Canadian Heritage Committee on April 11th, 2007

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

We're talking about apples and oranges, and I know that. But every region of the country gets at least one shot on a national show on radio, and they get to run a national show, whether it's on Christmas Day or whatever.

My argument for television is that it's still very entrepreneurial. If Winnipeg had their one shot on Canada Day and they blew it, they wouldn't get a second one. They wouldn't blow it, because they'd say “This is our big chance to show all our independent productions.” Why don't we have the same commitment on television that we have on radio to ensure that each of the regions takes one shot and one big production?

[Kim Todd]

That's a very good question. I just want to make sure it's not as codified as that. I think radio is a good example, and I know most about radio as a listener of CBC radio, because I'm a huge fan.

We're dealing with human beings. They're the ones who watch the shows, make them, and program them. For some reason, there is a great feeling that there's a richness across the country in radio, and the great thing to do with radio is gather it up and send it out nationally. There is not that feeling in television, and I don't know why. I think they used to think there wasn't the training; there weren't trained producers and trained crews. That's no longer true. I think it used to be more expensive. There are tax credits in all the regions now, so that's no longer true. The thinking has not caught up with the 21st century.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to talk about the funding. Certainly one of the focuses of your submission was that there needs to be long-term sustainable funding. That's a refrain we've heard time and again from virtually all the witnesses we've heard from.

When I hear about funding, usually people are saying the government needs to put in more money. I'm always concerned when I hear that, if there's not discussion about partnerships, about leveraging a government commitment.

I want to refer to page 2 of your submission. About halfway down you refer to public funding of the CBC and to the CTF. I'll read that particular paragraph for the record:

We do not believe that public funding of the CBC should necessarily include a guaranteed portion of the Canadian Television Fund. The arrangement whereby the CBC receives 37% of the CTF seems to be a half measure, offering the CBC some compensation for the lack of government support but at a cost to the private sector and to independent producers for whom the CTF was created.

I do want you to explain that and maybe put it a little bit more into context. We've heard witnesses such as the former CBC president and the chief of staff of former Prime Minister Joe Clark say it is time we got rid of all government subsidies of the private broadcasters, and in return we would remove the regulations relating to Canadian content for the private broadcasters. It is a trade-off.

One of the suggestions I made, which was actually echoed in private by Mr. Neville, the former chief of staff, was that there may be a willingness within the private broadcast industry to actually acknowledge that they have a role to play in defending a very robust public broadcaster by contributing toward the CBC. That doesn't in any way suggest that the government would retreat from funding or retreat from enhanced funding, but there was a suggestion that there's perhaps a more significant role for private broadcasters to play. Your statement today seems to run counter to that. Could you respond?

[Kim Todd]

I think there are probably a number of different ways, and I look forward to lively discussion over the next ten years. Things are going to change. I could suggest to you, sir, that your party could eliminate the Canadian content regulation, eliminate the CBC, take down the border, and allow the American networks to come into Canada and sell their advertising directly to Canadian--

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That's not the suggestion.

[Kim Todd]

No, no--it could very well be a suggestion, because the cost of their entry could be that they show a quota of Canadian shows.

I'm only saying that there are any number of creative ways to get Canadian shows to Canadians. I do not think that keeping the CBC alive at all costs, if it's not fulfilling its mandate, is what either MMPIA or I personally am suggesting. I'm suggesting this other radical one to show you there are many different ways.

We know why the private Canadian broadcast networks were created. It was to make sure Canadians saw Canadian programming, and they got revenue from what they watched. But if at that time NBC, CBS, and ABC had been allowed to come into Canada and had been told that the price of doing business here was to broadcast Canadian-made shows, our shows would have been broadcast on them and into America. That might have not been a bad strategy, in hindsight, because the Canadian industry would have been developed, and our stories would have gone out.

I'm only suggesting by using that example that there are many ways to skin this cat, but what's happening now seems to be half measures. In other words, the CTF is money gleaned from cable broadcasters, as we know, and from the government to support independent production in Canada. At least 50% of the reason is that the Canadian broadcasters don't pay a high enough licence fee for Canadian production to make it possible to produce it. We as Canadian taxpayers and the government have determined that it's worth it to us to subsidize this, because we want our own shows; we just don't have.... If you make a show in Canada and every single Canadian watches it--30 million people watch it--you still don't have enough advertising revenue to pay for the series; you have to sell it to outsiders, or it has to be subsidized, or both. Our problem is our small market.

To go to what you're saying, either we want a public broadcaster or we don't. As for how it's funded, I agree with you that partnerships can be explored. We're not saying we think the government should write a cheque and just give them more money. I actually think that if you keep giving a bureaucracy more money, it will just keep spending more money; it won't necessarily improve its mandate.

We're saying we think policies should be set so that the CBC has to meet its mandate, and it should be given the money to meet its mandate. In other words, the people running the CBC now should make a plan showing how it will meet its mandate and how much it's going to cost. Then they would come to the government and to the independent production sector, and maybe to the private sector, and say what they need.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

So you don't really care where that funding comes from, provided that there's no negative impact on your industry, but hopefully a positive impact on your industry, and that we sustain a public broadcaster in the way it should be.

[Kim Todd]

No, I'm saying—MMPIA is saying—if we decide to have a public broadcaster, let's commit to them. Let's not go halfway. Let's not say we're helping them by giving them some CTF money, but that's not really enough to help them. We're helping them by doing this, but it's not enough. I'm saying let's go straight at it and say this is what it costs to do it.

I don't know what it costs to do it, because no one has asked the question recently.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Okay. Whatever the cost, you're not opposed to creative funding strategies to do that.

[Kim Todd]

No, not at all.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right. That's what I needed to know.

[Kim Todd]

I think you'll find that producers are entrepreneurs. We never know where our next dollar is coming from.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

We love entrepreneurs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you, Mr. Fast.

Thank you, folks, for a very lively presentation. I can now see why your productions are so successful.

On behalf of the committee, thank you very much. I would love to keep this going on a little longer, but we do have a plane to catch. So thank you for the presentation.

This now brings our meeting here in Winnipeg to a close.

The meeting is adjourned.