ARCHIVÉ - Transcription
Cette page Web a été archivée dans le Web
L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.
Offrir un contenu dans les deux langues officielles
Prière de noter que la Loi sur les langues officielles exige que toutes publications gouvernementales soient disponibles dans les deux langues officielles.
Afin de rencontrer certaines des exigences de cette loi, les procès-verbaux du Conseil seront dorénavant bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience et la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le participant à l'audience.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DU
CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES
SUBJECT / SUJET:
CANADIAN TELEVISION POLICY REVIEW /
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES DU CONSEIL
RELATIVES À LA TÉLÉVISION CANADIENNE
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
Place du Portage Place du Portage
Phase IV Phase IV
Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec)
October 7, 1998 7 octobre 1998
Volume 11
tel: 613-521-0703 StenoTran fax: 613-521-7668
Transcripts
In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages
Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be
bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members
and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of
Contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded
verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in
either of the official languages, depending on the language
spoken by the participant at the public hearing.
Transcription
Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues
officielles, les procès-verbaux pour le Conseil seront
bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des
membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu
textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée
et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le
participant à l'audience publique.
StenoTran
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications canadiennes
Transcript / Transcription
Public Hearing / Audience publique
Canadian Television Policy Review /
Examen des politiques du Conseil
relatives à la télévision canadienne
BEFORE / DEVANT:
Andrée Wylie Chairperson / Présidente
Vice-Chairperson, Radio-
television / Vice-
présidente, Radiodiffusion
Joan Pennefather Commissioner / Conseillère
Andrew Cardozo Commissioner / Conseiller
Martha Wilson Commissioner / Conseillère
David McKendry Commissioner / Conseiller
ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:
Jean-Pierre Blais Commission Counsel /
Avocat du Conseil
Margot Patterson Articling Student /
Stagiaire
Carole Bénard / Secretaries/Secrétaires
Diane Santerre
Nick Ketchum Hearing Manager / Gérant de
l'audience
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
Place du Portage Place du Portage
Phase IV Phase IV
Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec)
October 7, 1998 7 octobre 1998
Volume 11
StenoTran
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES
PAGE
Presentation by / Présentation par:
CMPDA, The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors 3218
Association
Le Regroupement québécois pour le sous-titrage 3274
inc.
CEP, Communications, Energy & Paperworkers 3320
Union of Canada / SCEP, Syndicat canadien des
communications, de l'énergie et du papier
NBRS, The National Broadcast Reading Service 3356
Inc.
C-Cave, Canadians Concerned about Violence in 3395
Entertainment
Egale, Equality for Gays and Lesians Everywhere / 3430
Égalité pour les gais et les lesbiennes
CRARR, Center for Research Action on Race 3458
Relations / Centre de recherche-action sur les
relations raciales
StenoTran
3218
1 Hull, Quebec / Hull (Québec)
2 --- Upon resuming on Wednesday, October 7, 1998,
3 at 0900 / L'audience reprend le mercredi
4 7 octobre 1998 à 0900
5 15328 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary,
6 would you please invite the next participant.
7 15329 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
8 The first presentation this morning will be done by the
9 Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association. You
10 may present your comments.
11 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
12 15330 MR. FRITH: Thank you, Madam
13 Chairperson and fellow commissioners, or colleagues of
14 yours.
15 15331 As mentioned, I'm president of the
16 CMPDA, and Susan Peacock, to my left, is vice-president
17 of our organisation. We represent the interests of the
18 Hollywood studios here in Canada in all aspects of
19 their business interests, from television through to
20 feature film.
21 15332 We want to focus on three particular
22 areas that may be of some assistance to the CRTC in
23 grappling with this whole issue of broadcast policy.
24 The three areas that we want to talk about involve the
25 non-proprietary rights condition area. In addition,
StenoTran
3219
1 Susan is going to comment on areas that we think we
2 have some ideas in terms of improving the Canadian
3 content side, and in the definition of Canadian
4 programming definition.
5 15333 But before doing that, I'd like to
6 talk a bit about the contributions that our industry
7 does make to the Canadian economy, because, to a large
8 extent, we have been rather silent in terms of our
9 participation in the film industry in this country.
10 15334 With respect to the broadcasting
11 system, as you are no doubt aware, the non-Canadian
12 programming allows the broadcasters in this country to
13 generate the revenue that is used for the production of
14 Canadian programming. In addition, many of our studios
15 get involved in the export of Canadian programming in
16 foreign markets, and in so doing, spend a fair amount
17 of dollars in pre-financing of the production of
18 Canadian programming.
19 15335 If you look as well at the
20 participation of the US studios in production in this
21 country, it's I don't think a well-known fact, but as
22 we sit here today, our studios are producing roughly
23 $130 million worth of programming in this country each
24 month -- largely based Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal,
25 but we are participating in probably every province in
StenoTran
3220
1 terms of production of film product. And it employs
2 roughly 30,000 Canadians in total across the country.
3 So that's a significant amount of economic activity.
4 15336 And if you look back over the last
5 five years, that increase in production just from the
6 foreign studios in this country has a good success
7 story to tell. It has created a talent pool in this
8 country that did not exist five years ago, to the point
9 where, with the odd exceptions, we have indigenous
10 here, in this country, the Canadian talent to undertake
11 everything from TV production, to movie of the week, to
12 feature film. So that's a success story that I think a
13 lot of Canadians are not aware of.
14 15337 We do other things. If you look at
15 what drives the film industry, it's the protection of
16 copyright. That's the raison d'être. And the CMPDA
17 has worked very closely with our Canadian colleagues
18 from the CFTPA in making sure that Canada is at the
19 forefront of copyright protection. So that's another
20 area that we do a tremendous amount of work in.
21 15338 In addition, just recently, with
22 pooling of resources with the cable association along
23 with the pay-per-view networks and the anti-piracy
24 group that we have had in existence in this country for
25 the last 15 years, we are now beginning to have a
StenoTran
3221
1 full-blown campaign against signal theft in the
2 broadcasting area. That should assist all of the
3 participants in the broadcasting system. If we are
4 successful in that area of piracy of signal theft, more
5 revenues come into the system, the healthier the system
6 is, the more, ostensibly, can be done for Canadian
7 programming.
8 15339 On the non-proprietary rights
9 condition, that is an issue that arose in one of the
10 interventions. It was raised by CAFDE. They have done
11 this in the past, and I have no question as to why they
12 are doing it. It, in our view, is an obvious plan to
13 enrich their coffers. And they always have used the
14 reason of economic need, and they always float this
15 number of 15 per cent of distribution revenues. What
16 they have failed to inform the Canadian public and, to
17 some extent, the CRTC, is that that 15 per cent
18 represents only the distribution revenues from
19 theatrical, when if you look at Stats Canada, the
20 Canadian distribution system is relatively healthy.
21 When you add in television programming and home video
22 product, they have 70 per cent of the distribution
23 revenue, and overall they have 50 per cent plus two or
24 three -- in that neighbourhood, 50 to 55 per cent of
25 the total distribution revenues in the country.
StenoTran
3222
1 15340 But ostensibly, the idea would be if
2 you were to give this non-proprietary rights condition
3 to the CAFDE membership, the idea would be, ostensibly,
4 that there's a link between that -- the richer they
5 are, the more Canadian programming that you are going
6 to have. And I don't think that's necessarily true.
7 15341 But more importantly, if that
8 condition were to be imposed, you should understand
9 what we believe would happen in the marketplace. In
10 the marketplace, our studio is no different from
11 Canadian integrated studio systems. Their sole goal is
12 to maximize revenues. And in so doing, if that's the
13 case, you may find in the marketplace that the studios,
14 the foreign studios, if they have to go through a
15 Canadian middleman, will simply up the price to the
16 Canadian broadcaster. It would be built into that
17 pricing system. That's one possibility. The other
18 would be that they may not be able to cut a deal with
19 CAFDE members, and they may choose, in fact, not to
20 broadcast the system through the Canadian broadcasting
21 system, but broadcast the product through the American.
22 15342 And then lastly, they may, in fact,
23 delay the broadcast opportunities to the Canadian
24 broadcast system. And delay it, and therefore their
25 revenues from the broadcasting of that product would be
StenoTran
3223
1 less, and, as you know, the health of the broadcasting
2 system, the health of the broadcasters is necessary to
3 be able to flow the funds through to develop the
4 Canadian programming that we all want.
5 15343 In terms of one other goal, I think,
6 that the CRTC has with respect to the export of our
7 Canadian programming product, you are aware that
8 Canada's now become the second largest television
9 exporter of television product and programming in the
10 world. And so the export market is extremely
11 important, and if the one thing that I'd like to leave
12 at the end of mine before I turn it over to Susan on
13 the Canadian content side, if the goal is export -- and
14 that's part of the Broadcast Act, to promote exports --
15 the best way to do that is to make sure that you
16 minimize the restrictions on imports, because it's such
17 a two-way street.
18 15344 When I now turn over to Susan on the
19 Canadian content side and on the definition of Canadian
20 programming, we hope this is going to assist the
21 Commission when you deal with the supply side and the
22 subsidy that goes with that supply side, in how all of
23 us want to make sure that we have the demand side as
24 with respect to viewership can be increased. And I
25 think we have some good ideas on that side. Susan?
StenoTran
3224
1 0910
2 15345 MS PEACOCK: Thank you. We are
3 proposing a revision to the definition of Canadian
4 programming, part of a simultaneous process that the
5 Commission has undertaken. Our suggestion is that the
6 definition reflect four different factors, one being
7 the Canadian point of view, which we see as being
8 founded on the nationality of the storytellers,
9 storytellers in television being directors, script
10 writers and authors of underlying works. The second
11 factor being other key creative roles, such as
12 performers, art director, director of photography,
13 composer and editor. The third factor being Canadian
14 expenditure and job creation. And the fourth factor
15 being Canadian stories. That is, Canadian themes,
16 Canadian settings and subject matter. And this fourth
17 factor is one that is not addressed at all in the
18 Commission's current definition.
19 15346 It is our suggestion that each of
20 these four factors should be sufficient to qualify for
21 a percentage of Canadian content for the purpose of
22 quota fulfilment, as each of them is responsive to the
23 Commission's objectives. A program's total Canadian
24 content percentage would be an aggregate of the degree
25 to which it is fulfilling each of the four.
StenoTran
3225
1 15347 CFTPA has proposed that programming
2 which qualifies for a production services tax credit
3 should be excluded from the definition of Canadian
4 programming.
5 15348 When the federal government's PSTC
6 program was being developed, we had a number of
7 consultations with the Department of Finance and it was
8 very clear to us that it was not the Department of
9 Finance's intention to exclude Canadian programming
10 from the PSTC program or vice versa. They were very
11 aware that some programming that qualifies under the
12 Commission's current definition, which would not
13 qualify for the higher level of tax credit administered
14 by CAVCO, would qualify for this lower credit, as would
15 some programming that is not Canadian under the current
16 definition at all.
17 15349 The primary purpose of the production
18 services tax credit is job creation and Canadian
19 expenditure, which is also a goal of the Commission.
20 15350 We go farther than saying only that
21 PSTC programming should not be excluded from the
22 definition. We go so far as to say that programming
23 which does fulfil that factor should quality for a
24 percentage of Canadian content.
25 15351 This is not a novel idea. It is
StenoTran
3226
1 similar to the Commission's practice of allowing a
2 dubbing credit when programs are dubbed into either
3 official language. I would point out that the cost of
4 dubbing would be something less than $50,000 an hour,
5 whereas a lot of programming that's eligible for PSTC
6 would be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars an
7 hour on Canadian expenditure.
8 15352 In addition, we are suggesting,
9 proposing for the Commission's consideration that
10 whatever the initial Cancon percentage accorded to a
11 program that when that program is broadcast, there be
12 an opportunity for that percentage to be grossed up.
13 If the program is broadcast in prime time and/or if it
14 attains certain viewing levels, this would encourage
15 producers, distributers and, most certainly,
16 broadcasters to schedule that programming in peak
17 viewing time and it would encourage them to promote
18 that broadcast.
19 15353 A further submission is that nothing
20 in the Broadcasting Act requires that the definition of
21 Canadian programming be restricted to programs which
22 are owned or controlled by Canadian-controlled
23 production companies, or by Canadian producers. In
24 fact, we suggest that if the production company could
25 be of any nationality, then non-Canadian controlled
StenoTran
3227
1 production companies who are not eligible for subsidy
2 would be encouraged to produce or invest in high
3 quality Canadian productions that would meet a number
4 of the Commission's goals and would reduce the demand
5 for subsidy.
6 15354 In light of the apparent
7 insufficiency of subsidy, as we saw last spring and as
8 we have seen in a number of submissions that have been
9 made to the Commission, we think it's ironic that the
10 CFTPA has proposed that special recognition no longer
11 be available for the under supplied categories. And
12 the reason they give is that the industry no longer
13 requires access to the kinds of funding that came with
14 the special recognition types of programs. It appears
15 to us that the industry is in need of all kinds of
16 funding.
17 15355 In conclusion, nothing in the
18 Broadcasting Act suggests that programming that
19 qualifies for PSTC or special recognition or that
20 programming made or owned by a company that is not
21 Canadian controlled, that that programming itself is in
22 any way less Canadian as a result.
23 15356 The last topic, and I'm going to be
24 very brief with this, is with respect to the issue of
25 purchase of North American rights by non-Canadian
StenoTran
3228
1 entertainment companies. The Commission has been urged
2 by a number of parties, including CAB, CFTPA, to
3 require North American services, or at least those that
4 may be added to the eligible list in the future to
5 acquire Canadian rights but to acquire them separately
6 from US rights.
7 15357 Our members are in the same position
8 as those of CAFDE and the CFTPA in the sense that they
9 are also program suppliers. They are also sellers to
10 Canadian broadcasters, US broadcasters, and North
11 American services.
12 15358 But our reaction to this issue is
13 different and it is based on the fact that we do see
14 ourselves predominantly copyright owners and that to
15 require two documents instead of one to require a
16 separate negotiation of rights is a diminution of the
17 copyright owner's freedom to deal with their rights in
18 the way that they think makes the most sense.
19 15359 We believe that requiring two
20 separate licences, one for Canada and one for the US,
21 when North American rights are required by a single
22 purchaser and when they are being sold by a single
23 vendor, is unlikely to increase the total licence fee.
24 We don't think the licence fee will be higher when
25 there are two contracts than when there will be one.
StenoTran
3229
1 We do, however, think the transaction costs might be
2 higher and, therefore, we see no particular benefit in
3 this.
4 15360 MR. FRITH: Thanks, Susan. That ends
5 our opening remarks. Madam Chair, as you are aware, we
6 put in three written interventions in June, July, and
7 August which dealt with a myriad of the issues, but we
8 chose these three areas to focus on this morning and we
9 are open for question.
10 15361 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms
11 Peacock, Mr. Frith. Commissioner Cardozo.
12 15362 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam
13 Chair. Good Morning, Mr. Frith and Ms Peacock. I have
14 got a few questions that relate partly to your written
15 submissions and partly to what you talked about today,
16 but feel free to raise any and all of those issues as
17 we go through these.
18 15363 Just so that I understand, the CMPDA
19 is dealing primarily with the distribution of American
20 films, as you mentioned, Mr. Frith, in your opening
21 television and through feature film in Canada. That's
22 the main function of the organization.
23 15364 MR. FRITH: It goes right across the
24 waterfront. We deal with every issue as it affects our
25 members' interests, whether it's the CRTC and the
StenoTran
3230
1 broadcasting system, to broader public policy issues,
2 the framework of taxation, what drives the production
3 in Canada, to the policing side, which is a separate
4 body of employees. But anything that impacts on the
5 economic interest of our members, we are involved in.
6 We tend largely to be more focused on federal public
7 policy and, obviously, the regulatory agencies.
8 15365 MR. CARDOZO: You are not involved in
9 distributing Canadian films.
10 15366 MR. FRITH: We are in the sense that
11 we purchase Canadian programming for our foreign
12 markets.
13 15367 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. And are
14 you dealing with other countries beyond the United
15 States?
16 15368 MR. FRITH: Okay. You are very clear
17 in your written brief, as you were today, on your view
18 in response to our question that US interests should
19 not be called on to make contributions to the
20 development, exhibition, or promotion of Canadian
21 programs.
22 15369 In paragraph six, you have noted that
23 non-Canadian control distributors have paid substantial
24 amounts for distribution rights to many Canadian
25 content programs, often providing essential production
StenoTran
3231
1 funding and, of that, you give examples like "Boys of
2 St. Vincent."
3 15370 MR. FRITH: The example, I can
4 name, -- I won't name the studio but one studio of the
5 six that we represent, I have spent over a hundred
6 million dollars purchasing foreign rights to Canadian
7 programs. So that's one example.
8 15371 Secondly, I mean besides the fact
9 that each one of our studios has Canadian offices and
10 employs Canadians, pays taxes, all of those issues,
11 yes.
12 15372 MS PEACOCK: Excuse me, Commissioner.
13 I just want to make sure that we were clear. "The Boys
14 of St. Vincent" example was an example of Canadian
15 program that was able to get a number of sequential
16 licences in North America. We were not involved in
17 those transactions. We are not the buyers of those
18 rights. We do not represent the North American
19 services.
20 15373 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So that
21 particular example, you are pointing out that Canadian
22 films, Canadian-produced films do have a market in the
23 States and, when they do, they are helping support
24 Canadian production?
25 15374 MS PEACOCK: We are pointing out that
StenoTran
3232
1 on this question of North American rights, that when a
2 program is as attractive as "Boys of St. Vincent,"
3 whether it's a Canadian program or a non-Canadian
4 program, then the program supplier does not have what's
5 been characterized as an invidious choice between a
6 Canadian broadcast sale or a sale to a North American
7 service.
8 15375 In fact, they have more choices than
9 ever. "Boys of St. Vincent" had two national plays in
10 Canada, then A&E bought North American rights, and
11 apparently A&E bought Canadian rights on non-exclusive
12 basis and Show Case bought Canadian rights on a
13 non-exclusive basis. I would suggest that the supplier
14 of that program made more revenue as a result of that
15 appetite for North American rights than they otherwise
16 would have.
17 15376 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. So as
18 you were mentioning in your opening comments today,
19 were you not in favour of having separate rights being
20 bought for US rights and Canadian rights? It's more
21 than just an administrative thing of having two
22 documents and two licences.
23 15377 MR. FRITH: If you get into this
24 North American rights issue, it's not our ox that's
25 going to be gored. We are just giving our response
StenoTran
3233
1 from the standpoint that we also defend world-wide
2 copyright. I mean, as I said, that's the engine and
3 that's the raison d'être of the business. That applies
4 to Canadians as well as to anybody else. It's our view
5 that if you were to separate this out into two
6 documents, we don't see how it's going to actually give
7 more money to Canadian copyright holders.
8 15378 MS PEACOCK: I think this is what
9 would happen. Now, first of all, there are a number of
10 possibilities. It may be, and it is in some cases
11 already the case, that one distributor will have
12 Canadian rights that they can licence and another
13 distributor will have US rights that they can licence
14 for the same program. So if A&E wants to license that
15 program, they already do and must continue to enter
16 into two separate negotiations with those two
17 distributors.
18 15379 If the rights, however, are held by
19 one entity, and there's only one licensor, if they had
20 to acquire those rights separately, I think what would
21 happen, if I were A&E, what would happen, is the first
22 thing I would do is think about the price I want to pay
23 for North America because that's what I have to buy. I
24 have to buy Canadian rights and I have to buy US
25 rights. When I think of an amount, I'm going to have
StenoTran
3234
1 an amount in mind. And whether I'm negotiating once or
2 twice, I am not going to conclude either negotiation
3 unless I can conclude both negotiations on terms that
4 are acceptable to me.
5 15380 So I think what would happen is you
6 would have the negotiation. You would have one
7 negotiation. You have got one buyer and one seller.
8 You would have one negotiation. The North American
9 licence fee would be negotiated and then they would
10 negotiate the allocation of that between the two
11 contracts.
12 0925
13 15381 I don't see how it could happen any
14 other way. When you have one buyer and one seller, you
15 can't pretend that you really have two buyers or two
16 sellers.
17 15382 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But you have
18 two markets.
19 15383 MS PEACOCK: Well, you have two
20 countries. You have a service that is reaching
21 audience in two countries and make money in two
22 countries.
23 15384 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The argument
24 is that the producer doesn't get any more money as a
25 result of having two licences?
StenoTran
3235
1 15385 MS PEACOCK: I would be very -- I
2 don't see how they could expect to get more money
3 because they have two documents instead of one when
4 they are dealing with one purchaser.
5 15386 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: What do you
6 think of the argument that some have made in terms of
7 American programming overall, as well as the American
8 channels, that they are drivers inasmuch as an American
9 channel is a driver for a tier and American programming
10 is a driver for a particular broadcaster inasmuch as
11 they have got this great American that attracts people
12 to the channel or the tier, so we shouldn't -- and I go
13 back to the beginning of my question on this -- we
14 shouldn't be expecting any more contribution from
15 American broadcasters because they have this enormous
16 indirect benefit?
17 15387 MR. FRITH: If I can, Susan, I think
18 where you are coming from is if we have American --
19 15388 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: It's not where
20 I am coming from. I am giving you the argument. I
21 have no views on any of these issues.
22 15389 MR. FRITH: If you look at the
23 numbers that CAB submitted, the marketplace says that
24 for American product that is coming in, they are
25 actually making a profit, I think they said, of $115,
StenoTran
3236
1 Susan, per --
2 15390 MS PEACOCK: They didn't give a per
3 dollar amount for U.S., they gave a per dollar amount
4 of their losses.
5 15391 MR. FRITH: Of their losses on
6 Canadian. So, it's obvious for the moment until
7 something changes in terms of the viewership habits
8 that the non-Canadian product is what's driving the
9 broadcaster's revenue streams up, which allows them to
10 have the healthy profits that allow them, in turn, to
11 put some of that money back into Canadian programming,
12 if that answers your question.
13 15392 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Is that a view
14 you share?
15 15393 MR. FRITH: Yes.
16 15394 MS PEACOCK: I would like to add
17 something to that. I think that -- I have no reason to
18 doubt the accuracy of the CAB's numbers, but they are
19 averages and I wouldn't -- I don't know, but I wouldn't
20 be surprised if they don't also make a profit on some
21 Canadian programs and lose money on some non-Canadian
22 programs. That may be happening, too, and it might be
23 interesting to identify which those are and try to make
24 more just like them.
25 15395 MR. FRITH: And if you look at the
StenoTran
3237
1 numbers, the allocation of overhead, I don't know.
2 15396 MS PEACOCK: The other part of your
3 question had to do with U.S. signals and services. I
4 guess my response to that would be kind of similar. I
5 think some U.S. signals are extremely attractive. I
6 think A&E is a very, very attractive signal to a lot of
7 Canadians and CNN. Others that I won't name and maybe
8 couldn't name may not be so and at the same time I
9 think there are some Canadian signals and services that
10 people would just not be willing to do without.
11 15397 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: On the
12 question of simultaneous substitution, I wonder if I
13 could just get a clarification of your position. I am
14 looking at your June 30th letter and on page 9 you
15 noted four positions that the CAB has put forward over
16 the years. You have dismissed three of them, which
17 leaves no comment on the issue of non-simultaneous
18 substitution. Am I to conclude that --
19 15398 MR. FRITH: We have no problems with
20 that.
21 15399 MS PEACOCK: We are not opposed to
22 non-simultaneous substitution. In fact I would say we
23 are not opposed to second local channel simulcast. We
24 only point out that as channel capacity seems to be an
25 issue at present, it might be more prudent to wait for
StenoTran
3238
1 implementation of digital technology and then to
2 consider what to do with this increased capacity.
3 Maybe second local channel is the right thing to do or
4 maybe there is something else. By the time it's here,
5 they will probably have more ideas for how to use it
6 than we have today.
7 15400 The only two of the four that the CAB
8 has proposed historically but I don't think are
9 proposing any longer that we recommend against are
10 program deletion and strip substitution. Our reason
11 for that is -- partly my reason for that would be as a
12 consumer I wouldn't like to see my screen go to black
13 or to get a program substituted for the one that I
14 wanted to watch that is really not an identical
15 program.
16 15401 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. Another
17 of the issues you talked about is exports of Canadian
18 programming and, if I read you right, what you are
19 saying is Canadian exports are doing very well and they
20 need no help, thank you very much. I should tell you
21 yesterday my daughter got on the Internet and went on
22 the PBS site and went to the kids' section within that.
23 15402 To my amazement and joy, most of the
24 programs they had listed were Canadian programs. So,
25 you could find out more about "Arthur", "Whimzie's
StenoTran
3239
1 House", "Theodore Tugboat". I figured, hey, we are
2 really taking over the American market, at least in
3 children's programming at PBS. But is that an
4 exaggeration? Are we only doing that well in Canadian
5 progrmaming -- I mean in children's programming.
6 15403 MR. FRITH: This is a success story
7 that very few Canadians are aware of. If you look at
8 the market for Canadian product for export, in
9 children's it's phenomenal. We have Canadian companies
10 that have 82 per cent of their revenue coming from
11 export. NELVANA is a good example.
12 15404 MS PEACOCK: CINAR, Atlantis or
13 Alliance Atlantis as they now are.
14 15405 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You noted
15 those in your brief, but in terms of the others, the
16 general programming, are we doing as well there? You
17 were suggesting a hands-off policy and not do anything
18 in terms of assisting export.
19 15406 MR. FRITH: In the sense that if you
20 look at the health of the Canadian industry, they are
21 extremely healthy today. Look at the stock market on
22 the publicly-traded American companies. I'm not
23 talking about the last several days, what has occurred
24 in the stock markets, but until this latest phenomenon
25 of the downturn, they have all done extremely well. If
StenoTran
3240
1 you look at the consolidation that has taken place in
2 the Canadian industry in the last 16 to 18 months,
3 shareholders are quite happy with the results.
4 15407 You notice prior to the Atlantis
5 Alliance merger, Atlantis had over 80 per cent of its
6 revenues coming from export. So, they are doing
7 extremely well. Take some of the deals that have been
8 cut between our American studios and Alliance. They
9 total $500 million worth of expenditure over the next
10 four to five years. That's a mutually beneficial
11 marketplace decision by our studios to invest and
12 co-produce with Canadian companies.
13 15408 By and large, if you look at the
14 return on equity of those publicly traded companies,
15 they are pretty much in line with return on equity of
16 the American studios. We are finally getting the
17 consolidation so that we can become major players and
18 play under the same rules worldwide. It has been the
19 success that has driven the American studios or, for
20 that matter, foreign studios in Europe.
21 15409 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Given your
22 understanding and awareness of the American market, do
23 you think there is any kind of nervousness about the
24 success of our productions?
25 15410 MR. FRITH: Not about the production.
StenoTran
3241
1 15411 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Are we showing
2 up on the --
3 15412 MR. FRITH: I can tell you where
4 there is some nervousness and that's with respect to
5 the amount of production that has gone -- they claimed,
6 flowed from the United States into Canada in the last
7 three to four years. I know for a fact some of the
8 unions are upset by the amount of work that has been
9 shifted to Canada and they have made representations to
10 state governors, et cetera, but other than that, no,
11 there is no -- the whole foundation of the industry is
12 to have a free marketplace. That's what we do
13 worldwide, is to make sure that there is access for our
14 product coming into other markets and access for those
15 indigenous markets to export to the world.
16 15413 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Let me ask you
17 about Canadian content. You suggest what appears to be
18 that we have become more flexible in terms of how we
19 assess Canadian content and what you have suggested is
20 that the nationality of the producer would cease to be
21 a criterion in the point system. You say this would
22 bring more investment and, thereby, fuel increased
23 Canadian content.
24 15414 ACTRA, who was here a couple of days
25 ago, made an interesting argument where they said that
StenoTran
3242
1 we shouldn't be looking at issues of themes and
2 locales, which is one way of looking at Canadian
3 content, that just the fact that there were Canadian
4 producers, writers, et cetera, even if it was something
5 being, as you have given the example, an American
6 production taking place being done in Vancouver
7 pretending to be Los Angeles, the Canadianists, to use
8 their term, would come through because of the producers
9 and so forth.
10 15415 So, if we take that argument and mesh
11 it with yours, which is to allow the producer not even
12 to be Canadian, then what's Canadian about it any more?
13 0935
14 15416 MR. FRITH: Susan, you could get into
15 this. The one -- and I find this amazing when I go
16 across the country and we talk to Canadian producers --
17 under the present definition, if a foreign studio came
18 to Canada and wanted to do a 12 one-hour television
19 series on Canadian prime ministers, it's not deemed to
20 be Canadian. But a Canadian producer can go and study
21 milk distribution in Albania and it's deemed to be
22 Canadian content. It doesn't make sense to me. And if
23 you look at other jurisdictions that have our
24 background, our parliamentary system, the Australian
25 Blue Sky case, I mean, it wasn't a completely unanimous
StenoTran
3243
1 decision, but the chief justice had one opinion and the
2 four others. But they did agree to some extent that
3 the content should have something to do with Australia
4 for that matter, but here in Canada as well. And I
5 think we should look at this in a different light,
6 because I do think you will get more investment in
7 Canadian stories.
8 15417 MS PEACOCK: I'd like to add
9 something to that, if I may. What we are suggesting is
10 that there are four factors. And any one of them
11 should result in the program having a percentage -- not
12 100 per cent, necessarily -- a percentage of Canadian
13 content. And expenditure is probably the least
14 culturally relevant of the four, but expenditure and
15 job creation are certainly emphasized in the
16 Commission's present definition, and the only factor
17 that seems to be required to get a dubbing credit, for
18 example. So if the Commission has a history already of
19 acknowledging that job creation and expenditure is a
20 goal of the Broadcasting Act -- it may not be a
21 cultural goal, or such a directly and obviously
22 cultural goal -- but it's a goal of the Act, and this
23 program satisfies this goal to 30 per cent, whatever
24 you wanted to give to it. And we are saying if the key
25 creative roles are filled by Canadians, and what is now
StenoTran
3244
1 the current point system is complied with, just the
2 tune of ten out of ten, that program would also qualify
3 for a level of Canadian content. Probably more than
4 one that merely spent money in Canada and hired
5 Canadians.
6 15418 I think what's kind of radical about
7 our suggestion is the notion that if a program has
8 Canadian themes and subject matter, that that alone
9 should qualify it. None of the four should be a
10 requirement, but each of the four should be recognised
11 as meeting one or more objectives of the Act, one or
12 more objectives of the Commission.
13 15419 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So I'm not
14 clear on your last point --
15 15420 MS PEACOCK: Right now you get no
16 points. You get no encouragement --
17 15421 MR. FRITH: To tell a Canadian story.
18 15422 MS PEACOCK: To tell a Canadian
19 story. Why not encourage everybody to tell Canadian
20 stories, including non-Canadians? There are many
21 examples of movies and books and other things where a
22 story was told that we consumers and readers and
23 viewers see as being -- I think of the "Remains of the
24 Day." Great British novel, absolutely about British
25 life and British culture, and the author is Japanese.
StenoTran
3245
1 15423 MR. FRITH: Or the other example,
2 where we had a Canadian author, "The English Patient,"
3 won the Oscar, correct? And the headline was, Gee, how
4 did we let this story get away? And yet, we are also
5 equally proud of this year's "Sweet Hereafter," which
6 was nominated, but that's by an American author.
7 15424 MS PEACOCK: So what's Canadian about
8 "The Sweet Hereafter"? Well, what's Canadian about it
9 is the Canadian voices that told the story, but the
10 original story is not a Canadian story. The original
11 story is an American story. But we say, But this is
12 still a Canadian movie.
13 15425 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Sorry, "The
14 Sweet Hereafter" is -- isn't that --
15 15426 MR. FRITH: It's by --
16 15427 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The author of
17 the book.
18 15428 MS PEACOCK: The author of the book
19 is American.
20 15429 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, and the
21 producer is Atom Egoyan.
22 15430 MR. FRITH: Correct.
23 15431 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So, okay.
24 15432 MR. FRITH: And we are proud of the
25 success of the film. What we are suggesting really, is
StenoTran
3246
1 that if you were to add one component to it, there
2 would be an incentive. You have more -- or, at least,
3 a higher Canadian content to it. And it's not there at
4 the present moment.
5 15433 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So how would
6 these four points mesh with the current point system?
7 15434 MS PEACOCK: The current point
8 system -- in our suggestion, we have taken the current
9 point system and kind of broken it into two pieces.
10 One being storytellers, the goal being a Canadian point
11 of view. I'm not so sure that the nationality of the
12 composer of the music is as influential on the
13 Canadianness of the point of view as the nationality of
14 the director or the nationality of the screenwriter.
15 You are going to get the storytellers by themselves --
16 having Canadian storytellers should make the program
17 Canadian to a degree, and I think I didn't see the
18 ACTRA presentation, but it sounds like they would agree
19 with that.
20 15435 Then we are saying there are the
21 other key creative personnel, and if you want an
22 element of creative input that is Canadian, then that's
23 another way to qualify for a degree of Canadianness,
24 Canadian content.
25 15436 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, so on
StenoTran
3247
1 the continuum of -- if you sort of look at Canadian
2 content and impose industrial objectives on one end and
3 cultural objectives on the other, what you seem to be
4 saying is we ought to move closer to the cultural
5 objective and that the industrial come secondary, so
6 the issue of --
7 15437 MS PEACOCK: No, it's not a question
8 of secondary at all. What we mean to say is each of
9 these things is important. Expenditure and job
10 creation is important. It's an important goal. It may
11 not be a cultural goal. But cultural goals seem to
12 have been overlooked compared to industrial goals,
13 under the traditional definition. And why not allow a
14 Canadian story, a Canadian theme, if the subject
15 matter, if the content, from a layman's point of
16 view -- you ask the man in the street, Is this, you
17 know, is this Canadian content? And you show them a
18 program. I think they are going to give their answer
19 based primarily on the theme. They certainly aren't
20 going to do it on the --
21 15438 MR. FRITH: Nationality of the
22 producer.
23 15439 MS PEACOCK: -- nationality of
24 anybody except the performers. Because they are not
25 going to even know who they were.
StenoTran
3248
1 15440 MR. FRITH: And what we are
2 suggesting is that if you add this component to it, you
3 will get outside financing that frees up money at the
4 subsidy end for what is deemed to be true cultural
5 product. The other side to that is that, you know,
6 this is a problem, I guess, for government as well as
7 the CRTC. But with the proliferation of channels,
8 there's more and more requirements for people to line
9 up for subsidy. And there's a finite amount of money.
10 And our view is, maybe we should go back to financial
11 need. I mean, if you are a publicly-traded company,
12 why do you need subsidy? And that, therefore, would
13 then free up money for that cultural side. Let the
14 marketplace decide.
15 15441 If you relax -- as an example, Susan,
16 what you have just mentioned, if the goal is to have
17 the Canadian story told to a worldwide audience, that
18 ought to form some benefit to the Canadian cultural
19 objective. But if it's good enough, it doesn't need
20 subsidy. We are not suggesting that our studios need
21 subsidy; that's not the case at all. But what you want
22 to do, is to have more investment in Canadian
23 storytelling than there are ways to do this other than
24 what we are presently doing.
25 15442 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: When I read
StenoTran
3249
1 your brief, there was a sense that the Commission has
2 this goal of attaining a certain amount of Canadian
3 content, and that what you were saying was, let's
4 fiddle around with the books and get there anyhow. But
5 what I hear you saying today, more, is a sort of
6 creative way of allowing more Americans in to help
7 telling Canadian stories?
8 15443 MR. FRITH: Or resources. I mean, it
9 seems to me to be ultimately --
10 15444 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And the
11 resources come with them.
12 15445 MR. FRITH: -- what a good public
13 policy objective would be is to have such quality of
14 Canadian programming that we have a worldwide audience
15 for it, not just a Canadian audience. And that ought
16 to be a goal, I mean, whether it's Global that invests
17 in it, or Baton, or CTV.
18 15446 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And you are
19 saying we have a better chance of being able to tell
20 that story to the world if the American producer is
21 involved?
22 15447 MS PEACOCK: I think what we are
23 saying is you got a better chance of telling the story
24 at all if there is an encouragement for non-subsidy
25 funding. Make more money available to tell the
StenoTran
3250
1 stories. And if you encourage non-Canadians -- not
2 just our members, think in terms of British or
3 Australian --
4 15448 MR. FRITH: Polygram -- "Four
5 Weddings and a Funeral," "Trainspotting" --
6 15449 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Sorry, I don't
7 see the connection between not having subsidies and
8 easier to promote.
9 15450 MS PEACOCK: I didn't mean to say
10 "easier to promote."
11 15451 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Well, I
12 thought you were saying that if you didn't have
13 subsidies it would be easier to promote the programs
14 internationally.
15 15452 MS PEACOCK: No, that wasn't what I
16 meant to say. What I meant to say is --
17 15453 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Or what I'm
18 meant to hear.
19 0945
20 15454 MS PEACOCK: What I meant to say is
21 that if you encourage the private money to fund the
22 programs that the Commission wants made, everybody
23 wins. What's wrong -- I mean, you may want this to be
24 Canadian, or that to be Canadian, or something else to
25 be Canadian. But surely there's no objection to the
StenoTran
3251
1 money not being Canadian?
2 15455 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The interest
3 in that is, you realise you are driving a hard bargain
4 because you are going against the trend.
5 15456 MR. FRITH: When we were reading
6 through it, we were, I think, the only ones that are
7 suggesting that if it's a Canadian story that there
8 should be some consideration as part of the content.
9 15457 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Interesting.
10 Thanks very much. Those are my questions. Thanks a
11 lot.
12 15458 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
13 Commissioner Pennefather.
14 15459 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Yes, I
15 just want to reiterate a couple of the questions to
16 make sure I understand. You used "The Boys of Saint
17 Vincent" as an example, and as you know, that was
18 co-produced by the National Film Board and the CBC,
19 public subsidy, and Telefilm Canada, and yet it's a
20 success story, a major success story in many ways. And
21 it is exportable, from your own example. So your
22 proposal, then, is to encourage the private sector to
23 do the same thing. And yet you said that if we
24 encourage the private sector, namely the American
25 private sector, we would free up subsidy money to do
StenoTran
3252
1 the cultural side. So in fact, I see a contradiction
2 there. I'm not quite sure I understand what the
3 purpose of this is, in your view, to allow American
4 producers to produce what we can determine as Canadian
5 content, to be precise -- I think that's what you are
6 proposing.
7 15460 MR. FRITH: I will take first crack
8 at this, if you want to add to it. Where we are coming
9 from is that in a finite world of government
10 subsidies -- and that can be defined as to whether
11 straight other either consolidated revenues, or for
12 some fund that comes from the private sector, as, you
13 know, the 5 per cent funds. It is finite. And that if
14 you were to make it easier for foreign capital, just
15 not US, you know, we don't represent Polygram, but I
16 mean Polygram is a Dutch company. It has a worldwide
17 track record of going into the UK and getting
18 indigenous product and giving it a world export market.
19 As they go in and put in private sector money into the
20 development of "British stories," or "Australian
21 stories" -- it's equally true that we can have that
22 done -- to have Canadian stories have a worldwide
23 market. And the more private sector money that you can
24 bring in lessens the need for subsidy. And so if it's
25 finite, that amount that's out of consolidated revenue
StenoTran
3253
1 can be made available for what is deemed to be true
2 cultural product. You can have both. Because if you
3 look at it as a spectrum, you have got cultural at one
4 end, and then there's industrial policy at the other.
5 15461 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Well, if
6 we assume that a Canadian film or a Canadian program is
7 cultural product, period, then I'm assuming what you
8 are saying is, basically, allow American producers to
9 come in and produce Canadian programming. And if so,
10 wouldn't they do so primarily for a North American
11 audience and a world audience, as opposed to a Canadian
12 audience, as per your thesis on rights? Normally, you
13 would expect an American producer would not produce
14 primarily -- even if it was a true Canadian story --
15 for a Canadian audience. Do you agree?
16 15462 MR. FRITH: Well, they may or they
17 may not. I mean, by and large, probably, I would say,
18 yes, I would agree with that. But, you know, if you
19 are looking at other stories, if you were to do an
20 example, say a feature film or a TV series on the
21 Hudson's Bay Company. What makes that more attractive
22 for co-venturing is that if you broaden the story so
23 that it's not just the development of and the history
24 of the Hudson's Bay Company in Canada, a lot of the
25 people who founded the Bay and came here started off in
StenoTran
3254
1 the Orkneys and the Shetland Islands. And so if you
2 develop that side of the story, yes, you have a
3 Canadian story, but then you have an export market into
4 the UK because there would be an interest by the
5 viewers in the UK to go through the process.
6 15463 MS PEACOCK: I would like --
7 15464 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Sorry,
8 Susan -- I can understand the point, just that we are
9 making a point in your submission, and you are making
10 the point that we are succeeding through our export
11 revenues, so the Canadian industry has found a way to
12 do that currently, and as Commissioner Cardozo said,
13 it's an interesting but a very different approach to
14 the multiple goals that we have under the Broadcasting
15 Act. And one of those is the continuing vibrance of a
16 Canadian production sector. And I think we would have
17 to think carefully what the effect of this would be on
18 that objective.
19 15465 I'm sorry, but I interrupted you,
20 Susan.
21 15466 MS PEACOCK: And now you have asked
22 another question I want to answer too. And maybe you
23 will remind me what it is when I forget in a second,
24 because I'm going to go back to the --
25 15467 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I will do
StenoTran
3255
1 my best.
2 15468 MS PEACOCK: -- to the previous one.
3 I think that it -- well, I know, because "The Boys of
4 Saint Vincent" is an example, that programming can be
5 about Canada, can be a Canadian story, can be
6 culturally significant, can have an information as well
7 as an entertainment component, and speak very strongly
8 to Canadians, and still have an international market.
9 The fact that it's Canadian, the fact that it's
10 culturally relevant does not, by definition, exclude it
11 from being of interest. There are such things as
12 universal stories, and most of the best stories are
13 universal.
14 15469 I think our suggestion is that
15 subsidy, of which there is never enough, might be best
16 spent -- and we appreciate that it's not the
17 Commission's job to make those rules -- but that
18 subsidy might best be spent on productions which are
19 both deserving, in the sense that they meet whatever
20 criteria have been set, and have financial need -- that
21 both criteria should have to be there. And if subsidy
22 were only available for productions that meet those two
23 criteria, there would be more subsidy available per
24 production because there would be fewer productions
25 that qualified.
StenoTran
3256
1 15470 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Just one
2 last question. If American-controlled companies were,
3 indeed, producing in this country, would there not be a
4 complaint that Canadian producers have access to
5 subsidy, whereas American producers do not in this
6 country?
7 15471 MR. FRITH: There wouldn't be a
8 complaint from us.
9 15472 MS PEACOCK: Which is not to say we
10 wouldn't like subsidy. It's just that we are not --
11 this is not a disguised --
12 15473 MR. FRITH: To try and get subsidy.
13 15474 MS PEACOCK: -- attempt to try and --
14 15475 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I know,
15 but it's a reality, considering the evolution of
16 international trade discussions. I would assume
17 that --
18 15476 MS PEACOCK: Subsidy seems to be one
19 of those few issues, one of those few ways that a
20 country can develop its cultural industries that is not
21 controversial in the trade context.
22 15477 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: It's good
23 to hear, but I haven't heard it that way. Thank you,
24 Madam Chair.
25 15478 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Why
StenoTran
3257
1 would American companies come and make Canadian
2 programming in Canada that is of interest first and
3 foremost to Canadians and not an exportable product?
4 There was a spot in the presentation of the two groups
5 we have heard from at the beginning, CAB and the CFTPA,
6 and one of them said, you know, "Money talks." And the
7 incentive to create programming that is a lot more
8 exportable than indigenous would result from such an
9 endeavour.
10 15479 You gave an example of Americans
11 coming into Canada to make a program about Canadian
12 prime ministers that would be made from a Canadian
13 perspective, because you can make a program about
14 Canadian prime ministers from a non-Canadian
15 perspective.
16 15480 MR. FRITH: True. But the point I'm
17 making --
18 15481 THE CHAIRPERSON: It just looks good,
19 theoretically, but is, in practise -- I wish I could
20 find that paragraph. But you can see what I'm saying.
21 15482 MR. FRITH: No, and I understand
22 that. We are not suggesting that you overturn the
23 whole applecart. We are just suggesting you add one
24 component to it.
25 15483 In terms of our reading of the
StenoTran
3258
1 transcripts, whether it's CAFDE, and I think it was
2 CFTPA who didn't want any changes to that rule of
3 subject matter. I find that strange. I mean, if you
4 are Canadian, and you want to have a Canadian -- why
5 isn't the Canadian story an important and integral part
6 of the definition?
7 15484 THE CHAIRPERSON: But your pitch to
8 the Commission has been and still is vehemently the
9 property is what matters, the rights is what matters.
10 So that's what Canadians say. We want a system that
11 allows us to not only tell Canadian stories, but also
12 produce programming that is exportable, but the major
13 thing is we want to own it. And what you are saying
14 is, Canadian content would be produced by and the
15 rights to it would be owned outside of the country.
16 15485 Has that pitch been made to Americans
17 and accepted very readily? I thought the point of the
18 Americans was cultural product is a product is a
19 product is a product, and what matters is who owns it
20 and they should have complete right to handle it as
21 their property. And that that is absolutely crucial
22 and core to the system. I find it very surprising that
23 you would make the pitch that Canada should have a
24 system that encourages foreigners to come and produce
25 Canadian stories and then own them at the end of the
StenoTran
3259
1 day.
2 1000
3 15486 MR. FRITH: If we just separate out
4 the two issues, on the ownership side that could be
5 negotiated in the marketplace. You know, you put in
6 the equity, then there is a negotiation to determine
7 what per cent you own. But to come back -- and this is
8 a studio that I don't represent -- take Polygram, Dutch
9 money. It has a track record of going into the U.K.
10 Look what they have created there. There is no
11 inhibition in terms of the investment side to be able
12 to take indigenous product and give it a worldwide
13 audience.
14 15487 I can point out similar involvement
15 by U.S. studios that have gone into Australia, into
16 South America and have created some great films.
17 15488 MS PEACOCK: "Like Water for
18 Chocolate".
19 15489 MR. FRITH: "Like Water for
20 Chocolate". I am just suggesting to you to try to
21 remove barriers that allow investment to come in. What
22 we want is a worldwide audience for a Canadian story
23 and that's a great objective to have. We should be
24 looking at barriers to the investment. It doesn't
25 matter really where the money comes from. If the end
StenoTran
3260
1 result is you want to have the Canadian story told to a
2 worldwide audience, does it matter whether it's French,
3 Dutch, German, American dollars that produce it?
4 15490 THE CHAIRPERSON: Presumably, our
5 production companies that are on the stock market get
6 money where they can, but what you are suggesting is
7 something entirely different, which would be American
8 production companies coming into Canada depending on
9 the dollar exchange and what works better financially,
10 possibly using --
11 15491 MR. FRITH: To be fair, Madam
12 Chairperson, that publicly-traded company, Atlantis
13 Alliance, with the majority of their product there is
14 no requirement, but Miramax, which is a subsidiary of
15 Disney, and New Line, a subsidiary of Warner Brothers,
16 uses Alliance for all their distribution in Canada for
17 all of their product and they do so not because the law
18 requires it.
19 15492 The law would actually allow them to
20 use an American distributor here in Canada. They use
21 Alliance because it's a good business relationship
22 between the two and very profitable for both and
23 extremely profitable for Alliance if you look at their
24 annual report. I just think that ownership of the
25 money isn't --
StenoTran
3261
1 15493 MS PEACOCK: With respect to
2 ownership, we do fervently believe that copyright is an
3 important type of property and should have protection
4 internationally. I don't think -- I hope we are not
5 perceived to be making any submission that suggests
6 that anybody but the creator should be the first owner
7 and that the owner should then be free to license,
8 assign and otherwise deal with their property. I don't
9 think we are saying anything differently. We certainly
10 don't intend to.
11 15494 MR. FRITH: No.
12 15495 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
13 15496 Counsel?
14 15497 MR. BLAIS: Commissioner Pennefather
15 asked you a question and I don't think you had the
16 chance to give the answer.
17 15498 MS PEACOCK: Is this the one I asked
18 to be reminded about what it was?
19 15499 MR. BLAIS: That's right. So, I will
20 try to remind you. The gist of it was the impact of
21 your proposal on the Canadian independent production
22 sector, which is part and parcel of the objectives of
23 the Broadcasting Act and what impact it would have on
24 that sector, in your view.
25 15500 MS PEACOCK: I think that it would be
StenoTran
3262
1 healthy for the independent production sector because
2 the independent production sector is not just
3 Canadian-controlled independent production companies.
4 The Canadian production sector includes a variety of
5 Canadian production companies that are not
6 Canadian-controlled and it includes a number of
7 individuals -- it includes a number of companies,
8 Canadian-controlled and not, that are not producers,
9 but they provide production services, they provide
10 wardrobe, they provide scripts, they provide the
11 services of actors.
12 15501 All of those people are, I think,
13 part of the Canadian production sector and it certainly
14 includes the individuals themselves who operate cameras
15 and sound equipment and who are actors and writers and
16 editors. All those people, I think, are part of the
17 Canadian production sector.
18 15502 MR. BLAIS: So, you are basically
19 advocating that -- and I think it would be a change in
20 perspective for the Commission that the Commission
21 interpret the expression "Canadian independent
22 production sector" without regard to notions of control
23 and ownership and this relates to a point you made in
24 your opening remarks saying that nothing in the
25 Broadcasting Act requires the Commission to take the
StenoTran
3263
1 position that there needs to be Canadian ownership and
2 control.
3 15503 I just wanted to make sure, to be
4 clear on this, that you are not suggesting that the Act
5 prevents us from coming to the conclusion that it does
6 have to be Canadian owned and controlled. That's
7 within the realm of what the Commission could decide,
8 that the best way to achieve the objectives of the
9 Broadcasting Act would be in fact to say: Although we
10 could interpret it more broadly or apply it more
11 broadly, to achieve the goals it's better to narrow the
12 focus to Canadian controlled.
13 15504 MS PEACOCK: I think I want to say --
14 I want to leave you with the impression that I am
15 saying that the Act does not require that the
16 production company be a Canadian-controlled production
17 company for the product to be Canadian programming.
18 But that wasn't your question. Your question was:
19 Does it prohibit the Commission --
20 15505 MR. BLAIS: That's correct.
21 15506 MS PEACOCK: -- from making that a
22 requirement? The answer is I don't know. I haven't
23 studied, I have only read this Australian blue sky case
24 and their Australian content requirements were very
25 similar to the CRTC's and the High Court of Australia
StenoTran
3264
1 did agree that it was illegal in Australia, at least in
2 the context of that case, to have that requirement.
3 Whether in the Canadian context and given our laws that
4 would be the same result, I do not offer an opinion on
5 that.
6 15507 MR. BLAIS: Keep in mind that I did
7 my Master's thesis in Australia on copyright law, so I
8 have some knowledge. Maybe the context is somewhat
9 different and you may want to address my specific
10 questions in your final written comments as to whether
11 there is something in our Act that would prevent us
12 from interpreting it differently.
13 15508 You have come up again with this
14 novel way of approaching the notion of a definition of
15 "Canadian programming" and, just to be clear, I take it
16 you are only proposing that for the purposes of the
17 Broadcasting exhibition quotas that we administer. You
18 are not suggesting that that should be the definition
19 used, for instance, by the funds?
20 15509 MS PEACOCK: No.
21 15510 MR. FRITH: No.
22 15511 MR. BLAIS: So, it would be strictly
23 for our quota purposes?
24 15512 MS PEACOCK: Yes.
25 15513 MR. BLAIS: Thanks.
StenoTran
3265
1 15514 In your opening remarks you mentioned
2 that your member companies made various contributions
3 to the Canadian system. You mentioned cross-subsidy
4 opportunities and exports and studios filming in
5 Canada. I was wondering if, keeping in mind the
6 current definition of "Canadian programming", which is
7 one based on ownership and control by Canadians, if
8 there were any -- how much money are your members
9 currently investing in those types of programming at
10 this time before they get produced, if any money?
11 15515 MR. FRITH: I don't have the exact
12 number. I can say that from one report that I read
13 from one studio alone, it was at the $100 million mark.
14 15516 MR. BLAIS: What is that?
15 15517 MR. FRITH: You are probably looking
16 at 350, I would say, just given the ratios that I have
17 witnessed in other areas.
18 15518 MR. BLAIS: And what would be the
19 nature of -- are they equity investments in
20 Canadian-controlled productions or pre-sales?
21 15519 MR. FRITH: They are both. They are
22 both equity investments and purchasing of rights in
23 other markets.
24 15520 MR. BLAIS: These are Canadian --
25 15521 MR. FRITH: Programming.
StenoTran
3266
1 15522 MR. BLAIS: -- programming, as
2 currently defined?
3 15523 MR. FRITH: Correct.
4 15524 MR. BLAIS: And what would be the
5 division between the two types of equity versus
6 licensing in that $350 million?
7 15525 MR. FRITH: Could I say this? Let me
8 go back and then inquire of each of the studios to get
9 that kind of a breakdown, rather than take and
10 extrapolate from just the one studio that I am involved
11 with that may or may not be the same once you
12 extrapolate them out over the others. There might be
13 mitigating factors.
14 15526 MR. BLAIS: That would be fine,
15 actually, if you could get -- do you think you could
16 get those numbers to us by the 15 of October? We are
17 getting a bit close to that date, I know. It has been
18 the date we have been using all along.
19 15527 MS PEACOCK: One difficulty is going
20 to be that for anybody acquiring rights outside of
21 Canada to Canadian programming, they have no reason to
22 inquire when they are making those deals whether the
23 program is certified as Canadian content under any
24 regime at all. We have asked for these figures before.
25 I'm not saying we can't get them --
StenoTran
3267
1 15528 MR. FRITH: They are not easy.
2 15529 MS PEACOCK: -- I'm just saying we
3 may not be able to get them at all because the member
4 companies have no reason to record that information in
5 their agreements or otherwise.
6 15530 MR. BLAIS: I appreciate that there
7 are some limits to this sort of information, but, just
8 to be clear, if you could provide that, I am asking for
9 investments or licensing fees being invested prior to
10 production commencing, not licensing once the
11 production is in the can.
12 15531 MR. FRITH: Right.
13 15532 MR. BLAIS: In your opening remarks
14 you also mentioned that there is a possibility -- one
15 of the contributions is this cross-subsidy of foreign
16 programming providing higher revenues for Canadian
17 broadcasters and I would like to tie that comment to
18 the discussion were you having about North American
19 rights.
20 15533 There is a concern voiced by some
21 that if rights are sold on a North American basis, they
22 may not become available to Canadian broadcasters,
23 particularly conventional broadcasters. I will take a
24 hypothetical. For instance, Disney, one of your
25 members, produces a film, a premium production, and
StenoTran
3268
1 decides that it will only license it to ABC in North
2 America and, therefore, it just doesn't become
3 available for Canadian over-the-air broadcasters.
4 15534 If that continues or if that is a
5 going-forward trend, hasn't that substantially
6 minimized the value of the contribution or has the
7 potential of minimizing this contribution you are
8 saying that your members add to the Canadian
9 broadcasting system?
10 15535 MR. FRITH: When we were going
11 through the research to respond to that one particular
12 question, I think, that was raised really in the
13 initial round -- you refer to the "Lion King", I take
14 it. That's the one that we found. The other one was
15 "Schindler's List". Even I, when I looked at this,
16 said, "Why would you do that because you could maximize
17 more money if you divided it." Those were the only two
18 that we could find in our research, the "Schindler's
19 List" and "The Lion King".
20 15536 Now, if it were a trend line, I would
21 agree with you that you ought to take a look at it.
22 From our research, those were the only two instances
23 and we didn't think that it's necessary regulatory
24 policy or public policy around it.
25 15537 MR. BLAIS: But you would agree that
StenoTran
3269
1 if it was a growing trend --
2 15538 MR. FRITH: You would have to look at
3 it.
4 15539 MR. BLAIS: -- it should be an area
5 of concern?
6 15540 MS PEACOCK: I think if it reached a
7 significant degree, yes, there would be -- the Canadian
8 broadcasting system would be better off if that were
9 not happening, but having said that, I don't know what
10 anybody is suggesting as a solution, as a regulatory
11 solution to that, if it should ever become a problem.
12 Maybe you can enlighten me, but it seems to me peculiar
13 to even contemplate divesting a copyright owner of
14 their rights requiring -- creating a compulsory
15 licence, in effect, if that were even possible.
16 15541 MR. BLAIS: I don't think the
17 suggestion is quite that draconian. I think more the
18 suggestion has been put forward that as non-licensed
19 foreign services have access to the Canadian audience
20 through various regulatory means, that access be made
21 conditional, for instance, as one party suggests, be
22 conditional on that person who is trying to get that
23 privilege to get access to the Canadian market, that
24 party not engage in North American rights purchasing
25 practices.
StenoTran
3270
1 15542 MS PEACOCK: I see how that applies
2 to purchase -- I will keep using the same example --
3 purchase by A&E of North American rights. I don't see
4 how that applies in the case of ABC, Disney choosing to
5 licence ABC and not a Canadian broadcaster.
6 15543 MR. BLAIS: Well, no one has
7 suggested it, but by parallel I would think that if the
8 Commission can look at what services come in through
9 the eligible satellite list, it can also do it for
10 over-the-air conventional broadcasters. You can
11 appreciate that there are potential mechanisms there,
12 too.
13 15544 MS PEACOCK: I can appreciate that,
14 in theory, there are potential mechanisms for excluding
15 the ABC signal from Canada. I can appreciate that.
16 15545 MR. BLAIS: I'm not suggesting that's
17 what the Commission intends to do at all. I am just
18 putting it forth that it's not a question of
19 mechanisms, it's a question of whether it's an
20 opportune thing to do at this particular point in time.
21 15546 Thank you. Those are my questions.
22 15547 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have found the
23 paragraph in the CFTPA's --
24 15548 MR. FRITH: I knew we should have
25 gotten out of here sooner!
StenoTran
3271
1 15549 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- submission. I
2 don't think you will agree with it at all. It's on
3 page 17. They are talking about financing production
4 in Canada and de-Canadianizing of programming. The
5 quote is:
6 "'...as in everything else,
7 money talks.' When the driver
8 for a production is the foreign
9 broadcast, the chances are
10 greater that the production must
11 be adapted to the perceived
12 needs of that marketplace. Does
13 this mean that identifiably
14 Canadian programming is not
15 exportable? Not necessarily --
16 what it means is that the
17 country that drives the
18 production can reasonably expect
19 to have a production that meets
20 their needs."
21 15550 I fail to see that the needs of a
22 foreign broadcaster would be limited to programming
23 appealing to Canadians. It would have to be appealing
24 to the greatest possible market and if you combine all
25 of that together, it's unlikely that they would choose
StenoTran
3272
1 to do a programming on Canadian prime ministers and all
2 the way down the line on a continuum, but I guess you
3 don't share that view.
4 15551 MS PEACOCK: I think we do share that
5 view. I think that it is unlikely that any of our
6 members would come to Canada and spend a lot of money
7 producing programming that was, first and foremost, of
8 interest to Canadians and not exportable. We are not
9 saying that they would do that. I don't think Canadian
10 producers are doing that unless they are getting very
11 large payments out of public monies to do it. It
12 doesn't make any commercial sense for anybody to do it,
13 regardless of their nationality.
14 15552 THE CHAIRPERSON: Except that
15 presumably what Canadian producers are saying is the
16 best solution or the best mix is for us to do both and
17 for us to get the property into programming that is
18 exportable and makes it easier to then also have
19 indigenous programming, that what we should try to aim
20 for is a mix or an equilibrium where there is as much
21 money flowing as possible, but that we retain at least
22 some capacity to tell Canadian stories that are really
23 ours.
24 15553 How one does that, I'm not sure, is
25 by thinking that we are going to get indigenous
StenoTran
3273
1 programming out of completely foreign investment with
2 property rights resting with a foreign investor at the
3 end. But, in any event, I await the day when Americans
4 come to Canada and produce a program on Canadian prime
5 ministers that is not a comparison of how boring they
6 are compared to their presidents.
7 15554 Thank you very much for your
8 presentation, Ms Peacock, Mr. Frith.
9 15555 MR. FRITH: Thank you.
10 15556 MS PEACOCK: Thank you.
11 15557 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will take a
12 15-minute break, which will allow the next party to get
13 properly organized. So, we will be back at 10:30.
14 Nous reprendrons donc à dix heures et demie. Nous
15 prendrons une pause de 15 minutes.
16 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1015
17 --- Reprise à / Upon resuming at 1037
18 15558 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour tout le
19 monde.
20 15559 Madame la Secrétaire, voulez-vous
21 s'il vous plaît inviter le participant suivant.
22 15560 Mme SANTERRE: Merci, Madame la
23 Présidente.
24 15561 Alors le Regroupement québécois pour
25 le sous-titrage inc. va maintenant présenter ses
StenoTran
3274
1 commentaires.
2 15562 Allez-y, Monsieur McNicoll.
3 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
4 15563 M. McNICOLL: Bonjour. Avant de
5 commencer, je vais vous présenter les gens qui sont
6 avec moi ce matin. J'ai Louis-Philippe Beauchamp;
7 c'est un nouvel employé chez nous, au Regroupement
8 québécois pour le sous-titrage. J'ai à ma gauche
9 Mme Monique Therrien, qui est la rédactrice des
10 documents qu'on vous a déposés. J'ai André Lauzon,
11 personne sourde gestuelle, qui est membre du conseil
12 d'administration du RQST. J'ai André Larivière, qui
13 est concepteur du site de la surdité, la page web si
14 vous voulez, du RQST... du Regroupement québécois pour
15 le sous-titrage; ça fait RQST. Alors ce sont les gens
16 qui nous accompagnent ce matin.
17 15564 Il y a des personnes sourdes en
18 arrière, et gestuelles, de la région de l'Outaouais et
19 de Montréal qui sont venues nous appuyer dans notre
20 démarche.
21 15565 Est-ce que vous voulez que je
22 commence tout de suite?
23 15566 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, allez-y.
24 15567 M. McNICOLL: Avant d'aller plus
25 loin, on a amené un petit modèle de vidéo; c'est deux
StenoTran
3275
1 ou trois minutes. C'est surtout des bulletins de
2 nouvelles. Un, ça va vous donner une idée c'est quoi,
3 le sous-titrage, et ça va vous donner une idée aussi
4 des lacunes, des raisons qu'on se présente chez vous
5 aujourd'hui, ce matin, et ça va vous présenter
6 l'importance du sous-titrage pour les personnes sourdes
7 et malentendantes.
8 15568 Pendant que le vidéo va tourner un
9 petit peu, je vais le faire arrêter et je vais vous
10 expliquer c'est quoi qui nous cause des petits
11 problèmes et ensuite je passerai à mon discours, mon
12 allocution prévue pour ce matin.
13 15569 Ça va?
14 15570 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui. Allez-y.
15 15571 M. McNICOLL: Alors je vais faire des
16 commentaires pendant le vidéo.
17 --- Présentation vidéo / video presentation
18 15572 M. McNICOLL: Ce n'est pas le bon
19 vidéo.
20 --- Courte pause / Short pause
21 15573 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je m'excuse...
22 15574 M. McNICOLL: Je l'avais mis à huit
23 minutes, et il est supposé démarrer à la place que je
24 veux.
25 15575 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je m'excuse,
StenoTran
3276
1 apparemment le vidéo ne démarre pas là où on voulait
2 qu'il démarre. Est-ce que quelqu'un pourrait s'occuper
3 de reparler au technicien?
4 15576 Nous attendons.
5 15577 M. McNICOLL: Mais j'ai une petite
6 chose que je voudrais montrer.
7 15578 Vous voyez quelque chose ici, à
8 l'écran, au canal 29. Dernièrement, le RQST a porté
9 plainte au sujet de ce canal-là. Ils ont ajouté
10 quelque chose qui est complètement nouveau; c'est ce
11 qu'on appelle des icônes d'information, comme la météo.
12 En bas vous avez du télé-texte, des petits messages qui
13 donnent des petites nouvelles.
14 15579 Le sous-titrage a disparu
15 complètement à cause de ça.
16 --- Présentation vidéo / Video presentation
17 15580 M. McNICOLL: Qu'est-ce que je
18 voulais vous montrer tantôt, c'est que vous avez un
19 bulletin de nouvelles qui explique une situation.
20 C'est sous-titré; vous avez vu que le sous-titrage est
21 fait. Et aussitôt qu'on passe à un reportage, le
22 reportage peut durer deux minutes, trois minutes, et on
23 perd complètement le sous-titrage. On ne connaît pas
24 le sujet du reportage, on ne sait pas c'est quoi qui se
25 passe. Ça, c'est un problème qu'on va soulever ce
StenoTran
3277
1 matin.
2 15581 Sur le deuxième petit modèle d'à peu
3 près une minute, c'est une émission que... on a un
4 problème technique. Ce matin, on a été les voir, on
5 l'avait commencé, on avait dit quoi faire. Je
6 m'excuse.
7 15582 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Est-ce qu'on peut
8 avoir la prochaine partie du vidéo?
9 15583 M. McNICOLL: Il y a trois parties
10 modèles qui ne durent même pas une minute chacune.
11 --- Présentation vidéo / Video presentation
12 15584 M. McNICOLL: Ici, vous avez un
13 reportage vidéo. Comme vous voyez, l'émission débute
14 avec Radio-Canada... c'est sous-titré. On s'en va à un
15 reportage vidéo, on ne sait même pas qu'est-ce qui se
16 passe. Le sous-titrage commence à apparaître; on vient
17 de voir un sous-titrage, on vient de voir "demain" puis
18 on ne sait même pas qu'est-ce qui s'est passé. La
19 personne continue à parler, le sous-titrage essaie de
20 rejoindre la personne.
21 15585 Ça, c'est le deuxième.
22 15586 M. LARIVIÈRE: Le deuxième, et le
23 sous-titrage n'est pas bon.
24 15587 M. McNICOLL: Je vais m'arrêter...
25 --- Présentation vidéo / Video presentation
StenoTran
3278
1 15588 M. LARIVIÈRE: Ça, c'est la météo, et
2 ça ne suit pas.
3 15589 M. McNICOLL: Vous avez vu des carrés
4 blancs apparaître. Ce sont des problèmes qu'on ne
5 comprend pas, qui nous coupent complètement
6 l'information.
7 15590 Ceux qui ont une bonne connaissance
8 du français vont s'apercevoir qu'il y a aussi pas mal
9 de fautes.
10 --- Présentation vidéo / video presentation
11 15591 M. McNICOLL: Nous, on se présente ce
12 matin pour quelque chose de bien précis. On voudrait
13 avoir, à l'aube du nouveau siècle, un accès intégral à
14 la télévision.
15 15592 Il faut réaliser que la télévision,
16 pour les personnes sourdes et malentendantes, c'est la
17 seule accessibilité aux communications d'information
18 après les journaux. Les journaux, c'est au moins 24
19 heures d'attente avant d'avoir de l'information.
20 15593 Madame la Présidente, Mesdames,
21 Messieurs les Commissaires, télédiffuseurs et
22 producteurs, bonjour. Nous vous remercions de nous
23 accueillir à cette audience. Pour le Regroupement
24 québécois pour le sous-titrage, cette intervention est
25 la plus importante depuis notre première visite en
StenoTran
3279
1 1980, lors de l'audience sur le renouvellement de la
2 licence de Radio-Canada. À l'époque, l'Agence
3 canadienne de développement du sous-titrage, le Centre
4 québécois de la déficience auditive, la Confédération
5 des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec
6 demandaient l'accès au sous-titrage pour les personnes
7 sourdes et malentendantes. Dix-sept ans après
8 l'avènement de la première émission sous-titrée à
9 Radio-Canada, le RQST est fier d'avoir pris la relève
10 de l'Association, et surtout du travail accompli dans
11 le dossier du sous-titrage.
12 15594 Aujourd'hui, en tant que représentant
13 des personnes sourdes et malentendantes usagères du
14 sous-titrage, le RQST dépose un mémoire afin de
15 partager sa réflexion sur les politiques du CRTC
16 relatives à la télévision canadienne.
17 15595 Le RQST ne s'est pas seulement penché
18 sur l'aspect du sous-titrage soulevé au point 66 de
19 l'appel d'interventions. Il a effectué la même
20 réflexion globale que les télédiffuseurs, producteurs
21 et autres intervenants dans le dossier, mais vu à
22 travers le prisme des personnes sourdes et
23 malentendantes.
24 15596 Nous aimerions, simplement par notre
25 participation, vous sensibiliser, chers commissaires,
StenoTran
3280
1 télédiffuseurs, producteurs et public, à l'importance
2 du sous-titrage pour les personnes sourdes et
3 malentendantes.
4 15597 Essayez seulement de vous imaginer
5 dans une salle devant un téléviseur, sans accès au
6 monde extérieur ni par le téléphone cellulaire, qui
7 demeure toujours inaccessible pour les personnes
8 sourdes, ni par la voie d'une radio qui offre de
9 l'information et de la météo, les bouchons de
10 circulation ou tout autre événement d'importance. Le
11 téléviseur constitue votre unique source d'information
12 en ce qui concerne le moment présent. Les journaux ne
13 rapportent toujours que les événements de la veille.
14 15598 Votre téléviseur n'a plus de son.
15 Vous êtes donc devant une boîte à images vide de sens
16 qui vous montre divers événements mondiaux, heureux ou
17 malheureux. Vous regardez mais vous n'entendez rien.
18 Vous voyez mais ne saisissez pas. Vous devinez les
19 événements, vous voyez un écrasement d'avion sans
20 savoir si cela concerne un membre de votre famille ou
21 quelqu'un qui vous est cher. Vous voyez beaucoup de
22 vent et d'eau sans savoir où s'est vécu l'événement.
23 Vous voyez des images de guerre sans savoir pourquoi
24 elle a lieu. Vous essayez, dans l'inquiétude et
25 l'angoisse, de comprendre ce qui se passe, mais aucune
StenoTran
3281
1 information ne vient à vous.
2 15599 C'est ce que les sourds et les
3 malentendants ont vécu lors de la Guerre du Golfe, des
4 inondations du Saguenay et de la rivière Rouge, de la
5 tempête du verglas. Ils sont restés enfermés dans une
6 bulle de silence qu'aucun sous-titrage n'est venu
7 percer, ajoutant beaucoup d'insécurité à une situation
8 parfois alarmante pour certains.
9 15600 La fameuse boîte à images, comme nous
10 l'appelions à l'époque, existe depuis 50 ans. De la
11 télévision en noir et blanc, en passant par
12 l'apparition des premières couleurs, des premières
13 transmissions par câble et par satellite, nous arrivons
14 maintenant à la télévision à haute définition et à la
15 multiplication des canaux, qui n'offrent guère plus
16 d'informations aux personnes sourdes et malentendantes
17 parce que peu d'émissions sont sous-titrées.
18 15601 Comment se fait-il qu'on puisse
19 envoyer un appareil explorateur téléguidé sur mars muni
20 d'une technologie de communication d'avant-garde alors
21 qu'on est à peine capables de sous-titrer une émission
22 en direct? Les nouvelles technologies développées dans
23 le cadre de ces projets spatiaux à gros budgets servent
24 toute la communauté terrienne -- télécopieurs,
25 cellulaires et micro-ondes -- mais pas les personnes
StenoTran
3282
1 sourdes et malentendantes.
2 15602 Le RQST croit qu'il est important que
3 tous les intervenants comprennent bien l'impact social
4 positif que constitue le sous-titrage parce que la
5 télévision, c'est aussi un outil social. Combien de
6 Canadiens peu scolarisés ont pu apprendre grâce aux
7 émissions éducatives et aux documentaires? Il en va de
8 même pour les personnes sourdes et malentendantes,
9 lorsque ces émissions sont sous-titrées, bien sûr.
10 15603 Mais l'utilité du sous-titrage ne
11 s'arrête pas là. Une émission sous-titrée peut aussi
12 aider les personnes immigrantes qui apprennent le
13 français ou celles qui sont en voie d'alphabétisation.
14 Même une personne malentendante avec un rai d'audition
15 bénéficie d'un support de compréhension non négligeable
16 lorsque l'émission est sous-titrée.
17 15604 Le sous-titrage constitue aussi un
18 outil social d'intégration et d'autonomie des personnes
19 sourdes et malentendantes. Ces mots qui défilent les
20 soulagent de demander continuellement à un membre de
21 leur famille, souvent récalcitrants, de traduire ou
22 d'expliquer ce qui se passe à l'écran. Les parents
23 sourds peuvent difficilement compter sur leurs enfants
24 pour leur expliquer des événements aussi cruciaux que
25 ceux du verglas de janvier dernier. Les enfants n'ont
StenoTran
3283
1 ni les connaissances requises, ni la patience d'être
2 des interprètes à temps plein.
3 15605 La principale fierté d'une personne
4 sourde ou malentendante, c'est d'être autonome, et le
5 sous-titrage leur offre cette autonomie.
6 15606 Des coûts sociaux seront épargnés
7 lorsque le sous-titrage deviendra un moyen
8 d'alphabétisation et d'éducation des personnes sourdes,
9 malentendantes, immigrantes et en voie
10 d'alphabétisation, qui s'ajouteront au bassin de
11 travailleurs actifs, d'auditeurs attentifs et de
12 consommateurs potentiels.
13 15607 Nous ne voulons plus regarder cette
14 fameuse boîte à images sans comprendre ce qu'elle dit.
15 15608 Aujourd'hui, le RQST souhaite vous
16 faire part de sa réflexion sur trois aspects
17 particuliers: la réglementation du CRTC, le rôle du
18 CRTC et la non-discrimination envers les personnes
19 sourdes et malentendantes francophones du Canada.
20 15609 La réglementation.
21 15610 C'est bien connu de tous, le
22 volontariat mène souvent nulle part. On peut constater
23 cette disparité dans le sous-titrage en comparant
24 l'imposition du sous-titrage du côté anglophone à
25 l'incitation du côté francophone. L'imposition donne
StenoTran
3284
1 des résultats concrets alors que l'incitation n'a eu
2 comme effet que seul 25 pour cent de l'ensemble des
3 émissions francophones sont sous-titrées. C'est
4 pourquoi nous croyons qu'une réglementation uniforme...
5 la réglementation en matière de sous-titrage doit être
6 la même pour les télédiffuseurs francophones et
7 anglophones.
8 15611 La réglementation lors de l'émission
9 ou du renouvellement d'un permis de télédiffusion d'une
10 station locale ou d'un service étranger devra prévoir
11 des quotas de sous-titrage de l'ordre de 50 pour cent
12 la première année, 75 pour cent la seconde année, et le
13 sous-titrage intégral de toute la programmation la
14 troisième année sans exception.
15 15612 Une réglementation basée sur
16 l'ensemble de la programmation.
17 15613 Les quotas imposés doivent l'être sur
18 toutes les catégories d'émissions, même lors de faible
19 écoute ou de reprises. De l'avis du RQST, les heures
20 de grande écoute ne constituent pas un critère de
21 réglementation puisque les personnes sourdes et
22 malentendantes forment un bassin hétérogène d'enfants,
23 de travailleurs, de chômeurs et de personnes âgées avec
24 des besoins très différents en matière de sous-titrage.
25 Bien sûr, elles sont là aux heures de grande écoute,
StenoTran
3285
1 mais elles comblent aussi leur journée, comme bon
2 nombre de Canadiens, à l'aide de la télévision. De
3 plus, les quarts de travail fractionnés, le travail en
4 soirée et la nuit sont de plus en plus chose courante,
5 ce qui augmente le nombre de spectateurs à des moments
6 dits de faible écoute.
7 15614 La réglementation en matière de
8 sous-titrage doit cesser d'être imposée sur les
9 recettes publicitaires d'un télédiffuseur mais être
10 imposée sur la programmation entière d'un
11 télédiffuseur.
12 15615 Une norme qualitative du sous-titrage
13 francophone.
14 15616 La norme qualitative qui sera
15 présentée par le RQST, et dont vous aurez une copie
16 sous peu en main, devrait être incluse à la
17 réglementation afin d'uniformiser le sous-titrage à
18 toutes les chaînes francophones du Canada. Cette norme
19 qualitative devrait entrer en vigueur pour tous les
20 télédiffuseurs à une date spécifique, et ce, sans
21 attendre le renouvellement de leur licence. Cette
22 norme est applicable dès maintenant puisque les
23 éléments qui la constituent ne nécessitent aucune
24 technologie nouvelle ou spéciale. Ce sont les
25 producteurs de sous-titrage ainsi que certains
StenoTran
3286
1 télédiffuseurs qui nous l'ont confirmé lors d'une
2 rencontre du comité technique sur la norme; un
3 représentant du CRTC était sur place. Aucune excuse
4 n'est donc valable pour refuser de l'appliquer.
5 15617 Le CRTC devrait veiller à réévaluer
6 périodiquement cette norme afin de vérifier si elle
7 satisfait toujours les usagers.
8 15618 Le sous-titrage: un automatisme.
9 15619 Les télédiffuseurs devraient être
10 tenus d'inclure à leurs prévisions budgétaires un poste
11 pour le sous-titrage. Les télédiffuseurs et
12 producteurs qui achètent des émissions étrangères
13 devraient être tenus de les sous-titrer lors de la
14 traduction ou devraient exiger du distributeur qu'elles
15 soient sous-titrées à l'achat.
16 15620 Le sous-titrage: seule technologie
17 acceptable.
18 15621 Il devrait être interdit aux
19 télédiffuseurs de remplacer le sous-titrage par des
20 pictogrammes ou autres techniques infographiques. La
21 réglementaiton devrait interdire la technologie du
22 télé-souffleur, qui est inadéquate. Les fabricants de
23 télédiffuseurs devraient être tenus d'inclure une puce
24 pour le sous-titrage dans tous leurs appareils, peu
25 importe la taille, et ce, afin d'assurer une
StenoTran
3287
1 accessibilité partout, chez les amis, à l'hôtel.
2 15622 Je vais ouvrir juste une petite
3 parenthèse. Ce matin, on a travaillé très fort pour
4 trouver un décodeur. Alors si le Canada pouvait faire
5 comme les États-Unis et imposer une puce de décodage
6 dans le téléviseur, ça réglerait beaucoup de problèmes
7 et ça permettrait à beaucoup de personnes sourdes de
8 voyager partout au Canada et avoir accès à
9 l'information sans problème.
10 15623 C'est gênant des fois d'aller chez
11 des amis, chez des parents, à l'hôtel ou en voyage et
12 qu'on ne peut pas avoir accès à telle nouvelle ou aux
13 informations locales.
14 15624 Le CRTC devrait accorder une
15 attention particulière au sous-titrage lors du passage
16 de la technologie analogique à la technologie numérique
17 en imposant un temps d'implantation et un pourcentage
18 minimum requis d'usagers.
19 15625 Rôle du CRTC.
20 15626 Le CRTC, nous le répétons, doit être
21 le chien de garde du sous-titrage et imposer une
22 réglementation plus sévère aux télédiffuseurs. Le CRTC
23 doit assurer un meilleur contrôle sur le nombre
24 d'heures d'émissions sous-titrées en comptabilisant le
25 temps réel du sous-titrage et non le temps total prévu
StenoTran
3288
1 d'une émission.
2 15627 J'ouvre une autre parenthèse ce
3 matin. On voulait vous montrer sur le vidéo un petit
4 peu un exemple: Vous avez un bulletin de nouvelles
5 annoncé de 30 minutes. C'est vrai que le télédiffuseur
6 va dire: "Trente minutes sous-titrées." Par contre,
7 il peut y avoir juste 15 ou 20 minutes en tout dans
8 cette émission qui sont sous-titrées. Comme vous
9 voyez, les reportages en direct ne sont pas
10 sous-titrées. On n'a pas 30 minutes de sous-titrage à
11 date; on n'en a pas. Souvent, c'est 10, 15 minutes de
12 sous-titrage. On a des parties d'émissions
13 d'information, mais une grosse partie essentielle de
14 l'émission, on n'y a pas accès.
15 15628 Juste pour me rappeler un petit peu,
16 hier, à Radio-Canada -- non, je pense que c'était à
17 TVA; je m'excuse, à TVA -- on parlait d'un problème
18 d'épidémie mineure de coqueluche. L'émission disait:
19 "Il y a une épidémie à Montréal et autour de Montréal
20 de coqueluche." Ils donnaient des précautions, mais
21 les précautions n'étaient pas sous-titrées. C'était un
22 élément plus essentiel de dire qu'il y a une coqueluche
23 dans Montréal. L'élément essentiel qui disait quoi
24 faire avec cette maladie-là -- même, c'est une maladie
25 contagieuse; alors que les parents, il fallait qu'ils
StenoTran
3289
1 aillent se faire soigner, prendre des antibiotiques et
2 tout ça -- les personnes sourdes n'ont jamais eu accès
3 à cette information et ne l'auront jamais à moins
4 qu'elles lisent les journaux le lendemain.
5 15629 Alors le CRTC, je répète, doit
6 assurer un meilleur contrôle sur le nombre d'heures
7 d'émissions sous-titrées en comptabilisant le temps
8 réel de sous-titrage et non le temps total prévu
9 d'émission.
10 15630 Le CRTC doit être le catalyseur du
11 travail concerté de tous les intervenants de la
12 télévision à créer un comité aviseur chargé de débattre
13 sur le sous-titrage actuel et à venir, d'analyser les
14 nouvelles technologies et d'apporter les divers besoins
15 et réflexions du milieu qui les représente. Ce comité
16 pourrait aussi être sollicité lors de la réévaluation
17 périodique de la norme qualitative du sous-titrage
18 anglophone.
19 15631 Le CRTC doit faire des pressions
20 auprès des intervenants chargés du financement afin que
21 l'obligation de sous-titrage soit un critère
22 d'admissibilité aux programmes d'aide et fonds
23 disponibles. Le sous-titrage devrait être un
24 automatisme et non pas une mesure imposée.
25 15632 Le CRTC devrait créer un fonds de
StenoTran
3290
1 recherche en matière de sous-titrage, fonds dans lequel
2 les télédiffuseurs seraient obligés de cotiser puisque
3 peu d'entre eux effectuent de la recherche et du
4 développement sur le sujet.
5 15633 La non-discrimination.
6 15634 Le CRTC, mandataire du gouvernement,
7 donc responsable de l'application de la Charte
8 canadienne des droits et libertés, doit faire en sorte
9 que les télédiffuseurs ne fassent aucune discrimination
10 basée sur le handicap. Le CRTC, mandataire du
11 gouvernement, donc responsable de l'application de la
12 Loi en matière des langues officielles, doit
13 réglementer afin qu'il n'existe aucune disparité entre
14 les obligations des télédiffuseurs francophones et les
15 télédiffuseurs anglophones en matière de sous-titrage.
16 15635 Le CRTC est tenu, par le jugement de
17 la Cour suprême du Canada, d'exiger des télédiffuseurs,
18 principalement la CBC et Radio-Canada, qu'ils offrent
19 de l'information adaptée lors de crises ou de
20 situations qui mettent en péril la vie ou la santé des
21 personnes sourdes et malentendantes canadiennes par le
22 biais du sous-titrage en direct et de l'interprétation
23 gestuelle. L'information est un droit et non un
24 privilège.
25 15636 Le CRTC doit cesser la discrimination
StenoTran
3291
1 basée sur la langue actuellement en vigueur à la
2 société d'État en obligeant Radio-Canada à sous-titrer
3 en français... il me manque une page.
4 15637 Je m'excuse, j'ai perdu une page.
5 J'ai distribué des documents ce matin et là, ma page
6 est partie.
7 --- Courte pause / Short pause
8 15638 Je m'excuse.
9 15639 Bref, le CRTC doit revoir sa
10 réglementation dans le respect de la minorité
11 francophone du Canada et le respect des besoins des
12 personnes handicapées.
13 15640 Le sous-titrage, c'est plus que de
14 simples mots qui défilent à l'écran, c'est l'une des
15 portes qui mènent à la connaissance, à l'autonomie et à
16 l'intégration des personnes sourdes et malentendantes
17 dans toutes les sphères de la société canadienne.
18 C'est ce qui fait qu'une personne sourde ou
19 malentendante se sent traitée à part égale et bénéficie
20 à part égale du monde riche des communications, de
21 l'information, d'une culture et d'épanouissement
22 personnel. Mais, pour cela, il faudrait qu'elle ait
23 accès à une télévision dont toutes les programmations
24 sont entièrement sous-titrées.
25 15641 Le mémoire qui est déposé aujourd'hui
StenoTran
3292
1 par le RQST explique plus en détail chaque point
2 énuméré plus haut. Nous espérons qu'il éclairera le
3 Conseil sur la position de la communauté sourde et
4 malentendante en matière de sous-titrage et sur
5 l'importance pour le CRTC de réviser sa réglementation
6 actuelle en faveur d'un sous-titrage de qualité, tant
7 qualitativement que quantitativement.
8 15642 Le RQST a bien fait ses devoirs dans
9 ses dossiers; il ne reste plus au CRTC qu'à en faire de
10 même.
11 15643 Ce matin nous sommes ouverts, mon
12 équipe et moi, à toutes vos questions.
13 15644 Merci.
14 15645 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci, Monsieur
15 McNicoll.
16 15646 Je crois que vous avez abordé au
17 début la liste des groupes que le Regroupement
18 représente. Est-ce que vous pouvez nous donner plus
19 d'informations là-dessus, combien il y a de groupes au
20 Québec qui s'occupent des malentendants ou qui
21 regroupent les buts et ce que le regroupement
22 représente, finalement?
23 15647 M. McNICOLL: Nous avons actuellement
24 26 associations membres du RQST éparpillées partout à
25 travers le Québec et un petit peu en Ontario. Alors ce
StenoTran
3293
1 sont les gens actuellement qui supportent le RQST. Il
2 faut dire aussi qu'on est le seul organisme qui défend
3 le sous-titrage en français. Nulle part au Canada il
4 n'y a quelqu'un qui parle en notre nom.
5 15648 On est aussi membres du Centre
6 québécois de la déficience auditive, qui chapeaute à
7 peu près 70 organismes de personnes sourdes,
8 d'intervenants au niveau des personnes sourdes. Alors
9 le support que nous avons ici vient de tout ce monde
10 là. Nous avons, dans le projet La Norme, eu un grand
11 nombre d'appuis des associations à travers le Québec.
12 15649 Vous dire on représente combien de
13 personnes sourdes exactement... je dois dire qu'on
14 représente vraiment les personnes sourdes et
15 malentendantes et leurs opinions à elles.
16 15650 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous avez mentionné
17 aussi cette question de normes. Est-ce que je vous
18 entends dire qu'une norme pour le sous-titrage en
19 français qui serait compatible avec les technologies
20 existantes est maintenant accessible?
21 15651 Si je comprends bien, le gouvernement
22 avait un groupe de travail qui essayait de pousser de
23 l'avant cette question d'une norme pour le sous-titrage
24 en langue française.
25 15652 M. McNICOLL: C'est nous, les maîtres
StenoTran
3294
1 d'oeuvre du projet. Alors nous, on avait toujours une
2 contrainte avec les années; en nous présentant au CRTC,
3 plusieurs télédiffuseurs nous disaient que la
4 technologie ne le permettait pas.
5 15653 La norme qu'on veut imposer, c'est
6 surtout une norme qu'on pourrait dire uniforme d'un
7 télédiffuseur à l'autre. Actuellement, il y a des gens
8 qui utilisent un télé-souffleur, il y en a d'autres qui
9 font du sous-titrage maison, il y en a d'autres qui
10 font affaire avec des firmes spécialisées. Chacun,
11 suivant ses budgets, est porté à sous-titrer d'une
12 manière ou d'une autre.
13 15654 C'est sûr qu'actuellement, ce qu'on
14 appelle chez nous le roulement en bas de l'écran, le
15 sous-titrage qui est un peu en bas de l'écran, c'est le
16 sous-titrage le plus économique. Dans la norme, ce
17 qu'on va dire, c'est: O.k., si vous faites un bulletin
18 de nouvelles, si vous faites un documentaire, vous
19 allez utiliser ce sous-titrage-là; si vous faites un
20 film ou un téléroman, par exemple, là, vous allez
21 utiliser un genre de sous-titrage qui explose à
22 l'écran.
23 15655 Alors nous, avec le Comité technique,
24 les propositions qu'on a faites... quand je dis "nous",
25 ce sont les personnes sourdes, parce que ce sont les
StenoTran
3295
1 personnes sourdes qui ont été sondées, ce n'est pas le
2 RQST qui a décidé ça. On a rencontré un groupe qu'on
3 appelle le "pré-test" qui ont évalué la compréhension,
4 la qualité du sous-titrage, tous les bobos qui nous
5 frictionnent actuellement.
6 15656 Alors nous, on a présenté une
7 prévision de la norme qui s'en venait aux
8 télédiffuseurs, aux compagnies de sous-titrage, et eux
9 nous ont assuré qu'actuellement, avec les technologies
10 disponibles à leur disposition, il n'y avait aucune
11 contrainte pour faire ce sous-titrage-là.
12 15657 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Donc cette norme-là
13 existerait en ce moment.
14 15658 M. McNICOLL: Elle existe sur papier,
15 mais il faudrait la déposer chez vous et vous, vous
16 l'imposez.
17 15659 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors ce n'est pas
18 celle qui est utilisée par les télédiffuseurs.
19 15660 M. McNICOLL: Non, "pantoute". D'un
20 télédiffuseur à l'autre, ça peut être, comme je l'ai
21 dit tantôt, du sous-titrage maison, du sous-titrage bon
22 marché, le plus économique possible.
23 15661 Il y a certaines compagnies ou
24 grandes maisons qui vont utiliser du sous-titrage de
25 haute qualité mais il n'y a rien d'imposé actuellement.
StenoTran
3296
1 C'est que chacun fait le sous-titrage comme bon lui
2 semble.
3 15662 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Est-ce que ce
4 sous-titrage-là, ce serait par phonèmes plutôt que
5 "sténotapé"?
6 15663 M. McNICOLL: Pouvez-vous répéter
7 votre question?
8 15664 LA PRÉSIDENTE: La norme, est-ce que
9 ça vise le sous-titrage qui serait par sons ou par
10 phonèmes plutôt que simplement quelqu'un qui tape ce
11 qu'il entend?
12 15665 M. McNICOLL: Le sous-titrage, pour
13 nous, je ne sais pas, ce serait au son; pour nous,
14 c'est une forme de sténotypie. C'est fait par
15 sténotypiste, à cause que la parole est trop rapide.
16 15666 LA PRÉSIDENTE: D'accord.
17 15667 M. McNICOLL: Il y a certaines
18 parties que c'est avec des sons, oui.
19 15668 Nous, ce qu'on veut dire, c'est que
20 le sous-titrage doit être encodé, ça veut dire sous la
21 forme sténo, et phonétique. C'est ça, le sous-titrage.
22 15669 Quand on parle par télé-souffleur,
23 c'est un texte comme je viens de vous lire ce matin qui
24 apparaît devant le lecteur de nouvelles, et il lit. Ce
25 n'est pas quelque chose qui est vraiment sous-titré; ce
StenoTran
3297
1 n'est pas pareil "pantoute", "pantoute".
2 15670 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Évidemment, c'est
3 plus difficile à faire en langue française qu'en langue
4 anglaise. Vous êtes d'accord que c'est un des
5 problèmes qui a retardé le développement chez les
6 télédiffuseurs du sous-titrage en langue française?
7 15671 M. McNICOLL: Je ne crois pas, et
8 notre expérience nous dit que ce n'est pas ça.
9 15672 On l'a vu, c'est toujours la question
10 de coût. Le Comité technique a bien prouvé que le
11 sous-titrage en direct est faisable, sauf que c'est le
12 coût. Si on ne crée pas une obligation ou un marché,
13 le coût ne baissera jamais et il n'y aura jamais
14 d'exploration. C'est à partir du moment où on dit:
15 "Vous êtes obligés", vous imposez une règle, que les
16 coûts vont baisser.
17 15673 Le sous-titrage, en 1981, coûtait à
18 peu près 1 200 $, 1 800 $ l'heure; aujourd'hui, on
19 parle de 600 $ et 800 $. Alors, malgré que le
20 sous-titrage baisse continuellement, la ligne de
21 progression ne monte pas vite.
22 15674 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non, je comprends vos
23 frustrations, mais au départ les coûts qui seraient
24 imposés aux télédiffuseurs pour en faire autant que du
25 côté anglophone seraient plus élevés sinon pour
StenoTran
3298
1 d'autres raisons que le fait qu'ils sont amortis sur
2 une population plus petite, parce que vous êtes
3 évidemment d'accord ou vous savez évidemment que du
4 côté anglophone les exigences chez les télédiffuseurs
5 sont plus élevées déjà que du côté francophone pour des
6 raisons économiques, mais je vous comprends que plus on
7 exige, plus ça se fait, et les coûts baissent
8 évidemment.
9 15675 Est-ce que vous êtes au courant des
10 engagements qui ont été pris par les affiliés de
11 réseaux francophones à leurs renouvellements récents?
12 15676 M. McNICOLL: Pour les anglophones,
13 oui, mais pas pour les francophones.
14 15677 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non, non,
15 francophones. Est-ce que j'ai fait erreur? Je voulais
16 dire "francophones".
17 15678 M. McNICOLL: Vous dites que les
18 francophones... je n'ai pas eu aucun écho...
19 15679 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Les renouvellements
20 des affiliés de Radio-Canada, de TQS et de TVA, où on a
21 pris des engagements qui, je suis certaine, ne sont pas
22 suffisants pour vous, mais quand même c'est une
23 question qui a été soulevée et discutée à leur
24 renouvellement à Québec.
25 15680 Chez Radio-Canada, c'est une
StenoTran
3299
1 condition de licence qu'il y ait un certain montant de
2 sous-titrage de fait d'ici l'an 2000, que de fait les
3 bulletins de nouvelles locales de CBVT soient
4 sous-titrés entièrement d'ici l'an 2000, ce qui suggère
5 que nous aurons des engagements plus avancés de la part
6 de Radio-Canada quand on entendra son renouvellement en
7 1999.
8 15681 M. McNICOLL: (Hoche la tête en signe
9 d'acquiescement).
10 15682 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors ce n'est pas
11 que le Conseil ne s'occupe pas de la chose, c'est que
12 c,est difficile d'équilibrer les coûts et les
13 exigences. Et, évidemment, nous comprenons votre
14 frustration et le désir que tout soit fait entièrement
15 dans un délai beaucoup plus court.
16 15683 Je crois comprendre qu'une de vos
17 frustrations est que dans les bulletins de nouvelles la
18 partie qui est en direct n'est souvent pas titrée.
19 Donc vous avez une partie titrée qui vous dit ce qui va
20 se passer, et ensuite on coupe à une partie qui n'est
21 pas sous-titrée.
22 15684 C'est bien ce que je comprends des
23 vidéos que nous avons vus?
24 15685 M. McNICOLL: Ça, c'est un exemple de
25 frustration. Le deuxième exemple de frustration qu'on
StenoTran
3300
1 peut vous donner immédiatement, ce matin, c'est que
2 l'accessibilité à la télévision n'est pas uniforme pour
3 les personnes sourdes et malentendantes. On devient
4 des personnes... un petit peu comme un poisson, il faut
5 mordre à l'hameçon d'un télédiffuseur pour pouvoir
6 écouter la télévision.
7 15686 Ce n'est pas normal, on est rendus à
8 l'aube du 21e siècle et on n'est pas capables d'écouter
9 des émissions de sports sous-titrées, on n'a pas accès
10 à des émissions culturelles sous-titrées; les enfants,
11 excepté avec les canaux spécialisés comme Canal Famille
12 ou un petit peu à Radio-Canada, n'ont même pas accès
13 encore à des émissions sous-titrées. On n'a même pas
14 accès à des débats publics comme -- la demande qui me
15 revient souvent chez les personnes sourdes -- "Claire
16 Lamarche"; ça, c'est un exemple d'émission
17 d'information essentielle ou intéressante pour ces
18 personnes-là. On n'a pas accès à ça.
19 15687 Tout ce qu'on a accès, c'est les
20 films et les téléromans. Est-ce qu'on doit s'accrocher
21 juste à ces émissions-là continuellement? C'est depuis
22 1981 qu'on est accrochés sur des téléromans et des
23 films. On aimerait ça, nous autres aussi, comme vous,
24 personnes entendantes, avoir accès mais ne pas être
25 accrochés sur un télédiffuseur, "pitonner" comme tout
StenoTran
3301
1 le monde et écouter l'émission de notre choix, à notre
2 goût.
3 15688 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Quand vous parlez de
4 la puce dans les téléviseurs et l'imposition de la puce
5 aux États-Unis, j'imagine que ça va aider au Canada
6 aussi à mesure que les gens changent leur téléviseur,
7 mais vous allez me dire évidemment qu'il faut qu'il y
8 ait de la programmation sous-titrée pour que ça vaille
9 quelque chose aux gens.
10 15689 M. McNICOLL: C'est intéressant, ça
11 aussi, mais l'inverse pourrait être vrai aussi. Si
12 moi, je m'en vais dans l'ouest pour m'installer et je
13 ne comprends pas la langue anglaise, le sous-titrage
14 m'aide beaucoup à l'apprentissage de la langue. C'est
15 comme ceux de l'ouest qui s'en vont dans l'est; pour
16 apprendre le français, ils font la même chose.
17 15690 Le problème de la puce intégrée,
18 c'est que tous les pays qui ont une très bonne relation
19 d'affaires avec les États-Unis insèrent une puce de
20 décodage. Quand on s'en va sur le côté spécialisé, les
21 compagnies de télévision spécialisées ou les compagnies
22 qui ne font pas affaires avec les États-Unis, qui
23 rentrent par Vancouver -- beaucoup de pays asiatiques
24 vendent des produits en passant par Vancouver -- vu
25 qu'on n'a pas l'obligation au Canada d'insérer une puce
StenoTran
3302
1 de décodage, il n'y en a pas. C'est ça.
2 15691 L'aide qu'on demande, c'est qu'il
3 faudrait qu'on ait une loi à peu près identique à celle
4 des Américains pour éviter, justement, de contourne la
5 loi américaine pour entrer sur le marché canadien.
6 15692 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Quand vous suggérez
7 que le Conseil ait un comité aviseur... est-ce que j'ai
8 bien compris, que le Conseil ait un comité aviseur qui
9 se pencherait sur ces questions en ce qui concerne le
10 marché de langue française en particulier?
11 15693 M. McNICOLL: Vous venez de voir ce
12 matin un petit peu sur le 29, rapidement, ce que je
13 vous disais, un canal avec des icônes de météo et un
14 télé-texte en bas. Quand ils ont sorti ça vers la
15 mi-août, le télédiffuseur était conscient que le
16 sous-titrage était bloqué probablement, la ligne de
17 sous-titrage; il en était conscient, mais il a fallu
18 que le RQST demande au CRTC qu'est-ce qui se passait,
19 et il y a d'autres personnes qui ont écrit aussi
20 directement au Canal Nouvelles pour avoir de
21 l'information sur ce qui s'était passé. Ils nous
22 disaient: "On a un problème technique. On le sait.
23 On en est conscients." Ils ont dit: "On a continué à
24 sous-titrer." Nous, on n'a jamais vu le sous-titrage.
25 15694 Si on crée un projet d'un comité
StenoTran
3303
1 aviseur, ça va nous permettre, si jamais il y a une
2 nouvelle technologie, un nouveau changement, quelque
3 chose, de le visionner et voir... pour les personnes
4 sourdes, et non être obligés de toujours crier après
5 telle personne après qu'elle ait imposé ou implanté
6 quelque chose.
7 15695 C'est pour ça que le comité aviseur,
8 je pense que je trouve ça intéressant d'un côté; ça
9 nous permet de voir si la technologie est adaptée pour
10 les personnes sourdes. Deuxième chose, c'est que ça
11 nous permet aussi de faire un suivi sur la qualité et
12 quantité, les problèmes. Si vous dites: "Tel
13 télédiffuseur a un problème financier", ils n'ont pas à
14 se cacher; qu'ils nous le disent, et on va voir si on
15 peut s'ajuster ou faire des compromis, comme on dit en
16 affaires. C'est important pour nous.
17 15696 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous avons entendu un
18 groupe qui représentait les malentendants de langue
19 anglaise et qui se plaignaient, eux aussi, de
20 l'orthographe et de la qualité du sous-titrage. Est-ce
21 qu'à votre avis ce problème-là est plus sérieux en
22 langue française?
23 15697 M. McNICOLL: Beaucoup plus grave.
24 Beaucoup plus grave. On en parle dans le mémoire, de
25 toute façon, de la qualité du français.
StenoTran
3304
1 15698 Je regardais hier certains
2 programmes, des nouvelles émissions qui sont arrivées.
3 Comme je vous dis, c'est vrai que les coûts baissent,
4 mais la qualité baisse en même temps. On est
5 conscients de ça, mais ce n'est pas une raison... c'est
6 parce que j'aimerais que vous lisiez le dernier
7 bulletin du RQST que j'ai apporté avec moi. Il y a une
8 personne sourde qui a écrit quelque chose sur la
9 fameuse qualité du français.
10 15699 On a un risque pour les personnes
11 sourdes et malentendantes, surtout les enfants qui
12 regardent un sous-titrage erroné. Je vais vous donner
13 un exemple d'un mot qui a disparu pour les personnes
14 sourdes... pas pour vous autres, mais pour les
15 personnes sourdes; c'est le fameux "ça", "c cédille".
16 C'est juste un exemple comme ça. Ça fait 20 ans,
17 depuis 1981, qu'on a des ATS anglophones, avec un
18 clavier anglophone; on n'a pas des ATS à clavier
19 français encore, ça n'existe même pas au Québec, parce
20 que c'est importé des États-Unis. On a un clavier
21 anglophone. Comme ça, on fait "ça"; "ça", c'est
22 toujours "c-a", "c-a", "c-a", ça fait 19 ans.
23 15700 Dernièrement les accents avec le
24 c-cédille commencent à apparaître à la télévision, mais
25 ce n'est pas fait encore. Il y a une personne qui m'a
StenoTran
3305
1 dit: "Ah, 'ça', ça s'écrit avec un "c cédille"? Je ne
2 le savais pas." Mais ça fait 19 ans ou 20 ans que la
3 personne écrit "ça" pas de "c cédille". Alors vous
4 voyez c'est quoi, le problème de la qualité du
5 français.
6 15701 Si on a un mauvais exemple via la
7 télévision, les enfants ont le mauvais exemple aussi
8 via la télévision, c'est un gros problème.
9 15702 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Est-ce que ce
10 problème-là est aussi dans la "syllabification", les
11 phonèmes, et caetera, où les mots deviennent
12 incompréhensibles parce qu'ils ne sont pas bien
13 divisés?
14 15703 M. McNICOLL: Beaucoup, parce que
15 dans le projet La Norme on a montré des comparaisons
16 entre, si vous voulez, les caractères en langue
17 anglaise, tout en majuscules comme on voit
18 actuellement; on a montré des phrases pièges, comme "un
19 homme indigne", "un homme indigné"; l'exemple d'un mot
20 avec un accent et pas d'accent.
21 15704 Nous, on ne le voit pas, ça. À moins
22 que tu sois très compétent en français et que tu
23 comprennes très bien le français... c'est là que tu vas
24 voir qu'il y a une erreur, tu sais si c'est "é" ou "e".
25 Mais les personnes sourdes, les jeunes qui apprennent,
StenoTran
3306
1 qui entrent dans le sous-titrage avec ça, ils ne
2 sauront jamais si ça prend un accent ou si ça n'en
3 prend pas puis ils vont être portés probablement plus
4 tard à écrire ces mots comme vus à la télévision.
5 15705 LA PRÉSIDENTE: De fait, un homme
6 indigne et un homme indigné ne veulent même pas dire la
7 même chose. Je sais que vous, vous êtes indigné de la
8 lenteur des progrès mais vous n'êtes pas un homme
9 indigne. C'est un exemple évidemment très à propos.
10 15706 Nous reconnaissons évidemment vos
11 désirs et vos buts et nous en avons discuté dans les
12 renouvellements très récents des affiliés que nous
13 avons entendus il y a moins d'un an, et nous entendrons
14 Radio-Canada en 1999, et je suis certaine que cette
15 question sera soulevée encore une fois.
16 15707 Nous sommes conscients du fait qu'à
17 votre avis ça ne bouge pas suffisamment, mais c'est un
18 dossier auquel le Conseil s'intéresse, et nous vous
19 encourageons à continuer vos efforts pour atteindre vos
20 objectifs.
21 15708 Nous sommes impressionnés du nombre
22 de personnes qui ont jugé bon de venir nous voir
23 aujourd'hui. Nous vous remercions de cette
24 présentation, et nous sommes très conscients de vos
25 objectifs.
StenoTran
3307
1 15709 Mme THERRIEN: Est-ce que je peux me
2 permettre d'ajouter quelques petites informations?
3 15710 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, allez-y, madame.
4 15711 Mme THERRIEN: Il y a deux choses
5 importantes que l'on doit dire, et c'est que le
6 sous-titrage a été nommé comme une des priorités lors
7 d'un colloque qui réunissait des personnes
8 malentendantes et sourdes; donc c'est une priorité au
9 Québec pour le Centre québécois de la déficience
10 auditive, qui appuie très fortement les démarches du
11 Regroupement québécois du sous-titrage; et d'un.
12 15712 Deux, je voudrais revenir sur une
13 question que vous avez posée à M. McNicoll un peu plus
14 tôt sur la différence entre le sous-titrage anglophone
15 et le sous-titrage francophone, parce que le bassin
16 d'anglophones est plus grand et que le bassin
17 francophone est plus petit.
18 15713 Enfin, si on regarde le sous-titrage
19 anglophone au Canada et que l'on soustrait le nombre
20 d'émissions sous-titrées qui proviennent des
21 États-Unis, la réalité du sous-titrage canadien, le
22 pourcentage réel tombe à un niveau pas très loin
23 équivalent à ce qui se fait au niveau francophone. La
24 seule différence chez les anglophones, c'est qu'ils
25 jouissent de ce bassin-là d'émissions qu'ils achètent
StenoTran
3308
1 déjà sous-titrées, mais en réalité le pourcentage du
2 sous-titrage fait au Canada n'est pas très élevé non
3 plus.
4 15714 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais ça recoupe un
5 autre problème, qui est le problème de la fréquence de
6 la programmation ou la ratio, le pourcentage de la
7 programmation américaine ou de provenance d'outre-mer
8 chez les télédiffuseurs anglophones. Donc les
9 malentendants ont beaucoup plus accès à de la
10 programmation sous-titrée parce qu'il y a moins de
11 programmation canadienne comparé à ce que vous voyez au
12 Québec; il y a beaucoup plus de programmation qui est
13 d'origine québécoise. Comprenez-vous? Donc, pour le
14 malentendant anglophone, évidemment, ils ont accès à
15 beaucoup plus de programmation sous-titrée parce qu'ils
16 regardent beaucoup plus de programmation étrangère.
17 15715 Mais je comprends votre point,
18 évidemment, parce qu'il y a beaucoup moins de
19 programmation produite au Canada qui est visionnée par
20 les Canadiens anglais en ce moment, qui est un problème
21 que nous examinons en ce moment.
22 15716 Par le bassin, j'incluais évidemment
23 le fait que cette programmation-là provient de pays
24 anglophones autres que le Canada. Alors c'est plus
25 frustrant pour vous parce qu'il y a plus de
StenoTran
3309
1 programmation produite qui est canadienne qui est
2 visionnée chez les Québécois.
3 15717 Mme THERRIEN: Non seulement ça, au
4 niveau du direct, on revient à chaque fois avec la Fête
5 du Canada qui est sous-titrée en direct; le fameux
6 grand spectacle que l'on offre à tous les Canadiens, on
7 l'offre strictement aux Canadiens anglais parce que les
8 Canadiens français n'en jouissent pas, de ça.
9 Pourquoi?
10 15718 C'est la même société d'État; une est
11 anglophone, une est francophone. Pourquoi est-ce que
12 les francophones n'y ont pas droit? Et même s'ils se
13 mettent à écouter la télévision anglophone, lorsqu'il y
14 a quelqu'un qui parle en français, on arrête le
15 sous-titrage et on dit que ce n'est pas disponible.
16 15719 C'est une des très grandes
17 frustrations, principalement à la société d'État, qui,
18 quand même, doit se soumettre aussi aux lois sur les
19 langues officielles et ainsi de suite.
20 15720 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous aurons
21 évidemment l'occasion d'en reparler au renouvellement
22 de Radio-Canada, et j'ai cru entendre qu'on arrive à
23 des meilleures possibilités selon ce qu'on a entendu au
24 renouvellement des affiliés. Alors gardez courage.
25 Nous comprenons vos frustrations.
StenoTran
3310
1 15721 Le conseiller Cardozo a quelques
2 questions pour vous.
3 15722 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Merci.
4 15723 Comme Mme la Présidente a dit, la
5 semaine passée un organisme qui travaille avec les
6 anglophones a dit qu'en anglais il y a un problème avec
7 la programmation américaine parce que l'orthographie
8 est différente, l'orthographie canadienne et
9 américaine.
10 15724 Est-ce qu'il existe un problème comme
11 ça en français avec les programmations qui viennent
12 d'autres pays, comme la France ou d'autres pays?
13 15725 M. McNICOLL: Nous avons les mêmes
14 problèmes. Si vous parlez du marché français, ce n'est
15 pas le même standard de communication, le format de
16 communication; il y a PAL (ph.) puis il y a un autre
17 format, je ne me souviens plus quoi. Alors, même si le
18 produit a déjà été sous-titré en France ou quelque
19 chose et qu'on l'importe au Canada, il va falloir le
20 re-sous-titrer de nouveau. On a une preuve avec TV5.
21 TV5, le bulletin de nouvelles de sept heures, il est
22 sous-titré deux fois; il est sous-titré en France et il
23 est sous-titré au Canada parce que ce n'est pas le même
24 format de sous-titrage. Ça, c'est un problème qu'on a
25 souvent.
StenoTran
3311
1 15726 Pour revenir ou renchérir sur
2 Mme Therrien, où on voit un gros problème frustrant
3 pour les Québécois, c'est que les télédiffuseurs
4 francophones achètent aussi du produit américain, des
5 émissions américaines, qui sont traduites en français,
6 bravo, mais le sous-titrage, lui, n'est pas traduit.
7 On n'en a pas, de sous-titrage. C'est ça qui est
8 "plate".
9 15727 Est-ce qu'on est obligés de toujours
10 écouter les émissions en anglais pour nous satisfaire?
11 Ça ne marche pas. Si vous achetez un produit que vous
12 faites traduire dans une langue, vous faites traduire
13 aussi le sous-titrage pour qu'on y ait accès.
14 15728 Un exemple de cette année: TQS
15 l'année passée avait sous-titré une émission, une série
16 qui se passe à l'hôpital. Peut-être que toutes les
17 personnes sourdes et malentendantes ont suivi cette
18 série-là. Ça passe à TVA cette année, mais TVA ne fait
19 pas le sous-titrage. C'est intéressant!
20 15729 Alors c'est ça, on a vraiment un
21 problème au niveau de l'importation des produits, si
22 vous voulez.
23 15730 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Vous avez dit
24 que vous êtes contre la pictographie. Qu'est-ce que
25 c'est?
StenoTran
3312
1 15731 M. McNICOLL: Il faudrait revenir au
2 début de la cassette. C'est une nouvelle technologie
3 que je pense qui va être utilisée. Je viens de le
4 remarquer sur le Canal Nouvelles de TVA, sur le canal
5 29 sur le câble de Montréal -- je ne sais pas c'est
6 quoi chez vous -- et vous avez aussi le canal 9 de
7 Vidéotron qui a commencé à utiliser ça. Les
8 pictogrammes, ce sont des petits carrés qui montrent la
9 météo, vous voyez des nuages qui se promènent, un petit
10 soleil qui tourne, des petites choses comme ça.
11 15732 Ensuite, en bas, ils utilisent ce
12 qu'on appelle du télé-texte. C'est juste de brèves
13 information, nouvelles, qui n'ont aucun rapport avec
14 l'image animée d'information.
15 15733 En plus de ça, par-dessus ça, vous
16 mettez du sous-titrage. Alors vous avez les petits
17 choses un petit peu Internet, comme des jiff (ph.)
18 Internet qui bougent tout le temps. Vous avez en
19 arrière un écran qui change continuellement. Vous avez
20 du sous-titrage qui se déroule continuellement.
21 15734 Comment voulez-vous qu'on écoute un
22 bulletin de nouvelles? On n'a pas quatre yeux. C'est
23 un champ de vision, ce n'est pas quatre champs de
24 vision. C'est ça qui est le problème.
25 15735 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Mais s'il y a
StenoTran
3313
1 juste un pictographe qui donne un peu d'information,
2 est-ce que c'est o.k.?
3 15736 M. McNICOLL: Le canal MétéoMédia --
4 je ne sais pas depuis combien d'années qu'il est en
5 ondes -- a commencé ses émissions comme ça, avec
6 différentes sortes d'icônes d'information de météo,
7 d'images pour ci puis ça. De plus en plus ils font
8 aussi du reportage.
9 15737 Depuis que le canal MétéoMédia
10 existe, ils n'ont jamais, jamais, jamais fait de
11 sous-titrage. Le CRTC n'a jamais, jamais imposé de
12 sous-titrage. Dans leurs conditions de licence je ne
13 vois nulle part qu'ils sont obligés de nous rendre
14 accessibles.
15 15738 Ça de vient intéressant de mettre des
16 petites bébelles comme ça qui nous disent... mais ça ne
17 nous dit pas le fond de l'histoire. S'il arrive une
18 tempête de verglas, s'il arrive une situation urgente
19 ou quoi que ce soit, la petite bébelle qui tourne
20 autour de l'écran ne nous dit rien.
21 15739 C'est important pour nous qu'on ait
22 la même accessibilité que vous autres... une
23 information globale totale, pas avec des dessins; même
24 si les dessins peuvent nous aider, c'est intéressant,
25 mais pour les personnes sourdes ou malentendantes, je
StenoTran
3314
1 ne pense pas que ce soit l'outil idéal pour comprendre
2 quelque chose.
3 15740 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Quelle est votre
4 opinion sur... je ne sais pas le mot, mais peut-être la
5 langue des signes. Je me souviens autrefois sur le
6 canal parlementaire il y avait un petit cercle avec un
7 visuel et avec une personne qui parlait avec la langue
8 de signes... sign language.
9 15741 M. McNICOLL: La langue des signes va
10 toujours être un besoin nécessaire, essentiel pour les
11 personnes sourdes gestuelles. Veut ou veut pas, il va
12 falloir qu'elle reste ou il va falloir la défendre à un
13 moment donné, parce que comme on sait que ce petit
14 groupe-là, c'est un petit groupe, une petite culture
15 qui ont une difficulté de lecture, une difficulté de
16 compréhension, c'est essentiel dans toutes les
17 situations d'urgence ou les informations nécessaires,
18 comme les élections, les choses comme ça, qu'ils y
19 aient accès.
20 15742 Le RQST va appuyer fortement,
21 continuellement la demande des sourds gestuels parce
22 qu'on trouve que c,est très important pour eux qu'ils
23 accès à cette information-là. Je ne dis pas qu'il y
24 ait l'information 100 pour cent, sept jours par semaine
25 en gestuel, mais s'ils peuvent avoir une émission qui
StenoTran
3315
1 leur appartient, les informations essentielles de base,
2 comme quand il y a des situations de crise, d'épidémie,
3 quoi que ce soit, c'est qu'ils deviennent privilégiés
4 et ils devraient avoir cette information-là comme nous,
5 on l'a.
6 15743 Mme THERRIEN: On a pu, d'ailleurs, le
7 voir lors du passage de l'ouragan George en Louisiane
8 aux États-Unis; lorsqu'il y avait quelqu'un qui
9 annonçait les mesures d'urgence, l'avis d'évacuation,
10 la personne était devant sa tribune et tout à côté il y
11 avait une interprète gestuelle qui interprétait
12 directement. Alors toutes les personnes étaient
13 informées et même les personnes sourdes gestuelles.
14 15744 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Et le signage
15 est différent entre l'anglais et le français, n'est-ce
16 pas?
17 15745 Mme THERRIEN: Oui.
18 15746 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Finalement, j'ai
19 une question sur les priorités.
20 15747 Avez-vous des priorités pour les gens
21 de programmation, les nouvelles ou les programmes
22 dramatiques ou les téléromans? Je ne pense pas les
23 téléromans.
24 15748 M. McNICOLL: Vous avez répondu à la
25 question. Non. Ce qu'on vous dit, c'est que les
StenoTran
3316
1 bulletins de nouvelles, c'est essentiel, l'accès à la
2 culture, c'est essentiel; l'accès à la culture, aux
3 émissions dramatiques, aux émissions musicales, il faut
4 que ce soit... c'est essentiel. D'autres genres, c'est
5 le sport; c'est essentiel pour nous.
6 15749 Actuellement, on n'est même pas
7 capables de venir devant vous et dire qu'on est contre
8 la violence à la télévision parce qu'il n'y a rien qui
9 soit accessible pour nous. On ne peut pas discuter
10 comme ça. Si vous nous dites: "Oui, mais on va vous
11 couper ça au profit de ça"... on n'en a pas. On veut
12 avoir la même chose... c'est comme si vous nous dites:
13 "Dans une journée de 24 heures, on va vous couper le
14 son pendant huit heures de temps et choisissez votre
15 émission après." Vous ne seriez pas contents. Chez
16 nous, on n'est pas contents de cette situation-là, on
17 la trouve injuste.
18 15750 On ouvre une télévision, la
19 télévision, c'est pour tout le monde, on a accès pour
20 tout le monde sans donner des priorités. La priorité
21 qu'on va vous donner, oui, le sous-titrage en direct,
22 depuis 17 ans qu'on le demande, et ça devrait être une
23 exigence que le sous-titrage en direct, il y ait un
24 départ. Ça, c'est une exigence, une obligation qu'on
25 veut maintenant.
StenoTran
3317
1 15751 Pour les émissions, il ne faudrait
2 pas choisir... je me suis déjà fait dire, je pense que
3 c'est par la télévision d'État: "On ne sous-titre pas
4 les nouvelles du sport." Actuellement, il n'y a plus
5 de nouvelles du sport sous-titrées que sur les canaux
6 spécialisés. On nous dit: "On n'a pas besoin de
7 sous-titrer les nouvelles du sport parce qu'un autre
8 canal le fait." Se faire répondre comme ça, ce n'est
9 pas correct; ce n'est pas correct. Je pense qu'on a
10 droit au même accès que tout le monde, égalité pour
11 tout le monde, choix multiples comme tout le monde.
12 15752 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Merci beaucoup.
13 15753 Merci, Madame la Présidente.
14 15754 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Est-ce que je
15 comprends bien qu'un de vos problèmes avec les
16 pictogrammes aussi, c'est qu'à ce moment-là on remplace
17 éventuellement le sous-titrage complètement?
18 15755 M. McNICOLL: C'est sûr et certain.
19 C'est sûr et certain. C'est une autre porte encore
20 pour les télédiffuseurs pour économiser.
21 15756 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Savez-vous,
22 Monsieur McNicoll, si pendant la tempête de verglas les
23 organisations que vous connaissez et les associations
24 que vous connaisses ont essayé d'exiger qu'il y ait du
25 gestuel au réseau?
StenoTran
3318
1 15757 Je vous vois dire oui. Et ça n'a pas
2 réussi?
3 15758 M. McNICOLL: Ça a été l'enfer. Ça a
4 été l'enfer.
5 15759 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et il n'y en a pas
6 eu.
7 15760 M. McNICOLL: C'est parce qu'on
8 disait: "Sous-titré en direct"... faites attention,
9 les mesures d'urgence, à cause des pannes ou quoi que
10 ce soit, il ne faudrait plus que le sous-titrage soit
11 caché. C'est pour ça encore, pour revenir à la petit
12 puce d'intégration, c'est qu'on s'en va dans des
13 endroits de sécurité, sécuritaires, ou un déplacement
14 de gens dans un endroit, si on rentre là et qu'il n'y a
15 pas de décodeurs, on ne peut pas écouter les nouvelles,
16 ci et ça.
17 15761 La deuxième chose, on a demandé à
18 tous les télédiffuseurs, par communiqué, par téléphone
19 direct, par fax, d'envoyer des messages pour deux
20 personnes sourdes, où aller, où s'informer. On a
21 demandé à tous les télédiffuseurs, si c'est possible,
22 de mettre une interprète gestuelle pour transmettre
23 l'information. On a eu une fin de non-recevoir. C'est
24 "plate", mais c'était ça.
25 15762 On a déposé un mémoire à la
StenoTran
3319
1 Commission Nicolet à ce sujet. Si vous voulez avoir
2 une copie de ce mémoire-là, on peut vous le
3 transmettre, mais on dit exactement ce qu'on vous dit.
4 15763 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Voilà pourquoi vous
5 êtes un homme indigné.
6 15764 Mesdames, messieurs, nous vous
7 remercions de votre participation et aussi nous sommes
8 contents de voir qu'il y a plusieurs personnes qui ont
9 jugé bon de venir nous voir. J'espère qu'elles ne
10 partent pas toutes et toutes plus indignés qu'avant
11 d'arriver.
12 15765 Merci.
13 15766 M. McNICOLL: Merci.
14 15767 M. GUIBORD: Sommes-nous assurés,
15 Madame la Présidente, que vous lirez, vous et les
16 commissaires, le mémoire qui a été présenté
17 aujourd'hui?
18 15768 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Absolument.
19 15769 M. GUIBORD: Merci bien.
20 15770 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous ne l'avons pas
21 lu encore parce qu'il est arrivé à nous seulement ce
22 matin, mais il est au dossier, évidemment, et il sera
23 lu.
24 15771 M. GUIBORD: Merci bien.
25 15772 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Madame la Secrétaire.
StenoTran
3320
1 15773 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
2 15774 I would like now to invite the
3 Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of
4 Canada.
5 15775 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning,
6 gentlemen. Proceed when you are ready.
7 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
8 15776 M. KINKAID: Bonjour, Madame la
9 Présidente et membres du Conseil. Permettez-moi
10 d'abord de me présenter. Mon nom est James Kinkaid, et
11 je suis accompagné de M. Michael Sullivan. Nous sommes
12 ici à titre de représentants du SCEP, le Syndicat
13 canadien des communications, de l'énergie et du papier;
14 pour le bénéfice des interprètes, Communication, Energy
15 and Paperworkers Union of Canada.
16 15777 Pour vous donner un peu l'historique
17 du SCEP, puisque c'est la première fois que le SCEP se
18 présente devant ce Conseil, le SCEP a été fondé en 1992
19 suite à la fusion de trois syndicats majeurs au Canada,
20 à savoir, le Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses
21 en communications du Canada, le Syndicat des
22 travailleurs du papier ainsi que le Syndicat des
23 employés en énergie et chimie. Suite à cette fusion se
24 sont joints à nous les membres du SNTC, soit NABET, qui
25 eux représentent effectivement les gens en
StenoTran
3321
1 radiodiffusion.
2 15778 Soit dit en passant, M. Sullivan a
3 une longue expérience au niveau de la radiodiffusion et
4 sera sûrement plus apte que moi à répondre à plusieurs
5 de vos questions.
6 15779 Donc, aujourd'hui nous représentons
7 quelque 150 000 membres, dont environ 8 000 qui
8 travaillent directement au niveau de la radiodiffusion,
9 de la transmission ou télédistribution ainsi que de la
10 production.
11 15780 Je crois qu'il y a lieu en premier
12 lieu de féliciter le Conseil d'abord pour son excellent
13 travail et sa contribution au niveau de notre système
14 de télédistribution, de communications et de
15 radiodiffusion. Nous considérons en gros que les
16 mécanismes réglementaires actuels ont en effet
17 contribué énormément au soutien de notre industrie et
18 ont aussi contribué au développement et aux objectifs
19 de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.
20 15781 Ce que nous proposons en gros dans
21 notre soumission du 30 juin, c'est de maintenir et de
22 resserrer les critères actuels du Conseil en matière de
23 contenu canadien mais aussi d'y ajouter des
24 considérations au niveau des contributions culturelles
25 que pourrait apporter notre système de radiodiffusion
StenoTran
3322
1 au Canada.
2 15782 Donc on recommande entre autres de
3 maintenir et même de renforcer l'application des
4 critères existants et aussi d'y ajouter, si vous
5 voulez, un système de critères ou d'évaluation, une
6 base d'évaluation qui pourrait tenir compte des
7 contributions que pourraient faire nos radiodiffuseurs
8 et nos producteurs indépendants en matière de culture
9 canadienne.
10 15783 Ce que nous voulons en gros, à
11 l'instar de plusieurs autres groupes, c'est de voir à
12 ce que les Canadiens soient mieux ou de plus en plus
13 représentés sur nos ondes. Pour ce faire, dans notre
14 soumission nous vous suggérons d'augmenter les
15 exigences en matière de contenu canadien et que ces
16 exigences soient spécifiques pour chaque catégorie
17 d'émissions, notamment en matière de catégories
18 sous-représentées.
19 15784 Afin d'atteindre ces objectifs, ce
20 qui à notre avis aiderait énormément, c'est de
21 permettre entre autres aux radiodiffuseurs, dont
22 notamment la CBC/Radio-Canada, de générer des revenus
23 additionnels des productions auxquelles ils participent
24 via la redistribution sur les canaux spécialisés et la
25 vente de ceux-ci sur les marchés étrangers. Nous
StenoTran
3323
1 suggérons, ce faisant, qu'aux radiodiffuseurs puissent
2 appartenir en entier ou en partie les productions
3 auxquelles ils ont participé financièrement et
4 physiquement. De plus, nous vous soumettons qu'il
5 serait temps de permettre aux radiodiffuseurs d'avoir
6 accès aux fonds publics de production.
7 15785 Compte tenu de la maturité financière
8 des producteurs indépendants et de leur rôle au niveau
9 de la distribution, il serait selon nous effectivement
10 temps d'équilibrer les forces du marché en permettant
11 aux radiodiffuseurs un accès élargi aux fonds de
12 production canadiens.
13 15786 Enfin, dans notre soumission du 30
14 décembre, nous avons aussi tenu à souligner au Conseil
15 le rôle que nous croyons qui devrait être dévolu à la
16 Société Radio-Canada, à CBC, qui elle aussi, selon
17 nous, devrait avoir accès à ces fonds publics de
18 production. La CBC, ou Radio-Canada, est un des
19 contribuables, si on veut, en termes de contenu
20 canadien les plus importants au Canada, bien sûr, et
21 mériterait en ce sens une façon de pouvoir bénéficier
22 des fonds publics actuels pour pouvoir, justement,
23 avoir un meilleur contrôle sur le contenu de sa
24 programmation et bénéficier ou faire bénéficier aux
25 Canadiens d'un contenu plus élevé en matière de contenu
StenoTran
3324
1 canadien.
2 15787 Je vais maintenant céder la parole à
3 M. Sullivan, qui a aussi certaines suggestions à vous
4 faire et certains commentaires additionnels à vous
5 proposer, suite à quoi nous serons, bien sûr,
6 disponibles pour répondre à vos questions.
7 15788 MR. SULLIVAN: The thrust of our
8 brief is to move essentially from a system of
9 regulation to a system which encourages broadcasters by
10 means of a business case and a business reality, where
11 it would make financial sense for broadcasters, not
12 just because they have to, but financial sense to move
13 to a greater spectrum of Canadian content, particularly
14 in prime time.
15 15789 The tendency of broadcasters now is
16 to avoid their obligations as best they can or to
17 minimize their obligations as best they can. We have
18 discovered in our surveys of some of our members about
19 this that -- one of the things that was appalling to us
20 was broadcasters, when they air a 15-second news
21 highlights every evening are now entitled to count the
22 full 3- or 4-minute commercial block as Canadian
23 content for 15 seconds of news; they add up 10 of those
24 and they now have half an hour of Canadian content
25 every evening for what amounts to 15 seconds of news
StenoTran
3325
1 that's repeated 10 times in the evening. That's an
2 example of how the private broadcasters are doing
3 everything they can to minimize their contribution to
4 the Canadianization of the system.
5 15790 The private broadcasters, and the
6 networks themselves, are leaning towards alliances with
7 large American broadcasters. There is no proof of this
8 now, but it wouldn't surprise us at all if we didn't
9 hear of strategic alliances between Baton, CTV and ABC
10 capacities in the near future as a way for them to
11 promote themselves in the States and as a way for the
12 American networks to avoid the ownership obligations
13 that occur in Canada. And the same would be true of
14 Global, being very closely aligned with NBC and Fox.
15 15791 We also are concerned about the loss
16 of local programming as a result of the centralization
17 of the systems in Toronto and in Montreal, whereby a
18 station right here in Ottawa, CJOH, produces zero local
19 programming now with the exception of news. That's all
20 that's left.
21 15792 As a result of that, although their
22 local sales forces are going great guns in selling all
23 kinds of ads, they do not produce anything locally, and
24 the people we represent in those stations has shrunk
25 dramatically, by over 50 per cent in the last five
StenoTran
3326
1 years. Although you heard this morning that there is a
2 huge infrastructure of Canadian production talent
3 developing through Telefilm and others, that
4 infrastructure is growing at the expense in some cases
5 of jobs in the broadcast sector. And, if you were to
6 look at the Net, I doubt that the Net would be a net
7 gain for Canada in terms of the number of jobs in the
8 industry.
9 15793 We are also somewhat concerned and we
10 have commented in our brief about the word
11 "complementary" towards the CBC in the call for this
12 hearing. We don't really know what you mean by it.
13 We hope what you mean by it isn't what we think you
14 mean by it.
15 15794 We hope what you mean by it is that
16 CBC has a different role to play, but the word
17 "complementary" might also mean that the CBC has an
18 opposite role to play, that where private broadcasters
19 should be in popular culture, the CBC should not, or
20 that where private broadcasters should be in news, the
21 CBC should not. We hope and trust that that's not what
22 the Commission meant by that rather provocative turn of
23 phrase.
24 15795 As you know from our brief, we took
25 you seriously that you wanted to rethink the structure
StenoTran
3327
1 and we proposed a new structure that gives broadcasters
2 a financial and a commercial and a business incentive
3 to produce Canadian programming, but with that some
4 stricter regulation by the Commission in terms of the
5 amounts they put on the air.
6 15796 So, if we you have any questions, we
7 would be pleased to answer them.
8 15797 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
9 Mr. Sullivan. Merci, Monsieur Kinkaid.
10 15798 Commissioner Cardozo, please; le
11 conseiller Cardozo.
12 15799 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you,
13 Madam Chair.
14 15800 If it is okay with you, I will pose
15 my questions in English, and feel free to respond in
16 either language.
17 15801 MR. SULLIVAN: That's fine.
18 15802 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: This is the
19 union, right, because you are talking about a business
20 case.
21 15803 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Foreign terms, I
22 know.
23 15804 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Is this the
24 third way the people are talking about?
25 15805 Were you guys down at that conference
StenoTran
3328
1 last week in Washington, where they were talking
2 about -- I am just revving you, but we will come to it.
3 15806 MR. SULLIVAN: It is hitting home.
4 15807 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You talked
5 about Canadian programming, and as I look at the
6 continuum of how we evaluate or judge Canadian
7 programming, one could draw a continuum with cultural
8 objectives on one hand and industrial objectives on the
9 other.
10 15808 In your written brief it seemed to me
11 that you wanted to move to the cultural end of things,
12 and what you are talking about with the business case
13 seems to be moving to the industrial objectives end of
14 the continuum.
15 15809 Is that fair? I mean, it is fair to
16 do both.
17 15810 MR. SULLIVAN: It is fair to do both.
18 What we have said in the written brief is that, by
19 giving the broadcasters a business reason to do
20 culture, the cultural objectives will be met. Right
21 now the broadcasters have a business reason to
22 broadcast American programming because they make more
23 money from the American programming than they do from
24 Canadian programming. So they will avoid Canadian
25 programming as much as they possibly can and make their
StenoTran
3329
1 money from American programming.
2 15811 What we are suggesting is that, by
3 looking at the system as a whole, and giving
4 broadcasters access to Telefilm for productions that
5 they would then own and be able to bicycle through
6 their various cable channels, the broadcasters would
7 soon see that there is money to be made in Canadian
8 programming.
9 15812 We have also been advised by the CBC
10 that their experience with Canadian programming has
11 been that it is revenue neutral, that despite the
12 suggestion from the CAB or from the private
13 broadcasters, there is a net loss in Canadian
14 programming in terms of revenue.
15 15813 When the CBC switched from American
16 programming to Canadian programming, they expected to
17 lose $13 million a year in revenue. That didn't
18 happen. It has been neutral. There has been no net
19 loss.
20 15814 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Is that what
21 you mean when you say advertising is essentially
22 neutral?
23 15815 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. So, taking that
24 out of the complaint or taking that argument away from
25 the broadcasters that they would lose advertising
StenoTran
3330
1 revenue, you then have to look at the cost of
2 production.
3 15816 If it costs them three times what it
4 takes to buy an American program -- because that's
5 really what we are up against, is the American monster.
6 If it costs them three times as much, we have to give
7 them a way to make three times as much money. They are
8 not going to make that in their first-run advertising,
9 but they may be able and we suspect they will be able
10 to make that money in the ability to own and sell and
11 bicycle the product through the Canadian system and
12 into the U.S. and other systems as appropriate.
13 15817 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Can I just ask
14 who your members are? You mentioned at the beginning
15 NABET, who I sort of associate more with the
16 technicians and so forth that you see at broadcasting
17 operations. Are your members also producers and people
18 who work with independent producers?
19 15818 MR. SULLIVAN: Our members in
20 television and radio broadcasting run the full
21 spectrum, right from the Executive Vice-President on
22 down of most broadcasters --
23 15819 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: That's where
24 the business case is coming from.
25 15820 MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly -- to the CBC,
StenoTran
3331
1 where we do only represent the technical end of the
2 CBC, and then the Canadian Media Guild represents the
3 journalists.
4 15821 At the French network there are
5 different sets of unions based in Quebec who represent
6 the French side of the CBC, but we represent almost all
7 of the broadcasting operations in Canada, and it is
8 usually a vertically integrated unit; everybody, from
9 the bottom to the top, is in the unit.
10 15822 We also represent, in the freelance
11 sector, about 1,000 members in Vancouver and Toronto
12 whose job it is generally to work on independent films.
13 15823 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The reason I
14 ask that is because there is the obvious competition
15 here, or difference of view here, between the
16 independent production sector which are saying, "Don't
17 let the broadcasters have access to Telefilm and funds
18 of that nature", and the broadcast industry, who is
19 saying they should have, more or less, and you are
20 saying very clearly that they should.
21 15824 Do you have any comments on that
22 dichotomy?
23 15825 MR. SULLIVAN: It is not a dichotomy
24 for us because ultimately the people who will be
25 putting the programs together will still be the same
StenoTran
3332
1 people -- our members. The broadcasters don't any
2 more; the CBC had an infrastructure of people who can
3 produce a film for them; that's gone. The layoffs have
4 completed the destruction of CBC's ability to produce
5 programs. So they will turn to the freelance locals in
6 Toronto and Vancouver and elsewhere, in Halifax --
7 15826 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: For in-house
8 productions.
9 15827 MR. SULLIVAN: -- for in-house
10 productions to put those shows together, as do the
11 private broadcasters now and the CBC.
12 15828 So there will be a handful of
13 individuals who will perhaps lose something by this,
14 that being the actual named participant of Telefilm,
15 the actual independent producer who will not have as
16 much access.
17 15829 We are not suggesting that they be
18 cut off entirely, just that the playing field be
19 levelled between the independent producers and the
20 broadcasters.
21 1200
22 15830 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, you have
23 also called for 70 per cent Canadian content, and I
24 think you are the only one that I'm aware of that's
25 actually named that.
StenoTran
3333
1 15831 There are some recommendations for
2 increased amount, the Council of Canadians talked about
3 a specific time focus which would end up with a little
4 more than 60. So you are the only ones naming 70 per
5 cent, and I refer you to Jim Macdonald, who is
6 president of WIC Communications, and he is also chair
7 of the CAB's television committee. And he said that, I
8 am paraphrasing, but he said the "do more" proposals
9 are just not economically viable. Now, you are saying
10 the 70 per cent is a business case.
11 15832 MR. SULLIVAN: It's not economically
12 viable in this structure. In the structure that they
13 currently have, they are right. It's not economically
14 viable to not own the product and try and put 70 per
15 cent on the air. They make lots of money now, they are
16 a very profitable organizations because close to 90 per
17 cent of what they broadcast between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m.
18 is American content. And they can make lots of money
19 off that American content.
20 15833 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So the main
21 source of them making money on Canadian content is --
22 is it as much having access to the funds as it is being
23 able to own the rights?
24 15834 MR. SULLIVAN: It's both. Access to
25 the funds is a kick-start mechanism to get the program
StenoTran
3334
1 actually rolling and going, and the funds are there,
2 and they are intended to create Canadian content. But
3 the broadcasters will, if they are owning the
4 programming, be more interested in Canadian programming
5 on their airwaves because they will then have
6 downstream revenue potential from that program, which
7 they don't now have if the program has to be an
8 independently-produced, an independently-owned program
9 that they get one airing on a licence fee basis. That
10 structure is not profitable for the broadcasters to do
11 more than they are currently producing. They are
12 right. If the structure can be changed in such a way
13 that the broadcasters can have access to downstream
14 revenue, then they couldn't make that argument.
15 15835 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: If they owned
16 the rights, they would have more access to more profit
17 and they would be prepared to up the Canadian content.
18 15836 MR. SULLIVAN: They should be, and
19 the Commission should force it.
20 15837 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. On the
21 third page you mentioned that I think the overall
22 industry provided meaningful employment at reasonable
23 levels. I'm surprised you didn't discuss issues of
24 employment, job security, and those types of issues in
25 your recommendations. But I'm wondering, is there a
StenoTran
3335
1 relationship between issues of employment conditions
2 and job security on the one hand and Canadian content
3 on the other.
4 15838 MR. SULLIVAN: Well, the broadcast
5 industry has gone through some tremendous upheavals in
6 the last 15 years, particularly the CBC, and there is
7 no employment security as such any more at the CBC, or
8 even at the private broadcasters. So it's in that
9 context that we make those comments. The broadcasters
10 generally, for the people they do employ, it's a
11 reasonable standard of living, and it's reasonable
12 terms and conditions of work.
13 15839 To increase the amount that the
14 broadcasters contribute to the sector and remove an
15 American influence can only increase employment. It
16 can't have a net decrease effect in employment. Now,
17 it may have a neutral effect on employment if all they
18 do is shift some of the work from the independent
19 producer to them using the same people.
20 15840 But if what we see on Canadian
21 television screens becomes far less something that's
22 built outside of Canada, it can't help but increase
23 employment.
24 15841 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You talked
25 about guarding against foreign domination, and I don't
StenoTran
3336
1 know if you were here this morning when the CMPDA were
2 here, that's the Canadian Motion Picture --
3 15842 MR. SULLIVAN: We were.
4 15843 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: --
5 Distribution Association. They are, obviously, of a
6 very different view in terms of foreign involvement.
7 And they say their view, quite clearly, is that it's a
8 two-way street. If we restrict import, then the other
9 countries will restrict our export abilities. I guess
10 their basic view is that we are mature enough to play
11 on the global stage without any kinds of protections.
12 What are your views on that?
13 15844 MR. SULLIVAN: We are not --
14 15845 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: It's a
15 business case with that.
16 15846 MR. SULLIVAN: We are not suggesting
17 that there be an import restriction. What we are
18 suggesting is that the broadcasters be made aware of
19 the profit-making potential in producing their own
20 programming. And then, through restrictions of
21 Canadian content -- which, I guess, you can call an
22 import restriction, except we are restricting every
23 country, not just the US -- through a 70 per cent
24 Canadian content regulation for private broadcasters
25 and a structure in which they make money putting 70 per
StenoTran
3337
1 cent on the air and more, the need for restrictions,
2 the need for import quotas, if you will, isn't there.
3 That's why we are saying it's got to be financially
4 viable.
5 15847 The reason that you bump into
6 broadcasters that say, don't make us put any more
7 Canadian content on there, is because that's not
8 financial viable. They don't make money, or as much
9 money off programs they don't own. So make them the
10 programs they own which they can then sell to whatever
11 broadcaster wants them. And with the explosion that's
12 happened in the numbers of available spaces on the dial
13 for programming, there's going to be an explosion in
14 the demand for programming. They are going to
15 eventually run out of reruns of "Dallas" that they can
16 air on these channels, and going to want new
17 programming in order to keep attracting viewers. We
18 better be the ones producing it.
19 15848 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Have you
20 talked to the independent production sector about this?
21 Because, as I read it, their view is just not there at
22 all on --
23 15849 MR. SULLIVAN: No.
24 15850 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: -- it's not
25 with you on this.
StenoTran
3338
1 15851 MR. SULLIVAN: Absolutely not, you
2 are right. I knew we would be diametrically opposed to
3 them, because their view is they own that money; they
4 own Telefilm. They own the right to it, and it's
5 through significant lobbying in the early 70s with the
6 federal government that created Telefilm in the first
7 place, lobbying in the federal government that helped
8 create the cable production fund in the first place,
9 lobbying of the CRTC. And it's our view that that's
10 public money, that no single group of individuals
11 should own that money. That money should be used to
12 produce Canadian programming in the most effective way
13 possible.
14 15852 If a more effective way of producing
15 Canadian programming and ensuring it's on the air is
16 through allowing the private broadcasters and the CBC
17 access to the money, there's nothing wrong with that.
18 15853 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So you are
19 perhaps right in terms of the lobbying, but there was a
20 reason behind it which can perhaps be summarized as
21 being an argument that smaller, independent production
22 companies have more dynamism, more ability to change,
23 more ability to come up with new ideas and have a
24 diversity of programming which bigger corporations
25 would not. That's the essence of their argument. Do
StenoTran
3339
1 you see the validity of that?
2 15854 MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I never saw the
3 validity of that in the first place, because a producer
4 is a producer is a producer, and theoretically, anybody
5 can have an idea, whether they are working for
6 themselves or working for a broadcaster. But the other
7 part of their argument, the one that was bought into
8 big time, was the industrial imperative, the need to
9 create a vibrant, independent production sector in
10 Canada. And we have been successful. They are there.
11 Do we need to continue to maintain it at the same
12 levels we had to create it? I don't think so.
13 15855 Now that we have huge corporations
14 that call themselves independent producers, do they
15 need access to Telefilm and cable production fund in
16 the same measure that they did when they were fledgling
17 and starting out? That's not my view. It may be
18 theirs.
19 15856 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, apart
20 from the question of whether the broadcasters have
21 access, would you place a preference on size of
22 producer who would have access to the funds?
23 15857 MR. SULLIVAN: How would you police
24 that? I don't know. I mean, how would you say, You
25 are too small, and our cut-off line is -- you have five
StenoTran
3340
1 employees as opposed to --
2 15858 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Or the other
3 way around, you are too big.
4 15859 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, or the other way
5 around, you are too big, you can't have any more money.
6 Now I think that that doesn't work. I think you have
7 to allow -- and that's part of our submission on the
8 whole notion of what is Canadian content, that that has
9 to be rolled into it. It shouldn't be necessarily
10 whether you are independent, whether you are big,
11 whether you are small, whether you are a broadcaster,
12 whether you are not. It's whether you have got a good
13 idea that's culturally significant.
14 15860 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So the issue
15 of consolidation, of vertical integration, where the
16 same corporation can own a broadcaster and a production
17 entity is not of concern to you?
18 15861 MR. SULLIVAN: It's a concern if
19 there's not a level playing field. It's a concern if
20 it can happen in one direction and not another. It's a
21 concern if there are certain groups of industries in
22 Canada that can own broadcasters, production companies,
23 cable companies, and be called an independent producer
24 and have access to Telefilm. But if the group starts
25 out being a broadcaster, it can't be an independent and
StenoTran
3341
1 have access.
2 15862 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Leaving the
3 issue of the funds aside --
4 15863 MR. SULLIVAN: Right.
5 15864 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: -- does
6 vertical integration sit well with you?
7 15865 MR. SULLIVAN: Generally speaking,
8 no. But we are not about to stop it. It's not -- any
9 kind of making a bigger empire isn't necessarily a good
10 thing, as we are seeing with banks, as we are seeing
11 with the creation of huge empires in the United States
12 with Disney and MCI and the rest.
13 15866 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But is it
14 necessarily a bad thing?
15 15867 MR. SULLIVAN: It's more difficult
16 to, as you say, be creative and inventive in an
17 organisation that big. I don't know if it's a bad
18 thing. We haven't got a whole lot of experience with
19 it here in Canada. But certainly, if it becomes a
20 situation in which a single entity or a single group of
21 entities controls everything, as is now the case in the
22 newspaper industry with Southam and unmentionable
23 names, where one individual can control 60 per cent of
24 what Canadians read, that's a problem.
25 1210
StenoTran
3342
1 15868 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In another
2 proposal, the NABET proposal, to redesign the
3 television system along the lines of the Autopact,
4 would that involve changes to the Broadcasting Act or
5 to our regulations?
6 15869 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I mean, that
7 kind of fell on deaf ears when we raised it several
8 years ago, so we have not really made it a part of our
9 presentation this time.
10 15870 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Oh, it's in
11 your written brief. I didn't realize that.
12 15871 MR. SULLIVAN: The idea was then that
13 it worked for the Autopact, why can't it work for
14 broadcasting? It worked for the auto industry to say
15 that as long as we consume an equal amount to what we
16 build in this country, then there can be no
17 restrictions across the border.
18 15872 We don't consume what we build. We
19 consume far more American product than the Canadian
20 product that we build.
21 15873 So it was our view that if we were to
22 find some mechanism to create a system whereby as long
23 as we built as much as we consumed, it didn't matter
24 where it came from. Maybe that was a way of
25 restructuring the industry.
StenoTran
3343
1 15874 But what became apparent as we went
2 through it was that you don't then have any way of
3 regulating or controlling the content. In other words,
4 we might build only bad cars in Canada and buy good big
5 cars in Canada and, therefore, the end result is our
6 design standards are not up to par, and we end up with
7 an industry that builds the summer substandard,
8 sub-compact cars and not the big ones that make a lot
9 of money. Or we have no control over the design
10 standards was what we discovered in pursuing that line.
11 15875 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: On the issue
12 of the CBC, I hadn't thought that the word
13 "complementary" was provocative but --
14 15876 MR. SULLIVAN: It was to us.
15 15877 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Anyhow, I
16 guess there's a couple of ways of looking at that and I
17 would like to know more about what your concerns are.
18 15878 One is that the origins of the
19 broadcasting system have the CBC being the main
20 national broadcaster and as we have moved along, we
21 have got others in English and potentially others in
22 French. So instead of being in a dominant position,
23 the CBC then plays a role more on a same footing
24 perhaps as the private sector.
25 15879 Another interpretation is the use of
StenoTran
3344
1 the word "complementary" which is juxtaposed or the
2 opposite of "competitive." That sometimes what happens
3 when broadcasters are bidding on certain types of
4 programming, especially big sports events, the CBC is
5 able to walk in there with deeper pockets and bid
6 higher and increase the overall cost of bidding and,
7 then whether they win or lose, they have increased the
8 cost of this type of programming. So there's that type
9 of competitive situation that irks some of the private
10 broadcasters.
11 15880 So tell us your thoughts on those two
12 different interpretations and a little bit more about
13 what you mean about talking about the CBC as the
14 foundation of your system?
15 15881 MR. SULLIVAN: It's a scary concept
16 to think of CBC as only the complementary part of the
17 broadcast system because it will quickly dissolve into
18 insignificance, if that's the case.
19 15882 Our goal or our ideal would be a CBC
20 that has no need to be competitive, that is fully
21 funded by the federal government and isn't in the
22 revenue generation business, that doesn't get $330
23 million a year in revenue from advertising in ways that
24 have to be competitive. If you can find a way to give
25 CBC the $330 million it would need to replace that
StenoTran
3345
1 revenue, then we can get into a much nicer discussion
2 about what's complementary and what's not competitive.
3 15883 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: We don't have
4 that kind of cash.
5 15884 MR. SULLIVAN: I know.
6 15885 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: We don't give
7 anybody cash anyhow.
8 15886 MR. SULLIVAN: So you don't have it,
9 we don't have it. So the CBC has to, by its nature and
10 by the nature of the mandate it's given, including
11 generating revenue, be competitive. If it has to be
12 competitive, it has to be able to compete for just
13 about anything that's out there.
14 15887 At the same time, the CBC is given
15 some money by the Federal Government and so if you look
16 at the schedules, the CBC is not only, I think, a
17 foundation in terms of the quantity and volume of
18 Canadian content that's available out there, but is a
19 foundation in terms of the direction that the industry
20 needs to go. The CBC will go places that privates
21 won't and it was interesting to hear about "The Boys of
22 St. Vincent," because no private broadcaster in Canada
23 would have taken that on themselves. It would have
24 been absolutely -- forget it. They wouldn't have gone
25 anywhere near it. CBC, because of its foundation role,
StenoTran
3346
1 was able to take that on and show the private
2 broadcasters, look, you can make money producing
3 controversial programming. You have to be careful with
4 it but you can make money.
5 15888 The private broadcasters would love
6 CBC to get out of their markets, to move out of news
7 and local programming because nobody does any other
8 local programming than news. To move out of sports
9 because that's where the profit is.
10 15889 Well, if you do that, somebody better
11 be prepared, including the private broadcasters to
12 replace the revenue, and they are not. So we can't.
13 We can't even get into that conversation because we
14 have a federal government that's not going there.
15 15890 So we have to let the CBC be
16 competitive, as well as understanding its fundamental
17 role in nurturing and bringing to the fore programming
18 that wouldn't otherwise be broadcast. It's a very
19 tricky position for the CBC to be in. They have to
20 answer to their political masters who say you should be
21 earning more revenue. You should be doing more on your
22 own. And, at the same time, those same political
23 masters saying, but don't hurt our friends over here.
24 Don't outbid them for the sports. Don't outbid them
25 for the Olympics for the next 10 years. Because that
StenoTran
3347
1 then means they won't get the revenue. Well, that's
2 part of what CBC has to do to survive.
3 15891 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Given
4 everything that you have just said, can you see that
5 the word "complementary" makes some sense? I am not
6 trying to wear you down and get you to agree with us,
7 but can you see the logic of part of the issue being a
8 complementary one as opposed to both a competitive and
9 a dominant?
10 15892 MR. SULLIVAN: CBC, you are right,
11 they are no longer dominant. At one point they were
12 dominant.
13 15893 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Do you think
14 they should be?
15 15894 MR. SULLIVAN: I think they are
16 dominant in the amount of Canadian programming that
17 they are able to produce. They are the dominant force
18 for Canadian programming in this country. Nobody else
19 comes near them and, if you add it all up, the CBC adds
20 up to more than anybody else produces. So, in that
21 sense, they are still dominant.
22 15895 In terms of their number of places on
23 the ever-expanding dial, they are not dominant. The
24 CBC is only one choice out of what is now 60 and will
25 become hundreds. And until the CRTC recognizes that if
StenoTran
3348
1 we have an entity that is predominantly Canadian, we
2 should be giving it more space. We should be actually
3 allowing it to be seen by more people rather than
4 restricting it and holding it back.
5 15896 The word "complementary," getting
6 back to your original question, is an okay word in some
7 contexts. The CBC will be complementary to the private
8 broadcasters in the sense that it will take on roles
9 the private broadcaster wouldn't take on. But you
10 can't be asked to be complementary by withdrawing from
11 roles the private broadcasters want to take on. That's
12 the scary part.
13 15897 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I don't want
14 to carry this on, only because we have got the renewal
15 of the CBC licence next year and I hope you will think
16 of coming back to carry on this discussion.
17 15898 MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes.
18 15899 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But the flip
19 side of it is the role of the private broadcaster. So
20 if you are saying give them more space, and if you are
21 saying CBC is or should be the leader in terms of the
22 amount and I suppose the quality of Canadian
23 programming, what does that say about the role of the
24 private broadcaster in Canadian programming? Why would
25 you want to ramp up the amount to 70 per cent so that
StenoTran
3349
1 the private sector looks more like what you have got
2 CBC to look like?
3 15900 MR. SULLIVAN: Because, ideally,
4 that's what this Canadian system should be. It should
5 be ultimately as much Canadian as we can make it. If
6 that means at the end of the day that the private
7 broadcasters are, in fact, duplicating what the CBC is
8 able to do, then the government will have to rethink
9 the CBC. I understand that, but I don't think we are
10 anywhere near that or we are really going to go there.
11 15901 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Well, come
12 back next year and we will continue the discussion.
13 15902 Lastly, on local programming, you
14 have mentioned it in your verbal comments.
15 15903 MR. SULLIVAN: Right.
16 15904 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I don't
17 believe it was in your written.
18 15905 MR. SULLIVAN: No.
19 15906 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: What are your
20 thoughts about that and what we should do? Let me just
21 add a couple of words. In the round tables that we had
22 across the country in June, there was a lot of
23 discussion about that, both local programming, by
24 broadcasters and the community channel, community
25 television and people asking us to do something about
StenoTran
3350
1 it. Do you think there is something we should be doing
2 about it?
3 15907 I think part of broadcasters
4 conditions of licence ought to be a guarantee of a
5 quantity of local programming that is beyond what is
6 just the news. And that condition should be there for
7 the CBC as well and we already had that fight and lost.
8 But it is a topic that keeps coming back because, as we
9 are finding out from the people out there, they want
10 it. Canadian public wants to have something local,
11 something to tell them local stories. More than just
12 the fire on Main Street but the story that takes place
13 in their community and the production that takes place
14 in their community. That doesn't happen outside of
15 Toronto. It doesn't happen outside of Toronto and
16 Montreal and a little bit of Vancouver.
17 1235
18 15908 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And that's
19 news and entertainment?
20 15909 MR. FRITH: And which?
21 15910 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Entertainment,
22 drama.
23 15911 MR. FRITH: Yes. Right now it does
24 happen to a certain extent in news, but there is no
25 production of any other genre of programming that we
StenoTran
3351
1 are aware of in most communities in this country that
2 have a supposedly independent television station in
3 those communities.
4 15912 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But you
5 haven't answered my question about what we should do
6 about it. Some people have suggested conditions of
7 licence or requirements.
8 15913 MR. FRITH: That's what I said, yes.
9 We should have conditions of licence on local stations.
10 We are not talking about the network licences here or
11 the structural system of how we encourage Canadian
12 programming, but a condition of licence on local
13 stations, that they go beyond just an hour of news a
14 day, that that's not sufficient to satisfy the
15 requirements of being in that market. Having a licence
16 to draw money out of that market requires more on that
17 broadcaster than just putting a newscast on the air,
18 and sometimes not a very good one.
19 15914 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you,
20 Madam Chair.
21 15915 THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel?
22 15916 MS PATTERSON: Thank you, Madam
23 Chair.
24 15917 In your written submission you
25 propose a number of specific targets for Canadian
StenoTran
3352
1 programming in different genres. I have a couple of
2 questions on this.
3 15918 First, could you explain what you
4 mean by "target"? Is this more in the nature of a goal
5 or a requirement and how would such targets be
6 implemented?
7 15919 MR. SULLIVAN: I would see them as
8 being ultimate goals, but they would require a
9 structural change first so that they can't be -- you
10 can't implement it tomorrow. You can't say to the
11 broadcasters tomorrow, "The new structural requirement
12 for a broadcaster is 70 per cent." That's why we use
13 the term "target", because it's somewhere in the
14 future, but it's a goal that ought to be -- we should
15 go towards that goal in the course of the next couple
16 of years of structurally changing the broadcast sector
17 in Canada.
18 15920 MS PATTERSON: So, as you say going
19 towards that goal, would it be appropriate to implement
20 the targets through conditions of licence or is that
21 how --
22 15921 MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, as conditions
23 of licence, but with perhaps some steps attached to
24 them. We didn't presume to know how long this process
25 would take or what parts of the process the CRTC and
StenoTran
3353
1 the other regulators would be able to do and what time
2 frame it would take, but the intent would be that over
3 a series of steps we reach 70 per cent overall Canadian
4 content in the private sector within a few years. I
5 don't know how many years it will take.
6 15922 MS PATTERSON: My second question was
7 how you arrived at these specific targets. For
8 example, you proposed 90 per cent for news, sports and
9 current events, 60 per cent for arts and drama and 70
10 per cent for music.
11 15923 MR. SULLIVAN: They were bigger than
12 the old ones, I hate to say.
13 15924 MS PATTERSON: And as between these
14 different genres, how did you weigh them?
15 15925 MR. SULLIVAN: News is fundamental
16 and it's already almost 100 per cent. That's not a --
17 although if you were to watch some of the private
18 broadcasters' newscasts particularly on the weekend,
19 you would notice that a lot of the items throughout
20 that newscast are American because -- but the CRTC
21 still counts that as 100 per cent Canadian content even
22 if all of the reports come from some other country and
23 we think somebody should be looking at whether or not
24 the regulation for content is too broad when it says
25 that if a newscast originates in Canada, it's a
StenoTran
3354
1 Canadian newscast, regardless of what the parts are.
2 15926 But news, because it's informing us
3 about what's going on in our lives, should be almost
4 entirely Canadian content, news and current affairs.
5 When we get down into the other genres, there is a --
6 they ought to predominate, they ought to be the most --
7 the Canadian stories in drama ought to be most of what
8 we see on the television, but we shouldn't do that to
9 the exclusion of good stories that are elsewhere. We
10 shouldn't say 90 per cent just because it's a number in
11 the air.
12 15927 We may have picked 60 out of the air,
13 to be brutally honest, but it was a number that meant
14 that our stories would be the predominant part of the
15 structure without saying that they are all the
16 structure. Maybe 70 is a better number, but I think
17 you will get less resistance to 60 than you will to 70.
18 15928 The same is true of music. The
19 Canadian music industry benefitted greatly by Canadian
20 content regulations imposed in radio in the 1970s and
21 the Canadian television music industry doesn't face
22 those same regulations. It doesn't face those same
23 content restrictions in terms of the amount of Canadian
24 content that it broadcasts in the same way and we think
25 that in terms of variety programming principally, not
StenoTran
3355
1 necessarily a MuchMusic type channel but variety
2 programming, there is no reason that can't be
3 predominantly Canadian and much more so than the drama
4 programming that we see.
5 15929 MS PATTERSON: Thank you.
6 15930 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
7 15931 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, counsel.
8 15932 Nous vous remercions, Monsieur
9 Kinkaid. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for your
10 presentation.
11 15933 We will now adjourned until 1:30.
12 Nous reprendrons à une heure et demie.
13 --- Recess at / Suspension à 1228
14 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1338
15 15934 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. We
16 apologize for the lateness. We do have a good excuse.
17 We were having a meeting. Welcome.
18 15935 Madam Secretary?
19 15936 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
20 15937 I would like now to introduce the
21 National Broadcast Reading Service Inc. You may start
22 now.
23 15938 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon and
24 go ahead when you are ready.
25 15939 Perhaps I can identify us for you.
StenoTran
3356
1 Would that be helpful?
2 15940 MS CUTLER: That would be very
3 helpful, thank you.
4 15941 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am Andrée Wylie
5 and I am chairing the hearing. With me to my immediate
6 left, your right, Commission Cardozo and immediately
7 beside him is Commissioner Pennefather. To my
8 immediate right is Commission Wilson and to her right
9 is Commissioner McKendry.
10 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
11 15942 MS CUTLER: Madam Chair,
12 Commissioners, thank you very much for inviting us to
13 appear before you. As you know, my name is Fran
14 Cutler. I am the President of the Board of the
15 National Broadcast Reading Service Inc.
16 15943 For almost a decade, as a licensee,
17 we have produced and distributed a free national audio
18 news and information service called VoicePrint.
19 VoicePrint now has a weekly reach of four million
20 listeners. About 500,000 cite it as their primary
21 source of information. More recently, we have started
22 two new divisions, AudioVision Canada and
23 AlternateMedia Canada. Their current work is directed
24 at making television accessible for vision-restricted
25 viewers.
StenoTran
3357
1 15944 I have a number of colleagues with me
2 today to talk about the future television policy. On
3 my right is Heather Lusignan, Director of VoicePrint.
4 On Heather's right is Geoff Eden, who is a Director on
5 our board. On my left is John Stubbs, who is the
6 Director of AlternateMedia Canada and our management
7 technical guru. Behind is Bob Trimbee, who is the
8 Executive Director of the National Broadcast Reading
9 Service. To his left is Stuart Robertson, who is a
10 member of our Board of Directors, and our
11 communications lawyer and on Stuart's left is Lloyd
12 Grant, who is an experienced broadcast engineer.
13 15945 As you will recall, we have appeared
14 before the Commission before, most recently at the last
15 hearing on third television networks in November of
16 1997. Our general mission is improved access to all
17 visual media for vision-restricted Canadians. Our
18 specific mission at this hearing is to ensure that
19 vision-restricted Canadians have access to the
20 television system in Canada as technology permits.
21 15946 We have filed with you a lengthy
22 brief and today we leave with you a technical brief.
23 Time does not permit us to address all of the
24 recommendations in our original brief, but we would be
25 pleased to answer any questions that you may have about
StenoTran
3358
1 it.
2 15947 At the last hearing the Commission
3 seemed interested in the issue of described video
4 services, DVS. Indeed, the Commission has stated that
5 it supports in principle the development and gradual
6 implementation of DVS. That was a landmark moment for
7 blind and low-vision Canadians who need and want DVS.
8 15948 The Commission noted the cooperative
9 efforts by our company and the Canadian Association of
10 Broadcasters to explore the development and
11 implementation issues. Together we were expected to
12 find solutions to any problems that may be identified.
13 15949 We have been frustrated by the lack
14 of attention of the CAB to those issues and by their
15 failure to bring forward any consensus on the relevant
16 issues so that we could speed up the process. There
17 has been only one meeting since the November 1997 CRTC
18 hearing, after which the CAB said the whole issue was
19 premature and the CAB "might" consider some joint
20 project in 1999.
21 15950 Then when the Commission raised the
22 issue again in the Public Notice creating this present
23 process, we thought the CAB would be compelled to meet
24 with us and get on with the task of developing an
25 implementation plan. We certainly have been working on
StenoTran
3359
1 these issues and are ready to talk to you about them.
2 15951 However, the first we have heard
3 about CAB's feelings on the issue was on the opening
4 day of this hearing. That's when the CAB announced it
5 would be filing some report on the development and
6 implementation issues after the hearing. Why was the
7 report not prepared in time for us to review and
8 comment upon it and then filed as part of this
9 proceeding? What can anyone do with such a report when
10 it is not filed until after the important review of
11 television policies.
12 15952 The CAB representative, in response
13 to Commission Cardozo's questions, indicated that the
14 cost of description is insurmountable. Frankly,
15 Commissioners, we need not wait for the CAB. The costs
16 are not insurmountable and the technical solutions are
17 all within our collective knowledge. We would like to
18 explain briefly what description is and is not and then
19 we will take you quickly through the costs and other
20 implementation issues.
21 15953 Let's have the video.
22 --- Video presentation / Présentation vidéo
23 15954 MR. EDEN: Commissioners, as you have
24 just seen an example of described video, there are a
25 number of ways of transmitting information to people
StenoTran
3360
1 who can't see from the television screen. One example
2 would be the 800 numbers described in many commercials.
3 I, too, like to spend my funds and I really do like to
4 know what's happening and know that there are 800
5 numbers from which I may order. But more important
6 than that is knowing the activities that are happening
7 on the screen in dramas.
8 15955 I suppose the thing that you can say
9 is it's painting a picture so that you can develop the
10 theatre of the mind in your imagination. There is
11 certainly not much to television watching a drama
12 unless you have this extra input. I refer you quickly
13 to the film "The Silence of the Lambs" and the basement
14 scene, which I am sure you have been exposed to. I
15 just can't tell you how much that would be improved if
16 it were described. It took me forever to find out
17 exactly what happened there by asking friends.
18 15956 MR. STUBBS: Any local broadcaster
19 with a transmitter less than 25 years old can generate
20 a secondary audio program feed for a one-time cost of
21 less than $15,000 all inclusive. The cost of
22 describing one hour of programming is less than $5,000.
23 That hourly rate would drop as the volume of
24 description work increases.
25 15957 If description is to be used
StenoTran
3361
1 primarily for Canadian drama and original children's
2 programming, CBC, CTV and Global could be expected to
3 describe two hours a week each. The cost to each of
4 CBC, CTV and Global to describe that amount of
5 programming would be $500,000 a year, maximum. This
6 cost includes local distribution of the programming
7 through cable.
8 15958 As noted earlier, we have prepared a
9 technical brief for the Commission's review and it is
10 before you now. It describes the most likely
11 distribution scenarios licensees might employ in adding
12 DVS programming to their schedules. In our view, the
13 distribution of DVS programming is best handled through
14 the use of S.A.P. technology, an approach that presents
15 many other opportunities to enhance the Canadian
16 broadcasting system. Mr. Grant and I would be pleased
17 to take you through the various scenarios and to
18 discuss S.A.P. technology during the question and
19 answer session.
20 15959 MS CUTLER: Thank you, John.
21 15960 Those numbers do not add up to
22 insurmountable. Commissioners, we must get on with
23 this.
24 15961 We ask you to establish a requirement
25 effective January 1st, 1999 that all television
StenoTran
3362
1 stations, TV networks and specialty licensees carry a
2 minimum amount of described programming. We are asking
3 further that all licensees undertake a public awareness
4 campaign about described programming and how to access
5 it and we are also asking that the Commission establish
6 and chair a working group. The working group would
7 develop an implementation plan. It would ensure that
8 the January 1st, 1999 start date can be met by the
9 broadcasters on whom you place the requirement that we
10 seek here today.
11 15962 The experience we have had to date is
12 that the issue cannot be left with the CAB or, indeed,
13 with our company. The Commission has a vital role to
14 play in delivering television broadcasting to blind and
15 low-vision Canadians.
16 15963 We would be pleased to answer any
17 questions you may have flowing from our brief of June
18 30th or from the technical brief or the arguments that
19 we have prepared and delivered to you today.
20 15964 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms
21 Cutler and your colleagues.
22 15965 Commissioner Wilson?
23 15966 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Good afternoon,
24 ladies and gentlemen.
25 15967 I think what I would like to do is
StenoTran
3363
1 just start by telling you that I am going to need a
2 little bit more time to go through your technical brief
3 just so that I can give it the attention that it
4 deserves. What I might do is ask counsel to forward
5 some questions to you afterwards, after we have had a
6 chance to look it over and examine it.
7 15968 MS CUTLER: We would be happy to.
8 15969 COMMISSIONER WILSON: There is just
9 not enough time for me to go through it now and prepare
10 those questions.
11 15970 I want to thank you for being here
12 and I would like to take this opportunity to complement
13 you on your submission. It was excellent. As someone
14 who has very little experience with described video, I
15 am familiar with VoicePrint. It was great to have that
16 much information put at my disposal to sort of bring me
17 up to speed on the issue. So, I really appreciate
18 that.
19 15971 What I would like to do is ask you a
20 number of general questions and then talk to you about
21 VoicePrint and descriptive video and then go through
22 some of your recommendations in a little more detail.
23 I'm sure that there are probably other questions that
24 will come up as we go along.
25 15972 At page 8 of your written submission,
StenoTran
3364
1 you state that:
2 "At the regulatory level there
3 has been considerable effort to
4 address the needs of people with
5 diminished hearing. Nothing
6 approaching that commitment has
7 been done as yet to assess
8 print-restricted citizens,
9 though this population
10 demographic is almost three
11 times as large and solutions
12 often involve little or no added
13 cost, just an adjusted routine."
14 15973 You mentioned early in your
15 submission that the population of vision-restricted
16 Canadians is in the range of 750,000 people in Canada
17 and you also state that if you widen the demographic to
18 print-restricted people, the number actually increases
19 to about 1.5 million. Do I have those numbers right?
20 15974 MS CUTLER: Yes.
21 15975 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am just
22 wondering if you have the comparable numbers for the
23 deaf and hard of hearing. What is the ratio? I know
24 you say that the print and vision-restricted population
25 makes up 40 per cent of all disabled persons in Canada,
StenoTran
3365
1 so what percentage do the deaf and hard of hearing
2 constitute? Are you aware?
3 15976 MS CUTLER: I don't actually have
4 that figure, no, but one thing to bear in mind is that
5 many people have a number of disabilities, particularly
6 elderly people, and vision loss is, of course, relative
7 with age. Two-thirds of vision-impaired people are
8 over the age of 65 and about 65 per cent of them also
9 have some hearing loss.
10 1355
11 15977 COMMISSIONER WILSON: My dad is --
12 he's a vet, so he has got quite significant hearing
13 loss. It is impossible to talk to him on the phone.
14 15978 But I was just going to ask you why
15 you think, I mean, those comments that you make about
16 the fact that the regulatory level -- there has been
17 considerable effort to address the needs of the deaf
18 and hard of hearing. I am just wondering why you think
19 they have been more successful in mobilizing the
20 regulatory system in terms of moving the broadcasters
21 forward.
22 15979 MS CUTLER: It would be speculation
23 on my part, but I would say that one reason is they got
24 at this earlier. They really started about 20 years
25 ago, and have made very diligent efforts and are to be
StenoTran
3366
1 congratulated for that, and closed captioning is a
2 reality and widely accepted in this country.
3 15980 We were only licensed in 1990, as you
4 know, and it was to provide an alternative to the print
5 medium, magazines, and newspapers. That has been
6 extended now, because blind and vision-impaired people
7 want to be able to access not just the print medium,
8 but also electronic media, and hence the solution is
9 something like descriptive video, which we do under our
10 sub-organization Audio Vision Canada and Alternate
11 Media Canada.
12 15981 We certainly are very pleased that
13 the CRTC licensed us in 1990 and allowed us to go ahead
14 with voice print, which I think has been successful
15 beyond anybody's hopes. But we now think that this
16 added dimension should be proceeded with as quickly as
17 possible.
18 15982 MR. TRIMBEE: If I might add to that
19 comment, one of the reasons why captioning has moved
20 forward is the fact that when it was introduced in
21 Canada, it was already a fact of life in American
22 broadcasting. The FCC had already established the
23 technology, it had been accepted by the industry, and
24 therefore a ready solution that was going to be
25 involving programming that many Canadian broadcasters
StenoTran
3367
1 accessed was already on the table. So the leap forward
2 of the various associations that were supporting
3 activity to improve access for people with diminished
4 hearing in Canada had something that they could put
5 their hands on and say, here it is, now, why can't this
6 be done in Canada and have a continental approach?
7 15983 Unfortunately, the same thing hasn't
8 happened with the audio description. It basically did
9 not come into play in the first instance until the
10 early 1990s, at which time in Canada an industry
11 government working group was established to take a look
12 at it, and that is the genesis of our activity as well.
13 15984 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Yes, actually,
14 maybe, Mr. Trimbee, you could just answer another
15 question for me, because you raised the issue of audio
16 description, which you describe in your submission as
17 the precursor to descriptive video, and I'm just
18 wondering if you could explain a little bit more how
19 the technology developed.
20 15985 MR. TRIMBEE: In the early 1980s, a
21 blind woman and her husband in Washington, D.C.,
22 established a protocol by which people who went to live
23 theatre who were blind or low vision could follow the
24 action through a very low-powered FM facility. So they
25 could sit in the audience, and there would be someone
StenoTran
3368
1 describing the action on the stage in between the
2 comments by the actors. Unfortunately, that could not,
3 as with video description, be recorded and part and
4 parcel of the finished product because every night
5 timing is a little bit off.
6 15986 But in doing so, the idea arose that,
7 How could this be adapted to television and to films?
8 And the work was picked up by WGBH Foundation who, as
9 you know, are a significant factor within the PBS
10 system in the United States. And with the support of
11 the Department of Education some extended
12 experimentation went on in the late 1980s. And by the
13 early 1990s they actually went forward and the
14 significance of their activity led to the awarding of
15 the Winston Gordon Award by the CNIB to this group for
16 their activity in this area. And it was at that time
17 that the question of how this could be done. And
18 picking up what the parliamentary subcommittee
19 recommended in 1988, this working group was established
20 to see how this could be transplanted into Canada.
21 15987 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thank you for
22 that.
23 15988 MR. ROBERTSON: Excuse me, could I
24 just complete the answer in the sense that you have
25 referred here to page eight, and in reading it, it may
StenoTran
3369
1 appear as if there's some suggestion that the
2 Commission has helped one disability group and not
3 another, both requesting assistance. That is certainly
4 not the case. It is a matter of the hard of hearing
5 coming to the regulatory process and seeking some
6 assistance.
7 15989 COMMISSIONER WILSON: At an earlier
8 stage.
9 15990 MR. ROBERTSON: At an earlier stage,
10 yes. Thank you.
11 15991 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, thank you
12 for that clarification. Before I go on to ask you some
13 more questions about descriptive video, I would just
14 like to go back to voice print, because I am quite
15 familiar with that service. In fact, the channel that
16 I was associated with before I came to the CRTC is one
17 of the channels that we were looking at in terms of
18 making it available on a consistent basis across the
19 country. But the issue that prevented us from doing
20 that was the multiple audio feeds that CPAC offers,
21 French, English, and floor sound from the House of
22 Commons and from some of the other programming. So
23 that was an inhibiting factor.
24 15992 I'm just wondering if you can tell me
25 how many broadcasting distribution undertakings,
StenoTran
3370
1 including cable, satellite, MDS, any other ones you can
2 think of that might be carrying voice print to their
3 subscribers.
4 15993 MS CUTLER: I will ask Heather to
5 respond.
6 15994 MS LUSIGNAN: Thank you, Fran. At
7 the moment, yes, the cable industry, certainly the
8 class one cable systems, most of them do carry voice
9 print, either on an alphanumeric channel behind a
10 video-only service, or they also carry it on FM,
11 either/or, and one cable operator does carry it now on
12 a S.A.P. frequency as well.
13 15995 As well as that, in the last, I
14 believe, week, week and a half, ExpressVu has also
15 begun to carry it for their subscribers. And I believe
16 that there are a couple of other BDUs out there who are
17 now putting it in the works to make it part of their
18 package.
19 15996 COMMISSIONER WILSON: If you sort of
20 put together the cable and the satellite distribution
21 undertakings, how many subscribers would be receiving
22 voice print at this time?
23 15997 MS LUSIGNAN: I don't have, at this
24 stage, subscriber numbers. I guess we sort of put it
25 in terms of households. So there are about 5.2 million
StenoTran
3371
1 cable households.
2 15998 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, that's
3 good. 5.2 million?
4 15999 MS LUSIGNAN: That voice print
5 reaches, and I'm not sure what ExpressVu's
6 subscriber --
7 16000 MR. TRIMBEE: It's getting close to
8 100,000, as I understand, at the last take. I might
9 also add that about a year and a half, two years ago,
10 we made a detailed, random survey of 5,500 homes to try
11 and ascertain the listenership to voice print. It was
12 at that point that we established a figure that just
13 under four million, 3.9-something people made some use
14 of voice print on a weekly basis. Included in that
15 number were 500,000 who considered it their primary
16 source of news and information.
17 16001 So that's how the two figures were
18 into 5.2 million plus homes, and we have roughly, in
19 terms of that survey results, just slightly under four
20 million that make some use of our service.
21 16002 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Is there any
22 charge to NBRS for carrying voice print?
23 16003 MS CUTLER: No charge to NBRS, no.
24 16004 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay.
25 16005 MS CUTLER: The costs of the
StenoTran
3372
1 transmission are minimal to each of the --
2 16006 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Oh, yes.
3 16007 MS CUTLER: I'd like to add that we
4 are delighted that in the last year we can now say that
5 we are into all ten provinces and both territories
6 because the cable systems in Whitehorse and Yellowknife
7 have come in.
8 16008 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's great.
9 What's your annual budget? What's the annual budget
10 for NBRS?
11 16009 MR. TRIMBEE: The budget for this
12 year is $1.7 million.
13 16010 Might I just add to the question
14 before, you said, What is the charge. There's no
15 charge made by us.
16 16011 COMMISSIONER WILSON: No, I said, Is
17 there a charge.
18 16012 MR. TRIMBEE: But for those who may
19 access voice print through cable FM, they may well face
20 an extra charge for accessing cable FM.
21 16013 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's right,
22 okay. So 1.7 million.
23 16014 And I noted that you said in your
24 submission that you have been the recipient of some
25 benefits packages through -- I think it was cable
StenoTran
3373
1 transactions. Is that where the lion's share of your
2 funding comes from? Or do you have other sources of
3 funding as well?
4 16015 MR. TRIMBEE: The budget this year,
5 the lion's share basically comes through grants. Of
6 those grants, about 40 per cent come through the
7 benefits package of cable systems. The balance comes
8 through a unique project that we have started with the
9 with the support of HRDC in terms of developing people,
10 primarily with disabilities, to develop skilled
11 employment within the industry adjunct to our audio
12 description activity.
13 1400
14 16016 MS CUTLER: When the federal seed
15 money ran out in the early nineties, it was Shaw and
16 Rogers who came to our rescue and we would not have
17 exist today without the major cable companies.
18 16017 COMMISSIONER WILSON: How much longer
19 does their funding sustain?
20 16018 MR. TRIMBEE: It ends primarily this
21 year. We have a portion of the money available through
22 1999 for our national service, but it would be a very
23 small percentage. I would say it would be something
24 like 12 or 13 per cent of our current budget.
25 16019 COMMISSIONER WILSON: When you are
StenoTran
3374
1 talking about descriptive video in your written
2 submission, and, Mr. Trimbee, you mentioned this a
3 little earlier, you stated that PBS has really
4 pioneered the broadcast descriptive programming and
5 that many of its prime time broadcasts are currently
6 described, you go on to say that some of the
7 programming they broadcast includes described versions
8 of familiar Canadian series, like "Street Legal," "Road
9 to Avonlea," and "Degrassi Junior High." It must seem
10 ironic to you that you can access Canadian programming
11 through an American channel with described video but
12 not on Canadian broadcasters.
13 16020 Is there any programming in Canada
14 besides the CBC Special on the Avro Arrow, and I think
15 there were a couple of other examples in your
16 submission that you mentioned that are currently being
17 described and broadcast on a regular basis?
18 16021 MR. TRIMBEE: None.
19 16022 COMMISSIONER WILSON: None?
20 16023 MR. TRIMBEE: None.
21 16024 COMMISSIONER WILSON: What can you
22 tell me about the narrative television network in the
23 US? I know you talk in your submission about the
24 funding that's funded through, is it the Department of
25 Education in the US, and I think they have some grants
StenoTran
3375
1 from some foundations as well. They are on the air 24
2 hours a day. Have you seen the channel?
3 16025 MR. TRIMBEE: I haven't seen NTN for
4 awhile but in the early days of our interest in
5 developing an approach to video description that would
6 be useful and pragmatic for Canadian situation, we did
7 look at the NTN. It is a service that is not quite 24
8 hours a day, but it is a dedicated two persons with
9 disabilities, including, obviously, people with
10 diminished vision, and they have about four hours a
11 day. It's all open description and they are funded, in
12 part, also by the Department of Education as well.
13 16026 The Department of Education, a couple
14 of years ago, decided that it probably wasn't fair to
15 put all their support for video description within one
16 group and so that they opened it up and, at that
17 particular time, a portion of the fund was available to
18 others who wished to bid for it and from that process
19 NTN was supported in a way. But they made it very
20 careful in their submissions that they do support the
21 work of WGBH and sort of the ground-breaking activities
22 that they have used, not only for television, but also
23 for theatres and for live theatre. I am talking now
24 about movie theatres and the work that they are doing
25 there because WGBH's foundation activity extends beyond
StenoTran
3376
1 simply just a video description. They are involved in
2 captioning and things like that as well.
3 16027 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You state in
4 your submission at page two that in 1995 you developed
5 a cost effective description production process. Now I
6 am assuming that the costs that you talk about in your
7 oral presentation today, the $5,000 an hour, are the
8 costs that would be associated with this description
9 production process that you have developed.
10 16028 MR. STUBBS: To help break down what
11 that means, the cost of description by our company is
12 approximately $100 a minute, which is about, for a
13 regular television show of an hour, it breaks down to
14 about 48 minutes. That would be $4800.
15 16029 That's the maximum charge, we think,
16 that we would make for the first hour of description we
17 do, but as more and more description is done, we can
18 achieve greater economies of scale. The volume of
19 production minutes decreases the unit cost per minute
20 to a point where we could see the cost down to perhaps
21 $60 a minute. And that really consists of somebody has
22 to write it and it's a creative process unlike closed
23 captioning where you are translating.
24 16030 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You are just
25 transcribing.
StenoTran
3377
1 16031 MR. STUBBS: And transcribing. You
2 have a narrator, somebody that will read it; a
3 producer, an editor, that goes through the process;
4 sound engineer to place all of the description into the
5 sound track. Administrative support supplies
6 equipment, rent, overhead, and a reasonable premium
7 that goes to the operation of voice print.
8 16032 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Do you use a
9 professional to do the narrative?
10 16033 MR. STUBBS: Yes.
11 16034 COMMISSIONER WILSON: It reminded me
12 actually when I was watching your video, it reminded me
13 very much of books on tape. I drive back and forth
14 from Ottawa to Toronto a lot and I often listen to
15 books on tape because I find it makes the time go a lot
16 faster and it is very much like that.
17 16035 MR. STUBBS: We strive to make it as
18 integrated and as seamless as possible. You don't
19 really notice that somebody is there saying, "Well, she
20 now opens the door." We try to blend it right in so
21 that you don't realize that you are being given
22 information, that it just flows right through. Even as
23 you watch it, it is done so that it happens and we are
24 very precise because we use a digital editing technique
25 to get it as close to the picture as possible. Because
StenoTran
3378
1 somebody that you are watching that can see actually
2 looks at the picture and goes, "Wait a second. That is
3 not what is happening yet." So we strive to make it
4 very pleasant for everybody to enjoy.
5 16036 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's great.
6 16037 MS. CUTLER: I might add that this is
7 different from voice print where we use volunteer
8 readers. We have about 500 in our five locations and
9 soon to be a couple of more. We find that the level of
10 professionalism, experience, and training needed for
11 descriptive video is such that you really have to go to
12 the professionals.
13 16038 MR. TRIMBEE: If I could just extend
14 a couple of points on this. That because of the
15 activity we see today ourselves, we would be surprised
16 if broadcasters and others do not jump quickly into the
17 description business.
18 16039 I might also try and sort of parallel
19 costs in this country and costs in other jurisdictions
20 where this activity is now underway, our costs of
21 describing on the small volume that we have produced so
22 far, certainly is less expensive than the cost per hour
23 that WGBH faces.
24 16040 Secondly, in Great Britain, as we
25 have discussed with CAB, there now is a mandatory
StenoTran
3379
1 requirement to carry a small percentage of described
2 programming. It is two per cent this year. It is four
3 per cent next year. It goes on up to 10 per cent.
4 During the next few years, that will be reviewed
5 because the RNIB, the British equivalent to CNIB, is
6 very interested in extending the amount of described
7 programming that is available.
8 16041 I talked to RNIB people about their
9 costs because we had no close association with them,
10 and I was, quite frankly, flabbergasted by the high
11 costs they face. We have proposed to them that we
12 might do some contract work for them and our costs
13 would be something like one-third of what they now
14 face.
15 16042 So the approach we are taking, the
16 Canadian solution to this, is very unique, very
17 creative and, I think at least to this date, it is
18 certainly probably the most cost effective of any that
19 is available. And that is not commercial. I am just
20 trying to state a fact.
21 16043 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I was just
22 going to say --
23 16044 MR. TRIMBEE: I might also add that
24 you made a reference to the fact that you enjoy books
25 on tape while you are driving. During one of our early
StenoTran
3380
1 focus groups, the point was made that the way you have
2 done it, we don't even have to worry about getting a
3 video. We can just listen to it on tape. And so we
4 have created a new product called audio cinema.
5 16045 The beauty of that particular product
6 is the fact that it now takes the technology outside
7 the disability milieu and puts it into something that
8 the general population might be attracted to and,
9 therefore, making this a very creative business.
10 16046 In the United States, as you know,
11 the books on tape is a $1.5 billion business. I believe
12 audio cinema is a far more engaging product in terms of
13 somebody enjoying it during a drive or at other times,
14 whatever they are doing. And perhaps others who have
15 enjoyed it could probably make a comment on that, but
16 that is a product that is developed. And it has come
17 out of this activity, and that is why I make the
18 comment that we would be surprised if broadcasters and
19 others soon aren't in this business.
20 16047 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So you see it
21 as a way of generating alternate revenue streams.
22 16048 MR. TRIMBEE: Our organization,
23 because of its size and because of its structure has no
24 secure funding, as we mentioned in our brief, and,
25 therefore, we have to find creative ways in which we
StenoTran
3381
1 can become financially self sufficient. The door is
2 coming down on, as you noted earlier, on the funding
3 that we have received through cable benefits packages.
4 By that time, voice print has to have a source of
5 funding. And we entered this area as a potential means
6 of developing that income so that voice print survives.
7 Because when everything is scratched away, at the end
8 of the day, our primary goal is to maintain the life
9 line of voice print.
10 16049 Audio description is a means to an
11 end. It's in our mission of making all media more
12 accessible, but we were set up primarily to establish
13 voice print and that's what we wish to see survive.
14 1415
15 16050 COMMISSIONER WILSON: When you were
16 talking about the comments that were made by the CAB
17 about the costs of descriptive video, I believe what
18 they said was that it would cost 500 to 1,000 times
19 more to produce descriptive video than it does to
20 produce captioning.
21 16051 MR. TRIMBEE: We weren't quite
22 certain in reading the transcript what was said,
23 whether they said it was 500 to 1,000 times or whether
24 it was 500 to 1,000 more and it depends on which
25 interpretation that is given. For example, the reply said:
StenoTran
3382
1 "Secondly, in brief strokes it
2 has become apparent that the
3 cost for this are enormous, in
4 the order of 500 to 1,000
5 more --"
6 16052 It didn't say "times":
7 "-- the current cost of closed
8 captioning." (As read)
9 16053 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I actually
10 wrote it down and in anticipation of my questions
11 today, I took note of that. So, I don't know. What I
12 wrote down was 500 to 1,000 times more, but I am just
13 wondering if you have done a comparison with the costs
14 for captioning per hour. I mean there are many
15 different ways of doing it. You can hire a
16 professional company to do it or you could bring
17 someone onto your staff and train them -- buy the
18 equipment and train them and have them do the
19 captioning in-house.
20 16054 MR. TRIMBEE: In the CAB brief the
21 only point that I could refer to, the CAB brief
22 indicated that it was about $160 an hour for captioning
23 and that, on that basis, private broadcasters alone
24 during the coming year would be spending something like
25 $5 million on captioning.
StenoTran
3383
1 16055 The reason why we haven't really
2 tried to tie the two costs together is because we are
3 talking -- we can't really talk apples and apples
4 because when you are talking about captioning, you can
5 talk about 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days
6 a year. When you are talking about description, you
7 are talking about a finite amount of programming. You
8 are talking about, in the words of the industry working
9 group, dramatic and children's programming. There is a
10 great amount of other material that wouldn't benefit
11 from description.
12 16056 For example, we have been anxious to
13 try and get children's programming into the catalogue
14 that we have developed to date. Two producers of
15 children's programming have been talking to us. The
16 first one that is anxious for us to describe his
17 program is the producer that produces "Hammy the
18 Hamster". They sent over a couple of episodes to us
19 and when we went through it, there was nothing we could
20 add. We couldn't embellish it. There was no need to
21 describe the program. His view was, "Yes, I sort of
22 had the same feeling myself."
23 16057 So, even when we are narrowing it
24 down to that very small section of programming,
25 original Canadian drama and Canadian children's
StenoTran
3384
1 programming, that doesn't say even there that it's 100
2 per cent of the product can benefit from description.
3 So, therefore, to try and compare the annual cost of
4 description against the annual cost of captioning, it
5 really doesn't make sense.
6 16058 As a matter of fact, in our approach
7 to this, we have asked or we recommended that effective
8 January 1 the CRTC require all persons receiving new
9 television licences or all renewals would be subject to
10 a conditional of licence that they broadcast described
11 versions of all original drama programming and
12 children's programming produced using the assistance of
13 funds from one of the existing program production
14 funds, provided such programming is suited for
15 description.
16 16059 Effective January 1, the CRTC will
17 expect all television licensees to do what we have just
18 described must be done by all others, so that there is
19 an even playing field and that all original drama and
20 children's programming being produced with money
21 available through one of the Canadian program
22 production funds will be described unless the
23 programming is certified not to be suitable for
24 description. A committee consisting of perhaps
25 representatives of the CNIB Library, consumer groups
StenoTran
3385
1 and describers could consider whether a particular
2 program need not be described.
3 16060 The issue of descriptive video
4 services should be reviewed by the CRTC in about three
5 years following a public notice issued as a result of
6 this proceeding. At that time, the commitments and the
7 obligations that I have just referred to can be
8 reviewed in the light of the actions of the industry
9 and the receptability of the blind and low-vision
10 community to the developments at that time.
11 16061 It was interesting also in this
12 particular hearing we understand that the broadcasters
13 have appeared before you to ask for an increase in the
14 credits that they now get for producing Canadian
15 programming. If you choose to --
16 16062 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Mr. Trimbee,
17 are you reading from something?
18 16063 MR. TRIMBEE: It's just a little
19 background note that I had prepared on this question
20 that I thought might be asked.
21 16064 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You and I were
22 both doing the same thing, we were doing our homework.
23 16065 MR. TRIMBEE: If you choose to grant
24 these credits -- increases as requested by the
25 broadcasters, we say that such broadcasters should not
StenoTran
3386
1 be able to enjoy the credits in relation to any program
2 for which they get credit unless it is described, again
3 if it is suitable for description. The same process in
4 dealing with issues as to whether a program is suited
5 to description, as we have stated before, would apply
6 sort of to the current scenario and there would be this
7 committee that could very quickly and without a lot of
8 regimentation establish whether or not a program was
9 suitable.
10 16066 So, we are saying everything should
11 be described in this area, except where it is found
12 that it wouldn't be practical. As I just gave an
13 example, "Hammy the Hamster" obviously would not pass.
14 16067 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I'm sure there
15 are a lot of kids out there who would be disappointed
16 at that.
17 16068 With reference to your request to the
18 Commission to press what is now called the Canadian
19 Television Fund to add description to its funding
20 criteria, have you had -- I am just wondering if you do
21 any liaison at all with independent producers or the
22 funds or the broadcasters, to talk to them directly. I
23 know that you had your one meeting with the CAB, but I
24 am just wondering if you have talked with any of these
25 other sectors directly to explore the issue of
StenoTran
3387
1 descriptive video.
2 16069 MS CUTLER: Yes, with a number of
3 producers and independent broadcasters.
4 16070 MR. TRIMBEE: Again I sort of thought
5 that you might ask that question.
6 16071 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So, you are
7 going to read me your answer?
8 16072 MR. TRIMBEE: I will read part of it
9 and come back to the point that when we looked at video
10 description in the early days and we sat and worked
11 with the industry government working group, an awful
12 lot of the challenges that are coming to the surface
13 now obviously were quite obvious to us at that time and
14 we also wanted to make sure that whatever solution we
15 came up with would be a pragmatic solution. In other
16 words, there was no use divining an approach to
17 something that we thought in our heart of hearts was
18 extremely important for the Canadian broadcasting
19 system if it could never find the light of day.
20 16073 So, in the early days as we developed
21 our approach, we obviously had focus groups. We
22 invited people, at that time the precursor to the
23 current Canada Television Cable Production Fund, we
24 brought them over and talked to them about the problems
25 of people who are applying for funds. For example, in
StenoTran
3388
1 terms of the independent producer, we didn't want to
2 create a scenario where they would have the real
3 problem, if description became a fact of life, of
4 having to -- where am I going to go for the funding to
5 underwrite this added cost?
6 16074 So, in proposing that the Commission
7 should call for a working group of producers,
8 broadcasters, engineers, describers, representatives of
9 the Canadian programming, production funds and consumer
10 groups representing the blind and low vision, we felt
11 it was in that milieu there would be successful
12 answers. We don't have all the answers, but we felt
13 that someone who wanted to describe a program from the
14 Fund should be able to go there, get 100 per cent, so
15 they don't have another worry on their shoulders.
16 16075 There are a number of creative ways
17 in which that could be recouped, as we have said in our
18 brief, through promotional messages of which a system
19 could be devised that the funding from that could be
20 monitored and tracked and it would go back to refund
21 the fund. To give you an example for the sake of
22 discussion, if it cost $8,000 to describe a particular
23 project and the promos developed revenue of $10,000,
24 then there would be a wash to the Fund and the balance
25 would be retained by the broadcaster.
StenoTran
3389
1 16076 If, however, the alternative was that
2 $6,000 was produced and the cost was $8,000, there
3 would be $2,000 actually coming out of the Fund because
4 we appreciate there are a lot of pressures on the Fund
5 and there has to be other ways of making sure that the
6 funding is there and you can't guarantee, such as are
7 benefits, that they will be from here to eternity
8 available to us. So, that was the rationale we had in
9 mind in terms of how this might be financed and this
10 working group could then sit down and figure out the
11 practical solutions as opposed to us coming before you
12 and saying, "This is the way it should be done."
13 16077 We have tried to address what we have
14 heard to date in how we have approached these things,
15 but we haven't said this is the one and only solution.
16 As we have said, our costs, our activity is this, but
17 we don't believe we are going to be there alone very
18 long. As a matter of fact, our approach to training
19 describers is to establish a core, a network across the
20 country that could pick up contract work from any
21 describer.
22 16078 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You said
23 earlier when we were talking about the deaf and hard of
24 hearing community that there was sort of a platform
25 from which the Canadian broadcasters could launch
StenoTran
3390
1 because there was so much going on in the U.S. I know
2 you talked about the foundation that does the funding
3 of described video and the narrative television network
4 and PBS, who are all doing something. Are any of the
5 big U.S. networks getting into this yet?
6 16079 MR. TRIMBEE: Not to my knowledge,
7 but they have legislation, as you know, the ADA, the
8 American Disability Act, where a lot of discussion is
9 going on now not only in terms of access by commercial
10 networks for blind and low-vision people, but also the
11 Internet as part and parcel of the same comment and
12 study that's going on at this time. However, from our
13 vantage point and the way we are looking at it, we
14 think that there are some differences here in Canada
15 which allows us to take a different approach that
16 actually will see something implemented.
17 16080 That is that there are funds that are
18 established to do certain things and already one of the
19 funds has added to its criteria -- and that is the
20 Skippy Fund -- that for producers of children's
21 programming one of the criteria is video description.
22 That is the only one so far, but that does not mean --
23 we have climbed Mount Everest before and we think we
24 can convince others to do the same thing.
25 16081 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am going to
StenoTran
3391
1 ask you -- maybe it's a bit of a facetious question,
2 but is Canadian content an issue for you when it comes
3 to described video or do you just want programming?
4 Does it matter to you at this point?
5 16082 MR. TRIMBEE: I think I can answer
6 part of that and perhaps Geoff might add to it. What
7 we have concentrated on has been, because of our
8 activity with the industry working group, original
9 Canadian drama and children's programming. That has
10 been our thrust. We do other activity now because it's
11 available for us to do it and we have not got contract
12 work to do, what the industry working group unanimously
13 decided in 1996 should be done, and that included
14 broadcast representatives on that group, as you can
15 appreciate. As a company that's where our focus is,
16 but I think that Mr. Eden could probably embellish that
17 a lot better than I could, that answer.
18 16083 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I think I
19 noticed, too, that you do have a lot of classic films
20 in your library as well for described, the described
21 videos.
22 16084 MR. TRIMBEE: The reason for that
23 before I turn over to Geoff is that that is now
24 available to us without any copyright problems.
25 16085 COMMISSIONER WILSON: In the public
StenoTran
3392
1 domain.
2 16086 MR. TRIMBEE: Yes.
3 16087 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's what I
4 figured.
5 16088 MR. EGAN: I think the issue of
6 programming -- I am a die hard Canadian, I am a die
7 hard supporter of the Canadian entertainment industry
8 and I think that they should come first, but the issue
9 is a delicate one, not to the exclusion of possibly
10 very high quality material which might come to us from
11 other sources that a group might decide should be
12 described if it was undescribed and would deprive the
13 vision-impaired public of Canada of something really
14 useful. Now, that sounds pretty nebulous, but at the
15 moment I can't come at it any more clearly.
16 16089 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I think the
17 same word could probably be used to describe a lot of
18 things that happen in Ottawa. So, that word is a word
19 I understand, "nebulous".
20 16090 In a report entitled "The Feasibility
21 of Descriptive Video", the CAB states that digital
22 signals will permit the transmission of multiple audio
23 tracks, including a descriptive audio track, and it
24 suggests that instead of attempting to implement
25 descriptive video with analog technology, which has
StenoTran
3393
1 certain limitations, it might be more appropriate to
2 consider it as part of the whole package of services
3 attached to the digital roll-out. I am just wondering
4 what your views are on that suggestion.
5 16091 MS CUTLER: Our feeling is that we
6 would like to go ahead with it now even before we get
7 into digital broadcasting, but John can give you a more
8 detailed response.
9 16092 MR. STUBBS: We have broken down in
10 the technical brief the scenarios that simplify a
11 system. So, it's not a re-doing of the entire
12 infrastructure and all the technical facilities of a
13 television station in order to accommodate it. It
14 comes down to the synchronizing of a time coded audio
15 track to the main track that is being broadcast and
16 inserting that description into the regular audio feed
17 going to a S.A.P.
18 16093 The S.A.P. is about $15,000 to add to
19 a newer transmitter and all of the rest of the
20 technology exists in the television station right now.
21 To have two tape machines that are synchronized
22 together is not -- that's something they do everyday,
23 so it's not new technology, it's not changing all of
24 the switchers and all of the equipment inside of a
25 television station. So, we brought it down to be
StenoTran
3394
1 something that if the desire is there to put on
2 described video, then it's not very hard to do.
3 1430
4 16094 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Just with
5 reference to the second audio program, or the S.A.P.
6 and actually, I may have mentioned this earlier, when I
7 was talking about CPAC, but as you are probably aware,
8 some broadcasters currently use the S.A.P. to deliver a
9 second audio feed of some kind, either attached to
10 their service or separate. And in some cases, they are
11 minority language services, which may not have access
12 to other delivery means.
13 16095 So I mean, I guess, having listened
14 to you, I would assume that what you would suggest is
15 that in the interim you leave those minority language
16 services there and once digital comes along you can go
17 for the whole thing. But, I mean, on those specific
18 channels there aren't particularly many of them, but --
19 16096 MR. STUBBS: It's also the content,
20 because the content is, if you are talking of two hours
21 a week, even inserting and using the S.A.P. for only
22 that program, you are taking a very fraction of the
23 time to the transmission of that special program feed
24 that you are describing.
25 16097 And some, Citytv, in Toronto, has a
StenoTran
3395
1 S.A.P. that they promote the use of. It will be there
2 for descriptive services in movies if they come along.
3 But it really isn't a lot of insertion time that you
4 are talking about using the S.A.P. for this technology.
5 16098 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Well, that's a
6 good point. Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
7 Thank you very much.
8 16099 MR. STUBBS: Thank you.
9 16100 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very
10 much. Thank you for your presentation, I remember well
11 your descriptive video discussion of technology, which
12 was an eye-opener for me. Thank you very much.
13 16101 Madam Secretary, would you call the
14 next participant, please.
15 16102 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
16 The next participant is the Canadians Concerned about
17 Violence in Entertainment, with Mrs. Rose Dyson.
18 16103 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, Ms.
19 Dyson.
20 16104 DR. DYSON: Good afternoon.
21 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
22 16105 DR. DYSON: Thank you, commissioners,
23 for providing me with the opportunity to appear at
24 these hearings.
25 16106 Canadians Concerned about Violence in
StenoTran
3396
1 Entertainment is an independent, national, non-profit,
2 public interest organization.
3 16107 It is committed to increasing public
4 awareness about the effects of cultural violence in
5 society. It is financially self-supporting through
6 annual membership dues and personal donations, with
7 members representing a cross-section of occupations and
8 life styles, especially educators, health
9 professionals, members of the media, religious groups,
10 and parents.
11 16108 C-CAVE supports the premise that
12 Canadian broadcasters should carry more Canadian-made
13 programming to counteract the onslaught of American
14 programming on Canadian airwaves. However, we have
15 concerns we would like to bring to the Commission's
16 attention, as well as to that of the Minister of
17 Canadian Heritage.
18 16109 "Made in Canada" does not
19 automatically guarantee benign programming. It has
20 become apparent over the last several years that some
21 members of the Canadian entertainment industry are
22 willing to produce material which is just as violent,
23 anti-social, and harmful to society as anything
24 produced by their American cousins. The following are
25 a few examples.
StenoTran
3397
1 16110 Discovery Channel is currently
2 running a second season of "Exhibit A: Secrets of
3 Forensic Science." This series, hosted by Canadian
4 actor Graham Greene, shows the viewer step-by-step how
5 "amazing technology and clever techniques" are used to
6 solve some particularly gruesome crimes.
7 16111 The show reveals information that
8 should remain secret from those who perpetrate crimes.
9 In addition to providing criminals with insider
10 information on forensic crime-solving, the September
11 22nd, 1998 episode showed autopsy photographs of a dead
12 woman, which were then broadcast across the country.
13 16112 This episode, about the murder of a
14 young Toronto university student, featured pictures of
15 the dead woman's breasts mutilated by teeth marks. Not
16 once, but three different times, dental impressions
17 taken from suspects were superimposed over the bite
18 marks on her breast. Viewers were then advised that
19 without the teethmarks, a conviction probably would not
20 have been possible.
21 16113 The helpful tip sadists pick up from
22 this episode is that if you bite a woman hard enough to
23 leave an impression, make sure you deface the teeth
24 marks before leaving the scene of the crime.
25 16114 According to Kate Lyons, who heads up
StenoTran
3398
1 the behavioural sciences section of the OPP
2 investigation support bureau, FBI research has shown
3 that criminals have an insatiable appetite for
4 information that provides insight into the police
5 process. In other words, serial murderers and police
6 officers favour the same movies, books, and television
7 programs.
8 16115 UCLA School of Medicine forensic
9 psychiatrist Bart Elliott Dias, who spoke at the 1992
10 Canadian Psychiatric Association's annual meeting,
11 pointed out that techniques for committing crimes
12 detailed in movie scripts and television scripts end up
13 teaching millions. Dias, who is also a consultant to
14 the FBI, said: "What is merely entertainment for some
15 in the media is training in crime for others." Another
16 quotation is: "News reports about criminal innovations
17 can quickly produce imitators on a national level."
18 Another quotation:
19 "Small arms manufacturers now
20 announce to retailers which
21 movies and television shows will
22 feature particular guns or
23 knives so that they can be
24 stocked in time to meet consumer
25 demand."
StenoTran
3399
1 16116 In this context, we consider it a
2 serious flaw in the new federal gun control legislation
3 that the film and television industries are exempt from
4 having to register firearms. We have been informed of
5 cases where weapons have been stolen or have simply
6 disappeared following their use as props on sets.
7 16117 Dias recommends that crime and
8 violence use be limited to the population affected to
9 minimize the number of copycat crimes committed and the
10 extent of unnecessary fear.
11 "News organisations that would
12 voluntarily limit their coverage
13 of criminal innovations and
14 relevant techniques to those
15 audience with a legitimate need
16 for such information would be
17 evidencing a degree of
18 responsibility commensurate with
19 the freedom they now enjoy."
20 16118 Instead, six years later, Discovery
21 Channel is running a second season of this highly
22 educational program with no regard for the consequences
23 to the public. Some of these concerns were brought to
24 the attention of Trina McQueen, president of the
25 Discovery Channel, in a September 1997 letter, to no
StenoTran
3400
1 avail. It should be noted that Trina McQueen is the
2 chairperson of AGVOT, the industry-based Action Group
3 on Television Violence set up during the Spicer years
4 at the CRTC when the issue of TV violence was taken
5 more seriously.
6 16119 Controversial "made in Canada"
7 movies, like "Kissed," a sensitive look at the
8 difficult subject of necrophilia, turn up on television
9 to help fill Cancon quotas. Promotional material for a
10 movie like "Kissed" shows two grinning women draped
11 over the naked corpse of a man, complete with a
12 dangling toe tag, just to make sure you know he's dead.
13 16120 David Kronenberg, the most famous
14 producer-director, nurtured by Canada's taxpayer-funded
15 entertainment industry, recently tried to get a project
16 off the ground that would have turned the ultra-violent
17 book "American Psycho" into a movie. The script was
18 written by a Canadian, Mary Heron, and although
19 Kronenberg failed, other Canadians have taken up the
20 slack. Vancouver-based Lionsgate Entertainment is
21 producing the film, and "Variety" reports that Oliver
22 Stone is in negotiations to direct, which pretty much
23 guarantees a movie bloodbath. With so many Canadians
24 involved, it will undoubtedly turn up on Canadian TV
25 screens as well.
StenoTran
3401
1 16121 While we don't expect that every
2 Canadian television program or movie will be "Road to
3 Avonlea," it is not too much to expect that the
4 Canadian producers would ascribe to this principle from
5 the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm. The reason
6 we are entitled to expect this, is because so much
7 Canadian programming is paid for by the taxpayer.
8 Ordinary people provide hundreds of millions of dollars
9 to producers, some of whom repay us with material
10 harmful to our health and safety.
11 16122 Through Telefilm, women are
12 underwriting "Exhibit A: Secrets of Forensic Science,"
13 which provides useful information to murderers on how
14 to avoid apprehension.
15 16123 "Kissed," which was completed with
16 Telefilm funding, features a female necrophiliac, and
17 although most necrophiliacs are men, even treating this
18 disgusting behaviour with sensitivity is harmful to the
19 public.
20 16124 Kronenberg rose to fame with the help
21 of taxpayer funding, and then tried to make a movie out
22 a book identified as "the Bible" of Canadian child
23 murderer Paul Bernardo in testimony that came out
24 during that trial.
25 16125 Forcing the public to fund material
StenoTran
3402
1 which is harmful to us, into which we have no input,
2 and over which we have no control is a particularly
3 outrageous form of taxation without representation.
4 The mind boggles when contemplating that the federal
5 government is providing $100 million to the television
6 fund.
7 16126 This is particularly galling to those
8 of us involved in public interest groups, because we
9 have to pay for our own efforts, usually out of our own
10 pockets, to combat the harmful programming that
11 sometimes results, with no help from government.
12 16127 We recognise that the CRTC does not
13 control the purse strings on any of the funds available
14 to producers, but you can play a pivotal role in what
15 television programs get to air. You can send a message
16 to the broadcast industry that harmful, anti-social
17 programming will not be tolerated on Canadian airwaves.
18 16128 Unfortunately, the message given to
19 broadcasters by the CRTC up until this point has been
20 that pretty much anything goes.
21 16129 That is why the Howard Stern radio
22 show was purchased by two of Canada's largest
23 broadcasting companies, and why CHUM Limited bought the
24 Howard Stern show.
25 16130 When CHUM got another message from
StenoTran
3403
1 one lone, courageous CRTC commissioner -- and you know
2 who you are -- they suddenly had an attack of
3 conscience and cancelled both the television and radio
4 shows. That is the power the CRTC has to shape
5 Canadian broadcasting.
6 16131 For the CRTC to sustain some measure
7 of credibility with the general public as our federal
8 regulator, this recent message on Howard Stern must not
9 be allowed to evolve into nothing more than a rare
10 departure from business as usual.
11 16132 If a Canadian production house goes
12 out of business because they can't produce harmful,
13 anti-social programming, so be it. Or, they can raise
14 the funds privately. It is both arrogant and
15 outrageous to expect the public to continue to fund
16 material harmful to our well being.
17 16133 Hopefully, these hearings will mark a
18 new beginning for the CRTC with a renewed commitment to
19 build on previous initiatives to come to terms with the
20 serious and growing problem of violence in the media.
21 And provided, I think, for your information already, by
22 the secretary of the Commission is an article that I
23 have published in my capacity as a consultant in media
24 education in the April 1998 special issue on the
25 cultural environment movement in "Gazette," the
StenoTran
3404
1 international journal for communication studies.
2 16134 The article -- published by Sage, by
3 the way. The article, entitled "Media Literacy: Who
4 Needs it and What Does it Mean?" deals extensively with
5 the CRTC, so it may be of particular interest to you.
6 16135 So I'm happy to answer any questions
7 you might have.
8 16136 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very
9 much, Ms. Dyson. Commissioner McKendry.
10 16137 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you,
11 Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Ms. Dyson.
12 16138 DR. DYSON: Good afternoon.
13 16139 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I just wanted
14 to ask you for a moment, or get your reaction for a
15 moment to a public opinion survey that was submitted to
16 this proceeding by CTV. And one of the questions they
17 asked, an open-ended question, was, "Thinking of
18 television programming these days, what do you see as
19 the most important issue?" And the number one issue by
20 far was something characterised: "lack of
21 morals/violence." It was 31 per cent of the
22 respondents, by the way.
23 16140 And the second issue, just to give
24 you an idea of the lead that "lack of morals/violence"
25 had, was "quality," at 22 per cent.
StenoTran
3405
1 16141 So my question to you is this
2 consistent with your experience in terms of how the
3 public feels about violence on television?
4 16142 DR. DYSON: Yes, it is. When I
5 completed my doctorate on this subject, George Gerbder,
6 who used to be at the Ananburg School of
7 Communications, the University of Pennsylvania, was my
8 external examiner. He now holds the Bell Atlantic
9 Chair at Temple University. He has conducted numerous
10 surveys over the years using his cultural indicators
11 model that he invented.
12 16143 And time after time over the last 15
13 or 20 years that he's been using it to monitor tastes
14 and interests in television programming both in Canada
15 and the United States, it's been evident that contrary
16 to what many broadcasters would have us believe, the
17 most popular programming is not violent. It is what
18 would be considered more wholesome and acceptable.
19 16144 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I would like
20 to tie that to a comment you made in your article in
21 the "Gazette" that you provided to us. And I will
22 quote from it, it's on page -- I think 158. I have a
23 faxed copy, and the number isn't quite legible. But
24 the quote is:
25 "The only recourse left to
StenoTran
3406
1 community groups was to launch a
2 campaign encouraging an
3 advertiser boycott. On 14 May,
4 1997 the CRTC announced the
5 results -- 13 out of 25 of the
6 major sponsors had pulled their
7 advertisements about the same
8 time it was announced that
9 "Poltergeist: The Legacy" was
10 pulled off the air due to poor
11 ratings. Increasingly, it is
12 the direction of advertiser
13 boycotts that public pressure is
14 proving to be most effective."
15 16145 I would like to get your comment
16 about the relevance, I guess, of direct consumer action
17 in the sense of boycotts as opposed to regulatory
18 intervention. Are you saying this is really the way
19 it's going to work in the future as opposed to
20 regulatory intervention?
21 1450
22 16146 DR. DYSON: Well, I think both
23 strategies are necessary but the more direct one just
24 hasn't been as useful, in our experience.
25 16147 I am thinking, which I also mention
StenoTran
3407
1 in this article, the petition that was presented to
2 Brian Mulroney when he was still Prime Minister of the
3 country, signed by something like 1.2 million Canadians
4 presented by Virginia LaRiviere asking the government
5 to do something about violence on television. Well, I
6 am not sure that that has had so much of an impact.
7 16148 We had AGVOT set up and then we had a
8 rating system that was discussed with appropriate
9 criteria to go with it. According to my observations
10 and knowledge, this has sort of fizzled out into not
11 much of anything, whereas it seems to be more time
12 effective for us chronically overworked and underfunded
13 volunteer organizations to go directly to the
14 advertisers because they are more sensitive to what
15 their programming is associated with.
16 16149 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And I suppose
17 the fact that public opinion surveys, such as the CTV
18 survey, show that there is apparently widespread
19 concern about violence on television. In fact, it was
20 the number one issue in television programming in this
21 particular survey, helps you in dealing with
22 advertisers and the broadcasters in terms of achieving
23 your objectives.
24 16150 DR. DYSON: May I just ask you, that
25 particular survey you are referring to, it was
StenoTran
3408
1 conducted this year?
2 16151 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: It is dated
3 June 28, 1998, and it is a survey by Compass for CTV
4 and it is part of the CTV submission to this
5 proceeding.
6 16152 DR. DYSON: Thank you.
7 16153 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let me ask
8 you for a moment, building a bit on the direct role of
9 consumers and boycotts and so on to the role of self
10 regulation because it seems to me there's been a fair
11 emphasis placed from a regulatory perspective and a
12 public policy perspective in Canada on the self
13 regulatory process with respect to broadcasters. Do
14 you have any comments on how effective that process is,
15 the self regulatory process?
16 16154 DR. DYSON: Well, in addition to what
17 I just said, I believe that self-regulation, without
18 effective government regulation, as in from the CRTC,
19 cannot work and never has worked. That has certainly
20 been my observations, based on my own personal
21 experience and that of colleagues, like George Gerbder.
22 16155 If we think in terms of what has
23 occurred since Keith Spicer stepped down in 1966, I
24 think that the whole of self-regulation has been turned
25 into a bit of a joke.
StenoTran
3409
1 16156 Given the kind of extraordinarily
2 violent programming that the Canadian Association of
3 Broadcasters members feel free to bring to the screen
4 and I discussed examples both in my presentation today
5 and in the article that you have referred to that I
6 have written, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
7 has been set up to monitor what goes on from the
8 standpoint of being reactive to complaints. But the
9 complaint procedure is very slow and hasn't worked
10 particularly well.
11 16157 I doubt that Howard Stern would be
12 coming off the air in Canada if it hadn't been for a
13 little bit of initiative displayed by the CRTC in
14 holding the broadcasters' feet to the fire in terms of
15 their own codes of conduct.
16 16158 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Perhaps we
17 could just talk about the V-chip for a minute because
18 not only in Canada but in the US, I think some people
19 see the V-chip as the answer to the violence on TV
20 problem and I am wondering, in light of the somewhat
21 evolution of the V-chip into the marketplace what your
22 views are on how it will deal with this situation.
23 16159 DR. DYSON: I don't believe that the
24 V-chip is the full answer or the only answer, and I
25 think that it is something that many of the people
StenoTran
3410
1 within the private industry would like to have us
2 believe. But, as Keith Spicer used to say when he
3 first began to promote it so much, it was only 10 per
4 cent of the solution.
5 16160 It can serve some useful purpose.
6 There are even some harmful aspects to something like a
7 V-chip because there has been some evidence from the
8 time it was first being discussed in Canada in
9 broadcasting circles of it almost acting like a green
10 light because of the watershed hour that was
11 established for harmful programming. In other words,
12 it is a mixed blessing and it is a very small portion
13 of the problem.
14 16161 Much more responsibility and
15 accountability, I think, has to be expected at source
16 of production and distribution of this material.
17 16162 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: This leads me
18 to ask you in terms of the proceeding that is currently
19 underway here, and I am sure you have had an
20 opportunity to read our Public Notice, what would you
21 like to see in the decision that we write as a result
22 of this proceeding from your perspective? What would
23 you like to see in there?
24 16163 DR. DYSON: Well, I would like to see
25 violence or some of the other concerns that Canadians
StenoTran
3411
1 obviously have, based on CTV's survey that you
2 mentioned, reflected or taken into consideration in the
3 criteria that Telefilm exercises.
4 16164 I know you don't have anything to do
5 with Telefilm necessarily directly but I would like to
6 see the CRTC in all of its subsequent hearings expect
7 broadcasters to adhere to their own codes of conduct.
8 They are extensive. They are well developed. Nobody
9 has to sit down and ponder the evolution or creativity
10 about what criteria should be used. There are many
11 fine minds that have already gone into developing
12 these. It is just a case of them being taken more
13 seriously, both by the broadcasters and the CRTC.
14 16165 In other words, I would like the CRTC
15 to play a much better role in expecting implementation
16 within the self-regulatory process that has already
17 been approved.
18 16166 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Just to make
19 sure I understand you, the codes of conduct, you
20 generally regard as adequate codes of conduct. Your
21 primary concern is with implementing them and adherence
22 to the codes that exist?
23 16167 DR. DYSON: Yes, there is always some
24 room for modification. I think advertising perhaps
25 isn't addressed vigorously enough in the codes. I have
StenoTran
3412
1 written things on this in the past and brought this to
2 the attention of the CRTC in previous hearings.
3 16168 For the most part, I think the
4 existing codes of conduct, whether it's on violence or
5 sexual stereotyping or discrimination, racism, and
6 things of that sort are there. They are developed but
7 it is just that they tend to be ignored too much.
8 16169 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: In our
9 decision, you would like us to clearly remind the
10 broadcasters of their obligations under those.
11 16170 DR. DYSON: Not only remind them but
12 when their licences come up for renewal, call them on
13 evidence of lack of adherence. As I said in my
14 presentation, the CRTC was prepared to approve, I
15 think, CHUM's licence on Bravo, I believe it was, until
16 one Commissioner wrote a minority opinion or a
17 dissenting opinion.
18 16171 Well, this development doesn't do
19 much to inspire confidence in the CRTC as the federal
20 regulator where the general public is concerned.
21 16172 As you know, I hardly need to remind
22 the Commission that there has been a special committee
23 set up in the last year, I think three or four months
24 ago, by the Minister of Heritage, chaired by Sam Bulte,
25 a Member of Parliament for Hyde Park/Parkdale in
StenoTran
3413
1 Toronto, I believe, to inquire into just how people are
2 appointed to the CRTC.
3 16173 So there is obviously a great deal of
4 discontent with the extent to which CRTC decisions tend
5 to be made in such a way that they favour industry as
6 opposed to the public interest.
7 16174 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Those are my
8 questions for you. I appreciate you coming and
9 answering the questions, and we always welcome and
10 encourage people from public interest groups, such as
11 yourselves to come in front of us. Hopefully, we will
12 continue to see you in our future proceedings. Those
13 are my questions.
14 16175 DR. DYSON: If I might add one more
15 thing that we would like to see in your final decisions
16 is some sort of a budget set aside to enable us to come
17 forward and participate in these discussions because
18 they are very costly.
19 16176 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Yes, we have
20 actually heard that comment as well from other public
21 interest groups.
22 16177 DR. DYSON: Thank you.
23 16178 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a small
24 correction, Ms. Dyson. What was at issue with Bravo
25 was not its renewal. It was whether or not the
StenoTran
3414
1 Commission would allow Bravo to join the Standards
2 Council rather than to have a condition of licence with
3 regard to sexual stereotyping, et cetera.
4 16179 DR. DYSON: Thank you.
5 16180 THE CHAIRPERSON: And whether or not
6 the fact that they were airing Howard Stern on radio
7 was a reason for not allowing them to join the
8 Standards Council rather than have the codes remaining
9 as a condition of licence.
10 16181 We thank you, anyway, for your
11 presentation and my colleagues have questions.
12 Commissioner Pennefather?
13 16182 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Hello, Dr.
14 Dyson.
15 16183 DR. DYSON: Hi, Jo.
16 16184 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: While you
17 are here, I would like your reflections on a couple of
18 points. I have just quickly looked through the article
19 dealing with media literacy but, obviously, I would
20 like to ask you just briefly to indicate in your mind
21 how well media literacy can serve as a tool for public
22 response and the capacity to change a system if the
23 public wishes to do so.
24 16185 I think that you note that parents
25 don't seem to be taking their part. There is something
StenoTran
3415
1 called the Media Awareness Network, which I am sure you
2 are aware of, and I am wondering if you could just
3 reflect for us briefly on how effective these tools are
4 and in terms of alerting the public to the effects of
5 violent programming to the alternatives available.
6 16186 And, in so addressing that point,
7 notice I said the Media Awareness Network, which is on
8 the Internet. So how can that medium also address this
9 issue of violence in the media at large?
10 16187 DR. DYSON: Okay, those are a lot of
11 questions. I am trying to remember them all. Remind
12 me if I haven't answered them all.
13 16188 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I will.
14 16189 DR. DYSON: I think that media
15 literacy serves a very important role, whether it is
16 provided in schools or in a larger context for the
17 general public. And that is what I attempt to address
18 in this article. In fact, Canada has been one of the
19 leaders, pioneers in Canadian teachers in developing
20 media literacy.
21 16190 Where I take issue with some of the
22 leaders with the Association for Media Literacy, for
23 example, or CAMEO, and acronym that is used to make
24 reference to the umbrella organization for the entire
25 country, is the values-free approach to the way in
StenoTran
3416
1 which this material is discussed or decoded and
2 de-constructed in classrooms and the extraordinary
3 emphasis on at times the development of techniques for
4 the purposes of television and film production. Not
5 that this isn't important and there won't always be a
6 role for it, but I think there needs to be a little
7 more emphasis on some of the culturally harmful
8 components in this.
9 16191 I mean, there is a reason why a
10 cultural environment movement has sprung up and these
11 kinds of values or concerns from the standpoint of
12 cultural pollution are not taken very seriously. In
13 fact, a lot of media literacy resource material now
14 actually celebrates violence. In other words, decoding
15 and de-constructing a movie like "Silence of the Lambs"
16 in a Grade Eight classroom is considered okay in some
17 cases. I have gotten complaints from parents about
18 this and understandably so, I think.
19 16192 I know that I have colleagues who
20 will support me on this. Heather Jane Robertson, who
21 is in professional development for the Canadian
22 Teachers Federation has written material on this,
23 including a recent book on the commercialization of the
24 classroom as an extension of the kind of unquestioning
25 acceptance and embracing of technology or
StenoTran
3417
1 communications technology and what it is doing to erode
2 critical thinking skills in many instances.
3 16193 So I think that has to be recognized,
4 acknowledged. There is a real commercial push into the
5 classroom that a lot of people in the education system
6 itself are oblivious to and that is a real worry and
7 concern to many of us.
8 16194 The Internet, of course, it has got
9 wonderful potential. I certainly enjoy it, mostly
10 through e-mail messages.
11 16195 I think it has provided an
12 opportunity for public interest groups to exchange
13 information or exercise dialogue on various issues of
14 mutual concern. We have plenty of evidence of how
15 worried the OECD is about the opposition to the MAI or
16 the Multilateral Agreement on Investment or
17 globalization issues in general.
18 16196 So the Internet, too, is sometimes
19 described as having given the printed word a new lease
20 on life. It is, after all, a bit like the newspaper in
21 that it's print. At least I see it that way. There is
22 a lot of very harmful material out there and that, too,
23 has to be a concern.
24 16197 If we can address issues involving
25 privacy and copyright in other kinds of media, as well
StenoTran
3418
1 as the Internet, we should be able to address issues of
2 content.
3 16198 So the police, we have Project P or
4 other law enforcement officials who are doing exemplary
5 work, I think, in tracking down purveyors or
6 distributors on the net of child pornography. So many
7 have argued, not only from the standpoint of
8 communications or harmful content in media, but in
9 other ways that the Internet has ironically made it
10 easier or will make it easier to provide appropriate
11 regulation of a number of kinds. I am thinking in
12 particular of Linda McQuaig in her book, "The Cult of
13 Impotence," when she talks about regulating the flow of
14 capital.
15 16199 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: As you
16 know, we have another proceeding coming forward on the
17 media, so that might be an appropriate moment to take
18 this point a little further.
19 16200 Regarding your comments today, just a
20 clarification. When you speak about the growing
21 problem of violence in the media, is that comment based
22 on recent research from Dr. Gerbder and yourself and
23 others? Is this an update of statistics we have seen?
24 Are you seeing increasingly the acts of violence which
25 within the half hour as his work has traditionally
StenoTran
3419
1 shown?
2 16201 DR. DYSON: Yes, his work. I haven't
3 brought specific studies of his along but they are
4 certainly available. He posts them on the Net from
5 time to time.
6 16202 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Now is
7 this about American programming available to American
8 viewers or American programming available to Canadian
9 viewers?
10 16203 DR. DYSON: His studies usually
11 include North America. As you know, the Americans, for
12 many years in many different ways have considered
13 Canada part of their domestic market. So that
14 sometimes holds from the standpoint of researching
15 techniques as well.
16 16204 But what Gerbder has pointed out in
17 his research time and again is that globalization has
18 media, along with other kinds of industry, has meant
19 that there is increasing reliance on sex and violence
20 as chief industrial ingredients because they sell well
21 on a global market and translate easily into any
22 language. And that is something that we have to be
23 aware of.
24 16205 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: My
25 question was also that if you have specific research
StenoTran
3420
1 recently on Canadian programming. Not American
2 programming watched by Canadians but Canadian
3 programming watched by Canadians. Are you saying to us
4 there is growing violence in that programming as well?
5 16206 DR. DYSON: Yes, there is. Now my
6 research is more qualitative in that I monitor
7 different forums of information as well as research
8 findings. One example I can give you, and I suppose it
9 can be taken with a grain of salt, but after all, at
10 the Cannes Film Festival, I believe it was in 1997,
11 when an American film -- Well, one year half the
12 critics walk out of the David Kronenberg's film,
13 "Crash," and there is an attempt to keep it off the
14 screen in various countries, but not in Canada. In
15 Canada is promoted by mainstream media as being
16 perfectly okay, including public broadcasters.
17 16207 Then the second year when an American
18 film critic asks, I think it was Atom Egoyan, why
19 Canadians seem to be coming out with one perverse film
20 after another, he was quoted in the Globe and Mail as
21 saying, "A little known secret in Canada is that you
22 have to have a perverse title in order to get
23 government funding." Well, you know, nobody called him
24 on it except us.
25 16208 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Well, in
StenoTran
3421
1 the myriads of Canadian films I have seen, I have had
2 different interpretations of what a perverse title may
3 be. To some, it was other films that the National Film
4 Board created at the time. So I guess it depends on
5 your point of view.
6 16209 I understand your point and thank you
7 for being here today and bringing us up to date. My
8 reasons, as you know, for asking about media literacy
9 go back to the time when I had the privilege of working
10 at the Film Board and with a number of colleagues we
11 worked extensively in this area.
12 16210 And the point which is directly
13 related to the discussion of this hearing was to create
14 more choice and alternatives as opposed to look at an
15 approach to censor products as they come out. That, I
16 am assuming, is part and parcel of this approach on
17 media literacy. And what is interesting for us, I
18 think, in this hearing is the direct connection that
19 has to increased Canadian content and more alternative
20 viewing for Canadian viewers. That's the focus of the
21 questions that I have in terms of how Canadian content,
22 greater availability of Canadian content will address
23 this issue as well.
24 1510
25 16211 DR. DYSON: Address the issue of
StenoTran
3422
1 media violence, or --
2 16212 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: That is
3 correct. Greater choice alternatives in programming
4 was in that time and still is one of my views, is that
5 that is part and parcel of the solution.
6 16213 DR. DYSON: Well, I certainly have a
7 great deal of respect and admiration for people who
8 have worked for the National Film Board. I know many
9 of them myself. But I am still not sure why
10 diversity -- or are you saying that diversity alone
11 should be the criteria?
12 16214 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: No, I am
13 not saying alone, but I am saying it is an important
14 part of the solution --
15 16215 DR. DYSON: Oh, yes.
16 16216 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: -- and it
17 along with media awareness provide, I think, the basis
18 for choice which is an important part of the solution,
19 and has been in the discussions of Neil Postman and Dr.
20 Gerbder and --
21 16217 DR. DYSON: Yes, of course, I
22 wouldn't disagree with that. I would just like to
23 again point out that the notion of discretionary
24 funding for Canadian productions through Telefilm is
25 not a new idea. It was first proposed by Judy Lamarche
StenoTran
3423
1 in a royal commission on violence in the communications
2 industry when the report was released in 1977, so it is
3 an idea that has been around for a long time.
4 16218 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And just
5 to conclude, my point goes back to Commissioner
6 McKendry's point that Canadians, in fact, when asked,
7 as we did at the time, for a variety of programming and
8 aren't necessarily as interested in violent programming
9 as some may lead us to believe. So I think it is
10 important to keep track --
11 16219 DR. DYSON: Canadian public as
12 opposed to producers. It is important to make the
13 distinction.
14 16220 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Well, you
15 addressed the importance we place on the public
16 interest, and that is why I am speaking to you in those
17 terms.
18 16221 DR. DYSON: Okay.
19 16222 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
20 Thank you, Madam Chair.
21 16223 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Cardozo.
22 16224 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam
23 Chair. Dr. Dyson, thanks for your comments. Just
24 first a comment about that -- what was it, that lonely,
25 courageous commissioner. Lone, he may have been, but
StenoTran
3424
1 courageous is, perhaps, overstating it. The only flack
2 I got was a smidgen of bad press, and the sources it
3 came from were quite satisfactory to me.
4 16225 DR. DYSON: That should be a real
5 green light for the other commissioners.
6 16226 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I wanted to
7 ask you about how you respond to the proposition that
8 is put to us quite often when we address issues of
9 violence, or objectionable content, or any of those
10 sorts of things. The free speech flag is always
11 raised, and the flip side of that being freedom to
12 watch, freedom to hear, and that if you don't like it,
13 turn it off, and if you have got a remote control, it
14 is even easier to do that. How do you respond to that
15 argument?
16 16227 DR. DYSON: Well, I think that there
17 is a lot of confusion between individual freedom of
18 expression and corporate freedom of enterprise, which
19 is, again, usually considered to be synonymous with the
20 expression. Now, I know that there have been court
21 cases in America, in particular, where a corporate
22 freedom of expression has been considered legitimate,
23 okay, and comparable to individual freedom of
24 expression, or at least the people I know in the legal
25 community have brought this to my attention, including
StenoTran
3425
1 my husband, who is a judge.
2 16228 But I think that there are also a
3 number of legal precedents, both in Canada and the
4 United States, and I will just refer to a couple of
5 Canadian ones that I am aware of that have made these
6 kinds of distinctions. It is just that they are rather
7 poorly reported on by journalists who -- or, perhaps
8 people within the industry for whom it is always a
9 greater advantage to exercise and hang onto as much
10 freedom and latitude as possible.
11 16229 We had the Irwin Toy case that was
12 decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1989. In
13 that one it was ruled that advertising directed toward
14 children 12 years and under should not be allowed on
15 the basis of research showing harmful effects. Now,
16 this was fought for ten years right through the Quebec
17 court system by Irwin Toys of Canada. It is obviously
18 been flouted a great deal one way or another by
19 industry.
20 16230 But the Butler decision on
21 pornography was another Supreme Court of Canada ruling
22 that drew upon the Irwin Toy case distinctions between
23 individual and corporate freedom of expression, and
24 they also ruled -- I mean, many would argue that the
25 Butler decision was a mixed blessing, because it opened
StenoTran
3426
1 the floodgates for a lot of so-called consenting sexual
2 depictions and things of that sort.
3 16231 But it was indicated in that case
4 that sometimes collective freedoms and rights, as they
5 are defined by our Charter of Rights or Constitution,
6 must take precedence over individual freedoms. In
7 other words, a pornographer's or distributor or
8 retailer of pornography's right to freedom of, I guess,
9 expression is not as important as the collective
10 freedom from fear or the collective safety that women
11 are entitled to, or others that are particularly at
12 risk from the distribution of some of this material.
13 16232 So as a society, if we are going to
14 take national strategy seriously for crime prevention
15 or health and safety, mental health, or civil society's
16 maintenance and protection, then there have to be some
17 trade-offs.
18 16233 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. You
19 have at the first part of your answer focused on some
20 of the legal mechanisms and the jurisprudence around
21 the issue, but on the question of "you can turn it off
22 if you don't like it," I guess what I am asking is, in
23 your expert view, why is this stuff bad for society?
24 Why should we, as a commission, be concerned about it?
25 I am not saying I am not concerned about it, but what
StenoTran
3427
1 are the responses --
2 16234 DR. DYSON: Well, I am sure I can
3 turn it off if I don't like it, and I do that a great
4 deal now. But I am still at risk, or my children are
5 at risk from what might be going on next door in my
6 neighbour's house, or within the community. I mean,
7 the cornerstone, surely, of a democratic society is
8 that we have to learn to obey the rules that we
9 collectively give ourselves. I mean, that is how civil
10 society works. And we can't be completely reliant on
11 individual choice without considering some of the other
12 ramifications, in my view.
13 16235 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And what is
14 your response to the defence that people are watching
15 it, people are listening to it. On the one hand there
16 is the poll that Commissioner McKendry talked about,
17 where Canadians say they don't want more violence on
18 TV, but there is an insatiable appetite. Maybe there
19 is another way to ask that question, but there is a lot
20 of people watching and listening to that type of
21 programming.
22 16236 DR. DYSON: Well, yes, and we have
23 had two or three generations now who have been
24 socialised into wanting that kind of program. You just
25 have to pick up last week's TV guide to see how
StenoTran
3428
1 cleverly this is all done with children's programming.
2 From one year of age on, children are very carefully
3 encouraged to like certain kinds of entertainment, and
4 this goes on as they get older, with violent and coarse
5 kinds of programming.
6 16237 I mean, this is certainly an argument
7 we got with the "Howard Stern Show" in Canada, but I
8 don't remember seeing protests and people out in the
9 streets demanding "Howard Stern" be brought into the
10 country. I think it was well-acknowledged that the
11 reason he was brought into the country was to boost the
12 sagging ratings of two media conglomerates in Canada
13 who were having difficulty with one radio station in
14 Montreal, and another in Toronto. Nothing to do with
15 Canadian demand.
16 16238 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: It is to do
17 with Canadian demand. I don't want to get into the
18 "Howard Stern" discussion, but it has to do with demand
19 as much as it did help their ratings.
20 16239 DR. DYSON: Well, once he is on the
21 air, and the envelope is pushed, there were a lot of
22 discussions on the Internet about the "Howard Stern
23 Show," and I can remember people from the American
24 industry who would send me notes from time to time
25 detailing the kind of marketing techniques that are
StenoTran
3429
1 used with a shock jock radio talk show host like him,
2 or a television talk show host like Jerry Springer, I
3 suppose.
4 16240 The idea is to really do something
5 outrageous and get everybody talking about it, so then
6 people have to see it. And some people will,
7 particularly adolescents are somewhat rebellious
8 anyway, and so it is a case of the envelope being
9 pushed more and more and that being, I guess, something
10 that dovetails with the usual sorts of rebelliousness
11 that you get in adolescents.
12 16241 I mean, there are a lot of, I think,
13 fairly subtle techniques that go into effective
14 marketing to develop a public appetite for this. And
15 we have seen it creeping along quite a bit for several
16 decades now.
17 16242 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: This is a
18 perverse thought, but we have been talking a lot about
19 how to promote Canadian content. And maybe one should
20 look at how some of things are done by some of the
21 shows you just mentioned. I only say that half in
22 joking, but thanks very much for your reflections.
23 16243 DR. DYSON: My pleasure.
24 16244 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms
25 Dyson, for your participation.
StenoTran
3430
1 16245 DR. DYSON: Thank you, for hearing
2 me.
3 16246 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now take a
4 15-minute break. Nous reprendrons à 3 h 35.
5 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1520
6 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1540
7 16247 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary
8 16248 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
9 The presentation will be done now by Equality for Gays
10 and Lesbians Everywhere/Égalité pour les gais et les
11 lesbiennes, with Mr. John Fisher and Mr. Ron Chaplin.
12 16249 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
13 Proceed when you are ready.
14 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
15 16250 MR. FISHER: Good afternoon, and
16 thank you for giving EGALE the opportunity to appear
17 before you here today.
18 16251 I am John Fisher. I am EGALE's
19 Executive Director and, as mentioned, I am joined by
20 Mr. Ron Chaplin.
21 16252 Just in terms of who EGALE is as an
22 organization, the name stands for Equality for Gays and
23 Lesbians Everywhere, Égalité pour les gais et les
24 lesbiennes, and we are a national organization
25 committed to advancing equality for lesbians and gays
StenoTran
3431
1 across Canada.
2 16253 We have a specifically federal focus
3 in our work and we have been fairly active on both a
4 political and a legal level as well as in the area of
5 public education.
6 16254 On the political level, we were
7 active in working with the federal government to see
8 changes made to the Canadian Human Rights Act to
9 include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of
10 discrimination.
11 16255 We also worked very hard on Bill
12 C-41, which was an Act amending the Criminal Code to do
13 a range of things but to increase sanctions on crimes
14 motivated by hatred on certain grounds, including
15 hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. And,
16 obviously, there was a view in Parliament that the
17 crimes are motivated by a desire to limit the rights of
18 particular segments with a diverse society. And that
19 is a factor which should be taken into account in
20 increasing the severity of the penalty.
21 16256 There have been a range of other
22 political issues, particularly around the area of same
23 sex relationship recognition on which we have been
24 active.
25 16257 On the legal front, we have
StenoTran
3432
1 intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada on a
2 number of occasions in support of adding sexual
3 orientation to provincial human rights legislation in
4 support of same sex relationships and also generally in
5 relation to issues in society which impacts upon gays
6 and lesbians, such as the recent decision of the Human
7 Rights Tribunal that it was discrimination for a mayor
8 to refuse to proclaim Lesbian and Gay Pride Day.
9 16258 Our organization has members in every
10 province and territory of the country, and I have
11 travelled myself to every province and territory and
12 met with gays and lesbians to understand better some of
13 the issues and concerns which motivate our communities.
14 16259 Consistently, one of the messages
15 that are transmitted to me by our membership is the
16 feeling of exclusion and non-representation in public
17 institutions. And I think this is a factor which is
18 particularly relevant in relation to these hearings and
19 the role of broadcasting in Canadian society.
20 16260 We are pleased to see that times are
21 changing and that to an increasing extent we are seeing
22 positive and non-stereotypical representations of gays
23 and lesbians on the airwaves. But certainly even at
24 the time that I was growing up and the time that many
25 of our members were growing up, there was either a
StenoTran
3433
1 complete silence or invisibility which sent the clear
2 message, I think, both to members of our community but
3 to Canadians, generally, that lesbians and gays were
4 not part of the fabric of Canadian society.
5 16261 Or else if there were
6 representations, they would be kind of stereotypical
7 representations that we saw in all the programs like
8 "Are You Being Served?" where a very swishy and
9 stereotypical gay character was virtually the only kind
10 of figure with which people were invited to identify.
11 16262 Now I think we have seen a move, both
12 towards the inclusion of lesbian and gay characters in
13 mainstream programs and also towards an increase in the
14 number of television programs which are produced by and
15 for the lesbian and gay communities.
16 16263 Rogers, for example, has a show
17 called "10 Per Cent QTV" in Toronto which covers a
18 range of lesbian and gay issues on a regular basis. I
19 am aware of a cable channel in Vancouver which has a
20 program called "Outlook," a similar channel in Montreal
21 and there are other similar experiences.
22 16264 One of the roles which we feel is
23 very important that the CRTC continue to have is to
24 ensure that there is diversity in Canadian programming
25 is recognized, respected, and actively promoted amongst
StenoTran
3434
1 broadcasters and those seeking to obtain licences in
2 relation to the values which underpin our broadcasting
3 system.
4 16265 I would refer to Section 3 of the
5 Broadcasting Act, which talks about the importance of
6 safeguarding, enriching, and strengthening the
7 cultural, political, social and economic fabric of
8 Canada, as well as the encouragement of the development
9 of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of
10 programming which reflects Canadian attitudes,
11 opinions, ideas, values, and artistic integrity.
12 16266 In terms of the values which
13 underpin Canadian society, I believe the Supreme Court
14 has now recognized in a number of cases, such as Egan
15 v. Canadair and Vriend v. Alberta.
16 16267 The lesbians and gays are one of the
17 groups protected by The Charter of Rights. The
18 commitment in the Broadcasting Act to equal rights and
19 to diversity should include a respect for the equal
20 rights and the diversity which incorporates the
21 expression of the lesbian and gay identity.
22 16268 And also the Supreme Court has
23 recognized that expressions which take away from those
24 values are discriminatory and do contravene the
25 Canadian Charter of Rights.
StenoTran
3435
1 16269 So, clearly, I think there is a
2 two-level approach which is important. On the one
3 hand, the fostering of diversity and positive images.
4 On the other hand, the regulatory system to take
5 appropriate sanctions when there are negative or
6 hateful expressions of what it is to be lesbian and
7 gay.
8 16270 We are aware, of course, that one of
9 the other values of the broadcasting system is freedom
10 of expression and that that incorporates for some the
11 ability to express views about homosexuality or gays or
12 lesbians with which our organization might not concur.
13 16271 Clearly, however, there is a line
14 that can be crossed. It is a line that we have seen
15 occasionally, I think, in relation particularly to
16 some of the American television evangelists, who, in
17 some cases, have gone so far as to actively promote
18 lesbians and gays as an abomination, in some cases,
19 implicitly or explicitly to suggest that we are not
20 worthy of survival even or that are sanctioned by God
21 or by the Bible.
22 16272 We are aware of cases in which the
23 CRTC has intervened and we are aware of cases in which
24 broadcasters have agreed to conduct sensitivity
25 training, for instance, following interventions by the
StenoTran
3436
1 CRTC. And I believe there have been cases where
2 particular broadcasters, particular programs, have been
3 removed from the airwaves because of their highly
4 hostile and nature in the promotion of hatred against
5 gays and lesbians.
6 16273 And so those are the key themes that
7 EGALE would like to see strengthened in CRTC
8 regulations. We believe that there could be greater
9 clarity around what is required to affirm diversity and
10 to ensure that negative portrayals are not the norm.
11 16274 I have the benefit, actually, of
12 receiving the written brief of the group which is to
13 follow us, the Centre for Research Action on Race
14 Relations. They are a group with which we have had
15 dealings in the past, and I am pleased to note at the
16 end of their brief there are a number of very specific
17 recommendations around diversity issues and employment
18 equity and strengthening that within the Canadian
19 broadcasting system.
20 16275 I won't repeat those here because
21 that group can work through their recommendations in
22 greater detail. Except to say that having had a chance
23 to review them, I am confident that EGALE is pleased to
24 endorse those, and that we would certainly look to add
25 to some of the measures recommended there, specific
StenoTran
3437
1 measures incorporating respect for gays and lesbians
2 and the need to promote diversity in that field.
3 16276 Ron, do you want to add to that?
4 16277 MR. CHAPLIN: Just a few things.
5 Thank you, John. Merci, Madame la Présidente and
6 Commissioners.
7 16278 As you know, my name is Ron Chaplin.
8 I am a long standing member of EGALE, and I am also a
9 member and a sometimes spokesperson for the Task Group
10 on Gays and Lesbians of the Diocese of Ottawa of the
11 Anglican Church of Canada.
12 16279 My message to you today is very short
13 and it is very simple. I am here today simply to say
14 thank you, to thank you for the standards which you
15 apply in the regulation of religious broadcasting in
16 this country.
17 16280 In many parts of the world, the gay
18 and lesbian community is one of the favoured targets of
19 religious zealots. In Canada, our broadcasting
20 regulations are now clear. Messages of hatred
21 targeting an identifiable community will not be
22 tolerated on the public airwaves.
23 16281 Within my own church, I am actively
24 involved in the debate on homosexuality. For many of
25 us, this is a deeply divisive issue. Our debates and
StenoTran
3438
1 our disagreement are vigorous. They are at the same
2 time civilized and respectful. The Canadian public, I
3 feel, expects no less from our broadcasters.
4 16282 This Commission, as well as the
5 Government of Canada and Canada's courts recognize the
6 line which separates freedom of expression and freedom
7 of religious expression from messages which incite
8 hatred. It is one of those things which makes my
9 Canadian citizenship one of my most valued attributes.
10 16283 So on behalf of my community and on
11 behalf of the members of EGALE, I simply want to say
12 thank you. Merci beaucoup.
13 16284 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
14 Gentlemen. Commissioner Pennefather?
15 16285 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you,
16 both, very much and thank you for being here today.
17 16286 You have been quite clear in your
18 written submission and this afternoon. So I don't have
19 too many questions, but I would like to expand on a few
20 of the points you have raised.
21 16287 First, though, the picture you
22 painted this afternoon, was I right in hearing that you
23 think that there is generally a better or fairer
24 picture on our television screens than what was
25 described in the written submission where I read a much
StenoTran
3439
1 more negative review? For example, that a community
2 filled with creativity so rarely has an opportunity to
3 express itself on the airwaves is not only unfair but
4 denies the broader society the chance to see its own
5 diversity. You have seen some improvement, you are
6 saying today.
7 16288 MR. FISHER: Yes, I would say it is a
8 balance between the two perspectives that you have
9 identified. I think, clearly, when you look at where
10 we have come from even 10 years ago, there has been a
11 substantial step forward and it is encouraging to us to
12 see now more regular representations of gays and
13 lesbians on television programming.
14 16289 However, it still tends to be
15 something of a marginalized representation. Lesbian
16 and gay characters frequently play nothing more than a
17 supporting role.
18 16290 And the controversy that has erupted
19 fairly recently over having a leading character, such
20 as Ellen Degeneres in her own sitcom coming out as a
21 lesbian was encouraging that that step was being taken,
22 although the show has now been cancelled for reasons
23 which we can only speculate on.
24 16291 ut it was nonetheless still a first
25 in that there weren't any other shows on the airwaves
StenoTran
3440
1 in which lesbians and gays were portraying the central
2 and leading characters. And being a first still acted
3 as a lightning rod for a lot of hostility in society
4 for many who wished to see fewer portrayals or any
5 negative portrayals of gays and lesbians.
6 16292 There was systematic targeting of the
7 advertisers of that show which may or may not have
8 contributed to its withdrawal.
9 16293 In addition, there are a handful of
10 shows produced by and for the lesbian and gay community
11 and that is still not widespread. And so I would say
12 that the comments in our written statement are still
13 accurate, that there is a lot of scope for development
14 there.
15 16294 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I raise it
16 also from the point of view of in fact your written
17 submission and how one moves forward and ask what you
18 think has caused the improvement, albeit I accept it is
19 not where it should be, what have been the forces at
20 play that have at least changed the picture? And I am
21 speaking about the Canadian environment.
22 16295 I understand that Ellen's show was
23 quite a lightning rod for discussion around this area,
24 both the actress and the character in terms of your
25 point, but, in Canada, what has brought about change?
StenoTran
3441
1 What has worked?
2 16296 MR. FISHER: It is difficult to point
3 to any signal factor. It is clear that there has been
4 a shift forward in both the political and the legal
5 environment that with the increase of legislation
6 prohibiting discrimination, more and more gays and
7 lesbians are willing to be open about themselves and
8 their identities, willing to break the silence and the
9 invisibility that has shrouded our lives often in the
10 past.
11 16297 As a result, I think that helps to
12 create a social environment where more and more people
13 come to personally know gays and lesbians and recognize
14 that we are not the monsters portrayed by the
15 stereotypes.
16 16298 At the same time, I think that works
17 hand in hand with the question of public and media
18 representation. I think whereas in terms of news
19 items, for example, the only references in the media at
20 all that I heard growing up about homosexuality were
21 arrests of gay men by police forces in various
22 circumstances.
23 16299 And I think that we can't
24 underestimate the power of broadcasting in
25 communicating an image of who we are as Canadians and
StenoTran
3442
1 who is included in our society and who is not.
2 16300 Our work as an organization is
3 focused on political and legal interventions.
4 16301 Many people to whom I have spoken
5 have said that they feel that the increase in
6 representations of gays and lesbians on the airwaves
7 will do far more to further equality for gays and
8 lesbians in this country and the respect for that
9 segment of society than any piece of legislation or
10 legal change that we might seek to obtain would do.
11 16302 So it is clear to me that even within
12 the Canadian environment, some fairly simple steps,
13 like recently this year, adding sexual orientation to
14 Alberta's Human Rights legislation, nonetheless can
15 provoke a large social backlash and, fortunately, in
16 society that change is now being accepted, endorsed,
17 and is part of the human rights protections which exist
18 there.
19 16303 But there was still a widespread
20 organized effort in the society against what ought to
21 have been a fairly straightforward legal step to bring
22 the human rights legislation into conformity with the
23 Charter of Rights.
24 16304 So we feel very much that there is a
25 shift forward. There is a long way to go and that a
StenoTran
3443
1 central part of the progress that has been made has
2 been the increased willingness to present a more varied
3 portrayal of gays and lesbians on the airwaves.
4 16305 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So,
5 indeed, it is a combination of presence in terms of the
6 visible presence of gay and lesbians on the airwaves,
7 stories that are more variant and diverse and not
8 stereotypical employment in the sense of, and correct
9 me if I am wrong, in the sense of accessibility, having
10 people who are not only employed but also who are able
11 to make choices from various points of view.
12 16306 This brings me to the question, you
13 mentioned employment equity in your support for CRARR
14 in that effect and looking at current employment equity
15 policy in this country. Is there some specific
16 recommendation you are making in that regard?
17 16307 MR. FISHER: Yes, I think, as you
18 say, many of the decisions made by broadcasters are
19 going to depend, in turn, upon their own work
20 environment, and just as employment equity for women
21 seeks to place women in positions where they can have a
22 direct influence upon the internal decisions that are
23 made by the institutions in society, so to it is
24 important that, hopefully, there will be a welcoming
25 environment within broadcasters but at the least there
StenoTran
3444
1 not be a negative or a hostile environment.
2 16308 One of the recommendations being made
3 by the organization to follow us is that employment
4 equity in the workplace should be a condition of
5 granting a licence to broadcasters.
6 16309 Lesbians and guys are currently
7 seldom included within specific employment equity
8 programs, but we are frequently included now within
9 work place anti-discrimination measures and we would
10 expect, at the least, that an organization seeking to
11 obtain a licence maintain an anti-discrimination policy
12 and clearly spell out that lesbians and gays are
13 accepted members of the workplace and they will not
14 discriminate against gays and lesbians, given that
15 non-discrimination is one of the values of the Charter
16 of Rights and is reiterated and affirmed in the
17 Broadcasting Act. I think that the least that can be
18 expected of a broadcaster is that they will not
19 themselves seek to promote discrimination against gays
20 and lesbians and maintain that in their own workplace
21 as an example.
22 16310 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I am
23 assuming in saying this that you are aware of the
24 CRTC's current role as far as employment equity is
25 concerned. I am sure you are up to date on the various
StenoTran
3445
1 regulations regarding who we deal with in terms of
2 employment equity and who we don't.
3 16311 MR. FISHER: Yes, I wouldn't pretend
4 to be the expert but I have some of the materials which
5 spell out some of the current programs.
6 16312 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: But I take
7 your point that what you are putting on the table is
8 anti-discriminatory practices in the workplace.
9 16313 MR. FISHER: Correct.
10 16314 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: As a
11 component. I want to come in then closer to what you
12 said about there is a two-level approach fostering
13 change and regulation and you used the word
14 "sanctions." What are you referring to?
15 16315 MR. FISHER: Well, we are aware, as I
16 say, of instances where complaints have been laid to
17 the CRTC as a result of particular hostile broadcasting
18 or a program which has been a cause of concern. I
19 understand that is what you were referring to also,
20 Ron?
21 16316 MR. CHAPLIN: Indeed. Indeed, and
22 from what I understand, I am confident now that in the
23 area of religious broadcasting that the CRTC has made
24 its position very, very well known to the broadcasters
25 in this country and this is certainly a positive step
StenoTran
3446
1 forward.
2 16317 This also brings to mind, though, the
3 previous intervener spoke about Howard Stern and
4 certainly that was a completely tasteless programming.
5 We also within the gay and lesbian community, we find
6 ourselves often still targets in local radio programs,
7 and I am thinking specifically of open line talk shows
8 and such on and so forth and that I would expect that
9 that area of complaint will probably continue.
10 16318 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So you are
11 looking to the current complaint process, the self
12 regulatory system in terms of alerting the broadcasting
13 community to where various comments across the line and
14 enter into what the broadcasting regulations refer to
15 as abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation.
16 16319 MR. CHAPLIN: Indeed.
17 16320 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: The
18 television broadcasting regulations.
19 16321 MR. CHAPLIN: And I think the
20 Commission now has an excellent track record and it has
21 done such in the area of religious broadcasting
22 television. The Commission has an excellent track
23 record that it understands the difference between
24 freedom of expression and inciting hatred.
25 16322 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I am glad
StenoTran
3447
1 you raise freedom of expression because I was going to
2 also expand the discussion into how all of this really
3 works out, in fairness to all.
4 16323 From my experience, this issue of a
5 certain degree of control, which is under the Acts and
6 under the Regulations, versus freedom of speech and
7 freedom of expression comes into play.
8 1600
9 16324 It also goes so far as to say if you
10 are looking at representation, be it pictorial, be it
11 stories, be it employment, you may be invading the
12 privacy of an individual in terms of determining
13 whether that individual is man, woman, black, white,
14 gay, straight, whatever. This is a point that was
15 raised some time ago at some of the public
16 organizations with whom I have worked.
17 16325 Can you clarify what you think is the
18 best approach in fact in terms of fairness and yet in
19 terms of increasing the presence of under-represented
20 groups in our society, both in terms of stories and in
21 terms of those who work behind the scenes, which is a
22 two-pronged approach, which I think is very important.
23 Do we risk at any time invasion of privacy of an
24 individual and do we risk at any time censorship?
25 16326 MR. CHAPLIN: If I can address that
StenoTran
3448
1 issue briefly, it strikes me that there are two issues
2 at play here. One is the employment equity issue and
3 in my former place of employment the privacy concerns,
4 that balancing act. It is a very delicate balancing
5 act between privacy concerns and employment equity and
6 I think that's going to continue to be a grey area for
7 some time. Certainly you don't want to force people to
8 identify if they are members of -- they consider
9 themselves to be a member of an oppressed minority.
10 16327 What I find very hopeful, though, is
11 what we have seen in the Canadian television
12 broadcasting industry over the last few years. When we
13 look at portrayals of gays and lesbians in America, it
14 seems to be the situation comedy that is the method of
15 choice, being that it has never been a particularly
16 popular mode in Canada. We started with satirical
17 programming and I am thinking of that blessed group
18 from Newfoundland who invented "Codco" and then "This
19 Hour Has 22 Minutes" and, of course, "Kids in the Hall"
20 and some of their portrayals of the community.
21 16328 But I am even more encouraged at what
22 we are seeing by both our French language and English
23 broadcasters. I think, for example, of Maggie
24 Kinsella, who is best known as a lesbian stand-up
25 comic, who stood in for an extended period for Ralph
StenoTran
3449
1 Benmergui on CBC Newsworld, someone who is publicly
2 known as a lesbian taking on a spokesmanship role on a
3 public affairs program. I think of the same example
4 with former Quebec Cabinet Minister and sometimes gay
5 activist Claude Charron in Quebec and I believe on TVA
6 he had a long-running public affairs show. I think
7 these are very positive and very encouraging signs of
8 our broadcasting industry promoting this kind of
9 diversity.
10 16329 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Indeed,
11 you made the point that the creativity of everyone in
12 this country should be allowed to express itself and
13 the community which we are addressing, the gay and
14 lesbian community, has had already an enormous
15 contribution to make. It's nice to see that we are
16 recognizing that in more concrete ways.
17 16330 You make an important point about
18 community channels in your written submission. I think
19 I am understanding your point to be that in Public
20 Notice 1992-59 certainly there was the point that the
21 cable industry was no longer required to provide
22 community channels or, that is to say, to provide local
23 expression, although community channels still exist out
24 there. You raise the point that you want access --
25 they have been instructive, informative, you mentioned
StenoTran
3450
1 "QTV" and "Outlook".
2 16331 In your experience, have cable
3 operators denied you access to community channels?
4 That was my reading of your -- such as they exist now,
5 are you denied access to community channels for
6 programming specifically designed for the gay and
7 lesbian community?
8 16332 MR. FISHER: I think in our written
9 submission we weren't intending to say that that had
10 been our own experience and as an organization, since
11 we are not in the business of seeking access, it's
12 difficult for us to offer an opinion as to whether that
13 has been a real problem. Actually, the purpose of the
14 comments in the written submissions was just to affirm
15 the value of the community channels and recognize that
16 that has been an important source for our community in
17 being able to express itself and seek greater
18 visibility and enhanced representation.
19 16333 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So, my
20 understanding then is "In keeping with these channels'
21 mandate ... the CRTC must ensure access to programming
22 cannot unreasonable or unfairly be denied" is more of a
23 comment on the system itself and the presence of the
24 community channel in system as a whole?
25 16334 MR. FISHER: Exactly. It's a comment
StenoTran
3451
1 on the role that we see the community channels playing
2 within the system and the goal of ensuring that access
3 to those channels remains open. We wouldn't express an
4 opinion in terms of currently whether there have been
5 problems that ought to be addressed, but just to ensure
6 that there is broad access.
7 16335 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: That's my
8 point. Are there problems that should be addressed
9 currently?
10 16336 MR. FISHER: That's what I am saying.
11 We ourselves as an organization have not had actual
12 experience and can't, therefore, comment on that, but
13 we do recognize and affirm the value of community
14 channels. So, as you say, the comment in the written
15 statement is to affirm the value of that within the
16 system as a whole and the objective of ensuring that it
17 remain open.
18 16337 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I
19 appreciate your being here and your comments in
20 summary, of course. We are dealing largely with the
21 conventional private broadcast system here and I
22 wondered if you could just summarize quickly what you
23 think we should be doing to address your concerns
24 regarding the gay and lesbian community which you have
25 expanded on this afternoon. In other words, we are
StenoTran
3452
1 moving forward, but we have to continue to move
2 forward. What specifically would you suggest that the
3 CRTC do in this regard?
4 16338 MR. CHAPLIN: Well, first, I will
5 come back to the point of commending the Commission for
6 understanding the limits of freedom of speech and
7 freedom of expression. I think you have established a
8 very good role to establish the ground rules and what
9 is not acceptable in the Canadian broadcasting
10 industry.
11 16339 Beyond that, I would again just
12 stress what John has said in relation to the other
13 witnesses you have been hearing through the course of
14 these hearings concerned about the diversity of the
15 Canadian community. This is a key both to our body
16 politic and to the public airwaves in this country and
17 the members of EGALE are simply seeking or reminding
18 you that the gay and lesbian community is but one other
19 reflection of this diversity of the Canadian cultural
20 community.
21 16340 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Very
22 quickly may I ask you then in terms of a goal of
23 diversity, are you supportive then of, for example, the
24 proposals of the CFTPA to increase Canadian content or
25 the Directors Guild of Canada to increase Canadian
StenoTran
3453
1 content on Canadian airwaves? Is this connected to
2 your goals?
3 16341 MR. CHAPLIN: Well, I would be
4 speaking as an individual, but also I think I could
5 speak for the community. If our concern is access to
6 the public through the Canadian airwaves, it stands to
7 reason that you can't rely on foreigners to do that for
8 you.
9 16342 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you
10 very much.
11 16343 That completes my questions, Madam
12 Chair.
13 16344 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
14 Cardozo?
15 16345 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you,
16 Madam Chair.
17 16346 I would just like to pick up on one
18 of the sections that Commissioner Pennefather was
19 talking about and that's number 8. I will just read
20 you the sentence. You say:
21 "That a community filled with
22 creativity so rarely has an
23 opportunity to express itself on
24 the airwaves is not only unfair,
25 but denies the broader society
StenoTran
3454
1 the chance to see its own
2 diversity."
3 16347 It strikes me that the entertainment
4 industry is one of the industries that has been more
5 hospitable to people who are openly gay and lesbian.
6 Maybe I am jumping to conclusions. So, (a) is it fair
7 to assume that's one of the industries that has had a
8 longer track record of being more open to people who
9 are open and, secondly, is there a difference between
10 people in the industry on this question versus the
11 people who are reflected in film? I would include the
12 music industry and the film and television industries.
13 16348 MR. FISHER: I would say that within
14 the entertainment industry, as with other sectors of
15 society, it's a continuum where we are moving towards a
16 more tolerant environment where people are freer to
17 express themselves. I wouldn't say that it follows
18 from that that the entertainment industry is
19 necessarily a safe haven for gays and lesbians to be
20 open and to express themselves.
21 16349 Without being a member of that
22 industry, certainly the reporting suggests that there
23 remain parameters which restrict the extent to which
24 people are able to advance in the industry. There are
25 concerns that one frequently has articulated about
StenoTran
3455
1 people not wanting to portray those male gay characters
2 for fear of being identified as lesbian or gay
3 themselves, for fear of being typecast and not being
4 able to play other than lesbian or gay characters or
5 just for fear that the general attitudes of intolerance
6 which still exist within that industry, as within other
7 on some sectors, may limit the opportunities for
8 advancement.
9 16350 So, I certainly believe that the
10 greater representation that has taken place in recent
11 years is a reflection of more tolerant attitudes within
12 the industry itself, but I wouldn't assert that we can
13 rely upon that environment of tolerance to ensure that
14 there is appropriate representation and that is why we
15 feel that it's important that the CRTC continue to be
16 vigilant in terms of the kinds of interventions that it
17 makes.
18 16351 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Have you as an
19 organization or other organizations worked with
20 broadcasters and/or producers or had discussions with
21 them to talk about portrayal issues?
22 16352 MR. FISHER: Not directly. We have
23 certainly been contacted by members of EGALE who have
24 been concerned at particular programs that they have
25 seen and who have involved us or sought our advice or
StenoTran
3456
1 wanted to know who they could turn to in terms of
2 expressing that concern. So, we have had some degree
3 of involvement there, but we haven't tended to be
4 involved directly with broadcasters in terms of
5 discussing what appropriate standards to apply, what
6 kind of representations are affirmed into the
7 community, what kind of representations are less so.
8 16353 We have on occasion been involved in
9 sensitivity awareness workshops in other sectors. At
10 the end of this month, for example, I am participating
11 in a workshop at a conference held by the National
12 Judicial Institute, where myself and a colleague will
13 be going through a workshop with representations of
14 lesbians and gays within the legal system. So, we have
15 some background there and certainly if it was felt that
16 there was scope for EGALE involving itself in helping
17 to identify suitable standards or look at workshops or
18 sensitivity programs, it would require some work on our
19 part, but it's certainly something we would be
20 receptive to.
21 16354 MR. CHAPLIN: I would just note in
22 passing that there is now across Canada a network of
23 local gay and lesbian organizations, many of which do
24 take upon themselves this mandate of sensitizing local
25 medias. It's usually done with print media, but it can
StenoTran
3457
1 also be done with electronic media to try to do some
2 sensitivity training on appropriate spokesmanship and
3 an appropriate characterization of issues as they
4 affect the gay and lesbian community. So, that happens
5 in Canada, again largely at the local level.
6 16355 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Is that more
7 in the news area as opposed to TV entertainment drama
8 meeting with producers, focusing on --
9 16356 MR. CHAPLIN: These local activities
10 tend to focus, yes, on news reporting.
11 16357 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks very
12 much.
13 16358 Thanks, Madam Chair.
14 16359 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
15 gentlemen, for your appearance.
16 16360 Madam Secretary, would you call the
17 next participant, please?
18 16361 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
19 16362 The next presentation will be done by
20 the Centre for Research Action on Race Relations/Centre
21 de recherche-action sur les relations raciales.
22 16363 1615
23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon,
24 gentlemen. Go ahead when you are ready.
25 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
StenoTran
3458
1 16364 M. BÉLIARD: Madame la Présidente,
2 Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers, au nom du Centre
3 de recherche-action sur les relations raciales, je vous
4 remercie de nous avoir accordé l'occasion de participer
5 à ces audiences publiques. Je me présente, mon nom est
6 Ronald Béliard, trésorier et ex-président du CRARR, et
7 ex-membre du conseil d'administration de Radio-Québec.
8 Je suis accompagné de M. Fo Niemi, directeur général du
9 CRARR, le Centre de recherche-action sur les relations
10 raciales.
11 16365 Notre intervention d'aujourd'hui aura
12 lieu dans les deux langues officielles.
13 16366 CRARR is honoured to present to the
14 CRTC its views and opinions on issues facing Canadian
15 television for the next decade and also for the next
16 century, especially where Canadian diversity in
17 television programming is concerned. CRARR wishes to
18 commend the CRTC for its decision to review the
19 Canadian Television Policy and to call for public
20 comments on this matter, and to applaud the CRTC for
21 including a specific section on diversity, which serves
22 as a reminder of the importance of this aspect in the
23 Canadian broadcasting system.
24 16367 As far as for the challenges for
25 Canadian television in the 21st century, three of the
StenoTran
3459
1 most significant issues where our intervention is
2 concerned are, first of all, the globalization of the
3 economy and culture; second, the advancement of
4 information technology; and the fundamental demographic
5 shifts that alter the Canadian social, cultural,
6 economic and political landscape.
7 16368 The first two issues are often
8 covered and discussed in numerous forms and papers that
9 do not require really elaboration in our submission.
10 One factor remains of special concern to CRARR, and it
11 is the dominance of American programs on Canadian
12 television and movie screens, due partly to the
13 pervasive influence of American culture on many parts
14 of the world, including Europe and the Asia-Pacific
15 Rim, where, traditionally, individual countries from
16 these continents have strong histories and cultures of
17 their own.
18 16369 The American influence brings with it
19 distorted images of members of racial minorities in the
20 U.S.A. that reinforce stereotypes and promote bias
21 against racial minorities in Canada. The other factor
22 is that, under international free trade rules, some
23 Canadian policies related to Canadian radio and
24 television, such as Canadian content rules, employment
25 equity and other codes of the portrayal of women,
StenoTran
3460
1 advertisement directed at children and violence, may
2 become, over time, vulnerable to foreign countries'
3 pressures and can be deemed to be protectionist
4 policies.
5 16370 We believe that it is essential that
6 the Government of Canada can develop and adopt strong
7 policy positions on these matters in order to ensure
8 that Canadian radio and television programming in both
9 English and French remains strong so as to remain
10 distinctively Canadian and withstand pressures in other
11 forms of "Hollywoodization". One of the best ways for
12 Canadian programming to remain and evolve in a uniquely
13 Canadian world is to ensure that the basic principles
14 governing the Canadian broadcasting system, as found in
15 article 3(1)(c) of the Act, are implemented, especially
16 where diversity is concerned.
17 16371 As you know, ethno-cultural and
18 racial diversity remains, in our opinion, a cornerstone
19 of the Canadian broadcasting policy in general, and
20 Canadian television in particular, as much as it is a
21 fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. You
22 know as well that the most recent census data confirms
23 this fact. Out of a total of 28.5 million, 8.1 million
24 Canadians, or just about 29 per cent, reported single
25 or multiple origins other than French, British or
StenoTran
3461
1 Canadian, and the number of visible minorities is
2 somewhere around 11.2 per cent; and about 1.1 million
3 also reported aboriginal ancestry.. These demographic
4 shifts will continue.
5 16372 For Quebec, principal home of the
6 French-speaking culture and media in Canada, it is also
7 important to note that 14.9 per cent of the province
8 population reported single and multiple origins of it
9 in French, British or Canadian, and also visible
10 minorities represent 6 per cent of the Quebec
11 population.
12 16373 M. NIEMI: je voudrais parler
13 brièvement maintenant des problèmes de
14 sous-représentation de la diversité dans les médias, et
15 je vous remercie, Mesdames et Messieurs les
16 Conseillers, de votre patience aussi. C'est notre
17 dernière présentation de la journée, c'est la pleine
18 lune, il pleut, il fait froid, on est fatigués, donc on
19 va essayer d'aller un peu plus vite.
20 16374 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ne vous inquiétez pas
21 pour nous, il est très tôt.
22 16375 M. NIEMI: D'accord.
23 16376 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous avons siégé
24 jusqu'à après sept heures plus d'une fois.
25 16377 M. NIEMI: Ah, oui? D'accord. Donc
StenoTran
3462
1 je vous remercie quand même.
2 16378 Je crois que plusieurs intervenants
3 dans leur présentation écrite ou orale ont déjà fait
4 part de la sous-représentation et un manque de reflet
5 adéquat de la réalité multiculturelle et multiraciale
6 de la société canadienne à la télévision canadienne,
7 tant en français qu'en anglais. Selon nous, cette
8 représentation inadéquate, ou sous-représentation, ou
9 exclusion compromet l'essentiel même de la culture,
10 l'identité et la conscience nationale canadienne.
11 16379 Peut-être que dans le secteur
12 francophone un meilleur exemple de cette
13 sous-représentation est la programmation télévisuelle
14 la plus récente de l'automne, et quand on regarde la
15 télévision française ou franco-québécoise, on n'a qu'à
16 constater la difficulté à compter sur les deux mains le
17 nombre de rôles de premier plan dans les émissions de
18 variétés et les téléromans qui appartiennent à des
19 comédiens ou à des animateurs issus de diverses
20 origines.
21 16380 On the English side, if we look at
22 whether it is public broadcasting, CBC, or private
23 companies, it is very hard to find the number of
24 productions, high budget, high quality productions such
25 as those equivalent to "Anne of Green Gables", but that
StenoTran
3463
1 relate the stories and the voices of Canadians other
2 than French, English or even aboriginal ancestries.
3 16381 Now, we believe that, of course,
4 racism has a part to play in it, or in a more delicate
5 way, the resistance to racial and ethno-cultural
6 diversity on the part of the media. This resistance,
7 what it does is, it leads to the perpetual portrayal of
8 Canadian society as being a bilingual and to a certain
9 extent a very mono-racial if not bicultural country.
10 16382 Since we are talking about the next
11 century, we have to bold, we have to be daring and we
12 also have to be courageous in order to look at the kind
13 of realities presented by the demographic shifts that
14 my colleague has talked about earlier.
15 16383 Another reason why we believe that
16 the diversity of our country is not fully reflected in
17 Canadian television programming is due to the lack of
18 effective, consistent and vigorous policies on
19 employment equity and diversity in programming, and the
20 mechanisms that enforce these policies, both within the
21 CRTC and other regulatory or enforcement agencies. We
22 have recently completed an analysis of a study on the
23 issue of visible minorities in the Quebec media, both
24 in print and electronic, and part of this study
25 consisted of an analysis of the laws and policies on
StenoTran
3464
1 employment equity, especially where the Canadian Human
2 Rights Commission and the CRTC are concerned.
3 16384 Some of those we would call it
4 perhaps "weaknesses" in the way that equity is enforced
5 have to do with a lack of enforcement, a lack of oral
6 questioning of broadcasters at hearings, equity not
7 being conditions of a licence, and also the lack of
8 consolidation of data and policy within the CRTC,
9 because we believe that the policy, because of the
10 amendments brought on by the new Employment Equity
11 Act -- the present policy is spread throughout, in four
12 or five documents at this point in time. Therefore, a
13 uniform approach to equity within the CRTC is very
14 difficult to decipher.
15 16385 We believe that for the CRTC in
16 particular, the tools, the legislative -- the regular
17 tools are there, and not to enforce them could subject
18 the CRTC credibility to greater public scrutiny,
19 especially in matters of employment, equity and
20 diversity programming. Further, the lack of
21 implementation of many of these policies or the
22 regulations in matters of equity or broadcast
23 standards, as in the case of Howard Stern, which was
24 mentioned before -- when the lack of this enforcement
25 or implementation results in discrimination towards
StenoTran
3465
1 protected groups, this kind of inaction, or lack of
2 action, can expose the CRTC to Charter challenges under
3 sections 15, 27 and 28.
4 16386 At this point in time, a Charter case
5 involvement in the CRTC handling of the Howard Stern
6 controversy, especially the delegation of its
7 administrative authority to private industry
8 self-regulatory bodies, as well as the analysis of the
9 CRTC of the Groupe TVA application for a private
10 national broadcasting service in French will provide
11 perhaps interesting test cases as to the role and
12 responsibility of the CRTC in enforcing certain
13 diversity equity provisions under the law.
14 16387 This is why we believe that it is
15 important that the CRTC plays a leadership, proactive
16 and sometimes more aggressive role in addressing issues
17 of equity and diversity in television and in the
18 Canadian broadcasting and communications system as a
19 whole, because it goes to the heart of the CRTC's
20 ability to redefine Canadian television, Canadian
21 broadcasting and Canadian culture for the next century.
22 16388 Nous avons présenté dans notre
23 mémoire un certain nombre de recommandations qui
24 commencent avec un cadre conceptuel selon lequel il
25 faut que le CRTC articule un nouveau cadre conceptuel
StenoTran
3466
1 de ce que représente la diversité pour la télévision
2 canadienne, pour la culture canadienne et pour le
3 système de radiodiffusion du Canada. Et il faut qu'on
4 s'assure que, quand on parle de diversité, on ne parle
5 pas toujours de manière trop automatique des ressources
6 additionnelles, parce que souvent c'est cité comme une
7 raison pour ne pas agir sur la question de la
8 diversité, et nous voulons aussi, à l'intérieur de ce
9 cadre conceptuel, avoir une certaine garantie à l'effet
10 que l'émergence des services spécialisés ne compromet
11 aucunement l'obligation de la part des intervenants du
12 système de respecter les normes, les objectifs d'équité
13 de diversité dans la programmation que prescrit la loi
14 actuelle en matière de radiodiffusion.
15 16389 Nous avons ici aussi présenté de
16 manière plus détaillée des recommandations portant sur
17 l'équité en matière d'emploi, que ce soit au sein du
18 CRTC ou ailleurs, et que vous trouvez dans le mémoire.
19 Nous avons aussi mis de l'avant des propositions pour
20 améliorer la diversité dans la programmation, et là
21 encore nous insistons sur le rôle ainsi que les
22 responsabilités, tant statutaires que sociales, sinon
23 économiques, de la part du CRTC de s'assurer que la
24 diversité au sein des médias de la télévision
25 canadienne soit une réalité concrète, tangible et
StenoTran
3467
1 mesurable.
2 16390 Nous avons aussi, sur la question de
3 la diversité dans la programmation, parlé de la
4 nécessité de réexaminer les pratiques des organismes de
5 l'industrie chargés de l'autoréglementation parce que,
6 d'une part, ces organismes ne reflètent pas à
7 l'intérieur de leurs établissements la diversité
8 elle-même; deuxièmement, disons leur difficulté dans
9 certains cas, comme dans le cas de Howard Stern, à
10 mettre en oeuvre ou à faire respecter les normes de
11 radiodiffusion non discriminatoires devient parfois
12 assez évidente.
13 16391 Finalement, nous aimerions aussi
14 parler de la nécessité peut-être à un certain moment,
15 dans un autre forum, d'examiner la manière dont les
16 fonds de production privés en matière de films ou de
17 vidéos... de la manière dont ces fonds privés traitent
18 de la question de la diversité, parce que si on regarde
19 de plus en plus la production cinématographique ou
20 télévisuelle, on sait que ce sont les maisons ou les
21 fonds de production privés qui en sont les moteurs
22 principaux, les moteurs de promotion de ces productions
23 privées.
24 16392 Nous avons aussi peut-être une
25 suggestion, qu'il faut qu'on accorde une attention
StenoTran
3468
1 assez -- est-ce que le mot serait "particulière" ou
2 "distincte" -- à la manière dont la diversité
3 culturelle est traitée dans le secteur de la télévision
4 française, étant donné la place et le statut de la
5 langue française et des francophones au pays. À
6 certains niveaux il y a une crainte à l'effet que,
7 quand on parle de la diversité culturelle, on pense
8 seulement au Canada anglais et pas suffisamment au
9 Canada français.
10 16393 Donc, en conclusion, j'invite
11 M. Béliard à vous livrer peut-être le mot de clôture de
12 notre présentation.
13 16394 M. BÉLIARD: Pour poursuivre avec mon
14 collègue M. Niemi, c'est qu'en gros, dans la première
15 partie de notre présentation, on vous a fait peut-être
16 voir que la télévision ou la programmation télévisuelle
17 actuellement, ou l'offre télévisuelle actuellement ne
18 reflète pas nécessairement le Canada des années
19 quatre-vingt-dix. Deux problèmes qu'on a
20 particulièrement sont au niveau du manque de
21 responsabilité par rapport aux organismes
22 réglementaires dans le sens qu'il n'y a rien qui se
23 fait une fois qu'une employeur qui est soumis à la loi
24 ne soumet pas nécessairement ses données; ce n'est pas
25 vérifié, et il n'y a aucune responsabilité là-dessus.
StenoTran
3469
1 16395 Finalement, on aimerait beaucoup que
2 soit une condition de licence toute la question de
3 l'équité en matière d'emploi.
4 16396 So CRARR believes that it is
5 historically a unique opportunity for the CRTC to
6 address issues of diversity and fair representation in
7 Canadian television. It is unique in that it paves the
8 way for Canadian television in the 21st century and
9 allows for the construction of a new, enriched national
10 identity and faithfully reflects the real multicultural
11 and multiracial nature of our bilingual society.
12 16397 À cet égard, le CRTC ne doit et ne
13 peut absolument pas négliger la question de la
14 diversité car il s'agit là de respect de son mandat
15 statutaire et légal, mais il s'agit également de
16 responsabilité culturelle et sociale envers un pays
17 dont l'objectif national est de pouvoir devenir
18 concurrentiel au sein du marché économique mondial et
19 dont l'aspiration est d'être un leader et un modèle
20 pour le reste de la communauté internationale en
21 matière de communications, de la gestion de la
22 diversité et surtout de développement national.
23 16398 Nous vous remercions beaucoup de
24 votre attention et nous vous invitons à nous faire part
25 de vos questions et de vos observations. Merci.
StenoTran
3470
1 16399 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci,
2 Monsieur Béliard et Monsieur Niemi.
3 16400 La conseillère Wilson, s'il vous
4 plaît.
5 16401 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Good afternoon,
6 gentlemen.
7 16402 I am prepared to pose my questions to
8 you in one official language, but feel free to reply in
9 either one.
10 16403 It is a pleasure to have you with us
11 this afternoon. I guess I would just like to preface
12 my questions for you by acknowledging the role that you
13 played in promoting the inclusion of the phrase "the
14 multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian
15 society" in both the Broadcasting Act and the CBC's
16 mandate. It is something I find, for me anyway, it is
17 very easy in a democratic society to take those kinds
18 of phrases for granted, and I appreciate the
19 opportunity to be able to meet some of the people who
20 worked towards getting that included in both of those.
21 16404 Having said that, it is clear from
22 your submission and from your comments today that there
23 are many areas in which the Canadian broadcasting
24 system could better reflect the reality that is
25 reflected in that phrase, which is that we live in a
StenoTran
3471
1 very diverse society, and it does have a unique
2 multicultural and multiracial nature. So I would like
3 to just sort of explore some of those ideas. I have
4 some questions that are specific to your submission,
5 and I have been jotting some notes as you have been
6 talking and just would like to get your reaction to
7 some of those.
8 16405 In paragraph 6 of your submission,
9 and actually again today in your oral presentation, you
10 state that numerous changes about the national and
11 international levels have created new challenges for
12 Canadian communications and culture, including
13 broadcasting, and the three that you cite are the
14 globalization of the economy and culture, the
15 advancement of information technologies, and
16 fundamental demographic shifts that alter the Canadian
17 social, cultural, economic and political landscape.
18 16406 You refrain from expanding on the
19 first two because you say that those two have really
20 been discussed in many other places, but I can't help
21 but feeling that those three are really so inextricably
22 linked, as we move forward, that we really have to
23 discuss them in the context of your presentation.
24 16407 I am just wondering if you might
25 expand for us on how you see those two issues affecting
StenoTran
3472
1 trends in Canadian broadcasting vis-à-vis the
2 challenges they create, particularly with respect to
3 being able to reflect the diversity of Canada in the
4 broadcasting system.
5 1640
6 16408 MR. NIEMI: Well, the discussion we
7 had on the issue of globalization of the economy and
8 the culture, often people talk about the globalization
9 of the economy, but they forget the cultural component
10 of it, and usually when you talk about the
11 globalization of culture, we should have said
12 Americanization of global culture -- of cultures of the
13 world because of the power of television, and
14 particularly of American films on different cultures
15 and national consciousness, including the Canadian
16 cultural psyche.
17 16409 So that aspect of globalization, I
18 believe that France -- and my colleague here can talk a
19 about it a bit more -- France and many countries in
20 Europe resist or feel that globalized effect of
21 Americanization very strongly and are finding ways to
22 resist it. The other aspect of the globalization of
23 culture, which was also linked also --
24 16410 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Can I just ask
25 you a quick question, are the Europeans more able to
StenoTran
3473
1 resist the Americanization of their culture than we
2 are, just because of proximity? I mean, here we are,
3 right next to them.
4 16411 MR. NIEMI: Well, perhaps let me
5 clarify my statement by saying that actually, within
6 the context of Canada, how we feel the globalization of
7 culture, it is felt differently in an English-speaking
8 sector or English-speaking television as compared to
9 French-speaking television because, as you know, the
10 production ratio is really the opposite in each
11 linguistic sector.
12 16412 And coming from Quebec, we feel that
13 language is certainly a very important tool to protect
14 and also to promote the culture of at least French
15 Canada, or the other side of the Canadian culture. I
16 think the Americanization of culture is much more
17 threatening to English-speaking Canadian cultural
18 productions in television more than French T or French
19 films, in particular.
20 16413 I believe that in our discussion with
21 brainstorming and consultation that that issue is also
22 in Europe. Whether it is more francophone European
23 cultures, or English-speaking or English-oriented
24 cultures, how we receive this American influence, those
25 countries react very differently to it.
StenoTran
3474
1 16414 One other reality also related to the
2 globalization of the economy and the advancement of the
3 technologies is the fear that because technology is,
4 especially the new media, which will be the subject for
5 another hearing, and availability of specialty or pay
6 T, that the opening up of many of these sort of
7 broadcasting frontiers would allow for people from
8 different ethno-cultural backgrounds and, I mean,
9 Canadians in general, to really turn on to another
10 country's culture or television station very easily in
11 order to really find what they are looking for, based
12 on their cultural taste or the need for information or
13 entertainment.
14 16415 What it does, because those so-called
15 foreign or international programs are so available and
16 easily accessible, they could take the pressure off
17 Canadian or domestic nationally produced programs or
18 producers to continue to produce Canadian cultural
19 productions that truly reflect the culture and racial
20 diversity of Canada. Do you understand what I am -- I
21 am going to simplify it.
22 16416 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am not sure
23 that I understand what you mean. I think what you are
24 saying is that with the evolution of technology and new
25 media and web T, if that is the direction that we are
StenoTran
3475
1 going, that that will take pressure off?
2 16417 MR. NIEMI: In terms of consumer
3 demand, perhaps my colleague can elaborate on that,
4 based on his ethnic marketing experience. It is our
5 understanding in that some ethnic homes, or amongst
6 some ethnic communities, if they can have access to
7 programming --
8 16418 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Over the web.
9 16419 MR. NIEMI: -- over the web, or on
10 television, from their culture of origin, because they
11 need to look at cultural affinity or find that. And
12 that at the same time they cannot find many of those
13 cultural references or symbols in mainstream
14 conventional broadcast programs so that the preference
15 will be going towards more of those internationally or
16 foreign-produced programs.
17 16420 COMMISSIONER WILSON: And do you see
18 that as a good thing or a bad thing?
19 16421 MR. NIEMI: From a consumer
20 perspective, it could be a good thing, because it would
21 allow for a greater sense of cultural, sort of,
22 reinforcement.
23 16422 But from the industry perspective, or
24 from a perspective that involves the production of
25 Canadian programs that reflect the diversity --
StenoTran
3476
1 16423 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Distinctively
2 Canadian programs.
3 16424 MR. NIEMI: Distinctly -- that
4 reflects the multicultural and bilingual and all
5 that -- if there are no pressures or demands from
6 so-called ethnic minority consumers for greater
7 diversity in programs, because those ethnic minority
8 consumers can find other choices and options --
9 16425 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Can find it
10 elsewhere.
11 16426 MR. NIEMI: -- then the indirect
12 consequence could be that many of those distinctly
13 Canadian programs or productions will not be as diverse
14 as they should be.
15 16427 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So it could
16 have an increasingly negative impact is what you are
17 saying?
18 16428 MR. NIEMI: Exactly.
19 16429 MR. NIEMI: Yes, that is why the rise
20 of the specialty services, especially the impact of
21 ethnic broadcasting as a way to take away from the
22 pressure from mainstream conventional programs and
23 broadcasting programs should be an issue that merits
24 greater research or greater exploration.
25 16430 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Actually, I am
StenoTran
3477
1 going to ask you about that as we go along. At
2 paragraph ten of your submission, you state that:
3 "Ethno-cultural and racial
4 diversity remains a cornerstone
5 of Canadian broadcasting policy
6 and generally Canadian
7 television in particular as much
8 as it is a fundamental
9 characteristic of Canadian
10 society."
11 16431 You go on to say that:
12 "Our country's ethno-cultural
13 and racial diversity is, to this
14 day, inadequately represented in
15 Canadian television
16 programming."
17 16432 Why do you think both producers and
18 broadcasters seem to have not recognised this fact of
19 our country and reflected it in the programming that
20 they have either produced or broadcast?
21 16433 Before you answer, let me just say we
22 had a presentation on Monday, I believe it was, from
23 the Chinese Canadian National Council, and one of the
24 reasons they posited was that the reason we don't see
25 diversity reflected is because the decision-makers are
StenoTran
3478
1 still basically white males.
2 16434 And they went on to suggest that the
3 only real way to battle this systemic problem is to
4 ensure that Canada's multicultural society is reflected
5 amongst the decision-makers. So that people are
6 looking for what they know.
7 16435 And then I think you made a comment
8 today, you said, you know, racism has a part to play.
9 Do you think it is overt, or is it just because they
10 don't think about it?
11 16436 MR. NIEMI: Well, we are going to
12 split our answers, because my colleague, here, also
13 sits on a board of the Quebec equivalent of the
14 Advertising Standards Foundation -- Conseil des normes
15 de la publicité -- but anyway, so the more industry
16 perspective will come from my colleague.
17 16437 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I have some
18 more industrial questions too.
19 16438 MR. NIEMI: Okay, now, I would like
20 to, perhaps, leave with you at the end a study that we
21 did. It is called -- in '93, it is called "Les médias
22 québécois et les communautés ethnoculturelles: La
23 position des enterprises et médias."
24 16439 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You referenced
25 that in your submission --
StenoTran
3479
1 16440 MR. NIEMI: Right, yes.
2 16441 COMMISSIONER WILSON: -- and I think
3 there was a quote in here that was quite stunning.
4 16442 MR. NIEMI: Yes. Practically
5 whatever survey of major media executives in Quebec,
6 both for electronic media executives in charge of
7 employment, programming, and marketing with regard to,
8 like, audience and readership and so on and so forth.
9 So some of the major conclusions that led us to make
10 that statement in here, is that there exists, at least
11 in those days, in 1993-94, a concern by many media
12 executives to the effect that there are a large part,
13 at least of certain Quebec regions or a large part of
14 the Quebec population that is not ready or is not
15 comfortable to see so much ethnic diversity on the
16 television screen because the phenomenon of cultural
17 and racial diversity is largely in the opinion --
18 16443 COMMISSIONER WILSON: An urban
19 phenomenon.
20 16444 MR. NIEMI: -- an urban area, and I
21 believe that Toronto, Vancouver, people in Vancouver,
22 or it would be British Columbia, may make the same
23 arguments, because once you go out of greater
24 Vancouver, it is still a largely a very sort of
25 Anglo-Saxon province. So that sort of geographical
StenoTran
3480
1 consideration.
2 16445 There is also a generational factor
3 that is not talked about, because media executives tend
4 to be of a certain age group and generation, and in
5 those days in their youth, diversity is not something
6 that many of them lived or grew up with, so therefore
7 there is a certain degree of unfamiliarity and lack of
8 comfort with.
9 16446 As a matter of fact, I would like to
10 refer to a study done, I believe, by the Canadian
11 Newspaper Association in 1993, that survey about 82
12 press in 82 Canadian daily newspapers across the
13 country.
14 16447 One of the factors that they found in
15 interviewing news editors to explain the low number of
16 visible minorities in journalism and in the newsroom,
17 because many of them don't feel comfortable or ready
18 to -- how do we manage diversity? How do we deal with
19 people of different backgrounds? So that reluctance
20 could lead to the lack of reflection of --
21 16448 MR. NIEMI: What do you mean, "how do
22 they deal with them"? How do they deal with them as
23 employees?
24 16449 MR. NIEMI: Yes, as people, human
25 resource management. We are aware of some cases within
StenoTran
3481
1 certain broadcasters in Montreal, which we prefer not
2 to mention, where because you have such a low number of
3 visible minorities, journalists, or researchers in the
4 newsroom, and it creates a lot of, shall we say,
5 interpersonal relations challenges. How do people
6 relate to one another? The jokes that -- I mean, the
7 old boys used to say now they have to be more careful.
8 16450 COMMISSIONER WILSON: They probably
9 had the same issues when women started working.
10 16451 MR. NIEMI: Precisely, and those are
11 the factors that can lead to people not dealing with
12 it. And this is why, as I say, why diversity is really
13 great. It is on paper, but in practice it is a totally
14 different matter.
15 16452 We did the survey about a dozen
16 broadcasters that are regulated by the Employment
17 Equity Act, which is no longer your responsibility as
18 the CRTC. And we found that between 1998 and 1995,
19 many of these broadcasters in Montreal, for positions
20 of part-time and full-time, they called out for
21 recruitment. And recruitment were made, but
22 practically, visible minorities, year after year,
23 numbered zero, zero, zero, zero.
24 16453 There must be a very systemic reason
25 why there was no effort to employ people in all
StenoTran
3482
1 occupational categories within a media establishment,
2 not only in the newsroom.
3 16454 And this is why the question of
4 diversity has to be looked at in a very thorough
5 approach, to address on the one hand the fear or the
6 discomfort on the part of media executives and the
7 people in charge of producing what we see on T or in
8 the press. But at the same time, we have to find ways
9 to ensure that the systemic barriers, the systemic
10 racism, which is really what we are interested in as an
11 organisation, are met by systemic solutions and
12 systemic instruments in order to remove many of those
13 things.
14 16455 Many of the policies or practices may
15 not have an intention to discriminate, but they then
16 create an effect of discrimination.
17 16456 For example, I would just like to
18 take this opportunity to raise the fact that the
19 Canadian content policy, which is partly derived from
20 the CRTC that applies to Canadian production at this
21 point in time, the first clause, I believe, it said all
22 producers must be Canadian citizens. And then we went
23 on to how do we measure the number of people hired in
24 the production end to give them the points to define
25 what is Canadian content?
StenoTran
3483
1 16457 The definition of Canadian citizens
2 could be faced by a court challenge, because in 1989
3 the Supreme Court has said clearly if you use Canadian
4 citizenship as a requirement for employment, or as a
5 requirement, perhaps in this case, to determine who can
6 work in a production in order for that production to be
7 qualified as a Canadian content, that restrictive
8 definition based on citizenship could be subject to a
9 Charter challenge because it could violate section 15
10 of the Canadian charter.
11 16458 So this is part of the demographic
12 shifts and evolutions that leads to the evolution in
13 our institutional practices or policies that are not
14 always up with the changing times.
15 16459 MR. BÉLIARD: Just to perhaps add to
16 what Mr. Niemi's talking about, in 1989, I believe, we
17 had a two-day conference on advertising and visible
18 minorities. And we have mentioned about, you know, the
19 same concerns, the same problems, and then it seems to
20 me that, you know, come here and sit down even after,
21 let us say, three years, when we came to Ottawa to make
22 a presentation or make a brief about the new Employment
23 Equity legislation, is like Employment Equity
24 revisited.
25 16460 COMMISSIONER WILSON: In what way?
StenoTran
3484
1 The Employment Equity has worked, okay? There are more
2 women here than there are men.
3 16461 MR. BÉLIARD: Okay, okay, to a
4 certain extent. But regarding diversity in programming
5 and so on, there is a still a long way to go. There is
6 a lot of barriers, systemic or otherwise, and our
7 concern is that if you have a population, if you have a
8 group of customers that are willing and able to buy
9 your product or your services, I think the most basic
10 rule is perhaps to provide them with what they need,
11 what they want to buy. And unfortunately that is not
12 what we see.
13 16462 We have cultural communities, or
14 ethno-cultural communities going outside to have
15 programming which they can identify with. They go and
16 see what the Americans are producing, for example.
17 They go to the net, and then get hooked to web radio,
18 web T, and so on, to get something they don't have over
19 here.
20 16463 Parallel to that, we have the CRTC
21 and its policy on broadcasting and Canadian content and
22 so on.
23 16464 And in 1998, while we were here
24 talking, some of the same things that we were defending
25 perhaps three or five years ago are still not reflected
StenoTran
3485
1 in what we see on T when you turn on the T.
2 16465 We have had, also, numerous
3 discussions with broadcasters regarding representation
4 or fair representation, regarding multicultural and
5 multi-ethnic representation. And first they had some
6 problems. I mean, it was very hard for them to recruit
7 qualified, interested people to come and serve or come
8 and fill positions that they had.
9 16466 In 1988-1989, there was some form of
10 effort being done to attract those people, and then
11 what we see now are numbers is that, you know, that
12 number actually dropped, close to one, 2 per cent, and
13 even nothing, zero.
14 16467 And we started asking questions to
15 see what was going on, and then we realised that, you
16 know, not only that when they filled their report there
17 was no follow-up to it, and we also see that they don't
18 really bother about trying to find people to fill some
19 other positions.
20 16468 We might also say that to balance, I
21 mean, the negative aspect of that, there has also been
22 some economic pressure from different competitive
23 forces that forced them to, perhaps, restrict, or
24 restructure, or downsize their operations.
25 16469 But even though if you have about 30
StenoTran
3486
1 per cent of the population that is there, I mean,
2 captive clients or captive customers, I think it is
3 simply basic that you are going to see what you can do
4 about at least responding or answering to their needs.
5 16470 Regarding globalization, you know, as
6 me, that the CRTC, more than any other regulatory body
7 has been driven this particular century by what is
8 going on in terms of evolution in technology.
9 16471 And most of the time what is perhaps
10 a little bit frightening is that, you know, you have a
11 more reactive-type of posture than a proactive one.
12 16472 And we were wondering what will
13 happen about five years from now, with all the
14 advancing of what is going on the Internet. Or what is
15 happening in terms of communication barriers that have
16 been just broken day by day by day, that people from
17 those particular groups, okay, be it multicultural or
18 multiracial, do they have to go and turn totally away
19 from what we call Canadian content, which should be
20 representative of themselves in the Canadian society,
21 to turn around and to find something in some other
22 foreign places. What would be, then, the role and the
23 necessity?
24 16473 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Well, actually,
25 that is an interesting point that you raise, because I
StenoTran
3487
1 guess what I want to try and understand about the
2 points that you are making is, are you talking about
3 the reflection of diversity in mainstream programming,
4 or are you talking about the availability of
5 programming that reflects diversity? Because those are
6 two different things.
7 16474 The one thing is that you have your
8 conventional broadcasters and you want diversity
9 reflected in that programming.
10 16475 The other is the availability of
11 third language ethnic programming, be it, you know, the
12 multicultural stations where there is a certain amount
13 of programming available for people who come to Canada
14 from different countries of origin. Or are there the
15 two streams for you?
16 16476 MR. BÉLIARD: No, I think we are
17 talking more about mainstream. I will let Mr. Niemi
18 respond to that.
19 16477 MR. NIEMI: I am going to mention my
20 aspect of it. Not, you know, separate programming of
21 multilingual or multiracial --
22 16478 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Because as you
23 were talking, I was just thinking about what you said
24 earlier, about the fact that with web T people could,
25 essentially, turn away. Are you saying that, in
StenoTran
3488
1 effect, having multicultural channels is taking the
2 responsibility away from the mainstream broadcasters in
3 terms of reflecting diversity because it is fulfilling
4 a need?
5 16479 MR. NIEMI: Well, that could be from
6 the broadcasters' perspective, because it is just like,
7 you know, if you have a Big Mac and you have a Burger
8 King, people will go with the best hamburger possible,
9 the hamburger that really corresponds and responds to
10 their taste.
11 16480 What we have to look at is our focus
12 here on mainstream, conventional broadcasters in
13 television, because that is still the most important
14 resource and the most important communication tool, not
15 only for information, but also for the construction of
16 the Canadian identity for the next century. So we have
17 to focus on that.
18 16481 And we have to focus on the issue of
19 resource allocation, the number amount of dollars, or
20 the amount of information technologies that are
21 allocated to mainstream, conventional broadcast
22 programming and how members of minorities can have
23 access to it. So it is more than a matter of
24 consumption of a television production or a cultural
25 product.
StenoTran
3489
1 16482 It is also a matter of sharing the
2 resources and actually because it goes to the heart of
3 it, who gets the job? Who gets the dough? Who gets
4 access to play, to write, to produce, and also to
5 decide eventually what we see on Canadian television
6 screen or on other forms of media. So that is where we
7 have to look at, because we are just concerned,
8 especially in the framework of both policy-makers and
9 broadcasters, that just because there is an ethnic,
10 easy way out called, in practice, ethnic broadcasting,
11 the pressures are from the mainstream, the national
12 broadcasters. And we have found there is a thin line
13 between market demand and social responsibility.
14 16483 But we have to think less, in a
15 sense, sort of a fragmented way. I say that because
16 according to the spirit of the law, which we defended
17 at the time, is that we have to conceptualize that the
18 Canadian broadcasting system is, as a whole, a system
19 saying this is what it is, and we have to go for where
20 the most important sector is, which is -- for
21 television would be the mainstream conventional --
22 16484 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Conventional.
23 16485 MR. NIEMI: National.
24 16486 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Because that is
25 what people are watching the most.
StenoTran
3490
1 16487 MR. NIEMI: That is right.
2 16488 Otherwise, a lot of mainstream
3 broadcasters, you know, are going to say, oh, wait,
4 that is an ethnic channel, and so you go there, and so
5 we don't have to diversify our programming.
6 16489 I would just like to, perhaps,
7 complement what my colleague said earlier. In 1993-94,
8 there was a research done by Goldfarb for the Canadian
9 Advertising Foundation about the attitudes or responses
10 of Canadians to seeing visible minorities depicted in
11 advertising.
12 16490 I don't have the exact numbers, but
13 the survey revealed a very important discrepancy
14 between how ordinary Canadians react to visible
15 minorities in advertising, and how media executives or
16 marketing executives reacted to visible minorities in
17 advertising.
18 16491 Simply put, people in marketing media
19 and marketing executives were much more reluctant,
20 conservative, and slower in responding to the presence
21 of visible minorities in advertising.
22 16492 MR. BÉLIARD: I might even add that
23 in 1975, Peak Media Research then, I mean, made a
24 survey regarding the Canadian population in all the
25 major urban centres in Canada, and were asking people,
StenoTran
3491
1 if there is ethnic minorities or multiracial,
2 multicultural people in advertising or in Canadian
3 programming, what would be the problem?
4 16493 Let us say more than 75 per cent of
5 the respondents say that as long as those people are in
6 their natural and realistic environment, they don't
7 have any problem to tolerate that, to accept that view.
8 16494 COMMISSIONER WILSON: What do you
9 mean by "a natural and realistic environment"?
10 16495 MR. BÉLIARD: An environment in
11 which, you know, you present a person as a person. You
12 don't present it, like, stereotyping or things like
13 that. I mean, people know; they see them every day.
14 They work with them. They take the bus with them, so
15 they don't have any problem to look at programming
16 which reflects the real diversity of the country.
17 16496 And they realise that, you know, the
18 Canadian population is much more up to date than, you
19 know, the people --
20 16497 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Than the media
21 executives --
22 16498 MR. BÉLIARD: -- the decision-makers,
23 the media and so on.
24 16499 And then we come back and say, the
25 only regulatory body that can do something to change
StenoTran
3492
1 that may be the CRTC, you know? That is our basic
2 position. I mean, the people want it. There is no
3 problem with it. But the decision-makers from the
4 media, they have some problem with that.
5 16500 MR. NIEMI: In 1987, just to finish
6 off this issue, in 1987, we did a survey of visible
7 minorities in advertising, and we used subway
8 advertising in Montreal as a sampling methodology. The
9 end result, of course, there was not a lot of
10 minorities in ads.
11 1700
12 16501 But, at the time in 1987, we
13 recommended in a study that the CRTC, benefitting from
14 the example of a general portrayal in advertising, set
15 up a working group or something to look at the whole
16 issue of racial and ethno-cultural diversity in
17 advertising because advertising is an integral part of
18 programming, especially for television. And it affects
19 so much of what we see and how it shapes our mentality
20 and opinion that we wanted to look at that.
21 16502 And do you know what last year?
22 Again, we had to remind Eaton's. I don't want to pick
23 on Eaton's, even if we are from Quebec. We had to
24 remind Eaton's, you know, you guys, your campaign, your
25 ad campaign about the people with the black bag is
StenoTran
3493
1 great but where are the visible minorities? Where are
2 your consumers who are non-white who shop at your
3 stores? And we had to again raise the issue because 10
4 years after, the issue just didn't sink in and some
5 people just don't get it, that the people out there are
6 much more ready to look at diversity on the screens and
7 in advertising than media executives.
8 16503 By the way, the Goldfarb research
9 component dealing with Quebec show the same discrepancy
10 with regard to ordinary Quebeckers' openness to
11 diversity and Quebec advertising executives'
12 closemindedness to diversity.
13 16504 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Do you have
14 that research?
15 16505 MR. NIEMI: No, I believe you can
16 obtain it from the Advertising Standards of Canada,
17 which is now what it is called. It is based in
18 Toronto.
19 16506 MR. BÉLIARD: Canadian Advertising
20 Federation. Fédération canadienne de la publicité.
21 16507 MR. NIEMI: And it has also a race
22 relations advisory committee on that.
23 16508 MR. BÉLIARD: I might just to end
24 that, to conclude that, is one can wonder why is it we
25 have so much trouble, why is it we have so much trouble
StenoTran
3494
1 in our own communication industry. Why do broadcasters
2 have so much trouble in terms of competitiveness and
3 profitability and so on?
4 16509 You see there's a big difference
5 between what people want and what they are actually
6 providing. No reason why people are turning toward
7 other alternatives to watch programming that they could
8 find right over here.
9 16510 COMMISSIONER WILSON: It is not
10 really my place to express an opinion or answer that
11 question. So I am not going to.
12 16511 You mentioned in your remarks today
13 that the emergence of specialty services should not
14 relieve conventional broadcasters of their obligations
15 to reflect.
16 16512 But I am wondering if you have seen
17 amongst those specialty services any improvement over
18 what the conventional broadcasters are going? Have you
19 seen any qualitative difference in the programming that
20 they are presenting? And I am not talking specifically
21 about services such as South Asian television or
22 Fairchild, that are targeted at specific demographic
23 audiences, but just, in general, have you seen
24 anything?
25 16513 MR. BÉLIARD: I want to give you a
StenoTran
3495
1 quick answer. We were discussing that in the car
2 driving here, and there are two specialty channels
3 where it is evident the number of multicultural or
4 racial minorities is much more stronger than anything
5 else - the Sports Channel and the Music Channel.
6 16514 MR. NIEMI: Actually, Vision TV.
7 Again, in Quebec, certain specialty services are not
8 available to the Quebec audience, but some are slightly
9 more. Like there's Canal Famille that addresses a lot
10 of immigrant and families or inter-generational issues.
11 16515 There is another one that has to do
12 with -- Is it Canal Savoir? Also it seems to but,
13 again we don't have the empirical research data to
14 provide that.
15 16516 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That is okay.
16 I am just interested in your impressions.
17 16517 You make a number of very specific
18 recommendations in your submission with respect to
19 dealing with employment equity issues and diversity in
20 programming.
21 16518 With respect to employment equity,
22 you suggest that we make employment equity a condition
23 of licence and that we establish sanctions or other
24 measures for licensees that do not respect their
25 commitments.
StenoTran
3496
1 16519 I guess you are not in favour of
2 incentives. You don't think incentives work very well.
3 There has been a lot of talk about incentives during
4 the course of this hearing. 150 per cent. 200 per
5 cent credit for Canadian drama.
6 16520 MR. NIEMI: I think you should invite
7 Judge Rosalie Abella to come back and explain the Royal
8 Commission Report 14 years after.
9 16521 We work a lot in employment equity.
10 Some sectors respond much better than other sectors.
11 The banking sector, some banks are really a leader in
12 the field -- Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, CIBC. Some
13 are really down in the pits.
14 16522 The research we are going to release
15 a couple of days before your hearings in December will
16 show that many of the broadcasters, their report which
17 they are required to submit to Parliament, some report
18 numbers don't add up. Some of the reports after a
19 couple of pages are blank numbers with regard to
20 visible minority or even aboriginal women's
21 representations are blank tables. And these are the
22 reports that go to Human Resources Development Canada
23 for monitoring and they will go the Human Rights
24 Commission after for an audit.
25 16523 So, in other words, no, the policies,
StenoTran
3497
1 the laws here don't work as much as they should because
2 they are not applied, even though they are on paper.
3 16524 The other thing is that incentives,
4 according to many experiences we have had, both at the
5 federal/provincial levels, when the financial
6 incentives, that are usually short term, are over,
7 everything will fall apart. It's a public fact,
8 so --do we have immunity when we mention it here?
9 16525 COMMISSIONER WILSON: No, there is no
10 privilege here.
11 16526 MR. NIEMI: Well, let's say when the
12 federal Crown corporation --
13 16527 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Only if you are
14 in the House of Commons.
15 16528 MR. NIEMI: When a federal Crown
16 corporation working very closely with us was
17 considering leaving the field because it was dragged
18 before the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of
19 systemic discrimination by a women's group, in 1996,
20 the assistant vice-president for employment equity got
21 pink papers because there was a new V.P. in charge.
22 And there was a new corporate orientation. And the
23 whole Human Rights employment equity department
24 dissolved and swallowed into a labour relations
25 department with one person responsible for human
StenoTran
3498
1 rights, official language, employment equity, and so
2 many other things.
3 16529 So what we are trying to say is that
4 the laws are there, but it depends so much on each
5 individual company and the chief executive officer's
6 commitment to equity.
7 16530 And I think as a country and as a
8 system and as a democratic civil society, it is kind of
9 hard to allow for personal whims or personal sort of
10 commitments that vary from place to place.
11 16531 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I wonder if you
12 have given any thought to what kinds of sanctions might
13 provide an incentive?
14 16532 MR. NIEMI: We are studying right now
15 the way the Federal Communications Commission in the
16 United States enforces EEO -- Equal Employment
17 Opportunity Regulations -- especially in light of the
18 Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in the District of
19 Columbia that in the case the Lutheran Church of
20 Missouri that really declares the FCC's powers
21 regarding to regulating or to deciding on who gets the
22 licence based on the employment where affirmative
23 action practices are unconstitutional and invalid.
24 16533 I believe that perhaps we should look
25 at the way the FCC deals with employment equity,
StenoTran
3499
1 affirmative action employment in the United States with
2 regard to American broadcasters. Because the licensing
3 could be much stronger and much more affirmative than
4 the kind of very slow and very sort of passive in a
5 subtle way that we deal with employment equity within
6 the broadcasting sector. That's one thing.
7 16534 We recommend here just systematic or
8 a question on employment equity of licensees or a
9 potential licensee would be an interesting thing.
10 16535 As a matter of fact, for all the
11 agencies that submitted their application for December
12 the 7th hearing in Montreal, we expect to ask each and
13 every one of them with our data from the annual
14 employment equity report. The question I am going is:
15 If this is your preferment so far, how are you going to
16 perform with your new specialty services?
17 16536 And that's very important because the
18 employment equity will influence the programming. It
19 will influence the entire way the company operates
20 within not only the broadcasting system but within the
21 community toward which they have a degree of social
22 responsibility.
23 16537 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Just two more
24 questions that I have for you. With respect to
25 production funds, we have been talking a lot about the
StenoTran
3500
1 way that the fund operates and the CRTC doesn't control
2 that fund, but we are hoping to make some
3 recommendations to them flowing out of this process.
4 16538 Currently, they have a bonus system
5 now. There has been some discussion about whether or
6 not they are going to alter that system. But do you
7 think that it would be a useful incentive for producers
8 and for broadcasters if there were a bonus system for
9 reflecting diversity?
10 16539 MR. NIEMI: In our brief, we talked
11 about making equity not a condition upon the existing
12 existence of additional resources. To simply our
13 question, we should stop saying, okay, we only give you
14 more goodies if you make equity a reality.
15 16540 COMMISSIONER WILSON: No, sorry, I am
16 not talking about that. I am talking about diversity
17 in programming now.
18 16541 MR. NIEMI: That would be the same
19 thing.
20 16542 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Same thing.
21 16543 MR. NIEMI: That would be the same
22 thing because unless we treat equity or diversity in
23 all its social diversity as a fundamental and a
24 natural, a normal fact, as Mr. Parizeau would say, a
25 normal fact, a normal reality of daily life, we don't
StenoTran
3501
1 need to make it more abnormal, more special.
2 16544 The problem right now is people --
3 16545 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But I mean
4 affirmative action and employment equity in all of
5 those programs, in effect, those things are saying you
6 can't treat it as a normal fact of life because that
7 doesn't work. Is there something that needs to be done
8 to make it more normal for those people who don't find
9 it normal right now?
10 16546 MR. NIEMI: Ideally, it should be a
11 normal component of the operation. A normal component
12 of the funding. A normal component of the way they
13 operate. Unfortunately --
14 16547 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But it's not.
15 It's not. This is why we need the so-called special
16 measures. But special measures should not be made
17 conditional upon the availability of special funding or
18 special bonuses. It just meant a reorganizing of your
19 existing priority and resources to make sure they are
20 integrated within whatever you have.
21 16548 And the reason we say it is not
22 ideological because practical, a lot of people say, oh,
23 well, if you want diversity, give me more money and
24 then I will make diversity a reality. It is not
25 supposed to be that way. We have to think differently.
StenoTran
3502
1 16549 MR. BÉLIARD: And just also to answer
2 that, in 1996, when we had the legislation, it was okay
3 to provide funding to help some companies just have
4 what we call the cultural diversity training program,
5 what we call also remedies to help some company to deal
6 with the whole aspect of understanding cultural
7 diversity and so on.
8 16550 Now, in 1998, I don't think it is
9 necessary to do the same thing because they have had
10 time to adjust or to readjust to those.
11 16551 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am not sure
12 that I explained myself clearly enough. I am talking
13 about the Canadian television fund, the production
14 fund.
15 16552 MR. BÉLIARD: But to go back to the
16 funds, as an incentive, I don't think it would help
17 anything. I think the stronger --
18 16553 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Well, I mean I
19 think you get like a 50 per cent bonus if it's regional
20 and you get so much as a bonus if it's distinctively
21 Canadian. And then there is the super Canadian credit.
22 16554 What it means is it means more money
23 to the producer in terms of putting together the
24 financing to produce a program. So if they have all of
25 these elements in it, then they get more money out of
StenoTran
3503
1 the fund for producing their program. So maybe it is
2 an incentive for someone to create a program that
3 reflects the diversity of the country.
4 16555 I think Commissioner Cardozo actually
5 asked a couple of the intervenors should there be an
6 envelope in the Canadian television fund for diversity.
7 16556 MR. NIEMI: That's interesting.
8 Yesterday in Montreal there was a day long conference
9 in French called "L'interculturalisme dans les
10 pratiques culturelles."
11 16557 And the issue, and I think this
12 requires much more critical thinking and also analysis
13 as to the impact of such a special incentive is that
14 these special envelopes are necessary or are acceptable
15 to the extent they are not restrictive or limitative on
16 the ability of producer or any ethnic origin to tap
17 into other existing or available funds.
18 16558 Unfortunately, in practice, many
19 special integral cultural or race relations funds tend
20 to be, in practice, applied in a very ghettoized way.
21 16559 For example, if I were a minority,
22 because it happened in a case here with Telefilm and we
23 are looked into it, is if you are a minority artist,
24 when you apply and if they see you as a minority
25 artist, people will compartmentalize you right away and
StenoTran
3504
1 you may have restricted access to other resources that
2 may be available to everyone.
3 16560 So those special envelopes should not
4 be a ceiling. They should be a floor, just like
5 numerical objectives in equity practices.
6 16561 And, at the same time, the existence
7 of those special envelopes should not deter others, be
8 they inside or outside the system, to continue to
9 remove barriers so that artists or producers can have
10 maximum access to all kinds of funds that are normally
11 available to everyone.
12 16562 The risk of these special envelopes
13 is that they have a ghettoizing effect, if not a
14 limitative effect, that could compromise a person's
15 creativity.
16 16563 MR. BÉLIARD: I am thinking about
17 something. It is something that CRARR has done in, I
18 believe we started that in 1990 or 1991.
19 16564 We have had what we call awards of
20 excellence in ethno-cultural diversity in advertising,
21 and I believe it helps a lot the industry, particularly
22 in Quebec, okay, to make sure that they have
23 integration, they have diversity.
24 16565 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Promotes
25 sensitivity to it.
StenoTran
3505
1 16566 MR. BÉLIARD: That's it, in terms of
2 creativity. So it is more a recognition for something
3 good or something very interesting, something very
4 positive that they have done rather than before they
5 even start and say, okay, I have this available for you
6 if you do something and then you are going to be part
7 of that funding.
8 16567 It is good but I don't think it is
9 still the best way to deal with that. That recognition
10 would be a lot better.
11 16568 The knowledge also that there is some
12 regulatory body watching because it is part of their
13 mandate to make sure that you reach that, we come back
14 to the condition of licence, which I think it may
15 appear streaked, but is one of the very interesting or
16 main points of our presentation that we would like to
17 see some changes.
18 1720
19 16569 COMMISSIONER WILSON: One final
20 question for you. This is actually where I am going to
21 go back to the notion of industrial programming. In
22 your concluding comments you state that addressing
23 these issues is an issue of social and cultural
24 responsibility towards a country that is not only
25 yearning to compete in a global marketplace, but that
StenoTran
3506
1 is also aspiring to be a leader and a model for the
2 rest of the world in broadcasting diversity management
3 and, most importantly, nation-building.
4 16570 We have been talking a lot over the
5 last couple of weeks about the difference between
6 distinctively Canadian programming and industrial
7 programming, product that is created for an export
8 market versus product that's created for the indigenous
9 market. You make this comment that it's an issue of
10 social and cultural responsibility towards a country
11 that is not only yearning to compete in a global
12 marketplace.
13 16571 Do you see any contradiction at all
14 in doing a better job of reflecting the nature of our
15 country and its values to our citizens in the Canadian
16 broadcasting system and yearning to compete in a global
17 marketplace? Are the two separate?
18 16572 MR. NIEMI: Not at all because
19 increasingly culture is a very important economic
20 activity and we can just refer to the Quebec cultural
21 policy to see the fundamental link between culture and
22 economic activity. We are talking only at the domestic
23 or regional level, particularly cultural technologies,
24 cultural workers. So, in the conceptual framework, no,
25 there is no contradiction.
StenoTran
3507
1 16573 The second part is that this, I
2 believe, requires further research because in the 1980s
3 there were a lot of efforts to market Canadian
4 multiculturalism as a cultural and economic commodity
5 in tourism, in culture and in export. Unfortunately,
6 many of these initiatives didn't last very long,
7 perhaps due to a lack of interested commitment from the
8 local industries involved, but this was what we meant
9 by: How do we sell the Canadian image and Canadian
10 culture abroad and what makes it sell?
11 16574 This is something that we must admit
12 that we talk about in terms of the link between culture
13 and the economy or in terms of trade and that has to be
14 examined further because the analogy that was raised by
15 one person during the discussion is that the RCMP
16 culturally is a very big business overseas or selling
17 aboriginal artifacts and symbols. How do we use the
18 distinctive aboriginal realities of Canada and use it
19 as a trade commodity, especially in European countries?
20 16575 Aboriginal peoples really in many
21 communities look at: How do we make it more our
22 distinctive culture trade and more of an economic
23 activity, both here and to export overseas? This is
24 something that we believe there is no contradiction
25 whatsoever. It all depends how we present it, produce
StenoTran
3508
1 and market it, because our concern is as long as
2 foreign countries and all the people around the world
3 see Canada as being mostly RCMP and white males or
4 aboriginal people in feathers, that is something that
5 could be reinforcing stereotypes and make it less
6 enticing economically and culturally. So, we did talk
7 about that.
8 16576 We remember in 1985 or 1986 the
9 Department of Multiculturalism did really try to
10 explore how can we make Canadian multiculturalism,
11 especially with tourism, tourism assets, and especially
12 for culture festivals like the folk festival in
13 Drummondville.
14 16577 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But what about
15 television product?
16 16578 MR. NIEMI: That is something that I
17 don't believe there were any studies done to that
18 effect. We can't say without empirical support for
19 that.
20 16579 MR. BÉLIARD: We have many examples
21 of television products that have been sold in the
22 international market. I remember from --
23 16580 COMMISSIONER WILSON: What I am
24 curious about, though, is whether or not -- I think the
25 product that we sell on the international market may be
StenoTran
3509
1 more of the industrial product, the product that is
2 less distinctively Canadian. If we are going for
3 really distinctively Canadian, then that's a production
4 that encompasses that multiracial and multicultural
5 nature.
6 16581 MR. BÉLIARD: They are closely
7 related. I remember one program that has been sold all
8 over Asia and also in Latin America, which is from
9 Radio Québec. It has to do with "Passe-partout".
10 "Passe-partout" has evolved along the years and then
11 presented different characters from different types of
12 communities. It sold very well outside, in Latin
13 America and Asia very well. Then we also have other
14 programs that sells very well in French in Europe and
15 so on.
16 16582 I believe that the more you promote
17 Canadian diversity in programs, in products, be it
18 video or television product or call it industrial
19 programming, but your industrial programming should
20 reflect at least your society. That's the way I look
21 at it.
22 16583 For people to buy, there are two
23 reasons. Perhaps they want people to see your society
24 in a better way or they may want to buy it from you as
25 a distinct product from the American offering, from the
StenoTran
3510
1 French offering, from the European offering and so on,
2 and the more we reflect what Canada is all about in
3 terms of diversity and so on, the better we have
4 chances to sell it overseas. That's the way I look at
5 it. We have thousands and thousands of examples.
6 16584 When you get on the international
7 market and then you see people coming and being
8 interested in certain Canadian television products,
9 they have a reason to buy it: First of all, quality
10 and, secondly, whether it reflects exactly the little
11 different aspects that they see in one particular
12 product that they don't find in the all over the place
13 American type products. That's my impression about
14 that. They are both very closely integrated, very
15 closely related.
16 16585 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You mentioned
17 in your submission two studies, the 1993 research study
18 that you did and also a study that you did this fall.
19 I am just wondering if I could ask you to send us
20 copies of both.
21 16586 MR. NIEMI: The 1993 one is with me.
22 16587 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, that's
23 great. It would be interesting background material for
24 us to have.
25 16588 Those are my questions. Your input
StenoTran
3511
1 has been very thoughtful and interesting and very
2 useful. Thank you very much.
3 16589 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
4 Cardozo?
5 16590 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam
6 Chair.
7 16591 I just have a few quick questions
8 that follow up. It's a follow-up on some of the issues
9 that Commissioner Wilson talked to you about.
10 16592 On the matter of how we define
11 Canadian programming, there is at least two schools of
12 thought. One says that the program should reflect
13 Canadian themes and locals, so it should be somewhere
14 that's identifiably Canadian or the people of the story
15 or something about it should be identifiably Canadian,
16 not necessarily with a beaver or a hockey player in
17 every show, but something about the story that will
18 identify it as Canadian.
19 16593 The other view is that that really
20 doesn't matter so long as the people in the
21 production -- the people involved in the show, the
22 producers, the writers, the actors and so forth are
23 Canadian, that that's all that matters. It doesn't
24 matter what it's about. So, it can be a sci-fi theme
25 or a story which could be anywhere in the world, but
StenoTran
3512
1 what we should be concerned about is who put this
2 program together. What are your thoughts on that in
3 terms of diversity? Does it matter whether we focus
4 more on themes and locales or on who put it together?
5 16594 MR. NIEMI: I guess the example in
6 the first case would be like "Sam and Me", the film.
7 16595 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I suppose it
8 could be "Degrassi", it would be "Anne of Green
9 Gables", it could be "Traders".
10 16596 MR. NIEMI: A second example --
11 16597 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I don't know
12 about "Traders".
13 16598 MR. NIEMI: The example of the second
14 case would be like "Sci Factor", the sci-fi thing you
15 see on TV.
16 16599 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Yes, or
17 "Lexx".
18 16600 MR. NIEMI: Okay. We have to look at
19 Canadian content or the issue of Canadian diversity in
20 television production from both perspectives, from the
21 perspective of who gets the job, because we are talking
22 about people, we are talking about cultural workers, we
23 are talking about creative talents, and that's
24 important. This is why earlier we talked about the
25 need to perhaps review a definition of people and
StenoTran
3513
1 Canadian citizens in the Canadian content policy that
2 exists at this point in time because our organization
3 works with a lot of minority artists.
4 16601 We try to promote them everywhere
5 based on the skills and talents and what they can
6 bring. We produced a directory of minority artists,
7 which was funded by The National Film Board when Mrs.
8 Pennefather was there, and the issue that still was
9 raised yesterday is a lot of them still don't get jobs
10 because there weren't enough roles, there weren't
11 enough positions open. So, that is an important
12 component of Canadian content and Canadian production
13 and we are talking about opportunities, employment or
14 creative opportunities, for people.
15 16602 Secondly, of course, is about the
16 portrayal of what the Canadian soul or the Canadian
17 culture is all about. It goes beyond the Rockies and
18 the Peggy's Coves and whatnot. It goes to the
19 portrayal of Canadian people in all the diversity. So,
20 that is a good question. It is not an either/or, but
21 it will be basically two sides of the same coin that in
22 many ways will be increasingly linked without being
23 disassociated from that perspective.
24 16603 What it does also is it increases the
25 level of universality of certain aspects of Canadian
StenoTran
3514
1 culture in terms of mass consumption or global reach of
2 the Canadian cultural products. This sounds like a
3 course in cultural studies.
4 16604 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: On the matter
5 of production funds -- and I heard what you said
6 earlier -- we were talking with the Chinese Canadian
7 National Council a couple of days ago about two
8 aspects. One was programming that reflects diversity
9 or includes diversity, so it doesn't matter who puts it
10 together, but in the characters and the story there is
11 some aspect of cultural diversity in there.
12 16605 The other is production done by
13 minority producers for English or French programming.
14 So, it's programs like "Inside Stories" that the CBC
15 ran some time ago, "A Scattering of Seeds" that is
16 being run on History right now. Do you have a
17 preference for one or the other?
18 16606 MR. NIEMI: We haven't discussed
19 those issues to that extent because they are not always
20 accessible in Quebec.
21 16607 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Lastly, there
22 have been some suggestions by various intervenors that
23 the way to approach this whole subject is to have a
24 task force similar to the one that the Commission had
25 on sexual stereotyping. What are your thoughts on
StenoTran
3515
1 that?
2 16608 MR. NIEMI: I think we made that
3 recommendation in our report back in 1987 when we did
4 the study on visible minorities in advertising. We
5 suggested that there would be a need to look at this
6 issue of race representation and portrayal in basically
7 the electronic media, but more with advertising per se
8 because advertising in many ways goes beyond
9 television, especially with the economic impact that it
10 has.
11 16609 I can send you a copy of that study
12 that has the specific recommendation on it back in 1987
13 because we realize that in advertising it was then and
14 it's still now a very major, what we call, diversity
15 deficit issue for Canadian advertising.
16 16610 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Please.
17 16611 MR. NIEMI: We recommended to that
18 task force at the time, with industry, community,
19 government and other stakeholders being part of it, to
20 come up with a mechanism or a set of guidelines partly
21 because the existing codes on gender portrayal or
22 violence in advertising with children in many ways does
23 not address adequately the issue of race, as if race
24 has always been evacuated or trivialized, and it is
25 increasingly a major issue for many Canadian urban
StenoTran
3516
1 centres.
2 16612 We talked earlier about people
3 raising issues of Howard Stern. We are preparing
4 possibly, based on the funding, a court challenge in
5 the case of Howard Stern, not against Howard Stern and
6 the broadcaster, CILQ, I believe, or CHOM per se but on
7 the powers of the CRTC to regulate or not to regulate
8 when complaints of Howard Stern are there and whether
9 the CRTC action or inaction could be subject to a
10 Charter challenge.
11 16613 But advertising definitely is an
12 issue that eventually could be looked at because
13 advertising is so much an integral part of programming
14 and, therefore, this issue needs to be addressed. We
15 mentioned earlier the case of Eden because it is the
16 most visible example of how in 1998 we still have to
17 remind people that, hey, in many cities it's at least
18 one-third of the city's population in your advertising.
19 Whether in French advertising or in English
20 advertising, the issue is the same.
21 16614 MR. BÉLIARD: I think it is a very
22 good idea. Furthermore, it's not only because we made
23 our recommendation, but also if we look at the Canadian
24 Advertising Foundation, it has a committee on race
25 relations and then we have almost the same component in
StenoTran
3517
1 Montreal, but what they lack is structure, information,
2 and very precise and detailed information are to deal
3 with that particular issue.
4 16615 I might also add, what Mr. Niemi was
5 talking about on the question of Howard Stern and the
6 problem that we have with the Association of
7 Broadcasters, I believe in English, CBSC, is not
8 necessarily Mr. Stern himself, but where do you put the
9 accountability question. Is it on the broadcaster,
10 where they have, I think, a certain evolution of powers
11 to that group, and when there is a question from the
12 entire population about the disturbance of what is
13 being said on the air, who do you talk to? To go to
14 the Association, it is a bit of a self-regulatory group
15 and they take some time. They decide or they do not
16 decide. Then what is the position of the CRTC?
17 1735
18 16616 I think it is the same thing with the
19 advertising industry. It is a self-regulated body
20 where we take decisions and complaints from the
21 population and then we decide. Now, what happens when
22 the person goes after an appeal, which we have an
23 appeal process, and the person is not satisfied? Who
24 takes the last step, the responsibility?
25 16617 Is the CRTC some form of
StenoTran
3518
1 accountability there where a complete resolve of the
2 problem within the self-regulatory body -- what do you
3 do? I would like to hear perhaps for argument on
4 that -- we discussed about that in the comments we were
5 talking about of Howard Stern, not Mr. Stern himself,
6 but where do you drop the ball?
7 16618 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Can I just
8 tell you, I would love to carry that discussion on, but
9 some other time. The reason is, we will have next year
10 a review of the self-regulatory process, so keep in
11 touch with us on that. But, for the purposes of this
12 hearing, you mentioned you had a report that talked
13 about a task force on advertising, so please do send us
14 that. And you mentioned a directory; is that of actors
15 or producers?
16 16619 MR. NIEMI: Actually, we have a copy
17 here. We can leave it with you directly because we are
18 doing a database on it.
19 16620 Can I go back to the issue of the
20 task force? I think the first issue is, ask the
21 advertising or the self-regulatory bodies, be they for
22 advertising, for cable or for broadcast standards, to
23 what, if any, extent they have successfully or
24 adequately addressed the issue of diversity.
25 16621 We have written to the CBSC, Canadian
StenoTran
3519
1 Broadcast Standard Council, to look at how many visible
2 minorities they have on their regional councils -- to
3 do that. It took us three months, and we haven't got
4 an answer. We downloaded the Net; by the list, you can
5 have an idea who is on there.
6 16622 But, in a sense, coming back to the
7 Howard Stern again, it is very indicative of the
8 problem of poor or ineffective industry
9 self-regulation, and part of the problem, whether again
10 in advertising or in broadcasting, is that these
11 industry associations do not involve and do not reflect
12 people of different ethno-cultural and racial minority
13 backgrounds, and who you put there will influence what
14 kind of decisions and what kind of outcome you have.
15 16623 If you have minorities who are
16 constantly the target of negative portrayal stereotypes
17 or propaganda, the issues with those minority people is
18 not free speech issue, it is their own right to dignity
19 and integrity and to live without being exposed to that
20 kind of stereotype and propaganda. But if you have
21 only the members of the majority in the industry, whose
22 main concern is, can I continue to broadcast this
23 stupidity on the air and make fun out of people, then
24 the issue for them is free speech.
25 16624 So that's why the problem and
StenoTran
3520
1 fundamental flaw of this industry or self-regulatory
2 process is that it does not involve or it does not
3 reflect the very people whom it is supposed to
4 represent, reflect or defend.
5 16625 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. Hold
6 that thought and come back to us when that review is
7 under way.
8 16626 So you will send us the item on the
9 task force, the recommendation that you had, and you
10 will leave us a copy of the directory. And October the
11 15th is our magic date for receiving some of this
12 stuff, which is next week sometime. Thanks.
13 16627 Thank you, Madam Chair.
14 16628 MR. NIEMI: Thank you.
15 16629 THE CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, you want
16 the Commission to attach a condition of licence to the
17 TV licensees. What condition of licence is it that you
18 want attached?
19 16630 MR. NIEMI: Equity.
20 16631 Is it equity? Employment equity?
21 16632 THE CHAIRPERSON: Not related to
22 diversity, related to equity.
23 16633 MR. NIEMI: To employment equity,
24 yes, because --
25 16634 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that's fine.
StenoTran
3521
1 I just wanted to clarify. Thank you.
2 16635 MR. BÉLIARD: I just want to clarify
3 a point here.
4 16636 In our presentation we make the
5 reference to 3(1)(c), I believe. Remember 3(1)(c)?
6 You have in the CRTC legislation --
7 16637 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am familiar
8 with that.
9 16638 MR. BÉLIARD: Okay, 3(1)(c) --
10 16639 THE CHAIRPERSON: But you are also
11 familiar --
12 16640 MR. BÉLIARD: -- subsection (3) or
13 (4) --
14 16641 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am familiar with
15 that.
16 16642 MR. BÉLIARD: So you can attach that
17 very easily to --
18 16643 THE CHAIRPERSON: I was just curious
19 as to how that coincides with your apparent fear of any
20 special treatment, whether it be in the fund or even in
21 multilingual broadcasting -- your fear of ghettoizing
22 or of forcing abnormalities to create normality.
23 16644 How does that coincide with your
24 apparent philosophy that incentives or requirements are
25 not going to achieve your goals to force a certain --
StenoTran
3522
1 presumably you would be asking that there be a certain
2 number of minorities, however that's defined, employed,
3 because the condition of licence is a proactive,
4 quite -- you seem to be familiar with the Act. It
5 would have to be quite specific and defined. It would
6 have to say, "Thou must employ" two, three producers,
7 actors -- what is it that you would want as a condition
8 of licence?
9 16645 MR. NIEMI: We are talking
10 specifically about conventional broadcasters, and first
11 of all I think those are definitions that are provided
12 in the law --
13 16646 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I
14 understand that. But you would want a condition of
15 licence with regard to employment equity that would
16 say, "Thou shall have on your staff" X, Y, Z.
17 16647 MR. NIEMI: Right.
18 16648 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am a bit
19 intrigued about how that coincides with your apparent
20 philosophy that nothing should be forced, whether it is
21 access to funds or bonuses for programming, or I think
22 I even heard you not be very enthusiastic about
23 multicultural broadcasting as a category of
24 broadcasting to serve minorities.
25 16649 How does your desire for a condition
StenoTran
3523
1 of licence, which is a fairly important aspect of
2 regulating broadcasting -- how does it fit within that
3 philosophy of yours?
4 16650 MR. NIEMI: The philosophies are very
5 consistent because we have consistently demonstrated or
6 have seen in the past -- we are very weary of special
7 add-ons or various stop-gaps or sort of improvised
8 measures that have no real lasting, sustainable impacts
9 on the industry or an institution that create
10 long-lasting change. We are very concerned about the
11 special envelopes that are designed for artificial
12 purposes, with a short time frame, and that produce an
13 effect of restricting or limiting, a ceiling effect as
14 opposed to a minimal effect, to incentive -- as
15 incentive and to boost, because --
16 16651 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could I not make
17 that same argument with regard to employment equity?
18 16652 MR. NIEMI: No. Employment equity
19 is, you fundamentally change the entire structure of
20 the operations of the company which is behind the
21 decision to program, to allocate resources, to decide
22 on funding. Once you get the people in place -- you
23 get women in place, sex harassment becomes the key
24 issue; you get women in top corporate echelons, daycare
25 for executives will become an issue. Otherwise, it
StenoTran
3524
1 will be just an add-on or secondary --
2 16653 THE CHAIRPERSON: So your condition
3 of licence would have to be very specific, and it is
4 Vice-President, Programming that you would have to
5 hire. It would have to be very specific to achieve
6 that goal, because you could employ a number of
7 minorities, but depending on what position they are
8 put, if it is just to satisfy the condition of licence,
9 it is not going to have the effect and it will go back
10 to your apparent philosophy that forcing certain
11 measures is not valuable, except you seem to stop at
12 employment and think that that's going to somehow be an
13 answer. Without being terribly specific, it would have
14 to be in certain areas.
15 16654 MR. NIEMI: No. No, actually, no, it
16 is not. If you are familiar with the system, the
17 analysis or the reporting tables for employment equity
18 in companies that address all occupational categories
19 and all aspects of the operations of the company, in a
20 media company it will be from the finance to the
21 programming to the studio to even the clerk,
22 everything, all those occupational categories will,
23 once filled by members of the under-represented groups,
24 will create a change in the organizational culture and
25 change in the way that the outcome, i.e. the cultural
StenoTran
3525
1 products or programs, will be shaped.
2 16655 That's why we feel so important --
3 contrary to the gender portrayal policy, which talked
4 only about representation but does not go to the issue
5 of representation of women in the industry -- to go
6 straight for the jugular where the real sustainable
7 changes will take place.
8 16656 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very
9 much.
10 16657 MR. BÉLIARD: I want to give you one
11 more precision about that.
12 16658 In the TV or broadcasting
13 environment, there are different sectors. You have
14 internal operation, you have external operation, you
15 have also purchase of programs that can be either
16 national or even international.
17 16659 I believe a condition of licence that
18 probably entailed not only in terms of personal insight
19 but behind the cameras -- in production, for example,
20 in the purchase and so on, that could be global and
21 cover just about everything in terms of programming.
22 16660 I come back to the issue of
23 multicultural programming. For me, it is more like a
24 specialty channel, the same way that we can compare
25 sports, music and everything else. I mean, basically,
StenoTran
3526
1 after all, it is something very particular, very
2 specific to a specific group.
3 16661 We come back to the whole issue of
4 global or integrated programming, mainstream
5 programming basically that we are making the claim
6 today.
7 16662 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand the
8 distinction. It is just the means to get there.
9 16663 Thank you, gentlemen.
10 16664 This concludes the hearing for today.
11 We will resume at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. Nous
12 reprendrons à 8 h 00 demain matin.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1745
14 to resume on Thursday, October 8, 1998
15 at 0900 / L'audience est suspendue à 1745,
16 pour reprendre le jeudi 8 octobre 1998
17 à 0900
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- Date de modification :