Canadian Heritage Committee on April 20th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Ms. Bourgeois.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning.

I first like to ask a question of Ms. Parker. On page 12 of your brief, you make a suggestion about regional councils which I find very interesting. I hope that I have understood it correctly, since I agreed to allow the brief to be distributed only in English. Are you talking about regional councils that would feed into the new council that you are recommending for the CBC?

[Maureen Parker]

I apologize, Ms. Bourgeois, that my presentation was not in French as well.

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

You can speak to me in English, since I have interpreters here.

[Maureen Parker]

I have studied in French and I should try to speak it.

Perhaps it's better. It's not a French class.

I guess, yes, we are suggesting that we want to set up regional councils. We think the governance of the CBC really needs to be addressed. Whereas, of course, we very strongly believe additional financing is required, we do want it to go hand in hand with governance remodelling. One of those things would be regional councils made up of a variety of stakeholders, audiences.

I talk to my colleagues who listen to the CBC a lot, who are, for example, incensed that the radio schedule has been flipped around completely in the last week with no way to find their regular programs. That's the kind of feedback the CBC seems to need. There seems to be a stopgap between what's happening with the board, management, audience, and the other people, such as Rebecca, who develop their content, who produce their content and distribute their content. They seem to be operating in a vacuum.

We know now that the seats haven't been filled; there is no president. It really is in quite a state of disarray.

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

In the regions we visited, francophones outside Quebec called for more local and regional programming. They wanted to see themselves reflected in the television programs that their taxes are paying for.

Do you think that the members of your association would be interested in producing programs that could reflect the identities of these minority communities? It seems to me that it is very difficult for the CBC to find journalists interested in covering local and regional events, such as what the francophones that we met in Yellowknife are doing. Do you think that you have scriptwriters who would be interested in portraying life in francophone communities outside Quebec?

[Maureen Parker]

I'm just going to start this off and then pass it over to our president.

Yes, we do believe there should be regional production, both in terms of news and sports. In terms of dramatic and documentary content, those productions are made in different regions throughout the country. For example, Little Mosque on the Prairie--and I'll let Becky speak about that--started in Saskatchewan. That does reflect regional diversity. It's a little bit different in English Canada from what it is in Quebec for Radio-Canada.

In terms of dramatic or documentary programs, that production is regional, because it's funded through the federal agency, the CTF, with regional envelope requirements.

[Rebecca Schechter]

Of course, our membership is national. Screenwriters do want to reflect the place where they live--Canada, the city, the town, all of that reality. The truth of production in this country right now is that the hardest thing to do is to get a show on air that is about Toronto. The broadcasters, including the CBC, want to do shows about everywhere else, because there is a regional thing. We don't object to that, but that is the reality.

In terms of the French element, we have some bilingual writers, but the French writers in the country are represented by SARTEC, I believe. So for French production, that would not be the screenwriters who are members of the Writers Guild.

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

Ms. Windsor, you talked mainly about culture. For a Quebec sovereignist like me, this is something that is extremely important. In my opinion, we are currently seeing an invasion of American culture in Canada.

What do you think?

[Deborah Windsor]

Of course, that is true. I come from Nova Scotia, and my family is Acadian.

It's only been quite recently that the expulsion of the Acadians has been actually recognized. These are our stories--the stories of the Acadians, the stories of the franco-Ontarians, and the stories of Whitehorse in the Yukon. This is who we are. This is how we identify ourselves.

We also are a multicultural country, with people coming in with wonderful stories from where their roots lie, and that is also part of who we are.

Unfortunately, we are a large geographic country. We cover an extremely broad expanse of land, yet we are bordered by an extremely large population density that also speaks English. It puts Canada in a unique situation in the world, in that we have a large producer of English language content, which is the primary language in Canada, that we are constantly in combat with, yet if you were to go to the States and talk to people at various festivals, you would find that Canadian books, whether from a francophone like Antonine Maillet or Gabrielle Roy or from Margaret Atwood, are in great demand. We are recognized for our uniqueness in our culture, yet we do have an extremely difficult challenge with this broad-based country to the south of us.

In addition to that, we have won extreme awards internationally. We have three writers right now in for the Man Booker award. We are recognized abroad, and we need to continue to invest into our acknowledgments abroad, which will generate new revenue into Canada as well as allow us to share in our own culture.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much for that.

Mr. Angus is next.

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

Thank you for the presentations this morning. You touched on many of the issues I think that have been percolating around this table.

I'd like to begin with the issue of governance structure. When we had the lockout, I found many Canadians were shocked to find that we didn't have a chair of the board and that we weren't getting the programming we taxpayers had paid for. It seemed the CBC was suddenly looking like a very listless ship heading for the rocks.

Out of that, the governance hasn't changed. We still don't have a chair of the board, we don't know how people are appointed to the board, and there is a question whether the people at the top are the right people to be making judgment calls at the CBC in terms of programming and direction with their limited budgets.

What concrete recommendations would you make to change the governance structure so that it is more accountable?

[Maureen Parker]

We have dealt with this matter at length in the paper presentation that we filed as well, but the short of it is that we're very interested in the BBC model. We spent some time last fall, Rebecca and I, visiting the BBC, as most of us have in our industry. Of course, it's such an impressive model.

Obviously there are a lot of things they can do differently because of their demographics and their size and their revenue, but there are a lot of things we can learn from the BBC. One of these is governance. They have remodelled their structure so that their board is actually made up of people who understand and know public broadcasting. They're not political appointments; they're appointed because these people understand the nature of the business.

Also, their senior management reports to the board, not to the department, which is really not set up to directly oversee an arm's-length organization. Everyone has their own job at Canadian Heritage, and it's very difficult, if not impossible, to manage another organization. We think that has probably led to some errors in judgment with respect to managing the CBC's resources and with respect to some of the challenges they have faced in the last two years.

We do believe it starts with a strong board. Most organizations are set up that way. I know I report to a board; I don't report to another outside organization. There has to be some responsibility and accountability in place, and that's what we find to be very much lacking. We don't want senior management running the CBC; we want the board to run the CBC, and the board needs to be injected with some new life.

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

In this discussion of CBC we continually refer to the private broadcasters, because they're basically in the same market and there are elements of overlap. I want to ask you a couple of things about the relationship, partly your relationship as people who are pitching shows to private broadcasters and to the public broadcaster, and also some of the suggestions that have come forward.

For example, our friends at the Canadian Association of Broadcasters came forward to help us build a strong public broadcaster. What I got out of it was that we should take away CBC's ability to get money from advertising and give that to private broadcasters; keep CBC out of local television news and give that to the private broadcasters; and stay off the Internet, because that's where the private broadcasters are going. I didn't really see much in it for public broadcasting. We're talking about losing a lot of revenue, and nobody's coming forward with how we're going to replace that. The other suggestion, of course, was that we give Hockey Night in Canada to the private broadcasters as well, and then CBC will really be able to do its job well.

I guess I have two questions. One is, if we give all that to the private broadcasters, how is the $50 million or $60 million we're going to throw at them from the CTF going to offset those massive bloodlettings and losses?

Secondly, as to an obligation to the private broadcasters, they're intercepting American shows and throwing Canadian advertising in its place. They're protected by Canadian law from competition from the U.S., even though they're showing U.S. shows, especially in border towns. There is simultaneous substitution. Section 19.1 of the Income Tax Act protections are giving between $330 million for private networks and for specialty services up toward $900 million a year. I asked the Canadian Association of Broadcasters what we're getting out of it. What's in this for the Canadian public when the only thing on CTV and PrimeTime is eTalk?

I'd like to get your perceptions on this.

[Maureen Parker]

On your first question, I think it's crazy to assume that CBC will not need ad revenue; there's just no feasible way the public broadcaster can survive without ad revenue. In the best of all possible worlds, yes, it would be a great idea, but it's not realistic. I think what we're trying to grapple with is making the CBC better within the confines of what is possible, so ad revenue is essential.

Hockey Night in Canada is absolutely essential. I'm from a small northern town. I was up there visiting my family, and what do you do on a Saturday night? You watch the hockey game. That drives people to the CBC, where they might see an ad for Little Mosque on the Prairie on a Tuesday night and then think, I might watch that. I was really quite alarmed when there was the possibility that the CBC wouldn't be able to afford Hockey Night in Canada, because I just thought that would be the end of the public broadcaster.

So we have to ensure that the public broadcaster has enough money to properly bid on cornerstone pieces of the schedule. They have to be allowed to be competitive, and to do that we have to ensure that the parliamentary appropriation is appropriate.

In terms of getting out of the area of Internet news, etc, I would say no. That would just decimate their entire regional base, and it could in no way be a good idea for the public broadcaster. We understand where the privates are coming from, but they serve a very different audience, and an audience that our members like to write for as well. I don't understand the pettiness of why they deny that the CBC must have ad revenue. You know, the privates do very well; CTV now has the Olympics. There's enough for everybody to share. We think it's just essential that the CBC has a mix of programming in order to attract and retain an audience.

In terms of the privates and their obligations, there's one point I want to make today, because we heard this so many times from Mr. Manera when he was with the CBC. We obviously watched his presentation as well, and dissected it. This whole notion that the CBC could be the only home of Canadian content is just the kiss of death for the creative community, and I think for Canadian audiences and our industry. I can't say that strongly enough. I can come up with monetary reasons, and we will do that for you, but not today.

Charlie, you've hit some figures.

But in terms of creative ability—and Rebecca has already spoken to this—you cannot have a viable industry where there is one broadcaster, one channel, for all of our industry to pitch. If you know how the CBC works, you know they have production executives, development executives. It's not a big pool; there are about four people working at the CBC who make all of the creative decisions. That means that four people in this country determine what Canadian content goes on air. That's not acceptable to me as a citizen, and I can't imagine it would be acceptable to many others.

Also, private broadcasters bring other things to the game. As CTV has told us many times, the big tent approach is what they're looking for. Our members want to work for CTV; they want to work for Global. It's a different type of programming. The ladies at Global have told us they want to make programs for the youth demographic. Falcon Beach is written by our writers.

That allows the talent pool to write different things, with different voices, and it ensures there is enough opportunity out there to grow a small talent pool. We're not looking at a large pool; we're not a huge industry, but we do need diversity. And right now, there really are only three broadcasters to pitch. If the CTVglobemedia acquisition of CHUM goes forward, it will be another broadcaster we have lost. Space has done a lot of original programming, using screenwriters, directors, performers, producers. Again, it may not be to your taste, but it is out there and it's available.

I just can't say strongly enough what a crazy idea this is, and I really hope we don't put any energy into pursuing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We have to try to keep our answers a little shorter. That particular time took almost 11 minutes. Because we did start about five minutes late, I will run an extra five minutes.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for my 11 minutes. I'll try to pare my questions down, but I have so many questions I have to ask.

What I'd like to do first of all is address a comment you made, Ms. Schechter. It has to do with the fact that the number of dramas and dramatic episodes has been reduced since 1999, and 1999 seems to have been some kind of a watershed year for that. Can you tell me what happened in or about 1999 that would have brought this about?

[Rebecca Schechter]

Maureen might be able to answer it better than I can. It seemed as though there was a bit of a perfect storm in 1999 in our industry concerning drama that partly had to do with a change in the CRTC policy for the private broadcasters. That was one of the things in the storm.

The other thing was that European broadcasters decided to put quotas in their own system for their own programming. There was a fairly healthy pre-sale market of Canadian series into Europe, and those sales were substantial, so we could fund that final 10% or 15% of our budgets from a European pre-sale. Because they regulated themselves to have their own programming on television, those sales dried up, and the only stuff that was saleable...we were in competition with ER for one time slot and ER won. So that bit of the budget dried up.

The other thing that happened at that time was that Alliance and Atlantis merged, and that affected our production industry in not a very good way. Alliance had been almost the only thing we ever had here that was close to a studio that could produce drama. The merged corporation wasn't very interested in production, and within a year or two it basically said “We don't want to do this anymore”. It has essentially become a broadcaster, with the exception of CSI.

So those three elements combined.... I think the thing that affected CBC most was that element of European sales.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

The market was reduced.

[Maureen Parker]

There is one last key element, but that's--

[A voice]

She knows the scripts.

[Maureen Parker]

The last element was that the CBC in 1999 lost the guaranteed envelope at the CTF. That had a huge effect on the CBC, because without that guaranteed envelope they had 50%. They didn't have money to produce series--again, that's the production money we were just talking about earlier with Francis--they couldn't commission, they didn't develop, and we dropped from 79% to 26%. Now, in the last year, I think it was last year, they got their envelope back, so now they're at 37%.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

They're at 37%.

[Maureen Parker]

Yes, exactly.

With 50%, lost; now they've come back at 37%. So now you're seeing them start to get back into the game.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right. I'm trying to cover a whole bunch of questions.

To Ms. Windsor, I was disappointed to hear that the literary content on CBC has been reduced. I think you gave some reasons for that. More specifically, you stated that it was CBC's attempt to duplicate programming that was already being provided on the private broadcasters that brought this about. Am I characterizing your comments correctly?