ARCHIVÉ -  Transcription

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

              TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE

             THE CANADIAN RADIO‑TELEVISION AND

               TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

 

 

 

 

             TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DEVANT

              LE CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION

           ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES

 

 

                      SUBJECT / SUJET:

 

 

 

Proceeding on the Canadian Television Fund (CTF)

Task Force Report /

Instance concernant le rapport du Groupe de travail

du Fonds canadien de télévision (CTF)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HELD AT:                              TENUE À:

 

Conference Centre                     Centre de conférences

Outaouais Room                        Salle Outaouais

140 Promenade du Portage              140, Promenade du Portage

Gatineau, Quebec                      Gatineau (Québec)

 

February 8, 2008                      Le 8 février 2008

 

 

 

 

 

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.

               Canadian Radio‑television and

               Telecommunications Commission

 

            Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des

               télécommunications canadiennes

 

 

                 Transcript / Transcription

 

 

 

Proceeding on the Canadian Television Fund (CTF)

Task Force Report /

Instance concernant le rapport du Groupe de travail

du Fonds canadien de télévision (CTF)

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEFORE / DEVANT:

 

Rita Cugini                       Chairperson / Présidente

Michel Arpin                      Commissioner / Conseiller

Michel Morin                      Commissioner / Conseiller

 

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:

 

Jade Roy                          Secretary / Secretaire

Shirley Ann Farley                Hearing Manager /

                                  Gérante de l'audience

Shari Faisher                     Legal Counsel /

Bernard Montigny                  Conseillers juridiques

 

 

 

 

HELD AT:                          TENUE À:

 

Conference Centre                 Centre de conférences

Outaouais Room                    Salle Outaouais

140 Promenade du Portage          140, Promenade du Portage

Gatineau, Quebec                  Gatineau (Québec)

 

February 8, 2008                  Le 8 février 2008

 

- iv -

 

           TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

                                                 PAGE / PARA

 

PRESENTATION BY / PRÉSENTATION PAR:

 

Bell ExpressVu                                   1083 / 5361

 

MTS Allstream                                    1103 / 5483

 

Aaron Martin                                     1117 / 5566

 

David Barlow                                     1126 / 5600

 

Karen Walton                                     1137 / 5642

 

Karen McClellan                                  1149 / 5677

 

APTN                                             1190 / 5888

 

CTVglobemedia                                    1246 / 6266

 

Canadian Television Fund                         1289 / 6477

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                 Gatineau, Quebec / Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ Upon commencing on Friday, February 8, 2008

    at 0901 / L'audience débute le vendredi 8

    février 2008 à 0901

LISTNUM 1 \l 1 \s 53575357             THE SECRETARY:  Please take a seat.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15358             We will now hear the presentation of the Bell ExpressVu.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15359             Please introduce yourself and you have 15 minutes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15360             Thank you.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

LISTNUM 1 \l 15361             MR. FRANK:  Thank you very much.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15362             Good morning, Chairperson Cugini and Commissioners.  My name is Chris Frank and I am Vice‑President Programming of the Bell Video Group.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15363             With me today is David Elder, Vice‑President Regulatory Law for Bell Canada and the Bell Video Group's Regulatory Counsel.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15364             We thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts on the current state and future direction of the CTF.  Our brief comments will focus on four key issues.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15365             Bell commends the productive efforts of the CRTC's Task Force to address the concerns of CTF members.  While the Task Force was unable to achieve consensus on all issues under review, its recommendations demonstrate a welcome responsiveness to the need for change in a number of important fronts.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15366             The Report proposes the creation of a second funding stream, one that would direct the private sector's contributions towards the production of more market‑oriented Canadian content.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15367             This is more of an industrial approach to the support of domestic programming, distinct from the traditional pursuit of culturally significant content which would more appropriately remain the focus of government or public sector funding.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15368             Bell ExpressVu agrees with the Task Force that financial contributions from BDUs, both cable and DTH, should encourage the development of content with more market‑oriented objectives, hits, if you will.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15369             Government funding would remain focused on programming directed at achieving public policy objectives.  We must keep in mind our purpose here is to have more Canadians watch more Canadian content.  This proposed BDU funding stream would help us reach that goal by targeting productions which may have been excluded from consideration given the prevailing cultural concerns of the current single funding stream.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15370             One area which the Report leaves unresolved and which is tied to the creation of a new and separate BDU funding stream is the size and membership of the CTF Board of Directors.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15371             In its written comments of 27 July, 2007 Bell proposed that a second smaller board be created within the context of the CTF to oversee the allocation of funds contributed by the private sector.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15372             The second board would comprise a reasonably balanced membership of distribution undertakings and independent representatives.  It would benefit from its more manageable size, reaching consensus with fewer conflicting agenda while minimizing potential conflicts of interest.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15373             It is appropriate for the government to oversee the allocation of public funds.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15374             So, too do BDUs claim the right to ensure that the dispersal of their contributions is properly directed to the support of market‑driven productions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15375             In the Notice leading to this hearing, the Commission indicated its interest in receiving input from interested parties regarding additional sources of CTF funding.  It makes brief mention of the possibility that increased contributions could theoretically come from government and/or BDUs.  However, the suggestion is raised without subsequent discussion in the Report and is not pursued via a Task Force recommendation either in whole or in part.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15376             Nevertheless, to be clear, Bell strongly opposes the imposition of a greater BDU financial obligation as an acceptable or viable mechanism for additional CTF funding.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15377             We note the private sector contributions have averaged over $129‑million over the past five years, growing by more than 31 per cent in actual dollar value over that time.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15378             Thus, BDUs continue to provide a greater funding level each year in step with increasing demand.  Any increase to our five per cent contribution would be, in our view, unwarranted.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15379             Another issue of significant interest to Bell is the availability of programming to BDUs.  The Report highlights Quebecor's legitimate concern that the CTF has failed to take into account the value of VOD's role in the development and distribution of Canadian content and the need to fund this type of activity.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15380             Bell shares this concern and would also add pay‑per‑view programming to this discussion.  Moreover, Bell encourages the Commission to ensure that all programming created using CTF funding, including pay‑per‑view and VOD content, be made available for distribution by all interested BDUs on their respective VOD and/or pay‑per‑view platforms.  We note a similar proposal was made by Rogers.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15381             There should be no exclusions for any BDU, cable or DTH regarding such jointly‑funded programming.  It would make no sense, indeed, it would be absolutely unfair if, for example, Bell ExpressVu's or any other BDU for that matter ‑‑ if Bell ExpressVu's funds were, in part, used to finance a production which it was later unable to distribute because of an exclusive arrangement negotiated between the content producer or rights holder and another distributor.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15382             This concludes Bell's opening remarks.  We thank you for your attention and welcome any questions you may have.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15383             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.  And good morning, Mr. Frank, Mr. Elder.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15384             I am going to ask Vice‑Chairman Arpin to start the questioning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15385             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Thank you, Madam Chair.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15386             Good morning, gentlemen.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15387             MR. FRANK:  Good morning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15388             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  My first question to you, Mr. Frank, will deal with the five per cent contribution level that you are currently making to the CTF.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15389             Obviously there is 20 per cent of it that goes towards the Bell Fund, I guess.  So, at the end of the day, it is four per cent of your total revenue that goes to CTF.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15390             MR. FRANK:  Your bottom line figure is correct, sir, 0.6 per cent goes to the Bell Fund, 0.4 per cent goes to the CAB in respect of small market independent television stations.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15391             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Okay.  So, fine.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15392             Now, in your written submission you have said that the percentage should be brought in line with that of cable BDUs, which in this instance will be, generally speaking, 2.4 per cent because two per cent will go to local expression, .6 goes, I mean generally speaking, towards their own operated fund and the remaining goes to CTF.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15393             Is it a proposal that you have removed from the table in your oral presentation of this morning?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15394             MR. FRANK:  No, sir, that remains a significant concern of ours.  We didn't touch on it because we have been encouraged by the Commission in the past to raise that in the context of BDU hearings.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15395             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Of the next public hearing.  So, you will come back with that one at a further date, I believe.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15396             MR. FRANK:  Yes, sir, but I'd be delighted to make a few general comments on that particular topic if it is of interest to the Commission at this point.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15397             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Well, yes, I will say because, for the record, this record has to be complete by itself as well.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15398             MR. FRANK:  Well, let me start by saying that generally speaking we think it's very important that DTH companies have the same general opportunities as cable undertakings.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15399             I think that's caught up in the government ‑‑ that's outlined in the government order and I think the spirit of that is contained in the regulatory framework the Commission set out back in 1995 for DTH BDUs.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15400             So, it seems to us unfair that we would contribute more to the CTF and, in so contributing, lose the opportunity for additional local and regional expression.  Right now the only real sense of local and regional expression we have is through the local television stations we carry, both CBC, SRC and private stations that we carry from coast to coast, and I think the capacity challenges of the DTH business in a relatively small market like Canada are well known to the Commission.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15401             So, in our efforts to provide a very comprehensive channel line‑up, especially now with the emergence of hi‑definition, which is very band width intensive, our ability to carry more local channels is hugely compromised.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15402             So, we would welcome an opportunity to create a community type channel like the cable industry does.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15403             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  And you will have spectrum for that?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15404             MR. FRANK:  Well, we would do our very best to find spectrum for that.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15405             In the alternative, sir, we have in the past floated to the Commission the concept of channelling some of this money to local television stations through the creation of an independent fund which would facilitate incremental local and regional programming on these stations which obviously would be a benefit to our DTH subscribers because they would get more local and regional content.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15406             And, I submit, it would also be of value to the local broadcasters because it would be a new source of money for incremental local and regional programming which would make them more relevant and more competitive in the 400‑channel universe.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15407             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Okay, thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15408             You have stated in your oral presentation and also in your written submission that you concur with Quebecor that a legitimate concern that they ‑‑ you're using the word legitimate, to finance VOD and you're adding pay‑per‑view.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15409             Now, some will argue that the Fund is already over subscribed, so that they will need to have more money in order to finance VOD and pay‑per‑view programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15410             And at the same time you are asking us to contemplate reducing your contribution, or at least one thing for sure, not increase the BDU contribution to CTF.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15411             Where do you think CTF will find the money to meet your request?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15412             MR. FRANK:  Well, before I answer the main thrust of your question, I just note for the record that, in fact, the BDU contributions to the CTF do, in fact, increase year over year and in our business ‑‑ the DTH ‑‑ in our main business, the DTH sector, those contributions have increased almost exponentially over the last seven years as our subscriber growth has increased.  We've tailed off a little bit in terms of subscriber growth, but over the last 10 years, clearly, we've gone, in the case of ExpressVu, gone from zero customers to over 1.8‑million customers and, so, that has occasioned huge increases in revenue to the CTF.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15413             And I might add that that's not just revenue that's been poached from other BDUs, so, net neutral to the industry.  The lion's share of those customers are net new, net new to the system.  So, we've brought in, if you'll excuse the expression, a tonne more financing for Canadian production and for the CTF in particular.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15414             So, to your question about how the CTF would allocate its funds, I was seized by a comment that the Chairperson made the other day when she assured one of the participants that the Commission is very focused on Canadians and Canadian viewers, and it seems to me that Canadian viewing habits are changing, and as those habits change and they move from over‑the‑air to specialty to pay to VOD and pay‑per‑view, then the funding of the CTF should follow that kind of shift.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15415             If we're going to maintain a competitive industry, competitive to the unregulated broad band sources which are becoming increasingly prevalent and to U.S. satellite television services, which although they're unauthorized in Canada are extant from coast to coast, we have to make these shifts, otherwise we'll lose credibility in the marketplace.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15416             So, I understand that there's a huge demand for CTF funding but, as I said, CTF funding is increasing from the BDU sector, especially from the DTH sector which funds disproportionately to the industry, and I guess at the end of the day it's making do with what we've got.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15417             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Something you haven't said, but listening to your reply could I interpret it to be that the money going to over‑the‑air television and specialty and pay services should be capped, so is the money coming from the government to a certain level and whatever comes up is considered as new revenues and then could be invested into VOD, pay‑per‑view and eventually new media?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15418             MR. FRANK:  Sir, I'm not at all suggesting that the ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 15419             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  No, I didn't hear you saying that, but while I was listening to your reply it led me to believe that that could be an approach.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15420             MR. FRANK:  Well, that could be an approach.  That's not the kind of approach that we have in mind.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15421             We would encourage the Commission, as we've said in our presentation, to allow for a separate branch, a new board to be created, a much smaller board be created and that board itself would, consistent with the Commission's expectations and findings in this hearing and perhaps others to come, allocate monies in a way that maximized the viewing of popular Canadian programming.  Our emphasis here is on a more market‑oriented production industry.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15422             Now, I know a lot of folks have told you during the course of this hearing that such is the case now, but we think through our proposal more flexibility would come to funding and that would allow for a shift amongst the various sectors, who's ever producing the most viewing of Canadian programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15423             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  To move to another area, and you've just alluded to it when you dealt with having a different board for the more oriented fund, your proposal is two streams within the CTF and you say with a different board for the more oriented market fund.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15424             Am I understanding you well?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15425             MR. FRANK:  Yes, sir.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15426             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Okay.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15427             MR. FRANK:  So far so good.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15428             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  So far so good.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15429             Will the members of the second board be also members of the bigger board?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15430             MR. FRANK:  That's an interesting question.  I don't think we turned our mind to that question specifically.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15431             I think the best answer I can give you is, I doubt it.  I would think that the members of this new board would be quite busy with the affairs of the new undertaking and their focus would be completely different.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15432             We see the public sector stream promoting, being interested in programming that is likely less commercially oriented, more culturally oriented, addressing the public policy needs of these monies as opposed to the commercial objectives.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15433             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  But at the same time in having two organizations within the same umbrella means that it's going to have the same staff and the same relationship, say, with Telefilm.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15434             MR. FRANK:  That was an idea that was floated by Rogers a couple of days ago and when ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 15435             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Rogers was talking about two funds.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15436             MR. FRANK:  Yes, I know.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15437             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Making use of ‑‑ and having a service agreement with CTF and with Telefilm.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15438             MR. FRANK:  Yes, absolutely.  Sorry, I was less than precise with my opening sentences there.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15439             In terms of the relationship, the back office relationship with CTF and Telefilm, I think everybody's focused on synergies and minimizing the overhead and, so, we would favour either a relationship with the two organizations you've mentioned, or a relationship potentially with an existing independent fund or group of independent funds.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15440             The idea ‑‑ we don't have religion on that particular issue, we share the concern of others and, that is, to keep the costs of running the board to a bare minimum so as much money as possible gets into the hands of producers.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15441             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  It seems to me that your proposal is intellectually interesting, but it does raise practical issues.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15442             First, to whom staff will be devoting its efforts, particularly when there are conflicting mandates given to them by one board and the other one, to whom shall their fiduciary duties go?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15443             MR. FRANK:  I have not had any experience with the CTF, ExpressVu has not had a seat on the Board, so, we're on the outside looking in, but I do have experience on the Bell Fund, and I note for the record that the Bell Fund, the back office, the administration, the staff direction and operations of the Bell Fund is co‑mingled with two other funds.  In other words, we share staff with two other funds and I know of no operational issues.  Staff is able to focus when its Bell Fund time, focus a hundred per cent on our issues, on our mandate and we've had absolutely no issues.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15444             In fact, if I can be a little self‑congratulatory, I think the Bell Fund is considered one of the best, if not the best, run fund in this independent fund business and its constituents are very happy with the speed, the speed to funding, the efficiency and the effectiveness of the decision making and the consistency of the decision making.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15445             So, I hear what you're saying, but I think that sort of thing could be overcome with the right management team.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15446             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  And then if it happened that we ‑‑ because at the end of the day the Bell video ‑‑ the independent fund, it's a rather very small staff and Andra Sheffer yesterday was saying that altogether you're talking four or five people.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15447             In the case of CTF because of volume, because of complexity, because of the ‑‑ you need to have much more staff than in the case of the independent fund on one hand, and on the other hand even they have a relationship with a third party that is doing their more clerical work.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15448             So, you're talking here of a much more complex relationship between two organizations than what you do within the independent production fund, the Bell Digital Fund and the Cogeco Cable Fund.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15449             At the end of the day there will be a management issue, whoever you have that leads the organization and whoever...

LISTNUM 1 \l 15450             So, how will those matters be resolved?  Take for an example ‑‑ I will make an example.  The private fund has a difficult relationship problem with senior staff and on the other hand you're of the view that there's going to be changes in the management; on the other hand the other board has a totally opposite view, thinks that things are smooth, doing well.  At the end of the day, who wins?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15451             MR. FRANK:  Well ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 15452             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  How do you resolve those issues?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15453             MR. FRANK:  That's a very interesting issue you bring up and I did not mean in my previous answer to trivialize the management issues.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15454             I acknowledge your point ‑‑ your points, this is a non‑trivial matter, but I do think with the appropriate management and management philosophy those problems can be overcome.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15455             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Sometimes that's easier said than done.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15456             MR. FRANK:  You're absolutely right, but where there's a will there's a way and there's always the prospect, I suppose, that if this is insurmountable, as I said, the operation of the independent fund could be moved.  Although I think that based on the comments of others that's not the, by all means would be the first, or it would be a distant option, let me put it that way.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15457             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Okay.  Well, gentlemen, those were my questions for you this morning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15458             Thank you very much.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15459             MR. FRANK:  If I could ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 15460             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Yes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15461             MR. FRANK:  ‑‑ just say one other thing.  A couple of questions ago I was remiss in dealing with the issue of why we've added pay‑per‑view.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15462             I just wanted to make the point that, as you may know, DTH at this time ‑‑ neither DTH company, certainly our company and I don't believe our competitor, at this time has the capacity or the technology to offer a service‑based VOD service, so we use pay‑per‑view as our near video‑on‑demand.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15463             That's why ‑‑ video‑on‑demand clearly is picking up viewers, it's of great interest to consumers and pay‑per‑view is and will be in the future our response to VOD.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15464             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Thank you very much.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15465             THE CHAIRPERSON:  And thank you for that additional comment, Mr. Frank, because I did just have a couple of questions with regards to the funding of pay‑per‑view and VOD content.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15466             It's not new content that goes to VOD; it's still the same content, for now anyway there is no content being produced that is exclusively VOD or exclusively pay‑per‑view.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15467             So, why does VOD content need funding, because it's programs that perhaps have already been funded for broadcast on either conventional or specialty.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15468             I just want to understand why it is that BDUs are coming to us and asking us that ‑‑ and telling us that VOD and pay‑per‑view content should be funded as well.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15469             MR. FRANK:  I think in a nutshell it's early days for this type of service and I expect that the business will evolve.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15470             There is programming ‑‑ we've just started a VOD business, so, our experience level isn't perhaps as fulsome as others, but we've been running a pay‑per‑view business for some time now and there is programming that is exhibited only on pay‑per‑view and the opportunity to create more concerts and specials for pay‑per‑view may exist in the future, especially if there is funding for it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15471             So, it's a way to grow our business, a way to appeal to Canadian consumers and a way to stay with or ahead of the market.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15472             THE CHAIRPERSON:  And, so, you foresee that producers may one day produce content that is exclusively available on either pay‑per‑view or VOD?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15473             MR. FRANK:  I think it's well within the realm of possibility.  And to the present situation, having the pay‑per‑view and VOD marketplaces in the funding stream also is of use to attracting public funds.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15474             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Well, thank you very much.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15475             We have no more questions for you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15476             Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15477             MR. FRANK:  Thank you for your time and your attention.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15478             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15479             Madam Secretary.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15480             THE SECRETARY:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15481             And now we will hear the presentation of MTS Allstream.

‑‑‑ Pause

LISTNUM 1 \l 15482             THE SECRETARY:  Please introduce yourself.  You will have 15 minutes.  Thank you.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

LISTNUM 1 \l 15483             MS GRIFFIN‑MUIR:  Thank you.  Good morning.  My name is Teresa Muir.  I am the Vice‑President, Regulatory Affairs, at MTS Allstream.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15484             With me today is Jennie Crowe, our Director of Regulatory Law.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15485             With over 76,000 customers, MTS TV, our distribution service in Winnipeg, has effected one of the earliest and most successful DSL‑based television distribution deployments in North America.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15486             Since the commercial launch of MTS TV in 2003, MTS has captured approximately one‑third of the terrestrial broadcasting distribution market in Winnipeg, our licence territory.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15487             We have achieved this level of success by focusing on providing customers with a superior product, a top quality viewing experience, new and innovative features, and perhaps most importantly, increased customer choice and control over their viewing experience.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15488             In order to attract customers as a new entrant in today's rapidly evolving broadcast landscape, MTS has made, and continues to make significant investments to the Canadian broadcasting system.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15489             For example, this year MTS will be testing a next‑generation software and broadband delivery system that we hope will ultimately allow us to provide new and even better services to our television and hi‑speed internet customers in Manitoba.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15490             Naturally, in addition to investing in the Canadian broadcasting system, MTS supports Canadian programming through the carriage of Canadian services, and MTS, like other distributors, is currently required to contribute 5 percent of its gross revenues derived from broadcasting activities to the Canadian Television Fund.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15491             In fact, because the MTS TV service includes both BDU and broad elements, MTS Allstream actually pays more than 5 percent of its gross revenues from any VOD purchases, once as a BDU gross revenue, and half again as VOD gross revenues.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15492             Under this contribution regime, in the 2006‑2007 broadcast year MTS Allstream paid $1.4 million to the CTF and spent approximately half a million dollars on Winnipeg‑on‑Demand, our newly launched, VOD‑based outlet for local expression.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15493             Needless to say, this contribution is mandated regardless of profitability.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15494             When evaluating the efficacy of the CTF, it is important to bear in mind that the current BDU contribution to the CTF began as a voluntary bargain between the Commission and the cable distributors.  This bargain was struck at a time when cable rates were still regulated and capital expenditures directly derived through these regulated rates.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15495             The Commission allowed the cable BDUs to keep half of the amount by which their basic monthly fees would have otherwise been reduced after the expiry of rate increases designed to fund capital expenditures in exchange for the voluntary payment of the other half into what eventually evolved into the CTF.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15496             Given that we are a new entrant to the distribution market, MTS Allstream has not benefited from any guarantee of return on capital expenditures that it has made to the Canadian broadcasting system.  Therefore, it did not participate in the initial bargain that first created this direct monetary contribution to Canadian programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15497             Despite this, contribution to the CTF is equally mandatory for MTS Allstream.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15498             Moreover, MTS Allstream is not currently represented on the CTF Board and, thus, is given no say in the manner in which its contribution to the CTF is used.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15499             Added to this, the CTF does not separately account for the BDU contributions, giving MTS Allstream extremely limited insight into the use that is made of its significant contributions to the CTF.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15500             As an economic contributor, MTS submits that this situation is simply unacceptable, particularly in this age of increased accountability.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15501             The Task Force recognized that greater transparency is required, and we submit that every contributor should have access to a quarterly report that outlines all received applications, with accompanying justification for their financial support or denial, whether each program was indeed broadcast, and its relative success, including financial benefit and viewership.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15502             While MTS Allstream, along with SaskTel and TELUS, have in the past collectively approached the Department of Canadian Heritage to seek a seat on the CTF Board, these requests were flatly rejected.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15503             In its report, the Task Force recommended a second seat for DTH distributors, but no such recommendation in relation to the unrepresented telco BDUs.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15504             Nor has the newly created Cable Coalition for Canadian Expression approached MTS Allstream for inclusion.  This is hardly surprising, given that, as a new entrant competitor to the incumbent cable companies that the CCCE represents, MTS' interests often vary from those of the CCCE members.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15505             Fair governance dictates that all economic contributors should be provided fair representation on the Board.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15506             MTS also supports the Task Force recommendation to remove independent producers from the CTF Board, given their conflict of interest as recipients who benefit directly from the allocation of funds to their specific types of programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15507             Since the inclusion of broadcasters on the CTF Board also represents a conflict of interest in that broadcasters control which programming receives funding and directly benefit from the subsidization of their chosen productions, we submit that broadcasters should also be removed from the CTF Board, unless they, too, become direct contributors.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15508             In addition to removing concerns about conflict of interest, such a move would reduce the overall size of the CTF Board, and would leave more room for the economic contributors to the fund to be represented.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15509             If, indeed, the Commission is going to pursue ways to increase CTF funding, the only choice the Commission has to broaden the contributions to the CTF fund is to include not only the BDU sector, but also broadcasters, and potentially even producers, who most directly benefit from the CTF funding.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15510             This would not only create a return on the investment buy, for example, requiring producers who benefit most from the CTF subsidy to feed back into the fund in proportion to their success, but would also increase the overall amount available to the CTF, while minimizing the burden imposed on any one sector.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15511             Throughout these proceedings it has become clear that there are serious concerns about whether the CTF funds are being used directly to the best effect.  A proposal has been made that programming destined for video‑on‑demand should also be made eligible for CTF funding.  MTS supports this proposal.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15512             VOD is a new and innovative platform for Canadian programming that lets viewers exercise maximum choice.  If the goal is to make quality Canadian programming easily accessible to Canadians, the anytime nature of VOD is an ideal venue.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15513             Given the direct benefit that community programming delivers to regional subscribers, MTS Allstream also proposes that BDUs that are located in smaller production areas be allowed to allocate a greater percentage of their mandated contribution to community programming or other local expression.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15514             In the case of BDUs who, like MTS Allstream, deliver community programming via a VOD platform, the Commission could also allow a portion of the mandated contribution from VOD revenues to be used for the outlet for local expression, something that is not permitted today.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15515             Community programming delivers a direct benefit to the community that is ultimately funding the system.  In the case of the Winnipeg‑based customers, changes are needed to ensure that they are not shut out of the system, but see a direct, local, economic benefit of their contribution to the CTF.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15516             The 2007‑2008 broadcaster performance envelope updates found on the CTF website show that almost all productions receiving CTF funding and turned out of Manitoba are, in fact, documentaries.  This type of programming is less likely to be a success from the perspective of the audience viewership and investment return.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15517             MTS' outlet for local expression, Winnipeg‑on‑Demand, provides all MTS TV customers with instant access to a platform where viewers can watch stories about people and events and activities within their own community.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15518             The community‑produced programming has included such stories as "Sierra's Song", a biography of Sierra Noble, a Métis fiddler, and "Legacy in Stone", a documentary on building the Manitoba legislature.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15519             Winnipeg‑on‑Demand provides Winnipeggers a new opportunity and platform to showcase their stories and to share them with their neighbours.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15520             All elements of the Canadian broadcasting system are making significant contributions to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming.  There will always be demand for greater resources to allow talented Canadians to do more and to, potentially, achieve greater success.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15521             At the same time, the evolving broadcasting system is providing Canadian producers with new opportunities to exhibit their work, and providing Canadian viewers with unprecedented choice.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15522             The Commission must be mindful of the fact that it is the Canadian customers who ultimately pay into any funds for Canadian programming, and who are ultimately the intended beneficiaries of such a scheme.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15523             The Commission cannot lose site of the fact that this is a finite pool of funding, and the greater the demands that the Canadian broadcasting system places on Canadians, the less the system is serving them.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15524             Thank you very much.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15525             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Ms Muir.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15526             Commissioner Morin.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15527             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Good morning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15528             I understand that you are concerned about the transparency of the Canadian Television Fund, and, in a positive way, you are suggesting that the CTF will eventually provide contributors with quarterly reports outlining the applications received and the reasons for their approval or denial.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15529             Why is it important that you have this data on a regular basis, quarter after quarter, and what benefits will these quarterly reports provide to the industry?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15530             MS GRIFFIN‑MUIR:  The way we look at it is, really, that it is unclear how funding decisions for certain productions are made, and less clear, even, ultimately, the outcome of those funding decisions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15531             Typically, when you make an economic contribution, either privately or publicly, you like to be aware of whether the decisions made actually produce an economic benefit, bearing in mind, of course, that we are talking about creating programming, and there are certain risks associated with creating art that make it a little difficult to derive the perfect set of metrics to know whether or not something is going to be a commercial success.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15532             But the more we can gauge that with rigour, the more easily we can adjust what programming is funded, the more we can ensure that there are no real conflicts or mistakes made in allocating funds, and we can just measure the success overall of this kind of scheme, if this scheme continues.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15533             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  I understand, also, that a results‑based approach would receive your approval, but at the same time you are concerned about the impact of the production of the Manitoba‑based, market‑driven funding stream focused on growing audiences.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15534             Why are you worried about the performance of the Manitobans?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15535             MS GRIFFIN‑MUIR:  That is our market, so, obviously, that is what we are most focused on.  The more we can provide our market with what they wish to watch, the more successful we will be.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15536             But, ultimately, even those productions that are geared toward Manitoba viewership will be more successful, too.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15537             Also, certain Manitoba‑based producers are more interested in having funds directly available to them, which isn't always the case.  Obviously the CTF has a limited umbrella.  The broadcasters there have control over who ultimately has the funds, and, typically, they are not programs developed for a Manitoba audience.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15538             What we have seen with our Winnipeg‑on‑Demand or our VOD community ‑‑ local expression ‑‑ is that we have better viewership with that programming than we do with, as I pointed out, the documentaries, which come, actually, out of the CTF funded programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15539             That is not to say that all CTF funded programming ‑‑ I understand there is a difference between the two, but Manitoba‑based production.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15540             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Since Monday, many have suggested that they have to get a seat on the Board of the CTF.  You suggest that the independent producers and broadcasters should leave the CTF Board, but you want to get a seat, too.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15541             You believe it is important that the DSL/BDUs receive a seat on the CTF Board.  You are not worried that, by the end of this hearing, we might have 30 members on the CTF Board?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15542             What is the possibility of an ideal Board?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15543             As the Task Force mentioned in its report, an ideal Board would consist of five independent members.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15544             Would you agree with this suggestion, even if you don't have a seat on the Board?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15545             MS GRIFFIN‑MUIR:  The way we have looked at it is, really, that, typically, those parties making economic contributions have a sharpened interest in the success of the programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15546             I am not suggesting that other parties don't have an interest in success, but, actually, making some monetary contribution gives you a greater interest in success.  At least that's our view.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15547             If you decided to have a smaller Board and removed, obviously, several members from the Board, we would support it, as long as those who actually make economic contributions have the most say in the appointment of that smaller Board.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15548             It is really a question of where the money comes from that supports this kind of programming, and accountability back to those who are actually funding it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15549             As we suggested, if others wish to fund, also, the CTF, they, too, could have some sort of input into who the Board members would be.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15550             I certainly appreciate that having a huge Board doesn't lead to an efficient resolution of issues, or make it easier for the actual staff to make decisions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15551             On the other hand, having a Board that doesn't offer any participation to those who are actually funding the CTF probably doesn't produce, in our opinion, the best outcome.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15552             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15553             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Vice‑Chairman Arpin?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15554             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  I note that you haven't made any comments regarding the main thrust of the report, which is the break‑up of the CTF into two funds, one where the contributions of the BDUs will be administered under different guidelines than contributions from other sources.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15555             Do you have any comments to make on that?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15556             MS GRIFFIN‑MUIR:  I guess we would consider that along the same lines as we would consider any economic contributors.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15557             Obviously, we don't disagree that if there is a decision to split the fund between having one administered ‑‑ the public funds administered separately from the contributions of the BDUs, and if that is the decision taken, we would support it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15558             We would also, still, continue to expect a certain kind of transparency, particularly with respect to the funds that we are making economic ‑‑ or the BDUs are making economic contribution to.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15559             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15560             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very much.  Those are our questions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15561             MS GRIFFIN‑MUIR:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15562             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Before we take a break, it has been called to our attention that February 18th, which is the date by which everyone is to file their final comments, is a statutory holiday in some parts of the country.  Therefore, for those of you who cannot submit on the 18th, we will accept your reply comments on the 19th.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15563             Thank you.  We will break for 15 minutes.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 0950 / Suspension à 0950

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1007 / Reprise à 1007

LISTNUM 1 \l 15564             THE SECRETARY:  We will now hear the presentation of Mr. Aaron Martin.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15565             You have 15 minutes for your presentation.  Thank you.

PRESENTATION / PRESENTATION

LISTNUM 1 \l 15566             MR. MARTIN:  Good morning.  My name is Aaron Martin and I am a writer/producer in the Canadian television industry.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15567             I was the head writer and an executive producer on Degrassi: The Next Generation, its first four seasons, and I was the creator and executive producer of The Best Years, an hour‑long series on Global and in the United States.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15568             I am currently developing Once Upon a Time, a primetime series for NBC produced by Imagine Television.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15569             I am a graduate of the Canadian Film Centre Screenwriting Program and I have focused my career exclusively on television.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15570             I have always loved television ever since I was a kid when my grandmother would let us stay up late to watch Fantasy Island.  In fact, my mother named me Aaron after Aaron Spelling.  So I guess it was kind of my destiny to one day work in TV.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15571             Television is the most accessible of all media, more accessible than film than books and magazines and depending on your age even more accessible than the internet.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15572             Television pipes our shared stories right into our living rooms.  It's greatly important that at least some of the stories we watch are our own; emphasis on some.  We can't expect to take down the goliath that is American television, but we can create alternatives to it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15573             We can and we do reflect Canada to Canadians.  These stories are important because they are our stories, Canadian stories.  We are not Americans.  And if we all consume are American stories then what happens to Canada?  What happens to the country that didn't go into Iraq, the country that swears allegiance to a foreign monarch that has barely the population of California?  Simple, its culture and its identity drowns.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15574             The reason I am here today is because some people in our industry are making the false claims that Canadian television doesn't work; that it's broken; that it doesn't attract an audience; that we need to create commercial programs to draw an audience since cultural ones can't; the commercial and cultural are mutually exclusive.  These are all lies.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15575             I worked for four years on one of the most Canadian series ever created.  Not only has Degrassi consistently brought in respectable numbers for seven seasons, and is going into its eighth season next year ‑‑ think about that, eight seasons.  How many series get beyond their first season ‑‑ but it's also become an international hit.  It put an entire U.S. cable network on the map.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15576             Degrassi has won or been nominated for the following:  a Television Critics award, two Teen Choice awards, two GLAAD Media awards, a Prix Jeunesse and various Canadian industry awards including multiple Geminis.  Both the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly have claimed it to be the best TV teen series on the air and this is the fourth incarnation of the Degrassi franchise.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15577             Degrassi has entertained Canadians in one form or another since 1979.  It is a huge commercial success.  But more important, it's a huge Canadian cultural success.  Its mix of no nonsense realistic storytelling, its liberal values, its casting of real and age‑appropriate kids are all distinctly Canadian attributes and are all things that differentiate it from any American teen series ever created.  That's why people watch, Canadians, Americans, Australians, Malaysians.  This show would never have been greenlit in the United States.  It's distinctly Canadian television.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15578             But is it cultural or is it commercial?  Is it private since Degrassi:  The Next Generation airs on CTV?  Or is it public since 10 out of 10 Degrassi's roots are firmly embedded in the CBC?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15579             Here is a better question:  What does it matter?  It's a success and that is what TV is all about, right?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15580             I would not have a series in development in L.A. with a major television network, with Ron Howard and Brian Grazer executive producing my show were it not for Degrassi.  This little Canadian show that could is that highly respected south of the border and the consistent praise I hear is that it's different.  It's original.  It's something that Americans would never create.  It's Canadian.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15581             So why do I, a Canadian creative who lives and works in Canada, have the confidence of some of the biggest names in the biz while the BDUs are trying to shut me and others like me down?  The better question is why would I stay in Canada when I can get a lot more respect and make a lot more money south of the border?  The simple answer is I won't stay in Canada.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15582             And I am hardly the first Canadian to defect.  Look at the writing teams in L.A. staffed primarily by Canadians; House, Bones, 24.  House is the number one scripted drama in Canada and a Canadian who worked for years in our television industry created it.  So don't tell me or my colleagues that we don't know how to create commercial television.  South of the border we define it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15583             Another area of concern I have with the proposed changes to the CTF involves the 10 out of 10 versus 8 out of 10 criteria to trigger funding.  The Best Years, the show I created after leaving Degrassi was 8 out of 10 since it was set in Boston and our lead actor was American.  It did not receive any CTF funding nor did it deserve it.  CTF is public money, despite arguments to the contrary.  It is money that is collected like a tax by the BDUs to support indigenous Cancom production in exchange for their ongoing protection from foreign competition.  The Best Years made up its budget shortfall through a U.S. sale.  We didn't deserve the Canadian Television Fund since the show was set in America, plain and simple.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15584             Were I creating The Best Years now, the proposed changes mean that it would be eligible for the CTF.  It's set in beautiful Ivy League Boston.  It stars an American, a woman who has appeared in Entourage and CSI: Miami and who played Justin Timberlake's love interest in his big screen debut.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15585             Hell, according to the new improved CTF, The Best Years should be a guaranteed commercial success, right?  Wrong.  The Best Years was not anywhere near as commercially successful as 10 out of 10 smack dab set in Toronto, Degrassi.  It did not catch on with Canadians, not because the show was bad.  We did big numbers in the U.S. and got great critical acclaim.  But in the end, The Best Years, like so many series, just didn't click at least not with a Canadian audience.  In fact, most series created just don't click.  It's a reality of this business.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15586             How many series survive their first season in the U.S.?  How many survive a first month?  In the 2006‑2007 development season of the 600 pilot scripts that were commissioned 45 made it to series.  And of those 45 only 14 were renewed for a second season and only one ‑‑ one ‑‑ made it to the Top Ten.  Think about that.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15587             Millions of dollars were spent for just one hit.  I can't be more clear.  There is no magic formula to creating hit shows even if we relegate funding to series whose sole goal is "commercial success".

LISTNUM 1 \l 15588             The big U.S. networks do everything they can to make hits.  Television is not just about producing shows.  These shows need to be publicized.  They need good and consistent scheduling.  They need promotion and hype and fair criticism.  We just don't have that system setup in Canada, especially not to support homegrown shows.  No matter how good a series is if the public doesn't know about it how are they going to find it?  And if they do find it, it's often relegated to shoulder periods like the summer or Friday and Saturday nights when simulcasting U.S. network shows is generally not an issue.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15589             And if viewers make it past all of those hurdles they are then watching shows that are produced on a fraction of the budget of most American shows.  The BDUs want to take away even more money from our already threadbare budgets.  And, yet, the expectation remains for us to create commercial programs; television series that will compete with Lost or House or Desperate Housewives even if the budgets on those shows run anywhere from $2.5 million to $3.5 million U.S. an hour while Canadian shows are lucky to scrape together $1.3 million.  Come on.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15590             Toronto and Vancouver and Montreal are not Hollywood.  Our budgets aren't Hollywood budgets so why this single‑minded expectation that we can emulate Hollywood product?  I am not saying that we shouldn't aim to be commercial.  Of course we should and we do.  But we don't spend millions of dollars on pilots.  The pilot for Lost alone cost nearly $15 million or about the price of the entire first season of The Best Years.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15591             We don't spend anywhere near as much per episode for an hour‑long series and we don't spend tens of millions of dollars a year promoting our shows.  But what we do when we are working at our best, is we create really specific original Canadian shows like Degrassi or Corner Gas or Little Mosque on the Prairie or Trailer Park Boys or Da Vinci's Inquest, shows that we can actually shoot on our budgets and that can then through their uniqueness and specificity to Canadian culture attract domestic and international audiences alike.  Will we win every time?  No way.  Anything ‑‑ anyone that good at creating hits would rule Hollywood.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15592             My final complaint with the proposed changes to the CTF is dividing it into two funds.  Not only will this create a lot of red tape and confusion but it's simply ridiculous.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15593             Take the West Wing.  Would you say that that show was a cultural hit because it explored the inner workings of the American political system, or would you say it was a commercial hit because it did so incredibly well in the ratings?  Of course the answer is both.  It's just that Americans are confident enough that culture is automatically commercial.  Cultural expression isn't classified as public or private.  It just is.  But if we were to create the same show and set it at Parliament Hill in Ottawa I honestly have no idea where that would fall in the proposed funding split.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15594             I am a proud Canadian who doesn't see a difference between cultural and commercial, who doesn't understand the difference between public and private, at least not within our unique system, not as long as the shows in question are good and appeal to an audience.  Parachuting in B‑list American stars won't make Canadians watch something.  And let's be honest, no A‑list American actor, writer or director would ever work for Canadian scale.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15595             So why the need to differentiate commercial and cultural before a show has even been developed?  Why burden the creative process with something so arbitrary and artificial?  How can any of that help our already beleaguered system?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15596             Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns today.  I hope I was able to open your eyes to my world as a creative in the Canadian television industry.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15597             THE SECRETARY:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15598             And now we will hear the presentation of Mr. David Barlow.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15599             You have 15 minutes.  Thank you.

PRESENTATION / PRESENTATION

LISTNUM 1 \l 15600             MR. BARLOW:  Madam Chair, Members of the panel, Commission staff, good morning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15601             My name is David Barlow.  I am listed on your program as under my company name which is Screenpages.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15602             Thank you for inviting me here today.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15603             For the past 25 years I have worked as a writer, story editor and producer of Canadian television series and TV movies.  My movies have depicted among others Canadian peacekeepers in Croatia, four young Canadians creating the board game Trivial Pursuit, a trio of adventurers ranching in the British Columbia wilderness.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15604             The TV series have portrayed police officers in Toronto and Vancouver; doctors, lawyers and news reporters in Toronto, a Jewish family in a small town in British Columbia and a Slavey community in Nunavut.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15605             I am currently a producer and a writer on a series entitled "The Border".  It features a national immigration and customs enforcement unit.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15606             Two of my TV movies were the highest rated MOWs of the season on the CBC.  I received two Gemini awards for best comedy series and a Gemini for writing serious drama.  TV programs I have worked on have received over 40 awards and nominations and have been sold worldwide.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15607             I would like to respond to the task force recommendations from the perspective I know best, which is television drama, and I include sitcoms when I use that term.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15608             Television drama is currently the most influential form of popular storytelling.  At its best it speaks to where we have been, who we are now and what we wish to become.  It shows us that we are not alone in what we feel and fear.  It reinforces our sense of self.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15609             The Americans understand this.  They have been successfully showcasing their mores, their social attitudes and their lifestyle through their film and television dramas for over 50 years.  A poll was done last year in Iraq.  The Iraqis ranked America as the most hated country in the world.  They also ranked it as the country they would most like to emigrate to.  What was the source of this image of America as the promised land?  American films and television.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15610             Primetime television despite strikes, game shows and reality programs is still dominated by dramas.  It is the single most pervasive and persuasive form of TV programming.  It is also minute for minute one of the most expensive forms of television programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15611             The CTF has as its objective to assist the creation and broadcast of high quality, culturally‑significant Canadian television programs and to build audiences for these programs.  Making television drama is hard work and building an audience is even harder.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15612             When I began in this business Canadian TV drama series were thin on the ground and the CBC resolved to increase their audiences for dramatic programming and CTV followed suit.  And as time went on series like Street Legal, E.N.G. and Road to Avonlea drew weekly audiences of a million or more and ran for many seasons.  A critical mass of high quality Canadian programming created an appetite for more Canadian programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15613             Then a number of things happened; more channels, fragmentation, reduced distribution fees, the CRTC's expansion of the definition of priority programs and the faltering of will on the part of some broadcasters.  Between 1998 and 2006 conventional broadcasters reduced their expenditures on Canadian programming from 5.1 percent of ad revenues to 2.3 percent.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15614             The cumulative effect was a radical reduction in the amount of drama produced in this country.  I felt like I had gone back in time.  The level of drama production seemed to be not much greater than it had been when I entered the business over two decades ago and we had a stretch of almost five years without a breakout hit; some critical successes but no hits.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15615             With little new Canadian drama on view the audiences went away.  There were plenty of other choices.  Canadian broadcasters were still merrily buying every new U.S. show that they could cram into their schedules and the refrain of the day was, "Well, Canadians won't watch Canadian shows.  They are really not interested."  But just when people started to buy that bit of sophistry along came a show called Corner Gas and then along came a show called Little Mosque on the Prairie.  Wonder of wonders, Canadians turned out in droves for these shows.  Networks recommitted to developing new series and we are now back to building a critical mass of Canadian quality programs which in turn will build audiences.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15616             It is a maxim that the audience doesn't know what it wants until it sees it.  The only way to succeed is to keep providing the audience with choices until it sees something it likes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15617             This has to be the toughest place in the world to make TV drama.  Our channels are saturated with imports from the largest, most successful purveyor of English‑language entertainment in the world.  And if that weren't enough competition we also import the best of British television.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15618             U.S. production budgets are on average almost three times larger than ours per hour, as Aaron mentioned and U.S. broadcasters cover 85 percent of these budgets.  Canadian broadcasters pay some of the lowest licence fees in the industrialized world.  Thank goodness for public financing.  But partially because it is public money the process of financing in this country is long and complex.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15619             A friend recently completed an application for development money for a feature film script, not production just the script.  The package; application, proposal, budgets, bios, contracts, corporate and other supporting documents ran to 125 pages.  When he told me this I said, "Steve, the actual screenplay is only going to be 110 pages."  Even if you manage to get your production financed you still have to face the fact that failure is the constant, success an exception.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15620             Aaron mentioned the ratio of scripts placed in development by the U.S. networks compared to shows still on the air after two seasons.  The odds of success are something like 35 to 1 in the United States and it's no different here proportionately.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15621             So huge competition, financing challenges and a high mortality rate, that's the climate.  What about the task force recommendations?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15622             The last thing the industry needs is two funds.  More objectives, more division of focus, more criteria, double the administration, double the complexity for producers to try and figure out ‑‑ trying to figure out where and how to apply.  Is my friend Steve going to have to prepare two 125‑page applications just to cover his bets?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15623             From what I have heard and read almost every supplicant who has appeared before you this week has wanted something a little or a lot different out of the CTF monies.  With everybody saying, "Me, me, me; what about me?" do we actually believe a board made up of nominees from contributing members is going to come up with simple and flexible and effective guidelines for a private sector funding stream, unless of course the CTF decides just to hand the money over to the contributing members and let them finance the programs they want.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15624             If that's the route chosen, don't expect to see a lot of Canadian drama being produced.  We have already established that it is high risk and high cost and we have past practice which demonstrates, given the choice, broadcasters are more likely to go with lower cost programming, reality entertainment, magazine shows, documentaries.  And with the CTF split into two there will be less money spread over more applicants.  Several private contributors have already registered that they want to take out as much as they have put in.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15625             Don't start splitting up and hiving off already limited resources.  Don't create additional language that will further limit and constrain the stewards and administrators when they are trying to determine the best way to accomplish the stated objectives.  Allow qualified experienced people of good intention to do what circumstances require to serve the existing mandate.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15626             Several private contributors see a pile of money going to support production.  It's natural that they would want a piece of the action or at least control over the action.  But it's not their money anymore than the GST that I collect is my money.  And I don't get to dictate how my GST is spent.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15627             Where does this apposition of market‑oriented private sector programs and high quality culturally‑significant programs come from?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15628             I have written and produced shows for CBC, Global and CTV.  I have worked on shows that ended up on numerous specialty channels.  The objective is always the same, make something that was of the highest quality we could afford that was competitive, that went after the largest possible audience and that met its financial targets; in other words, market oriented.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15629             The successes were culturally significant.  They had an impact on the popular culture of the day.  The successes on private networks were indistinguishable in their aims and objectives from the successes on the public network.  Why do we need two funds to accomplish the same objectives?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15630             Actual and potential return on investment must be a factor.  No producer goes into a production to lose money but it's an unpredictable high risk game.  There are more losers than winners.  If the BDUs or anyone else can figure a way to guarantee returns on particular programs they won't need the assistance of the CTF.  The private marketplace will provide a ready source of financing.  And that's the confusion that needs to be cleared up in my opinion.  The CTF is not in whole or part private funds held in trust for the financing of purely money‑making ventures.  It's public money that is supposed to be allocated in a way that will build audiences for Canadian programs.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15631             That said, there is this myth that culturally‑significant publicly‑subsidized Canadian television programs don't provide a return on investment.  The programs my colleagues and I have written and produced have filled the schedules of Canadian broadcasters and specialty channels, providing low cost repeats and earning ad revenue for years after their initial runs.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15632             Over the past decades I have watched production companies and specialty channels being built on the back of Canadian television programs financed with public funds.  I have seen these production companies and specialty channels prosper.  I have seen hundreds of people employed by these companies and I have seen these companies and their libraries of Canadian television programs bought and sold in mega deals and I have seen the major shareholders in these companies become multimillionaires.  Canadian television programs don't make money?  It all depends on how you do the accounting.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15633             Do we need a market‑oriented private sector‑oriented funding stream with a focus on investment return?  Guess what, we have already got it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15634             There is a sense both in the recommendations and some public comments that somehow the CTF program has failed, that people don't watch Canadian programs.  This is as false as the myth that CTF‑funded programs aren't market oriented.  Millions of people have watched and enjoyed 10 out of 10 Canadian movies and series, many millions of people.  There have been Canadian hits, TV movies and series with large audiences and critical successes; shows with fiercely loyal audiences that have sold well abroad.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15635             The track record for Canadian television programs will always be erratic and as drama producers and writers we simply don't get enough at bats to ensure a large number of homeruns.  That is not a reflection on the talent and capability of the creative teams behind these shows.  It is simply the law of averages.  And whenever we threaten to get on a roll and build a critical mass of programming it seems someone comes along and decides to change the rules or improve the game or disrupt the status quo to serve their own interests.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15636             But most damaging of all have been the actions that seem to be borne out of low self‑esteem.  There are players in this industry that seem to believe their lives and experiences and that of their fellow Canadians could never provide an adequate basis for compelling drama.  And since they see themselves in such inferior light they are unable, despite the enormous evidence to the contrary, to appreciate that a majority of Canadians do enjoy seeing themselves and their world on their television screens.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15637             I would respectfully suggest the following:  Stay the course.  Use a single fund to continue to fulfil the established objectives.  Do not be misled by private versus public mumbo jumbo.  That is too likely to be translated to, "Let us off the hook so we don't have to finance Canadian drama".  And finally, resist the impulse to fix that which isn't broken.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15638             Thank you for your attention.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15639             THE SECRETARY:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15640             And now we will hear the presentation of Karen Walton.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15641             You have 15 minutes.  Thank you.

PRESENTATION / PRESENTATION

LISTNUM 1 \l 15642             MS WALTON:  Good morning, and thank you.  Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.  I am a Canadian screenwriter who writes film and television drama in Canada, the United States and Great Britain.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15643             My TV credits include the multiple Gemini award‑winning Movie of the Week, The Many Trials of One Jane Doe; executive staff‑writing primetime series like U.S. cable network Showtime's flagship, Queer as Folk, and guest writing on Canadian primetime series like best drama winner, The Eleventh Hour, or What It's Like Being Alone, Straight Up and Drop the Beat and so on.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15644             For 14 years I have been hired at home and abroad to write competitive programming by corporate entertainment interests as diverse as the CBC and CTV to Warner Brothers, Universal Studios and, most recently, Sony Columbia.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15645             As you know, I am here to strenuously object to certain conclusions and recommendations of the Canadian Television Fund task force report as a creator and author of Canadian stories, as an avid consumer of domestic television and as a cable subscriber and not one, but two, Canadian households.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15646             Let us begin with the recommendation to create a new separate funding stream, separate supposedly public versus private monies to be managed by the contributing partners in the broadcast cable distribution business.  This is a recipe not for the salvation of successful television made for, by and about Canadians, but rather, to me, guarantees its ultimate demise.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15647             For inherent in this recommendation, I see few opportunities for truly original Canadian content, fewer opportunities for Canadians to see our unique world views and values properly reflected by their own, and our clear desire for alternatives to syndicated, simulcast foreign content or pale imitations of it all but ignored.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15648             To be frank, the new funding stream looks like nothing more to me but another tick in the shopping list for the wholesale sellout of a vital Canadian industry and its customers.  As a Canadian creator, I am extremely concerned that we are on the verge of allowing a few private profiteers to write their own ticket to the eventual control of our public airwaves.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15649             The BDUs' contributions are public money.  The 5 per cent required by the Broadcast Act from the revenues they get from Canadian subscribers is a social contract executed in the interests of us all in exchange for the privilege of protection from foreign competition.  We have already seen what happens when we weaken that contract on mainstream television, endless evenings of cheap foreign content, poorly‑promoted Canadian shows relegated to inconsistent, if not downright, obscure timeslots.  With a new funding stream as proposed we can expect much much more of the same under the suspect banner of market‑driven objectives.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15650             Based on the report, certain parties seem to assert a, frankly, wilful confusion as to the state and standards of CTF products and their market performance to date.  But I myself only conclude that certain participants just don't like sharing the sandbox with those charged to protect and promote the public's interest.  And I don't see that improving by making them the stewards of the playground.  I see no evidence that they have interest whatsoever at heart beyond charging Canadians more for less.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15651             As a writer whom works in a much larger, much more competitive global market, I know quality Canadian programs are only possible in public/private partnerships.  And I will grant you, I can't think of a formal organization that couldn't stand improvement.  But as to the CTF's funding guidelines, nowhere do I see stated in intent or result bad shows that no one watches and no one profits from.  Nowhere do I see a shred of evidence that the CTF is currently out to throw contributors' money down a well, burn it in the backyard or hand it out willy‑nilly to Joe Canadian, credentials unspecified, experience unknown, pipedreams nonetheless validated due to nation of origin, quite the contrary.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15652             As you have already heard this week, the CTF has invested in series that consistently deliver quality product, not just to Canadians, but product popular with the world.  Shows like Flashpoint, The Listener, and Sophie have been snapped up by our greatest competitor, the U.S. marketplace.  Les hauts et les bas de Sophie Paquin and, my personal favourite, Minuit, le soir were recently sold to France's top‑rated public broadcaster for primetime broadcast and these are but a few, as you know, of CTF's recent performers.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15653             We compete, we are successful.  Perhaps I am missing something.  I routinely benefit from the exploitation of my products through television and film residuals.  I am very interested in profits and audiences.  Perhaps those who would recommend fund splitting are somehow better prepared, can demonstrate a track record or the vital experience developing, producing and selling their own Canadian shows that could increase the profitability and popularity of my products, but I doubt it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15654             We have all seen the BDUs' programming schedules.  The Canadian cable companies are hardly flagships for either competitive Canadian programs or even Canadian content beyond promises of cheap, copycat reality projects.  Some of their representatives' very public derisive attitude toward what I, as a successful Canadian creator, have done so far or what I might like to do in the future, their preference to hold us all hostage, working with willing partners responsibly towards a reasonable solution to their concerns, these things don't inspire images of ideal leadership to a land of milk and honey and hits.  Rather, they only stoke my fears that corporate bullies can and will have their way in Canada under that suspect banner of more market‑driven objectives.  Whose market?  Whose objectives?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15655             Please do not subscribe to the rhetoric that suggests culturally‑representative programs are somehow antithetical to hit‑driven commerce.  We all know that this is not about public policy versus private enterprise at all.  Culture is commerce.  Hits occur when a distinctive and singularly identifiable voice reaches and resonates with common experience.  Culture and commerce are not separate ideas.  In modern society, it is the all‑pervasive entertainment media that is the principal carrier of popular attitudes, influences, information and new ideas.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15656             If you question this point of view I humbly direct your attention to the overwhelming influence of American values, products and corporate agendas on all Canadian populations.  Ask yourself how it got in the door, television, radio, internet, cable, movies, images and sound created by the great melting pot of mythologies of one conglomerated culture disseminated for a single common result, profit.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15657             America is in the business of pumping their culture into the world and Canada should be in the business of pumping ours.  America is an example only to us in the sense that if you invest in and cooperate, collaborate with, cultivate a nation's talent, it pays huge.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15658             I, for one, am not interested in endorsing the BDUs' bid to have us subsidize their ability to compete.  Canadian television's commercial success depends not on repeating, revising, emulating or submitting entirely to another country's already too pervasive cultural agenda, but in our celebration of our own intrinsic and fundamental differences from the predictable formulaic pablum currently produced elsewhere.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15659             We have the opportunity to keep offering Canadians and the world a competitive and desperately needed alternative.  And after all, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't cable created in the first place to address the audience's mad appetite for these alternatives, to encourage and exploit our diverse tastes and interests?  So why on earth would we then endorse reducing our only advantage, distinctly Canadian content?  Non‑qualifying eight out of 10 productions have created, produced, broadcast and have been put out to market in Canada, it is no better results than 10 out of 10s.  Logically then, the Fund's current requirements in no way hinder those who do not wish to make entirely Canadian content.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15660             That is why I also object to the recommendation that the CTF reduce the qualifying Canadian content points from 10 out of 10 to eight out of 10.  The message we would be sending is we are not successful enough because there are too many Canadians involved.  Do you want to send that message to our taxpayers, to our writers, actors, directors, producers, crew who, by the way, are also taxpayers?  You might as well add, hey, Canadian talent, don't let the door hit you on the way out and send us a post‑card from sunny California.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15661             You will lose a lot more than a few taxpayers, you will lose a vital component of the defenders and disseminators of this country's identity for good.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15662             The notion that 100 per cent Canadian cannot also be a hit is absurd and denigrates the industry as a whole, our audience's desire for it and our world market buyers.  It is a sad day indeed when a federal regulatory body would endorse such a concept even in jest, even as an ill‑conceived exercise in potentially repatriating successful but non‑resident Canadian talent, I can see no good or common sense in it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15663             Talented expats have left us and will continue to do so as long as we fail to present a stable development and production environment with reliable financing that offers something better than:  a) less money than other markets pay us; b) scant respect for natural‑based resource contributions to all of our broadcasters' profits; and c) the persistent, systemic devaluation of our skills and merit like this eight out of 10 proposal.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15664             They will continue to leave Canada for marketplaces where the only obstacles to creating hits are the odds and healthy competition, not dithering about how to finance one without them.  That is never a question elsewhere.  Canadians write hits and become household names elsewhere.  Consider Paul Haggis, a former Canadian writer of the series Due South, now an Oscar Award‑winning filmmaker who, on the side, just reportedly made $7 million to rewrite Sony Columbia's next James Bond movie.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15665             Consider Colbert Report writer, Montrealer Barry Julien.  Consider writer/performer Mike Myers, writer/performer Jim Carrey, writer/director Jean‑Marc Valleé and his recent engagement in England of Martin Scorsese's production of The Young Victoria.  Consider writer/directors like Brad Peyton, who has many studio deals, and ask yourself why he is no longer pursuing the animated television series he created at the CBC.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15666             This isn't about public versus private, this is about keeping Canadian talent working for Canada.  Yet, here we are again defending our talent to our own, again.  Some days I wonder if there are any of us left to fight off the self‑serving private interests who believe a foreign actor or director or writer will solve their endemic creative management issues.  Hits are cultivated by responsible entertainment professionals in collaboration with willing broadcasters.  Hits are not bought, they do not travel exclusively with non‑Canadian passports.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15667             If you honestly believe the answer to dissatisfaction with our national product is to import non‑Canadians to make it, we might as well pack it in here and stop pretending we value a distinct and separate identity at all.  But I am sure most Canadians and Quebecers would vehemently disagree with that option.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15668             Finally, permit me to suggest that more success will come from better financed and managed development.  But in the report, with respect, development, the cornerstone, the foundation, the groundwork of any successful TV endeavor has been relegated to a nod in a paragraph denoting it as a special interest.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15669             Here is where we are failing our unique and invaluable edge in meeting a more market‑driven agenda.  Here is why there is confusion about how a hit is made.  Here is where we are failing to allow that a crucial element to making consistently successful television is committing to effective, high‑quality, properly time‑lined, exceptionally well‑managed development by our topnotch Canadian talent a top priority.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15670             Unsatisfying shows in any form are not always but often the result of underdevelopment.  When you don't care what happens next or when you don't care what happens enough to stay tuned or come back next week, that is often because the underpinnings of the show have not been thoroughly tested, revised, reinvented, reworked to the highest possible standards.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15671             From concept to cast to how to advertise the show to its ideal audience to how many minutes between commercials we have to tell a clear and compelling story that captures your attention and makes you want more, this is the art, craft and science of development.  As development takes time and resources to be executed properly, it is costly to do it well, but not worth doing by half measures.  And if there is a secret formula to hits, development is the lab with all the equipment required to cook them up.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15672             As my peer Denis McGrath puts it, development is the creation and testing of your product's prototype, and then building the assembly line for its production so it can "be made for a reasonable cost and work right every single time."  And make no mistake, down the road when you have got assistant directors scouting and costumers and set builders and a 50‑person crew, try to craft a new episode every eight days you see how important getting that whole system right is.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15673             I would add that it is also, down the road, the difference between sitting on the edge of your living room seats glued to your favourite show or zapping off to something else made somewhere else, something that has been given the kind of investment it needs to hold you fixed and draw you back to your TV set each week again and again, in short, a hit.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15674             Thank you very much.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15675             THE SECRETARY:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15676             And now we will hear the presentation of Karen McClellan.  You have 15 minutes.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

LISTNUM 1 \l 15677             MS McCLELLAN:  Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the panel, Commission staff, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for having me here.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15678             My name is Karen McClellan and I am a writer and producer working in the Canadian television industry.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15679             My writing credits include writing episodes for CTV's critically acclaimed and award‑winning series Robson Arms, The Best Years, where I also served as a co‑producer; Alice, I think, based on the acclaimed and award‑winning book by Canadian Susan Juby, and Gemini Award‑winning animated series Oliver's Adventures.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15680             My most recent writing credit is Bridal Fever, an event movie produced for the Hallmark Channel in the United States.  I am also the creator and producer on two television series currently in development for CTV and CanWest Global respectively.  And I also have a movie currently in development with the Lifetime Network in the U.S.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15681             I was born and raised in suburban Oakville, Ontario.  For as long as I can remember I have always written and wanted to be a writer, always.  It is not even that I wanted to be a writer, it is just who I am.  At age 10 I wrote my first novella.  When I was 16 I turned to screenwriting.  After I earned by Bachelor of Arts from the University of Toronto I started working in the film and television industry taking any job I could get as long it exposed me to how television gets made.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15682             Long before I earned professional credits as a writer I learned about film and television from the ground up.  I paid my dues apprenticing in some of the most widely regarded and powerful film and television companies.  I worked in the development departments of ABC, Alliance Communications, and I was the assistant to several top television movie producers, including Irwin Winkler whose credits include Rocky, Raging Bull, The Right Stuff and Goodfellas.  I also worked for Gale Anne Hurd whose body of work includes the blockbuster hits Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15683             In 1998 I earned my Masters of Fine Arts in Screenwriting from the American Film Institute.  In 2003 I graduated from the Canadian Film Centre's primetime television program.  Both schools are recognized inside and outside of the film and television industry for their highly selective and competitive programs.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15684             I mention this because I want us to be very clear about where I am coming from when I say that I know what is involved in developing good television, and so that you know that I come here not only as a concerned Canadian screenwriter, but also as someone who has more than paid her dues in the industry, not just in Canada, but also in the United States, which is the country often held up as the standard against which we measure our own accomplishments.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15685             In the last 15 years I have straddled America and Canada academically and professionally and I take great exception to Jim Shaw's assertions that Canadians don't know how to write commercial or cultural hits, because that is why we are here, isn't it, to debate how television is developed and funded in this country?  Jim Shaw and Quebecor, and now Rogers Communications, would like to wrest control of the CTF's fund and divide it down commercial or private and cultural or public lines with the implication being the two are mutually exclusive.  They are not.  Cultural is commercial.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15686             There is an old adage in writing, and that is write what you know.  That is what I do and that is the only reason for any of the success I have had to date and the only reason why a Canadian and American marketplace has responded to my writing.  I am a Canadian who writes what I know and the stories I tell happen to appeal to a broad audience, which is why I want to tell you about Bridal Fever.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15687             Bridal Fever is the screenplay I wrote eight years ago, right after I graduated from the American Film Institute.  When I moved back to Canada I continued to develop the script and I finally sold it last July to the Hallmark Channel in the U.S.  The development executives at the Hallmark Channel, with a subscriber base of 83 million homes ‑‑ and I know it is the end of a long week, so I will quickly do the math ‑‑ that is more than twice Canada's population, decided that it would be the perfect fit for their network.  They knew their audience would love to tune into a fun, frothy, romantic comedy and it is no coincidence that they have programmed the movie to play this month as their big Valentines event movie.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15688             The Hallmark Channel has promoted the movie not only on their network, but on any network where they believe they have an audience. They invested a lot of money into the making of Bridal Fever and now they are proudly promoting it because they believe it is a commercial success.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15689             Entertainment Weekly agrees with Hallmark and declared it the best bet to watch on TV for this past Saturday, February 2, when it premiered on Hallmark.  Neither Hallmark nor Entertainment Weekly cares that Bridal Fever was written by a Canadian, directed by a Canadian, stars Canadian actress Andrea Roth of Rescue Me, was filmed in Canada with a Canadian crew and produced by a Canadian production company.  They don't care that it was, for all intents and purposes, a 10 out of 10 production.  All they care about is can it attract an audience?  And it did, it attracted millions of Americans this past Saturday night.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15690             So I ask you, is Bridal Fever a commercial success or a cultural success?  Because that is why I am here before you today, to defend the fact that Canadians can write and produce television that is clearly commercial and culturally Canadian.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15691             It is absurd to me that I need to be here today at all.  One would think my birth record, track record, education and work experience alone would prove the fact that Canadian writers can be commercial.  But it is not enough.  So why is that?  Because Jim Shaw is doing his best to bully others into believing that there is a difference between being Canadian and being commercial and that somehow the two are mutually exclusive.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15692             In an article dated January 7, 2007 in the Ottawa Citizen Jim Shaw is quoted from a letter he wrote to the CTF saying that:

"The Fund has become nothing more than a means of subsidizing broadcasters, pay and specialty services and independent producers to produce Canadian television programming that few watch and has no commercial or exportable value." (As Read)

LISTNUM 1 \l 15693             That is one of the most ignorant assertions recorded in the history of Canadian television and, yet, it has caused a tempest.  And where is the ringmaster to defend his claims?  Has he shown up in person this week to speak passionately about how the CTF is broken?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15694             Corner Gas, Road to Avonlea, Due South, Robson Arms, Degrassi, Degrassi: The Next Generation, Little Mosque on the Prairie, Trailer Park Boys, Cold Squad, these are a few of the commercial hits Canadians have written and produced in the last 10 years.  And I may add that Cold Squad was so successful that Jerry Bruckheimer, one of the most successful and business savvy Hollywood producers, copied it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15695             All of the shows I have mentioned are commercial hits rooted in Canadian culture and distinguished by being singularly Canadian.  Why are they commercial?  Because the public wants them.  In a recent poll an overwhelming majority of Canadians, 86 per cent, said they want access to Canadian programming that is distinct from American TV programs and think the Canadian Government, regulated by the CRTC, should invest and help ensure that Canadians have access to Canadian TV programs that reflect Canada and its people.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15696             The most authentic and successful stories are borne out of genuine knowledge.  It is essential to this industry that we employ Canadian writers to tell stories that reflect Canadian experiences.  So often the naysayers in the industry will point to Americans as being better writers, better able to tell Canadian stories.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15697             I know from firsthand experience working on several TV shows, in addition to earning my MFA at the American Film Institute, and I can tell you that nothing can be further from the truth.  Canadian writers are uniquely qualified to tell Canadian stories and being Canadian does not mean delivering a less commercial or less entertaining product.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15698             What is important to success is experience and cultivating a pool of professional creative talent within this country.  Professional writers are able to write shows that are not only relevant to Canadian culture, but also commercially successful.  Canadian writers are more than capable of creating television shows that appeal to a mass audience.  Those shows are not only important to the fabric of Canadian culture, they have spawned incredible talent, most notably Academy Award‑winning writer Paul Haggis, who was the show writer on Due South and went on to win an Oscar for his feature, Crash.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15699             Also included in that lot are Emmy Award‑winner David Shore, another Due South writer who went on to create the smash TV hit House.  These are two Canadian writers who started working in Canada writing Canadian shows and have continued to create and entertain large audiences with their work.  Please note the integral common ground between both men.  They started working in Canadian television.  Why?  Because they were Canadian writers telling unique stories to the Canadian experience.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15700             I am proud to be a writer following in these illustrious footsteps and I aspire to being a writer of similar note.  That kind of success is brought out of two things, talent and opportunity.  Opportunity has a broad meaning too.  It is not just having the chance to hone one's craft, it is also having the opportunity to create and develop television shows that will entertain and appeal to a wide audience.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15701             Having had three series in development, two with CTV and one with Global, and having been on the writing staff for several popular TV shows, I am well aware of the important role development plays in creating hit shows.  It takes time and resources to develop a television series from the germ of an idea to what is eventually aired on TV.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15702             Great TV is not born overnight, it takes many hours of sweat and work to craft a show, to hit the right marks, to write the funny lines, test and retest what is working and what is not.  It is a process that can take years and it is widely recognized as essential by television creators throughout the world.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15703             A recommendation by the CRTC task force on the CTF to cut development funding by allocating it only to the heritage portion of the funding, $100 million if implemented, would be detrimental to quality Canadian television being developed and produced in Canada.  Cutting development funding will cut opportunities and increase the likelihood that we will lose talented screenwriters, develop fewer talented screenwriters and establish the conditions in this country to finally prove certain cable operators' self‑interested proclamations that we can't make good television.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15704             Canadians can make good television, we have already proved it.  Canadian broadcasters and cable operator want hits.  Well, creators want hits too.  We want hits because we love what we do and the big ratings mean that we have reached our intended audience.  Nothing in the world is more gratifying, not for me and not for the countless writers and producers I have worked with in Canada and in the U.S.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15705             But creating hits takes money and it takes responsible programming and development. Even then, there are no guarantees a show will be a hit.  Nobody can predict what audiences will respond to, best guesses don't work.  The mega hit TV series Seinfeld was almost cancelled after its first season because of low ratings.  Imagine that, Seinfeld, the most successful sitcom ever created.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15706             American networks pour hundreds of millions of dollars into producing quality TV to attract advertisers and audiences.  Those hits don't happen overnight.  The Sopranos was 10 years in the making.  David Chase first developed the show at Fox.  After a couple of years Fox past on that show.  Eventually, he found a home at HBO, more development.  Finally, when the series debuted, those first scripts had gone through years of development and rewriting and rewriting and thousands of dollars.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15707             If this task force is serious about making Canadian TV commercially relevant, it will pour more money into the development fund, not sneak it away under the auspices of two funds, commercial and cultural or private and public, whatever you want to call it.  Canadian culture, specifically Canadian television, is a renewable resource.  We are not plundering our seas for cod, we are not raising our forests for timber, we are not drilling sands for a resource that contributes to our current climate concerns.  Our hits are broadcast in over 130 countries, proof that we can make great and profitable exports that not only support our local economies, but also bind Canada's national unity.  But what we are lacking is opportunity.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15708             Cable operators don't want to put money into the fund they call doomed.  They don't want to air Canadian shows because it is too hard to turnaround a profit.  I agree, it is much easier for them to take the money earmarked by CRTC Regulations and invest it into American‑format shows and fund American research and development.  That is what they are doing, they are funding American shows and American risk takers because they are too lazy to take the risk themselves.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15709             Just like it will be that much easier for me to go down to the States and find work in an industry that doesn't judge me on my nationality, but judges me on the quality of my work.  Americans know how to take creative risks, that is something the Canadian cable operators could learn.  What kind of risks are they taking when their private companies are protected by public policy?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15710             Quite simply, I am asking the CTF task force to reconsider any designs it has to divide the CTF into two funds, private and public. I am asking you to give the same protection and consideration to Canadian writers and creators you would give to any other special interest group.  There is no reason for me to stay in Canada.  The only reason I came back here was for family and because I believe in this country.  But I don't want to live in Canada and work in an industry at discriminates against me because I am Canadian because, make no mistake, that is what is happening here.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15711             So why do I stay here?  I ask myself that everyday and the only answer I have is that Canada matters to me.  Because as long as I am Canadian and I have a story to tell, I want to tell it here.  I want to see my experiences reflected on the small screen.  I want to practice my craft here, where I was born and raised.  I want to contribute to Canadian culture.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15712             I believe in this country, and I believe that when we are authentic and forget to compare ourselves to our neighbours to the south, we are utterly and completely fantastic.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15713             And the very idea that I have to leave my homeland to freely pursue my craft is offensive.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15714             Would you read a Canadian newspaper where the journalists were all American?  Would you want to listen to a Canadian radio station that played only American music, reported only American news, simply because a small number of individuals who control those newspapers or radio stations wanted more advertising revenue.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15715             Wouldn't you feel cheated?  Wouldn't you feel betrayed, like you were a second‑class citizen who couldn't speak up for yourself?  I know I would feel that way, I already do when it comes to this hearing that we're having about the CTF.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15716             I hope I have given you some insight into what it means to work creatively in this industry and what is at stake from a creative standpoint.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15717             And I thank you for listening to my concerns today.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15718             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Well, ladies and gentlemen, thank you all for your oral presentation here this morning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15719             I must say that the one common goal and, you know, I for one hope that we will continue to build a Canadian system that allows each and everyone of you to stay in Canada and hone your craft.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15720             Our questions to you, some may be specific to your submissions, both your oral and your written one, while others may be more general.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15721             So, if any of you want to answer any of the questions, just turn on your microphone and we'll call you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15722             And I will ask Commissioner Morin to lead the questioning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15723             Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15724             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Yes, good morning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15725             I ask my first question to Screenpages and after to Mr. Martin.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15726             As you have said, producers and broadcasters have acquired a certain degree of confidence that they didn't have before, and I remember that in the 90s the criteria was eight out of 10, now it's 10 out of 10.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15727             So, with all the Canadian series which have been exported, why are you continuing to stress the importance of protecting the Canadian industry when English Canadian series are exported around the world?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15728             As the Chair has said, if you want to intervene, please do.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15729             So, Mr...

LISTNUM 1 \l 15730             MR. BARLOW:  The success of the 10 out of 10 Canadian series around the world is gratifying and speaks to I think the concept that you can go global by being local and specific, unique in particular.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15731             I think that we ‑‑ I'll let Aaron respond as well, of course ‑‑ but I think that certainly from my point of view the 10 out of 10 for a public fund is appropriate because that's probably the most difficult thing to finance with foreign partners.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15732             Even though on the sales side we have had success with 10 out of 10, it's one thing to come in after the fact when you see the program and another thing to come in in the beginning before the program is realized.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15733             And generally the experience, there's been two things that have happened.  One is that there's no indication that eight out of 10 is any more successful, that's any more competitive than 10 out of 10 both ‑‑ you know, with Canadian audiences.  And the other experience has been that when you open those key two points to non‑Canadians that traditionally what happens is either the writer or the lead actor is replaced by a non‑Canadian, and we feel when that happens invariably there is a substantive change in the Canadianess of the program.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15734             And, again, we feel that a public fund should support those things that are most Canadian.  If there was more money available, then I could understand or consider that there might be some argument for the criteria being relaxed, but my understanding is that CTV went to 10 out of 10 because of the overwhelming demand for funds and the consideration that eight out of 10 would have a better chance of attracting outside financing that would not ‑‑ that would then dictate that the program would not require domestic financing, public funds.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15735             Aaron, do you want to speak to that?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15736             MR. MARTIN:  My show, "The Best Years", was actually first sold to the United States and it became a co‑pro and the very basic thing they said to me was, it can't be set in Canada.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15737             And so, you know, even though it was, you know, produced in Canada, you know, directed by Canadians, written by Canadians, its origins were in the United States.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15738             So, in my mind, if I was able to access that kind of money, which I was, why would I need to access money that's specifically reserved for Canadian culture?  I mean, if you're actually able to do a pre‑sale to a foreign market, then you shouldn't be able to get money that is earmarked for promoting Canadian culture unless the show remains set in Canada.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15739             And I'm not sure that if you ‑‑ I mean, the biggest place you want to get money from is the United States and most Americans I know are not going to want to develop a show from the ground up that is set in Canada.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15740             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  My second question, you don't agree with the out of 10 scale, but some private funds said yesterday that it is a useful opportunity, even if it's not always the case, it's an opportunity for everyone.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15741             MR. MARTIN:  But it isn't an opportunity if Canadians aren't hired because of it.  I mean, you know, the fact is if you have an eight out of 10 that means you can have non‑Canadians on it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15742             So, why is the Canadian public going to fund somebody from L.A. to come up and direct or write or star in something?  It doesn't make any sense to me.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15743             If it's public money, which it is, it should be going towards Canadian public not American public.  I mean, the U.S. machine has more than enough money to, you know, to employ its stars and its writers and directors.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15744             We're a different ‑‑ like I said in my presentation, we're a totally different market.  We do things totally different than Americans do.  We need to have, you know, funds there for Canadians.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15745             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  A question for you, Mr. Martin, specifically.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15746             What are other narrower measures we can use to reduce, to define the CTF eligibility?  In other words, what other measure can we use to weaken and to minimize the importance of the audience as a criteria?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15747             Is there an interaction between a group of factors that we can use, a more precise determiner of CTF eligibility instead of only using audience number; we can use, for example, international syndication.  What do you think about this?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15748             MR. MARTIN:  Again, you know, there is different ways of determining success in a TV show.  I mean, that's why this artificial idea of trying to reach a million with every TV show doesn't make sense to me because some shows are geared towards ‑‑ and this happens in the States too ‑‑ some shows are geared towards specific audiences.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15749             So, I think if you're able to get your audience you're going for, that's success.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15750             I mean, it's hard to say if selling it to 130 countries means that you deserve CTF more than somebody else.  I think that you deserve CTF if you're a Canadian show and then you let the market forces work after that.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15751             If you create the show and it does well, you should keep ‑‑ you know, get renewed for a second season.  If it doesn't do well, you get cancelled.  That should be the determining factor in TV production.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15752             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Because since Monday we have heard many interveners here saying ‑‑ having visceral opposition to this criteria, the audiences.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15753             MR. MARTIN:  Yeah, but ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 15754             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Now, I don't explain that because there's a lot of jobs at stake here for the unions and so on and the audience number is in some way an objective that we can fix to get more production from the...

LISTNUM 1 \l 15755             MR. MARTIN:  Yeah, but if you consider what it takes to get an audience to watch a show, you can't expect to get an audience just by shooting something.  It's not like "if you build it they will come", they won't if they don't know it's on air or if it's on Saturday nights at nine.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15756             So, if everything's going to based on audience, then ‑‑ and Canadian broadcasters and cable companies and everybody wants to work like Americans, then they have to act like Americans.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15757             Like I said in my presentation, Americans spend millions, millions of dollars promoting and they think of things right in advance, like, where can I ‑‑ you know, we're going to make something that's going to come on after "American Idol" so we can keep a female audience, let's make a drama that that's specific.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15758             Canada we don't and that's, you know, in many ways because the Canadian schedules are determined by simulcasting.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15759             So, my point is that you can't expect to get the numbers that "Lost" gets if you're not going to promote the show like "Lost" gets promoted, or you're not going to put it at the right time that it needs to be on.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15760             So, how can you expect a Canadian show that isn't promoted, that is at a bad time to do as well.  Like, that's where the idea of only numbers coming into it makes no sense to me.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15761             There's occasional shows that do really well, like "Corner Gas" and "Little Mosque on the Prairie", but even then they don't do as well as, you know, as some megahits.  It's...

LISTNUM 1 \l 15762             I think what the determining factor should be is if it's on the air and if it fails, you know, at all, then that's left to the broadcaster to cancel it or not cancel it.  It shouldn't be left up to cable companies to determine the schedule.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15763             MR. BARLOW:  The other concern about an audience ‑‑ the audience criteria and foreign sales are that they are post facto determinants.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15764             If you're talking about funding an initial television series, you're a year away ‑‑ in this country, usually a year away from knowing what degree of success it will have and you may be two years or more away from knowing how it's going to do in foreign markets.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15765             So, you can certainly ask producers ‑‑ and I assume the CTF does this ‑‑ you can ask broadcasters and producers what their expectation is in terms of the audience they wish to reach and I think in many cases that is not just a whole number, I mean, I think you can look for a specific niche market or targeted audience and then you would be judged on the extent to which you reached that audience.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15766             So, in some ways I think it's a matter of asking applicants to articulate exactly who they wish to reach and not just a whole number.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15767             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Over the last years the percentage of the Canadian programming has decreased, if we compare with the whole broadcasting system.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15768             How do you explain that?  Is there a link with the promotional advertising from the broadcasters, or some people have said that Tuesday and Wednesday.  Do you agree that there is a lack of promotion about the Canadian shows that could explain this fact?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15769             MS McCLELLAN:  There's absolutely a lack of promotion that goes on around the Canadian shows.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15770             And ‑‑ how to explain it.  Canadian broadcasters invest a lot of money in American television shows and they also simulcast them, so I completely understand the standpoint to heavily promote what you've spent a lot of money on, what you think you can get a return for.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15771             But the downside to that for Canadian programs is that they are slotted in, you know, whatever time is left, they're not widely promoted.  When they are promoted, they are generally promoted on their own network, but they're not cross‑advertised.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15772             You know, a show on CBC isn't advertised to the audience that the show could also get from another station, like CTV or Global where the audience is watching.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15773             I mean, I'll use "Bridal Fever" as an example just because I'm so familiar with it.  But it was advertised on Hallmark and it was also advertised on the  Food Network and other networks across the board that compete with Hallmark, but where Hallmark thought it would find an audience.  So, Hallmark went out and reached out to the audience.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15774             I think what happens often in Canada is that Canadian shows are promoted somewhat on their own station, but that you're relying on that one demographic to look for that show and that's just ‑‑ that's not how people watch television any more.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15775             People watch TV, they PVR it, they use  their digital recorders to get the programs, they buy TV on DVDs, they watch it in chunks.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15776             The audience has changed dramatically in the last 10, 15 years.  People are not loyal to one TV station any more, they're not getting all of their programs from just one place.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15777             So, I think it's essential that shows are cross‑promoted, that there's bus ads, that there are billboards, that there are radio station ads, that everything is done to promote these shows.  And it takes money and resources and a desire to do that.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15778             And it's very difficult to find your audience if nobody knows that that show's out there.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15779             There's a fantastic show called "Robson Arms" and, yes, I do have bias because I wrote for it ‑‑

‑‑‑ Laughter

LISTNUM 1 \l 15780             MS McCLELLAN:  ‑‑ but initially it used to air on Saturday nights against "Hockey Night in Canada".  I mean, "Hockey Night in Canada" is an institution, everybody watches "Hockey Night in Canada".  So, there were a few people watching the show on Saturday nights, it had a small loyal audience, but once the show was moved to Tuesday nights and followed after "Corner Gas", suddenly the numbers skyrocketed.  It went from 200,000 people watching the show to around 700,000.  I mean, I don't have exact numbers, but that's the general ball park.  It more than doubled its audience.  And that's because it was programmed at a time when people want to watch that show.  The "Corner Gas" audience, they want to watch it and they're probably the same people who want to watch "Hockey Night in Canada".

LISTNUM 1 \l 15781             So, that's what happens with Canadian programming, why it's difficult to get the numbers and get the audiences that the American shows get.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15782             I hope that's answered your question.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15783             MR. BARLOW:  Just one thing I'd like to add quickly and that is that if you ‑‑ I think everybody at this table can completely understand, if you give a private broadcaster the choice between producing a lower cost indigenous program, reality show or a documentary as opposed to a drama, a lower cost show with less downside risk, as business people they will make that choice.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15784             If you give them the choice between putting on an American show that they've purchased, an American drama that they've purchased that comes with an enormous amount of ancillary publicity and media support over a more expensive, higher risk Canadian drama which they're going to have to promote from ground zero, as business people they will make that choice to do the one  that has less risk and less economic exposure.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15785             What I think we're saying is, as creative types is that when there's public financing available for the tough stuff, the indigenous drama, there should be a requirement that folks commit to making indigenous drama and it should be supported, at least partially, out of the public fund.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15786             MR. MARTIN:  Can I add just one more thing.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15787             "The Best Years", which is an eight out of 10 which was, you know, on Global and on the N in the United States, Global, you know, only had so much money to promote it, they did a great on‑air campaign that Karen was talking about where, you know, they did lots of ads on their network and they did a really big push when the show premiered and so we got, you know, a nice premiere and then the numbers went like that.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15788             Whereas in the United States the N, which was able to access across the Viacom Network because they're part of Viacom, so they were able to access MTV, VH‑1, all these different networks, they cross‑promoted it across all those networks, they put trailers in movie theatres, they were able to access Facebook, on My Space they did.  I mean, they did a huge campaign because, you know, they had more money, they're part of Viacom and that resulted in the premier episode of "The Best Years" on the N being something like 200 per cent higher than anything that had premiered in that time slot before.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15789             So, this is where creative crosses over into business.  And we're here doing the creative side, there has to be a business side that's helping along with it and if you don't have that, it can be the best show in the world, like "Intelligence", but, you know, it wasn't promoted, so, who's going to watch it and people just don't know it, and it's half the business, it is the film and television business.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15790             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Yesterday the Quebecor Group which own TVA, the broadcaster, and VideoTron the cable distributor has offered, and there was a lot of coverage in the French press this morning, offered to the CRTC to double the amount of production which is expected over the next three years of $50‑million to increase ‑‑ to double this 50‑million over three years to more than 100‑million over the next three years in Canadian content.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15791             But in order to do that they are asking the CRTC and opting out of the Fund, of the Canadian Television Fund.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15792             So, it's a big proposal, you know, and if the CRTC gave the permission of this opting out to Quebecor, what would your reaction be?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15793             If Rogers, for example, or Shaw promised to the CRTC that over the next three years they will double their Canadian content production ‑‑ for example, Rogers I think is contributing over 300‑million to the CTF and it's getting a few millions instead of ‑‑ so, if Rogers or Shaw, for example, if Shaw promised to double the Canadian content production and other distributor on the English side, what your reaction will be to such a proposal, on your side, if I say?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15794             MR. BARLOW:  Opting out, what a great Canadian tradition.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15795             That's very generous, that's very generous.  I think that there's ‑‑ part of me as a Canadian says that, you know, we've built in this country a tradition of balance of payments, of the haves taking care of the have‑nots, of making sure that there's some, if not equitable distribution of wealth when the haves are doing well and the have‑nots are not doing so well, that we do this in other sectors of the economy in Canada and we've done it successfully.  There's no doubt it's a generous offer.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15796             My initial reaction is that I would worry about the minority plays, the additional areas where the CTF is trying to foster things like support of Francophone minorities in other parts of the country and their educational commitments and so forth.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15797             I would worry about these things perhaps being ghettoized if all the big players opted out and said, well, all the money that we have and we collect from subscribers we want to spend on ourselves.  You know, that's understandable, but I would worry, as I say, about what it does to the minor players who can't speak up.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15798             And then I would also look and something like this for still something that some sort of regulations that do what the CTF objective now does, which is to articulate specific areas of need in Canada in the Canadian popular culture and ask that, as generous as these offers are, that they also abide by those criteria.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15799             So, as I said before, drama would not suddenly disappear even with 100‑million being spent by Quebecor or whoever.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15800             Just press that button.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15801             MS WALTON:  Oh, thank you.  Ah, there it is.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15802             Actually in response to either the Shaw scenario or the Quebecor scenario, I would respond totally genuinely.  I would have three questions, because I did ‑‑ I have been, and thank you, enjoying these broadcasts in my office all week, so I did see almost all of both presentations and I had three questions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15803             So, these are my answers to their proposals, or the imagined proposals in the case of one party.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15804             My first question would be:  Are you satisfied with their definition of Canadian content?  Does Canadian content mean by themselves for their own employees and back into their own pockets?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15805             My second question would be:  Why can't they do it in the current CTF framework?  Why?  Where does the money magically occur and grow so fast outside of a reasonable conversation with the people who actually are responsible for making sure that we all make product that reflects this country and not one person's private interest or the interests of foreign influence on that individual?  Why can't that be done in the current funding arrangement?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15806             I didn't understand what the problem was.  If they have that much money to spend, I'd be glad to take some from them, so I didn't understand the rationale.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15807             And my third question is basically:  If in three ‑‑ do you really truly ‑‑ because I'm not convinced by what they said ‑‑ believe that in three years we will have, as David says, a vastly improved Quebec dramatic scenario over even what we enjoy in Quebec now?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15808             I watch both English and French programming in Montreal.  I'm amazed always as an English Canadian from other regions to even see how much content is on now and how excellent it is, but they are CTF productions that I admire and watch and I watch them weekly, which is more than I can say for some of the other product that we're discussing.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15809             So, I just ‑‑ I would say, I doubt it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15810             MR. MARTIN:  And I guess my concern would be is, what's the track record of these people to producing anything?  I mean, they're cable providers, they're not studios, they're not producers, so...

LISTNUM 1 \l 15811             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Oh, they're enjoying good ratings over many shows.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15812             MR. MARTIN:  But shows that they created or shows that they bought?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15813             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Yes, shows they created.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15814             MR. MARTIN:  Like...?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15815             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Like "Minuit, le soir", for example is ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 15816             MR. MARTIN:  But I'm not talking about in Quebec, I'm talking about in English Canada.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15817             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  ‑‑ is imported in  France and so on.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15818             MR. MARTIN:  But did they green light that or...

LISTNUM 1 \l 15819             MR. BARLOW:  You're actually talking about Rogers.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15820             MR. MARTIN:  Yeah.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15821             MR. BARLOW:  You're talking about Rogers, yes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15822             MR. MARTIN:  I'm talking about Rogers, sorry, I'm talking about English Canada, yeah.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15823             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Okay.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15824             MR. BARLOW:  I believe they're new to the ‑‑ Rogers is new to the broadcasting game.  I don't know, aside from carrying the baseball and hockey is it, or basketball, I'm not sure what they've done in drama.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15825             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15826             MS McCLELLAN:  Excuse me, if I may add.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15827             My concern with what I've just heard is, where is there accountability, that's what I want to know?  If they take money out of the Fund, if they decide, Rogers and Shaw and Quebecor, decide that they're no longer going to put money into the Fund, who are they going to be accountable to and what money is this; is this their own private money or is this still money that they're collecting on behalf of subscribers and, so, in that respect it's still public funds?  That's what I would want to know and ask in relation to their question to you, their proposal.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15828             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Vice‑Chairman Arpin.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15829             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Only one question.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15830             Are you members of the Writers Guild of Canada?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15831             MR. BARLOW:  Yes, in ‑‑ yes, we all are.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15832             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  The four of you?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15833             MR. BARLOW:  That's correct.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15834             COMMISSIONER ARPIN:  Thank you very much.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15835             THE CHAIRPERSON:  And I too just have one question.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15836             We did hear, as Commissioner Morin said, yesterday from the private funds and we know there are a number of them out there, there is the CTF.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15837             Once you have a project ready to be pitched to ‑‑ I know you go first to the broadcaster, do you have a preference as to who funds your shows?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15838             Who do you go to first; do you go to the private funds or do you go to the CTF?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15839             MR. BARLOW:  Usually you knock on every door and the configuration usually depends on the nature of the program and the broadcaster and so forth.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15840             So, some of it's self defining by, you know, your region, the nature of your program, the broadcaster you're doing business with, the production company you're doing business with, for instance, you know, some private funds bridge financing, some production companies are big enough they don't ‑‑ they can bridge finance to a certain extent, development on their own.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15841             So, it depends really on the nature and packaging of the material, that's been my experience.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15842             THE CHAIRPERSON:  And the ability to knock on every door, do you find that to be an advantage or a disadvantage?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15843             MR. BARLOW:  Very personally   , the more various ways there are to get shows done, the more comfortable I am.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15844             I believe in diversity and I believe that different broadcasters serve different needs, hopefully different funds serve different needs and it's that range of diversity.  I'd hate to see a monopoly in any one area.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15845             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Then, Mr. Barlow, you might be anticipating my next question.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15846             If we agree and continue to maintain the Task Force recommendation that the CTF should be split into two funds and if we clearly identify what we  think the role of those two funds should be, wouldn't it be advantageous to you to have that one more door to knock on?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15847             Various participants throughout the week have said, well, split it, you can split between profit and non‑profit broadcasters, one could be commercial the other could be dedicated solely to special initiatives.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15848             Wouldn't that be to your advantage, if we were able to come up with a definition that clearly defined both funds?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15849             MR. BARLOW:  That is, to me, in my opinion, a big "if".

LISTNUM 1 \l 15850             As I say, and I think you have heard it from others here, we have a lot of difficulty making distinctions between commercial and cultural.  We don't make that kind of separation.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15851             I, personally, would always be worried about the ghettoization of non‑profit, of special interests, of a "there and that" fund, and we have kind of built a wall around that.  You know, you have to go in there if it smacks at all of anything special interest, or anything cultural.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15852             I think our argument is that cultural and commercial are often the same thing in television.  It's a popular medium.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15853             So it's the "ifs" of the definitions and it's the ghettoizing of certain areas that would make me nervous.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15854             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Ms Walton?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15855             MS WALTON:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15856             I just wanted to say that, in this particular hypothetical creation of the hypothetical private fund with these particular hypothetical players, what I ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 15857             THE CHAIRPERSON:  The players aren't hypothetical, but anyway...

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

LISTNUM 1 \l 15858             MS WALTON:  That's for you to say, I won't get into that.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15859             Here is the interesting thing about their presentations yesterday ‑‑ and I really enjoyed the question and answer.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15860             At one point, Madam Chair, you were asking for a plan, and that would be, frankly, my key concern about any new private fund, as it is with every private fund for me, personally.  I deign to take my associations quite seriously, politically, economically, impact‑wise, and my local economy and so on.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15861             For instance, I didn't hear what the plan was for these private interests.  Agenda creatively?  Agenda for me as creative talent?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15862             I didn't understand what it was that they felt they could accomplish, except for adding programs that I don't do.  I am not interested in writing game shows.  I won't be doing the next Canadian Idol, Sequel 26 ‑‑ ever.  I admire very much the people who do them, but it is not my gig.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15863             So I didn't hear in what they proposed, or I don't see in what I have seen so far from the transcripts any evidence that there was a plan that right now, today, I could say, "Yeah, I would go and knock on that door, too," because right now I am not clear at all on what it represents.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15864             Plus, I don't see in any of those corporate structures the infrastructure that is devoted to responsibly developing, producing and selling home‑grown product.  I didn't see that they are somehow especially able to do that better than, say, our existing situation with inde producers going to various funds.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15865             MR. MARTIN:  Could I respond to that, too?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15866             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Sure.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15867             MR. MARTIN:  As a creative person, I honestly just don't know what the difference is between commercial and cultural.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15868             When I hear "commercial", does that mean that they want only procedurals, like cop shows?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15869             To me, there is no definition, because some of the most commercial shows, even coming out of the United States, aren't necessarily commercial.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15870             "Gilmore Girls", a show like that, would you consider that cultural or commercial?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15871             It's not a procedural, it's about two women who have a really close relationship, in a very specific, small‑town American setting.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15872             How do you define it?  That's what I am really concerned about, is how you define the two.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15873             If a small amount is only relegated to personal, character‑driven shows and the rest is delineated to cop shows or medical shows, that doesn't seem to help foster creativity or making shows that an audience is going to go to for distinctiveness and originality.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15874             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Again, thank you very much.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15875             Commissioner Morin.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15876             COMMISSIONER MORIN:  With two funding streams in the CTF, wouldn't it be easier for CBC, for example, to respect its mandate ‑‑ the mandate of public interest instead of commercial interest, or ratings?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15877             MR. MARTIN:  If the public interest is to reflect Canadian culture, isn't it best to reflect it to as many people as possible?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15878             MR. BARLOW:  "Little Mosque on the Prairie" is a blatantly commercial sitcom.  It walks and talks and looks like a duck.  It's blatantly commercial.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15879             It also says something pretty important, I think, about the Canadian culture and about how we try to live in this country.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15880             So it serves a public and a cultural ‑‑ although I am not comfortable with that word ‑‑ mandate.  Where would it land?  Which one of these funds would it land in?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15881             I have done entertainment programming for 25 years, and I don't know ‑‑ most of the product that I have done on CBC has been like "Little Mosque", or attempted to be like "Little Mosque".  It's using a commercial format to entertain and, since we are alone here, send a message about how we as Canadians live.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15882             But I never say that too loudly, because it scares people and they think, then, it's culture, and I just want them to sit back and enjoy it.  I'm getting my message in.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15883             Where do I fit?  Where do I land?  Which door do I knock on?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15884             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Like I said, thank you very much.  Your positions are quite clear, and your submissions are very well written.  Thank you.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

LISTNUM 1 \l 15885             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Secretary.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15886             THE SECRETARY:  Thank you.  Now we will hear the presentation of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.

‑‑‑ Pause

LISTNUM 1 \l 15887             THE SECRETARY:  Please introduce yourself.  You have 15 minutes.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

LISTNUM 1 \l 15888             MR. LAROSE:  Jean LaRose, APTN; Joel Fortune, Fasken Martineau.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15889             First of all, I want to start by saying that I am very honoured to be presenting to the Triple A Team of the CRTC and its supporting Staff.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15890             Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairperson Arpin, and Commissioner Morin.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15891             We know each other, of course, but, for the record, I am Jean LaRose, Chief Executive Officer of Aboriginal Peoples Television Network.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15892             I am here today with Joel Fortune from Fasken Martineau.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15893             Let me give you a road map to my comments today.  I will address APTN's general perspective on the CTF, our ongoing and recurring concerns regarding the weakness of audience measurements, our view that a market‑oriented approach is not an end in itself ‑‑ we have a much richer set of objectives in the Broadcasting Act ‑‑ and our concern that separating so‑called special initiatives from the overall single fund would not be appropriate.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15894             The significance of the Canadian Television Fund to the broadcasting system and to Canadian programming really cannot be overstated.  The alternative to a stable, well‑funded and effectively administered programming fund like the CTF is a much weaker broadcasting system.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15895             Right now, from APTN's perspective, the fund is stable, it is fairly well funded, and it is effective.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15896             Is the CTF the very best fund that money can buy?  This is a question of perspective, obviously.  From APTN's perspective, we feel strongly that more resources should be allocated to high quality, first year Aboriginal productions, both Aboriginal language productions and productions in English and in French.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15897             These kinds of productions have, until very recently, been absent from the broadcasting system.  Aboriginal peoples have been invisible, and the effect has been devastating.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15898             Some people might want to debate the causal relationship between invisibility within Canada's mainstream cultural products and the impact this has had on Aboriginal peoples.  From our perspective, there is no debate.  The impact is clear on our languages, on the quality of information we see, and don't see, and on the prejudices we experience.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15899             The CTF is a key regulatory tool, so we believe that more resources should be allocated by the CTF to preserving Aboriginal languages, and more resources should be allocated directly to APTN, because APTN has a direct mandate to advance the interests of Aboriginal peoples.  In fact, we are the only broadcaster with specific Conditions of Licence related to this mandate.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15900             This is our perspective on the CTF.  I have presented it here because I believe that you have heard some other points of view about how the CTF supposedly is or isn't meeting other particular objectives, and doesn't, to borrow the words of one critic, create value out of culture.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15901             The impact of the CTF, through APTN, on Aboriginal participation in television, still the most powerful communications tool, is significant.  Since APTN was launched, the number of Aboriginal‑owned, independent production companies has grown from just a couple to more than the 70 that we are aware of today.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15902             CTF funding, which goes directly through APTN to independent production, with significant Aboriginal participation, has led, in concrete terms, to the creation of real value for Aboriginal peoples in Canadian culture.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15903             Furthermore, in this year's Request for Proposals for new programming for APTN, I am proud to say that all approved projects are by Aboriginal‑owned or controlled production companies.  This is an incredible achievement in just eight short years, and the CTF fund is a major part of this success, because this is a measure of success that you, as the CRTC, can use to define if the CTF is in fact a success in itself.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15904             Could the CTF be improved?  Yes, from all kinds of different perspectives, including our own.  We would like more resources, but, then, who wouldn't?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15905             But for now, today, I am here to make our point, which is that the CTF, as it is now constituted, as a single fund with a range of objectives, is probably a better structure than the alternatives under consideration.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15906             One of the Task Force recommendations is that audience success should be a primary criterion for continued funding, particularly in relation to the broadcaster performance envelopes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15907             APTN relies on the funding through the English and French BPEs.  In the current year, we are allocated $2.6 million under the English language envelope, and $607,000 under the French language envelope.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15908             Accordingly, the BPEs and the measurement of audience are very important to our overall funding level and to the amount of programming we can produce, or help to produce as contributing broadcasters with other broadcasters.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15909             We have made the point before that APTN often participates as a secondary broadcaster in higher cost productions to complete the funding required, and to ensure meaningful Aboriginal participation.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15910             But APTN does not garner the kind of audiences that CTV, Global or TVA garner.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15911             Moreover, our audiences are different from those other mainstream audiences.  Our audiences among Aboriginal peoples are difficult to measure, which is a point that has been confirmed by BBM.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15912             But there is no single, monolithic, overreaching audience in Canada.  An overemphasis on total audience measurement as a factor of the BPE calculation, we believe, does a disservice to the plurality of Canadian society.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15913             In fact, our existing funding system already recognizes that there are two different audiences ‑‑ the French language funding stream, and the English language funding stream ‑‑ to support each of these.  These audiences are measured and allocated separately.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15914             That is my point.  There is no single audience in Canada.  How we measure it depends on our perspectives and our objectives.  We measure French and English audiences separately because we recognize that there is a difference, and we want to support both languages broadcasting in our system.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15915             The CTF has done a fair job, so far in my view, in balancing audience measurement against other factors in setting BPEs.  This year, like last year, more emphasis is being placed on audience number and less on historical access.  We will need to see what impact this will have on APTN in the future, and, ultimately, the role we play in licensing mainstream productions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15916             I am, however, concerned about that impact.  I am concerned because it seems that when APTN starts to benefit from the measurement factors within the CTF model, these change, and I often feel we are back to square one.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15917             This is a case where reduced reliance on historical access is possibly going to impact us negatively, since we were just starting to have a growing measurement of historical access.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15918             As I said earlier, audience measurements do not measure Aboriginal peoples in Canada.  We estimate that this means a shortfall of 2 million viewers a week in our audience numbers, at the very least.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15919             My suggestion is that if more emphasis is to be placed on bulk audience measurements for funding, then more thought needs to be given to the concept of base funding support within the CTF for APTN.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15920             At APTN we want to increase our overall audience share, and also better serve our primary and largely unmeasured Aboriginal audience, but we are not in the same position as CTV, Global or TVA to do so.  We don't have the resources, we don't have the profile, especially in the channel lineup or across commonly owned platforms, and we don't have the same bottom line mandate.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15921             I believe strongly that a so‑called market‑oriented approach is not an objective in and of itself for broadcasting policy or for the CTF.  Simply put, if the market were an end in itself, we would not need a Broadcasting Act.  The reason we have a CTF is to support programming that the market would not otherwise support, or not support to the extent we want or need.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15922             As thoughtful people, we want to do more with our broadcasting system than make money and let the market run its course, regardless of the consequences.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15923             When it is said, therefore, that it is desirable that a more market‑oriented approach be adopted for the CTF, I believe that what we really have in mind is a desire to produce more popular programming than Canadians want to watch.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15924             The point that we made in our written submission, and that many others have made, is that no broadcaster or producer tries to do anything else than to produce great programming that the intended audience will want to watch.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15925             No further incentive is required, that is already the prime objective for all programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15926             Now, the types of programs that the CTF supports are not all, by their nature, destined to compete directly for the same mass audience that consumes American prime time programming, but that does not mean that those programs are not produced with a view to being the best, most attractive programs possible, and it certainly does not mean that they are not popular programs.  They are certainly popular with their intended audiences, and discounting the legitimacy of the audiences, even if they are smaller, seems derogatory to me.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15927             In my view, the CTF made a compelling point when it said that it is not desirable for the CTF to try to make market decisions about particular programs.  Broadcasters themselves make those decisions by selecting the programs that are best supported using their funding envelopes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15928             We support the continuation of this approach.  Our principal concern is that different broadcasters should have reasonable access to the CTF's funding streams in light of their different mandates.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15929             This brings us to the suggestion regarding different funding streams for different kinds of programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15930             Funding decisions should take into account the achievement of broadcasting policy objectives and the circumstances of different broadcasters.  Some broadcasters, like APTN, have the mandate to do more than just homogeneous, mass appeal programs.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15931             If the best way to ensure a reasonable level of funding to APTN is to allocate dollars separately from the dollars allocated to other broadcasters, then we would consider that approach.  It works for the CBC.  But what APTN objects to is the notion that there are two streams of funding available to the CTF, and that, by their nature, they should be directed to different purposes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15932             We have a much more powerful funding mechanism now, where there is a single fund that is allocated based on the achievement of different objectives.  Under this system, APTN has been treated fairly thus far.  We encourage continued CRTC oversight over the CTF to ensure that this remains the case.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15933             APTN would not support a CTF funding system where important policy objectives, like the reflection and participation of Aboriginal peoples in the broadcasting system, are not seen as an important objective for the CTF overall, having regard to all resources at its disposal.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15934             We do not support a system where Aboriginal peoples' participation in the CTF, a fundamental tool of broadcasting policy, is realized solely on outside government funding.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15935             First, the CRTC, not the Department of Canadian Heritage, has the primary duty to regulate the broadcasting system.  Contributions made by BDUs to the CTF are mandated by the CRTC.  Contributions made by Heritage are not.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15936             What happens if the Department finds other priorities for its moneys?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15937             This is not a theoretical or rhetorical question.  Such reallocations happen as governments or their priorities change.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15938             Aren't Aboriginal peoples full players in the broadcasting system?  Doesn't the CRTC have an interest, through its own policies and mechanisms, in seeing Aboriginal peoples treated fairly in accessing CTF funds?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15939             Given that the CRTC has recognized the important place of Aboriginal peoples in the industry by licensing and supporting APTN since 1999, I would interpret that as a strong affirmative statement.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15940             Second, I believe there is no validity to the notion that CRTC‑mandated BDU payments to the CTF are somehow private and should, by their nature, be allocated to private as opposed to public objectives.  It is entirely within the discretion of the CRTC as to what objectives are appropriate for this fund and to what extent.  The question is, what are the objectives we want to achieve, not the source of the funds.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15941             Third, BDU contributions reflect the requirement of the Broadcasting Act that each element of the broadcasting system shall contribute, in an appropriate manner, to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming.  We strongly believe that BDUs should make a contribution to a range of programming that reflects their fundamental role in the broadcasting system.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15942             Aboriginal peoples are consumers.  We are cable and satellite subscribers.  Our subscriber payments go to BDUs and, ultimately, find their way back to the CTF.  Why shouldn't those payments find their way back to Aboriginal peoples in CTF supported programming that reflects our special place within Canadian society, to borrow a phrase from the Broadcasting Act.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15943             Last, it seems to me that some of the support for the split‑fund notion is owed to the fact that, over time, the federal government contribution to the CTF has declined.  It has been pointed out in some submissions that the current level of government support is not sufficient to support allocations to the CBC, educational broadcasters, and other special initiatives.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15944             What we are looking at, therefore, we believe, is a natural desire for some to have access to more funds, pure and simple.  It is not a question of principle.  After all, when the shoe was on the other foot, when the federal government portion of the CTF revenue was much greater than the BDU portion ‑‑ and that seems to have been the case until `06‑`07 ‑‑ I never heard an outcry that private programming, on private broadcasters, should not be supported by public funds.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15945             I thank you for this opportunity to make our views known regarding the CTF.  We have highlighted today some of our key points, and I would like to summarize them quickly.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15946             APTN would not support the kind of amendments to the regulations that were proposed by the Task Force.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15947             APTN supports the continuation of the CTF largely on the basis that it has been operating.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15948             At the same time, we are concerned that over‑reliance on market forces and audience measurements could have a negative impact on APTN's role in bringing Aboriginal peoples into the broadcasting system.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15949             We are fundamentally opposed to a segregation of funds from different sources to different purposes within the CTF.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15950             We encourage the CRTC to continue to exercise active oversight over the CTF and its programs.  There is no reason, in our view, why the CRTC should not do so.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15951             If the overall broadcasting policy objectives are not being achieved by the CTF ‑‑ and we believe that this should include the objective of full participation of Aboriginal peoples in the broadcasting system ‑‑ then the CRTC should intervene.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15952             Naturally, in this submission I have highlighted our key concerns.  I do want to state that I believe the focus that this process and the Task Force report placed on the CTF has been beneficial.  I have the impression that the CTF has tightened its operations and governance, partly in response to the Task Force report.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15953             Furthermore, I think that the importance of participation at the CTF, at the Board table, has been highlighted for the Commission.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15954             Let me first say that APTN has, thus far, been fairly treated by the CTF and its Board.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15955             We have listened to the debate about governance.  Our view now is that the CTF could well be served by a smaller, truly independent Board, accepting advice from all stakeholders.  Decisions would be made by the independent Board.  This would allow APTN to present a case for ourselves to the CTF on the same footing as other stakeholders.  We, and others, would have to insist on Board representation.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15956             If this kind of structure is not put in place, then APTN will need to push harder for Aboriginal representation on the Board.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15957             As a last point, APTN endorses the call for new funding for new media production.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15958             At this point I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15959             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr. LaRose and Mr. Fortune.  As always, both your written submission and your oral presentation are quite clear.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15960             I really don't have a lot of questions for you, but I have a few.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15961             On page 4 of your oral presentation you say:  "I am very proud to say that all approved projects are by Aboriginal‑owned or controlled production companies."

LISTNUM 1 \l 15962             Do you make this a requirement?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15963             MR. LAROSE:  We make it a requirement to the extent that, in trying to develop our production sector, we will accept proposals from non‑Aboriginal production companies, but we ask that they partner with Aboriginal individuals.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15964             We are trying to build capacity in our community.  We are trying to give opportunities to our peoples, which, up to now, have never been afforded to them.  We have found that, certainly, the non‑Aboriginal production sector has been very positively responsive in developing relationships and partnerships with our producers, and with other technical staff, to create these entities that are Aboriginal‑owned or controlled, in partnership with them, or on their own, to produce our programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15965             As we stated at the Commission back in 1998 when we first applied, the goal here is to provide opportunities to a sector of the population that never had them, i.e., our peoples.  We are now doing that, and we are doing it, quite often, in partnership with non‑Aboriginal people.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15966             THE CHAIRPERSON:  How many projects did you participate in last year that went for CTF funding?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15967             Even just a ballpark figure.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15968             MR. LAROSE:  I would have to say 20, 30 maybe, all in all.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15969             I am throwing the Aboriginal Language Initiative envelope in there as well.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15970             THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are including the ones that were in Aboriginal languages.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15971             MR. LAROSE:  Yes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15972             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Remind me, is that a guaranteed envelope, Aboriginal language productions?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15973             MR. LAROSE:  It's a guaranteed envelope as long as the government wishes to guarantee it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15974             THE CHAIRPERSON:  On page 7 you say:  "My suggestion is that if more emphasis is to be placed on bulk audience measurements for funding, then more thought needs to be given to the concept of base funding support within the CTF for APTN."

LISTNUM 1 \l 15975             Can you elaborate on that point?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15976             What do you mean by the bulk audience measurements for funding?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15977             MR. LAROSE:  If it becomes a criterion that the key defining measure is strictly total audience measurement, then I am ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 15978             THE CHAIRPERSON:  The total hours tuned suggestion made by CanWest yesterday?

LISTNUM 1 \l 15979             MR. LAROSE:  It could be the CanWest proposal.  I have heard other proposals, as well, and maybe Joel will want to add something to this.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15980             Anything that is solely or greatly focused only on audience measurement, then we are of the opinion that something within the CTF, a certain amount, has to be devoted to APTN to allow us to grow audience.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15981             Since our audience isn't measured, we are at a huge disadvantage to get access to broadcaster performance envelopes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15982             As BBM stated to us quite directly, and in writing, they don't measure our audience at all.  They don't have any Aboriginal peoples in their audience, so the 2, 3 or 4 million people we will get in a week watching us are mainly non‑Aboriginal people.  If we were to factor in the Aboriginal audience, as well, considering there are almost 2 million Aboriginal people, what would our average audience be?  It would probably triple, quadruple, quintuple ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑ and nobody knows.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15983             That's why, for us, we couldn't rely strictly on an audience measurement system, because Aboriginal people would be totally, totally invisible in the system.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15984             THE CHAIRPERSON:  And, by default, that's why historical access is so important to you that it remain a factor.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15985             MR. LAROSE:  It has become very important to us, yes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15986             THE CHAIRPERSON:  I really don't have any other questions.  Like I said, you are always quite clear.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15987             My colleagues may.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15988             No.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15989             Thank you very much for your contribution here today.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15990             MR. LAROSE:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15991             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Secretary.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15992             LA SECRÉTAIRE : J'inviterais maintenant TQS à se présenter.

‑‑‑ Pause

LISTNUM 1 \l 15993             LA SECRÉTAIRE : S'il vous plaît, vous présenter, et vous avez 15 minutes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15994             Merci.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15995             M. BELLEROSE : Bonjour, Madame Chair, Monsieur le Vice‑président Arpin, Monsieur le Conseiller Morin, membres du personnel.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15996             Mon nom est Serge Bellerose. Je suis Vice‑président, Nouveaux médias et Affaires corporatives de TQS, et c'est en ma qualité de porte‑parole du réseau et de ses stations que je m'adresse à vous aujourd'hui.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15997             J'apporte cette précision importante du fait que je suis également membre du conseil d'administration du Fonds canadien de télévision depuis mai dernier.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15998             J'y suis délégué par l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs en ma qualité de représentant du secteur de la télévision généraliste privée de langue française.

LISTNUM 1 \l 15999             À mes côtés, à ma gauche, se trouve mon collègue Louis Trépanier, Vice‑président, Programmation de TQS.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16000             Permettez‑moi d'abord de prendre quelques instants pour rappeler au Conseil la situation particulière dans laquelle se trouve TQS à l'heure actuelle.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16001             Depuis le 18 décembre dernier, TQS est sous la protection de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16002             L'entreprise a également été mise en vente, sous la supervision du contrôleur mandaté par le tribunal, RSM Richter.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16003             Le 24 janvier dernier, à la demande de TQS et de son contrôleur, la Cour supérieure a émis une ordonnance établissant un processus de vente, de même qu'un échéancier.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16004             Les acquéreurs potentiels ont jusqu'au 25 février pour présenter des offres d'achat fermes, et c'est au début du mois de mars que les actionnaires actuels auront à accepter l'offre retenue.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16005             La transaction sera alors soumise à l'approbation du tribunal le 10 mars et le dépôt d'un plan d'arrangement suivra dans les semaines subséquentes, tout comme les demandes d'approbations réglementaires requises.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16006             C'est donc dans ce contexte tout à fait particulier que nous nous présentons devant vous aujourd'hui pour faire part au Conseil d'un certain nombre d'observations sur la situation du marché de langue française et de préoccupations quant à l'accès aux contributions financières dont bénéficie TQS par le biais des enveloppes de rendement du Fonds canadien.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16007             TQS aurait toutes les raisons de critiquer sévèrement le Fonds canadien, voire même de demander carrément sa disparition et son remplacement par un autre mécanisme de soutien au financement des émissions prioritaires.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16008             De fait, dans le marché de langue française, TQS reste résolument le parent pauvre du Fonds, malgré ses 11 parts de marché et en dépit d'engagements qui l'obligent à diffuser cinq heures d'émissions prioritaires par semaine.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16009             Pour bien saisir l'ampleur du déséquilibre dont est victime TQS à l'heure actuelle, permettez‑moi de vous fournir quelques données comparatives sur les enveloppes de rendement attribuées aux diffuseurs dans le marché de langue française.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16010             En 2007‑2008, l'enveloppe de TQS est d'environ 3,7 millions de dollars, en baisse d'un demi‑million de dollars par rapport à l'année précédente.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16011             En comparaison, Radio‑Canada dispose d'une enveloppe de 27,6 millions, TVA de 16,4 millions, Astral avec ses services spécialisés de 13,5 millions, Télé‑Québec de 6 millions et TFO de 4,8 millions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16012             Oui, TQS serait parfaitement justifiée de joindre sa voix à celles qui réclament à grands cris le démantèlement du Fonds depuis plus d'un an.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16013             Et pourtant, nous ne le faisons pas.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16014             Nous ne le faisons pas parce que nous reconnaissons que, dans le marché de langue française particulièrement, l'apport du Fonds canadien a contribué à la production et à la diffusion d'un grand nombre d'émissions et de séries de qualité qui ont rejoint l'intérêt d'un vaste auditoire.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16015             C'est pourquoi nous croyons sincèrement que le Fonds canadien a toujours sa raison d'être.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16016             Toutefois, afin qu'il joue pleinement son rôle dans le système, des changements en profondeur s'imposent.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16017             Il est totalement inéquitable que 52 pour cent des fonds alloués aux enveloppes de rendement des diffuseurs de langue française soient attribués aux télédiffuseurs publics.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16018             À elle seule, la Société Radio‑Canada dispose d'une enveloppe protégée correspondant à 37 pour cent des montants disponibles, en vertu d'une exigence de l'entente de contribution intervenue entre Patrimoine canadien et le Fonds.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16019             Pour leur part, Télé‑Québec et TFO ont reçu cette année 15 pour cent des allocations des enveloppes de rendement, et les deux télédiffuseurs éducatifs demandent que leurs allocations soient garanties à ce niveau dans le futur.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16020             Lors de consultations menées par le groupe de travail en mars dernier, TQS avait suggéré que le fonds soit scindé en deux volets.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16021             L'un, public, alimenté à même les contributions de Patrimoine canadien et qui financerait les télédiffuseurs publics et à but non lucratif de même que les initiatives spéciales.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16022             L'autre, privé, financé à même les contributions mensuelles des EDR et qui soutiendrait des projets destinés aux télédiffuseurs privés.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16023             TQS réitère publiquement sa proposition, qui a également été avancée plus tôt cette semaine par Astral.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16024             TQS est d'avis que le Fonds doit profiter de la mise en place de ce nouveau volet privé  pour procéder également à un rééquilibrage statutaire des enveloppes de rendement dévolues aux différents diffuseurs privés en tenant compte de leur importance dans le marché et de leurs obligations réglementaires.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16025             Il devrait aussi éliminer le facteur de rendement lié à l'accès historique, prioriser le succès à l'auditoire et permettre aux diffuseurs d'allouer les montants de leurs enveloppes de rendement à leur entière discrétion dans les genres d'émissions admissibles, afin de répondre adéquatement aux besoins du marché.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16026             TQS croit également que le Fonds canadien devrait assouplir ses restrictions quant à l'accès limité aux enveloppes de rendement pour les sociétés de production liées aux télédiffuseurs privés.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16027             Par ailleurs, TQS est en profond désaccord avec la proposition de Quebecor de se retirer du Fonds canadien et de réaffecter la totalité des contributions de son entreprise de distribution Vidéotron à son télédiffuseur généraliste TVA, à ses chaînes spécialisées ainsi qu'à son service de vidéo sur demande.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16028             S'il donnait son aval à une telle proposition, le Conseil contribuerait à créer un déséquilibre concurrentiel dans le marché qui, à terme, se ferait au détriment de la diversité et du système canadien de radiodiffusion.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16029             TQS est d'avis que la solution proposée par Quebecor est totalement inappropriée dans la mesure où elle confèrerait notamment à TVA un avantage indu sur ses concurrents, avantage rendu possible du seul fait de son appartenance à un groupe de propriétés qui contrôle la plus importante EDR au Québec.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16030             En fait, Quebecor propose une solution sur mesure pour servir ses propres intérêts au détriment de ceux du système.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16031             De plus, l'approbation par le Conseil de la proposition de Quebecor paverait la voie au retrait du Fonds canadien de télévision d'autres entreprises de distribution tentées, elles aussi, de favoriser leurs entreprises de télédiffusion liées.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16032             C'est donc tout le système de soutien à la production d'émissions originales canadiennes de qualité qui s'en trouverait profondément bouleversé et affaibli.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16033             Nous remercions le Conseil de nous avoir permis de transmettre nos observations dans le cadre de cette instance, et nous sommes disposés à répondre à vos questions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16034             LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, et bienvenue.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16035             Vice‑président Arpin ?

LISTNUM 1 \l 16036             CONSEILLER ARPIN : Merci, Madame la Présidente.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16037             J'avouerai en premier lieu que votre mémoire est claire. Il n'y a pas de...

LISTNUM 1 \l 16038             Le nombre de questions va être relativement limité parce que vous avez couvert à peu près tous les angles.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16039             Cependant, vous avez mis de l'importance, effectivement, sur les critères de sélection qui permettent de déterminer la taille des enveloppes et vous avez dit que, bon, il faudrait éliminer le facteur de l'accès historique et prioriser le succès de l'auditoire.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16040             On a entendu, dans le cadre de cet audience, hier matin ‑‑ je ne sais pas si vous avez eu l'occasion d'entendre les représentants de Canwest, qui nous ont fait un commentaire du même ordre, mais en nous soumettant une proposition qui est basée sur...

LISTNUM 1 \l 16041             Attendez un peu. Je vais la retrouver exactement.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16042             Sur les heures totales d'écoute. Plutôt que sur portée. Plutôt que sur les minutes moyennes d'auditoire.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16043             Je ne sais pas si vous avez eu l'occasion d'entendre les gens de Global ou prendre connaissance de leur proposition.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16044             M. BELLEROSE : Malheureusement pas, Monsieur Arpin.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16045             Vous comprendrez qu'on est particulièrement occupé. J'ai concentré le temps disponible à écouter mes collègues de Quebecor.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16046             CONSEILLER ARPIN : Si le Fonds optait pour effectivement éliminer l'accès historique pour ne s'en tenir qu'au succès d'auditoire, comment mesureriez‑vous ce succès d'auditoire ?

LISTNUM 1 \l 16047             M. BELLEROSE : Au départ, la raison pour laquelle nous militons en faveur de l'abandon du facteur historique ‑‑ il est très important dans le marché de langue française. Je crois que c'est autour de 45 pour cent.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16048             Donc, à peu près la moitié des enveloppes sont déterminées par le facteur historique.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16049             Donc, à partir du moment où vous avez été, pour toutes sortes de raisons ‑‑ et je ne porte pas de jugement sur le contexte qui a fait que le résultat en est ainsi.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16050             À partir du moment où, dans le passé, vous n'avez pas été favorisé par l'attribution des enveloppes, c'est sûr que vous allez de façon récurrente entériner ce désavantage‑là dans le futur, puisque le facteur historique est basé sur la moyenne des trois dernières années.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16051             Alors, quand on regarde ce que TQS a eu comme enveloppe, ça jouait entre 4,2, 3,3, 3,7. Donc, c'était dans l'ordre de grandeur.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16052             Donc, ce facteur‑là joue un rôle extrêmement déterminant.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16053             Le facteur du succès à l'auditoire peut être mesuré de bien des façons selon les catégories.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16054             Le Fonds, cette année, à titre d'exemple ‑‑ parce qu'il y avait des préoccupations du côté des télédiffuseurs éducatifs par rapport particulièrement aux émissions pour enfants, le Fonds a réussi à développer des approches originales qui valorisaient davantage le groupe cible, ce qui permettait aux gens donc d'avoir une reconnaissance adéquate des succès d'auditoire parce qu'ils vivaient une niche particulière.

LISTNUM 1 \l 16055             Le défi qui nous guette en tant que télédiffuseurs conventionnels ‑‑ c'est sûr que, la tentation des télédiffuseurs privés, ce serait de dire : « Oui, mais ça, ça va nous défavoriser. Parce que, nous, on a de petits auditoires, on n'obtient pas les mêmes portées. »