ARCHIVED - Transcript
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Providing Content in Canada's Official Languages
Please note that the Official Languages Act requires that government publications be available in both official languages.
In order to meet some of the requirements under this Act, the Commission's transcripts will therefore be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of CRTC members and staff attending the hearings, and the table of contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the hearing.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DU
CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES
SUBJECT / SUJET:
CANADIAN TELEVISION POLICY REVIEW /
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES DU CONSEIL
RELATIVES À LA TÉLÉVISION CANADIENNE
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
Place du Portage Place du Portage
Phase IV Phase IV
Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec)
September 29, 1998 29 septembre 1998
Volume 6
Transcripts
Transcription
Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues
officielles, les procès-verbaux pour le Conseil seront
bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des
membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu
textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée
et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le
participant à l'audience publique.
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications canadiennes
Transcript / Transcription
Public Hearing / Audience publique
Canadian Television Policy Review /
Examen des politiques du Conseil
relatives à la télévision canadienne
BEFORE / DEVANT:
Andrée Wylie Chairperson / Présidente
Vice-Chairperson, Radio-
television / Vice-
présidente, Radiodiffusion
Joan Pennefather Commissioner / Conseillère
Andrew Cardozo Commissioner / Conseiller
Martha Wilson Commissioner / Conseillère
David McKendry Commissioner / Conseiller
ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:
Jean-Pierre Blais Commission Counsel /
Avocat du Conseil
Margot Patterson Articling Student /
Stagiaire
Carole Bénard / Secretaries/Secrétaires
Diane Santerre
Nick Ketchum Hearing Manager / Gérant de
l'audience
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
Place du Portage Place du Portage
Phase IV Phase IV
Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec)
September 29, 1998 29 septembre 1998
Volume 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES
PAGE
Presentation by / Présentation par:
Norflicks Productions Ltd. 1498
Stornoway Productions 1558
Salter Street Films 1590
Groupe TVA inc. 1620
CTEQ Television Inc. 1717
Breakthrough Films and Television Inc. 1760
GRJM, Groupe de recherche sur les jeunes 1813
et les médias
CINAR Films Inc. and/et Nelvana Limited 1849
TVNC, Television Northern Canada Inc. 1901
ERRATA
Volume 3
September 25, 1998 / Le 25 septembre 1998
Page Line /
Ligne
1316 15 "change"
should read / devrait se lire
"chance"
1336 2 "COMMISSIONER CORDOZO"
should read / devrait se lire
"COMMISSIONER CARDOZO"
1337 2 "COMMISSIONER CORDOZO"
should read / devrait se lire
"COMMISSIONER CARDOZO"
13 "COMMISSIONER CORDOZO"
should read / devrait se lire
"COMMISSIONER CARDOZO"
1473 9 "Condition of Licence"
should read / devrait se lire
"Conditions of Licence"
1498
1 Hull, Quebec / Hull (Québec)
2 --- Upon resuming on Tuesday, September 29, 1998,
3 at 0900 / L'audience reprend le mardi
4 29 septembre 1998, à 0900
5 6911 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning,
6 everyone.
7 6912 Madam Secretary, would you invite the
8 next participant, please.
9 6913 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
10 6914 The first presentation this morning
11 will be made by Norflicks Production Limited and I
12 would invite Mr. Wesley to introduce his colleague.
13 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
14 6915 MR. WESLEY: Thank you.
15 6916 We would like to thank the Commission
16 for allowing us this time to state our views on the
17 question of Canadian content and the state of our
18 industry.
19 6917 I am David Wesley, Vice-President
20 Development for Norflicks Productions. With me is
21 Richard Nielsen, President and owner of Norflicks
22 Productions.
23 6918 Norflicks is a medium sized
24 production company with revenues of approximately $2
25 million annually, employing nine people with various
StenoTran
1499
1 associated free-lancers, and the larger free-lance
2 community providing people for bigger projects. More
3 than 80 per cent of our total revenues go in wages and
4 salaries.
5 6919 We are undergoing significant
6 expansion and presently have $40 million worth of
7 projects in active development with various
8 broadcasters, including the CBC, ChumCity, the History
9 Channel, Vision, WIC and Global. Over 60 per cent of
10 the programs in development also have co-production
11 partners in Britain, Germany, France and the United
12 States.
13 6920 It is, therefore, vital to our
14 continued existence that the Commission not penalize
15 co-production by insisting on Canadian content
16 requirements that discriminate against treaty
17 co-productions by requiring 100 per cent Canadian
18 personnel.
19 6921 The present level of co-production
20 activity has been fostered by co-production treaties
21 solemnly entered into by the Canadian government with
22 other friendly countries. Let's not destroy that
23 initiative in the rush to solve other problems.
24 6922 Norflicks Productions is a successor
25 company to Primedia Productions, of which Richard
StenoTran
1500
1 Nielsen was Chairman, and Nielsen-Ferns International,
2 of which he was President. Norflicks, like those
3 companies, has attempted to produce as many of its
4 programs as possible in both French and English, not
5 only for the good of the country, but because we found
6 it to be profitable.
7 6923 We believe that Norflicks and its
8 predecessor companies have produced more bilingual
9 programs, conceived as such, than the CBC and Radio
10 Canada in the same 25 year period.
11 6924 Norflicks and its predecessor
12 companies have produced five feature-length movies and
13 two major dramatic series and have yet to employ their
14 first American actor. At least two of the series have
15 been very successful abroad.
16 6925 Series you might associate with these
17 companies and Norflicks include "No Price Too High/Le
18 Prix de la LIberté", "Hal Banks: Canada's Sweetheart",
19 "Tin Flute/Bonheur d'Occasion", "The Newcomers/Les
20 Arrivants". "Images of Love", "Words of Hope" with Jean
21 Vanier, the feature film "The Wars", and "Quebec/Canada
22 1995", a drama produced in 1983, also done as a play in
23 French, and which predicted a constitutional crisis in
24 1995.
25 6926 We think Norflicks is illustrative of
StenoTran
1501
1 the kind of company the Commission's regulations should
2 try to foster. Most of the programs we have done would
3 not have been initiated by a broadcaster. Some were
4 initially resisted by them.
5 6927 Since Norflicks is small enough to
6 exist viably in any one of seven or eight Canadian
7 centres from coast to coast, we and production
8 companies like us, effectively regionalize production
9 without cumbersome regulation and bureaucratic
10 intervention.
11 6928 Public company has meant that
12 companies like ours, some smaller, some larger, are
13 scattered literally coast to coast. Bigness, as
14 exemplified by Alliance/Atlantis, has not served the
15 country nearly as well.
16 6929 By definition, bigness encourages
17 centralization as does broadcasting, thus compounding
18 the problems centralization causes. To survive,
19 smaller companies have to be creatively driven while
20 bigness inevitably means that the programs will be deal
21 driven and the creators forced to follow on.
22 6930 The result of deal driven television
23 is imitative television, like "Traders" which
24 foreigners tend not to buy because it is not the real
25 thing, which is readily available from Hollywood with
StenoTran
1502
1 bigger stars and better production values.
2 6931 The jewels in Atlantis' crown were
3 all placed there in the first five or ten years of its
4 existence when it was about the same size as Norflicks.
5 Companies like Norflicks, or larger ones like Salter
6 Street, can do large projects.
7 6932 The free-lance infrastructure
8 fostered by American productions, taking advantage of
9 the low Canadian dollar, has done that for us, but
10 large companies cannot and will not do the smaller
11 projects like "No Price Too High" which often serve the
12 interests of the Canadian public and the Canadian
13 industry better.
14 6933 Above all, the Commission must
15 correct its error in giving certain production
16 companies broadcast licences. Broadcasters
17 legitimately ask if producers can be broadcasters, then
18 why cannot broadcasters become producers.
19 6934 We all know that if broadcasters do
20 become producers, it will put an end to the independent
21 production industry. We, for instance, under those
22 circumstances would fold our tent and seek jobs with
23 one broadcaster or another. Also, of course, the
24 subsidies that presently come to us and which
25 broadcasters seek for themselves would quickly
StenoTran
1503
1 disappear if networks were to be given access to them.
2 6935 What politician could defend hundreds
3 of millions of taxpayers' dollars going to Baton or
4 Global, both highly profitable as a result of being
5 granted broadcast licences by this Commission?
6 6936 You have received our brief and we
7 will therefore not read it, but we hope you will. It
8 is short enough that we hope you will not need to
9 resort to summaries, despite the number of briefs you
10 have received. We made 20 recommendations of which the
11 most important are the following.
12 6937 The decision as to whether a program
13 is Canadian must be determined, not by any point system
14 which can be manipulated, but by an agency, preferably
15 Telefilm, that bases its judgment on whether a program
16 is designed for a Canadian audience, made mainly by
17 Canadians and produced by a Canadian company: programs
18 for, by and of Canadians, to paraphrase Lincoln. Thus,
19 all programs requiring funding will have to apply for a
20 Canadian certificate.
21 6938 What is essential is that the
22 certification procedure be discretionary, not subject
23 to a point structure, and that it be independent of the
24 mechanism responsible for allocating cable money.
25 6939 The allocation of cable fund money
StenoTran
1504
1 should be made on the basis of the broadcaster's
2 financial interest. Those projects with the largest
3 licence fees as a percentage of budget should be funded
4 first, and so on, until all the money in the fund is
5 expended.
6 6940 Foreign co-production money should be
7 added to the broadcaster's licence fee as a means of
8 encouraging producers to seek co-producers abroad and
9 of assuring foreign producers that Canadian producers
10 will supply the money they undertake to provide.
11 Presently there is no such assurance and European and
12 other co-production partners are often left in the
13 lurch, thus damaging Canada's reputation.
14 6941 To summarize, one, the object of all
15 government policy must be to foster a Canadian cultural
16 presence at home and abroad. Two, a Canadian TV
17 program, film or series is one that is made primarily
18 by Canadians, financed mainly by Canadians for a
19 Canadian audience by a company controlled by Canadians.
20 6942 Three, an agency, perhaps Telefilm,
21 must determine what is and what it not a Canadian film,
22 applying only the criteria in clause two. Four, no
23 broadcaster should be able to access any of these
24 production moneys except through an independent
25 producer.
StenoTran
1505
1 6943 Five, a broadcaster is anyone who
2 owns a broadcast licence. Six, the total funds
3 available must be available to all on an equal basis,
4 i.e. no special CBC envelope but no ceiling either.
5 6944 Seven, in order to encourage
6 development of successful programs, the cable fund
7 should allocate 5 per cent of its total resources to
8 broadcasters to be paid by them to independent
9 producers to help ensure that independents will develop
10 the kind of product the networks require.
11 6945 This money will be allocated to
12 broadcasters on the basis of money spent by them in the
13 previous fiscal year on independent programs. The
14 broadcaster will also be required to contribute 10 per
15 cent of development costs from its own resources.
16 6946 The above recommendations and those
17 not included here are meant to encourage broadcaster
18 participation in the development of programs, to ensure
19 that programs that require financial support are made
20 by Canadians for a Canadian audience, to force
21 broadcasters to pay more for Canadian programs by
22 channelling funding to those whose licence fee is
23 highest as a percentage of the total budget.
24 6947 To encourage co-production as a means
25 of subsidizing Canadian content by allowing such moneys
StenoTran
1506
1 to help assure CTCPF funding assistance. To encourage
2 that segment of the industry that services American
3 production, without permitting its interests to
4 undermine other aspects of the film and television
5 policies designed to foster genuine Canadian
6 production.
7 6948 To maintain a felicitous separation
8 between broadcasting and production and to protect
9 producers from unfair competition from broadcasters who
10 in some cases have become both our customers and our
11 competitors.
12 6949 To level the Canadian playing field
13 so that American and foreign producers can compete on
14 even terms for the right to co-produce Canadian content
15 with Canadian producers, thus increasing the money
16 available.
17 6950 Inevitably, those who come before you
18 tend to brag. We did a little of that today and in
19 doing so, we risk creating a false impression that all
20 is well in the Canadian production industry. It is
21 not. Canadian broadcasters, this Commission, and
22 Canadian independent producers must accept
23 responsibility for the fact that Canadian programs
24 often fail to attract or delight Canadian audiences.
25 6951 Of the 20 most popular TV programs in
StenoTran
1507
1 the Toronto area, not one is Canadian. No country in
2 the world has a record this bad.
3 0910
4 6952 Contrary to newspaper hype and what
5 you have heard from the CAB, Canadian programs do not
6 sell well abroad. Our export total is wildly inflated
7 by the sale of U.S. shows that come back here to be
8 made. They are Canadian in name only. We have had
9 success in children's programs and animation, and very
10 little else.
11 6953 You and your predecessor commissions
12 have consistently paid too much attention to
13 commercial, technological, political and bureaucratic
14 interests, and not enough to creative realities.
15 6954 Hollywood is a success not because of
16 its business acumen and practices, but because its
17 creators have created a demand for what Hollywood
18 makes. That's show business, and it's not an
19 industrial achievement, but a creative one. We can do
20 that too, but only if we make Canada a good place in
21 which to make programs. It is not that now and has not
22 been for some time. To make Canadian broadcasters
23 producers would be to ignore their dismal record as
24 such.
25 6955 With an exception here and there,
StenoTran
1508
1 Canadian broadcasters lack faith in Canadian ideas and
2 talent, and this is the major barrier to excellence
3 that needs to be overcome. So be careful not to make
4 things worse by rewarding failure. Look carefully at
5 what has succeeded with Canadian audiences and foster
6 that.
7 6956 Money is part of the problem -- it
8 always is. But it's not the core of the problem.
9 Everywhere that good TV is made, the actual creative
10 units are small. The present system which compels
11 producers and broadcasters to be in partnership, can be
12 made to work if broadcasters can be persuaded to adopt
13 the positive attitude toward Canadian talent that
14 independent producers already possess.
15 6957 That, after 15 years of being forced
16 to work together, broadcasters should now seek our
17 destruction, is an indication of how grudging their
18 participation has been. The partnership mandated by
19 the regulations of what was formerly the Broadcast Fund
20 and is now the TV Fund, has been substantially
21 undermined by the attitude of broadcasters, both public
22 and private. Don't reward them for their
23 intransigence.
24 6958 I would like to also note that you
25 have a chart that we have added. Norflicks is in a
StenoTran
1509
1 unique position because it and its corporate ancestors
2 have been independent producers of television for over
3 three decades and we did a little math to look at where
4 the funding for our programming has actually come over
5 that period. We would be happy to answer any questions
6 on the chart or anything else. Thank you.
7 6959 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
8 Wesley.
9 6960 Commissioner McKendry.
10 6961 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you,
11 Madam Chair.
12 6962 Good morning. I have a couple of
13 questions about your chart but, as you mentioned to us,
14 Norflicks has been in this business for a long time. I
15 thought it might be helpful to us if you could just
16 give us a sketch of what your perception is of the
17 major changes that have taken place in the industry in
18 that time and have now left you to conclude that I
19 guess all is not well in the Canadian production
20 industry because you say in your oral comments this
21 morning:
22 "Inevitably, those who come
23 before you tend to brad. We did
24 a little of that today, and in
25 doing so, we risk creating a
StenoTran
1510
1 false impression, that all is
2 well...."
3 6963 If you could give us a sketch of the
4 last couple of decades, the major trends and changes in
5 the production industry.
6 6964 MR. NIELSEN: I think the major
7 trends that I would note are since 1984 when the
8 Broadcast Fund was created, which my then partner and
9 I, Pat Ferns, were credited by Knowlton Nash with
10 having lobbied successfully for. Its intent was to get
11 independent producers a kind of equality with
12 broadcasters.
13 6965 What has happened, essentially, is
14 the CBC created an independent production department
15 and so on to facilitate business relationships and this
16 was really very successful. I think a lot of the
17 programs done under that initially were sort of
18 producer driven.
19 6966 Subsequent to that, we have seen a
20 constant erosion, to the point where that department
21 not longer exists at CBC, where we frequently deal with
22 program departments whose direction basically
23 determines what we do.
24 6967 A few years ago the CBC, I think
25 because of its budget cuts, decided to finance programs
StenoTran
1511
1 like its biography show, what is it, "Life and Times,"
2 with very large payments by Telefilm, up to 49 per cent
3 of its costs. This is one of the things that depleted
4 the Telefilm fund when we approach -- that explains
5 last spring when there was too little money there.
6 6968 So that a lot of that -- we are in
7 the position where we go in and do development with the
8 CBC, where they say, "Well, you can't access Telefilm.
9 We determine whether you can access Telefilm or not."
10 6969 The money that was put in the
11 Broadcast Fund, which was to give us some kind of
12 equality, is now regarded as broadcaster money. It is
13 very much a matter of attitude here. The people who
14 suffer most from this are not simply us, but very
15 little is talent driven.
16 6970 The success of something, whether one
17 likes it or not, I happen to like it, but Finkelman's
18 stuff on the CBC is successful because it is driven by
19 his insight into what he wants television to be. He
20 has an opportunity to forge a relationship with
21 audience based upon his view of audience based upon his
22 view of audience. He, therefore, has an opportunity to
23 learn from that.
24 6971 When you have broadcasters being very
25 certain about what it is they want, the creative
StenoTran
1512
1 community -- the creative community doesn't respond to
2 that. We respond to that and then we go to the
3 creative community and we hope on occasion we are parts
4 of it, but we go to them and try to wedge their
5 interests into that process.
6 6972 I don't think we will ever be able to
7 compete with the factory production of Hollywood, much
8 of which I admire. I think that the future for
9 television in Canada is to improve on the opportunity
10 that talent has in the North American setting because
11 inevitably the factory systems of Hollywood, though
12 it's strange to go there -- I mean, Seinfeld is created
13 because somebody loves Seinfeld. That doesn't happen
14 very often in Canada and that is the central problem
15 that we face.
16 6973 I think the scramble to be seen to be
17 doing Canadian things -- I mean I am sorry we have to
18 attack "Traders" because there is nothing particularly
19 wrong with "Traders," but there's nothing particularly
20 good either. We are in a business where mediocrity is
21 death and competence isn't enough. You have to be
22 better than that.
23 6974 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you.
24 6975 I just had a couple of questions on
25 the chart you distributed this morning, "Sources of
StenoTran
1513
1 Financing." There is a statement on there:
2 "What the three decade figures
3 reveal is a very substantial
4 subsidy by Norflicks to Canadian
5 broadcasters, in particularly,
6 the CBC."
7 6976 Then you go on to say:
8 "Taken together, the CBC has
9 received --"
10 almost $12 million:
11 "-- worth of programs of
12 $1,805,000 in license fees, or
13 approximately 15% of the total
14 budgeted cost."
15 6977 This may seem like a naive question
16 to you, but I as a consumer regularly pay a licence fee
17 for software I use in my computer that would be a tiny
18 fraction of the cost of the development of that
19 software. Is this situation that you are describing
20 here different than normal licensing arrangements,
21 where one would not pay for the entire cost of a
22 production typically through a licence fee? Is there
23 is something in the production industry, though, that's
24 different?
25 6978 MR. NIELSEN: No, that's not typical
StenoTran
1514
1 of television. What is typical of television on
2 American networks and in British networks and around
3 the world is that they pay upwards of 90 per cent. In
4 the U.S. what they pay is very carefully calculated, so
5 that the reruns will in effect -- in other words, the
6 Americans will pay say 60 per cent or 70 per cent if it
7 is anticipated that the bank will carry the difference
8 between that and 100 per cent of the cost because of
9 anticipated revenue from reruns and foreign sales.
10 6979 The CBC figures are out of whack with
11 almost anything and indeed would surprise them.
12 6980 Now, there are a few things in there
13 that explain part of that. One of them is very
14 interesting. In the seventies we sold Imperial Oil the
15 possibility of doing "The Newcomers, Les Arrivants,"
16 for their eightieth anniversary. The CBC then was much
17 less friendly to independent production even than it is
18 now.
19 6981 It not only paid nothing for the
20 program that Imperial had funded. It forced Imperial
21 to take ads, even though Imperial didn't run any ads.
22 So that what you had in that case was a huge subsidy to
23 the CBC, where they got the programs, which were highly
24 successful, for absolutely nothing and indeed were paid
25 for carrying them. But, as I say, that was another
StenoTran
1515
1 era, but typically you do not in television -- the
2 aftermarket for a television program, particularly on
3 that is Canadian -- in other words, that is directed
4 with Canadian subject matter, its residual earnings
5 after its first play, you are very lucky if they count
6 for 15 per cent.
7 0920
8 6982 So, what is happening here is there
9 is the subsidy which the government has provided
10 through its agencies and part of what we found
11 interesting when we did this was that we discovered
12 that while those are very important to us, we had from
13 private funding supplied a subsidy and this is very
14 important in the context of the broadcasters now
15 wanting to initiate their own programming and to have
16 access to government funds.
17 6983 What they will not do is what we have
18 done or approach with nearly as much energy as we have,
19 the collecting of funds from the private sector, from
20 foundations and so on. No price too high would never
21 have been made. Two-thirds of the money to make no
22 price too high came from foundations and individuals
23 and agencies. Very frequently we find that when we
24 want to do something that we think will strike a chord
25 with the Canadian public, if we are right about that,
StenoTran
1516
1 we can get private people and foundations to support
2 it.
3 6984 What we have difficulty with is
4 getting broadcasters to support it and it's because
5 broadcasters' view of that kind of programming is that
6 it somehow is not mainstream. They haven't
7 demonstrated that by ratings, but it is a firm belief.
8 6985 I sometimes have compassion for
9 Canadian broadcasters because going with American
10 programs is so easy. It isn't just that the American
11 program is there, it's that it has been broadcast and
12 tested so that you know -- unless you are buying the
13 newest issue, you know what you are getting and with us
14 they don't know what we are getting. Usually, we don't
15 have a series that's going to run for four or five
16 years, so we don't solve as many of their problems.
17 6986 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: The other
18 thing that struck me about your schedule or your
19 sources of financing is looking from the 1970s to the
20 1990s it seems to me at least in your case there has
21 been a shift from private sector funding to government
22 funding in the 1990s. I added up what I thought were
23 the public components of the funding sources and I was
24 about 51 per cent. I took the CBC and the government
25 agencies in the NFB. So, has there been a shift over
StenoTran
1517
1 the period of time in the industry from private to
2 public?
3 6987 MR. NIELSEN: Yes, the 1980s and the
4 1990s represent, of course, the dawn of the broadcast
5 fund. That's why that is up and why it's up even
6 further in the 1990s is that we include the cable fund,
7 which is not strictly a government fund, but,
8 nonetheless, is required so that we have that in there
9 and that's what explains that increase.
10 6988 What is interesting is CBC's
11 percentage. I think most people have the perception
12 that it is CBC that is most friendly to independent
13 production. I have not found that and I hesitate to
14 say that because we have quite a number of projects
15 with the CBC at the moment in development, but in fact
16 that represents a very welcome change. We have found,
17 as the licence fees indicate, that the private sector
18 broadcasters have been more receptive to what we did in
19 recent years than the CBC.
20 6989 Another very important factor is the
21 Film Board. The Film Board in both of the last two
22 decades has been a very important source of funding for
23 us and I don't think it's usually counted as that. But
24 I also think its regional presence across the country
25 is very important. I wish it did. It has recently
StenoTran
1518
1 changed its policy. It is now doing less with
2 independents than it was and I deplore that, but apart
3 from that, I think its contribution needs to be noted.
4 6990 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let me ask
5 you a couple of questions now about your written
6 submission and I would like to ask you a question about
7 a statement made at the bottom of the first page. I
8 will read a quote.
9 "Meanwhile, some of the major
10 production companies
11 specializing in the production
12 of American programs made in
13 Canada because of the low dollar
14 and cheaper crews, found a way
15 to make these programs
16 'Canadian', and thus eligible
17 for Cable Fund money. To do
18 this, compliant broadcasters had
19 to be found who would pay a
20 broadcast licence fee amounting
21 to 20 per cent of the program's
22 budgeted costs. No one in the
23 industry actually believes that
24 they have paid this amount."
25 6991 What can you offer us today to
StenoTran
1519
1 substantiate that perspective?
2 6992 MR. NIELSEN: I suspect that the ways
3 in which this is done are various enough so that it
4 would be hard to trace them back. I meant that
5 statement to read exactly as it says.
6 6993 I was at Banff at around this time.
7 I literally, in the manner of CNN, asked perhaps 20
8 people if they believed that the terms of the broadcast
9 fund had to be 20 per cent of program cost applied in
10 these cases. I found no one who believed that that was
11 the state of affairs, but I don't know precisely what
12 it is. I don't know -- there are a number of things.
13 I don't know whether the budget stated is as having
14 been spent here.
15 6994 Often these projects are done without
16 the overhead showing on Canadian books because a lot of
17 the overhead is in L.A. or elsewhere. If the 20 per
18 cent was simply based upon the Canadian money, then it
19 would be a false figure, but it would not be false in
20 terms of what had actually been spent here. That might
21 be one of the ways in which that is achieved.
22 6995 What is inconceivable to those of us
23 in the business is that a 20 per cent payment would be
24 made for Canadian projects because that would represent
25 very high licence fees with no benefit in relation to
StenoTran
1520
1 Canadian production, marginally successful in ratings.
2 I don't think any of their schedules are driven by
3 these programs. The Commission has the resources to
4 look at these things and I hope they will.
5 6996 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you.
6 6997 I have a question. On page 2 you
7 criticize Alliance and Atlantis for treating Telefilm
8 equity investment as income and I am wondering what
9 your suggestion is as to what the proper accounting
10 treatment for that would be if it's not to be treated
11 as income.
12 6998 MR. NIELSEN: Well, it's an equity
13 investment in a program. What we receive from Telefilm
14 is an equity investment that has to be paid back, that
15 has to be accounted for. When it is treated as income
16 in the year in which it's received, I think it raises
17 questions about that accounting practice and I think it
18 is also -- my accountant tells me that it's improper to
19 mislead myself as to how well I am doing. I think it's
20 equally dangerous to mislead other people as to how
21 well they are doing and I think that when all but two
22 million of Alliance's profits are accountable by funds
23 from Telefilm, which are in fact not just designed but
24 are legally equity, questions need to be raised.
25 6999 I don't want to suggest that this --
StenoTran
1521
1 I mean their financial statements note this. This is
2 not a case of something nefarious having been
3 discovered, but it's something that it is a practice,
4 which I think is highly questionable.
5 7000 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: How do you
6 treat it in your company?
7 7001 MR. NIELSEN: Well, it's a private
8 company and it may function as income, it keeps us
9 afloat, but we certainly in the statements do not
10 regard it as profit.
11 7002 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So, you set
12 it up as some sort of deferred revenue?
13 7003 MR. NIELSEN: Telefilm has an
14 investment in those productions. We certainly use the
15 money in the production. That's what it's designed
16 for. It isn't a question as to its application. Its
17 application is that it helps pay for the show. It is
18 simply -- once that is done, it represents -- if you
19 were getting equity into the company, you would not be
20 permitted to treat it as income, would you.
21 0935
22 7004 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I understand
23 this to be different than the nature of investment by
24 an owner in the company.
25 7005 MR. NIELSEN: Perhaps.
StenoTran
1522
1 7006 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Perhaps I
2 could ask you a question about something you brought up
3 with us this morning in your oral comments.
4 7007 This is discussed at page 3 of your
5 written submission, where you deal with the point
6 system. You criticize the point system because, in
7 your view, it can be manipulated.
8 7008 And then you go on to say that it is
9 essential that the certification process be
10 discretionary.
11 7009 The question that raised in my mind
12 is: What could be more subject to manipulation than a
13 discretionary system?
14 7010 I would like you to reconcile the two
15 views for us.
16 7011 MR. NIELSEN: I think the value of
17 discretionary systems is that the people who make the
18 decisions have to take responsibility for them. The
19 danger of a point system is that everybody says "well,
20 they hit the point system".
21 7012 Anyone in our business can tell you
22 that it is extremely easy to manipulate the point
23 system. An art director is worth a point; and over and
24 above the art director can be a production designer --
25 who, if he is an American, is not worth a point.
StenoTran
1523
1 7013 A cinematographer can be a lighting
2 director. There are a great many variations on that.
3 7014 What I object to in that -- and what
4 anybody in our business objects to -- is that we all
5 sit around calculating those things and turning
6 ourselves into semi-crooks to do it. And we should not
7 have those kinds of regulations.
8 7015 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: You are not
9 concerned that a discretionary process would make the
10 system unduly vulnerable to influence what might be
11 perceived as not independence or fair to competitors?
12 7016 MR. NIELSEN: I think all through our
13 lives we rise to that challenge -- and always
14 imperfectly. But I would encourage it.
15 7017 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let me ask
16 you about your recommendation that Canadian content
17 should be reduced to 30 percent and that news and
18 sports should be eliminated in calculating Canadian
19 content.
20 7018 How did you arrive at the percent?
21 7019 I guess another question related to
22 that is: What impact do you see this having on the
23 production and scheduling of news and sports, if we
24 adopted this?
25 7020 MR. NIELSEN: I think that notably in
StenoTran
1524
1 the CBC we are getting too much news. Being a sports
2 fan, I don't apply it to sports; but my wife does.
3 7021 I can't imagine a situation in which
4 broadcasters are not going to broadcast news. They
5 make money from it. It attracts the Canadian audience.
6 7022 But in terms of Canadian content, we
7 have too much Canadian content; that is, sort of news
8 and current affairs stuff. Every time the CBC has to
9 come up with a new program to Canadianize its schedule,
10 the temptation is there to get that program out of a
11 department that is already funded.
12 7023 So I think it would be very salutary.
13 7024 You asked where do I get the 30
14 percent? Popped into our heads, you know. We don't
15 have the means of knowing what would be appropriate
16 here.
17 7025 But we are saying drop that. People
18 are not going to stop producing Canadian sports. Let
19 them produce Canadian sports. Let them produce news.
20 Drop the quota down significantly and concentrate it
21 where you want to concentrate it, which is in the area
22 of drama and the rest of it -- stuff that we can, if we
23 get good at it, substantially subsidize by sales
24 abroad.
25 7026 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let me end my
StenoTran
1525
1 questions by asking you about an area that has been of
2 some interest to us in this proceeding; and that is,
3 the emergence of digital television.
4 7027 As a program producer that has been
5 in the business for a long time and is expanding your
6 business, what are your views on the conversion to
7 digital TV, particularly as it impacts the production
8 community?
9 7028 MR. NIELSEN: I gather that the
10 Americans have made a decision that we are going to get
11 this -- what is it, in 2007? They have evolved a
12 scheme for transferring their whole system from analog
13 to digital.
14 7029 If they are going to get it, I think
15 we are going to need to follow on.
16 7030 Also, as a producer, I am as excited
17 as hell by it. I think the idea that we will digitize
18 all our images and ultimately they will be in a bank
19 somewhere, where I can sit down at a sophisticated
20 editing machine and have access to endless images and
21 create a program out of that -- I think we are going to
22 get back very close to the novel, where one person
23 could sit down and make a film.
24 7031 Canadians need to be very concerned
25 with what we are doing with our archives, in the light
StenoTran
1526
1 of this. I think it would be a great pity if
2 international companies were able to buy up these
3 images and charge the earth for them.
4 7032 But if I understand what is happening
5 in the States correctly -- and I might not -- I think
6 that they are moving toward seeing a totally digitized
7 system. We are moving toward that.
8 7033 I think it would be very dangerous,
9 because we have built in a lot of analog components, to
10 resist that change.
11 7034 It is like the railways. You hold on
12 to that too long, and you handicap yourself.
13 7035 Certainly, from a creative point of
14 view, it is marvellous.
15 7036 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you
16 very much.
17 7037 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
18 7038 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
19 Pennefather, please.
20 7039 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you,
21 Madam Chair.
22 7040 Good morning.
23 7041 MR. NIELSEN: Good morning.
24 7042 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Mr.
25 Nielsen, I would like to ask you to comment on your
StenoTran
1527
1 proposal regarding feature films. I believe your
2 written submission speaks to a proposal that would in
3 fact permit Canadian features to access the Cable Fund,
4 to a total of 15 percent of the budget, up to $2
5 million, since virtually all Canadian features
6 eventually find their way to television.
7 7043 I don't know, but perhaps they do.
8 7044 Again, this is important in terms of
9 the future of feature films, but also the relationship
10 between feature films in Canada and the broadcasters.
11 7045 You go on, as well, to suggest the
12 pre-buy by broadcasters.
13 7046 In your response, could you explain
14 to me how feature film producers would be comfortable
15 with this relationship with broadcasters -- which I
16 gather from your previous remarks could end up to be an
17 uncomfortable one, as well, because of the control
18 broadcasters may exercise in terms of the content of
19 the film.
20 7047 MR. NIELSEN: One, the business about
21 making features, you tend to have more freedom because
22 it is a one-off. I don't think broadcasters would be
23 interfering.
24 7048 I think one of the great weaknesses
25 of the Canadian broadcasting system is how little it
StenoTran
1528
1 has done for Canadian feature films.
2 7049 Europe has maintained a feature film
3 industry very largely on the basis that television has
4 subsidized it and paid very large sums of money for
5 feature films; in Germany, sometimes up to 90 percent.
6 7050 Channel 4 in England did the same
7 thing.
8 7051 MR. WESLEY: PBS in the U.S.
9 7052 MR. NIELSEN: And PBS to some degree.
10 7053 I think that the need to bring
11 features -- I also think features are a very good thing
12 for Canadians to be producing. I don't see much of a
13 future for us being able to sell abroad the kind of
14 thing that "Traders" represents, because I don't think
15 we have the star power to do that.
16 7054 Feature films have a huge network of
17 publicity. They sell in all sorts of countries. It is
18 an area certainly dominated by the Americans, but not
19 to the same degree.
20 7055 I think there is an opportunity here
21 if they get access to Cable Fund; they pre-sell the TV
22 market; they go into theatrical distribution first.
23 And then our broadcasters then get a product that has
24 had pre-publicity, which is always very useful, and
25 which far too few of our Canadian programs can manage
StenoTran
1529
1 to achieve. Features can do that.
2 0940
3 7056 I think that having access to --one
4 of the great problems of producing a feature in Canada
5 was that Telefilm came in with huge equity. In the
6 case of "The Wars I Did", the NFB also came in with
7 huge equity.
8 7057 I had two partners who expected to
9 share in the profits and I had a domestic marketplace
10 in television where I was getting 5 per cent of my
11 budget. The chances of making a profit under those
12 circumstances or of paying back my investors was
13 nothing. Of course, I made nothing until they were
14 totally paid back.
15 7058 We have penalized feature film
16 producers by simply the methods we use to finance and
17 of course the excuse the CBC offers if you go and say
18 why are you only giving me 5 per cent is they says you
19 got 75 per cent of your money from Telefilm and the
20 National Film Board, so why are you coming to us for
21 money.
22 7059 The thing is to establish yourself as
23 a viable film producer under those circumstances or to
24 produce something that is likely to make a return is
25 almost impossible. I think that one of the reforms
StenoTran
1530
1 that we should be looking to is a situation in which
2 the broadcasters not only play Canadian films, but that
3 they actually put some money into them.
4 7060 Incidentally, I don't think it would
5 be a bad idea if broadcasters -- despite the general
6 tenure, I think they have a contribution to make. I
7 think sometimes they know their audience. I think it's
8 not a bad thing for a producer to sometimes run up
9 against somebody who has a different view of the
10 audience than he has.
11 7061 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I gather
12 that your thesis would include spending and exhibition
13 requirements possibly for future for long form drama,
14 as we were discussing yesterday with Channel A.
15 7062 MR. NIELSEN: Yes.
16 7063 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: One last
17 question. I wanted to be clear. You said in your
18 presentation this morning that Canadian programs do not
19 sell well abroad despite the hype.
20 7064 MR. NIELSEN: Yes.
21 7065 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And I
22 think you just said to Commissioner McKendry that we
23 have the potential for terrific sales abroad. Why
24 aren't Canadian products selling well now and what will
25 make the difference that suddenly they will be
StenoTran
1531
1 acceptable in foreign markets?
2 7066 MR. NIELSEN: Well, I think we should
3 look at the areas that do sell well abroad, our
4 children's and cartoon areas and so on. The reason
5 they sell is because we are very good. Whatever one's
6 taste about "Anne of Green Gables" and so on, anybody
7 knows that they are totally state of the art when it
8 comes to children's programming anywhere and
9 conceivably even have an edge.
10 7067 I think that the same thing is true
11 of a lot of our cartoons. When I say there is a huge
12 opportunity for Canadians, the two languages that
13 Canadians speak, you know, represent 85 per cent of the
14 world's TV market. It's to have the U.S. open to us
15 and speaking English with the same accent, all these
16 things are huge advantages.
17 7068 The great problem is that if we
18 imitate the Americans, we aren't going to sell these
19 markets. We probably aren't going to sell anybody else
20 either because why buy an imitation if you can buy the
21 real thing?
22 7069 If we in fact are different, and you
23 can see this in terms of the highly successful comedy
24 that the CBC has. Satirical comedy doesn't travel that
25 well because it's tied to a subject matter that limits
StenoTran
1532
1 it, but not in terms of the range.
2 7070 Look at the comics that we send south
3 to the States who do extremely well. I want to say
4 this because I have known a lot of the people who went
5 south, known them when they were in Canada. I have
6 known not one of them who went there for the money.
7 First of all, usually Hollywood doesn't call up and
8 offer you a job. You go down there.
9 7071 They went there for creative freedom
10 and an opportunity to develop their talents. In
11 general, we haven't done that. When I'm talking about
12 opportunities, I am saying that we are better situated
13 than any country in the world because of our accents
14 which the Americans accept as theirs, because of our
15 languages and we have not taken -- I mean I do not find
16 when I go to international marketplaces that there are
17 hot Canadian properties, except in the areas that I
18 talked about.
19 7072 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: What's
20 stopping us?
21 7073 MR. NIELSEN: What's stopping them is
22 I believe we have an attitude substantially on the part
23 of broadcasters that Canadian talent is not going to
24 ring a lot of bells for them. I might say that given
25 the record of Canadian shows, entertainment shows, on
StenoTran
1533
1 Canadian television, there's a good reason for that
2 attitude.
3 7074 Nonetheless, we have to find some way
4 to break through that barrier. We have to do our stuff
5 that is as distinctive as the Australian stuff is, not
6 distinctive in a national sense. Incidentally, I
7 really fear Canadian content defined by a lot of things
8 I saw.
9 7075 I was late in seeing Aton Egoyan's
10 "Calendar", his feature film, a very, very cheap and
11 economical and more Armenian in it than English.
12 Despite the fact that it says more about our ethnicity
13 in a more profound way than everything I have ever
14 seen, I doubt that it would be considered if we applied
15 some of the rules that are now being discussed to it,
16 either in terms of language and much of it was shot in
17 Armenia.
18 7076 We have to trust. I don't think
19 Canadians trust their creative community. We are very
20 generous in terms of money, reasonably generous in
21 terms of money, but there's never any creative
22 accounting. We account for the money in all sorts of
23 ways, but we don't go out and say our people with
24 ideas, given the opportunity, to do this.
25 7077 There are producers out there
StenoTran
1534
1 searching for Canadian talent, and if they find it, do
2 they get a receptive response from broadcasters? This
3 really doesn't go on very much. What you have is we
4 make very bad use of our talent and consequently our
5 talent drifts south, sometimes to England.
6 7078 We kid ourselves when we talk about
7 gross export sales figures inflated by this or that.
8 No one goes -- if you go to a marketplace, you don't
9 see people rushing around snapping up Canadian
10 material, looking for it. We push very hard. We have
11 had a lot of assistance. Everything tends to sell, but
12 what price does it sell at?
13 7079 MR. WESLEY: The first step is to
14 make Canadian programming that Canadians prefer to
15 watch over someone else's programming. We don't do
16 that now. If we can't do that as a first step, then
17 it's a little much to expect that other people also
18 want to buy Canadian programming.
19 7080 I spent a lot of my career as a
20 journalist as a TV critic. Twenty years ago I was
21 writing columns about the fact that at the time of "The
22 Great Detective" and "King of Kensington", Canadians
23 weren't given Canadian programming that they preferred
24 to watch over the American top 20.
25 7081 Twenty years later, a number of
StenoTran
1535
1 Commissions, a number of broadcast policies, that
2 hasn't fundamentally changed. I think that's quite
3 sad. Looking at how we get that Canadian programming
4 in front of people to watch to anyone else's
5 programming is the key. That involves the kind of
6 funding and policy decisions that you are here to make.
7 7082 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you,
8 Madam Chair.
9 7083 THE CHAIRPERSON:
10 7084 Commissioner Cardozo.
11 7085 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam
12 Chair.
13 7086 Mr. Nielsen, I just wanted to follow
14 up on part of your discussion with Commissioner
15 Pennefather right now when you were talking about our
16 assets in terms of languages. You suggested 85 per
17 cent of the world would be interested in English and
18 French programming.
19 7087 I am wondering to what extent, as
20 this hearing is looking at the long term future of
21 television and the industries around it, to what extent
22 are other languages part of what we can be exporting.
23 7088 I look at markets like China and
24 India which collectively have about two billion people
25 and also have protective policies that don't encourage
StenoTran
1536
1 English programming coming but may encourage
2 programming in Chinese and Indian languages.
3 7089 To what extent do you think the
4 production industry could make use of the languages
5 which we have among our midst for local and export
6 purposes?
7 7090 MR. NIELSEN: We have a project at
8 the moment that we very much want to get under way with
9 India. The Indian industry and Stirling Gunnarson, a
10 friend and colleague of ours who just came back from
11 having made a film in Bombay, despite his problems, is
12 very excited about the process and what it was
13 artistically.
14 7091 I think there is a real opportunity
15 for this. We are developing a major project for a
16 daily teenage program, drama, half hour, set in
17 Toronto. When we sat down to try to map out or create
18 the bible for this, we realized that if we were going
19 to shoot in any Toronto high school, we would have to
20 have in the show an ethnic mix that would correspond to
21 the corridors, the people there.
22 7092 What you would end up with is a
23 situation where you would have to have people speaking
24 the language. You couldn't have a Thai girl at Jarvis
25 going home to parents who wouldn't be speaking another
StenoTran
1537
1 language and similarly. I think the cosmopolitan
2 nature of our cities and what you can do with them is
3 part of what interested me in what Atom Egoyan had done
4 with his Armenian heritage.
5 7093 This is something that would be a
6 wonderful development. Again, it has got to be
7 creatively driven. Atom Egoyan knew how he wanted to
8 use Armenian language and in what context. A lot of
9 Canadian film makers do that.
10 7094 I know more Indian film makers than
11 Chinese ones, but a lot of the investors, Chinese who
12 moved to Toronto, are used to investing in Hong Kong
13 films. There are fascinating possibilities.
14 7095 COMMISSIONER CARDOZA: So at this
15 point you think it is more a matter of potential and
16 possibilities than what is happening.
17 7096 MR. NIELSEN: Well, I think so,
18 except as I say, we actually have a property on our
19 desk which can only be done -- most of it would be shot
20 in India. The logic of it would be to use the two
21 languages. It would be intrinsic to it.
22 7097 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Is this "Such
23 a Long Journey" by Rohinton Mistry?
24 7098 MR. NIELSEN: "Remember Me". Are you
25 familiar with it?
StenoTran
1538
1 7099 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Sorry?
2 7100 MR. NIELSEN: Are you familiar with
3 "Remember Me"?
4 7101 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: No.
5 7102 MR. NIELSEN: It's based on a book
6 that was published last year here in Canada by
7 Bernadette Ruehl.
8 7103 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. You
9 mentioned Gunnarson who had done "Such a Long Journey"
10 which is a Rohinton novel.
11 7104 MR. NIELSEN: That's right.
12 7105 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. Thanks
13 very much.
14 7106 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Nielsen, I know
15 that this is not a CBC renewal and it will only come in
16 the spring, but you were very critical of how the CBC
17 deals with independent producers.
18 7107 You may or may not be aware that the
19 CFTPA has made a suggestion that the CBC be required by
20 us to make a policy statement to govern its dealing
21 with independent producers and that this policy
22 statement be developed by the corporation in
23 consultation with those production industries and be
24 binding on the CBC and then the creation of the
25 position of ombudsman for independent productions
StenoTran
1539
1 reporting directly to the Executive Vice-President,
2 Media.
3 7108 Do you think that this could be a way
4 of improving those relationships? You mentioned
5 particularly that independent producers had to go to
6 particular program departments of the CBC.
7 7109 MR. NIELSEN: Yes.
8 7110 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there any merit
9 in this?
10 7111 MR. NIELSEN: I'm always worried when
11 you have an ombudsman, sort of anticipating problems.
12 I would like to get a system that worked that didn't
13 have to be monitored in quite that way. CBC has a way
14 of disposing of ombudsmen too. The last one had a
15 grizzly fate. He ended up in England.
16 7112 I think that the CBC has really gone
17 from not great to bad in this respect. I think if they
18 reconstituted the kind of department they had before
19 and they abandoned around 1992 or 1993 -- that system
20 worked.
21 7113 You can't take away from the area
22 heads at the CBC their power to determine what the
23 corporation is going to buy. Somebody has to be
24 responsible for that. What I find is happening now at
25 the CBC, and it's strange because people say that the
StenoTran
1540
1 CBC is being bureaucratized because people think that's
2 what it has always been, but there's a division going
3 on there now between the financial side of the company
4 and the creative side which is truly disastrous.
5 7114 You have to sit and discuss with
6 their business side in an atmosphere in which the
7 business side, if it doesn't like the contract, will
8 abort a project which you are continuing on the
9 creative side very amicably.
10 7115 This is deeply disturbing to writers
11 and to other people who are involved in that. I think
12 the CBC needs to rethink. The other thing that has
13 happened, and I mentioned it on "Life and Times" and
14 those programs, where the series has a very clearly
15 defined objective.
16 7116 When you go out to independent
17 producers and ask them to produce for such a series,
18 you are robbing them of their independence. Our chief
19 value is that we are going to come up with some ideas
20 and enrich a system.
21 7117 If we are just being used as
22 free-lancers to supply programs which the CBC has
23 already decided it wants to make, I'm not against them
24 making those. I think they should make them. But the
25 relationship whereby an independent producer becomes
StenoTran
1541
1 that sort of surrogate, bringing with him the money
2 that is in the broadcast fund and so on, or the cable
3 fund, is not going to lead to happy relationships and
4 it's not going to lead to good programs.
5 7118 My answer to you, I think my
6 organization is correct to draw attention to this
7 problem. I'm not quite sure about ombudsman, but I
8 think there does need to be an examination of the way
9 in which CBC deals with independents.
10 7119 Some of it is related undoubtedly to
11 their simple wish to solve their financial problem and
12 to use other agencies to do it.
13 7120 THE CHAIRPERSON: You see it as a
14 systemic problem, but sometimes the establishment are
15 focusing on the problem, even if you don't believe in
16 ombudsman, the exercise can be helpful in redirecting
17 or solving the systemic problem.
18 7121 MR. NIELSEN: I certainly withdraw my
19 remarks about that.
20 7122 THE CHAIRPERSON: To just put an
21 ombudsman in place is one thing, but if the aim is
22 first to sit down with the independent producers and
23 try to hammer out a policy statement, it could go some
24 ways into fixing a problem and creating a dialogue.
25 7123 MR. NIELSEN: Yes. And I think the
StenoTran
1542
1 time is overdue to do it, yes.
2 7124 THE CHAIRPERSON: You propose, the
3 sixth point in your recommendation on page 4, no
4 special CBC envelope but no ceiling. Wouldn't the no
5 ceiling create a problem in your industry?
6 7125 MR. NIELSEN: I want to encourage
7 networks to see co-production with independent
8 producers as a solution to their problems. I think the
9 idea of the 50 per cent envelope encourages the CBC to
10 think this is our money and this is their money.
11 7126 I think it would be very useful to
12 improving CBC's relations with independent producers if
13 they realized -- for all broadcasters, not just the CBC
14 -- that they are in fact competing for that money and
15 that the decision is going to be made on the basis of
16 how much money they are prepared to make available.
17 This is really part of the rest of what I was
18 suggesting, that the allocation of money be based upon
19 the size of their licence fees.
20 1000
21 7127 If it is that, then I don't think
22 there should be any barrier. I think that if the CBC
23 because of its renewed interest in independent
24 production can claim 75 per cent, I have no objection.
25 I don't think they would though. I think that it would
StenoTran
1543
1 create a situation in which all broadcasters would feel
2 that they had to commit themselves to this kind of
3 production and that it would, therefore, be beneficial.
4 7128 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Nielsen, are
5 you saying that in your view "Traders" or that type of
6 programming should not be produced because it is an
7 exercise in futility, it's not the real thing and you
8 are going to have to have it competing with the real
9 thing? Therefore, we should have programming that is
10 much more distinctively Canadian and not an attempt to
11 compete for viewers with American programming.
12 7129 MR. NIELSEN: What I chiefly think is
13 that it is a mistake to think -- I mean, I don't want
14 to condemn a particular genre, but I think if you
15 devise that program, rather than imitatively drawing on
16 the American experience -- for a Canadian audience if
17 you just -- I am not against the subject matter. I am
18 not against the length of the program. I am saying
19 that if your primary reason for doing something is
20 imitation, that can succeed in the United States
21 because you can add the star power to it that will get
22 an audience.
23 7130 We don't have the opportunity to do
24 that. If you don't have that, those are vehicles
25 primarily for very skilful writers and a very skilful
StenoTran
1544
1 body of actors who are going to get the kind of
2 exposure which can gradually create a dynamic. We
3 can't do that.
4 7131 "Traders," in order to be sustained,
5 the CBC had to buy it in order to sustain the cost of
6 it.
7 7132 I just recently saw a Danish sort of
8 version of "ER" of a hospital drama called "The
9 Kingdom," which is utterly bizarre, very good
10 television. Good enough television so that it has been
11 in Canadian theatres, despite the fact that it is only
12 subtitled, but it is totally -- the production values,
13 they are in the sense that the acting is good, but they
14 make the kind of program they can make and add
15 imagination to it which doesn't cost anything. So that
16 you get something that is marvellously different and
17 commercial within the context of Telefilm, despite the
18 fact that it was very bizarre.
19 7133 I wouldn't be able to buy it here if
20 it wasn't commercial. The kind of thing with "Traders"
21 is that as I say it isn't that it is particularly badly
22 done. It is that it doesn't have the elements that
23 those shows usually have if they are made in the
24 States, which is star power, massive promotion.
25 7134 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Nielsen, you
StenoTran
1545
1 are here and so I can't resist asking you: You have a
2 lot of experience and I am sure you must be aware of
3 what is going on in French Canada, where this exact
4 thing is successful, where you make indigenous
5 programming which garners huge audiences. In your view
6 was it impossible for English Canada to try to nurture
7 or create a similar situation as we have in Quebec,
8 create a star system, have indigenous programming that
9 will be more appealing to viewers than American
10 programming? Is it just a question of language or is
11 English Canada incapable of creating that or reaching
12 it because of the American presence and, therefore, we
13 had better look at doing something else or we will fail
14 all together?
15 7135 MR. NIELSEN: No. One of the reasons
16 that I do a lot of the stuff we do in French is because
17 I love that community, I mean the television community.
18 There is a confidence there that is quite different
19 than in English Canada.
20 7136 The reason is because it has had
21 success with its own audience. Nothing beats that.
22 7137 I don't think it is impossible at all
23 in English Canada. I think we have really not given it
24 a very good try. I think, for instance, where CBC has
25 done it in the last few years with comedy, I mean the
StenoTran
1546
1 sort of stuff that "22 Minutes" represents and so on,
2 has deep appeal in this country and you get it talked
3 about.
4 7138 But in drama, where it is a matter of
5 creating stars, we have never -- you know, you can't do
6 this with 2 per cent of your schedule being Canadian
7 drama. Everybody knows that Martha Henry is a great
8 star, but if you see her for six programs every three
9 or four years then she becomes a star from somewhere
10 else, namely the theatre.
11 7139 I mean I came out of the CBC. I was
12 there for 11 years. I remember one meeting at which we
13 were all accused that all our shows looked alike. I
14 knew that was going to be the accusation and so I had
15 done some arithmetic. All our shows were budgeted at
16 exactly the same amount for political reasons. We were
17 a cantankerous bunch and nobody wanted to get in
18 trouble by giving us different amounts and, basically,
19 our mandates were similar.
20 7140 I have hardly ever in Canada been
21 asked to do a cheap drama. I did the "Quebec Canada
22 1995" which cost $400,000 and was an hour and a half
23 long, had wonderful performers in it and it became
24 quite successful. It got revived again and so on and
25 so forth, but nobody ever asked me to do another one.
StenoTran
1547
1 7141 I have two such proposals before the
2 CBC at the moment and they are considering them, but we
3 have not done at all what French Canada did, is simply
4 saying for reasons we are going to make these programs
5 if we don't make them our audiences are not going to
6 have something. People have not done that and English
7 Canada culturally is a colony. It's a colony of the
8 United States.
9 7142 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Nielsen, I
10 think I heard you say that it was a question of
11 attitude on the part of broadcasters towards the
12 creative community. In the meantime, here is the
13 regulator with an Act of Parliament that it is supposed
14 to see fulfilled. What are the means we can use to
15 incite a change in attitude?
16 7143 I see that in your Recommendation 15
17 you say that we should reduce Canadian content required
18 because you are satisfied that news and sports would be
19 done in any event, but you do believe in regulatory
20 intervention to require certain categories of
21 programming?
22 7144 MR. NIELSEN: I am a very strong
23 believer in regulatory intervention in the Canadian
24 context.
25 7145 THE CHAIRPERSON: I may have missed
StenoTran
1548
1 that, but I don't think I see anywhere whether or not
2 you endorse the CFPTA recommendation that it be in
3 prime time as well --
4 7146 MR. NIELSEN: Oh yes.
5 7147 THE CHAIRPERSON: That a certain
6 number of hours be in prime time?
7 7148 MR. NIELSEN: Yes.
8 7149 THE CHAIRPERSON: When you say that
9 news and sports will be done in any event, you are
10 aware that we get a lot of appeal by the population
11 and, of course, by regional producers that regional or
12 local programming, other than these categories of
13 drama, of feature film, documentary, variety, et
14 cetera, will disappear and that's a large concern.
15 7150 MR. NIELSEN: You see, what I think
16 is important, I deplore what is happening with regional
17 programming now, both the CBC and CTV have abandoned
18 any regional time slots. You can't make a program for
19 the maritimes any more. You can't make a program for
20 the prairies any more, on those two networks at any
21 rate. I think what is important regionally -- I mean
22 one of the successes of Canadian broadcasting, since I
23 am knocking it, it's really marvellous that Halifax
24 exists in terms of what comes out of there. The fact
25 that we have in Vancouver, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto
StenoTran
1549
1 four major centres in terms of potential production
2 centres, as well as three or four others, I think is a
3 real asset.
4 7151 But again, the system is out of
5 joint. It is hard to get air time on a regional basis
6 anywhere in the country. I think that documentaries,
7 which are a wonderful form and are a way of cutting
8 across the very stereotype news coverage that exists
9 everywhere in the world, Canada as well, and so I think
10 the fact that we got -- I think most documentaries that
11 are made for a region will travel well, but they should
12 be assured exposure first in that region.
13 7152 I think there are dramas. I tend to
14 think of the country in some ways as -- I am sure if I
15 was producing a drama in Alberta I would want the
16 privilege of having the best director and if I thought
17 he was in Vancouver I would want to be able to bring
18 him in. So, we can't carve up the country in this way.
19 But I think the CBC -- I remember when a lot of the
20 vitality in CBC drama was coming out of Vancouver. I
21 think it was stuck on the head and they brought the
22 bodies to Toronto where they didn't function nearly as
23 well. I think that the very independents that has been
24 established in Halifax is the reason for its vitality.
25 7153 So, I have a recommendation in there
StenoTran
1550
1 that would force the networks to only produce 60 per
2 cent of their programming in any one centre and 90 per
3 cent in three, so that there would be a variety of
4 network production activity across the country. So
5 that that wouldn't be damaged, I think that already
6 exists to some degree, but also I think the Commission
7 should look into the decisions not to broadcast
8 regionally.
9 7154 As I read the Broadcasting Act, those
10 people come before you and promise these stations that
11 they are going to do so much programming. Then I go
12 down to them and say, "This is a program that you might
13 be interested in buying regionally," and they would
14 say, "We do nothing but news regionally."
15 7155 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You would
16 agree that those centres you are talking about, whether
17 it is Halifax or Vancouver, often end up making network
18 programming.
19 7156 MR. NIELSEN: They do.
20 7157 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because otherwise
21 they won't last and I think what we hear from ordinary
22 Canadians when we had these round tables in June was
23 not exactly that type of activity. People are speaking
24 more about local local in the sense of local news as
25 they compared to network news and that's a problem.
StenoTran
1551
1 7158 MR. NIELSEN: There is a relationship
2 here to creativity. Audience performers or writers who
3 require a certain intimacy with their audience -- often
4 artists feel more comfortable starting out by making
5 Nova Scotians laugh and then discovering that they can
6 make the whole country laugh.
7 7159 If you rob them of that, it's like
8 when people ask me why don't you produce for the
9 international market. My reply is that nobody else
10 does anywhere in the world. Nobody does that.
11 7160 THE CHAIRPERSON: So it can become a
12 sort of laboratory that is maybe aiming for network
13 broadcasting, but as it gets there provides the type of
14 local reflection that people are looking at.
15 7161 We thank you very much, Nr. Nielsen.
16 We kept you longer than we thought.
17 7162 I have a couple of questions for Mr.
18 Wesley. We don't have an opportunity to see you often
19 or to see people who have been in the business long.
20 7163 On your chart where are tax credits?
21 7164 MR. NIELSEN: Tax credits are a
22 recent thing, but we apply them to the government
23 agency. Really, the government agencies, that is the
24 sort of thing that have been mandated by the
25 regulation.
StenoTran
1552
1 7165 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because that
2 was my next question. The Cable Fund is really
3 subscriber money, isn't it?
4 7166 MR. NIELSEN: That's right.
5 7167 THE CHAIRPERSON: To the extent that
6 those who have cable are probably, I think it would be
7 fair to say, watchers of television, it seems fair that
8 they put back some money on the system and those who
9 are not probably watch less.
10 7168 MR. NIELSEN: This was a shocking
11 thing to me. Also, what happened to our licence fees
12 when the Cable Fund came in? It's the broadcasters who
13 thought 30 per cent was adequate dropped them to 15.
14 We certainly benefit in the sense that it was more
15 money in the system and to --
16 7169 THE CHAIRPERSON: But of course the
17 argument has been put before us by many parties that
18 subscribers then are subsidizing the broadcasters,
19 which is the point you are making.
20 7170 MR. NIELSEN: Yes, exactly.
21 7171 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will try to fix
22 all that, Mr. Nielsen.
23 7172 MR. NIELSEN: Good luck.
24 7173 THE CHAIRPERSON: Hopefully, when you
25 come back before us -- it's a bit depressing actually.
StenoTran
1553
1 7174 MR. NIELSEN: It's a very tough job.
2 7175 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is.
3 7176 MR. NIELSEN: We are a wily bunch out
4 there.
5 7177 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is. How did you
6 survive this long in the business?
7 7178 MR. NIELSEN: I didn't know how to
8 get out.
9 7179 THE CHAIRPERSON: You look like a
10 happy man.
11 7180 We are not quite finished. Counsel
12 has some questions.
13 7181 MR. BLAIS: Yes, before you stand
14 down I have a few quick questions concerning co-
15 productions and when I use the term "co-productions" I
16 mean official co-productions under the official co-
17 production treaties.
18 7182 The French producers, producers from
19 Quebec, have said that for co-productions where it's a
20 majority Canadian co-production that that should be
21 granted a 150 per cent credit. I don't know if you
22 have some views on the impact that might have on the
23 co-production treaty system as a whole?
24 7183 MR. NIELSEN: If I understand it
25 correctly, it would make their use more likely. At the
StenoTran
1554
1 moment we have co-productions, three with Britain, one
2 with France, one with Germany, and I think this system
3 which Canada to some degree pioneered is reaching the
4 stage where it is beginning to pay off. What is needed
5 is an inducement. I find that the products that we are
6 looking at with them are ones that will have much more
7 appeal to a Canadian audience. A lot of the early ones
8 were sort of compromises. We and they hadn't got the
9 knack and you didn't know what projects.
10 7184 I think anything that encourages co-
11 production gets that money into the system, allows us
12 to work with other talented people, which is also one
13 of its benefits I think is very good. I think if we
14 can encourage the broadcasters to look to that and
15 that's what I assume they are trying to do, then I am
16 for it.
17 7185 MR. BLAIS: By the same token, one
18 could ask whether minority Canadian co-production
19 should also be given Canadian content credit, in the
20 sense that minority/majority co-productions sort of
21 work hand in glove over the long term.
22 7186 MR. NIELSEN: Yes. I think that's
23 why I am glad I am not a regulator. I think that's
24 tricky, but I think it is probably I would come down on
25 the principle that we shouldn't discriminate between
StenoTran
1555
1 majority and minority, unless those two get very much
2 out of balance because I think in some cases when I do
3 business with German co-producers I will say this one I
4 am only in for 30 because I want you to come in on this
5 next one and I want you, you know, and that one I will
6 come higher.
7 7187 MR. BLAIS: On the level of
8 terminology I notice in paragraphs 16 and 17 you use
9 the phrase co-production. I was wondering whether you
10 were using it in the same sense as I was in the sense
11 of official co-productions, or were you using it there
12 more in terms of --
13 1020
14 7188 MR. NIELSEN: Which submission is
15 this?
16 7189 MR. BLAIS: This is your written
17 submission.
18 7190 MR. NIELSEN: The written submission.
19 7191 MR. BLAIS: It's Recommendations 16
20 and 17.
21 7192 MR. NIELSEN: Could you read them? I
22 haven't got that with me, actually.
23 7193 MR. BLAIS: It is:
24 "Foreign co-production should be
25 encouraged by adding the amount
StenoTran
1556
1 of money..."
2 7194 MR. NIELSEN: Yes, that's as official
3 co-production.
4 7195 MR. BLAIS: However, on 17 you refer
5 to:
6 "No co-production from any
7 particular country should have
8 priority over any other (the US
9 would be included, since no
10 undue influence is to be feared
11 if the Canadian certification
12 procedure is independent from
13 the funding procedures)."
14 7196 Since we don't have an official co-
15 production treaty with the U.S. and you seem to suggest
16 co-production in that context, I was wondering if you
17 actually meant official co-production.
18 7197 MR. NIELSEN: The production
19 community in the United States that is likely to want
20 to co-produce with us is a community that is very
21 similar to us and I think it's a pity that we are not
22 in some ways fusing those interests. I think also in
23 terms of the U.S. market in creating an alternative
24 there.
25 7198 I don't think the big studios would
StenoTran
1557
1 co-produce with us, but I agree what I am really
2 suggesting there is an inconsistency. I think I regard
3 my remarks about the U.S. that I would like to see some
4 way in which -- I think that if our certification
5 procedures are right, if it is a Canadian product, then
6 I don't fear very much where the money is coming from.
7 If it's a Canadian company, if it's a product made for
8 a Canadian audience -- you see, from a point of view I
9 am also a screenwriter and what I think is decisive
10 here is who something is made for and if it's made for
11 a Canadian audience. I'm not so worried about where
12 the money comes from.
13 7199 MR. BLAIS: Are you going as far as
14 suggesting that we should have an official co-
15 production treaty with the U.S.?
16 7200 MR. NIELSEN: I am in favour of that,
17 but I fear that there might be something hidden under
18 the table there that would -- I'm not really sure of my
19 ground. This is something I would like the Commission
20 to look at, but I think if we could avoid Disney simply
21 sweeping us under the table -- if somehow wording could
22 be established and if our certification procedures were
23 clear, I would favour some kind of relationship, yes.
24 7201 MR. BLAIS: I appreciate that. Thank
25 you very much, those are my questions.
StenoTran
1558
1 7202 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
2 Wesley, Mr. Nielsen. Mr. Nielsen, if you pray, pray
3 for us. If you don't, keep your fingers crossed.
4 7203 MR. NIELSEN: Oh, I pray.
5 7204 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very
6 much.
7 7205 Madam Secretary, would you call the
8 next participant, please?
9 7206 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
10 The next participant will be Stornoway Productions and
11 I would invite Ms Martha Fusca to please come forward
12 and make the presentation.
13 7207 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Fusca,
14 proceed when you are ready.
15 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
16 7208 MS FUSCA: Thank you.
17 7209 As President of Stornoway
18 Productions, I want to thank the Commission for
19 allowing us to participate in this most welcomed
20 review. Stornoway, which was founded in 1983 to
21 produce international investigative current affairs
22 documentaries is also currently producing Canadian
23 public affairs documentaries and drama. We are,
24 therefore, addressing concerns we have with regard to
25 these two genres.
StenoTran
1559
1 7210 We are both pleased and proud that
2 all of the five drama projects that we put into
3 development are now either being co-produced with
4 Canadian broadcasters or are in development with
5 Canadian broadcasters. Our concern, which I will deal
6 with in detail later, is whether we will be able to
7 fully finance these projects given our current
8 regulatory environment. On both the drama and
9 documentary front, we wish to discuss that portion of
10 the Act which states that the Canadian broadcasting
11 system should serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen
12 the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of
13 Canada.
14 7211 Since the CFTPA, of which we are
15 members, has provided you with facts and figures which
16 are most instructive, it relieves you and me from going
17 through them again. Suffice it to say that their
18 information is of critical importance if we are to have
19 an effective Canadian production industry and if you
20 and I are to make a difference, the Commission must
21 deal with their recommendations.
22 7212 With some exceptions with regards to
23 drama, I do not believe that "appalling" is too strong
24 a word to use to describe Canada's current prime time
25 schedule as it pertains to the scheduling of Canadian
StenoTran
1560
1 programming. I'm aware that some voluntary efforts are
2 being made and I strongly encourage those endeavours,
3 but those voluntary efforts are clearly not enough.
4 7213 I appear before you today because
5 Stornoway and companies like our own may not be able to
6 produce commercially viable programs, which we can
7 export successfully without addressing some basic
8 problems. You may ask: What does commercially viable
9 mean? By commercially viable, I mean a program that
10 can be financed and finds an audience.
11 7214 A commercially viable project does
12 not include one where the producer and a number of
13 other individuals involved in the project never get
14 paid. A commercially viable project does not include
15 one where the producer mortgages his or her home to
16 produce it. A commercially viable project is one that
17 generates a profit of some kind for the producer, that
18 allows the producer to grow and flourish so that they
19 can support and nurture Canadian talent.
20 7215 While I believe and support the
21 notion that we can produce programming that is 10 out
22 of 10 and deals with specific Canadian themes, this can
23 only be done if producers have the fair and
24 unconditional support of the industry. That includes
25 broadcasters, distributors, funding agencies, other
StenoTran
1561
1 government initiatives and the Commission.
2 7216 We have too many examples from Canada
3 and abroad that clearly point out that the greatest
4 majority, if not 100 per cent of the financing, must
5 come from the domestic market if we are to have a
6 recognizable Canadian program schedule. I believe that
7 this is the only way to produce a commercially viable
8 program, as defined above, with 10 out of 10 points and
9 one that deals exclusively with Canadian themes.
10 7217 As quite rightly cited in the CFTPA
11 submission, "A strong domestic demand which provides
12 the most significant portion of the financing, will
13 ensure distinctiveness." But now what happens to all
14 of the other possible production scenarios for
15 producing a commercially viable program? What happens
16 when a Canadian producer options a Canadian novel that
17 deals with a non-Canadian subject? Incidentally,
18 Canadians deal with an awful lot of non-Canadian
19 subjects.
20 7218 The producer manages to find a writer
21 who shares the producer's sensibility for the project
22 and is available to commence work on the project and
23 not leaving the country for Los Angeles. The producer
24 is also in luck because one of the Canadian
25 broadcasters has agreed that they will assist with the
StenoTran
1562
1 development of the script after only two months of
2 discussions for anywhere between 15 to 25 per cent of
3 the development budget, and this producer is on a roll
4 because the broadcaster will allow her to go Telefilm
5 for up to 49 per cent of the budget.
6 7219 Now if, and that's a big if, Telefilm
7 comes in for the 49 per cent, which is unlikely, she
8 still has to make up between 26 and 36 per cent of the
9 budget. Now she is faced with deferrals of her
10 producer's fees, her overhead, and additional out-of-
11 pocket expenses of seven or more per cent. Oh, dear.
12 You can't apply to Telefilm because they don't assist
13 in pay TV projects and the Citytv development advance
14 is too low, but you can try the Harold Greenburg fund.
15 7220 This is one tenacious producer. The
16 script is complete, she hasn't earned a penny, but,
17 fortunately for her, her husband is very supportive
18 and, better still, he has a job. Everyone loves the
19 script, but the total licence fee from the Canadian
20 broadcaster is not even enough to trigger the Canadian
21 Television Fund, not enough to trigger Telefilm. The
22 other broadcasters whose licence fees hit the minimum
23 currently required by Telefilm and the Canadian
24 Television Fund love the script, but don't want to do
25 it; not a Canadian theme.
StenoTran
1563
1 7221 Never mind, let's try the Americans.
2 Why them? They are our neighbours, they are close, we
3 speak the same language. Isn't it the largest market
4 in the world? We do have a free trade agreement with
5 them, but they will want to co-produce. No, they can't
6 do that. They will want to have a recognizable star.
7 Hey, that's okay, we can make that work, but just
8 because they are putting up better than half the budget
9 doesn't mean to say that they can have an opinion on
10 the director, the DOP, the rest of the cast, the
11 editor.
12 7222 No, we can't use an American
13 director. No, we can't use an American actor. Three
14 years later this project might get produced by a
15 Canadian, written by a Canadian, adapted by a Canadian,
16 but it's not commercially viable in Canada because of
17 our current regulations.
18 7223 I have been and continue to be
19 terribly concerned and frustrated by the extremely
20 narrow focus we as an industry have tended to take when
21 it comes to Canadian content issues. As with the
22 example I have just given, there are many more such
23 scenarios which can employ predominantly Canadian
24 professionals, labour and ancillary personnel, but will
25 be penalized by our current Canadian content
StenoTran
1564
1 regulations. For example, broadcasters will pay next
2 to nothing for this programming citing current Canadian
3 content regulations. The same is true for feature
4 films.
5 7224 I believe that it is critical not to
6 penalize productions and producers for coming in at,
7 say, five or six points out of ten and on productions
8 that may deal with Canadian themes which are
9 commercially viable and find audiences both at home and
10 abroad, which allow for the growth of employment,
11 development of industry expertise and are fundamentally
12 Canadian programming, which independents such as myself
13 can export. To quote the CFTPA's submission,
14 "Canadians write and produce excellent science fiction,
15 detective and mystery series, historical and fantasy
16 stories..."
17 7225 At this point, I would like to turn
18 our attention to the broadcast community as it exists
19 today. Since producers need the commitment of
20 broadcasters to air a program to access most kinds of
21 public funds, broadcasters, both private and public,
22 have increasingly and alarmingly used their leverage to
23 reduce licence fees to the minimum required by the
24 various funders. To make matters worse, in some cases
25 these broadcasters require that producers give a price
StenoTran
1565
1 beyond the over-the-air standard number of runs over
2 the traditional two to three-year licence period.
3 7226 Initially, I believe that the
4 Canadian Television Fund was set up to assist in
5 providing much needed top-up financing for Canadian
6 programming. What it has in fact become is a subsidy
7 for broadcasters who now pay lower licence fees.
8 Forgive me for being repetitive, I gather. What the
9 government intended to provide for Canadian production,
10 on the one hand, was taken almost instantly away with
11 the other hand by the networks.
12 7227 Minimum licence fees must go up from
13 15 to 25 per cent. It is both ludicrous and
14 professionally embarrassing that we can get a higher
15 licence fee out of the U.K., Germany, France, the U.S.,
16 and so on than from our country and then hope to retain
17 creative and financial control. Of course, the
18 independent sector has been skilfully and surprisingly
19 successful at doing just that, but I believe the
20 success stories are a small fraction of what we as a
21 nation could accomplish with the proper tools.
22 7228 Furthermore, we are terribly
23 concerned that currently there are no safeguards with
24 regards to the amount of programming that those who
25 hold single or multiple licences can acquire from
StenoTran
1566
1 themselves or related production companies. We ask the
2 Commission to provide safeguards which include minimum
3 commitments to the acquisition of programs from
4 unaffiliated production companies and that the programs
5 produced by related companies will not be able to
6 access public funds; not just limit themselves in
7 accessing public funds, no public funds.
8 7229 We would also strongly urge the
9 Commission to limit the number of programs produced in-
10 house or by affiliated companies that would qualify for
11 the broadcasters' Canadian content quota. We,
12 therefore, wish to reiterate the CFTPA's position that,
13 "Therefore, it is understandable that producers are
14 nervous about the increasingly aggressive attempts by
15 broadcasters to move in the production and program
16 distribution fields and to have access to public
17 funds."
18 7230 Lastly, we do not have a problem with
19 broadcasters who wish to have an equity position on a
20 program. In fact we welcome it. However, we cannot
21 emphasize enough that the licence fee is separate from
22 their equity portion and that the licence fee will not
23 be reduced by the fact that they may choose to take an
24 equity position no more or less favourable than that of
25 any other equity participant.
StenoTran
1567
1 7231 Now I would like to turn our
2 attention to the area of documentary broadcasting in
3 Canada. If broadcasting in Canada is meant to "ensure
4 a strong Canadian presence in content that fosters
5 creative talent and reflects Canadian society", as
6 stated in the Commission's Vision statement, then we
7 must object to the manner in which the CBC decides
8 which documentaries that it does not itself produce are
9 to be broadcast by the network and which are not.
10 7232 It has been my long experience that
11 if producers who choose to tackle a project that does
12 not suit the tastes of the particular buyers at any
13 given time, despite the potential audience appeal and
14 critical praise, the CBC will reject the program or
15 programs with their own brand of rationale. While the
16 CRTC states that in this hearing we are pursuing
17 together an inquiry through open dialogue, I can assure
18 the Commission that no such inquiry or open dialogue
19 exists when producers put forth documentary proposals
20 or near finished programs to CBC.
21 7233 We have produced numerous
22 documentaries that sat on CBC's shelves for nearly two
23 years because CBC had no slot for them. This was also
24 true for documentaries produced by others. We all
25 waited and we were finally told that independent
StenoTran
1568
1 producers would have their very own slot. This was
2 accomplished primarily by Trina McQueen and the slot
3 was called "Witness". Incidentally, by the time our
4 documentaries were broadcast, The Journal produced two
5 of their own which were incredibly similar to the two
6 of the four we had produced nearly two years earlier.
7 7234 I'm sorry, I am just a little
8 nervous.
9 7235 Recently, Stornoway produced a three-
10 part documentary that was rejected by the CBC as a one-
11 note documentary, one that represented the views of
12 only a minority of Canadians, we were told. The series
13 has had numerous favourable print reviews, reviews by
14 scholars, thinkers, et cetera. It was broadcast on PBS
15 prompting one Canadian viewer that I'm aware of to
16 write to CBC asking them to broadcast it. PBS used the
17 series as a fund-raiser during the hours of 7:00 p.m.
18 to midnight. It was very successful for them and they
19 have subsequently rebroadcast it. We are now in the
20 midst of developing a university course based on the
21 material.
22 7236 Documentary producers have been very
23 supportive of CBC and the launch of Newsworld, where
24 programs produced for CBC were licensed on condition
25 that Newsworld could rebroadcast them without financial
StenoTran
1569
1 contribution to the producer. We worked hard for a
2 strand for independent production and we have been
3 betrayed as producers. Worse still, when Canadians are
4 not allowed to voice their concerns, share their points
5 of view about their country, their economy, when the
6 views of Atlantic Canadians and those of western
7 Canadians do not coincide with those of the CBC's
8 Toronto office, then Canadians should know, even if
9 they are a minority, that they will be silenced.
10 7237 It does not surprise me that the
11 CFTPA has been unsuccessful in meeting with CBC's
12 senior management with regards to the concerns
13 expressed by their own members and those of the caucus.
14 Whether you like our documentaries or not, we have co-
15 produced multi-million dollar documentaries with
16 broadcasters here in Canada, Japan, Germany, the U.S.,
17 Austria, et cetera, and yet we could not get a 15-
18 minute meeting to discuss our series because, I was
19 told, there was no point.
20 7238 To be fair, we did get a meeting with
21 a senior member of the CBC who told us that he did not
22 have a problem with the series, but could not go over
23 the head of his people. He is apparently trying to get
24 independent producers their own slot. Here we go
25 again. I firmly support the CFTPA's submission that
StenoTran
1570
1 the CBC establish an ombudsman's office for independent
2 producers and, despite the fact that I live in Toronto,
3 I firmly believe that a civil society is based at least
4 in part in our ability to share our experiences, our
5 views in an honest and open fashion without fear of
6 reprisal and for the benefit of the greater community
7 called Canada.
8 7239 We will inevitably disagree with one
9 another on some issue or other, but that's natural.
10 What is not natural is for a public institution that
11 survives primarily on taxpayers' dollars to tell that
12 very public that its voice must not be heard.
13 7240 In conclusion, we cannot set cultural
14 objectives which we have tried to for far too long with
15 a sound financial underpinning of the production
16 sector. That, above all, is what the CRTC has to
17 grapple with. History has shown us that without
18 enlightened and knowledgeable regulations, those with
19 the power will, indeed, abuse it.
20 7241 The problem is that the reality of
21 the small non-integrated producer who may be the one
22 best placed to produce the magic that the country and
23 the CRTC are looking for on our screens is the one who
24 has the least safety net and is the poor relation of
25 the industry. With the proper tools, which include a
StenoTran
1571
1 flexible approach to financing Canadian programming
2 with foreign partners, I firmly believe that we can
3 accomplish the Commission's favourite expression, "more
4 programs, better quality and increased profitability."
5 7242 Thank you.
6 7243 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms
7 Fusca.
8 7244 Commissioner Wilson, please.
9 7245 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thank you,
10 Madam Chair.
11 7246 Good morning. I see we share the
12 same first name. There aren't that many Marthas
13 around.
14 7247 You expressed some very similar views
15 to the views that Mr. Nielsen expressed when he
16 appeared before us this morning, but I don't imagine
17 you agree with this comment that there is too much
18 Canadian content that's new and current affairs
19 since --
20 7248 MS FUSCA: If you watch television
21 the way that I do anytime between 7:00 and 10:00, I
22 don't want to mention anybody in particular because
23 they are all equally bad, but tell me what's on when.
24 That's what I want to know. I will be so bold as to
25 say that I noticed that we are doing this all little
StenoTran
1572
1 Canadian thing now. I was wondering if it had anything
2 to do with the hearings, but what else apart from those
3 little promotions is Canadian on the schedule?
4 7249 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's a good
5 point. I guess the point I wanted to --
6 7250 MS FUSCA: I don't see anything on
7 the schedule. I don't disagree with Richard. If
8 Richard means that perhaps, if we reduce it --
9 7251 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Actually, what
10 he said was that there is too much Canadian content
11 that's news and current affairs. Considering the focus
12 of your company, I don't imagine you would agree with
13 that since you are basically focused on current affairs
14 and public affairs.
15 7252 MS FUSCA: Apart from CBC, actually,
16 who else is doing current affairs? I guess maybe "W5",
17 Rudy Buttignol has a strand on TVO. I am talking
18 current affairs, I am not talking news. Then why is it
19 restricted to broadcasters? I mean why don't we have
20 Canadians at large producing that kind of information
21 if you will?
22 1045
23 7253 COMMISSIONER WILSON: In your oral
24 submission, at page 2, you say:
25 "While I believe and support the
StenoTran
1573
1 notion that we can produce
2 programming that is 10 out of 10
3 and deals with specific Canadian
4 themes, this can only be done if
5 producers have the fair and
6 unconditional support of the
7 industry..."
8 7254 Could you explain to me what your
9 view is of "fair and unconditional support".
10 7255 MS FUSCA: First of all, I think we
11 have to start out with a realistic licence fee. I
12 think that everything that is being pooled into --
13 7256 I always thought that when the tax
14 credit first came out, it was actually meant to be an
15 incentive for producers to put some of that money back
16 into their companies, into development. That is what I
17 thought.
18 7257 Suddenly, all of the tax credits are
19 being used as part of the financing.
20 7258 Anyway, I think we have to have
21 proper licence fees.
22 7259 I am most grateful for the -- I call
23 it the Cable Production Fund still -- the Canadian
24 Television Fund. I think that is incredibly useful.
25 7260 We are also very lucky that we still
StenoTran
1574
1 have Telefilm.
2 7261 You are going to need it all. The
3 realities of the marketplace are such that if you want
4 to do something really indigenous, whether it is a
5 documentary or drama -- I have had experience in both
6 now -- it is virtually impossible to try to get
7 anything but very little money outside of the country
8 before that product is finished, in any event. That is
9 what I mean by it.
10 7262 If they are really sincere, they
11 should put their money where their mouth is.
12 7263 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Do you agree
13 with Mr. Nielsen that the point system can be
14 manipulated?
15 7264 MS FUSCA: Yes.
16 7265 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Do you feel
17 that a discretionary system would work better? I think
18 he said that a discretionary system would force people
19 to be responsible for the decisions that they make.
20 7266 MS FUSCA: No, I am not into
21 developing other systems. My God, we have so many
22 systems already that I am fatigued completely by them
23 all.
24 7267 I would suggest that we have a system
25 in place. Make it flexible. Just make it flexible.
StenoTran
1575
1 If you have 10 out of 10 points, that program is worth
2 150. If it is 6 or 7, make it worth 100. I am not
3 suggesting that they are equal. The greatest desire
4 for the greatest good is to do the 10-10-10 thing.
5 7268 It is virtually impossible right now
6 in Canada to produce something that is a Canadian
7 subject and then use maybe two or three people that you
8 may need specifically for that production that you
9 currently cannot use. So what do you do?
10 7269 You abandon the entire system is
11 actually what you do and pretend that you don't live
12 here.
13 7270 COMMISSIONER WILSON: On page 3 of
14 your submission this morning, you said:
15 "I have been and continue to be
16 terribly concerned and
17 frustrated by the extremely
18 narrow focus we as an industry
19 have tended to take when it
20 comes to Canadian Content
21 issues."
22 7271 When you use the phrase "we as an
23 industry", are you using that in sort of broad brush
24 strokes: the independent producers, the broadcasters,
25 the regulators, all of them?
StenoTran
1576
1 7272 MS FUSCA: Yes, I am actually.
2 7273 COMMISSIONER WILSON: And what do you
3 mean by "the extremely narrow focus"?
4 7274 MS FUSCA: Again, I think it is a
5 content issue. We have had CFTPA conferences where I
6 think somebody starts talking about: "Is 'Due South'
7 really Canadian?" It's Canadian.
8 7275 Frankly, where I digress from Richard
9 is on "Traders". It's Canadian.
10 7276 You know, you get to that point where
11 you think --
12 7277 I am reading a story right now
13 written by two women about a little boy and this woman
14 and an abusive father. Is that Canadian? Could that
15 situation not exist elsewhere, but it does exist here?
16 That is all I really worry about.
17 7278 Actually, I am also really worried
18 about the whole idea that the minute that I might want
19 to use --
20 7279 Because it is appropriate. It is
21 what makes something commercially viable, both
22 economically and in terms of getting people to watch
23 your program, to use an American director or -- I don't
24 know -- a director from Timbuctoo. You can't do it.
25 That is what I worry about.
StenoTran
1577
1 7280 And my own organization, the CFTPA,
2 while they say that we can write and produce science
3 fiction and mysteries, it is a bit of a throwaway.
4 Their primary focus is on the 10-10-10 thing.
5 7281 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I was going to
6 ask you about the whole notion that maybe what we need
7 to do is split the fund into two areas -- and this
8 flows out of something that Mr. Nielsen also spoke
9 about this morning, and that a number of other
10 intervenors have talked about.
11 7282 It is that there are programs like
12 "Traders" and "Due South" that are really made more for
13 export than to be distinctively Canadian.
14 7283 Should we split our objectives and
15 recognize that we have industrial objectives and
16 cultural objectives?
17 7284 MS FUSCA: That actually might really
18 help. However, I just want to say that as a parent of
19 four children, all of whom were born here, I do
20 consider that what I do, despite perhaps the theme, is
21 very Canadian.
22 7285 But I don't object. And I think we
23 do have to find a solution.
24 7286 If the solution means that yes, we
25 should, and maybe we get a little bit less because our
StenoTran
1578
1 focus currently is to get into --
2 7287 Canadian heroes would be a wonderful
3 thing for my kids to see instead of always doing stuff
4 where we are talking about how horrible those Canadians
5 were. It would be really nice. And for sure, I would
6 certainly welcome that.
7 7288 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You make a
8 number of comments about the CBC. The CBC seems to be
9 a bit of a target this morning. Mr. Nielsen also was
10 talking about some of his experiences.
11 7289 In view of the comments that you make
12 on pages 5 and 6 of your submission this morning, do
13 you think that the CBC's portion of the funding and the
14 fund should be more limited? Or should there be
15 requirements attached to their accessing of those funds
16 in terms of exhibiting independent production?
17 7290 MS FUSCA: I have to admit I had not
18 really given any thought to divvying up the envelope as
19 it currently stands. And I would rather not comment on
20 that without having thought it through.
21 7291 I don't really think that that has an
22 effect, personally, on my concern.
23 7292 COMMISSIONER WILSON: What would deal
24 with the concerns that you have expressed?
25 7293 MS FUSCA: I think that the CFTPA at
StenoTran
1579
1 least put forth one suggestion. I do know that there
2 are producers who would not come up and shake as much
3 as I did telling you what I felt was really important
4 to say, something that has been brewing in me for a
5 very long time -- and something, by the way, that I
6 have not avoided sharing with senior people at CBC.
7 7294 I am not coming here before you today
8 and telling you something, for example, that Sloko
9 Klimku doesn't know about how I feel. It has gone on
10 for far too long.
11 7295 If today I wanted to do a piece that
12 was positive police, I know that I would stand very
13 little chance of doing that. Pro defence is just not a
14 good subject. But if I want to do the single mother
15 and how bad the Harris government is, that would get
16 done.
17 7296 It is very clear to me, then, that we
18 are not independent.
19 7297 And worse still is that if Canadians
20 have a certain point of view, they cannot express it.
21 And I don't believe that that is either in the charter
22 of the CRTC or even the charter of the CBC, for that
23 matter.
24 7298 I think that all those John Stuart
25 Mill types, on liberty and classical liberals, are
StenoTran
1580
1 turning over in their graves. I think it is dangerous.
2 7299 So I think that that is a step.
3 7300 I also think that perhaps my coming
4 to you and saying this might cause somebody at CBC to
5 have a conversation amongst themselves. I am not into
6 developing more rules and more regulations and watching
7 over everybody's shoulder.
8 7301 But they really have to be careful.
9 They cannot discount producers that way, and they
10 cannot discount public opinion that way either.
11 7302 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I would like to
12 turn to the written submission, which I believe was
13 submitted by your colleague Kitson Vincent.
14 7303 MS FUSCA: He is the Chairman of our
15 company, yes.
16 7304 COMMISSIONER WILSON: In the
17 submission, Stornoway suggests that the "Commission
18 place greater emphasis on scheduling of long-form,
19 independently produced Canadian documentary programs"
20 by "crediting documentaries, broadcast in peak viewing
21 times, with 150 percent Canadian".
22 7305 Can you think of any other incentives
23 there might be? Your company is primarily occupied by
24 producing documentaries. Are there any other --
25 7306 MS FUSCA: Actually, we are not. We
StenoTran
1581
1 have two streams. Mr. Vincent does the documentary
2 stream, and I do the drama stream. That is the way we
3 have split it up.
4 7307 I think the reason we wrote that is
5 because we understood clearly a few years ago, when
6 drama was given a leg up -- and I think there was good
7 reason for it. At this point, I think they have had
8 long enough to go. It's like we have gone from toddler
9 to maybe childhood.
10 7308 I just think we require a level
11 playing field for documentary producers.
12 7309 The other thing is that if
13 documentaries are worth as much, then those
14 broadcasters who might wish to do long form
15 documentaries now have a better incentive.
16 7310 Broadcasters have used that as an
17 excuse, saying: "Look, it is not worth the same."
18 7311 I am not sure about all of their
19 motives. I just think it is to provide a level playing
20 field between the two genres at this point.
21 7312 COMMISSIONER WILSON: If we were to
22 add documentaries to the under-represented categories,
23 would --
24 7313 I am glad that you clarified for me
25 that Stornoway has the two different streams of
StenoTran
1582
1 production, the documentaries and the drama, because
2 that was not apparent from Mr. Vincent's written
3 submission.
4 7314 MS FUSCA: He did it while I was
5 away.
6 7315 COMMISSIONER WILSON: The Commission
7 has for some time placed additional emphasis on the
8 production of scheduling of programming Categories 7, 8
9 and 9, primarily Canadian drama.
10 7316 What impact do you think adding
11 documentaries would have on that?
12 7317 MS FUSCA: I only have one fear. I
13 sort of wear two different hats, so I do have one fear
14 that I did not voice in my submission; which is that if
15 it is left up to broadcasters what will make up their
16 Canadian content quotas, for lack of a better word,
17 what I fear is that it is a lot easier to give a
18 producer $50,000 to produce a documentary, or $100,000
19 to fill up two hours, versus a couple of hundred
20 thousand to buy a drama.
21 7318 That is a genuine concern of mine.
22 7319 Frankly, I am not really sure how to
23 address that, other than perhaps to say that of the
24 content, a certain amount, a minimum amount, should be
25 drama. That way, if the rest wanted to do drama, they
StenoTran
1583
1 could. But they could also commission documentaries.
2 7320 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Some of the
3 intervenors who have appeared before us have suggested
4 that in order to qualify as a Canadian program, a
5 documentary need not deal with a Canadian subject.
6 7321 MS FUSCA: I would agree.
7 7322 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You would
8 agree?
9 7323 MS FUSCA: For example, one of the
10 documentaries that we did -- mind you, it was a huge
11 documentary. It was predominantly about peacekeeping,
12 and Canada plays such a huge role in peacekeeping.
13 7324 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That is a very
14 Canadian thing.
15 7325 MS FUSCA: I know. But having said
16 that, what if we had decided that as -- which we
17 incorporated in this documentary. But what if after
18 that we had decided that we wanted to look at the
19 aftermath of the Gulf War and how the U.N. was dealing
20 with the Kurdish situation.
21 7326 How Canadian was that really? It
22 involved for the very first time U.N. security guards
23 going in as humanitarian assistance.
24 7327 We definitely have our own view about
25 those kinds of things, obviously. That is what makes
StenoTran
1584
1 us --
2 7328 I don't have any problem
3 distinguishing myself from Americans.
4 7329 I think it is really important. I am
5 really rather surprised --
6 7330 I was talking to Rudy Buttignol about
7 this concern that some people have about Canadians
8 using stock footage to produce a documentary. Well,
9 how else are you going to do an historical piece? Does
10 this mean that a Canadian might never have a desire to
11 do a piece on Tibet, another documentary on the Dahli
12 Lama? That would preclude us doing it. I just don't
13 really see the point.
14 7331 What would we do? Buy documentaries
15 from foreigners to broadcast here on those kinds of
16 subjects? Is that the alternative?
17 7332 COMMISSIONER WILSON: This is sort of
18 pointing toward what I had raised with you earlier --
19 7333 MS FUSCA: No, I have absolutely no
20 problem.
21 7334 COMMISSIONER WILSON: -- which is the
22 industrial objectives which are employing Canadians and
23 creating jobs, and the cultural objectives.
24 7335 MS FUSCA: But dealing with a non-
25 Canadian subject, having done both, I don't recall
StenoTran
1585
1 employing more or less people. Albeit when you are
2 buying stock footage, if we don't have it in Canada,
3 you are forced to buy it abroad. But foreigners do the
4 same thing.
5 7336 The notion that we should have a
6 Canadian buy it from a foreigner and then have the
7 producer buy it from the distributor makes no sense at
8 all. And it is going to cost more.
9 7337 I must say that people who produce
10 documentaries really do it for the love of it, I swear.
11 You don't do it for any other reason than that.
12 7338 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am going to
13 ask you if I should ask you this, considering that your
14 colleague filed this while you were away.
15 7339 He attached quite an interesting
16 article about Neil Postman. It basically has to do
17 with documentaries.
18 7340 I don't know if you want to address
19 that.
20 7341 MS FUSCA: You can try me. I read it
21 a long time ago.
22 7342 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Richard Nielsen
23 said this morning about documentaries that they are a
24 wonderful way of cutting across the stereotyped news
25 coverage. I was interested because that is essentially
StenoTran
1586
1 what Neil Postman talks about.
2 7343 I will quote a little bit of this and
3 maybe you can speak to it. I thought it was
4 interesting in terms of encouraging broadcasters to
5 carry more documentaries.
6 7344 He says:
7 "The problem with TV news...is
8 that the networks impart too
9 much information and not enough
10 knowledge and wisdom.
11 The result?
12 An audience left without 'a
13 sense of coherence' about the
14 world, an audience who simply
15 turns off."
16 7345 He goes on:
17 "To people in TV news who, by
18 choice, or by corporate edict,
19 care about ratings, news is what
20 is 'important'.
21 But, more often, it's about what
22 will keep the eyeballs glued to
23 the channel.
24 So, instead of hearing much
25 about health care, education or
StenoTran
1587
1 what impact a day's developments
2 will have on a community,
3 viewers get crashes, crimes and
4 presidential (body parts)."
5 7346 I won't quote the word that was used
6 in the article.
7 "These are what Postman calls
8 information, 'statements we make
9 about the facts of the world'.
10 Knowledge, on the other hand, is
11 information organized for
12 coherence while wisdom is
13 understanding the implications
14 of the knowledge."
15 7347 I guess Mr. Vincent, your colleague,
16 submitted this because he felt that by adding
17 documentaries to the under-represented categories,
18 maybe what we can do in an age of information overload
19 is provide more context and more coherence for the
20 viewer.
21 7348 MS FUSCA: That's right. I think
22 that when you can attract an audience in a documentary,
23 what you actually do --
24 7349 Everybody worries about
25 desensitization. We have heard a lot about that. But
StenoTran
1588
1 when you put it into context, both in terms of
2 geography, time, issue, if you will, I think that you
3 -- Richard may not agree with this. I think you help
4 to undo the damage of desensitization, because you
5 become more involved.
6 7350 That is if you can bear to watch it
7 in the first place in some instances, albeit.
8 7351 I think that that is really all that
9 we are saying. Oftentimes broadcasters will say:
10 "Well, we covered that in the news."
11 7352 Neil Postman says it for us, I
12 suppose. That's how we feel about the way that news,
13 by its very nature -- this is not anything about news.
14 Just by its very nature, that is how news covers
15 information.
16 7353 We are saying we believe that for --
17 7354 Documentary producers can actually be
18 quite altruistic. But for the good of, in this
19 instance, the Canadian public we should have that kind
20 of information available.
21 7355 While we are on the subject, I want
22 to say that what CBC should do is listen to CBC radio
23 "Ideas". It might help.
24 7356 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You mean CBC
25 television should listen to CBC radio?
StenoTran
1589
1 7357 MS FUSCA: Yes, should listen to CBC
2 radio.
3 7358 If you listen to Lister Sinclair --
4 he is on at 9 o'clock almost every night -- there is an
5 enormous range of subject matter that deals with
6 varying points of views, from around the world
7 oftentimes.
8 7359 I think it is healthy. The more you
9 know, the better you are equipped to deal with your
10 life, your community and your country.
11 7360 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thank you for
12 your views. I want to say it has been very helpful to
13 me. This is my first hearing, and I have not been at
14 the Commission that long. It is really helpful to me
15 to have so many people from such a wide cross-section
16 of the industry appear before us.
17 7361 It is very useful in terms of helping
18 us grapple with these issues.
19 7362 Thank you very much.
20 7363 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms
21 Fusca.
22 7364 MS FUSCA: Thank you.
23 7365 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now take a
24 15-minute break. We will be back at 11:15.
25 7366 Nous reprenderons à onze heures et quatre.
StenoTran
1590
1 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1105
2 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1120
3 7367 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary,
4 would you invite the next participant, please.
5 7368 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
6 7369 The next presentation will be made by
7 Salter Street Films and I would invite Mr. Bishop and
8 Mr. Galipeau to make the presentation.
9 7370 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.
10 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
11 7371 MR. BISHOP: Good morning, Madam
12 Chairman, Members of the Commission and Commission
13 staff.
14 7372 My name is Charles Bishop and I am
15 Vice-President of Production for Salter Street Films.
16 With me is Claude Galipeau, our Vice-President for
17 Corporate Planning.
18 7373 We would like to apologize for the
19 absence of Michael Donovan, our Chairman and CEO, and
20 of Catherine Tait, our President and COO. Michael
21 could not make it today for health reasons. Catherine,
22 whom you met last week when she appeared on the CFTPA
23 panel, is in Europe preparing for MIPCOM.
24 7374 Before beginning, we would like to
25 present a few clips from some of our shows.
StenoTran
1591
1 --- Video Presentation / Présentation vidéo
2 7375 We would like to thank you for this
3 opportunity to participate in the Commission's review
4 of television policy. We believe these hearings are
5 central to the future of the broadcasting system and
6 will determine whether Canadian viewers in the future
7 have greater access to the stories that reflect their
8 interests, ideas, passions, values and tastes.
9 7376 Salter Street is committed to the
10 objectives of the Broadcasting Act and wants to help
11 meet the challenges to ensure that more Canadian
12 programs appear on television, that the quality of
13 these programs increases and that profitability for all
14 parts of the broadcasting system improves.
15 7377 The Canadian production sector is now
16 quite mature, with solid growth experience, tested
17 infrastructure and excellent talent. As a sector, we
18 can now produce the high-quality programs demanded by
19 the Canadian public.
20 7378 As our submission notes, it is now
21 time to focus policy instruments so that Canadian
22 programs, especially in the under-represented
23 categories, have better access to prime time.
24 7379 Greater access to prime time will
25 ensure more choices for the Canadian viewing public,
StenoTran
1592
1 and thus greater diversity in the broadcasting system.
2 In this regard, we endorse the CFTPA's 10/10/10 plan.
3 Now is the time to reclaim prime time for Canadian
4 programming.
5 7380 We do not, however, agree with the
6 CAB's proposal to self-regulated viewership targets.
7 We believe that this would likely maintain the status
8 quo and, from our experience, status quo meals falling
9 licence fees, less diversity and fewer regional
10 productions.
11 7381 We strongly support the CFTPA's
12 proposal of linking exhibition requirements for
13 conventional broadcasters with increased spending
14 requirements for programming in the under-represented
15 categories. We accept that achieving the 10 per cent
16 of revenues and ten hour goals will require a phased-in
17 approach, however, we believe that together this will
18 be the most powerful tool to achieve the objectives of
19 the Broadcasting Act.
20 7382 MR. GALIPEAU: Let me introduce you
21 to our company and describe its business strategy.
22 7383 THE CHAIRPERSON: Your mike, please.
23 7384 MR. GALIPEAU: Sorry.
24 7385 Salter Street was founded 15 years
25 ago and has grown to become an integrated entertainment
StenoTran
1593
1 company that is unique in this country. All our
2 operations are based in Halifax. We are the only
3 publicly traded entertainment company east of Montreal.
4 We have built our business on a 100 per cent Canadian
5 production strategy, that is on proprietary productions
6 where we own a minimum of 50 per cent of the rights.
7 On this point, we believe that intellectual property is
8 the real estate of the future and our business plan
9 depends on owning rights.
10 7386 We have also applied for three
11 specialty applications and, if granted, we would be the
12 only private specialty broadcaster in the Maritimes.
13 7387 Salter Street's business strategy is
14 based on two crucial assumptions: First, that high
15 quality Canadian programming can compete and win
16 substantial Canadian audiences and, second, that high
17 quality Canadian productions can compete and win
18 international sales and audiences, particularly in
19 evergreen genres such as science fiction and children's
20 programs.
21 7388 In our experience, producing Canadian
22 programming is not just exciting, but is a viable
23 business opportunity, even in the regions. The
24 evidence shows that when programmed correctly, high
25 quality Canadian programming attracts audiences.
StenoTran
1594
1 7389 For example, our program "This Hour
2 Has 22 Minutes", which is broadcast twice weekly on the
3 CBC, regularly reaches over two million cumulative
4 viewers per week. Each broadcast of "This Hour"
5 achieves an audience share between 10 and 17 per cent.
6 Moreover, in regular viewership, episodes of "This
7 Hour" or "Air Farce" often outpace most U.S. programs
8 for the attention of Canadian viewers, even in prime
9 time.
10 7390 Salter Street's experience also
11 confirms that Canadians greatly enjoy homegrown
12 dramatic stories. When "Emily of New Moon", our
13 co-production with CINAR Films, premiered in January
14 1998 on the CBC, in the heart of prime time, it reached
15 1.3 million viewers. As a piece of event television,
16 the first "Emily" episode ranked in the top three
17 programs offered that night by broadcasters in the
18 major Canadian markets.
19 7391 In addition, our four two-hour
20 science fiction television series, "LEXX", did very
21 well in the Canadian market. When the first movie
22 aired on CHUM Citytv on April 18, 1997. It reached
23 almost one million viewers in the Toronto area, making
24 "LEXX" the highest rated Canadian movie in the history
25 of Citytv.
StenoTran
1595
1 7392 These entertainment programs were
2 aired in prime time. Their success is proof that large
3 numbers of Canadians will watch programs in the
4 under-represented categories when these programs are
5 scheduled in prime time. Each one of the examples
6 cited has been renewed, and in the case of "This Hour",
7 six times.
8 7393 MR. BISHOP: We do not agree with the
9 CAB's proposal that viewership be the sole measure of
10 performance in the broadcasting system. Of course, as
11 producers we are committed to reaching large audiences.
12 As Linda Schuyler said last week, high ratings mean
13 that our programs are renewed.
14 7394 Indeed, this is a compelling business
15 reason for producing high quality content. But to be
16 successful, programs must be produced with adequate
17 licence fees and properly scheduled. The CAB's
18 proposal offers no guarantees on spending or proper
19 scheduling.
20 7395 We do agree with the CFTPA's concerns
21 regarding structural separation in the broadcasting
22 system. We think it is important that the gatekeeper
23 who triggers licence fees should not also control the
24 distribution of that particular program or access to
25 Telefilm funding.
StenoTran
1596
1 7396 The "independent" in independent
2 producer means controlling the destiny of intellectual
3 property. Safeguards must be put in place so that
4 licence fee contracts and distribution agreements
5 remain distinct. The autonomy and financial viability
6 of the independent production sector are dependent on
7 such a structural separation.
8 7397 Structural separation is even more
9 important from the perspective of regional producers,
10 such as Salter Street. While we recognize the global
11 trend of consolidation in our industry, risks to
12 diversity are inherent in this. Access for regional
13 producers is more difficult, not to say threatened,
14 when all the broadcasters are based in central Canada.
15 7398 We need to be attentive to the risks
16 of undermining access for those producers who provide a
17 wide range of programming to Canadians, a range that
18 allows "Emily of New Moon" to be filmed in P.E.I. and
19 for a comedy troupe from Newfoundland to become the
20 unofficial editorial board of the country on "This Hour
21 Has 22 Minutes".
22 7399 Incentives must remain in place or be
23 strengthened to ensure that national private
24 broadcasters provide entertainment programming that
25 reflects all the regions of the country, in partnership
StenoTran
1597
1 with the independent production sector. This job
2 should not be left solely to the CBC.
3 7400 While the existing regional
4 incentives in public funding mechanisms, such as the
5 CTF, have worked, as the squeeze on those funds
6 tightens, they are at risk. We believe that
7 requirements to work with regional producers should be
8 present in broadcasters' conditions of licence.
9 7401 As a production company, Salter
10 Street has focused on producing for both the Canadian
11 and international markets. Within the spectrum of
12 certifiable Canadian content, we recognize that
13 Canadian programming has a range of domestic and
14 international appeal. "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" does
15 not travel well abroad, for example, while "LEXX" does.
16 7402 However, we believe that a goal for
17 the domestic broadcasting system should be to exhibit
18 Canadian content that is made by Canadians. That is
19 why we recommend that the Canadian content be defined
20 as ten out of ten CAVCO points and that this objective
21 be a goal for the system.
22 7403 We wish to emphasize that we do not
23 believe that Canadian content should be defined on the
24 basis of Canadian themes or locales. What is important
25 is control by Canadians of the creative process and the
StenoTran
1598
1 holding of rights.
2 7404 We do diverge from the CFTPA position
3 on the issue of promotion. We do not believe that
4 precious shelf space for entertainment programming in
5 prime time should be sacrificed to promotion. If
6 broadcasters program in prime time, if they spend
7 appropriate amounts in licence fees to produce high
8 quality entertainment programming, then they will spend
9 on promoting Canadian programming. Such spending will
10 be part of their normal course of business, that is,
11 they will do so to attract audiences and meet the
12 expectations of their advertisers.
13 7405 MR. GALIPEAU: In sum, we do not
14 agree that the CAB's proposals will help us get more
15 Canadian programs, of better quality and increase the
16 profitability for all parts of the broadcasting system.
17 We endorse the position of the CFTPA and its 10/10/10
18 plan.
19 7406 This plan, with one notable exception
20 on the issue of promotion, will help to increase the
21 demand and supply of high quality Canadian television
22 programming, augment choice for the viewer in the heart
23 of prime time by widening the shelf space for Canadian
24 content, further Canadianize prime time and build on
25 the successes of past policies in creating a viable
StenoTran
1599
1 independent production sector in Canada.
2 7407 Thank you for your attention. We are
3 ready to answer your questions.
4 7408 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
5 gentlemen.
6 7409 Commissioner Cardozo.
7 7410 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam
8 Chair.
9 7411 Thanks, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Galipeau.
10 7412 I wonder if we could start by talking
11 about identifiably Canadian. I ask you this question
12 in special light of the three of your top programs that
13 Catherine Tait mentioned as well when she was here last
14 week, "22 Minutes", "Emily of New Moon" and "LEXX".
15 7413 "22 Minutes" as I understand it is,
16 of course, identifiably Canadian, doesn't have legs,
17 doesn't travel because of the kind of content. "Emily
18 of New Moon", also identifiably Canadian, but does
19 travel and "LEXX' not identifiably Canadian, a
20 co-production, maybe, maybe not -- well, you can tell
21 me that and correct me if I'm wrong -- and does travel
22 well.
23 7414 You note in your comments today that
24 "Canadian" should not be defined in terms of themes and
25 locales. I guess a couple of questions.
StenoTran
1600
1 7415 How do you define "Canadian"?
2 7416 MR. BISHOP: Well, what I would say
3 there is what we talk about is the control by
4 Canadians. It's important that the creative process is
5 a Canadian process and that the holding of rights is
6 also a Canadian process. In that case "LEXX" does
7 qualify.
8 7417 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In terms of
9 themes and locales which a number of other people have
10 talked about as things that would identify it as
11 Canadian, it doesn't strike much there.
12 7418 MR. GALIPEAU: On the identifiable
13 Canadian and the issue of themes and locales, I would
14 just make one general point.
15 7419 Canadians should be able to produce
16 dramatic programming which is not necessarily related
17 to theme or locale but is part of a dramatic story
18 which they can present in a unique perspective.
19 Canadians should be able to produce Shakespeare, not
20 necessarily have it take place in Halifax, but give it
21 a unique Canadian flavour or at least have full
22 creative control over that product.
23 7420 That's definitely the case in theatre
24 with Robert Lepage, for example. It's certainly
25 possible with Stratford. It's possible to have that.
StenoTran
1601
1 We wouldn't want to see that precluded. The important
2 thing really is creative control.
3 7421 "LEXX" in particular is a production
4 that is based in Halifax, but it's in a sound stage.
5 It is set in a parallel universe. It's not a Canadian
6 locale necessarily or a Canadian theme. It is written
7 by Canadians, by Nova Scotians, and the creative
8 process is controlled by Canadians.
9 7422 It does have some things that are --
10 when we go into the international marketplace and try
11 to sell "LEXX", it's known as a Canadian product and in
12 a certain way which it is not identified as an American
13 product because it does certain things with the genre
14 of science fiction that you don't find in American
15 science fiction, that is that it doesn't have a happy
16 ending, it has kind of misfits, it's odd-ball, it's off
17 the wall. It plays with the genre of science fiction.
18 It's not a kind of a "Star Trek" kind of thing.
19 7423 Canadians are quite good in fact at
20 playing with genres. They do it in comedy. SCTV, for
21 example, would be an example of something that has
22 themes which are strictly American very often, but
23 Canadians replay back American content to Americans and
24 to Canadians in an ironic way. That's what Canadians
25 are able to give. It was a Canadian program.
StenoTran
1602
1 7424 When you get into the themes and
2 locales, we just had a problem. We think the most
3 important thing is really creative control and the
4 holding of rights to define something as distinctively
5 Canadian.
6 7425 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: One might say
7 you are only doing that because "LEXX" doesn't rate
8 high in terms of the themes and locales whereas the
9 other two do and you are just trying to come up with a
10 justification for putting "LEXX" on the Canadian
11 screen.
12 7426 I kind of draw a continuum between
13 cultural objectives on one end and industrial
14 objectives on the other which you are giving as a
15 definition that rates closer to industrial objectives.
16 7427 MR. GALIPEAU: No. I was just trying
17 to deal with the argument that for aesthetic reasons,
18 you know, you couldn't call "LEXX" Canadian. I am just
19 trying to make an argument that perhaps you can.
20 7428 Clearly, it's important for a company
21 such as Salter Street and other production companies to
22 have a range of product. That's what we do. We
23 consider it's important to have some product that
24 travels extremely well internationally in order to make
25 money, but also build an infrastructure, use our talent
StenoTran
1603
1 and so on.
2 7429 MR. BISHOP: I think there's some
3 inherent dangers in specifying that all programming
4 must have, you know, Canadian locales or that sort of
5 content because you will find -- perhaps you will find
6 just Canadian references dropped into the middle of a
7 dramatic program for no apparent reason other than the
8 fact that they are indeed Canadian and that will then
9 qualify the show as having been shot in Canada.
10 Perhaps it will have a Mountie walk into the frame or
11 something like that which will give it that Canadian
12 location.
13 7430 I think that there is a danger in
14 going in that direction.
15 7431 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Just so that
16 we understand a bit more about what's about there for
17 production, can you tell us a little bit about your
18 sound stage.
19 7432 MR. BISHOP: Sure. It's called
20 Electropolis. There are four sound stages in the
21 complex. The ceiling height I think is around 70 feet.
22 I don't know all the dimensions, but it's a very
23 sophisticated sound stage and will adequately hold any
24 feature film, series, television production, whatever
25 we can put in it.
StenoTran
1604
1 7433 MR. GALIPEAU: It's a particularly
2 good sound stage for special effects because it's an
3 abandoned -- well, it used to be a power structure so
4 it's a very, very large structure. You are able to go
5 very far back from the green wall, the green screen
6 which used to be called the blue screen, but it's
7 actually green. You are to go very, very far back to
8 maintain perspective and to have very good shots in
9 space.
10 7434 It's a very good sound stage for
11 that. It's extremely soundproof. It's made out of
12 reinforced concrete. It was built after the second
13 world war and was a strategic asset, so it's very, very
14 solid. It's floodable.
15 7435 It's a multi-use sound stage. Those
16 who come to visit from around the world are rather
17 impressed by it and its facilities and its
18 capabilities.
19 7436 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So you use it
20 for all these productions -- well, not necessarily "22
21 Minutes", but you can use it for something like "Emily"
22 as well as --
23 7437 MR. BISHOP: Yes. We have used it on
24 "LEXX", "Celtic Electric". We are starting up another
25 children's series and we will be using the facilities
StenoTran
1605
1 for that. It is being used by other independent
2 producers in the region as well. It's not exclusively
3 used by Salter Street Films.
4 7438 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: One of the
5 other issues you talked about is what you referred to
6 as structural separation, I think, as to why producers
7 shouldn't have access to the same funds, to the kinds
8 of funds that -- the broadcaster shouldn't have access
9 to the funds that the independent producer has.
10 1140
11 7439 Would that change if Salter had as
12 you have applied before and are applying again for a
13 specialty and were to be licensed?
14 7440 MR. GALIPEAU: We appeared before the
15 Commission in a previous round presenting a specialty
16 application for comedy. In that application we were
17 very aware of the issue of self-dealing and we at that
18 time had concerns about vertical integration.
19 7441 We specifically built into that
20 application and we think it is very important to see in
21 the system, especially when producers are involved in
22 broadcasting and vice versa, that there be clear
23 safeguards against self-dealing. So, we had in the
24 previous application had put forward a proposal of
25 having a certain percentage of expenditures be spent in
StenoTran
1606
1 the independent production community and it be fully
2 arm's length from the shareholders.
3 7442 So, we were trying to work on trying
4 to establish safeguards. When we talk about structural
5 separation in this brief, we are just trying to
6 reinforce the need for safeguards against self-dealing.
7 7443 With regard to broadcasters in the
8 situation, now that we are in a situation where
9 broadcasters do trigger licence fees and we are
10 actually concerned that now that they have a trigger
11 they also have a hammer as well.
12 7444 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But having
13 said that, do you think that there is strong
14 justification for keeping that structural separation?
15 Is there something that an independent producer can do
16 that an in-house producer or broadcaster can't because
17 at some point if you were to have a specialty you are
18 going to look a lot like the production arm of a
19 broadcaster?
20 7445 MR. BISHOP: I would expect that we
21 would want to be accessing the broadest range of
22 creative talent in the community and, therefore, it
23 would be to the best interests of the station to go and
24 access the independent production community and licence
25 quality creative programs from the independent sector
StenoTran
1607
1 to put on those specialty channels.
2 7446 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In terms of
3 international productions could you tell us a little
4 bit about "Lexx?" It sounds like an interesting
5 undertaking. It is, as I think you put it, a
6 Halifax/German co-production. How does that work in
7 terms of putting it together? How does it work in
8 terms of shooting and in terms of funding and language?
9 7447 MR. GALIPEAU: I will talk a little
10 bit about it and then Charles will as well. It is
11 produced under an official co-production treaty with
12 Germany. Our co-producer is Time in Germany. We shoot
13 both in Berlin, as well as in Halifax, and we also do
14 special effects both in Berlin and in Halifax. Maybe
15 Charles could comment on the creative.
16 7448 MR. BISHOP: As we have already said,
17 the writers are Canadian and the director is as well.
18 The principal photography does take place in Halifax
19 and most of the special effects and model building.
20 There is enormous set construction and giant bugs and
21 things like that that we build in Halifax.
22 7449 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The bugs are
23 Canadian?
24 7450 MR. BISHOP: The bugs are definitely
25 Canadian.
StenoTran
1608
1 7451 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: That's good, a
2 good start.
3 7452 MR. GALIPEAU: They are built in a
4 Via hangar, an abandoned Via hangar.
5 7453 MR. BISHOP: A Via-Rail hangar which
6 is across the road from the studio.
7 7454 There is a small percentage of the
8 2-D special effects that come from Berlin as well. But
9 the majority of the production is taking place in Nova
10 Scotia.
11 7455 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Now, what
12 language? Is it made in English or German?
13 7456 MR. BISHOP: It is made in English
14 and there is dubbing.
15 7457 MR. GALIPEAU: It is dubbed
16 afterwards.
17 7458 MR. BISHOP: In Germany they are
18 quite used to seeing dubbed programs. It is not
19 something that Canadian audiences would find
20 acceptable, but in the German market they are so used
21 to it and it's accepted.
22 7459 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And is it
23 selling elsewhere?
24 7460 MR. GALIPEAU: Has it been sold?
25 7461 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Yes.
StenoTran
1609
1 7462 MR. GALIPEAU: It has been presold
2 in, I don't know, 100 territories.
3 7463 MR. BISHOP: I think so.
4 7464 MR. GALIPEAU: About 100 territories
5 and what the strategy here is with regard to "Lexx" was
6 to do something that would work in the international
7 marketplace, but where we did not in fact presell in
8 the United States in order to give up creative control.
9 7465 We presold around the world and not
10 in the United States and used the German co-production
11 treaty in order to increase our financing in order to
12 make something of very high quality for the
13 international marketplace. To be able to follow that
14 strategy, you are able to basically presell and finance
15 all your costs of production and then have something
16 that you can bring to a very large marketplace like the
17 United States.
18 7466 For example, we are going to Nipkon
19 right now to sell the program in the United States. So
20 that's another thing we have discovered in terms of
21 working in the co-production field with international
22 co-productions is that it gives us a certain kind of
23 ability to pivot away from the American market and
24 buyer and maintain control in a creative process and
25 then go into the American marketplace with somewhere
StenoTran
1610
1 where we have actually basically financed it completely
2 without the Americans.
3 7467 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But your co-
4 producing partner in Germany is Time?
5 7468 MR. GALIPEAU: Yes.
6 7469 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Time of -- the
7 American?
8 7470 MR. BISHOP: No, no. It's Time --
9 7471 MR. GALIPEAU: Time Film.
10 7472 MR. BISHOP: Time Film.
11 7473 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And it is
12 completely separate from Time Warner?
13 7474 MR. GALIPEAU: Yes.
14 7475 MR. BISHOP: Completely separate.
15 7476 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So you are
16 saying it is easier to go to the United States from
17 Canada via Germany than if you were to go directly to
18 the United States?
19 7477 MR. BISHOP: In this case it was the
20 way the project came together. It came together with a
21 co-production partner in Germany. It conceivably could
22 have come together with a co-production partner in
23 another treaty country.
24 7478 MR. GALIPEAU: It could have, but the
25 director and principal producer, Paul Donovan, who is
StenoTran
1611
1 one of the founders of Salter Street Films, once tried
2 -- when he did the first series of "Lexx," which are
3 four MOWs, he did present the proposal in the United
4 States. He had been working with someone at a
5 specialty channel there, a cable network. At one point
6 that person changed and when he returned to Los Angeles
7 he was told that, "Well, you know that we have this
8 deal that we are going to do this science fiction. You
9 are going to do the science fiction program the way we
10 say you are going to do it." Paul basically left and
11 followed another strategy, which enabled him and Salter
12 Street to have greater creative control.
13 7479 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: On the CFTPA
14 10, 10, 10 proposal -- I don't have the page reference
15 to it, but you were in favour of 150 per cent for a
16 certain type of programming. Is that correct?
17 7480 MR. GALIPEAU: A 150 per cent bonus
18 for feature film?
19 7481 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: For a feature
20 film.
21 7482 MR. GALIPEAU: For a feature film.
22 7483 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The question I
23 have and I am not concerned about the precise area, but
24 just the question of the more bonus you provide in one
25 area means less in another area. I am wondering is
StenoTran
1612
1 that fine for you to say since now you are big boys and
2 girls of course, and you have got this successful
3 thing. So you are sort of fully in the door, your
4 programs likely will do well, as opposed to a smaller,
5 newer producer.
6 7484 So, the issue of not using too many
7 hours up for extra credit means that somebody is going
8 to get squeezed out, likely newer producers. Is that
9 unfair?
10 7485 MR. GALIPEAU: It might be somewhat
11 unfair, given the fact that the broadcasting system is
12 fragmenting as it is often said and that there are many
13 buyers in the Canadian market for a wide variety of
14 programming. So, there is still, I believe, quite a
15 bit of room for -- you called it small producers to
16 produce product for the Canadian broadcasting system.
17 7486 With regard to the bonusing, we were
18 agreeing with the CFTPA and in order to create as many
19 incentives as possible and flexibility in the system to
20 Canadianize prime time.
21 7487 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But you
22 realize that what happens now, the 10, 10, 10 is 10,
23 10, 10 if necessary, but not necessarily 10, 10, 10, to
24 paraphrase an old historical phrase.
25 7488 Lastly, I want to ask you about
StenoTran
1613
1 regional and local programming. Do you see that you
2 have a specific role in regional programming? I
3 suppose not local, but you talked about being the
4 largest outfit east of Montreal. Certainly "22
5 Minutes" has a very regional flair, as does "Emily."
6 7489 MR. BISHOP: I think what we have
7 done there is created programs from the region that
8 speak to all Canadians. They are not regional programs
9 as such. I think their regionality is they are
10 produced in Atlantic Canada, but they also travel
11 across the country and are uniquely and distinctly
12 Canadian television shows.
13 7490 With respect to --
14 7491 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: With a locale
15 and a theme.
16 7492 MR. BISHOP: Exactly.
17 7493 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And legs.
18 7494 MR. BISHOP: But with respect to
19 local windows, I believe that the CBC has a one-half
20 hour local or regional show called "Land and Sea" that
21 is still produced in the region, but as far as I know
22 that may be the only window available for independent
23 producers trying to do regional documentaries in
24 Atlantic Canada.
25 7495 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But with
StenoTran
1614
1 "Emily" and "22 Minutes" and its predecessor "Codco,"
2 and "Codco started out as a regional program out of
3 Newfoundland, as I understand it, did the regional
4 thing help to get it onto the national stage and then
5 it took off? Like does it help to provide any kind of
6 incentive to broadcasters to do that because one of the
7 great things about both those programs, and perhaps
8 more "Emily" than "22 Minutes" is that it really began
9 this business of telling stories, telling Canadian
10 stories to each other. People across the country can
11 get this very P.E.I. centred story.
12 7496 MR. GALIPEAU: I think it actually is
13 important. If you look at something like "This Hour
14 Has 22 Minutes," one of its unique qualities is that it
15 does come from the regions and the talent is regionally
16 based. I would say it is not accidental that that is
17 the case, that if you go to Nova Scotia, if you go to
18 Newfoundland, the gaze onto the rest of the country is
19 one of ironic distance. They are phenomenally good at
20 sending us all up here in central Canada.
21 7497 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I think also
22 the politicians of Atlantic Canada aren't as amusing as
23 they used to be in the old days.
24 7498 MR. GALIPEAU: Yes.
25 7499 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: That covers my
StenoTran
1615
1 questions. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
2 7500 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
3 Pennefather.
4 7501 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
5 7502 You talked just now with Commissioner
6 Cardozo about the importance of incentives. We were
7 looking at it from the point of view of the credit
8 system and how it increases or not Canadian programming
9 in prime time. But when it comes to incentives for
10 promotion, you are not keen on that approach.
11 7503 We all know the importance of
12 promotion. If there is one thing that Salter Street
13 has done, it has promoted or insisted on promotion.
14 7504 I take it from your oral presentation
15 you would leave that to the broadcasters with no
16 incentives because of the idea of taking shelf space.
17 7505 Could you elaborate on the point of
18 promotion? You say at the end that a key is to
19 increase the demand and the supply. I am sure by
20 demand you mean consumers and broadcasters. So, let's
21 talk about promotion a little bit.
22 7506 MR. GALIPEAU: I will say a few
23 things and then Charles will supplement.
24 7507 I think with regard to the promotion
25 what we were concerned about was particularly the half
StenoTran
1616
1 hour being given away on the shelf space, as being
2 very, very precious.
3 7508 With regard to spending, I think that
4 we would support any kind of sharing of responsibility
5 on the part of producers and broadcasters for spending
6 on promotion, as that might be part of the Broadcast
7 Fund, the CTF.
8 7509 So, when we wrote in our brief that
9 we were really concerned about, promotion is really
10 just exclusively about shelf space, but we are willing
11 to put the dollars to promote and we also think the
12 broadcasters would be willing to put dollars to promote
13 programs if they are presenting a Canadian program in
14 that very prime real estate of shelf space in prime
15 time.
16 7510 MR. BISHOP: I would just add to that
17 that it is a very, very precious time. I think you
18 have heard from other producers about how important it
19 is to have those windows to play their dramas or
20 documentaries.
21 7511 I would agree that the broadcasters
22 will promote their own shows.
23 7512 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: But you
24 are not satisfied with the current promotion of
25 Canadian programming in this country, are you?
StenoTran
1617
1 7513 MR. BISHOP: I think we could always
2 do more.
3 7514 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Would you
4 have some --
5 7515 MR. BISHOP: I am not sure that
6 giving away a half an hour of prime time, valuable
7 prime time would be the way to do it. I don't have the
8 answers.
9 7516 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Not even
10 for the "Entertainment Tonight" style of promotional
11 program, provided that it was a majority Canadian
12 content in the show itself? You don't like that idea?
13 It has been bandied about quite a bit.
14 7517 MR. BISHOP: It's not that I don't
15 like the idea. I just think that there are perhaps
16 some other Canadian voices, Canadian stories that might
17 not get heard.
18 7518 MR. GALIPEAU: It's actually, I
19 think, if I might add, it's a genre issue because I
20 think the crucial thing is to help make -- spend a
21 sufficient amount of money to make high quality
22 dramatic programming and programming in the under-
23 represented categories.
24 7519 Now, an "Entertainment Tonight" kind
25 of program is an information program. It is a news
StenoTran
1618
1 program and broadcasters, as I think demonstrated, are
2 quite good at doing those kinds of programming already
3 and that they do use their existing schedule, as well
4 as to broadcast news and current affairs, which this
5 would be current affairs about entertainers. They do
6 meet much of their obligations, Canadian content
7 obligations by already providing that kind of
8 programming.
9 7520 So, they are tested and they do that
10 already. They just didn't want to give away prime time
11 supplement promotion, entertainment programming for
12 promotion.
13 7521 MR. BISHOP: I think that there are
14 many ways to promote Canadian television shows. There
15 are many mediums that television shows can be promoted
16 on and the people that appear in them and their themes
17 and there are many ways of advertising those programs.
18 Therefore, I just think it is too valuable a time to
19 give away.
20 7522 MR. GALIPEAU: I again would like to
21 add about this promotion issue. We work quite hard in
22 promoting our programs with publicists and the like and
23 it is done in other media. It is done in newspapers.
24 It is done in magazines. It is done in TV-Guide and
25 these kinds of things. It is done on the radio. It is
StenoTran
1619
1 done on websites now, so we are all trying to work to
2 help promote our product, as well as the broadcasters
3 trying to do so as well. But we are actively trying to
4 do so.
5 7523 Just to comment a little bit on the
6 point that there is an insufficient amount of promotion
7 and not a very good star system in Canada. We kind of
8 work for a company or a part of a company that has a
9 number of recognizable stars. They have achieved that
10 status by being in prime time, but also basically going
11 out and being present in the newspapers and magazines
12 and elsewhere.
13 7524 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
14 7525 Thank you, Madam Chair.
15 7526 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
16 Galipeau and Mr. Bishop.
17 7527 I am sure your regional Commissioner,
18 Vice-Chairman David Colville, is watching and on his
19 behalf I say hello.
20 7528 MR. BISHOP: Thank you.
21 7529 MR. GALIPEAU: Thank you.
22 7530 THE CHAIRPERSON: And have a good
23 trip home.
24 7531 MR. BISHOP: Thank you very much.
25 1205
StenoTran
1620
1 7532 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary,
2 voulez-vous s'il vous plaît inviter le participant
3 suivant.
4 7533 Mme BÉNARD: Merci, Madame la
5 Présidente.
6 7534 La prochaine présentation sera celle
7 de Groupe TVA inc., et j'inviterais M. Lamarre et ses
8 collègues à s'avancer à la table.
9 7535 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour, Monsieur
10 Lamarre. Nous connaissons l'efficacité de TVA et son
11 désir de bien utiliser son temps; donc j'ai une
12 proposition à vous faire pour m'assurer que vous allez
13 avoir un working lunch.
14 7536 Nous allons entendre votre
15 présentation, ensuite je vais vous donner un aperçu des
16 questions que j'ai et nous allons ensuite prendre une
17 pause d'une heure pendant laquelle vous allez
18 travailler sur mes questions et je vais examiner pour
19 une deuxième fois votre soumission écrite. Ça va?
20 7537 M. LAMARRE: Tout à fait. Ça nous
21 convient tout à fait, et je vous remercie de votre
22 délicatesse.
23 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
24 7538 M. LAMARRE: Alors Madame la
25 Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers,
StenoTran
1621
1 membres du Conseil, mon nom est Daniel Lamarre. Je
2 suis président et chef de la direction du Groupe TVA.
3 7539 J'ai le plaisir d'être accompagné
4 aujourd'hui, à ma droite, par M. André Provencher, qui
5 est vice-président, Programmation et directeur général
6 de l'antenne; à ma gauche, M. Claude Lizotte, qui est
7 directeur général, Marketing et Créativité média. À la
8 table derrière nous se trouvent M. Farès Khoury de la
9 firme Étude Économique Conseil, qui a préparé le modèle
10 économique produit avec notre mémoire, et Me Françine
11 Côté, conseiller juridique de TVA en matières
12 réglementaires et gouvernementales.
13 7540 C'est avec plaisir que nous prenons
14 avantage de l'invitation du Conseil à discuter des
15 propositions pour la révision de la politique de la
16 télévision canadienne. J'aimerais préciser, Madame la
17 Présidente, que TVA a pris votre invitation très au
18 sérieux. Pour les fins de cet exercice, TVA a
19 constitué un comité à l'interne avec la collaboration
20 de différents consultants pour produire un mémoire et
21 un modèle économique adaptés au système de
22 radiodiffusion de langue française.
23 7541 Groupe TVA, comme vous le savez, est
24 le plus important radiodiffuseur privé de langue
25 française au Canada. De fait, la principale raison de
StenoTran
1622
1 notre présence aujourd'hui, c'est de vous parler de la
2 spécificité du système de radiodiffusion de langue
3 française et vous convaincre d'adapter le cadre
4 réglementaire en conséquence.
5 7542 Plusieurs intervenants tels l'APFTQ
6 et Télé-Québec ont eu l'occasion de le souligner, la
7 réalité du marché francophone est tout à fait
8 différente de celle du reste du Canada et commande des
9 règles de jeu également différentes. La Loi sur la
10 radiodiffusion aborde d'ailleurs spécifiquement cette
11 réalité fondamentale depuis 1991. Le Conseil a reconnu
12 cette réalité dans plusieurs décisions et le besoin de
13 règles ou politiques particulières à cet égard.
14 Malheureusement, le Règlement relatif à la télévision
15 ne reconnaît pas, dans ses règles actuelles, la
16 spécificité du système de langue française.
17 7543 Permettez-moi de rappeler brièvement
18 les éléments qui démarquent le paysage audiovisuel
19 francophone en Amérique du Nord.
20 7544 L'étroitesse du marché en termes
21 d'auditoire et de recettes constitue une réalité avec
22 laquelle nous devons composer. À titre d'exemples, le
23 marché francophone est quatre fois plus petit que le
24 marché canadien anglais. Les sources de revenus
25 confondues, incluant la publicité, les revenus
StenoTran
1623
1 d'abonnement, les programmes publics d'appui et autres
2 représentent moins du tiers de celles du système
3 canadien de langue anglaise. Je voudrais également
4 souligner que les marchés d'exportation de nos produits
5 en langue française sont beaucoup moins importants et
6 plus difficiles à pénétrer.
7 7545 En dépit de cela, le succès de la
8 télévision francophone fait envie. Notre public
9 exprime clairement sa préférence pour des produits
10 locaux. Au printemps 1998 les sondages révélaient que
11 76,5 pour cent de l'écoute de la télévision par la
12 population totale au Québec était dévolue aux services
13 conventionnels et spécialisés de langue française.
14 7546 TVA, vous le savez, est le champion
15 des diffuseurs privés au titre de la production
16 d'émissions originales canadiennes. TVA consacre plus
17 de 85 pour cent de son budget de programmation aux
18 émissions canadiennes, ce qui le place en tête des
19 diffuseurs privés au Canada. C'est sans doute ce qui
20 explique que TVA obtient les meilleures cotes d'écoute
21 dans son marché. Que ce soit au printemps ou à l'été
22 1998, TVA emporte la palme pour l'ensemble des heures
23 d'écoute.
24 7547 Dans sa grille d'automne, TVA diffuse
25 six heures et demie de téléromans de grande écoute par
StenoTran
1624
1 semaine. Ces téléromans attirent des auditoires de 1 à
2 2 millions de téléspectateurs sur un marché potentiel
3 de 6 millions. La grille d'automne de TVA comporte 68
4 pour cent de contenu canadien et 84,5 heures de
5 programmation originale canadienne. Huit des dix
6 émissions les plus regardées cet été sont diffusées à
7 notre réseau, ce qui confirme le lien privilégié entre
8 TVA et les téléspectateurs.
9 7548 Les diffuseurs francophones ont su
10 s'adapter aux perturbations de leur environnement en
11 dépit de la crise structurelle de la télévision. Il
12 faut le reconnaître, notre environnement sera toujours
13 en mutation puisque nous sommes directement tributaires
14 des fluctuations de la conjoncture économique. La
15 situation actuelle est porteuse de risques accrus pour
16 l'avenir, en particulier pour les télévisions
17 conventionnelles du segment francophone, où l'histoire
18 des 15 dernières années montre une variabilité
19 significative des résultats, en termes de rentabilité,
20 des télédiffuseurs conventionnels. La multiplication
21 des services et la mondialisation des marchés sont
22 aussi des agents de changement importants pour notre
23 industrie.
24 7549 En s'exerçant en défaveur du groupe
25 des télévisions conventionnelles, la fragmentation de
StenoTran
1625
1 l'assiette publicitaire a aussi pesé sur leurs
2 conditions d'opération et leur rentabilité.
3 7550 Faut-il le rappeler, TVA a connu
4 plusieurs années déficitaires avec des pertes très
5 lourdes au début des années quatre-vingt-dix. Notre
6 situation financière s'est nettement améliorée à la
7 faveur d'une conjoncture économique des plus favorables
8 et d'un marché qui a connu une hausse sensible au cours
9 des dernières années. Cependant, force est de
10 reconnaître que la croissance s'est fortement ralentie
11 et qu'il y a haut lieu d'anticiper un recul marqué de
12 l'activité économique dans l'avenir immédiat. La
13 volatilité des marchés et l'incertitude des économies
14 mondiales sont des indices clairs à cet effet.
15 7551 Dans le système actuel, le mode de
16 gestion du cadre réglementaire a réduit les marges de
17 manoeuvre des télédiffuseurs en leur imposant des
18 exigences uniformes qui limitent en quelque sorte les
19 stratégies de différenciation et les approches
20 innovatrices que les forces du marché devraient
21 spontanément susciter. Il nous apparaît donc
22 primordial de prévoir un cadre réglementaire qui
23 intègre la réalité de l'asymétrie des marchés et qui
24 assure la souplesse et la flexibilité aux
25 télédiffuseurs du marché francophone pour leur
StenoTran
1626
1 permettre de se différencier et mieux servir les
2 objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.
3 7552 Ceci étant dit, nous pensons que le
4 système des licences est toujours pertinent, surtout
5 dans un système de concurrence plus ouverte.
6 7553 En résumé, donc, les caractéristiques
7 du cadre réglementaire que TVA souhaite pour l'avenir
8 sont les suivantes:
9 7554 Asymétrie: pour refléter la
10 spécificité du marché francophone.
11 7555 Flexibilité: pour susciter des
12 stratégies différenciées et innovatrices afin d'offrir
13 la diversité et la complémentarité recherchées.
14 7556 Equité: pour promouvoir la qualité
15 des contenus tout en assurant la vitalité des
16 différents intervenants dans le marché, par une
17 meilleure répartition des revenus entre télédiffuseurs.
18 7557 Sur cette toile de fond, je
19 demanderais à André Provencher de poursuivre sur la
20 question de nos rapports avec différents éléments du
21 système de radiodiffusion, soit les producteurs
22 indépendants, la télévision publique et la télévision
23 spécialisée.
24 7558 M. PROVENCHER: Bonjour, Madame la
25 Présidente, mesdames et messieurs.
StenoTran
1627
1 7559 Dans un premier temps, j'aborderai la
2 question de nos relations avec l'industrie de la
3 production indépendante. TVA reconnaît d'emblée le
4 rôle et la contribution tout à fait marquante de la
5 production indépendante dans le système francophone.
6 Ainsi notre grille d'automne comporte 26 heures
7 produites par le secteur indépendant. En 1998, TVA
8 consacrera un montant de 18 millions de dollars à la
9 production indépendante. TVA considère que son apport
10 comme télédiffuseur privé constitue une contribution
11 exceptionnelle à l'essor de la production canadienne.
12 7560 Cela étant dit, TVA estime que sa
13 stratégie gagnante repose sur un équilibre entre
14 l'apport des producteurs indépendants et celui de sa
15 production interne. Les objectifs de la Loi sur la
16 radiodiffusion visent à faire en sorte que les attentes
17 des téléspectateurs canadiens soient satisfaites; le
18 téléspectateur, quant à lui, n'est aucunement intéressé
19 à savoir si l'émission qu'il regarde est produite à
20 l'interne ou à l'externe. La mesure du succès et de la
21 pertinence des émissions se vérifie par les auditoires
22 qu'elles génèrent, par la satisfaction des
23 téléspectateurs.
24 7561 L'industrie de la production
25 indépendante est maintenant florissante. À titre
StenoTran
1628
1 d'exemples, en avril 1998 neuf sociétés canadiennes de
2 production étaient cotées en bourse, dont Coscient et
3 Cinar, totalisant une valeur boursière de 1,7 milliards
4 de dollars, soit 50 pour cent des recettes globales de
5 l'industrie.
6 7562 Nous pensons que le moment est
7 approprié pour suggérer une meilleure répartition des
8 responsabilités, des risques et des bénéfices entre
9 diffuseurs et producteurs indépendants. Ces nouveaux
10 rapports devraient comprendre l'accès des diffuseurs
11 privés aux fonds d'aide à la production et
12 l'établissement d'un véritable partenariat avec les
13 producteurs indépendants pour l'exploitation des
14 produits dans lesquels nous investissons, tant sur le
15 marché domestique que sur le marché international.
16 7563 J'aimerais maintenant aborder la
17 question des rapports entre la télévision publique et
18 la télévision privée.
19 7564 La Société Radio-Canada se trouve
20 proportionnellement moins affectée par la fragmentation
21 du marché publicitaire, compte tenu de l'importance
22 relative des subventions dans son financement. De
23 surcroît, comme l'explique notre modèle économique, la
24 Société Radio-Canada utilise des fonds publics pour
25 exercer des surenchères dans l'achat de droits
StenoTran
1629
1 d'émissions recherchées par les diffuseurs privés.
2 Elle exerce un effet de déflation sur le marché
3 publicitaire et entraîne les autres radiodiffuseurs
4 dans une spirale à l'effet pervers.
5 7565 Le nouveau cadre réglementaire
6 devrait permettre de redresser cette situation. Les
7 téléspectateurs canadiens seraient ainsi clairmeent
8 gagnants puisqu'on éviterait une dilapidation inutile
9 des sources de financement des émissions, déjà très
10 dispersées.
11 7566 D'autre part, il nous apparaît
12 inéquitable, ainsi que le font valoir plusieurs
13 intervenants, que 50 pour cent de la portion du fonds
14 Téléfilm du Fonds de télévision canadien soient
15 réservés à la Société Radio-Canada. Une formule de
16 répartition qui reconnaît la performance de l'écoute
17 d'une émission serait plus juste pour tous les
18 télédiffuseurs et permettrait d'utiliser ces fonds de
19 manière plus efficace, en assurant une plus grande
20 visibilité aux émissions financées à même les fonds
21 publics.
22 7567 Je conclus mes remarques en abordant
23 l'effet de la télévision spécialisée sur la télévision
24 généraliste.
25 7568 L'extension des services de
StenoTran
1630
1 télévision spécialisée et payante est un moyen utile et
2 nécessaire pour accroître la diversité et la variété
3 dans le système de radiodiffusion canadien. Toutefois,
4 il ne faut pas perdre de vue que la télévision
5 conventionnelle privée de langue française est le
6 moteur de la création, l'expression et la promotion de
7 la culture française au Canada, a fortiori dans un
8 petit marché comme le nôtre. La télévision spécialisée
9 peut être conçue comme un complément concurrentiel de
10 la télévision généraliste.
11 7569 À cet égard, et dans cette mesure, il
12 serait souhaitable de voir la télévision généraliste
13 participer de plus en plus directement à l'essor du
14 segment spécialisé de la radiodiffusion de langue
15 française. L'enjeu est de mettre en place des
16 conditions et moyens qui permettront aux télédiffuseurs
17 généralistes de langue française de capitaliser sur des
18 synergies et des complémentarités avec des
19 télédiffuseurs spécialisés et autres partenaires,
20 autant au Canada qu'à l'étranger.
21 7570 Tout en ayant accès aux revenus
22 d'abonnement, les chaînes spécialisées comptent pour
23 une partie croissante de leurs revenus sur le marché
24 publicitaire. Il n'y a pas, cependant, de
25 justification économique logique pour restreindre une
StenoTran
1631
1 catégorie de télédiffuseurs au seul marché publicitaire
2 alors que d'autres ont accès à des sources de
3 financement diversifiées.
4 7571 Il est clair aujourd'hui que les
5 radiodiffuseurs conventionnels doivent recouvrer une
6 plus grande marge de manoeuvre en matière de gestion de
7 leurs revenus publicitaires et de leurs autres revenus.
8 Il suffit que des éléments de flexibilité soient
9 introduits de manière à permettre à la concurrence de
10 jouer pleinement et s'assurer que la télévision
11 généraliste joue le rôle structurant nécessaire pour
12 garantir que notre système de radiodiffusion offre la
13 variété, tant au niveau généraliste que spécialisé.
14 7572 Je cède la parole à Daniel pour le
15 mot de la fin.
16 7573 M. LAMARRE: Alors, pour conclure,
17 nous pensons que le nouveau cadre de réglementation
18 doit survivre aux changements accélérés qui s'amorcent
19 pour les 10 ou 15 prochaines années.
20 7574 Vous aurez l'occasion en novembre
21 prochain, tout juste après avoir terminé le présent
22 processus, de commencer une autre consultation publique
23 relativement à la politique sur les nouveaux médias.
24 Selon nous, la télévision généraliste est au coeur du
25 développement des nouveaux médias.
StenoTran
1632
1 7575 Le nouveau cadre réglementaire de la
2 télévision devrait donc s'harmoniser avec le principe
3 de facilité, encourager et promouvoir le développement
4 des nouveaux médias en considérant la télévision comme
5 point d'appui de ce développement. Nous espérons que
6 les quelques pistes que nous vous avons suggérées à cet
7 effet seront utiles à votre réflexion.
8 7576 Nous vous remercions de votre
9 attention et nous sommes prêts à écouter vos questions.
10 7577 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour, madame,
11 messieurs.
12 7578 Votre intervention écrite et le
13 mémoire de la firme Étude Économique Conseil qui
14 l'accompagne reposent en grande partie sur un certain
15 rejet du système de réglementation de la télévision en
16 place, qui est décrit plus d'une fois comme un micro-
17 management ex ante. D'après vous, les forces du marché
18 peuvent de plus en plus assurer la protection de
19 l'intérêt public. Le système doit donc être, selon
20 vous, délesté de ses redondances et doit être plus
21 flexible là où la concurrence le permet ou le justifie,
22 avec un Conseil qui se limiterait à redresser les abus.
23 7579 Pourtant, ni vos soumissions ni le
24 mémoire n'offrent beaucoup de précisions ou de méthodes
25 très concrètes en ce qui concerne un système de
StenoTran
1633
1 réglementation plus souple, basé, je suppose, sur le
2 management ex post.
3 7580 Vous recommandez en même temps que le
4 Conseil continue à réglementer l'entrée de nouveaux
5 joueurs dans le domaine des canaux spécialisés mais
6 qu'il se fie à la concurrence et permette les
7 télévisions généralistes avec une plus grande liberté
8 d'intégration horizontale et verticale, présumément
9 pour limiter la concurrence.
10 7581 Lorsqu'il s'agit de Radio-Canada,
11 vous proposez un système d'interventions des plus
12 précises. Je veux donc surtout, d'une part, vous faire
13 préciser le système de réglementation que vous
14 préconisez pour l'avenir et, de l'autre, clarifier les
15 apparentes contradictions que j'ai soulevées -- et il y
16 en a d'autres -- dans vos propos en ce qui concerne le
17 protectionnisme que vous jugez toujours nécessaire dans
18 certains cas. J'aurai aussi des questions sur des
19 sujets précis, entre autres la concentration et
20 l'intégration verticale, la complémentarité entre les
21 secteurs public et privé, généraliste et spécialisé, et
22 les limites de la publicité à l'antenne.
23 7582 Donc je vous souhaite un bon lunch.
24 7583 Nous reprendrons après le déjeuner à
25 1 h 20, puisque nous avons une journée bien remplie.
StenoTran
1634
1 Alors ça nous donne donc une heure pour nous amuser.
2 7584 Au revoir.
3 --- Suspension à / Recess at 1220
4 --- Reprise à / Upon resuming at 1322
5 7585 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous redisons
6 bonjour, madame et messieurs de TVA. Vous avez bien
7 déjeuné?
8 7586 M. LAMARRE: Oui.
9 7587 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors maintenant, si
10 on revient à mon intention d'essayer de préciser
11 davantage ce que vous préconisez, je vais débuter en
12 vous demandant... je crois que c'est juste de conclure
13 que vous parlez surtout pour le marché francophone.
14 7588 M. LAMARRE: Oui.
15 7589 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Malgré ça, vous avez
16 indiqué au paragraphe 14 de votre soumission écrite que
17 vous souscrivez au mémoire de l'ACR dans l'instance.
18 7590 Doit-on conclure que vous êtes
19 d'accord avec la proposition de l'ACR selon laquelle le
20 Conseil, avec l'industrie, établirait des objectifs
21 d'écoute qui seraient utilisés comme barème de réussite
22 ou non dans le système de radiodiffusion?
23 7591 M. LAMARRE: La réponse à ça, c'est,
24 oui, c'est ce que nous proposons avec l'ACR.
25 7592 Ce qu'on a fait dans notre mémoire et
StenoTran
1635
1 la démarche que vous faisons devant vous aujourd'hui
2 toutefois va beaucoup plus loin parce que, comme on
3 vous l'a mentionné ce matin, nous croyons comme
4 diffuseur que nous avons deux responsabilités
5 importantes dans le marché francophone.
6 7593 La première, c'est un engagement
7 culturel que nous avons, comme vous le reconnaissez
8 vous-même, bien répondu parce que le Réseau TVA a
9 véritablement une feuille de route exemplaire à cet
10 égard. L'autre responsabilité que l'on a -- et
11 j'aimerais insister sur ce point -- c'est un engagement
12 économique vis-à-vis nos actionnaires et vis-à-vis nos
13 employés.
14 7594 Il y a une notion que j'aimerais
15 amener sur la table à cet égard; c'est que pendant
16 toutes les audiences jusqu'à maintenant on a
17 l'impression, comme observateurs, que la production
18 télévision est d'un côté de la salle, c'est-à-dire les
19 producteurs indépendants, et que de l'autre côté de la
20 salle il y a les diffuseurs.
21 7595 J'aimerais vous suggérer très
22 fortement, étant l'employeur de 1 200 employés qui sont
23 en production télévision tous les jours et qui
24 produisent 1 500 heures de diffusion, que le Réseau TVA
25 est un des plus gros producteurs de contenu canadien au
StenoTran
1636
1 Canada, et c'est forts de cette position-là que nous
2 souhaitons que les règles du jeu qui seront établies
3 par vous au cours des prochaines années nous permettent
4 de continuer à être non seulement un diffuseur mais un
5 producteur de contenu de qualité.
6 7596 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Si on revient à
7 l'objectif auditoire, évidemment, en ce moment, la
8 télévision de langue française n'a pas à s'inquiéter
9 d'atteindre des auditoires parce qu'elle les atteint
10 avec grand succès; il s'agit évidemment de maintenir
11 cette popularité, mais c'est évident qu'il y a peu de
12 barèmes qu'on pourrait établir pour la télévision de
13 langue anglaise qui ne seraient pas dès maintenant
14 dépassés de beaucoup par la télévision de langue
15 française. Mais je vois bien que vous aussi, vous êtes
16 d'avis que l'écoute est importante.
17 7597 Par exemple j'ai remarqué, au
18 paragraphe 38 je crois, que vous suggérez une notion
19 d'impact ou de cote d'écoute chez le spectateur comme
20 critère dans le système d'attribution d'aide à la
21 production. Donc, évidemment, pour vous c'est
22 important aussi. L'utilité de ce système-là, je
23 suppose, ne vous intéresse pas beaucoup parce que vous
24 dépassez, comme je viens de le mentionner, tout barème
25 qui serait suggéré probablement.
StenoTran
1637
1 7598 Maintenant, vous mentionnez à plus
2 d'un endroit... et je relève une mention à la page 6,
3 où vous dites que la popularité des émissions
4 canadiennes est bien assurée dans le marché
5 francophone -- nous reconnaissons ça évidemment -- et
6 que le défi d'après vous est de maintenir un
7 financement adéquat pour la production d'émissions de
8 langue française de qualité.
9 7599 Même au Canada français, est-ce que
10 la notion de popularité, qui est un peu un des
11 problèmes qui a été soulevé par plusieurs intervenants
12 dans la proposition de l'ACR... c'est que la notion de
13 popularité ne sert pas ne sert pas nécessairement la
14 notion de diversité. Par exemple, même au Canada
15 français, est-ce qu'il n'y a pas encore un rôle à jouer
16 pour assurer la diversité dans certaines catégories
17 sous-représentées? Par exemple, est-ce que les
18 programmes populaires au Canada français qui vous
19 donnent des cotes d'écoute élevées ne sont pas en
20 général... là, je ne parle pas de nouvelles ou
21 d'information, mais si vous parlez de programmation
22 dans les catégories sous-représentées, est-ce qu'il n'y
23 a pas danger que même là vous pouvez avoir des cotes
24 d'écoute très élevées sans atteindre la notion de
25 diversité dans ce qui est considéré comme les
StenoTran
1638
1 catégories sous-représentées; par exemple, les
2 émissions pour enfants, les émission de variétés.
3 7600 M. LAMARRE: En fait, j'aimerais
4 réagir à deux points, Madame la Présidente, que vous
5 venez de soulever.
6 7601 Le premier point a trait à
7 l'imputabilité. Vous avez parlé de performance, vous
8 avez parlé de popularité. Il y a une notion qu'on
9 aimerait mettre sur la table ici aujourd'hui, si vous
10 nous le permettez, et c'est que l'imputabilité,
11 évidemment, à cause de la réglementation, est seulement
12 du côté du diffuseur. Ça, on trouve que c'est un peu
13 triste parce que le contenu canadien au Canada... et on
14 nous le rappelle à tous les jours pendant les
15 audiences, les producteurs indépendants sont aussi des
16 producteurs de contenu canadien.
17 7602 L'invitation qu'on vous faite et
18 qu'on fait au milieu, c'est que l'imputabilité ne
19 devrait pas être le seul adage du diffuseur. Nous, on
20 est très heureux de prendre des engagements vis-à-vis
21 le Conseil, on est très heureux de venir défendre nos
22 intérêts, mais on souhaiterait également... et on
23 trouve dommage que jusqu'à maintenant personne du côté
24 des producteurs indépendants semble répondre à notre
25 invitation d'imputabilité. On souhaiterait ça nous
StenoTran
1639
1 aussi, que pour améliorer, pour faire plus de contenu
2 canadien, des engagements soient pris par l'ensemble
3 des partenaires de l'industrie.
4 7603 Alors voilà pour la notion
5 d'imputabilité.
6 7604 En ce qui a trait à la diversité,
7 moi, je pense que le questionnement que vous amenez
8 doit être au coeur des débats de cette audience parce
9 que c'est le point central de ce que vous avez souligné
10 dans votre avis public et c'est aussi un point central
11 qu'on veut soulever dans la spécificité du marché
12 francophone parce que le risque que l'on court... et
13 c'est peut-être la notion dont on voulait vous faire
14 part. Si on n'arrive pas à reconnaître la spécificité
15 du marché francophone et si on n'arrive pas à bien
16 définir le rôle de chacun des diffuseurs publics et
17 privés, le risque que l'on court -- et on le voit de
18 plus en plus dans les contenus de programmation --
19 c'est d'avoir des diffuseurs qui présentent
20 essentiellement le même contenu de programmation.
21 7605 Nous, on souhaite très fortement que
22 les nouvelles règles tiennent compte de ces rôles-là de
23 chacun des diffuseurs, et c'est particulièrement vrai
24 dans un marché comme celui du Québec.
25 7606 Je demanderais à André, notre vice-
StenoTran
1640
1 président des programmes, de compléter là-dessus.
2 7607 M. PROVENCHER: Madame la Présidente,
3 je pense que la mesure de la popularité est un bon
4 indicateur à la fois de la pertinence... à partir du
5 moment où nos efforts sont concentrés dans les
6 émissions canadiennes, la popularité est certainement
7 un bon indicateur non seulement du succès mais de la
8 pertinence de ce que nous faisons.
9 7608 J'aimerais vous signaler que la
10 grille de programmes qui est mise en place par le
11 Réseau TVA, qui obtient un succès presque inégalé
12 certainement au Canada mais ailleurs dans le monde
13 aussi, avec 40 pour cent des heures d'écoute qui lui
14 sont consacrées et qui repose essentiellement sur les
15 contenus canadiens, est une offre de programmes qui est
16 extrêmement diversifiée et qui déborde non seulement
17 les émissions d'information et d'affaires publiques
18 mais aussi qui déborde les émissions dramatiques; nous
19 offrons un grand nombre d'émissions de variétés, nous
20 offrons un grand nombre d'émissions de services.
21 7609 Il y a certains secteurs de
22 programmation dont nous sommes malheureusement plus
23 absents, mais nous ne considérons pas que ça handicape,
24 bien au contraire, l'offre que nous présentons à nos
25 téléspectateurs. Nous estimons que cette offre-là est
StenoTran
1641
1 cohérente, qu'elle est pertinente, qu'elle rejoint les
2 objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, qu'elle
3 s'inscrit dans l'ordre de la politique culturelle
4 canadienne, qui est définie, en ce qui nous concerne,
5 par la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, et que ça devrait
6 normalement suffire pour conclure à la pertinence et à
7 la qualité de cette offre de programmation là.
8 7610 Quant à la diversité, il est clair
9 qu'avec un marché qui est aussi étroit que le marché
10 francophone canadien, il est indispensable que les
11 joueurs soient invités à offrir des contenus qui
12 répondent à une stratégie qui leur est propre, bien sûr
13 sous réserve des objectifs de la loi, mais qui
14 s'inscrivent dans une dynamique et dans une stratégie
15 qui leur est propre.
16 7611 Moi, je reconnais, par exemple, que
17 cette année, en observant les grilles de programmation
18 qui sont offertes par les principaux diffuseurs au
19 Québec... je constate qu'il y a là des signes
20 encourageants. Par exemple, Télévision Quatre-Saisons,
21 qui s'est présentée devant vous il y a quelques mois
22 pour obtenir un transfert de propriété, offre cette
23 année des choix de programmation qui sont fort
24 différents et qui semblent, pour l'instant, rencontrer
25 certains critères de la part des téléspectateurs
StenoTran
1642
1 puisqu'elle remporte plus de succès. C'est la même
2 chose pour un autre intervenant que vous avez entendu
3 plus tôt dans le cours de l'audience, Télé-Québec, qui
4 aussi s'est repositionnée autour d'un certain ordre de
5 programmes.
6 7612 Je pense que ce sont des facteurs qui
7 devraient être encouragés dans le cadre réglementaire
8 pour permettre à chacun des joueurs de pouvoir
9 intervenir à sa manière, encore une fois sous réserve
10 des objectifs généraux de la loi, mais intervenir avec
11 une offre de programmes qui le distingue, qui se
12 complète et qui, de manière globale contribue au succès
13 de notre système.
14 7613 La mesure de ce succès-là peut très
15 bien être la performance au niveau de l'écoute, et sur
16 ce point-là on rejoint tout à fait les propos qui ont
17 été tenus par l'Association des radiodiffuseurs plus
18 tôt en ouverture de cette audience.
19 7614 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Radio-Canada à part,
20 c'est la responsabilité de laquelle des deux chaînes,
21 s'il y a deux chaînes privées, d'être distincte de
22 l'autre? Si vous utilisez les cotes d'écoute et la
23 popularité d'un certain genre de programmes comme étant
24 le point de référence pour mesurer le succès, est-ce
25 qu'il n'est pas normal à ce moment-là que les deux
StenoTran
1643
1 chaînes vont essayer de produire de la programmation
2 qui va leur apporter des cotes d'écoute semblables?
3 7615 Par exemple, quand vous parlez de
4 maintenir un système de licences et l'entrée de
5 joueurs, et caetera, vous parlez à ce moment-là de
6 freiner ou d'examiner ou de contrôler justement une
7 concurrence exactement contre ce qui existe dans le
8 marché, qui est un peu contradictoire de dire qu'il
9 faut que le système soit souple, que chaque joueur ait
10 le droit de faire ce qu'ils pensent qu'ils peuvent
11 faire le mieux, mais il faut aussi s'assurer qu'il y
12 ait diversité. C'est la responsabilité de qui, si ce
13 n'est pas celle de l'agence de réglementation?
14 7616 Normalement, quand on a une deuxième
15 demande ou des demandes de projets spécialisés, c'est
16 ce qu'on entend le plus fort... non à telle et telle
17 proposition parce que ce sera une concurrence et rien
18 d'autre; "Forcez ce nouveau joueur à faire quelque
19 chose qui est autre que ce que nous faisons", ce qui
20 exige à ce moment-là un cadre réglementaire quelconque
21 pour y arriver.
22 7617 Alors je comprends mal comment on
23 peut réglementer pour empêcher ce genre de concurrence
24 malsaine ou nocive et laisser la souplesse au système
25 qui est préconisé dans le mémoire que vous avez déposé.
StenoTran
1644
1 7618 M. PROVENCHER: Laissez-moi peut-être
2 dans un premier temps vous raconter une petite
3 histoire, Madame Wylie.
4 7619 Il n'y a pas si longtemps nous avons
5 eu à faire l'examen de l'offre que nous faisons aux
6 téléspectateurs et nous l'avons fait en analysant ce
7 qu'il était possible dans notre marché de pouvoir
8 trouver, les secteurs dans lesquels nous pouvions
9 exceller, se différencier des autres joueurs et pouvoir
10 apporter le succès à la fois pour les actionnaires qui
11 supportent notre action et à la fois pour le système
12 dans lequel nous évoluons.
13 7620 Je pense que cette analyse assez
14 pointue des occasions à l'intérieur du marché a été un
15 des facteurs déterminants dans la réussite qu'on
16 souligne aujourd'hui, tant sur le plan des affaires que
17 de la force que nous occupons dans le marché.
18 7621 Je pense que c'est la responsabilité,
19 pour tout nouveau joueur qui veut se présenter, de
20 pouvoir venir vous dire quelle est la position ou quel
21 est le segment de marché qu'il pense avoir identifié et
22 qui pourrait être desservi par l'offre qu'il veut faire
23 aux téléspectateurs.
24 7622 Je pense que, encore une fois, à
25 l'intérieur du cadre réglementaire, et bien sûr
StenoTran
1645
1 toujours en respectant les objectifs de la Loi sur la
2 radiodiffusion, vous pouvez déterminer dans un échange
3 avec les requérants si le segment existe bel et bien et
4 si l'offre qui est faite va bien desservir ce segment-
5 là. Je pense que, de cette manière-là, on peut en
6 arriver à composer une offre globale qui soit riche en
7 termes de qualité, qui soit extrêmement diversifiée et
8 qui comble l'ensemble des segments qui composent
9 l'écoute de la télévision.
10 7623 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais en même temps
11 vous préconisez la souplesse, ce qui veut dire que le
12 télédiffuseur généraliste, lui, devrait être libre de
13 choisir ce qu'il va faire et ce qu'il ne va pas faire,
14 même si à ce moment-là la télévision généraliste
15 n'offre pas toute la gamme ou la diversité, et
16 M. Khoury mentionne quelque part dans son mémoire que
17 le fait que la télévision généraliste est sur les ondes
18 devient de moins en moins important, mais c'est
19 important, au Canada anglais, à 25 pour cent de gens
20 qui n'ont pas le câble, et ça l'est encore plus au
21 Québec.
22 7624 Alors de dire que les télédiffuseurs
23 généralistes, pour rencontrer les objectifs de la loi
24 peuvent faire ce qu'ils veulent sans intervention
25 réglementaire sauf ex post, s'il y a des abus par
StenoTran
1646
1 quelqu'un et des plaintes... que la réglementation
2 n'est pas nécessaire parce qu'il y a un besoin de
3 souplesse.
4 7625 M. LAMARRE: J'aimerais préciser deux
5 choses.
6 7626 Premièrement, nous, ce que nous avons
7 fait, nous avons demandé à l'économiste M. Khoury, qui
8 pourra vous expliquer dans quelques minutes le modèle
9 économique... à partir du modèle économique qu'il a
10 fait nous avons nous-mêmes développé une position
11 réglementaire que nous vous soumettons aujourd'hui.
12 7627 Quand nous parlons de souplesse, nous
13 sommes prêts, et heureux, à vivre avec un contrat
14 social avec le CRTC comme on l'a fait dans le passé.
15 Ce sont des engagements qu'on a pris, ce sont des
16 engagements qu'on a respectés et ce sont des
17 engagements que nous avons dépassés.
18 7628 La crainte que nous avons, c'est
19 celle-ci... et je vais tenter de vous l'énoncer le plus
20 clairement possible. La crainte que nous avons, c'est
21 qu'après ces audiences-ci, qu'on ait soulevé une série
22 de problèmes et qu'on croit qu'on peut servir une
23 solution unique à l'ensemble des diffuseurs au Canada.
24 7629 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Qu'est-ce qui vous
25 fait penser que c'est la position de qui que ce soit?
StenoTran
1647
1 Parce qu'on part avec des chiffres et des réalités
2 tellement différents que ce serait un peu... et c'est
3 dans la loi expressément. C'est un peu une inquiétude
4 qui est un peu surprenante de penser que le Conseil ne
5 reconnaît pas -- la loi lui dit de le faire --
6 l'étroitesse du marché.
7 7630 De là à suggérer souplesse sans
8 indiquer quel genre de réglementation serait encore
9 nécessaire sauf tous les petits points très intrusifs
10 suggérés... vous avez Radio-Canada et l'entrée des
11 nouveaux joueurs, mais moi, je n'ai pas trouvé dans le
12 mémoire de M. Khoury, sauf pour Radio-Canada, des
13 précisions sur le contexte réglementaire que vous
14 préconisez ni n'ai-je trouvé où que ce soit des
15 précisions sur la raison pour laquelle vous trouvez le
16 système réglementaire existant un micro-management dan
17 le mémoire au paragraphe 38, qui est déraisonnable. On
18 dit, au paragraphe 38 que c'est un:
19 "... 'micro-management ex ante'
20 des licences [qui] devient, à
21 toute fin pratique, un 'casse-
22 tête' à la fois 'ingérable' et
23 contradictoire avec la recherche
24 d'une concurrence dynamique."
25 Et aujourd'hui encore, à la page 3, vous avez dit, dans
StenoTran
1648
1 votre soumission orale, que:
2 "... le Règlement relatif à la
3 télévision ne reconnaît pas dans
4 ses règles actuelles la
5 spécificité du système de langue
6 française."
7 7631 Moi, je voudrais bien que vous me
8 disiez comment ce n'est pas reconnu et qu'est-ce qu'il
9 y a dans le règlement du moment qui manque de
10 souplesse? Est-ce que c'est le 60/50? Est-ce que
11 c'est les limites sur la publicité? Oui, vous adressez
12 ça. Est-ce que c'est que le Conseil devrait limiter la
13 concurrence davantage? Être plus ouvert à la
14 concentration et à la propriété croisée?
15 7632 Qu'est-ce qu'il y a dans le système
16 actuel via-à-vis le Canada français, Radio-Canada à
17 part, qui manque de souplesse et qui crie pour des
18 corrections?
19 7633 M. LAMARRE: D'accord. Alors, dans
20 un premier temps, je demanderais à M. Khoury de peut-
21 être clarifier la nature de son étude, parce qu'il
22 semble y avoir une certaine confusion. Donc je vais
23 lui demander de clarifier ses points techniques de
24 l'étude. Par la suite, j'aimerais peut-être répondre
25 plus précisément de la part de TVA aux questions que
StenoTran
1649
1 vous venez de soulever.
2 7634 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je voudrais que vous
3 y ajoutiez, si on manque de souplesse et que le système
4 de réglementation que nous avons en ce moment a des
5 problèmes que vous allez m'identifier, aussi, donnez-
6 nous des correctifs. Quels sont les correctifs? Vous
7 nous avez donné des correctifs de réglementation, très
8 minutieux pour Radio-Canada et assez importants pour
9 les nouveaux joueurs: maintenir le système de
10 licences, surveiller qui va faire la concurrence, vous
11 laisser concurrencer vous-mêmes, et caetera, mais à
12 part ça je ne vois rien, moi, qui détermine quels sont
13 les problèmes et quels sont les correctifs nécessaires.
14 7635 Alors, Monsieur Khoury, je vous
15 invite à ajouter ou clarifier ce que j'ai mal compris.
16 7636 M. KHOURY: Merci, Madame la
17 Présidente.
18 7637 Écoutez, tout d'abord, il faut bien
19 comprendre la problématique de temps, l'horizon temps
20 dans lequel on se place, dans lequel est ce mémoire.
21 Il s'agit de réfléchir, si j'ai bien compris, à un
22 cadre réglementaire qui va être valide pour un grand
23 nombre d'années à venir. Donc ce qui devient
24 important, c'est de marquer les différences qu'il y a
25 entre le contexte dans lequel la réglementation a vu le
StenoTran
1650
1 jour et le contexte dans lequel la réglementation aura
2 cours.
3 7638 La première des différences,
4 essentielle et très importante, est la suivante: À une
5 certaine époque, le simple octroi d'une licence en
6 particulier à une télévision généraliste diffusée sur
7 ondes hertziennes était une licence à imprimer de
8 l'argent. À cette époque-là, révolue depuis déjà un
9 certain nombre d'années, le simple fait de programmer
10 des émissions permettait de fabriquer des auditoires,
11 de les commercialiser, de dégager du revenu et de
12 réaliser des profits.
13 7639 Dans un tel contexte, dans lequel on
14 ne pouvait pas lancer plusieurs réseaux de façon
15 concomitante, on faisait de l'argent; c'était un bien
16 public, c'était une rente consentie à un propriétaire
17 privé. Il était normal de réglementer toute une série
18 de considérations, dont des considérations relatives à
19 ce qui devait aller en ondes, la manière avec laquelle
20 ça devait aller en ondes, et caetera, et caetera, et de
21 faire en sorte qu'effectivement cette rente économique
22 soit correctement répartie entre l'effort de
23 l'entrepreneur ou du détenteur de la licence et le
24 public canadien.
25 7640 Graduellement, ce système a évolué,
StenoTran
1651
1 et le Conseil a opté pour l'élargissement de la
2 concurrence. Le Conseil a émis des licences et en a
3 émis de plus en plus.
4 7641 Dans un contexte dans lequel on va
5 finir par pouvoir en émettre bien davantage -- ce qui
6 n'est pas le cas aujourd'hui, ce qui n'est pas encore
7 tout à fait le cas aujourd'hui -- on aboutira à une
8 économie réellement, complètement et purement
9 concurrentielle, c'est-à-dire dans laquelle, à la
10 limite, même l'entrée n'aura plus besoin de subir une
11 réglementation.
12 7642 Nous sommes encore dans un contexte,
13 certainement dans le cas du Québec, d'un marché à
14 capacité malgré tout contingentée. Le simple fait que
15 la capacité soit contingentée à un nombre limité de
16 joueurs requiert qu'il y ait un organisme à caractère
17 public comme le Conseil qui se penche sur des questions
18 d'intérêt public lors de l'octroi des licences. Ça,
19 c'est le premier point.
20 7643 Donc, comme nous ne sommes pas encore
21 dans un contexte dans lequel la contrainte de capacité
22 a totalement disparu et est totalement levée, on ne
23 peut pas faire sauter le verrou de sécurité qui existe,
24 qui est celui de l'émission de licences.
25 7644 En corollaire de cela, le mécanisme
StenoTran
1652
1 et le processus d'émission de licences est en fait la
2 première, je dirais, barrière de sauvegarde du système
3 qui va assurer la diversité, parce que le candidat à
4 l'obtention d'une licence doit exprimer le genre de
5 choses qu'il va vouloir mettre en ondes, et de la somme
6 de ces expressions ressort une vision de la variété et
7 de la diversité. Ça, c'est la première des choses.
8 7645 La seconde, à l'époque où les canaux
9 étaient limités, les détenteurs de licences limités
10 également, il était normal de se préoccuper du contenu
11 canadien, il était normal de se préoccuper du découpage
12 et du saucissonnage de ce contenu canadien en émissions
13 par genre d'émissions, en différentes catégories, comme
14 ça a été le cas jusqu'à maintenant.
15 7646 Je crois que, dans un contexte où le
16 Conseil lui-même a opté pour élargir le nombre de
17 détenteurs de licences à aller vers les canaux
18 spécialisés, le Conseil a opté pour une solution
19 d'organisation du secteur de la diffusion, laquelle
20 solution porte en elle-même je dirais la disparition
21 quasi-naturelle de cette réglementation relative à la
22 grille de programmation elle-même.
23 7647 Ceci veut dire qu'aujourd'hui le
24 résultat qui est imposé par la politique canadienne de
25 radiodiffusion, le résultat ou la préoccupation qui se
StenoTran
1653
1 transporte d'avoir du produit canadien sur les ondes en
2 matière de produit audio-visuel est aujourd'hui garanti
3 à un plus grand niveau de sécurité de résultat dans le
4 marché francophone par le simple fait de cette
5 multiplication de licences. Ceci crée un contexte
6 concurrentiel, et dans le marché du Québec cette
7 concurrence-là est forte et elle existe, et elle met en
8 place une pression qui, par elle-même, génère des
9 programmations qui doivent se différencier et se
10 distinguer.
11 7648 Plus on précise la manière avec
12 laquelle chaque détenteur doit organiser sa propre
13 programmation, plus on incite, dans un marché dans
14 lequel, malgré tout, la taille est petite, dans lequel
15 le nombre de produits audio-visuels à produire
16 potentiellement par année est limité, plus on va
17 inciter les gens à avoir des images en ondes, les
18 radiodiffuseurs à avoir des grilles de programmation
19 fort similaires.
20 7649 Donc, si on voit ça dans la durée --
21 imaginons le cadre réglementaire pour les prochaines
22 années -- la suggestion qui est faite dans le "modèle"
23 du cadre réglementaire qu'Étude Économique Conseil a
24 soumis avec TVA ici consiste à dire: On se dirige dans
25 un système dans lequel il sera de moins en moins
StenoTran
1654
1 nécessaire de se préoccuper du résultat individuel
2 parce que c'est de l'interaction de tous ces détenteurs
3 de licences que le résultat va émerger.
4 7650 L'obligation qui est faite à
5 l'ensemble du système est une obligation globale. Si,
6 en fait, on finissait par avoir une programmation qui,
7 dans l'ensemble, produit globalement un certain
8 pourcentage de produits audio-visuels canadiens de
9 langue française, et qu'il y ait à l'intérieur de ce
10 système une ou deux exceptions dans le cadre de la
11 mission qu'ils se sont donnée et pour laquelle vous
12 leur auriez consenti une licence, ça ne devrait pas
13 faire l'objet, comment dirais-je, d'un comportement
14 alarmiste ou d'une inquiétude particulière, parce que
15 l'interaction de l'offre dans le marché et des demandes
16 dans le marché produirait ce résultat-là.
17 7651 Donc, ce que nous vous suggérons dans
18 le modèle économique, c'est que le chemin que vous avez
19 choisi d'ores et déjà vous engage à utiliser davantage
20 l'instrument des licences; moi, je vous dirais, à la
21 limite, d'utiliser des conditions de licence à
22 application suspensive: si, au bout d'un an, avec une
23 obligation de reporting relativement à la
24 programmation, le Conseil estime qu'un barème global
25 n'est pas obtenu par l'ensemble de l'industrie au
StenoTran
1655
1 regard d'un niveau de programmation canadienne ou d'un
2 mix de programmation, à ce moment-là vous pourriez
3 rendre effectives ces conditions de licence auprès des
4 détenteurs de ces licences-là.
5 7652 En fait, on est dans un système où,
6 globalement, on avait un contexte il y a de ça 30 ans,
7 20 ans, 15 ans. Ce contexte a bougé; il a bougé dans
8 le sens que la réglementation voulait qu'il aille. Il
9 est en train de se diriger de plus en plus dans ce
10 sens-là, et l'adaptation du cadre réglementaire, c'est
11 juste de ça qu'il s'agit.
12 7653 Je ne veux pas prendre trop de votre
13 temps. J'espère que je vous ai répondu au moins à
14 cette question-là.
15 7654 Le second point principal,
16 Madame Wylie, que vous avez introduit, c'est que cette
17 volonté de "libéralisation", de souplesse, est en
18 contradiction avec l'existence de licences, le maintien
19 des exigences de propriété, autre mesure que vous avez
20 qualifiée de protectionniste. Cette contradiction, en
21 réalité, elle n'est qu'apparente, comme vous l'avez
22 vous-même souligné. Elle n'a de contradiction que
23 l'apparence.
24 7655 Ce n'est pas parce qu'on bouge d'un
25 cadre qui était relativement rigide et nécessaire dans
StenoTran
1656
1 un contexte dans lequel il n'y avait que peu de
2 détenteurs de licences vers un contexte dans lequel on
3 a de plus en plus de licences, de plus en plus de
4 détenteurs de licences, que forcément on va tout faire
5 éclater le système et qu'il faut le déverrouiller
6 complètement et faire en sorte qu'on vive dans un
7 univers de déréglementation totale. Ce n'est pas de ça
8 qu'il s'agit.
9 7656 Je pense qu'il y a un processus
10 graduel dans lequel des balises continuent d'être
11 nécessaires et pour lequel, au contraire, la
12 concurrence va augmenter.
13 7657 Le fait de l'intégration n'est pas
14 contradictoire avec le maintien de pressions
15 concurrentielles. Le fait de vouloir faire en sorte
16 que la Société Radio-Canada obéisse à un certain nombre
17 de règles n'est pas non plus contraire à la
18 concurrence; au contraire, ce ne sont que des
19 renforcements de concurrence loyale. Donc tout ceci,
20 pour moi, est un schéma plutôt cohérent.
21 7658 J'espère que j'ai un tout petit peu
22 répondu à votre question.
23 7659 LA PRÉSIDENTE: C'est cohérent pour
24 votre cliente, évidemment, parce que vous ne
25 m'embaucheriez sans doute pas dans votre étude parce
StenoTran
1657
1 que ma façon simpliste de voir tout ça, c'est:
2 "Réglementez le voisin et laissez-moi tranquille."
3 7660 M. LAMARRE: Non. Non, non.
4 7661 LA PRÉSIDENTE: "Laissez-moi obtenir
5 des licences"...
6 7662 M. LAMARRE: Non, pas du tout.
7 7663 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... "mais quand les
8 gens viennent demander une licence, exigez que ce soit
9 vraiment complémentaire immiscez-vous très
10 particulièrement chez Radio-Canada, laissez-nous accès
11 aux fonds."
12 7664 Par exemple, je vous demanderais,
13 Monsieur Khoury... au paragraphe 45 vous dites qu'il
14 doit y avoir un système de licences pour contrôler
15 parce que:
16 "Si les opérateurs pouvaient
17 entrer librement dans le
18 secteur, il ne serait pas
19 douteux que les télédiffuseurs
20 en place seraient exposés à de
21 fortes perturbations
22 concurrentielles susceptibles
23 d'entamer les acquis du système
24 canadien de radiodiffusion."
25 Et, au paragraphe 64, vous dites, par exemple, que:
StenoTran
1658
1 "... il n'existe qu'une seule
2 grande voie au niveau du cadre
3 réglementaire:
4 l'assouplissement au niveau des
5 conditions et exigences les plus
6 spécifiques de contenu et de
7 dépenses dans l'octroi des
8 licences."
9 7665 Moi, je vois mal comment... par
10 exemple, je suppose qu'au paragraphe 45 vous parlez de
11 services spécialisés qui offrent une concurrence assez
12 aiguë dans le système, mais ce n'est pas simplement de
13 dire: "Vous voulez avoir un service spécialisé genre
14 comédie. Allez-y, parce que ça, ce n'est pas
15 concurrentiel." Mais si on n'attache pas des
16 conditions et des exigences plus spécifiques, qu'est-ce
17 qui va assurer que le système va rester cohérent?
18 7666 M. LAMARRE: Mais nous sommes
19 d'accord avec ça. On ne vous demande pas de
20 libéraliser à outrance le système.
21 7667 Vous parlez à quelqu'un qui a une
22 belle feuille de route avec le CRTC. Vous parlez à
23 quelqu'un qui a non seulement respecté des engagements
24 mais qui les a dépassés, qui est un modèle pour le
25 système de la radiodiffusion au Canada. Ce même
StenoTran
1659
1 citoyen-là...
2 7668 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Le système est pour
3 tout le monde.
4 7669 M. LAMARRE: Mais, Madame Wylie,
5 c'est là où on a un irritant majeur, et permettez-moi
6 de l'exprimer.
7 7670 On ne peut pas en même temps
8 applaudir la belle feuille de route du marché
9 francophone et ne pas accepter la spécificité du marché
10 francophone. Tout ce qu'on vous dit -- et c'est notre
11 argumentaire de base -- c'est: Acceptez que le marché
12 francophone est un marché distinct; acceptez qu'on
13 oeuvre dans un bassin qui est beaucoup moins important,
14 et nous vivons, et nous sommes prêts à vivre, avec des
15 engagements sociaux importants avec le CRTC. On n'a
16 aucun problème avec ça, au contraire, on le favorise.
17 7671 Tout ce qu'on vous dit, c'est:
18 Faisons-le dans un cadre qui respecte notre spécificité
19 et qui nous donne une certaine souplesse, une certaine
20 marge de manoeuvre.
21 7672 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, on parle
22 souvent, et dans votre soumission et dans le mémoire de
23 M. Khoury, d'un manque d'équité en ce qui concerne le
24 secteur privé, d'un manque d'équité dans le système de
25 télédiffusion. Est-ce que vous pouvez m'indiquer, par
StenoTran
1660
1 exemple -- Radio-Canada à part -- quels sont les
2 problèmes? Est-ce que c'est la complémentarité dont
3 vous parlez entre les stations conventionnelles et les
4 services spécialisés? Où y a-t-il un manque d'équité
5 qui doit être corrigé?
6 7673 M. LAMARRE: Je pense que, pour nous,
7 nous sommes dans un système où la pression est
8 continuellement sur le même joueur, c'est-à-dire le
9 diffuseur. On se plaît, dans des discours, à épiloguer
10 un peu partout dans le milieu industriel et dans les
11 corridors du CRTC que l'industrie de la production
12 canadienne est un partenariat entre les producteurs
13 indépendants et les diffuseurs. Et à chaque fois qu'on
14 arrive à un rendez-vous comme c'est le cas
15 présentement, les seules personnes qui fatalement se
16 retrouvent à devoir répondre et à devoir être
17 imputables, c'est les diffuseurs.
18 7674 Alors on aimerait croire que si, d'un
19 côté, on veut donner des privilèges... parce que je
20 vais reprendre le discours des producteurs. Les
21 producteurs ont dit: Les diffuseurs ont des
22 privilèges. Permettez-moi de vous souligner de façon
23 importante que nos amis les producteurs indépendants
24 ont aussi des privilèges énormes parce qu'une très
25 forte partie de leurs productions sont des productions
StenoTran
1661
1 subventionnées. Ils ont eux aussi un contrat social
2 avec l'État pour lequel ils ne sont pas imputables.
3 7675 Alors quand on parle d'équité, Madame
4 la Présidente, c'est de ça qu'on parle précisément. Et
5 je ne mentionnerai pas Radio-Canada, puisque vous
6 semblez vouloir l'exclure.
7 7676 LA PRÉSIDENTE: On y arrive. On y
8 arrive plus tard, mais ça brouille un peu les cartes.
9 On en reparle.
10 7677 Alors ce manque d'équité là, ce
11 serait entre l'industrie de la télédiffusion et celle
12 de la production indépendante, où il manque...
13 7678 M. LAMARRE: Tout à fait,
14 Madame Wylie, parce que c'est un langage présentement
15 qui est à sens unique.
16 7679 Si je peux me permettre un petit
17 commentaire éditorial, on le sent plus que jamais dans
18 le cadre de ces audiences-ci, parce que dans le cadre
19 de ces audiences-ci il n'y a qu'une cible visée, et
20 c'est les diffuseurs. Ça, je suis obligé de vous
21 souligner ma tristesse à ce sujet-là parce que le
22 contenu canadien... vous avez convié, le CRTC, tous les
23 intervenants du milieu à un rendez-vous historique
24 important où on doit tenter ensemble de trouver des
25 solutions pour améliorer le contenu canadien, et
StenoTran
1662
1 malheureusement, ce qu'on observe depuis le début des
2 audiences, c'est un procès d'intention des diffuseurs.
3 7680 Je suis obligé de réagir au nom de
4 mes 1 200 employés et de vous dire que, comme
5 producteur de contenu canadien qui a une belle feuille
6 de route à défendre, on ne craint pas d'être
7 imputables, Madame la Présidente. On ne l'a pas craint
8 dans le passé et on ne le craint pas dans le futur.
9 Mais j'aimerais éventuellement qu'on trouve une façon
10 que tous les joueurs de l'industrie soient également
11 imputables.
12 7681 M. PROVENCHER: Si vous me permettez,
13 Madame la Présidente, de compléter, on était tout à
14 fait ravis la semaine dernière entendre nos collègues
15 de la production venir dire devant vous que le succès
16 du secteur francophone de la radiodiffusion est
17 indéniable, et ils ont utilisé des arguments avec
18 lesquels nous sommes tout à fait d'accord, des
19 indicateurs qui sont tout à fait révélateurs. Il y en
20 a qui disent, par exemple, que de manière générale les
21 radiodiffuseurs francophones consacrent une large
22 part -- ils ont dit 89 pour cent -- de leurs dépenses
23 de programmation à l'acquisition de contenu canadien.
24 Ils vous ont dit également que plus de 70 pour cent des
25 heures d'écoute, par exemple, sont consacrées, au
StenoTran
1663
1 Québec, à des émissions qui sont de contenu canadien.
2 7682 Nous sommes tout à fait heureux que
3 ces succès-là soient bien soulignés devant vous et nous
4 considérons qu'ils devraient être le point de départ
5 d'une relation à la fois de confiance, de partenariat
6 entre les différents joueurs de l'industrie.
7 7683 Ce qui s'en est suivi malheureusement
8 nous a attristés parce qu'on vous a présenté une liste
9 de nouvelles demandes disant: "Quatre-vingt-neuf pour
10 cent, ce n'est sans doute pas assez. Les
11 radiodiffuseurs ont fait de l'argent l'année passée.
12 Voulez-vous leur demander, s'il vous plaît, de
13 contribuer encore davantage? Voulez-vous leur
14 demander, s'il vous plaît, d'apporter plus d'émissions
15 dramatiques à budget élevé, de prendre plus de risques
16 dans ce secteur-là? Voulez-vous leur demander, par
17 exemple -- en les contraignant, bien sûr, pas
18 simplement leur demander -- des contraintes de fournir
19 des émissions dans le secteur de la programmation pour
20 enfants, par exemple, et voulez-vous leur demander
21 aussi de se retirer de la production d'émissions
22 dramatiques?" Nous voulons, dans le fond, bâtir de
23 nouvelles chasses gardées, et nous ne sommes pas du
24 tout d'accord avec cette approche-là.
25 7684 Encore une fois, nous l'avons dit
StenoTran
1664
1 tantôt dans notre soumission orale, nous pensons que le
2 téléspectateur, quand il est devant son écran de
3 télévision à la maison, avec les membres de la famille
4 autour de lui, il va porter un jugement sur ce qui lui
5 est offert et il n'a pas, dans le fond, à savoir si
6 l'émission qui lui est proposée et qui l'intéresse et
7 qu'il juge de qualité et qu'il juge pertinente... que
8 cette émission lui soit fournie par un producteur
9 indépendant ou par une autre source d'approvisionnement
10 plus près du diffuseur. Je pense qu'il a à évaluer,
11 lui, si la loi qui a été mise en place et le cadre
12 réglementaire qui la suit lui fournit des valeurs qui
13 l'intéressent et envers lesquelles il se reconnaît.
14 7685 Nous aimerions souligner encore une
15 fois que TVA s'est particulièrement distingué dans ce
16 secteur-là et continue d'être le chef de file
17 incontesté d'une diversité de produits et d'une qualité
18 de produits qu'il n'a cessé d'évaluer et qui est
19 reconnue par les téléspectateurs, qui lui consacrent
20 encore une fois quatre heures sur dix des heures de
21 programmation qu'il fait chaque semaine.
22 7686 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais vous allez
23 convenir que nous essayons d'examiner un système
24 réglementaire pour le système en général, incluant les
25 services spécialisés, la télévision payante et les
StenoTran
1665
1 autres joueurs dans le marché. La seule chose que je
2 peux vous dire, c'est que nous sommes plus ou moins
3 contents que la mauvaise humeur de la production
4 indépendante ne se soit pas dirigée vers nous.
5 7687 M. LAMARRE: Je pense que nous
6 acceptons de bon gré, Madame la Présidente, l'état de
7 fait que vous soulevez. Le point qu'il faut soulever
8 par ailleurs -- et je suis convaincu que vous l'avez
9 déjà observé -- c'est qu'on assiste de plus en plus à
10 la naissance de deux catégories de producteurs, c'est-
11 à-dire d'une part des producteurs qui sont des géants
12 de l'industrie, des producteurs dont la taille dépasse
13 de beaucoup la taille du Groupe TVA, et d'autre part
14 des entrepreneurs qui tentent tant bien que mal de
15 tirer leur épingle du jeu dans ce contexte-là.
16 7688 Je pense que de plus en plus il
17 faudra tenir compte dans l'avenir, lorsqu'on parlera de
18 réglementation, d'engagement des diffuseurs... je pense
19 qu'il faudra éventuellement faire une distinction entre
20 les petits producteurs entrepreneurs qui ont de bonnes
21 idées, de bons concepts, et les grands conglomérats qui
22 sont en train de se créer présentement.
23 7689 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous avez raison,
24 Monsieur Provencher, que le spectateur, lui, ne
25 s'inquiète pas de qui a produit l'émission, mais il
StenoTran
1666
1 reste quand même qu'au niveau légal, législatif, vous
2 demeurez, le télédiffuseur, imputable.
3 7690 M. PROVENCHER: Tout à fait, et...
4 7691 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je peux voir
5 l'inquiétude... je suppose que vous suggérez que le
6 producteur indépendant ne l'est pas évidemment pas,
7 c'est vous qui avez le permis et qui êtes imputable.
8 7692 Évidemment, vous pouvez utiliser cet
9 argument-là pour nous dire: Laissez-nous davantage
10 faire de la production nous-mêmes et avoir les outils
11 nécessaires pour le faire.
12 7693 M. PROVENCHER: Madame la Présidente,
13 nous acceptons ce principe d'imputabilité sans aucune
14 réserve. Nous sommes fiers de venir défendre devant
15 vous nos résultats et notre contribution aux objectifs
16 de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Nous le faisons sans
17 aucune réserve.
18 7694 Ceci étant dit, la loi reconnaît
19 également -- et nous sommes tout à fait en accord avec
20 ça -- l'industrie de la production indépendante parmi
21 les acteurs qui doivent contribuer au succès du système
22 de radiodiffusion, et nous vous faisons la suggestion
23 que ce secteur-là, qui est reconnu par la loi, devrait
24 en quelque part aussi être soumis au principe de
25 l'imputabilité. Je ne saurais pas vous proposer par
StenoTran
1667
1 quel mécanisme ce principe d'imputabilité pourrait se
2 vérifier; nous osons croire qu'il y a du travail à
3 faire de ce côté-là.
4 7695 Par ailleurs, j'aimerais partager
5 avec vous certaines des préoccupations que nous
6 entretenons.
7 7696 Nous pensons que le succès que nous
8 avons connu, particulièrement au cours des dernières
9 années, s'est appuyé en grande partie sur la
10 contribution des producteurs indépendants. Pour nous,
11 ce ne sont pas des adversaires, ce sont des
12 partenaires, et nous n'aurions pas bâti ces succès-là
13 si nous n'avions pas fait appel à leur créativité, à
14 leur talent dans l'agencement des ressources qui sont
15 nécessaires à de bonnes productions.
16 7697 Ce ne sont pas des gens que nous
17 voulons exclure de notre circuit, bien au contraire.
18 D'ailleurs, nous faisons appel de plus en plus, à
19 chaque année, aux services des producteurs
20 indépendants. On vous a mentionné plus tôt dans notre
21 présentation orale que cette année, par exemple, c'est
22 plus de 18 millions de dollars qui seront consacrés à
23 l'acquisition de droits d'émissions auprès des
24 producteurs indépendants.
25 7698 Ce qui nous inquiète, par ailleurs,
StenoTran
1668
1 c'est que, dans l'avenir, nous ne puissions pas compter
2 sur la même diversité des sources. Nous assistons,
3 comme vous j'imagine bien, à un certain phénomène de
4 concentration dans l'industrie de la production
5 indépendante et si cette année, par exemple, nous
6 faisons appel à une vingtaine de maisons de production
7 pour nous fournir des émissions qui sont cohérentes par
8 rapport à l'offre que nous voulons bâtir... que ce
9 nombre-là puisse rétrécir d'année en année, ce qui pour
10 nous pourrait résulter en un appauvrissement des idées.
11 7699 Imaginons, par exemple, que dans cinq
12 ans il ne demeure que quatre ou cinq grandes maisons de
13 production et que nous devions ne faire appel qu'à ces
14 maisons-là pour pouvoir bâtir l'offre de programmes que
15 nous envisageons, que nous jugeons pertinente; je pense
16 que nous serions soumis à un appauvrissement des idées.
17 7700 Nous avons vécu cette situation-là,
18 et c'est pour ça que nous vous en parlons avec aise.
19 Ce n'est pas un secret de polichinelle, TVA est ouvert
20 depuis à peine 11 ou 12 ans aux contributions des
21 producteurs indépendants, et je pense qu'ils ont été un
22 facteur de succès. Dans notre stratégie, l'idée est la
23 clé de nos succès, c'est-à-dire que le concept et
24 l'idée sont rois et maîtres dans notre programmation,
25 et si ces idées-là viennent des producteurs
StenoTran
1669
1 indépendants, nous sommes fiers de pouvoir nous appuyer
2 dessus et de pouvoir les intégrer dans notre grille de
3 programmes.
4 7701 Nous ne voudrions pas pour tout l'or
5 du monde retourne à un système où nous serions
6 autosuffisants parce que ce ne serait pas un contexte
7 dans lequel les idées pourraient se développer et dans
8 lequel on pourrait s'appuyer sur une grande diversité
9 de concepts, comme c'est nécessaire pour connaître le
10 succès.
11 7702 Alors il est possible, avec le
12 phénomène de concentration, qui n'est soumis à aucune
13 forme d'examen public, le phénomène de concentration
14 dans le domaine de la production, que nous fassions
15 face dans l'avenir à un niveau de concentration qui
16 raréfie les idées ou qui les soumette à une autre forme
17 d'arbitrage avant qu'elles soient... encore hier soir
18 un auteur avec qui je discutais me faisait part de
19 l'incapacité de pouvoir faire évoluer ses idées et ses
20 projets à travers le système parce qu'il y a déjà un
21 phénomène de rejet des idées chez certains grands
22 entrepreneurs ou de contrôle des idées chez certains
23 grands entrepreneurs du domaine de la production.
24 7703 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Monsieur Provencher,
25 une grande partie de votre discours est exactement le
StenoTran
1670
1 discours de la production indépendante. Vous vous
2 inquiétez que, de 20 maisons de production, on en
3 arrive à cinq. Les producteurs indépendants disent:
4 "Si vous permettez la concentration et l'intégration
5 verticale et l'accès aux fonds, il y aura seulement une
6 idée, celle du télédiffuseur." Alors c'est un discours
7 qui est le discours des indépendants, la diversité de
8 l'offre.
9 7704 M. PROVENCHER: Mais nous vous
10 soumettons respectueusement, Madame la Présidente, que
11 le phénomène de l'intégration dans le domaine de la
12 radiodiffusion demeure soumis et demeurera soumis à
13 l'examen public; c'est-à-dire que chaque fois qu'il y a
14 une question de transfert de propriété ou qu'il y a une
15 nouvelle demande de licence qui s'inscrit dans un axe
16 de concentration de la propriété, le Conseil, avec son
17 jugement et avec le cadre réglementaire qui lui sert de
18 guide, peut prendre les décisions qu'il juge les plus
19 appropriées.
20 7705 Malheureusement, ce phénomène-là
21 n'est soumis à aucune forme d'examen ni de contrôle
22 quand il vise le secteur de la production, qui a
23 intégré sans aucune contrainte, par exemple, tout le
24 secteur de la distribution, de la commercialisation à
25 plusieurs égards. Nous, nous soumettons que c'est une
StenoTran
1671
1 réalité qu'il faudra, tôt ou tard, examiner de plus
2 près.
3 7706 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Pour qu'on s'entende
4 bien, normalement, quand je parle d'intégration
5 verticale ici, je parle d'intégration entre le secteur
6 télédiffuseurs et le secteur de production
7 indépendante, et la concentration ou l'intégration
8 horizontale, pour moi, c'est quand les télédiffuseurs
9 sont aussi détenteurs de licences de services
10 spécialisés.
11 7707 Alors mon commentaire était que votre
12 discours d'il y a quelques minutes est justement le
13 discours de la production indépendante, qui dit qu'à ce
14 moment-là on n'aura que ce que le radiodiffuseur voudra
15 bien obtenir de sa filiale. Alors c'est dans ce
16 contexte-là.
17 7708 Maintenant, au paragraphe 37 vous
18 proposez de mettre en place une structure de
19 financement des émissions canadiennes qui permettra
20 l'établissement d'un véritable partenariat entre les
21 producteurs indépendants et les télédiffuseurs. Est-ce
22 que c'est la structure que je retrouve dans vos
23 soumissions écrites et dans le mémoire de M. Khoury ou
24 si c'est autre chose que vous voulez proposer? Le
25 partenariat, c'est celui que vous préconisez ou
StenoTran
1672
1 décrivez dans vos soumissions du moment?
2 7709 M. PROVENCHER: On vous a fait part,
3 depuis le début de ces audiences, qu'un des défis de
4 notre système de radiodiffusion était à la fois de
5 mieux satisfaire les exigences des téléspectateurs
6 canadiens en lui offrant des produits qui sont
7 distinctifs mais aussi d'en assurer un financement qui
8 soit adéquat.
9 7710 Nous pensons que, pour pouvoir
10 réaliser cet objectif-là, il faudra s'assurer dans
11 l'avenir qu'il y ait des rapports beaucoup plus de
12 proximité entre les fournisseurs de programmes et ceux
13 qui sont chargés de les diffuser et de les distribuer.
14 7711 Ce partenariat-là pourrait très
15 certainement s'enrichir de schémas d'exploitation, par
16 exemple, des produits sur d'autres marchés, établir des
17 stratégies qui fassent des situations de gagnant-
18 gagnant, des win-win comme on dit couramment, entre les
19 producteurs et les exploitants, qu'on puisse réaliser
20 par exemple des plans d'affaires pour chacun des
21 produits et que ces plans d'affaires là s'appuient non
22 seulement sur la diffusion au premier niveau, à la
23 première fenêtre, mais puisse également s'appuyer sur
24 d'autres scénarios d'exploitation.
25 7712 Nous sommes prêts à travailler avec
StenoTran
1673
1 les producteurs dans ce sens-là. Nous voulons nous
2 rapprocher de leurs objectifs, nous voulons qu'ils
3 comprennent les nôtres et nous voulons surtout bâtir
4 des plans, des scénarios qui nous permettent à l'un et
5 à l'autre de pouvoir mieux servir le système canadien
6 et de pouvoir assurer la viabilité financière de nos
7 entreprises.
8 7713 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Au niveau de la
9 concentration, disons, horizontale, qui n'a rien à
10 faire avec le secteur indépendant mais plutôt avec la
11 complémentarité et diversité à l'intérieur du secteur
12 de télédiffusion, vous mentionnez, par exemple au
13 paragraphe 55, qu'il est nécessaire pour vous de vous
14 lancer dans ce modèle d'intégration comme stratégie de
15 défense. Vous dites que:
16 "... les radiodiffuseurs
17 conventionnels n'ont donc pour
18 alternative que de participer à
19 la propriété de ces services
20 dans des structures de propriété
21 où les risques sont partagés."
22 7714 Alors est-ce que ça inclut aussi la
23 concentration au niveau des stations de télévision,
24 qu'à votre avis le Conseil devrait assouplir aussi sa
25 politique vis-à-vis de la concentration dans le marché
StenoTran
1674
1 où il y aurait plus d'une station qui serait la
2 propriété d'un seul titulaire?
3 7715 M. LAMARRE: Ce qu'on est en train
4 d'observer, tout comme vous j'imagine, c'est une
5 concurrence de plus en plus féroce à l'intérieur du
6 Canada mais aussi de plus en plus avec une intrusion
7 des services étrangers, avec toutes les nouvelles
8 technologies et les modes de distribution. Alors je
9 pense que, dans le fond, le rendez-vous auquel vous
10 nous conviez, c'est de se projeter vers l'avant, et
11 présentement c'est comme si ce phénomène-là allait
12 exister plus tard. Mais ce phénomène-là n'existe pas
13 plus tard, ce phénomène-là a commencé aujourd'hui.
14 7716 Je pense que de plus en plus on voit,
15 avec le satellite, les gens qui ont maintenant 200
16 canaux... c'est quelque chose dont on parlait il y a
17 deux ou trois ans et ça apparaissait comme quelque
18 chose d'immatériel. Nous sommes rendus là. Et au
19 moment où nous sommes rendus avec cette intrusion de
20 beaucoup de services étrangers, nous sommes audacieux
21 et nous nous lançons un défi de contenu canadien, ce
22 qui est assez extraordinaire.
23 7717 Les deux ne sont pas
24 irréconciliables, je crois, et nous, on est prêts à
25 relever ce défi-là. Mais, pour ça, il faut nous
StenoTran
1675
1 assurer dans l'avenir que nous devenions un joueur
2 important. Donc, si on veut qu'il y ait plus de
3 contenu canadien, il va falloir qu'il y ait plus de
4 joueurs forts.
5 7718 Donc on ne peut pas en même temps
6 subir la segmentation qui nous viendra des produits
7 étrangers et subir la segmentation qui va venir des
8 canaux spécialisés. Alors le choix stratégique qu'on a
9 fait pour continuer à être un bon producteur de contenu
10 canadien et surtout d'avoir les moyens de produire plus
11 de contenu canadien, c'est de mettre sur pied des
12 canaux spécialisés.
13 7719 Ce que ça a comme avantage, c'est
14 d'offrir aux téléspectateurs une plus grande diversité.
15 Pour prendre un exemple extrêmement précis, nous
16 offrons depuis un an aux téléspectateurs québécois un
17 canal de nouvelles, LCN, qui est diffusé 24 heures par
18 jour, qui rejoint 1 800 000 téléspectateurs par
19 semaine. Le canal de nouvelles LCN peut réussir à
20 offrir ce service-là à la population francophone parce
21 qu'il bénéficie de la synergie de notre infrastructure.
22 7720 Je pense que dans l'avenir, si on
23 veut réussir à financer des canaux spécialisés et à
24 maintenir des généralistes forts, il faudra avoir des
25 joueurs forts. Quand je dis ça, Madame la Présidente,
StenoTran
1676
1 je ne prétends pas que seul le Groupe TVA doit être un
2 joueur; déjà au Québec on a plusieurs joueurs dans ce
3 segment-là, que ce soit Astral, que ce soit Radiomutuel
4 et plusieurs autres, et je pense que c'est sain. Mais
5 il faut s'assurer que ces joueurs-là, comme c'est le
6 cas présentement, conservent une stature suffisamment
7 solide pour qu'on rejoigne en même temps deux
8 objectifs: l'objectif public, qui est d'assurer aux
9 téléspectateurs francophones une diversité de choix et
10 l'objectif d'entreprise, qui est de s'assurer que ce
11 soit économiquement viable.
12 7721 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et c'est à ça que
13 vous vous adressez au paragraphe 8, sauf que vous
14 utilisez "verticalement". Vous dites:
15 "... qu'il est nécessaire à
16 cette fin que les entreprises
17 canadiennes soient fortes et
18 intégrées verticalement pour
19 optimiser les différentes
20 ressources et talents que le
21 système offre."
22 7722 Dans mon langage à moi, ça, ce serait
23 horizontalement.
24 7723 M. LAMARRE: Alors on s'est
25 probablement mal exprimés dans le mémoire...
StenoTran
1677
1 7724 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non, non...
2 7725 M. LAMARRE: ... mais ce qu'on
3 signifiait, c'est...
4 7726 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... on utilise les
5 termes différemment, mais à ce moment-là il s'agit
6 simplement de s'entendre sur ce qu'on dit.
7 7727 Alors, à votre avis, le Conseil
8 devrait reconnaître la petitesse ou l'étroitesse du
9 marché québécois et être encore plus souple dans cette
10 intégration horizontale...
11 7728 M. LAMARRE: C'est exactement la
12 nature...
13 7729 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... qu'au Canada
14 anglais, où il y a plus de possibilités.
15 7730 M. LAMARRE: Exact.
16 7731 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais vous ne vous
17 opposez pas à ce que le Conseil s'assure que ce
18 système-là reste concurrentiel ou raisonnable et qu'il
19 donne justement des avantages à l'auditoire en
20 réglementant ou en s'assurant que le système demeure
21 cohérent, ce qui veut dire que possiblement le
22 titulaire qui est intégré horizontalement aura des
23 exigences plus élevées.
24 7732 Est-ce que M. Khoury accepterait ça?
25 7733 M. LAMARRE: Je ne peux pas parler
StenoTran
1678
1 pour notre consultant, mais je peux parler pour le
2 Groupe TVA.
3 7734 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais il a parlé pour
4 vous.
5 7735 M. LAMARRE: Je pense que le point
6 que vous soulevez est important parce que ça me permet
7 d'amener la clarification suivante: Comme je l'ai
8 mentionné tout à l'heure, si notre passé est garant de
9 l'avenir, et je pense qu'il l'est, le mot clé que
10 j'aimerais évoquer -- et je comprends la position du
11 CRTC -- c'est le mot "équilibre". Nous sommes pour un
12 système équilibré. Donc, si nous réclamons des droits
13 accrus, des responsabilités accrues, ça implique que
14 nous devons vivre avec des engagements additionnels
15 pour assurer l'équilibre des forces.
16 7736 Je pense qu'André tout à l'heure l'a
17 bien évoqué: Les producteurs indépendants ne sont pas
18 des adversaires, ils sont des partenaires. On veut un
19 équilibre dans notre partenariat.
20 7737 Les canaux spécialisés, pour nous, ce
21 ne sont pas des adversaires, ça va devenir un outil
22 synergique qui va nous permettre de nous assurer
23 d'offrir plus de choix aux consommateurs, parce que
24 dans le fond, dans tout ce que vous soulevez comme
25 questionnement -- et c'est extrêmement pertinent --
StenoTran
1679
1 vous voulez vous assurer d'un équilibre des forces en
2 présence. Nous adhérons à ce concept-là et nous sommes
3 prêts à nous y soumettre.
4 7738 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui. Ce qui est très
5 intéressant, c'est que justement dans votre mémoire
6 écrit, dans celui de TVA, vous parlez de la nécessité
7 de la complémentarité entre trois aspects:
8 télédiffuseurs et production indépendante, télévision
9 conventionnelle et spécialisée, et télévision publique
10 et privée. Mais M. Khoury, lui, au paragraphe 34, dit
11 que ce qui existe, c'est un déséquilibre.
12 7739 M. LAMARRE: Oui.
13 7740 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors nous allons en
14 reparler avec Radio-Canada plus tard. Puisque c'est
15 tellement chatouilleux, je veux garder ça pour la fin
16 au cas où vous me lanciez vos crayons. À ce moment-là
17 je pourrai reprendre mon allure pendant la pause.
18 7741 Maintenant, à la page 9, au
19 paragraphe 28, vous parlez de l'accès aux fonds publics
20 qui à ce moment-là serait justement ce sujet
21 d'intégration verticale, et vous dites que:
22 "l'accès aux fonds publics...
23 doit être fondé sur les seuls
24 critères de qualité et
25 d'efficacité et être ouvert à
StenoTran
1680
1 tous, de façon équitable;"
2 sauf à Radio-Canada.
3 7742 Qu'est-ce que vous entrevoyez pour
4 que ce soit ouvert de façon équitable et basé sur la
5 qualité et l'efficacité? Qu'entrevoyez-vous comme
6 changements à la structure qui existe?
7 7743 M. PROVENCHER: Vous n'êtes pas sans
8 ignorer les problèmes qui ont été rencontrés le
9 printemps dernier dans l'allocation des fonds qui sont
10 disponibles au Fonds canadien de télévision. Les
11 images de ces files d'attente ont été, je pense,
12 l'objet de bien des cauchemars, mais je pense qu'elles
13 exprimaient surtout le bon côté des choses, et c'est
14 qu'il y a un appétit, une demande pour le financement
15 de contenu canadien qui dépasse de beaucoup l'offre.
16 Je pense que c'est un signe qui est extrêmement
17 encourageant. Évidemment, il y a de l'autre côté la
18 nécessité de bien choisir les priorités, de bien
19 choisir les critères selon lesquels les fonds seront
20 alloués.
21 7744 Depuis ce temps il y a eu une
22 réflexion qui, je pense, rejoint à peu près tout le
23 monde dans l'industrie pour bien choisir les lignes
24 directrices qui serviront désormais à l'allocation des
25 fonds; plusieurs idées ont été avancées, et une de
StenoTran
1681
1 celles-là est certainement de reconnaître l'impact sur
2 l'auditoire des projets qui allaient être financés.
3 7745 C'est un objectif, c'est une
4 perspective avec laquelle nous sommes d'accord. Je
5 pense que nous devons le plus possible encourager le
6 bon usage des fonds, l'efficacité du financement, et
7 une façon de le faire, c'est d'introduire parmi les
8 critères cette question d'auditoire.
9 7746 Évidemment, nous desservons 40 pour
10 cent du marché francophone et nous espérons non pas
11 recevoir 40 pour cent des fonds, ce serait certainement
12 une utopie, mais tout de même que, dans les mécanismes
13 de financement, qu'on puisse accorder un poids relatif
14 à l'impact des projets sur l'auditoire. De cette
15 manière-là, nous pensons que les fonds seront mieux
16 utilisés.
17 7747 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Quand vous parlez
18 d'accès aux fonds pour les télédiffuseurs, est-ce que
19 vous préconisez qu'ils aient un accès direct ou que ce
20 soit par l'entremise de ces partenariats avec la
21 production indépendante dont vous nous avez parlé?
22 7748 M. PROVENCHER: Le Réseau TVA
23 assume -- et Daniel y a fait référence tout à
24 l'heure -- des activités de production assez
25 importantes, à peu près 1 400 heures de production qui
StenoTran
1682
1 sont faites chaque année par notre filiale de
2 production, qui s'appelle "JPL". Ce fournisseur
3 déploie une offre qui est assez diversifiée dans toutes
4 sortes de programmations, y compris les émissions
5 dramatiques.
6 7749 Nous pensons qu'il est nécessaire,
7 dans l'avenir, de pouvoir assurer à ces émissions-là un
8 niveau de qualité et un financement qui soit
9 appropriés.
10 7750 Ce sont des arguments que nous avons
11 fait valoir auprès de plusieurs instances, d'abord
12 auprès du Conseil lorsqu'il a établi les lignes
13 directrices du Fonds de la câblodistribution il y a
14 quelques années de cela, des arguments que nous avons
15 fait valoir aussi auprès du gouvernement fédéral,
16 auprès du Gouvernement du Québec, pour ce qui est des
17 conditions qui déterminent l'accès au programme de
18 crédit d'impôt remboursable.
19 7751 Nous pensons, sous réserve de
20 certaines mesures de protection, que l'accès au
21 financement doit exister pour les idées qui sont de
22 qualité et qui sont pertinentes du point de vue des
23 téléspectateurs. Je pense que l'accès au financement
24 devrait, en ce sens-là, se poursuivre.
25 7752 Est-ce que, pour le Canada français,
StenoTran
1683
1 vous n'acceptez pas le principe qui est soumis par
2 certains intervenants, surtout du côté du Canada
3 anglais, que même... il y en a évidemment qui ne
4 veulent pas d'accès au fonds par les télédiffuseurs un
5 point c'est tout et d'autres qui disent que, s'il y a
6 intégration verticale avec une compagnie de production
7 et le télédiffuseur, à ce moment-là le télédiffuseur ne
8 devrait pas non plus pouvoir diffuser la production qui
9 lui vient de sa filiale, et d'autres qui disent qu'on
10 peut y mettre des minima quelconques.
11 7753 Est-ce que vous rejetez les deux
12 propositions, celle qui ne permettrait pas la diffusion
13 et celle qui insérerait des minima, et jusqu'à quel
14 point est-ce que ce que le Conseil serait prêt à
15 retenir du côté du Canada anglais devrait être
16 différent de ce qu'il serait prêt à retenir du côté du
17 Canada français?
18 7754 M. PROVENCHER: Très souvent la
19 production qui provient de notre filiale fait l'objet
20 de toutes sortes de remarques. Encore la semaine
21 dernière l'Association des producteurs vous en a fait à
22 ce sujet-là.
23 7755 Ce que j'aimerais vous souligner, et
24 référant à...
25 7756 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Quel genre de
StenoTran
1684
1 remarques, Monsieur Provencher? Je suis rendue
2 curieuse.
3 7757 M. PROVENCHER: À l'effet que nous
4 avons tendance, à TVA, à nous replier sur nos
5 ressources internes pour alimenter les besoins de notre
6 programmation. J'aimerais vous dire que ce n'est pas
7 le cas du tout, que nous ne faisons pas plus
8 aujourd'hui à l'interne que nous faisions il y a trois
9 ou quatre ans lorsque le Conseil, d'une manière bien
10 éclairée, a choisi de permettre l'accès des filiales
11 des entreprises liées à des radiodiffuseurs au nouveau
12 Fonds de câblodistribution. Ça a été l'occasion
13 d'énoncer certaines lignes directrices concernant le
14 self-dealing, et j'ose croire que ces mesures-là ont
15 été non seulement bien identifiées mais ont été
16 également très efficaces.
17 7758 Je n'ai pas entendu beaucoup de
18 plaintes à cet égard-là, alors que le Conseil avait
19 permis, par exemple, que les sociétés liées à des
20 radiodiffuseurs pouvaient utiliser jusqu'au tiers des
21 fonds disponibles; ça n'a jamais dépassé le plafond de
22 3 ou 4 pour cent, et souvent ça s'est situé autour de 1
23 pour cent. Donc ce n'est pas une situation d'abus qui
24 demanderait des correctifs et qui demanderait d'être
25 administrée autrement.
StenoTran
1685
1 7759 Je pense que ce qui nous préoccupe,
2 c'est l'équilibre des forces, c'est de permettre à tous
3 ceux qui ont des idées de pouvoir les soumettre et de
4 permettre leur réalisation en bénéficiant du système
5 qui est en place pour le financement de ces idées-là.
6 7760 M. LAMARRE: Vous comprendrez, Madame
7 la Présidente, quand on soulève ce sujet-là, que c'est
8 un sujet qui est éminemment chatouilleux à l'interne
9 chez nous, parce que dans le fond on parle ici
10 d'emplois stables, de 1 200 employés, et nous avons
11 réussi à maintenir un équilibre entre les productions
12 avec les producteurs indépendants et l'interne de façon
13 à maintenir ces emplois-là. Mais je pense, au même
14 titre que les producteurs indépendants ont soulevé
15 beaucoup de droits -- et on adhère à ce principe-là --
16 que nos employés aussi ont beaucoup de droits, et c'est
17 notre devoir comme employeur de tenter de maintenir un
18 équilibre qui fait que, sur le plan économique, les
19 1 200 employés qui sont dispersés dans toutes les
20 régions du Québec puissent réussir à maintenir leur
21 emploi parce que ces gens-là aussi sont dans la
22 production de la télévision, ces gens-là aussi ont des
23 ambitions de produire des programmes de qualité, et je
24 pense que ça aussi, ça maintient un juste équilibre
25 dans notre industrie.
StenoTran
1686
1 7761 M. PROVENCHER: Encore une fois,
2 Madame la Présidente, je ne vois pas de situation
3 d'abus qui indiquerait au Conseil qu'il devrait mettre
4 en place de nouveaux mécanismes pour prévenir, par
5 exemple, les situations qui ont été évoquées par les
6 intervenants devant vous.
7 7762 Ce que j'aimerais porter à votre
8 attention, c'est le fait suivant: Il y a trois ou
9 quatre ans, au moment où le nouveau Fonds de
10 câblodistribution a été mis en place, nous consacrions
11 à ce moment-là environ 11 millions de dollars à
12 l'acquisition de droits d'émissions auprès des
13 producteurs indépendants. Ce chiffre n'a jamais cessé
14 d'évoluer depuis, et nous avons fait part, avec
15 beaucoup de fierté je dois dire, qu'aujourd'hui c'est
16 18 millions de dollars par année que nous consacrons à
17 l'acquisition de droits auprès des producteurs
18 indépendants et que donc, même sous les conditions
19 d'accès au financement, leur niveau d'affaires avec TVA
20 n'a jamais cessé de s'améliorer.
21 7763 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Il faudra sans doute
22 surveiller à savoir si TVA se met à acheter des sacs de
23 couchage pour l'an prochain.
24 7764 M. PROVENCHER: Oui, on propose ça
25 aux producteurs quand ils viennent nous soumettre un
StenoTran
1687
1 projet, de leur fournir, en même temps qu'une lettre
2 d'engagement, un sac de couchage.
3 7765 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non, mais si vous y
4 allez vous aussi directement, on pourra voir jusqu'à
5 quel point vous êtes sérieux si vous achetez des sacs
6 de couchage, si vous allez joindre...
7 7766 M. PROVENCHER: Madame Wylie, notre
8 sens du partenariat est tellement développé que nous
9 pensons acheter même des sacs de couchage double.
10 7767 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Il ne faut pas aller
11 trop loin. Attention. Attention.
12 7768 Maintenant, vous parlez d'équité et
13 de complémentarité aussi entre les télédiffuseurs
14 conventionnels et spécialisés. Je crois que vous avez
15 accepté que le Conseil peut-être considérerait le fait
16 qu'un télédiffuseur qui a aussi des licences de
17 services spécialisés aurait l'avantage d'utiliser des
18 ressources et des infrastructures communes, et caetera,
19 et donc de pouvoir avoir peut-être une proposition plus
20 riche, et caetera. Mais au niveau de l'équité entre
21 les deux, quels problèmes voyez-vous maintenant? Est-
22 ce que c'est l'accès à différents modes de financement,
23 le contrôle de la programmation par le Conseil...
24 7769 M. LAMARRE: C'est clairement l'accès
25 à plusieurs sources de financement. Encore une fois,
StenoTran
1688
1 comme je l'exprimais précédemment, c'est une question
2 d'équilibre.
3 7770 LA PRÉSIDENTE: D'avoir les mêmes
4 possibilités...
5 7771 M. LAMARRE: Tout à fait.
6 7772 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... entre les deux.
7 7773 M. LAMARRE: Exact.
8 7774 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, parlons
9 de complémentarité.
10 7775 À la page 4, je crois, au paragraphe
11 17, vous parlez de ces trois secteurs de
12 complémentarité qui, à votre avis, devraient exister
13 entre la télévision publique et privée, entre la
14 télévision francophone et anglophone et entre la
15 télévision généraliste et spécialisée, payante et à la
16 carte, dont nous avons parlé.
17 7776 Maintenant, au niveau de la
18 complémentarité entre la télévision francophone et
19 télévision anglophone, et le fait que M. Khoury trouve
20 qu'il y a déséquilibre, quel est le problème que vous
21 entrevoyez en ce moment et qui devrait être corrigé?
22 7777 M. LAMARRE: Tout ce à quoi on
23 faisait référence, au fond; c'est qu'on a un marché qui
24 est trois fois plus petit que le marché anglophone.
25 Donc, encore une fois, au nom de la spécificité de
StenoTran
1689
1 notre marché, on veut s'assurer qu'il y ait un
2 équilibre parce que c'est évident que quelqu'un qui a
3 accès à un marché qui est trois fois plus grand que le
4 nôtre, à ce moment-là, a potentiellement accès à des
5 revenus beaucoup plus grands et, comme vous le savez
6 parce que vous voyez tous les chiffres, c'est aussi le
7 reflet de la réalité.
8 7778 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Est-ce que vous y
9 voyez...
10 7779 M. PROVENCHER: Si vous me permettez,
11 Madame Wylie, je pense aussi...
12 7780 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... un mécanisme...
13 7781 M. PROVENCHER: ... que nous
14 pourrions prévoir certains mécanismes pour encourager
15 par exemple une plus grande circulation des émissions
16 entre les secteurs francophones et anglophones. Nous
17 avons commencé depuis un certain temps à travailler
18 avec nos collègues du Canada anglais à développer des
19 projets qui puissent avoir des retombées dans
20 l'ensemble des marchés, et je pense que c'est un
21 objectif, eu égard à la politique, à la Loi sur la
22 radiodiffusion, qu'il faudrait certainement encourager.
23 7782 Peut-être qu'un des mécanismes qui
24 serait approprié serait de reconnaître, par exemple, un
25 crédit additionnel pour ces émissions-là qui sont
StenoTran
1690
1 distribuées dans les deux langues officielles du pays.
2 7783 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, au niveau
3 de Radio-Canada, vous avez là des suggestions ou
4 recommandations des plus précises et vous préconisez
5 que le Conseil, soit directement ou indirectement,
6 s'occupe de freiner Radio-Canada de façon assez
7 sérieuse.
8 7784 Monsieur Provencher dit non, mais
9 vous proposez par exemple, au paragraphe 41, que:
10 "... la part allouée sur les
11 budgets des fonds de production
12 à la Société Radio-Canada
13 pourrait être diminuée par
14 tranche de 10% à chaque année
15 pour assurer une meilleure
16 équité. Par exemple, pour la
17 prochaine année, la part des
18 diffuseurs publics serait de
19 40%, celle des diffuseurs privés
20 conventionnels serait également
21 de 40%, alors que celle des
22 autres radiodiffuseurs serait de
23 20%."
24 7785 Premièrement, où sont les
25 indépendants dans cette formule et, deuxièmement, vous
StenoTran
1691
1 préconisez une diminution par tranche jusqu'à ce que
2 vous voyiez quoi? Rien du tout à Radio-Canada?m
3 7786 M. LAMARRE: Non, pas du tout. Pas
4 du tout.
5 7787 Permettez-moi peut-être d'entrée de
6 jeu de dire ceci: Je pense qu'une des raisons qui fait
7 que nous avons une télévision de qualité dans le marché
8 francophone, c'est qu'avec la Société Radio-Canada et
9 le Réseau TVA vous avez deux excellents diffuseurs qui
10 diffusent de la programmation de très, très grande
11 qualité, et on ne veut pas d'aucune façon que vous
12 freiniez Radio-Canada. Toutefois, il y a des règles du
13 marché qui doivent s'appliquer.
14 7788 Comme vous le savez, Radio-Canada,
15 comme diffuseur public -- et c'est bien clair dans la
16 Loi sur la radiodiffusion -- doit avoir un rôle de
17 diffuseur public. Le problème que nous vivons et que
18 vous venez de décrire est un problème aigu. Tout à
19 l'heure, vous avez fait part de sacs de couchage, vous
20 avez fait part de problèmes de financement...
21 7789 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Pas avec Radio-
22 Canada.
23 7790 M. LAMARRE: Non, ça, c'est certain.
24 Mais mon point est le suivant; c'est que le problème de
25 financement, comme vous l'avez bien décrit, est un
StenoTran
1692
1 problème aigu. Le problème que nous avons dans le
2 marché francophone, c'est que notre concurrent
3 principal, qui est la Société Radio-Canada... donc
4 notre concurrent principal, c'est le gouvernement
5 fédéral. Alors le gouvernement fédéral, qui donne des
6 sources de financement, assure, garantit une enveloppe
7 de 50 pour cent à la Société Radio-Canada dans un
8 contexte où l'autre 50 pour cent est maintenant divisé
9 entre les autres téléviseurs généralistes et les autres
10 réseaux spécialisés.
11 7791 Ceci veut dire que ce qui se produit
12 concrètement, sans aucun égard à la cote d'écoute... ce
13 qui se produit présentement, c'est que Radio-Canada
14 reçoit son enveloppe de 50 pour cent et après ça
15 l'ensemble des diffuseurs privés viennent littéralement
16 se battre pour obtenir leur part de l'autre 50 pour
17 cent.
18 7792 Alors c'est cet état de fait qui crée
19 un déséquilibre énorme, et j'aimerais ça qu'André vous
20 décrive peut-être, dans la préparation de sa grille
21 horaire, qu'est-ce que ça veut dire comme
22 fonctionnement.
23 7793 M. PROVENCHER: Il est clair que les
24 contraintes auxquelles nous faisons face, malgré la
25 plus grande abondance des fonds disponibles, sont plus
StenoTran
1693
1 importantes aujourd'hui qu'elles l'étaient avant le 8
2 septembre 1996 lorsque Mme Copps a annoncé cette
3 heureuse nouvelle que le gouvernement fédéral allait
4 investir davantage dans le financement de la production
5 d'émissions canadiennes.
6 7794 Le grand nombre de joueurs qui se
7 sont installés dans le marché ont créé une demande pour
8 les fonds, je pense, qui, sans être hors de contrôle,
9 dépasse de beaucoup les prévisions qui avaient été
10 établies, avec le résultat suivant, que TVA
11 aujourd'hui, par exemple, lorsqu'il envisage de
12 financer à travers des maisons de production
13 indépendantes des séries dramatiques à budget élevé, ne
14 puisse pas le faire, soit extrêmement limité dans sa
15 capacité de le faire.
16 7795 Nous nous sommes fait dire, par
17 exemple, il y a quelques mois à peine, par Téléfilm
18 Canada que tout ce que TVA pourrait planifier au cours
19 de la prochaine année serait probablement, en dehors
20 d'une série qui s'appelle "Diva", une autre série
21 dramatique à budget élevé de huit heures. Dans le même
22 temps, la Société Radio-Canada, qui est notre principal
23 concurrent lorsqu'il s'agit d'attirer les auditoires et
24 de pouvoir récupérer des recettes de la vente de ces
25 auditoires-là aux annonceurs, est dans une situation où
StenoTran
1694
1 il peut faire 40 à 45 heures d'émissions de même
2 catégorie par année.
3 7796 Alors nous considérons qu'il s'agit
4 là d'une situation assez évidente de déséquilibre et
5 nous espérons que nous puissions établir le principe de
6 la concurrence dans l'accès au fonds. Actuellement
7 cette situation de concurrence là n'existe pas
8 puisqu'un des joueurs dispose non seulement d'une
9 enveloppe fermée mais également de la capacité de
10 planifier, sans aucune contrainte, son offre de
11 programmation et qui ne permet pas à l'administrateur
12 du fonds d'investissement d'exercer son discernement
13 dans l'allocation des fonds. Il doit respecter
14 exclusivement la soumission des projets qui lui a été
15 faite pour diffusion alors que nous, nous nous
16 inscrivons plus dans un processus de loterie, si vous
17 me permettez l'expression, entre guillemets.
18 7797 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Jusqu'à quel point
19 cette concurrence entre Radio-Canada et TVA, par
20 exemple, découle de l'étroitesse du marché et du fait
21 qu'il y a moins de joueurs dans le marché, ce qui est
22 assez difficile à... vous avez résisté,
23 Monsieur Lamarre, et Monsieur Provencher aussi, à
24 l'idée que les suggestions qui sont faites ici ne
25 viseraient pas à freiner Radio-Canada. Mais à ce
StenoTran
1695
1 moment-là, si je regarde par exemple dans le mémoire de
2 M. Khoury, que j'imagine vous endossez, en plus de
3 cette diminution de l'accessibilité aux fonds vous avez
4 des choses très précises, comme un droit de préemption
5 devrait être accordé au télédiffuseur privé dans
6 l'acquisition des droits pour les émissions de sports
7 et films, séries, mini-séries étrangères et pour les
8 émissions spéciales de variétés; aussi, que Radio-
9 Canada ne puisse pas surenchérir par rapport aux
10 télédiffuseurs privés lors des appels d'offres pour
11 l'acquisition des droits et que, lorsque Radio-Canada
12 envisage de produire, diffuser ou programmer une
13 émission, elle devrait d'abord s'assurer que les
14 télédiffuseurs privés ne sont pas prêts à allouer leurs
15 propres ressources privées pour produire, diffuser ou
16 programmer cette émission, et que les offres de Radio-
17 Canada ne devraient entrer en vigueur que si aucun
18 télédiffuseur privé n'a présenté de soumission ou si
19 aucune offre privée n'a été retenue.
20 7798 J'ai du mal à ne pas voir ça comme
21 freiner, et ma question est: Dans l'étroitesse du
22 marché et du fait qu'il y a moins de joueurs, est-
23 ceu'il n'y a pas un problème à empêcher, justement, la
24 concurrence, parce que dans cinq ans c'est vous qui
25 serez dans la position de Radio-Canada avec des
StenoTran
1696
1 exigences législatives qui sont différentes?
2 7799 M. LAMARRE: Au moment où nous nous
3 parlons, Madame Wylie, l'autre concurrent privé va
4 perdre 6 millions de dollars. Alors je pense que, si
5 vous cherchez un exemple spectaculaire pour montrer
6 l'étroitesse du marché, il est très clair que le marché
7 est très étroit et qu'on doit avoir un équilibre entre
8 le public et le privé.
9 7800 Ce que vous venez de décrire n'est
10 pas un modèle typique qui a été créé par un concurrent
11 privé frustré; c'est un modèle qui existe dans beaucoup
12 de pays dans le monde. Si vous êtes le gouvernement et
13 que vous confiez à une société public un mandat, il
14 faut s'assurer que ce mandat-là soit respecté.
15 7801 Je ne crois pas que le gouvernement
16 fédéral subventionne la Société Radio-Canada pour que
17 la Société Radio-Canada vienne faire de la surenchère à
18 TQS et à TVA pour du contenu américain.
19 7802 Il m'apparaît assez facile à
20 comprendre, pour un diffuseur public dans un contexte
21 où le CRTC nous convie à plus de diversité de contenus
22 canadiens, de reconnaître le rôle tout à fait unique du
23 diffuseur public.
24 7803 Tout à l'heure vous avez parlé -- et
25 je pense que c'est tout à fait pertinent -- que dans un
StenoTran
1697
1 marché petit, où les ressources sont relativement
2 limitées, on doive avoir des contenus de programmation
3 diversifiée. La façon la plus logique à très court
4 terme d'assurer la diversité dans le contenu canadien
5 dans le marché francophone... autant j'accepte votre
6 commentaire que vous avez dit tout à l'heure sur les
7 producteurs indépendants, que ce n'est pas de votre
8 ressort, je pense qu'il est éminemment du ressort du
9 CRTC, parce que c'est écrit dans la loi, de s'assurer
10 que notre diffuseur public soit complémentaire au
11 diffuseur privé.
12 7804 Si le diffuseur public ne fait que de
13 la duplication du diffuseur privé, à ce moment-là, nous
14 n'atteindrons pas, comme industrie, les objectifs de
15 diversité de contenu canadien.
16 7805 M. PROVENCHER: Si vous me permettez
17 d'ajouter un commentaire, Madame la Présidente, c'est
18 le suivant: Je pense que notre discours est
19 extrêmement cohérent. Nous avons dit qu'il y a des
20 facteurs qui ont contribué au succès du marché
21 francophone et, dans l'évolution du cadre
22 réglementaire, il faudrait que ces facteurs-là puissent
23 demeurer.
24 7806 Nous sommes tout à fait heureux de
25 souligner, comme Daniel vient de le faire, la
StenoTran
1698
1 contribution de la Société Radio-Canada au succès de
2 ces résultats-là, et Radio-Canada propose une
3 télévision qui est populaire, qui est de qualité et
4 nous tentons de répondre à cette invitation à
5 l'émulation en offrant aussi des émissions qui sont
6 pertinentes et qui sont de qualité.
7 7807 Ceci étant dit, le président du
8 Conseil supérieur de l'audio-visuel, M. Bourges, qui
9 nous faisait l'honneur d'être ici la semaine dernière à
10 l'ouverture de la séance, faisait remarquer que la
11 situation du financement de la télévision publique
12 devient en France aussi une question de préoccupation,
13 parce que la part d'autofinancement des chaînes
14 publiques s'accroît d'année en année et la mission
15 commerciale des chaînes publiques aussi se précise et
16 se confirme d'année en année.
17 7808 Nous suggérons qu'on doit, en quelque
18 part dans les règles du jeu, pour qu'il y ait saine
19 concurrence, refléter cette situation particulière dont
20 bénéficie le radiodiffuseur public, et nous avons pensé
21 que le modèle que nous proposons, loin de créer des
22 entraves au radiodiffuseur public dans les choix de
23 programmation qu'il pourrait faire à l'égard du contenu
24 canadien, par exemple... il n'y a aucune limitation à
25 ce qu'il peut faire. Par ailleurs, dans d'autres
StenoTran
1699
1 secteurs de programmation qui sont peut-être moins
2 pertinents, comme dans l'offre par exemple de contenu
3 étranger à ses téléspectateurs... et j'aimerais
4 souligner, par exemple, que la Société Radio-Canada a
5 diffusé dans les 18 derniers mois un peu plus de 80
6 films étrangers, particulièrement américains, dans des
7 moments où la nécessité de rejoindre des auditoires
8 commerciaux est peut-être un peu plus déterminante.
9 7809 Je pense qu'il doit y avoir en
10 quelque part des conditions qui s'installent pour
11 pouvoir refléter cette situation particulière là. Si
12 nous étions dans la même situation, Madame Wylie, et
13 que notre financement s'appuyait sur, par exemple, 60
14 pour cent de fonds publics, il est clair qu'on ne
15 tiendrait pas le même discours devant vous, on dirait:
16 Nous sommes dans des situations qui sont tout à fait
17 comparables, et que le meilleur l'emporte.
18 7810 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous vendriez votre
19 sac de couchage tout de suite.
20 7811 M. PROVENCHER: À un bon prix quand
21 même.
22 7812 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, un sujet
23 plus facile: les limites de publicité.
24 7813 Vous proposez que la limite de 12
25 minutes soit supprimée au moins à l'intérieur des
StenoTran
1700
1 émissions canadiennes, et je crois, au paragraphe 32,
2 que vous proposez une révision de la définition du
3 matériel publicitaire pour en exclure toute référence
4 au matériel de promotion. Voulez-vous dire promotion
5 de la programmation canadienne?
6 7814 M. LAMARRE: Oui. On parle de...
7 non.
8 7815 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Toute promotion.
9 7816 M. LAMARRE: Oui. Une des forces...
10 permettez-moi de soulever un point dans votre question.
11 Chez nous, ce n'est quasiment pas une question qui se
12 pose parce que...
13 7817 LA PRÉSIDENTE: C'est presque tout
14 canadien?
15 7818 M. LAMARRE: ... c'est presque tout
16 du contenu canadien. Dans le fond, on parle de peut-
17 être 10 à 12 pour cent de contenu étranger. Alors pour
18 nous, ce n'est pas un gros problème, on est un
19 diffuseur de contenu canadien.
20 7819 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais ça inclurait,
21 par exemple, la promotion d'un film étranger, si par
22 hasard...
23 7820 M. LAMARRE: Oui, mais vous comprenez
24 que pour nous...
25 7821 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Il n'y en a pas...
StenoTran
1701
1 7822 M. LAMARRE: ... ce n'est pas un
2 enjeu.
3 7823 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, vous
4 garderiez vous-mêmes le jugement de quand ça va à
5 l'encontre de votre auditoire et à l'encontre de votre
6 but d'atteindre le plus grand auditoire possible.
7 7824 M. LAMARRE: Tout à fait, parce
8 que...
9 7825 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Parce qu'en anglais,
10 on nous a parlé de "clutter" -- je ne pas quel mot on
11 utiliserait en français -- qui devenait à ce moment-là
12 un désavantage.
13 7826 M. LAMARRE: Je pense que c'est une
14 question de bon goût. C'est une question de bon goût.
15 On ne peut pas se permettre de mettre trop de contenu
16 commercial parce qu'à ce moment-là on va perdre notre
17 auditoire. Donc, encore une fois, c'est une question
18 d'équilibre.
19 7827 Le problème qu'on a, malheureusement,
20 à cause des cycles publicitaires, c'est que, si vous
21 voulez acheter du temps d'antenne au Réseau TVA, nous
22 pouvons vous en offrir abondamment dans certaines
23 périodes, comme vous le savez, c'est-à-dire janvier et
24 février, et pendant l'été. Et malheureusement, dans
25 les périodes de forte écoute, comme octobre-novembre,
StenoTran
1702
1 on est dans une situation où notre temps est
2 complètement vendu. Donc ça veut dire qu'on a un
3 manque à gagner. Nous pourrions, dans ces périodes-là,
4 vendre un peu plus de temps.
5 7828 Donc dans le fond, ce qu'on veut,
6 c'est une marge de manoeuvre pour que, dans des
7 périodes de pointe, où les demandes des annonceurs sont
8 très grandes, qu'on puisse y répondre et ça nous
9 donnerait un peu plus de flexibilité. Encore une fois,
10 on ne peut pas se prendre nous-mêmes à notre propre
11 jeu; c'est qu'on ne peut pas devenir commercial à
12 outrance et que là, le téléspectateur décide d'aller
13 chez notre concurrent.
14 7829 Alors c'est une question, encore une
15 fois, juste de se donner un peu de marge de manoeuvre
16 et de se donner les moyens financiers de nos ambitions.
17 7830 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Si le 12 minutes
18 était supprimé, il n'y aurait pas nécessité à ce
19 moment-là de définir... je suppose qu'il y aurait moins
20 d'importance de redéfinir la publicité s'il n'y avait
21 pas de limite. Ce serait à vous d'y insérer de la
22 promotion ou...
23 7831 M. LAMARRE: Exact, et c'est ce que
24 nous prétendons. Mais, du même souffle, je dois vous
25 ajouter que je ne pense pas que la teneur commerciale
StenoTran
1703
1 totale sur un an subirait un changement important. Je
2 pense que ce serait juste une question de période pour
3 répondre à la demande additionnelle lorsqu'elle se
4 présentera.
5 7832 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Quand vous parlez du
6 désavantage du milieu francophone comparé à vos
7 homologues anglophones qui bénéficient de la
8 substitution simultanée, est-ce que vous parlez à ce
9 moment-là du bénéfice que vous auriez si vous
10 pouviez... faire quoi exactement? Parce qu'en général
11 la substitution simultanée dans le milieu anglophone,
12 ce n'est pas totalement vrai, mais c'est de programmer
13 à l'encontre de la programmation américaine.
14 7833 Est-ce que c'est ça que vous voyez,
15 ou si c'est la substitution d'un autre service qui a la
16 même programmation que vous? Est-ce que la
17 programmation étrangère est de telle importance que
18 vous bénéficieriez de la substitution?
19 7834 M. PROVENCHER: Non. Je ne pense pas
20 que le concept de la substitution est un concept viable
21 dans le contexte de la télévision francophone. Ce que
22 nous voulons souligner d'autre part, c'est que c'est un
23 défi considérable, compte tenu de la taille du marché
24 francophone, de recouvrer nos coûts de programmation
25 sur le marché de la publicité compte tenu des cycles et
StenoTran
1704
1 compte tenu de la concurrence qui existe.
2 7835 Alors est-ce que nous pourrions
3 développer une plus grande souplesse à l'intérieur du
4 marché francophone compte tenu que la substitution ne
5 génère pas de revenus? Est-ce qu'on pourrait trouver
6 d'autres moyens d'élargir l'assiette des revenus pour
7 assurer la rentabilité des émissions que nous
8 diffusons? C'est cette question-là que nous souhaitons
9 qui soit examinée.
10 7836 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Est-ce que vous
11 faites un pont entre ce désavantage et la suggestion
12 que peut-être tôt ou tard il y aurait lieu que vos
13 homologues des services spécialisés -- vous l'êtes
14 vous-mêmes -- puissent avoir un revenu quelconque de la
15 distribution de vos signaux? Ce que vous soulevez,
16 est-ce que ce serait une façon de compenser pour le
17 fait que vous n'obtenez pas de revenus liés à la
18 substitution simultanée?
19 7837 M. PROVENCHER: Il est clair que nous
20 sommes soumis plus que quiconque aux intempéries du
21 marché. Il est clair que nous sommes ouverts -- et
22 nous l'avons vécu dans le passé -- aux cycles haussiers
23 et baissiers du marché de la publicité et que, quand il
24 fait beau, généralement nous en bénéficions mais, quand
25 il ne fait pas beau, nous sommes ceux qui écopons le
StenoTran
1705
1 plus parce que notre seule source de revenus, à 90 pour
2 cent et plus, c'est la publicité.
3 7838 Donc, sans proposer de modèle très
4 précis, nous demandons au Conseil de considérer
5 l'assouplissement des règles publicitaires pour que
6 nous puissions nous assurer et planifier une
7 récupération plus sécuritaire de nos investissements
8 sur le marché de la publicité.
9 7839 La double source de revenus, pour
10 nous, c'est difficilement concevable, sinon par la
11 concentration horizontale qui nous permettrait, par
12 l'intermédiaire de chaînes spécialisées dont nous
13 détiendrions les licences, d'avoir accès aux revenus
14 d'abonnement, mais je pense que c'est une perspective
15 qui est assez éloignée.
16 7840 Donc ce que nous pensons, nous sommes
17 confiants de pouvoir tirer notre épingle du jeu en
18 utilisant le plein potentiel des recettes publicitaires
19 sous réserve qu'il y ait des mesures plus souples à cet
20 égard-là.
21 7841 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, une
22 dernière question. Je vous lis le paragraphe 69 du
23 mémoire de M. Khoury, qui dit:
24 "En l'occurrence, l'adoption de
25 règles générales plus flexibles
StenoTran
1706
1 et durables constitue en soi le
2 principal incitatif pour assurer
3 la présence, la variété et la
4 qualité des émissions à contenu
5 canadien dans un contexte de
6 concurrence où les consommateurs
7 sont demandeurs de telles
8 caractéristiques."
9 7842 Pouvez-vous, en quelques phrases,
10 nous faire un aperçu du système des règles générales
11 plus flexibles et durables que vous envisagiez si nous
12 émettions un document absolument idéal pour vous et
13 pour votre vision de l'avenir à la fin de cet exercice?
14 Et vous avez cinq minutes.
15 7843 M. LAMARRE: Je peux résumer ça en
16 moins de temps. Je vais vous le résumer en trois mots:
17 asymétrie, flexibilité, équité.
18 7844 Asymétrie parce qu'on juge
19 important... et c'est pour ça sans doute qu'il est
20 difficile pour nous de ne pas cacher notre enthousiasme
21 aujourd'hui et notre ferveur; c'est qu'on croit que ce
22 rendez-vous ci est un rendez-vous unique pour tous les
23 partenaires du marché francophone de venir, comme l'ont
24 fait d'autres intervenants, vous demander de
25 reconnaître de façon très claire, lorsque vous
StenoTran
1707
1 réviserez les règlements du CRTC, la spécificité du
2 marché francophone. C'est notre premier souhait.
3 7845 Notre deuxième souhait, c'est la
4 flexibilité. Étant à la tête d'une entreprise qui a
5 perdu de l'argent pendant quelques années et qui a donc
6 dû prendre des décisions drastiques dont beaucoup
7 d'employés ont été victimes par leur perte d'emploi,
8 nous pensons que c'est de notre responsabilité
9 d'assurer l'avenir économique de notre entreprise.
10 7846 Pour ça, quand nous vous parlons de
11 flexibilité, comprenez bien qu'on ne vous demande pas
12 un chèque en blanc; on est prêts à vivre avec des
13 engagements, mais on veut avoir une flexibilité qui
14 tient compte de notre marché, qui est extrêmement petit
15 comparativement au marché anglophone. On veut aussi
16 atteindre une flexibilité qui nous permettrait, d'une
17 part, une stratégie de différenciation face au
18 diffuseur public et également une diversité de
19 programmation pour le consommateur francophone entre
20 les différents joueurs dans le marché francophone.
21 7847 Nous souhaitons également une équité
22 comme je vous l'ai dit tout à l'heure, où tous les
23 joueurs de l'industrie devraient être imputables à la
24 mesure et à la taille de leur entreprise, ce qui nous
25 permettrait, nous, d'avoir une stratégie à plus long
StenoTran
1708
1 terme.
2 7848 S'il y avait un terme qui résume la
3 pensée du Groupe TVA -- et c'est le terme sur lequel
4 j'aimerais conclure -- c'est l'équilibre. Nous
5 reconnaissons que l'équilibre est quelque chose de
6 précaire dans une industrie hautement réglementée comme
7 la nôtre. Nous sommes prêts à participer à l'équilibre
8 de l'industrie en prenant, lorsque nous viendrons
9 devant vous, des engagements formels qui correspondront
10 au potentiel de marché auquel nous prétendrons lors de
11 nos futures licences.
12 7849 Je m'en voudrais de conclure sans
13 vous dire qu'on a un attachement incroyable, à TVA,
14 pour le contenu canadien. À chaque fois que notre
15 vice-président des programmes est confronté avec un
16 choix où il pourrait facilement prendre sur les
17 tablettes un contenu américain et simplement l'adapter,
18 croyez-moi qu'il fait beaucoup de pirouettes pour
19 trouver une façon de financer un projet canadien, parce
20 que non seulement ça rejoint plus de téléspectateurs,
21 mais pour nous, comme diffuseur, je peux vous dire que
22 c'est beaucoup plus le fun à produire.
23 7850 Je vous remercie.
24 7851 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je vous passe au
25 conseiller juridique maintenant mais, avant de
StenoTran
1709
1 terminer, je voudrais vous rappeler que, quand vous
2 avez comparu lundi, je vous ai invités à continuer à
3 dialoguer avec vos collègues anglophones pour leur
4 donner les trucs nécessaires pour y arriver. J'espère
5 que vous allez continuer de le faire.
6 7852 M. PROVENCHER: Si vous me permettez
7 juste un tout petit commentaire avant qu'on passe aux
8 questions du conseiller juridique, Madame Wylie, je
9 pense qu'il y a une situation au Québec qui est tout à
10 fait remarquable, et c'est la suivante: Je pense
11 qu'aujourd'hui la demande des téléspectateurs est un
12 plus grand incitatif que le devoir réglementaire ou la
13 contrainte réglementaire pour offrir aux
14 téléspectateurs une offre essentiellement de contenu
15 canadien.
16 7853 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors pourquoi vous
17 inquiéter de la réglementation du CRTC?
18 7854 M. PROVENCHER: On s'inquiète, et nos
19 préoccupations, Madame Wylie, sont souvent à l'égard de
20 ceux qui voudraient imposer des contraintes
21 additionnelles dans un système dont ils disent eux-
22 mêmes qu'il va très bien.
23 7855 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui. Ça me rappelle
24 un professeur de mathématiques que j'ai déjà eu à
25 l'école secondaire: Si on obtenait presque toutes les
StenoTran
1710
1 réponses on avait 105 sur 100 parce que lui avait mal
2 calculé son histoire. Mon père était bien
3 impressionné.
4 7856 Maître Blais.
5 7857 Me BLAIS: Trois points.
6 7858 Le premier point, c'était pour
7 clarifier, mais je pense que vous avez commencé à
8 répondre de toute façon. Quand vous avez peur d'une
9 sur-réglementation, vous ne préconisez pas l'abolition
10 du quota existant de 50/60. Ça, il peut demeurer en
11 place sans difficultés.
12 7859 M. LAMARRE: Compte tenu de notre
13 performance, pour nous, sans vouloir être désobligeant,
14 je vous dirais que ce n'est pas un enjeu.
15 7860 Me BLAIS: D'accord.
16 7861 Monsieur Khoury, je voyais avec un
17 peu d'étonnement en haut de votre page, de votre
18 mémoire, "Ne pas citer sans autorisation". J'espère
19 que si le Conseil voulait vous citer dans sa décision
20 vous n'auriez pas de problème à ce niveau?
21 7862 M. KHOURY: Oui, tout à fait. Ce
22 serait même avec plaisir.
23 7863 Me BLAIS: Merci. Je ne voulais pas
24 mettre le Conseil dans des difficultés.
25 7864 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Moi, j'ai
StenoTran
1711
1 complètement ignoré ça.
2 7865 Me BLAIS: J'en ai bien peur, parce
3 que vous l'avez cité deux fois sans demander la
4 permission.
5 7866 Ma dernière question -- et on a parlé
6 beaucoup du milieu francophone et des succès que vous
7 avez eu -- est un peu dans l'esprit du dernier
8 commentaire de Mme la Présidente concernant le dialogue
9 avec le Canada anglais. Je me demandais, eu égard à
10 votre belle feuille de route et les succès, si par
11 hypothèse on vous demandait, peut-être vous,
12 Monsieur Provencher, de prendre le mandat d'être en
13 charge d'un des réseaux anglophones du Canada pendant
14 une période de trois à cinq ans, quelle serait votre
15 stratégie pour au moins tenter d'obtenir les résultats
16 que vous avez pu obtenir au Canada français?
17 7867 M. PROVENCHER: D'abord, je dois vous
18 dire que je fréquente de plus en plus mes collègues du
19 Canada anglais et j'y découvre un niveau de compétence
20 qui m'impressionne grandement. Je pense qu'il y a là
21 plein de gens qui sont bien avisés et qui disposent de
22 tous les outils pour faire progresser la télévision de
23 langue anglaise au Canada et, je pense, dans le sens
24 qui est recherché par le Conseil.
25 7868 Je pense qu'à cet égard-là, les
StenoTran
1712
1 engagements qui ont été proposés devant vous par
2 l'Association des radiodiffuseurs la semaine dernière
3 vont tout à fait dans ce sens-là, de bâtir un système
4 qui soit plus performant.
5 7869 Ceci étant dit, il est clair qu'il y
6 a un ensemble de conditions qui existent et que nous
7 devons respecter. La télévision de langue anglaise est
8 soumise à un environnement qui est différent de celui
9 que nous connaissons. Ils sont beaucoup plus ouverts,
10 par exemple, à la concurrence des services en
11 provenance des États-Unis, ce qui est notre cas aussi,
12 mais la protection de la langue constitue encore un
13 facteur qui freine la pénétration des services de
14 langue anglaise, canadien anglais ou américain, dans
15 notre marché.
16 7870 Je pense qu'une stratégie de
17 différenciation constitue l'atout principal pour
18 pouvoir faire progresser les services de radiodiffusion
19 de langue anglaise, particulièrement les réseaux
20 conventionnels.
21 7871 Moi, je suis très heureux de
22 constater, dans les conversations que j'ai, dans les
23 discussions que j'ai avec mes collègues du Canada
24 anglais, qu'ils sont tout à fait engagés dans cette
25 voie-là, et j'ai l'impression que, dans l'avenir, CTV
StenoTran
1713
1 ne sera pas Global et ne sera pas CBC, que chacun a une
2 conception du rôle qu'il peut jouer dans le système
3 canadien de radiodiffusion qui soit un rôle qui soit
4 distinctif, qui lui soit propre et qui soit tout à fait
5 conforme aux intérêts du système canadien de
6 radiodiffusion dans le sens de la promotion du contenu
7 canadien.
8 7872 Je pense que ces efforts-là sont
9 beaucoup plus sentis aujourd'hui qu'ils ne l'étaient il
10 y a quelques années, alors que, par exemple, la
11 distribution d'émissions par satellite n'était pas
12 encore une réalité, que le marché n'était pas aussi
13 ouvert qu'il l'est aujourd'hui à la distribution de
14 signaux des États-Unis et qui concernent la télévision
15 spécialisée.
16 7873 Moi, je pense que j'aurais tendance à
17 faire confiance à mes collègues du Canada anglais pour
18 qu'ils réussissent le formidable défi qui est devant
19 eux de bâtir un système, de bâtir un star system aussi,
20 qui est absolument incontournable pour pouvoir obtenir
21 du succès. Moi, je pense que j'apprends beaucoup à
22 travailler avec eux.
23 7874 Un autre des volets, je pense, du
24 travail que nous pouvons faire conjointement est
25 certainement de rechercher des projets, compte tenu des
StenoTran
1714
1 difficultés de financement, qui puissent avoir des
2 retombées, comme je l'ai dit tantôt, dans les deux
3 secteurs linguistiques du système canadien de
4 radiodiffusion.
5 7875 Me BLAIS: Donc, malgré les
6 différences apparentes au niveau de la langue, de la
7 culture, il y a quand même des décisions qu'on pourrait
8 décrire comme des décisions d'affaires qu'on peut faire
9 pour maximiser les rendements au niveau de ce qui nous
10 préoccupe, nous, le Conseil, au niveau des objectifs de
11 la Loi sur la radiodiffusion: plus de contenu
12 canadien...
13 7876 M. PROVENCHER: Tout à fait. Je
14 pense que l'approche de la différenciation doit reposer
15 en bonne partie sur le contenu canadien, et je pense
16 que nos collègues du Canada anglais ont à se
17 différencier entre eux mais ils ont aussi à se
18 différencier par rapport à l'offre qui est en
19 provenance des États-Unis.
20 7877 Je pense qu'ils doivent rechercher
21 des idées, des concepts qui leur permettent d'être
22 perçus de la part des téléspectateurs comme étant un
23 proposeur intéressant et significatif, ce qui veut dire
24 rechercher l'endroit exact, la position exacte dans le
25 marché de l'écoute qu'ils peuvent occuper et qu'ils
StenoTran
1715
1 peuvent desservir mieux que leurs concurrents.
2 7878 Je pense que, en s'appuyant davantage
3 mais progressivement... je pense que ce n'est pas
4 strictement une question de volonté, c'est aussi une
5 question de capacité. C'est inconcevable qu'on puisse
6 offrir davantage de contenu canadien de qualité dans le
7 contexte actuel du financement de la production
8 d'émissions canadiennes.
9 7879 Je pense que c'est là où,
10 malheureusement, la réalité rejoint les ambitions et
11 souvent les contraignent. Je pense que les efforts et
12 la volonté sont là; on doit déployer plus
13 d'imagination, plus de créativité au niveau du
14 financement, on doit bâtir de nouveaux partenariats
15 entre radiodiffuseurs francophones et radiodiffuseurs
16 anglophones, entre radiodiffuseurs anglophones et peut-
17 être certains partenaires à l'étranger à l'occasion
18 pour pouvoir amortir les droits d'émissions sur des
19 auditoires plus larges, mais essentiellement je pense
20 que de bâtir une offre distinctive pour chacun demeure
21 la clé, et moi, ce que j'ai entendu la semaine
22 dernière, c'était un discours qui est tout à fait
23 cohérent par rapport à ça.
24 7880 Me BLAIS: Merci pour vos
25 commentaires. Malheureusement, on n'a pas de...
StenoTran
1716
1 7881 M. PROVENCHER: Je retiens votre
2 offre d'emploi quand même.
3 7882 Me BLAIS: Malheureusement, on n'a
4 pas de budget pour payer vos conseils, mais merci quand
5 même.
6 7883 C'est tout, Madame la Présidente.
7 7884 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci, Maître Côté,
8 merci, Monsieur Lamarre et vos collègues. Nous vous
9 souhaitons un bon dîner où, contrairement au déjeuner,
10 vous n'aurez pas à penser à nous. Bon voyage de
11 retour.
12 7885 M. LAMARRE: Merci.
13 7886 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous reprendrons à
14 trois heures et demie. We will take a 15-minute break
15 and we will be back at 3:30.
16 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1514
17 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1530
18 7887 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary,
19 would you please invite the next participant to come
20 forward.
21 7888 Mme BÉNARD: Merci, Madame la
22 Présidente.
23 7889 La prochaine présentation sera celle
24 de CTEQ Télévision Inc., et j'inviterais Mmes Griffiths
25 et Verthuy à faire la présentation.
StenoTran
1717
1 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
2 7890 MS GRIFFITHS: Thank you very much,
3 Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commission staff. Thank
4 you for giving us the time today to address this
5 hearing.
6 7891 My name is Marie Griffiths, President
7 of CJNT. With my is my colleague, Véronique Verthuy,
8 General Manager.
9 7892 Having sat on both sides of the
10 fence, having been on the production side, never
11 completely pleased with the broadcasters' position on
12 everything or anything and having been the last four
13 years on the broadcasters' side as a holder of a
14 conventional over-the-air, off-the-air free TV licence,
15 it has been an interesting transition for me to try to
16 find a happy medium for both.
17 7893 Somebody made reference to the
18 mismanagement of Canadian projects or productions. I
19 have seen a lot of that. I don't want to get into that
20 too much right now, but maybe if broadcasters were
21 allowed to directly use the Production Fund, then maybe
22 we could set up a system or a structure where we would
23 hire the producers or directors from a list of
24 independents. It might just work out better because
25 they do have the management experience, there is no
StenoTran
1718
1 doubt about it, but most importantly the broadcaster is
2 directly accountable to the Commission.
3 7894 Madame Bertrand has repeatedly said
4 that the interest and values of Canadians is what she
5 puts above all anything else. Well, this brings me to
6 a topic that we have spoken about and CJNT has had the
7 chance to file other briefs on it.
8 7895 Foreign services, and I am not
9 referring to American foreign services. Please keep
10 this in mind. Third language foreign services, as far
11 as we are concerned, should pay through the nose for
12 the right to come here and take a third-language
13 viewer, a Canadian viewer who we are trying to teach or
14 inform or at least make him feel or sense some kind of
15 Canadian identity.
16 7896 We actually would like to see the
17 Commission come up with some kind of structure to
18 protect in our case the over 1 million viewers in
19 Montreal of ethnic origin who can just tune out of the
20 whole Canadian context and just simply live their land
21 of origin through their TV sets in their homes here in
22 Canada. This I find is totally unfair and a huge, huge
23 danger and threat for the future of our industry and
24 how our Canadian society will develop as a whole.
25 7897 Also, remember that these viewers
StenoTran
1719
1 when they finish watching their particular show in
2 their language of origin over a service like CJNT will
3 then tune in to one of your English or French licensees
4 or broadcasters across the country.
5 7898 If we don't let these new Canadians
6 develop at least in some way as a Canadian, and we all
7 know the influence television has on society today, it
8 is not going to happen that we keep this Canadian
9 identity and support it to grow and flourish.
10 7899 Antenna 1 from Greece is one of the
11 examples who is illegally servicing this country with
12 its programming out of Greece and is presently carrying
13 three local ads from Montreal. These are being sold
14 and this merchandising is being done here with no
15 control of the CRTC, no supervision and these services
16 are accountable to no one.
17 7900 There is some middleman in Montreal.
18 You will see the same structure set up in Toronto and
19 in major cities across this country, who will do these
20 sales. The fees are being paid for their satellites
21 and subscription to descramble these services for them
22 in their homes to Americans in the United States
23 directly over their credit cards. Antenna 1 has just
24 informed the Montreal market and Toronto market that
25 they are scrambling a new signal, they are putting up a
StenoTran
1720
1 new dish to supply live soccer games for $50 a month
2 U.S. and a $500 fee to get the original dish and the
3 descrambled service.
4 7901 I say make them all pay through the
5 nose. Today I am going to be very brief at this
6 hearing. You are looking for suggestions from us and
7 for answers on how we can help the conventional
8 broadcaster. The conventional broadcaster is burdened
9 with most of the regulations and thus faces the highest
10 cost of production. The conventional broadcaster whose
11 free TV signal can influence and plays a major role in
12 developing the society.
13 7902 Again, I say make them all pay
14 through the nose. Charge them all. Set up a fine
15 system for illegal satellite beaming. Make stations
16 who want to be on the eligible satellite list pay a
17 fee. Deutschvella, Arab 1, Antenna 1, WWBA or N, or I
18 forget the initials right now, which is a Russian
19 service out of New York, there is no shame in telling
20 these services that if they want to play in our
21 marketplace there is a cost. If you are in the
22 television business you are used to costs. It is not
23 anything that would shock them.
24 7903 I would think they are more shocked
25 that we don't, that Canada with an open-door policy
StenoTran
1721
1 just lets them come in and manipulate and have
2 advantages that we don't have as Canadians here in the
3 broadcast system.
4 7904 There is an old saying in our
5 industry, you pay to play. There is no free ride in
6 our industry and there shouldn't be because that would
7 be an abuse.
8 7905 The Commission is here to make sure
9 that we don't abuse the communication industry. There
10 is too much at stake here and what is the main danger
11 is losing our Canadian identity and no future
12 development of our Canadian identity. Please keep in
13 mind that Canada is made up of one-third ethnics or new
14 Canadians.
15 7906 We must identify as Canadians who
16 speak a third language, not as a person of a third
17 language living in Canada. Although that might sound
18 the same to you, it is not, and that is where our
19 Canadian identity topic comes in.
20 7907 I believe as a broadcaster it is
21 worth giving up 50 per cent of our prime time on
22 Canadian television for American programming or
23 whatever other kind of non-Canadian programming that
24 helps to bring in the revenues that will allow us to do
25 that great Canadian television show during the other 50
StenoTran
1722
1 per cent to keep our viewers, to inform, to entertain
2 under the Canadian banner. The better we make these
3 Canadian programs the greater the opportunity to sell
4 also to a wider market.
5 7908 I would like to make a little aside
6 at this point. There has been a lot of discussion
7 about the role of the independent producer. For the
8 purposes of our brief I would like to clarify the term,
9 if I may.
10 7909 As we understand it, independent
11 producers are those who from beginning to end turn out
12 a finished product to be aired by a broadcaster. He or
13 she, along with their team, work with theme, story
14 line, scripts and produce most of the time quality
15 programs. This is important because there are those
16 who have worked on community channels. In our case,
17 producers who worked on a community multilingual
18 television or even several of the third-language
19 producers that work with us now on CJNT believe that
20 because of that experience they can now be referred to
21 as independent producers. Whereas the context and the
22 interpretation that we use at hearings and in your own
23 paperwork and ours is the previous one that I have
24 stated.
25 7910 There is a place for independent
StenoTran
1723
1 productions on CJNT. We recently aired the docudrama
2 produced by a young Canadian film-maker named Michael
3 Jarvis. He received his funding from agencies like
4 those that we speak of here at these hearings today.
5 The story he chose to do was "Life and Times of Manuel
6 de Costa," the first free black man in Canada and the
7 role he played in helping Samuel de Champlain. Well,
8 it's a Canadian production and it sure is Canadian
9 content.
10 7911 Jarvis was not able to get his short
11 film air play on any of the conventional over-the-air
12 broadcasters until he came to CJNT. There were flaws
13 in his production, we have to be quite honest, there is
14 no doubt about it, but we believe that if a project is
15 funded by the Telefilms and the Production Funds, et
16 cetera, which as broadcasters we have no say in, well,
17 if after such a tedious screening process and producers
18 who have been involved in it know what it means, if
19 they are approved and funded, then they should be
20 aired. In fact, we told the Commission as much when we
21 were first heard during our licence application.
22 7912 That being said, we would also
23 support the suggestion that the Commission changed the
24 definition of prime time since it insists on
25 establishing some kind of mean prime time because we
StenoTran
1724
1 have differing opinions on that, but if it does, yes, I
2 think it would help broadcasters from the current 8:00
3 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, to the one put
4 forward by the CAB, that is to say from 7:00 p.m. to
5 11:00 p.m., seven days a week.
6 7913 In return, broadcasters should set
7 aside a one-hour block during weekends. Our preference
8 is Saturday daytime, where we don't run much of our
9 money making shows, like the American shows, for the
10 express purpose of showcasing unconventional TV. Many
11 of these independent productions are very Canadian, but
12 may be somewhat flawed or will not generate revenues
13 for the station in question.
14 7914 Nevertheless, I feel it is our duty
15 to provide such an opportunity to these independent
16 producers, especially since our institutions in place
17 deemed fit to fund them in the hundreds of thousands or
18 even millions of dollars.
19 7915 This Canadian television policy
20 review might be the most important the Commission has
21 ever held.
22 7916 Véronique.
23 7917 Mme VERTHUY: Bonjour. J'aimerais
24 revenir sur le point fait tout à l'heure par Mme
25 Griffiths en ce qui a trait aux services étrangers de
StenoTran
1725
1 tierce langue.
2 7918 Dans nos sociétés à forte
3 immigration, et afin de faciliter l'intégration de nos
4 nouvelles populations, certaines chaînes, dont la
5 nôtre, diffusent dans diverses langues minoritaires.
6 Les émissions sont de deux sortes. D'une part, il y a
7 les productions canadiennes, l'oeuvre de réalisateurs
8 et de réalisatrices néo-canadiens, qui témoignent aussi
9 de la nature plurielle de notre culture. D'autre part,
10 ces mêmes stations diffusent un certain nombre
11 d'émissions enregistrées à l'étranger mais visionnées à
12 l'avance et approuvées par des personnes compétentes
13 ici, au pays. Les stations se portent garantes, en
14 quelque sorte, de la qualité et du contenu de ces
15 importations.
16 7919 De plus en plus de pays, cependant,
17 voire des groupes à l'intérieur de ces pays, sont
18 maintenant en mesure d'émettre de plus en plus de
19 programmes qui sont directement captés à travers le
20 monde grâce surtout aux satellites et aux antennes
21 paraboliques. Ces émissions, qui sont reçues ici,
22 contrairement aux programmes américains ou canadiens,
23 ne sont soumis à aucun contrôle, ne connaissent aucun
24 filtrage... une liberté qui paraît fort admirable.
25 1540
StenoTran
1726
1 7920 La diversité offre des aspects fort
2 positifs; pourtant, la liberté ne doit jamais être
3 absolue car, poussée à l'extrême, elle comporte
4 toujours des dangers. Tout exercice intelligent de la
5 liberté exige des balises.
6 7921 Dans le cas d'émissions diffusées en
7 une des deux langues officielles et non retransmises
8 par une chaîne canadienne ou américaine agréée, elles
9 seraient immédiatement intelligibles à une large
10 majorité de la population. L'on pourrait penser que,
11 de ce fait, un contrôle de facto s'exercerait. Dans
12 l'idéal, tout programme qui prendrait des valeurs
13 contraires à nos valeurs canadiennes fondamentales
14 ferait rapidement l'objet de vives protestations ou de
15 commentaires avisés.
16 7922 Malheureusement, un tel contrôle
17 demeure parfaitement aléatoire dans la mesure où
18 institutionnaliser son existence dépend des réactions
19 individuelles des téléspectateurs. De plus, il existe
20 à côté de ces émissions-là celles qui nous arrivent
21 dans une langue qui n'est parlée que par une minorité
22 linguistique. Les inconvénients sont tout de suite
23 plus apparents. L'on conçoit aisément en effet une
24 situation où une telle émission pourrait véhiculer des
25 valeurs totalement inacceptables dans le contexte
StenoTran
1727
1 canadien sans que la population dans son ensemble,
2 voire les autorités intéressées, en soit consciente.
3 7923 L'on conçoit non moins aisément que
4 toute protestation que cette émission pourrait
5 éventuellement provoquer aurait vraisemblablement lieu
6 dans la même langue minoritaire; elle risquerait donc
7 de passer tout aussi inaperçue du grand public.
8 Autrement dit, en l'absence de tout contrôle, un
9 travail de propagande surnois pourrait facilement
10 exister, existe déjà peut-être à notre insu.
11 7924 L'on ne saurait trop insister sur le
12 péril que représente cette situation. Nous savons déjà
13 l'utilisation que font de l'Internet les pédophiles,
14 les racistes, les intégristes de toute obédience et
15 autres indésirables.
16 7925 À l'heure qu'il est, on se rend de
17 mieux en mieux compte du danger inhérent dans le libre
18 accès à la diffusion et à la réception sur le Net.
19 Faut-il y ajouter l'arrivée dans nos salons et salles
20 de séjour, voire nos chambres à coucher, par le biais
21 de la télévision, de programmes véhiculant
22 éventuellement le même genre de contenus?
23 7926 Cette hypothèse ne met nullement en
24 question, bien sûr, la valeur citoyenne des communautés
25 culturelles. D'où qu'ils viennent, et malgré une
StenoTran
1728
1 certaine nostalgie bien compréhensible pour le pays de
2 leur enfance, les immigrants affirment le désir de se
3 faire accepter, d'apporter leur contribution propre à
4 une culture canadienne en évolution et reconnaissent ce
5 que le Canada peut leur offrir, ce qu'il peuvent offrir
6 en échange.
7 7927 Nous devons veiller à ce que la route
8 vers l'intégration ne soit pas semée d'embûches
9 importées de l'extérieur. Les émissions par satellite
10 font partie des domaines où cette responsabilité est à
11 exercer. L'heure, pour ne pas dire la mode, est à la
12 déréglementation. Au nom de la libre circulation des
13 idées comme des marchandises, il est donc tentant
14 d'adopter à l'endroit de ces émissions par satellite
15 une politique de laisser-faire. Selon cette politique,
16 on ouvrirait nos frontières aériennes, nos cieux à
17 toutes les propagandes d'où qu'elles viennent, quel
18 qu'en soit le contenu.
19 7928 Hélas, les risques que comporte une
20 telle politique sont grands. Nous ne devons pas
21 chercher à imiter certains pays à parti unique et
22 interdire aux citoyens et aux citoyennes tout accès à
23 ces émissions par satellite car une telle censure
24 absolue serait justement contraire à nos habitudes et à
25 nos principes. Nous croyons néanmoins qu'il faut
StenoTran
1729
1 procéder ici comme nous le ferions dans d'autres champs
2 d'activité. Effectivement, nous pensons qu'il incombe
3 au CRTC, qui ne doit pas craindre d'intervenir là où
4 les circonstances le justifient, l'exigent même,
5 d'exercer un contrôle raisonnable et raisonné sur ces
6 émissions.
7 7929 Voilà.
8
9 7930 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
10 Cardozo?
11 7931 COMMISSAIRE CARDOZO: Merci beaucoup.
12 7932 Merci, Madame Griffiths et Madame
13 Verthuy.
14 7933 Let me start my questioning by
15 turning to the central issue or one of the central
16 issues of your presentation, which is on foreign
17 programming. You say there was a lot of foreign
18 programming coming in. I am just wondering, do we have
19 a lot or enough of Canadian-made third language
20 content? Is there sufficient enough that these people
21 ought to be doing better? Is it a matter of lack of
22 supply or is it a matter of cost as to why they are
23 running so much foreign programming?
24 7934 MS GRIFFITHS: I think the reason
25 that the foreign services want to come in and beam
StenoTran
1730
1 their signals to the ethnics in this country is because
2 it's a market. It's television business. It's a
3 market and they are not meeting any resistance. It
4 would be ludricous for them not to come in. When we
5 set the precedent about four years ago and the other
6 countries heard about it, they just added -- you know,
7 one came in after the other.
8 7935 Do we do ethnic Canadian programming?
9 As far as I know, there are two broadcasters that this
10 Commission has licensed, CFMT and CJNT. CJNT has only
11 been on the air a year. We were late getting started.
12 We don't differ -- we might differ in our language of
13 programming, but one thing I learned coming from the
14 production side, no matter what I thought the costs
15 would be to do professional broadcast TV, it floored
16 me. I mean it's a whole other world and it's too bad
17 that producers who are out there demanding all these
18 things of broadcasters can't maybe tune into it or
19 maybe we can't get closer together to find that happy
20 medium.
21 7936 The costs are astronomical, Mr.
22 Commissioner. We do talking head shows because they
23 are still of great interest to ethnics who want to know
24 what the President of their local association said or
25 whatever. We will send out a beta cam crew or we will
StenoTran
1731
1 turn out a half-hour show for about $3,100 and it will
2 get all the viewership. It will get top viewership as
3 a target market in that ethnic community because of the
4 need. The context is not the same, obviously, for our
5 English colleagues, whereas the French television can
6 do local, not for $3,100 for a half hour if you want to
7 sell $20,000 a spot or $10,000 a spot or even $1,000
8 for 30 seconds.
9 7937 So, yes, cost which comes with
10 professional on-air broadcasting is applicable to all,
11 even to us as a multilingual station. We would love to
12 be able to bring up our quality of productions to turn
13 out some of the stuff that we are buying from CFMT.
14 They are doing some excellent work. They do a show
15 called "Chinese Business Week", which would stand up
16 against a "20/20" in the States, but it's in Chinese.
17 7938 We get "La Mira" now, an amazing
18 Portuguese show from them and my hat goes off to them
19 because what they did is they took the context of
20 producing a high-quality English or French local
21 Canadian show, except they did it in a third language.
22 Somebody needed to make that jump and it's funny
23 because the people who did were not of ethnic origin.
24 They were just professionals and whether it was a
25 professional from the production side or from the
StenoTran
1732
1 business side who understood this is how you will be
2 able to sell this show to make those spots come in and
3 the advertising rights higher, they turned out some
4 amazing programming. The costs are very high, sir. We
5 face them everyday.
6 7939 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The program
7 you are talking about is primarily non-drama, it's more
8 current affairs?
9 7940 MS GRIFFITHS: Yes, current affairs
10 newsworthy. News sells a lot, obviously, also to the
11 ethnics. What's nice about having the money to do that
12 kind of news like Rogers does and some of the shows we
13 are starting to do this second year is that it's about
14 Canadian things. It's an up-beat magazine newsworthy
15 show, but about Canada, about things happening here
16 across the country. They might reflect to the country
17 of origin, but always in a comparison with something
18 they covered or some story in Canada, and that's the
19 essence. That's the essence of programming as far as
20 we are concerned to ethnics, to maintain that Canadian
21 identity or to help develop it, because the ethnic
22 doesn't come with it.
23 7941 MS VERTHUY: I'm sorry, Mr.
24 Commissioner, if I may jump in here, I think also the
25 issue we have isn't so much that foreign services are
StenoTran
1733
1 coming in and we don't think that the Canadian citizen,
2 if you will, of ethnic origin should not have access to
3 it. Our concern is more that they are coming in
4 without any form of regulations at all.
5 7942 They are coming in and -- for
6 instance, if I were Chinese and living here, I would
7 very much like to have programming directly from China,
8 but that then brings the risk of my living in Chinese
9 virtually 24 hours a day without ever really
10 understanding the larger Canadian context in which I am
11 now situated. So, what we are saying is we cannot
12 block airways, we understand that, but perhaps if these
13 services are going to come into Canada, is there a way,
14 as Mrs. Griffiths so graphically put it, for them to
15 pay through the nose, that that money could then go
16 towards providing Canadian Chinese-language programming
17 then.
18 7943 This would help contribute to the
19 fund or funds available to Canadian broadcasters to
20 ensure that on top of the Chinese programming they may
21 get directly from China, they are also going to want to
22 watch local Chinese programming that reflects their
23 Canadian reality now.
24 7944 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Right. So,
25 your complaint is not against the local third-language
StenoTran
1734
1 specialties, such as "Fairchild" and Asian television,
2 but against foreign services that are just being piped
3 in holus-bolus?
4 7945 MR. GRIFFITHS: Allow me to say that
5 there is obviously a difference. You are referring to
6 Canadian services that have been licensed by the
7 Commission that are carrying --
8 7946 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Right. Your
9 complaint is not with them?
10 7947 MS GRIFFITHS: Well, if this Canadian
11 specialty service just becomes a bus that says "Canada"
12 on front, but inside all it loads up is foreign
13 programming and he becomes a distributor with no
14 regulations like the conventional, no costs like the
15 conventional, not accountable to you as we are the
16 conventionals, at that point I would like to see some
17 kind of system or structure where they also have to put
18 some money in the kitty, the distributors, and, yes,
19 the DTH services, even the cable -- I know the cable
20 companies do, but if you are going to make money from
21 taking programming that's not Canadian and offering it
22 to Canadian homes, il faut faire un compromis. You
23 can't hit us from both sides.
24 7948 Somewhere these people have to pay.
25 So, either in this new structure when this policy is
StenoTran
1735
1 revised you say, "Okay, well, what do we do with this,
2 with the ones who want to be on the eligible list, the
3 ones that cable wants to carry, the ones that DTH wants
4 to carry", because they make money by just carrying
5 these services. Of course, a Greek is going to pay to
6 see Greek every single day from a station from Greece.
7 7949 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Not
8 necessarily.
9 7950 MS GRIFFITHS: Unless our programming
10 in Greek is very good, but then the costs are high.
11 So, help us balance it out. That's what we are saying.
12 7951 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So, what
13 programming is available, Canadian-made programming, in
14 third languages? Is it mostly talking heads of the
15 kind that you are running or is there a lot of stuff
16 like the example you gave from CFMT?
17 7952 MS GRIFFITHS: CFMT right now -- and
18 we hope to meet them at least equally one day or
19 probably beat them in our budgets we do put up for a
20 good third-language Canadian production. CFMT
21 obviously has the experience, has been around a long
22 time, and is able and is organized to put big money in
23 doing productions like the ones I mentioned to you.
24 7953 On CJNT, we do the talking heads, but
25 we have also gone a little further. We have tried
StenoTran
1736
1 doing some series. Actually, we did a children's
2 series that was very interesting that was in a third
3 language. The quality was there, everything. We
4 couldn't add the segments as we would have liked to, we
5 couldn't build a puppet that someone wanted $8,000 to
6 do. It was motorized and that. So, there were a few
7 things missing.
8 7954 The experience was good, though, and
9 we noticed that they did watch the show. We had a
10 great hostess who would take the kids and sit and talk
11 to them. We incorporated questions about Canada, we
12 made it fun. We had good writers on it. We couldn't
13 keep it up because of the costs. We are a new station,
14 we don't have the advertising sell-out we thought we
15 would, et cetera, et cetera.
16 1555
17 7955 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: What are the
18 prospects of joined ventures? What we are seeing,
19 because of the increasingly high cost of producing good
20 programming, is that producers and broadcasters, or
21 producers themselves get together and produce joint
22 ventures.
23 7956 How much prospect is there where you
24 could do, say, a puppet show or a children's show which
25 could perhaps be produced and then filmed twice; once
StenoTran
1737
1 in English or once in French and once in another
2 language or in other languages?
3 7957 MS GRIFFITHS: Actually, we bought
4 some programming that is Canadian. One of the series
5 was called "Stop Watch". This program was originally
6 done in English and aired on English channels all
7 around the country.
8 7958 We bought it as an after market,
9 dubbed in Arabic. This was done by a French production
10 company called Mediamax out of Montreal.
11 7959 We are also airing right now a series
12 called "Foreign Affairs". It is Canadian, produced
13 with the funding from the fund and Telefilm, and all
14 that. It is beautiful. It is like a soap opera. They
15 dubbed it in Spanish.
16 7960 CJNT acquired those rights, and we
17 are running it in Spanish.
18 7961 Could I have gotten a real Spanish
19 one? Yes. It was our choice to encourage the Canadian
20 production. We wanted to give it the after market. We
21 believe in encouraging the efforts of the Canadians
22 that made that soap opera, dubbed in Spanish today,
23 called "Foreign Affairs" -- which, by the way, is a big
24 success on CJNT.
25 7962 We would one day like to see a co-
StenoTran
1738
1 production, like you said. If CJNT was to use it, I
2 see no reason why we could not be part of that
3 production, where we would pay maybe a smaller amount
4 because we would use it on a second level, after it was
5 aired in English or French.
6 7963 I have not had time to sit with
7 French colleagues who I think can identify a little
8 more with our need to do local-regional programming,
9 because the situation in the French context versus an
10 English Canada is sort of the same.
11 7964 So yes, I am sure there are
12 opportunities there that I would like to have the time
13 to look into.
14 7965 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In terms of
15 local programming, most of your programming, which you
16 have called talking heads, is of a local nature which
17 would be relevant to people living in the Montreal area
18 market.
19 7966 MS GRIFFITHS: Yes. I find it hard
20 to be a conventional, off-the-air free TV broadcaster
21 in a major city and not reflect some kind of local.
22 Actually, I find it kind of impossible.
23 7967 I think the reason why the Commission
24 has never insisted on quotas is maybe because it just
25 stands to reason that it would be a little redundant.
StenoTran
1739
1 It is normal.
2 7968 We do more, I think, than what a big
3 city commercial on-air TV station would do, simply for
4 the reason that there is a need for more.
5 7969 Again, I have to tell you, we are
6 very lucky. In one way we are unlucky, because we have
7 to do 25 languages -- it is a Condition of Licence --
8 which we are very happy with, because we feel we serve
9 a large percentage of the people of our city.
10 7970 In return, though, our production
11 costs are much lower. A conventional broadcaster is
12 probably listening to me now saying: "What? They have
13 to produce locally in 25 different languages a month?
14 My God, their budget must be in the hundreds of
15 millions of dollars." Au contraire.
16 7971 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Is it?
17 7972 MS GRIFFITHS: No, Mr. Commissioner.
18 7973 One day, if we can just charge all
19 these people that are making the big money around the
20 world that want to come into Canada with their
21 programs, maybe we would have that kind of a budget.
22 And there would not be an issue any more of independent
23 producers not being able to produce.
24 7974 There would not be an issue for you
25 to worry about doing enough Canadian content, because
StenoTran
1740
1 we would probably want to do more than you even ask
2 for. If the productions are good, the eyeballs are
3 there and it translates to revenues.
4 7975 It is an easy equation. To me, it is
5 quite simple actually. It is finding somebody to fund
6 it. Canadian conventional broadcasters cannot keep
7 putting their hands in their pockets all the time to
8 meet the need and to develop the society. Somewhere,
9 somebody else --
10 7976 We have to say: "Hey, wait a minute.
11 Who else is not contributing but is benefiting and
12 profiting from the Canadian viewing public?"
13 7977 There is a big list there that we
14 have not even tapped into, sir.
15 7978 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: One of the
16 other issues that has been coming up a lot is the issue
17 of export in order to fund the rather expensive
18 production costs. Export becomes a very important
19 avenue to get revenue.
20 7979 Perhaps this is early going, but have
21 you done or are you planning or thinking about any
22 other either co-productions or exports to countries who
23 would be interested in the languages in which you
24 produce?
25 7980 MS GRIFFITHS: We tried discussing
StenoTran
1741
1 with two countries about co-productions about two years
2 ago, and both of them fell through. Not long after
3 they fell through, they were going great.
4 7981 But right after they fell through, a
5 while later we found out why. One had applied through
6 someone else to be on the eligible satellite list.
7 That was of no use to them. Why should they come and
8 spend money and co-produce with us and not have 100
9 percent rights?
10 7982 They were going to beam their own TV
11 station, whatever they were already spending on. They
12 were picking up a free after market at no cost.
13 7983 These negotiations came to a halt.
14 7984 In one of the briefs we had filed
15 with the Commission at the time for the eligible
16 satellite list, I believe we made reference to that.
17 We said it is hurting our industry.
18 7985 I am not pleased. I am not pointing
19 the finger at the Commission -- that would be suicide.
20 But what I am saying is that we would like to make you
21 aware, maybe because we do operate every day working
22 with other countries and third language Canadian
23 viewers, not your standard English and French -- which
24 is basically what this policy and this Commission and
25 this country is about: the two founding people.
StenoTran
1742
1 7986 That is wonderful and that is great.
2 But here we are.
3 7987 You dealt with the problem
4 beautifully. Canada's policy is tremendous. I can't
5 think of other countries that have licences like CJNT
6 and CFMT and specialty third language services, et
7 cetera.
8 7988 It just turned against us completely.
9 Here we were thinking: "Wow. Now that we have a
10 licence, we are going to go deal with these countries,
11 because they want a way in. And now that we are an
12 official broadcaster, we can supply this way in, either
13 through co-productions or we buy at good rates; we will
14 do something with advertising."
15 7989 They did not need us. They found a
16 back door in.
17 7990 So I am hoping that we can reverse
18 the situation, where they will find that it is
19 interesting to sit with us and work on something
20 together in the future.
21 7991 MS VERTHUY: May I just add a
22 comment. It is not quite as specific with regard to
23 third language.
24 7992 I heard some of the other comments
25 with regard to "what is a Canadian program".
StenoTran
1743
1 7993 I believe strongly, obviously, that
2 it involves Canadian content; that it reflects Canada.
3 But I think there should also be some recognition of a
4 Canadian production.
5 7994 I think earlier today you were
6 talking with Salter films about -- which I have not
7 seen. I have not seen this show called "LEXX". But I
8 have seen others, that even though it may not be
9 specifically Canadian -- it can hardly be if it is
10 another dimension.
11 7995 Nevertheless, Canadians do have a way
12 of looking at the world, do have a way of presenting
13 stories that are specifically Canadian. It may not
14 have "Canada" blazoned across the top of the screen,
15 but the feel of it is Canada, because we do have our
16 own particular way of looking at things.
17 7996 I think that is also important so
18 that when we look at products that are exportable, I
19 think we should not necessarily think of Canadian
20 productions that are so specifically Canadian when we
21 want to give it a Canadian production credit or a
22 Canadian content credit.
23 7997 I think there is a lot to be said for
24 what a Canadian director, a Canadian producer, a
25 Canadian cameraman will bring to how the show looks and
StenoTran
1744
1 can qualify as a Canadian show, and becomes hopefully
2 exportable as well.
3 7998 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You say it
4 does not relate that much to a third language issue --
5 7999 MS VERTHUY: No, I didn't say it
6 didn't relate. I said it was not a specific comment
7 about third language. I just wanted to qualify that my
8 statement was a little larger than just specifically
9 third language.
10 8000 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: What you just
11 said in terms of defining Canadian programming, does
12 that not apply to third language programming as well --
13 8001 MS VERTHUY: Absolutely. It was a
14 general statement. That is the only point I wanted to
15 make.
16 8002 I was making a general statement;
17 that it did not have to relate only and specifically to
18 third language.
19 8003 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: From what you
20 said earlier, I want to clarify that your producers can
21 access CTF funding when they are producing shows for
22 you, when they are producing programming for you.
23 8004 MS GRIFFITHS: Are you referring --
24 8005 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The CTCPF
25 Telefilm funding.
StenoTran
1745
1 8006 MS GRIFFITHS: We have not partaken
2 at all in that funding.
3 8007 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But can your
4 producers access that funding?
5 8008 MS VERTHUY: Yes, the independent
6 ones, the ones who are not produced directly by us, who
7 are their own independent production house, can, if
8 they so choose, go and do that.
9 8009 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Even if they
10 are in a third language.
11 8010 MS VERTHUY: I am saying yes, because
12 that is the information I have been given.
13 8011 MS GRIFFITHS: I don't know the
14 Fund's reaction to that, to tell you the truth. We
15 have not done the exercise. I don't know if the Fund
16 would set aside --
17 8012 As you well know, there are not
18 enough funds originally, from what we hear. So I don't
19 know if the Fund --
20 8013 I know if I were someone on the Fund,
21 I would say: "Look, if I had to make a choice between
22 English, French and a third language, and I can't give
23 to all three, what do you do"?
24 8014 I don't want to hurt anyone's
25 feelings, but I think it is easier for me to say --
StenoTran
1746
1 because I am an ethnic and I am an immigrant that came
2 here on the boat in the fifties -- I would have to go
3 with the two founding languages, sir. I would have to
4 give it to the English and the French.
5 8015 It is a belief of mine that if you
6 work in a third language, when there is not enough to
7 go around --
8 8016 That's why it is so important that
9 what we do in the third language prepares them under
10 that Canadian identity and Canadian context, so they
11 don't feel left out when they tune in to a French or
12 English. They feel part of it also.
13 8017 That can also be done in a transition
14 form originating from programming in their own
15 language, which is the one they understand best and
16 they are the most comfortable with.
17 1605
18 8018 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Speaking about
19 the English and French broadcasters, is it your view
20 that they reflect the multicultural diversity of the
21 country?
22 8019 MS GRIFFITHS: I hope not because you
23 wouldn't need stations like ours.
24 8020 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I didn't think
25 you would be so blunt about that. I was wondering.
StenoTran
1747
1 Thank you for that answer. But you and I might have a
2 disagreement on the value of that.
3 8021 MS GRIFFITHS: Okay.
4 8022 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: A couple of
5 other things I just want to mention to you for your
6 information in case you are not aware, and you probably
7 are, just some of the things that you mentioned.
8 8023 One is regarding the Internet. We
9 have a proceeding on New Media which is later this
10 fall. The deadline is October 1, which is this
11 Thursday. The others are also doing a review of what
12 in our parlance we call the ethnic broadcasting policy,
13 but essentially it is their language and all that kind
14 of stuff which will happen somewhere over the next six
15 months. Hopefully you will consider being part of both
16 those processes.
17 8024 That covers my questions. Thanks very
18 much.
19 8025 Thanks, Madam Chair.
20 8026 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
21 8027 Ms Griffiths, which Canadian or
22 foreign ethnic services on the eligible list are
23 available to viewers via cable in the coverage area of
24 CJNT?
25 8028 MS GRIFFITHS: Oh, Ms Wylie --
StenoTran
1748
1 8029 THE CHAIRPERSON: Not authorized, but
2 available. I would expect since you see them as such a
3 threat that you would know what is being carried by the
4 cable companies.
5 8030 MS GRIFFITHS: Well, Ms Wylie, I will
6 tell you, we have known each other for a long time.
7 You have always had a knack of putting me in the hard
8 spot and you have just done it again.
9 8031 THE CHAIRPERSON: Me, such a nice
10 lady.
11 8032 MS GRIFFITHS: I'm learning. I
12 learn, I learn, Ms Wylie. I will tell you, I know that
13 when we intervened, and again it's not that my homework
14 isn't done, I think it's so depressing for us. It's
15 something like, you know --
16 8033 THE CHAIRPERSON: You would not
17 rather not.
18 8034 MS GRIFFITHS: If you ignore it --
19 yes, you think it's going to away type of thing. We
20 know they are there. We know the Russian one was
21 approved actually. Someone informed us that it was
22 approved not long ago, the one out of New York.
23 8035 THE CHAIRPERSON: But there's a
24 difference between being on the list and being carried.
25 My question was not what's not the list. I am well
StenoTran
1749
1 aware of that.
2 8036 MS GRIFFITHS: Okay.,
3 8037 THE CHAIRPERSON: What is being
4 carried by the cable company in your coverage area,
5 which seems to be one of your major concerns.
6 8038 MS GRIFFITHS: No. Right now from
7 foreign complete television services, not Canadian
8 specialties like Telelatino or Odyssey or Chinavision.
9 Actually there's not any positions I know on Videotron,
10 the merger Videotron made. There was no position as of
11 today where they are carrying any third language
12 television station.
13 8039 Needless to say, we have made our
14 opinions and position very clear to them also. I don't
15 think they took us to heart and overlooked a great
16 business deal because revenues are very important in
17 this business. We sort of look at the Commission and
18 the regulating and any structure you set up for that.
19 That's basically what we are saying today.
20 8040 The illegal ones, not the ones on the
21 satellite list, have caused us the most difficulty
22 right now. They are in a lot of homes. They are being
23 advertised. Flagrant, like right in our faces.
24 8041 THE CHAIRPERSON: This is a --
25 8042 MS GRIFFITHS: Antenna One.
StenoTran
1750
1 8043 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- penetration of
2 illegal dishes.
3 8044 MS GRIFFITHS: Yes.
4 8045 MS VERTHUY: That's right. It's not
5 so much -- excuse me -- that they are carried on cable.
6 It's exactly that. Even if they have been approved for
7 carriage on a list and haven't been carried by the
8 cable companies, it's not preventing them from being
9 carried in Canada.
10 8046 The Portuguese and Italian, the
11 Greek --
12 8047 MS GRIFFITHS: Arab.
13 8048 MS VERTHUY: -- the Arab are just
14 four of the ones we know. The Russian, as far as I
15 know, is also -- they are receiving Russian. As far as
16 I know, they are communities that we see programming
17 from their countries of origins via satellite via
18 satellite dishes.
19 8049 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what
20 the penetration of satellite dishes is in the area
21 covered by CJNT?
22 8050 MS GRIFFITHS: No.
23 8051 THE CHAIRPERSON: Which would be
24 Montreal.
25 8052 MS VERTHUY: Yes. No. It's a survey
StenoTran
1751
1 we wanted to undertake. The station has had it's share
2 of problems, as you know, before it went on the air.
3 We weren't able to pay that luxury, se payer une
4 traite, parce que pour moi, ce serait une traite.
5 8053 I would love to know. There's no
6 doubt about it. Actually, what we are telling you from
7 is word of mouth, what we get from our producers. The
8 advertising, we were approached to advertise these
9 dishes. I mean, it was ridiculous. It was
10 unbelievable.
11 8054 Basically, when people miss some of
12 the shows, because we work 25 target markets all
13 together it makes for a big viewing audience but, you
14 know, each one is not that large, except for Italian,
15 which is about 150,000 strong.
16 8055 We know from these markets when we
17 run a certain show or contest and we find out oh, they
18 missed it, too bad we don't have re-runs because they
19 were watching so and so that was coming down that they
20 picked up on their satellite from their station from
21 their country of origin.
22 8056 It gets to the point where you say
23 all right, if they were kicking back some money and it
24 was helping us here to do better Canadian programs so
25 maybe they won't tune in that next Tuesday again to the
StenoTran
1752
1 four hour movie that they run. The Arab one runs
2 movies. It's the only country where you need a four
3 hour block to run their movies. These are not 120 or
4 90 minutes or 100 minute movies.
5 8057 They will tune in to one of those
6 movies. We have to be careful to put our Arabic
7 programming around that. Quelqu'un d'autre qui est
8 maître de notre cédule presque; but its unfair
9 competition.
10 8058 THE CHAIRPERSON: Who provides these
11 dishes? Is it provided by DirectTV?
12 8059 MS GRIFFITHS: The video shots, yes.
13 8060 THE CHAIRPERSON: Not directly via as
14 in the satellite company.
15 8061 MS GRIFFITHS: Oh, no, no.
16 8062 MS VERTHUY: There are middle men.
17 For instance the Antenna One, we know that it's centred
18 in New Jersey and that there are representatives in
19 Montreal.
20 8063 MS GRIFFITHS: There are stores where
21 you buy VCRs and that.
22 8064 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I was not
23 asking where you get the satellite dish.
24 8065 MS GRIFFITHS: The signal.
25 8066 THE CHAIRPERSON: How do you get the
StenoTran
1753
1 signal? It would be down-linked from a foreign
2 satellite in the States somewhere.
3 8067 MS GRIFFITHS: Yes.
4 8068 THE CHAIRPERSON: And then provided
5 by the States.
6 8069 MS GRIFFITHS: Exactly.
7 8070 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, the Canadian
8 ones. Is Chinavision available in Montreal?
9 8071 MS GRIFFITHS: No.
10 8072 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, it's not
11 called Chinavision.
12 8073 MS GRIFFITHS: No. I was going to
13 say --
14 8074 THE CHAIRPERSON: Fairchild.
15 8075 MS GRIFFITHS: Yes, Fairchild.
16 8076 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm old.
17 8077 MS GRIFFITHS: No. Actually --
18 8078 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's not.
19 8079 MS GRIFFITHS: On the cable channels,
20 there is no unique channel position given except for
21 Telelatino, but again is a pay, as you well know.
22 8080 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what
23 the penetration of Telelatino is?
24 8081 MS GRIFFITHS: Our Italian producers
25 tell us -- well, you know, in this business your
StenoTran
1754
1 competitor always hurts you. Because of the soccer,
2 which is the rights Telelatino has carried from the
3 beginning, rights which we would love to have as a
4 broadcaster, no doubt.
5 8082 We have tried to negotiate actually
6 something with Mr. Marchand. We learned last year that
7 Shaw that had bought a percentage in Telelatino. Then
8 we had our own problems to take care of in our own back
9 yard. We didn't have much time for anything else for a
10 while.
11 8083 We are told by an Italian producer
12 who is a stand-alone in the sense that he brokers air
13 time on CJNT, they have a lot of costs on their own to
14 assume, that it's hurting them and that the low rates
15 that are offered by these specialty services for the
16 advertising hurts them also.
17 8084 MS VERTHUY: What hurt them
18 particularly was when all these specialty services came
19 on line a year or so ago, Videotron, because they then
20 amalgamated CF and Videotron, dropped dramatically the
21 price for Telelatino. Where you used to have to pay
22 over $12 a month, something like that, extra to get it,
23 so many Italians chose not to because they were
24 receiving community Italian. When it dropped to
25 something like $2 a month extra, boy, many of them
StenoTran
1755
1 subscribed to it.
2 8085 THE CHAIRPERSON: So now if you have
3 the decoder you can get Telelatino for $2 a month in
4 Montreal.
5 8086 MS VERTHUY: That's right.
6 8087 MS GRIFFITHS: If I can just add, we
7 are not an Italian station. Even though the Italian
8 market is a very large market, and this is what's fun
9 about our business. Sometimes it's not necessarily the
10 numbers that will bring you a return. It's not only
11 numbers. It's the need for the service.
12 8088 The Italian community has assimilated
13 a lot. I have noticed that CFNT has also taken the
14 focus off doing major Italian programming, that it used
15 to concentrate on 10 or 15 or 12 years ago, and is now
16 adapting also to a more... une audience plus cible, qui
17 en a plus besoin; par exemple they are Portuguese, they
18 are south Asian, they are Chinese.
19 8089 THE CHAIRPERSON: But Telelatino only
20 does Spanish, Spanish and Italian.
21 8090 MS GRIFFITHS: A lot of Italian.
22 8091 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But you are
23 saying that the need in Italian is decreasing because
24 the population is older. Then there is Spanish. I
25 think it's something like 60/40.
StenoTran
1756
1 8092 I'm just trying to get a fix on how
2 it is that our regulatory system regarding the eligible
3 list and the available ethnic services are the cause of
4 all your problems.
5 8093 MS VERTHUY: I don't think we are
6 suggesting that they are the cause of all our problems
7 with all due respect, Madam Chair. I think what we are
8 saying is that the arrival of foreign services in
9 Canada is posing perhaps a greater threat than we are
10 quite aware of right now.
11 8094 I think that's our argument. We feel
12 very comfortable in the role we have.
13 8095 MS GRIFFITHS: It's in reference to
14 the Canadian identity. That's what we are referring
15 to. We are here today to discuss, and I think in my
16 notes I said Madam Bertrand, and I have heard her speak
17 in several sessions, is very keen on the Canadian
18 identity and what happens in developing the Canadian
19 society and a Canadian viewer's interest as a Canadian.
20 8096 What we are trying to tell you, and
21 maybe I didn't explain myself properly. I apologize if
22 I didn't, Madam Chair. What we are trying to say is if
23 we don't look at this problem today at these hearings,
24 for the new century, juste le prendre en compte when
25 you sit and you have your own discussions.
StenoTran
1757
1 8097 We are talking to you literally from
2 the third element. We are not the English broadcaster
3 and we are not the French broadcaster, but we are there
4 and we are serving millions of people across the
5 country between just CFMT and CJNT. The ethnic
6 potential viewership of new Canadians that are not
7 comfortable in English or French, but that a third
8 language is a language they are secure in and that they
9 are happy in or that you can entertain them or inform
10 them in.
11 1615
12 8098 The danger is that we will not have
13 them readily available to be able to make that
14 transition and at least help them even develop a
15 Canadian identity if they have at their fingertips "je
16 vais aller acheter ma soucoupe", like they do. They
17 put it up at their house. My salesmen come back and
18 say, "Look, I try to go sell and they are telling me
19 they were watching on Antenna 1 the special that's
20 really rowdy, it's a bit like Jerry Springer", and all
21 these things coming out of Greece, which is at a whole
22 different state right now in their television. They
23 are going like very wild and liberal and things we
24 wouldn't watch here or you wouldn't allow us to do.
25 8099 So, here they are going on and going
StenoTran
1758
1 in Canadian homes. We are saying, "Wait a minute", you
2 know. I mean we are trying to do all these things that
3 your policy says.
4 8100 THE CHAIRPERSON: Especially Greek,
5 we don't allow.
6 8101 MS GRIFFITHS: It's true, Madam
7 Wylie. I have big shoulders. They have put everything
8 else on my shoulders. Go ahead, I will take the blame
9 for that, too, me and El Ni¤o, like this.
10 8102 So, we are just saying keep us in
11 mind. We are trying to do our role as a good Canadian
12 broadcaster and even though we are facing the same
13 problems as our colleagues in English and French where
14 we want to use the production fund directly, we want to
15 be able to work with the independents that we choose.
16 We think that as broadcasters, the management skills
17 are there and the accountability to you.
18 8103 Anything that involves a lot of money
19 or that influences our society, please put your
20 framework in place so we have to be accountable to you.
21 Then if something goes wrong, there is always that --
22 like the goalie, you know. If the defence missed it
23 and your centre couldn't carry the puck up and the
24 trouble is coming, at least there is you. To us that's
25 important.
StenoTran
1759
1 8104 There was a time we suggested some
2 kind of gatekeeper system. We wanted the CAB to put --
3 we had spoken with Mr. Scarth about a year and a half
4 ago. We suggested to the CAB that they look into it
5 and come to you with it. It's an important element of
6 Canadian society. You can't keep not looking at us the
7 same way. That's why we are saying the danger of these
8 services -- control them, charge them, make them pay.
9 If they want our market, they will pay; if they don't,
10 one less competitor. So your Canadian licensees -- we
11 benefit either way.
12 8105 THE CHAIRPERSON: We thank you, Ms
13 Griffiths and Ms Verthuy. It's nice to see you haven't
14 lost your enthusiasm.
15 8106 MS GRIFFITHS: Thank you, Ms Wylie,
16 and you haven't lost your efficiency. It's a pleasure
17 to have you here. Thank you all.
18 8107 THE CHAIRPERSON: Goodbye. Have a
19 good trip.
20 8108 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Just remember
21 it was Madam Wylie who asked you the tough questions,
22 not me.
23 8109 MS GRIFFITHS: I am going to start
24 speaking Greek next time, okay, and say that this
25 country should speak every single language, so we can
StenoTran
1760
1 all feel equal. Thank you, bye.
2 8110 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very
3 much.
4 8111 Madam Secretary, would you invite the
5 next participant, please?
6 8112 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
7 8113 The next presentation will be made by
8 Breakthrough Films and Television Inc. and I would
9 invite Mr. Williamson and his colleague to please come
10 forward.
11 8114 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon,
12 gentlemen. Proceed when you are ready.
13 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
14 8115 MR. WILLIAMSON: Good afternoon,
15 Madam Chairperson and Members of the Commission. My
16 name is Peter Williamson and with me is my partner, Ira
17 Levy, whom you met last week with the CFTPA. We are
18 the partners and executive producers of Breakthrough
19 Entertainment, an integrated production and media
20 company situated in Toronto. We specialize in
21 children's and documentary production.
22 8116 We are a couple of filmmakers who got
23 into this business to tell stories to entertain, inform
24 and delight people. We soon realized that we loved the
25 business and that if we wanted to continue, we needed
StenoTran
1761
1 to grow and professionalize. In 1985 we incorporated
2 Breakthrough and it has developed to be a leading
3 supplier of television programming to Canadian and
4 international audiences.
5 8117 Last year alone, we delivered 110
6 hours of programming, including two children's series,
7 a documentary series for the History network and the
8 cooking show "What's for Dinner?" for the Life Network.
9 One of our children's shows, "The Adventures of Dudley
10 the Dragon", won last year's Gemini for best children's
11 show and Graham Green won the Gemini for his role as
12 "Mister Crabby Tree".
13 8118 With our core staff of nine, we
14 manage and coordinate all aspects of these programs,
15 from developing the concept to engaging the key
16 creative staff to give them life. We assume the risk
17 of the financing and undertake the shooting and editing
18 and exploit the worldwide rights.
19 8119 We are here today to deliver one key
20 message to you. We want to reclaim children's prime
21 time with a minimum of three hours per week of quality
22 Canadian children's programs. We have brought along a
23 colleague who has played a key role in our success here
24 and abroad. In fact he insisted on coming. You know
25 how TV stars can be. You are on, Dudley.
StenoTran
1762
1 --- Dudley the Dragon performs and sings / Dudley
2 le dragon fait son numéro et chante
3 "Hi! Everyone....
4 We're here today to celebrate
5 What makes our children's TV
6 great
7 But we have sworn to keep it
8 short
9 So we have one thing to report
10 Take a look and you'll see
11 The very best on TV
12 You gotta blow, blow, blow your
13 own horn
14 This is our chance to say it's
15 true
16 Nobody does it like we do
17 Throughout the world there's
18 such a choice
19 We need to share our special
20 voice
21 Take a look and you'll see
22 The very best on TV
23 You gotta blow, blow, blow your
24 own horn
25 There's Shirley Holmes and
StenoTran
1763
1 Babar, Stickin' Around at
2 Wimzie's House, Ants in Your
3 Pants, Re-boot, Animal Crackers,
4 Ready or Not, Flash Forward and
5 Hello Mrs. Cherrywinkle, My Life
6 as a Dog, Nilus the Sandman,
7 Groundling Marsh, Mr. Men,
8 Little Bear, Comfy Couch, The
9 Never Ending Story, Arthur,
10 Little Star, Once Upon A Hamster
11 Oh Dudley the Dragon, the
12 Dragon, the Dragon
13 Dudley the Dragon is here to
14 say....
15 Take a look and you'll see
16 The very best on TV
17 You gotta blow, blow, blow your
18 own horn
19 You gotta blow, blow, blow your
20 own horn."
21 8120 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thanks, Dudley.
22 "Take a look and you'll see
23 The very best on TV
24 You gotta blow, blow, blow your
25 own horn
StenoTran
1764
1 You gotta blow, blow, blow your
2 own horn.
3 Bye-bye."
4 8121 MR. LEVY: We agree with Dudley that
5 producers of children's programming have a lot to blow
6 our own horn about. Canada has become a powerhouse of
7 kids' programming, both live action and animation.
8 More than 150 countries around the world have purchased
9 our children's programming because of its high quality
10 and its emphasis on entertaining and informing children
11 while also espousing pro-social values. Some programs
12 are very reflective of Canada while others have a more
13 universal theme, but they all strike a chord with kids
14 here and around the world.
15 8122 Television consumes a large amount of
16 children's free time and provides a great deal of their
17 entertainment and their learning. Since the pre-school
18 years are such a critical time in a child's
19 development, at no other time does the programming our
20 telecasters offer matter as much. It's clear to us
21 that broadcasters have an important role to play here.
22 Indeed, it is one that the Broadcasting Act assigns
23 them stating that "the programming provided by the
24 Canadian broadcasting system should ... be varied and
25 comprehensive, providing a balance of information,
StenoTran
1765
1 enlightenment and entertainment for men, women and
2 children of all ages, interests and tastes."
3 8123 Private conventional broadcasters
4 have an important role to play. Many of them fill
5 their mornings, particularly Saturday mornings, with
6 foreign animation that is all too often more an
7 infomercial for toys. We feel that it is time to start
8 to reclaim a modest amount of this time for high-
9 quality child-centred Canadian programs.
10 8124 While some may argue that the
11 specialty services, the CBC and the educational
12 broadcasters provide enough of this material, we do not
13 feel that that is an adequate answer. Specialty
14 services are only available to kids whose parents can
15 afford to buy cable or satellite and pay for additional
16 tiers, which leaves almost a quarter of our population
17 unserved. The educational networks are not available
18 in all provinces and our kids deserve diversity, too.
19 While the CBC, specialty and educational broadcasters
20 all do a fine job, the private broadcasters should be a
21 part of this mix.
22 8125 In your opening remarks, Madam Chair,
23 you noted that you want to assure that quality Canadian
24 programming, particularly in under-represented
25 categories, is produced and broadcast to the largest
StenoTran
1766
1 number of Canadians and that the system has access to
2 sufficient financial resources to benefit Canadian
3 programming and all of us, whether broadcasters,
4 producers or regulators, wish to see the audiences for
5 Canadian programs grow.
6 8126 Peter?
7 8127 MR. WILLIAMSON: The plan to require
8 three hours of children's programs and the requirement
9 that broadcasters increase their investment in Canadian
10 programming will ensure that Canada's kids also have a
11 diversity of high-quality programs and the system will
12 benefit by having a new high-quality children's program
13 to introduce each year.
14 8128 As anyone who has lived with young
15 children knows, children watch television differently
16 than adults. They enjoy the second, third, even the
17 seventeenth viewing of a favourite show more than the
18 first time. Just think of how often kids ask for their
19 favourite bedtime stories. This means that pre-
20 schoolers' programs can be enjoyed many times on
21 conventional television, on specialty channels and even
22 on video cassettes. Generally, we sell broadcasters
23 multiple runs of our programs.
24 8129 An investment in our programming can
25 deliver significant audiences to the broadcasters.
StenoTran
1767
1 "Dudley's Adventures" may attract as many viewers in
2 children's prime time as other critically acclaimed
3 adult programs do in evening prime. Dudley is seen on
4 YTV, educational channels and on Showcase and on PBS,
5 and children's programs are evergreen. A new audience
6 comes along every five or six years.
7 8130 The specialty services do a great
8 job, but they are not always able to pay the same kinds
9 of licence fees that a conventional broadcaster who has
10 access to 100 per cent of the Canadian audience can.
11 Priming the pump with high-quality programs on the
12 conventional services will create the quality shows
13 that will then spread through the various windows
14 within the system.
15 8131 To do this, we need the broadcasters
16 to pay more significant licence fees than they pay at
17 present. Minimum licence fees at the 20 per cent level
18 would mean that more money could be put into
19 productions and that the productions would be of even
20 higher quality. We recognize that we are asking the
21 broadcasters to pony up a larger part of the budget
22 and, in exchange, we are ready to explore new
23 partnerships and the possibility of equity
24 participation, once a fair market licence fee is paid.
25 8132 While the broadcaster pays more money
StenoTran
1768
1 up front, they win on a couple of levels. They get a
2 high-quality program that will draw the children's
3 audience in significant numbers. The program will draw
4 revenues for many years, both here and abroad.
5 8133 As you can tell from my accent, I am
6 a Canadian by choice rather than by birth. I have had
7 the privilege of exploring this country from coast to
8 coast to coast and I am always struck by its incredible
9 ethnic, racial, linguistic, cultural and regional
10 richness and yet when I turn on the television, that
11 spectacular diversity and incredible programming
12 resource is barely present. We need to ensure that our
13 kids grow up with a sense of their place here in
14 Canada, rather than as quasi-citizens of the United
15 States. That means all of the national broadcasters,
16 CTV and CBC and soon Global, need to commit to reflect
17 that reality to our kids.
18 8134 Ira?
19 8135 MR. LEVY: It's ironic that despite
20 the various funding options available to us, it's more
21 difficult to make distinctively Canadian television
22 programming now than in the past. The broadcasting
23 environment has significantly changed. Broadcasters
24 would rather licence a lower-cost program that has a
25 licence from a U.S. network even if we can bring the
StenoTran
1769
1 Canadian Television Fund and Telefilm money to the
2 table. If Dudley hadn't already proved himself, we are
3 not sure that we would have had the chance to launch
4 him in today's environment.
5 8136 So, how do we solve this problem?
6 Just as for adult Canadian programming, we need a
7 number of things: access to schedules, incentives to
8 choose distinctively Canadian programs, sufficient
9 financial resources and good promotion.
10 8137 So, we offer you a number of
11 recommendations today: The CFTPA's 10/10/10 plan and,
12 in particular, three hours of first-run kids'
13 programming per week phased in over four years. We
14 believe that the CTF should adjust its eligibility
15 rules to raise the broadcaster's licence fee necessary
16 to trigger access to the fund to a minimum of 20 per
17 cent of the budget. Although the criteria of the Fund
18 are not subject to your regulations, we would suggest
19 that the 150 per cent bonus be extended only when the
20 licence fees are raised. Finally, we agree with CFTPA
21 on a 10 per cent spending requirement phased in over
22 four years.
23 8138 We want you to understand that we are
24 not here just with our hands out. If broadcasters give
25 us the orders, we will make the programs. We have been
StenoTran
1770
1 doing this for a long time and we know how to put
2 funding together. In fact, we are actively exploring
3 new ways of funding our programs, such as sponsorships,
4 and we are quite willing to extend the hand of
5 partnership to our broadcasters by offering equity in
6 our programs once a fair licence fee is provided.
7 8139 There is a business opportunity here
8 that we think Canada cannot pass by. The explosion of
9 new channels around the world has created a voracious
10 demand for programming. In most countries of the
11 world, people want high-quality, non-violent children's
12 programming of the kind that we do so well in Canada.
13 We are the producers that do it and we are the
14 producers who have the reputation for doing it.
15 8140 Thank you for this opportunity to
16 share our experiences with you. We will try to answer
17 any questions that you have, but bear in mind we
18 wouldn't dare try to speak for Dudley.
19 8141 THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back, Mr.
20 Levy. Now I know why you were absent Tuesday morning.
21 You had to go home and feed him.
22 8142 MR. LEVY: A big appetite.
23 8143 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
24 Wilson?
25 8144 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Good afternoon,
StenoTran
1771
1 gentlemen.
2 8145 Mr. Levy, it is a pleasure having you
3 back because you were only here for a very short time
4 when you first appeared with CFTPA and that was also a
5 real pleasure to finally meet Dudley, whom I must admit
6 I first heard about my niece who lives in Kalamazoo,
7 Michigan and watches him on PBS. So, I guess that
8 speaks to the success of his exportability. I think he
9 is her favourite, so she will be very excited to hear
10 that I met him.
11 8146 You addressed two specific genres of
12 programming in your written submission and again today
13 in your oral submission, children's programming and
14 documentary programming. I wonder if I could just ask
15 you briefly because the focus of your oral submission
16 today was essentially the children's programming, but
17 what kind of documentary programming do you produce?
18 8147 MR. WILLIAMSON: At this present
19 time, for example, we have two documentary series that
20 are currently running. One is up for a Gemini for best
21 documentary this weekend, actually, at the awards -- it
22 seems like yesterday -- with Rick Mercer and we also
23 produce, we will call it, factual programming, "What's
24 for Dinner?", for the Life channel with Ken and Mary-
25 Jo, who are also up for a Gemini this weekend. We have
StenoTran
1772
1 recently produced the "Riot at Christie Pits" for
2 Global Television, which was the history of Canada's
3 biggest race riot, and I think we also won a Gemini for
4 another documentary that we did for CBC Arts &
5 Entertainment called "Cry of the Ancestors", a profile
6 of Inuit artist Mannasee Akpaliakpic.
7 8148 We have done quite a bit of --
8 actually, our background is documentary filmmaking. We
9 went to school together back in 1906.
10 8149 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I was going to
11 say careful.
12 8150 MR. WILLIAMSON: Our background is in
13 fact for 10 years we did documentary filmmaking and
14 that's the origins our company. That's how we started.
15 8151 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I guess my
16 questions are primarily going to focus on the whole
17 issue of children's programming because that, I think,
18 is the issue that I am most interested in exploring
19 with you. In your written submission you made some
20 comments about the placement of Vision TV and the
21 effect that that has had on independent producers and I
22 notice that you didn't really touch on that again today
23 in your oral presentation.
24 8152 We have heard from Vision and we have
25 heard from a number of other producers on this same
StenoTran
1773
1 issue about the assistance that Vision has provided to
2 them and we are certainly happy to hear about your
3 relationship with them, but with respect to the channel
4 placement, I think we have initiated a public process,
5 during which we can explore issues like that and that
6 will take place some time next year.
7 8153 In your written submission -- I am
8 going to go through that first and then go to your
9 opening remarks, your oral presentation for today, but
10 in your submission you say that children must have
11 available programs that acquaint them with their
12 country, programs in which entertainment and
13 information are seamlessly woven together to ensure
14 that young audiences want to watch them. I guess,
15 actually, on page 4 of your oral presentation you say:
16 "Some programs are very
17 reflective of Canada while
18 others have a more universal
19 theme..."
20 8154 And later you say:
21 "When I turn on the television,
22 that spectacular diversity and
23 incredible programming resource
24 is barely present."
25 8155 I guess I would like to start my
StenoTran
1774
1 questioning by asking you a question that Commissioner
2 Pennefather asked yesterday afternoon and that is: In
3 your experience, in your opinion, what is an
4 identifiably or distinctively Canadian children's
5 program? How do you place it in Canada?
6 8156 MR. LEVY: I think there is probably
7 two parts to the answer. I think, to begin with, as
8 creators of children's programming in Canada, I think
9 the ability to create a program and the ability to own
10 that program or to own the majority of that program
11 certainly is a very important aspect of defining it as
12 a Canadian program.
13 1635
14 8157 I think we concur with a number of
15 our colleagues on this, because to create something
16 without the interference of foreign broadcasters, the
17 ownership becomes a very important factor.
18 8158 In terms of children's programming,
19 there are lot of unique areas in children's
20 programming. A lot of children's programming takes
21 place in many cases in a fantasyland or a never-never
22 land. At times, the actual specific locations that are
23 in children's programming, both animation and live
24 action, are not necessarily a specific place in Canada.
25 8159 That is not to say that they could
StenoTran
1775
1 not be. But for the most part, because of the
2 information especially pre-schoolers have about the
3 world around them, they see the world in broader
4 strokes rather than in terms of Saskatoon or Regina or
5 Halifax or Toronto.
6 8160 When we try to make children's
7 programming that is identifiably Canadian, I think it
8 has to have something more than just allocation. It
9 really has something to do with the types of values
10 that Canadian children's programming really espouses.
11 8161 To a large extent, I think that we
12 make programs that are non-violent; I think that we
13 make programs that espouse positive social values. I
14 think that is what Canadians recognize.
15 8162 Interestingly enough, that is what
16 people around the world who buy Canadian programming
17 say.
18 8163 MR. WILLIAMSON: I might add to that
19 that in the example of "Dudley the Dragon", it actually
20 was developed as a character by the Government of
21 Ontario to educate children in Ontario about the wise
22 use of energy, back in 1981, and pretty much developed
23 through TV Ontario, the educational channel.
24 8164 That is actually how we got involved
25 with it.
StenoTran
1776
1 8165 I think that other than the issues of
2 creative control, which are very crucial, and financial
3 control of a project -- which I think Salter touched
4 upon this morning.
5 8166 I think the sensibility of
6 programming -- which may not be apparent perhaps to a
7 child. As Ira points out, they may not be so aware of
8 the specifics at the age group that say "Dudley" is
9 aimed at.
10 8167 For example, the whole staging of
11 "Dudley", the set design and everything about it, is
12 actually based upon real photographs of the B.C. rain
13 forest. You can say that is definitely an identifiable
14 locale in Canada, but I don't think that is how kids
15 would necessarily see it.
16 8168 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Does he talk
17 about the rain forests in B.C.?
18 8169 MR. WILLIAMSON: No, he does not talk
19 about it in B.C. But he does talk about it in various
20 programs.
21 8170 COMMISSIONER WILSON: In general.
22 8171 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. Actually, we
23 talk about the rain forests all over the world,
24 including the children's rain forests in Costa Rica.
25 Children can enjoy programs on that universal level,
StenoTran
1777
1 which I think does actually release the creative to
2 become bigger than any specific locale.
3 8172 However, having said that, I also
4 think that it is more likely that Canadian producers
5 are going to want to set a drama series in Iqaluit or
6 in Baker Lake, somewhere that is identifiably Canadian,
7 than American producers would want to, or for that
8 matter British producers. It is our country, so we are
9 inspired by it.
10 8173 I think there is a crucial, sort of
11 creative artistic thing going on there that is very
12 hard to legislate in specific --
13 8174 COMMISSIONER WILSON: When you said
14 some programs are very reflective of Canada while
15 others have a more universal theme, what would
16 distinguish those two?
17 8175 MR. WILLIAMSON: Sorry?
18 8176 COMMISSIONER WILSON: What you said
19 about "Dudley" essentially. And that is right,
20 children's programming is very universal.
21 8177 MR. WILLIAMSON: Good programming is
22 universal, yes.
23 8178 MR. LEVY: To specifically answer the
24 question, when you look at a program like "Theodore
25 Tugboat", we know that it is set in Halifax. We get
StenoTran
1778
1 the sense of the harbour. We get the sense of the east
2 coast and the Maritime flavour in it.
3 8179 So that would be something that would
4 be specific, I would contend.
5 8180 Whereas when we look at something
6 that would be more like -- well "Dudley" in particular.
7 It is dealing with broader themes. And although Peter
8 did say that our set design was based on the B.C. rain
9 forest, it is not trying to be identifiably Canadian in
10 that sense, in locale. But it is in terms of themes
11 and it is in terms of the underlying message behind the
12 shows.
13 8181 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I don't have
14 children of my own, so you will have to help me with
15 this. When I was a kid, we didn't watch as much
16 television as kids do now.
17 8182 What is children's prime time?
18 8183 MR. LEVY: Children's prime time is
19 not clearly defined. But traditionally it has been the
20 hours of 7:00 to 9:00 during the week days, and 3:00 to
21 6:00 during the afternoons. And then on the weekends,
22 the morning hours, from the early morning up to noon,
23 and some of the hours in the latter part of the
24 afternoon.
25 8184 It is not a specific area. In fact,
StenoTran
1779
1 we are comfortable that broadcasters choose within
2 those general parameters.
3 8185 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That is
4 helpful.
5 8186 Obviously not all broadcasters
6 currently carry children's programming, and that is one
7 of the reasons that you are here. But some
8 broadcasters, like Canwest Global, have obviously
9 decided that this is a niche that they want to fill.
10 8187 We have also heard quite a bit from
11 the broadcasters that in a world of fragmenting
12 audiences, they need to be able to distinguish or
13 differentiate themselves, and they need the flexibility
14 within the regulatory system to do that.
15 8188 Do you think there is something to
16 that, or do you think that all conventional
17 broadcasters have to exhibit Canadian children's
18 programming?
19 8189 MR. LEVY: Yes, I do believe that all
20 broadcasters should be exhibiting Canadian quality
21 children's programming. I think there is limited shelf
22 space for all Canadians in this area.
23 8190 If we look at the situation right
24 now, we see that in the case of stations like YTV, it
25 is on basic cable. But 25 percent of Canadians don't
StenoTran
1780
1 get basic cable.
2 8191 Then we have other specialty channels
3 like Teletune, which are all great channels, but again
4 they are at a higher tier so it means usually people
5 that have a little more money can afford to have these
6 channels.
7 8192 So in terms of parents and kids
8 having the choice, that choice has to be made on the
9 private conventional broadcasters. Certainly CBC does
10 it.
11 8193 When we refer back to the CFTPA's
12 10-10-10 plan and we look at broadcasters that have
13 over $10 million worth of revenue, we see that those
14 are the broadcasters that have not yet met that part of
15 what we are requiring, what we are asking for, what we
16 are trying to get mandated, to be honest. And that
17 means that a lot of Canadian kids out there just are
18 not being served that way.
19 8194 As far as diversity goes within the
20 format, if you think of the different types of
21 children's programming, we are not saying mandate at
22 least a minimum of three hours of pre-school
23 programming or animation or live action or puppetry or
24 for tweens -- which are older than pre-school kids. We
25 are saying a broadcaster can choose within that area to
StenoTran
1781
1 establish what it is that they are going to represent
2 as a broadcaster.
3 8195 That is basically our take on why we
4 feel that there is in fact flexibility within our
5 proposal for the minimum of three hours.
6 8196 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You chair the
7 Children's Programming Committee at the CFTPA. Is that
8 right?
9 8197 MR. LEVY: Yes, that is correct.
10 8198 COMMISSIONER WILSON: And the three
11 hours, I noticed actually in the CINAR Nelvana
12 presentation that they have made reference to --
13 8199 I believe that Commissioner Wylie
14 asked where the three hours came from, at the same time
15 that she asked where the ten came from, and was there
16 some scientific method to arriving at it?
17 8200 I noticed that the FCC in 1996
18 adopted rules requiring at least three hours per week
19 of core educational programming in all licensed
20 television services.
21 8201 Is that something that you have
22 looked at?
23 8202 MR. LEVY: It is certainly something
24 that we have admired from afar. In the United States,
25 if the FCC can mandate that, the commercial
StenoTran
1782
1 broadcasters there can carry three hours of educational
2 programming.
3 8203 We are the ones that in fact are
4 producing the quality Canadian children's television
5 programming that is seen around the world. It does not
6 seem like a far cry, a large demand, for us asking
7 Canadian private conventional broadcasters to do that
8 as well.
9 8204 What is interesting is if you look at
10 the success of the type of programming that has come
11 around in the United States, there has been a shift.
12 There are less violent programs for kids. Although
13 there is a lot of toy-based programming still, there
14 still is a shift away.
15 8205 That is in the United States. I
16 think we can do better in Canada.
17 8206 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That brings me
18 to the questions that I want to ask you with respect to
19 your oral presentation today.
20 8207 You said on page 4 that:
21 "More than 150 countries around
22 the world have purchased our
23 children's programming..."
24 8208 Are you aware of whether or not any
25 of these international broadcasters are exhibiting them
StenoTran
1783
1 for more than three hours per week, just out curiosity?
2 8209 I don't know if you have looked at
3 that.
4 8210 MR. LEVY: No, I am not aware of
5 that.
6 8211 COMMISSIONER WILSON: What about on
7 PBS? Are you familiar with what kinds of Canadian
8 programs are carried on PBS?
9 8212 MR. WILLIAMSON: On PBS, I think
10 there is quite a variety of Canadian programming
11 carried.
12 8213 COMMISSIONER WILSON: More than three
13 hours a week?
14 8214 MR. LEVY: I don't think it is
15 mandated, unless the American government has changed
16 their mind on that. That would be great.
17 8215 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Yes: you must
18 play three hours of Canadian programming per week.
19 8216 MR. LEVY: What is interesting about
20 that observation is that in a world where PBS can
21 choose from all the different programs from around the
22 world, all the quality children's programming, they
23 have chosen so many Canadian shows which have been
24 primarily made for a Canadian audience.
25 8217 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I know
StenoTran
1784
1 "Theodore Tugboat" is on --
2 8218 MR. LEVY: "Theodore Tugboat",
3 "Dudley the Dragon".
4 8219 MR. WILLIAMSON: "Arthur".
5 8220 MR. LEVY: "Arthur"; "Wimzie's
6 House"; "The Big Comfy Couch".
7 8221 This is a tremendous achievement.
8 8222 MR. WILLIAMSON: In fact, if you look
9 at the "ready to learn" block on PBS, it is dominated
10 by Canadian produced programs.
11 8223 "Shiny Time Station" is another.
12 There are a great number of programs that have been
13 picked up in the United States on the educational
14 service, on the PBS service.
15 8224 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Are all of
16 those programs also carried on television here?
17 8225 MR. LEVY: Yes, they are.
18 8226 Sometimes in the carriage on PBS,
19 though, if they are carried on the alternative PBS
20 carriage system, they might not reach all the Canadian
21 border stations.
22 8227 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Saturday
23 mornings filled with foreign animation: what is the
24 cost differential? We have had some models presented
25 in terms of drama, the cost of producing Canadian drama
StenoTran
1785
1 versus the cost of purchasing an American program.
2 8228 What is the cost differential per
3 hour or half hour between U.S. and Canadian children's
4 programming?
5 8229 MR. LEVY: To be honest, I am not
6 sure of the purchasing price of the American programs.
7 I know that at times Canadian broadcasters do out-put
8 deals where they are buying in bulk. So it might be
9 very difficult to establish what the actual amount is
10 that the conventional broadcasters buy this programming
11 from the United States.
12 8230 Looking at it from the economic side,
13 from the Canadian producers's side, I think what is
14 interesting is that in our proposal where we are asking
15 for a minimum licence fee of 20 percent of the budget,
16 where traditionally we have had 15 percent of the
17 budget as part of the licence fee, at least in live
18 action children's programming, just doing the math,
19 probably the average Canadian kid's show -- not in
20 animation because it is a little more expensive -- but
21 the average Canadian kid's show is in the $100,000
22 range.
23 8231 We are talking about licence fees in
24 the neighbourhood of $15,000 to $20,000.
25 8232 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Is that for an
StenoTran
1786
1 hour or a half hour?
2 8233 MR. LEVY: That is for half an hour.
3 8234 When you look at the benefits that a
4 broadcaster can get from that with respect to 150
5 percent Cancon, if it is the 10 out of 10, and you look
6 at the way the broadcasters have the multiple plays of
7 kids' shows -- because kids' shows usually have a
8 broadcast licence that does not give just one or two
9 plays, but multiple plays -- there is an opportunity
10 for them to amortize the cost over more plays.
11 8235 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Yes. I loved
12 that comment, actually, about the 17th time. It is so
13 true for children; they will just watch or read and
14 read and read.
15 8236 MR. WILLIAMSON: It is an advantage
16 for the producers, of course, because of their library.
17 The libraries evergreen, so it has allowed private
18 producers to build up a library.
19 8237 But at the same time, it is a great
20 advantage for the broadcasters, because they can go on
21 multiple plays, running episodes of Canadian shows over
22 and over again. And kids enjoy that. They like that.
23 8238 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Actually, I was
24 going to ask a question about that. And you will be
25 able to tell, of course, that I am not a producer when
StenoTran
1787
1 I ask this question.
2 8239 I actually thought to myself: Well,
3 if you can keep it on the shelf for so long and you get
4 these multiple plays, doesn't that kind of work against
5 you as a producer because they don't have to buy as
6 much product?
7 8240 MR. LEVY: Interestingly, no. I
8 think this is part of the way that we strategically
9 would say that the conventional broadcasters have a
10 role in being the first window for Canadian quality
11 kids' programming.
12 8241 What happens after that, after it
13 runs a number of times, is that the program can then be
14 sold to a second window, let's say to a specialty
15 channel; and then perhaps to a third window, to an
16 educational channel.
17 8242 In fact, what happens is that the
18 channels that don't necessarily have as much money can
19 use that programming after the primary broadcaster has
20 used it. And that of course leaves space for new
21 programming to be put into the system.
22 8243 COMMISSIONER WILSON: What is the
23 difference between a licence fee paid by a specialty
24 channel and a licence fee paid by a conventional
25 broadcaster?
StenoTran
1788
1 8244 You mentioned in your presentation
2 today that a specialty channel usually does not pay as
3 much.
4 8245 MR. LEVY: It depends on the
5 specialty channel; it depends on the coverage.
6 8246 Certainly with channels like
7 Treehouse, it is a very modest licence fee; and with
8 the educational channels, because they are under
9 tremendous pressure in terms of their government
10 funding, their licence fees don't necessarily from any
11 one educational broadcaster amount to an awful lot of
12 money.
13 8247 It is a little difficult to compare
14 the two, other than to say that the private
15 broadcasters, because of when they could be
16 broadcasting these shows, could potentially get that
17 much more revenue.
18 8248 It is a little bit all over the map.
19 But generally speaking, the conventional broadcasters
20 have the ability to pay more money. After all, they
21 have the national audiences.
22 8249 COMMISSIONER WILSON: When you say
23 "we are ready to explore new partnerships", you
24 mentioned equity participation.
25 8250 Is that the only kind of new
StenoTran
1789
1 partnership? Have you come up with other ideas about
2 how --
3 8251 MR. WILLIAMSON: Distribution rights.
4 8252 MR. LEVY: Perhaps. But I think
5 probably the central one would --
6 8253 It is interesting, as a producer,
7 when you start to put together a program. If you think
8 of it, there are a lot of equity funds around,
9 government equity funds, such as Telefilm, Shaw Cable
10 Fund, et cetera.
11 8254 But probably one of the natural
12 partners, if a broadcaster is paid a fair licence fee,
13 would be a broadcaster as far as equity participation.
14 8255 Our experience has been a number of
15 different ways working with broadcasters, which we
16 would hope we could bring to the table as other
17 possible suggestions.
18 8256 This happens to be outside of
19 children's programming. But it has to do with, at
20 times not only getting equity, if the licence fee is
21 significant enough, but also looking at joint
22 sponsorship approaches where we can share in revenue.
23 The broadcaster can use that to recoup some money, and
24 we can use that as part of our production financing.
25 8257 We have also dealt in certain cases
StenoTran
1790
1 with facility deals.
2 8258 So there are other ways that a
3 broadcaster could get involved over and above the
4 licence fee. And they are, to a certain degree, a
5 natural partner.
6 8259 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Just a question
7 of clarification on page 8, where you make your
8 recommendations.
9 8260 Are these recommendations specific to
10 children's programming?
11 8261 MR. LEVY: Yes, that is correct.
12 8262 COMMISSIONER WILSON: The 150 percent
13 credit. I am not sure that I am clear on that.
14 8263 Broadcasters would get 150 percent
15 credit for exhibiting Canadian children's programming?
16 8264 MR. LEVY: For first run and for
17 programs that at least have the minimum of 10 out of
18 10.
19 8265 COMMISSIONER WILSON: One other thing
20 from page 8.
21 8266 You say that it is more difficult to
22 make distinctively Canadian television programming now
23 than in the past. Why is that?
24 1655
25 8267 MR. WILLIAMSON: What I think we are
StenoTran
1791
1 seeing is a trend towards programs that are being
2 pre-licensed in the States. The follow-on from that is
3 you see an awful lot of programs about aliens. It
4 sounds ridiculous, but there are an awful lot of shows
5 on TV and suddenly you have got aliens. There's a
6 reason for that.
7 8268 If a Canadian producer is developing
8 a concept and he or she knows that he or she is going
9 to have to sell it to the Americans first, the Fox or
10 Family or whatever, then you are going to look for a
11 generic concept, something that's going to work in the
12 U.S. market.
13 8269 That's fine, you know. That's a god
14 business strategy. We have seen it done very well, but
15 it means that you get a load of those generic sort of
16 formats for children's programming. That's what's
17 starting to happen.
18 8270 Now, it's a lot easier to finance
19 things starting in the States, you know, getting the
20 interest of the U.S. broadcaster and then coming and
21 talking to a broadcaster in Canada. Then they know the
22 program is going to get made. They can put up the
23 licence fee, the result of that being programs that are
24 actually financible because you can sell them in the
25 U.S. market.
StenoTran
1792
1 8271 It won't necessarily reflect the
2 Canadian reality, not that we are saying every program
3 should, but that is one of the reasons why there are a
4 lot of generic children's programs. What we are seeing
5 is --
6 8272 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Or generic
7 programs in general.
8 8273 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, absolutely. So
9 when we think about Dudley, it's very interesting that
10 when we first started to get Dudley off the ground in
11 the early eighties, although there was a definite
12 support from the educational community for the project,
13 there was no interest in the project commercially from
14 commercial broadcasters at that time.
15 8274 I think we have seen a tremendous
16 change. Now, of course, commercial broadcasters are
17 very interested in toy related programs. We have seen
18 a change there on the one hand, but coupled with this
19 move to a more kind of generic kind of creative where
20 we see programs that can sell internationally.
21 8275 It's a whole process that's going on.
22 I think Dudley on the one hand, you know, you could
23 argue that because it has potentially merchandising
24 attached to it or a Dudley program might be perhaps
25 easier to get off the ground. On the other hand, you
StenoTran
1793
1 know, you are competing in a market where really you
2 are trying to make programs that can be very
3 international, so that would discourage you from making
4 any kind of specificity to Canadian realities or
5 environments or culture for that matter.
6 8276 COMMISSIONER WILSON: When I was
7 listening to the folks from Salter Street this morning,
8 Commissioner Cardozo was questioning them about "LEXX".
9 We were talking about Canadian programming.
10 8277 I believe one of the Salter Street
11 guys said something about oh well, it's not in Canada,
12 it's in a parallel universe. It sort of occurred to me
13 that in some ways Canada is sort of like a parallel
14 universe to the U.S., we are so influenced by that
15 border and the shared language and so many of those
16 things.
17 8278 COMMISSIONER WILSON: A lot of that
18 programming is actually a reaction to American
19 programming. Some of our programs set us up to be a
20 critique of U.S. programming which gives it a
21 distinctively Canadian feel actually.
22 8279 COMMISSIONER WILSON: What do you
23 mean it sets itself up to be a critique? It sort of
24 takes an ironic view of the American style of
25 programming?
StenoTran
1794
1 8280 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. I am just
2 trying to pull programs off the air. I mean even "This
3 Hour" and "Twitch City", which is, you know, I think
4 almost a critic of the sitcom really.
5 8281 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Yes.
6 8282 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm trying to think
7 of other examples.
8 8283 MR. LEVY: SCTV.
9 8284 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. SCTV, of
10 course, is the classic example.
11 8285 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Yes.
12 8286 MR. WILLIAMSON: We are sending out
13 American culture.
14 8287 COMMISSIONER WILSON: A great
15 tradition of Canadian satire.
16 8288 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, indeed.
17 8289 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Yes.
18 8290 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
19 8291 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very
20 much.
21 8292 Commissioner Pennefather.
22 8293 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
23 8294 Hello.
24 8295 MR. WILLIAMSON: Hello.
25 8296 MR. LEVY: Hello.
StenoTran
1795
1 8297 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: There are
2 a couple of questions first just to check. When you
3 are talking about children's programming, what age
4 group are you considering?
5 8298 MR. LEVY: Well, usually children's
6 programming in our experience is defined as kid's
7 programming that is 16 and under. However, at times
8 that gets crunched to 12 and under, but in our mind 16
9 and under.
10 8299 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Sixteen.
11 Yes, I notice that was the case with CINAR Nelvana as
12 well. So that's the audience we are talking about.
13 8300 MR. LEVY: That's correct.
14 8301 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Two to
15 sixteen.
16 8302 MR. LEVY: Pardon?
17 8303 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: The
18 audience we are talking about is two to sixteen year
19 olds.
20 8304 MR. LEVY: That's correct.
21 8305 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: What are
22 they looking for from television these days? Mine are
23 17 and 30 now, so I want to check in on that. What are
24 they looking for from television?
25 8306 MR. WILLIAMSON: The universal
StenoTran
1796
1 quality of children's imagination is classic. I think
2 they still enjoy classic stories, new stories told
3 classically.
4 8307 My kids are very young. I have a
5 three year old daughter, so I can't imagine that my
6 three year old is really any different to your three
7 year old when she was three.
8 8308 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: He.
9 8309 MR. WILLIAMSON: He.
10 8310 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Just in
11 case he's watching.
12 8311 MR. LEVY: Then they were different.
13 8312 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think that
14 superficially things change, but very much I think
15 children are looking for the same things really.
16 8313 There's I think a great place for a
17 very creative and exciting, visually stimulating
18 programming. I think perhaps the success of -- you
19 might want to actually say zero to 16 where the target
20 audience is for infants. I think that's a new thing.
21 8314 When I think back to even many, many,
22 many decades ago when I was a kid growing up in the
23 early fifties, the programming then on the BBC when I
24 was living in England, in a way it's not so much
25 different from what it is now.
StenoTran
1797
1 8315 In fact, I see "Noddy" is coming
2 back. "Noddy" is coming back this year or has come
3 back to PBS and to CBC. I grew up with "Noddy". I'm
4 trying to think of the railway.
5 8316 MR. LEVY: "Thomas the Tank".
6 8317 MR. WILLIAMSON: "Thomas the Tank
7 Engine". These are concepts that seem, you know, to go
8 on forever.
9 8318 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I'm trying
10 to carve out and not just from you, but from discussion
11 from people like yourselves who have been involved in
12 producing for children, we mean 2 to 16, what the
13 balance is. Has it shifted at all with entertainment
14 information?
15 8319 MR. LEVY: That's a very good point.
16 I think you have to delineate even within the
17 children's market because it's a pretty vast age range.
18 8320 If we start off with pre-school area,
19 I think Peter is absolutely right. You do tend to get
20 classic stories. You get stories that sort of
21 entertain, stories that have song and a sense of life
22 and colour, a story that sort of addresses the world of
23 the child, which could be the world that geographically
24 is not a very big area. It could be their home and
25 their back yard and their aunts and their uncles, but
StenoTran
1798
1 that is their world. I think good television, kids
2 twig into that. They watch that type of programming.
3 8321 We had a very interesting way of
4 developing scrips for "Dudley the Dragon". What we
5 would do is the head writer, a fellow by the name of
6 Alex Gladus, who also did the voice of "Dudley the
7 Dragon" would write down stories and then he would go
8 to a grade school to a grade one class. He would read
9 the stories to the kids. This is before we went to a
10 script stage.
11 8322 The kids would tell him what they
12 liked about the story, what they didn't like about the
13 story. They were our audience. They were intelligent.
14 They were perceptive. He knew when they were listening
15 and when they weren't. Because he was the voice of
16 Dudley the Dragon, he could also tell it in Dudley's
17 voice which, of course, made it that much more
18 entertaining.
19 8323 I think the key thing there is that
20 what he found time and time again is that they did like
21 to have a story told to them and that if the story
22 included even ideas of story lines that related to
23 their world, then they really enjoyed the stories.
24 8324 I think if you look at pre-school,
25 that's one way of defining it. I think what has
StenoTran
1799
1 changed is probably the speed at which kids get
2 information. I'm looking at my oldest now who is very
3 adept at getting on to the Internet and using a
4 computer. You know, the speed that he gets information
5 is quite different from myself at seven years old.
6 8325 The pace of those types of programs
7 for the older group, let's say six to eight or nine, is
8 a little different, but still underlying it is that
9 they want to have a sense of place, an understanding of
10 the world around them and be entertained. That is a
11 common thread I think amongst all audiences.
12 8326 I think where we feel comfortable in
13 defining audiences is in the area that we do primarily
14 that programming for. I think perhaps it's a little
15 more difficult to define all the things that a slightly
16 older audience is looking for, but still I think that
17 the underlying themes and stories and characters that
18 we are talking about are still relevant, even for a
19 teenage audience.
20 8327 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: It's a
21 long subject, I'm sure. Is it your observation that
22 what we call programming for children is really
23 offering them diversity and a view of the world that is
24 different or the same as what we offer them in
25 so-called adult programming?
StenoTran
1800
1 8328 MR. WILLIAMSON: The question is, is
2 there enough?
3 8329 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Is it
4 different? Do we offer them enough choice within what
5 we call children's programming? You said here that the
6 three hours and increased investment would assure
7 greater diversity for children's programming. Why do
8 you say that?
9 8330 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, I don't think
10 we do. I mean, I think we feel that there's not enough
11 diversity in their programming. We have talked a
12 little about how, especially for older kids, the
13 programming is becoming much more generic.
14 8331 I believe, very strongly in fact,
15 that there is not a diversity of programming for older
16 children. I see a lot of obviously very glamorous and
17 quite often violent actually, violent glamorous
18 programming which is coming out of the States which we
19 are picking up.
20 8332 I don't think there's a lot of
21 programming that's aimed at sort of the issues that
22 kids, teenagers for example, and older kids or younger
23 kids, say seven or eight year olds, are dealing with in
24 their actual lives.
25 8333 I noted one evening that my eight
StenoTran
1801
1 year old son was suddenly glued to the television set.
2 He was watching a show on The Women's Channel actually,
3 which he never watches, I might add, which was dealing
4 with a friend who was suddenly -- I'm trying to think
5 of the plot. It had to do with acceptance of racial
6 differences, quite a complex issue, and how somebody at
7 school, actually it was a little girl who had a friend
8 who was from India.
9 8334 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Yes.
10 8335 MR. WILLIAMSON: There was some
11 problem and now they were banished from the house for
12 some reason. He was absolutely rapt. Unfortunately,
13 the program came to an abrupt halt and there was a
14 panel discussion in the middle of it. Obviously, this
15 was not formatted for kids.
16 8336 It struck me then that there's really
17 nothing on television that deals with issues to do with
18 -- well, very little anyway, I will put it that way.
19 There are programs like "Ready or Not".
20 8337 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: That's
21 sort of what I'm getting at.
22 8338 MR. WILLIAMSON: Absolutely.
23 8339 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Within the
24 area we call children's programming, are we treating
25 these audiences with the respect they deserve, in other
StenoTran
1802
1 words with a variety of programming from craziness to
2 "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" to things that you watched
3 last week.
4 8340 MR. WILLIAMSON: I don't think so.
5 8341 MR. LEVY: Where I think we are
6 succeeding, and maybe it's a clue where we should be
7 moving, is we do have the diversity, I believe, in the
8 children's pre-school programming. I think we could
9 have more, but I think we are doing a very, very good
10 job and I think that's recognized around the world.
11 8342 When you look at the diversity of
12 voices across Canada that are creating children's
13 pre-school programming, you have people creating it
14 from coast to coast. I think when you then look at the
15 shelf space, the space available for these other types
16 of programs that you and Peter have been discussing,
17 that's why we go back to give us just a minimum of
18 three hours of children's quality programming. It
19 allows for that diversity.
20 8343 We have the ability to do it. It's
21 even recognized internationally. It's a half an hour a
22 day. It's not very much.
23 8344 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
24 8345 One last, if I may. We all talk a
25 lot about the digital era and we talk about our kids on
StenoTran
1803
1 the Internet and using the computer and so on. What's
2 your opinion of the place of the digital era in
3 children's programming? Is this a challenge? Is this
4 an opportunity? Has it affected your plans for
5 production?
6 8346 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think it's a great
7 opportunity for democracy actually to have choice for
8 children, for all of us actually. Looking back
9 historically, my ex-country, my old country, where we
10 started of with one broadcaster back in the thirties.
11 8347 I remember a story about the BBC. I
12 think they were the only broadcaster at the time in the
13 world. They were the dispenser of news to the British
14 population at the time. I remember -- it's a famous
15 story -- how on one occasion the news, which was read
16 by somebody wearing a dinner jacket and speaking into a
17 microphone, was actually instructed that there was no
18 news that day, that in fact there wasn't anything worth
19 broadcasting, so they didn't read the news on that
20 particular news that day in the thirties because the
21 BBC didn't think that they should.
22 8348 We come to the digital era when we
23 have almost a magazine rack approach to broadcasting.
24 I think that the opportunities there are fantastic for
25 diversity. This is the exact sort of advance we are
StenoTran
1804
1 looking for. There's unfortunately another issue that
2 is starting to come up which I note in your opening
3 remarks, Madam Chair, that you tend to look at another
4 time, which is the merging together or conglomerating
5 of interests in broadcasting.
6 8349 One of the antidotes to merging and
7 huge corporations and bigger and bigger corporations
8 getting together and buying up more of the broadcasting
9 assets is the potential of the digital age and of
10 multichannel broadcasting as long as diversity of
11 ownership can be somehow mandated into that.
12 8350 I think that the opportunities are
13 phenomenal and should be protected. In fact, they are
14 a great challenge and a great opportunity for special
15 groups, minority groups, alternate programming.
16 There's a great deal of programming, a great deal of
17 diversity of opinion, of approach, which is simply not
18 on television today.
19 8351 We are looking at a very homogeneous
20 television network rather than a homogeneous television
21 landscape, considering there are so many channels.
22 Unfortunately, they are being owned by fewer and fewer
23 people.
24 8352 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you
25 very much.
StenoTran
1805
1 8353 That completes my questions.
2 8354 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
3 Cardozo.
4 8355 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam
5 Chair.
6 8356 Like Commissioner Wilson, I can earn
7 some brownie points with having met Dudley today. The
8 only reason I am asking you a question is that I can
9 tell my kids that I talked to the producers of
10 "Dudley".
11 8357 I just want to mention a couple of
12 points though that you did make that I noted. One was
13 about the way kids watch programs, that they can watch
14 them over and over again. I think it's also a matter
15 of the children's programming because I find that
16 adults can also watch those same programs again and
17 again, unlike programs perhaps made for adults.
18 8358 The other point I noted with interest
19 was your views about cultural diversity and giving kids
20 a sense of their place here in Canada.
21 8359 I have a question which is large, but
22 just give me a very quick response. Why is it that we
23 are so successful in Canada in kid's programming, and
24 Dudley was very nice to mention what you produce and
25 what some of your competitors produce too? Why is it
StenoTran
1806
1 we are doing so well both for our markets and
2 internationally and why can't we do as well with
3 general production?
4 8360 MR. LEVY: Well, first of all, I
5 think we are doing well because of a series of
6 regulations which have allowed television producers,
7 writers, directors, creative people to basically
8 germinate, to start to flower.
9 8361 We are beside the biggest cultural
10 giant in the world, a massive marketing machine. We
11 should not have been able to express ourselves at all,
12 but somehow we have managed to allow ourselves to put
13 up this curtain and what it has allowed us to do with
14 the small population base that we have is nurture our
15 own talent.
16 8362 I think in the children's area,
17 probably because of a very simple reason, it's an
18 economic reason. Children's programming is less
19 expensive to produce than prime time programming. As
20 business people as well as creative people, we have
21 converged to start in that area. A lot of independent
22 producers have started in that area. Some have
23 continued and done very, very well in it as well.
24 1715
25 8363 So, I think that that's an important
StenoTran
1807
1 thing to keep in mind. When you start to broaden that
2 base -- and I will go back to what we were saying with
3 the Producers Association -- to try to expand that
4 curtain and to give us more room to nurture our own
5 talent and our own programming with more participation
6 from the broadcasters and more shelf space, that's
7 what's going to allow us to have truly a golden age in
8 terms of Canadian television.
9 8364 MR. WILLIAMSON: I absolutely agree
10 with everything that Ira said. I think that the
11 potential is great for us to do as well in other genres
12 of television as we have begun to do with children's
13 television or, rather, that we have achieved with
14 children's television.
15 8365 I think that if the support is there
16 from the broadcasters for independent production and
17 producers, from which I think it's reasonable to say
18 that there has been a renaissance of creativity across
19 Canada over the last 10 years or so, thanks to the
20 support and the regulation of the industry by the
21 government and government agencies, there can be a
22 bright future. We do have an opportunity to move
23 ahead, but I would stress that we have to make sure
24 that a fair share of resources are being channelled
25 towards that production community by broadcasters.
StenoTran
1808
1 8366 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, thanks.
2 8367 Thanks, Madam Chair.
3 8368 THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel?
4 8369 MR. BLAIS: I just have a few points
5 of clarification to bring, although I will admit, Madam
6 Chairman -- and Commissioner McKendry will appreciate
7 this -- I was looking for a pressing issue of
8 credibility in order to swear in Dudley, but I guess
9 that would be for another time, much to the
10 disappointment of my niece and nephews.
11 8370 The first point is by letter dated 26
12 August the Commission provided you with an opportunity
13 to submit some additional supporting data. I just
14 wanted to confirm that that was not -- you had not done
15 that and it's not a question of us having misplaced it
16 or anything.
17 8371 MR. LEVY: That's correct.
18 8372 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's correct, yes.
19 8373 MR. BLAIS: Thank you.
20 8374 With respect to the 150 per cent
21 bonus you raise, already under our rules of
22 certification if it's drama destined for children and
23 it's broadcast in an appropriate children's viewing
24 time, it already receives the 150 credit. Are you
25 suggesting that we should expand that to all forms of
StenoTran
1809
1 children's programming and not just limit it to drama?
2 Is that the sense of your recommendation?
3 8375 MR. LEVY: I think the recommendation
4 comes in the form of looking at programming that does
5 have the 10 out of 10. I think the notion of expanding
6 is certainly a possibility. We haven't figured out the
7 complete ramifications of something like that, but what
8 we are trying to say is that broadcasters need to
9 continue to be profitable and get involved with the
10 right sort of licence fees. We are willing to be
11 partners that way, so 150 per cent should be
12 maintained.
13 8376 MR. BLAIS: Just so we are clear, the
14 recommendations you are making, are they vis-à-vis the
15 English market or the French market as well?
16 8377 MR. LEVY: That's a good question.
17 It is for the English market.
18 8378 MR. BLAIS: Just the English market.
19 8379 You have mentioned also that your
20 three hours for first-run kids' programs should be with
21 respect to precisely that, first-run children's
22 programming. If children's programming is, as you have
23 mentioned, evergreen, one could ask why is it necessary
24 that it be first-run. A cynical person might even
25 suggest that it's to add the commercial value of your
StenoTran
1810
1 productions.
2 8380 MR. LEVY: I think, as we explained
3 before, the reason why we wanted the private
4 conventional broadcasters to get involved in this
5 requirement is because that could actually be the first
6 window and that there was a chance for subsequent
7 windows, subsequent tiers. I'm not sure I am answering
8 your question.
9 8381 MR. BLAIS: They could also meet a
10 three-hour requirement by running evergreen previously-
11 produced programming, not necessarily new first-run
12 programming.
13 8382 MR. LEVY: Sure, but in our request
14 we are looking for a place -- a home for first-run
15 programming.
16 8383 MR. BLAIS: Which is to the benefit
17 of producers that are producing first-run programming.
18 8384 MR. LEVY: Also, it's to the benefit
19 of the children's audience that's out there. We are
20 talking about diversity, we are talking about shelf
21 space.
22 8385 MR. WILLIAMSON: It's also to the
23 benefit of emerging producers as well because if you
24 are sitting on a huge library as opposed to doing a
25 very first show, this would be of great help to you to
StenoTran
1811
1 get your first show onto the air. So, it's helping a
2 younger generation of producers as well.
3 8386 MR. BLAIS: Sure. I appreciate those
4 points because I think those have to be put on the
5 record.
6 8387 Now, you have mentioned a phase-in
7 over four years. Do you have any specific ideas of
8 exactly how we would do this phase-in or are you
9 basically adopting the position the CFTPA has and will
10 be putting on the record?
11 8388 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, we are adopting
12 that position.
13 8389 MR. BLAIS: Thank you. Those are my
14 questions.
15 8390 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
16 Williamson, Mr. Levy. Before you leave, I want
17 assurances from you that you will make sure Dudley
18 doesn't confuse 10/10/10 with a harmful garden spray
19 that he feels a need to speak against on TV.
20 8391 MR. LEVY: You have our assurances.
21 8392 MR. WILLIAMSON: If you would like to
22 meet Dudley after the show, we can arrange that.
23 8393 THE CHAIRPERSON: You did mention
24 that he was interested in environmental concerns, so we
25 wouldn't want the CFTPA's proposal to be confused with
StenoTran
1812
1 anything harmful by the broadcasters.
2 8394 MR. LEVY: Thanks very much.
3 8395 MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
4 8396 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now take a
5 five-minute break to stretch our legs and we will, if
6 it's acceptable to parties, hear the last three parties
7 that were scheduled to be heard today because we are
8 not sitting tomorrow. So, it would mean resuming on
9 Thursday morning. If that's a problem with any of
10 these three parties, please advise the Secretary while
11 we are taking this short break, but we are prepared to
12 hear you and take whatever time it takes.
13 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1721
14 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1730
15 8397 THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back.
16 8398 Madame Secretary, would you call the
17 next participant; s'il vous plaît, voulez-vous inviter
18 le participant suivant.
19 8399 Mme BÉNARD: Merci, Madame la
20 Présidente.
21 8400 La prochaine présentation sera celle
22 du Groupe de recherche sur les jeunes et les médias,
23 M. André Caron.
24 8401 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour, Monsieur.
25 8402 M. CARON: Bonjour.
StenoTran
1813
1 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
2 8403 M. CARON: Madame la Présidente,
3 mesdames et messieurs membres du Conseil, on a beaucoup
4 entendu les diffuseurs se vanter aujourd'hui des
5 grandes réussites, on a entendu aussi les producteurs
6 tout dernièrement aussi avec les succès de Dudley, mais
7 en guise d'introduction j'aimerais aussi souligner la
8 reconnaissance internationale qui vient d'être décernée
9 au CRTC par la Fondation Bertelsmann, par le biais du
10 prix "Innovation et responsabilité au sein de la
11 société de l'information" le 10 septembre dernier.
12 Alors, vous avez droit aussi à vos félicitations.
13 8404 Ceci dit, je remercie le CRTC de nous
14 donner l'opportunité de partager nos observations sur
15 les politiques relatives à la télévision canadienne.
16 En effet, ces audiences s'avèrent une excellente
17 tribune nous permettant de partager le fruit de nos
18 dernières recherches, notre principale préoccupation
19 étant l'optimisation de la qualité de la télévision
20 pour enfants.
21 8405 Le Groupe de recherche sur les jeunes
22 et les médias, du département de Communication de
23 l'Université de Montréal, se consacre à la recherche
24 dans le domaine pour enfants et ce, depuis plus de dix
25 ans. D'ailleurs, à notre connaissance, nous sommes
StenoTran
1814
1 parmi les rares groupes de recherche universitaires
2 bilingues au Canada qui s'investit dans un tel domaine
3 de recherche.
4 8406 Par conséquent, notre présence
5 aujourd'hui s'inscrit dans une démarche favorisant
6 l'amélioration de la télévision pour enfants dans une
7 perspective de préoccupations sociales. Le mémoire que
8 nous avons déposé reflète d'ailleurs ces
9 considérations. En fait, la recherche principale qui a
10 servi à appuyer ce mémoire est "L'analyse de l'offre et
11 de l'écoute de la programmation télévisuelle pour
12 enfants". Compte tenu du fait que cette recherche est
13 faite tous les ans depuis une décennie, elle offre une
14 lecture dans le temps et une vue d'ensemble de la
15 programmation télévisuelle pour enfants tout à fait
16 unique.
17 8407 En fait, au fil des années nos
18 recherches ont été guidées par trois questions
19 principales, soit: Quelle est l'offre d'émissions pour
20 enfants qui leur est proposée du point de vue du nombre
21 d'heures et de la diversité des genres et des origines?
22 Au niveau de l'écoute, les enfants regardent-ils les
23 contenus qui leur sont spécifiquement destinés? Cette
24 écoute est-elle variée et de contenus canadiens?
25 Enfin, comment s'est modifié le paysage télévisuel
StenoTran
1815
1 compte tenu de tous les changements survenus depuis
2 quelques années?
3 8408 Avant tout, je tiens à spécifier que
4 même si nos recherches se consacrent généralement tant
5 au milieu francophone qu'anglophone, je ne pourrai
6 aborder aujourd'hui que les réalités francophones
7 compte tenu du temps qui est alloué. Par contre, le
8 mémoire déposé au CRTC contient aussi une analyse du
9 secteur anglophone.
10 8409 Aussi, nous avons largement analysé
11 l'ensemble de l'offre télévisuelle qui est proposée aux
12 enfants. Nous constatons d'abord que tant dans le
13 marché francophone qu'anglophone de Montréal, le nombre
14 d'heures offertes d'émissions pour enfants dépassent
15 230 heures, ce qui est particulièrement appréciable.
16 Évidemment, l'arrivée des canaux spécialisés a fait
17 sensiblement augmenter ces heures de programmation.
18 Mais si on pense à cette offre-là, on en vient à près
19 de 30 heures par jour d'émissions pour enfants,
20 comptant les canaux spécialisés, et environ six à huit
21 heures par jour si on considère les canaux
22 généralistes.
23 8410 Dans cette lecture, on doit cependant
24 garder à l'esprit les foyers non câblés qui bénéficient
25 d'un nombre plus restreint d'heures de programmation
StenoTran
1816
1 pour enfants. Je reviendrai d'ailleurs sur ce point
2 plus loin dans mon exposé.
3 8411 De façon générale, la question qui se
4 pose aujourd'hui est davantage de s'interroger sur la
5 qualité des émissions. Non pas qu'elle ne soit pas
6 présentement de qualité. On l'a vu avec les
7 présentations qui ont précédé, et celles qui vont
8 suivre, avec Cinar, le Canada est reconnu comme ayant
9 d'excellentes émissions pour enfants. Mais il est
10 question d'être bon dans un domaine et il est question
11 aussi d'être meilleur. On peut ainsi se demander s'il
12 y a un équilibre au niveau de la diversité des genres.
13 8412 Comme vous pouvez le constater en
14 regardant les tableaux qui accompagnent ce texte, en ce
15 qui concerne les télévisions généralistes, c'est
16 environ le tiers des émissions proposées aux enfants
17 qui sont de type dessins animés, ce qui laisse place à
18 une certaine diversité dans les genres. Toutefois,
19 lorsqu'on inclut les canaux spécialisés -- Canal
20 Famille et Teletoon dans le cas de Montréal -- on
21 retrouve, au niveau de l'offre, près des deux tiers des
22 émissions qui sont de genre dessins animés. Nous
23 verrons plus loin, du point de vue de la réception, de
24 ce que les enfants regardent, si cette présence a
25 provoqué un déséquilibre dans la variété de genres
StenoTran
1817
1 regardés.
2 8413 Par ailleurs, pour ce qui est de
3 l'origine des émissions, la proportion d'émissions
4 100 pour cent canadienne dans la programmation pour les
5 enfants, qui se maintient au fil des années à environ
6 50 pour cent, reflète sensiblement les conditions
7 générales du CRTC imposées aux stations généralistes.
8 Cependant, bien qu'il y ait des quotas imposés pour
9 l'ensemble de la programmation télévisuelle, il n'y a
10 pas de quotas spécifiques pour les émissions pour
11 enfants. Il serait peut-être approprié de se
12 questionner à ce propos.
13 8414 En effet, les conditions de licence
14 pour les chaînes thématiques pour les jeunes étant
15 fixées à un quota de 60 pour cent pour les émissions
16 d'origine 100 pour cent canadienne, on peut se demander
17 s'il ne serait pas approprié d'appliquer cette règle à
18 toutes les chaînes et, en plus, exiger qu'une partie
19 prédéterminée de ce pourcentage soit des émissions
20 originales. De cette façon, il est probable que tant
21 l'industrie que l'auditoire enfants y gagneraient par
22 un apport de productions originales et une
23 diversification des genres offerts.
24 8415 D'autre part, l'analyse des grilles
25 horaire de 1997 nous a aussi permis de constater un
StenoTran
1818
1 manque au niveau de la programmation pour enfants les
2 matins de semaine. De fait, il n'y avait aucune
3 émission pour enfants dans la grille horaire de
4 l'automne 1997 offerte par les chaînes généralistes
5 publiques et éducatives en matinée sur semaine. Ces
6 chaînes, rappelons-le, étant presque les seules à
7 desservir en cette matière les 25 ou 30 ou 35 pour cent
8 de foyers, selon les différentes sources, qui n'ont pas
9 accès au câble, cette situation était des plus
10 surprenantes.
11 8416 Heureusement, une lecture rapide des
12 grilles horaires de l'automne 1998 nous indique que la
13 situation s'est améliorée. En effet, Télé-Québec offre
14 maintenant des émissions pour enfants en matinée, de
15 7 h 00 à 8 h 00 le matin, tandis que Radio-Canada met
16 en ondes ses émissions pour enfants de 6 h 00 à 7 h 00
17 tous les matins de la semaine. En plus, Télé-Québec a
18 presque doublé son nombre d'heures de programmation
19 pour enfants, tandis que Radio-Canada les a légèrement
20 augmentées.
21 8417 Si ces changements sont
22 encourageants, on doit quand même se demander, au
23 niveau de l'amélioration de la télévision jeunesse, si
24 ces diffuseurs répondent à toutes leurs obligations.
25 Toutefois, il faudrait peut-être envisager aussi des
StenoTran
1819
1 mécanismes afin qu'une situation comme celle de 1997-98
2 ne se répète pas.
3 8418 Pour ce qui est de l'écoute, si l'on
4 considère uniquement les télévisions généralistes, une
5 émission sur quatre regardée par les enfants leur est
6 spécifiquement destinée, tandis qu'avec l'apport des
7 télévisions spécialisées pour les enfants, cette
8 proportion croît à une émission sur deux. Ces données
9 d'écoute nous indiquent qu'il y aurait peut-être lieu
10 que l'on s'interroge de plus près sur la disponibilité
11 réelle des créneaux horaires et la complémentarité des
12 programmes entre les diffuseurs.
13 8419 Du point de vue de l'origine, c'est
14 environ 50 pour cent les émissions écoutées par les
15 enfants qui sont d'origine 100 pour cent canadienne.
16 Une augmentation des quotas, tel que mentionné
17 précédemment, devrait entraîner une augmentation de
18 l'écoute des émissions canadiennes.
19 8420 Enfin, pour ce qui est du genre des
20 émissions pour enfants regardées, une sur deux est de
21 type animation si seules les chaînes généralistes sont
22 incluses, et ce taux augmente à 70 pour cent lorsqu'on
23 inclut les chaînes thématiques pour enfants, et c'est
24 une estimation conservatrice. On constate donc une
25 surconsommation de ce genre par rapport à l'offre
StenoTran
1820
1 réelle. On doit par conséquent se demander, en
2 présence d'une chaîne thématique qui n'offre que de
3 l'animation, quel est le rôle des autres diffuseurs si
4 on souhaite une plus grande diversité des genres.
5 8421 Compte tenu de tous les changements
6 qui surviennent depuis quelques années dans la
7 programmation télévisuelle, nous sommes donc à même de
8 nous demander si les mandats des diffuseurs doivent
9 rester les mêmes. En fait, on doit reconnaître que les
10 émissions pour enfants ne pourront jamais concurrencer,
11 du point de vue de la rentabilité, la télévision pour
12 adultes. La question du développement et de la
13 bonification de la télévision pour enfants ne devrait
14 plus être considérée d'un point de vue exclusivement de
15 rentabilité économique immédiate, mais plutôt d'un
16 point de vue de rentabilité sociale à long terme.
17 Ainsi, peut-être devrait-on laisser à certains
18 diffuseurs, qui ont des intérêts et des ressources
19 spécifiquement dédiés à cet auditoire, le mandat
20 explicite de s'occuper de ce secteur. La tendance de
21 programmation pour l'automne 1998 tend d'ailleurs vers
22 cette logique.
23 8422 En fait, même si nous considérons que
24 le CRTC a été vigilant dans ses décisions, nous
25 réalisons que la réalité d'aujourd'hui demande une
StenoTran
1821
1 meilleure coordination et surtout un engagement continu
2 des différents intervenants de premier plan. Ce qui
3 prime dans le cas de la télévision pour enfants, c'est
4 non seulement de reconnaître le statut distinct de la
5 programmation pour enfants, mais d'obtenir de tous les
6 acteurs des politiques cohérentes et complémentaires:
7 par exemple, ajuster la correspondance entre le nombre
8 d'heures produit grâce au soutien de Téléfilm et le
9 pourcentage des budgets qui lui sont accordés;
10 considérer des engagements plus spécifiques de la part
11 de Radio-Canada pour les budgets de télévision enfants
12 vis-à-vis de Téléfilm; ou encore prévoir des
13 pourcentages prédéterminés de budgets réservés pour le
14 secteur enfant dans les différents fonds de télévision.
15 8423 Bref, bien au-delà des questions
16 purement réglementaires, il pourrait y avoir des
17 conciliations d'intérêts autour de la télévision pour
18 enfants. Le créneau d'émissions pour enfants ne doit
19 plus faire l'objet de discussions à la pièce dans le
20 cas d'un renouvellement de licence d'une station donnée
21 ou même d'une audience générale sur la télévision. De
22 fait, les données que nous avons recueillies jusqu'à
23 présent et les discussions soutenues avec les
24 différents intervenants dans ce secteur indiquent que
25 le moment propice est venu de mobiliser ces derniers
StenoTran
1822
1 pour établir un consensus et ainsi arriver à une
2 politique commune.
3 8424 Dans cette optique, ces acteurs
4 devraient, selon nous, adopter des principes communs
5 pour faciliter et privilégier ce secteur, mais aussi
6 entreprendre des démarches concrètes pour le dynamiser
7 et ainsi procéder à l'ajustement d'un cadre
8 réglementaire reconnu et appliqué par tous. Le CRTC, à
9 notre avis, pourrait jouer un rôle de catalyseur et
10 réunir dans un tel forum les principaux acteurs
11 concernés.
12 8425 Merci.
13 8426 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci, Monsieur
14 Caron.
15 8427 Vous êtes bien gentil de souligner
16 qu'on a décerné au CRTC le prix Bertelsmann, et je vous
17 assure que je transmettrai toutes vos félicitations à
18 notre personnel, dont le travail exemplaire permet au
19 Conseil de rencontrer ces objectifs. C'est avant tout
20 leur prix.
21 8428 Conseillère Pennefather, s'il vous
22 plaît.
23 8429 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Bonjour,
24 Monsieur Caron.
25 8430 M. CARON: Bonjour.
StenoTran
1823
1 8431 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci
2 beaucoup pour l'étude, qui est très instructive et je
3 pense importante dans nos discussions pour la
4 télévision en général et surtout pour la programmation
5 pour les enfants.
6 8432 J'aimerais commencer avec ce que je
7 dirais être un positionnement de votre part, je pense,
8 qui influence non seulement la présentation écrite mais
9 votre présentation orale aujourd'hui. Ensuite, j'ai
10 quelques questions sur l'étude, mais par exemple la
11 présentation orale en effet, je dois souligner, a
12 clarifié certaines choses déjà. Et j'ai d'autres
13 questions vis-à-vis des propos spécifiques que vous
14 avez faits.
15 8433 Commençons avec le contexte et la
16 base de votre intervention.
17 8434 Dans le résumé de votre soumission
18 écrite, et encore au paragraphe 65, vous dites ce qui
19 suit:
20 "Les modèles économiques
21 applicables à la programmation
22 et à l'auditoire adulte ne
23 peuvent être transposés à
24 l'auditoire enfants."
25 "Il s'agit d'éviter que les
StenoTran
1824
1 décideurs des télévisions
2 privées et publiques soient
3 confrontés à la situation selon
4 laquelle la programmation
5 jeunesse soit mise... en
6 compétition avec la
7 programmation pour adultes."
8 8435 Est-ce qu'en effet ça résume ce que
9 vous dites aussi, que c'est une approche plutôt sociale
10 qu'économique? Pouvez-vous nous expliquer pourquoi
11 vous avez choisi cette route de recherche et de
12 discussion?
13 8436 Évidemment, ces propos arrivent en
14 conclusion. Ils sont la suite de plusieurs
15 discussions, plusieurs interventions et recherches
16 qu'on a faites avec le milieu. On travaille beaucoup
17 avec le milieu, vous comprendrez, et on entend bien des
18 commentaires, comme vous en entendez aussi, selon les
19 différents intérêts.
20 8437 Je veux être certain qu'il y a une
21 perception, et la bonne perception, de ce qu'on a
22 présenté. C'est que le milieu de télévision pour
23 enfants est un milieu extrêmement dynamique en ce
24 moment. On le voit non seulement au niveau national,
25 mais au niveau international. Les gens qui travaillent
StenoTran
1825
1 dans ce domaine-là travaillent beaucoup par amour pour
2 le domaine et non seulement aussi... évidemment, s'il y
3 a des retombées économiques appréciables, c'est
4 toujours bien, mais on voit que, comme ils disent en
5 anglais, "there is a dedication".
6 8438 On se rend compte que depuis quelques
7 années, malgré ces bonnes intentions, d'une certaine
8 façon, il y a des coupures dans les budgets -- on peut
9 penser à la télévision de l'État, par exemple -- et il
10 y a des réalités économiques aussi pour les télévisions
11 privées qui font que lorsqu'ils ont à prendre des
12 décisions, ils ne font pas les décisions uniquement par
13 rapport à la programmation pour enfants, c'est-à-dire
14 qu'il y a des vases communicants. Je vais vous donner
15 un exemple. Lorsque Radio-Canada doit se présenter
16 pour aller chercher les fonds à Téléfilm, ils vont
17 décider s'ils réservent une certaine somme pour la
18 programmation pour enfants ou pour un téléroman ou une
19 série, et caetera. C'est dans ces situations-là qu'on
20 voit que finalement la télévision pour enfants est mise
21 en concurrence avec la télévision adulte.
22 8439 Un autre exemple. Dans la télévision
23 privée, si vous aviez demandé, par exemple, aux gens de
24 TVA, M. Provencher ou l'autre, quels auraient été les
25 créneaux pour la télévision pour enfants, il ne vous
StenoTran
1826
1 aurait certainement pas dit 5 h 00 de l'après-midi
2 parce que, pour générer les profits dont ils ont
3 besoin, ils aiment mieux placer une émission qui va
4 aller chercher un auditoire beaucoup plus large, qui
5 est beaucoup plus rentable économiquement, que
6 desservir l'auditoire enfants, qui a quand même une
7 certaine limite.
8 8440 Alors c'est dans cet esprit-là que,
9 en discutant avec les gens de l'industrie, on se rend
10 compte que, ça peut être malgré eux, mais il y a cette
11 concurrence-là entre le bottom line, si on peut dire,
12 une programmation plus générale pour adultes, et celle
13 pour enfants. Et celle pour enfants, malheureusement,
14 n'a pas beaucoup de poids dans ce genre de discussion.
15 8441 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Qu'est-ce
16 qui changerait cette situation-là, d'après vous? Est-
17 ce que c'est la même chose pour laquelle vous
18 mentionnez, à la page 18, que la raison pour laquelle
19 il y avait cette chute en 1997, disons, où, par
20 exemple, Radio-Canada avait complètement évacué la
21 programmation pour enfants les matins, que cela
22 s'explique à cause d'une panoplie de facteurs, y inclus
23 les priorités personnelles fixées par les vice-
24 présidents à l'information. Qu'est-ce que ça veut
25 dire?
StenoTran
1827
1 8442 M. CARON: Je ne visais pas Stéphane
2 Turcotte à Radio-Canada. C'est un énoncé plus général.
3 Mais...
4 8443 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Oui, je
5 sais, mais c'est dans cet esprit que je vous demande
6 est-ce que...
7 8444 M. CARON: C'est-à-dire que si vous
8 regardez l'analyse qu'on a faite sur dix ans -- prenez
9 par exemple, TVA -- vous allez voir que ça fluctue
10 beaucoup d'une année à l'autre. Il y a des fois où il
11 pouvait y avoir dix heures de programmation pour
12 enfants, puis une autre ça pouvait être six, puis une
13 autre, quatre. Et pourtant, c'était les mêmes
14 conditions, si on peut dire, tout étant égal. Donc il
15 y avait certains choix qui se faisaient par rapport à
16 prioriser certaines programmations par rapport à
17 d'autres.
18 8445 Alors ce n'était pas des accusations,
19 mais c'est dans le sens où si, par exemple, Radio-
20 Canada, la programmation jeunesse en général, pas juste
21 celle enfants que nous, on catégorise comme les 2-11
22 ans, pour préciser une question que vous aviez demandée
23 au groupe précédent... si on prend la programmation
24 jeunesse et celle-ci représente, admettons, 22 pour
25 cent de leurs heures de diffusion, on trouve quelque
StenoTran
1828
1 peu désavantageux pour les émissions pour enfants
2 qu'ils aillent chercher, admettons, 15 pour cent ou 16
3 pour cent des budgets Téléfilm pour ce même créneau-là.
4 8446 Voyez-vous, il y a un genre
5 d'incohérence en tant que telle, et c'est à ce niveau-
6 là que ce commentaire-là je pense est posé.
7 8447 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Si je
8 comprends bien, par rapport à ça, vous dites
9 aujourd'hui... je ne suis pas certaine si je peux
10 trouver, mais certainement dans la présentation écrite,
11 au paragraphe 63 vous abordez cette question en
12 proposant une approche de complémentarité qui fera en
13 sorte que les télédiffuseurs privés pourraient
14 s'attarder à un créneau plus rentable et plus large,
15 tel que les cinémas familiaux télévisés.
16 8448 Est-ce que vous nous dites que les
17 télédiffuseurs privés n'ont pas une responsabilité
18 envers la programmation pour enfants? Est-ce que vous
19 nous suggérez qu'on ne devrait pas s'attendre à ce
20 qu'ils prennent un rôle plus important? C'est une part
21 très importante, parce que vous avez souligné aussi le
22 fait que 25 pour cent ou même 30 pour cent des foyers
23 au Québec n'ont pas accès au câble.
24 8449 Est-ce que j'ai bien compris que vous
25 pensez que c'est le temps de changer le mandat de la
StenoTran
1829
1 télévision privée envers les enfants? Et dans quelle
2 direction?
3 8450 M. CARON: La question que je pose,
4 c'est: Quel rôle doivent jouer les différentes
5 télévisions? C'est une question que le CRTC aussi
6 pose.
7 8451 Il y a deux avenues, à mon avis, si
8 on regarde le marché francophone au Québec. Si on
9 parle à la télévision privée, ils vont dire qu'ils
10 n'ont pas suffisamment de revenus au niveau... parce
11 que vous connaissez la loi interdisant la publicité
12 pour les émissions pour enfants, quoiqu'il y a des
13 messages publicitaires, mais mettons ça de côté. Ils
14 vont dire que ce n'est pas économiquement rentable de
15 faire des émissions pour enfants.
16 8452 Alors ou bien le CRTC décide que
17 c'est une responsabilité sociale, et si c'est le cas,
18 ce n'est plus la rentabilité économique, parce que par
19 le passé vous avez eu des décisions, par exemple, qui
20 ont dit à des télévisions privées: "Vous devriez
21 augmenter votre nombre d'heures, vous devriez avoir un
22 nombre d'heures minimal", et caetera. Si vous regardez
23 la grille de cette année, de l'automne 1998 de TVA, ils
24 ont deux demi-heures d'émissions pour enfants, point.
25 8453 Alors est-ce que c'est une
StenoTran
1830
1 responsabilité sociale? Si oui, si le CRTC le décide,
2 à ce moment-là il devrait peut-être se plier aux
3 recommandations qu'on voit du côté des producteurs de
4 trois heures minimum par semaine de productions pour
5 enfants.
6 8454 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Vous êtes
7 d'accord avec ça.
8 8455 M. CARON: Je ne serais aucunement en
9 désaccord avec ça parce que le principe de départ est
10 que c'est une contribution sociale. Comprenez-vous?
11 Et on n'essaie pas de rendre ça aussi économiquement
12 rentable qu'une production pour adultes. À ce moment-
13 là, c'est une décision sociale, c'est de dire: "Vous
14 devez, dans votre mandat de diversité, répondre à tous
15 les auditoires, dont celui pour enfants."
16 8456 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: On ne peut
17 pas dire la même chose pour d'autres programmations qui
18 répondent aux besoins de la population diverse... les
19 femmes, les autochtones? Je pense que c'est un devoir
20 social aussi. Alors ça fait partie de la réponse pour
21 toute la télévision.
22 8457 M. CARON: Oui, sauf que, que ce soit
23 les préoccupations pour les minorités ou que ce soit
24 les préoccupations pour les femmes ou autres, ça, on
25 peut y répondre par d'autres véhicules. On peut y
StenoTran
1831
1 répondre par des documentaires, par des dramatiques,
2 par tout ça. Mais lorsqu'on parle de télévision pour
3 enfants, là on est vraiment dans une catégorie qui est
4 très particulière, qui est très précise.
5 8458 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: À la page
6 26 de la soumission, il y a une liste de programmes.
7 Il est intéressant de voir, si j'ai bien compris cette
8 liste à la page 26, tableau 9, quels sont les
9 programmes que les enfants regardent.
10 8459 Je voudrais savoir si vous pouvez
11 nous dire si les enfants regardent les émissions
12 destinées aux enfants, ou est-ce qu'ils regardent
13 plutôt l'autre type de télévision, du type "La Petite
14 Vie", par exemple.
15 8460 M. CARON: Si vous voyez,
16 habituellement on fait ce genre de palmarès-là des 20
17 premières émissions, et caetera, et en regardant
18 celles-ci, à la page 26, vous voyez tout ce qui est en
19 caractère foncé, en bold qu'on appelle, ce sont des
20 émissions qui sont spécifiquement destinées aux
21 enfants. Il y a une majorité, c'est à peu près 60 pour
22 cent de ces émissions-là.
23 8461 Ça, c'est un peu comme un hit list,
24 mais il faut regarder toutes les heures que les enfants
25 regardent. Si les enfants regardent 19 heures par
StenoTran
1832
1 semaine, ça compte juste pour quelques heures en tant
2 que tel.
3 8462 On a fait cette analyse-là, Madame la
4 Commissaire, et on s'est aperçu que les enfants, s'ils
5 avaient uniquement les canaux généralistes, il y avait
6 une émission sur quatre qui leur était spécifiquement
7 destinée. Lorsqu'on ajoutait les canaux spécialisés,
8 là on arrivait à une émission sur deux. Et ça, dans la
9 communauté francophone, c'est supérieur à ce qu'on
10 trouve du côté anglophone, par exemple, qui est
11 beaucoup plus des émissions américaines, qui sont plus
12 family, plus vieux. Mais c'est une bonne base. Est-ce
13 que c'est suffisant? Là, c'est une autre question.
14 8463 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Est-ce que
15 vous nous dites que c'est vraiment les services
16 spécialisés qui devraient et qui vont prendre vraiment
17 le leadership en termes de la programmation pour
18 enfants?
19 8464 M. CARON: Non. Moi, je pense que si
20 on fait ça, à ce moment-là on exclut 30 pour cent des
21 foyers. Ce serait vraiment... non.
22 8465 Je pense qu'il faut reconnaître
23 qu'ils occupent un espace très important maintenant.
24 Teletoon a dépassé Canal Famille, a dépassé Radio-
25 Canada. Si on regarde l'écoute des émissions pour
StenoTran
1833
1 enfants, les canaux spécialisés sont venus prendre une
2 part importante, ce qui n'existait pas il y a trois
3 ans, il y a quatre ans, il y a cinq ans. Alors il faut
4 reconnaître ce rôle-là, leur présence là.
5 8466 Mais il faut absolument, dans les
6 télévisions généralistes, que les Radio-Canada, que les
7 Télé-Québec, et dans l'esprit que j'ai dit tout à
8 l'heure les télévisions privées aussi, occupent ce
9 rôle-là, parce que les télévisions généralistes
10 rejoignent 100 pour cent les foyers.
11 8467 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Je pense
12 que vos soumissions et les soumissions de Cinar/
13 Nelvana parlent d'un cadre réglementaire totalement
14 renouvelé envers la programmation pour enfants. Est-ce
15 que vous avez des suggestions précises en ces termes-
16 là?
17 8468 Je remarque que vous en avez fait
18 quelques-unes à la page 5 aujourd'hui. Pouvez-vous
19 m'expliquer quelles sont ces étapes précises que vous
20 nous recommandez?
21 8469 M. CARON: Écoutez, je pense que
22 malgré toute votre bonne volonté... j'ai juste passé la
23 journée aujourd'hui ici et je suis en admiration vis-à-
24 vis votre patience et l'intérêt que vous pouvez mettre
25 sur ces questions-là, mais je pense qu'on est à un
StenoTran
1834
1 moment propice où le CRTC pourrait convoquer un forum,
2 pourrait convoquer un groupe de travail qui ne
3 regarderait que ces questions-là, parce que c'est
4 beaucoup plus complexe qu'on le pense. D'une part, il
5 y a toute la réalité francophone, mais il y a celle
6 anglophone, où il y a peut-être des ponts qui seraient
7 semblables mais il y a peut-être aussi des aspects très
8 distincts, comme M. Lamarre a dit un peu plus tôt.
9 8470 Dans ces cadres-là, il faudrait
10 regarder la question des quotas. On en a fixé pour les
11 télévisions thématiques; comment se fait-il qu'on n'a
12 pas pensé de les fixer pour les généralistes dans le
13 temps? Parce qu'on se disait que ça va s'équilibrer en
14 tant que tel? Il y avait cette question-là.
15 8471 Il y a la question de l'accès aux
16 fonds.
17 8472 Il y aurait aussi des choses qui ne
18 relèvent pas directement du CRTC mais pour lesquelles
19 le CRTC pourrait influencer le processus, si on
20 pourrait dire, d'une façon incitative. Et là, ce sont
21 des rapprochements vis-à-vis les différents fonds, vis-
22 à-vis Téléfilm, vis-à-vis les mécanismes d'accès, vis-
23 à-vis définir des pourcentages, parce que beaucoup des
24 politiques c'est de dire: Ah, le secteur de télévision
25 pour enfants est un secteur qui devrait être considéré.
StenoTran
1835
1 Il est sous-représenté, il est ci, il est ça. Mais on
2 ne va pas plus loin que ça, et on laisse à Téléfilm et
3 aux autres de définir les politiques vis-à-vis ça.
4 8473 Moi, je pense qu'il faut réunir ce
5 monde-là autour d'une table et dire: Là, précisons,
6 opérationnalisons comment doivent se passer ces choses-
7 là, pour que pour les producteurs indépendants le
8 processus soit plus clair, pour les diffuseurs que ce
9 soit plus clair, et pour les bailleurs de fonds aussi
10 que ce soit plus clair.
11 8474 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Je pense
12 que, en effet, on commence... ce n'est peut-être pas un
13 forum, mais je pense que c'est un moment très
14 important, et la programmation pour enfants est un
15 aspect très, très, très central à nos discussions.
16 8475 Je pense que l'étude est surtout sur
17 le marché francophone, si je comprends bien.
18 8476 M. CARON: C'est sur le marché de
19 Montréal...
20 8477 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: De
21 Montréal?
22 8478 M. CARON:... mais on a aussi regardé
23 du côté anglophone de Montréal.
24 8479 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Anglophone
25 de Montréal.
StenoTran
1836
1 8480 M. CARON: Oui.
2 8481 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Est-ce que
3 l'étude que vous avez faite, ou peut-être d'autres
4 études... vous dites que les jeunes francophones
5 regardent de plus en plus la programmation anglophone.
6 8482 M. CARON: Non.
7 8483 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Ils restent
8 toujours sur le côté francophone?
9 8484 M. CARON: Oui.
10 8485 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: J'ai vu
11 d'autres études ou commentaires, je pense que c'est
12 l'étude CROP, qu'on a faite ici pour ces audiences, qui
13 indique que ça devient un problème.
14 8486 M. CARON: Si vous parlez des enfants
15 de 2-11 ans...
16 8487 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Deux à
17 onze?
18 8488 M. CARON: Deux-onze ans... et vous
19 regardez depuis dix ans les parts d'écoute qui vont aux
20 stations anglophones au Québec, les parts d'écoute
21 consacrées par les francophones, c'est toujours
22 inférieur à 10 pour cent.
23 8489 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Pourquoi
24 avez-vous choisi de faire l'étude sur 2 à 11 plutôt que
25 2 à 16, comme les recommandations de Cinar/Nelvana et
StenoTran
1837
1 de Breakthrough qui touchent ce groupe-là?
2 8490 M. CARON: Il y a deux raisons. La
3 première raison, c'est que le secteur jeunesse a
4 traditionnellement été composé de deux segments, c'est-
5 à-dire les 2-6 ans et les 7-11 ans. Ça a été défini de
6 cette façon-là par l'industrie même. BBM, si vous
7 regardez les cotes d'écoute et tout ça, on rapporte
8 toujours les 2-11 ans. Et on sait que lorsqu'on arrive
9 à 12, 13 ans, on tombe dans, finalement, une période
10 différente aussi de pré-adolescence, d'adolescence, qui
11 a peut-être des besoins différents, qui a peut-être
12 moins besoin de balises, si on pourrait dire, que le
13 groupe plus jeune de 2-11 ans.
14 8491 Donc, on regarde des émissions
15 évidemment des fois comme, je ne sais pas, "Watatatow",
16 ou des émissions comme ça, qui sont plus adolescents,
17 14 ans, 15 ans, mais on les inclut rarement dans nos
18 premières études parce qu'on trouve que ça déforme le
19 portrait un peu. Je n'ai pas vu vos données sur CROP,
20 mais possiblement que le glissement vers l'écoute
21 anglophone que vous constatez est peut-être un peu plus
22 vieux; c'est peut-être vers du 14, 15 ans qu'on trouve
23 davantage ça, mais chez les 2-11 ans, on croit avoir
24 une bonne lecture de ça.
25 8492 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Ça reste
StenoTran
1838
1 toujours là.
2 8493 Dans vos réflexions et
3 recommandations, est-ce que vous avez aussi en tête les
4 enfants qui ont, comme on dit en anglais, des
5 disabilities, les malentendants, les enfants aveugles,
6 et caetera? On a des représentations ici, surtout des
7 adultes, qui parlent des services et du manque de
8 services qui leur sont offerts par le monde télévisuel.
9 Est-ce que ça fait partie de vos réflexions?
10 8494 M. CARON: Je dois vous dire qu'en me
11 préparant un peu pour les audiences ici je m'attendais
12 à ce qu'on me demande la question "Quelle est une
13 émission de qualité? Qu'est-ce que c'est une bonne
14 émission?" Et peut-être que la question va venir!
15 8495 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Ça s'en
16 vient, ça. Ça s'en vient.
17 8496 M. CARON: Mais je pense que ça
18 touche le point que vous venez de mentionner, c'est-à-
19 dire que lorsqu'on regarde des émissions pour enfants
20 et on cherche cette qualité-là, on doit se demander
21 quelles sont les valeurs qui sont transmises. Si on
22 parle de valeurs, ça peut être tolérance vis-à-vis
23 d'autres ethnies, par exemple, ça peut être
24 représentation, justement, de groupes handicapés, et
25 caetera. Ce sont ces critères-là, je pense, qu'il faut
StenoTran
1839
1 encourager en tant que tel.
2 8497 Lorsqu'on parlait tout à l'heure de
3 150 pour cent et tout ça, je pense que même en
4 regardant une reconnaissance de 150 pour cent canadien,
5 elle ne devrait pas être donnée automatiquement à
6 n'importe quoi qui a le drapeau dessus. Je pense
7 qu'elle devrait être donnée justement pour encourager
8 ce genre d'émissions-là qui reflète ces genres de
9 valeurs là, ces genres de diversités là; et, vous savez
10 la réponse comme moi, il n'y en a pas assez
11 présentement.
12 8498 Je pense qu'il y a quand même un
13 effort, et s'il y a un endroit dans toute la
14 programmation où ça devrait apparaître et avoir ses
15 premiers effets, c'est bien dans la programmation pour
16 enfants.
17 8499 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I am not
18 sure of the term in French, so I will say it in
19 English. Are you aware if there is descriptive video
20 programming for children?
21 8500 MR. CARON: Descriptive video...?
22 8501 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:
23 Descriptive video programming.
24 8502 MR. CARON: I am not sure what -- if
25 we can have the translation.
StenoTran
1840
1 8503 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:
2 Descriptive video is a process by which the blind can
3 watch television by virtue of the scene and the action
4 being described to them on a separate track.
5 8504 MR. CARON: I am not aware.
6
7 8505 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: J'aimerais
8 aborder un autre facteur dans la vie des auditoires de
9 jeunes, 2 à 11, 2 à 16, 2 à 55 peut-être, comme moi!
10 8506 M. CARON: On est tous jeunes!
11 8507 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: C'est,
12 comme j'avais demandé au Breakthrough, le monde
13 digital... le monde numérique, je veux dire.
14 8508 Quelle est l'influence dans vos
15 réflexions de cette nouvelle ère numérique sur le
16 choix, sur la diversité, sur un sujet dans lequel vous
17 êtes impliqué depuis très longtemps, la violence dans
18 les médias, surtout les média destiné aux enfants.
19 8509 Où on en est là-dedans? Est-ce que
20 l'ère numérique, c'est un avantage? Est-ce que c'est
21 quelque chose néfaste? Est-ce que c'est important?
22 Qu'est-ce qu'on devrait faire?
23 8510 M. CARON: Je pense que c'est une
24 réalité qui approche. On ne pourra pas vraiment y
25 résister. Je pense qu'il faut voir quelles sont les
StenoTran
1841
1 capacités.
2 8511 Vous avez posé un peu plus tôt la
3 question d'Internet, par exemple. On a fait une petite
4 étude il y a un an à peu près sur la consultation du
5 site jeunesse de Radio-Canada. Radio-Canada a été le
6 premier à créer un site jeunesse sur l'Internet pour
7 leurs émissions et tout ça, et on voulait voir un peu
8 si ça venait, justement, en concurrence avec leurs
9 émissions ou quel était l'effet de ça.
10 8512 Dans nos discussions préliminaires...
11 c'est une étude exploratoire, ce n'est pas une très
12 grande étude, mais dans nos discussions on s'est aperçu
13 que ça peut être un allié très utile, c'est-à-dire que,
14 loin de distraire les jeunes de l'écoute des émissions,
15 ça peut les encourager et ça peut les encourager aussi
16 à fouiller davantage. Je pense, admettons, à une
17 émission comme "Les Débrouillards"; c'est une émission
18 qui a un côté très naturel pour que les enfants aillent
19 consulter l'Internet par après et fouillent des
20 dossiers, et caetera.
21 8513 Je pense que, de toute façon -- il ne
22 faut pas sous-estimer nos enfants -- s'ils veulent
23 aller sur l'Internet, ils vont y aller, et si on peut
24 les guider de ce côté-là, ça peut devenir
25 complémentaire avec la télévision.
StenoTran
1842
1 8514 On ne le réalise pas, mais d'ici dix
2 ans, la jeune génération déjà regarde la télévision
3 différemment et elle va la regarder encore très
4 différemment de comment nous autres, on la perçoit, et
5 l'Internet va en faire partie, soit comme
6 complémentaire ou des fois comme compétiteur, mais ça
7 va faire partie de leur environnement en tant que tel.
8 8515 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: En effet,
9 vous avez parlé de la programmation de qualité, mais je
10 vais sauter la programmation de qualité en prenant pour
11 acquis qu'on parle de la programmation canadienne.
12 8516 M. CARON: Oui.
13 8517 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Comment
14 définir le contenu canadien? Qu'est-ce que c'est, un
15 programme de contenu canadien pour les enfants de 2 à
16 11 ans?
17 8518 M. CARON: Moi, je pense que c'est
18 permettre aux enfants de se reconnaître dans leur
19 quotidien. Je pense qu'il y a des valeurs qui sont
20 proprement canadiennes, qui sont différentes des
21 Français ou des Américains ou des Italiens, et caetera,
22 et notre façon de raconter des histoires nous est
23 propre.
24 8519 Les référants dans notre entourage
25 nous sont aussi propres. Il y a des thèmes universels;
StenoTran
1843
1 c'est pour ça que nos émissions traversent bien aussi.
2 Qu'un thème soit universel, ça, il n'y a pas à en
3 douter, mais la façon d'aborder ce thème-là, c'est ce
4 qui fait que c'est propre à une culture ou à une langue
5 en tant que telle.
6 8520 Où j'ai des regrets, moi, c'est de
7 voir si peu d'échange entre nos cultures canadiennes,
8 ou notre culture canadienne à deux facettes, si on
9 pourrait dire... à multi-facettes certainement, mais
10 certainement il y a le côté français et anglais. Là,
11 c'est un peu étrange parce que... on le fait un peu en
12 animation, ça semble traverser, ça, mais dans bien
13 d'autres genres on ne semble pas l'exploiter autant
14 qu'on pourrait l'exploiter.
15 8521 Je me rappelle avoir préparé un
16 rapport pour la Commission Juneau-Herrndorf, qui
17 constatait justement, par exemple juste entre CBC et
18 Radio-Canada, ce peu d'échanges là. Il y a
19 d'excellents produits, qui traverseraient très bien.
20 Les enfants résistent beaucoup moins que les adultes à
21 ces genres de transferts là. Et là, je pense qu'on
22 rate une belle occasion de ce côté-là.
23 8522 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: En résumé
24 alors, Monsieur Caron, je pense que vous nous dites
25 qu'on avait fait du progrès en termes de la
StenoTran
1844
1 programmation pour enfants mais on peut toujours être
2 meilleur, on peut aller plus loin.
3 8523 M. CARON: Oui.
4 8524 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Alors en
5 résumé, qu'est-ce que le CRTC, d'après vous, devrait
6 faire en termes d'assurer cette amélioration et ce
7 progrès?
8 8525 M. CARON: Je pense qu'il faut
9 regarder ce qui est présentement en vigueur, c'est-à-
10 dire que vous avez des réglementations qui encouragent,
11 qui cautionnent certaines choses plus que d'autres, et
12 il faut maintenant regarder ce que le milieu vous dit
13 aussi, c'est-à-dire qu'il y a des réalités qui ont
14 changé et il faut voir si ces arrimages-là peuvent être
15 plus faciles en tant que tel.
16 8526 Ce n'est pas parce qu'on est un bon
17 modèle qu'on doit s'asseoir et dire: Voilà, on n'a
18 rien d'autre chose à faire. On a cet avantage-là, puis
19 cet avantage-là, on l'a parce que justement on se remet
20 en question. Se remettre en question, ce n'est pas
21 quelque chose de mauvais.
22 8527 Je pense qu'en ce moment, on est à un
23 moment propice, avec les nouvelles technologies, la
24 nouvelle situation des canaux spécialisés, et caetera,
25 pour pouvoir repenser à ces encadrements réglementaires
StenoTran
1845
1 là et ces incitatifs-là, et pouvoir bonifier et rendre
2 peut-être moins tortueux et complexe cette situation-là
3 de production et de diffusion d'émissions pour enfants.
4 8528 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Donc vous
5 êtes d'accord avec les producteurs de l'APFTQ, qui
6 recommandent d'inscrire à leur horaire une plus grande
7 proportion d'émissions pour enfants. Vous êtes
8 d'accord?
9 8529 M. CARON: Oui.
10 8530 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Est-ce que
11 vous avez pensé à l'impact que ça peut avoir sur le
12 contenu canadien dans les horaires dans leur totalité?
13 Est-ce que le résultat va être une diminution du
14 contenu canadien d'autres types si on insiste pour
15 insérer plus de programmation pour enfants?
16 8531 M. CARON: Vous savez, ça dépend aux
17 dépens de qui. Si vous le faites aux dépens des
18 infomercials, il n'y aurait peut-être pas beaucoup de
19 plaintes.
20 8532 Écoutez, il faut être cohérents. Par
21 exemple, à Radio-Canada, il y avait un temps où ils
22 avaient une programmation en matinée qui était très
23 présente; je parle de 9 h 00, 10 h 00, 11 h 00 le
24 matin. Ce n'est plus là. Il y avait à TVA des
25 émissions entre 4 h 00, 5 h 00, pour les enfants; il
StenoTran
1846
1 n'y en a plus non plus. Donc elles ont déjà été
2 déplacées, les émissions pour enfants. Peut-être qu'on
3 leur demande de reprendre la part qui devrait leur
4 revenir.
5 8533 Alors il y a une évolution dans tout
6 ça, mais je pense que si on a des productions
7 originales canadiennes qui s'ajoutent, il n'y aura pas
8 de perte. Il ne faut pas oublier que c'est un
9 investissement, les enfants. C'est aussi une aide à
10 fidéliser à son réseau. Il y a plein d'avantages,
11 comme je dis, peut-être indirects, mais à long terme
12 qui sont là.
13 8534 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci,
14 Madame le Présidente.
15 8535 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Conseiller Cardozo.
16 8536 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Merci, Madame la
17 Présidente.
18 8537 J'aimerais savoir si votre groupe a
19 étudié le sujet de la quantité de programmation. Je
20 voudrais demander s'il serait possible d'avoir une
21 situation avec trop de programmation pour nos enfants?
22 D'un côté, nous voulons des programmations appropriées,
23 non violentes, éducatives, et caetera, mais de l'autre
24 côté nous voulons des enfants actifs.
25 8538 M. CARON: J'aurais deux réponses à
StenoTran
1847
1 ça.
2 8539 La première question, c'est qu'on
3 peut devenir obsédé avec la quantité d'émissions pour
4 enfants, vous avez raison. Quand on dit qu'il y a 230-
5 quelques heures en tant que tel d'émissions
6 disponibles, c'est peut-être moins une question de
7 quantité que de disponibilité aussi, à quel moment
8 c'est présenté.
9 8540 Si les trois heures que vous ajoutez,
10 admettons qu'on ajoute au niveau de la télévision
11 privée, de programmation, ils vont mettre ça le samedi
12 matin contre cinq autres canaux qui programment déjà le
13 samedi matin, vous n'offrez pas beaucoup plus. C'est
14 pour ça qu'il faut regarder ça de cette façon-là.
15 8541 Alors la question d'augmenter le
16 nombre d'heures, c'est la question d'augmenter du first
17 run ou quelque chose qui est original et qui est
18 canadien en tant que tel. Je pense que c'est ce qui
19 prime.
20 8542 Est-ce qu'on propose trop d'émissions
21 aux enfants? C'est une bonne question. Si vous
22 regardez le nombre d'heures qu'ils regardent depuis dix
23 ans, depuis trois ou quatre ans ça s'est stabilisé, du
24 moins au Québec c'est assez stable; mais si vous
25 regardez il y a dix ans, ils regardaient 22 heures
StenoTran
1848
1 d'émissions par semaine, et aujourd'hui ils en
2 regardent 19. Ça fluctue, 19, 20, en tout cas. Donc
3 ils regardent un peu moins de télévision.
4 8543 Alors les enfants sont peut-être
5 beaucoup plus rusés qu'on le pense et regardent la
6 télévision dans la mesure où ils veulent la regarder,
7 mais je ne pense pas que si on augmente le nombre
8 d'heures vous allez avoir des enfants qui regardent 24,
9 25 heures de télévision par semaine tout d'un coup. Je
10 ne pense pas que ça va se passer.
11 8544 De toute façon, dans notre société en
12 ce moment... et je pensais peut-être que la question
13 serait posée pourquoi, finalement, il y a eu une baisse
14 depuis dix ans; c'est que les enfants sont sollicités
15 par plein d'autres activités maintenant. Ils sont dans
16 des situations, des structures, qui sont très
17 différentes d'il y a 10, 15 ans en tant que tel.
18 8545 Donc, le 19 heures, 20 heures de
19 télévision qu'ils regardent, malgré l'ajout des
20 Teletoon, des YTV, de tout ça, ça reste à peu près à ce
21 niveau-là. Je pense qu'ils risquent probablement de
22 rester à peu près à ce niveau-là.
23 8546 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Avez-vous une
24 opinion sur la meilleure quantité par semaine pour un
25 enfant?
StenoTran
1849
1 8547 M. CARON: Non. Je n'ai pas un
2 chiffre magique à vous proposer.
3 8548 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Merci beaucoup.
4 8549 Merci, Madame la Présidente.
5 8550 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci beaucoup,
6 Monsieur Caron, et nous vous remercions d'avoir
7 patiemment attendu pour vous présenter devant nous.
8 8551 Nous vous souhaitons un bon voyage de
9 retour.
10 8552 M. CARON: Merci.
11 8553 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Madame la
12 Présidente... Madame la Secrétaire; no, I am not giving
13 up my job.
14 8554 Madam Secretary, would you please
15 invite the next participant.
16 1815
17 8555 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
18 8556 The next presentation will be made by
19 CINAR Films and NELVANA Limited and I would invite Mrs.
20 Charest and Mr. Hirsh to please come forward.
21 8557 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good evening, Madam
22 Charest, Mr. Hirsh. Go ahead when you are ready.
23 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
24 8558 MS CHAREST: Thank you very much.
25 8559 Bonjour, Madame la Présidente et
StenoTran
1850
1 membres du Conseil. It is a pleasure to appear before
2 you today to present our views. My name is Micheline
3 Charest and I am the Co-Chairman and Chief Executive
4 Officer of CINAR Films. To my right is Michael Hirsh,
5 Chief Executive Officer of NELVANA Limited.
6 8560 NELVANA, based in Toronto, is one of
7 the world's leading production, distribution and
8 merchandising licensing companies specializing in
9 animation for all ages and CINAR Films Inc., based in
10 Montreal, is an integrated entertainment company
11 involved in the development, production, post-
12 production and worldwide distribution of non-violent
13 quality programming and educational products for
14 children and families.
15 8561 Madam Chair and Panel Members, we are
16 here to share our vision of where the Canadian
17 broadcasting system should go in the next decade. Our
18 vision is centred on goals, objectives and policies
19 that recognize a central role for children's
20 programming on television. Children are Canada's
21 greatest resource and unless we protect and enhance
22 this resource, our country will be diminished.
23 8562 CINAR and NELVANA believe that the
24 Canadian broadcasting system has a fundamental
25 responsibility to provide high-quality television
StenoTran
1851
1 programming for children. This principal is widely
2 supported by the stakeholders in Canadian broadcasting,
3 the viewing public and Canadians in general.
4 Recognition of this responsibility is not only
5 important in itself, but also because in this country
6 there is a need to develop audience loyalty to high-
7 quality Canadian content. Familiarizing children with
8 high-quality Canadian children's programs is an
9 excellent way to begin developing life-long loyalties
10 to Canadian television.
11 8563 In our submission of June 30th we
12 demonstrated how television can benefit Canadian
13 society by helping to educate and inform children. In
14 today's presentation we will address five issues of
15 concern to CINAR and NELVANA regarding children's
16 programs and the Canadian television broadcasting
17 system.
18 8564 First, the importance of high-quality
19 Canadian children's programming on conventional
20 services; the need for greater Canadian content
21 requirements in the under-represented categories of
22 programming; the extent of broadcasters' leverage in
23 the current Canadian regulatory environment; the impact
24 of vertical integration on independent production; and
25 the role of the Canadian independent production sector
StenoTran
1852
1 in the broadcasting system.
2 8565 Despite the arrival of specialty
3 services targeting children over the last few years,
4 there continues to be a lack of high-quality children's
5 programs on Canadian television, particularly on the
6 conventional services. The relative absence of
7 advertising revenue available for children's
8 programming is a major contributing factor to this
9 situation, particularly in Quebec. As a result,
10 children's programs have become the responsibility of
11 public broadcasters and the specialty services.
12 8566 However, as the government funding of
13 public broadcasters declines and public broadcasters
14 pursue programming strategies more and more similar to
15 those of the private sector, they are focusing on prime
16 time and reducing their commitment to children's
17 programming, especially high-cost, high-quality
18 programming. Sorely needed financial resources
19 necessary to achieve excellence are diminishing.
20 8567 Public sector broadcasters were at
21 one time creative leaders and innovators in children's
22 programming. Now specialty services are becoming the
23 primary source of children's programming on Canadian
24 television. There are two problems with this. First,
25 high-cost, high-quality Canadian programs, particularly
StenoTran
1853
1 those that embrace educational objectives, may not fit
2 with the strategic approach of the specialty services.
3 8568 Second, specialty services fail to
4 reach an important part of Canadian viewers. Twenty-
5 five per cent of Canadian households still do not have
6 access to cable television or specialty services and
7 the new wireless distribution technologies, such as DBS
8 and MMDS, will not fundamentally change this situation.
9 Over-the-air broadcasting remains the primary source of
10 programming for Canadian households. Children in
11 under-served areas should not be deprived of high-
12 quality television programming because their parents
13 don't subscribe to cable or the other newer
14 distribution technologies.
15 8569 Madam Chair and Panel Members, a
16 significant presence of Canadian children's programs on
17 all services in Canada would develop audience loyalties
18 to Canadian programs for family and mature audiences in
19 later life. Contrary to press headlines to the effect
20 that "English Canadians still favour U.S. shows",
21 Canadian children prefer Canadian children's
22 programming whenever it is available. We believe that
23 a new regulatory environment that enhances the
24 availability of new original children's programs on all
25 television services, especially conventional services,
StenoTran
1854
1 would bridge the social, cultural and economic
2 objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
3 8570 In the United States, even the
4 Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, has
5 conceded the importance of children's programming on
6 conventional services. In August 1996, the FCC adopted
7 rules requiring at least three hours per week of "core
8 educational programming" on all licensed television
9 services. To qualify as core educational programming,
10 a program must be more than of general interest with
11 some incidental educational value. It must be
12 specifically designed to meet the educational needs of
13 children.
14 8571 The three-hour weekly requirement has
15 worked in the U.S. Saturday morning children's
16 programming on ABC and CBS, for example, bears no
17 resemblance to that of three or four years ago and
18 during weekdays the success of Canadian programs, such
19 as "Arthur" and "Magic School Bus" on PBS, has
20 attracted tremendous attention in the U.S media.
21 8572 MR. HIRSH: In our vision, the
22 worldwide success of Canadian children's programming is
23 brought home to the benefit of our own kids. How can
24 this be done? In the last few years, the licensing of
25 new services, the competition for viewers, the
StenoTran
1855
1 fragmentation of audiences and the migration of
2 children's programs to the specialty services has
3 resulted in lower licence fees for individual programs.
4 This has hurt high-quality children's programs.
5 8573 CINAR and NELVANA believe that every
6 television service licensed by the CRTC should be
7 required to provide three hours per week of high-
8 quality first-run Canadian children's programs from the
9 independent production sector in each broadcast year.
10 Such a requirement would be comparable to the FCC's
11 requirement in the United States and it has also been
12 proposed by the CFTPA, the Directors Guild of Canada,
13 the Writers Guild of Canada and the SARDEC and other
14 producers who have appeared today.
15 8574 In addition to this, all conventional
16 Canadian television stations should be required by
17 condition of licence to broadcast in the peak viewing
18 hours a minimum average of 10 hours per week of first-
19 run Canadian programming within categories 7, 8 and 9
20 or documentary programming from the independent
21 production sector. This requirement has also been
22 proposed by the CFTPA and in other submissions.
23 8575 There is another important issue we
24 wish to address. The current broadcast regulatory
25 environment in Canada was designed for broadcasters,
StenoTran
1856
1 not for independent program producers. This regulatory
2 environment was already in place before the rise of the
3 independent production sector in the 1980s. The tying
4 of eligibility requirements for government financing,
5 including tax credits to a Canadian broadcast sale, has
6 had the effect of making broadcasters the gatekeepers
7 of the program funding system and added to
8 broadcasters' enormous leverage.
9 8576 More recently, the subjugation of
10 Telefilm Canada's Broadcast Fund to the Canadian
11 Television Fund's Board of Directors has diminished
12 Telefilm's authority and reduced its ability to mediate
13 between producers and broadcasters. As demonstrated in
14 CINAR and NELVANA's June 30th submission to the
15 Commission, private sector broadcasters are very
16 profitable. So too are the specialty services that are
17 dedicated to children's programming. The Canadian
18 television broadcasting system now requires a re-
19 balancing, with more attention paid to the under-
20 represented categories of Canadian programs, such as
21 children's and animation programs.
22 8577 Throughout the United States, Europe
23 and Canada, the globalization of trade relations and
24 the resulting competition among broadcasters is leading
25 to the concentration of ownership and vertical
StenoTran
1857
1 integration. In the U.S. concentration of ownership,
2 the end of the Financial Syndication Rules, the FINSYN
3 Rules, and vertical integration has resulted in a
4 lessening of opportunities for independent producers in
5 the U.S market and the virtual disappearance of the
6 U.S. independent television production sector. The
7 U.S. experience demonstrates how changes in government
8 policy can have unforeseen and unintended consequences.
9 We do not want this to happen in Canada.
10 8578 Today the independent production
11 sector continues to thrive only in countries such as
12 Canada and France and, to a lesser extent, in Germany
13 and the United Kingdom, where significant government
14 support is available. This underlines the need for
15 controls on vertical integration by the broadcast
16 regulator, together with adequate government financing
17 of indigenous production if the independent program
18 production sector is to continue to flourish.
19 8579 Developments related to
20 globalization, concentration of ownership and vertical
21 integration are now threatening the Canadian program
22 production industry where broadcasters already have
23 tremendous leverage as a result of their role as the
24 gatekeepers of government financing and incentives.
25 For example, the concentration of ownership of
StenoTran
1858
1 television broadcast assets or horizontal integration
2 is proceeding ahead in Canada just as it did in the
3 United States. Increased vertical integration
4 represents a huge new threat to the existing
5 equilibrium between Canadian program producers and
6 broadcasters and could be very damaging if not properly
7 managed.
8 8580 The disappearance or weakening of
9 Canada's independent production sector would not only
10 result in a serious loss of development, production and
11 distribution expertise, it would also create a hiatus
12 in terms of new ideas and concepts. The independent
13 production sector provides a diversity of voices and
14 contributes to Canada's unique cultural agenda for
15 broadcasting.
16 8581 Producing television programs in the
17 under-represented categories, particularly high-quality
18 children's and animation programs, is different from
19 broadcasting. Canadian broadcasters are already the
20 gatekeepers for the airing of independently produced
21 programs. Now they want to produce and distribute
22 Canadian programs in the under-represented categories
23 themselves, even though their trade association, the
24 CAB, says such programs are non-revenue generating.
25 8582 CINAR and NELVANA consider this to be
StenoTran
1859
1 an irreversible trend and have no choice but to live
2 with the consequences. If absolutely necessary, the
3 CRTC could consider allowing Canadian broadcasters to
4 continue to air programs in the under-represented
5 categories produced by their affiliated production
6 companies, subject to Canadian rules comparable to the
7 FINSYN and other rules governing self-dealing.
8 8583 However, we do not agree to Canadian
9 broadcasters accessing the Canada Production Fund's
10 Equity Investment Program administered by Telefilm.
11 Instead, negotiations in regard to broadcasters' equity
12 participation in Canadian programs should be more
13 transparent and more in line with practices worldwide,
14 which allow broadcasters to reap the benefits from a
15 legitimate sharing of risk in the financing of
16 independently produced programs. We recommend the CRTC
17 establish guidelines to this effect.
18 8584 Madam Chair and Members of the
19 Commission, studies cited by CINAR and NELVANA in our
20 June 30th submission confirm that children can benefit
21 substantially from viewing high-quality programs
22 targeted at their age group.
23 1830
24 8585 That television has the power to
25 teach is important because nearly all Canadian children
StenoTran
1860
1 have access to television and spend considerable time
2 watching it. Television reaches 99 percent of all
3 Canadian homes, and children aged 2 to 17 watch, on
4 average, more than two hours of television each day.
5 8586 Over-the-air broadcasting continues
6 to be an important source of programming for children
7 and for members of low income families in non-cabled
8 households, especially children.
9 8587 For these reasons, programs in the
10 under-represented categories, and particularly Canadian
11 children's programs, require an increase in
12 conventional broadcast shelf space.
13 8588 In our vision, Canadian children will
14 have access to high quality, innovative, content-driven
15 programs of relevance to their life experiences. These
16 will include live action and animation, together with
17 products that combine the best of educational and
18 entertainment values.
19 8589 Our vision of a new requirement of
20 three hours weekly of children's programs on
21 conventional services contains all of the elements that
22 the Commission seeks: it is clear and simple; it is
23 measurable; it has been tried elsewhere and worked
24 effectively; and it fulfils the objectives of the
25 Broadcasting Act.
StenoTran
1861
1 8590 Wouldn't this be a wonderful gift for
2 the children of Canada, both francophone and
3 anglophone, to enjoy as we enter the new millennium
4 together.
5 8591 Madame Chair, this completes our
6 presentation. We look forward to answering any
7 questions you might have.
8 8592 Thank you.
9 8593 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
10 8594 You support the proposal put forward
11 by the CFTPA. Some elements I did not find completely
12 clear.
13 8595 You support the 10 percent of the
14 previous year's revenue as an expenditure on the 13
15 hours. So, for you, the importance would be 10-13-10.
16 8596 MR. HIRSH: Right. We look at the
17 three as being on top of that.
18 8597 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are focusing
19 more on the three, although it is part of their
20 proposal as well.
21 8598 In paragraph 3 of your written
22 submission, in the Summary, you say that "a new
23 regulatory environment is required" and that there
24 should be "quality of Canadian children's and animation
25 programs on all Canadian television services".
StenoTran
1862
1 8599 You are talking here of conventional
2 stations.
3 8600 MR. HIRSH: Yes.
4 8601 THE CHAIRPERSON: In paragraph 62,
5 which is on page 15, you say that one of the reasons
6 for this proposal would be to:
7 "compensate Canadian viewers and
8 content providers for the
9 horizontal and vertical
10 integration of the Canadian
11 television broadcasting system
12 that has occurred over the last
13 few years..."
14 8602 Are you suggesting that only those
15 who are either horizontally or vertically integrated
16 should be subject to this requirement? Or is the
17 Category 7, 8 and 9 documentaries and children's --
18 8603 You are just making a general
19 statement that the system has lost something and there
20 should be compensation for it?
21 8604 MR. HIRSH: Yes, it is a general
22 statement, and we do believe that it applies to
23 everybody.
24 8605 THE CHAIRPERSON: You would support
25 the imposition of these requirements for services
StenoTran
1863
1 making less than $10 million if they are part of a
2 multi-station group as defined by CFTPA?
3 8606 MR. HIRSH: Yes.
4 8607 THE CHAIRPERSON: You feel that this
5 three-hour minimum is certainly an important way of
6 getting more quality Canadian children's programming on
7 television.
8 8608 Are there other requirements that
9 could be used, for example, to encourage the broadcast
10 of children's and animated programs; such as special
11 credits for it, special spending for it?
12 8609 I notice in paragraph 93 you suggest
13 that there should be specific allocations within the
14 fund for children's programs. So that would be an
15 additional incentive.
16 8610 Have you thought of other incentives
17 besides the three hours?
18 8611 Of course, with respect to the
19 spending, you are not really going to know under this
20 formula how much spending there will be to get quality
21 children's programming on the air, because the
22 broadcaster will be free to spend proportionately more
23 on other categories and still be within the 10-10-10
24 formula or 10-13-10.
25 8612 MS CHARES: There are some rules of
StenoTran
1864
1 the industry right now. If we are talking about first
2 run programs --
3 8613 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I would like
4 you to tell me what you mean by that.
5 8614 MS CHARES: Essentially, first run
6 programs are programs that are produced with adequate
7 funding to begin broadcasting on a given network. It
8 does not necessarily have to be only one network. I
9 think we have to get away from that definition that it
10 was the first run on a specific outlet. It could be a
11 combination of services that would provide the
12 necessary funding for a program to be made.
13 8615 What we are really concerned with is
14 about new programming that has to be made to support
15 the quality that we want to see on the broadcasting
16 system in Canada.
17 8616 Inevitably, for new programming to be
18 made, it has to fit within the economics of the
19 production industry. Right now, we have some
20 requirements to access other sources of funding in
21 Canada. In the case of children's programming, it
22 requires that broadcasters contribute 15 percent of the
23 production budget unless you are a regional producer,
24 which then is lowered to 10 percent.
25 8617 We would not be able to pinpoint how
StenoTran
1865
1 much money the broadcaster would have to spend. But it
2 would have to be commensurate with how much it costs to
3 create original programming. And that, again, is a
4 wide range of numbers. You can produce excellent
5 programming at $50,000 per half hour; and other
6 categories of programming require $300,000 per half
7 hour.
8 8618 The point that you have touched is
9 the allocation in the funding. Right now, as Mr. Caron
10 referred to, and as we have experienced, the funding
11 mechanism does not privilege dollars to be allocated
12 for children's programming.
13 8619 We have seen broadcasters
14 specifically denying producers access to some of that
15 funding. So we would like to see some allocation of
16 the funding provided by the various discretionary funds
17 to be allocated for children's programs.
18 8620 Right now, although it technically is
19 available, the broadcaster has the discretionary power
20 to tell the producer that he cannot use it.
21 8621 THE CHAIRPERSON: On the spending
22 front, you say at paragraph 114, at page 24 of your
23 written submission, that in the definitions that are in
24 Public Notices of the Commission with regard to
25 eligible expenses, the definition of "eligible
StenoTran
1866
1 expenses" is too broad and that the Public Notices, or
2 what they contain, are not being systematically
3 applied.
4 8622 You mean by this when the CRTC
5 monitors or examines compliance.
6 8623 You say, number one, that they are
7 not systematically applied; and that there are problems
8 of definition.
9 8624 Do you have any particular problems
10 in that area?
11 8625 MR. HIRSH: Not that we can recall as
12 we sit here today. But we would be happy to send you a
13 written response to that question.
14 8626 THE CHAIRPERSON: You also say in
15 that paragraph that in no circumstance should any
16 contributions from the Licence Fee Program be
17 considered as eligible Canadian programming expenses.
18 8627 MS CHARES: That is correct.
19 8628 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that one of the
20 problems you are focusing on? Or are there two
21 problems identified in that paragraph?
22 8629 One would be the Commission's failure
23 to interpret or apply properly its own criteria when
24 examining compliance. And the other --
25 8630 Is that something that is occurring
StenoTran
1867
1 now, that you would want to end?
2 8631 MS CHARES: To the first part of the
3 paragraph, I cannot answer right now, Madam Chair.
4 8632 THE CHAIRPERSON: But you obviously
5 remember the circumstances.
6 8633 MS CHARES: But with respect to the
7 second one, I could definitely reiterate that we do not
8 believe that the licence fees should be considered as
9 an eligible Canadian programming expense.
10 8634 THE CHAIRPERSON: So they should not
11 be part of the 10 percent of the previous year's
12 revenues and expenditures.
13 8635 MS CHARES: No.
14 8636 THE CHAIRPERSON: You also, of
15 course, have a problem with the level of the licence
16 fees.
17 8637 How do you think that can be
18 addressed? What mechanism, regulatory or otherwise, do
19 you see addressing the level of the licence fees?
20 8638 MR. HIRSH: I think there is a norm
21 in the industry, as Ms Chares pointed out, that we look
22 to licence fees that trigger production to be in the 15
23 percent of licence fee category.
24 8639 Having said that, I think we have to
25 recognize that in the special case of animation, we
StenoTran
1868
1 have often believed that that percentage is probably
2 too high, because the cost of animated shows is
3 significantly greater than the cost of other children's
4 shows, such as "Dudley", which we saw earlier today.
5 8640 The figure has to be related to what
6 kind of income stream a broadcaster might reasonably
7 enjoy from the exhibition of the show.
8 8641 In the case of animation, I do fee
9 that 15 percent is too high.
10 8642 THE CHAIRPERSON: And in Quebec,
11 presumably anything above zero is too high.
12 8643 MS CHARES: The situation in Quebec
13 is completely different. We only have the public
14 broadcaster, and their contribution to original
15 programming is limited; and insofar as animation, it is
16 non-existent.
17 8644 In fact, if you want to address the
18 higher cost drama, it has also just about been
19 eliminated from the original programming slate, because
20 the cost must be deemed too high.
21 8645 At the same time, I don't think our
22 position should be interpreted as a need to look at
23 reducing the contribution from the broadcaster. We
24 have lived with a systematic decrease of licence fees
25 over the last 15 years. There is a threshold at which
StenoTran
1869
1 point the viability of financing is not going to be
2 achieved.
3 8646 So it is a question of balance. I
4 think one ought to look at the different categories of
5 programming and exercise some discretionary decision in
6 so far as what the level should be.
7 8647 THE CHAIRPERSON: When you support
8 the 10-13-10 formula --
9 8648 That is for English language
10 television of course.
11 8649 MS CHARES: Yes.
12 8650 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any
13 recommendations to make about children's programming on
14 French language television?
15 8651 You produce for both markets.
16 8652 MS CHARES: Yes, we do. And I think
17 the situation in Quebec is a pretty sad situation,
18 actually, because we have lost completely and entirely
19 the contribution of the private broadcasters. The
20 reasoning partially comes from the lack of advertising
21 revenues, but also the mission and the vision of what
22 that programming should be is clearly viewed the way as
23 fragmentation and specialty services have occurred.
24 8653 I believe that the recommendation
25 that we are making is absolutely viable for the
StenoTran
1870
1 province of Quebec, and it is a question of will for
2 the system to spring back to fulfilling a mandate that
3 it was originally intended to do.
4 8654 Children do watch the private
5 broadcasters in Quebec. They are just not served by
6 them.
7 8655 That financial contribution that used
8 to happen before is sorely missed.
9 8656 The programming is just not being
10 made in Quebec, and the diversity of programming that
11 we used to received from the public broadcasters and
12 the private is really no longer there. So the
13 deficiencies are particularly noticeable in that
14 market.
15 8657 MR. HIRSH: I think Micheline has
16 made a very important point here; that children are
17 watching broadcasters during children's hours when
18 shows that are not age appropriate, shows that are
19 often inappropriate, are being broadcast for them.
20 8658 I think that is one of the reasons
21 why it is so important that each broadcaster have this
22 commitment to the children's audience. It is a chance
23 to put some shows on during children's hours that are
24 specifically designed and are age appropriate.
25 8659 THE CHAIRPERSON: In light of the
StenoTran
1871
1 possible difficulty of getting revenues consistently
2 from children's programming, do you think that your
3 proposal that all three hours be provided by the
4 independent production sector is entirely fair?
5 8660 Your proposal is that in both cases,
6 7, 8 and 9 and documentary programming --
7 8661 And although you make the point that
8 children's programming is included in some of those,
9 you want an additional three hours. So that is 13
10 hours per week, but all to be provided by the
11 independent production sector.
12 8662 Is that absolutely crucial to your
13 proposal, since the aim is to ensure that quality
14 children's programming gets on the air and that it is
15 an area that has inherent financial problems?
16 8663 MR. HIRSH: I think we are talking
17 about minimums. I think that three hours of children's
18 programming in a week, when you think of a seven-day
19 week and a full schedule, should not be considered a
20 maximal amount.
21 8664 THE CHAIRPERSON: But that is not
22 what you find at the moment.
23 8665 MR. HIRSH: That is correct, on every
24 station -- although there are some stations that are in
25 fact performing that function and providing programming
StenoTran
1872
1 that would qualify as high quality programming.
2 8666 I think it is fair to say that we
3 think these are a minimal. As we sit here today, and
4 it is 1998 -- and the end of 1998 approaching us -- I
5 think there is room for greater Canadian content on
6 Canadian television. I think that is the case for
7 adults as well as for children.
8 8667 One of the problems that we face as a
9 system, when we look at the future when we have to
10 compete as a broadcasting system, with programs coming
11 in from around the world, more sources of programming
12 being available, is that we have to in fact generate a
13 body of work that draws an audience that is Canadian
14 and that appeals to our audience that is Canadian.
15 8668 Unless we get started and increase
16 the quantum, I don't think we will ever get there. And
17 I think it is achievable.
18 8669 In the area of children's, I think it
19 is very safe to say that this is one area where the
20 programming is absolutely as appealing as foreign
21 programming. Canadian children's shows rate very well
22 on Canadian systems. They often are in the top ten and
23 often are in the top five on the services that carry
24 these shows.
25 8670 What we have seen is that we have
StenoTran
1873
1 proven, as an industry, that we can make shows that are
2 highly successful. And now we have to, in looking at
3 the larger industry, accomplish the same thing in
4 drama.
5 8671 I think if we limit ourselves to too
6 few hours, we will never get there. And the reason is
7 that it is really a question of opportunity. It is a
8 question of, using a baseball term, at bats.
9 8672 If you look at the American system,
10 they can be very successful because one out of ten
11 shows succeeds, or one out of twenty shows succeeds.
12 If you are only offering the public ten shows a year,
13 it is going to be hard to ever get to those success
14 moments.
15 8673 THE CHAIRPERSON: You were here, I
16 think in part, when the TVA panel was here, were you?
17 8674 MS CHARES: No.
18 8675 THE CHAIRPERSON: You know, of
19 course, that one of the controversial aspects of this
20 hearing is the apparent desire of the broadcasters to
21 get into production, and the resistance by the
22 production industry to that -- which is quite total for
23 you.
24 8676 The TVA panel talked about
25 partenariat and better relationships and alliances, and
StenoTran
1874
1 so on, that would allow working more closely with the
2 independent production industry; and together -- in the
3 same sleeping bag, I understood -- perhaps they would
4 go knocking on the door or line up in the cold next
5 time to get funding.
6 8677 I see Madame Chares rolling her eyes.
7 8678 MS CHARES: I am sorry I missed the
8 presentation.
9 8679 THE CHAIRPERSON: You don't believe
10 in these partnerships.
11 8680 We did speak about sleeping bags. I
12 may be adding a little bit here. It is late, and we
13 have to wake ourselves up.
14 8681 You don't believe, obviously, in
15 these.
16 8682 Are you raising your eyebrows at the
17 vision of the sleeping bag or at the vision of the
18 partnership with the broadcasters rather than a
19 complete denial of the possibility that there would be
20 some changes with regard to this vertical integration
21 between broadcasters and production?
22 8683 MS CHARES: Actually, I believe that
23 partnerships are essential to the survival of our
24 industry altogether.
25 8684 To me, a partnership means that you
StenoTran
1875
1 are standing on equal footing; and that, together, you
2 go along to create something that you will both fairly
3 reap the benefits of.
4 8685 I think we stated more than once in
5 our presentation today that we believe that right now
6 the broadcasters are the gatekeepers of much of the
7 funding that is accessible to the independent
8 production sector in Canada.
9 8686 If on top of that we add integration
10 without some very clear and well defined rules as to
11 the extent to which each of the parties can play in the
12 garden of the other one, then I think we run some very
13 serious risk that there will be some real
14 destabilization of the industry. And I believe that
15 the independent production sector is the one that will
16 suffer.
17 1850
18 8687 I do believe that it is possible, but
19 it has to be under some very clear understanding. We
20 have lost some of our leverage to be an equal partner
21 with a broadcaster by the diminishing of our own
22 financial resources that used to be directed for use by
23 the independent production industry.
24 8688 Right now the licence is the
25 triggering factor for all the benefits that will fall
StenoTran
1876
1 to the independent producer. That is a very powerful
2 tool. We have to look at it, but very carefully. We
3 recommend that there are some guidelines as to what
4 that partnership cannot be.
5 8689 THE CHAIRPERSON: You propose some.
6 You state at page 8 of your oral submission that
7 increased vertical integration represents a huge threat
8 and could be very damaging if not properly managed. Do
9 you suggest that -- are the suggestions or
10 recommendations you make in your proposal, both written
11 and oral, the management that you recommend or do you
12 have other possibilities that are not contained here?
13 8690 For example, you say that
14 broadcasters should not have access to the equity
15 investment program and that if they want to wear
16 programming that was produced by them or their
17 affiliated companies, it should be governed by what is
18 referred to as the fin/syn rules which are very
19 restrictive.
20 8691 MR. HIRSH: Yes.
21 8692 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that the
22 management you suggest or did you have something else
23 in mind or something that you think that we could do
24 that hasn't been mentioned yet?
25 8693 MR. HIRSH: I think, you know, those
StenoTran
1877
1 particular rules are important. I think any rules that
2 govern limiting the percentage of programming that a
3 broadcaster can do for their own service which, again,
4 was a rule they had in the United States that worked
5 quite well and when that rule was eliminated, it
6 basically, you know, was one of the issues that led to
7 the demise of the independent production centre.
8 8694 If there is any doubt, everybody
9 should really understand that there is close to zero
10 independent production community left in the United
11 States. You know, we could find ourselves in the same
12 situation. It's not a doomsday situation where we have
13 just seen this happen down south.
14 8695 I think, you know, the ability to
15 demonstrate programming that's on your network and
16 limiting that is very important. I think limiting of
17 how much a broadcaster can produce for their own system
18 is very important. Though it's a small fund, the
19 telefilm fund is just one small fund that currently
20 doesn't allow broadcasters to access it for their own
21 purposes, for their own stations.
22 8696 I think it's important to keep that
23 as a separate fund, but I think these would be three
24 very simple rules that would work for us.
25 8697 THE CHAIRPERSON: At the bottom of
StenoTran
1878
1 page 8 you talk about the role of the independent
2 production sector, and if I recall, it's growing
3 disappearance in the United States.
4 8698 I just want to relate the sentence at
5 the bottom to what you have said before:
6 "CINAR and NELVANA consider this
7 to be an irreversible trend and
8 have no choice but to live with
9 the consequences."
10 8699 Do you mean that this depends on the
11 production industry, vertical integration? What are
12 you addressing there? It isn't clear to me. What is
13 an irreversible trend?
14 8700 MS CHAREST: It is the vertical
15 integration that is happening on a worldwide basis that
16 is having a tremendous impact on the industry. It is
17 clearly a path that started about two and a half, three
18 years ago, that did not start to impact the independent
19 production community here until probably this year and
20 will increasingly do so because it is going to curb the
21 ability of our export potential.
22 8701 Inevitably what you are seeing are
23 larger groups that are producing, distributing and
24 broadcasting not only in their own market but worldwide
25 and occupying a greater portion of air time.
StenoTran
1879
1 8702 Inevitably it is curbing the ability
2 of the independent production sector to produce because
3 a lot of that ability to access revenues from those
4 markets or even from those services have been curbed by
5 broadcasters that are now producing themselves.
6 8703 Clearly, if we have any opportunity
7 to make sure that this trend does not happen in Canada
8 to the degree that it will wipe off the industry
9 overnight as it has happened, if you think that three
10 years in the U.S. is not very long, it is quite
11 startling in terms of the impact, I think we owe it to
12 ourselves to look at it very carefully.
13 8704 At the same time, it is clear to us
14 also that to survive, there will have to be
15 consolidation and concentration of power, if you wish.
16 I think it would be naive to pretend that producers did
17 not have a need to get into the broadcasting business
18 the same way as the broadcasters are looking to be in
19 the producing business.
20 8705 The question is how and can we keep a
21 balance that will make sure that that transition is not
22 going to be deadly to either one of the sectors?
23 8706 THE CHAIRPERSON: Basically what you
24 are saying is it's going to happen, we can't resist it,
25 let's find solutions to manage it and place rules on
StenoTran
1880
1 it, but you do perceive that there will be greater
2 integration, that it's inevitable and you would rather
3 focus on how you contain it rather than say just don't
4 relax the rules.
5 8707 MR. HIRSH: Yes.
6 8708 THE CHAIRPERSON: Which is something
7 we have heard from a number of parties.
8 8709 MS CHAREST: That's right.
9 8710 THE CHAIRPERSON: You feel this is
10 not a wise way of doing it, to just say no completely,
11 it's better to manage it.
12 8711 MR. HIRSH: Yes. I think it would be
13 unrealistic for us to, you know, go against what is a
14 worldwide trend. It's not just, you know, a North
15 American trend. It's happening all over the world. We
16 want Canadian companies that can compete on a worldwide
17 basis because we envision, I guess, a future where
18 Canadian companies, i.e. broadcasters and producers,
19 have to be competitive with fewer national safeguards
20 perhaps because there is more free movement of
21 programming, whether it be through the Internet or
22 through telephony or some other mechanism.
23 8712 We need a very good strong industry.
24 What's great right now is we have built a very healthy
25 Canadian production industry. It's one of the
StenoTran
1881
1 healthiest in the world. I think our broadcasters are
2 getting stronger and more healthy. We have a, you
3 know, more rationalized system that we are about to
4 look at and get into.
5 8713 We have built some great specialty
6 services, but we have to help those services and we
7 have to help those producers grow and survive and
8 compete.
9 8714 When we talk about competition, it's
10 kind of interesting. Our competition that we face
11 every day on a worldwide basis are not one billion
12 dollar companies, they are generally not $5 billion
13 companies. They are companies that are $20 billion to
14 $100 billion in market capitalization.
15 8715 The size of the competition is
16 enormous. We have to, I guess, evolve the system over
17 time here that allows Canadian broadcasters and
18 producers to compete in that challenging world.
19 8716 THE CHAIRPERSON: So it may not be
20 unwise to buy a very large sleeping bag then. On the
21 one side you make rules. On the other, it's the same
22 in the radio industry, for example. Sooner or later
23 people have to learn to make whatever alliances and
24 compromises, I suppose, that can work for both sides of
25 the industry. So rules on the one side but an attempt
StenoTran
1882
1 to work at such alliances where possible and shared
2 risk taking and so on that can be negotiated.
3 8717 You state at page 12, which is
4 paragraph 52, that following paragraphs on the
5 tremendous leverage that you see enjoyed by the
6 broadcasters and you think that it's time to rebalance
7 the Canadian broadcasting system to ensure there are
8 some limits based on broadcasters' powers and that the
9 contribution to the system is commensurate with their
10 financial gains resulting from the current regulatory
11 regime.
12 8718 I imagine that contribution can be
13 required by this 10 per cent spending requirement.
14 It's not the most difficult. How do you rebalance
15 their leverage or power? Are you suggesting that the
16 licence fee no longer be a trigger for accessing funds?
17 What do you mean by the rebalancing which is not
18 financial?
19 8719 MR. HIRSH: We are not suggesting
20 that licence fees be changed, you know, in that way. I
21 think what we are suggesting are the kind of safeguards
22 we were talking about just a moment ago. Because of
23 the unbalanced power between producer and broadcaster
24 because broadcaster is gatekeeper, we put a limit on,
25 you know, what percentage of their programming for
StenoTran
1883
1 their overall service that a broadcaster can provide,
2 distribution rights, precisely the kinds of things we
3 just talked about.
4 8720 THE CHAIRPERSON: There is a
5 paragraph in your presentation that I can't really
6 understand all that well that I would like you to help
7 me with. It's 143 at page 28. I think it's in more
8 than one place, but I see it there. It is related to:
9 "-- equity investment by
10 broadcasters over-and-above
11 existing levels is acceptable
12 subject to the conditions of a
13 universal rule, such as the one
14 that commonly prevails now:
15 broadcasters can take an
16 ownership position in a
17 production equivalent to 50% of
18 the value of their investment
19 (over-and-above licence fee
20 requirements) after full
21 recoupment of their investment."
22 8721 MR. HIRSH: Yes.
23 8722 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell me
24 exactly what this means.
25 8723 MR. HIRSH: I think what we are
StenoTran
1884
1 recognizing here is that some broadcasters want to
2 invest in programming and believe that that programming
3 investment is a valuable investment that will generate
4 returns for them as the program travels around the
5 world. It's helpful to the Canadian producer to have
6 that extra investment.
7 8724 What we are laying out, because there
8 is an imbalance between the power between the two
9 negotiating parties, there really should be a standard
10 formula. This formula that is proposed here is in
11 fact, I would say, an industry standard formula that
12 has been used since I started in the business 27 years
13 ago.
14 8725 The way that it basically works is
15 you are looking to the broadcaster to put in their full
16 licence fee that they would have invested whether they
17 got equity or not. Then you are looking to them to put
18 in extra equity, if they so desire. That reward for
19 their equity is just for the extra risk money beyond
20 the licence fee and that number becomes a numerator and
21 the denominator is the budget of the show.
22 8726 That fraction is then multiplied by
23 50 per cent. The theory is that 50 per cent of the net
24 profits or net proceeds of the show go to the creative
25 elements, you know, the actors, the talent, the
StenoTran
1885
1 producers, the underlying rights holders who have
2 created a property and the other 50 per cent is there
3 for compensation for the financial investors.
4 8727 This is a pretty standard industry
5 formula.
6 8728 THE CHAIRPERSON: It ensures that the
7 property remains controlled by the independent
8 producer.
9 8729 MR. HIRSH: That's correct, but it
10 also ensures that there is a, you know, recognized
11 transparent formula that dictates what is an equitable
12 deal.
13 8730 THE CHAIRPERSON: And you would like
14 this practice to be made, especially if there is a
15 relaxation of the participation of broadcasters, to be
16 enshrined as a rule.
17 8731 MR. HIRSH: Yes. I think it's
18 important because what we are facing as independent
19 producers is a situation -- this applies particularly
20 to the small, new independent producer who doesn't have
21 perhaps the negotiating strength of the larger
22 companies and perhaps the experience so they are more
23 vulnerable. I think it would just be a good safeguard
24 in the system that would be appreciated.
25 8732 MS CHAREST: May I add that the
StenoTran
1886
1 competition for time slots is fierce. The financial
2 resources are limited everywhere. The negotiating
3 power for that magic licence fee that will trigger the
4 other source of financing is lopsided very much.
5 8733 Unfortunately, the producer does not
6 have very much as leverage to compete. The broadcaster
7 is the single most important factor that will decide if
8 a production will happen or not and if the funding will
9 come or not.
10 8734 What has happened in the past few
11 years is that broadcasters have started accessing
12 equity position, revenue streams, part ownership, and
13 not necessarily commensurate with additional investment
14 that would have been deemed appropriate for the amount
15 of ownership they will end up getting at the end
16 because the producer most likely cannot say no.
17 8735 Even if the licence fee only
18 represents 15 or 20 per cent, too much financing is
19 triggered by that licence fee. The loss to the
20 producer means that the show will not happen. It has
21 been used unfairly at times to access ownership. One
22 should remember that ownership of the program is the
23 ultimate value to the producer.
24 8736 THE CHAIRPERSON: What would be the
25 likely effect on the level of licence fees of making
StenoTran
1887
1 this a hard and fast rule?
2 8737 MS CHAREST: It shouldn't have any.
3 8738 THE CHAIRPERSON: None at all one way
4 or the other.
5 8739 MS CHAREST: None at all. It
6 shouldn't have any.
7 8740 MR. HIRSH: One thing that I would
8 just like to add to Micheline's answer is that it's not
9 the case that many broadcasters are currently abusing
10 this kind of power, but you know, it has happened. We
11 are an industry that it has happened.
12 8741 We think that this kind of safeguard
13 is more of a future preventative than curing what is
14 now a runaway problem. It is not in fact a runaway
15 problem.
16 8742 THE CHAIRPERSON: They would prevent
17 it from requiring remedy later.
18 8743 MR. HIRSH: Yes.
19 8744 MS CHAREST: They would establish the
20 parameters at least.
21 8745 THE CHAIRPERSON: Especially if there
22 is, as you mentioned, an industry practice that is not
23 that far from the rule you propose.
24 8746 Did either of you have a chance to
25 look at the Canadian Media Guild suggestions with
StenoTran
1888
1 respect to broadcaster access to production funds? No?
2 Let me see, now that I have gotten into this.
3 8747 The first is they propose that
4 broadcasters, both private and public, be permitted to
5 access a small percentage of the existing funds, let's
6 say 10 to 15 per cent, which would be set aside
7 especially for them instead of relaxing the rules with
8 some safeguards.
9 8748 The second would be to establish a
10 dedicated fund through a levy on what broadcasters
11 spend to purchase foreign programming. The suggestion
12 is 2 per cent of their cost.
13 8749 The idea, I guess, would be to have a
14 discreet fund accessible to broadcasters in response to
15 their request for having more access to the funds. You
16 can have a look at it if you wish and you may want to
17 address it if you file a final, but go ahead if you
18 have a comment.
19 8750 MR. HIRSH: All I was going to say
20 was that broadcasters currently can access tax credits,
21 the cable fund. The only fund that I believe they are
22 restricted from, and it's only in the case where they
23 are producing for their own service, is Telefilm
24 Canada. Let's remember that's not that big a fund.
25 That's a reasonably small quantum of money for the
StenoTran
1889
1 whole system.
2 8751 I'm not sure that there is any need
3 to rectify the current situation where the broadcasters
4 currently participate on a free basis.
5 8752 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, promotional
6 expenditures were a large part of the CAB's proposal
7 and the suggestion that promotional expenditures be
8 considered so important to reaching viewership goals of
9 Canadian programming, that there should be incentives
10 and that they should be taken into consideration by in
11 part removing them from the definition of advertising
12 and in some other cases simply deregulate the 12
13 minutes.
14 8753 Some other interveners suggested that
15 promotional expenditures be considered in the spending
16 requirements. I take it from your proposal that you
17 are against any of that.
18 8754 MR. HIRSH: Yes.
19 8755 THE CHAIRPERSON: Also, a suggestion
20 was made as to this entertainment type programming,
21 that half an hour be considered. You don't think that
22 incentives have to be provided.
23 8756 MS CHAREST: No. It's the
24 responsibility of the broadcaster to promote its
25 program.
StenoTran
1890
1 8757 MR. HIRSH: We promote our own shows.
2 8758 MS CHAREST: Yes.
3 8759 MR. HIRSH: We are working with
4 broadcasters today promoting every show that we deliver
5 to a Canadian broadcasters.
6 8760 THE CHAIRPERSON: They also had
7 suggestions for what you should be doing in the
8 promotion area.
9 8761 You don't endorse the CAB's position
10 which would match this, counting a promotion as
11 illegible expenditures, that we look at viewership
12 levels as a reference point for measuring success.
13 Your position is make them put the programming in the
14 proper hours when people are watching and they will
15 need to get audiences. Therefore, they will spend
16 money on the programming and they will promote it.
17 1910
18 8762 MS CHAREST: Correct.
19 8763 MR. HIRSH: We are partners in
20 promotion.
21 8764 THE CHAIRPERSON: That would be your
22 position?
23 8765 MS CHAREST: Correct.
24 8766 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very
25 much. I don't know if my colleagues have questions.
StenoTran
1891
1 8767 Commissioner Pennefather?
2 8768 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Do you not
3 address on page 16 the definition of a Canadian program
4 and say it requires revision with regard to children,
5 particularly animation? If you could just explain to
6 me what you mean "a new definition of Canadian
7 programming".
8 8769 MS CHAREST: It has been talked about
9 quite extensively today by intervenors. I think we now
10 have the basis to establish what a Canadian program is
11 under the CRTC and the CAVCO rules. We also have what
12 I think is a logical recognition of what is
13 identifiably Canadian in a Canadian situation, but also
14 should allow for a Canadian vision of the world in as
15 expanded, as imaginary and as creative a way as we can
16 possibly make it. It never fails to surprise me how we
17 go through the trouble of looking for definition and
18 trying to limit ourselves. It is what Canadian
19 individuals wish to translate through the medium in the
20 best of their capacity.
21 8770 Now, in the case of kids'
22 programming, we talked earlier -- and it was spoken
23 about -- about possibly the lack of diversity of
24 programming. It is true that with the diminishing
25 resources, we have seen trends where certain kinds of
StenoTran
1892
1 programming -- where it is not as necessarily tangible
2 that the programming be Canadian because it has to be
3 exported and it is only because of these export dollars
4 that the programming is made. Thus, it is shying away
5 from tangibly identifiable Canadian references and
6 hopefully by accessing three hours of air time for
7 children's programming, we would see new, more
8 identifiably Canadian programs emerge because we need
9 it badly.
10 8771 We need more Canadian dramas for
11 children that are set in Canada, but it doesn't mean
12 that because an animation series doesn't reflect a
13 Canadian geographical specific place that it is not
14 Canadian. I think we have to remember that this is a
15 creative endeavour and that the origin of the idea
16 makes the programming as Canadian as the point system
17 in many ways in terms of division.
18 8772 Also, I would specifically mention
19 that certain kinds of children's programming have to be
20 looked at with different rules because they are made
21 differently, the economics are different and the
22 reality of the position they have in the marketplace is
23 different as well, such as the case for animation. So,
24 we can't unilaterally have the same definition. That
25 does not work.
StenoTran
1893
1 8773 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Do you
2 have a specific definition for children's programming
3 and animation that you would bring forward in your
4 follow-up because it is, as you know, part of our
5 parallel process.
6 8774 MR. HIRSH: Perhaps we should send it
7 in as part of a written submission.
8 8775 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
9 8776 MS CHAREST: Can I just add one
10 thing? However different a definition may be in terms
11 of drama, variety or animation, there is one common
12 ground that should really be recognized. It is that
13 the program is owned by Canadians.
14 8777 MR. HIRSH: I would support that
15 fully. I think it's one that we have missed as an
16 industry and it's really the one telling point.
17 8778 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Yes, we
18 heard that this morning. There are many different
19 discussions around definition, depending on sometimes
20 the purpose of looking at a definition. Thank you very
21 much.
22 8779 THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel?
23 8780 MR. BLAIS: Thank you.
24 8781 The end is near. I just have four
25 points. The first one is one of housekeeping. You
StenoTran
1894
1 were having a discussion with Mrs. Wylie concerning
2 paragraph 114 and were saying that you might want to
3 provide a written answer to that. Just to clarify, we
4 would appreciate that by the 15th of October to be put
5 on the public record.
6 8782 On the second point, you mentioned
7 that following the abolition of the SYNFIN Rules in the
8 U.S. the independent sector disappeared, which raises
9 for me a question of definition because my notion of
10 what the independent sector in the U.S. context is a
11 bit different than I have understood it to be in the
12 Canadian context.
13 8783 I noticed in your written submissions
14 you define "independent sector" in terms of
15 independence from a broadcaster, whereas I have always
16 understood the word "independent" in the U.S. to be
17 independent from the major studios. So, I was
18 wondering how you were using the phrase "independent
19 sector" when you were saying that it had disappeared.
20 8784 MR. HIRSH: I think we would include
21 both independent from major broadcast assets and
22 independent from the major studios.
23 8785 MR. BLAIS: So, there are in the
24 States, obviously, some independent producers in the
25 way we define it in Canada that is independent of
StenoTran
1895
1 broadcasters?
2 8786 MR. HIRSH: That's correct. The
3 major studios that don't own networks would qualify.
4 8787 MR. BLAIS: So, perhaps it's the
5 smaller independent sector that would have disappeared?
6 8788 MR. HIRSH: That's correct. A good
7 example is Stephen Cannell's company. He was a well
8 known producer of one-hour shows, who could not
9 function in the environment any more.
10 8789 MR. BLAIS: Thank you for that
11 clarification.
12 8790 The third point relates to this
13 notion of first-run. As I understand, your point is
14 that the first-run could be on several different
15 Canadian broadcasters, but I am wondering how this
16 could roll out in practice and what safeguards we might
17 envisage because one could imagine that one would have
18 progressive so-called first-run windows on several
19 conventional broadcasters, French and English, and
20 several specialty broadcasters.
21 8791 I am wondering, if that's
22 theoretically possible. What does that do to diversity
23 in the system when there have been regulatory
24 incentives created to have that same hour of children's
25 programming getting all these windows?
StenoTran
1896
1 8792 MS CHAREST: The share windows is a
2 function of economics. When a broadcaster wants a show
3 for itself, he pays for it. So, it's in the case of
4 not wanting to provide sufficient funding that he looks
5 to share with another broadcaster and usually is
6 amenable to share the windows. So, you could be
7 looking at defining what's in a certain time frame, for
8 example, when the first broadcast would have to take
9 place on all the participating broadcasters.
10 8793 But we are seeing now with the
11 fragmentation of the market that more broadcasters are
12 actually willing to pay the full licence fee necessary
13 to trigger the funding and keep the program for
14 himself. But in the event that he would not wish to do
15 that, we should not penalize him because he has to
16 access or the producer would have to access another
17 partnering broadcaster to reach the sufficient licence
18 fee necessary to trigger the funding.
19 8794 MR. HIRSH: And some of those
20 windows, by the way, aren't simultaneous windows, but
21 are staggered, so it's first window with one
22 broadcaster and then moving to another broadcaster. If
23 you look at just some interesting numbers, both
24 "Arthur", which CINAR produces, and "Magic School Bus",
25 which we produce and other shows follow this pattern,
StenoTran
1897
1 are on many stations at one time in the market and they
2 are drawing huge audiences in Canada whether they are
3 on PBS or TVOntario or on Teletoon or CBC
4 simultaneously.
5 8795 What we are seeing is that if some of
6 these high-quality shows that we would like to see
7 generated from this initiative are seen by more
8 Canadian children because they are on several
9 broadcasters at once, that's not a bad thing, that's a
10 good thing.
11 8796 MR. BLAIS: Although you will
12 appreciate that when we look at it, we are looking at
13 it in the context of the Broadcasting Act, which does
14 seem to suggest that we should have diversity. The
15 same point was made with respect to adult -- I should
16 probably say non-children programming, that one can get
17 second windows.
18 8797 Could it be that it's less of a
19 concern here because of the fact that children perhaps
20 don't get as tired of seeing the same thing; in other
21 words, it has an entertainment value for the same
22 children to see it in different windows?
23 8798 MS CHAREST: But it's not something
24 that we desire to see necessarily the program on three
25 networks. We would rather get three new original
StenoTran
1898
1 programs from three different networks. It's a
2 function of the lack of financing in this market that
3 we have to stagger the broadcast pattern and in an
4 ideal world it would not happen. But I'm not sure that
5 preventing it is going to achieve anything because
6 shows won't be made. I mean there is a certain minimum
7 required for certain kinds of programs and there is no
8 way around it.
9 8799 MR. BLAIS: Thank you for that.
10 8800 The last question I have is I noticed
11 you were here during Dr. Caron's presentation. I was
12 wondering if you had some comments to make on it. For
13 instance, he did suggest that there may be an over-
14 supply in the animation field as far as children's
15 programming. I'm not sure if you had comments on that
16 particular point or other points he has raised.
17 8801 MS CHAREST: I think that there is a
18 lot of animation. There is not necessarily a lot of
19 Canadian animation. I mean animation is still the
20 favourite programs of children. I think it has been
21 proven over and over. I think that we still face the
22 competition where Americans dump their program at very,
23 very low licence fees in this market and children watch
24 it. I do totally concur with Mr. Caron that there
25 isn't enough diversity in the marketplace, thus the
StenoTran
1899
1 necessity of creating some obligations on the
2 broadcasters, and I believe that that obligation will
3 foster the variety of programming that we believe the
4 market deserves.
5 8802 But insofar as the success of one
6 genre, it's not because it's successful that you should
7 curb it. What we would like to see is an opportunity
8 for more Canadian animation, which is very popular, but
9 not very plentiful because it is so costly.
10 8803 MR. BLAIS: Thank you. Those are my
11 questions.
12 8804 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Commissioner
13 Cardozo.
14 8805 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I have one
15 question. The hour is late, so maybe you can just send
16 this to us in writing. I am really quite interested in
17 some of the promotion you do for "Magic School Bus" and
18 "Arthur" and I wonder if you could just let us know
19 later the range of things that you do, because I see a
20 range of things like computer games, toys, books and
21 stuff like that. I think if you compare it to a lot of
22 other kids' programming, it seems to be that that's one
23 of the best ways of promotion.
24 8806 MS CHAREST: Sure.
25 8807 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks.
StenoTran
1900
1 8808 MR. BLAIS: Again that would be by
2 the 15th of October, if you could. Thank you.
3 8809 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Rather than
4 right now.
5 8810 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Charest, Mr.
6 Hirsh, thank you very much. We thank you for patiently
7 waiting. The only consolation prize is you don't have
8 to stay with us for another 24 hours because we are not
9 sitting until Thursday morning.
10 8811 MR. HIRSH: Thank you very much.
11 8812 MS CHAREST: Thank you very much.
12 8813 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, we appreciate
13 your patience. We knew we would have a long day and we
14 did.
15 8814 There has been an urgent request for
16 a 10-minute break before we hear the last participant.
17 So, we will be back here in 10 minutes to hear TVNC.
18 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1920
19 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1929
20 8815 THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back.
21 8816 Madam Secretary, would you please
22 introduce the last presentation of the day, please.
23 8817 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
24 8818 The next presentation will be made by
25 Television Northern Canada Inc. and I would invite Mr.
StenoTran
1901
1 Tagalik to start the presentation.
2 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
3 8819 MR. TAGALIK: (Native language
4 greeting). Thank you.
5 8820 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good evening.
6 8821 MR. TAGALIK: Good evening. Madam
7 Chairperson and Commissioners, I am Abraham Tagalik,
8 Chairman of Television Northern Canada. With me today
9 is Patrick Tourigny, TVNC's Director of Regulatory
10 Affairs. I wish to commend the Commission for
11 undertaking this timely review of television policy.
12 It is the first major review in many years and the
13 first since the implementation of the new Broadcasting
14 Act that was proclaimed in June 1991.
15 8822 I wish to emphasize that we are not
16 here to promote our application for a national
17 aboriginal service. However, it will be necessary for
18 me to touch on the current state of aboriginal
19 broadcasting in order to illustrate some points we wish
20 to make at this proceeding.
21 8823 Although Public Notice CRTC 1998-44
22 poses dozens of questions for possible discussion
23 during these proceedings, I will restrict my comments
24 to the following topics that are of most interest to
25 aboriginal broadcasters, producers and journalists:
StenoTran
1902
1 One, are aboriginal people well served; two, the role
2 of public and private stations and networks; three,
3 balanced programming in news and public affairs; four,
4 training of aboriginal talent; five, production funds.
5 8824 TVNC filed its written comments on
6 the television policy review not only on behalf of
7 TVNC's current members, but also on behalf of the
8 numerous independent aboriginal producers and
9 journalists we have been in contact with over the past
10 several months. We have conducted considerable
11 grassroots research into the current state of
12 aboriginal broadcasting and production. Although much
13 of that information is anecdotal, a number of themes
14 have emerged. Access to distribution systems is a key
15 concern, fairness and balancing news and public affairs
16 programming is another access to production funds,
17 criteria and size of envelopes is yet another concern.
18 8825 Access to distribution systems has
19 been an issue ever since native television began over
20 20 years ago. In the government's 1983 Northern
21 Broadcasting Policy, it was assumed that native
22 broadcasters such as those operating in the Yukon,
23 MacKenzie Delta, Eastern Arctic, Arctic Quebec and
24 Labrador would have "fair access" to northern
25 distribution systems. In other words, CBC Northern
StenoTran
1903
1 Service was expected to carry our programs.
2 8826 This placed the CBC in a difficult
3 position as it had its own mandate to fulfil and was
4 prohibited by head office from pre-empting network
5 programs. As a result, native programs often received
6 inappropriate time slots and were themselves subject to
7 constant pre-emptions by hockey and other programs
8 deemed to have greater importance. It was an untenable
9 situation that was only resolved when TVNC came into
10 existence.
11 8827 Finally, in 1991, 13 years after the
12 first northern aboriginal programs were produced,
13 northern aboriginal broadcasters, producers and
14 journalists had their own distribution system. The
15 initial expectation that "fair access" would take care
16 of itself was recognized as a naive concept. Southern
17 aboriginal broadcasting has fallen behind the gains
18 made in the north because there has been no federal
19 program to support it. Producers shop their programs
20 around, but conventional broadcasters show little
21 interest. More often than not, the images that are
22 shown are negative and stereotypical.
23 8828 Also, in answer to the Commission's
24 question, "Are aboriginal people well served", I have
25 to report that in most of the north aboriginal people
StenoTran
1904
1 are reasonably well served, in spite of shrinking
2 government funds, in that they receive a minimal amount
3 of programming produced by and for the native people in
4 the various regions of the north. However, in southern
5 Canada there is and has been a resounding void.
6 8829 Those rare programs that do include
7 aboriginal people and themes are most often produced by
8 non-natives. To quote one of the respondents in our
9 focus group research, "'North of 60' is nothing like
10 any reserve I have ever been on." There is an urgent
11 need for conventional broadcasters to commission
12 programs from aboriginal producers so that Canadians
13 can periodically view Canada through a native prism.
14 8830 This brings me to our second point:
15 What is the role of public and private stations in
16 meeting the needs of aboriginal peoples and in
17 reflecting Canada's cultural diversity? Certainly, it
18 is our view that the Broadcasting Act has placed a
19 requirement on public and private stations and networks
20 to reflect aboriginal cultures to the rest of the
21 country. When this provision was introduced as part of
22 the Act in 1991, we didn't observe any discernible
23 increase in the recognition by broadcasters of the
24 "special place of aboriginal peoples" within Canadian
25 society.
StenoTran
1905
1 8831 Even if TVNC is successful in its
2 application for a new national aboriginal network, we
3 believe that public and private stations and networks
4 still have an obligation to serve the needs of
5 aboriginal peoples just as they are obligated to
6 provide closed captions for the hearing impaired. What
7 is desperately needed is access to the system by
8 aboriginal writers and storytellers and by native
9 producers and directors. In our discussions with
10 aboriginal producers, we learned that many of them
11 found that they can sell their product abroad, but
12 cannot find air time at home.
13 8832 It is our hope coming out of this
14 proceeding the Commission will put broadcasters on
15 notice that their performance in the area of serving
16 the needs of aboriginal peoples will be reviewed at the
17 time of licence renewal, transfer of ownership or
18 application for a new licence.
19 8833 A related matter to the area of
20 serving the needs of aboriginal peoples is the issue of
21 whether television news and public affairs programming
22 is balanced in matters of public concerns. I was
23 deeply disturbed to learn last week and in the
24 newspaper chain that British Columbia has imposed a
25 strong anti-native bias in its editorial coverage of
StenoTran
1906
1 the Nisga'a land claim settlement. Certainly, no
2 broadcaster to my knowledge has embarked on such an
3 outward and glaring bias against aboriginal issues.
4 However, there is a perception among the aboriginal
5 population that news coverage of native issues is often
6 superficial and one-sided.
7 1940
8 8834 What is needed is more in-depth
9 coverage of aboriginal issues. More airtime is
10 required to explain why certain events occur. The
11 historical context is often missing or inadequately
12 explained. Instead, what we often see is a jaunty and
13 superficial thirty-second clip designed to appeal to
14 base emotions.
15 8835 What is needed is a deeper
16 understanding of aboriginal issues and a greater
17 respect for native cultures. Therefore, what is
18 urgently needed is for broadcasters to hire aboriginal
19 journalists to cover aboriginal issues (along with
20 mainstream reporting), so that Canadians can be exposed
21 to news events, and especially aboriginal news events,
22 from a native perspective.
23 8836 Seeing Canada and the world through
24 aboriginal eyes would, as the saying goes, be an eye
25 opener.
StenoTran
1907
1 8837 Now I would like to turn to the issue
2 of training. I guess it would be an understatement to
3 say that there is not an over-abundance of native
4 journalists working in television in this country. If
5 we are to expect broadcasters to hire native
6 journalists, then we have to produce more of them.
7 8838 I believe that broadcasters have a
8 responsibility to nurture the development of native
9 journalists, producers, writers and other craft skills.
10 They should provide in-house training and internship
11 programs, or direct contributions to community colleges
12 and other recognized training institutions.
13 8839 TVNC recommends that the Commission
14 encourage the major ownership groups and the CBC/Radio-
15 Canada to make specific commitments toward the training
16 of aboriginal persons in the broadcasting field.
17 8840 Finally, I would like to say a few
18 words about production funds and independent producers.
19 In its Public Notice, the Commission posed the
20 following question:
21 "Production funds are currently
22 available, for the most part,
23 only to independent producers.
24 What would be the impact if
25 broadcasters, or broadcast-
StenoTran
1908
1 controlled production companies,
2 were provided with direct access
3 to these funds?"
4 8841 While we don't have a strongly held
5 position on this matter, I would only point out that
6 the funds are already over-subscribed to. Increasing
7 the potential competition to a fixed amount of
8 available dollars would only seem to exacerbate a
9 system which is already characterized by too many
10 proposals scrambling for too few dollars.
11 8842 While I am on the subject of
12 production funds, I want to make one final point, just
13 in case anyone from the Department of Canadian Heritage
14 is listening.
15 8843 Aboriginal producers are pleased that
16 their lobbying efforts have resulted in specific
17 envelopes for native productions: $1 million in each
18 of the Licence Fee Program and the Equity Investment
19 Program, for a total of $2 million, or 1 percent of the
20 $200 million which Telefilm Canada administers.
21 8844 According to the 1996 Census, the
22 aboriginal population, as a percentage of the total
23 population, is 2.8 percent. We would like to see these
24 envelopes increased so as to correspond more closely to
25 our composition in Canadian society. This would be
StenoTran
1909
1 consistent with the generally accepted practice of
2 dividing English and French funds according to
3 population size.
4 8845 Thank you very much for your kind
5 attention.
6 8846 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
7 Tagalik.
8 8847 Commissioner McKendry.
9 8848 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Good evening.
10 8849 I have many questions that I would
11 like to ask you; but I think as you note, because you
12 have an application before us for a national service, I
13 will only ask you a few questions.
14 8850 I wanted to explain that, because I
15 did not want you to think that my lack of extensive
16 questioning was a reflection on your submission here
17 today or the value we place on your views.
18 8851 Let me ask you, first, about a
19 question you ask on page 5 of your submission, and I
20 will quote it.
21 8852 It says:
22 "Why haven't the major players
23 commissioned works from the over
24 150 independent producers who
25 ply their trade in Canada?"
StenoTran
1910
1 8853 It seems to me that is a question
2 that is central to your submission, and I am going to
3 turn the question back on you. This is something that
4 you must have thought about and reflected upon.
5 8854 What is your answer to that question?
6 8855 MR. TAGALIK: I think so many times
7 when you discuss aboriginal issues and news events, it
8 comes down to who controls the network and who decides
9 what gets on at what time and what kind of angle gets
10 put on to a story.
11 8856 I think a lot of that has to do with
12 those people in those positions.
13 8857 Even in Nunavut, when you look at
14 certain things like that, it really reflects on the
15 producers, the directors, the program people. If you
16 don't have people in there that take the native point
17 or issue, then it just gets sidestepped. I think a lot
18 of that is part of the problem.
19 8858 I don't know if I have totally
20 answered your question.
21 8859 I think it is a matter of will. Part
22 of it that I mention in here too is the stereotypical
23 issues that relate to coverage of aboriginal events and
24 issues.
25 8860 It is all in who decides what gets
StenoTran
1911
1 put on a lot of times.
2 8861 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Why are there
3 not more aboriginal people in positions to decide what
4 gets put on?
5 8862 MR. TAGALIK: Part of it is training;
6 part of it is the system. So many times it is hard to
7 climb, if you are a native person. There have been a
8 few success stories.
9 8863 But for the most part, when you are a
10 young person either looking for employment or you look
11 to go to a sector and look for a role model, if there
12 are not that many role models in that sector, I think
13 it is very hard to set the seed and get the young
14 people going in that area.
15 8864 So many times -- I never really feel
16 it personally -- racism is raised. I think not only
17 natives but ethnic minorities face that same problem.
18 8865 It comes down to the will and partly
19 also the government not setting the priorities right.
20 We also don't reflect a huge part of the population
21 that way.
22 8866 There have been some good people come
23 through. There are some native journalists that I
24 heard, especially in the Oka crisis, that finally made
25 it through the lines into the camp because they were
StenoTran
1912
1 aboriginal.
2 8867 When you talk about issues like that,
3 I think these are real fundamental issues that are hard
4 for aboriginal people. It is an uphill battle. It is
5 tough. If you have a choice between being a carpenter
6 or a journalist, a lot of times it is a lot easier to
7 be a carpenter or a mechanic than to be a journalist
8 fighting all the way up.
9 8868 That is partly to do with it.
10 8869 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: During the
11 Oka crisis, the aboriginal or native journalists that
12 made it through the barriers to enter inside Oka, were
13 they primarily working for native media, aboriginal
14 media --
15 8870 MR. TAGALIK: No. That was through
16 the CBC.
17 8871 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Is there a
18 difference between the reaction aboriginal producers
19 get from the conventional private media and the new
20 specialty channels? Is there any difference there at
21 all?
22 8872 MR. TOURIGNY: No. In our
23 discussions with --
24 8873 I think we have been in contact with
25 over 150 independent aboriginal producers. When we
StenoTran
1913
1 started this, we had no idea that there were that many.
2 We are quite amazed that they are. But they are all
3 very small operations, for the most part.
4 8874 The economics of television mean that
5 if you do have a program with aboriginal themes --
6 "North of 60" has been mentioned, and there are other
7 programs -- they are designed for the broader audience.
8 8875 There has been some good intentioned
9 progress over the last ten years. But they are just
10 scratching the surface.
11 8876 A lot of these programs are written
12 by non-aboriginals. Again, they mean well, but it is
13 hard to avoid stereotypes even though you mean well.
14 8877 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: One thing
15 that struck me, when I read your submission and thought
16 about it, is that aboriginal visual art has found its
17 way into non-aboriginal society. It seems to me that
18 that is evidence of interest in non-aboriginal society
19 and aboriginal culture, because much of the art is
20 rooted in aboriginal tradition and themes that are
21 particularly relevant to aboriginal people.
22 8878 The question that came out of that --
23 which goes back to the discussion that we have already
24 had -- is: What has happened to TV? Why hasn't the
25 same thing happened in television?
StenoTran
1914
1 8879 I don't know whether you want to
2 comment on that, or whether you have anything to add to
3 what you have already said to us.
4 8880 MR. TAGALIK: I think a lot of that
5 would relate to our application.
6 8881 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Then we
7 should not enter into that discussion.
8 8882 You go on to note that many
9 aboriginal producers have found that they can sell
10 their work abroad.
11 8883 What is it in the international
12 market that brings that about?
13 8884 MR. TOURIGNY: I think it is what you
14 just said about the art market. There is a curiosity.
15 There is a recognition that there is something unique
16 here, a different perspective, and an opportunity in
17 Australia, Europe, different parts of the world, to
18 show an interest in aboriginal film and television
19 production.
20 8885 It is a shame that that same interest
21 has not shown up in Canada. The economics of
22 television is such that if something is going to get a
23 prime slot on a major network, it has --
24 8886 They use the formulas that have
25 proven themselves over the years. The aboriginal
StenoTran
1915
1 programs have not had a chance to get out there and
2 test the waters to see what level of interest there
3 would be. It would be a tremendous gamble on the part
4 of broadcasters.
5 8887 Yet in 1991, when this new provision
6 was put in what was stilled called the new Broadcasting
7 Act that the broadcasting system should reflect the
8 special place of aboriginal peoples within Canadian
9 society, there was no discernible difference. It was
10 not a wake-up call.
11 8888 We are here today to say that maybe
12 as part of this proceeding, that one element in the Act
13 can be re-emphasized and broadcasters taken to task.
14 8889 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I take it
15 that licence renewal time for broadcasters is when you
16 would like us to take them to task, if that is the
17 appropriate thing to do under the circumstances?
18 8890 MR. TOURIGNY: Sure.
19 8891 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Have you
20 intervened in previous licence renewal proceedings?
21 8892 MR. TAGALIK: What I have noticed is
22 that at times of licence renewal, they tend to prop
23 things up a bit higher.
24 8893 We have never stopped going to the
25 companies, and we have never stopped pressing the
StenoTran
1916
1 issue. I think we have sort of become the aboriginal
2 voice in the broadcast industry. Every chance we get
3 to intervene or to make a few comments, we do that.
4 And we will continue to do that.
5 8894 But I still say that there is not
6 enough commitment so many times for aboriginal
7 producers in general. It is a lot of work to get that
8 commitment either from a company or from a broadcast
9 corporation as such.
10 8895 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: We have had
11 some presentations today about children's programming,
12 and I noticed that you were here for much of that.
13 8896 Is children's programming and
14 conventional broadcasting experiencing the same
15 problems that you have described for us about
16 conventional broadcasting in general? Or is there
17 anything unique about children's programming that you
18 see today, from your perspective?
19 8897 MR. TAGALIK: One of the differences
20 we have in children's programming is trying to set a
21 base based on culture; telling the kids who they are.
22 8898 If you ask me what a Canadian is, I
23 would have a hard time telling you. But if you ask me
24 what an Inuuk is or an Eskimo, I can really relate that
25 easier to a child than trying to get them to recognize
StenoTran
1917
1 the Canadian identity, maybe other than hockey or that
2 kind of thing.
3 8899 When we look at programming for
4 children, we look at the cultural aspect living within
5 our environment. It is not the same things you have in
6 the south. But in the aboriginal community in general,
7 our young people have lost a sense of who they are, and
8 that is a very serious base to erode. That makes them
9 wonder: Are they native? Are they Canadian? They
10 don't at times know where they stand.
11 8900 I think that is part of the mandate
12 that we have been given as TVNC, and hopefully with
13 APT. We can also look at that and deal with that
14 issue.
15 8901 My boy, who is 3 years old, also
16 loves to watch television. Some of the programs that
17 were mentioned today he totally enjoys: "Arthur" and
18 the "Magic School Bus". He knows all those characters.
19 There is not enough programming in Inuktituk for him.
20 8902 I think as part of the funding issue
21 and the commitment to aboriginal programming, somewhere
22 there has to be the right balance.
23 8903 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Earlier this
24 year I was in Iqaluit, and I watched television when I
25 was there. I guess I was struck by the contrast in
StenoTran
1918
1 what I was seeing on television.
2 8904 On one hand, I was seeing Detroit car
3 dealerships, and on the other hand there was the
4 service you provide.
5 8905 In northern Canada, is there a
6 balance that adequately addresses the kinds of concerns
7 that you would like to see addressed?
8 8906 MR. TAGALIK: I think it does not go
9 as far as we would like. If you watch television being
10 introduced to the north, especially in Iglulik in the
11 mid-1970s, the only reason they allowed TV to come in
12 was if they could produce some from their own point of
13 view. I think that was based on children and cultural
14 programming.
15 8907 As we mentioned in our presentation,
16 there are not government funds. We have the network
17 and we are cut. All our producers, our members are
18 just scraping by to get one or two hours a week, or
19 even half an hour a week. And that certainly does not
20 come close to meeting what is needed or what they would
21 like to do, not only in children's programming but in
22 all the other parts of the spectrum.
23 8908 Part of it is there, but it is
24 definitely not adequate.
25 2000
StenoTran
1919
1 8909 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I wanted to
2 ask you about television news. You made the comment
3 about the chain of newspapers in British Columbia where
4 the owner and the publishers directed a particular
5 editorial stance with respect to the Nisga land claim
6 settlement there.
7 8910 I just wanted to get some sense of
8 whether you felt -- I detected in your comments that
9 you felt TV news was more balanced that print news is,
10 generally speaking, when it comes to aboriginal issues
11 or am I reading too much into what you are saying?
12 8911 MR. TOURIGNY: If I could just say
13 something here. Broadcasters are regulated and
14 newspapers aren't, so there's a big difference there.
15 I mean, even the Broadcast Standards Council would, I
16 am sure, censure that type of activity and the RNTDA
17 and these different associations wouldn't allow that in
18 the broadcast media and yet it's perfectly all right
19 for this gentleman who has almost a monopoly. I think
20 he has 60-odd community newspapers in British Columbia
21 to take that position and then defend it on "As It
22 Happens".
23 8912 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let me just
24 end up by discussing with you a minute another
25 important aspect of your submission, the training of
StenoTran
1920
1 aboriginal journalists.
2 8913 In your view, is that best done on
3 the job or is that something that journalism schools
4 need to address?
5 8914 MR. TAGALIK: I think it's a bit of
6 both. What I went through, I never went to journalism
7 school, but I started off with the CBC doing Inuktituk
8 programming. What you learn on the job, I think a lot
9 of times it can really help. I think some of the
10 things we have done pushed companies to take an
11 aboriginal person and put them in the studio, put them
12 behind the camera, put them in the switching room where
13 things are happening, you know, and have them follow
14 along with a Director.
15 8915 I do see the importance of a
16 journalism school and going through that academic route
17 to enhance their journalism skills. I think that can
18 only help. I don't know if you wanted to add anything
19 on that one.
20 8916 They have to be given the
21 opportunity.
22 8917 MR. TOURIGNY: I think Abe is living
23 proof of the opportunity. He got his start in CBC and
24 then went to Inuit Broadcasting and worked his way up
25 through the ranks there and is now chairing the
StenoTran
1921
1 Northern Aboriginal Network. It shows that, you know
2 -- where did you start, in radio in or in television?
3 8918 MR. TAGALIK: Radio, yes.
4 8919 MR. TOURIGNY: There's a lot of
5 activity up there. We commend CBC on the radio side.
6 They are doing an awful lot.
7 8920 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you
8 very much for answering my questions.
9 8921 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
10 8922 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
11 Pennefather.
12 8923 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
13 8924 Actually, Commissioner McKendry asked
14 the main question I was going to ask you just now in
15 looking at the most desirable way of gaining
16 experience, training, development in all the skills you
17 were talking about which would be preferable. You
18 mention on the job and/or contributions to
19 institutions.
20 8925 In my experience at the NFB, both
21 were absolutely necessary, but certainly actual work
22 was perhaps more important.
23 8926 MR. TAGALIK: Yes.
24 8927 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: We talked
25 about news and journalism. Do you feel the same
StenoTran
1922
1 necessity in terms of other kinds of production
2 experience such as documentary programming? Do you
3 have any other suggestions as to what would be the best
4 way to assure not only training, but exposure to the
5 system of who is out there as aboriginal producers
6 already to go?
7 8928 I don't want to make the assumption
8 there is no one ready to go. There is, but they are
9 not getting into the system.
10 8929 MR. TAGALIK: What I find as
11 aboriginal people, whether it be Inuit or an Indian, is
12 that we have an oral society. We never had a writing
13 system. I think the story ideas and the stories are
14 there. I think that when you have the message there,
15 part of your work is already done. It's just the
16 mechanics of making it happen.
17 8930 What I mentioned earlier, in house as
18 well as journalism, but for the other sectors, I think
19 there has to be more -- you have to look at it per
20 industry and see what you can do.
21 8931 I think the Banff Centre for the Arts
22 has a really good program. You know, we have had some
23 producers go through from the different organizations
24 within TVNC. That's a good way to do it. Scholarship
25 funds. On the job training, I think that that's so
StenoTran
1923
1 very, very crucial.
2 8932 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Just a
3 quick question. Were you at the Canada Council
4 gathering of aboriginal artists?
5 8933 MR. TAGALIK: At the House here in
6 the springtime?
7 8934 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: No. There
8 was one just this week --
9 8935 MR. TAGALIK: No.
10 8936 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: --
11 bringing in aboriginal people from around the world
12 more in terms of what Commissioner McKendry was
13 mentioning, the visual arts, but theatre. I was
14 wondering if there was a discussion around that.
15 8937 MR. TOURIGNY: Some of our associates
16 were there, some of the people -- I don't want to get
17 into APTN, but some from the advisory group were there,
18 so we know people who were there and what was going on.
19 I think one of our staff people was there as well.
20 8938 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
21 8939 MR. TAGALIK: Thank you.
22 8940 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
23 Cardozo.
24 8941 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you,
25 Madam Chair.
StenoTran
1924
1 8942 Commissioner McKendry asked all the
2 questions that I had in preparing for today, but a
3 couple of other things pop out after looking at your
4 oral submission.
5 8943 I thought it was -- I will try not to
6 be too biased -- refreshing here that you mention at
7 the top of page 5 that even though you have TVNC and
8 have the application for APTN that you would still like
9 to see the other broadcasters do their bit to reflect
10 aboriginal issues and peoples, which was unlike a
11 comment I got in response to another broadcaster
12 earlier today who was doing ethnic broadcasting. She
13 felt that if the other broadcasters did too much, there
14 wouldn't be much need for her service.
15 8944 Are you aware of any reporters on the
16 national scene among the national networks or national
17 station groups who are aboriginal? I can think of
18 perhaps Waterloo people at local levels, but are there
19 any reporting on national issues?
20 8945 MR. TAGALIK: Not currently.
21 8946 MR. TOURIGNY: I think Geoff Barry
22 used to stuff for the National, but now he is with one
23 of the new Vancouver stations, the new Vancouver
24 station.
25 8947 MR. TAGALIK: The ones I remember was
StenoTran
1925
1 like Brian Merrico, more from the radio side. I think
2 there was also Ian Morriseau, I think that's his name.
3 8948 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Are you aware
4 of the program that I think existed, I don't think it
5 still exists, at the University of Western Ontario at
6 the journalism school during Peter Debra's time. He
7 had a program that focused specifically on aboriginal
8 students.
9 8949 I remember him saying a couple of
10 years ago that they hadn't a lot of students. They
11 were very successful, they did well, they graduated,
12 but most of them, if not all, didn't end up in the main
13 networks, but did end up in the aboriginal broadcasting
14 companies, so it enriched the aboriginal broadcasting
15 scene but didn't do anything for the main stream
16 broadcasters, which leaves the question you can train
17 them, but will they get hired?
18 8950 MR. TOURIGNY: Go back to licence
19 renewal time and the type of review you have with
20 broadcasters. You review employment equity. You
21 review the closed captioning. You have got the whole
22 check list that you go through.
23 8951 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Yes.
24 8952 MR. TOURIGNY: All we are saying is
25 add this little extra box.
StenoTran
1926
1 8953 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. That's
2 my last question specifically. What is it you would
3 want us to be asking at the time of licence renewal,
4 transfer of ownership application for a new licence?
5 Is it the points that you have laid out on pages, I
6 believe, 1 and 2 or perhaps more in the three pages at
7 the top of page 2, balance programming, training of
8 aboriginal talent, production funds.
9 8954 MR. TOURIGNY: Yes. In terms of
10 employment equity, you say Western was producing
11 journalists, and it's true, but they weren't finding
12 their way into the main stream, certainly on a national
13 basis, because that was another question, how many are
14 operating on a national basis. I don't know of any at
15 the moment.
16 8955 You review with the major players,
17 the major ownership groups and CBC as to where's that
18 presence, you know, have you acquired any independently
19 produced aboriginal programming, if not why not. You
20 know, who fills your newsroom. You look at the
21 questions you ask on employment equity and say you
22 know, there are schools turning out journalists, where
23 are they going? Why aren't they getting into the main
24 stream?
25 8956 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay.
StenoTran
1927
1 Specifically you are saying employment overall,
2 programming or reflection in programming and reflection
3 in newsrooms.
4 8957 MR. TOURIGNY: Yes.
5 8958 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And then from
6 page 2 I see, I guess it's sort of hard to ask about
7 balance and news at that point.
8 8959 I guess what I'm asking you is we
9 could, if we decided to go on this route, ask each
10 licensee are you doing your aboriginal thing and they
11 will say yes or no. Rather than have something like
12 that, I wonder if you could give some thought to any
13 specific points such as the ones that we just talked
14 about that we could ask them and perhaps get back to
15 us.
16 8960 MR. TAGALIK: We can do that, yes.
17 8961 MR. TOURIGNY: By October 15, so says
18 the counsel.
19 8962 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: That covers my
20 questions, Madam Chair.
21 8963 THE CHAIRPERSON: And it covers
22 counsel's admonitions as to what ought to be done.
23 8964 That ends the day. We are most
24 grateful for you having waited so long. Hopefully it
25 has been somewhat helpful to you as well so you don't
StenoTran
1928
1 have to stay tomorrow.
2 8965 MR. TAGALIK: I have one more
3 comment.
4 8966 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
5 8967 MR. TAGALIK: You have all the flags
6 here. There will be a new one come April 1. We are
7 quite excited about that.
8 8968 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You should
9 be. We will have another one. We will have to get rid
10 of one Commissioner and replace it with a flag. I'm
11 really glad I'm chairing this panel so I can make the
12 rules.
13 8969 It has been a pleasure to have you
14 with us, Mr. Tagalik and Mr. Tourigny as well. We have
15 to shake our heads to wonder what are you doing there.
16 You should be on the other side.
17 8970 Good evening to you both.
18 8971 We will resume at nine o'clock
19 Thursday morning. Nous reprendrons à 09 h 00 jeudi
20 matin.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2010,
22 to resume on Thursday, October 1, 1998,
23 at 0900 / L'audience est ajournée à 2010,
24 pour reprendre le merdredi 1er octobre 1998
25 à 0900
StenoTran
- Date modified: