ARCHIVED -  Transcript

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Providing Content in Canada's Official Languages

Please note that the Official Languages Act requires that government publications be available in both official languages.

In order to meet some of the requirements under this Act, the Commission's transcripts will therefore be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of CRTC members and staff attending the hearings, and the table of contents.

However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the hearing.

                   TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
             FOR THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND
                 TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DU
                 CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
             ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES

                       SUBJECT / SUJET:

              CANADIAN TELEVISION POLICY REVIEW /
               EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES DU CONSEIL
             RELATIVES À LA TÉLÉVISION CANADIENNE

HELD AT:                        TENUE À:

Conference Centre               Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room                  Salle Outaouais
Place du Portage                Place du Portage
Phase IV                        Phase IV
Hull, Quebec                    Hull (Québec)

September 23, 1998              23 septembre 1998

                           Volume 1
tel: 613-521-0703         StenoTran         fax: 613-521-7668

Transcripts


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.
                          StenoTran

                 Canadian Radio-television and
                 Telecommunications Commission

              Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
                télécommunications canadiennes

                  Transcript / Transcription

              Public Hearing / Audience publique

              Canadian Television Policy Review /
               Examen des politiques du Conseil
             relatives à la télévision canadienne

BEFORE / DEVANT:
Andrée Wylie                    Chairperson / Présidente
                                Vice-Chairperson, Radio-
                                television / Vice-
                                présidente, Radiodiffusion
Joan Pennefather                Commissioner / Conseillère
Andrew Cardozo                  Commissioner / Conseiller
Martha Wilson                   Commissioner / Conseillère
David McKendry                  Commissioner / Conseillère

ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:
Jean-Pierre Blais               Commission Counsel /
                                Avocat du Conseil
Carole Bénard /                 Secretaries/Secrétaires
Diane Santerre
Nick Ketcham                    Hearing Manager / Gérant de 
                                l'audience

HELD AT:                        TENUE À:

Conference Centre               Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room                  Salle Outaouais
Place du Portage                Place du Portage
Phase IV                        Phase IV
Hull, Quebec                    Hull (Québec)

September 23, 1998              23 septembre 1998

                           Volume 1
                          StenoTran

            TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES

                                                          PAGE

Presentation by / Présentation par:

CAB, Canadian Association of Broadcasters /                 12
ACR, Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs

CFTPA, Canadian Film and Television Production             236
Association / Association canadienne de
production de film et télévision
                          StenoTran

                             1

 1                                Hull, Quebec/Hull (Québec)
 2     --- Upon commencing on Wednesday, September 23, 1998
 3         at 0905/L'audience débute le mercredi
 4         23 septembre 1998 à 0905
 5  1                    THE CHAIRPERSON:  Order, please.  À
 6     l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.
 7  2                    Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs, et
 8     bienvenue à l'audience publique sur la révision des
 9     politiques concernant la télévision canadienne.  Good
10     morning, ladies and gentlemen.
11  3                    Je suis Andrée Wylie, vice-
12     présidente, Radiodiffusion, et je présiderai cette
13     audience du CRTC.  Permettez-moi de vous présenter mes
14     collègues:  à ma gauche, Mme Joan Pennefather et
15     M. Andrew Cardozo; à ma droite, Mme Martha Wilson et
16     M. David McKendry.  Je tiens également à souligner que
17     la présidente du CRTC, Mme Françoise Bertrand, encore
18     en convalescence, est tout de même avec nous grâce à
19     l'efficacité de la technologie moderne.  Elle suivra
20     nos débats de très près et sera partie prenante des
21     décisions, tout comme d'ailleurs les autres membres du
22     Conseil, puisqu'il s'agit aujourd'hui d'une révision de
23     politiques.
24  4                    Surely, you too have noticed that our
25     television policy review takes place during exactly the
                          StenoTran

                             2

 1     same year that television celebrates its 50th
 2     birthday -- and the CRTC its 30th year of existence.
 3  5                    In half a century, television has
 4     evolved at the speed of light.  Just think of the
 5     explosion of channels, the arrival of specialty and
 6     per-per-view programming services, without forgetting
 7     the Internet.
 8  6                    For its part, the Commission
 9     undertook its last major review of the television
10     policy framework some 18 years ago.  That's why, when
11     we developed our Vision action plan, we decided it was
12     timely to review thoroughly this regulatory framework.
13  7                    The objective of this hearing is to
14     gather your opinions in order to adapt our approach to
15     today's reality, while allowing us to establish
16     parameters that will guide our future decisions.  Our
17     action plan provides for this regulatory framework to
18     serve as a guideline against which we will examine
19     future applications for broadcasting licence renewals,
20     starting with CBC next spring, and CTV in the fall of
21     1999.
22  8                    During this hearing, which will go on
23     until mid-October, the Commission will hear more than
24     100 oral presentations made by representatives from all
25     sectors of the industry, by numerous associations,
                          StenoTran

                             3

 1     individual citizens and television viewers.  In
 2     addition, 287 submissions have been filed with the CRTC
 3     and will form part of the public record.
 4  9                    À partir de toutes ces informations,
 5     nous cherchons à dégager des lignes directrices qui
 6     nous aideront à répondre à plusieurs questions que je
 7     regrouperai pour le moment en quatre grands thèmes:
 8  10                   Premièrement, en ce qui a trait à la
 9     télévision conventionnelle privée de langue anglaise:
10  11                   Comment le Conseil pourra-t-il
11     garantir la production et la diffusion d'une
12     programmation canadienne de qualité, surtout dans les
13     catégories sous-représentées, tout en rejoignant un
14     auditoire toujours plus vaste?
15  12                   À ce chapitre, le Conseil veut
16     déterminer entre autres si, dans le futur environnement
17     télévisuel, la réglementation devrait continuer à
18     mettre l'accent sur les dramatiques, les émissions de
19     variétés, les émissions pour enfants et les
20     documentaires canadiens.  Plus globalement, quel cadre
21     réglementaire pourrait encourager la production,
22     l'acquisition et la diffusion d'émissions canadiennes
23     commercialement viables au pays comme à l'étranger?  Le
24     Conseil se penchera également sur la problématique
25     reliée à la production locale, question soulevée par de
                          StenoTran

                             4

 1     nombreux intervenants.
 2  13                   Deuxièmement, en ce qui a trait au
 3     système dans son ensemble:
 4  14                   De quelle façon le conseil
 5     pourra-t-il s'assurer que l'ensemble des joueurs soient
 6     en mesure de s'adapter à un contexte en pleine
 7     évolution où apparaissent de nouvelles technologies, de
 8     nouveaux concurrents, de nouvelles structures
 9     d'entreprise et où foisonnent de nouvelles occasions
10     d'affaires à l'échelle nationale et internationale?  De
11     quelle façon le Conseil s'assurera-t-il que le système
12     de radiodiffusion canadien a accès au plus grand nombre
13     de sources de financement possible pour en faire
14     bénéficier les émissions de chez nous?
15  15                   Troisièmement, for the French-
16     language market:
17  16                   How can the regulatory framework
18     ensure that the unique characteristics of the French-
19     language market are maintained and recognized?  To this
20     end, the Broadcasting Act states that English- and
21     French-language broadcasting, while sharing common
22     aspects, operate under different conditions and may
23     have different requirements.  The regulatory framework
24     for television must take into account the linguistic
25     duality of Canada and the different realities under
                          StenoTran

                             5

 1     which English- and French-language broadcasters
 2     operate.
 3  17                   It must not be forgotten that quality
 4     French-language programs are produced in each and every
 5     television genre.  On the other hand, given the limited
 6     size of this market, what approach should the
 7     Commission choose to strengthen the ability of the
 8     broadcasting system to finance the production of
 9     French-language programs and ensure their profitability
10     in both domestic and international markets, while
11     serving the interests of francophone viewers?
12  18                   For the regulator itself:
13  19                   How can a regulatory framework
14     recognize the particular requirements of the different
15     elements of the system and balance the desire for
16     flexibility with the need to ensure equity and the
17     protection of the public interest?
18  20                   In this regard, the Commission is
19     committed to establishing a balance between two
20     fundamental principles emanating from the Broadcasting
21     Act and leading to one overarching objective:  that
22     quality Canadian programs, produced and broadcast by a
23     profitable programming industry, attract Canadian
24     viewers to informative and entertaining television
25     programming that reflects their distinctive
                          StenoTran

                             6

 1     characteristics.  To use a favourite expression of the
 2     Commission, let's say that we want to see "more
 3     programs, better quality and increased profitability".
 4  21                   I would like to specify that the
 5     Commission recognizes the importance of a current
 6     phenomenon in the broadcasting industry -- that is
 7     restructuring -- and that we wish to discuss this issue
 8     as part of the broader policy framework.
 9  22                   The Commission notes, however, that
10     there have been a number of recently-announced
11     transactions, such as those involving Shaw
12     Communications, CanWest Global Communications, Western
13     International Communications, as well as Alliance and
14     Atlantis.  The Commission wishes to stress that the
15     opportunity to consider various industry transactions
16     in depth will come later and that this hearing is not
17     the place to do it.
18  23                   Therefore, we would ask that all
19     interested parties limit their focus during this
20     hearing, as we will, to the broader issues involved in
21     this policy review.  We will all have an opportunity to
22     present our views on transfer and renewal applications
23     during future public processes, and we thank you in
24     advance for your co-operation in this matter.
25  24                   Ainsi, nous poursuivrons ensemble un
                          StenoTran

                             7

 1     travail de réflexion déjà amorcé depuis la parution de
 2     l'avis public et c'est en continuant à avoir recours à
 3     un dialogue ouvert que nous essaierons de trouver le
 4     cadre de réglementation qui répondra le mieux, à l'aube
 5     du 21e siècle, aux objectifs énoncés dans la Loi sur la
 6     radiodiffusion.  Le Conseil sera donc en mesure
 7     d'analyser tous les avis et commentaires reçus et de
 8     rendre une décision au cours du printemps prochain.
 9  25                   I would like to extend a warm welcome
10     at this stage to a delegation with us today from South
11     Africa.  The group includes representatives of the
12     South African broadcasting and telecommunications
13     regulatory authorities, the IBA and SATRA, the South
14     African Broadcasting Company, as CBC, and the
15     Department of Arts and Culture.  The delegation is in
16     Ottawa for the next two weeks to observe this public
17     hearing and to meet with various government agencies
18     and private organizations who are involved in broadcast
19     and telecommunications activities.
20  26                   Nous avons aussi avec nous
21     aujourd'hui et nous souhaitons la bienvenue à M. Hervé
22     Bourges, qui est président du Conseil supérieur de
23     l'audiovisuel en France.
24  27                   Nous avons donc plusieurs nouveaux
25     amis avec nous.
                          StenoTran

                             8

 1  28                   Je passe maintenant la parole à notre
 2     conseiller juridique, Me Jean-Pierre Blais, qui vous
 3     indiquera les procédures à suivre au cours de
 4     l'audience.
 5  29                   Maître Blais.
 6  30                   Me BLAIS:  Merci, Madame la
 7     Présidente.
 8  31                   I have a number of procedural matters
 9     to raise in no particular order.
10  32                   First of all, I want to remind that
11     simultaneous translation is available in both
12     languages, and you can obtain headsets to follow that
13     at the front desk.  Donc la traduction simultanée est
14     disponible, et vous pouvez obtenir des écouteurs à
15     l'extérieur de la salle pour suivre les délibérations.
16  33                   To ensure that the recording and
17     transcription staff are able to produce an accurate
18     transcript of the proceeding, we would ask you to make
19     sure that your mikes are on when speaking -- and it is
20     usually indicated by a red light -- and turned off when
21     you are not speaking, to avoid feedback and other
22     problems.  We would also ask, so that the transcript
23     staff can follow the matters accurately, to not speak
24     too quickly, take your time and speak clearly.
25  34                   For those of you who wish to purchase
                          StenoTran

                             9

 1     copies of the transcripts, they will be available from
 2     the court reporters and they will also be posted on the
 3     Commission website in the usual manner.
 4  35                   The Commission proposes to sit from
 5     9:00 a.m. to 12:30 and from 2:00 to 5:30 each day
 6     throughout this proceeding.  We will take break in mid-
 7     morning and mid-afternoon.  There may be exceptions to
 8     this schedule in the hope of keeping as closely as
 9     possible to the proposed order of appearance, but we
10     should be finishing around 5:30, although on some days
11     we may go past that.
12  36                   This week the Commission will sit
13     full days until Saturday.  Nous résumerons nos travaux
14     le lundi 28 à compter d'une heure et nous siégerons
15     toute la semaine jusqu'au samedi, sauf mercredi le 30
16     septembre.  Pour la semaine suivante, nous reprendrons
17     nos travaux le 5.  Il y a une possibilité qu'on siège
18     le 6, mais ce n'est pas cédulé pour le moment, ainsi
19     que le 9; mais on verra comment nos travaux
20     progressent.
21  37                   We have a very full agenda and we
22     therefore ask your co-operation in focusing on the
23     issues and responding to the questions to ensure we
24     make efficient use of our time.
25  38                   We also ask that cellphones be turned
                          StenoTran

                             10

 1     off and also would ask the journalists and cameramen to
 2     not interfere unduly with the proceedings.
 3                                                        0915
 4  39                   I should also mention that there is a
 5     public exam room where all the submissions that have
 6     been filed are available.  Even the non-appearing items
 7     will be considered in deliberations as well as the
 8     various regional consultations the Commission had
 9     throughout the summer.
10  40                   The Commission wishes to indicate
11     that it has added a number of items to the public
12     record.  In particular, technical questions were asked
13     of the CAB by letter dated 15th September and they have
14     been asked to respond to those by the 15th of October.
15  41                   In addition, the Commission has put
16     on the public record a survey prepared by Crop Four of
17     the Commission.  Its a final report entitled "Audience
18     Viewing Habits and Attitudes with respect to
19     Programming in Canadian Content".  Copies will be
20     available later on today, presumably this afternoon in
21     the public exam room.  We ask you to register with
22     public exam room if you wish to have a copy.
23  42                   As well, this morning the CAB has
24     provided some updates to their original filing of 30th
25     of September and that will also be added to the public
                          StenoTran

                             11

 1     record.  They make corrections to their submissions.
 2  43                   At this point I would like to
 3     introduce the staff team that is at the table with me,
 4     Madame la Présidente.  To my far left is Carole Bénard,
 5     who will be acting as Secretary for the beginning of
 6     the hearing.  Diane Santerre will carry the ball later
 7     on in the hearing process.
 8  44                   Next to her is Nick Ketcham who is
 9     the Hearing Manager for this proceeding.  To my
10     immediate left is Margot Patterson who is an articling
11     student who will be giving me a hand in this three week
12     hearing.
13  45                   At the back table there are also
14     other members of staff who will be coming in and out as
15     various items come up that they have been involved in.
16  46                   I believe that covers all points at
17     this time, Madame Wylie.
18  47                   LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci, Maître Blais.
19  48                   Madam Secretary, would you call the
20     first appearing parties, please.
21  49                   MS BERNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
22  50                   The first presentation will be by the
23     Canadian Association of Broadcasters, TV Board.  Mr.
24     McCabe will make the presentation.
25     
                          StenoTran

                             12

 1     PRESENTATION/PRÉSENTATION
 2  51                   MR. McCABE:  Thank you very much.
 3  52                   THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning, Mr.
 4     McCabe and ladies and gentlemen.  We will invite you
 5     now to present us your comments.
 6  53                   MR. McCABE:  Good morning, Madam
 7     Chair and Commissioners.
 8  54                   I would first like to welcome the
 9     Vice-Chair Wylie to this first hearing in your new
10     capacity as Vice-Chair, Broadcasting, and congratulate
11     you on your appointment.
12  55                   As well, I would like to send out our
13     best wishes to Françoise Bertrand.  Françoise, I know
14     you would have liked to be with us here today.  We hope
15     you get well soon and do indeed rejoin us.  Perhaps you
16     can console yourself with the thought that today at
17     home you are the most important person in the whole
18     broadcasting system.  You are a television viewer.
19  56                   THE CHAIRPERSON:  Better make this
20     good Canadian content.
21  57                   MR. McCABE:  How can we miss with
22     her?
23  58                   My name is Michael McCabe.  I am
24     President, CEO, of the Canadian Association of
25     Broadcasters.  With me today to my right is Jim
                          StenoTran

                             13

 1     Macdonald who is President, CEO, of WIC Television
 2     Limited and Chair of the CAB Television Board.
 3  59                   To the left is Daniel Lamarre,
 4     President and CEO of Group TVI Inc. and a member of our
 5     television board.  Peter Miller is to my immediate
 6     left.  He is our senior Vice-President and general
 7     counsel.
 8  60                   Behind us are CAB Vice-President,
 9     Television, Rob Scarth and Tandy Greer Yull, our
10     Manager for Research and Societal Issues at the CAB.
11  61                   Assisting us as well are our outside
12     consultants, led by Peter Lyman of
13     PricewaterhouseCoopers, whose team will be more fully
14     introduced later in the presentation.
15  62                   We greatly appreciate the opportunity
16     you have provided us to open this policy proceeding on
17     Canadian television.
18  63                   The world around us is changing
19     rapidly.  As it changes, there is a growing need to
20     reflect upon and consider how public policy must
21     change.  Over the last six years, the Commission has
22     held major policy proceedings on the structure of the
23     TV system, TV licence renewal hearings, the role of the
24     Information Highway, competition and contribution
25     within the distribution sector, the role of TV
                          StenoTran

                             14

 1     Networks, and now television policy more generally.
 2  64                   This hearing gives us all a chance to
 3     review and confirm what works; to refine those elements
 4     we want to work better and to discard those things that
 5     we think are no longer necessary and that time and a
 6     developing marketplace have passed by.
 7  65                   We don't think we are here to rewrite
 8     the objectives of the Broadcasting Act or to throw out
 9     30 years of public policy and start all over again. 
10     This hearing is an opportunity to make a system that
11     works work better.
12  66                   We also think this hearing gives the
13     CRTC a unique opportunity to look at the entire system;
14     conventional television, specialty, pay, per-per-view,
15     private and public broadcasting, production,
16     distribution and the role of government including the
17     CRTC.
18  67                   The Commission starts with three
19     great advantages.  First, the Canadian television
20     system is a recognized success story; second, a
21     regulatory framework that has worked and delivered what
22     it set out to do; and third, the strongest ever factual
23     and information base on the business of broadcasting
24     and production today.
25  68                   Remarkably, there is a broad
                          StenoTran

                             15

 1     consensus in these three areas among the parties that
 2     will be appearing before you over the next three weeks. 
 3     And yet, the choices the Commission faces in this
 4     hearing could not be more stark.
 5  69                   The choices between continuing on the
 6     path toward incentive-based regulation, which rewards
 7     risk taking or returning to a more traditional model of
 8     regulation where the focus is almost exclusively on
 9     industry spending or exhibition "requirements".
10  70                   Second, developing a policy
11     environment that helps make Canadian programming a
12     better business opportunity for all sectors or looking
13     instead at Canadian programming as simply a
14     contribution to the system broadcasters must make
15     irrespective of business realities.
16  71                   Continuing to support the diversity
17     in the system that has served Canadians so well or
18     moving to a one size fits all approach.
19  72                   Recognizing the need for a number of
20     complementary and interdependent CRTC business and
21     government actions as a means of accomplishing our
22     common goals or grasping for the simple solution.
23  73                   Helping Canadian companies prepare
24     for the onslaught of the digital borderless world with
25     a more incentive-based model of regulation or seeing
                          StenoTran

                             16

 1     this hearing as the last opportunity to increase
 2     regulatory obligations before that onslaught.
 3  74                        Looking at this process as an
 4     opportunity to ask ourselves how we provide Canadians
 5     with the television they want, or as a chance simply to
 6     respond to the interests and the appetites of the
 7     independent production community.
 8  75                   We are here with one single, vital
 9     message.  We want more Canadians watching Canadian
10     television.
11  76                   We need a policy framework for the
12     system that supports the development of a business
13     environment in which Canadian programming can succeed
14     for everyone and that concentrates on how the system
15     can deliver on quality, not just quantity, for our
16     audiences.
17  77                   The government to date, along with
18     previous Commissions, has focused solely on inputs --
19     more hours, more dollars.
20  78                   We need to turn the lens around and
21     not just look at the inputs of dollars and hours but at
22     the results, audiences.  By shifting the focus, we can
23     start to see the makings of a policy framework that is
24     capable to dealing with everyone's objectives:
25  79                   First and foremost, of course, the
                          StenoTran

                             17

 1     objectives of Canadians to see quality television. 
 2     Second, the objectives of broadcasters to support and
 3     exhibit Canadian programming in a way that enables them
 4     to financially succeed at it.  Third, the objectives of
 5     producers to make their businesses successful.
 6  80                   Viewing is the key that ties all of
 7     this together.  Viewing is what really counts.  Not
 8     just how many hours we have or how many dollars we 
 9     spend.  These are just proxies for what should be the
10     real goal -- more Canadians watching, being informed by
11     and, most importantly, enjoying Canadian television.
12  81                   This is why we have said increased
13     viewing to Canadian television is our key goal for the
14     system.
15  82                   Why should we consider a new
16     approach?  The answer is clear, we don't have any other
17     choice.  The world we expect to see unfold over the
18     next five to ten years is not the world of Canadian
19     television of 15 years ago.
20  83                   In order to understand what the
21     future holds for Canadian television, we commissioned
22     PricewaterhouseCoopers and TD Securities to carry out a
23     comprehensive, in-depth scan of the television
24     environment for the next five to ten years.
25                                                        0925
                          StenoTran

                             18

 1  84                   We commissioned this study to create
 2     what we hope is a useful reference tool for everyone in
 3     this process.  While the study is very detailed and
 4     covers every aspect of the system, we believe the
 5     Commission might benefit from a brief review of the key
 6     conclusions.
 7  85                   I would now ask Peter Lyman, Partner
 8     at PricewaterhouseCoopers, to introduce the members of
 9     his team and to present the key findings of his study.
10  86                   MR. LYMAN:  Thank you, Michael.
11  87                   As Michael said, I am Peter Lyman and
12     I am responsible for PricewaterhouseCoopers' consulting
13     practice and information communications, media and
14     entertainment.
15  88                   The PricewaterhouseCoopers team, in
16     association with the TDSI, are pleased to be part of
17     this historic programming hearing.  We are here to
18     present, as Michael said, some of the findings of the
19     environmental scan.
20  89                   We feel that the scan is a landmark
21     study of the Canadian television system.  It examines
22     how the challenges to the Canadian television program
23     industry were met in the last decade, i.e. the past. 
24     It then projects how future trends will affect the
25     structure and economics of the Canadian broadcasting
                          StenoTran

                             19

 1     system in the short and in the long term.
 2  90                   We have brought together with us the
 3     PricewaterhouseCoopers and TDSI professionals who
 4     conducted the study.  They are leading specialists in
 5     the five major areas of the scan we want to emphasize
 6     and document.  Immediately to my right is Debra
 7     McLaughlin, a well-respected Toronto market research
 8     and television, radio advertising analyst.  Debra has
 9     had assignments in just about every major radio and
10     television broadcaster and has sat on the boards of
11     several industry and professional associations.
12  91                   Debra will highlight how Canada has
13     created a diversified and successful broadcasting
14     system.
15  92                   Second, next to Debra, is Dr. Rebecca
16     Goldfarb, our expert in international trade, with
17     special emphasis on the cultural industries.  Rebecca
18     has prepared a separate report, submitted by the CAB,
19     that compares the Canadian regulatory regime and
20     programming support policies with those in seven other
21     countries.
22  93                   Rebecca will document how the
23     Canadian broadcasting system no longer operates
24     independently from the global economy.
25  94                   Third, next to Rebecca, is Glenn
                          StenoTran

                             20

 1     Suart, who has been involved in virtually every
 2     broadcasting assignment for PricewaterhouseCoopers and
 3     its predecessor firms over the last six years.  Glenn
 4     will address the economies of program production from
 5     the broadcaster perspective and explain how Canadian
 6     drama programming projects are limited by the
 7     programming funding gap.
 8  95                   Fourth, next to Glenn, is Stuart
 9     Jack.  Stuart has extensive experience in market
10     research and strategic planning for domestic and
11     foreign and broadcasters and signal distributors.  At
12     one stage in his career in fact he was part of the
13     broadcasting analysis group at the Commission, so some
14     of you may know him.  Stuart will highlight how
15     broadcasters are challenged to invest now in order to
16     prepare for the digital world.
17  96                   Fifth, next to Stuart, is Scott
18     Cuthbertson, a senior equity analyst with TD
19     Securities, a firm recently ranked as the top research
20     house in the investment sector.  Scott will address
21     some of the ramifications of historic and recent market
22     trends affecting broadcaster access to capital and the
23     expectations of the investor.
24  97                   Debra, would you start them off.
25  98                   MS McLAUGHLIN:  Thank you, Peter, and
                          StenoTran

                             21

 1     good morning.
 2  99                   By traditional measures, such as grow
 3     in services, hours of exposition of programming and
 4     expenditures, the Canadian broadcasting system has been
 5     a tremendous success.  The number of conventional and
 6     specialty stations that the average Canadian viewer has
 7     access to has increased almost exponentially in the
 8     past three decades.
 9  100                  Using Ottawa as an example, the
10     number of Canadian signals available to viewers jumped
11     700 per cent.  The number of foreign signals increased
12     in a commensurate fashion.
13  101                  Similarly, the number of Canadian
14     programming hours -- I am going to pause here and wait
15     for the slide to catch up.  It is there.  All right.
16  102                  Similarly, the number of Canadian
17     programming hours available to Ottawa viewers increased
18     sixfold over the same period.
19  103                  Expenditures on Canadian programming
20     expressed on a system-wide basis grew threefold over
21     the period.
22  104                  However, these successes of the
23     Canadian broadcasting system have not been reflected in
24     viewership to Canadian programming.  Viewing trends to
25     Canadian programming over the last five years have been
                          StenoTran

                             22

 1     basically flat.
 2  105                  As shown in the accompanying chart of
 3     Nielsen Data, the share of viewing to Canadian
 4     programming has declined.  This is true for both French
 5     and English broadcasters.  The share of viewing to
 6     Canadian under represented programming categories 7, 8
 7     and 9 is flat as well.
 8  106                  We have used Nielsen Data as it is
 9     generally considered to be more representative at the
10     system level.  However, Nielsen Data with this kind of
11     break down is not available earlier than 1992.  The
12     trend over the longer period, 1985 to 1996, using BBM
13     data, also shows that viewing to Canadian programming
14     is relatively flat.
15  107                  On this chart the increases in the
16     various measures of success are compared with that of
17     viewership by using an index that sets the 1985 data
18     uniformly to 100.  By this method it becomes obvious
19     that the massive efforts by the Canadian broadcasting
20     system have not been rewarded by corresponding
21     increases in viewership.
22  108                  The failure to increase viewing is
23     even more marked when the focus is placed on English
24     TV.  Viewing to all Canadian programming on English
25     services dropped slightly, while viewing of under-
                          StenoTran

                             23

 1     represented categories increased slightly.
 2  109                  Viewing to all Canadian programming,
 3     as well as under-represented categories, decreased on
 4     French services.
 5  110                  Now let's examine how the roles of
 6     conventional and specialty services differ in the
 7     Canadian broadcasting system.  As demonstrated by this
 8     chart, the principal source of revenue for conventional
 9     broadcasters is advertising.  Eighty-eight per cent of
10     their revenue comes from air-time sales.  For
11     specialties, the revenue comes from other sources. 
12     Specialties are paid for their distribution, while
13     conventional broadcasters pay for their own.
14  111                  While viewing to television across
15     all demographics has remained relatively unchanged, the
16     amount of time spent with Canadian conventional
17     services has declined.  In 1987 the share for all
18     Canadian conventional was 71 per cent.  The
19     introduction of new specialty services, both U.S. and
20     Canadian, the strength of the Fox Network in the U.S.
21     and its subsequent addition to many cable services and
22     the increased penetration of VCR have all served to
23     take viewing hours from traditional sources.
24  112                  In 1997 the key source of revenue for
25     conventional stations, that being audience share, had
                          StenoTran

                             24

 1     been eroded by 11 points.  Canadian conventional then
 2     accounted for 60 per cent of the viewing.  These shifts
 3     create a considerable challenge to the revenue base of
 4     Canadian conventional TV and its ability to support
 5     high cost Canadian production.
 6  113                  Rebecca.
 7  114                  DR. GOLDFARB:  Thank you, Debra.
 8  115                  Canadian producers and broadcasters
 9     are operating globally.  Film and television export
10     revenue is increasing substantially.  The chart shows
11     growth in exports was an astounding 287 per cent
12     between 1990-91 and 1995-1996, from $81 million to $321
13     million.  Despite the lack of incentives, Canadian
14     broadcasters are active in international markets in
15     three distinct ways.  They are:  One, exporting
16     Canadian programs; two, exporting Canadian services,
17     such as brands and formats and, three, investing
18     directly in foreign markets.
19  116                  As you can see from the picture
20     above, CHUM, CBC and Global are examples of Canadian
21     broadcasters who have been active internationally. 
22     Broadcasting is more than a domestic business.  It is
23     global.  Export and investment activity ensures that
24     broadcasters remain competitive internationally and
25     thus retain the strength they need to continue to
                          StenoTran

                             25

 1     provide Canadian content to the domestic market.
 2  117                  In this increasingly global
 3     broadcasting environment, foreign broadcasters and
 4     distributors are essential for Canadian production. 
 5     Canada is reliant on foreign broadcasters and
 6     distributors because they invest heavily in Canadian
 7     production.  Even CAFDE certified productions obtained
 8     one-third of their financing from foreign sources, as
 9     shown by the above chart.
10  118                  Canada is a small market.  As a
11     result, producers and broadcasters are going global in
12     order to achieve the appropriate levels of funding for
13     making quality Canadian content for both domestic and
14     foreign markets.
15  119                  While Canadian broadcasters do
16     participate globally, Canadian broadcasters operate in
17     a domestic market that is relatively highly controlled. 
18     The Canadian regulatory system has encouraged this
19     domestic focus through a number of measures, including
20     content quotas.
21  120                  Only Australia has domestic content
22     requirements that come close to the requirements in
23     Canada.  The French, who have been the most strident
24     among EU members about enforcing the 50 per cent where
25     practical rule, still only requires 40 per cent
                          StenoTran

                             26

 1     domestic content.
 2  121                  Protectionist measures, such as
 3     content quotas, may well be challenged by new rules
 4     that are emerging to govern nations' trade in
 5     investment relations.  More and more trade and
 6     investment agreements are being negotiated that open
 7     borders and create opportunities for broadcasters. 
 8     These include the examples presented in the slide, the
 9     Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the Free Trade
10     Agreement of the Americas and the World Trade
11     Organization.
12                                                        0935
13  122                  Liberalization has put pressure on
14     Canada's domestic regulations.  Also, the domestic
15     environment must take into account the benefits of
16     liberalization.  If the domestic, economic and
17     regulatory environment is appropriate, then Canadian 
18     broadcasters will not miss trade and investment
19     opportunities.  Without the revenues from participation
20     in the global market, Canadian programming will be more
21     difficult to produce.
22  123                  Now to you, Glenn.
23  124                  MR. SUART:  Thank you, Rebecca, and
24     good morning.
25  125                  Expectations on the volume, quality
                          StenoTran

                             27

 1     and exhibition of Canadian drama are rising, but
 2     Canadian drama ambitions are limited by the funding
 3     gap.  It's basically a simple case of economics.  On a
 4     fully allocated basis, for every dollar that English-
 5     language broadcasters generate in advertising in
 6     revenue, they lose $1.15 on Canadian drama programming
 7     and 46 cents on all Canadian programming, including
 8     news.
 9  126                  For French-language broadcasters, the
10     operating margin is a meagre six cents, but let me put
11     it another way.  The good quality domestic Canadian
12     drama, such as "Due South" or "Traders", costs about $1
13     million an hour to produce.  Unfortunately, the bottom
14     line is that broadcasters could lose $75,000 per hour
15     airing such programming since the advertising revenue
16     they generate is much less than licensing fee.
17  127                  Alternatively, a Canadian-produced
18     series designed for a more international market such as
19     a "Sci Factor" or "Nikita" generally cost broadcasters
20     less in licence fees and they generate somewhat more
21     revenues, so broadcasters make a slight operating
22     margin.  However, you can see from the chart just how
23     important the U.S. programs are to the overall health
24     of broadcasters generating sometimes $120,000 profit
25     per hour, which helps cover operating costs and, more
                          StenoTran

                             28

 1     importantly, Canadian programming losses.
 2  128                  The situation is less stark for
 3     French-language broadcasters, but basically the overall
 4     story is much the same.  Drama costs less to produce,
 5     but revenues are much less as well and foreign programs
 6     are still essential to the financial health of French-
 7     language broadcasters.
 8  129                  Broadcasters lose money on Canadian
 9     drama, not through any lack of effort.  They have
10     worked hard to make drama viable.  They actively
11     promote programs across their on-air schedules with
12     over $100 million worth of air time.  Who watches
13     Global and doesn't know that "Traders" is on Thursday
14     at 10:00?  You almost can't escape that kind of
15     promotion.  Moreover, broadcasters combined spend $7
16     million annually on third party advertising just for
17     category 7, 8 and 9 programming on such things as TV
18     listings, newspaper ads, radio spots, et cetera.  This
19     $7 million does not count as a Canadian programming
20     expense.
21  130                  But what's the largest constraint on
22     Canadian drama?  Well, existing funds are over-
23     stretched.  In 1997, out of $182 million in program
24     funding, the CTCPF spent about $113 million in drama
25     programming, of which $30 million went to private TV
                          StenoTran

                             29

 1     broadcasters for their drama projects.  With six
 2     corporate broadcast groups, that amounts to just about
 3     $5 million per year per group, barely enough to sort of
 4     fund one flagship drama series.
 5  131                  In the absence of increased funding,
 6     new spending by broadcasters will not be economical. 
 7     Even if broadcasters put up more money for a new
 8     series, there will still be a $300,000 to $500,000 gap
 9     in the budget where the CTCPF would be.  If
10     broadcasters are expected to fill this gap, then there
11     will require changes in the system that will allow them
12     to recover what otherwise would be a direct hit to the
13     bottom line.  Clearly, producers face risk in
14     developing programming, but broadcasters lose money, a
15     lot of money now and, more importantly, these losses
16     will increase exponentially with further requirements.
17  132                  One last thing.  In the end, it all
18     comes back to viewing.  Attracting a sizeable audience
19     share or the share of all viewers watching television
20     at any one time is an increasing challenge for Canadian
21     drama programming.  A hit show like "Traders" obtains,
22     at best, a 4 share in Toronto, despite all the
23     promotion and a production budget of $1 million per
24     episode, yet it has to compete against a show like "ER"
25     that costs twenty times as much, $20 million Canadian
                          StenoTran

                             30

 1     per hour, and generates a 35 share.
 2  133                  The bottom line is production costs
 3     for Canadian programming are going to have to keep
 4     increasing if they are going to remain competitive in
 5     terms of audience share with the higher production cost
 6     U.S. programming.  Canadians will watch Canadian
 7     television, but the funding gap is a severe constraint
 8     on the production of quality programming.
 9  134                  Stuart?
10  135                  MR. JACK:  Thank you, Glenn.
11  136                  The transition to digital is
12     underway, but significant investment remains.  In the
13     accompanying chart, the elements on the left represent
14     the investments which broadcasters have undertaken over
15     the last 10 years.  The elements on the right represent
16     new investments required by broadcasters.
17  137                  In the 1980s, broadcasters invested
18     in computerized servers for programming commercials. 
19     Starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s digital
20     cameras were introduced in the studios, digital
21     consoles and edit suites and digital-ready equipment,
22     such as antennas, added at transmitter sites.  This
23     investment in digital equipment was largely financed by
24     the ongoing operations of the broadcasters.  Without
25     new investments, broadcasters will be the only analog
                          StenoTran

                             31

 1     players in a digital world.  However, this next phase
 2     in the digital transition process carries with it
 3     substantially higher financial risk because there is no
 4     prospect of early return on investment.
 5  138                  The cost to broadcasters of producing
 6     wide-screen product is still being assessed. 
 7     Broadcasters will be required to operate parallel
 8     analog and digital transmitters for at least 10 years
 9     and there will be no operational savings.  Finally,
10     converting to over-the-air transmission facilities will
11     cost in the range of $500 million.  Broadcasters must
12     develop new services to pay for the digitization of the
13     transmission facilities.  These new services will
14     themselves require substantial investment, yet their
15     success is uncertain and even the most promising of
16     them will require a substantial period before they
17     generate significant revenues.
18  139                  There is a range of competitive
19     threats and opportunities facing broadcasters in the
20     digital world:  Digital distribution roll-out by
21     Canadian BDUs; second, the speed of U.S. digital roll-
22     out; and, finally, digital entertainment.  Let's take a
23     look at digital distribution projections for the
24     Canadian BDUs.  The accompanying chart shows that
25     digitization by the year 2000 should be well underway
                          StenoTran

                             32

 1     not only in cable, but also amongst its competitors,
 2     MDS and DTH.
 3  140                  U.S. broadcasters and distributors
 4     are pursuing an aggressive digital roll-out schedule. 
 5     Three new U.S. HDTV DTH services are planned for this
 6     year alone.  Broadcasters in the major U.S. cities in
 7     the border markets of Seattle, Buffalo and Detroit are
 8     scheduled to go digital by 1999.  The superior picture
 9     quality for the U.S. digital services will create an
10     incentive for Canadian viewers to bypass the Canadian
11     regulatory framework, Canadian viewers who expect
12     domestic TV services to provide the same digital
13     quality as U.S. services.
14  141                  Digital entertainment is not only
15     about the arrival of digital signals from U.S.
16     broadcasters, it also includes a range of entertainment
17     choices which will compete directly with Canadian
18     broadcasters for consumers' time, including digital
19     video home theatre discs, new amphitheatre movies, web
20     TV.  Broadcasters' over-the-air transmission facilities
21     are just one component in the distribution chain.  BDUs
22     must upgrade their distribution facilities and
23     consumers must switch over to digital television sets. 
24     However, digital TV will arrive sooner rather than
25     later, driven by new channels, competitively priced
                          StenoTran

                             33

 1     sets and DVD.
 2  142                  While the Commission will deal with
 3     multimedia in a severed hearing this fall, a few points
 4     bear directly on the broadcaster's financial stability. 
 5     The Internet is an advertising, marketing and e-
 6     business medium which competes directly with
 7     broadcasters' viewing time and advertising revenues. 
 8     As can be seen in the accompanying table, when we
 9     compare TV on the Internet in their third year of
10     operation, the Internet actually drew more revenue than
11     did television.
12  143                  Multimedia applications will provide
13     broadcasters with new opportunities for exposition and
14     branding of their programming, as well as new revenues. 
15     However, there is no business model for content on the
16     Internet and broadcasters will have to make significant
17     investments over a long period before seeing a return,
18     if any, on their new investment.
19  144                  Thank you.  I will turn you over to
20     Scott Cuthbertson from TDSI.
21  145                  MR. CUTHBERTSON:  Good morning.  The
22     key theme in these content hearings appears to be where
23     to get the money to finance more and better Canadian
24     programming.  Many groups point to the success of the
25     broadcasters of the past two years, the implication
                          StenoTran

                             34

 1     being that they should have new commitments imposed
 2     upon them by the regulator to transfer some of this
 3     wealth to other sectors.
 4  146                  I believe a strong broadcasting
 5     system of international stature is to the benefit of
 6     all stakeholders introducing a negative fundamental
 7     change to the industry at a time when many investors
 8     are already moving money out of the sector due to its
 9     economic sensitivity would reduce both financial
10     performance and our access to the capital needed for
11     growth and digitization.  If Canadian broadcasters are
12     to be relied upon, to be important customers of
13     Canadian content, it's not in anyone's long-term
14     interest to provide them with additional challenges on
15     the eve of what's proving to be a very difficult
16     period.
17  147                  As we can see in the chart,
18     television broadcasting is both a seasonal and cyclical
19     business highly dependent upon the health of the
20     economy.  Currently, changes in gross domestic product
21     and television advertising spending tend to move
22     together.  In the next slide we can see that television
23     advertising spending is even more closely related to
24     consumer spending.  As this chart illustrates, TV ad
25     spend tends to lag consumer spending by about 6 to 12
                          StenoTran

                             35

 1     months outstripping it in good times and under-
 2     performing in bad.
 3                                                        0950
 4  148                  With the recent economic turmoil, the
 5     outlook for the Canadian economy has turned suddenly
 6     more negative, dimming the prospects for the
 7     broadcasting community.  Our internal forecast for
 8     world growth next year is now 1 per cent.  Anything
 9     below 2 per cent is technically a recession, and to put
10     it in context, in 1991 the world growth was 1.8 per
11     cent.  To make matters worse, slower economic growth
12     driving lower television advertising spending may be
13     exacerbated by a weaker Canadian dollar, which makes it
14     more expensive for broadcasters to buy the most popular
15     foreign programming.
16  149                  Deteriorating economic conditions
17     worldwide have probably ended the biggest bull market
18     in history, with most stock markets off sharply since
19     the beginning of the summer.  While this has been a
20     widespread phenomenon, the cyclicality of the
21     broadcasting business and its correlation with economic
22     conditions make investment in the sector less defensive
23     than many other areas.
24  150                  Since June the combined value of the
25     top five broadcasting stocks has declined by $1.8
                          StenoTran

                             36

 1     billion, erasing almost 26 per cent of their value,
 2     while the TSE 300 during the same period --
 3  151                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Perhaps we can try
 4     to ascertain whether that's the recession at our doors
 5     or a false alarm, and we will resume once we have
 6     established that.
 7     --- Short pause/Courte pause
 8  152                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Excuse me, we will
 9     adjourn for 10 minutes, until we know what the problem
10     is.
11     --- Short pause/Courte pause
12  153                  MR. BLAIS:  We will adjourn until the
13     matter of the alarm gets cleared up.  So we will
14     adjourn for at least 10 minutes.
15     --- Short recess at/Courte suspension à 0955
16     --- Upon resuming at/Reprise à 1010
17  154                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Order, please,
18     ladies and gentlemen.  À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît. 
19     Est-ce qu'on peut m'entendre dans la salle?
20     --- Short pause/Courte pause
21  155                  Order, please.  There seems to be a
22     problem with this mike.  Can people hear me now?  No? 
23     Well, for the moment, as long as we can hear the
24     applicant --
25  156                  MR. McCABE:  Or the supplicant.
                          StenoTran

                             37

 1  157                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  The supplicant.
 2     --- Short pause/Courte pause
 3  158                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Apparently, our
 4     economic situation has now improved, so you may
 5     proceed.
 6  159                  MR. CUTHBERTSON:  Thank you very
 7     much.
 8  160                  Before I was gonged, I was basically
 9     outlining the fairly grim situation that we appear to
10     be facing and the sensitivity of the broadcast sector
11     to the economy ---
12     --- Technical difficulties/Difficultés techniques
13  161                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Excuse me, I will
14     have to interrupt you again.  Apparently, now the
15     stenographer does not have any sound, so we will have
16     to wait and see when that can be restored.
17     --- Short pause/Courte pause
18  162                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  It appears that we
19     are a long way from digital!
20  163                  If you think that this is a good
21     idea, and it may be, perhaps you should start your
22     presentation from the top, assuming someone can put
23     your slides back in order, because the flow of it is
24     completely altered now.
25  164                  And can people hear me?  Yes? 
                          StenoTran

                             38

 1     Because apparently there was a problem with this
 2     microphone as well.  So hopefully we now have our
 3     engineering concerns ironed out.
 4  165                  Perhaps you can start from the top,
 5     if you wish.
 6  166                  MR. CUTHBERTSON:  Thank you very
 7     much.
 8  167                  A key theme in the content hearings
 9     appears to be where to get the money to finance more
10     and better Canadian programming.  Many groups point to
11     the success of the broadcasters over the past two
12     years, the implication being that they should have new
13     commitments imposed upon them by the regulator to
14     transfer some of this wealth to other sectors.
15  168                  I believe that a strong broadcasting
16     system of international stature is to the benefit of
17     all stakeholders.  Introducing a negative fundamental
18     change to the industry at a time when many investors
19     are already moving money out of this sector due to its
20     economic sensitivity would reduce both financial
21     performance and access to the capital needed for growth
22     and digitization.  If Canadian broadcasters are to be
23     relied upon to be important customers of Canadian
24     content, it is not in anybody's best interest, long
25     term, to provide them with additional challenges on the
                          StenoTran

                             39

 1     eve of what is turning into a very difficult period.
 2  169                  Television broadcasting is both a
 3     seasonal and cyclical business highly dependent upon
 4     the health of the economy.  As we can see from this
 5     chart, changes in gross domestic product and television
 6     advertising spending tend to move together.
 7  170                  Television advertising spending is
 8     even more closely correlated to consumer spending.  As
 9     this chart illustrates, TV ad spending tends to lag
10     consumer spending by six to 12 months outstripping it
11     in good times and under-performing in bad.
12  171                  With the recent economic turmoil, the
13     outlook for the Canadian economy has turned decidedly
14     more negative, dimming the prospects for the
15     broadcasting community.  Our internal forecast for
16     world growth next year is now 1 per cent.  That's
17     significant, because anything below 2 per cent is
18     technically a recession; to put it in context, in 1991
19     the world economic growth was 1.8 per cent.  To make
20     things worse, slower economic growth driving lower
21     television advertising spending may be exacerbated by a
22     weak Canadian dollar, which makes it more expensive for
23     broadcasters to buy the most popular foreign
24     programming.
25  172                  Deteriorating economic conditions
                          StenoTran

                             40

 1     worldwide have probably ended the biggest bull market
 2     in history, with most stock markets off sharply since
 3     the beginning of the summer.  While this has been a
 4     widespread phenomenon, the cyclicality of the
 5     broadcasting business and its correlation with economic
 6     conditions make investment in that sector less
 7     defensive than many other areas in a downturn.
 8  173                  Since June the combined value of the
 9     top five broadcasting stocks has declined by $1.8
10     billion, erasing almost 26 per cent of their value,
11     while the TSE 300 is off about $135 billion, about 20
12     per cent of its former value.  Many astute industry
13     watchers may be less than sympathetic at this reversal
14     of fortunes because this sector has created more value
15     over the past two years than during the previous five.
16  174                  I think it is important to remember
17     that this value was created by the rare convergence of
18     three very important positive trends:  number one, a
19     healthy economy driving strong advertising growth;
20     number two, the evolution of the major players from
21     regional to national station groups; and, number three,
22     the support of a progressive regulator who made new
23     licences available, approved consolidation activity and
24     generally allowed this group to move towards better
25     operational efficiencies.  Publicly-trade
                          StenoTran

                             41

 1  175                  Canadian broadcasting stocks have
 2     also matured during this period, attracting more
 3     interest from sophisticated investors, both
 4     domestically and abroad, and shouldering the
 5     considerable additional responsibilities that go along
 6     with that transition.  Unfortunately, the current
 7     negative trend in economic and capital markets will
 8     most likely put this period of development on hold. 
 9     The fact is that broadcasting stocks are not very
10     defensive, explaining why they have done worse than the
11     other sectors during this correction.
12  176                  In tough markets, fund managers
13     gravitate towards big cap stocks with high dividend
14     yields and good insulation from economic downturns,
15     selling sectors that do not have these attributes. 
16     Fine.  So the stocks are down; that's not exactly news.
17     The point is that while companies may not change much
18     in the short term when the stock prices are sagging, if
19     these values remain low and/or there is a negative
20     fundamental change that keeps the outlook unpromising,
21     it becomes harder and/or more expensive to raise the
22     capital needed to continue to grow the business.  We
23     are already seeing this.  Access to new public equity
24     has virtually dried up over the last month, with the
25     number of new stock issues down sharply.
                          StenoTran

                             42

 1  177                  Another very important source of
 2     capital for the communications industry, the high yield
 3     bond market, has been hit hard as well for the same
 4     reasons, and not surprisingly the bank lending market
 5     has also tightened considerably.  The reason for this
 6     is simple:  Whereas only a few short months ago mutual
 7     funds managers would get to work Monday morning and
 8     there would be like a half million dollars that they
 9     had to find some place to invest, so they were
10     constantly on the outlook for new opportunities, now
11     people are selling their mutual funds, redeeming them,
12     and those same fund managers get to work every Monday
13     morning and all of a sudden we need a million dollars
14     because people have redeemed their funds.  So they have
15     to decide what to sell.  They are making very tough
16     choices in a very tough market, and the flow of cash is
17     reversed.
18  178                  So why should the CRTC or other
19     stakeholders care about all this?  Virtually all
20     businesses are impacted to some degree by the state of
21     the economy.  Economies go through cycles and stock
22     markets do as well, and there is very little we can do
23     about it.  Agreed.  We simply believe that refraining
24     from placing new challenges in front of the
25     broadcasters at the beginning of an already difficult
                          StenoTran

                             43

 1     period best serves all stakeholders.  Obviously,
 2     suppliers have a better chance of doing business with a
 3     healthy client than with one whose fortunes are on the
 4     wing.
 5  179                  We must be cognizant that every
 6     dollar in EBITDA generation translates into roughly $10
 7     in public market value; conversely, anything that
 8     lowers EBITDA levels has a highly leveraged negative
 9     impact, erasing $10 worth of value.  It makes sense to
10     build on what has already been accomplished from a
11     position of strength rather than weakening the overall
12     structure.
13  180                  If we were looking to the
14     broadcasters to help support important cultural
15     objectives, let's not make it fundamentally more
16     difficult for them to buy, and properly promote,
17     Canadian content.
18  181                  Peter.
19  182                  MR. LYMAN:  As you have heard from
20     these industry experts, some more than once, the
21     Canadian broadcasting system has recorded some notable
22     successes.  However, if you can recall, back to Debra's
23     presentation, the key indicator of viewership and of
24     particular viewing to under-represented categories by
25     English-speaking Canadians, the massive efforts have
                          StenoTran

                             44

 1     not had a commensurate return.
 2  183                  We have also shown in this
 3     presentation the range of factors in the environment
 4     that create future uncertainties in the broadcasting
 5     system, such as trade, technology, vertical integration
 6     and less than robust market conditions.  These factors
 7     should be taken into account in decisions flowing from
 8     this hearing.
 9  184                  Thank you.
10  185                  MR. McCABE:  Thank you, Peter, and
11     thanks to your colleagues as well.
12  186                  To sum up what we have just heard,
13     there are five critical lessons from this study:
14  187                  First, the Canadian broadcasting
15     system is made up of a highly diverse combination of
16     niche and conventional services.  By traditional
17     measures -- hours, dollars and number of services --
18     the system has been phenomenally successful, but in
19     terms of viewing, we have done little more than hold
20     our own.
21  188                  Second, the Canadian broadcasting
22     system no longer operates in isolation from the global
23     economy and as markets become more open, our ability to
24     rely on traditional regulatory approaches will be under
25     challenge.
                          StenoTran

                             45

 1  189                  Third, the Canadian entertainment
 2     production ambitions of the system are limited by its
 3     financial resources and the availability of funding
 4     support.  Requiring broadcasters to lose even more
 5     money on Canadian programming is not an answer.
 6  190                  Fourth, digital TV is real and
 7     broadcasters must start dealing with it now or risk
 8     becoming an island of analog in a sea of digital,
 9     unable to continue to reach all Canadians.
10  191                  Fifth, the business of broadcasting
11     is closely linked to the economy and a demanding
12     investor environment.  We can't afford to ignore these
13     realities.
14  192                  Daniel.
15  193                  MR. LAMARRE:  Thank you, Michael.
16  194                  Devant tous ces défis, il est bon de
17     nous rappeler ce que nous avons accompli, et nos
18     réalisations sont très importantes.
19  195                  Dans l'allocution qu'elle a prononcée
20     à l'occasion du congrès de l'ACR de 1996, la présidente
21     du CRTC a énuméré les facteurs qu'elle considérait
22     comme les principaux indices de réussite du système
23     canadien de télédiffusion.
24  196                  Nous avons obtenu d'excellents
25     résultats en ce qui a trait aux indices qui font partie
                          StenoTran

                             46

 1     du système, à savoir les sommes investies et les heures
 2     de diffusion; toutefois, nous n'avons pas réussi aussi
 3     bien dans l'ensemble sur le plan des indices externes
 4     comme les parts d'écoute et le rendement sur les
 5     investissements.  Voici donc ces neuf indices de
 6     réussite:
 7  197                  Premier indice:  Le nombre d'heures
 8     de séries dramatiques, d'émissions pour enfants et
 9     d'autres émissions canadiennes de divertissement
10     présentées aux périodes de grande écoute.  Entre
11     19 h 00 et 23 h 00, le nombre total d'heures
12     d'émissions canadiennes diffusées a augmenté depuis
13     cinq ans de 55 pour cent à la télévision de langue
14     anglaise et de 6 pour cent à la télévision de langue
15     française qui, comme on le sait, avait déjà un volume
16     très important de contenu canadien.
17  198                  Deuxième indice:  La part d'écoute
18     des émissions canadiennes dans les catégories sous-
19     représentées.  L'écoute des émissions canadiennes dans
20     les catégories 7, 8 et 9 a augmenté quelque peu au
21     cours des cinq dernières années à la télévision de
22     langue anglaise pour atteindre 7,5 pour cent.  Quant à
23     la télévision de langue française, l'écoute y est trois
24     fois plus élevée dans ces catégories, atteignant 21
25     pour cent.  Dans l'ensemble, toutefois, l'écoute des
                          StenoTran

                             47

 1     émissions canadiennes est demeurée plutôt stable, se
 2     situant aux alentours de 32 pour cent pour la
 3     télévision anglophone et de 69 pour cent pour la
 4     télévision francophone.
 5  199                  Troisième indice:  La quantité
 6     d'émissions typiquement canadiennes qui sont diffusées. 
 7     Les émissions d'affaires publiques, d'information et de
 8     sports, qui sont typiquement canadiennes, dominent le
 9     contenu de programmation canadienne.  Le système a en
10     outre créé plus de 2 200 heures de productions
11     canadiennes de divertissement, financées par le Fonds
12     de production canadien, soit plus de quatre fois ce qui
13     se faisait il y a cinq ans.
14  200                  Quatrième indice:  L'utilisation du
15     talent canadien dans tous les aspects de la production. 
16     Les 30 000 emplois directs du secteur de la production,
17     qui représentent le double de ce qu'ils étaient il y a
18     cinq ans, jumelés aux 20 000 emplois du secteur de la
19     télédiffusion, constituent aujourd'hui un système qui
20     emploie directement quelque 50 000 personnes dans des
21     postes de qualité, en plus d'être à l'origine de près
22     de 100 000 emplois indirects.
23  201                  Cinquième indice:  Les ventes
24     d'émissions canadiennes à l'étranger.  Entre 1992 et
25     1996, les exportations d'émissions canadiennes ont
                          StenoTran

                             48

 1     atteint 320 millions de dollars, soit une croissance de
 2     287 pour cent.
 3  202                  Sixième indice:  Le nombre de
 4     sociétés de production solides et qui exportent à
 5     l'échelle mondiale.  Nous avons aujourd'hui un secteur
 6     qui représente quelque 2,9 milliards de dollars, compte
 7     plusieurs grandes entreprises rentables dont les titres
 8     se négocient sur les marchés publics et dont les
 9     activités de production se sont étendues à la
10     distribution et, pour certaines, à la télédiffusion.
11  203                  Septième indice:  Le nombre de
12     stations qui investissent dans la technologie
13     numérique.  Les télédiffuseurs privés sont en bonne
14     voie d'achever la conversion de leurs installations de
15     production et de leurs studios au numérique et en sont
16     maintenant au stade de la planification menant à la
17     transmission en mode numérique.  Cette étape
18     représente, pour le secteur, une dépense
19     d'immobilisations de l'ordre de 500 millions de dollars
20     au cours des dix prochaines années.
21  204                  Huitième indice:  L'adaptation à la
22     convergence des multimédias.  Les télédiffuseurs
23     commencent à créer leurs propres initiatives
24     multimédias et considèrent ce secteur à la fois comme
25     un défi et un débouché commercial.
                          StenoTran

                             49

 1  205                  Neuvième indice:  Le rendement des
 2     investissements dans l'industrie à moyen et à long
 3     terme.  Les télédiffuseurs commencent à remonter la
 4     pente après la chute de rentabilité qu'ils ont subie
 5     pendant six ans.  Les marges de profit ne sont
 6     aujourd'hui que la moitié de ce qu'elles étaient au
 7     milieu des années quatre-vingt.
 8  206                  Le système s'en est relativement bien
 9     tiré pour bon nombre de ces indices de réussite.  Ce
10     succès est dû à chaque télédiffuseur; qu'il soit
11     généraliste ou spécialisé, privé ou public, chacun y a
12     contribué à sa façon.  En effet, c'est cette diversité
13     qui constitue l'une des plus grandes forces du système.
14  207                  L'automne dernier, à l'occasion de
15     l'audience du CRTC sur les réseaux, une bonne partie du
16     débat a porté sur la question de la contribution
17     équitable que chacun devrait apporter au système,
18     notamment deux des plus grands groupes de diffusion de
19     langue anglaise du Canada.  Le CRTC peut bien décider
20     de traiter cette question dans le cadre des futures
21     audiences relatives au renouvellement des licences,
22     mais il n'en reste pas moins que ce débat nous amène à
23     examiner de très près une question fondamentale à la
24     présente audience, à savoir:  devrait-on exiger de tous
25     les télédiffuseurs qu'ils fassent la même chose, qu'il
                          StenoTran

                             50

 1     s'agisse de leurs émissions locales, des séries
 2     dramatiques, des émissions pour enfants, des longs
 3     métrages ou de toutes ces catégories?  Ne devrait-on
 4     pas plutôt encourager chaque télédiffuseur à se
 5     concentrer sur ses points forts et à poursuivre la
 6     stratégie de programmation qui lui convient le mieux?
 7  208                  Nous croyons que la réponse est
 8     évidente.  Le CRTC a abandonné depuis longtemps la
 9     méthode d'une même règle pour tous lorsqu'il a commencé
10     à consentir des licences à d'autres types de services
11     généralistes comme City-tv et, plus tard, aux services
12     spécialisés.  Le Conseil a convenu que nous pouvions
13     réaliser la diversité de la programmation non pas
14     uniquement au niveau individuel, mais bien au niveau de
15     l'ensemble du système.  Cette formule a bien
16     fonctionné.
17  209                  D'ailleurs, nos membres viendront
18     vous expliquer, au cours du présent processus, comment
19     ils ont contribué à la réussite de la télévision
20     canadienne, chacun à sa façon, et comment ils entendent
21     continuer d'y contribuer à l'avenir.
22  210                  Jim.
23                                                        1035
24  211                  MR. MACDONALD:  All of these are
25     important measures of success but as we have stated, we
                          StenoTran

                             51

 1     believe that increasing the viewing to Canadian
 2     television should be the key goal for the system.  In
 3     the evolution of public policy for the broadcasting
 4     system, its time to change the currency we deal in.
 5  212                  Placing the focus on audiences
 6     signals four things.  First, it recognizes that we have
 7     moved into a new era of the systems development that
 8     puts the viewer in the driver's seat and that policy
 9     should serve the viewer, not just the interest of a
10     particular sector.
11  213                  Second, it's the programming that
12     matters most.  The expression of Canadian stories and
13     ideas is at the heart of what we are all trying to
14     achieve.
15  214                  Third, it responds to what Canadians
16     tell us they want, which is quality Canadian
17     programming.
18  215                  Fourth, it shows that the CRTC is
19     prepared to judge any proposal with a view to how it
20     improves viewership to Canadian programming.
21  216                  We must change from a culture of
22     regulation and threat of punishment to a model better
23     suited to a mature broadcasting and regulatory system
24     where we have common goals and the incentives needed to
25     meet those goals.
                          StenoTran

                             52

 1  217                  What we are proposing is an entirely
 2     new way of looking at how we measure success in the
 3     system.  We are not suggesting that the CRTC try to
 4     "regulate" viewing or create a complicated set of rules
 5     that require each broadcaster to meet certain viewing
 6     targets.
 7  218                  What we are suggesting is that the
 8     CRTC make a basic fundamental change in the orientation
 9     of how we look at the success of this system by putting
10     viewers first.  Out of this proceeding we should
11     establish a new policy priority, which is to increase
12     viewership to Canadian television.  Creating a national
13     audience goal gives the system a target to shoot for
14     and a benchmark to measure progress against.
15  219                  When we focus the debate on how to
16     grow viewership to Canadian television, we create a
17     win-win situation for everyone:  for the public because
18     what they care about is having quality programming; for
19     broadcasters and producers because we become partners,
20     not adversaries, with a shared goal of increasing
21     audiences and revenues for Canadian television; and for
22     government because it creates a link, not a conflict,
23     between business objectives and public policy
24     objectives.
25  220                  This focus on results responds to the
                          StenoTran

                             53

 1     objectives the CRTC set out for itself in its Vision
 2     Statement, with international developments in
 3     broadcasting and with government's own thrust to
 4     concern itself more with the results of its policies
 5     than with its inputs.
 6  221                  This approach will give the entire
 7     system a single focus, something it has never had
 8     before.
 9  222                  How will it be applied?  Our proposal
10     is straightforward.  First, the CRTC should set up
11     national system-wide goals in consultation with the
12     industry.  This hearing is an important first step in
13     that direction.
14  223                  Second, these goals would be a policy
15     objective for the system and not licensee-level
16     commitments.
17  224                  Third, different targets would be set
18     in French television and English television.
19  225                  Fourth, each program licensee would
20     be expected to contribute in its own way toward the
21     realization of those audience goals in a manner
22     appropriate to the nature of its service.
23  226                  Fifth, all of the non-regulated
24     components of the system would be expected to
25     contribute to these goals.
                          StenoTran

                             54

 1  227                  Sixth, the CRTC would also contribute
 2     to these goals through its licensing and policy
 3     decisions.
 4  228                  Seventh, all broadcasters would come
 5     forward in renewals, licensing and transaction hearings
 6     and demonstrate how their program plans would
 7     contribute to those audience goals.
 8  229                  Eighth, audience goals should be
 9     established as a five year target by the CRTC and
10     progress should be reviewed annually.
11  230                  Finally, after three years the
12     industry and the CRTC would come together to formally
13     assess progress and consider other initiatives.
14  231                  What should the goals be?  Based on a
15     review of where the system stands today and how far it
16     has come over the last five years, we can propose goals
17     for the system that we think are aggressive but
18     achievable.
19  232                  Our proposal has two components: 
20     one, increasing the level of viewership to Canadian
21     services in the system and, two, increasing the overall
22     level of viewing to Canadian programming.
23  233                  Let's take them in turn.  We have
24     seen an incredible explosion in the number of new
25     services available to Canadians over the last ten
                          StenoTran

                             55

 1     years.  In fact, we have added some 55 new Canadian and
 2     foreign services to the menu offering for Canadians.
 3  234                  One of the measures of success for
 4     any broadcasting system in any country is how much time
 5     do its citizens spend watching their own services. 
 6     These are the services that are particularly designed
 7     to serve the needs of Canadians and the ones that make
 8     the system a success.
 9  235                  Canadian services have held their own
10     against a vast array of new, non-Canadian services. 
11     According to Nielsen data, Canadian services accounted
12     for 76 per cent of all viewing in 1997.
13  236                  There are two things that could
14     increase the level of Canadian services to 80 per cent
15     over the next five years.  The first is to create an
16     environment that enables conventional broadcasters to
17     effectively program to their audiences.  The second is
18     to have a Canada first policy that helps the new next
19     wave of Canadian specialty TV services reach Canadians.
20  237                  On the second component of our
21     viewing goal, increasing the overall level of viewing
22     to Canadian programming, we have to deal with the fact
23     that viewing to Canadian programming has been
24     relatively static for a long time, but there is a
25     fundamental difference between French and English
                          StenoTran

                             56

 1     television that has to be considered in setting the
 2     goals.
 3  238                  In French television, viewing to
 4     Canadian programming accounts for 69 per cent of all
 5     viewing.  This is a tremendous success story and
 6     represents the culmination of 30 years of progress in
 7     terms of the development of a competitive marketplace
 8     in Quebec and the creation of a vibrant star system. 
 9     Our goal for French television should be to try to
10     sustain this level of success over the next five years.
11  239                  In English television, viewership to
12     Canadian programming has also been relatively stable. 
13     It has fluctuated between 30 and 32 percent and now
14     sits at 32 per cent.  While the total hasn't changed
15     much, we have seen the mix of viewing shift more toward
16     specialty.
17  240                  The challenge is to stop
18     redistributing audience share and instead grow overall
19     viewing for Canadian programming.
20  241                  How are we going to do that? 
21     Canadians are well served with news, information and
22     sports programming.  While competition continues
23     between services for viewers for this form of
24     programming and it will be intense, we aren't likely to
25     grow overall viewing to Canadian programming from this
                          StenoTran

                             57

 1     area alone.
 2  242                  Canadian entertainment programming is
 3     the area where we stand the best chance to grow
 4     viewing.  However, it is also the area of programming
 5     that presents us with our greatest challenges.
 6  243                  The challenge is not one of quantity,
 7     it is one of quality.  Over the last five years the
 8     availability of Canadian entertainment programming in
 9     English television has increased by 55 per cent because
10     of growing commitments by conventional broadcasters and
11     the introduction of new specialty services.  Canadians
12     now have more opportunities than ever before to watch
13     Canadian entertainment programming.
14  244                  We have built up a considerable
15     quantity of Canadian entertainment programming in the
16     system because broadcasters are devoting significant
17     resources to its support.  In addition, new funding has
18     become available to support more production and we have
19     introduced more Canadian services with our own program
20     appetites.
21  245                  We have seen viewing to Canadian
22     entertainment programming increase over the last five
23     years in English television so that it now accounts for
24     7.5 per cent of total television viewing.  The goal in
25     the English television system would be to grow that
                          StenoTran

                             58

 1     viewing further to 10 per cent, a 33 per cent increase
 2     over the next five years.
 3  246                  If we can accomplish that, we would
 4     be able to grow total Canadian viewing in English
 5     television to 35 per cent over the next five years. 
 6     That would be a tremendous accomplishment.
 7  247                  MR. McCABE:  Thank you, Jim.
 8  248                  Others have suggested in this
 9     proceeding that we should go the old way of imposing
10     higher obligations on private broadcasters and
11     requiring them all to do the same things.  These
12     proposals are based on the false premise that what's
13     good for independent producers will be, by definition,
14     good for the system.  This is certainly not the case. 
15     This proceeding has to deal with the entire system, not
16     just one sector.
17  249                  We think the Commission should ask
18     each participant in this hearing three basic questions: 
19     How will your proposals increase viewership to Canadian
20     programming, how will your proposals help create a
21     better business climate for Canadian programming and
22     how will your proposals contribute to diversity,
23     balance and choice in the system.
24  250                  We pose these questions because we
25     are deeply concerned that the proposals of certain
                          StenoTran

                             59

 1     parties, particularly those of the CFTPA and the
 2     Director's Guild, are predicated on the simplistic
 3     notion that a broadcaster's responsibility begins and
 4     ends with providing independent producers with more
 5     business.
 6  251                  How Canadian programs perform with
 7     audiences and how they work financially from a
 8     broadcaster perspective are not their concerns.
 9  252                  The CFTPA and the DGC proposals both
10     have the dubious virtue of eliminating most of the
11     profit in the private conventional broadcast sector and
12     transferring it into the hands of independent
13     producers -- some $80 million in the case of the CFTPA
14     and some $50 million in the case of the DGC.
15  253                  We understand how these proposals
16     would benefit their members.  We don't understand how
17     they would benefit the system or the Canadian public.
18  254                  Producers have shareholders just like
19     broadcasters.  How would their shareholders react if
20     they were told that all of their profits had to be
21     siphoned away to some other sector?  Shareholders would
22     certainly take their investments elsewhere.
23  255                  The independent production sector is
24     a profitable $2.9 billion business that rivals
25     broadcasting in size.  Its larger companies have a
                          StenoTran

                             60

 1     market capitalization level higher than many broadcast
 2     companies.  The levels of production activity within
 3     the independent production sector have never been
 4     higher.  This sounds like a success story to us, not a
 5     problem to be fixed.
 6  256                  What kind of a framework do we need? 
 7     What kind of framework would achieve our goal of more
 8     Canadians watching Canadian television?
 9  257                  First, we need a policy framework
10     that recognizes the magnitude of the challenge in
11     meeting that goal.  We must face a number of facts. 
12     One, current funding support for the system and
13     particularly for the private TV sector is insufficient
14     to meet demand.
15  258                  Second, $100 million in annual
16     federal government support to the CTCPF is scheduled to
17     disappear by 2001.
18  259                  Third, Canadian entertainment
19     programs, at least in English television, don't make it
20     into the top ten and can't yet beat out average U.S.
21     entertainment fare.
22  260                  Fourth, we have the makings of a
23     Canadian star system, but it's still underdeveloped.
24  261                  Fifth, public policy has driven
25     artificial walls between production, program
                          StenoTran

                             61

 1     distribution and broadcasting and while it looks to
 2     broadcasters to support Canadian entertainment
 3     production, it doesn't concern itself with the success
 4     of that programming on the air.
 5  262                  We have set ourselves the task of
 6     developing a comprehensive plan for the system.  A
 7     number of the elements are under the CRTC's control,
 8     some are at the decision of government and some are for
 9     the industry alone to deal with.
10  263                  All of these elements together are
11     intended to serve one vital goal and that is to
12     increase viewership to Canadian programming.
13  264                  There are eight elements to our
14     policy framework.  First, establish a stable and
15     flexible regulatory environment.  That means
16     maintaining the balance in the system we currently have
17     with existing measures such as the definition of
18     Canadian content, Cancon levels, the 150 per cent drama
19     credit and the ability to choose how to meet program
20     obligations, that is Option A or Option B.
21  265                  Second, increase the resources
22     available to the support of Canadian entertainment
23     programming by extracting support from the
24     non-contributing parts of the system, improving program
25     rights protection and introducing more flexible
                          StenoTran

                             62

 1     advertising rules to maximize industry revenues.
 2  266                  Third, enhance the audience potential
 3     of Canadian programming through increased promotion and
 4     the development of a Canadian star system.
 5  267                  Fourth, introduce new incentives to
 6     encourage more effective scheduling of Canadian
 7     programming by redefining categories 7, 8 and 9
 8     programming to include documentaries, redefining peak
 9     viewing periods, expanding on the 150 per cent Canadian
10     drama credit and introducing new incentives to
11     encourage more peak time exhibition of Canadian
12     entertainment programming.
13  268                  Fifth, make more efficient use of
14     limited production funding by reallocating more funding
15     support to the private sector in the system to ensure
16     that the most efficient use is made of production funds
17     for the support of Canadian production.
18  269                  Sixth, improve the economics of
19     Canadian entertainment programming by rebalancing the
20     risks and rewards of Canadian production by treating
21     Canadian broadcasters as eligible program distributors,
22     recognizing the role broadcasters can play in the
23     system as producers and eliminating barriers to funding
24     access to encourage greater investment and financial
25     participation by broadcasters.
                          StenoTran

                             63

 1  270                  Seventh, make the current regulatory
 2     framework more equitable amongst the players by
 3     removing the significant benefits test for programming
 4     undertakings, as is the case for distribution
 5     undertakings, and redirecting the industry's
 6     over-contribution to CRTC licence fees to the support
 7     of Canadian programming.
 8  271                  Eighth, support a diversity of
 9     services and programming by providing licensees with
10     increased choice in how they meet their Canadian
11     program obligations by building on PN 1994-48 and
12     creating a third option for broadcasters, Option C,
13     which would establish a level of spending to Canadian
14     entertainment programming.  This new Option C would
15     complement the two that already exist, overall spending
16     requirements, Option A, or a fixed number of weekly
17     hours of Canadian entertainment programming, Option B.
18  272                  In conclusion, we believe that each
19     of the elements in our proposed framework can
20     contribute to the goal of increased viewing to Canadian
21     programming.
22  273                  Taken together, this policy framework
23     would do three things.  One, it would provide enough
24     flexibility in the system to allow broadcasters to meet
25     their public service obligations and contribute to
                          StenoTran

                             64

 1     national audience goals in their own particular way.
 2  274                  Second, it would reward success
 3     because it recognizes that the Canadian television
 4     system must succeed as a business in order to deliver
 5     quality Canadian programming that people will watch.
 6  275                  Third, it would create a business
 7     climate that encourages risk taking and enables the
 8     system to drive up viewing to Canadian programming.
 9  276                  Thank you for your attention.  We
10     would be pleased to answer any questions.
11                                                        1050
12  277                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr.
13     McCabe, and members of the panel.
14  278                  We, of course, regret the
15     interruptions of this morning, but we had little
16     control over them.
17  279                  What I propose to do is to tell you
18     what direction my questioning will take and take our
19     morning break and come back for questions, if that is
20     acceptable.
21  280                  MR. McCABE:  Certainly.
22  281                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. McCabe, your
23     submission advocates the status quo with regard to the
24     general mechanisms currently used by the regulator with
25     respect to Canadian content on TV, with some
                          StenoTran

                             65

 1     modifications of course.  It proposes a scheme whereby
 2     viewership goals for Canadian content on TV would be
 3     established for the system as a whole and eventually
 4     for individual participants to fulfil.
 5  282                  The Commission invited parties to
 6     this hearing to bring to the table innovative
 7     approaches.  Some will say that you did, others that
 8     you did not, since striving for viewership level is and
 9     has always been at the very core of the TV industry.
10  283                  Be that as it may, we would like to
11     clarify, discuss and also test your proposal during
12     this hearing, so that we better understand it and I ask
13     you to take my questions in that spirit.
14  284                  I will want to explore with you how
15     you see the achievement of a viewership goal
16     established at the system level, but managed at the
17     licensee level practically.  However, I would like to
18     discuss with you, first, the extent to which there may
19     be at least an appearance of a contradiction between
20     making viewership levels central to the regulatory
21     system and so a contradiction between viewership as the
22     key indicator and the policy goals that are set out in
23     the Broadcasting Act for Canadian programming, the
24     appearance also of a contradiction between that goal
25     and the documented mass audience TV viewing
                          StenoTran

                             66

 1     preferences.  And even more so, the appearance of a
 2     contradiction between that goal and some of the changes
 3     to the current regulatory system that is proposed by
 4     the CAB.
 5  285                  I will also have some questions on
 6     concentration and the benefits test and vertical
 7     integration, some financial issues, especially as they
 8     relate to small stations or small markets, promotion
 9     and advertising and the rights issue.
10  286                  It is obvious that this hearing does
11     not allow us to go into every aspect of the submissions
12     of parties, but I thought I would give you an
13     indication of the direction that my questioning will
14     take.
15  287                  So, we will now break for 15 minutes
16     and, therefore, resume at five minutes after eleven. 
17     Thank you.
18     --- Short recess at/Courte suspension à 1055
19     --- Upon resuming at/Reprise à 1114
20  288                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Order, please.
21  289                  So, to go back to my initial plan, to
22     try to put some grid into this questioning, I said I
23     would discuss with you briefly whether making
24     viewership the central goal of the regulatory exercise,
25     despite I understand that you are also advocating the
                          StenoTran

                             67

 1     retention of some of the regulatory mechanisms we have,
 2     but whether that is potentially contradictory to the
 3     Broadcasting Act under which we operate, since the act
 4     requires that there be a diversity of high quality
 5     Canadian content, reflecting a wide variety of
 6     interests and needs and that such programming be made
 7     available to the broadcasting system as a whole.
 8  290                  I would assume that this policy goal
 9     pertains discretely, as well as on a systematic basis,
10     to the conventional services which are available off
11     air to Canadians, whether or not they subscribe to
12     discretionary services -- that is, that the act intends
13     that they be made available to them of a wide variety
14     of services.
15  291                  At page 48 of your submission you
16     state, and you repeated this morning in similar words,
17     that:
18  292                       "...audience is the key
19                            indicator of the success of the
20                            system."
21  293                  And that has to be the system as
22     intended by the Broadcasting Act.
23  294                  While no one would dispute that
24     viewing of Canadian content is an important measure of
25     the success of the Canadian broadcasting system, can
                          StenoTran

                             68

 1     you elaborate on whether making it the key indicator is
 2     consistent with the legislative objectives that I
 3     referred to which, one could say, emphasizes
 4     availability?
 5  295                  MR. McCABE:  If I may, Madam Chair, I
 6     would -- since this is I think the central issue that
 7     we posed to you, I will just take one minute before I
 8     go directly to the question to say that -- to make it
 9     clear that we have spent a great deal of time working
10     at, thinking about, studying what we should say before
11     you.
12  296                  We began our meetings of our Chief
13     Executive Officers 18 months ago and we have, as you
14     have seen, commissioned a significant number of
15     studies.  All of them said, all the meetings, all the
16     studies led to the view that we have a system that if
17     it focused, continues to focus only on availability or
18     inputs, it is stalled.
19  297                  We cannot believe that in an act
20     passed by the Parliament of Canada that the intention
21     is solely to say that these things must be available --
22     these services must be available as you have described
23     in that section of the act without reference to the
24     will of the people, and that's really what we see here
25     is a situation in which we have worked at the input
                          StenoTran

                             69

 1     side, we all together as a system and that has in fact
 2     produced an enormous array and a balance of services
 3     because of your licensing decision, because of your
 4     regulatory decision and because of our choices as
 5     broadcasters as to how we should serve our market.
 6  298                  But if, as the indicators are, we
 7     have reached the point where we are not moving audience
 8     numbers, it means that we are not getting more of the
 9     people of Canada to watch our programming.  In other
10     words, the input strategy has come to an end.
11  299                  So, we are saying this indeed is in
12     conformity with the Broadcasting Act because it is an
13     attempt to say we now must establish a new -- I won't
14     say paradigm.  We must establish a fundamental new
15     approach here in which we say, "All right, broadly
16     speaking, the inputs have been provided, the
17     availability is there."  There will be more.  You will
18     license more.  There will be greater availability.  And
19     indeed, from sources all over the world there will be
20     greater availability.
21  300                  Now we must make sure that we are
22     providing what Canadians want, what they choose to
23     listen to -- to watch, number one.
24  301                  Number two, the act also requires
25     that the broadcasting system be able to be operated in
                          StenoTran

                             70

 1     an economic fashion.  In other words, it doesn't
 2     provide for two public systems.  It provides -- nor
 3     does it, as one of my friends said, provides for a
 4     public system and a non-profit system.  It provides for
 5     a public and a private system and if we are to deliver
 6     what the act I think requires of us and of you, we must
 7     succeed as businesses.
 8  302                  We are suggesting that unless we make
 9     this fundamental change in the way we think about the
10     broadcasting system, in the currency we trade in, we
11     cannot hope to meet the objectives of the Broadcasting
12     Act.
13  303                  Perhaps others of my colleagues would
14     want to say something.
15  304                  MR. MACDONALD:  I think one of the
16     things that Michael said was how long this process took
17     us.  We started with really trying to look outside of
18     the nine dots, as we were invited to do by the
19     Commission.
20  305                  We examined the possibility of no
21     regulatory environment whatsoever, which is of course
22     what we think could happen over the longer term.  And
23     we looked at varying degrees of levels and Canadian
24     content levels and other levels of commitment and we
25     said there are fundamental reasons why the existing
                          StenoTran

                             71

 1     regulations with respect to Canadian content make
 2     sense.
 3  306                  There are a number of other things
 4     that we felt made sense.  We ultimately came to the
 5     conclusion that we really shouldn't be throwing the
 6     baby out with the bathwater.  But we did feel that when
 7     we looked at the profitability of our industry there
 8     was a very major problem because, as we said in our
 9     presentation, we are now public companies for the most
10     part.  You know, shareholders really don't care a lot
11     about other than two factors when they are making an
12     investment:  What is the risk of the investment and
13     what is the return?
14  307                  It is something that the broadcasting
15     industry, now that we are completely controlled as
16     public companies, we have no choice but to make an
17     adequate return to our shareholders.
18  308                  So, we put that into the mix and
19     said, "All right, what do we do in the middle?"  If
20     profitability is something that we must return to
21     shareholders and we are not particularly profitable
22     now, particularly by comparison to other sectors in the
23     communications area, then how do we drive the key goals
24     of the system and how do we achieve what we are all
25     trying to do?
                          StenoTran

                             72

 1  309                  The one thing we said we are not
 2     measuring -- we are measuring hours.  We are measuring
 3     dollars.  We are measuring this.  We are measuring
 4     that, but we are not measuring the key component which
 5     is viewers.  We felt that since it is viewers that
 6     drive audience, that drives the sale of advertising,
 7     that drives the whole system, that if we were to
 8     embrace viewership in addition to all of the other
 9     factors that we have talked to you about, that this
10     would move us forward considerably.
11  310                  What we really wanted to do is to try
12     to change, as we have said, the culture and the
13     currency because we don't believe that there has ever
14     been any currency related to audience.
15  311                  I would say to any producer that will
16     come before you, there is no broadcaster that has any
17     problem paying for performance and that's to us what
18     this is all about as we move to the next step,
19     performance.
20  312                  LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Monsieur Lamarre.
21  313                  M. LAMARRE:  J'aimerais peut-être
22     ajouter, parce qu'on souligne souvent le modèle de la
23     télévision francophone lorsqu'on réfère au contenu
24     canadien... et c'est évidemment pour nous un objet de
25     grande fierté lorsqu'on en arrive à discuter de la
                          StenoTran

                             73

 1     distinction de notre marché.  Toutefois, lorsqu'on
 2     regarde la situation financière, 90 pour cent du budget
 3     de l'entreprise que je représente est investi en
 4     contenu canadien; donc 10 pour cent de notre budget de
 5     programmation est investi en contenu étranger, donc
 6     américain.  Soixante pour cent de nos profits viennent
 7     de 10 pour cent de notre investissement en
 8     programmation.
 9  314                  Alors le point qui est important ici,
10     c'est qu'on est dans une industrie qui a des règles
11     économiques qui sont importantes.  Il nous faut trouver
12     une façon de mieux performer en termes de contenu
13     canadien.
14  315                  Il n'y a pas de magie.  Les agences
15     de publicité ne nous appellent pas et ne nous disent
16     pas "J'aimerais investir X millions de dollars dans une
17     émission à contenu canadien."  Les agences de publicité
18     nous appellent pour dire "On veut rejoindre le plus
19     vaste auditoire canadien possible."
20  316                  On a eu une description par A plus Z
21     tout à l'heure de l'environnement dans lequel on
22     travaille.  Lorsque, au début des années 90, notre
23     entreprise a perdu 7 millions de dollars dans une
24     année, je ne pense pas qu'il y ait personne qui soit
25     venu à la rescousse de cette entreprise-là.
                          StenoTran

                             74

 1  317                  Alors c'est certain que présentement
 2     nous avons une situation économique qui est plus
 3     intéressante, mais je ne pense pas qu'on puisse voir à
 4     vase clos cette situation-là parce qu'au même moment où
 5     on a une situation économique qui est intéressante -- 
 6     présentement on va parler d'investissements en
 7     immobilisations qui sont importants -- on parle de plus
 8     en plus dans les couloirs du gouvernement de règles
 9     avec tous les échanges qui s'en viennent avec les
10     marchés internationaux, qui sont une menace importante,
11     et de plus en plus on libéralise et de plus en plus on
12     voit une concurrence qui devient de plus en plus
13     féroce.
14  318                  Donc, c'est dans cet environnement-là
15     qu'on tente de voir... et nous n'abdiquons pas; on
16     tente de voir quelles sont les façons dont on pourra
17     arriver -- et vous l'avez mentionné tout à l'heure dans
18     vos remarques d'introduction -- à rendre le contenu
19     canadien plus profitable.  Dans le fond, c'est ça,
20     l'essence même de la discussion parce que tous les
21     diffuseurs sont prêts et disposés à mettre plus de
22     contenu canadien dans la mesure où la profitabilité est
23     là.  Et la profitabilité est là si l'auditoire y est.
24  319                  Donc, dans le marché francophone,
25     même si les coûts sont plus chers que la télévision
                          StenoTran

                             75

 1     américaine, on réussit à mettre plus de contenu
 2     canadien en ondes parce que la profitabilité est quand
 3     même meilleure que dans le marché anglophone, mais
 4     c'est la règle de base.
 5  320                  Alors ce qu'on vous propose, si on le
 6     regarde, on vous propose tout simplement une approche
 7     qui nous permettra de rentabiliser davantage le contenu
 8     canadien.
 9  321                  LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Il est intéressant,
10     Monsieur Lamarre, que justement il y ait certaines
11     parties intéressées dont les soumissions sont basées
12     sur des paramètres qui seraient exactement une réplique
13     de ce qui se passe au Québec, qui est un succès, où
14     vous avez justement mentionné le niveau des dépenses
15     sur le contenu canadien, les heures qui sont diffusées,
16     et caetera.
17  322                  Alors c'est un peu contradictoire,
18     encore une fois.  Il y a quand même des parties qui
19     vont argumenter que, justement, au Québec on dépense de
20     l'argent sur la programmation canadienne, on la diffuse
21     et donc les gens la regardent.  Donc les audiences...
22     les auditoires suivent.
23  323                  M. LAMARRE:  Je crois que ce n'est
24     pas contradictoire du tout.
25  324                  LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Contradictoire vis-à-
                          StenoTran

                             76

 1     vis le principe qui mettrait... et ma question était: 
 2     Si on met comme but principal atteindre des niveaux
 3     d'écoute -- et j'ai une série de questions qui visent à
 4     voir comment on les atteint, ces niveaux d'écoute là --
 5     est-ce que c'est naturel?  Et l'agence de
 6     réglementation, comme au Québec, peut simplement ne pas
 7     s'immiscer dans les mécanismes qui vont y arriver,
 8     parce qu'il y a quand même deux marchés différents avec
 9     des alternatives différentes.
10  325                  Donc c'est exactement ce que
11     certaines parties intéressées font, c'est de dire:  "Au
12     Québec ou réussit, et voilà ce qu'on dépense, voilà les
13     heures de diffusion.  Et on ajuste justement les
14     critères proposés en utilisant le succès du Québec
15     comme point de référence."
16  326                  Alors c'est intéressant.  On aura
17     l'occasion, évidemment, de poursuivre cette discussion
18     davantage.
19  327                  Essayons maintenant d'y aller un peu
20     plus en détail, comment ce but serait plus propice à
21     atteindre les buts de la radiodiffusion, ce but
22     d'augmenter les auditoires.
23  328                  At page 49 of your submission you
24     foresee, as far as I can tell, establishing goals in
25     English-language TV by categories of programming in the
                          StenoTran

                             77

 1     underrepresented categories and in the French-language
 2     TV market for all Canadian programming.  Do I gather
 3     from your presentation this morning that viewership
 4     goals would also be established for all programming?
 5  329                  MR. McCABE:  Yes, that is correct,
 6     Madam Chair.
 7  330                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I stand to be
 8     corrected, but I didn't see that.
 9  331                  MR. McCABE:  Yes.  We had said that
10     the objective for all Canadian programming should be to
11     move to 35 per cent all English speaking.
12                                                        1130
13  332                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I didn't see that
14     on page 49 in your --
15  333                  MR. McCABE:  These things evolved.
16  334                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  That's fine, which
17     leads me to the question as to how audience goals would
18     be applied.  You state on page 49 that they be
19     expressed as a percentage of total viewing and it's not
20     clear on that page how it would work as between all
21     programming.  You would look, from what I gather in
22     your presentation, at viewership to all programming and
23     the goal would be established as a percentage of that
24     and then a subset would be the under-represented
25     categories.
                          StenoTran

                             78

 1  335                  MR. McCABE:  That is correct.
 2  336                  MR. CHAIRPERSON:  You would look at
 3     the current viewership and establish your goal to reach
 4     in five years 35 per cent overall and 10 per cent for
 5     entertainment programming?
 6  337                  MR. McCABE:  That's right, and our
 7     analysis there was, if you will recall in our
 8     presentation, that we thought that it was an attainable
 9     goal, although a difficult one, to move from the
10     essentially static levels over the past 10 years of 30
11     to 32 per cent and drive it to 35 per cent.  We thought
12     that the way to do that was, one, to focus on viewing
13     as an objective because, in a sense, we are the only
14     part of the system that does that.
15  338                  You do not in any of your policy
16     approaches do that, the independent production sector
17     certainly does not, and again we have said that in the
18     area of the sports and news and public affairs, we do
19     quite well and most likely where we can grow is in the
20     area of entertainment programming.  We have said,
21     therefore, we should set a goal there.  If we are to
22     attain the goal of 35 per cent, we should set a goal
23     there of moving ourselves from 7 and a half per cent to
24     10.
25  339                  Again by "ourselves", may I say we
                          StenoTran

                             79

 1     mean the system.  We mean private broadcasters, public
 2     broadcasters, the specialty services, and all of these
 3     should be, in effect, encompassed by a goal that you
 4     set.  Each in its own way will come to you and propose
 5     how they will plan to meet the goal and you will have
 6     at hand the current tools that you have, plus some
 7     others we have suggested, to use to help achieve that
 8     goal.
 9  340                  We are not suggesting that any of the
10     tools you currently have not be used, we are suggesting
11     some other tools as well, but we are suggesting that
12     you use those tools for a different purpose.  We are
13     suggesting a complete sea change in how you think about
14     going forward because we believe that, essentially, we
15     are stalled if we do not now pay attention to how we
16     drive those audiences up, to how many Canadians are
17     watching us.
18  341                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  In your submission
19     you emphasize the need for a flexible regulatory
20     environment for the overall achievement of viewership
21     goals that would be established for a system as a whole
22     and you advocate the retention of Options A, B, as
23     mentioned this morning, and Option C, which would be
24     one that the Commission has addressed to some licensees
25     in the past, which would be to focus on certain
                          StenoTran

                             80

 1     categories of programming.
 2  342                  Do you envisage inside of this
 3     framework each licensee choosing to make commitments
 4     toward the achievement of the goal in one category
 5     while another licensee emphasizes the achievement of
 6     the goal in another category to ensure flexibility in
 7     achieving the goals?
 8  343                  MR. MILLER:  The short answer is yes.
 9  344                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  So that you could
10     have in a market, if all programming is the mechanism,
11     someone who chooses to emphasize information
12     programming, news, sports, and not the other
13     categories.  That would be left to the other licensee
14     in the market.
15  345                  MR. MILLER:  That's correct, Madam
16     Chair.  Central to our proposal is the notion that one
17     size doesn't fit all, that we built a system that
18     allows players to specialize.  That's most evident
19     among specialty services, but it's also evident among
20     conventional services, and we cited the example of
21     Citytv.  Obviously, there are other examples,
22     particularly smaller market broadcasters, who focus
23     their resources and their energies on serving their
24     local communities with strong local programming,
25     particularly strong news programming.
                          StenoTran

                             81

 1  346                  We think it would be a complete
 2     reversal of everything we have accomplished to take
 3     those services who have specialized, who have built
 4     their businesses and built their audiences on certain
 5     genres of programming and tell them that they now have
 6     to do something else, they have to contribute to
 7     something else, because central to our view and central
 8     to our viewing goals is the notion, as Michael has
 9     indicated, that these are system goals and each element
10     of the system will contribute differently, but that the
11     objective of the Broadcasting Act is to ensure that the
12     system achieves viewing Canadian programming
13     availability and that the way to achieve it is to allow
14     the different elements of the system to contribute
15     differently.
16  347                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  If you drive that
17     plan at the market level, who decides first how they
18     are going to achieve this viewership goal?  If I take,
19     for example, the 25 per cent, I think is the right
20     number, of Canadians who do not have cable and,
21     therefore, are dependent on conventional services for
22     their Canadian television fare, how would this ensure
23     that that occurs as the Broadcasting Act requires?
24  348                  Is it the first licensee in the
25     market if there are three conventional stations or two
                          StenoTran

                             82

 1     who sets out what part of the system and of the
 2     viewership he or she is prepared to strive for and what
 3     is the flexibility left for the other participants in
 4     the market if we keep in mind this goal that the
 5     Broadcasting Act says that Canadians should be offered
 6     a variety of Canadian programming?
 7  349                  MR. MILLER:  Perhaps we could use an
 8     example, such as the Toronto market.
 9  350                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I said two or three
10     available conventional.  Take a smaller market.
11  351                  MR. MILLER:  Which market would you
12     like?
13  352                  MR. McCABE:  Which one do you know?
14  353                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Probably my
15     Commissioner colleagues in Vancouver would be most
16     offended if we took Toronto as the benchmark.
17  354                  MR. MILLER:  I would be happy to take
18     Vancouver, if that is a better example.  Vancouver,
19     actually, happens to be a very highly cabled market and
20     very few Vancouver television watchers don't have
21     cable, but there is a significant percentage, about 16
22     per cent in Vancouver --
23  355                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes, and I may add
24     here that the cable industry will tell us that there
25     will be intensive competition for cable subscribers by
                          StenoTran

                             83

 1     services who are not able to offer your members at the
 2     key conventional stations' services.
 3  356                  MR. MILLER:  So, your point is very
 4     valid because there is many Canadians that do continue
 5     to rely on over-the-air television service and one of
 6     the key fundamentals of the Broadcasting Act is to
 7     ensure that all Canadians get access to these key
 8     services.  So, that remains a very key objective.
 9  357                  In Vancouver, to pick an example, the
10     Commission initially licensed players that did serve
11     broad and general categories of programming starting
12     with stations that became -- BCTV became a CTV
13     affiliate, later with Global and its stations, and, of
14     course, most recently with VTV, the new CTV station,
15     and, of course, the public broadcasters and other
16     elements in addition to that.
17  358                  VTV is licensed in a different way
18     than the others.  It contributes in a different way. 
19     In fact all the players contribute in a different way. 
20     Global clearly emphasizes serious drama as its main
21     contribution and has chosen ours as its way of being
22     regulated.  CTV Baton has adopted a different measure
23     and contributes in a different way.
24  359                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  If I may interrupt,
25     Mr. Miller, it's very interesting because all these
                          StenoTran

                             84

 1     choices were made before this submission was put before
 2     us.  I am asking you whether the submission you are
 3     putting before us has or has not a risk in it of
 4     shifting the emphasis from a more general approach,
 5     albeit with some strengths, that market forces, as
 6     people strive for viewership, will -- certain market or
 7     business imperatives going to be put into the system,
 8     but what I am asking you is whether these choices that
 9     were made without this proposal may become different
10     and the extent to which there may be a risk that it
11     will be at the expense of the viewer, if you take the
12     Broadcasting Act's objectives as a backdrop to
13     understanding this.
14  360                  So, what you are telling me is there
15     is diversity right now and it has occurred under the
16     regulatory system as it exists.  What I am interested
17     in is what is the risk?  Is there any that this
18     proposal would alter that at the expense of some types
19     of programming?
20  361                  MR. MILLER:  We think the risk is in
21     the other proposals.  Ours is a viewing proposal that
22     allows each player to continue to contribute in their
23     own way, but still requiring, obviously, equity between
24     the players.  The other proposals before you are fixed
25     proposals that require everyone to do the same thing. 
                          StenoTran

                             85

 1     So, we think quite the contrary to the supposition that
 2     there is risk in our proposal.  We think ours is the
 3     only way to avoid the homogenization and the lack of
 4     diversity of service that would otherwise come from
 5     some of the other proposals before you.
 6  362                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  At page 50 of your
 7     submission you describe as one of the advantages of
 8     your approach of looking at viewership as a key
 9     indicator is shifting the balance away from quantity or
10     tonnage to quality.  Can you elaborate on how the level
11     of viewership of a program is necessarily a measure of
12     its quality, as that term may be used in the
13     Broadcasting Act?  In particular, how do you make a
14     connection between high viewership and quality, as well
15     as diversity, but I am focusing on quality, and is
16     focusing exclusively on viewing not -- is it not
17     dangerous that it would lead to airing programming that
18     appeals only to the lowest common denominator?
19  363                  What I am looking at here, as I
20     mentioned before the break, is that we do have some
21     knowledge of what it is that people like to watch and
22     when they watch it, but we have to focus on where that
23     crosses on the graph of broadcasting with giving
24     quality and diversity Canadian content, as the
25     Broadcasting Act requires.  So, the focus of my
                          StenoTran

                             86

 1     question is:  How does level of viewership guarantee
 2     quality or how does measuring viewership measure
 3     quality, which is one of the mandates that the
 4     Commission has to enforce or to fulfil, is to ensure
 5     that there is quality and diversity?
 6  364                  MR. McCABE:  If I may, some years ago
 7     I was involved in what has now become Telefilm and we
 8     spent a great deal of time as public servants trying to
 9     decide what quality was and trying to invest in
10     quality.  At the end of the day, I think that kind of
11     exercise of judgment by public servants is not
12     appropriate.  Clearly, in a society like ours, audience
13     -- that is, what the people choose -- unless we are
14     prepared to be very cynical about the views and
15     capabilities of people, I think what the people choose
16     has to guide us broadly in what we choose to call
17     quality.
18  365                  I, for one, and the broadcasters that
19     I represent have a great deal of confidence in the
20     people who are their viewers and their judgment and I
21     think that we may have mechanisms that government may
22     put in place to assist with particular kinds of
23     programming.  But at the end of the day you depend upon
24     the responsibility of broadcasters, number one, the
25     responsibility and good judgment of their audiences and
                          StenoTran

                             87

 1     I think if you take a look at the system that we have
 2     developed, it has worked.
 3  366                  We do not have programming that is
 4     keyed to the lowest denominator in the system.  We
 5     don't have a public broadcaster presumably administered
 6     by public servants that has a definably different,
 7     higher quality set of programming because better minds
 8     have been applied to it.  We have audiences applying
 9     their minds to this question and I think they make that
10     judgment.
11  367                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  In order to make a
12     link to the exchange I had with Mr. Miller, then you
13     would have the largest audiences -- without regulatory
14     intervention, which you don't advocate, but you
15     certainly advocate less regulatory intervention, you
16     would have then the most popular programming decide for
17     those who are interested in some other programming
18     which they will say is of different interest for them,
19     reflect different needs, as the Broadcasting Act
20     requires.  They would decide then how much of the most
21     popular programming or it may be that in some markets
22     that's what would happen or in the overall system. 
23     Unless the goals are established very discretely by
24     categories, if you say, "Let the people decide what
25     they want to watch" -- so that means let the largest
                          StenoTran

                             88

 1     number of people decide what the small number of people
 2     may want, and that is, I know, a popular approach, but
 3     there is a Broadcasting Act and here we are.
 4  368                  MR. LYMAN:  Michael, I don't know if
 5     you want us to come, just based on our analysis, to
 6     respond to a specific question.
 7  369                  MR. McCABE:  You have come in.
 8  370                  MR. LYMAN:  I think the notion of
 9     popular programming in a very fragmented competitive
10     marketplace should be viewed a bit differently because
11     being popular in a particular market that you are
12     aiming for, a particular demographic, and being good
13     and beating out the competition in that area is not
14     giving sort of pablum broadcasting that we all sort of
15     think of when we say "popular programming".  To be
16     popular in each of the market segments that you are
17     going after in a very crowded marketplace --
18  371                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  It's the first time
19     I hear the word "popular" being used.  What I have been
20     hearing is viewership levels.  It's not dissimilar,
21     but, nevertheless, go ahead.
22  372                  MR. McCABE:  They are the same thing. 
23     A popular program has higher viewership levels.
24  373                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I stand corrected.
25  374                  Go ahead, Mr. Lyman.
                          StenoTran

                             89

 1  375                  MR. LYMAN:  Maybe I will bring Debra
 2     into this, but when you are faced with the marketplace
 3     and the result of measures that would emphasize
 4     viewing, it would lead to viewing targets and
 5     achievements that appeal to different kinds of
 6     audiences and you have one broadcaster with one type of
 7     programming at one -- placing a program at a certain
 8     time slot would hope to get the highest viewing
 9     percentage in that time slot.
10  376                  So, when you get a range of
11     broadcasters in a marketplace, I think you will see the
12     more fragmented the broadcasting system is, you will
13     get higher viewing in a number of categories that would
14     tend to cover a lot of the elements of the objectives
15     of the Broadcasting Act to provide diversity.  That's
16     the point I wanted to make, that just the concept of a
17     three- or four-station market is no longer valid in the
18     marketplace.
19  377                  Debra.
20  378                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am not being
21     facetious when I say there is a difference between
22     popular and high viewership levels because what I am
23     looking at is, in the conventional system, if you look
24     at it by itself, viewership levels in a certain
25     category of programming.  I was discussing the risk,
                          StenoTran

                             90

 1     that that would be at the expense of other popular
 2     programming areas as well because unless there is a
 3     fair amount of intrusion of regulatory means in the
 4     system to force each licensee, which is not something
 5     you want, to force each licensee to contribute so that
 6     the whole remains diverse for the viewer.
 7                                                        1150
 8  379                  In your submission, at Appendix 1 I
 9     believe, on page 2, you state that minimum requirements
10     for Canadian content in peak viewing hours are
11     unnecessary.  Is it your view that the attainment of
12     viewing goals is a sufficient incentive to ensure the
13     airing of Canadian content when we know from
14     measurements -- and it is documented -- that there are
15     periods when viewing is at its highest.  Does that not
16     suggest the appearance of a conflict between your
17     goals?
18  380                  I understand that you support the
19     maintenance of the 60/50 rules, but, by removing the
20     requirement that there be Canadian content -- not by
21     removing, but by not accepting the submissions of some
22     parties that most conventional broadcasters be
23     subjected to a requirement in peak viewing hours, is
24     that not contradictory to trying to reach viewing
25     levels, especially if you want to increase them?
                          StenoTran

                             91

 1  381                  We know when it is that Canadians
 2     watch TV and, unless you have something to tell me
 3     about this, I don't expect that Canadian viewing habits
 4     or working habits will change greatly and that peak
 5     viewing hours will become different from what they are
 6     substantially.
 7  382                  MR. MILLER:  I think it is important
 8     to set out some base parameters.
 9  383                  First of all, we have not suggested
10     that viewing is the exclusive measure or the exclusive
11     goal, we said it is the key goal; and we have not
12     suggested that the Commission abandoned its other input
13     requirements, just that it places key emphasis going
14     forward on viewing.  So the questions that would
15     suggest that our only emphasis is viewing are not based
16     on our proposal.
17  384                  Secondly, yes, obviously the
18     Commission has a lot of data available to it, and it is
19     obvious that peak viewing does occur in the 8:00 to
20     11:00 or 7:00 to 11:00 period, but we don't think the
21     Commission is best equipped to tell broadcasters how to
22     get their largest audiences.  Broadcasters have
23     different programming strategies.  Some will adopt a
24     peak viewing strategy because that's where they can get
25     audiences, but if a broadcaster thinks they can get an
                          StenoTran

                             92

 1     audience at midnight with Mike Bullard or at seven
 2     o'clock with a family-oriented show or at any other
 3     time, then that broadcaster should not be discouraged
 4     but encouraged to do that.
 5  385                  So our whole point is that by setting
 6     broad goals you allow the players to come forward and
 7     say how they are going to meet them.  Some will meet
 8     them with a fewer number of quality hours in peak time,
 9     some will meet them with more volume, some will meet
10     them with other types of programming.  But the system
11     together is stronger by allowing these players to come
12     forward.
13  386                  So when we say that a peak time
14     viewing requirement is not required, what we are saying
15     is it is not required for everyone.  Obviously, the
16     Commission has imposed some peak time requirements on
17     some of the larger broadcasters, and obviously you will
18     want to discuss with them their views of that going
19     forward, but our point in response to this question is
20     that's not the way to go for the system to apply that
21     one-size-fits-all measure across all players.
22  387                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  So a short answer
23     to my question, then, if I ask you, is it your view
24     that the attainment of viewing goals is a sufficient
25     incentive to ensure that we will have Can con aired in
                          StenoTran

                             93

 1     peak viewing hours, the answer is "yes", that the
 2     flexibility allowed and the choice to be made and the
 3     goals set will be sufficient incentive, and the
 4     suggestion that regulatory intervention is necessary to
 5     ensure that there is Canadian content at peak viewing
 6     hours is unnecessary.
 7  388                  MR. McCABE:  That, of course, is not
 8     what we have represented.  What we have suggested is
 9     the tools that you have in hand, including the 60 per
10     cent in prime time as opposed to peak viewing hours,
11     obviously will ensure that, in peak viewing hours,
12     there is some programming that is Canadian.
13  389                  The problem is the programming we
14     have to work with.  Broadcasters, including Jim I
15     think, would like to talk to you a bit about that as
16     they come along, because what they are saying, what we
17     are saying is, help us make the Canadian programming
18     work better; do not force it into programming slots
19     where it can't work, allow us the freedom, within the
20     prime time certainly, to in fact find the time slot
21     where the program can in fact make it.
22  390                  You have seen the numbers, we are not
23     working yet in the main with programming that can take
24     on effectively even the ordinary run-of-the-mill U.S.
25     drama productions.
                          StenoTran

                             94

 1  391                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes, I understand
 2     that.  My question is simply your view is that this can
 3     be fixed by keeping the system we have, relaxing it in
 4     a number of areas we discussed, but establishing this
 5     goal; then that is an incentive that will cure this
 6     problem.
 7  392                  MR. McCABE:  It will require that, at
 8     the licensee level, which is the other proposal we
 9     have, the other part of our proposal here, you will be
10     discussing with licensees how they will achieve these
11     goals, how they see doing better with their Canadian
12     programming, how they see getting more Canadians
13     watching them, and indeed then setting their conditions
14     of licence so that they in fact are required to do
15     these things -- number one; number two, on an ongoing
16     basis, meeting with all of the other elements of the
17     system to see whether in fact we are together making
18     progress at this and whether other steps have to be
19     taken.
20  393                  It is a new approach, there is no
21     doubt.  It isn't just regulation as usual, it requires
22     a new way of coming at this, but we do believe that if
23     we don't take this new approach and just keep plugging
24     down the same road, we are not going to get ourselves
25     off the dime on viewership.
                          StenoTran

                             95

 1  394                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I want to re-
 2     stress, which I did this morning. that what we are
 3     doing here is examining the various submissions that
 4     are put before us to improve the system; so it is
 5     necessary for us, then, to look at what are the
 6     problems you perceive and to what extent are your
 7     submissions rather than someone else's likely to reach
 8     our goals.
 9  395                  So I am just trying to look at your
10     submission and trying to examine more closely the
11     extent to which it is preferable and more likely to
12     reach the goals in light of the Broadcasting Act, in
13     light of what we know about viewing habits, and of
14     course in light of some of the proposals you put
15     forward, which are changes to the regulatory system as
16     it exists.
17  396                  So this is the spirit of the
18     exercise.
19  397                  MR. MACDONALD:  Madam Chair, I would
20     like to go back, if I could, to your original point,
21     which is talking about peak time and 8:00 to 11:00, and
22     you were talking about audience levels and the
23     viewership in those --
24  398                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are not
25     changing your mind about 7:00 to 11:00, are you?
                          StenoTran

                             96

 1  399                  MR. MACDONALD:  No, not at all.  In
 2     fact, I was going to come back and say that the whole
 3     point of 7:00 to 11:00 is not to create anything other
 4     than an opportunity where the HUT levels, or the homes
 5     using television, are still high, not as high of course
 6     at eight o'clock, but the competitive programming from
 7     U.S. channels, which is primarily stripped programs,
 8     are significantly different types of competition than
 9     prime time first run network programming.
10  400                  Our view is that we can attack the
11     relatively high audience levels with better quality
12     programming against less competition and do better, and
13     we have proved that in many circumstances.  I certainly
14     know, if you look at the Sunday time period as an
15     example, "On TV" has won the time period at six o'clock
16     by putting prime Canadian programming in when it was
17     not up against powerhouse U.S. programming.
18  401                  So what we are looking for is high
19     level audience availability but also less competition,
20     and I think that this is very important, as opposed to
21     trying to create a circumstance where we just run off
22     Canadian programming where there is no audience.
23  402                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Nobody has ever
24     forced you to do that, of course.
25  403                  You have certain proposals, for
                          StenoTran

                             97

 1     example -- let me test them against this scheme -- to
 2     extend the 150 per cent Canadian drama credit incentive
 3     from peak time to the whole broadcast day -- that's on
 4     page 76 of your submission -- and adding a 200 per cent
 5     credit for distinctive Canadian programming in peak
 6     time.
 7  404                  Are you of the view that this
 8     proposal, for example, will be helpful to achieve your
 9     viewership goals since Canadian drama then could be
10     aired let's say at 9:00 a.m. in the morning and result
11     in a half-hour less of Canadian programming, or, if it
12     is aired in peak viewing hours, then you would have an
13     extra hour per each hour of credit to air foreign
14     programming in peak time -- number one, just on this
15     idea of shifting the credit to all day parts, and then
16     the fact that it adds to the reduction or it reduces
17     further the number of hours of Canadian programming,
18     depending on what kind of conditions of licence or
19     options you are under.
20  405                  MR. MACDONALD:  I will let Peter talk
21     to the broader issue, but let me, as a broadcaster, say
22     that the idea of taking expensive $150,000-an-hour
23     Canadian drama and running it at nine o'clock in the
24     morning would make absolutely zero sense.  We have to,
25     for a whole bunch of reasons, make sure that that
                          StenoTran

                             98

 1     investment runs where there is the broadest possible
 2     audience.
 3  406                  As we have said, we are not
 4     suggesting that there should be any abandonment of the
 5     amount of Canadian programming running in prime time,
 6     and clearly we need to run the most competitive
 7     Canadian programming in that time period.  Therefore,
 8     it would only make sense that we would run our best
 9     Canadian programming.
10  407                  One of the things about the drama
11     credit, you are quite right, is it could result in a
12     half-hour less Canadian programming, but I think that
13     what that is driving to is the type of Canadian
14     programming that's desired, the recognition that it is
15     going to take more money to produce it.  So we have
16     tried to bring together the quantity and the quality
17     side of the equation when making that recommendation.
18  408                  Peter.
19  409                  MR. MILLER:  If I may, two
20     observations.
21  410                  First of all, we have proposed a
22     number of incentives, and not every broadcaster will
23     use every incentive; it is a package of incentives, and
24     the intent is to give tools to broadcasters so that,
25     where they see an opportunity to potentially air more
                          StenoTran

                             99

 1     programming or air it at different times, and where
 2     they see a return for it, they would do it.  So
 3     certainly this incentive would not be used, as Jim has
 4     indicated, for the top cost million-and-a-half drama.
 5  411                  But that's not the only drama out
 6     there.  We know the French-language broadcasters have a
 7     history of téléromans at a much lower cost, $300,000 an
 8     hour.  We know "Riverdale", the first Canadian soap
 9     that CBC airs, is at a cost of $500,000 an hour.
10  412                  What this would help create is
11     perhaps a new generation of drama programs at lower
12     costs where broadcasters may find audiences at
13     different days, and by applying the same logic and the
14     same success of the 150 credit that we currently have
15     in peak time to other day part periods, certain
16     broadcasters may finally find the financial incentive
17     and the ability to do it, so that we get Canadian drama
18     at other hours of the day as we have already in the
19     French-language system.
20  413                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  While we are on
21     this 200 per cent credit, it is a bit of a more pointed
22     question, but I think you describe in Appendix 1, at
23     page 2, what it would be, how it would be
24     differentiated from the 150 per cent credit programs,
25     that it would be distinctively Canadian, dealing with
                          StenoTran

                             100

 1     Canadian themes, historical events, personalities.
 2  414                  What do you mean by "Canadian
 3     themes"?  What would be the distinguishing factor to
 4     put it in the 200 per cent credit category?
 5  415                  MR. MACDONALD:  It would have to
 6     feature a beaver.
 7  416                  MR. MILLER:  I will pass this to Rob
 8     Scarth, who is our expert on this, but I do note that
 9     this notion of a super Canadian credit for some of the
10     very tough, truly indigenous Canadian programming,
11     feature films and otherwise, is something that has got
12     support among a number of interveners, and it is I
13     think an important area for us to explore.
14  417                  MR. SCARTH:  Thank you, Peter.
15  418                  Just to expand on that, when we
16     looked at the availability of 10 out of 10 Canadian
17     drama in prime time, we saw that the Commission's 150
18     per cent content credit had been quite a success --
19     sort of half of that programming was 10 out of 10. 
20     This 200 per cent credit, the concept behind this
21     credit is simply to take the success that we have seen
22     with the 150 measure to the next stage.
23                                                        1205
24  419                  The next stage is to deal with the
25     financial challenge of those programs that are
                          StenoTran

                             101

 1     "distinctively Canadian".  In terms of what constitutes
 2     distinctively Canadian, as you know, the fund, for
 3     example, the Canada Television Cable Production Fund,
 4     has a set of criteria that it works with to narrow and
 5     limit the scope of what is distinctively Canadian.
 6  420                  The key sort of components of that
 7     above and beyond ten out of ten are projects that deal
 8     with Canadian themes, Canadian stories, projects where
 9     the underlying rights are held by Canadians, in essence
10     projects that are very, very difficult to finance, very
11     difficult to mount and have very little export
12     potential.
13  421                  The intention behind the proposal was
14     to create a superincentive for those types of projects,
15     those types of productions that present the whole
16     system of broadcasters and producers and funding
17     agencies with the greatest challenge.
18  422                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I was curious to
19     hear from you to what extent that would meet your
20     viewership goals, however.
21  423                  MR. SCARTH:  In terms of how it would
22     meet viewership goals, I think the answer is quite
23     simple.  It creates the circumstances and the incentive
24     for the broadcaster to look to this form of production
25     which again is a considerable financial risk and
                          StenoTran

                             102

 1     financial challenge, to enable the broadcaster to mount
 2     and exhibit those kinds of productions in their
 3     schedules.
 4  424                  They are popular with Canadians.  The
 5     situation for broadcasters is they are not popular
 6     enough to be able to offset the costs yet.
 7  425                  MR. McCABE:  We expect they would be
 8     very high quality, though.
 9  426                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  There seems to be
10     some confusion sometimes in your submissions as to how
11     many or whether stations in the market have a
12     requirement to air under-represented category
13     programming during the evening hours.  My understanding
14     is that is not a general requirement at the moment.
15  427                  The reason I am asking that is to ask
16     you again to elaborate for me the incentive inherent
17     with regard to viewership levels, inherent in your
18     proposal at page 77, I believe, with regard to
19     relieving broadcasters who air 7, 8 and 9 programs
20     between seven and eleven beyond current commitments -- 
21     That's why I made the preliminary remark that it's not
22     a general imposition right now, so I don't know what
23     you mean by current commitments -- that since you are
24     not advocating that there be a general commitment to
25     certain categories of programming in peak time, but you
                          StenoTran

                             103

 1     say that beyond current commitments, broadcasters would
 2     be relieved of the requirement to exhibit up 2.5 hours
 3     per week of day time, that is 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
 4     Canadian programming for every half hour in category 7,
 5     8 and 9, they be exhibited between seven and eleven.
 6  428                  Again, relate that for me with your
 7     aim to increase viewership to Canadian programming.  I
 8     see that as a 1.5 ratio.  Is that based on your view of
 9     6:00 p.m. to 7:00 to 11:00, midnight audiences being
10     five times larger than daytime ones?  How does it
11     relate to the general goal?
12  429                  MR. MILLER:  Let me start in general
13     terms and Rob may have specifics.
14  430                  First of all, again our whole
15     approach, as we said in our opening statement, is to
16     get off simple measures of expenditures and quantity
17     and allow more focus on quality and on viewership. 
18     This is an example where broadcasters that would avail
19     themselves if such an incentive were to be introduced
20     by the Commission would get out of simply creating
21     volume Canadian programming viewing day parts and focus
22     all that volume on half an hour or more of prime time
23     Canadian programming.
24  431                  The ratio, as you alluded to,
25     reflects the business reality and different audiences. 
                          StenoTran

                             104

 1     I think what is very significant about this incentive
 2     is that there's a lot of interest in it among parties
 3     in this proceeding.  Both the Director's Guild and
 4     Atlantis for two have recognized that this would be a
 5     good way to drive more Canadian programming and
 6     dramatic programming into prime time and to get the
 7     broadcasters that choose to avail themselves of this
 8     out of the volume that they currently need to generate
 9     in day parts.
10  432                  As you pointed out in the way we
11     described this, the notion would be that those that
12     exceeded any commitments they would have in peak time
13     would then have access to this incentive and,
14     therefore, get effectively relieved from some of their
15     day time, their general 60 per cent day time
16     obligations.
17  433                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  So this would be a
18     relief from the commitments they made to viewership
19     levels.  We don't have that requirement at the moment
20     in peak time and you don't propose -- some parties
21     propose that we have it.  Others and you say no, there
22     is no need for that.
23  434                  MR. MILLER:  Again, it's not a relief
24     from viewing commitments.  It's a relief from Canadian
25     content quota requirements.  In other words, just as
                          StenoTran

                             105

 1     the one fifty gives an incentive, this is a different
 2     kind of incentive that recognizes --
 3  435                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are talking
 4     here by reference to the 60/50.
 5  436                  MR. MILLER:  Precisely.
 6  437                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I see.  Now, you
 7     realize that the CBC, for example, has suggested that
 8     there is no need to regulate during the day.
 9  438                  MR. MILLER:  And that's a radical
10     proposal that we haven't gone as far on.
11  439                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  You have no comment
12     to make as to whether it is still necessary to have
13     60/50 given viewership if we do retain the viewership
14     goal model.
15  440                  MR. MILLER:  We think that Canadian
16     content requirements of 60 per cent overall and 50 per
17     cent in prime time are very entrenched in the
18     broadcasting system.  We think both politically and
19     otherwise it's not the time to alter those.
20  441                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Another proposal
21     that you have that is somewhat at odds with some
22     proposals of others that I would like to relate again
23     to a viewership level, your recommendation -- no, I
24     think it's in the appendix at page 8 -- but in any
25     event, you recommend that the promotion of foreign
                          StenoTran

                             106

 1     programming be allowed to count in spending
 2     requirements as well as the promotion of Canadian
 3     programming.
 4  442                  MR. MILLER:  While my colleague is
 5     looking at it, I don't believe that was our proposal.
 6  443                  MR. SCARTH:  Madam Chair, are you
 7     referring to our proposals with respect to advertising
 8     content in terms of PSAs and the program promos?
 9  444                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.
10  445                  MR. SCARTH:  Okay, I understand.
11  446                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  And there are
12     interveners, of course, who feel that it should only be
13     counted when it's for the promotion of Canadian
14     programs.  I read your proposal as including all
15     promotion.
16  447                  MR. SCARTH:  That is correct, Madam
17     Chair.  Our proposal in that particular area relates to
18     all program promotion.  The intention behind it was
19     really just to reflect the reality of the business in
20     that program promotion is not advertising time sold. 
21     What it is is an opportunity to maximize audiences and
22     viewer awareness of programming.
23  448                  Certainly the Commission's measure
24     with respect to flexibility on not counting Canadian
25     program promos as ad material has been of considerable
                          StenoTran

                             107

 1     assistance.  Now we are just stepping back from that
 2     and looking at it in a more sort of wholistic fashion
 3     and saying the same logic applies to all of our
 4     programming.
 5  449                  At the end of the day, one of our --
 6     Michael and Jim and Daniel referred to it in the
 7     opening remarks -- one of the objectives is to sort of
 8     maximize viewership to Canadian television.  That
 9     viewership to Canadian television has two components. 
10     One is increasing the viewership to Canadian services
11     and non-Canadian programming is a part of our services. 
12     The other component naturally is increasing viewership
13     to Canadian programming.
14  450                  It was in the spirit of maximizing
15     audiences to Canadian services that that particular
16     measure was put forward.
17  451                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Again, you would
18     trust that the incentive to increase viewership to
19     Canadian programming would discipline the extent to
20     which promotion to foreign programming is used
21     vis-a-vis promotion of Canadian programs.
22  452                  I did find it.  It is in appendix 1
23     at page 8:
24  453                       "-- expand the categories
25                            excluded from --"
                          StenoTran

                             108

 1  454                  I perhaps didn't phrase it properly. 
 2     It would result in excluding from advertising promotion
 3     to Canadian and foreign programs without any limit as
 4     to which one.
 5  455                  MR. MILLER:  That's right, Madam
 6     Chair.  We were initially a little confused by your
 7     question.
 8  456                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes, it was
 9     confusing.  I apologize.
10  457                  MR. MILLER:  We are not suggesting
11     that promotion of American programming count as a
12     Canadian programming expenditure.
13  458                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  No, no.  I
14     understand that.
15  459                  MR. MILLER:  This measure is simply a
16     matter of some flexibility in advertising.  The
17     Commission asked us to look at the issue of the 12
18     minute per hour advertising limit and whether it should
19     be abolished entirely or modified in some way.
20  460                  The consensus CAB Television Board
21     position is the one reflected here which was not to
22     entirely abolish it, but to be more clear on what
23     counts as advertising material and to exclude what is
24     traditionally recognized in the industry as not
25     advertising, that is promotion, and exclude all
                          StenoTran

                             109

 1     promotion.
 2  461                  This is an area where you will hear
 3     different views from our members and others, but the
 4     point is simply to recognize industry practice here and
 5     abroad, that promotion of programming is an important
 6     part of what we do and shouldn't detract from our
 7     ability to maximize our 12 minutes advertising avails
 8     per hour.
 9  462                  MR. McCABE:  In addition, Madam
10     Chair, there remains the question of the
11     cross-subsidization of Canadian programming from the
12     revenues from American programming.  To the extent that
13     we can maximize that, and you have seen the economics
14     as presented by PricewaterhouseCoopers of Canadian
15     programming, it is again an attempt to increase the
16     revenue that we have available for that purpose.
17  463                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  You mentioned that
18     some of your members have different views about this. 
19     I guess, for example, WIC has proposed a 50/50 control
20     between but your view is it is not necessary to impose
21     that sort of maximum.  I think their proposal is no
22     more than 50 promotional spots -- 50 per cent rather
23     promotional spots should be discounted from advertising
24     if it's to foreign programming, but your view is it's
25     not necessary to impose any limit.
                          StenoTran

                             110

 1  464                  MR. MACDONALD:  Jim's view is we left
 2     it out.  Perhaps I will just clarify.  I will put my
 3     WIC hat on for one second to say that the WIC proposal
 4     was that no promotion should count as advertising but
 5     that a minimum of 50 per cent of total promotion should
 6     be for Canadian programs.
 7  465                  We recognize that there might be some
 8     concern that there might not be inventory left.  We
 9     were trying to, I think, make sure that people
10     understood that there was intent to continue to promote
11     heavily Canadian programming, but at the same point to
12     Michael's comment, we also recognize that we have to
13     make sure that to the greatest extent possible, which
14     is not generating the same kinds of margins that it
15     used to, continues to do so at least as long as
16     possible.
17  466                  MR. McCABE:  Which approach seems to
18     be a prudent one.
19  467                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now, it's a good
20     thing that WIC was present to clarify all this.
21  468                  You don't propose the abolition of
22     expenditures on Canadian content as a regulatory
23     mechanism.  To what extent in your view do expenditure
24     goals have or could have a more direct relationship to
25     program quality than viewership goals?
                          StenoTran

                             111

 1  469                  MR. McCABE:  Do I understand you are
 2     asking do we think that expenditure goals would create
 3     better program quality than viewership goals?
 4  470                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Well, elaborate for
 5     me.  Obviously you had made some choices in your
 6     proposals.
 7  471                  MR. McCABE:  Yes.
 8  472                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are keeping
 9     expenditures as the regulatory mechanism so that option
10     would still be open.  I would like your view as to how
11     successful that mechanism could be.
12  473                  We heard Mr. Lamarre this morning
13     tell us what is the level of expenditure on Canadian
14     content in Quebec and presumably what the results are. 
15     I'm sure Pricewaterhouse or Coopers Lybrand could make
16     an intelligent connection between the two.
17  474                  I am asking whether the Commission
18     should retain -- why is it that the Commission
19     shouldn't retain that as a major goal for measuring
20     quality as opposed to your proposal which is to use
21     viewership?
22  475                  MR. McCABE:  Again, there are two
23     different levels we are talking about.  We are
24     proposing the establishment of viewership as a system
25     goal, but at the individual licensee level we expect
                          StenoTran

                             112

 1     you will continue to use your tools, the ones you
 2     currently have, one of which you just referred to, and
 3     others that we proposed when we have been discussing
 4     here as conditions of licence on individual licensees
 5     in accordance with their plans to try and improve their
 6     viewership.
 7  476                  By that I mean I think it would be a
 8     fruitless exercise to try at the licensee level to
 9     establish viewership goals, but you have created a
10     flexible system of either choosing expenditures or
11     hours of programming and we have proposed a third one
12     respecting 7, 8 and 9.
13  477                  What we are suggesting is these are
14     very useful tools for you in your role as regulator to
15     continue to use, and we are not suggesting their
16     removal.  We are merely suggesting as you apply them,
17     you will want to hear from broadcasters how they think,
18     if that's the tool they are going to use, how they
19     think that will help them achieve their goals.
20  478                  Someone may come to you and say
21     "Look, I can do this better if I choose the overall
22     hours proposal because here is my strategy for doing
23     this".  Another would say "The expenditure goals are
24     right for me because my plan is to pour a lot of money
25     into -- since you have broadened the prime time perhaps
                          StenoTran

                             113

 1     from current peak hours to a broader view of that, I
 2     can now pour more money into programming that will get
 3     me an audience there".
 4  479                  These are tools that may be used.  We
 5     are aiming for more flexibility in our proposal by
 6     different broadcasters, all of them again trying to
 7     achieve greater viewership, that is more Canadians
 8     watching.
 9  480                  MR. MACDONALD:  Madam Chair, I'm sure
10     you are familiar with the term what gets measured gets
11     done.  I am going to come back --
12  481                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  That's a dangerous
13     preface to what we will hear this afternoon.
14  482                  MR. MACDONALD:  Well, we have got
15     lots of measurement.  What we are trying to do is
16     encourage the cultural shift to the measurement that
17     really matters.
18  483                  As I said earlier, we measure
19     everything that really does drive the whole system. 
20     The conventional broadcasters are facing some enormous
21     change as outlined to you in our proposal.
22  484                  We have come back and said "There is
23     no way that we can continue to sit on our feet in terms
24     of where Canadian programming is going".  It has to be
25     profitable.  What is the best way of going about that? 
                          StenoTran

                             114

 1     Certainly trying to drive the audience we feel is the
 2     best way to do that.
 3  485                  We believe all of that emanates from
 4     the regulator who is creating more of a culture and the
 5     expectation.  We feel that we are not asking you to
 6     abandon any of the other forms of measurement.  We are
 7     simply asking that viewership become a very key part of
 8     how we are doing overall as partners and how we are
 9     doing in the system.
10  486                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  When all is said
11     and done, is the CAB not saying don't abandon
12     expenditures as a regulatory mechanism, keep the status
13     quo there, but don't increase it as a measurement. 
14     Instead, superimpose on it this broad incentive which,
15     as we can discuss, would be difficult to measure and to
16     implement, but this broad incentive of looking to reach
17     a viewership goal in a five year span is sufficient to
18     lead to more expenditures, if that's what's necessary
19     to get the quality or the diversity that will give you
20     a ship.
21  487                  Let me ask you.  During your
22     deliberations, which appear to have been quite arduous
23     --- I was told how long it took.  It took a long time
24     to read the result -- did you ever consider
25     establishing a spending requirements goal on a system
                          StenoTran

                             115

 1     basis?  You seem to believe that that's a regulatory
 2     mechanism which is of some value toward meeting the
 3     objectives of the Act.
 4  488                  MR. McCABE:  Our discussions
 5     obviously ranged over the whole gamut of possible ways
 6     of coming at this.  What the PricewaterhouseCoopers
 7     study showed us in stark detail was that if we
 8     continued down that road of essentially saying let's
 9     measure a number of hours, let's measure a number of
10     dollars.
11  489                  We would not be able to achieve the
12     business objectives that we needed in order to in
13     effect grow as businesses, in order to succeed as
14     businesses.  We said yes, it is a tool that you should
15     have available.
16  490                  We have not said, by the way, that
17     you should not increase that when you are talking about
18     licensees.  We are just saying you should not set a
19     regime which increases that for everybody with respect
20     to particular kinds of programming, that you really do
21     have to make a judgment about the level that each
22     licensee that is before you ought to expend, if that's
23     the measure that they choose given that you have
24     provided that flexibility.
25  491                  Part of your concern obviously will
                          StenoTran

                             116

 1     be equity as among the equivalent players, but our view
 2     was that given the flexibility that you had already
 3     provided, if all of a sudden we were to say no, we will
 4     go back to a major measure which will be expenditure
 5     that, one, it had not been working to drive audiences
 6     up and, two, it would be a step backward in the
 7     flexibility you have already provided.
 8  492                  MR. MILLER:  I think, Madam Chair, it
 9     is important to in simple terms distinguish the
10     difference between our proposals and the others, and
11     they are very clear.
12  493                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Clear as this
13     afternoon.
14  494                  MR. MILLER:  Our proposal posits
15     viewership as the most important measure of success. 
16     Theirs posits expenditures.  Our proposal suggests
17     diversity is the best way of achieving our objectives. 
18     Theirs suggests one size fits all.
19  495                  Our proposal says we have to put
20     Canadian programming on a better business footing. 
21     Theirs suggests that broadcasters should
22     cross-subsidize it more.  Those are the fundamental
23     differences.  They are not minor differences.
24  496                  They are major because they are major
25     differences in the way that the Commission and the
                          StenoTran

                             117

 1     industry approach the future.
 2  497                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I understand that
 3     your proposal is again one size fits all and more
 4     flexibility.  Would you propose then any changes to the
 5     spending requirement model we have now or are you
 6     suggesting that the Commission look, for example, at
 7     certain markets, decide what are comparable amounts
 8     depending on the type of programming they choose to air
 9     to reach the viewership to reach the viewership goals.
10                                                        1230
11  498                  Would we look at multistation groups
12     and compare them to other multistation groups?  What
13     kind of flexibility would you look at since you agree
14     that spending requirement be retained?
15  499                  MR. MILLER:  Again, the beauty of the
16     way the Commission approaches contributions on
17     obligations is twofold.  We have a competitive bidding
18     process that allows in the case of new applications
19     everyone to put their best offer on the table and the
20     Commission gets the best value from that, but whatever
21     that new offer is doesn't mean you can't take that and
22     just translate it automatically to everyone else.  The
23     beauty of a competitive bidding process is you get the
24     best offer on a given service and you can't just take
25     that and make it the margin for everyone.
                          StenoTran

                             118

 1  500                  The second thing the Commission has
 2     always done is approach things on a case-by-case basis. 
 3     Markets differ, broadcasters differ.  Seventy per cent
 4     of Canada in some markets is not 70 per cent of Canada
 5     in other markets.
 6  501                  The only way the Commission can look
 7     at this is by looking at the specific proposals the
 8     companies come to you with and assessing if they are in
 9     fact valid contributions.  You cannot take an overall
10     figure and say this is what everyone must do.  You have
11     never done that and we wouldn't suggest, as others have
12     suggested, that you do this from now on.
13  502                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  My last question
14     before we break for lunch, since it is related to
15     performance levels and I assume that that's viewership
16     levels, at pages 65 and 66 of your main submission you
17     introduce or discuss a concept of performance
18     incentives that would draw into your performance goals
19     the producers.
20  503                  If I understand what would happen is
21     that bonuses could be paid by broadcasters to producers
22     where programs perform better than expected.  I imagine
23     a scheme where you would estimate a performance and if
24     it is exceeded then a financial bonus would be paid to
25     the producer.
                          StenoTran

                             119

 1  504                  Conversely, you don't talk about
 2     penalty when there is default, but you do use -- that
 3     there would be other prenegotiated default points.  Do
 4     I understand this scheme well and how it is related to
 5     viewership levels?
 6  505                  MR. McCABE:  If I may, this arose
 7     from a quite congenial but sometimes raucous meeting
 8     that we had with the CFTPA and some other people, in
 9     which one of the broadcasters posed the proposition
10     that supposing I had to hand another $4 million or $5
11     million.  Now, I have got a couple of programs that are
12     not Canadian programs that are not performing very well
13     and what would you suggest?  That I throw those out and
14     try to spend that money on better programs and more
15     promotion of them, or should I do two additional hours? 
16     Unanimously, it was do two additional hours.
17  506                  So, we said, well then, supposing we
18     talked to you about performance bonuses -- in other
19     words, when we contract with you we would together
20     determine some sort of expectation.  This would be
21     individual contracts.  You contract and we would have
22     some expectation of how that program would perform.
23  507                  Supposing we wrote into it that if it
24     performed better -- in other words, by certain audience
25     percentage points, we would in fact pay you more.
                          StenoTran

                             120

 1  508                  The immediate question was:  What if
 2     it didn't do as well?  Would we have to take less?  We
 3     said, "Well, no, fair enough, when we bought that we
 4     expected it would achieve," but couldn't we work out
 5     something where our contracts in effect said, "Look, if
 6     we can get some better programming you that we can do
 7     better with on the air, we will pay you more."
 8  509                  But the answer then was, effectively,
 9     no.  Spend it on -- add some more money and make
10     another program.  That concerned us greatly.
11  510                  So that what we are proposing here is
12     something that would have to operate at the individual
13     contract level.
14  511                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.  Your proposal
15     at least appears consistent with drawing in the
16     producers into making viewership levels a key indicator
17     of the success of the system.
18  512                  MR. McCABE:  Yes.
19  513                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I think I heard you
20     say earlier that your plan would be to draw everybody
21     into this, including the regulator.
22  514                  Thank you very much.  We will
23     continue this afternoon.
24  515                  Considering the engineering hurdles
25     we had this morning, I propose to resume at 1:30 p.m.
                          StenoTran

                             121

 1     --- Lunch recess at/Suspension pour le déjeuner à 1235
 2     --- Upon resuming at/Reprise à 1335
 3  516                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon.  I
 4     hope you all had a good lunch.
 5  517                  I said this morning that after
 6     looking at some of the basics of your proposal we would
 7     have a brief look at how you propose to establish it.
 8  518                  Well, let me say first that I heard
 9     you say this morning that you want broad goals
10     established for the system as a whole and I gathered
11     from your comments this morning that you were
12     envisaging your role, the specialty services role, the
13     pay services role and possibly would you also look at
14     drawing into this system the distribution undertakings?
15  519                  MR. McCABE:  Yes.  We believe that
16     they should play a part because obviously the questions
17     as to what services are carried will affect the
18     viewership levels, so that they are essential to it, as
19     we believe is the CBC, which I don't know if you
20     included.  I can't recall if you included it in your
21     listing there and the production --
22  520                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I said conventional
23     broadcasters.  So, let's take it for granted.
24  521                  MR. McCABE:  And the independent
25     production industry because again, as the anecdote I
                          StenoTran

                             122

 1     gave you just before the break there illustrates, they
 2     have to be committed to the performance of the
 3     programming as well.
 4  522                  So that our hope would be,
 5     recognizing they are an unregulated part of the system,
 6     but they are an unregulated part of the system that
 7     marches to the drum that you beat.
 8  523                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am sorry, I
 9     missed which was the unregulated part of the system.
10  524                  MR. McCABE:  The independent
11     production industry.
12  525                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.
13  526                  MR. McCABE:  I am just suggesting
14     that what you decide here, the tone you set, the
15     direction you set for the system in fact drive them and
16     where they go too, despite the fact that they are
17     unregulated.
18  527                  MR. McCABE:  But do you see drawing
19     them in indirectly because of -- as we change the
20     regulatory system obviously indirectly it will affect
21     them, or do you see them at the table when goals and
22     means of reaching them are discussed?
23  528                  MR. McCABE:  They should be at the
24     table.  You know, they are in the regulatory system, if
25     you look at the act.  In some senses they are required
                          StenoTran

                             123

 1     to make a substantial contribution and, as I am
 2     occasionally reminded, we think they should.
 3  529                  I think that they should be at the
 4     table.  We are really trying to create a new dynamic
 5     here in which based upon the regulator and the
 6     regulatory system we try to set some goals for the
 7     system that we can all be working toward and see if we
 8     cannot find co-operative strategies to do that.
 9  530                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now, in the
10     appendix to your submission in response to Question No.
11     85 regarding specialty services, you say that:
12  531                       "...the CAB believes that the
13                            existing regulatory framework
14                            already maximizes the
15                            contributions made by specialty
16                            and pay services to Canadian
17                            programming."
18  532                  So, do you foresee having the
19     specialties at the table for discussions, the purposes,
20     or I gathered from that statement that you felt that
21     the system had produced -- well, had maximized as it
22     exists the contribution of specialty services.
23  533                  MR. MILLER:  We made that comment
24     referring to the fact that the process the Commission
25     undertakes to license specialties is a competitive
                          StenoTran

                             124

 1     licensing process.  Applications are invited.  People
 2     come forward with their best business plans, their best
 3     offers of contribution and the Commission chooses who
 4     gets the licence.  So, that side of it works very well. 
 5     We don't think some universal rule should be applied to
 6     all specialty services.
 7  534                  That being said, as Mr. McCabe has
 8     indicated, the other side of the equation is the
 9     carriage of those services.  We have today a very
10     unfortunate situation wherefore Canadian services have
11     been licensed and still haven't launched.
12  535                  On the other hand, a number of new
13     American services have been brought into the system. 
14     So, this notion of ensuring that distributors and the
15     Commission maximize the entry of new specialty services
16     obviously is key to maintaining and meeting the viewing
17     goals.
18  536                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  What I understand
19     you to say is you feel that the system as it applies to
20     specialty services has given good results and we should
21     keep on the same track of the approach to the request
22     or to the requirements we demand of specialty services?
23  537                  MR. MILLER:  Yes, but we are
24     suggesting a little nuance there.  We are suggesting a
25     more vigorous application of priority carriage for
                          StenoTran

                             125

 1     Canadian services and that we make sure that we get
 2     these services launched and that we get the next round
 3     launched.
 4  538                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  That would address
 5     I gather the distribution part, but with regard to
 6     specialty services the manner in which the Commission
 7     has approached is satisfactory to you?
 8  539                  MR. MILLER:  Exactly.
 9  540                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  And you want to see
10     it continued, not necessarily to ask the specialty
11     services at the table to rejig what they are doing in
12     light of your model if it were retained?
13  541                  MR. MILLER:  That's correct.
14  542                  MR. MACDONALD:  Madam Chair, one of
15     the reasons we also have asked you to look at the whole
16     system is because obviously the advent of specialty
17     services has provided a tremendous amount of diversity
18     in the system.  It has added millions of dollars in new
19     investment in Canadian programming and hundreds of
20     additional hours of Canadian content, but the
21     specialties have had an effect on the conventional
22     broadcasting system to the tune of about 20 per cent
23     erosion of our core audience.  That's not to complain. 
24     That's the reality, but what we certainly want to make
25     sure is that everybody is cognizant of is that there is
                          StenoTran

                             126

 1     a push and pull within the system that does affect us
 2     moving forward.
 3  543                  So, we totally respect what has been
 4     achieved, but we also know where it has come from.
 5  544                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now, with regard to
 6     the establishment of a level of viewership which would
 7     be important to keep in mind as a beginning if we are
 8     going to check it as it goes forward, how did you
 9     arrive at the figure to which you applied a growth
10     factor for the five years when you measured viewership
11     in English television to all programming and viewership
12     to entertainment programming?  So, you started with 32
13     all programming and 7.5 per cent entertainment.  Can
14     you tell me where these figures come from?
15  545                  MR. MILLER:  We looked at two things. 
16     We looked at what could be realized going forward.
17  546                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  But from what
18     database is my question?
19  547                  MR. MILLER:  We used Nielsen data for
20     these numbers.
21  548                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  You know that the
22     Commission uses BBM data instead, which I understand
23     gives us a better picture of the smaller markets than
24     Nielsen.  Would you think it reasonable to also have
25     regard to the BBM figures when establishing the
                          StenoTran

                             127

 1     baseline?
 2  549                       MR. MILLER:  Yes.  We used
 3     Nielsen data because for the national goals, as we were
 4     establishing, they seemed to have the most accurate
 5     measurement, but we, like you, recognize that BBM is
 6     very strong in the local market data.
 7  550                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  And I guess one of
 8     the advantages for the Commission is that it makes the
 9     determination as to what is a level of entertainment by
10     distinguishing the categories, whereas Nielsen is done
11     by another party.  Right?
12  551                  MR. MILLER:  Perhaps others can
13     comment on the details there.
14  552                  MS McLAUGHLIN:  Excuse me.  I just
15     want to clarify the question, Madam Chairman.  Are you
16     asking or suggesting that BBM categorizes the
17     programming?
18  553                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  No, that we do.
19  554                  MS McLAUGHLIN:  Okay.  Well, and
20     Nielsen -- I'm sorry, you said Nielsen does it by
21     another source?
22  555                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  My understanding is
23     it's not -- we use BBM's and one of the advantages is
24     it covers the smaller markets and also that the
25     determination of when you measure the percentage of
                          StenoTran

                             128

 1     entertainment programming you have to determine the
 2     programming that fits within these categories, that
 3     with regard to BBM the Commission makes that
 4     determination.
 5  556                  If I have misrepresented the facts I
 6     am sure the staff will correct me.
 7  557                  MS McLAUGHLIN:  No.  In actual fact
 8     you haven't, but Nielsen doesn't measure small markets,
 9     so you have to --
10  558                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  That's what I said.
11  559                  MS McLAUGHLIN:  Yes.
12  560                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  The purpose of my
13     question is very simple.  It is simply to say "would
14     it" and I think I have the answer.  Would it make sense
15     to also, if we were to retain this model, to sit down
16     and decide whether we should also look at what baseline
17     we get if we use BBM's instead.  It is no more
18     complicated than that.
19  561                  M. LAMARRE:  Je pense, Madame Wylie,
20     qu'à partir du moment où on s'entend sur des outils de
21     mesure, notre réponse à ça est très simple, c'est
22     "oui".  Et je pense que le point qui est important sur
23     ce sujet-là, c'est le suivant... parce qu'on utilise
24     souvent le modèle francophone comme étant le modèle...
25  562                  Le point que j'aimerais faire là-
                          StenoTran

                             129

 1     dessus, c'est qu'à partir du moment où nous nous
 2     entendons sur les modalités et à partir du moment où le
 3     principe de la performance est respecté, non seulement
 4     sommes-nous confortables, non seulement sommes-nous
 5     prêts à y adhérer, mais on est convaincus que l'effet
 6     de ça serait très, très grand pour toute l'industrie de
 7     la production au Canada parce que le modèle dans le
 8     marché francophone est basé sur un critère:  la
 9     performance.
10  563                  La raison pour laquelle nous
11     investissons autant dans le marché francophone en
12     contenu canadien, c'est parce que ça marche.  À partir
13     du moment où on peut établir des critères qui vont
14     permettre dans le Canada anglais de performer autant,
15     nos collègues du Canada anglais, j'en suis convaincu,
16     vont suivre le pas.  Mais le principe de base, c'est un
17     principe de performance, et ce principe-là ne doit pas
18     être uniquement l'adage des diffuseurs mais on devrait
19     de plus en plus retrouver les autres partenaires de
20     l'industrie liés à cette performance-là.  C'est comme
21     ça qu'on arrivera à avoir plus de contenu.
22  564                  On ne peut pas, dans l'entreprise
23     privée, fonctionner autrement que sur des critères de
24     coûts, de profitabilité et de rendement.  Sinon, nous
25     serions une télévision publique, et ça, c'est le rôle
                          StenoTran

                             130

 1     de quelqu'un d'autre dans notre industrie.
 2  565                  Alors comme diffuseurs privés nous
 3     sommes extrêmement fiers d'avoir une excellente
 4     performance en termes de contenu canadien, mais je
 5     trouve que si on peut maintenir ce critère-là de
 6     performance, je pense que c'est toute l'industrie qui
 7     s'enrichira de contenu.
 8  566                  LA PRÉSIDENTE:  D'accord,
 9     Monsieur Lamarre.
10  567                  Maintenant, évidemment, au Québec,
11     pour un nombre de raisons, vous avez déjà atteint le
12     but vers lequel le Canada anglais voudrait se diriger,
13     mais il semble qu'il faut changer les mécanismes, et
14     l'Association propose un mécanisme qui n'existe pas au
15     Canada français mais qui a produit les résultats visés.
16  568                  Alors ce que je regarde maintenant,
17     c'est comment on s'y prendrait pour établir, de façon
18     il semble artificielle, un mécanisme qui donnerait les
19     même résultats qu'on a au Canada français.
20  569                  M. LAMARRE:  Je pense que la question
21     est extrêmement importante parce qu'elle est au coeur
22     de tout le débat.
23  570                  Nous sommes partis du principe
24     suivant:  nous sommes partis du principe qu'afin
25     d'offrir du meilleur contenu canadien, il faut y aller
                          StenoTran

                             131

 1     par la performance.
 2  571                  Nous avons saisi l'invitation du
 3     CRTC... et moi, je pense que c'est un rendez-vous
 4     unique.  L'invitation du CRTC, c'est comment tous les
 5     intervenants de l'industrie peuvent faire pour
 6     améliorer le contenu canadien.
 7  572                  Nous avons saisi votre invitation et
 8     nous avons compris que, dans votre invitation, il y
 9     avait une notion d'innovation.  Alors c'est certain
10     qu'on arrive avec une notion qui est innovatrice, et si
11     on retourne aux anciennes règles du CRTC et qu'on
12     regarde ça, on dit peut-être que l'approche de
13     l'Association des diffuseurs n'entre pas dans le livre,
14     et vous avez raison.  Ce qu'on vous dit, c'est que nous
15     sommes prêts à nous asseoir avec vous et avec d'autres
16     intervenants pour amener cette nouvelle notion-là.
17                                                        1350
18  573                  Moi, je pense que ça va exactement
19     dans l'esprit de votre invitation, qui est de dire:  Si
20     on trouve une façon d'amener des modalités pour évaluer
21     la performance en contenu canadien, non seulement on va
22     y arriver parce que ça va être un outil de mesure, mais
23     ça va aussi nous amener à garder le focus sur quelque
24     chose qui devrait être continuellement dans l'esprit
25     non seulement des diffuseurs mais également des
                          StenoTran

                             132

 1     producteurs et encore plus du diffuseur public... parce
 2     que le gouvernement fédéral, j'imagine, lorsqu'il a mis
 3     sur pied un diffuseur public, c'était pour cette
 4     raison-là précisément.
 5  574                  Alors moi, je pense qu'on répond à
 6     votre invitation d'innover, et nous serons présents
 7     pour nous asseoir avec vous et regarder toutes les
 8     modalités.
 9  575                  Alors est-ce qu'on est prêt à partir
10     du barème BBM plutôt que Nielsen, la réponse, c'est
11     "oui".  Est-ce que nous sommes prêts à avoir des
12     modalités?  Bien sûr.  Mais nous sommes très encouragés
13     par la possibilité d'amener une nouvelle notion dans
14     notre industrie qui est d'évaluer nos performances.
15  576                  LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Peut-être qu'il y
16     aurait un grand avantage à ce que le Conseil établisse
17     un règlement qui oblige les radiodiffuseurs du Canada
18     anglais à s'asseoir avec les radiodiffuseurs du Canada
19     français au moins une fois par mois pour essayer
20     d'absorber leurs trucs.
21  577                  M. McCABE:  On le fait toujours.
22  578                  LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ça nous donnerait
23     moins de travail.
24  579                  Je remarque que, when you speak, Mr.
25     McCabe, of drawing in all the players, you include the
                          StenoTran

                             133

 1     Commission -- however, Monsieur Lamarre is not good
 2     enough to -- to establish your viewership goals.
 3  580                  MR. McCABE:  We think you are
 4     essential because you are the leader.  You are the body
 5     that sets the tone for the system and that tone that
 6     you set ends up being the guide post for the other
 7     parts of the federal government; that is, the
 8     Department of Heritage and the government and
 9     telephone, for instance.  When the government wants
10     advice as to how the system should operate, they come
11     to you, and properly so.  So, our view is that you have
12     here the power to set a new direction for the system,
13     to set us in the direction that Daniel suggests of
14     measuring performance.
15  581                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Of course, that
16     brings me back to the modalities of how the regulator
17     would be involved in this process.  Presumably, once a
18     level is set, then you would have each licensee
19     appearing before the Commission with its plans, be it
20     at renewal or -- how do you perceive this happening and
21     how should the Commission evaluate whether the
22     licensee's plans fit the overall goal?
23  582                  As we discussed this morning, people
24     will make choices, and correctly so, on the basis of
25     what is expected of their shareholders and their view
                          StenoTran

                             134

 1     of the market and how to make their company profitable. 
 2     How should we evaluate the plans so that the whole is
 3     fulfilled at the end of the day?  Is it the first
 4     person who comes who chooses and then the last person
 5     gets to fulfil the part that hasn't been suggested yet? 
 6     How would this operate?
 7  583                  MR. McCABE:  I think, first of all,
 8     you have established, in a sense, the correct forum for
 9     dealing with the specifics of achieving the plan; that
10     is, at the licence renewal or at the transaction or at
11     the application for licence.  I don't think it's as cut
12     and dried as there are five slots in the plan for
13     Market A, the first one along gets the best one, the
14     second gets the second best one, and so on.  It really
15     is a situation in which I think that, first of all, you
16     will, as you do in all of the work you do, be required
17     to exercise some judgment about whether what is before
18     you makes sense.
19  584                  For instance, if a broadcaster came
20     and said, "Our plan is to use one of those incentives
21     you have there", and you say, "You are proposing, in
22     other words, to cut a couple of hours of daytime
23     television which are now getting you this kind of
24     audience for a program type that, on balance, turns out
25     half the audience in the normal course than the one you
                          StenoTran

                             135

 1     are giving away", you are going to want to be saying,
 2     "Explain to me what it is that you are about."  That
 3     person may say, "That sort of audience is one I can
 4     grow, this is the kind of thing that, given what we do,
 5     we can develop with our audiences."
 6  585                  In other words, you are going to want
 7     to hear those plans and their proposals, as to which of
 8     the incentives they will use and which of the options
 9     they will choose on the basis of how they see it
10     contributing to their performance.  You obviously don't
11     pull these together individually and add them up.  I
12     think it's a process in which annually you would be
13     taking a look and you would expect some annual returns,
14     I would think.
15  586                  So, you take a look at how the system
16     is performing altogether and then would sit down with
17     us to determine whether there are other things that
18     have to be done.  It will require, it seems to me, a
19     different style of working other than just assuming
20     that we are going to try to solve the problem, if you
21     will, with each individual licensee.
22  587                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  In the meantime,
23     you see regulations: obviously, the 60/50; you also see
24     options.  You have added an Option C.  Therefore, you
25     see regulations and conditions of licence attached to
                          StenoTran

                             136

 1     individual licensees, but with this viewership goal as
 2     an objective, but not an objective that one would
 3     measure compliance with a view to changing what the
 4     individual licensee is doing, compliance in the sense
 5     of bringing back a licensee who is not performing
 6     according to the goal, but is doing what the
 7     regulations require and the conditions of licence
 8     require.
 9  588                  MR. MILLER:  That's correct.  The
10     Commission cannot regulate viewing.  What we are
11     proposing is a very different model.  Essentially, the
12     Commission, if you will, relies more on its supervisory
13     aspect of its mandate to set these goals for the system
14     to make sure through all its decisions, through all its
15     reviews, through all its applications, through all its
16     licence decisions that that is an important factor that
17     is kept in mind and that the Commission choose to
18     exercise increasing flexibility, increasing access to
19     these incentives, particularly those who come to you
20     with business plans that clearly direct their companies
21     to meeting those objectives.
22  589                  The beauty of it is for the very
23     first time the Commission ends up with a goal, a
24     measure that has public policy objectives and business
25     objectives in sync because you want --
                          StenoTran

                             137

 1  590                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now --
 2  591                  MR. MILLER:  If I could just finish,
 3     because the beauty is you end up with increased viewing
 4     to Canadian programming, which is, in our minds, very
 5     much in sync with the goals of the Broadcasting Act and
 6     the broadcasters have increased viewing, which is key
 7     to their business success.  So, it's a win/win because
 8     you are monitoring and championing and pushing the
 9     envelope on the most important measure of all.
10  592                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I have heard Mr.
11     McCabe and others on the panel say a number of times,
12     "Well, this is just going to be a goal and we will have
13     the regulatory system with the modifications that you
14     propose continuing.  If the goal is not working as we
15     monitor it, we will do other things."  What are these
16     other things since when there is no -- I mean
17     regulators are there to regulate or they are not there
18     at all.
19  593                  Do you say then that if the goals are
20     not being -- you say we can't regulate viewership, but
21     presumably if viewership is not attained, then we will
22     do what with the regulatory mechanisms that you accept,
23     spending requirements, exhibition requirements?  Will
24     we increase them like some other submitters suggest? 
25     What will we do then if this incentive program doesn't
                          StenoTran

                             138

 1     give results?
 2  594                  MR. McCABE:  As well, obviously, as
 3     the spending requirements, we have proposed a series of
 4     incentives and what we are suggesting is that if we can
 5     work together and say we have a common focus, we have a
 6     common goal, it's in those reviews that we would say,
 7     "This area isn't working.  Do we need an incentive in
 8     fact to make it work", because it really is again a sea
 9     change in how we think about the system.
10  595                  You have some tools to make sure that
11     people, in effect, do the minimum, but the aim is to
12     try to do better than the minimum.  It's there that we
13     all put our heads together to decide how we can work
14     together now that we have this focus, work toward a
15     goal that, as Peter says, begins to focus on our being
16     able to perform well and, in the same instant, provides
17     some indication to the public policy authorities that
18     what we are all doing here is getting somewhere, we are
19     all moving toward making a success of the job we are
20     all doing together.
21  596                  MR. MACDONALD:  As was said earlier
22     by Mr. McCabe, though, everything is keys off the
23     general message from the Commission.  We have talked to
24     you about changing the culture of the key objectives
25     and I am going to come to that again because some of
                          StenoTran

                             139

 1     our proposals, of course, have requested things that
 2     are beyond the scope of the Commission per se.  I mean
 3     obviously we need the support of Heritage in fulfilling
 4     some of our proposals, we require the support of
 5     Industry Canada in some of our proposals and certainly
 6     with respect to the ongoing funding gap that we have
 7     talked about, we need the support of the Finance
 8     Department and the government.
 9  597                  So, we look at this overall and say,
10     "Have we in fact gone after the right thing?"  We
11     believe we have by going after viewers.  Have we in
12     fact recommended the regulatory touchstones that can
13     ensure that the job continues to get done?  We believe
14     we have.  So, it's all about taking a different focus
15     to where we really want to drive the future for
16     conventional television.
17  598                  M. LAMARRE:  Je pense que, exprimé
18     simplement, dans le fond le message des diffuseurs
19     aujourd'hui est simple, c'est de dire:  Nous voulons,
20     dans le cas du marché francophone, maintenir le même
21     niveau d'investissements que nous avons, et au niveau
22     des anglophones, tenter d'arriver à un niveau
23     additionnel, mais le problème est le suivant:  Même
24     avec 90 pour cent de mon budget qui s'en va en contenu
25     canadien, si je n'ai pas de marge de manoeuvre et si je
                          StenoTran

                             140

 1     n'ai pas de flexibilité dans l'avenir... parce que
 2     c'est aussi un rendez-vous où on fait une révision des
 3     règles.  Si je ne me garde pas de marge de manoeuvre,
 4     je ne serai pas capable de maintenir 90 pour cent de
 5     mon budget en contenu canadien, je vais être obligé à
 6     ce moment-là, pour maintenir un niveau de
 7     profitabilité, d'augmenter mon investissement en
 8     contenu américain, ce qui aurait un effet pervers
 9     extrêmement malheureux.
10  599                  Alors ce qu'on dit... et c'est pour
11     ça qu'il y a des normes qu'on amène qui peut-être, vues
12     de l'extérieur, peuvent avoir l'air banales, mais ce
13     sont des éléments d'incentive qui ont été mis sur la
14     table qui nous garde une certaine marge de manoeuvre,
15     parce que ça n'a l'air de rien de dire qu'on va
16     comptabiliser la promotion... qu'on ne comptabilisera
17     pas la promotion des émissions comme étant de la
18     publicité, mais pour nous, ce sont des petites façon,
19     comme ça, qui nous permettent d'avoir et de maintenir
20     une certaine marge de manoeuvre.
21  600                  Donc, dans le fond, nous, ce qu'on
22     dit, c'est qu'il y a un modèle économique qui
23     fonctionne relativement bien.  On a des objectifs qui
24     sont un peu plus ambitieux; alors assurons-nous comme
25     diffuseurs qu'on a une certaine flexibilité.
                          StenoTran

                             141

 1  601                  Nous sommes prêts à rencontrer votre
 2     rendez-vous du contenu canadien.  Dans le cas du
 3     français, on le fait déjà.  Mais pour s'assurer de le
 4     faire dans un marché qui est complètement cyclique, je
 5     pense qu'il est important qu'on se garde une certaine
 6     marge de manoeuvre et de ne pas nous amener dans des
 7     restrictions qui nous enlèveraient cette marge de
 8     manoeuvre et, comme je le disais, pourraient avoir un
 9     effet pervers.
10  602                  MR. McCABE:  If I may, in one sense,
11     to put it perhaps in another way, I guess we are
12     suggesting that we together here address not just the
13     regulatory system, but the broadcasting system and you
14     are the leaders in that system and if you can set the
15     context, set the focus, set the goals, you can make
16     that system better in a way that I don't think it can
17     do with the regulatory system alone.  I think that's
18     the tool you have in hand, but I think we are inviting
19     that we move above that and say:  Let this body, which
20     is the centre of expertise, the focus of the concern
21     with the broadcasting system in the government and in
22     the country, let this be the body that sets the tone,
23     the goal, and brings us all to that and, as one of its
24     tools, uses the regulatory system.
25  603                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  There has been a
                          StenoTran

                             142

 1     general consensus, I take it, in the last six months or
 2     so that the Commission would be wise to take into
 3     consideration multi-station groups or the status of
 4     certain stations by reference to who owns them or
 5     controls them in order to achieve better equity in the
 6     regulatory framework.  How would you propose that this
 7     goal be factored in in establishing the fulfilment of
 8     viewership goals by different participants?
 9  604                  MR. MILLER:  Madam Chair, I think we
10     have recognized that station group licensing has a
11     number of benefits, among them the administrative
12     efficiencies that go along with it, the opportunity for
13     a corporate group to come before you and present its
14     full corporate strategies in all its elements and also
15     the ability to ensure that flexibility is possible
16     among the different elements of a station group.
17  605                  Obviously, equity is also another
18     important area that the Commission is able perhaps to
19     achieve better among station groups.  We would expect
20     that station groups would come forward and obviously
21     would be presenting their plans at appropriate times
22     over this next period, but we do not believe that, de
23     facto, being a station group necessarily requires
24     incremental additional obligations.
25  606                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  My question was a
                          StenoTran

                             143

 1     lot more simple than that.  It was with regard to your
 2     viewership model.  How do you see factoring in the
 3     desire to recognize this?
 4  607                  MR. McCABE:  I think, Madam Chair,
 5     that, indeed, the emergence of these groups not only
 6     among the broadcasters, but also, for instance, among
 7     the producers, the emergence of these groups starts to
 8     create in fact the base upon which the kind of proposal
 9     we are making will, indeed, be much more workable
10     because you are working then in a sense not with, in
11     effect, so many individual pieces.  You have larger
12     corporations which have emerged in response to the
13     marketplace and you have responded creatively to their
14     proposals, you have bodies to work with who can in fact
15     move large dollars and move to large audiences to in
16     fact achieve the goals of the system.  I think it's
17     very much a plus in terms of trying to implement this
18     system.
19  608                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now, conversely,
20     you address in your submission how smaller, possibly
21     unprofitable stations would be treated in looking at
22     their requirements and that they not be subjected to
23     this type of commitment when they are unprofitable,
24     which brings up the question, of course -- and we are
25     talking here about the $10 million revenue and under,
                          StenoTran

                             144

 1     which are looked at differently by the Commission at
 2     the moment with regard to its options.
 3  609                  It brings up the question, of course,
 4     of how one measures profitability and unprofitability
 5     and whether operating efficiencies in the multi-station
 6     groups should also be taken into consideration in
 7     establishing goals or objectives at the licensee level
 8     to reach the broader objectives of viewership.  If we
 9     do not have expectations of the smaller stations on the
10     basis of unprofitability, how would you measure that
11     and when would you decide that they now have to be
12     factored in because they have gone into the profitable
13     level, et cetera?
14  610                  MR. MILLER:  Can I treat your
15     question as a two-part question, which is one related
16     to smaller stations that are part of station groups
17     and, two, related to smaller stations that are not?  Is
18     that what -- okay.  First of all --
19  611                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes, but it's more
20     which stations are we not going to ask any commitments
21     from which we do now under $10 million and do you want
22     to base it on the level of profitability which would
23     then remove even the requirement of making a
24     commitment?
25                                                        1410
                          StenoTran

                             145

 1  612                  MR. MILLER:  First of all, we are not
 2     proposing anything other than the $10 million revenue
 3     test than you currently have because to try to measure
 4     profitability at a station level, particularly when a
 5     station is part of a corporate group --
 6  613                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes, but you did
 7     use the word "profitable".  So, then, the answer is,
 8     you don't mean "profitable", you mean "revenues".
 9  614                  MR. MILLER:  We think the $10 million
10     revenue level is --
11  615                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Because throughout
12     that section you use the word "profitable"; so all my
13     questions are unnecessary, then, about profitability
14     and how you measure it.
15  616                  MR. MILLER:  Yes.
16  617                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Continue, then, on
17     the other part.
18  618                  MR. MILLER:  First of all, the
19     Commission has recognized obviously that, for small
20     market stations, they have particular challenges and
21     that their greatest strength and greatest need is to
22     maintain their local audiences often through a strong
23     local programming and local news, and we obviously
24     consider that, whatever happens, that continues to have
25     to be the major priority of those stations and of the
                          StenoTran

                             146

 1     Commission.
 2  619                  Therefore, for independent small
 3     market stations of less than $10 million, we certainly
 4     believe that no obligations should be added to those
 5     stations other than the current expectations that the
 6     Commission has.  In fact, many of our members will
 7     argue, and we agree, that those expectations may be
 8     increasingly unrealistic given how difficult the market
 9     is now for these smaller broadcasters across the
10     country.
11  620                  With respect to smaller stations that
12     are part of station groups, we are very concerned that
13     they should automatically have their revenues rolled
14     into the larger corporate group and have larger
15     corporate obligations automatically applied.  Again, we
16     think the strength of the Commission's processes is the
17     ability to look at these matters on a case-by-case
18     basis.
19  621                  We think station group licensing and
20     the ability of station groups to include smaller market
21     stations as a bonus, it is a plus, it adds to the
22     system, no further obligations should be automatically
23     applied; but obviously we recognize that the
24     Commission, in looking at station groups, either in the
25     current process or in a future group licensing process,
                          StenoTran

                             147

 1     will look on a case-by-case basis at the contribution
 2     they can make, and we would expect that to continue.
 3  622                  MR. MACDONALD:  Madam Chair, sorry,
 4     but I had also mentioned that, as consolidation is
 5     taking place, there has been a public process of
 6     course, there have been a number of public benefits
 7     that have been put forward, considered commensurate
 8     with those transactions, and I think we have to be very
 9     careful, when we look at the economic environment that
10     we are going into, to presuppose that there is a whole
11     bunch of goals at the end of the consolidation rainbow,
12     as suggested by some of the interveners here.
13  623                  I think that throughout the process
14     the Commission has an opportunity to evaluate the
15     profitability of each individual station group as well
16     as the profitability of the industry.  What we are
17     saying right now is that we are very, very concerned
18     about the profitability of the industry and that it
19     should not be taken for granted that consolidation is
20     going to materially change that.  Consolidation might
21     at best allow us to maintain the profitability we have
22     now.
23  624                  So I think that one might look for
24     additional obligations if the profitability is
25     significantly changed, but it should not be done in
                          StenoTran

                             148

 1     anticipation of that happening.
 2  625                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  That's an excellent
 3     bridge, Mr. Macdonald, to the next area that I was
 4     going to look at, which was concentration and the
 5     benefits test, and you have just talked about the
 6     benefits that can flow from concentration.
 7  626                  In one part, I think at page 58 of
 8     your submission, you say that industry concentration
 9     supports Canadian programming, and at page 38 you say
10     that in a competitive marketplace the key drivers or
11     issues both for the industry and public policy makers
12     will be -- there are five parts to it, and the third
13     one is future growth through consolidation.
14  627                  You recommend the abolition of the
15     benefits test when this consolidation occurs by
16     reference to the fact that the Commission has abolished
17     the test for broadcasting distribution undertakings "to
18     encourage the development of a competitive distribution
19     sector" -- these are your words -- and you point out
20     that broadcasters have been operating in a competitive
21     environment for years and, therefore, the benefits test
22     is not necessary since you operate in a competitive
23     environment, and the reason why the Commission
24     abolished it for distribution undertakings is that it
25     was opening the field to competition.
                          StenoTran

                             149

 1  628                  Would you address for me how the
 2     abolishment of the test when there is consolidation
 3     matches your emphasis that consolidation and horizontal
 4     and vertical integration in the broadcasting industry
 5     will support Canadian programming?  Because I hear you
 6     say, "Don't ask more of multi-station groups just
 7     because they are multi-station groups and eliminate the
 8     benefits test."
 9  629                  The benefits test for the Commission
10     is with a view to finding an opportunity to get more
11     into the system.  How do you see, then, consolidation
12     as -- your words were that consolidation supports
13     Canadian programming.  If you don't want that the
14     benefits test for the concentration is allowed, or
15     restructuring, consolidation, and consolidated groups,
16     no more should be required from them, I guess you are
17     saying that from consolidation there will be benefits
18     flowing to the Canadian broadcasting system naturally. 
19     We don't have to have a benefits test or demand more of
20     those who have greater concentration.
21  630                  MR. McCABE:  Madam Chair, over the
22     years the benefits test evolved to be virtually a sort
23     of understood tax upon the transaction.  In other
24     words, no matter what the economic situation of the
25     acquirer or the acquiree, there seemed to be some
                          StenoTran

                             150

 1     understanding that this tax, 10 per cent, whatever,
 2     would apply.  Certainly in more recent years,
 3     particularly for instance in the area of radio, you
 4     have become more lenient on a transaction-by-
 5     transaction basis, recognizing the economic situation
 6     of particular licenses.
 7  631                  I guess what we are saying here is,
 8     you should not assume that there should be some
 9     automatic levy upon the transaction because there is an
10     assumption that that is the way to get the contribution
11     to the broadcasting system.  I think what we are saying
12     is that each situation should be reviewed on its merits
13     and you should be looking at the parties to the
14     transaction, taking a much more individual view of that
15     transaction and not so much saying what do we levy for
16     this as saying what is appropriate for the players in
17     this transaction?  Are there in fact economies of scale
18     that will emerge?  Are there in fact greater benefits?
19  632                  It is indeed true that in some cases
20     what these consolidations do is create the situation
21     where there is an opportunity to buy programming
22     because you become a national system, for the sake of
23     argument, which might not otherwise have been there or
24     might otherwise have been considerably more expensive. 
25     You may want to take that into account in your
                          StenoTran

                             151

 1     judgment.
 2  633                  But what we are essentially saying is
 3     that these are judgments you should be making on a
 4     case-by-case basis given the economics of the
 5     particular participants and, as Jim says, not
 6     anticipating that, just by virtue of this occurring,
 7     there is going to be some great improvement in the
 8     business of the businesses involved.
 9  634                  I suppose the other question is basic
10     equity.  I mean, in a situation where you said, "We are
11     anticipating competition in the distribution business,
12     so let's take the benefits test off, it won't be
13     necessary", I guess we are pointing out that we have
14     had competition for a long time and we aren't just
15     anticipating it.
16  635                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I take it, then,
17     from your comment that the Commission should look at
18     the intangible benefits.  Are you foreclosing
19     altogether that the Commission would also request
20     tangible benefits in the form of the funds to script
21     and concept development or the type of contributions we
22     have had before?  Because I gathered from your response
23     that the Commission should look at whether this
24     restructuring us a good idea, and what I heard was more
25     what we referred to as intangible benefits.
                          StenoTran

                             152

 1  636                  MR. McCABE:  We have not ruled out --
 2  637                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Tangible benefits?
 3  638                  MR. McCABE:  -- tangible benefits. 
 4     What I have been saying is they should be tailored to
 5     the situation that is before you.  That's all.
 6  639                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  So you prefer,
 7     then, the old model of tailoring rather than the fixed
 8     radio percentage of 6 per cent, if the Commission were
 9     to retain a benefits test?
10  640                  MR. McCABE:  The short answer is
11     "yes", but, as the world has become more competitive,
12     the one in which we operate, we think it would be
13     inappropriate for you to, as I say, levy a particular
14     tax unless you have some particularly low level in
15     mind.
16  641                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you have any
17     recommendations?  It can't be a minus.
18  642                  MR. McCABE:  We are all short of
19     recommendations; we are all out of recommendations on
20     that subject.
21  643                  No, we don't have one because we are
22     not recommending that.  We are recommending that you
23     take these transactions in the marketplace as it exists
24     and make your judgment as to what is appropriate.  It
25     is the same judgment, I do believe, that you make with
                          StenoTran

                             153

 1     any licensee at a renewal.  The appropriate judgment
 2     that you have made is, is what this licensee is doing
 3     and promising and undertaking to do appropriate to
 4     their particular circumstances and having regard for
 5     others in the same circumstances and some measure of
 6     equity and so on.  That's the sort of judgment we think
 7     you should be making rather than some sort of automatic
 8     levy.
 9  644                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  If I were to lend
10     you my hat for ten minutes and you were looking at this
11     issue from the perspective of a regulator -- and I do
12     have a big head; it would fit -- do you think you would
13     be concerned about concentration of ownership in the
14     television industry?
15  645                  MR. McCABE:  It has always been in
16     this country -- I am fairly long in the tooth, so I
17     remember a lot about this country --
18  646                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  When did you get
19     that idea?
20  647                  MR. McCABE:  My friends.
21  648                  It has always been a concern in this
22     country, and over the years in the politics of this
23     country we have seen that concern rise and fall.
24  649                  I think that you have to be concerned
25     about it but I also believe that you have to in a sense
                          StenoTran

                             154

 1     listen to some of the things that were said by our
 2     consultants here, and that is, we now operate in a
 3     world where we must have the size to be able to compete
 4     internationally.  You saw that a third of the budget of
 5     Canadian programming comes from foreign sources; you
 6     saw that the cost of Canadian programming is not
 7     covered within our own markets.
 8  650                  I think at this time, yes, you will
 9     have to think about that, but you have to be thinking
10     about can we create the units that can operate, that
11     are big enough to in fact do the programming things we
12     want and succeed globally as well as domestically.
13  651                  MR. MACDONALD:  Can we also suggest
14     that we need a shift in thinking.  The test is no
15     longer the old test of concentration of ownership in
16     television, the test should be diversity of voices and
17     media.  In some instances, in fact in many instances,
18     allowing a level of consolidation of ownership actually
19     helps diversity, it allows you to keep stations open
20     that might not be as profitable otherwise, it allows
21     you to program very differently when you have different
22     outlets.  So it is a very different world.
23  652                  As Michael suggests, the
24     Environmental Scan posits a world that's much more
25     competitive, and we need the bigger units to compete. 
                          StenoTran

                             155

 1     We have recognized that in the broadcasting side, the
 2     production sectors also with recent transactions
 3     recognizing the same thing.  It is a global trend, and
 4     we can't forget about it, we can't ignore it, and we
 5     can't great Canada as an island that simply blocks that
 6     out.
 7  653                  So we suggest the Commission look at
 8     this a little differently, and as long as it can assure
 9     itself it has diversity of choices, diversity of
10     services, that's by far the most important objective.
11  654                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. McCabe, I can't
12     resist asking you if your teeth are longer since this
13     morning, because I can tell you my elevation hasn't
14     done anything for me, I am still five feet tall.
15  655                  MR. McCABE:  I just assumed being
16     long in the tooth helped me to bite better.
17  656                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Vertical
18     integration now.
19  657                  At page 38 of your submission, in
20     those five key drivers or issues in the competitive
21     marketplace, the second bullet at page 38 is that one
22     of the key issues is staying competitive through
23     vertical integration.  What is intended by "vertical
24     integration" here?
25  658                  MR. McCABE:  What we are suggesting
                          StenoTran

                             156

 1     is quite simply that we be free to integrate in ways
 2     that others are in the system.  I think it is
 3     appropriate that, for instance, you have licensed
 4     independent producers to be broadcasters, we see cable
 5     companies I think with legitimate ambitions to operate
 6     in the broadcasting area and in the programming area.
 7  659                  It seems to us that this is one of
 8     the ways that not only can we remain competitive but
 9     that we can in fact contribute to programming goals,
10     and it seems to us that restrictions on our entry
11     particularly into the program production area, whether
12     these restrictions be direct or indirect, are
13     counterproductive in terms of our competitiveness and
14     meeting the programming goals of the system.
15  660                  Daniel.
16  661                  M. LAMARRE:  Je pense qu'il est
17     extrêmement important, dans une audience où on parle de
18     l'avenir du contenu canadien, de s'assurer que tous les
19     leviers économiques de l'industrie soient mis à
20     contribution.  Je pense que, comme vient de le
21     mentionner Michael, il y a des producteurs qui sont
22     maintenant devenus également des diffuseurs parce que
23     j'imagine que leur situation économique leur permet
24     maintenant d'investir en diffusion, et je dis tant
25     mieux.  Du même souffle je dis qu'il serait tout à fait
                          StenoTran

                             157

 1     normal que les diffuseurs également... parce qu'il nous
 2     faut regarder un environnement qui est différent. 
 3     Lorsqu'on parle d'un environnement de contenu, on ne
 4     parle pas uniquement d'un marché domestique mais on
 5     parle d'un marché international.
 6  662                  Alors moi, je pense que nous nous
 7     regardons entre nous et souvent nous nous plaisons à
 8     nous faire peur l'un et l'autre en se disant que nous
 9     sommes trop gros.  La réalité, c'est que nous sommes
10     beaucoup trop petits et qu'il est important qu'au
11     Canada on puisse regrouper les forces des diffuseurs,
12     des producteurs si on veut continuer à avoir une
13     croissance et un intérêt sur les marchés
14     internationaux.
15  663                  Alors moi, je dis que non seulement
16     c'est sain pour les diffuseurs, mais c'est essentiel
17     pour l'ensemble de l'industrie qu'on puisse avoir des
18     entreprises plus fortes, mieux intégrées et qui ont des
19     ambitions internationales.
20  664                  LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Monsieur Lamarre,
21     dans le cas que vous mentionnez où il y a intégration
22     dans le sens que les producteurs ont des effectifs dans
23     des entreprises de programmation, on y a quand même mis
24     des mécanismes réglementaires pour tenter de minimiser
25     les problèmes qui pourraient surgir de cette
                          StenoTran

                             158

 1     intégration verticale.
 2  665                  Est-ce qu'à votre avis ces mesures
 3     sont nécessaires si on permettait une plus grande
 4     intégration verticale, au Canada anglais surtout, entre
 5     les radiodiffuseurs et les compagnies de production?
 6  666                  M. LAMARRE:  Je pense que, par les
 7     mécanismes de financement qui existent, les organismes
 8     de financement qui existent, il y a déjà des règles
 9     extrêmement strictes qui protègent les situations dont
10     vous parlez.
11  667                  Moi, je pense qu'il y a une situation
12     de fait et des principes économiques qui m'apparaissent
13     extrêmement contradictoires.  C'est que de la main
14     droite on souhaite la plus grande concurrence possible
15     et on dit souvent aux diffuseurs que ce sont les lois
16     du marché qui doivent opérer et on nous regarde aller
17     sur la piste de course et on nous souhaite bonne
18     chance.  Et, de l'autre main, lorsqu'on arrive pour
19     vouloir s'intégrer, lorsqu'on arrive pour vouloir
20     donner à notre formule un l'engin que ça prend pour
21     nous défendre, eh bien là on amène des règles où on
22     voudrait en même temps enlever les ailerons ou nous
23     amener des restrictions.
24  668                  Alors je vous fais simplement une
25     comparaison pour vous dire que je pense qu'il faut
                          StenoTran

                             159

 1     avoir un certain respect de l'équilibre des forces, et
 2     dans ce sens-là je pense qu'il y a des règles qui sont
 3     déjà en place.
 4  669                  Par ailleurs, si on veut une
 5     industrie qui soit concurrentielle sur un marché
 6     international, il faut nous laisser la chance d'être
 7     organisés et équipés pour concurrencer.
 8  670                  LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Monsieur Lamarre, en
 9     réponse à ma question est-ce qu'il devrait y avoir des
10     mécanismes pour protéger ou minimiser les problèmes,
11     vous indiquez qu'il y en a déjà, mais moi, j'aurais cru
12     que votre proposition exigerait que ces mécanismes-là
13     disparaissent, que ce sont exactement les mécanismes
14     que vous voulez voir disparaître.
15  671                  M. LAMARRE:  C'est ce que nous
16     souhaitons.  Je croyais que votre question était
17     d'amener des restrictions additionnelles au CRTC.
18  672                  LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui, exactement,
19     comme il y en a... parce que, si vous vous souvenez, la
20     préface était que, quand on a permis aux producteurs
21     d'avoir des licences de radiodiffusion, le Conseil lui-
22     même a établi des exigences.  Alors si les exigences
23     que vous voyez comme protection disparaissaient, il n'y
24     aurait rien du tout à ce moment-là, et ma question est: 
25     Est-ce que ce serait nécessaire que le Conseil ait des
                          StenoTran

                             160

 1     exigences qui ressembleraient ou qui seraient du même
 2     genre que celles qui ont été imposées aux producteurs
 3     qui ont des licences de radiodiffusion?
 4  673                  Monsieur Miller a bien hâte de
 5     répondre.
 6                                                        1430
 7  674                  M. MILLER:  Oui, si je peux
 8     ajouter -- two things.  I think it's important to put
 9     our proposals in context of the shifts in public policy
10     that have taken place in the last 10 to 15 years.
11  675                  The public policy approach or the
12     eighties was to treat industry sectors as separate and
13     to put up barriers.  In the nineties we have recognized
14     that is not a public policy that we can continue with
15     in order to maintain competition and healthy companies.
16  676                  The government's convergence policy
17     was perhaps the best example of that as the government
18     recognized the traditional boundaries between telephone
19     companies and cable companies had to be broken down to
20     foster strong competition and strong companies.
21  677                  What we are suggesting with respect
22     to our ambitions on production and distribution is an
23     extension of that philosophy, an extension of that
24     trend necessary to build strong, healthy media
25     companies that can compete at home and abroad.  With
                          StenoTran

                             161

 1     that is the need for safeguards.
 2  678                  We recognize there must be
 3     safeguards.  However, they have to be safeguards that
 4     don't effectively block the entry of broadcasters into
 5     those lines of business.  The safeguards that are in
 6     place today, the supposed safeguards, effectively
 7     prevent broadcasters from playing any role in
 8     production or distribution.  We are suggesting those
 9     safeguards change, still have some safeguards to make
10     sure there is fair competition, that independent
11     producers have a fair chunk of the market.
12  679                  What we are suggesting is they be
13     different safeguards.  We are not suggesting, to be
14     clear, that the CRTC impose those safeguards.  We are
15     mentioning this issue here as one of the issues that is
16     part of the broader context of what we believe is
17     necessary to be a more competitive industry and to
18     achieve our viewing goals.
19  680                  The safeguards that we would
20     anticipate would be safeguards that would be put in
21     place by government or, more appropriately, the funding
22     agencies such as telephone.  We would be happy to
23     explain those safeguards if you would like.
24  681                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  The Commission has
25     established safeguards for telephone.
                          StenoTran

                             162

 1  682                  MR. MILLER:  For telephone?  That is
 2     correct and we are not --
 3  683                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  And for vertical
 4     integration of producers and broadcasters.  Your answer
 5     is safeguards are needed, but the Commission shouldn't
 6     get into it.
 7  684                  MR. MILLER:  Our proposal is that
 8     safeguards be introduced at the funding level.  That is
 9     our proposal.  We also recognize that there might need
10     to be some rebalancing should the safeguards that we
11     are proposing be introduced to make the Commission's
12     safeguards in sync.
13  685                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  The safeguards that
14     the Commission would not impose.
15  686                  MR. MILLER:  The safeguards the
16     Commission currently has because the Commission has on
17     a licence by licence basis imposed certain safeguards.
18  687                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Since you admit
19     that safeguards are called for, what do you see the
20     problems to be safeguarded against?
21  688                  MR. MILLER:  First of all, I think
22     it's important that we deal with these two issues
23     separately, the issue of distribution and the issue of
24     production.  The issue of distribution --
25  689                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  You speak in terms
                          StenoTran

                             163

 1     of distribution in terms of airing, not distribution in
 2     the cable sense.
 3  690                  MR. MILLER:  No.  Thank you for that
 4     clarification.  We talk about distribution as the right
 5     of broadcasters to distribute programs particularly
 6     abroad, not just exhibit, but to distribute abroad.
 7  691                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I see what you
 8     mean.  Taking in the marketing of product into
 9     consideration.
10  692                  MR. MILLER:  Yes.
11  693                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
12  694                  MR. MILLER:  The main issue in terms
13     of distribution of programming is to make sure that
14     there is a fair competition, if you will, a fair market
15     for those rights and that broadcasters compete fairly
16     for the right to distribute.
17  695                  What we have proposed is that the
18     current rules the telephone uses in the case of feature
19     film be extended and refined in this situation so that
20     when a broadcaster licences a television program, they
21     separately have the opportunity to bid for the rights
22     to distribute it internationally.
23  696                  They would be separate.  The
24     agreements would be separate.  Telephone or possibly
25     some ombudsman would assure that it is fair and that it
                          StenoTran

                             164

 1     is a separate agreement.
 2  697                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Before we leave
 3     this area, I am quite curious about a comment you made
 4     at page 83 as follows in the second full paragraph.
 5  698                       "-- we need to revisit
 6                            government policy measures in
 7                            the context of tax credit rules
 8                            that discourage equity
 9                            investment by treating such
10                            investments as a 'grind down' on
11                            the amount of the tax credit
12                            provided to production
13                            companies."
14  699                  What does that mean?
15  700                  MR. MILLER:  If you will permit us to
16     deal with the first two issues and then get to that
17     because they are different issues.  I think it's
18     important that we don't confuse them.
19  701                  I have dealt with the distribution
20     issue.  The production issue is another separate issue. 
21     There the concern is if broadcasters act as producers,
22     they use their affiliated companies for all their
23     production needs.
24  702                  The way to deal with that is to
25     ensure there is some maximum threshold that
                          StenoTran

                             165

 1     broadcasters can use and that is the currently in place
 2     in a number of the funds.
 3  703                  I should ask my colleague, Rob
 4     Scarth, to add any important details to those specific
 5     areas before we deal with your third question.
 6  704                  MR. SCARTH:  No.  I think that covers
 7     the ground on those two, unless there are more
 8     specifics that you would like to move into.
 9  705                  With respect to your question on the
10     submission on page 83, the reference there is to the
11     current situation that we have with the federal and the
12     provincial tax credits.  Our understanding is that
13     equity investments, whether they are made by telefilm
14     or any other group, is considered, and I will get my
15     terminology incorrect here, assistance and therefore
16     not considered by the government as part of the budget
17     against which the tax credit is applied.
18  706                  In effect, it reduces the allowable
19     amount of the budget against which the tax credit
20     applies.  It has sort of, in our view, something of a
21     dampening effect on the private sector in terms of its
22     interest in making equity investments in production.
23  707                  Again, not an issue for the
24     Commission.  An issue for the government, for Heritage,
25     but that's where it has been discussed.
                          StenoTran

                             166

 1  708                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  So you see a major
 2     role at the government level regarding taxation and at
 3     the CTCPF and telefilm level in reducing barriers to
 4     distribution in the sense that we were talking about
 5     and production by broadcasters.
 6  709                  MR. SCARTH:  That's correct.
 7  710                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now, again, a
 8     question of clarification.  At page 19 of your main
 9     submission your state:
10  711                       "In terms of any increase in
11                            Canadian dramatic programming,
12                            every weekly half hour increase
13                            automatically translates into 40
14                            new original hours of demand for
15                            Canadian entertainment
16                            television each year across the
17                            private English television
18                            system."
19  712                  Can you explain to me what that
20     means?
21  713                  MR. McCABE:  It was a long time ago
22     that we wrote this.
23  714                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Forty hours sounds
24     very good, so I want to know what it means.  The
25     paragraph before it talks about increased demand from
                          StenoTran

                             167

 1     specialty TV sector, et cetera.  It is only at page 19.
 2  715                  MR. McCABE:  Yes, that's easy.  I
 3     have found the page.
 4  716                  Jim has suggested what is suggested
 5     here, if one looks across the system, if you add a half
 6     hour of dramatic programming in effect in each licensee
 7     across the system, the impact is that the demand is for
 8     40 original hours in terms of demand for programming.
 9  717                  I am trying to see if I understand
10     that either.  Maybe we should get back to you on that.
11  718                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.  I did read it
12     twice or three times like you did and it still wasn't
13     clear.  But let's not get hung up on that.  You can get
14     back to me if you think it's important.
15  719                  MR. McCABE:  Yes.
16  720                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Or if you are
17     worried that I will give it the weight it deserves if I
18     don't understand it.
19  721                  MR. SUAR:  If you want to consider it
20     this way.  There are three sort of broadcast networks
21     in a sense in English Canada.  Each one, let's say,
22     they are going to do a half hour a week for 26 weeks,
23     so you would have three networks times 26 shows, half
24     hour length, 78 shows, and they are repeated once, so
25     three networks, 26 half hours shows, works out to 40
                          StenoTran

                             168

 1     hours.
 2  722                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  That's how you get
 3     from one half to 40.
 4  723                  MR. SUAR:  That's correct.  If the
 5     entire system, all three networks.
 6  724                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.  Now, also on
 7     this same page, lower down, you talk about current
 8     funding sources and the growing level demand and the
 9     need for reallocation of CTCPF support to address the
10     increased demand from private sector television.  What
11     do you mean here by reallocation?
12  725                  MR. SCARTH:  Quite simply, what we
13     mean is, as I am sure you are aware, the current fund,
14     CTCPF, which is a $200 million funding initiative, half
15     of that money, a hundred million dollars, is allocated
16     specifically to projects destined for CBC and Radio
17     Canada.
18  726                  The reality of what we are dealing
19     with in these last couple of years is, frankly, most of
20     the demand is coming from the private sector side of
21     the business.  The reallocation that we have proposed
22     is one that we think should be driven by where the
23     audience is.
24  727                  When we look across the system,
25     English and French combined, our analysis tells us that
                          StenoTran

                             169

 1     CBC and Radio Canada together capture something under
 2     30 per cent of total viewing to the types of programs
 3     that the fund supports whereas all of the other private
 4     sector broadcasters combined account for the rest, 70
 5     per cent.
 6  728                  What we are dealing with is a
 7     situation where half of those moneys which are
 8     essential to realizing your Canadian program production
 9     ambitions is insufficient to meet those demands.  It
10     doesn't reflect the balance in terms of where the
11     audience actually is.
12  729                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
13  730                  Since we have referred to the CBC or
14     the public corporation, do you have any comments when
15     we talk about the limitations in vertical integration,
16     of limitations toward the more vertical integration and
17     concentration and so on, any comments to make about the
18     CBC's concept of constellations and how they should
19     operate and what value can be extracted from them to
20     reach our goals?
21  731                  MR. MILLER:  Two general comments. 
22     First of all, we believe the CBC by virtue of its
23     parliamentary appropriation has a different
24     contribution to make to the system than the private
25     sector.  Part of that is viewing, but part of it is in
                          StenoTran

                             170

 1     a lot of other areas.
 2  732                  We think obviously the CBC is best
 3     equipped to speak to you about that, but areas such as
 4     airing more experimental Canadian programming,
 5     developing talent, et cetera, are vital and --
 6  733                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Excuse me.
 7  734                  MR. MILLER:  I will come to your
 8     question.
 9  735                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I wanted you to
10     comment, if you wanted, because I would have thought it
11     would help your comments, your proposal as well, this
12     concept or approach of constellations in the context of
13     what we have just been discussing, concentration and
14     vertical integration and so on, not the role of the
15     CBC, simply the concept because of course they are
16     better -- well, not everybody believes that they are
17     best equipped to speak about what they should do, but
18     this approach, this concept.  It's a new word at a
19     minimum.
20  736                  MR. MILLER: I think my answer is
21     related to that.
22  737                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Sorry to interrupt.
23  738                  MR. MILLER:  Again, first of all, the
24     CBC is different and, therefore, the notion of a
25     constellation approach has to apply differently to the
                          StenoTran

                             171

 1     public broadcaster than to private broadcasters because
 2     of their different roles and imperatives.
 3  739                  Secondly, we think one of the vital
 4     elements missing is a certain level of transparency in
 5     terms of CBC's operations, where money is made, where
 6     it isn't made, where allocation costs go.  We think
 7     vital to any decision to any decision made in using the
 8     CBC terminology, increasing their constellation of
 9     services, is for CRTC to assure itself that each of
10     these services either are generating the profits that
11     CBC is suggesting they are or contributing to the
12     public interest in a way that they are intended so that
13     we are satisfied that the government's parliamentary
14     appropriation is effectively used.
15  740                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  We spoke earlier of
16     small market stations and the flexibility required. 
17     Would I be correct in summarizing your view on that as
18     there should be flexibility if they are not owned by a
19     multistation group and if they are owned by a
20     multistation group no more should be expected of the
21     group than would have been expected of the components
22     added together.
23  741                  MR. SCARTH:  The answer is yes, that
24     small market stations, and here we have defined them or
25     actually the Commission has defined them as stations of
                          StenoTran

                             172

 1     under $10 million in revenue, should be looked at
 2     differently than other types of licensees, irrespective
 3     of their link to a larger broadcast group.
 4  742                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Did I understand
 5     you, Mr. Miller, earlier saying that -- let me ask you
 6     the question.  If in a multistation group there is
 7     below $10 million revenues that we wouldn't take into
 8     consideration the fact that it's in a multistation
 9     group.  We would treat it like a singly owned one.
10  743                  MR. MILLER:  That's right.
11  744                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  So that you would
12     not factor in any operating efficiencies that may flow
13     from large ownership, which is normally what is the
14     philosophy behind let's get bigger because we will do
15     better and more.
16                                                        1450
17  745                  MR. SCARTH:  Again, you are right in
18     terms of the operating efficiencies.  They are there,
19     but I think the goal within small-market television is
20     really to try and sustain a level of local service that
21     is becoming more and more of a challenge to sustain. 
22     So, those efficiencies, to the extent that they are
23     there, go towards supporting that objective for those
24     broadcasters in those markets.  We think that kind of
25     an approach continues to be useful.
                          StenoTran

                             173

 1  746                  MR. McCABE:  There has, as you know,
 2     been considerable concern expressed about local
 3     broadcasting.  We are among those who are concerned
 4     about it.  I think that what we are trying to say is
 5     that one must treat these lower-revenue stations, these
 6     smaller-market stations in a particular way in
 7     consolidations.  In larger companies if we are to be
 8     able to maintain local service we are going to have to
 9     recognize how fragile these stations are at this time.
10  747                  It has to do with the way that the
11     industry is becoming, both in terms of on its revenue
12     side, but also on the production acquisition side, so
13     national and international.  If you choose to merely
14     treat a smaller station within a group in an
15     acquisition, for instance, as any other station, you do
16     and assume that it can just be added to group
17     objectives, group obligations, you do risk taking away
18     from that smaller station the resources as the group
19     tries to meet your obligations, you do risk taking away
20     that fragile economic base that they currently have.
21  748                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  In spending
22     requirements you advocate keeping spending
23     requirements.  Do you see any change necessary as to
24     whether it should be directed to all programming, or to
25     entertainment programming only, or the under-
                          StenoTran

                             174

 1     represented categories or can it depend on the role
 2     that one wants to play in achieving viewership goals? 
 3     In other words, do you foresee changes in the formula
 4     that we use now?
 5  749                  MR. MACDONALD:  Madam Chair, one of
 6     the things that we have talked about here is diversity
 7     and from our perspective it makes a lot of sense for
 8     those licensees that do have spending requirements that
 9     it be directed to all categories.
10  750                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  That it continue to
11     be directed to all categories?
12  751                  MR. MACDONALD:  Correct.  Although we
13     have suggested a third category, "C", which of course
14     is directed -- the proposal is directed specifically at
15     7, 8 and 9.  Peter might have some additional comments
16     here.
17  752                  MR. MILLER:  Yes.  I think the
18     important part of our suggestion is that we believe the
19     flexibility that the Commission has in A or B.  Our
20     speech said 94/48.  That was 95/48, be extended,
21     maintained and broadened to include this Option C,
22     which would be a percentage of revenue obligation to 7,
23     8 and 9, our entertainment programming.
24  753                  I think the important thing about our
25     proposal is that it recognizes that different corporate
                          StenoTran

                             175

 1     groups can achieve the Commission's objectives and
 2     their objectives in different ways and some are most
 3     comfortable with an overall expenditure requirement,
 4     particularly those that have a large local or in-house
 5     production component.  Others want to concentrate on
 6     underrepresented or entertainment programming, either
 7     through volume, by choosing hours, or through
 8     expenditures by being able to focus on perhaps a more
 9     limited number of quality programs.
10  754                  We think by allowing those choices
11     you best achieve the viewing objective and best achieve
12     the diversity objective by allowing corporate groups
13     and broadcasters to choose the options that most
14     reflect the nature of their services.
15  755                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  But Option C you
16     would not see having any relation to when you air this
17     programming.  It would be categories, if I recall?
18  756                  MR. MILLER:  That is correct.
19  757                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  And you would still
20     maintain the view that demanding certain hours in peak
21     time is not necessary for Option C licensees?
22  758                  MR. MILLER:  Again, I think to take
23     it back, we are suggesting that the basic --
24  759                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is the answer yes?
25  760                  MR. MILLER:  Well, the answer is
                          StenoTran

                             176

 1     never simply yes or no because again our model is a
 2     case-by-case approach and that's important.  We are not
 3     suggesting a one size fits all.  We are suggesting a
 4     regulatory framework -- a broad regulatory framework of
 5     A or B or C.
 6  761                  There will be circumstances where the
 7     Commission determines or corporate groups offer to do
 8     more.  That's the benefit of a competitive licensing
 9     process.  That's the benefit of having renewals and
10     transactions where groups come to you and present their
11     business plans and present how they are going to
12     contribute to the system.  You will decide on
13     conditions of licence precisely what are the conditions
14     of licence.
15  762                  But what we are suggesting as the
16     base model is your A or B plus -- or C.
17  763                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  And with the C then
18     your statement that there isn't -- that demanding a
19     certain exhibition in peak time is not necessary, the
20     Commission could at its discretion decide otherwise if
21     somebody -- in any case, and particularly if someone
22     chooses the Option C.
23  764                  MR. MILLER:  That's right.  If
24     someone comes with a business plan predicated on
25     daytime soap operas or shows after midnight that have a
                          StenoTran

                             177

 1     strong audience potential and they are strongly
 2     committed behind them, then that's a plus and the
 3     Commission should applaud that and support it, not
 4     force that broadcaster into a certain model of peak-
 5     time requirements.
 6  765                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  But you see the
 7     possibility that that would appear to be necessary to
 8     meet our goals should we retain your viewership model?
 9  766                  MR. MILLER:  We see the possibility
10     that in an individual case either a broadcaster would
11     choose and offer to concentrate on peak time or the
12     Commission could decide it was necessary, but what we
13     don't want is from the get go this assumption that
14     there is only one way to do it, 7 and 7 -- between 7/11
15     or any other option.  That's the fundamental difference
16     between our proposals and the others that you will hear
17     about.
18  767                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I have a few more
19     questions, but not many.  I thought perhaps we could
20     finish this and my colleagues might have a few
21     questions and then we would take a break and find out
22     from our legal counsel whether we got along too well
23     and he has questions for you, at the break.  So, please
24     you would come back after in case we have more
25     questions.
                          StenoTran

                             178

 1  768                  So, I will finish what I have, but it
 2     is not a lot, so that you don't get too discouraged.
 3  769                  Now, in promotion and advertising you
 4     have made some suggestions and I understand the
 5     principle of increasing promotion of Canadian programs
 6     towards meeting the goal of increased viewership.
 7  770                  I think at page 62 you arrive under
 8     the "Importance of Promotion" and you estimate that
 9     broadcasters devote right now the equivalent of
10     approximately $100 million in air time value and about
11     $7 million on third-party advertising, the last item
12     being equivalent to about one half of 1 per cent of
13     conventional TV advertising revenues.  How did you
14     arrive at these estimates?
15  771                  MR. SCARTH:  These estimates were
16     derived from detailed discussions that we had with all
17     of our members.  It is really based on an evaluation of
18     the air time in terms of the on air promotion
19     component.  The harder figure of $7 million, of course,
20     is based on actual expenditures on third-party
21     advertising, TV listings, billboards, radio ads, et
22     cetera.
23  772                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  If I recall, you
24     advocate that that should be acceptable towards meeting
25     your spending requirements?
                          StenoTran

                             179

 1  773                  MR. SCARTH:  What we are suggesting
 2     is that promotion is an absolutely essential ingredient
 3     to our viewing strategy towards meeting viewing goals,
 4     that what you have here is a description of what the
 5     system currently does.
 6  774                  I think what you are hearing and will
 7     hear more from our members is how much more they have
 8     to be prepared to consider in order to successfully
 9     promote their programs, their Canadian programs to
10     generate audience success.
11  775                  So, one of the proposals that we have
12     put forward is to create an incentive that actually
13     stimulates more direct spending in this particular
14     area.
15  776                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Are you looking
16     here at out-of-pocket expenses or air time as well?
17  777                  MR. SCARTH:  No.  Out-of-pocket
18     expenses.
19  778                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just out-of-pocket
20     expenses.
21  779                  So, you are saying this is what you
22     are doing now and it doesn't help towards meeting your
23     spending requirements?
24  780                  MR. SCARTH:  That's correct.
25  781                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  But you want it to
                          StenoTran

                             180

 1     go towards your spending requirements as an incentive
 2     to do more, which would reach your goal of your
 3     viewership goal.  So, would only the incremental
 4     expenses be considered towards your spending
 5     requirement or what you spend at the moment?
 6  782                  MR. SCARTH:  The way that we looked
 7     at it was to look at all of our spending in third-party
 8     advertising as a contribution to our Canadian program
 9     efforts.
10  783                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  So, unless there
11     was an increase in spending requirements, it would have
12     the effect of decreasing spending requirements because
13     now this amount is not calculated towards meeting
14     spending requirements and what you are saying is will
15     spend more, but all of it should go towards meeting our
16     spending requirements?
17  784                  MR. SCARTH:  The virtue of any
18     incentive is if it's designed properly it does
19     stimulate marketplace activity.  I think the Commission
20     has designed a number of incentives that have been
21     very, very successful in the system.
22  785                  So, we believe that creating an
23     incentive like this would deliver what we believe it
24     can deliver, which is increased focus, increased energy
25     and increased resources to the business of promoting
                          StenoTran

                             181

 1     Canadian programming.
 2  786                  MR. McCABE:  If I may add something
 3     to that.  One of the keys to the success of U.S.
 4     programming is the fact that they spend on promotion,
 5     on advertising.  The estimate out of the United States
 6     is that 5.5 per cent of the revenue of major
 7     broadcasting organizations is spent at external
 8     promotion.
 9  787                  We proceed, in my view, having been
10     around the marketing business for some time, that quite
11     naively to produce these programs and not assume that
12     an essential part of the budget of any program has got
13     to be the promotion that makes it -- that gets it out
14     to viewers and develops that viewership.
15  788                  So, we are suggesting that we really
16     modernize our view of how we look at promotion and,
17     indeed, what we are suggesting is that it is a normal
18     and essential part and I would suggest, especially
19     where public money is involved, that it should be a
20     required part of the budget of show, of a production,
21     so that we then are in a position to make that work on
22     our screens.
23  789                  So, in our proposal here we would be
24     spending the same amount of money or increased amounts
25     of money if that were the case, but some percentage of
                          StenoTran

                             182

 1     it would be going to promotion.
 2  790                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  The producers, as
 3     you know, have suggested that financial commitments to
 4     promotion should be a condition of licence for access
 5     to the licence fee and equity investment programs.  Do
 6     you have any comment?
 7  791                  MR. MILLER:  The producers have
 8     suggested a number of obligations should be imposed
 9     upon us and have come forward with very little that
10     they intend to do to contribute to the system.
11  792                  Underlying our proposals on promotion
12     is the notion that the Commission has traditionally
13     looked at our Canadian programming expenditures very
14     narrowly.  It has just allowed us to calculate
15     specifically what we pay to third parties or
16     specifically what we spend in-house to produce a
17     program.
18  793                  All the other things we have to do,
19     which are very much part of the business of
20     broadcasting, part of putting shows on the air, be it
21     promotion or our executive talent or our sales forces
22     is never counted.  Funny enough, all that kind of
23     support that independent producers require that are
24     part of their business very much is counted in what we
25     pay them and what gets counted as an eligible
                          StenoTran

                             183

 1     programming expense.
 2  794                  We think the answer going forward is
 3     not new obligations imposed on us, but a new approach
 4     to looking at the issue of Canadian programming.  We
 5     have talked about viewing.  We have talked about the
 6     fact that we believe the answer is not increased
 7     obligations, but about a partnership and more
 8     flexibility and more incentives, more diversity and we
 9     have also argued strongly for a recognition of business
10     realities.
11  795                  Everything we said in the
12     Environmental Scan and all of our evidence in terms of
13     our costs on Canadian programming point to the fact
14     that for this to remain a viable business and for
15     broadcasting in Canada to remain viable the answer
16     isn't more obligations on broadcasters.  The answer is
17     a different approach and so we reject, obviously these
18     simple suggestions that broadcasters should do more
19     here or more there or more anywhere else.
20  796                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  You do not advocate
21     the elimination of 12 minutes of advertising per hour,
22     but what you advocate is that there be more exclusions
23     to what fits in as advertising?
24  797                  MR. MILLER:  As we alluded to
25     earlier, this is a controversial issue among
                          StenoTran

                             184

 1     broadcasters.  There are different views among those
 2     that are larger players versus the smaller players.  It
 3     is fair to say that the smaller players feel that the
 4     limit is an appropriate measure that preserves a
 5     certain level of inventory going towards them.
 6  798                  The larger players feel that the
 7     limit prevents them from maximizing their revenues.
 8  799                  We at the CAB tried to find a
 9     consensus position and we achieved that with our
10     proposal that maintains the 12-hour limit, but excludes
11     from it various elements that really aren't properly
12     advertising.  So, we are proposing that promotions not
13     be counted as advertising that will allow broadcasters
14     to maximize their paid advertising inventory and make
15     sure that promotions and PSAs don't count.
16  800                  Incidentally, it would have the
17     benefit we believe in making the monitoring and
18     enforcement job of the CRTC so much easier.
19  801                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  You have also
20     advocated that some infomercials be counted as Canadian
21     content.  In your view, if the Commissioner were to
22     entertain this idea what kind of specific formula would
23     have to be developed to establish the Canadian type of
24     infomercial.
25  802                  MR. MILLER:  I will let my colleague
                          StenoTran

                             185

 1     comment on the details, but the basic philosophy here
 2     is that Canadian advertising content brings jobs.  It
 3     is part of the system.  The Commission has recognized
 4     it in allowing, for example, exempt services that just
 5     have infomercial programming.
 6  803                  We think the current system has a
 7     disincentive to produce infomercials and to have them
 8     aired on broadcasters.  So, what we are suggesting is
 9     simply count infomercials in the same way you count
10     other programming, it's either Canadian or it's not,
11     and we would essentially log it accordingly.
12  804                  MR. SCARTH:  The only thing to add to
13     that perhaps is the Commission took a fairly
14     conservative and cautious approach to the issue of
15     infomercials some four years ago when it introduced the
16     flexibility to permit infomercials in daytime and that
17     has been of some value to the industry.  I believe that
18     the industry generates something in the order of $12
19     million a year in infomercial revenue as a result of
20     that particular approach.
21  805                  So what we are looking at going
22     forward is how do we truly maximize the potential
23     marketplace in infomercials and, as my colleague
24     suggests, perhaps it is now time to look at Canadian
25     made infomercials as legitimate Canadian programs.
                          StenoTran

                             186

 1  806                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  And your view is
 2     that the certification process or the test that we use
 3     to determine whether a program is Canadian would be
 4     useable for an infomercial?
 5  807                  MR. SCARTH:  Well, subject to a more
 6     detailed review of that specific question, I would say
 7     yes.  The Commission in its rules with respect to how
 8     it defines Canadian content lays out for everyone all
 9     the key elements that make a program or make content
10     Canadian.  Certainly an infomercial, like any other
11     piece of production, would have to conform to that.
12                                                        1510
13  808                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  One of the issues
14     that the Commission has asked for submissions on is the
15     concern over the North Americanization of program
16     rights and certain proposals have been put forward to
17     meet that concern.  One of the ones that you have put
18     forward would be to restrict distribution undertakings
19     from carrying U.S. signals from a major market into a
20     smaller market.
21  809                  MR. SCARTH:  Our proposal is quite
22     simply to find a way to rationalize the distribution of
23     U.S. network signals across the country so that we can
24     maximize program substitution opportunities.  The
25     system that we have at present has a critical flaw and
                          StenoTran

                             187

 1     that critical flaw is unless a signal is sourced from
 2     the same time zone, the ability of the local
 3     broadcaster to protect its program rights, the rights
 4     that it purchases for its markets, is impaired.
 5  810                  So, what we are suggesting -- and we
 6     have sort of laid out a number of elements of our
 7     strategy in this in the Commission's SRDU proceeding,
 8     which is still underway with the Commission -- is quite
 9     simply to look at three criteria to determine what
10     would constitute a suitable U.S. network signal
11     delivered via satellite and provided to a terrestrial
12     distribution undertaking.  That is quite simply that it
13     come from the same time zone, that it come from a
14     larger market which, as you can imagine, will sort of
15     reduce the incentive to sell back into Canada and,
16     third, that all of the signals come from a single
17     metropolitan market, which again is another way of
18     maximizing program substitution opportunities.
19  811                  So, the intention here is to continue
20     to ensure that consumers and Canadians have access to
21     the U.S. network signals and all that we are
22     suggesting, really, is that the sourcing of those
23     signals be done in such a way that we achieve two
24     goals:  One, we maximize program substitution and, two,
25     we provide Canadians with the U.S. signals that they
                          StenoTran

                             188

 1     want and that they expect to see.
 2  812                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Your estimation is
 3     that $50 million of Canadian advertising is syphoned or
 4     is spent on U.S. border stations.  Are you of the view
 5     that if your proposal was retained, that entire $50
 6     million would be repatriated?
 7  813                  MR. SCARTH:  No, I don't believe we
 8     would repatriate the entire $50 million.  There will
 9     always be market situations such as KVOS in Bellingham,
10     for example, where you are not going to sort of
11     unsource that signal from the Vancouver marketplace
12     because it's available off air in that marketplace. 
13     But what the proposal would do is go a considerable way
14     to reducing the level of drain out of the Canadian
15     system.  But, no, we don't believe that it would stop
16     altogether the drain.
17  814                  MR. MILLER:  If I can add to that,
18     the most recent estimates are that simultaneous
19     substitution brings in $150 million a year in revenues
20     into the Canadian system.  That is a huge amount of
21     revenue and a huge part of the base we require to do
22     our Canadian programming.  In a competitive
23     distribution environment, that will get steadily eroded
24     unless we carefully set up a regime that ensures that
25     we maximize simultaneous substitution.  Otherwise, in
                          StenoTran

                             189

 1     five years that could easily have been eroded down to
 2     $100 million, which is $50 million that has vanished to
 3     border systems and out of the Canadian system.
 4  815                  So, we do urge the Commission to look
 5     seriously at this because we have in this country been
 6     very ingenious with our simultaneous substitution
 7     regime, but as we evolve into a more competitive
 8     distribution environment, unless we put these measures
 9     in place, that revenue source and the ability to
10     maintain Canada as a distinct rights market will be
11     seriously compromised.
12  816                  MR. MACDONALD:  This proposal has the
13     potential to add more than the $20-odd million that we
14     think can be repatriated from the $50 million in total
15     because as you are looking at new networks, the Warner
16     Brothers network, the UPN network, there are border
17     stations that potentially can bring those signals in as
18     well.  So, it's not just a matter of looking at ABC,
19     CBS, NBC and Fox, Fox being the latest, it's also
20     looking at the networks that are coming in behind.  So,
21     there is an ongoing benefit, as well as a current one,
22     if we can shift out some of the smaller stations like
23     Buffalo into Boston or New York.
24  817                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  With regard to the
25     North American rights problem, as it is perceived by
                          StenoTran

                             190

 1     some, that is U.S. services or foreign services, which
 2     usually means U.S. services in the context that they
 3     are aired in Canada or are distributed in Canada have
 4     not purchased separate Canadian rights, but have
 5     purchased North American rights and various proposals
 6     have been put forth for regulatory intervention. 
 7     Considering your scepticism about how much regulatory
 8     intervention there ought to be, do you think this is a
 9     problem that warrants intervention at this time?
10  818                  MR. MILLER:  Again I think it's
11     important that we start from a recognition that while
12     U.S. services are not regulated in Canada, they get
13     significant benefits from carriage in Canada.  They get
14     significant revenues in terms of subscriptions and they
15     even get advertising spillover benefits.  So, with that
16     privilege, with that benefit, we think there should be
17     some conditions of entry.  So, the proposals that
18     suggest that U.S. services should have the Canadian
19     rights point to that notion that as long as we have the
20     ability to control entry, some conditions should go
21     along with that entry.
22  819                  You also, no doubt, have noted that
23     we have been perhaps more aggressive than others in
24     suggesting that the Commission should require a direct
25     contribution from U.S. services as a privilege of entry
                          StenoTran

                             191

 1     and we have suggested a number of things in that area
 2     as well.
 3  820                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  But to answer the
 4     question of whether it's a serious problem at this
 5     time, do you see the setting of any regulatory scheme
 6     as a defensive measure as this gets worse?  My question
 7     was:  How does the CAB perceive the seriousness of the
 8     problem at this time?
 9  821                  MR. MILLER:  We think it's a serious
10     problem and it will be a problem that our specialty
11     board will address more fully when it appears.
12  822                  MR. MACDONALD:  But it's not clear
13     how a Canadian regulatory authority could really
14     enforce any U.S. service from not acquiring Canadian
15     rights.  In fact if we go back to some of the earlier
16     U.S. specialties, because of black-outs the Commission
17     asked if those services had Canadian rights and many of
18     them purchased at the time non-exclusive Canadian
19     rights, which meant that they were still available for
20     Canada.  But as Mr. Miller said, as the value of the
21     Canadian market increased, particularly companies like
22     A&E realized that they had significant viewership in
23     Canada and that was valuable to them in selling that
24     viewership to other advertising agencies and, as a
25     result, they have exclusive Canadian rights.
                          StenoTran

                             192

 1  823                  Now, our biggest concern has been if
 2     you look at the amount of programming that is now
 3     produced by the U.S. networks through their own
 4     production companies post-SYNFIN, the syndication
 5     rules, then it is quite conceivable that they could
 6     decide to retain the rights to those programs for North
 7     America.  NBC, ABC and CBS have virtually 100 per cent
 8     coverage of Canada and they could take that and sell it
 9     to multinationals in the United States.  So, that takes
10     us to its worst case conclusion, but to be very, very
11     clear, Canadian audiences are already being sold to
12     clients on a spill basis.
13  824                  MR. McCABE:  How one finally deals
14     with that in the particular situation we find ourselves
15     in in North America and given particular sensitivities
16     about trade relations with the United States is going
17     to be problematic, but I would suggest that one of the
18     ways is to make sure that we continue to have here a
19     broadcasting system that is strong enough to be able to
20     make it worth their while to continue to separate those
21     rights.  That, in part, would be the effect of the
22     proposals we are making about the strengthening of the
23     system.
24  825                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Some of my
25     colleagues will have questions for you, so we will take
                          StenoTran

                             193

 1     a break before I deliver you to them.
 2  826                  Let me ask you, though, to come back
 3     full circle to my initial remarks this morning, I
 4     referred to the Commission's favourite expression that
 5     we want more programs, better quality and increased
 6     profitability.  If we retained your proposals and, to
 7     be fair, take into account viewership levels, no
 8     imposition of exhibition in peak hours, your credit
 9     bonuses, et cetera, would you be more profitable?
10  827                  MR. McCABE:  Yes.  If I may, we
11     believe in Canadian programming as the key to our
12     future.  Our key problem is that it isn't working now
13     for us.  We are losing money at it.  It is working for
14     the producers and they are making money at it.  Our
15     plan, the plan we have suggested, taken in its
16     entirety, is designed to make it work not just for
17     them, but for us and for the whole system.  If we can
18     find our way to a framework that we have suggested, we
19     can do more and we can do better.
20  828                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  The second
21     component was better quality.  So, would it result in
22     better quality programming?
23  829                  MR. McCABE:  Yes, we believe that to
24     be the case and that's the aim.  When we are looking at
25     the entirety of the proposals we made, we are saying,
                          StenoTran

                             194

 1     "Let's see if we can't find a way to make programming
 2     that works in audience terms."  What that will
 3     inevitably mean for us, it is our strong belief, is
 4     better quality programming that Canadians will want to
 5     watch.
 6  830                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Would we have more
 7     programming hours?
 8  831                  MR. McCABE:  Not necessarily.
 9  832                  MR. MACDONALD:  But the system has
10     more programming hours as a result of the specialties
11     and that's a point that we want to keep coming back to,
12     because we have the tonnage on one side, we have the
13     investment on the other side and we want to focus on
14     the quality side and not necessarily the quantity side. 
15     The quantity that we want to focus in on is viewers.
16  833                  MR. CUTHBERTSON:  If I could just
17     jump in here, the context is basically --
18  834                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  I hope you are not
19     going to trigger that alarm again!
20  835                  MR. CUTHBERTSON:  You and I both,
21     Madam Chair.
22  836                  With the exception of Quebec,
23     basically, the sad fact is nobody is really watching
24     Canadian drama.  It doesn't rate.  If we are ever going
25     to get a Canadian message across, we have to produce
                          StenoTran

                             195

 1     programming that Canadians will watch.  Once there is a
 2     more equitable balance between foreign programming and
 3     Canadian programming, then we can perhaps deal a little
 4     bit -- maybe fine-tune more what quality means per se. 
 5     But moving to performance-based measures that have been
 6     suggested here I think is extremely courageous given
 7     the rather dismal performance of Canadian programming
 8     in the past.
 9  837                  To put it bluntly -- and I don't
10     think any of my colleagues on the broadcasting side
11     could say this -- the facts of the situation are that
12     from a financial standpoint, Canadian programming has
13     been a cost of doing business and I think that it's in
14     everyone's best interest to turn it into a business,
15     into a business that makes money, not just a costing
16     business, just keep throwing money at it and then you
17     can make your money on foreign stuff and everyone is
18     happy.  That doesn't work any more and coming into the
19     new reality, which is a very, very competitive
20     environment with tons of signals from all over the
21     world coming into Canada, if we are ever going to make
22     it work, we have to make Canadian programming pay for
23     itself.
24  838                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
25  839                  Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.  We
                          StenoTran

                             196

 1     will see you back here in 15 minutes.  We shouldn't be
 2     much longer and then we will proceed with the next one.
 3     --- Short recess at/Courte suspension à 1522
 4     --- Upon resuming at/Reprise à 1542
 5  840                  LÀ PRÉSIDANTE:  À l'ordre, s'il vous
 6     plaît.  Welcome back.
 7  841                  Commissioner McKendry has questions
 8     for you.
 9  842                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you,
10     Madam Chair.  I have a question about one of the
11     PricewaterhouseCoopers schedules, the one entitled
12     "Canadian Drama Not Economic".  The question I have is: 
13     Looking at English drama, what would be the impact on
14     that number of using incremental costs rather than
15     fully allocated costs?
16  843                  MR. SUART:  You mean just direct
17     costs in a sense?
18  844                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  What I mean
19     is the costs that would be incremental to producing
20     drama as opposed to fully allocated.  I assume "fully
21     allocated" means you have allocated some fixed costs to
22     drama.  What I am asking is:  What would the number
23     look like if you just used the incremental costs?
24  845                  MR. SUART:  The fully allocated costs
25     include the amounts that have been apportioned by the
                          StenoTran

                             197

 1     broadcasters in giving us the data for technical and
 2     other operational costs.  If you just did it on a
 3     direct cost basis, the CRTC style, the loss would still
 4     be about 28 per cent.  So, for example, for every
 5     dollar of advertising revenue on a direct cost basis,
 6     just paying for that English drama they lose 28 cents.
 7  846                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  So, that
 8     number would be 28 cents rather than $1.15.  Is that
 9     what you are telling me?
10  847                  MR. SUART:  It's 28 cents for a
11     direct cost, but if you allocate all the other costs in
12     that are relevant to the broadcaster, which should be
13     there probably, then it's more a fully allocated one
14     and, therefore, $1.15.
15  848                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  But the
16     answer to my question is 28 cents.
17  849                  MR. SUART:  I think so.
18  850                  MR. MILLER:  Commissioner McKendry,
19     this information in detailed form is found in a number
20     of pages in our submission.  This is actually precisely
21     the information that we filed slightly amended numbers
22     to today that counsel alluded to earlier.  So, rather
23     than taking you to that now, if you don't have it, I
24     can refer to page 15 in our submission that has now
25     been amended and pages 3 and 4 of the Environment Scan
                          StenoTran

                             198

 1     that have now been amended.  You will find that
 2     information there.
 3  851                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you,
 4     but again the number is 28 cents.
 5  852                  MR. MILLER:  Precisely.
 6  853                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you.
 7  854                  The other schedule that I had a
 8     question about was Internet competes with broadcasters. 
 9     My first question there is:  Is this data for North
10     America, the United States, Canada?
11  855                  MR. JACK:  No, we only had data for
12     the U.S.  So, this is U.S. data, third year of
13     operation in both television and the Internet.
14  856                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  And what is
15     the source of your data for the Internet?  If you don't
16     have it at hand, you can provide it to us later.
17  857                  MR. JACK:  I can get that for you,
18     sure.
19  858                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Is the point
20     of this schedule to show that the Internet has taken
21     away $907 million worth of advertising revenues from
22     TV?  I just want to make sure I understand the point
23     you are trying to make with this schedule.
24  859                  MR. JACK:  No, it wasn't the point,
25     although there certainly is a large portion of the
                          StenoTran

                             199

 1     sourcing from dominant media, which is television in
 2     the United States.  It happens to be the biggest
 3     advertising pie that they go after, but the point is
 4     that the Internet has to be considered now as a
 5     credible advertising medium and increasingly as
 6     advertisers migrate to that new medium, television will
 7     be in direct competition with the Internet.
 8  860                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  So, you see
 9     advertising on the -- I guess the point I am trying to
10     understand is do you see advertising on the Internet as
11     eroding the advertising that's available to television
12     broadcasters?
13  861                  MR. JACK:  There will certainly be
14     some erosion.  As new media come into play, as we have
15     seen with radio, then TV and now the Internet, there is
16     a layering effect where you get some new revenues
17     coming into the market and some substitution within the
18     existing advertising pie.  So, in the case of the
19     Internet coming in, it will certainly take away from
20     television because television is a dominant advertising
21     vehicle right now.  So, inevitably it will be hit and
22     it has been hit within that $900 million, but
23     increasingly on a go-forth basis they will be competing
24     head-to-head.
25  862                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Do you have
                          StenoTran

                             200

 1     any view about how much advertising will be lost to the
 2     television industry as a result of the emergence of the
 3     Internet?
 4  863                  MR. JACK:  To a large extent, it
 5     depends how quick the broadcasters are in actually
 6     using the Internet as a second window, using the
 7     branding and the exposure the Internet can provide, but
 8     some advertisers will want television and the Internet,
 9     with the Internet being the second window for the same
10     product, some of them will look at it in terms of a
11     holistic approach of billboards, television, Internet
12     as one buy and others will just want the Internet
13     because some of those demographics will only be on the
14     Internet.
15  864                  MR. MILLER:  Commissioner McKendry,
16     if I could just add to that, Internet advertising has
17     two very significant impacts.  First of all, it is a
18     direct competitor, an increasing competitor and, as
19     this chart shows, the growth in Internet advertising is
20     quite appreciable.  But for Canada, the second impact
21     is more significant.  It bypasses the Canadian system. 
22     So, if you are a major advertiser, a Ford, a Proctor &
23     Gamble, you have the potential on the Internet to
24     completely bypass the Canadian system.
25                                                        1550
                          StenoTran

                             201

 1  865                  So the threat to Canadian
 2     broadcasters is very real.  Obviously, we are in the
 3     early days now, and broadcasters are looking at how
 4     they can take advantage of the Internet, but that
 5     threat is one that concerns us all very greatly.
 6  866                  MR. MACDONALD:  Commissioner
 7     McKendry, additionally, we have talked at length about
 8     digital and we have talked about convergence, and I
 9     think you are well aware that in the United States,
10     even though HDTV is in the thousand lines plus area,
11     what cable has been really advocating is more along the
12     lines of 750-odd lines.
13  867                  The point here is not to get into a
14     technical discussion but only to say that that puts the
15     new digital monitors right -- to be computer-compatible
16     monitors it really forces convergence at a much higher
17     rate, so that could be a major, major factor for us. 
18     As we move to digital and as we move to digital-ready
19     sets, those sets will not just be televisions, they
20     will be computer monitors.
21  868                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  This leads me
22     to my last question for you.  I forget who, but one of
23     you said earlier that broadcasters must develop new
24     services to pay for digital.  I was wondering if you
25     could tell me what those services are that you will
                          StenoTran

                             202

 1     develop to pay for digital.
 2  869                  MR. JACK:  For example, paging
 3     services, non-broadcasting services; it could be
 4     merchandising services.  In fact, that goes back to
 5     your Internet question -- right now, the U.S. network
 6     revenue sourcing is increasingly merchandising based. 
 7     As you are going into the digital world, there will be
 8     more possibilities because you will have two-way
 9     transactions or return line with the telephone.
10  870                  In terms of what Peter was talking
11     about, right now, for example, "Seinfeld" merchandising
12     is done through New York.  When it appears on Global,
13     Global does not get the merchandising revenues, it is
14     the U.S. producers, the U.S. studios that get that
15     merchandising revenue and the vertically-integrated
16     companies, the broadcasting studio companies, that get
17     that merchandising revenues.
18  871                  The challenge for the Canadian system
19     is to develop other revenue sources over and above
20     advertising.  The Internet would be one source for them
21     to do that.
22  872                  Just to answer your question, in the
23     Environmental Scan, on page III-7, the source is
24     Coopers & Lybrand, and it comes from the Internet
25     Advertising Bureau, IAB, in the United States.
                          StenoTran

                             203

 1  873                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you.
 2  874                  MR. MILLER:  Commissioner McKendry,
 3     can I just drop three broad categorizations?  The
 4     business opportunities we see are threefold.  Number
 5     one is in the data area because digital gives us more
 6     capability to provide data services, and that could
 7     lead us into non-traditional businesses such as paging
 8     or even telecommunications.  Second is in a sense
 9     enhanced programming or secondary programming streams. 
10     Obviously, digital television gives us the potential to
11     not only have HDTV but also second channels, which
12     could be more windows and possibly subscription
13     revenues.  And the third broad opportunity comes from
14     interactivity, both in terms of providing interactivity
15     in programming and downloading additional information,
16     but also in particular the value added to the
17     advertiser as you are able to focus very specifically
18     on the advertiser's interests and target much more
19     precisely particular advertising messages to particular
20     audiences and getting the feedback in terms of direct
21     marketing.
22  875                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  When you
23     refer to subscription services, are your members
24     contemplating broadcasting specialty services in a
25     digital format?
                          StenoTran

                             204

 1  876                  MR. MILLER:  I think we are
 2     contemplating all such possibilities. It is early days
 3     now, and obviously no final decisions have been made,
 4     but that is certainly a possibility.
 5  877                  MR. MACDONALD:  Commissioner
 6     McKendry, Peter is paid to be positive; I am the guy
 7     that's going to end up paying for this digital
 8     conversion, and I would like to say that, as positive
 9     as --
10  878                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are not paid at
11     all?
12  879                  MR. MACDONALD:  You work for your
13     stipend.
14  880                  I think that, from a broadcaster's
15     point of view, while those are all possible, they are
16     not fleshed out, they are not, in our view, clear cut
17     opportunities for digital in fact to become a business. 
18     So I am not suggesting that they are not there, because
19     they exist as a potential.  But $500 million is a lot
20     of boodle to come up with to fulfil digital in this
21     country, and I just want to make sure that we haven't
22     left you with the expression that it is going to be a
23     cake-walker, that we are moving into an instant
24     business.
25  881                  COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you.
                          StenoTran

                             205

 1  882                  Those are  my questions, Madam Chair.
 2  883                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
 3  884                  Commissioner Pennefather.
 4  885                  COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
 5  886                  I would just like to ask two
 6     questions.  The first is to clarify one point that I
 7     think underlines your whole approach.
 8  887                  I wondered if you could just explain
 9     for us how the approach, which is one that addresses
10     the entire broadcast system, which I think I have
11     understood you say also will be managed in terms of a
12     case-by-case basis.  Could you explain how the two will
13     work together?
14  888                  MR. McCABE:  Yes, certainly,
15     Commissioner Pennefather.
16  889                  As we have said, and as you have
17     gathered, the aim would be to have you establish a
18     system-wide goal with respect to Canadian programming,
19     and we would then expect that you would, as licensees
20     appear before you, use the tools that you have -- and
21     we have added some incentive tools as well in our
22     suggestion, in our proposal, and we have as well
23     suggested some measures of flexibility.
24  890                  You would use these tools in making
25     judgments about their renewal or about their
                          StenoTran

                             206

 1     acquisition of properties and so on, and the basis upon
 2     which you would use them is you asking them "How will
 3     your plans meet the viewing goals of the system?"
 4  891                  So we are merely providing a context
 5     here.  We are not taking away any of the tools that you
 6     have currently, in fact we are suggesting some others,
 7     but the plan would be specifically that, at the
 8     licensee level, you set their conditions of licence in
 9     the light of a business plan that was aimed at telling
10     you the part they would play in achieving the goals.
11  892                  COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  And those
12     are the goals set, as you described earlier, for
13     viewership --
14  893                  MR. McCABE:  Yes.
15  894                  COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  -- based
16     on discussion with the industry or the players?
17  895                  MR. McCABE:  Beginning with this
18     hearing certainly, and it may well be, if this
19     discussion can be joined, that you will get other views
20     on this and that you will be able to come out of it and
21     say, yes, it is reasonable for us to say we have to
22     rethink in a sense how we go forward to create a
23     stronger, better broadcasting system; let us get a
24     focus.  We heard from a number of people, a number of
25     interveners here, we believe these goals as we propose
                          StenoTran

                             207

 1     or as modified by others' interventions and your
 2     thinking -- you say these would provide a focus that we
 3     could all work toward in the system and we could begin
 4     the process.
 5  896                  COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you. 
 6     I am sure as we do one of the concerns we will have is,
 7     as we have heard today and are all concerned about, if
 8     in fact profitability is the goal and if that
 9     profitability at this point in time, as you have
10     explained, is not connected to Canadian programming, if
11     the drive for viewership leads to programming which is
12     profitable, that doesn't leave us with a very
13     optimistic future for Canadian programming, and the
14     diversity of programming within the system.
15  897                  Have you considered that component of
16     this debate?
17  898                  MR. McCABE:  Yes.  Our proposal
18     essentially says that we have to make Canadian
19     programming profitable, and a key part of that is
20     diversity in the marketplace.
21  899                  We aren't in fact saying that this is
22     kind of a way to get to profitability, we are saying it
23     is the way.  We really must focus on our Canadian
24     programming for the future of our businesses, because
25     the margins on our American programming are coming
                          StenoTran

                             208

 1     down, the competition that we are facing is increasing,
 2     and in that more competitive world where we are less
 3     able to cross-subsidize from American programming we
 4     are going to have to make the unique programming we
 5     have work for us.
 6  900                  So, in some senses, when I said
 7     earlier on that there was no other choice, we really
 8     believe that when we put this before you.  You know,
 9     when you take a look at the numbers, they are so stark
10     that you say to yourself, is this even possible?  But
11     we have to set out to try to do it.  And we are
12     suggesting that if you can be leaders in the system and
13     we can become drivers in the improvement of Canadian
14     programming so that it performs better, I think the
15     whole system can be pulled along and we can make better
16     programming that will perform better.
17  901                  COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
18  902                  L'autre question, c'est pour
19     M. Lamarre.
20  903                  Monsieur Lamarre, vous nous avez
21     décrit très, très clairement que l'objectif sur le côté
22     francophone n'est pas la part d'écoute mais surtout la
23     performance.  Est-ce que vous pouvez nous expliquer ou
24     même nous rassurer que cet objectif va inclure aussi la
25     performance de la programmation canadienne?
                          StenoTran

                             209

 1  904                  M. LAMARRE:  Comme je l'ai mentionné
 2     précédemment, pour nous, la programmation canadienne,
 3     c'est un objet de fierté; c'est ce qui a fait que les
 4     réseaux francophones ont réussi à se tailler une place
 5     enviable dans le marché; donc c'est quelque chose qu'on
 6     veut définitivement maintenir.
 7  905                  Comme je l'ai mentionné également --
 8     et c'est la partie un peu triste de notre bilan -- la
 9     grande partie de nos profits, malgré notre excellente
10     performance en contenu canadien, provient du contenu
11     américain.  Alors nous sommes conscients qu'il y a là
12     une menace pour nous de maintenir un équilibre entre le
13     contenu canadien et américain de façon à maintenir une
14     certaine profitabilité.
15  906                  Nous sommes par ailleurs confiants
16     que, si nous arrivons à maintenir les coûts du contenu
17     canadien à un niveau qui est acceptable, nous pourrons
18     relever ce défi, mais je pense que tout le monde
19     comprend dans l'industrie que tout ça est lié beaucoup
20     aux sources de financement qui sont présentement en
21     vigueur.
22  907                  Dans un scénario où les sources de
23     financement public ne seraient pas présentes à la
24     hauteur où c'est le cas présentement, ça deviendrait
25     définitivement une menace non seulement pour notre
                          StenoTran

                             210

 1     profitabilité mais également pour le contenu canadien
 2     francophone parce que, comme vous le savez, il n'y a à
 3     peu près pas de débouchés pour le contenu francophone à
 4     l'extérieur du pays.
 5  908                  CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Merci,
 6     Madame la Présidente.
 7  909                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
 8     Cardozo.
 9  910                  COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
10     Madam Chair.
11  911                  I have three quick questions and one
12     quick observation.
13  912                  I was quite interested in your
14     discussion about the viewer and the focus on the
15     viewer, but I kept thinking that I couldn't see your
16     juxtaposition between public policy objectives and
17     issues of viewership as being different or opposed to
18     each other.  To me, they ought to be the same thing. 
19     Public policy is about serving the public, and they
20     ought to be the same; and, if they are off from each
21     other, then I suppose we have to get them back.
22  913                  I see what the Commission has done
23     over a number of years, focusing on things like
24     expenditure requirements and peak hour viewing, as
25     being specifically aimed at driving up viewership.
                          StenoTran

                             211

 1  914                  That's just my observation.  Unless
 2     you are really itching to respond, I would rather move
 3     on to my question.
 4  915                  My first is with regard to
 5     descriptive video service.  At the last hearing on the
 6     third networks we had talked about that, and the
 7     Commission was interested in your following up on that.
 8  916                  I wonder if you can give us an update
 9     as to where things are with DVS.
10  917                  MR. MILLER:  Thank you, Commissioner
11     Cardozo.
12  918                  We have looked at this very seriously
13     and are in the process of finalizing a report on
14     feasibility which we would hope to file with the
15     Commission in the next short period.  Essentially, we
16     have tried to look at it in terms of its economic
17     implications and the availability of programming.
18  919                  Our conclusions are essentially
19     twofold.  The solution to greater access for blind
20     Canadians to television lies not simply in this one
21     measure but through various measures we can do to
22     improve the availability of our programming, and
23     secondly it lies not just with private broadcasters, it
24     is something that we believe the public broadcaster and
25     in particular the producers have to be very involved
                          StenoTran

                             212

 1     in, because after all it is the producers that have the
 2     copyright in the programming and, should we pursue
 3     this, their participation would be vital.
 4  920                  Secondly, in brief strokes, it has
 5     become apparent that the costs for this are enormous,
 6     in the order of 500 to 1,000 more the current costs for
 7     closed captioning.  The Commission is aware that we
 8     have met just very recently the closed captioning
 9     policy requiring us, particularly the larger stations,
10     to move towards 100 closed captioning in our news.
11  921                  The costs involved in moving towards
12     descriptive video appear at this stage, quite frankly,
13     somewhat insurmountable.  We notice that in the U.S.,
14     which is the only jurisdiction we are aware where there
15     is some descriptive video, the government Department of
16     Education has been a key funder of descriptive video. 
17     So that kind of public-private partnership we think
18     will be essential should we choose to proceed with this
19     in Canada.
20  922                  Moreover, also, as has been
21     discovered in the U.S., because of the technical
22     difficulties, digital television may offer the best
23     promise of being able to proceed with this.
24  923                  So these are our basic conclusions
25     that we would be outlining with you in more detail in
                          StenoTran

                             213

 1     our feasibility report that we will be filing hopefully
 2     within the next month or so.
 3  924                  COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks.
 4  925                  I wanted to ask you about cultural
 5     diversity as well.  You talked, in response to one of
 6     our questions in the Appendix, page 112 I believe it
 7     is, that the best way for Canadian television to
 8     reflect Canadian diversity is through new specialty
 9     services and niche programming.  What we were also
10     asking was whether mainstream conventional broadcasters
11     and specialties also have a role in reflecting the
12     diversity, responding to it, including it.
13  926                  MR. MILLER:  We believe diversity
14     must be achieved fundamentally at the system level,
15     that not all licensees can contribute or should be
16     required to contribute in the same way.
17  927                  That being said, we are well aware
18     that, particularly in some of the issues of serving
19     minority or ethnic Canadians, a number of broadcasters
20     have taken upon themselves to service that market and
21     to make it their business to do so, and we note that a
22     number of other interveners will be coming before you
23     to outline those initiatives.
24  928                  Again, our fundamental philosophy
25     that we have outlined today is that we believe
                          StenoTran

                             214

 1     diversity in all its aspects is best achieved by
 2     allowing proponents, whether they be TVNC or City-tv or
 3     Global or CTV, to come forward with their proposals and
 4     the services that they intend to provide and the kind
 5     of programming they intend to provide for the
 6     Commission to make its determinations based on that
 7     rather than the Commission suggesting that everyone
 8     must do everything.
 9  929                  COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  What you are
10     saying now is perhaps a bit more than was in the
11     written brief, and it struck me that in your written
12     brief you are basically saying diversity belongs to
13     those ethnic specialties and you are writing off a good
14     segment of viewers which supposedly we are all after in
15     this business.
16  930                  MR. MILLER:  I think that's a valid
17     point.  I think that, if we gave the impression that
18     diversity was the sole responsibility of specialty
19     services, that was incorrect.  Whether it be TVNC or
20     CFMT or City-tv or the Craigs out west, obviously there
21     is a number of broadcasters, both private and non-
22     profit, that have strong proposals in that area.
23  931                  COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  My last
24     question is opening up a whole large topic, so I would
25     ask you to keep it quite short -- another aspect of
                          StenoTran

                             215

 1     diversity, and that's regional/local diversity.  It has
 2     been touched on today, but I wonder if you could
 3     summarize for us your thoughts about the future of
 4     local programming.
 5  932                  MR. MILLER:  Thank you.  That is a
 6     very important question and one that we have spent some
 7     time on.
 8  933                  First of all, as we have outlined in
 9     our submissions, one of the unfortunate consequences of
10     the Commission establishing something as a priority is
11     that other things suffer, and I think one of the
12     unfortunate consequences of the emphasis on 7, 8 and 9
13     and entertainment programming is the broadcasters have
14     had to make choices and have, to some extent, put less
15     resources on local and regional programming,
16     essentially because they are not getting any credit for
17     it.  We think that is unfortunate.
18                                                        1610
19  934                  Again, that is one of the reasons why
20     we strongly urge the Commission not to adopt a one size
21     fits all approaches.  Unless you regulate everything,
22     which is impossible, you will lose some important
23     things.
24  935                  We think the best option is to allow
25     a climate where those that are in the local or regional
                          StenoTran

                             216

 1     business are an integral part of the system and come
 2     forward with their proposals.  There are some very
 3     strong regional broadcasting companies, obviously in
 4     English Canada the Craigs and the CHUM group.  There
 5     are some very significant local players, be it the
 6     Thunder Bay Broadcasting or Newfoundland Broadcasting
 7     or any number of the smaller market players.
 8  936                  It's vital that they have the
 9     flexibility to pursue their strategies which centre on
10     local and regional programming and that they not be
11     forced to do other things to take away from that.
12  937                  COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  That's all our
13     fault?  Is that our fault?
14  938                  MR. MILLER:  No.  It's, if you will,
15     the law of unintended consequences.
16  939                  COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I won't pursue
17     that.  That covers my questions.
18  940                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
19     Wilson.
20  941                  COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Hi, Mr. McCabe. 
21     I have just a couple of questions for you.
22  942                  One of the components of your
23     proposal is that the Commission give more flexibility
24     to broadcasters in terms of choosing the categories
25     that you wish to pursue in your spending and promotion.
                          StenoTran

                             217

 1  943                  MR. McCABE:  Yes.
 2  944                  COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Would you
 3     describe what you are proposing as sort of a hybrid
 4     conventional specialty?  I mean the specialties have
 5     been very successful.  They have taken away some of
 6     your viewership.
 7  945                  Are you sort of approaching a
 8     strategy or pursuing a strategy that makes each
 9     broadcaster specialized in that sense?
10  946                  MR. McCABE:  Well, I suppose in the
11     nature of a marketplace, especially one that becomes
12     increasingly fragmented, that everyone becomes a niche
13     player at some level.  I think there will always be a
14     substantial difference between, if you will, the
15     general service, conventional broadcasters and
16     specialties.
17  947                  What we are saying is in a
18     marketplace, if we are going to pursue the objective of
19     diversity then we should make sure that we don't, as
20     some interveners here suggest, adopt rules that are
21     going to drive everybody into the same kind of
22     programming.  Our hope here with the proposals we have
23     put forward for diversity, for flexibility, is to
24     ensure that the broadest spectrum of people in a
25     marketplace can be served, number one, and number two,
                          StenoTran

                             218

 1     that the conventional broadcasters who will continue to
 2     deliver, if you will, most of the audience to Canadian
 3     programming have an opportunity to go and find the
 4     audiences as they develop in the marketplace.
 5  948                  If they are caught in inflexible
 6     regulatory requirements which say you must do this kind
 7     of programming and you must do it in these particular
 8     hours, our ability to in effect compete in that
 9     marketplace will be severely limited.  The inevitable
10     result is yes, we will get services that look a lot
11     different one from another.  I think that's a benefit
12     to the system.  Yes.
13  949                  COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Another
14     question with respect to specialties.  You said with
15     the fragmentation of the market into specialty and pay
16     services that the margins on your U.S. programming are
17     dropping, yet broadcasters do own a significant number
18     of specialty channels.  Is this not sort of a rational
19     strategy to follow as a broadcaster, to try and develop
20     an alternate revenue stream or recoup some of those
21     margins that are flowing away from you?
22  950                  MR. McCABE:  Absolutely.  To be
23     clear, the reason for the margins on American
24     programming coming down isn't particularly and
25     shouldn't particularly be laid at the doors of the
                          StenoTran

                             219

 1     specialty services.
 2  951                  The problem that we face is that --
 3  952                  COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Where are they
 4     going?
 5  953                  MR. McCABE:  First of all, you have
 6     to recognize that as the number of U.S. networks grow,
 7     in other words purchasers of programming in the United
 8     States, the demand on that programming is driving the
 9     costs up.  We in Canada suffer from the same thing.
10  954                  By the same token, as there are more
11     potential purchasers in this country of programming in
12     this country as well, the costs get driven up.
13  955                  Following those higher prices you
14     pay, if you are then fragmented, not only by Canadian
15     specialty services but by U.S. specialty services and
16     by U.S. conventional services in the system, that pulls
17     those margins down.
18  956                  Yes, certainly, one of the strategies
19     that is I think essential to broadcasters going forward
20     is that ability to in effect move into specialty
21     services where they can in effect find economies and
22     efficiencies with their programming, where you can take
23     a programming that may begin on the specialty service
24     and move it on to your main service and so on.
25  957                  I would hope and we would expect that
                          StenoTran

                             220

 1     more of that will in fact occur.
 2  958                  MR. MACDONALD:  Commissioner Wilson,
 3     your point is a good one, but it needs to be I think
 4     recognized that there is still the cost of running the
 5     new specialty.  You have taken the audience and you
 6     have hived off a big chunk of it and moved it over to
 7     this other service.  Even though that service is owned
 8     by the broadcaster, there is still all of the
 9     infrastructure of running the service, so it's not just
10     a loss here and a gain over there.
11  959                  COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Yes, I
12     understand that.
13  960                  MR. MACDONALD:  I just wanted to make
14     sure that was clear.
15  961                  COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay.  I guess
16     the last question that I wanted to ask you about is
17     about web TV and television and the convergence of the
18     two.
19  962                  Recently I had the opportunity to
20     spend some time with the senior network engineer from
21     the U.S.  He has been in the business for 41 years.  He
22     is heavily involved in the conversion, the gear-up to
23     digital in the U.S.
24  963                  He said to me when I asked him about
25     web TV and television that in his view, the very nature
                          StenoTran

                             221

 1     of the activities involved in computing and television
 2     watching don't lend themselves to real convergence,
 3     that they are two discreet activities.  One is close up
 4     and interactive.  The other one is more distant and
 5     passive.  Marshall McLuhan talked about the same thing
 6     about television.
 7  964                  I am just wondering.  You have talked
 8     about the convergence of these two things and
 9     television becoming a monitor, but how many people are
10     going to sit across the room this far from their
11     monitor and try and work on things that they would
12     usually be this close to?
13  965                  I am just wondering if you have done
14     any analysis about how quickly you think this is going
15     to happen.  How realistic is it?
16  966                  MR. MILLER:  A very significant
17     question, one we have been thinking about and one
18     hopefully we will have the opportunity to talk to you
19     about more in the New Media hearing to follow.
20  967                  To lay the issue out in its simplest
21     forms, we think Internet TV could be as significant for
22     television broadcasters in the next millennium as cable
23     was for TV in the seventies and eighties.  We say that
24     because of a simple premise.
25  968                  On Internet TV, broadcasters are the
                          StenoTran

                             222

 1     portal to the Internet.  It's those channels that will
 2     lead viewers to the Internet, to the subscription
 3     revenues and to the advertising revenues.  In a sense,
 4     we maintain some control over the distribution,
 5     maintain control over that universe through leading our
 6     audiences there.  That's possible with Internet TV.
 7  969                  On a computer that's separate, the
 8     surfer will simply go to the millions and millions of
 9     websites that are out there, so through TV we have a
10     way of repatriating and maintaining those revenues and
11     opportunities, but through the computer we will likely
12     lose them.
13  970                  Our investment in Internet TV, the
14     cable industry's investment in Internet TV, the
15     Canadian producers and multimedia providers, that
16     investment is critical.  We think it will be a vital
17     policy objective over this next period.
18  971                  MR. MACDONALD:  It's not at all clear
19     yet which way it's going to go.  I don't think anybody
20     can absolutely substantially say this is it and this is
21     where it is going to go.  Let me give you an example of
22     something that could happen in a very hypothetical way.
23  972                  Let's say that "Seinfeld" was not
24     available on any television station, that the only
25     place you would be able to go wwcolumbia.com which
                          StenoTran

                             223

 1     happens to be the distributor and they happen to own
 2     the rights and it was available to you on your
 3     monitor/TV set on a pay-per-view basis or some other.
 4  973                  The point is that we are talking
 5     about the conventional system right now that says we
 6     distribute programs through television stations that
 7     hop along across the country or we distribute them
 8     directly by satellite.
 9  974                  The distributor could at one point
10     decide "You know what?  I'm going to use an alternative
11     distribution method.  I'm going to keep it all myself
12     and they're going to come to me because I've got the
13     better mousetrap".
14  975                  I agree with your earlier point about
15     the distance and the interactivity.  Certainly we have
16     got a lot of experience with interactivity in Canada,
17     but clearly if there was a product that was in
18     significant demand and if we moved into real time video
19     and the quality was not in issue, then one could
20     clearly see the Internet competing very, very directly
21     with television.
22  976                  To your earlier point and the one
23     that I tried to make, I don't think it's clear yet.  We
24     just simply look at it and say content for the New
25     Media usually follows from the previous media.  It's
                          StenoTran

                             224

 1     becoming more and more clear that the Internet as it
 2     evolves will draw upon television as its primary source
 3     much as television drew upon its predecessor, which was
 4     radio.
 5  977                  COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Thanks for the
 6     example because it helped me look at in a different way
 7     and in a way that this engineer hadn't sort of -- well,
 8     he has probably conceived of it but he didn't talk
 9     about it, so thanks very much.
10  978                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Legal counsel?
11  979                  MR. BLAIS:  I am very conscious that
12     it has been a long day and everyone is tired, so I will
13     try to very much focus my very few --
14  980                  THE CHAIRPERSON:  Sorry, you're not
15     going home yet.
16  981                  MR. BLAIS:  That wasn't my intent. 
17     It was to ask a few questions, but on the understanding
18     that staff might follow up with some more detailed
19     questions in writing that would be put on the public
20     file during the process of questions that would be best
21     asked in a written format and to save precious hearing
22     time.
23  982                  If would like to bring you first to
24     page 13 of your oral presentation this morning where
25     you talked about the 35 per cent and 10 per cent as
                          StenoTran

                             225

 1     objectives.  You write those in terms of English
 2     television system, the 10 per cent and the 35 per cent
 3     over the next five years.
 4  983                  To be quite clear, you include in
 5     English television not just private conventional, but
 6     you would also be looking at the public sector, the CBC
 7     and the specialty services.
 8  984                  MR. MILLER:  That is correct.
 9  985                  MR. BLAIS:  We were having a
10     discussion earlier this morning about the Broadcasting
11     Act.  It's quite clear that it's a single system, one
12     single system, but you yourselves have recognized that
13     it has to be divided between French and English.  In
14     fact, it's quite clear in your presentation.
15  986                  One could argue as well that in
16     between on the one hand the single system and the
17     individual licensees there are a number of ways to
18     slice and dice public, private, community, alternative,
19     mainstream, specialty, off-air.  You have obviously
20     come to the conclusion that the best way was to look at
21     it from the system perspective.
22  987                  I have two questions.  One, do you
23     agree with the way I am presenting the Broadcasting Act
24     as having various components and the broadcasting
25     objectives could be looked at for each one of those
                          StenoTran

                             226

 1     elements separately?  That's the first question.
 2  988                  The second question is you have
 3     obviously decided to look at it on a system basis, the
 4     English system basis, rather than subcomponents.  Why
 5     haven't you looked at or why have you dismissed the
 6     possibility of having your ship objectives for, let's
 7     say, the conventional over-the-air private broadcasters
 8     as distinct from this larger group of all English
 9     television stations?
10  989                  MR. MILLER:  I am going to preface
11     this by saying this may be one of those questions that
12     will have to have a written answer as well.
13  990                  First of all, it is our view that the
14     Broadcasting Act in all its objectives sets those
15     objectives for the system in its two components that
16     you have referred to, so it does not require each
17     licensee or each element of the system to contribute to
18     the objectives in the same way or, in fact, at all
19     necessarily.
20  991                  It is a system based approach.  We
21     take evidence from that just by a number of the key
22     provisions in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.  We
23     take from that also, to return to the questioning that
24     the Chair had at the beginning of the hearing, as
25     support for our proposal, that viewing be the key
                          StenoTran

                             227

 1     objective.
 2  992                  Obviously I don't need to take you,
 3     counsel, through the Broadcasting Act, but for the
 4     benefit of others, I think it's noteworthy to look at
 5     provisions like 3(1)(b) that talks about broadcasting
 6     as a public service essential to the maintenance and
 7     enhancement of national identity and cultural
 8     sovereignty.
 9  993                  Obviously to meet that objective, you
10     need Canadians watching it, not just the availability
11     of programs.  I could go through a number of other
12     objectives, be they enriching the cultural, political,
13     social and economic fabric or providing a balance of
14     entertainment and information, as Mr. Cardozo was
15     referring to, the drawing from local, regional,
16     national and international sources.
17  994                  Finally under section (s) being
18     responsive to the evolving demands of the public. 
19     Again, that one in particular strikes to us at the
20     chord of responding to the viewing demands of the
21     public.
22  995                  MR. BLAIS:  Maybe I will follow up
23     because we are talking about the Broadcasting Act and
24     we will come back to part (b) of my question.
25  996                  Part (a) is one whether the diversity
                          StenoTran

                             228

 1     has to come from, you know, sub-elements of the system
 2     as opposed to the system as a whole.  There have been
 3     other instances, particularly because over the year it
 4     is sometimes the only source for a large portion of
 5     Canadian, that there was a need to make sure that there
 6     was diversity, and even balance, and that's a link to
 7     election debates on issues of public concern, that one
 8     would have to find it at least at the level of
 9     sub-elements of the broader broadcasting system.
10  997                  MR. MILLER:  I take your point as the
11     Commission has to look at the broadcasting sometimes as
12     a whole nationally, but sometimes market by market,
13     depending on its concern and obviously when addressing
14     the concern of universal availability and making sure
15     that is an essential service, all Canadians have
16     access.
17  998                  That lends itself to the focus on
18     conventional over-the-air broadcasters.  Therefore, in
19     that instance the Commission has to satisfy itself that
20     the broadcasters available in a given market do give a
21     diverse range of programming.
22  999                  Obviously that has been achieved to
23     date and we would argue can be best achieved in the
24     future by allowing broadcasters to play different
25     roles.  A local broadcaster in a local market may
                          StenoTran

                             229

 1     emphasize local programming whereas other broadcasters
 2     that take feeds from broader corporate systems or
 3     networks may emphasize more entertainment programming.
 4  1000                 It's that balance that we think can
 5     be achieved at a market level, at a system level that
 6     leads us to the conclusion that not all broadcasters
 7     have to have all the same requirements.
 8  1001                 MR. BLAIS:  To come to my point (b),
 9     you have put in the same pool public and private
10     broadcasters.  As I understand it, what's driving your
11     philosophy of industry goals based on viewership is
12     that it makes good business sense from your
13     perspective.
14  1002                 One could argue that as far as the
15     public broadcasters, either the CBC or other public
16     broadcasters, that objective, the business or profit
17     motive, is not there, yet you have chosen arguably to
18     mix apples and oranges to come up with a single
19     objective for the entire system.
20  1003                 We have argued that viewing is the
21     key objective, but we recognize that there are other
22     objectives that may be more important for other
23     players.  We noticed that CBC also has argued that
24     viewing is a key objective and in fact in some ways has
25     been more aggressive than us in proposing for a 50 per
                          StenoTran

                             230

 1     cent increase in dealing to entertainment programming
 2     while we have argued for 33 per cent increase.
 3  1004                 That being said, we think one has to
 4     start from the level of a system goal.  That's the
 5     starting point and that's the point that we started
 6     with with both English language and French language
 7     goals.
 8  1005                 What we would hope is through the
 9     course of this hearing and through the course of what
10     may follow this hearing is that that overall national
11     goal then does get in a sense get broken down with
12     different parts of the system and different players in
13     the system indicating how they can contribute to it. 
14     We have no doubt that the CBC will indicate how they
15     can contribute to this goal and how they can contribute
16     to other goals that are critical to being a public
17     broadcaster.
18                                                        1630
19  1006                 MR. BLAIS:  Are you suggesting that
20     the CBC is going to bring the average up?
21  1007                 MR. MILLER:  No.  I am suggesting the
22     CBC as a primary purveyor of Canadian programming in
23     the broadcasting system could obviously -- has an
24     interest and a capability to contribute very
25     significantly to a viewing goal to Canadian
                          StenoTran

                             231

 1     programming.
 2  1008                 MR. BLAIS:  Getting back to this 10
 3     and 35 goal.  I assume, just to make perfectly clear, I
 4     assume that what you are saying is that that's what
 5     your objective would be, to the extent that you get all
 6     the other flexibility that you have listed below?
 7  1009                 MR. MILLER:  That's correct, but
 8     again we are talking about an objective.  Obviously,
 9     through the course of this hearing you will have the
10     opportunity to hear from others as to what they think
11     the right objective could be and this is our starting
12     point and we are looking forward to further discussion
13     as to what's realistic under what circumstances and
14     what's necessary to achieve it.
15  1010                 But you are certainly correct that
16     the elements of our plan are all geared to achieving
17     that objective.
18  1011                 MR. BLAIS:  In your policy framework
19     one of the first things you mention is stability.  I
20     can understand as businessmen and women you want to
21     know what is going down, sort of saying better the
22     devil you know than the devil you don't know.  I guess
23     I am the devil's advocate here.
24  1012                 The potential though of looking at it
25     completely differently, not like we have done for maybe
                          StenoTran

                             232

 1     the past 10, 15 years is that there may be a
 2     potentially destabilizing effect, not only on your
 3     membership, but as well on other elements in the
 4     broadcasting system.
 5  1013                 Between the need for flexibility and
 6     tinkering with the regulatory system and what seemed to
 7     be a key element of stability, for instance, you
 8     mentioned that you might want to revisit how we are
 9     doing with the viewership goals after three years. 
10     What if it is not working?  What if we have to change
11     course?  How would your membership feel about that?
12  1014                 MR. MILLER:  I guess at the outside
13     it goes without saying that our members would not have
14     proposed and allowed us to propose a viewing goal if
15     they thought it wasn't in their business interest.
16  1015                 But more to the point, we have set
17     these viewing goals as the very way to achieve our
18     business objectives and the objectives that we think
19     are most important for the broadcasting system -- that
20     is, the objective of Canadians watching Canadian
21     television.  We would expect that as you hear from
22     other corporate groups in this proceeding, other
23     intervenors and subsequent proceedings that were
24     alluded to at the beginning of this hearing, that the
25     opportunity to refine them and the opportunity to
                          StenoTran

                             233

 1     figure out how specific players can contribute those
 2     goals will become evident.
 3  1016                 Obviously, we are looking for a
 4     balanced approach.  We are suggesting business
 5     certainty, but we are also trying to be visionary,
 6     trying to come forward with a new approach going
 7     forward that doesn't just rely on your traditional
 8     regulatory tools, both because we think that's
 9     necessary in this new environment and because it makes
10     for good public policy.
11  1017                 Me BLAIS:  Monsieur Lamarre, je
12     réalise qu'il y a une spécificité au marché français,
13     et on en a parlé longuement ce matin.  Par contre on
14     peut dire qu'il y a quand même eu des acquis du côté
15     francophone et, dans le contexte d'avoir des buts pour
16     l'industrie au niveau des auditoires, pourrait-on
17     envisager au moins d'avoir des objectifs en tant que
18     plancher pour le système français?
19  1018                 M. LAMARRE:  Des objectifs planchers
20     en termes de minimum ou de maximum?
21  1019                 Me BLAIS;  Ça revient toujours à la
22     même chose, mais on sait qu'il y a un certain goût pour
23     l'histoire du côté du produit canadien du côté
24     français, et si on introduit de la flexibilité dans le
25     système réglementaire on pourrait voir un glissement. 
                          StenoTran

                             234

 1     Mais, quand même, on pourrait se demander s'il n'y
 2     aurait pas eu lieu d'avoir un plancher pour éviter un
 3     trop grand glissement en-deçà des performances
 4     historiques.
 5  1020                 M. LAMARRE:  Je pense que l'histoire,
 6     pour reprendre votre terme, est assez éloquente en ce
 7     qui a trait au réseau français, parce qu'on a toujours
 8     produit un niveau de contenu canadien qui est de loin
 9     au-delà des obligations.  Et on l'a fait parce que le
10     marché est gourmand de production de contenu canadien.
11  1021                 Alors je ne pense pas que plus de
12     flexibilité amènerait un glissement de la part des
13     diffuseurs francophones; je pense que l'histoire
14     démontre de façon extrêmement éloquente que même sans
15     des obligations nous avons toujours dépassé de façon
16     magistrale et spectaculaire ce qui nous était requis
17     par le CRTC parce que le marché est là et que notre
18     population et nos téléspectateurs sont friands de
19     contenu canadien.
20  1022                 Me BLAIS:  Donc n'y a-t-il pas lieu
21     quand même d'avoir un seuil de référence?
22  1023                 M. LAMARRE:  Nous pourrions avoir un
23     seuil de référence.  Mon point est le suivant; c'est
24     qu'il m'apparaît important, quand on a des intervenants
25     dans l'industrie qui performent extrêmement bien... ma
                          StenoTran

                             235

 1     compréhension du système, c'est qu'on met
 2     habituellement des obligations à des intervenants qui
 3     peut-être ne contribuent pas de façon significative. 
 4     Ce n'est pas le cas dans le Canada français.
 5  1024                 Alors, pour toutes sortes de raisons,
 6     si le CRTC jugeait important de mettre un plancher,
 7     j'imagine que ce sont des choses avec lesquelles on
 8     n'aurait pas le choix de vivre.  Mais nous, ce qu'on
 9     dit, notre position à ce moment-ci, c'est qu'il n'y a
10     vraiment pas de nécessité puisqu'on performe au-delà de
11     vos espérances.
12  1025                 Me BLAIS:  Merci.
13  1026                 Madame la Présidente, ce sont mes
14     questions, sujet aux questions écrites qui pourraient
15     suivre par la suite.
16  1027                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et voilà.
17  1028                 Thank you very much, ladies and
18     gentlemen.
19  1029                 We will take a short break, five
20     minutes, to change panels.  Unfortunately, we are
21     coming back.  We will change this panel.
22  1030                 We will sit until 6:00 p.m., to
23     resume at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
24     --- Short recess at/Courte suspension à 1640
25     --- Upon resuming at/Reprise à 1650
                          StenoTran

                             236

 1  1031                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Secretary,
 2     would you introduce the next party, please.
 3  1032                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
 4  1033                 The next presentation will be by the
 5     Canadian Film and Television Production Association.  I
 6     would invite Ms McDonald to introduce her colleagues.
 7     PRESENTATION/PRÉSENTATION
 8  1034                 MS McDONALD:  Good afternoon, Madam
 9     Chairperson, members of the Commission and Commission
10     staff.  My name is Elizabeth McDonald and I am the
11     President and CEO of the Canadian Film and Television
12     Production Association, the CFTPA.  We are a national
13     trade association that represents the interests of more
14     than 300 companies engaged in the production and
15     distribution of English language television programs
16     and feature films in all regions of Canada.
17  1035                 Before starting our opening remarks I
18     would like to introduce you to our panel.  To my
19     immediate right is Linda Schuyler, Chair of the Board
20     of the CFTPA, President of Epitome Pictures and
21     producer of "Riverdale," "Liberty Street" and the
22     DeGrassi programs.  To her immediate right is Michael
23     MacMillan, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Alliance
24     Atlantis Communications, which has produced "Traders,"
25     "Due South," "North of 60" and many other Canadian
                          StenoTran

                             237

 1     television programs and feature films.
 2  1036                 To my immediate left is Andy Thomson,
 3     President of Great North Communications of Edmonton,
 4     which produces and distributes television programs,
 5     including the "Nature Nut" and "Faces of History".  To
 6     his immediate left is Catherine Tait, President and
 7     Chief Operating Officer of Salter Street Films who
 8     produce "This Hour Has 22 Minutes," "Emily of New Moon"
 9     and "Lexx".
10  1037                 Behind Michael MacMillan is Ira Levy,
11     Executive Producer and Chairperson of Breakthrough
12     Entertainment, a producer of children's and documentary
13     programs, including "Dudley the Dragon" and "The Riot
14     at Christie Pitts".
15  1038                 Beside Ira are our technical experts,
16     Dr. Matthew Fraser, Professor of Broadcasting Policy
17     and Communications in Ryerson School of Radio &
18     Television Arts; Guy Mayson, Senior Vice-President of
19     the CFTPA, our legal counsel, Kathleen McNair of
20     Johnston and Buchan, and Steve Ord, Chair of the
21     CFTPA's Finance and Tax Committee and Senior Vice-
22     President of Atlantis Films.
23  1039                 We welcome this hearing, as it comes
24     at a critical time in the development of our cultural
25     industries.  Canadians have an incredible menu of non-
                          StenoTran

                             238

 1     Canadian programming available to them through cable,
 2     satellite and other broadcasting distributors and we
 3     can expect more.  There must be Canadian choices
 4     present in that menu.
 5  1040                 While the Commission has raised a
 6     large number of important issues in its Call for
 7     Comments, we believe with you that at the end of the
 8     day, it is all about programming, and more specifically
 9     Canadian programming.  It is truly time to get the
10     picture right.
11  1041                 We come to this hearing looking for
12     workable solutions to the key problem that all
13     participants have identified -- attracting English-
14     Canadian viewers to Canadian programs in greater
15     numbers, perhaps to even approach the enviable record
16     of success for domestic programs that we see with our
17     colleagues in French Canada.
18  1042                 We believe the answer is quite
19     simple.  We must reclaim prime time for Canadian
20     entertainment programming.  American programming
21     dominates the peak prime-time schedules of most
22     Canadian broadcasters.  Currently, private conventional
23     broadcasters devote about 22 hours per week between 7
24     and 11 p.m. to entertainment programming -- and
25     Canadian programs represent just under four hours per
                          StenoTran

                             239

 1     week.  This level is unacceptably low.  Canada is the
 2     only first world country that has given away its prime
 3     time.
 4  1043                 Canadians must be given the
 5     opportunity to watch Canadian entertainment,
 6     documentary and children's programming in peak viewing
 7     periods.
 8  1044                 The CFTPA has proposed as a solution
 9     the 10/10/10 plan, which we believe to be reasonable
10     and very effective in creating the critical mass of
11     high quality Canadian entertainment programming
12     necessary to reclaim prime time for Canadian
13     programming and Canadian viewers.
14  1045                 Sitting before you today is a group
15     that is representative of our industry.  We are small,
16     medium and large entrepreneurs from all regions of
17     Canada who make the entertainment, documentary and
18     children's programs that tell Canadian stories to
19     Canadians and increasingly to the world.
20  1046                 You have seen clips of a number of
21     well known Canadian programs -- we are the ones that
22     produce these programs.  It is Atlantis' "Traders,"
23     Alliance's "Due South," Salter Street's "This Hour Has
24     22 Minutes," Epitome's "Riverdale," Breakthrough's
25     "Dudley the Dragon" and the list can go on.  While we
                          StenoTran

                             240

 1     are pleased when our broadcast partners are successful
 2     with one of our programs and promote it to their
 3     audiences as theirs, we are the entrepreneurs and risk-
 4     takers who make and own these programs.
 5  1047                 We are encouraged by the progress
 6     shown by some broadcasters over the past year,
 7     including those that pitched in to help save some
 8     programs when there was a crunch at the CTCPF in April. 
 9     However, we feel that this was just a first good step -
10     - more must be done, and all players must participate
11     and it must happen every year.  We believe that
12     broadcasters with similar reach and impact must
13     contribute equitably and that equity should mean that
14     the lower contributor increase their role, rather than
15     the higher contributor decreasing theirs.
16  1048                 Linda.
17  1049                 MS SCHUYLER:  We are the content
18     providers and the risk-takers.  We are passionate about
19     the programs that we make and we want to regain our
20     prime time for Canadians.
21  1050                 The research and analysis that we,
22     and most others, filed with the Commission makes one
23     point very clearly.  English Canadians do not get to
24     view Canadian programming in sufficient numbers,
25     despite the great strides made in the professionalism
                          StenoTran

                             241

 1     and production values of those programs.  Market share
 2     has remained level for the past 10 years.  Whether the
 3     viewing data comes from BBM or Nielsen, the same
 4     conclusion is clear for English Canada.  Canadian
 5     programs make up only 33 per cent of overall viewing to
 6     television through the broadcast day and this drops to
 7     about 25 per cent in the peak viewing hours of 7 p.m.
 8     to 11 p.m.  Canadians deserve better.
 9  1051                 The success of our programs around
10     the world attests to the quality of programming that we
11     bring to the screen.  One fact stands out clearly, we
12     are the only first world country that does not own its
13     prime time.  When viewers in other countries have
14     access to their own productions in peak viewing times,
15     they watch them.  A look at the top 10 programs between
16     8 and 11 p.m. in the month of February 1998 shows that
17     in the U.K. all 10 were domestic; in France, eight of
18     the 10 were domestic; in Germany, 9 of 10 were domestic
19     and in Italy, all 10 were domestic.  Although Canada
20     claims to be the second-largest exporter of television
21     programs in the world, our programming is not really
22     featured in the prime-time schedules of Canadian
23     private conventional broadcasters.
24  1052                 A review of the availability of
25     Canadian entertainment programs in peak viewing hours
                          StenoTran

                             242

 1     is all too telling.  If we look at all the choices
 2     available to Canadians, whether foreign or Canadian,
 3     about 57 per cent of all the programming in prime time
 4     is entertainment.  Canadian entertainment programs make
 5     up only about 12 per cent of the programs broadcast in
 6     that time.
 7  1053                 In our view, to increase viewing to
 8     Canadian programs, three things must be present: 
 9     Enough programs broadcast in the times that people are
10     available to watch them; high production and creative
11     values to be attractive against stiff competition; and
12     extensive promotion on-screen and in other media.
13  1054                 Our 10/10/10 plan will create the
14     critical mass of quality Canadian programming to
15     reclaim our prime time.
16  1055                 Who does it apply to?
17  1056                 Stations with advertising revenues
18     higher than $10 million and all stations which are part
19     of a multi-ownership group.  These are the stations
20     that currently must choose between hours or spending as
21     a condition of licence -- the Commission's Options A
22     and B.  Most of these stations are part of multiple
23     station ownership groups and those that are not are
24     affiliated to one or other of the networks or have
25     buying arrangements with other large broadcasters. 
                          StenoTran

                             243

 1     Clearly, these stations can afford to support and
 2     present a higher level of the kinds of Canadian
 3     programming which are significantly underrepresented on
 4     our television screens.
 5  1057                 What does it require?
 6  1058                 Ten hours of first-run programs per
 7     week from the underrepresented program categories
 8     broadcast in peak-viewing hours and three hours of
 9     first-run children's programming in children's time. 
10     The 150 per cent bonus for high Canadian content
11     programs would continue, but we suggest that the bar be
12     raised beyond the current 10-point criterion.
13  1059                 We believe that broadcasters must be
14     required to open prime time shelf space to Canadian
15     entertainment programming in peak viewing periods.  We
16     consider 10 hours to be a reasonable goal which will
17     mean that 50 per cent of the entertainment programs in
18     prime time will be Canadian.  The three hours of
19     children's programs will ensure that our broadcasters
20     meet the minimum level of children's programs required
21     of U.S. broadcasters.
22  1060                 To ensure that the product is
23     available, we have suggested a gradual ramp-up of the
24     hours requirements.
25  1061                 Andy.
                          StenoTran

                             244

 1  1062                 MR. THOMSON:  Thank you, Linda.
 2  1063                 How will it be financed?
 3  1064                 We propose that broadcasters be
 4     required to spend 10 per cent of their previous year's
 5     revenues on underrepresented programming.  This
 6     represents a significant increase from the less than 4
 7     per cent that they spend on these programs now. 
 8     English-Canadian broadcasters will still spend a lower
 9     percentage of their revenues on Canadian entertainment
10     programming than they currently do on foreign
11     entertainment programs.  And the 10 per cent will bring
12     them almost up to the level that their French-language
13     colleagues spent in 1997.
14  1065                 We have heard much about a funding
15     gap, and that because of it increased commitments for
16     Canadian programs should not be imposed on
17     broadcasters.  The fact is that from 1993 to 1997,
18     English private broadcasters' profit margins increased
19     from 12.7 per cent to 17.3 per cent, while their
20     spending on Canadian programs decreased from 30.4 per
21     cent to 26.6 per cent.  Looking at the decline in
22     broadcaster licence fees and spending on Canadian
23     programming, the funding gap seems to be a shortfall in
24     broadcaster commitment.
25  1066                 We estimate that the 10 per cent
                          StenoTran

                             245

 1     spending contribution will generate an additional $70
 2     million.  Moreover, if the broadcasters were to keep
 3     their traditional spending on other categories of
 4     Canadian programming at historical levels, the increase
 5     in spending would only require that a total of 33 per
 6     cent of their revenues be spent on Canadian programs.
 7  1067                 Our submission, and the supporting
 8     evidence from Dr. Fraser, demonstrates that
 9     broadcasters' licence fees as a portion of the budget
10     of Canadian programs have been declining over the past
11     few years.  We believe that it is time for broadcasters
12     to make a more significant investment in Canadian
13     programming.
14                                                        1655
15  1068                 Not all of the entertainment programs
16     will need to access either equity funding from Telefilm
17     or the top-up funding of the licence fee program.  Our
18     submission shows that the structure of financing of
19     Canadian productions has changed significantly.
20  1069                 The financing structure is summarized
21     on the screen and in your handouts.  On average,
22     contributions from producers and their distribution
23     companies make up almost 30 per cent of the financing
24     of CAVCO-certified projects and money we obtain from
25     foreign partners makes up another 30 per cent.  The
                          StenoTran

                             246

 1     remaining 40 per cent is split almost evenly between
 2     broadcasters and the funding agencies, both public and
 3     private.  So, while some might argue that the explosion
 4     in Canadian programming is a result of government
 5     programs, in fact this growth is based to a large
 6     degree on our own business expertise and our assumption
 7     of risk.
 8  1070                 Ira?
 9  1071                 MR. LEVY:  We believe that the
10     10/10/10 solution is very workable.  At the same time,
11     we remain open to other positive solutions.  However,
12     we do suggest the following by which other solutions
13     should be evaluated.  Do they result in a real
14     expansion of the shelf space for Canadian programs
15     while offering an incentive for those that are
16     identifiably Canadian?  Will they be put in place as
17     soon a possible?  Do they ensure that control is in
18     Canadian hands and that creators are in a position to
19     control their intellectual property?  Are they
20     flexible, appropriate and equitable?
21  1072                 We noted earlier that we are willing
22     to be full participants in this process.  We would like
23     to outline what our role is in the system.  It's the
24     independent producer who acquires the rights to books
25     or stories, hires writers to bring the script together
                          StenoTran

                             247

 1     and hires the key creative people.
 2  1073                 We arrange the financing by finding
 3     money within our own companies, private investors and
 4     through debt financing from banks of other lenders, we
 5     negotiate distribution advances with Canadian
 6     television distributors, we find Canadian or foreign
 7     co-producers, we find and negotiate with foreign
 8     broadcasters and distributors to arrange for pre-sales,
 9     licensing and distribution advance financing, we find
10     Canadian broadcasting partners and negotiate licensing
11     for both broadcast through the various windows and,
12     where necessary, negotiate with the funding agencies.
13  1074                 In addition, we develop and
14     administer the ongoing infrastructure of contracts,
15     copyrights and licensing agreements that support the
16     productions and help reimburse loan and equity holders. 
17     We are increasingly exporting our productions to assist
18     in the financing of new Canadian projects.  In short,
19     our business success or failure is based on us as
20     producers arranging 100 per cent of the financing of
21     the production and producing what we promised to our
22     customers on time and on budget.  If the broadcasters
23     provide the shelf space and fair licence fees, we will
24     take the risk and raise the necessary investment to
25     fill their schedules.
                          StenoTran

                             248

 1  1075                 Elizabeth?
 2  1076                 MS McDONALD:  We would now like to
 3     take a few minutes to comment on other issues.  First
 4     of all, intellectual property rights.  The CFTPA
 5     believes very strongly that the Commission must become
 6     more involved in protecting intellectual property
 7     rights.  In a world where programs may be transmitted
 8     in 1s and 0s, it's not videocassettes that we will
 9     sell, but rather the rights to exploit our programs for
10     specific purposes and for a specified time.  While the
11     common wisdom is that content is king, it is
12     increasingly clear that it is those that can control
13     content who will rule the kingdom.
14  1077                 Currently broadcasters are the
15     gatekeepers to shelf space for our product.  With the
16     privilege of holding a licence for a public frequency
17     comes the ability to choose what programs Canadians
18     will see and when they will see them.  It is precisely
19     because of this imbalance in power that the government
20     did not allow broadcasters access to the broadcast
21     fund.  The Commission has also recognized the
22     gatekeeping role that those who are both producers and
23     broadcasters could play when it imposed limitations on
24     self-dealing on producers who are involved in specialty
25     services.
                          StenoTran

                             249

 1  1078                 We are particularly concerned about
 2     the possibility of broadcasters using their gatekeeping
 3     power in Canada to unfairly extract various
 4     intellectual property rights from us.  Therefore, we
 5     believe that in addition to ensuring that non-
 6     affiliated independent productions have access to the
 7     prime time schedule of broadcasters, any additional
 8     intellectual rights above and beyond the broadcast
 9     licence must be subject to a separate negotiation
10     process.
11  1079                 Finally, in the area of rights, it is
12     vital that all of us, the producers, the broadcasters
13     and the Commission itself, are extremely sensitive to
14     the protection of Canada as a separate market for
15     rights.  Increasingly, Canadian producers are being
16     pressured by U.S. broadcasters to provide North
17     American rights.  This has two consequences.  First,
18     Canadian broadcasters and audiences may be denied
19     access to these programs except via a U.S. service. 
20     Secondly, the producer has to settle for a licence fee
21     that is lower than the separate Canadian and U.S.
22     licence fees combined.
23  1080                 Further, the repeal of the financial
24     interest and syndication rules in the United States
25     have resulted in some cases of the networks or studios
                          StenoTran

                             250

 1     refusing to offer a Canadian right for a program and
 2     instead reaching Canadian viewers from its own
 3     stations.  We recognize that there are hindrances to
 4     effective action in this area.  However, if we do not
 5     collectively find a way to keep Canada as a distinct
 6     rights market, Canadian producers, program
 7     distributors, broadcasters and eventually the viewers
 8     will suffer.
 9  1081                 A second issue is broadcaster
10     involvement in feature film production and
11     distribution.  In most countries around the world, the
12     conventional broadcasters play a critical role in
13     supporting national cinema.  For example, in England
14     Channel 4 and the BBC make up 16 per cent of the total
15     budgets of U.K. indigenous movies.  In France,
16     broadcasters make up 49 per cent of the financing of
17     feature films.
18  1082                 We have not suggested that private
19     conventional broadcasters be required to air Canadian
20     features, but have suggested that incentives be
21     introduced to encourage broadcasters to pay licence
22     fees for them.  We particularly believe that the CBC
23     must play a bigger role and have recommended that it be
24     required to provide an average of one additional hour
25     of long-form drama production per week with at least 50
                          StenoTran

                             251

 1     per cent of this being theatrically released films.
 2  1083                 We would be interested in discussing
 3     any means to provide incentives to private broadcasters
 4     to become more involved in broadcasting long-form drama
 5     as well.  One idea that we offer is to bonus any 10-
 6     point Canadian feature film with a 200 per cent credit. 
 7     And, finally, we would like to address the role of the
 8     public broadcaster.
 9  1084                 The CBC has been given access to a
10     large envelope of the money available at the Canadian
11     Television Fund or the CTF in both the equity program
12     and the licence top-up program.  This money is intended
13     to assist in its acquisition of independently produced
14     programs.  We are concerned that in some cases the CBC
15     does not always understand the independent in
16     independent producer and that it often asks some of our
17     members to cede rights well beyond broadcast rights to
18     get a licence fee.
19  1085                 We feel very strongly that the CBC
20     must re-orient its relationship with the production
21     sector and we feel that it should be put on notice for
22     its renewal that it should develop a code of practice
23     for relations with the independent production sector,
24     as did the BBC.  We have provided a more thorough
25     analysis of these issues in our brief and we intend to
                          StenoTran

                             252

 1     pursue this matter at the licence renewal hearing of
 2     the CBC.  We have also recommended that the CBC follow
 3     the BBC's lead and appoint a senior executive
 4     responsible for dealing with our sector.
 5  1086                 Linda?
 6  1087                 MS MacMILLAN:  We have raised a
 7     number of points with you today.  To recap briefly,
 8     Canada is the only first world country to give up its
 9     prime time schedules.  We have a workable plan, the
10     10/10/10 plan, that will create the critical mass of
11     Canadian programs that will help reassert our
12     sovereignty over our own prime time.  We are the
13     business people who make the programs and tell Canadian
14     stories to Canadians.  Canadians deserve to regain
15     their own prime time.
16  1088                 We thank you for your attention and
17     we are ready to reply to your questions.
18  1089                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon,
19     ladies and gentlemen.  There are many of you.  You are
20     not trying to intimidate me, are you?
21  1090                 We discussed with the CAB this
22     morning or today -- really this morning and this
23     afternoon -- a proposal to achieve the Commission's
24     often-stated objectives with regard to Canadian content
25     on TV and to which I referred to in my opening remarks
                          StenoTran

                             253

 1     and in my closing remarks, more programs, better
 2     quality and increased profitability.  The CAB's
 3     proposal is in part based on the view that success in
 4     meeting this objective should be measured by the
 5     viewership to Canadian content achieved in the system
 6     as a whole.  This would ensure, in the CAB's view, that
 7     there is increased flexibility for individual
 8     participants in the system in meeting stated viewership
 9     objectives.
10  1091                 The CAB, therefore, advocates the
11     maintenance of both spending and exhibition
12     requirements as regulatory tools, but opposes any
13     increase or any tightening of the rules currently
14     applied.  In fact the CAB proposes a certain degree of
15     relaxation; for example, the application of a 150 per
16     cent credit to all day parts, the re-definition of
17     advertising to include certain elements, and the
18     inclusion of equity investment as an eligible Canadian
19     expense.
20  1092                 You, on the other hand, argue that
21     success in meeting Canadian content objectives is
22     dependent largely on increased exhibition of Canadian
23     product in certain categories of programming and
24     increased spending on those categories.  Where the
25     broadcasters say, "We must produce and exhibit programs
                          StenoTran

                             254

 1     that Canadians want to watch", you appear to say,
 2     "Exhibit Canadian content programs when Canadians watch
 3     TV and on which enough money was spent and Canadians
 4     will watch them."
 5  1093                 I have no doubt, greatly simplified,
 6     about the respective positions of the two parties, but
 7     I would like your comments first on (a) the extent to
 8     which, in your view, there is a divergence in the basic
 9     approach of the CAB and yours when all is said and done
10     and (b) the main reasons why, in your view, to the
11     extent that is a divergence, increased expenditures and
12     what could be called increased tonnage in certain
13     categories of programming are more likely conducive to
14     an improvement in meeting our stated goals than having
15     a sharper focus on viewership levels.
16  1094                 I will then have some questions to
17     clarify and better understand particular areas of your
18     submission mainly as they relate to spending
19     requirements, including current licence fee levels,
20     programming including promotional programs, vertical
21     integration between the broadcasting and production
22     sectors and the rights issue.  So, if we go back to my
23     general question, the first part was I would like your
24     comments on the extent to which, in your view, the
25     CAB's basic approach and yours are really different at
                          StenoTran

                             255

 1     the end of the day and then the reasons why, in your
 2     view, your approach rather than theirs is more
 3     conducive to meeting the stated goals of having more
 4     product, better quality and increased profitability.
 5  1095                 MS McDONALD:  Thank you.  Linda
 6     Schuyler will begin to answer that question and
 7     address, first of all, the audience issues raised by
 8     the CAB.
 9  1096                 MS SCHUYLER:  Certainly we agree with
10     the CAB that we have to have audiences for our Canadian
11     shows.  As producers, we are the storytellers, we are
12     the people who have the stories, the legends, the myths
13     that we want to share with the Canadian public and we
14     want to do that through a viewership.  So, in terms of
15     wanting viewers, we could not agree with the CAB more. 
16     It's very simple for us.  If we are running a show and
17     we have viewers, we get renewed.  So, that's a big
18     measure of success for us.
19  1097                 Where we will disagree with the CAB
20     is this needs help to be implemented.  As we said in
21     our opening remarks, we do not yet have a critical mass
22     of Canadian programming in prime time and that is
23     because we are butting against the shelf space
24     availability.  We disagree with the numbers that some
25     of the research pointed out in terms of the number of
                          StenoTran

                             256

 1     people who are watching Canadian programs.
 2  1098                 From various studies we know, people
 3     are watching Canadian programs, there are not enough of
 4     them.  We do not have a critical mass and we do not
 5     have the diversity out there that we feel the Canadian
 6     audience needs.  So, our 10/10/10 solution has been
 7     carefully thought out in a way that we will be
 8     providing more hours to the Canadian public with money
 9     that we believe is available to be found and this will
10     increase our critical mass and with critical mass we
11     will increase viewers.
12  1099                 We are not looking for complete new
13     money, we are looking for incremental money, money that
14     is already existing in the system.  At this point it
15     exists at about four per cent.  We are asking for it to
16     go up to 10 per cent.  We believe very strongly that
17     this increased investment will generate new revenues
18     and, as you saw in our study, there has been a definite
19     decline in the broadcaster licence fees over the last
20     few recent years and yet even with that definite
21     decline in licence fees we have been able to maintain
22     our audiences.  So, we feel very strongly that we have
23     a workable plan that can help achieve the CAB objective
24     of more audience.
25  1100                 MS McDONALD:  As we understand the
                          StenoTran

                             257

 1     CAB strategy, what we understand is that they have
 2     recommended the retention of all the current
 3     broadcaster incentives.  Last night when we were
 4     prepping, we started making a list of them.  That
 5     includes simulcasting, Bill C-58, priority carriage,
 6     market entry protection, access to public funds,
 7     including 33 per cent of the licence fee program, tax
 8     credits and a number of others, the ability to count
 9     the top-up of the licence fee program, the 150 per cent
10     bonus.  So, we understand that they want all those
11     incentives to stay in place and the introduction of a
12     new regime of regulatory flexibility.
13  1101                 However, we don't see any material
14     commitment to a clear strategy for meeting their own
15     stated audience-building target.  So, that's where we
16     see that there is a difference.  So, I think that we
17     see that they want to retain what has been favourable
18     in the system, seek more flexibility.  It was not clear
19     to us what their commitment will be in terms of their
20     audience strategy.
21  1102                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Would it be your
22     view that if there was a way to find a system based on
23     viewership that could be imposed or that we would get
24     some firm regulatory-driven commitments from the
25     industry to achieve those viewership goals, we would
                          StenoTran

                             258

 1     end up with the same and maybe close to 10/10/10
 2     because the broadcaster would be obliged then if the
 3     viewership goals had been properly established and
 4     there was some way of enforcing them, would be obliged
 5     to get viewership to various content categories by
 6     spending money on the program and airing them when
 7     people watch TV.  So, if we could establish this model,
 8     wouldn't we end up with the same result?
 9  1103                 MS McDONALD:  There is no doubt that
10     building Canadian audience is good for both the
11     producer and broadcaster, but I think Catherine Tait
12     would like to address your question.
13  1104                 MS TAIT:  I just want to step back
14     for a minute as a producer of three programs that are
15     top rated in this country, "This Hour Has 22 Minutes",
16     "Emily" and "Lexx", to say that we have some concerns
17     about some of the representations made this morning
18     about in fact the audience share of Canadian programs,
19     because I think it really is important to understand
20     when you compare audience share of "Traders" to a show
21     like, I think it was, "ER", you may be getting not a
22     complete picture.
23  1105                 So, what we did was just quickly look
24     at some data from January to March 1998 of this year
25     and we looked at audience share.  For Canadian shows,
                          StenoTran

                             259

 1     "Traders" was between 4 and 9, "Cold Squad" between 11
 2     and 15, "Due South" between 9 and 15, "Emily" was in
 3     the 7s, and for the U.S. shows that supposedly are so
 4     much more profitable, we saw "Touched by an Angel" was
 5     between 11 and 19, "Chicago Hope" between 10 and 15,
 6     and, yes, "ER" was in the mid-20s, with the top at 38.
 7  1106                 So, I felt it was important here.  We
 8     feel it's very important to stress that when Canadian
 9     viewers get a chance to see high quality drama
10     programming and programming in the other under-
11     represented categories in the hours that they watch
12     television, which is after supper, they do watch these
13     programs.
14                                                        1715
15  1107                 So, when we talk about a model that
16     is focused on viewership, let's focus on viewership,
17     let's focus on when Canadians are looking and watching
18     television.
19  1108                 MS McDONALD:  I think Linda Schuyler
20     would also like to address the issue of scheduling.
21  1109                 MS SCHUYLER:  The issue of viewers,
22     as we say very clearly, we very much support it as an
23     objective.  It is a very slippery slope, though, in
24     terms of how one can set up measurement for this.  And
25     I would like to talk a little bit from my personal
                          StenoTran

                             260

 1     experience.
 2  1110                 I am currently engaged in a very
 3     interesting experiment with the CBC where I am
 4     producing a soap opera for English-language Canada, and
 5     knowingly, together, as broadcaster and producer, we
 6     went in to schedule this show at the seven o'clock time
 7     slot, which is very unusual to run first run drama at
 8     seven o'clock.  And I know that the CAB proposal is
 9     that perhaps we should be opening up prime to have the
10     150 per cent bonus for the seven o'clock period.
11  1111                 What we have found very clearly at
12     the seven o'clock time slot for drama is there is less
13     than half the audience at seven then there is for after
14     eight o'clock.  You might say this is just based on
15     this particular show, but that's not true.  The CBC ran
16     an experiment where they then moved "Traders" that was
17     running in the later time slot into the seven o'clock
18     time slot, and its numbers were half and less at the
19     seven o'clock.
20  1112                 So, if we are going to play a numbers
21     game, we have to look very carefully at where the
22     broadcaster is scheduling, how the broadcaster is
23     promoting because the numbers are very much affected by
24     those two very key issues -- how we schedule and how we
25     promote.
                          StenoTran

                             261

 1  1113                 So it is a noble objective and one we
 2     endorse; it is one that has to be extremely carefully
 3     considered.
 4  1114                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So you believe in
 5     the model, you just don't think that it can be worked
 6     out in such a way as to ensure that we get the results
 7     that you want.
 8  1115                 MS SCHUYLER:  Well, it is not just
 9     the results that we want, it is the results that you
10     want, because if we are talking about the kind of
11     diversity that we as producers want to provide to the
12     Canadian public and you want to see there for the
13     Canadian public, then that diversity has to allow for
14     some degree of experimentation as well.  So we cannot
15     lay the burden on every show to have a certain
16     benchmark that it has to achieve.
17  1116                 I think one of the joys about
18     representing this association here is that we represent
19     over 300 different producers in this country and we
20     have very different voices.  That's the joy of having
21     an independent producing community, that's the joy of
22     not having producers do all the production; we can
23     bring this delightful diversity of voice to the
24     Canadian public.
25  1117                 What I think is important about our
                          StenoTran

                             262

 1     model is it addresses diversity as well.  There is lots
 2     of flexibility within our 10/10 plan for broadcasters
 3     to choose how they spend their money, how they schedule
 4     their time.  We are not asking for all the broadcasters
 5     to be the same; some can do long formats, some can do
 6     features -- sorry, some can do series.  We want to see
 7     a system that is extremely flexible.
 8  1118                 So our caution about just going with
 9     the ratings model is that there is going to be
10     artificial barriers put up that will not allow for
11     diversity of programming.  Perhaps if we have a few
12     years with our 10/10/10 model we might be able to then
13     look at ratings alone as a measure of success, but I am
14     very cautious and very doubtful about that, that
15     certainly we can't get there immediately.
16  1119                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You raise the issue
17     of flexibility and diversity, and diversity is
18     certainly central in the Broadcasting Act, sections of
19     which we have read into the record earlier.
20  1120                 I would like your comments on the
21     extent to which your proposal to require 10 hours a
22     week of first run programs in certain categories, with
23     "first run" defined as two plays, and all in peak time
24     from all broadcasters with revenues of $10 million or
25     more, will ensure diversity and flexibility.  I
                          StenoTran

                             263

 1     emphasize here that it would all be in peak time, it
 2     would all be from certain categories of programming
 3     that we defined, under-represented categories, and it
 4     would be required of all broadcasters with $10 million
 5     in revenues or more.
 6  1121                 So what does that do for flexibility
 7     and for diversity?
 8  1122                 MR. THOMSON:  We take some exception
 9     to the CAB's stated comment about one-size-fits-all
10     because we certainly don't intend to advocate --
11  1123                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I didn't say that.
12  1124                 MR. THOMSON:  No, I know you didn't,
13     but someone else did.
14  1125                 We think that broadcasters should be
15     able to wear all different sizes of clothes, that's not
16     a problem; we just think that some of those clothes
17     should be made in Canada.  That's our issue.
18  1126                 Our proposal is advocating increased
19     activity in the under-served category 7, 8 and 9.  We
20     have also proposed that documentaries be considered as
21     an under-served category and we have also addressed the
22     issue of children's programming.  So, as a result, we
23     are looking at five different categories of
24     programming; and, as Linda said earlier, each of those
25     categories break down into subdivisions.  In drama you
                          StenoTran

                             264

 1     have long form, you have miniseries, you have
 2     anthologies, you have continuing character series.  The
 3     same is true of documentary; you can have documentary
 4     features, you can have documentary specials, you can
 5     have documentary series.  As Linda also pointed out, we
 6     have more than 300 producers working in this country
 7     coming up with ideas for this kind of programming.
 8  1127                 I can't see how, by asking
 9     broadcasters to have 10 hours a week of Canadian
10     programming, that's going to detract from diversity.  I
11     think it would contribute to it.  It seems to me that,
12     if one looks at the schedules of the major private
13     broadcasters right now, in the kind of American
14     programming that they import and simulcast, there isn't
15     a whole lot of diversity there at all.
16  1128                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  As you know, we
17     have had a series of townhall meetings, listening to
18     people's concerns, which are part of the record over
19     and above the submissions that have been filed, and
20     there is a concern among the population that, if a
21     fairly significant ramp-up, 10 per cent of revenues --
22     it will not be a ramp-up from what I understand, you
23     would want an immediate regulation -- that the effect
24     of that may be a reduction in diversity.
25  1129                 Now, we haven't had too many people
                          StenoTran

                             265

 1     in the townhall meetings read us sections of the
 2     Broadcasting Act, but what people say is, in practical
 3     terms, where will local programming, regional
 4     programming, information programming go if too much is
 5     required on certain categories of programming from all
 6     broadcasters?  That's what I meant by the effect on
 7     diversity.
 8  1130                 I am not suggesting that the
 9     producers in producing 7, 8 and 9 and documentaries --
10     and, of course, children's programming is something
11     else because it will be in children's time, which I
12     assume won't necessarily be in peak time.  There will
13     be different programs of a category.
14  1131                 If you look at it from that
15     perspective, is there a legitimate concern that these
16     requirements would reduce flexibility and diversity by
17     making very pointed and immediate financial demands on
18     broadcasters in defined categories in defined hours?
19  1132                 MS McDONALD:  I am going to ask
20     Michael MacMillan to address that issue, but I think
21     before I continue, since we are talking about diversity
22     and we are talking about the Canadian broadcasting
23     system, I think probably this week was one of the best
24     demonstrations of when we have diversity because I
25     noticed on Monday evening, if I had been living in
                          StenoTran

                             266

 1     Rochester, I probably would have had no diversity,
 2     there only seemed to be one show on about the same
 3     people; at least in the Canadian broadcasting system we
 4     had some choices.
 5  1133                 Michael, I think you were going to
 6     take that question?
 7  1134                 MR. MacMILLAN:  Sure.
 8  1135                 First of all, I think that our focus
 9     on the so-called under-served categories 7, 8 and 9,
10     and we include documentaries in that as well, is a way
11     of broadening the choices available because the tapes
12     of shows that Andy was just referring to are in fact
13     quite a broad variety, are in fact exactly the sorts of
14     shows that Canadian broadcasters and others around the
15     world compete actively for to secure from American
16     suppliers.  It is exactly the range that Canadians want
17     to see in these categories.  And this focus on the
18     under-served categories need not come at the expense of
19     local programming.
20  1136                 I would hope that this is not a zero
21     sum game.  The 50 and 60 per cent Canadian content
22     levels as prescribed by the Commission need not be a
23     ceiling; in fact, we believe it should be a floor.  And
24     it is possible that the very important local reflection
25     need not be sacrificed by a focus in prime time on 7, 8
                          StenoTran

                             267

 1     and 9.  Indeed, a significant part of this local
 2     programming is not currently broadcast, certainly
 3     between the hours of 8:00 and 11:00.  Those hours are
 4     significantly given over to American simulcast
 5     programs.
 6  1137                 Secondly, we believe that
 7     broadcasters should continue to have requirements for
 8     local programming, as they currently do in their
 9     various promises of performance.  And not all local
10     reflection is in the news.  There are some aspects of
11     7, 8 and 9, including documentaries, music and variety
12     shows, that offer local reflection that are in the 7, 8
13     and 9 categories.
14  1138                 We agree with Baton that there should
15     be a concept of priority programming including the
16     under-represented categories and local programs, and we
17     are not sure that there has to be a choice made between
18     the two.  We note in Craig's submission statement that
19     local programming plus Canadian long form drama has
20     been very successful for them.
21  1139                 So, in short, it need not be a zero
22     sum game.
23  1140                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  This raises an
24     interesting question that we now have some broadcasters
25     who have opted for the expenditure requirement on all
                          StenoTran

                             268

 1     programming, and you say that their expectations and
 2     their licence and their spending requirements, et
 3     cetera, vis-à-vis local news, local information
 4     programming, ought not to be reduced by this, but you
 5     would add this 10 per cent in spending revenues and
 6     immediately, via regulation.
 7  1141                 How do you see the system being
 8     affected by having this 10/10 requirement and retaining
 9     the system that exists at the same time?  Are you
10     envisaging an incremental regulatory requirement over
11     and above what is there to ensure that there isn't any
12     shift away from some of the programming that citizens
13     can be concerned about in the system as concentration
14     and competition and fragmentation seem to endanger, in
15     the minds of many people -- that the conventional
16     system will not continue to afford to Canadians on
17     conventional stations this type of reflection.
18  1142                 MS SCHUYLER:  Very much.  We were
19     realistic about the implementation of our plan and we
20     suggested a ramp-up for the plan.  We actually called
21     for the immediate implementation of it, which I think
22     we have actually amended so that we would suggest that
23     it begins a year later; perhaps we were a little
24     overzealous in this suggestion.
25  1143                 However, we want it --
                          StenoTran

                             269

 1  1144                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are amending it
 2     now, you mean?
 3  1145                 MS SCHUYLER:  Yes, you are.
 4  1146                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I didn't
 5     misunderstand that you were going to reach your exhibit
 6     goals over four years, but immediately implement a $10
 7     million.
 8  1147                 MS SCHUYLER:  Yes.  The $10 million,
 9     we wanted to --
10  1148                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Right, and my
11     question, you understand, is --
12  1149                 MS SCHUYLER:  Actually, no, sorry.
13  1150                 MS McDONALD:  No.  There is a ramp-up
14     in both the hours and the expenditure.  I think what
15     Linda is referring to is that, based on our timing, we
16     had expected perhaps to begin this week, which is
17     perhaps unrealistic.
18  1151                 I think we note that we were probably
19     off by a year in the beginning, but we do see it as a
20     ramp-up both in terms of expenditures and in terms of
21     the hours.
22  1152                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I clearly saw the
23     ramp up in terms of the hours; I did not see a ramp up,
24     other than the length of time it takes to issue a
25     regulation, in the expenditure.
                          StenoTran

                             270

 1  1153                 MS McDONALD:  It looks like I was
 2     wrong.
 3  1154                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  As long as I
 4     right --
 5  1155                 MS McDONALD:  You are always right.
 6  1156                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  -- I don't care
 7     which one of you is wrong.
 8  1157                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So, now that we
 9     have had this conservation, maybe you can meet
10     Ms McDonald in what should be done, because the
11     conversation began with what may happen to the other
12     categories of programming, and that is a concern that
13     is expressed, if too much is required on the under-
14     represented categories and in peak time.
15  1158                 So I am asking you how we would
16     manage this.  There are broadcasters who already
17     have --
18  1159                 So your answer, Mr. MacMillan, is the
19     system as it exists would remain, so commitments and
20     expenditures -- commitments, expenditures follow,
21     obviously -- would continue and there would be this
22     additional requirement.
23  1160                 How do you see that happening without
24     creating some serious financial demands, some would
25     say?
                          StenoTran

                             271

 1  1161                 MS SCHUYLER:  Obviously, there is a
 2     question of where is the money going to come from to do
 3     this.  I think it is important, though, to remember
 4     that our 10 per cent is not all new money.  There is
 5     already existing money in the system that is paying for
 6     the programs that are out there.
 7  1162                 Then, also, this 10 per cent, if it
 8     is a ramp-up from about four hours to ten hours, there
 9     would be existing foreign programming that would be
10     being replaced.  So it would be the expenditures on
11     that foreign programming that would be expected to
12     contribute to the monies that would be found for our
13     10/10 solution.
14  1163                 In terms of the ramp-up, you are
15     quite right, we have addressed it just purely in number
16     of hours.  One of the things that we feel strongly
17     about as the producers is that this is a solution that
18     will very much achieve our goals.
19  1164                 We are realistic, though.  Our goal
20     is not to drive broadcasters into bankruptcy; that
21     doesn't serve us well at all.  We are looking for a
22     very realistic plan that we can regain our prime time. 
23     And if, in order for us to be flexible and to work with
24     the broadcasters, we have to take a second look at our
25     ramp-up to include ramp-up of expenditures, and I think
                          StenoTran

                             272

 1     that we are going to be willing to do that.
 2  1165                 At the end of the day, though, we
 3     feel that this is an absolutely achievable plan, that
 4     it will get to Canadian audiences what we should be
 5     delivering to them, the diversity that they need
 6     without having to lose those other important shows and
 7     programs that they know and love and need.
 8  1166                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now, you say some
 9     of the money won't necessarily be new money, it will be
10     there in the system, and the example you give is some
11     U.S. programming will be replaced by Canadian programs,
12     if I understood you well, the expenditures made on this
13     U.S. programming won't be made any more, and therefore
14     they can be made on Canadian programming.
15  1167                 Considering the information, that is
16     the financial information that is filed, isn't it now
17     obvious that some of the American programming that is
18     purchased at low cost is making a lot of money?  So it
19     won't be a tit for tat necessarily?
20  1168                 If you remove one hour of American
21     programming, you don't have to spend that $200,000 or
22     whatever it is; instead, it will be half an hour of
23     same category of programming, you are assuming, when
24     you say that it is not going to need new money, that
25     the same revenues could be --
                          StenoTran

                             273

 1  1169                 MR. THOMSON:  That's a good point. 
 2     We clearly understand that the Canadian programming
 3     that we are asking the broadcasters to put into their
 4     schedule will probably cost more than the comparable
 5     American programming.  That's why our proposal has two
 6     elements to it.  It is not just an increased number of
 7     Canadian content, it is also increased expenditure, and
 8     we think it is reasonable, looking at their profit
 9     levels --
10  1170                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am just making
11     the point that it is increasing expenditures and that
12     it is only partly an answer to say it is not
13     necessarily going to be new money, and the example is
14     some other money is spent on American programming
15     that's going to be put in Canadian because you have to
16     balance what are the expected revenues compared to the
17     cost.
18  1171                 MR. THOMSON:  Yes, some of the money
19     would be the money that was spent on American
20     programming which Canadian programming will replace. 
21     Other money would come to get the licence fees back up
22     where they used to be before the CTF came into affect,
23     Canadian broadcaster licence fees have dropped by 10
24     per cent in the last three years.  If we were to go
25     back up to where we were and only where we were, which
                          StenoTran

                             274

 1     is only 25 per cent or 24.5 per cent, that would
 2     generate quite a big chunk of that 10 per cent you were
 3     asking for.
 4  1172                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now, you have based
 5     it on exhibitions and spending in particular hours --
 6     and, of course, based on revenues for stations who make
 7     $10 million or more.
 8                                                        1735
 9  1173                 To achieve your aim, would it work if
10     what we had were the exhibition part?  Would that be a
11     sufficient incentive for increased expenditures if we
12     retain the exhibition requirement of your proposal?
13  1174                 MS McDONALD:  I think that we
14     reviewed what has occurred in our brief.  We reviewed
15     what has occurred with those stations that only had
16     expenditure requirements and those stations that only
17     had time requirements.  I think in the end we came to
18     the conclusion that the combined time and expenditure
19     option worked better.
20  1175                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But we haven't, as
21     far as I know, tested the type of exhibition
22     requirements that you are making.  I don't think
23     there's anything in the Canadian system to measure that
24     because we don't have it where anything near ten hours
25     of under-represented categories must be shown in peak
                          StenoTran

                             275

 1     viewing hours.
 2  1176                 MS McDONALD:  I think Linda would
 3     like to address some of that, but I also think it's
 4     important to understand that it depends on the kind of
 5     programming you do because we have left in bonusing
 6     incentives, so it depends on how you choose to do those
 7     ten hours, what in fact that would mean.  Linda?
 8  1177                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But you understand
 9     my question is there are various ways of achieving the
10     goals of more product, better quality and
11     profitability.  We have heard one which is establish
12     viewership levels, monitor that and with the other
13     items that are proposed, that will be incentive enough
14     to achieve the goals.
15  1178                 You are saying you need spending and
16     exhibition requirements.  I'm asking, have you
17     considered the strict number of hours exhibited at the
18     peak time that you propose without the spending
19     requirements?  Would that be incentive enough to get
20     the result and presumably provide more flexibility?
21  1179                 MS McDONALD:  I think we have
22     competing answers here.  We are going to go from east
23     to central Canada.
24  1180                 MS TAIT:  I think that the reason we
25     came up with the two elements to the plan was that
                          StenoTran

                             276

 1     evidence has indicated, and perhaps again not to use
 2     the word overzealous, but perhaps we are bruised, and
 3     given the evidence that shows that without dollars
 4     attached to these particular kinds of programming the
 5     performance levels will drop.
 6  1181                 We have seen the performance at 3.5
 7     per cent of revenues.  This is extremely discouraging
 8     to us as producers, so for us, we want to deliver the
 9     programming that's going to attract the audiences.  We
10     know we can do this, but we also need the budgets to be
11     able to produce high quality programming and that
12     requires some level of commitment of dollars.
13  1182                 If the Commission sees in its wisdom
14     that this can be accomplished without attaching a
15     dollar requirement to that, obviously we would look at
16     it again, but from our point of view, we felt that this
17     was going to provide Canadians with the insurance
18     policy that they would be getting high quality Canadian
19     programming in prime time.
20  1183                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  What I'm trying to
21     say, and correct me if I'm wrong, but we haven't
22     measured that because we haven't tried it.  You are
23     estimating from what is happening now what would occur
24     because we haven't had something yet imposed that every
25     station with revenues of $10 million or more, and if I
                          StenoTran

                             277

 1     recall every station, even under $10 million, if it's a
 2     multistation group defined quite narrowly would also be
 3     in that.  Am I correct?
 4  1184                 MS TAIT:  Yes.
 5  1185                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Any two or more
 6     conventional TV stations under common control reaching
 7     50 per cent of English viewers would also have the
 8     requirements of ten hours during prime time of specific
 9     categories of programming.  You don't have a test, as
10     far as I know.  You can estimate perhaps, but we
11     haven't tested what that would do without enforcing
12     spending requirements.
13  1186                 MS McDONALD:  The only, I guess, data
14     we have is absolutely data that we got from the
15     Commission.  If you note on page 39 of our June 30
16     filing, we look at what happened in terms of those
17     broadcasters who opted only for the spending options. 
18     In fact, in that we found that they opted to spend most
19     of their money on news.  Then during the time period
20     they are spending on 7, 8 and 9 dropped from 11 per
21     cent to 6 per cent of all Canadian program expenditures
22     while they increased their spending on news from 52 per
23     cent to 66 per cent.
24  1187                 Those who chose Option B, they opted
25     for more expensive lower point Canadian programs, so
                          StenoTran

                             278

 1     they maintained their spending at 14 per cent of all
 2     Canadian program expenditure over the period while
 3     increasing their hours.  They also increased their
 4     percentage of spending dedicated to news.
 5  1188                 I appreciate where you are going with
 6     it, but what we have is in the past that it hasn't
 7     happened to 7, 8 and 9 on Option A and Option B.  I
 8     think what we are trying to say is the money hasn't
 9     been there and the time hasn't been there.  We are
10     talking about ten hours spread over a seven day week.
11  1189                 You look at the amount of American
12     programming that's available, then you have to ask at
13     what point we are going to decide to reclaim prime time
14     for the Canadian broadcasting system and make it truly
15     available to Canadians.
16  1190                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  What we are looking
17     at today is how to improve those results and looking at
18     what are the tools, whether innovative, new, a
19     recasting of the old or whatever.  When you look at
20     those figures, the spending requirement was on all
21     programming, as far as I know, except for two stations
22     which had a combination of both.
23  1191                 You don't have figures that test what
24     happens if certain categories are required in high peak
25     hours without spending requirements.  It would be a new
                          StenoTran

                             279

 1     tool.
 2  1192                 You are suggesting two, spending
 3     requirements and hours increased in certain
 4     under-represented categories in certain peak times. 
 5     I'm asking is there also a way of looking at this by
 6     having one of these tools which is demand certain types
 7     of programming in certain hours and the incentive to
 8     spend on it because you can't afford not to have your
 9     audience in that hour may be enough and would be more
10     flexible.
11  1193                 Do you understand?  You can't say you
12     tested it and it doesn't work because we haven't.
13  1194                 MR. MacMILLAN:  I think you are
14     right.  There is no existing evidence of the dual
15     mechanisms working together or the single one.
16  1195                 Personally speaking, I think that
17     both the scheduling requirement and the spending
18     requirement working together is the method most likely
19     to succeed.  Personally, if there is only going to be
20     one, if it was either scheduling or spending, then for
21     sure I would go with the scheduling requirement because
22     it would logically follow that any intelligent
23     broadcaster, and every Canadian broadcaster fits in
24     that category, would obviously want to spend what was
25     required in order to gain the most audiences.
                          StenoTran

                             280

 1  1196                 That does stand to reason.  If there
 2     only was one, I would go with the scheduling, but I do
 3     think that belt and suspenders works the best.
 4  1197                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  For some of us.
 5  1198                 MR. MacMILLAN:  Even though there is
 6     no evidence that our plan will work, there's an old
 7     expression fish where the fish are.  By our proposals
 8     to focus in prime time and to focus in the underserved
 9     categories, in prime time is where people watch TV
10     mostly.  That's by far the best chance that we have got
11     of actually increasing viewership.
12  1199                 I took away from the CAB's
13     presentation this morning that we should abandon prime
14     time, it was too competitive.  They were saying there's
15     lots of other really good simulcasts of the shows that
16     are going to get the audience and that we shouldn't
17     waste our money trying to compete there.
18  1200                 If we want viewers, and we agree that
19     viewership should be the ultimate test, the really
20     difficult part is how you are going to measure it. 
21     Fish where the fish are and focus on prime time.
22  1201                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  With regard to
23     local and regional programming, some producers and some
24     provincial organizations propose that broadcasters
25     should nevertheless continue to make commitments and
                          StenoTran

                             281

 1     greater commitments to local and regional programming.
 2  1202                 What are your comments on how that
 3     should work for local stations, for networks?  I
 4     touched on that a bit earlier, but what are your views
 5     as to how this should be managed so that the
 6     combination of the expense requirement and the peak
 7     time requirement for certain categories does not impede
 8     the other?
 9  1203                 You seem to suggest that local
10     commitments would simply be continued and expected as
11     they are now.
12  1204                 MR. MacMILLAN:  In general, I would
13     suggest yes.  There may, of course, be circumstances
14     or, quite frankly, a detail of certain local
15     obligations that I am not sufficiently fluent with
16     where this would be inappropriate to maintain them
17     unchanged.
18  1205                 I recall at a number of hearings in
19     front of the Commission over the past four or five
20     years where we actively supported the
21     nationalization -- I don't mean in that sense, but the
22     going national, the creation of broadcast groups and we
23     have made terrific progress in this country of creating
24     national or quasi-national systems or groups or
25     networks.
                          StenoTran

                             282

 1  1206                 Part of the pitch at the time, part
 2     of the premise and certainly the promise, was that
 3     small markets needed to come in under or as part of
 4     larger broadcast groups that were national and
 5     quasi-national.  That way they could schedule
 6     nationally across the whole country or most of the
 7     country.
 8  1207                 They could attract national media
 9     attention in a way that wasn't possible before.  They
10     could achieve infrastructure savings.  They could
11     compete with the big giants from the U.S.  All these
12     things were going to be in aid of more and better
13     Canadian spending, including for use within each of
14     those small markets that were going to be joining these
15     larger broadcast groups.
16  1208                 We agreed with the logic then.  We
17     still agree with it now.  I was disheartened this
18     morning to hear that notwithstanding that logic
19     explained often in front of this Commission over the
20     past few years, today they are saying "There is no pot
21     of gold at the end of the consolidation rainbow" and
22     suggesting in fact there shouldn't even be new
23     contributions or benefits test contributions to the
24     system upon consolidation, which was always part of the
25     concept and I think still stands.
                          StenoTran

                             283

 1  1209                 I am saying all this because there
 2     was supposed to be a lot of benefits from
 3     consolidation.  I believe there are.  I believe they
 4     are logical.  Therefore, I don't believe that it is an
 5     unfair imposition to extend a proposal over small
 6     markets under $10 million that are part of larger
 7     broadcast groups.
 8  1210                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  In that context
 9     where you would have two or more stations, do you
10     recommend that each of the stations in the multistation
11     group as defined, regardless of the revenues it earns,
12     be bound by the exhibition and spending requirements
13     that are proposed?
14  1211                 MR. MacMILLAN:  Yes.
15  1212                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You have no concern
16     about the ability or the financial impact on those
17     stations.
18  1213                 MS SCHUYLER:  I think it's important. 
19     You are hearing very clearly from us that we do feel
20     that it has to be a hand in glove relationship here,
21     that we need hours and that we need expenditure.
22  1214                 We do not want to be told by the CAB
23     that we produce programming that people don't want to
24     see.  We need money in order to be putting the best
25     quality program we can for a Canadian audience.
                          StenoTran

                             284

 1  1215                 I think it's very important to look
 2     at one of the schedules that are launched this fall
 3     from one of the private stations.  It very much fits
 4     into our 10/10/10 plan in its phase-in level.  We are
 5     seeing the level of programming commitment in prime
 6     time to Canadian shows that we are expecting in our
 7     first level of ramp-up.
 8  1216                 This has happened without regulation,
 9     without specific regulation tying the two together.  I
10     think that is possible.  We need to look as well at how
11     the CBC has performed when it has converted its
12     schedule increasingly to 100 per cent Canadian, that
13     they are having success with the numbers.  Canadians do
14     want to watch Canadian shows.
15  1217                 In terms of how we see this plan
16     implemented, we realize we have to be flexible.  We are
17     looking at the fact already in our counting of what is
18     first run.  We are letting it be the first two plays of
19     the show.  We are suggesting that any play of a
20     Canadian feature be counted as first run.  We are
21     keeping intact the 150 per cent bonus.  We are
22     suggesting even a 200 per cent bonus for features.
23  1218                 We are not talking direct hours.  We
24     are talking a matter of getting quality hours out
25     there.  We believe truly and very strongly that if we
                          StenoTran

                             285

 1     get the shows out there of the right quality that
 2     Canadians will watch them and we will not have to
 3     detract or take away from any of the local services
 4     that they are currently enjoying.
 5  1219                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now, should the
 6     Commission actually retain this idea of establishing
 7     viewership goals, you have heard your friends from the
 8     CAB suggest that they wanted a very inclusive system,
 9     the model should include all participants, including
10     producers.
11  1220                 What would you see your possible role
12     in discussing the establishment of viewership levels as
13     a goal with whatever other regulatory mechanisms
14     accompany that model?  I heard Ms Schuyler say they
15     were very flexible.
16  1221                 MS McDONALD:  I think part of the
17     problem we have is that the audience target that the
18     CAB brought forward, they clearly made a very strong
19     case for it and they have also stated quite clearly, as
20     did the representative from the Toronto-Dominion Bank,
21     concern about the poor performance of Canadian shows.
22  1222                 I must say, and I don't know if
23     others understand clearly what the CAB's proposal was
24     vis-a-vis audiences and how it was to be achieved. 
25     Clearly, when you create programming for a broadcaster,
                          StenoTran

                             286

 1     it's a common partnership of both parties wanting it to
 2     be successful and achieve audience.
 3  1223                 I don't know if Michael would like
 4     to --
 5  1224                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Let me add that
 6     they were general some of the time and very specific
 7     some of the time, such as very specific bonuses that
 8     they would negotiate with producers that would be tied
 9     to performance.  That was very specific.
10  1225                 I'm just asking you, should this
11     model be retained and for fear that it is, maybe you
12     want to tell us how it should be done and what your
13     role should be.
14  1226                 MR. MacMILLAN:  I think that it's
15     very difficult to have an across-the-system viewership
16     goal because how do you really measure it when one
17     broadcaster succeeds beyond their wildest hopes and
18     another one doesn't come up to scratch?
19  1227                 They are competitors.  Their goal is
20     to maximize their own viewers and beat out their
21     opponents.  I think it's very difficult to figure out
22     who gets to choose which type of viewers they want to
23     go after and how you are going to measure it
24     systemically.  I think you have to measure it
25     broadcaster by broadcaster.
                          StenoTran

                             287

 1  1228                 In our experience, producers are
 2     quite willing to be measured based on viewership. 
 3     Michael McCabe mentioned this morning how would
 4     producers feel about participating in the upside if the
 5     show performed well and vice-versa if it didn't.
 6  1229                 I know our company has a number of
 7     arrangements on current series with Canadian
 8     broadcasters where we do get an increased licence fee
 9     if we have increased ratings and a penalty if it's the
10     opposite.  With many American broadcasters and some
11     European broadcasters, those are common deals.
12  1230                 It's difficult because we don't
13     control the schedule.  We don't control the marketing
14     plan.  We certainly don't control which programs are up
15     against our program on the other channels.  It's a very
16     complex web of factors that actually create the rating
17     success.
18  1231                 For my part, we would be enthusiastic
19     participants in anything that was driving towards
20     viewership.
21  1232                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I was going to move
22     to another area of questioning.  It is five to six, so
23     I think we will adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow
24     morning.
25  1233                 Have a pleasant evening.
                          StenoTran

                             288

 1     --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1755,
 2         to resume on Thursday, September 24, 1998,
 3         at 0900/L'audience est ajournée à 1755
 4         pour reprendre le jeudi 24 septembre 1998
 5         à 0900
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                          StenoTran
Date modified: