also came to do a presentation when our fisheries committee was here.

We're glad to see the interest, Mr. Harris.

À (1030)

Mr. Jack Harris (Member of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Leader, New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to talk about this important issue.

I don't have a formal presentation, but I want to make a few points. I know your mandate is broad. I read all of the nuances of your activity. I don't intend to deal with very many of them. I know you have your work cut out for you.

I'd like to use my short time this morning to talk about the importance of public broadcasting in Canada and to Newfoundland and Labrador. The role of public broadcasting is of extreme importance and great national significance. In this country, of course, we are close to a very dominant neighbour that has a huge cultural impact on this country.

Mr. Roger Cuzner: Cape Breton.

Mr. Jack Harris: It wouldn't be Cape Breton. We like to say the Cape Bretoners are people who would like to be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They were stopped on their way to being Canadians.

I'm speaking, of course, of the Americans and their very strong cultural influence--or some might say domination--on Canada. In Canada, 95% of the films screened are American. Also, 60% of English television shows in Canada and 70% of all music played in Canada comes from the United States.

Obviously, over the past years, we have developed significant Canadian cultural elements both in music and television films. We still can't get Canadian films on screens in Canada very often.

Rare Birds, for example, was recently shot. Paul Pope, who was one of the last presenters, was instrumental. Next to Men with Brooms, it had the biggest screening in Canada for Canadian films. They are rarities in a culture dominated by Americans.

It is a reason. It's not that we don't like American culture. We want to have our own. We do have own. We want to be able to see it. We want to be able to share it. We want to be able to have it available to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We do have a tremendous amount of creative talent, but we don't have the support we need. One of the supports would come from a stronger public broadcaster.

In the United Kingdom, for example, the BBC is funded by the British government to the tune of $7.5 billion in Canadian dollars. Federal spending on CBC is about $750 million a year. It's an interesting contrast in terms of the commitment to public broadcasting. It's a commitment to a national culture that is supported, sustained, nurtured, and developed through public broadcasting and the broadcasting media.

I think ten times as much is a staggering difference. Granted, Britain has a larger population, perhaps double the population. The land mass of Britain is about half the size of the island of Newfoundland, let alone Labrador.

We're dealing with a huge country with a great need to communicate our ideas, our culture, and our understanding of one another, which was the original mandate of the CBC: to let other Canadians know about and understand each other.

Here in this province, public broadcasting has tremendous support. We don't hate the private broadcasters. In fact, NTV is very popular in this province. Their local news show has in fact increased its market share considerably in the last 10 or 15 years. There are many reasons for that, obviously. They cater very strongly in their news to local stories, local issues, and the local market.

One of the other issues has been the cuts, to CBC television in particular, that have taken place over the last 10 or 15 years. We had stations close in Gander in 1984 and in Corner Brook and Goose Bay in 1990, with 70 positions lost, 90 staff positions, and almost a 50% cut in 1996.

We saw Land and Sea, which was the flagship program of the local CBC region, cancelled in 1990 and resurrected in 1991 as part of a local news hour. Then it got national exposure in 1992. Every few years there seems to be a need for massive public reaction to try to save what's left of the CBC in this province.

Two years ago, with the major cuts across the country to regional news and information programming, the plan was to scrap all regional news programs, and that was fought. It is perhaps because of the fight here in Newfoundland, the great support for Here and Now in Newfoundland, that the plan was changed. The supper hour news in Newfoundland and Labrador is now a half hour of strictly local and regional news and another half hour coming out of Vancouver, part of Canada Now.

Some people call it “Here and There” instead of Here and Now, but it's a much smaller program and frankly much less watched because people in this province want to see what's going on in this province as well as obtain a national perspective. The supper hour news seems to be the time for people to do that. I'm sure somebody will come and tell you, perhaps someone from NTV, how well they're doing in the media surveys. I think their viewership is probably double or triple now that of the CBC news hour.

Again, that's not meant to blame the journalists of the local CBC but to recognize that the audience wants to finds out about this province as well as what's going on elsewhere in the country.

There are two points I really want to make. First, the national broadcaster, the CBC, has replaced some of this with Country Canada and other innovative things they're doing. I think it's tremendously important to our national cultural survival, and for that reason alone it ought to be protected, nurtured, and given an increase in funding.

The second reason it's so important to have a significant public broadcaster is because of media concentration. There are business reasons for consolidation, and we understand that it can happen. The extreme difficulty I have with that is that we're getting more and more a single view that comes from the media. We see the consequence of it, the cross-ownership with CanWest Global, we saw the news, and we see it with Rogers Cable and Maclean's magazine

There are other elements to it, and there's a long history of recognized self-censorship in the media as well as direct censorship, of which CanWest Global has been accused recently in terms of editorial policy. A strong public broadcaster presents a good alternative to that, an independent alternative that is not based on the business model or business view of the world. Other views of the world can be expressed though quality journalism and the commercially independent broadcasting we have in the CBC, both in English and French, by the way.

À (1035)

Radio-Canada has a significantly independent editorial viewpoint from the English Canada television, and that's right and proper that it be so.

These are the two most important reasons in my view why we need that. We need a strong public broadcaster to provide opportunities for cultural expression that might not come from the profit-oriented private media. We also would like to see a stronger budget for CBC--nationally and in this province--so we can do the kinds of things that people in this province want to see from their public broadcaster as well.

These are basically my points that I want to make, and I've left it to those few points to make them as strongly as possible. I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have.

À (1040)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.

Madame Gagnon.

À (1045)

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You stressed the importance of providing more funding to the CBC. Is local production suffering at Radio-Canada as well as at the CBC? You say it's a matter of cultural survival. As we well know, Francophones are in a minority everywhere. What percentage of the population do Francophones account for in Newfoundland? You haven't said much about their cultural survival.

[English]

Mr. Jack Harris: The percentage of francophones in Newfoundland is rather minute--I would say under 2%, and that may be high. We have a francophone community on the west coast of Newfoundland in Cape St. George and we have a small francophone community in the east coast and some in Labrador West. It's very small, although Radio-Canada has a separate news bureau for Newfoundland and Labrador that feeds into the CBC regional French television.

I don't know. I can't comment on whether Radio-Canada has sufficient funds to carry out their mandate. I would be surprised if they did, frankly, because I'm sure they're treated no better than the English television in terms of the overall budget. I can't imagine their being supported in a greater manner. I can't imagine that.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: With respect to media concentration, the major national networks also have an impact on how information is concentrated. We hear how Toronto, Vancouver and other large centres must contend with foreign competition. The push is on for state-of-the-art technologies and more productions that reflect major trends. There appears to be no turning back for them.

How can we keep up with this trend and at the same time, satisfy regional demand for local programming?

How can air time best be divided among national, regional and local programming? This is a national trend, not merely a regional phenomenon. The impact has been felt more deeply in some areas, but Quebec City hasn't been spared either. There is no local news programming on weekends. The national networks in Montreal take up the slack. In other regions and provinces of Canada, programming originates from the Toronto studios.

What steps can be taken in an effort to strike a balance between the trend and the desire for local...? It's normal for people to want television programming to mirror their reality. The process helps to maintain a vibrant cultural community.

À (1050)

[English]

Mr. Jack Harris: Yes, I agree there are challenges in terms of achieving an appropriate balance. Unfortunately, what we've seen is that the regions--and Newfoundland and Labrador was considered a separate region with its own regional director--have been gutted in favour of the national broadcaster, and that's a pure function of the squeeze of the budget. When your budget is cut by 25% or 30%, when the national network decides where to cut, they don't cut at headquarters, they don't cut in the centre of the country, they cut in the regions, and that's what we've experienced.

I suppose if you restored funding to the CBC to its previous level or percentage of the budget or some mathematical equivalent of that, the question then would be this. Would CBC put all that money into the centre or would they achieve the balance? And I think that's where your committee might come in and recommend that there be a restoration of more significant funding for the public broadcaster, that there be some requirement that the mandate have a balance between national programming and regional programming.

I guess a good example is a show that Paul Pope referred to when you asked the question about community broadcasting, and it's the exception, I would say, Mr. Chairman, for community broadcasting in this province. It's a program called Out of the Fog. It has a very simple format. It's a half-hour program, but they run it back to back three or four times. So as people are now surfing the channels, which everybody does, they come by this and they recognize somebody and they stop and watch it. They can come in during the middle of the show, watch the rest of the show and watch the first 15 minutes of the show again.

So it's on two or three times a night, and because you see somebody you recognize, a local show, it's of great interest. I would suspect there is local interest across the country in things going on in the community and in other parts of the provinces, and there needs to be a way to tap into that.

So I think on a national level there has to be a balance. The reason there isn't at the moment is because the squeeze has been put on the public broadcaster, and we're paying the price here in this province, and I know in other regions they are as well.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much for coming here today to speak about the public broadcaster.

I'd like to ask you about news. We've heard this before; we've been hearing about the production of drama. I'd like to know what you think as a listener, as somebody who makes news. What is the quality of the news in Newfoundland now coming out of the CBC, coming out of, say, NTV? And by quality I mean how much does it cover the entire province? Are you getting news from L'Anse aux Meadows, from Labrador on a consistent basis?

How can we quantify what we hear all the time from people that the quality of the news is diminishing and that as different Canadians in different regions we're not getting the same connectedness we used to have?

Mr. Jack Harris: Before I entered politics, or in fact before I entered law school, I did work for a couple of years as a broadcaster. I know a little about how a news program is made up. Basically you start with the number of minutes you have and you figure out how you're going to use them.

I know how the CBC does it, because when I was a reporter, if you had a minute and a half to tell your story on a nightly newscast, you were doing very well. So if you cut your program in half, which they've done with the Here and Now program--half of the program comes out of Vancouver with Ian Hanomansing--then obviously you're cutting back the number of stories you have. The budgets are cut back. You can see from the programming that they aren't able to cover as many stories because they only have a certain number of reporters.

With the public broadcaster, I would say the quality of the news has diminished significantly. The coverage is probably better on NTV on a province-wide basis in terms of stories from other parts of the province. I think that's why people are switching. That's why people are turned off from it, because it's not as appealing as it once was, and I think that's a function of cutbacks.

À (1055)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I had the great pleasure of being part of the Canada Games in Corner Brook in 1999, and I think if ever there was a disservice experienced by the people of Newfoundland, it was the fact that CBC wasn't the broadcaster for that particular event. TSN did the broadcast for the Canada Games out of Newfoundland.

One thing the CBC does a great job with is the multi-sport events, the human interest side, and telling the local stories, stories of the local heroes and athletes, as well as our own Canadian athletes. I think they do a tremendous job there.

But we know there's a finite dollar value that we're able to invest in our public broadcaster. We know they can't be all things to all people. In the region, in the province, what are some of the things that maybe the public broadcaster shouldn't be involved in?

Mr. Jack Harris: Well, I have a different view of that, Mr. Cuzner, because to me, sports is culture too. It may not have the same appeal to everybody--some like opera, some like sports, some like cabaret, or whatever--but sports is culture too, and it's an important part of our culture. So I don't see cutting the CBC out of this because this should be available for private broadcasters to max out the dollars on and that shouldn't. I can't do that. I think there's obviously a lot of room for private broadcasters if they want to be in the market and be part of the public trust that is broadcasting and do it on a commercial basis, but cutting the CBC off from sports, saying you shall not do sports or you shall not do business news....

It's as well to say don't do business news, leave that to the business press, leave that to the commercial press. Sports is part of culture; business is part of our culture. It's important for news and for people's understanding of the world.

We see the CBC doing sports sometimes, but yesterday, for example, was a national day of mourning for workers who were killed or injured on the job. It was province-wide; there was a huge ceremony at the Confederation Building, with probably 200 people and organizations laying wreaths. The private broadcaster, NTV, was there with a cameraperson, covering it, doing interviews, and no doubt they will be showing it on their news tonight. CBC will not be because CBC wasn't there. It was a Sunday. Maybe they didn't have the overtime budget to have somebody there. They didn't cover it, and they didn't cover it because they didn't have the dollars to do it. They weren't able to put it into their budget. They didn't schedule someone to go and be there, but NTV was there.

I'm talking about the day of mourning, Mr. Chairman, a national day of mourning for workers injured and killed on the job.

I was in Belle Island yesterday for a similar event, where we were honouring 101 people who were killed in the mines in Belle Island. Neither media was there; CBC wasn't there and neither was NTV.

So these things aren't covered because they don't have the ability to do that.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yes. I guess it's the crux of it. If there is a private broadcaster doing fairly good news coverage and able to pay the bills, there's a market if the numbers are strong. Maybe CBC doesn't invest as much in the news coverage, but it would enable them to invest some money in other aspects of programming. Maybe they could invest a little more in local program development.

Are there are any obvious choices that could be made?

I think you're saying, no, we should still be involved in everything. I think we've come to expect a certain standard from our public broadcaster. If we're going to do something, we expect it to be done well. I guess a point comes where we can't do everything really well.

Do you see the merit? If local news is being covered by a private broadcaster, then that may be an area we might be able to back away from. I'll throw the question at you.

Á (1100)

Mr. Jack Harris: My answer is absolutely no.

We now have a major petition across the country for a public inquiry into media concentration and media ownership. The notables who have supported it include David Suzuki, Claude Ryan, former CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer, John Meisel, Flora MacDonald, Ed Broadbent, Gerald Caplan, and Tom Kent. All political persuasions and people of eminence are recognizing we have to look at the effect of corporate concentration on the media, news broadcasting, and all of these things.

If there's a local news station doing a good job, CBC should back off news. Who's going to decide whether they're doing a good job? Are you going to count the number of news items they have? Are we going to say we do have a national broadcaster with a national mandate?

The reason we're even asking questions is because they've been cut to the quick by successive governments in Ottawa that have taken away the ability to do the good job we've come to expect of them. I'm being asked these questions, and the public is being asked these questions, as if this was the choice.

The choice, as far as I'm concerned, is to have a public broadcaster that's going to be properly funded so we have a chance at cultural survival with the overwhelming neighbour next door in America. They're anxious to sell their cultural products in this country, in some cases at cut-rate prices. We see it with dramas being sold in a type of “Enron market” in Canada, where producing our own programs costs more money. In order to do it, we have to have public support.

I'll go back to the support for public broadcasting in England. If the Brits can put up ten times more money than Canada for their public broadcaster, we have to examine our conscience and see what we're doing wrong, if we really want to have a public broadcaster.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. The last point you made about necessary funding is important. I think we also have to keep in mind that whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

If you put a lot more money into the CBC, the people who man the CBC at arm's-length, as they say, may decide they're going to put it all into Toronto. You know government. If you're going to put money into it, you should make sure the regions are well looked after.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying.

Mr. Jack Harris: I think there's a distinction in calling the tune in terms of how loudly you play, what particular tune you play, and whether or not you'll play tunes in all places. It's like funding an orchestra. We're going to give you money for an orchestra, but we're going to tell you to play in all of the cities. We don't care what you play. We hope you play it well, but you will decide those things.

I think it's fair for government to say, if we're going to have a public broadcaster, we want to make sure it does achieve a balance between national, regional, and local interests. I think it's fair game for government to insist on it. In terms of editorial policy, editorial control, or political manipulation, obviously it's totally out of bounds.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much. You have my sincerest thanks for taking the time out to come in. I think you're in session right now.

Mr. Jack Harris: Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): You have to head back for CUPE. All the best, and thank you very much.

We now have another group of people who are involved. From the St. John's International Women's Film and Video Festival, Katie Nicholson--I think Katie is here--and from the Eastern Edge Gallery, Mike Hickey, and from the famous MUN radio station, CHMR-FM--I always liked listening to it, on weekends in particular--Ernst Rollmann and Michael Rossiter. We'll get you all together and it'll save us some time overall.

It might be beneficial, for the committee in particular, for each of you as you start your presentation to give us a little brief about the agency you represent. Some of our foreigners here this morning are not as familiar with Newfoundland institutions as those of us who are lucky enough to be from here.

Katie, we'll start with you, whenever you're ready.

Á (1105)

Ms. Katie Nicholson (St. John's International Women's Film and Video Festival): I'm here today as a representative of a group that essentially shares many of its aims with our national public broadcaster. Now in our thirteenth year, the St. John's International Women's Film and Video Festival's aims are to provide a venue showcase and promote local Canadian and burgeoning film and video talent through the screening of their works and the promotion of the festival provincially, nationally, and internationally.

The festival's workshop series has also been developed with a specific set of aims, among them to provide professional development to the local industry for entry-level participants and more experienced film and television makers and to provide the general public with a greater understanding of the artistry and business of the local and Canadian film industry.

Because of our many shared aims and goals, the Women's Film Festival is currently enjoying a mutually beneficial partnership with the local CBC. Our offices are housed at CBC Television, and the broadcaster offers us invaluable support in the form of promotional air time, technical resources, event planning, and partnership development, resources not available to us locally through private broadcasting corporations. We are developing a special youth film camp and youth in the media workshop series with CBC, and I would say that our relationship with CBC has greatly helped the festival grow its professional image and better access to media resources.

This commitment by CBC is all very well and good, but it does not diminish the fact that the CBC in this region is not what it was, nor can it as effectively develop the talent that it once nourished and nurtured in this province. It is a fact of life that the arts, cultural, and entertainment industry needs a lot of initial investment and development moneys in order to become self-sustaining. This is particularly true in regional areas of the country, and especially true of Newfoundland, a place rich in cultural talent but struggling with a paucity of funding and a hemorrhaging population base. Burnout in the arts community is a common side effect, touching artist-run centres and production companies alike.

Cuts to the CBC's funding have forced drastic national and local restructuring, with far-reaching consequences. As I mentioned before, the Women's Film Festival is housed in CBC TV, a building which once accommodated 200 workers, a building where I'm constantly reminded that, at 24, I am the youngest person in the building and the most recent new face in an industry that usually boasts a very high turnover. New staff hirings are both a rarity and a luxury, and morale is disturbingly low.

The forced restructuring of CBC has led to our traditional supper hour show being truncated, and people are switching over to watch local programming on an independent channel that sandwiches its supper hour with a night of purely American content.

The loss of one half hour of local content from the CBC's supper hour format has led to a poorer profile of the arts in the province. With an allotment of one half an hour of local supper hour programming, the arts generally are left as an afterthought on a television segment in which the top stories regarding government policy, industry, agriculture, the fisheries, the environment, and other critical headlines must be crammed in with the weather. Arts and culture become a frippery in this format and suffer the consequences of decreased public provincial exposure, resulting in less public awareness and turnout. Before this “improvement” was made, the arts in Newfoundland enjoyed weekly segments and in-depth profiles, regular reviews, and previews on television.

The local private supper hour alternative, while promising more local content, also pipes in a lot of American segments and is, frankly, of a lesser production and content quality than that of our public broadcaster. As a private broadcaster, the alternative station is more concerned with sustaining itself and making a profit. Such is its prerogative. Public and private broadcasters are fundamentally chalk and cheese.

All private broadcasters, regardless of the mandate to service or to appeal to women, youth, or sports fans, share one common goal before all others, and that is to turn a profit. Its programming, its selection of segments and news stories, reflects this goal, and the local arts scene is not regularly profiled, as it once was, on the public station.

While many of us here today are wearing our arts and culture group representative hats, I am confident we are also here as concerned citizens with a strong interest in the national media. Perhaps because I grew up preferring Chuck and Olivia to Sybil Shepherd and Bruce Willis, I was shocked by the fact that in grade 6 nearly half my class thought Canada's president was George Bush. Or perhaps because for nearly every morning of my life I have woken up to Radio One and every evening watched CBC news. I have always been a strong proponent of public broadcasting and at prime time desperately wanted to believe in Canadian content. But the quality of underfunded Canadian productions is lacking, and people switch off.

CBC has a public image problem that has largely to do with its shrinking funding, particularly at prime time. Traditional replaces the current, the radical, and the innovative. Lack of new development funding means CBC finds one program format that is a success and is forced to milk it to death instead of constantly developing new and exciting formats. Our public broadcaster has largely had to rely on the “Wayne and Schusterization” of its air time.

Low-rent variety shows, no matter how clever, cannot and should not be the flagships of creative programming in this country. We need more of Da Vinci's Inquest, more of the Newsroom, shows of incredible quality and smarts that push the boundaries of television, showcase what we are really capable of, and are entirely Canadian.

New initiatives like the fledgling ZeD have helped to change this old, earnestly Upper Canadian WASP-y image, with its unique format that easily accommodates work from the many disciplines, from the many regions, in a hip variety format. Moreover, it broadcasts nationally, so that regional artists' profiles get maximum exposure. Such is the power of the medium. Such is the overwhelming importance of CBC in this country. Our public broadcaster makes Canadian fare infinitely more accessible than any other medium. The National Arts Centre, the National Screen Institute, and the National Gallery are all geographically bound, but the CBC can profile and broadcast these works into the home of every Canadian.

I hate to sound melodramatic, but effectively we are talking about the preservation of Canadian cultural identity. Because Canada is a regional concept, and Canadian identity is the sum of all our parts, I cannot stress enough the need for stronger, better-financed, regional CBC studios and resources in every cultural region of the country--not the contrived metro-multiculturalism of demographically engineered, nouveau-Canadian, Toronto-centric television like Riverdale. Too much of Canadian programming that tries to be regional relies on fish-out-of-water guys from Toronto who go west, east, or north.

No, I'm talking about the need for high-quality work that emanates directly from the regions themselves. I'm talking about increased local programming and air time to further strengthen regional and therefore Canadian identity and to offer a strong, prime-time Canadian voice. Every region and province should have at least two weekly half-hour to one-hour dramatic or comic shows emanating from its region and echoing the voice and culture of its people. The best of these may hit Canadian prime time nationally, eventually. In effect, it is a seeding and germination process.

Two weeks ago, Variety reported a dearth of European programming buys within the European market. German and indeed American television programs had hit an all-time low on the international market, while the European market is reportedly hungry for Canuck-produced fare. Obviously, they haven't seen Blackfly. There is a giant world broadcasting market out there eager to buy Canadian programming, but we have little to offer because our public broadcaster is too cash-strapped to consistently deliver brilliant, clearly Canadian-voiced originals, and the private broadcasting alternatives have little in the way of motivation to do the same.

If this trend continues, Canada will have even less to offer the international broadcasting marketplace, to say nothing of its domestic television market.

Clearly, well-produced, high-quality programming can effectively turn a profit through syndication and being shopped around on the international television marketplace, but not without a strong initial and continued financial commitment by the government to its public broadcaster. Better public broadcasting funding will ensure that the overall quality of Canadian television will rise, that Canadians will choose Canadian content over American content, and that Canadian television will be an even hotter commodity in the international market.

One need only look to the success of the BBC and its level of quality and its programming and video sales overseas. Granted, the United Kingdom is a smaller and much more densely populated country than Canada, but it is nonetheless a very regionally diverse nation, and its programming reflects this. It is the responsibility of the public broadcaster to grow Canadian media talent, to develop it, and to broadcast it. Private networks do not have the same fundamental guiding principles, nor are they financially motivated to develop talent or to invest in the Canadian television development industry.

Simply put, the federal government must stop hacking away at our public broadcaster, for in doing so it lessens not only the CBC but our tenuous hold on “Canadianity”. Money must be reinvested in the CBC and earmarked specifically for regional coverage and development. More regional input must be sought by both federal government and public broadcasters. After all, it's ours.

Á (1110)

Moreover, the CBC should be allotted new funding, like the BBC before it, to develop a distinct CBC films division dedicated to financing and co-producing regional filmmaking.

Overall there is an undeniable need for more development money for regional television, film, and radio talent; nurturing emerging artists; providing a basis for critical thought and growth and development of the local arts world; local arts coverage and promotion; and, most importantly, production.

The essence of Canada's culture does not grow from the centre outwards but from the edges and far-flung corners inwards. The federal government has a duty to ensure that Canadian identity is preserved through the development and eventual broadcasting of Canadian culture. In order to do so the federal government must pledge itself not only to the preservation but also to the betterment of our public broadcaster.

Thanks.

Á (1115)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Katie.

Madame Gagnon.

Á (1120)

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You alluded to the whole cultural identity issue. Speaking of Francophone cultural identity, two per cent of Newfoundlanders are Francophones and their survival is very tenuous. I can understand various communities across Canada talking about cultural survival. I agree with you that if production ceases, this will spell the death of their cultural expression medium.

Earlier, I talked about national network heads and the importance of striking a balance in terms of programming air time. You want more funding for production, but you also need time slots to air your programming.

Have you given any thought to the impact of all this and to the reason why national network heads seem hardly enthused by the idea? More air time for regional productions would mean that national productions would not be as widely disseminated across Canada. Do you share this perception of the situation?

[English]

Ms. Katie Nicholson: If you have these Toronto-centric productions, the idea of Canadian identity that is transmitted to the regions is perverted in a way. It is not true to the region or the area.

I'd like to look at Radio-Canada, the French network, which has a very strong regional voice. The local programming that comes through, shows like Catherine, for example, are fantastic. They have great writing and a very strong regional presence. I think every region can have a distinct voice like that.

With regard to....I'm trying to think of all your points--

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: There are two issues at play here: funding and broadcasting of local programming. Since national network heads are in charge of national programming, what would it mean to them to step aside in favour of local programming? How might a decision of this nature impact national broadcasting?

If the national networks are not responsible for broadcasting, how will they be affected by a decision to give local productions more air time? Would it affect the funding of national programming, as fewer programs would be produced?

Currently, they can broadcast nationally. Therefore, there would clearly be some impact in terms of...

Á (1125)

[English]

Ms. Katie Nicholson: No. What I would like to see is more money, new money, come in specifically for regional programming. We shouldn't cut away at money for large national productions. We need to find new money; the government must give the CBC new money for regional productions.

This is something we need to grow. It's something that's been taken away. We need to put it back. We need to invest long term and we need to invest steadily in the broadcasters in the regions.

From the regions what we'll see is the great strengthening of Canadian television and media talent, which will then in effect help with the national. What we're going to see is that strong regional programming will result in sales. These will become popular television. We'll shop them around in the markets. They will be bought.

Then our larger, national productions will have more talent behind them, experienced talent, well-honed Canadian voices from the regions, working on these large national productions. In effect it's a win-win. These larger productions will have such a level of quality we hope that they will play in theatres, that they will be picked up by large networks, by international networks.

It's costly to invest in the regions and to invest in the national central body, but it is worth it, and it will eventually reach a point at which it can self-sustain. But this is not to say that the government does not have a continued responsibility to always fund their public broadcaster, and to keep it honest, more or less.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you so much for coming here. I have to say I've never heard the word “Canadianity”, and I really like it.

Ms. Katie Nicholson: We don't have much of it after free trade, but anyway....

Ms. Wendy Lill: I don't know whether you read about this in the paper today, but the mother of the Barbie doll has passed away. The Barbie doll, as we know, has had an incredibly powerful impact on the way millions and millions of women the world over see their body image, the idea of success, and what women are supposed to look like. And it probably has been a source of many millions of eating disorders and all sorts of other things.

Barbie dolls aside, I'm interested in the fact that we have such things now as cultural commodities, for example, the whole Harry Potter phenomenon. We have these huge cross-media commercial machines that are pumping out cultural products, and they're having a profound effect on our imagination as Canadians and as Canadian women.

I know you are representing the International Women's Film and Video Festival, and I'm interested in your take as a woman on the impact that the entire juggernaut of cross-media ownership is having on Canadian women and their ability to see themselves quite uniquely from what we're being told we are supposed to be, and see, and care about.

Ms. Katie Nicholson: I think having grown up and seeing all these American Hollywood images.... That doesn't just happen in Canada. It happens in Britain; it happens in France. Everybody reads about the glitz and glamour. We have NBC in Newfoundland and people watch things...even on NTV, which is our local independent broadcaster, we watch things like Friends, which is, let's face it, the “Happy Meal” of television. These people are totally unreal. They live in Manhattan. Their jokes are very American-centric, although very vaudevillian and predictable.

Actual shows about Canadian women or Canadian women's issues are a rarity. I can cite Street Legal and E.N.G as Canadian-produced fare with strong female roles.

But how many people actually watch this when there's so much glitzy, sparkly American fare? Many of the women on these shows that have all the bells and whistles are the ones who appear in the hairstyle magazines. That's what younger children are actually buying into, the American image of women. I don't even think that Canadiana or Canadian identity really figures into this sort of role model for young children when they're looking at pictures of women on television. They're not even processing that that's American. There's this blurring of the line. As I said earlier, in grade 6 I had people in my class who didn't even know we had a prime minister. That was because they watched so much American television.

If you have basic cable, you get three major American networks. Then you have CTV, which is the NTV affiliate, and CBC. So already you have only two Canadian channels, and CTV has mostly American programming on it anyway. There is no Canadian content. There are no stories about Canadian women for young women. Instead they get Charlie's Angels. They get the schlock, basically. It's the American cover girls that everybody gets.

Á (1130)

Ms. Wendy Lill: What we've just heard is shocking, that here in Newfoundland the percentage of Canadian content is as low as it is.

Ms. Katie Nicholson: If I had watched just the CBC, my only two heroes from television would be Shirley Newhook, who used to have a coffee break show on local television, and Debbie Cooper, who hosts the news. That's all. There's no dramatic content. There's nothing there that really speaks to me as a young woman who's growing up and looking for my place in the world and my identity. There is no local programming. There was Pigeon Inlet. I could be like one of them. But that's more regional. It's pretty sad.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I just want to say one thing. Ironically, Canadians think of Newfoundland women as being like Mary Walsh or Cathy Jones. They think of them as being out there and confident and terrifying men all over the country. It's a positive, strong image. Yet you feel you're unable to really develop as a Newfoundlander.

Ms. Katie Nicholson: I grew up in a suburb where growing up felt very American. When you walked through the locker room, you'd see all these pin-ups from American magazines. There was no engagement with Canadian politics and Canadian television.

Peoples' identities are being taken from what's speaking the loudest, what has all the bells and whistles, and what is the most attractive. America is all promotion, and it works. People go for it.

We are not good at promoting ourselves. We're also not good at creating anything we can promote, because we don't have the development money. We're not providing that seed money, and we're not germinating the talent that's here. We have people such as Alyson Feltes going down south. They're talented producers. It's disturbing. We have to stop it somehow. We're hemorrhaging as a country.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much.

I'm going to go to Mr. Cuzner.

I've committed an unpardonable sin. Usually when we have more than one presenter at the table, we'll do the presentations first and then ask the questions. Rather than prolong it, we'll go to Mr. Cuzner, if he has a question for Katie, and then we'll excuse you. We'll then have full presentations and do a combination of questions, because we do have a lot of other presenters and our time is running short.

Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I just did the math on it, and I guess you would have been in grade 6. That would have been when former Prime Minister Mulroney was at the controls. So I can understand the trouble everyone had differentiating between him and the U.S. President.

Á (1135)

That's just a little shot at the chair.

If we look at some of our musical artists, we see the success they've had. If success is making it in the broader world, in the American market and overseas, we see it with some of our music artists--Barenaked Ladies, Shania Twain, Céline Dion, and Great Big Sea. They are huge. But certainly a lot of their success was as a result of being supported by private broadcasters.

If you were listening to CBC, you wouldn't hear a lot of Nickelback, or you wouldn't hear some of the emerging young bands--sloan, or what have you.

So just to be the devil's advocate, if we have a pot of money that should be invested, are there better ways to invest in our talent development than the CBC?

Ms. Katie Nicholson: I think it's wrong to assume that CBC can't show things like emerging artists in the style of Nickelback. I think that's the old CBC. That's the old image that people have--the argyle socks image, the Knowlton Nash glasses. I mean, come on.

The CBC can and will, with the right funding, be able to reach the audience that wants to hear Nickelback. They will be able to show these bands. There are bands in town...I was at the Ship just this Saturday, and I heard the Hot Nuts. I mean, CBC could definitely, with money, locally show.... But, of course, there are all these fees, and CBC can't pay the broadcast fees and the artist fees in order to actually broadcast. They're bound. So now they're actually stuck in this image where the only thing they can show is the roots music, because it has the traditional background. That's supposedly what CBC is supposed to do.

That's wrong, but anyway....

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: The challenge for the CBC is to step outside the box.

Ms. Katie Nicholson: Yes, once they have the funding, so they can actually pay these emerging artists the fees. It's ridiculous the kind of dance they have to do in order to get music on the air these days.

If you take Rogers, they're able to get in-house bands because they don't have to pay these fees. It's all free access, and they're not bound. CBC is bound to pay musicians fees to do so. So in effect they can't showcase talent like they once could.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I didn't realize that. That would be very limiting.

Ms. Katie Nicholson: It is; it's very limiting. That's why it's not growing as it should. It's strangled.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Our first presenters identified the major crux as the fact that there are regional programming opportunities there, but there's a void at the local level. We're just not having an opportunity at the local level. So my question to you is whether that's how you see it as well, that there aren't enough local opportunities.

Ms. Katie Nicholson: There's not enough investment in the region in order to really nurture the talent as it should be. I don't want to say that the private broadcasters, like MuchMusic, do not have their place. They do. But they need to have more stringent Canadian content rules as well.

That's another point. All of these private stations really need to have that forced down their throats, that we need to showcase Canadian talent. We need to have much more of a commitment to Canadian development and talent, and that's the bottom line.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much. It was certainly an eye opener for a lot people, as with the other witnesses. I'm sorry for mixing everybody up, but we'll go on with the others now.

We have Mike Hickey from Eastern Edge Gallery, and from CHMR, Ernst Rollmann and Michael Rossiter--good Newfoundland names.

So, Michael, perhaps you want to start off.

Mr. Mike Hickey (Representative, Eastern Edge Gallery): Thanks for giving me this opportunity. I'm going to do it off the cuff, because I can't write as well as Katie can.

I'm an artist working in St. John's. I'm the former coordinator of the Eastern Edge Gallery, and I sit on the board for the Resource Centre for the Arts in LSPU Hall and the Eastern Edge Gallery.

I'd like to talk as an artist, but also as someone who sits on the board of two cultural--or visual arts--institutions in St. John's.

St. John's has three artist-run centres, the Resource Centre for the Arts' Visual Gallery in LSPU Hall, Eastern Edge Gallery, and St. Michael's Printshop.

For a province of this size, it's kind of spectacular that we've got three artist-run centres and that we are sustaining them--that the programming has stayed at the same level that it has been at. We keep getting more and more funding through the Canada Council for the Arts. I think this shows a commitment on the part of the community--at least in St. John's--to artistic production. This is really important to note.

A problem, though, that artists have been trying to deal with is the decentralization of this knowledge. These are the three artist-run centres for this province. But, unfortunately, they are all in downtown St. John's. So there's no dissemination of this cultural information; you have to come to town to get your culture. This is something that artists themselves have been working to combat, with new forms of visual arts production, such as social exchange, interactive installation, intervention work, and guerilla media. But we can't just depend on artists themselves to do this work, to disseminate new cultural ideas. I think it's the responsibility of the CBC to play a part in this.

I'd like to mention how happy I was to see ZeD TV put into place, for whatever limited time. I hope it comes back and that it gets lots of money, because ZeD TV is essentially creating a critical context that mirrors artist-run sensibility. It is the only place, opportunity, and venue for this sensibility in any kind of broadcast media that exists today--especially in Newfoundland, but, I would argue, in all of Canada as well.

There are few arts magazines covering the artist-run culture. It's a 30-year-old history of arts organizations, galleries, etc., set up and maintained by artists. There are a handful of publications covering the artist-run culture. But they're very Toronto- and Vancouver-centric. They focus on three big cities, Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. That's where most of the content comes from.

An effort has been made to show a regional voice from the east. There is Arts Atlantic. But when it comes to Newfoundland, there's really not much said about all that's going on here. This is specifically within visual arts. I'm not speaking as a representative of the arts scene in St. John's as a whole. I'm speaking as a visual artist specifically, and there's a heck of a lot going on with it.

With programs such as ZeD TV, at least four visual artists that I know have had their work represented nationally. I haven't seen all of the programs, but there was Lois Brown, Sheila O'Leary, myself, and Andrea Cooper. Besides promoting our own cultural productions in St. John's, ZeD TV is also a really wonderful networking tool. You see other people across the country who, through watching ZeD TV or going to its website, are working with the same issues. You see other artists who are doing things that maybe you would like to collaborate with.

I've heard of funding strategies through just watching that program, and grant procedures that would be useful for me to access--and for the Eastern Edge Gallery in St. John's to use--for finding more money or developing, say, a performance series. Because of underexposure, there's very little happening in St. John's with performance and video art, or with new forms of cultural production. If they're not happening in St. John's, then they're certainly not happening in Glovertown. Who's getting access to these cultural forms? People are, because of the CBC. They're getting access to this because of programs like ZeD TV. I think that's super important.

Á (1140)

One last point is that aside from how nice it was to see my face on ZeD, TV it's also helping me and all the other artists who were featured on that program and on other programs put food in our mouths and pay the rent. The credibility we receive as artists by having our faces exposed and our work promoted on the CBC lends a credibility to our funding applications, which pay the bills and sustain the cultural production that's coming from this region.

I think that's a really important point for you guys to note. Besides your responsibility to expose this kind of work to a broader population, I think it's important to note that you're also feeding us when you're not necessarily paying us to be on the programs. Our being on the programs helps us support ourselves through our own funding applications.

I was at a performance art conference in Ottawa last September. I was having an interesting conversation with a gallery coordinator from Saskatoon, another gallery coordinator from Edmonton, and a performance art curator from Vancouver. There was some kind of program on CBC earlier that day talking about Canadian identity, and we made up our own definition. I think it's kind of specific to visual artists. We came to the conclusion that Canadian identity is defined by artist-run culture and the CBC and their links. I think we need a bit more cash to solidify that.

Á (1145)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Mike.

Our efficient staff has notified me that Jim Maunder is doing a presentation basically on the same topic, so we've been joined at the table by Jim.

Jim, perhaps you could do your presentation now.

Mr. Jim Maunder (Individual Presentation): Thanks. This is nothing formal; I've just been making a few notes.

I wanted to second, or I guess third, what Katie and Mike both have been saying about ZeD TV. I didn't get much sleep for the few weeks it was on because I stayed up every night to watch it. There were many local segments on, and I enjoyed watching Mike and Sheilagh and Andrea Cooper and so on, and the very high-quality productions of those segments.

The other thing it featured was another interest of mine. I'm a sculptor primarily, but I'm also involved in film and writing. There were a lot of National Film Board shorts and shorts from other places, which almost never get seen anywhere, but also homemade new media pieces, video pieces.

It's an incredibly democratic way of doing things. If you can make it on your own and upload it on your computer, assuming you have the equipment to do that, you can get it on TV, if it's within a reasonable standard. Some of the productions were a little shaky, but it gave people at least the opportunity to show their work, perhaps get some critique back, and who knows, perhaps be discovered. As Mike mentioned, they could make connections, those sorts of things. So that's a really strong vote for ZeD and that type of programming. Hopefully it's going to come back and perhaps be expanded or whatever.

I wanted to talk a bit about radio because no one has mentioned radio much so far. Weekend Arts Magazine is a local program we have here on CBC Radio. It's a phenomenal program, three hours on Saturday morning and Sunday morning, which is really the only showcase for all types of art. It covers all areas of the province quite well, I think. It covers their music, visual arts, and so on. I've been on there a few times.

The only complaint I have about that is that it's on at 6:30 in the morning, and I don't know too many artists--and probably not too many other people--who are actually awake at 6:30 in the morning to listen to it.

Apparently it's on at that time of day because of commitments to national programming. Nothing personal to Arthur Black, but I'd rather hear The Arts Report at a reasonable hour instead of hearing Arthur Black in that time slot in the morning.

That being said, it's a great program, and it does, I think, give an awful lot of people an opportunity they wouldn't otherwise get to have their work noticed. It's sort of a community bulletin board as well as a good magazine talking about different types of work.

You mentioned bands--such as sloan, and so on--not getting a lot of exposure. I disagree slightly with that. Programs like This Morning and DNTO on CBC Radio have given incredible support to a lot of Canadian bands who have gone from being local groups to national exposure through those shows.

Á (1150)

Definitely Not The Opera on Saturday afternoons and This Morning have promoted a number of bands--including sloan, quite prominently, and Ron Sexsmith, who played in town recently. I certainly wouldn't have heard of him without Definitely Not The Opera, and he's grown to probably international status by this point. Those programs, I think, have done quite a lot.

Definitely Not The Opera does a certain amount of regional programming, although probably not as much as This Morning does. This Morning has regional content from St. John's, with Juanita Bates, I think, once a week, and from a lot of different regions, and that program has also promoted a lot of local musicians and artists.

The only other point I was going to make--and it may seem like a small point, but it affects me and a lot of people I know--is that, being an artist, my financial situation is rather precarious at best. I like television; certainly I don't watch much in the way of the American sitcoms at all, but I like the movies and what little arts coverage there is. I miss Adrienne Clarkson's show, although they brought back...I think it's Opening Night, or something, as one of the few arts programs on CBC TV now.

But because my funding is limited, I don't have cable; I can't afford cable. I don't know if it's a CRTC regulation that's being bent here, but I feel that I and people like me who don't have the funds to have cable should be able to receive CBC's signal. We talked earlier about sports coverage and how good CBC was. Well, Hockey Night in Canada on my TV looks like 24 guys zipping around in the snow.

If you don't have cable you don't get CBC; I think that's something that needs to be looked into. I live in the downtown area. I know the signal is bad there, but I have a friend further west in your district who can't get it either--just up by Shaw Street, in that area. It's a personal beef with me, but I think maybe it needs to be looked into. I can turn on my TV with the rabbit ears and get NTV, which is the local broadcaster, perfectly clearly. If I switch to CBC and spend ten minutes fiddling around with the rabbit ears, I get snowy pictures at best.

That's my beef for the night. I'll leave it at that.

Á (1155)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Jim, thank you very much. You just reminded me of the early days when we got TV up the shore, when all you had was the old outside antenna. When the wind was in the wrong direction.... A lot of the older people couldn't figure out how you could play hockey all night without shovelling off the pond when it was constantly snowing. Anyway, times have changed a lot.

Ernst.

Â (1200)

Mr. Ernst Rollmann (Program Director, CHMR-FM): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to take the chance to thank this committee for inviting the campus station here.

We're a campus and community station, and I'd like to give you a brief history of CHMR-FM. We've been around almost as long as Newfoundland has been a part of Canada, forming in 1951 in fact, beginning as the MUN radio club, which was a group of amateur radio operators who met at the old Memorial campus on Parade Street. From that point, we moved to a carrier current in 1968, I believe.

It was on the occasion of the Canada Games in 1977 that the group decided to make the big step into having an actual AM licence. For 10 years we were CHMR-AM, 860 on your dial. In 1987 we finally made our most recent step, which was to go for an FM licence. We are now heard, for the most part, in St. John's, parts of Mount Pearl, and little bits along the highway. Occasionally you'll be able to tune in up until about Foxtrap. We have been an FM station for about 15 years now.

We decided to talk about a couple of different areas of the Broadcasting Act that haven't been addressed yet this morning, one of them being technology. Of course, I suppose the reason we're here today is because of how technology has changed over the past decade or so.

In 1997 our radio station made the jump to the Internet. We started operating on RealAudio, and we found that we were being ranked in the top one or two spots of online broadcasters in the province, which set us aback, never having been used to being in the top spot just about anywhere. This tells us a little bit about the audience; the audience is much like those people who were hooking up their computers to RealAudio and actually searching on the Internet, looking for something new and not afraid to try something new. The mandate of CHMR-FM is to try to provide something new.

The other thing I'd like to talk about is Canadian content. That's something we feel very strongly about. We feel very strongly about the need for it. We're in an advantageous position because we're a non-commercial station. We are not competitive and we don't have to bring in the demographic. We don't have to make sure we have the most attractive sound all the time or necessarily something that everyone's going to jump to. So we have the chance to offer opportunities, especially to local artists. Having a strong Canadian content requirement has actually spurred us on to add to that and to enhance that.

Our station has a new content of 25%, and we've tacked on top of that. As sort of a combination of Canadian content, we meet a lot of that with local content. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned Ron Hynes being given an opportunity on radio. Ron's a good and regular guest of CHMR-FM, and he actually will drop by sometimes and offer us a new song, sort of an exclusive track.

We have the ability now to actually invite local artists to come into the studio and sit down and have a half hour or a full hour to play their music and talk about the process of songwriting. We don't have those constraints of what's profitable or what's competitive. We can actually focus on the artists. The result of that is the same result you'll see when you mandate a commercial broadcaster to do that with CanCon, for example. You tell them the fact is that they have to play 35% Canadian content. You'll find that it's almost a breath of fresh air to say, “Well, I have to. Now I can do something productive with this.”

What we do with our opportunity and our situation is to say we don't have to worry about making money, we don't have to worry about competing, we have so much opportunity here. That's the same opportunity that led to local artists such as Alan Doyle being approached downtown and told “You sound good; you should come up to the station and record a demo”, and pretty soon we have Great Big Sea.

A number of very famous or well-known artists who have come out of Newfoundland had their start at CHMR-FM. I'm going to let my colleague here speak about the private broadcasters in the news and in the commercial radio stations and how they got their start there.

But I'd like to talk about one other thing that came up. I believe Ms. Nicholson was speaking about the content of women's issues and programming oriented in that way that may seem to be lacking in other stations. CHMR-FM takes a great deal of pride in having a very strong amount of content focused towards not only women but to a wide range of diverse groups. We've had in the past year alone, to give you a few examples, programs by the Women's Resource Centre on campus, programs by a group such as Planned Parenthood. They have actually had an opportunity to do a show that touched on a number of issues about women's issues.

More than to say that these things are absent, I think it's which medium they exist in and how far is that reach. We can talk about the visual medium, but as far as the select group of people who can tune 93.5 in on their FM radio, the opportunity is there and we're reaching out to the community.

One final thing is how we've actually done that--how we've approached people. We're taking a very active role in recruiting local artists to come to our station. A number of college and campus radio stations will bring in syndicated programming. I could name a few such as Alternative Radio, Making Contact. These are a number of syndicated shows from the U.S. and of a decided political bent.

But what we've done there is we've put those in. We have our 25% spoken word content, which is another very beneficial thing in our licence. It gives us that opportunity to work with that 25%. We then move from there and we try to move out into the community and say, well, let's get rid of this syndicated one and let's get a local group of community activists or community artists to come in to do their own program in-house. We offer production facilities, by the way, to the students.

We now have programs such as Open Air, which is the natural history radio. It's the Alder Institute here in St. John's that produces that program. It's an hour-long program. We have a program called Vaguely Activistic, which is hosted by a not-so-big activist here in St. John's who goes around and talks to local activists about social issues and ties it all in with a little bit of music. There you have your one hour of what's the buzz this week on the street, what's the issue that's really affecting people who are in a more active vein--social activism, this sort of thing.

That's basically to let you know a bit about CHMR. I'll let my colleague here speak about the future--what we offer in terms of actual job opportunities.

In closing, and I think I'm representing most of our volunteers when I say this, Canadian content is a good thing. It's very beneficial to us and very necessary to maintain. We offer the opportunity. That's very important, not only to offer the opportunity, but to be very active, very proactive, to actually get out into the community and say “Hello, community group, would you like your own radio show?” This is something that we really have a better opportunity to offer. We're not limited by five minutes, get it on, get it out, come on, quick, but we can actually develop and try to reach out to every segment of the community.

Â (1205)

Mr. Michael Rossiter (News Director, CHMR-FM): Thank you, Ernst.

You pointed out many things I'm going to touch on. Most importantly, the campus community radio stations across Canada have had a really proud heritage. If you look at the recent event like the Juno Awards, it was a good time for just about all the media in St. John's to take time to reflect, especially campus community radio stations. Your Barenaked Ladies, your Great Big Sea, they all began on the campus community and at the regional levels. Ernst mentioned Alan Doyle.

Another part of campus and communities heritage can be seen in the newsrooms around St. John's right now. As you know, Mr. Chair, there is no journalism school in Newfoundland. There are a couple of diploma programs but no actual undergraduate program for journalism in Newfoundland. But if you go into the newsrooms around Newfoundland, and actually if you look around the room here today, my guess is you'll find a lot of people who are CHMR alumni, who got their start at CHMR.

Dozens of people, students and non-students, come to the CMHR studios each year to learn how to do journalism.

And how do we learn? I'm news director right now. I'm just finishing off my undergraduate degree. I haven't been to journalism school, but I pass on the knowledge that I've had from our mentors such as former CBC producers and current freelancers like Christopher Brookes or John Doyle. We have a strong relationship with them and we'd like to continue that, because there has to be something after we graduate.

What they tell us to be most importantly is storytellers, telling our own stories. Although CMHR is located at the campus of Memorial University of Newfoundland, we're not limited to the stories of the university. If we were, it would be a fairly slow news day every day. Any given day at the university and the news department of CMHR, we can cover everything from poets and poetry readings, to coverage of the provincial budget, to what the custodian of the food court is up to, or even to what the president of the university is listening to on his CD player. We tell our stories and stories of the community.

CMHR's motto for years has always been “Your only alternative in Newfoundland”. I'm really surprised in the last year or so that we've also become an alternative in realizing things like long-form documentaries. We can have an hour-long documentary about tomatoes if we want; we're not restricted by time. If we go down to something like CBC and try to freelance something down, it has to be quick, it has to be snappy, because we don't want to lose listeners' attention. So long-form documentaries is one thing that CMHR has prided itself as being an alternative on.

Mr. Chair, it's a very vibrant and creative time to be involved with campus community radio stations. Every time I call my mother, who lives in Halifax, I'm very proud to say that journalism is paying my bills in Newfoundland, which is a very rare thing.

So I guess the only thing I can ask of this committee is that I hope to be a storyteller in Newfoundland in the future.

Â (1210)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Michael.

We'll have a quick round of questions, because I want to bring up John Hutton. We have Stan Pickett from the St. John's Folk Arts Council, and of course we have Susan Knight from the Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir to join Greg. And if there's anybody else we've skipped, we'll do a final round.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I'd like to hear more from you about the impact of new CRTC rulings on the broadcasting of community television programming. There doesn't appear to be any local programs broadcast, except for one. Has the situation changed any since the CRTC decided to allow cable companies to broadcast community programming? Has this resulted in any kind of changes?

[English]

Mr. Michael Rossiter: I'm sorry, I'm not sure. What was the decision again? I think I missed the first bit there.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Vidéotron and Rogers were awarded licences to broadcast community programs. In the past, community television produced its own programming. Has the situation changed any since the CRTC ruling? Time and time again, we've heard about the dearth of locally produced programming that reflects different realities. You are artists and in the past, programs shown on community television stations in various parts of the country provided you with a voice. This opportunity has been more or less lost to you because programs selected for broadcast are more national in scope and are intended for a wider audience.

[English]

Mr. Michael Rossiter: Well, we have a great benefit from our own perspective because we are essentially 100% local content. One show in particular I've heard mentioned a number of times today is Out of the Fog, which is on the local cable station. All these examples that are being given today are showing the potential that exists.

When you can actually have a half-hour program, airing of course the repeat, it gives a tremendous viewership here in the province. I don't know if there's a hesitancy to undertake even more of these sorts of programs. I don't know why there would be that hesitancy because the same popularity you have with Out of the Fog or the same level of popularity you have with the programming we undertake here locally would still exist if more and more of these initiatives were undertaken.

As far as the CRTC ruling is concerned, I couldn't give a particular answer on that. We're looking for a responsibility to broadcast local content from broadcasters who are, quite frankly, there to be financially feasible, and they do have to look at the bottom line.

I myself am not afraid of regulation. I'm not afraid of CanCon, and I'm not afraid of new content. I'm not afraid of these things that help us to, if anything, carry through on our own good intentions.

The motivation a lot of the private broadcasters have, Rogers or a lot of these cable broadcasters.... I wouldn't suggest that they have wholly capitalist motivations, where they're just out there to make bets that make the buck. There is really good motivation among a lot of these broadcasters to broadcast local content and to provide for the local community, but it's almost a case of their being hindered because they don't have any extra incentive, which they'd have if they were told they had to broadcast so much local content.

If there were regulations in place that said, well, you and everyone across the board are going to have to broadcast so much local content, I think it would free up these people to really go out there and get programs like Out of the Fog or the sort of programming we have on CHMR-FM. What it does is empowering. I don't find regulations restrictive; I find them empowering.

Every time I find more spoken word...for example, at our radio station the spoken-word content was recently upped for our licence. If anything, there was a real sigh of relief with, great, there'll be even more local spoken word. We can now add on just about every campus group. We actually have a couple of new positions, I should add. As my colleague here was saying, he's writing home and saying, I can actually feed myself now.

We've added on a couple more positions, people whose main job is to go out into the community and find people for these programs, people to provide the local content. I'm always in favour of greater regulation to empower even commercial broadcasters with the requirement that they have to broadcast so much local material.

Â (1215)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Madam Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much.

I really appreciate your comments on ZeD TV. We visited ZeD TV out in Vancouver, and we were very impressed with the talent and the energy of the people working on it. I agree with you. I hope it continues, and we will be pushing that for sure.

I just want to tell you about something that happened to us about six weeks ago. CAB, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, came before the committee to argue for less Canadian content. They wanted to cut the amount of original Canadian music.

They made the argument that Canadian artists are overexposed, somewhat tired out, and need a bit of a break. What they would like to do is provide, I think, some kind of fund for new production, for new artists, but they want that to count for 1.5. It sort of represents a bigger chunk of their content. If you do the math, they're actually able to get away with, say, 26% Canadian content. I have a lot of trouble with that idea.

As broadcasters yourselves and as people who have, as you say, brought groups like Great Big Sea and Barenaked Ladies to the fore, what does that mean to you in terms of the continuation of promoting Canadian content in this country?

Â (1220)

Mr. Ernst Rollmann: There was a great deal of pride when the Junos came through. Speaking from the campus community's perspective, there's always the group who really likes to be independent and really likes to stay away from commercial success and aren't too excited when the Junos come to town. But there's a large group of people here at our station who are very proud when they see the Barenaked Ladies or when they see Great Big Sea. They don't think, “Oh, those guys are commercial”. We're very proud of it because it comes from college radio. Just about every major Canadian artist, just as in the U.S. with campus radio...all these emerging artists get their start by being heard on the college scene first. The sort of musical movement that is happening on the underground, I guess, is communicated to the listener through the campus stations.

Before getting back specifically to Canadian content, I'll say that right now in this city, just to give you a brief overview of a broadcast day, we start out on Saturday mornings with a country and folk show--I believe there's death metal in there somewhere--and then we continue through with songwriters, which, as I said, is one person sitting down, strumming their guitar, talking about the creative process and how it's near and dear to their heart. It's a really informative show. Continuing throughout the day, though, we then move into The Power of the Beat, which is a dance show--I don't know if you can get dance music right now on the commercial stations locally--and then we move into a hip-hop show. These are things that kids are really into. I shouldn't be saying “kids”--I'm only out of college a few years myself--but that's what a lot of youth are listening to.

But when it comes to Canadian content, I honestly think, and I hate to say it, the competitive nature that's there, at least of the commercial stations, will ultimately force it--and we talk about MuchMusic, for example, or one of these big commercial broadcasters in the visual or in the radio medium--to go with what's popular. You gave the analogy of the Barbie doll, for example, starting off, about how that has influenced and been seen and been given American exposure. I think it would ultimately happen. I think it's a foregone conclusion that, without the Canadian content being there, profit takes over.

Even in our case--and we have a high turnover; a lot of our DJs are students--there are some years where we have a very cutting-edge group of broadcasters who are really on the fringe. Then there are other years where we have people who are very much listening to commercial radio. But it doesn't affect us too much because we have our 35% Canadian content, we, ourselves, impose a 25% new content rule, and I almost would like to see a local content rule imposed. That is something to seriously consider.

We're lucky, and I think a lot of it should be credited to our volunteer DJs who take the initiative to make a great deal of their Canadian content be local. But when you talk about overexposure, for example, in our case we don't succumb to overexposure because we don't play many hits. We have a specific allotment. We can only play 10%, so we put that in its own slot.

Aside from that, what you would consider to be the overexposed bands, which you'd see on MuchMusic, for example, or the big stations, we don't play those either, due to our licence. But I would much rather see a Canadian artist overexposed than to be overexposed to Britney Spears or any of these--I don't want to pick on Britney. Name me another band there. You get the idea, though.

We have so many American artists we hear that I would welcome overexposure of Canadian artists. I really don't think, if we weren't forced.... We almost joke to one another saying why did that band get on the air; well, it's the Canadian content. In terms of overexposure, you'll see these people who really give you the local sound or something new and you think, wow, I've never heard that before. Then you'll see two or three years later, here's a best-selling Canadian artist. If the Canadian content weren't there to begin with, these artists would have to find themselves a different line of work.

Â (1225)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Mr. Rollmann--wonderful things. One of the things that is really coming across is the enthusiasm you have at the station. That's what it takes, people with an interest, and certainly we're really glad to hear it.

Mr. Cuzner.

Â (1230)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I have a quick comment on Mr. Maunder's presentation. I'm a fan of DNTO myself. If you take a look at a group like sloan, what would sell more albums, an interview on the morning show with Avril Benoit or being the flavour of the week at CHUM? I think the private broadcasters certainly are the ones who sell the albums for them. But I appreciate that the CBC does have a role.

I was hoping to direct a question to the gentleman who joined us, Greg Malone. I know he's having a conversation with Wendy now.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): He's coming up right away.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Oh, he's coming up right away. He's with the next group. Great, okay. He just couldn't get a seat down back. That's fine because my question's for him.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you to all the groups for coming. We are extremely pleased to see some of the young people involved. Quite often, when you think about CBC.... In fact somebody mentioned it this morning at the hearing we had. There were two groups. Of the people in the room, one group happened to have four or five people more senior than others. Somebody asked who are all these people, and they said, well, the group over there are the CBC supporters. But the CBC supporters and public broadcasting supporters certainly transcend the age groups here. We see a lot of young people very concerned about not only Canadian content but local content. And we have a tremendous amount here in Newfoundland. Certainly it's great to see you all interested in promoting that. So thank you very much.

We're going to ask John Hutton if he could come up. John is representing the Music Industry Association. We also have Susan Knight of the Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir, Stan Pickett from the St. John's Folk Arts Council, and Monique Tobin, who is also an individual presenter.

We're not forgetting or bypassing Ms. MacLellan from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we thought, seeing that we have to stay here and listen and learn and pass along the information, it would be great for you to hear all the presentations also. Then we'll get your summation after these people finish.

Joining us at the table with the group I just called is Greg Malone.

Greg, we talked this morning about CODCO and we talked about the Wonderful Grand Band. When I was just a teenager I was watching Greg--that's not really true--for years.

Greg has been around. Certainly, if there is anyone in this province with experience in performance, it is Greg Malone. On the musical scene, John Hutton's been around about as long. Others have been involved as volunteers, certainly with our youth symphony now gaining so much attention. A lot of credit goes to Susan Knight.

I didn't realize Anita had joined us at the table. We talked to her at breakfast. Anita Best is also a well-known figure in Newfoundland music and culture. She is one of the ones who really revived the old Newfoundland ballads that were being forgotten, the story poems that over the years passed into Newfoundland culture. No one thought they were sexy enough to record. Anita took a gamble there. I think she has done a tremendous job in creating a new awareness for the music.

Again, it's too bad this is not a more informal setting, where we could pass the evening and listen to some of what we're going to be talking about. Unfortunately, it's not the case, but we certainly look forward to hearing all of you.

Greg, you were sitting there first so we'll let you start off.

We have so many witnesses. Some of you might belong to the same groups or whatever. To let all of you get your few words in, it might be nice if you kept your presentations short. We'd have a longer period for questions.

Greg.

Â (1235)

Mr. Greg Malone (Individual Presentation): I wanted to say a few words. Obviously, I do care about CBC, Canadian broadcasting, and all of it. I'll say a few words about radio first and then television. On radio, it's mostly from a listener's perspective. On television, it's from someone who has done some work in the field.

I was listening some months ago to someone. I forget who he was. He came on and said they intended to revamp CBC Radio. I shuddered. I feel the last time they revamped CBC Radio they went in the wrong direction.

The man went on to say they had an older demographic and wanted to appeal more to young people. It is laudable. They wanted to capture some of the young audience from commercial radio and that sort of thing. I took it to mean he was going to do for CBC Radio what Stockwell Day tried to do for politics and basically put the news on jet skis.

I don't think it is the strength of CBC, nor is it any way to go. I don't think we can look at the older demographic as necessarily being a bad thing for CBC. I think at the heart of any good entertainment, news show, or current affairs show, whether it's Jane Austin, Morningside, or whatever, is good conversation. It is the heart of us. You can put it on jet skis or a flatbed truck. If it's a bad script, it's not going anywhere.

Some of the best shows CBC has had are news, current affairs, alternative programs, music, drama, and comedy shows. Morningside, Quirks & Quarks, As it Happens, and DNTO have been mentioned. They're excellent shows. They have their ups and downs, but basically they're going in the right direction.

The worst that happened with CBC I can describe is what happened to the Vicky Gabereau Show. It was a fabulous show where you could hear stimulating and inspiring conversations with anthropologists, sociologists, historians, and all kinds of fabulous people, on their lives' work. In the afternoon, while picking up your kids at school, you could get a whole education and a very entertaining education.

Vicky is good and knew how to have a conversation. It's primary. Vicky also had twelve researchers working for her. When Bill Richardson took over the show, it was chopped to two. Bill's a grand fellow, but he has a lot a more, shall we say, trivia, and unabashedly so.

I feel like we're going for the trivialization of CBC. When we cut the money from researchers, it's talent. Research is talent. When you take the money away from talent, you take the money off the screen, as they would say in the movie business. You can't do that and not have a trivial program. As much as I like to hear pigskin songs and people's reminiscences about grandmother's recipe for apple pie, the country can take only so much of that. There may be a place for it, but I think we risk a lot going in that direction.

Chat radio is about good conversation, and that's what CBC offers. It offers what the other stations do not offer. It should not try to ape the other stations in that respect. It should be offering what is not offered on commercial radio. Commercial radio doesn't have the freedom, daring, or the ability to offer what we need.

But it comes down to dollars for talent, not dollars for middle management. Certainly in television--I don't know if in radio--CBC has succumbed to every institutional weakness or virus in becoming bloated with middle management. It has been losing inspiration at the top and at the bottom, and it has allowed talent much less access to the dials.

On a concluding note, the arts support here on CBC Radio is on at six o'clock on Saturday morning. No artist worth his salt is up at that time on Saturday morning--in fact, they're just going to bed. They've been up all night working. That's a clear case where radio is not in tune with the community. I think CBC Radio needs to become a little more flexible and a little more in tune with the community, with a little less “us and them” attitude, or “what are you people telling us” mentality. It has to be more “us”, not “you”. They need to have better pronouns in terms of the way they talk with and to the community--which they exist in and are part of and only exist because of.

There's obviously a need for things like call-in shows of a different nature, which CBC has failed to really capitalize on. They have a bit of it. But there's obviously a great need, because they have failed to be flexible enough to work into that market locally, and I think nationally.

I won't take up too much more time, but I'd like to talk about TV from two points of view, one from news and another from entertainment. TV tries to do both.

I'll start with a conversation I was listening to with Neil MacDonald, our foreign correspondent in Israel. He was saying that he was asked about the difference between Canadian and American reporting on the events in Israel. He said it's very sad. The American media have become patriotic journalism--unabashedly patriotic--not self-critical or analytical any more, but simply wartime journalism. That, of course, puts a great burden on the CBC as the only North American broadcaster to bring critical, objective journalism to the continent.

I think CBC does a good job of that, given the circumstances it operates in. It has a gargantuan task, and a task worthy of all the money we can throw in that direction, because we live in a democracy that only thrives on an informed public. If the public are dupes, then democracy is a dupe. Media and news are at the heart of democracy. The kind of information we get is critical to our freedom. Sadly, it's being eroded in the United States to a very, very serious degree. Neil MacDonald's comments were very sentient there.

It also depends on arm's-length funding. The CBC has to watch over its shoulder at the Prime Minister's Office a little too much. I think there really needs to be a more serious attempt to establish a legitimate arm's-length funding for the CBC, along the lines of the BBC, or something of that nature.

We came into the CBC at a time when CBC was, in a sense, trying to ape NBC. Ironically, we capitalized on that, even though we were a local show out of Newfoundland. In the long run, I don't think the CBC should ape NBC. If it is going to ape anyone, it should ape BBC. It should try to provide the kind of quality news and dramatic, historical, comedy, alternative, music, and magazine shows that BBC provides--and that CBC does provide at its best.

Â (1240)

Centralization of the CBC is very dangerous. It's good to produce certain things, but there has to be a balance. It can't be centralization, originalization. Centralization is very dangerous in a country like Canada, which is dangerously centralized anyway around Ontario and Quebec. It's a very lopsided country, politically and economically, in many ways. I felt that to centralize the CBC as a broadcast centre was a great mistake. It's an unhealthy situation for the CBC to be in.

Consider the contributions the CBC has had from the regions, whether it's The Beachcombers on the west coast or CODCO, This Hour Has 22 Minutes, and Don Messer's Jubilee on the east coast, and many other shows like those, going back for a long time. A tremendous vitality comes from the regions. It comes from the coasts and from other places in the west as well. There's Dead Dog Café. Everyone has their favourites. There are a lot of really exciting shows that come from different parts of the regions.

CBC has not really found the right way to capitalize on that pool of talent and use it, even though it has done it through the years on a kind of ad hoc basis. It seems that bureaucracy and policy often go against that natural flow of the coasts and the regions into the centre and from the centre back out to the regions.

The last show I can remember that ever gave me an insight into Quebec, into the ordinary lives of Quebec people I was interested in, for all our problems of separatism, was The Plouffe Family. Since The Plouffe Family, we have no idea of how Quebec people live their lives, what they're like, what they think about, how they curse, how they eat, or anything. The Plouffe family, of course, had very thick French accents and we made fun of it and everything, but it was fun to see something from Quebec, made by Quebec people, that gave us an idea of how these people lived. We don't have that any more. Why not? Why don't we have any kind of cultural mix between French and English Canada that we can relate to? I think it would help our problems a lot if they could see us and we could see them on a more day-to-day basis.

I'm forgetting Chez Hélène, the other great French Canadian influence on my life.

These are the influences that ordinary people have and take with them through their lives. Their understanding, their compassion for other cultures, comes from these kinds of simple shows--children's shows, sitcoms, or comedy shows like that. We don't have it any more. It's an opportunity that was lost to us over the years.

It's one thing to say that going private is well and good, private production is good, contracting out is good, and maybe CBC can contract out some of these talk shows to people who can make them work and do it that way. That's all very well and good, but to some extent, privatization in the CBC and going out to private companies has meant that everyone has to go through certain private companies. Here we all have to go through Salter Street or Alliance. If you have a show for TV, you're funnelled to them. You might as well be funnelled through the CBC if you're going to be funnelled through one private company. They have to have a way of keeping it open.

One last note here is that I think the Broadcasting Act is good. I think it needs to be enforced. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here; we just need to look at the wheel.

Regarding coming from the regions, I have one little anecdote before I leave off, one little story.

Â (1245)

We produced a one-hour TV film, a docudrama about the women's suffrage movement in Newfoundland--a very well-done piece, if I may say so. It was very popular.

We were not able to get that shown on CBC nationally because they told us it wasn't Canadian history and that they had done something on women. I have looked through their slow-motion history of Canada and I couldn't see anything really on Canadian women that satisfied me, and yet we were unable to get that show shown on the CBC national network. It still hasn't been shown and it's still quite relevant. It's still the only show I know that has been produced and done by any region or any province about the history of the suffrage movement in their area.

So there are gaps. The CBC really needs arm's-length funding, but we need to give it some very critical appraisal.

Thank you for listening to my humble comments.

Â (1250)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Mr. Malone.

We'll now move to the Music Industry Association: Mr. Hutton, Ms. Best--whichever, or both.

Anita.

Ms. Anita Best (Associate, Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador): Mr. Hearn, I'm like yourself; I belong to an association, like the fishermen of Newfoundland. The industry association for music here has an industry component and a smaller, less commercial component, just as the NFFAW looks after draggermen and plant workers and also looks after inshore fishermen. You can consider me--my part of the MIA--as the inshore fishermen part.

Basically, we're in support of public broadcasting and Canadian content, because the traditional storytellers and singers of Newfoundland are not commercial. Also, they belong so much to the place that they need to be in charge of presenting their image to the rest of the world, rather than have somebody else present their image for them.

We've all seen Jimmy Flynn, no doubt, on Canadian television. Now and then he even pops up on the CBC; I think I've seen his pizza commercials there. It's that kind of Newfoundland stereotype that springs out of a traditional culture, as The Plouffe Family sprang out of Quebec. Those kinds of stereotypes have to be refuted by the culture they come from, and they have to be controlled. The presentation of those things has to be controlled. I'm sure that in Cape Breton you have the same needs--to control the image that comes out.

That's why CODCO was very successful in Newfoundland as well as outside Newfoundland: we agreed with what they were saying. They were our people. They were funny and they were our people. Their image went out, and we didn't have to be ashamed of it in the rest of Canada.

But there is a big commercial aspect to the music industry. We can't hope to change everybody's taste; everybody has different tastes. The music industry certainly agrees that there ought to be private broadcasters. But public broadcasting is extremely important for the non-commercial side of things. Also, CBC has a mandate to do this kind of work regionally.

Speaking from a radio perspective, there's not as much local programming now on the radio as there used to be, although there's still much more than I find in other parts of Canada when I go there. We have twice as much, or maybe even more than twice as much, as everybody else. But the storytellers of Newfoundland, the ballad singers of Newfoundland, are not going to get much of a voice on commercial radio because their work is not “commercial”, but it is at the root of the culture.

Also, the more we listen to CBC Radio as controlled from Toronto, say, the more we get the idea that everybody in Canada sounds the same. The accents are becoming so homogeneous. We want to hear people. What do they really sound like in Saskatchewan? What do they really sound like in Lac-Saint-Jean? What do they really sound like in Bonavista? The rest of the country will never know, because the commercial radio stations all sound like the United States, and now the Canadian radio stations are all sounding like they come from--I don't know--Orangeville, or somewhere.

Anyway, that's another point.

The other thing is that there are commercial television stations that feature arts in Canada such as Bravo, Showcase, and all those, but when was the last time you saw someone from Atlantic Canada on those programs? You don't see people from Atlantic Canada. You don't see artists from our area on them. If you do, it's very rare.

That's because we don't have any say. Canada is a country that has a culture because of its regions, and to deny those regions a voice is a big mistake. Underfunding the CBC is denying those regions a voice and denying the not-so-commercial voices a chance to have their say.

That's about it. I'll hand it over to you.

Â (1255)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you.

If you represent the inshore, John represents the offshore, and that's usually the draggers. They're always accused of bruising the ground, so it might be very appropriate that we have a bruiser.

Ms. Anita Best: I chose my metaphors carefully.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): There's one thing I should mention. Anita mentioned the accents on television, and we're losing them. I think we'll have to start listening more to CPAC; you still hear some of them there.

John, it's all yours.

Mr. John Hutton (Chair, Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you.

My presentation is going to be very brief, but before I start I just want to talk a bit about the CBC.

I'm 49 years old. I literally grew up across the street from CBC Radio on Duckworth Street during the 1950s and 1960s. Those people at CBC were heroes, and they were brilliant people back then. I'm not going to mention any names; we don't have to. But back then there was a star system, and they were cool people. They were heroes, and we don't have any of those any more. They were characters, it was local, and it was Newfoundland.

We still got our taste of the rest of Canada--granted, we had just joined. I saw shows, dramas, and musicals happen in my kitchen with my parents, and then they'd go across the street...and that was it. There it was on the radio. It was very cool, and we don't have that any more.

Before I get into my presentation, I think it was you, Ms. Lill, who talked about the Canadian Association of Broadcasters wanting to reduce CanCon. They should be taken out and whipped. They should not do that.

The Canadian star system was built, and it's still being built, through CanCon. We should have “LoCon”, which would be local content, but we should have local content along with Canadian content. Every region should have a mandate to play local music and so on. There you go.

Anyway, our executive director, Mr. Dennis Parker, was supposed to speak here. He is in Vancouver right now representing our association. I am the chair of the Music Industry Association.

Admittedly, over the past couple of years it's been hard for many in our industry to take a positive view of life. Most music companies and currently all the majors have sought to restructure their businesses to some extent. The idea is to reduce the cost base, to spend less on routine administrative activities, and to channel funds into the creative end of the business, where competitive advantage is to be gained.

Sadly, redundancies have been the order of the day with all the anxiety and uncertainty that go with that. That said, everyone wants to be associated with a successful enterprise, and without these kinds of actions, success is hard to achieve and even harder to sustain.

This industry, which is in terminal decline, is usually managed by overpaid, incompetent, technophobic egomaniacs who promote their over-rewarded artists of doubtful talent and short shelf life. That's a tough thing to say, but that's basically what's happening in the music industry.

It's true that the music industry has never faced a period of greater change. Obviously, that change creates uncertainty and risk as many of the issues are beyond the immediate control of the management, but it also offers huge opportunities for us all.

Our industry has a great deal to be proud of. It has many successes to celebrate, and these provide a strong platform to realize opportunities.

I must admit I'm struggling to understand how, as an industry, we can attract so much crap when we consider the economic and cultural impact of the Music Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is world-class and deserves to be recognized as such.

How many Newfoundland industries are worth $40 million a year and generate employment for over 1,200 people? Over $20 million of that is retail spending, which gives back $3 million of HST to the government through the sale of goods and services.

I hate to bring this up, but I will. In the U.S. in 2001, the creative industries, which include theatrical films, TV programs, home videos, DVDs, business software, entertainment software, books, music, and sound recording, contributed more to the U.S. economy and employed more workers than any other single manufacturing sector. The copyright business--and when I say copyright I don't mean just books, I mean the whole media thing--is a huge employer. We have to put more stuff back into it.

· (1300)

Meanwhile, for the radio business, advertising revenues have fallen and that means cost pressure, at least in the short term. We all live in a tough commercial world and it is not going to get any easier. We are all under pressure. We all need to run our businesses more efficiently, but at the same time we need to recognize that everyone in the value chain wants to make money. We need to learn to live within our means, because running out of cash is usually terminal, as many companies from the very large to the very small have discovered since time began, with some spectacular cases.

The music industry and CBC must continue to invest in finding, developing, and nurturing talent. Local and national repertoire are both important. Our artists and their music are the lifeblood of your businesses and mine. Our artists are our brands, and CBC's incredible programs are brands that have a shelf life spanning many decades.

Together we can recognize the massive new media opportunities, minimize the threats, and ensure that our artists get paid for their creative work, which is fundamental to everything else that happens in our world. All we want to do is get paid, plus exposure. We want to make a living doing what we want to do.

But this is a TV/radio conference kind of thing, so what I most want to ask is that everyone here with an interest in music stop talking down to the industry and move in a constructive mode. If you're not already there with us, then with a positive mindset let's work together closely to make sure this brave new world is a prosperous world.

Thank you.

· (1305)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much.

A little later in the year, one of the major attractions here in the city of St. John's is the Folk Arts Council's concert, which has been in existence for 25 years, I believe, Stan. It's a major draw, a showcase for local artists. So Mr. Pickett from the St. John's Folk Arts Council.

Mr. Stan Pickett (Treasurer, St. John's Folk Arts Council): Thank you.

The St. John's Folk Arts Council is a non-profit organization that has been operating in excess of 25 years in Newfoundland and Labrador. The mandate of the St. John's Folk Arts Council is to promote the folk arts in Newfoundland and Labrador and throughout Canada, to foster creative expression of those arts, and to further the cause of good inter-group relationships.

The St. John's Folk Arts Council organizes several events to help achieve the objectives of its mandate. For 25 years we have organized and sponsored a weekly folk night with paid performers and with an open mike component to encourage new performers.

To add a little bit to my printed text, someone earlier indicated that CHMR radio gives our musicians a start there. It's well known that our festival--and our folk night, especially, which is a very supportive event--has been a venue whereby many of our more popular performers got their first experience on the stage.

We organize special events throughout the year, such as an all-day workshop on some aspect of folk arts, the last two being on guitar accompaniment to traditional music and mat-hooking. We just initiated a new event, that of introducing young musicians to traditional music by organizing two afternoon workshops to prepare them for a concert performance, which follows a few days later.

Finally, we have for the past 25 years been organizing an annual folk festival, which has grown phenomenally in the past few years, with attendance in excess of 15,000 people. On our 25th anniversary, our festival, which featured unique traditions and performers from every corner of the province as well as talented artists from other parts of Canada, had the distinction of being one of the 13 festivals from across the country to be honoured by the Royal Canadian Mint, which produced a coin to recognize its cultural contributions to Canada.

In 1999 the St. John's Folk Arts Council was named a winner in the cultural event category by Attractions Canada 1999 for Newfoundland and Labrador. And our Annual Newfoundland and Labrador Folk Festival has been designated as one of the top 100 cultural events by the Bus Association of North America.

We note that our mandate parallels a portion of the Broadcasting Act of 1991, specifically that part relating to safeguarding, enriching, and strengthening the cultural fabric of Canada. We have been pleased over the years with the activities of our local CBC with respect to fulfilling the Broadcasting Act's mandate of providing programming that promotes our mandate in addition to its own, reflecting Canadian artistic creativity by displaying Newfoundland and Labrador talent in entertainment programming.

These local CBC programs include The Performance Hour, Musicraft , and the Saturday and Sunday morning Arts Magazine, to name a few. I have to echo what has been said earlier about the unfortunate time-slotting of the Arts Magazine, which is scheduled when very few, a small portion of our population, can hear it.

The local CBC television has featured local folk arts musicians on the eve of our St. John's Folk Arts Council Folk Festival, advertising this event. CBC Radio and Television have regularly been on site recording the event for future broadcasting.

Nationally, we are pleased every time we hear our Great Big Sea or Tickle Harbour songs, for example, played on shows such as Richardson's Round-up or Stuart MacLean's Vinyl Café. We were especially thrilled to have CBC's Howard Dick and a crew from CBC Radio broadcasting all across Canada the choral concert at the Sunrise Celebration on Easter Sunday morning from Gower Street United Church. Similarly, the most recent event of this nature was a choral competition, just concluded, that featured choirs from across Canada performing live for each other and for the judges, with a local audience at each venue. It was won by our Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir.

These kinds of events, then, serve to enhance the work of the St. John's Folk Arts Council. It is through events such as these that Canadians learn about one another and share their diverse cultures. It's also through these kinds of programming that employment opportunities have been created for our local music performers and various artistic creators.

· (1310)

However, the St. John's Folk Arts Council is quite alarmed over changes that might occur as a result of the review of the Canadian broadcasting system, a review due to the implications of the increasingly globalized communication environment on broadcasting. Because of the continued decrease of funding from the Government of Canada to the CBC in the past few years, we are concerned not only about the ability of the CBC to maintain the present level of programming that promotes the cultural activities of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also about the possibility of further reductions of such programming and its effect on the promotion of our Newfoundland and Labrador culture locally and nationally.

If the St. John's Folk Arts Council could rely on national or local private commercial radio stations to fulfil these functions, we would not be so alarmed. However, there is no national private commercial station, and the local stations have a history of providing non-stop rock or pop music interspersed with a little bit of news, weather, and sports. We have been pleased by some improvements in this area with the formation of Radio Newfoundland, which has been concentrating on continuous Newfoundland and Labrador music. And we have seen how this station's programming has influenced another station, OZ FM, to change from a totally rock music station to one that has scheduled weekend morning programming that features local Newfoundland and Labrador music. However, these stations broadcast only in Newfoundland and Labrador. We cannot rely on them to promote our culture nationally.

Furthermore, with the increasing globalization, a greater percentage of our population has become more interested in American and international cultural personalities and events. Therefore, local television and radio stations have been providing their audiences with programming geared toward those interests. In conjunction with this, our own local Newfoundland Herald, a television guide/magazine, has a token informational section pertaining to Newfoundland and Labrador, but a substantial amount relating to American programs and personalities. It's as if they presume the foregone conclusion that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are expecting this kind of information about American motion picture and television stars. Hence, the inordinate amount of coverage provided by that publication.

While globalization is inevitable and a threat to every culture, we must still strive to strengthen our own local and national cultures and foster a greater pride in them. One way to do this is by providing radio and television stations and the film industry with the funding to enable them to create cultural material and programming that can compete with that of other countries. The St. John's Folk Arts Council strongly impresses upon the Government of Canada, through a revised Broadcasting Act, to provide the level of funding necessary to accomplish these goals and, dare I say, to increase them, whereas I'm saying here that we're merely asking to maintain the present level of CBC cultural programming and to require private commercial radio and television stations to include more local programming than is currently the case.

Also, with regard to the Government of Canada promoting its diverse national culture, we received $15,000 last year from Canadian Heritage to bring in two folk groups from central Canada to perform at our annual festival. To give you an indication of how successful this program was, the group from Quebec singing songs in French and step dancing received one of two standing ovations during their evening performance at our festival. The other group to receive a standing ovation was Anita Best and Pamela Morgan. Unfortunately, this year Canadian Heritage has cut back that grant to only $10,000 instead of $15,000.

· (1315)

It's not included in this text, but I'd like to also draw your attention to a similar event a couple of summers ago on our waterfront, when la Bottine Souriante, another French language group, received an outstanding response from thousands of people when they performed here.

We would like to impress upon the Government of Canada, through Canadian Heritage, the need to restore the $15,000 that was granted last year to bring folk artists to our festival.

· (1320)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Mr. Pickett.

The last point you made is extremely important and certainly shouldn't be lost on any of us, namely the cultural exchanges that are possible. A lot of time, money, and effort are spent on student exchanges and so on, and we see the benefits across the country as our young people get to know each other. Certainly, in the line of cultural exchange, musicians moving back and forth will be of tremendous benefit to all of us so we can get to know each other. It's certainly something we'll take note of.

Mr. Stan Pickett: There is one more comment we'd like to add. In addition to Canadian Heritage providing a grant for us to bring in Canadian musicians for our festival, we are looking into applying for a grant to help us send our Newfoundland talent and artists to other parts of Canada.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Absolutely.

Ms. Knight.

Ms. Susan Knight (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's been said that I'm here representing the Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir. I am the founder and conductor of that organization, but I'm really here as a private citizen today. However, I can't help but be informed by my experiences from that and also from my experience as the founder and artistic co-director of Festival 500.

I want to address just a few thoughts as to the mandate the CBC plays in the generation and sustenance of Canadian identity, as to the nature and challenge of Canadian identity construction, and as to the effect changes in the CBC's national operations have had and may have on the special and diverse mechanism of the construction and valuing of Canadian identity in Canadian society.

Stan referred to some of the objectives in the 1991 Broadcasting Act, and I'll just very briefly quote them. The first is to

serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,

which is why we have the CBC. It is the job of the CBC to

encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view,

The third point is that it will

through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society,

And the fourth point is that it will

be readily adaptable to scientific and technological change

That is the reason we have the Broadcasting Act, and it's a huge mandate for the CBC.

I'd just like to spend a minute looking at the nature of Canadian identity. We exist over 5,000 miles with ten constituent provinces and three territories. Even within those provinces and territories there exists a plethora of individual identities. One of the great values of Canada in the world, to itself and outward to the world, is the way we have been able to construct a country that doesn't have a homogenous identity, one thing. Canada's identity exists in the agreement and the impetus of Canadians to reach out and to recognize and value each other's identity. It's the composite identities that make up this country.

There should be no culture periphery in this country. The middle of Canada should be wherever you live in this country, and I think that is the role of the CBC, to see that we all understand what it means to be Canadian and that in our own regional identities or racial identities, whatever that may happen to be, we can celebrate them, develop them for their own sake, and share them with the rest of the nation.

That's a very big mandate, and with the funding cutbacks, the way Mr. Rabinovitch and company have chosen to have a balanced bottom line is to strip the regions. When you think of what institutions there are in this country, other than the CBC, that serve to help construct and enrich the Canadian identity, I think you will come up empty. So it's at great peril that we don't have an extraordinarily enriched CBC operating across the nation, with three things in mind.

The first thing is for the regions to explain ourselves to ourselves, to celebrate ourselves to ourselves, to affirm us in our own participatory cultures around the country.

The second is to make sure that those regions are communicated to all the other regions of the country--as Anita says, what's going on in Quebec, what's going on in Saskatchewan, and how is it that young Canadians feel and think as Canadians and will be able to make their contribution to the future as Canadians, whether they are Newfoundland Canadians or Quebec Canadians, whatever kind of Canadian they are.

When I reflect back on my own life--I'm four years older than John--I was born a Newfoundlander. So how did I become conscious of being Canadian and an active Canadian in the world?

Aside from my own parents, whose gift to me was to make sure that I was a really strong Newfoundlander with a sense of contribution and appreciation...because you see, unless you're strong in your own identity, then you can't give to others; you can't really understand and appreciate others. So there were my parents. And Pierre Trudeau, for his cultural policies in this country, is the first person who truly made me feel and understand that I was a Canadian and ought to be consciously contributing and thinking about being Canadian. And as well there is Peter Gzowski and the kinds of programs the CBC has offered across the country in CBC Radio, traditionally Vicky Gabereau and all those magazine shows where Canadians can tell their stories to each other and can appreciate each other in that sense.

So as to how Canadians become Canadians, when my children were little and I would talk to them about these kinds of things--they're grown women now--I would say, you know, Canada is like a salad, and the CBC is the dressing.

When you look south of the border at this great giant who is not actively trying to subsume us, but that is the great pressure, there is an identity there that is promoted, a homogenous American identity. A melting pot has been their ideal.

In Canada, we have a much more challenging role to play in the construction and valuing of our Canadian identity, because we have always celebrated the diversity, but it comes at a cost.

People have referenced the BBC. The BBC has really taken the mandate of their parliamentary act very seriously. If you look at the difference in the money that's given to make sure the BBC carries out its mandate, I think it behooves all of us to reflect, not just....

I'm not speaking as an artist; I am an artist. As an artist with the Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir, I have established a model that brings musical excellence and cultural awareness to our children, but with the whole idea that we bring them out into the world to experience the world and connect with it, not only from the point of view of Newfoundland and Labrador but from the point of view of Canada moving into the world.

· (1325)

With Festival 500, which I started, the purpose was to bring the world here. As Stan says, we do that and we celebrate each other.

To me, this very short story--and then I will finish--will give you some notion. I had a child whom I took to Finland, because we were invited by the Finnish government. We toured there and then we came home. We were singing one day this wonderful folk song called “Taivas on sininen”--“the sky is blue and white”--which it is over Newfoundland very often too. This child said to me “Oh, I love 'Taivas on sininen'”. I said, “I do too, Emily.” And she said, “The children in Finland love 'Taivas on sininen' just as we love 'I's the B'y'.” This was a cultural awakening for her.

In Canada, if we can continue to be successful under this extraordinary pressure from globalization and just even from south of the border, if we can continue to nourish this model where we have our own distinct identities, and our Canadian identity is in valuing each other's, then that is a model for the world. We are a model for the world, but it comes at a price. I will say that I have to laud the CBC, particularly in radio, for doing that job. It's easier to do it in radio, because it doesn't cost as much in radio.

You referenced, Stan, the CBC moving around the country with this CBC competition, with bringing the Easter celebration around. It's very costly. I know they're important, but look at Greg. It was our programs for 40 years that we had here--regular, weekly programs being generated here, in the arts, documentaries, all these sorts of things--that spawned a generation of people who made an extraordinary contribution to Canada.

You have This Hour Has 22 Minutes. I thought it was really interesting that Mary Walsh and Cathy Jones were the models of Newfoundland women to the world. But that only happened because we had access--we had support--for all kinds of programming: arts programming, public affairs programming, all these sorts of programs that happened in the region but went out to the country.

We also need to see Saskatchewan and Nunavut; we need to see all these things. All of Canada needs to be enriched by each other in this fashion. I have a daughter living her life and working en français in Quebec, but as far as the CBC is concerned, it doesn't give me a window on Quebec.

It's at our peril that we don't understand the critical connection between the future of this country and the proper funding of CBC to the regions so that the regions may understand each other and connect with the rest of the nation as well as having our national overview.

Thank you.

· (1330)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Ms. Knight. Perhaps before we move on, I'll give one little reminder, if it's of any solace. In all the stories you've ever heard about giants, whether it be David and Goliath, or Jack and the Beanstalk, or whatever, the little person always won if he or she was creative enough, innovative enough, and fearless enough to take on the giant. So perhaps we shouldn't despair.

Monique.

Ms. Monique Tobin (Individual Presentation): I could speak today from a few positions. I will speak as a journalist.

I've worked the last number of years on a number of regionally produced CBC television documentaries, some of which have aired nationally, others of which should have. Every time I walk into the CBC television plant here I'm drawn to the dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of awards posted on the walls: national, international, regional, and industry awards for documentary features, variety specials, investigative programs. I'm often tempted to count them, but they carry on from the front hall corridor into the office, newsroom, boardroom, and hallways, and go on.

I came here to work and build on my Newfoundland roots over a decade ago to a place with some of the most talented producers, both in radio and TV, and I felt so privileged. Our Here and Now used to be the top-rated supper hour news show in the country, and it's no wonder. The CBC listenership/viewership included a broad demographic that was perhaps unparalleled in any other region of the country. Fishery workers, academics, families, artists, and lawyers were all watching and listening.

For this reason, being involved in producing stories for this kind of audience was exciting. The impact of reflecting back the whole community to itself was exciting, and it has reinforced and affirmed this region's concept and esteem of itself after a half a century of post-Confederation put-downs.

· (1340)

I began to work with CBC Radio and TV here at a time when the cutbacks hit in 1992. But the money then came for special projects and series. It was offered as a political gesture to mark anniversaries that were designed to foster the development of culture and heritage and industries and tourism-earmarked soirées related to political cultural trends. These provided some opportunity for authentic stories and creations to somehow slip through--stories, programs, and music that directly reflect authentic regional expression.

There's a new generation of storytellers, be they visual artists, musicians, writers, or filmmakers, with a distinctly different voice than the current mainstream Newfoundland Great Big Sea culture, which is great. But there is a new generation. And as a writer and as a visual arts curator, I encounter young Newfoundlanders who are in a position to reference what they want of their culture, and they do so in their work both consciously and subconsciously. This is a seedbed of talent that needs to be developed and heard by a broad cross-listenership and viewership, as we've had here in the past.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you, Monique.

We're really running out of time, but I'm going to do a quick snapper. Perhaps the person answering would also try to be brief, because we have other people to hear and our time is dissipating rapidly.

Madame Gagnon.

· (1345)

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Good morning.

[English]

I will speak in French. I'm more comfortable.

[Translation]

Some of your comments about the future of broadcasting are very timely indeed. I've detected a common theme running through the various presentations, namely that people want television and radio programming that mirrors their everyday lives. Everywhere we've been, this same message has been delivered to us. The prevailing view is that CBC or Radio-Canada programming no longer reflects life in local communities and regions. I think we need to define, as has been suggested to us, what we mean exactly by local or regional broadcasting. This implies local participation in production by members of the community and involvement at the local and regional levels.

This brings me to the subject of Canadian content. It's important to provide a clearer definition of the concept of Canadian content. I'd like to hear your opinion on this matter. In radio, for example, it's a fairly simple matter to increase Canadian content where musical works are concerned. One common practice, or so I've heard, is to play songs in rapid succession, presenting a kind of musical pot-pourri, to inflate Canadian content. When it comes to programming, what matters is the number of songs played, not the overall air time.

Quebec has approached the content issue by producing programs that reflect people's daily lives. You mentioned Les Plouffes, but I could give you several other examples of series produced in Quebec that reflect Quebec culture and mirror the lives of Quebecers. In my view, it's important that Radio-Canada maintain its independence, as you have recommended, so that it can continue to reflect people's lives and aspirations, political or otherwise. I realize that political aspirations per se differ from one region to the next. I know for a fact that the aspirations of Western Canadians are different from those of Quebecers. I believe that television and radio programming must reflect these different political realities in order to enhance our understanding of one another.

I'd like to hear your views on Canadian content and your thoughts on local and regional production so that more guidelines can be included in the legislation.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Who wants to attempt it first?

Mr. Malone.

Mr. Greg Malone: Thanks, Loyola.

The shows coming out of Quebec are populist shows. The people have chosen these shows by going to the nightclubs and theatres and wherever the talent is. Then they get picked up by CBC and they're put on. The CBC has given the money to Quebec to enable them to put on their own shows that come out of their own culture. They have a very strong cultural identity. There's really no identity problem in Quebec. They put them on.

Really, the same is true here in Newfoundland. We have a very strong national cultural identity. There's no problem with that. The shows that came out of here, at least the shows I was involved in, came out of shows that were drawing big crowds outside television, in clubs and theatres and stuff like that. Then some insightful producers at CBC, because they had a bit of money left over in some little project somewhere, decided to put this show on television, so it got on television.

The ability to put our shows on television and radio are being taken away from us by policy. I don't think that's the problem in Quebec. They still have the money available to them to put their own shows on. We don't. That's being taken away from us, because we're not perceived as either a population base or a region that's of value in that sense.

We're saying that if we had the money to put on these shows, they would find their own definition. The population, the people, would define what their own content is. I don't think we need to put down too many rules about Canadian content or Newfoundland content or Quebec content. It will be defined by the artists and by the audience, if we let it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Would anybody else like to comment briefly?

John.

Mr. John Hutton: I'd like to know how Quebec gets so much money and we don't. No offence, God love you, you're fabulous. It's great to be Canadian, but give up some of your money. I have nothing to do with Churchill Falls or anything like that. The federal government supports Quebec culture like it's a completely separate business from Canada.

You have a great star system in Quebec. It works. There are people who sell millions and millions of records. When you go to Ontario, right next to it, or here in Newfoundland, we have absolutely no idea who the people are. Who are they?

They've sold 20 million records in Quebec. It is great and good. The system has been supported through Ottawa, through the funneling of millions and millions of dollars that we don't ever see in Atlantic Canada. There is a content aspect to it, I think.

· (1350)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Please be brief.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That's because the CBC and Radio-Canada do not focus their production efforts on the same area. The CBC focuses on news and current events programming, while Radio-Canada's focus is on other types of programming. That's been the case for years, and Radio-Canada's programming is produced for far less than CBC programming. Furthermore, the percentage of the budget allocated to Radio-Canada doesn't correspond with overall Francophone representation, percentage wise. However, I have to admit that it all comes down to the CBC's policy directions.

Currently, Radio-Canada employees are on strike and production has been greatly affected, because large production teams are needed. They have been forced to cut back, because full-time employees... It all boils down to the different approaches taken at the CBC and at Radio-Canada. The CBC's budget services the entire English-speaking population. The Francophone arm has no say in the CBC's decisions. You need to look closely at how the CBC's budget is allocated and at the CBC's policies in terms of production and programming of a more local flavour.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): The advantage of moving around quickly and separately like this is it gives all of us a chance to see what's going on and to perhaps get some insight on what's going on. It's a learning experience.

Ms. Knight, you wanted to make a comment.

Ms. Susan Knight: I have a brief comment, Mr. Hearn. It seems to me that saying you can jam in so much Canadian content is like the tail wagging the dog.

If the mandate of the CBC, by an act of Parliament, is to promote Canadian identity and culture, then the budget should be directed towards developing those things. If the regions of Canada constitute the culture of Canada in their connection with each other, then the regions--not the regions in a disparate fashion but the regions in a connected fashion--should be funded so the cultural expression, and the historical, political, and social commentary, comes from the regions and informs the country.

What we've had happen is it has all run into the centre. I was going to say, in Newfoundland we all know what happens when everybody crowds onto one end of the boat. It seems to me, the philosophy should drive the budget and the whole development of programming that reflects the country.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much.

Ms. Lill and Mr. Cuzner, we're really going to have to be brief, if we can. We are well over our time right now.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'll make a comment, then. Today we've all heard some truths about the CBC that are up close and in our faces, starting with Greg Malone, who talked about the fact that we now have CBC Lite. There has been a trivialization that has occurred.

A great deal of it has to do with the number of staff. If you only have two researchers, as opposed to fourteen researchers, then you do not have the same capability of going to the regions and finding those voices.

It's not a matter of going through the phone book. It has to do with supporting arts programming and supporting public affairs programming at the local region. That is where the voices come out of and that is where the researchers find their material and their voices; it's from that area. It's gotten to the point where it's not happening any more, and we are in peril of not having that same kind of regional depth and experience as before.

I want to say I'm also very concerned about the comment that was made about our news capabilities and how more than ever before we need to have a very strong, critical, objective journalistic voice in this country because we are right beside a very jingoistic country and media industry right now. Democracy does thrive on an informed public, clearly and simply, and the CBC has an incredible role to play there.

I want to thank you all for being so eloquent and so full of imagery in your presentations.

· (1355)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much, Ms. Lill.

Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I can't believe we've sat here in St. John's all day and talked about the CBC and nobody has raised Rex Murphy's name so far, until now.

In This Hour Has 22 Minutes we've really embraced the Newfoundland culture and the Newfoundland sense of humour, and I think a lot of us form our opinions around Rex Murphy, really. He brings a great sensibility to how we think as Canadians.

What we've heard is that if there's a new 21-year-old Greg Malone who has a wheelbarrow full of talent and a truckload of dreams, and doesn't know enough not to be scared out there and is going to make a name for himself, while he could have done that 15 or 20 years ago with the help of CBC, those opportunities aren't there now.

Mr. Pickett talked about a specific program he was accessing and it's been cut back. Are there specific programs that have been deleted or is it just in general? With the cutbacks, are there producers who did have enough in their budgets whereby they could take some chance and share some risk and they just don't have that latitude now, or are there specific opportunities that have been cut or have dried up in recent years?

Mr. Greg Malone: You can't get broadcast time, for instance. You can't get broadcast time here locally. We used to be able to access a half hour. Now if we have an hour to fill or a half hour to fill of local broadcast time on the CBC network, it's not there. It's gone. You have to book months in advance and anything can knock it out of the way.

The money that was found for the Wonderful Grand Band show wasn't supposed to be there. It was cobbled together from a couple of other programs or funds they had, but the time was there to do it so we did it and it was a very successful show.

But the money has gone; the broadcast time has gone; they can't give you a licence to do a show here. It's all gone. That's why The Untold Story never got a licence because it went to Toronto and Toronto didn't consider it Canadian history. So it has all been taken away from us, basically, those three things.

We need to have a bit of that action back, just a little room to manoeuvre, a little broadcast time, a little bit of money in some pot or another that some producer receives, so when there's something going on at the local level they can say, let's work with that; let's move that along and see where that comes.

I dare say if we'd had a bit of broadcast time and a bit of money here we would have developed a sitcom by now that would actually be on the air for more than just.... We would have done it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Go ahead, Anita. Last question.

Ms. Anita Best: I have one last comment, if you please.

I think we'd be well served if the anglophone Canadian CBC would be more like the SRC, the Société Radio-Canada, because they do have culture at the forefront.

Ms. Lill asked what do we say to people who are talking about there being too much Canadian content, and that Canadian artists are being overexposed. Let them play somebody they don't play 50 times a day. There are lots of Canadian artists in every province of Canada who would love to be on commercial radio and never get a chance because it's only the big money-makers who they ever play.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much.

I hate to wrap this one up, but time simply has run out a long time ago. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all of you for being here. It has been an eye-opener for all of us, and hopefully our report and our comments down the road will help you. And collectively, maybe that dream that everybody has can someday be reached. Thank you very much.

We have Heather MacLellan from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Heather is an assistant deputy minister. She's going to be accompanied by Eleanor Dawson, cultural officer. Eleanor has been around this field for awhile too.

We have some people not finished with their conversations and this is a problem. Of course, we'd like to spend a lot more time. However, we do have to finish listening to our last presentations. Then we'll use whatever time we have, which is very little, to mix around socially.

We apologize for keeping you waiting so long, but there's a method in our madness, as I mentioned earlier. Hopefully you got to hear a lot of what we heard this morning, which certainly will be very beneficial. We look forward to your presentation.

Ms. MacLellan, it's all yours.

¸ (1400)

Ms. Heather MacLellan (Assistant Deputy Minister, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you, and on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, welcome to our beautiful province. We hope you enjoy your stay.

To summarize what we've heard today from members of our cultural community--our active and successful members--we would like to talk about four important areas of the Broadcasting Act that we believe should be changed and amended to take us into the next decade.

First of all, we believe the Broadcasting Actof Canada should recognize that it has a role to play in preserving the cultural and natural diversity and identity of all of Canada. Secondly, we believe that the Broadcasting Act should recognize and support the growing cultural industries of Canada and those that are important to the provinces and regions of the country. Thirdly, the Broadcasting Act should ensure accuracy, content, and balanced reporting in all of its media. And fourth, it should ensure access for all Canadians to their own culture and identity and to the identity of the cultures that exist in Canada.

I'd like just for a moment to speak of examples of each of these points and principles that we believe should be the foundation of a new Broadcasting Act. We believe the principles need to be strengthened. It's time, morally, for us to take a step back and look at what needs to be done to ensure the most effective use of public funds with respect to broadcasting.

First of all, under cultural diversity and identity, we believe the broadcasting system here will remain ineffective unless Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage complete a truly Canadian cultural policy. We have been waiting for a cultural policy from the Department of Canadian Heritage for quite some time. We believe it's a policy that should do more than just fund and recognize our aboriginal communities, our francophone communities, and our multicultural communities in Ontario. These are all very important cultural communities, but there are equally important cultural identities across all of Canada, and this is something that our federal cultural policy does not yet recognize. We believe it's urgent that this be done and we would ask that you help facilitate that.

On the second element in the Broadcasting Act, ensuring the preservation of our identity and our diversity, it's very important to put our cultural products in the context of their cultures, and the cultures in the context of the environments from which they come.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we don't have a lot of urban music. That's because we don't have a lot of urban environments. We don't have a lot of agricultural environment. We have a lot of environment relating to our North Atlantic, and much of our creation here is based on this relationship that we have had with the North Atlantic. Therefore, in broadcasting, it is important that these environments and the stories of these environments be told as much as individual cultural products being presented. This is really important at a time when we're facing such big challenges in Newfoundland in preserving our marine resources and the remnants of our cultural identities.

We have had, here in this province, eight distinct cultures over 8,000 years. We struggle with looking at how we can help support our Inuit and the preservation of their language and traditions; we need to support our Innu in Labrador in the preservation of their language and their traditions; and we struggle with the preservation of our outport communities and the traditions associated with our inshore and small-boat fishery. These are all very important elements of the mosaic of Canada, and within the Broadcasting Act there should be a direct linkage with that role.

I think it's very important that all Canadians understand what our mosaic is. It's more than just how we are currently presented, most times as a fishing culture.

We had multicultural activity occurring in this province hundreds of years before Canada became a nation. We were the grounds for the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Welsh. We welcomed the Irish and the Scottish, and our aboriginal peoples welcomed the first Europeans to North America. We were multicultural well before we knew what a multicultural policy was, and from this mixing of cultures has grown our incredible creativity and activity. So it is very important that Canada and your act recognize that this creativity is an important part of our cultural industries.

Our cultural industries need to be supported, through broadcasting, but through preservation. When I look to two particular initiatives that the government has undertaken on its own in the last two years, I think it speaks to the lack of clarity and the lack of effort that's being made at the national level to ensure the preservation of cultural identity. I want to use these important examples.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has gone forward on its own, with its own money, to build a new cultural heritage facility. This is a facility of $50 million. It is to preserve 2 million cultural objects of the people who lived here during the last 8,000 years--our art, our artifacts and our archival material. We have not had support from the Department of Canadian Heritage in the development of this new facility, which, when completed, will ensure the preservation of the cultural identities of Canada.

¸ (1405)

We have also undertaken our own cultural policy work. We believe this is very important. It has been based on our review of policy in other countries in the world. We have looked at Scotland, Denmark, and Australia. In their very powerful cultural policies, they have integrated broadcasting as a very important element to preserve the cultural identities of their communities. I would really call again on there being a strong linkage between policy and broadcasting.

With respect to cultural industries, it is important that our stories and places be presented properly. But they're also important in this province because of the collapse of our cod fishery. Since 1993, when the fishery was shut down, culture has become a very important part in every community and outport area of this province. We have looked at and invested in growing this industry. We need to have that respected through national opportunities that come from having access to the national network, the national airwaves, in Canada.

¸ (1410)

For instance, we have grown our tourism industry 40% in the last five years. We currently have as many tourists coming to the province as actually live here. We have made tremendous efforts in telling our stories about the Vikings, about Cabot's arrival 500 years ago, and we believe that these are important stories that all of Canada should have access to. We would like to see a stronger role for broadcasting in helping us do that.

A third point we would like to leave with you is the importance of accuracy of content and balanced broadcasting. Perhaps we suffer more than any other region or district of the country from stereotyping. Stereotyping often comes from not having the facts. We suffer here from media that present stories that are incomplete and inaccurate. Getting the correct story about our contributions to Canada, about who we are, and our identities as a people is perhaps more critical now than ever before, and it's one of the reasons our premier has called for a royal commission on renewing and strengthening our place in Canada.

We recently hosted the Junos, and it was really interesting to see what the response from broadcasters was across Canada about the fact that for the first time they were coming to eastern Canada, after 33 years of being funded by Canadian Heritage and being produced in central Canada. The media coverage we got was “Why would it go to Newfoundland, where there is no industry?” The next report we had across Canada was about garbage that we had in a laneway.

We have such an immense and wonderful tradition of music, and we had so much to contribute to this Canadian music event. This stereotypical and incorrect information has eroded so much from the capability and the centralization of production that we will continue to suffer from this inaccurate and very stereotypical view of ourselves across Canada, and that is not acceptable to us. Your objectives and your policy must ensure that this does not continue.

A fourth point we want to make has to do with public and private broadcasting. We see a very important role for access, and this will not happen with private broadcasting in Canada. We recently had the Junos come to Newfoundland because we paid a significant contribution to get them here.

¸ (1415)

Again, I go back to the fact that this is something that has been federally funded and sponsored, and for its cultural activities and events, whether or not they're sponsored by CBC, which had been its producer for 32 years, Newfoundland needs to have the capability to be able to have its cultural programming distributed across Canada.

During the Junos we met with the CEOs of CTV, and they were very keen to look at cultural product development here and to distribute our stories, but of course they want to be paid for them. As a little population, smaller than the size of Ottawa, it's very hard, if we become market driven, to get our true stories and our cultures out across Canada. So broadcasting has to make sure that it protects and represents the stories and the cultures of our people.

We know we were successful with events such as the Junos, and we know with our Random Passage series that we were successful in showcasing our stories and our talent across this country. Again, Random Passage was a large production, it was an international production, but one for which the government had to invest $2.5 million to make it happen. We invested more than CBC did, but yet it was presented nationally as a CBC production. So something is lost when the first historical account of a people gets presented by the national broadcaster when there aren't enough funds to do it correctly.

We also look at activities such as your series on Canada, Canada: A People's History, which was excellent. But again, it did not tell a very complete story of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So we welcome this initiative. Our recommendation for you today is to look at these guiding principles, to look at your objectives for broadcasting, and to strengthen the role of broadcasting with a stronger cultural policy that's more inclusive for Canada.

¸ (1420)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much.

Ms. Dawson, do you have anything to add?

Ms. Eleanor Dawson (Cultural Officer, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador): Thank you.

I'm not going to do a presentation per se, which I'm sure people will be pleased about, considering the time. I'm here as an add-on, and I certainly can't add much to what everybody has already said. But when I looked at your questions on the web on Friday, I thought if I were doing a presentation I would only make one point. I think it would be better to make one point well than try to make five or six.

Basically, after hearing everybody here today, I would concur with what I felt on Friday, and this one point is that it's so important to invest in the public broadcaster. Basically, all we're saying is that the public broadcaster, CBC, should fulfil its mandate. We're not asking for anything in addition. Basically, its mandate is to show Canadian culture in its mosaic all across the country, and that can only be done by investing in it, by giving the corporation the resources to allow it to do that. That will happen by showing the cultures that exist in the regions and allowing them to be shown to each other across the country.

The other important role, of course, that the public broadcaster plays in the development of the cultural sectors is building audiences. We heard people speak about the weekend Arts Magazine, which is a fabulous program despite the fact that it does come on early. But it is on only six hours a week, and if that time were quadrupled, if that were on four times as much, you would have that much more opportunity to build audiences. This is so important if we want to do something about the Americanization of our culture. If you want to make people, especially young people, have their own cultural heroes, you do that through promoting your own culture through a medium where people are exposed to it.

So that would be the only point I would make. I think everybody has made the point really well, and if there's one thing you have to bring back it would be that you should invest in the public broadcaster to the point where they're able to fulfil their mandate.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I'd like to say one thing. I think you've put forward some sound ideas that reflect the concerns of a number of the people who have appeared before our committee. As I see it, Radio-Canada and the CBC really need to work hard if they truly want to be regarded as a public broadcasting entity. Public television is television for everyone. That's why programming standards must be high and reflect all national identities. You yourself admitted that there are many distinct cultural features in the various parts of Canada. Therefore, your ideas tie in very well with the challenges Radio-Canada and the CBC now face.

You talked about the CBC. Francophones account for two per cent of the province's population. Do Francophones have access to Radio-Canada? Do you see any differences between CBC and Radio-Canada programming?

[English]

Ms. Heather MacLellan: Yes, they have two distinct programs that are developed by different producers and aired on different channels and have a different amount of time for each. I'm not sure that the CBC French radio program is aired full time here.

It's not on 24 hours, is it?

No, it's on a very shortened timeframe.

¸ (1425)

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Perhaps you don't watch Radio-Canada because you speak English. However, I would like to know if there's a difference in terms of program content. For example, does the programming reflect the lives and experiences of the province's Francophones? We were told that there is virtually no local CBC programming. Can the same be said of the programming of the Corporation's French arm?

[English]

Ms. Heather MacLellan: They have correspondence from Newfoundland. Dr. Ron Rompkey from Memorial University is one of their correspondents who covers some of the cultural activities that take place here in eastern Newfoundland. Then they have a correspondent on the west coast, but that's very limited in terms of what this covers.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I just want to ask you about the comment you made about Random Passage, namely that the Newfoundland government put in more money than the CBC did to have that production made. It raises a very alarming issue really. If a province can't kick in the money--doesn't have it or doesn't have the will to do it--then in fact is programming not going to happen in a region if the provincial government isn't involved? That's not a very good precedent. The CBC should be able to provide programming across the country, whether or not they have buy-in from different governments.

Ms. Heather MacLellan: We're very pleased with the support we did get from CBC and Ron Crocker from Halifax. They have a partnership fund now from which they will do collaborations. We have a small pool here to invest in our film industry, and we have a number of producers whom you met this morning. In order for us to do that one production, we've taken the money out of access--out of the pool for other producers. It's a real challenge for us if we want to do something of that magnitude. We can only do “one of” very few times. Either the criteria for the partnership fund need to be changed or we need to have more money.

Ms. Eleanor Dawson: I was just going to make that point too. Had there been another production on at the same time that required the same level of investment, that wouldn't have happened. To answer your question, it's yes. If the provincial government didn't have that money, then there would be the situation where some productions don't get done.

Ms. Wendy Lill: You have such a booming culture, you have lots of...I think someone said something like 200--

Ms. Eleanor Dawson: I think the number they said is 200 million.

Ms. Wendy Lill: --an enormous number of productions that are in development and they're moving along like this. But is there going to be the funding at the end to actually help them? According to Greg Malone, there's no money, no licence fees, and no broadcast time. So it sounds grim.

Ms. Eleanor Dawson: That's right. It's a major hurdle for people, and you would be surprised to see how much time and effort and energy goes into any production in this province that's not paid for--the artists themselves don't get paid. It's only because they want to do it so badly and they're prepared to put in so much time without pay that things happen in a lot of cases.

Ms. Heather MacLellan: For regions like Newfoundland, our economy doesn't allow us to invest in the same way in our artistic development as other jurisdictions. The Province of Quebec is able to invest in their cultural and arts agency up to $50 million. We have less than $1 million.

So in order to get our artistic talent to the gate, it's a bigger challenge for us, and yet we have more cultural activity happening here per capita. So much of the effort is volunteer effort, and our artists are living in such poverty.

Through our arts council we're only able to give our artists, on the average, a grant of $1,500 per project, and we're only able to fund about one-quarter of all projects that come forward. We don't have the capacity in our revenues to provide that artistic development, so when there is less federal money in any of our programs they are withdrawn.

We're also facing here the reduction of federal-provincial programs. That is going to seriously impact us culturally. Federal-provincial programs have been very important to us to grow our cultural industries in this province. We had our economic renewal agreement, we had a cultural development agreement, and we presently have an economic development agreement. We were told this year there would be no more of these types of agreements. That has allowed us to contribute 20% and 30% on objectives that are specifically targeted to address the needs of our cultural industries here in this province. I don't know how we're going to be very effective in the future if we don't find a replacement and a mechanism with the federal government for this program.

¸ (1430)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Loyola Hearn): Thank you very much.

That's an extremely important point to leave with us, because it gives us.... Besides some of the work we do in relation to the Broadcasting Act, in reporting directly, we're also learning a lot of other things about the provinces as we move around certainly here at home. Your messages will be taken to Ottawa.

Thank you very much again for being here. Hopefully, today, we've all heard a lot of things which will help us and give us that bit of encouragement to those who strive to make life a little bit better for the regions in the country. Certainly, if people listen to the ideas put forth, and hopefully they will, things will improve and your contribution will be a part of creating a better picture.

Thank you very much.