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This page has been archived on the Web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.



                       SUBJECT / SUJET:


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


Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues
officielles, les procès-verbaux pour le Conseil seront
bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des
membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des matières.

Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu
textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée
et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le
participant à l'audience publique.

                 Canadian Radio-television and
                 Telecommunications Commission

              Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
                télécommunications canadiennes

                  Transcript / Transcription

              Public Hearing / Audience publique

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

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

Jean-Pierre Blais               Commission Counsel /
                                Avocat du Conseil
Carole Bénard /                 Secretaries/Secrétaires
Diane Santerre
Nick Ketcham                    Hearing Manager / Gérant de 

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



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

TVOntario                                                  572

Province of British Columbia                               598



 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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?


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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,


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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 --


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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,


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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,


 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


 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.


 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


 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.


 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


 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.


 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


 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.


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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.


 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


 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


 1     télévision du Québec, et j'inviterais Mme Baillargeon à
 2     présenter ses collègues.
 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


 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


 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;


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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;


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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:


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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,


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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-


 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,


 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...


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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?


 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,


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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,


 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.


 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-


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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,


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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,


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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,


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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?


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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.


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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. 


 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-


 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.
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,


 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


 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


 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


 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".


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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?


 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


 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


 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."


 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


 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


 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


 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.
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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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-


 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.


 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


 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


 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.
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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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,


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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.


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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 --


 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


 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


 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


 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


 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

Date modified: