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This page has been archived on the Web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 24, 1998 24 septembre 1998
Volume 2
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 24, 1998 24 septembre 1998
Volume 2
StenoTran
TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES
PAGE
Presentation by / Présentation par:
CFTPA, Canadian Film and Television Production 289
Association / Association canadienne de
production de film et télévision
APFTQ, Association des producteurs de films 377
et de télévision du Québec
CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/ 468
SRC, Société Radio-Canada
ATEC, Association for Tele-Education in 552
Canada
TVOntario 572
Province of British Columbia 598
StenoTran
289
1 Hull, Quebec / Hull (Québec)
2 --- Upon resuming on Thursday, September 24, 1998
3 at 0900 / L'audience reprend le jeudi
4 24 septembre 1998 à 0900
5 PRESENTATION, Continued / PRÉSENTATION, suite
6 1234 MS McDONALD: Madam Chair, good
7 morning.
8 1235 We would first of all like to explain
9 that unfortunately Ira Levy from Breakthrough
10 Entertainment was unable to stay over last night
11 because of work and family commitments. He really
12 regrets that he couldn't stay.
13 1236 The other thing we would just like to
14 do is complete one piece of discussion that we were
15 having with you. The first one is to say that we were
16 both right yesterday. You were right that it wasn't
17 clear about our spending commitments.
18 1237 THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps before you
19 go ahead, I would like to make some explanation as
20 well.
21 1238 Apparently towards the end of the
22 day, I was told, there were times when instead of using
23 10 per cent of the previous year's revenues for
24 spending, I was using 10 million. I apologize. I do
25 understand. Go ahead now.
StenoTran
290
1 1239 MS McDONALD: First of all, as I was
2 saying, we were both right. We weren't clear in our
3 submission about our expectation about when the
4 10/10/10 formula would be introduced in terms of the
5 percentage of revenues. In fact, we would see it
6 ramping up with the time period as well.
7 1240 It's not clear in our brief and we
8 recognize that. We would like to clarify that.
9 1241 The other thing that you and I were
10 discussing yesterday was our position that the most
11 powerful and effective way to move forward is a
12 combination of both hours and dollars. I just think we
13 would like to explain why we think it's more powerful.
14 It was at the end of the day and sometimes, I guess, I
15 was a bit fuzzy.
16 1242 First of all, as we tried to point
17 out yesterday, the Commission's own figures show that
18 if we go to overall spending alone, we have not seen an
19 increase in the kind of programming that attracts the
20 largest share of viewing, and that's entertainment
21 programming.
22 1243 We do also have a concern that if we
23 go to spending alone, it will be focused on a small
24 amount of programming and could in fact liberate more
25 hours to U.S. simulcast and not achieve the goal which
StenoTran
291
1 we think is important for the system, and that is
2 reclaiming prime time for Canada.
3 1244 We think if we go to hours alone that
4 broadcasters in the past have reacted by going with
5 cheaper programming that does not attract audience.
6 Over the past year we have seen no growth in the real
7 viewing few years to real viewing to Canadian
8 entertainment programming because we believe that
9 broadcasters who have gone hours have satisfied this
10 with cheaper Canadian programming, including inhouse
11 programming that does not draw significant audience.
12 1245 However, we do think that the
13 Commission has two examples where you have commitments
14 on both hours of entertainment programming, including
15 documentaries and spending. That's with Global and
16 CTV. If you look at the figures the Commission
17 released in June, you will see that the two companies
18 did spend a much higher percentage of their Canadian
19 program budgets on entertainment programming than
20 either of those who had dollars only or hours only on
21 entertainment. I think if you look at the fall
22 schedules, particularly this year, you will see
23 evidence of that.
24 1246 We think that experience shows when
25 the two are put together that is going in the right
StenoTran
292
1 direction. We think of the renewals last year. It was
2 the first renewals with Global and Baton. It was a
3 first great step. We think that the 10/10/10 plan will
4 continue in the direction that you started and be a win
5 for the Canadian audiences and for Canadian
6 programming.
7 1247 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You
8 see, even if you lost Mr. Levy, there is some advantage
9 to going home and thinking about it.
10 1248 It raises, of course, the question of
11 how nevertheless this 10 per cent of revenue has been
12 arrived at. In reading your submission before the
13 clarification of this morning, one would have wondered
14 why 10 per cent of the previous year's revenue was
15 required as you ramped up the number of hours so that
16 you spent presumably a large amount of money the first
17 year to produce fewer hours than in the fourth year.
18 1249 Now what you are suggesting is there
19 will be a ramp-up of the spending requirements, but you
20 understand what I mean by the other reflection from
21 your position as it was, that it required 10 per cent
22 of the previous year's revenues to produce far fewer
23 hours since it took four years to get to the ten hours.
24 1250 MS SCHUYLER: Much as there are some
25 of us who would have really enjoyed that in terms of
StenoTran
293
1 our production budgets, we realize that that was not
2 correct.
3 1251 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am also curious
4 about how you arrive at this 10 per cent to produce
5 this number of hours. Let me see if I understand your
6 reasoning.
7 1252 On page 55, you seem to look at the
8 amount of programming spent by the specialty services
9 on Canadian programming at the top. Why 10 per cent?
10 You find that to be 40 per cent whereas English
11 language conventional broadcasters is 27, let's say,
12 per cent. Then that's 14 per cent, so you take half of
13 that. You add it to what is spent at the moment, 3.5,
14 and that's how we get ten.
15 1253 MS SCHUYLER: We are talking 10 hours
16 here or 10 per cent.
17 1254 THE CHAIRPERSON: Ten per cent of
18 revenues on spending, page 55. I'm curious about how
19 you arrived at 10 per cent. Why not 9, why not 13. Is
20 that the reasoning that I am to understand from that
21 part on page 55? That's the scientific calculation
22 towards 10 per cent?
23 1255 You say specialty services spent 40
24 per cent on Canadian programs, conventional
25 broadcasters 26.6, 27, then you get a difference of 14
StenoTran
294
1 and you say well, we can't go as far as 14 so we will
2 half it and that will be 7. We will add it to 3.5 and
3 we get 10.
4 1256 MS SCHUYLER: Exactly.
5 1257 THE CHAIRPERSON: So that's how you
6 arrive at 10 as a number. I believe you may have said
7 somewhere that doing more than that would be too
8 damaging to the profitability of broadcasters.
9 1258 MS McDONALD: We were trying to
10 balance the business realities that the broadcasters
11 deal with and also to consider what needs to be done to
12 reclaim prime time with quality programming.
13 1259 MS SCHUYLER: We should remember that
14 when we talked in our opening remarks yesterday in
15 terms of the domestic claim hold on prime time in
16 England, France, Italy and Germany, they were up at the
17 80, 90 and 100 per cent levels. We are only asking at
18 this point to go to 50 per cent of the entertainment
19 level.
20 1260 THE CHAIRPERSON: There is also some
21 suggestion of using the French language market,
22 Canadian French language market as some type of
23 benchmark, but there you recognize the differences in
24 the market.
25 1261 MS McDONALD: I think we have to
StenoTran
295
1 acknowledge that the French language market is a real
2 success story for Canada in terms of the audience that
3 is attracted to entertainment programming, but we were
4 also I think pointing out that the French language
5 private broadcasters in fact spend more than 10 per
6 cent of their revenues -- I think its 10.9 per cent of
7 their revenues -- on entertain programming in these
8 categories, so we did try to look at other realities in
9 the system.
10 1262 THE CHAIRPERSON: But your benchmark
11 appears to be if we could, what we would want is to
12 drive the spending of conventional programming towards
13 specialty programming. The only reason that's not
14 possible is their PBIT margins would drop to zero.
15 1263 Are there other reasons why the
16 performance of specialty services may not be a proper
17 reference point for measuring the expenditures of
18 conventional broadcasters? Is it just a simple
19 calculation that that's what we would want, but if we
20 did it they would make no money, so obviously that
21 doesn't make any sense.
22 1264 You seem to recognize that the French
23 market has different characteristics and it's difficult
24 to use the same benchmarks, but what about the
25 specialties? Do you not see differences there too?
StenoTran
296
1 1265 MR. MacMILLAN: It would be very
2 tempting for us to use the specialty channels as a
3 yardstick by which to measure conventional
4 broadcasters' commitments to these categories of
5 programs, but it wouldn't be entirely fair because many
6 of these specialty channels are not focused on these
7 categories of programs.
8 1266 An example I am well familiar with,
9 Life Network I think spends 65 per cent of its
10 revenues, previous year's revenues, on Canadian
11 programming, but it's not in category 7, 8 and 9 and
12 they have a lower cost. That's a pretty typical
13 example in terms of which categories of programs, so we
14 did not think it was fair to draw that conclusion
15 directly and, therefore, we were not tempted to suggest
16 that we should have the conventional broadcasters mimic
17 those levels.
18 1267 THE CHAIRPERSON: You would admit as
19 well to differences in infrastructure and costs, et
20 cetera.
21 1268 MR. MacMILLAN: Absolutely. The
22 engineering cost in delivering a specialty channel is a
23 fraction of that of the cost for a broadcaster. There
24 are also two streams of revenues, subscriber fees and
25 advertising revenue. They are not comparable, so
StenoTran
297
1 therefore we didn't seek to make the document.
2 0910
3 1269 THE CHAIRPERSON: It just seemed like
4 a nice high figure to aim for.
5 1270 MR. MacMILLAN: It would have been,
6 but we didn't think it would be credible.
7 1271 THE CHAIRPERSON: Your proposal is
8 based on the percentage of advertising revenues. Is
9 that, to you, important as a reference point as opposed
10 to an entertainment base amount?
11 1272 MR. MacMILLAN: I would suggest
12 either one could work. A percentage of revenues is a
13 model that has been used within the system on occasion
14 and seems to work and is not static, does reflect
15 success and growth. On the other hand, it is possible
16 to do it from some base amount as long as it were done
17 in an equitable way. The one merit driving it from the
18 previous years' revenues is that, pro rata, it's
19 equitable and if we started from simply what they are
20 currently spending, we could be starting from a very
21 different basis.
22 1273 THE CHAIRPERSON: But that base
23 amount need not be what they are doing.
24 1274 MR. MacMILLAN: Correct.
25 1275 THE CHAIRPERSON: It could be
StenoTran
298
1 something that is determined. I am curious to see
2 whether you would think that perhaps it would give the
3 Commission greater flexibility to establish a base
4 amount based on various characteristics. For example,
5 we have been speaking of focus on multi-station groups
6 -- and we will speak, obviously, more about that as the
7 hearing progresses -- in order to achieve equity. You
8 are referring here to, the way I understand it -- and
9 again I stand to be corrected because I wasn't here
10 when that was done -- where a base amount was chosen to
11 which a certain percentage was applied. Right?
12 1276 So, I don't know how much energy or
13 what exercise was gone through to establish whether
14 that base amount made sense, but could you not see a
15 system where, after consultation, a base amount was
16 actually set from which you proceed, which would give
17 you, it would seem to me, possibly greater flexibility
18 than applying 10 per cent of revenues right off the
19 bat.
20 1277 MR. MacMILLAN: I could see something
21 like that working, depending how it was calculated,
22 absolutely. But, in any event, I would hope that if
23 such a system were adopted, it would create for more
24 predictability and reliability and ultimately equitable
25 rules across the board. For example, if a station
StenoTran
299
1 group had access to a certain threshold percentage of
2 the population, whatever that was, 50 per cent, 70 per
3 cent, whatever, they would then be entering a realm
4 where certain expectations would come or a certain base
5 level for entertainment spending would be expected.
6 1278 If they then moved into a larger
7 group through acquisitions or mergers, they would then
8 probably move into a higher level of expectation. I
9 think that still would give the Commission the ability
10 to achieve equitable rules and I would be quite
11 concerned by the CAB's suggestion yesterday that
12 everything should still be done on a case-by-case
13 basis. The problem with a case-by-case basis is that
14 we are moving into a system of national players, which
15 is terrific and there is lots of good reasons for that.
16 It gives them the strength to schedule, to promote, a
17 better chance at being more profitable, but the rules,
18 therefore, need to be similar.
19 1279 THE CHAIRPERSON: But with sufficient
20 flexibility to take into account differences.
21 1280 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes, but I would hope
22 a system that meant that if one wanted to grow and
23 become a national player, one would know roughly what
24 the expectations were going to be.
25 1281 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you
StenoTran
300
1 have looked at the CBC discussion of constellation and
2 the advantages that flow from it, as well as possibly
3 -- at least we can discuss it with them -- the
4 safeguards that are required, but it would be a model,
5 the way I understand it, that would say constellations
6 is the way the world is going to go and, therefore, we
7 should take it into consideration.
8 1282 I understand it to mean acceptance of
9 concentration and integration, horizontally and
10 vertically, et cetera. Would that, in your view -- or
11 should the Commission, in your view, take that into
12 account to examine the strength of an undertaking when
13 setting out spending requirements? In other words,
14 whether the conventional broadcaster also has specialty
15 services, et cetera, et cetera, should equity require
16 that these tentacles be taken into consideration?
17 1283 MS TAIT: Our answer to that would be
18 yes.
19 1284 THE CHAIRPERSON: And should the
20 Commission look at whether all their tentacles are
21 regulated or even take into consideration those that
22 are not in measuring the ability of a licensee to
23 participate?
24 1285 MS TAIT: I think if you are going to
25 be following the constellation model, I think the CBC's
StenoTran
301
1 point is that the revenue streams are important. So,
2 if the Commission is looking at an entity, it's going
3 to be needing to look at all of its parts and all the
4 revenue streams.
5 1286 THE CHAIRPERSON: And the production
6 industry would see that as a sensible way to approach
7 it?
8 1287 MS TAIT: Yes. Yes, we would.
9 1288 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, we discussed
10 very briefly yesterday what the Commission should do if
11 it retained this 10 per cent spending requirement and
12 today we are speaking of a ramp-up, which would be, I
13 suppose, paralleling the ramp-up for ours. What
14 happens to the conditions of licence and the
15 requirements that are imposed at the moment on
16 licensees if we were to retain that idea by regulation?
17 1289 MS McDONALD: We have proposed that
18 we take a regulation approach and the reason that we
19 propose regulation is to try to have some coherency in
20 the system. I think one of our major -- I mean it is
21 clearly up to the Commission to decide what the best
22 way is to approach it, but I think we have a concern
23 that if we do it by conditions of licence, we will all
24 be here until 2005.
25 1290 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think you
StenoTran
302
1 misunderstood or I wasn't clear, which is quite
2 possible. The question was: If we do pass a
3 regulation within the next eight months to a year and
4 presumably maybe have a ramp-up that goes 7, 9,
5 whatever, to 10 per cent, what should happen, in your
6 view, pending coming back to the Commission for renewal
7 with the conditions of licence that people have related
8 to spending in some cases? Are you expecting that they
9 would come for amendment and say, "Now that we have
10 this other requirement, amend our current
11 requirements."
12 1291 MS McNAIR: We recognize that the
13 existing conditions of licence might be lower than what
14 the CFTPA is requiring, but you have some major
15 licensees coming before you in the near future and we
16 would think that if a regulation is imposed subject to
17 the typical language of "subject to conditions of
18 licence", the licence's existing conditions would take
19 precedence, but there would clearly be an expectation
20 that these more onerous requirements, if they are more
21 onerous, be implemented and with the schedule before
22 you for the television licensees, we think most of the
23 major players will be before you in the next few years.
24 1292 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, possibly we
25 will have two ramp-ups, one which would be based on the
StenoTran
303
1 formula and one which would result from the fact that
2 changes are made as licensees appear for renewal?
3 1293 MS McNAIR: That's correct. We
4 proposed the regulation approach because we thought
5 that it was more equitable that licensees would realize
6 what the rules were going to be. I don't think that we
7 would go so far as saying the regulation should
8 override existing conditions, given that most of the
9 major players in the conventional system will be before
10 you in the next two years.
11 1294 THE CHAIRPERSON: Nor were you
12 envisaging an incremental requirement?
13 1295 MS McNAIR: Well, we would like an
14 incremental requirement.
15 0920
16 1296 THE CHAIRPERSON: But not
17 immediately.
18 1297 MS McNAIR: Not immediately.
19 1298 THE CHAIRPERSON: So that could take
20 some time.
21 1299 Now, if I recall, your proposal says
22 that a station which is part of a multi-station
23 group -- and it is defined as two stations under the
24 same control with 50 per cent, correct, 50 per cent
25 capacity to reach English Canada -- you would expect
StenoTran
304
1 those stations to be under the 10/10/10 rule. Even
2 with the ramp-up, aren't we going to have in some cases
3 pretty steep increases in spending over -- I suppose
4 your ramp-up will be four years, as is the ramp-up for
5 hours?
6 1300 MS McDONALD: That's correct.
7 1301 THE CHAIRPERSON: Have you had a look
8 at some of the stations and the spending?
9 1302 MS McDONALD: Yes, we have.
10 1303 THE CHAIRPERSON: And you feel that,
11 even if it is a station in a small market, if it is
12 part of a group, it, apart from the group, should spend
13 the 10 per cent of previous years' revenues on Canadian
14 content?
15 1304 MS McNAIR: Yes.
16 1305 THE CHAIRPERSON: Have you made any
17 calculations as to what that represents in any case as
18 the world exists today?
19 1306 MS McDONALD: We don't have access to
20 all of those figures. We usually have to deal with
21 aggregate figures.
22 1307 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have no idea
23 what it would represent.
24 1308 MS McDONALD: You can see in some
25 places we have tried to sort of represent spending,
StenoTran
305
1 but, as you know, that's aggregate numbers and not made
2 available to us.
3 1309 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, while we look
4 at spending, one of the concerns that is expressed by
5 producers is the lowering of licence fees which, at
6 page 45 of your submission, I think you peg at a drop
7 of 30 per cent to 20 per cent in the early 1990s.
8 1310 Considering the fact that there has
9 been a marginal increase in overall contributions to
10 the production of Canadian drama, is it not possible
11 that lower fees were given but more projects were
12 funded? You use that as a measure of the decrease in
13 broadcasters' performance in that area, but the record
14 shows a marginal increase over that period. If you
15 look at each licence fee or average licence fees you
16 see there is a decrease of 10 per cent.
17 1311 MR. THOMSON: According to the CBC
18 research that was filed actually by the CAB, the
19 available hours of programming per week in 1992-93
20 compared to 1994-95 compared to 1996-97 have dropped.
21 Drama, music and variety, Category 7, 8 and 9, went
22 from 3.9 per cent in 1992-93 to 3.6 per cent in 1994-95
23 to 3.0 per cent in 1996-97.
24 1312 So, in spite of the fact that there
25 has been more funding coming into the system through
StenoTran
306
1 programs such as the Cable Fund and then the Canada
2 Television and Cable Production Fund, the amount of new
3 programming that's generated has in fact gone down over
4 the last few years.
5 1313 THE CHAIRPERSON: You were using
6 hours of programming aired. Right?
7 1314 MR. THOMSON: That's correct, hours
8 available.
9 1315 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that necessarily
10 a measure of financial contributions --
11 1316 MS McDONALD: Yes.
12 1317 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- of how many
13 licence fees were actually given --
14 1318 MS McDONALD: Yes.
15 1319 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- or how much
16 money in licence fees was actually expended?
17 1320 MR. THOMSON: Well, I think what we
18 are trying to say is that the amount of hours has
19 stayed roughly the same; it has gone down a little bit,
20 but clearly the statistics from agencies like the Cable
21 Fund have indicated that the broadcaster contribution
22 to that same amount of programming has decreased by 10
23 per cent. And the figures we have from the CTF aren't
24 necessarily totally licence fees; they include equity
25 and other forms of investment. But they have gone down
StenoTran
307
1 over the last three years from 29 or 30 per cent to
2 just under 20 per cent this year.
3 1321 THE CHAIRPERSON: The figures that
4 you are using from the Fund would say for the same
5 number of hours, the same money was given? Because
6 presumably, when you are talking about licence fee, you
7 are talking about the proportion of a project to which
8 a licence fee is given. I was trying to relate to
9 perhaps each project had lower licence fees but there
10 were more projects funded, and therefore the
11 contribution may not be 10 per cent less.
12 1322 MR. THOMSON: I think that's probably
13 true. If you look at the CTF statistics, there has
14 been less money per project contributed; there have
15 been more projects, but the vast majority of those new
16 projects have ended up on the specialty channels, not
17 on the conventional networks.
18 1323 MR. MacMILLAN: And, on a per-project
19 basis, our experience is that licence fees have
20 declined materially over the past five years. In the
21 Atlantis submission -- and perhaps I should be talking
22 about it when we are here separately and not as part of
23 the CFTPA, but in our submission we supplied
24 information relating to the most recent approximately
25 400 hours of Canadian content drama that we had
StenoTran
308
1 produced, about a half a billion dollars; so enough
2 that we felt it was statistically valid and wouldn't be
3 swayed by one exception or another.
4 1324 Of that, over the past four years, 8
5 per cent of the budgets were supplied by Canadian
6 broadcaster licence fees -- 8 per cent -- and that
7 number is a lower per cent than we would have found had
8 we calculated any previous three- or four- or five-year
9 rolling period. They definitely have gone down.
10 1325 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you feel that
11 the argument that it is a decrease of 10 per cent is a
12 fair assessment of the situation?
13 1326 MS McDONALD: Definitely.
14 1327 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, I believe
15 that, talking about how programming is funded -- I may
16 not find it right away, but you have a chart where you
17 express in numbers -- here it is; page 18, that's what
18 I thought -- where you express what you see as the
19 producers' contribution in the financing of Canadian
20 programming and you express it at 30 per cent, 29.65
21 per cent, and conclude from that that the production
22 industry's contribution is the largest.
23 1328 An important line is tax credits, 16
24 per cent. Is it fair to put that in the calculation to
25 arrive at that conclusion when tax credits, I
StenoTran
309
1 understand you may have to wait and underwrite the
2 investment, but you will get it back. Is it fair to
3 put that in the calculation at that level to arrive at
4 the conclusion that the production industry is the
5 largest contributor?
6 1329 MR. MacMILLAN: Clearly, the source
7 of tax credit money is the federal government, it is
8 the federal treasury, and you could argue it both ways.
9 The risk, however, is held by the producer because if
10 that tax credit fails to materialize or is lower than
11 hoped -- and, insofar, a lot of them have failed to
12 materialize or taken a long time -- it would be the
13 producer who is at risk. But there is no doubt about
14 it it is not the producer's money to start with, it is
15 federal treasury's to start with, absolutely.
16 1330 In our experience, though, at
17 Atlantis over the years we have found -- not including
18 tax credits, so excluding tax credits -- that the
19 broadcasters have contributed 8 per cent, that the
20 combination of Telefilm and CTCPF and provincial
21 governments combined have contributed 9 per cent, that
22 we, through our own distribution advances, our own
23 advancements or co-production deals, pre-sales we have
24 assembled elsewhere in the world, have contributed
25 70 -- 7-0 -- per cent, and the tax credits about
StenoTran
310
1 another 11 per cent.
2 1331 Our experience is that it is the
3 producer who finances the vast majority, and I was
4 disappointed yesterday in the suggestion that the
5 million dollars for "Traders" -- and, by the way, it is
6 not a million bucks, it is less than that -- was
7 somewhat being paid for by the broadcaster and compared
8 to "E.R." at some $20 million cost. The reality is the
9 vast majority of the production cost for Canadian drama
10 is organized and paid for or financed by the producer.
11 0930
12 1332 Broadcast fees are much appreciated
13 and very essential and we absolutely need them, but it
14 would be a misrepresentation to suggest that these
15 costs of $800,000 or a million dollars, a million two
16 an hour is what the broadcaster is at risk for. It's
17 simply not true and a misleading comparison, quite
18 frankly, to cite ER $13 or $20 million per episode
19 cost. That's apples and oranges being compared.
20 1333 THE CHAIRPERSON: When we look at
21 that sheet on page 18, what strikes one, it would seem,
22 is that the taxpayer is the greatest contributor which,
23 I suppose, is what would support Dr. Matthew's comment
24 that Canadian taxpayers, or does it, that Canadian
25 taxpayers are not subsidizing Canadian program
StenoTran
311
1 production as intended, but they are subsidizing the
2 bottom lines of Canadian broadcasters?
3 1334 MR. MacMILLAN: Well, the
4 contribution of the cable production fund and the tax
5 credits, which have been significant, that increase has
6 coincided with a decrease in licence fees.
7 1335 MR. FRASER: There I was talking
8 about the licence top-up money, not the tax credits.
9 1336 THE CHAIRPERSON: But would it not be
10 the same? Isn't that taxpayer money in the last
11 analysis that is in those funds?
12 1337 MS McDONALD: I think one of our
13 experiences --
14 1338 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's not producers'
15 money.
16 1339 MS McDONALD: Our experience with tax
17 credits, and we are very experienced with them both
18 federally and --
19 1340 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no. I am
20 talking about the fund here. The comment was about the
21 fund, whose money was in the fund. I suspect it's the
22 taxpayers' money.
23 1341 MS McDONALD: It's only half.
24 1342 MR. FRASER: You could argue whether
25 the fund is taxpayer money or cable money. I mean, it
StenoTran
312
1 was a CRTC mechanism that started the fund, so was it
2 public money or is it from the cable industry? It's
3 called the cable fund.
4 1343 THE CHAIRPERSON: The 5 per cent is
5 passed on to the subscriber, so --
6 1344 MR. MacMILLAN: Let's not split
7 hairs. It's the public's money. Absolutely. Part
8 comes directly from the taxpayer from the federal
9 treasury. The other part is filtered through the cable
10 operators and viewers pay for it. That's right. It's
11 not our money to start with, either way you slice it.
12 1345 It does subsidize the industry, which
13 is required. It does help make better programs.
14 Absolutely. A key beneficiary in that is not merely
15 the producer, but also the broadcaster. It's getting
16 better programs made for, paid for in part by
17 taxpayers' dollars or viewers' dollars. That's the
18 truth.
19 1346 THE CHAIRPERSON: But the point of
20 page 18 is to show that the broadcaster is not
21 contributing enough, which is why you would want that
22 level of contribution increased.
23 1347 MR. MacMILLAN: We do think -- first
24 of all, as producers we always think broadcasters pay
25 us more licence fees. That sort of goes with the
StenoTran
313
1 territory. But we do think though there has been a
2 decline during this decade and we would like to reverse
3 that decline. Absolutely.
4 1348 MR. MAYSON: If I could just add a
5 little bit on that too. I think the point on page 18
6 is to show that there is a wide funding for productions
7 coming from a wide range of sources, most of which are
8 organized and controlled and developed by the producer.
9 I think it wasn't solely there to show the extent of
10 broadcaster funding. There's a wide range of sources
11 there. Producers are the ones who pull it together.
12 1349 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, who pull it
13 together. I understand the concept of this. I was
14 looking at where the actual dollars come from.
15 1350 MR. MAYSON: If I could just add on
16 that point too. I think it's important that tax
17 credits are also treated as an equity position in a
18 recoupment schedule normally. It's part of the
19 producer's investment. While it's certainly true that
20 the ultimate source is public, it's recognized in terms
21 of any kind of recoupment schedule a producer's equity
22 position.
23 1351 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, that same page
24 18 shows a large contribution from foreign sources in
25 those calculations. On page 17 you have a paragraph
StenoTran
314
1 that says:
2 1352 "-- in production ... money
3 talks. When the driver for a
4 production is the foreign
5 broadcast, the chances are
6 greater that the production must
7 be adapted to the perceived
8 needs of that marketplace."
9 1353 You ask the question:
10 1354 "Does this mean that
11 identifiable Canadian
12 programming is not exportable?
13 Not necessarily --"
14 et cetera.
15 1355 You conclude in that paragraph by
16 saying "A strong domestic demand which provides the
17 most significant portion of the financing will ensure
18 distinctiveness".
19 1356 Is your point here that we have to
20 rely less on foreign money and more on broadcaster
21 money, would that be your conclusion, in order to
22 ensure that we don't dance to the tune of the foreign
23 market that invested 30.94 per cent in the production?
24 1357 MS TAIT: I think our point there is
25 to try to establish that the Canadian production
StenoTran
315
1 industry represents a broad spectrum of production,
2 some of which travels extremely well. Obviously a
3 portion of the industry has been built on service
4 production and that has contributed very importantly to
5 economic infrastructure.
6 1358 Within the category of identifiable
7 Canadian programs, there is a misconception that all
8 Canadian programs don't travel. We would first of all
9 like to clarify that we are not in the business of
10 making shows that don't travel, however within Canadian
11 identifiable we have certain types of programs that
12 don't have necessarily the same exportability, programs
13 like "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" for example, or "Air
14 Farce".
15 1359 On the other hand, identifiable
16 Canadian shows do travel, like "Road to Avonlea" or
17 "Emily of New Moon" or a number of others. I think our
18 point there is really to describe the complexity, the
19 range of programming that is in the system and to
20 indicate that if we are going to do shows that travel,
21 there are going to be creative costs associated with
22 that.
23 1360 Have I answered your question?
24 1361 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, I know it's
25 complicated, but you seem to be saying there get more
StenoTran
316
1 money into Canadian production and less foreign money.
2 We may make programming that travels, such as "Road to
3 Avonlea", but the effect will be to make more of that
4 type of programming because we won't have the pressure
5 of doing the programming or producing the programming
6 for a future market. We will have lots of money to
7 make it so it will be good and probably will be
8 exportable as a result. Is that it?
9 1362 MS TAIT: Yes, it is. We want to
10 make sure that within the category of identifiable
11 Canadian we can do both distinctly Canadian shows that
12 may not travel but also those other shows that will and
13 that we will have the freedom to finance them in the
14 best possible way.
15 1363 THE CHAIRPERSON: But that's not
16 quite the same as saying if we have more money, we will
17 make such good programming, it doesn't matter if it's
18 distinctively Canadian, it will be exportable, which is
19 what I thought that said as well.
20 1364 MS TAIT: Does somebody want to add
21 to that? Linda?
22 1365 MS SCHUYLER: I can only really agree
23 with Catherine's point. What we are looking for here
24 is we are trying to see that we have a landscape of
25 programming that ranges from our industrial type
StenoTran
317
1 programming right up to the highly distinctive
2 programming. We don't expect the financing model for
3 each program to be the same.
4 1366 In the system we want to end up with
5 a great mix of public/private money but we don't think
6 that each individual show should be expected to carry
7 that same mix. Otherwise we are going to end up all
8 producing the same types of shows, which is not what
9 our mandate is and not what we want to be doing.
10 1367 It is a problem when you look to ask
11 a show to be immediately identifiably Canadian and
12 exportable. The great shows that are able to do that,
13 it's tremendous, but there are certain shows that need
14 to be developed from the ground up and so they are for
15 a Canadian audience.
16 1368 I found that specifically with our
17 "Degrassi" experience. We developed that show
18 specifically for a Canadian audience, not even looking
19 at that time for export. The fact that we have sold it
20 in over 50 countries of the world and continue to sell
21 it has been a tremendous bonus whereas there are other
22 shows that right off the top have been designed so that
23 they can be exportable. We need those shows in the
24 system as well.
25 1369 It's only by allowing us to have
StenoTran
318
1 various financing models that we are going to get the
2 diversity of programming that we are all looking for.
3 1370 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So then this
4 paragraph would mean that for "Degrassi" you are not
5 going to get as easily foreign money into it so you
6 need more Canadian money to make that type of
7 programming.
8 1371 Mr. MacMillan, you have something
9 else to add?
10 1372 MR. MacMILLAN: I just want to add
11 one thing. In the television industry worldwide,
12 licence fees that are committed in advance of a
13 production are almost always much, much, much higher
14 than a licence fee that will be committed by that very
15 same broadcaster for that very same program were they
16 buying it after production or after the fact.
17 1373 When it is being sold as an idea or a
18 dream or a concept, the licence fee is much higher,
19 partly because the broadcaster involved can be part of
20 the creative process, can give input, can make
21 suggestions, can suggest casting that might have
22 spill-over promotional opportunities for other shows on
23 its schedule, et cetera, et cetera.
24 1374 Although all sales are important, the
25 most important ones are sales contracted before
StenoTran
319
1 production. That is therefore the case of who pays the
2 piper calls the tune. What we are saying is although
3 we need a mixed economy, we need a diversity of
4 programs, it's essential as much as possible in some
5 cases the greatest creative influence is coming from
6 Canada. We are in some cases at least trying to make
7 programs especially for the Canadian viewer.
8 1375 We can always make them to suit the
9 rest of the world. That's not that hard. It's a
10 bigger challenge in making them specifically sing to a
11 Canadian audience. If we are always financing with
12 American pre-sales, let's face it, we are going to be
13 specifically tailoring it to that viewer. If that were
14 the case, we wouldn't be here because there wouldn't be
15 a CRTC.
16 1376 MS SCHUYLER: I would just like to
17 add sort of a personal anecdote to this.
18 1377 I grew up in a fairly large raucous
19 family in Paris, Ontario, which is a town of 6,000 in
20 southwestern Ontario. One night the television was on
21 and we were half watching it. It was Wayne and
22 Schuster. They were doing a skit called "The Scarlet
23 Pumpernickel". I believe they were singing "I love
24 Paris".
25 1378 Nobody was really paying much
StenoTran
320
1 attention. They were singing "I love Paris, I love
2 Paris, why do I love Paris" because Brantford is only
3 seven miles away. All of a sudden there was this dead
4 still and quiet in my family. It was as though
5 somebody out there in television land knew where we
6 lived.
7 1379 That moment has stayed with me all
8 the times in my school teaching years and through my
9 producing years. I watched a lot of foreign
10 programming when I was growing up, "Father Knows Best",
11 "Leave it to Beaver", but that one moment from Wayne
12 and Schuster is a moment that has stayed with me.
13 1380 I think that what we are asking for
14 when we are asking to reclaim our prime time is to
15 allow Canadians to have those moments that are sort of
16 these culturally identifying moments, they are nation
17 building. This is why we are fighting so hard to
18 reclaim the prime time. This is sort of a legacy that
19 we can pass on to our kids.
20 1381 THE CHAIRPERSON: That brings the
21 question to understand, in English Canada at least, the
22 problem that you got excited when you saw Paris, but
23 it's difficult to get Vancouverites excited on
24 "Riverdale" perhaps. There isn't that recognition very
25 easily in English Canada in comparison to French
StenoTran
321
1 Canada. It's more difficult to get that reaction.
2 1382 MR. MacMILLAN: One of the
3 difficulties I had with the viewership model proposed
4 by the CAB yesterday, quite apart from the fact I don't
5 know actually how you measure it and it will take years
6 and years to figure out the structure and, therefore,
7 accountability delayed will become accountability
8 denied.
9 1383 That aside, raw viewership per se
10 doesn't necessarily create diversity. What was
11 attractive to Linda with her Paris/Brantford story or
12 what is attractive to or people who can connect to her
13 series "Riverdale" now might not be the same people
14 that can connect to a Vancouver story, not just by
15 location but by background.
16 1384 We have a very diverse country. I
17 believe that part of the broadcasting system should be
18 structured to ensure that diversity. That doesn't mean
19 everybody reading the equivalent or watching the
20 equivalent of mass market paperbacks.
21 1385 We need differences in the system.
22 Those differences won't come necessarily if it's only a
23 raw viewer rating, the largest number of mass viewers
24 for one show wins.
25 1386 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We can
StenoTran
322
1 discuss that later. It also gets into the need to
2 promote and try to emulate perhaps the star system that
3 exists in Quebec and helps to broaden recognition.
4 1387 You propose that Canadian
5 documentaries be added to the categories of programming
6 that are considered under-represented and, therefore,
7 would fit into the 10/10/10 formula. Do you think that
8 there is a need to define what a Canadian documentary
9 is in order to qualify for that exhibition requirement?
10 1388 MR. THOMSON: I think we agree with
11 CAB that documentaries should be included in these
12 categories. I think probably it would be sensible for
13 the same definition that both Telefilm and the cable
14 fund or the Canadian Television Fund used for
15 documentaries to apply in the case of recognition of a
16 documentary as a qualifying program.
17 1389 THE CHAIRPERSON: With regard to the
18 150 per cent credit rule which you propose to maintain,
19 but to amend the definition of first run to include
20 second run, now as far as I understand, this credit
21 applies for more than two runs.
22 1390 Is it intentional to have it
23 tightened and why do you feel that the 150 per cent
24 credit rule be maintained since your emphasis is on
25 hours of exhibition of certain categories of
StenoTran
323
1 programming in prime time, considering that it means
2 for every hour then you have a half hour less.
3 1391 MR. MacMILLAN: Well, the one benefit
4 of having the 150 per cent rule maintained is that it
5 gives broadcasters greater choice in how they will get
6 there. We are not for a moment trying to suggest that
7 there's only one way, one basic cookie cutter method
8 for them to meet these goals. We believe that that
9 creates some more flexibility.
10 1392 THE CHAIRPERSON: But you would feel
11 that the 200 per cent credit that the CAB proposes is
12 going too far in limiting the number of hours of
13 Canadian programming.
14 1393 MS TAIT: Yes, we feel it's too far
15 except that we did note that as an option for future
16 film programming, we felt that because the feature film
17 industry in Canada is, quite frankly, in a state of
18 distress in terms of production and in terms of
19 reaching audiences that this might be a very useful
20 mechanism to provide broadcasters with the added
21 incentive to air Canadian feature films.
22 1394 MS SCHUYLER: I think it's important
23 though to note that in some of the independent
24 submissions that have come from some of our members
25 that there are some recommendations for a 200 per cent
StenoTran
324
1 bonusing.
2 1395 I would just like to make this
3 comment. You will be hearing from other members of our
4 association that even though some of us are suggesting
5 perhaps different ways, either higher bonusing or
6 allowing first runs on different windows to be counted
7 in, basically these are all variations on a theme to
8 try and make the system that we are proposing working.
9 1396 What I would like you to do as a
10 Commission is if you could take a sort of mental
11 photograph of this panel that is sitting in front of
12 you and remember that you have producers here that come
13 from the west coast, who are privately owned, the east
14 coast, recently publicly owned, the largest company in
15 Canada right now and I believe one of the 12 in the
16 world -- is that correct, Michael? -- and then Ira and
17 myself who represent small and medium sized companies.
18 1397 We have all jointly come together as
19 a team and we have worked very hard on our proposal and
20 we have included many other members of our association
21 as we have worked on this proposal with our staff.
22 1398 If you hear different points of view,
23 it is really how different members see a different way
24 of implementing what will be at the end of the day the
25 same net result that we are trying to achieve. That's
StenoTran
325
1 why we haven't come in with one clear implementation
2 plan. To a certain extent, this is going to be your
3 job to wade through the various proposals that have
4 been put forward.
5 1399 Certainly we do feel that some kind
6 of bonusing is needed in the system and some kind of
7 flexibility is going to have to be there to make our
8 plan an achievable plan.
9 1400 MR. MacMILLAN: I think Kathleen
10 McNair would like to respond.
11 1401 MS McNAIR: When we were developing
12 first run having two plays in the submission, we did
13 look at Public Notice 88/197 that the Commission issued
14 on first run television programming. While the
15 decision was to continue to address the question of
16 first run on a case by case basis, there was general
17 consensus in that public notice that first run would be
18 the first time it was broadcast by a particular
19 licensee in a given market.
20 0950
21 1402 So that if another licensee had
22 broadcast that program, it would count for that
23 licensee and then also if a second licensee broadcast
24 that program, but it would be the first time that it
25 was run by a particular licensee. So, when we were
StenoTran
326
1 developing our proposal, we thought we should make it
2 clear that there should be two plays in our definition
3 of first run.
4 1403 THE CHAIRPERSON: Regardless of how
5 many licensees?
6 1404 MS McNAIR: That's right.
7 1405 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, if you had a
8 third licensee, it wouldn't be first run for that
9 licensee?
10 1406 MS McNAIR: No, each licensee would
11 be able to count it as first run if they played it --
12 1407 THE CHAIRPERSON: Twice.
13 1408 MS McNAIR: -- twice.
14 1409 THE CHAIRPERSON: I see. So, you
15 could have exposure among more than one licensee in
16 time.
17 1410 We discussed a bit or touched upon,
18 Mr. MacMillan, the importance or at least I raised the
19 question of the importance of promotional efforts
20 towards ensuring viewership to Canadian programs. Of
21 course, the CAB aiming for viewership has quite a few
22 proposals with regard to promotion. You say at page 64
23 under "Promotion of Canadian Programs" that you feel
24 that:
25 1411 "...broadcasters should as a
StenoTran
327
1 matter of course want to spend
2 resources on programs that they
3 have paid their money to acquire
4 licensees for."
5 1412 But at page 60 you said that:
6 1413 "Most of the ideas that have
7 been advanced unfortunately,
8 merely transfer money from
9 Canadian programs to Canadian
10 promotion."
11 1414 Is your concern the lack of value of
12 the promotional efforts of broadcasters or of their
13 scheme for promotion to achieve Canadian content
14 viewership goals or is it that you don't want these
15 efforts to be incremental?
16 1415 MR. MacMILLAN: It's not, in my view,
17 a question --
18 1416 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, rather, I'm
19 sorry, that you want these efforts to be incremental to
20 the spending goals.
21 1417 MR. MacMILLAN: Exactly, because it's
22 not a question of the lack of value. In fact I believe
23 that Canadian broadcasters have done terrific jobs in
24 promoting Canadian drama and in our recent experience
25 with "Traders" on Global and "Cold Squad" on CTV, they
StenoTran
328
1 have both done magnificent promotional jobs and their
2 ratings, therefore, show it. So, it's not a question
3 of their inability or lack of desire to promote. They
4 do. They can and should do more. Producers can and
5 should also do more to make sure they are part of that
6 solution as well.
7 1418 Our concern merely is that the money
8 spent on promotion should be in addition to the
9 commitments for spending on programming. We have seen
10 licence fees declining for the past four, five or six
11 years and our fear is that if the costs spent in
12 promotion were part of the licence fees or the spending
13 commitments, that would only drive licence fees down
14 further. So, it's not a question that we are concerned
15 that they are unable or unwilling, we just think it
16 should be in addition to the commitments for program
17 spending.
18 1419 THE CHAIRPERSON: Their proposal for
19 having entertainment or star-building type of programs,
20 you have a concern about the extent to which it's
21 Canadian stars or players in the market that are
22 involved and you also feel that they should be produced
23 by independent producers. Number one, why must they be
24 produced by independent producers to achieve their aim
25 and how would you monitor or calculate that 66 per cent
StenoTran
329
1 of the items in them must be by reference to Canadians
2 to count as Canadian expenditures? If I recall, your
3 proposal would be no more than half an hour per week.
4 Correct?
5 1420 MS McDONALD: First of all, the
6 intent of our proposals is categories 7, 8 and 9 and it
7 falls as directly into the areas that we feel are most
8 critical. We are trying to recognize the importance of
9 trying to counter the "Entertainment Tonight"
10 phenomena. We did actually adjust our proposal
11 yesterday and suggest that in fact that programming
12 does not have to be produced by independent producers.
13 We do recognize that broadcasters are putting more
14 entertainment programming out and I guess we would
15 probably want to -- I mean we have to realize every day
16 would not be the balance, but overall we are looking
17 for predominantly Canadian promotion.
18 1421 We really don't, I don't think in
19 this country -- we do not believe in this country that
20 we need to know anything more about the entertainment
21 market. It's quite readily available, whether it's on
22 "Entertainment Tonight", whether it's in People
23 Magazine. So, we are proposing a half-hour week. We
24 are hoping it will be well scheduled and we are hoping
25 we can build on star phenomena so that we have the kind
StenoTran
330
1 of environment in English Canada they have in Quebec.
2 1422 Some people might remember that last
3 November we had a stars day up at Parliament Hill and
4 if you bring them, it works. If you bring Paul Gross
5 into a room, you can get a lot of people very excited.
6 More people need to know about that and a whole lot of
7 other Canadian stars that the producers and
8 broadcasters brought to Ottawa and we really turned
9 this city around. So, I think we have to do more of
10 that. We have to do it on national television and we
11 have to counter the "Entertainment Tonight" phenomena.
12 But we have changed our proposal and are proposing that
13 it can be produced by broadcasters.
14 1423 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, then the half
15 hour would go towards the 10 hours and your spending
16 would be countered --
17 1424 MS McDONALD: Yes.
18 1425 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- towards the 10
19 per cent of revenues. Was that in your presentation
20 yesterday?
21 1426 MS McDONALD: Yes.
22 1427 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I'm sorry, I
23 missed that. You didn't see any need for the
24 independent producer to make this programming, but you
25 would certainly see a need to do a calculation that it
StenoTran
331
1 be two-thirds about Canadian items.
2 1428 MS McDONALD: To be clear, Madam
3 Chair, if a broadcaster wanted to license with a
4 Canadian independent producer, we would not discourage
5 them.
6 1429 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of course. I
7 didn't think that just overnight was sufficient to
8 create such a big change in your approach. I would
9 have thought then it was Mr. Levy was driving this
10 team.
11 1430 With regard to the proposals to
12 exempt certain promotional efforts from the definition
13 of the advertising restriction, your proposal is not to
14 have this exemption -- it's recommendation 14 -- or is
15 it to allow the 12 minutes of advertising to allow the
16 CAB members to not take that into consideration?
17 1431 MS McDONALD: Let me just look at
18 Recommendation 14. We have a lot of recommendations,
19 so I just want to make sure.
20 1432 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, it's the
21 opposite. You feel that broadcasters be permitted to
22 apply to be exempted, except that having it as -- it's
23 a middle course, the CAB wants it to be automatically
24 exempted by redefining advertising. You are saying
25 they would have to apply to the Commission and make
StenoTran
332
1 other commitments, if they want to do that. What other
2 commitments are you looking at?
3 1433 MS McDONALD: The commitments we are
4 hoping to see is promotion of Canadian programs in
5 exchange for that just to ensure that -- I think it is
6 our view, and I think we are quite clear in our
7 submission, that our expertise is not advertising. In
8 fact some broadcasters may choose not to go beyond 12
9 minutes, but we see them as mature, being as they have
10 certainly pointed out yesterday audience driven. So,
11 they would want to put in what would be the appropriate
12 level of advertising for their audience and for their
13 clients.
14 1434 But our view is that that would be a
15 privilege and in exchange for that privilege and that
16 freedom, again it's all about programming. So, if
17 there is, within that privilege, an opportunity to get
18 more promotion of Canadian programming, then that would
19 benefit the system, as well as the broadcaster.
20 1435 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have stated, as
21 I said earlier, at page 64 that:
22 1436 "...broadcasters should as a
23 matter of course want to spend
24 resources on programs that they
25 have paid their money to acquire
StenoTran
333
1 licence fees for."
2 1437 A number of parties, including the
3 CAB and the CBC, propose that the producers should have
4 the same natural instinct and that some requirements
5 somehow be made of them as well to engage in the
6 promotion of Canadian programming. What is your
7 reaction to that?
8 1438 MS McDONALD: We in fact agree with
9 the CBC and the CAB on that point and in fact have
10 sought to come up with proposals at the Canadian
11 Television Fund that would see both parties being
12 involved in promotion. I think part of the issue,
13 though, here is that it is the broadcaster's job to
14 bring the audience to the top of the hour and then it's
15 our job to create the entertainment programming that
16 holds them.
17 1439 So, I think what we want to do is we
18 believe that it should be a cooperative effort and in
19 fact, through Telefilm, producers have to make -- part
20 of the Telefilm commitment is to ensure that there is a
21 promotional plan. We are encouraging Telefilm to work
22 hard on that. The truth is that there are, within our
23 membership, various sizes of production companies and
24 it is easier for some companies to participate
25 financially more actively than others.
StenoTran
334
1 1440 Linda Schuyler has pointed out many
2 times that the most important thing that can happen is
3 that the promotion plan be worked on by the broadcaster
4 and producer right from the beginning.
5 1441 Linda?
6 1442 MS SCHUYLER: I think for a while we
7 were operating sort of in a void, that the producers
8 were producing the programming and then it was being
9 delivered to the broadcaster and, admittedly, we have
10 no control over where the scheduling of this
11 programming goes, but certainly in terms of promotion,
12 I think it is a joint responsibility of the broadcaster
13 and the producer.
14 1443 That doesn't mean that they each
15 share equally in the funds to promote, but it does
16 mean, I believe very strongly, that when a show first
17 goes into development and it is then going to go into
18 production, there should be a promotion plan in place
19 right from the beginning because there are then times
20 throughout your production you can take advantage of
21 ways of promoting that don't necessarily cost money,
22 but you can take advantage of what is happening in
23 production at that time and I think it's an area that
24 broadcasters and producers have to work on together.
25 1444 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that what's
StenoTran
335
1 intended by your comment at page 64 of your submission
2 that:
3 1445 "...we will work with our
4 broadcaster colleagues on the
5 board of the CTCPF to develop a
6 new criterion that will require
7 a percentage of the budget of
8 any eligible program to be spent
9 on third party promotion."
10 1446 MS McDONALD: One of the goals of the
11 Canada Television Fund is also to ensure that there is
12 audience for Canadian programming and that was a
13 proposal that was being discussed at the time and will
14 continue to be discussed. I think it's a very
15 important common goal for both broadcasters and
16 producers on the Canada Television Fund to ensure that
17 the programming that receives that public money that
18 you discussed before with Michael is viewed so that
19 people know it's there and can find it.
20 1447 As you know, we are in the pre-1999
21 guideline-creation period, so there is a number of
22 proposals being looked at. But I think it is very fair
23 to state that we who sit on that Board together do want
24 to see the programming promoted and we do want to bring
25 Canadians to it and we will look at whatever proposals
StenoTran
336
1 are available with our broadcaster colleagues.
2 1448 THE CHAIRPERSON: Vertical
3 integration now. Like many others, you have expressed
4 concern over the growing desire of broadcasters to see
5 the system sanction vertical integration between
6 broadcasters and producers. You state that if vertical
7 integration is sanctioned by policy without adequate
8 safeguards, the implications could be very significant
9 for the independent production sector. You mention
10 program financing, self-dealing and access to
11 distribution networks would require resolution. In
12 fact at page 28 of Dr. Matthew's paper it's stated
13 that:
14 1449 "...a return to vertical
15 integration would, once again,
16 pose potential obstacles to the
17 economic model of cross-
18 subsidization, for broadcasters
19 would be able to keep Canadian
20 program expenditures within a
21 supply-and-demand cycle under
22 their own control."
23 1450 By "cross-subsidization" here I
24 understood you to mean money that flows from foreign
25 programming --
StenoTran
337
1 1451 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes, that is correct.
2 1452 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- to Canadian
3 programming.
4 1453 When there is a peak time requirement
5 for certain hours and we are aiming for more product,
6 more quality and profitability presumably for the
7 licensees of the Commission, what are the problems and
8 what are the safeguards needed? If you look at the
9 broadcasting system -- and that's the aim that we
10 established at the beginning was to look at how do we
11 get more product, better quality and more profitability
12 -- other than what is the problem with vertical
13 integration, how much should be sanctioned and what are
14 the safeguards that, in your view, would ensure that
15 those goals are, nevertheless, reached? I understand,
16 of course, the business proposition of an industry that
17 you are participating in.
18 1454 MR. MacMILLAN: I am sometimes struck
19 by the amount of anxiety that this topic causes
20 producers and broadcasters.
21 1455 THE CHAIRPERSON: Anxious?
22 1456 MR. MacMILLAN: Actually, I'm not
23 particularly anxious about it, but certainly it has
24 been a cause of anxiety throughout the system, a great
25 deal of the discussion about it. The reality is that
StenoTran
338
1 today broadcasters are able to produce programs
2 including in the under-served categories, drama
3 specifically, and how those programs qualify as
4 Canadian content towards their quotas.
5 1457 They can distribute them around the
6 world and they can get tax credits and they can even
7 get Canadian Television Fund financing because up to a
8 third of the CTF is dedicated or available for
9 broadcaster in-house productions. To date they have
10 not used a significant portion of that CTF funding and
11 are not filling any material portion of their schedules
12 for categories 7, 8 and 9 with in-house production
13 partially because it's a very competitive and difficult
14 world making drama that's compelling and comedy that's
15 funny and that makes financial sense and is exportable,
16 et cetera, et cetera. So, they haven't to date been
17 abusing that whatsoever.
18 1458 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is this the concern
19 expressed by the Director's Guild that you are
20 referring to?
21 1459 MR. MacMILLAN: It has been the
22 concern expressed by many producers who are worried if
23 broadcasters are selling to themselves that producers
24 will be cut out and won't get access to signals -- to
25 Canadian shelf space and it's an anxiety and a concern
StenoTran
339
1 expressed by broadcasters who say, "Why can't we be
2 producers, why can't we be distributors?" I am just
3 pointing out that there currently are no barriers to
4 distributing or getting tax credits or getting CTF
5 money now.
6 1460 The one barrier that there is,
7 however, is Telefilm equity funding. That debate is,
8 say, a $30 or $35 million a year issue. That's the
9 English-language private broadcaster TV portion of
10 Telefilm, roughly $30, $35 million, which in the scheme
11 of a $1.7 billion advertising-driven industry is not
12 really the fundamental financial structure to the
13 industry. When I said that broadcasters aren't abusing
14 it now, what I meant was there is a privilege, I
15 believe, in holding a broadcast licence.
16 1461 For those who don't have broadcast
17 licences, they are now allowed to be a broadcaster.
18 So, the safeguards, I think, to get to the key of your
19 question, is how do we make sure that producers who are
20 not broadcasters, either who are not owned by
21 broadcasters or are in-house or who own a broadcaster,
22 when that producer is licensing a program to the
23 broadcaster to which it's related, there is a real
24 privilege of relationship there.
25 1010
StenoTran
340
1 1462 All the other producers who don't
2 have any such relationship, are they still going to
3 have access to the system or will only undue preference
4 be given by broadcasters to their related suppliers?
5 And that's why I believe that limited Telefilm Canada
6 dollars should not be invested in projects where the
7 buyer and the seller are, in essence, the same company,
8 where that privileged relationship can inform the
9 transaction in the first place.
10 1463 But apart from that, my view is that
11 this is a small country. We need every producer we can
12 get, broadcaster-related or not, trying to produce,
13 finance and sell good Canadian programs in these under-
14 served categories. But the safeguard has to be to make
15 sure that those who don't have the privilege of holding
16 a licence aren't cut out of the process because if they
17 are, we are going to have a lot less diversity of
18 program supply.
19 1464 MS TAIT: Just to add to Michael's
20 point, I think we have the harrowing experience of the
21 United States and really the total disappearance of the
22 independent production sector in that country as a very
23 important example. The structural separation in the
24 Canadian system for the last 15 years has contributed
25 to an incredible vibrant, strong independent production
StenoTran
341
1 sector.
2 1465 Just on a personal note, I came back
3 to Canada after 10 years in the United States because
4 my choice was to work in a studio or to be a gorilla
5 filmmaker and I decided to move to Halifax because
6 there was a company that was growing, that was strong
7 and that was making really incredibly interesting
8 programming. When you look across this country at
9 companies like Great North or Munzai (ph.) or some of
10 the -- not just in central Canada, really coast to
11 coast, we have achieved an incredible thing in Canada
12 through public policy and through bodies like the CRTC.
13 1466 So, our concern is not to undercut
14 the ability of the broadcaster to participate in the
15 success of Canadian programming, but it is to maintain
16 diversity and quality. We have seen since the FINSYN
17 rules have been rescinded in the United States a very
18 significant drop in the kind of quality and diversity
19 in the programming schedules that are available
20 provided by the networks. Obviously, this is really
21 our concern.
22 1467 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it your view,
23 Mr. MacMillan, that the type of safeguard that the
24 Commission has imposed where producers become
25 broadcasters and join the privileged group would be
StenoTran
342
1 sufficient? If it were based, let's say, on the number
2 of hours that had to be purchased from independent
3 producers, do you see some middle ground where there
4 would be a sufficient safeguard while relaxing the
5 ability to get into production themselves by affiliated
6 companies or related companies?
7 1468 MR. MacMILLAN: I think that the --
8 1469 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because, of course,
9 we are told the producers are into broadcasting and we
10 found safeguards there that appeared to be sufficient.
11 Can we use the same type of safeguard to allay your
12 concerns?
13 1470 MR. MacMILLAN: I think we can and,
14 by the way, I am delighted to have joined that
15 privileged group. The safeguards that were established
16 for Showcase television, for example, were that
17 Alliance, or now Alliance Atlantis if the Commission
18 approves the de facto change of control --
19 1471 THE CHAIRPERSON: That was a bit
20 particular, but go ahead.
21 1472 MR. MacMILLAN: But, nevertheless, it
22 is the best example because Showcase is exhibiting
23 drama and that goes to the heart of the under-served
24 categories. In that case, the producer/owner can't
25 make original programs for Showcase and, therefore,
StenoTran
343
1 can't access tax credits or CTF or Telefilm for any
2 projects for Showcase. Indeed, that's a very efficient
3 safeguard because it stopped that entirely.
4 1473 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
5 1474 MR. MacMILLAN: The safeguards that I
6 am suggesting for conventional broadcasters are in fact
7 looser safeguards because already they are able to make
8 original prime time drama for their own channels and
9 get tax credits and get cable fund money and distribute
10 them. So the safeguards that I am at least suggesting
11 are laxer, are more liberal, much less intrusive than
12 the blanket obligation for Showcase. So I think that
13 it is entirely possible to come up with workable
14 safeguards that make it certain that the vast majority
15 of producers who don't enjoy this privilege are not cut
16 out of the system.
17 1475 THE CHAIRPERSON: With regard to the
18 distribution limitation inherent in Telefilm, if I
19 recall, the CAB would like that to be altered. Do you
20 think it is necessary to maintain it?
21 1476 MR. MacMILLAN: I think that the
22 concern here amongst producers is that they are worried
23 that if a broadcaster has the right to be the
24 distributor, somehow the decision to licence the
25 program in the first place or the negotiation for the
StenoTran
344
1 payment of a licence fee could somehow be rolled into
2 the expectation or the negotiation for that broadcaster
3 to be the international distributor as well. That's a
4 real concern.
5 1477 The solution there is to make sure
6 that any distribution rights held by a broadcaster
7 outside its own market are the object of a very
8 separate and distinct negotiation, quite separate from
9 the decision to license or the negotiation for the
10 licence fee. Personally, I do see some point in the
11 broadcaster's observation: Why is it that a foreign
12 distributor can distribute something and a broadcaster
13 can't bid? But there would need to be safeguards to
14 make sure that it didn't end up that you couldn't get
15 your show licensed unless you also gave up
16 distribution.
17 1478 THE CHAIRPERSON: And that safeguard,
18 you would see as negotiation up front for -- how do you
19 see the safeguard?
20 1479 MR. MacMILLAN: I am not sure of the
21 exact mechanism. Brighter minds than mine would have
22 to focus on it, but the object of the safeguard will be
23 to make sure that the discussion and the negotiation
24 for any distributions rights was entirely separate from
25 the decision and the negotiation for the licence and
StenoTran
345
1 the licence fee for the use of the program within that
2 broadcaster's own market.
3 1480 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, with regard to
4 equity investment, you say at page 27 that you:
5 1481 "...welcome broadcasters'
6 investments in our programs but
7 these equity investments should
8 not be considered as a portion
9 of the licence fee."
10 1482 Nor should such investments be usable
11 -- I am paraphrasing here -- to meet the obligations of
12 the Act.
13 1483 Do I read from that that you don't
14 have a problem with equity investment, but it should be
15 completely a business decision and not be included in
16 meeting your 10/10/10 rule? In other words, what the
17 broadcasters can do now, I understand, if there are
18 losses, is to use them towards spending requirements,
19 but you don't want these equity investments to go
20 towards meeting the 10 per cent.
21 1484 MR. MacMILLAN: That's quite right.
22 We welcome any broadcaster who wanted to make an
23 investment in our programs, although I note that rarely
24 do they wish to. It can be a risky business. But we
25 absolutely welcome broadcaster investments as long as
StenoTran
346
1 they are not counted towards the -- whether it is
2 10/10/10 or whatever variation of that, because we
3 believe that those spending requirements should be
4 organized with respect to the Canadian market to
5 Canadian viewers, and if vast amounts of money are
6 invested with the eye to the program reaching viewers
7 in other countries because that's the only way you are
8 going to get back your investment, that has nothing to
9 do with Canadian viewers. But we do welcome
10 investments, as long as they are in addition to the
11 Canadian content obligations as prescribed by the
12 Commission.
13 1485 THE CHAIRPERSON: So the programming
14 that could result from that would go towards meeting
15 the 10 hours if it fits the definition and it is in the
16 right category. It is just that 10 per cent of the
17 previous year's revenues must be expended over and
18 above expenditures that are an equity investment.
19 1486 MR. MacMILLAN: Sorry, and, much like
20 the distribution rights discussion of a moment ago, as
21 long as that equity investment in the program is
22 separate and apart from the licence fee because there
23 should be an appropriate licence fee paid for the right
24 to use a program in Canada.
25 1487 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So, when you
StenoTran
347
1 say that it shouldn't be used to meet the objectives of
2 the Act, you have no problem with it being used to meet
3 the objective of 10 hours in certain categories. What
4 you are focusing on here is the spending.
5 1488 MR. MacMILLAN: That's right, as long
6 as the broadcaster has licensed the program for Canada,
7 paid an appropriate licence fee, whatever that
8 negotiation results in. Separate from that, to make an
9 investment, terrific.
10 1489 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think I may have
11 asked you earlier, but if I did not, I will. This
12 scheme would obviously make it impossible for the
13 Commission to choose a model where it would go to hours
14 only to meet its goals. I think we raised that
15 yesterday, if I recall.
16 1490 MS McDONALD: That's right, and I
17 think what we said this morning is our concern about
18 the hours only is that our experience is that that just
19 spreads small amounts of money over larger periods of
20 time and if our common goal is to get better Canadian
21 programming to more Canadians who want to make sure
22 they want to watch it, it is just not filling up an
23 obligation and, therefore, good programming needs good
24 investment.
25 1491 THE CHAIRPERSON: So this would be
StenoTran
348
1 another practical reason why you would want both.
2 1492 MS McDONALD: Yes, absolutely.
3 1493 THE CHAIRPERSON: I meant to ask you
4 and forgot. You mentioned the state of the feature
5 film industry. The CAB proposed to exclude from the
6 definition of "advertising content" the promotion of
7 Canadian feature films and, if I recall, it was whether
8 or not they were shown on -- I will see whether anybody
9 from the CAB frowns at me, but I think it included the
10 promotion of feature films even if they were not
11 broadcast on television stations.
12 1494 What is your view about that? You
13 mentioned, Ms Tait, earlier when we were talking about
14 what you were ready to include as promotional efforts.
15 1495 MS TAIT: As you know, the Minister
16 of Canadian Heritage presently has a feature film
17 review on and I know that it is her expectation that
18 broadcasters become more active in making Canadians
19 aware of Canadian features because that's a marketplace
20 we really don't own in any way. So I think we would be
21 open to that.
22 1496 Our first preference is clearly to
23 see Canadian feature films on Canadian screens, but if
24 we could get more Canadians to go to Canadian features
25 because they are being promoted actively and well in
StenoTran
349
1 Canadian television, that would be a significant win as
2 well. But I think we did make the point yesterday that
3 in other countries, the U.K., France, the broadcasters
4 are significant participants in the financing of
5 feature film, but again if we can get more Canadians to
6 more Canadian features by promoting them on Canadian
7 television, then that would be a good step forward for
8 Canadian features.
9 1497 THE CHAIRPERSON: The last area I
10 said I had a few questions on was the program rights
11 issue, which is, of course, addressed by many parties
12 and proposals are made as to how you can somehow get
13 contribution from foreign services and, even more
14 importantly, try to diminish the problems that may be
15 encountered by the North Americanization of rights.
16 1498 You suggest at Recommendation 11 -- I
17 am looking at page 68, but I guess it is in the
18 beginning of your submission as well -- that:
19 1499 "As a condition for the addition
20 of a non-Canadian service to the
21 CRTC Lists of Eligible Satellite
22 Services, the service should
23 have to provide an unequivocal
24 commitment to acquire Canadian,
25 as distinct from North American,
StenoTran
350
1 rights for its programming and
2 specifically state that it
3 recognizes that a breach of this
4 commitment will result in its
5 removal from the Lists."
6 1500 I suspect you must have discussed
7 with your counsel how one would do this. Do you see
8 that as something that would be easy?
9 1501 Mr. MacMillan is laughing already.
10 1502 MS McDONALD: We don't always think
11 that things will be easy. I would like to state --
12 1503 THE CHAIRPERSON: I haven't seen him
13 laugh so readily since he started. You are not
14 laughing at your counsel?
15 1504 MR. MacMILLAN: Oh, no. I have
16 learned not to do that.
17 1505 MS McDONALD: First of all, I am on a
18 number of international committees with the MPAA, the
19 Motion Picture Association of America, run by
20 Mr. Valente. I am always amazed when we talk about
21 this rights issue in Canada because when I sit on
22 committees with our American counterparts and they
23 worry about the rights of their creators and what
24 happens to them if they are being abused in China or
25 Indonesia or anywhere else in the world. They will go
StenoTran
351
1 to any length to make sure that the rights of a U.S.
2 creator are protected and that every opportunity is
3 given to a U.S. creator to get the maximum amount of
4 money in the marketplace. Then we stand here as poor
5 little Canadians talking about whether we can have
6 Canada as a unique market.
7 1506 We don't think that this is going to
8 be easy and we know we can't go backwards. We know
9 that there are people on the lists and that would be
10 extremely difficult and get everybody into a whole lot
11 of issues that would be difficult and bring in other
12 departments of the government of Canada. However, I
13 would also like to state that we think that before
14 there are any new U.S. services added to the eligible
15 satellite list, we would like to see all Canadian
16 services up there first.
17 1507 But I think what we are saying is if
18 we are going to introduce more foreign services into
19 this country, then they should understand that our
20 creative industry wants no more than their creative
21 industry and that is to have their rights recognized.
22 That's all we are asking for. We can go through all
23 this other stuff, but you sit down with the MPAA and it
24 is piracy and fear and loathing and everything else,
25 unless it is us. Then our market becomes their market.
StenoTran
352
1 1508 So, yes, it would be difficult, but
2 it is a privilege to have access in this country, and
3 if you are on the cable system or on a distribution
4 system you are paid for it. Money flows from this
5 country. So we are stating that we expect these people
6 to recognize that they have a privilege and in exchange
7 for that they recognize our market as distinct.
8 1509 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would it be fair to
9 say that only some type of attempt at regulatory force
10 would make Mr. Valente see that he is not selling us
11 widgets?
12 1510 MS McDONALD: I think --
13 1511 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because you seem to
14 think that, yes, of course, we can wax poetic about the
15 desire to achieve that aim. What I was asking about is
16 how realistic is it to think of that recommendation.
17 It is interesting and I would like to know whether your
18 response was, "It would be a big problem with the ones
19 that are there already, but we can impose this
20 condition on future ones." Is that what you are
21 saying, that the difficulties that you mentioned in the
22 first part would disappear if it is just forward
23 looking?
24 1512 MS McDONALD: We would love to be
25 able to go back and in fact I think by taking a
StenoTran
353
1 stronger position on intellectual property rights we
2 are beginning to see with some of the parties that
3 there were complaints with changes. We are starting to
4 see it and we are not going to let this one go and I
5 recognize the challenge. However, there are a number
6 of other options available. We can license Canadian
7 services in those genres and then we don't have a
8 problem. In fact I think we are seeing that Canadians
9 really prefer Canadian specialty services, so I think a
10 solution is definitely to license Canadian services.
11 1513 I appreciate what everybody says
12 about Jack Valente, but I think that it is about time
13 that Canadians recognized that the line we get in this
14 country about North American rights is just a one-way
15 line and the reality is what our counterparts in the
16 United States want is to ensure that they maximize
17 their opportunities and they wouldn't accept it. It is
18 a very clean line when you look at it that way.
19 1514 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your
20 cooperation. These are my questions.
21 1515 Mr. McKendry has questions and so has
22 legal counsel, but I think, although it is 10:30, if it
23 is okay with you, we will proceed and you will be able
24 to stand down then, unless you want a break first.
25 1516 MS McDONALD: No.
StenoTran
354
1 1035
2 1517 THE CHAIRPERSON: No? Okay.
3 1518 Commissioner McKendry.
4 1519 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you.
5 1520 I would like to ask you about
6 something that Ms Schuyler said yesterday. I am just
7 going to read two or three sentences from the
8 transcript rather than interpret what she said.
9 1521 "I think it's very important to
10 look at one of the schedules
11 that are launched this fall from
12 one of the private stations. It
13 very much fits into our 10/10/10
14 plan in its phase-in level. We
15 are seeing the level of
16 programming commitment in prime
17 time to Canadian shows that we
18 are expecting in our first level
19 ramp-up."
20 1522 I'm wondering who that broadcaster
21 is.
22 1523 MS SCHUYLER: That particular
23 reference was to the Baton schedule, but we should also
24 point out that when we were making our remarks about
25 tying spending and hours together that we also see the
StenoTran
355
1 same from Global, that when the two are combined then
2 we are achieving the results that we want from our
3 10/10/10 solution. That was the remarks that Elizabeth
4 gave us earlier this morning.
5 1524 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So you
6 include Global as well in this reference.
7 1525 MS SCHUYLER: I was referring
8 particularly in terms of the schedule to the CTV, but I
9 was also saying that in terms of making an argument for
10 money and hours tied together, you can also see the
11 same effect on Global. The schedules aren't similar,
12 but --
13 1526 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I see your
14 point. The next sentence you gave us was:
15 1527 "This has happened without
16 regulation."
17 1528 I assume you are not using that as an
18 argument to suggest that there should be no regulation.
19 1529 MS SCHUYLER: Forgive me because I am
20 very new to this process, and if I use these words
21 incorrectly, it is not because I am intending them that
22 way.
23 1530 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I assumed
24 that was the case, but I couldn't resist asking the
25 question.
StenoTran
356
1 1531 I wanted to ask a question about the
2 risk associated with your business. Mr. MacMillan said
3 earlier this morning that it can be a risky business.
4 I want to understand where the risk associated with
5 your business should be lodged and if your proposals
6 would result in some of your business risk in effect
7 being transferred to the broadcasters.
8 1532 What's leading me to that thought is
9 that yesterday we heard from you that under your
10 proposals, existing foreign program would be replaced
11 to a certain extent. You also told us that we are
12 asking the broadcasters to put their -- what we are
13 asking the broadcasters to do will probably cost more
14 than the comparable American programming.
15 1533 That in itself I suppose increases
16 risk somewhat for broadcasters, but I was also taking a
17 look at a public opinion survey that was submitted to
18 this proceeding by CTV. One of the questions that was
19 asked of the respondents dealt with the most important
20 issue in television programming and only 1.7 per cent
21 of the respondents felt that there wasn't enough
22 Canadian programming.
23 1534 From a broadcaster's perspective, if
24 costs are going to go up, foreign programming, American
25 programming, is going to be displaced. Surveys
StenoTran
357
1 indicate that there isn't a strong demand for more
2 Canadian programming or it is not seen as a key issue.
3 1535 Is the risk from your business
4 activities in effect going to be shifted to the
5 broadcasters?
6 1536 MR. MacMILLAN: We are seeking for a
7 larger number of Canadian 7,8 and 9 category programs
8 to be broadcast and for licence fees to increase. That
9 goes to the heart of two of the tens.
10 1537 I don't see it as a fundamental
11 shifting of risk. Broadcasters have said very
12 eloquently and repeatedly that Canadian programming is
13 their future and that in a fragmented world where
14 borders are less honoured by new technologies, it is
15 going to be having distinctive Canadian programs that
16 will set them apart from all the other plethora of
17 American signals, or usually American signals, and that
18 owning programs to which they are the sole Canadian
19 user, thus making them distinctive in that marketplace,
20 is key to their future.
21 1538 If it is that key to their future,
22 then they ought to want to spend money to grow it, to
23 invest in it, R&D, and more than R&D because it
24 actually comes up with pretty immediate results
25 programming that can go on the schedule right away.
StenoTran
358
1 1539 I think it's a fairly logical place
2 for them to invest if it is that important to them.
3 Nevertheless, the vast majority of the cost of
4 producing those programs still is either provided by
5 the producer or assembled by the producer or provided
6 by the taxpayer, depending on how exportable, how
7 focused the Canadian program is.
8 1540 The vast majority of the program cost
9 is not paid by the broadcaster. It is paid by others
10 in the same way as the vast majority of an American
11 program which they import is not paid by the Canadian
12 broadcaster. It is paid by others in other countries.
13 1541 I don't see it as a fundamental
14 shifting of risk. In fact, the decline in licence fees
15 over the past several years has already shifted
16 some risk this way, I suppose. We are trying to push
17 it back to them.
18 1542 MR. THOMSON: I will just start with
19 what Michael said. I think I agree that we are not
20 shifting any risk. In fact, our industry is probably
21 going to incur more risk because we are asking for the
22 production of more programming. In view of the fact
23 that we contribute the bulk of the funding to the
24 programming produced, if we are going to produce more
25 of it, that's going to be more exposure for us.
StenoTran
359
1 1543 I also agree with Michael that the
2 only risk to the broadcasters is that we can't attract
3 Canadian audiences to Canadian programs. I think we
4 have all agreed in these hearings that Canadians want
5 to watch Canadian programming. If that's true, then
6 there shouldn't be a risk.
7 1544 MR. MacMILLAN: If I may just finish
8 up. I think that merely looking at licence fees and
9 obligations that broadcasters have or obligations we
10 are proposing for them to have, you need to look at the
11 whole picture. I don't believe that this debate can be
12 an a la carte one. It's a whole deal meal.
13 1545 You talk about the whole system.
14 Part of that system is obligations for Canadian
15 broadcasters to spend money and schedule Canadian
16 shows. We think that should be focus prime time
17 category 7, 8 and 9. You know our position.
18 1546 It's not a la carte. There are a lot
19 of other advantages for Canadian broadcasters operating
20 in this system. They have a licence. Others can't get
21 licences. Simultaneous substitution, Bill C-58.
22 There's a web of policies and plans, many of which
23 support the broadcaster, give them things. Others
24 expect investment back from them.
25 1547 I think we have to look at as the
StenoTran
360
1 whole package and not just focus a la carte on that one
2 obligation because if we are talking about risk, there
3 are other benefits that they are getting as well.
4 1548 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you.
5 1549 I would like to just ask you about
6 digital television and the extent to which your
7 industry is prepared for the new digital TV world which
8 is arriving in the United States very shortly and, I
9 guess, it's a little less clear when it is going to
10 arrive in Canada. To what extent is this an issue for
11 you and where are you at in relation to that issue?
12 1550 MS McDONALD: I am the person on the
13 panel that was on the Minister's digital task force.
14 We are market driven, so we will respond to the demands
15 of the marketplace. In fact, we have a producer on
16 this panel that has converted to digital because that's
17 what her broadcaster asked.
18 1551 I think that is the answer. We are
19 going to be working with our partners in broadcasting.
20 I think the most important issue for us will be
21 training to ensure that we have the crews to support
22 that. We are currently in meetings to try to discuss
23 what kind of training programs will be available, how
24 we roll them out, et cetera.
25 1552 It will be as much as it is a cost of
StenoTran
361
1 doing business for the broadcaster, it will be a cost
2 of doing business for the producer as well. We will
3 respond to the marketplace as the demands come.
4 1553 Linda, do you want to talk about your
5 experience?
6 1554 MS SCHUYLER: It's interesting for me
7 because working with the CBC to do this new prime time
8 soap opera that we are producing, I actually took a
9 look backwards and a look forward at the same time.
10 1555 One of the objectives of this soap
11 opera was to bring to prime time low cost high volume
12 drama because I believe that in the whole landscape of
13 drama one of the ways that we fill the funding gap that
14 we talk about is by introducing low cost drams as well
15 as the high cost drama.
16 1556 In order to do low cost drama, I
17 looked backwards to techniques that we were using when
18 television first came on the air, which is basically
19 you shoot your drama from three cameras and you switch
20 on the floor.
21 1557 Looking forward, when I realized that
22 to build a video studio was going to be the way to go
23 for this new production, we realized that we would be
24 crazy if we did not build this studio as a digital
25 studio. I now have, own, or the bank owns, a hundred
StenoTran
362
1 thousand square feet of digital square feet in Toronto.
2 It's a huge operation there.
3 1558 We have absolutely kilometres and
4 kilometres of digital wires. On our last day of
5 production, we had a camera flown in especially from
6 Japan with a high definition television so that we
7 could do a direct comparison between the digital Beta
8 cam and the high definition that we know at some point
9 is also going to be coming in.
10 1559 From our perspective, it was just
11 beautiful to look at because it's like looking at 16
12 millimetre film compared to 35 millimetre film.
13 1560 We, the producers, as well as the
14 broadcasters have to be very mindful of this new
15 technology. As we are buying new equipment, we have to
16 be forward thinking. It is a cost of doing business to
17 us as well. We are there along with them.
18 1561 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: The Canadian
19 Independent Film Caucus in their submission -- I will
20 just read one sentence from it. They said:
21 1562 "Broadcaster contributions and
22 other contributions are more
23 necessary than ever to enable
24 the independent production
25 sector to make a successful
StenoTran
363
1 transition to DTV."
2 1563 I take it that it isn't your position
3 that you require contributions from broadcasters or
4 others.
5 1564 MR. MacMILLAN: I believe the
6 reference in the caucus is to the concern about
7 lowering contributions from broadcasters if we have to
8 invest and we have to make sure that we maximize our
9 revenue opportunities as well. I think that's what the
10 reference is. We are not expecting a direct
11 contribution.
12 1565 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you.
13 1566 Thank you, Madam Chairman.
14 1567 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McKendry's
15 question about risks shifting has made me think of the
16 conversation we had yesterday, Mr. Thomson. Maybe you
17 are as stubborn as I am.
18 1568 You said again that the only risk was
19 getting Canadian audiences to watch Canadian
20 programming, but given what is documented and what we
21 know about the appetite of the audiences, the risk will
22 be shifted to the extent or until for the same cost you
23 can show programming that will get you the same
24 audiences and the same advertising revenues if it is
25 shown at the same peak hours.
StenoTran
364
1 1569 MR. THOMSON: There's a lot to talk
2 about there, so --
3 1570 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am just talking
4 about your answer to Commissioner McKendry. I think it
5 was that the only risk is getting Canadian audiences to
6 watch the programming, but it's a little more
7 complicated than that.
8 1571 MR. THOMSON: Yes.
9 1572 THE CHAIRPERSON: If you force peak
10 hours to substitute Canadian programming for American
11 programming, there's a financial result until you
12 equalize costs and revenues that flow from this
13 exhibition.
14 1573 MR. THOMSON: Yes. There are a
15 couple of points. First of all, the ten hours that we
16 ask broadcasters to get to isn't all going to be the
17 distinctively Canadian high quality 150 per cent bonus
18 kind of programming that costs them the major licence
19 fees because that's a requirement of triggering the
20 public funds.
21 1574 It is possible to buy very, very good
22 Canadian programming, shows that are produced by
23 members of our association for reasonable prices for
24 the same amount of money that they are paying for
25 comparable American programming.
StenoTran
365
1 1575 I think "Outer Limits" on Global is a
2 good example. It's a show that's probably one of their
3 highest rating shows. I'm sure they don't pay a huge
4 licence fee for that compared to what they would pay
5 for something like "Traders".
6 1576 It's not just across the board. We
7 are not asking to pay more money for the hour they are
8 going to fill. We are just asking to try and find ways
9 of making that hour Canadian.
10 1577 I think the other issue that comes
11 out of this too is we saw yesterday in the figures that
12 Catherine presented is that Canadian audiences for
13 Canadian shows are pretty close to what they are for
14 the American shows. There wasn't that much of a
15 discrepancy between the audiences for some of the U.S.
16 shows, "Chicago Hope", compared to the audience we were
17 getting for "Due South".
18 1578 The figures that I talked about
19 earlier this morning very, very clearly show that the
20 Canadian audience is directly related to the amount of
21 Canadian content. If there is only 4 per cent Canadian
22 content in prime time in underserved categories, the
23 audience is roughly -- the amount of audience tuning to
24 the Canadian content is about 4 per cent.
25 1579 The issue seems to be if we can get
StenoTran
366
1 more Canadian programming in prime time, we will get
2 bigger Canadian audiences. Then the issue sort of
3 trickles down to convincing the advertisers. I don't
4 think it's a question of convincing the audience as it
5 really seems to me to be a question of convincing the
6 advertisers that Canadian programming is as good a
7 place to put their ad, to put their money as American
8 programming.
9 1580 That's the real issue. I think we
10 will get there as we slowly build the amount of
11 Canadian content there as the audiences grow and we
12 will finally convince the people who actually pay for
13 the programming, because that's the people who spend
14 their advertising dollars, will finally convince them
15 that Canadian programming is a good bet.
16 1581 THE CHAIRPERSON: The measurements I
17 suppose will very quickly give you that convincing
18 advertisers or should.
19 1582 MR. THOMSON: Well, it should but we
20 still have that problem. We still have the problem
21 with the people that are out there selling ads saying
22 "We can't sell ads on Canadian". It's just a
23 historical position that they take. We have got to
24 change that perspective somehow.
25 1583 THE CHAIRPERSON: I would have
StenoTran
367
1 thought that the risk is also minimized if you consider
2 that ten hours over the week is not all of peak time,
3 that scheduling allows you to minimize the type of risk
4 I was talking to you about, the relationship between
5 cost and audiences. It's not as if the entire peak
6 time every day is going to be taken up by Canadian
7 programming of those categories.
8 1584 MR. THOMSON: That's correct.
9 1585 THE CHAIRPERSON: A broadcaster can
10 still have some cost subsidization left.
11 1586 MR. THOMSON: Yes. We are still
12 talking considerably less than 50 per cent which is
13 considerably less than any other first world country in
14 the world. We are not taking over prime time. We are
15 just trying to get a decent representation of Canadian
16 programming in prime time.
17 1587 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
18 1588 MR. MacMILLAN: I do believe there
19 are some risks involved, but there is also some rewards
20 that can come from it. I think that it's a reasonable
21 level of risk that we are proposing. I believe there
22 is some risk, to be fair, but I think it's a challenge
23 worth taking.
24 1589 I would much prefer to do that than
25 try to have a decent representation in prime time and
StenoTran
368
1 be a real live grown-up country and doing so instead of
2 what the CAB suggested yesterday where they said "You
3 know, raise the white flag and give up and don't bother
4 to have any effort or any rules for 7, 8 and 9 in prime
5 time". It's far, far too soon to give up. This is
6 doable.
7 1590 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are not scared
8 by Mr. Valente.
9 1591 MR. MacMILLAN: No.
10 1592 THE CHAIRPERSON: Legal counsel.
11 1593 MR. BLAIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
12 1594 As I did yesterday with the CAB, I am
13 going to suggest that some of the more detailed
14 questions be the subject matter of a written exchange
15 so we get that on the record, but we would ask some
16 broader questions at that point that need to be
17 clarified right now.
18 1595 You have put a lot of emphasis in
19 your submissions concerning documentaries. Is it
20 correct to assume that you hope that the 150 per cent
21 credit would be extended to documentaries as well as
22 drama?
23 1596 MR. THOMSON: Yes. I think our
24 proposal is that anything that meets the super-Canadian
25 or distinctively Canadian criteria that is being
StenoTran
369
1 established right now by the Canadian Television Fund,
2 whether it's a documentary, children's programming or
3 drama or variety, would qualify for the 150 per cent
4 bonus.
5 1597 MR. BLAIS: Thank you.
6 1598 We also had a discussion a little
7 earlier on about the definition of first run and second
8 run. I just want to clarify exactly what your proposal
9 is.
10 1599 In Public Notice 1984-94 when we
11 created the 150 per cent credit, it is provided for
12 that that credit is available for each licensee when
13 the showing of the drama occurs within two years of the
14 date from the first showing. In other words, it is a
15 time period limit.
16 1600 You are now suggesting, as I
17 understand it, each broadcaster would get two first
18 runs or two runs that would quality as first runs. Are
19 you suggesting that we should amend the definition
20 found in the public notice to reflect that?
21 1055
22 1601 MS McDONALD: I know our legal
23 counsel is very anxious to take up this topic again.
24 1602 MS McNAIR: No, we are not. I think
25 the two-year limit for the first time it is played is a
StenoTran
370
1 good limit, but to give some flexibility we felt that a
2 second play should be permitted and still count as
3 first run.
4 1603 MR. BLAIS: So, both the criteria
5 would run concurrently. I understand that.
6 1604 It would happen, though, as we
7 mentioned, there could be two runs per broadcast or
8 one, two, three, perhaps even four broadcasts over a
9 two-year period. I understand from the producer's
10 perspective that adds to the commercial value of your
11 product and helps your business. What does it do for
12 Canadian viewers in diversity?
13 1605 MR. MacMILLAN: With fragmentation,
14 obviously, it means that fewer people are watching any
15 particular program at any given time and that's,
16 indeed, one of the challenges or difficulties that our
17 broadcast colleagues point out, that they are fighting
18 for an increasingly shrinking fraction of the viewing
19 pie.
20 1606 On one hand, you might think, gee,
21 that's not going to increase diversity because they are
22 going to be seeing the same old programs over and over
23 again. On the other hand, now a popular effective
24 program still hasn't been seen by the vast majority of
25 viewers, in any event. I think it will increase
StenoTran
371
1 diversity because for those who have missed it, they
2 will have another opportunity on a different channel.
3 1607 MS TAIT: If I could just add as an
4 anecdote, "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" had a very loyal
5 following on Monday nights and when the CBC decided to
6 do a second play on Friday nights we were concerned
7 about what would happen to our viewing audience, and we
8 held. There was some migration to Friday night. In
9 fact there is now a greater audience on Friday night
10 than Monday night. So, I think this demonstrates that
11 audiences are loyal and they will follow the
12 programming and they will find the place on the dial
13 when they need to.
14 1608 MR. BLAIS: Thank you.
15 1609 In the United States, as I understand
16 it, the notion of independent production is defined
17 vis-à-vis major studios, the historically major
18 Hollywood studios, particularly in the film industry.
19 In Canada, I think, there is a different notion of
20 independent production and I was wondering if you could
21 give us your definition of the independent production
22 sector as it applies in the Broadcasting Act. In other
23 words, what if there is cross-ownership at the level of
24 20 or 30 per cent without necessarily having control?
25 When does it cease to be an independent production
StenoTran
372
1 sector? Is it a question of ownership, of control, of
2 economic reliance?
3 1610 MS McDONALD: I think it's really
4 important to understand that the Association has always
5 taken a position on programming because it's obviously
6 a challenge to deal with it on a corporate basis.
7 Basically, when a program goes forward does the
8 producer have economic control, creative control?
9 There is a whole lot of guidelines that CAVCO and
10 Telefilm use for those definitions and that is how we
11 define independent production.
12 1611 MR. BLAIS: So, you could have an
13 independent production company owned at 100 per cent by
14 a broadcaster, but provided the control is in the hands
15 of the producer, you still would qualify that as
16 independent production?
17 1612 MR. MacMILLAN: I wouldn't define it
18 that way. I would define it as if there is an
19 ownership similarity of 50.1 per cent -- i.e., the
20 broadcaster owns at least that or the producer or vice
21 versa or the same parent at those levels -- that is
22 then creating them as related parties.
23 1613 If it's a lower percentage, if it's
24 lower than 50 per cent, it still could qualify as being
25 related parties if, let's say, they had a 25 per cent
StenoTran
373
1 shareholding similarity, but as a result of a
2 shareholders' agreement they were given certain
3 guaranteed access to the broadcaster because the issue
4 of independence for us is: Does the privilege of the
5 relationship accord them undue preference in access to
6 the broadcaster? If they control 50.1 per cent of the
7 votes, probably they have authority over both sides of
8 the relationship.
9 1614 If they have less than 50.1 per cent
10 but, nevertheless, are armed with the benefit of a
11 shareholder's agreement entitling them to cause the
12 broadcaster to act in a certain way, then they probably
13 also have the same undue preference. So, it's that
14 relationship that we would say determines is a
15 broadcaster and a producer independent.
16 1615 MS McDONALD: Catherine Tait would
17 also like to respond to that.
18 1616 MS TAIT: If I could just add to
19 that, I think also for most producers the retention of
20 rights does determine the profile of the truly
21 independent producer, just to underline that. So, in
22 the United States you may have many independent
23 producers who hold no rights to any of their programs.
24 As far as we are concerned, that does not constitute
25 independence.
StenoTran
374
1 1617 MR. BLAIS: Thank you for that.
2 1618 Subject to the written questions,
3 that's all for now. Thank you.
4 1619 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very
5 much.
6 1620 MS McDONALD: I understand our legal
7 counsel would like to address an issue.
8 1621 THE CHAIRPERSON: No questions on
9 impeachment!
10 1622 MS McNAIR: I just want to make a
11 clarification on the discussion we had about
12 regulation. I mean we have assumed that any regulation
13 on the 10/10 would be worded "except by condition of
14 licence", but we also noted in our submission for the
15 multi-ownership groups we would expect at a minimum
16 that the 10/10 be imposed upon them and as their first
17 station came up for renewal, this corporate commitment,
18 in addition to others, would be imposed as a condition
19 of licence.
20 1623 The other clarification I would just
21 like to make is we are proposing a dual requirement,
22 spending and exhibition. So, the stations that only
23 would have a spending or an exhibition commitment on,
24 our second one would kick in immediately by regulation.
25 I just didn't want to mislead anyone.
StenoTran
375
1 1624 MS McDONALD: Madam Chair, Linda
2 Schuyler would like to say a few words on behalf of Ira
3 Levy, who is the Chair of our Children's Committee. We
4 haven't talked children's programming at all, so if we
5 could just have a moment.
6 1625 MS SCHUYLER: When Ira had to leave
7 very quickly yesterday, he asked me if I could just
8 make sure that the Commission is very clear that when
9 we say our 10/10/10 proposal, it's really a 10/13/10
10 proposal. We feel it's really important that the
11 conventional broadcasters take on this requirement for
12 three hours of children's programming.
13 1626 Yes, we know there is children's
14 programming available from some of the specialty
15 channels. Not all homes in Canada have the privilege
16 or are able to be wired and have access to those
17 services. So, we think it is crucial that this three
18 hours for children is a fundamental building block in
19 our program and we know that in the United States it is
20 the requirement of every broadcaster there.
21 1627 THE CHAIRPERSON: We didn't raise it.
22 Obviously, my understanding is it's not in peak time
23 necessarily, it's in children's time. It would be over
24 and above the 10 hours, so it would be really 13 hours,
25 but still 10 per cent of revenues. You would leave to
StenoTran
376
1 the broadcaster what children's time is.
2 1628 MS SCHUYLER: Absolutely, that's
3 correct, it would be in children's peak time, at their
4 discretion.
5 1629 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for raising
6 that. Give our regards to Mr. Levy. We assume he has
7 gone back to his children.
8 1630 MS McDONALD: He has, but he will be
9 back next week, I think.
10 1631 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much
11 for your collaboration, especially this morning. We
12 have been with you for two hours. We have enjoyed it,
13 of course. I am sure you did.
14 1632 We will now take a 15-minute break
15 and be back at 11:15. Thank you.
16 --- Short recess at / Courte pause à 1102
17 --- Reprise à / Upon resuming at 1116
18 1633 LA PRÉSIDENTE: À l'ordre, s'il vous
19 plaît.
20 1634 Madame la Secrétaire, s'il vous
21 plaît, voulez-vous inviter le prochain participant.
22 1635 Mme BÉNARD: Merci, Madame la
23 Présidente.
24 1636 La prochaine présentation sera celle
25 de l'Association des producteurs de films et de
StenoTran
377
1 télévision du Québec, et j'inviterais Mme Baillargeon à
2 présenter ses collègues.
3 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
4 1637 Mme BAILLARGEON: Bonjour, Madame la
5 Présidente, Mesdames, Messieurs les Conseillers. Si
6 vous nous permettez, puisque nous savons que
7 Mme Bertrand est à l'écoute, nous aimerions lui offrir
8 nos plus chaleureuses salutations.
9 1638 Je me présente, je suis Louise
10 Baillargeon, présidente-directrice générale de
11 l'Association des producteurs de films et de télévision
12 du Québec, qu'on appelle l'APFTQ. Je suis accompagnée,
13 à ma gauche, de M. Jacques Blain, président de Cirrus
14 Communications et administrateur représentant la
15 télévision au conseil d'administration et, à ma droite,
16 de M. André Picard, président et directeur de SDA
17 Productions et président du conseil d'administration de
18 notre association. Malheureusement, M. Jaquelin
19 Bouchard, président et chef de direction du Groupe
20 Pixcom, qui était avec nous hier, a dû rentrer à
21 Montréal pour questions professionnelles et ne pourra
22 pas être présent avec nous ce matin.
23 1639 Nous remercions le Conseil de nous
24 inviter à donner le point de vue des producteurs
25 indépendants du Québec à ces audiences déterminantes
StenoTran
378
1 pour l'industrie de la radiodiffusion canadienne.
2 Active depuis plus de 30 ans, l'association regroupe la
3 presque totalité des sociétés de production oeuvrant
4 dans les deux langues officielles et dans tous les
5 secteurs de la production audio-visuelle au Québec.
6 Les activités de ses membres génèrent 95 pour cent et
7 plus du volume annuel total de la production
8 indépendante, tant en cinéma qu'en télévision.
9 1640 Notre intervention aujourd'hui
10 traitera essentiellement des enjeux de la révision des
11 politiques relatives à la télévision de langue
12 française, sans oublier l'importance que doit accorder
13 le Conseil à la définition d'"émission canadienne".
14 Cependant, en ce qui concerne la télévision de langue
15 anglaise, nous appuyons le mémoire qui a été déposé par
16 notre homologue CFTPA dans le cadre de cette audience.
17 1641 Je passe maintenant la parole à André
18 Picard.
19 1642 M. PICARD: Merci, Louise.
20 1643 Avant de commencer la lecture de mon
21 texte, je dois tout simplement dire que pour nous, de
22 desservir le téléspectateur et de l'avoir en tête,
23 c'est un réflexe naturel; le métier de nos membres est
24 de travailler quotidiennement à la qualité, à la
25 diversité, à la popularité de la programmation et de la
StenoTran
379
1 production canadienne, à laquelle on contribue toujours
2 en partenariat avec des radiodiffuseurs publics et
3 privés. C'est essentiellement notre métier.
4 1644 Je m'excuse aussi peut-être de mon
5 ton de voix. J'ai une mauvaise grippe; je suis un peu
6 enrhumé. Je vais essayer de quand même passer à
7 travers mon texte sans trop d'interruptions.
8 1645 L'APFTQ considère essentiel que le
9 Conseil continue d'exercer sa mission de réglementation
10 et de supervision, notamment afin de reconnaître le
11 caractère distinct et restreint du marché de la
12 télévision de langue française, reconnaître la
13 spécificité des télévisions conventionnelles et
14 spécialisées, appuyer le maintien d'une télévision
15 publique forte et renforcer le mandat culturel de la
16 Société Radio-Canada, et maximiser la diversité de
17 l'offre de contenu canadien en assurant le recours
18 significatif et obligatoire à la production
19 indépendante; et, finalement, responsabiliser les
20 diffuseurs canadiens quant au soutien et à la promotion
21 du long métrage canadien.
22 1646 Afin de rencontrer ces objectifs, il
23 est essentiel que le Conseil examine attentivement les
24 points suivants: premièrement, le pourcentage de
25 contenu canadien des diffuseurs conventionnels;
StenoTran
380
1 deuxièmement, les dépenses de programmation canadienne;
2 troisièmement, le rôle de la télévision publique,
3 particulièrement celui de Radio-Canada; quatrièmement,
4 la structure industrielle du système de radiodiffusion
5 canadienne; et le financement de la production
6 canadienne. Nous élaborerons maintenant sur chacun de
7 ces points, qui seront suivis de nos recommandations.
8 1647 Premier point: le pourcentage de
9 contenu canadien chez les diffuseurs conventionnels.
10 1648 Les Canadiens de langue française ont
11 un accès croissant aux diverses sources d'information
12 et de divertissement étranger. Il est crucial que le
13 Conseil veille à ce que, parmi ces choix, ils puissent
14 continuer d'avoir accès de façon prédominante à une
15 programmation canadienne de qualité en langue
16 française.
17 1649 Le Conseil doit donc maintenir les
18 seuils minima actuels de contenu canadien et inciter
19 les diffuseurs conventionnels privés et publics à
20 recourir davantage à la production indépendante, compte
21 tenu de leur succès incontestable. Au Québec, ces
22 minima sont de toute façon dépassés volontairement par
23 les diffuseurs. TVA, par exemple, augmente
24 volontairement; elle doit donc être rentable.
25 1650 De plus, pour valoriser l'apport des
StenoTran
381
1 diffuseurs conventionnels aux catégories 7, 8 et 9
2 d'émissions sous-représentées, nous préconisons que le
3 Conseil établisse un crédit de pourcentage majoré de
4 l'ordre de 150 pour cent pour les dramatiques dites
5 lourdes, les documentaires et les émissions pour
6 enfants; de 125 pour cent pour les téléromans plus, ou
7 super téléromans, et de 150 pour cent pour les
8 coproductions majoritaires. Ce crédit sera applicable
9 exclusivement aux émissions originales en première
10 diffusion.
11 1651 Nous souhaitons également que le CRTC
12 établisse des exigences seuls pour chaque catégorie
13 d'émissions sous-représentées, incluant les
14 documentaires, qui doivent nécessairement faire partie
15 de ces catégories; qu'il oblige les réseaux et les
16 grands groupes de stations à inscrire à leur horaire un
17 minimum de mini-séries et de fictions lourdes
18 canadiennes aux heures de grande écoute; qu'il incite
19 les diffuseurs conventionnels privés à inclure dans
20 leur offre de programmation canadienne à l'intention
21 des enfants une plus grande proportion de productions
22 originales canadiennes; et qu'il incite les diffuseurs
23 conventionnels à offrir une plus grande proportion de
24 documentaires canadiens.
25 1652 Par ailleurs, nous rappelons au
StenoTran
382
1 Conseil l'importance du processus d'accréditation des
2 émissions canadiennes et les observations que, à cet
3 égard, nous lui avons fait parvenir en juillet dernier.
4 1653 Nous citons ici quelques points que
5 nous jugeons essentiels à l'obtention d'une
6 accréditation canadienne: que le producteur doit être
7 une société canadienne contrôlée par des Canadiens; que
8 l'analyse d'une série télévisuelle doit se faire sur
9 l'ensemble des épisodes de la série; que le Conseil
10 doit reconnaître comme canadiennes les émissions
11 composées principalement de séquences d'archives,
12 spécialement pour les documentaires; que des conditions
13 spéciales doivent être accordées pour les émissions
14 d'animation; et, finalement que le Conseil doit faire
15 preuve de souplesse dans la définition d'"interprètes
16 principaux et secondaires", principalement pour les
17 émissions de variétés.
18 1654 Deuxième point: les dépenses de
19 programmation canadienne.
20 1655 Les diffuseurs conventionnels privés
21 de langue française se distinguent à plusieurs égards
22 de leurs homologues de langue anglaise. Dans leurs
23 dépenses de programmation ils accordent une place plus
24 grande à la programmation canadienne et aux émissions
25 sous-représentées. Par ailleurs, ces mêmes diffuseurs
StenoTran
383
1 privés produisent à l'interne une proportion beaucoup
2 plus importante de dramatiques que ne le font les
3 diffuseurs anglophones. Ces dépenses canadiennes ont
4 augmenté de quelque 13 pour cent depuis l'introduction
5 du Fonds de câblodistribution.
6 1656 Il importe de souligner que les
7 diffuseurs privés devenaient alors habilités à inclure
8 la proportion des droits de diffusion versés par ce
9 même fonds dans leurs dépenses de programmation
10 canadienne. Les revenus des diffuseurs conventionnels
11 privés, quant à eux, ont augmenté de 22 pour cent au
12 courant de cette même période.
13 1657 Nous croyons qu'afin d'assurer une
14 progression constante des dépenses de programmation
15 canadienne à l'antenne des diffuseurs francophones et
16 de garantir que les dépenses engagées au titre des
17 émissions canadiennes, en particulier les émissions
18 sous-représentées, soient appropriées et équitables,
19 l'APFTQ recommande que le Conseil s'assure que les
20 dépenses des diffuseurs conventionnels pour les
21 émissions canadiennes, en particulier les émissions
22 sous-représentées, correspondent à un pourcentage de
23 leurs revenus bruts et qu'il exige que les dépenses
24 engagées par ces diffuseurs au titre des émissions
25 canadiennes produites par le secteur de production
StenoTran
384
1 indépendante augmentent au minimum au prorata de
2 l'augmentation de leurs revenus bruts.
3 1658 De plus, compte tenu de l'importante
4 utilisation des longs métrages dans les diverses
5 grilles de programmation des diffuseurs conventionnels
6 et du peu de place accordée aux longs métrages
7 canadiens, l'APFTQ recommande que le Conseil veille à
8 ce que la SRC alloue au moins 5 millions de dollars par
9 année à l'acquisition de droits de télédiffusion de
10 longs métrages cinématographiques canadiens et accepte
11 de considérer comme une dépense de programmation
12 l'investissement en capital des diffuseurs
13 conventionnels privés dans un long métrage canadien
14 pour salles produit par une entreprise indépendante.
15 1659 Troisième point: le rôle de la
16 télévision publique, particulièrement Radio-Canada.
17 1660 La télévision publique contribue à
18 assurer la présence de la culture canadienne à
19 l'ensemble des Canadiens qu'elle dessert. La Société
20 Radio-Canada particulièrement, par son mandat de
21 télévision généraliste, a toujours joué un rôle de chef
22 de file dans la programmation canadienne d'émissions
23 sous-représentées et a souvent tracé la voie aux autres
24 diffuseurs francophones. Le mandat de Radio-Canada se
25 doit d'être confirmé, et le Conseil doit s'assurer
StenoTran
385
1 qu'elle a les moyens de le remplir adéquatement.
2 1661 En ce sens, l'APFTQ souhaite que le
3 Conseil s'assure que Radio-Canada accentue sa
4 programmation de contenu canadien de langue française,
5 contribue davantage à la production d'émissions qui
6 mettent en valeur de nouveaux talents dans une
7 diversité de genres, encourage le développement de
8 nouveaux concepts et de formats, c'est-à-dire
9 l'innovation, et diffuse plus d'émissions de catégories
10 sous-représentées aux heures de grande écoute; enfin,
11 sous réserve de l'exercice de droits de diffusion
12 distincts et de leur juste valeur marchande, que Radio-
13 Canada puisse se doter de services spécialisés
14 additionnels qui assureraient le rayonnement d'autres
15 types de contenu culturel et renforce son mandat
16 premier et maintienne son accès à des enveloppes
17 réservées pour compenser pour les coupures budgétaires
18 qu'ils ont subies.
19 1662 Quatrièmement, la structure
20 industrielle du système de radiodiffusion canadienne.
21 1663 Pour atteindre les objectifs de la
22 Loi sur la radiodiffusion, chacun des acteurs impliqués
23 dans le développement, la production, la diffusion et
24 la distribution des contenus télévisuels doit apporter
25 sa contribution à l'ensemble du système. Sa
StenoTran
386
1 contribution doit tenir compte de la position qu'il
2 occupe, de la nature de ses activités et de ses moyens.
3 Si un secteur tente de se substituer à un autre, si une
4 catégorie d'entreprises tente de court-circuiter le
5 système, il en résultera inévitablement un déséquilibre
6 industriel susceptible d'entraîne un affaiblissement
7 important du système de radiodiffusion tout entier.
8 1664 Afin de s'assurer que le système de
9 radiodiffusion continue d'évoluer dans un environnement
10 équilibré, l'APFTQ demande à ce que le Conseil veille,
11 dans le cas de tout détenteur de licence de
12 télédiffusion, à limiter l'intégration verticale pour
13 qu'il ne soit pas à la fois producteur et diffuseur
14 d'émissions qu'il programme, comme vous l'avez déjà
15 fait pour les producteurs; qu'il restreigne
16 l'intégration horizontale quant à la propriété croisée
17 de licences de tout réseau conventionnel et de services
18 spécialisés à moins qu'il ne s'engage à ne pas produire
19 ou faire produire par une société affiliée les
20 émissions destinées à ces canaux spécialisés; qu'il
21 maintienne sa politique limitant la propriété de
22 stations de télévision hertziennes dans une langue et
23 dans un marché à une par société ou par groupe; qu'il
24 revoie ses règles d'accès des services spécialisés
25 canadiens de langue française à la câblodistribution;
StenoTran
387
1 qu'il réglemente les tarifs des services spécialisés
2 distribués à l'étage; qu'il assure la distribution
3 canadienne des services spécialisés de langue française
4 là où se trouve un bassin d'auditoire potentiel; et
5 qu'il incite les câblodistributeurs à procéder
6 rapidement à la modification de la technologie pour
7 remédier au piratage des services de télévision à la
8 carte et à péage.
9 1665 Cinquième point, et non le moindre:
10 le financement de la production canadienne.
11 1666 L'industrie de la production
12 indépendante, vu la très grande popularité de ses
13 émissions de langue française, apporte une contribution
14 de premier plan au succès de la télédiffusion, mais son
15 financement demeure précaire. Le marché domestique est
16 restreint et la spécificité linguistique constitue un
17 frein majeur à une exploitation sur les marchés
18 étrangers, y compris ceux de la francophonie et de la
19 France plus particulièrement.
20 1667 L'APFTQ est hautement préoccupée par
21 la tendance des diffuseurs conventionnels privés à
22 diminuer leurs droits de diffusion et à vouloir
23 produire eux-mêmes, ou par le biais de leurs compagnies
24 affiliées, les émissions de divertissement. Les
25 mémoires déposés par le CAB et les diffuseurs
StenoTran
388
1 francophones dans le cadre de ces audiences confirment
2 cette tendance. De même, leur insistance à obtenir
3 l'accès à tous les fonds de financement destinés à la
4 production indépendante inquiète grandement notre
5 industrie. Ces fonds au départ ont été créés pour
6 permettre l'émergence d'un secteur de production
7 indépendante fort et autonome afin d'assurer la
8 diversité de l'approvisionnement, c'est-à-dire la
9 source de programmation qui équilibre le privilège
10 exclusif accordé aux diffuseurs.
11 1668 Afin de maintenir une industrie de
12 production indépendante solide, saine et compétitive,
13 l'APFTQ recommande que le Conseil maintienne
14 l'accessibilité exclusive de la production indépendante
15 aux fonds privés et publics, exige des seuils minima de
16 droits de diffusion plus élevés en pourcentage du
17 budget de production des diffuseurs, régisse les
18 barèmes minima de licences versées pour les droits de
19 diffusion en territoires canadien, s'assure que les
20 investissements ne suscitent pas d'exigences
21 particulières quant aux droits d'exploitation des
22 émissions de la production indépendante québécoise et
23 limite la part d'investissements des diffuseurs de
24 sorte que la propriété de l'émission puisse continuer
25 d'appartenir aux producteurs indépendants.
StenoTran
389
1 1669 Voici l'essentiel de la position de
2 l'APFTQ. Nous sommes maintenant disponibles à répondre
3 aux questions que vous voudrez nous adresser.
4 1670 Merci,
5 1671 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci, madame,
6 messieurs.
7 1672 Le conseiller Pennefather, s'il vous
8 plaît.
9 1673 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci,
10 Madame la Présidente.
11 1674 Bonjour. Merci pour votre
12 présentation.
13 1675 J'aimerais d'abord expliquer comment
14 je vais passer dans les questions mais j'aimerais aussi
15 faire appel aux commentaires de la présidente en
16 ouvrant cette session. Spécifiquement, je veux faire
17 appel à notre objectif principal ici aujourd'hui et
18 dans les prochaines semaines, c'est-à-dire de trouver
19 les meilleures approches pour garantir plus de
20 programmes, une meilleure qualité et un accroissement
21 du rendement de l'industrie dans son ensemble.
22 1676 En plus, Mme Wylie a souligné
23 l'importance de la distinction du marché francophone en
24 nous demandant de se pencher sur la question suivante:
25 Étant donné ce marché distinct mais limité, quelle est
StenoTran
390
1 l'approche qui renforcera la capacité du système de la
2 radiodiffusion de financer la production des programmes
3 de langue française tout en assurant leur succès
4 financier dans les marchés domestiques et étrangers et
5 en servant les besoins des auditoires?
6 1677 Maintenant, c'est évident que, si on
7 tourne à votre mémoire, dans le sommaire exécutif, et
8 la présentation aujourd'hui, on constate que vous
9 choisissez certains éléments clés en donnant une
10 réponse à cette question. Alors le questionnement
11 aujourd'hui va passer sur ces points clés que vous avez
12 mentionnés aussi dans la présentation, et certainement
13 la première est le caractère distinct et restreint du
14 marché de la télévision de langue française.
15 1678 Je sais, surtout André, que vous avez
16 parlé de quelques détails de cette distinction, mais
17 j'aimerais qu'on prenne un moment juste pour faire le
18 point de cette réalité dans le contexte d'aujourd'hui
19 et de demain. Croyez-vous que cette reconnaissance du
20 caractère distinct du marché de langue française est
21 plus importante aujourd'hui?
22 1679 M. PICARD: Je crois que certainement
23 le CRTC, dans son invitation, a ouvert la porte, et
24 c'est pour ça que nous l'avons mentionné et nous
25 l'avons répété ce matin dans notre mémoire. Compte
StenoTran
391
1 tenu de la convergence de l'industrie, de
2 l'introduction des nouvelles technologies, de services
3 de langue étrangère accrus dans le marché domestique,
4 et si on regarde simplement la pénétration du câble par
5 exemple au Québec, qui est assez stable depuis
6 plusieurs années, et l'introduction des services par
7 satellites canadiens et étrangers, il est essentiel de
8 bâtir sur nos succès -- c'est souligné par tout le
9 monde, il faut quand même se réjouir, surtout entre
10 nous, du succès de notre industrie -- mais regarder ses
11 forces et ses caractéristiques principales et s'assurer
12 qu'on ne les oublie pas.
13 1680 Alors pour moi la réponse est
14 simplement et clairement "oui".
15 1681 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Oui, parce
16 que je pense que tout le monde parle de succès, surtout
17 sur le côté de la programmation canadienne dans le
18 marché francophone, mais pour être précise -- parce que
19 je veux aller plus loin dans les propos que vous faites
20 spécifiquement pour le marché francophone -- qu'est-ce
21 qui a fait en sorte que cette programmation a cet
22 auditoire tellement fidèle?
23 1682 M. PICARD: Je pense que des fois ça
24 vaut la peine de se répéter des choses qui sont
25 évidentes, parce que c'est ça qui en fait le caractère
StenoTran
392
1 distinct et c'est ce à quoi une télévision doit
2 contribuer, qu'elle soit publique ou privée, et c'est
3 la langue, la langue française, l'importance de cette
4 langue dans la culture, quelle soit la langue française
5 ou la langue anglaise. Je crois que c'est ce qui donne
6 un auditoire aussi fidèle.
7 1683 Par cette langue est passée la
8 création de contenus originaux, même des fois avec des
9 moyens beaucoup plus restreints, quoiqu'en général, que
10 ce soit nos producteurs, nos réalisateurs, nos auteurs,
11 ils trouvent, de par leur sens d'innovation et ce que
12 j'appellerais aussi de la débrouillardise, à créer une
13 programmation qui peut se comparer à des succès
14 internationaux et à des budgets qui des fois sont du
15 simple au double. Mais c'est ce qu'on appelle le
16 contenu des programmes, leur originalité, le système
17 des vedettes, le star system qui fait que... bon, il y
18 en a quelques-uns qui percent, des Céline Dion, des
19 André-Philippe Gagnon, mais pour chacune de ces
20 vedettes là qu'on découvre à travers le monde il y en a
21 10, 20, 30, 40 au Québec qu'on n'a à peu près pas
22 entendus à travers le monde et très peu entendus au
23 Canada anglais. On peut penser à 10 exemples, que ce
24 soit Rock et Belles Oreilles, Jean Lapointe, Gilles
25 Vigneault, à part dans des auditoires très, très
StenoTran
393
1 limités.
2 1684 Donc cet avantage de la langue est
3 fondamental et primordial et il crée certaines
4 contraintes aussi vis-à-vis le peu de potentiel
5 d'exploitation aux marchés étrangers... même en France,
6 par exemple, parce que les Français ne parlent pas la
7 même langue que nous. Ils n'ont pas le même
8 vocabulaire, la même syntaxe, et là je ne parle même
9 pas des habitudes d'affaires ou de vie.
10 1685 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Je veux
11 revenir sur ce point parce que je sais que peut-être on
12 parle de choses évidentes, mais je pense que c'est très
13 important d'aller dans les détails examiner cette
14 réalité. Les questions que vous soulevez, on va y
15 revenir; c'est l'exportabilité des programmes, parce
16 qu'on parle de financement et certainement d'essayer de
17 continuer ce succès à l'avenir.
18 1686 En parlant de l'avenir, quelles sont
19 les priorités pour cet avenir de la programmation
20 française?
21 1687 M. PICARD: On l'a évoqué dans notre
22 mémoire de plusieurs façons, et je vais peut-être
23 laisser mes collègues compléter ce que je vais dire.
24 1688 Les priorités pour nous passent, bien
25 entendu, par les radiodiffuseurs puisqu'ils sont nos
StenoTran
394
1 clients premiers et ils sont aussi un filtre, puisque
2 nos clients ultimes sont les téléspectateurs, mais
3 c'est d'assurer les conditions, je pense, d'un rapport
4 sain et d'un équilibre industriel, comme on l'appelle
5 dans notre mémoire. C'est différent un peu pour nous,
6 les radiodiffuseurs publics, parce que je crois que
7 dans toute industrie il y a des cycles, que ce soit des
8 cycles de concentration et de diversification; là, on
9 vit un cycle de convergence et de concentration. Il ne
10 faut pas oublier, je pense, nos objectifs premiers
11 quand on passe par ces cycles, et c'est de renforcer et
12 d'assurer que la télévision publique a les moyens pour
13 accomplir ses mandats.
14 1689 Je reviens aussi à votre question
15 précédente, qu'est-ce qui a fait que notre télévision
16 est un succès aujourd'hui. Je pense que c'est à cause
17 du rôle remarquable qu'a joué Radio-Canada dans les
18 années cinquante, dans les années soixante, dans les
19 années soixante-dix en termes d'innovation et de
20 programmation.
21 1690 Ce qui est étonnant, c'est qu'il y a
22 eu beaucoup d'innovation sans compétition avant même
23 que la télévision privée arrive, et c'est vrai aussi de
24 la télévision privée chez nous, cette innovation.
25 1691 Alors quand on donne des exemples de
StenoTran
395
1 ce qui doit être préservé, c'est premièrement la
2 diversité, la diversité de l'offre, qui crée une saine
3 compétition, une émulation et une innovation. Je pense
4 que c'est le principe premier de l'ensemble de notre
5 mémoire.
6 1692 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Vous voulez
7 ajouter quelque chose?
8 1693 M. BLAIN: Non.
9 1694 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Non? Ça
10 va?
11 1695 En effet, est-ce que vous trouvez
12 maintenant qu'on a obtenu un niveau satisfaisant sur la
13 diversité de la programmation française?
14 1696 M. PICARD: On hésite toujours à
15 répondre "oui" dans ces audiences, je ne sais pas
16 pourquoi, mais je pense qu'avec l'introduction des
17 services spécialisés et le nombre de services
18 spécialisés francophones et leur contribution à la
19 programmation originale en complément de celle de la
20 télévision généraliste, ma réponse serait simplement
21 "oui". Je pense que dans les catégories sous-
22 représentées on a identifié certains points où il y a
23 une lacune, où on voudrait avoir une emphase
24 supplémentaire. Il y a des bonnes émissions, mais
25 surtout en documentaires et particulièrement en
StenoTran
396
1 émissions jeunesse, qui fait encore la fierté de notre
2 télévision au Canada et à travers le monde, je pense
3 qu'il y a eu, compte tenu des pressions de coupures
4 budgétaires à la télévision publique et aussi du fait,
5 particulièrement au Québec en langue française, que les
6 émissions jeunesse ne peuvent pas avoir accès à la
7 publicité conventionnelle. Il y a eu un moins grand
8 approvisionnement, un moins grand nombre d'émissions,
9 même avec la création de services spécialisés comme le
10 Canal famille. Alors c'est pour ça qu'on met l'emphase
11 dans notre mémoire; je pense que la programmation
12 jeunesse vaut la peine qu'on s'y penche de façon
13 beaucoup plus large et aussi le documentaire,
14 particulièrement le documentaire d'auteur, puisque le
15 documentaire de série, qui des fois s'apparente aux
16 magazines, avec les services spécialisés et même les
17 télévisions conventionnelles a quand même une bonne
18 place.
19 1697 Je crois que ce sont les deux points
20 où il faut mettre une attention particulière.
21 1698 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: On va
22 revenir sur ces points-là, mais une dernière question
23 d'ordre général pour être certains qu'on a bien
24 compris.
25 1699 Je prends pour acquis qu'on parle
StenoTran
397
1 d'un marché francophone, une programmation française
2 pour la population francophone canadienne.
3 1700 M. PICARD: Oui.
4 1701 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: C'est la
5 base de notre discussion.
6 1702 M. PICARD: À travers le pays.
7 1703 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: À travers
8 le pays. Merci.
9 1704 Mme BAILLARGEON: D'ailleurs,
10 j'aimerais rajouter que c'est pour ça qu'on a appuyé la
11 demande de TVA de devenir un réseau national.
12 1705 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Justement.
13 Merci.
14 1706 J'aimerais maintenant aller sur
15 certaines questions précises.
16 1707 Comme vous l'avez entendu, l'ACR a
17 proposé que le Conseil établisse des objectifs pour
18 atteindre un certain niveau d'auditoire pour les
19 émissions canadiennes. Les télédiffuseurs auraient à
20 démontrer au Conseil comment ils contribueraient à
21 l'atteinte de ces objectifs.
22 1708 Que pensez-vous de l'utilité d'un tel
23 système pour la télédiffusion francophone?
24 1709 Mme BAILLARGEON: Écoutez, il est
25 difficile au Québec, surtout en langue française et
StenoTran
398
1 surtout en télévision de langue française, où on a au
2 Québec des auditoires assez exceptionnels, qui sont à
3 peu près les auditoires les plus importants au prorata
4 de la population -- et on parle de la totalité de la
5 population de langue française au Canada -- au monde
6 pour certaines émissions, d'évaluer la performance ou
7 surtout d'imposer des critères d'évaluation basés
8 seulement sur la performance et les auditoires. Je ne
9 pense pas que ça pourrait répondre aux besoins de la
10 télévision de langue française.
11 1710 Pour nous, c'est évident qu'il y a
12 autre chose. Il y a la qualité des émissions à offrir
13 et le moment où l'on offre ces émissions qui est aussi
14 très important.
15 1711 Il est important de maintenir la
16 qualité des émissions qu'on a toujours offertes à notre
17 population de langue française, et on voit
18 tranquillement un certain glissement de la part des
19 diffuseurs où les séries lourdes, par exemple, qui sont
20 peut-être les séries les plus exportables, trouvent
21 moins d'intérêt chez les diffuseurs actuellement à
22 cause du coût, bien sûr, même si le coût en français
23 est du simple au double souvent par rapport aux coûts
24 de production en anglais pour les séries lourdes; les
25 diffuseurs sont de moins en moins intéressés à donner
StenoTran
399
1 des droits... à acheter des licences de diffusion pour
2 les séries lourdes.
3 1712 Il s'en fait encore, Radio-Canada est
4 encore très présente dans la série lourde, mais on sent
5 chez les diffuseurs privés une tendance à aller plus au
6 téléroman plus ou à des séries qui sont beaucoup moins
7 coûteuses. Ça, c'est préoccupant parce que c'est le
8 genre d'émissions de langue française qui sont le plus
9 exportables à travers le monde.
10 1713 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Si je
11 comprends bien, si on était pour aller vers un tel
12 système, vous aurez les exigences en termes de
13 réglementation nécessaires pour que ce système n'ait
14 pas un résultat qui baisse la qualité et quantité de la
15 programmation française canadienne
16 1714 M. BLAIN: On a été un peu étonnés de
17 voir cette proposition-là parce que c'est un peu
18 dichotomique avec le discours du diffuseur, qui a la
19 responsabilité de programmer des émissions qui
20 conviennent aux attentes et aux besoin des
21 téléspectateurs, et la proposition remet finalement
22 dans les mains des téléspectateurs ce pouvoir de dire
23 de quelles émissions canadiennes ils ont envie.
24 1715 C'est assez particulier parce que,
25 pour les diffuseurs francophones, André l'a noté
StenoTran
400
1 tantôt, ils n'ont aucun problème à aller au-delà des
2 minimums, des quotas imposés par le CRTC; même qu'ils
3 vont volontairement et allègrement au-delà des quotas
4 parce qu'on sait au Québec... enfin, on a appris au
5 Québec qu'il est possible de faire une télévision qui
6 ressemble à ce que les gens veulent voir.
7 1716 Les Québécois aiment beaucoup leur
8 télévision parce qu'on a fait de la télévision qui leur
9 ressemble, parce que les référants dans les émissions
10 ressemblent à ce que les Québécois veulent voir. Et
11 c'est assez étonnant que les collègues, que les
12 diffuseurs de langue anglaise au Canada nous disent que
13 les Canadiens ne veulent pas de contenu canadien alors
14 que partout dans le monde on sait que les contenus
15 nationaux, en fiction et dans d'autres genres, sont
16 toujours les contenus les plus populaires. Pourquoi ce
17 serait différent au Canada anglais? Au Québec, on fait
18 des contenus qui correspondent aux attentes de nos
19 nationaux. Pourquoi ce serait différent?
20 1717 Donc la responsabilité de programmer
21 des émissions qui conviennent aux téléspectateurs doit
22 toujours être dans les mains des diffuseurs et des
23 producteurs. C'est notre responsabilité de trouver les
24 formules d'émissions qui conviennent. Les quotas
25 canadiens n'ont jamais été pour nous des enfarges à la
StenoTran
401
1 production et des enfarges à la qualité et au succès de
2 la télévision québécoise.
3 1718 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Alors vous
4 trouvez qu'il ne faut pas avoir d'objectifs
5 1719 M. BLAIN: Oui, bien sûr, il faut
6 avoir des objectifs.
7 1720 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Ah, bon.
8 1721 M. BLAIN: Je me suis peut-être mal
9 exprimé, mais il faut avoir de tels objectifs et il
10 faut les atteindre. De toute façon, il y a des lois
11 économiques qui nous imposent de les atteindre.
12 1722 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Et quel est
13 le rôle des producteurs en ce sens-là
14 1723 M. BLAIN: De faire des bonnes
15 émissions, de faire des émissions qui génèrent des
16 cotes d'écoute, de faire des émissions qui
17 fonctionnent. C'est notre rôle.
18 1724 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Alors, dans
19 un certain sens, c'est le même objectif, d'aller
20 chercher les auditoires.
21 1725 M. BLAIN: On le partage parfaitement
22 mais on veut quand même un maintien des quotas
23 d'émissions canadiennes.
24 1726 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: C'est parce
25 que je pense qu'on a une discussion importante ici en
StenoTran
402
1 termes de comment aller chercher des auditoires et
2 donner la flexibilité aux télédiffuseurs d'aller en
3 faire et en effet de trouver les moyens, on espère, de
4 financer la production.
5 1727 Alors est-ce que vous trouvez qu'il y
6 a moyen de donner plus de flexibilité aux
7 télédiffuseurs dans ce sens-là d'aller peut-être, comme
8 M. Lamarre a exprimé hier, chercher plus de rendement?
9 1728 M. PICARD: Si je peux revenir juste
10 deux secondes à votre question précédente, je pense
11 qu'il est louable, dans le mémoire du CAB, de l'ACR, de
12 se rappeler que c'est le téléspectateur que nous
13 desservons tous et peut-être de se donner des objectifs
14 parapluie. On ne peut pas être contre la vertu, donc
15 contre un désir d'augmenter le pourcentage atteint
16 d'écoute par les Canadiens de langue française et
17 anglaise des services canadiens et de la programmation
18 canadienne. Disons que je respecte ça et je trouve que
19 c'est une bonne idée de se donner des objectifs
20 d'affaires, comme dans une entreprise, collectivement
21 comme industrie. Quand on se rencontre dans un forum
22 comme celui-ci de façon aussi large en regardant des
23 grandes questions de politiques, on ne peut pas être
24 contre ça, et je pense que c'est une bonne idée.
25 1729 Que ça découle et que ça ait des
StenoTran
403
1 conséquences pratiques dans une réglementation, je
2 pense que je trouve ça difficile. Comme certains de
3 mes collègues, ça me semble un défi de voir comment ça
4 peut avoir des conséquences qu'on pourrait mesurer sur
5 une base et en faire des promesses de performance
6 surtout puisqu'on dit que c'est global et que ce n'est
7 pas spécifique à chacun des fournisseurs de programmes.
8 1730 Encore une fois, personne ne peut
9 être contre la flexibilité, mais nous trouvons que les
10 télédiffuseurs ont quand même des moyens énormes et des
11 privilèges qui sont à leur portée. Si on parle juste
12 de TVA, avec le volume de production interne qu'ils ont
13 déjà -- et là, on ne parle pas simplement de nouvelles,
14 d'affaires publiques et de sports comme au Canada
15 anglais, mais pour les diffuseurs canadiens-français
16 ils font des émissions magazines, des émissions de
17 variétés, des séries de variétés, des séries de
18 magazines, de ce qu'on appelle en anglais des talk
19 shows et des dramatiques, des téléromans.
20 1731 Alors ils ont accès au crédit d'impôt
21 au fédéral, ils ont accès au Fonds des câblos. Vous
22 savez, on a mené une lutte de tous les instants le
23 printemps dernier pour qu'ils n'aient pas accès au
24 crédit d'impôt provincial et ils y ont maintenant accès
25 avec certaines restrictions qui ont été négociées avec
StenoTran
404
1 la SODEC au Québec. Il nous semble aujourd'hui que,
2 dans l'équilibre des forces -- en anglais un level
3 playing field -- ce n'est quand même pas si mal quand
4 on regarde ce que ça leur permet de créer comme
5 infrastructure, base de capitalisation.
6 1732 C'est certain que les choses évoluent
7 vite; moi-même, je suis président d'une société qui est
8 une filiale d'un groupe dont le principal actionnaire
9 est maintenant une compagnie de téléphonie; c'est la
10 première. Donc il faut garder l'esprit ouvert, mais il
11 ne nous semble pas aujourd'hui qu'il y ait des
12 restrictions qui empêchent les télédiffuseurs
13 d'accomplir leur mandat premier.
14 1733 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: En effet,
15 il y avait certains intervenants qui s'inquiètent du
16 phénomène de l'intégration verticale, qui amèneraient
17 un télédiffuseur à posséder des maisons de
18 distribution. L'ACR et certains télédiffuseurs
19 estiment que l'intégration verticale doit être permise
20 pour s'assurer que les télédiffuseurs demeurent
21 concurrentiels mais qu'il faudrait continuer d'encadrer
22 ce type d'intégration pour que les producteurs qui sont
23 vraiment indépendants aient autant de chance de
24 produire des émissions pour un télédiffuseur qu'un
25 compétiteur qui est possédé par le télédiffuseur.
StenoTran
405
1 1734 Alors si l'intégration verticale est
2 rencontrée de façon telle que tous les producteurs ont
3 une chance égale de produire pour les télédiffuseurs,
4 verriez-vous un problème avec une intégration
5 verticale?
6 1735 M. PICARD: Ça, c'est l'essentiel
7 d'un des points de notre mémoire, de nos
8 représentations. Pour nous, il nous semble que le
9 niveau d'intégration a atteint une certaine limite, que
10 le diffuseur, surtout dans le marché francophone... le
11 marché peut évoluer peut-être de façon différente dans
12 le marché anglophone, mais dans le marché francophone
13 canadien, surtout pour nos diffuseurs privés, qu'ils
14 ont des bénéfices d'intégration réelle existants
15 aujourd'hui. Et, comme je vous le dis, ils font de la
16 dramatique, ils en font régulièrement. Cette
17 dramatique-là peut être financée par le Fonds des
18 câblos.
19 1736 Si vous regardez l'accès au crédit
20 d'impôt fédéral et au Fonds des câblos, c'est
21 essentiellement les diffuseurs francophones et c'est
22 essentiellement TVA qui lui fait appel. Alors je pense
23 qu'ils ont pu trouver une diversification des sources
24 de leurs revenus, qui est leur objectif d'affaires,
25 qu'on doit respecter, et que le gouvernement fédéral et
StenoTran
406
1 que le gouvernement provincial du Québec les ont
2 soutenus dans cette démarche. Mais on croit qu'il y a
3 une limite, sans ça il y a une concentration de pouvoir
4 qui, nous croyons, n'est pas à l'avantage ultimement du
5 téléspectateur et de la diversification des sources
6 1737 M. BLAIN: Il y a une espèce de
7 distorsion actuellement dans l'industrie. Je pense
8 qu'il y a un équilibre qui est très précaire mais il y
9 a quand même une distorsion à savoir que les
10 diffuseurs -- et c'est quelque chose qu'ils ont
11 tendance à oublier eux-mêmes -- ont un privilège, les
12 diffuseurs ont une licence qui est donnée par le CRTC;
13 c'est donc un privilège que les producteurs n'ont pas.
14 1738 Quand les producteurs ont commencé
15 timidement à s'intéresser à la diffusion, on leur a mis
16 des barrières à l'entrée, on leur a fait promettre de
17 ne pas être des clients privilégiés, et actuellement
18 les diffuseurs qui veulent s'intégrer verticalement ne
19 voudraient surtout pas avoir de limites. Ils le sont
20 déjà dans certains cas; au Canada français, ils le sont
21 déjà. Il n'y a aucune restriction pour les diffuseurs
22 à l'intégration verticale. Il faut qu'il y en ait, il
23 faut qu'il y ait des limites, sinon on va déséquilibrer
24 le système, qui est très précaire.
25 1739 Souvenons-nous aussi que, par
StenoTran
407
1 exemple, le Broadcast Fund, qui date de 1983, c'est un
2 fonds qui a été très utile, qui a lancé la production
3 indépendante au Canada et qui a été mis sur pied
4 justement pour rétablir cette espèce d'équilibre entre
5 la diffusion et la production.
6 1740 Maintenant, tantôt j'écoutais mon
7 collègue MacMillan qui parlait d'éviter à tout prix des
8 relations privilégiées entre les diffuseurs et les
9 producteurs. C'est ce qui devrait animer toute la
10 réglementation, d'éviter le déséquilibre des forces en
11 laissant s'établir un phénomène de relations
12 privilégiées entre diffuseurs et producteurs.
13 1741 Je pense que le discours de MacMillan
14 convient parfaitement, peut-être pas... à des degrés
15 différents parce que, pour nous, on ne va pas aussi
16 loin que 50 pour cent dans les propriétés croisées,
17 mais le principe devrait toujours être de tenir compte
18 du privilège qu'ont les diffuseurs et de tout faire
19 pour maintenir un équilibre des forces en présence.
20 1742 Mme BAILLARGEON: J'aimerais peut-être
21 juste rajouter que la situation est exacerbée au Québec
22 parce qu'on n'a que deux télédiffuseurs conventionnels
23 privés et les deux sont intégrés à des degrés
24 différents. Le plus gros est intégré verticalement,
25 je veux dire, c'est presque un oligopole; c'est le
StenoTran
408
1 câblo, c'est le diffuseur, c'est la maison de
2 production affiliée qui a accès à différents fonds.
3 Alors la situation est beaucoup plus exacerbée en
4 langue française qu'elle ne peut l'être en langue
5 anglaise.
6 1743 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Dans ce
7 sens-là, quels moyens concrets... le Conseil devrait
8 obtenir une certitude qu'en effet le télédiffuseur
9 garantira des droits distincts pour l'acquisition et la
10 production des émissions? Qu'est-ce qu'on peut faire
11 pour continuer d'avoir une certitude qu'il y aura un
12 secteur indépendant de production? Et, en faisant ça,
13 peut-être que vous pouvez nous donne une définition
14 clair de ce que c'est, la production indépendante.
15 1744 Mme BAILLARGEON: Premièrement, je
16 vais vous donner la définition que nous adoptons à
17 l'association pour définir la production indépendante.
18 Un producteur indépendant est une société de production
19 qui n'est pas détenu à plus de 33 1/3 pour cent par un
20 diffuseur ou qui ne détient pas plus que 33 1/3 pour
21 cent des actions, votantes dans les deux cas, du
22 diffuseur. C'est notre définition.
23 1745 Par rapport à l'intégration
24 verticale, le CRTC aura à statuer pour un certain
25 nombre de demandes de chaînes spécialisées qui
StenoTran
409
1 proviennent des diffuseurs conventionnels. Ce que nous
2 préconisons pour maintenir l'équilibre du système,
3 c'est que si ces diffuseurs obtiennent les licences de
4 canaux spécialisés, que les sociétés de production
5 affiliées aux mêmes diffuseurs conventionnels ne
6 puissent pas produire pour la chaîne spécialisée.
7 1746 M. PICARD: Juste pour compléter, je
8 pense que c'est en partie vrai pour le marché
9 anglophone, mais pour le marché francophone, que ce
10 soit les parts d'investissement ou les droits de
11 distribution, dont on parle beaucoup aujourd'hui, il
12 est tellement difficile d'établir dans le marché
13 canadien-français la juste valeur marchande d'une
14 licence, c'est-à-dire quel est le prix... puisque ce
15 n'est pas, honnêtement, vraiment un marché très
16 compétitif. Comme on le dit, il y a deux joueurs
17 principaux au niveau de la radiodiffusion qui,
18 aujourd'hui, font des dramatiques. Si on prend la
19 dramatique, par exemple, Télé-Québec a arrêté de faire
20 de la dramatique il y a trois ou quatre ans, TQS il y a
21 deux ans; il n'y a que TVA et Radio-Canada. Alors dire
22 qu'une juste valeur marchande d'une licence s'établit,
23 c'est très difficile.
24 1747 Alors, à partir de ce moment-là, même
25 si, comme l'a suggéré un certain membre du CFTPA, on
StenoTran
410
1 établit une négociation distincte pour l'investissement
2 ou une négociation distincte pour les droits de
3 distribution, c'est très difficile de faire la part des
4 choses, d'après moi, dans le marché canadien en
5 général, mais particulièrement dans le marché
6 francophone.
7 1748 Alors je pense que le CRTC, quant à
8 nous, si on se permet d'insister, doit aller jusqu'à un
9 certain moment dire qu'il n'est peut-être pas question
10 que des droits de distribution soient possédés par un
11 télédiffuseur en dehors du marché national et
12 domestique.
13 1749 Encore une fois, nous, on intervient
14 surtout en langue française. Je vous donne un exemple:
15 TVA a décidé de faire une série de téléfilms de langue
16 anglaise. Ils ont établi une filiale de TVA
17 International à Vancouver et ils produisent une demi-
18 douzaine de films. On n'a pas de marge là-dessus. Là-
19 dessus, ils détiennent 100 pour cent des droits de
20 distribution, des droits d'exploitation, ils le font
21 avec des partenaires; donc ils sont devenus un
22 producteur. Nous, on regarde le marché francophone
23 aujourd'hui, parce que c'est là-dessus qu'on s'est
24 concentrés, et on se dit qu'il faut vraiment être très
25 vigilants pour maintenir le minimum de potentiel de
StenoTran
411
1 capitalisation et de diversification des sources de
2 revenus du producteur indépendant, qui est très limité
3 comparé au diffuseur.
4 1750 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: On peut
5 revenir peut-être plus tard, mais vous avez mentionné
6 au début, Madame Baillargeon, dans votre mémoire
7 aujourd'hui que vous appuyez le mémoire de CFTPA, mais
8 étant donné que le marché francophone est un marché
9 distinct, différent, j'aimerais faire le point sur les
10 aspects différents que vous proposez pour le marché
11 francophone, parce que même si on est d'accord avec les
12 propos de CFTPA, j'imagine qu'il y a des différences
13 importantes à souligner.
14 1751 On peut passer sur les points précis
15 que vous avez proposés, si vous voulez bien.
16 1752 Mme BAILLARGEON: Juste avant,
17 j'aimerais préciser que nous appuyons le mémoire de
18 CFTPA en ce qui concerne la télévision de langue
19 anglaise. Pour nous, ça ne s'applique pas à la
20 télévision de langue française.
21 1753 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Commençons
22 alors avec le contenu canadien. À la page 4 de votre
23 mémoire vous souhaitez, et je cite:
24 1754 "... s'applique également pour
25 les émissions de langue
StenoTran
412
1 française, comme pour celles de
2 langue anglaise, la
3 recommandation visant à ce que
4 les investissements des
5 télédiffuseurs qui se qualifient
6 au bonus canadien du Programme
7 de droits de diffusion du
8 FTCPEC..."
9 -- sauf, j'imagine, changer le nom --
10 1755 "... puissent être inclus dans
11 leurs dépenses de programmation
12 sous réserve que, i) des droits
13 de diffusion minima de 25%,
14 excluant tout investissement,
15 aient été versés, ii) que
16 l'investissement ne soit pas
17 supérieur à 40% des droits de
18 diffusion et à 20% du budget de
19 production total et iii) que le
20 contrôle effectif de la
21 production demeure entre les
22 mains du producteur."
23 1756 La politique actuelle du Conseil
24 telle qu'établie dans l'avis public CRTC 1993-93
25 stipule que, et je cite:
StenoTran
413
1 1757 "Qu'en règle générale les
2 activités réglementées d'une
3 titulaire de licence de
4 radiodiffusion ne doivent pas
5 englober ni les bénéfices ni les
6 pertes qui peuvent résulter de
7 ces investissements en capital
8 dans ces émissions. Par
9 conséquent, les investissements
10 en capital des titulaires de
11 licences de télévision ne
12 peuvent être considérés comme
13 des dépenses au titre des
14 émissions canadiennes aux fins
15 de l'application de la formule.
16 Cependant, le Conseil est
17 conscient de l'importance des
18 investissements en capital dans
19 la production des émissions
20 canadiennes, plus
21 particulièrement pour le secteur
22 indépendant. Par conséquent,
23 afin d'inciter des
24 télédiffuseurs à en venir à des
25 ententes relatives à des
StenoTran
414
1 investissements en capital avec
2 les producteurs indépendants,
3 les pertes liées aux
4 investissements en capital dans
5 les productions indépendantes
6 d'émissions canadiennes avec des
7 sociétés sans lien de dépendance
8 peuvent être calculées dans les
9 obligations de la titulaire
10 relative aux dépenses." (Tel que
11 lu)
12 1758 À la lumière de cette politique,
13 veuillez expliquer pourquoi serait-il maintenant dans
14 l'intérêt public de permettre qu'une activité non
15 réglementée, c'est-à-dire les investissements en
16 capital dans des émissions, soient incluses parmi les
17 activités réglementées, c'est-à-dire les exigences sur
18 les dépenses en émissions canadiennes, et comment votre
19 proposition pourrait-elle bénéficier davantage aux
20 producteurs indépendants que, disons, les droits de
21 diffusion?
22 1759 M. PICARD: Les diffuseurs sont nos
23 partenaires et ils nous ont fait part de leur intérêt à
24 l'occasion, pour certains projets, d'aller au-delà de
25 leur licence, que ce soit en dollars absolus ou en
StenoTran
415
1 proportion des budgets de production pour innover,
2 aller plus loin. C'est un peu le propos, par exemple,
3 de TVA dans le cas d'avoir accès au crédit d'impôt
4 provincial; une grande partie de leur argumentation
5 était basée sur le fait qu'ils voulaient valoriser leur
6 programmation, leur production interne vis-à-vis la
7 production indépendante.
8 1760 Alors si on les prend au mot et
9 qu'ils veulent innover en termes de production et de
10 programmation, et veulent le faire en partenariat avec
11 le secteur indépendant, ils nous disent qu'ils veulent
12 valoriser, augmenter leur part, leur participation au
13 financement.
14 1761 À partir de ce moment-là, on dit: Si
15 telle est leur intention, comment est-ce qu'on peut
16 reconnaître cette contribution-là, qui est réelle, qui
17 permet de faire de nouveaux programmes ou de faire des
18 programmes existants différemment? C'est en
19 reconnaissant cette part d'investissement de la même
20 façon que l'est aujourd'hui celle de la licence.
21 1762 Alors c'est une tentative d'être
22 souple en partenariat avec eux pour reconnaître leur
23 contribution.
24 1763 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Si le
25 Conseil permettait que les investissements en capital
StenoTran
416
1 soient maintenant considérés comme dépenses en
2 émissions canadiennes éligibles, on devrait examiner
3 quatre points, je pense.
4 1764 En premier lieu, dans la mesure où de
5 tels investissements peuvent générer des retours en sus
6 des récupérations de l'investissement, comment
7 proposez-vous de traiter les retours s'il y a lieu?
8 Serait-il logique d'assumer que de tels retours
9 représenteraient une sorte de recouvrement de coûts par
10 lesquels les sommes dépensées sur les émissions
11 canadiennes seraient réduites par une somme équivalente
12 au retour?
13 1765 M. PICARD: Je pense que c'est un bon
14 point, et le Groupe Coscient, dans son mémoire, a fait
15 état qu'eux autres, ils suggèrent que ce soit les
16 pertes qui soient comptabilisées comme contribution.
17 C'est une solution simple mais qui retarde peut-être la
18 reconnaissance, parce que combien de temps on attend
19 avant de déclarer la perte quand l'investissement a
20 peut-être été fait une année et les revenus s'étendent
21 sur cinq ans? Je pense que c'est une formule qu'il
22 faudra regarder, et on pourra peut-être revenir au CRTC
23 avec une suggestion spécifique.
24 1766 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Peut-être
25 aussi, en deuxième lieu, une autre question. Est-ce
StenoTran
417
1 que les pertes sur lesdits investissements continuent à
2 être éligibles pour déterminer les contributions aux
3 dépenses sur les émissions canadiennes? Peut-être que
4 vous voulez revenir sur ce point aussi.
5 1767 Alors je vous donnerai deux autres
6 points de détail sur ce propos.
7 1768 Troisièmement -- et ceci est une
8 question de synchronisation, puisque les
9 investissements surviendraient probablement au cours
10 d'une période différente de celle durant laquelle
11 l'émission serait diffusée, s'il y a lieu --
12 proposerez-vous que les investissements soient
13 considérés seulement dans les cas où l'émission est
14 réalisée et diffusée par le télédiffuseur ou seraient-
15 ils reconnus durant la période où l'investissement est
16 fait sans regard à la diffusion?
17 1769 Et, finalement, est-ce que ces
18 investissements en capital dans les DEC seraient
19 limités strictement aux producteurs sans lien de
20 dépendance avec les télédiffuseurs?
21 1770 Je pense que c'est important parce
22 que c'est un changement fondamental, je trouve, dans
23 l'approche que vous proposez concernant les obligations
24 et les possibilités pour l'investissement dans la
25 production indépendante.
StenoTran
418
1 1771 M. PICARD: Oui. Comme je vous l'ai
2 dit au départ, nous y allons avec un peu de réserve
3 compte tenu du problème d'établissement de la juste
4 valeur marchande, mais pour réagir rapidement, peut-
5 être quitte à vous faire parvenir une réflexion un peu
6 plus approfondie, il est exceptionnel qu'une
7 émission... peut-être des pilotes, parce que ça sert à
8 ça, mais il est exceptionnel -- je ne sais même pas si
9 c'est arrivé une fois -- qu'une série ne soit pas
10 diffusée, surtout une série de production originale;
11 c'est peut-être arrivé une ou deux fois. Elle est
12 éventuellement toujours diffusée, mais des fois peut-
13 être pas dans le créneau horaire prévu au départ si
14 tout à coup elle n'a pas eu de succès pendant ses
15 premières diffusions.
16 1772 Il me semble naturel que ce soit lié
17 à la diffusion, et je ne crois pas que ce soit un
18 problème puisqu'essentiellement toutes les émissions
19 dans lesquelles, je pense, un diffuseur investit ou
20 fait un pré-achat sont diffusées.
21 1773 Pour la deuxième partie..
22 1774 M. BLAIN: Il y aurait peut-être un
23 autre élément aussi. C'est étonnant que nous ayons
24 fait une telle proposition, mais nous voulons rappeler
25 que, depuis quelques années, le niveau de licences des
StenoTran
419
1 diffuseurs n'a jamais arrêté de baisser. Il y a une
2 époque où Téléfilm imposait un minimum de 30 pour cent.
3 Depuis ce temps-là, c'est passé à 20 et, d'après nos
4 chiffres, qu'on peut vous fournir si vous le voulez, le
5 niveau de licences des diffuseurs depuis trois ou
6 quatre ans n'a jamais cessé de diminuer.
7 1775 Alors pour nous c'est une façon
8 d'essayer de les ramener parce que, évidemment, les
9 exigences seuils décrétées par les nouveaux fonds
10 deviennent toujours des maxima. Alors avec le Fonds
11 des câblos qui est à 20 pour cent, c'est à la fois le
12 plancher et le plafond. Tout le monde bloque à 20 pour
13 cent; c'est la norme. Donc, pour nous, c'est une façon
14 d'essayer de ramener un peu d'argent parce que dans la
15 proposition aussi on parle d'un minimum de 25 pour
16 cent. Quant à nous, c'est un gain de 5 pour cent, et
17 pour ce gain de 5 pour cent par rapport au 20 pour cent
18 on est prêts à faire un peu de place dans le capital du
19 projet.
20 1776 Cette innovation-là, on la fait un
21 peu en se marchant sur le coeur; c'est parce qu'on n'a
22 pas le choix: les licences n'ont jamais cessé de
23 diminuer.
24 1777 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: C'est
25 pourquoi je pense que c'est important qu'on aille en
StenoTran
420
1 détail, parce que c'est clair, si j'ai bien compris
2 dans l'intervention que vous avez faite, que vous
3 mettez beaucoup d'emphase sur le financement dans la
4 production indépendante étant donné la situation
5 spécifique francophone en termes d'auditoire, en termes
6 de placement, en termes de présence de la programmation
7 francophone sur les ondes, mais quand même il faut
8 qu'on voie le système dans sa totalité aussi. Je pense
9 que notre discussion tantôt était un peu sous le même
10 angle, c'est-à-dire: en supportant plus d'argent, plus
11 de financement pour le secteur de la production
12 indépendante, est-ce qu'on force que le risque en
13 production soit remis au télédiffuseur?
14 1778 Alors je trouve que c'est sur ça
15 qu'on veut aller voir l'équilibre et les moyens
16 nécessaires pour faire ça.
17 1779 Par exemple, vous proposez que le
18 CRTC exige que les dépenses engagées par les diffuseurs
19 conventionnels privés pour l'achat des émissions
20 indépendantes, et en particulier les émissions de
21 divertissement, augmentent au minimum au prorata de
22 l'augmentation de leurs revenus bruts. C'est aux pages
23 2 et 11 de votre mémoire, 2 dans le sens de
24 l'introduction.
25 1780 Avez-vous un modèle à proposer à cet
StenoTran
421
1 égard?
2 1781 M. BLAIN: Pour nous, partons de ce
3 que nous connaissons aujourd'hui parce que, comme l'a
4 souligné le CAB, célébrons notre succès, et dans le
5 cadre réglementaire établi par le CRTC il y a des
6 dépenses qui sont faites aujourd'hui, il y a une part
7 quand même importante de la production indépendante à
8 l'antenne des radiodiffuseurs. Alors partons des
9 proportions existantes.
10 1782 Pour nous, honnêtement, de vous
11 donner un chiffre, un pourcentage spécifique, c'est un
12 peu difficile parce que -- c'est un des points de notre
13 mémoire aussi -- il n'y a pas une parfaite transparence
14 des contributions des diffuseurs dans leur ensemble.
15 Chaque producteur le sait pour sa production, Téléfilm
16 l'a pour toutes les productions dans lesquelles
17 Téléfilm participe, la SODEC l'a pour toutes les
18 productions dans lesquelles la SODEC participe, mais il
19 n'y a pas de chiffres clairs, indéniables et précis
20 pour l'ensemble de production des contributions à
21 licences puisqu'il y a des productions indépendantes
22 qui ne font appel qu'aux crédits d'impôt et à la
23 licence, il y a même des productions indépendantes qui
24 ne font appel qu'à la licence du diffuseur.
25 1783 Alors, que ce soit pour Radio-Canada,
StenoTran
422
1 TVA ou d'autres diffuseurs, il faut travailler en
2 collaboration avec eux et, on le suggère, avec le CRTC
3 pour établir ces chiffres, même si certaines données
4 doivent rester confidentielles. Je crois que c'est un
5 rôle qui reviendrait peut-être au CRTC, à moins que les
6 diffuseurs décident de mettre ces chiffres-là sur la
7 table simplement.
8 1784 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Vous n'avez
9 pas un pourcentage en tête à ce moment-ci?
10 1785 M. BLAIN: Non. Il est plus élevé
11 que les diffuseurs de langue anglaise, bien entendu;
12 donc ce n'est pas 10 puisque déjà c'est de beaucoup
13 supérieur. Mais vous donner un chiffre spécifique,
14 malheureusement...
15 1786 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Ni 7, ni
16 13.
17 1787 M. BLAIN: Au moins, oui, mais ces
18 chiffres-là doivent être faits en collaboration avec
19 les radiodiffuseurs.
20 1788 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Mais est-ce
21 que cette proposition de pourcentage, qu'on va peut-
22 être trouver à un moment donné, s'appliquerait à tous
23 les télédiffuseurs, grands et petits?
24 1789 M. BLAIN: La notion de programmation
25 locale, je pense, n'a pas le même sens au Canada
StenoTran
423
1 français qu'au Canada anglais. Alors je pense qu'il y
2 en a de moins en moins puisqu'il y a une consolidation
3 des réseaux.
4 1790 Ce n'est pas ça, votre question?
5 1791 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Je pense
6 que la question est plutôt vers, comme l'avait proposé
7 le CFTPA, le niveau de revenus d'une entreprise de
8 diffusion. Je pense que du côté CFTPA on a parlé de 10
9 millions de revenus et on a aussi insisté pour que les
10 conditions de dépenses et d'exhibition, diffusion,
11 seront appliquées aux stations dans un groupe qui ont
12 moins de 10 millions de dollars de revenus aussi.
13 Alors c'est dans ce sens-là qu'on se demande la
14 question est-ce que c'est la même approche.
15 1792 M. PICARD: Peut-être qu'il manque
16 une partie de l'équation que j'avais commencé à vous
17 exprimer tantôt, c'est-à-dire que, simultanément à la
18 diminution des licences dans les projets francophones,
19 nos études nous démontrent qu'il y a une augmentation
20 des revenus chez les diffuseurs. Alors, sans la
21 chiffrer, l'augmentation est là. Il y a eu une
22 augmentation annuelle des revenus chez les diffuseurs
23 qui est inversement proportionnelle à la diminution
24 dans les licences. Alors, si on allait chercher cette
25 augmentation-là, on a la réponse.
StenoTran
424
1 1793 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Si, en fin
2 de compte, on arrive à une proposition, que proposerez-
3 vous comme échéancier pour l'application de ce
4 pourcentage sur les revenus? Est-ce que ça va être
5 sur, comme on a dit en anglais, un ramp-up ou est-ce
6 que ça va être mis en place tout de suite,
7 immédiatement?
8 1794 M. PICARD: Aujourd'hui, quitte à
9 simplifier un peu, en langue française on a les
10 services spécialisés qui font la totalité de leur
11 production originale avec la production indépendante,
12 et ça représente je pense jusqu'à 40 pour cent de leur
13 budget. On ne demande pas une augmentation, on demande
14 simplement que les nouveaux services spécialisés
15 respectent les mêmes proportions.
16 1795 Pour ce qui est de la télévision
17 généraliste, pour nous, la contribution aujourd'hui,
18 elle est satisfaisante. On veut éviter qu'elle recule.
19 Il faudra voir s'il faut l'augmenter, mais le seuil
20 existant aujourd'hui est, pour l'ensemble de nos
21 membres, je pense, assez satisfaisant.
22 1796 Il n'y a pas la même mécanique parce
23 que, pour la production indépendante du Canada anglais
24 comme je la comprends, l'accroissement de l'offre
25 générale au public, eux la voient augmenter avec
StenoTran
425
1 l'accroissement de l'offre par la production
2 indépendante. Pour nous, l'offre de la programmation
3 canadienne de langue française aujourd'hui est déjà à
4 un niveau très satisfaisant qui dépasse même les minima
5 du CRTC. Alors on ne partage pas les mêmes nécessités
6 d'augmenter l'ensemble de notre contribution.
7 1797 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Je vois
8 l'heure; j'aimerais me pencher vers une autre question,
9 mais je voulais juste être certaine, sur le dernier
10 point, que vous m'avez bien comprise.
11 1798 Si on a retrouvé un pourcentage que
12 les télédiffuseurs devraient augmenter au minimum au
13 prorata de l'augmentation de revenus bruts, si on
14 trouve une réponse à cette question, si on trouve un
15 pourcentage, est-ce que c'est votre idée de faire en
16 sorte que ce pourcentage serait en vigueur
17 immédiatement ou pourrait-il être implanté
18 graduellement?
19 1799 M. PICARD: Non. Nous, on pense tout
20 simplement que c'est une façon qui est un principe
21 d'affaires, qui est simple de calcul et qui pourrait
22 être mis en vigueur immédiatement et, pour répéter
23 peut-être ce que j'ai dit, qui n'aurait pas besoin
24 nécessairement d'augmenter. On voit je pense trop
25 souvent les collaborations entre diffuseurs et
StenoTran
426
1 producteurs indépendants comme, comme le dit Michael
2 MacMillan, a non-zero sum game, pour que quelqu'un
3 gagne il faut que l'autre perde. Non. Je pense que
4 chacun a ses sphères d'influence, chacun a son plan
5 d'affaires, et nous sommes relativement contents des
6 équilibres qui existent aujourd'hui.
7 1800 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Et si on a
8 ce pourcentage de revenus, quel sera l'impact sur la
9 production indépendante, sur le nombre de programmes de
10 qualité disponibles pour les auditoires francophones?
11 Je voulais juste être certaine du but que vous avez
12 pour cette recommandation en termes de qualité, en
13 termes de nombre d'émissions, en termes de financement
14 du secteur en général.
15 1801 M. PICARD: Nous, on veut que ça
16 complémente, que ça ne remplace pas les exigences au
17 niveau du nombre d'heures; comme on vous l'a dit, le
18 baser sur le marché tel qu'il existe aujourd'hui.
19 C'est une autre mesure qui est en fait beaucoup plus
20 simple et qui dépasse simplement le calcul dans
21 différents genres de programmes mais qui est une mesure
22 facilement appréciable pour le diffuseur, qui fait
23 partie de données publiques pour les sociétés, qu'elles
24 soient privées ou publiques. Alors c'est simplement
25 comme ajouter une mesure aujourd'hui qui est globale.
StenoTran
427
1 1802 Concrètement, je ne pense pas que ça
2 va changer le niveau de la qualité.
3 1803 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Et le
4 nombre d'émissions canadiennes disponibles, est-ce que
5 ça va changer ça?
6 1804 M. PICARD: Non, puisqu'on le base
7 sur les données actuelles.
8 1805 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: C'est parce
9 que, si tout va bien, pourquoi avoir ce nouveau
10 règlement?
11 1806 Mme BAILLARGEON: L'objectif pour nous
12 est simple, c'est de maintenir ce qui se passe
13 actuellement, de maintenir l'équilibre entre la
14 production indépendante et la production faite à
15 l'interne chez les diffuseurs. Comme il y a une
16 tendance et qu'on l'a vu dans le mémoire du CAB qu'il y
17 a une volonté de produire de plus en plus à l'interne
18 et d'avoir accès de plus en plus à des fonds destinés à
19 la production indépendante, ce qu'on souhaite, c'est de
20 maintenir cet équilibre-là et on propose différents
21 moyens pour le maintenir.
22 1807 M. PICARD: Pour répondre à votre
23 question peut-être plus clairement, c'est que des
24 audiences comme celles-ci, ou que ce soit les audiences
25 de renouvellement de licences, arrivent une fois tous
StenoTran
428
1 les dix ans, au minimum à tous les trois ans; la mesure
2 du pourcentage des revenus bruts se fait annuellement
3 sans l'intervention du CRTC une fois que le pourcentage
4 a été inscrit, tandis que le nombre d'heures établi
5 dans le passé, l'investissement par nombre d'heures au
6 total était fixe.
7 1808 Là, on se trouve à créer un système
8 souple qui évolue avec l'industrie et avec ses
9 partenaires, où on n'a pas besoin de se retrouver dans
10 un cadre réglementaire pour dire: Est-ce que les
11 conditions de licence ont été respectées en nombre
12 d'heures, est-ce que les revenus ont augmenté ou non?
13 Et, bien entendu, si les revenus baissent, le
14 pourcentage reste fixe, la contribution baisse. Donc,
15 pour citer les télédiffuseurs, pour nous, c'est la
16 mesure la plus flexible qui soit.
17 1809 Comme aujourd'hui déjà on trouve
18 qu'on contribue en partenariat des émissions qui sont
19 diversifiées, qui sont de qualité, de divers ordres, ça
20 va faire continuer ce partenariat-là mais créer un
21 mécanisme de calcul simple et objectif.
22 1810 Mme BAILLARGEON: Il y a aussi un
23 partage de risque à ce moment-là si les émissions
24 produites par le secteur indépendant fonctionnent bien
25 à la télévision, génèrent des revenus additionnels pour
StenoTran
429
1 le diffuseur, le producteur en bénéficie. Si les
2 émissions ne marchent pas et les revenus baissent, les
3 producteurs indépendants vont également partager ce
4 risque à ce moment-là.
5 1811 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Je pense
6 qu'on peut aller sur une autre question et ensuite
7 prendre notre break de lunch.
8 1812 J'aimerais maintenant discuter de
9 votre proposition qui vise à favoriser la diffusion
10 d'émissions indépendantes canadiennes dans les
11 catégories sous-représentées et, par le fait même, vise
12 à encourager les télédiffuseurs à faire davantage appel
13 aux producteurs indépendants.
14 1813 Avant de se pencher sur le modèle que
15 vous proposez, j'aimerais juste rappeler
16 qu'actuellement seules les émissions dramatiques
17 canadiennes admissibles diffusées pendant les heures de
18 grande écoute bénéficient d'un crédit de 150 pour cent.
19 De votre côté vous proposez que les émissions
20 originales en première diffusion produites par le
21 secteur indépendant bénéficieraient des crédits
22 suivants: à 150 pour cent dramatiques lourdes,
23 documentaires, émissions pour enfants, coproductions
24 majoritaires, et à 125 pour cent téléromans plus.
25 Votre homologue anglophone, le CFTPA, propose une
StenoTran
430
1 approche différente pour le marché anglophone, c'est-à-
2 dire le modèle 10/10/10.
3 1814 Votre suggestion s'applique-t-elle
4 seulement au marché francophone ou au système de
5 radiodiffusion dans son ensemble?
6 1815 Mme BAILLARGEON: Seulement au système
7 francophone, et nous avons spécifié en début de mémoire
8 que, pour nous, il est important de distinguer les deux
9 marchés et d'accorder des traitements différents aux
10 deux marchés. Ils sont vraiment différents. Et ça
11 vaut également pour Radio-Canada.
12 1816 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Cette
13 proposition d'allouer des crédits supplémentaires pour
14 les catégories sous-représentées s'applique, si j'ai
15 bien compris, seulement dans le cas des émissions
16 produites par le secteur indépendant. Qu'en est-il des
17 émissions produites à l'interne? Pour être équitables,
18 ne devraient-elles pas bénéficier des mêmes bonus?
19 1817 Mme BAILLARGEON: Écoutez, on revient
20 toujours à dire que de détenir une licence de
21 radiodiffusion est un privilège, le diffuseur contrôle
22 sa grille, le diffuseur reçoit des revenus
23 publicitaires et même, maintenant, le diffuseur reçoit
24 tous les revenus de la commandite. La commandite est
25 très peu disponible pour les producteurs indépendants
StenoTran
431
1 maintenant. Puisque c'est un privilège, on pense qu'il
2 est équitable que ces bonus seraient un incitatif pour
3 les producteurs indépendants et seraient un incitatif
4 pour les diffuseurs à avoir recours à la production
5 indépendante.
6 1818 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Madame la
7 Présidente, j'aimerais continuer après le lunch break,
8 s'il vous plaît.
9 1819 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Très bien.
10 1820 Nous allons donc prendre une pause
11 jusqu'à 2 h 00. We will resume at 2:00.
12 --- Luncheon recess at / Suspension pour le
13 déjeuner à 1225
14 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1400
15 1821 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. I
16 hope everyone had a good lunch.
17 1822 Commissioner Pennefather.
18 1823 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci.
19 1824 Rebonjour. La question suivante est
20 sur le fonds de production. Vous vous opposez
21 catégoriquement, si je comprends bien, à ce que les
22 télédiffuseurs aient accès directement au fonds de
23 production puisque les télédiffuseurs perdraient un des
24 principaux incitatifs à travailler en collaboration
25 avec les producteurs indépendants.
StenoTran
432
1 1825 Advenant le cas -- on ira avec ça un
2 peu -- où les fonds de productions sont rendus
3 accessibles aux télédiffuseurs privés, qu'est-ce que
4 ces derniers devraient donner en retour et quels
5 paramètres devraient être mis en place pour assurer
6 l'équité de l'attribution des fonds de production?
7 1826 Allez-y.
8 1827 M. PICARD: Question difficile.
9 C'est comme se mettre la main dans le tordeur.
10 1828 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: On est là
11 pour explorer toutes les options.
12 1829 M. PICARD: Oui, je comprends. Donc
13 vous comprendrez notre hésitation. On veut rarement
14 discuter, que ce soit dans notre vie privée ou dans
15 notre vie professionnelle ou publique, des entachements
16 ou des écarts à nos principes mais, dans le cas où cet
17 accès serait permis... je pense qu'on peut peut-être
18 prendre l'exemple du Québec où, récemment, les
19 diffuseurs privés francophones membres de l'Association
20 des radiodiffuseurs de langue française ont eu accès au
21 crédit d'impôt remboursable du Québec. Cet accès fait
22 partie d'un protocole entre l'association et la SODEC
23 pour régir le niveau de participation et d'accès au
24 crédit d'impôt, donc pour le limiter, y établir un
25 plafond, et spécifiquement, compte tenu je pense des
StenoTran
433
1 circonstances où il y a une réflexion nationale au
2 niveau du long métrage, de la création d'un nouveau
3 fonds de long métrage et d'autres mesures peut-être
4 législatives ou réglementaires, d'une contribution
5 spécifique des diffuseurs privés au pré-achat, à
6 l'investissement, à la promotion et à la publicité de
7 longs métrages.
8 1830 Alors, dans le cas je pense des
9 catégories sous-représentées, dont le long métrage,
10 dont on a dit qu'il faut peut-être avoir de nouvelles
11 mesures incitatives, je dirais peut-être qu'on pourrait
12 se pencher sur le fait des dramatiques lourdes, qui a
13 des engagements spécifiques puisque chez les diffuseurs
14 privés on a vu un nouveau genre, qu'on applaudit parce
15 que nos membres y participent, le super téléroman, ou
16 téléroman plus, mais on ne veut pas que ça se fasse au
17 sacrifice des dramatiques lourdes puisque ce sont à peu
18 près les seules qui ont un potentiel d'exportation
19 important, et culturel et financier.
20 1831 Deuxièmement, je dirais que pour les
21 documentaires, peut-être que ça pourrait être associé à
22 des engagements vis-à-vis les documentaires; et
23 troisièmement peut-être une contribution plus grande
24 aux émissions jeunesse.
25 1832 Dans notre réflexion concernant les
StenoTran
434
1 émissions jeunesse, des fois on quasiment d'avis que
2 peut-être que les diffuseurs privés devraient se
3 retirer de la programmation, à la limite de la
4 participation à la production des émissions jeunesse.
5 Si on prend l'exemple de TVA, ils diffusent aujourd'hui
6 "Bibi et Geneviève", qui est une bonne émission, une
7 production indépendante qui a fait des bonnes années à
8 Canal famille mais maintenant qui est en reprise de
9 reprise, et il font ça plutôt que de faire une
10 production originale. Alors ou bien ils devraient
11 faire de la production originale jeunesse, ou bien ils
12 devraient peut-être se retirer.
13 1833 Alors je pense peut-être examiner les
14 catégories sous-représentées pour s'assurer qu'il y a
15 des engagements spécifiques, comme je pense que la
16 SODEC l'a fait dans le cas du long métrage pour l'accès
17 au crédit d'impôt provincial, et peut-être qu'au niveau
18 du partenariat avec l'industrie privée sur
19 l'exploitation des droits de distribution, ce serait
20 peut-être intéressant puisqu'ils souhaitent avoir des
21 droits de distribution sur les émissions auxquelles ils
22 ne participent qu'en licence.
23 1834 C'est une première réflexion.
24 1835 Louise.
25 1836 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci.
StenoTran
435
1 1837 Mme BAILLARGEON: Moi, j'aimerais
2 juste dire que c'est une première réflexion mais,
3 malgré tout, on est très inquiets de la possibilité que
4 les diffuseurs privés aient accès au dernier bastion
5 qui est exclusivement réservé aux producteurs
6 indépendants, c'est Téléfilm Canada.
7 1838 Je veux juste vous donner un exemple,
8 parce qu'en langue française on n'a que deux diffuseurs
9 privés conventionnels et, depuis l'instauration de
10 l'admissibilité des diffuseurs au crédit d'impôt
11 fédéral, la première année il y a eu pour 338 000 $ de
12 crédit d'impôt fédéral accordé aux maisons de
13 production affiliées à des diffuseurs, et seulement au
14 Québec, rien au Canada anglais. L'an passé, en
15 1996-97, sur 19 638 000 $ accordés de crédits d'impôt
16 accordés à des maisons affiliées il y en a eu presque
17 13 millions accordés à des maisons affiliées de
18 diffuseurs privés québécois.
19 1839 Alors, oui, avec deux seuls
20 diffuseurs privés qui contrôlent la grille horaire et
21 qui auraient un accès additionnel à Téléfilm Canada,
22 c'est certain que la production indépendante sera
23 encore plus en péril.
24 1840 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci.
25 1841 Dans le même ordre d'idées, vous
StenoTran
436
1 recommandez que le Conseil fixe les seuils minima de
2 recours à la production indépendante par les titulaires
3 de licences notamment en ce qui a trait aux émissions
4 sous-représentées. Comment ces seuils minima
5 devraient-ils être fixés en termes de dépenses en
6 programmation, d'heures par année, par semaine,
7 pourcentage par rapport à la production interne, basé
8 sur les dépenses d'achat d'émissions étrangères, et
9 caetera. Quels seraient les niveaux fixés?
10 1842 Mme BAILLARGEON: Quand on parle de
11 seuils minima, on parle de licences accordées en
12 fonction du budget de production, un pourcentage des
13 budgets de production.
14 1843 Quant aux seuils minima par rapport à
15 l'ensemble de la programmation, on parle
16 particulièrement des heures de grande écoute, qu'un
17 minimum de nombre d'heures soit accordé à tel type de
18 production.
19 1844 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Juste sur
20 ce point-là, sur les heures, pour que ce soit clair, je
21 pense que vous avez recommandé que les heures, la part
22 d'écoute sera de 18 h 00 à minuit. Pouvez-vous juste
23 clarifier pourquoi vous avez changé ça?
24 1845 Mme BAILLARGEON: De 18 h 00 à
25 23 h 00, en excluant les séries lourdes, qui ne
StenoTran
437
1 devraient être diffusées qu'entre 20 h 00 et 23 h 00.
2 1846 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Ce n'était
3 pas clair.
4 1847 Je pense que ce n'est pas une
5 surprise que je veux parler un peu des longs métrages.
6 À la page 20 de votre mémoire vous proposez que le CRTC
7 évalue la possibilité de modifier les règles relatives
8 aux dépenses des émissions canadiennes pour les
9 encourager à s'impliquer dans le financement des longs
10 métrages canadiens sous forme d'investissements en sus
11 des droits de diffusion.
12 1848 Le premier point là-dessus est: En
13 quoi votre proposition sur l'admissibilité de
14 l'investissement des diffuseurs conventionnels privés
15 dans un long métrage canadien pour salles diffère-t-
16 elle de votre proposition qui s'applique à l'ensemble
17 des investissements à la page 4 de votre mémoire?
18 1849 M. PICARD: Ça diffère un peu, parce
19 que je pense qu'on parle, premièrement, d'un nouveau
20 secteur d'activités. Il est question au Canada depuis
21 plusieurs années de pourquoi on ne suit pas un modèle
22 semblable à la France, où il y a TF1 Films, France 3
23 Cinéma, France 2 Cinéma, ou en Angleterre il y a
24 Channel 4 qui s'est bâti autour du cinéma; à PBS aux
25 États-Unis il y a American Playhouse qui a fait place à
StenoTran
438
1 beaucoup de longs métrages; beaucoup qui avaient été
2 des téléfilms qui, finalement, ont été diffusés en
3 salles, et certains ont été de très bons succès.
4 1850 On se dit pourquoi ne pas se servir
5 du principal instrument de communication au pays entre
6 les producteurs et leur public... ce n'est pas pour
7 éliminer la distribution et l'exploitation en salles,
8 mais on sait la domination qu'il y a de films
9 américains dans l'exploitation traditionnelle. C'est
10 dire: Regardons avec un oeil ouvert. Malgré qu'on a
11 un certain modèle en télédiffusion traditionnel pour
12 les émissions de télévision où on va avec un peu
13 d'hésitation vis-à-vis les investissements... puisqu'il
14 y a un modèle qui existe et que les licences sont
15 établies. On a un souci qu'elles se réduisent depuis
16 quelques années avec Fonds des câblos. Le long
17 métrage, c'est presque un terrain vierge. Et il y a eu
18 des expériences ponctuelles à travers le temps.
19 Disons-nous: Établissons un nouveau modèle.
20 1851 On sait que pour financer un long
21 métrage qui, au coût unitaire, est très élevé comparé à
22 une émission de télévision, où un épisode de dramatique
23 conventionnelle peut coûter quelques centaines de
24 milliers de dollars... un long métrage, c'est quelques
25 millions. On sait que seulement avec sa licence un
StenoTran
439
1 télédiffuseur ne pourrait pas compléter une part
2 importante du financement, alors on dit: Intéressons-
3 les à l'investissement dès le départ.
4 1852 Alors c'est un modèle de financement
5 différent puisque le produit est différent, son coût de
6 production de base est très différent; alors créons un
7 partenariat un peu différent. Et aussi ses modes
8 d'exploitation sont différents. Créons du
9 télédiffuseur un partenaire à son exploitation en
10 salles, à son exploitation vidéo, à son exploitation
11 peut-être auprès de d'autres diffuseurs.
12 1853 Mme BAILLARGEON: Il y a aussi le fait
13 que, lorsqu'on parle d'investissements pour les
14 émissions de télévision on parle toujours en-deçà d'un
15 minimum de licence. En long métrage, on ne demande pas
16 de minimum de licence, et les licences ne correspondent
17 pas à 20 pour cent du devis en long métrage, bien sûr.
18 1854 Alors ces investissements-là, on
19 n'exige pas d'avoir de licence minimum pour pouvoir
20 investir dans du long métrage.
21 1855 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Alors, si
22 je comprends, la mesure proposée vise à encourager le
23 financement de longs métrages pour salles, mais
24 j'aimerais savoir en quoi une telle mesure
25 contribuerait à augmenter le niveau de longs métrages
StenoTran
440
1 diffusés à la télévision. Pratiquement, comment ça va
2 marcher?
3 1856 M. PICARD: Bien, c'est
4 qu'aujourd'hui tout ce qui est admissible, c'est le
5 montant de la licence, des droits de diffusion. Là, on
6 se dit: pouvons-nous créer pour le long métrage une
7 catégorie particulière?
8 1857 On a un modèle qui ne fonctionne pas.
9 Que ce soit pour les téléfilms, les mini-séries, les
10 grandes séries dramatiques, tous les autres formats
11 d'émissions dramatiques, on a modèle. On le critique,
12 on le commente, on veut qu'il s'améliore, mais il
13 fonctionne dans son ensemble en télévision. Pour le
14 long métrage, ça ne fonctionne pas.
15 1858 On se dit que si la contribution du
16 diffuseur est limitée à une licence, disons le long
17 métrage qui, au minimum, coûte 2 à 3 millions dollars
18 et la licence est de 200 000 à 300 000. C'est un
19 financement qui n'est pas suffisant pour créer le long
20 métrage.
21 1859 Est-ce qu'on peut inciter les
22 diffuseurs à mettre un autre apport, à devenir
23 partenaires? Un des bénéfices qu'ils ont, c'est
24 l'investissement, qui peut rapporter ou non; c'est
25 risqué. Ils auront leurs droits de diffusion dont ils
StenoTran
441
1 profiteront en vendant leur temps d'antenne
2 publicitaire, mais en plus ils peuvent créditer ça à
3 leur contenu canadien pour atteindre leurs objectifs de
4 performance.
5 1860 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Alors le
6 long métrage dans lequel un radiodiffuseur a investi
7 sera nécessairement diffusé par le même radiodiffuseur.
8 C'est ça, l'idée?
9 1861 M. PICARD: Oui. Oui, et peut-être
10 par d'autres spécialisés dans une chaîne
11 d'exploitation.
12 1862 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: En parlant
13 des longs métrages, vous suggérez au Conseil de veiller
14 à ce que la SRC alloue au moins 5 millions de dollars
15 par année à l'acquisition de droits de télédiffusion
16 des longs métrages cinématographiques canadiens et
17 consacre plus d'efforts à leur promotion. Cette mesure
18 s'appliquerait-elle également en télédiffusion
19 conventionnelle privée, et sinon, pourquoi pas?
20 1863 M. PICARD: On a choisi, pour un
21 secteur qui a quand même un impact culturel important,
22 de privilégier... je ne sais pas si Radio-Canada va
23 voir ça de la même façon, mais de privilégier Radio-
24 Canada pour, comme ils l'ont souvent fait, exercer leur
25 leadership dans un secteur. On est passés par le biais
StenoTran
442
1 de l'accès aux crédits d'impôt; donc c'est un autre
2 moyen, avec la SODEC, pour les diffuseurs
3 conventionnels privés. La même mesure pourrait
4 s'appliquer, ou ça pourrait être une responsabilité
5 partagée.
6 1864 Quant à moi, c'est un secteur d'une
7 telle importance qu'il devrait y avoir une certaine
8 concertation entre diffuseurs conventionnels privés et
9 publics dans l'idéal.
10 1865 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Louise.
11 1866 Mme BAILLARGEON: Il y a aussi que
12 Radio-Canada est une télévision publique qui a un
13 mandat culturel plus important que celui des diffuseurs
14 privés, qui ne sont que des entreprises privées.
15 1867 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: On a parlé
16 beaucoup avec la CFTPA tantôt de la promotion, et vous
17 mentionnez ici l'aspect de la promotion. Vous pensez à
18 quel type de promotion et est-ce que vous avez des
19 suggestions précises à nous donner de comment supporter
20 la promotion des longs métrages par la SRC et peut-être
21 par le secteur privé aussi?
22 1868 Mme BAILLARGEON: Ce qui pourrait se
23 faire, c'est que toute publicité entourant les longs
24 métrages à la télévision, que ce soit sur les ondes de
25 Radio-Canada ou des diffuseurs privés, ne soit pas
StenoTran
443
1 comptabilisée dans les minutes publicitaires du
2 diffuseurs. Ça inciterait les diffuseurs à faire plus
3 de promotion, j'en suis certaine.
4 1869 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Je
5 comprends. C'est un autre aspect de comment distinguer
6 les marchés anglais et français parce qu'il y a
7 certainement un système à l'intérieur des marchés
8 francophones qui supporte le cinéma; on parle souvent
9 de star system sur le côté français, et je veux savoir
10 est-ce qu'on peut aller plus loin avec la promotion.
11 1870 M. PICARD: Je pense que Louise vient
12 de le mentionner, si on veut véritablement se doter
13 d'une structure stable pour une cinématographie
14 nationale, il faut que ce soit un effort concerté qui
15 comprend un très grand nombre de mesures, et il va
16 falloir examiner le résultat sur quelques années,
17 premièrement parce que le long métrage auquel on
18 réfléchit aujourd'hui sera peut-être en salles dans
19 trois ans et, c'est comme tout, il faut en faire
20 plusieurs pour avoir quelques grands succès et avoir
21 des succès moyens et se permettre aussi de se tromper à
22 l'occasion.
23 1871 Une mesure concrète -- je me répète
24 peut-être -- c'est, dès la sortie en salles, la sortie
25 en vidéo, la sortie à la télévision payante, que même
StenoTran
444
1 la télévision conventionnelle soit un partenaire. On a
2 vu nos télévisions nationales; elles se sont assouplies
3 plus récemment, mais des fois elles étaient hésitantes
4 à exploiter d'autres chaînes de titres en général.
5 Même si c'est certain que, comme producteurs, ça sert
6 nos intérêts, plus on en parle, mieux c'est. Plus on a
7 un succès, que ce soit dans n'importe quel média, pour
8 certains genres de produits culturels dont les produits
9 de télévision et surtout les longs métrages, plus
10 l'auditoire éventuel... on le sait avec nos enfants
11 avec des produits de cinéma, ils regardent des
12 cassettes sans arrêt. Mais nous, comme adultes, on est
13 souvent pas très différents pour nos films préférés.
14 1872 Alors que le partenariat avec la
15 télévision commence lors des bandes annonces qui
16 publicisent la sortie en salles et que, selon toute la
17 chaîne d'exploitation, que la télévision
18 conventionnelle, qui est premièrement le médium le plus
19 accessible à tous, fasse partie de cette chaîne, pas
20 seulement d'exploitation mais de publicité et
21 promotion. Et ça, ça commence par les bandes annonces
22 au départ; là, on peut mentionner plus pratiquement par
23 des concours comme il y a eu lieu pour des grandes
24 séries dramatiques de promotion croisée avec des
25 journaux, des carreaux, des radios et des télévisions.
StenoTran
445
1 1873 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Ça, ça me
2 ramène aussi au point que vous avez mentionné; ça veut
3 dire que le CFTPA tient à ce que la SRC profite des
4 avantages que lui confère l'accès à deux sources de
5 financement publiques pour négocier pour le même
6 montant des droits supplémentaires en sus des droits de
7 diffusion qu'ils obtiennent. On dit que la Société
8 exigerait, par exemple, d'obtenir des droits
9 supplémentaires tels les droits de distribution sur
10 l'Internet, le droit de négocier sur une base
11 prioritaire avec les services de satellites américains,
12 et caetera.
13 1874 Vos membres vivent-ils la même
14 situation que leurs homologues de langue anglaise avec
15 la SRC?
16 1875 M. PICARD: Je ne crois pas. Si oui,
17 je pense... parce que les négociations sont des
18 questions privées. Ça n'a pas été soulevé au niveau de
19 l'association, donc je pense que c'est très limité.
20 S'il y a eu discussion, je crois que c'est sur un
21 principe raisonnable, c'est d'un premier droit de
22 refus.
23 1876 Je pense qu'il serait raisonnable...
24 l'association ne peut pas imposer à ses membres des
25 conditions contractuelles, mais il a été évoqué qu'on
StenoTran
446
1 accorde en principe, ou que l'association favorise que
2 ses membres discutent et négocient un premier droit de
3 refus à Radio-Canada. Puisque leur licence a permis la
4 création d'un programme, pour nous, c'est quelque chose
5 qui est recommandable et qui est peut-être même
6 souhaitable, qui fait partie des bonnes pratiques
7 commerciales.
8 1877 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Maintenant,
9 vous avez mentionné la programmation pour les jeunes,
10 et je ne voulait pas ne pas le mentionner et souligner
11 l'importance de cette aspect de votre mémoire.
12 1878 Vous nous recommandez que le Conseil
13 doit inciter les télédiffuseurs conventionnels privés à
14 inclure dans leur offre de programmes canadiens à
15 l'intention des enfants une plus grande proportion de
16 productions canadiennes originales. Tantôt, est-ce que
17 j'ai bien compris que vous avez suggéré qu'ils sortent
18 complètement de ce secteur? Vous pouvez peut-être le
19 clarifier pour moi.
20 1879 M. BLAIN: Je pense que
21 traditionnellement, historiquement, les diffuseurs
22 privés ont rempli leurs obligations de diffuser des
23 émissions pour enfants en achetant des reprises qui
24 étaient déjà des reprises des reprises.
25 1880 On a fait faire une étude
StenoTran
447
1 récemment -- je n'en dévoilerai pas les grandes lignes
2 maintenant parce que ce n'est peut-être pas pertinent
3 et ce n'est pas l'occasion -- et on pense, dans
4 l'absolu, que peut-être que la diffusion des émissions
5 pour enfants devraient être réservées à des canaux
6 spécialisés ou au secteur public qui, de toute façon,
7 se sent investi de ce mandat-là. Quand aux
8 spécialisés, ils en ont fait une spécialisation, et
9 quant au public, ils ont le mandat de faire de la
10 télévision pour enfants.
11 1881 C'est que, tant qu'à diffuser des
12 émissions pour enfants qui ne sont que des reprises, ça
13 ne donne peut-être rien, ça n'avance peut-être à rien
14 du tout.
15 1882 C'est la réflexion dans laquelle on
16 est maintenant. On n'est pas arrivés à une conclusion
17 mais on s'en va vers cette conclusion-là.
18 1883 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Oui. C'est
19 un constat qui m'inquiète un peu parce que c'est un peu
20 la même chose. Quand on parle de la diversité dans le
21 système de radiodiffusion canadien, est-ce qu'on doit
22 simplement laisser aux services spécialisés de
23 représenter les besoins de tous les secteurs de notre
24 société, et à la télévision conventionnelle de faire
25 n'importe quoi qui ne représente pas vraiment la
StenoTran
448
1 diversité de notre société?
2 1884 Je pense que ce serait intéressant,
3 dans les réflexions qu'on fait tous, de faire le point;
4 et peut-être que vous avez un commentaire.
5 1885 J'ai vu dans le sondage CROP qu'on a
6 mis sur la table -- et je fais une traduction très vite
7 de l'anglais -- que les résultats disent que les
8 Québécois sont assez satisfaits avec le cadre
9 réglementaire courant. Mais la popularité des services
10 américains et productions, surtout parmi les jeunes
11 francophones, devrait être une cause of concern.
12 1886 Est-ce que vous voyez ce même
13 phénomène que... et c'est très important, alors que les
14 producteurs indépendants francophones ne sortent pas de
15 programmation pour enfants; et peut-être que la
16 télévision conventionnelle continue à avoir un devoir
17 là-dedans, surtout si on voit que les jeunes
18 francophones vont vers la programmation anglaise de
19 plus en plus, ou américaine, disons.
20 1887 Est-ce que ça entre dans vos
21 réflexions, cet aspect-là?
22 1888 M. BLAIN: C'est qu'actuellement les
23 obligations qui sont imposées aux diffuseurs
24 conventionnels de diffuser de la programmation pour
25 enfants sont trop facilement... pas contournables,mais
StenoTran
449
1 elles sont facilement remplissables en diffusant des
2 émissions que les enfants connaissent déjà. Donc les
3 stations privées ne sont pas fréquentées par les
4 enfants parce que les émissions auxquelles on pense ont
5 déjà été vues... et vous savez comme moi que la
6 programmation pour enfants a un taux de répétition très
7 élevé. Qui n'a pas vu "Passe-Partout", qui a été
8 diffusée -- j'exagère -- 150 fois chaque émission. On
9 l'a tous vue.
10 1889 Vous dites "oui", vous. Vous l'avez
11 vue, vous aussi?
12 1890 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui. Les enfants ont
13 la même allure d'année en année.
14 1891 M. BLAIN: Oui, c'est ça.
15 1892 Donc -- et je produis beaucoup de
16 séries pour enfants -- si on veut vraiment faire des
17 séries innovatrices, autant concentrer l'argent pour
18 faire de bonnes séries pour enfants plutôt que de le
19 saupoudrer un peu partout.
20 1893 Les créneaux de diffusion pour les
21 enfants ont fondu comme peau de chagrin depuis quelques
22 années; il y en a de moins en moins. Ça se concentre
23 dans les chaînes autant privées que publiques; ça se
24 concentre les samedis matins, un peu l'après-midi, mais
25 toutes les heures qui sont commercialisables, c'est-à-
StenoTran
450
1 dire à partir de 5 h 00 le soir, sont des heures que
2 les diffuseurs réservent à de la programmation pour
3 adultes parce qu'on peut y mettre de la publicité, de
4 la publicité destinée aux adultes. On ne fait pas de
5 cadeau aux enfants.
6 1894 Donc les chaînes spécialisées sont un
7 palliatif qui s'est avéré très utile. Heureusement
8 qu'il y a eu les chaînes spécialisées pour enfants,
9 sinon il n'y aurait pas eu, à longueur de journée, de
10 programmation pour enfants.
11 1895 M. PICARD: Si je peux me permettre,
12 pour moi, c'est une question fondamentale: il est
13 essentiel que les télévisions conventionnelles
14 continuent à remplir les besoins du public au niveau de
15 plusieurs créneaux de programmation, sans ça la
16 télévision conventionnelle est condamnée, à plus ou
17 moins long terme, à devenir une autre télévision
18 spécialisée.
19 1896 Je crois qu'éventuellement -- et
20 c'est peut-être seulement par après qu'on s'en
21 apercevrait -- ça, ce n'est pas rendre service au
22 public, ni comme individus, ni comme collectivité,
23 surtout quand on pense à une question comme la survie
24 de la langue française... et je ne pense pas que le mot
25 "survie" soit trop fort; on regarde à travers le monde,
StenoTran
451
1 et je pense qu'il y a presque autant de langues qui
2 disparaissent par jour qu'il y a d'espèces animales.
3 1897 C'est la programmation généraliste
4 qui s'adresse à des auditoires particuliers qui souvent
5 a les moyens de faire des émissions, d'innover, d'aller
6 de l'avant et de prendre des risques que des
7 télévisions spécialisées n'auront pas la chance. Et
8 ça, vous pouvez regarder à peu près chaque catégorie
9 d'émissions sous-représentées, et chacun des genres est
10 fait souvent par des télévisions spécialisées, et des
11 fois très bien fait, et eux-même innovent; mais il y a
12 quand même des budgets moyens et des besoins de
13 répétition, parce que la télévision, ce n'est pas
14 seulement de la saucisse, ça ne doit pas toujours être
15 la même chose chaque jour et chaque semaine. C'est
16 essentiel que les télévisions généralistes conservent
17 des mandats, que ce soit pour les jeunes... les jeunes
18 qu'on perd aujourd'hui, ce sont les adultes qu'on
19 n'aura pas demain.
20 1898 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Surtout
21 quand on pense au taux de câble ou au nombre de
22 Québécois qui le reçoivent par le câble, c'est
23 important qu'on tienne notre oeil sur le système
24 conventionnel.
25 1899 Une autre question d'ordre général...
StenoTran
452
1 et j'ai une couple de questions seulement qui me
2 restent. J'aimerais aussi vous demander est-ce que le
3 numérique entre dans vos réflexions? Quel impact ce
4 phénomène aura sur la production française, non
5 seulement en termes de la production mais en termes de
6 diffusion?
7 1900 C'est une grande question, mais si
8 vous pouviez nous laisser quelques points de réflexion
9 là-dessus...
10 1901 M. PICARD: Parmi nos membres, au
11 niveau de la diffusion, je pense qu'on doit être
12 honnêtes, on n'a pas une très grande expertise; on
13 écoute nos collaborateurs diffuseurs et leurs
14 réflexions, qui est un autre aspect de la convergence
15 et de la compétition internationale, la qualité de
16 l'image, qui est importante.
17 1902 Pour nous, c'est une adaptation au
18 niveau des moyens de production. Il y a des premières
19 émissions qui commencent à être produites chez nous en
20 vidéo digital, en montage numérique. La Société Radio-
21 Canada, en dramatiques, demande à plusieurs producteurs
22 d'innover dans ce secteur-là et ils sont partenaires de
23 cette innovation. La même chose est vraie, je pense,
24 de TVA.
25 1903 Il y a un certain souci, sans vouloir
StenoTran
453
1 prêcher par excès de prudence, où le vidéo, qui va de
2 pair avec le numérique et l'augmentation de la qualité
3 de l'image... de dire: Va-t-on abandonner le film? Ce
4 système analogue va-t-il passer par le biais des 33
5 tours et être remplacé complètement par le CD?
6 1904 Il y a quelque chose de palpable dans
7 l'analogue pour lequel on a un souci, une inquiétude,
8 et c'est lié à notre commentaire sur les dramatiques
9 lourdes. Il y a un engouement en ce moment au Québec,
10 et c'est une bonne chose parce que c'est une nouvelle
11 formule, des téléromans plus, ou des super téléromans,
12 dont "Diva" a été le premier exemple, et il y a des
13 exemples maintenant à l'antenne de Radio-Canada et de
14 TVA. On ne voudrait pas que ce soit fait au sacrifice
15 d'un genre qui a eu un très grand succès auprès du
16 public au Canada français et à travers le monde.
17 1905 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Il y a
18 certainement une question de coût ici et il y a
19 certainement une question de contenu francophone. Même
20 si ça arrive dans cinq ans, on sait tous que, comme
21 Conseiller McKendry l'a mentionné ce matin, ça s'en
22 vient dans le sens que non seulement on aura accès à
23 beaucoup plus de services télévision, mais aussi il y a
24 un manque de contenus prêts pour ce système, sauf que
25 peut-être si on a les bibliothèques de films 35
StenoTran
454
1 millimètres, ça, ça peut peut-être aider. Mais ça
2 devrait être un point inquiétant pour notre but d'avoir
3 non seulement le rendement, non seulement la qualité,
4 mais aussi assez de programmation à l'avenir.
5 1906 Mme BAILLARGEON: J'aimerais également
6 parler... à l'instar de nos collègues anglophones, nous
7 nous préoccupons de la formation et nous travaillons
8 conjointement avec les syndicats de techniciens et
9 l'Institut national de l'image et du son, notre école
10 de cinéma au Québec, pour établir un programme de
11 formation pour la future télévision numérique.
12 1907 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Un autre
13 point important, je pense, est: Est-ce que la
14 programmation régionale est une préoccupation pour
15 votre association? Ça veut dire la diversité, en
16 effet, de la programmation française. Est-ce que
17 vraiment on est prêts à dire qu'il y a une diversité,
18 qu'il y a la possibilité d'avoir accès à l'expression
19 française qui vient de partout au Canada?
20 1908 M. PICARD: Il y a certains de nos
21 membres qui travaillent pour TFO en Ontario. À ma
22 connaissance, ça se limite à cette exploitation-là.
23 1909 Louise, as-tu...
24 1910 Mme BAILLARGEON: À l'échelle du
25 Canada, nous sommes une association régionale puisque
StenoTran
455
1 nous représentons les producteurs du Québec. Par
2 ailleurs, cette année nous venons de créer une nouvelle
3 section à l'association qu'on appelle "Les producteurs
4 régionaux", section dans laquelle actuellement il n'y a
5 que des producteurs régionaux du Québec, mais si jamais
6 des producteurs régionaux de langue française à
7 l'extérieur du Québec voulaient se joindre, je pense
8 qu'ils seraient très bien accueillis chez nous.
9 1911 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: La dernière
10 question est: En page 40 de votre mémoire vous
11 recommandez que le Conseil s'assure que les
12 câblodistributeurs desservant les marchés francophones
13 respectent intégralement, pour le niveau de volet
14 identifié, le tarif mensuel à l'abonné qui figure, dans
15 les demandes de licence de services spécialisés, qu'il
16 a choisi d'adopter et autoriser.
17 1912 Avez-vous constaté beaucoup de
18 situations où les câblodistributeurs négociaient les
19 tarifs à la base?
20 1913 Mme BAILLARGEON: C'est ce que
21 certains canaux spécialisés nous ont laissé entendre
22 chez nous, oui.
23 1914 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:
24 Souhaiteriez-vous, par votre proposition, que le
25 Conseil réglemente d'une façon ou d'une autre le tarif
StenoTran
456
1 de gros sur les volets à l'étage?
2 1915 Mme BAILLARGEON: Oui.
3 1916 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci.
4 1917 Merci, Madame la Présidente.
5 1918 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci.
6 1919 Mes collègues n'ont pas de questions,
7 je crois. Moi, j'en ai une.
8 1920 Vous avez mentionné à la page 17 de
9 votre mémoire que le CRTC devrait inciter les
10 télédiffuseurs conventionnels privés à inclure dans
11 leur offre de programmation canadienne à l'intention
12 des enfants une plus grande proportion de productions
13 canadiennes originales, et je crois que je vous ai
14 entendu dire il y a quelques minutes que Radio-Canada
15 devrait jouer un rôle à cause des limites évidentes
16 pour les télédiffuseurs privés.
17 1921 De fait Radio-Canada, dans son
18 mémoire, à la partie 4 sur les catégories d'émissions
19 sous-représentées dit que:
20 1922 "Les restrictions commerciales
21 proscrivent pratiquement aux
22 radiodiffuseurs privés canadiens
23 de produire ou d'acquérir et
24 d'inscrire régulièrement à
25 l'horaire des émissions
StenoTran
457
1 canadiennes pour enfants. La
2 production canadienne est
3 désormais généralement l'affaire
4 des organismes d'éducation
5 provinciaux et Radio-Canada."
6 (Tel que lu)
7 1923 Je ne sais pas si ce commentaire-
8 là -- je vais le demander -- s'adresse à tout le Canada
9 ou si ces proscriptions commerciales là sont plutôt
10 typiquement un problème plus aigu au Québec.
11 1924 Ma question est: Est-ce que ce
12 dossier-là progresse au Québec? J'avais cru
13 comprendre, quand vous avez comparu devant nous, TVA,
14 qu'il y avait espoir qu'on ait peut-être un système
15 moins limitant à ce niveau-là.
16 1925 Mme BAILLARGEON: Il est vrai que
17 c'est un problème essentiellement québécois, c'est un
18 règlement québécois concernant la publicité destinée
19 aux enfants. Par ailleurs, depuis cette audience, nous
20 avons commandé une étude à des chercheurs de
21 l'Université de Montréal -- nous nous ferons un plaisir
22 de vous la déposer et de vous l'envoyer -- qui conclut
23 que, dans leur formulation actuelle, les règlements
24 n'empêchent pas véritablement de la publicité inscrite
25 à l'horaire au moment des émissions pour enfants en
StenoTran
458
1 autant qu'elle ne s'adresse pas, sauf à certaines
2 conditions très précises, par exemple, à annoncer des
3 jouets dont les héros font l'objet de l'émission de
4 télévision, et caetera.
5 1926 On a démontré que plusieurs
6 émissions, même à l'antenne de diffuseurs publics tels
7 que Télé-Québec, ont utilisé de la publicité de
8 céréales ou de bonbons dans des émissions destinées aux
9 enfants. Alors on vous enverra l'étude en question.
10 1927 M. BLAIN: Pour compléter un peu,
11 nous aussi, on a été sidérés de voir les résultats de
12 l'étude. Il semble que ce soit un faux problème parce
13 que la publicité qui a été mise en ondes -- et Télé-
14 Québec là-dedans a été très agressif -- était
15 étonnante, et la publicité a été acceptée par l'Office
16 de protection du consommateur.
17 1928 Dans le fond, le problème, c'est un
18 peu ce qu'on disait tantôt, c'est que de diffuser des
19 émissions pour enfants, ça n'a jamais été payant. Donc
20 nous, on dit: Puisque ce sont les télévisions
21 publiques qui ont ce type de mandat, mon Dieu, qu'ils
22 le fassent autant que possible, et il y a quand même,
23 avec les règlements actuels, des possibilités. C'est
24 que même chez les publics qui sont effectivement moins
25 riches qu'ils l'ont déjà été, il semble que personne ne
StenoTran
459
1 veuille consacrer beaucoup de créneaux à la
2 programmation pour enfants parce que ce sont, publicité
3 ou non, des créneaux moins payants.
4 1929 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, mais je crois
5 que nous avons entendu TVA nous dire qu'ils allaient
6 améliorer leur participation dans ce domaine, et votre
7 recommandation est quand même que nous devrions essayer
8 de pousser les télédiffuseurs privés, si je crois bien,
9 conventionnels privés, à inclure de la programmation
10 qui vise les enfants.
11 1930 M. BLAIN: Mais originale; de la
12 programmation originale.
13 1931 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Originale, mais même
14 la programmation pour enfants, les enfants ne changent
15 pas si rapidement. C'est pour ça que je vous disais
16 tout à l'heure qu'on peut avoir des enfants et des
17 petits-enfants et ils s'amusent aux mêmes programmes.
18 1932 M. BLAIN: Oui, c'est une clientèle
19 qui se renouvelle, effectivement.
20 1933 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, qui se
21 renouvelle, parce qu'il y a toujours des changements,
22 évidemment, et c'est bien d'avoir de la nouvelle
23 programmation.
24 1934 Ce dossier-là, à votre avis, quand
25 vous dites que c'est une fausse inquiétude, vous voulez
StenoTran
460
1 dire qu'on ne démontre pas que c'est nocif
2 nécessairement si c'est contrôlé.
3 1935 M. BLAIN: Non, pas du tout, et ce
4 que Télé-Québec avait fait à l'époque était très
5 "agressif"; on a été étonnés...
6 1936 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ah, oui, en
7 utilisant... ah, c'est ça. Je me souviens pendant
8 l'audience TVA qu'il avait été question que Télé-Québec
9 n'avait pas observé la loi à la lettre.
10 1937 M. BLAIN: Non, ils l'ont observée.
11 Leur publicité a toujours été acceptée...
12 1938 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ça va peut-être vous
13 avoir aidés lorsque quelqu'un triche et démontre qu'il
14 n'y a pas de problème.
15 1939 Mais vous savez qu'au Canada anglais
16 il y a des limitations aussi; il y a quand même des
17 balises. Il faut que la publicité pour enfants suive
18 certaines...
19 1940 M. PICARD: C'est autoréglementé au
20 Canada, ce qui n'a pas été le cas au Canada français.
21 1941 LA PRÉSIDENTE: C'est ça, mais il y a
22 quand même des exigences, oui.
23 1942 Mme BAILLARGEON: Je ne pense pas que
24 Télé-Québec ait triché. Je pense que la publicité
25 avait été adoptée par l'Office de protection du
StenoTran
461
1 consommateur à l'époque.
2 1943 M. BLAIN: Oui, et il y a peut-être
3 un autre commentaire aussi. Radio-Canada, je pense que
4 c'est une règle interne; c'est une règle interne dont
5 ils se sont dotés de ne faire aucune publicité pendant
6 les émissions pour enfants. Donc ça n'a rien à voir
7 avec les règlements québécois.
8 1944 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non, mais ça a
9 quelque chose à voir avec la recommandation que les
10 télédiffuseurs privés soient encouragés à améliorer
11 leur offre de programmation pour enfants, et la
12 conversation que nous avons eue avec TVA à cet effet
13 aussi la dernière fois. C'est à ce moment-là que la
14 question des restrictions a été soulevée, et j'étais
15 curieuse de voir ce qui se passait à ce niveau-là.
16 1945 Je vous remercie.
17 1946 Monsieur le Conseiller juridique.
18 1947 Me BLAIS: Oui. Justement, à propos
19 de l'étude, si je comprends bien, vous ne l'avez pas
20 encore en main.
21 1948 Mme BAILLARGEON: Nous l'avons en
22 main, mais je ne l'ai pas ici. Je vous l'enverrai.
23 1949 Me BLAIS: D'accord. Donc avant le
24 15 octobre ce serait possible de la déposer au dossier
25 public.
StenoTran
462
1 1950 Mme BAILLARGEON: Ça peut vous être
2 adressé demain, si vous voulez.
3 1951 Me BLAIS: Je vous remercie.
4 D'ailleurs, pour compléter le dossier public, Mme la
5 Conseillère Pennefather vous a posé quatre questions
6 concernant l'investissement. Est-ce que ce serait
7 possible aussi de nous fournir des réponses d'ici le 15
8 octobre?
9 1952 Mme BAILLARGEON: Nous prendrons
10 jusqu'au 15 octobre pour ces réponses.
11 1953 Me BLAIS: Merci. Tout comme pour
12 vos collègues anglophones, il se peut qu'on ait à vous
13 poser quelques questions supplémentaires par écrit pour
14 compléter le dossier, mais on verra en temps et lieu.
15 J'ai par contre deux questions.
16 1954 Dans vos soumissions, vous faites
17 référence à la notion de dramatiques lourdes. Est-ce
18 que vous avez une définition à nous proposer qui serait
19 gérable dans un cadre réglementaire?
20 1955 M. PICARD: Oui. Quant à moi,
21 l'expression est un peu malheureuse, mais elle est
22 utilisée, c'est rendu un terme de l'emploi. Si on
23 pouvait vous la fournir dans le même cadre que nos
24 réponses pour qu'elle soit exacte, on s'en est doté...
25 je ne peux pas vous la citer, je ne l'ai pas sous les
StenoTran
463
1 yeux, mais ça réfère au traitement cinématographique,
2 donc un style de tournage, et aussi à une organisation
3 du tournage qui ne se réfère pas nécessairement au
4 support film.
5 1956 Me BLAIS: C'est très bien. D'ici le
6 15 octobre aussi, ce serait parfait.
7 1957 M. PICARD: D'accord.
8 1958 M. BLAIN: Monsieur Blais, vous savez
9 par contre que c'est un peu mouvant actuellement, qu'il
10 y a des téléromans qui sont des téléromans plus et il y
11 a des séries semi-lourdes. En tout cas, l'industrie
12 est mouvante.
13 1959 M. PICARD: C'est comme la boxe; il y
14 a des mi-moyens, des mi-lourds, des poids plume.
15 1960 Me BLAIS: Il faut garder à l'esprit
16 que, si on veut l'insérer dans un cadre réglementaire,
17 il doit y avoir certains objectifs qu'on peut évaluer
18 sans trop de difficultés. Donc, dans cet esprit-là, si
19 vous pouviez nous fournir des éléments qui pourraient
20 supporter votre proposition, on aimerait bien.
21 1961 La dernière question traite de votre
22 proposition de traiter, en ce qui a trait aux
23 coproductions -- j'imagine que ce sont des
24 coproductions officielles -- qu'une coproduction qui
25 est majoritairement canadienne obtiendrait un crédit de
StenoTran
464
1 150 pour cent. C'est une proposition qui est un peu
2 surprenante dans le sens que le système des traités de
3 coproduction se voit souvent dans un ensemble, c'est-à-
4 dire qu'il y a un retour d'ascenseur pour avoir un
5 équilibre entre, admettons, la France et le Canada,
6 qu'il faut voir un jumelage presque à long terme entre
7 une coproduction majoritairement canadienne avec une
8 coproduction majoritairement française.
9 1962 D'ailleurs, il y a quelques années,
10 quand on proposait dans le quota européen d'exclure les
11 coproductions minoritaires canadiennes, je pense qu'il
12 y a certains coproducteurs qui sont montés aux
13 barricades pour dire que c'était aller à l'encontre du
14 système.
15 1963 Donc je me demande pourquoi vous
16 voulez avoir un traitement spécial pour les
17 coproductions majoritairement canadiennes et
18 possiblement au détriment du partenaire de la
19 production jumelée qui serait minoritaire.
20 1964 Mme BAILLARGEON: Si on demande 150
21 pour cent pour les coproductions majoritaires, ça ne
22 veut pas dire qu'on ne veut pas accorder 100 pour cent
23 de la citoyenneté canadienne, si vous voulez, à la
24 coproduction minoritaire telle que décrite dans les
25 accords. La raison pour laquelle on demande 150 pour
StenoTran
465
1 cent, c'est qu'il y a très peu de volonté de la part de
2 nos diffuseurs à programmer des coproductions, et c'est
3 un incitatif pour les diffuseurs à programmer des
4 coproductions et on a demandé 150 pour cent pour les
5 coproductions majoritaires canadiennes pour servir
6 d'incitatif.
7 1965 Ça ne veut pas dire que, si la
8 coproduction majoritaire canadienne est programmée --
9 et on parle en heures de grande écoute, bien sûr -- le
10 150 pour cent s'appliquerait seulement si la
11 coproduction est programmée en heures de grande écoute
12 ici. Ça ne veut pas dire que les coproductions
13 minoritaires ne seront pas programmées, peut-être pas
14 nécessairement en heures de grande écoute, comme ça se
15 passe pour nos coproductions majoritaires canadiennes
16 en Europe parfois.
17 1966 Me BLAIS: Madame, messieurs, merci.
18 Ce sont mes questions.
19 1967 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Une autre question.
20 1968 Dans le sommaire exécutif de votre
21 soumission vous dites que d'entrée de jeu vous tenez à
22 souligne que, sans pour autant exclure la télévision de
23 langue anglaise, l'essentiel de votre intervention
24 traitera des enjeux de la révision des politiques
25 relatives à la télévision pour le système de langue
StenoTran
466
1 française.
2 1969 Est-ce que ça, ça s'applique à tous
3 les commentaires que vous faites? Par exemple, vous
4 avez proposé, si j'ai bien compris, que les étages
5 offerts par les câblodistributeurs soient réglementés
6 au niveau des tarifs. Ça, s'applique au Québec ou
7 partout?
8 1970 Mme BAILLARGEON: On parle de la
9 télévision en langue française.
10 1971 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Seulement. Et quand
11 vous recommandez aussi que le Conseil s'en tienne à sa
12 politique de longue date de limiter les permis de
13 télévision dans la même langue à un seul titulaire ou
14 une seule compagnie, ça aussi, ça s'applique au Canada
15 français?
16 1972 M. PICARD: Oui.
17 1973 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors vous ne faites
18 pas de commentaire à ce moment-là du côté Canada
19 anglais.
20 1974 M. PICARD: Non.
21 1975 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci. Est-ce qu'il
22 y a aucun endroit, sauf lorsque vous faites des
23 commentaires philosophiques, où il y a des choses qui
24 s'appliquent aux deux, ou si en général vous parlez du
25 Canada français?
StenoTran
467
1 1976 Mme BAILLARGEON: En général, nous
2 parlons du Canada français. Nous appuyons, par
3 ailleurs, le mémoire de CFTPA.
4 1977 M. PICARD: Oui. C'était pour des
5 fins...
6 1978 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, je comprends.
7 1979 M. PICARD: C'est parce que dans les
8 auditions il y a une période de temps limitée. Nos
9 confrères anglophones sont moins habilités à commenter
10 des situations sur la production de langue française au
11 Québec. On a beaucoup à dire sur la production de
12 langue anglaise, mais, bon, la limitation de temps...
13 1980 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui. Vous êtes
14 raisonnablement satisfaits qu'il n'y a pas de
15 contradiction entre les deux.
16 1981 M. PICARD: oui.
17 1982 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors vous pouvez
18 endosser généralement leurs propositions, mais vous
19 avez les vôtres pour le Canada français.
20 1983 M. PICARD: Oui.
21 1984 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions.
22 1985 Mme BAILLARGEON: Merci.
23 1986 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous allons prendre
24 une pause de quelques minutes seulement, peut-être cinq
25 minutes, pour changer de panel... pas le nôtre,
StenoTran
468
1 évidemment.
2 1987 We will take a five-minute break to
3 allow a change in the panel.
4 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1445
5 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1450
6 1988 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary,
7 would you please introduce the next panel.
8 1989 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
9 1990 The next presentation will be the
10 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I would invite the
11 Hon. Perrin Beatty to introduce his colleagues.
12 1991 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
13 1992 M. PERRY: Merci beaucoup, Madame la
14 Présidente. Thank you very much.
15 1993 Madame la Présidente, j'ai
16 aujourd'hui à mes côtés M. Jim McCoubrey, vice-
17 président, directeur et chef de l'exploitation;
18 Mme Michèle Fortin, vice-présidente de la Télévision
19 française, et M. Jim Byrd, vice-président de la
20 Télévision anglaise.
21 1994 Madame la Présidente, hier le Conseil
22 a entrepris un processus qui durera plusieurs jours, où
23 seront présentés des douzaines de mémoires et qui aura
24 produit des centaines de milliers de mots avant d'être
25 terminé. Vous entendrez de nombreux intervenants qui
StenoTran
469
1 vous diront croire fermement au contenu canadien. Très
2 peu diront qu'ils n'y croient pas, mais vous en
3 entendrez aussi beaucoup affirmer qu'ils ne peuvent
4 faire mieux à moins de recevoir plus d'argent ou
5 d'obtenir des privilèges spéciaux.
6 1995 Commissioners, we stand before you as
7 the country's single largest provider of Canadian
8 content, in French and in English. We hope that you
9 will find our presentation straightforward and
10 constructive. I can summarize it very simply in three
11 points:
12 1996 First, our mission is to tell
13 Canadian stories. Canadians have a right to see
14 themselves on their own television screens. Helping
15 them do so is our very reason for existence.
16 1997 Second, despite all the financial and
17 competitive challenges of the last three years, we are
18 today more Canadian than ever before. This fall, CBC's
19 English television schedule is 91 per cent Canadian in
20 the 7 to 11 period, while French TV's schedule is
21 almost 100 per cent Canadian.
22 1998 Third, we are proud of what we have
23 achieved, but we believe that we can also do more. We
24 do not ask that others be held back. We ask only to be
25 permitted to change along with the changes that are
StenoTran
470
1 taking place in the marketplace.
2 1999 Let me first tell you bout the
3 distinctive role that the CBC plays. CBC is a central
4 component of a broadcasting system that was designed to
5 be a balance of public and private elements. Both need
6 to be healthy and to grow if Canadians are to be well
7 served.
8 2000 Like the private broadcasters, our
9 primary responsibility is to provide a good return to
10 our shareholders. CBC's shareholders are the people of
11 Canada themselves. We have the duty to provide them
12 with the best possible Canadian programs, efficiently
13 and cost-effectively. That's our bottom line.
14 2001 We are Canada's standard bearer of
15 Canadian broadcasting. We take risks that others shy
16 away from. We develop new talent. And most
17 importantly, we reach significant Canadian audiences.
18 2002 In fact, the Crop study released
19 yesterday by the CRTC shows that 78 per cent of
20 respondents have a favourable opinion of how the CBC
21 discharges its mandate to promote and give priority to
22 Canadian programs.
23 2003 The CBC provides the highest level of
24 Canadian programming in prime time of any conventional
25 broadcasters -- distinctively, and across a diversity
StenoTran
471
1 of program categories. Commissioners, we have included
2 a chart that colour codes the networks' schedules. If
3 you take a look at them -- just look at the colour red
4 for Canadian content, you can see that the colour red
5 in CBC's schedules in English and French is indeed
6 telling.
7 2004 But volume of Canadian programming is
8 not the only issue. Programming quality and viewership
9 are two key measurements of CBC's success. Let's look
10 at the facts.
11 2005 CBC is an incubator for Canadian
12 talent on and off screen. CBC alumni are everywhere.
13 Of course there are the famous ones who migrate south
14 of the boarder, but I can also think of others. Just
15 look around the room over the course of the next
16 several days. From on-air personalities, to broadcast
17 executives, to the ever increasing number of talented
18 independent producers who are now successfully putting
19 Canada on the screen.
20 2006 There is no denying that the quality
21 of our programs today is the result, in large part, of
22 the creativity and the drive of a thriving independent
23 production sector. We are proud of the contribution
24 that we have made in the past and that we continue to
25 make to developing talent, and providing audiences for
StenoTran
472
1 its work.
2 2007 CBC takes risks that others can't or
3 won't. We are at our worst when we are simply a copy
4 of someone else. We are at our best when we are doing
5 something that is fresh and new.
6 2008 The evidence of the creativity and
7 ingenuity on CBC schedules is legion. Consider the
8 success and the craziness of "This Hour has 11 Minutes"
9 or "The Newsroom". Nowhere else in the system will you
10 find the quality and commitment to taking risks -- just
11 think of "Sous le signe du lion," the breakthrough "Un
12 gars, une fille," or the madness of "La Petite Vie,"
13 which pulled in 2.9 million viewers when it began its
14 new season this fall on French television.
15 2009 CBC delivers significant audiences
16 for Canadian programs. By presenting a mix of
17 programming, CBC is able to remain responsive and
18 relevant to Canadian audiences. In fact, in 1996-97,
19 French television captured 41 per cent of prime time
20 viewing of Canadian programs between 7 and 11 at night,
21 while English television garnered 42 per cent of the
22 viewing of all Canadian programs in that same period.
23 2010 Last season, English TV broadcast
24 eight of the top 10 English Canadian drama series with
25 a Canadian theme. Our French network aired four of the
StenoTran
473
1 top five Canadian drama series in French.
2 2011 Now, as just one example of how we
3 help bring Canadian content to Canadian viewers,
4 Canadian feature films broadcast by the CBC's English
5 television draw a larger audience that theatrical, pay
6 television and home distribution combined.
7 2012 CBC is recognized for its programming
8 quality. Next Sunday we will know how many of our 185
9 Gémeaux nominations we will have won, and the moment of
10 truth for our 178 Gemini nominations will come the
11 following weekend. Just a few days ago, we learned
12 that the case of "The Royal Canadian Air Farce" won a
13 prestigious Governor General's Award for the Performing
14 Arts. In making the announcement, His Excellency
15 underlined that their careers have been a part of
16 Canada's emergence as a major cultural force.
17 2013 But we can't play our part without
18 substantial stable funding. CBC's ability to produce
19 innovative, entertaining and informative programming in
20 a broad range of categories is made possible today to a
21 large extent by the guaranteed access to 50 per cent of
22 the Canadian Television Fund's Equity Investment
23 Program. The return to the system is indisputable.
24 2014 Based on the 1996-97 production year,
25 on the English side this 50 per cent investment
StenoTran
474
1 translates into 65 per cent of all viewing to drama
2 funded by the Canadian Television Fund. That
3 investment is a very efficient way of generating
4 Canadian viewership. And without that commitment we
5 could not sustain our Canadianized schedule.
6 2015 Now, let's take a moment to consider
7 the key challenges that the Canadian broadcasting
8 system faces, and to offer some solutions.
9 2016 First, we have to attract more
10 viewers to Canadian programming -- particularly English
11 television.
12 2017 Second, we need to increase the
13 availability of "underrepresented" categories in prime
14 time.
15 2018 And, third, we need to maintain and
16 refocus the resources directed to such programming.
17 2019 The realities are simple. It costs
18 at least five times as much to produce a Canadian
19 program as to import a foreign one. The growth in
20 Canadian content available is very real, but it is
21 diluted by the range of viewing choices. Of all the
22 English programs targeted to, and watched by, our
23 children, over 70 per cent are American.
24 2020 And if you look at the system as a
25 whole, the situation for drama is every more sobering,
StenoTran
475
1 where the figure rises to nearly 93 per cent.
2 2021 The CBC has challenged the industry
3 to increase Canadian content and viewership for drama,
4 documentaries and children's programming.
5 2022 Let me reiterate, though, that
6 producing Canadian content is not enough. That content
7 must appeal to Canadians, it must tell Canadian
8 stories, and it must be marketed effectively to
9 Canadian audiences.
10 2023 Now, part of the answer to Canada's
11 television challenges may lie in focusing the Canadian
12 content rules for underrepresented categories.
13 2024 But that is only part of the
14 solution. Looking for more money from governments is a
15 non-starter and squabbling over the allocation of
16 current funds simply serves to divert efforts that
17 could be put to much better use.
18 2025 What really matters is what we do
19 with the funds, what we program, how evocatively it
20 speaks to Canadians, and where we schedule it.
21 2026 The need to take a bold approach is
22 very clear: Canadians have changed the way in which
23 they use television and we must change with them. If
24 we live in the past, we will be consigned to the past.
25 We will change or we will die.
StenoTran
476
1 2027 In addition, we must recognize the
2 mammoth television changes in play around the world and
3 work those changes to our advantage here in Canada. We
4 need to adapt our competitors' approaches to economic
5 structures, marketing strategies and new ventures so
6 that we can better serve this country's needs.
7 2028 The world is changing. The industry
8 is evolving. The industry is slowly clustering
9 globally around what we call constellations. These are
10 complex webs of distribution, production and
11 programming that account for an ever-growing amount of
12 TV programs worldwide.
13 2029 The largest constellations are known
14 by everybody in this room. Disney, Time Warner, Fox.
15 The constellation model also works in the public sector
16 for the BBC and for the Australian Broadcasting
17 Corporation. In Canada we only have to look at Global,
18 CTV and Shaw, to see the same pattern emerging.
19 2030 Il est plus simple d'évoquer les
20 problèmes de la télévision canadienne que de les
21 résoudre. Voici néanmoins quelques suggestions.
22 2031 Considérant l'avenir de la
23 télévision, nous vous incitons fortement à élaborer une
24 politique qui accroît le nombre de productions
25 canadiennes dans des catégories d'émissions sous-
StenoTran
477
1 représentées dans l'ensemble du système de
2 radiodiffusion canadien, qui crée de nouveaux débouchés
3 pour ces émissions et qui procure aux radiodiffuseurs
4 privés et publics la souplesse et les outils
5 nécessaires pour s'acquitter de leur tâche.
6 2032 Pour cette raison, nous saluons la
7 récente décision prise par les instances du Fonds de
8 télévision canadienne de revoir les critères d'accès
9 relatifs aux émissions de qualité dans des catégories
10 sous-représentées aux heures de grande écoute. Nous
11 demandons en outre au Conseil d'entrevoir la
12 possibilité de libéraliser les règlements concernant la
13 promotion croisée afin de maximiser les auditoires aux
14 émissions canadiennes.
15 2033 La possibilité de convertir les
16 heures de nouvelles productions en heures d'écoute
17 dépendra de la structure de l'industrie en place.
18 L'industrie canadienne de la radiodiffusion doit
19 compter davantage sur ses propres moyens et ne peut
20 exiger du gouvernement et de ses agences qu'ils règlent
21 le problème de la production dans son ensemble par
22 l'injection de capitaux additionnels dans les fonds de
23 production.
24 2034 Compte tenu du courant mondial en
25 faveur des constellations d'entreprises et des
StenoTran
478
1 avantages que les Canadiens peuvent en tirer, nous
2 recommandons que ces entreprises soient considérées
3 comme un tout. Lorsque le conseil évaluera le
4 rendement de celles-ci ou lorsqu'il attribuera des
5 nouvelles licences, il devrait tenir compte de
6 l'ensemble des services de radiodiffusion impliqués.
7 2035 Commissioners, CBC should be allowed
8 to keep pace with the rest of the industry by being
9 given the freedom to evolve into an efficient
10 constellation model. Allowing CBC to transform
11 naturally through the licensing of new services will
12 increase shelf space for its productions. This will
13 permit the CBC to evolve and develop as the
14 broadcasters are evolving, converging, and
15 consolidating. For our part, we will commit to using
16 these new tools to substantially increase both the
17 availability and the viewership of Canadian programs.
18 2036 The CBC has grown along with Canada
19 itself. We are proud to have had the privilege of
20 bringing Canadians together to share their stories for
21 the past six decades. We are convinced that, given the
22 opportunity, we can make an even greater contribution
23 in the future.
24 2037 We would be pleased to receive your
25 questions.
StenoTran
479
1 2038 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour, Madame
2 Fortin. Good afternoon, gentlemen.
3 2039 The Public Notice that announced this
4 hearing did have a section on the role of the national
5 public broadcaster and two particular questions,
6 strategies -- what would be the strategies that would
7 be most effective in encouraging private and public
8 broadcasters to co-operate more effectively, and how
9 can the CBC best work with and complement the role of
10 private broadcasters. So those will be the areas that
11 we will focus on.
12 2040 We obviously, as mentioned in my
13 opening remarks will see you shortly for renewal, so we
14 are not -- I am going to have some questions about
15 other proposals, but the focus will be on these
16 questions and on the proposals that have been made by
17 other parties in which they expect or the system will
18 be such as to have you be part of them, to see what
19 your comments are about that, but it has to be clear
20 that we are not examining your performance per se at
21 this stage.
22 2041 The CAB, which would be of course the
23 representative association of the private broadcasters
24 in Canada, have put forward a proposal which could be
25 novel, depending on how one would implement it and it
StenoTran
480
1 would be interesting to get your comments as to the
2 usefulness of such a goal of audience goals. My
3 understanding is that all participants in the industry
4 would co-operate in establishing and driving towards
5 these goals. What are your comments about the
6 potential CBC participation in such a model?
7 2042 MR. BEATTY: Madam Chair, I
8 highlighted in my remarks that we are certainly
9 committed to doing everything that we can to boost
10 viewership for Canadian programs. I felt that you in
11 questioning the CAB yesterday put it very well, when
12 you asked whether this sole criterion which we should
13 be judged as broadcasters was on audiences or whether
14 there are other criteria, looking at quality, looking
15 at volume and so on which were important as well.
16 2043 We would certainly participate in any
17 initiative that was undertaken to try to boost
18 viewership, but we believe that in measuring our
19 performance as broadcasters we have to look at a range
20 of criterion, including viewership, quality, quantity
21 of programming we put on and a range of others.
22 2044 THE CHAIRPERSON: Considering that
23 the CAB, unlike you, is not coming up for renewal, feel
24 quite free to endorse or criticize this as a model.
25 2045 MR. BEATTY: Let me just set a
StenoTran
481
1 context for it, if I may first, Madam Chair, and that's
2 to say that what we have attempted to do in our brief
3 was not to tell others what to do, but to try in a
4 broad sense to talk about the system as a whole and
5 what contribution we could make.
6 2046 THE CHAIRPERSON: But if you don't
7 criticize what others want to do you may end up being
8 part of it if you don't believe that it's useful.
9 2047 MR. BEATTY: Madam Chair, I am trying
10 to be on my best behaviour where the CAB is concerned.
11 I did sit through the brief yesterday and, yes, there
12 are substantive areas in which we disagree in our
13 approach.
14 2048 One of them is on the issue of
15 whether or not the key criterion is simply the question
16 of viewership. Viewership is essential. We are not
17 doing our job as broadcasters if we are not attracting
18 audiences to Canadian content. It's as plain and
19 simple as that.
20 2049 If you look at the Crop survey that
21 you released yesterday, one of the things that is most
22 disconcerting was when Crop asked the respondents, "Do
23 you watch Canadian stations or American stations?"
24 Disproportionately -- disproportionate to actual
25 viewership, respondents felt that they were watching
StenoTran
482
1 American stations, which says something about the
2 perception that there is that even Canadian stations in
3 Canada have become so Americanized it's hard to
4 distinguish between the two.
5 2050 We need to attract audiences to
6 Canadian content, no question about that. It's a
7 priority goal, but I believe that the role of the
8 Commission needs to be to look not simply at the issue
9 of viewership to a particular program, but what is the
10 nature of the program. Is it something which is an
11 underrepresented category? Is it something which by
12 its very nature may not draw a large audience, but
13 deserves to be represented on Canadian airwaves. So, I
14 think we have to be much more nuanced than perhaps was
15 suggested earlier.
16 2051 THE CHAIRPERSON: Conversely, you
17 would -- I gather from your submission you would be of
18 the view that the airing of underrepresented categories
19 in peak time is crucial because if I understand your
20 submission you propose that for the whole system, I am
21 not clear if it is for both you and the private sector,
22 that we could deregulate daytime?
23 2052 MR. BEATTY: In our case it wouldn't
24 have a great deal of impact, in that we are
25 Canadianizing all the way through daytime and
StenoTran
483
1 nighttime, but our priority clearly is to generate the
2 largest audiences for Canadian programs when the
3 largest number of people are watching TV.
4 2053 If we are serious about wanting to
5 attract Canadian eyes to Canadian content, then we have
6 to be there when the viewers are there.
7 2054 THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought I saw Mr.
8 McCoubrey's eyebrows moving. Did you have something?
9 Did you have some comments on this issue of that? If
10 it doesn't make any difference for you, presumably the
11 deregulation of daytime parts in the private sector
12 would indicate that you believe -- I think you do say
13 in your brief that sports and news and information
14 Canadian programming would be aired in any event.
15 2055 MR. McCOUBREY: That's correct.
16 2056 I would like to reinforce what Mr.
17 Beatty was saying. We believe wholeheartedly that
18 there are good reasons why a number of Canadian
19 programs are on during the day and we would hope that
20 they would continue to be aired then, but if your
21 objective is to contribute to increased viewership to
22 quality Canadian content, perhaps the only way to
23 address it head on is to see that it is available i
24 peak viewing hours.
25 1515
StenoTran
484
1 2057 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now my eyebrows are
2 moving because we have had a number of comments which
3 we discussed before from the public of the fear that if
4 we shift our focus, which is very much the core of your
5 recommendations for the system, to peak time and you go
6 further and say deregulate Canadian content in prime
7 time, there is a possibility, especially if it's
8 coupled with spending, that some type of programming
9 may indeed disappear from the system. There is a
10 problem of that occurring even for the CBC.
11 2058 MR. McCOUBREY: Well, I don't think
12 it's likely that we would take advantage of that
13 opportunity to change our drive to be as close to 100
14 per cent Canadian as possible and to continue to be
15 diverse.
16 2059 THE CHAIRPERSON: What are your
17 comments about the need to regulate in the daytime
18 parts since an obvious recommendation which strikes one
19 is that for the private sector, you think it would be
20 quite possible in this drive towards more proud and
21 better quality and profitability, but serving the
22 public eventually obviously, that in the private sector
23 we could deregulate daytime.
24 2060 MR. McCOUBREY: I think our intention
25 was to attempt to arrive at something that would be
StenoTran
485
1 balanced in its approach. We understand that if we
2 have to improve the system in one area, we have to give
3 people freedom and resources to do that. By relieving
4 them of some obligations and imposing others, we might
5 arrive at that balance it was our point of view.
6 2061 We believe that quality Canadian
7 programming deserves to be seen. We do our very best
8 on our own to do that. It's not that we would welcome
9 having competition head to head with us. We enjoy our
10 position of having predominance in supply Canadian
11 programming in peak hours, but we think the system
12 would be better if people were relieved of some other
13 burdens and perhaps invited to contribute to increasing
14 the supply of quality Canadian programming in peak
15 hours.
16 2062 We offer that simply as a suggestion.
17 I know that some of this is a test to see if my
18 conversion has yet been completed and I know that I
19 choke sometimes under the threat of the onion being
20 peeled like this.
21 2063 THE CHAIRPERSON: If you suggest
22 deregulating entire day parts, you must have some
23 friends left in the industry.
24 2064 MR. McCOUBREY: Not many.
25 2065 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do I hear a
StenoTran
486
1 suggestion that that wouldn't be so problematic if
2 resources were shifted to peak time on certain
3 under-represented categories even at the expense of
4 local and regional programming in daytime?
5 2066 MR. McCOUBREY: We thought it was a
6 salutary step because we do believe if you look at the
7 situation that we are faced with, we have had a
8 tremendous increase in the supply of television
9 available to Canadians. The number of hours that are
10 programmed and available to them has increased
11 dramatically, and yet for 30 years television has been
12 viewed at 22 to 24 hours per week.
13 2067 When we look as best we can and
14 researched it over the years, for a number of reasons
15 the viewing to Canadian content in English Canada has
16 remained pretty well stable as well. We think that
17 some of that might be the fault of those of us who are
18 in the television business. We think some of it may
19 well be also the result of some of the ways in which
20 television is distributed.
21 2068 For example, when a new Canadian
22 specialty service is licensed and put on, an American
23 service is also put on. Since the Canadian service
24 doesn't run 100 per cent Canadian content but the
25 American service does run 100 per cent U.S. content,
StenoTran
487
1 the effect of this has been to increase the
2 availability of American programming versus Canadian
3 rather than achieving perhaps what was desired.
4 2069 There are a lot of things in the
5 system that maybe if we are serious about increasing
6 the viewership to Canadian programming that need to be
7 looked at from top to bottom and every participant in
8 the system, we think, has a responsibility to offer
9 their suggestions in that regard.
10 2070 We felt and yesterday there was a
11 solid line of questioning about the wisdom of putting
12 our eggs in the viewership basket, but we do believe
13 that viewing of Canadian content is what we are
14 striving for. The fact that it may be produced and not
15 aired does not interest us, that it may be produced and
16 aired in times when there isn't much audience for it
17 interests us little. We are anxious to see the system
18 benefit by peak viewing to more Canadian content.
19 2071 THE CHAIRPERSON: Constellations.
20 First, I must thank you for all these charts with all
21 the coloured circles. They really appeal to my simple
22 mind.
23 2072 You say at page 5 of your submission
24 that:
25 2073 "CBC believes that the TV
StenoTran
488
1 universe of tomorrow will be
2 structured and driven by the
3 economics of constellations."
4 2074 This morning in the French part of
5 Mr. Beatty's opening remarks:
6 2075 "Compte tenu du courant mondial
7 en faveur des constellations
8 d'entreprises et des avantages
9 que les Canadiens peuvent en
10 tirer, nous recommandons que ces
11 entreprises soient considérées
12 comme un tout et que le Conseil
13 évaluera le rendement de celles-
14 ci."
15 2076 What I would like to discuss with you
16 is whether this idea of constellations and what the
17 regulator should do faces them. Are you saying that
18 these constellations are occurring and, therefore, it's
19 a phenomenon that is driven by economic imperatives and
20 perhaps they ought to be banished considering the
21 French paragraph I read or should they be encouraged by
22 the regulator?
23 2077 Is it simply that they are happening
24 in any event through a number of forces and, therefore,
25 we should make the most of them? Should we encourage
StenoTran
489
1 them? Third, of course, which may be not a popular
2 questions, but is it because the broadcasting
3 corporation would like to have more circles on the
4 chart, that you think constellations are a good idea?
5 2078 MR. BEATTY: Thank you for those
6 questions, Madam Chair.
7 2079 It is happening. Very little that we
8 can do here in Canada will prevent the development of
9 constellations internationally. Much of the
10 competition that we are facing is coming from
11 constellations, whether it's Fox, Disney, Time-Warner,
12 a whole range of others.
13 2080 Our starting point is let's recognize
14 what in fact is taking place internationally and
15 increasingly in Canada.
16 2081 Two, does this potentially bring
17 advantages to Canada? Yes, I believe it does. You
18 asked should we encourage it. Yes, we should where
19 there are advantages to Canadians in doing so.
20 2082 The most important criterion is does
21 this allow us to be more successful in terms of making
22 Canadian content available to Canadians in ways in
23 which they want to consume it.
24 2083 The third question, is our motivation
25 underlying this the fact that we have applied to you
StenoTran
490
1 for specialty services. Our motivation in applying for
2 specialty services is to recognize the way in which the
3 world has changed and to recognize the fact that our
4 audiences that we are trying to serve are using the
5 media in a fundamentally different way from the way in
6 which they have used it in the past.
7 2084 If we lock ourselves into the past
8 into an old model, we will die. If we as a
9 broadcasting system lock ourselves into the old way of
10 doing things, we will increasingly lose share in Canada
11 and we will lose the battle to ensure that Canadians
12 are exposed to Canadian content.
13 2085 I think essentially what we are doing
14 when we say take a look at the constellation as a whole
15 is if you are presented with a Swiss army knife, it's
16 good to concentrate on more than just the corkscrew to
17 realize there are an awful lot more tools there that
18 you can use to put into effect what it is you are
19 trying to do.
20 2086 The constellation model gives us a
21 range of devices which will allow us to promote
22 Canadian content much more effectively. We are not
23 arguing for special privileges for ourselves in that.
24 We are simply saying that the Canadian industry needs
25 to evolve as others do. Both elements need to, both
StenoTran
491
1 private and public.
2 2087 MR. McCOUBREY: If I may, without
3 moving my eyebrows.
4 2088 THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought you would
5 be proud of how attentive I was.
6 2089 MR. McCOUBREY: Frightened, actually.
7 2090 A lot depends on how one views the
8 balance between public broadcasting and private
9 broadcasting in this country. Yesterday we heard a
10 great deal which would suggest that the public
11 broadcasting role in Canada should be perhaps minimized
12 at its maximum what the public broadcasting role in the
13 United States is.
14 2091 We hold a different view. We think
15 Canada is a better country for having protected a
16 public broadcaster and a private broadcasting system.
17 I think it allows both parties to do different things
18 that complement each other. This we will get back to
19 in ultimately a line of questioning you might wish to
20 pursue.
21 2092 If we look at the place that public
22 broadcasting once held in the country and look at its
23 relative role today, there has been a tremendous
24 diminishment due to fragmentation. The constellation
25 model is a fact. It's one of the facts that has
StenoTran
492
1 allowed private broadcasters not to suffer the decline
2 in over the air networks' share of broadcasting and to
3 begin to hold more of the ground for themselves.
4 2093 It's a model that we see as being
5 essential to allowing public broadcasting to do the
6 same thing. Yes, selfishly and for the benefit of our
7 shareholders, we see advantages in pursuing a
8 constellation model that would have more dots out there
9 away from the core of the over the air network.
10 2094 THE CHAIRPERSON: You mentioned
11 audience fragmentation, so you would see that as a way
12 to shore up the loss of audiences by repatriating them
13 -- not repatriating them but taking them with you to
14 another of the circles.
15 2095 MR. BEATTY: Yes. When the
16 independent producers were before you this morning,
17 they mentioned, for example, the experience with "This
18 Hour has 22 Minutes" where we found even on the main
19 network that as we did a repeat, we could generate an
20 audience as high in repeat as the original.
21 2096 What this is saying to us is that
22 already in Canada we have audiences that are so
23 fragmented that at any one time when you show a
24 program, you are fishing in only part of the pond.
25 There are a lot of people there who would like to have
StenoTran
493
1 a chance to see the program and may not at the time at
2 which you show it.
3 2097 It's important for broadcasters then
4 to not simply show the program the one time and then
5 put it aside, but rather to make it available in a
6 number of different ways.
7 2098 There are a number of other
8 advantages as well that you get from constellations,
9 including the ability to cross-promote between services
10 and they also give you the capacity to deepen and
11 strengthen your expertise and the quality of your
12 program in specific areas.
13 2099 Our experience with "Newsworld" and
14 "RDE" has been that our total journalistic resources in
15 the corporation have been strengthened as a result of
16 our ability to have those two specialty channels.
17 Similarly then when you look at the arts, or if you
18 look at history or economics, the impact it would have
19 on your main service can be considerable in terms of
20 strengthening and deepening the resources that you
21 have.
22 2100 THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought that the
23 fate of "Air Farce" was much more simple than that.
24 Maybe more Canadians are more like me. I find it much
25 easier to laugh on Friday night than on Monday.
StenoTran
494
1 2101 Madame Fortin, au Canada français les
2 constellations, est-ce que ça a des problèmes
3 particuliers? Nous venons d'entendre, par exemple, le
4 CFTPA qui nous disait justement que nous devrions être
5 plus prudents en donnant des permis ou des licences où
6 il y a de la propriété croisée ou deux stations
7 contrôlées par plus d'une personne.
8 2102 Mme FORTIN: En fait, il y a deux
9 éléments, je pense, qui font que la situation au Canada
10 français est très différente. "La Petite Vie" a fait 3
11 millions hier, elle va peut-être faire 2 millions en
12 reprise, mais on ne fait pas que ça.
13 2103 Je pense que ce qu'on voit, c'est
14 qu'on est à peu près 15 ans en arrière sur le modèle de
15 la télévision anglaise et on ne voudrait pas se
16 retrouver ici dans 15 ans à faire les débats que vous
17 avez faits hier avec le CAB et que vous allez
18 probablement faire du côté de la télévision anglaise.
19 2104 On a réussi à conserver avec les
20 télévisions conventionnelles généralistes un bloc de
21 public très, très important -- on pourra discuter
22 comment on a fait ça si vous le désirez -- mais on sent
23 une érosion, et l'érosion se fait de deux côtés. Elle
24 se fait du côté des chaînes spécialisées et elle se
25 fait beaucoup du côté aussi de la télévision anglaise
StenoTran
495
1 et américaine.
2 2105 Les gens oublient que la population
3 francophone a à peu près entre 16 et 20 pour cent de
4 leur écoute consacrée à des émissions à la télévision
5 anglaise ou américaine. Ça, c'est la part de marché de
6 Radio-Canada. Il y a autant de francophones qui
7 regardent la télévision en anglais qu'il y en a qui
8 regardent Radio-Canada. Ça, c'est une réalité qu'on
9 oublie. Et on a remarqué qu'à chaque fois qu'on
10 augmente le service spécialisé en français on rapatrie
11 une partie de cette clientèle-là.
12 2106 L'objectif, je pense, de tout le
13 milieu francophone, que ce soit les télédiffuseurs
14 privés, publics, les producteurs, c'est de protéger la
15 télévision en français, c'est de pouvoir développer
16 culturellement des produits francophones, maintenir la
17 solidarité parce qu'on travaille malgré tout pour une
18 minorité linguistique dans le continent nord-américain.
19 2107 Donc c'est la question. Chaîne
20 spécialisée ou non, s'il n'y en a pas, les auditoires
21 dérivent du côté de la télévision anglaise, et disons
22 que nos auditoires davantage parce qu'ils sont en
23 général plus éduqués, plus bilingues, et caetera.
24 2108 Sur le plan de est-ce que ces
25 chaînes-là doivent être attachées ou non à des
StenoTran
496
1 broadcasters conventionnels, un des éléments qui est
2 difficile et qu'il faut bien, bien examiner, c'est que
3 compte tenu de la toute petite population avec laquelle
4 on travaille, plus les auditoires se fractionnent, plus
5 il est difficile de maintenir des ressources
6 concentrées pour faire des émissions de prestige, que
7 ce soit des séries lourdes, que ce soit des émissions
8 prestigieuses dans le domaine des arts, de la musique,
9 de la jeunesse, et caetera. Donc il y a un avantage
10 évident à se fractionner soi-même et maintenir à
11 l'intérieur de la population des groupes assez forts
12 pour pouvoir générer des émissions d'un niveau de
13 qualité équivalent à la télévision étrangère.
14 2109 Il ne faudrait pas arriver dans le
15 milieu francophone où les émissions de grande qualité,
16 les séries lourdes, les émissions d'écoute viennent de
17 l'étranger, et nous, on fait de la télévision régionale
18 à bon marché. Donc on a besoin de maintenir des masses
19 critiques.
20 2110 Mais, comme disait l'APFTQ, on est
21 tout à fait d'accord, ce sont des choses dont on
22 discute régulièrement, on a besoin de règles distinctes
23 compte tenu qu'on est deux télédiffuseurs privés, deux
24 gros télédiffuseurs qui font de la série lourde et que,
25 ans le fond, bien sûr on veut être partenaires avec le
StenoTran
497
1 secteur privé, mais la qualité de la télévision privée
2 fait qu'on est en compétition féroce case par case,
3 jour par jour, émission par émission.
4 2111 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors les
5 constellations, c'est avantageux pour Radio-Canada,
6 mais à votre avis c'est acceptable aussi pour le
7 secteur privé à cause des mêmes impératifs.
8 2112 Mme FORTIN: Je pense que oui et, à ce
9 moment-là, il faut définir comment on protège la
10 relation avec le milieu de la production indépendante,
11 comment on protège la façon dont ces constellations-là
12 vont être structurées.
13 2113 Nous, on a demandé des produits -- et
14 on va avoir des audiences là-dessus -- dans des
15 secteurs qui sont très, très directement reliés à notre
16 mandat. Les autres partenaires, que ce soit des
17 partenaires indépendants ou TVA, ont demandé des
18 projets de télévision dans des secteurs différents.
19 2114 La question à se poser, je pense que
20 c'est l'essentiel du mémoire, c'est: Si un
21 télédiffuseur conventionnel a des chaînes spécialisées,
22 sa contribution doit être lus grande, et pour avoir des
23 chaînes spécialisées il faut que sa contribution puisse
24 démontrer qu'il la mérite.
25 2115 L'importance de l'évolution du
StenoTran
498
1 système -- et on a encore le choix en français de le
2 faire différemment -- c'est de mesurer l'octroi des
3 licences à la hauteur et à l'importance de la
4 contribution. Je pense que c'est comme ça qu'on va
5 maintenir un niveau de production élevé en télévision
6 françophone et de la production de qualité.
7 2116 THE CHAIRPERSON: Since we are looking
8 today at the system as a whole, I would like your
9 comments on the advantages that can flow from these
10 constellations.
11 2117 You mentioned a little earlier that
12 if you have a Swiss knife you should look at all its
13 parts. Well, presumably the corkscrew gets us to the
14 good wine. How do you get the good wine as a result of
15 constellations? I hear you say that you should
16 encourage them, it's happening in any event, harness
17 this system to advantage.
18 2118 At page 33 you do raise this and say
19 at 6.0.4 of your submission that "a key element of the
20 Commission's new Canadian content policy could
21 incorporate the notion that for emerging Canadian
22 constellations, a commitment to produce, distribute and
23 export high quality Canadian programs will be an
24 essential factor in CRTC decisions to grant a
25 constellation grouping any further program service
StenoTran
499
1 licences".
2 2119 Would you also include in this
3 concentration horizontally as well as vertical
4 integration through specialty licences? Constellations
5 would include restructuring, consolidation,
6 concentration, that creates a more powerful grouping.
7 2120 Is this comment saying to the CRTC we
8 are for that but make it generate wine because there
9 are more instruments to open the bottle?
10 1530
11 2121 MR. McCOUBREY: Yes, Madam Chair.
12 Yes, we believe that rather than -- well, we think it's
13 an opportunity for the Commission if you recognize the
14 existence of constellations and perhaps not only ours
15 but other people's plans to expand what are embryonic
16 constellations. It gives you the opportunity to look
17 at the totality of the enterprise's activity and its
18 contribution to the Broadcasting Act.
19 2122 People who are making commitments and
20 honouring them might well be granted licences over
21 those who make commitments and don't honour them in
22 totality or people whose programming seems -- I think
23 that, in simple terms, people who make commitments and
24 keep them would, not just in the service that's making
25 the application but over their entire portfolio, be
StenoTran
500
1 favoured over others.
2 2123 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you go as far
3 as saying that more should be asked of a conventional
4 broadcaster, for example, who also has proliferation of
5 specialty licences?
6 2124 MR. McCOUBREY: Yes, that would be
7 our position, that a licence is a privileged position
8 and that with an increasing number of licences come
9 increasing obligations.
10 2125 THE CHAIRPERSON: And that would be
11 based on the fact that it's more likely to generate
12 efficiencies, et cetera?
13 2126 MR. McCOUBREY: Well, I think people
14 who apply for licences generally have ambitions for
15 their share price as a consequence of having the
16 licence. There is certainly a history of licences,
17 less so in specialty television. It's not yet
18 demonstrated, but certainly in radio and over-the-air
19 television licences have value even when they are not
20 making money. I think that people who --
21 2127 THE CHAIRPERSON: You realize that's
22 completely illegal, what you just said?
23 2128 MR. McCOUBREY: No, but I am sure
24 someone will tell me later this evening.
25 2129 I do believe that looking at things
StenoTran
501
1 in totality and commitments to the system would have
2 some beneficial results. We are simply trying
3 throughout this to see if we can identify ways that
4 would benefit the system.
5 2130 MR. BEATTY: Basically, Madam Chair,
6 if there are synergies that benefit the corporation in
7 having a constellation, why shouldn't the public
8 benefit from those synergies as well. Is it not
9 legitimate for the Commission, when it's looking at
10 licensing, to say: Okay, if there is an advantage to
11 having you doing this and giving you more than one
12 outlet, how does the public share in that advantage?
13 What we can do to use the new mechanism to leverage
14 more benefit for the public and to get more Canadian
15 content in the system?
16 2131 THE CHAIRPERSON: Obviously,
17 legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder because we
18 have heard from the CAB that multi-station licensees
19 should not -- no more should be requested of them
20 simply because stations are under common ownership, but
21 what you are saying is encourage it but harness it for
22 the generation of better quality programming and a
23 stronger Canadian system by asking more of those who
24 get more.
25 2132 MR. McCOUBREY: That's correct, but,
StenoTran
502
1 additionally, one of the distinctions might be that we
2 are not talking necessarily about licences which would
3 cover small geographies, but many of the constellations
4 are national licences.
5 2133 MR. BEATTY: Madam Chair, I think in
6 many ways you have two very different visions of the
7 system and where we go from there. There is agreement,
8 I think, on all of our parts that we want to see more
9 Canadian content, better Canadian content, we want it
10 to connect better with audiences. The question is how
11 we do it. One approach is to look upon the system as
12 being a closed system that either the government has to
13 write a cheque and throw more money at it or the
14 players themselves have to make a fast grab in the till
15 and try to take away from somebody else to benefit
16 yourself.
17 2134 The other vision is that we can grow
18 the system, that we can put in place a structure that
19 enables us to attract more viewing of Canadian content,
20 to attract better advertising revenues, to use our
21 resources much more efficiently and effectively than we
22 do today. I believe that turning to government and
23 asking government to simply throw more money at the
24 problem is a non-starter. We have been through a very
25 painful period at the CBC where we have had to make
StenoTran
503
1 very serious reductions as a result of the fact the
2 government was trying to get its books in order. It
3 would be unrealistic for us to expect that suddenly the
4 cheques are going to start flowing into the system.
5 2135 I think it is unrealistic for us to
6 say simply that it's a zero sum game and that my win is
7 your loss. I think we as a system, as a Canadian
8 broadcasting system, have to look at ways of using our
9 resources more effectively to benefit Canadian viewers,
10 Canadian listeners and Canadian content.
11 2136 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you see any need
12 for safeguards? If we do hear from any parties that
13 concentration, cross-ownership, vertical integration,
14 especially vertical integration with production, should
15 be the source of concern, do you see any need for
16 safeguards to negate or at least alleviate the concerns
17 that can flow from concentration?
18 2137 MR. BEATTY: Yes, Madam Chair, and
19 that's why the Commission is there and why I think it's
20 entirely appropriate for the Commission in looking at
21 our performance, both the commitments we make at the
22 front end and our performance at the back end, to say,
23 "Have you delivered in the public interest at the end
24 of the day the Canadian broadcasting system that's
25 designed to serve the public interest?" All of us
StenoTran
504
1 should be held to that test.
2 2138 THE CHAIRPERSON: But think for a
3 moment of the private sector, of the production sector.
4 Do you see any need for particular safeguards to
5 alleviate the problems of some of the parties you have
6 heard --
7 2139 MR. BEATTY: Sure.
8 2140 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- or that you may
9 yourself see or that there are many submissions who
10 even criticized the CBC's use of its clout to the
11 disadvantage that is perceived by some of other
12 parties? You must be aware of what other parties are
13 concerned about generally or philosophically and with
14 regard to the CBC, in particular.
15 2141 MR. BEATTY: I do and we also have
16 concerns. I would be very concerned if, as a result of
17 integration, you found that gatekeepers were benefiting
18 their services to the detriment of others. The whole
19 issue of access is absolutely critical in our system
20 and you need an honest broker outside of the -- you
21 know, a third party like the CRTC to be able to be
22 there, to make sure that all players are on a playing
23 field which is level, where the goalposts aren't moved
24 as they are going along the field.
25 2142 There is a range of issues, there is
StenoTran
505
1 no question about that, and as you get concentration,
2 new issues arise, you need to have somebody looking in
3 from above the system to make sure that the public
4 interest continues to be served, and we have no
5 difficulty with that at all. We would encourage it.
6 2143 Mme FORTIN: Si vous permettez, du
7 côté français, une des choses qu'il faut protéger
8 absolument, c'est l'équilibre du système entre les
9 télédiffuseurs et la production indépendante. Je pense
10 que c'est très facile de réaliser ça. Il y a un
11 certain nombre de règles; certaines dépendent du CRTC,
12 certaines peuvent dépendre de Téléfilm ou des fonds de
13 production.
14 2144 Par ailleurs, il y a des règles de
15 protection, des règles positives où nous faisons
16 régulièrement des engagements en fonction de la
17 production indépendante, ce que nous avons toujours
18 défendu par ailleurs. C'est que nous faisons aussi de
19 la production interne, mais c'est pour ajouter au
20 système. Et ce que nous remplaçons avec notre
21 production interne, ce sont des acquisitions
22 étrangères.
23 2145 Je pense qu'il serait très facile
24 pour nous de s'asseoir avec les producteurs
25 indépendants -- d'ailleurs, ce n'est pas la première
StenoTran
506
1 conversation -- et de définir un système de règles qui
2 permettrait de protéger je dirais les trois ou quatre
3 piliers essentiels dans le milieu francophone, c'est-à-
4 dire la télévision publique conventionnelle, la
5 télévision privée, les services spécialisés et la
6 production indépendante. C'est un système fragile et
7 délicat, mais nous avons l'habitude de travailler
8 ensemble, et je pense qu'il faut éviter un déséquilibre
9 qui ferait qu'un de ces éléments-là pourrait risquer
10 d'être considérablement diminué ou disparaître parce
11 qu'à ce moment-là on n'atteindrait pas le bien du
12 public.
13 2146 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Madame Fortin, dans
14 la soumission de langue française vous parlez de la
15 nécessité au Canada français de mettre en place à
16 l'échelle nationale des moyens d'élargir la base de la
17 production francophone d'une manière qui non seulement
18 sauvegarde les solides assises actuelles au Québec mais
19 aussi qui développe et étend la base de production
20 indépendante à l'échelle du pays.
21 2147 Mme FORTIN: Ce qu'on fait
22 présentement, c'est qu'on s'est donné un certain nombre
23 de priorités en ce qui concerne la production en
24 région. La première des priorités, je sais que c'est
25 un sujet qui vous intéresse probablement moins ici,
StenoTran
507
1 mais nous, on a un mandat d'information nationale
2 particulièrement important; donc d'avoir des émissions
3 d'information et une couverture pan-canadienne sur
4 l'ensemble du réseau, c'est une priorité, de la même
5 façon que de fournir pour les marchés francophones des
6 nouvelles locales pour les communautés francophones
7 hors Québec, ce sont deux priorités, c'est-à-dire les
8 premières.
9 2148 Deuxièmement, nous avons développé de
10 concert avec notre radio un certain nombre d'activités
11 et de programmes pour venir en aide directement aux
12 besoins des communautés des francophones hors Québec et
13 qui sont différentes je dirais des objectifs du réseau.
14 2149 Nous sommes aussi en train de
15 développer -- et ça va assez bien, je suis assez
16 contente -- du travail pour mettre sur pied
17 progressivement un réseau de producteurs indépendants
18 francophones dans les régions, et en particulier dans
19 des régions hors Québec. Nous avons beaucoup de
20 rencontres, nous faisons beaucoup de développement.
21 C'est du travail à long terme. Nous avons déjà toute
22 une liste de projets, et je pourrais vous les envoyer,
23 qui vont probablement arriver et qui vont aller au
24 réseau. Nous avons depuis plusieurs années des
25 ententes avec l'Office national du film pour exploiter
StenoTran
508
1 au maximum les ressources de ces populations-là qui
2 sont petites et dispersées.
3 2150 Dans les projets de chaînes
4 spécialisées que nous avons déposés, nous avons été
5 aussi très, très soucieux de s'assurer de renforcer les
6 présences régionales et de pouvoir permettre à toutes
7 les communautés d'être reflétées à l'ensemble du pays.
8 2151 Ça, c'est en production.
9 2152 En distribution, on a fait des
10 ententes et on travaille très étroitement, en
11 particulier avec Bell Satellite, pour assurer... parce
12 qu'on ne se fait pas d'illusions, la câblodistribution
13 à l'échelle du pays, pour plusieurs chaînes
14 francophones, c'est un problème qui n'est pas résolu,
15 et on essaie de travailler avec les nouvelles méthodes
16 de distribution pour faire à la fois de la distribution
17 en direct, du téléchargement par exemple, dans les
18 écoles et les centres communautaires, de la plupart des
19 émissions qui pourraient être désirées par ces
20 populations-là, et nous avons une entente que toutes
21 nos chaînes spécialisées seraient distribuées par
22 satellite à l'échelle du pays.
23 2153 Le troisième élément qui nous touche
24 aussi, c'est qu'on veut distribuer du contenu
25 francophone à l'étranger parce que la place des
StenoTran
509
1 francophones dans les nouveaux médias et à l'étranger,
2 c'est une peau de chagrin, et je pense que là-dessus on
3 est tous solidaires, les francophones, privés, publics,
4 Télé-Québec, Canada, il faut absolument produire,
5 produire du contenu nouveau, le rendre accessible à la
6 population d'ici, le distribuer à l'étranger. C'est
7 une condition de survie pour nous.
8 2154 LA PRÉSIDENTE: On a discuté déjà
9 avec certaines parties de l'importance de la facilité
10 d'exporter la production. À la page 20 de votre
11 document, 3.4.8, vous dites:
12 2155 "Du côté de la télévision
13 française, il n'est plus adéquat
14 de tabler sur les succès
15 remportés. Avec la concurrence
16 accrue... [et caetera], [il faut
17 avoir de] nouvelles situations
18 et mettre sur pied des
19 industries qui sont en mesure de
20 soutenir la concurrence et de
21 mener adroitement leurs
22 activités d'exportations.
23 2156 Mais, par ailleurs, à la page 35,
24 votre huitième, je suppose, recommandation, vous dites
25 que le Canada ne doit pas se trouver un lieu où tourner
StenoTran
510
1 des émissions génériques et purgées de tout repère
2 canadien. Donc il y a une certaine contradiction entre
3 ce désir de produire des produits exportables mais
4 quand même de ne pas se laisser prendre au piège de ne
5 pas avoir des émissions vraiment canadiennes, ce qui
6 attire évidemment vos auditoires. Et vous parlez là de
7 resserrer les normes d'admissibilité au financement
8 destiné à la production d'émissions canadiennes. Dans
9 le contexte du commentaire, la capacité d'exporter une
10 émission ne doit pas déterminer la décision de financer
11 ou non.
12 2157 Est-ce que vous pouvez me donner vos
13 commentaires -- je vois que vous avez bien hâte de le
14 faire -- sur cette contradiction ou cette apparente
15 contradiction et qu'est-ce que vous voulez dire par
16 "resserrer les normes d'admissibilité au financement"
17 dans ce contexte?
18 2158 Mme FORTIN: Je pense qu'il faut
19 prendre en compte... et une partie de la réponse devra
20 être donnée par Jim Byrd, mon collègue de la télévision
21 anglaise, parce qu'il est très rare en télévision
22 francophone qu'on déguise les productions pour que ça
23 ressemble aux États-Unis. Ce n'est pas ça, notre
24 problème. Notre problème, c'est plus la langue
25 française et le fait que, pour exporter, les compagnies
StenoTran
511
1 francophones recourent de plus en plus à l'anglais. Ce
2 n'est pas un secret, si le Réseau TVA a ouvert un
3 bureau à Vancouver pour faire des films de langue
4 anglaise pour exporter aux États-Unis, ce n'est pas ce
5 dont on parle en français quand, comme télévision
6 publique, on parle d'exportation de produits
7 francophones.
8 2159 Par contre, une partie de ce
9 paragraphe-là fait référence à la production de langue
10 anglaise qui est conçue prioritairement pour
11 l'exportation et qui trouve sa place sur nos antennes.
12 Je pense que les problèmes de l'exportation et notre
13 relation avec soit les États-Unis, soit la France, est
14 complètement différente selon qu'on est en milieu
15 francophone ou en milieu anglophone.
16 2160 Je pense que le chant des sirènes
17 américaines est très, très fort du côté anglais. Nos
18 sirènes françaises sont moins séductrices pour nous.
19 2161 LA PRÉSIDENTE: J'invite M. Byrd à
20 faire ses commentaires, mais ce que je vous lisais au
21 départ, c'était bien du côté de la télévision
22 française.
23 2162 Mme FORTIN: Oui. Du côté de la
24 télévision française...
25 2163 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... qu'on doit
StenoTran
512
1 s'adapter aux nouvelles situations, mettre sur pied des
2 industries qui sont en mesure de soutenir la
3 concurrence et de mener adroitement leurs activités
4 d'exportation.
5 2164 Alors vous voyez là un contexte
6 différent à cause de la langue.
7 2165 Mme FORTIN: Je fais référence à ce
8 que l'Association des producteurs disait, de maintenir
9 la production de séries de haut niveau. On pense que
10 dans le secteur de la télévision pour enfants et du
11 documentaire on a des possibilités de succès
12 particulièrement importantes.
13 2166 Je pense que d'ici quatre ou cinq ans
14 la distribution de nos signaux, si on peut résoudre les
15 problèmes des droits de diffusion, va être probablement
16 plus intéressante que la distribution des émissions
17 émission par émission, et l'utilisation des nouveaux
18 médias pour nous est un moyen d'avoir accès aux marchés
19 internationaux.
20 2167 Évidemment, il faut redéfinir
21 complètement les question de droits, les questions de
22 paiement des droits de diffusion, les fenêtres, et
23 caetera, mais c'est la voie de l'avenir, et il faut
24 qu'on s'y mette.
25 2168 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Byrd?
StenoTran
513
1 2169 MR. BYRD: I think the whole issue of
2 export is one that we are very interested in. We are
3 very successful at it. We have exported in the last
4 six to seven years somewhere between $80 and $90
5 million worth of our programming. Our programming is
6 seen in virtually every country in the world. The
7 issue of the criteria that was raised is a fundamental
8 one and it's one where there is always tension between
9 the different parties.
10 2170 The fund board itself is studying the
11 issue. They have a sub-committee that's looking at
12 that and we are active in that. Obviously, we do have
13 a point of view. We believe in distinctive Canadian,
14 but we also believe distinctive Canadian can sell. We
15 have been successful at it and we think others can be
16 successful at it.
17 2171 THE CHAIRPERSON: Promotion now. At
18 page 42 you advocate more vigorous promotion of
19 Canadian programs, but at page 43 you also express a
20 concern that you don't want any funds diverted from
21 programming. You do advocate, however, that promotion
22 of broadcasters' programs without penalty should be
23 allowed by simple regulatory amendment.
24 2172 Does that refer to an amendment of
25 the meaning of "advertising", to remove from it the
StenoTran
514
1 promotion and cross-promotion of Canadian programs? Is
2 that the simple regulatory amendment that you envisage,
3 that it would be exempted or removed from the
4 definition of advertising and that would mean that
5 there would be no penalty then?
6 2173 MR. McCOUBREY: For Canadian
7 programming, yes.
8 2174 THE CHAIRPERSON: You say promotion
9 of their programs without penalty and I gather the
10 cross-promotion as well. So, you wouldn't see here the
11 promotion where it remains in the interest of the
12 broadcaster, which is not impossible, of other programs
13 as well, that all promotion of Canadian programs should
14 be removed from advertising?
15 2175 MR. McCOUBREY: Yes.
16 2176 THE CHAIRPERSON: You say no
17 diversion of funds from programs. I haven't asked you
18 whether you endorse the plan that would have both
19 exhibition requirements for peak time and spending
20 requirements when you look at the private sector. Do
21 you have any comment? Especially Mr. McCoubrey, he has
22 told us he is not completely converted yet, he still
23 looks at the bottom line.
24 1555
25 2177 MR. BEATTY: That was a very nasty
StenoTran
515
1 dig, Madam Chairman.
2 2178 MS FORTIN: We do too, Madam.
3 2179 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's getting late.
4 Indulge me.
5 2180 MR. McCOUBREY: I think as best I
6 can, we really felt that above all else we should be
7 concentrating our creativity on how to get people to
8 watch more Canadian programming and above all in peak
9 time because we felt that was the best way to
10 accomplish all the objectives of producing more quality
11 Canadian programming, exposing it to more Canadians,
12 having it accepted, become popular and strengthening
13 the production industry. We are not as concerned about
14 spending and we are not as concerned about quantity.
15 We are mostly concerned about trying to find ways to
16 improve the audience for Canadian programming.
17 2181 MR. BEATTY: Madam Chair, what that
18 doesn't include is treating Canadian infomercials as
19 Canadian content.
20 2182 THE CHAIRPERSON: It does not?
21 2183 MR. BEATTY: It does not.
22 2184 THE CHAIRPERSON: I like
23 infomercials.
24 2185 MR. BEATTY: I am prepared to revise
25 our position then, Madam Chair.
StenoTran
516
1 2186 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, one of the
2 questions obviously that surfaces when we talk about
3 the CBC is the complementarity that exists between the
4 public broadcaster and the private broadcasters. Of
5 course, we have often raised how can this
6 complementarity be accomplish. Various people have
7 various views on it. What is the role that the
8 regulator can play to encourage that complementarity
9 and to encourage more joint venturings, more co-
10 operative efforts, or is that to be left to negotiation
11 or development between the private and public sector?
12 2187 Following that, which may be -- well,
13 you are not here for renewal, but both from Madam
14 Fortin and the CBC, Mr. Beatty probably, there have
15 been very pointed criticisms made by various
16 intervenors in this particular process about the lack
17 of co-operation between the two. I may raise some to
18 see if you have any comments, but again I leave that to
19 you since you are not here on renewal.
20 2188 So, complementarity and what can the
21 regulator do to encourage more co-operation, as well as
22 complementarity in both the French sector and the
23 English sector?
24 2189 MR. BEATTY: Madam Chair, inevitably
25 this is an issue that will come up as we come before
StenoTran
517
1 you for licensing, for example, for specialties and as
2 we look at our renewals you, inevitably, will be asking
3 us what are you doing in terms of looking for
4 participation with others? How do you work with them?
5 How do you build synergies between public and private?
6 2190 But it is also in our interest that
7 we build synergies ourselves. We are partnering to a
8 level unheard of in the history of the CBC and there
9 are a number of reasons for that.
10 2191 The first is that we are simply not
11 so large and so wealthy that we can afford to go it
12 alone. It is an expensive world out there and if we
13 are going to be successful in terms of serving our
14 audiences, particularly with reduced resources, we need
15 to look for ways in which we can find other partners,
16 whether other broadcasters, as was the case for our
17 English network when we worked together with Global and
18 also with Atlantis with "Traders." We have done so
19 with WIC as well with "Emily of New Moon" as another
20 example of that.
21 2192 On the French side we are partnering
22 with TVA --
23 2193 THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought you were
24 going to say with Madam Fortin.
25 2194 MR. BEATTY: We are indeed.
StenoTran
518
1 2195 MS FORTIN: We do too.
2 2196 MR. BEATTY: We are.
3 2197 THE CHAIRPERSON: Or with Radio-
4 Canada.
5 2198 MR. BEATTY: With Madam Fortin's
6 enthusiastic encouragement we have a joint application
7 with TVA for Télé classique, but we are also developing
8 partnerships in many, many other ways, by drawing on
9 independent producers more than ever before, by looking
10 in new media for how we would partner with others, by
11 looking in radio at how we can build partnerships with
12 others, not necessarily other broadcasters, but in some
13 cases yes. Working with community radio in French is
14 another example of that.
15 2199 We are with all of the specialty
16 applications that we have before you, we will be
17 looking at how we can build partnerships with others
18 that will leverage the strengths that we bring and
19 allow others to bring them to the table as well. So,
20 it is in our interest to do it. It makes good business
21 sense for us to do it. We can serve our audiences
22 better and, inevitably, this is an issue which you will
23 be pursuing with us as we bring any proposals before
24 you.
25 2200 MR. McCOUBREY: I might just add we
StenoTran
519
1 have a 10-year going forward partnership with a private
2 broadcaster to do the Olympics in both English and
3 French as well for the first time.
4 2201 MR. BEATTY: And without that
5 partnership we could not have successfully won the
6 Olympics. That's a partnership that we value and one
7 that strengthens both broadcasters, and which is a win-
8 win situation for our audiences.
9 2202 Another important partnership to us
10 is the one with Power Corporation, where we have a
11 partnership with them to export Canadian signals from
12 this country into the U.S. and potentially around the
13 world. That's a very, very important partnership that
14 allows us to serve Canadians in a way that we probably
15 couldn't do if we were simply acting alone.
16 2203 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just so that we
17 leave you with some food for thought, let me ask your
18 comments about some of the concerns that have been
19 raised by other intervenors and the suggestions that
20 have been made you know that the CFPTA has asked or has
21 recommended that the Corporation institute an ombudsman
22 for independent production, in order to alleviate or
23 improve -- alleviate problems that are perceived to
24 exist by the private television sector and to improve
25 relationships to the advantage of the system.
StenoTran
520
1 2204 MR. BEATTY: Yes, Madam Chair.
2 2205 THE CHAIRPERSON: Won't you be
3 surprised if I am not on the renewal panel?
4 2206 MR. BEATTY: I gather you would like
5 me to elaborate somewhat on that answer?
6 2207 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, but you seem so
7 anxious to please and it may be all for naught.
8 2208 MR. BEATTY: I am very keen on doing
9 this. These are our partners. We could not have the
10 Gemini and Gémeaux nominations that we have over the
11 next two weekends without the partnership that we have
12 built with them.
13 2209 The folks who are in front of you
14 today are suppliers to us and have helped to build a
15 very strong relationship. It's a relationship which we
16 consider very important for the future.
17 2210 Inevitably, particularly in a period
18 when money is being taken out of the system there are
19 strains. Our goal is very straightforward. We see
20 these people as our allies and as our friends and as
21 our partners. We want to work closely with them and we
22 want to ensure that we are able to air Canadian
23 programs and that we get higher viewership for them.
24 2211 Now, does the idea of an ombudsman
25 make sense? I don't know. We are prepared to look at
StenoTran
521
1 any proposal that comes forward, but let's make it
2 clear what our goal is. Our goal is to work together
3 well and to ensure that it's a win-win situation, both
4 for independent producers and for the CBC.
5 2212 THE CHAIRPERSON: Presumably, whether
6 the ombudsman is the answer or not, the need is to look
7 at what are the concerns expressed?
8 2213 MR. BEATTY: Exactly.
9 2214 THE CHAIRPERSON: Presumably, they
10 will be re-expressed and how does one make them
11 disappear or how does one alleviate them?
12 2215 MR. BEATTY: Exactly.
13 2216 THE CHAIRPERSON: Another suggestion
14 is one of Telefilm, which suggested that the CBC should
15 co-operate with private broadcasters by sublicensing
16 their licensed programs to the private sector, when in
17 a shorter period than it is prepared to do that is a
18 two to three year time period. All of which I would
19 expect in the context of this particular hearing would
20 go to improving the number of hours of quality Canadian
21 programming available to the viewing public. So, it's
22 in that context that I am asking for your comment.
23 2217 MR. BEATTY: Perhaps I could ask Jim
24 and Michèle to comment on that.
25 2218 MR. BYRD: I can go first if you
StenoTran
522
1 want. I think that issue is one we need to look at on
2 a case-by-case basis. A lot depends on our own
3 circumstances at the time.
4 2219 Clearly, we have a mandate to ensure
5 that the television schedule that we bring to the
6 public using tax dollars is the best possible schedule
7 we can get there with the resources that we have got.
8 That entails us making decisions about when we release
9 our programs, how often we repeat them and where we
10 repeat them.
11 2220 So, it's not an easy question to give
12 a one-phrase answer to. I think it is something we
13 look at all the time. A lot of our programming does go
14 to the specialty channels. You will find all kinds of
15 examples of it, but I think the decision about when we
16 release it is partly a creative decision about what our
17 schedule needs and when it needs it and it is partly a
18 business decision about when we think the value of that
19 program to us as the public broadcaster has lapsed to
20 the extent that we can release it to others.
21 2221 I think we are not opposed to that in
22 principle. We wish we had more channels of our own so
23 we didn't have to do it. We are not sitting on this
24 motherlode of programming without any reference to the
25 Canadian public wanting to see it. It's something we
StenoTran
523
1 have to decide on a case-by-case basis.
2 2222 As I said, I think our first priority
3 and the first thing that should be expected of us is
4 that we look after making sure that the schedule we get
5 to the public is the best possible one we can get
6 there.
7 2223 THE CHAIRPERSON: Since we are
8 getting along so well, I might as well raise WIC's
9 concern as well, which is that the Commission should
10 encourage the CBC to work more co-operatively with the
11 pay television industry. I understand their concern is
12 that the CBC imposes a condition with regard to
13 Canadian features, that they won't air them if they
14 have been previously broadcast by pay, and that that
15 pay service, the one owned by WIC, is arguing that
16 their viewership is so low that that condition is
17 unnecessary and should not be an impediment.
18 2224 MR. BEATTY: Again, Madam Chair, I
19 think it is not a blanket situation. I think we have
20 to evaluate that as the cases come up.
21 2225 Clearly, given the licence fees that
22 the CBC is paying and again, given that it is public
23 money and given that we have a mandate to bring the
24 best possible schedule to the public, we have to look
25 after that first. That is our responsibility.
StenoTran
524
1 2226 Does that mean that in general we
2 would never do that? No. But we do have to look at it
3 on a case-by-case basis and we do.
4 2227 THE CHAIRPERSON: I mentioned joint
5 ventures earlier. Do you think that the Commission
6 should get involved in encouraging more joint ventures,
7 that there are some ways in which joint venturing could
8 be improved by some regulatory involvement?
9 2228 MR. BEATTY: There is something of a
10 silence here in response to that.
11 2229 Let me take a crack at it, if I may,
12 Madam Chair, and then any of my colleagues might want
13 to add.
14 2230 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am wondering
15 whether that is because it wasn't a very clear
16 question, a very intelligent question or one which you
17 don't want to answer.
18 2231 MR. BEATTY: It was because it was
19 clear and intelligent, Madam Chairman, that there was
20 the pause.
21 2232 I believe that the driving factor in
22 developing any partnership should be what makes sense,
23 what makes good business sense. Do both parties bring
24 something to the table that strengthens the enterprise?
25 2233 We believe the joint venture we have
StenoTran
525
1 with Power Corporation, something where both parties
2 bring something to the table that is valuable.
3 2234 Our partners that we have in our
4 specialty applications bring elements to the table that
5 make us stronger than if we were just there by
6 ourselves.
7 2235 Now, I believe that's better than a
8 forced marriage which may defy the laws of logic or of
9 economics. I think it is clear that the message that
10 all of us get from the Commission is look for ways to
11 partner with others, look for ways to leverage your
12 strength, look for ways of getting benefits for the
13 system as a whole. We have to do that and within those
14 broad guidelines what we want to do is define partners
15 who complement our strengths, who can shore up our
16 weaknesses and with whom we can work well.
17 2236 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Madame Fortin,
18 l'APFTQ, une de ses recommandations -- je pense que
19 c'était à la page 19 de leur mémoire, et ils l'ont
20 répétée ce matin -- est que Radio-Canada devrait
21 allouer au moins 5 millions par année à l'acquisition
22 de droits de télédiffusion de longs métrages canadiens
23 et consacrer plus d'efforts à la promotion du cinéma
24 canadien, de ses créateurs et de ses artistes et
25 interprètes.
StenoTran
526
1 2237 Vous avez un commentaire?
2 2238 Mme FORTIN: Je pense qu'on devrait
3 faire davantage pour le cinéma canadien. Je trouve que
4 5 millions, c'est beaucoup d'argent, d'autant plus
5 qu'on a des engagements très importants qu'on essaie de
6 réaliser, surtout depuis les compressions, à restaurer
7 la programmation pour enfants et du documentaire. Nous
8 avons aussi une priorité qui est importante et qui est
9 complémentaire au cinéma canadien, qui est celle
10 d'amener en ondes des performances sur les arts de la
11 scène. Je pense que ces priorités-là doivent être
12 mises en regard les unes des autres.
13 2239 Oui, je pense qu'on doit faire
14 davantage de choses, mais dans le fond, ce qu'on nous
15 demande, c'est une subvention au cinéma canadien, et il
16 faut se demander, dans l'économie du système, est-ce
17 que c'est la meilleure façon de contribuer au
18 développement du contenu canadien ou si on ne doit pas
19 balancer ça davantage entre les enfants, le
20 documentaire, les arts de la scène et le cinéma.
21 2240 Moi, j'aime mieux une solution
22 balancée, mais c'est quelque chose que je n'ai pas
23 discuté avec l'APFTQ jusqu'à présent.
24 2241 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, ma
25 dernière question. TQS suggère que le secteur privé
StenoTran
527
1 ait priorité en essayant d'obtenir des droits en
2 programmation.
3 2242 Mme FORTIN: Écoutez, on est très peu
4 sur le marché des droits. Si vous regardez notre
5 grille en général, on achète relativement peu de longs
6 métrages, on ne diffuse pas de séries américaines, on
7 achète à l'occasion un spécial ou une mini-série pour
8 la période des Fêtes ou pour l'été. On n'est vraiment
9 pas le joueur qu'ils devraient craindre sur le marché
10 des acquisitions. Je pense qu'ils devraient davantage
11 regarder dans la cour de l'autre télédiffuseur public,
12 parce que leur concurrence vient vraiment de là, pas de
13 chez nous.
14 2243 THE CHAIRPERSON: My colleagues have
15 some questions, but perhaps it would suit better if we
16 continued even though it is past 4:00, so that you
17 could be relieved.
18 2244 Before I close, I want to remind you
19 that your renewal will start at 9:00 in the morning.
20 We may not be in such a good mood at that hour.
21 2245 Commissioner Wilson.
22 2246 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I just have a
23 couple of quick questions. The first one, in your
24 opening remarks, Mr. Beatty, you said the Canadian
25 industry needs to look more towards its own devices and
StenoTran
528
1 cannot call on the government and its agencies to solve
2 the entire production problem through contributions to
3 production funding.
4 2247 Considering that you are largely
5 funded through taxpayers' dollars and have access to up
6 to half of the fund, some might say, well, that's easy
7 for you to say.
8 2248 I am just wondering what you mean by
9 its own devices when you talk about that?
10 2249 MR. BEATTY: When we talk about our
11 own devices we are talking of the whole industry and
12 say, "Okay, we have a broad range of tools available to
13 us. How do we most effectively use those tools?"
14 2250 The easy thing to do and,
15 Commissioner, I saw it years and years when I was in
16 politics, is simply to call upon the government to
17 write a cheque and solve your problem for you. It is
18 time that those of us in the broadcasting industry
19 looked to ourselves and said, "With all of the
20 resources we have available to us, how can we use them
21 more effectively?"
22 2251 Now, with partnership with the
23 regulator and with others to gain greater benefits for
24 Canadians. Now, I accept the point that you make, we
25 are the largest single beneficiary because we are a
StenoTran
529
1 public sector corporation of the government's
2 commitment to Canadian broadcasting, but we are not
3 asking for any special privileges here.
4 2252 The only thing that we are asking,
5 particularly as it relates to the fund, is that the
6 goalposts don't get move now that we are on to the
7 field, that the rules under which we entered on to the
8 field be maintained throughout the game.
9 2253 Throughout this we are not asking
10 that others be held back. We are not asking that
11 others not be given the opportunity to evolve into
12 constellations. We are not asking that others not be
13 allowed to compete. We are not asking that anybody's
14 hands be tied behind his back. We are simply saying
15 let us function by the same rules as everybody else and
16 let us as an industry look to ourselves instead of
17 simply turning to government to say, "What can we do
18 that will serve Canadians more?"
19 2254 I think the Commission -- I think
20 these hearings are serious hearings and the issues you
21 are dealing with in Canadian culture and Canadian
22 content are fundamental to who we are as Canadians. I
23 think you have a right to expect of any of us who come
24 before you that we come with solutions and not simply
25 with an attempt to get somebody else to solve the
StenoTran
530
1 problem for us. That we look ourselves within
2 ourselves to find ways of ensuring that there is more
3 Canadian content and it is more effectively watched by
4 Canadians.
5 2255 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Further to
6 that, would you consider the idea of sort of doing
7 contra, cross-promotion, like you would do promotion
8 for Global and they would do promotion for you, so that
9 you are targeting different audience segments. Have
10 you explored that idea?
11 2256 MR. BEATTY: I think we can certainly
12 look at what we would do. Today we take paid
13 advertising from other broadcasters. If you watch CBC
14 television you will find paid ads for other radio
15 broadcasters on a regular basis and that is certainly
16 acceptable to us.
17 2257 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You are talking
18 about some sort of co-operating as a whole.
19 2258 MR. BEATTY: Yes.
20 2259 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Maybe that's
21 asking for too much co-operation.
22 2260 MR. BEATTY: We ourselves buy time
23 elsewhere as well, buy space elsewhere. I will leave
24 it to Michèle and Jim to comment on your specific
25 proposal, but in principle it does not offend me.
StenoTran
531
1 1615
2 2261 MR. BYRD: I think and we do buy pay
3 time on private radio stations and we do accept paid
4 advertising from private radio stations from pay
5 television operations.
6 2262 The issue of promoting one of our
7 competitors is a tougher one. I think Perrin is
8 probably more onside with that one than I would be, but
9 I only say that because --
10 2263 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I realize it is
11 a very sort of high level co-operation kind of
12 structure.
13 2264 MR. BYRD: No. The only reason I say
14 that is for the benefit of the system.
15 2265 Just to go back to the Chair's
16 question about promotion, I think next to getting a
17 good quality program together, the next most important
18 point is getting the program promoted. In this day and
19 age where in most markets of this country now there are
20 60 or 70 choices on your cable, getting the message out
21 about when the program is on and where it is and what
22 the content is for that night or that day is the most
23 critical challenge we face.
24 2266 I think all of us, whether we are
25 somebody from CTV sitting here or Global, I think they
StenoTran
532
1 would say to you "None of us have enough money to do
2 that in this market. There is such an overwhelming
3 rollover from the American market from all that
4 American programming that the challenge of
5 promoting --"
6 2267 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's
7 something I understand very personally, having run a
8 channel myself --
9 2268 MR. BYRD: It's tough. It really is
10 tough.
11 2269 COMMISSIONER WILSON: -- with limited
12 dollars trying to get the programming.
13 2270 MR. BYRD: You face that juggernaut
14 every day. I think all of us faced with the question
15 you just asked me would say "We don't have enough time
16 or money to promote our own now". We fight for every 30
17 seconds of promo time that we can get on our own
18 schedule to get the story about our programs on the
19 air.
20 2271 I bet the other broadcasters would
21 say the same thing. We don't have enough for our own
22 and we will solve that first, thank you.
23 2272 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. I guess
24 the second thing that I wanted to ask about goes back
25 to a question that Commissioner Wylie just asked about
StenoTran
533
1 co-operation with the independent producers and what
2 they said in their opening remarks yesterday afternoon.
3 2273 They said "We are concerned that the
4 CBC does not always understand the independent producer
5 and that they are often asked for us to seek rights
6 well beyond broadcast rights to get a licence fee".
7 2274 I am sure that this is something that
8 you will want to discuss with them off-line, but
9 considering that you are the largest broadcaster of
10 Canadian content in the country and you are working
11 with this group of people, why would you, just out of
12 curiosity, be asking for them to seek rights beyond
13 traditional broadcast rights in order to get a licence
14 fee?
15 2275 MR. BYRD: You are right, we will
16 have that discussion off-line and we always do. It's
17 always one of the issues of tension between us.
18 2276 Again I go back to the President's
19 point that we have a public mandate to fulfil. There's
20 an expectation on us that we spend every public dollar
21 properly and that we maximize the benefit of that
22 dollar and that we leverage it as far as we can for the
23 benefit of what goes on the screen. I think it would
24 be irresponsible of us not to bargain as hard as we
25 can.
StenoTran
534
1 2277 I think the major issue between us is
2 the issue of the right to match. We tend to insist on
3 that in most if not all of our contracts. It's an
4 issue that is critical to us. We spend a lot of money
5 developing projects. Some of them take years to get to
6 the screen. As soon as it gets to be a hit, we don't
7 want to see it leave our screens.
8 2278 That's always an issue between us.
9 It's not one that the private producers like. They
10 would like to have the freedom to just take their
11 projects and shop them everywhere. We feel that as
12 somebody who has put a lot of public money into those
13 projects, we have a right to defend that investment.
14 That's always a piece of tension between us.
15 2279 We are always examining it. It's
16 something that we are now looking at with the fund
17 because it's an issue in connection with the fund
18 projects as well. I suspect we will have a good lively
19 debate about it for the next few months. We will come
20 to some resolution, I'm sure.
21 2280 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Great.
22 2281 MR. McCOUBREY: I would like to add
23 to that by saying that Linda and Elizabeth have both
24 spoken to me about this. We are going to be meeting
25 again within a matter of days about this. I think
StenoTran
535
1 these issues are certainly easily resolved once people
2 start talking. We look forward to that opportunity.
3 2282 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thank you very
4 much.
5 2283 Thank you, Madam Chair.
6 2284 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
7 Cardozo.
8 2285 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam
9 Chair.
10 2286 A couple of questions. I just wanted
11 to ask first about local programming. Perhaps you can
12 sync a bit more in a cross-sectoral respect if not just
13 the public sector but any national network.
14 2287 What is the role -- how do you
15 balance local programming with the national programming
16 that you do as a national network and what should be
17 your role and that of any other network?
18 2288 MR. BEATTY: Sorry?
19 2289 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: What should be
20 your role in terms of local programming and that of any
21 other network?
22 2290 MR. BEATTY: I think that all of us
23 have a role in local programming. I don't think it's
24 exclusively the role of the private sector or the role
25 of the public sector.
StenoTran
536
1 2291 We have, as you know, over the course
2 of the last years agonized about how to deal with that
3 $400 million monster we are confronting. We asked
4 ourselves what our role is. What is the balance
5 between local and national? Should we be an entirely
6 national network, get out of the local business
7 entirely or do we need to be balanced?
8 2292 After doing a great deal of soul
9 searching, we came to the conclusion that you can't do
10 your job nationally unless you are well rooted in the
11 regions themselves, unless you give a genuine
12 reflection of the country and that the view of Canada
13 can't simply be the view from the CN Tower or the view
14 from Maison Radio-Canada without the ability to be on
15 the ground, be part of the community, be serving the
16 community where people live, you cannot do the job
17 nationally as effectively.
18 2293 We also believe that our presence in
19 local broadcasting helps to ensure that the quality of
20 effort made by private sector broadcasters is greater.
21 Some of the greatest supporters that we have for the
22 presence of the CBC in English and in French and in
23 local markets and news is private sector journalists
24 who say that the presence of the CBC there ensures that
25 our private sector colleagues continue to invest in
StenoTran
537
1 local news and providing a high quality of service.
2 It's something where I think we have an important role
3 to play.
4 2294 The only other point I would make is
5 our own experience over the course of the last two or
6 three years. In Manitoba with the flood, in Quebec
7 with the flooding, in the giant freeze that took place
8 here in central Canada and eastern Canada in January
9 and with the crash of SwissAir.
10 2295 It was the fact that we had those
11 local roots there on the ground that enabled us both to
12 put on in some cases life line services for people, but
13 secondly to serve communities and to serve our national
14 audiences much more effectively than we would
15 otherwise.
16 2296 I think it's instructive that when
17 the SwissAir crash took place most recently, that
18 tragedy -- I was watching our national news in English
19 at the time -- a story broke in the middle of the
20 national newscast. The person who was delivering the
21 news was our anchor from the Vancouver Supper Hour who
22 was filling in that evening.
23 2297 She went to live reports from the
24 scene from our local reporters in Nova Scotia. It
25 speaks volumes to me about the depth of talent that you
StenoTran
538
1 have first of all and also the value of that
2 infrastructure in terms of your ability to serve the
3 whole of the country because you are well rooted in the
4 regions as well.
5 2298 I don't know whether colleagues would
6 like to add to that.
7 2299 MR. BYRD: I think that's absolutely
8 right. The only other thing I would add,
9 Commissioners, we are rooted in terms of getting the
10 news out of each of the regions of this country out to
11 the country as a whole. That's important. But we are
12 also rooted in the sense of how we develop talent.
13 That's the other critical element that we can't lose
14 sight of in this.
15 2300 I think one of the best examples of
16 that is "This Hour Has 22 minutes" which started 22
17 years ago in Newfoundland, 23 years ago in
18 Newfoundland, as a program called "Wonderful Grand
19 Bank". That got developed there by the CBC on a local
20 station basis.
21 2301 It got moved up to a regional
22 program. It became "Codco". "Codco" eventually landed
23 on the network. Coincident with that Salter Street
24 Productions became a partner with us in that show.
25 From that point on Salter Street expanded, the cast and
StenoTran
539
1 crew of "Codco" grew. They turned into "22 Minutes".
2 Each of the stars on "22 Minutes" have in turn spawned
3 their own either specials or their own six part series.
4 In the next couple of weeks you will see Rick Mercer's
5 latest piece which arose out of that.
6 2302 It all started from that local piece
7 of rootedness many years ago in a small local station.
8 We are very worried about that. As we have had to do
9 the cuts that we have had to do, we have been working
10 with our regional people to ensure that we are able to
11 keep going some momentum in that area so fresh talent
12 is continuously coming along the pipeline. It's a
13 priority for us to build that back as fast as we can.
14 2303 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You are aware
15 that some of the criticisms of the past few years have
16 been that when there have been cuts, the regions always
17 got the cuts first is the perception. I draw you to a
18 couple of comments. I hope I'm not scooping people who
19 will be speaking later on, but this is on the public
20 record.
21 2304 The B.C. Government notes that they
22 have 17 per cent of the population and 5 per cent of
23 your budget. The Saskatchewan Communications Network
24 has asked that your portion of the CTCPF or the CTF
25 equity investment program, that 20 per cent of that be
StenoTran
540
1 spent on regional programming. Clearly they are not
2 satisfied with what you are doing in the regions.
3 2305 You have mentioned the cuts. Is that
4 all behind you and it is all going to be better from
5 here on? This is a question that has been addressed to
6 us in the town hall meetings that we have had over the
7 past few months.
8 2306 MR. BEATTY: Perhaps I can start on
9 that and then ask Jim to comment.
10 2307 First of all, you raise the question
11 of whether or not we cut first in the regions, then at
12 the centre. It was exactly, Commissioner, the other
13 way round in our case.
14 2308 You recall that we dealt essentially
15 in two tranches. We hoped initially to be able to hold
16 the reductions down to a lower level. We started first
17 at the centre and at the top. I cut substantially the
18 number of Vice-Presidents that I had. I cut my head
19 office by 60 per cent. I sold the building and we
20 consolidated into Lanark Avenue in the production
21 facility.
22 2309 We took this proportionately out of
23 the centre to try to protect our resources, which is
24 quite different perhaps from what was done back in 1991
25 where I think 11 stations across the country were
StenoTran
541
1 closed at that time. We didn't close any station.
2 2310 Indeed, Commissioner, you will be
3 pleased to hear that on the weekend I will be
4 travelling to Victoria where finally we are going to
5 make good on a longstanding promise to open a radio
6 station in Victoria. Instead of closing stations, we
7 are actually opening stations up and adding bureaus and
8 trying to do a better reflection of the country.
9 2311 Are the cuts over? I hope so. We
10 believe that it's important for us to have healthy
11 roots.
12 2312 Jim can in particular comment about
13 the allocation by region of budget. What I can say to
14 you is all of the programs on Canadian television of
15 the new programs on English Canadian television, the
16 one that creates the greatest buzz and excitement is
17 one called "DaVinci's Inquest" shot in Vancouver.
18 2313 You had before you today on the other
19 side of the country a representative of Salter Street
20 Studios. Our top rated program "This Hour Has 22
21 Minutes" comes out of Halifax, so there is no prejudice
22 that we have that says that you have to centralize
23 around Front Street in Toronto to get on the air. Our
24 goal is to go wherever we can to generate high quality
25 Canadian content.
StenoTran
542
1 2314 The other thing that we did
2 deliberately at a time when we knew that we had to make
3 reductions in the regions was to regionalize our
4 national schedules to an extent unheard of in the
5 history of this corporation.
6 2315 If you take a look at our national
7 schedules, you will find that we have made a
8 conscientious effort to reflect all of the regions of
9 Canada, both to themselves and to the nation as a whole
10 on our national schedules, everything from "Black
11 Harbour" to "North of 60" to "DaVinci's Inquest" to
12 "Dooley Gardens". All of this is designed to give a
13 better reflection of the country as a whole so it is a
14 conscious, deliberate policy on our part to regionalize
15 our schedules and to try to ensure that Canadians have
16 the opportunity to see their country in all of its
17 diversity.
18 2316 Jim?
19 2317 THE CHAIRPERSON: We must not make
20 this a rehearsal for renewal.
21 2318 MR. BYRD: The only thing I would
22 add, Commissioner, is three points. One is when they
23 were before you yesterday, you heard the CFTPA refer
24 to the 300 companies that they represent.
25 2319 The CBC is never going to satisfy 300
StenoTran
543
1 companies in any given year. We are working with about
2 75 right now. That means there are 225 mad with us
3 before we even start the season. We don't enjoy that
4 and no other broadcaster does. We try to improve on
5 that performance all the time.
6 2320 The truth is there is limited money,
7 limited hours in the schedule and we try to maximize
8 that. As the President said, we had ensured that as we
9 had to do the cuts in the regions, we have maximized
10 the regional content on the schedule. It has never
11 been as regional as it is now. It's better than 50 per
12 cent and what comes through are the programs produced
13 for the local regions, programs or segments produced
14 for network shows or whole network shows produced out
15 of the regions.
16 2321 The last point that I would make is
17 that thanks to the fund, we are now active and have
18 reflection on the year from all 10 provinces and the
19 territories in this current broadcast season. That's
20 new for us. I mean that's a major step forward.
21 Around five or six provinces would have been
22 represented this year. Virtually all of them are
23 represented in our schedule at some point in time.
24 That's a major step forward.
25 2322 It's never satisfactory for somebody
StenoTran
544
1 who gets shut out of the contest. I can tell you in
2 Saskatchewan the biggest blockbuster mini series that
3 we have in our schedule this year is coming our of
4 Saskatchewan, "Big Bear". I worked in the drama
5 department 15, 16 years ago. That project was alive
6 then and trying to put a financing deal and a creative
7 deal together to make that happen has been the dream of
8 many people at the CBC. It has come true this year.
9 It will be on our screens this year and that's out of
10 Saskatchewan.
11 2323 I understand the feeling and I
12 understand the disappointment when a project doesn't
13 get there, but we do our best.
14 2324 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: One last quick
15 question. I want you to keep the Chair's point in mind
16 about not making this a rehearsal for your renewal.
17 One of the questions we are dealing with in this
18 proceeding is your role, the role of the CBC versus the
19 role of the private sector. What do you do that the
20 private sector cannot or does not do? In a sentence,
21 if you can.
22 2325 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think
23 Commissioner Cardozo is not following the rules.
24 2326 MR. BEATTY: It would take a book as
25 opposed to a sentence to describe it all.
StenoTran
545
1 2327 I think we take risks. If you take a
2 look at a program like "The Newsroom", I'm not sure
3 that would have come from anywhere else other than the
4 CBC. I think we are a nurturer of talent. If you look
5 in the industry, in the private sector today both in
6 the production sector and other broadcasters, a
7 tremendous number of the people there today who are
8 fused throughout the industry are people who got their
9 start from the CBC.
10 2328 We deliver audiences to Canadian
11 content way beyond our share of the Canadian
12 broadcasting system. I would be pleased as well at
13 some point to correct some of the data that was
14 presented to you in the CAB brief on the subject of
15 viewing of all Canadian programming by the broadcast
16 sector.
17 2329 It's the percentage of total TV
18 viewing where in the figures that they presented to
19 you, what they did is they took CBC shows like "The
20 National" or "La Petite Vie" or "Air Farce" and where
21 they were shown over an affiliate attributed that to
22 the private sector instead of attributing it to the CBC
23 as the CBC's contribution.
24 2330 You find suddenly the figures all
25 shift if you say that CBC shows are CBC shows. So we
StenoTran
546
1 delivered disproportionately audiences to Canadian
2 programs.
3 2331 Most importantly, our very raison
4 d'etre is Canadian programs. This is why we exist. It
5 is our mission. It is something we don't pay lip
6 service to. It's something that we live on a day to day
7 basis.
8 2332 We also as a public broadcaster see
9 our audiences in a unique way. We see them in their
10 role not simply as eyes and ears to be sold to
11 advertisers, but rather as citizens to be served. Our
12 primary responsibility is to see people in their
13 capacity as citizens of Canada, not simply as
14 consumers.
15 2333 MR. BYRD: Can I just add one point,
16 Commissioner?
17 2334 One other piece that I would add to
18 what the President just said is our role in children's
19 in which we play a leading role. We broadcast five
20 hours a day. We will launch next week this season of
21 commercial-free children's, non-violent children's
22 programming.
23 2335 We are working with outside agencies
24 to bring to the screen a program that supports parents
25 and caregivers. It's a brand new initiative. It's a
StenoTran
547
1 cross-media initiative. It is going to be amazingly
2 successful. It's doing wondrous things for the
3 children and for education. We are very proud of that.
4 I think that's something that stands the CBC apart. I
5 would love to table the whole document with you.
6 2336 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: That takes
7 care of my questions, Madam Chair.
8 2337 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
9 McKendry.
10 2338 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you,
11 Madam Chair.
12 2339 I would like to ask you a question
13 about your schedule, the CBC, the home of Canadian
14 content. I take it you want us to take some other
15 message out of that as well because your only message
16 was the home of Canadian content. It seems to me you
17 would have included your schedule which is essentially
18 all red. The unstated heading on this schedule that I
19 assume you want us to take away is CTV and Global, the
20 home of U.S. content.
21 2340 My question to you is how many more
22 in this proceeding we can ink a few more red boxes for
23 CTV and Global and other broadcasters in the private
24 sector. What specifically do you want us to ink in for
25 CTV and Global on the schedule and where do you suggest
StenoTran
548
1 the resources come from to do that, from their profits,
2 for example?
3 2341 MR. BYRD: Commissioner, that's a
4 very fair question. In our presentation we have
5 deliberately tried not to be prescriptive for others
6 and say precisely how many hours precisely they would
7 have to put into prime time and so on.
8 2342 What we have certainly said is let's
9 make our priority filling in boxes in prime time where
10 the largest audiences are. Let's also look at ways in
11 which we can use the structure of the system itself to
12 generate more revenues for Canadian content and higher
13 viewership.
14 1635
15 2343 Do I think it's fair that those of us
16 who are licensed and who generate benefits from the
17 marketplace should also be re-investing into Canadian
18 content? Yes, I do. Exactly what should that level
19 be? It's a matter of discussion with yourselves, us,
20 with the private sector. We have deliberately -- and I
21 want to be very frank about this -- we have been very
22 deliberate in the presentation we made to you to talk
23 about directions rather than trying to write a
24 prescription for our private sector colleagues and say
25 that it's up to us to tell them precisely what they
StenoTran
549
1 should be doing when.
2 2344 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: You have
3 drawn a very stark comparison with your private sector
4 colleagues and put that in front of us. You don't feel
5 that you are under any obligation to tell us how you
6 should specifically think that problem that you have
7 identified should be addressed?
8 2345 MR. BEATTY: We have talked about the
9 system as a whole and we see ourselves as an integral
10 part of the system. We have set targets for the system
11 as a whole in terms of viewership to under-represented
12 categories and in terms of volumes there as well. All
13 of us have to contribute to that. It's not simply the
14 responsibility of the private sector. As you can see,
15 we don't have ourselves many more boxes that we can
16 fill in with the current structure that we have today.
17 2346 Moving to a constellation model, we
18 do have the ability to significantly add to the volume
19 of Canadian content. We believe our colleagues in the
20 private sector, both with what they have today and
21 using a constellation model, can inject more content
22 into the system and more viewership into the system.
23 2347 MR. McCOUBREY: If I may, we weren't
24 endeavouring to make a comparison that would make
25 anyone else look unfavourable. Rather, we were trying
StenoTran
550
1 to point out how far we have come and also to put a
2 backdrop there for what we hope will be a favourable
3 environment for what we are trying to do going forward.
4 2348 MR. BEATTY: Commissioner, if you
5 will indulge me, let me show you what we have done.
6 When we sold our head office, we had to move out of the
7 old building. As we were rummaging around in there to
8 move what we had, we came across a tumbler that has
9 printed on it our schedule from Centennial Year, from
10 1966/1967, for English television. We mark on this the
11 programs that are in colour, the ones that are in black
12 and white. That was the great distinction we were
13 making in those days.
14 2349 It's interesting to look at the
15 schedule and see what pops up in there: "Ed Sullivan",
16 "Bonanza", "The Saint", "Red Skelton", "Bob Hope
17 Theatre", "The Man from U.N.C.L.E.", "Hogan's Heroes",
18 "Rat Patrol", "Get Smart", "The Beverly Hillbillies".
19 That is where we have come, from there to there, in the
20 course of those years, because we believed that it was
21 our obligation, that the reason why we existed was
22 Canadian content.
23 2350 We do not expect that our private
24 sector colleagues will be able to go as far as we have
25 come on that and it would be unfair to expect that.
StenoTran
551
1 Parliament gives us an appropriation which puts special
2 responsibilities on us, but we do believe that the
3 Broadcasting Act mandates a responsibility for all
4 elements of the system, public and private alike, to
5 serve Canadians with Canadian content.
6 2351 What we have tried to do in our brief
7 is to make suggestions of ways in which all of us in
8 the system can leverage the system better to do our
9 jobs better, and that includes us. We do not excuse
10 ourselves from the responsibility of providing more and
11 better programming. We will do it, too.
12 2352 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: My question
13 wasn't to suggest that you haven't done a good job, my
14 question was to probe about your suggestion that your
15 competitors aren't doing a good job. I will leave it
16 at that, thanks.
17 2353 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would it be fair to
18 say that in those days you had to put wine in the glass
19 to make it red?
20 2354 I understand that legal counsel is
21 keeping his questions for your renewal. Thank you very
22 much, Madam Fortin, gentlemen.
23 2355 MR. BEATTY: Thank you for having us,
24 Madam Chair.
25 2356 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will take a 10-
StenoTran
552
1 minute break and we will hear next the Province of
2 British Columbia -- no, excuse me, ATEC, Association
3 for Tele-Education in Canada, TVOntario and then the
4 Province of British Columbia. We will then resume at
5 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning with SCN and the schedule
6 as is indicated in the agenda.
7 2357 Thank you.
8 --- Short recess at / Courte pause à 1639
9 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1650
10 2358 THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back.
11 2359 Madam Secretary, would you please
12 invite the next participant?
13 2360 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
14 The next presentation will be by the Association for
15 Tele-Education in Canada and I would invite Mr. James
16 Benning to introduce his colleagues.
17 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
18 2361 MR. BENNING: Madam Chairperson,
19 Commissioners, this script says my name is Peter
20 Herrndorf. That's obviously not true. I am James
21 Benning. I am the President and Chief Executive
22 Officer of Saskatchewan Communications Network. Today
23 I am addressing you as the Vice-President of ATEC, the
24 Association of Tele-Education in Canada. ATEC includes
25 as its members ACCESS, the Open Learning Agency, SCN,
StenoTran
553
1 Télé-Québec, Television Northern Canada and TVOntario.
2 2362 My colleague Peter Herrndorf was here
3 earlier today. Unfortunately, he had an international
4 flight to catch this afternoon, so I am forced to fill
5 in for him. I regret it greatly, Madam Chair. I have
6 neither the voice nor the elegance that Peter has, so
7 you will have to bear with me.
8 2363 I have with me this afternoon Jacques
9 Lagacé, le directeur des Affaires institutionnelles for
10 Télé-Québec; Ross Mayot, the Vice-President for
11 Development for ACCESS; Bohdan Zajcew, the General
12 Manager for Knowledge Network; and Marnie de Kerckhove,
13 the Secretary to the Board of ATEC.
14 2364 We would like to thank you for the
15 opportunity to appear at this important hearing and we
16 also want to congratulate the CRTC on the honour of
17 receiving the Carl Bertelsmann Prize. Our presentation
18 today will reaffirm the role of educational
19 broadcasting in the current broadcasting environment,
20 look into the role that Canadian educational
21 broadcasting could play over the next 10 years and make
22 recommendations with respect to the programming genres
23 that are the core of our broadcast schedules,
24 programming for lifelong learning, children's
25 programming, long-form documentaries and arts
StenoTran
554
1 programming.
2 2365 Let me begin by pointing out that the
3 Broadcasting Act recognizes that "education
4 programming, particularly where provided through the
5 facilities of an independent educational authority, is
6 an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system".
7 Canadian broadcasters have a mandate to distribute
8 programming that is educational and cultural in nature,
9 programming described in 1985 by an Order-in-Council as
10 "designed to be presented in such a context as to
11 provide a continuity of learning opportunity aimed at
12 the acquisition or improvement of knowledge..."
13 2366 The former President of the European
14 Commission, Jacques Delors, in "Learning, the Treasure
15 Within", the UNESCO report on education for the 21st
16 century, wrote that the "concept of learning throughout
17 life ... emerges as one of the keys to the twenty-first
18 century". He goes on to say that although this is not
19 a new insight, the need is becoming more pressing and
20 that "the only way of satisfying it is for each
21 individual to learn how to learn".
22 2367 If we are to place learning at the
23 heart of our society, it must be a significant part of
24 the television landscape, the most influential cultural
25 medium of our time. What can we expect the Canadian
StenoTran
555
1 television network to look like in 10 years from now?
2 2368 In terms of the amount of time people
3 will be spending with television, it could be very
4 similar to today. According to Barry Kiefl, the CBC's
5 Director of Research, "In the period that audience
6 ratings data have been systematically collected, from
7 the late 1960s to present, the reported number of
8 weekly hours watching TV has been in the range of 21-23
9 hours per week." Thus, despite the proliferation of
10 programming services over that 30-year period, the
11 number of viewing hours did not increase. Instead,
12 audience share became increasingly fragmented.
13 2369 Looking into the future based on this
14 model, Mr. Kiefl writes that, "TV, or its equivalent,
15 will almost certainly continue to occupy a substantial
16 amount of our time, given that viewing levels have
17 remained stable for three decades or longer and our
18 population is aging." He points out that even the
19 newest communications technology, the computer on line
20 to the Internet, is unlikely to have a significant
21 impact on television, because it fulfils a different
22 need. To displace television, he concludes, the
23 Internet would have to offer the same kind of content,
24 "it would need to become another form of TV".
25 2370 If the role of television is unlikely
StenoTran
556
1 to change significantly in the foreseeable future, its
2 potential as a source of learning becomes more critical
3 than ever before. For nearly three decades,
4 educational broadcasters have introduced a range of
5 programming genres into the Canadian broadcasting
6 system, grouped into formal and informal educational
7 programming, as well as a wide range of cultural
8 programming.
9 2371 The formal educational programming
10 supports specific curriculum-based courses through
11 primary and secondary levels to post-secondary and
12 lifelong education. The informal programming, often in
13 after-school and prime-time parts of the schedule,
14 includes programming for children, documentaries,
15 cultural programming and public affairs with a regional
16 focus.
17 2372 All this programming has one thing in
18 common. It stimulates learning and, therefore, it's
19 about learning how to learn. It is also challenging.
20 Watching educational television is not a passive
21 experience. By its nature, it leads to new ideas and
22 new ways of thinking. It helps students with their
23 studies, it helps people earn college and university
24 credits and upgrades their job skills and it promotes a
25 "learning culture".
StenoTran
557
1 2373 In our presentations later this week,
2 individual members of ATEC will focus on issues of
3 special concern to us in relation to children's
4 programming, long-form documentaries, arts programming
5 and public affairs with a regional focus. These
6 programming categories, under-represented elsewhere,
7 constitute the central part of our schedules and are
8 essential elements of television designed for life-long
9 learning.
10 2374 We would like to make several
11 recommendations with respect to the funding of
12 programming distributed by educational broadcasters.
13 As defined in "Direction to the CRTC (Ineligibility to
14 Hold Broadcasting Licences)", partially quoted above
15 and clearly demonstrated on our airwaves, our
16 programming philosophy is "distinctly different" from
17 any other licence holder in the Canadian system. As a
18 result, we believe that the funding guidelines of the
19 Canadian Television Fund should recognize the presence
20 of educational broadcasting as an entity in its own
21 right, in addition to private broadcasting and the CBC.
22 2375 To be as helpful to this process and
23 to the goals of the Broadcasting Act, we would like to
24 make four specific recommendations that will support
25 the efforts of educational broadcasters to serve the
StenoTran
558
1 learning needs of Canadians of all ages, stimulate
2 independent production throughout Canada, particularly
3 for regional, long-form documentaries, the performing
4 arts and children's programming, and assist the CRTC in
5 developing equitable and effective programming policies
6 for the Canadian broadcasting system for the new
7 millennium.
8 2376 Number one, we recommend that
9 distinctively Canadian long-form documentary programs
10 that achieve 10 out of 10 points with respect to
11 Canadian content and that are broadcast in prime time
12 be entitled to a 150 per cent Canadian content credit,
13 equal to that of dramatic programming.
14 2377 Two, the portion of the Canadian
15 Television Fund allocated to documentary, performing
16 arts and variety programming should be increased from
17 20 per cent to between 25 and 30 per cent and a
18 specific amount of the Fund should be set aside for
19 children's programming.
20 2378 Three, the broadcast licence for
21 regional broadcasters should be lowered to 15 per cent
22 for children's programming and to 10 per cent for
23 documentaries and performing arts programming when we
24 are licensing programming for only a portion of the
25 country.
StenoTran
559
1 2379 Four, the current split of the equity
2 investment program allocating 50 per cent to CBC and 50
3 per cent to all other broadcasters should be
4 reconfigured to create a separate envelope of money
5 dedicated to educational broadcasters, an envelope
6 equalling 15 per cent created in one of the following
7 ways: allocate the amount to educational broadcasters
8 equally from part of the Fund dedicated to the CBC and
9 from part of the Fund dedicated to commercial
10 broadcasters or allocate that amount to educational
11 broadcasters from the part of the Fund dedicated
12 exclusively to CBC or allocate to the educational
13 broadcasters from the part of the Fund dedicated to the
14 commercial broadcasters.
15 2380 Madam Chair, that concludes our
16 opening remarks. We would be pleased to discuss our
17 recommendations in more detail. Several of them are
18 developed more fully in our individual presentations.
19 2381 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
20 Benning, and good afternoon, Madam and gentlemen.
21 2382 We thank you for your congratulations
22 on receiving the Bertelsmann Prize and we will ensure
23 that your congratulations are passed on to our staff.
24 The prize is in large part for them and their
25 participation in making the CRTC's success recognized
StenoTran
560
1 by the foundation.
2 2383 Commissioner McKendry.
3 2384 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you,
4 Madam Chair.
5 2385 Thank you for coming to appear before
6 us today. Some of you travelled a great distance and
7 we appreciate that. Just let me begin by asking you a
8 couple of questions about your comments that you just
9 provided to us. You say one of the objectives of your
10 presentation is to reaffirm the role of educational
11 broadcasting in the current broadcasting system. Do
12 you feel that this role is at risk today?
13 2386 MR. BENNING: No, I don't think it is
14 at risk, but I think that there is much more that can
15 be done under the broadcasting system to further
16 educational broadcasting and to strengthen the
17 educational broadcasters that are represented here
18 today.
19 2387 MR. MAYOT: Excuse me, Commissioner.
20 I would offer a slight amendment to that. I think
21 there is some of the not only ongoing and traditional
22 challenges to educational broadcasters, but I think one
23 of the reasons that we felt compelled to be here is
24 that the emphasis that's placed on certain funding
25 mechanisms and changes in the programming policies are
StenoTran
561
1 biased in favour of the kind of programming that we
2 don't do a lot of, most dramatic programming. In that
3 sense, I think there is a concern amongst some of us
4 that there is a marginalization of educational
5 television.
6 2388 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I take it --
7 this is going a bit to the end of your submission --
8 that you would favour more funding being made available
9 to the type of programming you do at the expense of,
10 let's say, drama. Is that fair?
11 2389 MR. MAYOT: From our point of view --
12 and I am here contributing from ACCESS and we hope to
13 speak to this more tomorrow -- we think there is a bias
14 towards drama and we think that it is very difficult to
15 finance the kinds of non-dramatic, non-fiction projects
16 that most of us at this table specialize in and do most
17 of and have mandates to do, and that's a real concern.
18 The whole purpose of our recommendations and the
19 concern is that there has to be not taking anything
20 away other than to the extent that it re-balances the
21 way funding and programming is leaning at the moment.
22 2390 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you.
23 2391 Let me just go to page 3 on your
24 opening comments to us today. You made a reference to
25 -- well, you actually quoted an individual with respect
StenoTran
562
1 to the potential changing role of TV in light of the
2 emergence of the Internet and so on. The last quote
3 there is that the Internet would need to become another
4 form of TV.
5 2392 I don't know whether or not you had
6 an opportunity to listen to the appearance of the
7 Canadian Association of Broadcasters, but we had a
8 discussion about digital television and it seemed that
9 certainly the broadcasters believe that in fact that's
10 what's going to happen, that TV and the Internet will
11 converge or emerge. So, I wanted to get your thoughts
12 on that, but I also wanted to tie that to paragraph 5
13 in your written submission to us earlier where you do
14 make a statement that the Association's capabilities
15 are increasingly extended by non-broadcast
16 technologies, which I took to be the Internet.
17 2393 My question to you is: To what
18 extent is traditional educational broadcasting going to
19 be directly impacted by the emergence of the Internet
20 as an educational tool and, if CAB is right, digital TV
21 will cause a convergence.
22 2394 MR. ZAJCEW: I think we have to speak
23 of it in the terms not in future of how is it going to
24 be impacted and put it into the presence tense in terms
25 of how it has been impacted. In the case of
StenoTran
563
1 educational broadcasting, we recognize that our core
2 business is education in the first instance.
3 Broadcasting is the means by which we execute our
4 business and, increasingly so, it has become one of the
5 means that we use to do that.
6 2395 Certainly we lead through television,
7 but much of the value-added component of the learning
8 activities that does occur now does occur through on-
9 line accompaniment to the television programming that
10 appears on our respective stations. Most of the
11 members of ATEC have developed very robust websites
12 that allow for the addition of a variety of value-added
13 learning activities to be included, that range from the
14 development of supplemental reading lists that
15 accompany individual programs that appear on our
16 respective stations, it includes things like hot links
17 to the respective sites that are associated with
18 different programs.
19 2396 Our children's programming will very
20 often contain on-line learning activities that allow
21 kids to go on line to collectively write stories that
22 then become scripts for programs that are broadcast on
23 the air as part of the programming component of the
24 services proper. So, it's very much in the present
25 tense on the Internet and other digital technologies
StenoTran
564
1 are increasingly becoming a part of the lives of
2 educational broadcasters on a day-by-day basis.
3 2397 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you for
4 that. So, I take it as the Commission considers in
5 this policy review the role of educational
6 broadcasting, we are going to have to take into account
7 or we should take into account these emerging new
8 delivery technologies for the kind of programming that
9 you do.
10 2398 MR. ZAJCEW: Absolutely.
11 1710
12 2399 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you.
13 2400 In paragraph 9 in the written
14 submission to us you refer to increasing demands being
15 made of your members who are here by audiences for
16 regional programming.
17 2401 I was wondering how you measured that
18 demand and what data or other information you can
19 provide us to help us understand the nature and scope
20 of that demand that is being placed upon you?
21 2402 MR. ZAJCEW: I think that one of the
22 key areas where we find that demand being reflected now
23 is in the ongoing feedback that we collect from our
24 viewers. Speaking specifically in the case of
25 Knowledge Network in British Columbia, there is a very
StenoTran
565
1 clearly articulated need that has been expressed by our
2 viewers on an ongoing basis to seeing themselves
3 reflected in the content that is carried on our
4 television service. Increasingly we find ourselves in
5 the position of needing to and wanting to respond to
6 those particular needs in light of the kind of concerns
7 that we hear voiced.
8 2403 Ultimately, the final determinant on
9 that goes to the numbers of viewers who tune into those
10 kinds of regional programs that increasingly have
11 become part of our respective broadcast schedules. In
12 the case of Knowledge Network, we reflect that in the
13 context of our community education programming, which
14 is programs that helps British Columbians become
15 literate about the geography and climate of British
16 Columbia, as well as the social, political and cultural
17 and economic histories issues and concerns that are
18 relevant to British Columbians and that they don't see
19 reflected in other television media, and increasingly
20 turn to us to find that kind of reflection.
21 2404 The same, I would assume, holds true
22 for my colleagues across the country at other
23 provincial educational broadcast services.
24 2405 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Would anybody
25 else like to comment on that?
StenoTran
566
1 2406 M. LAGACÉ: J'aimerais aussi rajouter
2 là-dessus qu'il y a beaucoup de genres de télévision,
3 de styles de programmes qui ne pourraient pas exister
4 si les télévisions éducatives et culturelles de notre
5 sorte n'existaient pas. Par exemple, on a constaté à
6 Télé-Québec que la chanson francophone, par exemple,
7 avait disparu de nos ondes pendant les cinq ou six
8 dernières années, ce qui fait que nous avons dû
9 inventer un show de variétés pour mettre en lumière la
10 chanson francophone et qui a commencé sur nos ondes
11 cette année. Il y a toute une série aussi de
12 documentaires, de courts documentaires et de moyens
13 documentaires, qui n'ont pas de place sur les ondes des
14 autres télévisions et qui trouvent des places seulement
15 sur les télévisions publiques et culturelles de notre
16 genre.
17 2407 On pourrait là-dessus additionner un
18 certain nombre d'autres éléments. Je pense entre
19 autres au cinéma québécois, qui a besoin d'être aidé et
20 d'être supporté, particulièrement avec la capacité des
21 télédiffuseurs d'offrir des licences.
22 2408 Alors je veux souligner qu'il y a
23 toute une partie de la culture et de l'éducation à
24 l'intérieur de nos différentes régions qui ne pourrait
25 pas être mise en ondes si les télévisions culturelles
StenoTran
567
1 et éducatives n'existaient pas.
2 2409 MR. MAYOT: If I could just add, I
3 think the other dimension that comes into play in that,
4 I can't quantify it, but it is the relations we have
5 with the regional independent producers, whose needs
6 and views and stories and all of that kind of
7 expression are the complement to the feedback from the
8 audiences in our regions.
9 2410 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: That leads me
10 to a question I wanted to ask you. It is on page 5 of
11 your opening comments about reducing the licence
12 trigger for regional broadcasters. Will that put more
13 pressure on producers in terms of being able to fund
14 their productions if the trigger is lowered and will
15 that be a problem for these regional producers that you
16 just referred to?
17 2411 MR. MAYOT: I think in the case of
18 Alberta it would be a big help. Collectively, we
19 contribute a fair amount in terms of dollars and
20 programming, but the truth is many of us are still
21 pretty small in terms of the amount of monies that we
22 have to put into development, to put into new projects
23 to trigger funds.
24 2412 Frequently, or I should say, only
25 speaking for ACCESS, there is simply not enough money
StenoTran
568
1 to be triggering any kind of fund. We have to take the
2 second and third windows. That's not a horribly bad
3 thing for us because often we find that the first
4 broadcasts are publicity and advertising and promotion
5 and awareness building for when it comes to our turn.
6 2413 But in terms of being able to trigger
7 funds, we simply can't come up with the kind of licence
8 fees that are needed to get the project off the ground.
9 We contribute down the road, but lowering the licence
10 fees, allowing us to trigger with lower licence fees
11 that would be parallel to these as can be triggered by
12 regional broadcasters now I think would be a big help
13 for all of us.
14 2414 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you.
15 2415 Can I ask you a question about
16 paragraph 16 of your written submission. I will just
17 read the first sentence in paragraph 16:
18 2416 "ATEC also recommends that
19 programming for lifelong
20 learning and skills training be
21 added to the underrepresented
22 program categories. This genre
23 should be defined so that only
24 high quality programming would
25 be funded."
StenoTran
569
1 2417 It was actually two sentences.
2 2418 I want to ask you about high quality.
3 You ask us to define programming in a way so that only
4 high-quality programming would be funded. Can you give
5 us a definition of high quality, keeping in mind that
6 funding administrators need an objective definition and
7 they need a definition that they can apply consistently
8 and fairly to all parties.
9 2419 MR. MAYOT: Well I -- no, I couldn't.
10 Does anybody else care to, but I certainly couldn't
11 offer a definition of high quality.
12 2420 I think in our own right we all feel
13 as though we produce and get involved in projects that
14 are inherently of qualitative educational value and
15 production value. We are not in the business of
16 grinding out sausages just for air time. But in terms
17 of quality, I would leave that to the others.
18 2421 The major point here though is, as
19 you know, the distinct business that we are in of
20 education and the distinct formal programming that is a
21 big part of our respective mandates and in ACCESS' case
22 it is a condition of licence requirement is excluded
23 from being involved in triggering funds. You can't do
24 it.
25 2422 When we talked earlier about being
StenoTran
570
1 marginalized, that is a classic example of why we think
2 we are very much marginalized in this framework, that
3 the core of what we try to do, the value of that to the
4 Broadcasting Act is simply not recognized in terms of
5 the major funding apparatus in this country for new
6 programming.
7 2423 MR. ZAJCEW: I might add to that that
8 I am hearing here between the lines a possible
9 reference back to the CAB submission and the proposal
10 around using audience as a measurement of quality.
11 2424 Certainly we would accept audience as
12 one of the key performance indicators around that as a
13 possible measure of quality, but I don't think that
14 anybody would want to be locked into a single key
15 performance indicator, such as an audience.
16 2425 Within our shop we use a model that
17 is called the four Bs, which is bums, bucks, bumph and
18 biz, in terms of going to those issues of quality.
19 Bums, of course, referring to bums in seats or
20 audiences that your program is capable of attracting.
21 Bucks going to that entire question about capacity of
22 the program to attract sponsorship dollars, either
23 through co-venture partners on a specific project,
24 through its fit with the mandate and how it goes to the
25 issue of being able to use government allocations
StenoTran
571
1 towards doing that kind of programming. So, that's
2 certainly one dimension of it.
3 2426 The biz part of it is how it speaks
4 to the entire notion of the mandate and how it helps us
5 execute our respective educational mandates, what the
6 potential resale value on programs is in terms of
7 export opportunities and the like.
8 2427 The bumph is the critical acclaim
9 that the program is liable to generate, whether it is
10 in the form of national, local, international and
11 national recognition and awards and also again through
12 resale potential and the like as it is reflected in
13 that.
14 2428 So, to make a short story long,
15 essentially it is that notion of having a variety of
16 performance indicators, as opposed to being locked into
17 a single one.
18 2429 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you for
19 putting that on the record because in fact those were
20 the kinds of indicators that I was trying to elicit and
21 see how we could wrestle with that high-quality issue
22 which, as you know, is a vague and elusive one if left
23 just at high quality.
24 2430 Those are my questions for you today.
25 Thank you very much. I know your members will be
StenoTran
572
1 appearing individually and I am sure we will come back
2 to some of these issues again.
3 2431 Thank you, Madam Chair.
4 2432 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very
5 much.
6 2433 I don't know what I am to make of
7 this. We have gone from eyeballs to bums. I hope it
8 doesn't have anything to do with the programming.
9 2434 MR. ZAJCEW: It's the end of the day.
10 2435 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very
11 much, madam and gentlemen and Commissioner McKendry.
12 2436 Does anyone have any questions? No.
13 2437 Madam Secretary, would you call the
14 next presenter, please.
15 2438 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
16 2439 The next presentation will be
17 TVOntario and I would invite Marnie de Kerckhove to
18 introduce her colleagues.
19 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
20 2440 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. Go
21 ahead when you are ready.
22 2441 MS de KERCKHOVE: Good afternoon,
23 Madam Chair, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen,
24 mesdames et messieurs. My name is Marnie de Kerckhove
25 and I am Manager of Broadcast Policy at TVOntario. I
StenoTran
573
1 also am filling in for Peter Herrndorf, our Chairman
2 and Chief Executive Officer, who had an overseas
3 commitment.
4 2442 With me today are Jacques Bensimon,
5 the Managing Director of our French language network,
6 TFO; and Rudy Buttignol, the Creative Head,
7 Documentaries, Independent Production and Science of
8 our English language network, TVO.
9 2443 I would like to thank the Commission
10 for giving TVOntario this opportunity to appear before
11 you.
12 2444 I would like to go back to March 1993
13 and the Structural Hearing. We said then that "we
14 believe that the most fundamental questions before this
15 hearing have to do with Canadian programming: Is our
16 current system generating a sufficient volume and range
17 of quality programming? And, if not, how can that goal
18 be achieved in the next decade?"
19 2445 Well, that "next decade" is more than
20 half over and there has been a great deal of change
21 and, with it, some considerable progress. Our
22 fundamental question, however, remains the same: Is
23 our current system generating a sufficient volume and
24 range of quality programming?
25 2446 We believe the answer to this
StenoTran
574
1 question requires a focus on strengthening two
2 programming genres of special importance to TVOntario:
3 programming for children and long-form documentaries.
4 Both are critical genres to television designed for
5 lifelong learning, and this is where I would like to
6 direct my remarks today.
7 2447 In 1993, it was clear that despite
8 the successes achieved by the Canadian broadcasting
9 system, more high-quality Canadian programming was
10 needed in the underrepresented categories, especially
11 drama, long-form documentaries, children's programming
12 and the performing arts. And, because the Canadian
13 television market cannot support the creation of high-
14 quality programming in these areas on its own, it was -
15 - and will be for the foreseeable future -- critical to
16 find substantial additional sources of funding.
17 2448 At the Structural Hearing, TVOntario
18 recommended that the Commission accept the cable
19 industry's offer to make a significant investment in
20 Canadian programming. We suggested that the proposed
21 production fund represent a firm commitment from the
22 cable industry, be administered by a third party and
23 that the funding offered from the industry be doubled
24 from $20 million to $40 million a year.
25 2449 When the Canada Television and Cable
StenoTran
575
1 Production Fund was established in September 1996, the
2 Government added $100 million a year to the financing
3 of the two existing organizations -- the Cable
4 Production Fund and Telefilm Canada -- thus creating an
5 annual fund totalling some $200 million.
6 2450 This fund, recently renamed the
7 Canadian Television Fund, is now the most important
8 single financing source for independently produced
9 Canadian television. A unique public/private
10 partnership, its continuing growth and development will
11 be critical to the future of Canadian television
12 programming. However, since its resources are limited
13 and since the Canadian independent production industry
14 has become strong enough to finance so-called
15 "industrial" programming on its own, the Fund can now
16 be targeted to support only programming that is
17 distinctively Canadian.
18 2451 One of the strengths of the Fund is
19 its recognition that although drama is by far the most
20 important genre in terms of the amount of time
21 audiences spend watching it, and the amount of money it
22 costs to produce it, long-form documentaries,
23 children's programming, and the performing arts are
24 also critically important genres, enabling Canadians to
25 learn about themselves and each other.
StenoTran
576
1 2452 Canadian documentary film-making is
2 currently experiencing a remarkable renaissance.
3 Talented independent producers like Barry Greenwald,
4 Paul Carrière, Alanis Obomsawin, Linda Lee Tracey,
5 Kevin McMahon, Simcha Jacobovic, John Walker and
6 Shelley Saywell are creating a new Canadian documentary
7 tradition. This is all the more exciting in that
8 Canada has played such a seminal role in the history of
9 the non-fiction film. Shaped by the likes of John
10 Grierson, Donald Brittain, Jacques Godbout and Allan
11 King, documentaries are Canada's indigenous story-
12 telling form. They embody our cultural values as they
13 tell our own stories.
14 2453 In many respects, the long-form
15 documentary is Canada's signature genre and at
16 TVOntario we make it a focus of our prime-time
17 schedules. Together, TVO and TFO air over 13 hours a
18 week of documentaries between 7:00 p.m and 11:00 p.m.
19 It's a form of television programming that Canadians
20 make particularly well, and it's our experience in
21 Ontario that Canadians want to watch documentaries that
22 are scheduled in prime time. TVO, for example, has a
23 higher prime time audience share than any specialty
24 service in our market with the exception of A&E. And
25 23 per cent of TVO's prime time viewing is documentary
StenoTran
577
1 programming.
2 2454 This is the first point we would like
3 to stress today: Documentaries are as important a form
4 of Canadian expression as drama. And long-form, point
5 of view documentaries are the genre's underrepresented
6 category. As a result, we believe that the CRTC should
7 recognize them as a critical component of Canadian
8 culture and encourage broadcasters to air them in prime
9 time.
10 2455 This could be accomplished by making
11 changes in two key areas: One, distinctively Canadian,
12 long-form documentaries broadcast in prime time should
13 be awarded a 150 per cent time credit; or, if this
14 category is too broad, it could be limited to the long
15 form current affairs documentaries that are the essence
16 of Canadian documentary film making.
17 2456 Secondly, while the current criteria
18 for determining Canadian content are well suited for
19 Canadian drama, we believe that the criteria should be
20 modified to deal effectively with Canadian
21 documentaries in a number of ways that we have spelled
22 out in our second written submission.
23 2457 Children's programming is another key
24 underrepresented area of special concern to TVOntario.
25 TFO and TVO combined broadcast more than 120 hours a
StenoTran
578
1 week of non-commercial children's and youth
2 programming, providing children with a safe haven that
3 their parents greatly appreciate. TVO's after school
4 programming block, "TVO Kids," is by far and away the
5 most popular programming in Ontario with children aged
6 2 to 11. And, in a recent survey of Ontario
7 francophones, TFO was named by the viewers as the
8 French-language network in Ontario with the best
9 children's programming.
10 2458 Research in Canada and the U.S. shows
11 that quality educational programs have dramatically
12 positive effects on the social, intellectual and
13 educational development of young children.
14 2459 For example, in a recently released
15 major study of the impact of educational television
16 since the advent of "Sesame Street" and "The Children's
17 Television Workshop," two teams of researchers, led by
18 Daniel Anderson, Aletha Huston and John wright, found
19 that adolescents who were known to have watched
20 educational programs as preschoolers had higher high
21 school grades in core curriculum subjects like English,
22 math and science.
23 2460 As we discussed in the ATEC
24 presentation, the children of the 21st century will
25 have to develop an early appetite and aptitude for
StenoTran
579
1 learning in order to survive in the knowledge-based
2 economy. The availability of educational programming
3 that children want to watch has never been more
4 important. We are delighted that much of the
5 children's programming currently being produced in
6 Canada receives public funding from the Canadian
7 Television Fund. The Fund contributed $33.9 million to
8 children's projects in 1997-98, resulting in 517 new
9 hours of children's programming.
10 2461 This leads to our second point today:
11 High quality children's and documentary programming are
12 expensive, and the more culturally specific they are,
13 the less potential they have for financial recoupment.
14 Yet relative to our presence in the broadcasting
15 community, TVOntario is not able to appropriately
16 access the Canadian Television Fund. In one instance,
17 ironically, TVOntario is grouped with the private
18 broadcasters -- and it forces us as a non-commercial
19 broadcaster to compete for funding with the country's
20 most intensely commercial broadcasters. On the other
21 hand, to complete the double jeopardy, we are grouped
22 with the CBC, unable to access the fund for programs
23 produced by a broadcaster-affiliated company.
24 2462 We submit that a specific funding
25 envelope should be reserved for educational
StenoTran
580
1 broadcasters. It could be taken either from the part
2 of the fund dedicated to the CBC or from the part of
3 the fund dedicated to private broadcasters or it could
4 be taken from both. Reserving a specific funding
5 envelope for educational broadcasters should result in
6 significantly more children's programming and long-form
7 documentaries being produced with assistance from the
8 Fund.
9 2463 Thank you very much for your
10 attention. We would be pleased to respond to any
11 questions that you may have.
12 2464 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
13 2465 Commissioner Wilson.
14 2466 COMMISSIONER WILSON: It's your lucky
15 day, Marnie.
16 2467 I want to make a couple of comments
17 before I start. First of all, I would just like to put
18 it on the record that I am a member of TVO, so I hope
19 that doesn't present any real conflict in asking you
20 questions.
21 2468 Second, in the absence of your
22 fearless leader, I guess you and I are both in the same
23 position. This is your first hearing leading the team
24 and this is my first hearing, so we have something in
25 common as we go through this.
StenoTran
581
1 2469 What I would like to do is just ask
2 you some specific questions, sort of following the
3 order of your presentation and then I would just ask
4 you a couple of questions with respect to the ATEC
5 presentation just to clarify a couple of things for
6 myself.
7 2470 At paragraph 69 of your submission
8 you recommend that documentaries be included in the
9 Commission's definition of underrepresented programs.
10 You also -- I don't really need to ask you anything
11 more about that, that's quite understandable.
12 1730
13 2471 In addition to that recommendation,
14 you suggest that a 150 per cent time credit currently
15 awarded to Canadian drama broadcast in prime time
16 should be extended to documentaries exhibited during
17 the same time period. I'm just curious about how this
18 will affect you as an educational broadcaster.
19 2472 What this means in my mind is that
20 other channels will be carrying. It's an incentive for
21 other broadcasters to exhibit documentaries. You seem
22 to have a niche for programming in that area, so what's
23 in it for you?
24 2473 MS de KERCKHOVE: One of the things
25 that we wanted to bring forward today was the whole
StenoTran
582
1 concept of the long form documentary -- I will ask
2 Rudy to tell a little bit more about that -- as opposed
3 to other kinds of documentaries.
4 2474 That's why we put forward the notion
5 that if there was going to be 150 per cent time credit,
6 you might want to consider narrowing it down for long
7 form documentaries which are quite a specific and
8 identifiable form of Canadian documentary.
9 2475 MR. BUTTIGNOL: I guess I will pick
10 it up from here.
11 2476 I think that the long form
12 documentary has suffered from an identity crisis in the
13 sense that we have now grouped a lot of non-fiction
14 programming, a lot of factual programming, all under
15 the name of documentary. Yet we haven't made a
16 specific -- we haven't found the right name, and this
17 is a global problem actually, for what a dramatic
18 narrative in non-fiction form is.
19 2477 That is a film maker driven
20 documentary, a film maker driven story, a tour
21 documentary, a point of view documentary. These are
22 the kind of films that are an indigenous story telling
23 form. They are often very tough to make. They are
24 usually the product of individual passion, film makers
25 from one person, two person, three person companies.
StenoTran
583
1 2478 These are films that even in today's
2 dynamic environment, film makers still struggle to make
3 these documentaries. They are still not that easy
4 either because the outcome is unpredictable. When you
5 take a gamble on a film maker, a film maker's passion,
6 it's hard to predict the outcome. They become
7 difficult to fund.
8 2479 Usually the subject matter that film
9 makers are dealing with is tough and so commercial
10 broadcasters tend to shy away from them if they feel
11 there is going to be a conflict.
12 2480 I am not as concerned that by giving
13 150 per cent time credit that all the commercial
14 broadcasters are going to jump on board. I think that
15 this is a genre that needs support. It is a specific
16 genre separate from factual programming.
17 2481 We at TVO also have a Canadian
18 content requirement. I think this would help make the
19 case for more production of documentaries, of this kind
20 of documentary, because again this is the kind of genre
21 that does need support. It needs active support.
22 2482 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I think I just
23 got the answer to my question in the middle of all of
24 that, your Canadian content requirement.
25 2483 M. BENSIMON: Si vous permettez, je
StenoTran
584
1 vais juste compléter avec une partie, c'est-à-dire que
2 je pense que nous avons créé ou nous avons aidé à
3 stimuler, si vous voulez, la naissance d'un type de
4 documentaire qui n'existait pas au préalable d'un point
5 de vue d'une minorité francophone, c'est-à-dire qu'en
6 tant que Franco-Ontariens, on a pu donner naissance à
7 un nouveau type de documentaire qu'on ne voyait pas
8 avant. Ça a permis d'entraîner et de former un certain
9 nombre de jeunes cinéastes qui n'auraient pas eu la
10 chance d'être vus et qui aujourd'hui sont devenus des
11 cinéastes qui ont quand même une réputation de type
12 international. On a cité une personne dans la personne
13 de Paul Carrière.
14 2484 Qui plus est, si vous voulez, ce
15 qu'on a permis de faire, c'est de faire une jonction
16 avec d'autres minorités au Canada français, c'est-à-
17 dire que, depuis l'exportation du signal, par exemple,
18 au Nouveau-Brunswick, on travaille de plus en plus avec
19 des compagnies acadiennes qui donnent, si vous voulez,
20 une nouvelle mouvance sur le plan industriel qu'on ne
21 voyait pas auparavant, c'est-à-dire le lien entre
22 minorités francophones qui arrivent à produire un type
23 de documentaire qui ne se voyait pas jusqu'à présent.
24 2485 Alors c'est évident que, si on
25 arrivait à encourager ce type de choses, je pense que
StenoTran
585
1 le 150 pour cent serait utile pour nous; je ne pense
2 pas que l'industrie privée se précipiterait pour suivre
3 nécessairement... ou les diffuseurs privés se
4 précipiteraient pour nous suivre sur nos pas.
5 2486 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I appreciate
6 the fact that you are so honest, that the 150 per cent
7 time credit is mainly useful for you. I am quite aware
8 of the reputation that TVO and TFO have for documentary
9 programming.
10 2487 I think you are right, that it is a
11 signature genre for Canada and we have a lot to be
12 proud of in that way. I just thought that in this sort
13 of emerging world of fragmented audience that you would
14 really want to hang on to that niche for yourself. It
15 just struck me.
16 2488 I mean it has been said in fact that
17 the 150 per cent time credit really provides an
18 incentive to broadcasters to exhibit, but it's actually
19 a disincentive for production because they can produce
20 less and get more credit for it.
21 2489 I noticed in your appendices that you
22 have a very active and healthy relationship with
23 independent producers in all different parts of the
24 country. I was just curious about that.
25 2490 Thank you. That answers my question.
StenoTran
586
1 2491 At paragraphs 73 and 74 of your
2 submission, you recommend that the CRTC establish or
3 designate a forum for dealing with international
4 programming issues in a proactive manner to establish
5 reciprocal treatment for Canadian programming services
6 in countries which are exporting their services to
7 Canada.
8 2492 I'm just wondering if you could
9 elaborate a little bit on how you see a form like this
10 being constituted and how it might achieve this
11 objective. What kinds of activities would it
12 undertake?
13 2493 MS de KERCKHOVE: Jacques, would you
14 like to take that?
15 2494 M. BENSIMON: Il y a deux
16 composantes, si vous voulez, à la proposition telle
17 qu'elle est formulée. La première, c'est que je pense
18 qu'on encourage fortement... et j'ai vu depuis le début
19 de la journée aujourd'hui énormément de présentations
20 qui ont été faites parlant de l'exportation ou de la
21 vente de nos programmes sur le plan international. Par
22 contre, si on veut arriver véritablement à réussir sur
23 ce plan-là, il va falloir qu'on trouve des moyens
24 d'encourager, si vous voulez, le fait de libérer les
25 droits pour ces programmes; je pense en particulier à
StenoTran
587
1 tous les ayants droit, à tous les syndicats.
2 2495 On sait pertinemment que des chaînes
3 américaines aujourd'hui, quand elles achètent les
4 droits à un programme, elles les achètent pour le
5 monde. Donc s'il n'y a pas chez nous un moyen de
6 libérer les droits pour un programme sur le plan
7 international, ce programme va sans doute rester sur
8 les étagères et ne dépassera pas nos propres
9 frontières. Ça, c'est la première composante sur
10 laquelle, à mon avis, il y a une réflexion à avoir.
11 2496 La deuxième, c'est simplement du fait
12 que si jamais le CRTC permettait la venue de chaînes
13 autres que des chaînes américaines sur notre
14 territoire, ce qui a été peut-être le cas avec RFO
15 quand on a commencé à parler de l'option RFO, c'est-à-
16 dire la rentrée d'un signal étranger sur notre
17 territoire, nous disons, nous, en contrepartie, que
18 plutôt que de vendre des programmes à un certain
19 moment -- et j'ai vu que Mme Fortin y a fait
20 allusion -- on va peut-être vendre nos signaux à
21 l'étranger.
22 2497 Et, si on va vendre nos signaux à
23 l'étranger, je pense qu'il serait extrêmement utile de
24 s'asseoir avec nos partenaires à travers le monde pour
25 essayer de voir quel genre de modus operandi pourrait
StenoTran
588
1 être développé à ce niveau-là, et on incite fortement à
2 ce qu'il y ait une réflexion qui soit amorcée là-dessus
3 plutôt qu'une anarchie qui soit faite dans une guerre
4 de type commercial, parce que dans une situation comme
5 celle-là c'est toujours, je pense, les télévisions
6 publiques qui vont souffrir le plus de ne pas avoir été
7 partie prenante de cette réflexion.
8 2498 Donc une espèce de forum
9 international qui serait l'assemblée, si vous voulez,
10 de l'équivalent de votre organisme avec vos
11 contreparties qui s'assoiraient pour essayer de pouvoir
12 trouver des moyens de travailler ensemble. C'est ce
13 qu'on fait. C'est simplement que dans le contexte de
14 la réflexion que vous poussez, il nous a semblé utile
15 de ramener cet élément-là et de faire en sorte de vous
16 encourager à le développer.
17 2499 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thank you.
18 2500 I am still getting used to this
19 microphone thing. Protection of Canadian programming
20 rights and simultaneous substitution is the next area
21 that I want to look at.
22 2501 At paragraph 77 of your submission
23 you state that absent the protection that commercial
24 broadcasters receive through simultaneous substitution,
25 there needs to be some way to protect non-commercial
StenoTran
589
1 broadcasters from the effects of border spillover and
2 you cite the case of Buffalo PBS station WNED which you
3 say has sort of stepped up its direct competition with
4 TVO through scheduling and programming changes since
5 several years ago, or I guess that's more recently.
6 2502 I am just wondering if you could
7 explain to me in a little bit more detail. When I am
8 in Toronto doing my new CRTC job, I don't have a lot of
9 time to watch television.
10 2503 MS de KERCKHOVE: I think really what
11 we wanted to draw your attention to is the whole
12 question of our problem dealing with the situation
13 that's dealt with by commercial broadcasters using
14 simultaneous substitution.
15 2504 In our case, with programming that's
16 purchased by WNED as a border station, that doesn't
17 include Canadian rights. If we have rights to the same
18 programming, we can't resolve that through the use of
19 simultaneous substitution.
20 2505 I have been following with interest
21 the Commission's approach to other ways of dealing with
22 simultaneous substitution and non-simultaneous
23 substitution. One of the things we just wanted to draw
24 to your attention is that we have a problem with this
25 too.
StenoTran
590
1 2506 We have really tried several
2 different ways of dealing with it in negotiations with
3 WNED, but we really haven't managed to resolve it.
4 2507 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Do you have any
5 suggestions about how it might be dealt with?
6 2508 MS de KERCKHOVE: What we tried to do
7 is come to some kind of agreement, but it never came to
8 any kind of fulfilment.
9 2509 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Do any of the
10 other educational broadcasters have the same problem or
11 is this uniquely a TVO situation?
12 2510 MS de KERCKHOVE: I don't want to
13 speak for the other ones, but it might be a good
14 question to ask them. It has certainly been something
15 that we have focused a lot of attention on I think
16 since the mid eighties.
17 2511 Rudy, would you like to say anything
18 about that?
19 2512 MR. BUTTIGNOL: Well, it has been a
20 constant problem in terms of documentaries, in
21 particular where we acquire rights, Canadian rights,
22 and yet with no kind of border protection on the PBS
23 station.
24 2513 We find deals being killed, deals
25 that could make a lot of sense for the film makers if
StenoTran
591
1 the rights were separated, but it has been a constant
2 problem and its the producers that are often in the
3 middle and end up really short.
4 2514 COMMISSIONER WILSON: With respect to
5 the CBC, you talk about the ability you have had to
6 co-operate with the CBC in airing programming. I guess
7 it was in response to our question about the
8 complementary role of the CBC and how they can work
9 with commercial broadcasters -- well, non-commercial
10 broadcasters.
11 2515 You go on to say that complementary
12 programming between regional and national public
13 broadcasters provides diversity of Canadian television
14 and it should be recognized and encouraged. Are you
15 aware of whether or not other provincial educational
16 broadcasters are co-operating with the CBC? I guess
17 that's the first part of my question.
18 2516 Are there any measures that the
19 Commission could introduce that would foster this
20 co-operation?
21 2517 MR. BUTTIGNOL: The point or one of
22 the points of including this is to establish before the
23 Commission the fact that educational broadcasting and
24 TV Ontario are in fact complementary, that the regional
25 nature of TV Ontario as a public service educational
StenoTran
592
1 broadcaster has a complementary role to play. It's
2 important for the Commission to keep that in mind.
3 2518 In terms of specifics, I'm not sure I
4 have much to add to that.
5 2519 MS de KERCKHOVE: One of the things
6 we pointed out which I think is very interesting is
7 often we are able to bring more of a focus on a program
8 that just part of it might have been aired on the CBC
9 nationally, but we would be able to air the whole
10 series, for example.
11 2520 We are able to spend more time with a
12 subject of a program that would receive less time on a
13 national scale.
14 2521 M. BENSIMON: Je pourrais vous
15 encourager simplement peut-être à poser la question
16 quand nos collègues de Télé-Québec vont se présenter
17 parce qu'il y a eu des formes de collaboration quand
18 même à un certain moment assez étroites avec eux comme
19 chaîne éducative régionale.
20 2522 Il y a eu, si vous voulez, au moment
21 du lancement de RDI, des collaborations assez étroites
22 qui ont été faites, mais depuis je ne peux pas dire que
23 ces collaborations ont été en augmentant.
24 2523 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thank you.
25 2524 The role of Canadian pay and
StenoTran
593
1 specialty services. On the question of the impact of
2 pay and specialty services on conventional
3 broadcasters, specifically the licensing of new French
4 language specialty services, you raised the point in
5 paragraph 102 of your submission, and I will quote
6 here:
7 2525 "Before new services are
8 licensed for national
9 distribution, there should be a
10 review of existing services
11 taking into account their
12 unrealized potential. Services
13 that have invested in Canadian
14 rights for their programming but
15 that are not yet distributed
16 throughout the country should be
17 given a chance to establish
18 themselves before new services
19 are introduced."
20 2526 I assume that you are talking about
21 plans or aspirations for TFO, but I wonder if you could
22 just expand a little bit more because it's a slightly
23 vague comment.
24 2527 M. BENSIMON: Écoutez, pour nous,
25 c'est très simple, et je pense que ça a été formulé
StenoTran
594
1 aussi d'une façon différente par Radio-Canada un peu
2 avant nous.
3 2528 Il y a dans ce pays des grandes
4 richesses qui, malheureusement, ne sont pas partagées
5 avec le reste de la population. Pour nous, en toute
6 humilité, TFO fait partie de cette réalité; c'est-à-
7 dire qu'à un certain moment il a fallu prendre le
8 mandat qui nous a été alloué, celui d'une chaîne
9 régionale, et d'essayer au fur et à mesure, avec le
10 temps, de se trouver dans une situation finalement de
11 représenter très souvent les réalités des francophones
12 hors Québec. Et, suite à des études qui ont été faites
13 aussi un peu partout, incluant au Québec, on a vu
14 jusqu'à quel point il y avait des demandes pour cette
15 chaîne de télévision de façon à ce qu'elle soit
16 accessible.
17 2529 Or, si j'entends bien le discours qui
18 a été dit justement par Mme Fortin, il faut qu'on
19 puisse voir le maximum de chaînes francophones qui sont
20 disponibles dans ce pays avant de donner la priorité,
21 par exemple, à des chaînes américaines ou à des chaînes
22 étrangères. Or, dans le cas de TFO, c'est la seule
23 chaîne francophone hors Québec, donc qui est financée,
24 qui a sa ligne éditoriale, si vous voulez, qui émane à
25 partir de là... et depuis son succès au Nouveau-
StenoTran
595
1 Brunswick et son entrée au Nouveau-Brunswick, on a
2 senti qu'il y avait là quelque chose de très important
3 qui se passait, et sur le plan culturel, et sur le plan
4 industriel, et sur le plan économique.
5 2530 Ce qu'on dit, c'est qu'avant de
6 passer à une course effrénée vers de nouvelles chaînes,
7 vers de nouveaux concepts, vers de nouvelles idées,
8 pourquoi ne pas maximiser ce que vous-mêmes ici au CRTC
9 et d'autres ont fait à travers nos gouvernements
10 respectifs, c'est-à-dire d'avoir donné naissance à des
11 mouvances culturelles qui ont été très importantes et
12 qui représentent et qui remplissent leur mandat.
13 2531 Alors c'était surtout: maximisons
14 les ressources qu'on a avant de passer à l'idée de
15 partir sur, encore une fois, de la multiplicité de
16 chaînes ad vitam aeternam; c'était cette réflexion
17 qu'on avait.
18 2532 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thank you.
19 That's great.
20 2533 I just want to turn to the cable
21 production fund or the Canadian television fund or
22 whatever it is being called that has evolved over the
23 years. I will just ask these really quickly because I
24 know that we need to move on. I will try and wrap up
25 the day. It has been a long one for all of us.
StenoTran
596
1 2534 I just wanted to ask a couple of
2 questions. ATEC was quite a bit more specific in its
3 recommendations with respect to the fund than you were
4 in yours. I'm just wondering, is there any reason for
5 that? Are you supporting that position? Why doesn't
6 that specificity show up in your recommendations with
7 respect to the fund?
8 2535 MS de KERCKHOVE: We definitely
9 support the recommendations that were made by ATEC. I
10 think that perhaps it's chronological that as we
11 developed our thinking about the fund, the ATEC
12 submission was being the last one written.
13 2536 Certainly we support those proposals
14 and we would really like in fact to expand them
15 somewhat if we could at some point.
16 2537 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I guess the
17 final thing that I wanted to ask you about which is
18 something that was not covered in the ATEC presentation
19 is your recommendation that the fund should level the
20 playing field for all distributors, whether they are
21 private or public sector.
22 2538 This is a recurring theme throughout
23 many of the broadcasters' submissions to this review of
24 television policy. I wonder if you would explain to me
25 what this means specifically for educational or
StenoTran
597
1 regional public broadcasters. Do you see it as another
2 revenue stream for replacing diminishing public
3 funding? Where is this coming from?
4 2539 MS de KERCKHOVE: We certainly see it
5 as a potential revenue stream. Actually, Jacques,
6 would you like to speak to that?
7 2540 MR. BENSIMON: Not at the moment.
8 2541 MS de KERCKHOVE: What our specific
9 situation is is that we feel that we have expertise in
10 marketing the two genres that we have been discussing,
11 especially the documentary and children's, that we
12 would like to be able to expand our catalogue and a
13 number of the kind of programs that we would like to
14 represent abroad.
15 2542 We have been very successful at
16 selling abroad, I think in over 130 countries now. We
17 would very much like to be able to expand our catalogue
18 with that kind of programming, but at the moment we
19 can't because of the restriction that is placed on it
20 by the fund.
21 2543 We are calling attention to that to
22 say that we would really like to see that looked at and
23 a level playing field created so that we can do the
24 same as other people do in that area.
25 1750
StenoTran
598
1 2544 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thank you.
2 2545 That concludes my questions, Madam
3 Chair.
4 2546 Thank you for your presentation and
5 your answers.
6 2547 THE CHAIRPERSON: Legal counsel?
7 2548 MR. BLAIS: No questions.
8 2549 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very
9 much, Madam, gentlemen.
10 2550 Madam Secretary, would you invite the
11 next participant, please?
12 2551 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
13 2552 The next presentation will be by the
14 Province of British Columbia, the Honourable Ian
15 Waddell.
16 2553 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good evening, Mr.
17 Waddell.
18 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
19 2554 MR. WADDELL: Good evening. Thank
20 you very much.
21 2555 THE CHAIRPERSON: We did try to
22 accommodate you. It's a little late, but it will still
23 be today.
24 2556 MR. WADDELL: Thank you, Madam Chair.
25 I am Ian Waddell. I am the Minister of Culture for the
StenoTran
599
1 Province of British Columbia and I appreciate you
2 hearing me. I will try and accommodate you and I won't
3 read my brief.
4 2557 MR. BLAIS: I'm sorry, could you
5 press your button.
6 2558 MR. WADDELL: I have to press this?
7 2559 MR. BLAIS: Yes, thank you.
8 2560 MR. WADDELL: I'm sorry, let me start
9 again.
10 2561 THE CHAIRPERSON: Take the time it
11 takes.
12 2562 MR. WADDELL: My name is Ian Waddell,
13 I am the Minister of Culture for the Province of
14 British Columbia and I appreciate you hearing me,
15 especially at this late hour. I won't read my brief, I
16 think I will just speak to it and make the points and
17 be open to some questions. I will try to be fairly
18 brief.
19 2563 I am pleased to be here on behalf of
20 the government of British Columbia to participate in
21 this hearing to review television regulation. Since
22 the last major review, the availability and quality of
23 Canadian programs on our television screens has
24 increased significantly. You heard Perrin Beatty, the
25 President of the CBC, showing his mug earlier about the
StenoTran
600
1 programs in 1996/67. We have made great progress and a
2 lot of that has to do with the CRTC and the
3 regulations.
4 2564 Canadians are getting more Canadian
5 content. Canadians are watching more Canadian news and
6 entertainment. This is a good trend and, as I said,
7 the CRTC should take some credit. We all should. But
8 on a regional level -- that's the good news. The bad
9 news for B.C. is that on a regional level the system is
10 not working for us.
11 2565 Canadians have limited opportunities
12 to view B.C.-produced Canadian programs. While public
13 and private broadcasters are licensed to serve the
14 communities where they are located, program decisions
15 continue to be made elsewhere, mostly outside of
16 British Columbia, in Central Canada, Toronto and
17 Montreal. As well, there is a funding imbalance that
18 has developed between the western provinces and central
19 Canada, particularly as illustrated by the Canadian
20 television and cable production fund.
21 2566 In 1997, the two central provinces
22 were given close to three-quarters of the annual $200
23 million fund, while Canada's eight other provinces were
24 left to split the remaining quarter. So, if you look
25 at it on a per capita basis, that's $4.00 for each
StenoTran
601
1 person in British Columbia, $8.00 for each person in
2 central Canada. That's a bad imbalance. Yet,
3 strangely enough -- not strangely, but I will explain
4 why in a minute -- yet B.C. film production and
5 television production is booming.
6 2567 I want to say this slowly. B.C. is
7 the largest producer of television now in North America
8 outside of Los Angeles, yet B.C. has little access to
9 prime time program schedules of Canadian broadcasting.
10 So, here is this huge production. We have gone from
11 $230 million to $630 million. Film production is
12 booming in B.C., but the problem, Madam Chair, is that
13 we are Hollywood North. We are producing for the world
14 and we are producing for American television and
15 American films and this unsustainable.
16 2568 We have the talent, we have the
17 infrastructures. We produced 35 per cent last year of
18 the 78,000 new jobs created in film in Canada. It's
19 impressive, but what happens if the Canadian dollar
20 goes up, what happens if not one "X-Files" but three
21 "X-Files" leave British Columbia. We could be in
22 trouble.
23 2569 As well, I should say that we don't
24 have creative control. It's still American control.
25 We are not telling our stories, we are not using
StenoTran
602
1 Canadian writers and directors as much as we could be.
2 We are developing a great technical structure and great
3 expertise. Don't get me wrong, we appreciate it. It's
4 booming in our province, the film industry, but it
5 won't be sustainable, in my view, unless we get our
6 fair share of Canadian content and get access to the
7 Canadian networks and produce for Canadians, and we are
8 not getting that.
9 2570 The Commission can help create
10 policies that help direct funding to the regions, which
11 not only represents their fair share, but also ideally
12 their capacity to use it. B.C. supports Telefilm's
13 recommendation that requires broadcasters as a
14 condition of licence to trigger an appropriate amount
15 of production from each region. This recommendation
16 complements the move to a corporate approach to
17 licensing.
18 2571 The Commission would then be able to
19 ensure that large station groups contribute to the
20 development of cultural production industries in all
21 regions they serve. It's not like licensing CHEK-TV in
22 Victoria. You focus on who owns CHEK-TV and you
23 license them and you require them to have appropriate
24 levels of regional Canadian content.
25 2572 The province believes that the
StenoTran
603
1 proposed corporate approach to licensing will not only
2 be an effective means to reviewing local and national
3 commitments of broadcasters, but regional commitments
4 as well. We would, however, like to add to Telefilm's
5 proposal. The province believes that the CBC should
6 also be required to trigger an appropriate amount of
7 production from each region.
8 2573 B.C. is concerned about the
9 significant cutbacks in local programming that has
10 occurred in recent years. Much of this can be
11 attributed to greater industry concentration as large
12 station groups centralize their decision-making and
13 share programming resources. We must balance the need
14 to create strong, financially viable broadcasters
15 because we have to do that to compete in the world and
16 to have viable business institutions, but at the same
17 time we have to balance that with the needs of local
18 communities, including B.C. communities.
19 2574 We also recommend that broadcasters
20 be required to show minimum amounts of original local
21 news and public affairs programming. This is
22 incorporated in any corporate approach to licensing.
23 Finally, regarding the CBC, we realize that the
24 national broadcaster must remain central to the
25 Canadian broadcasting system providing a wide range of
StenoTran
604
1 programming needed by Canadians.
2 2575 The B.C. government is a friend of
3 the CBC. However, we believe the CBC must do a better
4 job of reflecting British Columbians to national and
5 regional audiences as entrusted to it by the Act.
6 That's their mandate. They have to reflect the regions
7 to the rest of Canada and that creates Canadian unity.
8 That's what the CBC was created for and that's what the
9 Act says is their plan and their mandate, and they are
10 not doing that.
11 2576 Mr. Beatty is bringing a CBC radio
12 station to Victoria on Monday. I am pleased about
13 that, long overdue. It would be nice to have a TV
14 station, too. We don't. We are the only provincial
15 capital without one. Do you think that would be
16 acceptable in Quebec City? I doubt it, but we have
17 lived with that for a long time. But we are coming
18 back and we are saying we want our fair share, we want
19 the CBC to respect regional programming.
20 2577 The Corporation has cancelled local
21 programming and it has allocated less than five per
22 cent of its total budget to the B.C. region. We have
23 13.5 per cent of the Canadian population. That's
24 insufficient to carry out its mandate. It talks about
25 being a production centre in Vancouver. It's not true,
StenoTran
605
1 it isn't. I have been on the set of "DaVinci's
2 Inquest". It's starting, but it still needs to do a
3 lot more to give us our fair share.
4 2578 So, let me conclude, Madam Chair.
5 Regional programming in British Columbia is weak.
6 British Columbians are unable to view programs that
7 reflect their realities. Broadcasters must be made to
8 commit to increased regional production. We have the
9 talent base, we have the technical base and we want
10 access. We want into Canadian production. How can you
11 do it? Broadcasters should be required as a condition
12 of licence to trigger an appropriate amount of
13 production from each region and the CBC should be
14 placed under the same regime. That's the formula and
15 that's, with respect, I think the job of the CRTC.
16 2579 B.C. also supports a move towards a
17 corporate approach to licensing, but it must be used to
18 not only ensure local and national commitments, but
19 regional production as well. B.C. is a firm supporter
20 of the CBC, but we believe that the national
21 broadcaster must do a better job of supporting the
22 regional production of Canadian programming. We want
23 our fair share of the cable fund. We are getting 7.5
24 per cent and we have 13.5 per cent of the population.
25 We want our fair share of Telefilm monies. We are not
StenoTran
606
1 getting it.
2 2580 As Minister of Culture for British
3 Columbia, my job is to advocate for the artists and the
4 performers and the people who are producing and capable
5 of producing great television in British Columbia. We
6 want into national broadcasting Canadian content. We
7 are not getting our fair share and we ask you to
8 regulate so that we do get our fair share.
9 2581 Thank you very much.
10 2582 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
11 Minister. I hope you are enjoying your trip back to
12 Ottawa.
13 2583 MR. WADDELL: I saw Nelson Mandela
14 today. That was really something.
15 2584 THE CHAIRPERSON: I hope you are
16 impressed by us, too.
17 2585 MR. WADDELL: And the CRTC. I don't
18 know, Madam Chair, whether a B.C. Culture Minister has
19 appeared before the CRTC. So, it may be a bit of a
20 first and I am pleased to do that.
21 2586 THE CHAIRPERSON: We are happy to see
22 you.
23 2587 Commissioner Cardozo?
24 2588 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you,
25 Madam Chair.
StenoTran
607
1 2589 Thank you, Mr. Waddell. Yes, it's
2 nice to see you back in Ottawa. I guess it goes to the
3 old adage that Ottawa is like gourmet ice cream. Once
4 you have tasted it, you can't stay away from it.
5 2590 MR. WADDELL: Five years, Mr.
6 Cardozo.
7 2591 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: There are
8 allusions I can make to U.S. politics, but I won't.
9 2592 THE CHAIRPERSON: Not a wise thing to
10 say to a British Columbian!
11 2593 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: It's always
12 nice when they come back to Ottawa, if you were a
13 resident of Ottawa.
14 2594 I hear your message quite clearly in
15 terms of your concerns about how much money and funds
16 are flowing to the B.C. production industry. You have
17 outlined a couple of things. One is that you would
18 like to see us in our licensing go the route of group
19 licensing, of corporate licensing.
20 2595 MR. WADDELL: Yes.
21 2596 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You think that
22 is better than doing local licensing? The regions
23 wouldn't get lost in that or is it our job just to make
24 sure they don't?
25 2597 MR. WADDELL: The best advice I can
StenoTran
608
1 get, Mr. Cardozo, is that that would be better for us.
2 I can't give you all the details, but I am informed
3 that that would be better.
4 2598 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In a group
5 licence, they would --
6 2599 MR. WADDELL: Yes, because then you
7 could look at -- because you are licensing the people
8 who are really making the decisions. It's not the
9 little local CHEK-TV in Victoria that makes the
10 decisions, it's those big production companies that get
11 funding and basically based in Toronto who are making
12 the decisions about where to make their programming.
13 2600 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Any thoughts
14 about what the broadcasters themselves should be doing
15 beyond the role of the CRTC?
16 2601 MR. WADDELL: I think the
17 broadcasters have an obligation. I don't think the
18 broadcasters go out and say, "We are going to exclude
19 British Columbia" or "We are going to exclude
20 Manitoba", or something. I think it's just where they
21 are located, what they think, and so on. I think they
22 have to be encouraged by you and they have to think
23 about trying to reflect the regions when they make
24 their decisions.
25 2602 I am not coming here just harping, if
StenoTran
609
1 you like. In my brief I have actually got statistics
2 and figures to back up what I'm saying. So, I think
3 that it's a combination. I think regulation and I
4 think getting the message out there, just awareness.
5 Just let them look at the statistics, at the figures of
6 what their regional production is in Canadian
7 programming in British Columbia.
8 2603 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You have
9 indicated the percentage of the CTCPF at 7.5 per cent
10 that has been going to B.C. The Saskatchewan
11 Communications Network has suggested that the fund
12 allocate 20 per cent to regional programming, but by
13 the figure you gave us at the beginning where you said
14 25 per cent is going to regional, they are doing better
15 than the SCN's recommendation. We don't run the CTCPF,
16 of course, but sometimes we make recommendations.
17 Would you want us to make a recommendation of that
18 kind, where an allotment be made for regional
19 programming?
20 2604 MR. WADDELL: It's a good question.
21 You used to run the fund. I recognize that you don't
22 directly run the fund and that, therefore, it's
23 difficult to make any regulations of a fund that you
24 don't run, but I did bring it up here because it fits
25 into the whole scheme of getting fairness in regional
StenoTran
610
1 programming. My answer would be to make comment on it,
2 to recognize what our brief said in terms of the
3 unfairness in allocation and you could suggest a
4 number, any number. I would just like to see something
5 that reflects generally our population base.
6 2605 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In your
7 written brief you talked about Film Incentive B.C.
8 2606 MR. WADDELL: Yes.
9 2607 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: It sounds like
10 quite an interesting operation. Can you tell us a
11 little bit about that? Were you the Minister when that
12 was --
13 2608 MR. WADDELL: Yes, I brought it in in
14 April. I brought in two incentives, one for local
15 production. Film Incentive B.C. is basically a package
16 of tax credits for local filmmakers. It includes B.C.-
17 based production, then it includes a regional incentive
18 that tops it up to get it out of the Vancouver area,
19 get it out of the lower mainland, and, finally, an
20 incentive for training. Then I introduced that in
21 April. We, as a government, introduced that in April
22 and then in June, I think it was, we introduced a tax
23 incentive program, the Production Services Tax Credit.
24 We matched Ontario, 11 per cent.
25 2609 The result is the preliminary figures
StenoTran
611
1 show that they have had a booming effect in British
2 Columbia. There isn't an unemployed film technician in
3 the lower mainland. If you compare that to the primary
4 industry, the resource industry -- we have two
5 economies going in B.C. We have the old economy and we
6 have the new economy, in which film is much a part of
7 it. We believe our tax credits have really helped, but
8 a lot of that is still, especially in the second one,
9 American production.
10 2610 So, we brought in a lot more American
11 production, Hollywood North. They are hiring local
12 people. That's great, but what happens if it goes? I
13 find it extraordinary that here is one of the top
14 production centres. Our figures show we are
15 approaching second to Los Angeles and we are not
16 getting into Canadian production.
17 2611 So, my job, as I see it, is to try to
18 work to a sustainable industry and a sustainable
19 industry means when Hollywood is gone or if I can bring
20 Hollywood up here, I get some more studio space and I
21 get some big production companies actually operating in
22 B.C., I can sustain it. Another way we could sustain
23 it is to get in the Canadian production and get our
24 fair share, and that's what I am asking the CRTC to
25 help us with.
StenoTran
612
1 2612 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: That's
2 interesting because what occurred to me as I was going
3 through your material and listening to you today is we
4 are not necessarily talking about, say, a large degree
5 of unemployment or unutilization of the production
6 industry of technicians and so forth, but you are
7 concerned more about the fact that they are employed by
8 American companies who are just here for the short
9 haul.
10 2613 MR. WADDELL: We are hoping they will
11 be here for the long haul. You are absolutely right,
12 Mr. Cardozo. I am saying thank you for those companies
13 coming in. We even gave a big help to you to come in
14 with our tax incentives. I am saying we are fully
15 employed in that -- almost fully employed in that. Our
16 industry is growing 10 per cent -- I have a report on
17 my desk showing 10 per cent a year for the next decade
18 we are going to grow. However, what happens if the
19 dollar goes up, what happens if their other "X-Files",
20 their other production decisions made in Los Angeles
21 are that they should go back to Los Angeles? Where are
22 we?
23 2614 So, I have to look to a sustainable
24 industry and one of the ways is to build up the
25 Canadian access. I look at Canadian networks. Look at
StenoTran
613
1 Global. Are they producing shows from British
2 Columbia, no. Where are the productions? We should be
3 on Canadian television reflecting B.C. to Canadians.
4 2615 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In terms of
5 how the province has provided incentives for production
6 in the province, you have indicated that there is a
7 fair amount of American companies coming into the
8 province and doing their work there.
9 2616 MR. WADDELL: Yes.
10 2617 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: We are looking
11 at part of this whole exercise as really long term. We
12 have been trying to look 10, 20 years down the road and
13 one of the things that occurs to me when we talk about
14 British Columbia is its connection to Asia, the Asia-
15 Pacific connection. Is there any sense that there is
16 the possibility, given the population of Chinese
17 Canadians and Indo-Canadians where there is a lot of
18 film watching, an enormous amount of filmmaking, that
19 there are synergies or production that can take place
20 within the province that would be of interest to people
21 in countries, in Asia, just as the Americans are coming
22 here?
23 2618 MR. WADDELL: This is a very
24 perceptive question, Mr. Cardozo. We have a very huge
25 and dynamic population, especially of Chinese Canadians
StenoTran
614
1 in the Vancouver area especially, and Indo-Canadians.
2 We have made efforts. We have had film crews from
3 Bombay into B.C. and we have made efforts to help them.
4 1810
5 2619 The Chinese -- we are talking with
6 China about film production. The Premier and one of
7 our Trade Minister will be going there in a month and
8 talking about trade. We are pursuing all kinds of new
9 trade that we can and that would include film.
10 2620 My feeling is it's somewhere down the
11 line though. It's not on the immediate horizon and
12 maybe a little on the far horizon. It's something to
13 pursue. It is using our attributes that we have in the
14 province, as you have pointed out, but I think it is a
15 little bit down the line.
16 2621 Right now, 85 to 90 per cent of our
17 production is from the United States. It's too high.
18 It has got to be balanced.
19 2622 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I wonder how
20 far down the road it is because I look at Deepa Metha,
21 for example, who is a Canadian producer. There was
22 another movie done on one of the Barbara Hinton mystery
23 books which is about to be released, produced in Canada
24 and I think Bombay. So there are certain things that
25 are happening and I guess that's one of the things that
StenoTran
615
1 we maybe wanted to look at.
2 2623 Can I ask you what your relationship
3 is as Minister with B.C. Film?
4 2624 MR. WADDELL: B.C. Film is under me.
5 There is a film -- if I can find this brief and if you
6 will just give me a second here to get --
7 2625 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: They had sent
8 us a brief too and, unfortunately, they are not
9 appearing. They were going to be appearing this week,
10 but they are not.
11 2626 MR. WADDELL: Well, B.C. Film is -- I
12 am trying to find their brief because it outlines it in
13 their brief. It's in your file somewhere.
14 2627 B.C. Film -- I believe Rob Egan sent
15 a brief there, who is the CEO of that. We fund them
16 out of my ministry, but they are a bit of arm's length.
17 2628 There is a second group in which is
18 called the Film Commission. The Film Commission is
19 directly under my ministry. Pete Mitchell is the
20 Director there and what they do is scout for American
21 productions, very successfully. That's under my
22 ministry. I think their budget is about $800,000. The
23 other one is a budget of about -- I think about $4
24 million. I stand corrected, I should know, but they
25 are more at arm's length and their job is really to
StenoTran
616
1 work with B.C. film-makers and Canadian film-makers.
2 They have been acting a bit of a bank really recently
3 with this new Film Incentive British Columbia to help
4 local production.
5 2629 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The next time
6 you see Rob Egan tell him we were looking forward to
7 seeing him and in honour of his brief that he sent us
8 but didn't show I will ask you a question I was going
9 to ask him.
10 2630 MR. WADDELL: I am trying to look for
11 his brief. I know I have it somewhere.
12 2631 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Let me just
13 read you a paragraph. It is fairly generic or general.
14 It is on a similar theme that I just asked you. He
15 noted that:
16 2632 "Canadian broadcasters should
17 ensure that programming reflects
18 the diversity of Canada, and
19 acquire or license productions
20 from producers of diverse
21 cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
22 Further, the stations must
23 reflect the nature of the
24 community that they serve
25 through stronger representation
StenoTran
617
1 of individuals from all cultural
2 and ethnic backgrounds in the
3 on-air production departments as
4 well as at the management
5 levels."
6 2633 Generally, I guess, he is saying that
7 there ought to be more diversity both from what we see
8 on-air and off-air. I wonder if you have any general
9 thoughts?
10 2634 MR. WADDELL: Yes, I do actually. It
11 is his brief and this is really off the topic of my
12 brief, but we are a multicultural society in British
13 Columbia. We tend to put, if I might put it, too much
14 of a white face on our productions and we are not
15 really reflecting some of the other parts of our
16 people.
17 2635 I think their brief is indicating
18 that. I imagine -- I don't watch TVOntario, so I don't
19 know if it is reflecting a multicultural community
20 that's around it, especially in southern Ontario.
21 2636 We have that and we are not seeing it
22 reflected as much as we can. We are seeing a lot of
23 now, thank goodness, aboriginal people being reflected
24 in the films, but that's not multicultural. It is not
25 reflecting the new --
StenoTran
618
1 2637 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: On the
2 question of aboriginal people, through these funding
3 mechanisms are you able to fund productions that are
4 aboriginal that explore aboriginal themes?
5 2638 MR. WADDELL: We are trying to.
6 That's one of the priorities to reflect that. As you
7 know, while we are fighting out land claims in British
8 Columbia in various ways and we are going to bring in
9 the historic Niska agreement, there is a renaissance.
10 I am Minister of Tourism too and Culture and there is a
11 renaissance in aboriginal cultural. There is a
12 renaissance in writing and performing and theatre and
13 art. There is an incredible renaissance in British
14 Columbia.
15 2639 I am hoping -- it is just beginning I
16 think to get into the film genre. I am hoping it will
17 be reflected in television.
18 2640 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: There
19 certainly is a very rapid, a very high rate of growth
20 in the average population of young people.
21 2641 MR. WADDELL: Of young people, 50 per
22 cent are under 15 I think. I see that in the future.
23 2642 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: A couple more
24 questions. You talked about your concerns regarding
25 drama and comedy. I wonder if you had any suggestions
StenoTran
619
1 about mechanism that you would propose so that drama
2 and comedy programming better meet the needs and
3 interests of Canadian viewers.
4 2643 MR. WADDELL: The problem is that we
5 don't produce enough drama and comedy and it's the one
6 thing that is a little down on the Canadian content.
7 You can produce 26 gardening shows and that's Canadian
8 content and not produce any new drama and comedy.
9 2644 You might want to have a look in
10 terms of your definition of Canadian content about
11 that. You might want to have a look at it in terms of
12 asking questions or recommendations or regulations as
13 to the different kinds of Canadian production.
14 2645 So, I flagged that as one area where
15 -- you know, we have had not many networks and private
16 networks are not producing Canadian drama. They prefer
17 to buy cheap American sitcoms. You have to get them
18 dragging and screaming into doing some of that. When
19 they finally do it, they actually get awards and
20 actually like it and they produce good programs. You
21 have just got to convince them to do it, including
22 Global.
23 2646 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Lastly, on
24 news, we touched on it and you have talked about it in
25 various parts of your presentation. What is your sense
StenoTran
620
1 about how much regional news the average citizen of
2 British Columbia is able to watch on their newscasts
3 and how much regional news do you get of other regions?
4 2647 MR. WADDELL: This is my own personal
5 opinion. We don't get a lot of regional news of other
6 regions. Ontario seems to me to be a big kind of block
7 out there. Does anything happen in there? I used to
8 live there. I am sure things happen.
9 2648 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Believe me
10 they do.
11 2649 MR. WADDELL: I am sure they do.
12 They must. But we don't get much of that.
13 2650 We get very good regional news I
14 think by and large in British Columbia and, of course,
15 you know how Canadian content works. The private
16 networks especially have put the money into news, the
17 6:00 to 11:00 or whatever the period is. They put the
18 money into news and that's their Canadian content and
19 they buy cheap American sitcoms on Global, and they buy
20 expensive American productions, but they make lots of
21 money and they don't pour it back into Canadian
22 production.
23 2651 If you look at my brief you will see
24 that we showed how much money the networks were making,
25 their profits. They increased their profits by I think
StenoTran
621
1 50 per cent and they have increased their production of
2 drama and programs by 7 per cent. So you have got to
3 require them to produce more, especially drama, and on
4 the news I think there is enough news, but people like
5 -- I think it is well produced and they like it.
6 2652 I can't say much more because I
7 anticipate some shake-ups in the industry in British
8 Columbia with the end of WIC -- you know with WIC being
9 Western.
10 2653 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: We are well
11 aware of WIC.
12 2654 MR. WADDELL: And that will mean some
13 shake-up in the programming and in ownership and so on.
14 That may mean in the end perhaps less news, local news,
15 but we are well served by local news right now in
16 British Columbia. When I read it sometimes, their
17 views of the present government, I sometimes think we
18 are too well served.
19 2655 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: That covers my
20 questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Waddell.
21 2656 Thank you, Madam Chair.
22 2657 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much
23 and we appreciate your patience in staying so late.
24 2658 MR. WADDELL: Can I thank you again
25 for your patience for having me. It means a lot. I
StenoTran
622
1 have to get back to British Columbia early tomorrow.
2 2659 THE CHAIRPERSON: I hope you have a
3 good trip back.
4 2660 MR. WADDELL: Merci.
5 2661 THE CHAIRPERSON: That will conclude
6 the business for today. We will adjourn now and resume
7 at 9:00 tomorrow morning with WIC, SCN, followed by
8 ACCESS , Télé-Québec and then we will start the Friday
9 with Friends. Thank you.
10 2662 Good night and have a good evening.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1820,
12 to resume on Friday, September 25, 1998
13 at 0900 / L'audience est ajournée à 1820,
14 pour reprendre le vendredi 25 septembre 1998
15 à 0900
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
StenoTran
- Date modified: