Canadian Heritage Committee on May 23rd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Welcome to meeting 61 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

We're very pleased to be in St. John's, Newfoundland, and in this great facility this evening. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are doing a full investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century.

From the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council, we have John Doyle; from the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation, Chris Bonnell; and from St. John's.... Well, we don't have that one yet.

We also have Doug Engbrecht and Dorian Rowe, who are with...?

[Dorian Rowe, Professional Development Administrator, Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation]

We're both with the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Mr. Doyle, you can start your presentation, sir. We only have about an hour, so please try to keep it somewhere reasonable.

[John Doyle, Chair, Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council]

We will. Thank you.

First of all, welcome to St. John's. Thank you for coming here, and thank you for inviting us to appear and speak to you.

I'll briefly describe the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council. It's a non-profit provincial crown agency, with the main mandate of fostering and promoting the arts in Newfoundland and Labrador. We do this by providing grants to artists and to arts organizations, and by encouraging public awareness of and participation in the arts. We believe the arts bring a wide range of benefits to the whole community, and that government investment in the arts is in the best interest of everyone in Canada.

By way of personal disclosure, just because we're talking about the CBC, I have myself worked frequently for CBC Radio in the past. As a filmmaker, I frequently work on projects that are underwritten by the CBC.

In our submission today, we're going to focus on the CBC's mandate in the area of arts and culture as seen from a regional point of view.

The CBC provides two very important services to the arts in Canada: it promotes public awareness and understanding of the arts, which leads to greater participation, and it underwrites the creation of art. The CBC has had a huge impact in both these areas for many years. No other broadcaster in Canada has even come close. We believe it's vitally important for this country that the CBC maintain this aspect of its mandate and fulfill it with renewed vigour.

In this region of Newfoundland and Labrador, CBC radio and television have both played a major role in creating public awareness of the arts. This is especially true in radio, where the weekend morning show has for many years been an arts magazine. This provides a public forum for discussion of the arts, and of course it's a highly effective tool for promoting new works of art and cultural events. Unfortunately, in recent years the program has suffered from a serious lack of resources, which has reduced its effectiveness.

Television has also played an important role in arts promotion. For more than 20 years, the CBC has partnered with our organization, the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council, to produce the annual Newfoundland and Labrador arts awards. However, as in radio, CBC television's arts coverage has suffered in recent years from a lack of resources.

As well as promoting arts awareness within the region, both radio and television have played a vital role in making other Canadians aware of artists working in this province. The CBC stands head and shoulders above the other broadcast media in this region in producing and supporting work in the performing arts. There is a strong tradition here of radio drama, music, and literary programming, and of television drama, comedy, and music series. Some of these have been produced for regional broadcast, others have been aired on the national network. These programs have been highly effective in reflecting this part of Canada to the nation and to our own region. They've also helped to foster the local film and television industries.

Unfortunately, there has been a steady decline in local production in recent years. There is now almost no local radio drama. Music programs that used to feature original performances have now become disc-spin shows.

Television once proudly boasted local shows like All Around the Circle, Up at Ours, The Root Cellar, and Wonderful Grand Band. Local producers created programming for the national network, such as Dooley Gardens, Hatching, Matching & Dispatching, and the two miniseries Random Passage and Above & Beyond.

At this moment, there are no local drama or comedy shows on CBC television in this region. In fact, not a single minute of the national radio or television schedule is produced in this region. Whether that's the result of budget constraints or management decisions, the result is the same. It has a profound negative impact on fulfilling the CBC's mandate.

CBC/Radio-Canada has had a huge positive impact on arts and culture in Canada, and we urge your committee to recommend that this aspect of the corporation's mandate be retained and reinforced. To sum up, we believe the arts are good for Canada and the CBC is good for the arts.

Thank you, and best wishes in your important work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that presentation.

Now we'll move to Mr. Bonnell.

[Chris Bonnell, Executive Director, Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation]

Thank you.

On behalf of the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation, I welcome the opportunity to offer our thoughts on the role of the public broadcaster in the 21st century to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are pleased that you have come to our province for these hearings. The process of this review is extremely important. As the provincial funding agency for Newfoundland and Labrador independent film and television production, the NLFDC hopes and believes that this study by the standing committee will be an important component in the CRTC's process of considering the licence renewal application for the CBC/SRC in 2008.

My comments this evening will focus on CBC's English-language television.

The NLFDC, like its counterparts in the other Canadian provinces and territories, provides production incentives that are a necessary portion of the investments that independent producers use to create projects. Within the regulations, policies, and mandates of the various organizations comprising the Canadian broadcasting system, independent producers play a vital role. Independent producers are the entrepreneurial and creative lifeblood of our industry, and create the high-quality programming that the CRTC calls priority programming, upon which the CBC relies.

Since its inception in 1997, the NLFDC, through equity investments, labour tax credits, and many industrial development initiatives, has been an essential pillar in this region. Motion picture activity is labour-intensive, well-paid, knowledge-based employment. The Newfoundland and Labrador industry is highly beneficial to rural areas and to other cultural industries. The independent production community creates large economic spinoffs. It brings into this region investments that would not otherwise be made here, and it allows us to present our stories and our creativity to the nation and to the world. These are the reasons the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and its people support the existence of the Film Development Corporation.

In our best year to date, fiscal year 2005-06, the Newfoundland and Labrador film and television industry had $27 million in production activity, which resulted in an estimated 340 new full-time employment equivalents--not an insignificant amount of economic activity in a region of this size. But in the last year and a half, the changes to the management policies of the CBC have combined with the centralization of production, which has resulted from the transition to the broadcaster envelope system of the Canadian Television Fund. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the result has been a very significant economic impact on the independent production sector and its workers.

In the face of mass media bombardment from outside Canada, there is a national consensus that we want distinctive Canadian voices to be heard, and of course it is the CBC's purpose to make this goal a reality. As a result, throughout Canada a vital creative industry with great potential is interwoven with national aims and CBC's decision-making. The Canadian television industry has grown and is interlocked with fulfilling the greater social and cultural aims of our nation. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there is no National Film Board office, and the local CBC television presence has been drastically reduced in its production capacity over the last 15 years. There is no provincial educational TV network, and local private broadcasters are only able and tasked to do so much.

Who is going to fulfill, in Newfoundland and Labrador, the clearly mandated goals of the Canadian broadcasting policy as put forth by the Department of Canadian Heritage and its agencies? On the ground here are the independent producers, the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation, and other key industry organizations that are, quite frankly, doing to heavy lifting of fulfilling the mandate of the Canadian broadcasting policy. While partnerships with the national CBC remain essential for Newfoundland and Labrador producers, local producers have, over the years, enjoyed strong relationships with the public broadcasters, and this must continue.

Many of CBC's current woes can simply be attributed to funding that is lower than traditional Canadian levels, or than that in support of public broadcasters in other western nations, particularly given the affluence of the national government. This is not good enough. For Canadian production companies, there's a very difficult reality at present. Productions green-lit by national broadcasters have been centralized away from this region, where traditionally many of the best and most popular national shows have originated. Resources are stretched too thin. Too much content is expected to fill too many hours and programming for not enough money. The business model for independent production companies is marginal, yet the system devised by policy-makers is dependent upon the product they create. The current state of affairs of the national public broadcaster has not helped matters.

In a constantly changing media environment and policy landscape, the CBC must be a beacon of consistency and fairness. The CBC ought to set a standard for all Canadian broadcasters on issues around terms of trade with independent production companies. The CBC should pay adequate licence fees, not require unduly lengthy licence agreements, and share equitably in rights.

As well, the recent changes in the types of programs being done by the CBC nationally are a major concern to us. The NLFDC believes that the CBC is uniquely able to have the courage of its convictions and to focus as much as possible on providing excellent content.

Recently the CBC has moved away from movie of the week and miniseries production. Also, in the past, regional CBC had been supportive of project development, but this has dried up. Furthermore, the numbers of documentaries being made has been reduced significantly due to CBC's policies favouring the creation of more lifestyle and reality content shows, which many see as pale imitations of the American TV already clogging the bandwidth. In an atmosphere of the CBC's trying to provide programming that emulates what private Canadian and U.S. broadcasters are doing more successfully, it appears that regional and distinctively Canadian programming is the first to disappear from our TV screens.

The CBC has lost its way. The role for the CBC in the 21st century should be to remain different from commercial private broadcasters. The CBC should focus on programs that are under-represented on other Canadian channels and should be a much-needed outlet for Canadian feature films. The CBC should be a bastion of high-quality, uniquely Canadian material of all genres; otherwise, what is the CBC's purpose? It seems, at present, that the mandate of the CBC within the Department of Canadian Heritage's own mandate is increasingly at odds with the corporation's fiscal decision-making.

The focus should be on excellence. Newfoundland production companies and creators welcome the challenge to compete nationally on that basis. This is an era of rapid, sweeping changes in worldwide media. Some confusion and painful readjustments are bound to happen, but we are not afraid of change. We are confident that we have the talent, creativity, and entrepreneurial energy needed to continue to succeed on a national level if the playing field for Canadian policy is not sloped uphill against us.

In the Newfoundland and Labrador film community, we just want to have fair and equal access to the nation's broadcasters and the resources that they are compelled by federal policies and regulations to spend on Canadian programming. An official mandate review of CBC is essential now, and future reviews must occur regularly as the national media environment evolves.

In conclusion, the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation recommends that the CBC renew and strengthen its relationship with the independent production sector, produce more local and regional programming, reassess its current national programming philosophy, and receive increased, adequate long-term funding.

Thank you for this opportunity to present our thoughts on behalf of the Newfoundland and Labrador film and video industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

Is Noreen here yet?

[A voice]

She's on her way, actually.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

When she arrives, we will get her to make her presentation.

We will start with some questions, if we could.

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

As the only Atlantic Canadian member of this committee, I would like to welcome to the region my colleagues, the chair, and the staff.

I mean the only one on the permanent committee, Scott.

I'd like your reaction to a few things.

First of all, I'd like each of you to elaborate on the Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic experience of having very few alternatives to CBC. You've said it, but I think you really need to say it loud and clear, because it's very difficult for the rest of the country to understand. That's not just in the context of what you get on television and radio and so on, but even in terms of the industry. If it weren't for the CBC presence and infrastructure--I've said this in Fredericton--if we didn't haven't the local station, all I would get is the Halifax legislature, notwithstanding the fact that I live in the capital, Fredericton.

Do you want me to stop, Mr. Chair? You're going to give me my time back, I'm sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Yes, I'll give you part of your time back.

Welcome, Ms. Golfman. I would ask you to make your presentation, please.

[Noreen Golfman, Chair of the Board of Directors, St. John's International Women's Film and Video Festival]

Okay, but I'm still digesting my supper. I got the call that you were racing through this.

We—and I say “we”—were invited and, on behalf of the St. John's International Women's Film Festival, submitted a short brief. You should have a copy.

Some of you know this--probably quite well--but others might not know, so of course I need to disclose that I am also chair of the steering committee of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. I'm not wearing that hat officially today, but the issues overlap considerably. I'm also president of the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences. So I represent, in some ways, some 50,000 academics of the social sciences and humanities. I feel as if I'm speaking on behalf of a very large constituency across this country of academics, filmmakers, producers, scholars, and listeners.

I don't think I need to rehearse this whole brief for you, but it's really focused on two key issues. One has to do with our festival's reliance on, if you will, local product, local filmmaking. I'm sure, or I would assume, that you've just heard from the panellists about the need for CBC engagement in every way and about our history of dependence on CBC's contribution to film production and television production in this region.

We are going into our eighteenth year. Amazingly enough, we have a sizeably healthy budget, largely subsidized by public funding. But the big draw of our festival in this region--it's called an international film festival, but there's no secret that the real appeal is our exhibition and display of product to local audiences--is local product. Much of our programming has depended upon CBC investment in documentaries and in drama.

So we are concerned, I suppose understandably, and we have been over the last few years, not so much about the health of our festival, which I think has established itself as an important event for the region for all kinds of reasons, but about our mandate being undermined by the lack of available drama and comedy production in the region.

We've had a very healthy partnership with CBC television here in particular, but radio as well has helped to advertise our material over the years. We hope to continue to do so, but we would feel better if CBC national, if you will, were more attentive to the need to honour the kinds of events we have—not directly necessarily, but certainly indirectly through financing and providing resources for the region.

So that's one key point in our submission. I'd be happy to supply, if you want, our programs so that you can really see the range of Canadian content and significant local content that has highlighted our festival. A few years ago, for instance, we opened in the Arts and Culture Centre here with a locally produced series, heavily invested in by CBC, called Random Passage, based on a well-known novel by a local writer. We sold out 1,200 seats very quickly. It helped to keep us afloat for that year and subsequent years, and gave us a good foundation. That's evidence, of course, of how hungry local audiences are for local stories.

If you go to our website, you will see all of that. I've included the address in the brief. That's the easiest thing to do if you're interested in browsing. There are some good video downloads in there too.

I'm not here officially wearing the hat of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, of course, but part of the brief speaks to the lack of general support for regional programming, particularly supper hour news and current events. Today I did quite a few interviews with the press across this country because Friends released a statement and four tables based on the history of the ratings over the last several years in Atlantic Canada, including, of course, New Brunswick. The tables detail quite graphically the decline in ratings since the initial cut of the 60-minute news show to 30 minutes, and then the subsequent halting attempts to restore that hour with virtually no significant input or increase of resources. Those ratings continue, if not to slide, then to hold at very low rates.

A big challenge, of course, for supper hour news, which has really been a staple of CBC programming and production here, is to reclaim the audiences that went to other stations. That's a story, I would think, that every Newfoundlander, not just a townie, can tell you, and knows quite well. That's the other key observation of this briefing.

If you like, I have those four tables with me, and I'd be happy to submit them to the committee. They are also widely available, but I'm happy to give them to you. They tell a significant story.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

We'll go back to Mr. Scott, and we'll start from scratch.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

You should probably just hit on a couple of numbers for the purposes of the committee, so that people can appreciate just how profound a difference, in terms of the ratings here, particularly in terms of the supper hour.... Actually, it went from an hour to zero, back to 30, back to 60, if you recall. In any case, that's one.

We need to get a sense of the extent to which it is a resources issue. I think generally we believe it is, but every once in a while people will say, I don't know whether it's a resources issue or a management decision issue. When that happens, we're back to this dilemma that we have, because we could recommend to Parliament that the annual appropriation be increased significantly, but then come to find out after that happens that nothing--let's say in the regions in particular--has changed the way we wanted it to change. I'm not sure there's much that would be helpful that we could do about that. This is national public radio, not state radio or television.

Therefore, we have to come to terms with how to do that. Maybe there's something in the language of the mandate, although I think it's fair to say most of the people have proposed that the mandate did not need to be changed dramatically, but actually just lived up to. Please help us with that.

Regarding new media, are there any thoughts, or anything that you would offer about the opportunities? I think there's a big opportunity here. I think this is an historic moment for the national public broadcaster, and my sense is that they could seize this moment. We're already ahead in some areas. So I would like you to respond to that, and add.

There's also a discussion about whether there should be advertising or not. Could you each throw out your thoughts around that?

[John Doyle]

In terms of the first question you posed, Mr. Scott, about the dependence on CBC—of course we're always uneasy with saying that we're dependent on anything in this region, since we're always being accused of over-dependence—there's no question, with the current distribution techniques, whether it's satellite or digital cable or Internet television, that the dependence on the over-the-air CBC signal is not the same as it once was. I think now what we're looking at is dependence on the kind of programming that only the CBC seems to be willing to do.

I haven't studied the mandates of the other broadcasters. I kind of imagine they're supposed to be doing more regional programming, original programming, quality drama, and so on than they're actually doing. But the evidence for many years has been that it's the CBC that does that. Certainly in this region, the other broadcast media are doing very little in terms of original quality local programming or programming from this region going to the national networks. It is clear, I think, in a straightforward reading of the CBC's mandate, as it is in the act, that it's to reflect the regions to themselves, reflect the regions to the rest of the country, and reflect the rest of the country all over the place.

In response to the question about whether it's resources or management choices, I expect it's both. Having met on public occasions some of the current management of the CBC, and even going back for a few years, I would say there doesn't seem to be currently a really strong commitment to the regions. It's probably inevitable, when you're based in Toronto, that you hang around with the crowd in Toronto, and the television industry is basically based in Toronto.

I remember on one occasion sitting in a cafe across from the CBC building, the broadcasting centre, with a senior executive from the CBC, with our expensive appetizers and drinks, and realizing that the rest of the world, the rest of Canada could go away now and we wouldn't miss a thing. We were totally self-sufficient there. We had everything we needed. We were surrounded by the most talented people in the country and the best food and wine and the big building. So what do we need Newfoundland for? The fog could close in, the network could close down, and you wouldn't miss it. So as long as that attitude is there, it's going to be a problem.

As you say, obviously you can't order them not to think that way. But again, if you look at the mandate as it's stated, there is clearly a large regional component, and it's never been a mandate of any national organization in this country to forget about anything that is outside of the core around the CN Tower.

I'll just leave my comments at that.

[Chris Bonnell]

When the Film Development Corporation began back in 1997, production activity in this province was a little over $1 million, and in our best year, 2005-06, as I said in my presentation, we reached $27 million in production activity. Just to put that into perspective, with the exception of one $4 million feature film, the rest of that was CBC productions. So it's huge for this industry in this province.

For a long time, we've been used to recognizing that for bigger productions the national CBC had to give that broadcast licence. What has happened in the past, with the TransCanada Development Fund, is that the local CBC has been a huge partner in developing our projects for pilots and so on. That seems to be gone of late, because there's a national focus now in CBC with more of a reality-based approach as opposed to one focusing on dramatic series and period pieces and so on. So that's very discouraging for us. We're not asking for an entitlement; we're asking for fair and equitable access to competition.

If you look at the past, most of our productions have done very well nationally and internationally. We recognize that a Newfoundland story is no good if it's not of interest to the rest of Canada and also the rest of the world. But we'd like that process, so that can be determined.

I think back to 1998 or 1997 when the CBC's budget was drastically reduced. What has happened is that there's been a huge focus on raising revenue that they otherwise didn't have to raise. So there's a huge focus now on advertising, and then there's a huge focus on how you get that advertising. So I think we have to go back to thinking that CBC is a national broadcaster, and it should behave that way, and focus on what it's supposed to do for a distinctive Canadian voice. And that's the whole purpose.

The other thing that's problematic is the change in the Canadian Television Fund. Since they introduced performance envelopes, we've seen immediately the change to the centralization of productions, something that John just talked about in terms of that lovely little circle in Toronto.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Golfman.

[Noreen Golfman]

I'd like to add some figures—there are some very stark ones—for the purposes of this presentation.

In 1996, the audience share of CBC TV/CBNT was over 43%. It was among the market leaders in North America. As I said, every Newfoundlander can tell you that story. Everybody tuned in to see Rex Murphy, Ray Guy, and even me--I say with some modesty. For years, CBC supper hour Here & Now dominated. So you have to ask, what was the rationalization for cutting or breaking a successful operation in the first place? There has never really been a clear, coherent, rational answer to that question.

We tend to fall upon a kind of Toronto-centric view of the universe, because it just doesn't make sense, or perhaps following from that, the view that other supper hour news shows across the country, particularly in the urban areas, weren't drawing as much, so we took the fall for it. Of course, it was so shortsighted because the audience fell radically. As our table shows--this is based on very hard-core research by a Canadian media research company—in 2006 the audience share went down to 13.8%. So who's watching? I'm watching, probably everybody at this table is watching, and maybe everybody in this room. But people have gone to the other broadcaster, and it's very difficult to get them back.

There seems to be a strong correlation between the resources and the decline in ratings. We can at least say that. But to speak to the issue of management, it was a senior management decision and nobody here had any input into that. At the risk of using the language we're used to, everybody here was a victim of a decision made off-stage somewhere. Over the years from 1996, it went from 43%, to 37%, climbed a little to 40%, and then went back down--27%, 18%, 15%, and now it's 13.8%. That's a pretty staggering decline in a very short time.

There's a kind of tragedy here. Not to overstate it, but a lot of the goodwill was undermined by those cuts and by a quite recognizably different supper hour show, or supper 30-minute show, if you will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am very happy to be here with you.

First, you will understand that apart from our Chair, who is a Conservative Party M.P., the opposition parties are the only ones here today. I would like to think that this does not reflect what the Conservatives think of Newfoundland.

Second, when people talk to me about culture, it resonates with me tremendously, for the simple reason that the people of Quebec are trying to preserve their culture. Think how the problems you are having today, we had them perhaps 25 or 30 years ago. We went off on something of a detour. You are going to have to take that same detour too. That is how I see it. You are going to have to make an abrupt about-face, because this federation, this confederation, is not going to help you. Think seriously about how you are going to drown in this great big country.

Having said that, I will ask Mr. Doyle my first question. Mr. Doyle, I do not think that a price can be put on culture. I reject that premise. You said that the CBC's mandate should be retained. Do you not believe that we could amend it by adding specific requirements?

[John Doyle]

Such as what, for example?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

It seems that in your view, the Corporation's mandate is clear. Nonetheless, you are asking for things in terms of culture. Mr. Bonnell is asking for equitable agreements, and so on. Ms. Golfman is asking for other kinds of things. Do you not think that we, as legislators, could promote an extension of the mandate or specific requirements?

[John Doyle]

Yes, I'm sure you're right. Obviously with the mandate as it exists, we're not getting the results that we're looking for. Do we simply say, enforce the mandate, require it to be fulfilled. Or as you're suggesting, do we need to make it crystal clear in the mandate that...? When I read the mandate, I say yes, it says it all there. But what you're saying is that we need to make it absolutely explicit that reflecting the regions to themselves means you have to put in adequate resources. You can't just say, well, Newfoundland is 1.9% of the population, so you get 1.9% of the budget, or something like that. We all know smaller areas may need a higher percentage than an urban area.

Of course, that touches on the whole question of the concentration of Canadians in urban areas and what that's doing for those of us who choose to live—or are forced to, or whatever—outside the core urban areas.

Yes, I would absolutely support you, and I'm sure our organization would, if you found a way to make the mandate sharper and more precise and harder to work around. Sure.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

We would have to receive your briefs, for that. In fact I want to remind you about that. I do not have them, myself. I do like to prepare in advance and go and look things up. Ms. Golfman has a website, however. We will look at that site.

Before moving on to Mr. Bonnell, I want to address Ms. Golfman.

Ms. Golfman, I am very pleased to see women putting on an annual festival of films and videos produced by women, for the simple reason that these men here have to be told that when women touch something, they are agents of change. Women change the family, because they pass on values, they look after the children who grow up to be mature men and women, and they also change men. So I think it is wonderful to see that women are agents of change here in Newfoundland. I congratulate you.

You said that you had partnered with CBC radio in the past. Your organization needs local funding. If it did not have funding, could your organization be satisfied with better partnerships with the CBC?

[Noreen Golfman]

Absolutely. We have made as many attempts as possible to draw in a particularly francophone audience, to build that audience here, and to partner with CBC Radio and Radio-Canada. Films from Quebec have very much been a part of our programming over the years, particularly for the reasons you outlined at the outset, because you understand the distinctiveness of the cultural heritage that our programming showcases.

We're open for business, if you will, with all parts of Canada, but we have had a particular affinity with CBC because of its public mandate, and certainly with Quebec films and Quebec productions and Quebec radio and television as well.

Just to go back to your initial comments about the committee's perhaps not reflecting fully the government's issues because of the constitution of the committee or its presence here tonight, I would just put in a good word--and he sure needs one--for Loyola Hearn, who has been a champion of local programming and regional production for us over the years and has unfailingly come out, since he was first elected, to all meetings having to do with the kind of subjects we're covering here today.

I should say that's true of Norm Doyle as well. Scott would probably agree, I think.