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This page has been archived on the Web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)
October 15, 1998 15 octobre 1998
Volume 15
tel: 613-521-0703 StenoTran fax: 613-521-7668
Transcripts
Transcription
Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues
officielles, les procès-verbaux pour le Conseil seront
bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des
membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu
textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée
et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le
participant à l'audience publique.
StenoTran
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications canadiennes
Transcript / Transcription
Public Hearing / Audience publique
Canadian Television Policy Review /
Examen des politiques du Conseil
relatives à la télévision canadienne
BEFORE / DEVANT:
Andrée Wylie Chairperson / Présidente
Vice-Chairperson, Radio-
television / Vice-
présidente, Radiodiffusion
Joan Pennefather Commissioner / Conseillère
Andrew Cardozo Commissioner / Conseiller
Martha Wilson Commissioner / Conseillère
David McKendry Commissioner / 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)
October 15, 1998 15 octobre 1998
Volume 15
StenoTran
TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES
PAGE
Presentation by / Présentation par:
Société canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs
et éditeurs de musique / Society of Composers,
Authors and Music Publishers of Canada 4479
Great North Communications Ltd. 4529
Alliance Atlantis Communications Corporation 4583
CHUM Limited 4676
Conseil provincial du secteur des communications, 4764
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique
ADISQ, Association québécoise de l'industrie 4790
du disque du spectacle et de la vidéo
StenoTran
4479
1 Hull, Quebec / Hull (Québec)
2 --- Upon resuming on Thursday, October 15, 1998
3 at 0902 / L'audience reprend le jeudi
4 15 octobre 1998 à 0902
5 20792 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to
6 everyone. Bonjour.
7 20793 Madame la Secrétaire, voulez-vous
8 inviter le participant suivant, s'il vous plaît.
9 20794 Mme SANTERRE: Merci, Madame la
10 Présidente.
11 20795 La présentation sera fait ce matin
12 par la Société canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs et
13 éditeurs de musique / Society of Composers, Authors and
14 Music Publishers of Canada.
15 20796 Welcome.
16 20797 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.
17 20798 M. VALIQUETTE: Bonjour, madame.
18 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
19 20799 M. VALIQUETTE: Madame la Présidente,
20 Mesdames et Messieurs les Membres du Conseil, bonjour.
21 20800 Mon nom est Gilles Valiquette. Je
22 suis auteur-compositeur et président de la Socan, la
23 Société canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs et
24 éditeurs de musique. Je suis accompagné ce matin d'un
25 autre membre de notre Société, mon bon ami Glenn
StenoTran
4480
1 Morley, qui est vice-président et membre fondateur de
2 la Guide des compositeurs canadiens de musique de film.
3 20801 La Socan est une association
4 canadienne sans but lucratif qui représente les
5 créateurs et les éditeurs d'oeuvres musicales du Canada
6 et du monde entier. Plus précisément, la Socan assure
7 la gestion des droits d'exécution liés aux paroles et
8 musique créées par 18 000 membres canadiens actifs.
9 20802 Le droit d'exécution, comme vous le
10 savez, est partie prenante du droit d'auteur. Le droit
11 d'auteur, c'est le droit exclusif qu'ont les titulaires
12 d'oeuvres musicales d'exécuter ou de diffuser celles-ci
13 en public, ou de permettre à d'autres de le faire en
14 contrepartie d'une redevance. En d'autres mots, le
15 droit d'auteur, c'est le salaire du créateur.
16 20803 Une somme importante de nos
17 redevances d'exécution en tant que créateurs découle de
18 l'utilisation de nos oeuvres à la télévision au Canada.
19 Il va de soi que la Socan porte un vif intérêt au
20 règlement du Conseil en matière de contenu canadien, et
21 nous vous remercions de l'occasion que vous nous offrez
22 de prendre part à votre examen des politiques du
23 Conseil relatives à la télévision canadienne.
24 20804 Le temps ne nous permet pas ce matin
25 de rappeler tous les points importants de notre
StenoTran
4481
1 mémoire, mais nous espérons que vous le lirez
2 attentivement. Nous nous contenterons de souligner les
3 trois points suivants:
4 20805 - Premièrement, quelles sont
5 précisément, aux termes de la Loi sur la
6 radiodiffusion, les obligations des télédiffuseurs
7 canadiens commerciaux face à la présentation de contenu
8 canadien?
9 20806 - Deuxièmement, peut-on dire que le
10 règlement actuel du Conseil en matière de contenu
11 canadien encourage l'industrie télévisuelle à
12 s'acquitter de ses obligations?
13 20807 - Troisièmement, quelles
14 modifications y a-t-il lieu de faire subir au règlement
15 afin de garantir que les télédiffuseurs s'acquitteront
16 de leurs obligations au cours du siècle prochain?
17 20808 Avant de répondre à la première
18 question, il convient de rappeler, comme l'a souvent
19 fait le Parlement, que le système canadien de la
20 radiodiffusion utilise des ondes qui sont, en fait,
21 publiques. La Loi sur la radiodiffusion ajoute que la
22 programmation des radiodiffuseurs constitue un service
23 public qui revêt une importance essentielle pour
24 l'identité et la souveraineté culturelle du Canada. Le
25 Parlement précise également que toutes les entreprises
StenoTran
4482
1 de radiodiffusion sont tenues de faire appel au
2 maximum, sinon de façon prédominante, aux ressources
3 créatrices et autres canadiennes pour la création et la
4 présentation de leur programmation. Enfin, la Loi sur
5 la radiodiffusion prévient les radiodiffuseurs qu'ils
6 sont liés à l'obligation de faire appel aux ressources
7 canadiennes de façon maximale à moins qu'une telle
8 pratique soit difficilement réalisable.
9 20809 Nous croyons que les formules
10 extrêmement précises utilisées par le Parlement
11 indiquent très clairement son intention de reconnaître
12 un droit de choisir au public canadien, lui permettant
13 ainsi de vivre une réalité artistique qui vient d'ici
14 et qui lui est propre plutôt que de subir un vent de
15 divertissement qui vient d'ailleurs.
16 20810 Maintenant que nous réalisons quelles
17 sont les obligations de la télévision canadienne face
18 au contenu canadien, passons au deuxième point et
19 essayons de voir dans quelle mesure le règlement du
20 Conseil encourage les radiodiffuseurs à s'acquitter de
21 leurs obligations en matière de contenu canadien.
22 20811 Madame la Présidente, si vous le
23 permettez, auriez-vous l'obligeance de référer à
24 l'annexe A de notre mémoire. Vous y trouverez là un
25 compte rendu relatif à la programmation de trois
StenoTran
4483
1 réseaux: la Société Radio-Canada, CTV et Global TV.
2 Il s'agit de détails relatifs à la programmation d'une
3 semaine complète diffusée l'automne dernier pendant la
4 période horaire allant de 19 h 00 à 23 h 00 en soirée.
5 20812 Comme vous pouvez le constater, le
6 télédiffuseur public, Radio-Canada, affiche une
7 programmation canadienne supérieure à 98 pour cent, et
8 ce, pour chaque jour de la semaine. Quant aux deux
9 télédiffuseurs privés, CTV et Global, leur
10 programmation canadienne est inférieure à 20 pour cent.
11 De plus, la programmation de ces deux réseaux certains
12 soirs est entièrement dépourvue de contenu canadien.
13 En d'autres mots, si vous voulez voir du contenu
14 canadien le lundi soir, le mercredi soir ou le vendredi
15 soir, ce n'est certainement pas sur Global que vous le
16 trouverez.
17 20813 Les chiffres que nous venons de citer
18 indiquent que le règlement en matière de contenu
19 canadien n'encourage pas les télédiffuseurs privés à
20 faire appel de façon maximale aux ressources
21 canadiennes pour la création et la présentation de leur
22 programmation. Humblement, nous sommes d'avis que
23 votre règlement doit être mis à jour.
24 20814 Permettez-moi maintenant de céder la
25 parole à mon collègue Glenn Morley, qui traitera de
StenoTran
4484
1 notre troisième point et discutera des modifications
2 qui s'imposent.
3 20815 J'aimerais souligner, Madame la
4 Présidente, que la semaine dernière Glenn s'est vu
5 décerner le prix Gemini de la meilleure musique
6 originale pour une émission de télévision, "Life and
7 Times: W.O. Mitchell Who Has Seen W.O."
8 20816 Merci beaucoup, madame.
9 20817 THE CHAIRPERSON: Congratulations,
10 Mr. Morley.
11 20818 MR. MORLEY: Good morning, Madam
12 Chair, and Commissioners.
13 20819 I have a particular interest in this
14 review because I devote a lot of my time to composing
15 music for television programming. For example, I wrote
16 the music for the program "Empire of the Bay", a
17 four-part documentary series that opened the CTV
18 Network's fall season.
19 20820 I would like to start off by
20 highlighting a fact that Gilles just mentioned when he
21 referred to the television schedule that appears in
22 Appendix A of our submission. The fall 1997 schedule
23 shows that during 28 hours of prime time programming,
24 Global's Canadian programming was only 4.5 hours. This
25 indicates that when most Canadians were tuned to their
StenoTran
4485
1 televisions, Global's Canadian content was just 16 per
2 cent.
3 20821 Unfortunately, things have not been
4 getting any better. In the fall of 1998, in the
5 Toronto Television schedule filed by CBC when they
6 appeared before you on September 24th, we see that
7 Global's Canadian programming during the key 28-hour
8 period of prime evening time is currently only three
9 hours. This amounts to a meagre 11 per cent Canadian
10 content level when most Canadians watch television.
11 20822 To understand how to correct this
12 deficiency, the Commission's current Canadian content
13 rules must be examined. The rules now require private
14 television broadcasters to broadcast Canadian programs
15 for at least 50 per cent of the evening broadcast
16 period, which runs from 6 p.m. to midnight.
17 20823 In response to this rule,
18 English-language private broadcasters often schedule
19 news programming during two time periods, from 6 p.m.
20 to 7 p.m. and from 11 p.m. to midnight.
21 20824 However, as I just mentioned, during
22 the prime viewing hours of 7 p.m. to 11 p.m., Canadian
23 programming is minimal and often non-existent. This
24 demonstrates that, although the current rules may work
25 for news, weather and sports, they are not working for
StenoTran
4486
1 other key categories, including drama, music and dance,
2 and variety.
3 20825 To fine-tune the Commission's rules,
4 we believe that you should specify that at least one
5 hour of Canadian drama, music and dance, or variety
6 programming be broadcast during the hours of 6 p.m. to
7 12 p.m. each and every day of the week. We believe
8 that this minimum one-hour threshold should apply to
9 over-the-air as well as cable and satellite delivered
10 services.
11 20826 To encourage the broadcasters to
12 schedule more Canadian music and entertainment
13 programming during the peak evening hours, additional
14 incentives will be required. For example, your current
15 150 per cent dramatic programming credit should be
16 extended to include Canadian programming classified
17 under Category 8, music and dance, and Category 9,
18 variety.
19 20827 How quickly should these changes be
20 implemented? In Appendix B of our submission, we have
21 included a study prepared by Nesbitt Burns that
22 demonstrates that the Canadian commercial television
23 sector is financially capable of increasing Canadian
24 programming sooner, rather than later.
25 20828 We also believe that the profit
StenoTran
4487
1 figures in Appendix C speak for themselves. The
2 Commission's data shows that between 1993 and 1997
3 private Canadian television profits increased by over
4 50 per cent. In 1997 alone, this profit amounted to
5 over $260 million.
6 0910
7 20829 In spite of the private broadcasters'
8 rise in profits, their expenditures on Canadian drama,
9 music and variety programs remained relatively static.
10 These figures demonstrate that it is highly practicable
11 for private television broadcasters to maximize their
12 use of Canadian programming now.
13 20830 We therefore submit that the next
14 step in the evolution of your Canadian content rules
15 should be implemented in 1999.
16 20831 Allow me to conclude with a couple of
17 observations on some trends in the Canadian television
18 industry which were also observed in your recent
19 commercial radio policy review.
20 20832 Firstly, Canadian programming
21 production has grown under current Canadian content
22 rules. Secondly, the broadcasters' financial strength
23 has increased significantly over the last five years.
24 20833 After considering these trends and
25 other facts, the Commission just announced a new
StenoTran
4488
1 commercial radio policy which contains a renewed
2 commitment to Canadian content.
3 20834 SOCAN shares this commitment and we
4 urge you to pursue it in your television review.
5 20835 On behalf of SOCAN'S members, thank
6 you again for this opportunity to express our views and
7 we look forward to continuing to work with you in this
8 important review.
9 20836 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr.
10 Morley, Mr. Valiquette.
11 20837 Commissioner Wilson.
12 20838 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Good morning.
13 I am just going to take you through your submission.
14 You actually answered a couple of my questions in your
15 oral presentation. There were a couple of things in
16 your submission that did not seem to make sense to me.
17 They seem to have been clarified but I will go through
18 them with you anyway.
19 20839 On page 3, you recommend that the
20 existing Canadian content policies be strengthened, and
21 specifically you recommend that all conventional
22 broadcasters, both public and private, as well as
23 specialty services, be mandated to include more
24 Canadian programming in categories 7, 8 and 9. And on
25 page 4 you state that the framework must be amended to
StenoTran
4489
1 increase minimum levels for private commercial
2 stations.
3 20840 So on the one hand you are talking,
4 at first, about both public and private, and then you
5 sort of narrow the field to the private conventional
6 broadcasters. I am just wondering if you could clarify
7 for me whether you think the increases should apply to
8 all broadcasters or just to the private conventionals.
9 always.
10 20841 M. VALIQUETTE: Si vous me permettez,
11 je vais répondre en français.
12 20842 CONSEILLÈRE WILSON: Oui, absolument.
13 20843 M. VALIQUETTE: Définitivement, nous
14 voyons tous les télédiffuseurs adopter la même règle.
15 Nous devons avouer que nous ne sommes pas des
16 spécialistes, mais notre message est relativement
17 simple; c'est qu'on a un règlement qui fonctionne
18 admirablement bien quand on regarde les niveaux des
19 nouvelles, les sports. Ce qu'on souhaite, c'est
20 d'élever sur la liste les numéros 7, 8 et 9 au même
21 niveau.
22 20844 Dans -- comment j'expliquerais -- le
23 travail qui demeure à faire, on croit que tout le monde
24 devrait participer. Alors tous les télédiffuseurs
25 devraient mettre l'épaule à la roue dans ce sens-là à
StenoTran
4490
1 notre avis.
2 20845 Alors c'est un ajustement qu'on
3 cherche à ce niveau.
4 20846 COMMISSIONER WILSON: When you refer
5 to the minimum levels of Canadian content, you are
6 referring to the 60/50 rule, and you suggested it be
7 increased. Do you have any idea what it should be
8 increased to?
9 20847 M. VALIQUETTE: Ce qu'on souhaite
10 avoir a surtout rapport avec le fait que nous désirons
11 voir du contenu canadien à travers toute la semaine et
12 nous voudrions avoir, pour les points 7, 8 et 9, au
13 moins une heure.
14 20848 Alors ça, ça peut se contenir
15 facilement dans les règles qui sont là présentement.
16 20849 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. So you
17 are not exactly suggesting that they have to be
18 increased, but you think they need to be enforced more
19 vigorously.
20 20850 M. VALIQUETTE: Exactement, madame.
21 20851 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. Just a
22 quick question in terms of the under-represented
23 programming. As you know, we have received many
24 representations about adding documentaries to the
25 definition of under-represented programming. You do
StenoTran
4491
1 not mention that in your written submission or your
2 oral submission, but what are your views on that?
3 20852 MR. MORLEY: Well, the documentary
4 issue is an interesting one for me. As it happens, a
5 lot of documentary work happened this particular year
6 for myself, so there clearly is something going on.
7 And I asked the question: How come there is not a
8 documentary category in the CRTC and --
9 20853 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You and a lot
10 of other people are asking that question.
11 20854 MR. MORLEY: Indeed. But it's not an
12 unreasonable response to look at what documentaries are
13 about and classify them on the basis of their content
14 rather than their form. So from that point of view,
15 that's an interesting argument.
16 20855 Let us take the piece on W.O.
17 Mitchell that I worked on. That's about a personality,
18 an individual. There was recently a documentary-style
19 of program on the hockey situation. I believe it was a
20 four- or five-part series that CBC did. Is that sports
21 programming; is that some kind of entertainment
22 programming, et cetera, et cetera.
23 20856 So there is a problem in terms of
24 looking at a form as a separate issue, which is, I
25 think, why that documentary category did not exist
StenoTran
4492
1 before. I certainly think that we have a very strong
2 reputation as a country, that goes back many, many
3 years, particularly to the Film Board. Internationally
4 we are known as makers of documentaries as a form.
5 Their content is not what's well known, it's the fact
6 that we make very good documentaries, and certainly I
7 would like to see that that is encouraged more. But I
8 think there is a problem with content and form being
9 mixed up as the ways that the Commission might want to
10 differentiate these things and I am not sure that we
11 can give you much comfort or guidance with that.
12 20857 It is, to a certain degree, something
13 that the broadcasters have expertise as to what it is
14 that they are selling to people, and I would defer to
15 their sense about that.
16 20858 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thanks. I just
17 was interested, from the point of view of composers, to
18 see what you thought about that genre of programming in
19 general.
20 20859 On page 4 of your submission, you say
21 that the credit for news, weather and sports
22 programming should be reduced or, in addition to those
23 programs, a minimum of one hour or two half hours must
24 be broadcast each day during peak viewing hours.
25 20860 As you are probably aware, just from
StenoTran
4493
1 hearing about the various issues that we have been
2 looking at during the course of the hearing, the issues
3 of local programming in particular, and local news in
4 general, were issues that were raised to quite a large
5 extent when we held our regional public forums on
6 Canadian television.
7 20861 It has been suggested by some of the
8 broadcasters that if we focus solely on 7, 8 and 9 that
9 we are devaluing news, and I am just wondering, are you
10 not concerned that by devaluing news -- I mean if you
11 are reducing credit, saying that an hour of news,
12 weather and sports doesn't count as an hour of Canadian
13 content, it only counts as a half hour of Canadian
14 content, which is, I assume, what you mean by reducing
15 the credit, because it counts for what it counts right
16 now.
17 20862 Are you not concerned that by
18 devaluing it you may be putting truly local news in
19 jeopardy?
20 0920
21 20863 MR. MORLEY: I think the key here is
22 that we say that the existing regulations should be
23 amended so that relative to other categories the credit
24 for news, weather and sports programming is reduced.
25 It's the relative issues, I think, that might be of
StenoTran
4494
1 some confusion there.
2 20864 If we have that situation, it's
3 implicit in the 150 per cent credit that a drama is
4 relatively worth more than a news broadcast. If it
5 receives that credit, it's clearly worth more than a
6 news broadcast.
7 20865 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So, you are not
8 exactly saying reduce the credit for news so much as
9 you are saying increase the credit for other categories
10 as well?
11 20866 MR. MORLEY: That's correct, yes.
12 20867 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. With
13 respect to that -- actually, this is one of the points
14 of confusion for me -- on page 11 of your submission
15 you talk about:
16 "...creating additional
17 incentives ... to encourage the
18 broadcast of distinctively
19 Canadian programming in
20 categories 7 ... 8 ... and 9..."
21 20868 Then you say, for example:
22 "...the incentive that currently
23 applies to category 7 ... could
24 be extended to other categories
25 (i.e. categories 10 and 11)..."
StenoTran
4495
1 20869 Those are game shows and human
2 interest categories and I was curious about your
3 suggestion that we extend the 150 per cent credit to
4 game shows and human interest. The human interest
5 suggestion has actually been made before, but the game
6 shows hasn't. Do you compose music for game shows?
7 20870 MR. MORLEY: Yes, it has happened.
8 There is two parts to the answer to that. First of
9 all, as I am sure you aware, SOCAN has a large
10 membership, some 18,000 members, and we have different
11 interests in the different kinds of television programs
12 created. Most of my interest would be in scoring
13 programs for drama. However, I do do a certain amount
14 of variety work when it happens and our concern is with
15 regard to, in particular, variety type of programming,
16 of which there is very little represented in the
17 schedule, including currently in the public
18 broadcaster, which is something that we would like to
19 encourage them to get back to.
20 20871 That's very important for our
21 songwriter members. Obviously, they are working in a
22 different business than composers who are writing
23 scores for dramas and the reason that that might
24 impinge on game shows -- I am going to tell Gilles to
25 speak to that because it's a particular issue in
StenoTran
4496
1 Quebec.
2 20872 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Actually,
3 before you explain to me what the situation is in
4 Quebec, maybe I could just refer you to your comments
5 of this morning. That's where I said I thought maybe I
6 had got the answer to my question because you said your
7 current 150 per cent dramatic programming credit should
8 be extended to include Canadian programming classified
9 under category 8 and category 9.
10 20873 MR. MORLEY: Right.
11 20874 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So then I
12 thought maybe you are changing it from 10 and 11 to 8
13 and 9, because 8 and 9 makes sense to me in terms of
14 your interests.
15 20875 MR. MORLEY; Eight and 9 make perfect
16 sense and 10 and 11, undoubtedly, can be confusing. I
17 will let Gilles explain why that might be of interest
18 in the Quebec scenario.
19 20876 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That would be
20 great.
21 20877 M. VALIQUETTE: Définitivement, nous
22 avons une inquiétude face au domaine des variétés parce
23 que c'est un domaine qui s'effrite, et je voudrais dire
24 que ça s'effrite d'une façon dramatique et ça paraît
25 depuis les dernières années.
StenoTran
4497
1 20878 Certaines personnes croient que le
2 problème des variétés se situe uniquement au Canada
3 anglais, mais c'est maintenant la même chose au Canada
4 français. La saison dernière quatre émissions de
5 variétés ont été retranchées chez nous, et ce qui est
6 un peu remarquable, c'est que cette saison-ci la place
7 où la chanson est prépondérante, c'est dans un quiz.
8 Il y a un quiz présentement qui s'appelle "La Fureur"
9 qui est basé sur la chanson populaire.
10 20879 Alors, en quelque part, on est
11 contents que la chanson soit importante pour
12 l'auditoire qui l'écoute mais on ne voudrait pas, par
13 exemple, que nos émissions de chansons deviennent des
14 quiz. Ça fait déjà un après l'autre que ça nous est
15 arrivé au Québec. Alors tant mieux pour les quiz, mais
16 on ne veut pas oublier que le point primordial, c'est
17 celui qu'on veut faire revenir des bonnes émissions de
18 variétés qui reflètent les artistes de chez nous et les
19 créateurs de chez nous.
20 20880 COMMISSIONER WILSON: It never even
21 occurred to me to think of -- "Name That Tune" was a
22 big quiz show. It never occurred to me you are
23 actually getting royalties from the tunes that are
24 being used in a show like that.
25 20881 MR. MORLEY: We hope we are.
StenoTran
4498
1 20882 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Right, you hope
2 you are.
3 20883 On a related matter to the 150 per
4 cent credit, I just wanted to -- you answered the
5 question you would apply that -- sorry, the one-hour
6 minimum, the one hour per day of Canadian content other
7 than news, weather and sports, you would apply that
8 across all seven days of the week?
9 20884 MR. MORLEY: That's correct, yes.
10 20885 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am wondering
11 if you have given any thought to the idea that it might
12 be a little contradictory to extend the 150 per cent
13 credit to additional programming categories at the same
14 time that you are requiring a minimum of one hour a day
15 since, in order to meet the one-hour-per-day minimum,
16 the Commission might in fact have to require the
17 broadcasters do about one and a half hours per day.
18 20886 I guess what I am trying to get at is
19 that if there were a minimum exhibition requirement
20 established for under-represented programming
21 throughout the broadcast week, would the incentives
22 really be necessary if we just said, "Okay, do an hour
23 a day?"
24 20887 MR. MORLEY: Simple is nice. There
25 is no question that simple is nice and I think, as a
StenoTran
4499
1 general rule, if you have the right numbers -- and this
2 was certainly brought up yesterday on several
3 occasions -- if you have the right numbers in the first
4 place, the incentives probably are not needed, but
5 looking at the framework as it exists now and that
6 there as been an increase in Canadian drama, we have
7 heard from broadcasters that that 150 per cent
8 incentive is something that has encouraged them in that
9 particular category to go ahead with projects. We are
10 again looking for the familiar tools that have worked,
11 how can we fit in with that framework.
12 20888 You can only rob from Peter to pay
13 Paul so long, we understand that, and looking at the
14 scenario of increasing a credit value in prime time,
15 our thought is that if you are going to do that, you
16 need to give the reduction somewhere. Don't do it in
17 prime time, but do it in the 60 per cent area. Allow
18 the make-up in the 60 per cent area in foreign
19 programming, but don't do it in the prime time.
20 20889 Our principal concern is to get
21 Canadian programming in front of Canadians when
22 Canadians are watching, which is, in our view,
23 principally from 7:00 to 11:00, and that's where the
24 dearth of programming and, in particular, the variety
25 areas is not -- music and variety are not well
StenoTran
4500
1 represented in the private broadcaster schedules at the
2 moment.
3 20890 We are certainly encouraged by Mr.
4 Fecan's words yesterday that they intend to do that and
5 we would absolutely support that kind of initiative,
6 but if they need more help, our suggestion is: All
7 right, here is a mechanism that has been in place, it's
8 moving in the right direction for drama, let's see if
9 it applies appropriately.
10 20891 I would just like to suggest that
11 when categories 10 and 11 are suggested that you made
12 proper note of on page 11, that scenario in Quebec is a
13 bit of an oddball situation. What we are trying to
14 suggest is that there needs to be flexibility in this,
15 rather than let's have everybody get 150 per cent,
16 which is, of course, a ludicrous proposition, and we do
17 understand that.
18 20892 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's the
19 unique nature of our country, that different regions
20 require different kinds of consideration.
21 20893 MR. MORLEY: Yes.
22 20894 COMMISSIONER WILSON: On page 6 of
23 your submission you request that more support be given
24 to the production of drama, music and dance, variety
25 and other entertainment programming and, specifically,
StenoTran
4501
1 you suggest that the Canadian content regulations be
2 amended to ensure that the musical works that are part
3 of all Canadian productions are works created by
4 Canadians. How would you suggest that we do this, that
5 we just say to the broadcasters and the independent
6 producers, "You must use Canadian music", or is there a
7 way to incent them to do this? What are you
8 suggesting?
9 20895 M. VALIQUETTE: Définitivement c'est
10 un problème, et je dois avouer que nous ne sommes pas
11 des spécialistes pour amener des solutions.
12 20896 Le point que nous essayons de
13 faire -- et je pense que vous l'avez bien compris --
14 c'est que nous, les créateurs de musique, de chansons,
15 on se voit comme des partenaires avec les producteurs.
16 Nous investissons au même titre qu'eux et nous
17 souhaitons que ces émissions aient du succès ici et à
18 l'étranger. Et c'est essentiel parce que, sinon, notre
19 travail ne vaut rien puisque nous sommes rémunérés
20 juste au moment où l'émission est exécutée ou, si vous
21 voulez, quand un auditoire la regarde. Alors, quand on
22 jauge le contenu canadien de ces émissions, nous
23 voudrions que notre travail soit valorisé.
24 20897 Maintenant, le mécanisme pour mettre
25 ça en place, définitivement, nous n'avons pas étudié la
StenoTran
4502
1 question puisque nous croyons que c'est un des défis
2 que la Commission a à relever ici, mais nous serions
3 certainement d'accord pour étudier la question plus en
4 profondeur si vous le désirez. On pourrait même
5 l'inclure dans notre rapport écrit final.
6 0930
7 20898 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That would be
8 great.
9 20899 On page 15 of your submission you
10 make a comment about the proposal that the Commission
11 undertake group licence renewals; and again you state
12 that you are not experts in this area and you don't
13 really feel equipped to assess the advantages and
14 disadvantages, but there seems to be some discomfort
15 with the idea of the group renewal approach.
16 20900 I am just wondering if you could tell
17 us what your discomfort might be with that, or do you
18 see it as an opportunity?
19 20901 M. VALIQUETTE: Je dois avouer que je
20 ne comprends pas exactement le but auquel vous voulez
21 arriver avec cette question.
22 20902 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. One of
23 the proposals that has been put before the Commission
24 is that instead of renewing licences on an individual
25 basis, that with the multi-station groups we renew them
StenoTran
4503
1 as a group. I thought this was actually a point that
2 you had discussed on page 15 where you say:
3 "SOCAN is unable to assess the
4 advantages and disadvantages of
5 a corporate renewal
6 approach...however, it requests
7 that the Commission consider
8 changes in the licence renewal
9 structure if those changes bring
10 about a greater and more
11 effective contribution to the
12 production of Canadian
13 programming..."
14 20903 MR. MORLEY: I think the main point
15 there would be if there is overall in the system an
16 advantage to getting more money and more time for
17 Canadian content during the period of time where we are
18 concerned, that is from 7 to 11, however that works out
19 in the structure of licence renewals we would be for
20 it.
21 20904 If it works out that there are ways
22 to avoid making those commitments because of the
23 renewal process one way or the other, obviously, we
24 wouldn't be for it. But above and beyond that we are
25 just not qualified to talk about the mechanics of those
StenoTran
4504
1 things.
2 20905 We basically don't want to see rules
3 used to deviate from a forward progress in getting
4 Canadian programming in front of Canadians. If there
5 is a possibility of that happening through either a
6 group licensing or not group licensing, that is, if
7 there is a possibility of a diminution of that forward
8 progress, then we are obviously concerned. But above
9 and beyond that we really don't pretend to have
10 expertise as to what would be preferable or not. There
11 are others far more qualified to speak to that
12 particular issue.
13 20906 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. You just
14 said in your comment right now that you are looking for
15 more money and more time and you addressed the issue
16 specifically in your submission about the more time
17 with the one hour per day minimum. Do you have any
18 views on the spending requirements?
19 20907 MR. MORLEY: I think we have looked
20 at some of the spending requirements, as far as where
21 the money might come from, and there are many
22 submissions about where the money would come from and
23 how much.
24 20908 We function, as I said before, in two
25 very different businesses that get broadcast and, with
StenoTran
4505
1 your permission, I would like to just elucidate on
2 that.
3 20909 As a film composer, my clients are
4 producers who are making programming not just for their
5 immediate broadcasting licence but, obviously, for
6 their sales around the world, hopefully. The way that
7 we as composers make our living in that particular area
8 is that there is a front end and a back end.
9 20910 Generally, we are paid a fee to
10 create the score for the program and that fee will
11 generally include all of the costs of creating the
12 score. The fee to actually write the music is a
13 relatively small portion of the overall cost of hiring
14 studios, musicians, recording, all of those aspects
15 that go into, in fact, a little mini production by
16 itself.
17 20911 What our great hope is is that the
18 programs will be successful and that they will be sold
19 into foreign markets because where we really make our
20 money, and this is where we are very high risk
21 entrepreneurs, is we are betting that our programs,
22 that our partners' programs are going to be really
23 successful. We call them our partners because
24 basically we are joined at the hip as far as the
25 success of a program goes.
StenoTran
4506
1 20912 As I am sure you understand, when we
2 are paid our royalties from foreign sources they are
3 paid by foreign broadcasters as well.
4 20913 So that is why we are very interested
5 in not just a creation of bulk but quality. Quality
6 programming is the thing that will sell in foreign
7 markets and we are very interested in having that in
8 particular with regard to the dramas and so forth.
9 That is where our -- we have this little component up
10 front that we are able to, you know, keep the doors
11 open, if you like, but our real risk is in the fact
12 that we are attaching ourselves to product that we hope
13 will sell somewhere else.
14 20914 Now, that's the area of drama. In
15 the area of variety and music, it is a very different
16 scenario. There, people who are writing songs for
17 their living are not paid up front generally anything
18 at all when their songs are played on a variety
19 program. They rely solely on the royalties that are
20 paid from their performing rights fees. So they are in
21 quite a different business; and many times what they
22 are doing on their variety programs are part and parcel
23 of promoting their records or performance tours and so
24 forth.
25 20915 I am going to let Gilles speak to
StenoTran
4507
1 that because he has great expertise in this.
2 20916 M. VALIQUETTE: Oui. Définitivement,
3 la situation est différente dans le domaine des
4 variétés.
5 20917 J'aimerais souligner le fait que
6 créer une oeuvre musicale, être un compositeur, c'est
7 un travail en soi, et que performer l'oeuvre, c'est un
8 autre travail, comme lorsqu'on bâtit une maison
9 l'électricien fait son travail, le plombier fait le
10 sien.
11 20918 Alors c'est vrai que, dans notre
12 société, on a des exceptions; on a des gens qui peuvent
13 faire et l'électricité, et la plomberie. Dans notre
14 métier, c'est qu'on a des gens qui peuvent composer et
15 également performer, mais il ne faudrait pas mêler les
16 deux sauces. Si votre mandat dan la vie, c'est de
17 créer de la musique, alors la seule façon que vous
18 allez être compensé pour le travail que vous avez fait,
19 c'est au moment où l'émission va arriver, ou une
20 exécution.
21 20919 Bien entendu, c'est la récompense de
22 notre travail, ça, et c'est dans ce sens-là qu'on dit
23 qu'il n'y a pas assez d'émissions de variétés. C'est
24 important pour diffuser qui nous sommes -- les artistes
25 sont essentiellement un miroir de la société qui les
StenoTran
4508
1 entoure -- et pour pouvoir faire ça d'une façon
2 adéquate, je suis entièrement d'accord avec le
3 commentaire de mon ami Glenn quand il dit qu'il faut
4 trouver des mécanismes qui vont faire que ce seront des
5 émissions de qualité. Et on va encourager n'importe
6 qui qui veut aller dans ce sens-là parce que ça habille
7 nos créations d'une façon admirable.
8 20920 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So you must
9 have been quite heartened to hear the focus on quality
10 presented by the CTV group yesterday.
11 20921 MR. MORLEY: Absolutely, we were.
12 And just to go to your initial question, which is
13 amounts, clearly the two different aspects of the
14 industry have different requirements. That is why I
15 was trying to differentiate. Certainly in the area of
16 drama production, if you hire a composer to write your
17 score, it is going to be 100 per cent Canadian. It
18 just is extremely likely.
19 20922 There is, of course, the odd thing
20 where what we refer to as source music might come in,
21 that is radio music that is seen on camera or someone
22 performing. That might be from a foreign source; but,
23 generally speaking, the underscores for a drama are
24 going to be -- if they are written by a Canadian, then
25 you have fulfilled a 100 per cent Canadian obligation.
StenoTran
4509
1 Now, that is an easy one.
2 20923 Obviously, it is not so easy if you
3 have Bryan Adams singing someone else's -- a foreign
4 composer's song, right? We get into that difficult
5 area, where do you start making these adjustments?
6 20924 As Gilles has indicated, there are
7 people who, in English, we call singer/song writers.
8 The entire area of the music industry has all sorts of
9 levels of recognition of where that places itself in
10 the financial spectrum and deals are cut on that basis.
11 20925 So to have a pat answer for that
12 particular area would not really serve the interests of
13 anyone, I don't think. Again, it is one of those
14 situations that we would, perhaps, try to give you some
15 guidance in our final written submission, but it is a
16 very complicated issue in the area of variety as to how
17 much Canadian content ought to be a reasonable level.
18 20926 You could come back with a simple
19 solution that it has to be X per cent of the total
20 amount. Sometimes four or five people write a song.
21 If Crosbie, Stills, Nash and Young write a song, Young
22 is Canadian, that is 25 per cent, but he only wrote the
23 lyrics so that is 25 -- so you see where this can lead.
24 In particular, the kind of variety that we are talking
25 about often will be group productions.
StenoTran
4510
1 20927 So we are also concerned about overly
2 complicating a process that need not be. But we will
3 certainly give further thought to that question. I
4 think it is a very germane question.
5 20928 M. VALIQUETTE: Si vous me permettez,
6 madame, votre question touche un peu une question que
7 vous aviez précédemment. Dans le cas des émissions de
8 variétés, une des raisons pour lesquelles on souhaite
9 que la création soit considérée comme un élément de
10 contenu canadien, c'est qu'on ne voudrait pas se
11 retrouver dans une situation où vous avez une émission
12 de variétés où les interprètes -- parce qu'on le voit
13 au Québec -- seraient obligés de chanter les créations
14 d'étrangers. Alors, en quelque part, dans notre façon
15 de voir les choses, il faudra s'assurer que la création
16 à la base soit aussi canadienne, au même titre que
17 l'interprétation, et qu'un ne prend pas la place de
18 l'autre.
19 20929 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay.
20 Actually, this kind of leads into my next question. I
21 just wanted to explore a little bit with you some of
22 the statements that you make on pages 5 and 8 of your
23 submission. You talk about the fact that a large part
24 of a composer's income comes from the use of their
25 music received through television broadcasts, and on
StenoTran
4511
1 page 8 you state that SOCAN writers earn more money
2 outside Canada than they do domestically.
3 20930 I am wondering if you could give me
4 an idea of what the figures are. For example, what
5 percentage of a composer's income would come from music
6 that is used in television broadcasts?
7 20931 M. VALIQUETTE: Je vais me référer à
8 une publication interne que nous avons chez nous; si
9 vous voulez en prendre note, c'est l'édition du mois de
10 juin 1998, si jamais vous voulez voir le tableau. On a
11 un pie chart, comme vous dites en anglais, qui nous
12 explique bien ce qui arrive avec les revenus.
13 20932 Au niveau de la télévision, on a nos
14 diffuseurs réguliers et on a aussi le câble. Alors ces
15 deux-là jumelés nous donnent environ 50 millions de
16 dollars à l'interne ici, au Canada. Pour ce qui est
17 des revenus qui nous proviennent de l'étranger, grosso
18 modo, on a à peu près 20 millions de dollars qui nous
19 viennent de là mais la moitié à peu près de ça, 10 ou
20 11 millions, sont attribués pour le domaine qui nous
21 intéresse ici, la télévision, sur un chiffre annuel d'à
22 peu près 100 millions. Alors cette activité-là chez
23 nous, elle est très importante présentement pour les
24 créateurs, et je dirais qu'elle devient de plus en plus
25 importante avec le temps.
StenoTran
4512
1 20933 Si vous me permettez, les créateurs
2 de chez nous, pour être bien franc, trouvent
3 excessivement difficile le fait de gagner leur vie ici,
4 au Canada. Alors quand on a des politiques qui
5 encouragent des émissions de qualité, pour nous, ça
6 veut dire que nous avons une chance d'atteindre le
7 marché étranger et, à ce moment-là, je dois vous avouer
8 que là, les revenus deviennent intéressants,
9 intéressants au point qu'un créateur peut peut-être
10 penser gagner sa vie à créer, ce qui n'est pas
11 nécessairement le cas quand on se limite au domaine
12 domestique.
13 20934 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, thank you
14 for that.
15 20935 I want to just ask you next about
16 some comments that you make about CBC and sort of
17 comparing that to other broadcasters. On page 15 of
18 your submission, you state:
19 "...the private sector should
20 not depend upon the CBC to be
21 the sole source of Canadian
22 drama, music or variety
23 programs..."
24 20936 And that the production of shows like
25 these must be encouraged and their broadcast mandated
StenoTran
4513
1 for all broadcasters.
2 20937 As you are probably aware, we have
3 had a number of submissions from the broadcasters that
4 suggest that what they need in a market where the
5 audience is becoming more and more fragmented is
6 greater flexibility to focus on the genres that they do
7 best.
8 20938 It has also been suggested that in a
9 market the size of Canada it is probably not realistic
10 to expect all broadcasters to be all things to all
11 people.
12 20939 I am just wondering what your views
13 are on that.
14 20940 MR. MORLEY: Well, historically,
15 flexibility certainly is something that has been
16 observed by the CRTC with regard to the private
17 broadcasters. In many instances, private broadcasters
18 have come up with some quite interesting solutions to
19 the problem, let us say, of variety. I can recall, for
20 example, the program "Circus". It is a very innovative
21 idea, combined variety and circus performance together,
22 and I believe they did quite well with that. It
23 presented Canadian performers and international
24 performers, but the hosts were Canadians, so it worked
25 quite well I think.
StenoTran
4514
1 20941 With regard to how much flexibility
2 they have, their flexibility is, I think, built into
3 the system as it exists right now. You have
4 incentives, which is somewhat different from a hard and
5 fast fence that you have to operate. If the incentives
6 are there for drama with the 150 per cent credit, then
7 you are encouraged to move in that direction. If you
8 think you do something better as a broadcaster that
9 doesn't have those points, if you do it really that
10 well, then you probably won't have a problem fulfilling
11 your schedules with that particular kind of thing.
12 20942 Again, what we come back to is what
13 is the dearth right now of programming in the time when
14 Canadians can watch it? The numbers do speak for
15 themselves. You look at the schedule and you see what
16 is available. In the case of Global, we have many
17 choices of numbers to look at. They are ones that,
18 again, we look at those and say, "So where is the 50
19 per cent Canadian content?"
20 20943 Even in the instances of CTV, which
21 are approaching those levels, the variety area at the
22 present time is under-represented. Again, as I say, we
23 are encouraged by what CTV say they intend to do and
24 that they are going to really look at music
25 programming.
StenoTran
4515
1 20944 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, two
2 things that I want to talk to you about. One is just
3 going back to my original question and then I want to
4 turn to the schedules. Because my original question
5 had to do, too, with the notion that you would mandate
6 all broadcasters to do drama, music or variety. So that
7 they would all have to do all three or --
8 20945 MR. MORLEY: They all should be doing
9 all three. How their mix works out on those things is
10 up to them, but they should be doing all three of those
11 things. That is clear in the act itself that they are
12 supposed to be doing that.
13 20946 M. VALIQUETTE: Si vous me permettez,
14 madame, pour faire suite aux commentaires que Glenn a
15 exprimés précédemment, j'aimerais ajouter une dimension
16 à la réponse.
17 20947 Une des choses que les créateurs du
18 Canada apprécient, c'est qu'à la Société Radio-Canada
19 on a une reconnaissance pour le travail qu'on fait, on
20 a un certain respect de la Société, et en quelque part
21 à certains niveaux c'est aussi important que les
22 aspects monétaires de la chose. Nous espérons que
23 cette approche se reflète également ailleurs chez les
24 autres diffuseurs.
25 20948 À partir du moment où on a le respect
StenoTran
4516
1 pour qui nous sommes et ce qu'on fait, ensuite de ça,
2 on a déjà une discussion beaucoup plus mature qui va
3 nous aider à rejoindre nos buts communs.
4 0950
5 20949 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. With
6 respect to the schedules, I think the two of you were
7 here yesterday afternoon when we were talking about
8 schedules and, as you know, there have been a lot of
9 schedules floating around. I am wondering if you have
10 had a chance to look at the schedules that were
11 submitted as part of both the CTV presentation and the
12 Global presentation yesterday.
13 20950 MR. MORLEY: I had a chance to look
14 at the CTV schedule. The Global schedule -- there
15 seems to be only the one copy of the Global schedule.
16 Global did not have it themselves.
17 20951 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Well, no, the
18 schedule that I think our legal counsel was showing to
19 Mr. Sward was one that was sent in to us, but they did
20 have a schedule that was part of their presentation.
21 20952 I guess what I am trying to reconcile
22 for myself is that you said earlier that you think we
23 could leave the 60/50 as it is and just enforce it more
24 vigorously. In fact, these schedules that you
25 submitted, and indeed the schedules that were given to
StenoTran
4517
1 us yesterday, are in compliance. There may be nights
2 on the schedule when there is no Canadian programming,
3 but if you look across the broadcast week and the
4 requirements for the number of hours of exhibition, et
5 cetera --
6 20953 MR. MORLEY: Our key point is the
7 number of hours in the week, and I think that this is
8 in line with something that both broadcasters we heard
9 yesterday said. They made the point quite strongly
10 that, for example, producing 13 episodes of a series is
11 not sufficient to give the momentum that they need to
12 carry through. And I think that same argument about
13 momentum, if you pull back and look at the large
14 spectrum, is equally valid, that if you don't have
15 Canadian programming all the way through the
16 schedule -- at least one hour a week is what we are
17 suggesting, and I believe that's also what the
18 directors' guild has suggested -- then you have this
19 patchwork presentation and it's not an effective
20 presentation of the Canadian mosaic. And that is what
21 we are addressing; that's our principal concern here,
22 is that when we look at these schedules, and there are,
23 as you have noted, many choices of schedules to look
24 at -- what we have looked at is what's on the record --
25 there are --
StenoTran
4518
1 20954 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Actually where
2 did you get this schedule?
3 20955 MR. MORLEY: I believe that the one
4 we have as Exhibit A, which is the fall 1997 Toronto TV
5 schedule, I believe I referred to that as the one that
6 was presented by the CBC. Is that --
7 20956 It's the prime peak issue, yes, of
8 course. Indeed.
9 20957 And just so there is no
10 misunderstanding, of course many of the news programs
11 that are in the six slot and at the 11 slot have their
12 theme music composed by our members and we in no way
13 wish to devalue what they are doing, but those programs
14 are doing quite well. If you take a look at the
15 situation, I think most broadcasters are happy with
16 that situation.
17 20958 What we are trying to focus on is the
18 peak prime and, again, when we look at that part of the
19 schedule, and I do not think we are really diverging
20 from many other parties in looking at it from that
21 point of view. We don't have --
22 20959 THE CHAIRPERSON: One is a little
23 redder than the other. I did not want to interrupt but
24 I think some of the battle is between whether you are
25 looking at prime time or peak, and of course prime is
StenoTran
4519
1 six to midnight, so you can get a big red band up
2 there.
3 20960 MR. MORLEY: Our principal concern is
4 peak at this point, and that's where we would like to
5 see -- again, the bulk of Canadians are watching
6 television during peak and let's give them what
7 Parliament has said they should have access to.
8 20961 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So essentially
9 you are saying keep the 60/50 but just impose some
10 tighter regulations about how you measure the 50 per
11 cent in prime time?
12 20962 MR. MORLEY: Indeed, indeed.
13 20963 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So it's one
14 hour per day and it does not include news, weather and
15 sports?
16 20964 MR. MORLEY: That's our position.
17 20965 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. The
18 Nesbitt Burns submission, the report on the financial
19 performance of Canadian television broadcasting; it
20 says the report was prepared by Nesbitt Burns for
21 Gowling, Strathy and Henderson. I am just wondering how
22 it ended up in your submission. Are they your lawyers?
23 20966 MR. MORLEY: They are our chief legal
24 counsel in many of our dealings; for example, in front
25 of the Copyright Board. That's where it comes from.
StenoTran
4520
1 20967 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I was just
2 curious about what the connection was.
3 20968 And while we are on the appendices,
4 let me just ask you about Appendix C, which is again --
5 you reference it in your submission as information that
6 was taken from the CRTC financial database and
7 certainly it looks like this was based on information
8 taken from the CRTC financial database, but if I am not
9 mistaken the analysis that goes with this does not
10 sound like something the Commission would do.
11 20969 I am just wondering; what's the
12 source of this?
13 20970 MR. MORLEY: Of the data or of the
14 analysis?
15 20971 COMMISSIONER WILSON: The data is
16 from the CRTC, but the analysis.
17 20972 MR. MORLEY: That's our analysis.
18 20973 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's your own
19 analysis, okay.
20 20974 Finally, I just wanted to touch
21 quickly on your comments with respect to specialty
22 services. On page 17 of your submission you state that
23 the Commission should, in re-examining the regulatory
24 framework applicable to conventional television
25 broadcasters, ensure that pay and specialty services
StenoTran
4521
1 make a commensurate contribution to the production and
2 broadcast of Canadian programs.
3 20975 I do not know if you were able to
4 observe the presentation of the specialty services
5 through the two different associations that they belong
6 to, but both of these groups suggested that the
7 contribution that they make is, they feel, quite
8 significant and may in fact exceed the -- well their
9 position is that their contribution exceeds the
10 contribution being made by the conventional
11 broadcasters.
12 20976 I am just wondering what has your
13 experience as composers been with the specialty
14 services and what's prompting your comment.
15 20977 MR. MORLEY: Okay. I am not familiar
16 with what specialty services presented in this forum.
17 The key word here is "commensurate", of course. The
18 experience that I believe, certainly speaking at a
19 personal level, we don't have a lot of contact directly
20 in the area of creating drama. These would be
21 secondary sales.
22 20978 I think some of the specialty
23 services are dealing with some of the other areas; let
24 us say a Bravo or MuchMusic or something are dealing in
25 areas that have to do with the categories of music and
StenoTran
4522
1 variety in different ways, and that I don't have a lot
2 of contact with. I couldn't speak to it.
3 20979 Perhaps Gilles, you have something.
4 20980 M. VALIQUETTE: Dans le domaine des
5 variétés, nous sommes touchés dans le domaine de la
6 chanson par les canaux spécialisés tels les
7 MusiquePlus, MuchMusic, tout ça. Alors c'est un
8 véhicule important pour nous parce que nos oeuvres,
9 encore une fois, sont diffusées et c'est là que nous
10 sommes rémunérés, mais c'est aussi une récompense de
11 prestige.
12 20981 Nous croyons que ces canaux devraient
13 être traités pas différemment d'une station
14 radiophonique dans le sens que, à la place de faire
15 jouer des chansons à la radio, on fait jouer des vidéos
16 à la télévision. Alors, en quelque part, ça mérite
17 d'être étudié, ça, ce n'est pas définitif comme
18 raisonnement, mais on aimerait que notre participation
19 soit accrue dans une station comme celle-là pour,
20 encore une fois, refléter je dirais la parité avec le
21 reste des activités artistiques que nous avons au
22 Canada.
23 20982 Je reviens à un des commentaires que
24 j'ai faits au tout début; c'est que tout le monde doit
25 mettre l'épaule à la roue et, évidemment, dépendamment
StenoTran
4523
1 de ces canaux-là et des licences que vous leur
2 accordez, il y aura des variations. Alors je pense
3 qu'il faut les regarder une à une et il faut se pencher
4 sur la réalité et la volonté d'exprimer une vérité
5 canadienne.
6 20983 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So your
7 comments really then are aimed more at the music
8 oriented specialty services, not sort of the whole
9 panoply of specialty services?
10 20984 M. VALIQUETTE: Encore une fois, pour
11 nous, les items 7, 8 et 9 méritent d'être regardés
12 attentivement. Évidemment, nous sommes des
13 compositeurs de musique; moi, je fais des chansons.
14 Vous allez comprendre que c'est une activité qui va
15 m'intéresser plus que peut-être d'autres secteurs.
16 Mais, pour moi, ça fait partie d'un même tout quand on
17 regarde la culture canadienne dans l'ensemble pour que,
18 en quelque part, l'auditoire puisse se voir dans les
19 oeuvres qu'il regarde au petit écran. C'est ça, le but
20 de l'opération. J'aimerais qu'on comprenne que ce
21 n'est pas l'idée que chacun essaie de vendre sa petite
22 salade. Nous, nous croyons sincèrement que la culture
23 est un élément essentiel à qui nous sommes.
24 20985 Évidemment, en tant que travailleurs,
25 on a un bénéfice au bout de la ligne parce que, en
StenoTran
4524
1 quelque part, peut-être qu'on va pouvoir gagner notre
2 vie, mais à notre avis, si la composante culturelle
3 n'est pas archi-présente, soyons réalistes, nous
4 n'avons plus de pays.
5 20986 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I think that's
6 a good note to conclude on. I would like to thank you
7 very much.
8 20987 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
9 Cardozo.
10 20988 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you,
11 Madam Chair.
12 20989 Just on that concluding note, before
13 we finally conclude, I want to maybe work up to a bit
14 of a crescendo on it.
15 20990 I was surprised actually that you
16 didn't talk about the music channels, because the three
17 channels we now have, and we have had MuchMusic and CMT
18 for a long time, and Musimax, MusiqePlus now, and Much
19 More Music for those who thought we did not have
20 enough.
21 20991 I see those as rather important
22 vehicles to promote Canadian music and, in your case,
23 your membership who are the composers and the writers.
24 You have talked primarily in your presentation, until
25 the last comment, about the music that is written for
StenoTran
4525
1 the themes and the background music for news or
2 entertainment and drama and so forth. But what are
3 your thoughts about the role of these music channels in
4 things like creating the star system, especially in
5 English speaking Canada which does not exist in the
6 same way as it does in Quebec?
7 20992 Also, just in terms of promoting
8 music, promoting Canadian stars, promoting more stuff
9 about them. MuchMusic, for example, has a show called
10 "Intimate and Interactive" where they have Canadian as
11 well as non-Canadian stars, where they have an
12 interview-music format, and they do a lot to popularize
13 music.
14 20993 The issue is related a lot to the
15 radio review that we did last year, and that tended to
16 look at radio only and we have not really looked at the
17 television piece that promotes Canadian music. My
18 sense is that there is a hell of a lot happening there
19 that nobody seems to be looking at.
20 20994 M. VALIQUETTE: Il y a beaucoup de
21 choses à dire sur ces canaux spécialisés. Évidemment,
22 nous apprécions énormément leur contribution dans ce
23 que vous avez appelé le star system mais, il faut être
24 réalistes, le star system est basé sur la performance;
25 autrement dit, ce que j'avais expliqué plus tôt,
StenoTran
4526
1 l'aspect interprétation des choses. Nous sommes les
2 créateurs de la musique; autrement dit, ce n'est pas
3 nécessairement la personne qui a créé l'oeuvre que vous
4 voyez à l'écran. Alors quand j'ai parlé tantôt d'une
5 question de respect pour ce que nous faisons, je pense
6 que vous avez un bon exemple là.
7 20995 Vous avez certainement remarqué, par
8 exemple, qu'au début et à la fin de chaque vidéoclip on
9 donne les crédits, qui est le chanteur, qui est la
10 compagnie de disques. Alors comment se fait-il qu'on
11 trouve plus important de nommer à l'écran le
12 distributeur du morceau de plastique plutôt que le
13 créateur qui a fait la chanson? Dans ce sens-là nous
14 croyons qu'il y aurait un effort à faire pour souligner
15 la participation des Canadiens sur des canaux tels que
16 ceux-là.
17 20996 Évidemment, nous sommes une roue de
18 cette machine. De plus en plus ces canaux nous aident
19 à compenser pour ce qu'on ne retrouve peut-être pas
20 ailleurs. Mais, il ne faut pas se conter d'histoires,
21 le marché est souvent très aigu et nous avons besoin de
22 rejoindre l'ensemble de la population. C'est pour ça
23 que leur contribution ne remplacera jamais celle des
24 autres canaux.
25 20997 Alors nous voulons que Radio-Canada
StenoTran
4527
1 participe, nous voulons que CTV et Global participent
2 parce que, quand tout le monde aura fait son petit bout
3 de chemin, les Canadiens, qu'ils soient âgés de 7 ans à
4 77 ans, auront en quelque part un contact avec la
5 culture canadienne.
6 20998 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, you are
7 still not getting to what I am asking you, which is
8 whether -- and maybe they shouldn't be doing
9 anything -- but whether they should be doing more to
10 promote Canadian stars; the singers as well as the
11 writers. You are right; we don't know much about the
12 composers and the writers. They very rarely get
13 interviewed. Sometimes we hear about them when they
14 die, really.
15 20999 So I am wondering if you have any
16 thoughts about how much further music television should
17 go beyond simply slapping on videos, but rather having
18 more intimate and interactive type of shows where
19 perhaps they interview or do other kinds of things
20 where the industry at large can be highlighted and we
21 can get to know more about the people who are part of
22 it.
23 21000 If you do not have any thoughts on it
24 now, you can file them later.
25 21001 M. VALIQUETTE: Eh bien, écoutez, je
StenoTran
4528
1 comprends, mais j'aimerais quand même souligner un
2 point; c'est qu'évidemment, nous ne sommes pas des
3 diffuseurs, ce n'est pas notre compétence. Ce que nous
4 disons, c'est: s'il vous plaît, n'oublions pas le
5 créateur, parce que si vous n'avez pas quelqu'un qui
6 crée une chanson vous ne pouvez pas avoir de chanteurs,
7 vous ne pouvez pas avoir de compagnies de disques.
8 Alors nous voulons être considérés dans ce sens-là.
9 21002 À partir du moment où on va nous
10 considérer, on va nous demander de participer et, quand
11 on va nous demander de participer, on pourra avoir des
12 suggestions créatives et positives. Pour l'instant --
13 j'ai entendu le mot "locomotive" hier utilisé
14 souvent -- nous, on se considère souvent la caboose de
15 ce métier-là parce qu'on est les derniers à qui on
16 pense.
17 21003 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Merci beaucoup.
18 21004 C'est tout, Madame la Présidente.
19 21005 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions,
20 Monsieur Valiquette and Mr. Morley.
21 21006 Thank you for your participation.
22 Whether or not you take the train back home, I hope it
23 is a good trip.
24 21007 M. VALIQUETTE: Merci beaucoup,
25 madame.
StenoTran
4529
1 21008 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Au revoir. C'était
2 un plaisir.
3 21009 MR. MORLEY: Thank you very much.
4 21010 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Madame la Secrétaire.
5 21011 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
6 The next presentation will be by Great North
7 Communications Limited.
8 21012 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning Mr.
9 Thomson and Ms. McNair.
10 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
11 21013 MR. THOMSON: Good morning.
12 21014 THE CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead when you
13 are ready.
14 21015 MR. THOMSON: Thank you.
15 21016 Good morning, Madam Chairman and
16 Commissioners. My name is Andy Thompson and I am
17 President of Great North Communications of Edmonton.
18 Great North is both a producer and distributor of
19 Canadian programs through our subsidiary companies
20 Great North Productions and Great North International.
21 21017 I am joined here today by our legal
22 counsel, Kathleen McNair of Johnston Buchan I was
23 originally planning to be alone today, but after
24 appearing on the CFPTA panel several weeks ago, I
25 became spoiled. I am now accustomed to the luxury of
StenoTran
4530
1 being accompanied by talented and experienced company.
2 21018 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am glad you are
3 not saying you came scared.
4 1010
5 21019 MR. THOMSON: Ms McNair has kindly
6 agreed to provide that today.
7 21020 Since it was established in 1987,
8 Great North has become a prolific producer and
9 distributor of Canadian programs. For 1998/99 we have
10 a confirmed production slate of 60 hours of TV
11 programming with total budgets of just over $14
12 million. The programming will be aired on many
13 different Canadian broadcasters, including the CBC,
14 CanWest/Global, Discovery, The Life Network, History
15 Television and Canal D.
16 21021 Great North International has a
17 catalogue of 150 mostly Canadian titles, for a total of
18 400 hours, which we sell to countries on all
19 continents. We project to sell over $3 million of
20 Canadian programming abroad in 1998/99.
21 21022 Although we are based in Edmonton,
22 Alberta, we have a coast-to-coast presence with
23 production offices in Vancouver and Halifax and a
24 business affairs office in Toronto. We employ more
25 than 30 people on a full-time basis and hundreds of
StenoTran
4531
1 others who work on our productions on contract.
2 21023 Great North shares the goal that you
3 outlined in your opening remarks, Madam Chair. We,
4 too, want to see more Canadian programs, better quality
5 and increased profitability for both producers and
6 broadcasters. Most of those who have appeared before
7 you with opinions on these issues have agreed that the
8 goal must be to have more Canadians watching more
9 Canadian programs. Independent producers embrace this
10 hearing as a watershed for our industry. With mature
11 and increasingly well financed broadcast and production
12 industries, we feel that the time is right to make the
13 important decisions that will move us into the next
14 century.
15 21024 You will not be surprised to hear
16 that at Great North we feel that the best way to do
17 this is with a plan to increase the hours and quality
18 of the programming available to Canadians when they are
19 watching television in evening hours and in children's
20 prime time. You also won't be surprised to hear that
21 we feel that the main way to do this is by filling the
22 biggest hole in the broadcasting system, the private
23 broadcasters' peak viewing periods.
24 21025 You have already heard from many in
25 our industry why we feel that private broadcasters must
StenoTran
4532
1 step up to the plate, so I won't repeat their analysis.
2 Today I want to tell you why Great North supports the
3 CFTPA's 10/10/10 plan.
4 21026 First, we believe that the time has
5 come for Canadians to reclaim our own prime time. In
6 order to do that, we must ensure that a significant
7 amount of the programs in the most popular categories
8 are Canadian. Since about 22 hours a week are
9 broadcast in the entertainment categories in peak time,
10 we feel that a phased-in target that will be, when
11 fully implemented, just under 50 per cent of this time
12 is a reasonable goal, particularly when broadcasters
13 tell us that their strategic advantage is Canadian
14 programming.
15 21027 Secondly, we believe that the
16 10/10/10 plan is reasonable and equitable to all
17 broadcasters and accomplishes the goal of moving the
18 bar higher for Canadian content. I would like to spend
19 some time on this point as we have heard representation
20 that the CFTPA's position is unrealistic.
21 21028 The plan will be phased in over four
22 years. In fact in the first year, 1999-2000,
23 broadcasters will be required to do seven hours per
24 week of under-represented program categories. This is
25 only a half hour more than what they would have been
StenoTran
4533
1 expected to do under your Option B. Given the increase
2 of profits that the broadcasters have shown over the
3 last few years, this increase is not unreasonable.
4 21029 Much has been made that this will
5 mean that broadcasters will have to pay exorbitant
6 licence fees for Canadian programming. In fact the
7 10/10/10 plan gives the broadcasters all kinds of
8 choices from the high end distinctively Canadian drama
9 that draws the biggest licence fees to more industrial
10 drama, documentaries, music and variety programs that
11 command much lower fees.
12 21030 Speaking of documentaries, I would
13 like to add my voice to the chorus that documentaries,
14 as currently defined by Telefilm and the CTF, be
15 included in the programs that broadcasters can count
16 towards meeting their requirements in prime time.
17 Documentaries were virtually invented in Canada,
18 staring with the National Film Board in 1939, where,
19 but not when, I started my career, and continued
20 successfully by the growing Canadian independent
21 production industry.
22 21031 Documentaries help explain Canada to
23 ourselves and to the rest of the world and the rest of
24 the world to Canadians. Canadian documentaries have an
25 international reputation for excellence. They are
StenoTran
4534
1 recognized by Telefilm as a legitimate genre of
2 production and the Commission itself included them as
3 one of the kinds of programming eligible for funding
4 from what was then the Cable Production Fund.
5 21032 I would now like to discuss the
6 tricky topic of bonusing Canadian programs. As you
7 know, Great North has made a number of suggestions
8 related to bonusing. First, let me point out that the
9 only reason to provide bonuses is to give encouragement
10 to certain kinds of programs. The CFTPA's proposal for
11 150 per cent bonusing is based on recognizing that if
12 we want to ensure that our prime time includes programs
13 that are identifiably Canadian, we must give the
14 broadcasters an incentive to do so.
15 21033 At Great North we agree that we need
16 to be careful about giving up shelf space. Only
17 programming that helps reflect a Canadian perspective
18 should be bonused and, as you know from our brief
19 submitted in response to the related Canadian content
20 recognition process, CRTC Public Notice 1998-59, we
21 feel that two kinds of programming deserve that kind of
22 bonusing: distinctively Canadian programs and regional
23 programs. Let me expand.
24 21034 We share the view expressed earlier
25 in these hearings by Epitome Pictures that there are in
StenoTran
4535
1 fact three different classes of programming that can be
2 referred to as "Canadian" and that a system must be
3 established that gives different weight to each of
4 these three categories. We only differ with Epitome on
5 the weight that should be given to each category.
6 21035 The first and most important of these
7 three classes is distinctively Canadian programming,
8 programming that is created by Canadians, produced and
9 controlled by Canadians, is about Canada and reflects
10 and interprets Canada. We urge the Commission to make
11 use of the unique public/private broadcaster and
12 producer partnership that the newly-named Canadian
13 Television Fund represents to find a common definition
14 for distinctively Canadian programming.
15 21036 The second class of programming is
16 what we would define as commercial Canadian
17 programming. While such programs receive high point
18 counts, 8 or more out of 10, they do not necessarily
19 interpret or reflect Canada. This is Canadian
20 programming aimed at both a Canadian and an
21 international audience.
22 21037 The third type of programming would
23 be what is commonly known as industrial Canadian
24 programming. These programs meet the minimum CAVCO six
25 points, but it is unlikely that they are developed with
StenoTran
4536
1 the needs of a Canadian audience in mind. This kind of
2 programming serves a significant purpose in providing
3 employment and training to members of our industry, but
4 does little to provide Canadian television viewers with
5 distinctly Canadian viewing alternatives.
6 21038 Further, in recognition of its
7 industry-building characteristics, it is this class of
8 programming that has the easiest access to both federal
9 and provincial tax credits. While we fully agree with
10 the CFTPA's 10/10/10 plan, we have proposed a bonusing
11 system which would treat an hour of distinctively
12 Canadian programming as an hour and a half, an hour of
13 commercial as an hour and an hour of industrial as a
14 half hour.
15 21039 The Commission must find ways of
16 encouraging Canadian private broadcasters to schedule
17 more distinctively Canadian programs like "Cold Squad",
18 "Jake and the Kid", "Emily of New Moon", "Traders" and
19 "Power Play" that truly reflect Canada in all its
20 diversity to fulfil their Canadian content obligations.
21 A 150 per cent bonus is the way to accomplish this.
22 21040 As a regional producer, I feel
23 equally strongly that the Canadian content in prime
24 time must not be dominated by programs about Toronto
25 and Montreal. Regional voices play an important role
StenoTran
4537
1 in providing diversity, variety and regional cultural
2 reflection.
3 21041 However, the consolidation that has
4 taken place in recent years in the private Canadian
5 broadcasting industry has left very few independent
6 regional broadcasters in Canada. Programming decisions
7 are no longer being made in the regions but in Toronto
8 by programmers who, in most cases, are not in touch
9 with the regions and are not aware of the resources
10 available in the regions, both with regard to
11 infrastructure and stories.
12 21042 We don't think that it is only the
13 responsibility of funding agencies such as Telefilm and
14 the CTF to make these programmers look into the regions
15 of Canada. Their incentives for regional production
16 are a good start, but should be led by CRTC regulations
17 that encourage broadcasters to choose regional
18 programs. This is quite consistent with the
19 requirement in the Act that the programming in the
20 system come from local, regional, national and
21 international sources and it is important to note that
22 local and regional programming should not only be
23 limited to news and current affairs.
24 21043 For these reasons, Great North
25 proposes that a regional production that's currently
StenoTran
4538
1 defined by both Telefilm and the CTF be given an
2 additional 50 per cent bonus above the bonus system I
3 described earlier. Finally, we wish to support the
4 proposal heard earlier from the SPTV that simultaneous
5 substitution be made available to Canadian specialty
6 channels.
7 21044 Simultaneous substitution for
8 specialty channels would enable many small and
9 medium-sized and regional Canadian producers to access
10 the large U.S. market. This market is especially
11 important for these kinds of programming as they are at
12 the bottom of the food chain when it comes to accessing
13 Canadian public funds. Both Telefilm and the CTF
14 commit 80 per cent of their funds to big budget drama,
15 leaving very little money for documentary and lifestyle
16 series, the lifeblood of many small and/or regional
17 producers.
18 21045 That concludes my comments, Madame la
19 Présidente. Ms McNair and I would be pleased to answer
20 any questions you might have.
21 21046 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
22 Thomson.
23 21047 Commissioner McKendry.
24 21048 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Good morning.
25 21049 On page 3 of your written submission
StenoTran
4539
1 in this proceeding, you set out two matters that I took
2 when I read your written submission as being central to
3 the problems that you see in the current system, and I
4 will quote the two sentences.
5 "What we do need is access to
6 more airtime on Canadian private
7 conventional broadcasters. And
8 we would certainly like to see
9 those broadcasters pay licence
10 fees, as they used to do, that
11 reflect both their increased
12 profitability and the value of
13 this programming."
14 21050 There is a reference to the licence
15 fees at the top of page 3 as well, where you note that
16 they have fallen six per cent from the average licence
17 fees paid prior to the establishment of the Fund. So,
18 I would like to talk about licence fees for a minute.
19 21051 Let me ask you about the CTV group's
20 position on this because they went to the trouble of
21 filing some evidence in this proceeding by a consulting
22 company to prove that, in their view, licence fees in
23 fact paid here are higher than they are in other
24 countries. Have you had a chance to take a look at
25 that evidence they filed?
StenoTran
4540
1 21052 MR. THOMSON: No, I haven't.
2 21053 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let me just
3 give you a thumbnail sketch of it and if you don't feel
4 comfortable in responding to it because you haven't had
5 a chance to look at it, you can just tell me that.
6 21054 CTV, in their submission, concluded,
7 and I quote from their submission at page 22:
8 "Clearly, additional money for
9 production of Canadian drama
10 cannot come from higher licence
11 fees."
12 21055 They based that conclusion at least
13 in part on a study that they had done by a consulting
14 company that showed, in their view, that the CTV group
15 currently pays licence fees for 10 out of 10 Canadian
16 drama programming that meet or exceed the international
17 standard on a cost per potential viewer basis. I
18 noticed from your submission you have a lot of
19 experience in selling into the U.S. market and the
20 other parts of the foreign market.
21 21056 So, my first question to you, I
22 suppose, is: Is the cost per potential viewer a good
23 measure of evaluating licence fees paid, the argument
24 of CTV being the cost per potential viewer in the U.K.,
25 the U.S. is less in fact than it is in Canada for this
StenoTran
4541
1 type of programming?
2 21057 MR. THOMSON: I think a better
3 measurement would be the percentage of budget, because
4 clearly the objective is to fund the programming. If
5 one looked at it as a percentage of budget, the licence
6 fees that Canadian broadcasters pay are considerably
7 less than our experience with other countries. We are
8 producing two documentary series right now for
9 Discovery in the States and in both cases the licence
10 fees are approximately 50 per cent of the budget.
11 21058 Previously, we have produced programs
12 for U.K. broadcasters. In those cases, the licence
13 fees exceed 50 per cent of the budget. As you know,
14 Canadian licence fees for documentary programming are
15 approximately 15 per cent of budget. So, I am not sure
16 it's really fair to equate it to viewership because the
17 difficulty is: How do we fund the programming?
18 21059 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So, the
19 argument that in the U.S. when you divide that amount
20 that's 50 per cent of the budget by the population of
21 the United States and you get a number that's less than
22 it is here when you divide the budgets up here by our
23 population, really, in your view, I take it, it isn't a
24 valid basis on which to consider the adequacy of
25 licence fees here in Canada.
StenoTran
4542
1 21060 MR. THOMSON: Yes. That's exactly
2 why we have the public funding programs we have, like
3 Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund. They are
4 there to make up for that discrepancy.
5 21061 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And I take it
6 you attribute the decline in licence fees to the
7 emergence of the Fund. Is that correct?
8 21062 MR. THOMSON: Yes, it's very clear in
9 information that we have from the Fund. It indicates
10 that the broadcaster licence fees in year one of the
11 Fund -- this is both licence fees and equity
12 combined -- total 29 per cent of budgets. In year two
13 they drop to 26 per cent and in year three they drop to
14 21 per cent. So, they have been dropping consistently
15 since the Fund was established.
16 21063 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I want to
17 come back in a moment to the other point you brought
18 out in terms of access to more air time, but just to
19 follow through while we are talking about selling into
20 the U.S. market and the foreign market, I was quite
21 interested in your written submission that, in terms of
22 your business, 39 per cent of your budgets seemingly
23 come from foreign sources, 27 per cent of that being
24 U.S. and 12 per cent being other countries, in
25 comparison to 18 per cent from Canadian broadcasters.
StenoTran
4543
1 21064 So, it seems that you are a
2 production company that has managed to be successful in
3 accessing foreign markets as a financing source. Is
4 this a trend that, in your view, we are going to see
5 more and more in the future, where Canadian production
6 companies will be primarily relying on funds from other
7 countries?
8 21065 MR. THOMSON: Yes, I think it's
9 inevitable. I went through a personal sort of
10 transformation because when I left the Film Board in
11 1985, I was very much of the belief that making
12 programs for only Canadian audiences was our mission in
13 life and that's why we had a production industry. I
14 quickly realized that if you weren't able to access
15 foreign markets, you weren't going to be able to
16 finance enough programming to keep the company going.
17 21066 So, shortly after that, I think in
18 1990, that's when we set up our distribution company
19 specifically to give us access to foreign markets.
20 That has worked out very well for us, as you can see by
21 the numbers in our submission.
22 21067 I think it's important to note as
23 well that the public funds in Canada are going to be
24 able to contribute to less and less programming as time
25 goes by. Clearly, the funds aren't going to get any
StenoTran
4544
1 bigger and the amount of programming being produced in
2 the country is going to grow as Canadian content
3 requirements increase, hopefully, and as new specialty
4 channels come onstream.
5 21068 So, I think right now -- and I am not
6 exactly sure, but I think of the Canadian content in
7 under-represented categories in prime time, about 30
8 per cent of that only is receiving money from the
9 public funds and that percentage is going to continue
10 to drop as the amount of programming continues to grow.
11 So, if producers aren't able to access foreign markets,
12 I don't see how they are going to finance their shows.
13 21069 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: How difficult
14 is it to access the U.S. market? Are there barriers
15 that go beyond what one would consider normal marketing
16 challenges associated with selling programs?
17 21070 MR. THOMSON: I think we have to
18 realize that as the Canadian specialty channels have
19 proliferated over the past five to eight years, that
20 has happened in every country in the world. So, the
21 market is increasing consistently. The U.S. is
22 certainly a tough nut to crack because they tend to be
23 a very insular nation in terms of their programming.
24 They don't accept a whole lot of non-U.S. programming,
25 but the specialty channels do.
StenoTran
4545
1 21071 We do a lot of work with A&E and we
2 work with Discovery and that has a tremendous boon to
3 our company, but also internationally. There ares new
4 specialty channels and cable channels opening up
5 regularly. They are all looking for programming and it
6 isn't difficult. If the quality of programming is
7 high, it isn't difficult to sell it into the
8 international marketplace.
9 21072 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: In your
10 written submission you say, and I quote again:
11 "We cannot afford to simply see
12 ourselves in ways that are
13 attractive to others."
14 21073 I take it from that that you see -- I
15 am going to put some words in your mouth and you can
16 tell me whether they should be pulled back out. I take
17 it from that you see that the public funding that
18 exists here in Canada should focus on that kind of
19 programming and there is a market for the other kind of
20 programming that is sufficient to fund that
21 programming. Have I gone too far?
22 21074 MR. THOMSON: No. I have been a
23 major proponent of that. As you know, I sit on the
24 Board of the Fund and we have had lengthy discussions
25 about that and have agreed -- and the guidelines will
StenoTran
4546
1 be announced shortly -- that certainly the licence fee
2 program should be reserved for distinctively Canadian
3 programming.
4 21075 On the other hand, it's important to
5 realize as well that one can make distinctively
6 Canadian programming that reflects Canada and fulfils
7 all the requirements of that definition without
8 accessing the public funds. We are at the very moment
9 in the middle of production of a very large budget
10 one-hour documentary about Alexander MacKenzie.
11 1030
12 21076 It was submitted to Telefilm, and
13 unfortunately it was one of the projects that got
14 turned down by Telefilm, and therefore became -- we
15 were too late to get into the licence fee program. So
16 we had a big hole in our financial structure,
17 obviously.
18 21077 Nothing could be more distinctively
19 Canadian than a documentary about Alexander MacKenzie.
20 But we realize that he was born in Scotland, so we
21 found ourselves a Scottish co-producer. The Scottish
22 co-producer sold the project to the BBC. The BBC came
23 in and now we have a fully financed documentary about
24 Alexander MacKenzie that doesn't have a single penny of
25 Canadian public funds in it other than the tax credit.
StenoTran
4547
1 So it can be done.
2 21078 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: When we heard
3 from Mr. Stursberg, the chair of the fund, I took it
4 that the direction the fund is heading in is to solve
5 the problem of too much demand for too little money by,
6 I think he called it, raising the bar in the sense that
7 they will only fund programming in the future that is
8 super Canadian or a very high level of distinctively
9 Canadian.
10 21079 I take it you wouldn't see that as
11 problem as a production company because you believe
12 these other sources of funding are available.
13 21080 MR. THOMSON: No, I am not saying it
14 is a problem at all. Two things are going to happen;
15 one is Canadian producers are going to reconfigure
16 their programming to become more distinctively Canadian
17 in order to access the fund. I don't think that is a
18 bad thing. I think that is a great thing.
19 21081 I think if we make a percentage of
20 what we do as distinctively Canadian as possible that
21 reflects the values and the culture of the country,
22 that is a really positive move forward. At the same
23 time, we are totally aware of the fact that it is
24 possible to finance all kinds of programming and, even
25 as I said before, possible to finance distinctively
StenoTran
4548
1 Canadian programming without relying on the fund.
2 21082 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let me ask
3 you now about your comment that, and again I will
4 quote: "What we do need is access to more airtime in
5 Canadian private conventional broadcasters."
6 21083 What are you proposing we do with
7 respect to that? Does that go to the comments this
8 morning with respect to supporting the proposal of the
9 CFPTA, or did you have something else in mind there
10 about access?
11 21084 MR. THOMSON: No. I was supporting
12 the CFPTA comments. I think that the amount of
13 Canadian content in prime time has to increase. We
14 have the lowest amount of domestic programming in
15 under-represented categories in prime time than almost
16 any civilized country in the world that has its own
17 broadcasting system and production industry. I think
18 that is unacceptable.
19 21085 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: The proposals
20 from the producers association would address, in your
21 view, what needs to be done.
22 21086 MR. THOMSON: Yes. I mean we are
23 talking about gradually increasing. As I said in my
24 oral remarks, your Option B would have them at 6.5
25 hours. Our proposal begins next year at seven and then
StenoTran
4549
1 gradually increases over four years to 10. I think
2 that is quite reasonable and fair.
3 21087 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Now, I know
4 you touched on this this morning. What we have heard
5 in the course of the hearing from the Canadian
6 Association of Broadcasters and from the CTV group
7 yesterday was, well, you know, that is a nice
8 suggestion, but if we put that in place we wouldn't
9 have a business left, or at least our business would be
10 so unprofitable that it would be a major problem for
11 us.
12 21088 Now, I take it you -- I don't know
13 whether you happened to hear the CTV group yesterday.
14 What is it with their position that still -- that
15 doesn't deter you from your view that the CFPTA
16 proposal is viable?
17 21089 MR. THOMSON: I guess the first bone
18 of contention I would have with the CAB position is I
19 don't think that Canadian programming has to be a
20 money-losing proposition. Canadian programming, if
21 scheduled properly, if promoted properly, can in fact
22 attract an audience.
23 21090 I understand that "Power Play", for
24 example, all its advertising slots are sold out already
25 and it hasn't even gone to air. "Due South" is always
StenoTran
4550
1 sold out. So I am not sure why it is costing them
2 money. I think we have to be patient and give it a
3 little bit of time.
4 21091 I think if "Power Play" had Tom
5 Cruise in the lead role when it goes on air tonight,
6 virtually everybody in Canada would watch it.
7 21092 What we are missing is not the
8 quality of programming or the calibre of production, it
9 is really the star system. The reason we don't have a
10 star system is we don't put our stars in prime time in
11 peak. We put them in shoulder. We put them late and
12 we put them opposite American hits. It is really hard
13 to build a star system when people don't know about the
14 stars.
15 21093 But if we force the broadcasters to
16 exhibit distinctively Canadian programming in prime
17 time with Canadian stars, they are going to develop the
18 same kind of following that American stars have, and
19 then it will be easy for them to sell out their
20 advertising and generate exactly the same amount of
21 revenue from Canadian programming as they generate from
22 American programming.
23 21094 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: In this vein,
24 let me ask you about another statement in your written
25 submission, and I will quote it:
StenoTran
4551
1 "We see the financial health of
2 both the production and
3 broadcasting industries as a
4 secondary objective that ensures
5 that an infrastructure is in
6 place that can meet the goals of
7 the Broadcasting Act."
8 21095 Just elaborate on that a bit because
9 it leaves me with the impression that we should, as a
10 Commission, downplay the financial health -- and I am
11 not sure to what extent you mean -- and give a much
12 higher priority, or a higher priority, to the
13 objectives of the Broadcasting Act with respect to
14 content and so on.
15 21096 Just how secondary is secondary
16 objective?
17 21097 MR. THOMSON: Well, I agree with what
18 I said. I think the primary objective of regulation is
19 to ensure that Canadians have a broadcasting system
20 that reflects Canada and interprets Canada. At the
21 same time, you can't have that if you don't have the
22 infrastructure to provide it. So you need a system
23 that certainly enables broadcasters to survive in order
24 to act as the delivery of that programming; and you
25 certainly need a system that enables independent
StenoTran
4552
1 producers to survive in order to create that
2 programming.
3 21098 So, while it is a secondary
4 objective, it is a very necessary and important
5 objective because without it you wouldn't be able to
6 accomplish the first and most important objective.
7 21099 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I take it you
8 think the broadcasters have it the other way around,
9 the primary objective is the financial health and the
10 secondary objective is the Broadcasting Act objectives?
11 21100 MR. THOMSON: Yes. I think the
12 broadcasters are sometimes maybe too concerned with
13 their shareholders. I guess our concern is with your
14 shareholders, and your shareholders are the people of
15 Canada who watch Canadian television.
16 21101 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: In your
17 written submission you said, and I will quote again:
18 "We strongly believe that
19 regional voices play an
20 important role in providing
21 diversity, variety and regional
22 cultural expression to the
23 Canadian broadcasting system."
24 21102 I wanted to discuss with you what we
25 could do to solve that problem. I think, if you were
StenoTran
4553
1 here yesterday, you heard Mr. Asper say that he agreed
2 that we could do more with respect to regional
3 programming. Now, in your oral comments this morning
4 you have come forward with some specific suggestions.
5 21103 Could you just expand a bit? I
6 wasn't quite sure that I -- there is going to be a 50
7 per cent -- or you are proposing a 50 per cent bonus
8 for regional programming. Did I understand that
9 correctly?
10 21104 MR. THOMSON: That is correct.
11 21105 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And what
12 other measures did you have in mind? There was an
13 envelope you were proposing as well?
14 21106 MR. THOMSON: No. I am sorry I
15 missed Mr. Asper's comments on that because I would
16 have agreed with him, which would have been one of the
17 few times yesterday that I would have.
18 21107 As you know, Telefilm has an
19 incentive for regional production and the cable fund,
20 or the CTF, has an incentive for regional production.
21 But the difficulty there is it doesn't really
22 "incentivize" the broadcasters. It makes it easier for
23 a producer in the regions to finance a show. You get
24 an additional 5 per cent from the cable fund if you are
25 a regional producer. But that doesn't make any
StenoTran
4554
1 difference to the broadcaster. He doesn't really care
2 how the producer finds that extra money.
3 21108 So I think we need some other kind of
4 incentive to encourage broadcasters to look into the
5 regions, particularly so now with all the
6 consolidation, that all the decision-making for most of
7 the broadcasters in Canada are being made in central
8 Canada. That wasn't true five or six years ago, but it
9 is very, very true now. Broadcasters in Edmonton, that
10 I used to be able to go to and sell programming to,
11 aren't able to make those decisions any more. They now
12 have to refer to Toronto.
13 21109 So it seemed to me, and I am not
14 being overly sophisticated with the regulatory process,
15 it seemed to me that some kind of bonus for regional
16 production with regard to the calculation of hours of
17 Canadian content might be a way to encourage
18 broadcasters to look out into the regions.
19 21110 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: The 50 per
20 cent bonus, then, means that if one does an hour of
21 regional programming, an extra half hour is credited,
22 is that --
23 21111 MR. THOMSON: That is what I am
24 proposing.
25 21112 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: What would be
StenoTran
4555
1 the maximum bonus that would be available to a Canadian
2 programming under your proposals, assuming that it was
3 a regional programming?
4 21113 MR. THOMSON: Under my proposal, the
5 maximum bonus would be 200 per cent, if it was a
6 distinctively Canadian program broadcast in peak time
7 and shot in the regions. Now, I know this issue was
8 visited yesterday a few times. But I must tell you
9 that that is extremely difficult to do. There are not
10 suddenly going to be dozens and dozens of big budget
11 drama series shot in the regions because of a 50 per
12 cent incentive, but it might help. It might help move
13 a little further toward that.
14 21114 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So we
15 shouldn't concern ourselves unduly that such a high
16 bonusing system would in effect result in a very low
17 amount of Canadian content because the likelihood of
18 much regional programming achieving that 200 bonus
19 would be small?
20 21115 MR. THOMSON: Yes. I think you would
21 be very lucky to see, you know, five or six major big
22 budget drama series shot in the regions where the
23 broadcasters would benefit from that bonus. So it is
24 not going to reduce the 10 hours by very much; and, as
25 you also saw in my submission, I suggested that
StenoTran
4556
1 industrial programming only count for 50 per cent. So,
2 if a broadcaster chooses, and many of them do, to
3 schedule industrial programming, that will, in effect,
4 open up shelf space within our 10-hour requirement to
5 accommodate the bonusing for regional production and
6 for distinctively Canadian production.
7 21116 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Given your
8 extensive involvement in the international markets,
9 particularly the U.S. market, I would be interested in
10 your thoughts about the challenges facing your company,
11 your industry and the broadcasting system here in
12 Canada with respect to the conversion to digital
13 television which is under way, or just under way, I
14 suppose, in the United States, and we are told will be
15 significantly under way within the next year.
16 21117 As a production company, what does
17 that mean for you and what does it mean for the
18 Canadian broadcasting system?
19 21118 MR. THOMSON: That is a difficult
20 question. It is a very complicated issue and I really
21 haven't had a chance to wrap my head around it a great
22 deal.
23 21119 What I do know is that we have been
24 producing our programming in digital for a number of
25 years now. We have realized that is what we have to do
StenoTran
4557
1 in order to sell to the international marketplace. In
2 fact, when we shoot on film, we always shoot on wide
3 screen to make our programming attractive to high
4 definition television, when that comes in. So we are
5 certainly taking that into account.
6 21120 Beyond that, it's something that I
7 haven't really thought about a great deal.
8 21121 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: To sell into
9 the Canadian market, do you need to produce it in
10 digital in the wide screen format or is that a demand
11 of the international market?
12 21122 MR. THOMSON: It is a demand of the
13 European market.
14 21123 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Do you think
15 the production industry is making that adaptation that
16 you have already made? Is that a typical --
17 21124 MR. THOMSON: I think we heard
18 examples earlier from Linda Schuyler at Epitome that
19 she has equipped her studio for "Riverdale" entirely as
20 a digital studio. I think everything that is produced
21 in most of the major Canadian production companies now
22 is produced in digital. I think we are on stream. We
23 are ready to go.
24 21125 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you
25 very much for answering my questions.
StenoTran
4558
1 21126 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
2 21127 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
3 Pennefather.
4 21128 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
5 21129 Good morning. I wanted just to
6 clarify a central point. You said that Cancon in prime
7 time has to increase. Your presentation, and that of
8 CFPTA, is very clear that the kind of Cancon in prime
9 time that has to increase is the distinctively
10 Canadian, but that distinctively Canadian Cancon
11 depends on public funds, which public funds you say are
12 at risk. What will be the effect, in other words, of
13 this increase of Canadian content in the highly
14 distinct -- very distinct Canadian genre of 10 out of
15 10, 12 out of 10 on the public funds? Will they be
16 there to handle that increase?
17 21130 MR. THOMSON: Well, I think, first of
18 all, that the system can afford to produce more
19 distinctively Canadian programming. A lot of the money
20 in the funds last year was spent on programming, that I
21 wouldn't call distinctively Canadian, qualified for the
22 funds under the existing guidelines. So if we simply
23 used the same amount of public funds and by changing
24 the guidelines to have the same draw on the fund last
25 year, we would probably be doubling, I suspect, the
StenoTran
4559
1 amount of distinctively Canadian programming produced
2 by the fund, which probably would be about what would
3 be required to meet the 10/10 plan suggested by the
4 CFPTA.
5 21131 I also want again to say, and using
6 my Alexander MacKenzie example, that it is possible to
7 finance distinctively Canadian programming without
8 public funds.
9 21132 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So your
10 point that only 30 per cent of Cancon in
11 under-represented is in prime time has public dollars
12 is not an concern. You feel that, in fact, the highly
13 distinct Canadian will also be possible using other
14 resources?
15 21133 MR. THOMSON: Well, as I said, two
16 things, yes. I think it is possible to finance
17 distinctively Canadian from other sources; and I think
18 by removing the non-distinctively Canadian, by not
19 allowing them access to the fund, the fund will be able
20 to go much further than it has ever before in terms of
21 funding the truly distinctively Canadian programming.
22 21134 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay. I
23 am just concerned about how these definitions will or
24 will not restrict what eventually what we can call
25 Canadian content for the purpose of more Canadian
StenoTran
4560
1 content in prime time in the long run.
2 21135 MR. THOMSON: I think that is one of
3 the advantages of the 10/10/10 plan, in that
4 broadcasters can approach that in any way they want.
5 They can do, you know, commercial Canadian programming
6 that would qualify for 100 per cent recognition in
7 terms of hours, probably which could be financed
8 exclusively without using the fund, but they would have
9 to do one hour for every hour.
10 21136 On the other hand, if they wanted to
11 do a distinctively Canadian program which would draw on
12 the fund, they get to count an hour and a half; and if
13 they shot it in Edmonton, they get to count two hours.
14 21137 The flexibility of our proposal
15 enables them to meet that requirement in a whole bunch
16 of different ways, not exclusively and entirely with
17 the distinctively Canadian programming that requires
18 public funds.
19 21138 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Many
20 intervenors have talked to us about what constitutes a
21 Canadian program and one of the aspects that comes to
22 mind is one wherein the program is primarily for a
23 Canadian audience, although it may be about a subject
24 that is not Canadian specifically. There is various
25 mixes of how this definition comes forward. But in
StenoTran
4561
1 your experience, and not just with your recent project,
2 the Alexander MacKenzie project, but over the years of
3 making documentaries, if you have foreign partners, are
4 you still comfortable that your product will ultimately
5 be distinctively Canadian in terms of its being
6 primarily made for a Canadian audience, even though the
7 large part of its financing is coming from elsewhere?
8 21139 MR. THOMSON: Yes, I am confident.
9 That depends on the partner and it depends on the
10 percentage of the budget they bring to it. Obviously,
11 if we are doing a series for Discovery in the states
12 and they are bringing 50 per cent of the financing to
13 the project, they are going to call the tune to a
14 certain degree. But, if it is another broadcaster who
15 is bringing 30 per cent or 20 per cent, which is still
16 a significant piece of the puzzle, they have less and
17 less influence and less and less control.
18 21140 I am not concerned about us not being
19 able to make the programming we want to make because we
20 are reliant on the foreign marketplace. I think it is
21 quite possible to use that marketplace to continue to
22 produce distinctively Canadian programming.
23 21141 I think something like "Anne of Green
24 Gables" is a great example of that. There is nothing
25 more distinctively Canadian than that; and yet that
StenoTran
4562
1 show probably, in retrospect, could have been financed
2 entirely in the international marketplace because it
3 sold to countries all over the world.
4 21142 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Yesterday,
5 I don't know if you were here throughout the full
6 discussion with CTV, but we certainly had a lengthy
7 discussion on the point of quality. In the oral
8 presentation it was said that the CFPTA proposals are
9 unrealistic in part because of their new definition of
10 first run. I will get back to in a moment. But they
11 also say that these proposals would force us to
12 sacrifice quality for quantity. What is your comment
13 on that statement?
14 21143 MR. THOMSON: Well, I don't think
15 that there is anything wrong with the quality of
16 Canadian programming. I think that shows like
17 "Traders" and "Cold Squad" are in every way the equal
18 of our comparable programming coming out of other
19 countries.
20 21144 I just got back from MIPCOM on the
21 weekend. I think the fact that Canada is the second
22 largest exporter of television programming in the world
23 is proof of that. Countries all around the world are
24 buying Canadian programming; in many cases, preferring
25 to buy Canadian programming over American programming.
StenoTran
4563
1 21145 So I think the only difference, as I
2 said earlier, is the whole issue of the star system.
3 If we could put well known names in our Canadian
4 series, Canadian audiences would flock to them and
5 would find them every bit as attractive as a comparable
6 American show. That will come with time as we get more
7 exposure for Canadian performers.
8 21146 So, I am not sure that what we are
9 suggesting is going to cost more money.
10 21147 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I think
11 part of the discussion yesterday was, and it ended up
12 to being an agreement, that what we may be looking at,
13 if we pursued their proposal, were fewer hours with
14 Canadian shows produced with higher production values
15 which would draw larger audiences. That was certainly
16 part of the discussion yesterday.
17 21148 MR. THOMSON: Yes, and I will say
18 again I don't think we need to put a whole lot of
19 money, more money into Canadian production to draw
20 larger audiences.
21 1050
22 21149 I think we have to promote, schedule
23 and create a star system that will attract that
24 audience. I don't think we need to spend more money.
25 I am not sure that we need to shoot Canadian television
StenoTran
4564
1 shows in 35 millimetre. I do not think the average
2 person across the country would notice the difference
3 between 16 millimetre and 35 millimetre, but they would
4 certainly know the difference between a name actor and
5 somebody he has never heard of before.
6 21150 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: There is
7 that star system, those two words. I assume you are
8 not referring to CBC's constellations. But this keeps
9 coming up year after year, again and again, in the
10 English market. You started to talk about it. What
11 are we going to do about it? What specifically do you
12 recommend to make sure we have a star system seeing, I
13 think you said this morning, it's the missing link?
14 21151 MR. THOMSON: I think in the CFPTA
15 proposal and in the Great North proposal we are
16 addressing that. By having more Canadian programming
17 in peak prime, Canadian stars are going to be exposed
18 to a much larger degree to Canadian audiences, and that
19 will begin to generate a star system.
20 21152 The CFPTA has encouraged broadcasters
21 to produce promotional programming liken "Entertainment
22 Now" in order to give further promotion to Canadian
23 stars and we have agreed that we think that should
24 count toward their Canadian content.
25 21153 We have also made several proposals,
StenoTran
4565
1 both to the CTF and also to the CAB, with regard to
2 promotional expenditures and how we can ensure that
3 more dollars are spent promoting that. So we are
4 totally aware of that and we are trying to solve that
5 problem on many fronts.
6 21154 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So it's
7 not just by bringing up American stars like Mr. Cruise
8 to participate.
9 21155 MR. THOMSON: No, absolutely not.
10 21156 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And
11 recreating "Entertainment Tonight" Canadian style.
12 21157 MR. THOMSON: Recreating
13 "Entertainment Tonight" with Canadian content would
14 help a great deal.
15 21158 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Finally
16 then, back to your take on the first run discussion
17 yesterday wherein we were told that your proposals,
18 because of the proposal regarding first run, are
19 unrealistic and there is no way the system can fund
20 them -- and I am quoting the oral presentation at page
21 13 -- could you clarify what your position is then in
22 proposing the credit and the 10/10/10 proposal on the
23 basis of first run?
24 21159 MR. THOMSON: I think we are both
25 flexible and confused on that issue. It was
StenoTran
4566
1 interesting to note that Mr. Fecan was arguing that
2 they should be able to have more runs. At the same
3 time, Ms Mawhinney from Global said that it was very
4 difficult for her to draw an audience for a second run,
5 and that's why she was arguing for longer episode
6 series, going up to 22 episodes. So we are a little
7 confused.
8 21160 However I think our position would be
9 that if a broadcaster could make a compelling case that
10 it would be good for the system and would continue to
11 draw an audience and gain a bigger audience by having
12 more runs, we would support that. I am not sure that
13 we would support bonusing past the two runs that we
14 have proposed, but certainly recognition towards the
15 ten hours for additional runs. If in fact this is
16 going to increase the audience and attract more
17 viewers, we would not have a problem with that.
18 21161 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay,
19 thank you.
20 21162 Thank you Madam Chair.
21 21163 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
22 Cardozo.
23 21164 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you,
24 Madam Chair.
25 21165 First, I just wanted to follow up the
StenoTran
4567
1 discussion on the star system that you have had with
2 Commissioner Pennefather as well as Commissioner
3 McKendry. You said that part of the problem -- or the
4 problem -- was that broadcasters don't schedule the
5 stars in time prime, or peak time. I will challenge
6 that because I look at the schedules, and take any of
7 the schedules that we have had in the past few weeks,
8 and they have programs like "Traders", "Due South", "22
9 Minutes", "Emily of New Moon" across the board in prime
10 time. So we are seeing some of these stars now, and we
11 have seen them over the years. And I think of the
12 stars that I am aware of over the years and I tend to
13 have seen them over prime time. So surely that's not
14 the only issue.
15 21166 MR. THOMSON: No, that's not the only
16 issue, though I would suggest that there might be a
17 better time slot for "Traders" than directly opposite
18 "ER" on CTV, and it probably would get a bigger
19 audience if it was given a chance to compete against a
20 less powerful competitor.
21 21167 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But that's not
22 an issue of timing in prime time's; it's an issue of
23 scheduling versus --
24 21168 MR. THOMSON: Yeah. So the issues
25 are scheduling, promotion -- those are the big two
StenoTran
4568
1 issues; scheduling and promotion.
2 21169 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In terms of
3 promotion, you talked about "Entertainment Now". I
4 would take it that, like many of the other producers,
5 you would not be in favour of a promotion program
6 counting as Canadian content as well as advertising,
7 like short advertisements?
8 21170 MR. THOMSON: We would be in favour
9 of a show like "E Now" counting toward Canadian content
10 requirements. I do not think we would be in favour of
11 promos, short promotional clips. But a show that was
12 devoted to the promotion of Canadian programming, we
13 would be happy to see that count towards the
14 conditions.
15 21171 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. One of
16 the issues that you have talked about I think more
17 today than in your written submission was the issue of
18 regional diversity, and I think the recommendation you
19 made is a useful one in terms of responding to what we
20 have heard a lot during the town hall meetings and
21 during the hearings here and through the written
22 submissions we had, especially those from individual
23 Canadians across the country.
24 21172 The related issue that I find not
25 addressed, and I wonder if the same thing would work,
StenoTran
4569
1 is in relation to cultural and racial diversity. We
2 have heard from various groups that Canadian
3 programming doesn't reflect Canadians. You talk about
4 distinctively Canadian programming that reflects
5 Canada. Some people would argue, or have argued before
6 us, that the kinds of stuff that we talk about being
7 distinctively Canadian, most it have does not reflect
8 all of Canada; it reflects some of Canada and tends to
9 consistently leave out some of Canada.
10 21173 So I wonder if you would look at a
11 similar sort of bonusing or incentive system. In our
12 public notice we talked about reflecting the diversity
13 of Canadians, and one of the issues that was brought to
14 our attention was not just in what we see on screen in
15 terms of the programs, the people, the characters, the
16 themes, the issues; but also the producers: Is there a
17 diversity in terms of the producers who end up
18 producing and who get the benefits of the various funds
19 and who get on the air?
20 21174 So I wonder if the kinds of bonusing
21 you have defined here that take place with Telefilm and
22 CTF and that you're recommending for the CRTC, whether
23 you think that that is a viable instrument -- if you
24 think this is an issue that should be addressed -- that
25 would deal with diversity in programming both from the
StenoTran
4570
1 point of view of what's on air as well as the
2 producers, similar to the way you're addressing
3 regional productions.
4 21175 MR. THOMSON: It's a good question
5 and I am not sure that I have a ready answer. I think
6 our concern about that direction would be the
7 fragmentation of the funds, and certainly we on the
8 board of the fund are concerned about creating too many
9 envelopes because it just becomes unmanageable.
10 21176 I think I also would agree with Mr.
11 Fecan yesterday when he said that programming that
12 reflects Canada will, of its very nature, reflect the
13 cultural diversity of Canada. And I think everybody is
14 sensitive to that and aware of that.
15 21177 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But do you
16 think it happens?
17 21178 MR. THOMSON: Well, I can only speak
18 from my experience in terms of what we produce. We are
19 in the middle of producing a series for Baton about the
20 experience of a young Chinese boy growing up in
21 Edmonton called "The Dim Sum Diaries", which we think
22 terrific. We are producing a biography series for
23 History Television which includes people like John
24 Ware, the black cowboy; Rose Fortune, the black woman
25 from the States who worked on the underground railroad;
StenoTran
4571
1 Pauline Johnson, the native entertainer; Gabriel
2 Dumont, the Métis soldier, I guess he was.
3 21179 Of that series -- and we have been
4 very, very conscious in working with our broadcaster to
5 make sure that this series, which is 16 episodes a
6 year, reflects the cultural diversity of Canada. It
7 includes English Canadians, French Canadians, blacks,
8 natives -- the entire diversity. So we, certainly at
9 our company, try to do that and our experience has
10 been, particularly in this case, with the broadcaster
11 we are working with, that has been very much their
12 concern and we have worked very hard to ensure there is
13 a balance in that series.
14 21180 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Other than
15 envelopes I am wondering if there is another way of
16 addressing it, just through bonusing or incentives or
17 something but, that aside, you are basically saying
18 there is not a problem?
19 21181 MR. THOMSON: Well, we don't have a
20 problem at Great North because we consider that to be
21 very much part of our mandate, to reflect the diversity
22 of our culture, and we impose that on all the
23 programming we choose to do.
24 21182 I worry about envelopes because --
25 21183 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I am not
StenoTran
4572
1 suggesting envelopes.
2 21184 MR. THOMSON: Okay.
3 21185 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But are there
4 other ways of providing incentives? I don't think you
5 are suggesting a regional envelope either.
6 21186 MR. THOMSON: No, envelopes are a
7 concern because then you end up having to fund
8 programming that is not --
9 21187 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: No matter what
10 you fund, you give certain types of bonuses for certain
11 things and if there is a certain kind of
12 under-representativeness, then that's an area where one
13 provides an incentive.
14 21188 MR. THOMSON: Yeah. I personally
15 would not be against a bonus kind of incentive for
16 multicultural programming at all. I would not have a
17 problem with that.
18 21189 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I would not
19 call it multicultural programming because that set
20 somebody off yesterday on quite a trip.
21 21190 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think we will
22 begin impeachment proceedings.
23 21191 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I did not mean
24 to be disrespectful but it was an issue we weren't
25 talking about. We were simply talking about
StenoTran
4573
1 programming that reflects diversity, which I think
2 reflects Canada, exactly what you are talking about,
3 and we were just talking about how well do you reflect
4 Canada and do you reflect some aspects or most aspects.
5 21192 MR. THOMSON: We try as hard as we
6 can to reflect Canada and certainly from the
7 perspective of Alberta, where we come from, and that's
8 very much an objective of our programming department.
9 21193 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you,
10 Madam Chair.
11 21194 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
12 Wilson.
13 21195 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Mr. Thomson, I
14 wonder if you could just help me with something you
15 said in your oral presentation this morning. It may be
16 just because we have been here for so many days that I
17 am kind of slow this morning, but I just do not get the
18 comment that you made about simultaneous substitution.
19 It's on page 24 of your oral remarks. You say:
20 "Simultaneous substitution for
21 specialty channels would enable
22 many small and medium sized and
23 regional Canadian producers to
24 access the large U.S. market."
25 21196 I am just wondering if you could
StenoTran
4574
1 explain to me how that happens. It's probably really
2 simple and I will feel embarrassed after asking it.
3 21197 MR. THOMSON: I am glad you asked. I
4 was hoping you would because, in order to get my speech
5 under the ten-minute limit I had to eliminate a couple
6 of paragraphs that expanded on that.
7 21198 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You would think
8 we set this up or something.
9 21199 THE CHAIRPERSON: A bonus in reverse.
10 21200 MR. THOMSON: No. It is kind of like
11 the reverse of the simulcasting with conventional
12 broadcasters, but what happens is that we will often
13 sell a program to A&E or TLC or one of the U.S.
14 specialty channels that comes into Canada. And of
15 course, because they come into Canada, they have to
16 acquire Canadian rights, but because they are not a
17 Canadian broadcaster that does not enable us to trigger
18 any of the production funds or anything like that.
19 21201 Now, what will often happen is that
20 we can negotiate with one of those broadcasters a first
21 window for a Canadian broadcaster in order to be able
22 to access the Canadian public fund. However, that
23 becomes a very difficult negotiation because a window
24 could be as much as a year and the Canadian broadcaster
25 might insist that there be a one-year holdback before
StenoTran
4575
1 the American channel is allowed to program that show.
2 21202 That becomes a huge disincentive for
3 the American broadcaster, particularly in the case of
4 documentaries which are quite often timely and topical.
5 So under those restrictions they normally walk away
6 from it. So we are stuck with the choice of either
7 selling it to the U.S. broadcaster for probably a
8 higher licence fee but not being able to access public
9 funds in Canada, or selling it to the Canadian
10 broadcaster, accessing public funds, but not being able
11 to sell it into the American market.
12 21203 By having simultaneous substitution
13 for specialty channels we could do both. We could sell
14 it to both broadcasters, we could find it easier to
15 finance that kind of production. As I pointed out,
16 that kind of production has a difficult time accessing
17 public funds anyway because of the huge reserve for
18 drama. So it would make the American marketplace
19 available to producers of that kind of programming
20 which right now we have to choose one or the other.
21 21204 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am glad it
22 was complicated. Thank you for the explanation. I was
23 not aware of that. Thank you.
24 21205 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Thomson, when
25 you say 50 per cent for industrial programming, which
StenoTran
4576
1 you describe as something that meets 60/10, you mean
2 that that hour would be half an hour?
3 21206 MR. THOMSON: Yeah. My concern is
4 that that kind of programming takes up valuable shelf
5 space for the more reflective Canadian programming. I
6 think we can all remember back to three years ago, or
7 four years ago -- I am not sure when, but there was a
8 year when CTV fulfilled its entire Canadian content
9 obligations with industrial programming or service
10 production.
11 21207 I was on the board of the fund at
12 that point and I remember getting a breakdown -- it was
13 quite fascinating -- of the various broadcasters' draw
14 on the public funds. In that particular year, CTV
15 accessed $38,000 of the Telefilm fund. That was all
16 for development. There was no production in CTV that
17 year that used any public funds whatsoever. In that
18 same particular year, Global was accessing $12 million
19 and WIC was accessing $7 million, but CTV was accessing
20 $38,000 for development.
21 21208 So I think by only giving them a half
22 hour credit or a 50 per cent credit for that kind of
23 programming it will encourage them to fill up the shelf
24 space with the industrial programming.
25 21209 THE CHAIRPERSON: The reason for my
StenoTran
4577
1 question is the following: We have heard a lot of
2 10/10/10, 7/7/7; whether you should reduce it with
3 bonuses, et cetera. And today, just so that we all
4 understand how difficult it is to say, what's more,
5 what's less, what does it end up being; you say at page
6 9 that the 10/10/10 proposal is only a half an hour
7 more than what one would have to do under option B;
8 correct?
9 21210 Now, if I look at option B for
10 1999-2000, it's 6.5 hours, so that's correct. But now
11 option B is six to 12. The CFPTA's is seven to 11, so
12 you lose two hours. And there is, as far as I
13 understand, no requirement for how many runs you can
14 get away with. You know commercially people will watch
15 it, so that is also less severe than the 10/10/10 which
16 I think is CFPTA's two runs, and now you are saying
17 that industrial programming, which would fit a whole
18 hour in here, is only half an hour.
19 21211 So I can demonstrate to you that -- I
20 don't know if you will agree or your lawyer will
21 agree -- that it's not just a half an hour more because
22 there is a reduction of flexibility. It is more. The
23 10/10/10 proposal, as it's put before us, is more than
24 what we have.
25 21212 I am not saying we have a problem
StenoTran
4578
1 with that. It's just very difficult to arrive at these
2 conclusions that easily when you start bonusing,
3 cutting hours, cutting the period of time, and now
4 giving half to one hour. So I do not know whether you
5 would still hold to your comment that it's only half an
6 hour more than option B.
7 21213 MR. THOMSON: Well if you took the
8 CFPT proposal and laid over it our proposal with regard
9 to the regional bonuses and the reduction on
10 industrial, I think, just looking at the CTV schedule
11 in front of me here, I do not think they would have
12 that difficult a time reaching at least our startup
13 proposal of the seven. If we agree that documentaries
14 should be included as under-represented categories,
15 something like "W-5", or a version of "W-5" like CBC's
16 "Witness", would count, and because it would be
17 distinctly Canadian it would counted as 150 per cent.
18 "Due South" would count as 150 per cent. "Cold Squad"
19 would count as 200 per cent because it would be a
20 regional production. "Power Play" would count as 150
21 per cent.
22 21214 I think if you add all that up, yes,
23 maybe "Earth Final Conflict" would only be 50 per cent,
24 but I think if you add it up, just looking at the
25 current schedule, using my formula -- and I have not
StenoTran
4579
1 done it so I am just guessing -- they'd be very close
2 to seven.
3 1110
4 21215 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, if you do file,
5 for example, an additional comment within the time
6 frame, it would be helpful for parties who make
7 proposals and arrive at these conclusions to show how,
8 because you are quite right. You may be able in half
9 an hour to show me that it's not by doing the exercise
10 the other way using everything they have put forward.
11 21216 All I am saying is we will have
12 eventually to lay out the pieces together and decide if
13 exhibition is something that we look at to get to our
14 goals, decide how we will put the pieces together and
15 how onerous it will be at the end of the day because
16 it's very difficult, I find, anyway, to look at the
17 various proposals and to easily arrive at a conclusion
18 that it's better, it's more or less whatever than what
19 we have or what so-and-so proposes. It's quite
20 possible that, indeed, you would show me that it's no
21 more by doing the type of exercise I have done just as
22 a thumb sketch.
23 21217 I had a question that I have been
24 wanting to ask producers and I will ask you. You don't
25 have to answer if you don't want to. When we heard Mr.
StenoTran
4580
1 Nielsen from Norflicks, he made a comment that, in his
2 view, there was a lot of programming made in Canada
3 that managed to get itself to be Canadian, but that
4 never did get 20 per cent of the program budgeted cost
5 before having access to funds. Do you have a comment?
6 21218 I am not quoting, but it's at Volume
7 6, starting at page 1518. That's what I understand him
8 to say, that:
9 "...compliant broadcasters had
10 to be found who would pay a
11 broadcast licence fee amounting
12 to 20 per cent of the program's
13 budgeted costs. No one in the
14 industry actually believes that
15 they have paid this amount."
16 21219 At the beginning, Commissioner
17 McKendry was pointing to a comment in his written
18 intervention, which went as follows:
19 "Meanwhile, some of the major
20 production companies
21 specializing in the production
22 of American programs made in
23 Canada because of the low dollar
24 and cheaper crews, found a way
25 to make these programs
StenoTran
4581
1 'Canadian', and thus eligible
2 for Cable Fund money. To do
3 this, compliant broadcasters had
4 to be found who would pay..."
5 21220 There is some belief that -- well,
6 what he says is:
7 "What is inconceivable to those
8 of us in the business that a 20
9 per cent payment would be made
10 for Canadian projects because
11 that would represent very high
12 licence fees with no benefit in
13 relation to Canadian
14 production..."
15 21221 Do you have any comment about that?
16 21222 MR. THOMSON: Well, I would only say
17 if that was the case, it isn't any more and it is
18 possible. I am not familiar with his intervention, but
19 it is possible in the early days of the Fund when we in
20 fact had more money than we knew how to spend. You can
21 imagine the Fund literally doubled or tripled overnight
22 and suddenly we had a problem of how we were going to
23 spend the money, particularly in the first year of the
24 Fund because the contribution wasn't made or announced
25 until September and most of the production had already
StenoTran
4582
1 been done by then. So, we were stuck with the problem
2 of: How do you spend this large amount of money in six
3 months, in a period of time that isn't the conventional
4 production cycle?
5 21223 So, the rules were probably, in that
6 first year, fairly slack. I think by the second year
7 we began to see that demand was increasing and the bar
8 was raised a little bit. Certainly last year we
9 reduced the basic contribution from the Fund and
10 provided an incentive for being more distinctively
11 Canadian. This year, of course, only distinctively
12 Canadian programming is going to qualify. So, if it
13 was a problem -- and I can't say whether it was or
14 not -- it certainly will not be any more.
15 21224 THE CHAIRPERSON: I take your point.
16 I hadn't thought of that. Mr. Stursberg explained to
17 us, of course, that the bar would be raised in terms of
18 what kind of production, so that would take care of
19 this problem. Thanks for your clarification.
20 21225 Counsel?
21 21226 MS PATTERSON: Thank you, Madam
22 Chair, but my questions have been answered.
23 21227 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
24 Thomson and Ms McNair.
25 21228 MR. THOMSON: Thank you very much. I
StenoTran
4583
1 just want to finally add that this has been a very
2 interesting and fascinating process. I am glad you
3 initiated it and I hope it is going to serve to improve
4 the Canadian broadcasting system.
5 21229 THE CHAIRPERSON: One other
6 conversation we had with Mr. Nielsen was to tell him
7 after our exchange with him that if he prayed, we would
8 like him to pray for us; if he didn't, to keep his
9 fingers crossed. We ask the same thing of you.
10 21230 MR. THOMSON: I will do both.
11 21231 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will take a
12 10-minute break. We will be back at 11:30.
13 21232 Thank you.
14 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1120
15 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1130
16 21233 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary,
17 please.
18 21234 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
19 21235 The next presentation will be by
20 Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc.
21 21236 Go ahead.
22 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
23 21237 MR. MacMILLAN: Good morning, Madam
24 Chair, members of the Commission and Commission staff.
25 I am Michael MacMillan. I am the Chairman and CEO of
StenoTran
4584
1 Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc. On behalf of
2 Alliance Atlantis, let me thank you for this
3 opportunity to speak today and introduce you to our
4 panel.
5 21238 With me up front are Steve Ord,
6 Senior VP, Business Operations, Alliance Atlantis
7 Television, and Christine Shipton, Senior VP, Creative
8 Affairs, Alliance Atlantis Television. Behind us from
9 Atlantis Broadcasting are Juris Silkans, President;
10 Barbara Williams, VP, Programming; and Rita Cugini,
11 Director, New Ventures.
12 21239 We believe that the Canadian
13 Broadcasting system works very well. We believe in
14 fact that it has been an enormous success, particularly
15 in light of the unique challenges that we face as
16 English-speaking Canadians sharing the same language
17 with our immediate neighbour, the articulate and
18 entertaining U.S.A. We believe that our system is a
19 success because Canadians are watching Canadian TV
20 shows. The CAB pointed out in its submission that
21 viewing of Canadian programs has remained stable at
22 around 32 per cent of total viewing for the past 10 or
23 15 years.
24 21240 Given the enormous increase in the
25 total hours of television programming available, which
StenoTran
4585
1 is largely due to the increase in the number of U.S.
2 and Canadian channels available, we find it remarkable
3 that our broadcasting system collectively has been able
4 to increase the volume, quality and diversity of
5 Canadian shows to such a degree that we still attract
6 Canadians 32 per cent of the time. This is testimony
7 to the creativity and skill of Canadian broadcasters
8 and the Canadian creative community, as well as
9 effective stimulus from the CRTC.
10 21241 During these past 10 years,
11 broadcasters have become stronger by virtue of
12 significant ownership consolidation and market
13 expansion allowing for economies of scale, national or
14 quasi-national promotional ability and scheduling
15 consistency. Over these same years the Canadian
16 production industry has also improved its ability to
17 develop, finance, produce, promote and sell Canadian
18 programs.
19 21242 The increased and experienced and
20 talented actors, writers, directors and producers has
21 resulted in Canadian programs earning Canadian
22 audiences in growing numbers, programs like "ENG", "Due
23 South", "Traders", "North of 60" or "Cold Squad", and
24 we are proud to have played a major role in the prime
25 time drama successes enjoyed by both private
StenoTran
4586
1 broadcasters and the CBC.
2 21243 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what's
3 wrong with that mike. If you pushed it further back, I
4 wonder if it would help. I don't know if you hear the
5 feedback, but we do.
6 21244 MR. MacMILLAN: How is this now?
7 21245 THE CHAIRPERSON: Hopefully, that
8 will resolve it.
9 21246 MS SHIPTON: We think this policy
10 review process will be best served if the Commission is
11 able to clearly set out guidelines that can stand the
12 test of time and still be relevant as the industry
13 continues to change. This will likely be more useful
14 than producers and broadcasters debating the exact
15 number of hours of under-served programs or the exact
16 dollar level of spending required.
17 21247 Although we do note specific
18 proposals here, we are not wedded to every last
19 specific detail of our proposals. Rather, we would
20 like you to understand them as reflecting the policy
21 direction we believe the CRTC should take.
22 21248 We believe that each broadcasting
23 undertaking should have specific quantifiable
24 obligations as opposed to industry-wide targets, as
25 suggested by the CAB. Industry-wide targets will be
StenoTran
4587
1 unenforceable and unaccountable and defeat the purpose
2 of setting forth clear rules which are fair rules.
3 Each broadcaster needs its own reporting yardstick.
4 21249 We should have equitable rules for
5 all station groups over a certain size. That way
6 broadcasters would know what the expectations were and
7 they would know it before they took on acquisitions,
8 launches, signal rebroadcasts or mergers. We believe
9 that in order for the Canadian content regime to be
10 embraced with enthusiasm and consistency, it must be
11 equitable and be seen to be equitable. We are pleased
12 to hear CTV take this philosophical approach yesterday
13 with respect to clear benchmarks for station groups,
14 which have access to over 70 per cent of Canadians.
15 21250 We believe that these clear
16 expectations for broadcast groups of national or
17 quasi-national status should be implemented as soon as
18 practicable rather than delayed, as some have
19 suggested. Accountability delayed is accountability
20 denied. It is only fair to broadcasters to make the
21 policy framework clear immediately so that they can get
22 on with their business. Thus, we see CTV's proposal
23 that new regulations be in place by fiscal 2000-2001 as
24 being entirely reasonable.
25 21251 We believe that key to this CRTC
StenoTran
4588
1 review is a focus on the under-served categories 7, 8
2 and 9, to which we would add documentaries and Canadian
3 series which are star promotion vehicles. We believe
4 the key focus of the Commission should be prime time.
5 Prime time is when most Canadians watch television. If
6 our goal is to maintain or increase the viewing of
7 Canadian programs, we need to make them available when
8 it's convenient for Canadians to watch. To do anything
9 would be contrary to our collective express goal of
10 increasing viewership.
11 21252 MR. ORD: In our view, when setting
12 rules to stimulate under-served Canadian program
13 categories in prime time, two yardsticks are best used:
14 money and air time. This approach is set out in the
15 CFTPA submission. Of the two yardsticks, our priority
16 by far is air time. If there are meaningful air time
17 obligations such as the 10 hours per week, we do
18 believe that broadcasters would spend the money
19 necessary to ensure that valuable air time was put
20 towards viewer-attracting programs, which also tend to
21 be the most profitable ones.
22 21253 Further, the CRTC may wish to
23 consider adding some incentives to encourage
24 broadcasters to exceed Cancon minimums. For example, a
25 broadcaster which exceeds his hourly or spending
StenoTran
4589
1 obligations could be permitted to sell more than 12
2 minutes per hour of advertising. As well, incentives
3 for broadcasting programs that are distinctly Canadian
4 should be continued.
5 21254 We believe it is wise to continue the
6 150 per cent time credit for 10-point shows calculated
7 against the weekly hourly prime time under-served
8 category obligation. This is consistent with
9 Alliance's written submission and contrary to what
10 Atlantis said in its written submission.
11 21255 We have had the opportunity to listen
12 to the discussion, to reflect on it, and now believe
13 that the 10 hours a week should include 150 per cent
14 bonuses. In this sense, depending on the extent of the
15 use of the bonuses, our proposal, as now revised, can
16 be seen to be effectively very similar to DGC's,
17 CFTPA's and CTV's. While each of these now differ in
18 exact detail, they are philosophically occupying the
19 same territory.
20 21256 We support the CTV's suggestion
21 yesterday that a further incentive be provided for
22 10-point dramas between episodes 14 and 22 in a given
23 season. This addresses a real need, the creation and
24 scheduling of full seasons of drama and not half
25 seasons. However, we are reluctant to go overboard
StenoTran
4590
1 with all these incentives. The bonuses should not be
2 stackable. If we get carried away with bonuses, we
3 will not achieve the goal of increasing Cancon air
4 time.
5 21257 As well, in each of these cases,
6 selling extra ads for exceeding minimums, 150 per cent
7 bonus for 10-point shows and bonuses for 22 episodes
8 per season, these are carrots. These are not
9 obligations. They are designed to create flexibility,
10 Various broadcasters will follow different approaches.
11 This is good. One size certainly does not fit all.
12 These suggestions are designed to encourage diversity.
13 21258 MR. MacMILLAN: The next few years
14 will continue to see horizontal consolidation, as well
15 as vertical integration. There is much to be said for
16 this trend as it can focus resources on what matters,
17 and that, of course, is programming. Both broadcasters
18 and producers will be better able to make, promote and
19 schedule programs that can earn audiences.
20 21259 However, in this the challenge is to
21 make sure that those who are not consolidated, that
22 those who are not vertically integrated are not shut
23 out of the system. The challenge is to make sure that
24 those who are vertically integrated do not have undue
25 preference when they act as both the producer and the
StenoTran
4591
1 licensee of a particular program.
2 21260 Currently, producers affiliated with
3 broadcasters can self-deal and access tax credits, they
4 can access Cable Fund money and they can qualify as
5 Canadian content for CRTC minimum Canadian content
6 level purposes. The only area off limits is Telefilm
7 Canada funding.
8 21261 On Telefilm financed projects, we
9 believe that broadcasters should be permitted to bid
10 for distribution rights as long as it is a separate
11 process and negotiation. This likely should involve a
12 monitoring process by Telefilm. CTV And Global have
13 both made this point and we do see the merit in certain
14 circumstances, with proper safeguards.
15 21262 In order to ensure that those
16 companies who are not vertically integrated still have
17 fair access to the system, we believe that there should
18 be a percentage limit of Canadian content in each
19 broadcaster's schedule where self-dealing exists. This
20 would include shows where the broadcaster is the
21 distributor.
22 21263 Barbara Williams will now speak on
23 specialty broadcasting.
24 21264 MS WILLIAMS: Thank you, Michael.
25 21265 A very positive development in the
StenoTran
4592
1 Canadian broadcasting system was the successful launch
2 and acceptance by Canadian audiences of Canadian
3 specialty broadcasting services. These new services
4 have contributed greatly to the diversity of
5 programming choices. Life Network and HDTV Canada are
6 a part of this positive development in specialty
7 broadcasting.
8 21266 It is our view that now that special
9 television services have proved their value to the
10 Canadian broadcasting system and to Canadian
11 programming, they, too, should be accorded copyright
12 protection for the Canadian rights to programs they
13 own. We recommend, therefore, that mandatory
14 simultaneous substitution be extended to Canadian
15 specialty broadcasters.
16 21267 We see no downside to the proposal
17 for broadcast distribution undertakings or for
18 conventional broadcasters. In fact the upside for the
19 system, indeed, is strong. Of the increased
20 advertising revenue generated by simultaneous
21 substitution, a major part of it, in fact 65 cents on
22 each and every dollar in the case of Life Network, will
23 go directly back to increase Canadian programming, thus
24 continuing and growing the now named virtuous circle.
25 21268 MR. MacMILLAN: Alliance Atlantis
StenoTran
4593
1 believes that our Canadian broadcasting system faces a
2 terrific opportunity. We should be emboldened by our
3 success to date and by the increase and quality and
4 variety of Canadian programming. We should be
5 heartened by the maintenance of total Canadian viewing
6 in the context of a huge overall increase in viewing
7 choices. We should be encouraged by the growth of our
8 creative talent and by the increasing exportability of
9 our programs.
10 21269 This is not the time to raise the
11 white flag, this isn't the time to flee from centre
12 stage or flee from prime time. Our suggestions are
13 designed to make Canadian shows central to
14 broadcasters' strategies of appealing to viewers, to
15 make sure that the broadcast of Canadian shows
16 continues to make business sense and to make Canadian
17 shows fulfil the desire of broadcasters to distinguish
18 themselves from U.S. signals.
19 21270 We believe that in the not too
20 distant future Canadian-made entertainment programs
21 will be anchors of the prime time schedules of Canadian
22 broadcasters. We have a system we can be immensely
23 proud of. It's within the CRTC's purview and the
24 system's grasp to ensure that we have even more to
25 celebrate in 10 years' time.
StenoTran
4594
1 21271 We would now be happy to answer any
2 questions you have for us.
3 21272 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, ladies
4 and gentlemen.
5 21273 In order to avoid the confusion I
6 unwittingly caused yesterday morning, I would like to
7 clarify. Is it acceptable to you to refer to both the
8 Alliance and Atlantis written submissions to the extent
9 that they cover issues related not to their specific
10 broadcasting services, but to the regulatory system
11 that you would like to see in place and the comments
12 you made on that?
13 21274 MR. MacMILLAN: Certainly, we are
14 happy to answer any question. The only reason we split
15 ourselves into two presentations was because we have
16 yet to even apply to you concerning History and
17 Showcase.
18 21275 THE CHAIRPERSON: I know.
19 21276 MR. MacMILLAN: We didn't want to
20 presume to speak for them.
21 21277 THE CHAIRPERSON: My apologies. The
22 panel was not informed of the choices that you had made
23 and the only thing we are concerned about is that you
24 feel comfortable about who has asked what and that
25 everybody has had a chance to say what they wanted to
StenoTran
4595
1 say.
2 21278 So, you have no problem with me
3 saying the Alliance or Atlantis and, in that case, it
4 will be Atlantis Communications because I want to
5 discuss mostly regulatory scheme concerns. I tried to
6 look this morning at whether they are -- but I don't
7 see major differences between them, so I don't see
8 where there would be a problem. But it will be easier
9 as a reference point.
10 21279 It makes the process interesting that
11 we have talked about 10/10/10, bonuses that bring it
12 down to 5, to 3, back up to 7. It shows how it's
13 difficult to arrive at what's an increase, if that's
14 what it is we want, and that any bonuses, when you
15 weigh them against the fact that they do reduce the
16 amount of exhibition, are not at cross purposes with
17 our goals.
18 1145
19 21280 So you seem to agree with that, but I
20 would like you to comment on the extent to which you
21 feel that equity or equitable requirements would mean
22 that at least for the multi-station groups that the
23 requirements are the same and that diversity will come
24 into how one chooses how to attain them.
25 21281 Do you see a regulatory advantage to
StenoTran
4596
1 having the same number of hours in the same block of
2 time for each of the two or three station groups
3 according to your definition?
4 21282 MR. MacMILLAN: We do see there being
5 a regulatory advantage of having the same size block in
6 the same time period, a, because we think that is fair
7 and equitable. It will encourage clearer and more
8 enthusiastic adherence to those rules.
9 21283 But, as described, underserved
10 categories of 7, 8 and 9 added to that documentary,
11 added to that half hour of star promotion vehicle,
12 there are a number of ways for any of the broadcast
13 groups to fulfil those obligations. Even within drama
14 there is a number of ways, whether it is ongoing
15 series, or drama, comedy, feature films, television
16 movies and so on.
17 21284 So we believe there is lots of room
18 for variation or diversity within that. But we do
19 think as a base they should have the same fundamental
20 obligations.
21 21285 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, when you get
22 to spending, it gets a little more difficult because I
23 would assume that if one chooses to respond to the 10
24 hours, whatever these hours are, there will be some
25 recognition that some bonuses should be given for the
StenoTran
4597
1 more difficult programming, the more expensive, by
2 giving bonuses. Is that going to be enough if you
3 retain a spending requirement so that the spending
4 requirement is equal, it is 10 per cent of advertising
5 revenues, as the CFTPA proposed?
6 21286 If spending requirements are kept,
7 can we have equity there by requiring the same, no
8 matter what the choice is made in how you fulfil the 10
9 hours? You could see the bonusing, of course, as
10 balancing that, but is that enough?
11 21287 MR. MacMILLAN: In the Alliance
12 intervention we had -- and I did say we proposed this,
13 which is really confusing -- but we had supported the
14 CFPTA spending proposal. In the Atlantis intervention,
15 we have been silent on that issue.
16 21288 We have wrestled with this a lot. We
17 do believe that there should be a spending requirement.
18 We have thought: What should it be based on? Is it a
19 fraction of spending on underserved programming? Is it
20 a fixed dollar amount based on either total program
21 spending or last year's spending? Or is it, perhaps, a
22 percentage of revenues?
23 21289 Of all those options, we have
24 concluded that a percentage of revenues is the most
25 useful because it can track growth, number one. It is
StenoTran
4598
1 easily reportable and trackable without another layer
2 of micromanaging of detail. It also, unlike a flat
3 amount, is more useful in bad times because a fixed
4 amount would be absolutely difficult to live by during
5 economic downturn.
6 21290 To the extent -- and I will
7 eventually answer your direct question, but I wanted to
8 get some context for it -- you were wondering is the
9 same per cent reasonable, given that there are
10 different approaches to fulfilling the hour
11 obligations. I think it is because you have to presume
12 that the different approaches on the hour obligations
13 are designed to get the most viewers, the viewers that
14 they are targeting, to increase their revenues as much
15 as possible, to sell the most ads, and that ultimately
16 they are going to be driven by a bottom-line
17 imperative. That is a function of revenue.
18 21291 So I do think it is sensible, even
19 though there are differences in how one could fill the
20 time obligation, to have a consistent percentage of
21 revenue as to spending obligation.
22 21292 THE CHAIRPERSON: In fact, you refer
23 to the Atlantis position on that, it does -- the
24 Atlantis position does say that spending requirements
25 should remain part of the regulatory framework.
StenoTran
4599
1 21293 MR. MacMILLAN: We were silent on the
2 amount.
3 21294 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, and that is
4 why I had questions about what would be the appropriate
5 amount.
6 21295 Since you were silent -- since
7 Atlantis was silent on the amount, it did raise the
8 question that we have been asking as one other way of
9 looking at it is: Is it necessary to have the spending
10 requirement to achieve equity if you have a higher
11 level of hours required, some flexibility within that,
12 and bonuses that make up for the fact that usually the
13 bonus system -- the bonus programs will be the more
14 difficult and, therefore, the more expensive? Would
15 that be enough and could the Commission look at the
16 possibility of abandoning spending requirements
17 altogether? The Atlantis proposition made me think of
18 that because it appeared you weren't sure as to how one
19 would do it and whether one should do it, I gathered.
20 21296 MR. MacMILLAN: I will let Christine
21 and Steve elaborate in a second, but, no, the punch
22 line of our answer is that we would not suggest that
23 the Commission abandon spending requirements. Our
24 silence in one of our two submissions about the
25 percentage was partly we weren't sure what it should
StenoTran
4600
1 be; and we hadn't yet come to a landing internally on
2 how we thought the top-up funds through the cable fund
3 should be applied or not.
4 21297 I think that there are some creative
5 and viewer reasons why spending should be included, and
6 Christine wants to speak.
7 21298 MS SHIPTON: We all agree that our
8 goal is to have highly indigenous and high quality
9 programming on prime time. By having a spending
10 requirement, a floor, I think that serves to ensure
11 that we are all on the same page toward that goal of
12 quality. We can get into a discussion of what quality
13 is, but I think one of the tags that go along with
14 quality is a higher budget. It costs a lot of money to
15 produce quality.
16 21299 So, again, by having that floor, it
17 ensures that there is money being spent toward that.
18 21300 MR. MacMILLAN: Another factor is
19 that Canadian viewers are used to seeing drama from the
20 U.S., which generally is pretty high budget, pretty
21 slick, pretty entertaining, and if we are going to
22 deliver to Canadians an entertainment opportunity, it
23 needs to compete with the kind of programming that they
24 have been weaned on all these years. To give them
25 something vastly different that doesn't have that sheen
StenoTran
4601
1 will be difficult to attract viewers.
2 21301 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible,
3 though, to establish spending requirements and hours
4 requirements when the hours requirements allow you to
5 choose between various ways of fulfilling it and there
6 can be quite a difference, as I mentioned earlier, in
7 the cost and the difficulty of doing that, and spending
8 requirements that are not established in relation to
9 what it is you are going to do? You know, we hear
10 arguments about, well, this type of programming costs a
11 lot and generates less, therefore, I shouldn't have to
12 spend as much of my money on it, et cetera.
13 21302 It becomes difficult to give the
14 flexibility within the hours and then to have a strict
15 10 per cent on spending. Is it in your view?
16 21303 MS SHIPTON: We are not suggesting
17 the 10 per cent. We are suggesting a percentage.
18 21304 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you would buy
19 CTV's apparent suggestion, if I understood it well,
20 that the Commission would have to exercise discretion
21 and see what it is that the particular broadcaster is
22 going to do and even in the non-peak hours, CTV
23 suggested, in order to have the spending properly
24 addressed, which then causes the difficulty of not
25 establishing exact types of programming that one will
StenoTran
4602
1 do, if you listen to Global, who says, "My choice is
2 going to be to do fewer hours but to do drama".
3 21305 So how does one weigh the flexibility
4 required, increased hours and a fair -- established
5 amount of money if, over time, over a seven period, one
6 can change completely what one is doing, so you have
7 established a certain spending requirement based on
8 what you were told people were going to do, unless you
9 have a whole list of conditions of licence, four years
10 later the spending requirement remains the same and how
11 one performs is changed.
12 21306 We are just trying to look at can we
13 find some less micromanaged system and equity
14 nevertheless.
15 21307 MR. MacMILLAN: When Christine said a
16 moment ago that we hadn't said 10 per cent, our view on
17 10 per cent is that it is probably a reasonable number,
18 percentage; and that the Alliance submission had
19 included the cable fund top-up money to count towards
20 that as is the CFPTA's position.
21 21308 There could be merit instead of
22 having that 10 per cent, which can include the cable
23 fund top-up money, to instead go with a lower per cent
24 that isn't confused with the application of how one
25 transfers those cable fund payments, a lower per cent,
StenoTran
4603
1 which is the right per cent, and we note with interest
2 that the Directors Guild, I think, said 7 per cent,
3 without including in that the cable fund top-up.
4 21309 So, in fact, depending on the amount
5 of cable fund top-up, those numbers might not be so
6 dissimilar as they first seem. So that is what
7 Christine was really trying to get at.
8 21310 We are not saying that we agree that
9 there should be idiosyncratic or widely varying
10 percentages for each broadcast group. We think it
11 should be a similar approach, and that approach should
12 be not including cable fund money in the calculation.
13 21311 THE CHAIRPERSON: But the bottom line
14 is you remain of the view, Atlantis Alliance remains of
15 the view that you can't achieve your goals and equity
16 without having spending requirements over and above
17 exhibition requirements?
18 21312 MR. MacMILLAN: That is correct.
19 21313 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is not
20 possible to achieve, in your view?
21 21314 MR. MacMILLAN: That is correct.
22 While we look for variety and flexibility in how each
23 of the groups achieves their underserved category
24 obligations, we would hope that drama would be an
25 important component part of any broadcast group's
StenoTran
4604
1 strategy. It need not be ongoing series; it might be
2 feature films or television movies to greater degrees.
3 But we would be -- we think it would be very
4 unfortunate if a strategy included the abandonment of
5 the drama category and only documentaries and so on and
6 that is, frankly, another reason why a spending
7 obligation makes sense.
8 21315 I should point out that licence fees
9 for 10-point shows generally are significantly higher
10 than for garden variety 6-point Canadian content shows.
11 Also, the licence contribution by a broadcaster for a
12 documentary as a fraction of budget is often much
13 higher than it is for a drama because the budget itself
14 is much lower to begin with; and likewise a
15 broadcaster's contribution to a star vehicle promotion
16 series would probably be 100 per cent of the cost of
17 that series. So that as a fraction of the budget they
18 will vary.
19 21316 THE CHAIRPERSON: Hopefully, we have
20 raised these issues often enough that we will get some
21 more pointed comments on how this can work out in the
22 last round of written material we will get because the
23 pieces are difficult to put together and still achieve
24 the goals which should remain, that people remain
25 afloat, that they remain profitable organizations and
StenoTran
4605
1 that we do get more hours and that the regulatory
2 system doesn't get tied up in a knot in checking
3 compliance with so many bonuses and promotions and so
4 on that tend to vary up and down how one meets one's
5 spending requirements. We can end up with something
6 that is difficult to manage.
7 21317 Most of these incentives, of course,
8 are to the advantage of the person who gets them; but,
9 if it is going to be equitable, they will have to be
10 monitored and we will have to be able to calculate
11 whether they are misused.
12 21318 You mention licence fees, and that
13 appears to be a major complaint of producers, that
14 licence fees have decreased. I am looking now at the
15 Alliance document at page 4, paragraph 24, where that
16 is -- the licence fees is raised. There is an
17 interesting sentence there. You say:
18 "Speaking as an integrated
19 producer/distributor, Alliance
20 can give assurances that quality
21 Canadian programs will be able
22 to be financed -- even if public
23 funding declines -- if the
24 broadcasters step up to the
25 plate with adequate licence
StenoTran
4606
1 fees. That should be viewed as
2 the quid pro quo."
3 21319 What do you mean, quid pro quo for
4 what? Like what does the broadcaster gain from it? I
5 was wondering if that refers back to the quid pro quo
6 as to whether they should be allowed to have a better
7 opportunity to have access to funds.
8 21320 I was just curious to see what is the
9 quid pro quo because, presumably, funding declines, the
10 broadcaster raises his licence fees, what does he feel
11 he gets in return?
12 21321 MR. MacMILLAN: I believe that this
13 paragraph is suggesting that the quid pro quo is, in
14 part, the quid pro quo for having a broadcast licence
15 in the first place.
16 21322 THE CHAIRPERSON: I see, okay.
17 21323 MR. MacMILLAN: And that we have had
18 the observation that licence fees have declined
19 somewhat in the past -- during the '90s, during a time
20 when some public funding has increased.
21 21324 I think the other aspect of quid pro
22 quo in this sentence is that if some of that recently
23 increased public funding were to fade or not to be
24 available, then the broadcasters ought to be able to
25 step back up to the plate and increase their licence
StenoTran
4607
1 fees. I think that is what that paragraph is referring
2 to.
3 21325 THE CHAIRPERSON: Of course, it
4 raises the question of, if that is the case, and we
5 have altered the regulatory system by reference to the
6 currently available money, public funds, then the
7 broadcasters tell you they will have a big problem
8 where some of our three party -- three piece opening
9 remarks of more, more quality and profitability, one
10 piece may be falling off the desk so to speak. What is
11 your answer to that?
12 21326 I think Commission Pennefather
13 discussed that earlier with Mr. Thomson, if public
14 funds disappear, licence fees increase, and we have
15 increased the number of hours of under-represented
16 categories that have to be aired.
17 21327 MR. MacMILLAN: I will let Steve Ord
18 answer that.
19 21328 MR. ORD: I think there is no
20 question that public -- or quasi-public funds like
21 Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Television Fund are
22 key to funding indigenous programs. There is no debate
23 there. Although I think if we look at the total volume
24 of the independent production sector, about 40 per cent
25 of shows in 7, 8 and 9 have money from the Canada
StenoTran
4608
1 Television Fund or Telefilm Canada. The other 60 per
2 cent are relying on the market and they are also
3 relying on, say, tax credit financing.
4 21329 So I think maybe 10 years ago we
5 would -- it would have been more the other way around,
6 where, in fact, even toward 75 or 80 per cent. So the
7 industry has come a long way in terms of reaching out
8 beyond the borders of Canada and that is, I think, one
9 of the big attributes that the independent production
10 sector brings to the broadcasting system, which is an
11 ability to use its international connections to figure
12 out how to finance shows when the money is not always
13 available in Canada. It is becoming kind of a
14 practical way of approaching the limited financing pie.
15 21330 So I guess the next question that
16 would come to one's mind is: Can you produce exactly
17 the same shows without that government funding?
18 1205
19 21331 In some cases that might happen, and
20 certainly many producers have been clever to figure out
21 ways to do that, but it may well be shows that have,
22 you know, a different mix of shows. And I think that
23 as the years go by the industry is getting better at
24 figuring out how to reduce that reliance on that
25 funding. So I do not think that's a big problem.
StenoTran
4609
1 21332 THE CHAIRPERSON: And of course we
2 can always try to reproduce that funding.
3 21333 In your view, if the system has
4 worked in reaching the goals that are stated, getting
5 more appealing Canadian programming, do you think it is
6 likely to have an effect on the extent to which
7 government funds remain available over time in some
8 form or other?
9 21334 MR. MacMILLAN: Well, I certainly
10 hope they remain available for a long, long time,
11 because even though we are very proud to brag about the
12 success of the system, this has not been a question
13 over the past ten years of getting some kick-start or
14 some temporary assistance to get us up and going.
15 21335 As long as we share a geography and a
16 language with the U.S., we are going to have the same
17 fundamental challenge. This is not a temporary -- I
18 hope -- not a temporary state of affairs. We
19 structurally have the need to have supply side
20 financing in this country. It's not a temporary thing.
21 21336 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because sharing the
22 border I guess is not temporary, we hope.
23 21337 MR. MacMILLAN: That was precisely
24 what I meant.
25 21338 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you think that
StenoTran
4610
1 the level of licence fees should be regulated in any
2 way? By "regulation" I am talking here in broad terms,
3 whether it be by us or via the fund, that there should
4 be a real level established that has to be abided by?
5 21339 MR. MacMILLAN: I do not think that
6 the Commission should be regulating specific licence
7 fees, although I suppose broadcasters might argue that
8 if you impose a spending and a time obligation, you
9 are, in effect, regulating licence fees to some degree.
10 So I take that point.
11 21340 So I guess the answer is yes to that
12 extent, but no more than that, and otherwise the
13 marketplace is plenty flexible and can address proper
14 licence fees.
15 21341 I do think though it's perfectly
16 reasonable for a funding organization like Telefilm to
17 set licence fee expectations as an entry obligation in
18 order to access funds like Telefilm. That's perfectly
19 sensible, but I do not think you need to get into that
20 detail at all.
21 21342 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have heard me
22 bring up the preoccupation that Mr. Nielsen of
23 Norflicks talked about and the answer of Mr. Thomson
24 that that would no longer be a problem with the way
25 things work now vis-à-vis the fund. Do you agree with
StenoTran
4611
1 that?
2 21343 MR. MacMILLAN: I was listening to
3 the conversation with interest and I wasn't entirely
4 sure what the initial allegation was, although it
5 sounds like the allegation was that money was not
6 really paid or there is some other high jinks going on
7 to mask a real lower payment; something along those
8 lines.
9 21344 We have not seen that. Maybe it's
10 happened, I don't know, but in our dealings with
11 broadcasters we always have boisterous negotiations
12 about licence fees, as you might imagine, but it's not
13 been our experience to witness that sort of behaviour.
14 21345 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, documentaries.
15 I think both of the presentations agreed that
16 documentaries -- and I think in one case it's
17 particularly long-form documentaries, I was not sure if
18 it was in both cases -- should be added to the
19 under-represented list. We have been asking various
20 parties -- CFPTA may have been asked, I forget -- if
21 you feel that there is a need to define documentaries;
22 that the Commission should define documentaries that
23 would satisfy that category.
24 21346 MR. MacMILLAN: There is a need to
25 define documentaries, absolutely, and in our view a
StenoTran
4612
1 definition similar to -- or exactly, perhaps, -- as the
2 one that currently has been established by the Cable
3 Production Fund would seem to be logical to us. But
4 there is a need to put a barrier or a limitation around
5 the definition.
6 21347 THE CHAIRPERSON: We would appreciate
7 that, if you do file a comment at the end, that you
8 either endorse that one or provide a variation of it if
9 you choose to. It would be helpful.
10 21348 One more question about licence fees,
11 and I apologize for coming back to that. In the
12 Alliance presentation, at page 6, which is the
13 continuation of paragraph 31, it's stated:
14 "Producers have not opposed
15 equity infusions from
16 broadcasters, provided that they
17 pay real money for the equity."
18 21349 And there is a suggestion there I
19 would like to expand on, that "equity" may be
20 characterized as contributions backed by revenue
21 guarantees or priority recoupment provisions to such an
22 extent that they're really loans.
23 21350 So I gather the problem here is on
24 what terms the equity is provided. What is the problem
25 outlined?
StenoTran
4613
1 21351 MR. MacMILLAN: The problem referred
2 to there, I suppose, would be if a broadcaster
3 invested -- this is not the licence fee; above and
4 beyond the licence fee -- invested in the project and
5 acquired an economic interest in territories that
6 clearly had a value, let us say, of $2, and yet the
7 investment was for $1, but there really was a $2 value
8 there, and perhaps even with a guaranteed revenue
9 stream of $2. By investing $1, by having a guaranteed
10 return of capital and a guaranteed profit, the impact,
11 by structuring that sort of arrangement, would be to
12 effectively give a rebate or a reduction on the other
13 part of the transaction in the licence fee. I think
14 that's what that sentence is referring to.
15 21352 THE CHAIRPERSON: And in conjunction
16 with lower licence fees overall then introduces to
17 broadcasters' participation?
18 21353 MR. MacMILLAN: That's correct, and
19 also that means that one is diverting some foreign
20 territory value to subsidize the Canadian licence fee,
21 which obviously is not good business, nor is it good
22 policy, I would suggest.
23 21354 But our experience is that in general
24 broadcasters have been not very interested in investing
25 equity in programs.
StenoTran
4614
1 21355 THE CHAIRPERSON: Except for asking
2 for access to the Telefilm fund, yes. And I gather
3 that both Atlantis and Alliance, in their written
4 presentations, had taken the view that they are not
5 supporting that, no matter what?
6 21356 MR. MacMILLAN: That's right. Steve
7 might want to elaborate some more, but our view is that
8 a broadcaster, or a broadcast-related producer, when
9 producing for itself, ought not to be able to access
10 the Telefilm equity money. That's distinct from a
11 situation where a broadcaster or a broadcast-related
12 producer is producing a program for some arm's length
13 other user.
14 21357 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so I would
15 like you as well to discuss -- it's addressed in both
16 presentations -- what it is that the rules should be
17 and whether they should be, by conditions of licence,
18 similar to what the producers have in the cases where
19 they have broadcasting licences, whether that's enough
20 to provide this guarantee against unacceptable self-
21 dealing. What is it that you would find acceptable if
22 there were to be -- well, I suppose there would be no
23 relaxation in that case. Well, there would be because
24 right now they cannot, right? So are you suggesting
25 that if you had rules that said "not for your own
StenoTran
4615
1 screen", then affiliated companies could?
2 21358 MR. MacMILLAN: We are not proposing
3 to roll the clock back and we are not proposing to
4 remove the ability of a broadcast producer to produce
5 for itself. We are not proposing to remove their
6 ability to get tax credits. We are not proposing to
7 remove their ability to get cable fund money and so on.
8 21359 THE CHAIRPERSON: But not EIP money?
9 21360 MR. MacMILLAN: We are only focusing
10 on the EIP part.
11 21361 THE CHAIRPERSON: And there is no
12 solution there, in your view, that would make that
13 possible and would be acceptable to you? There are no
14 rules that could be established that would permit that?
15 21362 MR. MacMILLAN: Well, one of the
16 difficulties is that the EIP envelope, I think, is
17 something like $30 million a year, or in that range.
18 While $30 million, by one stretch, is a lot of money,
19 when spread across a number of different series, that's
20 not a lot of different projects for any particular
21 broadcaster to access. Steve, do you want to add to
22 that?
23 21363 MR. ORD: There are a couple issues
24 here. The first is Telefilm Canada has, as we all
25 know, an underlying mandate of supporting the Canadian
StenoTran
4616
1 film and television industry, not the broadcasting
2 industry. So that's something that's obviously beyond
3 what certainly Alliance-Atlantis can discuss, but
4 that's an objective that they have.
5 21364 The second point that Michael has
6 touched on is it is a finite amount of money. As
7 opposed to tax credits, which are not capped, it is
8 finite. It's a very tough competition for those
9 dollars. Those dollars go in generally the most
10 Canadian shows. They are very precious dollars to
11 access and have been used very prudently by both
12 broadcasters in terms of licensing shows and producers
13 who have produced shows. But when we come right down
14 to it, it is a finite amount of money that can fund
15 only so many shows.
16 21365 I think we have to be careful that
17 where the broadcaster is also the supplier and has the
18 ability to self-deal and determine what licence fees
19 are and that type of thing, that seems to us to put the
20 producer that is not vertically integrated in a very
21 disadvantaged position, and I think that's fundamental
22 to what is really the issue: How do you ensure that
23 there is safeguards for those players that are not
24 vertically integrated?
25 21366 I suppose the day could come where a
StenoTran
4617
1 private broadcaster's affiliated production company
2 wanted to produce for an unrelated broadcaster and,
3 while that seems kind of remote, that would not seem to
4 be problematic because there is no self-dealing
5 involved. I think this is a difficult one, but really
6 I think it's about ensuring that existing Telefilm
7 Canada rules continue.
8 21367 THE CHAIRPERSON: And in some of the
9 comments that are made about what safeguards could be
10 implemented, I guess they are made in the context of
11 if, by any chance, there should be a relaxation it
12 should be reigned in in the following fashion?
13 21368 MR. MacMILLAN: Sorry, relaxation of
14 access to Telefilm?
15 21369 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
16 21370 MR. MacMILLAN: That's right.
17 21371 THE CHAIRPERSON: And that's when you
18 raise conditions similar to those applied to Show Case
19 and History where you would have a limited number or
20 you couldn't do it or --
21 21372 MR. MacMILLAN: In fact, the Show
22 Case and History obligations, as I have come to
23 understand them recently, are far, far, far tougher
24 than these obligations that we are talking about here
25 because they prohibit original production that is cable
StenoTran
4618
1 fund or tax credit or of any sort from a related
2 production company, i.e., from Alliance-Atlantis. So
3 the rules that we hope to be operating under with Show
4 Case at some point in the future are much tougher than
5 these that we are describing here for conventional
6 broadcasters.
7 21373 If I can just add on the difference
8 between Telefilm Canada equity money and the other
9 sources of funds, Global, yesterday, in their
10 presentation, made the interesting and accurate
11 observation that for ten point shows or the more
12 indigenous, more Canadian shows, while there are other
13 parts of their chart with the flags that were very
14 incorrect, I thought, one of the correct aspects was
15 that they noted that the highly Canadian shows had the
16 Canadian broadcaster at the centre of the process, that
17 it was being made specifically with their needs in
18 mind, which is terrific and appropriate. And it's
19 those shows that tend to need Telefilm Canada
20 financing. If the Canadian broadcaster is the key
21 broadcaster, is the driver of that, far more than the
22 so-called industrial shows, that means that the
23 existence or not of an arm's length relationship
24 between broadcaster and producer is all that much more
25 relevant, and that's one of the reasons why we see
StenoTran
4619
1 Telefilm equity money being somewhat different than all
2 the other sorts of money available in the system.
3 21374 THE CHAIRPERSON: And should remain
4 as they are?
5 21375 MR. MacMILLAN: And should remain as
6 they are. In other words, the buyer and the seller
7 should not be related. But for clarity, if a
8 broadcaster or a broadcaster-related producer -- if
9 Fireworks, now owned by CanWest, wants to make a
10 program with Telefilm money and licence it to the CBC
11 or to CTV, God bless them. That should be allowed.
12 21376 THE CHAIRPERSON: And who would
13 monitor that; Telefilm?
14 21377 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes.
15 21378 THE CHAIRPERSON: And you would do
16 that via knowing what the licence fee is, as to where
17 it's going?
18 21379 MR. MacMILLAN: That's right.
19 21380 THE CHAIRPERSON: And what do you
20 define to be an independent as opposed to a related
21 relationship, as between the CanWests of the world and
22 the Fireworks of the world? You would have to come to
23 a determination of that as well. When is it you have
24 crossed the line where that type of limitation kicks
25 in?
StenoTran
4620
1 21381 MR. MacMILLAN: I would define
2 independent as less than 50 per cent common ownership.
3 So if one owns 50.1 per cent of the other, whichever
4 way the relationship is, or have a common parent or 50
5 per cent owner, they are related.
6 21382 I would also say that companies are
7 related if their shareholding interest is lower than 50
8 per cent but if, as a condition of a shareholders'
9 agreement, they are legally and contractually entitled
10 to certain access to the airwaves of that channel.
11 What we are trying to get at here is the privilege of
12 the relationship between the two, and ordinarily that
13 privilege comes from being in control of both
14 companies. You can tell both companies what to do.
15 And if there is less than 50 per cent and you don't
16 have ordinary authority and control, but have
17 contractual privilege, that's sort of the same thing
18 and I would say that would also qualify as non-arm's
19 length.
20 21383 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you would start
21 with simply a de facto equity level, but then also look
22 at the relationship between the companies to establish
23 whether it's a control issue, I suppose.
24 21384 In the Alliance document, at
25 paragraph 14 of page 3, there is a sentence there that
StenoTran
4621
1 of course the broadcasting industry as a whole would
2 not agree with. The very last sentence:
3 "...the brunt of financing
4 Canadian drama production is
5 today carried by the integrated
6 production/ distribution company
7 and the public sector, with
8 private sector broadcasters
9 lagging far behind "
10 21385 And what we hear from a number of
11 parties is add to the brunt, I guess, "and the
12 benefit", so that the sentence would read "the brunt
13 and the benefit of financing Canadian drama production
14 is carried by the production industry with the private
15 sector broadcasters lagging far behind." In other
16 words, we are told the production industry is doing
17 very well, thank you very much, and give us a break.
18 21386 In fact, one of the documents, the
19 Atlantis one, says, at page 5, "Canada's independent
20 production sector has also come of age", which would
21 tell you, yes, we are buoyant and doing very well. And
22 then parties raise not only the issue of giving
23 broadcasters a break, but also of saying, well, what is
24 the production industry doing with all this and should
25 they perhaps not put back something into the system
StenoTran
4622
1 themselves. And one suggestion that has been raised
2 is, for example, what about a percentage of the money
3 they make when they export programming put back into
4 the fund.
5 21387 MR. MacMILLAN: I think we all want
6 to answer this question.
7 21388 First, let's go on record, from
8 yesterday's hearing, that we are not Communists.
9 1225
10 21389 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, there has
11 been a requirement for a lot of red colour on those
12 documents.
13 21390 MR. MacMILLAN: I won't pursue that
14 one.
15 21391 I think the independent industry has
16 come of age. We are far more able creatively and
17 financially than we were 10, 15 years ago, no doubt
18 about it. The pie chart on page 10 of the Atlantis
19 June 30th submission, I think, is an interesting
20 starting point to describe that ability. Not from a
21 creative point of view it doesn't describe it, but
22 financially it describes what we do for a living and
23 how we assemble the various bits and pieces of
24 financing in order to cover the million dollars or more
25 per hour that it costs to make competitive drama.
StenoTran
4623
1 21392 Without commenting, quite frankly, on
2 what the broadcasters are doing, because you have to be
3 suspicious when producers want higher licence fees from
4 broadcasters, that's a natural relationship. We want
5 higher licence fees, they want to pay us lower licence
6 fees, and that's normal. So, not commenting on that,
7 commenting on the rest of this little pie chart, you
8 see, in terms of the foreign pre-sales, international
9 pre-sales, U.S. pre-sales, our distribution advances,
10 our investments in projects, not including Canadian
11 taxpayers' dollars, not including Telefilm or CTCPF or
12 tax credits that we bring to the party, a major part of
13 the financing, roughly 70 per cent.
14 21393 We expect rewards commensurate with
15 our risk. That goes to the point of not being
16 communists. We do think that the brunt and the rewards
17 should be commensurate, but I would also argue, though,
18 that for the broadcasters they have not done nearly as
19 badly as they might have led you to believe during this
20 hearing as to the financial viability of airing
21 Canadian drama.
22 21394 I think that Steve wanted to wade in
23 here.
24 21395 MR. ORD: Perhaps a few years back,
25 say if we went 10 years back, it was possible to
StenoTran
4624
1 finance a big budget Canadian drama 100 per cent out of
2 the Canadian marketplace. In our experience -- and we
3 can really only talk from our own experience -- those
4 days are long gone. Every single drama show that
5 Alliance Atlantis produces relies on our sister
6 distribution company putting up money against rights
7 that may have value, may have no value. Risking money,
8 we invest our own money.
9 21396 That is true with the most distinctly
10 Canadian shows. A show like "Traders" cannot be funded
11 unless our sister company puts up risk against that
12 marketplace. To put the risk into the show, one hopes
13 the show will go on for many, many years and one hopes
14 the show will be terrific and sell all over the world.
15 If we all do our jobs well, that does happen.
16 21397 If we don't do our jobs well or the
17 audience does not relate to the program, then that is
18 money that is simply lost. I think the numbers that we
19 have put together based on our own experience is we are
20 risking money on every show that we do. To us that is
21 a very significant contribution to the system.
22 21398 Just two other points on that. We
23 have also seen a period where production costs have
24 risen a lot and as licence fees have not increased --
25 in fact they have decreased as production costs have
StenoTran
4625
1 gone up -- that gap is largely being paid for by
2 production companies like ours and others and
3 distribution companies. So, we feel we are making a
4 big contribution to the system.
5 21399 THE CHAIRPERSON: Of course, their
6 argument is: We provide the screens, trigger the
7 licence fee and have to struggle to make all this work
8 while you get the funds and the tax credits. You would
9 agree, I gather, that it's not quite fair to include
10 all the tax credits that eventually you get back. I
11 understand you may underwrite them for a period. You
12 probably were here or maybe it was the CFTPA. You have
13 to be careful about what tax credits really mean in the
14 end when you add up just what each party provides.
15 Would you agree?
16 21400 MR. MacMILLAN: I do agree and I
17 recall that discussion where we were dancing around
18 whether it was public money or not.
19 21401 THE CHAIRPERSON: Or who gets the
20 benefit of it at the end.
21 21402 MR. MacMILLAN: We all benefit
22 because we get a better show partly underwritten with
23 taxpayers' dollars, the broadcaster benefits, the
24 producer benefits, and so on.
25 21403 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, but it's the
StenoTran
4626
1 pies that raise hackles, how small, how thin is the pie
2 of one compared to the other, and there is various ways
3 of putting all that together.
4 21404 MR. MacMILLAN: And I understand, but
5 just for clarity, the pie chart in the Atlantis
6 submission shows that as of earlier this year, it was
7 reflecting on the most recent $523 million of
8 production undertaken by Atlantis. So, it's enough
9 different shows, I think, to begin to be statistically
10 valid. It's not skewed by one show.
11 21405 In it it says that 70 per cent was
12 money either put up by Atlantis, now Alliance Atlantis,
13 or assembled by pre-sales. This is not tax dollars,
14 not Telefilm, not Cable Fund. It's 70 per cent
15 compared to 8 per cent Canadian broadcaster licence
16 fees and 1 per cent Canadian broadcaster investment.
17 That 70 per cent that we are assembling or investing of
18 our funds is not all guaranteed. It's not a slam dunk
19 and there is a bit of a myth that suggests that every
20 dollar of international sales is somehow gravy into our
21 retirement accounts. That's not the case.
22 21406 We have to, first of all, recoup
23 these investments with those international sales and,
24 as we do, the money in the first place wasn't going
25 necessarily to profit, it was going, first of all, to
StenoTran
4627
1 pay for the significant -- i.e., a million bucks an
2 hour -- cost of making these programs.
3 21407 THE CHAIRPERSON: You agree, I
4 gather, in the distribution argument that a bidding
5 process for broadcasters as distributors would be
6 acceptable, or do you?
7 21408 MR. MacMILLAN: In the example cited,
8 I guess, by CTV of a series this year, I know that each
9 of Alliance and Atlantis were invited to put bids in on
10 that show. We didn't. Neither one of us felt it made
11 creative or business sense to come up with a number
12 that was satisfactory to the producer and the producer
13 ended up going to a British company. So, I can see in
14 that sort of circumstance it's very difficult to argue
15 why -- if there was another Canadian distributor or
16 even a broadcaster-related one, in this case CTV, who
17 wanted to acquire rights, why couldn't they?
18 21409 The trick here, though, is to make
19 sure that producers who don't have any affiliation, who
20 aren't part of vertically integrated companies aren't
21 shut out of the whole system. So, it would have to be
22 very clearly and publicly monitored in a way that made
23 that bidding completely separate from the decision to
24 licence in the first place and totally separate from
25 the actual negotiation of the licence fee as well.
StenoTran
4628
1 21410 MR. ORD: One other point I think
2 it's important to make is that this is an issue that is
3 only about Telefilm Canada funded projects. There is
4 no policy that says broadcasters cannot distribute
5 shows that they produce internationally. There are no
6 policies. It's really only a Telefilm Canada
7 restriction. So, therefore, such an open monitoring
8 process is not all shows, it's simply those shows that
9 are funded by Telefilm that broadcasters would desire
10 to bid on the rights.
11 21411 THE CHAIRPERSON: To complete the
12 discussion of whether producers are doing so well and
13 are getting so much apple pie that they should put some
14 back in, what is your view as to whether that would be
15 a fair requirement? Obviously, it would not be one
16 that the Commission would have any control in, it would
17 be via the Fund somehow.
18 21412 MR. MacMILLAN: It's difficult
19 because there is so many different shapes and sizes of
20 independent producers. The CFTPA, I think, has 300
21 different members ranging from many ma and pa
22 operations, mid-sized companies, a number of large
23 ones, including ours, and it would be very difficult to
24 figure out what some structural obligation ought to be.
25 21413 However, most producers, and
StenoTran
4629
1 certainly the larger ones, are spending a lot of money
2 every year on developing projects, on hiring and paying
3 for writers and directors and other producers to
4 develop projects, many of which never ever happen, and
5 the costs of which are simply written off. So, we
6 spend over $10 million a year in that sort of program
7 R&D and other large companies would spend similar
8 amounts pro rata. So, we would do that.
9 21414 We also participate -- and Christine
10 might want to talk about this a bit more -- in the
11 promotion of Canadian shows. We don't do enough. We
12 are doing much more than we used to do and I would
13 encourage Telefilm and the Cable Fund to put up
14 specific obligations for producers to be much more
15 proactive in how they help broadcasters promote.
16 21415 Christine, did you want to talk about
17 that?
18 21416 MS SHIPTON: We all agree if we are
19 going to produce these Canadian shows, we have to have
20 people watching them. The broadcasters know that, we
21 know that as producers. We don't want to just produce
22 something just to get it on air and have no reaction
23 back, no feedback. Promotion and a specific kind of
24 promotion is the only way to tackle that.
25 21417 I am from the Alliance side of the
StenoTran
4630
1 merger. I have had very good experience with a number
2 of broadcasters in the last couple of years in terms of
3 partnering on promotional campaigns and strategies.
4 It's not just about putting hard dollars on the table,
5 it's about approach, it's about positioning, it's about
6 the overall look of the show, what to do with the
7 stars. I know you had conversations earlier about the
8 star promotion and it's something that's extremely
9 important to us.
10 21418 THE CHAIRPERSON: And you feel that
11 that is putting back into the system as the independent
12 production companies come of age?
13 21419 MS SHIPTON: It is a type of putting
14 back into the system that would result in success that
15 could only help other Canadian productions also feed
16 off that success.
17 21420 MR. MacMILLAN: I am just going to
18 observe -- and I'm not sure of the exact numbers from
19 the Alliance side of the merger, but from the Atlantis
20 side for each of the past three or four years our
21 distribution advances and our direct investments in our
22 Canadian dramas in each year exceeded the total
23 Canadian broadcaster licence fees on those shows. So,
24 I submit we do invest in the system.
25 21421 THE CHAIRPERSON: There are some more
StenoTran
4631
1 specific proposals put forward in the Atlantis brief at
2 page 14, paragraphs 55 and 56, where there is a
3 recommendation that financial commitments to promotion
4 should be a condition for access to the licence fee and
5 the EIP program and there is a suggestion as to how
6 this could be done and shared between the broadcaster
7 and the producer. So, you would see that as a
8 recommendation to the Fund that this be a requirement?
9 21422 MR. SHIPTON: Yes.
10 21423 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would it be just
11 voluntary or would it be that the Fund would say, "Over
12 and above the licence fee, when you come to us, the
13 financial commitment should include an additional
14 percentage shared between the producer and the
15 broadcaster in a one-third/two-thirds proportion,
16 although inverted, one-third for the producer. Is that
17 how you would see that as added to the terms and
18 conditions for getting access to the Fund?
19 21424 MS SHIPTON: I believe this
20 suggestion was put here and filed as an example of how
21 one might impose some regulation and it would have to
22 be at the Fund level, as you suggest. In reality, if
23 you look at what this particular suggestion is
24 suggesting, it's quite minuscule. Fifteen per cent of
25 a $150,000 licence fee is not a large amount and I
StenoTran
4632
1 would propose that at least five times that amount is
2 spent on a proper promotion campaign. But it was
3 placed here to get people starting to think about how
4 to concretely put into place some suggestions for the
5 partnership that needs to be put into effect.
6 21425 MR. MacMILLAN: Christine is right.
7 Our proposal was remarkably tight-fisted. I don't know
8 what we were thinking exactly. Fifteen per cent is a
9 tiny amount of a licence fee, but our point, our thrust
10 remains.
11 21426 THE CHAIRPERSON: But it was also
12 tight-fisted in another way in that the last sentence
13 says:
14 "Any such requirement should be
15 separate and distinct from
16 existing regulatory obligations,
17 and ineligible to fulfil CRTC
18 Canadian program spending
19 requirements."
20 21427 MR. MacMILLAN: I also meant it was
21 tight-fisted in that the obligation that this imposed
22 on the producer was minuscule and we think should be
23 much larger an obligation on the producer than is
24 suggested.
25 21428 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, the ratios you
StenoTran
4633
1 mean?
2 21429 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes, the ratio was --
3 21430 THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought you
4 referred to the 15 per cent.
5 21431 MR. MacMILLAN: Both. Fifteen per
6 cent is a remarkably low amount.
7 21432 THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought you were
8 referring to the 15 per cent of budget, I guess, is
9 what it would be.
10 21433 MR. MacMILLAN: No, it's of all
11 licence fees.
12 21434 THE CHAIRPERSON: Ah, yes, yes.
13 21435 MR. MacMILLAN: It's actually not a
14 lot of money and it was tilted towards the broadcasters
15 and not enough on the producers' shoulders. So, on
16 thinking about it some more, we would increase the
17 actual amount of money and probably redress the balance
18 and make it more like 50/50.
19 21436 THE CHAIRPERSON: But keep it out of
20 eligibility to meeting spending requirements?
21 21437 MR. MacMILLAN: That is correct.
22 21438 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if
23 it's something that as a producer you are concerned
24 about because, although the CFTPA did speak about this
25 first run and how that's defined, I don't know if you
StenoTran
4634
1 feel that that's a broadcasting issue more than a
2 producer issue or, after hearing the various
3 definitions, whether you have any comments about what
4 it is that the Commission should retain.
5 21439 MR. MacMILLAN: Like all of these
6 issues, it's a bit of a tough one because you are
7 balancing, on one hand, our obligations that we want to
8 be greater than the current obligations and yet we
9 don't want to be unrealistic. On the other hand, we
10 want to encourage new programming, not just repeats of
11 the same old shows and, therefore, unlimited broadcasts
12 qualifying as first run would not meet that end.
13 21440 It may be in fact that the first two
14 runs should qualify as first run, including any bonuses
15 applicable to those runs, and that a subsequent run, as
16 long as taken within the first two years, could qualify
17 as first run, but without the bonus attached. I know
18 you have about 15 different variations of this model,
19 but I think you would want to make sure that there is a
20 fairly short time frame on which a first run can be
21 taken so that it's not four or five years down the
22 road -- we want to encourage new programs -- and not
23 probably unlimited because otherwise you could see one
24 or two shows stripped daily gobbling up all this time.
25 21441 But that said, there may be some
StenoTran
4635
1 useful constructive compromise where the first two runs
2 could include the bonus treatment and a subsequent run,
3 as long as taken within 24 months, could count, but
4 without the bonus.
5 21442 THE CHAIRPERSON: And we already have
6 experience with that, because I believe that's what is
7 done now with drama production. Well, it's as many
8 runs as you can, I think, within the first two years.
9 You would limit it to two?
10 21443 MR. MacMILLAN: Right, but we would
11 apply --
12 21444 THE CHAIRPERSON: Within the two
13 years.
14 21445 MR. MacMILLAN: But we would let the
15 bonuses apply and that currently is not the case.
16 21446 THE CHAIRPERSON: You mean under
17 1995-48? Under the current rules?
18 21447 MR. MacMILLAN: Currently, it applies
19 to 50/60.
20 21448 THE CHAIRPERSON: This may also be,
21 you may feel, a broadcaster question, but we have asked
22 whether this -- let me rephrase. The CFTPA has said,
23 which I gather you will both agree with both
24 submissions, that 7:00 to 11:00 be the time frame
25 within which under-represented categories have to be
StenoTran
4636
1 exhibited and there has been some questions raised as
2 to whether the argument put forward by broadcasters,
3 which is not new, is that the 7:00 to 8:00 hour is good
4 for family drama.
5 21449 Do you feel that there could be a
6 danger that there would be an over-production of this
7 type? Global yesterday indicated that that would not
8 be the case, but do you think that's a preoccupation
9 that the Commission should have?
10 21450 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes, it is a risk,
11 not so much because 7:00 o'clock is earlier and fewer
12 people are watching -- and that is true, fewer folks
13 are watching at 7:00 o'clock, but more that at 8:00
14 o'clock simultaneous substitution opportunities become
15 available. That's what I think would drive a
16 scheduling decision to want to put a Canadian show that
17 was not substitutable into a 7:00 to 8:00 o'clock slot,
18 liberating more 8:00 to 11:00 time for shows that could
19 be simultaneously substituted.
20 1245
21 21451 I think there is a danger, and we do
22 have a concern about that. On the other hand, the
23 homes using television between 7 and 8 are probably 80
24 per cent of those using television at 8:00 o'clock, it
25 is less, but it is not off the cliff less. So, we have
StenoTran
4637
1 proposed 7 to 11. We do see a risk, as you are
2 describing, but it is one that we think makes sense, on
3 balance.
4 21452 THE CHAIRPERSON: One would think
5 that the risk would be minimized somewhat, wouldn't it,
6 depending on how many hours one has to do of
7 under-represented categories?
8 21453 MR. MacMILLAN: We think it is
9 unlikely that a broadcaster would want to schedule 10
10 hours, although with bonuses it is really less than 10
11 hours, depending how one uses them but, in any event,
12 schedule all those hours only with so-called family
13 fare from 7 to 8. If they did that, and met their
14 spending obligations, they are probably getting a good
15 rating.
16 21454 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, an easy
17 question: In the Atlantis submission at page 23 there
18 is an exhortation to the Commission to encourage more
19 cooperation with the CBC. I would like to know how you
20 propose that this be done -- 23, paragraph 114, the
21 very last paragraph:
22 "The CBC and private sector
23 broadcasters should be
24 encouraged --"
25 21455 I guess you mean by us.
StenoTran
4638
1 "-- to enter into co-operative
2 acquisition or co-licensing
3 arrangements, such as is the
4 case...with "Traders"..."
5 21456 Do you see us play a role in that, or
6 the fund or simply when we speak to the CBC at its
7 renewal you will --
8 21457 MR. MacMILLAN: Whisper nice things
9 in their ear.
10 21458 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- you will appear
11 and intervene to tell them to cooperate better with the
12 production industry?
13 21459 MR. MacMILLAN: One thought we did
14 have, and it is sort of an obvious one, I suppose, but
15 we have a concern with it because it becomes one of a
16 list of many, many, many shows that can be bonused, and
17 we have a concern about bonusing ourselves to death and
18 starting at 10 hours and ending up back down at five or
19 something like that.
20 21460 But when we wrote this we were
21 thinking that, maybe, there could be a structural
22 encouragement for private broadcasters to share
23 resources with the CBC, who need all the allies and
24 supporters they can get. We have got a small country;
25 we need to pool resources. We thought if there was
StenoTran
4639
1 some bonus for a program that did harness both, it
2 might be a smart thing.
3 21461 We haven't specifically said it here
4 because we have been concerned about bonuses for this
5 and that and everything else and, at a certain point,
6 it could undermine the effectiveness of whatever number
7 of hours you start with off the top.
8 21462 It also depends on what the bonuses
9 are. People say 150 and 200, and Kevin Shea mentioned
10 they are going to come back in writing with 250 per
11 cent, apparently -- I think he was kidding, but -- I am
12 sure he was kidding. He has a well developed sense of
13 humour. But it depends what the percentage bonuses
14 are. But that is what we are getting at here, some
15 sort of bonus, but we have an overall concern about too
16 many bonuses and the stackability of bonuses.
17 21463 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, that raises an
18 interesting question. When we speak about bonuses we
19 always speak about what I term clawing back hours.
20 Could it be, if we do have spending requirements, could
21 it be that the money spent on cooperative ventures with
22 the CBC be bonused up? Is that a possibility?
23 21464 MR. MacMILLAN: Sure it is. It is a
24 good idea. I hadn't thought of that before, but
25 that...
StenoTran
4640
1 21465 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have always
2 thought of bonusing by drawing back the hours. We
3 could bonus by pulling up the value of the money spent.
4 21466 MR. MacMILLAN: Sure. That has merit
5 and it should be thought through. I will say that when
6 CBC came into "Traders" a year and a bit ago there was
7 some controversy in terms of whose licence fee was
8 going to be the one that triggered the Telefilm Canada
9 investment and so on. We have to think all the
10 ramifications of that through. But my initial reaction
11 is that that could be smart.
12 21467 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because I certainly
13 agree with you that the harnessing of capacity of both,
14 especially if the fund remains devoted or allocated in
15 large part to the CBC, would seem intelligent for the
16 system as a whole.
17 21468 Now, yesterday, Global added a grid
18 to the CAB idea about audience viewership levels and
19 showed us more schematically how one could do that and
20 also from a data point of view, and also told us that
21 if we actually did that it would have a great moral
22 suasion ability to push further into more exhibition,
23 et cetera.
24 21469 What is your reaction to the CAB
25 audience level proposal when it is seen in a more
StenoTran
4641
1 practically measurable context, and if you take into
2 consideration Global's view that it would not be a
3 regulatory mechanism as such, but an important aspect
4 of the Commission's push toward its goals?
5 21470 MR. MacMILLAN: I don't think it
6 works.
7 21471 Yes, we want Canadians to watch
8 Canadian shows, but the be all and end all isn't just
9 everybody piling in to watch two or three shows in
10 enormous numbers. There is a great deal to be said for
11 variety and choice. That grid that we saw yesterday
12 would have only created moral suasion or embarrassment
13 or applause, depending on where you ranked on the list,
14 to those who had the biggest total audience numbers.
15 21472 If you talk about the Broadcasting
16 Act, it seems to me that amongst the things that it
17 strives for is variety and diversity. We can't only
18 have the equivalent of mass market paper backs
19 available. We have to have a much wider range than
20 that. That grid, to me, would have sent the mass
21 market paper back equivalent to the front of the class
22 and made everybody else feel like second class
23 citizens. That is not what I think the Broadcasting
24 Act is talking about.
25 21473 THE CHAIRPERSON: Interestingly, when
StenoTran
4642
1 I read many of these, and I see sentences that say, "We
2 want Canadian audiences and Canadian audience level," I
3 always have the urge to put "some audience level"
4 because that is an argument -- well, back and forth
5 discussion about what quality means; what is it the
6 Commission is after; is there a danger that it will
7 reduce everything to a common denominator. And when
8 you look at audience levels I guess this is the point
9 you are making as well as you should add the word
10 "some". There should be diversity and there should be
11 some decent audience levels to the variety of Canadian
12 programs put forward; some decent audience levels to
13 documentaries; and, perhaps, it will be larger to soap
14 operas or drama, but nevertheless both have value and
15 you can't say, 80 per cent here and 35 per cent here is
16 not identical, possibly, if you look at the entire
17 goals that we are after and what the act tells us we
18 should push toward.
19 21474 MR. MacMILLAN: That is right, and
20 not only in raw numbers but also who they are and that
21 grid didn't, for example, comment on is that measuring
22 all the viewers or 18 to 49 or 25 to 54 where there is
23 a lot of advertising sold on.
24 21475 What about 55-plus? There is not --
25 a lot of advertising would totally disregard 55-plus as
StenoTran
4643
1 a useful demographic for buying and selling ads. If I
2 were 55-plus, I would think that that would
3 disenfranchise me from this discussion.
4 21476 THE CHAIRPERSON: Those are my
5 questions. My colleagues have some. I apologize.
6 This has been a little bit -- I had prepared for both
7 presentations discretely before finding out yesterday
8 that you were appearing concurrently, and it has been
9 what we call in French décousu, it is not quite sown up
10 together properly, but I hope it has worked
11 nevertheless and that my colleagues will pick up where
12 I did not cover everything.
13 21477 Is there anything else you feel in
14 the circumstances that you would have liked to question
15 on and didn't get any? As long as you don't ask me
16 any.
17 21478 MR. MacMILLAN: I think we better
18 wait to see what other questions come first.
19 21479 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good idea, you are
20 getting on to this process.
21 21480 Commissioner Cardozo.
22 21481 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam
23 Chair.
24 21482 I would like to pick up on a couple
25 of things you said today and a couple of things that
StenoTran
4644
1 other people have said. You seem to be saying in your
2 presentation today that CTV is in sync with you in
3 terms of 10/10/10, but my understanding of what Mr.
4 Fecan said yesterday was that it was just not on.
5 21483 Could you clarify that for me?
6 21484 MR. MacMILLAN: Sorry, I would not
7 want to leave the impression that we are alleging that
8 CTV is saying 10/10/10.
9 21485 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You said that
10 they are philosophically in the same vein as you seem
11 to be. You seem to be much more definitive in saying
12 that --
13 21486 MR. MacMILLAN: I think they were
14 saying seven hours. But the difference is our
15 understanding of CTV's presentation yesterday -- and
16 there are differences, let us be clear, between CTV's
17 proposal and ours -- is that CTV said seven hours, but
18 the 150 per cent bonus was not applicable against those
19 seven hours. It was that that 150 bonus was applicable
20 against the 50-60; and our 10-hour proposal, as revised
21 after hearing the discussion over the past few months,
22 is that the 10 hours -- and as Alliance always said --
23 that the 10 hours does include bonusing.
24 21487 So, depending on how many hours of
25 those 10 are bonusable hours, it could be that the gap,
StenoTran
4645
1 the apparent gap between 7 and 10 is nowhere as large
2 as it first might appear; but there are still
3 differences between the two suggestions.
4 21488 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: On the matter
5 of 22 episodes, I see that both Global and CTV raised
6 the concern that they want to go to 22, and I take it
7 the difference between the two is that CTV was more
8 specific in suggesting a solution than Global was.
9 21489 MR. MacMILLAN: Correct. I am
10 actually amazed that this focus on 22 and the solution
11 from CTV to my knowledge only bubbled up yesterday. We
12 have been wrestling with this issue for years. It is a
13 huge problem. I really welcomed it yesterday as a
14 contribution to the discussion.
15 21490 The difference between making 13 and
16 22 is night and day. Selling 13 internationally, very
17 difficult. In Canada, getting an audience for 13, very
18 difficult. For the broadcaster to have continuity of
19 scheduling and to make it worth their while to invest
20 in promotion, only to take it off the air because you
21 have run out of episodes, is a terrible, terrible
22 thing.
23 21491 Broadcasters and producers often try
24 and figure out ways how to stretch from 13 to 22 just
25 to get there, and this suggestion yesterday I thought
StenoTran
4646
1 was a really useful one. I don't know if, Christine,
2 you wanted to add to that.
3 21492 MS SHIPTON: I think the only thing
4 to add is that the value of 22 episodes is viewer
5 loyalty. You just keep your audience that much longer
6 and it just will build on it.
7 21493 MR. ORD: One other thing. We often
8 get a lot of audience feedback through our Internet
9 sites and a lot of Canadian consumers, of course,
10 wouldn't understand the business of film and television
11 production -- I am sure some are interested, probably
12 most are not -- and don't understand why when you put a
13 show on the air in September you run out of episodes at
14 Christmastime when the U.S. shows that they also watch
15 keep going all the way to the spring, and will say to
16 us, "Why did you cancel the show?" And we say, "No,
17 no. We only made 13. We have got to wait until next
18 September to have another 13." And that is a discord
19 with the audience.
20 21494 So we were pleased to hear that
21 because that has been a concern of ours for many years.
22 21495 MS SHIPTON: It is a very good point.
23 The viewer assumes the show has been cancelled. They
24 assume a negative, which is horrendous for us.
25 21496 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: On the matter
StenoTran
4647
1 of incentives for Cancon minimums on page 9 of your
2 oral presentation today you made an intriguing
3 suggestion that broadcasters be permitted to sell more
4 than 12 minutes per hour for advertising. I haven't
5 seen that before in this hearing.
6 21497 We had some discussion about
7 advertising earlier on with some of the advertisers and
8 they were talking about advertising clutter, which
9 surprised me. I would have thought they would just
10 want as much access to advertising. I guess the thing
11 there is there can be too much advertising at which
12 point people turn off.
13 21498 I can see it as being an incentive to
14 a broadcaster if they can get a few more minutes of
15 advertising. I am wondering if there is a disincentive
16 inherent in that inasmuch as I look at TV viewing you
17 have got to keep attracting a viewer every five seconds
18 or they click on to something else. If there is too
19 many advertisements, you have lost them. Isn't there a
20 grave danger with having too many minutes of
21 advertising?
22 21499 MR. MacMILLAN: Absolutely. In fact,
23 that is one of the reasons why we think the suggestion
24 might work in that we think it would be unlikely to be
25 abused because a broadcaster would have to think long
StenoTran
4648
1 and hard, and it would have to ultimately obey the
2 market, because if they got too tempted and too greedy
3 and wanted to really drive 12 minutes up to 20 minutes,
4 well, their viewers would go away. They would have to
5 respect what actually worked.
6 21500 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Which is
7 probably 12 minutes.
8 21501 MR. MacMILLAN: Quite possibly. I am
9 not sure.
10 21502 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: What is
11 interesting is that now the broadcasters have asked for
12 more than 12 minutes. It seems to me that they think
13 that the 12 minutes is the optimum.
14 21503 MR. MacMILLAN: Right. We were
15 trying to figure out some carrots for the system. We
16 were trying to figure out how could we bring more money
17 into the system and this seemed one way and we thought
18 the likelihood for abuse or distortion in the market
19 was limited because the broadcasters would want to not
20 chase their viewers away. It is an opportunity to
21 bring advertising to Canadian content overachievers, it
22 seemed like a reasonable benefit.
23 21504 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Let me come to
24 something that Mr. Nielsen said when he was on a couple
25 of weeks ago and he was talking about the size of
StenoTran
4649
1 production companies. He was talking about your
2 company. He said:
3 "By definition, bigness
4 encourages centralization as
5 does broadcasting --"
6 21505 Just for the record, this is on page
7 1501 of the transcript:
8 "By definition, bigness
9 encourages centralization as
10 does broadcasting, thus
11 compounding the problems
12 centralization causes. To
13 survive, smaller companies have
14 to be creatively driven while
15 bigness inevitably means that
16 the programs will be deal driven
17 and the creators forced to
18 follow on.
19 The result of deal driven
20 television is imitative
21 television, like "Traders" which
22 foreigners tend not to buy
23 because it is not the real
24 thing, which is readily
25 available from Hollywood with
StenoTran
4650
1 bigger stars and better
2 production values."
3 21506 And I juxtapose that with what Mr.
4 Fecan said yesterday, I think it was something to the
5 effect the particular is the universal and if you don't
6 base your story in a place it won't have universal
7 value either.
8 21507 I am sorry to bring up that paragraph
9 on the heals of your winning the Gemini which I
10 congratulate you for but...
11 21508 MR. MacMILLAN: That is fine.
12 21509 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: It is not our
13 job to do PR for you, but to look at some of these
14 issues seriously.
15 21510 What are your thoughts on that?
16 21511 MR. MacMILLAN: Before we get to the
17 meat of the issue, we are very proud of "Traders" and
18 it is very overtly set on Bay Street, the references,
19 the characters, the plot lines, everything about it
20 shout Canada and downtown Toronto. So I don't know
21 what the reference there is about set in some uncertain
22 or unspecific place.
23 21512 Putting that aside, really the meat
24 of the issue is: Does bigness create centralization?
25 I am not sure if you meant that -- if Dick Nielsen
StenoTran
4651
1 meant that in a geography point of view, or just more
2 of a metaphorical sense, but Christine may want to talk
3 about her experience prior to the merger and, in fact,
4 our plans after the merger of working with other
5 producers, because we in fact see one of the benefits
6 of bigness and one of the reasons why we merged was so
7 that we could be more attractive to independent
8 creative producers and provide them a base and a
9 partnership with which to work, but Christine might
10 want to talk about that.
11 21513 MS SHIPTON: In my mind, high quality
12 television starts with the best high quality writing.
13 Writing has no bounds. Writers live everywhere and it
14 is my job, and has been my job, to find those writers
15 and to dig them out of whatever hole they are in and
16 bring them forward.
17 21514 So, in doing that, it means I get to
18 travel across the country. I get to work with
19 different producers, different directors and,
20 obviously, different writers and encourage those
21 writers to write stories that are important to them and
22 that are reflective of their experience in this country
23 that other Canadians are going to want to see and
24 experience.
25 1305
StenoTran
4652
1 21515 I guess you just have to look at our
2 track record of the production companies and the
3 writers and writer-producers that we have worked with
4 to say that there is no geography here, whether it's us
5 distributing a show like "Black Harbour" from the East
6 Coast or "Da Vinci's Inquest" from the West Coast --
7 "Da Vinci's Inquest" and "Black Harbour" are written by
8 our top writer-producers in this country -- or us
9 co-producing a show like "Nothing Too Good For a
10 Cowboy" in Vancouver. We are also financing "The David
11 Milgaard" story out of Winnipeg.
12 21516 I mean the story will drive where it
13 geographically is going to be set and it will be
14 written and produced by the creators and the creative
15 community from those different communities.
16 21517 So I am puzzled by the comment of
17 centralization because not everybody lives in Toronto;
18 they just don't.
19 21518 MR. MacMILLAN: Also, we would agree
20 with Ivan Fecan's comment yesterday about how
21 specificity and locality in fact can create the power
22 of a story and of characters that give it precisely
23 it's appeal. We see that, and that's why we develop
24 and chase opportunities to work with people like the
25 creators of "Black Harbour" and "Nothing Too Good For a
StenoTran
4653
1 Cowboy", et cetera.
2 21519 MS SHIPTON: Just for the record, I
3 think it's important to say I don't go find these
4 writer-producers and tell them what to write. I don't
5 go and say, you know, Ivan Fecan wants a story that's
6 written about lawyers or something. It's about what's
7 out there, what's good.
8 21520 Tons of submissions come to me for my
9 opinion in terms of, gee, would this work, or is
10 somebody looking for this kind of story, but this is
11 not about us telling people what to write and create.
12 21521 MR. ORD: By way of another example,
13 we are very fortunate to be working with a terrific
14 company in Vancouver called Keitly McLeod. We, with
15 them, produce a show called "Cold Squad" which is one
16 of the new hit shows on CTV. We first worked with
17 Keitly McLeod about fours year ago as a distributor on
18 a pilot that they did for WIC that did not go to
19 series.
20 21522 We liked them so much that they
21 developed a show called "Cold Squad" and came to us
22 saying, how can you help us get this on the air, how
23 can you help us finance this. We are now pleased that
24 it's in its second season and is selling very well
25 around the world and is getting very good audiences in
StenoTran
4654
1 Canada.
2 21523 So we are always looking for
3 opportunities to work with people. It does not matter
4 where they come from.
5 21524 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, just
6 flowing from that, you talked about shouting Bay
7 Street, shouting downtown Toronto. Let me get some
8 advice from you on the issue of cultural diversity and
9 how we see that better reflected, or reflected on our
10 screens. Bear with me, I just want it go through this
11 for a couple of minutes because I recognize the
12 experience you have and I would like your views on
13 this.
14 21525 As you will probably be aware, we
15 heard from community groups in the last couple of weeks
16 that they tend to see minorities either not seen or
17 reflected in a negative role, crime oriented and so
18 forth. Part of my reaction was yes; part of it was old
19 hat, we have heard this line for a long time, surely
20 things are changing. But they did not have research to
21 back it up and I was a little sceptical so I did my own
22 little research over one week, randomly picked, which
23 happened to last week, and let me tell you what I
24 found.
25 21526 I looked at "Traders" and I saw one
StenoTran
4655
1 minority person in a sort of key role, who was noted as
2 a guest appearance. She had two speaking roles
3 throughout the show and spoke for a total of under 60
4 seconds. There were two background people on the
5 trading floor who didn't have speaking roles. They
6 sort of walked from one end of the set to the other
7 holding folders or briefcases and stuff like that.
8 21527 Then I looked at "Da Vinci's
9 Inquest", which is distributed by your firm but not
10 produced by you, and noted that the only non-white
11 person in the first show was a reference to an
12 aboriginal person, evidently a prostitute. She had an
13 appearance last night in the second week, although at
14 this point she was a dead body. Her brother was on,
15 had two speaking roles over the course of the hour in
16 the second show, a total of 60 second.
17 21528 So I sort of see, is this a pattern
18 when you get a minority person and give them two
19 speaking roles for a total of 60 seconds. Maybe I am
20 quite off base here, but that's, I think, not
21 completely off what we see.
22 21529 There was one person of Chinese
23 origin on "Da Vinci's Inquest" last night. She was the
24 server in a Chinese restaurant where they were eating.
25 There might have been a person in the corner, staff.
StenoTran
4656
1 21530 With "Riverdale" it's interesting,
2 the show where there is a lot more diversity. We
3 talked to them about it and they pointed out that one
4 of the things that happens when their show is
5 advertised internationally it tends to be advertised
6 without the non-white characters. I looked at the
7 advertising over a two-week period and it seemed to be
8 that the advertising of "Riverdale" also tended to not
9 include the minorities.
10 21531 So it says to me, here is a show that
11 can capture a wider audience, but somebody has made the
12 decision not to reflect that, perhaps, or has not
13 thought about it, and so you are losing viewers there
14 too. There are a lot of people, I would suggest,
15 minorities and others, who would like to see a diverse
16 cast and would not know that they would see one on
17 "Riverdale" because if you looked at the advertising
18 you would not see it.
19 21532 If you tell me I am wrong in those
20 examples, I would be delighted to be corrected on
21 those.
22 21533 I look at "Traders" and I say, does
23 that reflect the financial district of the day, and my
24 guess is it does not. I think, at the board room
25 level, yes, not many minorities, but on the trading
StenoTran
4657
1 floor level, my sense is there are more. I know you do
2 not go tell your writers to do what they should do, but
3 I kind of wait for the day when we see a program
4 where -- a "Law and Order" program, for example, in
5 British Columbia which might have a walk-on of the
6 Attorney General of the province who happens to be a
7 Canadian Sikh, or a program that has four black guys
8 who win a medal for Canada, or a regulatory agency that
9 has more women than men on it.
10 21534 Some people think these things are
11 far out, but at what point does television imitate
12 reality?
13 21535 MS SHIPTON: I don't think you are
14 wrong at all, and just a clarification; I don't tell
15 writers what to create but once they have created it we
16 do have the ability to monitor, as executive producers,
17 distributors, financiers, and mold what it is that they
18 are producing, along with the broadcasters who have,
19 obviously, just as much at stake.
20 21536 I agree that we need to take a more
21 proactive role in reflecting on our screens our
22 communities. I think it's something that I think we
23 have heard the broadcasters agree to, or at least most
24 of them. But as producers, we have to make that vow to
25 do that. I think when you get a show like "Da Vinci"
StenoTran
4658
1 which is attempting to reflect a certain arena of
2 Vancouver -- it's the only word I can use because I was
3 actually there one night on the shooting, down at
4 Hastings and Main, and to see what was there on the
5 street, you couldn't tell what was in the show and what
6 was on the street and who had needles in their arms and
7 who didn't.
8 21537 I encourage you to keep watching "Da
9 Vinci" to that extent, to see what they are reflecting
10 on the screen. That's not about diversity of race or
11 colour; that's about reflecting something that's very
12 important to that particular creator, Chris Haddock,
13 that he wants Canadian people to see something that
14 they need to know about.
15 21538 So when you get to a certain subject
16 matter, it behooves all of us to say, are we reflecting
17 this subject, this world, the best as it is. And I can
18 tell you, we need to do more of that.
19 21539 When I look at a show like "Straight
20 Up" that we produced for the CBC last year, in which
21 the producers delved into the world of teens on Yonge
22 Street, I believe we reflected what is out there on
23 Yonge Street, and that has to do with age, sex, race,
24 you name it. And again, it was part of the producer's
25 original mandate to say, I want to show what it is,
StenoTran
4659
1 what's there, the texture.
2 21540 Perhaps when we get to the higher
3 concept shows we are not paying attention to that as
4 much as we should. That's my opinion.
5 21541 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You say it's
6 not about diversity, and there are different kinds of
7 things we can be looking at. One is the story of
8 immigrant groups such as "The Scattering of Seeds" and
9 yes, of course, you would obviously reflect diversity
10 there, but if it's about "Law and Order", if it's about
11 "Traders" and not about diversity, is there still
12 something wrong in reflecting that diversity?
13 21542 I guess I just wait for the day when
14 you will see a corporate board room on Bay Street just
15 happen to be more women than men. I have never seen
16 it. Correct me if I am wrong.
17 21543 MS SHIPTON: You are right. We have
18 just started production on a series called "Cover Me"
19 for CBC which follows a CSIS undercover operative and
20 an RCMP undercover operative who move through the halls
21 of power in Ottawa, and I hope that they will reflect
22 what people see in Ottawa. It's something that every
23 producer needs to be reminded of.
24 21544 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: As
25 Commissioner Wylie noted last week, the change did not
StenoTran
4660
1 come naturally in terms of gender portrayal. It came
2 after a lot of prodding by the Commission task force
3 and that sort of thing.
4 21545 Do you think something of that nature
5 would help in terms of raising awareness? I do not
6 think the issue is sort of heavy regulation or quotas
7 and all that kind of stuff. We have asked this
8 question of a number of people and I have not sensed
9 people saying, no we are not going to do this. It's
10 either people saying, we do it and somehow people
11 aren't seeing it, or people have not gotten to doing it
12 for whatever reason, and I think part of it is perhaps
13 just people thinking through the various things that
14 you can show, partly because that's the reality that we
15 live in and, for social reasons, we ought to see that
16 partly because it's a business case, that you may do
17 better business wise. I don't know, maybe you won't.
18 21546 MS SHIPTON: If our goal is to have
19 successful Canadian programming, it means it has to
20 appeal to the widest possible audience. So I am
21 agreeing with you. And to reach that wide audience, we
22 have to be reaching every Canadian and therefore they
23 have to be reflected somehow.
24 21547 What we don't want to have happen is
25 that it's unnatural, that it's, okay, well we better
StenoTran
4661
1 put a girl there and a French Canadian there and a
2 black there. It has to be natural.
3 21548 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Exactly. The
4 point is it seems to have been natural to have selected
5 the prostitute to be aboriginal. The writer didn't
6 think there was anything wrong there. What's
7 interesting is they even used the term "aboriginal
8 female" when the call came in over the radio phone. So
9 there was some sense of political correctness, that you
10 don't use "native" or "Indian", that you use the term
11 that aboriginal people prefer.
12 21549 But think of it; this is the big show
13 that CBC was launching. For an aboriginal person
14 watching that and thinking, hey, here's a new Canadian
15 show, it was not exactly an exhilarating experience.
16 21550 MR. MacMILLAN: I am sure it was not,
17 and we do need to do a better job. We sometimes like
18 to brag about specific projects we have made, like "The
19 War Between Us", which is about the Japanese interment
20 camps, as an example of cultural diversity. And it's
21 fine, marvellous; the problem is that we cannot only do
22 that sort of project because that can, by itself,
23 ghettoize the reflection of how diverse the country is,
24 and we need to do it day in and day out in every show.
25 21551 Your viewing test last week would not
StenoTran
4662
1 lead you to believe this, because those are pretty
2 depressing results, but we actually do specifically
3 have discussions with our casting agents and our
4 individual producers specifically on this topic.
5 Specifically; please make sure you do cast and write
6 characters that are reflective, that aren't
7 pigeon-holing in a bad way or in a limiting way. We
8 obviously do not do it well enough, but we are doing
9 it.
10 21552 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: There's
11 nothing wrong in showing the negative characters, they
12 are there, but if that's all you are seeing, that's a
13 problem.
14 21553 MR. MacMILLAN: It's a serious
15 concern and we do have exactly those discussions with
16 the creative teams, but your test would not see much
17 evidence of that.
18 21554 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I hope we can
19 have this discussion a year from now and my test will
20 be completely wrong. Thank you for your comments. I
21 find those very helpful.
22 21555 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have been
23 thinking that too many Bay Street boardrooms filled
24 with women would only get on the Comedy Network.
25 21556 Commissioner Wilson.
StenoTran
4663
1 21557 COMMISSIONER WILSON: My questions
2 are, I think, going be to a little easier to answer.
3 They really are some questions of clarification and
4 opinion.
5 21558 The first one refers to a comment
6 that you make on page 16 of your submission, the
7 Atlantis Communications submission. You say:
8 "The 150 % Canadian drama credit
9 appears to have had a positive
10 effect on scheduling..."
11 21559 I am just wondering in what context
12 you are really using the word "scheduling". If you are
13 talking between seven and eight and 10 and 11, there is
14 a nice little bracket there for the main prime time.
15 It certainly has not had any effect to scheduling
16 between eight and ten, so I am just wondering if you
17 could-- you did qualify by saying "appears to have
18 had".
19 21560 MR. MacMILLAN: We didn't use the
20 word "appears" in order to weasel our way out of the
21 sentence, but the word "scheduling" is probably the
22 wrong word. What we meant to say there was "has a
23 positive effect on ordering shows", because compared to
24 ten years ago there are more demonstrably or
25 identifiably Canadian dramas on the air than there were
StenoTran
4664
1 ten years ago, and that's what we meant, the decision
2 to commission and schedule a show.
3 21561 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. The
4 second thing is actually on the same page in paragraph
5 65. It is just something I am curious about; not the
6 idea so much as one of the words that you use in here.
7 You say that we need a rejuvenated system of incentives
8 that emphasizes rewards rather than penalties, and you
9 have suggested a number of rewards, or carrots as you
10 have called them in your oral remarks of today.
11 21562 Maybe it's just because I have not
12 been at the Commission long enough to know, but what
13 are the penalties that you see we have in our tool box
14 to sort of fix things? I would like to know because
15 maybe I could use them.
16 21563 MR. MacMILLAN: I don't know really
17 that you have that many penalties. I think that we
18 were really referring here to our view that Canadian
19 content obligations are pretty much seen to be a
20 ceiling, not a floor.
21 21564 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Or a penalty.
22 21565 MR. MacMILLAN: And a cost of doing
23 business that some cynics might say.
24 21566 What we are trying to figure out is
25 how to make it for sure a floor and something that can
StenoTran
4665
1 be exceeded and makes good business sense to make it
2 worthwhile exceeding.
3 21567 So I do not think there is penalties
4 per se, it is just that it is perceived to be an
5 onerous obligation and we just hope it could be
6 reconstructed to be a minimum.
7 21568 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Sort of just
8 shift perspective a little bit.
9 21569 Finally -- and anyone who has been
10 listening to me over the last days of this hearing will
11 understand that this seems to be a preoccupation of
12 mine, but I was very interested in the way that you
13 positioned the 32 per cent viewership, because
14 everybody else positions it as quite an awful thing and
15 you say you think it's quite remarkable that, in view
16 of all of the choices that have developed, that we have
17 been able to maintain a 32 per cent viewership share.
18 21570 I am just wondering what makes you
19 look at it that way versus everybody else who sort of
20 uses it as this benchmark of what's wrong with the
21 system and therefore we need to focus on viewership.
22 21571 MR. MacMILLAN: Well, I think that
23 others who have been wringing their hands about it have
24 not taken into account that during those seven years
25 some other things did not change. We still only have
StenoTran
4666
1 seven days in the week, and there are still only 24
2 hours in each day, and people still have to eat and
3 sleep and go to work. They cannot, unfortunately,
4 watch TV all the time. The total use of TV --
5 21572 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Unless you are
6 Peter Sellers in whatever that movie was.
7 21573 MR. MacMILLAN: The total viewing of
8 TV has remained fairly constant, I think around 20 or
9 21 hours a week, or thereabouts, for quite some time;
10 remarkably resilient given the PC. I would have
11 thought that that hourly weekly viewing would have
12 declined more. But anyway, it's still only X hours a
13 week. The choice of the books in the library or on the
14 magazine rack has increased enormously. In other
15 words, the choice of programs to watch is double,
16 triple, what it was 15 years ago. So given the same
17 finite number of hours that they are going to devote to
18 watching TV, given the huge increase in the number of
19 foreign programs that are available -- both foreign
20 programs on new Canadian services, but also foreign
21 programs on new foreign services -- I think it's bloody
22 fantastic that we have been able to keep up with that
23 avalanche, with that Niagara of opportunity and choice
24 from elsewhere and, given choice, it means that
25 Canadians could have gone to so many other places to
StenoTran
4667
1 watch.
2 1325
3 21574 So, we must have improved the quality
4 and the quantity and the variety. So, I see that glass
5 as being half full or 32 per cent full, anyway.
6 21575 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So, what do we
7 need to drive it higher or does it really matter?
8 21576 MR. MacMILLAN: Please don't be left
9 with the impression that we are content.
10 21577 COMMISSIONER WILSON: No, I'm not, I
11 am just picking your brains on this one. The CAB and
12 the broadcasters would have us believe that viewership
13 is the only thing to look at it, so now I am just
14 throwing out the opposite view, which is --
15 21578 MR. MacMILLAN: A number of things.
16 21579 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Do we need to
17 look at it at all?
18 21580 MR. MacMILLAN: Sure, absolutely.
19 It's worthwhile, absolutely, because ultimately if
20 nobody is watching, it doesn't matter.
21 21581 A number of things. In the
22 under-served categories, which seem to be predominating
23 this whole hearing, some of the suggestions about an
24 even playing field I think will stimulate the
25 production of under-served category programs, but what
StenoTran
4668
1 else to do in the years ahead -- and I know it's not
2 the purview of this hearing, but what the heck --
3 21582 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Lots of other
4 people have used this hearing to talk about other
5 things.
6 21583 MR. MacMILLAN: License more Canadian
7 specialty channels in genres that haven't yet been
8 licensed before the Americans or other non-Canadians
9 let their channels in those same genres get either too
10 embedded in this country or too well established
11 somewhere else, that by the time we get around to
12 licensing and launching Canadian versions, they will be
13 ripe to come into this country and occupy the
14 territory.
15 21584 One of the reasons why we have been
16 able to maintain our viewing has been the huge progress
17 in specialty channels and I think that looking out 10
18 years that number of 32 per cent will decline unless we
19 quickly and defiantly capture those yet unclaimed
20 genres in specialty channels.
21 21585 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I don't want to
22 leave you with the impression as well that viewership
23 is not something that I am concerned about, but I am
24 just trying to figure out how much emphasis, because
25 this number has been quoted extensively and I think
StenoTran
4669
1 that it's in some ways misleading as a negative thing
2 to say, "Well, it has only been 32 per cent", because
3 there are lots of things that could have been done over
4 the years that have not been done that might have
5 increased it.
6 21586 MR. MacMILLAN: I bet if you looked
7 10, 15 years ago in any major city, such as Winnipeg,
8 the viewing of Canadian would have been shared amongst
9 four or five signals -- probably a bit more than that,
10 TSN was on the air then and so was YTV, but amongst one
11 or two handfuls of signals. Today it's shared amongst
12 30 different ones.
13 21587 So, that means that the Canadians,
14 when they exercise their right to choose to watch
15 Canadian programs 32 per cent of their time, are doing
16 so picking and choosing a much wider range of choices.
17 So, I have to think that that's good for the system
18 because that goes to the heart of the Broadcasting Act
19 in terms of diversity, of a range of choices. It's not
20 just raw viewing, it's how much choice did we really
21 have.
22 21588 COMMISSIONER WILSON: And what does
23 that represent.
24 21589 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes.
25 21590 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, thank
StenoTran
4670
1 you.
2 21591 THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel?
3 21592 MS PATTERSON: Thank you, Madam
4 Chair.
5 21593 In discussion with Commissioner
6 Wylie, Mr. Ord said that only 40 per cent of category
7 7, 8 and 9 programs have access to the funds. You have
8 also suggested that this has decreased over time. I
9 was wondering if you could tell us what database this
10 information is based on. Specifically, how did you
11 calculate the total amount of 7, 8 and 9 produced in
12 order to arrive at the 40 per cent that accesses the
13 funds?
14 21594 MR. SILKANS: The numbers I give you
15 are an approximation. Basically, if we look at the
16 levels of certified production that, say, CAVCO
17 certifies as opposed to the CRTC, it's in the range of
18 about $1.4 billion production a year. Almost all of
19 that is 7, 8 and 9 because news programming and sports
20 programming do not normally go to CAVCO because they
21 wouldn't quality. So, it's around $1.4 billion. It's
22 hard to get exact numbers.
23 21595 If we look at what Telefilm and the
24 Cable Fund support, it's somewhere around $600 million
25 of production, tops. So, if you look at it that way,
StenoTran
4671
1 it's around 40 per cent. If we go back, say, five, six
2 years, the proportion was much greater. There was more
3 the anomaly to fund something without a lot of public
4 support. Today the industry has diversified its
5 ability to tap into other revenue sources and I think
6 in the submission that we put in and looked at our own
7 experience of the $500 million of production, those
8 funding sources are a minority of the full funding pie.
9 21596 MS PATTERSON: Thank you for
10 explaining that.
11 21597 My next question has to do with the
12 Atlantis Broadcasting submission. A year ago the
13 Commission included a provision in the new broadcasting
14 distribution regulations that would allow Canadian
15 specialty services to request that BDUs undertake
16 simultaneous substitution. The Commission did not make
17 the fulfilment of that request by BDUs mandatory,
18 however, for the following reasons.
19 21598 While the Commission recognized that
20 the providers of sports services would benefit from
21 simultaneous substitution in respect of a certain
22 number of live sports events for which they have
23 obtained Canadian rights, it was unclear whether the
24 providers of other specialty services would similarly
25 benefit and any regulation introduced by the Commission
StenoTran
4672
1 would require BDUs covered by the regulation to install
2 switching equipment capable of handling substitution
3 requests from all specialty services, even though such
4 requests would be very rare in the case of most
5 services.
6 21599 Installing switching equipment to
7 handle this number of services would represent a
8 considerable expense to distributors, especially those
9 operating smaller undertakings. It was decided,
10 therefore, that there would be limited benefits for the
11 providers of most specialty services, but a
12 considerable burden on BDUs required to perform
13 mandatory simultaneous substitution. What has changed
14 that makes you feel that the Commission should revisit
15 this issue?
16 21600 MR. SILKANS: What has changed is
17 that we have requested substitution and the cable
18 companies have said no to our requests. Secondly, with
19 regard to costs, we have never been told by the cable
20 companies what it would cost, but my understanding is
21 that because the equipment is automated, there would be
22 a small incremental cost. I wouldn't say that it's as
23 simple as programming a clock radio, but it's not much
24 more complicated.
25 21601 In our case, we asked for
StenoTran
4673
1 substitution for one show, "Martha Stewart", which is a
2 daily show, and the benefit in this particular case for
3 one show, we estimate, would be roughly half a million
4 dollars. Because we spend 65 per cent of gross
5 revenues on Canadian content, there is a direct benefit
6 right there of $325,000.
7 21602 You have said that it would be
8 something for which limited requests would be made and
9 that's true because we are 80 per cent Canadian
10 content, but even those limited requests would generate
11 significant benefits to the Canadian broadcasting
12 system. With regard to the costs, we are prepared and
13 in fact we would encourage the use of the third party
14 to determine what the costs would be.
15 21603 MS PATTERSON: Thank you.
16 21604 Do you have any examples beyond your
17 "Martha Stewart" example to give us at this time?
18 21605 MR. SILKANS: Perhaps Barbara
19 Williams can respond to that. That's the major one and
20 again, because of the high Canadian content, it may be
21 the only one. There may be one or two others.
22 21606 MS WILLIAMS: I think that is the
23 obvious one when one thinks about simultaneous
24 substitution in its most traditional form, but where it
25 also is of value to us is something that Andy Thomson
StenoTran
4674
1 referred to earlier this morning in fact, where there
2 are opportunities for us to be involved in programming
3 that we are being cut out of because an American
4 specialty service that comes into Canada has taken
5 North American rights on that program and we have not
6 been able to have Canadian rights to it, so we have not
7 been interested in participating in that program
8 because we can't be a primary broadcaster of it.
9 21607 If simultaneous substitution were
10 available to us, it would offer us as a potential
11 partner in the financing of that program and that would
12 benefit the opportunity for a producer like Andy to
13 have another party involved in that program and make it
14 a viable opportunity for us to broadcast. But until we
15 have a way to preserve the Canadian exclusive rights on
16 it, it's not something that we can viably get involved
17 in.
18 21608 MS PATTERSON: Thank you.
19 21609 Just returning then to the Atlantis
20 Communications brief, you have proposed that --
21 actually, in your oral submission this morning you
22 proposed that there should be a percentage limit of
23 Canadian content in each broadcaster's schedule. This
24 would help ensure fair access to the system by those
25 companies that are not vertically integrated. Do you
StenoTran
4675
1 have a percentage limit that you feel would be
2 appropriate?
3 21610 MR. MacMILLAN: In the 25 per cent
4 range.
5 21611 MS PATTERSON: Thank you.
6 21612 Finally, you propose adding Canadian
7 series which are star promotion vehicles to the
8 under-represented categories. What types of series
9 would fall into your view of the star promotion
10 vehicles?
11 21613 MS SHIPTON: The most obvious that
12 has been referenced a lot here is the "Entertainment
13 Tonight" style, "E Now" kind of programming.
14 21614 MS PATTERSON: And it would be
15 limited to that type of program?
16 21615 MS SHIPTON: Yes.
17 21616 MS PATTERSON: Okay, thank you very
18 much.
19 21617 Thank you, Madam Chair.
20 21618 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
21 21619 Thank you, Mr. MacMillan, ladies and
22 gentlemen. We have kept you very long. I hope that
23 that's a good sign for you and that you will continue
24 bringing us your views. We thank you and have a good
25 trip back to whichever boardroom it is you go to.
StenoTran
4676
1 21620 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I hope there
2 are lots of women in it.
3 21621 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sure everybody
4 is relieved that Commissioners still have time to watch
5 TV.
6 21622 We will be back at 2:30. Nous
7 reprendrons à deux heures et demie. Merci.
8 --- Recess at / Suspension à 1339
9 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1430
10 21623 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
11 21624 Madam Secretary.
12 21625 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
13 I would like now to invite CHUM Limited to present
14 their comments.
15 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
16 21626 MR. SHERRATT: Madam Chair, members
17 of the Commission, good afternoon.
18 21627 My name is Fred Sherratt, Executive
19 Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer of CHUM
20 Limited. Before beginning our formal presentation, I
21 would like to introduce you to my CHUM television
22 colleagues.
23 21628 On my left is Denise Donlon,
24 Vice-President and General Manager, MuchMusic and
25 MuchMoreMusic. To my right is Moses Znaimer, President
StenoTran
4677
1 and Executive Producer of the CHUMCITY Group. Beside
2 Moses is Marcia Martin, Vice-President, Production,
3 Citytv and Vice-President and General Manager of SPACE,
4 Imagination Station. Beside Marcia is Jay Switzer,
5 CHUM Television's Vice-President of Programming.
6 21629 In the row behind me, on my far left
7 and closest to you, Paul Gratton, Station Manager for
8 the Bravo! Network. Beside Paul is Diane Boehme,
9 Manager of Independent Production. Beside Diane is
10 Mark Rubinstein, Vice-President and General Manager,
11 CHUM Television. Beside Mark is Ron Waters, President
12 of CHUM Television; and beside Ron, Sarah Crawford,
13 Director of Communications, MuchMusic and
14 MuchMoreMusic, and Director of Media Education CHUM
15 Television.
16 21630 Members of the Commission, CHUM is
17 the last of the English-language television companies
18 to appear before you. Having had the opportunity to
19 listen to most of the submissions, it is apparent that
20 there are some major issues that have gained more
21 discussion and focus than others.
22 21631 Our approach today is threefold: to
23 address the concept of equitable contribution; to
24 comment on the problems associated with both the CFTPA
25 and the DGC proposals; and to summarize the
StenoTran
4678
1 recommendations put forward by CHUM which we believe
2 support your objectives.
3 21632 With respect to equitable
4 contribution, we recommend you utilize four tools; two
5 that are existing; two that are new.
6 21633 The existing ones are Option A,
7 expenditures on Canadian programming, and Option B,
8 exhibition of underserved programming in prime viewing
9 periods. The two additional options that would further
10 contribute to achieving equitable contribution while
11 maintaining diversity are: expenditures on
12 under-represented programming, but more expansively
13 defined; and production and exhibition of
14 local/regional programming.
15 21634 Each of these speaks to the
16 objectives of the act, would significantly contribute
17 to program diversity, and could be used stand alone or
18 in combination.
19 21635 We believe that equitable
20 contribution can be achieved by enabling licensees to
21 meet your objectives in different yet complementary
22 ways. The contributions of individual licensees, or
23 corporate groups of licensees, will depend upon
24 individual circumstances recognizing the significant
25 differences in the mandate and resources of the
StenoTran
4679
1 undertakings.
2 21636 Within the context of assessing
3 equitable contribution, we support the view that
4 quality can better translate into viewership. This
5 means that we should use the limited resources
6 available in the system -- public funding, subscription
7 fees, licence fees and the other measures -- in the
8 most efficient and creative manner possible. We
9 suggest that proposals before you that advocate a
10 "tonnage" only approach to Canadian programming are out
11 of touch with the demanding expectations of Canadian
12 viewers.
13 21637 While we support the objective in
14 reviewing the issue of equitable contribution in the
15 system, we believe this must be considered at two
16 different levels. First, ensuring that each sector --
17 conventional, specialty, pay, distribution
18 undertakings, exempt and foreign services -- are each
19 fairly contributing to the support of Canadian
20 programming.
21 21638 Secondly, we agree with others that
22 by requiring equitable contribution, the Commission
23 could balance any significant differences between
24 national English language, conventional television
25 broadcast groups. We have put forward national reach
StenoTran
4680
1 by corporate groups as being 75 per cent or more of
2 English-language households, which was the benchmark
3 frequently used at the network hearing.
4 21639 We would, however, urge that
5 equitable contribution be measured against basic
6 industry standards, and not include above normal
7 commitments made by applicants in competitive or other
8 licensing scenarios. Clearly, if one over-commits in
9 the heat of the moment, that should not become the new
10 industry norm.
11 21640 This principle has been set out in
12 several presentations. However, the CFTPA version goes
13 much further with its so-called 10/10/10 proposal.
14 That proposition is defective in three key areas.
15 21641 First, as we have stated, reach, not
16 station revenues as they suggest, should define the
17 application of any potential increased requirements.
18 We note that the concept of reach as the defining
19 threshold was supported by Baton yesterday.
20 21642 The suggestion by the Producers and
21 the Directors Guild that all conventional stations with
22 revenues above $10 million be included is out of touch
23 with the realities of local television. The reach
24 benchmark is much more in touch with market realities.
25 21643 Secondly, their objective of 10 hours
StenoTran
4681
1 and 10 per cent of revenue is unrealistic. In the case
2 of Citytv as an example, it would necessitate a
3 dramatic reduction in the 45 hours of local programming
4 that has been City's raison d'être for over 25 years.
5 21644 Third, the proposal that all
6 conventional broadcasters exhibit three hours of
7 children's programming each week is equally difficult
8 to support. This one-size-fits-all approach doesn't
9 recognize today's specialized, fragmented world. It
10 runs counter to the last round of local station licence
11 renewals in 1995, when the Commission rejected the
12 notion that broadcasters be required to be all things
13 to all people, and fails to recognize the emergence of
14 the numerous Canadian specialty services devoted to
15 children's programming.
16 21645 MR. ZNAIMER: Commissioners, CHUM
17 Television is comprised of a diverse number of
18 elements. On the conventional side, we operate local
19 television stations in small and medium-size
20 communities in the Province of Ontario. But we are
21 perhaps best known for originating the most individual
22 and intensely local television service in Canada, many
23 international observers would say in the world, that
24 is, Citytv, a street-front, storefront, participatory
25 and interactive downtown Toronto station.
StenoTran
4682
1 21646 Among other achievements, Citytv
2 takes special pride in the following: One, Citytv
3 produces 45 hours per week of local television -- more
4 than any other local television service in Canada.
5 Two, Citytv finances, promotes and exhibits more
6 Canadian feature films in prime time than any other
7 over-the-air Canadian television service. Currently,
8 we have over 160 Canadian feature films under licence,
9 including over 60 new films in the past four years.
10 21647 Our history of support encompasses
11 all the important names in Canadian film: Atom Egoyan,
12 Ron Mann, Bruce MacDonald, Francois Girard, Albert
13 Nirenberg, Paul Donovan, Holly Dale, Mina Shum, and so
14 on.
15 21648 Citytv produces and exhibits more
16 local programming in the underserviced category of
17 music on television than any other television station
18 in Canada. Everyone mentions categories 7, 8 and 9,
19 but really they only talk about 7, drama. We operate
20 heavily in number 8, music, and we wish more attention
21 was paid to this.
22 21649 Citytv exports over 250 hours per
23 year to over 100 countries of in-house produced
24 Canadian programming, including FashionTelevision,
25 MovieTelevision, MediaTelevision, OohLaLa, TheNewMusic,
StenoTran
4683
1 Electric Circus, and new this year, StarTV, BookTV, and
2 SexTV, plus many others.
3 21650 Finally, Citytv has been widely
4 recognized as the original role model for television in
5 properly reflecting the relatively new reality of
6 Canada as a mix of multi-lingual, multicultural and
7 multi-racial people.
8 21651 As I believe many of you know, your
9 regulatory counterparts from France, England, Germany,
10 Holland and Finland, to name a few, have toured Citytv
11 to discover our secret. In fact, several have been
12 directed to us by the CRTC, most recently M. Herve
13 Bourges of The CSA in France. We are told by your
14 staff that he loved his visit. The primary aim of all
15 these visits is to figure out how these officials can
16 create and nurture local television in their respective
17 countries to achieve something as remarkable as they
18 think Citytv is.
19 21652 CHUM Television has also pioneered
20 the establishment of Canadian specialty services. We
21 launched one of the very first, MuchMusic, in 1984,
22 devoted to the underserviced area of music on
23 television. Over the years, we have developed
24 additional specialty titles, including MusiquePlus,
25 Bravo!, MusiMax, Space, CablePulse 24 and, on October
StenoTran
4684
1 5, just last week, we celebrated the launch of
2 MuchMoreMusic available almost everywhere in English
3 Canada.
4 21653 Our written submission sets out a
5 number of ideas and incentives that we believe, if
6 implemented, will assist all participants in the system
7 to reach more of the objectives that you have outlined
8 in your Public Notice. In particular, we support the
9 following initiatives: One, add to the definition of
10 under-represented programming to include shows that
11 provide exposure and glamour in support of the English
12 Canadian star system that everyone says they want. In
13 fact, we have and have had an entire channel devoted to
14 this task still awaiting distribution. As a stop-gap,
15 we are launching "StarTV: the show", this week.
16 21654 Second, adopt a 200 per cent Cancon
17 credit for 8, 9 and 10 point Canadian feature films
18 telecast within the broadcast day and not restricted by
19 original run criteria. Constant presence and lots of
20 repetition play a key role in the making of stars.
21 21655 Amend the definition of Canadian
22 programming expenditures to include all expenditures on
23 the promotion and advertising of Canadian programming.
24 This will lead to a major shift in the marketing
25 visibility of Canadian content.
StenoTran
4685
1 21656 Vigorously recommend changes to
2 Canadian Heritage that eliminates blanket
3 discriminatory broadcaster access to production funding
4 and distribution. We say let those who want to
5 produce, produce. The Commission often says it wants
6 more drama -- we would be happy to give you more drama,
7 but we don't see ourselves as merely buyers or
8 investors or bankers. We are creators ourselves. If
9 you help us get to a level playing field, we will
10 create drama too.
11 21657 Five, provide enhanced airtime credit
12 for Canadian documentaries and educational programming.
13 In my opinion -- this is very personal to me -- one of
14 the small tragedies of recent events has been our
15 inability to get a national English
16 educational/instructional channel for Canada, and by
17 Canada, going.
18 21658 Six, support as a priority the
19 licensing of a national English language specialty
20 channel primarily dedicated to the exhibition of
21 Canadian feature films.
22 21659 Seven, amend the current specialty
23 linkage rules from one Canadian, one foreign to two
24 Canadian for one foreign. This would address more
25 forcefully the obligation under the act to give
StenoTran
4686
1 Canadian services priority carriage.
2 21660 Eight, extend the moratorium on
3 adding new foreign services to the eligible list until
4 after the licensing and carriage of all Canadian
5 specialty services to be licensed in the next round.
6 21661 Nine, require fair contributions from
7 exempt and foreign services who extract a great deal
8 from Canada and give back precious little.
9 21662 Thank you for the opportunity to
10 appear. We await your questions.
11 21663 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
12 Sherratt, Mr. Znaimer and welcome to you all.
13 21664 In your written presentation, you
14 seem to be of the view that this was no time to make
15 any changes to the broadcasting system and the current
16 exhibition quotas provide sufficient flexibility and
17 predominance of quality Canadian programming and no
18 need for minimum requirements for Cancon in peak time.
19 21665 I gather that you are of the view,
20 having participated albeit maybe from a distance in
21 this process, that you now would like to look at some
22 recommendations for change.
23 21666 MR. SHERRATT: Yes, we followed the
24 discussion, and we have followed it with great
25 interest. One of the great concerns we have in
StenoTran
4687
1 following it is the fact that through no fault of
2 anything other than the process and the people who have
3 been before you, the discussion has concentrated on
4 category 7, drama in prime time, and not just drama,
5 but series drama. That is not something that is part
6 of the kind of television or the mix of television that
7 we do.
8 21667 Our fear, as we come to the end of
9 the hearing, is that if so much focus has been placed
10 on that that the rest of what is arguably the finest
11 television system in the world gets lost, local
12 service, local programming, the ability to promote and
13 air feature films, that would be a disservice to the
14 entire system. So we see that what you have been
15 concentrating on is a part of the system, an important
16 part of the system, but only a part. The fear that we
17 have as we followed it is that, perhaps, we will lose
18 much of the other parts in trying to push this one
19 area.
20 21668 Moses.
21 21669 MR. ZNAIMER: Well, further to that,
22 and picking up on your first point, I know there have
23 been references through the hearing to the search for a
24 magic bullet, some radical new insight which can
25 somehow simplify things for all our benefit. I think
StenoTran
4688
1 everybody would dearly love for there to be one or for
2 there to have been one.
3 21670 My impression after all of these
4 deliberations is this may not be the situation where
5 that will apply. It may well be a case of building on
6 what is there, refining it a little bit in order to get
7 more of what you are after, and that is just life.
8 21671 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is too bad
9 because we had put CHUM at the end of the process fully
10 expecting a magic bullet from them. We thought you
11 would tell us exactly what to do with the others.
12 21672 MR. SHERRATT: We would be happy to
13 do that.
14 21673 MR. ZNAIMER: May I speak to that?
15 21674 We had a sense that you were looking
16 for something when you put us last. It wasn't just a
17 homage to my surname. When you're called Znaimer you
18 usually figure out where to line up.
19 21675 In past hearings, I think we have
20 been helpful that way. We asked ourselves the question
21 and began to try and draft something for you when we
22 realized that we are not in it, and until we are in it,
23 until we are there, until we have that 75 per cent
24 reach that would qualify us to be a national network
25 with all the obligations and the responsibilities and
StenoTran
4689
1 the opportunities that that gives you, it would be
2 actually quite presumptuous for us to try and suggest,
3 you know, operating systems for other people.
4 21676 So, in that sense, we decided that
5 the better part of valour and the better part of
6 honesty was not to pretend to come up with that bullet.
7 21677 THE CHAIRPERSON: You may not get off
8 as easily as all that. Number one, what if you get
9 there? Maybe you would like to have an input into how
10 that other system works.
11 21678 Secondly, you will be operating in
12 the same market, so I would have thought you would have
13 some interest -- obviously, you have some interest in
14 participating in what we do, with your experience, et
15 cetera, with the regulatory framework, even if it were
16 for others; and, Mr. Sherratt, it wasn't just drama.
17 We had a lot of discussion about documentaries, for
18 example.
19 21679 MR. SHERRATT: I am using that
20 category 7 group.
21 21680 THE CHAIRPERSON: And some suggestion
22 about variety. Drama is always focused on because it
23 is so expensive and more complicated to finance.
24 21681 To get back to my comment, do you see
25 a possibility that the Commission would, once we have
StenoTran
4690
1 decided what a multi-station group is, that we would
2 devise a regulatory grid of some sort, many aspects of
3 which we have discussed, but that would apply only to
4 multi-stations and leave the world as it is for those
5 who are not in that position?
6 21682 MR. SHERRATT: We followed with
7 interest the discussion yesterday with Baton who
8 obviously put something before you that you could look
9 at and see and it was -- it is always comforting to
10 have a piece of paper where you can see things and they
11 add up and you say you have a solution.
12 21683 If you were to ask us if that was a
13 good solution, we would have said, well, we haven't
14 really studied it, but it sounded like it was a good
15 solution for them as a network operator, or a
16 multi-station operator, where all of the stations are
17 operating in a similar manner and are the supporting
18 key stations in a network that is driven by series
19 programming. It may be the ultimate answer. I know
20 you had a good discussion with Mr. MacMillan about that
21 this morning.
22 21684 Even if we were to achieve the 75 per
23 cent threshold, or whatever it might be, we would
24 continue to see ourselves, at least now if we were
25 there, as operators of individual stations in
StenoTran
4691
1 individual communities designed specifically to serve
2 that community, and be heavy providers of local
3 reflection and local programming.
4 21685 That takes a lot of money. We do 45
5 hours of it, as Moses said, on Citytv, and that drives
6 a lot of our expenditure.
7 21686 The other part of the system that we
8 support in a broad range of ways is long form, feature
9 films. There certainly isn't the output of that that
10 there is of series programming. And so a quota on
11 dramatic programming in those key viewing hours that
12 didn't take into consideration the fact that there just
13 wouldn't be sufficient features to achieve it with that
14 kind of programming would be difficult.
15 21687 Jay, do you want to speak to the
16 drama situation and the feature?
17 1450
18 21688 MR. SWITZER: Yes. We have made a
19 priority, across most of our stations, to make Canadian
20 feature films our method of telling Canadian stories.
21 It is our number one priority. It is both exciting and
22 sometimes frustrating because it can take as much
23 time -- months and months and months of development and
24 work and creative activity with producers to come out
25 with one great film.
StenoTran
4692
1 21689 Let me think of an example. Francois
2 Girard's "Red Violin". I do not know if you had a
3 chance to see it. It opened the Toronto Film Festival.
4 It's an extraordinary film. We were fortunate enough
5 to work with the producers, Rhombus, and with the
6 director, and to have been the key Canadian financing
7 trigger for that film -- many, many hundreds of
8 thousands of dollars.
9 21690 It's probably two or three years of
10 work from the time it was first presented until the
11 time it gets completed, and then it will go to
12 theatrical and then to home video then to our friends
13 at Pay TV and then to us. Years and years of work on
14 their part and we end up with an extravagant event, a
15 Canadian film that is beautiful, that is important
16 story telling, that is quite expensive and we are very
17 proud of, and it is two and a half hours.
18 21691 It's a different business than the
19 series business. We have chosen, in our environment,
20 in our stations, to make our mark, to do what we do
21 best, in telling Canadian stories with movies, and it
22 is fundamentally a different business than the series
23 business.
24 21692 MR. ZNAIMER: Madame Chair, if I may,
25 I was very encouraged to hear you say "you might get
StenoTran
4693
1 there". That's exciting news for us. We'd like to get
2 there.
3 21693 THE CHAIRPERSON: But the story is
4 not over though.
5 21694 MR. ZNAIMER: Yes, and, as you know,
6 it's not for want of trying to get there.
7 21695 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is not in your
8 brief.
9 21696 MR. ZNAIMER: So we are not, in that
10 sense, dodging anything.
11 21697 Our view about participating now in
12 order to help establish guidelines or actual thresholds
13 at which things happen in the eventuality that we might
14 get there is that by the time we get there who knows
15 what the situation will be and would it not be
16 appropriate to talk about it then. At that point,
17 what's under-represented today may no longer be under-
18 represented. The point is that the closer you are to
19 the event, the more accurate your take on it can be.
20 21698 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Getting there
21 may not necessarily mean having enough stations to
22 reach 75 per cent or whatever the magic number is. It
23 could also mean that the Commission will decide that
24 multiple station groups, even if they are not all
25 subjected to the same type of regulatory framework, may
StenoTran
4694
1 nevertheless be looked at together for the purpose of
2 establishing to what extent, when you have more
3 stations, you can achieve more of whatever goals it is
4 you choose. In your written presentation you did have
5 some comments about what would be a good idea and a bad
6 idea in establishing a regulatory framework, so I hope
7 you did not come all the way from Toronto to tell us
8 you do not want to talk about them.
9 21699 MR. SHERRATT: We will be happy to
10 talk about them.
11 21700 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have heard CTV
12 also remind us that the local effort should be taken
13 into consideration and not lost sight of and it's
14 certainly, as you have heard through this hearing,
15 something we have heard a lot about; the importance of
16 local and the loss of it in many places. And of course
17 you are in every market, so the conventional
18 broadcaster is still -- of the multi-station groups --
19 are still left with serving that population there who
20 may not choose to take cable or may not take certain
21 tiers that provide them with certain information. So
22 the provider of overall programming is still the
23 conventional station.
24 21701 I want you to know, Mr. Znaimer,
25 that -- it was Mr. Rubinstein when he was here earlier
StenoTran
4695
1 this week who suggested that it was very easy to
2 satisfy the appetite for local programming; we just
3 give CHUM a licence in every market.
4 21702 Didn't you say that?
5 21703 MR. RUBINSTEIN: I think what I said,
6 Madame Chair, was that there would be no shortage of
7 applicants to fill voids in market-places.
8 21704 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's just my
9 interpretive skills got away with me.
10 21705 MR. ZNAIMER: But it's a great idea.
11 21706 THE CHAIRPERSON: But it illustrates
12 that, to the extent that you emphasize the value of the
13 local then, where you are not, it's important for us to
14 focus on that.
15 21707 In your written presentation, you
16 did -- and you're experienced broadcasters so it would
17 be interesting to get your views. You seem to be of
18 the view that it's a useless exercise for the
19 Commission to try to improve the quantity or the number
20 of hours of programming of certain categories in peak
21 viewing hours because people are going to watch
22 American shows anyway.
23 21708 Do you believe that it's
24 absolutely -- and I think your comments were the net
25 effect will be the revenues of Canadian stations would
StenoTran
4696
1 be severely reduced, limiting funding to Canadian
2 programming. Number one, that's circular,
3 unfortunately. The less Canadian programming people
4 get, the more American therefore, therefore the more
5 Canadian they'll get because there will be more money
6 to pump into Canadian programming.
7 21709 But are you of the view that it's not
8 possible for a conventional station -- I don't mean
9 CHUM, I mean a conventional station in Canada -- to
10 attract viewers in peak viewing time?
11 21710 MR. SHERRATT: No, I do not think we
12 believe that it's impossible. You are looking at our
13 brief?
14 21711 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. At page 15 at
15 the third bullet it says:
16 "The 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. window is
17 used primarily by US networks to
18 broadcast their top rated
19 programs... The imposition of a
20 'peak viewing hour' quota would
21 remove the flexibility of
22 Canadian broadcasters to
23 simulcast these shows in the 8
24 p.m. to 11 p.m. period...would
25 not increase viewership to
StenoTran
4697
1 Canadian programming. Instead,
2 Canadian viewers would watch the
3 shows directly on the U.S.
4 networks..."
5 21712 And then it would follow that there
6 would be less money. I read from that that you are
7 dubious about the ability of conventional large
8 broadcasters, if they were pressed to do it, if they
9 had more of the peak viewing time devoted to Canadian
10 content, that it would push quality.
11 21713 You see, we always hear -- you used
12 the word "tonnage" again today. How much can a
13 broadcaster afford to consider that, just tonnage, and
14 lose its audiences? Can we not produce programming
15 that will compete and attract viewers during those
16 hours? Are these paragraphs saying no, we cannot?
17 21714 MR. SHERRATT: I have read the
18 paragraph you are looking at and I think that probably
19 what's meant by that paragraph is that if you imposed a
20 large quantitative requirement so that there was not
21 room in the Canadian system for the top American shows
22 to be put into simulcast, those shows would still
23 attract audiences, whether they were on the Canadian
24 station or just on the American station, because the
25 American service is available to virtually all
StenoTran
4698
1 Canadians one way or another, and you would be then
2 faced with the problem that was discussed here a couple
3 of times over the last 24 hours, that a top show gets
4 put against a top show and "Traders" has trouble
5 competing with "ER". If you get a tonnage quota that's
6 large enough, then it would start to have an effect on
7 the ability to generate the money that you can generate
8 against the American simulcasts to fund the programs.
9 21715 That's why I think, in our oral
10 presentation and in this presentation, we talk about
11 tonnage as opposed to quality, and we think that
12 quality will get audiences.
13 21716 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, there is
14 tonnage and tonnage. When we look at some of the
15 schedules we see, you are into poundage, not tonnage.
16 You know, there is just pounds, not tonnes, of
17 programming. We have not reached a ton in many cases
18 and there is a lot of flexibility.
19 21717 Does it mean that if there is less
20 flexibility because you have a 10/10/10 or a 7/7
21 reduced by bonuses and so on, that this addition is
22 going to so remove the flexibility as to make it
23 impossible to schedule shows against the ERs of the
24 world that will attract viewers? Is that what you are
25 saying, that it's impossible, that you have to have
StenoTran
4699
1 enough hours so you can put your Canadian programming,
2 no matter how good, between the big American shows,
3 that it's not possible to increase what we have? You
4 know how little, sometimes, peak time Canadian
5 programming we get. I want to know whether you feel
6 it's impossible to increase it and still keep the
7 system profitable.
8 21718 MR. SHERRATT: I think rather than
9 slave the point of a paragraph that I'm having a little
10 trouble interpreting for you, I would like to strike it
11 from our written presentation and carry on from there.
12 21719 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just tell us
13 whether --
14 21720 MR. SHERRATT: Because I do not think
15 anyone at this table believes that. We are very much
16 into the belief that we can attract audiences with
17 Canadian programming and we do it. I would like some
18 of the programmers here to talk about the kind of
19 programming we do and how we do it.
20 21721 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, yes, we know
21 that. You have given us a good presentation of what
22 you can do and how you can -- I am talking about those
23 for whom we are going to change the system because your
24 view is it's fine for you.
25 21722 I gather if we came out of this
StenoTran
4700
1 hearing saying CHUM is going to continue under the
2 regulatory scheme we have, that would be fine for you;
3 A and B, 60/150.
4 21723 MR. SHERRATT: Yes, it works for us.
5 21724 THE CHAIRPERSON: And maybe you would
6 be required to come forward and respond to the
7 suggestion that, as a station -- not a multi-station
8 group but a multi-station owner -- maybe we are
9 entitled to take into consideration that you should
10 increase or do more because you have more licences or
11 because you have come for a licence and you have, of
12 course, as you mentioned, not exaggerated what you were
13 going to do, you were just right on the line.
14 21725 Is that what you think would work,
15 that if the system remained the same for you, you would
16 be happy?
17 21726 MR. SHERRATT: We have suggested that
18 you might want to add a couple of other criteria for
19 everyone and we did not limit that to the 75 per cent
20 people, and you might use one or two of those together.
21 21727 THE CHAIRPERSON: Like the bonuses.
22 21728 MR. SHERRATT: Well, we talk about A
23 and B that are in existence now, and there have been
24 good suggestions about putting a dollar commitment
25 against the under-served areas in peak, and we think
StenoTran
4701
1 it's important that you include commitments to local
2 programming and those things all be weighed and
3 different weight given to different approaches, given
4 the circumstance.
5 21729 We really think the big idea is
6 already here, it happened, it's called the CRTC.
7 That's the big idea that we have in this country, that
8 we have a regulator who can look at the system, weigh
9 the checks and balances, look at the services that are
10 available in given areas and given communities and say,
11 yes, in a place like Toronto we should have a station
12 that is focused in a very specific area, as was decided
13 in the last round of licence renewals, but in some very
14 rural remote parts they should continue to be part of a
15 network, provide different kinds of programming to
16 serve different areas, because there is no other local
17 voice available.
18 21730 And that's something that we have in
19 this country that they do not have in the United
20 States, and that's an intelligent regulator.
21 21731 THE CHAIRPERSON: I gather also from
22 your earlier comments you would prefer a more ad hoc
23 system than attempting to create a grid.
24 21732 MR. SHERRATT: You need rules so
25 everybody knows where we're going, but we think that
StenoTran
4702
1 what can be done, and what historically has happened,
2 that's the way we've grown; good and bad. There have
3 been good decisions and bad decisions, from everybody's
4 standpoint. Well, not good and bad; some better than
5 others perhaps. Let's put it that way.
6 21733 We think that's the unique advantage
7 we have in the system. I heard you say to somebody in
8 the last 24 hours, would you just like to leave it with
9 us and take your chances with us when you come back?
10 Sure. We'd like that better than saying everybody will
11 drive 60 kilometres an hour. It doesn't matter what
12 you've got, what the road is like, what the conditions
13 are, whether you're in Toronto or Weyburn,
14 Saskatchewan; that's the speed limit, we don't have to
15 worry about anything any more.
16 21734 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's not quite as
17 drastic. I think the exercise has been in the
18 under-represented categories, which include a number of
19 categories, as I've pointed out, documentaries and
20 children. Do we have enough programming that Canadians
21 want to watch and that is available on conventional
22 television stations, and are our conventional
23 broadcasters able to do more, even if it's a little
24 more complicated and it has to have a change of
25 attitude and look at the world differently? That's
StenoTran
4703
1 what we're doing, is looking at can we improve what it
2 is we have that may, in the view of some, not be
3 working sufficiently well.
4 21735 But I take your point. If you don't
5 want to particularly comment on how multi-station
6 groups are regulated, that's fine.
7 21736 MR. SHERRATT: Well, we used to call
8 them networks and now we're calling them multi-station
9 groups. Whatever it is, it's a reach of the country.
10 It's a common program schedule. Is it perfect? No.
11 We don't have anything that's perfect, and it can
12 always be improved and all of the people that I'm
13 associated with at this table and the 1,500 people in
14 our stations across the country work at improving it
15 day in and day out. And all of the people who have
16 been before you, whether they be station operators or
17 whether they be producers, are attempting to improve
18 everything they do every day. That's what it's all
19 about and that's why we've had the success that we've
20 had with the Canadian system.
21 21737 It really is a miracle that we have
22 the system that we've got, given that we live along
23 that border with the United States who are the biggest,
24 most prolific output of entertainment in the world.
25 The rest of the world gobbles up what they've got and
StenoTran
4704
1 it's dumped in us. It's been our right as Canadians --
2 our Parliamentarians have said this for years -- to
3 have our own system and everything that the United
4 States puts out.
5 21738 That's quite a cup of tea for a
6 little country like ours.
7 21739 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure
8 whether I should consider myself honoured to be trying
9 to improve on a miracle, or feel foolish about it.
10 21740 MR. SHERRATT: I truly have said
11 this, and this is in no way patronizing. I believe
12 that we have the successful system we have because of
13 regulation, not in spite of it.
14 21741 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Znaimer has
15 been wanting to say something.
16 21742 MR. ZNAIMER: I was hoping to get in
17 this gentle reminder, and that is the thought that
18 companies that hold multiple licences perhaps should
19 come forward with something more than just the
20 individual obligations of each licence is not a new one
21 and so, in that sense, we have been posed this question
22 at every step in our growth and have answered those
23 questions at the different stages in our growth, and in
24 some cases to the satisfaction of the Commission, in
25 other cases evidently not.
StenoTran
4705
1 21743 So I think in that sense this notion
2 of something more is already built into whatever we
3 have managed to grow into up to this point in time.
4 21744 THE CHAIRPERSON: But once these
5 larger groups -- once the consolidation and
6 restructuring has occurred in a piecemeal fashion, and
7 the synergies and cost effectiveness and other
8 effectivenesses -- scheduling, program amortization,
9 whatever, that follows consolidation -- once it has
10 occurred and you find yourself with a very minimal
11 number of large groups, you don't think that there is
12 some value in reassessing whether, on an ongoing basis,
13 when these are renewed, et cetera, there should be a
14 second look at the regulatory system to see whether,
15 number one, it's equitable, considering what we end up
16 with, piecemeal, and whether it's effective, whether it
17 satisfies the goals that we have.
18 21745 I thought that this was the exercise,
19 was to say, now that it happens piecemeal, when we
20 renew should we have perhaps a second look at how we do
21 things, because it's not, obviously, part of your
22 particular concerns but there are obviously varying
23 views as to who gets away with too much compared to
24 what's asked of someone else, considering how the
25 groups tend to get to look more like one another.
StenoTran
4706
1 1510
2 21746 That's the exercise, but I understand
3 you don't consider yourself part of that and you appear
4 to be reluctant to say very much about how that should
5 be done or whether it should be done.
6 21747 MR. SHERRATT: We would agree with
7 you, but that's --
8 21748 THE CHAIRPERSON: The particulars you
9 don't want to --
10 21749 MR. SHERRATT: How you do it, I think
11 Moses just said --
12 21750 MR. ZNAIMER: At renewals.
13 21751 MR. SHERRATT: -- it's really
14 incumbent upon the groups who come before you at
15 renewal time or whenever they come to come forth and
16 say, "This is what we are going to do." Then we
17 believe that you then will be the judge of whether what
18 they are doing is equitable or whether it isn't and you
19 put enough rules in place, you have enough yardsticks
20 there that you can really make a judgment about that.
21 It's really down to two things. It's down to hours --
22 21752 THE CHAIRPERSON: And spending.
23 21753 MR. SHERRATT: -- and dollars and
24 what you do to reflect the community.
25 21754 THE CHAIRPERSON: But you don't think
StenoTran
4707
1 that there is some regulatory virtue in having -- there
2 are some parties who would tell you that it has been
3 very disadvantageous at the end of the day for them not
4 to have had a regulatory framework to look to when they
5 come for acquisitions or new assets or even renewal,
6 that if they had had -- we use the word grid, but a
7 better expressed idea of what it is that they have to
8 come and meet, the regulatory system would work better.
9 So, that's different from the system we have now where
10 you come at renewal.
11 21755 Yes, we have the A and B options, but
12 on an ad hoc basis there has been additions to parties
13 who have changed status or where the Commission has
14 felt there should be more done. What we are attempting
15 to do now, for better or for worse, is to say can we
16 get some other way of looking at it so that when the
17 group comes for renewal there are some benchmarks
18 established already that have attempted to be more
19 equitable for those groups that fit within the
20 multi-station groups, but you don't seem to see that of
21 any regulatory value.
22 21756 MR. SHERRATT: If you are talking
23 about stringent rules that are all the same, but as you
24 were saying that I was thinking that there is quite a
25 difference between licence renewals and applications
StenoTran
4708
1 for new licences -- acquisitions or new licences.
2 21757 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sometimes there
3 isn't because if you are a multi-station group and you
4 are adding a station to the group, if you knew what is
5 expected of you as you get bigger, it would be easier
6 than if you took the position that this is just another
7 station with a competitive applicant. I don't think
8 the world is as simple as that. At least that's
9 certainly something we hear that there is some value in
10 reassessing what's expected.
11 21758 You know, when you talk about
12 stringent rules, it depends how you look at it. If
13 under-represented categories have music and dance,
14 variety, drama, documentaries and then children, well,
15 you are getting some flexibility there. So, to say you
16 have to have X hours of that within this hour and that
17 hour over a week with bonuses that reduce it if you do
18 certain things, how stringent is that?
19 21759 Have you been completely -- all
20 facility to have a diverse view or have scheduling
21 flexibility has not completely disappeared, has it?
22 What's so stringent about the type of proposals that
23 have been made? If you don't talk about the level,
24 whether it's 10/10/10 or 7/7/7, don't they leave some
25 flexibility?
StenoTran
4709
1 21760 MR. SHERRATT: I think that that
2 needs addressing and I think we should address it from
3 a couple of approaches.
4 21761 Why don't you start, Moses, and then
5 we will go to how it works.
6 21762 MR. ZNAIMER: Yes. Well, the only
7 tangible suggestions on the table have been either
8 10/10/10 or 7/7/7 or this matrix as offered by Mr.
9 Fecan.
10 21763 THE CHAIRPERSON: Or all exhibition
11 and no spending. There has been more than just that.
12 There has been a number of suggestions and each one has
13 been whittled down or up, depending.
14 21764 MR. ZNAIMER: Yes, and you have
15 expressed your frustration because you see yourself
16 heading into a more and more complex system. I am sure
17 that's how our tax code, you know, got to be, whatever,
18 10,000 pages deep. It started as a relatively simple
19 piece of legislation, probably on whatever, 10 sheets
20 of paper, and then over the years clarifications,
21 adjustments, prodding in this direction, prodding in
22 that direction.
23 21765 So, if you wanted to imagine a
24 system, Madam Chair, that had more stages in it than
25 the one that appears to be on the table here, either
StenoTran
4710
1 you are a network national operator and you have
2 achieved a reach of 75 per cent or more or you are not,
3 then you will have to imagine even more stages.
4 21766 Our company has a 45 per cent reach.
5 Do you propose new terms of reference for every five
6 per cent of reach, every ten per cent of reach? Do you
7 think that you can imagine today a grid, a matrix, a
8 formula which can capture all of these iterations or
9 wouldn't it be better to discuss them as the iterations
10 come up?
11 21767 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, depending on
12 which end of the telescope you look at. You can bring
13 it down to a rather bizarre tax act type of view, five
14 per cent, three per cent. The other end of the
15 telescope is could we have more predictability and,
16 therefore, equitability or equity, rather, in the
17 system. So, I think there is a continuum there that
18 can be brought down to a ridiculous level or be so
19 broadly stated as to not be helpful.
20 21768 But it would seem to me a broad
21 statement inside of which, as CTV has made the point,
22 you should consider the fact that they do local news,
23 Global has made the point you should be able to
24 consider the fact that they will do more drama than
25 other things, and there are many ways of doing that.
StenoTran
4711
1 You can bonus the drama or you can say because it's
2 drama, it will be fewer hours or less spending. There
3 are ways of doing that, but I think formulas can be
4 expressed in a manner that may be easier.
5 21769 It is not to say that the system we
6 have now is that simple. You have seen us do the
7 exercise with some intervenors, especially if you add
8 in all the recommendations we get about how you
9 calculate spending and what is a fair way of doing it
10 from one to the other. It's not like what we have is
11 not getting more complex as well. We get people who
12 say, "You should take amortization into consideration."
13 People have different configurations, as CHUM well
14 knows.
15 21770 These are all complicated matters
16 that parties feel are necessary to achieve equity. So,
17 to not have them for anyone is perhaps one way of
18 looking at the world. It's not easy to arrive at, but,
19 nevertheless, something maybe we should aim for.
20 21771 MR. SWITZER: Madam Chair, if I might
21 add, because you speak of equity or equitable, part of
22 what works well for us now in the system with the
23 fundamental choice of A or B is that with dollars, with
24 A, we are able to make our contribution in the area of
25 feature films. The three big national players, CanWest
StenoTran
4712
1 and Baton and WIC, are all serious broadcasters. They
2 are not in the movie business. They may have a few now
3 and then, but they are making their legitimate
4 contribution in series.
5 21772 Our contribution, both because it's
6 important and it's not being done and we believe we do
7 it very well, is in movies and none of the proposals
8 that we have heard in the last 10 days, none of the
9 possible scenarios or formulae or grids or matrices
10 have ever contemplated the effect on a movie
11 broadcaster. The A and B scenario lets us contribute
12 in a way that's serious and meaningful, but let's us
13 make our contribution in an area that may not yield the
14 same number of hours, but in a different and important
15 programming and cultural way make a significant
16 contribution.
17 21773 That is what is so perhaps
18 frustrating for us to look at all of these models which
19 are being discussed and kicked back and forth. They
20 are built for series broadcasters and essentially we
21 effectively have no series on Citytv, for example, we
22 are in the movie business. This is what we are trying
23 to deal with.
24 21774 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's why I asked
25 you earlier whether you would see a regulatory
StenoTran
4713
1 framework that would leave you to what you are doing
2 and presumably it's just as well if we don't ask them
3 to do movies, isn't it?
4 21775 MR. ZNAIMER: That's right.
5 21776 MR. SWITZER: That's right and in
6 fact there are voices that are.
7 21777 THE CHAIRPERSON: I won't pursue this
8 because you obviously -- it's fair that you don't want
9 to talk about the particulars of what has been proposed
10 and whether one proposal is better than the other and
11 for what reason. I accept that.
12 21778 MR. ZNAIMER: We haven't been able to
13 imagine one that can encompass what we do, what we do
14 well, what we would like to continue to do and still
15 make things simpler, which is one of the, I think,
16 things you are looking for. You are looking --
17 21779 THE CHAIRPERSON: Even if it were to
18 be applied to others and not to you, because not
19 everyone -- you know, everyone comes here, we know what
20 it is they do, but the idea was to get as many people
21 as possible, and that's the way your submission was
22 written as well, to tell us what it is we should do so
23 that we had as much advice as possible. So, that's the
24 spirit in which the questions are asked.
25 21780 MR. SHERRATT: And that's the spirit
StenoTran
4714
1 in which we put forward the proposition to you that the
2 two Options A and B now, whether alone or in
3 combination, work probably in some instances when they
4 are in combination. Secondly, if you wish to put
5 emphasis on drama or 7, 8, 9 and the heart of prime,
6 then maybe you just direct either one of those along
7 with one of the others at that specific area and for
8 other broadcasters who are heavy into local and doing
9 things like we do, we wouldn't take the hours, we would
10 take the expenditure and we would make a commitment to
11 local.
12 21781 We think those kinds of broader
13 regulatory tools give you enough ammunition to balance
14 the system, to correct any inequities that are there,
15 albeit you can only do that if they are discovered
16 presumably at licence renewal time, but it does give
17 you the tools to do that, but it gives broadcasters the
18 opportunity, whether they be national or not, to move
19 into the areas that they do best and make their
20 contribution in those areas.
21 21782 I think Mark wants to speak to the
22 point that you have been trying to get to.
23 21783 MR. RUBINSTEIN: Thank you, Fred.
24 21784 Madam Chair, I want to address a
25 couple of things. The first is we have said in our
StenoTran
4715
1 oral presentation today that we support the notion of
2 equitable contribution. After all, that, to a large
3 measure, is what got us to this hearing in the first
4 place. We had an Order-in-Council, which led to a
5 network hearing, which led to this hearing.
6 21785 We fully support your using existing
7 and new tools to remedy imbalances in contributions
8 between national or de facto national conventional
9 broadcast routes. We fully support your exercise in
10 that. So, that's point number one.
11 21786 Point number two is: Can the system
12 do more? We say, yes, it can do more, but our view is
13 we can't all do everything. We have to pick and choose
14 those things that play to our strengths, to our
15 viewers' interests and to the system's objectives. So,
16 CHUM Television on the conventional side is the single
17 biggest supporter of dramatic feature film. It's a
18 world wholly different from the world of series.
19 That's one of the ways in which we make a major
20 contribution.
21 21787 We are also the role model for local
22 reflection, equally important under the Act, equally
23 important as other obligations. It doesn't mean that
24 you cannot move forward and prioritize where you want
25 to see contributions coming from different players --
StenoTran
4716
1 and you can do it at licence renewals, you can do it at
2 acquisition hearings -- and we are not opposed to
3 coming back, if you decide you want to bring corporate
4 groups back, and we just don't mean conventional
5 groups, all the groups. We bring back corporate groups
6 who own specialty and pay services, we bring back BDUs
7 that own specialty services. After all, it's a system
8 approach we are looking at. We are not opposed to
9 coming back at a timetable that you say and say, "How
10 can you do more for us?"
11 21788 So, I just wanted to make it clear in
12 terms of the precision of our attitude on this. We
13 support you wholeheartedly in remedying inequitable
14 contributions if you find they exist. We have
15 suggested four tools, two existing, two new. There are
16 defects, substantial defects, in some of the proposals
17 before you because they cast their net far too wide.
18 They are not interested in reach and, after all,
19 equitable contribution should mean equitable reach.
20 21789 They are interested in the greatest
21 possible extraction. They are not wholly interested in
22 preserving the other side of the success story of local
23 television, for example, which is what we feel it's so
24 important to put on the record. If we want to have
25 local reflection, allow those who specialize in it to
StenoTran
4717
1 put most of their resources into it.
2 21790 So, I hope that's helpful in trying
3 to better clarify our position on some of these very
4 essential issues.
5 21791 THE CHAIRPERSON: Promotion. You
6 have heard and you are very involved in promoting
7 artists because of your television station and the
8 broadcasting specialty licences you have. You have
9 heard all of the suggestions that were made, especially
10 getting some programming considered as
11 under-represented, which would be aimed at promotion
12 and developing a so-called star system to a greater
13 extent.
14 21792 The other side of the coin has been,
15 number one, these programs should be produced by
16 independent producers and, secondly, they should be
17 Canadian. Suggestions have been made even to the
18 extent that the items on them should be 66 per cent at
19 least Canadian artists and so on.
20 21793 What has been your experience with
21 this type of programming or the production of it when
22 you look at it from the perspective of how Canadian is
23 it?
24 21794 MR. ZNAIMER: We would love the
25 inclusion of these kinds of programs in
StenoTran
4718
1 under-represented categories because it is a good deal
2 of what we do. We were doing it long before it was
3 deemed to be important. We saw the importance of these
4 kinds of programs years ago and have established them.
5 I am talking about the MovieTelevisions and the fashion
6 televisions of the world and, indeed, all our music
7 channels because we thought it was the right thing to
8 do and because we thought we could contribute.
9 21795 We are not afraid of a little more
10 micro-management in terms of the balance of stories
11 because -- well, Marcia, is the supervising producer
12 for MovieTelevision.
13 21796 Why don't you tell us about
14 MovieTelevision?
15 21797 THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I should
16 tell you before that my understanding from the staff is
17 that a look at the last 35 episodes of MovieTelevision
18 shows that items relating to the Canadian industry are
19 outnumbered by four to one or five to one by those
20 related to the American industry. So, that was the aim
21 of my question.
22 21798 If we were to consider this type of
23 programming as under-represented in the manner
24 suggested by a number of parties, would it be fair to
25 ensure that the view is to promote Canadian stars and
StenoTran
4719
1 create a Canadian star system and are you of the view
2 that if, indeed, MovieTelevision is to that extent
3 American, is that going to do the job?
4 21799 MS MARTIN: First of all, I have a
5 concern about that statistic because MovieTelevision
6 is, as you know, in our tenth year, a program that has
7 a Canadian focus and what we do is feature stories on
8 Canadian stories, the making of movies. We do have
9 stories also on the international scene, but it has
10 always been our focus to do Canadian stories.
11 21800 If you look at our last season alone,
12 over 100 of our features on 39 shows have been Canadian
13 stories. It's the best example right now of what we
14 are doing to promote and exhibit and showcase our
15 stars, but there are lots of other programs that we do
16 in conjunction with MovieTelevision.
17 21801 First of all, I would have a concern
18 with that number because I don't think that's true.
19 It's encouraging to hear producers and broadcasters
20 talk about having this kind of program recognized and
21 part of category 7, in drama. I think that's
22 important.
23 21802 It would be nice to have
24 MovieTelevision mentioned along with "E Now" because we
25 have been doing it for so long, but we also have been
StenoTran
4720
1 the official media sponsor of the Toronto International
2 Film Festival for the past 15 years and that kind of
3 sponsorship presents daily coverage of the festival,
4 weekly coverage obviously on MovieTelevision, and it
5 continues, too, on the facts on MuchMusic and on Bravo!
6 1530
7 21803 So there are lots of ways in which we
8 are getting the star system focus and promotion across
9 Canada.
10 21804 One thing about our syndicated
11 efforts also, MovieTelevision, we certainly are
12 introducing our stars to the Canadian audience, but we
13 are also, because that program is syndicated around the
14 world, introducing actors and filmmakers and producers
15 to markets that sooner or later will be approached by
16 the "Traders", or "Due South", to buy those programs;
17 and since we are always there first on location before
18 those are actually being seen, it is another
19 introduction and promotion of what we are doing.
20 21805 THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that
21 our counting skills should be improved or that we
22 shouldn't worry about that type of level?
23 21806 MR. SWITZER: Madam Chair, if I might
24 add, the mission statement of this show is to be
25 predominantly Canadian from the very beginning. I can
StenoTran
4721
1 only guess and speculate that many of the shows, for
2 example, we have a production team Marcia runs out of
3 Vancouver, for all of the Vancouver and West Coast
4 action. I can only speculate that some of the movies
5 and specials and made-for-television movies that were
6 covered, which might have appeared American were in
7 fact Canadian. That is pure speculation.
8 21807 We are happy to look at the count.
9 This is the charge to the show and this is a charge
10 that we are proud of. In fact, we are proud to -- or,
11 very prepared to commit that should this change happen
12 that in fact whatever rule you might be contemplating
13 should in fact only apply to shows that are
14 predominantly Canadian in content.
15 21808 THE CHAIRPERSON: How would you
16 suggest that that be measured? You know, I don't -- I
17 think it was, perhaps, the CFPTA, I am not sure, who
18 proposed that it be 66 per cent, I think it was. But I
19 don't think we ever got into how one would measure
20 that, and we obviously have, right off the bat,
21 difficulty with doing that because we seem to be
22 completely at odds about how Canadian MovieTelevision
23 is.
24 21809 MR. SWITZER: Our overview would be
25 that it would be by running length, by running time,
StenoTran
4722
1 and that it be predominantly Canadian and, in fact,
2 Marcia has worked on a draft specific description of
3 what that might be.
4 21810 MS MARTIN: In an attempt to help us
5 all identify that, I am happy to read this for the
6 record also.
7 21811 Just to reiterate -- I mean,
8 obviously, the purpose is to encourage broadcasters,
9 Canadian broadcasters to telecast these kind of
10 programs in prime time, as MovieTelevision is. It has
11 always been in prime time and continues to be. And the
12 mechanism that we would suggest is to amend the
13 television regulations and specialty television
14 regulation section 7(g), Other, as follows -- I think
15 it might help, we have a definition here:
16 "Broadcasters who telecast
17 Canadian entertainment magazine
18 programs that devote more than
19 half of the program length to
20 the broadcast of Canadian
21 entertainment stories featuring
22 Canadian productions, television
23 programs, movies, sound tracks,
24 plays, songs and other Canadian
25 artists will be accorded a time
StenoTran
4723
1 credit if it meets the following
2 criteria:
3 (a) is produced by a licensee or
4 an independent production
5 company after January 1999, and
6 is
7 (b) recognized as a Canadian
8 program.
9 Each licensee will receive a
10 time credit for each showing of
11 a program occurring within a
12 two-year period from the date of
13 first showing."
14 21812 I think that would help identify it.
15 21813 I would like to speak about StarTV
16 when it is --
17 21814 THE CHAIRPERSON: But I am not sure
18 if that -- any way, we can look at it -- but whether
19 that definition satisfies the requirement or the
20 calculation of whether or not the mission statement is
21 indeed accomplished inside of the program because I
22 have a few mission statements in the entrance of my
23 house, and it hasn't been good enough for the rules to
24 be followed.
25 21815 MS MARTIN: I have a feeling that Jay
StenoTran
4724
1 probably --
2 21816 THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can
3 also discuss with the staff how they arrived at it so
4 that we understand better.
5 21817 But you can see the possibility that
6 E Entertainment and this type of programming can
7 eventually just fall into the American star system.
8 21818 MR. SHERRATT: That is why we are
9 saying it has to be predominantly Canadian and the
10 running length of every piece in it, the average
11 running length in the show must be better than 50 per
12 cent on Canadian stars or Canadian features or --
13 21819 THE CHAIRPERSON: Another way of
14 looking at it, of course, is items. You could have a
15 Canadian item that lasts 20 minutes and then many, many
16 foreign that are short and still have the same effect
17 of promotion or pursuing.
18 21820 MR. ZNAIMER: Yes. I think it would
19 be an overly managed system if you got down to that
20 level. I mean, if we did a magazine show with three or
21 four items in it and the overwhelming majority length
22 went to a Canadian story, surely, that would be a good
23 thing, even though we might do two, three other hits
24 about what else was going on in the world.
25 21821 This discussion hurts a little bit
StenoTran
4725
1 because we are the pioneers in all of this. We have
2 been doing it for a long time. Nobody said thank you
3 or 'atta boy or whatever. And when we first took these
4 shows into the international market we were met with
5 the usual resistance, especially from Americans who
6 think that some southern accent is okay, but a French
7 Canadian accent or an Ottawa Valley accent is too
8 regional. They would say to us -- Jay, you must
9 remember -- we will take FashionTelevision, it is a
10 great show; but do we need that story from Toronto? We
11 told them to buzz off -- actually, we said it more
12 forcefully than that.
13 21822 THE CHAIRPERSON: Not to an Ottawa
14 Valley person?
15 21823 MR. ZNAIMER: No, we said to the
16 buyer, to the American buyer, "Buzz off. You take this
17 show as we make it for our audience in Toronto. It is
18 a great show." We did that first with fashion, and
19 then with movie, and then with media, which we haven't
20 discussed, and then with OohLaLa, and now that it is
21 what, politically correct, or more appropriate, on
22 everyone's agenda, people come along and say, "Well,
23 you are not doing enough."
24 21824 We have also grown with the strength
25 of these industries. When we started doing
StenoTran
4726
1 MovieTelevision, there wasn't as much of a Canadian
2 movie industry as there is today. These are symbiotic
3 things. There needs to be an industry in order to talk
4 about an industry in order that there might be stars in
5 the industry.
6 21825 MR. SWITZER: If I could add a short
7 anecdote, and I will keep it short, but we try to
8 syndicate in Canada MovieTelevision into markets where
9 we don't have stations, which is most of the country.
10 In some cases, where the show had previously been
11 played, in major western Canadian markets, the show is
12 now not being played because it did not qualify for
13 their own category 7 requirements. That is frustrating
14 because it is a show devoted to the promotion of the
15 business. I think we all agree that the promotion of
16 drama is an important part of the story telling.
17 21826 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Znaimer, this
18 is not a renewal where we are looking at whether CHUM
19 is doing a good job or not. We are discussing
20 regulatory framework and whether this idea is good or
21 not; and, if it is, whether it should have parameters
22 put around it and, as an example, experienced analysts
23 can come up with this type of numbering, which is to
24 you ridiculous, because it can't be. So we are just
25 looking at how easy would it be as a regulatory tool to
StenoTran
4727
1 manage considering the difficulties.
2 21827 So we are not looking at whether
3 MovieTelevision is good or bad or well done. We are
4 looking at the difficulties in doing these things and
5 monitoring them because, obviously, if we account for
6 that and somebody is not doing it properly and the
7 other one is spending more money or effort in doing it
8 properly, we have a problem. That is what is inherent
9 in regulation.
10 21828 MR. ZNAIMER: We have accepted the
11 spirit and have offered a formulation which we think is
12 in the right spirit.
13 21829 THE CHAIRPERSON: And, perhaps, even
14 you can discuss how you would -- you calculate yours to
15 arrive at different -- how you calculate it to arrive
16 at different -- because I don't know how it was done,
17 but it certainly illustrates the possibility of our
18 difficulty.
19 21830 MR. ZNAIMER: Marcia would like to
20 add something.
21 21831 MS MARTIN: I feel very strongly
22 about this, if you will allow me one more comment on
23 it.
24 21832 There are many stories that we do
25 across the country, and if we are on the set of
StenoTran
4728
1 "X-Files" and that not being a Canadian production and
2 that is considered non-Canadian, perhaps it is not
3 understood that when we are on the set of "X-Files" we
4 are interviewing an actor by the name of William B.
5 Davis who has the role of Cancerman and that is a
6 Canadian. So when we are on the set of those films, we
7 are taking a Canadian angle and that story, to us, is
8 Canadian and not foreign.
9 21833 So that might be where some of the
10 discrepancy is because we are very proud of what we
11 have been doing for 10 years.
12 21834 THE CHAIRPERSON: And it illustrates
13 as well the difficulty of establishing regulatory tools
14 that are used equitably.
15 21835 MR. SHERRATT: To answer your direct
16 question, Madam Chair, we think it is a wonderful idea.
17 We say hurray to the idea and, yes, we think they
18 should be predominantly Canadian and we will work with
19 your staff on what that is --
20 21836 THE CHAIRPERSON: As to how you
21 measure that.
22 21837 MR. SHERRATT: -- but it will be.
23 Thank you.
24 21838 THE CHAIRPERSON: U.S. services, we
25 have heard many suggestions as to how we can extract
StenoTran
4729
1 more contribution, or one that is more congruent with
2 the advantages that are financial, advantages that are
3 drawn out of the country by them. There have been many
4 suggestions as to how you can somehow surcharge or get
5 the eligible services to contribute financially and
6 also get a system that is more protective of Canadian
7 rights.
8 21839 You mention in particular in your
9 written submission the difficulty of the evasion of
10 program substitution by, I guess, scheduling techniques
11 by border stations or stations that are brought into
12 Canada by cable, and suggest that something should be
13 done about this.
14 21840 Do you have any concrete suggestions,
15 one, as to how one measures -- well, one, how broad a
16 problem is this? Secondly, how would one measure when
17 the station has been guilty of it? Thirdly, what are
18 some solutions to that?
19 21841 MR. ZNAIMER: We do have some
20 concrete suggestions. Mr. Rubinstein will handle the
21 question.
22 21842 MR. RUBINSTEIN: The first question
23 you asked, Madam Chair, had to do with the U.S. service
24 contribution so perhaps I can start with that.
25 21843 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think you do --
StenoTran
4730
1 you suggest a surcharge.
2 21844 MR. RUBINSTEIN: We do.
3 21845 THE CHAIRPERSON: And you heard the
4 various comments about the difficulties in all that.
5 21846 MR. RUBINSTEIN: I am not sure I
6 believe the hysteria about --
7 21847 THE CHAIRPERSON: Tell us about that,
8 too.
9 21848 MR. RUBINSTEIN: We would like to.
10 21849 Our view is that we agree with the
11 often-stated premise that it is a privilege to hold a
12 licence in Canada. That is certainly true. It is also
13 a privilege to take a foreign service into our country
14 and that there have to be obligations associated with
15 that.
16 21850 We also, by the way, start from the
17 premise, as we said in our opening remarks, that
18 equitable contribution means that on a sector-by-sector
19 basis there has to be reasonable contributions by all
20 sectors. If you did it on a spectrum and looked at
21 those sectors that contribute the most and those that
22 contribute the least, at the bottom of the spectrum
23 would be foreign services and exempt services.
24 21851 On the foreign services issue, the
25 proposal we have is that on a going-forward basis we
StenoTran
4731
1 would add as a criteria to being added to the eligible
2 list a requirement that a percentage of the subscriber
3 fees received by a foreign service would be withheld by
4 the BDU, the distributor, and then remitted to an
5 appropriate recognized Canadian programming fund.
6 21852 Our understanding -- and there has
7 been no evidence filed in this proceeding that would
8 suggest that that in some way violates free trade
9 agreements. Our understanding is if the rules are fair
10 and transparent and equal to all, they should be
11 enforceable.
12 21853 After all, the Commission
13 historically has dealt with the issue of other kinds of
14 requirements to be on the eligible list. Several years
15 ago, you looked at the issue of programming rights and
16 the concept of, if you want to be on the list, you
17 better make sure that you have acquired rights in
18 Canada for those programs. So this is an extension of
19 that.
20 21854 To avoid a concept of double taxation
21 for those who argue that, well, cable already -- cable,
22 as an example, already remits 5 per cent, you could
23 take out that portion of the U.S. fees from that
24 calculation. So we think that is a very appropriate
25 mechanism.
StenoTran
4732
1 21855 On the question of border stations,
2 there are lots of examples. The example that we are
3 familiar with in Toronto, for example, would be the Fox
4 affiliate in buffalo. Jay Switzer can talk about it in
5 more detail if you like. But there have been an
6 ongoing series of problems where, in order to evade the
7 principle of simulcast and the right of simulcast, that
8 affiliate would engage in last-minute scheduling
9 changes to ensure that they would not be captured by
10 the simulcast rules.
11 21856 I would think that we should be able
12 to bring to the Commission a certain weight of evidence
13 in terms of the number of these kinds of occurrences
14 where you could reasonably conclude that they are
15 actively engaging on a last-minute basis in frustrating
16 the policy behind simulcast.
17 21857 Lastly, related to that, of course,
18 would be the solicitation of revenues on an active
19 basis by border stations.
20 21858 The solution to that would be to
21 bring in from another market, a more distant market, a
22 similar affiliate. I believe there are some examples
23 in the Maritimes where there was a switch-out with
24 Boston affiliates. There was no disruption in terms of
25 service to viewers. There were few, if no, complaints,
StenoTran
4733
1 and it seemed to work well.
2 21859 So, in general, that is how we would
3 see both of those issues being addressed.
4 21860 THE CHAIRPERSON: The first one, the
5 surcharge, some parties have a concern that what it
6 will end up doing is increasing the fee and it will be
7 passed on to subscribers.
8 21861 MR. RUBINSTEIN: Well, the
9 Commission --
10 21862 THE CHAIRPERSON: There has been as
11 much as, I think, 25 per cent suggested as a -- when
12 the eligible service negotiates terms, once it is on
13 the eligible list, they will just get the same amount
14 of money by adding -- you have heard some party
15 yesterday say that they had accidentally seen the --
16 through the famous window where one knows how inside a
17 tier the allocation is made, and presumably it could
18 just increase and have not a whole lot of effect other
19 than funnelling more subscriber money into the fund,
20 and possibly making the tiers less attractive, if they
21 are more expensive, if the cable operator is not
22 willing to reshuffle.
23 21863 MR. ZNAIMER: Our impression is that
24 those prices are going up in any case and nothing is
25 being left in Canada.
StenoTran
4734
1 21864 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is exactly the
2 problem that was presumably exposed yesterday.
3 21865 MR. SHERRATT: If you were an
4 American operator and you were not here now -- we are
5 talking now on a going-forward basis -- and you knew
6 that the price of coming into Canada was to get a fee,
7 a per subscriber fee that was higher than the one you
8 are getting in the United States, and you had to leave
9 25 per cent of it on the table here, and it was a free
10 ride for you, would you pay the tariff? In a minute.
11 21866 THE CHAIRPERSON: The suggestion by
12 one party at least was, of course, to combine that with
13 not allowing -- I think it was Global -- not allowing a
14 subscriber fee -- that one of the conditions of being
15 on the eligible list was that your fee could be no
16 higher than the lowest fee you get in the states. So,
17 if you had that type of -- you would have to have that
18 window that would be known to -- for this to work, to
19 work in the sense that it wouldn't be simply passed on
20 to the subscriber --
21 21867 MR. SHERRATT: We agree with you.
22 21868 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- or exacted from
23 the party.
24 21869 MR. SHERRATT: It doesn't accomplish
25 anything for Canadian citizens, if it is just another
StenoTran
4735
1 pass through or pass along, I agree with that.
2 21870 MR. ZNAIMER: That is a pretty good
3 suggestion, though.
4 21871 THE CHAIRPERSON: You would have to
5 know more than we now know about how all this works.
6 21872 I don't have any other questions. My
7 colleagues may have some and, until they do, I thank
8 you for your participation.
9 21873 I think Commissioner Cardozo has.
10 21874 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam
11 Chair, and, Mr. Znaimer, just so you don't go away
12 without somebody saying, 'atta boy, let me just go over
13 a few things that I wanted to 'atta boy about because
14 we have heard a lot about some of these issues, and I
15 say them not in the context, as the Chair has
16 clarified, in terms of your licence but, rather, the
17 context of this hearing, which is how does one go about
18 these things and, perhaps, I want to mention a few
19 examples and then ask you how you go about these
20 things.
21 1550
22 21875 It's also a good time to reflect on
23 these issues as being, this being the last day, and I
24 just wanted to mention a few things that we have heard
25 over the course of this process.
StenoTran
4736
1 21876 Various groups have talked about
2 gender equity and offensive content, and I notice in
3 your written submission you talked about your work in
4 the area of gender equity on-air, off-air, including
5 behind the camera, and your senior something
6 management. I notice your recent statement on high
7 standards.
8 21877 Various groups have talked to us
9 about the reflection of cultural and racial diversity
10 and you have noted in your brief and today that you
11 consider yourself one of the leaders, and I think most
12 people would. There is a station out on the West Coast
13 which is nipping at your heals on that issue, but we
14 will not mention them for now.
15 21878 And I suppose in terms of cultural
16 diversity, you may be thinking of working on your
17 senior management next, but I am not asking about that
18 either.
19 21879 We heard from the Council of
20 Canadians with Disabilities in Winnipeg and they talked
21 about reflection of people with disabilities and I
22 think that yours is the only station that has a
23 reporter who happens to be in a wheelchair, and I think
24 that that offers us a very pleasant view and a change
25 of things from a different perspective, because it
StenoTran
4737
1 introduces a whole lot of new issues about how you
2 shoot news.
3 21880 MR. ZNAIMER: Actually, Mr. Cardozo,
4 we have two.
5 21881 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So much the
6 better. I thought one would not be the end of it.
7 That was going to be my next comment.
8 21882 EGALE, the organization that
9 addresses issues the rights of gays and lesbians talked
10 to us about reflection on issues of concern to them. I
11 note "Q Files" is a new program you have got and
12 probably the only broadcaster -- don't tell me have you
13 two programs too -- but the only broadcaster who has a
14 program that deals with gay and lesbian issues. Rogers
15 has two programs they told us, but that's cable TV.
16 21883 So I guess my overall question on
17 this is, is all this stuff -- and I guess most of it --
18 no, some of it deals with all your operations, but some
19 of it deals specifically with Citytv. Is this just a
20 Toronto thing? Is that what makes it happen? At what
21 levels do you make these decisions? Do you just happen
22 to do them or at some level are you thinking about it?
23 Lastly, could you tell us your thinking on issues of
24 closed captions and descriptive video service?
25 21884 Take that in any order.
StenoTran
4738
1 21885 MR. ZNAIMER: The origin of this
2 practice -- well, it lies with both the personal and
3 the public. On a personal level -- and I have told
4 this story before -- it was not hard for a kid called
5 Znaimer to see that representation on Canadian
6 television in the early seventies seemed to me stuck in
7 too narrow a band, that there was not the
8 representation of ethnic background, let alone
9 multi-racial background and so on.
10 21886 So in a way it begins, as I think
11 many good things do, with an experience that's etched
12 into your personal life.
13 21887 On further reflection, though, we
14 thought that corporately it was the right thing to do
15 and that it was something that was particularly
16 reflective of Toronto, which seemed to be leading that
17 change in Canada at the time.
18 21888 And finally, over time, I think
19 people come to see that it's a pretty smart thing to
20 do. It's where the population curve is going and
21 therefore, ultimately, it's not just an act of charity,
22 it's also a sensible thing.
23 21889 How does it happen in our company
24 today? It's a reflex; it's second nature to us, and in
25 that sense we are perhaps not the same as other
StenoTran
4739
1 companies who are pushed by Royal Commissions or quotas
2 or the need to appear politically correct.
3 21890 I notice that the representation made
4 by that woman from the NAC, was it? She talked about
5 how visible minorities, some of them had left Citytv to
6 go on to other companies. My sense was that there was
7 an implied criticism there and I thought, well, what a
8 thing to be proud of, that we had launched so many
9 people of colour, Asians -- well, across a broad
10 spectrum, and that they had gone on to other companies.
11 21891 The downside of that, of course, is
12 when something stops being the essential nature of the
13 company and becomes an imposition, say, for regulatory
14 reasons, the people who are imposed upon don't know how
15 to do it, so their reflex is to go shopping at the
16 Citytv talent store. If you have a bigger transmitter,
17 you can pay more money and you can then snap up staff
18 that you have not developed in the name of an idea that
19 you never really had, but it's one whose time has come.
20 21892 So what I am saying is that for us
21 it's bred in our bone and therefore, as we acquire
22 other channels or we get involved in other situations,
23 as indeed we have here in Ottawa with the conversion of
24 CHRO to the New RO, you immediately begin to see this
25 different way of looking at the world reflected on air
StenoTran
4740
1 and, where you go to those buildings yourself and walk
2 through the hallways and environment, you would see
3 that that holds true throughout the entire body of
4 employees.
5 21893 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Any comments
6 on closed captioning?
7 21894 MS CRAWFORD: As Moses talked about,
8 issues of not only cultural diversity but accessible
9 are defining principles for everything that we do. In
10 terms of closed captioning, the Commission knows,
11 through the CAB and through our own reports, that we
12 have got a very good news story to tell about closed
13 captioning.
14 21895 We currently, through all of our
15 licensees, meet, and in some cases exceed, our closed
16 captioning requirements. We have been recognized
17 recently from various organizations for significant
18 industry-wide contributions in this area, most
19 recently, having received the Gold Cup Award. Our
20 in-house captioning head, Liz Chartrand, has been
21 instrumental in working with the closed captioning
22 community and now, through our station, in our
23 on-staff, in-house captioning facility, she was
24 recognized this year at the Gold Cup Awards with the
25 Humanitarian Award.
StenoTran
4741
1 21896 Also, Citytv has been recognized in
2 developing some pretty key technology in the closed
3 captioning area, notably the voice write technology.
4 Liz and our in-house team are also involved in
5 collaborating with other members of the CAB to develop
6 a voluntary, industry-wide captioning standards manual
7 which is now in its first draft and will be probably
8 completed within the next several weeks, which is
9 something we are also consulting with the captioning
10 consumers on.
11 21897 MR. WATERS: Sarah, you should
12 probably just help out on that diversity question and
13 describe something we are doing on a proactive basis
14 that you may be interested in the media education.
15 21898 MS CRAWFORD: Just one final thought
16 on closed captioning I should mention. In terms of the
17 music side and specialty side of what we do, through
18 VidoeFact, which is the mechanism which provides
19 funding to first time music video makers that is 100
20 per cent funded by MuchMusic and MusiquePlus, we now
21 underwrite 100 per cent of the cost of closed
22 captioning for all of the new videos.
23 21899 VideoFact has currently been
24 responsible for the creation of new Canadian videos. I
25 think we are up to about 1,500 Canadian videos now in
StenoTran
4742
1 the history of MuchMusic, to the tune of about $12
2 million.
3 21900 In terms of diversity and
4 accessibility, CHUM Limited has recently embarked on a
5 very significant social initiative to do with media
6 education. We believe that this is key, not only to
7 issues of cultural diversity but also to accessibility.
8 Right now what we do is create programming that
9 encourages teachers, parents and students to think
10 critically and analytically about screen-based media.
11 21901 So in the same way that children
12 right now are instructed to decode and understand and
13 analyze printed text in schools, we feel that it's
14 becoming increasingly important to understand
15 screen-based text in schools, in both television and
16 movies.
17 21902 So we have underwritten the cost of
18 providing study guides, programming copyright cleared,
19 free of charge, to teachers across the country. We
20 have been doing this for many, many years, since the
21 beginning of our specialty activity certainly, and even
22 since the beginning of the "New Music" on Citytv. We
23 provide the programming, through a variety of
24 mechanisms, primarily cable in the classroom, of which
25 CHUM is a founding member.
StenoTran
4743
1 21903 That program has seen the cable
2 industry and the specialty programming service
3 providers provide cable hookups to over 8,000 Canadian
4 schools right now, and CHUM is the significant provider
5 of this media education programming which encourages
6 people to think critically analytically about the
7 media.
8 21904 We think this is a big help in not
9 only the area of violence, as has been noted in past
10 CRTC hearings, but also in the areas of cultural
11 diversity.
12 21905 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And on
13 descriptive video service?
14 21906 MS CRAWFORD: On descriptive video we
15 have been working with the CAB to develop an industry
16 model. As you may know, again, Citytv has been one of
17 the first broadcasters in the country -- in fact it may
18 be the first broadcaster in the country, to have aired
19 a described version of a couple of movies. Citytv has
20 a SAP channel, and that is the technology that enables
21 us to do that.
22 21907 As you know, there are difficulties
23 on the technical side and on the cost side to providing
24 descriptive video, and that is something that we are
25 looking at very seriously with the CAB on the joint
StenoTran
4744
1 societal trends and issues side of things and also as
2 an industry to move forward on.
3 21908 We think it's important but, as
4 outlined in our presentation, there are some hurdles
5 that are standing in our way that we, as an industry,
6 need to look at.
7 21909 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The other
8 issue I wanted to ask you about is local programming.
9 As you know, that's also one of the issues we have
10 heard a lot about, both in our town hall meetings and
11 in the input we have had in writing and during these
12 hearings.
13 21910 You mentioned the New RO and what you
14 did with local programming, and I am thinking, besides
15 the Citytv model, what is the model you are looking at
16 in your other cities and what does it assure in terms
17 of what others could be doing -- not that you want
18 others to do what you are doing because that would not
19 be in your best interest. But what basically is your
20 model for these new stations in Ontario?
21 21911 MR. ZNAIMER: Our model begins with a
22 significantly enhanced news operation. That usually
23 means significant growth in the size of staff, the
24 calibre of staff, and in the amount of air time devoted
25 to news and local reflection.
StenoTran
4745
1 21912 In addition to that, our longer-term
2 view is that each of the stations -- and now we are
3 thinking of the grid that is encompassed by CHRO as it
4 becomes the New RO, the New VR, the New PL, the New NX,
5 the New WI -- our thinking over the longer term is that
6 each of these stations will also develop an ancillary
7 local programming specialty that is appropriate to
8 their area.
9 21913 So in the case of the New VR, where
10 we have been operating it in this new way for a number
11 of years, can you see that for a station located in the
12 heart of cottage country where recreation is an
13 essential part of the local culture and a huge local
14 industry, that sports and recreation seems to be an
15 appropriate place for that station to specialize as a
16 local manifestation.
17 21914 In the case of Ottawa, we have just
18 begun, as you are well aware. We have just bought a
19 new facility that has to be renovated in our style. A
20 lot of money goes into that. But when the smoke
21 clears, we think that in Ottawa the natural drift of
22 things would suggest some programming that is political
23 in its nature, but also perhaps some programming that
24 reflects the role of Ottawa in the new high technology
25 industries, and we are working on development in that
StenoTran
4746
1 direction.
2 21915 On the other hand, if you look to the
3 south and to the west, let us take the extreme opposite
4 end of the grid -- it's a grid for purposes of my
5 description. We don't run it like a grid, we run it as
6 a group of individual stations. But if you look then
7 at Windsor, I would think that the specificity for
8 Windsor would have some involvement with the concept of
9 industry, labour and business and their relationships
10 and what that means to Ontario and what it means to
11 Canada.
12 21916 I hope that addresses your question.
13 21917 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: It does
14 largely. So you are looking at enhanced news and
15 sports. Is there room for local drama? I ask that
16 because, in terms of people's concerns about local
17 reflection, there is a sense that the networks have
18 moved towards national and away from local, that the
19 community channels have reduced their local community
20 programming. So what I guess we are looking at is
21 where do we get back this kind of local reflection?
22 21918 MR. ZNAIMER: Jay is dying to get in
23 on this. Before I let him, I do want to say this: You
24 have been told for years now that drama is high cost
25 and complex -- the number of million bucks an hour has
StenoTran
4747
1 been repeated quite a few times at this hearing -- and
2 that national reach is required to sustain this. So to
3 turn around and expect a region infinitely smaller,
4 like Pembroke-Ottawa or Wingham-Windsor, to support a
5 very significant drama project is perhaps ambitious.
6 21919 At the same time, I must tell you
7 that we are ambitious people, and I think we have
8 proven ourselves to be reasonably ingenious people, and
9 there was a time at the beginning of the conversion of
10 what had been the Canadian Film Development Corporation
11 into what is today Telefilm, when we made an effort at
12 local drama. It was called the Toronto Trilogy. We
13 organized it in the form of a drama competition and did
14 it directly in response to a request from the then
15 director of that fund to come up with ideas.
16 21920 Our notion was, obviously, to tell
17 different kinds of intensely local stories, but also to
18 see whether we couldn't apply the same ingenuity that
19 we had applied to news; the development of the concept
20 of the videographer, for example, the notion of
21 Speaker's Corner and so on, to the business of telling
22 drama, and to do it in a tape-based way and using other
23 qualities, techniques and efficiencies that we had
24 learned in the reality business and apply that to
25 drama.
StenoTran
4748
1 21921 Toronto Trilogy was an enormous
2 success. We did these half hours at been $100,000
3 apiece instead of the much larger numbers that are
4 discussed. Our reward for this exercise was that an
5 agreement was put through, without consultation and
6 without discussion, which then disqualified us from any
7 relationship with these funds because we were classed
8 "a broadcaster".
9 21922 It's a big sweeping word.
10 Broadcaster can refer to CTV and to Global, and it also
11 refers to Citytv, but there is no equivalence there.
12 We have argued for many years that in that context we
13 should be seen as a different kind of animal, that we
14 in fact behave in many ways like an independent
15 producer. When we want to attempt projects of larger
16 scale, we must accumulate those resources pretty much
17 like any other independent producer. We have, for
18 example, a couple of projects in which we sought the
19 partnership and received the partnership of CBC who
20 then had first telecast.
21 21923 We have attempted every which way to
22 get active in drama, only to be told over and over
23 again, by these various rules, that you are not wanted
24 here. We have begged and screamed and sought meetings
25 and made representations to the various fund and to
StenoTran
4749
1 Telefilm and so on and slowly, slowly, things are
2 giving way and it appears that there is some relaxation
3 in the offing which might allow us to participate
4 again.
5 21924 So that's perhaps getting a little
6 something off my chest. Just a month ago, we did a
7 life two-hour drama in the window, street-front,
8 store-front at Citytv. I don't think Canada has seen
9 anything like that for 25 or 30 years. But's it's not
10 easy for us to do when we are denied access to the same
11 mechanics and incentives that an independent producer,
12 or so-called, gets for attempting the same exercise.
13 21925 Jay, what do you want to add?
14 1610
15 21926 MR. SWITZER: It's an important
16 question, Commissioner Cardozo, and while everybody
17 else -- there have been references to cutbacks and
18 reductions in local and regional programming bandied
19 about these past few weeks. As you very well know, we
20 have been actively increasing our efforts there, both
21 in traditional local production and in fact in the area
22 of drama, which for us means movies.
23 21927 Moses touched on this extraordinary,
24 at the local Toronto level, at the Citytv level -- I
25 don't know if any of you saw this, but it has not been
StenoTran
4750
1 done in many years. We fully financed or almost fully
2 financed and co-produced with the very talented Bruce
3 MacDonald a live two-hour teleplay from our lobby, an
4 extraordinary live dramatic experience. I hope there
5 will be more of them and I think it's a really
6 interesting model of what can be done on a local basis
7 by a broadcaster in drama as something that's possible.
8 21928 You talked about the smaller centres
9 and even in smaller centres we are specifically looking
10 for long-form movies that we can pre-license. In fact
11 we have one under our belt, a successful film that was
12 done -- at the time, it was CKVR, now the New VR --
13 called "Coming of Age", an extraordinary drama which we
14 actually sold to CanWest Global. We gladly took their
15 money and when their window is over, we are going to
16 play it on our Citytv service.
17 21929 We have two or three projects in
18 development specifically with independent producers at
19 the local level in Ottawa and the valley and in London.
20 It will only take a few short seconds, but you asked
21 specifically what can be done. We are trying to take
22 the desire to find local stories and do them even at
23 the local level. I would like to ask Diane Boehme, our
24 Manager of Independent Production, to just briefly tell
25 you these two or three examples.
StenoTran
4751
1 21930 MS BOEHME: Thanks, Jay.
2 21931 Just to give you an example of what
3 we are doing right now in this marketplace, about two
4 years ago I came to know a local filmmaker that's based
5 here. She had a project that she had been nurturing
6 for quite some time and had been kind of floundering
7 with it creatively. It took her a while, but she did
8 eventually hook herself up with a producer that was
9 going to be able to give her the guidance that she
10 needed. They came through the door over a year ago and
11 we gave them some development support to make sure that
12 the project was nurtured and developed creatively,
13 which is -- for our concern, the script is where it
14 always starts first.
15 21932 Because it's important for us to
16 develop the local talent so that it can be displayed on
17 a national level with credibility, it was important for
18 us to make the right introductions. We introduced her
19 to a good story editor who had an affinity for the
20 material. In fact the latest round of the script was
21 delivered to me at the hotel last night. I think if it
22 shows the promise that the previous drafts have shown,
23 about a year from now, with any luck at all, it might
24 be in the Toronto Film Festival.
25 21933 I think this woman has taken a story
StenoTran
4752
1 that's based in the valley. It's not a specific
2 location, although they have, they tell me, found a
3 location where they plan to shoot it, but it's
4 representative of an area where she grew up and it's
5 very important. It's about her, her personal
6 background and what she has to say about living in this
7 community in a dramatic way, which she has never had
8 the opportunity to do before.
9 21934 I am routinely here speaking to the
10 Ottawa-Hull Film and Television Producers Association.
11 We take pitches from producers associations that are
12 being found right now in the London area and there is
13 an awful lot of people who are very excited about the
14 opportunity that we are presenting for them to do
15 long-form drama. There are a number of projects that
16 we have in development and it's up to us to find the
17 right way to matchmake, if you will, and make sure that
18 those projects, when they come to our screen, are not
19 just local but they work around the country for
20 audiences.
21 21935 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you for
22 those answers. That covers my questions.
23 21936 MR. SHERRATT: Commissioner Cardozo,
24 we are very pleased that you did zero in on local
25 programming because our mission today was to be as
StenoTran
4753
1 helpful as we could in every area, but to attempt --
2 against the background of the last round of licence
3 renewals, when the Commission said, "It is no longer
4 necessary for each conventional station to schedule
5 programming from all of these categories" -- that's
6 sort of out of the longer paragraph -- we concentrate
7 on local reflection and feature films and if we have
8 been able to convince you that there is more to
9 Canadian television than one type of television station
10 that exhibits one type of programming, we will have
11 fulfilled our mission and, hopefully, we have been able
12 to make a contribution to the proceedings.
13 21937 Madam Chair, I couldn't help but -- I
14 don't know whether you saw the Globe and Mail this
15 morning, but underneath the quote of the day, which was
16 a quote from here yesterday from Mr. Sward, which I
17 sincerely hope none of us make the Globe tomorrow as
18 the quote of the day, your morning smile was:
19 "I am studying Nesbitt's book,
20 'The Universe and All That
21 Surrounds It'. He says the
22 earth is spinning into the sun
23 and we will all be burned to
24 death." (As read)
25 21938 But he ends the book on a note of
StenoTran
4754
1 hope. He says, "I hope this will not happen."
2 21939 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
3 Pennefather?
4 21940 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: On that
5 note, I would like to, if I am the last person to
6 speak, conclude on a musical note. We haven't talked
7 music yet.
8 21941 MS DONLON: Thank you.
9 21942 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: You are
10 welcome.
11 21943 My question is very simple. It's
12 related to the fact we have had representations and
13 will have that music, category 8 specifically, is in
14 quite a bit of difficulty in that it remains an
15 under-represented category. Is that what you meant in
16 your oral presentation today by, "We wish more
17 attention was paid to this", the category 8 reference?
18 21944 What did you mean by that, because in
19 your written submission you seem to indicate that
20 music, as part of the overall group of
21 under-represented categories, is doing well and our
22 staff work also seems to indicate that in fact, if we
23 look at an enhanced BBM database and you look at the
24 array of programming offered to Canadians from all
25 sources, American, conventional stations, cable
StenoTran
4755
1 networks, Canadian, specialty and pay, we found that
2 3.8 per cent of the programs, Canadian and foreign, are
3 in these categories. Now, here I am talking 8 and 9,
4 music and variety.
5 21945 When we look at conventional
6 English-language services, one finds 4.3 per cent in
7 these two categories. So, are we talking still about
8 an under-represented category, number one? Number two,
9 on the definition of category 8, is it still
10 appropriate as a definition?
11 21946 MR. ZNAIMER: Let's begin with the
12 definition question.
13 21947 Mark, do you have something?
14 21948 MR. RUBINSTEIN: We don't --
15 21949 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I'm sorry,
16 I forgot. You have to sing your answers.
17 21950 MR. RUBINSTEIN: What format should
18 it be in?
19 21951 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I am going
20 all the way here.
21 21952 MR. RUBINSTEIN: We haven't
22 identified a problem in terms of having a definition
23 that in some way doesn't capture programming which
24 generally fits what we take to be that kind of
25 category. So, no, we don't have a problem with the
StenoTran
4756
1 definition.
2 21953 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Is that
3 true in the English and French markets? I know you
4 know something about the French market. I would like
5 your comment on the category and its representation in
6 the French market.
7 21954 MR. ZNAIMER: Well, I think we make a
8 huge contribution in both linguistic groups. I am
9 rather fixated on your point or your question about
10 whether or not the reward for having done a job well is
11 that the job that you are doing is then removed from
12 the essential category, so that the effect of that
13 might be that we stop working in that category and then
14 head over to the category that remains
15 under-represented so that the category that is now
16 fully represented can become under-represented again.
17 You see my point?
18 21955 Other than that, I think you directed
19 your remarks essentially to Denise and she is the right
20 person to tell you about our --
21 21956 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: My point,
22 to be very clear, was that we have had representations
23 that music and variety are being ignored. I thought
24 that was the tone of your paragraph today in your oral
25 presentation, yet I wanted your comment on whether in
StenoTran
4757
1 fact 8 and 9 remain under-represented categories before
2 we address ways that others are bringing forward to
3 improve that situation.
4 21957 MR. RUBINSTEIN: Commissioner, a
5 couple of additional points. We obviously haven't seen
6 the data that Commission staff came up with to make an
7 assessment. We have done a little work to go back and
8 examine that and I think we will file something which
9 shows quite a different story in the written process
10 following the hearing. I think on a numerical basis in
11 fact it is still under-represented.
12 21958 I also think the other point we tried
13 to make in our written presentation -- and it goes back
14 to local programming -- is not every broadcaster has an
15 infatuation with music on television. Most don't. The
16 one group that does primarily is before you today. It
17 so happens that most of those programs on our
18 conventional services are local.
19 21959 Were there to be a system
20 modification coming out of this hearing that would
21 disrupt our ability to continue to do local, it
22 wouldn't just harm local service, but in fact would
23 have a domino effect of harming service in categories
24 that to date are under-represented. So, that's not an
25 unimportant fact. It's a double whammy in a sense and
StenoTran
4758
1 that's why, as Fred said a moment ago, the job we do in
2 local reflection has much greater consequences to the
3 system beyond just local reflection to our audience in
4 a given community.
5 21960 MR. SHERRATT: There is one aspect of
6 it that perhaps Denise could talk about, though.
7 21961 MS DONLON: I think if part of the
8 question is whether or not a show like the "New Music",
9 for example, which is a Toronto-based show that has its
10 first run on Citytv and then is syndicated not only
11 throughout the country and Canada, but is shown on
12 MuchMusic and then syndicated internationally, if
13 that's a show that would be better served as being
14 categorized under 8, then the answer is I would say
15 there is a very good argument for that, much the same
16 as the argument that Marcia gave earlier for
17 MovieTelevision in the fact that it does promote a
18 Canadian star system.
19 21962 We would be happy again to work on
20 some sort of parameters that say what is Canadian, what
21 designates the Canadian content therein, because it
22 does promote the stars, promote the Canadian stars and,
23 more importantly, it introduces new stars into the
24 system in a contextual way so that it's not just a
25 video that is being shown, it's an interview usually in
StenoTran
4759
1 their place of residence or their place of work and
2 that sort of thing.
3 21963 So, I think having the new music in
4 that category would go a long way again to answer some
5 of the other broadcasters' urgings to create a star
6 system that better enhances this cycle that we are
7 talking about.
8 21964 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: It's an
9 interesting point of view on how you analyze it. ADISQ
10 is coming up and they, among other things, point to a
11 study in Quebec on private conventional French-language
12 television. The numbers of programs which present les
13 arts de la scène has dropped dramatically. I am
14 looking for the reasons for that and I will be talking
15 to them about that.
16 21965 MR. ZNAIMER: In part it's because
17 you now have channels that do that all the time. I
18 would hope that you will resist some of this pressure
19 which tends to have everybody do the same thing.
20 That's not the drift of the times, it's not the intent
21 of this tremendous wave of licensing that we have had
22 over the last few years. In fact since the advent of
23 Citytv, we have begun to get away from the notion that
24 every station must be a generalist that does a little
25 bit of something for everybody sometime. So, it may
StenoTran
4760
1 not be inappropriate that some channels de-emphasize
2 this kind of work because our channels emphasize it to
3 an enormous degree.
4 21966 MS DONLON: I would like to add
5 something to that, actually, because I think that's
6 part of the question, whether or not these categories
7 are being served by conventional. They are in fact
8 being very well served by specialty and I would also
9 just like to speak to the perhaps perception that a
10 music channel like MuchMusic or MuchMoreMusic or
11 MusiMax or MusiquePlus, for that matter, is a music
12 video channel only. They are not. They are channels
13 that have a lot of long-form programming on them that,
14 in effect, do the job of what variety in a traditional
15 sense does.
16 21967 There is the "Intimate Interactive"
17 series that you mentioned earlier, there is the "Snow
18 Jobs", the MuchMusic Video Awards, we shoot concerts,
19 we go live with multi-camera satellite mobiles from
20 Canada Day, Edge Fest, "Summer Salts". There is
21 interviews and bands in everyday providing context
22 so --
23 21968 MR. ZNAIMER: And even the politics.
24 21969 MS DONLON: And even the political
25 coverage and things that we do because we believe it
StenoTran
4761
1 brings relevance to our viewers. So, perhaps we are
2 looking at it in an old eyeglass as to variety on
3 convention. A lot of it is being taken up on the
4 specialty service and we are happy to be there for it.
5 21970 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Great.
6 That's why I mentioned 8 and 9 and their definitions.
7 Looking at them, I wanted your comment on how they are
8 working or not in support of the artists, in support of
9 the programming, in support of whether it's live
10 performance or pre-recorded or video clip or other
11 kinds of programming that you have on Bravo! I see
12 Paul back there.
13 21971 MS DONLON: It's all of it. I think
14 every one of those channels that's mentioned, including
15 Bravo!, have a lot of live performances in their
16 studio, but again they do it with a particular view to
17 what their audience is. In a specialty world, it's a
18 very narrow audience and we want to make sure that we
19 don't divorce our core and that we embrace who we are
20 and be very careful to entertain them in manners and
21 that means we have to borrow occasionally from all of
22 the other conventions. How do we do that?
23 21972 So, we are being a variety series, we
24 are being a video channel, we are being a talk show, we
25 are doing political coverage. We are doing all of that
StenoTran
4762
1 as long as it's musical, and that's what makes it fun
2 and enjoyable to watch, anyway.
3 21973 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you
4 very much.
5 21974 Thank you, Madam Chair.
6 21975 THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel?
7 21976 MS PATTERSON: Thank you, Madam
8 Chair.
9 21977 You have proposed amending the
10 definition of Canadian programming expenditures to
11 include all expenditures on the promotion and
12 advertising of Canadian programming. Does that include
13 the value assigned to the air time you provide for the
14 promotion of your own programs?
15 21978 MR. SHERRATT: No.
16 21979 MS PATTERSON: Okay, thank you.
17 21980 You have also suggested -- and this
18 is at page 4 of your written submission -- that if a
19 border station is trying to frustrate the simulcast
20 opportunity that one potential solution would be to
21 replace the border signal by a distant affiliate of the
22 same network, wouldn't this have cost implications?
23 21981 MR. SHERRATT: Not really and, in any
24 case, not costs that are insurmountable. As I think we
25 have stated, there is precedent for it in the Maritimes
StenoTran
4763
1 area and we can't see any reason why we can't do it in
2 the central area.
3 21982 MS PATTERSON: Thank you.
4 21983 Finally, you have proposed on page 2
5 of your oral submission today a fourth option that you
6 have called Option D, which is the production and
7 exhibition of local and regional programming. I would
8 just like to know, would this involve exhibition and
9 spending or a choice between the two?
10 21984 MR. SHERRATT: It could be either,
11 but we see it as an exhibition -- one might think when
12 we thought it up as an exhibition and tie it in with a
13 commitment to spending in the total service. We looked
14 at all the combinations that you might do. If you were
15 going to have more than one, then you would have an
16 exhibition requirement or commitment from the licensee
17 in terms of local programming, but at the same time
18 there would be an expenditure requirement against the
19 service.
20 21985 MS PATTERSON: Thank you for those
21 clarifications.
22 21986 Thank you, Madam Chair.
23 21987 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
24 Znaimer, Mr. Sherratt, ladies and gentlemen. We thank
25 you for your contribution and we hope you have a good
StenoTran
4764
1 trip back.
2 21988 MR. SHERRATT: We would like to thank
3 you and your colleagues for your amazing stamina over
4 these almost four weeks and we wish you well in your
5 deliberations.
6 21989 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
7 21990 We will now take a 15-minute break.
8 We will be back at a quarter to 5:00. Nous reprendrons
9 à cinq heures moins quart.
10 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1632
11 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1647
12 21991 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary.
13 21992 Mme SANTERRE: Merci, Madame la
14 Présidente.
15 21993 La prochaine intervention sera faite
16 par le Conseil provincial du secteur des
17 communications, Syndicat canadien de la fonction
18 publique.
19 21994 Messieurs, madame.
20 21995 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour, madame,
21 messieurs.
22 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
23 21996 M. CHABOT: Bonjour, Madame la
24 Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers,
25 membres du Conseil.
StenoTran
4765
1 21997 Mon nom est Bernard Chabot. Je suis
2 le président du Conseil provincial du secteur des
3 communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction
4 publique. Je suis aussi président du syndicat des
5 employés de CFCM-TV, connue dans l'appellation
6 populaire sous l'appellation de Télé-4 à Québec.
7 21998 J'ai le plaisir d'être accompagné
8 aujourd'hui, à ma gauche, de M. Henri Massé, qui est
9 secrétaire général de la Fédération des travailleurs et
10 travailleuses du Québec, à ma droite de M. Gilles
11 Charland, directeur québécois du Syndicat canadien de
12 la fonction publique et, à mon extrême droite, de
13 Mme Linda Craig, responsable de la recherche pour le
14 CPSC.
15 21999 Dans un premier temps, nous aimerions
16 remercier le Conseil de nous permettre d'exprimer notre
17 point de vue dans le cadre de cette importante
18 audience. On ne vous le cache pas, plusieurs
19 travailleurs et travailleuses que nous représentons
20 sont à l'écoute et sont conscients que cette audience
21 risque d'être déterminante pour leur avenir.
22 22000 On le sait, les décisions qui sont
23 prises par le Conseil ont toujours des impacts plus ou
24 moins directs sur les travailleurs et travailleuses qui
25 oeuvrent au sein des entreprises de radiodiffusion.
StenoTran
4766
1 Vous pouvez en témoigner, puisque nous n'en sommes pas
2 à notre première comparution devant vous, que le CPSC
3 n'a pas l'habitude d'évoquer l'enjeu des emplois dans
4 le cadre des audiences publiques. Cependant, les
5 décisions qui seront prises au terme de la présente
6 audience pourraient avoir des conséquences économiques
7 négatives pour les télédiffuseurs et, par conséquent,
8 pour les personnes qui y travaillent.
9 22001 Au même titre que les autres acteurs
10 du système, nous croyons qu'il est légitime pour ceux
11 qui le façonnent quotidiennement, pour ceux qui sont
12 aussi au coeur de la production canadienne, de vous
13 faire part de leurs préoccupations. L'inquiétude est
14 d'autant plus vive que les télédiffuseurs semblent être
15 l'unique cible de la majorité des interventions que
16 nous avons entendues au cours de ce processus.
17 22002 Notre intervention a pour but
18 d'insister sur l'importance d'assurer un bon équilibre
19 entre tous les éléments du système de radiodiffusion.
20 Vous vous en doutez certainement, l'idée que l'on se
21 fait d'un système équilibré diffère de celle que
22 peuvent avoir les intervenants du secteur indépendant.
23 22003 La production interne au Québec est
24 un élément essentiel et dynamique du système de
25 radiodiffusion francophone et, n'en déplaise à
StenoTran
4767
1 certains, elle a contribué et contribue encore
2 grandement au succès que connaît la programmation
3 canadienne de langue française. Ce succès est le
4 résultat des efforts conjugués de tous les
5 intervenants: les télédiffuseurs, le secteur
6 indépendant et les artisans oeuvrant à l'interne, ceux
7 que l'on oublie malheureusement trop souvent. Bref, la
8 production canadienne, ce n'est pas seulement la
9 production indépendante.
10 22004 Quoi qu'en pensent les producteurs
11 indépendants, le maintien et le développement de la
12 production interne font aussi partie des solutions aux
13 défis qui attendent la télévision canadienne du 21e
14 siècle. La production interne existe depuis le début
15 de la télévision et doit continuer d'exister parce
16 qu'un système de radiodiffusion équilibré est un
17 système qui favorise le développement de toutes les
18 forces en présence. Nous nous permettons d'ailleurs de
19 rappeler qu'au départ les télédiffuseurs ont dû se
20 doter d'importantes infrastructures de production pour
21 obtenir leur licence.
22 22005 Les objectifs donc de cette audience
23 sont avant tout de trouver des moyens pour augmenter la
24 production canadienne de qualité et d'élargir les
25 auditoires. Ces objectifs répondent, selon nous, à un
StenoTran
4768
1 besoin criant dans le Canada anglophone, car il faut
2 bien reconnaître que la situation est totalement
3 différente au Québec. De nombreuses études, déposées
4 au cours du présent processus public, démontrent en
5 effet que les télédiffuseurs québécois consacrent une
6 grande part de leur budget de programmation aux
7 émissions canadiennes et que les téléspectateurs
8 québécois apprécient leur télévision et l'écoutent en
9 grand nombre. Il en va autrement dans le reste du
10 Canada.
11 22006 Cependant, il ne suffit pas
12 d'applaudir le succès du Québec; encore faudrait-il
13 reconnaître la spécificité de son marché et ne pas lui
14 appliquer la même médecine que celle que l'on pourrait
15 envisager pour le reste du pays. La feuille de route
16 des télédiffuseurs francophones en matière de
17 programmation canadienne et en termes de recours au
18 secteur indépendant répond plus qu'adéquatement aux
19 exigences du Conseil et aux dispositions de la Loi sur
20 la radiodiffusion.
21 22007 Depuis le début de cette audience on
22 entend le secteur indépendant exiger toujours plus en
23 matière de réglementation, de financement, et ce, en sa
24 faveur évidemment. On croirait entendre une jeune
25 industrie qui a besoin du maximum de soutien pour se
StenoTran
4769
1 mettre au monde et qui viendrait vous dire:
2 Donnez-nous toutes les chances, y compris au détriment
3 des autres acteurs, et ne nous demandez surtout rien.
4 22008 Toutefois, au sujet de la production
5 indépendante, on ne peut plus parler d'une industrie
6 naissante. On parle ici d'une industrie florissante
7 qui a amplement eu le temps de se mettre au monde, qui
8 a largement bénéficié, et bénéficie toujours à au moins
9 60 pour cent de sa structure financière, de sommes
10 considérables provenant des deniers publics et qui a le
11 plus profité de l'arrivée des canaux spécialisés; une
12 industrie rendue à maturité qui dit craindre la
13 concentration mais qui tend elle-même à se concentrer
14 davantage. Ainsi, la production indépendante compte
15 des groupes importants, cotés en bourse, et parfois
16 même détenus par des entreprises prospères, encore plus
17 fortunées que les télédiffuseurs francophones. Pensons
18 par exemple à SDA, qui est détenue par Coscient,
19 elle-même détenue par Télésystème, détenue à son tour
20 par le géant Téléglobe.
21 22009 L'étude de la firme Coopers & Lybrand
22 intitulée "Environmental Scan - Canadian Television",
23 produite pour l'ACR, note que 7 des 25 plus importantes
24 compagnies de production indépendante sont maintenant
25 cotées en bourse et accaparaient déjà, en 1997, 52 pour
StenoTran
4770
1 cent des revenus totaux des revenus de l'industrie de
2 la télévision canadienne. De plus, cette étude
3 souligne que l'industrie canadienne de production
4 télévisuelle s'est consolidée depuis quelques années et
5 note même une tendance à la concentration puisque le
6 nombre de maisons de production indépendante est passé
7 de 741 à 541 de 1990 à 1996, et ceci sans compter les
8 prises de contrôle des unes par les autres.
9 22010 Nous croyons fermement que le moment
10 est venu de revoir les règles du jeu afin d'assurer une
11 meilleure répartition des responsabilités, des risques
12 et des bénéfices entre tous les acteurs.
13 22011 Bien sûr, nous sommes conscients
14 qu'il est encore nécessaire d'allouer des fonds publics
15 à la production canadienne si nous voulons concurrencer
16 les productions étrangères et particulièrement celles
17 qui nous arrivent des États-Unis, mais on se demande
18 toutefois jusqu'où nous devons aller. Jusqu'à quel
19 point les Canadiens, qui paient déjà cher leur système
20 de radiodiffusion, doivent-ils financer une industrie,
21 cotée en bourse, vivant largement de l'argent public et
22 n'ayant pourtant aucun compte à rendre à ses principaux
23 bailleurs de fonds que sont les contribuables et les
24 abonnés du câble? Où est la limite raisonnable?
25 22012 Alors que les télédiffuseurs, compte
StenoTran
4771
1 tenu du contexte réglementé dans lequel ils évoluent,
2 doivent régulièrement rendre compte de leurs faits et
3 gestes auprès du Conseil, la dépendante industrie de la
4 production indépendante qui, elle, bénéficie très
5 souvent des décisions du Conseil et ne cesse d'en
6 réclamer davantage, n'a paradoxalement aucun compte à
7 lui rendre.
8 22013 Par ailleurs, les producteurs
9 indépendants sont contraints d'admettre que les sources
10 de financement public ne sont pas illimitées. Ils vous
11 demandent donc, encore une fois, de réglementer en leur
12 faveur en exigeant que les télédiffuseurs versent un
13 certain pourcentage de leurs revenus à la production
14 indépendante et, par conséquent, allouent moins de
15 budget à leur production interne. Si le Conseil
16 accédait à cette demande, il mettrait sérieusement en
17 péril la santé financière des télédiffuseurs, les
18 emplois qui s'y trouvent ainsi que le volume même
19 d'émissions canadiennes qu'ils peuvent maintenir.
20 22014 Déjà, on a pu constater que l'arrivée
21 massive des producteurs indépendants, sous la pression
22 de plus en plus forte du CRTC sur les radiodiffuseurs
23 pour les obliger à s'approvisionner à l'extérieur,
24 ainsi que la multiplication des subventions et crédits
25 gouvernementaux en faveur de ces entreprises toujours
StenoTran
4772
1 plus dépendantes, ont eu pour conséquence d'affecter
2 sérieusement la rentabilité de la production maison du
3 fait de la sous-utilisation des ressources internes.
4 Par exemple, ce phénomène a entraîné la perte de 400
5 emplois à Télé-Métropole seulement, auxquels s'ajoutent
6 300 emplois perdus à Télé-Québec et des milliers
7 d'autres éliminés à Radio-Canada et à CBC.
8 22015 Or, seul un volume d'activités
9 important et régulier peut assurer aux télédiffuseurs
10 une continuité et une masse critique suffisante pour
11 bénéficier des économies d'échelle liées à la
12 production interne. En s'attaquant à la capacité de
13 production des radiodiffuseurs, les producteurs
14 indépendants mettent en péril leur survie, entraînant
15 la ronde infernale des coupures.
16 22016 Et que dire de la production
17 régionale ou des segments de production comme
18 l'information, créneau dans lequel les producteurs
19 indépendants voudraient cantonner les télédiffuseurs?
20 Ces segments risqueraient fort de faire les frais d'une
21 réglementation qui favoriserait encore plus le secteur
22 indépendant en devant assumer à toutes fins pratiques
23 seuls les coûts structurels des productions des
24 télédiffuseurs.
25 22017 Si le CRTC oblige les télédiffuseurs
StenoTran
4773
1 à financer la production indépendante à même leurs
2 revenus, et donc à même nos emplois, il n'aura plus à
3 réglementer pour limiter la production interne car, du
4 point de vue économique, les radiodiffuseurs ne
5 pourront simplement plus produire. Réduire les
6 télédiffuseurs au silence ne servirait pas les
7 objectifs de la loi et ne servirait pas l'intérêt
8 public.
9 22018 Depuis le 23 septembre dernier vous
10 avez entendu un nombre important de représentants de la
11 production indépendante se plaindre que les
12 télédiffuseurs ont tendance à produire à l'interne.
13 Cependant, jamais ne nous explique-t-on les causes de
14 cette supposée tendance. Serait-il possible que,
15 malgré les nombreuses subventions dont bénéficient les
16 producteurs indépendants, ces derniers ne représentent
17 toujours pas une alternative économiquement
18 intéressante pour les télédiffuseurs? Il nous semble
19 que poser la question, c'est y répondre.
20 22019 À notre avis, au Québec à tout le
21 moins, l'équilibre entre les sources de production
22 d'émissions canadiennes est en péril depuis quelques
23 années déjà. Donner raison aux nouvelles exigences de
24 la cohorte des producteurs dits indépendants
25 condamnerait inévitablement toute une partie de notre
StenoTran
4774
1 système de production à l'effondrement. Est-ce là le
2 résultat recherché?
3 22020 Si l'objectif du CRTC est d'augmenter
4 la production canadienne, il devrait plutôt favoriser
5 l'ensemble des éléments du système et faire en sorte
6 que tous les acteurs puissent, de manière équitable,
7 avoir accès aux mêmes sources de financement. Le CRTC
8 devrait également inviter le gouvernement à mettre en
9 place des mesures de contrôle pour obliger les
10 producteurs indépendants à être plus transparents, à
11 rendre compte de l'utilisation détaillée qu'ils font
12 des sommes perçues.
13 22021 Pourquoi les télédiffuseurs
14 devraient-ils produire moins alors que l'objectif est
15 d'augmenter la production canadienne? Le Conseil doit
16 réglementer en faveur de l'accroissement de la
17 programmation canadienne et non en faveur d'un seul
18 secteur du système. Il doit viser le meilleur
19 équilibre possible au bénéfice de l'ensemble des
20 Canadiens.
21 22022 Merci de nous avoir entendus. Nous
22 sommes maintenant disposés à répondre à vos questions.
23 22023 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci,
24 Monsieur Chabot.
25 22024 À votre avis, quelle est la raison
StenoTran
4775
1 principale pour laquelle il y a moins de production
2 locale et régionale, qui est une de vos préoccupations?
3 Ici, je ne parle pas nécessairement qu'elle soit faite
4 par les télédiffuseurs ou les producteurs indépendants,
5 mais je crois que vous avez un problème avec la
6 soi-disant disparition de la programmation appelée
7 programmation miroir, et je crois même que vous
8 suggérez que le Conseil devrait obliger les réseaux
9 eux-mêmes à garder un créneau qui obligerait les
10 télédiffuseurs affiliés à faire de telles productions.
11 22025 Est-ce que votre problème avec la
12 production faite par les producteurs indépendants, le
13 problème que vous y voyez, est relié à la soi-disant
14 disparition de la programmation locale et régionale?
15 22026 M. CHABOT: Je pense que ce sont deux
16 choses qui sont distinctes. D'une part, la disparition
17 de la production locale et régionale, elle est devenue
18 problématique ou elle s'est accrue, si on veut, à
19 partir du moment où les réseaux se sont constitués de
20 plus en plus grandement. Si on prend l'exemple de
21 Québec capitale, du temps où la station pour laquelle
22 je travaille était une entité indépendante affiliée à
23 un réseau comme TVA, sa marge de manoeuvre était plus
24 grande.
25 22027 À partir du moment où les contraintes
StenoTran
4776
1 économiques ont fait que les réseaux se sont construits
2 et ont possédé les stations, bien sûr, en termes de
3 ventes en publicité, c'est plus rentable de vendre et
4 d'offrir à General Motors, par exemple, un produit sur
5 l'ensemble de ses stations en même temps et c'est plus
6 facile, et c'est plus économique aussi, de produire une
7 émission qui va être diffusée et vendue à la General
8 Motors partout à la même heure. Donc c'est une
9 contrainte qui s'est accrue avec le temps.
10 22028 Je ne suis pas convaincu qu'on puisse
11 la lier à cet autre problème de la production
12 indépendante. Je pense que le phénomène de la
13 production indépendante, il s'est accru avec le temps,
14 avec les exigences qui sont apparues dans la loi.
15 Lorsque la loi a dit que le radiodiffuseur devait faire
16 appel de façon notable aux producteurs indépendants, le
17 Conseil a commencé à poser plus de questions et à
18 exiger de plus en plus la présence de ces productions
19 de l'extérieur.
20 22029 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je vois très bien que
21 c'est au désavantage, évidemment, des employés
22 syndiqués dans les stations, mais comment voyez-vous ce
23 phénomène de la production indépendante comme étant
24 contraire aux objectifs de la loi, qui sont finalement
25 d'apporter de la programmation aux auditoires
StenoTran
4777
1 canadiens?
2 22030 Si on examine le problème de cette
3 façon-là, il s'agit de voir qu'est-ce qu'il y a aux
4 écrans plutôt que qui l'a formulé, mais je suppose que
5 vous allez me répondre que ça dépend qui l'a payé,
6 parce que ça vient des fonds publics.
7 22031 M. CHABOT: Si vous permettez, Madame
8 la Présidente, j'aimerais laisser la parole au
9 secrétaire général de la FTQ, qui a eu la générosité de
10 venir nous accompagner aujourd'hui. Vous constatez
11 qu'on est plus nombreux que d'habitude parce que
12 justement cette audience nous apparaissait tellement
13 importante -- et nous avons suivi avec assiduité vos
14 travaux -- que je pense qu'on croyait vraiment urgent
15 de venir vous rencontrer et de vous exprimer avec
16 clarté nos propos.
17 22032 Je pense que M. Massé pourra vous
18 parler là-dessus.
19 22033 M. MASSÉ: Merci, Madame la
20 Présidente, de nous donner l'opportunité de s'exprimer.
21 22034 À la Fédération des travailleurs et
22 des travailleuses du Québec nous avons très rarement
23 participé aux travaux du CRTC, pas parce que nous ne
24 croyons pas ça important mais parce que nos syndicats
25 affiliés le font de façon compétente et régulière.
StenoTran
4778
1 Mais aujourd'hui nous pensions qu'il était de notre
2 devoir, à la fédération, de mettre je dirais le poids
3 politique ou le poids moral des 500 000 travailleurs et
4 travailleuses que nous représentons au Québec dans ce
5 débat-là.
6 22035 Pour nous, ce n'est pas une question
7 de production privée contre production par les
8 télédiffuseurs, mais on pense qu'à ce moment-ci il n'y
9 a pas le même problème au Québec que dans le reste du
10 Canada quant au contenu de la production locale et au
11 contenu canadien de la production. On pense qu'il y a
12 une tentative de diversion de la part des producteurs
13 indépendants, et je dirais même des fois, dans certains
14 cas, de fausses représentations qui, profitant de ce
15 débat-là, essaient tout simplement d'avoir une part du
16 gâteau plus grande alors que ça n'a rien à voir avec le
17 contenu canadien.
18 22036 C'est important qu'on se fasse
19 entendre là-dessus parce que c'est une question,
20 d'abord... si les entreprises sont capables de faire
21 valoir le côté business, et on n'a rien contre, je
22 pense qu'on est en droit aussi de faire valoir toute la
23 question des emplois.
24 22037 On peut nous laisser entrevoir que
25 c'est un emploi pour un emploi, que ce soit fait par
StenoTran
4779
1 les télédiffuseurs ou par les producteurs privés, mais
2 ce n'est pas tout à fait la même question, ce n'est pas
3 tout à fait la même chose. Souvent, c'est un emploi de
4 qualité contre un emploi à la pige, temporaire, et où
5 il n'y a quasiment pas de stabilité d'emploi. On a
6 vécu cette situation-là de façon dramatique au Québec
7 et on pense qu'il y a encore peut-être des centaines et
8 des centaines d'emplois dans le même problème.
9 22038 Il y a aussi toute la question de
10 l'infrastructure. Au Québec, il y a une situation
11 particulière; on a mis des années à bâtir une
12 infrastructure importante au niveau des
13 télédiffuseurs -- on peut citer Radio-Canada,
14 Télé-Métropole -- et on ne voudrait pas voir
15 démantibuler cette importante structure là qu'on a mis
16 des années à bâtir. On pense même que, si on laissait
17 aller ça et qu'on allait trop dans la production
18 privée, il y aurait risque à un moment donné au niveau
19 de la qualité de la production. Donc ça peut coûter
20 cher en emplois de qualité, cher au niveau de la
21 qualité de la production; c'est aussi, on pense, une
22 perte de contrôle du CRTC sur toutes ces questions-là,
23 parce que les producteurs privés sont souvent de
24 juridiction provinciale et non couverts par le CRTC.
25 22039 En tout cas, nous, on se demande à
StenoTran
4780
1 l'heure actuelle... on ne voit pas d'entreprises, par
2 exemple, qui sont obligées de se faire imposer des
3 fournisseurs; on voit ça pratiquement nulle part dans
4 le secteur économique privé, à moins qu'il y ait des
5 intérêts nationaux en jeu. Et, encore une fois, on est
6 ici pour vous dire qu'au Québec, toute la question du
7 contenu de la production, du contenu canadien n'est pas
8 en cause; donc, il n'y a pas d'intérêts nationaux à ce
9 niveau-là qui sont en cause.
10 22040 On aimerait que nos producteurs
11 privés n'essaient pas de faire passer des vessies pour
12 des lanternes; qu'on fasse le vrai débat. On est
13 d'accord avec ce qui peut se passer dans le reste du
14 Canada mais, encore une fois, la situation au Québec
15 est particulière à ce niveau-là.
16 22041 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous soulevez la
17 question de la programmation au Québec; le niveau de
18 programmation canadienne à l'antenne vous semble à un
19 niveau bien acceptable, mais je trouve un peu
20 surprenant, dans votre mémoire écrit, que vous
21 suggériez que le 50 pour cent en soirée est trop bas et
22 qu'il devrait être mis à 75 pour cent pour ajouter aux
23 heures, et aussi qu'il n'y a pas suffisamment de
24 dramatiques diffusées.
25 22042 Est-ce que, à votre avis, on
StenoTran
4781
1 n'atteint pas suffisamment un niveau élevé ou si c'est
2 parce que vous voulez que le niveau atteint soit de
3 fait endossé dans la réglementation? Est-ce qu'il est
4 plus de 50 pour cent à votre avis ou seulement à 50
5 pour cent, parce que vous suggérez 75 pour cent au lieu
6 en soirée.
7 22043 Mme CRAIG: On sait qu'au Québec,
8 effectivement, souvent même ça dépasse les exigences.
9 On le mentionne aussi dans notre mémoire écrit qu'on
10 est bien conscients qu'au Québec, la situation est fort
11 différente.
12 22044 Maintenant, pourquoi on parle de 75
13 pour cent? On pense que, pour augmenter la
14 programmation canadienne, il vaut mieux peut-être y
15 aller en demandant qu'on en mette plus en ondes plutôt
16 que de vouloir donner des sous plus aux producteurs
17 indépendants pour essayer de l'augmenter. On pense que
18 c'est mieux de passer par les télédiffuseurs.
19 22045 En ce qui concerne les dramatiques, à
20 moins que je me rappelle mal ce qu'on a écrit, ce n'est
21 pas tant de déplorer qu'il n'y ait pas assez de
22 dramatiques comme le fait qu'on se rendait compte, à
23 partir de l'avis public même du Conseil, qu'il est
24 quelquefois peut-être plus facile de ne pas en mettre
25 en ondes à cause du nombre d'heures de grande écoute,
StenoTran
4782
1 où on peut facilement mettre un peu de nouvelles,
2 mettre un talk show, et finalement on obtient notre 50
3 pour cent sans avoir mis de dramatiques.
4 22046 Alors ce qu'on suggérait, c'était
5 peut-être de donner un crédit de temps aux dramatiques
6 qui soit un peu plus élevé; présentement, c'est à 150
7 pour cent, le mettre à 200 pour cent pour peut-être
8 faire en sorte que les télédiffuseurs soient plus
9 tentés, plutôt que d'imposer des dramatiques. On le
10 mentionne; on dit qu'on pourrait faire ça, on pourrait
11 imposer de mettre, entre telle heure et telle heure,
12 une dramatique, mais on pense que ce serait trop
13 contraignant pour les télédiffuseurs de le faire parce
14 que, bon, on sait comment se bâtit une grille de
15 programmation. Donc on aimait mieux suggérer plutôt
16 d'augmenter le crédit de temps qui est accordé pour les
17 dramatiques.
18 22047 Je voudrais juste revenir sur une de
19 vos questions de tantôt concernant la production
20 régionale.
21 22048 Jusqu'à maintenant je ne pense pas,
22 effectivement, que l'arrivée de la production
23 indépendante ait à ce point touché, comme le disait
24 Bernard, la production régionale. Plutôt, ce qui a
25 fait que cette production-là a été souvent en
StenoTran
4783
1 diminuant, c'est la façon que se sont rebâtis les
2 télédiffuseurs, c'est la façon qu'on repense la
3 programmation sur une échelle, si on parle du Québec,
4 plus provinciale. Par contre, si les télédiffuseurs
5 doivent prendre une partie de leurs revenus pour les
6 consacrer à la production indépendante, on craint, oui,
7 que les segments de programmation comme l'information
8 ou encore la production régionale pourraient être
9 affectés effectivement parce que, si les télédiffuseurs
10 doivent aller chercher des sous dans leurs revenus, il
11 va falloir qu'ils l'enlèvent en quelque part.
12 Généralement, ce n'est pas très compliqué, il faut
13 qu'ils le prennent en quelque part, cet argent-là.
14 22049 Alors il y a des bonnes chances que
15 déjà les sous qui allaient en production régionale...
16 la production régionale, pardon, va faire les frais
17 d'une telle réglementation, si réglementation dans ce
18 sens-là il y a.
19 22050 M. CHABOT: D'ailleurs, Madame la
20 Présidente, je pense que vous avez eu des
21 représentations déjà de groupes de petits producteurs
22 basés à l'extérieur des grandes villes qui sont venus
23 réclamer eux aussi accès aux télédiffuseurs dans les
24 stations locales. Donc on sent qu'il y a une pression,
25 qu'on veut non seulement produire pour les réseaux mais
StenoTran
4784
1 on veut produire pour les stations locales des réseaux.
2 22051 Le danger est donc décuplé dans ce
3 sens-là; puisque la production régionale est déjà très
4 limitée, vous voyez que le danger est plus grand.
5 22052 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Comme le système
6 existe en ce moment, où voyez-vous le problème qui, à
7 votre avis, a comme résultat que la production est
8 généralement... ou est à un niveau trop élevé faite par
9 les producteurs indépendants? Qu'est-ce qu'il faudrait
10 changer pour que les télédiffuseurs en fassent plus
11 eux-mêmes?
12 22053 M. CHABOT: Je pense que vous avez
13 entendu au cours de cette audience des gens qui
14 représentaient justement les télédiffuseurs et qui sont
15 venus vous dire qu'ils réclamaient l'équité. Ce qui
16 freine actuellement la production interne, la
17 production maison, c'est le fait que nos télédiffuseurs
18 n'ont pas accès à tous les programmes de subvention,
19 tous les crédits d'impôt qui sont accordés aux
20 producteurs indépendants, et les télédiffuseurs
21 réclament d'avoir accès à ces argents-là et je pense
22 qu'ils devraient y avoir accès. C'est une question
23 d'équité.
24 22054 Je pense que la production, qu'elle
25 soit faite à l'interne ou qu'elle soit faite à
StenoTran
4785
1 l'externe, elle peut être d'excellente qualité.
2 Pourquoi privilégier plus un canal de production, un
3 type de production plus qu'un autre? Je pense qu'on
4 devrait instaurer un système plus équitable. C'est un
5 frein, actuellement, ça.
6 22055 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors, vraiment, on
7 arrive aux recommandations qui nous ont été faites par
8 les télédiffuseurs au-delà du Québec. Je crois que
9 vous parlez aujourd'hui surtout de la situation au
10 Québec...
11 22056 M. CHABOT: Bien sûr.
12 22057 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... qu'ils veulent un
13 accès équitable aux fonds.
14 22058 Alors vous recommanderiez que toutes
15 les exigences qui vont à l'envers de l'accès par les
16 télédiffuseurs directement soient éliminées.
17 22059 M. CHABOT: Oui, mais je vous dirais
18 qu'une de nos préoccupations, c'est qu'on croit que les
19 fonds publics, ils sont rares; dans tous les domaines
20 maintenant, je pense que même dans la télévision, dans
21 les crédits accordés à la télévision, on cherche des
22 sous maintenant, et je pense qu'on devrait être plus
23 sélectifs, plus exigeants dans les critères de qualité.
24 22060 Pour nous, il y a des types de
25 production qui sont admissibles présentement à des
StenoTran
4786
1 crédits d'impôt, à des subventions de Téléfilm ou
2 d'autres organismes, et on croit que ce type
3 d'émissions là ne devraient pas avoir accès à ces
4 subventions-là. Je pense qu'on devrait réserver les
5 fonds publics à des productions coûteuses, des
6 téléromans ou des grandes séries que les télédiffuseurs
7 ou que l'économie d'une province comme le Québec ne
8 pourrait pas produire, ou même que le Canada ne
9 pourrait pas produire seul.
10 22061 On sait qu'on est un petit marché.
11 Donc, il faudrait réserver ce soutien-là vraiment à la
12 grande production, qui met en valeur la culture
13 canadienne. Mais je pense que les talk shows, par
14 exemple, pour ne prendre que cet exemple, ça ne devrait
15 pas avoir accès aux subventions.
16 22062 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors tout ça, à
17 votre avis, ça devrait être maison, ça devrait être
18 fait par les télédiffuseurs.
19 22063 Est-ce que vous iriez jusqu'à dire
20 que les fonds publics soient accessibles seulement pour
21 les dramatiques lourdes?
22 22064 M. CHABOT: Oui, tout à fait.
23 22065 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors il faudrait
24 refaire les règles de l'accès aux fonds.
25 22066 Vous réalisez, évidemment, que ça ne
StenoTran
4787
1 découle pas directement du Conseil.
2 22067 M. CHABOT: Bien sûr, mais je pense
3 qu'on a commencé un travail au Québec... et j'aimerais
4 peut-être passer la parole à Gilles Charland sur cet
5 aspect.
6 22068 M. CHARLAND: Nous, ce que nous
7 disons là-dessus, c'est qu'il faut rééquilibrer les
8 forces. Ce qu'on sent actuellement, c'est qu'il y a un
9 travail je dirais de vive voix qui se fait et il y a un
10 travail souterrain qui se fait par les producteurs
11 indépendants, et nous, ce qu'on demande, c'est d'être
12 sur le même pied d'égalité.
13 22069 On est conscients que le Conseil
14 n'est pas là pour faire des relations de travail, mais
15 en même temps il ne faut pas que, par ses politiques et
16 sa réglementation, il fasse indirectement ce qu'il ne
17 veut pas faire directement. Je m'explique. Si le
18 Conseil avantage les producteurs indépendants,
19 indirectement ce sont les diffuseurs et, par le biais,
20 les emplois que les employés occupent, qui vont écoper.
21 À ce moment-là le Conseil -- c'est ça que je dis --
22 ferait indirectement ce qu'il ne veut pas faire
23 directement en disant: Moi, ma politique, c'est de ne
24 pas me mêler des relations de travail et des emplois.
25 22070 L'autre élément -- je pense que vous
StenoTran
4788
1 y avez bien touché -- c'est tout l'accès aux fonds de
2 production. Je pense que le noeud est là. Tout
3 récemment au Québec les télédiffuseurs ont demandé au
4 gouvernement d'avoir accès aux mêmes crédits d'impôt
5 que les producteurs indépendants pour pouvoir, quand
6 ils font des soumissions de l'interne versus les
7 producteurs indépendants, au moins compétitionner sur
8 les mêmes marchés et sur les mêmes bases de comparaison
9 de coûts. On a eu un lobby important.
10 22071 Ça s'est réglé au bureau du premier
11 ministre, il a fallu intervenir comme organisation
12 syndicale dans les différentes instances
13 gouvernementales parce que les producteurs indépendants
14 ont fait un lobby public et en coulisse pour exclure
15 les télédiffuseurs. Et c'est ce qu'ils sont venus dire
16 encore pendant les présentes audiences -- c'est-à-dire
17 donnez-nous la voie et excluez les télédiffuseurs -- et
18 on sait fort bien qu'il y a un lobby politique qui va
19 se faire par en arrière. On connaît leurs tactiques.
20 22072 Ce qu'on vient vous dire, c'est qu'on
21 va prendre un peu les mêmes moyens pour pas juste
22 défendre comme syndicat nos emplois mais aussi défendre
23 une pratique d'équilibre. Et là, s'il y a un
24 équilibre, la compétition jouera à ce moment-là son
25 rôle, et quel le meilleur l'emporte à ce moment-là.
StenoTran
4789
1 Mais au moins on veut être sur les mêmes blocs de
2 départ que les producteurs indépendants, et non pas
3 trois milles en arrière.
4 22073 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et vous auriez sans
5 doute le même problème avec des sociétés de production
6 qui seraient des affiliées des télédiffuseurs.
7 22074 M. CHABOT: Je ne suis pas sûr de ça.
8 22075 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Dans les cas où il y
9 a des producteurs qui sont vraiment indépendants et
10 ensuite il y a le phénomène des compagnies de
11 production soi-disant indépendantes qui sont affiliées
12 aux télédiffuseurs, pour vous, c'est le même problème?
13 22076 M. CHABOT: Bien, oui. Mais ces
14 compagnies, elles sont nées du fait que les
15 télédiffuseurs ont cherché tous les moyens imaginables
16 pour essayer d'avoir accès à ces fonds. Si l'équité
17 était établie, et même si ces compagnies affiliées ont
18 été mises en place, ça ne leur a pas donné accès à tous
19 les crédits. Mais je pense que leur existence ne
20 serait plus nécessaire, bien sûr, si l'équité était
21 établie.
22 22077 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Si vous avez suivi
23 l'audience, vous êtes au courant que nous avons
24 plusieurs représentations à cet effet de la part des
25 télédiffuseurs et de la part aussi d'autres
StenoTran
4790
1 organisations qui sont plus semblables à vous.
2 22078 Je ne sais pas si mes collègues ont
3 des questions. Non?
4 22079 Alors nous vous remercions de vos
5 représentations. Vous venez de Québec ou de Montréal?
6 De Québec, je crois.
7 22080 M. CHABOT: Moi, de Québec, mais mes
8 collègues viennent de Montréal.
9 22081 LA PRÉSIDENTE: De Montréal. Alors
10 bon voyage de retour.
11 22082 M. CHABOT: Merci bien.
12 22083 M. MASSÉ: Merci beaucoup, madame.
13 22084 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci.
14 22085 Madame la Secrétaire, voulez-vous
15 inviter l'intervenant suivant, s'il vous plaît.
16 22086 Mme SANTERRE: Merci, Madame la
17 Présidente.
18 22087 La prochaine présentation sera de
19 l'Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du
20 spectacle et de la vidéo.
21 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
22 22088 M. PILON: Bonjour. Mon nom est
23 Robert Pilon. Je suis vice-président aux Affaires
24 publiques de l'ADISQ, l'Association des producteurs de
25 disques, de spectacles et d'émissions de télévision de
StenoTran
4791
1 variétés du Québec. Je voudrais saluer tous les
2 conseillers et conseillères, Madame la Présidente...
3 Madame la Présidente ou Vice-Présidente, présidente de
4 l'audience mais vice-présidente du CRTC. Je suis
5 accompagné de ma collègue Solange Drouin, qui est
6 directrice générale et conseillère juridique.
7 22089 Notre mémoire -- je pense que vous en
8 avez pris connaissance -- aborde fondamentalement deux
9 grands thèmes concernant la question de la place
10 qu'occupent la chanson et la musique, et plus
11 généralement les arts de la scène, à la télévision
12 canadienne: d'abord, le thème de la
13 sous-représentation, une sous-représentation qui s'est
14 accentuée au cours des dernières années, et
15 deuxièmement le thème du sous-financement.
16 22090 Alors je vais d'abord laisser la
17 parole à ma collègue Me Drouin sur la question de la
18 sous-représentation.
19 22091 Me DROUIN: Merci.
20 22092 Alors, comme mon collègue vient de
21 vous le préciser, à l'ADISQ, on a choisi dans un
22 premier temps de concentrer notre intervention sur la
23 section de l'avis public que vous avez émis, qui a
24 initié cette vaste audience, sur la question qui traite
25 des catégories d'émissions sous-représentées. À ce
StenoTran
4792
1 sujet, nous avons conclu dans notre mémoire que les
2 émissions présentant principalement des performances
3 d'artistes de la chanson et de la musique sont
4 fortement sous-représentées dans le système canadien de
5 radiodiffusion de langue française, et plus
6 particulièrement à la télévision conventionnelle et
7 que, malheureusement, malgré cette sous-représentation,
8 il semble que le CRTC n'a pas reconnu cette réalité et
9 n'a pas mis en place des mesures pour endiguer cette
10 sous-représentation.
11 22093 Avant d'aborder plus en détail ce
12 problème, je vais rappeler rapidement le cadre
13 définitionnel et réglementaire actuel des différentes
14 catégories d'émissions que vous avez vous-mêmes établi.
15 22094 Aux fins de l'application du
16 Règlement de 1987 sur la télédiffusion, le Conseil a
17 proposé, propose et définit 11 catégories d'émissions.
18 Les cinq premières catégories visent l'information, la
19 sixième catégorie le sport et les cinq autres
20 catégories, le divertissement.
21 22095 Le CRTC, dans les cinq catégories qui
22 visent le divertissement, vous avez établi fort à
23 propos une distinction entre les émissions qui visent
24 principalement des performances d'artistes de la
25 chanson et de la musique, la fameuse catégorie 8, dont
StenoTran
4793
1 je reparlerai, et les émissions qui peuvent accueillir
2 ponctuellement les artistes de la chanson et de la
3 musique, la catégorie no 9 pour la variété dans un sens
4 très large, catégorie no 10 pour les jeux et la
5 catégorie no 11 pour l'intérêt général; mais ce sont
6 toutes des choses, évidemment, que vous savez.
7 22096 En nous référant à une étude déposée
8 dans le cadre des travaux d'un groupe de travail qui a
9 été mis sur pied au Québec par la ministre de la
10 Culture et des Communications, Mme Louise Beaudoin, une
11 étude qui a recensé l'ensemble des émissions originales
12 canadiennes consacrées principalement ou accessoirement
13 à la chanson et à la musique de 1992 à 1998, grâce à
14 cette étude-là qui a donc été déposée, nous avons été à
15 même de constater que l'immense majorité, plus de 80
16 pour cent, des émissions qui sont consacrées à la
17 chanson et à la musique ne le font qu'accessoirement et
18 que, évidemment, par conséquent, en contrepartie, les
19 émissions consacrées principalement à la chanson et à
20 la musique n'occupent qu'une part très mince de l'offre
21 télévisuelle.
22 22097 Quelques chiffres que je reprends de
23 l'étude elle-même préparée par Michel Houle pour
24 illustrer cette sous-représentation croissante des
25 séries d'émissions de catégorie 8 aux heures de grande
StenoTran
4794
1 écoute à la télévision de langue française: En 1992 et
2 jusqu'en 1994 Michel Houle a recensé 176 heures de
3 séries d'émissions de la catégorie 8. Ce 176 heures
4 passe à 56 heures deux ans plus tard, et finalement, en
5 1996-97, ce nombre-là tombe à 38,5 heures seulement
6 pour une année, sans compter que finalement, en
7 1997-98, au moment où l'étude a été déposée, donc en
8 juin, aucune série régulière de catégorie 8, donc qui
9 est consacrée principalement aux prestations d'artistes
10 de la chanson et de la musique, n'était présentée à la
11 télévision de langue française aux heures de grande
12 écoute, ce qui est une catastrophe en soi.
13 22098 Bien sûr, depuis le dépôt de l'étude,
14 il y a deux émissions qui sont apparues dans la
15 programmation: une dans la programmation de la Société
16 Radio-Canada, l'émission "La fureur", et une aussi à
17 Télé-Québec qui s'appelle "Le plaisir croît avec
18 l'usage". Bien sûr, c'est deux pas dans la bonne
19 direction, mais de zéro à deux émissions, à quelques
20 heures, évidemment, c'est, selon nous, pas suffisant
21 pour enrayer le problème de la sous-représentation,
22 bien entendu.
23 22099 Maintenant que cette
24 sous-représentation est établie, nous avons constaté
25 également que, malheureusement, elle n'était pas
StenoTran
4795
1 reconnue, cette sous-représentation n'était pas
2 reconnue par le Conseil. Bien sûr, vous pourrez me
3 dire que, pour la télévision de langue anglaise, le
4 CRTC a identifié quatre catégories d'émissions
5 sous-représentées, à savoir les dramatiques, les
6 émissions pour enfants, les documentaires et les
7 variétés.
8 22100 Malheureusement, c'est bien sûr que
9 les émissions de catégorie 8 sont incluses dans le mot
10 ou le vocable "variétés", mais ça ne règle pas le
11 problème parce que ce que ça permet à un
12 radiodiffuseur, c'est que, en traitant de façon globale
13 le terme "variétés", en ne visant pas une catégorie
14 d'émissions précise comme la catégorie no 8, ça permet
15 à un radiodiffuseur de faire plus de jeux, de faire
16 plus d'autres émissions d'intérêt public qui sont dans
17 la variété sans pour autant consacrer plus de temps
18 pour une émission qui est consacrée principalement aux
19 arts de la scène.
20 22101 Donc ça règle le problème à la
21 télévision de langue anglaise plus ou moins, mais c'est
22 encore plus catastrophique quand on regarde ce qui se
23 passe à la télé de langue française parce que le CRTC
24 n'a reconnu que deux seules catégories d'émissions qui
25 sont sous-représentées, à savoir les documentaires et
StenoTran
4796
1 les émissions pour enfants. Nous considérons justement
2 qu'en exigeant des télédiffuseurs conventionnels de
3 langue française qu'ils proposent une stratégie de
4 présentation d'émissions sous-représentées excluant la
5 variété, le Conseil a malheureusement indirectement
6 encouragé l'accentuation de ces catégories d'émissions
7 sous-représentées. Nous espérons que le présent
8 processus qui est en cours vous permettra de corriger
9 le tir et, finalement, d'ajuster le cadre réglementaire
10 en conséquence.
11 22102 Je vais maintenant passer la parole à
12 mon collègue, qui vous entretiendra du financement de
13 ces émissions.
14 22103 M. PILON: L'envers de la médaille de
15 la sous-représentation des émissions mettant en
16 vedette, à la télévision conventionnelle de langue
17 française, les artistes de la chanson et de la musique,
18 l'envers de cette médaille, c'est évidemment le
19 sous-financement de ces émissions-là. Là encore,
20 l'étude de Michel Houle démontre, notamment au tableau
21 à la page 13 de même qu'au tableau à la page 16, à quel
22 point ce phénomène de sous-financement est dramatique
23 au cours des années.
24 22104 Je vous invite à regarder juste deux
25 secondes le tableau qui est à la page 13. Quand on
StenoTran
4797
1 regarde la part des investissements, prêts et avances
2 alloués aux émissions de variétés dans le Fonds de
3 développement des émissions canadiennes de télévision,
4 et par la suite le Programme de participation au
5 capital du FTCPEC, autrement dit Téléfilm pour
6 simplifier, l'étude ou le tableau à la page 13 montre
7 l'évolution de 1987 à 1997, sur une période de 10 ans,
8 et on voit très bien qu'en début de période il y a en
9 moyenne, à peu près, 3 millions de dollars par année de
10 consacrés, et ça représentait entre 10 et 15 pour cent
11 du total des sommes investies par Téléfilm dans les
12 émissions. Donc il y avait une représentation
13 significative.
14 22105 La politique de Téléfilm change à
15 partir de 1991, et on voit les conséquences dramatiques
16 qui se produisent. Quand on regarde les cinq dernières
17 années, ce n'est même pas un million au total; c'est
18 moins de 200 000 par année. Vous vous imaginez, moins
19 de 200 000 par année... 200 000, ce n'est même pas une
20 heure d'émission de variétés. Moins de 200 000 par
21 année, c'est moins de 1 pour cent du total des sommes
22 investies par Téléfilm, Téléfilm qui est un organisme
23 fédéral, un organisme financé par le gouvernement
24 fédéral, et donc qui a une politique.
25 22106 Il y a là un manque. Ce n'est pas
StenoTran
4798
1 forcément vous qui êtes à blâmer pour ça, mais -- ce
2 sont des représentations qu'on a faites au gouvernement
3 fédéral aussi d'ailleurs -- il y a un manque crucial en
4 termes de représentation d'une composante essentielle
5 de la culture canadienne, qui est la chanson, la
6 musique canadienne... évidemment, la chanson ou la
7 musique populaire qui n'est vraiment pas représentée.
8 Quand on regarde les autres catégories d'émissions de
9 télévision qui sont soutenues par Téléfilm, quand moins
10 de 1 pour cent des sommes vont aux émissions mettant en
11 vedette des artistes de la chanson, il y a sérieusement
12 un problème.
13 22107 On aurait pu penser que ce
14 problème-là aurait pu se résorber, au moins
15 partiellement, avec la création du Fonds des câblos,
16 qui change de nom et qui devient -- et là, on regarde
17 au tableau à la page 156 -- le Programme des droits de
18 diffusion du FTCPEC, et là encore on constate
19 exactement la même situation. La situation ne s'est
20 pas améliorée. Là encore, on parle en moyenne d'à peu
21 près 150 000 ou un peu plus de 150 000 par année et de
22 1,3 pour cent du total des sommes dépensées par le
23 Fonds des câblos ou le Programme des droits de
24 diffusion consacrés à des émissions mettant en vedette
25 les artistes de la chanson. Là encore, c'est 1 pour
StenoTran
4799
1 cent; c'est vraiment une sous-représentation.
2 22108 Les fonds privés comme Cogeco et
3 Maclean Hunter, on n'en parlera pas puisqu'ils sont
4 axés essentiellement sur les dramatiques et les
5 dramatiques lourdes; donc il n'y a rien là, ou
6 pratiquement rien, pour la variété.
7 22109 Les effets de l'ensemble de ça, on le
8 voit au Québec, notamment, on parle d'une crise de
9 l'ensemble du secteur de la chanson. Vous êtes assez
10 familiers avec ça, ne serait-ce que pour avoir examiné
11 à plusieurs reprises les fameuses questions de quotas
12 de chansons de langue française; on a comparu souvent
13 devant les membres du Conseil. La façon dont
14 fonctionne l'industrie de la musique, de la chanson
15 populaire, il y a une synergie. La base de tout ça,
16 c'est un star system. Dans une économie de marché
17 comme la nôtre, s'il n'y a pas de star system, il n'y a
18 pas d'industrie de la chanson et de la musique.
19 22110 Un star system, ça a plusieurs
20 composantes. La carrière d'un artiste, c'est un
21 disque, c'est un spectacle de chansons, mais c'est
22 aussi une présence à la radio, c'est aussi une présence
23 à la télévision et une présence dans les médias écrits.
24 Si vous enlevez un de ces éléments-là de la chaîne, ce
25 sont tous les autres éléments de la chaîne qui sont
StenoTran
4800
1 affaiblis.
2 22111 Alors la sous-représentation de la
3 chanson et de la musique populaire à la télévision
4 canadienne -- et je pense que c'est vrai également au
5 Canada anglais, entre autres avec la disparition
6 d'émissions comme "Rita McNeil", par exemple, qui était
7 une émission fantastique -- a des conséquences graves.
8 Ce n'est pas juste qu'on prive le public canadien d'une
9 part importante de l'accès à sa propre culture, la
10 chanson, la musique populaire, mais également ça
11 affecte l'ensemble de l'industrie puisque ça affecte la
12 production de disques, ça affecte la production de
13 spectacles et ça affecte les revenus de tous les
14 artistes et artisans dans ce secteur-là.
15 22112 Par conséquent, l'ADISQ suggère un
16 certain nombre de recommandations pour remédier à la
17 situation.
18 22113 Je repasse la parole à ma collègue
19 rapidement sur les recommandations concernant la
20 représentation et je reviendrai sur les recommandations
21 concernant le financement.
22 22114 Mme SANTERRE: Excusez, Madame Drouin,
23 est-ce que ça va conclure avec vos recommandations?
24 22115 M. PILON: Ça va prendre deux minutes
25 à peu près, deux minutes et demie.
StenoTran
4801
1 22116 Mme SANTERRE: D'accord, mais
2 pouvez-vous ne pas parler trop vite, quand même, pour
3 les interprètes.
4 22117 M. PILON: Ah, d'accord.
5 22118 Me DROUIN: Oui. Si on a deux
6 minutes et demie, c'est bien.
7 22119 Quant aux recommandations, je ne les
8 relirai pas, vous les avez sûrement tous lues, mais
9 dans un premier temps on suggère au CRTC de rebaptiser
10 cette fameuse catégorie 8 dont je vous ai entretenus,
11 qui s'appelait "musique et danse" pour l'appeler
12 maintenant "arts de la scène", de façon à englober
13 toutes les prestations d'artistes, autant dans le
14 domaine de la musique populaire traditionnelle, de la
15 chanson, de l'humour... qui n'apparaissait pas dans la
16 définition actuelle; la danse, le théâtre, la comédie
17 musicale y apparaissaient déjà, mais évidemment, pour
18 l'ADISQ, on est très sensibles à tous les arts de la
19 scène. Bien entendu, notre champ d'activités, c'est la
20 musique et la chanson et l'humour, mais on est
21 sensibles évidemment à toutes les prestations
22 d'artistes dans le domaine des arts de la scène.
23 22120 Ce qu'on vous recommande aussi, c'est
24 d'identifier clairement les catégories
25 sous-représentées, non seulement de parler d'une
StenoTran
4802
1 catégorie fourre-tout, de viser, si vous jugez, et on
2 l'espère, que la catégorie 8, c'est une catégorie
3 sous-représentée, ne pas l'englober dans un
4 fourre-tout, dans un vocable "variétés" mais de le
5 préciser, et évidemment de reconnaître que la catégorie
6 8 est une catégorie sous-représentée.
7 22121 De façon plus précise encore, dans le
8 formulaire de demande ou de renouvellement de licence
9 de stations ou des réseaux conventionnels, on vous
10 propose d'exiger dans ce formulaire, en conséquence,
11 que le demandeur ou la titulaire propose une stratégie
12 de présentation de ces émissions visant à réduire leur
13 sous-représentation... je parle toujours, évidemment,
14 de la fameuse catégorie 8.
15 22122 Finalement, comme mesure incitative
16 qui pourrait être adoptée rapidement, qui pourrait être
17 adoptée sur une base temporaire, à réévaluer dans trois
18 ou cinq ans, de reconnaître les émissions de la
19 catégorie 8 qui sont produites et qui sont présentées
20 entre 19 h 00 et 22 h 00, un crédit, une bonification
21 au titre du décompte du contenu canadien de 150 pour
22 cent. On ne vous demande pas 200 pour cent, comme
23 l'ont fait nos collègues avant; nous, on est à 100 pour
24 cent et on vous demande 150 pour cent.
25 22123 Voilà.
StenoTran
4803
1 22124 M. PILON: Encore une fois, l'envers
2 de la médaille de ces recommandations-là sur une
3 meilleure représentation, ce sont des recommandations
4 sur un meilleur financement. Mme Wylie signalait à des
5 intervenants précédents que, bien sûr, à ce niveau-là,
6 le Conseil ne peut avoir qu'un pouvoir de
7 recommandation puisqu'il s'agit de politiques qui sont
8 mises en place par le gouvernement fédéral ou ses
9 organismes, comme Téléfilm, mais je pense que tout le
10 monde est conscient de l'immense pouvoir de
11 recommandation que peut avoir le CRTC.
12 22125 C'est pour ça qu'on aimerait bien que
13 le CRTC, dans sa décision, reconnaisse le problème de
14 la sous-représentation et du sous-financement et
15 utilise son pouvoir de recommandation pour inciter les
16 administrateurs de fonds publics ou de fonds publics et
17 mixtes, de soutien au financement des émissions, à
18 accorder une priorité et à consacrer une portion
19 appropriée de leurs investissements aux catégories
20 sous-représentées, et notamment le secteur des
21 émissions mettant en vedette les artistes de la chanson
22 et de la musique.
23 22126 Plus spécifiquement, on pense que,
24 dans le protocole entre le gouvernement fédéral et le
25 ministère du Patrimoine et Téléfilm, il y aurait lieu
StenoTran
4804
1 de faire en sorte qu'un minimum de 5 pour cent des
2 ressources du FTCPEC soit consacré d'ici les deux
3 prochaines années, et on pourrait monter graduellement
4 pour atteindre 5 pour cent du total. On pense que 5
5 pour cent du total, pour une composante aussi essentiel
6 de la culture canadienne, ce ne serait pas exagéré.
7 22127 En terminant, deux secondes pour dire
8 que je pense que le Conseil serait très cohérent
9 d'accepter nos recommandations. Je faisais état tantôt
10 de notre secteur comme étant un secteur où il y a une
11 synergie entre ce qui se passe sur disque, ce qui se
12 passe en spectacle, ce qui se passe à la radio, ce qui
13 se passe en TV. On a salué avec beaucoup de plaisir la
14 décision du mois d'avril dernier du CRTC suite à sa
15 revue de la réglementation de la radio. Le CRTC a
16 confirmé et accru les quotas de contenu canadien à la
17 radio et les quotas de contenu francophone, et je pense
18 que l'ensemble du milieu l'a saluée comme étant une
19 décision extrêmement positive.
20 22128 On pense que ce serait faire preuve
21 d'infiniment de cohérence d'avoir des obligations
22 cohérentes à la télévision, parce qu'on ne peut pas, je
23 pense, avoir une politique qui dit qu'il faut mettre en
24 vedette nos artistes à la radio et on ne fait rien à la
25 TV. Il y a quelque chose qui ne marche pas là-dedans.
StenoTran
4805
1 Si on veut, et s'ils veulent, les pouvoirs publics, que
2 nos artistes soient en vedette à la radio, il faut
3 aussi qu'ils soient en vedette à la télévision.
4 22129 Alors on vous remercie beaucoup.
5 22130 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions,
6 Madame Drouin et Monsieur Pilon.
7 22131 Madame Pennefather.
8 22132 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Bonjour.
9 22133 M. PILON: Bonjour.
10 22134 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: C'est vite
11 fait, mais on peut répondre tranquillement, pas trop
12 vite. Je n'ai que quelques questions, parce que je
13 pense que le mémoire est clair, mais j'aimerais juste
14 passer sur quelques points.
15 22135 Le contexte du mémoire est surtout le
16 marché francophone, la télévision de langue française.
17 C'est vrai?
18 22136 M. PILON: Excusez-moi, j'ai raté la
19 question. Le contexte...?
20 22137 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Le contexte
21 de votre mémoire, c'est le marché francophone, la
22 langue française?
23 22138 M. PILON: Oui, et vous m'amenez à
24 préciser ici -- je pense qu'il y a une petite lacune
25 dans le mémoire -- que les deux tableaux, à la fois
StenoTran
4806
1 celui de la page 13 et de la page 16, c'est mentionné
2 au bas du tableau à la page 16 qu'il s'agit de données
3 en ce qui concerne le marché francophone; ce n'est pas
4 mentionné au tableau de la page 13, mais ce sont
5 également des données pour le marché francophone. On
6 n'a pas étudié la situation pour le marché... mais,
7 écoutez, le souvenir que j'ai des données que j'ai vues
8 il y a quelques années, c'est à peu près la même chose,
9 je pense. Et si je vous posais la question:
10 Nommez-moi trois émissions mettant en vedette les
11 artistes de la chanson au Canada anglais, dans les
12 réseaux canadiens anglais, vous seriez incapable d'en
13 nommer une seule; je pense qu'il n'y en a plus une
14 seule.
15 22139 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Bien...
16 22140 M. PILON: Depuis la disparition de
17 "Rita McNeil"...
18 22141 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Je ne suis
19 pas sûre de ça, mais quand même, ce n'était pas le
20 point. Ma remarque était sur la page 1 de votre
21 mémoire écrit. C'est le résumé, en effet... c'est
22 intéressant que même si on parle surtout du système de
23 langue française, on dit ce qui suit:
24 "... la situation qui prévaut
25 dans le système de la
StenoTran
4807
1 radiodiffusion de langue
2 anglaise en matières d'émissions
3 de cette catégorie offre de
4 nombreuses similitudes avec
5 celle [qui est décrite dans le
6 mémoire de l'ADISQ]."
7 22142 Vous connaissez ce milieu comme il
8 faut. Qu'est-ce que sont ces similitudes? Il faut
9 qu'on soit un peu plus précis là-dessus.
10 22143 M. PILON: Je pense que c'est un peu
11 la même chose, c'est-à-dire sous-représentation
12 également à la télévision de langue anglaise des
13 émissions mettant en vedette les artistes canadiens
14 d'expression anglaise de la chanson et sous-financement
15 également des émissions de variétés. Je pense que,
16 écoutez, on n'a pas étudié les chiffres en détail, mais
17 encore une fois, si on essaie de mémoire de nommer des
18 émissions, que ce soit à CTV, à Global ou à CBC, qui
19 mettent en vedette sur une base régulière... je ne dis
20 pas des spéciaux, je ne dis pas un spécial Céline Dion
21 à l'occasion, je vous parle d'une émission régulière
22 comme "Rita McNeil" à l'époque, par exemple. Il n'y en
23 a plus. Alors il y a un problème.
24 22144 Je dirais qu'à Global, il n'y en a
25 jamais eu, je pense; à CTV, à ma connaissance, il y a
StenoTran
4808
1 eu des spéciaux mais il n'y a jamais eu de séries
2 régulières mettant en vedette les artistes de la
3 chanson.
4 22145 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Il y a des
5 études qu'on a faites à l'interne ici, au Conseil, qui
6 démontrent peut-être, en effet, une perspective un peu
7 différente, que parmi toutes les diffusions qu'on
8 reçoit dans le Canada anglais de toutes les sources, il
9 y a en effet une représentation assez intéressante sur
10 la télévision conventionnelle, à peu près 4 à 5 pour
11 cent, la présence des deux catégories 8 et 9, music and
12 variety. C'est quelque chose à voir.
13 22146 On sait qu'hier le représentant de
14 CTV a mentionné qu'il est très intéressé à inclure plus
15 de variétés. Ça, c'était à l'intérieur d'une
16 discussion sur la qualité à la télévision, et on va
17 revenir à ça à la fin de notre discussion.
18 22147 Aussi, une autre chose qui m'a
19 frappée en vous écoutant aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on parle
20 souvent dans les discussions sur le côté anglais, le
21 marché anglais, du succès sur le côté français et
22 surtout en termes de bâtir un star system avec les
23 vedettes en chanson de toutes formes, et là, vous nous
24 dites aujourd'hui que c'est faux, qu'il n'y a plus ce
25 système-là.
StenoTran
4809
1 22148 M. PILON: Non, je pense que le
2 système est encore là, mais la situation aujourd'hui...
3 évidemment, il y a beaucoup de facteurs qui expliquent
4 ça, notamment la longue récession; certains
5 observateurs disent qu'on n'est pas encore vraiment
6 sortis de la longue récession depuis le début des
7 années quatre-vingt-dix. Il y a pleins de facteurs.
8 22149 Mais le star system au Québec, il
9 faut le dire -- et nos amis du Canada anglais bien
10 souvent l'ignorent -- est beaucoup plus faible,
11 beaucoup plus fragile aujourd'hui qu'il ne l'était il y
12 a 10 ans. On le voit, par exemple, au niveau de la
13 désaffectation dans les spectacles; par exemple, les
14 spectacles étrangers, évidemment de langue anglaise,
15 les spectacles américains, ont beaucoup plus de succès
16 au Québec, y compris auprès des publics francophones.
17 22150 Le nombre de spectateurs aux
18 spectacles d'artistes de chansons francophones au
19 Québec est en diminution et en diminution radicale au
20 cours des cinq dernières années, et je pense que, comme
21 dirait mon ami Brian Chater, he doesn't need to be a
22 rocket scientist pour comprendre qu'il y a un lien
23 assez direct entre le fait qu'on voit de moins en moins
24 les artistes de la chanson francophone à la
25 télévision... on les voit à des talk shows, des choses
StenoTran
4810
1 comme ça, mais on les voit de moins en moins en
2 spectacle, en train de performer. Et, si on les voit
3 moins à la TV, ça affaiblit le star system et ça
4 affecte également le secteur des concerts, des
5 spectacles, où il y a moins de spectateurs. Ça affecte
6 les ventes de disques. La part du disque d'artistes
7 québécois, la part de marché, était de 30 pour cent;
8 elle est retombée à 25 pour cent au cours des dernières
9 années.
10 22151 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Oui, je
11 vois l'étude qui est là, mais juste une question et on
12 va y revenir.
13 22152 Quand vous dites qu'il y a une
14 baisse, on parle surtout comme étude de présentations
15 dans lesquelles le chanteur est sur scène au lieu des
16 vidéoclips et des autres présentations...
17 22153 M. PILON: Talk shows.
18 22154 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: ... parce
19 que je voulais savoir si on couvre la télévision
20 conventionnelle et la télévision spécialisée dans vos
21 commentaires que le tout baisse, ou est-ce qu'avec les
22 services spécialisés il y a une présence accrue de la
23 chanson et des chanteurs et chanteuses québécoise.
24 22155 M. PILON: On n'a pas souhaité
25 aborder en détail le problème des émissions
StenoTran
4811
1 spécialisées; ça pourrait faire l'objet d'une autre
2 audience. Il y a un certain nombre de problèmes
3 particuliers, notamment au niveau de la couverture de
4 l'actualité à MusiquePlus, par exemple, la couverture
5 de l'actualité des artistes francophones et québécois,
6 qui est en déclin. On a voulu concentrer ici nos
7 commentaires sur la situation de la chanson dans les
8 télévisions conventionnelles.
9 22156 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Ça va.
10 Alors, avec l'étude, vous mentionnez en effet ces
11 précisions.
12 22157 Pour vous, on voit la chute qui est
13 mentionnée avec les chiffres... l'étude que M. Houle
14 nous présente. Quelles sont les raisons principales
15 pour cette réduction constante de la disponibilité des
16 séries régulières de catégorie 8 présentées aux heures
17 de grande écoute, pour être précis? C'est de ça qu'on
18 parle. Qu'est-ce qui se passe? Pourquoi?
19 22158 M. PILON: Moi, je pense que
20 peut-être le facteur clé, c'est le changement de
21 politique de Téléfilm en 1991-92, qui est mentionné
22 dans notre mémoire, je pense, à la page 14, au
23 paragraphe 28. Je pense que ça a été un point
24 tournant. Ça a été une décision malheureuse de
25 Téléfilm qui, à l'époque, disait:
StenoTran
4812
1 "... sans refuser de considérer
2 les projets qui lui seront
3 soumis dans la catégorie
4 VARIÉTÉS, Téléfilm Canada ne
5 leur accordera désormais qu'une
6 priorité et une participation
7 moindres."
8 22159 C'est évident que ça correspond en
9 contrepartie, je pense, à l'époque où se sont
10 développés tout le phénomène des miniséries, les "Lance
11 et compte", les choses comme ça. Ça, ça a été un
12 succès magnifique de la télévision francophone, toutes
13 ces miniséries, et Omertá par la suite et ainsi de
14 suite. C'est positif et ça doit continuer.
15 22160 Ce qu'on dit, c'est que peut-être, à
16 partir du moment où on a voulu concentrer des fonds
17 dans ces secteurs-là, on a négligé une composante
18 importante de la culture canadienne, qui est
19 l'expression musicale, l'expression de la chanson, et
20 on pense qu'il faut revenir à un plus juste équilibre.
21 De toute façon, les sommes qui sont en jeu sont
22 infiniment moindres pour produire même une excellente
23 émission de chansons, mais ce qui définit... vous
24 voyez, un acteur, on le connaît; Luc Picard dans
25 "Omertá", on le connaît, pas parce qu'il passe à "Julie
StenoTran
4813
1 Snyder", on le voit parce qu'il performe dans une
2 émission, il joue un rôle. Un artiste de la chanson,
3 si on le voit juste dans les talk shows, ce n'est pas
4 ça, son métier. Son métier, c'est de chanter, c'est de
5 produire un spectacle, c'est de créer de l'émotion.
6 Alors il faut lui donner l'occasion non seulement de
7 passer à "Julie Snyder" en talk show mais de passer
8 dans un spectacle, un spectacle qui est organisé, qui a
9 un décor, qui a des musiciens, qui coûte un peu de
10 sous.
11 22161 Alors il y a un cercle vicieux là.
12 Les gens de la télévision interrogés par Michel Houle
13 vont dire: "Bien oui, mais c'est parce que ça ne
14 génère pas beaucoup de cotes d'écoute." Ça ne génère
15 pas beaucoup de cotes d'écoute si vous avez un chanteur
16 qui est là avec une guitare et qui met le pied sur une
17 chaise. Si vous produisez une émission, comme on le
18 fait, nous, par exemple, au "Gala de l'ADISQ", avec des
19 sommes substantielles, avec des décors, avec du
20 glamour, et caetera, les gens vont écouter. Mais pour
21 faire ça, il faut plus de fric, et pour avoir plus de
22 fric, il faut peut-être que les fonds d'investissement
23 publics et mixtes y consacrent un peu plus de revenus.
24 22162 Mais pour ça il faut également -- et
25 c'est là que c'est un cercle vicieux -- une cohérence
StenoTran
4814
1 dans la politique. Encore faut-il qu'il y ait une
2 incitation, et tout la question des définitions, des
3 règlements devient importante, justement, et
4 l'incitation peut-être avec un pointage à 150 pour cent
5 devient aussi un facteur important.
6 22163 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Pas trop
7 vite. En effet, j'essaie de savoir pourquoi vous
8 voulez rebaptiser la définition de catégorie 8, lui
9 donner une autre nom, et c'est parce que vous trouvez
10 que ce changement de définition va faire en sorte qu'on
11 aura plus d'émissions séries régulières des arts de la
12 scène? Parce que si on parle de la chanson, la
13 composition, l'interprétation, et caetera... à titre
14 d'exemple, vos collègues de Socan sont arrivés ce matin
15 en disant qu'il faut supporter le 7, le 8, le 9, le 10
16 et le 11, parce qu'à l'intérieur de toutes ces
17 définitions-là on peut trouver un moyen d'être plus
18 présents. Là, vous mettez l'emphase sur le 8 et vous
19 changez le 8. Pourquoi?
20 22164 Me DROUIN: Écoutez, nous, l'étude,
21 le constat qu'on a fait, c'est que, oui, comme mon
22 collègue le disait, les artistes dans la catégorie 9
23 pour les émissions causerie, on les voit. Il y en a
24 quelques-unes dans la télévision conventionnelle de
25 langue française, "Julie Snyder", "L'Écuyer"; on les
StenoTran
4815
1 voit mais on ne les voit pas performer.
2 22165 Il y a un membre de notre conseil
3 d'administration, Charles Joron, le vice-président,
4 Spectacles, qui a déjà fait, justement, l'analogie que
5 je trouvais très brillante et qui disait: Il y a
6 beaucoup d'émissions de sports qui parlent de sports à
7 la télévision, mais les Canadiens ont droit à leur
8 trois heures, leurs matchs... on diffuse quand même
9 leurs matchs à la télé, les Expos, on diffuse leurs
10 matchs, mais on en parle aussi dans des émissions
11 causerie. Je trouvais ce parallèle-là très bon.
12 22166 Ce n'est pas parce qu'on fait parler,
13 comme mon collègue Robert le disait, je ne sais pas,
14 moi, une artiste comme Laurence Jalbert sur sa
15 carrière, si on ne la voit pas performer, on ne donne
16 pas le goût aux jeunes nécessairement de la voir.
17 22167 Pour ce qui est de la définition de
18 "arts de la scène", c'est que, en la faisant plus
19 englobante, on est conscients qu'il y a un problème
20 dans la chanson mais on est conscients que nos amis de
21 la danse, du théâtre, des comédies musicales, du ballet
22 ont un problème aussi avec la culture. C'est la
23 chanson mais c'est autre chose aussi, et en ayant une
24 définition plus englobante, on est censés mettre toutes
25 les émissions de performance d'artistes.
StenoTran
4816
1 22168 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Plus
2 englobante. Alors j'aimerais juste comprendre. La
3 définition existante, no 8, music and dance -- je l'ai
4 en anglais malheureusement -- est:
5 "Programs primarily concerned
6 with live or pre-recorded
7 performances of traditional and
8 popular music, including
9 videoclips and including opera,
10 operetta, ballet and musicals."
11 (As read)
12 22169 Ça ne décrit pas ce que vous avez
13 sous le 8(a) et (b) dans vos définitions proposées?
14 22170 Me DROUIN: Dans la recommandation 1A
15 qu'on fait au paragraphe 44, la définition, il y a
16 quand même certaines références à la chanson qui
17 n'apparaissaient pas dans la définition actuelle;
18 l'humour n'apparaissait pas, la danse n'apparaissait
19 pas et le théâtre n'apparaissait pas.
20 22171 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Alors vous
21 incluriez quelques éléments de variétés là-dedans.
22 22172 Me DROUIN: C'est ça, oui.
23 22173 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Alors vous
24 changez le 8 et le 9.
25 22174 M. PILON: Oui, mais c'est à
StenoTran
4817
1 l'exclusion des jeux, des quiz, des talk shows, qui
2 sont dans la définition actuelle de "variétés".
3 22175 Me DROUIN: On insiste toujours sur
4 des émissions consacrées à des performances d'artistes.
5 22176 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Je
6 comprends.
7 22177 Pourquoi ce changement de définition
8 va-t-il changer, d'après vous, la présence de cette
9 catégorie à la télévision conventionnelle? Pourquoi ça
10 changerait cette situation dévastatrice que vous
11 décrivez aujourd'hui?
12 22178 M. PILON: Je pense que l'élément
13 essentiel, peut-être au-delà de la définition ici...
14 parce que, bon, on vous propose une définition, vous
15 pouvez en retenir une autre qui est légèrement
16 différente. L'élément important, c'est que les
17 catégories qu'on décrit, et notamment le spectacle de
18 chansons et de musique, soient considérées comme un
19 secteur sous-représenté et qu'au moment des
20 renouvellements de licence, comme c'est le cas
21 présentement, il doit y avoir des engagements qui sont
22 pris à l'égard des émissions sous-représentées, et les
23 engagements...
24 22179 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Est-ce que
25 vous êtes...
StenoTran
4818
1 22180 M. PILON: Juste pour terminer
2 rapidement... les engagements que doivent prendre ces
3 radiodiffuseurs-là à l'égard des émissions
4 sous-représentées -- pour l'instant, je pense que du
5 côté francophone ce ne sont que les documentaires et
6 les émissions pour enfants -- si on dit au prochain
7 renouvellement de TVA ou de TQS: "Vous devez prendre
8 des engagements non seulement de diffuser plus de
9 documentaires ou d'émissions pour enfants mais
10 également plus de spectacles mettant en vedette les
11 artistes de la chanson et de la musique", ça change
12 tout. Si, en parallèle, on leur donne accès à un
13 financement, ça change tout.
14 22181 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Vous nous
15 suggérez une condition de licence en exigeant cette
16 catégorie d'émissions. Un certain nombre d'heures?
17 Une certaine dépense? Qu'est-ce que vous suggérez
18 spécifiquement?
19 22182 M. PILON: Je pense que c'est au
20 Conseil... écoutez, je ne suis pas familier
21 entièrement, mais je pense qu'à l'heure actuelle vous
22 variez, ça dépend des réseaux, vous avez des conditions
23 de licence qui sont variables d'un secteur à l'autre en
24 ce qui concerne les émissions sous-représentées. Je
25 pense que vous cherchez à faire en sorte qu'il y ait du
StenoTran
4819
1 rattrapage dans certains cas et un peu moins dans
2 d'autres cas; ça dépend de la situation concrète. Je
3 pense que ça, c'est un peu à votre discrétion.
4 22183 Ce qu'on dit... et les statistiques
5 sont éloquentes; il n'y en a plus, pratiquement, de
6 variétés, de chansons à la télévision. Il y en a eu un
7 peu cet automne, mais...
8 22184 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: C'est ça.
9 En plus, vous proposez un crédit de 150 pour cent.
10 22185 M. PILON: C'est ça. Bien, c'est une
11 mesure incitative comme il en existe déjà dans d'autres
12 secteurs de la programmation.
13 22186 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Mais qui
14 ajoute d'autres... à propos justement des incitatifs, à
15 titre d'exemple, APFTQ a proposé, pour les émissions
16 régionales en première diffusion produites par le
17 secteur indépendant, 150 pour cent; pour les
18 dramatiques lourdes, documentaires, émissions pour
19 enfants, productions majoritaires, 125 pour cent;
20 téléromans plus... est-ce que vous proposez un autre
21 bonus, crédit aussi?
22 22187 M. PILON: On propose une seule
23 mesure spécifique.
24 22188 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Une seule?
25 O.k. Parce que vous pensez qu'il y a déjà trop
StenoTran
4820
1 d'emphase sur les autres types d'émissions? C'est ça?
2 22189 M. PILON: Notre propos n'est pas de
3 dire qu'on fait trop de ci, on fait trop de ça. Notre
4 propos est de dire qu'on ne fait pas suffisamment
5 d'émissions mettant en vedette les artistes québécois
6 de la chanson.
7 22190 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: J'avais une
8 autre question sur le bonus... "bonus"; excusez-moi.
9 Je suis fatiguée. Vous dites "qui sont présentées
10 entre 19 h 00 et 22 h 00". Je comprends que vous
11 voulez les heures de grande écoute, mais la question
12 que j'avais, ce n'était peut-être pas approprié, mais
13 pour les jeunes, les auditoires plus jeunes, est-ce que
14 c'est une bonne idée de juste aller vers ce créneau-là
15 ou est-ce qu'on peut aller vers un créneau un peu plus
16 large?
17 22191 Ça m'est juste venu à la tête, parce
18 que c'est un élément très important, côté musique.
19 22192 M. PILON: Écoutez, il faut, je
20 pense, développer tous les publics, les jeunes, les
21 adolescents et les adultes. Mais, dans la situation où
22 on est, qui est vraiment une situation de rattrapage,
23 une situation un peu dramatique. Si on pouvait au
24 moins commencer et si chaque réseau avait au moins une
25 heure d'émissions de variétés, comme on a connu
StenoTran
4821
1 autrefois... on peut remonter à l'époque de Michelle
2 Tisseyre quand j'étais tout petit en passant par une
3 série d'émissions, "Jean-Pierre Ferland" et ainsi de
4 suite, et des émissions qui existent encore en France,
5 par exemple, avec Michel Drucker et des choses comme
6 ça. Si on pouvait revenir avec ça, une grande émission
7 mettant en vedette, à chaque semaine, des artistes de
8 la chanson à chacun des réseaux, ce serait déjà un
9 grand pas.
10 22193 Dans un deuxième temps, on pourrait
11 peut-être penser au public plus jeune, au public des
12 enfants, au public des adolescents.
13 22194 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Il y a
14 d'autres interventions, d'ACTRA et d'autres groupes,
15 qui ont proposé aussi une condition, une exigence
16 concernant un certain montant d'argent pour la
17 formation, ACTRA Works à titre d'exemple ou d'autre
18 manière, ou programme qui peut supporter la formation
19 pour les arts de la scène.
20 22195 Est-ce que vous avez un commentaire
21 sur cet aspect-là?
22 22196 M. PILON: Malheureusement, je n'ai
23 pas eu l'occasion de prendre connaissance de la
24 recommandation, donc je ne me sens pas tout à fait en
25 position... mais, d'une manière générale, il est
StenoTran
4822
1 évident que dans notre secteur il manque énormément de
2 formation, c'est sûr.
3 22197 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Il y a une
4 autre question aussi. On a mentionné -- et vous avez
5 une recommandation là-dessus -- les canaux spécialisés;
6 les services spécialisés, on vient d'en parler, avec
7 Citytv, qui certainement ont certains services qui
8 supportent la musique, la chanson, les interprètes.
9 22198 Est-ce que pour vous ce n'est pas un
10 élément important dans le but large d'être certain
11 qu'il y a plus de présence de nos artistes musicaux à
12 la télévision? Est-ce que vous avez mis ça de côté un
13 peu?
14 22199 M. PILON: Non. Coincés par d'autres
15 contraintes, on n'a pas pu développer tout, mais, oui,
16 c'est un élément important. À preuve, on est
17 intervenus récemment dans une instance à propos de
18 Canal D, où Canal D demandait d'être relevée de ses
19 obligations de diffuser des émissions mettant en
20 vedette des artistes de la chanson. On a demandé au
21 Conseil de ne pas accéder à cette demande-là et de
22 maintenir l'obligation de Canal D, et le Conseil a
23 effectivement -- et c'est une excellente décision --
24 maintenu cette obligation-là.
25 22200 Donc, oui, la présence de la chanson
StenoTran
4823
1 dans les canaux spécialisés, à partir du moment... j'ai
2 été frappé par cette statistique effarante des canaux
3 spécialisés qui, l'été passé, ont fait 20 pour cent de
4 l'écoute au total. Je comprends que ça diminue rendu à
5 l'automne, mais quand même, les canaux spécialisés se
6 développent ici comme ailleurs, et il va y en avoir de
7 nouveaux, vous allez attribuer de nouvelles licences
8 cet hiver.
9 22201 À partir du moment où la télévision
10 conventionnelle occupe moins de place et les canaux
11 spécialisés plus de place, oui, je pense qu'il faudrait
12 aussi que des obligations adéquates soient là. On va
13 revenir, d'ailleurs, à l'audience en décembre je crois
14 avec des propositions concrètes. On a d'ailleurs
15 commencé cette semaine à examiner les différentes
16 propositions, Réseau des arts, et caetera, et on aura
17 des recommandations à faire sur le sujet.
18 22202 Je pense que, pour l'instant, là où
19 le bât blesse principalement, c'est les grands réseaux
20 conventionnels. Je pense que c'est là qu'il faut faire
21 un changement d'abord et rapidement, avant que la
22 situation ne se détériore encore plus.
23 22203 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: L'autre
24 question est, sur le fond, côté financement, il y a
25 beaucoup de discussions sur la possibilité que les
StenoTran
4824
1 télédiffuseurs auront accès au fonds de Téléfilms.
2 Est-ce que pour vous ce serait important qu'ils aient
3 accès à ce fonds pour aller plus loin en supportant
4 cette catégorie d'émissions qui, comme vous dites, a
5 des coûts assez hauts, parce qu'on parle d'un certain
6 type de production, je pense. Est-ce que c'est une
7 bonne idée ou non? Parce que les producteurs
8 indépendants s'opposent à ça.
9 22204 M. PILON: Vous posez la question à
10 un vice-président d'une association de producteurs
11 indépendants, donc vous connaissez déjà sans doute ma
12 réponse. Je pense qu'on va tout à fait soutenir la
13 position qui a été développée par l'APFTQ et la CFTPA.
14 Je pense que le secteur indépendant a fait preuve de
15 suffisamment de dynamisme, a contribué énormément au
16 renouvellement de l'offre télévisuelle au Canada. On
17 pense que ça doit demeurer ainsi. On pense d'ailleurs
18 que, s'il y avait des mesures spécifiques dans le
19 secteur comme celles qu'on suggère, donc 5 pour cent
20 des fonds, que les producteurs indépendants pourraient
21 également contribuer au renouvellement de notre
22 programmation en programmation d'émissions spécialisées
23 sur la chanson et la musique populaire.
24 22205 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Ma dernière
25 question est: Un autre groupe, l'ACR, a proposé que le
StenoTran
4825
1 but de toutes nos discussions devrait être qu'il y ait
2 plus d'auditoire, que vraiment ce qu'on appelle en
3 anglais "viewership" soit le but principal de toutes
4 nos discussions. Qu'est-ce que vous pensez de ce
5 propos?
6 22206 M. PILON: J'ai combien de temps pour
7 répondre?
8 22207 C'est toujours le même problème, ces
9 discussions-là. On l'a eu aussi avec nos amis de l'ACR
10 durant l'audience sur la politique radio. Le problème
11 de l'ACR, c'est un manque de confiance dans la culture
12 canadienne.
13 22208 Si télédiffuseurs et les
14 radiodiffuseurs offrent au public canadien des
15 émissions de radio et des émissions de télévision de
16 bonne qualité mettant en vedette nos artistes et les
17 faisant connaître, développant le star system, on pense
18 qu'au contraire, à court, moyen et long terme, c'est la
19 survie financière aussi des entreprises de
20 radiodiffusion. Et, si on veut éviter que le public se
21 déplace vers les stations américaines, qui vont entrer
22 de plus en plus ici, il faut développer une
23 programmation spécifique. On pense que c'est dans
24 l'intérêt de tout le monde de développer des émissions
25 qui mettent en vedette nos artistes.
StenoTran
4826
1 22209 On pense que nos amis de
2 l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs devraient
3 faire preuve d'un peu plus d'audace à ce sujet-là,
4 d'être moins négatifs, de faire un peu plus confiance
5 au public canadien.
6 22210 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci.
7 22211 Ce sont toutes mes questions, Madame
8 la Présidente.
9 22212 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Monsieur le
10 Conseiller juridique.
11 22213 Me BLAIS: Monsieur Pilon,
12 Maître Drouin, ce n'était pas pour vous poser des
13 questions que j'ai demandé le micro mais, si on a
14 terminé l'item, que, puisque TQS n'a pas pu être avec
15 nous pour les fins du dossier public, je voulais tout
16 simplement mentionner qu'il se peut que nous adressions
17 des questions par écrit à TQS pour compléter leur
18 soumission, et ces questions écrites seraient ajoutées
19 au dossier public.
20 22214 Donc je vous remercie. Votre mémoire
21 était très clair, donc je n'ai pas de questions
22 concernant vos recommandations. Merci.
23 22215 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Donc, Madame Drouin,
24 votre travail n'est pas fini. Il faudra retourner au
25 dossier et voir qu'est-ce qu'il y a de plus. Vous
StenoTran
4827
1 aurez le temps de faire ça juste avant de vous préparer
2 pour l'audience de décembre.
3 22216 Me DROUIN: Avant le Gala de l'ADISQ,
4 auquel vous êtes tous conviés d'ailleurs, le 1er
5 novembre.
6 22217 M. PILON: C'est le 20e anniversaire
7 de l'ADISQ et de son gala.
8 22218 Si vous permettez, Madame Wylie,
9 juste très, très rapidement en terminant, je l'ai
10 mentionné tantôt mais je veux revenir là-dessus parce
11 que, pour moi, c'est fondamental; c'est la question de
12 la cohérence.
13 22219 Je ne veux pas tomber dans la
14 flatterie, encore une fois, mais la décision sur la
15 politique radio était une excellente décision, une
16 décision courageuse du Conseil, difficile mais
17 excellente. Il faut une cohérence.
18 22220 Je sais qu'au centre de vos débats
19 depuis un mois maintenant -- peut-être que ça vous a
20 semblé un an parce que ça a été une audience
21 monumentale sur la télé -- c'est sûr que la question
22 des émissions dramatiques, des émissions pour enfants,
23 des documentaires, des choses comme ça a été beaucoup
24 plus au centre de votre audience, et c'est normal. La
25 question de la musique, je ne pense pas qu'elle ait été
StenoTran
4828
1 au centre de cette audience.
2 22221 Il nous apparaît important que, dans
3 les audiences sur la TV, trop souvent, parce que c'est
4 tellement gros, les émissions dramatiques, finalement,
5 on n'a pas beaucoup d'attention à consacrer à des
6 créneaux particuliers comme la chanson. On vous prie
7 cette fois-ci d'y consacrer l'attention nécessaire. Ça
8 nous apparaît important. Ce type d'audience là, ça
9 arrive une fois par 10 ans ou par 15 ans. Si rien
10 n'est fait maintenant pour accroître la vitrine de la
11 chanson à la télévision canadienne, je pense qu'il va y
12 avoir des conséquences dramatiques sur l'expression de
13 la chanson et, par conséquent, de la culture
14 canadienne.
15 22222 Donc c'est un moment clé pour vous.
16 22223 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je vous entends donc
17 dire que l'un nourrit l'autre.
18 22224 M. PILON: Oui, exactement.
19 22225 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Si on donne naissance
20 au bébé, il faut maintenant le nourrir. Voilà.
21 22226 M. PILON: Exactement.
22 22227 Merci beaucoup.
23 22228 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions
24 de votre collaboration.
25 22229 Nous avons maintenant terminé la
StenoTran
4829
1 partie orale de l'examen de la politique télévisuelle.
2 Bien que ce processus ait été long, il a été, à notre
3 avis, fort intéressant. Il nous a permis par la même
4 occasion d'en explorer plusieurs sinon toutes les
5 facettes.
6 22230 Nous avons échangé avec près d'une
7 centaine d'intervenants qui nous ont offert un éventail
8 d'opinions sur la télévision. Tous ont fait des
9 suggestions quant à la façon dont le système télévisuel
10 pourrait davantage refléter les attentes et l'intérêt
11 des Canadiens.
12 22231 And all of them have agreed on the
13 importance of television to the lives of Canadians in
14 their communities, as part of a unique region with
15 unique characteristics and stories, and as citizens of
16 Canada.
17 22232 It is important for us to remember
18 that this is a policy review. It is not a renewal
19 hearing for individual licensees. The Commission's
20 intent at the end of this process is to articulate a
21 broad regulatory framework that will fulfil the public
22 interest objectives of the Broadcasting Act. This
23 framework must also be adaptable to the new economic,
24 social and technological realities we all face.
25 22233 In my opening remarks I said that the
StenoTran
4830
1 Commission's objective is more Canadian programs,
2 better quality and increased profitability. We have
3 received many suggestions as to how this can be
4 accomplished, and I expect we will receive even more
5 before the file is closed on November 19th, 1998.
6 22234 It will then be our job to pull
7 together all this information and input, review it, and
8 from there develop a balanced and effective regulatory
9 framework. We hope to have finished our work and to
10 release a balanced decision in the public interest
11 during the spring of 1999.
12 22235 Finally, for those participants who
13 will be submitting final written comments, we request
14 that these comments be brief and focused on suggesting
15 practical ways to achieve our objectives.
16 22236 Before leaving, and on behalf of my
17 fellow Commissioners and the Commission, I would like
18 to thank all of you who have made written submissions
19 to the Commission or who have come here to make a
20 presentation in person. We deeply appreciate the time
21 and effort you have spent to help us develop a good
22 understanding of your concerns and interests concerning
23 television policy in Canada.
24 22237 J'aimerais également remercier mes
25 collègues pour leur précieuse collaboration et tous
StenoTran
4831
1 ceux au sein du Conseil qui nous ont soutenus au cours
2 de ces dernières semaines d'audience.
3 22238 Merci à Jean-Pierre Blais pour ses
4 conseils juridiques et à sa collègue; Nick Ketchum et
5 son équipe pour leur expertise et leurs conseils.
6 Merci aussi aux secrétaires de l'audience, Mmes Carole
7 Bernard et Diane Santerre, pour la gestion de ce
8 processus.
9 22239 Mes remerciements vont également aux
10 traducteurs et aux sténographes, de même qu'à tous ceux
11 qui nous ont fourni les services nécessaires pour mener
12 à bien ces audiences, sans oublier les autres employés
13 du CRTC qui ne se trouvent pas nécessairement dans
14 cette salle.
15 22240 I would also like in closing to thank
16 Rogers Cable for making these hearings accessible to
17 many people who did not have the opportunity to attend
18 them in person.
19 22241 Thank you and good night to all.
20 Merci et bonsoir à tous.
21 --- L'audience se termine à / Whereupon the hearing
22 concluded at 1806
23
24
25
StenoTran
- Date modified: