ARCHIVÉ - Transcription
Cette page Web a été archivée dans le Web
L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.
Offrir un contenu dans les deux langues officielles
Prière de noter que la Loi sur les langues officielles exige que toutes publications gouvernementales soient disponibles dans les deux langues officielles.
Afin de rencontrer certaines des exigences de cette loi, les procès-verbaux du Conseil seront dorénavant bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience et la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le participant à l'audience.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE CANADIAN RADIO‑TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPTION
DES AUDIENCES DEVANT
LE
CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
ET
DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES
SUBJECT / SUJET:
Proceeding on the Canadian Television Fund (CTF)
Task Force Report /
Instance concernant le rapport du Groupe de
travail
du Fonds canadien de télévision (CTF)
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
140 Promenade du Portage 140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)
February 4, 2008 Le 4 février 2008
Transcripts
In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages
Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be
bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members
and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of
Contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded
verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in
either of the official languages, depending on the language
spoken by the participant at the public hearing.
Transcription
Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur
les langues
officielles, les procès‑verbaux pour le
Conseil seront
bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page
couverture, la liste des
membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à
l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un
compte rendu
textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel,
est enregistrée
et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux
langues
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée
par le
participant à l'audience publique.
Canadian
Radio‑television and
Telecommunications
Commission
Conseil
de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications
canadiennes
Transcript
/ Transcription
Proceeding on the Canadian Television Fund (CTF)
Task Force Report /
Instance concernant le rapport du Groupe de
travail
du Fonds canadien de télévision (CTF)
BEFORE / DEVANT:
Rita Cugini Chairperson
/ Présidente
Michel Arpin Commissioner
/ Conseiller
Michel Morin Commissioner
/ Conseiller
ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:
Jade Roy Secretary / Secretaire
Shirley Ann Farley Hearing Manager /
Gérante de l'audience
Shari Faisher Legal
Counsel /
Bernard Montigny Conseillers juridiques
HELD AT: TENUE
À:
Conference Centre Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room Salle
Outaouais
140 Promenade du Portage 140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)
February 4, 2008 Le 4 février 2008
- iv -
TABLE
DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE / PARA
PRESENTATION BY / PRÉSENTATION PAR:
Canadian Television Fund 6 / 37
CFTPA 102 / 572
ACTRA 165 / 851
Writers Guild of Canada 176 / 890
Directors Guild of Canada 192 / 963
Canadian Association of Broadcasters 243 / 1228
CBC/Radio-Canada 278 / 1379
Gatineau, Quebec / Gatineau (Québec)
‑‑‑ Upon
commencing on Monday, February 4, 2008
at 0859 /
L'audience débute le lundi 4 février 2008
à 0859
LISTNUM
1 \l 11 THE
SECRETARY: Can everybody be seated,
please.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12 S'il
vous plaît, prendre un siège.
‑‑‑ Pause
LISTNUM
1 \l 13 THE
SECRETARY: Can everybody take a seat,
please.
‑‑‑ Pause
LISTNUM
1 \l 14 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everyone and
welcome to this public hearing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 15 My
name is Rita Cugini and I am the CRTC Regional Commissioner for Ontario and I
will be presiding over this hearing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 16 Joining
me on my Panel are my colleagues Michel Arpin, Vice‑Chairman of
Broadcasting, and Michel Morin, National Commissioner.
LISTNUM
1 \l 17 The
Commission team assisting us includes Hearing Manager Shirley Ann Farley, Shari
Faisher and Bernard Montigny, Legal Counsel, and Jade Roy, Hearing
Secretary. Please speak with Ms Roy if
you have any questions with regard to hearing procedures.
LISTNUM
1 \l 18 The
purpose of this hearing is twofold: to
consider the Report prepared by the Task Force on the Canadian Television Fund
and also the timing for the implementation of the recommendations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 19 In
July 2007 the Task Force on the Canadian Television Fund released a Report on
the funding of Canadian programming and the governance of the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 110 Among
its recommendations, the Task Force suggested that the CTF objectives should be
broadened to include more support for Canadian television programs that succeed
with Canadian audiences.
LISTNUM 1 \l 111 L'objectif
principal de l'audience consiste à fournir aux parties une autre occasion
d'exprimer leur point de vue sur les questions liées au FCT.
LISTNUM 1 \l 112 Les
discussions de cette semaine, en plus du dossier contenant les mémoires reçus à
ce jour et certaines observations finales, permettront au Conseil de disposer
d'un dossier complet. Il pourra, ainsi,
déterminer s'il doit appuyer, rejeter ou modifier les recommandations du groupe
de travail.
LISTNUM
1 \l 113 Each
one of the recommendations is open for discussion at this hearing, however, the
Panel is particularly interested in hearing views on the following questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 114 What
measurement tool should the CTF use to evaluate audience success?
LISTNUM
1 \l 115 What
measures, if any, should the CTF take in order to best adapt a more market‑based
funding stream to the particulars of the French language market?
LISTNUM
1 \l 116 What
would be the best ways to maximize input from the independent production
sector?
LISTNUM
1 \l 117 What
other sources should the Commission consider in order to increase the CTF's
funding?
LISTNUM
1 \l 118 What
measures should the CTF take to ensure appropriate support for programming
licensed by educational broadcasters?
LISTNUM
1 \l 119 And,
how should the CTF manage the special initiatives identified in the
contribution agreement with the Department of Canadian Heritage?
LISTNUM 1 \l 120 À
la fin de l'audience, le Conseil acceptera des observations supplémentaires sur
les sujets que le comité a indiqués. Les
parties ont jusqu'au 18 février pour présenter leurs observations écrites
finales, lesquelles ne doivent pas excéder 10 pages.
LISTNUM
1 \l 121 Finally,
a note on the context in which the Commission will be making its decisions
regarding the CTF and the Task Force Report.
LISTNUM
1 \l 122 We
fully recognize that the Commission may only implement the Task Force's recommendations
that are under its purview while others may require action by other government
entities. Let me reassure that this
reality will be taken into account during our deliberations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 123 Furthermore,
in light of the planning and funding cycle of independent productions, the
implementation of any recommendation needs to take into account and support the
importance of continued funding for the CTF.
We will ensure that the outcome of this hearing does nothing to
interfere with the flow of funds.
LISTNUM
1 \l 124 I
will now invite the Hearing Secretary, Jade Roy, to explain the procedures we
will be following.
LISTNUM 1 \l 125 Madam
Secretary.
LISTNUM 1 \l 126 LA
SECRÉTAIRE : Merci, Madame la Présidente, et bonjour à tous.
LISTNUM
1 \l 127 I
would ask that when you are in the hearing room to please turn off your cell
phones, beepers and BlackBerrys. We
would appreciate your cooperation in this regard throughout the hearing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 128 Please
note that the Commission Members may ask questions in either English or
French. You can obtain an interpretation
receiver from the Commissionaire sitting at the entrance of the conference
centre.
LISTNUM 1 \l 129 Le
service d'interprétation simultanée est disponible durant cette audience. L'interprétation anglaise se trouve au canal
7, et l'interprétation française au canal 8.
LISTNUM
1 \l 130 We
expect the hearing to take one week. We
will begin each morning at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn each afternoon at
approximately 5:00 p.m.
LISTNUM
1 \l 131 We
will take one hour for lunch and a break in the morning and in the afternoon.
LISTNUM 1 \l 132 Pendant
toute la durée de l'audience, vous pourrez consulter les documents qui font
partie du dossier public pour cette audience dans la salle d'examen qui se
trouve dans la Salle Papineau, située à l'extérieur de la salle d'audience, à
votre droite.
LISTNUM
1 \l 133 There
is a verbatim transcript of this hearing being taken by the court reporter
sitting at the table on my right. If you
have any questions on how to obtain all or part of this transcript, please
approach the court reporter during a break.
LISTNUM
1 \l 134 We
will now proceed with the presentations in the Order of Appearance set out in
the Agenda.
LISTNUM
1 \l 135 We
will now hear Canadian Television Fund.
Appearing for CTF is Douglas Barrett who will please introduce his
colleagues.
LISTNUM
1 \l 136 Thank
you.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
LISTNUM
1 \l 137 MR.
BARRETT: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 138 Bonjour,
good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff.
LISTNUM
1 \l 139 My
name is Douglas Barrett and I am the Chair of the Board of the Canadian
Television Fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 140 I'd
like to begin by introducing the members of our panel, and just for greater
clarity I'd like to indicate this is our A panel.
‑‑‑ Laughter
LISTNUM
1 \l 141 MR.
BARRETT: To my immediate right is
Valerie Creighton, President of the CTF.
À sa droite,
nous avons Stéphane Cardin, Vice‑président, Politiques et relations avec
l'industrie. To his right is Kathy Corcoran, Director of
Research.
LISTNUM
1 \l 142 Seated
to my immediate left is Michel Carter, membre indépendant du Conseil et
Président du Comité des finances et de la vérification et Trésorier, et, as of
yesterday, a grandfather for the fourth time and next month a grandfather for
the fifth time. So, congratulations to
Michel.
LISTNUM
1 \l 143 Behind
me on the far right is Sandra Collins, Vice‑President of Corporate
Services and Administration. À sa gauche est Natalie Clermont,
Directrice de la Gestion des programmes.
To her left is
Mary‑Anne Haney ‑‑ sorry, is Dave Forget, Director of
the Television Business Unit at Television Canada and, finally, Mary‑Anne
Haney, Corporate Secretary.
LISTNUM
1 \l 144 I'd
also like to introduce a number of our Board members who have come today to
join us and, if I may, I'd like to ask them to stand as I introduce them.
LISTNUM
1 \l 145 Alison
Clayton, President of Backroom Strategies here in Ottawa; Claire Samson,
Présidente/Directrice générale, l'APFTQ; Judith Brosseau, Vice‑présidente
principale, Programmation et Communications, Canal D, Historia, Service Plus
des chaînes Astral Média; Corrie Coe, Director, Programming Administration,
CTV; Marcela Kadanka, Senior Director, TV Arts & Entertainment, CBC; Eileen
Sarkar, Research Associate, Centre for Governance, University of Ottawa; Robin
Mirsky, Executive Director, Rogers Group of Funds; and finally, Andrew Eddy,
Vice‑President, Content Distribution and Strategy, CORUS Entertainment.
LISTNUM
1 \l 146 Thank
you all very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 147 I'll
begin now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 148 The
story of the Canadian Television Fund is one that evolves over 12 years during
which the Fund has contributed to the creation of over 25,000 hours of Canadian
programming, all of it seen by Canadians in prime time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 149 Every
dollar invested by the CTF triggers $3.20 in production volume for the Canadian
television industry. CTF‑supported
productions have cultivated over 22,000 jobs in television production. That's half the jobs in the television industry.
LISTNUM 1 \l 150 Aujourd'hui,
nous sommes ici pour démontrer que le Fonds canadien de télévision est déjà un
organisme axé sur le marché, et que, fort de sa grande expérience en matière
d'élaboration de politiques et d'allocation de financement, il est un
instrument efficace qui permet au CRTC, aux entreprises de distribution de
radiodiffusion, et au gouvernement du Canada de réaliser leur objectif commun.
LISTNUM
1 \l 151 Our
presentation today will focus on five key areas:
LISTNUM
1 \l 152 ‑
one, the tremendous success achieved by CTF‑funded shows over the years;
LISTNUM
1 \l 153 ‑
two, the evolution of the CTF over the years;
LISTNUM
1 \l 154 ‑
three, the market‑driven approach of the broadcaster performance envelope
system;
LISTNUM
1 \l 155 ‑
four, our governance and accountability systems;
LISTNUM
1 \l 156 ‑
and finally, our comments on some questions posed by the Task Force.
LISTNUM
1 \l 157 MS
CREIGHTON: From St. John's to Victoria,
Canadian television screens are alight every day with programming stamped with
the CTF logo, and make no mistake, Canadians are watching.
LISTNUM
1 \l 158 These
programs are not only popular among Canadian audiences from two to 90, they are
sold around the world and have garnered critical acclaim both at home and
abroad.
LISTNUM
1 \l 159 In
today's rapidly fragmenting industry, competition for eyeballs is fierce and
new media alternatives are growing. The
choices available to viewers are seemingly endless as Canadians now have access
to 662 television services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 160 Now,
considering that Hockey Night in Canada typically delivers close to 1.5‑million
viewers and American shows such as "House" and "Grey's
Anatomy" with their considerable production and promotion budgets deliver
around 2 million viewers in Canada, then what do we consider a success for
Canadian programming?
LISTNUM
1 \l 161 Well,
within this competitive environment, CTF‑funded programs like "The
Rick Mercer Report" and "Little Mosque On The Prairie" have
regularly attained audiences over a million on conventional networks.
LISTNUM
1 \l 162 New
programs such as "The Border," "Sophie,"
"Heartland" and "The Guard" are attracting viewers in the
500,000 to 800,000 range.
LISTNUM
1 \l 163 "Degrassi:
The Next Generation" and "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" deliver more
than half a million viewers per episode and over the course of last season they
were each watched by over six and a half million Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 164 And
"Trailer Park Boys" generally attains audiences of over 150,000
viewers per telecast on Showcase, with three and a half million Canadian
viewers throughout last season, a huge success for the specialty network.
LISTNUM 1 \l 165 M.
CARDIN : Les trois premières épisodes de la nouvelle série, " Les
Lavigueur, la vraie histoire, " ont attiré plus de deux millions de
téléspectateurs en moyenne.
LISTNUM 1 \l 166 Depuis
de nombreuses années, le succès des émissions financées par le FCT est
indéniable dans le marché francophone.
Considérant que l'auditoire francophone représente le tiers de
l'auditoire anglophone, il est remarquable de constater que l'écoute des
émissions à succès du marché francophone équivaut à l'écoute des émissions
américaines les plus populaires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 167 La
saison dernière, le FCT a appuyé non moins de neuf des 20 émissions préférées
du marché francophone. " Les Boys
", " Annie et ses hommes " et " Destinées " ont toutes
attiré entre un million et un million et demi de téléspectateurs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 168 MS
CREIGHTON: CTF‑funded children's
programming, animation in particular, originating from both language markets is
a truly spectacular Canadian success story.
More than a quarter of the viewing to children's and youth programming
in Canada is to programs funded by the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 169 In
the English market, among the top 30 Canadian programs that appeal to children
aged two to 11, half have been supported by the CTF, including "Toopy and
Binoo," "Franklin," "Captain Flamingo" and "This
Is Emily Yeung," which was watched by more than 48 per cent of English‑language
Canadian kids aged two to seven.
LISTNUM
1 \l 170 Documentary
programs generating from 800,000 to well over a million viewers include
"Libérée : Le choix de Natalie Simard," "Ice Storm: The Salé and Pelletier Affair," and
"Anne Murray: The Music of My
Life."
LISTNUM
1 \l 171 Variety
and performing arts programs generating in excess of half a million viewers
include the "Two‑four Anniversary of Bob and Doug MacKenzie,"
"Quest for the West" and Stuart McLean's "Vinyl Café Christmas."
LISTNUM
1 \l 172 Now,
when you consider the size of our market and the vast choices available,
Canadians are watching CTF‑funded programs and all of these culturally
and commercially successful shows directly achieve a number of objectives of
the Broadcasting Act, while they would not exist without the vital support
provided through CTF funding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 173 And
internationally from France to Finland, from Singapore to South Korea, CTF‑funded
programs are gaining wide acclaim.
LISTNUM
1 \l 174 "Da
Vinci's Inquest" is currently in its third year of U.S. syndication,
drawing over 2 million viewers each week.
LISTNUM
1 \l 175 "Degrassi: The Next Generation" has aired in over
150 countries and is now syndicated in the U.S.
LISTNUM
1 \l 176 "Les
hauts et les bas de Sophie Paquin" et "Minuit, le soir" were
recently sold to France's top‑rated public broadcaster, France 2, for
broadcast in prime time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 177 The
format "François en Série" was sold to NBC Universal, while that of
"Les Invincibles" was just sold to Arte in France and Germany.
LISTNUM
1 \l 178 "ReGenesis"
airs in over 175 countries and was launched in U.S. syndication on over 190
stations this fall.
LISTNUM
1 \l 179 And
great news last week about the sale of "Flashpoint" to CBS, "The
Listener" to NBC, "Sophie" to ABC Family, and the competition
for "The Border" between ABC and CBS means that the CTF‑supported
programs will air on three of the largest conventional U.S. networks. This is nothing short of phenomenal.
LISTNUM
1 \l 180 Our
CTF Emmy winners include "The Newsroom," "Dark Oracle" and
"Shake Hands With The Devil: The
Journey of Roméo Dallaire."
LISTNUM
1 \l 181 CTF‑supported
programs are shot in cities and communities across the country from Vancouver
to Halifax and we're very proud of the remarkable successes that our
productions and the industry have achieved over the past 12 years.
LISTNUM 1 \l 182 M.
CARDIN : L'organisme qu'est devenu le Fonds canadien de télévision est né de la
volonté du CRTC d'encourager la production et la diffusion de meilleures
émissions de télévision canadienne.
L'augmentation des tarifs du câble approuvée par le CRTC afin d'appuyer
les dépenses d'investissement de nombreuses EDR devait prendre fin en 1993.
LISTNUM 1 \l 183 À
la suite d'une proposition volontaire des câblodistributeurs qui a reçu un
soutien considérable de l'industrie, le Conseil a suspendu la mise en oeuvre
des réductions de tarifs et a plutôt choisi d'allouer 50 pour cent de ce
montant au nouveau Fonds de production des câblodistributeurs, qui est devenu
le Fonds canadien de télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 184 Le
Conseil a clairement établi les raisons pour lesquelles il a créé le Fonds,
principalement pour appuyer la création d'émissions concurrentielles sur le
marché canadien et pour accroître la diffusion de genre d'émissions sous‑représentées.
LISTNUM 1 \l 185 Le
CRTC reconnaît les défis uniques auxquels l'industrie canadienne de la
production et de la télédiffusion doit faire face, ainsi que les obstacles à
une présence canadienne significative sur des ondes dominées par un contenu
américain.
LISTNUM 1 \l 186 Le
Conseil a précisé les critères d'admissibilité du Fonds, ainsi que son mode
d'opération. Il a établi les fondements
des critères actuels d'admissibilité du Fonds, comprenant les exigences
relatives au contenu canadien, au genre d'émissions sous‑représentées, à
la diffusion aux heures de grande écoute et au versement de droit de diffusion
minimum pour déclencher le financement du FCT.
LISTNUM 1 \l 187 Le
financement du Fonds provient de deux sources distinctes : une contribution
directe du ministère du Patrimoine canadien, à laquelle s'ajoute celle des EDR
en vertu des Règlements du CRTC.
LISTNUM 1 \l 188 En
1996, le Conseil a transféré la supervision du Fonds au ministère du Patrimoine
canadien. Depuis, notre fonctionnement
est régi par un accord de contribution avec le ministère, qui requiert que nos
deux sources de financement soient administrées selon les mêmes objectifs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 189 MS
CORCORAN: The CTF has travelled a long
and storied past since 1994 continually adapting its programs to respond to the
changing demands and challenges faced by the complex and diverse industry that
is Canadian television.
LISTNUM
1 \l 190 We
have sharpened our definition of Canadian content through the development of
four essential requirements and created benchmarks to ensure that what we
support is made by Canadians for Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 191 We
have developed an asymmetrical approach to the English and French markets and
recognize both a consistent success and market penetration of French language
CTF‑supported productions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 192 We
uphold the importance of creative diversity on Canadian TV. The Commission when it created the CTF in
1994 stipulated that two‑thirds of funding be directed to independent
producers and we have sustained this principle throughout our history.
LISTNUM
1 \l 193 We
transformed the operations of the organization and welcome the significant
efficiencies gained as a result of outsourcing the administration of the CTF
program to the Television Business Unit at Telefilm Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 194 We
know that the arts in general, and television in particular, and increasingly
digital media are the nation's reflecting pool and we strive to ensure that
when Canadians look into that pool they see a part of themselves both startling
and familiar.
LISTNUM
1 \l 195 We
balance both cultural and economic objectives and provide targeted support to
particular sectors of the industry, including French language projects outside
of Quebec, aboriginal language projects, development projects and
versioning. These initiatives fulfil
several aspects of our mandate but the primary vehicle of CTF funding is the
broadcaster performance envelope stream.
LISTNUM
1 \l 196 The
CTF has evolved through a series of funding delivery mechanisms and we have
arrived at one that works, the broadcaster performance envelope system
initiated just four years ago with English drama being incorporated two years
later. 94 percent of our combined
resources are distributed through this mechanism. About $240 million was delivered to eligible
projects by envelopes last year including the fixed portion allocated to the
CBC Radio Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 197 There
are several important components of the BPE system. As the name implies, it operates through
envelopes or allocations of funding made to Canadian broadcasters. These envelopes are not payments to
broadcasters. Rather, they allow
broadcasters to allocate CTF funds to projects on behalf of the CTF subject to
eligibility requirements and minimum broadcaster licence fee thresholds. Once a broadcaster allocates funds in its
envelope to a project it believes will appeal to Canadian audiences, the producer
of that project officially applies to the CTF for that funding. The CTF determines if the project is eligible
and then enters into a contract directly with that producer.
LISTNUM
1 \l 198 Broadcaster
envelopes are calculated on the basis of four performance factors and
broadcasters compete for those funds within each of these calculation factors.
LISTNUM
1 \l 199 The
audience success factor carries the greatest weight in English and significant
weight in French and is derived from the total hours tuned that each
broadcaster achieves over the course of one broadcast year to programs
supported by the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1100 The
regional licensing factor gives credit to broadcasters who licence in the
regions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1101 The
above average licensing factor gives credit to broadcasters who pay licence
fees above historical averages.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1102 And
the historic access factor is derived based on multi‑year levels of CTF
funds that each broadcaster's licence fees triggered, thus modulating the
variations and envelope allocations from year to year.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1103 Envelopes
are recalculated each fiscal year providing a regular rebalancing of the system
except for CBC/Radio‑Canada which receives 37 percent of the total BPE
allocation of the condition of the contribution agreement.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1104 The
benefits of the BPE system are significant.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1105 First,
the envelope system is a market‑oriented funding mechanism with the
broadcaster acting, in essence, as the proxy for Canadian audiences. The CTF does not choose individual projects
for funding. It is the broadcaster whose
business it is to closely track ratings and appeal to the Canadian market who
makes that choice. This is as close to
the market as one can get in programming choices.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1106 Second,
the envelope system promotes competition and rewards success. Due to the weight of the audience success
factor the CTF channels its funds through broadcasters with a proven track
record in generating audiences to Canadian shows. When a broadcaster airs the CTF eligible show
that does well in ratings, that success is reflected in envelope allocations in
the following year. This provides an
incentive for broadcasters to promote CTF‑funded shows and increase their
audience share.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1107 Third,
the envelope system facilitates better planning for the industry by informing
broadcasters how much they can commit to projects in a given year which
facilitates their planning cycle, leading to greater stability for broadcasters
and producers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1108 Fourth,
the envelope system virtually eliminates the issue of over subscription for the
CTF. Producers are required to have a
broadcast licence before they submit their application. Time and effort is not made to apply to the
CTF for projects that have no chance of being supported.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1109 Finally,
as a requirement of funding the broadcaster must commit to airing the program
and must do so doing primetime. This
ensures that economically‑viable programs are supported and that CTF‑funded
shows are seen by Canadians when Canadians are watching.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1110 The
CTF has designed a system that responds to the amount of resources available to
it. The envelope system is still
evolving and CTF staff and board members continue to fine tune the elements of
the program to best meet the CTF's multiple objectives.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1111 In
particular, the manner in which audience success is defined, measured and
rewarded remains a topic of study and debate.
We are cognizant of the limitations in the industry's audience measurement
systems to serve the CTF's audience success measurement requirements and we
continue to seek consensus and solutions to these issues.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1112 MR.
CARTER: The CTF continues to refine and
enhance its accountability systems. The
CTF is managed by professional staff.
The board has the responsibility to ensure that management conducts the
business and affairs of the fund in accordance with its objectives. Policies and procedures are in place to guide
the day‑to‑day management of the fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1113 As
per the terms of the contribution agreement, the CTF regularly submits
financial and program activity reports to the Department of Canadian
Heritage. The CTF is audited annually by
KPMG, an independent accounting firm.
Our annual audited statements are provided to the department and are
published in the CTF annual report which is available on our website along with
other CTF publications.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1114 MS
CREIGHTON: The CTF's project analysis
procedures are a cornerstone to providing fair results and sound business
practices. Although broadcasters decide
which projects they will allot a portion in their envelope, the CTF must
confirm their eligibility for funding.
This is accomplished by business analysts at the Television Business
Unit at Telefilm who review project creative materials, broadcast licences,
corporate documents, financing structures and other documentation to ensure
that eligibility criteria are met.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1115 The
CTF has instituted procedures to ensure its decisions are made fairly and with
full opportunity for applicant producers to participate. This includes both internal review and appeal
procedures.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1116 MR.
BARRETT: Now, a few words on governance.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1117 Since
the fund was established there has been a steady stream of annual improvements
to the governance practices and procedures.
Some of these came from suggestions made by the Department of Canadian
Heritage, some from the Auditor General's Report on the Cultural Industries and
some from an outside consulting firm.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1118 In
recent years change came largely at the direction of the fund's own independent
committee.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1119 Le
conseil du FCT est conscient de sa responsabilité fiduciaire. Il a, donc, déjà adopté des pratiques qui
garantissent la gestion sécuritaire de ses ressources financières. Il a aussi établi des procédures visant à
réduire les conflits d'intérêt au sein du conseil. Par conséquent, les pratiques de gouvernance
du FCT sont désormais aussi complètes et sophistiquées que celles des sociétés
publiques bien gérées.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1120 As
governance consulting firm, Renaud Foster, stated in a report dated June 2006:
"We are of the view that the
CTF has created a detailed and effective framework for handling conflicts as
they arise. In this regard CTF's
conflict guidelines go well beyond what is typically seen in most private
sector settings and they are also more detailed than those adopted by many
boards with stakeholder nominees."
(As read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 1121 MR.
BARRETT: Since the advent of the
independent committee in 2003, in itself an innovative development, it has
completed a series of work plans and published detailed annual reports on its
activities.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1122 For
instance, during the past year the committee has prepared a board charter,
defined the roles and responsibilities of the chair and president and developed
an internal communications protocol.
These documents have now been finalized, provided to the Commission and
are on the public record of this proceeding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1123 Perhaps
the most important recent task of the committee has been to address the issue
and question of succession planning for the board. As my term of office is up in June this is a
timely topic.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1124 I
would like to ask fellow independent committee member, Michel Carter, to
summarize developments.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1125 M.
CARTER : En juin dernier, le groupe de travail a recommandé la mise en place
d'un comité des candidatures dont le mandat serait d'organiser le processus de
nomination du président du conseil d'administration, des officiers, ainsi que
des membres du conseil. Le groupe de
travail a également recommandé que les représentants des EDR participent au
comité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1126 Le
comité indépendant a, d'abord, été d'avis que le comité des candidatures devait
être entièrement composé d'administrateurs indépendants. Toutefois, après réflexion, le conseil
d'administration a mis au point une structure de comité comprenant trois
membres indépendants, un représentant des câblodistributeurs et un représentant
des SRD. Le conseil a créé ce comité,
qui a déjà tenu sa première réunion.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1127 La
première tâche du comité sera de confirmer auprès du conseil son mandat, qui
consistera à recommander des candidatures pour le poste de président du
conseil, à gérer le processus de succession, ainsi qu'à recommander les
candidats qui siégeront au comité exécutif et au comité des finances et de la
vérification. Nous espérons compléter
ces travaux à temps pour l'assemblée générale annuelle du Fonds, qui aura lieu
au mois de juin prochain.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1128 Doug.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1129 MR.
BARRETT: As the task force pointed out,
the dissolution of the CCTA has necessitated the creation of a new organization
to represent the interests of cable BDUs on the fund's board. We were pleased to provide the Commission
with a letter announcing the formation of the new Cable Coalition for Canadian
Expression. While the CCCE's main role
is to nominate BDU directors to our board it has also offered to engage in
discussions to develop a mutually acceptable reporting and accountability
mechanism for the CTF towards the BDU community. This opportunity to work with the coalition
is thoroughly welcomed by us.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1130 In
addition to this development we want to report that the board has approved
other governance improvements for implementation at the forthcoming June
AGM. These include removing the chair's
standalone board seat, along with that of CAFDE and replacing them with the
second seat for the DTH industry and one for a representative of organization
of Canada's creative guilds and unions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1131 We
believe strongly that it is time these voices were heard at our table. We feel they will add value and expertise to
the board debates and reflect an appropriate rebalancing of the stakeholder
interests included in the board's structure.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1132 Les
voix des intervenants et celles des indépendants sont toutes aussi importantes
au sein de nos débats. Ainsi, nous
planifions que notre conseil sera désormais composé d'au moins un tiers des
membres indépendants d'intérêts commerciaux ou d'intérêts liés à leur statut
d'intervenant. Nous ne croyons pas
nécessaire que le conseil soit constitué d'une majorité d'administrateurs
indépendants car nous fonctionnons selon un principe de double majorité qui
garantit que les administrateurs indépendants approuvent chaque décision
importante relative aux finances ou aux politiques.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1133 Before
I conclude on governance let me address one particularly thorny issue head
on. In its report the task force
recommended the removal of producers from the fund's board of directors. This controversial proposal has been
extensively debated both within and outside the Fund and we are sure you will
hear much on it from others this week.
Let me give you the Fund's view and, before I do so, let me assure you
that this is the unanimous view of all of the independent directors on the
board and has also been approved by the stakeholder board members, including
both private and public broadcasters and current representatives of the cable
industry.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1134 The
principle job of the board, apart from its statutory and legal duties, is to
debate and approve each year the program guidelines of the Fund, to build and
maintain a funding system that is reasonably automatic and accessible to its
users, fair and equitable, balanced and transparent and, finally,
administratively efficient is an extraordinarily complex task.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1135 The
funding system, as it stands today, has evolved a great deal over the
years. It is not perfect, but it is
steadily improving. Most importantly, it
bears the impress of every ounce of expertise that each director brings to the
table. And it bears, as well, the
impress of the debate that occurs each year among the stakeholder groups on the
board, the aggressive search for the best possible solution in many many
challenging and complex circumstances
LISTNUM
1 \l 1136 If
you take away any voice from that debate, producer, private or public
broadcaster or BDU, you undermine the result.
The entire Board and, particularly, the independent committee is
strongly of the view that without these voices and this expertise the ability
of the Board to do its job in a fair, effective and efficient way would be
substantially compromised.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1137 M.
CARDIN : Bien que nous ayons beaucoup appris au cours des années, nous savons
que nous pouvons toujours faire mieux.
Le FCT s'engage à continuer de s'adapter au même rythme que l'industrie.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1138 Nous
appuyons certaines des recommandations du groupe de travail. Certaines ont déjà été mises en oeuvre, et
d'autres sont présentement à l'étude.
Par exemple, le FCT travaille actuellement à l'élaboration d'un
programme pilote visant à appuyer la création de contenu pour les nouveaux
médias, et ce, dans notre cadre de réglementation actuelle. Des principes directeurs seront publiés au
cours de l'exercice financier 2008‑2009.
Le FCT souhaite rendre cette initiative permanente dans la mesure où de
nouvelles sources de revenu devenaient disponibles afin de financer
adéquatement cette initiative.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1139 Ensuite,
le FCT a mis en oeuvre une stratégie de communication qui a pour but d'améliorer
sa visibilité. Récemment, nous avons
lancé notre nouveau site web. Nous avons
aussi amélioré notre rapport annuel et notre rapport aux intervenants, et nous
diffusons actuellement des messages d'intérêt public qui rappellent aux
Canadiens que de nombreuses émissions canadiennes populaires existent grâce au
soutien du FCT.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1140 De
plus, dans les principes directeurs 2008‑2009, le FCT a augmenté sa
contribution maximale aux séries dramatiques renouvelées de langue anglaise à
budget élevé afin d'encourager la production d'un plus grand nombre d'épisodes
d'émissions populaires auprès des auditoires.
Par le biais de ce mécanisme, nous espérons accroître le succès
commercial des émissions appuyées par le FCT.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1141 MS
CREIGHTON: Other recommendations in the
report are a matter of concern to us.
The task force recommended that the CTF be split into two streams along
the lines of its two funding sources, creating one public sector fund and one
private sector fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1142 Prior
to the transition the CTF administered two streams of funding, the Licence Fee
Program and the Equity Investment Program, through T'l'film Canada. This dual‑stream model was merged into
a single stream to realize operational efficiencies and we believe a single
stream can continue to support both cultural and commercial objectives while
maintaining this efficiency for applicants.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1143 "Little
Mosque on the Prairie" and "Les hauts et les bas de Sophie
Paquin" are examples of productions that demonstrate that the separation
of cultural and commercial is often an arbitrary distinction; both reflect
Canadian stories, both are successful with audiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1144 If
we were to implement the task force's proposed models would these shows be
cultural or market driven? Would they be
funded from both streams, requiring producers to once again submit two
applications, doubling administrative requirements? And if these shows are not eligible for both
streams, then who would decide which category they fall under and why? And where would the CBC Radio Canada be
placed within this structure?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1145 Many
CTF‑supported shows demonstrate that a single‑stream fund can meet
the objectives of both cultural and commercial success.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1146 MR.
CARDIN: While we fully support the task
force's recommendation to require all BDUs to submit their contributions on a
monthly basis, as this would ensure greater stability for both the CTF and the
industry as a whole, we do not believe the Commission should enshrine
objectives for BDU contributions in the Regulations as per the task force
report.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1147 As
the Commission knows, amending regulations is not a simple matter and codifying
these objectives would make it difficult to keep pace with changing market
realities at a time when the industry is in need of flexibility.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1148 In
addition, placing eligibility criteria directly under CRTC jurisdiction in this
way could turn the Commission into an appeal body for disappointed applicants
in cases where the CTF has determined that their project did not meet the
regulated objectives.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1149 Environ
34 pour cent des fonds du FCT sont alloués aux producteurs sous forme de
participation au capital. L'an dernier,
ces investissements ont généré environ 8 millions de dollars de revenus pour le
FCT.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1150 Le
groupe de travail recommande que le rendement sur investissement ou le
potentiel de rendement constitue un critère de financement. Il existe une dichotomie potentielle entre un
objectif visant à récompenser le succès auprès des téléspectateurs canadiens et
un autre visant à récompenser le rendement sur investissement. Dans le système actuel des enveloppes, les
télédiffuseurs choisissent des projets susceptibles de plaire à leurs
auditoires cibles au Canada. Comme
toutes les ventes canadiennes sont généralement incluses dans la structure
financière d'un projet, le producteur devra conclure des ententes sur les
marchés étrangers pour réaliser un rendement significatif.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1151 Toutefois,
puisque les émissions qui réussissent auprès des auditoires canadiens ne
réussissent pas forcément à l'étranger, ces objectifs peuvent s'avérer
contradictoires. Par ailleurs, les
rendements sur investissement ne peuvent être mesurés précisément que de façon
rétrospective, une fois les ventes étrangères concluent, soit plusieurs mois,
voire plusieurs années après la diffusion initiale de l'émission au
Canada. Cela constitue un autre obstacle
à leur utilisation comme critère de financement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1152 De
plus, certains projets appuyés par le FCT qui ont réalisé des ventes
internationales significatives, particulièrement aux États‑Unis, ont dû
attendre plusieurs saisons avant de regrouper un nombre d'épisodes suffisant
avant d'intéresser des acheteurs internationaux. Par exemple, "Da Vinci's Inquest" a
été souscrit à la télévision américaine ou, selon l'expression anglaise, s'est
retrouvé sur le marché de la syndication après six saisons, soit plus de 90
épisodes. L'utilisation du rendement sur
investissement comme critère de financement introduirait un élément de
spéculation dans le processus qui ne garantirait pas l'atteinte du rendement
anticipé.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1153 MS
CREIGHTON: In January 2007 the Minister
of Canadian Heritage announced a two‑year renewal of the federal
government's commitment to the CTF. The
CTF entered into a contribution agreement with the Department through which we
received approximately $120 million for the 2007/2008 year.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1154 The
requirement to combine the Department and the BDU contributions and allocate
them in accordance with program guidelines is a fundamental term of the
contribution agreement. This agreement
reflects Treasury Board terms and conditions, changes would require the
involvement and approval of the Department of Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board
and possibly other governmental authorities.
The CTF has no control over the agendas or timetables of these
authorities or the decisions that any of them might make.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1155 So
in conclusion, the Canadian Television Fund is the largest funding agency in
the country. Our role in the support of
Canadian content on Canadian television is critical. We support projects that employ writers,
actors, directors, designers, crew and producers. We balance the industry's cultural and market‑driven
goals. Canadians are watching. And as we continue to grow and adapt, our job
is to ensure that Canadians will see their stories, their perspectives and
reflections of themselves when they turn on their TVs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1156 Now,
Madam Chair, we would like to take a look at what Canadians are watching and
play for you a short two‑minute video.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1157 Please
play the video.
‑‑‑ Video
Presentation / Présentation vidéo
‑‑‑ Applause /
Applaudissements
LISTNUM
1 \l 1158 MR.
BARRETT: Thank you very much, Madam
Chair. That concludes our
presentation. We would be pleased to
answer any questions you have.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1159 What
we thought is that, for questions relating to board and governance‑related
issues, I will answer the questions, and for matters relating to the operations
of the Fund and the program guidelines and so on, Valerie would take the
questions from you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1160 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Barrett, Ms
Creighton, and to you colleagues, welcome to these proceedings. I will begin the questioning this morning and
both of my colleagues will have additional questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1161 I
want to thank you for your detailed presentation. I am grateful that it answered some of my
questions, not all of them however, so we will begin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1162 I
want to start with the broadcast performance envelopes, we will move onto the
two streams of revenue issue, governance and then, finally,
accountability. And, like I said, my
colleagues will have additional questions and perhaps follow‑up questions
to mine.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1163 One
of the first things that I noticed in going through your documentation were the
changes in the weight factors of the components that makeup the broadcast
performance envelopes. Can you take us
through what considerations were taken into account in making those
changes? Some were increased, some were
decreased.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1164 MS
CREIGHTON: Yes. Annually, the Board has a process whereby
they look at the results of the envelopes, and I will turn to Kathy in a moment
for the details. So we do consider a
number of factors over the year in terms of balancing the concerns and issues
in both markets and what we have seen as a result of the envelopes working.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1165 So,
Kathy, I will give you an opportunity to respond to those changes in factor
weights.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1166 MS
CORCORAN: Sure. I will start with the English factor
weights. Basically, what we have seen
over the four years of the envelopes is an increase in the audience success
factor weight. It is currently at 40 per
cent. In our first year of opening the
envelopes the envelopes, in fact, were based on historic access. That was the manner in which we felt would be
suit the industry from a stability point of view. Sort of changing the mechanism, this is what
you have had in the past, roll into the new system, you know, start off on that
level and then roll in the performance factors over time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1167 In
the second year we brought audience success in at 30 per cent and just this
past year moved it up to 40 per cent.
And I will take a moment to talk about the English drama envelope. English drama went to envelopes in 2006/2007
and in 2007/2008 we brought the audience success factor into that genre as
well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1168 So
over time, we the board is trying to bring the more competitive components into
the system and reduce the historic access component, which has acted as a
stabilizer.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1169 On
the French side, the story is pretty much the same, although in the French
market there's less ‑‑ there's actually less concern about
audience success because we do so well in that market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1170 The
other factors, above average licensing, of course, we want to encourage that,
so that has increased over the years and regional licensing has increased.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1171 We've
been able to increase some of these factors because in our early years we had a
fifth factor which we no longer use called leverage. We've dropped leverage off to give room for
the others.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1172 Leverage
was used to reward broadcasters for licensing projects that required a smaller
amount of CTF funds and the thinking there is that their licence fees would
increase, and we figured that because that was so similar to above average
licence fees we were sort of doubling up there, we dropped off leverage, moved
the others up.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1173 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Twice you mentioned the
word stabilizer when referring to historical access. How did that act as a stabilizer for the
system?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1174 MS
CORCORAN: Historic access is based on
how much broadcasters ‑‑ how much their eligible licence fees
have triggered.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1175 So,
if a broadcaster triggered, you know, "X" millions of dollars in the
past, that was sort of rolled into the next year's allotment.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1176 And
the reason why we have that is, if you've got significant swings in envelopes
from year to year that impacts broadcaster planning cycles, you know,
significantly, if your envelope drops in half, all of a sudden three series
that you had that were doing very well become more difficult to afford.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1177 So,
we try and give some measure of stability year‑over‑year to the
envelopes to assist in the planning cycles for broadcasters and for producers
as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1178 THE
CHAIRPERSON: So, when you say swing, you
are referring to both the broadcasters and the amounts in each of their
envelopes?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1179 MS
CORCORAN: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1180 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1181 So,
obviously a big component of the broadcast envelope is the audience success
factor, which you have increased to 40 per cent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1182 Now,
it is my understanding that the broadcasters submit the BBM numbers, the CTF
subscribes to BBM numbers and fair to assume that you do a comparison between
what the broadcasters submit and what you receive?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1183 MS
CORCORAN: Absolutely. Broadcasters submit their total hours tuned
to CTF‑funded programs to the CTF.
Every single title that they claim credit for we check to make sure that
it's a CTF‑funded title and the data that they submit we audit against
published BBM Nielsen data.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1184 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And should there be a
discrepancy between your numbers and those submitted by the broadcasters; what
is the process?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1185 MS
CORCORAN: We work in concert with the
broadcasters on this. When we have
discrepancies, we call them up, we say, we're seeing different things. We discuss it, we resolve the issue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1186 At
the end of the day, if we can't resolve it, the CTF's decision holds.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1187 THE
CHAIRPERSON: The CTF's decision holds?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1188 MS
CORCORAN: Absolutely.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1189 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1190 A
number of participants in these proceedings through their written submissions,
so far, have obviously pointed out that there is a difference between the way
in which over‑the‑air broadcasters and specialty broadcasters
report their numbers, the former of course being on an average minute audience
basis and specialty services on a cumulative audience basis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1191 Do
you take these differences into consideration?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1192 MS
CORCORAN: Well, those differences are
how they transact business, you know, sell commercial air time. The metric that we use in calculating
audience success is uniform across all broadcasters, it's total hours tuned.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1193 So,
it's total hours tuned for CTV, it's total hours tuned for Showcase and that
puts them on an equal footing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1194 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1195 MS
CORCORAN: From a metric perspective.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1196 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Do you track in any way
increases of audiences year over year, either by broadcaster or by show for
returning series?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1197 MS
CORCORAN: We do for reporting
purposes. In terms of, does it impact
the allocations that broadcasters get?
Basically we look at the big number, the total hours tuned that they
submit and we've audited and it's compared with all other broadcasters, the
share is determined and then the money is then worked out.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1198 So,
a determination of success per se, program‑by‑program, does not
come into play when we do the calculations, it's an aggregate.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1199 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And you said you compare it
with all broadcasters. Do you take into
account the difference audience reach of each of those broadcasters?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1200 MS
CORCORAN: No, we don't take into account
the difference coverage areas that broadcasters have.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1201 One
thing we do though, just to be clear, envelopes are calculated exclusively by
genre, so when we compare ‑‑ when we're calculating drama
envelopes, we're comparing drama total hours tuned to drama total hours tuned.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1202 When
we calculate docs, it's docs versus docs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1203 So,
we do keep the genres exclusive.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1204 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And I am only going to use
it as the example because it is the very first broadcaster on the list, so
Animal Planet, for example, its audience numbers are on the same playing field
as those of CTV when you calculate their audience reach ‑‑
their audience success, I'm sorry?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1205 MS
CORCORAN: That is how we've been doing
it in the past, yes. We are looking at
possible ways of ‑‑ well, different ways of looking at the
disparity in coverage areas, yes, but it's something that's still under debate
and study.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1206 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Because it is also an issue
that, for example APTN raised, in that there is a degree of, or the perception
of it just not being fair to put everything on the same level, or in the same
field when comparing those numbers for the allocations of the broadcast
envelopes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1207 MS
CORCORAN: We're definitely, you know,
working on the balance between market‑driven, which is: this is the
market, this is your coverage area, we don't have control over your coverage
area and then the fairness access issue.
We're definitely working on trying to balance that. It's a challenge.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1208 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Is there any value in
having broadcasters include audience projections as part of the application
process?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1209 MS
CREIGHTON: Well, our view is that the
projections of audience are speculative in nature, it's a best guess and right
now one of the advantages of the system is when we do calculate the total hours
tuned it's based on actually what happened.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1210 So,
it's a fairly concrete way of looking back and saying, this was the success of
your audience this year.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1211 Now,
within the factor, because there's a built‑in incentive for, as the
audience increase, as the opportunity for the envelope to increase, we feel
that that incents broadcasters to promote and choose good Canadian programming
that will be successful with audiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1212 It's
not impossible to include speculation, but we're concerned that that could be
anybody's best guess on any series and that would obviously only affect
returning programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1213 So,
we feel comfortable that in looking back you have a concrete place to start
from, at least when you're looking at audiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1214 THE
CHAIRPERSON: So, it is your position
that in looking back, as you have put it, that provides enough of an incentive
for broadcasters to continue focusing on increasing their audience?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1215 MS
CREIGHTON: Well, it's pretty competitive
as a system and broadcasters are certainly aware ‑‑ sorry.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1216 MR.
CARDIN: Given the factor weight for
audience success.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1217 MS
CREIGHTON: Yeah, given the factor weight for audience success, broadcasters are
well aware that there's a strong competition between them to improve their
audiences in order to get a larger envelope in the following year.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1218 And
we do feel ‑‑ I mean, it is total hours tuned, as Kathy
mentioned, but that is a system that, you know, we began when the envelope
system was put in place and we felt that it balances off when you take a large
broadcaster with a large reach as compared to the repeat plays that a specialty
might offer, that those two things kind of balance each other off in the
system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1219 THE
CHAIRPERSON: A number of participants in
these proceedings have said that audience numbers alone should not be the only
tool by which the audience is measured.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1220 They've
made suggestions ranging from critical reviews to international sales,
longevity of exploitation are just some of the examples that they have chosen
to include that should be considered.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1221 Have
you considered these or would you care to comment on these suggestions?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1222 MS
CREIGHTON: We don't consider them at the
moment. Again, our attempt in our system
is to try to remain as subjective as possible ‑‑ sorry, as
objective as possible when you're looking at the kind ‑‑ well,
sometimes we...
‑‑‑ Laughter/Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1223 THE
CHAIRPERSON: That is why you are not
sitting there by yourself.
‑‑‑ Laughter/Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1224 MS
CREIGHTON: That's right.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1225 When
you look at the kinds of factors that you've listed, there's some subjectivity
in that process to gauge is this review actually an indication of success or
not, for example.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1226 So,
we've tried to design the system to keep it as objective as possible.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1227 THE
CHAIRPERSON: I see more microphones
on. Did you have anything to add?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1228 MR.
CARDIN: Well, again, to stress the fact
we've mentioned before, that we actually don't pick projects. So, we wouldn't favour a situation where we
would have to become a part of that decision‑making process on a
subjective basis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1229 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you for that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1230 I
have some questions now regarding the CTFables and, again, based on your
documentation, it is up to 10 hours of programs that would have otherwise
qualified for CTF funding that the broadcasters can include as a demonstration
of audience success; correct?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1231 MS
CREIGHTON: Right. Let me just clarify.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1232 The
component of CTFables, as you mention it there, we allow broadcasters to claim
credit for viewing to CTF‑funded shows.
We do allow them to claim credit for 10 titles.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1233 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Not 10 hours?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1234 MS
CREIGHTON: Not 10 hours, it's 10 titles
of programs that could have been supported by the CTF but in fact were not.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1235 So,
an example would be Corner Gas which did not get funded by the CTF, but could
have been had it applied.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1236 CTFables
come in, they have to be reviewed by our program staff to make sure that they
actually would have met our requirements.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1237 And
the reason why we do this is because we're encouraging success outside of what
we fund but, in particular, this is how we allow new entrants into the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1238 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And you are anticipating one
of my questions, because I have a list here somewhere of the pre‑approved
titles and I think the date on it is December 4th, 2007 and there are titles
from all sorts of genres there, both in French and English, and some of these
shows have been funded by self‑administered funds; right?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1239 So,
you allow the inclusion of CTFables even if they have been funded by self‑administered
funds?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1240 MS
CREIGHTON: Yes, we do. I mean, our view is that with the self‑administered
funds it increases production and increases Canadian content on the screens and
gives us more product out there for Canadians to watch.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1241 So,
we have not designed a system to detract or take away from a broadcaster
envelope if they happen to be administering a benefits program at that time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1242 As
we all know, as the benefits program comes into the system it tends to spike
production and then production will level off after the benefits program is
completed. So, we don't feel ‑‑
or have thought about this a bit, but it seems counter productive to penalize
production activity of Canadian content from a broadcaster's envelope only
because they're also receiving benefits money, that that might in fact have the
effect of reducing production overall if we take it away.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1243 THE
CHAIRPERSON: I can see how this is a
benefit to the larger broadcasters, in particular the over‑the‑air
broadcasters, but how does this provide a mechanism for new entrants into the
broadcast performance envelope system?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1244 MS
CREIGHTON: Okay. Kathy, would you like to speak to the new
entrants, how a broadcaster comes into the system through the CTFable process?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1245 MS
CORCORAN: Well, basically any
broadcaster who submits a CTFable is allowed credit, we don't differentiate
between over‑the‑air and specialty.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1246 Our
experience looking at the numbers is almost all of the broadcasters do in fact
submit them.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1247 So,
I'm not sure I'm answering your question.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1248 THE
CHAIRPERSON: It is just that, you know,
it contributes to one of the four factors.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1249 MS
CORCORAN: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1250 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Right, in terms of
eligibility for CTF funding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1251 MS
CORCORAN: Yeah.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1252 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And if you have a small
broadcaster or a start‑up, a digital only broadcaster, can they ever get
to the point where they become eligible for CTF funding when this is one
component of one of the four factors when considering CTF funding?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1253 MS
CORCORAN: Okay. There is another way in which a new entrant
can get into the system and that is actually through historic access.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1254 How
historic access works is you get credit for historic access based on your
licence fees that trigger that funding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1255 So,
if a new broadcaster co‑licences or licences or part of the financing
structure, their second, third window, whatever, if their licence is part of
the financing structure and that licence is an eligible licence and it triggers
money from another broadcaster's envelope, that broadcaster, the new entrant,
gets credit for the money that was triggered out of the other broadcaster's
envelope. It's prorated by the size of
the licence.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1256 So,
that is another way of getting entrance into the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1257 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And I
have here a list of ‑‑ what I am looking at, just so everyone
is aware, is the Approved Broadcaster Performance Envelope, English Language
applications current to November 4th and I can see a number of titles that have
more than one broadcaster who are providing licence fees, and that is your
position, that is another way for new entrants to come into the system?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1258 MS
CORCORAN: Yes, that's correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1259 THE
CHAIRPERSON: In your annual report, just
because I love examples, you listed Book Television, CTV Travel and Court TV as
new entrants into the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1260 How
did they get in?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1261 MS
CORCORAN: Well, sorry, I don't know the
answer to that. I'd have to look ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1262 THE
CHAIRPERSON: You are coming back on
Friday, so that...
LISTNUM
1 \l 1263 MS
CORCORAN: I'll get back to you on that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1264 MS
CREIGHTON: We'll check the exact details
of how each one got into the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1265 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thanks.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1266 And
in the broadcast envelope allotments for 2007‑2008 fiscal year, it is
obvious that each broadcast envelope is allocated to individual licensees on a
per genre basis as opposed to a corporate group.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1267 So,
what I am getting at here is, given the recent consolidation in the industry,
have you given any consideration to whether or not it would be more efficient to
allot broadcast envelopes on a corporate basis as opposed to an individual
licensee basis, would that provide the broadcasters with even more flexibility?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1268 MR.
CARDIN: I just want to make one comment
or interject.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1269 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Please.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1270 MR.
CARDIN: By genre and language as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1271 THE
CHAIRPERSON: By genre and language. Thank you for that, yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1272 MS
CREIGHTON: We have not designed the
system to consider only allocating an envelope to the corporate group and
partly that's because of the way the system was originally designed by the four
factors and we looked at each individual broadcaster on that basis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1273 Whether
or not it would give more flexibility, it's possible that it could. I mean, I think we've considered a number of
other factors to gain various broadcasters some flexibility in the system as
the system has evolved.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1274 Kathy,
do you have anything to add on the corporate group issue?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1275 MS
CORCORAN: I do actually. We have a policy right now that allows
broadcasters within a corporate group to transfer their BPE funds to each
other. So, if one member of the
corporate group has drama funds, they are permitted to transfer those drama
funds to another broadcaster in that corporate group that has a drama envelope.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1276 So,
we do allow the shifting of funds ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1277 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And it is a hundred per
cent of the funds that can be transferred; right?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1278 MS
CORCORAN: That's correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1279 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1280 MR.
CARDIN: We've also recently made a
change allowing trades between broadcasters, you know, in the same genre and
language. For example, you know,
broadcaster A can trade $50,000 of its documentary envelope with broadcaster B
to receive $50,000 of their drama money.
This is a recent change that we've also made this year.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1281 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the change
that ‑‑ you are referring to page 34 of your comments, you
said:
"Transfers between broadcasters
which are not in a corporate group..."
(As read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 1282 MR.
CARDIN: That's right.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1283 THE
CHAIRPERSON: So, that is what you are
referring to?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1284 MR.
CARDIN: That's right.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1285 MS
CREIGHTON: There also is a 15 per cent
flexibility for each broadcaster in terms of their overall envelope where they
can determine where to allocate that level of resources to.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1286 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And that flex amount is
restricted to within the same corporate group?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1287 MS
CREIGHTON: That flex amount is per
broadcaster ‑‑ broadcaster envelope.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1288 MS
CORCORAN: That's correct. It's 15 per cent per broadcaster envelope and
the flex, just to be clear, is the amount of the envelope that the broadcaster
can decide what genre to spend it in.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1289 So,
we allocate drama money, they've got to spend it in drama; we allocate docs,
they've got to spend it in docs. 15 per
cent of what they earn every year goes into flex and they can move it into
drama, doc, whatever they choose, but it's only 15 per cent per broadcaster.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1290 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Within the same corporate
group?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1291 MS
CORCORAN: Correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1292 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And that flex amount can't
be transferred to another broadcaster?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1293 MS
CORCORAN: It can be transferred.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1294 THE
CHAIRPERSON: That can be transferred as
well?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1295 MS
CORCORAN: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1296 MR.
CARDIN: With the exception of
educational broadcasters, where we permit a higher percentage of flex.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1297 THE
CHAIRPERSON: You guys are good, because
that was my next question, I am going to educational broadcasters and whether
they are subject to the same factors when determining the envelopes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1298 MS
CREIGHTON: They are and our mechanism
treats them in that same way.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1299 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Why?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1300 MS
CREIGHTON: Why? Sorry.
Yeah, they have a higher flex.
Just last year we ‑‑ I'll let Kathy give you the
details ‑‑ but we opened up the ability for educational
broadcasters to have more flex, especially those with budgets under a set
level.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1301 MS
CORCORAN: That's correct. The envelopes for the educational
broadcasters are calculated in the same manner as every other broadcaster, but
we do allow educational broadcasters a greater percentage of flex.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1302 For
broadcasters under ‑‑ with total envelopes under $750,000,
their entire envelope is flex. For
broadcasters over that amount, 50 per cent of their envelope is flex.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1303 We've
been looking at other ways of handling the educational broadcasters for some
time and we're still working on it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1304 MS
CREIGHTON: We have received a proposal
from the educational broadcasters which we are considering and have not
finished our analysis and discussion at the board level about that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1305 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And they too are subject to
their audience numbers being compared to all other broadcasters, despite the
fact that some are provincial in nature only?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1306 MS
CREIGHTON: That's correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1307 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. In terms of the special initiatives
identified in the contribution agreement between you and the Department, it
appears that ‑‑ I think I have read this correctly ‑‑
it appears that French language projections outside of Quebec and development
fund financing have a guaranteed amount from which to draw funding, 10 per cent
for the former and 1.75 per cent respectively of the program's funding is to be
dedicated to these two initiatives.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1308 Are
these amounts commensurate with the number of projects received? In other words, is there an over subscription
to projects in these categories?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1309 MS
CREIGHTON: I'll ask Dave Forget to speak
to the detail on that, but we do ‑‑ in development, we
actually allocate more than the 1.5 per cent that's allowable in the
contribution agreement. Our actual
amount of money is $9‑million.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1310 Dave.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1311 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Which represents what
percentage?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1312 MS
CREIGHTON: About six I believe, is it?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1313 MR.
CARDIN: Nine out of 270.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1314 MS
CREIGHTON: 9‑million out of 270.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1315 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1316 MR.
CARDIN: We've got a calculator.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1317 MS
CREIGHTON: Dave will speak to the issue
of over subscription in those two categories.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1318 MR.
CARDIN: 3.3.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1319 THE
CHAIRPERSON: 3.3. Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1320 MR.
FORGET: In the English system for
development it works similar to the envelopes, so it's triggered by the
broadcasters, hence there's no over subscription, there's no application
process other than broadcaster triggering.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1321 On
the French side we still have selected development and we have ‑‑
because we have three rounds over the course of the year, occasionally there's
over subscription. I would describe it
as modest.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1322 On
French outside Quebec, once again, we have a number of application deadline
dates because it's selective program, we have on occasion over subscription,
but I'd describe it as modest.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1323 THE
CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, could you repeat
the last ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1324 MR.
FORGET: It's modest over subscription.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1325 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And is that true as well
for the aboriginal and versioning?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1326 MR.
FORGET: Yes. We have a once‑a‑year deadline
for aboriginal production. There is
modest over subscription for that and we do development for aboriginal
projects, essentially as they come in. I
think if we had more money we could spend it.
So, there is a bit of over subscription there, but it's ‑‑
we don't see it as being an urgent situation.
There is some over subscription, but it's modest.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1327 THE
CHAIRPERSON: How do you define modest
over subscription?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1328 MR.
FORGET: Well, I've been at Telefilm long
enough to remember the days when we had application deadlines for production
and we would have one and a half to two to two and a half times the available
dollars. That's serious over subscription.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1329 When
you're ‑‑ you know, you're getting five to do four, that sort
of thing, that's modest.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1330 So,
we're not refusing more than a handful of projects, so it's manageable over
subscription.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1331 And
on version ‑‑ I think you asked about versioning. We're not over subscribed on versioning, in
fact we're under subscribed.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1332 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Do you see an opportunity
for increasing the efficiencies of managing the specialty initiatives through a
guaranteed envelope or through some other means?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1333 MR.
FORGET: Well, I think the envelope ‑‑ we have an
envelope system for English development now and I think it's working well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1334 On
the French side, there hasn't been, from my perspective, a lot of requests on
the part of our clients for to go to that system. I suppose if we were more seriously over
subscribed that might be, but I think what we have now is a program that's
manageable.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1335 I
guess we could look at that. It's
working well on the English side, it's up for consideration.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1336 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I think you very well covered how it is that
projects get submitted to the CTF, so I am not going to go over that again.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1337 But
just to be clear, at no time does the CTF, therefore, make a qualitative
evaluation other than determining whether or not a project meets with the
eligibility criteria for funding?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1338 MS
CREIGHTON: Yes, that's true. The primary source of our funding, the 94 per
cent is envelope and within that envelope it is the broadcasters, both public
and private, who make the decisions on which projects are chosen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1339 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Is the board involved?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1340 MS
CREIGHTON: No.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1341 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. One of the issues that has received a great
amount of debate in the submissions received which you didn't touch upon in
your oral submission is eight out of 10 versus 10 out of 10.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1342 Now,
in your documentation you said that exceptions have been granted where projects
achieving less than 10 out of 10 points have received funding, and I think
primarily it's been the area of children's programming and even there, in
particular, animation. I believe you
also say in some documentary.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1343 MS
CREIGHTON: That's correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1344 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other genres
where the exception has been granted?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1345 MS
CREIGHTON: Yes, there are and I'll have
Nathalie Clermont speak to the details, but we do have some exceptions on
occasion in drama as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1346 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1347 MS
CREIGHTON: Nathalie.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1348 MME
CLERMONT : Oui. En fait, il existe aussi
dans les dramatiques et dans les projets de variétés hors de la scène des
exceptions où des points peuvent être alloués à des performeurs ou à des
acteurs non‑Canadiens, qui sont, par contre, des figures connues auprès
du public canadien. Donc, un point peut
aller à des performeurs ou des acteurs non‑Canadiens dans ces cas de
dramatiques et de variétés hors de la scène.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1349 THE
CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to
apologize. I'm going to continue asking
you a question in English.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1350 What
would you say is the percentage of project ‑‑ applications
received ‑‑ what percentage was granted in terms of
exceptions?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1351 MME
CLERMONT : On n'a, malheureusement, pas cette statistique là, mais on pourra
vous revenir... we can come back Friday with that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1352 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1353 Do
these exceptions have to be approved by the Department or the board, or were
these strictly a management decision?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1354 MS
CLERMONT: It's management decision.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1355 THE
CHAIRPERSON: So, the granting of
exceptions does not go to either the board or the Department of Canadian
Heritage?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1356 MS
CLERMONT: On individual projects?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1357 THE
CHAIRPERSON: On individual projects.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1358 MS
CLERMONT: No.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1359 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1360 And,
you know, the $64,000 question.
Throughout your submission and in your documentation you do maintain
that the CTF through the BP system has moved toward a market‑driven
approach and you sustain that the contribution agreement between you and the
Department reflects that as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1361 Do
you believe that reducing the requirement that a production that achieves 10
out of 10 points and reducing that to eight out of 10 would accelerate that goal?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1362 MS
CREIGHTON: Would accelerate the goal of
market‑driven?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1363 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1364 MS
CREIGHTON: Well, we think we've
demonstrated in our brief that Canadian projects are achieving a high degree of
audience success within the system that we work within and most of the
successes we've talked about today on the drama side would be 10 out of 10
projects.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1365 I
think the question as to whether or not eight out of 10 would increase the
market appeal would be ‑‑ it's possible certainly to do that,
I guess the question would be: Would we
lose on the other side of that in terms of Canadian talent that may not be
involved in those productions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1366 And
our objective is to ensure that we build an industry, that we ensure that the
system is in place to make sure Canadians are working, Canadian stories are
being developed and told by Canadians for Canadian audiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1367 Did
you...
LISTNUM
1 \l 1368 MR.
CARDIN: I was just going to say, you
know, if that question is asked, it is a question that perhaps would only be
relevant for the English market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1369 We
feel that the impact of such a change in the French market would be marginal,
if any at all.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1370 THE
CHAIRPERSON: You did ‑‑
sorry, Mr. Barrett.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1371 MR.
BARRETT: Just to add a comment which is
that the eight out of 10 concept would be, I think, linked probably in most of
the board's mind to success in international markets. So, the question is whether the success in
Canadian ‑‑ it would have a material impact on success in
Canadian markets, having non‑Canadian performers and I think that's the
key question and I think the experience is that the success with Canadians is
not linked to having non‑Canadian performers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1372 To
the extent there's a discussion about international success, that's a different
story.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1373 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And, so, obviously your
position is that the priority has to be success in Canada and if there is
success internationally, that is a secondary element?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1374 MS
CREIGHTON: That is our mandate.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1375 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And on page 2 of your oral
presentation you do list a number of Canadian programs that are 10 out of 10
productions that have achieved audience success and you provide us with the
audience numbers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1376 Should
that be our benchmark going forward or should those be the benchmarks going
forward, because there are more than one?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1377 MS
CREIGHTON: Probably everybody in this
room has a sense of what the benchmark should be based on history and
experience and I'm sure when you hear from others throughout the course of the
week they'll speak to that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1378 If
you ‑‑ there certainly could be a system developed where
benchmarks are set. I think if that is
the direction that we take we would have to then seriously consider different
benchmarks for different types of programming and different types of
broadcasters because the benchmark in a large conventional might be very
different than a specialty or a benchmark in children's or in documentary is
very different than that of drama. So
there is nothing wrong with looking at benchmarks. Are these the specific ones? These are the ones that we are familiar with
in terms of what Canadian programming has achieved as compared to each other
and to American programming and they are well known amongst the industry. But if we are to set specific benchmarks I
think we would want to take some due time and consideration to reflect upon
that with our stakeholders in the industry and look at those very carefully if
in fact they are targets to which performance will be held accountable rather
than pick them only based on what we have seen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1379 MR.
CARDIN: You can perhaps imagine that if
we were to set benchmarks per genre, per language and for type of broadcaster,
conventional, pay, specialty, digital, EDNET, we might be looking at
approximately 40 separate benchmarks.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1380 THE
CHAIRPERSON: You have a knack for
discouraging.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1381 THE
CHAIRPERSON: If there was, however, an
outcry for setting benchmarks who do you think would be in the best position to
determine what those benchmarks should be?
Is it the CTF, it is us, is it the department, is it the producers; is
it the broadcasters?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1382 MS
CREIGHTON: Well, I think that's a
conversation we would want to have with everyone. I think if you are going to set a series of
benchmarks on which you will require the industry to perform, I think we would
be ill‑advised for a single entity to set those benchmarks without you
know a significant body of research and a significant discussion amongst all
the relevant players. And those, I guess
in our view, would certainly include the department, the CRTC, the BDUs, our
myriad of stakeholders and the broadcasters before we would set those in firm
targets.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1383 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1384 I
am going to move to the issue of the two streams of revenue. You were quite clear in your oral
presentation and throughout your submissions as to the CTF's position, but I am
going to take you to paragraph 92 of your first set of comments where you say:
"The specific objectives
contained within the contribution agreement that result in the CTF special
initiatives stream could be considered expenditures of the Department of
Canadian Heritage. The balance of the
funds from the Department of Canadian Heritage and the BDU revenue could be
allocated to the Broadcaster Performance Envelope stream and reported to both
the department and the BDUs based on the objectives outlined in the
report. This could be done on an annual
basis." (As read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 1385 THE
CHAIRPERSON: I would like you to
elaborate on that paragraph because are you saying here that we should maintain
the streams of revenue coming from obviously both Heritage and the BDUs but
they would be administered by ‑‑ continued to be administered
by the CTF as a whole but that your reporting of those two streams of revenue
could change?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1386 MS
CREIGHTON: Yes, that is what we are
saying. Our advice and preference is to
keep the two as a whole but we can look specifically to the expenditures from
both sources of revenue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1387 THE
CHAIRPERSON: But in this paragraph you
are quite specific in saying that the funds that would come from Canadian
Heritage would be the ones that would be allocated solely to CTF special
initiatives?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1388 MS
CREIGHTON: For reporting ‑‑
sorry?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1389 MR.
CARDIN: For reporting purposes solely,
yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1390 MS
CREIGHTON: Are you asking the question,
just to be clear, about the separation of the money that comes from the BDUs
and Heritage and what that looks like?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1391 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Absolutely.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1392 MS
CREIGHTON: Okay, great. Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1393 We
have done some initial calculating on that and if you have a premise that all
of the public money that comes into the system should support the objectives
within the contribution agreement. Then
we looked at the number of programs that that would involve. So those are aboriginal versioning. In the case of ‑‑ and the
easy ones, the French language outside Quebec that are directed in the
contribution agreement as targets and the regional activity.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1394 When
it comes to directives in the contribution agreement on both development and
regional spend the complexity there is taking a look at what appropriate
proportion would come out of the private stream versus the public stream.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1395 So
what we did when we did some initial calculations on this was we looked at the
development spend of the public broadcasters and the development spend of the
commercial broadcasters and we did that same application in terms of regional.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1396 So
when we broke it out, taking that particular approach and cut to be consistent
with all of the objectives in the contribution agreement, 61 percent of our
resources would be spent on programming coming from the public stream and 39
percent from the private stream. So if
we were to apply a methodology to use that allocation, currently in the
resources we see from the Department of Canadian Heritage, the money we get
from them wouldn't quite cover all of those initiatives that are contained.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1397 Now,
the two issues that I mentioned, regional spend and development, are the parts
that you could do further analysis in terms of seeing where they would actually
end up on which side of that dividing line.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1398 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And so that, of course, is
going ‑‑ again, based on what you have just told us, is going
to increase operationally how the CTF would manage the funds?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1399 MS
CREIGHTON: Yes. In terms of administrative expenses are
you ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1400 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1401 MS
CREIGHTON: Yes, we anticipate that that
would be the case.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1402 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Do you anticipate by how
much?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1403 MS
CREIGHTON: No. Currently, our administrative expenses are
between 5 and 5.1 percent for both ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1404 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1405 MS
CREIGHTON: ‑‑ the Canadian Television Fund and the activity
at the Television Business Unit. We did
administer two streams in the past and 7, I think, 7 percent was what we
believed the administrative ‑‑ between 7 and 8, I would say,
administrative expenses would have been at that time when we were administering
the dual streams before.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1406 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And the contribution
agreement, I believe, caps your administrative costs ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1407 MS
CREIGHTON: 6 percent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1408 THE
CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ 6 percent?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1409 MS
CREIGHTON: That's correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1410 THE
CHAIRPERSON: On to board
governance. Again, Mr. Barrett, you were
quite clear but a number of suggestions have been made by intervenors in these
proceedings as to what would be the ideal composition of the board. The DGC, for example, recommended that it
should not be association members who will be board members but rather staff
members of associations to remove any perceived conflict of interest.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1411 I
would like you to comment on that suggestion, please.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1412 MR.
BARRETT: We have had experience on both
sides of that over the years. Some of
our members have ‑‑ member associations have appointed staff
persons to sit on the board and some have appointed people more directly
involved in the production process.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1413 Generally,
the way our governance structure works is that the member associations make
their own choice. I'm aware that a
number of members have debated intensively internally which way to go on this
and some feel one way and some feel the other way. We have been very lucky to have circumstances
in which when people have been appointed to the board that are staff members of
their respective associations that they do have a high degree of expertise, in
large measure because when they arrived at their job at the member association
they had already had a lot of experience in the sector. I don't think it's the same in all cases.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1414 We
are ‑‑ I think as you have heard over the past 20 or 25
minutes there is this huge degree of complexity around the work that we
do. So we have opted generally to allow
the member associations to choose their own people.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1415 I
feel ‑‑ I think the board would be reluctant to have a
situation in which the board members were limited to staff associations because
I think in some cases the quality of expertise if it was across the board would
suffer.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1416 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And notionally you dismiss
the ‑‑ because the CBC who brought forward the suggestion that
the board be made up of ‑‑ the entire board be made up of
independent members.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1417 MR.
BARRETT: The debate around whether or
not an independent board or a stakeholder board is the best vehicle for this
particular fund is a longstanding one and obviously other organizations have
opted to have an independent board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1418 When
the Cable Production Fund was first established in 1994 it was actually the
Commission that established and identified the various organizations that would
belong and the various individuals that might participate in the board. And I think the objective at the time was to
have a system that was as close to being objective as possible and as automatic
as possible.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1419 So
we run a rules‑based environment and, as you have heard and I think it
can't be said too often, the board has no role in individual program allocation
decisions; no role in appeals. In fact,
it's a tentative ‑‑ our conflict of interest guidelines that
no program can be discussed at a board meeting by name.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1420 So
we feel that the objective of having a rules‑based system requires this
incredible degree ‑‑ that is automatic and objective requires
an incredible degree of expertise in order to make sure that these rules do not
have unanticipated consequences that damage the industry.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1421 So
there is a link and it is not just simply that people like to be on the
board. It is a link between this rules‑based
objective environment and the expertise needed to settle out the rules so that
the industry is well served.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1422 One
point I would make that I think is important to be made and that has come up
quite a bit in the past year and a half, the fund is not perfect. But the fact that we have developed a system
that seamlessly weaves into the way the industry does business is actually a
huge accomplishment. The fact that we
organize ourselves annually to make our rules in time for the broadcasters to
make proper decisions about their schedules and order from producers in time so
that they can make high quality products that are available and delivered in
the cycle that makes the most marketing sense, is actually extraordinarily
important.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1423 So
we govern ourselves by those realities and those realities are brought to the
table by the folks who are actually in the business of making and buying these
shows.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1424 MR.
CARTER: If I may add just a comment?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1425 The
fact that this board functions with a double majority in that the independent
members have to vote on all important finance and policy decisions, at the end
of the day we have the benefit of both, fully independent vote and the fully
knowledgeable and industrial opinion at the same time, and that worked very
well for the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1426 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1427 And
in terms of the timing and the production cycle ‑‑ I do want
to thank you for including in your submission ‑‑ I believe it
was your first submission, an appendix that really detailed the timing of,
really, a production cycle. I think it's
important for everyone involved in these proceedings to take a very close look
at that. As I said in my opening
remarks, as will we.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1428 Now,
in terms of accountability you certainly do have a very robust website. I visited often in preparing for this
hearing. You have a stakeholders report,
an annual report. You made your ‑‑
you and the department made ‑‑ allowed us to put your
contribution agreement on our website.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1429 Is
there anything that I have missed in terms of what is widely available both to
the public, to the stakeholders, to the department, to us?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1430 MS
CREIGHTON: Not in terms of hard
materials. I think one important factor
that we have a renewed emphasis on at the CTF is the process of communication
and stakeholder outreach. We treat this
very seriously and established a position that Mr. Cardin fills in terms of
stakeholder relations and outreach specifically, along with policy development.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1431 So
we hope to continue to have a process whereby ‑‑ we right now
have a cross‑country tour that we do to hear from all clients. It's wide open. It's not excluded to anyone.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1432 We
have regular meetings with other partners in terms of the private funds or the
provincial agencies.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1433 We
have recently instituted an outreach with broadcasters. We appreciate that the BPE system is often
complex so we are developing a new procedures manual for clarity and
transparency around the BPE system and the outreach to broadcasters.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1434 We
have increased our attendance at a number of major markets and festivals and
organizations across the country to be present and raise the visibility of the
CTF but also to take the opportunity to have business meetings with specific
clients at that time and keep the door open so that we hear from all manner of
people, regions and interests and ideas about the CTF and what has to change or
ideas they may have about improving the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1435 As
well, the staff at the Television Business Unit annually once the guidelines
are released, usually this time of year, December‑January, the staff go
out across the country and meets specifically with applicants to review and
discuss issues around the guidelines and questions that people might have.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1436 So
I think ‑‑ I just wanted to add that there is that piece that
we do in terms of communication and ongoing dialogue on a daily basis
really. Whenever we meet people publicly
I always say, "The phone is always on.
We may not answer within an hour.
It's a big country with lots of issues.
But we respond within 24 hours and attempt to respond seven days if the
issue is very complicated." So we
have a wide client outreach that we do as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1437 MR.
CARDIN: I would add that, you know, in
the last year we visited events ‑‑ I won't give you the whole
list but we visited every province in the country with the exception of the
Territories.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1438 Another
document that we are putting together presently is a BPE policy and
administration reference document so that all of the rules and processes for
calculating the envelopes will be incorporated into a single document. That's in the course of being drafted and
should be released soon.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1439 And
as Val was saying ‑‑ Dave might want to speak a bit to
this ‑‑ but the TBU is embarking, I believe, next week or in
two weeks on an outreach tour.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1440 MS
CREIGHTON: And the Territories were not
for lack of trying. It was just trying
to get us and them together on a date.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1441 MR.
BARRETT: Just on the governance front I
would just like to add the fact that we post the annual reports of the
independent committee.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1442 And
I think that, if I could just take a brief moment to talk about this, the
concept of an independent committee is actually a fairly interesting and racy
governance concept, a permanent one with a specific step or mandate along with
the double majority that Michel has mentioned.
To have an independent committee effectively report against its own
bylaw mandate annually and disclose its work plan and prepare a formal report
each year and publish it and post it on the web ‑‑ and I
understand it's a formal process so some of the reading is a little bit tough
to sledge your way through, but as a disclosure and accountability process it's
very healthy. And I think the
independent committee takes its work quite seriously and believes that those
reports add value to the process.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1443 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you once again
for your detailed response. I think it
is important to get these points on the public record.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1444 I
am now going to pass the baton over to my colleague, Vice‑Chairman Arpin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1445 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Thank you, Ms Cugini.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1446 Well,
I have a series of questions. They are
not all related and they are surely not in as good an order than the ones that
were asked by my colleague who had a definite plan, because some of my
questions come from my reading of your submission and what you have said
earlier today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1447 I
will start first with the communication report that the chair of CTF just
mentioned. I noted that on a yearly
basis you are issuing two reports, one you call the stakeholder report, the
other one that you call the annual report.
But I also note that your annual meeting is in June and your annual
report only comes out in November.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1448 Shouldn't
it be the other way around so the stakeholder report in November and the annual
report at the time of your general meeting, general annual meeting?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1449 MR.
BARRETT: That is quite possibly the case
and I think it's a great suggestion. We
should try to emulate it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1450 But
let me, just to give you a sense of the different orientation, the annual
report which we are working very hard to beef up complies with the provisions
of both law because of the period of time within which you have to issue audited
financial statements and the requirements under the contribution agreement.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1451 The
stakeholder report really is our way of trying to release to the industry as
fast as possible after the actual year end, as much production and industry‑related
market information as we can.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1452 We
hold a meeting in Banff which is originally designed as kind of a mock public
company AGM but it is largely designed to give the industry as much information
as we can manage to put together as fast as possible. And let me tell you why that's relevant and
important.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1453 Most
of the tracking systems in the industry have a year end, either the calendar
year end or the March 31st government year end.
Because of the proportion of projects that we are involved in our
information is generally pretty good and it's pretty comprehensive across all
the various genres, production activities in the regions and so on. And because we have been able through the assistance
of our extraordinarily able staff to develop our information systems, we are
able to have that information within three months after the year end which
actually betters most of the usual requirements for audit and yada yada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1454 So
that's really the point behind the stakeholders report. And we call it a stakeholders report because
we want it to be information useful to them.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1455 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Well, obviously, could the
financial statement be appended to the stakeholders report so it will alleviate
one of the criticisms that the CTF has been facing lately?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1456 MR.
BARRETT: I think that would be a great
idea but I think that those statements could only be in draft because I don't
believe we have audited information within three months of the year end. So I think one of our challenges of the
statements that you saw, the financial statements were from the previous fiscal
year and any financial information we would give in June ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1457 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: But your financial year ends on
March the 31st like the government year?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1458 MR.
BARRETT: Sorry. Monsieur Arpin, s'il vous plaît, répétez la
question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1459 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Oui. Est‑ce que votre
année financière se termine le 31 mars?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1460 M.
CARDIN : Oui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1461 M.
BARRETT: Oui.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1462 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Donc...
LISTNUM
1 \l 1463 MR.
BARRETT: Perhaps I could ask Sandra
Collins to ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1464 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: ...ça donne seulement deux mois,
parce que ‑‑ your annual meeting is taking place in early
June?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1465 MS
COLLINS: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1466 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: So that means that you only have
April and May to do the audit. It's only
the banks that are able to do their audits within the two‑month
period. All the other public companies
are making use of at least three to four months and the banks I know why,
because they do have auditors on location year round.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1467 MR.
BARRETT: Perhaps I could ask Sandra
Collins, sir, who is our Vice‑President of Finance and Corporate
Administration, to address this.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1468 MS
COLLINS: We could definitely alter our
audit schedule and attempt to have the audited statements in time for our
general meeting in Banff. We could make
that change.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1469 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Well, I am really leaving it to
the board to make that final determination but it's one of the criticisms that
we heard in the last 12 months, that the annual statements were not ready for
the time of the annual meeting and obviously, as you said, you are trying to
mock up a public corporation but if you held your public ‑‑
the annual meeting and you don't have the financials then obviously that ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1470 MR.
BARRETT: We totally agree, and I guess
we would suggest that the situation that occurred this year had to do with one
of these auditing technicalities that related to the transition. Generally speaking, of course you are
right. We have to have annual financial
statements available for the AGM but they are not the statements from the year
that ended two months earlier. And so I
think that ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1471 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: So you are almost ‑‑
if you have ‑‑ you are always something like 14 months late?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1472 MR.
BARRETT: Maybe I'm getting out on a
limb.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1473 MR.
BARRETT: Somebody ‑‑ I
hear the sound of sawing.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1474 MR.
BARRETT: Sandra ‑‑
could I ask Sandra to clear this up for us?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1475 MS
COLLINS: The statements we would provide
in June of 2008 would be for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1476 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Fine, much better.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 1477 M.
CARDIN : Pour répondre à votre question initiale, compte tenu maintenant qu'on
va obtenir les états financiers plus rapidement, il n'est peut‑être pas
réaliste de penser qu'on puisse sortir notre rapport annuel au mois de juin,
compte tenu que les états doivent être approuvés par nos membres.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1478 Mais,
certainement, nous avons déjà entamé notre réflexion par rapport est‑ce
qu'on va éventuellement combiner notre rapport aux intervenants et notre
rapport annuel? Certainement, il n'y a
pas de raison que notre rapport annuel sorte au mois d'octobre ou novembre l'an
prochain. Ce sera plus rapide.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1479 Une
autre des distinctions entre les deux rapports, comme Valerie disait, le
rapport annuel répond à toutes les obligations qui nous sont fixées dans
l'entente de contribution, alors que dans notre rapport aux intervenants... je
vais revenir.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1480 L'une
des obligations dans l'entente de contribution, c'est toujours de rapporter la
différence avec l'année précédente. Mais
dans notre rapport aux intervenants, on présente de l'information, trended
information sur quatre, cinq, six ans, et selon nous, ça brosse un portrait
plus éloquent de l'évolution de l'industrie de la production télévisuelle.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1481 Et
on est justement, comme monsieur Barrett le disait, en train de regarder comment
on peut peut‑être améliorer le rapport annuel en incluant ces composantes
là également et en le publiant plus rapidement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1482 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Il y a un des intervenants, qui est un intervenant contributeur, qui,
lui, prétend qu'il n'y trouve pas son compte dans l'information qui est publiée
dans le rapport des intervenants ou dans le rapport annuel. Son intérêt est plus financier que structurel.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1483 Another ‑‑
you filed with the Commission over the last couple of weeks some documents
regarding what you call protocols and charters and one of them is a document
that deals with the roles and responsibilities for the chair and for the
president. And I guess the document that
you have prepared has been prepared taking into consideration one of the
recommendations of the task force.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1484 Now,
one of the recommendations of the task force was that the title of the
president be changed for president and CEO.
You acknowledged in your submission of last July that you were to
undertake to do that, except that in the document that you filed there is no
reference to the CEO function of your president. Is there any reason?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1485 MR.
BARRETT: Perhaps that was an
oversight. I think it's the board's
intention to make that change along with the other package of bylaw changes
that are proposed for June.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1486 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: So we could expect that when the
bylaws will be adopted that the title of the manager of the organization is
president and CEO?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1487 MR.
BARRETT: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1488 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Thank you very much for that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1489 Now,
there are contentions by some intervenors that the fund is oversubscribed. Mr. Forget earlier today said that the
fund ‑‑ there is no oversubscription and obviously with the
introduction of the broadcast performance envelopes the notion of
oversubscription has totally disappeared.
Do you agree with me?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1490 MS
CREIGHTON: The notion of
oversubscription has virtually disappeared for the CTF. Prior to the envelope system as you know, the
fund was often oversubscribed based on demand that was out there. But with the advent of the introduction of the
system what we have really done is develop a system that can respond to the
basic amount of resources that we have to work with.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1491 I
think we all remember in this room the days of lineups when there was lots of
speculation about which projects might or might not be successful in the system
and a lot of people, both applicants, producer applicants and broadcasters did
a lot of work and were often disappointed when oversubscription was so heavy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1492 So
now the decisions are made by the broadcasters.
As we have mentioned in our report, they are the element within our
industry that is closest to the market.
So the oversubscription issue in terms of volume of applications that
comes to their door certainly still exists there but for the CTF it's been
virtually eliminated.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1493 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Now, in the former period, who
was making the final determination of which project will be produced and which
will not? Was it the board?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1494 MS
CREIGHTON: No.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1495 MR.
BARRETT: No, the board has never ‑‑
but since 1994 the board has never engaged at any level in project
determination. It has always been a
staff function. So I think the question
should be answered by Val.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1496 MS
CREIGHTON: Yes, the staff would make
those decisions even though it was a selective system. And it would be based on a very strict
interpretation of the guidelines and eligibility criteria and policy and
program developments that were reflected in the guidelines.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1497 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: So nobody could make the argument
that the BDUs or some BDUs or one BDU could have been disappointed by the fact
that the Broadcaster Performance Envelopes had been introduced and then he had
lost some power or some ability to influence production while he has no more or
they have no more of that ability.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1498 MS
CREIGHTON: No. The board never was involved in picking
winners or lowers in terms of projects.
In fact, if a current board member sitting on the board of the CTF
happens to have a project in the system and they have a question about that,
they have to call me and I will make a determination as to whether or not that
question violates any of the conflict of interest issues.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1499 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Now, we haven't spoken at all
about the CBC. We know that the CBC is
guaranteed, by the contribution agreement, 37 per cent of the money of the
fund. How was that 37 per cent achieved?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1500 MS
CREIGHTON: How do we come up with that
amount of money?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1501 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1502 MS
CREIGHTON: It is based on ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1503 MR.
BARRETT: We were given that number in
the contribution agreement.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1504 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: So it was not part of any
negotiation?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1505 MS
CREIGHTON: No, no. No, sorry, I misunderstood your
question. The 37 per cent is a condition
of the contribution agreement. I thought
your question was how it gets allocated to ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1506 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: No, no. Yes, what I am saying, exactly, we fund the
37 per cent within the contribution agreement.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1507 MS
CREIGHTON: That is correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1508 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: But who made that determination
that it was to be 37 per cent rather than 35 or 43?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1509 MS
CREIGHTON: That recommendation came to
us as a condition of the contribution agreement, it was the Department of
Canadian Heritage who recommended the 37 per cent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1510 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: So, in effect, it was never
questioned by the board, it was taken and accepted as an obligation?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1511 MR.
BARRETT: It was a contractual
obligation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1512 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1513 MR.
BARRETT: We were not party to the
calculations that the Department made to arrive at the 37 per cent. Neither the existence of the envelope nor the
calculation, has ever been discussed by the board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1514 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: I see. And is the CBC/Radio‑Canada subject to
broadcast performance envelope? And, if
yes, how do you assess their performance?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1515 MS
CREIGHTON: Yes, they are subject to the
conditions with the exception of the audience measurement, but we have a
contractual agreement with the CBC/Radio‑Canada that requires them to
ensure that other performance targets in terms of licences regional activity
are met. So they meet those other
conditions of the factors within the broadcast performance envelope, but their
audiences are not measured.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1516 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: And does the CBC/Radio‑Canada
have the flexibility similar to the one that the private broadcaster envelope
has?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1517 MS
CORCORAN: With the exception of how the
CBC/Radio‑Canada envelopes are derived, CBC and Radio‑Canada are
subject to all the same rules of BDU usage so, yes, they do have a 15 per cent
flux.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1518 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: And how will they use it? Could they trade money with another private
broadcaster? Drama money for documentary
money or vice versa or is it within their 37 per cent and it is in between CBC
and Radio‑Canada and their specialty services that they do own?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1519 MS
CORCORAN: If CBC were to transfer funds
with another broadcaster, a private broadcaster, they would have to do so on a
dollar‑for‑dollar basis. So
the amount that they access or they have, you know, at their disposal to work
with would never exceed 37 per cent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1520 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: And so that would not be
different than the members of ATEC and the other ‑‑ because I,
on your website yesterday, was checking and I saw that Télé‑Québec has
traded some drama money with TVA for their documentary money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1521 MS
CORCORAN: That is correct. They would have traded on a dollar‑for‑dollar
basis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1522 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: And the numbers add up to the
penny.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1523 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Well, I think that is all for the
time being.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1524 Thank
you very much, Madam Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1525 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1526 Commissioner
Morin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1527 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: I salute the A‑team, but
beware, because yesterday at the Super Bowl it is the B‑team who won the
match.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1528 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: So I hope that you have your
earpieces ready because I will ask all my questions in French.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1529 En
fin de semaine, le journal " La Presse de Montréal " publiait deux
grandes pages, deux grandes pages des nouveaux succès de la télévision
québécoise en France. C'était
inhabituel, et on donnait trois exemples : " Les Bougons ", "
Les hauts et les bas de Sophie Paquin ", " Minuit, le soir ".
LISTNUM 1 \l 1530 C'est
une première. Ça ne s'est jamais
produit. Jamais la télévision québécoise
a autant scoré en France, finalement. Et
dans ces deux pages, on ne trouve nulle part le nom du Fonds canadien de la
télévision, et c'est pourtant vous autres qui êtes à l'origine du succès en
France si on regarde ça dans le rétroviseur.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1531 Donc,
ma question est la suivante. Vous avez parlé tout à l'heure... vous avez dit
" could ", pourrait. Si on
avait deux fonds distincts, comme le propose le rapport du groupe du travail,
donc, un pour la télévision commerciale, avec l'argent des entreprises de
distribution, et un autre pour le fonds du ministère du Patrimoine, est‑ce
qu'on n'aurait pas plus de transparence?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1532 Quand
je regarde votre rapport annuel, c'est bien compliqué de savoir à qui... ce
n'est pas évident du premier coup d'oil, et vous savez comment les journalistes
lisent rapidement. Alors, il faut peut‑être aider la communication à ce
niveau là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1533 Est‑ce
que, donc, on ne pourrait pas avoir, avec ces deux fonds, plus de transparence,
non seulement plus de transparence, mais est‑ce que le public
consommateur et contribuable ne serait pas en mesure de mieux apprécier votre
travail, d'apprécier la performance d'un fonds par rapport à l'autre, avec
l'argent du public et l'argent privé des câblodistributeurs?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1534 Et
finalement, est‑ce que vous ne seriez pas plus à l'aise pour aider des
séries qui ne sont pas forcément de grand public, grand auditoire, mais qui
peuvent être de qualité, financées par le ministère du Patrimoine du Canada
pour Radio‑Canada?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1535 Donc,
autrement dit, deux fonds, transparence publique/privée, compétition et
information qu'on ne retrouve pas.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1536 C'est
ma question. Elle est bien
générale. Mais, spécifiquement, est‑ce
qu'on ne pourrait pas avoir, et est‑ce que ça ne ferait pas du sens qu'on
ait une bonne description dans vos rapports annuels de ces deux fonds, avec,
d'une part, l'argent du public, et d'autre part, l'argent des entreprises
commerciales?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1537 M.
CARDIN : Je ne crois pas personnellement qu'il soit nécessaire d'effectuer une
modification de système en profondeur pour arriver aux objectifs là que vous
évoquez.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1538 Je
pense qu'il s'agit là, d'ailleurs, d'abord et davantage d'un effort au niveau
de nos communications. Je suis loin
d'être convaincu que si le fonds détenait une participation en équité dans les
projets que vous avez mentionnés que les journalistes de " La Presse
" auraient davantage fait mention de notre nom.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1539 Aussi,
il y a certaines émissions aussi... je voulais juste mentionner ça parce que
vous avez dit que c'est une première. Ce
n'est pas tout à fait le cas. On a donné
certains exemples récents dans notre présentation, mais la vente de produits et
d'émissions télévisuelles québécoises par voie de format s'effectue depuis
nombreuses années.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1540 Par
exemple, je dirais " Un gars, une fille " a été la première émission
vendue en format aux États‑Unis, a été vendue dans plus de 30
territoires. Il y a " Le cour a ses
raisons " qui est dans la même situation.
Il y a une très longue liste.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1541 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Mais ce que je voulais dire surtout, c'est d'un coup comme ça là, et ce
n'est pas pour rien qu'on fait deux pages.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1542 M.
CARDIN : Oui, oui. Tout à fait! C'est que là, il y a des annonces
simultanées.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1543 CONSEILLER
MORIN : C'est parce qu'il y en a plusieurs.
Il y a beaucoup d'exemples.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1544 M.
CARDIN : Oui, et je pense qu'on doit s'en féliciter justement. C'est qu'on est arrivé à voir développer un
tissu industriel et une expertise au sein de notre industrie au niveau créatif
et au niveau des affaires qui fait en sorte qu'on peut maintenant
compétitionner à l'international, et je pense que notre priorité au fonds est
justement d'améliorer notre stratégie de communication en produisant des outils
comme l'extrait audiovisuel que vous avez vu.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1545 Je
vous dirais qu'il y a d'autres fonds qui sont dans la même situation. Ce n'est pas toujours évident. Par exemple, dans l'article, je suis
convaincu qu'ils ne vous ont pas dit non plus que ces émissions là étaient
soutenues via les crédits d'impôt ou que peut‑être le Fonds Rogers ou le
Fonds Bell a mis de l'argent dans ces fonds là également.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1546 Alors,
ce n'est peut‑être pas dans la pratique journalistique, et je pense que
pour nous, en résumé, l'important, c'est de raffiner et de bonifier notre
stratégie de communication.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1547 CONSEILLER
MORIN : En fait, je reviens un petit peu pour quelques secondes là‑dessus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1548 C'est
que si vous aviez deux fonds qui soient mis en compétition l'un avec l'autre,
le public et le privé ‑‑ dans ce cas là, il y en avait deux de
Radio‑Canada et une de TVA ‑‑ bien, on verrait à la fin
de l'année, très simplement, la performance des deux fonds en des termes qui
accrochent le public au niveau des séries, tandis que là, on les retrouve
partout, mais finalement, on ne voit pas très bien, dans la revue de presse et
à des moments forts, toutes les séries, autant du côté anglophone que
francophone, pour lesquelles vous êtes à l'origine, finalement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1549 M.
CARDIN : Oui. Encore là, c'est que je ne
suis pas convaincu que les deux fonds seraient en compétition. Ce serait deux fonds distincts, et comme
madame Creighton en a fait part dans son intervention, une question qui se
pose ‑‑ nous n'avons pas la réponse ‑‑ c'est
où se retrouverait Radio‑Canada dans ce système là.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1550 Et
le système des enveloppes, comme on l'a expliqué, est un système qui est basé
sur la concurrence et sur la performance.
Plus une émission obtient de cote d'écoute, qu'elle soit à l'antenne de
TVA, TQS, TV5, Radio‑Canada, plus en bout de piste l'enveloppe du
diffuseur devrait être bonifiée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1551 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Mais dans ce cas là...
LISTNUM 1 \l 1552 M.
CARDIN : Alors, c'est déjà un système axé sur la compétition.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1553 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Dans ce cas là, Radio‑Canada se retrouverait dans le fonds
public.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1554 M.
CARDIN : Ça, ce n'est pas une décision que nous prendrions, mais plutôt une
décision...
LISTNUM 1 \l 1555 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Mais c'est au niveau de livrer l'information pour qu'on la saississe.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1556 M.
CARDIN : Mm‑hmm.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1557 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Je vais juste revenir sur la communication parce que je trouve ça
important. On ne serait peut‑être
pas ici... vous avouez un peu qu'il y a eu des lacunes au niveau des
communications. On ne se retrouverait
peut‑être pas ici si on savait davantage tout ce qu'a fait le Fonds
canadien de la télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1558 Quand
monsieur Shaw, par exemple, publie dans le " Globe and Mail " de
grands articles pour dire que ce Fonds canadien de la télévision, pour 2
milliards et demi depuis 10 ans, je pense, ce n'est pas grand‑chose, on
ne voit pas très bien votre réplique, et je me demande si, à ce niveau là, il
n'y aurait pas un effort à faire pour faire connaître mieux au public pas
seulement des soirées lors des audiences, mais d'une manière récurrente,
surtout avec les résultats que vous avez.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1559 MS
CREIGHTON: Thank you. I apologize, I will give my response in
English.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1560 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: That is okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1561 MS
CREIGHTON: Yes, we certainly believe
that the CTF needs to be very aggressive and more aggressive in terms of getting
the word out there amongst the public, decision makers and our contributors
about the work that we do and the results that we have spoken to this morning.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1562 So
in that regard we, this year, just within the last few months, launched a very
large government relations, public relations and communications campaign that
resulted in a number of PSAs which we are very pleased the broadcasters have
been airing this week, one of them right in the pre‑game of the Super
Bowl ‑‑ just think of the audiences that will bring ‑‑
and a strategy to inform people.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1563 We
work within a limited budget. To do so,
we will use as many resources as we can bring to bear to take the good word out
but we are constrained within a certain amount of administration for the
Fund. So we have to balance how much we
spend on that activity because our primary motive is to make sure the majority
of our money goes onto the screen for Canadians to watch.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1564 But
we would agree, we will do a much better job of communicating our story in the
future and have just launched a campaign to do so.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1565 MR.
BARRETT: My only addition would be to
say that the board was very strongly of the view that we should not be using
the Fund's money to reply directly and that, as a practical matter, all roads
lead to this room and we should prepare to tell our story both in the manner
that Val has summarized and also to you in this room.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1566 CONSEILLER
MORIN : On peut espérer, donc, que, avec cette nouvelle campagne, on aurait
moins de publicité comme celle‑là au cours de la prochaine année?
LISTNUM 1 \l 1567 M.
BARRETT : Oui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 1568 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Merci.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1569 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you very much
for your patience this morning in answering our questions. We know we will see you again later this
week. We will now take a 15‑minute
break. Thank you.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing
at 1101 / Suspension à 1101
‑‑‑ Upon resuming
at 1116 / Reprise à 1116
LISTNUM
1 \l 1570 THE
SECRETARY: We will now hear the
presentation of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1571 Appearing
for CFTPA is Guy Mayson, who will introduce his colleagues. You then have 15 minutes for your
presentation. Thank you.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
LISTNUM
1 \l 1572 MR.
MAYSON: Good morning, commissioners, it is a pleasure to be here. A very distinguished group of commissioners
may I say.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1573 My
name is Guy Mayson and I am the President and CEO of the Canadian Film and Television
Production Association.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1574 With
me today are Sandra Cunningham to my immediate left, President of Strata Films
in Toronto, who is Chair of the CFTPA board.
She is the Co‑Producer of such Canadian features as The Statement,
Being Julia, Where the Truth Lies and, most recently, Fugitive Pieces, and the
theatrical feature‑length documentary, 27.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1575 To
Sandra's left is Ira Levy of Breakthrough Films and Television in Toronto, who
is Co‑Chair of our Broadcast Relations Committee. Among the programs Ira
has executive produced are Atomic Betty, The Adventures of Dudley the dragon,
Kenny vs. Spenny and the documentary series Little Miracles, and King &
Country.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1576 To
my far right, Julia Keatley, President of Keatley Entertainment in
Vancouver. She is a Co‑Creator and
Executive Producer of the drama series Cold Squad and Godiva's. Julia co‑chairs our Broadcast Relations
Committee.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1577 And
to my immediate right, Kevin DeWalt, President of Minds Eye Entertainment of
Regina. Kevin recently produced a mini
series The Englishman's Boy based Guy Vanderhaeghe's Governor General's Award‑winning
book, and he's currently in post‑production on the Canada‑France
feature film Walled In.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1578 Ira,
Julia and Kevin have all been past chairs of the CFTPA and each have served as
the Association's representative on the CTF board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1579 Also
with us today I am pleased to say is John Barrack, CFTPA's National Executive
Vice‑President and counsel.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1580 The
CFTPA represents almost 400 companies that create, finance, produce, distribute
and market feature films, television programs and interactive content for new
digital platforms. The producers on our
panel are here to share with you their experiencing in creating and financing
quality original Canadian television programming and to discuss the impact of
certain of the proposed changes to the Canadian Television Fund that were set
out in the taskforce report published last June.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1581 This
hearing is about one aspect, in our view an extremely important one, of the
Canadian broadcasting system. This is a
country that believes in regulation to further the public interest. If we do not believe this, we would not be
here. Without regulation of the
television sector decisions about what appears on our television screens would
be based solely on the economic interests of broadcasters. In other words, it would be market‑driven
completely. And given our proximity to
the enormous U.S. market to our south in terms of domestic television content
in the areas other than news and sports, we would effectively become the fifty‑first
state.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1582 Clearly,
this proceeding occurs at a critical juncture with significant implications for
BDUs, broadcasters and producers, for the Commission, for the Department of
Canadian Heritage and for the Canadian public and, of course, for the Canadian
Television Fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1583 In
our view the CTF plays a critical role investing in quality domestic television
production. It supports drama,
documentary, kids and performance programming in English and French and in the
languages of Canada's indigenous peoples.
Since its inception the Fund has contributed to the creation of more
than 25,000 hours of independently produced productions, for total production
budgets of more than $8.3 billion.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1584 The
CFTPA greatly appreciates that the CRTC has provided this opportunity for
interested parties to make further representations concerning the future of the
CTF. Your notice of public hearing
stated that the Commission received 184 submissions in response to the
taskforce report, clearly an indication of how important the Fund is to the
Canadian broadcasting system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1585 We
are very concerned that the notice seems to indicate that the CRTC has already
accepted three of central recommendations of the taskforce report; namely the
creation of a private sector funding stream, the establishment of revised
criteria for this funding stream and the inclusion of a statement of objectives
for that funding stream within the BDU regulations. We urge you to pause before implementing
those proposals and give careful consideration to the views of those with
direct knowledge and experience of the fund and its workings.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1586 In
all honesty, we feel the Fund is not broken and we caution you not to be swayed
by misleading comments about the performance and objectives of the Fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1587 Julia.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1588 MS
KEATLEY: Thank you, Guy. The CFTPA strongly opposes the notion of
splitting the CTF into two separate funding streams with different objectives
and criteria.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1589 In
Canada, we have already experimented with separate funding streams and found
that it didn't work. That is why we
endorse the existing CTF structure that has brought together the former
separate funding streams administered by itself and Téléfilm Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1590 We
believe that creating two separate funding streams with different criteria and
objectives would have serious irreparable consequences for the following
reasons. Firstly, a privately‑funded
market‑driven funding stream with a lower point threshold will diminish
the Canadian productions and not necessarily result in more popular programs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1591 In
fact, our most popular programs like Corner Gas, The Border, Little Mosque on
the Prairie, Degrassi: The Next Generation and ReGenesis are all distinctly and
identifiably Canadian. They also enjoy
international audience success. Our
Appendix A located at the end of these remarks demonstrates the successful
track record of CTF‑supported programs and this is by no means an
exhaustive list.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1592 Secondly,
implementing dual funding streams with distinct objectives and criteria would
have serious repercussions for this unique public/private partnership
structure. A very real consequence could
be the withdrawal of the federal government's financial contributions to the
production for quality Canadian television production, resulting in enormous
uncertainty for the production industry and for Canadian conventional pay and
specialty broadcasters.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1593 The
taskforce itself rejected the notion of splitting the CTF into two separate
corporations, stating that:
"Such a proposal could put at
risk the public/private partnership upon which the government's contributions
are based." (As Read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 1594 The
inherent contradictions between the cultural objectives of the public funding
stream and proposed new market oriented approach for projects supported by
private contributors would inevitably result in incompatible rules and
guidelines and a major disconnect between the two streams.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1595 It
is not clear at all how these two streams would interact. The result appears to be two smaller funding
envelopes and a smaller per‑project contribution. For producers, this is a step backwards from
the goal of a proper financing model for Canadian production.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1596 Setting
up two funding streams with separate objectives and eligibility criteria will
substantially increase the administrative costs of the CTF and effectively undo
the efficiencies realized by amalgamating the separate funding streams that
were originally administered by the CTF and Téléfilm Canada separately.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1597 Creating
hits isn't just a matter of allocating funding on the basis of audience
success. The best way to attract and
retain an audience is through an effective partnership between broadcaster and
producer. The broadcast envelop system
promotes this because it rewards broadcasters who achieve largest audiences and
puts the most funding support into productions they air.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1598 A
focus on return on investments combined with a diminished emphasis on the Canadian
aspects of a production will result in funding support going to programs with
the greatest level of foreign investment, the very programs that have the least
need of funding support. This type of
programming already exists. It is made for foreign markets with foreign
creative talent that often accompanies foreign presales. We create about $1 billion worth of such
programming annually in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1599 These
projects are eligible for federal and provincial tax credits. This CTF financing model has allowed the Fund
to support strongly Canadian programming.
The Canadian broadcasting system is shaped by our geography. We live next door to the country that is the
largest producer of English‑language entertainment in the world and most
of that U.S. production, from the excellent to the mediocre, is available to
Canadian viewers from Canadian and American broadcasters whose services are
provided over the air via cable and satellite.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1600 This
accident of geography puts Canadians at a particular disadvantage when it comes
to creating domestic television content.
Without the financial support provided by the CTF many of the most
popular Canadian drama, kids' and documentary programs that attract significant
audiences in Canada and around the world would not be made in the future.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1601 Ira.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1602 MR.
LEVY: Thank you, Julia.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1603 The
CFTPA is pleased that the taskforce report has recognized the need for a better
funding model for Canadian production. Its
recommendation that the CTF should increase the minimum broadcast licence fee
threshold and reduce the amount of federal tax credits permitted to be included
in the financing structure at evidence of this.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1604 The
Fund has put in place a number of measures that contribute to this
objective. For one thing, the CTF has
encouraged broadcasters to increase their licence fee commitments by linking
its licence fee top‑up contributions to the broadcast licence fee. This push for higher broadcast licences for
CTF‑funded productions has helped our sector to create high‑quality
entertainment programming for Canadian television audiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1605 But
you have to recognize that Canadian broadcast licences at about 30 per cent of
budget for CTF‑funded productions are much lower than in countries like
the U.S. and the UK where the broadcast licence is generally between 70 to 80
per cent of the total production budget.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1606 And
even with federal and provincial tax credits there still is a funding gap. Not only is the CTF pie not getting
substantially bigger, production costs are increasing steadily because of
inflation, because of higher payments to the guilds and unions we engage,
because broadcasters are requiring us to produce in HD and to provide
supplementary content for non‑broadcast digital platforms. And because our audiences want to see, in
Canadian programs, the high production values they are familiar with from
American and British shows that are made with substantially higher budgets.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1607 While
other elements of the program financing equation, such as tax credits and
foreign program buys, which are calculated as a percentage of budget, are
expanding Canadian broadcast licences in drama are essentially capped. In other words, one of the most important
elements to Canadian broadcast contribution is falling behind. And this is counter‑productive, because
Canadian broadcasters keep saying that they want to see larger Canadian
audiences for Canadian programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1608 If
we are to put Canadian television production on a sound footing we need to
ensure a better production funding model with higher contributions from
broadcast licence fees, strong promotional and scheduling support for Canadian
productions and larger per‑project contribution from the Fund. This means, as the Commission has suggested,
finding additional sources of funding for the CTF, not reducing the finite
resources currently available.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1609 Kevin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1610 MR.
DeWALT: Thanks, Ira.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1611 The
CFTPA would like to counter some of the criticisms that have been made about
the effectiveness of the Fund. The CTF
is a flexible funding body constantly adapting to new realities in the
broadcasting, production and distribution sectors. CTF‑supported programs are of high
quality with many achieving critical acclaim and audience success in Canada and
around the world.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1612 When
the Gemini Awards were handed out last September and October in Toronto and Regina
41 of the winners were associated with CTF‑supported programs. These included everything from best drama
series, Slings & Arrows from Rhombus Media; best TV movie, Doomstown from
Sarrazin Couture Entertainment; best dramatic mini series, Dragon Boys from
Anchor Point Pictures; best social political documentary, Fatherland from Barna‑Alper
Productions; best children's non‑fiction programming, Make Some Noise
from Omni Film; and best biographic documentary, Dangerous When Provoked: The
Life & Times of Terry Mosher, Kaos Productions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1613 What
better proof does one need that the Fund provides a market‑driven system
of funding support than the fact that a broadcaster in tune with its market is
willing to licence a program?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1614 The
CRTC has asked what additional sources of revenue it should consider to
increase CTF funding. The CFTPA is
clearly on record in asking that the CRTC eliminate the exceptions it has
granted to the mandated requirement that BDUs contribute 5 per cent of revenues
derived from broadcasting activities to independently‑administered
production funds as originally proposed in drafting the broadcasting
distribution regulations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1615 If
the Commission were to make this adjustment, we estimate that the CTF would
benefit from an additional $80 million annually of program funding
support. This would greatly assist the
Fund's ability to meet the various demands on its resources and would balance
the additional financial input that the taskforce has recommended that
broadcasters make through higher licence fees.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1616 The
broadcaster contribution would be further enhanced if the CRTC were to disallow
the counting of CTF licence fee top‑ups as eligible Canadian program
expenditures and if broadcasters were encouraged to revert to the historical
licensing terms of four plays over three years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1617 Like
Ira and Julia, I have represented the production community on the CTF
Board. That experience was both
frustrating and rewarding. The producer
representatives didn't win every battle, but we are convinced that the
consensus positions that have evolved are in the best interests of the Canadian
Broadcasting system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1618 Among
the things that we fought for are higher broadcast licence fees and the
encouragement of regional production.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1619 We
have also worked very hard to create appropriate producer safeguards that are
enforceable by the CTF staff.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1620 As
a former member of the CTF Board, I believe that the success of the CTF is more
than partly attributable to the fact that it has had since its inception a
stakeholder Board. Because broadcasters
and producers and distribution companies are all in the room together, what
happens is that self interest gives way to finding common ground and solutions
are devised that best serve the Canadian Broadcasting system as a whole.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1621 Sandra.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1622 MS
CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Kevin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1623 My
colleagues on this panel, Ira, Julia, Kevin, as you've heard, have all
represented this association on the CTF Board and, as importantly, each of them
has been a producer of commercially and culturally important programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1624 We
cannot in good conscience appear before you this morning without addressing one
recommendation of the Task Force Report that has profound impact on our
membership, on the fund itself and for the Canadian television industry, and
that is the issue of Board representation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1625 The
Task Force Report has recommended that producer representatives should be
removed from the Board. The rationale
for this recommendation is to counter any perception of conflict of interest
since independent producers are deemed to be direct recipients of CTF funding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1626 It
proposes that some other means be found of ensuring that the perspectives of
the independent production sector represented and contribute to decision‑making
possibly through an advisory committee.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1627 This
suggestion both ignores the invaluable contribution that our representatives
have made over the years and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the
broadcaster/producer relationship.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1628 It
also ignores the fact that the broadcaster and BDU representatives on the Board
are also potentially conflicted.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1629 In
fact, the broadcaster performance envelope system is a prime example of how
producers and broadcasters, working together, have encouraged the CTF to
develop a new funding mechanism that encourages more market input.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1630 In
fact, as referenced by Kevin, production representatives were initially
adamantly opposed to the envelope system because we considered it to put too
much control in the hands of the broadcasters, but it also serves an
illustration of how members of a stakeholder Board were able to work together
to develop an efficient program funding mechanism that takes into account
market forces.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1631 With
regard to accountability and compliance, the CFTPA considers that a
strengthened broadcaster/producer relationship is essential. We have proposed that this can best be
achieved through effective terms of trade and set out key principles governing
contractual relations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1632 The
CFTPA appreciates the role the Commission has played in encouraging
broadcasters to negotiate such agreements.
But given the striking imbalance and the negotiating position between
large broadcast ownership groups and smaller medium‑sized production
companies, we have also asked the CRTC to take a more active role by requiring
broadcasters to report annually on their dealings with independent producers
and oversee an effective dispute resolution process.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1633 Guy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1634 MR.
MAYSON: Thank you, Sandra.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1635 No
one knows better than the production community the difficulty of putting
together the various financial components that enable the creation of quality
Canadian drama, documentary, children's and performance programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1636 We
sincerely hope that the outcome of this proceeding is a revitalized CTF that
serves as a more effective support to the financing of quality Canadian
television production, but there is or should be a bigger goal, to preserve and
enhance the ability of the Canadian television sector to build audiences now
and in the future for quality Canadian programming that is properly funded and,
therefore, sustainable.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1637 The
future direction of the CTF is of enormous importance to our membership. We appreciate that in putting together its
Task Force Report the CRTC had a difficult job in trying to balance competing
viewpoints, but the purpose of this review should not be to make concessions to
divided interests.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1638 Before
implementing substantive changes to the CTF, the Commission must weigh the
risks of recommending substantive change and give due consideration to the
consequences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1639 Thank
you for your attention. We would be
pleased to answer your questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1640 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Mayson and
your colleagues.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1641 I
will ask Vice‑Chairman Arpin to begin the questioning.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1642 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Thank you, Mrs. Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1643 We
will start by, my first question in dealing with your oral presentation, and
while I was listening to what Julia Keatley was saying, I am taking page 6 at
the bottom where she says:
"The best way to attract and
retain an audience is through an effective partnership between broadcaster and
producer." (As read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 1644 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: I felt that in Ira's presentation
that there was somehow a dichotomy between the two things that were said.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1645 Julia
was saying that it is key to have a partnership and it is how we have built
success, and Ira is saying that ‑‑ well, the broadcasters are
not putting enough money, and particularly in drama, and it is not there but it
has been said before, their programming ‑‑ their Canadian
content over the weekend or on less attractive evenings.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1646 So,
I am trying to guess where finally the ‑‑ what you are really
trying to say. You are saying is it
really a partnership you have with the broadcaster, or is it a partnership
filled with numerous or too many problems of all sorts?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1647 MS
KEATLEY: I think I'm going to start that
one.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1648 I
think that in my remarks what we're talking about is when you're trying to
achieve an audience success and you're building on that you are partners
together in trying to do that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1649 And
so, therefore, the best way of reaching success is truly to be a partnership,
to be agreeing about promotional strategies, to be agreeing about, you know,
time slots.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1650 Some
of those things then become out of our control and sometimes we don't like the
level of licence fee. You know, that's
always a bit of a negotiating thing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1651 I
think it's putting ‑‑ I'll let Ira speak for his
comments ‑‑ but the comments that we then go to about levels
of licence fees are just ways of, you know, what we've been trying to do in a
lot of our remarks is deal with a better financing model for Canadian
production.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1652 It's
something we've been coming forward to you for a long time and we think that that
is a key thing for attracting better audiences and we think that essentially
broadcasters should be paying a greater portion of that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1653 It's
all a negotiation and sometimes it feels like it's a bit of an imbalance.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1654 But
in terms of audience success and making the best creation of programming, that
partnership is key.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1655 So,
Ira, do you want...
LISTNUM
1 \l 1656 MR.
LEVY: Yeah. I mean, Julia is really getting to the heart
of what our partnership is about. I mean,
with the CTF we have developed an envelope, so we can develop a project with a
broadcaster. That's a very good starting
point, that's a very effective use of the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1657 When
it gets to the actual financing of the show, there's an inequity in terms of
what the Canadian broadcaster's putting in in terms of the licence. That doesn't mean that they aren't a partner,
it just means that they can be a stronger partner and, therefore, help to
contribute to make a much better program, just like they do in terms of licence
fees in the U.K. and in the U.S.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1658 So,
again, it's not so much that we see them as ‑‑ there's a
disconnect about them not being a good partner or a bad partner, it's just that
they have to be more of an equal partner in terms of putting money into the
project.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1659 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Now, from your own perspective,
what are the reasons why the licence fees are much smaller in Canada than in
other foreign countries, because from studies that I have seen it is also the
case with France and Australia where the licence fees are higher than here in
Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1660 Basically,
from the perspective of CFTPA, what are the historical factors that have gone
into having so lower fees?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1661 MR.
MAYSON: That's a big question,
Commissioner Arpin, but it's a very good one.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1662 I
think it comes down to different economic models in different countries where
the broadcaster is able to input more money into the production of a show that
is able to recover much of the, if not all of its costs within its own market,
then it's able to licence international distribution of that show and it's a
very effective business model.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1663 I
think the model that seems to have evolved in Canada is that, according to the
broadcasters, it's virtually impossible to recover any substantial costs from
Canadian programming, so licence fees have been very low.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1664 And
the trend has been though clearly is that much more money has spent traditionally
over the years in acquiring foreign programming vis‑a‑vis Canadian
programming and there's been a fairly substantial difference between the two.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1665 I
think we would say ‑‑ we would say that we need a more viable
model in Canada, where I think licence fees may not ever be the level of the
United Kingdom or the United States, but higher than where they are now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1666 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: And are you trying to achieve
that; are you having discussions with them or is it something that historically
it has been discussed and it is no more on the table?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1667 MR.
MAYSON: It is a constant discussion
point I think and to be fair I think, historically, looking at broadcasters'
contributions to, particularly to CTF‑funded programs, their licence fee
levels have changed and risen but largely due to the fact that the CTF has
imposed those kinds of thresholds on the broadcasters.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1668 But
I think too ‑‑ I think too as the economic model changes I
think there's a potential for Canadian shows to sell internationally grows and
we're seeing more of that now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1669 I
think we're taking that discussion to another level with all of the
broadcasters and partly in the context of just every business deal we're doing,
but also in the context of looking at the terms of trade discussions that we're
involved with right now too.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1670 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Do you want...
LISTNUM
1 \l 1671 MS
CUNNINGHAM: Just one addition.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1672 I
mean, certainly one of the successes for producers working on the stakeholder
Board of the CTF was to work with broadcasters to try and create higher levels
of broadcast licence fees and that did happen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1673 So,
that was one of the ways in which producers worked together, and I think it was
actually hammering it out over time as the industry evolves and it was the two
sitting down at the table, and that continues through our terms of trade and
other negotiations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1674 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: In another section of your oral
presentation, it is when Kevin DeWalt spoke, he was referring to the fact that
the CTF could get 80‑million more dollars if there was no secondary
production funds administered by the contributors.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1675 But
that triggers in my mind the following question, that would make a second
wicket to go to get some further financing and complete financing for CTF
programs or for non‑funded CTF programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1676 Isn't
it a better solution for most of your members, because obviously you have a
broad membership, they are not all doing CTF‑funded programming, for
various reasons, but they are beneficiary of the opportunity to go and deal
very specifically with some ‑‑ those smaller production fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1677 MR.
DeWALT: The original mandate for the
CRTC when the CTF was started in '94 was that five per cent of the BDUs was to
go towards the CTF, and what's happened over time is that that five per cent
has been whittled down to ‑‑ I don't know the exact
number ‑‑but about three per cent and, you know, many years
ago some of it was carved off for community channels, for Tier A broadcasters,
some of it was carved off for, you know, the various funds that you refer to.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1678 I
think it's our feeling that we would support the CRTC going back to the mandate
that the five per cent would go into the CTF which would help generate that
extra funds, but that the broadcasters would also continue to contribute to
their community channels.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1679 We
think that's just an important thing for them to do, especially the Tier A
broadcasters, and they should have additional funds to support other kinds of
programming that are not necessarily a CTFable project.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1680 So,
we're looking for additional funds. You
know, the CTF said that the particular programs that we now have in place have
met the requirement of the broadcasters in terms of the funding request but,
you know, what's not been talked about is the level of productions that go to
broadcasters who are looking for CTF support that don't get the green light
from the broadcasters because of lack of funds in the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1681 So,
we feel that this is an obvious way to go back to the original mandate of the
CRTC.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1682 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: But earlier this morning we heard
CTF saying that even they are taking into account non‑funded programs
when they are building up the broadcast performance envelope and they used the
example of "Corner Gas" as being one case where CTV, who is not seeking
CTF support, is generating significant audience and they could claim that
audience as a factor in the development of their broadcaster performance
envelope.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1683 There
are also other programming, no examples were given, but that are only supported
by the Shaw Rocket Fund or the Rogers Television Fund and are also getting
significant audience.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1684 MR.
DeWALT: But what they're not reporting
is the $9‑million a year that's put into development certainly on
the ‑‑ is that just the English side or is that both English
and French, the 9‑million development?
Do you know?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1685 MS
KEATLEY: That's both.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1686 MR.
DeWALT: That's both. The $9‑million a year in development
that broadcasters and producers can trigger, what's not been told is, is what
of those projects that have been developed that are commercial that could reach
an audience that are not getting funded because of lack of funds in the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1687 And
that's really what we're focused on today is the projects that are being
developed that a broadcaster says, you know, if there was more money at the CTF
we would trigger that series or we would trigger that documentary.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1688 And
that's really what we're focused on.
What our members are saying is that we're developing projects to the
point of final scripts, final financing structures but are being told by
broadcasters because of the lack of funds you haven't just quite, you know,
made the top.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1689 And
in a lot of cases, and certainly in drama, most broadcasters have enough money
to trigger one project, yet they may be developing eight or 10 or 15 per year.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1690 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1691 MR.
MAYSON: If I can just comment on that,
Commissioner Arpin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1692 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1693 MR.
MAYSON: I think there is, especially
based on the discussion this morning with the CTF, I think there's a little bit
of a myth growing now about the fund is no longer over subscribed and I think
that's exactly what Kevin is getting to the point, that because essentially
broadcasters are able to control their own envelopes now and they have a
certain amount of money to spend and then they effectively make those decisions
about what they want to spend it on, and then the producer in turn that makes
an application sort of looks at, everything is sort of fine and there's no more
projects up there, but there's a huge demand in the system for additional hours
of Canadian content, people are trying to find other ways of financing
obviously and using the independent funds, you rightly say.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1694 But
to say that the fund is no longer over subscribed is a little bit of a myth and
doesn't really reflect the reality of how difficult it is to raise financing
for the huge demand of content that's out there, so...
LISTNUM
1 \l 1695 MR.
LEVY: Perhaps one way of maybe looking
at it is that when the fund was set up you had somewhere in the neighbourhood
of $200‑million that was ‑‑ this was in the 90s, and
that was supporting CTF‑type programming, and here you are a scant 13
years later with a plethora of new channels that have a real demand for putting
Canadian content on, sometimes it's conditions of licence, sometimes that's
what audiences want, a combination of those different factors.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1696 There
is a lot of shows ‑‑ there are a lot of shows that if the
money was there at the CTF, if there was increased funding at the CTF that
would get produced, a lot more that would get produced.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1697 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1698 You
didn't raise any concern, at least in your oral presentation this morning,
about the 10/10 or versus the 8/10 CAVCO threshold, and what is the CFTPA's
specific views regarding that recommendation of the Task Force?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1699 MR.
MAYSON: I'll comment on that quickly,
but I'll let others comment too.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1700 I
think we've ‑‑ you know, the basic CAVCO definition is
actually six out of 10 and there's a great deal of room to move and that it
provides a lot of opportunity for the use of foreign talent and still remaining
Canadian, and I think that's a wonderful thing, it encourages production and
there's a great deal of production going through the CAVCO definition, most of
which I think are now in the, you know, seven, eight, nine, 10 range generally.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1701 I
think the eight out of 10 to us is a bit of a funny number, frankly, and
because of the weighting of the CAVCO point system really, really enables you
to use a foreign director or a foreign script writer and I think which ‑‑
again, not a terrible thing, but in our view just completely out of sync with
the objectives of the CTF which should be about Canadian stories written by
Canadians and directed by Canadians and acted by Canadians. So, it's...
LISTNUM
1 \l 1702 I'll
leave it there.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1703 MS
KEATLEY: Just to add ‑‑
and I believe the CTF staff dealt with this as well this morning ‑‑
there are actually long‑standing exceptions within each genre that I
think were put in place in '98, '99 in which you can do that and most of those
are very market‑driven for those specific genre's programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1704 So,
it's finding ways of addressing very specific things with each genre, so...
LISTNUM
1 \l 1705 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: So, could I surmise your view by
saying that the criteria that CTF has been using and the flexibility that has
been introduced over the years are meeting the spirit of allowing some sort of
contribution into a Canadian production by a foreign artist or whoever,
producer, director, writer, whatever it is.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1706 MS
KEATLEY: I think what we're saying is
we're fine with the rules as they exist now being at a 10 out of 10 with the
various exceptions that happen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1707 And
I think we actually did address it in our oral remarks, we did talk about this,
but there is ‑‑ this kind of programming actually does exist
out there and is getting funded and getting tax credits and it's, you know,
fairly buoyant within the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1708 It's
an interesting question. I mean, as
someone who sat on the Board for years, there was a lot of discussion about
this from the very beginning and because there was such demand for this money
it was felt that it really needed to be focused on the Canadian elements and
supporting the Canadian elements and that it goes to the overall health of our
whole industry.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1709 And
I think ‑‑ I mean, actually in just looking at what's happened
in the last week with two shows confirmed that they've sold to U.S. networks
that are essentially 10 out of 10 Canadian programming and that's ‑‑
you know, that isn't an after sale, that's they're coming in and in some
situations will be simultaneously broadcast.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1710 So,
I think that the whole system is actually ironically at probably its most
successful right now in a 10 out of 10 system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1711 MR.
DeWALT: Just to clarify, I think the
exceptions are mostly nine out of 10 is what the CTF allows.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1712 What
that means is, is that does not allow you to have a writer or a director that's
not Canadian because those are worth two points each.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1713 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Mm‑hmm.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1714 MR.
DeWALT: What it does allow you to do is
to bring in, primarily in drama, at least either a first or second highest paid
actor from out of country.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1715 And
I can give you a prime example.
"The Englishman's Boy", which is a miniseries that I produced,
had 17 major actors that had major roles over that four‑hour
miniseries. We did apply for the nine
out of 10 exception on that particular project because we had a very nasty
American studio boss in Hollywood that we needed an actor for and we brought in
Bob Hoskins who is a U.K. actor to play that role and we did that primarily for
international reasons in terms of sellability, as one factor, but also
creatively.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1716 But
that, you know, that particular project had a Canadian director and a Canadian
writer and it was important that that was the case.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1717 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: So, as a matter of fact, the nine
out of 10 protects the director and the writers and you think that gives enough
flexibility?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1718 MS
CUNNINGHAM: Yes. Yes, and I think it's actually really important
to reinforce here that as a producers', not only a producers' association, we
are very much behind that and given the nature of a public agency, the
public/private partnership and the funding, we think it is important to
continue to support the 10 out of 10.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1719 MR.
MAYSON: And I would just add that
we're ‑‑ I think as we outlined in our original brief, it just
seems completely out of sync, you start creating two separate funding streams
with slightly different objectives ultimately within the same fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1720 We're
not against different types of point ratings and, you know, we've always
endorsed the CAVCO definition for Canadian as a good solid level of Canadian
content, but you have a certain ‑‑ you have a Canadian
Television Fund with certain objectives and we think they should be respected
by both sides of whatever funding components you want to create within the
fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1721 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Now, you did refer to another
recommendation made by the Task Force which has to do with the allocation of
the dollars into two different streams, and obviously you are taking a very
strong position against that proposal.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1722 And
could you qualify better for me why you think it cannot work within the same organization,
other than having maybe a different cost for administration cost but, as a
matter of principle, why two funds could not be managed by the same
organization?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1723 MR.
MAYSON: I think ultimately two funds
could be managed by the same organization, but two funds with different
criteria and different objectives, which I think is what you're trying to
do ‑‑ I mean, correct me if I'm wrong ‑‑ but
it strikes me you're creating two different envelopes which won't interact very
effectively, so you're creating two smaller pools of dollars essentially.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1724 Right
now the dollars are pooled and envelopes are calculated accordingly, but ‑‑
and everyone's complaining about the size of their envelopes, frankly, and so
it strikes me you're going to be creating a series of smaller envelopes for
broadcasters with different objectives within the fund, so...
LISTNUM
1 \l 1725 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Not necessarily be different
objectives. Obviously the Task Force
Report doesn't deal at all with the contribution from Heritage Canada and
doesn't say what they should do with the money, it's up to them to determine
how that money should be managed and, obviously, they could always come to the
same ‑‑ to make the decision that the money should be used in
the same manner than the other stream, then obviously that alleviates some of
the problems that you are discussing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1726 In
their Report, the members of the Task Force were trying to see if there wasn't
a way to allow, say, the BDUs to get a better acknowledgement for their
contribution, because everything is currently mixed up, everything is managed
by the contribution agreement which determines the objectives and, so, the BDUs
who are claiming that it is money they have contributed and that they want to
know what is done with their contribution, they can't ask what is done with the
government money because that's not their money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1727 And
I know that it is a very, very broad discussion of whose money it is, but I
will take for the time being the assumption that the BDUs' contribution, it is
the BDUs' contribution to the CTF and they would like to know more about what
is happening with their contribution.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1728 MR.
MAYSON: I'll let other people comment,
but I think you go right to the heart of this whole discussion I think, and
certainly if there's ways that the BDUs ‑‑ the viewpoint of
the BDUs need to be improved or more input into objectives, it strikes me that
it should be done around the Board table where they're represented or in
discussions with the Department of Canadian Heritage.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1729 And,
you know, I'm not sure if they're appearing this week or not, but I'd be
interested to hear what they have to say about that whole process.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1730 But
our view is that the objectives of the fund have been determined by the
Department of Heritage and further refined over the years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1731 I
was actually in the Department at the time when the fund was put together, I'm
very familiar with the objectives and what they were at the time, but they've
changed considerably and they've changed because of Board input over the years
and obviously input from Heritage over the years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1732 But
so ‑‑ and we're certainly not ‑‑ I think it's
appropriate that the BDUs get recognition for what they do and they're making a
very important contribution to the system, but it's a contribution they should
be making by regulation and it's part of a great privilege of holding an
important licence like that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1733 So,
I think we're not adverse to looking at different ways of doing things at all,
but within the context of the objectives of this Fund we don't see any real
value in creating two separate streams with different criteria.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1734 You're
saying the objectives could be the same and to us they look somewhat different
and that's done in part through different criteria.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1735 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: They appear to be different
because we don't know what is the view of Heritage vis‑a‑vis their
own stream of money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1736 Well,
you don't have the view ‑‑ well, you have the view of the
Commission somehow because when they released the task force report they did
state ‑‑ the Commission did state that it was an objective
that the Commission was supporting.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1737 But
this public process here today is to allow for further discussion on the same
matter so that the Commission ‑‑ I can't say this at this time
that the Commission has a ‑‑ what is the final view of the Commission. But we don't ‑‑ one thing
that we don't know for sure is what is the view of Heritage and we won't get it
through this process because they are not a participant in this process.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1738 MS
CUNNINGHAM: If I could just add that the
idea of two separate funds seem to be based on the assumption that there needs
to ‑‑ we need to address something which is much more market
driven.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1739 I
think that what we have is a misrepresentation on some level of the fact that
the market isn't at all influencing the decisions that are currently being made
at the fund by broadcasters themselves.
And I think the move to the Broadcaster Performance Envelopes was indeed
a move with all stakeholders to try and address that and that can always ‑‑
that is continually evolving.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1740 But
at the same time it also assumes that there is a perfectly formed kind of fund
that can be set aside with criteria that will create successful market driven
programming and that we know how to recognize hits. And I think that is ‑‑ while
hypothetically there may be some merit to that, I think in our presentations
and what we have evolved over the years as representatives on the CTF board is
that is something that none of us can do, whether you are a producer, an actor,
a writer, a broadcaster. Hits are
recognized by the market. We are all
interested in reaching a market and having successful programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1741 So
I think we are trying to address the fact that even if there were two separate
funds how do you ensure that one is actually addressing exclusively market‑driven
forces?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1742 MR.
LEVY: My only other point on this in
terms of understanding how the fund actually works, and just trying to
illustrate how something can actually be successful in terms of both market
driven as well as something that is culturally important, I look to a program
that our company has produced. It's
called Atomic Betty. It's a kids'
animation show and we have done it with Tele‑Tunes Canada. What is fascinating about it is that it
actually had private funding from the Shaw Rocket Fund, interestingly
enough. They invested some equity money
into it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1743 And
so that partnership with the CTF, because that's what it was in terms of Tele‑Tunes,
the CTF and Shaw, was able to produce a Canadian hit which actually we sold in
well over 120 countries around the world.
And not only was it a show that probably would not have been made had
not the CTF been around to actually contribute ‑‑ I think it was
about $1.3 million in the very first season ‑‑ but also it was
Shaw's contribution in conjunction with the CTF and the Tele‑Tune
licensee which made it happen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1744 So
that's how all of those funds are interconnected in the way that we go about
raising our financing for projects.
That's the way the system works right now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1745 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: In your written submission, and
I'm looking at your paragraph 61, you state that:
"On numerous occasions it has
been the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that Canada's
national public broadcaster is adequately funded and in our view this should
not be achieved through the CTF."
(As read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 1746 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: And my question to you is it
seems that statement is directly aimed at the 37 percent that the CBC/Radio‑Canada
is getting through the contribution agreement.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1747 Am
I right to understand that what you are suggesting here is that all ‑‑
the federal government should keep contributing to the CTF and that all money
should be used for other broadcasters than the national broadcaster?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1748 MR.
MAYSON: It's a very good question. There is really two points there in the sense
that over the years traditionally we have always supported a properly funded
CBC and with even maximum dollars into production, but that hasn't
changed. And I think this is really
what's been reflected in the paragraph you are quoting.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1749 The
reality is that obviously the additional dollars required, I think, to properly
fund CBC's production have not been there and they have been relying heavily on
the CTF. And our board reps, and
certainly as an association, we have supported the 37 percent envelope, you
know its development and its realization.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1750 But
our paragraph that you are quoting, it still in some ways I think, reflects the
policy position of the CFTPA that we would like to see a properly funded CBC
that was essentially working outside the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1751 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Which is this thing then, getting
37 percent of the total envelope of the CTF?
So it means that the government through appropriation should give the
CBC more money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1752 MR.
MAYSON: To me the 37 percent is a little
bit of a ‑‑ you know, a chimera that has kind of evolved in
that it's a number that was kind of settled on or something. And you would have to talk to CBC in terms of
what it would really need to practically achieve a lot of its programming
objectives. Now, something tells me that
it's more than the 37 percent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1753 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Earlier this morning I did ask to
the CTF how that 37 percent was arrived at.
Do you have a better answer than the one we got?
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1754 MR.
MAYSON: I am sorry, I shouldn't.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1755 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: No? We better ask the CBC if ‑‑
well, we are going to hear them this afternoon so we will ask ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1756 MR.
MAYSON: There you go.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1757 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Then we will have an opportunity
to discuss with them how that number was achieved.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1758 MR.
MAYSON: All I would say on that, you
should ask them. I think they are the
appropriate responder probably, and as well as the CTF perhaps.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1759 But
all I know is that there was a great deal of discussion and time and effort and
board ‑‑ another area where the board came together to
determine something that was mutually agreed upon.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1760 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: The CTF panel at least this morning
said that it came to the contribution agreement and it is take it or leave it,
and if you leave it you leave all the money aside. So they take it ‑‑ they took
it and that was it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1761 But
you don't have from the CFPTA ‑‑ you were never involved into
the discussions or negotiations regarding how that number was achieved?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1762 MR.
MAYSON: The number was based on the
CBC's historical access to the fund over the years. And I think that if there was a logic to it I
think that was exactly it. And I think
there was a lot of to‑ing and fro‑ing in terms of how it ‑‑
is this appropriate use of the fund, et cetera.
But I think ultimately people agreed that this was ‑‑
the board agreed and I think the CFTPA ultimately agreed that given the lack of
additional resources for CBC that some kind of historical access to the fund
would be allowed and would be appropriate, I should say, and became enshrined
in the contribution agreement with the department.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1763 It
does go back ‑‑ I have to say, I think, there is not one of
the traditional elements in it and it wasn't ‑‑ I think never
made clear from the beginning was that to some degree the CTF was there back
when it was first created and the public contribution came in, in '95‑'96. There wasn't sort of a sense that it was
there to help CBC to a certain extent after a long period of budget cuts. That was never really formalized but I think
it was ‑‑ it's always been sort of there in the background
that the CBC should be considered, you know, an important recipient of the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1764 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Another area of contention and
you raised it in your oral remarks this morning, and the CTF also talk about
it, is obviously the recommendation from the task force to remove the producers
from the board of the CTF. I heard your
argument in your oral presentation and in your submission.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1765 But
they are ‑‑ obviously there have been numerous scenarios that
have been taken into consideration and one of them is to have an only
independent board of directors to an extended board of directors which will
include the writers, the guilds and some of the unions and it could end up
being a board of 40 people, while some others were making the argument that
since the board involvement into the CTF is essentially financial, a very small
board of astute and acute financial people with some ‑‑ with
knowledge of production and broadcastings could make it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1766 If
you had to choose ‑‑ let's say for the sake of the discussion
that this test is not what is looked at, in your view should it be a smaller
board or a broader board?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1767 MR.
MAYSON: I will let everyone comment on
that. I think we basically ‑‑
we have basically seen the value of a stakeholder board over the years and the
primary participants in the industry I think has been very important to have
around the table.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1768 I
think what really we objected to in what the Commission proposed was somehow
singling us out as being conflicted in some way because we were recipients in
some way. And to us the landscape has
changed dramatically and I think it both ignored the value of a stakeholder
board and the value of producer input in particular.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1769 We
have never closed the door on looking at a reconfigured board to manage the CTF
if it appears there is a need to consolidate in some way. You know, I think we would say though that I
think stakeholder boards are very important and the advice of stakeholders
around the table from all sides has been invaluable to that, to the functioning
of the fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1770 I
think some of our ex‑board reps should comment on that, actually.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1771 MS
KEATLEY: I actually think the chair of
the CTF, Doug Barrett, summed it up really well this morning when he spoke to
the stakeholder board has allowed that aspect of unintended consequences to not
happen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1772 You
are always looking forward and arguing those various things out and because you
have the various perspectives that come it's happening at a board level and
they are not involved in any decision making.
It allows the board in fact to remain objective rather than
subjective. It's almost those sorts of
key factors that really go to it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1773 And
I know there was a time when Ira and I both were on the board and we started
this subcommittee where we went off with the broadcasters and really hashed out
some very specific things, which was really about if you want production
budgets to be on average $1.2 million in English Canadian drama how do you get
there? And it was a really practical
thing that we went and we worked on with ourselves and our colleagues. And we ended up with a result and it was sort
of them understanding really where we were coming from and this whole concept
of things.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1774 So
I really do think that was sort of hashed out.
It was agreed it was for the best.
It then becomes a policy. It
wasn't about individual projects and those kinds of conflicts that happen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1775 MR.
DeWALT: I also sat on the CTF board and
we were in, you know several instances where the broadcasters and the producers
were at loggerheads in terms of issues.
But what I will say is that the fact that the CTF has brought in the
independent board members, the double majority within those independent board
members, I think has clearly given the CTF the credibility of truly
independence on issues.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1776 And
I think, you know, producers at the end of the day are the ones that have to
scrape together the financing on a production.
A broadcaster can trigger a project through the CTF funding but they are
never 100 percent financed. We are
always as entrepreneurs always putting together that final piece whether we put
it on ourselves, whether we put in our family's money, whether we use credit
cards.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1777 And
I think if you lose that entrepreneurism around that table ‑‑
broadcasters primarily, you know, get steady income on a monthly basis based on
their fees that they take from commercials or from satellite fees or cable
fees. Producers don't. We survive on a day‑to‑day basis,
on a project‑by‑project basis based on our entrepreneurism. And I think if you lose that around that
table I think you have lost a very critical component to have a successful CTF
because it will become a one‑sided discussion.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1778 And
I find that, you know, the concept of an advisory group of a bunch of producers
advising to the CTF, my experience is that advisory groups are simply put in place
to keep a certain element of a community quiet so that they feel that they have
some influence. But at the end of the
day if you are not around that board table I just feel that the system, it
won't work.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1779 MS
CUNNINGHAM: Just as chair, current chair
of the CFTPA board of directors and someone who has not sat on the CTF board, I
can assure you that one of my greatest challenges together with Guy and the
agenda is keeping the CTF discussions to a reasonable length of time around our
boardroom table. And what I have noticed
is the incredible time and energy and devotion to improving the state of the
industry that happens.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1780 So
what our reps on the board do is they come back and they are representing a
much larger constituency than their individual companies and they bring back
all of the important issues to our boardroom table which in fact has 26
members. And all of these issues are
hashed out at our table as well before any producer or CFTPA position is taken
back with the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1781 That
represents leveraging an awful lot of goodwill from the industry that gets
brought back directly to the CTF board.
And I think you don't ‑‑ that it's very hard to replace
that or even, frankly, to quantify it but it's something that I have certainly
witnessed in the short time that I have been chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1782 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: One other area of discussion, and
it's based also on the recommendation made by the task force, is the increased
licence fee. And I think you alluded to
what was going on in other countries, but also allowing you to keep more money
from tax credits.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1783 Now,
on that one there seems to be some appreciation from the part of members of
your community. In other instances some
members of your own community are saying leave it to the market forces to
decide if I'm putting more money into it or less.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1784 What
is the final position of the organization?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1785 MR.
MAYSON: I think the final position was
what we put in our original submission which was, "Thank you very much for
the recommendation." We thought it
was, you know, somebody finally actually picking up on the financial realities
of being a producer and actually asking ‑‑ looking for what we
have been looking for increasingly in the last few years, is a better financing model for Canadian content
and working, you know, equally with all the partners involved.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1786 The
tax credit thing is an interesting one because obviously licence fees are important
and higher licence fees are invaluable. When the tax credits were first created
they were created partly as a corporate ‑‑ they are a
corporate tax credit. They have become
both the public funding agencies and the broadcasters immediately factored them
into the budget of the project and used their leverage to sort of extract them
essentially. But they are essentially a
rebate on expenses which replace the old capital cost allowance.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1787 And
I know exactly of which I speak because I helped put this in place back in '95
and it was very ‑‑ actually very disappointing to me to see
what happened to the tax credit program because there was virtually no
provision for producers to hang on to any of their tax credits. They were simply extracted from them. So we really appreciated the recommendation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1788 I
think the key point is that they should be treated as producer equity. They are essentially what the producers
bring ‑‑ one of the major elements the producers bring into
the project and if the producer chooses to contribute, you know two‑thirds
of them or half of them or whatever then that's fine. But we really appreciated the signal that
they should be allowed ‑‑ that some kind of a benchmark should
be established where producers should really be hanging onto a portion of their
tax credits because it's defeating the point of the program which was to
capitalize small companies, much in the same way as the R&D tax credits
work. So thank you for the
recommendation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1789 So
what would we say? We would basically
say it's producer equity. Producers
should have the ability to deal with that credit but there should be some
benchmark there that the producer cannot go past. And the fact that the Commission was saying
that is great. Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1790 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Obviously, it's also a matter for
negotiation under the umbrella of terms of trade.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1791 MR.
MAYSON: Indeed. I would agree.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1792 MR.
LEVY: Well, and I think to that end John
can actually speak a bit to that as to what progress we are actually making.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1793 But
if you think of the system as a whole and that you have to have a healthy
system to create Canadian content programming and to distribute this
programming and to promote it, you have healthy broadcasters. That's a good thing. You have healthy BDUs. That's a very good thing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1794 But
you have to have healthy producers and a healthy producer means a well‑financed
producer, a capitalized company. That is
the way that they do it in the U.K.
That's been successful at times in the United States. It's certainly been successful in Australia
and, clearly, that was the purpose for the tax credits being implemented so
that you could actually get a rebate, hold onto that money, use it for R&D
and to capitalize your company.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1795 As
that started to be forced into the financing plans of various different
projects, including CTF projects, what that did was it made producers not
healthy, not as healthy as the other parts of the system. And ultimately, if they are the people that
are actually; one, taking the risk and; two, creating the content for the
broadcasters they have to have a certain healthy capitalized existence just
like the other players in the system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1796 John.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1797 MR.
BARRACK: It really goes back to your
question at the beginning with respect to the partnership and where the
partnership stands and what kind of partnership is it. And I think what you see is an evolution at
the front end where it is a creative partnership and at the back end of the
process given that lack of equality of bargaining power, quite frankly,
something quite distinct from that. And
in fact, the disequality in favour of the broadcaster has really harmed that
ability to maintain healthy businesses quite frankly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1798 And
so I think that all of ‑‑ everything that we are saying to you
funnels into that same point, which is that if the Canadian system is going to
remain strong it requires healthy Canadian production companies and we are only
going to achieve that if a number of factors are in play including the credit.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1799 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Gentlemen, thank you very
much. I'm returning the microphone to my
colleague, the Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1800 MR.
MAYSON: Commissioner Arpin, if I could
make one small clarification just to an earlier discussion, one of your earlier
questions?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1801 We
got into a number of different issues but you were referring to our position
about going back to a full 5 percent going into the CTF. And somehow I think you were maybe misreading
or misinterpreting or our remarks weren't very clear. But we were really talking ‑‑
we are not talking about dollars going into independent funds. We think that's very worthwhile.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1802 We
are talking about dollars ‑‑ we didn't get into it in here,
but really for local expression. And so
we think that's something that could be taken on by the individual companies
and those dollars that are now going into local expression should really be
going into independent funds; so just to clarify.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1803 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Appreciate your comment which is
slightly different than the discussion we had with you ‑‑ we
had before.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1804 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1805 I
just have a couple of follow‑up questions based on the discussion with
the Vice‑Chair. And I too want to
go back to the discussion about licence fees.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1806 And
I believe it was you, Ms Cunningham, who talked about the increase in the
licence fees was a result of the producers working with the broadcasters. And I have here the CTF document that gives
me the licence fee threshold by language, by genre.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1807 So
these thresholds are a result of those discussions that the producers and the
broadcasters had and approved, I assume, by the CTF board?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1808 MR.
LEVY: Yes, they were and in fact Julia
was alluding to it earlier. We had a
number of different sessions over a period of six to nine months where we
worked with the broadcasters and with the CTF staff at the time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1809 And
we sat there and interestingly enough we put up a model for financing. We said, "How do you properly finance a
show in Canada?" And we took each
one of the genres and we started with drama and we said, "Forget that you
have to pay some of the money or that we have to invest some of the money and
imagine that the CTF has unlimited funds for the moment."
LISTNUM
1 \l 1810 And
then what we did is we put together all the pieces of the puzzle that existed
in a very complex financing system that exists out there and we tried to
simplify it down to its basics. We said
that there is going to be some money from the Canadian Television Fund. There is going to be a proper licence fee, at
least a proper threshold because the budget is going to be "x", $1.2
million and $1.4 million per hour for drama or whatever it happened to be, and
then the producers will put in their share as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1811 And
so that was something that we worked on jointly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1812 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And how long have these
thresholds been in place at this level?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1813 MR.
LEVY: At this level, well, three years,
yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1814 MR.
MAYSON: Three or four years.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1815 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And is it now therefore
your position that ‑‑ to sustain your comment that licence
fees should increase, that production has just simply become much more
expensive because the demands of the broadcasters are greater?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1816 MR.
MAYSON: Well, the demands on the
broadcaster are greater and the demands that the broadcaster puts on the
producer are greater. And so where we
might have been dealing with a $1 million or a $1.2 million per hour drama
budget for a series, if there was a threshold that the broadcaster was putting
in $300,000 or $315,000 per hour, the broadcaster ‑‑ sorry,
the production budgets have now escalated to $1.5 million per hour to be
competitive and because of inflation and various other very well justified
reasons. But that threshold ‑‑
at least that basic threshold has not gone up.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1817 In
some cases broadcasters do put in more money as a licence fee. But we would like to see it as the threshold,
as the very basic threshold actually raised, so that it actually makes sense
because there is just too big of a gap going into the production of those
shows.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1818 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1819 The
other point that the CTF made this morning is that above average licence fees
form part of the factors that go into the BP allotments. Is it your position that it's not enough of
an incentive for broadcasters to go above licence fee averages?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1820 MR.
MAYSON: I think ‑‑ I
mean, I will take that one and let people comment.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1821 I
think that's an appropriate way to weight.
I think it's an interesting factor to bring into the calculation of an
envelope. I think licence fee
levels ‑‑ the bottom line is licence fee levels do need to go
up and I think that the recognition and that sort of a waiting factor that they
are trying to encourage provide incentives.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1822 We
would still maintain I think that the licence fees levels are unrealistically
low. The CTF should be ‑‑
and I know our reps are certainly trying to increase that and not just with the
CTF, frankly, but across the board is probably most important.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1823 We
would also ‑‑ we are not discouraging broadcaster equity in
projects in a reasonable way. And I
think one thing that would be interesting to ask the CTF or explore a little
bit in the course of this hearing, is how much of that is happening because
what we are getting from our members is that because the envelopes are
relatively static they have got a certain amount of money to spend. Like you are seeing some equity, I think, but
it's basically minimal licence fees being obtained through the CTF and the
minimums are being met and that's it.
And so the producers are still fighting to find other forms of
financing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1824 So
it's just you know is it a good barometer or a good factor in the
weighting? We think it's a good one but
I think licence fees, bottom line, need to go up.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1825 MR.
LEVY: I think that there is another
thing that has also changed or evolved over the last number of years and that
is for that threshold licence fee or that percentage of the budget in the
genres of children's and documentaries, broadcasters used to take limited
rights. They would take the broadcast
rights. They wouldn't necessarily take a
second window or if they did want a second window they would pay for it or the
second window might have been shared with another broadcaster outside of that
broadcast group with consolidation and with the way broadcasters are actually
doing their negotiations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1826 They
are grabbing all Canadian rights, not just second window but also a lot of the
multi‑platform rights as well. And
what that again does is leave a fairly big gap in your financing which you used
to be able to fill in the previous model that we were discussing when we
initially evolved the broadcast threshold.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1827 THE
CHAIRPERSON: So in other words more
rights with the same level of licence fees being paid?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1828 MR.
LEVY: That's correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1829 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1830 Mr.
DeWalt, you talked about projects being in development that don't end up seeing
the light of day. Where do we draw the
line between your contention that there just isn't the availability of funds
and the fact that maybe the projects don't make the cut for the broadcaster;
they are just not, to be quite blunt, good enough?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1831 MR.
DeWALT: I think the system works in the
sense that the broadcaster is the point where they determine what's marketable;
you know what will work for them and what won't work for them. What we hear from our members is that
obviously broadcasters will develop more projects than they want to
trigger. That's how you find the gems
that are out there. But at the end of
the day if a broadcaster only has enough envelope to trigger one project and
develops 10, as an example, but actually has two that they feel that are very
strong that both could do very well in our system and garner an audience, but
they end up saying to the producers, "You know, if there was more money in
the CTF system we would trigger both projects but the reality of it is we only
have enough money to trigger one and, I'm sorry, you know, you didn't make the
cut." So I think ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 1832 THE
CHAIRPERSON: But they made a choice.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1833 MR.
DeWALT: They made a choice. I guess our point is that there is more
market‑ driven, audience‑driven projects that are being developed
in the system that are being financed and we would like to see those financed,
and it means more money in the system to finance them.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1834 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Just one final area, a
follow up, and that is of board representation.
Remind me how many board members the CFTPA has.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1835 MS
CUNNINGHAM: Two.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1836 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Two, because my question
was like, for example, Ms Keatley, just based on your very short bio you
specialize in drama programming. And as
a board member do you feel adequately informed to be able to represent the
interests of producers of all genres?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1837 MS
KEATLEY: That is actually a very good
question. I actually started as a
documentary producer though but, you know, we just evolve into whatever we end
up doing and some companies are broader based.
One of the reasons in fact why the CFTPA has specifically chosen with
its two seats to come forward with two different producers, we actually put in
place a policy where we would have one of the members be from one of the
regions and one of the members be from Toronto.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1838 And
we also wanted them to be balanced between genres of programming, so that when
our board elects our reps every year for the annual general meeting and we
always want a balance, we want it across genres, across budget levels, so that
the expertise that we are bringing to the table is reflected.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1839 And
then a lot of times for us we would go back within our various communities and
talking to both the CTF task force which we have, which has about 12 people on
it, which is across all genres, and then across our board which also is
represented across all genres of programming and, of course, across the
country. So we are trying to feed up
that very specific information to the board and I think we have actually been
very effective in that way. And that is
in fact why we have kept producing reps rather than staff reps from the CFTPA.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1840 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And that was going to be my
final question and ask Mr. Mayson, not that I think you need more to do, but
just your reaction to the Directors Guild suggestion, that we should consider
staff members of associations as board members.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1841 MR.
MAYSON: That has come up a few times and
I vetoed it every time.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 1842 MR.
MAYSON: No, I am kidding. We have discussed that many times and I think
on a point of principle and also on a point of sort of logic we thought that,
no, what Julia has described essentially is sort of having the balance of
actual producers, but in different parts of the country and different genre
base actually provided I think more value, you know, to the discussion around
the table. You know, obviously there is
excellent staff there too, so that is not a comment on other people there.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1843 But
I think it was just our decision as a board that we felt that it provided a
very good mechanism to provide some balance to input that could, in turn,
consult with our own membership and then bring it back in a kind of coherent
way to the board process.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1844 And
so we actually thought it through, you know, many times and considered it from
different ‑‑ but always come down on the same decision really.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1845 MR.
DeWALT: I would like to make one comment
on that just so the Commission is aware that when the CTF started, in fact, we
did have a staff member representing the CFTPA on the board. And it was after a couple years of that that
we felt that from a producing perspective, from a business owner entrepreneur
perspective, because every deal that we do as filmmakers is a different deal,
no two deals are similar, no two structures are similar, no two ways of
financing are similar. It is very
difficult for a staff person that has not been a producer to understand the
complexity of being a business owner in this environment and trying to produce
Canadian content.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1846 So
it was a decision of the board to move from staff to a board member, a
functioning producer. And, in fact, it
is to the point now where we have, within the board, we elect those two
individuals and we have a competition.
It is not, you know, oh my God, who is going to do it this year? It is like, I want to be on that board, I
want to effect change and we take it very seriously and we do vote for two
reps; one being regional, one being from a centre.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1847 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr. Mayson and your
colleagues, thank you very much for your participation. We have no more questions for you today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1848 We
will now break for lunch. We will be
back in one hour. Thank you.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing
at 1234 / Suspension à 1234
‑‑‑ Upon resuming
at 1335 / Reprise à 1335
LISTNUM
1 \l 1849 THE
SECRETARY: We will now hear the
presentations of ACTRA National, Writers Guild of Canada and Directors Guild of
Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1850 We
will begin with the presentation of ACTRA National. Please introduce yourself and your
colleagues, after which you will have 15 minutes for your presentation. Thank you.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
LISTNUM
1 \l 1851 MR.
HARDACRE: Merci, Madame Roy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1852 Good
afternoon and thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners. My name is Richard Hardacre, I am a
professional actor, a Canadian and the President of the Alliance of Canadian
Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, which we can call ACTRA.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1853 Also
speaking for ACTRA today are two of Canada's best known and acclaimed
performers, Wendy Crewson, Peter Outerbridge, stars of the popular television
series ReGenesis. We heard earlier about A‑team people, these are two of
ACTRA's A‑team actors, we have hundreds of them.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1854 Supporting
us are ACTRA's Director of Public Policy and Communications, Ms Kim Hume and
ACTRA's Policy Advisor, Mr. Garry Neil.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1855 As
you know, Madam Chair, ACTRA brings to this hearing the concerns of our 21,000
members who live and work in every corner of this country. ACTRA members are English‑speaking
artists whose performances in films, television, sound recordings, radio and
new media entertain, educate and inform Canadians and global audiences. I will
say firmly at the outset that ACTRA supports the Canadian Television Fund. It is a crucial contributor to Canadian
programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1856 We
are also quite pleased to tell you today that, in fact, we know Canadians
strongly share this view. Allow me to
summarize our key positions. One, we
oppose splitting the fund into two streams.
Two, we oppose allowing less than fully Canadian productions to be
funded. Three, we support requiring monthly contributions from the cable
companies. Four, we support funding new
media productions, only if new funds can be found. And five, we question the Commission's
jurisdiction to implement most of the task force recommendations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1857 First,
our opposition to a private sector stream.
ACTRA objects to this idea because it is direct pandering to the cable
companies who caused this crisis in the first place. Rewarding the irresponsible actions of the
cable companies is not the way to go. We
also dispute the notion that the cable funds are private. Private contributions? Well, all the contributions come from, of
course, one origin, the public. Whether
they be cable subscriptions or through taxation, it is all public origin money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1858 The
Commission knows better than we do that the deal reached in 1993 permitted
these companies to retain 50 per cent of what had been a temporary levy on
subscribers. The other 50 per cent was
to go to the funding of Canadian productions according to rules developed by
the sector. So we think these subscriber
contributions to the CTF are really public funds. And we maintain that if there
is any reneging on these conditions and this agreement we believe that the
retention of the other 50 per cent would have to be reconsidered as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1859 There
are many reasons why this two‑stream idea won't work and here are just
three reasons. First, it would
jeopardize Canadian content. Our
primetime television schedule already marginalizes Canadian shows in over‑the‑air
television.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1860 To
divide the CTF into two streams and reduce the private sector stream to a
possible eight out of 10 CanCon minimum that would water down the Canadian
content of our shows. Ms Crewson is
going to speak more on this in a second.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1861 Secondly,
it would marginalize the CBC by splitting the streams. Creating a separate public sector fund would
restrict CBC's access and assumes that only the private sector stream can
deliver hit shows. What about Little
Mosque on the Prairie, CTF‑funded CBC show with broad appeal and
international success that continues to be a hit in its second season. What about the new series called The
Border? And two streams would add
unneeded complexity to the fund, separate criteria, separate applications, et
cetera, what the CTF has labelled in its intervention as double accountability.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1862 Now
to the matter of the eight out of 10 points recommendation of the task
force. Wendy Crewson.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1863 MS
CREWSON: Thank you very much, Richard.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1864 Madam
Chair, commissioners, thank you for hearing our comments today. We actors have taken more and more of an
interest in the Commission's activities of late and I am sad to say it is
because we feel we must. The direction
of this Commission is troubling to us and it has driven many of us to speak
out, including myself and Peter.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1865 Now,
as someone who has had a great deal of experience in this industry, both here
and in the United States, I find the recommendation to reduce the CanCon
threshold and allow productions with only eight out of 10 points to be eligible
for CTF funding impossible to justify on a number of levels.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1866 Now,
as you know, the CAVCO scale provides two points for a Canadian writer, two
points for a director and one point each for the two highest paid Canadian
performers or stars of the show.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1867 If
CTF moved away from its 10 out of 10 requirement it is these two roles which
will go to American performers instead of Canadians. And then let us be clear, we will no longer
be building a Canadian industry, but merely spending public funds on lightly
camouflaged American product. And
foreign stars are no guarantee of audience success because, quite frankly, we
are not getting Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie.
U.S. actors are understandably not necessarily interested in telling
Canadian stories. And to find someone
who might be interested, you have got to go way down the list, down the B‑list.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1868 And
even those performers in the United States make a lot of money compared to
their Canadian counterparts, that combined with travel expenses, hotel costs,
et cetera, could easily double the budget of a small Canadian TV movie. Bottom line, there are no cost savings to be
had by casting a so‑called American star.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1869 The
good news is we have a prestigious amount of talent in this country with a
passion for telling Canadian stories. Go
back as far as Mary Pickford, Raymond Massey, Donald and Kiefer Sutherland,
Christopher Plummer, Sandra Oh, Ryan Gosling up through Rachel McAdams, even to
Ellen Page who is this year nominated for an Oscar who began her career on a
lovely little Canadian series called Trailer Park Boys.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1870 John
Doyle in the Globe and Mail has often written about how television makes the
stars who go on to become cinema celebrities.
We have the talent that can become stars, they must be given the
opportunity to do so. Why look beyond
our borders when we can do it ourselves?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1871 In
addition, an oversubscribed fund tells us that we are rich in original ideas.
What we need is stable funding and support from the broadcasters who must
properly schedule and promote our Canadian shows. The BDUs are looking for guarantees of
audience success. Well, there is no
guarantee, there is no formula, but producing lightly camouflaged American
product is a formula for failure.
Following that path has only ever hobbled Canadian television.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1872 There
is only success when we do original ideas, our ideas. We find audience success with original
thought. And the guarantee for original
thought is fully Canadian, 10 out of 10 productions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1873 Thank
you. Over to you, Peter.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1874 MR.
OUTERBRIDGE: Thank you, Wendy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1875 Madam
Chair, commissioners, there was a recurring theme in our show ReGenesis that I
am reminded of today. Wendy and I played
scientists at an organization called the North American Biotechnology Advisory
Commission where we investigated instances of questionable science and
struggled to prevent viral outbreaks that could attack our global
population. And we were often distracted
from that important work to fight possible funding cuts to our agency. The irony of this is not lost on me today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1876 I
am sure many of you know, it was talked about earlier, that Shaw Cable ran a
very expansive newspaper ad campaign against the Canadian Television Fund. They took out full‑page ads in the
Globe and Mail, the Hill Times and elsewhere to discredit the fund. And, quite frankly, this is shameful. This was no small undertaking. Shaw spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
of subscriber fees on a misleading and insulting ad campaign. This, after causing the crises that brings us
here today by refusing to pay their monthly contributions into the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1877 Now,
many of those appearing before you this week will tell you how important the
Canadian Television Fund is to our industry, I share those sentiments. But that we have to be here at all making
these arguments is a sad state of affairs and a large distraction from our core
business, that of making great Canadian programming. And we should be focusing on how we can
improve the situation for television drama through new and vigorous CRTC
regulations on conventional broadcasters, consistent scheduling, promotion and
more stable and predictable government funding, rather than fighting to retain
an essential element of the existing
system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1878 ACTRA
supports the task force recommendation for the CRTC to make it mandatory for
cable companies to provide monthly contributions to the CTF. We have also recommended that the CRTC increase
the required contribution to at least 6 per cent. With revenues of more than $6 billion in 2006
the cable companies can afford it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1879 ACTRA
has urged the Commission to revisit its decision not to regulate new media and
the internet. I understand the
Commission has launched a process to deal with these important matters. In that context, ACTRA would favour creating
a fund to support new media productions. We think this is important as well to
the future of the industry, but we say it is wrong to direct money from the
CTF, which continues to be oversubscribed.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1880 ACTRA
shares the view of others, such as the directors, the producers and the friends
of Canadian broadcasting that funding new media productions must come out of new
resources.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1881 Thank
you. Back to you, Richard.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1882 MR.
HARDACRE: Thank you, Peter. Thanks, Wendy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1883 I
shall wrap‑up here on the issue of jurisdiction. Like others, ACTRA questions whether the CRTC
wishes to assert their authority to implement most of the task force
recommendations. I am not going to
comment on these issues myself because I am not the technical expert. If the Commission wishes to discuss these
issues with us now, I will invite one of my colleagues to field any of those
questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1884 Also,
we welcome the commitment made earlier today by the CTF to include a
representative of the creative community on its board. We urge the Commission to please address this
matter to ensure that there are two representatives on the board, one English,
one Francophone, these are entirely different realities between these markets,
as the Commission well knows and as the task force recognizes. And representatives from the creative
community should be selected by the relevant associations. In our case, we are committed to working with
the Writers Guild and the Directors Guild to bring forward a consensual
candidate.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1885 Finally,
I want to reiterate our support for the fund.
Along with the writers, directors and producers we are today releasing
results of a poll that shows the strong support of Canadians for Canadian
programming. The majority of Canadians
believe that Canadian television programming is important, that it is important
to have programming that is distinct from American shows, that television
programming should reflect our society and our perspectives. These are very very strong results.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1886 Canadians
believe Canadian programming is important.
They support investment form government as well as contributions through
the cable companies towards making high‑quality Canadian televisions
shows.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1887 We
look forward to a constructive dialogue now, anytime, and we commend this
Commission to its goal to empower a truly Canadian broadcasting industry. We thank you for your attention.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1888 THE
SECRETARY: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1889 I
will now invite the Writers Guild of Canada to make their presentation. Please introduce your colleagues, and you
will then have 15 minutes for your presentation.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
LISTNUM
1 \l 1890 MS
PARKER: Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the
panel, Commission staff.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1891 My
name is Maureen Parker and I am the Executive Director of the Writers Guild of
Canada. To my left is Rebecca
Schechter. Rebecca is President of the
Writers Guild and a Gemini Award‑winning screenwriter. Rebecca was also the creative producer and
head writer for the first season of Little Mosque and she is now developing
season two of the series Da Kink in My Hair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1892 To
my right is Charles Lazer, Vice‑President of the Writers Guild. Chuck was one of the creators in and
executive producers of Nothing Too Good for a Cowboy. He has written for such acclaimed shows as
Road to Avonlea, Goosebumps, and the American cable series 7th Heaven.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1893 We
also have with us Kelly Lynne Ashton, Director of Policy at the Writers Guild.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1894 The
Writers Guild of Canada is a national association representing more than 1,800
English‑language screenwriters working in film, television, radio and
digital production in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1895 Over
the past several years every aspect of the Canadian Television Fund, the CTF,
has been reviewed, including the governance structure and its programs. The reviews have been both formal and
informal, and included reviews by the board of the CTF, the Department of
Heritage and even, only two years ago, the Auditor General. The Auditor General
did not recommend a major overhaul of the Fund, but rather only a few changes
which have since been incorporated.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1896 Despite
this vote of confidence to the last year, 50,000 people who earn their living
in Canadian television production have been living on pins and needles. The entire foundation of the CTF, the biggest
funder of Canadian TV programming after the broadcasters, has been put in
jeopardy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1897 So
how did we get here? Over the years
whenever concerns have arisen about the governance objectives or mandate of the
CTF those concerns have been addressed where needed and resolved by consensus
of the board of directors. But last year
when two cable companies were unable to resolve their issues within the board's
structure they chose to withhold their contributions and resign from the
board. Instead of working within the
system, they tried to use their leverage to impose their desired changes on the
CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1898 This
is where the CRTC stepped in and decided another review was required. While we appreciate the CRTC's efforts to
calm the waters, the resulting report from the CRTC's task force on the CTF
pleased no one. It lead, in turn, to this
public hearing, this latest attempt to find consensus on where to go with the
CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1899 Rebecca.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1900 MS
SCHECHTER: Before we set out this future
course, it is necessary to revisit the rationale behind the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1901 In
1993 the Commission agreed that the BDUs could keep half of the CAPEC subscriber
fee increase if they contributed the other half to a fund for Canadian
programming. It was acknowledged that,
and I quote from the Commission decision:
"It is only by providing
distinctive indigenous programming with which Canadians can identify that
Canadian programming undertakings will be distinguishable. And, more money needs to be raised within
Canada for the production of Canadian programming to serve Canadian
audiences." (As Read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 1902 The
current discussion of private sector money and or private sector fund is a red
herring. The BDU contributions are
public monies required by the CRTC to be paid by the BDUs in exchange for their
ongoing protection from competition.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1903 The
obligation flows directly from section 3.1(e) of the Broadcasting Act, which
requires each element of the Canadian broadcasting system to contribute to the
creation of Canadian programming. The
CRTC has always had the right to direct these public monies to support public
policy goals enshrined in the Broadcasting Act and, of course, it should
continue to do so.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1904 So
why is it not possible to finance these programs without public funds like the
CTF? Canada has a relatively small
population with two distinct language markets and it shares a border and a
language with the world's largest exporter of entertainment programming. In order to compete with shows like House and
Lost, which flood over our borders from the U.S., we need to produce our own
high‑quality programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1905 In
Canada, the average budget for a one‑hour English‑language drama is
$1.3 million and going up, as we heard earlier.
In the U.S. it is $3.5 million.
And U.S. broadcasters pay over 85 per cent in licence fees to cover
production costs. In Canada, while we
believe strongly that our broadcasters can and should pay more in licence fees,
we recognize that they will never be able to pay the same percentage of the
budget as Americans.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1906 According
to CTF statistics Canadian broadcasters are covering an average of 31 per cent
of the cost of CTF‑supported productions.
So the balance of that funding has to come from somewhere. If we accept the very basic premise that
public funding is a must to finance Canadian television, it becomes easier to
understand why the Cable Production Fund was originally established in
1994. And in 1996, combined with
Heritage monies to form the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1907 Since
that time, CTF has spent over $2.5 billion funding over 25,000 hours of
Canadian TV. Along the way it has
experienced its share of problems, oversubscription, how to prioritize programs
funded, two funds with different criteria, unstable government financing. It
has risen to every challenge and responded by improving policies, objectives
and guidelines. Every person working in
the Canadian industry knows that this fund is essential.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1908 Charles.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1909 MR.
LAZER: The task force report addresses a
couple of areas that have been problematic for the Fund over the years. The idea of one fund versus two, limited
funding and new platforms, building audiences and increasing broadcaster
responsibility for programming choices.
Despite the fact that the CTF has and is prepared to address these
challenges within its existing structure, the task force believes that major
modifications are required. We disagree
and we are here today to share our positions on the proposed recommendations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1910 One
fund versus two, the task force recommends that, "the CTF should establish
a market‑oriented private‑sector funding stream."
LISTNUM
1 \l 1911 The
task force has defined market‑oriented as primarily audience success, an
actual and potential return on investment.
The other fund would, "continue to support culturally significant
Canadian programs."
LISTNUM
1 \l 1912 Some
of the BDUs support the two‑funds idea, but with the wrinkle that they
have separate boards, one of them a BDU board to control the BDU
contributions. We see absolutely no need
to split this CTF into two funds. The
rationale for a market‑oriented fund is that producers need a fund
dedicated to developing and supporting Canadian hits. This is an admirable goal, so admirable in
fact that it is already the goal of the current CTF guidelines.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1913 And
except for Max Bialystock Stock and Leo Bloom in the movie The Producers, no
one I know sets out to make a flop. It
is ridiculous to even suggest that. If
making a hit could be quantified like baking a cake, every show would be a hit
and we wouldn't be here today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1914 Even
shows that target specific public policy objectives, like kids' shows, strive
for success within their own niche markets.
And the CTF, as it stands now, has been instrumental in supporting
programs that have become hits.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1915 We
can all agree that Corner Gas and Little Mosque on the Prairie are audience
successes, and they are not alone.
Degrassi is a hit, Naturally Sadie is a hit, Durham County is a hit,
Blood Ties is a hit, Slings & Arrows is a hit and Trailer Park Boys is a
hit. These shows all have critical
acclaim, Canadian and international awards, high audience numbers in fragmented
and often very targeted markets, strong international sales on other platforms
like DVD and merchandizing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1916 I
know you have heard and read the claim that the CTF has not funded any hits,
well that is just wrong. Unlike he who
must not be named, we have the data to backup our claims. What we all need to remember is that the move
to broadcaster performance envelopes is a recent one and the CTF board and
staff are still fine tuning the four factors.
It makes more sense to have those people, the ones who have already
gained experienced working on the audience performance factor finish the
job. And given that most of the industry
is already represented on the CTF board, the most appropriate avenue for input
continues to be through the applicable board representatives.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1917 That
being said, it is worth noting that the writers, performers and directors are still
not represented and we appreciate the CTF's intention to rectify that in the
near future.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1918 Everyone
on our business wants to see return on their investment of time and money. But
if you are making a TV show in Canada many factors conspire to limit your
chances. The small and fragmented market
makes it hard to make a lot of money, so does the lack of a consistent timeslot
and promotion. In Canada, the conventional
broadcaster schedules are dictated by simulcast. Canadian programs are only aired when there
is a hole in the simulcast schedule. And
after the conventional broadcaster's spring shopping spree in the U.S. they
claim they don't have that much money left to promote our home‑grown
shows.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1919 As
we have discussed, actual and potential return is the basis of the market‑oriented
fund. Because the Canadian marketplace
is small, Canadian producers have traditionally looked beyond our borders for
additional sources of revenue. However,
revenue from international sales are no easier to come by. The world market has developed an appetite
for their own domestic market and each territory is buying less North American
product.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1920 A
show designed to sell into the international market usually has a foreign broadcast
licence to help finance production. That
foreign broadcaster will want input into the show changing the Canadian essence
of the program. So Little Mosque on the Prairie could become Little Mosque on
the Steps.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1921 Yet,
even with all these challenges, Canadian programs can earn a return. There are many potential sources in the long
tail of DVD sales, second window broadcasts and merchandising and more.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1922 Maureen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1923 MS
PARKER: Another recommendation, 19, that
must be addressed is the proposed objectives for the market‑oriented
stream. The task force advocates that
the existing essential requirements be watered down to an ambiguous statement
that leads us away from the goals of the Broadcasting Act. Why? No
case has been made for this change. If
there is sufficient cause, then it is appropriate that the CTF board deal with
this.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1924 CTF
objectives should not be enshrined in regulations as proposed. That would seriously limit the Board's ability
to be flexible. The task force also
recommends that the CAVCO point count on a show be reduced from 10 points to a
minimum of eight points for the market‑oriented fund. That could mean that an American writer or
director or lead performer would be able to work on a program funded with
public money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1925 The
CTF has also said that it could live with eight out of 10 points, because it
doesn't think that will happen very often.
But speaking as one of the creator groups who will be affected by the
lowering of Canadian content points, we are here to tell you we can't live with
it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1926 Is
the implication behind this recommendation that Canadian talent can't bring
home the bacon? We have reviewed the
task force closely and read the submissions and we can't figure out who asked
for this point reduction, nor can we see the business case for it. Where is the proof that using non‑Canadians
in Canadian shows guarantees greater success?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1927 The
facts lead us to conclude exactly the opposite.
Right now the most popular Canadian shows are 10 point shows, you know
them: "Corner Gas", "Rick Mercer Report", "Little
Mosque". Among Canadian viewers
"Corner Gas" frequently beats out top American dramas in the ratings.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1928 It
is disrespectful to think that talented Canadians need to make way for American
B‑level writers, actors and directors who are willing to work in Canada
for the lower union rates.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1929 Even
one eight point drama a year is too many when an eight point drama series can
and should be funded from the marketplace.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1930 A
program that does not have the Canadian audience as its primary goal can be
financed easily from the marketplace and does not need or deserve Canadian
public funding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1931 For
example, "The Best Years", is a recent Canadian series written by a
Canadian, directed by a Canadian but starring an American and set in
Boston. It was fully financed and
rightfully so for Global but without the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1932 Other
examples are "Stargate SG‑1" and "Stargate: Atlantis"
series which are financed primarily through the U.S. scifi channel. There are many, many other examples.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1933 The
point is that shows with U.S. talent can attract U.S. financing, they don't
need our CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1934 In
this mix is the CBC. The Report does not
explicitly make recommendations for dealing with the CBC's guaranteed envelope
of 37 per cent, but by splitting the CTF into two distinct funds with different
mandates, the CBC's ability to commission Canadian programming is put in
jeopardy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1935 Unlike
the conventional broadcasters, the CBC has a legislated mandate under the
Broadcasting Act to provide predominantly and distinctively Canadian
programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1936 So,
while the conventional broadcasters reluctantly commission Canadian dramas, the
CBC is required to invest in those shows.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1937 Let's
just have a look at the current prime time schedule for 10 point dramas. Global has two prime time series, "The
Guard", and "Da Kink in My Hair". CTV has two half‑hours, "Corner
Gas" and "Degrassi".
LISTNUM
1 \l 1938 The
CBC has many more dramas, "Heartland", "The Border",
"jPod", "Little Mosque", "Sophie" and
"MVP". These shows are
cultural and commercial. They are made
for Canadian audiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1939 The
Report says that the CBC should be on a level playing field with other
broadcasters in the market‑oriented fund, but if commercial means using
foreign talent and foreign locations and reducing the Canadian (sic) CBC cannot
do that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1940 The
recommended changes to the structure of the CTF would effectively cut the
available funding for the Canadian programming on the CBC. This is irresponsible.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1941 Rebecca.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1942 MS
SCHECHTER: Sorry. We're also concerned about the impact that
the recommendations would have on development.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1943 Under
the heading of special initiatives in the Report we find development
financing. We agree that screenwriters
are rather special, although I'm not sure we have special needs. But development is not special, development
is the phase of production where screenwriters put fingers to keyboards and
flush out the story in order to create a script.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1944 In
this phase writers may provide a pitch, a concept, a series Bible, script
outlines, treatments and/or first drafts.
All of this work is partially funded by the broadcaster, the producer
and the screenwriter before the project can begin to attract production
financing. It is a general truth that
there is never enough development money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1945 The
Report recommends that development come
out of the cultural side of the fund, but development is an essential stage of
production. If we want any programs at
all, we have to put money into development.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1946 The
contribution agreement between the Department of Heritage and the CTF was not
setting a cultural policy when it allocated a portion of the fund to
development, it was recognizing the fact that development is critical in
guaranteeing a minimum amount would be spent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1947 Let's
look at how the Americans develop programs.
Last year thousands of pilot ideas were pitched to the networks. From those 600 pilot scripts were commissioned
and only 113 of those made it to actual pilot production. 45 of those were picked for series and only
14 were successful enough to be renewed for a second series and, of those 14,
only one made it into the top 10.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1948 So,
a tonne of development for one hit show.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1949 As
to new media we have one big concern.
Every last cent and more of the available CTF moneys must go into TV
production and development. Television
still captures the largest audience and, in fact, TV shows frequently are
needed to drive traffic to their related content such as webisodes, mobisodes
and video games.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1950 Canadians
spend an average of 10 hours a week or less on the Internet, but an average of
27 hours a week in front of their Tvs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1951 It
makes no sense to ransack TV money for new media. Until we figure out where to get more money,
it isn't a CTF issue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1952 Maureen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1953 MS
LAFONTAINE: The most important thing the
Commission can do right now is to prevent a funding crisis from happening
again. This could be easily done with
two amendments to the existing Broadcasting Act regs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1954 First,
as recommended in the Task Force Report, the requirement that BDU contributions
be made monthly should be enshrined in the regulations to ensure a clear, legal
obligation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1955 Second,
as a recent Dunbar/Leblanc Report recommended, there must be a system of fines
and financial penalties in place to encourage compliance and penalize default. As a union we know well that agreements must
be enforceable and enforced if they are to be respected.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1956 The
CTF is the foundation of our indigenous production industry. Those of us who create Canadian programs, the
writers, producers, actors, directors, crews toil to get those shows made and
aired.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1957 BDUs
are most concerned about their bottom lines and right now they have the highest
profit margins in our industry. They
don't need your help, the rest of us do.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1958 Do
the right thing, one fund for everyone and let the CTF do its job. We all have work to do.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1959 Thank
you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1960 THE
SECRETARY: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1961 I
would now invite the Directors Guild of Canada.
Please introduce yourself and your colleagues and you will then have 15
minutes for your presentation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1962 Thank
you.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
LISTNUM
1 \l 1963 MR.
ANTHONY: Madam Chair, Commissioners,
Commission Staff, good afternoon.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1964 My
name is Brian Anthony and I'm the National Executive Director and CEO of the
Directors Guild of Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1965 The
DGC is a national labour organization representing key personnel in the film
and television production industry with over 3,800 members.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1966 With
me today to my right are Alan Goluboff, President of the Guild, Monique
Lafontaine to my left, the general counsel and Director of Regulatory Affairs
at the Guild and Tim Southam, an award‑winning television and film director
and a proud member of the DGC.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1967 We
are very pleased to appear before you today to provide our comments on very
important issues related to the Canadian Television Fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1968 Today
we have eight points to discuss with you and I would ask Alan Goluboff, our
President, to begin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1969 MR.
GOLUBOFF: Thank you, Brian.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1970 The
Canadian Television Fund plays a vital role in the development of Canadian
voices and stories through the Canadian Broadcasting system. Our culture reflects who we are as Canadians
and the Commission must be diligent in protecting our unique stories as told by
Canadian actors, writers and directors.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1971 The
Canadian Television Fund is the most important production fund in the
country. It has been highly successful
and has funded more than 25,000 hours of high quality Canadian programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1972 CTF‑funded
shows include a broad range of terrific, high quality Canadian programs, names
of which have been repeated over and over today such as "The Border",
"Little Mosque on the Prairie", "Degrassi: The Next Generation", "Instant
Star", "Intelligence", "Da Vinci's Inquest" and many,
many others.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1973 Additionally,
the CTF has funded several made‑for‑television movies that were
very well received with Canadian audiences such as "One Dead Indian",
"The Canada Russia '72", "Trudeau I", "Shania: A Life in Eight Albums", "Shattered
City", "The Halifax Explosion" and "Milgaard".
LISTNUM
1 \l 1974 It
is also important to note that CTF‑funded productions have received
critical acclaim within Canada and abroad.
Increasingly these productions are attracting audiences in the
international marketplace.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1975 For
instance, "Little Mosque", has inked deals to air in France, French‑speaking
Africa, Turkey, Dubai, Finland, Israel, Gaza, The West Bank. "Degrassi: The Next Generation" is aired in over
150 countries around the world, and "Instant Star" is aired in 120
countries.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1976 "Da
Vinci's Inquest", for its part, is currently airing in the United States
and is one of the top rated weekly series in syndication in that country airing
on 98 per cent of American TV stations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1977 All
of this is to say that the CTF has been a tremendous success for Canadian
television programming. It is by no
means broken. It is also essential for
the future of high quality Canadian programs that this funding be maintained.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1978 Monique.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1979 MS
LAFONTAINE: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1980 The
Directors Guild of Canada fundamentally objects to the Task Force's suggestion
of splitting the Fund in two, with one stream providing funds to 10 point
productions and the other providing funds to eight point productions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1981 It
also objects to the use of the terminology 'private sector funding stream' by
the Task Force.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1982 This
funding stems from the regulatory obligations of the BDUs, it is, thus, money
that is infused with the public trust.
It is money that should benefit Canadians. Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever on
the public record that a 10 point production has any less chance of delivering
Canadian audiences than an eight point production.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1983 Implementing
the Task Force's suggestion of separate streams would negatively impact
Canadian programming in several ways.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1984 First,
there is no doubt that an eight point production will mean the loss of a
Canadian director, writer or significant actor.
This flies in the face of good public policy, which includes the
Commission's mandate to ensure that Canadian voices are heard on Canadian
television.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1985 In
addition, providing a separate stream of funding for eight point productions
leads to a slippery slope. What will the
Commission do if and when eight point productions are not considered
successful? Will it lower its Canadian
standards even further?
LISTNUM
1 \l 1986 In
Canada we are already confronted by the difficulty of accumulating sufficient
pools of capital to fund substantial Canadian projects. To whittle down the current funding stream
into two separate streams will only exacerbate this situation to the detriment
of all Canadians who will lose out on quality 10 point programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1987 MR.
SOUTHAM: CTF funds are essential for the
creation of an innovative and broad range of programming choices that speak to
all different kinds of Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1988 Since
the demand for CTF funding far exceeds the supply of CTF funds available, it is
essential that only 10 point productions receives that funding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1989 To
admit eight point productions would be a backwards step that would hurt
Canadian talent, Canadian programming and Canadian television.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1990 It
would mean that a Canadian broadcaster could simply find an American actor, an
American director or writer to increase the broadcaster's chance of pre‑selling
the program to the U.S.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1991 The
losers in this scenario will always be the talented Canadian directors, actors
and writers who are cast aside.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1992 There
exists a suggestion in the recommendation for an eight out of 10 point
structure, that Canadian directors, writers and actors are not up to the job of
creating competitive audience pleasing programming. The evidence submitted clearly shows that
Canadian creators are definitely up to the task of creating Canadian
productions the Canadian audiences want to watch.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1993 On
behalf of our membership we are also here to state that most Canadian actors,
writers and directors live and work in Canada and ought, therefore, to enjoy
the same privileged access to public funding as Canadian producers and
broadcasters resident in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1994 A
weakened point system effectively shuts out any one of these key Canadian
artistic inputs and they're shut out of a major public investment pool to boot.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1995 From
our perspective, it is highly unfair for Canadian producers and broadcasters to
compete only domestically for CTF funds while Canadian artists would be obliged
to compete in the international marketplace for access to the same funds, which
would be the effective result of an eight out of 10 point structure.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1996 The
Task Force has recommended that the guidelines be simplified so that underlying
rights must be owned and significantly developed by Canadians so that projects
must reflect Canadian experiences and so that projects must be certified by
CAVCO and attain a minimum of eight out of 10 points.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1997 This
would replace significant criteria such as that a program be shot and set
primarily in Canada. To simply say that
it must reflect Canadian experiences is to open the door to countless
interpretations which could ultimately provide funding, for example, to an
eight point production shot in the U.S. with a U.S. director.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1998 This
new regime would also allow for the CTF to fund productions that are intended
primarily for a non‑Canadian market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 1999 This
is clearly inconsistent with the public policy objectives as set out in the
Broadcasting Act. These are important
objectives and they're worth protecting.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11000 MS
LAFONTAINE: The Directors Guild of
Canada continues to object to the Commission's licensee top‑up policy
which allows broadcasters to use CTF money to count towards their spending
obligations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11001 CTF
money provided to producers by way of licence fee top‑up should add to
the broadcaster licence fees and not just reduce the expenditures on Canadian
drama that would otherwise be required of conventional pay or specialty
broadcasters.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11002 This
policy treats the CTF as a way to reduce broadcaster investment in Canadian
programming which flies in the face of the very purpose of the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11003 In
fact, in 2006 pay and specialty broadcasters in Canada counted over 51‑million
of CTF funding as if they had spent it themselves. This is absolutely unacceptable and this long‑standing
issue must be addressed immediately.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11004 And
if the Commission is looking for new sources of funding for the CTF, then this
is, you know, a very simple way of addressing that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11005 The
Task Force recommended amending the broadcasting distribution regulations so
that BDU contributions are directed to the new private sector funding stream on
a monthly basis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11006 While
the DGC rejects the idea of a private sector stream as outlined earlier in this
presentation, we fully support an amendment to ensure that BDU contributions
are made monthly. This would go a long
way towards addressing the funding crisis that led to the creation of the Task
Force in the first place.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11007 MR.
ANTHONY: When considering the creation
of a new media fund, it is first necessary to consider what is meant by new
media.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11008 The
Guild appreciates that the Commission is in the process of exploring
developments in the new media field, a process by the way which we support and
applaud and we hope that whatever updated definition that might flow from that
initiative be put in place before funding comes on stream.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11009 The
Guild would see such an updated definition as a key step before proposing the
dedication of tens of millions of dollars to a new media fund. Our concern in this area revolves around the
fact that the Commission is proposing to take current funds from the CTF and
direct them to the new media. This would
significantly erode the capacity of a fund that is already over burdened. The fund would end up being fragmented even
further and 10 point productions would suffer.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11010 The
only acceptable solution would be to find a new source of funding, either
through ISPs or through the BDUs themselves.
Raising the BDUs' contribution by even one per cent, for example, from
five per cent to six per cent would result in an additional amount of
approximately $50‑million per annum, $25‑million of which could be
used to fund new media projects.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11011 The
Task Force also suggested a decrease in the amount of federal tax credits used
in production financing from 90 per cent to 50 per cent. Although tax credits were intended to help
the producers' bottom line, enabling the producer to use the money saved to invest
in future projects, these credits have served only to reduce broadcaster's
licence fees.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11012 If
the tax credits were reduced from 90 per cent to 50 per cent without a
concomitent obligation on broadcasters to increase their licence fees, the
issue of programming financing would only worsen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11013 The
Directors Guild of Canada suggests that such a drop might be too drastic and
proposes instead a drop to 75 per cent which would be more reasonable.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11014 We
also support an increase in broadcaster licence fees to make up the difference
in the financing structure.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11015 Governance
of the CTF is clearly of highest importance to the recipients of CTF
funds. In an effort to avoid perceptions
of conflict of interest, the Task Force has recommended that direct recipients
of CTF funds should not sit on the CTF Board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11016 While
the Directors Guild of Canada agrees in principle with the Task Force's concern
over conflict of interest, it fails to understand how the situation is any
different than applied to broadcaster membership on the CTF Board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11017 Since
broadcasters are now able to choose which projects to support by virtue of the
broadcast envelopes and can even get credit for the licence fee top‑up,
they could be perceived as having a conflict of interest.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11018 The
solution must come in the form of representation from industry associations,
such as ours, on the recipient side.
There must also be representation from the creative community.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11019 The
Directors Guild of Canada would be very pleased to have a seat on the CTF
Board. Our experience and expertise in
content creation and Canadian broadcasting would allow us to make an important
contribution.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11020 Moreover,
the DGC would be less concerned if CAB employees sat on the Board rather than
actual broadcasters. We feel that if CAB
members sit on the Board then the CFTPA should also, most definitely, be
represented.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11021 MR.
GOLUBOFF: The integrity of the Canadian
Television Fund must be protected. It is
an essential fund created for the express purpose of funding fully Canadian
productions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11022 If
the Commission accepted the recommendations of the Task Force to split the
stream in two, we would be taking a step backwards and doing a disservice to
all Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11023 In
the words of the current CRTC Chair:
"The broadcasting system as
envisioned in the Broadcasting Act is an instrument for protecting and
nurturing Canadian identity." (As
read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 11024 MR.
GOLUBOFF: It is imperative that the
Commission ensure that Canadian voices are fostered, encouraged and promoted.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11025 The
Commission must strike a balance between the cultural interests of our country
and the commercial interests of the private broadcasters.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11026 To
achieve this and to ensure that Canadians have access to wonderful and truly
Canadian stories, the 10 point system must be maintained.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11027 Madam
Chair, Members of the Commission, we thank you for your time and
attention. We look forward to answering
any questions you might have regarding our comments.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11028 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you all very much and
thank you for appearing as a panel.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11029 Obviously
many of your views, you share them, and I just wanted to let you know that some
of our questions will be specific to each of your submissions, while others may
be more general in nature, and if you would like to respond to any of the more
general questions, just put your microphones on and we will try to be as
vigilant as possible to recognize that your mike is on.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11030 But
I will ask now Commissioner Morin to lead the questioning.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11031 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: Good morning everyone.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11032 I
understand that you oppose, that you are against the orientation illustrated by
the Arpin Report which suggested a more market‑oriented audience focus
product fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11033 The
Arpin Report suggests two funds: One
with a more market‑oriented approach and another where the public
interest is the content, educational history and knowledge.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11034 Why
don't we create an envelope for this more market‑oriented approach and we
could have another envelope for the financing of programs which are not commercial? Why doesn't it make sense to you?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11035 This
is my first question.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11036 MS
LAFONTAINE: Can I please start that and
then pass it on.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11037 Commissioner
Morin, I suppose we just don't agree with the entire concept that you need two
funds.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11038 You
know, you're saying to quote, "why don't we just create a market‑oriented
fund"? Well, we have one, we have
it, it's there.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11039 You
know, as we said in all of our presentations, each one of us in this community,
writers, directors, actors, producers are trying to make and are making shows
for the marketplace. So, I think it's an
artificial distinction to say one project is cultural and the other is commercial. They're one in and of the same.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11040 Just
because we tell a show about our own home, our country, that doesn't make it
cultural, that is as much cultural as it is commercial.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11041 When
we want to make stories about our country, our experiences, our values, yes, they
are commercial, we're making them for the marketplace, we're making them for
the domestic marketplace.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11042 And
just my last thought on that is we've done this before, we've had two funds
before, we've been down this road. It
didn't work, it didn't work and, you know, we need to learn from our
mistakes. Why are we going backwards
instead of not forwards?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11043 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: But this fund will be financed by
the private sector.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11044 MS
LAFONTAINE: But these are public
moneys. Although the money is coming
from the BDUs ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11045 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: It is a question of
interpretation, of course, but the fund will be ‑‑ the private
fund will be funded by the private sector and the other one, the public one,
will be financed by the government, the Heritage Department.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11046 MS
LAFONTAINE: I appreciate that, however,
as I was just saying, these are all public funds whether they're coming from
Heritage next door to the Commission or whether they're coming from Rogers'
cheque book from Toronto or Shaw's from their cheque book in Western Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11047 Ultimately
the BDUs are required to contribute moneys to the CTF pursuant to the
regulations which were adopted in accordance with the Broadcasting Act. All of the components of the broadcasting
system must be contributing to the creation of Canadian programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11048 And
what the Commission must ensure is that those funds be used in the most
effective way and the most effective way for those funds to be used, that they
be used for the financing of Canadian programming that gives voices to Canadian
creators and the way to do that is through the 10 points.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11049 And
if you separate the fund and you have an eight point fund, what you will
have ‑‑ you will lose either the actor, director or writer for
those productions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11050 And
this is not an insignificant amount of money from the CTF, it is the most
important amount of money coming from the CTF.
It's 144‑million that we're talking about, and if you use the CTF
multiplier, we're talking about $432‑million of production financing that
will not be used for 10 point productions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11051 That,
in my respectful submission, is not the most effective use of public moneys and
is not in accordance with the public policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11052 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: But transparency between the
public ‑‑ I know that you don't agree with my definition ‑‑
but the transparency between the public money and the private money won't be
there as far as the programs are concerned.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11053 My
point is that with two funds we can see which one is the best. They are in competition on the whole CTF
fund, of course.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11054 MS
PARKER: Why would you want to have two
funds competing with one another? I
mean, when you look at our presentation, we've explained to you how difficult
it is to get a show financed in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11055 The
producers said it today, we've said it today.
You know, we run on deficit financing in this country, writers develop
for free, producers have to put their tax credits into financing, broadcasters
aren't putting in enough and now you want to create a system where we're going
to have to line up for two funds and then we're going to compete.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11056 I
think that that just goes against the entire objective of trying to make good
programming for Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11057 If
we want to create programming for Canadians, we need to keep the money in one
pot, not split it, and hire the best possible Canadians. And if you look at the evidence right now,
that's what we're doing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11058 So,
where's the business case for your idea?
You know, the best productions are 10 point and, you know, we've gone
through them all, they're in our reports, actors, named them. I don't see a business model and to suggest
that we're going to start competing for what is public money, in my opinion,
respectfully, just makes no sense.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11059 MS
LAFONTAINE: And if I may ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11060 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: No.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11061 MR.
LAZER: If I might, the evidence
historically is that 10 point shows do better with Canadian audiences, they get
higher ratings than eight point shows, they always have and I can't understand
why you'd want to take money away from shows that Canadians want to watch and
give it to fund shows that Canadians don't want to watch quite so much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11062 The
second ‑‑ you know, I'd also like to briefly address the notion
of private versus public sector funds.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11063 It
feels to me, like given that the BDUs are compelled by regulation to make this
contribution, it seems to me that it's like me saying, well, I'll give you my
income tax money but then I want that to finance only a clinic in Victoria.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11064 You
know, I understand that they want to control the money that they put in, so do
we all, but this is money that is ‑‑ you know, it's public
money and the CTF should decide how it goes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11065 Thank
you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11066 MR.
HARDACRE: I have a point too. Thank you, Monsieur Morin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11067 Mr.
Forget your question specifically.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11068 We've
seen the results of market pressures, we're living with that now. We have the market pressures we have now for
prime time television in English language show that the broadcasters without
the regulations to require them are spending money on product that is dumped
into this country, has no point Canadian content because they can sell very
large advertising dollars on it and they're getting it at industry dumped
prices, way lower than they would spend on a Canadian series ‑‑
licensees for Canadian series.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11069 To
go down that route with more encouragement from CTF moneys is a disaster as far
as these unions are concerned. I'm sure
everyone agrees with me.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11070 MS
LAFONTAINE: In terms of transparency, if
I may just follow up on that question, Commissioner.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11071 I
mean, ultimately the moneys that go to the CTF are used for CTF‑funded
productions, it's no secret, and we heard this morning about the administrative
costs and how much of the CTF budget that goes for the administrative costs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11072 So,
if there's an issue of transparency, you know, if it continues to exist despite
the fact ‑‑ despite all of the measures that the CTF is doing
and proposes to do in the future, it's not by ‑‑ you know,
perhaps there are other ways of reporting that's beyond what they're saying,
but it's not by creating two separate funds, one with an eight point that's
going to increase transparency, I mean.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11073 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: But you don't see that the
consumer or the taxpayer will see with both funds where this money is. I mean, what ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11074 MS
LAFONTAINE: Sure. I mean, what you could do is you could say
150‑million, if that's what the contribution is from the BDUs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11075 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11076 MS
LAFONTAINE: Here's 150‑million, a
million to "Little Mosque", this much here, this much there, Heritage
over here. Well, they did the support
for the aboriginals.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11077 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11078 MS
LAFONTAINE: I mean, surely they
could ‑‑ I mean it doesn't sound that complicated to report on
that. You know, 150‑million went
here and 120‑million went there.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11079 But
if that's what we're trying to achieve, we're not going to achieve that by
reducing the amount of CAVCO points in a production that is eligible for the funding.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11080 MR.
GOLUBOFF: And if I might just, to follow up with that, I don't believe that
that's what Canadians want. Canadians
want to see quality programming in this country and the report ‑‑
and the survey that we as a group had done in recent weeks shows exactly
that. Canadians want to see quality
Canadian programming, and they don't have a problem with it being financed
through the CTF based on the survey that Decima...?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11081 MS
LAFONTAINE: Decima.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11082 MR.
GOLUBOFF: Decima did for us. They want quality programming. They don't care where ‑‑ you
know, whether there's two funds or 10 funds, they want to turn on the TV and
see quality programming that reflects them and is written, produced, directed
and acted by their next door neighbours.
That's what Canadians want.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11083 And
it's our responsibility and it's certainly the CTF's responsibility to reflect
the needs of Canadians, in my view.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11084 MS
LAFONTAINE: Just to get to your point,
Mr. Morin and then I'll...
LISTNUM
1 \l 11085 So,
you think that having one fund is not providing transparency with respect to
the BDU contributions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11086 Okay. And what I can't understand is how two funds
would make that better. It seems and I ‑‑
you know, it's the first time I heard this idea, that this is a reporting
issue.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11087 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: M'hm.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11088 MS
PARKER: And that's easily fixed. I am sure that the experts at the CTF can
figure out how to do that. There are
many smart people around that boardroom table.
We hope to be there too.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11089 And
I think that they can look at that and say, "Okay. What is it that you are not getting back in
terms of a reporting structure?" If
you want to see what is spent on Little Mosque all the way down to Becky's shoe
allowance we can do that for you.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11090 MS
PARKER: Too bad.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11091 MS
PARKER: You know, I think that
those ‑‑ those are things that can be fixed in the
structure ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11092 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: It's immaterial ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11093 MS
PARKER: Yes, but let's keep the
structure and then look at what you need in terms of information.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11094 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Southam has been ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11095 MR.
SOUTHAM: Yes, thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11096 THE
CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ interject here.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11097 MR.
SOUTHAM: I think the answers have been
very complete. Perhaps the one issue
that may bear a little further examination in terms of semantics is the
emerging dichotomy between cultural and market driven. I mean, I and my colleagues, I think, would
all say that we are very, very ‑‑ we are obsessed with having
an audience for our programs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11098 But
I would like to focus on the notion of a cultural program for a moment. I belong to a cadre of directors who make
what you might call cultural programming in the sort of the most visible sense,
like dance films for instance.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11099 And
when I look back on it, really what we have been doing all those years is
looking for ways to make very, very difficult subject matter extremely
accessible to the broadest possible audience.
So to suddenly feel that our work is being ghettoized in a funding
stream that presupposes their lack of viability in the marketplace sort of
sucks the energy out of what we have been up to for quite a while, which is to
make them as appetizing and as market worthy as possible.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11100 I
will give you an example of, you know, trying to make Eric Satie's music just a
little more interesting to the general public.
We engaged members of the Cirque du Soleil. There is no part of Guy Laliberté's business
plan that says this is a cultural product that should be ghettoized. This is mass market material. And this is where we are coming from too.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11101 So
I worry that the division conceptually between cultural ‑‑ and
then the same applies to historical.
Many of us make historical films for a general audience, some of which
has been ‑‑ have found huge ratings in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11102 I
worry that the dichotomy in a way lets all of us who make perhaps more cultural
programming off the hook. I believe we
should all be working towards bringing our subject matter to the broadest
possible audience and therefore splitting the fund makes even less sense from
the point of view of the so‑called purveyors of cultural
programming. I believe it's a very
dangerous form of semantics for those of us who do that. I think we should be all impelled to reach an
audience.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11103 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: I would like to ask a question
about the board of this Canadian fund.
With so many administrators ‑‑ I think it's 15‑plus ‑‑
isn't there a danger then in maintaining the status quo we are maintaining an
unnecessarily complex and structurally dysfunctional entity? With such a number of administrators do you
expect that the CTF fund will continue to face criticism and suspicion from
various industry players? And I'm not
sure that the interest of the whole broadcasting system is well served by such
a structure.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11104 So
what you think of a board of independent and the report is writing about five,
the ideal board. What do you think of a
board of five independent administrators?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11105 MS
PARKER: Just to start, it's not ‑‑
we do not support an idea, the idea of an independent board. And I think you heard a really good story
earlier today from the Producers Association about how they worked as a board
to get licence fees up.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11106 The
problem is you need a board in our industry that knows how to make Canadian
shows, that needs ‑‑ that knows how and what the audience is
looking for. As we all said, yes, it's a
crapshoot. But the people around this
table have more experience doing it than some independent board member. It's not that they don't bring expertise, and
they do. They all have professional
careers but they are not making films.
They are not making TV shows. And
that is a special expertise and that's what we need to keep that fund working.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11107 You
know, it's again looking at it as though the fund isn't working. The fund is working. We have a problem with two cable operators
who are not happy with the structure.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11108 Now,
there is good news in that a new cable association has just been formed and
they are now going to resume, I hear, a seat perhaps on the CTF board. That's great.
And hopefully the creators, people who make those shows, will be at the
board because as I said those people are in the best position to resolve any
problems, to look at flexibilities, economies, efficiencies. They know what they are doing. They have the experience.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11109 And
I think it would be a terrible mistake to fiddle with the CTF board structure.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11110 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: You don't think that the
expertise you are talking about, you can get this expertise with advisory
panels?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11111 MS
PARKER: We are always on advisory panels
and, you know, we want a seat at the big table.
We are grownups. We deserve to be
in the room with everyone else.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11112 MR.
ANTHONY: Perhaps I could speak to that
point, the size of the board. You know,
governance is an issue that has been addressed over the past decade or
more. In the public sector or in the
private sector and in the voluntary sector there are reams of reports that have
come out from, for example, where would the directors ‑‑
published by the Toronto Stock Exchange a decade ago and their follow up; the
reports on the voluntary sector.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11113 I
have spent 35 years in the cultural sector and I have worked with boards large
and small. And you can have a small
board of five or seven people and it can be wholly dysfunctional. And you can have a larger board of 20 people
and it can work just fine. So it's not
so much the size. It's the will. You can make anything work if the will to
make it so is there.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11114 And
so far, from what we have heard from the CTF, obviously they are working very
hard to make that board work. We would
like to see a more equitable representation with organizations such as ours
represented at this table so that there is more creative ‑‑
more input from the creative community.
That is not going to result in a five‑person board. As I say, even a large board can be made to
work if there is a common sense of purpose and a common will.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11115 MR.
HARDACRE: Madam Chair, ACTRA would like
to respond to the question from Me. Arpin's ‑‑ Me. Morin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11116 Gary
Neill, ACTRA's policy advisor.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11117 MR.
NEILL: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11118 Surely,
Me. Morin, the real test of administrative efficiency is not the size per se of
a board of directors. It is what is the
outcome? And there is two ways of
measuring that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11119 One
is what is the administrative costs overall of running the Canadian Television
Fund? And I think you had find on
investigation that it's well within and probably on the low end of what is
normal for administration of such a fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11120 And
the second is surely to determine, what is the success of the fund itself? And you have heard from all of the groups
here, and I think you will hear from many more over the course of the next
week, that the fund is achieving real success at delivering on its fundamental
mandate which is creating ‑‑ helping to create programs that
are attracting Canadian audiences by using Canadian creative talent.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11121 And
so the issue of whether the board should be five or eight or 10 or 20, how you
determine who represents whom on the board surely should take a second place to
those much more fundamental questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11122 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: The Québecor Group is proposing,
as you know, a fund of its own. Instead
of paying around $60 million over a period of three years to the CTF, the
Québecor Group proposes to spend around $100 million on Canadian content if it
gets the option of opting out of the fund.
No other BDU up to now has proposed such an increase in the funding of
Canadian content. Such a level appears
to be very generous.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11123 So
my question is what are your thoughts on such a proposal?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11124 MS
LAFONTAINE: Well, I must that from the
outset I find it a bit offensive that Québecor will only increase its
contribution to Canadian programming if it can keep the funds in its own
pocket. If it was so concerned about
Canadian programming it would up the ante accordingly within the existing
regime. So I suspect that this is a self‑serving ‑‑
or I believe it's a quite self‑serving proposal on behalf of Québecor.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11125 And
we are also concerned about ‑‑ because essentially what
Québecor is looking for is for authorization from the Commission to not have to
contribute 80 percent of its funding to the CTF and to keep it in its
pocket. And so if the Commission does it
for Québecor then the Commission should also be doing it for the other BDUs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11126 And
what ultimately that would lead to is a complete dissolution of the CTF and a
complete ‑‑ it will no longer be an effective funding
body. And as we have heard for the past
six hours, and the evidence filed ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11127 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: But they are proposing an
increase of nearly 100 percent on Canadian content.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11128 MS
LAFONTAINE: Then it should. Why not?
Why doesn't it do it now?
Québecor ‑‑ there is nothing stopping Québecor from
increasing its funding right now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11129 So
is it Québecor who is trying to buyout the Commission to allow it to keep the
money in its pocket? Is that the price,
amend the regs and I will pay more for Canadian programming? That seems highly inappropriate.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11130 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: But for the consumer ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11131 MS
PARKER: It's bigger than that. As Monique was saying, you know (a) if you
allow them to do it, it goes back to the entire principle; is this public money
or is this Québecor's money? It is not
Québecor's money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11132 So
we have got to go back to principle one.
If you are looking at diluting the fund, and let's say they did put in
more money, you know, I think the creative community is fairly united in
saying, "We don't want their ‑‑ more money."
LISTNUM
1 \l 11133 First
of all, the reason they want a separate fund is they want to retain
copyright. They do not want to use the
independent production sector. Writers,
performers, directors, producers will work for far less than scale. They will also be making programs that are
not part of the CTF mandate.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11134 Will
they be making dramas or will they be making reality game shows? You know, what is Québecor known for? What type of programming do they make? You know if you look at that is it a benefit
to the system? Is it going to benefit
Canadians?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11135 We
heard today Canadians want stories about their country, their values from their
perspectives. Is Québecor going to do
that or is this another move to benefit their bottom line? And I suspect it's all about benefiting their
bottom line.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11136 MR.
HARDACRE: I must say that ACTRA views
this magnanimous offer from Québecor with great cynicism. What we see from it is that ‑‑
or what we believe is that all the BDUs should increase their contribution. Québecor merely confirms and demonstrates
that they are able to do it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11137 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: You made a press conference today
and there is no doubt about many successes you have on the international market
in English and French. And you say in
your survey that 71 percent of Canadians believe it is important to have access
to television programming. So it's the
virtue. So how do you explain the
discrepancy between the virtue and the viewership?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11138 MS
PARKER: Can you clarify that? Are you talking ‑‑ what are
you talking about?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11139 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: When we have during the
night ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11140 MS
PARKER: Ratings? What do you ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11141 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: ‑‑ during the night.
For example, there is the substitution thing that everyone in this room
knows the American programs are more popular than the Canadian.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11142 MR.
GOLUBOFF: I think that that's
questionable whether American programs are more popular. Canadian programs ‑‑ and
again, statistically I know that we have presented them here in past
hearings ‑‑ do extremely well in this country. And the numbers on some of the shows that are
on air now do extremely well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11143 So
I think if we want to compare to the numbers of American programs I don't think
that that is necessarily appropriate.
But Canadian programming does extremely well with Canadian
audiences. And again, as I said earlier,
Canadians want to see more of it. They
want an opportunity to see more of it.
They want to have that choice.
And you know, and depending on the year depends on whether or not there
is any choice for Canadians to view Canadian programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11144 Now,
it could be on the air but again there has to be that commitment from the
broadcaster to make sure that I tune into it.
Because the only reason I watch any show is because I am directed to
watch that show. Now, if the broadcaster
pours millions of dollars into convincing me to tune on the TV at 10 o'clock on
Tuesday night to watch CSI Miami, if they spent a fraction of that money to
convince me to tune in to see a Canadian program that I wasn't even aware it
was on the air because it wasn't promoted, i.e. Intelligence, a show, a
brilliant show produced on the west coast which may or may not see the light of
day; again, because no one is telling us as Canadians to tune into that
show. There has to be a commitment from
the broadcaster which means resources and promotion to tell me to tune into
that show.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11145 Now,
we as part of the creative community have to deliver a show that's worth
watching because you can get people to tune in once, twice and then after that
if you are not delivering quality programming, clearly, you know we are going
to switchover to whatever else is on television. And most of us do that religiously. We sit there with our remote controls and
just keep going around the station until something sticks. But we tune in because someone told me to
tune in at 10 o'clock on Tuesday night.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11146 And
that's the job of the broadcaster. And I
think most of us believe they are not doing a particularly good job at it or
could be doing a better job at it and those Canadian numbers which people are
suggesting are, you know, not very high would increase in my submission.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11147 MR.
HARDACRE: Ms Crewson.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11148 MS
CREWSON: If I ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11149 MR.
HARDACRE: ‑‑ the point here, Ms Crewson.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11150 MS
CREWSON: In 1999 when this board lifted
the regulations on the broadcasters, at that point we had 12 Canadian dramas on
the air that were quite successful and very popular. They were more expensive to make, which is
why the broadcasters did not want to make them, which is why they lobbied to
have those restrictions lifted on them.
They promised that they would continue to make quality Canadian
programming without those regulations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11151 Well,
unfortunately this chart shows, which is the week of January 14th to the week
of January 20th ‑‑ this is the scheduling for primetime hours
from Global ‑‑ the blue programs are American programs. The red is Canadian. The only red that we have on Global is one
half‑hour show here. They fill
their primetime schedules with American shows pushing cheaper Canadian programming
into weekend hours, late night hours, early morning hours with reality shows or
with cooking or gardening shows. They do
not spend the money on promoting Canadian shows. It is more profitable to them.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11152 Their
bottom line benefits when they simulcast American shows selling advertising for
these hours. They have effectively put
their heel on Canadian production. So
even if you wanted to watch a Canadian show you could not find it in the
schedule. And that has effectively
almost killed the Canadian industry.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11153 MS
SCHECHTER: If I could just add how
important promotion is and how effective it is?
Little Mosque on the Prairie was ‑‑ they promoted it to
death. CBC devoted an unprecedented
amount of its internal promotional and external money to promote that
show. And in the first week it aired
four million people watched it. It aired
a number of times. The first showing got
2.1 million people which is ‑‑ you know put us up in the top
ten programming of the week ‑‑ programs of the week.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11154 So
it's like whatever you think of that show, the promotion worked. If you put the money in you get the
eyeballs. And we held a great deal of
that audience.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11155 MS
LAFONTAINE: If I could ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11156 MR.
SOUTHAM: My comment is simply that every
artist sitting here has their story of a show that has done very, very
well. In fact, all of us I think ‑‑
I'm looking at everybody ‑‑ has been in a TV show that has led
the ratings on the evening of its broadcast against all comers. I think I lost out to CSI on my big moment
but, really, all of us have been in very, very successful shows.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11157 MR.
SOUTHAM: We must be in a unique country
where the artists have to make that point over and over and over again. I can't think of a country in the world where
the artists are the only people that feel so compelled to remind all concerned
how their shows do garner ratings of significance on a regular basis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11158 And
therefore, I encourage the Commission to take into account that it's a strange
structure that leads us to this juncture.
I believe the broadcasters are not inclined to talk about the successes
perhaps as vigorously as their colleagues in other countries. I can't tell you why but I do find it strange
that we as artists have to blow our horns so often about objective, factually‑quantified
success which we have all had. We have
all sat there. We have all had it. And in Quebec of course we have had it over
and over again.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11159 MS
LAFONTAINE: I would also like to add
something on this point in terms of the Canadian shows not getting the ratings
of an American show like House. Given
the size of the Canadian population and, again, in terms of the scheduling and
promotion and so on, there is you know a list as long as my arm and you have
heard them this morning and with our panel as well of shows that are doing
increasingly well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11160 And
so in terms of ratings I think we should be very proud and satisfied with the
way Canadian shows are ‑‑ what they are achieving. But success goes beyond just what those
numbers are. I think that we are
successful in that we are telling Canadian stories. We have them in our archives. You know we ‑‑ the shows
that we have shown or that we have broadcast over the past 10 years, Trudeau,
Milgaard, One Dead Indian, and so on and so forth, these can be shown to
generations in future. So I think that
we are certainly achieving success in terms of serving the cultural mandate.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11161 And
certainly, the CTF productions as the producers were saying and, certainly this
panel, they want to ‑‑ they want people to see their
shows. We want Canadian audiences to
view the shows. And we are working, you know,
increasingly as much as we can for that to happen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11162 And
so for the ‑‑ and the CTF is doing ‑‑ you
know, I think I hit a real high point right now in terms of its productions
and, as you mentioned earlier in terms of the French‑language shows being
picked up in France, that what we should be doing is supporting the CTF and its
continued efforts and not dismantling it.
I think we are at a point now where it can just, you know, get better
and better. And if we do what the task
force is proposing to do I think it will be doing a great disservice to the
entire system.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11163 MR.
OUTERBRIDGE: I just have a footnote
which is that I have an actual story where promotion works, which is that years
ago Robert Lantos and Paul Gross decided to do a little project called Men with
Brooms. And whatever you may think of
the movie, the bottom line was that Robert Lantos said, "The problem with
this country is that we don't promote our product". And he put a movie poster in every theatre across
this country and everybody went and saw that movie and then they cut it to
shreds in the papers.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11164 MR.
OUTERBRIDGE: But they all went and saw
that movie, and that is the bottom line.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11165 Unfortunately,
yes, promotion costs even more money.
And there is a strange irony and what you are seeing right now is a lot
of these United States networks are buying Canadian product; Flashpoint ‑‑
and what was the other show?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11166 And
the irony will be that we will only see Canadian culture when it is promoted to
us by the United States, and that can't happen.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11167 MR.
LAZER: And it's that American promotion
that the conventional broadcasters find one of the biggest benefits of picking
up the U.S. programs because they come complete with huge, huge advertising
budgets that we see on the American channel; we see on the Canadian channel,
that drives viewers to those sites.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11168 And
the other side of simulcasting is because, you know, as the chart that Wendy
showed you ‑‑ because the network is so dominated by U.S.
simulcast programming, if the American broadcaster makes a change then the show
that some viewer may have found on that Friday night for that half‑hour
is now going to show up on Tuesday at 10:30.
You know if we are not programming our stuff consistently and promoting
it you won't bring the audience to it.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11169 We
deal with a lot of this stuff in our report and you should take a look at that
when you get a chance. Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11170 COMMISSIONER
MORIN: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11171 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11172 Vice‑Chairman
Arpin.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11173 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11174 In
your submission today, Mrs. Parker, you have been talking about monetary fines
and you were advocating ‑‑ it's at page 12 of 13 of your ‑‑
the bottom of the page 12. You are
talking about a system of fines or financial penalties and that you are saying
that the Commission shall have that power.
As you know, the Commission will ‑‑ somehow advocating
that it shall have these powers but they are not currently in the Broadcasting
Act.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11175 Are
you making representation elsewhere than before us today on that matter?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11176 MS
PARKER: Well, it just so happens that I
am in town for some lobbying tomorrow, meeting with Heritage and a couple of
MPs. So I will be sure to put that idea
forward.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11177 You
know, it's certainly something that I think is very important and it needs to
be done so that you have an appropriate means of enforcing the very, very
important provisions of the Broadcasting Act.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11178 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Now, let me play a bit devil's
advocate here. And again, it's in your
submission, Mrs. Parker, written on page 4 where you say:
"The BDUs' contributions are
public monies required by the CRTC to be paid by the BDUs in exchange for their
ongoing protection from competition."
(As read)
LISTNUM
1 \l 11179 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Since we have seen DTH, we have
seen MMDS, we have seen telcos starting to offer either high Pay TV or standard
distribution through telephone lines, are you suggesting that this is not
competition?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11180 MS
PARKER: I suppose it's all a matter of
degree, Commissioner Arpin. What we do
know is that Shaw has ‑‑ and so does Rogers ‑‑
protected territory both domestically and internationally. Rogers can't sell in Shaw's territory and
vice versa.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11181 The
other thing I know as a consumer is my cable bill is always going up and I pay
an awful lot for the privilege of having cable in my home. And what I want as a Canadian is some choice
and some opportunity. And if these
companies are going to be guaranteed practical monopolies then I think that
they have some responsibilities to the Canadian Broadcasting System, and it is
in the broadcasting system. It's right
there in the Broadcasting Act.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11182 Chuck,
is there anything you would ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11183 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Well, let me pursue. We have dealt with applications lately by
Rogers to expand in Cogeco territory, in Aurora territories where they want to
offer their wares. Do you ‑‑
is this competition or is this a monopoly or can everybody get in and compete?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11184 MR.
LAZER: Well, Commissioner, I know that
in my home on the west coast I can only get cable from one company. I can only get satellite from one company.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11185 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: No, from two. You could have Star Choice or ExpressVu.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11186 MR.
LAZER: I am not sure Star Choice is
operating out there.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11187 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Oh, yes, absolutely.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11188 MR.
LAZER: Okay.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11189 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Now, that being said Shaw ‑‑
Star Choice belongs to Shaw.
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11190 MS
PARKER: Well, that's an important fact.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11191 MR.
LAZER: Thank you for sharing that with
us.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11192 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: It wasn't always the same.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11193 MR.
LAZER: But they are definitely protected
from international competition. I can't
get Comcast. I can't order cable from
the States. I can't get Sky. They are largely protected and if you look
at ‑‑ if you look at the ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11194 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: But ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11195 MR.
LAZER: ‑‑ the sales and delivery patterns it's a
virtual ‑‑ there are virtual monopolies.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11196 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: But again, if you were living in
the U.S. and say your cable operator will have been Cox Communications you
would not ‑‑ you could not subscribe to Comcast either. So the situation is quite alike. Their situation is quite alike of ours. Their competitors are either the satellites
or the telcos.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11197 MS
PARKER: We are not saying there isn't
competition. What they are saying is
very limited competition. Are you saying
that they don't have any protections? Is
that the Commission's point?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11198 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Absolutely.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11199 MS
PARKER: You are saying they have no
protections under the Broadcasting Act?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11200 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Yes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11201 MS
PARKER: That it's free trade?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11202 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: No, it's market forces. Obviously, if an American company wants to
come offer service it will have to qualify under the ownership rule, the
Canadian ownership rules. But if Rogers
wants to compete into Cogeco's territory, say around Toronto, they can. It's surely not forbidden.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11203 MS
LAFONTAINE: Indeed, there is a certain
level of competition that exists now but these ‑‑ the BDUs,
the cable operators certainly were able to become the monolithic components of
our broadcasting system as a result of the protections that they had over time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11204 So
perhaps there has been a bit of loosening but, you know, certainly the cable
operators are winning the race in terms of bringing programming to Canadian
homes as between themselves and the other operators that exist. I think of the poor MDS operators that are
having a real tough go of things. So
they certainly have benefited from regulation over time and in terms of the
domestic market. And as my colleagues at
the Writer's Guild have pointed out, they are protected from the foreign
ownership rules, and as you have also pointed out.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11205 And
so, you know, I think back 10 years ago when everybody was worried about the
Death Star and this and that and we don't want that here because that will be
the end of all of us. And so we were
able to keep them out despite the fact that Canadians were having their little
whatever, postal boxes and whatnots.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11206 So
certainly they are enjoying the 20 plus PBIT levels because of Commission
regulation I would submit.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11207 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: And their ability to compete and
offer service to their subscribers?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11208 MR.
SOUTHAM: There is no literature about
this industry that doesn't describe it as monopsonistic in function. And there is no question that the foreign
ownership rules actually make it a virtual cartel.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11209 I
haven't read a single document that doesn't describe it as an industry with
very very few players and whose terms of business haven't been negotiated with
a regulatory body, those terms resulting in a contribution to the CTF. I don't understand how it can be described as
anything else than a regulated contribution, one that is enshrined by the
Broadcasting Act.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11210 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Obviously, we will have an
opportunity to further discuss those matters at the April public hearing and I
understand that we will see you again at that time.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11211 Again,
still playing devil's advocate, you are saying that obviously the money
contributed to the CTF is public money, but it is public money that is coming
through contributions. Those contributions are coming because of a CRTC
regulation. What will happen to your
organization if the Commission was to repeal that regulation?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11212 MS
PARKER: You are asking what would happen
to the Writers Guild of Canada ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11213 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Or your members.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11214 MS
PARKER: ‑‑ or its members?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11215 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: For the financing of Canadian
programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11216 MS
PARKER: Well, obviously, that would be a
very serious blow, it is $140 million. But can we just put this in perspective
as well? $240 million is about three
U.S. feature films. That is what we are
doing. We are analyzing, discussing and
cutting and chopping and reviewing three U.S. feature films.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11217 So,
you know, I have great faith in the resilience of the talent at this table and
around the room. They will make a living
and they will find a way to tell Canadian stories, but it just shouldn't be this
hard. And if some entity in our industry
can get rich because of protections ‑‑ sorry, I am not
convinced ‑‑ then, I think that some of that benefit should go
back to the Canadian public, and artists are a part of that public. You know, we all live, we vote, we pay taxes,
we want to create and entertain for our neighbours, for our friends for our
communities and it just shouldn't be this hard.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11218 MS
LAFONTAINE: On behalf of the Directors
Guild, I think if the Commission were to repeal the regulations and therefore,
you know, essentially dismantle the CTF, but for the heritage contribution, and
God only knows what would happen to the heritage contribution if the Commission
eliminates this. As Maureen is saying,
we are looking at $240‑$250 million.
But when you, again, use the multiplier, we are looking at almost a
billion dollars of production financing.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11219 So
I believe the Directors Guild membership, you know, will lose the
infrastructure in this country that we have built up over the past 20 years or
so if this fund is eliminated. You know,
there might be sort of the odd production here and there. You know, they will scrape and scratch
because they want to tell their story, but if we don't have this funding then I
doubt that we will have the infrastructure and that we will have the stories
told on television. I think it will be disastrous.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11220 MR.
HARDACRE: One has to then ask, as well,
what would happen to the National Ballet Company, the Canadian Opera Company,
the Stratford Festival, Théâtre du Nouveau Monde, the National Arts Centre if
we get rid of the Canada Council. I
realize that you are asking the advocacy question of the devil, but there is
another one.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11221 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Yes. And I am not advocating that, I am only
asking the question. Thank you very
much.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11222 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I just want to thank you all for your
participation. And at the risk of being exclusionary, I want to particularly
thank ACTRA members for being here. We
forget sometimes you guys are at the front line between us and Canadian
viewers, so thank you very much. Thank
you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11223 We
will take a 15‑minute break now.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing
at 1506 / Suspension à 1506
‑‑‑ Upon resuming
at 1520 / Reprise à 1520
LISTNUM
1 \l 11224 THE
SECRETARY: Please take your seat.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11225 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, order
please.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11226 Madam
Secretary.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11227 THE
SECRETARY: We will now hear the presentation
of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.
Please introduce yourself, and you have 15 minutes for your
presentation. Thank you.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
LISTNUM 1 \l 11228 M.
O'FARRELL : Merci. Bonjour, Madame la
Présidente, bonjour, Monsieur le Vice‑président Arpin, et bonjour,
Monsieur le Commissaire Morin, ainsi que le personnel du Conseil.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11229 Mon
nom est Glenn O'Farrell, et je suis le Président et Chef de la direction de
l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11230 The
CAB is pleased to participate at this hearing, which is dedicated to helping
the CTF find new and better ways to ensure that it meets goals of increasing
viewing to Canadian television, and that is our theme today, it is basically
audience driven.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11231 The
work of the CRTC task force was instrumental in identifying the key issues for
today's discussion. The Commission's
determination will be of significant importance to public and private
broadcasters going forward as well as to distributors who support funding
quality content for independent producers committed to quality Canadian
programming and, most importantly, to Canadian viewers.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11232 Madam
Chair and commissioners, the success of our television broadcasting system is
the result of private initiative and investment along with public policy
support. And our presentation today is
designed to be succinct and to the point on the principles that are in
discussion.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11233 While
we are not here to repeat the history of the creation of the Cable Production
Fund, we believe most would recall that the inception of the fund was indeed a
seminal moment where contributors agreed to assist the supply and viewing to
Canadian programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11234 Private
broadcasters remain the primary funders of Canadian programming, investing over
$6 billion in Canadian programming since 2001.
In 2005 and 2006 alone, private television broadcasters invested $1.5
billion in Canadian programming, including news, drama, comedy, sports and
public affairs content. Private
broadcasters command the largest market share in viewing to Canadian television
programming services. In 2006/2007
private broadcasters received 83 per cent audience share to drama and long‑form
documentary programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11235 Year
over year these billion dollar investments in Canadian programming have been
only partially supported with funding from the public/private partnership of
the CTF. The reality is that demand has
always outpaced supply and continues to outpace supply.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11236 For
the CTF to move forward and for the Canadian broadcasting system to continue to
provide and indeed expand the amount of high‑quality Canadian programs in
all genres, we are recommending that the Canadian Television Fund vehicle be
segregated to provide two streams, a private funding stream and a public
funding stream that include accountability measures to ensure that limited
resources are directed to where they can have maximum impact.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11237 Commissioners,
you have recently concluded the public hearing related to diversity of
voices. Throughout the hearing process
many interveners pointed to the incredible diversity in programming in the
system. The depth of format diversity in
the regulated component of the Canadian television marketplace is without
parallel. In the Toronto market alone,
over the course of the past decade, there has been a greater than 200 per cent
increase in the number of television services available to viewers going from
80 in 1996 to more than 260 services today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11238 Since
the establishment of the Cable Production Fund in the mid‑1990s we have
seen the arrival of new over‑the‑air stations in almost all of the
major English‑language markets. The licensing of the 1996 class of
analogue specialty services consisting of 49 new entrants, the licensing in
1999 of four additional French‑language services, and since 2001 the
addition of digital speciality services, some 87 of which provided financial
reports in 2006, as well as new pay, pay‑per‑view and VOD services.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11239 Moreover,
we have also seen increases in the number of foreign services authorized for
distribution in Canada today totalling 174 services. The net effect is Canadians have access to
more Canadian and foreign services than ever before. BDUs are earning larger revenues than ever
before, meanwhile available funding has lagged behind that growth.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11240 Canadians,
we know, are sophisticated content consumers and expect the best from Canadian
and foreign programming. With the high
levels of financial investment in foreign production aimed at a market 10 times
our size Canadian productions must have similar production values to compete
with foreign programming and retain audiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11241 In
fact, last year in the U.S. five networks spent a half billion dollars in
investments in 80 pilot projects alone.
The ironic dilemma is that broadcasters have to provide at least equal
or better production values in programming to compete in this diverse
programming environment. And all this,
while viewing share is increasingly fragmented by more content choice coming
from regulated and unregulated sources.
And that content choice continues to expand with the online media
choices before consumers day by day.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11242 In
this universe broadcasters need to be able to re‑aggregate the audience
to maximize viewing of high‑quality Canadian programming. For that to happen, they need to exhibit
their added value Canadian content on multiple platforms. Yet, the way the system works currently
discourages broadcasters from exhibiting programming supported through the
CTF. This, in our view, needs to change.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11243 The
CTF and all stakeholders must recognize that broadcasters must have the
possibility to invest and control programming rights if we want to increase
viewing to high‑end Canadian programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11244 In
French‑speaking Canada, as you know, the problem is different. Although subject to international
competition, most of the competition is not in the French language. French‑language broadcasters know how
to strike a cord with their audiences.
To use just one example, Canadian programming holds all top 10 places in
the Quebec market.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11245 But,
in Quebec, they do face unique problems.
For instance, by way of situating the issue the Canadian marketplace is
the equivalent of California, we know that in terms of households. The French‑language market is
approximately equivalent to San Francisco, with a population of somewhere in
the 6 million people range. Nonetheless,
French‑language broadcasters in Canada have successfully built a
broadcasting system for this relatively small market which is no more than a
U.S. metropolitan area.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11246 The
cost of advertising per 1,000 in Quebec is well below that of the English‑language
market. This, despite the success of
French‑language Canadian programming and its ability attract audiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11247 And
last, this is also despite the strong competition for viewers for revenues and
for CTF funding from the public broadcasters.
Currently, société Radio‑Canada is guaranteed its share of the CBC
envelope and now the educational broadcasters are requesting that 15 per cent
of the fund be reserved for them. This
would mean in Quebec that over half of the fund would be reserved for public
broadcasters. We consider that to be
disproportionate compared to their combined viewing share.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11248 We
do not believe that public broadcasters should have access to the private
sector funding stream, as they fundamentally have different mandates, nor
should they be allowed to compete for access to audience‑driven
envelopes. We would note that CBC's
société Radio‑Canada receives a guaranteed 37 per cent portion of the
overall fund without regard to their viewing share.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11249 So
moving forward, first, we fully support the recommendation of the CRTC task
force that the Commission enact a regulation requiring BDUs to send their
contributions on a monthly basis.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11250 Two,
we need to encourage additional revenue streams into the fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11251 Three,
we need to deal with the inequity in the funding system. Private broadcasters who are mandated to
deliver on different metrics should be supported by private funds alone, while
public, not‑for‑profit and Aboriginal broadcasters should be
supported by public funding.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11252 L'ACR
considère que le facteur principal qui entrave le bon fonctionnement de la
composante francophone du Fonds canadien de la télévision est la profonde
iniquité qui existe dans le système. En
effet, au cours des dernières années, les diffuseurs publics ont accaparé plus
de la moitié des ressources globales du fonds consacré au secteur de la
télévision de langue française.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11253 En
guise de point de repère, seulement 13 pour cent des 88 millions d'heures
d'écoute réalisées en moyenne hebdomadaire par les émissions canadiennes en
2006‑2007 ont été générées par CBC/Société Radio‑Canada. Si nous portons notre attention uniquement
sur le marché francophone, on constate que la part combinée de l'ensemble des
diffuseurs publics de langue française est inférieure à 20 pour cent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11254 Les
diffuseurs publics devraient eux aussi être imputables, assumer la
responsabilité de leur choix de programmation et rendre des comptes quant à
l'atteinte des objectifs de politique publique qu'ils doivent, en principe,
poursuivre. Les missions, comme les
conditions d'exploitation, des diffuseurs publics et sans but lucratif
diffèrent de celles des diffuseurs privés commerciaux.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11255 En
conséquence, il n'est pas logique, ni souhaitable, à notre avis, d'établir des
objectifs entièrement communs et des modalités d'accès identiques aux
ressources du Fonds canadien de télévision pour ces deux types de diffuseurs
qui soient justes et équitables pour les deux parties. C'est pourquoi nous recommandons d'établir
deux régimes de financement différents.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11256 We
believe the paramount focus of the private sector stream should be maximizing
audiences to Canadian programs in our regulated system. This focus means that the private sector
stream should operate under a number of principles.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11257 First,
funds would be allocated to broadcaster envelopes which have worked and should
remain with the major criterion being audience success taking into account the
differences between certain genres and different types of broadcasters.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11258 Secondly,
as the task force proposed, the programs would have to meet eight of 10 points.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11259 Third,
again, as the task force proposed, the programs would only need one other
criterion, namely that they reflect Canadian experiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11260 Fourth,
wherever possible, funding by way of equity participation would be prioritized.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11261 And
fifth, financing for script and concept development would come from the
broadcaster envelopes.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11262 Had
this model been in place 2006/2007 the public and not‑for‑profit
stream would have received 44 per cent or $120 million of the available funds
while private broadcasters would have received 56 per cent or $150.6 million of
the CTF funds. An allotment of that
nature would be very beneficial for public and not‑for‑profit broadcasters,
as they would be given a share of the CTF's basic financing, more than adequate
additional contributions and greater than their audience share according to all
available indicators.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11263 In
conclusion, Madam Chair, we do not think that the Fund should be used to
regulate television. That is the mandate
the government has appropriately given to you, the CRTC.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11264 We
welcome the report of the Commission's task force. It signalled a new orientation for the
Canadian Television Fund, one that ensured ongoing and stable funding to
finance quality Canadian programs with a new market‑oriented focus.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11265 We
congratulate the task force on bringing a fresh approach to the programming
funding debate. We have made a few
modest suggestions to bring even more accountability and efficiency to the
Fund's operations.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11266 We
thank you for the opportunity, again, to make this presentation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11267 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
O'Farrell. We don't often see you
sitting there by yourself, so good job.
I am going to ask Vice‑Chairman Arpin to lead the questioning.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11268 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11269 Bonjour,
Monsieur O'Farrell. Je vais commencer
par quelques questions sur le marché francophone parce que vous soulignez dans
votre présentation que, effectivement, il y a une disproportion dans le
financement de la télévision publique.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11270 Et
je comprends quand vous parlez de télévision publique que vous considérez Télé‑Québec
comme étant une des composantes de la télévision publique?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11271 M.
O'FARRELL : C'est exact.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11272 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Et vous dites que, finalement, si on regarde le marché francophone, ces
télévisions publiques s'accaparent 50 pour cent des dollars réels.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11273 Maintenant,
si on s'en tient uniquement à ce que reçoit Radio‑Canada, est‑ce ça
représente plus que 37 pour cent en dollars réels?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11274 M.
O'FARRELL : Pas selon nos calculs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11275 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Ça arrive toujours à 37 pour cent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11276 Et
si on regarde ce qui se passe au Canada anglais, est‑ce que vous avez les
données par rapport à la proportion des sommes qui vont à la télévision
publique par rapport aux sommes qui vont à la télévision privée?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11277 M.
O'FARRELL : Je n'ai pas cette répartition devant moi, mais ça nous ferait
plaisir de vous la soumettre, si la chose vous intéresse, pour vous permettre,
enfin, de faire une comparaison entre nos calculs du côté du marché francophone
vis‑à‑vis le marché anglophone.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11278 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Bien, ça serait intéressant de l'avoir, puis ça nous permettrait peut‑être
de voir si les enjeux ou la problématique de la télévision francophone, elle
est distincte de la problématique de la télévision anglophone.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11279 M.
O'FARRELL : Bien, je pense que vous allez trouver la comparaison... je me fais
une note là parce que si je n'en fais pas, je vais peut‑être oublier mes
devoirs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11280 Je
pense que la comparaison est utile, mais ce qu'il en demeure pas moins, c'est
que si vous regardez du côté du marché francophone, ce qui est surprenant,
c'est lorsqu'on fait le cumul des sommes réparties ‑‑ et là,
je vous parle de 2006‑2007, exemple ‑‑ entre Radio‑Canada,
TQS, TV5, Télé‑Québec, TFO et TVA.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11281 Si
vous prenez, selon nous, le calcul de ceux qui sont du secteur public, alors,
vous avez Radio‑Canada, vous avez TV5, Télé‑Québec et TFO. Vous allez constater, effectivement, que
c'est une large portion de l'enveloppe francophone qui est accaparée par les
diffuseurs publics, et c'est ça qu'on veut mettre en lumière.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11282 Donc,
la comparaison que je vous soumets par écrit avec la répartition du côté du
marché anglophone et francophone va vous permettre de faire une analyse, je
pense, éclairée de la chose.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11283 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Vous dites aussi dans votre présentation quand vous parlez du marché
francophone que le coût par point de la publicité dans le marché francophone
est nettement inférieur à celui du marché anglophone.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11284 Est‑ce
que votre association a essayé de déterminer le pourquoi de cette différence?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11285 M.
O'FARRELL : Bien, c'est le même pourquoi que toujours, que vous connaissez
sûrement et puis qui a été, je pense, discuté à de nombreuses audiences du
Conseil avant l'audience aujourd'hui. Il
s'agit d'un problème ou d'une situation systémique ou structurelle, si vous me
permettez l'expression, qui règle au Québec depuis fort longtemps et puis qui,
historiquement, n'a pas changé.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11286 Maintenant,
il y a toujours une évolution d'année en année, mais il en demeure pas moins
que le coût par mille au Québec par rapport à son équivalent du marché
anglophone demeure toujours en déficience et en déficience significative.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11287 Le
pourquoi de tout ça, il y a des théories qui ont été avancées tant ici
qu'ailleurs au cours des années. Je
pense que les théories peuvent se confronter les unes aux autres, mais elles ne
changent pas la réalité que c'est toujours un fait, c'est factuel, et ça
demeure une composante essentielle qui rend le régime ou le marché francophone
unique, encore une fois, en raison de cette considération là, en plus des
autres considérations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11288 Et,
bien entendu, je voudrais juste revenir sur l'exemple qu'on vous citait dans le
texte de tout à l'heure.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11289 Je
pense que c'est en se félicitant, pas les radiodiffuseurs, mais tout le monde
qui ont contribué au succès du système que de constater que dans un marché de
la taille du marché francophone au Canada, un marché d'une taille comparable à
une région métropolitaine américaine comme San Francisco, qu'on a réussi,
malgré tout et malgré les problèmes structurels et systémiques, à se doter
d'une offre de programmation télévisuelle aussi robuste et aussi riche.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11290 Mais
ça n'en demeure pas moins que c'est sur une base d'amortissement extrêmement
limitée que toute cette économie là se joue.
Il s'agit de sept millions de personnes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11291 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : D'aucuns affirment qu'un des problèmes structurels de la télévision de
langue française, particulièrement en ce qui regarde les coûts par point, c'est
sa bonne performance auprès des auditoires.
Le succès de sa programmation fait en sorte que l'objectif des
annonceurs est atteint en achetant moins de publicité qu'ils doivent le faire
au Canada anglais, parce que, un, il y a moins de fragmentation ou il y a moins
de joueurs ou il y a une écoute nettement supérieure aux émissions canadiennes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11292 Est‑ce
que vous partagez cette vision là?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11293 M.
O'FARRELL : Non. Je crois que c'est une
position qui doit être nuancée. Il y a
une certaine vérité dans la théorie qui est avancée ou celle que vous rappelez,
mais je ne pense pas que c'est la seule et unique raison.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11294 Et
je crois que vous allez avoir l'occasion, lors des audiences du mois d'avril
lorsqu'il va être question du système de radiodiffusion, tant du côté
conventionnel que des services spécialisés payants, et pour le Canada anglais
et pour le Canada français, et du régime économique dans lequel ces deux
systèmes là évoluent, de voir beaucoup, beaucoup de parties se présenter devant
vous et faire des représentations, j'imagine, très savantes, beaucoup plus que
je ne pourrais le faire aujourd'hui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11295 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Vous avez comparé dans votre présentation orale le marché francophone à
San Francisco et le marché canadien à la Califournie.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11296 Est‑ce
que l'offre télévisuelle à San Francisco en termes de services locaux, elle est
plus petite ou identique au marché francophone?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11297 M.
O'FARRELL : Non. La raison pour laquelle
on a choisi ce marché là, c'était tout simplement pour se rappeler... c'était
pour se reporter à une base de population comparable et non pas en termes du
nombre de services en tant que tel ou d'autres caractéristiques qui pourraient
identifier le marché davantage.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11298 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Maintenant, avant d'arriver à vos conclusions, vous nous proposez cinq
objectifs et vous nous dites que si ces cinq objectifs là étaient adoptés, le
modèle de financement serait changé et ferait en sorte que le secteur public et
le secteur not‑for‑profit...
LISTNUM 1 \l 11299 M.
O'FARRELL : Sans but lucratif.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11300 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : ...sans but lucratif recevraient 44 pour cent des fonds.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11301 Combien
est‑ce qu'ils reçoivent présentement?
Avez‑vous fait le calcul?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11302 M.
O'FARRELL : Si on se... encore une fois, j'ai un tableau ici qui m'offre une
partie de la réponse mais non pas la totalité de la réponse à votre
question. Si vous me permettez, on
pourrait s'engager à vous fournir la même chose dans les prochains jours.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11303 CONSEILLER
ARPIN : Écoutez, oui, ça serait apprécié de recevoir l'information.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11304 Now,
if I was to play devil's advocate and ask you the same question that I asked to
the unions and guilds at the end of the interrogatory. If the Commission was to repeal the section
regarding the BDU contribution to the CTF, what would be the impact on the
broadcasting system of such a move?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11305 MR.
O'FARRELL: Well, there is no doubt that
the impact would be significant in terms of the support mechanisms available
for the production of Canadian programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11306 The
fact of the matter is we are here today thanks to the work of the task force
that submitted a report and we are discussing the future of the fund on the
basis that there is a certain foundation of fact that we can speak from. If
that foundation of fact were not here today I don't think we would have the
same broadcasting system today. It is
part and parcel and it has been, both in the French‑language market and
the English‑language market, of everything that we are today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11307 It
has been a fundamental dynamic element in every programming service,
programming strategies. And, in fact,
whether it is in English or in French, the examples are so numerous I would not
want to take up the Commission's time in running through a litany.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11308 But
if you think of any program schedule that has been available to Canadian
consumers in either English or French, and for that matter in many third
languages now, they all have been supported by a variety of measures that
enhance the opportunity to produce Canadian content and to broadcast it,
central to which is the Canadian Television Fund as we have seen it evolve and
others have articulated the history of the Fund. And I don't think you want to hear that
again. And we agree with most of the
history that has been put on the record here today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11309 The
fact of the matter is we are looking in 2008 at how do we make things
better. And the essence of our
submission to you today is that we entirely agree with the idea that it is time
to take the Fund and create two streams of funding within the one consolidated
fund. Because we do believe that private
broadcasters should be measured, wish to be measured and ultimately are
measured by the audiences that they reach or don't reach. They are measured in terms of their revenues,
by way of the audiences that they reach or don't reach and they are measured in
terms of their capacity to carryon their operations and, frankly, to survive in
a more and more competitive landscape.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11310 So,
to suggest to you today that it would be dramatic if there were no funding
mechanism such as the regulation supports, I think it's not an over statement,
it's possibly an under statement because we're sitting here today talking about
it as, as I say, a factual foundation of where we are and if that factual
foundation were not part of this discussion, I don't know what we would be
talking about, frankly.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11311 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Obviously.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11312 MR.
O'FARRELL: And the other ‑‑
the last point I would make in that is that there are so many, and I just use
one example.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11313 I
know using one example means that you're going to leave 27 off the table, but
under the heading, just using one example, this fund and the way broadcasters
approach it is all part of a very real need to maintain relevance with their
audiences and to grow wherever possible their audiences for the product that
they are commissioning or that they have commissioned that they are continuing
to support.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11314 For
those who were watching the Super Bowl last night, I don't know if you counted
the times ‑‑ I think I stopped counting after six ‑‑
and it seems to me that one of the highest rated moments in any Super Bowl
historically is generally at the kick‑off period or somewhere between the
kick‑off period and five to 10 minutes into the game.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11315 You're
usually ‑‑ depending on the game, last night's took the
viewers into the fourth quarter because of the circumstances, but when you're
at the beginning of the game and you're scheduling promotional material, you
don't know how the game's going to turn out, and I believe that in the first
five minutes or first 10 minutes of that game there were six promotional ads on
the CTV telecast of the Super Bowl for "Mayerthorpe" a CTF‑supported
product right there in one of the largest viewing opportunities available.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11316 And
I use that example as kind of the example for today's discussion, but there are
many others that, again, speak to how private broadcasters know that it's not
just about commissioning good quality Canadian product that is going to make
its way with audiences, but to promote it vigorously and that's a very good
example of it, in my view.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11317 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Well, I think you are addressing
one of the views we heard earlier today where some of the representations that
were made to the effect that Canadian programming could do much better in terms
of audience if they were better scheduled on one end and if they were better
supported by promotion.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11318 What
you are saying here today is that, at least the case of CTV, they used the
biggest attraction at least of the week and if not of the month to clearly
support Canadian content.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11319 MR.
O'FARRELL: And I don't believe, in
fairness to others, that it's unique to CTV.
I think that you see that across program schedules upon program
schedules of private broadcasters. There
are many examples of that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11320 But
in light of the fact that we're the day after the big game where Team B beat
Team A in the fourth quarter, despite all the smart money being on Team A, the
fact of the matter is, is that there's an example I think that speaks for
itself.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11321 Beyond
that though, if I can just come back to the repealing of regulation. What's interesting is that as we look at this
environment in which broadcasting is operating today with a regulated system
and an unregulated system and so much choice for consumers, why we have come
down so supportive of the principle of two separate streams is that we believe
that this is an opportunity to focus the Fund on audience in a way that
actually is required more so than ever before.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11322 Because
of the change that's occurred in the recent past, because of the change that is
under foot right now and because of the change that we see in the short and
medium and long‑term future, being difficult to predict but we can
anticipate it's writ large, CHANGE all in caps, the one thing that we have to
keep an eye on is how do we continue to build on what we have.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11323 And
we're suggesting, for instance, that there might be other ways to add funding
to the CTF. We've talked about perhaps
one idea which is equity funding, another idea is perhaps community channel
funding being diverted back to the CTF, another example is VOD licences where I
believe your policy directs VOD licence holders to take five per cent and put
it aside for an independent Canadian production fund, not the CTF but some
other, perhaps that could be.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11324 There
are other opportunities to keep shoring up the foundation of funding
because ‑‑ and others have said it before us today and we
agree entirely, the Fund should be very clearly established in your minds as
not one that is sufficing the demand, there still is tremendous demand, pent up
demand that has not and will not be met by the scarce dollars that are
available now.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11325 If
we can aggregate more dollars from other funding sources that would be a
terrific thing. It still won't
answer ‑‑ it still won't satisfy all the demand, but whatever
funding that we have, the amounts that are there now or projected for 2007‑2008,
whatever they may be in reality or not, we have to make sure that we focus
their use and strategically utilize them from a private sector perspective with
one objective primarily and that is audience achievement, otherwise I think
that we're missing the boat.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11326 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Mr. O'Farrell, I know that your
oral presentation didn't cover the governance issue, but one of the ‑‑
surely it is a concern of many interveners that we had heard today and we will
be hearing over the next couple of days, and one of the view is the most
appropriate size of the Board and which type of representatives should be ‑‑
the make‑up of that Board shall be and some are saying the best solution
will be a small, made up of only independent directors, others are suggesting
that an expanded Board of stakeholders, expanded compared to what it currently
is, so including some of the guilds and unions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11327 And
we haven't heard yet any ‑‑ we heard a lot of opposition to
the recommendation from the Task Force, but we haven't yet heard, at least
during this proceedings, but the hearing is far from being over, any support
for the Task Force recommendation.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11328 Where
does the CAB sit on that?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11329 MR.
O'FARRELL: Our position at this time is
that the current constitution of the Board is adequate and appropriate.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11330 Clearly
there's always an appetite in many quarters to add more voices to a discussion,
particularly when one perceives that one has an interest in that discussion,
and we don't dismiss that point of view.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11331 But
we don't know that it's necessarily going to serve decision‑making or a
better Board by continually adding voices around a table.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11332 But
I think that in terms of the ultimate governance of the Board, Michel Carter
knocked the ball out of the park I think this morning where he reminded us all
that there's a double majority rule, which from a governance perspective
ensures that the independent committee always votes in addition to the Board
itself on significant matters of financial or policy questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11333 CAB
has traditionally elected its representatives.
It would be our intention to continue to elect our representatives. We draw, as you know, from English and French
representatives, conventional and specialty and we try to do so in a way that
is representative of a useful turn over and useful contribution from voices and
the sectors and it seems to have worked for us.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11334 And
we do take our hat off, frankly, as an industry association and appreciate the
work that individual broadcasters who have agreed to sit as members of the CTF
Board have done over the years in ensuring that their contribution could serve
a purpose on this very important vehicle.
It's a tough job and it's a big job and I think that they have
discharged that obligation honourably across the board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11335 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: Well, those were my
questions. I think your oral presentation
is very clear ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11336 MR.
O'FARRELL: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11337 COMMISSIONER
ARPIN: ‑‑ on the other subject of one stream or two streams
and the point system and everything, so I don't see the need to ask questions
only to ask questions.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11338 Thank
you very much, Mr. O'Farrell.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11339 MR.
O'FARRELL: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11340 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Morin.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11341 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Oui, je voudrais revenir sur le fait que les deux sources de
financement soient clairement identifiées.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11342 Lorsqu'on
a posé la question un peu plus tôt, ce qu'on nous dit, dans le fond, c'est que
ces sources de financement ont été obtenues, ont été gagnées par le Fonds
canadien avec le CRTC par des effets réglementaires historiquement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11343 Qu'est‑ce
que vous répondez à cet argument?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11344 M.
O'FARRELL : Je crois qu'oui, effectivement, le fonds est doté de sources de
financement, aujourd'hui, qui sont l'ouvre, en partie sûrement, du CRTC et de
sa réglementation et de sa politique qui vise à faire la réglementation et la
supervision du système de radiodiffusion canadien et, donc, de la poursuite des
objectifs qui sont visés à l'article 3 de la Loi.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11345 On
n'a aucune objection à ce concept là, ce qui est arrivé en cours de route, et
puis, il y en a d'autres qui vous ont expliqué l'évolution historique, et pour
la plupart, je ne suis pas ici pour nuancer tel propos ou l'autre. Je pense que c'est juste.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11346 Ce
qui est arrivé à un certain moment, c'est que tout ça s'est retrouvé dans un
véhicule que nous, aujourd'hui, on propose maintenir, mais avec deux formules
de financement pour les deux secteurs, basé sur les particularités de chacun
des secteurs. Donc, le public dans le
public, et le privé dans le privé.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11347 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Et qu'est‑ce qui vous fait dire à vous de l'industrie privée que,
avec ces sources de financement clairement identifiées, le résultat serait
meilleur que celui qu'on connaît aujourd'hui?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11348 M.
O'FARRELL : Écoutez, on serait bien malvenu de vous proposer des résultats
garantis sur un item ou l'autre que certains pourraient suggérer, mais je vous
dirais sans aucune hésitation que le système, pour ce qui est de sa composante
privée, est axé maintenant sur une orientation extrêmement... pas une
orientation, mais c'est un enjeu extrêmement crucial qui s'appelle maintenir sa
part d'auditoire en raison de cette fragmentation exponentielle qui se vit dans
le milieu actuellement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11349 Donc,
de tourner une source de financement ou un véhicule de financement comme le
Fonds canadien sur un objectif principal pour ce qui est du financement des
émissions nous apparaît parfaitement logique, et donc, la suite logique, on
espère ‑‑ d'ailleurs, comme nous l'avons articulé dans notre
propos ici tout à l'heure ‑‑ devrait permettre aux diffuseurs
d'avoir plus de succès qu'ils ne l'ont déjà dans l'obtention de ces résultats
d'auditoires qu'ils recherchent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11350 Est‑ce
que je peux vous faire une représentation quant au seuil qu'ils pourront
obtenir? Non. Je pense que ça serait malvenu de ma part
même de vous en suggérer le moindrement.
Mais je pense que ce qui est important, c'est que la redevabilité et
l'imputabilité soit au niveau des auditoires parce que c'est là où tout se joue
avec le consommateur. Est‑il ou
est‑elle à l'écoute ou non?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11351 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Il y a certains de vos membres qui poussent l'argument encore plus
loin. Je pense, par exemple, à Quebecor
qui est un de vos membres. Eux, ils
proposent une augmentation du Fonds canadien, avec un fonds qui leur soit
propre et qui augmente substantiellement, de 60 millions sur trois ans à 100
millions de dollars la contribution au Fonds canadien.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11352 Comment
votre association voit cette perspective qui aurait pour effet aussi,
évidemment, de réduire l'ampleur et l'importance du Fonds canadien de
télévision?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11353 M.
O'FARRELL : Je pense que la proposition de Quebecor n'a pas été retenue par la
position qu'on vous a soumise aujourd'hui, mais je pense que c'est
respectueusement que nous la considérons dans le paysage des opinions et des
voix qui ont été mises devant le Conseil comme matière à réflexion sur le comment
et le quoi à faire dans tout ça face à l'avenir du Fonds canadien de
télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11354 Pour
notre part, nous pensons qu'il est mieux d'avoir un fonds géré par une entité,
un conseil de direction, avec les composantes qui sont en place, pour en
assurer la participation des intervenants souhaités, et ensuite, que ce fonds
là administre, effectivement, deux régimes de financement : le régime privé tel
qu'on vous l'a soumis et le régime public.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11355 Il
y a d'autres vues qui seront mises sur la table et qui seront, je pense... qui
vont évoluer au cours de la semaine d'audience et lors de vos
délibérations. On ne présume pas des
réponses que donneront d'autres intervenants au cours des échanges qu'ils
pourront avoir avec vous ou de l'évolution de leur position, que ça soit d'un
côté comme de l'autre, mais je pense que, pour l'instant, on vous soumet
respectueusement que la meilleure vision, quant à nous, c'est la vision que
nous avons soumise, et c'est cette vision avec un fonds, avec deux régimes de
financement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11356 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Et votre réponse, c'est même au prix que le contenu canadien pourrait
être plus grand avec la proposition de Quebecor?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11357 M.
O'FARRELL : Notre position, c'est telle que nous l'avons soumise, exactement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11358 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Cet après‑midi, les syndicats comme l'ACTRA et les guildes nous
ont dit ‑‑ et Monsieur le Commissaire Arpin en a parlé tout à
l'heure ‑‑ que la publicité était peut‑être quelque
chose qui manque aux séries qui connaissent des succès, non seulement au Canada
mais sur les marchés extérieurs, et non seulement pour le réseau francophone,
enfin, les séries francophones, mais, bien sûr, les séries anglophones.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11359 Est‑ce
que votre association, vous avez des objectifs... est‑ce que vous vous
parlez d'objectifs de promotion, parce que, autant on peut voir que le fonds
canadien n'a peut‑être pas fait tout ce qu'il fallait faire pour faire
connaître les succès qui sont imputables en grande partie à son action, autant
on a l'impression à entendre les syndicats que les diffuseurs canadiens ne font
pas tout ce qu'il faut pour les séries canadiennes?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11360 Est‑ce
que cet objet ou, enfin, cette réflexion vous anime également? Vous avez cité tout à l'heure dans le Super
Bowl, mais est‑ce qu'il y a une politique qui pourrait éventuellement
émerger en faveur des séries canadiennes qui soit plus sentie un peu?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11361 M.
O'FARRELL : Monsieur le Commissaire, je pense que ça serait à contresens de
toute logique, pour moi du moins, que de vous suggérer qu'un secteur comme le
nôtre, qui a investi, depuis 2001, 6 milliards de dollars en programmation
canadienne, et dans la dernière année seulement, 1,5 milliards de dollars en
programmation canadienne, n'aurait pas intérêt et ne ferait pas tout ce qu'il
peut comme secteur d'activité pour en faire un succès. Lorsqu'on dépense 1,5 milliards de dollars,
c'est pour en retirer le maximum de bénéfices et pour atteindre les plus grands
auditoires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11362 L'exemple
que je vous donnais du Super Bowl hier en est un qui est peut‑être un peu
baillant parce que c'est hier, puis c'est le Super Bowl. Mais si vous regardez la télévision, vous
allez voir la promotion que font les chaînes, les services, sur une base
régulière de tout ce qui s'appelle programmation canadienne, à partir de tous
les genres de programmation, parce que leur investissement financier est
tellement important que ça serait illogique de ne pas soutenir ces
investissements là avec toute la promotion possible.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11363 Est‑ce
qu'elle est faite selon le désir des uns ou des autres qui n'ont pas
d'investissement financier à faire pour supporter la promotion de ces produits
là? Peut‑être pas, mais je vous
assure que, avec, comme je vous dis, 6 milliards de dollars de ce qu'on appelle
en anglais "skin in the game" depuis 2001, bien, il y a tout lieu de
croire que les services font tout ce qu'ils peuvent pour réussir que cette
programmation là réussisse à atteindre les plus grands auditoires possibles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11364 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Mais compte tenu du phénomène de la substitution, quel est le
pourcentage de l'ensemble des radiodiffuseurs... quel est le pourcentage de
l'ensemble des revenus qu'ils tirent de la substitution?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11365 M.
O'FARRELL : Intéressant que vous me posez la question parce que je pense qu'il
y a eu des études qui ont été déposées récemment auprès du Conseil dans le
dossier que vous allez avoir à étudier au mois d'avril. Je n'ai pas ces études là avec moi, mais je
vous assure que nous, on l'a fait, et puis on a une étude qui est au dossier du
Conseil présentement qui fait un calcul, j'espère savant, de ce que ça
représente pour le secteur comme... bien, savoir ce que ça représente comme valeur
pour le secteur. C'est une étude qui est
au dossier, mais je ne l'ai pas ici avec moi, malheureusement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11366 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Mais c'est plus de 50 pour cent des revenus tirés de la programmation
américaine sur les chaînes canadiennes?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11367 M.
O'FARRELL : Écoutez, il faudrait regarder l'étude pour voir exactement comment
répondre à votre question, justement parce que je ne l'ai pas devant moi,
comment elle est détaillée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11368 Mais
je vous assure que c'est une étude qui a cherché justement à mettre la main en
2008, parce que ce qui est intéressant, c'est un phénomène dont on parle
régulièrement, la substitution simultanée, et puis, à notre savoir, la chose
n'avait pas été revisitée récemment sur la base d'une analyse économique
détaillée.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11369 C'est
ce qu'on a fait, et c'est ce qu'on vous a déposé. Mais sans l'avoir devant moi, je ne voudrais
pas essayer de vous répondre spécifiquement sur ce qui est dans le rapport.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11370 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Parce que si on l'avait cette réponse, peut‑être que ça pourrait
expliquer pourquoi il n'y a peut‑être pas autant de publicité pour les
séries canadiennes que les associations le souhaitent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11371 M.
O'FARRELL : Je ne saurais pas comment vous renseigner davantage sans avoir le
rapport devant moi, malheureusement, mais je ne voudrais pas vous laisser non
plus avec l'idée que les radiodiffuseurs privés, avec les investissements
importants qu'ils font en programmation canadienne, ne font pas tout ce qu'ils
peuvent pour voir à ce que ces investissements là réussissent, et pour réussir,
il faut avoir de l'auditoire.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11372 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Merci.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11373 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. O'Farrell.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11374 MR.
O'FARRELL: Thank you.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11375 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11376 THE
SECRETARY: I will now invite CBC/Radio‑Canada
to make their presentation.
‑‑‑ Pause
LISTNUM
1 \l 11377 THE
SECRETARY: Please introduce yourself,
and you have 15 minutes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11378 Thank
you.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
LISTNUM 1 \l 11379 M.
LAFRANCE : Alors, Madame la Présidente, mesdames et messieurs les conseillers,
employés du CRTC, je suis Sylvain Lafrance, Vice‑président principal des
Services français de Radio‑Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11380 Je
suis accompagné, aujourd'hui, de trois collègues de CBC/Radio‑Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11381 À
ma droite, Richard Stursberg, Vice‑président principal des Services
anglais de CBC. Richard Stursberg a
passé quatre ans à la présidence du Fonds canadien de télévision, de 1998 à
2001. Il a été ensuite directeur général
de Téléfilm Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11382 À
sa droite, Marcella Kadanka, première directrice, Arts et Divertissements,
Télévision anglaise, et représentante de CBC/Radio‑Canada au conseil
d'administration du Fonds canadien.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11383 À
ma gauche, Marie‑Andrée Poliquin, directrice des Opérations, Financement
et Relations d'affaires de la télévision française.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11384 Nous
avons participé à la phase de consultations et enquêtes du Conseil et avons
abordé dans nos observations écrites de juillet un certain nombre d'enjeux
relatifs aux recommandations formulées par le groupe de travail sur le Fonds
canadien de télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11385 Aujourd'hui,
nous souhaiterions nous concentrer sur deux questions clé.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11386 D'abord,
la recommandation du groupe de travail du CRTC de diviser le fonds sert‑elle
l'intérêt public?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11387 Et
deuxièmement, quel changement apporté à la structure actuelle du Fonds canadien
de télévision contribuerait le mieux à la réalisation des objectifs de
production et de diffusion de la programmation canadienne?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11388 Avant
de commencer, j'aimerais aborder une question préliminaire fondamentale :
Pourquoi sommes‑nous ici aujourd'hui?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11389 Shaw
et Vidéotron, des entreprises de distribution qui se sont enrichies dans le
contexte réglementaire actuel, ont cessé de verser leur contribution mensuelle
et ont livré bataille publiquement contre le Fonds canadien de télévision en
remettant en question son efficacité à offrir des émissions aux Canadiens. Ainsi, Shaw s'est lancée dans une intense
campagne publicitaire dans les journaux, et Quebecor a proposé de créer son
propre fonds de production.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11390 Intéressant
de constater que monsieur Jim Shaw, le principal déclencheur de ce qu'on a
appellé la crise du CTF, a décidé de ne pas comparaître cette semaine.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11391 Cette
vision totalement négative du Fonds canadien de télévision n'est pas celle des autres
membres de l'industrie de la télévision, comme on l'a vu aujourd'hui. Le milieu culturel canadien apprécie le Fonds
canadien de télévision et reconnaît qu'il contribue grandement au développement
d'une production canadienne de qualité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11392 Nous
pensons que le processus actuel devrait servir à formuler des recommandations
sur les manières d'améliorer le fonds et non de le démanteler.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11393 Je
passe, donc, au premier point : La recommandation du groupe de travail de
diviser le fonds sert‑elle l'intérêt public?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11394 Comme
nous l'avons indiqué dans nos observations écrites, le fait de diviser le fonds
entre un volet de financement pour le secteur privé et un volet pour le secteur
public ne sert pas du tout, selon nous, l'intérêt public. Nous appuyons notre analyse sur trois
aspects.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11395 Premièrement,
les contributions des entreprises de distribution constituent les fonds
publics.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11396 Deuxièmement,
nous devons rétablir les faits sur la programmation financée par le Fonds
canadien de télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11397 Et
troisièmement, nous démontrerons que la garantie d'accès de CBC/Radio‑Canada
au Fonds canadien lui permet d'accroître l'écoute des émissions canadiennes et
d'assurer une programmation d'une grande diversité au sein du système.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11398 D'abord,
les contributions des entreprises de distribution constituent les fonds
publics. Entrons dans le vif du
sujet. Shaw et Vidéotron semblent croire
que leur obligation de contribuer au fonds leur donne le droit de dicter la
manière dont les contributions devraient être dépensées et de pense que ces
contributions devraient être utilisées à leur avantage. Ce n'est absolument pas pertinent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11399 Les
contributions obligatoires des entreprises de distribution au fonds constituent
des fonds publics. Cet argent sert à
remplir un objectif de politique publique reconnue. Il est administré conformément à la politique
gouvernementale et soumis à une surveillance constante de la part du gouvernement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11400 Certains
distributeurs ont fait part d'autres inquiétudes, en dehors du processus du
CRTC, qui portaient sur la légalité de ces contributions. En utilisant des articles de journaux et des
publicités pleine page, que vous avez sûrement dû voir, Shaw et Vidéotron ont
suggéré que les contributions obligatoires au fonds pourraient être, en fait,
des taxes illégales.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11401 Tout
récemment, Shaw, dans la demande qu'elle a déposée au CRTC en décembre afin de
participer à la présente audience, a affirmé que les contributions des EDR en
appui au Fonds canadien constituaient véritablement une taxe illégale, sans
fournir plus de détails.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11402 Nous
ne sommes pas d'accord avec cette affirmation.
Afin de mettre en oeuvre les vastes objectifs d'intérêt public de la
loi, le Conseil est investi de pouvoirs de réglementation de très large portée,
ainsi que de l'autorité de soumettre les titulaires de licence aux conditions
qu'il juge approprié. La mise en place
des contributions des entreprises de distribution en vue d'appuyer la
programmation canadienne se situe clairement dans les limites du mandat du
Conseil en vertu des dispositions de la loi.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11403 Nous
avons aussi obtenu un avis juridique auprès du cabinet McCarthy Tétrault qui
conclut que les contributions obligatoires au FCT, dans la mesure où elles sont
imposées par le Règlement sur la distribution de radiodiffusion, constituent
une obligation réglementaire valide.
Nous avons déjà présenté cet avis juridique dans le contexte de la
révision du cadre de réglementation des EDR, et nous serions heureux de le
consigner au dossier de la présente instance.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11404 En
résumé, il est clair, premièrement, que le CRTC a l'autorité légale d'exiger
des entreprises de distribution qu'elles contribuent au Fonds canadien de
télévision, et deuxièmement, que les contributions de ces entreprises sont des
fonds publics qui servent à réaliser des objectifs de politique publique, soit
la création d'une programmation typiquement canadienne.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11405 Considérant
que les contributions des EDR sont des fonds publics, comme le sont, évidemment
aussi, les sommes versées par le ministère du Patrimoine, rien ne justifie de
distinguer les sommes fournies par chacun, ni de scinder le Fonds canadien de
télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11406 Richard
va maintenant souligner quelques faits sur la programmation financée par le
fonds.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11407 MR.
STURSBERG: Thank you, Sylvain.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11408 One
misconception about the Fund is that it hasn't been very effective in
delivering popular programming to Canadians and that somehow splitting the Fund in two will contribute to
increasing the popularity of Canadian programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11409 In
fact, the CTF as it is currently structured using combined BDU and government
funds has been very successful in creating popular Canadian programming for
Canadians.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11410 According
to BBM and Nielsen research, of the top 100 most popular English Canadian drama
and comedy programs aired over the last 10 years over two thirds have been
funded by the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11411 In
French Canada the numbers are even better.
In that market, over 80 per cent of the top 100 most popular Canadian
drama and comedy programs in the last 10 years have been funded by the CTF.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11412 This
is an admiral record demonstrating the level of effectiveness of the CTF in
financing popular Canadian programs.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11413 This
overall effectiveness of the CTF has in large part resulted from the Fund's
ability to blend financial contributions from the BDUs and from government into
a single and efficient funding source and to distribute those contributions to
eligible independent TV productions according to established and common
objectives and guidelines.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11414 If
it is decided that a public policy objective of the Fund should be to try and
increase the popularity of funded programs beyond current levels, we believe
that the most effective means to do that would be to adjust the objectives and
guidelines that determine how the current combined CTF contributions are
distributed. There is no need to split
the Fund to achieve this objective.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11415 And
on the topic of popular programming, it's important to emphasize that there is no
magic bullet for predicting audience success.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11416 Some
shows, such as CBC's "Little Mosque on the Prairie" and Radio‑Canada's
"Minuit, le soir" are ratings winners and some are not.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11417 This
is equally true in the United States where the top four networks collectively
spend over $10 billion on programming a year.
Yet even with those resources they cancel 62 percent of all their new
shows within the first 11 episodes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11418 M.
LAFRANCE : Parlons maintenant un peu plus du marché francophone. En ce moment, l'industrie télévisuelle
francophone n'a pas de problème de part de marché. Elle a un très grand succès auprès de ses
auditoires. Encore hier soir à 20 h 00,
plus de trois millions de Québécois regardaient les deux grandes chaînes
généralistes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11419 Le
Fonds canadien de télévision a grandement contribué à ce succès avec les
années. Nous considérons que c'est en
grande partie grâce au fonds que la fiction québécoise, ses auteurs, ses
réalisateurs, ses comédiens, ses producteurs obtiennent aujourd'hui une si
belle reconnaissance, et ce, même au‑delà de nos frontières.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11420 La
vitalité, la qualité et l'audace de nos émissions sont de plus en plus reconnus
en France, qui cherche à s'en inspirer ou les diffuse intégralement, comme on
l'a vu dans la presse de samedi dernier.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11421 Le
fonds fait déjà la distinction entre ces deux marchés linguistiques et accorde
moins d'importance au critère de l'auditoire dans le marché francophone, qui possède
déjà une bonne part d'auditoire. Le défi
dans ce marché où la propriété est concentrée entre les mains d'un très petit
nombre de télédiffuseurs est de maintenir à la fois la diversité dans les
genres de programmation et les possibilités de financement pour le secteur
indépendant de la production.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11422 Si
on décidait que le Fonds canadien devait à l'avenir mettre une emphase exagérée
sur le critère de l'auditoire, ce serait au détriment de la diversité des
contenus dans le marché francophone. La
division du fonds entre un volet privé et un volet public augmentera les coûts
administratifs et diminuera les fonds disponibles pour l'investissement dans la
programmation canadienne. Ces
changements n'apporteraient rien de bon au système.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11423 Il
est très clair pour nous que l'accès de CBC/Radio‑Canada au fonds permet
d'accroître l'écoute des émissions canadiennes et d'assurer la diversité des
choix.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11424 Certains
prétendent que les recommandations du groupe de travail n'auront pas d'impact
sur CBC/Radio‑Canada, dont l'enveloppe est régie par l'entente de
contributions signée entre le Fonds canadien et le gouvernement. C'est faux.
CBC est le seul radiodiffuseur national de langue anglaise qui programme
des émissions canadiennes dans ses meilleurs créneaux horaires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11425 Que
l'on pense à " Little Mosque on the Prairie ", la série " The
Border ", la série " Sophie " basée sur la série " Sophie
Paquin " diffusée par Radio‑Canada, cela explique en partie que CBC
diffuse neuf des 10 émissions canadiennes les plus populaires dans les
catégories sous‑représentées. Une
seule de ces 10 émissions est diffusée par CTV, et Global n'en a aucune.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11426 Dans
les marchés de langue française, Radio‑Canada mise sur le financement du
fonds pour s'assurer que les téléspectateurs ont accès à une diversité de choix
de programmation dans des styles et des univers très variés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11427 Radio‑Canada
est le seul radiodiffuseur généraliste de langue française qui diffuse chacun
des genres de programmation qu'appuie le Fonds canadien, incluant les
dramatiques, les documentaires, les émissions sur les arts de la scène et les
séries pour enfants.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11428 Or,
plusieurs émissions qui connaissent aujourd'hui un succès, même au‑delà
de nos frontières, n'auraient pu être réalisées si seules les lois implacables
du marché s'étaient appliquées.
D'ailleurs, si les lois du marché étaient une réponse aux grands enjeux
culturels de nos sociétés, ça se saurait.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11429 Je
crois qu'il est utile de rappeler pourquoi le ministère du Patrimoine canadien
a réservé 37 pour cent de tous les fonds combinés du fonds à des productions
indépendantes destinées à être diffusées en priorité sur les ondes de CBC/Radio‑Canada. Cette garantie a été établie à un moment où
le fonds mettait de plus en plus l'accent sur l'auditoire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11430 Le
gouvernement avait déterminé que le radiodiffuseur public national tenu de
respecter un mandat qui dépassait celui d'optimiser les auditoires ne devrait
pas faire face à une diminution de financement du fonds. Si l'excès de CBC/Radio‑Canada au fonds
était réduit, les Canadiens auraient moins d'occasions de voir de la
programmation canadienne aux heures où ils sont les plus nombreux à regarder la
télévision et de regarder une vaste gamme d'émissions produites dans tout le
Canada. Nous ne voyons pas où est
l'intérêt public dans tout ça.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11431 MR.
STURSBERG: And that brings us to our
final point. I would like to focus on
how to ensure that the fund's resources continue to be managed in the best
interests of all Canadians and not in the interests of its private
contributors.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11432 To
be precise, I am referring now to the remainder of the combined fund, the 63
percent not within the CBC envelope. If
the government and the CTF board want to increase the popularity of CTF‑funded
programming the most effective way would be to make adjustments within CTF's
existing framework through the guidelines and the criteria for the distribution
of funds.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11433 The
CTF has already taken steps to better support the process. For example, it has recognized the wisdom of
piloting series and supporting more episodes for successful series.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11434 The
CTF can continue to build on these kinds of ideas. If increased popularity is sought, for
example, in English drama, the fund can prioritize its objectives for that
specific genre in favour of audience growth.
Using the Broadcaster Performance Envelope adjustment factors it could
increase the weight of audience and decrease others. It could also define and measure audience for
a specific genre in a way that acknowledges and supports hits.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11435 Finally,
in order to achieve the greatest audience impact we believe that CBC/Radio‑Canada
should be permitted to compete for some of the funding outside our existing
envelope. Why? CBC/Radio‑Canada is already one of the
most important broadcasters in terms of delivering audiences to Canadian
programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11436 As
Sylvain mentioned, nine out of the 10 most popular series in English Canada are
on the CBC. We are as well the most
efficient user of the fund. We take
about 50 percent of the drama dollars in English and generate almost two‑thirds
of the audiences for Canadian drama in English.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11437 Allowing
us to compete for these funds would increase the overall competition for
audiences. Indeed, maintaining the
integrity of the CBC's 37 percent while also permitting it to compete for the
other 63 percent could provide one of the most powerful structural incentives
imaginable for greater audience growth.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11438 We
have been talking about the experience with the CTF as a broadcaster. I would like to spend a few minutes and talk
about my experience as a former chairman of the fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11439 When
I became the chair of the CTF it was in a period of transition. When I left it was in a period of
transition. It is still in a period of
transition.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11440 The
fund is not and never has been static or rigid in its approach to supporting
Canadian programming. The fund's
greatest strength has always been its adaptability. It has evolved and changed with a changing
industry and I expect it will continue to do so.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11441 When
the dual administrative structure which was a legacy of the marriage of the old
Cable Production Fund with Telefilm's Broadcast Fund became too cumbersome, the
structure was streamlined and one administration was put in place.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11442 When
concerns were expressed over the transparency of the fund tough conflict of
interest guidelines were introduced and independent directors appointed to the
board.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11443 Similar
changes have been made to make the fund more Canadian, more transparent, more
market driven and better governed. No
funding system is perfect.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11444 But
as a former chairman I give the CTF high marks for sticking to its goal of
financing great Canadian programs. In
that it has been a tremendous success. I
also give it high marks for doing what most organizations find very difficult
to do, and that is to adapt and evolve when it's necessary to do so.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11445 And
that brings me back to the beginning of our presentation. Why was the CTF task force struck in the
first place? Because Shaw and Vidéotron
wanted to dismantle the fund for their own private interests. That is not a good reason to split the fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11446 Splitting
the fund won't create more Canadian hits.
It will result in less resources being available to create Canadian
programming since administrative costs will increase.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11447 We
believe that the efforts to improve the fund are best accomplished within the
existing framework. The fund has
demonstrated that not only can it adapt to a changing market but it remains the
best vehicle to promote Canadian programming.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11448 This
afternoon we have setout some proposals to increase the popularity of CTF‑funded
programming for your consideration.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity. We would be happy to answer any questions you
might have.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11449 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Stursberg
and Mr. Lafrance and your colleagues. I
will ask Commissioner Morin to lead the questioning.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11450 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Bonjour.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11451 L'ACR
nous a donné des chiffres tout à l'heure qui allaient dans le sens que plus de
50 pour cent, finalement, des fonds du Fonds canadien de la télévision allaient
soit à Radio‑Canada, soit à d'autres télédiffuseurs comme Télé‑Québec.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11452 Je
vois que vous vous objectez vigoureusement à ce que le financement du Fonds
canadien soit divisé en deux volets distincts de manière à créer un peu plus de
transparence pour les consommateurs et pour les contribuables.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11453 Mais
au fond, compte tenu de ce chiffre là de 50 pour cent dont nous parlait
monsieur O'Farrell il y a quelques minutes, est‑ce qu'il n'est pas normal
quelque part que l'argent qui vient du secteur privé retourne au secteur privé
et que l'argent qui vient des gouvernements, surtout avec Radio‑Canada
qui reçoit déjà un milliard de subventions, qui a des chaînes spécialisées et
tout, est‑ce qu'il n'est pas normal qu'il y ait un peu plus "
d'équité, " si je puis employer le mot, entre guillemets, bien sûr?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11454 M.
LAFRANCE : D'abord, j'ai entendu les chiffres de l'ACR et je trouve ça
intéressant. Je suis content que vous me
posez la question. Ça me permet de
rétablir certaines choses.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11455 D'abord,
oui, 50 pour cent est allé là parce que les services publics sont plus présents
dans beaucoup de genres.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11456 Si
on regardait, par exemple, dans le domaine des dramatiques, le montant que
reçoit TVA est à peu près le même montant que ce que reçoit Radio‑Canada.
Là où se joue la différence, c'est parce
que Radio‑Canada fait beaucoup plus de programmation pour enfants, Radio‑Canada
fait beaucoup de documentaires, et c'est là que se joue la différence. Donc, c'est encore une fois une question de
diversité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11457 Si
on ne prenait que la question des dramatiques, grosso modo, c'est à peu près
les mêmes montants. Donc, c'est pour ça
que, au Québec, les chiffres semblent comme ça parce que pour créer de la
diversité, c'est les services publics qui agissent là‑dedans. Donc, c'est intéressant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11458 Maintenant,
sur la question des fonds privés, je voudrais dire une chose. Cet argent là, on l'a précisé dans notre
texte, est de l'argent qui par réglementation est versé, et pour nous, c'est de
l'argent public au même titre que d'autres argents publics, et pour nous, à
partir de ce moment là, il faut l'allouer en fonction d'objectifs de services
publics.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11459 Les
objectifs de services publics, je le répète, au Québec, ce n'est pas d'augmenter
l'auditoire et d'avoir des émissions encore plus populaires, l'objectif c'est
de créer de la diversité. Si on veut que
les Canadiens, que les Québécois particulièrement, restent à l'écoute de leurs
émissions, il faut créer de la diversité.
Pour créer de la diversité, il faut rester présent dans plusieurs
genres, et jusqu'à maintenant, en tout cas, c'est les services publics qui ont
permis ça, ce qui explique le 50 pour cent dont vous parlez.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11460 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Mais au fond, c'est le secteur privé qui alimente et qui crée sa propre
concurrence avec Radio‑Canada et Télé‑Québec?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11461 MR.
STURSBERG: We have to return to this
question again. The money provided by
the cable companies is not their money.
It is public money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11462 When
the oil companies spend ‑‑ give tax dollars to the government
it is not their money. When I pay my
taxes to the government it is not my money.
I cannot say, "Oh, gee, I would like my tax dollars just to support
healthcare but not support roads."
That is not the case. This money
is by its very nature public money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11463 There
is no distinction between the money provided by the cable companies nor the
money provided by the Department of Heritage.
They are in both cases public money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11464 What
the CAB has proposed is they say there should be one fund, not one fund
financed by the cable companies and one fund financed by the Department of
Heritage; one fund. Within that they
have said there might be a piece for public activities and a piece for private
activities but they do not distinguish anything on the basis of the source of
the money. There must be one fund
because they agree that all of the money coming in is indeed public money.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11465 M.
LAFRANCE : Je veux seulement ajouter un chiffre, Monsieur Morin, qui me semble
intéressant parce que vous dites, est‑ce que Quebecor finance Radio‑Canada?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11466 Grosso
modo, dans les dernières années, ce qu'a reçu Quebecor du Fonds canadien de
télévision, c'est environ 18 millions, et ce qu'ils ont versé au fonds, c'est
environ 18 millions. Donc, ils n'ont pas
subventionné Radio‑Canada, je les rassure là‑dessus, et ils ont
donné à peu près ce qu'ils ont reçu.
Alors, grosso modo, ils n'ont pas financer Radio‑Canada d'aucune
façon.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11467 Et
même si c'était le cas, ça ne serait pas très grave parce que cette entreprise
là vit des redevances du câble, et les gens qui reçoivent le câble le reçoivent
pas parce qu'ils aiment le câble intrinsèquement, ils le reçoivent parce qu'ils
aiment les émissions canadiennes, et ces émissions là canadiennes leur viennent
en grande partie de Radio‑Canada et d'autres diffuseurs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11468 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Mais je parle de la façon globale, pas uniquement de Quebecor.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11469 Au
fond, les entreprises privées, en plus de payer leur taxe, paient des
contributions au Fonds canadien de télévision, qui, en retour, avantage le
secteur public, et c'est pour ça qu'ils aimeraient que les fonds soient clairement
identifiés et qu'ils aient leur juste part.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11470 Évidemment,
il y a une question de principe. Vous,
vous parlez de l'argent public, mais simplement d'identifier la source, la
provenance, avec les émissions qui sont diffusées dans le secteur public ou
privé.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11471 M.
LAFRANCE : Mais vous savez, vous remettez en question beaucoup, beaucoup de
financement de l'industrie culturelle au Canada parce que c'est vrai, dans le
domaine de la radio, que monsieur Arpin connaît bien, les radios privées
doivent investir de l'argent dans le domaine de la musique au Canada. C'est fait comme ça, et ça été un immense
succès dans le domaine de la musique.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11472 Si
on veut remettre en question tout le système de financement culturel au Canada,
on peut le faire, mais il me semble assez normal que les gens qui
s'enrichissent à distribuer des signaux de télévision investissent dans la
qualité des émissions que les gens reçoivent.
Ça me semble quand même, sur le plan de la politique publique, assez
légitime.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11473 Alors,
je ne comprends pas pourquoi ça ne serait pas légitime, et encore là, ça
remettrait en question le fondement de financement de beaucoup, beaucoup,
beaucoup de politiques publiques si on décidait qu'ils n'ont pas à investir là‑dedans.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11474 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Comment pouvez‑vous dire que diviser le financement en deux
volets distincts risque de réduire l'efficacité et d'avoir de graves
conséquences pour le secteur de la production indépendante?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11475 M.
LAFRANCE : De plusieurs façons. D'abord,
en passant, l'existence d'un seul fonds permet d'assurer la diversité, et comme
je le disais, particulièrement dans le contexte francophone ‑‑
et Richard pourra parler du contexte anglophone ‑‑ il faut assurer
la diversité, c'est l'enjeu. On n'a pas
tellement... il y a peut‑être même saturation dans l'écoute de la
télévision québécoise tellement les Québécois sont intéressés par leur
télévision. Donc, ce qu'il faut, c'est
créer de la diversité aujourd'hui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11476 Créer
de la diversité, pour ça, il faut créer des fonds qui sont capables d'agir et
qui sont gérés de façon à agir dans plusieurs genres. Sans ça, on va tous finir par fabriquer la
même émission la plus populaire. Alors,
si on veut créer des documentaires, des émissions pour enfants, des émissions
de variété qui se distinguent un peu, il faut qu'il y ait un fonds, de façon
générale, qui permet d'agir dans tous les genres. Ça, c'est une première chose.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11477 Un
seul fonds qui serait totalement axé sur des critères d'écoute éliminerait
beaucoup, beaucoup de genres, et beaucoup de producteurs indépendants qui
produisent dans le secteur des documentaires, dans le secteur des émissions
pour enfants, ne trouveraient plus de diffuseurs pour les diffuser parce que le
fonds n'encouragerait qu'une seule chose, c'est l'écoute. Ça, c'est une première chose.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11478 Deuxièmement,
pour nous, il faut bien comprendre que diviser les fonds pose un problème à
long terme. Les revenus des entreprises
de distribution, câblos, satellitaires, à long terme vont augmenter, on peut le
penser, de différentes façons. Les
factures de câble augmentent. Les
factures de satellite augmentent. Le
nombre d'abonnés peut encore augmenter.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11479 Si
le fonds... si les services publics étaient limités au fonds public, qui lui
n'augmente pas, ça veut dire qu'à long terme on aurait décidé que la diversité,
ça s'arrête en 2008. Pour les 15
prochaines années, on va continuer d'encourager toutes les émissions produites
par une sorte de dictature de l'écoute, mais que tout ce qui viendrait créer de
la diversité, ça s'arrête au niveau d'aujourd'hui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11480 Ça
ne me semble pas sain pour le système à long terme. Ça ne me semble pas équilibré. Ça ne me semble pas respecter l'esprit et la
lettre de la Loi de la radiodiffusion, très honnêtement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11481 CONSEILLER
MORIN : On a parlé du conseil d'administration du Fonds canadien. Vous êtes pris plus ou moins avec un bien
gros conseil d'administration avec plus de 15 membres. Il n'est pas évident aux yeux de beaucoup que
c'est très efficace et très fonctionnel, surtout dans la perspective où il
pourrait y avoir pour les deux fonds, par exemple, ou pour un seul fonds, qu'il
pourrait y avoir des conseils ou les gens pourraient être invités à participer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11482 Alors,
il y a une suggestion qui a été faite par le groupe de travail. C'est que le conseil idéal serait de cinq
membres indépendants. Vous avez un
poste, je pense... vous êtes membre du Fonds canadien de télévision.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11483 Pour
vous, est‑ce qu'un conseil d'administration formé de cinq membres, qui ne
s'occuperait pas de la micro‑gestion, comme on peut présumer avec un gros
conseil où tout le monde a des intérêts bien particuliers à défendre, donc, un
conseil d'administration formé de cinq personnes, est‑ce que vous trouvez
que c'est une idée qui ne tient pas la route?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11484 MR.
STURSBERG: Well, we have no objection to
a smaller board, but I think that the bigger question is really what problem
are we trying to solve? I thought ACTRA
put it extremely well when they made a couple of observations. They said, "You know, if you look at the
performance of the board in terms of a number of criteria, the board, the
existing board has done a very good job."
LISTNUM
1 \l 11485 As
we said in our remarks, you know, the fund has been a big success. It's been a big success by any measure you
care to make. So I would say the board
has done a good job in terms of managing the money.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11486 Secondly,
the costs of administration of the fund have come down significantly, in part
because it's managed to organize itself in a way that has reduced the cost of
administration.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11487 And
finally, I must say, and I say this as an ex‑chair, I think that the work
that has been done over the course of the last little while in terms of
improving the governance of the fund, the independence of the members, the
double voting majority and all these sort of arrangements have been
excellent. I think the point that Doug
Barrett made in his opening presentation is right on. The level of safeguards associated with
conflicts on this board are now more severe than they are for practically any
other board that we have seen.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11488 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Vous avez affirmé tout à l'heure que la contribution gouvernementale
n'était pas garantie. On a vu ce qui
s'est passé ces dernières années. Quand
on a retiré, on est revenu, et quand il y a eu changement de gouvernement, il y
eu reconduction de l'entente de contributions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11489 Est‑ce
que vous avez des informations à l'effet que cette contribution gouvernementale
pourrait être mise en discussion? Est‑ce
que vous avez ce genre d'information qui vous permettrait de dire qu'il n'y a
rien de garantie en ce qui concerne la contribution gouvernementale?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11490 M.
LAFRANCE : Pas du tout. Ce que j'ai dit,
c'est que la croissance n'était pas garantie.
C'est‑à‑dire qu'on peut penser qu'il y aura croissance des
fonds qui sont recueillis auprès des abonnés par le privé. Il peut y avoir une croissance parce qu'il y
a croissance du nombre d'abonnements ou croissance des revenus de façon
générale du secteur privé, mais il n'y a rien qui m'indique actuellement qu'il
y aurait croissance des fonds fournis par le secteur public, par le ministère
du Patrimoine là‑dedans. Alors, on
parle ici de croissance. Je n'ai pas
d'information à l'effet qu'il arrêterait.
Je ne le souhaite vraiment pas, mais on parle de croissance.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11491 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Et j'ai remarqué que les syndicats ont parlé, par exemple, d'augmenter
les contributions du secteur privé de 5 à 6 pour cent, mais aucun n'a fait un
appel à l'augmentation des fonds publics.
C'est un peu curieux quand même, je le sais pas, surtout quant on voit
les sources de financement de Radio‑Canada qui ne semblent pas augmenter
et sont plutôt en décroissance, compte tenu de l'inflation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11492 Comment
vous expliquez que tous ces syndicats qui travaillent avec vous n'aient pas
fait aujourd'hui un appel un peu plus senti pour le réseau public?
LISTNUM 1 \l 11493 M.
LAFRANCE : En tout cas, si vous souhaitez le faire, je vous souhaite la
bienvenue.
‑‑‑ Rires /
Laughter
LISTNUM 1 \l 11494 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Non, mais j'observe tout simplement.
LISTNUM 1 \l 11495 M.
LAFRANCE : Non, écoutez, je pense qu'actuellement, tout le monde est conscient
de la difficulté de gestion des fonds publics.
Actuellement, de toute façon, ce n'est pas... je dirais que ce n'est
tout simplement pas le sujet de l'audience actuelle.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11496 CONSEILLER
MORIN : Merci.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11497 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Stursberg, you ‑‑
sorry ‑‑ you talked about being able to compete for funds, for
additional funds and I am assuming this is over and above the 37 percent
allocation that the CBC currently receives?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11498 MR.
STURSBERG: That's correct.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11499 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And you offered to provide
some more details, and I am going to take you up on your offer.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11500 MR.
STURSBERG: With pleasure. This is the way we think it should work.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11501 For
the reasons that Sylvain mentioned and that we described in our presentation,
the government said, you know, the CBC has a unique role. It is not exclusively about audiences. It's about diversity. It's about a whole series of things. So they said, "We will fix a minimum
envelope of 37 percent" and said there it is, 37 percent of the total
fund.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11502 Now,
our idea would work like this. We would
say, "Every year what will happen is that you would take the different
factors that go to making up the envelopes; how much licence fee do you pay
above threshold; how much regional production do you do; what is your historic
draw and what did your audiences look like?" And you would say, "Fine. Let's calculate what the CBC envelope would
have been if it was subject to the same tests as the private broadcasters; if
the envelope comes out to be bigger than the 37 percent that would be the
envelope for the CBC; if it comes out to be less than the 37 percent then the
37 percent floor would retain."
LISTNUM
1 \l 11503 Now,
people say, "Isn't this a bit like having your cake and eating it
too?"
‑‑‑ Laughter /
Rires
LISTNUM
1 \l 11504 MR.
STURSBERG: And it is and it isn't
because you might well find out that what happens, because we actually have two
very different markets in Canada.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11505 As
Sylvain points out, the challenge in the French market is not about
audiences. All the top shows are Canadian. The challenge in that audience, in that
market is maintaining diversity. So then
I will say, "You know, that is my fundamental responsibility as the key
cultural institution in French in this country." I'm not interested in pushing beyond where I
am with respect to audiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11506 We
come to the English side and we actually have a very different situation. In the English side the most important
cultural challenge that we have and that we have had historically is how to
make Canadian television shows that Canadians actually want to watch. You know what? Canadians read Canadian newspapers. They don't read foreign newspapers. They like to listen to Canadian music. They like to read Canadian books. They like Canadian sporting teams. The one area where we have failed
historically is to make Canadian shows on television that Canadians really want
to watch; drama, comedy.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11507 So
we would say to ourselves, you know, if that's the greatest challenge then
maybe that's what we should also address ourselves to over and above doing all
the other things that CBC Television is going to do.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11508 Now,
then if we were to do that, and that's what you want, you want us to drive
audiences; it will create greater pressure on the others to also drive
audiences. So I think what you would do
is you would have your cake and eat it too because you would say, "We can
create mechanisms that are going to create very, very powerful incentives to
make sure that everybody on the English side tries as hard to make shows that
Canadians want to watch."
LISTNUM
1 \l 11509 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And I am going to ask you
perhaps a question that you may have anticipated and trust me, I have read the
contribution agreement.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11510 The
CBC has the highest potential reach of Canadians. You have the most opportunity to schedule
Canadian content in primetime. You are
not subject to simultaneous substitution.
You have plenty of opportunity to promote and build an audience. Why not just compete, period?
LISTNUM
1 \l 11511 MR.
STURSBERG: Well, because as I mentioned,
there are actually some other things that we are supposed to do over and above
just simply driving for audiences.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11512 Driving
for audience is a very important thing that we do and we have been pushing
really hard in that direction over the course of the last few years. And we are thrilled by the fact that
Canadians actually have responded well to those kinds of initiatives.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11513 But,
you know, we do other things too.
Sylvain and I financed for example jointly a series on the life of René
Lévesque. Did I expect that series to do
any significant audience in English?
Nope. And I don't expect the next
round of the series is going to do any significant audience in English. Why did we do that? Because that's an important part of our
mandate too.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11514 THE
CHAIRPERSON: And without that guaranteed
37 percent ‑‑
LISTNUM
1 \l 11515 MR.
STURSBERG: Well, without the guarantee
of 37 percent we wouldn't be able to do that.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11516 There
are lots of things that are very important to us. We do kids programs. We don't put any advertising on them. We are happy to do performing arts
programs. We did the Nutcracker just
this past ‑‑ we just finished financing the Nutcracker.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11517 We
are happy to do those things. But those
things we don't do them because we expect them to drive the audiences. We do them for different reasons, and those
reasons remain very important cultural reasons as well.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11518 THE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for
your contribution here today.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11519 We
stand adjourned for the day and we will see you all at nine o'clock tomorrow
morning.
LISTNUM
1 \l 11520 Thank
you.
‑‑‑ Whereupon the
hearing adjourned at 1643, to resume
on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 at 0900 / L'audience
est ajournée à 1643, pour reprendre le mardi
5 fevrier 2008 à 0900
REPORTERS
____________________ ____________________
Johanne Morin Monique Mahoney
____________________ ____________________
Beverley Dillabough Jennifer Cheslock
- Date de modification :