Canadian Heritage Committee on May 24th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

One short question, Mr. Angus, please.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

Seven years ago in the record business there was a model that worked. Basically, you were signed as an artist, and you didn't make any money, because everybody got a cut of your money before it ever came to you. So we had a distribution system, we had a promotion system, and it worked. We sold CDs for $25 at the Wal-Mart.

New technology came along, and the record industry said, “Well, you know, kids are going to have to buy that $25 CD, and we'll sue them if they don't.” And they lost the market and they're never going to get that market back, because kids wanted the song and they were going to get that song however they were going to get it. They would get it legally if the market was there, and they'll get it illegally if it's not there. So now we have a completely different dynamic in the music industry.

I'm wondering if we're basically on the cusp of a similar situation in terms of new media, where we're still talking about a 1970s model for programming when every kid is watching YouTube and watching their mobile cellphones. I haven't been able to hear one coherent argument as to why our Canadian content isn't being put up on the new platforms in a very clear dynamic way so that a new generation is going to access their programs when they want them, how they want them. I'm asking if you could explain to us what you think are the roadblocks to getting our programs onto the new media.

[Paul Pope]

We should be less polite and encourage more criminals to get involved in publicly traded companies, because it's ridiculous that we have a situation where the YouTubes can sell for millions of dollars and build their entire business model on stealing material that's rightfully owned by producers and artists.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Excuse me, but the BBC put their entire catalogue on YouTube.

[Paul Pope]

They compensated their people for it.

I'm talking about the fact that the bulk of the material on the Internet is there illegally. If we want to get it there legally, then the broadcasters and the producers and the creators have to agree on a royalty regime that will work in the event that royalties are forthcoming. We have to get away from this idea that we turn broadcasters from aggregators to copyright owners who can then take it and sell it on.

I would argue that the feature film market is an ideal example of how those percentages have been made. The market changes, the dollar values change, but the business model remains the same. Whatever you pay at the box office to get in to see the movie, approximately 55% stays with the exhibitor for the nuts and bolts and heat and light, and then 45% returns to the distributor, who then takes a whopping 35% of that as their commission. So the remainder, less expenses, comes to the producer.

The producer then pays required royalties to the directors, writers, and actors, who are the creators of the material. What's left over is then divided up among investors, and—please God—there's a profit remaining for the producers so they can take a risk on other stuff in the future.

If we start looking at what the new media platforms are worth, and in terms of how we're going to share those royalties and reward the artists and producers who create them and let everybody have their little piece, then we would get in front of the situation. But where we have a situation where the producers and artists are expected to hand over the material for free and allow other people to take it and make what money they can with it, it's simply not going to work. And this is the situation we are in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

We will recess now for a few minutes for our next witnesses to come forward.

Thank you very much for your appearance this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We welcome everyone to the table, and we'll carry on with our next set of witnesses.

We have, from the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, Marlene Cahill and Amy House, and from the Documentary Organisation of Canada, we have Bart Simpson.

Welcome. Who is going to go first with the presentation?

Ms. House, please.

[Amy House, Branch President, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists]

Thank you.

ACTRA supports the CBC and the current mandate. The ACTRA Newfoundland branch expresses its support for ACTRA's national submission made on March 15, 2007.

In addition to ACTRA's national presentation, we feel it is important to focus on the regional significance of the CBC. We need the CBC to return to its leadership role in reflecting our Canadian culture from the regions to our fellow Canadians. CBC remains vital to achieving a wide range of high-quality Canadian programming. The most significant part of the CBC's mandate is the production and acquisition of programs, and the organization of radio and television schedules. It is absolutely necessary for the CBC to respond to regional interest by increasing programming that reflects our regional interests and culture.

In the last 17 years there has been the destruction of high-interest, traditional, successful, and long-running programs that reflected all regions of Canada, to the point that our regional audience has abandoned CBC. Regaining that audience has proven to be incredibly difficult, even when major decisions have been reversed. An obvious example of this is Here and Now, our suppertime news show, which had the highest ratings in the country for any regional news show of the CBC and private broadcasters. It was cut from one hour to half an hour, and the ratings bottomed out. When CBC returned to the one-hour format, the audience did not return.

CBC must be technologically up to date. The CBC must be appropriately funded to ensure that it can adapt to the technological changes and the new media platforms, so that it can carry out its mandate. This funding must be over and above any programming funding. The CBC requires adequate and long-term funding commitments.

The CBC has the obligation to produce and acquire Canadian dramatic programming attractive to audiences. Currently the CBC schedule includes far too many American programs that can be found on any other American station. These programming slots must be filled with Canadian programs that cannot be found on other networks.

The government must give the CBC the resources to produce distinctive, high-quality programming, including Canadian drama. It has reached a situation where it is very doubtful that the CBC could possibly fulfill all aspects of its mandate with its current resources.

Currently there is no in-house performance comedy or drama being produced in Newfoundland. Variety programming is scattered, at best. In its heyday, CBC created shows in this region producing national stars, such as Mary Walsh, Cathy Jones, Rex Murphy, Andy Jones, Greg Malone, and Gordon Pinsent. Regional shows such as Up at Ours, Skipper and Company, and Wonderful Grand Band laid the groundwork for the next generation of national icons. If we do not create Canadian drama, we cannot produce Canadian artists.

Three mini-series that were created and produced here for the CBC have gone on to national and international success: The Boys of St. Vincent, Random Passage, and most recently, Above & Beyond. We are capable of producing high-quality dramatic programming. Hatching, Matching & Dispatching, our most recent regional offering, created a huge audience draw nationally—and was dropped by the CBC, leaving no regional dramatic programming.

Regional CBC radio currently encompasses pickup performances of special events, concerts, and award shows. Regional dramatic content is near zero. This is despite a string of successful radio drama series, such as The Great Eastern and Terra Nova Theatre.

The CBC must have the resources to take the lead in addressing the Canadian drama crisis.

In conclusion, ACTRA respectfully requests that this committee recommend to Parliament that the current mandate is sufficient for CBC to meet the needs of Canadians; that the mandate of the CBC, as currently written, needs to be appropriately supported with adequate public funding; that the CBC must have special funding to make the transition to digital signals and high-definition television; and that the CBC must take the lead to ensure that Canadian English-language drama programs are available to Canadians regionally as well as nationally.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Simpson.

[Bart Simpson, Board Member, Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter, Documentary Organisation of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, mesdames et messieurs, for the opportunity to present to this committee.

My name is Bart Simpson, believe it or not--it could be worse—and I'm with the Newfoundland and Labrador chapter of the Documentary Organisation of Canada. I'm also the immediate past national chair of the organization.

I'm also lucky enough to have produced, with my former company, the feature film The Corporation, which got over $5 million in domestic box office and is counted as the highest-grossing documentary of all time.

The Documentary Organisation of Canada is a national, bilingual, non-profit professional arts organization that represents almost 700 independent documentarians across the country. They live in all provinces and territories, ranging in size and scope from kitchen-table producers to veteran craftspeople to producers who own companies employing more than 50 people on a regular basis.

Before going further, I believe it's important to state outright that there is an historic connection between the CBC and documentary filmmaking, and indeed the emergence of the documentary industry in Canada. As CBC's mandate outlines, their duty is to accomplish many of the same things domestic documentaries strive to be--namely, to be distinctly Canadian; to provide a means of cultural expression; to contribute to our national consciousness; and to reflect the multicultural and multi-ethnic nature of Canada in both official languages.

Our national body and chapters across the country have presented briefs to this committee. I won't go into those in detail. Rather, I will refer you to the presentation made by our executive director, Samantha Hodder. Our chapter stands by this presentation and those of all our chapters, the main bullet points of which I'll outline here. Then I'll talk briefly about issues in the regions, specifically Newfoundland and Labrador.

As Ms. Hodder and national board member Danijel Margetic outlined in their brief, despite documentaries' natural fit with the CBC, we've seen some alarming declines in documentaries on the main network. Programming hours have declined from a peak of 263 hours in 2003-04 to just 122 hours in 2005-06. We've seen many strands cut or diminished over this time period, including Life and Times, Opening Night, and The Nature of Things.

The funny thing is that all of this is in a time when documentaries are more in the public consciousness than ever before. It seems almost counterintuitive, for example, to cut The Nature of Things, a well-respected documentary strand focusing on the environment, from its 17-hour peak to a nine-hour summer series when environmental issues are now in the forefront of Canadian discussion and when films like An Inconvenient Truth prove to be a massive success with audiences.

The recent Canadian documentary Manufactured Landscapes, made by DOC member Jennifer Baichwal, also dealt with environmental issues and enjoyed a long run in theatres in major centres in the country. It was also one of the top-grossing English productions this year.

Given all of the above, we have much concern over how the CBC will potentially operate the documentary channel--assuming it goes through--specifically in regard to feature documentaries, licence fees, and definitions of documentary.

I'd like to close with a few comments on Newfoundland and Labrador. First, we support the statements made by the Producers' Association of Newfoundland. We're a tight-knit community here. I'm not native to here, but I moved here two years ago and have been amazed at the amount and quality of work that comes from this region in particular. It's not the reason I came here, but it's the reason I've stayed.

Newfoundland has a strong storytelling history. We can help in the goal of CBC reflecting Canada to its regions and to national and local audiences. We support a regular and routine examination of the CBC's mandate. We also support local and regional airtime for locally made, well-funded productions in documentary. What's more, good development support in the region will act as a good springboard to national exposure.

On behalf of our membership, our regional board of directors, and our regional chair, Nigel Markham, thanks for the opportunity to present these remarks. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for those presentations.

We'll go to Mr. Simms to lead off the questions.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you all for your submissions today.

I want to talk just briefly about the mandate of the CBC, but first, I think Ms. House touched on the long-term funding model. Can I ask you to give your opinion, Ms. House, on how a long-term funding model for the CBC would benefit regional programming?

[Amy House]

I think Paul and Lynne commented on this, but from my own personal experience, there was a time when we could go down Prince Philip Drive, pitch a story, and get funding to help that happen. What I see in the region now is our young artists who are writers, who are good writers, going to Toronto to pitch.

So we feel there's a big out-migration. If it were spent here, regionally, we could be creating more artists. The more artists we have, the more we create. If they all move away, we will have a lull here.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I think that's a very fantastic point, because depending where you pitch your idea....

[Amy House]

Well, it's where you're most comfortable, too; it's when you can speak more clearly. I don't know about anybody else, but when going into the Toronto office, you're not at home, you don't speak the same way, and you don't speak as clearly—I wouldn't, anyway, speak as clearly—as here, when you're on home turf.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

So you think a stronger regional management is necessary in order to save the industry we have here.

[Amy House]

I do. I think region is, as Mr. Scott said, to be defined as.... How do you define regionally? We in Newfoundland and Labrador are isolated. This is our region.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Simpson, you had some good points about documentaries. There's no doubt about it: we are into...I won't say a renaissance and a resurgence of documentaries. But in light of some of the longer feature documentaries, such as those of the Michael Moores of the world, how difficult is it for you to sell the concept of documentaries, as opposed to a drama, a feature film?

[Bart Simpson]

When it comes to the CBC in particular, I don't even want to say it's a moving target. We're in a situation now where we're dealing either with very small budgets made by emerging filmmakers, with a program such as The Lens, or very high-budget one-offs or a small-series situation, some of which is done in-house, such as Canada: A People's History or Hockey: A People's History, and that kind of thing.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Okay, let me just talk about that for a moment: the difference between what is in-house and what is independent. Obviously you're going to shoulder the risk and you're going to assume a lot of it. Where is the CBC going in relation to in-house versus independent?

[Bart Simpson]

I can just speak as an independent. What looks to be happening is that obviously the CBC seems to be coming up with certain model structures or concepts, which they will then hire independent filmmakers for. In some cases, that becomes a de facto independent production.

The key is, ideally from our perspective you want to have the stories coming from the independents and brought to the CBC rather than the other way around—rather than somebody coming up with a concept and hiring out for a filmmaker.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Then we go back to more regional autonomy.

[Bart Simpson]

That's right, exactly.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

All right. That's a very good point.

I'm going to talk, as I did in the last two presentations, including last night's, about the talent and the infrastructure that are here. You've touched on them briefly so far.

Given the current situation, do you think the CBC is a big contributor to keeping the infrastructure we have—the equipment we have here in St. John's, or the equipment that is available, whether for bigger productions like The Shipping News, or those down to Hatching, Matching, & Dispatching, and that sort of thing? Do you think the CBC in the future plays a vital role in keeping that here?

Let me put it to you this way. If the CBC decided it was going to relax its terms for regional programming, how problematic would that be for the local scene?

[Amy House]

I think the CBC is pretty much a big player in this region. If we didn't have it, I don't know where we would go.