Canadian Heritage Committee on March 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Tapley.

[Thom Tapley]

Some direct examples would be time-shifting. It's utilizing the technology to make it so that Canadians have better access to the Canadian content through the CBC. For example, there's lots of programming I'd like to watch, but I'm not able to because I'm not at home at that given time, or whatever. If you're utilizing the Internet or digital media, you can time-shift content, and then when you get home you can watch a program that you normally couldn't. Actually, I think that one step alone would be helpful.

It is about vision, and one of the concerns I have is that we continue to look at existing models or how things have been and how to improve what we already have, as opposed to perhaps looking at it in a completely different manner.

Brian mentioned making it cool and relevant. I think another way the technology would be useful there is if you can actually allow for, facilitate, a two-way dialogue. So how about channels within the Internet—or let's just call it, to make this example clearer, CBC online, and then channels within CBC online? How about having young Canadian kids dictate what kinds of channels they want on that? You can have that type of feedback. I don't think we've utilized that, the full potential of the technology in a manner that could actually aggregate Canadian consumers and global consumers in ways that other services that are the media darlings now, such as YouTube, have done. What made them so successful is that they were able to amass large audiences because they gave audiences a role in deciding what it was, what content was going to be on that platform. The CBC could do the very same thing.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Could you just talk about what you meant by branding—CBC branding?

[Thom Tapley]

Sure.

Obviously there are the underlying economics of production. That's just the cold hard facts. You have to try to make a return on the cost to make a production. Traditionally what we call niche programing has struggled to recoup the money it takes to produce it.

When you look at the music world, they have found that traditionally.... And again, if anyone has had a chance to read Chris Anderson's book, The Long Tail, it would be useful. You see the graph for the successful traditional business model was this. Where the vast majority of the revenues were predominantly made in this area, they didn't worry so much about this part of the graph. What they found was that because of the decreased cost in distributing music, which does apply and will continue to apply to all types of media, including film and TV programming, people could all of a sudden access it if it sat there.

You might have 3,000 or 5,000 or 100,000 people who really, really like The Beachcombers. Well, they could be anywhere in the world, and they could access that. The economics behind that type of model is radically different from the model where you set a time schedule and broadcast The Beachcombers at eight o'clock in Canada for someone to watch it. It may be such that there are millions of people who want to watch The Beachcombers, as an example, in all parts of the world, and they can now access that through digital technology.

If we keep referring to the existing model and how we can improve it, I think we're doing ourselves a disservice. That goes back to Trish's point that we need a new vision. That's why in Mercedes' opening statement she said we're really talking about revisioning the CBC. We actually think it can be in a much better position to reach people than it has traditionally been.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Bourgeois.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm tempted to set the cat among the pigeons. You've presented all kinds of nice solutions to show us how on the ball and up to date you are. Yet --and please don't throw any brickbats at me -- when we met with Mr. Shaw, he told us that artists and producers who receive funding from the Canadian Television Fund do not produce quality programming and that English Canadian programs were boring.

How do you respond to that statement?

[Thom Tapley]

Actually, these two people do produce content, and I can tell you there is quality in their content.

The interesting dilemma is that in other parts of the world people recognize our films as being quality. Sometimes we have a harder time, as Canadians, accepting that. If you look at the track record, the reality is that our content, our film from TV, and specifically our films do very well. The problem is the restrictions they have. The challenge is having people have access to that content. You can build it, but they won't necessarily come, because people have to find a way of getting to that content. I think the issue is not one of quality, it's more of being able to access the content once it's produced.

[Mercedes Watson]

If I can add to what Tom said, I wholeheartedly believe in Canadian content and obviously in the performers who produce it. I think we do ourselves a complete disservice by describing ourselves as dull and not trying to find better ways to have our products seen.

Quebec has done a sensational job of making that possible, over many, many years. People fail to see that it has taken a great deal of time to get their product to a place where everyone respects it, not just in Quebec, but across Canada and throughout the world. English-speaking Canada has stayed in the shadows of the U.S., trying to mimic something that to many of us hasn't been done that well to begin with.

I think it's time for us to take a leap and believe more in ourselves and the quality of what we can produce and what we have produced. We need to find, as Tom mentioned earlier, that place online where we can be our own distributors, both nationally and internationally, of the content we create here and to provide that access of viewership, which exists in the millions, not only in Canada, but throughout the world.

[Howard Storey, President, Union of B.C. Performers]

I think those tomatoes should be thrown at Mr. Shaw, who has profited very greatly from the generosity of Canadians and apparently doesn't respect it.

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

Careful now. Don't say that the member from Quebec asked you to throw brickbats at Mr. Shaw. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Trish Dolman]

I think Mr. Shaw engaged in a smear campaign against Canadian television to suit his own purposes, and to be frank, I think he's full of it. I think you were not in the room at the beginning of my presentation when I cited a number of examples of quality Canadian television that regularly get over two or three million viewers. Those are high numbers in a country with our population.

You can go from Corner Gas to Degrassi to Little Mosque on the Prairie to numerous television movies that regularly get high audiences, that Canadians love, and if they weren't of quality then he's calling down Canadian audiences, and I think he's full of BS.

He did that to suit his own purposes, and he has a monopoly in the Canadian marketplace that serves him very well, thank you very much. So he can throw tomatoes at himself as far as I am concerned. It's just not true. It's not even that we get recognition outside Canada; we get recognition inside Canada. The telltale sign is that private broadcasters see they can make money on Canadian content, because in this business, money means audience share. CTV is making money from Canadian content and so is Global. The only reason they ever did it was that they were mandated to do so in the first place, and now they're making money. You know what? They're not going to stop, because they are making money.

[Howard Storey]

I simply wanted to say that the list Ms. Dolman made of successful programming, exciting and interesting programs that are actually working, these programs were put together by creative Canadians against considerable odds. As we know, it's very difficult in English Canada to get any damned thing produced.

It is good quality produced against considerable odds, better quality produced with the blessing of the government and the Canadian population, rendered cool, I would suggest, by the niche markets that appreciate whatever the product is. With Internet distribution, the possibility is that we can get those programs that suit this niche market to that market. And whoever is advertising to underwrite it now has a fabulous opportunity to preach to the converted, because they already want to see, they already want to be there, so the product can be appropriate to the programming. It's much more economically viable too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I am going to go to Mr. Jones and then Mr. Tapley.

[David W.C. Jones]

I just wanted to know, did Mr. Shaw withdraw his contribution to the CTF before or after his remarks to you?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I can probably answer. I think he made those remarks after he restored his funding.

[David W.C. Jones]

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Tapley.

[Thom Tapley]

I just thought of an interesting thing. Having lived a chunk of my life in and certainly having shuttled back and forth to and from Los Angeles a great deal, I always felt it was remarkable that a little café I would always go to was usually populated at any given time about 50% by Canadians.

The Canadian creative community in Hollywood is enormous. So it's not an issue of Canadians not having the ability to create quality content; the issue is that the resources aren't here. It's shameful that they have to leave. Often it's only those real soldiers who don't leave, such as the two people at the end of this table and others like them, who actually commit to staying here. It is a tough job to produce content in Canada. It is not about quality. It's not about talent. We have it here, and the problem is that sometimes they have to leave to continue their careers.

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

To redeem myself, I'd like to make the following comment.

Ms. Dolman, I believe you were the one who spoke of the three pillars needed to resolve the broadcasting issue. Mention was made of news programming, natural history, the environment and knowledge of our community. Finally, mention was made of dramatic productions that mirror people's day-to-day lives. In all instances, programming of this nature targets people at the grassroots level.

I believe members of the public want television programming to reflect their reality.People like yourself who work with the public can help make that happen.

Have I redeemed myself a little?

Thank you.

[Brian Hamilton]

There is an enormous residual desire on the part of Canadian audiences to see their own stories, as we have seen. When the CBC put enough marketing power behind Little Mosque on the Prairie, people knew about it. They came in droves. From people everywhere who see our programs, when they find out about them, when we are able to reach out and give them our programming at a time that suits them, etc., there is fantastic response. We Canadians don't brag about our successes nearly enough, but our programs are world class.

There is a financial component, and marketing is extremely important. The paradox that CBC television has is they don't have too many programs that have two million viewers during which they can advertise the next show, or the show that's on tomorrow. What the private broadcasters use.... CTV uses American Idol to promote Corner Gas. Or our series, Robson Arms--we had three quarters of a million viewers on Monday night because we were promoted within other large programs. Global owns newspapers, and they put ads in their newspapers, for free, to promote their own programming.

So the CBC does have these disadvantages, but I think that online, they have an advantage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much for that.

Ms. Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentations. They've been very compelling, with lots of creative ideas, providing solutions to some of the issues we're looking at, from timeshifting--which really appeals to me, because there are constantly shows that I'd like to see--to better marketing techniques.

I'm curious about the online issue. My own kids are testimony to what you've been saying in terms of how they want to access media. There was an earlier discussion around stretching the mandate too thin, and I think what we're talking about is the lack of resources for CBC and expecting it to be everything for everybody. I think that's the crunch.

Do you think some of the suggestions you outlined or brought forward can be done within the existing budget? Are we talking more resourcing? I happen to believe we are, but I'd be interested in your thoughts. There's also the need to keep this creative capital here--all these people who are moving south. How do we make it easier to keep them here, and how do we do the kind of job to attract the kinds of audiences you're talking about?

[Thom Tapley]

These opportunities are wonderful, but I think they should be the starting point of the discussion, because these are complex issues. As Trish mentioned in the beginning, no one is absolutely certain where all of this is going. Some of the things we are certain of, through consumer trends, are where people are turning to, and your children, as you say, are an example of that. People are absolutely turning to these new devices in order to enjoy their content. The economics behind those models are different from traditional TV and film production. The cost of distribution is different, and it will continue to change as the technology changes. We're entering into a phase--some people call it Internet 2 and some people call it Internet 3--where the cost of delivery content through that pipe to the home is different.

To be very on point with your question with respect to resources, I think more money is always better, because it will allow us to address those more quickly and in a better fashion. However, long term, it might be that they'll need fewer resources as we go forward, depending on how those models suss out. We're not there yet, and it's not us. The industry is not there yet because it's still unclear as to how those business models will eventually suss out. But the indications are, certainly with respect to distribution, that the cost will continue to drop.

The answer would be two parts. Right now, more money would be good. Long term, it might be a readjustment that there's not. There could be a decrease in the money required because we could have set up a model that is more efficient.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

In terms of the economics of this, nobody knows exactly how that works. Does it compromise in any way what has been termed Internet neutrality or the democratic side of the Internet?

[Thom Tapley]

Well, I think--