EVIDENCE Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage NUMBER 041 1st SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT Wednesday, March 14, 2007 Le mercredi mars Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE March 14, 2007 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 041 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 041 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 041 (Version officielle) 41 14 03 2007 2007/03/14 09:05:00 House of Commons Comité permanent du patrimoine canadien Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage CHPC Chair Mr.

Gary Schellenberger 39 1 (0905) [ English ] The Chair (Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC)) : Order. Good morning. My name is Gary Schellenberger, and I am chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I'm very pleased to be here in Vancouver this morning with some of our committee members. What a beautiful morning. When I woke up in my room, the sun was shining in as it came over the mountains and the bridge over there. It was beautiful. Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles (Executive Director, Alliance for Arts and Culture) : It's always like this. The Chair : That's great.

And from the lawns I saw as we came through yesterday, you'll probably need to have the lawn mowers out very soon. We have travelled here this morning as part of our study of the public broadcaster here in Canada. I'm very pleased to see that the witnesses who put their names forward could be here. We do have, I hope, a fair bit of time this morning. We are waiting for Ms. Fry. She will be here or, I guess, won't be; whatever. Welcome to Ms. Savoie and Ms. Bourgeois. I will begin by thanking Ms. Bourgeois.

One presentation that will be made--by the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting--is printed out, but it's not in both official languages. I would like to thank Ms. Bourgeois for saying that we can use that particular material here this morning, because I think there are some important graphs in there that could be useful. I would like to try to hold the introductory presentations to around ten minutes, somewhere in there. Then we can open it up to questions.

At the end of that particular time, if we've pursued the different avenues and we still have five, ten, or fifteen minutes at the end, I might ask our parliamentary experts from the parliamentary library if they have any questions for the witnesses. In all fairness, these gentlemen, or this group, will be writing up the report, so if that's suitable to our witnesses, I would hope we could go forward with that. I would like to welcome this morning, from the Alliance for Arts and Culture, Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles; and from the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, Ian Morrison, the spokesperson, and Anne Ironside.

Following the order on my list, perhaps you would go first, please, Mr. Wilhelm-Boyles. Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to have this intervention on behalf of the Greater Vancouver Alliance for Arts and Culture, which represents artists and cultural organizations in the municipalities of the Greater Vancouver regional district. I found last night that I had written long, so I'm going to read short. The complete text has been distributed, but regrettably not in French. But we'll get it done.

We do not propose to answer all the questions asked in the invitation document. The committee will hear from many intervenors who have expert knowledge in all the areas of this study. In that regard, we commend to you the excellent submission of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, with which we concur in every respect.

Our purpose is to address in more general terms the essential role of the public broadcaster in reflecting, nurturing, supporting, and advancing the Canadian experiment, which is, as we see it, the creation and maintenance of a pluralistic society that is distinctive, humane, harmonious, equitable, compassionate, creative, vibrant, healthy, and prosperous. It is our view that the arts and culture have everything to do with achieving that laudable goal and that the public broadcaster has everything to do with enabling them to do so.

When we use the term “arts and culture”, we refer to both the broad definition of culture, often described as the UNESCO definition, which is the “distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society [...] it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs”, and the more narrowly focused one, which includes performing, visual, and literary arts and heritage--and we add the media. The second will be seen as a formalized encodification of the first.

If we ignore the first, we dismiss what motivates people, what gives them identity and meaning, what connects them to their fellows. If we ignore the second, we forfeit the most powerful vehicles of imagination, creativity, inspiration, enrichment, and expression known to humanity. It is our view that in Canada the CBC is likely the single most important vehicle for the nurture, support, and promotion of the arts and the exploration and creation of identity at local, regional, and national levels. Pier Luigi Sacco is a professor of cultural economics at the University of Bologna.

Over the past several years, he has developed a relationship with Vancouver in which he has experienced, explored, and investigated the cultural ecology and economy of the city. Professor Sacco posits that since at least the Second World War, societies--at least those in the developed world--are no longer driven by scarcity or the search for daily necessities, but by a search for identity.

He further posits that identity is primarily found in two ways: in the acquisition of things, which he calls identity through objects, and through the experience of significant relationships and occurrences, and this he calls identity through experience. The latter, he suggests, is what leads to the development of healthy, creative, effective, fulfilled communities. As Canada welcomes the world in increasing numbers and our communities become increasingly diverse, there is an increased need to share our experiences through our stories. A recent newspaper

article suggested strongly that if we are to develop harmonious relationships among all sectors of our society, rather than laying down rules of behaviour for those newly arrived in our communities--other than the rule of law, of course--we should welcome them into our homes and our gatherings; otherwise, how can they know how we live and what we value? Likewise, how can we know in any meaningful way about their values unless we encounter them where they live?

Since, realistically, most of us will not enter the homes of most of the rest of us, it falls to our public broadcaster to take us there, because it enters our homes, our living rooms and our bedrooms, and it can and should be a vehicle that enables us to tell our stories to each other with sensitivity, honesty, and humour. These stories are told by Canada's artists in all the disciplines. We believe it is incumbent on the national public broadcaster to maintain space on all its platforms for the expression of the works of Canadians artists as a priority.

In a paper entitled “Cultural Policy Beyond Aesthetics” by Professor Tony Bennett of the Economic and Social Research Council of the U.K., in reference to a study conducted in Australia in the mid-1900s by him and two colleagues, we read: “...viewed in terms of the democratic profiles of their publics as measured by their class, educational, gendered and ethnic compositions, public broadcasting led the field as being the most socially inclusive...”. It is not unreasonable to assume that a similar case could be made for the CBC in the Canadian cultural ecology.

(0910) In this regard, we fully support the existing mandate of the CBC. It needs no modification. However, it is a demanding mandate, one complicated by the fact that in the interests of responsible journalism the CBC must sometimes bite the hand that feeds it, and the CBC is no longer funded to carry it out with distinction. It is disturbing to realize that at a time when demands on the public broadcaster are expanding and the costs of doing business in nearly every aspect of life are increasing, the Government of Canada is funding the national public broadcaster at the same level as 30 years ago.

The CBC has a history of great achievement in the creation and promotion of Canadian art of all kinds. Indeed, the very existence of a strong, vibrant Canadian cultural sector--and its excellence is acknowledged by audiences and commentators around the world--can be attributed to the historic investment made in Canadian artists by the Government of Canada through the CBC and the Canada Council for the Arts.

Excessive cuts to CBC's appropriations over the past three decades, however, has resulted in seriously diminished investments in Canadian arts and reduced reflection of the regions and localities of the country and the world. It is instructive to read the following from the report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Our Cultural Sovereignty, the Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting : There is also cause for serious concern about the production and exhibition of English-language drama.

Except in Quebec, where audiences are entertained and invigorated by original, home-grown dramatic productions, American programming dominates the airwaves to an extent that is largely unknown and unimaginable in any other country outside of the United States itself.... Canadians seldom have the opportunity to see their own lives and communities reflected in non-news programming in the places where they live. Four years on, not very much has changed. A word of caution: We live in the age of metrics, in which increasingly it is felt that anything worth supporting can and must be measured.

So we spend a great deal of time, effort, and money measuring anything that can be measured, and a lot of things that really can't. In the arts we can measure all kinds of things, but we have no way of measuring the impact of that moment in the relationship of artists with audience or a participant with activity when a person gains a new understanding of herself or himself or another person, of a community, or the world at large--that electrifying moment, perception or realization, that can alter belief or behaviour or transform a life.

That is not susceptible to measurement, and that ultimately is the purpose and meaning and highest value of art, whether live or broadcast. We need to acknowledge the value of what is not measurable and support it precisely because its value is beyond measurement. What is true for the arts in general is true of the public broadcaster.

While its reduced means has rendered the CBC a shadow of its former self with regard to its promotion of Canadian arts and culture, it retains the potential to be the most significant arts and culture institution in the country and the most pervasive purveyor of Canadian arts and culture. Two decades or so ago, we, the arts sector, swallowed whole the idea that the way to long-term sustainability was to make strong financial arguments in support of our activities. So we did that, and with some success.

However, in making those arguments, we too often neglected the other compelling arguments on the arts--those associated with the quality of life in our communities, salutary effects on health, public safety, education, the justice system, urban regeneration, community pride, social cohesion, and the personal and social development of young people, as well as the nature of our relationships with ourselves and one another, the nature of our humanity, and our place in the world--those things that defy easy financial analysis.

We are concerned that a preoccupation with measurement will become simply another excuse to ignore what makes art special and irreplaceable. So we ask the committee to remain open to those elements and values of art, and the public broadcaster's role in creating and promoting them so they are accorded the value they deserve. With specific regard to the role of the CBC, we believe the following--and more, but for now.... We believe there is a need for the CBC to be more active in commissioning and presenting new work by Canadian artists and performances by Canadian performers, and paying them properly.

The CBC must continue to take a leadership role in providing as appropriate on all its platforms a diversity of programming, including historic and contemporary arts of all kinds, that has as its hallmark artistic excellence, intellectual rigour, and Canadian origination.

(0915) The making of art necessarily involves risk. The CBC must be prepared to take risks also and it must be supported in doing so. We believe the CBC must present a distinctively and honestly and unabashedly Canadian perspective. We believe that important cultural activities take place in every community in this land and that the CBC needs to be more present in the regions and localities of Canada to recognize, capture, and reflect these activities to the communities themselves and to the people of Canada.

We believe it is time to relieve the CBC of the necessity and the responsibility of competing with commercial broadcasters for advertising revenue. The CBC does not exist to deliver ears and eyes to commercial interests. It exists to be and do all that is set out in the mandate as described in the Broadcasting Act of 1991. The CBC should be held to that mandate and should be provided by the Government of Canada with sufficient funds to do the job properly. A properly funded and strongly supported public broadcaster is a fundamental element of a modern, democratic, autonomous, and sovereign nation.

I'll give the last words to some others deeply concerned about the health of this country and its arts. From an artist in Vancouver: I love the CBC. It's ridiculous, really, but it's true. I feel it is wounded right now, but I have sincere faith in this creation of ours. Canadian culture is a vital, living culture that is the equal of any in the world. Its work should be broadcast to the people of our country and to the whole world.

And from writer, critic, advocate, and now Mayor of Lions Bay, Max Wyman, in The Defiant Imagination, Why Culture Matters : The issue is the authenticity of the idea of Canada, which rests in the books it is able to read, the music it is able to make, the TV and film it is able to watch. It has to do with what the bureaucrats and politicians call “creative capital”—the ability of Canadians to write those books and make those films, to create and innovate.

Ideally, what should emerge from this environment is work that is intelligent, truthful and sceptical, work free to shine a uniquely Canadian light on the issues of the day. Quality must be given fair opportunity to find its place. We suggest that a greater investment in the CBC would achieve that. Thank you very much.

(0920) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Wilhelm-Boyles. We'll now take the presentation from the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and then we can ask questions. Ms. Ironside. Ms. Anne Ironside (Friends of Canadian Broadcasting) : Thank you. Mr. Chairman and committee members, welcome to Vancouver. My name is Anne Ironside. I'm a Vancouver-based member of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting's advisory council and a strong supporter of Canadian public broadcasting. Friends is a watchdog group for Canadian programming and the English-language audiovisual system, with the support of 100,000 Canadians, 25% of whom live in B.C.

Appearing with me is Ian Morrison, a Friends spokesperson. As you know, Friends submitted a brief to your committee on February 26. We've also encouraged our supporters to actively participate in your important investigation. I want to make four points, our essential message. The first is that the CBC board of directors should be chosen at arm's length from patronage, drawn from the best and the brightest Canadians, and this board should have the authority to hire, and if necessary fire, its CEO.

Almost four years ago the Lincoln report recommended that: In the interests of fuller accountability and arm's length from government, nominations to the CBC's board should be made by a number of sources.... [ Technical difficulty--Editor ] Is it somebody's cellphone? The Chair : I don't have one, so it's not me. Okay, please proceed. Ms. Anne Ironside : Nominations to the CBC board should be made by a number of sources, and the CBC president should be hired and be responsible to the board.

The second point is that Parliament should instruct the CBC's board to attach a high priority to the Broadcasting Act's mandate to reflect Canada and its regions through national and regional audiences while serving the special needs of these regions. The third point is that Parliament should invite CBC's board to develop a business plan to address its regional responsibilities, wean itself from dependence on television advertising and foreign programs, and strengthen the presentation of Canadians' stories in prime time.

The fourth point I want to highlight is that to fund that plan Parliament should offer to increase the CBC's budget drastically by annual increments of at least $100 million over the next five years. We see it as an investment in updating Canada's social infrastructure. As the Lincoln report made clear, such an investment would bring Canadians only to the average of OECD countries' spending on civic pride. If you put it in this context, by Canada would be spending 15¢ per person per day to support a vigorous, locally relevant public broadcasting system. Ian. (0925) [ Translation ] Mr.

Ian Morrison (Spokesperson, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting) : I will be summarizing the main recommendations contained in our brief of February 26. If you wish, we would be pleased to discuss them further. [ English ] As an additional contribution to your important work, we have also commissioned, and we offer you today, a research report from CMRI, the Canadian Media Research Inc. The title is Trends in TV Audiences & Public Opinion, 1996-2006 , with special reference to CBC English television.

This report provides data on such topics as TV set ownership, direct-to-home satellite subscription trends, over-the-air reception and new video technologies. It also features trends in TV viewing levels, market share, and audiences for Canadian programming, as well as a review of public opinion regarding television, and CBC in particular. I would like to touch, Mr. Chair, on highlights from this research. First is the necessity of maintaining over-the-air transmission facilities in all parts of Canada.

CMRI's report indicates that 10% of Canadians depend on over-the-air transmission to receive their TV signals, which is three million Canadians. This is not expected to change in the coming years. Because they access fewer channels, these Canadians account for only 7% of viewing hours. The percentage of over-the-air TV reception is much higher among French-speaking viewers, approximately 15%.

Fourteen per cent of the viewing of CBC's English television network is over the air: in Windsor it's 51%; in Leeds--Grenville, 32%; in Peace River north, 24%; in the Kootenays, 17%; Fredericton, 11%; here in Vancouver it's 10%. According to BBM, there are 26,100 people who watch TV off-air in Okanagan-Kamloops--our friends in Save our CBC Kamloops are on your agenda this afternoon--and here in Vancouver there are 188,700 people receiving their television over the air.

In view of the importance of over-the-air reception to three million Canadians, we were more than somewhat concerned to read in a CBC television policy submission to the CRTC last August that “over-the-air transmission will remain a viable distribution technology for the distribution of television programming only in major urban centres”. CMRI conducted a special survey of the CRTC last autumn among a representative sample of 1,000 Canadians who do not subscribe to cable or satellite TV. In the survey CMRI asked: If you could receive only one station off-air, what would that be?

Forty-five per cent of English-speaking respondents said CBC TV and 49% of French-speaking respondents said SRC TV, far ahead of CTV, Global, TVA, TQS. Friends therefore urges you to take up this matter with CBC next week and to remind their management that all Canadians pay for the corporation and all are entitled to receive its programming, whether they live in major urban centres or elsewhere. We also wish to raise with you some questions about cbc.ca. That's another subject you've announced as a priority for you: the new media. This arises from CMRI's research.

According to BBM--that's the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement--data, Canadians use the Internet for non-work purposes for an average of fewer than four hours a week, far less than the 26 hours they spend watching TV. Even teenagers spend twice as much time watching TV as they do surfing. Including usage at work, Comscore reports that Canadians spend five and a half hours weekly on the net. Now, cbc.ca ranked 20th among Canadian domains in March 2006. Its monthly reach was 4.2 million users, but it had only 475,000 daily users, and they spent an average of fewer than seven minutes on cbc.ca.

This represents one five-hundredth of all the Canadian web traffic. At any given moment in March 2006, cbc.ca was serving only 2,200 users, approximately the number of viewers assembled by a very small specialty TV channel.

(0930) The corporation has not been forthcoming with Canadians about the cost of cbc.ca. We estimate that cbc.ca costs at least $20 million net of revenues, and employs 5% of CBC's workforce. It's a legitimate question for parliamentarians to find out the extent of taxpayer subsidy to cbc.ca at a time when, for example, the English television network is retreating from its commitment to air Canadian programs in prime time. We urge the committee to probe management on this topic. You will be asserting Parliament's right to determine priorities for the expenditure of taxpayers' money. As you know, CBC television's prime time

schedule depends heavily on sports to the exclusion of other programming. Over the 2005-06 year--the broadcast year ends on August 31--23% of CBC television's

schedule was sports. This accounted for 48%, so almost half, of the total CBC prime time audience. Most of this was for professional sports. By contrast, less than 5% of CBC TV's prime time audience watched Canadian drama series or movies of the week. Foreign dramas, on the other hand, accounted for three times the audience of indigenous drama on CBC TV. Friends recommends that the committee insist that CBC television present Canadian programs in prime time as it did just seven years ago, when 96% of its prime time

schedule was Canadian compared with just 79% today. This represents a quintupling of foreign programs in prime time on CBC television over those seven years. We've given you a little chart in this presentation that shows what CBUT Vancouver was offering in prime time seven years ago, in a representative period, and what it is offering today. Friends has published red charts over the past two decades to map Canadian and foreign programs offered by over-the-air broadcasters in ten Canadian cities. We wish to table with this committee today our most recent red chart. I think you should have a copy.

It depicts what has been available over the air here in Vancouver during the past three weeks. CBC's Canadian offerings in prime time compare with 39% for CHUM/City; with 30% for Global Vancouver; with 18% for CTV; and with 16% each for Global Victoria and CHUM's A-Channel in Victoria. Some of us were present seven years ago when CBC's president was invited before this committee to explain why he had decided to terminate CBC's regional supper-hour programs. I distinctly recall your colleague Mr. Scott's intervention on that occasion. This committee mobilized a huge outpouring of public sentiment then, forcing Mr.

Rabinovitch to compromise with 30 minutes of regional news during the supper hour. We find it an ironic but positive development that CBC has now come to its senses and has announced plans to restore 60-minute supper-hour regional news. The CMRI research we have tabled today may explain this turnaround. When CMRI's TV quality survey interviewed Canadians about their interest in various types of programs, 61% said they were “very interested” in local news. No other program category came close. The second most popular category was national news, at 46%.

The third was international news, at 33%, followed by Hollywood movies, at 27%. CMRI's research revealed that local news on television is the top priority of the Canadian people. [ Translation ] I would like to thank you for your attention. I would also like to thank you for inviting us to take

part in your hearing here, in Vancouver. [ English ] We would be pleased to make ourselves available if you would like to explore these issues with us on future occasions. We wish the committee great success in this important investigation. The Chair : Thank you very much. We will turn to questions, keeping our questions relatively short, if we can. Again, we'll allow roughly five minutes. Ms. Fry, please--and welcome.

(0935) Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Thank you. I want to thank Anne, Ian, and Andrew for coming in front of us today. I have a couple of questions. First, to Andrew, you said in your presentation that the CBC needs no modification. I'd like you to elaborate on that, because many people have told us that the CBC isn't actually moving as quickly as it could to utilize the new digital medium. How do you feel the CBC could do that? My next question, which is open to Ian and Anne as well, is with regard to the CBC's mandate. It says that it must be predominantly and distinctively Canadian.

Do you think it is doing that? It also says that the CBC must reflect Canada and its regions. One only has to look at the little red chart here to ask a very important question--namely, do you think the CBC reflects its regions through national and regional radio and television? Or do you think it should? And finally, does the CBC respect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada? Those are the three basic questions. Andrew. Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles : Thank you. The mandate itself is neutral on the distribution means. That's why we don't feel the mandate needs any overhaul at all.

The mandate, which you've already referred to in part, is that the CBC is to reflect Canada and its regions, its national and regional audiences, serving the special needs of those regions. It's to contribute to an exchange of cultural expression, and to be in English or French, striving to be of equivalent quality in English and French. It's to contribute to shared national consciousness and identity, and to be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means.

According to this mandate, the CBC is able to engage whatever means to get the message out in the most efficient and effective way. So we don't see that the mandate itself needs any overhaul at all. With regard to some of the other issues you've raised, I think the CBC is getting better at reflecting the cultural diversity of the country. It could improve. I think it would improve if in fact it were truly rooted in the communities. Many of our communities are increasingly diverse. Of necessity, then, a greater reflection of those communities would produce a greater reflection of diversity.

One major concern we have is in fact the lack of rootedness established by the CBC in communities. I can't remember the other question. Hon. Hedy Fry : I wanted to know if you thought it was fulfilling its mandate. Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles : I don't think it's fulfilling its mandate--in any regard, frankly. Full disclosure here: I am an immigrant, coming many years ago from Ireland. I have lived in this country for 30 years, in literally every part of it. For a period of about 15 years I worked for the CBC in various parts of the country as an on-air person.

I worked as a manager also, particularly in the north, in both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. So I've experienced the CBC in a variety of ways. I have to tell you that I am no longer as strong a consumer of the CBC as I used to be. I don't find it serves my needs. I find the programming has less and less excellence as we go along. I still have many contacts within the CBC, and I find that the morale within the CBC is not strong. Fewer and fewer people are being asked to do more and more, and with fewer and fewer resources. They do not have the time to do proper research all the time.

They're constantly running around trying to find stories from newspapers, and not generating original research. These are vast generalizations, of course, but some at the CBC are saying it. The fact is that the programming I hear is increasingly banal, particularly on CBC Radio One at popular times. I'm so tired of hearing people phone in and tell me about their first kiss, for heaven's sake. This is Canadian programming? This is not programming that is in any way curated. This is cheap programming. It fills time cheaply for the CBC.

It buys a little more time for producers and journalists to do the work they're doing. I do understand why it happens, but I don't like it. I don't think anybody at the CBC likes it either, but it's a product of diminishing resources. In that regard, I don't believe the CBC is able to carry out its mandate to the fullest. It certainly isn't doing it for the regions.

(0940) Ms. Anne Ironside : On the question about the regions, I think in B.C. it's been particularly difficult for urban B.C. to understand what's going on in rural B.C., and the CBC hasn't helped us much in that. I keep an eye on these things, because I'm interested in the whole question of the way work is flowing, and I've been amazed that the pine beetle crisis took a long time for Vancouverites to wake up to. Once again, the CBC didn't help with that.

It's interesting to me that in the Vancouver Sun this morning there's a big map of B.C. that says here are the bust areas, here are the boom areas, and that's great, but I wouldn't have got that if I had just sat and watched the CBC in Vancouver. I am a big fan of the CBC, but I certainly think that Vancouverites are very smug and unknowledgeable about what's going on in the rest of the province. Mr. Ian Morrison : On the distinctively Canadian question, obviously CBC is distinct; it's a question of degree. For us, the reason we're focusing our remarks on the English television

part is that it seems to be the exception. Of course we are a group that can mention the anglophone perspective, but we're not really in a position to comment to you on SRC matters. But it's my impression as an observer that the French-language side of the CBC is much stronger in that regard than the English-language side, and that the radio side of the English is much stronger than the television side.

I remember the late Darryl Duke telling me once, with an ironic smile on his face, that when we get the next earthquake here in Vancouver it had better not be on a weekend, because CBC television won't be able to cover it. So it's the impoverishment of regional reflection, particularly in television, that's at issue. That is something that of course requires resources. I am aware, through back channels, of a proposal that's doing the rounds to strengthen CBC English radio regional and to introduce programming capacity in ten large Canadian cities that now have none, including Hamilton.

So I see that as evidence that CBC's management is moving in the direction of addressing those. On multicultural, I would say it's getting better. Finally, to turn this into a recommendation, as you may know, every seven years all major broadcasters, station groups, have to go to the CRTC to have their group licences renewed. CBC was to have done that this year. Although it hasn't been published, I believe their applications are sitting in files at the CRTC right now and they've been given a one-year extension. The CRTC was too busy with other things.

Well, when the CRTC does review the CBC's licence, they should ask exactly the questions that you're asking. And the CRTC and this committee should lean on or advocate or push or encourage the CRTC to do that job, not just in Gatineau, Quebec, but around Canada. You may remember that in the CRTC did that. They came to the Landmark Hotel up on Robson Street, and more than a hundred people from Vancouver came and talked to them. They got a feeling about Canada. So the CRTC should be holding its CBC licence renewal hearings around Canada, not in the bunker in Hull.

Maybe Parliament could tell them that would be a good idea. The Chair : Thank you for that. We'll move on to Madame Bourgeois. (0945) [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I find your comments this morning extremely interesting. They are music to my hear, particularly when it comes to culture. That is something very important to me. I am from Quebec, where we are trying to preserve our culture. My impression is that you have a very deeply felt fear—and perhaps Mr.

Boyles expressed this the best—of loosing your Canadian culture to the American culture. Could you please elaborate more on your explanations. Even though you spoke from the heart to tell us what is going on, I would still like to hear more about this. [ English ] Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles : Thank you. Yes, I do speak from the heart. As an immigrant, I perhaps have a greater appreciation of this country than even those who were born here and take it for granted. I have lived in literally every part of it, and I have travelled to every

part in which I have not lived, from sea to sea to sea. So I am a passionate Canadian. For me, the CBC is fundamental to the Canadian identity. I am not going to be anti-American, because I'm not. It's an extremely interesting culture to the south of us, but it's huge and it is rapacious and it seeks to spread its culture wherever. I see this country as a very special country. When I talked earlier about this experiment...it's a wonderful experiment.

It is an attempt to create a country that's different from anything that has ever existed on the face of the world before, in its inclusivity, in the kinds of relationships it can build, in the kinds of maturity of life in all its forms that it can provide for its citizens. It's not finding it easy, particularly as tensions mount outside of the country's boundaries amongst the relatives of those who now reside within the country's boundaries.

I believe we need to assert an identity that is enormously inclusive and tolerant and that enables people to share with each other their stories, their lives, their feelings, and their passions in a peaceful and effective way. I believe we're succeeding to a very large degree. I believe the CBC is fundamental to that quest, and it disturbs me that the CBC is often looked at as just another commodity, just another thing that the state has to support. CBC is fundamental to enabling this Canadian experiment to succeed, and I am utterly passionate about it. I love this country. I choose to live here.

I owe so much to this country. It's a very special place, and I think we lose sight of that. I think we lose sight of the ability of the CBC, of the national broadcaster, to reflect this country to itself. We are not insisting that the CBC do it well enough and we're not funding them to do it well enough. That's the problem. [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : Mr. Boyles, you seem to be saying that CBC wants to compete with others. Do you think, in the name of culture, CBC should choose to provide service to all communities and disregard competition?

Do you think CBC should opt for culture and broadcast everywhere in the regions? Is that what you are saying? (0950) [ English ] Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles : I don't think the CBC should have to compete for commercial revenue at all. That's not its job, and it brings it into conflict with the commercial sector. The CBC needs to be properly funded so that it can do its job without having to be concerned with deriving money from commercial interests. That simply makes sense to me.

It's then relieved of certain responsibilities and can then take on the responsibilities imposed by the mandate in a full and proper way. [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : Your comments are similar to those of Ms. Ironside, who is going for greater regional and local presence on the part of CBC. Our committee has just come from Yellowknife, where we could see that some communities, including the francophones outside Quebec and aboriginals, are calling upon the CBC to provide local service in the regions. Would you agree to have the service expanded throughout the Northwest Territories? [ English ] Ms.

Anne Ironside : I'm sorry, but the French is not coming through. [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : Perhaps Mr. Morrison could answer the question. Mr. Ian Morrison : The simple answer is yes. [ English ] If I could magnify the answer and pick up a little bit from your interchange with my colleague, you used the words “fear of losing one's culture”, English-taught. The English-speaking people of Canada have been exposed to American audiovisual culture much before anyone else in the world. In fact, the whole world is now exposed to it, but we were the first.

We've coined the phrase “satellite rain” in Canada for that type of arrival. It means that English-speaking children who are 12 years old have gone to school for 6,000 hours but have watched 12,000 hours of television, of which 9,000 or 10,000 is life in Los Angeles or Miami. Audiovisual colonization is a major issue. On the question of fear, a resource that you might find useful is on the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting website. All of the public opinion polls that we have commissioned for the past or 12 years are up there.

What Ipsos Reid, our pollster, is telling us is that around questions of culture they are noticing among anglophone Canadians that there is less of a negative fear factor and more of a positive patriotism developing, and it is just that the audiovisual system is not reinforced. So if there was one thing your committee could do through this study, it would be to put before parliamentary decision-makers that what you have just described is the essential mission of the broadcaster. [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : Actually, Mr.

Morrison, what you are experiencing as an anglophone Canadian is exactly the same as what we have experienced as Quebeckers. I would just give you one example, and then ask you a very specific question. This is the second time I have come to Vancouver and I have been trying to watch the news in French on Radio-Canada. When I go to the CBC website, I get the news in English. At the Radio-Canada site, in French, all I can find is cartoon characters. That is really quite something.

Although I am only visiting, and while perhaps it might not be possible to get RDI, the all-news network, I think I should at least be able to get the news in French. Like aboriginals in Vancouver and the Inuit in the North, I need to have access to the world and to find expression of my culture locally, regionally and internationally. My question to Mr. Morrison is very specific. You said that someone in your group or one of your acquaintances had done a study of the Internet. If I understand correctly, Radio-Canada apparently invested $20 million in developing the Canada.ca site.

(0955) Mr. Ian Morrison : No, that was the Radio-Canada.ca site. Ms. Diane Bourgeois : So it was Radio-Canada.ca. You also said that in your opinion this was not a very good use of the money, because very few people could use the Internet and go to the Radio-Canada.ca. Did I understand you correctly? We went to Yellowknife to visit the Radio-Canada facilities there, and we were told that the viewership was very high. So could you give me some figures on this? [ English ] Mr.

Ian Morrison : On the first point, by the way, I find I can never trust hotel televisions to faithfully reflect what is available in the surrounding population. Sometimes they do little things, like catering to American tourists, and that type of thing. It may well be that if you were not in this hotel, you could have received better services in the other official language. I'm not sure, but I've have had trouble with hotels before. But on your point about cbc.ca or radio-canada.ca, in the situation of a shortage, priorities have to be addressed.

We advocate more money, as you know, but we believe that the CBC has not been forthcoming about the costs of its Internet operations. We have picked up bits of information about the number of employees, advertising availabilities on their site, and we're making an estimate that something in the range of $20 million is being spent there. We're asking why, if they can't afford to put Canadian programming on prime time on their largest television networks, they afford this. We're giving you numbers that show that, at any given time, only 2,000 Canadians are on there.

Over a day, there are fewer than half a million Canadians, and over a month, four million Canadians. The French television network of the CBC reaches five million Canadians each week. The English television network reaches million Canadians. That's five times more than the number of people who read the The Globe and Mail or five times more than read La Presse , according to the data in our study. Now, cbc.ca is the 20th largest website in Canada. We think it's wonderful. We use it.

But we think you should be asking questions about priorities within the corporation, just as you should ask a question about how they can afford to invest in Sirius satellite radio and lose money on that every year when they can't afford to put television programs on in prime time. [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : Thank you. [ English ] Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles : Just to follow up on the fear factor, I have to say that Canadian artists, in my experience, are not fearful. Canadian artists look around them and they find that they rank very highly among the artists of the world.

Certainly Canadian artists are highly regarded and are all over the place in leadership roles. What artists fear is that the institutions of their country do not fully support them, do not make their successes known within their own country, so that very often they have to go somewhere else to keep being successful. And that's really unfortunate. The Chair : Thank you very much. Ms. Savoie. Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm replacing Mr. Angus here today, and so I come perhaps as less as an expert in this issue than as an ordinary Canadian holding an elected position.

I found your presentations both really interesting and touching. When I was asked to come here today, I realized that I have gone from being a strong supporter of the CBC to being a strong supporter of the idea of the CBC. And I find myself, like Mr. Wilhelm-Boyles, listening less and less and watching less and less of the CBC. I don't find that it does reflect Canada or its regions, and it certainly doesn't appear to me to be serving the special needs of Canada.

Considering the increased number of channels and the accessibility we have to everything happening, to globalized forms of media, I have a couple of questions. First, there were a number of recommendations I heard made today and that I read about in some of the briefs to eliminate patronage appointments, to make CBC less dependent on advertising, and to ensure stable funding. Would that be enough to put us back in the right direction to have a CBC that really does respond to that mandate, or are we missing something else to get us back there? That's my first question.

(1000) Mr. Ian Morrison : There is the issue of leadership. Ms. Denise Savoie : Could you talk about that? Mr. Ian Morrison : Yes. Obviously, with all the money in the world, there still needs to be some type of vision, which is why in the end portion of our presentation we called on Parliament to take the lead in saying this is what we want in this institution and we would like the board of directors to come to us with a plan, and then that is something Parliament would consider investing in. This would take the spending up to something like the median for the western democracies.

And your famous predecessor, Mr. Chair, and I think friend, Clifford Lincoln, was very proud of page of that report. You were a member of that committee. That page shows where Canada is in relation to the western democracies, because in public broadcasting it's very modest. But the key is the leadership. In my work I get to see other public broadcasters. I get to see some of the German public broadcasters, French, Scandinavian, Swiss, the Japanese. I do not mention the Americans. They have senior professional leadership that understands the business.

The tradition in this country has been for the Prime Minister to appoint the president of the CBC. His broadcasting experience has not been—apparently, if you look back—a criterion that is deemed important, and that even goes down to appointments that the president makes. I don't want to get into personalities, but you would need new leadership as an ingredient of basing this new case.

It would be very important, and that goes back to a board of directors that is equipped to do its job—in the phrase we use, “the best and the brightest Canadians”—who would then go out and hire and, if necessary, replace the management. That's the missing ingredient. Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles : There's not much I could add except, as a one-time employee of the CBC, to tell you that I joined the CBC because of the best and the brightest.

At the time it seemed to me that the best and the brightest either worked for the CBC or came through the doors of the CBC and became program providers on the CBC, and it was a very exciting place to be. I believe it has everything to do with leadership and vision. During my 15 years or so of relationship with the CBC, I could name the people—I won't—who brought that vision and that passion for what we were doing and that understanding of the nature of the country and the nature and responsibility of public broadcasting.

There weren't that many of them, but they did exist, and you knew there was different leadership at the top. You felt it, right down to Inuvik, for heaven's sake. You knew there was somebody there who cared, who knew what he was doing—and usually it was a “he”, of course, in those days, and I guess it still is—and was able to lead and provide the vision that we were able to follow. It has everything to do with that. Money alone will not get the job done, but without money, a leader is hamstrung.

(1005) Ms. Denise Savoie : I think it's Ursula Franklin who says we've gone from good governance to being administered. The value, it seems to me, with globalization and as we've embarked on many of these international trade agreements where we've divested of our government's ability to protect public interest..... As we're reviewing the CBC's mandate--and you suggest it's fine as it goes, but it's just not able to fulfill it--is there a need or an interest in having our public radio have a mandate to protect our democratic institutions? Democracy and culture are closely related.

I look at another issue that's uppermost in the minds of many Canadians today, and that's our ability to fight climate change, so sustainability--are those issues that the CBC, within its mandate, should be taking more seriously? Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles : The CBC, as the national public broadcaster, should be taking more seriously anything that's a major threat to the people of the country. Obviously something like climate change should be taken seriously. It's been on the horizon for more than 20 years, and only in the last year have we started taking it seriously. I think that's a dereliction of duty.

But there are other issues as well. After climate change, the most serious threat facing this country is, I believe, the increasing diversity of its communities. That in itself is not the threat; it's the ability of communities to deal with that and to live harmoniously. After climate change, this will probably be the issue of the next or 20 years. I see certainly the CBC dealing with that, but I think more could be done. I'm not sure what you mean here by defending democracy.

I believe democracy is best defended by openness and broad consultation, by access to information, by discussion and debate with each other. I'm not sure if you were implying any kind of state regulation...? Ms. Denise Savoie : No, no. Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles : Right. I didn't think you would be. Ms. Denise Savoie : I was implying what you just suggested--that is, increasing that dialogue within Canada. Our community has become the whole world, but our physical community, reflecting each other, is missing. Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles : Absolutely. The Chair : Thank you very much.

Did you want to reply to that as well? Please make it short, because I have a few questions I'd like to ask. Ms. Anne Ironside : Okay. I want to respond to your comment about democracy. It's so essential to have a media that represents a balance of perspectives. I think we have an example to the south of where media concentration has not allowed that balance of perspectives. I had the great good luck of once meeting Graham Spry, who said, when he was promoting the concept of Canada having a public broadcasting system, that it was the state or the United States. That's the sort of fire in the belly he had.

As a citizen watching all of this unfold, I would say that from 1984, which is when Friends got going, you've had a slow hemorrhaging of that. I'm amazed they do as well as they do. I understand the morale is very low. I would hope that a leadership that communicated a real vision of the CBC's role in the world would do a lot to improve that morale. Thank you.

(1010) The Chair : Thank you. I am a member of Parliament from southwestern Ontario. Speaking of arts and culture, the Stratford Shakespearean Festival is in my riding. I live three miles from Stratford. There has been a lot of growth in the 50-plus years the Stratford Festival has been there. I do know that arts and culture needs to be nurtured, and there has been government help with the festival. I'm going to make a couple of comments first. One, we're used to television being available over the regular airwaves, but when we get into cable and those types of things....

I had a call about three weeks ago from my mother. Since I've been a member of Parliament, one of the most interesting channels for her is CPAC. She never misses question period, and she's always looking to see me on television. It's a personal thing. What happened was that she didn't have a box; she had basic television cable, and she got CPAC on channel 59, I think, or whatever it was. Her television went up to about channel 75. Wouldn't you know, they changed CPAC to channel 104. That is basic, and it is supposed to be provided for by the cable companies.

Well, I guess it's basic cable up to channel whatever it is. She then had to go out and get a box. She got a couple of other things with that, but she pays an extra $14-and-something now to get what should be basic. People should have that opportunity, I think, to get what is supposed to be a basic part of their licensing. I just wanted to make that response. Yes, Mr. Morrison. Mr. Ian Morrison : The problem you're dealing with comes from what I describe as an unregulated monopoly. Ted Rogers is a great Canadian, but somebody working for him made the decision that this would drive the penetration of digital.

It costs your mother $14 a month, and it would cause other people not to see CPAC. If anybody says CPAC is not important to democracy, I'd argue with that. I want to relate that to your CBC investigation. Oh, by the way, they didn't move just CPAC; they also moved the Ontario legislature to a place you couldn't get it. Maybe they didn't think that was important. One thing that Rogers has done in Ontario, which we are getting a lot of complaints about, is that they have moved the carrier for radio stations to their digital.

You have to pay more to get radio over cable, which is important in big cities with high-rises such as where we are here or in Toronto. And they've eliminated CBC Radio Two from the offering--they have CBC Radio One--and yet they have three Vancouver radio stations available to the people of Ontario on their cable system. The CRTC has the authority to make sure this doesn't happen, and they have delegated it to the cable monopolies. You're raising a big subject...maybe for your next investigation. The Chair : Okay. Thank you. I have one question, and then we'll have one small question from Ms. Bourgeois.

How should CBC take advantage of new media technologies to build audiences? I know it's something we've talked about, whether it's the WIPO treaty and all of this, but in the end there's always this new media thing. It's my understanding that we're on the breaking edge of new media. Someone related to us the other day that by the time we're done with this exercise and we bring in the report it could almost be redundant, because new media is changing so much. Again, how can the CBC take advantage of new media? I know that in the one report here, it says it's very small right now.

When we were in Yellowknife yesterday, they were trying to bring up their web page. They have a new person in charge, and they're trying to bring that in. I put that question forward to you, please.

(1015) Mr. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles : I have to confess to you that I haven't done enough thinking about that, and my constituency hasn't done enough thinking about it either, because we're still concerned with the vehicles of mainstream performance opportunity. There will be others. You will hear from other presenters, I'm quite sure, as to how they feel the CBC could take advantage, could better exploit new media. I'm just not qualified to do so this morning. Mr.

Ian Morrison : For example, to give some praise to the management of the CBC for a change, management on the English side of CBC Radio—I do not know the French-language examples in SRC's radio—have developed Radio 3, which is not broadcast over the air, it's broadcast on the Internet. It is targeting the young demographic with a style of music. They are one of the leaders in podcasting. Millions of downloads are available on your iPod, or something like that, where you're listening, when you like, to a CBC-generated program that you get the same way as you get any other type of podcast.

Half of those podcasts, Ms. Chalmers, the vice-president of English radio, tells me, are from non-Canadians. So it's becoming part of the Canadian outreach to the world. When the CBC appears before the committee, ask those radio people about new media and building audiences. They're addressing their demographic issue through the web. The Chair : Thank you. Ms. Bourgeois. [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is to Mr. Morrison. Earlier, during your presentation, you mentioned that Mr.

Rabinovitch had made a compromise at one point and had allowed for a 30-minute regional newscast. Could you tell us more about this? [ English ] Mr. Ian Morrison : First, I'll just go back. Mr. Rabinovitch was appointed at the end of 1999. Shortly thereafter, the CRTC came down with its licences for CBC for the next seven years. He held a huge press conference in Ottawa, which was very well attended. I think Le Devoir had a cartoon about this, where he attacked the CRTC, and they called him “Rambo-binovitch” and had him with a machine gun, walking into the office of Françoise Bertrand.

You may remember this, as I read your newspapers. What happened after Mr. Rabinovitch got in was this. He was upset, in my understanding, at being instructed by the CRTC to do more regionally relevant programming. He was quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying, “I have a mandate from the Prime Minister”—meaning that Prime Minister Chrétien, who appointed him, had told him that he didn't have to do what the CRTC told him.

So he decided he was going to take CBC English television out of the supper-hour news, which means that from o'clock to o'clock in Vancouver, you used to get--in fact, we've given you a year 2000.... The programming starts at o'clock, so it won't do the job. He announced that, and a lot of people were upset. We were upset, but more importantly, your committee was upset. I distinctly recall a crowded Commons committee room where Rabinovitch and his then vice-president, Harold Redekopp, were brought in, and they were perspiring at the end of three hours. I had to stand; there were no seats available. Mr.

Lincoln was in charge, and with Andy Scott, who's one of your colleagues on this committee today, he went after Rabinovitch very hard. So finally he went back to the board and then came back and said they would do 30 minutes of local programming and 30 minutes of national programming out of Vancouver, called Canada Now . It's that compromise that they have now cancelled, and they're going back to what existed when Rabinovitch arrived. It's the failure of leadership, but it's a win for local programming. (1020) [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : Excellent.

Thank you very much. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you very much for your presentations and for your answers here today. I know everyone around the table has more questions, but we do have a presentation coming forward. We've allowed an extra 20 minutes, so I think we have to get ready for the next presentation. Thank you very much for today. We'll have a five-minute recess. (1020)

(1030) The Chair : We welcome our next set of presenters. We're off

schedule a bit, but we will give them some time because we can run the next session into the hour and a half we had scheduled for lunch. I will go with the first presenter, who is from Music BC. If you would, please go ahead, sir. Mr. Bob D'Eith (Executive Director, Music BC) : Thank you very much. My name is Bob D'Eith. I'm the executive director of Music BC. We're a non-profit society that supports and promotes the spirit, development, and growth of the B.C. music community provincially, nationally, and internationally. I'm also a music lawyer. I've been a music lawyer for 17 years.

I'm on the national advisory board for FACTOR, the Foundation to Assist Canadian Talent on Recordings. I'm also a board member of CIRPA, the Canadian Independent Record Production Association. Amongst other things, I'm also a recording artist. Hopefully I bring an interesting perspective to the table today, and I'll try to keep my comments as brief as possible so that we can get to questions. In terms of the mandate, one of the things that we feel is very important, obviously, is to have Canadian subject matter in CBC's mandate.

But we really think it's very important and it's incumbent on CBC to stress world-class production first. Without question, it's important to have Canadian subject matter. That's what happens with CBC news. It's world-class and world-respected. It's a unique Canadian perspective on the world. We don't have the same jingoistic flavour as the U.S. has with their network news. We have one of the best newscasts in the world. That's why we have so many great comedians. We have a unique perspective. Anything we produce is uniquely Canadian, inherently.

I think it's really important for CBC if they can recognize that you don't have to produce something that gets points on the mandate. A good example might be Little Mosque on the Prairie , which gets a lot of points on the mandate. It's ethnic, it's the Prairies, and it's regional. It gets all these things, but I think CBC has to flip a bit and think more in terms of excellent production first that is Canadian. It's more about strategic planning. This applies to music as well. My primary focus is on the music industry, not on other sides, so I'll try to focus on that.

The mandate of CBC should be developing and promoting Canadian recording artists, composers, and live performers, whether they're in an orchestra, a rock band, a jazz band, or whatever. Whatever genre they are, the fact that they're Canadian and producing music makes the music inherently Canadian itself. On multicultural, French-language, and aboriginal music, I obviously think CBC has to play a stronger role in making sure these art forms are expressed not only to Canada but to the world, because we have an incredible mosaic of music within Canada.

The music industry is challenged right now by digital technology. Digital technology has caused a massive contraction in the music industry in terms of the industry side. Retail stores are closing down. Major labels are losing billions of dollars. Right now we're in a position in which we're looking at major layoffs and major problems in the music industry, so we're in a transition. However, what has happened on the positive side is that the major labels have lost their stranglehold on the music industry, and that has given an opportunity for the independent community to grow.

The business model itself is changing, and the Internet is really driving that right now. While the majors are only reporting 5% of legitimate download sales, in some cases the independent sector is reporting that 50% to 60% of its sales are online. Terry McBride of Nettwerk Records is now saying that maybe only 15% of a record label's revenue should be from traditional sales. In my report, I gave a press release that just came out from one of our local promoters. The whole thing was about MySpace and YouTube. There was nothing about anything else but the impact that was being made by the Internet.

What does all this mean to CBC? We've already seen cbc.ca, galaxie.ca, and of course, Radio 3. I would really encourage CBC to continue to enhance and develop the Internet presence, to create a community within this society, because right now we are seeing Canadian music going out all over the world on the Internet, and I think CBC could play a major role in that.

(1035) The challenge, I think, in listening to CBC Radio is that it jumps around from folk to rock to everything. It's very hard to do that. Then they broadcast it on satellite radio, and I think the problem is that's not the way most people experience music. They don't jump around the way CBC Radio is doing in terms of its broadcasts. If they are broadcasting on satellite radio through Sirius--I'll have some comments about that--I just think it's extremely important for CBC to continue developing online communities.

As for the traditional English radio, CBC Radio One and CBC Radio Two, in my report I printed out basic programming in a given week, and there's a clear emphasis, it seems, on classical and jazz music, which we support 100%, but I really believe that contemporary music, especially popular music, tends to be relegated to midnight, four in the morning, and other shows. It doesn't seem to be as much of a priority. I don't think just having it on the Internet on Radio is enough.

I think Radio is only broadcast on Sirius satellite radio, and we don't think this is a sufficient commitment to all genres of Canadian contemporary music. That brings up the CBC's involvement with Sirius radio. We definitely feel there are two points here: that CBC being involved with satellite radio really undermines the basic mandate of CBC. Satellite radio plays 95% American programming. There are a few Canadian channels on satellite radio, but Canadian music becomes ghettoized, in my opinion, and what happens there is that again the U.S. influence has dominated.

I think satellite radio has really gone around the CRTC Cancon regulations. Of course it's been approved, but I don't think CBC should be involved in Sirius because of that. The second thing is that the whole industry knew that satellite radio had a limited market potential. Huge amounts of money are being thrown out the window on satellite radio, and we don't feel that Canadian taxpayers should be involved in investing in satellite radio for the CBC.

One thing I thought I'd bring up in my report as well is that there seems to be this feeling that commercial radio can take care of genres that are on commercial radio. I've given a number of examples of commercial radio, and you'll see by some of the percentages that only 6.1% of all commercial radio is independent music. In fact, with indie rock it's only 1.7%; all the rest are major labels. Most artists out there are independent, and they're growing more and more. As the majors collapse, they're all becoming independent. We're seeing sometimes 2% of commercial radio supporting our budding recording artists.

I think CBC needs to fill that gap more. I think it's very important to do that. One of the things CBC could do is dovetail with Canada Council and FACTOR. We're putting millions of dollars into the music industry, so let's support them. Let's support FACTOR, let's support Canada Council, and let's do some programs around FACTOR and Canada Council. We're putting money into developing these artists; why don't we do something with CBC? Perhaps Radio Two could be involved with that in a more committed way. Another point we'd like to make is that we really think the BBC is a wonderful model for the CBC to look at.

I think I've given some examples of what the BBC director-general, Mark Thompson, has said with regard to music and their mandate. It's really interesting to see, with BBC, because the focus of their purpose and values, the way they set it out, is quality. They want to be a world leader. The word “British” only appears once on the entire page. BBC is distinctly British, but their focus is on quality first. They want to be a world leader in production.

(1040) CBC is known for some things--incredible news services, Hockey Night in Canada , documentaries--but I don't think the world sees it on the same level as the BBC. That is the challenge for CBC. I think it can be up there with BBC, as our Canadian artists are some of the best in the world. As for BBC's support of music, they really embrace all genres throughout all of their programming. One thing that's really interesting is the way they weave music into the fabric of their productions.

They really go out of their way to make sure British music is throughout all of their productions and is promoted in such a way. Another thing the BBC does very effectively is digital services. Their multimedia marketing is excellent. We should really look at that model. Another point is that on CBC television there isn't one program devoted to showcasing new Canadian musical works. This needs to change. BBC has weekly television series with live music, sometimes in prime time, sometimes late at night. It's a constant throughout BBC television programming. I have a couple more points.

First, on CBC records, I've tried very hard to find in the annual report any statistics on the financial success of CBC records. My understanding is that it's not a profitable business. If there were some statistics to go against that, I'd be happy to look at them. We have a very vibrant independent recording industry, and I don't think CBC should be subsidizing Canadian music in competition with independent labels. CBC should focus more on production and recording, and let the industry deal with the commerce of music. Finally, I'd like to address the CBC and artists' rights.

I talked with the Honourable Hedy Fry prior to this and I did not bring up copyright, but this is very important. One thing the CBC should never do is ask artists to waive their rights. A case in point is CBC Radio 3, which recently asked artists to waive their rights to receive royalties. It's our opinion that certainly with CBC this should never happen. We expect it from the commercial broadcasters, but we don't expect it from CBC. I know there are a lot of things there. I'd like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to come here.

We had only a week to prepare, but we did our best to put something together for you. If there are any questions on any of those topics, I would be very happy to answer them. Thank you. The Chair : Thank you for that presentation. I think we'll go to the next group now, after which we'll take questions for both presenters. New Media BC, go ahead, please. Mrs. Lynda Brown (President, New Media BC) : Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to present this morning. I'm Lynda Brown, the president of New Media BC. I'm joined by my colleagues Adam Gooch and Phillip Djwa. We'd like to do a couple of things today.

We want to show you some of our visual media and what's happening in Canada. We want to give you an overview of how the sector is growing in this country, because it's quite critical to this discussion. Then we'd like to give you some real-life examples with a small- to mid-sized enterprise that Phillip represents, and then discuss in some detail any questions you may pose. First I'm going to show you a DVD, and then we're going to move into the formal part of the presentation. [ DVD Presentation ]

(1045) So that's, in part, how our sector is seen by the rest of the world at this point: as a leader in digital entertainment production, which is one of the subsectors in digital media. I'm just going to switch over to our PowerPoint presentation now so we can walk through an overview of the Canadian sector. “Digital media” is really the term we're using these days. “New media” has become a little bit redundant. So when we talk about “new media”, we're really talking about “digital media”. They've become one and the same.

Nationally, we have agreed across the country that digital media falls into five dominant subsectors, and the six that are presented there. Generally we combine mobile content, digital film and animation, e-learning, web design--or what's called interactive design--and video games to represent the digital media industry. It's predominantly seen as the use of interactive digital content for the purposes of informing, entertaining, and educating. The term “interactive” is obviously very key to this definition and to the terminology of “digital media”.

Today—very briefly, because I know we're running short—we're going to give you a quick overview, look at some of our strengths, and tell you what we're working on as a national strategy. First of all, though, because we're all from Vancouver, we wanted to give you an idea of what's happening here. Vancouver represents Canada's largest digital media cluster, with over 1,100 companies working in the region, generating about $2.1 billion. We're home to four out of the five world-leading game publishers. We have an over-25-year history in this sector.

We also have some very prominent and internationally renowned e-learning tools, such as WebCT, and a strong reputation in the e-learning sector. We have great strength in digital film and animation. Vancouver, as you may know, is the third largest North American production centre for film and television. The digital film and animation sector that we represent has definitely benefited from that. Now, with the merger of Rainmaker and Mainframe, we have the largest digital effects and animation studio in Canada, a world-recognized studio.

We're launching a graduate program--the first of its kind, a master's degree in digital media--that will start in September of this year. We also have electronic arts largest studio in the world. It has 2,000 employees currently and is growing quickly. We've been recognized internationally as a hub, a hot spot of digital media, right here in Vancouver. A very popular business magazine called Fast Company looked at the bohemian index to find clusters to watch. Vancouver, along with Montreal, was noted as being very prominent. If we look at Canada overall, we have some very particular strengths.

I think the first video showed you that we have huge and internationally highly recognized strengths in digital entertainment, but that's not all we're doing. We also are known for strength in new IP--or intellectual property--and original content production, and that's becoming increasingly key in this multi-billion-dollar market. There is the emerging mobile factor. There is a growing market for the information and entertainment that you use on your BlackBerry and on your mobile phone. Canada is seen as leading some initiatives in this area.

If we look across Canada, we've got approximately 3,200 companies working in this sector, from coast to coast. We just completed a study called the Canadian Interactive Industry Profile, which goes into detail on this industry. I'd be happy to provide that after this presentation. By and large, the industry across Canada is generating a significant amount of revenue, but I think it's important to note that the majority of our companies are still small to mid-sized enterprises, staffed at the under-20 or under-30 employees mark.

(1050) We have approximately 52,000 people working across Canada in this sector. Our friends in Montreal are also well recognized as a leading visual entertainment centre. And Toronto, of course, with its strength in film and television, has become the hot spot for convergent activities. We're also seeing some very nice incubation programs out of Alberta and Manitoba, such as the Fortune Cat Games Studio, which is an investment program in original IT for game developers. That has been very successful and has been looked at internationally as a viable model.

The Chair : I don't want to interrupt your presentation, but we want to make sure that this is relevant to our study on the CBC. Are we going to have that in your presentation? Is that going to come? Mrs. Lynda Brown : Yes. We're almost finished this part, but we thought it was important to tell you what's actually happening in digital media, because it does inform your discussion. The Chair : Okay, thank you. Mrs. Lynda Brown : Thank you. I'll move it along. One of our capabilities, as you can see, is that we are well known for having strength in both content development and original IT.

A number of international companies have located here. We all know that Canada is a wonderful place in which to live and do business. If we look across the country, as I've touched on, we have a real hub in Montreal. We have some very progressive things happening in Manitoba and the prairie provinces. In Atlantic Canada, they have a small but growing cluster that has focused on some original IT, and also secondary and tertiary studios that are serving them well.

Just so you know where this workforce is coming from, you might be surprised to learn that we have close to training programs that are producing the people who work in this sector. We are known for having a culture of innovation and storytelling—that's part of our heritage. I'm just going to skip over the next part, which talks about the graduate program we're starting. New Media BC in particular, you might have heard, is leading a proposal that has been presented federally to establish Canada as a world centre in digital media, to build capacity in the industry across all levels.

The discussion we're having today is very important to this project. As you can see, the development of what we want to do internationally in positioning Canada as a world leader is going to rely on indigenous programming and having an ally such as the CBC to help us develop capacity across the country. I'm going to end the PowerPoint part of that presentation here and move on to some of our thoughts around the questions you've posed, and we're all going to contribute to that. Let me just tell you where we are in the process. We are drafting a formal document to present to you, but that is not completed yet.

In fact, we didn't know that we were confirmed to present this morning, so I hope you will indulge us as we work through our thoughts on your questions. Before we move into the questions, I'd like to introduce my colleague Phillip Djwa, who runs a very successful digital media company. He's going to give you some insight as a small to mid-sized enterprise in the questions you've posed and his role in that.

(1055) The Chair : Will this relate to our CBC study? Mr. Phillip Djwa (President, Agentic, New Media BC) : Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. The Chair : Great. Thank you. Mr. Phillip Djwa : Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you about the CBC mandate. My company, Agentic Communications, is a web development company. It's very representative of the majority of companies across Canada, as far as the interactive profile has revealed.

We're a small business employing fewer than employees, but we are still generating a significant economic impact across Canada. As we know, the CBC needs to offer Canadian programming to all citizens. To remain relevant to Canadians, the CBC should be reaching out to address Canadians where they are. And that often is through different platforms, as we've seen. As the CBC's Robert Rabinovitch reported in his October 27, 2005, statement to this committee, CBC must be a leader in developing “specialized content for new platforms, like podcasting, satellite radio, and the Internet”.

To some degree, this is actually occurring. CBC Radio 3, Bande à Part , the sadly defunct Zed television program, and the powerhouse that is cbc.ca have all provided additional value to Canadians online. However, this is not the only opportunity that CBC has to offer Canadians. Many of the web initiatives on CBC are directed to supporting broadcast on radio and television.

A project such as the CBC website Censor This! , which was an online initiative investigating issues of censorship that supported over radio programs over a week in March 2007, is an excellent example of how an online initiative can support a larger vision of programming. None of the programs themselves could have supported the large-scale vision of censorship. The CBC citizenship website is another example of unique Canadian content that's been created specifically for the web.

CBC Aboriginal, which is another website property that CBC has launched recently, provides another example of how the CBC, in an online environment, can reach out to new audiences. There is excellent online content being created at CBC North. As you may have seen in your trip recently, it has generated content specifically for the web on Canadian issues of interest to all Canadians, as has the new media pod in Halifax. However, this is not enough. I think a key issue is that there's a lack of original Canadian content directed and developed specifically for the web.

CBC has indicated to our industry, through informal conversations, that they would be willing to support further commissioning of original and unique Canadian content for the web if there were a revenue model for it. I think, members of the committee, that there is a way, and that is to develop potentially an Internet broadcast licence. While this is probably a larger issue than this committee can address, I think there needs to be a coordinated effort to potentially complete the following.

First, amend the Broadcasting Act to include digital media as well as radio and television in the CBC mandate to encourage that unique digital media development. This would be different from the original proposal released last year in regard to supporting digital media as an adjunct or supportive role in radio and television. I think it's really clear to see, as we've seen in the presentation that Lynda provided to the committee, that there is significant activity in this sector that can really be addressed online and only online. There are enough content providers across Canada that can actually pull this off.

Second, encourage the development and distribution of an Internet broadcast licence that would be targeted to creating original Canadian content for the web. This could be achieved in a number of different ways, and we could talk about that as we get to some questions. Last, encourage the private industry telecommunications providers to develop and sustain a fund to provide grants--not recoupable advances--to Canadian Internet content providers to create original Canadian programming online. That concludes my brief presentation to the committee.

Again, I'm very happy to be here to explain, or to talk, and to take any questions on those issues. Thank you.

(1100) The Chair : Thank you. Mrs. Lynda Brown : Thanks, Phillip. We have a number of responses to the questions you've posed. I don't know if you would prefer to move to your questions. The Chair : I'd prefer to move to the questions, because we have, I'm sure, some other questions around the table. If questions have been asked that you want to respond to, and we come to the conclusion of your time, you could forward those answers, I'm quite sure, to the clerk. Thank you. We'll go to Ms. Fry. Hon. Hedy Fry : Thank you.

I'm really pleased about the digital presentation, because I think this is key to where we need to go if we're going to distribute Canadian content that will be respected around the world. So I'm pleased to see you bringing this forward and some ideas on how we need to make this so--for instance, amending the act, etc. I think Bob touched on something that is very important. Most of us sit here and talk about the CBC, and we continue to talk about CBC radio and CBC television, but those are not the only media anymore.

If the world is going to see CBC and listen to CBC, we can no longer limit ourselves to just getting a million people watching Little Mosque on the Prairie . We have to look at how we are seen around the world as an international entity. To do that we have to talk about this new digital media. You haven't mentioned something that Bob mentioned. Music is key, but I think Bob mentioned the idea of a copyright act. The U.S. has strong copyright legislation and we don't.

If we're going to start getting into digitalization, we need to talk about how we can protect the creator and find a balance between protecting the creator and at the same time distributing broadly and widely. I just want to ask Bob a question about the Copyright Act, and if you have a comment on it. I think it's key. How do we do it? We should have done it 100 years ago--well, I'm just kidding, but we should have done it yesterday. Talking about doing it tomorrow, I gather that digital media is changing every day as we speak. We're running to catch up.

So I think this is a very key part of how the CBC can sustain itself. Everyone talks about funding. You talked about a new way of funding, and I remember that the Canadian broadcasting report on the CBC talked about it. People said earlier that we should no longer do commercials--the BBC doesn't do commercials--because having to get commercial advertising means we have to do the great dumbing down. We have to be popular and go into some sort of competition, with the dumbing down of the media we get from around the world--some of these really ridiculous programs we see.

If we're going to have programming integrity and deal with quality, as Bob said, so people around the world can eventually look to the CBC as a place where you can have quality, everyone will want to watch the CBC. It's not only about Canadians telling stories to each other, but Canadians seeing the world from a Canadian perspective and presenting the world to others from our perspective. That is a huge piece of what we have to do. So I would like to hear Bob talk a little bit about how we could deal with funding the CBC without having to go to advertising. There have been many suggestions.

One of them in was to have a communication distribution tax levy, which the BBC does. The BBC is funded through a levy. Each person in the United Kingdom pays a tax to allow the BBC to exist. The BBC is then responsible directly to Parliament, and it reports every year to Parliament on how it is fulfilling its mandate. I would like to hear someone discuss how we could do this with the CBC and create a body that is responsible to Parliament. Parliament would decide who was going to be the head of the CBC and who was going to run it.

They would need to have the ability to do so and not just be some bureaucrat whose name is put forward, but somebody with an understanding of broadcasting, all digital media, etc. How you see that happening? Do you think it's a good idea to create the CBC as a body that's directly responsible to Parliament, reports once a year, does away with advertising, and gets a tax levy from Canadians to fund it? It's a big question.

Every time you talk about a tax levy everyone says, “Oh my gosh, no more tax.” But if we want to create something that can stand on its own and be like that great body, the BBC, then we need to be able to talk about the CBC and its future, and not just how to keep it running along on its old track that it's been running along on for so long. I'm going to open it up for you guys to just throw in what you have.

(1105) Mr. Bob D'Eith : Thank you very much for the question. There are a lot of questions there. First, if I could briefly address the Copyright Act, the United States has the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It has done for some time. Whether you agree with it or not, at least it has created some certainty in the area of digital rights. We don't have that in Canada. It's desperately required, and part of the big issue does actually talk about what the Honourable Hedy Fry was saying in terms of funding.

Because right now there's so much rampant piracy on the Internet from all areas of media, there really needs to be some consistency and a way of monetizing the Internet. We could find that there are revenue streams out there that will be coming online that could really help enhance CBC's revenue. Those models will obviously be developed by the new media community. But without certainty of law and without a way of enforcing that, it can be very difficult to have that monetization. The other issue we found with CBC Radio is that even CBC asking artists to waive their rights...they can, because there's no certainty.

And here is CBC asking what we would expect from the other commercial broadcasters, but this is CBC. So I think changes to the Copyright Act would be very important, not just for artists' rights, but also for monetization in helping to fund things. As far as funding directly is concerned, you were saying you would take the position that there might be a separate levy of some kind. Hon. Hedy Fry : I'm asking you to comment on the BBC model and whether it's applicable to Canada. Mr. Bob D'Eith : I agree that it would be great to have advertising and what not out of the picture, and just fund CBC directly.

I think that's a wonderful idea. I think having a public broadcaster is essential to Canada and our Canadian identity, and I think having that accountability to Parliament is not a bad thing. This is off my topic, but I would want to make sure CBC remains impartial in terms of news coverage and isn't somehow beholden to Parliament, because I think it's very important to have that freedom to say whatever the news service wants to say. But as long as those rights are protected, I think some sort of direct funding in the way you're talking about, that model or some sort of levy, would be great.

But there are other revenue streams that we're probably not even thinking about, especially from other areas like new media that will be coming online.

(1110) The Chair : Okay, we will have your response. We have to try to keep this a little bit short so everyone gets a question. Mrs. Lynda Brown : Those are some very good questions that have been raised, and I think we both have some comments on that. With regard to the copyright issue, protecting the rights of producers, especially as they move their IP across multiple platforms, is critical.

What we're finding with digital producers, especially in digital film and animation, is that when they go to broadcast sale, the broadcast licence will require that they give up all digital rights to that IP, and that's been quite problematic for them as they try to leverage that into other channels. So it is an important question that I think we need to look at and have further discussion on. I think the BBC model, switching to funding without advertising, which I believe our industry strongly supports, is a very interesting one.

I think digital media, as related to the CBC, also provides some other opportunities for user-pay and value-added services that might bring in additional revenue streams that we might not have considered for CBC, but that could augment that. I'm going to pass it to Phillip at this point. Mr. Phillip Djwa : The current licence per television set in the BBC is £130 per year.

If you were to times that by the number of television sets in Canada, you'd probably end up with over $1 billion, which is significant and obviously an opportunity to address some of the chronic underfunding CBC has been dealing with in the last few years. Certainly you could extend that to looking at Internet provision in this country and ISPs. If there was $1 or $2 per Internet provider per month in the same model, you could also generate a significant opportunity to develop unique Canadian content.

I think what we're seeing in the industry these days is that through sliver castings or snacking, people are looking at very fragmented audiences, looking at very small bits of content. The CBC can really benefit from the huge properties they have currently on radio and television and leverage those online, but there needs to be a way in which they can encourage and develop content in a much broader and more plentiful way. One of the ways you can do that is to encourage the generation of that content.

If content providers have an opportunity--I think there are so many small companies that would be interested in participating in that, as well as internally at CBC--to develop that kind of content and provide it online with some kind of compensation, and that could be simply in its generation, you could have a vibrant and exciting property online. I think one of the important things to understand as well is that the fragmentation of audiences really benefits the web in the sense that, as we've seen with television programs on CBC television, popular does not necessarily equate with important.

It's really an interesting aspect to consider that online we can see that addressing issues...say, for example, the CBC archives online, which provides in-depth and teacher resources in an excellent manner on issues that are of importance to Canadians. This is not being done by many of the other private broadcasters. CBC does have a unique and powerful role to play in this area. The Chair : Thank you. Madame Bourgeois. [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is to Mr. D'Eith. In your presentation, you said that CBC should be recognized for its quality.

How do you define quality? [ English ] Mr. Bob D'Eith : The quality of music? Ms. Diane Bourgeois : Yes. Mr. Bob D'Eith : That's a very good question, and a tough one to answer. What quality is, is very subjective. It's hard to put into words what quality is. If we see, for example, some of the BBC programming, I think a lot of it is how attractive it is to the world to see and how relevant it is to the world. If we look inward only and produce Canadian content only, without thinking about how we're going to export this to the world, I think its effect on our sovereignty and our cultural identity is lost.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do Canadian programming about Canadians, I just think it's more strategic thinking. We should be thinking strategically about the quality, in the sense of how we can get this out to the world and be appealing to the world and still have a Canadian identity. I think it's a bit of a flip-flop. Instead of doing programming that gets so many points on a mandate, we have to do this and this and this in terms of regionalism and ethnicity and all these things. I think those things will come naturally if we focus on Canadian producers.

They're inherently Canadian, and we produce things with a Canadian world view. It's important for us to grow up as a nation and take pride in who we are and not have to think inward and stereotype ourselves. I think that's one of our problems: we tend to stereotype ourselves and then export that. That's not who Canadians are. (1115) [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : You also mentioned that the mandate of Radio-Canada or the CBC should be changed so that international type-programming could be produced, so that we would have an excellent product. I should start by saying that I am a sovereignist from Quebec.

So my assumption is that Canadian producers do an excellent job that can be exported throughout the world, whether we are talking about the work of Quebeckers or that of Canadians from Ontario, Manitoba or British Columbia. When it comes to culture, I think that Canada has a good reputation among people elsewhere because they know we do excellent work. Do you not think that the emphasis on excellent and international-type productions could result in some elitism?

For example, the Canadian School Sport Federation will provide funding to elite athletes who will travel throughout the world to show that Canada excels in particular sports. However, by being elitists, we will not be helping our actors, the grassroot people who work for Quebeckers and Canadians. [ English ] Mr. Bob D'Eith : I think I followed most of that. I wonder if the chairman could help me focus that question a bit. Would that be all right? I apologize. I should have plugged in my translation device. [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : I can repeat what I said, Mr. Chairman. [ English ] Mr.

Bob D'Eith : It was very elegant. [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : Think about excellence. [ English ] Mr. Bob D'Eith : Sorry, my apologies. I thought I was going to do so well with my French today. Being a true Canadian, I-- The Chair : I was listening too, but you were so eloquent that I missed the question. [ Translation ] Ms. Diane Bourgeois : I would point out that I am working for Canada. I will repeat my question because I think it is extremely important that we not repeat the same error as was made in sport or other types of endeavours outside Canada. You spoke about moving to excellence.

When we value excellence above all else to show the world that we are very good, is there not a danger of elitism and of no longer working for the people who really need help—both English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians? [ English ] Mr. Bob D'Eith : That's what I thought you said, but I wanted to be sure. That's another excellent question. Yes, of course there's always the potential to be seen as elitist, but I don't think we need to be the opposite, which is provincial and small. Our artists in the music industry are the best in the world.

In fact we have more multi-billion-dollar selling artists in the music industry than the U.K.--Céline Dion, Avril Lavigne, Nickelback, and all these wonderful groups. Nickelback was just another indie band from Vancouver. They used to back up my band in the nineties. I know Chad well. He's worth $50 million now. Great. Fantastic. I think they've been an amazing Canadian success story, but they started as an independent group. I think I said in my presentation that we should put excellence first and produce quality, but we should be supporting independence. I think you can have quality independent production.

It doesn't have to be small, and there doesn't have to be a lack of quality. At the same time, I think you need to balance that. There are certain sectors of the community, especially in the music industry, that need help and support. And that's.... Go ahead and cut me off. I'm sorry about that, sir.

(1120) The Chair : No, I was responding to more questions from here. But just to keep things moving, did you folks have something to respond to that? It was primarily a question to Bob, but.... Mr. Phillip Djwa : Sure. Thank you. I think one of the interesting things is that we definitely need to work on the capacity of youth and people from different communities—for example, in Quebec—through programs like the First Nations SchoolNet, which develops capacity for aboriginal youth to create video and audio, which is something they can pursue at home in the remote and rural communities of Quebec.

But what happens when those kids need an opportunity to intern or to work in an industry? I think the CBC can play a role in that. I know that's something the CBC has been doing, but could do more of, in developing the capacity of youth and providing internship and opportunities in new media. That could be a very successful opportunity for building a grassroots aspect. The Chair : Great. Thank you. Mr. Adam Gooch (Program and Communications Manager, New Media BC) : May I add a comment? The Chair : Yes, one short comment. Mr. Adam Gooch : I'll try to be brief.

I agree with Bob's point regarding the CBC mandate and scoring points on having productions meet certain points in order to get air time. I agree that Canadians are inherently Canadian and that if they produce content, it's going to reflect who we are as a nation and, more importantly, as individuals. That's where new media's strengths lie, in creating community out of individuals who come together, whether they're niche or whether they're a larger segment of the population. I also agree with Bob in addressing the last question.

We have the talent, as individuals and as Canadians, that can be globally and internationally recognized. To go back one more question, I think one of the barriers for content producers that we've had in this, to address the notion of what is quality, is that while we have the talent, while we have the storytellers, while we have those ideas, the funding or the financing to create really high-quality production values is missing. So we have a lot of these independents who are able to publish now via new media, but they're still recording off their laptops in their basements.

If we were able to find support for these people, for these storytellers, to augment the production values of what they have to say, I think on the international stage we would start to be that leader. Already you've seen from our presentation that the industry is becoming a leader. We just need to have the support in-house of showcasing that talent here at home. The Chair : Thank you. Ms. Savoie. Ms. Denise Savoie : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In our efforts to be globally recognized, I think we have to appreciate that even within our country perhaps we don't recognize each other.

We have stopped telling each other the stories that would allow us to know each other, from coast to coast and regionally. I'm concerned that in our search for increased funding that Ms. Fry was referring to earlier, and chronic underfunding of the CBC in the past decade—it certainly hasn't been a priority—in our thirst for extra funding, we begin to compromise Internet neutrality by corporatizing it. I'm just wondering if, in some of the comments you made, charging fees and so on for certain productions could lead to compromising the Internet's neutrality. That's the question.

The other one is that you've both mentioned cbc.ca and the expansion of it. Given the presentation we had earlier, the cost it has, the amount of money that has been expended to that by comparison to the CBC's overall funding, and according to surveys, the disproportionately low use it is receiving by comparison to others, I'm wondering, given the underfunding, which hopefully will change, if that's the best way to go. We heard this morning, for example, that the CBC has asked to reduce the over-the-air transmission.

We heard this morning that there are even some cities that have lost the CBC, the possibility of receiving it. I'm wondering if we're jumping too fast, too soon, without appropriate levels of funding before rectifying the huge problem that is plaguing the CBC and risks making it irrelevant. At some point there will be nothing left to defend if we keep going in that direction. So I have a number of questions.

(1125) Mrs. Lynda Brown : Very serious questions to consider, indeed. My first thought on this is that when we're talking from a digital media perspective, I think what we're saying is that there are models in the marketplace. And there are emerging models, especially with regard to Web 2.0, that could indeed help the CBC and provide additional avenues of funding without compromising regional access and equality of access to that.

I think we're in this interesting transition with the CBC where it's mostly been a push technology, mostly broadcast, that has been trying to serve an audience without necessarily knowing where that audience is and what it wants. What we're seeing in digital media is much more of a pull, for a push-and-pull relationship where user-generated content is very important to what's happening online and in digital media today.

Through the development of a community worldwide in digital media, there have evolved different business models and different ways of funding that community, while still retaining equity of access. So with regard to some of our comments earlier on, Net neutrality is definitely an important issue, but I don't think it's a linear equation. I don't think, in considering the role of the CBC, we can say that we need to address this first, and then this, and then this, because we'll have lost our opportunity. I think we have to look at both, and at the same time. Mr. Phillip Djwa : Net neutrality is very important.

I don't think we're suggesting.... My personal opinion is that it would be a mistake to allow the telecommunication providers in Canada to charge a levy and then use that to essentially eliminate Net neutrality. I think there is an opportunity for those to generate a fund and provide grants to content providers, in much the same way as other organizations or bodies do. It could be through a partnership.

For instance, if we did do this Internet broadcast licence, it could be a partnership through Telefilm, the Canada Council--the arm's-length organizations that have an understanding and a relationship with the content providers in this country. In regard to funding, yes, I think there has been chronic underfunding. If you only have a dollar to pay for something, you still only have that dollar. New media, unfortunately, has not been cheap, but then neither has television and neither has radio; it's just a question of what's important.

If we believe in having a Canadian citizenry that is aware of and understands the issues and challenges and successes and the diversity of Canada, then we need to have a strong public broadcaster that offers all those opportunities. We're simply saying that Canadians are still watching television, Canadians are still listening to the radio, but they're also doing this whole other breadth and depth of activity that we need to address. The only issue is the one you've brought up: are we jumping too fast? Well, we're just following where Canadians are going. That's the most important message.

(1130) Mr. Bob D'Eith : It's an excellent question. On the Internet neutrality issue, I'll defer to the experts on the new media. The Internet is now. If we don't do it, we'll lose out. My kids don't listen to radio. They do everything online now. They spend 90% of their time online. That's the new generation; it's not me. But certainly, if the CBC wants to be relevant, they have to have a presence. As for the cost, that's a management issue. As far as I'm concerned, you can spend any amount of money developing properties on the web, but do you have to spend that amount of money? No way.

It's a question of management. CBC has to look at production costs online and it has to get that in order. It has to be there. It's essential that it be there for music, for every part of it, and for providing great content. Content is king. If we provide world-class content, people will come to the website. There will be eyeballs. You don't have eyeballs without content, and that's what we have to focus on. Ms. Denise Savoie : I have one other question.

Just to understand where you're coming from, that was a great little video, and lots of fun, but I'm just wondering, did you consider its content to be inherently Canadian because the word “Canada” was up there a few times? Mrs. Lynda Brown : Absolutely. You know, we have this discussion within our community quite often. Digital media is sometimes seen, I think, as maybe a lower form of Canadian cultural content. But everything you saw in that reel was Canadian made, Canadian produced. People were drinking Canadian water and living in Canada when they did it. Ms.

Denise Savoie : They were shooting each other a lot. Mrs. Lynda Brown : That's very limited. I think Canada actually has a huge number--a majority--of game developers who don't focus on violent games. I think that's something to be proud of. There are some of those, but not very many. The majority focus on very redeeming qualities. So yes, we do think very much that is Canadian, and the marketplace that we play in is global. There is no digital media company in this country that can produce for a domestic market and survive. So I think that goes back to Bob's point: we are inherently Canadian.

I think what's important, and why I wanted to show you that reel, is that the rest of the world sees that as the benchmark. The rest of the world sees what we're doing in that area as something to emulate, and it's Canadian produced. I think that's something we should support and look at growing further. Mr. Phillip Djwa : I would add, as a quick comment, that six out of the ten highest-selling video games in did not involve any kind of violence. There's a whole new area of serious games that have a whole different aspect.

So the notion that video games are made up of only violent first-person shooters is not true anymore. The industry has developed. The thing is that Canada has the capacity, as demonstrated by the international success of these video games, to create uniquely Canadian content in a very viable way. We have world-class people here who could work on issues that are relevant and important to Canadians. The most important thing is that they want to. Everyone would like to do this, but again, there isn't the opportunity at this point. Ms. Denise Savoie : Don't mistake what I'm saying.

I don't think all video games have to be violent. It was more a question about the particular video and your perspective that you showed this morning, and your perspective on what constituted Canadian content. You answered my question. Thank you. The Chair : Thank you. I have a couple of comments, and I don't really need answers to them. The WIPO Treaty, I think, was signed back in or 1997, or around that time. I've been on the heritage committee for four years, and I think about three years ago was the first time since that copyright was dealt with, under the WIPO Treaty.

We did a report at that particular time, and afterwards a bill--Bill C-60, I think--was brought forward that didn't resemble the report that we had sent in at all. We were quite concerned as a committee at that particular time. Bill C-60 died on the order table. I think something that has been talked about by this committee is that it's one thing to sign a treaty, and it's another thing to ratify it. I think by the time we ever get it ratified, it will have to be revamped again, because new media is moving so quickly, as evidenced by any presentation that I have heard.

Hopefully we can come across with a bill that is a living bill, and that can move along, rather than having these great expanses of nothingness that cause us to get so far behind. Again, I thank you very much for your presentations this morning and for answering the questions, and I wish you all the best. We will now take a five-minute break before our next presenters. Again, thank you on behalf of our committee. (1135)

(1145) The Chair : We welcome our last presenters for this morning. As we said earlier, we'll carry on and we'll give everyone a chance here this morning to bring their positions forward. You're testing me here this morning, as an anglophone who got kicked out of my French class in grade 9, but I am going to try to introduce each group. First, I'll introduce all the groups. The Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique will be first, then Le Canard Réincarné. The Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver will follow next. That's my best effort this morning, and I apologize for that.

My wife is taking French lessons right now. If I had a little more time, I would also do that. Welcome this morning—and it is still morning. First of all, the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, please. Ms. Yseult Friolet (Executive Director, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [ Translation ] I will be making my presentation in French. Thank you for this invitation and for the opportunity to share our thoughts on the role of public broadcasters in the 21st century.

As you know, the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique is the advocate for the francophone community in BC. Our role is to promote, represent and defend the interests of francophones as well as protect our community's linguistic and cultural heritage. Our federation includes members, organizations like the Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver. The centre's representative will be addressing the issue of Radio-Canada's cultural expression mandate. We, for our part, will focus on the way in which it reflects the francophone communities' reality in BC.

There are 64,000 francophone community members in BC. We now have new statistics and by next December, we'll know the actual number of francophones, those that qualify as francophones and those that are francophiles. For the time being, we know that the figures show our community is growing. It is also important to add that there are many bilingual people in British Columbia, which broadens the francophone environment in the province. There are over 270,000 who can communicate in French, representing 7 % of the population in BC.

That amount is not negligible, especially given the fact that these 270,000 people make up Radio-Canada's listenership. These days, all broadcasters are in a state of flux. That is what we heard this morning: there is this pressure of new technology being brought to bear on them, forcing them to make technological changes and other more fundamental changes. Consumers like ourselves are left with no other option but to comply or to change our listening habits.

Clearly, the questions you are asking us are of great importance for the entire Canadian public, but they are also of specific concern to francophone-minority communities. French-language options we have are very limited. The decisions made by broadcasters serving us therefore have an even more direct effect on us. Official language communities depend almost exclusively on Radio-Canada and on the way in which the Crown corporation carries out its mandate. Our communities need their national broadcaster, perhaps even more so than the majority would. Radio-Canada gives us a chance to hear our own voices.

It is the medium which allows us to know ourselves and to be known. When it comes to providing services, I would like to start by answering this seemingly self-evident question. Radio-Canada radio and television must be available everywhere in Canada even in remote regions. By definition, a national broadcaster does not simply justify its existence based on ratings, and its presence throughout the country is a societal decision. Canada is not the only country to have put forward this basic premise. Moreover, I would add that the people who came here this morning told you the same thing. The same goes for RDI.

Access to this channel ought not to be a costly option for viewers which would be offered by cable distributors who don't see the point in it. CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate is national, and the Crown corporation must make sure it covers all of the Canadian territory, even where our geography makes its broadcasting somewhat costly at times. Let's now move to the issue of content.

To carry out its mandate and to show the government that it is meeting its responsibilities, the Crown corporation is constantly making adjustments to its website, its program schedules, its broadcasting times, its content and the length of its shows, focusing on the importance of partnerships it is developing with its English-language counterpart and on the structure of its administrative or human resources sections. Everything is in constant flux.

(1150) It appears to us that federal budgets are too often the engine behind these frequent upheavals. When the federal budget made deep cuts in 1995, production was centralized in Montreal. Regional productions are increasingly rare, thus reducing regional representation. In reality, communities like ours, which receive the service, receive very little advance notice and are not consulted. Decision makers simply organize an annual tour to inform the community of upcoming changes.

But our community turns to Radio-Canada not only for news, entertainment and general culture, but we also consider it as a transmission, growth and development tool. The Crown Corporation is one of the pillars of Canada's official language policy. It is the instrument which should allow francophones in nine provinces and three territories to speak with Quebeckers and create a greater degree of solidarity within the Canadian francophonie. That is why the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique created a media committee in 2002.

The committee's mandate was to consult francophones and francophiles in British Columbia to find out what their opinions, perceptions and needs were regarding broadcasting. We also wanted to basically assess how the community was reflected within a larger context. In 2002, as in 2007, most of the criticism we received was directed at the content of our programs. For instance, francophones don't feel the regional news really addresses their daily lives or concerns.

The newscast out of Vancouver swings, with few exceptions, between two very different poles, namely a French version of the CBC newscast with basically the same issues being covered. French regional news looks like a translation of the English news, or sometimes like a diluted version of the national newscast out of Quebec, with too much information about Quebeckers and very little or non at all from other francophone communities. People have said that the national broadcaster has become “montrealized”. Our communities are not reflected in the programs they watch.

They don't relate to the issues because they don't see how national or provincial events affect them, either socially or politically. Things which affect our community are not reported often enough or even identified. Radio-Canada seemed to have partly understood this when it created shows such as L'Ouest en direct , which allowed us in British Columbia to know when and where to watch TV to find out what was happening in the western francophonie, and not only what was happening in Quebec. Unfortunately, the broadcaster decided to cancel this reliable show.

So the program is gone, and our regional news is drowned out by national news. However, some people like this, and the new model lives on. For instance, Ontario does not receive the same regional news as the Outaouais or Ottawa. I would like to continue this digression with the theme of regionalization. Our communities are never as well served as when they hear their own artists or experts, or local folks speaking about local, national or even international events.

That is why radio programs, especially the three program schedules which are currently broadcast live from Vancouver, are the strands which help weave together our francophone community in British Columbia. These programs allow their hosts to talk about local events or to give a local perspective on national or international events. The programs address issues affecting our community, our school and our community centres. They report on news events which reflect our concerns, and they provide analysis about our reality and its richness. Lastly, they meet the particular needs of our region.

(1155) It is obvious that this local programing requires financial resources for every region, for every province or territory that can at times seem excessive. I come back to our initial assertion, namely that the national broadcaster cannot only be a slave to its ratings. People cannot continue, in the offices of Radio-Canada in Montreal, to repeat that a disproportionate percentage of the Crown corporation's audience lives in Quebec and that therefore we must be realistic.

The Crown corporation must reflect the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities as the Broadcasting Act tells us. I would like to make a few recommendations. It seems to us that the CBC/Radio-Canada should develop an accountability framework in cooperation with the CRTC that would allow for the definition of both qualitative and quantitative objectives in a better reflection of the regions, whether it concerns the content, the newscasts, drama or variety shows.

The appropriations allocated to Radio-Canada by the federal government could be subject to rigorous accountability on the part of the Crown corporation, which would involve the implementation of measures and of producing a better reflection of the regions and of the French linguistic minorities. In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about technological changes. CBC and Radio-Canada have created an exceptional broadcasting tool for