Canadian Heritage Committee on March 14th, 2007

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Well, I suppose I could start with a question to the last witness first.

You say that CBC has said they won't put money into feature film because it's not in their mandate. Subparagraph (iii) of the mandate says the CBC must “actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression”. Isn't a film cultural expression? I would put to you that it is.

[Carl Bessai]

I agree, Madam.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

And if the French CBC understands that to be their mandate, there is no language difference here in what I just read—

[Carl Bessai]

Absolutely.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

—but English CBC doesn't see it.

Now, that said, we come back to the same question all the time about the CBC, and that is resources. Does the CBC have resources? Does it have sufficient resources to be able to do what it is mandated to do? That's the second question. So you might want to comment on that.

But I also want to comment on the Kamloops issue. Given that subparagraph 3(1)(m)(ii) of CBC's mandate is that it must “reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions”, I don't understand why it is that the CBC.... I understand the technological problem with moving from analog to digital, but given that it is a huge part of the CBC's mandate and it's not doing it is of great concern to me, especially when it says under subparagraph 3(1)(m)(vii) that all of this Canadian programming must “be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means”.

Obviously we have a problem again. I read the letter where CBC is telling you, yes, it knows what it must do with it and it doesn't have resources with which to do it. While resources are only one big part of the problem—it is a huge part of the problem, obviously, that CBC is facing—the second part of the problem is that you can give people as many resources as you want, but if the will isn't there to do the right thing and if no one wants to understand that Canada is vast in terms of its regions, its demographics, its people, its cultures, its diversity, then obviously it's going to be harder for us to do it; and the CBC is going to need the funding, with just 32 million people rattling around in this big and difficult geographical terrain. So we have to see how the CBC does that, but they must commit to doing it. That's the second piece.

Those are basically the two things I wanted to comment on and maybe get your feedback. But I also want to speak to Richard.

I would like to ask you a question, and perhaps you could all answer. What would happen if, tomorrow, the CBC was cancelled and there was no more CBC? What would that mean to you? I would like you to answer that.

[Pam Astbury]

In answer to that question about what would happen if the CBC was gone tomorrow, it is gone in our community. What we have now, if we drift past the television and we turn it on, is a constant barrage of Botox, liposuction, gunfights, things that aren't part of my community or most communities. You instantly turn it off, if you're repulsed by that, which many of the members of our group are.

The news is shallow. It has a tendency to be very fear-mongering. It doesn't have the depth and the research that we're accustomed to with the CBC. In essence, you start to slide into the American umbrella. We don't like to point a finger, but that's the reality of not having that Canadian content. All we get are Entertainment Tonight and American dramas all night long. There is very little Canadian content. The Canadian content is Entertainment Tonight Canada. Great. That's it, in our town of 82,000 people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Charbonneau.

[David Charbonneau]

To address your question about the technology, the CBC argues that it isn't viable, it isn't feasible, to have transmitters installed in Kamloops to build this service, but I would argue that eventually all of Canada is going to be converting to digital technology. What that digital technology does is allow you to take a number of channels and compress them and put them into one previous analog channel. It's possible to put five digital channels onto one analog space. So what I would suggest is that the CBC should start looking at partnerships, as it does with affiliations, which we lost, with the private broadcasters, and say to them, “Look, eventually your analog transmitters are going to be obsolete. We're following Europe and the United States in the conversion to digital television. Why not partner with us and put our CBC with your local channels?”

You could stack up a number of others, perhaps Newsworld. We have a large native community in Kamloops; it could include the native channel. It could include Knowledge Network.

So the CBC should be looking to partnerships with the local broadcaster and say, “Look, we'll help you get into the digital age, and in the process help ourselves and restore the faith of our viewers.”

[Michael Francis]

This is in answer to Ms. Fry's question about the instantaneous demise of the CBC and what that would mean to our interest group, which is the production community in British Columbia. There actually could be mechanisms that replace it, through CRTC requirements for the private broadcasters and whatnot, that would be just as beneficial. And there have been times in the history of the relationship between this community and the CBC when it really wouldn't have made very much difference at all whether it was a private broadcaster or the CBC.

That's why we're stressing the importance of regional presence, as opposed to a centre and satellites. If the CBC's mandate is reaffirmed to be having responsibility for having a major presence in all regions of the country, big and small, then it makes a huge difference, because it is the only agency in the country that has that mandate. And that's just crucial for the future of cultural development, in our view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Did you want to respond?

[Carl Bessai]

Madam Fry made the point about the mandate being the same in French and English Canada, so really, what's the problem? I'm just going to say that I agree with you that the mandate should be there. I think it is there. Your question is really about the resources. How can we do all, be all? I'm not too sure. Will, I think, is more the issue.

To get a movie like Gladiator in prime time on the CBC on Saturday night and call that Movie Night in Canada costs a heck of a lot of money for the network. Their justification, of course, is ad revenue. To me, it's shameful. The mandate should prevent that kind of nonsense. What would be so terrible about having an Academy-Award-nominated film like Water play, shortly after its theatrical run, in prime time on the CBC for every Canadian to see? How many of you have seen that movie? Raise your hands. See? Come on, it's an Academy-Award-nominated Canadian film.

This is one of the problems we have. A culture is the thing we all share. What is that thing? How do you define it? It's really hard in Canada to define it. Quebec has it figured out, and their language helps a great deal. But I really think it's about will. It's about will and it's about perception.

To me, the fact that the CBC doesn't behave like a private broadcaster is excellent, is very good, because when you look at private broadcasters in Canada, they all have the same CRTC mandate. Go on prime time; look at CTV and Global in prime time in English Canada. What do you see? American shows. They use the CRTC mandate to create protectionism, which allows them to flow exclusively American products, and they pay a little lip service to the entertainment show or whatever they need to fulfil Canadian content. Meanwhile, CBC is hanging out there on a limb making great shows, like Intelligence, which go out in prime time.

I'd rather see the abolishment of Canadian content legislation for the crooks who work at Global and CTV and put all that money into making CBC genuinely representative of the Canadian interest. Because, excuse my language, they're screwing us anyway with the private broadcasters. If HBO or NBC or whomever could sell directly into Canada, and they didn't have to go through a Global or whatever, then what would Global and CTV play? What would they play? They wouldn't have any programming. They would have to buy like everyone else, and they would be sitting here saying, “Oh, we have to make programs. What are we going to make?” Meanwhile, the CBC is genuinely out there making programs.

There's no question that it's will. Sorry, my language is terrible.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We'll go to Ms. Bourgeois.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, gentlemen, madam.

There is so much that I would like to discuss with you. I'll begin with your comments about Quebec. I don't know if Quebec film producers make any money. However, I can assure you that we have tried everything to protect our culture and our artists, whether by appealing to broadcasters or to film producers. We have decided to organize ourselves before someone else does it for us. That's the approach we have taken in Quebec.

We face another threat that you have not mentioned. Cable companies plan to introduce U.S. productions. You alluded briefly to this. Nevertheless, as I see it, this represents a very real threat for the film industry in English Canada.

I'll start with a question for Mr. Charbonneau and Ms. Astbury, and then I'll come back to your opening remarks.

Ms. Astbury, do you believe that a cable broadcaster and the CBC reached an agreement or conspired in some way to take your television channel off the air?

[Pam Astbury]

The reality is that when the CBC went off the air, a significant number of people had to buy cable packages in order to access the CBC. It's entirely possible that the CBC felt it could get away with dropping over-the-air service to Kamloops--without any sort of objection from Kamloops--as a test case in their plan to decrease their annual expenditures on infrastructure for broadcasting, which in Canada's huge territory would be very expensive. So to reduce the cost of these transmitters in Kamloops, Quesnel, or Prince George would also be a great service.

I think there were a number of groups that benefited from that decision. If the decision can be furthered to all small and medium-sized communities across Canada, cable companies right across Canada will certainly be reaping greater revenue from increased cable subscriptions. The CBC will have a big load taken off their shoulders, that is, of having to pay not only for the replacement cost of transmitters but for the maintenance, including the personnel living in these communities to maintain transmitters.

I hope I've answered your question.

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

What was the cost of keeping this television channel on this air? Was it more cost-effective for the CBC to...?

I would imagine that you have quite a file on this matter. Could you possibly share the information you have with us?

[Pam Astbury]

At this time I'll make reference to.... Two hours south of Kamloops is the city of Kelowna. At the same time that Kamloops lost its CBC over-the-air because of a disaffiliation application from the local broadcaster, Kelowna experienced the same disaffiliation application from its broadcaster. The area affected is much larger than Kamloops. It includes Penticton, Vernon, Sicamous, quite a number of communities. The CBC agreed to replace the transmitters with CBC transmitters at a cost of $10--I believe the quote was--to cover a much larger area than Kamloops. That's the only figure we have. Due to our size, I would estimate maybe $3 million.

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

My next question is directed to all of the witnesses.

I get the feeling that in light of your respective mandates, you would like not just to be consulted, but also to work toward expanding “Canadian” culture, to distinguish this from Quebec culture.

Mr. Brownsey, would I be wrong to say that you would like to work with the CBC?

[Richard Brownsey]

Absolutely, we would. The business we're in is closely aligned with the mandate the CBC has. It is a largely cultural mandate, which is part of our mandate.

I think it's instructive, too.... A report that was done for the federal government called “Our Cultural Sovereignty” quoted a survey that had been done by the McKinsey & Company of 26 public broadcasters around the world. One of the things they found was that where there was a strong public broadcaster in the country, it raised the quality bar for all programming. The public broadcaster used the public funds and the quality went up. Private broadcasters, for very good sound commercial reasons, increased the quality for competition, for competitiveness purposes. So I think there's a role there.

Of course, we want to work with the CBC. Our interests are aligned with the CBC. But I think the result is that it raises the bar of all programming, and that is something we want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We'll move to Ms. Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

I apologize for being late, but I had an emerging issue in my riding. I do have the brief.

I'd like to ask two questions around the need to stand up for Canadian drama in English Canada--assuming they're doing it.

[Carl Bessai]

Yes.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

In 1999 the CRTC policy allowed private broadcasters to increase their profits by basically directly feeding American films to Canadian audiences. You made a suggestion about one way the CBC could help, or maybe become better partners, in supporting drama.

Do you have any other thoughts on what the CBC could do? That's assuming financing, which will be my next question around this.

[Carl Bessai]

In a perfect world, the CBC wouldn't behave like a commercial broadcaster, right? In a perfect world, it wouldn't need to buy ads; it wouldn't need to sell ads. It would be able to program high-quality stuff for Canadians. It would be the way radio is, a fantastic alternative to all the noise. I'm a huge CBC Radio guy, because it's the one place on the busy dial where it's always great. It's always great. There's never anyone hawking diapers, things like that.

But I know it's not a perfect world. Unfortunately, CBC is torn between having to behave in some way like a private broadcaster and having to provide all the things that no one else is providing. And I think that's really important. The criticisms and the points I'm making are based on the belief that we can work hand in glove with the CBC. We love it. The CBC is important. I wouldn't be sitting here for a hearing on Global or a hearing on CTV, because they do nothing; for Canadian feature film certainly, there's absolutely nothing being done.

It's interesting to me—I'm speaking about the movies here, the cinema—that Showcase does so much for the Canadian feature film, that the CHUM brand has done so much for the Canadian feature film. CHUM is basically a commercial network, but they understand the benefit of working with people in the film community to get the word out. When you go to the Toronto film festival, who's throwing all the big parties and making all the big splash? It ties into their Entertainment Tonight-style broadcasting. They're very smart. Why is the CBC invisible—invisible—when it comes to cinema?

The CBC was the first place to put an Atom Egoyan film on the air, the first place. You can say the same for all of the great directors in Canada. It was in some ways the NFB of broadcasting. And yet what happened? Where did it go? In my lifetime, I won't even bother knocking on the door. There's just no point. When it comes to cinema, the CBC is a door that is closed. I think that's wrong.

We have a division between television drama and feature film drama, but let's be honest, drama is drama. And 99.9% of English Canadian feature films appear on television, so for most of us, that's how we know these films. We don't know them from their great performance theatrically.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

That segues into the next part of my question, around the need for CBC to act as a private broadcaster, relying on and competing for advertising and subscriptions and whatnot. I think there's a misunderstanding about the funding. Even during a luncheon discussion, I know....

In your brief on page 3 you refer to the funding. In 1985 the Canadian government operating funding was worth $1.3 billion, and today CBC funding is worth $335 million less, so just under $1 billion. As well, 50% of its funding comes from the commercial operations, etc., that we've already talked about. Some of the funding is not permanent, and I guess it makes me wonder.... It's almost like it's doing an incredible job despite the underinvestment that we're seeing or that I'm reading about; it's really shocking.

So I'd like to hear your comments. This morning we heard about the need for CBC to get involved, to spread its activities even thinner, to the Internet and a number of other things. I'm just wondering how much we can squeeze out of our public broadcaster when it's already so underfunded.