Evidence of meeting #42 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was television.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Before we start, I'll take a minute or two to introduce myself. I am Gary Schellenberger, the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I welcome you here this afternoon.
We have a couple more members we hope to get seated around this table. We don't want to hold people too long.
Ms. Bourgeois and I can handle things here if we have to, can't we?
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I'm quite sure that our other two members will be here very quickly.
There has been a bit of a change in the order here. Who do we have here?
There is British Columbia Film, and we have Save Our CBC Kamloops and the Citizens' Coalition for the Protection of Canadian Films for the first round
Maybe the thing to do is to introduce yourselves and give us a little background. Hopefully we'll have our other two members here by that time, because it is very important.
First, we have British Columbia Film.
2:05 p.m.
Michael Francis Chair, British Columbia Film
My name is Michael Francis. I am the chairman of the board of B.C. Film. I have been in that position for several years.
B.C. Film and the CBC have had a very, very productive relationship over that time.
We're very happy to be here today.
I'm a chartered accountant and businessman in Vancouver.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Have we met? Did you speak to our committee when we were doing the feature film industry?
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
2:05 p.m.
Richard Brownsey Executive Director, British Columbia Film
My name is Richard Brownsey. I'm the executive director of British Columbia Film. I will be making the presentation this afternoon.
2:05 p.m.
Pam Astbury President, Save Our CBC Kamloops
My name is Pam Astbury. I'm the president of Save Our CBC Kamloops. With me is David Charbonneau, who is also a member of our group.
We are here today to speak on the loss of over-the-air CBC in Kamloops, which is the first city in Canada, as we understand it, to have lost over-the-air CBC, in a progressive program of the CBC--
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I think I received a letter from you folks some time ago. I did read it.
I'm very pleased you're a guest here.
2:05 p.m.
David Charbonneau Save Our CBC Kamloops
My name is David Charbonneau. I'm a retired instructor of electronics at what is now Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops.
I've had a life-long interest in public broadcasting and broadcasting in general.
I'm here to present with Pam about the loss of over-the-air broadcasting of CBC television in Kamloops.
2:05 p.m.
Carl Bessai Chairperson, Citizen's Coalition for the Protection of Canadian Films
My name is Carl Bessai. I'm the chairman of the Citizen's Coalition for the Protection of Canadian Films. I'm a film director and a film producer.
Our group is really a coalition of people from all kinds of backgrounds. It's partly industry. It's partly people who work in film. It's partly people who just care about preserving Canadian feature films.
My presentation today is quite specifically about the role the feature film could and should play at the CBC.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you.
I think we will go forward. Hopefully, we will be joined quickly by our other colleagues.
Mr. Brownsey, you have the floor, sir.
2:05 p.m.
Executive Director, British Columbia Film
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for this opportunity to appear before you today, and I welcome you to Vancouver on what is, for us, a pretty typical spring day.
British Columbia Film is a not-for-profit society that was established in 1987 by the Government of British Columbia, with the mandate to expand and diversify the film, television, and digital media sectors in British Columbia.
We acknowledge the importance of reviewing the role of Canada's public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada. Canada, like many other countries, is faced with the challenge of redefining the role of its public broadcaster in a rapidly changing national and global media environment. Given our geography, diversity, and proximity to the largest producer of entertainment product in the world, Canada's public broadcaster has a unique and essential responsibility to the Canadian public. Given these challenges, British Columbia Film supports maintaining a strong national public broadcaster and supports the existing mandate of the CBC as set out in the Broadcasting Act.
Our comments this afternoon will focus on those questions posed by the standing committee in framing this review that are of particular relevance to British Columbia Film, and it will be made primarily in the context of English language television.
Television, private and public, is faced with profound change in the years to come. The proliferation of cable and specialty television channels, the decrease in foreign market financing, the impact of audience fragmentation, the emergence of multi-platform content delivery systems, and the looming cost of high-definition television will all affect what has been a relatively stable broadcast sector. Above all, there is the continuing challenge to create and produce high-quality, distinctively Canadian television that can attract audiences and compete against the juggernaut of American television programs that are so readily available to Canadian audiences.
Yet in light of all these challenges and the rapid pace of technological change and innovation that the broadcasting industry is experiencing, the mandate of the CBC remains remarkably relevant. The mandate speaks to the central role of the public broadcaster while allowing for flexibility and adaptation to changing circumstances. It is our view that it is fundamentally important, as a first step, to review, clarify, and affirm the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada. Issues and questions pertaining to governance, management, and operational delivery can only be addressed in the context of an affirmed mandate.
We believe a balance between the mandate of the public broadcaster and the resources that are available to support its purposes must be found. Finding this balance is at the heart of mapping a direction for the CBC in the decades ahead.
As Canadians, we have choices in this regard, but with choices there are implications. A broad and expansive mandate without the resources to support it is little more than rhetoric. Conversely, a narrow and restrictive mandate, while perhaps more affordable, may fail to meet the expectations that Canadians have for their public broadcaster.
The Canadian broadcasting system, public and private, is supported by a range of federal and provincial policies and programs that provide direct and indirect economic support to broadcasters and Canadian television programming. The Canadian Television Fund, Telefilm Canada, labour-based tax credits, the funding programs of provincial agencies, and other programs established to preserve, promote, and develop Canadian culture all contribute to the sector.
Our broadcast system is composed of privately owned conventional broadcasters that are accountable to their shareholders and derive significant public benefit directly or indirectly as a matter of federal and provincial public policy and a public broadcaster that derives significant revenues through commercial transactions that are normally associated with the private sector. It is our perspective that the distinction between public and private broadcaster has become blurred to a considerable degree.
All parties in the broadcasting sector--specialty, conventional, public, and private--have access to benefits created by public policy.
In the context of these public policy benefits and the fiscal challenges facing CBC/ Radio-Canada, as outlined in our submission, we believe that finding the balance between mandate and resources will serve to establish the foundation for the future. Coming to an agreement on the blend of public and private funding, as well as identifying the most effective and efficient mechanism for providing these resources, stands at the core of this review. We believe that finding this balance is achievable and that finding it is quintessentially Canadian. Further, we believe that support for CBC/Radio-Canada should be provided on a multi-year basis that at a minimum reflects the three-year industry planning cycle.
The committee has also invited comments on the adequacy of services that reflect Canada's regional and linguistic diversity. It is our view that the time has come to move beyond the talk of regions, as though most of Canada exists at some geographic and intellectual distance from the centre. We take issue with the notion that British Columbia or Vancouver is a region in relation to a centre that is located elsewhere.
If the public broadcaster is to succeed, it is essential that it move beyond the concept of regions and focus on serving the distinct needs of communities across Canada. In this regard, the responsiveness of the public broadcaster to local and linguistic diversity is an ongoing concern. CBC/Radio-Canada must redouble its efforts to root itself in local communities throughout the country and ensure that Canadians, regardless of where they live, can have their voices heard in framing the priorities of their public broadcaster.
Vancouver is a striking example of the growing diversity in Canadian communities, and it is becoming increasingly important for CBC/Radio-Canada to connect with and reflect the cultures and customs of our multicultural and multi-ethnic communities.
The emergence of new technology poses numerous challenges for conventional television broadcasters. Consumers now have significantly expanded opportunities to choose how and where they watch video content. Many of the new platforms are on-demand services, which enable consumers to view programming not available on television, and some provide content in a different format from traditional television, offering a new viewing experience. For broadcasters, meeting these challenges by developing viable content and revenue models is critical to future success.
We believe that CBC/Radio-Canada has been a leader in the development of multi-platform programming for Canadian audiences. The website cbc.ca has established itself as a pre-eminent site for news and information. CBC has also been a pioneer in the development of user-generated content for television broadcast purposes. The now cancelled Zed was an innovative web-based program that invited the creation of user-generated content, including video uploads for television broadcasts. Zed was a new kind of television program that had an impact in the television and new media communities reaching far beyond the limited measures of audience and advertising. It is our view that new media is included in the existing mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada, and it is appropriate and necessary for the public broadcaster to exploit new platforms in fulfilling its mandate.
CBC/Radio-Canada must offer news, information, and entertainment content to Canadians in a manner that is consistent with the changing viewer preferences of our citizens. To do this, it must embrace new delivery platforms. The committee has also questioned whether the CRTC should regulate the new media sector. This is a significant question, and it may be that the CRTC should revisit its 1999 new media ruling. However, as CBC/Radio-Canada is subject to CRTC review, we believe its new media initiatives will fall within the existing regulatory framework.
While acknowledging the importance of new media, we do want to emphasize the resiliency and the adaptability of television. Television will continue to be the dominant platform for content delivery for the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, British Columbia Film supports maintaining a strong public broadcaster, a public broadcaster that is equipped to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century and one that connects to the hearts and souls of Canadians.
We agree that this review is of fundamental importance, that solutions can be found, and that a uniquely Canadian balance can be struck. This is the genius and the promise of Canada. A reaffirmed mandate for CBC/Radio-Canada is an essential first step. Finding the balance between mandate and resources is achievable--a balance between what Canadians want and what CBC/Radio-Canada can deliver, between public and private funding, between popular and populous programs--and can create a public broadcasting service that Canadians will take pride in.
And finally, with this mandate review behind us, we expect CBC/Radio-Canada to proceed with its business of serving Canadians across all platforms and to provide periodic reports on its performance to assure Canadians that the mandate is being met.
Thank you for your time and for your attention.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
2:15 p.m.
President, Save Our CBC Kamloops
I'd like to take this opportunity to express our delight to be presenting to you this afternoon. My name is Pam Astbury. I am a civil engineer and president of Save Our CBC Kamloops. With me is David Charbonneau, a retired electronics instructor from Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops and our group's secretary-treasurer.
Our reason for attending this mandate review today is to share with the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage our extreme disappointment at having lost our over-the-air CBC television service, and also to provide for you a citizens' vision for the CBC in the 21st century. We are a non-partisan group, and we are also not-for-profit. The presentation today has been compiled by dedicated Kamloops volunteers who have been directly affected by recent changes to CBC television service.
In February 2006, as Canadians recovered from the excitement of the Torino Olympics, Kamloops transmitters stopped broadcasting the CBC television service over the air. The day after the Olympic flame was extinguished, so was our access to CBC television. It was a surreal experience to realize that something we had all taken for granted--free access to CBC television--was no longer available. Letters to the editor of our local paper appeared, as residents expressed their dismay that despite paying their portion of taxes slated for the CBC--approximately $33 each per year--they would be forced to pay upwards of $360 annually to be able to watch it on cable, that is if cable was even available.
A group of citizens from Save Our CBC Kamloops formed in an effort to understand how we'd come to lose the CBC, determine the scope of the problem nationally, and identify what it would take to get it back. Historically, as we understand it, our local broadcaster, CFJC, had carried approximately nine hours of CBC on its daily schedule. In a decision based on finances, CFJC applied to the CRTC to drop the more expensive CBC content for less expensive CH/Global content.
Our group first approached CBC CEO, Robert Rabinovitch, to reinstate the lost signal to our city. In response, his office explained that analog technology was being systematically phased out right across Canada. Only those in 44 of the largest urban centres would be able to access free over-the-air CBC television in digital form. The letter supporting that statement is attached to your handout.
By 2012, all Canadians will be forced onto cable or satellite as a means to access their public broadcaster, unless they live in a big city. For Canada, not having equal access to the CBC, whether on radio or television, presents a number of concerns. Urban areas already enjoy an abundance of television channels--in many cases upwards of 10--over the air. However, small areas may have only one. To lose CBC television in these communities is to leave them with little to draw upon for Canadian perspectives. Each of us contributes to the finances of the CBC via our tax dollars. To obligate residents of Canada's small and medium-sized communities to buy cable or satellite in order to access the public broadcaster is shameful. Undoubtedly, these are the very communities that are the largest supporters of the CBC.
Let us not forget that cablevision is not a privilege that all Canadians can afford. Seniors on fixed incomes often rely on over-the-air television and radio for their information and companionship, especially those who may be housebound. Teachers who have used CBC programs such as Canada: A People's History and The Greatest Canadian as home-teaching resources can no longer ensure that all students have access to them. We also must consider the single-income families who may rely on Hockey Night in Canada or the Rick Mercer Report, for example, to share quality nights together. This is the reality for many struggling to make ends meet.
Over the past seven months, our group has reached thousands of Kamloops residents. We have circulated a city-wide petition on which we have collected more than 2,000 signatures and on which we are still collecting. It is our plan to have this document presented to the House shortly after March 31. We've asked hundreds of people two questions: “Why is the CBC important to you?” and “Should all Canadians have equal access to it?” The following are selected responses from Kamloops residents.
Ginny Ratsoy says: “Even more important than individual programs is the collective that is the CBC. It has historically been about showcasing Canada to Canadians. Particularly in this global and technological age, this emblem of our nation is vital. CBC television has historically been available to all Canadians, and to make it available only to those who can afford cablevision is unconscionable.”
Lori Schill says: “I have lived in many parts of this country and having the C.B.C. to listen to has always made me feel at home.”
Anne-Marie Hunter says: “The CBC provides down-to-earth, out of the ordinary drama that was not dependent on stereotypes but rather, worked outside society's common views of life.”
Bronwen Scott says: “The CBC is literally the only show in town in isolated areas of the province and country. It helps us to maintain a Canadian identity in the face of a flood of US programming.”
Connie Alger says: “It's the Children's programming that we miss the most at our house. We choose not to have cable for lifestyle and economic reasons...lifestyle being that we want a small amount of quality programming available to our children, not a 24 hr supply of endless distraction. KidsCBC was just right for us, a few really good shows that my children could choose for entertainment, and education.”
Jim Fornelli says: “The CBC's reporters and interviewers are of the highest quality and bring credibility and integrity to the broadcasting profession. The international flavour of reporting of world events whether athletic, political, economic or social broadens the boundaries of Canadian audiences to include the world stage not just the protective North American world-view.”
The remedy to this cultural crisis may be technology itself. As you might know, the U.S. will have completed its national conversions from analog transmitters to digital three years ahead of Canada, by 2009. A solution to keep as many as possible connected to broadcasting is an $80 set-top box that over-the-air viewers can redeem for free using federally funded rebates. The U.S. is touting the system as the biggest revolution for over-the-air television in 50 years. Wireless TV is seen as a hip and practical new face for television.
In Canada, it would mean replacing all analog transmitters with digital, instead of just the urban ones, as the CBC is currently proposing. The model would allow Canadians to continue to stay connected to their beloved CBC without the cost and negative impact of full-fledged cable connection.
In looking to the 21st century, our group considers the CBC has a strong future in this age of media infestation. As a selection of the CBC's national audience, our vision for the CBC is quite simple: access to CBC radio and television for all Canadian communities, large and small, continued high-quality and intellectual Canadian content, and increased and reliable federal funds to ensure that our national treasure is strong and vibrant in the 21st century.
In closing, I would like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for acknowledging that there are serious problems festering within the CBC. There is a strong sense that television and radio, still a mainstay in our media world, is increasingly becoming an offensive intruder in our homes. In the 21st century, the CBC must strive to exceed this norm and continue to provide the exceptional intellectual television and radio services it is known for. Undoubtedly, a reliable financial commitment from the federal government is badly needed to ensure that infrastructure is in place to deliver CBC to all our communities. The high-quality programming that is synonymous with the CBC cannot be appreciated if the people for whom it is intended can no longer access it.
From the city of Kamloops, B.C., we look to this committee to provide guidance to get CBC television back on the air in our community and keep it on the air for all small and medium centres from coast to coast to coast.
2:25 p.m.
Save Our CBC Kamloops
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have two brief points to make. First of all, I don't think I'm being overly dramatic to say that the loss of CBC TV over-the-air television in Kamloops is the death of a canary in a mine. The loss foreshadows what will happen to tens of thousands of Canadians who don't live in major centres. I say this because the CBC executive has told our group in the letter that has been attached to our handout that only 44 centres will continue to have CBC television broadcast to them. I haven't seen who is on this list, but I suggest that members of this committee find out if their ridings have been excluded, and if so, you will hear from hundreds of constituents who will wonder what happened to the reception of their national broadcaster.
The second point I want to make has to do with the mandate of the CBC, which is to be available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and most efficient means as resources become available for the purpose. What's happened in Kamloops is the reverse. We had CBC television in Kamloops and it's been lost. The justification has been that we've lost it because the CBC can no longer provide over-the-air signals. I would argue that this is one of the most efficient and most democratic ways of distributing television in Canada, and I hope the CBC will reverse its decision.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
2:30 p.m.
Chairperson, Citizen's Coalition for the Protection of Canadian Films
My turn. Thank you for putting me in the third spot, because these folks are talking about the big picture, which I think is really important, and I applaud both of your presentations, as it means a lot to me to listen to them.
We come here to speak in very specific terms about the feature film. We presented to you when you did the standing committee on features. That was our big-picture presentation. This is a little more of an intimate presentation.
Right off the bat, the fact that the CBC exists is not the point of this presentation. We deeply believe in the importance of the CBC. But specifically regarding feature film in Canada and the role it could play in the CBC, in terms of the content of the CBC, as a filmmaker particularly, it shocks me how little a role the CBC, in English Canada particularly, plays in feature film.
I've broken it down into three topics, so we're going to touch on them: the program itself, the programming of the CBC; notions around promotion and what the CBC could do for cinema; and then I just want to talk about pre-licensing.
I do want to make it clear that a lot of what I'm about to say and the criticism I'm making does not actually have anything to do with Radio-Canada, which has an amazing relationship with the Quebec film industry. I actually believe these policies are probably already in place at the CBC, but somehow the English Canadian side of the CBC has overlooked the importance of cinema--and by cinema, I mean the movies in the theatres.
We all know that you can't find a Canadian film in the theatres. Okay, we can talk about that another day, but we should be able to find Canadian movies on CBC television, God help us.
I think it was the year the hockey strike was on, the CBC decided to run something called Movie Night in Canada. Movie Night in Canada was their big way of drawing a big audience, getting ad revenue--and we understand the need for that. And Movie Night in Canada had the gentleman who does the commentaries in between games.... You know. Help me out here.
2:30 p.m.
Chairperson, Citizen's Coalition for the Protection of Canadian Films
Right, Ron MacLean.
So Ron MacLean would go around to different communities, and during commercial spots he would talk to the audience about the great film they were watching. All of us, a little group of us Canadians who are going to watch movies tonight...what are we watching? We're watching American blockbusters. I can get American blockbusters at every theatre in Canada, on every broadcaster in Canada--everywhere. Yet the CBC's Movie Night in Canada is basically promoting American blockbusters. That seems absurd.
Secondly, when you look at how they program Canadian feature films currently--and again, respectfully, I am speaking about the English programming because I know that Radio-Canada does a great deal--they have a lousy middle-of-the-night block where they play ancient Canadian films or films that have been around for so long there's no longer the sense that they connect to what's out there.
Why is that important? Why is it important for the CBC to play a role in celebrating what's currently happening in the cinema scene, the feature film scene? I think it's an important cultural issue. I think film is an internationally respected cultural medium and it has a role to play with our national broadcasters. So the first point is let's get them programming Canadian feature films.
Another thing that could happen, which would be amazing and I think would really help everyone.... I had a conversation in Paris with the woman who was running Radio-Canada in Quebec at the time--I can't remember her name and I can't remember the specifics, but it gives you a sense of what the CBC in French Canada is doing--and she said to a panel in Europe, “Yes, we have discretionary funds to promote Quebec cinema on Radio-Canada, and we work closely with distributors to lay the groundwork for promoting films that are currently playing in the theatres.” When I heard this, I was the biggest fan. I thought, what country is this and when can I move there?
We have a really hard time on English Canadian CBC affording ad space for current feature films. There's a movie opening this Friday called Fido. It's the first film I've seen in 10 years with a prime-time advertising placement. It was on Global, in the middle of the show 24.
Why is it that the CBC cannot be mandated to at least work with the distribution community to create better placement for the promotion of a Canadian feature film? The reason they don't do that is the biggest point I'm going to make today. The CBC plays no role at all in pre-licensing the movies. This is an important point.
When you're a producer making a feature film in Canada, this is what you do. I'll give you the layman's “how to”. You run around the country and meet with all the broadcasters. Why? Because broadcasters have a CRTC mandate to pre-buy your movie. Without even reading the script, The Movie Network, Movie Central, which is Corus Entertainment, and all the CHUM channels will give you a piece of paper that says when you deliver this movie they'll give you $100,000 or $150,000 or $250,000, whatever they think it's worth.
You take that paper, which is the thing you need to get your movie in the theatre, and you run off to your distributor, who says okay, what do you have in licences? You say you have The Movie Network over here, Movie Central over here, and CHUM television over here. And just so you understand, that means you go theatrical, home video, and then it goes right to TV. In Canada, it goes first to pay TV for a six-month window.
Am I going too fast? You are following, right? Okay.
So it goes for a six-month window on pay TV, and then it goes to conventional TV, which, in the case of Canada, is CBC, CTV, Global, CHUM. The second window is on the cable channels like Showcase and so on. You use these licences to finance your movie.
Now you go to a distributor like Alliance Atlantis or TVA or whatever, and you say, “Guys, I have all these letters that say I'm going to get x for this movie.” They say, “Fine. You assign all those broadcast rights and we'll give you a minimum guarantee. We'll give you an advance.” Basically, they'll give you money that you use to make your movie.
The reason you give them your licences and take their money is that you need the money quickly to make a movie. A television licence is only good when you deliver to television. If I'm a conventional broadcaster, I'm only putting it on the air after it has been in the theatres, after it has been on DVD, and after it has been to pay TV, if you follow what I'm saying.
So you can't really use the money. No bank is going to give you interim financing on that money, because it's prolonged. It takes three years sometimes to get the money on it. So the distributor swoops in and plays the role as a kind of guarantor, a sort of interim financier of your movie.
Anyway, I'm getting to the point.
What happens is they give you about 50¢ on the dollar currently. Their rationale is, “Look, Canadian films don't make any money--we all know that--so why should I buy your movie?” You go, “But I have licence fees.” And they say, “Fine. If you have a dollar worth of licence fees, I'll give you 50¢. Take it or leave it.” And what do you do? You take it, because you can't defend the case that your film is going to make a lot of money theatrically. You can't. So you need licence fees in order to push distributors to advance you money to get the movies made.
Now, in Quebec, it's a totally different story, right, because in Quebec the films are making money theatrically, the licences aren't discounted by the distributors to the same degree, and Radio-Canada is also involved.
Now, what I'd like to know is, why can't the CBC be a part of this food chain? We've been making...all of us in my group, but me in particular.... I'm starting my sixth movie right now, a feature film. Not one of my movies has ever had a dollar of CBC financing in advance. They may have ended up on the CBC at some point--maybe. Why is that? Why is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation not interested in getting involved in the business of making feature films?
I asked Slawko Klymkiw, when he was the head a few years ago, when he was at the Halifax film festival promoting the mini-series about the Halifax explosion—which seems a little ironic to me, but anyway.... I said, “Why don't you guys ever get involved in feature films?” He said, “Oh, it's not our thing. It's not something we're mandated to do; it's not something we want to do. We're going to put drama on television as series, as TV movies, whatever.”
The reason this is important is if the CBC were mandated to pre-license films, we would have a lot more money going into the making of these films. My partner is one of the producers on the show Intelligence. It's a great CBC show. The amount of money that CBC puts into that show is quite significant, and the amount of money that the CBC puts into all feature films in English Canada is nada. They don't put any in.
And if they did, see how it would work hand in glove with promotion. If I were the head of the CBC and I pre-licensed your film, Jacques, then I would have a vested interest in making sure your film got promoted. I would still charge the distributor to advertise on my network because I need the revenue, but why not give him a little better deal? Because it's my program, too, and it behooves all of us to get the audience to show an interest in this stuff.
When I was asked about whether I had something to bring to the committee, I was feeling, well, this is really about broadcast, it's not about feature films; we should just stay out of this. Then I thought about it a little more, and I thought, no, the CBC could play a really significant role. The end result is going to be that more Canadian feature films get made, more Canadian feature films get promoted, and more Canadian feature films get seen by the public.
Why should we bother? Because we're spending a hell of a lot of money making these movies. Every taxpayer in this room has contributed to all of my films, and everyone else I know and work with. But can we name the films?
We can argue about exhibition and distribution till we're blue in the face, but the exhibitors and the distributors don't care. They're making lots of money selling American movies back to Canadians. They're happy.
The CRTC and the mandate to show Canadian content is the only way we can help the Canadian feature film. And they know this in Quebec. They do. I think we should start paying attention to what they're doing in Quebec and start doing a little more of it here.
Thank you.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Great. Thank you for that.
Now we'll go to some questions.
Ms. Fry.
