ARCHIVED - Transcript, Hearing February 1, 2016

Volume: 6
Location: Gatineau, Quebec
Date: Februrary 1, 2016
© Copyright Reserved

Attendees and Location

Held at:

Outaouais Room
Conference Centre
140 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Québec

Attendees:

• Chairman: Jean-Pierre Blais
  
• Members: Candice Molnar, Yves Dupras, Stephen Simpson, Christopher MacDonald
  
• Legal Counsel: Shari Fisher
  
• Secretary: Jade Roy
  
• Hearing Managers: Guillaume Castonguay, Jean-Pierre Lefebvre
  

Transcript

Gatineau, Québec

--- Upon resuming on Monday, February 1, 2016 at 9:01 a.m.

8849 LE PRÉSIDENT: À l'ordre, s'il vous plait.

8850 Madame la secrétaire.

8851 LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci. Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de la Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec. S’il vous plait, vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter.

PRESENTATION

8852 M. CASAVANT: Monsieur le président, monsieur, madame les commissaires, bonjour. Je me présente, Sylvain Casavant, président de la Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, mais également directeur général de la Télévision Rive-Sud. Madame Sylvie-Anne Rheault, conseillère à la concertation et au soutien, ainsi que Carl Lacharité, directeur général par intérim m’accompagnent pour vous parler des télévisions communautaires autonomes du territoire québécois.

8853 Avant de débuter j’aimerais, si vous le permettez, vous présenter une courte vidéo qui vous démontra la créativité et la qualité également que nos membres produisent à chaque jour.

8854 (VIDEO PRESENTATION/PRÉSENTATION VIDÉO)

8855 M. CASAVANT: Tout d’abord, nous tenons à remercier le Conseil de nous recevoir dans le cadre de ses audiences portant sur la Révision du cadre politique relatif à la programmation télévisuelle locale et communautaire. Étant donné le court délai alloué, nous nous attarderons sur le résumé du mémoire que nous avons présenté lors de l’avis de consultation.

8856 Pour les 40 membres de la Fédération, cette révision revêt une grande importance puisque lors du dernier examen du cadre politique pour la télévision communautaire, le CRTC a affirmé l’importance de la programmation d’accès via les canaux communautaires, sans toutefois obliger les EDR à financer la programmation des stations de télévisions communautaires, qui sont des OBNL.

8857 La Fédération croit qu’avec les changements technologiques de plus en plus importants et s’opérant à vitesse grand V, le contenu local a sans contredit sa place dans l’univers télévisuel. Il appartient maintenant au CRTC de donner le moyen de leurs ambitions aux producteurs de programmation d’accès qui sont les télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, qui permettent l’accès aux citoyens ainsi que leur participation.

8858 Vous avez sans doute pu le constater dans la courte vidéo présentée, les télévisions communautaires autonomes sont créatives et font usage de débrouillardise pour produire du contenu local de bonne qualité, malgré un financement limité et parfois très limité.

8859 Parlons du financement. À plusieurs reprises, la Fédération a proposé, lors de ses interventions dans les avis de consultation 2009-661 et 2015-421, la création d’un fonds qui permettrait aux télévisions communautaires autonomes d’obtenir un financement stable et récurrent. Le Fonds d’aide à la programmation d’accès (FAPA), croyons-nous, est une solution pour assurer la viabilité des TCA. Le FAPA pourrait être alimenté par une ponction du pourcentage des recettes brutes des EDR terrestres vers les télévisions communautaires autonomes.

lang=fr8860 Le Conseil a maintenant l’opportunité d’agir avec cohérence, s’il croit toujours que l’accès des citoyens aux télévisions communautaires doit constituer la pierre angulaire de la politique sur la télévision communautaire, et s’assurer que les TCA aient leur juste part du financement existant.

8861 La Fédération croit que, selon les modalités que nous avons soulevées dans le mémoire, la création d’un fonds indépendant comme le FAPA, permettrait aux TCA de produire du contenu local et de programmation d’accès de meilleure qualité.

8862 Les TCA ont besoin de nouvelles sources de revenus afin d’améliorer l’offre de programmation locale et d’accès tant en nombre qu’en qualité. Elles ont aussi un urgent besoin de nouvelles sources de financement pour suivre l’évolution technologique qui les oblige à s’adapter au numérique et à la haute définition, le HD.

8863 La Fédération réaffirme que les télévisions communautaires autonomes sont des entités tenues de desservir l’intérêt du public dans les communautés où elles se situent. À ce titre, elles jouent un rôle incontournable en matière d’information locale. Tous les distributeurs terrestres présents dans les zones de dessertes où évolue une TCA, devraient avoir l’obligation de la distribuer sur le service de base des abonnés, et ce, sans frais supplémentaire.

8864 À la question 14 de l’Avis 2015-421, le CRTC s’interroge à savoir s’il existe d’autres façons de garantir la disponibilité de la programmation d’accès dans l’ensemble au système de radiodiffusion canadien, y compris pour les services autorisés et les services exemptés.

8865 La Fédération suggère donc que 2 pourcent des revenus bruts d’exploitation de toutes les EDR soient versés à la programmation communautaire afin de garantir un meilleur service. Le CRTC devrait aussi veiller à la bonne répartition des montants, afin d’éviter que les télévisions communautaires de câblodistributeurs n’accaparent la plus grosse portion des investissements.

8866 Parlons de l’accès. Dans son avis de consultation, le CRTC se demande comment favoriser l’accès aux ondes à une plus grande part de la population. La Fédération est d’avis que cet objectif serait facilement atteint en donnant aux TCA l’accès au canal communautaire de tous les câblodistributeurs d’un territoire de desserte.

8867 La Fédération souligne également que le mémoire présenté au CRTC l’importance pour les télévisions communautaires autonomes d’être diffusées en haute définition. La majorité de nos membres sont diffusés sur le canal linéaire standard -- dit standard.

8868 Ne devrait-il pas y avoir une uniformisation du contenu diffusé sur le canal standard et sur le canal haute définition? Cette transition devrait également se faire sans frais pour les télévisions communautaires autonomes, puisque les coûts qui y sont rattachés sont élevés pour les organisations comme les nôtres. Et comme l’infrastructure et le matériel de retransmission reliant la TCA aux câblodistributeurs ne leur appartient pas, ne serait-il pas logique que les frais soient assumés par le câblodistributeur?

8869 La diffusion en haute définition favoriserait une meilleure écoute de la part des citoyens. Cela permettrait de rejoindre tous les téléspectateurs locaux, que ce soit sur la chaîne standard ou HD tout en permettant de diffuser des émissions de plus grande qualité.

8870 Si le Conseil octroyait une licence de canal communautaire aux TCA assortie d’une obligation de financement par les EDR de la région desservie, cela permettrait un meilleur accès aux ondes. Car, de fait, les TCA du Québec ont parfois de la difficulté à avoir accès aux ondes. On pense notamment pour le direct.

8871 Il est faux de croire que la voix citoyenne peut aisément se faire entendre partout ailleurs par d’autres débouchés à l’expression locale. La voix citoyenne doit profiter de toutes les plateformes à sa disposition pour se faire entendre, y compris les canaux linéaires et traditionnels. C’est là un précepte cher aux Québécois et aux Canadiens.

8872 De plus en plus, nous voyons une nationalisation de l’information chez les grandes chaînes télévisuelles, laissant pour contre des localités mal desservies en raison de leur éloignement. Cela a des effets négatifs sur les collectivités, sur la perception qu’elles ont d’elles-mêmes et sur leur culture. L’accès à une programmation locale est une préoccupation constante pour la Fédération, et une des raisons pour lesquelles elle défend la diffusion et l’accessibilité au canal communautaire à un plus grand nombre.

8873 Si l’on prend en considération que l’information locale est importante chez plus de 50 pourcent des répondants de la Phase 1 et 2 de la consultation publique « Parlons Télé», les télévisions communautaires autonomes ont sans contredit leur raison d’être dans un forfait de base proposé aux consommateurs. Ce sont des émissions locales et d’accès faites par et pour les gens des zones de desserte autorisées.

8874 La Fédération croit que les TCA ont plus que jamais leur place au sein de la programmation canadienne, car elles sont le reflet des communautés où les grandes chaînes de télévision ne sont pas ou peu présentes et que l’information est de plus en plus concentrée dans des grands centres urbains. Les TCA permettent d’offrir une diversité d’émissions de qualité aux consommateurs de télévision.

8875 Le Conseil doit reconnaître l’apport de l’implication des membres des différentes collectivités canadiennes pour enrichir la programmation d’accès. Il s’agit là d’une programmation 100 pourcent canadienne qui renforce l’identité canadienne. Or, les citoyens-téléspectateurs, une fois bien informés de la situation réelle vécue par les artisans de la programmation communautaire de leur milieu, ne comprennent pas pourquoi cette programmation n’obtient ni la place, ni le financement qu’elle mérite.

8876 L’Initiative B, en réponse au paragraphe 28 du document de travail, la Fédération se réjouit de l’ouverture dont fait preuve le CRTC dans son avis de consultation CRTC 2015-421-3 quant à la possibilité de permettre la diffusion de publicité locale pour les canaux communautaires dans les marchés où la publicité pourrait manifestement contribuer à la production de nouvelles locales sur la chaîne communautaire. Depuis près de 15 ans, nous demandons un assouplissement des règles afin de permettre à nos membres de diffuser 12 minutes de publicité conventionnelle, commerciale et locale, par tour d’horloge.

8877 La Fédération aimerait insister sur le fait que, depuis 2002, les télévisions communautaires ont la possibilité de présenter des messages de commandite assortis d'une présentation visuelle animée d’une durée maximale de 15 secondes. Ce principe, qu’on considère restrictif, prive les TCA de revenus substantiels générés par les commerçants locaux qui voudraient s’annoncer à la télévision à un prix abordable. Nous espérons que cette ouverture se traduise rapidement par un assouplissement des règles.

8878 La Fédération ne pourrait être plus en accord avec le CRTC quand il mentionne au paragraphe 27 du Document de travail que : « les chaînes communautaires exploitées dans les petits centres jouent le rôle important de tenir compte des besoins de toute la collectivité. » Les TCA produisent déjà en moyenne 1,8 heure de nouvelles locales de qualité par semaine. Par contre, la production de nouvelles est sans aucun doute ce qui est le plus coûteux pour une station de télévision. Il va sans dire que nous considérons que les TCA sont les plus aptes à offrir une couverture de l’actualité locale dans leurs communautés, mais que le financement pour y parvenir est déficient. Nous avons déjà expliqué précédemment ce que nous proposons, de même que la nécessité de mieux répartir le financement existant pour permettre à toutes les TCA de produire des nouvelles locales professionnelles et répondant aux attentes de la population.

8879 Lors de la tournée à travers le Québec que nous avons effectuée auprès de nos membres, nous avons recueilli des données permettant de déterminer que les TCA produisent 6,5 heures en moyenne de production originale par semaine. De ce nombre, 1,8 heure est consacrée à l’information locale. Les membres de la Fédération produisent des émissions d’information locale de qualité et sont en mesure d’offrir un contenu touchant leurs localités. Certaines éprouvent de la difficulté à offrir ce type de programmation, non par manque de volonté, mais bien par manque de ressources humaines et financières.

8880 Selon les calculs de la Fédération, une heure de production pour les télévisions communautaires autonomes coûte environ 553 $. C’est pourquoi nous croyons et insistons sur le fait que les télévisions communautaires autonomes sont aptes à offrir de l’information de qualité professionnelle à moindre coût tout en permettant l’accès aux ondes pour ses citoyens.

8881 La principale mission des télévisions communautaires autonomes n’est pas de réaliser des profits, mais d’offrir les ondes à sa communauté, en transmettant la réalité du milieu -- de leur milieu. L’objectif ultime étant d’être un média de proximité en offrant une programmation faite pour et par la collectivité. Notre principale préoccupation est d’assurer la survie de cette programmation d’accès en permettant un meilleur financement.

8882 Nous vous remercions de votre écoute et sommes disponibles pour répondre à vos questions.

8883 Merci.

8884 LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci beaucoup, Mesdames, Messieurs, d’être ici à notre audience. Donc je vais avoir quelques questions.

8885 La première peut vous sembler un peu raide pour un lundi matin, mais si je vois bien, vous voulez avoir accès à l’argent des abonnés. Vous voulez avoir la distribution obligatoire à un coût direct aux EDR. Ma question pour vous c’est vous et vos membres, vous apportez quoi à un tel projet?

8886 M. CASAVANT: Grande question, grande question. J’aurais tendance à vous répondre en disant le nerf de la guerre est l’argent et souvent nos membres ont toujours eu un avenir un peu incertain, ce qui fait en sorte que c’est l’occasion maintenant d’exiger -- on le dit comme ça -- d’exiger, en fait, de s’assurer que nos membres aient un financement adéquat pour poursuivre leur mission.

8887 Comme on le mentionne, notre intérêt -- nos membres, les TCA, leur seul intérêt c’est d’être le reflet du milieu et il faut évidemment de l’argent pour produire -- d’être ce reflet-là.

8888 Et malheureusement, dans les conditions actuelles, il est difficile de croire qu’avec tous les changements, avec les EDR qui veulent se garder une grande portion, fait en sorte qu’on est toujours un peu à la merci de ces avenirs-là, de les décisions d’un autre groupe, entre autres les EDR, et avec leurs raisons très légitimes, mais ce qui fait une pression énorme sur nos existences, sur notre propre réalité et notre propre -- comment je dirais -- en fait, sur notre nécessité à être présents dans notre milieu.

8889 Je vous dirais que c’est de là qu’on évoque, en fait, les paramètres ou les modalités qu’on suggère dans ce mémoire.

8890 Je ne sais pas si je réponds correctement…

8891 LE PRÉSIDENT: C’est drôle, j’aurais pensé qu’une partie de votre réponse aurait été, “On investit, nous,” les membres de votre association, “x heures de bénévolat, qu’on contribue une vision alternative qui est peut-être une valeur intangible,” mais vous choisissez plutôt de parler d’argent.

8892 M. CASAVANT: C’est-à-dire que c’est le précepte premier, mais je laisserais peut-être notre conseillère répondre sur votre -- sur la mention du bénévolat dans nos organisations respectives.

8893 Sylvie-Anne.

8894 Mme RHEAULT: Bonjour, Monsieur Blais.

8895 LE PRÉSIDENT: Bonjour.

8896 Mme RHEAULT: Vous m’excuserez ma voix ce matin, petit fin de rhume.

8897 Dans nos 40 membres c’est environ 932 bénévoles qui travaillent à produire une programmation d’accès et assurer une présence sur le terrain, que ça soit à l’animation, à la caméra, à la réalisation et au montage.

8898 Ça représente 84,848 heures de bénévolat fait dans l’ensemble du Québec par les bénévoles, comparativement à un total de 158 employés dans les 40 télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec.

8899 Donc la programmation d’accès est vraiment fait avec les bénévoles. C’est sûr qu’y’a des employés qui sont là pour les supporter, mais tu sais le nombre de bénévoles est beaucoup plus grand que le nombre d’employés comme ---

8900 M. CASAVANT: Et comme on faisait mention -- comme on faisait mentions, c’est des données qui sont tout à fait récentes puisqu’on a produit ces données au printemps dernier suite à notre, en fait, notre tournée auprès de nos membres, pour justement collecter certaines données par rapport -- non pas en prévision de cette audience, mais véritablement pour nous avoir un portrait plus précis, en fait, de nos abonnés -- de nos -- de nos membres, excusez.

8901 LE PRÉSIDENT: Si « l’argent est le nerf de la guerre », je pense que je vous cite tout à l’heure.

8902 M. CASAVANT: Oui.

8903 LE PRÉSIDENT: Quelles activités faites-vous ou plus spécifiquement vos membres, pour obtenir des contributions par voie de campagne de souscription ou par des contributions de la part des fondations et d’autres mécanismes?

8904 Mme RHEAULT: On a des télévisions communautaires qui organisent des téléthons. C’est comme un téléthon qui dure la journée complète.

8905 Les gens souscrivent, ils vont donner des dons. Il y a des musiciens qui viennent participer puis tout ça. Il y en a qui font des vins-fromages.

8906 Il y a 26 télévisions communautaires autonomes au Québec, qui produisent un bingo-média. Donc c’est une source importante de revenu pour ces télévisions communautaires-là.

8907 C’est pas toutes les télévisions communautaires qui peuvent en faire des bingos en-direct, parce qu’ils n’ont pas accès à la baie de diffusion pour avoir l’accès aux zones pour le direct.

8908 Il y a des campagnes de membership aussi qui sont fait à travers leur MRC, leur municipalité régionale de comté, qui sont généralement desservi par les TCAs.

8909 LE PRÉSIDENT: Bon an, mal an, et toutes sources de financement confondues, approximativement vous faites des levées d’argent de combien dans vos associations?

8910 Mme RHEAULT: Bien c’est variable d’un milieu à l’autre. Il y a des téléthons qui peuvent ---

8911 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mettons même globalement.

8912 Mme RHEAULT: Globalement ça peut ressembler peut-être à 20-25,000. Une campagne -- un bingo ça dépend toujours de la population.

8913 LE PRÉSIDENT: Par année total -- pas par bingo-là mais --

8914 Me RHEAULT: O.k.

8915 LE PRÉSIDENT: -- total.

8916 M. CASAVANT: À tous moments.

8917 LE PRÉSIDENT: Par vos -- les diverses sources-là, que ce soit des --

8918 Mme RHEAULT: Euh non.

8919 LE PRÉSIDENT: -- levées de fonds, des activités ---

8920 Mme RHEAULT: Un budget annuel, la médiane pour une télévision communautaire, ça ressemble à 150,000.

8921 LE PRÉSIDENT: Cent-cinquante-mille (150,000). Ça c’est la médiane?

8922 Mme RHEAULT: Ça c’est la médiance.

8923 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc si je multiplie par 40 j’aurais une moyenne -- peut-être une médiane-là --

8924 Mme RHEAULT: Bien une moyenne c’est ---

8925 LE PRÉSIDENT: -- bien peut-être pas tout à fait ---

8926 Mme RHEAULT: Une moyenne c’est 200,000, mais il faut comprendre que il y a des membres qui ont 60,000 de budget annuel.

8927 LE PRÉSIDENT: D’autres plus ?

8928 Mme RHEAULT: Puis il y a d’autres membres qui ont 500,000 de ---

8929 LE PRÉSIDENT: Non, mais moi j’essaie de voir la source de financement alternative que vous avez à l’heure actuelle.

8930 Toutes sources confondues, membership, bingo, levée de fonds, appel directs au public de vous financer, pour tous vos membres à l’heure actuelle.

8931 M. CASAVANT: Pour l’ensemble de nos membres c’est quoi?

8932 Mme RHEAULT: C’est sept million huit cent ---

8933 M. CASAVANT: Environ 7,800,000, qu’on a comptabilisé en moyenne. Disons on va prendre les termes médianes.

8934 LE PRÉSIDENT: Il doit avoir de meilleures années que d’autres.

8935 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait.

8936 LE PRÉSIDENT: Puis je comprends que la distribution n’est pas égale, mais environ 7 million de dollars --

8937 Mme RHEAULT: Exactement.

8938 LE PRÉSIDENT: -- que vous allez chercher de la part des ---

8939 M. CASAVANT: Du milieu.

8940 C’est-à-dire qu’il faut comprendre que c’est de l’argent du milieu, qui est retourné dans son milieu.

8941 Évidemment les -- nos membres étant des organismes du milieu, donc c’est l’argent du milieu qui s’en va à un organisme et qui retourne indirectement.

8942 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, je comprends.

8943 Et donc c’est à peu près un dollar par approximativement par Québécois?

8944 Mme RHEAULT: Environ.

8945 M. CASAVANT: Environ si on calcule (inaudible)

8946 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et que sans doute vous avez des membres qui sont plus généreux que la moyenne?

8947 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait. Tout à fait.

8948 LE PRÉSIDENT: L’approche que vous préconisez est-ce que c’est une approche spécifique pour le Québec?

8949 Est-ce que vous voyez une spécificité dans la réalité Québécoise qui fait en sorte que c’est un modèle qu’on appliquerait uniquement qu’au Québec?

8950 M. CASAVAT: En grande partie au Québec, oui, parce que je pense que le plus grand nombre est important, mais en fait c’est un modèle qui est pour le Canada au grand complet.

8951 On tend -- on débute des pourparlers, je vous dirais avec le regroupement Canadien, c’est-à-dire CACTUS on est à l’étape très préliminaire, mais on essaie de faire, en fait-là, des liens avec ce regroupement-là.

8952 Mais c’est -- c’est clair pour nous que ce fond d’aide-là serait pour le Canada au grand complet.

8953 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et vous envisageriez combien sur le plan Canadien alors de ces opérateurs indépendants?

8954 À l’heure actuelle on a à peu près 160, sur une base nationale, à peu près 160 canaux communautaires. Est-ce que vous envisagez 160 télévisions communautaires autonomes?

8955 M. CASAVANT: Là c’est une grande -- c’est 160 télévisions communautaires autonomes au Canada ?

8956 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui.

8957 M. CASAVANT: Il faudrait y réfléchir. Ça je ne pourrais pas vous répondre à l’instant comme ça.

8958 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous en voyez combien alors? Émergé là sur ---

8959 M. CASAVANT: Bien depuis le temps qu’on changerait la politique.

8960 LE PRÉSIDENT: Écoutes, il en aurait combien qui émergerait sur une période de, je sais pas, cinq an?

8961 M. CASAVANT: Pourrait pas vous dire. C’est-à-dire ça dépend -- ça dépend du milieu. De quelle façon lui il peut s’organiser pour faire en sorte de mettre sur pied une TCA et, je pense, à l’extérieur du Québec et là de se constituer et de former, tu sais, je pourrais pas -- comme ça il faut ---

8962 LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k. peut-être que en posant la question par rapport au Canada dans son ensemble je sors de votre zone de confort.

8963 M. CASAVANT: Oui.

8964 LE PRÉSIDENT: Au Québec vous en verrez combien?

8965 M. CASAVANT: Bien le nombre qu’on a actuellement.

8966 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous pensez que chacun de vos 40 membres se transfèrerait en -- d’après votre nouveau modèle?

8967 M. CASAVANT: Je pense que oui.

8968 C’est-à-dire que c’est un modèle viable. Il faut voir -- il y a peut-être des modalités à préciser, évidemment.

8969 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui.

8970 M. CASAVANT: Mais on pense que pour la bonne raison que c’est par distributeur, c’est par EDR que le financement ce fait et il n’est pas -- il n’est pas égale de un -- d’une TCA à une autre.

8971 Je prends un exemple, Vidéotron versus le Cogéco et les financements sont -- sont très -- sont très éloignés et le soutien aussi est très différent d’un endroit à l’autre.

8972 Ce fond-là permettrait de l’avoir -- d’avoir en fait un minimum, un seuil minimal, pour tous nos membres. Il fait en sorte qu’il pourrait faire – qu’il pourrait travailler et s’assurer la viabilité en fait de leurs propres organismes.

8973 Parce que encore là je le répète, certains organismes, certains de nos membres, ont un avenir plus ou moins précis, d’autres plus long -- à long terme.

8974 Ce qui fait en sorte que les combats ou c’est-à-dire nos revendications en tant que fédération, il faut toujours prendre en considération oui, mais où est notre membre.

8975 Où en est rendu, est-ce que lui ça survis en dépend. C’est-à-dire demain matin, ou dans trois semaines, ou dans un an, ou dans deux ans.

8976 Ce fond-là permettrait en fait de faire en sorte que le minimum requis serait -- serait appuyé par ce financement.

8977 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et si je comprends bien la distribution serait obligatoire sur la base.

8978 M. CASAVANT: On le souhaite.

8979 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et au même canal?

8980 M. CASAVANT: Pardon?

8981 LE PRÉSIDENT: Au même canal?

8982 M. CASAVANT: Euh oui.

8983 Mme RHEAULT: Si je peux me permettre, était donné que ce sont des télévisions communautaires autonomes, pourquoi ne pas les distribuer sur tous les EDRs disponibles sur un territoire, que ça soit par IPTV.

8984 Ça arrive des fois que les deux peuvent se

8985 chevaucher. Bell Fibe qui est sur les territoires-là des autres câblodistributeurs, pourquoi ne pas offrir leur programmation sans avoir une restriction de leu câblodistributeur principal.

8986 LE PRÉSIDENT: Je comprends, mais d’après votre modèle, puisque vous prenez une grande partie des sources de financement, si je comprends bien le canal communautaire devient -- existent offert par les EDRs deviendrait possiblement non-viable.

8987 Donc est-ce que vous remplacez votre canal sur le canal communautaire qui existe à l’heure actuelle?

8988 M. CASAVANT: Bien en fait c’est-à-dire qu’on a -- on n’exclut pas les canaux communautaires des EDRs, sauf que nous on se positionne pour avoir notre canal.

8989 Là vous suggérez -- c’est certain, que -- c’est à dire de suggérer -- en fait, notre crainte c’est de suggérer, dire o.k. est-ce que vous voudriez votre canal. On dit oui, évidemment.

8990 Mais est-ce que ça -- la question sous-entends aussi est-ce que vous seriez prêt à aller ailleurs et là on dit bien non c’est-à-dire que la tradition nous est sur le canal qu’on a -- là où nous sommes maintenant.

8991 Évidemment on peut le partager et on le partage en ce moment, tous nos membres partages en fait à 100 pourcent, mais aussi par pourcentage inférieur avec les EDRs, avec les canaux communautaires des EDRs.

8992 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, voici le -- j’essaie de bien comprendre.

8993 M. CASAVANT: Oui.

8994 LE PRÉSIDENT: Parce que souvent vous parlez d’accès aux zones. On ne parle pas des zones ici. C’est pas -- c’est la distribution par câble et -- ou par IPTV.

8995 Et donc il est tout à fait possible, dans la distribution même de la base, que votre service, votre canal pourrait être -- je ne sais pas moi, au canal 27 même si traditionnellement le canal -- puis là j’invente n’importe quel numéro.

8996 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait.

8997 LE PRÉSIDENT: Que le canal communautaire des EDR est sur le canal 12, admettons, pour un exemple.

8998 Donc, j’essaie de comprendre qu’est-ce que vous cherchez exactement?

8999 M. CASAVANT: C’est-à-dire que évoqué de cette façon, je vous dirais que, oui. C’est-à-dire on n’exclut pas.

9000 C’est-à-dire que si le canal linéaire, pour prendre votre exemple, est le canal 27, c’est-à-dire une TCA est présente 24 heures sur 24 sur le canal 27 et le canal communautaire du EDR elle est au canal 12, pour prendre l’exemple ou sur la chaîne 12, on ne verra pas de -- on ne voit pas d’inconvénient puisqu’on se positionne en fait, on se positionnerait en fait comme un canal dédié à son milieu. Et on sous-entend et on espère avoir le financement en conséquence.

9001 Donc, à ce moment-là, c’est la programmation qui est offerte qui ferait en sorte qu’on serait -- on pourrait, on pourrait en fait être présent ou intéresser le milieu malgré le changement de chaîne si on veut.

9002 LE PRÉSIDENT: À l’heure actuelle, l’autorisation de diffuser pour le canal communautaire tel qu’on le connaît traditionnel, les EDR, se trouve incorporée dans la licence des EDR. Donc c’est là la permission parce qu’on sait ---

9003 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait.

9004 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- qu’au Canada, nul ne peut faire de la radiodiffusion, de la télédiffusion sans soit bénéficier d’une licence ou d’une exemption.

9005 Dans votre cas, si vous deveniez autonome et offriez un service séparé, où se trouve la licence?

9006 M. CASAVANT: Ça, je ne pourrais pas vous le dire. C’est-à-dire qu’on suppose -- on convient que par cette action, on se trouve à récolter cette licence-là ou cette autorisation de service de programmation communautaire locale. On suppose que ce serait nous.

9007 Je fais un peu -- si vous le permettez un peu avec les radios communautaires. Les radios communautaires ont leur propre licence qui ferait en sorte que nous on ne voit pas et personnellement, je ne vois pas en fait de contradiction à ce que la télé communautaire locale de type TCA ait aussi sa licence au même titre que les radios communautaires.

9008 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et donc la responsabilité par rapport au contenu sur ce nouveau service appartient à l’organisme sans but lucratif qui détient les licences, c’est ça?

9009 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait. Exactement.

9010 LE PRÉSIDENT: Est-ce qu’il y aurait des codes? Vous savez, quand on ---

9011 M. CASAVANT: C’est-à-dire ---

9012 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous parlez de la radio communautaire. C’est un exemple intéressant parce que justement c’est un système où on a donné des permissions par voie de licence radiodiffusée mais il y a quand même des codes d’opération ---

9013 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait.

9014 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- nécessaires sur stéréotype sexuel, l’équilibre en période électorale, genre de publicité qui n’est pas acceptée, bon, et cetera, et cetera.

9015 M. CASAVANT: Bien, je vous dirais qu’on adhère déjà à ces codes-là, étant en fait -- on n’a pas de licence. Sauf que c’est le -- l’EDR qui nous permet de diffuser sur ses ondes nous donne, nous donne -- sur son service de canal communautaire pour ses ondes mais nous donne, nous oblige un peu indirectement à suivre ce code-là. Et on le suit d’emblée et de facto pour -- considérant, parce qu’on se considère comme un radiodiffuseur si on veut.

9016 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, mais vous conviendrez qu’ils le font parce que c’est eux qui détiennent la licence et ils doivent vérifier que le contenu est conforme.

9017 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait.

9018 LE PRÉSIDENT: Selon votre modèle, ça va être aux télévisions autonomes sans but lucratif qui détiennent la licence de gérer tout ça.

9019 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait.

9020 LE PRÉSIDENT: Pensez-vous que vous avez la capacité de le faire?

9021 M. CASAVANT: C’est-à-dire encore là, je pense que oui.

9022 LE PRÉSIDENT: Parce que souvent les bénévoles veulent faire de la télé puis pour eux de la télé c’est être soit devant ou derrière la caméra ou arriver à des idées.

9023 Je suis pas mal certain qu’il y a très peu de bénévoles qui veulent être là pour remplir des fichiers puis des registres puis répondre aux exigences réglementaires.

9024 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait. Ça, vous avez parfaitement raison. C’est-à-dire que le personnel en place, lui, pourrait être -- pourrait faire en sorte de remplir un peu -- un peu comme les modèles ---

9025 LE PRÉSIDENT: Comme vous envisagez du personnel à temps plein, rémunéré sur une base d’un salaire à même les fonds des EDR?

9026 M. CASAVANT: Non, non, non. C’est-à-dire à court terme, on voit que ce serait le propre personnel en place qui le ferait en fait parce qu’on le fait déjà. La seule différence c’est-à-dire que là, il y a un cadre précis et je vous dirais que le code s’adresserait directement à la TCA plutôt qu’à l’EDR. Puis l’EDR, lui, ensuite fait appel à la TCA pour dire, voici tu as contrevenu au TCA.

9027 Je vous donne un exemple. Le CRTC reçoit une plainte et s’adresse évidemment à celui qui a la licence. Et celui qui a la licence, l’EDR s’adresse ensuite à nous, les TCA, si c’est le cas, si c’est directement à nous.

9028 Donc là, la seule chose qui serait différente pour nous c’est-à-dire que là, on se trouve juste à enlever un intervenant, c’est-à-dire l’EDR qui détient la licence.

9029 LE PRÉSIDENT: Est-ce que vous envisagez devenir membre du Conseil des normes ---

9030 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait.

9031 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- pour la radiodiffusion?

9032 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait, oui.

9033 LE PRÉSIDENT: Voyez-vous ce qui m’inquiète c’est qu’on a plusieurs années d’expérience où on a une gouvernance assez connue autour des licences qui sont incorporées dans les licences des EDR. Vous me proposez de créer, juste au Québec, 40 nouvelles titulaires de licences et communautaires en plus.

9034 M. CASAVANT: Oui.

9035 LE PRÉSIDENT: Puis notre expérience d’ailleurs dans la réglementation, bien qu’il y ait des groupes communautaires, par exemple, à la radio qui peuvent très bien rencontrer leurs obligations réglementaires, on trouve que souvent et parfois on a des bas difficiles et houleux avec des groupes communautaires.

9036 M. CASAVANT: O.k.

9037 LE PRÉSIDENT: Dans des universités, des CEGEP, des collèges un peu partout au pays, même dans le communautaire parce qu’ils n’ont pas la capacité de répondre à l’obligation innée à détenir une licence de radiodiffusion.

9038 M. CASAVANT: Je vous dirais, pour connaître nos membres, ils sont assez bien organisés. C’est-à-dire qu’on a des -- il y a employés permanents ou du moins il y a du personnel permanent dans toutes nos TCA, à différents niveaux mais qui y travaillent de façon permanente. Ça, c’est une chose.

9039 Donc, la structure, nous on croit que nos membres sont assez bien structurés contrairement peut-être -- et encore là, c’est légitime par rapports à des organisations. Je pense aux radios universitaires ou étudiantes ou autres qui détiennent une licence.

9040 Nous, on croit être en mesure de faire en sorte de répondre parce qu’on est davantage structuré à différents niveaux, il faut l’avouer, mais quand même structuré.

9041 LE PRÉSIDENT: Présumons qu’il y a deux groupes communautaires organisés par OSBL qui veulent avoir accès à l’argent des abonnés et à la distribution obligatoire. Est-ce que vous envisagez qu’on pourrait diviser les sommes d’argent en proportion et obliger la double distribution ou doit-on envisager qu’une seule titulaire?

9042 M. CASAVANT: Là, on n’a pas consulté nos membres sur cette question très précise.

9043 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et très réelle parce qu’on peut imaginer un groupe communautaire ---

9044 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait, oui.

9045 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- de je ne sais pas moi, de la gauche, puis un groupe communautaire de la droite, puis ils ne veulent pas être associés un à l’autre, puis ils veulent chacun leur poste.

9046 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait.

9047 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc nous, on va être pris avec cette patate chaude, n’est-ce-pas?

9048 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait. C’est-à-dire qu’on privilégierait un seul et ce serait le milieu qui déterminerait lui-même.

9049 On a connu récemment en fait un peu cette problématique dans la grande région de Montréal et c’est le milieu lui-même qui a déterminé à faire en sorte de dire, o.k. c’est un groupe plutôt qu’un autre. Non pas -- ou de fusionner en fait.

9050 LE PRÉSIDENT: C’est bien beau pour vous mais ensuite vous venez cogner à la porte du Conseil pour obtenir cette licence-là. Et le groupe qui a peut-être pas trouvé sa part du gâteau dans votre gouvernance interne va venir à nos audiences et dire, non, non, non, c’est à nous d’obtenir la licence.

9051 Donc, on pourrait envisager et avoir peur, vous conviendrez, de 40 demandes concurrentielles ---

9052 M. CASAVANT: Oui.

9053 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- pour des licences communautaires.

9054 M. CASAVANT: Je vous dirais, j’aurais tendance à vous répondre c’est un peu comme la multiplication des canaux. S’il y en a 250, pourquoi réduire à -- dire, bon, on en a beaucoup trop. On pense que 250 canaux au Canada c’est beaucoup trop. Peut-être 40 c’est beaucoup trop -- TCA, c’est beaucoup trop.

9055 Chacun sont légitime de leur propre existence. Nous -- c’est-à-dire on ne prétend pas d’avoir le monopole en fait de notre localité, bien évidemment. Mais on va suggérer et on va favoriser le consensus à l’intérieur d’un milieu.

9056 De là, nous, on revient. Vous l’avez sans doute compris, nous, on tient à notre milieu et notre milieu tient à nous.

9057 Donc évidemment que nous, on a tous avantage à être consensuels avec notre propre milieu. Si des groupes très privés ou des groupes, je dirais, autres que le milieu et qui sont dans le milieu quand même et se positionnent contre une demande, bien c’est en fait faire comme les autres. En fait, c’est de défendre notre point le plus légitimement possible en démontrant qu’on a notre existence en fait avec le milieu.

9058 LE PRÉSIDENT: Dans vos documents vous dites -- vous dites que vos organismes, vos membres sont animés par des valeurs démocratiques. J’aimerais fouiller ça un peu plus dans le sens que c'est clair que vous voulez diffuser du contenu.

9059 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait.

9060 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous voulez avoir accès à une quote-part de l’argent des abonnés. Et je me pose deux questions, pis vous pouvez les prendre un après l’autre là. Dans quelle mesure est-ce que le Conseil doit être préoccupé dans votre modèle des cotes d’écoute ou de la popularité de votre service pour vous octroyer le privilège qu’y est une licence? Premièrement.

9061 Et deuxièmement, je remarque que vous avez fait dans votre rapport des consultations avec les membres -- avec les 39 télévisions communautaires autonomes, vous avez fait un -- vous avez déposé un rapport au dossier, mais ce qui m’a frappé c'est que vous vous êtes parlé entre vous, et j’ai pas vu beaucoup de preuves que la population en général vous appuie. Peut-être que vous avez de la preuve qu’y est pas au dossier, mais si vous êtes animé par des valeurs démocratiques, j’ai -- je vois une absence d’appui de la population.

9062 Vous êtes quoi, à peu près 6 000 membres qui appuient vos -- j’ai vu ce chiffre-là à peu près ---

9063 M. CASAVANT: Six mille (6 000).

9064 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- 6 000 à peu près là qui sont -- qui sont dans le -- votre mouvement, mais y a près de 3 millions de foyers au Québec qui sont abonnés à des EDR, et ça c'est des foyers, donc on peut multiplier par 2 et demi, 3 en terme de population. Donc pour un groupe qui parle d’être animé par des valeurs démocratiques, je vois une absence d’une part ---

9065 M. CASAVANT: De consultation.

9066 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- d’appui en termes d’écoute et de consultations démocratiques.

9067 M. CASAVANT: En fait, les cotes d’écoute c'est plutôt difficile pour nous, pour nos TCR, pour nos membres d’avoir accès à des cotes d’écoute puisque ça revient à l’EDR de faire la cote d’écoute, parce que les frais sont malheureusement trop élevés pour que nos TCR de façon individuelle fassent des BBM pour prendre -- pour prendre l’expression.

9068 En fait, on a -- autre que les cotes d’écoute que nous avons, on a produit récemment ce qu’on appelle en fait une étude d’impact social auprès -- auprès de la population, comme vous le disiez si bien. On pourra vous le déposer, si ce n'est pas déjà fait, ultérieurement. Et on met -- oui?

9069 LE PRÉSIDENT: L’étude a été faite à quel moment?

9070 M. CASAVANT: Ce printemps.

9071 Mme RHEAULT: L’étude a été réalisée au début du printemps, pis là elle est à la fin de la rédaction, y attendent nos derniers -- nos derniers commentaires ---

9072 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous savez ---

9073 Mme RHEAULT: --- pour la remettre.

9074 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- vous auriez pu le déposer bien avant, donc c'est -- si ça fait partie -- voyez-vous, vous demandez quelque chose mais vous mettez pas la preuve à l’appui que la population désire le modèle que vous préconisez. Et pourtant vous êtes -- vous dites vous êtes animé par des valeurs démocratiques.

9075 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait, c'est-à-dire que le consensus -- c'est-à-dire que c'est le milieu, c'est-à-dire c'est les gens qui participent à la programmation communautaire qui déterminent sa programmation. C'est-à-dire que là on fait pas -- c'est-à-dire on a pas fait un sondage de popularité à savoir o.k., bon dans un milieu X ---

9076 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais justement ---

9077 M. CASAVANT: --- dans un milieu ---

9078 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- justement, vous demandez à tous les abonnés de contribuer à votre financement, puis vous avez mis aucune preuve au dossier quoi que soit pour dire que ces abonnés-là consentent à ce que leur argent aille dans votre modèle plutôt que dans le canal communautaire existant.

9079 M. CASAVANT: Vous avez raison, on va faire honorable, on va vous déposer notre chose d’impact, si vous le permettez.

9080 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous pouvez tenter de le déposer, mais on va le prendre sous réserve parce que on a quand même des règles de preuve là, et puis on est pas mal tard dans le ---

9081 M. CASAVANT: O.k.

9082 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- le service. Si vous voulez tenter de le faire, faut donner des arguments à l’appui.

9083 Pourquoi vous envisagez pas plutôt -- vous voulez -- c’est clair que vous voulez être sur une plateforme surtout linéaire, vous voyez la possibilité du SVOD comme étant quelque chose en appui, complémentaire, mais pourquoi pas envisager un modèle SVOD comme étant le modèle premier?

9084 M. CASAVANT: Je vous dirais parce que c'est un peu marginal à mon point de vue, c'est un peu la -- la vidéo sur demande est un peu marginale. Je parlais ---

9085 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous devriez dire ça à Netflix.

9086 M. CASAVANT: Pardon?

9087 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous devriez dire ça à Netflix.

9088 M. CASAVANT: Oui, mais je parle de Netflix, je parle de la vidéo sur demande par une EDR, qui est -- à mon avis un peu différent. Je prends le modèle de TCF, Télévision Frontenac, qui elle avec Bell Fibe y sont sur la vidéo sur demande. Dans ce modèle-là c'est ce qu’on craint un peu, de nous marginaliser. En fait, c'est-à-dire l’abonné ou le téléspectateur, un citoyen a de la ---

9089 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous voyez, on entend ---

9090 M. CASAVANT: --- a de la difficulté de nous trouver.

9091 LE PRÉSIDENT: On entend beaucoup de gens nous dire que la nouvelle génération ne s’abonne pas autant au câble, qui sont sur d’autres plateformes. Donc si vous voulez développer un modèle pour l’avenir, pourquoi vous voulez pas être surtout et presqu’exclusivement sur ces plateformes-là, parce que c'est les plateformes de l’avenir?

9092 M. CASAVANT: C'est-à-dire que on y va -- on y va de façon grand public, c'est-à-dire on n’exclue pas les autres plateformes. Comme on le mentionne, on veut être sur toutes les plateformes, et non être à un seul endroit, c'est-à-dire c'est d’être à plusieurs endroits.

9093 C'est sûr que notre canal -- si je peux prendre l’expression depuis les élections -- le canal linéaire qu’y est grand pour nous, le grand public, c'est comme mettre en -- je vous dirais -- je pourrais relancer la question et dire c'est mettre comme en doute un peu l’existence de Radio-Canada, puis pourquoi qu’on envoie pas Radio-Canada sur des plateformes, puisque l’audience est là. C’est-à-dire on peut rejoindre cette audience-là, mais on veut être ---

9094 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais par la même occasion, Radio-Canada investi des sommes d’argent et des efforts considérables pour développer Tou.tv.

9095 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait, tout à fait. On pourrait -- pour prendre ce modèle-là ---

9096 LE PRÉSIDENT: Parce que ils ont un regard vers l’avenir.

9097 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait, mais c'est-à-dire que nos TCA pourraient se constituer aussi sur une seule plateforme un peu à la Tou.tv, et offrir sa programmation de cette façon-là. Mais c'est pas -- en fait, c'est pas de les stationner dans ce modèle-là plutôt que dans le modèle linéaire, c'est-à-dire on ne veut pas être exclusivement linéaire, mais on veut demeurer linéaire mais aussi être disponible pour les autres plateformes.

9098 LE PRÉSIDENT: Parce qu’un argument pourrait être fait que si vous vous limitez au modèle linéaire à court et à long terme, vous allez peut-être exclure les nouvelles générations qui sont pas abonnées au câble, mais qui pourraient avoir accès par leur abonnement internet à vos -- à votre contenu.

9099 M. CASAVANT: Ben c'est-à-dire on pourrait être diffusé par -- nous on le fait chez nous, on diffuse sur internet via le canal linéaire, donc on pourrait les rejoindre. La seule façon c'est que là maintenant les jeunes consomment au moment où eux le désirent, c'est de trouver des alternatives pour faire en sorte de les rejoindre. Et là y faut rejoindre aussi nos jeunes de notre milieu, donc c'est pas la programmation, par la préoccupation qu’on pourrait faire -- par leur propre préoccupation dans leur propre milieu, de faire des émissions qui va les rejoindre davantage. Et là ensuite, d’être sur toutes les plateformes.

9100 LE PRÉSIDENT: Ma dernière question porte sur le format haute-définition. Je l’avais vu dans votre mémoire écrit que c'est quelque chose que vous préconisiez, mais j’ai été quelque peu surpris que vous avez -- vous vous êtes attardé sur ce point-là dans votre présentation orale ce matin. Comme vous avez mentionné, vous avez un temps limité, donc quand qu’on a un temps limité puis on prend du temps pour parler de quelque chose, c'est parce qu’on pense que c'est prioritaire.

9101 M. CASAVANT: On le croit.

9102 LE PRÉSIDENT: Est-ce que -- vous croyez. Au même -- j’aimerais avoir un sens, est-ce que c'est aussi prioritaire que le modèle? Parce que la Loi sur la radiodiffusion parle des développements technologiques au fur et à mesure que les ressources deviennent disponibles, c'est pas exactement les bons mots, mais c'est un peu la notion, et est-ce que c'est aussi prioritaire d’obliger que ça soit en haute-définition, que d’avancer votre modèle d’OSBL plus communautaire pour faire de la télévision communautaire?

9103 M. CASAVANT: Ben en fait, je vous dirais d’emblée que l’un n’exclut pas l’autre. Dire bon, o.k., on va donner préséance à un financement adéquat versus peut-être une haute-définition ou on aura pas accès, là ça serait encourager le mirabilis là de dire, ah, ben, o.k., on est -- on est pas aussi performant, on est pas aussi beau que les autres.

9104 En fait, si -- je vous dirais que dans la présentation orale on a essayé de toucher à tout dans le cadre des audiences.

9105 C'est certain que s’il y avait une préférence ou ben -- c'est-à-dire j’aurais tendance à dire s’il faut donner une préséance ou prioriser en fait nos objectifs, évidemment que c'est le financement. Mais on n’exclut pas d’emblée -- c'est-à-dire on ne choisira pas entre la haute définition et le financement ou l’un et vice versa.

9106 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous savez qu’il y a même des télévisions plus traditionnelles qui diffusent pas à ce jour en haute définition.

9107 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait. Tout à fait.

9108 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et y a même des annonceurs qui pourtant ont besoin de ce modèle pour faire -- pour rejoindre -- on le voit là soudainement quand on est dans la pause publicitaire, la qualité n'est pas là.

9109 M. CASAVANT: Ben c'est-à-dire qu’y a un engouement pour la haute définition en ce moment, un peu comme vous le mentionnez pour les jeunes avec la vidéo sur demande ou sur internet.

9110 Nous ce qu’on constate avec nos TCA, c'est-à-dire que les EDR eux -- elles, en fait, essaient -- fait une mise en marché, un positionnement pour favoriser les gens à regarder la haute définition, ce qui fait en sorte que le regard est orienté vers la gauche quand nous on est à droite.

9111 Donc on veut aller -- on veut aller à droite également.

9112 LE PRÉSIDENT: Sauf que ces mêmes jeunes sont ailleurs. Ils sont sur YouTube et c'est là qu’ils créent, c'est là qu’ils regardent.

9113 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait. C'est-à-dire que ça revient à dire nous on veut être sur toutes les plateformes, là où on va maximiser en fait l’impact auprès de notre milieu.

9114 En fait, c'est pas de -- c'est pas de financer un système privé qui va faire en sorte que le professionnaliste -- le professionnalisme est déjà là. C'est-à-dire avec la démocratisation en fait des équipements et l’accès aux équipements de production de meilleure qualité, c'est-à-dire je vous donne un peu la perception et la télévision communautaire à l’époque -- y a longtemps, j’y suis depuis 25 ans -- était un peu comme péjorative. Ah, la télévision communautaire c'est synonyme de pas très bon.

9115 Aujourd’hui, c’est complètement différent. C'est complètement différent. C'est-à-dire ça correspond plus en fait. C'est juste la pertinence en fait qui des fois est questionnée pour savoir, ah, est-ce que ça correspond à mon milieu. Est-ce que cette télé communautaire me parle, etcetera? On parle pas du tout au niveau de la qualité qui est inférieure et selon les moyens de tout le monde, le téléspectateur local lui convient que sa télévision locale, télé communautaire locale, elle, bon, est faite avec les moyens qu’elle a bien évidemment.

9116 Donc ils comprennent ce principe-là, vivent avec et regardent leur télé malgré tous ces moyens-là. Donc c'est juste d’avoir -- en fait de faire en sorte de pouvoir poursuivre notre mission et non pas d’engranger des profits pour faire ne sorte que notre système fonctionne bien.

9117 LE PRÉSIDENT: Je comprends mais j’ai vu aussi plusieurs groupes communautaires qui viennent du canal communautaire existant venir nous montrer des produits vidéos qui étaient haute définition et de qualité et qu’il y a des EDR qui ont en fait investi pour améliorer l’équipement. Donc c'est pas ---

9118 M. CASAVANT: C'est-à-dire c'est pas complètement ---

9119 LE PRÉSIDENT: On fait pas encore de la télévision comme dans les années ’72 là dans les canaux communautaires existants.

9120 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait. C'est-à-dire que c'est l’objectif ultime d’arriver et de rejoindre tous les téléspectateurs et là la nouvelle norme standard est maintenant la haute définition. C'est-à-dire on devine que prochainement la haute définition sera le nouveau standard.

9121 Donc si on veut intéresser par nos productions en terme minimal de qualité, ben c'est sûr qu’on vise en fait la haute définition.

9122 LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci. Comme je vous l'ai indiqué, c'était mes questions. Je vais me tourner vers mes collègues.

9123 Commissaire -- Conseiller Dupras.

9124 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Oui, merci.

9125 Quels sont les problèmes avec les canaux communautaires des EDR en région? Est-ce ce que c'est la qualité, y a pas assez de programmations? Qu’est-ce que vous feriez de mieux? J’aimerais ça si vous pouvez me répondre aux deux volets de la question.

9126 M. CASAVANT: Ben c'est-à-dire c'est l’accès aux zones, ce que nous on a -- les commentaires de notre tournée, les commentaires fréquents c’était beaucoup -- y a avait une aide directe qui était peut-être minimale mais aussi l’accès aux zones. Pour certaines TCA, c'était exclu, totalement exclu, donc fournissaient en fait leurs productions et c’était très minime comme implication. Puis de l’autre -- de l’autre c'était en fait laisser -- donnait le canal mais débrouille toi avec. Donc ---

9127 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: O.k., non, mais vous reprochez pas aux canaux des EDR de pas rendre un service à la population. C'est surtout l’accès pour les TCA qui est difficile et que vous aimeriez qu’ils s’améliorent et vous aimeriez avoir du financement pour vous aider à faire une programmation ---

9128 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait. Tout à fait parce que la finalité en fait pour le canal communautaire des EDR correspond à une stratégie commerciale d’une plus-value d’offrir à leurs abonnés, etcetera. Tandis que nous notre TCA c'est juste d’offrir du contenu local tout simplement qui est sa seule préoccupation et de l’offrir de bonne façon, de bien le programmer, de l’offrir le plus souvent possible, et c'est là parfois que là ça contrevient un peu avec l’EDR. C'est-à-dire que là eux vont garder -- veulent se garder dans leur positionnement, dans leur stratégie davantage de visibilité. Donc s’ils en donnent à une TCA, ils en ont moins pour eux.

9129 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: S’il y avait un financement pour des TCA et un accès au canal communautaire des EDR, cela vous contenterait? Vous revendiqueriez pas nécessairement d’avoir votre propre canal?

9130 M. CASAVANT: Ben c'est-à-dire qu’il faudrait s’entendre. C'est-à-dire que si les paramètres du CRTC permettent je vous dirais -- je vous dirais que le cadre, le nouveau cadre stratégique lui a permis -- c'est-à-dire on l’a salué et on vous a même remercié CRTC. Mais si on va encore plus loin dans cette perspective, ça serait de préciser en fait. Je pense vous le fait un peu avec les pourcentages d’accès. C'est juste peut-être de le préciser par une sorte de règlementation.

9131 On n’exclut pas, non, parce que là un peu comme Monsieur le président a mentionné, là on va avoir une multiplication de canaux et les gens pourraient s’y perdre. Y a un risque. Mais nous on n’est pas contre que nos TCA s’entendent avec les canaux communautaires des EDR évidemment pour le même partage parce que l’un profite à l’autre.

9132 La seule difficulté c'est que le financement en ce moment est gardé en très grande importance à l’EDR qui elle sert d’autres intérêts. C'est sûr que, elle, son travail c'est de faire de -- c'est d'être le reflet de la communauté mais dans une perspective autre que nos organisations.

9133 Encore là, je dis pas qu’on a le monopole du savoir puis de l’implication locale, sauf que notre intérêt et nos missions sont pas à l’opposé mais un peu divergents. Mais on n’exclut pas par contre et si la règlementation le permet, c'est-à-dire de coexister et cohabiter ensemble mais avec un meilleur partage je dirais.

9134 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: O.k. Merci beaucoup.

9135 M. CASAVANT: Merci.

9136 LE PRÉSIDENT: En regardant mes notes, j’ai vu que j’ai oublié deux questions.

9137 Premièrement, les TCA à l’heure actuelle, est-ce que vous donnez accès aux communautés de langues officielles en situation minoritaire? Donc au Québec ça serait des communautés ou des participants anglophones.

9138 M. CASAVANT: Oui.

9139 Mme RHEAULT: Oui, pardon. Y a des communautés qui offrent leur programmation bilingue.

9140 LE PRÉSIDENT: Bilingue ou anglaise?

9141 Mme RHEAULT: Ils font une émission ---

9142 M. CASAVANT: Anglaise.

9143 Mme RHEAULT: --- par exemple anglaise.

9144 LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k., je comprends.

9145 M. CASAVANT: Ben c'est-à-dire dire chez nous, le meilleur exemple chez nous.

9146 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais c'est pas universel sur les 40 TCA?

9147 Mme RHEAULT: Non, parce qu’y a peut-être des télévisions qui ont pas de demande de la communauté anglophone de produire des émissions anglaises.

9148 LE PRÉSIDENT: Dans votre présentation orale, vous avez abordé la question de la publicité, qu’on devrait permettre plus que de la simple commandite.

9149 Que diriez-vous si c’était limité à des situations où que ce n’était que pour appuyer de la nouvelle locale sur un canal communautaire mais seulement et pourvu qu’y ait pas de station hertzienne qui dessert déjà cette communauté?

9150 M. CASAVANT: Une grande question encore une fois. On serait pas contre. C'est-à-dire nous notre importance c’est d’avoir une certaine ouverture. Si cette ouverture-là est balisée comme vous le suggérez, nous on va -- on va le prendre bien évidemment. Moi je retiens beaucoup c'est le modèle radio communautaire qui existe et qui fonctionne. Donc nous on fait juste en fait de l’appliquer en fait pour ---

9151 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, ben je pose la question parce que si on est préoccupé des nouvelles locales, évidemment les revenus supplémentaires devraient peut-être être dirigés vers de la nouvelle.

9152 M. CASAVANT: Tout à fait.

9153 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et deux, on devrait pas endommager le modèle financier déjà précaire de la télévision hertzienne par rapport aux nouvelles locales.

9154 M. CASAVANT: Exactement, puis si vous le permettez, ça pourrait même favoriser en fait de produire du contenu, de l’information locale ici avec une telle permission de dire, o.k., on vous le permet dans le cadre d’une émission d’information. Ça évidemment on le voit d’un bon œil de la façon que vous le suggérez du moins.

9155 LE PRÉSIDENT: D’accord, merci. Ce sont nos questions.

9156 Y a rien du contentieux? Non, c'est beau. Merci.

9157 M. CASAVANT: Merci.

9158 Mme RHEAULT: Merci.

9159 LE PRÉSIDENT: Madame la secrétaire?

9160 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

9161 I would now ask Toronto Community Network to come to the presentation table.

PRESENTATION

9162 THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome. Just introduce yourself for the transcript and then go right ahead.

9163 MS. JOBSON: Good morning.

9164 THE CHAIRPERSON: But -- sorry -- and press the button so the little red light comes on and then we can hear you even better. There you go.

9165 MS. JOBSON: Okay. Sorry. Thank you.

9166 Good morning. I am Dahne Jobson, and with me is Darryl Richardson, Board Member of the Toronto Media Coop.

9167 THE SECRETARY: You may begin your presentation.

9168 MS. JOBSON: I beg your pardon?

9169 THE SECRETARY: You may begin your presentation.

9170 MS. JOBSON: Thank you.

9171 Good morning, Chairman Blais, Commissioners Dupras, Molnar, Simpson and MacDonald.

9172 My name again is Dahne Jobson. By profession, I am a self-employed Community Media Consultant with previous experience as a Media Account Executive, former publisher of a community magazine, previous Rogers TV volunteer and currently Chair of the Toronto Community Media Network -- TCMN -- Steering Committee.

9173 TCMN’s goal is to establish a community media network including a public access television station according to the model CACTUS has envisioned. We want to establish synergy and increased visibility for the many separate community media organizations and access points that exist across the GTA, including Regent Park Focus, a youth oriented community media centre, digital media services offered by the Toronto Public Library, gaming groups such as the Hand Eye Society and Dames Making Games, online community media such as The Media Coop, students and faculty members from Ryerson and York Universities including their radio stations, members of the Canadian Media Guild, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the LGBTQ community and the International Diaspora Film Festival.

9174 It is not apparent to most Torontonians that many of these organizations exist and can help them acquire media skills and publicize their issues. We believe this situation must change and that for the community media to really be the third pillar in Canada’s broadcast system a more coherent approach is necessary.

9175 What members of these groups have in common is a belief that they are not adequately being served or represented by mainstream media in Toronto and the GTA.

9176 Canada’s largest city is sometimes seen and heralded globally as one of the most multicultural cities in the world. Sheer numbers and size do not ensure an accurate or adequate representation of that multiculturalism to its own residents.

9177 As a long-time Rogers TV volunteer, I am aware of the traditional role of a community television channel and that Rogers, as the cable incumbent, should be providing for local reflection on television in Toronto and the GTA media sphere, including multicultural reflection.

9178 It is well-known that community TV is meant to offer an outlet on mainstream media for niche groups. Therefore, I'd like to take a moment to share my experience with Rogers programming and volunteer opportunities so that you will understand why I have decided to team up with other community media’s to demand better.

9179 Based on information gleaned from the Rogers TV website, out of 35 licensed areas, not including the French language channel in Ottawa and London, 19 of the communities served by Rogers offer no multi-cultural programming. The other 15 licence areas share 43 programs among them of which 25 are multicultural.

9180 If we consider the Durham Region in Ontario, which is part of the GTA, Durham is comprised of the cities of Pickering, Ajax and Uxbridge, with a combined population of roughly 600,000. Pickering used to have its own production facility, but has been subsumed by the Durham license area within the last five years. The cultural demographics of the region are extremely diverse. Twenty percent report that they are immigrants of French, African, Asian, South Asian, Middle-Eastern, Central and Eastern European and Greek backgrounds, for a total of 51 cultures in total.

9181 Rogers TV program listings show that there are 60 programs available to residents of the region of which 10 programs or approximately 15 percent of the schedule is multicultural. The kicker is the same 10 programs are also played in other license areas including Mississauga, Newmarket, and King. Therefore, the 10 shows are not specific to the multicultural population in the region.

9182 Rogers’ Ontario programming is really just the two large network regions, Ottawa and the GTA with its almost seven million people.

9183 I would also like to relate my personal experience of volunteering at Rogers. Two years ago I submitted a proposal for an entertainment program. I was actually invited to train as an associate producer working on one of Rogers’ in-house productions, which I did for four months, on the promise of being able to produce my own program at the end.

9184 All the volunteers I encountered during those four months had prior media experience, me included. I did not meet anyone representative of the public-at-large. At the time, I thought it curious that I kept seeing the same people tasked to the same volunteer positions, as I was told there was a 2,000-plus compliment of volunteers. I was later informed that number was actually fewer than 60 active volunteers.

9185 Having had some previous hands-on production experience, I was confused as to how much programming could be done by so few people. I then learned that a large portion of the content is done by outside production companies.

9186 During the four months I was there I did not meet an actual community producer. All the volunteers I encountered were for in-house productions, and the morale was very low. When we tired of filling camera roles and requested more challenging assignments, we were always told those assignments were already covered by volunteers, however we never saw them.

9187 Most of the volunteers were not available during weekday hours, so if we had questions or needed assistance there was no one to ask, we were left to assist one another. The staff were not scheduled at times that matched a community-access mandate but rather a normal professional production schedule.

9188 Upon completion of the two episodes I cut and helped to produce I was informed that I would not receive the associate producer credit that I was promised but rather a research and story editor credit.

9189 When I contacted the station manager to inform him that I would be resubmitting my show proposal, I was told I needed to come up with an alternative idea to their quota of two entertainment programs that hadn’t been met. One of those two slots was awarded to a former Rogers Communication employee, a popular long-time, entertainment reporter that worked for their AM 680 station. I was stunned. Why did an insider get a slot that is supposed to be for access producers? I felt used.

9190 My intent is not to disparage Rogers’ employees, many of them were working under a lot of pressure, but I need to explain myself as to why many of the groups involved with the Toronto Community Media Network do not project the view that Rogers TV is a community platform.

9191 That very basic idea of seeing ourselves on screens is tremendously important to all segments of the community, especially minority groups, many of whom literally do not look like anyone else and need that basic reflection about themselves and how they fit into the larger Canadian mosaic to feel welcome and contribute their best to the communities they call home.

9192 Rogers is part of a corporate media landscape, nationally focused on competing and monetizing revenue across telecommunications services. In the GTA, we need community-level organizations managed by and for the many groups who live in the GTA so that we can make sure the facilities where we can meet, learn, and create media together meet our needs, media that has a neighbourhood development mandate. Only we can do this at the neighbourhood level.

9193 MR. RICHARDSON: This is why many existing community media organizations have come together to explore how we can leverage our different facilities and media to raise the profile of community media in the Greater Toronto Area so that community members know where they can go for digital media training and what avenues there are for them to explore the issues that are important to them.

9194 The Media Coop is an online primarily text-based community media service that also hosts podcasts and video stories as well as publishing a magazine where members of the public can contribute content.

9195 We have an agility to respond to events in the Greater Toronto Area as citizen journalists that many in the corporate sector envy. In fact, community members often seem more comfortable sharing media that they have gathered during events with us before the corporate media.

9196 Our model is multimedia as well as multiplatform, because it doesn’t matter how citizens’ voices are amplified, as long as they can be found and can reach each other.

9197 Among TCMN is an inclusive community-based gaming group called the Hand Eye Society. Gaming is increasingly resorted to by youth to explore the themes that are important to them. Even in the traditional news and information sphere, games are gaining importance, and the public needs media literacy around them. Games enable an in-depth experience of how systems work that is difficult to simulate in any other way, and can serve as an important auxiliary to understanding current events, as projects such as Pipe Trouble and Fort McMoney by TVO and the NFB respectively demonstrate this.

9198 MS. JOBSON: Therefore what are we actually proposing in an area as large and diverse as the GTA? We support the CACTUS not-for-profit community media centre model and our members. The key features of that model that work for the GTA are: its non-for-profit community-based ownership; its multimedia and multiplatform structure; the flexibility for the community to plan the facilities it needs from the bottom up.

9199 How we see it working here in the GTA is with a multiple hub structure. So, for example, Regent Park Focus already has multimedia production facility geared toward a youth clientele. The Toronto Public Library offers audiovisual edit suites at its central location open to all comers, and is thinking of offering others soon.

9200 Centennial College Story Art Centre, home of the School of Communications, Media and Design, is interested in becoming a public-access hub, where the public can receive hands-on media training.

9201 Our goal is to create a network and to add a linear television channel to boost visibility to which content can be uploaded from all these facilities. The web front end may grow out of The Media Coop. At this stage, we are exploring which educational facilities and community-based organizations are interested in the vision, and participating in this hearing is to let you know that the need is great, and that we need change.

9202 In our biggest most multicultural cities, which are our first portals for immigrants, community TV can be a powerful tool for integration, but the communities most affected need to be part of the process.

9203 We thank you for this opportunity and look forward to answering your questions.

9204 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

9205 Commissioner Simpson.

9206 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: You like to keep us on our toes. Your written submission in November was vastly different than what I’ve heard this morning.

9207 MS. JOBSON: I beg your pardon.

9208 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Not at all. This is a public hearing and you have every right to put as much in front of us as you can. It’s just that I made most of my preparations around your November presentation. So we’re going to ad lib, which is one of the hallmarks that a broadcaster learns how to do.

9209 I just wanted to touch on the fact that you had, in your original submission, used the Danforth as an example of a community that wasn’t getting, in your mind, enough of what the Danforth is all about.

9210 And yet -- and I must admit, when I looked at the Rogers offerings, because of the size of the GTA, you can see why.

9211 MS. JOBSON: M’hm.

9212 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: You know, their system being a linear cable system, there’s only so many hours in the day and there’s a lot of communities to serve. So I think you were illustrating part of the problem.

9213 So if I may continue with your written submission first, and then we’ll move on to all the new stuff. You had first said that when you approached Rogers to become a content producer, you were surprised at the small number of volunteers that were there compared to what you described as professional individuals, and you found that intimidating.

9214 I would have thought that you would have welcomed the opportunity to learn from them. What went wrong, in your mind? Because you touched on it again today. Is it not better to learn from professionals and other volunteers?

9215 MS. JOBSON: Well, it was more of when I went to volunteer at Rogers, I had submitted my proposal on numerous times. A friend of mine also assisted me. He knew one of the station executives to help me to prepare, and I actually, you know, gave my pitch to this individual. I got in through the strength, I was told, of my writing. When I got there, of course, I was looking for the mentorship from the staff member from Rogers. What I was speaking about were other people that make the community, the content creators and the production staff and things like that.

9216 So it wasn’t the professionals that I was looking for. I was just looking for more people because of where it was and, you know, it’s Toronto. So I just expected to see, you know, more local community producers versus in-house paid staff producers.

9217 Is that answering your question?

9218 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I think it does. I’d like to just go a little further into this because it helps our understanding about where things are going right and where things are going wrong in the present community television system.

9219 The larger the market, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary and so on, a community channel becomes challenged to try and be relevant to every demographic, ethnic group, cultural group just largely, again, because there’s only so many hours in a broadcasting day.

9220 From your experience not only with the structure that you described, did you learn anything that you can share with us as to what a large BDU community channel has to do to be more relevant in a major market? And just open it up wide. I’m talking technology, training, access. Just in a nutshell, if you were running it tomorrow knowing that you had one big market with one big system, what would you change?

9221 MS. JOBSON: Well, I would change the way proposals are being handled. It is a one-person, two-person operation at most, and I don’t necessarily have the details as to how, at this point, shows are being chosen to be aired currently on Rogers Cable. I think there should be more of an advisory board based on, you know, different sectors of the community come together and try and see what we can do as far as a democratic process to choose programming that is more reflective.

9222 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. I’m starting to move over to today’s oral presentation but still sticking a little bit with the original one.

9223 You had mentioned that you had a bias or a problem with user-generated content, citizen journalism, because it’s largely undisciplined and, without controls, can exhibit bias that a viewer perhaps would not totally understand. And so it left me with the distinct impression that you had a problem with user-generated content unless it was properly supervised.

9224 MS. JOBSON: In a mass media such as community television, so for example, you know, the internet offerings, of course, everyone knows there’s all kinds of citizen journalism out there. However, that is presented with a bias already.

9225 What I’m looking for or promoting, if you will, is hands-on training to be able to craft a story that is palatable to a mass audience. So it’s delivered professionally as opposing to just a camera and, you know, “This is what’s happening.” Without being able to give, you know, the context of what’s going on, sometimes that’s not available through some of the streamings online.

9226 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Do you have any particular opinions as to the value of content being produced for on-demand purposes as opposed to linear broadcasting?

9227 MS. JOBSON: I’m sorry?

9228 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Video-on-demand allows content to be able to put on a server and a customer can pull it down and look at it, either streaming or download.

9229 Does that help the problem you described earlier of access, because much more content can be produced and consumed?

9230 MS. JOBSON: Just being able to upload a video from your camera or from wherever?

9231 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: No, cable companies in addition to broadcasting throughout a broadcasting day linearly ---

9232 MS. JOBSON: M'hm.

9233 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: --- some offer video on demand, so the Monday night city hall meetings can be covered, put on a server and somebody can watch it on Tuesday morning. Does that -- do you have a -- do you have a problem with VOD versus ---

9234 MS. JOBSON: No, I think community meetings should be available on all the mediums that are available at present ---

9235 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay.

9236 MS. JOBSON: --- including video-on-demand. I think it should be able to be streamed in its entirety ---

9237 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

9238 MS. JOBSON: --- and not just snippets.

9239 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: But again, the GDAs -- well, in Vancouver where I live there's 14 cities or municipalities that are part of the greater Vancouver regional district, it’s not an amalgamation, and yet you have functionally one to two cable systems, Telus’s and Shaw’s, and most city halls do their meetings on Monday night. How do you -- how do you handle 14 city hall meetings on the same night at the same time ---

9240 MS. JOBSON: Well ---

9241 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: --- unless you do video-on-demand?

9242 MS. JOBSON: Understood. Well first of all, with Toronto -- I mean I worked for another cultural organization, so volunteers -- there are very many, and they're -- and as far as, you know, the media is concerned, we can get quite a few. As far as like a municipal programming if you will, a dedicated team.

9243 There is a -- oh, there was a Fairfax, Virginia example, where there was a dedicated team working in conjunction with the city. So not only did they relate what the city was doing for its constituents, but also relating back how the decisions and things were being affected by the community. So there's a dedicated team, so it’s not being spread out if you will.

9244 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I think you're talking more from the creation side. I’m talking about from the program side, when it’s on the air if you ---

9245 MS. JOBSON: Well then they would be able to control that content, so they're creating that show. So they will be uploading that video or you know, creating the content to be disseminated throughout whatever platforms.

9246 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay, I was just picking up on your point that streaming live is important. And my question was, how do you -- how do you stream live 14 different city halls at the same time and -- but anyway, that’s getting into detail, we’ve got to move on.

9247 You said at the end of your last submission and in your written submission that you know, you were pretty unfamiliar with the policy side of this whole hearing in terms of what's it -- the larger objectives were, and that you would be bringing yourself up to speed, and you’ve obviously done that from this submission today.

9248 When -- were you -- you're ascribing to the CACTUS proposal, in so many words you're saying that it’s something you now endorse. Is your -- do you represent an organization that currently exists or one that you wish to exist? Because ---

9249 MS. JOBSON: The second.

9250 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. And you're -- and your relationship today with the Media Co-op is just from a position of ---

9251 MS. JOBSON: We’re on the board ---

9252 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: --- two better than one?

9253 MS. JOBSON: --- of TCMN together.

9254 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. From the standpoint of -- getting right down to the nitty-gritty of what you're trying to accomplish here today, you're saying that the present system as you see it from a major metropolitan market, is not providing enough access. Yet, you seem to have had no difficulty getting in the door with a proposal, but you were surprised to find that the volunteer population wasn’t as big as you thought it was. Yet, you went on to say that you subsequently discovered that the programs that were being produced were largely being done from outside the cable organization, produced and then brought on to the air.

9255 Is there anything wrong with that model?

9256 MS. JOBSON: Okay, first of all, it was -- it wasn’t easy, I was accepted two years ago ---

9257 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

9258 MS. JOBSON: --- but I had been submitting proposals and volunteer opportunities for a couple of years prior to that. And so because of my -- the people that I know in my circles, I reached out to them for help, for assistance to help me finally get into the door.

9259 Having said that, I -- the people that -- the volunteers that I also worked with, I know of another person, another gentlemen who knew the station manager. So you know, as far as who gets into being able to volunteer, who gets shows, I really couldn’t say -- it doesn’t -- there doesn’t seem to be any kind of uniform system that’s being employed.

9260 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: But might that be more the result of your -- lack of understanding, or is it something that they're not doing, they should be doing? That’s really what I’m ---

9261 MS. JOBSON: The second.

9262 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: --- trying to get at.

9263 MS. JOBSON: Because again, not my experience of having someone else help me get in ---

9264 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

9265 MS. JOBSON: --- was not mine and mine alone.

9266 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay.

9267 MS. JOBSON: There were a number of other people, kind of like it’s who you know to help you get in, so no, I ---

9268 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Now your program submission was -- you describe as entertainment. Is entertainment the product that community cable should be trying to put on the air, as opposed to community information and news?

9269 MS. JOBSON: To give more -- a little more detail about the program that I personally submitted, it was how the entertainment industry in a hyperfocus kind of way helps people. So for example, I have a -- or had an episode where blind children are creating music, they have a recording studio. There is the “Famous People Players”, they're mentally developed challenged young people who create entertainment using puppetry.

9270 So it wasn’t like a -- like it was a -- it’s not an etalk kind of thing. It's going into the community again and seeing how the entertainment helps certain segments of the community, the disabled community. I looked hard to find how dance and people in wheelchairs, you know, how does that, you know, how do they -- how does that happen and all of those things. So no, it wasn’t again a ---

9271 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: So it was a narrow -- it was a narrow subject, but would have played to the interest of certain people across the whole system in the greater Toronto area?

9272 MS. JOBSON: That is correct.

9273 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Then -- again, I’ve got to go back to your initial points though, when you started off with your first presentation, saying, you know, that the importance of community cable has got to be -- and it’s failing to be hyperlocal. So you know, you’ve been talking a lot about hyperlocal, yet the first proposal you come out with is something that is hyperspecific but not necessarily local, it’s ---

9274 MS. JOBSON: Well they're in the communities, they're just the segments of communities that you don’t see necessarily on ---

9275 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

9276 MS. JOBSON: --- mainstream TV.

9277 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

9278 MS. JOBSON: I was just -- I wanted the opportunity to give them a voice and their time in the sun.

9279 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: But did you think that you would of -- I’m maybe putting words in your mouth -- did you feel though that you had a better chance of getting that program produced than to go in and ask for something that was hyperlocal than with something very specific to the Danforth -- let’s say, you know, like a piece on the Danforth Music Hall for example?

9280 MS. JOBSON: Well in the Rogers submission guidelines it cautions the submitter to make sure that your programming idea is local to the community, not community-specific. So I took that to mean different members of the community, again that I don’t necessarily see on mainstream TV.

9281 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. If I may, can I ask a few questions about the Media Co-op? Now, the Media Co-op you -- you said you're primarily text-based, what does that mean?

9282 MR. RICHARDSON: Most of our -- we have a very broad submission guidelines, virtually anyone can submit anything to the Media Co-op, so most of our submissions are text-based, but we do have the infrastructure to accept photo, video, audio submissions as well.

9283 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: And what's your principal platform?

9284 MR. RICHARDSON: Pardon?

9285 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: What's your principal platform?

9286 MR. RICHARDSON: Our principal platform is the Media Co-op network, which is a network of websites that we have online, which is the Media Co-op dossiers, our central website, and then we have our four local websites, Halifax, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto.

9287 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Great. You rely a lot on user-generated content?

9288 MR. RICHARDSON: Almost exclusively, yes, we ---

9289 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: How do you manage the -- how do -- how do you curate it? And to the point earlier of oversight and governance, do you have any kind of an oversight group to make sure that you're not really off-base?

9290 MR. RICHARDSON: Each of our locals has an editorial collective and they’re responsible for the local content, and then on the national level we have national editors who are paid staff and we also have the board of directors which sets policy and guidelines.

9291 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: You talk a lot in your segment on gaming, which, you know, you don’t have to draw us a picture. Gaming is as big as if not bigger than Hollywood when it comes to the broadest use of the term. But why do you think -- because I’m presupposing that you’re supporting the need for a refocus on community TV. Do you think that gaming has a place in community television?

9292 MR. RICHARDSON: Absolutely. Gaming has a capacity to present a situation in a way that people can grasp it that they couldn’t by viewing video, or audio, or text.

9293 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Do you see the Media Coop sort of coming into this whole basket of -- the production community in Canada -- do you see the Media Coop becoming a content producer for community television, or are you seeing community television needing to move more towards online platforms?

9294 MR. RICHARDSON: I see us more as kind of an in-between between community television and the communities having a pipeline for content to go both ways, whereas we can source content and stories for community media whereas we can also post to that content on our network and promote it and distribute it.

9295 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: You just referenced it very lightly. How big is your coop network right now?

9296 MR. RICHARDSON: At ---

9297 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Physically big population-wise.

9298 MR. RICHARDSON: We have over 2,000 contributors who contribute -- some of them have only contributed one or two pieces. We have other people who contribute blogs on a daily basis. We also have a number of community radio that are members of the Media Coop and post their podcasts in the Media Coop. We also have other community and independent media networks that are members of the media coop and post their content there as well.

9299 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: You’re here with Ms. Dobson today, and Ms. Dobson is endorsing CACTUS. Do you have a working relationship with CACTUS? Is it ad hoc, informal, non-existent, what?

9300 MR. RICHARDSON: We do have a relationship with CACTUS, and when I give the Media Coop presentation tomorrow afternoon we will be endorsing the CACTUS proposal as well.

9301 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Terrific. Are you a member of CACTUS?

9302 MR. RICHARDSON: No. No, I’m not.

9303 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I guess the last question is, going down the road, given that multiple platforms seem to be wiser than single platform, single platform being television, do you see yourself having a role in working with Cactus to help them perhaps not as willingly as you might otherwise want to but leading them into the world of online?

9304 MR. RICHARDSON: That is definitely something that could happen in the future.

9305 And, of course, just as we have community radio stations that are members of the Media Coop and distribute content, we could also have -- we hope to, with funding and support, to have community television stations as members and distributing content through the Media Coop, whether on their own or through cooperation with CACTUS.

9306 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Terrific. Thank you. Those are my questions.

9307 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Molnar?

9308 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Thank you.

9309 I have really one question. I heard your frustrations with working with the Rogers TV community organization as it existed and your vision here for a way to pull together all community media organizations and to support -- have linear television as one of your many platforms.

9310 Could you possibly meet your objective if you were -- if there was some sort of partnership relationship or different relationship with Rogers TV that would enable you to work with them to meet your linear television objectives and maintain control over the rest of them within your own organization?

9311 MS. JOBSON: You mean if you think that we could work -- if I could work with Rogers with the organization?

9312 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Your organization. I mean not you alone but you’re looking at creating ---

9313 MS. JOBSON: A network ---

9314 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: You’re centralizing community media and in a way that perhaps it hasn’t occurred before.

9315 MS. JOBSON: M’hm.

9316 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: And one of the platforms you’re looking at, but not the only platform, is your linear television. You want to ---

9317 MS. JOBSON: Correct.

9318 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: So given that there exists linear television that is looking to have community access programming, if there was a way to sort of enhance or change the model to provide community members with a little more access and control over what is on that, could you see being able to meet your organization’s needs without having full 24/7 control over that channel?

9319 MS. JOBSON: I’m not sure. I don’t think I’m necessarily understanding everything that you’re asking me. Can you try one more time?

9320 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. It appears what you are asking in supporting the CACTUS model is to create a multi-media center that would be funded through the monies that today are going to support community television such as Rogers TV in the Toronto area.

9321 MS. JOBSON: Okay.

9322 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: And you would, in creating that community media center, you’re looking at providing content -- access to the community and displaying content over multiple platforms, internet, potentially kind of Video On Demand as well as linear television. You’d be looking at creating interactive gaming. You’d be looking at all kinds of different training education. You have all kinds of community media objectives, one of which is to present the content over a community television -- linear television channel; correct?

9323 MS. JOBSON: Correct.

9324 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: That’s your vision.

9325 There is a community -- a linear community channel today that Rogers -- I mean, Rogers has control of it. And I’m asking could you see meeting the larger broader objectives of your community media organization if you had a better relationship or more ability to put some of that content on the existing community channel?

9326 MS. JOBSON: If there were more access, if there were a way to work with Rogers it possibly could happen. Rogers is not central to the city. I didn’t bring it up in my presentation, but neither is Bell’s TV1. They’re kind of out of the way. If we could get maybe a satellite, another location, if you will, for more people to have access; if they were, you know, willing to work together, sure, why not.

9327 But I also advocate for multiple structure -- multiple platforms as well for more access because more organizations -- Common Ground Media, for example, they are a youth orientated audio streaming service, if you will, to allow them to have, you know, access as well to specific -- you know, maybe On Demand or another platform -- web platform -- to be able to showcase who they are as well.

9328 So not necessarily just going through like the volunteer route that is currently available through Rogers, but also again having the community have access, you know, in another kind of -- another tier of service, if you will.

9329 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. Thank you.

9330 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Those are our questions.

9331 MS. JOBSON: Thank you.

9332 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for participating.

9333 We will take a 15-minute break till 10:55.

9334 Thank you.

--- Upon recessing at 10:38 a.m.

--- Upon resuming at 10:55 a.m.

9335 LE PRÉSIDENT: Madame le secrétaire s’il vous plait.

9336 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

9337 We will now hear the presentation of MTS Allstream, who is appearing by videoconference from the Winnipeg CRTC office.

9338 Please introduce yourself and your colleagues and you have 10 minutes.

PRESENTATION

9339 MR. NORRIS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Paul Norris, Vice-President of residential solutions.

9340 To my right is Greg McLaren, Manager of MTS TV content and to my left is Grainne Grande, Director of Regulatory Affairs. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

9341 In 2010 the Commission reaffirmed two key objectives set out in 2002 community TV framework, to ensure the creation and exhibition of locally produced, locally reflective community programming and to foster greater diversity of voices and alternative choices by facilitating new entrants at the local level.

9342 MTS has embraced and embodied this policy through our highly acclaimed, Stories From Home programming.

9343 Based on our experience, we want to emphasize three key messages today. First, viewers demand to see local programming that consists of more than just news.

9344 Second, access programming fulfills a unique role that is not available from conventional broadcasters or from social media platforms like YouTube.

9345 And third, funding for community programming should be based on the degree to which a BDU embraces access programming.

9346 In Manitoba, the local newscasts produced by conventional broadcasters are excellent and highly valued by Manitobans, but even so, advertising dollars are shrinking.

9347 MTS challenges the merit of an argument that would divert funds from community programming, a public service, to commercial programming that even commercial advertisers are reducing support for.

9348 Such a decision would remove community producers from the system, while providing insufficient funds long-term to offset the increasing costs of commercial broadcasters.

9349 News is the only local programming produced by broadcasters. These newscasts lack a significant dimension that is provided by stories that are local, but not restrained to “news”.

9350 Furthermore, these newscasts are always presented by the same producers, anchors, and reporters.

9351 In contrast, community access producers provide much-needed diversity. They are now the only source of local stories that are not constrained by a newscast, and their stories cover the widest range of topics imaginable.

9352 MTS’ Stories From Home fills a significant gap between social media and conventional television. Social platforms like YouTube are powerful tools where people easily and instantly share experiences and viewpoints.

9353 But in the same way that owning a kitchen does not make one a chef, owning a camera does not make one a story-teller.

9354 MTS provides training in production and story-telling that is otherwise unavailable, except through formal college courses.

9355 Every program provides an opportunity for access producers to learn techniques and grow their abilities.

9356 Social media platforms, on the other hand, do not provide any such training and mentorship. Unlike social media, every program produced for Stories From Home fully respects all copyrights, another element of our training.

9357 With social media, the video creator’s objective is often to be noticed on a world stage rather than to be identified with a local community.

9358 At MTS, we encourage topics that are intensely local. The more a show is likely to appeal to an audience outside Manitoba, the less likely it is to be produced.

9359 For decades, the CRTC has been concerned about BDUs stifling public access. Hearings have been held, regulations have been written, sanctions have been imposed, and still the Commission finds transgressors.

9360 We are concerned that, as a result, the Commission might be considering eliminating or severely reducing funding for community programming.

9361 We urge the Commission to not harm all community access producers in an effort to address the behaviours of select BDUs.

9362 MTS’ community programming is well over 90 percent access. We train and mentor, but we do not impose editorial control. MTS is not alone in this approach. Other BDUs do likewise to varying degrees.

9363 In our written submission, we proposed a formula where funding is based on the percentage of programming that is access.

9364 The greater the percentage of access programming, the greater the funding. We ask that you give consideration to our proposal.

9365 We are strong proponents of community access, and today we represent our access producers as well. In fact, much of the remainder of our opening remarks will be delivered by some of those producers.

9366 We asked them to record comments about their experiences with Stories From Home that could share -- that we could share with you.

9367 We received over an hour of video that we have necessarily edited down to just -- just three minutes, but you will see they are speaking from their hearts.

9368 Before that, we have a two-minute video about a group of young people who participated in our documentary training camp last summer.

9369 (VIDEO PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION VIDÉO)

9370 MR. NORRIS: Commissioners, what you’ve just seen shows the immense effect that this programming has on our residents.

9371 We urge you to value and continue supporting successful examples of community access programming, such as MTS’ Stories From Home.

9372 This will ensure the ongoing creation and exhibition of locally-produced, locally-reflective diverse community programming and the development of those who wish to be more involved in television, than simply watching.

9373 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I’ll put you in the hands of Commissioner MacDonald.

9374 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Good morning and thank you for that presentation and for joining us today.

9375 Your presentation has largely focused on access programming, and my questions will largely focus on that as well, but there are sort of a few other issues that I’d like to discuss as well.

9376 And we’ve heard a lot over the course of the hearing about trying to define what actually is local and what’s required to be locally reflective. And when I was reviewing your submission, you made a note that, as an example, a news anchor located in Winnipeg reporting on an event in London would not be classified as local.

9377 And over the course of the hearings we’ve heard a lot about, you know, use of new technologies and networking to find synergies in operations.

9378 And I’d like to flip that statement around about the anchor a couple of different ways to see whether you think it would meet the criteria for being local.

9379 So I guess the first question would be, if that event taking place in London -- I assume you meant London, Ontario -- where a local sports team, for example, the Jets playing the night before in Winnipeg and the story that the anchor was reporting on was the results and video footage from that event, from that game taking place in Winnipeg, under those circumstances, would you view that as local and locally reflective of your community?

9380 MR. McLAREN: Yes. In fact, that’s an example that we’ve included in our chart, where people from our communities are involved, the stories would be local. So coverage of an away game would be considered to be local programming.

9381 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And if that same anchor in sort of this hypothetical situation were reporting on a story in Winnipeg, perhaps the mayor’s speech or something like that, but the producer or the editor for that programming, perhaps they sit in London, would that still qualify as local under your proposal?

9382 MR. McLAREN: Yes, that’s another example that we provided.

9383 You probably know that we get flooding in this part of the country often and it’s not uncommon for the national newscasts to come to Winnipeg and do stories on the river as it’s flooding, and we would consider those to be local stories even though they’re on a national newscast.

9384 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Okay. Thank you.

9385 Actually, your Stories from Home programming has been mentioned by a few other intervenors in this proceeding so far, and often in a very favourable light. However, some intervenors have suggested that a different approach to having a local presence such as a studio was required. They’ve argued that the need for a bricks and mortar facility actually is required.

9386 So I’m wondering, in your particular instance with the Stories from Home program, can you talk a little bit about what works well and what doesn’t work well, or perhaps if you did have physical presence in the various communities across your serving area, would you be able to offer different types of programming in any way if you did have more of a physical presence?

9387 MR. McLAREN: Certainly. And you see this with different community channels across Canada. Those that have permanent studios have an opportunity to do a regular magazine show, for example. If you have mobile facilities, you can cover sporting events. We don’t do that. We don’t have the bricks and mortar infrastructure. We contract it or we rent it on an as-needed basis. So if we need a studio, we’ll rent one, but we don’t -- we haven’t invested in creating one that may sit dark for periods of time.

9388 MR. NORRIS: The key to our approach is making sure that we’re providing the community access producers really a great forum to tell their stories and for them to pick their stories.

9389 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And do you find that that type of approach allows you to do stories in smaller communities or more remote regions because they don’t have to come into one central studio in the province, for example?

9390 MR. McLAREN: That’s absolutely right. We go to them. So our staff travel the province. You heard one of the people in the video talking about the orientation session that we held in Thompson, Manitoba. Our staff went out there, explained what Stories from Home is, how they can get involved. And they don’t have to come to a central location to use the studio. The equipment will be provided to them in whatever fashion makes the most sense.

9391 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So under your model, I’m curious as to how much of your funding finds its way to the actual creation or the facilitation of the creation of programming. The various BDUs have told us that they spend about 40 percent of their funding on indirect costs, on building, salaries, things of that nature, and about 60 percent finds its way to actual programming.

9392 And so since your model is so different, can you speak to what your ratios may be?

9393 MR. McLAREN: In the 2014-15 broadcast year that ended last August, 1.6 percent of our community programming funding was indirect expense and the remainder was direct.

9394 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Okay. Last week we heard a presentation from CACTUS, and one of the suggestions that they put forward was allocating a large amount of money that’s in the system to the creation of community access centres, media access centres across the country, about 170 of them in various different communities.

9395 Do you feel that such a facility would assist you in your operations in these different communities? If these access centres were able to be established, do you think it would be of benefit to the people that you work with on a daily basis?

9396 MR. McLAREN: We hadn’t considered that, so this is off the top of our heads.

9397 Anyplace where somebody can get access to resources, equipment, cameras, lighting and that sort, would probably be beneficial. We’re not having trouble getting people the facilities. That’s the short of it. If we’re in the Paw or Thompson, Manitoba, some of these more distant communities, if somebody’s got an idea for a story, it’s not that difficult for us to get them the equipment.

9398 So I’m not sure to what degree the centres would be helpful to us. We’re not struggling at this point.

9399 MR. NORRIS: I guess what I’d add to that as well is that really our goal is to get as much of the funding out to those community producers as possible. And so if a centre like that was set up, one would have to kind of ask what the costs associated with that would be and then what the impact on producers would be.

9400 The goal is certainly to tell a wide range of stories and to make sure that we have an environment that all the community access producers can go to and a forum to tell the stories.

9401 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Okay. Just switching gears for a minute, and I noted one of the young people in the presentation that you showed us touched on YouTube. And I’m just sort of wondering, can you give us an idea of what benefits you feel that your viewers have because you showcase your programming on a video-on-demand platform in relation to just uploading it to a YouTube channel?

9402 MR. McLAREN: Well, there’s a two-part answer to that. The benefit to the viewer is that -- every statistic we’ve seen so far is the vast majority of television viewing is still done on a television set. So they’ve got the advantage of the great picture, the great sound. Everything is produced in HD. I think it’s probably a better experience for the viewer, generally speaking.

9403 In terms of uploading those programs to YouTube, one of the other things you heard about or we touched on in our remarks is that everything in our videos is either original content or the copyrights have been cleared, and most of the programs have material that requires some form of clearance, and we don’t clear worldwide. We only clear for the Province of Manitoba. It’s a cost measure, and so to upload on YouTube, we would have to find some way to restrict the viewing of that content to our province.

9404 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Who owns the programming that is produced? Is it owned by MTS or is it owned by the individual that produces the program?

9405 MR. McLAREN: The content has always been owned by the producer -- community producer. We’ve been doing that from the very beginning, before the requirement came in through the last regulatory policy.

9406 MR. NORRIS: So in addition to our platforms in terms of viewing, those producers can of course use their stories and find other ways to get them out into wider markets as well.

9407 COMMISSIONNER MacDONALD: Okay and I take the point that sort of worldwide viewership sort of on YouTube may create some copyright challenges.

9408 But I was also surprised to see that you didn’t feel that the programming would garner much in the way of viewership outside of Manitoba just based on its -- the fact that it is hyper local and I’m just wondering if do you have any information that might support that viewpoint?

9409 On the surface one might assume that, you know, people that have moved away from your province might still want to access that program into -- to literally see stories from home or teachers may want to use it for educational purposes.

9410 I’m just wondering, can you explain your viewpoint on that point.

9411 MR. McLAREN: No it’s -- the stories -- we appreciate that. That people who have moved out of the province, sadly, might still want to see the programming. We think that audience is probably not that large.

9412 The audience is intended for the people who are still living here for sure.

9413 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: For the people that are still living there and have access to the programming, on your VOD platform how do you ensure that they’re actually able to find and discover the programming that’s being produced?

9414 MR. McLAREN: It has a prominent directory within our menu structure so it’s not buried. It’s very near the top and we have -- we have promotions that we run on our Barford(Ph) channel.

9415 Every program, I think, for the last four or five years now is required -- the producer is required to create a 30 second spot that we can run on local avails.

9416 And then we have kind of an overarching promo that we have produced that talks about what Stories From Home is to help educate our customers.

9417 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So far in the proceeding not a lot of people have been able to give us sort of hard numbers with respect to viewership of their community programming. Some have suggested that maybe the viewers of community T.V. tend to skew a little bit older as a demographic.

9418 Do you have any thoughts on the number of views you get through your VOD platform, what people are viewing, any information on -- on sort of their habits or what demographics are tuning in?

9419 Are you able to capture any of that data?

9420 MR. McLAREN: Yes. Yes we -- it’s -- you can appreciate as a transactional service the movies, our video on demand service we have to be able to know what’s being watched so we can pay the rights holders for those movies.

9421 And the same extends to our Stories From Home programming as well, so we know that on average about 1,000 people are watching Stories From Home every week.

9422 We do know what they’re watching, I mean, we can see it title by title. We don’t -- we don’t use our data to figure out who’s watching.

9423 So we don’t dig into the customers’ accounts to try and determine demographics, that sort of thing, but we know what’s been watched and when.

9424 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And do you have any, without sort of going in and looking at, you know, customers’ names and addresses and things of that nature, do you have any thoughts on whether it -- is it the same thousand people every week that are tuning in and watching everything or do you feel that it -- you actually have a wider viewership than just, you know, a small group of very, very loyal viewers?

9425 MR. McLAREN: I think it’s a wider group than that and the reason is because no -- in no way is every program going to appeal to every person.

9426 I can virtually guarantee you that if you were to -- if you were here in Winnipeg or in Manitoba and had access to Stories From Home that are in our library you would find something of interest to you.

9427 And it would be certainly more likely if you actually lived here in the province, but there are programs in the library that will appeal to our customers but certainly not everything.

9428 And so we believe we’ve got a fairly wide audience on that.

9429 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: A lot of people that have taken part in this process are very strong advocates of a traditional linear community television station and are of the viewpoint that that should never go away in favour of platforms similar to yours.

9430 So I’d like to flip that around since you don’t offer a linear station, it is video on demand, do you get a lot of requests to operate a linear station or are people very happy with the video on demand service that they can currently obtain?

9431 MR. McLAREN: We don’t get -- I don’t think we’ve had any requests for a linear channel, but we have had requests for programs that are better suited for a linear channel and that would be live coverage of some of the local sporting teams, primarily.

9432 MR. NORRIS: But besides that our -- the benefits of our video on demand approach really mean that customers can -- can consume the -- that content when it’s right for them and they can browse and make their selections themselves, which is really a -- when we did it that way we were trying to be very forward looking in terms of how customers want to consume and really getting to it, you know, on their own terms and any content that’s -- that’s relevant to them.

9433 So it’s really about the power of the catalog of content as well.

9434 MR. McLAREN: Commissioner, as you would expect MTS is still a fairly new entrant in the TV business. We’ve been doing it for just over 10 years now.

9435 Personally I’ve been involved in community programming in some way, shape or form for over 30 -- for over 43 years now. I managed a linear channel for many years with one of the local cable companies and I can tell you I don’t miss the channel.

9436 It’s -- one of its big problems is that the programs are on a linear schedule and they’re always up against something else on another broadcast service, a network service.

9437 And for the –- for the viewer if they haven’t seen something, if they missed the program they wanted to see on the community channel because they were watching something on broadcast television, it’s very difficult for them to go back and see it again.

9438 That was the history of course. Today with video on demand, linear channels can make their content available on demand, but it was always one of the -- one of the key problems that we had in getting our content seen by viewers.

9439 There was always something else on another channel for them to watch. Video on demand effectively eliminates that.

9440 MR. NORRIS: Yes, it’s really back to that customer consuming the content in a way that they want to. If they want to binge and watch quite a bit of it all at once or in a string, that’s fine.

9441 And if they want to take weeks off in between that’s also okay and they won’t lose anything in between.

9442 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Thank you for that. I think we’d all agree that more and more people are sort of gravitating towards that binge watching that you described.

9443 Under your proposal to allocate more funding based on channels offering more access programming, I’m just wondering when you were making that suggestion, did you look at all as to what impact that may have on the various other elements that receive funding under the five percent BDU contributions?

9444 MR. NORRIS: Yes, we did for sure. You know, we’re -- as we said in our presentation we are strong proponents of access programming. We do almost not licensee produced programming. We have a very small amount.

9445 And historically there have been challenges. I think the Commission has been challenged with community programming and the amount of access -- the amount of the programming that is access.

9446 You know, quotas have been set. Sanctions have been imposed when those measures weren’t met. So yes, when we -- when we were suggesting that more funding should be available, where more access programming is produced, we recognized that that would mean that there would be less money going to the Canada Media Fund perhaps, as part of that overall five percent.

9447 But there have been so many instances in the past where the access programing is so low that we -- we actually think that it may -- it would put more money back into our production funds and some of that money in fact could be redirected to local news programming.

9448 It really gives the BDU the option of determining how much access programming they want to do because the more they do, they get more funded. But if access programming really isn’t their objective, if they really do want to be the producer of those local sporting events, then they can do that as well on their dime.

9449 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Still on the topic of funding, when Videotron was in to speak with us last week, I think it was Thursday or Friday, they suggested that the authorized deductible contributions by a BDU that don’t operate a linear channel, a BDU that only operates an on-demand community channel, that their funding should be reduced by half to reflect the fact that there are different operational costs associated with just a video on demand service.

9450 What would your reaction be to their proposal?

9451 MR. McLAREN: I would disagree with that obviously. We think the important use of the money is to tell the stories to get -- to make it possible for public access producers to tell as many stories as they can, tell them as well as they can. And if you choose to build a studio or build a mobile facility that's going to cost additional money, then you're going to have less opportunity for your market to be able to tell those stories.

9452 We've chosen not to go down the path of major infrastructure, building a linear channel, and our community producers should not be penalized for that.

9453 MR. NORRIS: We believe that, in the long run, there's more to be gained by getting the money out actually to the community producers as opposed to overhead and driving more efficiency into the system itself which will drive new business models.

9454 So in response to the Videotron proposal, we just don’t see that that would actually drive more relative content than what our -- than our model currently is.

9455 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: I guess on that topic of trying to get access and in various different size communities, you obviously operate in communities of different sizes.

9456 Can you speak at all to the relative ease or difficulty that you may have in a small market versus a large market with getting people actually interested in producing access content? Like what percentage would come from more urban markets in relation to rural Manitoba for example?

9457 MR. McLAREN: I don’t know the percentages offhand. We could certainly get that but the majority of our programming comes from Winnipeg because that's where the majority of the funding is because it's our largest community by far.

9458 And just to clarify, about three quarters of the population in the Province of Manitoba lives in Winnipeg. So that's a -- that's just a geographical certainty that we're dealing with.

9459 It is a problem trying to get some of the smaller communities animated simply because they have lower populations and finding the interest, finding somebody with the interest in producing a show is more challenging sometimes.

9460 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So you don’t pool your resources ---

9461 MR. NORRIS: I guess just to add to that ---

9462 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: No, go ahead.

9463 MR. NORRIS: I'm sorry, I was just going to add one more piece to it.

9464 So certainly we created an environment where we do ask for those kind of ideas and those concepts to come forward. And so by building that environment, when there is rural access producers that come forward, we energetically work with them.

9465 MR. McLAREN: Yeah. You know, the high school student that you saw lives in Minnedosa, Manitoba. The population there is about 2,500. Everywhere where we operate MTS TV or IPTV platform, we are actively working to get people involved in the program or local programming.

9466 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So would you say that you pool your funding resources across the province and then divert it where it's needed? Like would you divert funding from an urban centre to a smaller community that perhaps couldn’t support one of these programs just in the interest of capturing that local voice? Or do you take a more strict approach to where that -- where the subscribers are geographically?

9467 MR. McLAREN: It's a bit of both. We take a pretty strict approach off the top. So for the smaller communities, we don't move the money around. Whatever that smaller community is entitled to, that's what they get. But I believe the regulations permit us to move about 20 percent of the funding from Winnipeg to the smaller communities.

9468 We've never -- we've never moved that much but we do move money from time to time if a program needs it. So if somebody comes to us from a smaller community and they want to do two programs, we really have the money only to do one, you know, efficiency say well let's do them both at the same time rather than wait till the next broadcast year. We may take some money out of Winnipeg and facilitate that.

9469 So there's some flexibility there but we never take the money out of a small community and move it somewhere else.

9470 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And who decides who gets that funding and how much funding? Is it a MTS employee? Is it an advisory group? Can you speak to that?

9471 MR. McLAREN: I have two employees working for me and they manage the entire Stories From Home operation. So they receive the applications. They review them. They determine who much the funding is going to be. They work with the community producer offering mentoring.

9472 On every -- almost every program, they send back suggestions on what the producer might want to consider in terms of how the story is constructed or how the program is put together and the producer is entirely -- it's their decision as to whether they want to make changes or not.

9473 MR. NORRIS: So it's much more of a mentoring process. There's certainly no editorial controls at all over what the producer wants to tell for a story.

9474 MR. McLAREN: When we're looking to approve programs, we look at what's already in the library and if somebody is coming to us with an idea that we haven’t done before, they're more likely to get moved to the top. If somebody is coming to us as a repeat, they've been here before, they are less likely to get to the top. We're looking for new people all the time and new ideas.

9475 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Some people have expressed concern that BDUs may exert too much control over the decision as to, you know, which access producer gets funding or gets coverage.

9476 Can you -- is there a specific checklist or list of criteria that they need to meet that could be provided to us? I'm just trying to figure out, you know, when they're making those decisions, what are the criteria that they're looking at to give it the thumbs up or the thumbs down?

9477 MR. McLAREN: Sure. Probably the first one is the program practical. So, you know, we're not in the habit of taking on a Ben-Hur. It's got to be something that we can handle reasonably.

9478 Have you been here before? I mentioned that a moment ago that people who are coming back for a second, third, fourth time may not get access as readily as they did the first time.

9479 We do have -- we do have some criteria that we set out in terms of the type of program we are looking for, primarily documentary style, not exclusively, but primarily documentary style works well for our format. So, you know, if you are coming to us asking us to cover the local baseball game, the answer is going to be, no, we don’t do that.

9480 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: If the criteria are written down anywhere and if there's a specific score that you attach to the different elements, if you could perhaps -- you don’t need to do it right now but provide that to us as an undertaking, that may be of value if you're willing to do that.

9481 MR. McLAREN: We will do that. We have a website. Yes, we will do that. We have a website called storiesfromhome.ca and it's an opportunity for people to go and see what -- what we're all about and if you have an idea for a story, does that -- do you think it might fit with what we're doing in Stories From Home, all of that is laid out there. So we'll certainly provide that to you.

9482 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Perfect. If you can provide that by the 5th of February, that would be helpful.

9483 UNDERTAKING

9484 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And just one final question before I hand it back over to my colleagues.

9485 You said in your submission with respect to measures of success for any decisions that come out of this hearing, that those measures of success should be measured to the extent that we meet the goal of allowing community members to reflect the communities in which they live. Agreed.

9486 But I'm just wondering how should that practically be measured? Should it be measured on number of hours of access programming that's created, number of dollars invested in it, number of stories told? How should we measure that at the end of the day?

9487 MR. McLAREN: Our position is more on the expenditure side than it is on the quantity side.

9488 Again, with my long history in community programming, at the very beginning it was measured on volume basically, so the BDU is more successful the more shows they crank out, and the net effect of that was the quality was very poor and often laughed at, ridiculed by the viewer, and that didn’t serve the -- that didn’t serve anybody well.

9489 So we think that the measurement is necessary, it’s more on the expenditure side than it is the volume.

9490 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Okay. Thank you very much for that. Those are my questions.

9491 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Simpson?

9492 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Good morning -- good afternoon. I’m not sure where -- yes, almost, on the cusp.

9493 I have -- great to have you here today. I have a few questions; some of them go back in time, because MTS is an older legacy operation and you’ve been there, done that, seen it all. And the first question I’ve got for you goes back to the early ‘80s.

9494 And in doing my sleuthing, I was really interested in what prompted MTS in those days to partner with Southam and TORSTAR to create your grassroots system. First off, was it a teletext type product that you were offering and what prompted you to get into it and what prompted you to get out of it? Anybody know?

9495 MR. NORRIS: I think what we’ll have to do is take an undertaking to get back to you on that one. Yeah, we don’t have an answer.

9496 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: It’s just that it was a really ---

9497 MR. NORRIS: I ---

9498 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I’m sorry; go ahead.

9499 MR. McLAREN: You know, we could probably do a story about that for Stories from Home.

9500 I’ve only been with the company for 15 years.

9501 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Right.

9502 MR. McLAREN: Prior to that, I mentioned before, with a cable company.

9503 So we’ll have to dig into that and get that for you.

9504 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Well, it’s a what goes around comes around scenario, because, you know, we’ve seen some entertaining notions from other providers using alpha numeric to be able to reach down into communities using the cable system and its ability to switch, you know, at the set top box level even to be able to provide some information. And it looks like you were leading the field there and it was a curiosity question.

9505 Let me move to my next one.

9506 MR. McLAREN: Commissioner Simpson.

9507 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yes, sir.

9508 MR. McLAREN: I might have some information. I didn’t realize that was your question. So I may be able to respond to that a bit.

9509 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay.

9510 MR. McLAREN: In 2011 once again the Red River flooded and we built a text video service. So it was largely a text based service but we inserted video into it as a way of providing information to our customers about the flood that was underway where sandbagging was required, roads that were closed, all of that information that was coming to us in the province. And I was using it actually not just as a way to get information to our customers but also as a test base for developing that kind of a channel on an ongoing basis for all of our small communities.

9511 And, frankly, the response to the information was good but we just didn’t get people feeding into it the way we expected to. We were asking them to send us videos, and photographs, and their own stories that we would post on this channel. And I really felt that if something as compelling as the flood wasn’t going to get people motivated to participate in this channel it probably wasn’t going to work on a long-term basis and so I scraped the project.

9512 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: How long ago was

9513 ---

9514 MR. McLAREN: Does that answer ---

9515 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: How along was this?

9516 MR. McLAREN: --- part of it?

9517 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: How long ago was this?

9518 MR. McLAREN: That was in the flood of 2011.

9519 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. So the age of Twitter.

9520 But what ---

9521 MR. McLAREN: Exactly.

9522 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: --- peaked my interest was the issue of whether this was being -- this grassroots service was being used to distribute news as well as community information. It really peaked my interest.

9523 The next question I had was with respect to the system you operate -- my apologies for not having more precise knowledge. But how many different systems are you operating throughout Manitoba?

9524 MR. McLAREN: We have 30 systems in Manitoba. Two of those are licensed and the other 28 are exempt.

9525 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Are exempt, yeah.

9526 MR. McLAREN: Thirteen (13) of them are an analog plant and the remaining are IPTV.

9527 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. Again apologies for me not knowing this, but was there at any point in time MTS was producing a linear community channel?

9528 MR. McLAREN: No, we’ve never produced a linear channel for community programming. The closest we came was that channel for the flood.

9529 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. And was it largely because of the fact that you have so many exempt services that it became apparent to you that using the system you have today would have been the best way to get the content back into the communities by not thinking linearly but thinking on-demand?

9530 MR. McLAREN: No, the on-demand came about because of previous experience with the limitations of a linear channel.

9531 You know, every year more programming services are added to the line-up and it simply dilutes the opportunity for somebody to tune into a community channel and on-demand just solve that problem.

9532 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: When you introduced the app, when did that happen? You’ve got an MTS app.

9533 MR. McLAREN: We do. That was, I think, a year and a half ago.

9534 MR. NORRIS: Yes.

9535 MR. McLAREN: Yes, a year and a half ago.

9536 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: And have you had -- have you been monitoring its use -- it’s uptake versus online to understand whether it’s been helpful, successful, overtaking online consumption of your stories?

9537 MR. McLAREN: its use is very low. It’s very low.

9538 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: All righty.

9539 Lastly, and then I’m done ---

9540 MR. NORRIS: We continue to see opportunity in it, Commissioner.

9541 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah, it’s a good app.

9542 MR. NORRIS: Just to expand on that, it’s a good app and we continue to see opportunity. We believe that it will grow over time as we get more and more content into it.

9543 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah, I found ---

9544 MR. NORRIS: Also, when we’re talking to

9545 ---

9546 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Go ahead.

9547 MR. NORRIS: You know, part of my role is community programming and other parts are video on-demand service and are linear service. I’m kind of spread out. So I have a lot of conversations with the licence programming services, and they’re telling us -- at least up until 15 months ago even, they’re telling us that less than two percent of their viewing of their content was on devices other than the television set.

9548 So that -- I mean, that may be growing now obviously, but it’s slow off the mark, and I think that’s been recognized in the industry.

9549 THE CHAIRPERSON: Before Commissioner Simpson asks his last question, with your indulgence, we’ll just take a quick two-minute break okay. Thanks.

--- Upon recessing at 11:43 a.m.

--- Upon resuming at 11:46 a.m.

9550 THE CHAIRPERSON: So we’ll resume.

9551 Commissioner Simpson?

9552 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you very much for your patience.

9553 I had left off asking you about the app, and one more question on that and then one other and I’m done. With the app, you know, one of the preoccupations we have with -- and a separate issue is discovery of new content. Do you use the app to be able to send out on a permission basis notifications of new content that might be of interest to a region or a constituency of, you know, within the MTS community?

9554 MR. McLAREN: No, we don’t do that. The app is strictly access to programming

9555 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay.

9556 MR. NORRIS: Just to add, there is promotional reels, I guess for lack of a better term, that is available on social media as well.

9557 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: M’hm.

9558 MR. NORRIS: And often what we find is when -- especially in rural Manitoba where there’s a story done then there’s also significant word-of-mouth.

9559 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay.

9560 MR. McLAREN: We have a YouTube channel that runs the promos for each of the stories as well.

9561 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Good for you.

9562 Last question -- impressive figure -- 90 percent access is really something. What struck me when Commissioner MacDonald was asking about funding you had been very definitive in saying that you work very hard to make sure that the money that comes from a community goes back into a community. And I understand what that means but I’m really curious as to how it works.

9563 What do you do when you have a program proposal that is beyond the interest of one community? How do you adjudicate the funding of it?

9564 Because it’s a -- I’m not going to go near the Peter and Paul axiom because it’s been overused. But, you know, how do you distribute funds so that the collective interest is met?

9565 MR. McLAREN: I’m not sure I understand the question. So if we have competing interests -- I’m sorry; can ---

9566 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: No.

9567 MR. McLAREN: Is there a way to rephrase it? I’m not quite ---

9568 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yes, absolutely. If a community -- The Pas, for example -- wants to do a program that’s very specific to their area and someone comes forward with a proposal and either because of economy of scale that it needs funding beyond -- I’m going back to your point of saying what we raise from the community gets spent in the community. What happens if the community doesn’t have enough money to mount a particular project, or if you have a project that is multiple community in interest, how do you stick to what you said earlier about what we raise we spend in that community? How do you cross-subsidize without it going against your basis edict of trying to spend all the money within the community?

9569 MR. McLAREN: Understood.

9570 We will move money out of Winnipeg for a situation like that, but it’s rare, it doesn’t happen that often, but, you know, if the situation arises we will take it from Winnipeg.

9571 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. And this is something that your advisory group would oversee, or is it strictly an operational decision?

9572 MR. McLAREN: It’s an operational decision. We don’t have an advisory group. It’s all managed by two employees.

9573 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. Thank you.

9574 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

9575 Commissioner Molnar?

9576 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Good morning, everyone.

9577 I just have two questions. First of all, I want to make sure I understand what you said. Did you say that last year 1.6 percent of your costs were indirect?

9578 MR. McLAREN: That’s correct, yes.

9579 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: And what do you define as indirect costs?

9580 I’m trying to -- you said that 90 percent is spent on access, 1.6 percent is indirect. So I’m just trying to sort of get a sense as to ---

9581 MR. McLAREN: Right.

9582 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: --- what costs you’re talking of.

9583 And I’ll just throw in the rest of mine. We saw a video with a discovery camp that I assume is covered in somewhere in those costs.

9584 So how does that all work?

9585 MR. McLAREN: Yes, correct.

9586 So what we attribute to direct costs are the two employee salaries, all of the -- you know, the equipment rentals, anything associated with the actual costs of the production.

9587 The documentary camp would have been considered a direct cost. It was training. And free programs came out of that camp.

9588 There’s not much left that we attribute to indirect costs for sure. It’s about $24,000. And I can get you a breakdown of that if you like.

9589 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: So this camp would have been part of the 10 percent non-access. Is that right? Your employees and the camp ---

9590 MR. McLAREN: No, the ---

9591 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: --- that’s within that 10 percent?

9592 MR. McLAREN: No, we consider that to be access programming, because the students who were there produced three documentaries, and all of the ideas were theirs, everything was theirs. We had two professionals on staff -- or on -- that we had contracted to help them learn the business, to learn how to tell their stories.

9593 MR. NORRIS: So it’s hands-on learning.

9594 MR. McLAREN: Hands-on learning.

9595 MR. NORRIS: And there’s a tangible output of it.

9596 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay.

9597 MR. McLAREN: And so we ended up with three programs -- three short programs that are currently available to our viewers to watch.

9598 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. As I said, I was just trying to get a sense as to what’s considered indirect, what’s considered direct non-access, and what you’re assigning to access; whether this is a definition I’ll change or whether it is actually a structural difference.

9599 MR. McLAREN: For us -- sorry. The fundamental determining factor in access is who’s got the idea and who’s got the editorial control. And we don’t exercise editorial control over any of the programs.

9600 The two programs that we typically produce as a licensee are the State of the City Address by the Mayor and the State of the Province Address by the Premier. We make the decision that we think those are important things to cover. Our staff go and cover those things. There’s no community involvement otherwise. So we consider those to be licensee produced.

9601 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. Thank you.

9602 My other question relates to the content. You mentioned that the content is owned by the community producer. You also mentioned that you clear the rights to distribute within the Province of Manitoba.

9603 As you know well, there are a number of people in Manitoba who don’t have -- who aren’t currently subscribed to your BDU product. And I’m wondering is there anything within your terms with these community producers that would prohibit them from making that content available to another BDU in the province?

9604 MR. McLAREN: No, there’s never been -- we’ve never imposed any conditions like that at all. They’re free to take it wherever they wish.

9605 In fact, for the past two summers I think CBC has shown three or four shows as part of the summer series that they run, and it’s all handled by the community producers. We don’t get involved in that at all.

9606 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. So there would be no reason that it couldn’t land on a VOD platform of Shaw for example?

9607 MR. McLAREN: There is no reason.

9608 We’ve had -- as a BDU, we’ve had a casual conversation with Shaw I’m going to say four years ago about exchanging programming.

9609 We’ve always been open to it. That’s on the record when we appeared in 2010 before the Commission. It never went anywhere.

9610 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. Thank you. That’s all I’ve got. Thank you.

9611 THE CHAIRPERSON: Legal please?

9612 UNDERTAKING

9613 MS. FISHER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

9614 My first question is in respect of Exhibit 1 that was placed on the record last Monday. We’d ask that you undertake to provide responses as applicable to your undertaking by February the 15th.

9615 MR. McLAREN: Yes.

9616 MS. FISHER: Thank you.

9617 And also in respect of Exhibit 3 which was placed on the record last Thursday. We asked you undertake to provide responses, again, as applicable to your undertaking by February 15th as well.

9618 MS. GRANDE: Yes.

9619 MR. McLAREN: Okay.

9620 UNDERTAKING

9621 MS. FISHER: Thank you.

9622 And your other undertakings that were given would be due by the 5th.

9623 Thank you.

9624 MR. McLAREN: Understood.

9625 THE CHAIRPERSON: So those are our questions. Thank you very much for having participated by videoconference. Always appreciated to have a perspective from people that might not have an as-easy time to get to our hearing here in the National Capital Region. So thank you very much.

9626 So we will adjourn ---

9627 MS. GRANDE: We appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.

9628 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

9629 We’ll adjourn until 1 o’clock. Thank you.

--- Upon recessing at 11:56 a.m.

--- Upon resuming at 1:00 p.m.

9630 LE PRÉSIDENT: À l’ordre, s’il vous plaît.

9631 Alors, Madame la secrétaire.

9632 LA SECRÉTAIRE: Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de la Fédération nationale des communications. S’il vous plaît vous présenter et présentez votre collègue. Vous avez 10 minutes.

PRESENTATION

9633 M. ROGER: Oui, bonjour, Monsieur le président, Madame la conseillère, Messieurs les conseillers du CRTC. Je me présente, Pierre Roger, Secrétaire général de la Fédération nationale des communications. Je suis accompagné aujourd’hui de M. François Macerola, consultant pour la firme MCE Conseils.

9634 La Fédération nationale des communications regroupe les syndicats des salariés et travailleurs autonomes de l'industrie des communications et de la culture. La FNC représente plus de 6 000 artisans des médias écrits et électroniques, au Québec, en Ontario et au Nouveau-Brunswick.

9635 Elle représente la majorité des syndicats de journalistes et de techniciens à l’emploi des grands journaux et des grands réseaux privés et publics de radio et de télévision, dont ceux de Radio-Canada.

9636 La FNC regroupe également des travailleurs provenant des milieux muséaux, artistiques et des arts de la scène.

9637 L'objectif de cette réflexion est d'apporter au CRTC notre point de vue à la suite de l'avis de consultation de radiodiffusion émis le 14 septembre dernier et qui porte sur la révision du cadre politique relatif à la programmation télévisuelle locale et communautaire.

9638 Le CRTC définit la programmation locale qui est diffusée par des services conventionnels et commerciaux comme une programmation qui est produite par ses diffuseurs, par du personnel local ou par des maisons de production situées dans une région en particulier et dont la création reflète les intérêts et répond aux besoins des résidents et des différents marchés. Cette production locale est une exigence du CRTC qui en retour accorde à ces diffuseurs la possibilité de vendre de la publicité locale.

9639 La programmation locale est essentielle dans notre système de radiodiffusion et représente une importance capitale pour les citoyens, surtout dans le secteur de l'information. Selon une étude commandée par le CRTC, les Québécois trouvent les informations locales indispensables et à la base même de notre système de radiodiffusion.

9640 Plusieurs diffuseurs conventionnels consacrent une grande partie de leur programmation locale à l'information. Le coût de production est important et occupe une large part des investissements en programmation locale.

9641 Le Conseil veut essentiellement savoir quels sont les moyens à utiliser pour s'assurer que l'information locale et d'autres champs de programmation peuvent devenir des composantes essentielles de notre système de radiodiffusion et présenter des émissions qui sont ancrées dans les réalités locales et reflètent les besoins et les exigences des consommateurs.

9642 La définition de programmation locale et de nouvelles locales devrait comprendre un certain nombre d'éléments dont les plus importants sont la qualité, la pertinence par rapport à une réalité bien définie et sa relation privilégiée avec son auditoire qui devient plus partenaire que consommateur. Elle doit aussi avoir une connotation géographique de cohérence avec l’auditoire, permettant d’éviter une caractéristique locale artificielle qui permettrait aux diffuseurs de se conformer sans apport réel pour les téléspectateurs ni pour l’activité économique locale.

9643 Nous croyons que la priorité est la question de l’information. Le CRTC pourrait alors concentrer son rôle de régulateur sur la programmation de nouvelles locales. Tous les autres types de programmation peuvent avoir aussi un apport de services pour les populations locales, notamment sur la vie culturelle locale.

9644 Nous sommes d’avis que le CRTC devrait privilégier l'accès aux nouvelles technologies tant pour la production, que la diffusion, et ce, afin de s'assurer que les Canadiens partout au pays aient accès à une quantité appropriée de nouvelles locales. Cependant, cette priorité ne devrait pas se traduire par la négligence du cadre de responsabilités des médias traditionnels à cet égard et l’absence d’engagement de leur part.

9645 Nous croyons également qu’une présence physique est absolument indispensable afin de produire et de rendre disponible une programmation concrète, de qualité et représentative qui reflète les réalités locales.

9646 Nous estimons que la plupart des acteurs du système reconnaissent l’importance du contenu local tant pour leurs responsabilités, quant à l’information des populations, que pour leurs rôles socioculturels et de s’assurer de demeurer proches de leur auditoire.

9647 Cependant, le coût de ces opérations les rend de plus en plus difficiles à maintenir pour les acteurs privés observant des pressions à la baisse de leur rentabilité globale et pour les acteurs publics confrontés depuis plusieurs années à des coupures de ressources budgétaires sévères. Le contexte de rationalisation rend encore plus difficile l’équilibre coût-bénéfice de la programmation locale dans cette conjoncture sévère.

9648 Les règles devraient être suffisamment souples pour se moduler en fonction des marchés, des besoins et de la grandeur des marchés. Des exigences devraient exister pour tous, mais adaptées à la taille des organisations et de leur marché de diffusion.

9649 Depuis l’abolition du FAPL en 2014, la programmation locale a été durement touchée. C’est le cas pour Radio-Canada qui est, pour la majorité de nos communautés, la seule source de programmation télé locale en français. Ce fonds permettait à Radio-Canada d’enrichir sa programmation en région en y investissant plus de 40 millions de dollars par année.

9650 En 2015, suite aux compressions budgétaires successives qu’a subies la SRC, une centaine de postes ont été abolis dans les services français. De toute évidence, Moncton, Rimouski, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke et Saguenay ont été fortement touchées. Ces abolitions de postes s’ajoutent aux nombreuses autres ayant touché la SRC en 2014.

9651 Le téléjournal de 18 h diffusé dans plusieurs villes a été amputé d’une demi-heure en septembre dernier et ne dure maintenant que 30 minutes. Par ailleurs, avec moins d’effectifs et malgré un personnel hautement qualifié, le maintien d’un contenu riche et de qualité devient un véritable défi. Un mécanisme d’investissement pour soutenir l’information et la programmation locales est nécessaire pour l’ensemble des télédiffuseurs traditionnels afin de permettre de revenir aux niveaux passés en termes de dépenses et de programmation.

9652 Le déséquilibre accru de rentabilité entre EDR et diffuseurs nous incite à réfléchir à nouveau à la place que doivent prendre ces premiers dans le soutien à un contenu local, riche et diversifié. Notre rôle n'est pas de proposer de nouveaux programmes, mais il nous appartient de tracer des pistes de solution claires pour améliorer la qualité et la pertinence de notre service de radiodiffusion, qui doit respecter nos réalités et dynamiser notre désir d'appartenance.

9653 L'allocation des fonds devrait se faire en fonction de la population visée, des besoins, des infrastructures, des personnes disponibles et de la qualité de production.

9654 Le Conseil devrait exiger un rapport annuel des radiodiffuseurs sur la programmation locale. Déjà, nous aurions quelques éléments d'évaluation objectifs : les fonds alloués, le partage entre les coûts de production et les installations techniques, les heures de programmation-diffusion, les cotes d'écoute et le plus important, des rapports des consommateurs sur la pertinence de la programmation, l'intérêt, la relation avec la communauté et, enfin, la volonté de participation et de collaboration des radiodiffuseurs.

9655 En conclusion, la programmation locale fait partie intégrante de la vitalité des nombreuses régions, communautés et cultures du Québec et du Canada. Seule la programmation locale permet l’accès à des émissions en français pour certaines communautés. Face à l’uniformisation de l’information sans frontière ni distance, provenant des nouvelles plateformes de communication, le maintien et l’amélioration d’une programmation locale de qualité doivent être un enjeu prioritaire pour les prochaines années. Ce type de programmation est essentiel afin d’avoir un système de télévision qui satisfasse la demande de contenu des populations hors des grands centres. Elle fait partie de la mission d’information, de vitalité culturelle et de divertissement des télédiffuseurs. Il contribue enfin au contenu canadien disponible. La programmation locale ne relève donc pas uniquement des notions commerciales de marché, mais bien de la responsabilité publique des partenaires du système de radiodiffusion.

9656 Cependant, la production et la diffusion des services locaux de télévision dans des agglomérations de plus petite taille présentent des défis financiers croissants face aux contraintes économiques des diffuseurs. Mais, des réponses technologiques souples ont permis de réduire les coûts de production en région. Au chapitre du financement, le FAPL a été d’une grande contribution pour solutionner ce défi en assurant notamment, une certaine stabilité financière aux radiodiffuseurs. Son abolition met ces derniers dans une situation difficile d’affronter la seule logique de rentabilité privée pour assurer un service public.

9657 Il presse de trouver une alternative et de mettre en place un nouveau modèle financier pour sauver la télévision locale. Avec des fonds additionnels réservés aux diffuseurs qui font de la programmation locale une priorité, ces derniers devraient avoir l'obligation de développer des programmes qui répondent aux besoins de nature sociale, économique et culturelle des citoyens et des citoyennes d'ici.

9658 Le déséquilibre accru de rentabilité entre EDR et diffuseurs nous entraîne à réfléchir à nouveau à la place que doivent prendre ces premiers dans le soutien à un contenu local, riche et diversifié. Notre rôle n'est pas de proposer de nouveaux programmes, mais il nous appartient de tracer des pistes de solution claires pour améliorer la qualité, la pertinence de notre service de radiodiffusion qui doit respecter nos réalités et dynamiser notre désir d'appartenance.

9659 La FNC souhaite adresser au CRTC, en tout respect, une importante mise en garde concernant les changements qu’il souhaite apporter au système canadien de radiodiffusion. Il est plus qu’évident que les médias traditionnels connaissent une crise dont l’issue est encore incertaine. Déjà, de nombreux emplois ont été perdus dans l’industrie de la télévision et de la production de contenus canadiens, particulièrement dans le milieu de l’information.

9660 Alors que les annonceurs transfèrent toujours plus leurs budgets publicitaires vers les géants du web, nos diffuseurs et producteurs locaux ont besoin de soutien afin de trouver un modèle d’affaires viable sur les nouvelles plateformes technologiques qui leur permettra de continuer à créer des contenus par et pour les citoyens canadiens qu’elles desservent.

9661 C’est donc avec beaucoup d’inquiétudes que nous constatons que le CRTC a choisi de ne pas légiférer quant à l’intrusion des géants mondiaux du web qui siphonnent d’importantes parts de marché au Canada sans contribuer ni au contenu canadien, ni à l’économie du pays. Nous considérons qu’il s’agit d’une attitude irresponsable, particulièrement en cette période de transformation profonde et de difficultés économiques, alors que d’autres pays ont choisi d’agir.

9662 Nous implorons donc le CRTC de favoriser un système télévisuel canadien bien financé, afin que les citoyens aient accès à une programmation locale de qualité, et qu’il poursuive ses réflexions et consultations quant à l’avenir de notre télévision et de notre culture canadienne dans le contexte numérique.

9663 Je suis disposé à répondre à vos questions.

9664 LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci bien. Conseiller -- Monsieur le conseiller Dupras va commencer.

9665 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Merci. Bon après-midi.

9666 M. ROGER: Merci.

9667 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Vous parlez qu’on a besoin d’une programmation locale de qualité et que le maintien d’un tel contenu devient un véritable défi. Est-ce que vous pouvez nous expliquer comment ont évolué les conditions de travail pour les employés dans les grands centres et en régions particulièrement?

9668 M. ROGER: Oui, je pourrais avancer une première partie de la réponse. Effectivement, ben je pense que vous êtes à même de le constater quand on regarde les statistiques financières dont vous disposez sur les revenus des grands réseaux de télévision généraliste au pays, on s’aperçoit par exemple que en l’année 2014 y a eu une diminution importante par rapport à l’année précédente de 100 $ millions dans les revenus nationaux à l’échelle du pays là. Toute proportion gardée là, c'est 8 à 9 pourcent de moins au niveau du revenu global de ces télédiffuseurs là.

9669 Alors on se rencontre que y a une difficulté financière là qui les accapare comme telle, et qui les rend de moins en moins disponibles je dirais à investir dans la télévision locale. C'est difficile pour eux, y sont obligés d’y aller par des coupures, diminutions du contenu, diminutions de personnel pour continuer à ce que l’entreprise soit encore viable et qu’elle réponde aux critères de la licence aussi.

9670 Je sais pas si Monsieur Macerola ---

9671 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Et les tâches des employés ont changé?

9672 M. ROGER: Ben, oui, oui, effectivement, y a eu -- et ça les gens ont contribué à ces changements-là aussi. Les gens sont pas si -- faut pas penser que les gens sont réfractaires, ils ont effectivement embarqué dans ces changements-là dans l’organisation du travail. On n’a qu’à penser quand on le voit les journalistes qui sont devenus dans certains cas caméramans, monteurs. Alors ils travaillent beaucoup techniquement à la production là, les emplois ont beaucoup évolué.

9673 Et en plus, ils doivent fournir du matériel. Si je pense entre autre aux gens du secteur de l’information, autrefois ils n’alimentaient qu’une seule plateforme qu’y était la télévision proprement parler, aujourd'hui ils doivent alimenter la plateforme internet, les réseaux sociaux. Alors c'est une charge qu’y a augmenté là, pour eux aussi en même temps. Alors -- et ça nous ça nous inquiète toujours parce qu’on se dit plus y augmentation de ce côté-là, y a risque aussi au niveau de la qualité du produit qu’y est mis en ondes.

9674 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: M'hm. Mais vous ---

9675 M. MACEROLA: Est-ce que je peux ---

9676 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Oui, allez-y.

9677 M. MACEROLA: Oui, y a une chose aussi -- je pèse sur mon nom, je connais pas ça, bon, ça va. Y a une chose aussi qu’y est importante avec les nouvelles technologies, c'est que très souvent on utilise le biais des nouvelles technologies pour diminuer les tâches et l’importance du travail de certaines personnes.

9678 Et une des recommandations qu’on a fait là dans notre documentation, c'est de faire en sorte que ces gens-là puissent apprendre le nouveau langage, le nouveau langage numérique, le nouveau langage technologique, et soient capables de contribuer d’une autre façon peut-être que la façon traditionnelle. Mais c'est clair qu’y a une diminution des forces vives là qui sont attitrées à la production de contenu culturel.

9679 M. ROGER: Et je rajouterais, Monsieur Dupras, le fait que ces entreprises-là doivent également investir des sommes considérables pour se déployer sur les nouvelles plateformes, tout en maintenant les anciennes plateformes là qui sont beaucoup plus souvent en conformité avec la licence que vous leur octroyez parce que y a pas d’obligation de licence pour être sur internet par exemple.

9680 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Mais vous convenez que y faut trouver des nouvelles façons de faire pour être capable de faire face aux coûts et aux pressions financières sur les radiodiffuseurs?

9681 M. ROGER: Oui, tout à fait.

9682 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Et qu’est-ce que vous pensez par exemple d’une proposition comme celle de -- pas seulement qu’une proposition, mais qu’est-ce que TVA est en train de faire là, c'est-à-dire de centraliser certaines activités de production à Montréal, ben plutôt là c'est des -- de la post-production en régie, avez-vous des commentaires à cet égard-là? Est-ce que vous trouvez que c'est bien faire les choses ou si la post-production c'est quelque chose qui devrait continuer d’être faite dans les régions?

9683 M. ROGER: Ben c'est sûr qu’on y voit là -- pour eux une économie au niveau du personnel comme tel, mais c'est un déplacement aussi du personnel qui -- y a déjà du personnel en régions. Je prends l’exemple spécifique de TVA que vous mentionnez, ils ont un réseau qu’y est déployé à travers le Québec, y a du personnel qui produit les bulletins d’informations locales, prenons cet exemple-là, locaux, alors évidemment y a une partie du personnel qui serait rapatrié, y a des emplois qui seraient perdus en régions.

9684 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Oui.

9685 M. ROGER: Alors ça l’a un impact économique sur la région, alors que eux vont continuer de soutirer des revenus de la région de par leur octroi de licence dans la région qui leur permet parce qui produisent localement des bulletins de nouvelles d’avoir accès au marché local de la publicité. Mais on comprend ---

9686 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Mais qu’est-ce que ---

9687 M. ROGER: --- qui faut réorganiser le travail là. Je pense que ça risque d’être incontournable peut-être pour certains emplois, mais y en demeure pas moins que ça prend une présence sur le terrain aussi pour être capable de bien faire le travail d’information locale.

9688 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Je comprends, mais des activités comme celles-là, si elles sont faites à Montréal en termes de la production, c'est-à-dire de la programmation pour les gens dans les régions, est-ce que ça va changer quelque chose pour les téléspectateurs?

9689 M. ROGER: Techniquement ça devrait pas, évidemment on comprend que ça veut dire quand même le maintien des journalistes en régions, ça va de soi là, comme tel ou des caméramans, des gens qui vont faire un travail terrain à proprement parlé là. Effectivement, ça ça doit demeurer sur le terrain là.

9690 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Bon dans cette veine-là, vous avez donné une bonne définition de la programmation locale -- en passant, je voulais dire j’ai bien apprécié votre mémoire, je trouve que vous avez fait ---

9691 M. ROGER: Merci.

9692 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: --- un beau travail -- vous dites que celle-ci -- la programmation locale devrait être de qualité et avoir une connotation géographique avec son auditoire. Alors je me demandais ce que vous pensiez du changement de définition proposé encore une fois par Québecor, qu’y est d’éliminer le « reflet local » de la définition?

9693 M. ROGER: Bon là je pense que ça correspond pas -- en tout cas moi la définition que j’en ai de la télévision locale -- parce que ça doit être fait pour représenter les localités, les gens en région aiment bien avoir leurs nouvelles à eux, avoir pas uniquement des nouvelles d’information, mais les nouvelles culturelles aussi par exemple, si je prends cet exemple-là, aiment bien avoir le reflet de leur région dans leur télévision. Parce qu’on entend très souvent, en tout cas quand on a des reproches à nous faire, dire bien la télévision, elle est très souvent « Montréalisée ». On a l’impression que tout passe par Montréal puis on ne se reconnaît pas.

9694 Mais il y a une chose qui est sûre, les bulletins de nouvelles locaux sont très appréciés. Puis ça, c’est -- moi, j’ai l’impression de parler pour l’ensemble du Canada, pas uniquement au Québec mais dans le reste du pays c’est identique. Les gens s’identifient beaucoup à leur radio, à leur télévision locale en termes d’information et de programmation aussi.

9695 Ça, ça doit demeurer. Pour moi, c’est essentiel.

9696 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Allez-y.

9697 M. MACEROLA: Il y a toujours possibilité, quant à moi, de consolider certaines activités, certaines activités qui sont de nature strictement techniques mais il ne faut pas oublier l’objectif premier de ces nouvelles façons de faire.

9698 Et je ne pense pas qu’on doive consolider uniquement avec la volonté de faire des économies. On doit consolider avec un objectif de respecter la mission qu’on s’est donnée, être local. Et après, voir comment on peut jouer avec une consolidation qui est beaucoup plus dynamique et beaucoup plus reliée à la réalité de cette télévision.

9699 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Oui?

9700 M. ROGER: Juste terminer sur votre commentaire, votre question.

9701 Si TVA fait des économies substantielles en rapatriant certaines activités de post-production, par exemple à Montréal, bien moi, je pense qu’une bonne partie de ces sommes devrait être retournée aux régions en production locale. Parce que c’est grâce à eux qu’ils ont fait cette économie-là puis que ça serait normal que la population locale puisse en bénéficier.

9702 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: C’est ça. Alors les ressources qui sont requises pour combattre les Netflix de ce monde, on ne doit pas faire ça nécessairement au détriment de la programmation locale dans les régions au Québec; c’est ça?

9703 M. ROGER: Bien, oui là mais je ne sais pas ce que vous vouliez exactement dire par votre commentaire.

9704 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Bon, pour ce qui est du nombre d’heures, vous dites que la programmation locale, on devrait exiger un nombre d’heures important de diffusion. Qu’est-ce que vous voulez dire par là? Est-ce que vous voulez maintenir, augmenter les niveaux actuels s’il y a une aide qui est apportée aux télédiffuseurs?

9705 M. ROGER: Moi, je pense que ça doit être à géométrie variable, dépendamment des régions comme telles parce que les régions n’ont pas toutes la même population. Donc, évidemment, je pense que ça doit répondre à des besoins en fonction des régions comme telles. À tout le moins, dans un premier temps, il faudrait au moins maintenir les niveaux de production locale à ceux qu’on retrouve actuellement, voire même peut-être augmenter.

9706 Comme je disais dans le mémoire, on a vu dernièrement des diminutions importantes de productions locales, par exemple, au niveau des bulletins de nouvelles au niveau de Radio-Canada. Ça faisait suite, entre autres, à l’abolition du fonds d’amélioration de la programmation locale qu’il a eu des impacts.

9707 Radio-Canada allait chercher là une quarantaine de millions par année. Alors, ça lui permettait de produire de très -- en tout cas, de très bons bulletins de nouvelles en région. Malheureusement, ils ont dû diminuer le temps qui leur était alloué pour ça.

9708 Mais je pense qu’il faut s’assurer qu’il y ait au moins un minimum comme tel dans les régions.

9709 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: C’est ça. Mais un peu comme on fonctionne actuellement.

9710 M. ROGER: Oui.

lang=fr9711 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Au cas par cas, au Québec.

9712 M. ROGER: Oui, tout à fait.

9713 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Pour ce qui est des conditions de licences?

9714 M. ROGER: Oui, c’est ça. C’est ce qui est différent du côté anglais où alors c’est plus normalisé au niveau de la programmation.

9715 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: À l’extérieur du Québec, ce serait comme plus d’essayer de revenir à ce que c’était avant les coupures?

9716 M. ROGER: Oui, idéalement.

9717 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Idéalement. Et à ce sujet-là, à l’extérieur du Québec, pour ce qui est des annonces que le gouvernement a fait d’un financement nouveau pour Radio-Canada, est-ce que vous avez eu des discussions à ce sujet-là avec la Société pour voir s’il y en a qui irait aux communautés linguistiques à l’extérieur du Québec?

9718 M. ROGER: On n’a pas eu à ce stade-ci de discussions avec Radio-Canada. Les discussions qu’on a eues ont été avec la ministre du Patrimoine concernant le fait qu’il y avait des annonces évidemment en campagnes électorales de réinvestir par plusieurs partis politiques des sommes importantes qui avaient été retirées à Radio-Canada.

9719 Et bon, la ministre du Patrimoine elle-même disait qu’il fallait réinvestir au moins 150 millions. Mais bon, comment ces sommes-là seront réinvesties dans Radio-Canada, ça reste à déterminer.

9720 Nous, on espère que ces sommes-là vont être allouées pour de la production principalement mais on comprend aussi que Radio-Canada cherche à se déployer numériquement.

9721 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Oui.

9722 M. ROGER: Alors, c’est un peu tout ça. En même temps, il faut se développer sur d’autres plateformes mais il faut aussi continuer d’offrir les services qu’on offrait ou en tout cas, à tout le moins, au niveau de la programmation locale. Moi, je pense qu’il devrait y avoir quelque chose de fait dans ce sens-là mais on n’a pas eu de rencontre ou il n’y a pas eu d’annonce officielle à ce niveau-là. Au niveau de Radio-Canada, ils sont plus préoccupés en ce moment par l’édifice à Montréal.

9723 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Oui, bon.

9724 Donc, vous ne savez pas si ce sera une priorité ou non avec les nouvelles sommes allouées?

9725 M. ROGER: Non puis on ne sait pas non plus -- vous avez dû prendre connaissance comme moi de ce qui se dit dans les médias dans les dernières semaines. On ne sait pas comment -- la ministre semble un peu reculer sur son annonce première d’il y a peut-être un mois ou deux en disant, bien, peut-être que les sommes d’argent vont être étalées sur plusieurs années; ou peut-être que finalement je vais voir avec le ministre du Trésor. Ça pourrait être plus compliqué qu’on pensait.

9726 Alors, ça aussi ça nous inquiète beaucoup dans le cas particulier de Radio-Canada.

9727 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Et vous dites que ce sont toutes les stations qui devraient profiter d’un soutien financier, que ce soit les stations des groupes intégrés ou les stations indépendantes ou ---

9728 M. ROGER: Oui, tout à fait.

9729 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: --- les stations de Radio-Canada.

9730 M. ROGER: Oui, quand on pense à -- donc, on connaît évidemment des groupes intégrés que sont ceux de Radio-Canada, TVA. Bon V Télé, je ne sais pas si on peut parler de groupes intégrés là. Oui, ils sont encore présents dans les régions mais au niveau des bulletins locaux, ils font encore un peu de matériel. Mais on pense à RNC MEDIA et Télé Inter-Rives probablement auxquelles vous faisiez allusion.

9731 Oui, définitivement, ces gens-là sont -- bien ces entreprises-là sont très bien implantées dans leur communauté, que ce soit en Abitibi, dans la région, ici même et également dans le coin de Rivière-du-Loup, la Gaspésie. Je pense que c’est important pour eux, la télévision locale là-bas. Les gens y tiennent beaucoup.

9732 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: O.k.

9733 M. MACEROLA: Mais si vous permettez, on demande aussi dans le document que le CRTC reçoive un rapport annuel de ces organisations-là.

9734 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Comme mesure de succès?

9735 M. MACEROLA: Comme mesure de succès, de mesure du succès, oui.

9736 M. ROGER: Oui, ça serait une façon ---

9737 M. MACEROLA: Et d’implication dans le milieu.

9738 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Et avez-vous une idée de ce que ça pourrait -- des sommes dont on pourrait avoir besoin pour soutenir convenablement toutes ces stations?

9739 M. ROGER: Écoutez, moi, si -- je me rappelle uniquement -- je me rappelle l’audience qui avait eu lieu concernant l’avenir du FAPL où là tout ce monde-là était venu ici vous dire à quel point c’était important ces montant d’argent-là. Ils étaient -- je pense que, eux, ils les avaient ciblés, de mémoire, dans plusieurs de leurs interventions comme telles, à l’époque du défunt FAPL.

9740 Bon, je ne vous dis pas qu’il faut repartir le FAPL mais il faut peut-être penser à une formule un peu semblable ou quelque chose qui tienne compte de la réalité d’aujourd’hui.

9741 On se rend compte à quel point ça été très dommageable pour les régions en termes de perte de programmation locale, la disparition du fonds.

9742 Puis je comprends qu’il y avait une vision peut-être dans la disparition du fonds qui était l’approche de « Parlons télé » où on voulait regarder une approche qui se voulait plus alentours du consommateur où on voulait diminuer le coût de son bouquet de câble, quand les gens s’abonnent au câble.

9743 Mais il ne faut pas oublier aussi qu’avec les coûts d’abonnement au câble, si les consommateurs paient moins, il y a donc moins d’argent qui est mis dans le fonds des médias comme tels. Donc, ça rend moins d’argent disponible aussi pour la programmation.

9744 Moi, je trouve qu’on s’est un peu nui d’une certaine façon avec cette approche-là comme telle de changement réglementaire au niveau de la tarification pour l’offre de base au niveau de la câblodistribution.

9745 Je ne sais pas comment on pourrait se récupérer. D’autant plus que -- donc, il y a moins d’argent disponible pour la programmation mais il y a moins d’argent aussi parce que les revenus publicitaires, comme je disais tantôt, s’envolent. Il y en a de moins en moins.

9746 Puis on retrouve ces revenus-là sur le web, sur des entreprises qui, elles, vont reprendre parfois du contenu pour le rediffuser au niveau de l’information et c’est eux qui vont aller chercher la publicité.

9747 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Et si cet argent-là est pris des sommes qui étaient jusqu’ici dédiées aux canaux communautaires, quel impact croyez-vous que cela aura sur les canaux communautaires?

9748 M. ROGER: Bien je pense que pour eux aussi ça risque d’avoir un impact un moment donné-là comme tel.

9749 Mais je suis à peu près -- en tout cas, moi j’imagine que il faudra voir au cour des prochaines années-là, il est peut-être trop tôt pour le dire là, parce que la mesure est nouvelle.

9750 On pourra avoir l’impact que ça aura sans parler de ce que -- bien oui on va en parler, de ce que disait M. Blais ce matin-là par rapport au fait que on sent que les jeunes regardent la population qui est plus jeune va moins s’abonner au câble.

9751 Va plutôt s’abonner à internet pour regarder à la pièce en streaming, excusez l’expression-là, pour regarder la télévision.

9752 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: M'hm.

9753 M. ROGER: Donc effectivement il risque d’y avoir un changement-là dans le modèle d’affaire.

9754 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Et est-ce que les plus petits systèmes de -- les plus petites EDRs qui offrent des canaux communautaires devraient être épargnées d’une ponction aux fins de soutenir la programmation locale des stations locales?

9755 M. ROGER: Là vous parlez des très petits EDRs qui peut exister au Québec?

9756 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Bien les plus petites EDRs, les EDRs indépendantes ou si ça ---

9757 M. ROGER: Oui.

9758 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: On devrait se limiter à -- aux EDRs des compagnies intégrées?

9759 M. ROGER: Écoutez, moi je pense que tout le monde doit contribuer, parce que les EDRs ils font de la diffusion de contenue, donc il doivent -- donner un certain retour pour qu’il y ait du contenu qui se retrouve dans leur offre de distribution, à mon avis.

9760 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Mais je parle des sommes qui sont allouées aux canaux communautaires.

9761 M. ROGER: Oh, oui, oui. Tout à fait, tout à fait.

9762 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: O.k.

9763 Bon et qu’est-ce que vous pensiez du soutien des canaux communautaires qui pourraient offrir des nouvelles locales dans les zones où il n’y a pas de station locale?

9764 Êtes-vous en faveur de ça?

9765 M. ROGER: Bien écoutez, quand je regarde -- quand je regarde le Québec, je pense que le Québec est quand même largement couvert.

9766 Actuellement là, au niveau des grands réseaux intégrés actuellement, en terme de couverture d’information, mais je nie pas le fait que certains canals communautaires vont par exemple offrir la retransmission de l’assemblée municipale mensuelle.

9767 Bon ça ça l’a un apport très important, ça l’air de rien mais ---

9768 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Mais si des sommes étaient allouées pour faire de la production de nouvelles?

9769 M. ROGER: Là faudrait voir parce que si c’est des -- c’est parce que si on -- si on pige toujours dans la -- dans la même assiette pour alimenter tout ce monde-là, bien ça risque d’avoir un impact chez les autres joueurs plus traditionnels que je parlais tantôt-là.

9770 Ça veut dire qu’on va on va en enlever à un pour en donner à l’autre-là comme tel, puis vous avez -- vous avez des professionnels, vous avez une expertise qui est là, là, chez les -- chez les grands réseaux qu’on retrouvent au Québec qui sont présent dans les régions comme à Radio-Canada, TVA, par exemple.

9771 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Il y a quand même une dizaine de marchés au Québec. Il y a des villes comme Drummonville et autres assez importantes, qu’ils ont aucunes nouvelles locales?

9772 M. ROGER: Oui, bien ça vous avez raison. C’est une ville que je connais. Je suis originaire de Drummondville mais elle est coincée entre Trois-Rivières et Sherbrooke, Montréal et Québec.

9773 Alors effectivement, mais sur place à Drummondville il y a un journaliste et caméraman de Radio-Canada qui va couvrir localement mais on s’entend ça va être transmis à travers le Radio-Canada ou en Estrie ou en Mauricie-là, les reportages qu’il va faire, mais est-ce que il y a un véritable besoin? Je ne le sais pas.

9774 Comme disait M. Macerola tantôt, il faudrait évaluer jusqu’à un certain point actuellement ça a l’air de quoi le public qui regarde le canal communautaire à Drummondville. Est-ce qu’il y a beaucoup de gens.

9775 Moi je pense qu’il faudrait peut-être tenter des expériences, jusqu’à un certain point, avant de dire qu’on va investir des sommes considérables dans cette façon de faire de la télévision.

9776 Parce que actuellement on a deux mondes-là qui roulent parallèlement. On a le monde de la télévision linéaire, qui est un monde, je pense que vous êtes à même de le savoir, qui est dans un -- qui est presqu’en train de disparaitre jusqu’à un certain point-là, parce que les gens veulent de plus en plus consommer à la carte-là.

9777 On le voit là par le déploiement des grands réseaux ou on peut revoir la programmation qu’on a manquée à tout moment.

9778 Donc est-ce que c’est vraiment une voie d’avenir? Je ne le sais pas, parce que les jeunes ne consomment pas, le jeune public en tout cas, la télévision de façon linéaire, ça c’est évident.

9779 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Mais le système linéaire c’est un peu ça qui finance aussi la production des émissions. On en a de besoin.

9780 M. ROGER: Oui, oui, tout à fait.

9781 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Je veux dire après ça c’est -- ça se retrouve sur les autres plateformes.

9782 M. ROGER: Oui, oui. Oui?

9783 M. MARCEROLA: Si vous permettez? Si on ajoute là le phénomène au phénomène de la presse régionale, entre guillemets, et puis c’est bien beau de dire oui on a besoin d’argent additionnel.

9784 C’est clair-là quand j’étais à l’Office ational du film, il fallait ouvrir un bureau dans chaque coin de pays, au point qu’un moment donné on était rendu avec 55 bureaux.

9785 C’était énorme, parce qu’on avait juste de l’argent pour les meubler, puis on avait pas d’argent pour faire de la production.

9786 Ça c’est -- c’est une décision difficile de ma part quand je suis arrivé à l’Office nationale du film, mais moi je crois beaucoup au concept de la création de propriété originale, propriété intellectuelle originale. Ça je le crois énormément, puis là CRTC j’ai lu votre documentation et appuie cette approche-là.

9787 Je pense aussi qu’on devrait regarder la possibilité d’aller convaincre les annonceurs de faire affaire avec des sociétés Canadiennes, Québécoises, plutôt qu’avec les Google, puis les Facebook de ce monde

9788 Je le sais que ça peut paraitre un peu, comment je dirais bien, au-delà d’une certaine réalité, mais je pense qu’y’a des programmes à établir.

9789 Puis à ce moment-là quand eu vont faire plus d’argent bien c’est clair que les gens qui sont ailleurs puis qui font de la télévision qu’on qualifierait plus locale, vous -- pourrait éventuellement obtenir plus.

9790 Et je dis pas que les télévisions linéaires devraient tout subventionner, mais il y a une possibilité d’essayer d’aller trouver de nouveau fonds.

9791 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Avec les ressources qu’on -- dont on dispose dans le système, est-ce que vous pensez que on devrait soutenir les nouvelles locales et la programmation locale ou d’abord les nouvelles locales?

9792 M. ROGER: Moi j’aurais tendance à dire que -- Qu’on priorise l’information locale, les nouvelles locales.

9793 La programmation locale, oui, mais je pense que l’information ça devrait être la priorité. Dans l’enquête que vous aviez mené dans Parlons Télé je pense ça ressortissais(sic) -- pardon, ça ressortait relativement clairement là cet état de fait, à savoir que les populations locales préfèrent -- c’est la chose qu’ils veulent voir en premier c’est l’information locale. C’est ce qui est le plus regardé là pour eux.

9794 M. MACEROLA: Et dans le mémoire qu’on a présenté on mentionne d’ailleurs que si le CFTC doit intervenir au niveau de la règlementation, c’est au niveau des nouvelles dans un premier temps, de l’information.

9795 Et après il y a tous les autres genres, mais ces autres genres-là ---

9796 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Comme en région par exemple-là, est-ce que il y a un besoin de programmation locale en plus de l’information qui est plus criant que dans les grands centres, j’imagine?

9797 M. ROGER: Oui, j’aurais tendance à dire les émissions qui touchent un peu à la vie -- à la vie culturelle locale. Ça aussi les gens aiment savoir ce qui se passe là dans la communauté culturellement parlant.

9798 Alors c’est vraiment près d’eux là. C’est très encré ça comme tel. Alors ça c’est le type de programmation qu’ils vont aimer là après les nouvelles.

9799 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Alors ça ça pourrait être aussi le rôle des canaux communautaires? La programmation locale qui est autre que des nouvelles ou si vous pensez que c’est le canal linéaire qui est toujours le véhicule de choix-là pour rejoindre les Canadiens?

9800 M. ROGER: Bien moi je pense que le canal c’est encore le -- moi je pense le véhicule de choix est encore-là là. Je pense que le canal traditionnel est encore là comme très, très important dans les régions.

9801 Ça va de soit, parce que c’est pas -- bien je le sais que le taux de pénétration des EDRs est quand même très important au pays. On parle de maintenant de 90-95 pourcent probablement-là, donc les canals communautaires sont quand même accessibles de façon général.

9802 Mais je pense que là ou les parts d’écoutes sont les plus importantes c’est quand même avec les canaux de télévision traditionnels linéaires.

9803 Encore là où ça -- d’ailleurs actuellement, là où les gens s’informe le plus au Canada ça demeure encore à la télévision-là, avec le bulletin de nouvelles.

9804 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: En effet. Et bien voilà ce sont tout pour mes questions, Monsieur le président. Merci.

9805 LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci. Je ne crois que je ne peux pas laisser sous silence vos observations à le para 24, donc:

9806 « Le CRTC a choisi de ne pas

9807 légiférer… »

9808 Passons sur l’utilisation du mot « légiférer ».

9809 « …quant à l’intrusion des géants

9810 mondiaux du Web. »

9811 C’est qui ça ces géants mondiaux à votre -- vous avez pas nommé de compagnies?

9812 M. ROGER: Bien écoutez, les géants mondiaux ça peut être les Facebook de ce monde, ça peut être Netflix, par exemple.

9813 On se rappellera que, bon, ça été discuté déjà ici dans d’autres audiences auparavant là, toute la question de ce joueur qui est très présent. Les gens s’abonnent à du produit pas vraiment ici. Y a pas vraiment de retombées économiques là. On sait pas trop où l’argent va aussi.

9814 Je comprends qu’on peut regarder parce que ça peut nous apparaître expérimental pis je comprenais le point de vue du CRTC à cet égard-là, mais là c'est quelque chose qui persiste et qui prend de l’ampleur parce que Netflix n'est plus seul. Y a d’autres joueurs aussi qui se présentent sur le marché comme tel et il y a de plus en plus de -- nous on pense que ces joueurs-là -- je pense pas nécessairement à Netflix mais je pense à d’autres joueurs. Je vais vous donner un exemple-là très concret.

9815 Facebook a lancé une nouvelle application qui s’appelle Facebook Instant qui fait en sorte là pour les gens qui sont abonnés à Facebook de vous relayer des bribes d’information comme telles. Et ces bribes d’information-là ils les prennent où? Ils les prennent des grands médias traditionnels ici au pays, que ce soit à Radio-Canada, que ce soit le Journal de Montréal. Ben enfin, je veux pas tout nommer ceux-là avec qui y a eu des discussions avec Facebook au cours des derniers mois comme tels.

9816 Et ça y a un risque. Y a des joueurs qui ont décidé d’embarquer là-dedans pis d'autres ont pas embarqué parce que le risque est que la publicité va s’envoler des médias traditionnels alors que Facebook lui peut offrir aussi de la publicité à lui, pis y aura pas nécessairement de retombées sur le joueur qui produit l’information comme telle parce que les grands médias qui produisent de l’information, les grandes salles de nouvelles par exemple au Québec, ben c'est Radio-Canada, c'est La Presse, c’est Le Devoir. Bon, vous les connaissez les grands quotidiens régionaux. Y a des centaines de journalistes. Ils sont plus de 1,000 journalistes au Québec qui travaillent dans ces grands médias.

9817 Ben y a beaucoup de leur travail qui est récupéré sur les réseaux sociaux et que les gens font des captures de ces manchettes-là. Ils vont les retransmettre. Y a de la publicité qui est vendue mais y a pas de retour véritablement dans plusieurs cas. Dans beaucoup de cas, y a pas de retour chez le -- celui qui fabrique cette information-là et on le voit.

9818 Actuellement, ces grands médias -- là je sors du cadre de la télévision mais quand on regarde dans les médias de la presse écrite en ce moment, ça va très mal au niveau des revenus publicitaires. C'est en chute libre. Alors, plusieurs sont dans des difficultés financières qui risquent de les amener à peut-être près de la fermeture là, pour pas en nommer quelques-uns mais y en a plusieurs au Québec en ce moment et on va le voir au cours des prochaines années.

9819 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Mais en ce qui a trait à la presse écrite ---

9820 M. ROGER: Oui.

9821 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: --- étant donné que c'est de compétence provinciale, vous devriez peut-être faire part de vos doléances ailleurs que devant l’instance du fédéral.

9822 M. MACEROLA: Si je peux me permettre, le mot légiféré était pas tout à fait le bon mot.

9823 M. ROGER: Oui.

9824 M. MACEROLA: On est d’accord mais ce qu’on dit et puis on le dit au niveau de la presse écrite puis on le dit aussi au niveau des autres médias, c'est une décision politique. Est-ce que le gouvernement est prêt à faire comme d’autres pays, à faire comme d’autres villes, à imposer des droits de redevances sur l’utilisation des systèmes existants au Canada?

9825 Bon, y a eu un jugement de la Cour suprême en disant ces gens-là ne produisent pas de produits. O.k., maintenant là i commencent à en produire de plus en plus et je pense que c'est un débat qui devrait se porter vis-à-vis le gouvernement pour voir quelles sont ses intentions et sa volonté de travailler ---

9826 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous avez mentionné que y a pas de productions qui se font au Canada. C'est factuellement incorrect ça. Y a des producteurs qui vendent à Netflix, n’est-ce pas?

9827 M. ROGER: Oui, y en a quelques-uns.

9828 M. MACEROLA: Oui, y en a, oui, oui, oui. Vous avez raison, oui.

9829 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et je comprends votre point de vue que ça crée peut-être pas de l’activité économique autant que vous voudrez mais je ne crois pas que je vous ai vu demander à vos 6,000 membres et leur famille de se désabonner de Facebook et de Netflix.

lang=fr9830 M. ROGER: Non, non, c'est -- ben écoutez, c'est clair que ça fait partie de la vie de tout le monde de aujourd’hui là. Les réseaux sociaux, ça va de soi là.

9831 LE PRÉSIDENT: Je vous ai pas vu non plus encourager vos 6,000 membres et leur famille de s’abonner à Crave, à Shomi, à illico ou à Tou.tv, n’est-ce pas?

9832 M. ROGER: Non, c'est un fait. Les gens font des choix.

9833 LE PRÉSIDENT: Quatre compagnies canadiennes.

9834 M. ROGER: Oui, oui, tout à fait, tout à fait. J’en suis avec vous. Mais faut voir comment on peut financer quand même la production locale et c'est ça la grande question je pense ici devant vous là.

9835 LE PRÉSIDENT: Quand vous dites que d’autres pays ont choisi d’agir, bon, effectivement la Chine a tendance à règlementer la libre circulation d’information sur le web. Y a certains pays au Moyen-Orient aussi. Qui d’autre?

9836 Me FERLAND: L’Argentine. L’Argentine a imposé une redevance sur l’utilisation de tout écran national, que ce soit le téléphone, que ce soit la télévision, que ce soit le cinéma. Y a aussi la ville de Chicago qui est en train d’élaborer ---

9837 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous avez mentionné d’autres pays. On a l’Argentine.

9838 M. MACEROLA: Oui.

9839 LE PRÉSIDENT: Nos partenaires majeurs économiques, est-ce qu’il y en a dans cette liste?

9840 M. MACEROLA: France a déjà -- la France a déjà commencé à intervenir au niveau du cinéma et a l’intention de poursuivre d’après ce que j’ai cru comprendre. Et pour moi c'est pas une question de dire aux gens désabonnez-vous puis abonnez-vous au canadien. C'est ---

9841 LE PRÉSIDENT: Pourquoi pas?

9842 M. MACEROLA: C'est une possibilité ---

9843 LE PRÉSIDENT: C'est les règles du marché.

9844 M. MACEROLA: C'est une possibilité. C'est les règles du marché mais d'un autre côté, quand vous avez des étrangers qui viennent utiliser les infrastructures, qui viennent s’adresser à un public qui a été formé par les Canadiens, moi je pense qu’il pourrait y avoir une redevance qui pourrait être demandée.

9845 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui. Mais je vais vous inviter la prochaine fois à faire vos devoirs avant de faire ça, puis premièrement en nous expliquant comment cette action serait conforme à l’article 9(4) de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

9846 Deuxièmement, avec de la preuve qu’y a un consensus social à cet effet-là en posant une question claire qui comprend de dire aux Canadiens si vous êtes en faveur d'une telle redevance, vous pouvez accepter aussi que vos frais d'abonnement vont augmenter.

9847 Et troisièmement, faudrait faire vos devoirs sur, outre le cadre législatif, nos obligations dans nos traités internationaux et voir en quoi cette action-là serait conforme à nos ententes.

9848 M. ROGER: Est-ce que je peux me permettre un commentaire?

9849 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui.

9850 M. ROGER: Oui, ben évidemment, c'est sûr qu’avec les traités internationaux, ça complique la vie de beaucoup de choses mais moi je voudrais juste rappeler un fait historique. C'est que dans les années ’80, début des années ’80, on a eu peur dans ce pays parce que la télédistribution par satellite est arrivée et on voyait pousser les soucoupes à l’intérieur du pays. Les gens s’abonnaient à des réseaux de distribution américains. Donc on préférait regarder la télévision américaine que canadienne et c'est à ce moment-là qu’on a réagi ici au Canada pour dire on va créer des fonds pour financer de la production nationale.

9851 Moi je me rappelle très bien qu’au Québec par exemple au début des années ’80, les 10 émissions les plus regardées ben c'était les « Dallas » et « Dynasty » de ce monde. Ce n'est plus le cas au Québec parce qu’on a un système qui permet de financer du divertissement avec le fond des médias et là les 10 émissions les plus regardées au Québec c'est des émissions produites au Québec. Mais c'est pour ça je veux dire que pour la télévision locale si on veut la conserver, faut trouver des solutions.

9852 LE PRÉSIDENT: Ben l’historique prouve aussi que ces fonds-là avaient été créés avant l’arrivée des satellites. C'est un fond qui avait été créé par le CRTC dans la transaction Maclean Hunter qui est devenue le fond de la télévision, bien avant l’arrivée des satellites. Donc je crois que votre mémoire historique est incomplète.

9853 M. ROGER: Est-ce que je pourrais vous envoyer des documents avec votre permission, Monsieur Blais?

9854 LE PRÉSIDENT: J’étais aux premières loges, monsieur. Donc je m’en rappelle très bien. O.k.?

9855 M. ROGER: O.k.

9856 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et c’est vrai que l’arrivée des satellites a ajouté plus d’argent dans le fond. Ça j’en conviens.

9857 M. ROGER: O.k., c'est ---

9858 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais c'est l’explosion des -- du fait qu’il y avait des abonnements au-delà des systèmes câblés dans des zones qui historiquement n’avaient pas accès à la télévision câblée.

9859 M. ROGER: Oui, mais ce qui a aidé beaucoup aussi j’pense ç'a été l’ampleur des fonds-là pour dire qu’on allait se mettre en -- qu’on allait mettre en place un système de production véritablement au pays pour ---

9860 LE PRÉSIDENT: Ça existe encore.

9861 M. ROGER: Pardon?

9862 LE PRÉSIDENT: Ça existe encore.

9863 M. ROGER: Oui, ça existe encore mais c'est de plus en plus difficile en ce moment, comme je vous dis, pour les diffuseurs et moi j’pense que les diffuseurs, oui, vont acheter du contenu pour le divertissement. Moi j’trouve que ces fonds-là fournissement énormément d’argent pour le divertissement mais je ne comprends pas qu’on puisse pas arriver à mettre en place une façon de financer l’information dans ce pays-là et l’information c'est le droit du public à l’information. C'est la base de la démocratie dans ce pays et ça j’ai beaucoup de difficulté avec ça.

9864 LE PRÉSIDENT: Sur ça on peut être d’accord. C'est sur les moyens peut-être qu’on peut être en désaccord.

9865 M. ROGER: Voilà.

9866 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et puis c'est pour des citoyens, pas des consommateurs.

9867 M. MACEROLA: Mais si je peux me permettre, nous allons, comme vous nous l’avez suggéré, continuer à faire nos devoirs et c'est bien évident qu’on voudrait que ce débat-là devienne public et vous faites référence à la Loi de la radiodiffusion. S’il y a une volonté politique, y a une volonté politique à ce moment-là pour établir un cadre. Et en cinéma, on nous avait toujours répondu y a telle loi, y a les étrangers, y a les relations internationales. Et Madame MacDonald, la ministre du temps, a passé à ça d’avoir la possibilité de mettre une taxe sur le box-office.

9868 Par conséquent, pour nous, on pense que c’est un dossier important, si ce n’est que pour avoir des réponses à donner à nos gens pour que tout le monde soit assuré qu’il n’y a personne qui vient faire, comment je vous dirais bien, des revenus éhontés sur le dos des Canadiens.

9869 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et par même occasion au Québec, Mme Bacon avait adopté un régime en vertu de la Loi sur le cinéma et puis la conséquence de ça c’est que les produits de Warner Bros ont été retirés du marché québécois pendant plusieurs mois, sinon des années.

9870 Donc il y a des conséquences quand on ---

9871 M. MACEROLA: Il y a des conséquences et il faut ---

9872 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc il faudrait peut-être être clair aussi avec le public quand on propose des solutions qu’il y a des conséquences.

9873 M. MACEROLA: Vous êtes sûr qu’on va l’être.

9874 LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k. Merci. Je pense que ce sont nos questions.

9875 Madame la secrétaire?

9876 Merci beaucoup pour votre comparution.

9877 M. MACEROLA: Merci.

9878 LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci.

9879 I would now ask the Community Media Policy Working Group to come to the presentation table.

9880 (SHORT PAUSE)

9881 THE SECRETARY: Please introduce yourself, and you have 10 minutes.

9882 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I see there’s a lot of familiar faces. I hope you haven’t changed your opinions on issues.

PRESENTATION

9883 MS. EDWARDS: Good afternoon, Chairman Blais, Commissioners Dupras, Simpson, MacDonald and Molnar. I am Cathy Edwards, Chair of the Community Media Working Group, which is conducting research under a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant into Canada's policy needs for community media in the digital environment. Four of the collaborators on this grant are community media practitioners drawn from community TV, radio, online community media, and gaming. Five are academics and community media policy leaders including Associate Professor Kirsten Kozolanka and Professor Dwayne Winseck of the School of Journalism and Communications at Carleton University, Professor Robert Hackett of Simon Fraser University, Professor Emeritus Florian Sauvageau from the University of Laval, and Clifford Lincoln. The latter group provided the project with guidance and research oversight.

9884 Three of the community media practitioners who made the grant application sit before you, including myself, Darryl Richardson, who you met this morning, of the online community media platform, The Media Coop, and David Murphy, a member of the Hand Eye Society, a community gaming organization, and a Ph.D. candidate in Communications and Culture at York and Ryerson Universities.

9885 Since obtaining the grant, we have added members to the Working Group as needed to carry out the research, which is not yet complete. Among those additional consultants here today are Victoria Fenner, at the far end, a community radio veteran and first president of the Community Radio Fund of Canada. She is now the executive producer of the rabble podcast network with the online publication rabble.ca, and Andre Desrochers, to my right, of CSUR LA TÉLÉ and a past-President of the FédéTVC. Andre has provided insight from francophone practitioners.

9886 Finally, before making our comments, we would like to thank you sincerely for extending the written comment deadline to allow the findings from the Community Media Convergence to be included on the public record of this proceeding.

9887 In our January 5th submission we summarized our research to date, drawing on the Community Media Policy survey and focus groups we conducted in the fall, and on data presented during the Community Media Convergence in November.

9888 With regard to your Working Paper published on January 12th, we have decided to highlight today those parts of our research that address the questions in this paper as well as issues raised in this hearing by yourselves and other interveners.

9889 MS. FENNER: The Working Group started its research by asking respondents to the Community Media Policy survey where they source local information: 68.8 percent said from the Internet; 33.9 from the radio; 28.6 from newspapers, and only 19.8 percent from television.

9890 Since the Let's Talk TV Harris/Decima survey asked respondents only what they valued on TV, we question whether there is a crisis in local TV news production -- or we question whether a crisis in local TV news production is necessarily a crisis in local information ecologies as a whole. With the plethora of online information available, most local information required to function in a community is easiest to access on-demand.

9891 Television news is expensive to produce, has a short shelf-life, and on any given day scrapes only the surface of what is going on in a community. Are Canadians who said they value local news specifically craving a traditional news broadcast, or might they be craving the sense of belonging that local live broadcasts engender?

9892 This is a role that community television also plays, and more comprehensively. The data on record does not support taking money from community TV, which has the sole mandate to produce local content, in order to create one specific category of conventional TV, whose heyday may be past. There may be a greater role for TV going forward in airing content with a longer shelf-life.

9893 82.8 percent of respondents to the Community Media Policy survey do not think support for community media should be redirected to conventional TV news.

9894 MR. RICHARDSON: Over 95 percent of Community Media Policy survey respondents and focus group participants underlined the need for adequate and stable non­commercial funding for all community media, including TV. They, as well as participants to the Community Media Convergence, shared the impacts of the financial crisis in the sector: many Canadians have no access to community media, and the situation has worsened as community newspapers and TV channels have closed; staff burnout and high turnover, leading to management instability and lower production quality; reduced community outreach due to insufficient staffing and; inadequate self-promotion and visibility across multiple platforms.

9895 Our policy recommendations 17 and 18 are:

9896 "Stable and adequate sources of non-

commercial operational funding need to be identified and developed for all community media ... and should be reflective of trends in digital convergence."

9897 MS. FENNER: Themes I and VI in our policy recommendations regarding the role and accessibility of community media address the different roles of community media in urban and rural environments:

9898 "Community media offer hyperlocal

reflection in neighbourhoods, small rural communities, and to underserved groups and voices in urban settings"

9899 While we understand the Commission's concern for rural markets underserved by conventional and community media, we reaffirm the need for community media in urban markets, where it ensures a voice for niche voices. As Professor Winseck discussed at the Community Media Convergence, conventional media in urban areas is provided by vertically integrated entities. The need for community media has increased proportionally.

9900 MR. MURPHY: As a research body, we can provide perspective on the anomaly in management of community TV by the private sector. We were surprised to hear Commissioner Molnar use the term “radical” to describe the idea that community TV stations should be managed by not-for-profits.

9901 It's not radical but self-evident in other jurisdictions, and not-for-profit community ownership is recognized in Canada for low-power community TV, and in community radio. In the new media sphere, it is not private companies that are benevolently offering gaming workshops to the public to improve their media literacy. It is public service organizations such as libraries and not-for-profits such as the Hand Eye Society, to which I belong.

9902 Since the first community TV hearings in the 1970s, Canadians have asked why cable companies manage the resources for community TV, when, for example, our US neighbours enfranchised not-for-profit boards from the outset. It's not that we won't license not-for-profit community TV and radio -- we do -- we just don't resource them adequately. Meanwhile, we bail out the private sector every time there is an economic downturn or a new business model that threatens incumbent ones.

9903 M. DESROCHERS: Le rapport écrit par Messieurs Caplan et Sauvageau sur la radiodiffusion publié en 1986 recommandait que la radiodiffusion communautaire s'organise autour de l'attribution de licence à des organisations sans but lucratif.

9904 Comme c'est ce rapport qui a servi de base pour inclure l'élément communautaire dans la Loi, notre proposition d'attribution d'une licence à des organisations sans but lucratif n'est certainement pas incongrue, voire « radicale ». Exprimant en commentaire sur le document de travail, M. Sauvageau nous a écrit :

9905 "Notre système de radiodiffusion

compte trois secteurs qui doivent participer chacun à leur façon à réaliser l'ensemble des objectifs prévus par la loi, contribuant ainsi à la diversité si essentielle à l'ère des grands groupes et de la convergence. Si l'on demande aux médias communautaires de réaliser des émissions à la façon des stations professionnelles, on perd de vue leur rôle spécifique.”

9906 Le rapport Lincoln soulignait également en 2003 le besoin de supporter financièrement les médias communautaires sans but lucratif et de donner une plus grande accessibilité aux citoyens. Voici ce que M. Lincoln, actuellement à l’extérieur du pays, nous a demandé de partager avec vous -- désolé pour mon accent :

9907 “What I find very disappointing ...

is the thrust of the study which I chaired went to great lengths to press for substantial attention to Community Broadcasting in its broadest context - certainly not to favour one component at the expense of another.”

9908 MS. EDWARDS: Finally, we’d like to comment on the training role of community media, whose importance was affirmed by survey respondents and therefore in our policy recommendations.

9909 Training offered by community media organizations is not just a philanthropic exercise to provide Canadians with media literacy and digital skills, although those are crucial, training is the bridge between the raw storytelling capacity of Canadians and the packaging of their ideas for audiences. Community members come to media centres seeking guidance to make the best product they can. They volunteer their time, and they want it to count.

9910 The employees of community media organizations, when adequately resourced, are broadcast school graduates or have equivalent experience. It’s their job to help community members reach their peers. There is no conflict between the stories communities want to tell and the stories the community wants to hear when community media is fulfilling its mandate. This is what distinguishes community media from the random and unmoderated opinions that abound on the internet.

9911 The elected structure of a not-for-profit community media organization also ensures that the output meets the community’s needs. If the community decides, for example, as we heard from Mr. Sabulsky from Chetwynd, that emergency alerting is a priority, then training and staffing can be directed to that need. If the community decides that there is a lack of local news and information, the community media centre is the resource that can be directed to that need.

9912 Commissioner Molnar asked what a community media centre looks like in her questions to CACTUS. The multimedia centre in Grand Rapids, Michigan was mentioned. As this centre was the subject of a video presented during the Community Media Convergence, we think it would be helpful to this proceeding to show. There are three media types shown in the video, TV, radio and online media. HackLabs that teach gaming have been added since the video was made.

9913 (VIDEO PRESENTATION/PRÉSENTATION VIDÉO)

9914 MS. EDWARDS: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this proceeding, and we welcome any questions that you may have.

9915 THE CHAIRPERSON: Before I pass it to Commissioner Molnar, I just wanted to say that although we may not have strict rules of evidence, such as hearsay, you will understand that quotes from individuals who aren’t before us and therefore can’t answer questions, will have to be received appropriate weight.

9916 And, you know, I was the Assistant Deputy Minister that was responsible to propose recommendations to the government to the Lincoln Report, and if you look carefully at the Lincoln Report, at the time the news on TV was very strong and making lots of money. Thirteen (13) years is a long time.

9917 Commissioner Molnar?

9918 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: So before I get into questions, I guess I need to defend myself since you’ve said that I suggested the CACTUS approach was a radical idea. And so I take the transcript, which is available to you as well, and I talked about a radical change, which is a change from what exists today. I checked the definition, as I’m sure you did as well, that said it was relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something far reaching or thorough. So I stand by the word that it was a radical change to suggest we go to central community hubs.

9919 THE CHAIRPERSON: I see people nodding at the witness table.

9920 MS. EDWARDS: Acknowledging the comment.

9921 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Anyway, let’s get on. Before I get into questions regarding your policy recommendations, let’s just clarify the research upon which it was based.

9922 This survey and research, if I understand, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, was research of the community media sector. Is that true? What’s the basis of the research?

9923 MS. EDWARDS: You mean how was it conducted, or the goals are you asking?

9924 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: No, I’m looking at who participated in this research and looking at your response. It’s Appendix C to your own evidence. And it says:

9925 “We did a survey and focus groups

conducted among community media networks in the fall of 2015.”

9926 So this research that you’re referencing here, is it simply among the community network or were there others surveyed? Who all is it intended to represent?

9927 MS. EDWARDS: Sure. So it was not intended to be like an audience or listenership general research of the Canadian population, it was intended to research new policy avenues to support community media in the digital environment. So the intent was to reach out to as many Canadians that are aware of community media, listen to it, watch it, play it that we could reach to find out whether they think it’s meeting its potential.

9928 So to that end, we distributed the survey online. It was an online survey. The focus groups of course were held in-person. And the online survey was distributed through all of the associations that represent community media in Canada where there weren’t umbrella associations.

9929 So, for example, in the gaming sector that was David’s role in the research group was to make us aware of all the groups that he knew of in the country and to research whether there was any more to make sure that those groups received the survey.

9930 So it was -- and again, we had one practitioner on the panel to make sure it was distributed as widely as possible among those sectors. And it was publicly available online on organizations such as the website for the Media Coop, rabble.ca, on CACTUS’ website, and so on.

9931 So anyone could fill it out but we wanted to make sure that people that understood what community media is supposed to do could meaningfully contribute. For example, we decided early on not to have random focus groups of Canadians because we felt we’d end up having to explain because many Canadians don’t understand community media what it is and then we’re leading them and asking well what do you think we should do with it.

9932 So the intent was to go to groups that already know and individual users of community media to get them to assess how well it’s serving them now. So that’s how it was -- that was the goal and that’s how it was distributed.

9933 The focus groups ---

9934 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: So you’re not suggesting that this reflects a broader perspective; that this is reflective of communities -- community citizen participants? This is subgroup?

9935 MS. EDWARDS: It reflects as broad a group of community citizen participants in community media as we could find.

9936 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: In community media.

9937 MS. EDWARDS: That’s right.

9938 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Yeah, because I noted that 70 percent of the respondents had university degrees, which is certainly not reflective of the population.

9939 MS. EDWARDS: Agreed, we found that that was an interesting finding as well, and Michael flagged that in his report.

9940 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Yeah, okay. My first question -- and I -- my questions are really in order of the policy recommendations that you made here. So my first question relates to your recommendation that different roles in urban and rural shall be recognized. À And in the document you provided -- I don’t even know -- I know you’ve provided hundreds of pages of documentation on this record, so this one is dated January 6th, and the document -- and I don’t think it has a page number, anyway there's a -- there's a comment here that:

9941 “Numerous individual respondents

pointed to inequities in current funding approaches by region, urban versus rural, by province, by medium and by BDU licensing area.”

9942 MS. EDWARDS: M'hm.

9943 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: What are the inequities that ---

9944 MS. EDWARDS: Okay.

9945 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: --- are being identified there?

9946 MS. EDWARDS: Let me just write those down so I can respond to them, because you raised about six. So it was by BDU ---

9947 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Well I just read a sentence from your submission.

9948 MS. EDWARDS: Yeah, I just want them as -- province, BDU, medium ---

9949 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: By region, by province, by medium and by BDU licensing area.

9950 MS. EDWARDS: Okay. So in Canada there's differences in the way BDUs -- this is community TV of course limited fund community media, so for example in Quebec there's a tradition that Videotron and Cogeco and some of the smaller cable companies do contribute to not-for-profit groups, whereas there isn't in other provinces.

9951 In -- André may want to comment on this, there's differences in funding between community radio and community television within the province of Quebec -- and maybe Al who’s part of the working group -- also the “Directrice de la fédération” said that community TV channels typically get about -- this is the not-for-profit TVCs -- typically get about half as much as a community radio channel in Quebec for historical reasons, even though it’s more expensive.

9952 Other provinces don’t have a “Ministère de culture et condition féminine » that contributed all to independent community TV. So there's quite a lot of variation.

9953 Gaming groups -- again, jump in if you want to elaborate on the Quebec situation -- gaming groups and online media survive on project funding most of them, or arts grants and so on, there's no steady operational funding. So there's just -- that’s the difference among the media.

9954 MR. MURPHY: Yeah, I was going to mention a lot of the gaming groups, they're very urban-located. So it’s a very, very new cultural industry when we’re comparing that to let’s say film or television, even though gaming’s been around for probably about 40 years now. We’re just seeing an emergence of community groups doing this type of production, it's a very exciting time for us in gaming because we find it provides wonderful outreach to the young people.

9955 And unfortunately, yeah, I mean we are hoping to find some more community groups in rural areas, but we’re hoping that existing community groups -- let’s say within the Toronto or Montreal area -- can help develop production models that then can hopefully be shared amongst other communities in rural areas, so we can share our knowledge and help to, you know, create some more synergies in terms of community media production in Canada.

9956 MS. EDWARDS: And regarding the rural/urban split I think was the last category you asked about, I believe you're aware of the -- that less funding available to BDU community television in rural areas just because it’s a percentage of what's available in the licence area, and that translates into other sectors too. So for example, community radio channels, many of which survive on advertising, there's less market that they can draw in rural areas. So I think that was the five -- there's a lot of variation.

9957 And I think that was the -- one of the interesting things that I found in Michael’s report, was his conclusion that it’s not that the policy goals for community media are off base, but there's variability both among the policies for different media community and TV, there's no policy for new media, or the way they're applied on the ground don’t always lead to the results that were anticipated, rather than if there's a failure of vision in the first place, and I thought that was really interesting.

9958 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: I want to ask about gaming and it’s Mr. Murphy; correct? Yeah.

9959 MR. MURPHY: Yes, it is.

9960 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: It says in your document:

9961 “There is a lack of policy leadership

and support for new community media genres including online community media and socially oriented and locally reflective gaming, including media literacy training around gaming.”

9962 Are you proposing that there's a role for the CRTC related to that?

9963 MR. MURPHY: I mean we’re hoping in terms of the new media landscape that there can potentially be a role for convergence, right, between community television and the gaming sector, so we can hopefully cross-pollinate. We’re also hoping perhaps for a sharing of resources in terms of things like space.

9964 A lot of gaming organizations that are just opening up, they're running on very, very low budgets, and they actually in some cases can't even afford to have space, which worries me as a volunteer in terms of seeing some really amazing programs and some amazing community development models that people are developing. Like I said, it's been very useful in terms of reaching out to youth, and so ---

9965 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: So you would see a role for the CRTC in policy leadership regarding gaming?

9966 MR. MURPHY: I think it’s a wonderful opportunity, definitely, yeah.

9967 MS. EDWARDS: If I could add, games aren’t strictly defined as broadcasting at the moment, but they can be if they're distributed on online platforms. And for example, in the Canada Media fund we see there's an experimental stream just for rules-based content, and there's also an encouragement in the main stream that traditional broadcasting has digital online components.

9968 And so we’re seeing groups like the National Film Board and for example, TVO. Two of the games that were presented at the community meeting convergence that we felt were really relevant to community media practitioners to open up the boxes that we’re in, the NFB has co-released a documentary -- it’s an episodic multi-documentary called “Fort McMoney” about the oil industry, with a game. And the idea being that, you know, traditional television viewers could experience that world in another way by getting to engage in it and ask their own questions.

9969 And similarly, TVO launched a simultaneous traditional documentary project called “Pipe Trouble” with a game that was intended to engage a younger audience in understanding the tensions in, you know, within that industry with the environmental concerns and so on. So it’s being used as an additional tool to enhance broadcasting and engage audiences in a new way.

9970 MS. FENNER: I think the main point is that media is changing so rapidly around us that what we were looking for was a creative way of bringing all these sectors together, and we don’t know what convergence is going to look like even in the next five years. There could be a way that television, for example, integrates directly with gaming and with the internet. And so looking at it, envisioning ahead and looking forward to the future to what our media landscape could look like, is I think what all of us were -- were trying to do with part of this -- this visioning process.

9971 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: That’s fair. Theme 4 in your policy recommendations relate to copyright and intellectual property. We’ve heard a little bit here and I’m certainly no expert on copyright at all, but your recommendation is essentially -- I’ve got to find it again here ---

9972 MS. EDWARDS: Number 11 I think.

9973 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: It is -- it is number 11 and it kind of asks a lot of questions.

9974 MS. EDWARDS: M'hm.

9975 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: “Further study is required by a copyright committee with legal expertise to explore issues.” Is that something where you see that there is some kind of role required by the Commission or that’s separate and outside of our -- of what you're expecting of us?

9976 MS. EDWARDS: So the research undertaken under the shared grant wasn’t just undertaken with a view to sharing the results with the CRTC, it was also anticipated that it might be shared with other government departments like Industry Canada, Heritage, possibly the new -- it used to be called Industry Canada, but the new Science Innovation and -- I’m sorry, I’m forgetting some of the new titles -- but our anticipation was that it might have implications for different government agencies. So the copyright one, you know, this isn't intended to be complete as far as everything that was raised as research issues for community media, but they’re not all necessarily actionable by the CRTC.

9977 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay. Would you say that’s the same for your recommendations regarding digital -- I find that word difficult -- digitalized skills training?

9978 MS. EDWARDS: Well two answers, the CRTC has in the current Code of access Best Practices for Community TV, since this is a TV hearing, stuck its toe in in the past in making a decision that was really useful as a community television practitioner for many producers out there that had had difficulty -- for example, wanting to share their content on multiple platforms, not just cable TV.

9979 So it doesn’t have the force of law, but it’s been really useful out there in the field for community TV practitioners to say, you know, “Look, in this Code of Access Best Practices, I’m supposed to have copyright.” So, I mean, there are recommendations there and influence that the CRTC can have.

9980 As far as digital skills training, it’s always been -- it’s an explicit part of community TV policy that community channels have been supposed to offer training to the public. So as we move into a digital era, I would expect that that would be continued to be one of the goals of your community policy. I don’t know why it would disappear. I would think it would be more important than ever.

9981 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: But within your community hub and all your platforms, you would be looking for different avenues for training? You’re not simply looking to the community TV funding and community TV resources to provide skills training across your media hub?

9982 MS. EDWARDS: I’m not sure if I understand your question.

9983 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Your media hub, as I understand it, will incorporate many different components. There’s the libraries and the training and so on that they’re proposing to do.

9984 MS. EDWARDS: Okay. So you’re talking about the CACTUS proposal that was presented last week?

9985 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Is it different than this? I mean, I see no difference. There’s two documents and the same people. So ---

9986 MS. EDWARDS: Well, the CACTUS was coming from an industry association representing community TV practitioners.

9987 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: So this recommendation on skills training in here ---

9988 MS. EDWARDS: Right.

9989 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: --- it is directly related to the CRTC and its requirement for training, or this is something you would propose impacts a number of different industries?

9990 MS. EDWARDS: So the Community Media Policy Working Group, through the survey and feedback we got from media practitioners on all platforms, are concerned that there’s training needs.

9991 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: M’hm.

9992 MS. EDWARDS: So that’s what’s reflected here.

9993 In terms of this community television proceeding, training has been a part of their traditional policy. So certainly we think it’s consistent. If we’re moving into a digital television universe, then training in community television would need to take into account digital tools.

9994 Does that answer your question?

9995 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Okay.

9996 Actually, based on the fact that this is broader than just our community TV review, I’m going to skip a couple of my questions such as community ownership of broadband infrastructure.

9997 Just one more questions as it regards funding. In Policy Recommendation 19, it states that:

9998 “There should be further consultation

both with media organizations and the general public to determine an appropriate approach to the presence of advertising and sponsorship.”

9999 MS. EDWARDS: M’hm.

10000 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: What is it you would propose go further on this consultation? Is that work that you’re proposing be done by your working group?

10001 MS. EDWARDS: Yes. So in addition to having more -- a subcommittee look at copyright in the future, we see that a subcommittee needs to resolve some issues around -- that came up at the Community Media Forum in November around the status of coops, whether they’re not-for-profit, for-profit. There’s a lot of different models. We realized that we lacked clarity on it in terms of governance.

10002 And thirdly, the other big issue that came up where there wasn’t consensus -- there was a majority view but not consensus, and it was clear that it needed more wide discussion across sectors was around the use of advertising in community media.

10003 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: And sponsorship?

10004 MS. EDWARDS: And sponsorship.

10005 COMMISSIONER MOLNAR: Yes, okay. Those are my questions. Thank you.

10006 THE CHAIRPERSON: I’ll turn to my colleagues. No.

10007 Legal? No.

10008 Thank you very much. Those are our questions.

10009 MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.

10010 LE PRÉSIDENT: Madame la secrétaire.

10011 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

10012 We will now connect to the Toronto CRTC office.

10013 Hi, how are you?

10014 MR. AMBROSE: Hi.

10015 MR. HIGGINS: Good afternoon.

10016 THE SECRETARY: So we will now hear the presentation of Regent Park Focus Youth Media Arts Centre. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues and you have 10 minutes.

PRESENTATION:

10017 MR. HIGGINS: Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Adonis Huggins and I am the Executive Director of the Regent Park Focus Youth Media Arts Centre.

10018 With me is Kerry Ambrose. She’s the Partnership Development Coordinator for the organization, and Vina Vo, a youth participant of the program.

10019 First we wish to start up by playing a short video introducing yourselves to who we are. I hope you can see it.

10020 (VIDEO PRESENTATION/PRÉSENTATION VIDÉO)

10021 MR. HIGGINS: Sorry, we had to cut that off for time reasons.

10022 But to continue, Regent Park is situated on 69 acres of land close to Downtown Toronto. Until recently, it was home to 10,000 residents. Regent Park is Canada’s oldest and largest public housing community. Originally designed in 1947, it has served as a primary immigrant reception area for low-income families and has developed into one of Canada’s most ethno-culturally diverse communities.

10023 Currently, Regent Park is undergoing a massive redevelopment. After completion, Regent Park will be a mixed-income community with double the population, interconnected streets, retail and many attractive amenities.

10024 Established in 1990, Regent Park Focus Youth Media Arts Centre is a not-for-profit organization initially funded as part of a provincial government program to promote health in vulnerable communities and address the need for interventions for high-risk youth.

10025 Originally, we were housed in a decrepit basement of a public housing apartment building. The organization began using media arts as an intervention activity to engage young people in countering negative stereotypes. Community youth responded so positively to these initiatives that, by 1995, media arts had become the primary intervention strategy.

10026 Regent Park Focus is now housed in a 4,500 square-feet purpose-built facility leased from the City of Toronto and serves as a multi-media, community radio and television broadcast centre dedicated to three main objectives: the development of best practices in training, education and engagement of young people in radio and television broadcasting and digital arts; the creation and broadcast of media content that is relevant to the information needs, interests and health of young people and residents living in Regent Park and; building social cohesion by profiling the Regent Park neighbourhood’s cultural life, providing community members with opportunities to learn from each other, voice their experiences, share their stories, and explore issues of relevance.

10027 The Regent Park Focus facility is home to Radio Regent, a 24-hour, non-commercial, broadband radio station that is publicly accessible on the internet and mobile devices. Radio Regent provides residents and members of the general public with free access to a professional radio studio for developing and airing internet radio broadcasts, and more than 50 dedicated volunteer programmers from across the City are involved. In a recent Wondershare listing of 50 top online radio stations for news, spoken word and music, Radio Regent was ranked 38th.

10028 In addition to the Radio Regent studios, there is a new media lab onsite to support video editing, digital print activities, and potentially game design.

10029 The impetus to build a youth-operated community television station with its own dedicated channel emerged both from the need to engage young people as well as from identified community need for effective communications among residents. Years of anecdotal evidence and surveys carried out by the Toronto Community Housing and others have consistently indicated that residents want information about news, services, opportunities and events in their community. And the lack of that information, especially culturally relevant information, is a barrier to resident engagement.

10030 Respondents to the national Community Media Policy Survey, in late 2015, reported the same qualitative link between access to local information and resident engagement in their communities.

10031 With the current upheaval due to the billion dollar revitalization of Regent Park, the need for a channel that helps residents and community organizations stay informed, contribute to decision making, and adjust to the changes taking place is, in our minds, critical.

10032 In 2008, when the redevelopment was first announced, Regent Park Focus approached Toronto Community Housing and Daniels Corporation, the builders of Regent Park, with a plan for a youth-operated community television channel serving Regent Park. Our idea was that community access channel would build on our long history of media production and working with youth in the community. The proposed channel would feature broadcasts in a multiple of formats, including animation, news, documentaries, public service announcements, talk shows, spoken word, short dramas, music videos, event and meeting coverage, and televised radio studio shows.

10033 Young people would lead the productions and take on roles as script writers, directors, interview hosts, camera operators, control room switchers, post-production editors, and sound engineers. Youth would also collaborate and partner with adult community residents and leaders to ensure that their voices and stories would also be heard.

10034 Toronto Community Housing and Daniels both supported the idea and, in 2010, they brought Rogers Communications to the partnership as the preferred telecommunications provider of Regent Park. Rogers agreed to provide Rogers’ subscribers, which represent 62 percent of Regent Park households, with the proposed dedicated community-access channel, along with seven years of operating support in the amount of $30,000 yearly from the Rogers Youth Fund.

10035 By leveraging this commitment, Regent Park Focus was able to raise $180,000 required to equip the facility with a television control room, a broadcast studio, and professional HD studio cameras.

10036 This was done through raising -- through grants from foundations and government.

10037 Despite launching Regent Park TV in May of 2013 and engaging over 250 youth participants yearly in various production activities, I am disheartened to say that Rogers has not fulfilled its commitment. The dedicated channel that Rogers provided to Regent Park Focus is analogue and cannot be accessed by digital cable subscribers, with the result that few residents can actually see the channel.

10038 Instead, we archive Regent Park TV content on our website and promote it through YouTube. We have received indications from Rogers thankfully that the company will finally allocate a digital channel to Regent Park TV in the next few months. Unfortunately, Rogers’ seven-year monetary commitment to assist with our operations that was so crucial since 2013 is scheduled to end in 2017, impairing our vision to provide at least 12 hours of original content weekly.

10039 Regent Park Focus is in full support of the CACTUS proposal to create a new Community-Access Media Fund to which community-based not-for-profit organizations would apply for a Community Access License and operational funding to manage their own community media centres and TV stations.

10040 We were interested to hear Commissioner Molnar ask CACTUS where an example of community media centre is located. We feel we’re the model.

10041 We offer TV, radio and online content from a single facility. In addition to offering free access to media production equipment, we also provide workshops in media literacy, opportunities for mentorship, food and training supports that enable marginalized young people and adults to create an autonomous space where they can explore their identities, voice experience, and create their own narratives of self, which may challenge dominant ideas and mainstream media perceptions about who they are.

10042 We just lack distribution access and funding supports necessary to enable us to broadcast to our constituencies in Regent Park.

10043 Moreover, many of our productions would benefit from having a broader audience than Regent Park, and we look forward to collaborating with the Toronto Community Media Network, from whom you have heard this morning.

10044 And now I will introduce Kerry.

10045 MS. AMBROSE: Currently, our annual operating expenses for Regent Park Focus is approximately 300,000. As we receive only 60,000 in yearly operating from arts councils and 30,000 from Rogers, Regent Park Focus must raise over 200,000 each year in additional project funding, which leads to many financial uncertainties and the constant fear that we may have to lay staff off or discontinue programming, losing the expertise we have built to date.

10046 As a result, much of our staffing resources are devoted to fundraising and administration of grants. Furthermore, our broadcast content is driven by special project funding, which limits our ability to carry out non-funded productions, including local newscasts, coverage of community events and collaborations with residents.

10047 Stable operating funding from a CAMF fund would assist Regent Park Focus in building its capacity to engage youth, including high-needs, newcomer, and marginalized youth populations; fund high quality training initiatives; produce more community-led, hyper-local broadcasts; and better keep up with the rapidly changing technologies.

10048 A Community Access licence from the Commission would mean that cable subscribers with Bell and other competing BDUs would also have access to Regent Park Television, not just Rogers Cable subscribers.

10049 Communal media arts practices like those employed by Regent Park Focus support young people in producing content that is insightful, contributes to their community, and enables them to imagine alternative futures. Participants feel that their contributions are important and that they can be agents of change in their own lives and in the wider community.

10050 For our closing, I wish to introduce Vina Vo, a young person from Regent Park and an exemplary RPTV program alumna.

10051 MS. VO: Hi everyone.

10052 My name is Vina Vo and I have been fortunate enough to be with Regent Park Focus for the past three years. Now, they have provided me with such a strong platform to helping me accomplish my goal of becoming a future broadcast journalist.

10053 I have actually gone to two different colleges for media training and nothing has beat the hands-on learning experience and the advocacy opportunities that I have received from Regent Park Focus.

10054 And not only that, I have met several dozens, and dozens of friends, who actually travel across the City just to come volunteer on our programs.

10055 Now, what makes our program special? Well, our program is unique because it’s based on individuals’ interests, our participants’ passion, and the message that each community group that we invite to come and participate in our program.

10056 You know, so whether a youth is interested in politics, gaming, entertainment or even social justice issues, Regent Park Focus provides a space for all of us to gather, explore, and find out our interests.

10057 And surprisingly enough, a lot of high school decisions, a lot of university, college decisions and career choices, such as mine, have been made because of the positive experience from Regent Park Focus. So I am forever grateful and thank you for letting me speak.

10058 MR. HUGGINS: Thank You. We are happy to take questions.

10059 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for participating in the hearing so far. I will pass you on to Commissioner MacDonald who will start us off.

10060 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Good afternoon. Once again, thanks for taking part in the proceeding today. I have a few questions just because I’d like to learn a little bit more about your organization. I think it’s always valuable to learn about and hear from people that are actually out there on the ground day after day doing some of this good work.

10061 So I would like to ask some of those questions and then I’ve got a couple of other questions I’d like to ask.

10062 In the 26 years that you’ve been operating, do you have any sense as to how many young people have gone through your program and been able to benefit from the opportunities that have presented to them?

10063 MR. HUGGINS: Thousands. I mean even when we didn’t have the -- the television studio that we created has like tripled the amount of young people that are currently involved in our program but prior to that we were doing video broadcast productions.

10064 We’re producing the now I didn’t mention here but we’re producing a magazine in which we hand deliver to every household in regent park.

10065 We -- so those were -- and always done the radio studio. So I would say -- you know, it’s hard to say I would easily say at least a 100 youth per year since we’ve been involved and that has just tripled since 2013.

10066 MS. AMBROSE: And indirectly we also participate in a lot of presentations, panel discussions. We’re invited, you know, different places. So that’s indirect engagement with young people in the school settings and community settings as well.

10067 MR. HUGGINS: Yes and the 100 youth that I’m talking about are members who come to the organization on a regular basis. Not -- like we do a lot of one offs but I’m talking about members. Because the young people they actually apply for -- when they do a program with us, they actually apply for a member -- membership. So it’s membership community of youth.

10068 MS. AMBROSE: A barrier free membership, it’s free to register.

10069 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Toronto’s a very large center for individuals that want to develop a career in broadcasting or production or gaming or what have you. Do you have any sort of sense as to how many people that go through your program actually do go on to pursue a career that could have arguably got its start at Regency Park?

10070 MR. HUGINS: We don’t have those kind of numbers, but certainly like in the last three years that we have done our summer program, more and more youth have come to us because that’s where they want to -- that’s their interest. That they want to pursue it professionally and go to school for that.

10071 So that’s what we’re finding. Like 80 percent of young people who are now coming to us is because they’ve identified that media production is where they want to go. Wouldn’t you say that is true?

10072 MS. VO: Yes, so a lot of my friends and I am one of the youth participants and my goal is to eventually, you know, finish the program here at Regent Park Focus and then go on to becoming a news reporter in the future.

10073 The friends that I’ve made at Regent Park Focus they’ve gone out to not only work as graphic artists, some are into movie directing, some are into show producing and most of them are ready to make their -- post-secondary decision into a media sort of program.

10074 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: You mentioned that, I guess, the majority of your annual budget comes from fundraising activities and grant requests.

10075 If you had to place a figure on it, how much of your time would you say is occupied with trying to raise that money on an annual basis, versus actually being able to work with youth and develop programming with them?

10076 MS. AMBROSE: Well we have -- we have artistic staff and we have administrative staff. So we’re still running the artistic programming even though we’re not as well resourced.

10077 We’re very rich in the equipment and capital resources, but the funding resources are an ongoing problem.

10078 And so since -- right prior to the RPTV studio, this has been almost like a full time engagement of trying to source the funding, because it’s a year to year unsustainable situation.

10079 And, you know, we just have to keep continuing to get project grants through foundations and government sources.

10080 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And how many with -- you listed in your original submission the various different programs that you’ve created over the years or worked with young people on.

10081 How many hours of new programming a year would you say that your group is able to create?

10082 MR. HUGGINS: We’re open from the basically noon until eight o’clock in the evening every day. That studio is available. What we’re lacking really is again the distribution channel.

10083 Like we could do live to tape and archive that stuff but really it’s the engagement that is necessary from residents seeing the channel and wanting to be involved; wanting to be involved in doing interviews and so on and producing shows.

10084 Currently we easily can do four hours a week and that’s probably what we do currently in terms of that, but again it’s hard to -- without a distribution channel, it’s hard to motivate people to -- producers to say okay I want to do a weekly show when they know it’s not going to go, you know, and the content is not going to be current by the time it gets on to b broadcast.

10085 So I would say easily four hours though keep in mind we also have a 24 hour radio show, a radio station in which lots of interviews happen in that studio.

10086 We could just provide -- just if we put cameras in the studio alone and their doing interviews that’s four hours easily of content each week.

10087 So we’re talking the TV side, unrelated to the radio. So I would say -- again our goal is easily to do 12 hours of programming each week.

10088 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Okay. And actually that’s a good Segway because the next sort of area I wanted to ask about is sort of the challenges that you faced in trying to get your programming viewed by the residents in your area.

10089 You mentioned in your submission Rogers has about 60 percent of these subscribers in Regent Park. Are the rest with Bell or are there other BDUs that are operating and providing service in the area?

10090 MR. HUGGINS: The rest is with Bell, pretty much.

10091 MS. AMBROSE: And I think we should clarify that these are the new buildings in Regent Park, because Regent Park is undergoing massive revitalizations so they are removing -- putting new buildings in the entire area.

10092 So the stats are from the brand new condos, not the older buildings which are going to be in different phases, being replaced as well. So that number is going to go up.

10093 MR. HUGGINS: So we’re talking 62 percent of all the new residents and buildings that are coming into Regent Park.

10094 MS. AMBROSE: And we’re at the halfway mark of the redevelopment.

10095 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So the people that are able to access on the Rogers analog station are they in the older part of the development as opposed to the new buildings?

10096 MR. HUGGINS: We don’t think very many people are on analog, because and if there in an old building they can still get their digital cable box if they are Rogers providers.

10097 And it wouldn’t make sense because it doesn’t cost much to replace because Rogers wants everybody to replace the analog with the digital boxes.

10098 In terms of, I mean, for us all we’re doing is keeping the signal going so that Rogers could use that signal in terms of what they have to do to give us a digital channel.

10099 We don’t feel that there are very much -- we’re not -- yes, we don’t feel it’s a very worthwhile distribution at this point.

10100 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And you did ---

10101 MR. HUGGINS: The analog channel I’m talking about.

10102 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: You did say that there is a digital channel coming on Rogers, that you’re going to be able to access in a few months?

10103 MR. HUGGINS: Yes, so we’ve -- since they’ve given us the analog they -- the issue was they gave us an analog channel just when they were changing over everything to digital.

10104 And shortly after we realized that we started to say hey well what’s the point of giving us the analog when everyone’s going to be on digital and after the first few months we lost many of our audience that were -- we felt were watching RPTV.

10105 And were part of the launch and the excitement about it. So in terms of -- sorry, I just lost my thought there. Yes, so they’re going to give us the -- it’s still been in discussions and they have made that -- reaffirmed their commitment that they’re going to provide a digital channel shortly.

10106 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And ---

10107 MR. HUGGINS: We hope in the next few months.

10108 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And is -- if Bell is the other BDU operating in your community have they been at all willing to offer a similar digital channel or have you had any conversations with them?

10109 MR. HUGGINS: We have tried to have a conversation with them through the builders of Regent Park, Daniels and Toronto Community Housing.

10110 They feel that Rogers -- that we should at this point just focus on Rogers. I guess they don’t feel that they have the leverage to connect with Bell for some reason.

10111 So we have not had those discussions with Bell to date and right now we’re just -- focus on at least 62 at this point. Sixty-two (62) percent of that, you know, population at this point.

10112 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And what about sort of platforms other than a traditional channel? You -- I believe you said you upload some of your content to YouTube?

10113 Do you find that is an effective mechanism to be able to reach people in your community?

10114 MR. HUGGINS: I -- did you want to say something?

10115 MS. AMBROSE: Sure.

10116 So the YouTube channel’s been around since the very beginning of the YouTube era, so at this point reach of our focus has reached over half a million views on YouTube.

10117 But the question here is also around branding and promoting. You know, where do we send the viewers? So one, we had the analog that no one’s tuning into; two, the digital, we don’t have the number yet, the channel, so everything’s been on hold, and the YouTube admittedly yes, we have a lot of digital content and we have a lot of digital audience members, and that’s great, and that’s another platform that we’ll continue to use.

10118 So meaning that RPTV we have a matching website that matches the closed circuit channel that would be and is accessible on the analog within Regent Park, so then hence mobile users you could also access Regent Park Television through game consoles.

10119 So we’re definitely moving in that -- the new digital era. We’re getting aligned with that as well. But we also need to maintain the television because we feel that’s a way to engage residents in Regent Park community, which is a very vulnerable community, and has, you know, mental health issues and other various residents experiencing vulnerable issues, marginalization.

10120 MR. HUGGINS: And we have a whole promotional strategy that has been waiting for, you know, at least the last two years to outreach to the community around Regent Park TV. So, again, we’re just waiting for Rogers really.

10121 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Okay. Just switching gears for a second. You mentioned one of CACTUS’ proposals today and indicating your support for that organization. One of the ideas that CACTUS put forth last week was the creation of hubs in various different communities that would allow people to access and come in and be able to produce access programming. Would you see your organization under that type of model transition into one of those hubs for the Toronto area?

10122 MR. HUGGINS: Without a question. Definitely. Definitely.

10123 We already -- not only young people come from Regent Park but young people again are coming across the city to participate in our programming, and many of the youth we are getting from the Scarborough area of Toronto. So they’re coming quite a distance to actually take part in the programming.

10124 So I certainly see if there are more hubs such -- and doing the work that we do, I don’t see how that -- I mean, young people will be engaged.

10125 MS. AMBROSE: And we’re also part of the conversation with the Toronto Community Media Network, which is around expanding that -- the impact and having additional distribution resource through a licenced channel, and especially because yes, we engage not only Regent Park youth but, as Adonis said, youth from around the City of Toronto, Pickering, Oakville, you name it, a one of a kind state of the art broadcast television/radio studio that young people can’t access elsewhere.

10126 So in regards to your question around being a hub, we see ourselves as a model, best practice centre. We want to be involved. And we’re ready to roll. We just need more distribution and more funding support.

10127 MR. HUGGINS: Yeah, I think it’s important, the TCM proposal, because not every community will be able to have a distribution channel. I mean, I feel that we’re the only one in Toronto really that has a community youth sort of operated channel, and not every neighbourhood has that, but if there were hubs where young people could be involved in the production and producing content and being able to send it to the Toronto Community Media Network that would also be a distribution point for them.

10128 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So if you were transformed into one of these hubs catering to the larger community, do you think that in any way inhibits your ability to just focus on the community that you currently serve of Regent Park?

10129 MR. HUGGINS: No, I think we’re special in terms of that way that because we have a distribution channel that our focus will always be Regent Park. It’s not to say that young people can’t create other content around their interest, but basically we feel that the content that they create -- the content that we put on the channel has to someway relate to either young peoples’ experiences, you know, ethno-cultural diverse young people living in the community as well as to the cultural groups that are in Regent Park. So the contents should have some relevancy to Regent Park and Regent Park young people.

10130 Other content that’s produced we’re happy to -- again it becomes an add-on. We’re happy to send to other distribution places as well.

10131 MS. AMBROSE: And I do think we need to comment on the fact that with Regent Park focussed training program, you know, there’s priority placed on the process as well as the product. So a young person from anywhere around the City of Toronto is coming to Regent Park and gaining tangible skillsets that then they can apply later on to future academic and future employment interest. And the product yes, could be focused on Regent Park itself, but nevertheless the team is gaining these hands-on experiential learning skills using the cameras, using the tele-ters, using the green screen technology, you name it.

10132 But to date yes, we haven’t had a problem connecting social issues with Regent Park and the young people that are passionate around media.

10133 MR. HUGGINS: Yeah, I’m more talking about in terms of, for instance, if youth come from Scarborough and they want to produce a video about the Scarborough neighbourhood and want to put it on Regent Park TV. That’s what I’ve been talking about in terms of there has to be some kind of relevance if we’re putting stuff on Regent Park TV to the Regent Park community. And certainly we’ll help them to produce that if it’s not a case of competing funding resources and staff resources.

10134 So we give them the training and if they want to produce -- if we give them cameras and they want to go off and produce that stuff in terms of their interests around Scarborough or another community that’s fine but it may not go on the Regent Park TV channel.

10135 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Okay. And just one final question; we’ve heard different viewpoints over the course of the last week or so with respect to what the term community actually means. Some people think it’s a geographic area. Others suggest it’s a community of interest, particular linguistic community, an ethnic community. As Regent Park is sort of an ethnically diverse geographic area commuted into itself, what are your thoughts on the definition of what a community is?

10136 MS. AMBROSE: Okay. So in regards to your question I think we need to point out that Regent Park itself because of the massive revitalization has been immensely disrupted. So the Regent Park community members are now in other places around the City of Toronto.

10137 So I think at this point Regent Park, given all the new residents coming in, the old residents that are there, all the new organizations that are around as well, community is defined by working, living, feeling connected to Regent Park, feeling connected to social issues that impact people from marginal diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds, et cetera, and especially defining what community for young people is, and that’s often defined by the young people themselves.

10138 So they create their own community sometimes by coming to Regent Park and developing new peer relationships, et cetera, and connecting to the local resources and the civic leaders that they get involved with and the people they meet through the programming itself.

10139 So I think our definition of community it’s localized but it’s also more expanded than just the Regent Park 69 acres.

10140 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Perfect. Well thank you very much and those are my questions for today. I’ll hand it back over to my colleagues.

10141 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

10142 I’m looking around, my colleagues and I think we’ve covered the ground here and I don’t think, thankfully for you, legal has any questions for you. So thank you for having participated in the hearing.

10143 I’m going to take this opportunity, though, to mention that Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan I believe, and maybe there are others, on 15 February it’s Family Day, and not only are a number of our undertakings due on the 15th of February but as well the final comments are due on that day.

10144 So as a consequence, we will be issuing a modification in the public notice to inform people that when undertakings and due dates were on the 15th of February we’ll move that to the 16th of February to accommodate that provincial holiday.

10145 Donc pour le dire en français, à cause d’un congé férié en Ontario, en Alberta et en Saskatchewan, on va modifier la date de dépôt de certains documents qui sont dus pour le moment le 15 février, notamment autour des engagements et des observations finales. On va émettre un avis public modifié pour faire en sorte que dorénavant la date butoir sera le 16 février plutôt que le 15 février.

10146 Donc avec ces précisions de procédures supplémentaires, nous allons prendre une courte pause jusqu’à 3h10 pour continuer avec le prochain panel.

10147 Donc, we're adjourned until 3:10. Thank you very much.

--- Upon recessing at 3:00 p.m.

--- Upon resuming at 3:12 p.m.

10148 LE PRÉSIDENT: À l’ordre, s'il vous plaît.

10149 Madame la secrétaire.

10150 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

10151 We will now hear the presentation of the Ontario Library Association.

10152 Please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you have 10 minutes.

PRESENTATION

10153 MS. YARROW: Good afternoon, Chairman Blais, Commissioners Dupras, Simpson, MacDonald and Molnar.

10154 My name is Alexandra Yarrow. I am the President of the Ontario Public Libraries Association, a division of the Ontario Library Association or OLA, here to represent the interests of OLA along with John Savage, our consultant who has helped liaise with the Canadian Association of Community TV Users and Stations on a shared vision.

10155 I am also the Manager of Alternative Services for the Ottawa Public Library, which has the Imagine Space, a maker space that includes video editing software and a green screen, as well as a mobile maker space. I’ll be glad to answer questions later in regards to any of these initiatives.

10156 Founded in 1900, the Ontario Library Association is the oldest continually operating non-profit library association in Canada. With more than 5,000 members, the OLA is the largest library association in the country.

10157 The mission of OLA is to be a centre of excellence for the library and information sector, through leadership and collaboration.

10158 The OLA carries out its mission through its shared values, which include connecting people to people and people to ideas, and supporting and cultivating a broad range of literacies, including media and digital literacy.

10159 MR. SAVAGE: It's well understood in the entertainment industry a great film idea should be strong enough to be expressed in one or two lines.

10160 In 1995, Canada's James Cameron pitched to film execs a new film concept as "Romeo and Juliet on a boat". The resulting film Titanic went on to becoming the highest grossing film of all time.

10161 When it comes to revitalizing community-access television in 2016, our proposal is simply community television in public libraries. It's a winner of a concept because it's simple, easy to do, and it makes sense. It's a strategic fit that makes both community TV and public libraries stronger, utilizing the strength of libraries and the exposure of community TV to provide more diverse local news and information.

10162 Because public libraries and community TV serve the public interest, it just makes sense that they belong under the same roof, managed in partnership with the community.

10163 Public libraries in many cases are ideal hosts to provide free access to film and video training, equipment, studio space, and overall production support, because they already are doing this and increasingly so.

10164 Our research has shown that the public wants us to provide these services and the next step is to provide them access to community TV through our institutions in partnerships suggested by the Canadian Association of Community TV Users and Stations, CACTUS.

10165 Currently, public libraries are developing community media labs that include video in large and small places like Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Schreiber, Innisfil, Markham, Hamilton, and more. This is reflective of programs south of the border, including those run by the Monroe County Public Library and the Allen County Public Library that host their own community-access TV services programs.

10166 The CACTUS model that relies upon a Community-Access Media Fund and partnerships, supports our interest to work with other key actors in the community TV.

10167 MS. YARROW: Public libraries bring five unique capabilities to the community TV program.

10168 They are aware of their community's diverse interests and needs, and are able to provide appropriate programming.

10169 They have a mandate to train and assist people in learning and creating.

10170 They are accountable as public institutions to local municipalities and funding bodies that contribute to them.

10171 They are collaborative with each other and with other stakeholders, such as the groups identified by CACTUS, innovating new programs based on best practices.

10172 And lastly, they are protectors of the local culture and expression, ensuring content of archival value is protected.

10173 Six years ago, in 2010, the Ontario Library Association and the Canadian Library Association promoted a role for public libraries in community TV at your last public consultation, endorsing the CACTUS proposal with letters of support.

10174 Since then, community media centres have sprung up in public libraries, just as we foresaw and I believe you saw one earlier.

10175 In a recent survey of children's services in Ontario public libraries, it was revealed that 58 percent of libraries offer maker programs that enable people to learn, create, and build confidence, 45 percent offer film and video programs that could be used as a launch pad for community TV content production, and 42 percent offer digital technology programs proving that public libraries are centres of technological learning too.

10176 Though this survey was specific to just children programs, it demonstrates that public libraries are committed to providing training and infrastructure to these types of activities. We are filling a needs vacuum.

10177 In the U.S., the two examples we refer to are Monroe Public Library and the Allen County Public Library, both in Indiana. Both run community TV programs, established in 1971 and 1981 respectively.

10178 The Allen County Public Library runs "Access Fort Wayne," a public-access channel and the government-access channel to cover council and local public meetings.

10179 Now, this library program also includes computers, internet connectivity, and a community radio station demonstrating a successfully mature model of multimedia convergence with libraries.

10180 MR. SAVAGE: Public libraries as part of the community news ecology.

10181 Public libraries are intelligence-gathering institutions, experts in environmental scanning and providing research support. They are highly focused on what's happening in local communities for their own needs and for those of their patrons.

10182 In order to develop collections and programs, they conduct environmental scanning on a routine basis that makes them experts on the state of their community.

10183 For example, the Vancouver Public Library reportedly maintains contact and partnerships with approximately 400 stakeholder groups in their community for this reason: advocacy groups, cultural groups, schools, clubs, sports leagues, associations, and more.

10184 Few other organizations, if any, have the extensive reach or know the diverse issues of their communities as a public library. Truly, if someone wants to know what's happening locally, they should ask their public library.

10185 Perhaps that is why Rogers Cable for the last few years has successfully worked with the London Public Library to showcase library-related news, programming and resources.

10186 In fact, the London Public Library is so proud about its involvement in community TV that it posted a comment on the CRTC's forum proudly describing some of the ways they have worked with Rogers.

10187 This is an example of how public libraries create newsworthy content that interests their community. It shows that community TV helps to extend the library's reach further.

10188 Last week, at the OLA annual conference, local radio station 100.9 Canoe FM in Haliburton County won the OLA Media and Communications Award for giving Haliburton County Public Library a voice through the production of several radio programs promoting the library's collection and events, and in the development of Haliburton County Reads, a riff on Canada.Reads, hosted by the library.

10189 Public libraries are local news generators that make them good candidate to produce local news via community TV.

10190 Public libraries provide resources to allow people to research topics of newsworthy value.

10191 Public libraries are creators of news by hosting events, such as guest speakers, community forums for discussions, storytelling, and performances.

10192 Public libraries are committed to intellectual freedom as the basis of a democratic society, and provide content representing different points of view in collections and in programming.

10193 Public libraries provide access to community news archives and media monitoring tools for referencing current and historical information.

10194 Public libraries offer spaces and programs that can create new content, such as Maker Spaces that have film and video production capabilities, or writing workshops.

10195 And, if funded to do so, public libraries could hold community TV archives that can be used for generating local news at a later time: oral storytelling, historical accounts, early footage of Canadian newsmakers.

10196 From a public library perspective, local news is important to their users for a variety of reasons. Citizens, governments, businesses and civil society need to be aware of issues that impact them, so that they may be able to respond to changes in their communities.

10197 In this way, local news makes communities smarter.

10198 Convergence. Over the past 15 years or so, we have witnessed the consolidation of one private sector communications industry, cable, satellite, and telephone companies, acquiring news and entertainment content companies along with film archives, internet and mobile systems. These mergers were intended to leverage existing commercial assets and provide greater access to consumers.

10199 In the public sector there was consolidation and partnerships too. For example, the University of Western Ontario's Graduate School of

10200 Library & Information Science merged in 1997 with its Graduate School of Journalism Program to become the Faculty of Information & Media Studies, where you can take a mix of courses in library science, media, and information science.

10201 Why is a journalism school merging with a library school? It’s because these are highly compatible disciplines. It underlines that in developing a local news ecology, public libraries can have an important role to play, if community TV were integrated into these institutions to provide local news.

10202 Just ask the Chief Librarian of Schreiber Public Library in Northern Ontario, Donna Mikeluk, who happens to be both a librarian and a journalist. The last few years, her library has regularly streamed community news on her library's webcast, including council meetings, to her tiny community of 1 100 or so. However, with a limited budget, they have difficulties sustaining this operation.

10203 As times change, our information ecology evolves and so have our roles. What we offer is an opportunity to partner with public libraries. We've proven to be good partners in developing our national information infrastructure with the federally-funded Community Access Program and with the more recent Rural Broadband Initiative. We offer strategic fit, in terms of providing sound management, clearly aligned values, community awareness, the ability to collaborate broadly, and an interest in archiving on behalf of the public interest. Twenty sixteen (2016) is the year to put community TV in the public library to meet the needs of

10204 Canadians.

10205 As you may have already read in our earlier submission, the OLA invites the CRTC to work with it to develop any studies, pilot programs, or enter into further discussions on developing a national framework with public libraries to promote community TV programs. We endorse the partnership model proposed by CACTUS, especially in areas that are underserved or not served at all.

10206 As we understand, CACTUS will provide a proposal by February 5th that fits with Initiative A, a fund to support local news. We expect that this will include a strong role for public libraries, as a partner or a lead in various pilot communities. This will be a first step towards a greater role in hosting community TV.

10207 In support of this OLA Intervention, the Chief Librarian of the Vancouver Public Library, Sandra Singh, has sent us an endorsement letter that we would like to include in our submission or read into this oral presentation. Would this be possible?

10208 THE CHAIRPERSON: We’ll take it under advisement.

10209 MR. SAVAGE: Okay.

10210 THE CHAIRPERSON: But -- okay, keep going.

10211 MR. SAVAGE: Okay, so in conclusion, thank you for considering our proposal on behalf of the public interest. We look forward to your questions.

10212 THE CHAIRPERSON: As I said, we’ll take it under advisement, because normally interventions -- the period has gone by, but our online forum is still open. And so Ms. Singh could perhaps send it through that avenue, therefore guaranteeing it will get on the public record ---

10213 MR. SAVAGE: Okay.

10214 THE CHAIRPERSON: --- as opposed to relying on us putting it afterwards even though the deadline for interventions has gone by.

10215 MR. SAVAGE: Sandra used to be the President of the Canadian Library Association that can no longer endorse us because they just dissolved to investigate reforming as a Canadian Federation or Canadian Federation of Library Association ---

10216 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.

10217 MR. SAVAGE: --- itself, yeah.

10218 THE CHAIRPERSON: Whatever.

10219 MR. SAVAGE: Yeah.

10220 THE CHAIRPERSON: The circumstances are you might try to do this through another avenue ---

10221 MR. SAVAGE: Sure, okay.

10222 THE CHAIRPERSON: --- by adding it to the online forum.

10223 MR. SAVAGE: Okay.

10224 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so I’m going to put you in the hands of Commissioner Dupras for starting us off on questions.

10225 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Thank you. Good afternoon. You say to be in a unique position to develop and support access programming and offering training and resources to citizens. Can you tell us more about your implication with regard to community programming?

10226 MS. YARROW: Okay. So how we feel that we are in a unique position, is that what you're referring to?

10227 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: No, I mean what are your implication as of today?

10228 MS. YARROW: Implication ça veut dire -- you mean?

10229 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: What are you doing exactly?

10230 MS. YARROW: Ah, currently?

10231 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Currently.

10232 MS. YARROW: Okay. So as I alluded to earlier, there are a number of maker spaces in community libraries. And in fact, the community media hub that you saw in the U.S. in an earlier video’s a portion of that.

10233 So here in Ottawa, as I said, I work with the Ottawa Public Library, we have a maker space, which has video editing equipment, Mac computers, Mac Pro, and a green screen where people can come in, become certified on using the technology in the room, which includes those element as well as other things such as a 3D printer. They can then edit their own videos, create their own content to be distributed as they wish as members of the public.

10234 Other libraries are doing similar or different projects, we also mentioned Haliburton County working with their local radio station for instance. So those give you kind of two examples of how libraries are evolving.

10235 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Are you just supplying equipment and a space for people to come and produce their own thing and they leave with their content or ---

10236 MS. YARROW: We do do some programming as well.

10237 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: You do training also?

10238 MS. YARROW: Yes, we do training. So, so far our maker space here in Ottawa has been opened for a little -- around two years, a little less than two years, and we’ve certified 1,600 people on equipment in that space. That would include video equipment as well as -- as I said, some of the other pieces of equipment that are not directly media related, so 3D printers.

10239 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: And in terms of the programming you say you’ve done?

10240 MS. YARROW: Right. So we have regular ongoing programs in the library that are not currently broadcast and not made available elsewhere such as Author Talks, public information sessions on fraud, how to get a job, that type of thing, so public programs, but we also run some programming associated with our maker space.

10241 Most recently we did a Teen Tech Week and we’re doing it again in March this year. So every March the Ottawa Public Library has a Teen Tech Week. Teens use our technology and our equipment and our space to make their own video. And in the case of Teen Tech Week, the video is a book trailer, so advertising or picking up on the themes in a novel or a book that they -- that teens enjoyed, which they then compete against one another to win a prize.

10242 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Okay. Your association represents libraries in Ontario?

10243 MS. YARROW: That’s correct.

10244 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Are you aware if libraries from other provinces or territories have an interest or would be ready to participate? In your proposal I know that there was the Vancouver Library ---

10245 MR. SAVAGE: The Vancouver ---

10246 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: -- Public Library, but aside from it?

10247 MR. SAVAGE: Well there's a number of libraries across Canada, the Canadian Library Association originally in 2010 endorsed us on this initiative because they felt that this had application across Canada. And we’re seeing -- the Vancouver Public Library is an excellent example right now, because they’ve been able to get extra funding through their city to establish a studio space. They have different sound recording spaces and a bank of computers that they use for editing as well.

10248 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Okay.

10249 MS. YARROW: So ---

10250 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Now you say that the public libraries in many case are ideal hosts to provide free access to film and video training, equipment, studio space and overall production support. In how many public libraries in Canada do we have this today?

10251 MS. YARROW: According to the most recent data that I have, 58 Canadian public libraries currently have maker spaces in them. However, there may be other examples out there that I don’t know about. And certainly some of us are experimenting, as I alluded to earlier, as we are here in Ottawa with the idea of a mobile maker space. So we now have some of our maker space equipment available on a van which travels around the city to different communities.

10252 MR. SAVAGE: This is also -- they are also developing more data this year for that and that will be one of the question as to -- because this is evolving very, very quickly. These libraries are taking on these programs almost on a monthly basis, new ones are starting up.

10253 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: So the idea is to become a space where to go to do things, but you will not be in the business of managing a community channel?

10254 MS. YARROW: At present that’s not something that we do, no. However, we see some areas of intersection with groups like CACTUS and other partners. We quite frequently work with partners in different sectors to offer additional programming or additional services than the public library normally would provide as its core services, and I would see this as being an example of that potentially in the future.

10255 MR. SAVAGE: However, we also see down in the States, the Monroe County Library has an excellent public access channel, including one of their channel is called actually “Library TV” in which they showcase programs and the resources on that, including performances that happen within the public library.

10256 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: In your request, as do CACTUS and ICTV, that the control of the community channel should be taken away from BDUs to be given to citizen. What is the view of the Ontario Library Association on that?

10257 MS. YARROW: Well I would say that, you know, our core values relates to inclusivity and access and intellectual freedom, so we’ve always been committed to the community playing a large role in our services. I can speak, you know, from my profession, which is perhaps different than the profession that you guys are in, but it’s always been our view that the community -- that the library is best served by being reflective of the community it’s in. So ---

10258 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: But do you have complaints against what the BDUs are doing? I’m talking to your association.

10259 MS. YARROW: I would just say that we see ourselves as being in a great position to be able to offer more diversified programming and an organization that could be better together, so working in cooperation with partners such as the Ontario Library Association.

10260 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Okay.

10261 MS. YARROW: I don’t see that as a complaint, if that’s what you’re getting at. I see it as an opportunity to improve.

10262 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: No, but are you -- do you find that BDU’s are doing a poor job with community channels to suggest that they should be replaced by independent organizations?

10263 MS. YARROW: I think that there are always people who are not represented in community television, as in any television production operation, and that there are points of view that are not being captured. And it’s something that we talk a lot about in our profession is every point of view being represented in the library. I think that that’s something that certainly is also struggled with in your industry and there are perhaps, as I said, opportunities to be better together.

10264 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: And do you think you could contribute -- develop relationships with existing BDUs and contribute more diversity in community programming?

10265 MS. YARROW: I think there are small examples where we already do. Certainly I have colleagues who’ve been on community TV and who’ve been on some of the larger networks speaking about library programming, speaking about services in the library and trying to collaborate that way.

10266 Did you have something you wanted to add?

10267 MR. SAVAGE: I just want to say too that there’s always been the opportunity for BDUs to partner with public libraries. It happened with the London Public Library. But why hasn’t it happened more often?

10268 And you have to think that perhaps -- you know, I’m trained in management as well, so you look at the strategic reasons why a private interest organization such as a BDU might not want to turn itself into a public interest organization and it’s just because their motivations are completely different.

10269 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: For instance, when you look at MTS that came today and that told us that 90 percent of the money they’re spending is going toward community access programming, they’re not doing the job?

10270 MR. SAVAGE: I think there may be -- you look across the board and there may be good examples of a BDU running their program. Like, for instance, the London Public Library seems to have a good relationship with Rogers there.

10271 But I think the problem with the BDU system right now is they all -- they seem to work in silos, so one community might operate completely differently. With the library -- with the public library involved, they’re knowledge sharing institutions professionally as well so there’s -- they come together in conferences, share best practices. Each one may experiment in a different way and share what works with the other ones so that they can borrow from each other. And that’s how a public interest organization works.

10272 When you’re a private interest you’re not going to want to be sharing that kind of information necessarily unless you’re regulated, and when you regulate something it’s only to meet the standard or fall slightly below it until you’re forced to meet the standard. In a public interest organization it’s not a ceiling it’s a floor.

10273 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: So should they be, I mean, considered the independent organization only in areas where BDUs are not performing correctly?

10274 MR. SAVAGE: Does OLA have a position on that? Because I have a view on that.

10275 MS. YARROW: I don’t think it’s quite that black and white. I think what we’re trying to propose is simply that there are opportunities to have additional voices heard, not to the exclusion of other voices, whether those be those of a BDU or another group.

10276 And, you know, I’m still learning about this particular industry in that respect, so please correct me if I get something wrong. But I just see that there are certainly opportunities that are perhaps being missed in the current model that could be represented by a partnership such as this one.

10277 MR. SAVAGE: And it’s also slightly beyond the scope of Ontario Public Libraries -- or the Public Library Association and the OLA to advocate on restructuring the whole industry. That’s, as you know, it’s your job to look at that. But we are capable of going into those communities where a BDU either is shown in non-compliance and closes down or decides on their own voluntarily to close down or is regulated to close down or transform into a non-profit association, which is one proposal we heard before.

10278 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Okay. You say that “Our research has shown that the public wants us to provide these services.” What is your evidence on this?

10279 MS. YARROW: If you don’t mind, I’m just going to go back to the section. I know what you’re talking about. I just want to pull up that exact line.

10280 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: It’s Section 8 ---

10281 MS. YARROW: Thank you.

10282 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: --- on page 3 of your presentation.

10283 MS. YARROW: So, in my experience, we’ve seen that through the numbers. As I alluded to earlier, in Ottawa we’ve trained 1,600 people using this equipment. We’ve run a teen tech week contest. We have programs in the library such as techno buddies which pairs teens with seniors to learn about technology. We’ve seen that these have been very successful -- they’ve been running in other cities as well -- and the numbers of people who’ve come in the doors asking for this type of programming and attending this type of programming using these services, using this technology, that’s our research.

10284 MR. SAVAGE: The other libraries I’ve talked to it’s basically they don’t invest in programs unless they’ve done their research beforehand, because they have limited funds and they can’t afford to just throw their money around. That is why we’re looking for alternative sources of money to expand these programs. So they’re running these programs essentially on a shoestring right now.

10285 But if the CRTC really wanted to put the different building blocks together and provide the funding to leverage that, there’s a great opportunity to take a public interest institution like a public library system, combine it with existing community stakeholder groups and new community stakeholder groups that they can bring out of the community and really provide a grassroots information or community television ecology that would help to strengthen our private and public broadcasting industries as well.

10286 For instance, you could see CBC and CTV or Global working with the community television sector to help train our patrons on developing content. Then that would be a stepping stone for developing content for their channels as well.

10287 So we could see where the public library would run a contest, for instance, once a year on different shows and the winner of that show goes on to CBC or CTV as part of their own program.

10288 We know that the CBC had a funding cutback of 150 million and a lot of that hit documentary film making. There’s a lot of documentary films that can be made in communities and a lot of them can be used with library resources, archives, books, access to oral storytelling, and even performances.

10289 So that’s where we see the synergies coming together, and if you connect -- if you link them together it could create a real ecology rather than standalone silos.

10290 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Okay. Digital platform, you seem to be involved in, I mean, the digital world at the level of the libraries. Couldn’t you develop platforms where the content of the people producing content in your establishments could put their content online with you?

10291 MS. YARROW: Absolutely. And we certainly have experimented with that in the past.

10292 The conversation that’s been had off and on here today about digital versus -- I believe you have an -- do you call it linear?

10293 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Linear, yes.

10294 MS. YARROW: I’m beginning to pick up on your terminology now, slowly but surely.

10295 It reminds me a little bit of a discussion that we have about books versus eBooks or, you know, many of my contemporaries in my generation say to me “Oh, you work in a library, they still exist really.” And my answer to that is, you know, we’re not about a format we’re about a service and we will provide a service that the community wants.

10296 So the community at this point is still accessing books as well as accessing digital technologies, eBooks, all kinds of other tools, and I don’t see it as an either/or in the world that I work in nor in the world that we’re talking about here today. I think there’s always -- there will be a need, at least for the foreseeable future, for both models. And so often libraries are operating on dual channels -- pun intended -- and I see that there is probably a role for both of those here as well.

10297 MR. SAVAGE: May I also add that libraries partnered with the federal government on developing -- on trying to alleviate a similar problem, which was called the digital divide, and that’s where Industry Canada in partnership with public libraries rolled out the Community Access Program and the Rural Broadband Initiative Program, and that connected communities.

10298 So essentially, like building of the railways, they saw that public libraries were these links for their community and where people could go to access that kind of digital content, receive training as well, and we just see this as the next step.

10299 So after that initiative, we started launching these maker spaces and now we’re starting to say, “Okay, let’s push this content and disseminate it.” And we would need multiple channels to do that.

10300 The other aspect of digital systems is the whole idea of media monitoring. I used to work with Industry Canada and Transport Canada on developing media monitoring systems which could house local news. You can also -- you can use it for storing electronic print news, but also broadcast news, and it’s relatively simply. For instance, you just basically parse the transcripts and you can clip that broadcast data.

10301 So there’s other ways that libraries and librarian skillsets, such as what I just related there, can revitalize local news in ways that we can’t imagine, especially with government, because government highly values local news and access to local news. I helped to negotiate those contracts with them and I would say perhaps the value I’m used to in government is far in excess of what they actually spend on local news.

10302 So if we can help various institutions like government be able to access that news through more meaningful tools like that, then that may help in general as well.

10303 COMMISSIONER DUPRAS: Okay. Thank you very much. That’s all my questions.

10304 THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me check with my colleagues? No.

10305 Legal? No.

10306 Well, good, you too will not get a question from Legal, which is a good thing, I guess.

10307 Thank you very much.

10308 Madame la secrétaire.

10309 LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci.

10310 J’inviterais maintenant les Productions 4 Éléments à s’approcher.

10311 Donc s’il vous plaît vous présenter et ensuite vous avez 10 minutes.

10312 Merci.

PRESENTATION :

10313 M. DUPERRON: Parfait.

10314 Alors bonjour. Je m’appelle Francis Duperron. Je suis producteur et je tiens à vous dire merci de m’accorder quelques minutes pour venir vous donner mon opinion dans ce dossier et l’opinion d’un petit producteur, de quelqu’un de très impliqué sur le terrain, qui a une certain expérience aussi au niveau des médias communautaires et qui aurait agi, dans le fond, via internet quand j’ai entendu parler, en fait, des présentes audiences, et ça a été une surprise un petit peu pour moi d’avoir une invitation de votre part à venir me présenter devant vous aujourd’hui. Encore une fois, merci pour tout ça. Je suis un petit peu gêné a priori de vouloir vous lire mon texte, mais il semble que ce soit la norme quand même.

10315 Quand j’ai répondu, dans le fond, aux audiences via internet, je l’ai fait de manière émotive et quand on m’a invité à venir ici c’est parce que vous aviez, semble-t-il, été interpellés par certains aspects que j’avais présentés dans mon courriel. Donc je suis demeuré un peu dans l’émotion. J’ai un peu élaboré ma présentation, qui ne sera pas la plus étoffée que vous aurez l’occasion de consulter pendant les présentes audiences, mais qui quand même peut valoir la peine.

10316 Alors je procède et ensuite j’imagine qu’on pourra discuter.

10317 Je suis producteur, mais je suis également un des fondateurs d’une coopérative de travail qui œuvre dans le secteur de la production vidéo. On s’appelle Les Productions 4 Éléments et nous travaillons en étroite collaboration depuis quelques années avec la Coopérative de câblodistribution de l’arrière-pays à la réalisation du contenu diffusé sur sa chaîne de programmation locale. Cette collaboration permet à notre entreprise de garantir du travail à temps plein à l’année à des travailleurs du secteur de la production vidéo qui vivent à Québec. Nous faisons également travailler de façon régulière plusieurs pigistes. Et plusieurs de nos employés risquent de perdre leur emploi, ou du moins de voir leur revenu diminuer si le CRTC allait de l’avant avec une décision mettant en péril la télévision locale.

10318 Une télévision locale c’est une télévision différente et complémentaire. Les télévisions locales ont l’obligation de traiter de l’information propre à leur région. La nouvelle choc, les grands enjeux du jour ne sont pas pour nous. Nous devons toujours nous

10319 poser les questions suivantes : est-ce que tout aura été dit lorsqu’on va diffuser et est-ce que d’autres vont en parler?

10320 Les travailleurs des télévisions communautaires doivent faire preuve d’imagination, de rigueur et de recherche afin de produire le contenu local, de qualité et en respectant des budgets limités. Nous devons être certains de diffuser de l’information qui concerne nos gens et qui pourrait être hors propos à plus grande échelle.

10321 Nous tentons de faire de la télévision de contenu. Nous n’attendons pas la catastrophe pour faire de la nouvelle. Les initiatives citoyennes, peu

10322 importe leur envergure, sont potentiellement du contenu qui demeure pertinent dans sa localité. Nous diffusons de l’information pour aider les organisations municipales à rejoindre leurs citoyens quand, par exemple, la dernière collecte des grosses vidanges est annoncée, quand un OBNL local cherche des bénévoles pour accomplir une corvée. Nous prenons des artistes locaux et les

10323 mettons en onde quand personne ne les connait. En gros, nous valorisons l’action citoyenne.

10324 Nous connaissons et sommes connus des gens de nos municipalités. Nous sommes des partenaires des médias locaux. Nous permettons à nos citoyens de se reconnaitre et de se connaître. Ainsi, nous contribuons au développement du sentiment d’appartenance et incitons

10325 les gens à s’impliquer dans leur communauté.

10326 Nous faisons une télévision humaine. Quand les grands réseaux font la file devant la résidence d’une famille décimée par un attentat afin d’obtenir les premiers commentaires du dernier membre survivant de cette famille, nous on offre nos condoléances et on diffuse une pensée à leur attention.

10327 Quand d’autres nous parlent des déboires du Canadien de MTL ou de ses joueurs, nous on présente la concentration freeski d’une école secondaire et soulignons les accomplissements de ses jeunes athlètes.

10328 Quand les grands réseaux ne parlent que des artistes avec qui ils sont liés par contrat, nous

10329 faisons découvrir l’émergence.

10330 Quand les grands réseaux nous parlent des artistes avec lesquels ils n’ont pas de contrat, nous

10331 sommes fiers de les avoir fait découvrir aux gens quelques années plus tôt.

10332 Les télévisions locales n’ont pas besoin de vedette puisque nos vedettes sont nos citoyens qui

10333 sont fiers de passer le mot lorsqu’eux-mêmes ou un membre de leur entourage ont été approchés pour faire partie de nos reportages et c’est ce qui fait notre force.

10334 Une télévision pertinente dans son milieu, le contenu des télévisions communautaires se doit d’être le reflet des priorités, des actions et

10335 de la réalité de son milieu. Ce type d’information supporte l’action citoyenne, ouvre un lien

10336 d’information entre les organisations municipales et leur citoyen et encourage la relève. Nous

10337 offrons ainsi un support télé aux initiatives citoyennes en plus de leur donner la possibilité

10339 Le fait de diffuser les nouvelles locales a fait ses preuves et cette expertise ne concorde pas avec

10340 le mode de pensée des radiodiffuseurs en direct. Les canaux communautaires ne parlent pas

10341 juste des nouvelles à coups d’éclat, comme le font les radiodiffuseurs en direct, mais plutôt ils

10342 sont près des gens, près des nouvelles qui les touchent. Nous interagissons avec eux. Le contenu

10343 local ne concerne pas les grands réseaux, mais la population d’ici, de notre secteur. Certaines

10344 nouvelles qui sont pertinentes dans leur communauté seraient complètement hors propos pour

10345 une diffusion grand réseau.

10346 Ceci dit, bien que cette couverture soit pertinente dans son milieu, il est fort probable qu’elle

10347 devienne inintéressante dans un plus grand réseau. Par exemple, le souper spaghetti suivi d’un

10348 bingo à Sainte Brigitte De Laval, au profit de la Maison des Jeunes, ou la date de la dernière

10349 collecte de grosses vidanges à Stoneham sont des évènements qui seraient considérés comme

10350 non pertinent pour les gens de Lévis.

10351 Un lieu de formation et d’apprentissage:

10352 Les chaînes de télé locale sont également des lieux d’apprentissage pour les nouveaux et futurs

10353 travailleurs du secteur. Un lieu de formation par lequel plusieurs animateurs, journalistes,

10354 caméramans, réalisateurs, etc., sont passés. C’est aussi un lieu d’évolution, nous pouvons

10355 essayer des nouvelles choses tant au niveau de l’animation que de la technique.

10356 Une alternative pour les petits producteurs :

10357 Les télévisions locales sont très importantes pour les petits et nouveaux producteurs. Ils sont

10358 très souvent la seule alternative permettant aux petits producteurs de produire du contenu.

10359 Sans le support de Vox, il y a 9 ans, notre entreprise n’aurait jamais existée.

10360 En réaction…

10361 Certaines personnes tentent de nous faire croire que les télévisions locales sont menacées par

10362 les chaînes comme Netflix et autres de ce monde. Je tiens à dire que je suis en total désaccord

10363 avec de tels propos. La majorité des gens (et je suis de ceux-là), qui opte pour ces services sont

10364 insatisfaits du produit offert par ces chaînes de télévision comme par exemple, Super Écran.

10365 Lorsque comme consommateur, vous payez pour un service, vous choisissez le meilleur à vos

10366 yeux parmi les options offertes. Actuellement, ceux qui sont en compétition contre Netflix n’ont

10367 simplement pas réussi à être compétitifs.

10368 J’ai du mal à penser qu’un reportage sur le Cercle des Fermières de SBDL pourrait être en

10369 compétition contre les nouveaux épisodes de Games of Thrones.

10370 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci beaucoup, pour -- je vais avoir quelques questions, si vous vous demandez pourquoi vous êtes là, c’est parce que, selon nos formulaires, vous avez demandé de comparaître. Donc, c’est peut-être pour ça que vous êtes là.

10371 M. DUPERRON: Bien ça bien fait, parce que si je l’ai coché c’est que ça m’intéressait mais j’y croyais pas.

10372 LE PRÉSIDENT: Absolument. Donc, vous êtes évidemment de la région de Québec?

10373 M. DUPERRON: Oui.

10374 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et j’essaie de bien vous situer puis je pense qu’on utilise les mots, nous, dans le monde réglementaire -- puis je ne dis pas que c’est mieux que vous de les utiliser. Donc, quand vous parlez -- bien premièrement, vous travaillez pour une coopérative de travailleurs?

10375 M. DUPERRON: Oui.

10376 LE PRÉSIDENT: C’est quoi ça exactement?

10377 M. DUPERRON: Une coopérative de travailleurs, en fait, on est une entreprise comme les autres qui a choisi le modèle coop. On a des membres travailleurs chez nous. Donc, les gens qui deviennent membres chez nous, ce qu’ils viennent chercher c’est du travail dans leur secteur d’activités, dans notre cas, la production vidéo.

10378 LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k. Donc, bien que vous, vous parliez de la télévision locale, c’est essentiellement l’équivalent du canal communautaire qu’on retrouve chez d’autres câblodistributeurs?

10379 M. DUPERRON: Oui.

10380 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, o.k. Donc, j’aime mieux comprendre. On n’utilise pas tout à fait -- donc, vous travaillez là et les gens qui travaillent là le font à travers une coopérative de travailleurs. Est-ce exact?

10381 M. DUPERRON: Oui.

10382 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous êtes combien?

10383 M. DUPERRON: Actuellement, on est 10 membres temps plein, donc travailleurs temps plein. On a deux membres ---

10384 LE PRÉSIDENT: Rémunérés?

10385 M. DUPERRON: Réguliers, temps plein à l’année.

10386 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et rémunérés aussi par le modèle?

10387 M. DUPERRON: Oui.

10388 LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k.

10389 M. DUPERRON: En fait, c’est une entreprise -- on est souvent comparés à une agence de production.

10390 LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k.

10391 M. DUPERRON: On fait de la production vidéo dans tous les secteurs d’activités.

10392 En ce qui nous concerne, des mandats qu’on dessert pour la télé locale, en l’occurrence, c’est Sante.TV, éventuellement aussi MAtv. C’est des mandats qui viennent ajouter à la charge de travail, qui nous permettent en fait de faire travailler ces 10 personnes-là à l’année et d’engager de nouveaux membres.

10393 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc, vous n’êtes pas exclusivement voués à créer de la programmation pour la Coopérative de câble de l’arrière pays.

10394 Vous fournissez d’autres câblodistributeurs aussi?

10395 M. DUPERRON: Et on offre d’autres services.

10396 LE PRÉSIDENT: D’autres services, oui, mais en termes de contenu audiovisuel, de programmation, vous offrez vos services à plusieurs entreprises de distribution de câbles notamment dans la région?

10397 M. DUPERRON: Oui, mais on fait également, par exemple, la vidéo-corpo, la vidéo pour le web.

10398 LE PRÉSIDENT: D’accord.

10399 M. DUPERRON: En ce qui nous concerne, la coopérative s’est créée autour d’un projet de série télé, à l’époque pour Vox, avec lequel on a fonctionné pendant près de six saisons.

10400 Et après ça, bon, de fil en aiguille, les membres étaient présents. On s’était rendu compte que dans la réalité à Québec il y en avait des travailleurs du domaine de la production vidéo.

10401 Donc, le modèle s’est renforci et maintenant on est 10, 12 et éventuellement plus.

10402 LE PRÉSIDENT: Lorsque vous travaillez notamment pour la CCAP ---

10403 M. DUPERRON: Oui.

10404 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- est-ce que vous travaillez avec des bénévoles? Parce que souvent dans le modèle de canal communautaire, il y a à la fois des bénévoles et des gens rémunérés, qui serait votre cas.

10405 Est-ce que c’est votre expérience avec la CCAP?

10406 M. DUPERRON: Dans notre cas, on se fait une fierté de toujours rémunérer les gens qui viennent participer. On a eu certaines personnes qui ont été bénévoles parce qu’en même temps, ça leur servait bien; des finissants en communication de l’université qui avaient besoin d’heures pour faire des stages. Ces gens-là, eux, on a travaillé avec eux de cette façon-là.

10407 Mais que ce soit -- quand -- si c’est arrivé, si c’est arrivé, c’était au niveau de l’animation. Donc des animateurs, des journalistes qui voulaient aller chercher justement les crédits manquants pour compléter leur cours.

10408 Sinon, de façon générale, dans la production du contenu télé qu’on fait, tout le monde est payé.

10409 LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k.

10410 Donc, vous avez en règle générale pas de -- ce qu’on n’appelle plus des bénévoles, on les appelle des travailleurs non-rémunérés.

10411 M. DUPERRON: Non. On aimerait.

10412 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui.

10413 M. DUPERRON: On aimerait en avoir, évidemment, et certaines de nos productions, en fait, sont des -- bien plusieurs de nos productions sont des références directes et des projets d’émissions que des gens de la population nous ont proposés.

10414 Donc, de cette façon-là, on décide d’aller de l’avant quand leur projet, bon, se qualifie. Puis après ça, bien ils s’impliquent peut-être bénévolement dans leur projet. C’est ça.

10415 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et les productions que vous faites pour par exemple la CCAP, puis vous l’avez mentionnée, il y en a peut-être d’autres mais prenons ce cas-là, est-ce que c’est basé sur des idées que vous avez ou c’est des commandes qui vous passent -- vous demandez de produire tel contenu? C’est quoi ---

10416 M. DUPERRON: Est-ce que vous voulez dire la chaîne? C’est ce que vous voulez savoir?

10417 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, la chaîne des idées. Qui a les idées au début puis quel est votre rôle puis quel est le rôle de la CCAP dans cette production-là?

10418 M. DUPERRON: Bien, il y a une très belle collaboration entre eux et nous. Déjà là, ça, ça aide beaucoup. On est une entreprise du territoire. On connaît bien notre secteur. On sait ce qu’il y a à mettre en valeur.

10419 Donc, on va agir -- on va faire beaucoup de recommandations par rapport à ce qui serait intéressant. On va développer des séries. On va développer des concepts d’émission. Et au final, la coopérative de câblodistribution, elle, à partir de ce qui lui a été proposé, bien elle va faire des choix par rapport à ce qui intéresse.

10420 Ce sont eux également qui reçoivent, en fait, les retours et les feedbacks de la part de la population. Donc, à partir de ça, à partir des idées qu’on leur propose, j’ai envie de vous dire que ce sont eux qui vont choisir mais les recommandations viennent généralement de chez nous.

10421 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et lorsque vous parlez des séries que vous produisez, ---

10422 M. DUPERRON: Oui.

10423 LE PRÉSIDENT: --- est-ce que c’est surtout des séries genre affaires publiques, documentaires? Ce n’est pas des dramatiques?

10424 M. DUPERRON: Non.

10425 LE PRÉSIDENT: Non. C’est vraiment des explorations de ce qui se passe sur le territoire puis pertinent aux communautés?

10426 M. DUPERRON: Tout à fait.

10427 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous pouvez m’en décrire une couple?

10428 M. DUPERRON: Oui, on a -- bien on a un magazine d’affaires locales, en fait, qu’on tient depuis les tout débuts dans lequel on couvre -- on a développé des partenariats avec les autres médias du secteur, qui nous font parvenir de la documentation, principalement des journaux.

10429 Et on -- en fonction d’un calendrier, on fait la lecture des nouvelles, en fait, des bulletins qui nous sont envoyés.

10430 En fait, on présente de brefs résumés des nouvelles qui vont être publiées puis on donne les références pour les gens qui désireraient, par exemple, lire l’article intégral.

10431 Cette émission-là -- dans cette émission, on fait trois reportages, en moyenne, par émission où on assiste -- on couvre les différents événements qui se déroulent dans notre secteur.

10432 La référence que je donnais tout à l’heure à un souper-spaghetti par le Cercle des Fermières, on peut y aller autant que les championnats du monde de snowboard qui vont se dérouler du côté de Stoneham, on va y aller aussi. Quand ça se passe chez nous, on est là.

10433 Dans nos priorités, je vous disais qu’on se posait toujours deux questions. Quand on va aller -- si on va couvrir les championnats mondiaux de snowboard qu’il va y avoir à Stoneham, c’est parce qu’on n’aura pas d’autres alternatives qui n’aura pas été couverte.

10434 L’ordre des priorités, en fait, est en fonction vraiment de est-ce qu’on va être les premiers à en parler? Est-ce que d’autres vont en parler?

10435 Si la nouvelle a déjà été couverte par d’autres, bien nous, on va se concentrer sur des gens qui ont une autre activité qui aurait été, sans nous, dans l’ombre.

10436 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et lorsque vous faites des partenariats avec les journaux, on parle ici d’hebdomadaires ou des quotidiens?

10437 M. DUPERRON: Il y a des mensuels puis -- principalement des mensuels et des hebdomadaires.

10438 LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k.

10439 M. DUPERRON: Même des bimensuels.

10440 LE PRÉSIDENT: D’accord mais donc ce n’est pas des quotidiens?

10441 M. DUPERRON: Ce n’est pas des quotidiens.

10442 LE PRÉSIDENT: C’est des journaux qui sont un petit peu plus communautaires?

10443 M. DUPERRON: C’est vraiment les journaux locaux.

10444 LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k. Est-ce que vous couvrez des trucs comme il peut y avoir des réunions de conseils municipaux dans votre coin. Est-ce que c’est quelque chose que vous couvrez aussi?

10445 M. DUPERRON: C’est une proposition qu’on a faite à quelques reprises dans les dernières années qui n’a pas été retenue encore. On a des liens très serrés par contre avec les municipalités. Nos élus savent qu’ils sont toujours bienvenus.

10446 Et c’est un bel échange de ce côté-là aussi parce que quand on a des questions à leur poser, généralement, ils se rendent disponibles assez rapidement.

10447 Donc, non, les conseils municipaux ne sont pas couverts présentement. Ça pourrait être quelque chose d’intéressant mais comme je l’ai dit dans l’émission « Vu d’ici », vraiment on en ratisse quand même assez large au niveau de l’information qu’on donne et des références qu’on donne.

10448 On n’est pas là non plus pour voler le travail de journaux qui font quand même bien -- qui font un bon travail. Donc, on préfère y aller en complémentarité avec eux, d’autant plus qu’on a des budgets qui sont limités.

10449 Donc, si c’est déjà fait, s’il y a déjà un média local qui le couvre, bien on va peut-être mettre notre argent sur d’autres choses, là où il n’y aura personne.

10450 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et est-ce que vous vous décrivez comme des journalistes?

10451 M. DUPERRON: On a des journalistes, oui.

10452 LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k.

10453 M. DUPERRON: La chaîne a maintenant trois ans, peut-être quatre là mais j’ai perdu le fil un petit peu mais j’ai l’impression que c’est trois ans.

10454 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous travaillez trop fort, c’est pour ça.

10455 M. DUPERRON: Hein?

10456 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous travaillez trop fort, c’est pour ça que vous avez perdu le fil.

10457 M. DUPERRON: Oui, bien on travaille beaucoup. On a la tête dedans, ça c’est certain.

10458 Mais dans les trois dernières années, on est quand même assez fier du taux de placement qu’ont connu nos journalistes. Justement, on en a eu toute une série qui sont passés par chez nous. On est très heureux pour eux, très souvent un peu déçus parce qu’on perd encore des gens. Mais parmi les journalistes qui sont passés chez nous, plusieurs, grâce au matériel qu’on leur a fourni, ont réussi à se placer par la suite sur les ---

10459 Donc, quand vous dites, vous perdez des gens, il y a un roulement de personnel mais il n’y a pas moins de personnes qui travaillent?

10460 M. DUPERRON: Non.

10461 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc, mais il y a un roulement.

10462 M. DUPERRON: Il y a un roulement. On perd nos animateurs parce qu’ils se trouvent des places à Radio-Canada, ils se trouvent des places dans d’autres plus grand réseaux puis en fait c’est ce qu’on souhaite. C’est -- on veut être un tremplin pour ces gens-là.

10463 Qu’on serait un peu mal à l’aise d’envoyer quelqu’un devant la caméra -- bien tout le monde -- mais de se présenter devant la caméra une première fois, tu sais, je pense que le fait de passer par des médias communautaires ça devient intéressant pour acquérir une certaine confiance en soi, une certaine expérience.

10464 C’est ce qu’on leur offre, puis quand cette expérience-là s’est concrétisée, puis on les voit ensuite atteindre des -- des postes plus importants, on est fier.

10465 Mais pour nous reste que le travail est à refaire. On doit trouver l’autre perle rare qui va venir animer nos émissions.

10466 LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais vous faites partie –--

10467 M. DUPPERON: Et nous on est des journalistes.

10468 LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous faites partie de l’écosystème pour faire la formation de gens qui vont ailleurs, dans d’autres médias, même à la télévision?

10469 M. DUPERRON: Oui.

10470 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et vous offrez de la nouvelle qu’on ne retrouverait pas par exemple sur Radio-Canada, TVA ou V?

10471 M. DUPERRON: Certainement. Puis j’ai envie de dire que, tu sais, de proposer de le faire et veut, veut pas, il y a une grosse partie de cette information-là qui se perdrait parce que ce serait juste non-pertinent.

10472 C’est plate, mais il y a une -- dans une collectivité il y a une vie. Il y a des trucs qui se passent. Il y a des trucs qui sont pertinents chez eux et cette attention-là qu’on leur donne, cette information-là qu’on transmet, bien ça crée -- ça crée un engouement autour justement des -- des actions citoyennes, qui en dehors du contexte et en dehors de la municipalité intéresserait pas les -- nécessairement les gens de la municipalité d’à côté.

10473 LE PRÉSIDENT: Certains diront que avec l’émergence de -- d’équipement technologique très facile à manipuler, même des petites caméras en haute définition, combiné avec l’émergence de plateformes comme YouTube, puis il en a d’autres, ou on peut se diffuser soi-même, que la pertinence du modèle de la télécommunautaire, qui trouve ses origines au début des années 70, est à questionner.

10474 Et donc les jeunes, on nous dit, sont ailleurs. Qu’elle est votre expérience?

10475 M. DUPERRON: Peut-être. Peut-être éventuellement.

10476 Je crois parfois qu’il reste encore une grande partie de la population-là, qui peut être ne s’exprime pas sur les espaces publiques, qui elles consomment encore son information via la télévision et qui conserve la télévision comme source d’information.

10477 C’est pas tout le monde non plus qui est à l’aise pour produire de la vidéo pour la mettre en ligne par la suite.

10478 Tu sais, ça deux côté-là. Ça de beaux avantages internet, ça -- on se rend accessible à la masse assez rapidement, par contre la première impression existe toujours.

10479 Donc la personne qui irait de -- d’un vidéo un peu tout croche sur les réseaux est-ce que vraiment elle se -- elle se rendrait service? Je ne suis pas convaincu.

10480 Nous on offre à ces gens-là dans le fond des documents qui sont professionnels, puis on les invite à les utiliser dans leurs -- dans leurs activités de communication.

10481 On les invites à les utiliser sur les réseaux sociaux et pour la plupart ils le font.

10482 Mais reste que quand on arrive -- quand on arrive quelque part sur un tournage, peu importe la clientèle avec qui on a à travailler, il reste qu’il y a une réaction.

10483 La télévision n’a pas complètement perdues ces lettres de noblesses quand on arrive avec les caméras, les trépieds et l’équipe il y a un engouement.

10484 Il y a quelque chose qui se vie, qui ne s’est pas encore perdu et puis ça je pense que bien qu’internet, justement, oui c’est facile pour certains, mais il reste encore une grande partie de la population qui n’est pas familière avec le fonctionnement de l’interne.

10485 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et donc il y a encore des jeunes qui sont attirés à votre coopérative, puis qu’ils veulent faire de la télévision de cette façon-là?

10486 M. DUPERRON: Tout à fait.

10487 LE PRÉSIDENT: Ma dernière question puis c’est pour m’assurer que je comprends bien votre position, avant de me tourner vers mes collègues si ils en ont des questions.

10488 Si je comprends bien votre position c’est la -- le modèle de télévision local -- vous appelez local, nous on l’appel communautaire, mais ça revient à la même chose.

10489 M. DUPERRON: Oui.

10490 LE PRÉSIDENT: Pour vous ça fonctionne bien et on devrait maintenir le modèle actuel qui n’est pas de -- que c’est un -- une télévision de proximité qui est importante pour -- du moins dans les communautés où vous -- d’où vous êtes issus?

10491 M. DUPERRON: Oui.

10492 LE PRÉSIDENT: C’est exacte?

10493 M. DUPERRON: C’est tout à fait exacte.

10494 Tout à l’heure vous m’avez demandé de visiter ou de vous nommer certaines séries qu’on a produites. Oui on a -- on a les magazines d’affaire locaux. J’en ai parlé aussi, mais on a eu des belles recommandations citoyennes.

10495 On a présenté, dans a dernière saison, 12 artistes vivants sur notre territoire, d’origine, qui pratiquent des arts complètement différents, du numérique, à la sculpture, en passant par la peinture.

10496 Et ces gens-là, en fait, cette couverture-là il l’avait pas eu puis ils avaient -- ils ont eu un gros, gros, gros retour par rapport ça, parce que là c’est -- on les a mis de l’avant. On les a présentés. Ils viennent de chez nous, puis il y a une certaine -- il y a une certaine fierté issu de ça.

10497 On a -- on a réalisé -- on a un secteur choyé-là. Dans le nord de Québec on a beaucoup de touristes, mais on a beaucoup de montagnes, on a beaucoup de forêts.

10498 Alors on a réalisé une série -- deux séries de -- deux séries de 12 épisodes, donc 24 épisodes jusqu’à présent, sur le tourisme de plein air et sportif, à faire dans notre secteur d’activités et on a couvert des -- des parks.

10499 On a couvert le Park National, mais on a également couvert des petites entreprises, qui ont vu en fait là leur téléphones commencer à sonner parce qu’ils ont plus -- pu utiliser ces -- cette documentation-là.

10500 Fait qu’on est un beau reflet de ce qui se passe chez nous, puis on est, tu sais, des fois on s’en aperçoit pas quand on dit que le terrain du voisin a de l’air toujours plus vert que le nôtre.

10501 Bien, tu sais, quand on veut garder nos jeunes dans des régions on peu plus éloigner des fois c’est de leur faire comprendre aussi à quel point c’est beau chez nous.

10502 Puis je pense que parmi les contributions qu’on peut avoir, comme médias locales, quand le travail est bien fait, c’est des amener un peu à ça.

10503 LE PRÉSIDENT: J’avais dit que j’avais une -- ça allait être ma dernière mais j’en ai une -- vraiment une dernière ici avant de vous passer au Conseiller Dupras.

10504 Votre -- vos épisodes est-ce que vous les mettez en ligne?

10505 M. DUPPERON: Oui.

10506 LE PRÉSIDENT: Donc ils sont disponibles librement une fois qu’ils ont été diffusés là sur le ---

10507 M. DUPPERON: C’est Sante.TV.

10508 LE PRÉSIDENT: La coopérative vous la distribuée plus largement?

10509 M. DUPPERON: Oui.

10510 LE PRÉSIDENT: À l’intérieur de quoi? Immédiatement ou à l’intérieur de 12 mois ou ---

10511 M. DUPPERON: Euh non on est pas mal en -- on est pas mal en simultané.

10512 LE PRÉSIDENT: En simultané.

10513 M. DUPPERON: Oui.

10514 LE PRÉSIDENT: Puis vous voyez pas que ça l’a un impact sur la popularité sur la plateforme plus conventionnel, plus linéaire?

10515 M. DUPPERON: Je crois pas. Comme je disais tout à l’heure, il y encore une partie de la population qui ne décrochera pas de la télé, puis il y a une partie de la population qui n’ira pas sur la télé.

10516 LE PRÉSIDENT: D’accord.

10517 M. DUPPERON: Cette information-là ils vont venir la chercher sur internet, puis elle est -- tu sais on n’a pas accès -- on ne sait pas en fait combien de personnes ont vu nos émissions par la télé.

10518 Tu sais nous on sait qu’on a notre bassin de population rejoint, puis quand on fait l’équivalent ou le double via la plateforme web, bien on a l’impression qu’on a réalisé en fait là nos objectifs.

10519 LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, c’est un bon -- une bonne rétroaction sur votre capacité d’aller rejoindre le monde.

10520 M. DUPPERON: Tout à fait.

10521 LE PRÉSIDENT: D’accord.

10522 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Bien c’était ma question. À savoir qu’est-ce que -- si vous mettiez la programmation en ligne.

10523 Dans le territoire que vous desservez, est-ce que tout le monde est abonné au câble?

10524 M. DUPPERRON: Bien le pourcentage -- le pourcentage de la clientèle en fait qui est abonné avec la CCAP est très élevé.

10525 Il faut comprendre que c’est CCAP point – c’est CCAP en fait. C’est une coopérative de câblodistribution qui s’est formé il y a 30 ans, 32 maintenant, et qui à l’époque dans le fond prenait le feed de Vidéotron-là ou Vidéotron arrêtait.

10526 Puis c’est eux qui se sont chargés de l’amener un peu plus loin dans les verts, pour desservir la population qui y habitait.

10527 Avec le temps le secteur s’est beaucoup, beaucoup développé, mais CCAP est très bien implanté dans son -- dans son territoire.

10528 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Et puis là il n’y a pas -- il y a toujours pas de concurrent dans le secteur à part le satellite?

10529 M. DUPPERRON: Il y a Bell.

10530 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Bell est là aussi?

10531 M. DUPPERON: Bell est là. Oui, Bell est là.

10532 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Et est-ce que vous rendez de la programmation disponible à Bell aussi ?

10533 M. DUPPERRON: En fait la programmation une fois -- ça il faut dire je le sais pas.

10534 Là vous voulez savoir si dans le fond les abonnés de Bell ont accès à la CCAP? Non. En fait, je croirais pas dans le fond. J’ai -- non.

10535 En fait ils ont -- les gens ont accès par internet, mais ils n’auront pas accès mettons, si je suis abonné avec Bell -- avec le terminal de Bell ils n’auront pas accès à notre chaîne.

10536 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Dans tous les cas vous tentez de mettre la programmation disponible à tous par internet pour ceux qui ne sont pas vos -- les -- ils ne sont pas abonnés au câble ?

10537 M. DUPPERRON: C’est ça.

10538 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Bon.

10539 M. DUPPERRON: Parce qu’en même temps, comme je le disais tout à l’heure puis ça faisait partie de mon argumentation aussi, quand bien même c’est le -- la chaîne serait disponible sur Bell, notre intérêt est vraiment d’être le reflet de ce qui se passe chez nous.

10540 Fait que quand je disais tout à l’heure que ça serait pas le travail de Radio-Canada par exemple de dire qu’à Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval il y a un souper spaghetti pour la maison des jeunes, bien si on est -- je veux dire on retrouverais un peu dans la même situation.

10541 Fait que actuellement la manière dont on le fait, avec nos abonnés bien c’est intéressent, puis ensuite le contenue puisqu’il est disponible en ligne, bien les gens ils auront accès si c’est ce qui les intéressent aussi.

10542 CONSEILLER DUPRAS: Très bien. Merci.

10543 M. DUPPERRON: Merci beaucoup.

10544 LE PRÉSIDENT: Et peut s’imaginer qu’il y a de la concurrence parce que la CCAP offre pour $89.89 de l’internet, de la télévision et la téléphonie.

10545 M. DUPPERRON: Oui, bien c’est ça. Il va falloir -- il va falloir que les compétiteurs soient sérieux en voulant s’installer là.

10546 LE PRÉSIDENT: Effectivement. Merci beaucoup pour votre participation.

10547 Madame la secrétaire?

10548 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. Merci. I would now ask the Wawatay Native Communication Society to come to presentation table.

10549 (A SHORT PAUSE)

10550 THE SECRETARY: Please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you have 10 minutes.

PRESENTATION

10551 MR. GAGNON: Thank you.

10552 Good afternoon, Chairman Blais, Commissioners Dupras, Simpson, MacDonald and Molnar.

10553 My name is John Gagnon, Chief Executive Officer of Wawatay Native Communications Society, WNCS.

10554 We would like to acknowledge the Algonquin people and their traditional territory and we'd also like to welcome our listeners in our broadcasting area of Northern Ontario, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation.

10555 WNCS was created to promote and preserve the language for the people of Nishnawbe Aski Nation territory. Wawatay represents our members which is made up of 49 communities in Northern Ontario.

10556 Right now, I would like to introduce you to our President Mike Metatawabin. As is customary, Mike would like to open the proceedings with good words for good intentions in the Omushkego Cree language.

10557 Mike.

10558 MR. METATAWABIN: Boozhoo. Wachiyeh.

10559 I want to acknowledge my granddaughter who might be watching. Her name is Hilary.

10560 --- Opening prayer / Prière d’ouverture

10561 MR. GAGNON: Meegwech, Mike.

10562 Wawatay Native Communications Society provides in the Cree and Oji-Cree language radio and TV broadcasting. Although, due to financial reasons, we have had to relinquish TV in the recent past.

10563 We've been incorporated and operating from Northern Ontario since 1974 and we continue to produce radio broadcasts that are distributed via our network of 30 plus over-the-air towers and on Bell channel 962.

10564 Our printed newspaper reaches all 49 communities and surrounding municipalities, and the globe via Wawatay's website.

10565 We have two main production centres in Timmins and Sioux Lookout and our content is a combination of in-house production, live events and acquired content from the communities and other sources.

10566 So we're here to speak about the omission in policy and funding access.

10567 We see that many complaints have been filed to the CRTC regarding BDU involvement in community programming. We are not intently coming forth with a definitive complaint but more so a means to correct the course and enhance our relations with CRTC and our BDUs.

10568 We are grateful for our BDU’s assistance with some of our technical infrastructure.

10569 As for policy, aside from what we figure is an outdated Native broadcast and policy which deals with our specific communities, there are significant omissions and gaps in the overall Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-622 regarding First Peoples.

10570 As these are glaring omissions, we see this proceeding as a beginning or an opportunity to genuinely consult all the Indigenous communications companies from across the country and begin work on a sound policy that will benefit all our parties.

10571 Due to the omissions from the CRTC's current policy, we have not been able to provide a reasonable or balanced opportunity for the expression of our differing views on matters of public concern.

10572 We really have not been able to reflect our official languages and cultural compositions to the community, nor provide coverage of local events.

10573 It is not hidden knowledge that First Nation's Inuit and Métis people, along with the knowledgeable Canadians who want fairness and justice for First Peoples, have been wooed by our Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his support of the Truth and Reconciliation.

10574 Nearly fifty years have passed for Wawatay and we've been around and worked with the CRTC for some time but our original vision and mandate correlate well with today's TRC’s language recommendations, which are to:

10575 "...call upon the federal government

to acknowledge that Aboriginal rights include Aboriginal language rights ... and again call upon the federal government to enact an Aboriginal Languages Act that incorporates the following principles: i. Aboriginal languages are a fundamental and valued element of Canadian culture and society, and there is an urgency to preserve them; ii. Aboriginal language rights are reinforced by the Treaties; iii. The federal government has a responsibility to provide sufficient funds for Aboriginal-language revitalization and preservation; iv. The preservation, revitalization, and strengthening of Aboriginal languages and cultures are best managed by Aboriginal people and communities; v. Funding for Aboriginal language initiatives must reflect the diversity of Aboriginal languages.”

10576 We do commend the CBC North for their involvement in the Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2013-263 and Broadcasting Orders CRTC 2013-264 and 265.

10577 However, CBC North is not available in our region. They're only in Northern Quebec, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon.

10578 We need to ensure our territory and our people are well informed about the impacts, benefits and long-lasting effects the technical presence and program production by BDUs do have in our communities.

10579 For example, unlike municipalities, our communities have to manoeuvre through a convoluted process to access revenues from a supposed trust fund that comes from rental fees for the right-of-way access granted to Bell and Hydro for infrastructure in our communities.

10580 If Wawatay could access these funds to support our own broadcasting network, we could ensure the TRC recommendations are enacted and could put our minds at ease regarding the reclamation of Indigenous languages.

10581 Sharing First Peoples' languages with mainstream media could represent a step toward reconciliation. We need your help to move forward.

10582 Wawatay is prepared to manage a study to enhance our relationship with the CRTC and with BDUs to create policy and invest in training and capacity building through the establishment of multi-media access centres or hubs in our communities in order to enhance the socio-economic wellbeing of our people.

10583 I would like to pass the floor to Mike now. Thank you.

10584 MR. METATAWABIN: The societal impacts due to the lack of local community television programming.

10585 Prior to turning on the television signal in Fort Albany back in 1977, and even going back as far as 1974 when electricity was connected to the northern communities, the lifestyle was thriving.

10586 Before television, we were rich in cultural activities, harvesting for food, while involved in the economy with the fur trade and ultimately still engaged in our traditional cultural lifestyle.

10587 Many families stayed at the seasonal hunting camps throughout the year. Whole families were involved in communal activities and responsibilities from baby to elder. Our community was a playground without worries.

10588 As a youth, running water and electricity were luxuries we heard about in the south. We had to haul water for consumption and hygiene.

10589 Our only outlet for tapping into communications was by AM frequency on battery-powered radios. We used snare wire as an antenna to pick up AM frequencies. My mom was most fond of WBZ out of Boston, and WLS out of Chicago. The radio signal provided an outlet while people busied themselves at their camps and homes.

10590 After the infiltration of the television signal, we had gathered together with laughter, communal harmony and to listen to the older generation who shared their stories is what I remember before the fateful summer of 1977.

10591 The television signal was turned on and the change in culture began immediately and increased proportionately to the years we lived with this powerful influence. For instance, up to the summer of 1977 everybody was into recreation and especially baseball. We would skip out on supper to make sure we got onto a team.

10592 That first evening people were at home with their television sets on and almost nobody came out to the ball field except for five of us. We batted the ball around waiting for everyone to show up. Nobody showed up that first night and as we got to know, the rest of the summer nights after the television signal came alive.

10593 Upset and hurt that nobody wanted to play, my cousin suggested we go break off the antenna so that we could get everyone back out onto the field. We never did of course and ultimately the grass grew long and the ball diamond unattended to as the summers went by.

10594 The connection to technology created a disconnection to our valuable and natural surroundings. Nobody was out along the riverbanks any longer. The outdoors became quiet and life changed as we knew it.

10595 As the lead commissioner for the Muskegowuk Tribal Council’s People’s inquiry into suicide, I’ve heard firsthand the causes of suicide. The obvious traumas that are prevalent in every society made up the majority of causes, but I often wondered if the youth were affected by the television programming. Did they lose hope, because what television has to offer is unattainable, because it does not show what is in their backyard? By not valorizing what’s in our backyard, the values we held for the land dissipate.

10596 My brother and Elder, Edmund Metatawabin, says:

10597 “The radio and later television displaced the local medicine people, the grandparents and great- grandparents. It created a halt in the oral transmission of indigenous knowledge. This break from local custom, practices, and beliefs caused a sudden and insurmountable separation from the culture for the youth. The glue holding our communities together started to weaken. The child now had no socialization, the ability to learn from their own people. Values and teachings learnt now had no history, relevance, or meaning. Education was now automated and far away. Now the mind wanted to be far away and somewhere else at the expense of kin and family.”

10598 The negative societal and health impacts of television has been studied in other regions, although no data is available from our territories. But it is easy to remember how the peoples’ reaction changed after 1977. The life projected on television caused upheaval and desperation. Not having access to what we were viewing on TV seemed to escalate our anger and confusion. We understood the threat to our own language as the television programming was English or French. We did not see ourselves in the programming. We were foreigners in our own land.

10599 I have attached an appendix which was a question I posed on social media, and from the overwhelming responses I used some comments from across the Nishnawbe Aski territory. The point is that most people feel the same from different communities since the television signal was first available.

10600 Our Elders and founding members had the foresight to create Wawatay Native Communications Society for these reasons. And at this time I would like to thank them and I would like to name them; Garnet Angeconeb, Arthur Beardy, Abel Bluecoat, Ennis Crowe, David Cutfeet, Eddie Fiddler, Tom Fiddler, Mike Hunter, Gerald Mattinas, Alfred Mekanak, Frank McKay, Emile Nakogee, Joe Sakakeesic, Peter Sakanee, George Wesley and Reverend William Winter.

10601 Now we want to gather knowledge from our and other Indigenous communication organizations and media agencies in our fellow provinces and territories. We want to change the course of the decline in our culture and languages in our communities with your help. We want this to be a positive story. We want to expose the richness of the language, culture, lands and rivers, and inject our identity and story back into the mainstream fabric of Canadian media in urban areas. We need to bring back what is lost and forgotten.

10602 We do need your help. In this country, we have a tradition of helping communities express themselves, and we want to see that these policies are updated to support our own self-determination and to strengthen our ability to speak for ourselves and represent ourselves.

10603 Meegwech.

10604 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

10605 A lot of issues here, but, as I say, even the longest journey starts with a single step.

10606 So I’ll pass it on to Commissioner Simpson to have a few questions.

10607 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you.

10608 Boozhoo. Welcome. As the Chair said, this is the first step of what may be a long journey. And I also want to thank you for the -- it isn’t often we get a glossy intervention in front of us. I just hope we don’t give you glossy answers. We’ll do our best here.

10609 And a lot of this stuff is going to be way over my pay grade. But again I understand the intentions of your appearance here today because you’re trying to start a process that I’m quite sure at this point we’re not going to be able to satisfy but at least we can get everything on, as much as we can, on the table in the time allowed.

10610 First, I’d like to understand a bit about -- your organization is pretty good at the broadcasting component, particularly on the radio and the print side. And I was wondering if you could give me a better understanding -- because we know television is a powerful medium and it has the ability to convey understanding and resurrect languages hopefully.

10611 But why has it been difficult for you and others -- other First People to get your hands on this medium in a way that’s working for you; is it technical, is it financial, is it distribution, all of the above? Or did I just answer my own question?

10612 MR. GAGNON: I think you answered your own question, Commissioner.

10613 It’s a culmination of all the above, also capacity building. Having our people trained properly in the medium I think assists better in prolonging the work.

10614 But I think we were once working with TVO and CBC, and due to their cutbacks we found that we weren’t producing as much for them any longer.

10615 Then we were brought on to APTN, which in a very short wrap-around week it’s very difficult to get all our cultures and languages from coast-to-coast-to-coast represented on APTN.

10616 So we see this as the best way to come about this to rectify it is to have those regional communication areas having their own television.

10617 And I think it’s -- the power of television supersedes radio these days, and now internet seems to be doing that to TV. Our youth -- our demographic is an older demographic, which we’re still attracting our Elders and the older ones that still speak the language, but the demographic we need to go at is the youth that, you know, they want to see their language and culture and be able to view, you know, a mirror of ourselves on a TV. And I think with that kind of programming you’re going to better enhance the ability for our youth and the future generations to reclaim their place and language.

10618 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: So it’s that answer then that explains the statement you made on page 2. I’ll just read it to you. I think it’s the third paragraph down. You said:

10619 “We really have not been able to ‘reflect our official languages and cultural composition to the community’ nor provide ‘coverage of local events.’”

10620 So that has -- is that statement specifically referring to television?

10621 MR. GAGNON: That actually is more so to municipal television.

10622 So within our own communities -- you know, it’s like sharing food at your own table but if you’re going to offer someone else a seat at the table you need to open your door.

10623 So within our -- we have a lot of overlapping communities that overlap with municipalities, and I think being able to bridge the gap between our communities and municipalities and sharing our knowledge and language and culture would assist the mainstream in understanding who we are and why we’re here, and you know, a lot of things that may be left to -- left that hasn’t been informed properly, you know, in the mainstream information and media sharing.

10624 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Right.

10625 MR. GAGNON: So that was specifically directed to municipalities as opposed to -- because it’s obvious we ---

10626 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

10627 MR. GAGNON: --- we broadcast in our communities.

10628 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah. But would you -- I’m going to ask this for a reason that I’ll explain in a minute -- but would you say though that this inability is a policy deficiency or is it as much technical as financial? I’m trying -- because to me those are two big divides.

10629 MR. GAGNON: I see it -- again, as a bit of a combination, I think with -- if we look at municipalities, they're allotted local and community programming.

10630 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Right.

10631 MR. GAGNON: And then they have the access to the BDUs 5 -- 3 -- 2 to 5 percent, we didn’t even know that they did that. So in our communities we had no idea that that existed, so that’s kind of like a policy towards the revenue, you know. So if you were to say to the BDUs, say, “Well, you're collecting money from these people, from their homes that buy your service...” ---

10632 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

10633 MR. GAGNON: --- “...you’re also renting land from them that, you know, you stream your distribution from”, yet we had no idea that the communities -- municipal communities could access dollars for local and community programming.

10634 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Right.

10635 MR. GAGNON: Which -- like we have a budget that Wawatay uses for our two main branches, but our network of communities are based on local volunteering, and you know, there's not much capacity.

10636 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

10637 MR. GAGNON: And there's like turnover of people, so it’s -- I see that by creating a policy that would help us work better together all three of us, we could probably create a new process or a new journey.

10638 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Well that sure helps me understand why you're here at this particular process. You know, we live in this wonderful policy world and sometimes we have our blinders on. And you know, as I was going back to the Acts that guide us all, it was interesting, the Broadcast Act and the CBC component of it, both specifically reference Aboriginal cultures in Canada. But it was the broadcast distribution component that really didn’t -- you know, you very kindly said, “Well there's gaps in it and you know, there's really no specific reference.” So, that helps me understand why you're here today.

10639 So, from that perspective, my first policy question, which you can help us with, is would you give me -- we talk a lot about communities, community television has been talked about for a week and a half here and sometimes we talk about it as a place, other times we talk about it as a collective interest, will you give us your definition so that it can start us down this road in terms of your definition of a community of First People?

10640 MR. GAGNON: I’ll start with the first part of the question and then ---

10641 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thanks.

10642 MR. GAGNON: --- defer to my -- I think our version of a community radio station -- sorry, community television station would be something that reflects something that happens in our communities which, you know, is a wide range of -- whether it’d be -- and it’s very similar to municipal local community television, you know, council meetings, you know, bingo, whatever may be, you know, events happening in our community. We're not reinventing the wheel per se, we’re just trying to add -- make an addition to ourselves in the policy.

10643 So, you know, the things that are relevant to our community and language and culture is something that we would like to see, not only from our communities, but interjected into the mainstream local community access stations. That way let’s -- we’re going to bridge gaps with our municipal partners and follow from that.

10644 Do you have something to add, Mike?

10645 MR. METATAWABIN: I’m just going to say that for me what stands out is acknowledging that the language and culture are still strong in the communities, and that we need -- for the language, it would be a good way of tapping onto more communities, tapping onto more homes, to the youth. And also using television as a tool to create that understanding, to nurture the language, because you need visuals too to make people understand, it’s not always just by listening. You also need -- you also need to be walking or be within nature in order to appreciate what the words mean and how they describe the environment.

10646 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: It’s interesting, even the most ancient of cultures are dealing with modern problems going from an oral culture to an audiovisual culture, and that -- it’s something that we’re all grappling with.

10647 We’ve heard a lot of different formulas, most of them were, you know, focused on the idea of moving money around. But CACTUS had come forward with -- as had been discussed earlier -- something that was disruptive, different, revolutionary, pause for thought, and it was to -- well, have you read the CACTUS proposal? Okay. In generality, does that kind of model start to fit what you're thinking?

10648 MR. GAGNON: Absolutely, Commissioner, that’s a model that we can look at. Of course, there would be alterations for our language and culture to make it appropriate for our place.

10649 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

10650 MR. GAGNON: But I do believe that their model is based off a model from the States ---

10651 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: M'hm.

10652 MR. GAGNON: --- and it’s similar. So it’s -- as for radical and stuff, I think, you know, us being in front of you guys is something new and -- not so much radical, but I think it’s something that we’re making change even just be showing up here.

10653 So if we were to look at some, you know, this is something that we would look at further in the future because this is just the beginning of the proceedings, but similar to any type of hack cloud that’s in any city.

10654 What we see is something in the ability that what's being offered to the youth in any mainstream urban or rural town, we would like to have that duplicated for our youth.

10655 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: M'hm.

10656 MR. GAGNON: We see the youth -- the French youth in Quebec have an AM station and it’s Jeune -- Jeune AM, excuse me if I’m getting it wrong, but it’s amazing to see these young people running the broadcast. You know, it’s ---

10657 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

10658 MR. GAGNON: --- and they're engaged. So they’ve never felt any kind of shame to their language or culture, so they’ve been able to progress and, you know, follow society, you know, at a normal pace, whereas -- and perhaps maybe with some of the old policies people tell to us, we may have been held back a little bit, so we see these proceedings and these times as a way to catch up and move forward.

10659 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: M'hm. You referenced the United States just a second ago and, you know, I’ve been -- in preparation for this session, I’ve been looking with great interest in how it’s been evolving down there. And of course, there's a lot more money and there's a lot more politics and there's a lot more interest group activity. But where it seems to have evolved down there -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- vision maker as an entity seems to be popping up again and again. It’s financed by interest groups, heavily financed by contributions from public broadcasting, but what I couldn’t see from the American activity that we seem to be talking about more here, is multi-platform. And my question regarding multi-platform -- and I'm thinking about delivery systems into remote northern communities, you're talking television, but sometimes other -- sometimes smartphones work.

10660 MR. GAGNON: Yes.

10661 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: And we’ve seen countries go from no phones to cellphones, and I want to believe from my exposure to northern markets, having done my tours, I’m seeing a lot more kids in front of cellphones than television sets. So is this part of the model as far as you're concerned?

10662 MR. GAGNON: Yeah, absolutely. You know, we were looking forward to -- that’s it, you know, like even programing coding, is going to be a language of the future, and that's something that we have to understand, that in order to keep up with not only the reclamation or preservation aspect of our language ---

10663 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

10664 MR. GAGNON: --- we have to see that new languages will be coming forward, and we have to utilize these as a means to stay in the game of communications. So, absolutely, like the hack clouds are like I say, that Toronto has a few hack clouds which are, you know, the multimedia or transmedia, there's a few different terms going around, that you know, hit all different platforms. And I think if we were looking at a means of looking into what we want for our communities, we’d have to take a gamut -- a lot at the whole gamut ---

10665 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yeah.

10666 MR. GAGNON: --- and ensure that, you know, we’re not leaving anything out. Especially, we do not want to leave out analogue radio, which if the satellites ever went out, you know, we’d always have a means to communicate with -- with one another. So like it's to bridge the gap of the old technology to the new technology.

10667 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Well, I was impressed -- I guess is the correct word when I -- we had a second presentation from Cactus and Company. And it was a presentation that was really addressing -- you know, it was forward leaning, I think is the word everybody uses these days. And I would like on that idea of multi-platform, get an idea from you as to how technology would work given that -- a couple of things.

10668 Just let me paint the picture here. Many communities, most communities probably serve by DTH, which is not -- which doesn’t play well with others because it’s that kind of system. You have over the air transmission in other markets, which again, doesn’t really work given what we’re talking about. So does a system that perhaps downlinks to communities and then is able to be within a Wi-Fi system within a community getting stuff onto portable devices, is that the kind of system that might work? Mic, please. Yeah. Yeah

10669 MR. GAGNON: It is part of our business plan to have Wi-Fi hotspots in our communities.

10670 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Cool.

10671 MR. GAGNON: But I’m not sure if these, you know, we got to talk bandwidth and how we’re getting -- you know, like the downlink and the uplink are quite not -- not quite as up to speed as, you know, a broadband cable. So I guess once, you know, the future comes with, you know, as satellites get stronger, our signals get stronger, there’ll be a lot that we can do with it. But at, you know, present time, we could be using Wi-Fi hotpots in our communities and that would assist our youth in, you know, tapping into the system a little more, for sure.

10672 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: M’hm. I guess just coming to a close on my questioning, it’s probably pretty evident that a lot of the recommendations you’re making with respect to access to trust and so on is well without -- beyond the scope of this hearing. But again, Ottawa being Ottawa, there are many ears listening. So, you know, it’s on the record.

10673 I think those are my questions. So with -- the only other word of Cree I know, I’m going to try it. Miigwich.

10674 MR. METATAWABIN: Miigwich.

10675 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you.

10676 THE CHAIRPERSON: So I’m looking to my colleagues to see if there are any questions. No?

10677 This hearing was already very difficult before you brought these sorts of issues to us. So thank you very much. But perhaps the wisdom in your opening prayer there will help us make good decisions. So thank you very much for participating. Thank you.

10678 MR. GAGNON: Thank you.

10679 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madame la Secrétaire.

10680 THE SECRETARY: I will now Forum for Research and Policy in Communications to come to presentation table.

10681 Please introduce yourself and you have 10 minutes.

PRESENTATION

10682 MR. FRENKEN: Try that one. Yeah. A little light goes on.

10683 Thank you, Madame Secretary. Before beginning our remarks I would like to introduce the members of our panel. My name is Sjef Frenken and I chair the Forum’s Board of Directors. After working in private radio in Ottawa and Toronto I spent 24 years at the CRTC, including a stint as director of broadcasting policy and I worked on a very broad range of broadcasting files.

10684 To my right is John Harris Stevenson, the Forum’s Vice-chair. John has worked in community broadcasting for more than 25 years. And in addition to being a past president of the Community Radio Fund of Canada and the National Campus and Community Radio Association, he has led community radio stations in Halifax, Guelph and Ottawa. John is currently completing a PhD in internet governance at the University of Toronto researching Google and its global technological infrastructure.

10685 To John’s right is Al MacKay, a 45-year veteran of the broadcast industry and a member of the Forum’s board. In addition to working as a radio and television broadcast journalist, Al was a vice-president and station manager during a 25-year career at CJOH Television in Ottawa and he later ran CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel for three years.

10686 To my left is Monica Auer, the Forum’s Executive Director. Monica worked at the CRTC in the 1980s in broadcast policy and analysis, and at the CBC in the 1990s in broadcasting and telecommunications matters, after which she became a lawyer.

10687 To Monica’s left is Dr. Mark Bourrie. He was a reporter at the Globe and Mail from ’81 to ’88, at the Toronto Star from ’88 to ’94, and at the Parliamentary Press Gallery for 21 years winning several major journalism awards along the way. Mark has taught at the Journalism faculty of Concordia University and is now lecturing at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa. The Forum has retained Mark’s services as an expert in journalism.

10688 Beside Mark is Doug Wilson, who in addition to degrees in economics, accounting and finance, is also a charter professional accountant and a certified management accountant. After five years at the Canada Revenue Agency auditing, investigating and testifying in tax evasion prosecutions, Doug worked in a number of capacities at the CRTC for 30 years, including director of industry analysis which he -- where he led the audit and verification of broadcast licensees annual returns. Doug has lectured on financial and management accounting on both Carleton University and Algonquin College and the Forum has retained Doug’s services as an expert with respect to financial reporting issues and broadcasting.

10689 I will now move to our remarks.

10690 THE CHAIRPERSON: You know, as veterans in this business, you should know that what we’re looking for when we ask you to identify yourself is just your name so the court reporter can follow it. It is not an opportunity to give all your individual CVs. I mentioned that to a group yesterday. You should know better. Go ahead.

10691 MS. AUER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

10692 MR. FRENKEN: Mr. Chairman, whether by accident or sound planning, this hearing is taking place at just the right time. Journal -- excuse me -- journalism in all its forms is under assault in this country. The news business itself has become the news, with newspapers cutting back or ceasing print publications and the electronic media outlets going through cycle after cycle of layoffs and cuts.

10693 CBC summed up the situation very concisely. The broadcasting industry is in the midst of the largest shift in audience behaviour since the advent of television. No one can say with any certainty what the landscape would look like after all the upheavals end.

10694 The CRTC cannot do anything about the print media, but it can do something about electronic journalism, and in particular, local television news.

10695 Al MacKay will now address the issue of local news and central casting.

10696 MR. MACKAY: Previous CRTC decisions have created large corporations driven purely by bottom-line results that have put the future of local television stations and their news operations in jeopardy. With no set requirement for hours of original local news, operators have reduced to newsroom expenditures, and in some cases, cut back on newscast production.

10697 BCE has told you that a local physical presence is no longer needed in a digital age and we disagree. The local station is very much at the heart of a community. If you’re doing it right, your newscasts, your anchors, your civic engagement in support of local organizations are all woven into the fabric of the community. Some intervenors suggest that where a newscast is assembled and broadcast from doesn’t matter today. They argue that by having a storefront operation, shipping pieces to be packaged in a central location, system known as the central casting is just fine.

10698 We disagree. Central casting removes control from the people who actually live and work in the communities they’re supposed to be reflecting. The overall content in these programs is not chosen in the local communities and the order in which the stories are presented is not decided with local communities.

10699 We therefore oppose the proposed definition for local programming. By omitting any reference to local editorial and production control, all programs broadcast out of central hubs to individual communities will count as local programming. We don’t think that’s right.

10700 A legitimate regulatory solution within your jurisdiction is to set clear condition of license for hours of original local news produced in and broadcast from local stations.

10701 An observation, if I may, Mr. Chairman, as I read through some of the submissions, this is what I thought I heard.

10702 Canadians depend on local news. Research shows local news is important, but we can't afford to do it.

10703 There is strong interest in local news from viewers of all ages, but we can't sell it.

10704 Local news is the primary contribution of a local station to its community, but we really don't want to do it unless it is profitable or, at the very least, breaks even.

10705 The service, which the stations say is so important and of interest to its audience, and which is so critical to the Canadian broadcasting system, is now the responsibility of the Commission to fix.

10706 I'm old school, Mr. Chairman, as you might guess from the colour of the hair. I had thought that providing well-resourced, substantive news and information programming was an accepted responsibility by a licensee for being given access to publicly owned airwaves.

10707 Maybe the problem, as Andrew Coyne noted in a recent column about the woes of the print media, is that people are not buying what they're selling.

10708 Television newscasts have remained much the same since they came into being in the 1960s, a lot more bells and whistles, fancy graphics, flashy sets, but the way the content is prepared and presented is basically the same.

10709 Maybe it's time for the broadcasters to think about a new model.

10710 I’d like to throw it to Mark now to address the concept of professionalism in broadcast journalism.

10711 MR. BOURRIE: I will be focussing on the idea that community channels can or should undertake television newscasts, from the perspective of journalistic professionalism.

10712 This idea is more of a Pandora's box than a good solution to Canadian journalism's problems. The overarching reason is that professional journalism requires more than just an interest in current affairs; it demands significant resources.

10713 Much of journalism's value-added comes from the analysis of facts by journalists who work full-time on beats or in geographic areas, and can therefore contextualize the information they present. For example, a paper like the now-defunct Guelph Mercury would field, say, 30 journalists in a mid-sized market, where a TV station might have six to ten full-time trained videographers.

10714 Community channels cannot duplicate that level of coverage. Yes, their volunteers can record a few community events like sports and sporadic important public meetings, but they cannot and do not engage in investigative reporting. They don’t report daily on current local events, or provide the up-to-the-minute information needed in emergencies. That requires full-time, professional journalists who have been trained and continue to be trained.

10715 And even if they are familiar with professional journalists' Codes, standards and practices, volunteer reporters cannot be expected to know defamation law. This means that if they have a mandate from the channel to report on controversial issues, they will face serious legal risks.

10716 Private and public television stations can undertake these risks because they hire trained professionals, because they can afford and have liable insurance and other defamation insurance, because they have 24/7 access to legal counsel and/or because they have the resources to go to court.

10717 To be clear, as newspapers collapse, communities' need for local television journalists to provide understandable, relevant, timely factual reporting is greater than ever. Canadians are entitled to this information. But without a significant and ongoing commitment of resources, how will community TV channels replicate local TV journalism?

10718 In my view, it would be a serious mistake to see journalism as a hobby or passion. It is a profession. It demands training, experience, time and significant financial resources.

10719 Thank you.

10720 MR. STEVENSON: I’ll be addressing a couple of questions regarding community television.

10721 The community channel as it was originally conceived in the 1970s is long gone. It has become, in too many instances, a watered-down version of commercial broadcasting, lacking in innovation and vitality and no longer centred on the local.

10722 We do not argue that these community channels have no value, but in the past 15 years that value has decreased significantly. The stewardship of community television is in the wrong hands.

10723 Community broadcasting should mean community ownership and control. Our position on this is purely practical: community governance means more varied and challenging programming that reflects local communities. We recommend that community control over community channels be increased.

10724 Even if this is done, community television will only be relevant if it focuses on programming that is high quality, innovative, and hyper-local.

10725 To accomplish this, the Forum suggests that community television production be gradually decoupled from BDU control. We recommend that a portion of BDU contributions to community channel program production be directed to independent, local video production, and be administered by an independent party at arms-length from both BDUs and community television organizations. Absent a television equivalent of the Community Radio Fund of Canada, this support could potentially be administered by the Canadian Media Fund.

10726 Not only should BDUs be obligated to broadcast this supported programming, it should also be made available through exempt services such as YouTube. We also see the value in some portion of this funding being made available to pilot new and innovative ways of producing and distributing community video content.

10727 MR. WILSON: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I was asked by the Forum for an opinion on the annual return reporting process for conventional television licensees, and I will summarize my answers here.

10728 One of the questions I was asked had to do with the degree to which the CRTC's current annual return process is accurately reflecting the financial status of individual television stations.

10729 As the Commission is aware, certain of the annual return data for each of the largest ownership groups has been published on an aggregated basis since 2008. However, the annual return data for the individual stations included in the aggregate are kept confidential and are not available for public review.

10730 What this means is that it is not possible for the public to undertake any informed analyses of the financial and operating results of individual stations, including, for example, what expenses have been incurred by, or allocated to or from, a particular station or stations, or to another station or stations.

10731 The second part of this question had to do with whether the aggregated financial results reflect what is really happening in Canadian television.

10732 Well, the individual financial operating results, or annual returns, of each licensed originating station that make up the aggregate return are, along with the aggregate results, audited by Commission staff. They therefore presumably reflect the answers to the questions asked by the annual return form.

10733 Finally, I was asked whether the development of central casting business models ought to be reflected in the annual return.

10734 In my opinion, any time there is a fundamental change in the way in which a business operates, the financial reporting system should be changed, as necessary, to properly disclose the revised operation of the business.

10735 The introduction of central broadcasting hubs, or central casting, is a fundamental change in the conventional business model for packaging and distributing programs to local TV audiences.

10736 Therefore, as the purpose of the annual return is to properly report the financial results from the operations of the individual TV undertakings, and the central hub is a critical component affecting those operations, the CRTC should adjust its annual return to properly disclose this.

10737 Thank you.

10738 MS. AUER: I will end with four points.

10739 First, the Forum does not support a new local news fund. Local service is a fundamental part of conventional broadcasters' regulatory bargain. If vertically integrated companies are now pleading that they cannot make money from their very large TV audiences and are threatening to close stations, they should return those licences but with a year’s warning to allow others to apply for them.

10740 The CRTC has the authority and should then set conditions of licence for, specified and rising hours of, and expenditures on, original, local television programming.

10741 The SMITS coalition made a solid case for an increase in the SMLPF, however, and we support that.

10742 Second, section 34(6) of the BDU Regs says terrestrial BDUs must allocate 2 percent to community channels to encourage them to spend more. The regulations might be changed to say "at least 2 percent or at least no less than percent".

10743 Third, the late disclosure or absence of relevant data about local TV stations' programming and financials reduced non-broadcasters' effective participation in this hearing. The CRTC's annual Monitoring Reports ought to include data about each TV station's original local programming and its source, by programming category.

10744 Fourth and last, the Forum agrees that Canadians are seeing "the largest journalistic fire sale" in the history of Canadian news.

10745 Local TV news is in such trouble that this hearing's decisions could have very dramatic effects for dozens of local communities, whose right to be informed is in crisis.

10746 That may sound like Cassandra. Of course, Greek myth tells us that Cassandra's prophecies came true. Her curse was never to be believed.

10747 We will end more positively, however, by recalling Oscar Wilde's comment, that:

10748 “A map of the world that does not

include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which humanity is always landing. And when humanity lands there it looks out, and seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realization of utopias; and, of course, the utopia we’re all aiming at here is section 3 of the Act.”

10749 Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commission staff. We welcome your questions.

10750 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Commissioner MacDonald?

10751 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Good afternoon, and thank you for sticking with us until the end of the day.

10752 In your intervention you stated that two-thirds of news programming should be locally produced. I’m just wondering where you came up with that number of two-thirds. Why not 75 percent; why not 50 percent?

10753 MS. AUER: Well, I think before Al comments on that, I should just say that we’re looking at the concept of predominance, and for us predominance should be more than five minutes of a 30-minute news cast. It ought to be predominantly and therefore, quite frankly, we took the arbitrary number of two-thirds.

10754 Al, did you want to add something?

10755 MR. MacKAY: I just think that’s a baseline number. Some nights it could be higher, some nights would be lower but on average you’d like to expect at least two-thirds of what you’re seeing has been produced in your market.

10756 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: You talked about the issues of central casting and your opposition to it, and throughout the course of the hearing we’ve heard other intervenors suggest that that’s one way that they can leverage technology, leverage networks, and make their news programming more financially viable. And I’d like to sort of get your thoughts on what you feel is lost that viewers are losing when an organization central cast versus has more of a local presence.

10757 MS. AUER: I think both Al and Mark would like to address that.

10758 I did want to return to one small point. I think it’s fair to say that we don’t have a necessarily positive view of central casting in our written submission. Our concern is rather, however, that the use of central casting if left unchecked simply eliminates local content. And that’s a context from which -- we don’t say no, you can never use central casting. Perhaps it’s a very functional way of doing programming cost-effectively. Our concern is specifically with the issue of local content, local control, local production.

10759 I think first Al might say something, and then Mark.

10760 MR. MacKAY: It just strikes me that if somebody in a remote location is packaging your local news, they’re not on the ground in your community, they may not have even been in your community. It’s all being done for efficiency. I would like to have a local newscast that’s put together where the order of the stories, the length of the stories, the stories that are not local but are of other interest, national or international, how that is packaged I’d like to have that done by somebody who lives and works in the community for the station that I’m watching. I think as long as you offshore that, you’re losing control; you’re losing the flavour that makes how you approach the delivery of information to your local consumers has been diluted.

10761 MR. BOURRIE: I’d also add that -- I’d prefer to see a situation where journalists are interacting with the people in the community, which means the ability of the community to approach the journalist, and the journalist to know the community well. And when you have central casting, you get a lot of voiceover; you get a lot of image without spending the money to actually get someone there.

10762 And even if you do send people from a central location, the person who comes in is in for a day, is in for a moment and is maybe picking up the local print media, maybe talking to a few people but never really understanding it.

10763 MS. AUER: If I could add one more point, and I think we did address this briefly in our written submission; that is, the notion that if you have a central casting hub identifying the needs of every community, is there not a risk of loss of diversity?

10764 The idea of diversity when it was first investigated a few years ago, I think it was when BCE was buying CTV, perhaps, there was a concern that there would be a loss of diversity if you combined the news and the television room as well.

10765 I think the same risk can occur when you simply combine all television studios and production centres in a few central areas. Those decision-making authorities, then, are having very complete control and you risk the homogenization of local news.

10766 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: So if I can do a dangerous thing which is try and draw a line in the sand, you’re suggesting that, you know, to preserve locally reflective content, that the news anchor, the reporter should be on the ground; the people that are making the decisions about what is actually going to make it to air should be from the community, but perhaps there may be backroom functions that could be undertaken out of a central hub? Does it matter where the technician sits that splices the video together or where the person doing the closed captioning actually resides? Is that a fair characterization of what you’re saying?

10767 MS. AUER: I think Al is going to answer that but -- I’ll let Al take that, yeah.

10768 MR. MacKAY: Captioning I wouldn’t worry about. Captioning can be done anywhere, as long as you’ve got a clean feed coming in and somebody who’s doing the captioning knows what they’re doing.

10769 But having the piece cut not where the local station is, I don’t think any journalist would like to say we’re just going to ship off the video and have somebody else cut it. You want to cut it in-house in your community, and you want to make those judgment calls.

10770 I mean, riding the news desk at CJOH for a number of years, you get reporters coming up and saying, “I’ve got a really good story here.” Our normal running length back when I was doing it was about two minutes; it’s a lot less now.

10771 So you’d listen to the pitch, decide whether you’ve got the flexibility in your package to say, “Okay, you’ve got two. And if you want two and a half, go ahead,” because then I’ll take out a copy story later on which would be nice to put in but if it doesn’t, it’s not vital.

10772 So you’re always juggling. You’re always making judgment calls and decisions on the relative value and the relative importance of each piece that goes into your package. And if that’s being done offshore, it’s not reflecting in your community.

10773 I mean, The Post Media papers are not laid out in their communities. They ship off the material to a central source, Hamilton or Toronto; I’m not sure which one now. And they’re the people that put the paper together. And I think we as consumers in this town have lost because of that.

10774 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: You used a term just there and it was “relative value,” and often times these come down to financial decisions, and would you say that it is fair that these organizations that are producing news do need to look at the relative value of having someone in the community actually doing the cutting together of the video versus being able to use those budget dollars to invest in other area that help them deliver a high quality of programming?

10775 MR. MacKAY: I’m not sure of your question, sir.

10776 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Well, you were talking about relative value and, you know, given the fact that these organizations do work within an increasingly difficult financial envelope in which they’re forced to function, don’t you think that they also need to weigh the balance of where the best place is to invest those resources? Maybe the best place isn’t on having everything being local and they need to make -- be given the flexibility to make their own judgment calls about where and how that money’s spent to deliver the news programming?

10777 MR. MacKAY: Well, I think every newscaster I know -- or news director I know has been given a budget for their operation, with the understanding that if there were unexpected events, that you have some flexibility to go over your budget.

10778 But I just don’t see how having some of these key decision-making undertaken offshore really helps you as a reflection of the community.

10779 MS. AUER: If I might just add, Commissioner, one of the issues is that, yes, central casting can deliver benefits and it can deliver benefits to broadcasters. That’s understood, and it’s rational.

10780 The issue perhaps from our perspective or the issue is from our perspective; how is it actually benefitting communities? Are we actually seeing more reporters or more reporting resources being allocated to communities? In fact, the reverse is true. We’re seeing more and more cuts and layoffs. You’ve heard this already from other intervenors, I’m sure.

10781 Then the other thing is that you look at where money is actually going. And I notice that since between 2009 and 2014, private broadcasters have spent $670 million more on non-Canadian than they have on Canadian programming. So it raises a concern in our minds as to whether or not some of the savings from central casting are in fact being reinvested in foreign content, which would -- might actually seem a bit perverse.

10782 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, just moving on back to your original submission, and I'm going to read here:

10783 "The CRTC should therefore require

local television broadcasters to set out specific exhibition and expenditure requirements for each of their television stations." (As read)

10784 Can you comment on what those specific requirements should look like?

10785 MS. AUER: Well, there are a number of ways to go after that question. One could just look in the rear-view mirror and look at what was happening in the late 1980s, the early 1990s in terms of what broadcasters were then providing in terms of original local news and non news programming.

10786 But times have changed, we're 20 years on, then the question would be well are the current very large, in most cases, broadcasters capable of reflecting their community in a more in-depth manner, rather than continuously cutting their programs.

10787 Our perspective would be that rather than reducing the current levels of original -- well, sorry -- reducing the current levels of local programming, which is not even original local programming in many cases, there should be an increase in those hours in order to retain the license.

10788 If you are going to purport to be serving your local community there should be a reasonable effort to provide that local reflection within the schedule and to do more rather than less each year.

10789 As for expenditures, I don't think we want to take a specific position at this point as to what a specific percentage might be. I should recall, though, I mean, we all know that in the late 1980s, when the commission set expenditure requirements for Canadian content as a percentage of broadcast revenues, it proved very effective in stimulating Canadian program production.

10790 So we would be looking at, obviously, a percentage, but we don't have access to the individual stations' financials, so it's not like we can go back and say well this is what they historically did. We might be able to look at the aggregated, but the aggregated data only date from 2008 when serious cuts to local programming had already taken place.

10791 THE CHAIRPERSON: So the approach would have to be on a station-by station basis, versus just a blanket?

10792 MS. AUER: Well, I think the commission is kind of caught in a bind, because Section 9 of the Act requires you to look at the circumstances of the licensee, not the circumstances of the individual undertaking. So if you're looking at the circumstances of the licensee and you have a large vertically integrated company with ample resources, perhaps, then you might look at it differently than if you were looking at a member of the SMITS Coalition.

10793 THE CHAIRPERSON: With respect to offering news programming on community television -- I don't want to put words in your mouth -- but would it be a correct assumption that you would have some concerns with community stations offering news programming because they may lack a professional quality of journalism?

10794 MS. AUER: I think that Mark would very much like to answer that question, and ---

10795 THE CHAIRPERSON: He's already got his mic on.

10796 MS. AUER: And I don't know whether ---

10797 MR. BOURRIE: Playing reach for the top again.

10798 The problem is that you're talking about volunteers coming in playing reporter, and it is a line of work, it is a trade at the very least. It requires certain skills to do right. It also requires the knowledge of issues, and the knowledge of the craft to do it well.

10799 So the idea that people are going to come in and volunteer to do basically something that's a professional thing, I think it's asking too much of a volunteer pool, and I think it's asking too much that they have the training to do it well and to do it bravely.

10800 I think that's a big issue, is are you going to get people who are going to go out and cover things that are going to make people unhappy, and especially in small and medium size markets, and I simply don't think you would.

10801 MS. AUER: I think ---

10802 MR. STEVENSON: Oh, just briefly.

10803 From a -- in volunteer centric community broadcasting, the hardest programming to produce, the hardest information programming is the regular news programming. You -- it requires someone to be available, accessible, pursuing information, following stories, being inconvenienced, and also often not being compensated financially, and that's a pretty difficult combination of things.

10804 So there are opportunities for people to provide, on a volunteer basis, all sorts of important community information to produce documentaries, to do focus programming, all sorts of things, but news is a real challenge. And I've been at several stations that have tried to do news, and it's very, very, difficult. It's not impossible but it's very difficult.

10805 MS. AUER: We actually went through the exercise at one point of assuming that we knew the total number of community channels available in Canada and then assuming, well, suppose we wanted each of them to hire three or, you know, hire a certain number or more of journalists.

10806 And we found that just adding one full time journalist to each channel, using two thirds of the average annual salary shown in local private broadcasters' financial summaries -- I think the average was 89,000, so we just knocked off a third of it -- that alone, one journalist for each channel would cost $8 million.

10807 So you can easily do the math. If you wanted to add three, which might be useful for a large community area, you're looking at almost $24 million. That is not counting the indirect costs to which Mark referred previously, such as the cost of having insurance, lawyers, all that fun stuff.

10808 MR. MacKAY: There's also a matter of editorial experience. The people that you want running your newscast have to have been in the business for a while. They have to come up from the bottom up. You only learn by some of the screw-ups that you make on the way up to the top.

10809 And having volunteers, who, with all good intentions, would like to become journalists and think they can become journalists by just doing a couple of hours a week, it's not going to work. You need to have senior people, who are ready to make the tough decisions on the allocation of resources and labour and have the backup that Mark talked about for legal training and whatnot.

10810 MR. BOURRIE: One last point, two-part point.

10811 One is that there's a reason why journalism schools are three, four year programs and not a couple of weeks. And that the system that we have for volunteers, sort of similar to blogging. And 10 years ago, everybody thought oh, blogs would take the place of print media, but blogs are going the way of all flesh, simply because people find that work to be hard and somewhat boring and with very little real positive feedback in the long run and also uneconomical, and we've actually seen the number of written blogs dropping precipitously in the last few years.

10812 I think if you opened up a news program in a small community, like the one I come from, Midland, you might have a few people for a few days, but after a while, they would get sick of it. It would be very hard to maintain interest and professionalism.

10813 THE CHAIRPERSON: A lot of the responses that I just heard seem to assume that there would be volunteers doing the actual news programming.

10814 And what if funding was provided to those community stations to enable them to go out and hire whatever the right number is for that station, be it two journalists, in some cases, maybe it could be three or four in others? What if that funding was provided? Do you think that they would be able to step up and provide a quality of news, perhaps even focusing on particular communities that can't avail of local news programming through an over the air provider or a commercial station today?

10815 MS. AUER: Well, I think John wants to answer that, but as I said, we did a back-of an envelope Excel spreadsheet looking at the costs of adding staff, paid staff, to community channels. And the cost, as I said, for adding just three people was around $24 million.

10816 All right ---

10817 THE CHAIRPERSON: Which would not be the most expensive suggestion we've heard over the last seven or eight days.

10818 MS. AUER: I think everybody wants to try to be reasonable and to keep costs down. The point is if you want to have a professional set of journalists it's going to cost money, and those are just the direct hiring costs. That's not pensions, that's not legal services, that's not -- I'm saying it's going to be significantly more expensive.

10819 John?

10820 MR. STEVENSON: I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we have this sector of the television system, which is the community channel, and it has lost its identity as a volunteer-centric part of that system. It doesn't have government structures in place that are community driven, and so now, we'd ask it to take on a, what has bene a commercial activity, which is newsgathering and reporting.

10821 Is -- does that mean, then, that that function within the broadcasting system is no longer a commercial function?

10822 It’s something that the system has to produce. It has to be subsidized. It has to be supported. Will conventional television, commercial television be expected to no longer be required to produce local news programming? And I -- so I’m -- it has a lot of implications for the identity of the community channel, which many people during this process have indicated they have a clear idea of what that -- how that identity should evolve.

10823 MS. AUER: One other thing I might add is that one of our dilemmas in approaching this, apart from the fact that we have knowledgeable people who’ve been in the system, they’ve worked in the system, we were unable to find any data on the number of broadcast journalists in Canada. We looked for data for radio journalists. We looked for data on TV journalists. We certainly couldn’t find anything on a station by station basis.

10824 So on the one hand we’re sort of looking at this almost with blinders on, or we’re looking at it blindly. We don’t know where we’re moving from and we don’t know then what would happen when we get there. As I said, we looked at the idea of hiring three journalists for each -- for each -- well, we looked at the idea of hiring two journalists for -- full-time journalists for each of 137 different community channels, and that would be 548 reporters. But there are some 6,000 people working in the private television industry now. I don’t know how many of those people are reporters, but I’m assuming a fair number are.

10825 So in other words, the result, the net effect if, hypothetically, community channels undertook local news in its entirety, I don’t think that’s an issue. But if it were, hypothetically, you’re going to see a devastating set of layoffs at a time when the economy and communities can’t withstand it.

10826 MR. MacKAY: I’m also leery as a journalist for external funding coming into that, because at some point in time somebody’s going to ask you how you spent the money; what did you do with it? And then you’re into reports, then you’re into analysis, and I’ve been on the receiving end of grants and contributions from the Federal government and it’s almost got to the point that it’s not worth the effort to try and get the money because the reporting is so onerous.

10827 And if you’re asking for, well, how did you spend the money? You’re asking for a justification for every decision that you’re making within the course of running your journalistic operation, and that gets into some slippery slopes.

10828 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Just to change gears. In your intervention you suggested that platforms like YouTube can’t be considered a substitute for a BDU community channel. One of the reasons you put forward was that the reach is relatively small compared to broadcast television.

10829 But when we had Rogers in here speaking a few days ago they described a situation recently where an Ottawa choir was singing for a group of recently arrived Syrian refugees and someone took the graphic of that on their phone and uploaded it to YouTube and it got a million hits. And Rogers was there with professional quality equipment and they had a much smaller uptake, I think in the vicinity of 2,500 people viewed it on Rogers.

10830 So do you think that maybe we’re -- maybe you’re underestimating the reach and the value of some of those platforms?

10831 MR. STEVENSON: Well, YouTube has a very significant reach. There’s no -- there’s no question about that and there are other video platforms as well, and Facebook and so on, and they all have a global reach with billions of potential viewers of the content. There’s a couple of difficulties though with relying on those platforms, and most significantly the content producers do not ultimately have much control over that content. It is someone else’s platform. Someone else is paying for the bandwidth to distribute the content. The terms under which that content is monetized are not -- are not yours.

10832 And if you follow YouTube and Google’s efforts to change the monetization of YouTube content, there have been a lot of concerns around different programs that YouTube has brought in, on one hand to monetize music content, another to monetize all content with YouTube red. And it’s simply very, very difficult for a content producer to know that their content is going to be on this third-party platform reliably in the long term. And it’s a difficult bargain that anyone who uses YouTube or Facebook has to enter into.

10833 So it’s -- I would always argue that you should exploit these platforms as best as you can, but you can’t give yourself over to the platform and sacrifice your independence, your editorial independence, open yourself up to copyright concerns and various other things. So the utility is there, but there are an awful lot of risks going forward.

10834 MR. McKAY: The question I would have of Rogers is, who was first to the party? Who uploaded it first? And if the person who shot on the cell phone was the first to the game, then they are obviously going to get the lion’s share of the attention. And if you follow a couple of hours later, it’s too late. People have already moved on.

10835 MR. BOURRIE: Also it’s an exception that doesn’t prove a rule. It’s sort of like VICE coming in here and saying, you know, we do all these fabulous stories. They do do fabulous stories, but they don’t do them in Thunder Bay, and they don’t do them next Wednesday and last Thursday, and whatever. It’s -- they’re not there all the time. They -- you would get a fabulous hit on something, maybe you know, a dog trick or something on YouTube, but that’s not -- it’s not journalistic coverage. It’s not the same thing.

10836 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: You, in your intervention you expressed concerns that BDUs were acting as gatekeepers to access producers, gaining funding, or gaining the ability to have their content aired. And I’m just wondering if the BDU in some of these cases isn’t the gatekeeper, who should it be?

10837 MR. STEVENSON: Well there’s -- if you have a linear programming service, or really, if you’re going to be putting resources into any kind of program production, there’s going to be an editorial function or a gatekeeping function. We -- there are people that will show up with content that you may not want to be -- air on your service, and that’s reasonable. The concern is really the extent to which governance impact the kind of programming that’s available on community channels.

10838 There is research going back decades about the impact of different governance and ownership structures on programming content and editorial content. And there are sometimes obvious control and changes that take place to content and there are sometimes more subtle changes. I don’t think there’s any -- it’s any coincidence that when I get a look at large community channels across the country, in the Maritimes, and in Ottawa, and Toronto and so on, you see a lot of similar programming.

10839 A lot of very similar, very innocuous -- for the most part -- programming. And it isn’t necessarily a poor quality, and it doesn’t necessarily not fill some need within the community. But that’s a clear manifestation of these channels as brand extension for BDUs. And I know that it’s often very well intentioned, and it’s not a matter of the heavy hand of editorial control coming down.

10840 But we should be seeing innovation at these channels. Innovation within the broadcasting system should be happening at the margins, at the non-commercial margins. And I can say that that’s happening in community radio for better or worse sometimes. But I can’t say that that’s happening in the bulk of the community channels. It simply doesn’t happen there anymore. It happened there 20 years ago, and as I said, for better or worse.

10841 Pat Nagle, who was one of the founders of the various community radio stations in Canada told me, you know, community radio, it’s going to have the best, some of the best programming on the air and it’s going to have some of the worst. And that’s what happens. But we see a very, very predictable set of programming offerings from these channels now, and it’s -- and that’s a reflection of ownership and governance of those channels.

10842 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Thank you for that. I just have a couple of final questions with respect to funding.

10843 You’ve suggested the creation of a video production funding mechanism that would be independently administered, perhaps by the CMF, and that would come out of the current contributions that the BDUs provide to their community channels. Do you have any thoughts around what percentage of funding should be allocated from that BDU pot of money to towards this new funding mechanism, and what the eligible criteria should be around it for groups gaining access to that -- to funds?

10844 MR. STEVENSON: Yes, we -- our approach is that this funding should be -- should start at a reasonable level and that is a level that can be administered effectively and then increased over time to a set level at which time the Commission and the stakeholders could review the effectiveness of the funding.

10845 So we’re not suggesting that this happen all at once. I think that would be very difficult from an administrative perspective to manage. But we’ve seen this week there are various people who have a different sort of vision of the kind of programming and the kind of services that could be provided in community video but community broadcasting generally.

10846 Right now the way that funding works is that they have no access. They have -- there’s no where they can go except before the Commission to make the case for access to that funding.

10847 So our idea is that over time we would be turning more and more of the resources over to local independent video producers and to other initiatives, some of which have been discussed this week. And our ballpark figure, without consulting broadly with a large number of stakeholders, was 20 percent of programming over the next 5 years. And that would be roughly 20 percent of the -- I was imagining 20 percent of the current funding.

10848 But it -- it’s -- obviously it’s an administrative challenge. There isn’t necessarily the sort of infrastructure in place nationally that you see with other kinds of community broadcasting and that’s going to mean that that infrastructure has to be built up over time and relationships with BDUs have to be made and with other stakeholders as well.

10849 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: And just finally with respect to the private sector, I’m going to read this because I want to make sure I get it right from your intervention.

10850 Corporate ownership structures now permit large wealthy investors such as Bell, Rogers, Shaw and Quebecor to claim that their media units must be self-sustaining.

10851 By that statement are you suggesting that within their media units some of the properties should cross-subsidize other property -- other media properties that are not making money? Or are you suggesting that cross-subsidization should happen from their other operations into their immediate?

10852 MS. AUER: I guess there’s several ways to look at this and the first is that when ownership and control transactions occurred and brought us to the current state where we have a very limited number of owners and a few very large companies, those companies made very serious commitments to support all of their stations. They said on the record, “Yes, we will be there. We will back them up. We’re a big company. We can afford to support these local stations.”

10853 So from the perspective of historic commitment, I think broadcasters in large vertically integrated companies can scarcely be surprised now when times are tough that they might be called on to actually keep those promises.

10854 Second part of the question though and I referred to it obliquely before was the issue of Section 9 of the Act which requires the Commission to set conditions of a license related to the circumstances of the licensee. If you license a subsidiary of Bell or Shaw or Quebecor, it’s possible that that subsidiary will always be in a money losing position. This is one of the reasons that we retained Doug Wilson to ask whether we were just being imaginative or fanciful or speculative or whether we were living in some kind of fantasy land where we were wondering whether somehow transfer pricing of some sort might be occurring. And I think the answer that we’ve understood now is that it’s essentially very difficult for the public to tell because the individual annual stations’ returns are confidential, all aspects of them.

10855 And I should say, of course, that that was not the case until the 1990s. Before the 1990s historical financials, specifically with respect to local station expenditures, Canadian content expenditures, foreign programming expenditures and revenues were made publically available through the CRTC’s public examination files.

10856 So the third part of the question then is whether or not the other subsidiaries or the other incorporated entities or a larger parent company should be expected to subsidize those other media companies. And I guess that’s an interesting term because we frankly don’t know enough about the deep financials of Bell, Quebecor, Shaw or any of the other companies to find out what those subsidiaries let’s say of their mobile telephone companies are paying the media companies for the rights to carry the programming. In other words, we just don’t know.

10857 But the solution and it’s perhaps a very simplistic solution is instead of licensing Bell Media Inc., you licence BCE Inc. BCE Inc. has the resources to keep its word and its commitments. That’s a significant change but we’re here because there is a crisis in the system. And one way to go about it is to not look at the individual subsidiaries who chose to ask for the licenses but to say if you would like to retain these licenses we would like to see a different corporate structure involved.

10858 Sorry. That’s a long and convoluted answer.

10859 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: No, and just one point of clarity on what you said. What if we did licence BCE knowing that they do have the financial resources to continue on with a money losing enterprise, what if that leads to higher rates? Or what if that leads to them making a decision not to invest in new broadband infrastructure, for example? Is that a fair trade-off to support the system?

10860 MS. AUER: Well, you know, it’s my understanding that under the Act licenses are granted for up to seven years. I think that we are in a pattern historically, evolving pattern where licenses are effectively granted and then the only way to lose the license is truly egregiously bad behaviour, there have been a few fortunately rare examples of that, or sale. The owner decides to sell. And I guess I’m wondering at the degree of comfort one should have from that because it really places decision making about who is the best qualified licensee in the hands of sellers rather than in the hands of the Commission, which becomes an important afterthought but an afterthought nevertheless. The Commission is no longer than responsible for finding the best possible trustee, if you will, for this very important license.

10861 So that’s why we have suggested fairly strongly that if broadcasters really are serious that they no longer want to have these valuable licenses, then by all means give the CRTC a years’ notice and allow others to apply.

10862 Right now we’re down to 17 owners effectively in Canadian television, over the air television. At one point we had 68, coincidently in 1968. There used to be many more people interested. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume at this point that there is absolutely no one else in Canada who would like to run, who could run and who might do a very good job running some of these very important licenses.

10863 COMMISSIONER MacDONALD: Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. I’ll turn it back over to the Chair.

10864 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. It’s fine to want to be nostalgic and think everything was better in the 1980s when some of you were working with CRTC. But the world has moved on.

10865 I just have one area to explore with you. I’d just like to know, the position you’re advocating here today, how was it vetted and validated?

10866 MS. AUER: Could you clarify?

10867 THE CHAIRPERSON: Was it reviewed through your members? Is that how you come about policy position? Or is it just the thoughts of the folks that are here?

10868 MS. AUER: Well, to start with your initial preface and comment which is that yeah, that was then, this is now. We’ve moved on. Agreed. But I think it -- we all have come across times when we have made mistakes and we’ve learned from them. So rather than viewing this as a this was then -- you know, that was then, this is now ---

10869 THE CHAIRPERSON: So how was your ---

10870 MS. AUER: --- I view it rather ---

10871 THE CHAIRPERSON: That’s very fine. But my question is not that. My question is, how was the position that you’re advocating in this hearing advocated -- vetted? Was it just your Board? Was it your members? Was it more widely vetted than that?

10872 MS. AUER: I think it was a Board, our experts and our members.

10873 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. How many members do you have? I couldn’t see that on your website. There’s not a lot of information on governance there.

10874 MR. FRENKEN: I think our total membership as we said the last time that we’re here, we have an increase from 9 to 10.

10875 THE CHAIRPERSON: Ten (10) members?

10876 MR. FRENKEN: Yes.

10877 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much. Those are our questions.

10878 MS. AUER: I did -- I know, Mr. Chairman, that you’ve already said that you only wanted to ask the one question but I did really want to address that notion of this was then -- or sorry ---

10879 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, you’ll have a chance to do that in your reply comments. All right?

10880 MS. AUER: Well, I do want to say that we can learn from the past.

10881 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, you’ll be able to explain that in your reply comments.

10882 MS. AUER: Thank you.

10883 THE CHAIRPERSON: These are all our questions right now. Thank you.

10884 So we’re done for the intervenors today. We will adjourn until 9:00 tomorrow morning. Thank you.

--- Upon adjourning at 5:41 p.m.

REPORTERS

Sean Prouse

Nadia Rainville

Marie Rainville

Debbie Di Vetta

Lise Baril

Lucie Morin-Brock

Renée Vaive

Nancy Ewing

Mathieu Philippe

Date modified:

2016-02-01