Canadian Heritage Committee on May 23rd, 2007

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

I have one short question to ask, Mr. Chair.

I know Mr. Hearn. He is indeed a wonderful man, a wonderful gentleman, but unfortunately he is not the one who is a member of the committee. He will not have to make a decision. I would therefore have liked the other Conservative members of the committee to be here. I find it appalling that they are not here. You pay your taxes like any other Canadian citizen, even if you live far away.

Mr. Bonnell, my question is very specific. You talked about equity, about equitable access. Can you tell me what you mean by equitable access? Be frank and honest. Is the CBC equitable in its dealings with independent producers at present?

[Chris Bonnell]

That's a loaded question.

No, I think that under the current system, certainly in the English CBC side there is a preference given to Toronto producers in getting their productions licensed. It's clear now. I mentioned earlier the performance envelopes with the CTF. They've done that in the development component as well. We're seeing now that our counterparts and I, as provincial funders, are no longer involved in the development stage. CBC decides what they want in development, and that leads into production.

We've found that it has a huge impact. Right now it's very difficult to get anything in development in CBC if it's not blessed at the first stage. So it's a huge component.

To me, CBC has always been a rite of passage, and under the new management they've rather changed the focus to 18- to 25-year-olds. This sounds somewhat like “You know you're getting old when you like the look of a Volvo”, but when you become a certain age in Canada you start to listen to CBC radio, you start to watch CBC television more. There has been a loyal audience there for many years; they are gone now. We're starting to lose them now because of this different reality programming. They're searching for their good documentaries, their good miniseries, their good period pieces in different places now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you very much for this discussion this evening.

I'm going to begin with a question to Mr. Bonnell about the dramatic drop you've described in programs produced here. Just over the last few years that has dropped. You talked about the shift to reality-based programming. Is that because it's cheap to produce?

[Chris Bonnell]

Absolutely. It is much cheaper to produce. The development side is not the same, and developing a script is quite easy. The production is not as costly, there's no question.

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

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm certainly glad my dear old granny is not alive to watch reality TV every night. She would have been shaking her head. I mention that because my family are from the Maritimes. They were Cape Breton gold miners, and we lived in exile until our new exile became our home. Variety television was a big part of our sense of belonging someplace: the John Allan Cameron shows, Don Messer. We set our clocks to those shows.

I don't see that ever on television. It came to me the other day, because I was in Rouyn-Noranda, in my neighbouring riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and I saw two variety shows at one time, on prime time, on two different stations, giving the kind of programming we used to take for granted up to, I'd say, the seventies and the eighties. I never see that.

Do you think the loss of that kind of programming—I'm not just saying a regional maritime voice, but actual variety, showing music and Canadian stories in a variety format—has affected the ability of Newfoundland artists to be seen in the rest of this country?

[John Doyle]

Yes, absolutely. As I touched on briefly, the opportunity for artists in this area to be exposed to a national audience is tremendously important, whether you're in film or visual arts or are a writer, and the CBC has been able to provide that. But it has been doing it less and less in recent times because of the programming not originating in the area.

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

I'm going to throw this open for discussion.

I've always been fascinated by the importance of the distinctiveness of place. There is an argument that runs through commercial entertainment.... I come from the music business, and there's certainly a commercial argument that you strip from your voice all local dialect, all local place names, and make it “Bayside”. These people are sort of bland, and that can sell to everybody. Of course, it's bland in a very American way. There's a sense that you'll sell more by not coming from any one place.

I've always felt very clearly that people are actually dying for distinctiveness. They want place, they want the reality of a place. Toronto can be Bayside. Toronto can be Toronto and be anywhere. Newfoundland really can't hide what Newfoundland is: you're in Newfoundland.

So in a world where you're having to compete for commercial television production, if CBC isn't picking up the ball, what chance do you have with the private broadcasters, the CTVs and the Globals of the world, to have your stories told, not just regionally but in the place they deserve, which is a national television network?

[Chris Bonnell]

I think you're speaking to the converted.

Yes, there's no question, and that's their mandate. That's what a public broadcaster is.

Again, it's not just because there are Newfoundland stories; they have to be Newfoundland stories that want to be heard, not only by Newfoundlanders but by the rest of Canada and internationally. We've seen Above and Beyond. It did well nationally; it sold in Europe. These are projects that are Newfoundland stories, but they have interest everywhere.

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

I want to ask about one of the issues in terms of the CBC's being advertising-free or being distinctive. What role do our private broadcasters have to carry their share of the weight? I ask because, from simultaneous substitution to the Income Tax Act, they live in a very protected universe.

Our numbers show that per capita spending on domestic television in Canada is the lowest--much lower than Australia, much lower than...well, we're not even going to mention England--yet our spending on foreign television is higher than that of any of our main competitors. I'm not breaking numbers down between CBC and private broadcast; these are just the overall numbers. What role do you think the private broadcasters have to pick up the slack as well, to make sure we have a competitive domestic market and we have the CBC voice, but we also have good drama and comedy being shown on the private broadcasters?

[Noreen Golfman]

I hope in a way that you're answering your own question, but you're certainly leading us, I think, to say that the commercial broadcasters have to follow the mandate of CRTC legislation. If their feet were held to the fire, they would look quite different from the way they look now.

The whole notion, of course, of simultaneous simulcast is bizarre. It privileges, as people have said already, the private broadcasters beyond belief. It really gives a very skewed notion of what Canadian prime-time programming is. Any Martian surfing the dials in this country would be astonished at how American our prime-time television is, certainly in English Canada.

A thriving, competitive broadcasting environment is what we would want. That is the ideal--not an all-state, if you will, or all-public system. In fact, in many ways we have the potential for an ideal system, a model for the rest of the world, but we have let ourselves down--or the broadcasters, certainly--for greed and reasons of privilege. Self-entitlement has gotten away with a hell of a lot at the expense of the listening and viewing public.

A good healthy commercial set of broadcasters, of course, would only increase the field, increase the production, increase the talent, and keep people in Canada working. It's not just what's in front of the camera; it's also what reality television and the diminishment of production and Canadian content do. When we can't tell our own stories in the regions or elsewhere, you force the talent behind the camera to go somewhere else, so they'll go to the States or they'll go to England or they'll go another province or they'll go to Toronto or they'll go to Vancouver—

[Dorian Rowe]

Or they'll go to a different industry altogether.

[Noreen Golfman]

They'll go to a different industry altogether--quite right--one in which the skills they've acquired can perhaps be harnessed differently.

I think there's a big social story, and we need to recognize it. I don't think any of us would deny the private broadcasters their right to exist or to flourish, but they have to flourish in the service of what the CRTC regulations direct them to do. If we're not doing that, then we really have to question both the teeth of the CRTC, or all the teeth of the CRTC, and what they're empowered to do, and our own government's willingness to let this happen.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

Before I go to Mr. Simms, I have a couple of comments and a couple of questions I might ask.

I sat on this committee back when the $60 million for the CBC was put forward. It's been carried forward over the past number of years, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage this past year gave two-year funding of $60 million for each of those two years. It was my understanding that the $60 million was to try to move that supper half-hour back to the hour situation. Is that not the case?

[Noreen Golfman]

No, I don't believe that is the case. The case, as far as we understand it, is that the move to 60 minutes was meant to be done with virtually the same resources that the 30 minutes had been able to access or utilize. That was very clearly stated in a memo by senior management to CBC at large, that the move to 60 minutes was not to be done at the expense of national programming.

If you look across the country at what has happened to those 60 minutes, at what they're being filled with, the evidence is there. There's lots of weather--lots of weather, repeated every 10 minutes--and not many, if any, new faces in front of the camera.

So there's not a lot of difference. You really have 30 minutes extended. There's not really evidence of that infusion of money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

The arts are very important to me. I come from a little place called Sebringville, right outside of Stratford, Ontario. I remember the tents, and I remember Stratford growing. I know how important those stars are, and keeping those people around. Again, you need the business to keep it going.

I know one thing that's happened with us in Canada is that our dollar has changed. Now, it shouldn't necessarily affect producers and directors and production people working maybe for the CBC, but it might explain some of the reason why there might be more people out there and it might be a little more competitive.

Would I be right in saying that? Over the years, with the 60¢ or 65¢ dollar, there were production companies, and everybody was growing. Now there's been a slide backward. It could even get worse in that scenario of the dollar going up.

[Chris Bonnell]

Yes, there's no question that with the change in the dollar....

In the larger production service centres such as Vancouver and Toronto in English Canada, producers who otherwise worked in that industry more as service producers for L.A. productions have now realized that they have to go after some of the more indigenous Canadian productions. That's certainly a result. But still it's a competitive process.

Being 700 miles in the middle of the ocean, we really don't have a lot of service productions. Most of our stuff is indigenous or co-produced. While these producers who were usually service providers are now competing for the same broadcast licences, it still should be a competitive process. The best projects should get through the gate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

My last question may be more of a statement. I do know how much it meant to various areas, including Newfoundland, to have that program change from an hour at suppertime. Windsor was cut at the same time. I've been to Windsor at various times, and I do know the difference it made. So I'm not ignorant of the facts there.

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for allowing me to pinch-hit. It's nice to be back on the heritage committee, albeit for a brief moment. It's good to see you again, and Mr. Lahaie as well.

And Charlie, you're the apple of my eye, what can I tell you.

I want to talk about local production, but first I have a comment about the news hour. If you remember, about a year and a half ago we had the president of the CBC here, and I brought up that issue with him about the ill effects of going back to 30 minutes, about the detrimental situation. I wish I'd had numbers that Ms. Golfman had, because that would have illustrated my point much better.

However, the president did shock me at the time and say that it was moving back to 60 minutes, but it was only a pilot project. I'm under the assumption that we are still under that status of being a pilot project--although a friend of mine there at the back shakes his head and says that's not the case.

I'm assuming that it's all systems go?

I get a nod from the audience, but—

[Noreen Golfman]

Such as the systems are, yes, they're a go.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I have a nod from a friend of mine from the CBC there in the back. Thank you.

I also want to talk about local production, especially here in Newfoundland and Labrador, which has been sorely missing from days gone by. Growing up in this province, I can tell you when every other kid was watching The Friendly Giant, I was watching Skipper and Company--poor old Skipper. For anybody who is not from Newfoundland, it was a kids' show that was legendary.

That being said, I always believe that regional broadcasting from the CBC has a purpose beyond its own borders. It has a story to be told along the three coasts. I personally like the fact that I can watch the CBC and learn about the history of church organ building in Quebec. That's fantastic. I also take solace in the fact that somebody in Saskatchewan can learn about Fogo Island, which is considered one of the four corners of the world.

Above and Beyond is a project near and dear to my heart, for two reasons. I think Paul Pope is an exceptional talent, but I also think it is a fantastic story for the world.

What was the process--and Chris, maybe this is for you; I wish Paul was here to talk about this--of putting that on the screen? How difficult was it for him, as an independent producer in this province, to bring that to the national broadcaster?

[Chris Bonnell]

I'm going to make a few comments, and then perhaps John could respond. John was actually one of the writers on Above and Beyond.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

My apologies.

[Chris Bonnell]

That's okay.

It was a difficult process. It's a long, drawn-out time to get something into production. I think it was three, almost four years, in development.

We had a champion at CBC. There was an individual in CBC who thought very highly of the project. He liked the story and fought for it all the way. We don't have that champion anymore.