Canadian Heritage Committee on May 24th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Létourneau.

[Yanick Létourneau]

We see diversity every day in the street, and in life. I do not feel, for the most part, that diversity is shown on television, in commercial media and on public television. Most of the time, we just have stereotypes. We have clichés; for example, we put a black man in a program like Watatatow so that we can say we are reflecting Canadian diversity. It is quite hypocritical. The basic problem is that most people in positions of power, whether in a public institution like the CBC or in private broadcasters, are people from a certain generation who are a little removed from what is going on in the street. There is a communication problem between people in their ivory towers and the grass roots, the people in the street.

There really is a difference and I see it. I am not very young anymore, I am 38, but I generally relate well to young people. I listen to hip-hop, I travel a lot, I make documentaries and I am interested in problems of identity and of youth.

This is a fundamental question for me. There really is a problem. Staff changes already need to be made. I am not just talking about skin colour, but also age. There are many people in decision-making positions in their 50s. There should be a little diversity there. Why do they have diversity in the United States? There are people 25 or 26 years old who are in positions of power, whereas here that is very rare. You have to be 45 or 50 years old to be a decision-maker and the choices that you make are perhaps not the same. There is a lot of work to be done in that regard in public networks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Angus, do you have another question?

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

Yes, thank you.

Ms. Dorner, I'm interested in the role CBC plays with exposing new artists to an audience and also the role private broadcast does.

I come from the music industry, and I remember when John Roberts was not a famous American newscaster but he was J.D. Roberts, and City TV broke more new bands than any television network ever would; they went where nobody else was going at the time. It was the only reason I ever got on television.

But CBC had a role to play, in that if you were up and coming without a major hit machine behind you, CBC was the only way you could become a national act overnight. In particular, radio plays a role. I don't know, television never seemed to play the same role, but radio has always seemed to me an incubator for arts and the artists. Is that your experience on the ground?

[Jennifer Dorner]

I absolutely agree with that, especially for young contemporary artists.

Right now we don't get enough coverage, that's clear. Our fear is really if the CBC does go towards commercial advertising as a way to support itself, we're really scared that we won't get any coverage at that point. It's already hard enough for us to get a few minutes, even reporting on an exhibition that's happening. If we do, it's often when there's a controversy or something like that, which is unfortunate. That's why we see that role as being very important for our artists, for video as well as new media and audio as well.

[Yanick Létourneau]

I love music and I'm very concerned about music. I would like to answer, but I don't see the relationship with documentary.

Again, there are so many quality artists coming out, just from Montreal, from Quebec, and we don't hear enough of it on CBC radio. There could be more space for new artists, new visions that will break out eventually, like Arcade Fire--they've been around for a while.

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

I'm sorry, I'm going to go on to my final question, because I'll get cut off.

I'm just going to throw a real softball. The argument could clearly be made that the Canadian government spends lots of money creating content, maybe another $400 million or $500 million, at least. If we look at Telefilm, the CTF, Independent Film and Video Fund, the Feature Film Fund, the tax credit, it would be much higher. Yet we have a national broadcaster that in the summer is showing Lethal Weapon 3 or something, and there's a question of how many people are seeing all the great content that we're producing.

Is the model that we have a model that worked great in the 1970s, and in a multi-channel universe do we have to rethink all these separate funding silos so we're ensuring that the content that is being created and funded through our tax dollars is actually being seen in a way that all Canadians can enjoy?

I'd throw that out to whoever.

[Peter Moss]

We can all jump in. I'll jump.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Moss, you can go first, please.

[Peter Moss]

I think it's a question of the specifics and the details. I think we should separate the notion of transmission from content creation. We do have a good system for content creation. We don't necessarily have a great system for dissemination of that content creation.

It's not a question for me of new media, because that just becomes smaller and smaller and smaller niche dissemination. It's a question of how to make it a broad public discourse and engage a broad public in the discourse, both of the arts and of the culture in general.

It's interesting to me that in Quebec one does seem to understand that a public discourse is necessary. In English Canada, a public discourse isn't. There are programs across the broadcast spectrum in Quebec that do engage in the arts, in politics, in literature, in dance every Sunday night for an hour. This is nothing but public discourse, and nothing does that on the other side.

So it isn't a question of content creation or even dollars. I mean, we've looked at the underfunding of the CBC; we've spoken about that a lot. If you were to start from zero, or look at a smaller country and say you have this much money to make television, and you're complaining...? If you were starting from a zero-based budget, you might find that there were lots of resources. Don't ever say that--of course give them more money. But that isn't the issue to me. To me, the issue is public discourse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Cox.

[Kirwan Cox]

Content is the key; all the rest is housekeeping. Robert Fowler said that in 1957, and I think it is still true.

I have a vision. I don't have a dream, but I do have a vision, which is that somewhere in Treasury Board the CBC and the Canadian Forces are going to get their budgets mixed up and the CBC will have a budget of $16 billion and the Canadian Forces will get a budget of $1 billion. The Canadian Forces, with that money, can only do one thing: withdraw their forces from all around the world and trade in their tanks and what have you for some airplanes, and they will guard the east, west, and north coasts. If Greenland invades Canada, they speed-dial the Pentagon and tell the guys at the Pentagon, “We're being invaded. Do something.” And of course the Americans will do something.

But the 49th parallel is where we need to spend $16 billion in National Defence dollars, and then with that $16 billion we would find out that, gee whiz, we have so much money that we have to make so much programming, and we'll have to do really good-quality programming; and furthermore, we don't have enough people to do it right away, so we're going to have to get all the Canadian people in Los Angeles to come back. The next thing you know, the Americans down there are going to say, “Wait a second, how come those guys are making more money than I am? I want to move to Canada now.” We're going to have a reverse brain drain, and the next thing you know, Canada is going to be the centre of the world.

That could in fact happen in television programming just with a shift like that, which is within the actual total budget of the Canadian government--just by getting the address reversed of those two segments.

Anyway, it's a vision, and maybe you guys can suggest that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I am probably almost as afraid of American soldiers as I am of American television programs in terms of the vision you've just articulated, but I take your point.

I think perhaps the new media piece is about triggering the debate, in that it is complementary. The opportunity is to engage the country in the debate, and I think that might trigger it. I don't think it's the solution; I think it simply might cause it to be discussed.

Everybody here is committed to the CBC or sees public broadcasting as being necessary, for all the reasons we've discussed. They have made some bone-headed decisions--everybody will nod, because they can think of at least one bone-headed decision--and it has never caused you to think you were going to abandon or take off and leave the CBC. I've been on the wrong end of that chicken cannon enough. We're equally able to be engaged as Canadians and take it on the chin from time to time and not waver in our commitment to public broadcasting.

For me personally, the idea that if Rick Mercer gives me a hard time, and he has, it would cause me to actually go into a meeting of cabinet and say I want to chop the CBC--not a chance. Nobody I know would think like that. So if that's reassuring to you, let me reassure you. This is something much bigger than our personal egos or even our political success. It is a big thing in terms of the identity of the country, and I think that is why we're all so committed. Really, all we're doing now is struggling with how to do it, not really what to do, in the end.

I just want to make that point. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

With that, I will say the meeting is over. Thank you very much for your candid answers and great presentations.

The meeting is adjourned.