ARCHIVED -  Transcript

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Providing Content in Canada's Official Languages

Please note that the Official Languages Act requires that government publications be available in both official languages.

In order to meet some of the requirements under this Act, the Commission's transcripts will therefore be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of CRTC members and staff attending the hearings, and the table of contents.

However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the hearing.

                   TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
             FOR THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND
                 TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DU
                 CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
             ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES

                       SUBJECT / SUJET:

              CANADIAN TELEVISION POLICY REVIEW /
               EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES DU CONSEIL
             RELATIVES À LA TÉLÉVISION CANADIENNE

HELD AT:                TENUE À:

Conference Centre       Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room          Salle Outaouais
Place du Portage        Place du Portage
Phase IV                Phase IV
Hull, Quebec            Hull (Québec)

September 28, 1998      28 septembre 1998

                           Volume 5

Transcripts



Transcription

Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues
officielles, les procès-verbaux pour le Conseil seront
bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des
membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des matières.

Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu
textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée
et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le
participant à l'audience publique.

                 Canadian Radio-television and
                 Telecommunications Commission

              Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
                télécommunications canadiennes

                  Transcript / Transcription

              Public Hearing / Audience publique

              Canadian Television Policy Review /
               Examen des politiques du Conseil
             relatives à la télévision canadienne

BEFORE / DEVANT:

Andrée Wylie            Chairperson / Présidente
                        Vice-Chairperson, Radio-
                        television / Vice-
                        présidente, Radiodiffusion
Joan Pennefather        Commissioner / Conseillère
Andrew Cardozo          Commissioner / Conseiller
Martha Wilson           Commissioner / Conseillère
David McKendry          Commissioner / Conseiller

ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:

Jean-Pierre Blais       Commission Counsel /
                        Avocat du Conseil
Margot Patterson        Articling Student /
                        Stagiaire
Carole Bénard /         Secretaries/Secrétaires
Diane Santerre
Nick Ketchum            Hearing Manager / Gérant de
                        l'audience

HELD AT:                TENUE À:

Conference Centre       Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room          Salle Outaouais
Place du Portage        Place du Portage
Phase IV                Phase IV
Hull, Quebec            Hull (Québec)

September 28, 1998      28 septembre 1998

                           Volume 5

         TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES

                                                   PAGE

Presentation by / Présentation par:

Cogeco Inc.                                        1247

Craig Broadcast Systems Inc.                       1304

Goldi Productions Ltd.                             1340

FNC, Fédération nationale des communications       1363

Epitome Pictures Inc.                              1404

Running Dog New(s) Service                         1476

                             1247

 1                                Hull, Quebec / Hull (Québec)
 2     --- Upon resuming on Monday, September 28, 1998
 3         at 1302 / L'audience reprend le lundi
 4         28 septembre 1998 à 1302
 5  5663                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon and
 6     welcome back to our hearing.  I hope everybody had a
 7     nice weekend, whatever was left of it for some of us.
 8  5664                 Madam Secretary, would you invite the
 9     next participant, please; voulez-vous inviter le
10     prochain participant, s'il vous plaît.
11  5665                 Mme BÉNARD:  Merci, Madame la
12     Présidente.
13  5666                 La première présentation sera celle
14     de Cogeco Inc., et j'inviterais M. Audet à nous
15     présenter ses collègues.
16  5667                 M. AUDET:  Merci, madame.
17     PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
18  5668                 MR. AUDET:  Good afternoon, Madam
19     Chairperson.  We wish to congratulate you for your
20     recent appointment as the new Vice-Chair, Broadcasting,
21     and we note that you are now fully immersed in your new
22     responsibilities and challenges.  Our greetings also to
23     your colleagues on the Commission's important panel for
24     this hearing, and our special regards to Mrs. Françoise
25     Bertrand.
                          StenoTran

                             1248

 1  5669                 My name is Louis Audet, President and
 2     CEO of Cogeco.  Accompanying me today are, to my right,
 3     Mr. Michel Carter, Vice-President and General Manager
 4     of our broadcasting arm, Cogeco Radio-Television; to my
 5     immediate left M. Yves Mayrand, Vice-President, Legal
 6     Affairs, and to his left Christian Jolivet, Director,
 7     Legal Affairs, of Cogeco.
 8  5670                 We appreciate this opportunity to
 9     present to you during the next few minutes some of the
10     points and expand on some of the points which we have
11     presented to you in our written submission as well as
12     to answer some of the questions you might have about
13     them.  Our presentation will address primarily our
14     television and our production activities within the
15     Cogeco group of companies, and subsidiarily, we would
16     like to address the potential consequences of certain
17     proposed television policy initiatives in our cable
18     distribution operations.
19  5671                 I wish to remind you that companies
20     of our group are part of the membership of CAB and CCTA
21     and that we do not intend to duplicate the extensive
22     comments these associations have made to you.
23  5672                 Cogeco est présente depuis plus de 40
24     ans dans le secteur de la télédiffusion de langue
25     française.  Elle exploite deux stations affiliées à la
                          StenoTran

                             1249

 1     Société française Radio-Canada ainsi que deux stations
 2     affiliées au réseau TQS situées respectivement à
 3     Sherbrooke et à Trois-Rivières.  Avec ces quatre
 4     stations et bientôt, sous réserve de votre approbation,
 5     les stations affiliées à SRC et TQS qui desservent le
 6     marché de Chicoutimi-Jonquière, Cogeco assurera la
 7     couverture de Radio-Canada et de TQS à près de
 8     1 063 000 téléspectateurs francophones, soit 17 pour
 9     cent du marché francophone au Québec.
10  5673                 En tant que télédiffuseur régional,
11     Cogeco croit fermement qu'il y a place au Québec pour
12     une télévision locale distincte et de qualité, une
13     télévision qui soit près des gens et à l'écoute des
14     communautés qu'elle dessert.  Ainsi, Cogeco est
15     favorable au maintien des politiques actuelles du
16     Conseil relatives au reflet local qui lient la capacité
17     des radiodiffuseurs à retirer des revenus publicitaires
18     locaux à l'offre d'un service local de programmation.
19  5674                 Je passerai maintenant la parole à
20     Michel Carter, qui parlera du contexte actuel du marché
21     de la télévision française au Québec.
22  5675                 Michel.
23  5676                 M. CARTER:  Merci, Louis.
24  5677                 Le marché de la télévision française
25     au Québec demeure un marché fragile.  Les nouveaux
                          StenoTran

                             1250

 1     services spécialisés francophones et anglophones ont
 2     accaparé une part disproportionnée de l'augmentation de
 3     l'assiette publicitaire au détriment des télédiffuseurs
 4     généralistes.  Le marché publicitaire de la télévision
 5     française est également déprimé par les pratiques du
 6     Groupe TVA, qui offre des coûts par point et par mille
 7     escomptés, ce qui a pour effet de rendre le marché
 8     défavorable à long terme pour tous les diffuseurs et
 9     pour le système de radiodiffusion dans son ensemble.
10  5678                 Dans ce contexte, nous ne voyons
11     aucune nécessité urgente ou avantage manifeste à
12     modifier la limite actuelle de 12 minutes par heure
13     pour la publicité.  On vient à peine d'harmoniser les
14     règles concernant la teneur publicitaire et d'augmenter
15     de ce fait l'inventaire disponible dans l'ensemble du
16     système pour la télévision conventionnelle et
17     spécialisée.
18  5679                 Le fait de décontingenter les
19     inventaires publicitaires serait source d'instabilité
20     accrue dans le marché et serait nettement préjudiciable
21     aux intérêts des diffuseurs dans les marchés
22     secondaires et des services spécialisés qui sont
23     indépendants des grands réseaux établis, dont ceux pour
24     lesquels des demandes de licences ont été déposées et
25     qui seront éventuellement étudiées par le Conseil.  En
                          StenoTran

                             1251

 1     effet, le décontingentement aurait pour effet
 2     d'accentuer la concentration des investissements
 3     publicitaires dans les grands marchés canadiens.
 4  5680                 Quelques brefs commentaires
 5     maintenant sur le rôle de la Société Radio-Canada.
 6  5681                 De nombreux intervenants ont débattu
 7     au cours de cette instance du rôle de la SRC dans le
 8     système de radiodiffusion canadien.  En tant qu'affilié
 9     de la SRC depuis 40 ans, nous pouvons témoigner de
10     l'apport crucial qu'a eu la SRC pour le développement
11     de la télévision au Québec.  La SRC occupe aujourd'hui
12     fermement le deuxième rang chez les télédiffuseurs
13     francophones généralistes au Québec et constitue une
14     alternative essentielle au Réseau TVA.
15  5682                 Malgré nos différends actuels avec la
16     société d'État concernant les modalités de nos contrats
17     d'affiliation et le double emploi dans la couverture de
18     l'information en région, nous réaffirmons sans réserve
19     notre appui au mandat et aux orientations actuelles de
20     la SRC.  Au lieu de freiner le développement du réseau
21     français et réduire sa popularité auprès de l'auditoire
22     francophone, comme le voudraient ses concurrents,
23     notamment le Groupe TVA, qui est intervenu dans cette
24     instance pour demander qu'on lui octroie un droit de
25     premier refus sur certaines propriétés attrayantes ou
                          StenoTran

                             1252

 1     pour que la SRC axe sa programmation sur les émissions
 2     dans les catégories sous-représentées, encourageons
 3     plutôt l'essor de Radio-Canada et permettons-lui de
 4     continuer à jouer un rôle de premier plan dans le
 5     marché de la télévision au Québec, en partenariat réel
 6     avec les affiliés privés.  La présence de Cogeco dans
 7     ces marchés y assure l'enracinement et la pertinence de
 8     la programmation de la SRC et cautionne la permanence
 9     d'une voix locale dans les régions de l'Estrie, de la
10     Mauricie et éventuellement du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.
11  5683                 Through its indirect subsidiary Les
12     Productions Carrefour, Cogeco has produced over the
13     last four years programs for general interest and
14     specialty networks.  The facilities and personnel of
15     Cogeco's stations in the regions are used for that
16     purpose.  This amounts to fully regionally-based
17     production which has achieved recognition in the Quebec
18     production sector.  In this regard, it is worth noting
19     that Carrefour has been nominated for a second year in
20     a row for a Gémeaux Award for the program "Les petits
21     bonheurs de Clémence", a daily show entirely produced
22     in Sherbrooke for the French network of the CBC.
23  5684                 Due to the local broadcasting
24     activities of the Cogeco Group in Sherbrooke and Trois-
25     Rivières, Carrefour is not eligible for funding under
                          StenoTran

                             1253

 1     the Equity Investment Program administered by Telefilm
 2     Canada and other private production funds for the shows
 3     that it develops essentially for other broadcasters
 4     which are large network operators.
 5  5685                 Cogeco believes that it is time to
 6     recommend to the government that a wider use of
 7     available funds be allowed and that all broadcasters be
 8     afforded fair access to public and private production
 9     funds.  The producers commonly referred to as
10     independent producers, several of which are now part of
11     large communications concerns, are well entrenched in
12     the Quebec television system and no longer need
13     preferential access to funding.
14  5686                 Mr. Louis Audet will now address
15     further the issue of Canadian program funding before
16     concluding our presentation.
17  5687                 Louis.
18  5688                 MR. AUDET:  Thank you, Michel.
19  5689                 Just a few words on the issue of
20     Canadian program funding.  Allow me to briefly review
21     the current contributions of the Cogeco group of
22     companies.
23  5690                 - In fiscal year 1997-1998, the cable
24     undertakings of the Cogeco Group have produced over
25     13,000 of original hours of community programming and
                          StenoTran

                             1254

 1     have contributed approximately $5 million to production
 2     funds.
 3  5691                 - Since its creation in 1991, the
 4     Cogeco Program Development fund has provided ongoing
 5     support to Canadian program development, and it has
 6     further established this year a new funding program
 7     aimed at conceiving and producing new telefilms in
 8     Canada.
 9  5692                 - With respect to our television
10     activities, of course, 100 per cent of our programming
11     expenditures are applied to Canadian programming.
12  5693                 As part of this proceeding, various
13     proposals have been made with a view to increasing the
14     level of funding for Canadian programming.  We do have
15     some concerns with some of these proposals.
16  5694                 First, we believe that it would be
17     premature and not constructive at this juncture to
18     review the terms for contributions required from cable
19     distributors due to factors such as the investment
20     required for the timely completion of network upgrades
21     as well as the substantial costs associated with the
22     roll-out of digital technology, and due of course to
23     the fact that the appropriate level of contributions
24     has been set already by the Commission less than a year
25     ago.
                          StenoTran

                             1255

 1  5695                 Furthermore, we consider that
 2     mandating a financial contribution on account of the
 3     non-Canadian specialty services, which have from the
 4     beginning played a key role in enhancing the sale of
 5     the Canadian specialty services through bundling in a
 6     packaged tier, would inevitably impact in the end the
 7     fees paid by Canadian consumers for discretionary
 8     tiers, of course not to mention the mess that this
 9     would cause on the level of international commercial
10     relations if such a measure were to prevail.
11  5696                 En terminant, nous estimons que le
12     Conseil a un rôle important et décisif à jouer dans le
13     développement du système canadien de radiodiffusion. 
14     L'intervention du Conseil, en effet, demeure
15     essentielle, par exemple lors de l'attribution de
16     nouvelles licences de radiodiffusion, afin d'en évaluer
17     l'impact sur les radiodiffuseurs existants ou pour
18     préserver le caractère distinct de la télévision
19     canadienne.
20  5697                 Selon nous, il est toutefois
21     souhaitable que le Conseil laisse à l'avenir évoluer de
22     plus en plus librement les forces du marché et
23     n'intervienne que lorsque celles-ci ne sont pas
24     suffisantes pour protéger l'intérêt public.  Dans ce
25     nouveau contexte concurrentiel, le Conseil ne devrait
                          StenoTran

                             1256

 1     plus, selon nous, avoir à appliquer, comme il a déjà eu
 2     la sagesse de choisir de le faire en câblodistribution,
 3     le critère des avantages significatifs dans le cas des
 4     transferts de propriété ou de contrôle d'entreprises de
 5     programmation, vu le peu d'obstacles résiduels à
 6     l'entrée de nouveaux services sur le marché, la
 7     tendance vers la consolidation de l'industrie
 8     canadienne et l'obligation dans laquelle se trouvent
 9     les diffuseurs canadiens d'investir comparativement de
10     plus en plus de leurs ressources pour assurer une place
11     distinctive pour les productions canadiennes tant au
12     Canada qu'à l'étranger.
13  5698                 Voilà qui résume nos principales
14     positions.  Mes collègues et moi somes à votre
15     disposition pour répondre à vos questions.
16  5699                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci, messieurs.
17  5700                 Conseillère Pennefather.
18  5701                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Merci
19     beaucoup, Madame la Présidente.
20  5702                 Good afternoon.
21  5703                 J'aimerais, si vous êtes d'accord,
22     messieurs, continuer avec quelques questions en anglais
23     et en français, étant donné que vous avez fait la
24     présentation en deux langues et aussi la soumission
25     écrite est en anglais et je n'oserais pas faire la
                          StenoTran

                             1257

 1     traduction de certains de vos propos.
 2  5704                 Alors j'aimerais commencer par la
 3     soumission écrite, à laquelle vous avez fait je pense
 4     référence à la page 10 de la présentation orale
 5     aujourd'hui.  Où je m'en vais, c'est plutôt dans le
 6     contexte que vous décrivez dans la soumission écrite,
 7     dans laquelle vous mentionnez cinq forces qui
 8     influencent l'environnement et le contexte dans lequel
 9     on travaille et on propose de faire les politiques et
10     les règlements de l'avenir.
11  5705                 I am speaking of the influences and
12     forces at play which you mentioned in your written
13     submission.  I would like to take a few minutes to be
14     sure I have understood why you have mentioned these
15     particular elements and why you see them affecting the
16     broadcasting environment the way you do.  For example,
17     you have said, and I believe mentioned it again this
18     morning, that the fiercely competitive environment is
19     moving at a great speed.  You conclude -- and I quote:
20                            "A two-tiered system with a
21                            highly dynamic distribution
22                            component and a more static,
23                            highly-regulated supply side,
24                            will not be sustainable in the
25                            long run."
                          StenoTran

                             1258

 1  5706                 Could you explain exactly what you
 2     mean by that, Monsieur Audet?
 3  5707                 MR. AUDET:  Certainly, Commissioner
 4     Pennefather.
 5  5708                 Our concern, as we participate in the
 6     evolution of the regulatory framework. is that on the
 7     distribution side now there are many licensed
 8     distributors who are now engaged in full competition,
 9     namely a phone company and a cable company, the two
10     satellite services, the MMDS systems have been licensed
11     and they are now operating in southern Ontario and will
12     begin later this year in Quebec, and of course there
13     are also LMCS licensees who have reportedly acquired
14     substantial quantities of equipment and should begin
15     operating within a year and a half.  So there are a
16     number of competitors, and the distribution of services
17     will be a very competitive business indeed.
18  5709                 Of course, the regulation of these
19     carriers continues, but we can see it decreasing to the
20     level required to make sure that there is no undue
21     advantage held by any group in particular.
22  5710                 Our concern with the evolution of
23     traditional broadcasting is that it is still subjected
24     to what we feel is a heavier regulatory burden, and we
25     can see that in the minds of some operators this should
                          StenoTran

                             1259

 1     shield them from competition.  Therefore, we think that
 2     is detrimental to the system in the long term.
 3  5711                 This is not to mean we don't
 4     recognize the imperative for the encouragement and the
 5     support of a distinctive Canadian character and
 6     substantial amounts of Canadian production and
 7     programming.  That is not to detract from that.  But
 8     still, we think that the amount of regulation should
 9     decrease on the broadcast side as it has on the
10     distribution side.
11  5712                 So that was what we meant with that
12     sentence.
13  5713                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you. 
14     That's important for the balance of our discussion, I
15     think.
16  5714                 Regarding your comment "the consumer
17     is king", which I quote, I assume you are using the
18     term "king" generically.
19  5715                 MR. AUDET:  Of course.
20  5716                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you. 
21     "Who will not be coerced", what does this mean for the
22     cable industry in particular?
23  5717                 MR. AUDET:  This means that consumers
24     now want to choose what they get, and to date the cable
25     industry has been successful and has used the means at
                          StenoTran

                             1260

 1     its disposal to offer programming packages, initially
 2     you might recall on a negative option basis, recently
 3     with a good measure of success on a positive option
 4     basis, and already this option has been exercised I
 5     would say typically by 50 per cent of the Canadian
 6     households to whom the latest third tier had been
 7     offered.  So that 50 per cent is both a great
 8     achievement but at the same time a clear signal that
 9     not everyone wants to buy every product.
10  5718                 So in fact the consumer is asserting
11     her or his willingness to purchase given programming
12     products, and we are at the stage now where people will
13     not accept a given package; they want to pick and
14     choose.  That's why the industry is moving in the
15     direction of installing digital video compression
16     decoders which will have all of the abilities required
17     to allow people to exercise the choice they wish the
18     way they want to do it.
19  5719                 This technology, as you know, on the
20     cable side has been perhaps a little longer in coming
21     than most of us would have liked, but under the
22     auspices of Cable Labs, an organism which regroups all
23     of the cable companies in North America, the standards
24     have been set, decoders are available today.  I know in
25     our case we are not quite convinced that what is there
                          StenoTran

                             1261

 1     today is the kind of platform we would like to develop
 2     in the long term, but regardless, within the next year,
 3     the product with the performance we are comfortable
 4     with for the longer term will be available, and that
 5     will be the ultimate instrument of consumer choice and
 6     one which the whole Canadian cable industry will
 7     embrace.
 8  5720                 The cost of these, as you know, is
 9     substantial; it is about $650 Canadian per terminal for
10     one customer household.  So the cost is substantial. 
11     The industry to date has had some difficulty in
12     justifying the deployment of such expensive units while
13     at the same time recognizing that that unit would
14     satisfy consumer desire to exercise their free choice.
15  5721                 We think that true video on demand
16     will be one of the economic keys that unlocks the
17     feasibility of deploying those decoders.  That's what
18     we believe.  In order for that to happen, or course,
19     there will have to be some change to how video on
20     demand licences are awarded, in particular granting
21     cable operators freedom to acquire the rights for
22     movies with appropriate Canadian content, guarantees
23     and safeguards of the type the Commission has edicted
24     in the past, which we are quite comfortable with, that
25     would enable, as I say, the cable companies to offer
                          StenoTran

                             1262

 1     true video on demand as one of the keys that would cost
 2     justify that important tool that empowers choice by the
 3     consumer.
 4                                                        1325
 5  5722                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you. 
 6     I am sure you know that there are other processes
 7     coming forward in the next few months in which we can
 8     discuss some of these issues further.
 9  5723                 I also note in your presentation
10     regarding this hearing that you do mention the
11     Internet.  Am I correct that you are also stating in
12     that sense that you are looking for a less regulated
13     environment as well?
14  5724                 MR. AUDET:  The Internet is playing a
15     role far beyond what any of us would have thought even
16     two years ago.  We are very fortunate that at the end
17     of our last fiscal year, August 31st, we sold our ten
18     thousandth high speed Internet connection to our
19     system.  So we are very pleased that these high speed
20     modems are catching on.  Consumers enjoy them.  Of
21     course, the extremely high speed at which they can
22     access information is key to that.
23  5725                 It is now becoming clearer and
24     clearer to us that the Internet platform is really the
25     one that will be the platform of choice for the
                          StenoTran

                             1263

 1     exchange of information, both public and private, all
 2     over the planet.  It will also become the tool of
 3     choice for electronic commerce.
 4  5726                 Under those circumstances, we are of
 5     the view that any attempt to regulate that activity
 6     would cause Canada to become less competitive as
 7     opposed to more competitive, which should be the intent
 8     of the government in current circumstances; to have
 9     Canada become more competitive, because it would be
10     unencumbered in its search for knowledge through the
11     Internet tool.
12  5727                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Specific
13     to this discussion, do you think, as was stated by the
14     Council of Canadians, that policies which support
15     Canadian content are contrary to policies which support
16     greater export of greater product?
17  5728                 You have mentioned the international
18     environment in which we are working, as well, in your
19     presentation today.  This is another point you raise in
20     your opening remarks.  It has been a point that the
21     producers have raised, to the effect that assuring that
22     there is Canadian content amidst the environment you
23     have been describing, we should be cautious about
24     supporting the export of that product, because it will
25     thereby not be distinctively Canadian.
                          StenoTran

                             1264

 1  5729                 Do you have a comment on that?
 2  5730                 MR. AUDET:  We believe that the
 3     promotion promoting Canadian content here would be the
 4     right way to go in encouraging people to both produce
 5     and display Canadian content software packages on the
 6     Internet.  But we think that should be of a promotion
 7     type of activity as opposed to restricting the free
 8     flow of information on the Internet to and from this
 9     country and within this country.
10  5731                 I think that is the distinction I
11     would make.
12  5732                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  But in the
13     current broadcast environment -- if we just keep with
14     that for the moment -- I am curious to know how you
15     think all these forces at play will support, or not,
16     the present quantity and quality of Canadian
17     programming.
18  5733                 MR. AUDET:  We have tended to think
19     that there is room for everyone in the system at large,
20     including the broadcasting system, which means that
21     there is ample room for Canadian programs with the
22     current framework, which may be modified of course as a
23     result of these hearings.  But by and large, within the
24     current framework there is ample room for Canadian
25     programs to blossom and succeed.
                          StenoTran

                             1265

 1  5734                 We don't think the Internet will
 2     displace in any way the traditional entertainment
 3     approach to television which has prevailed in the past. 
 4     We don't think that will evolve.  But that will not
 5     disappear.
 6  5735                 We think that affords ample
 7     visibility to Canadian productions.  The Internet, in
 8     our mind, is more an exchange of information medium
 9     than an entertainment medium.  In that sense, we think
10     we should resist regulating the Internet, much the same
11     way we resist regulating the content of telephone
12     conversations.
13  5736                 I think that is more what we are
14     trying to get at.
15  5737                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I want to
16     remind you that there will be another hearing in which
17     these issues can be pursued.
18  5738                 But the point here is that you have
19     raised a number of important comments that indicate
20     that the current environment for broadcasting in
21     Canadian production is a turbulent one, facing many
22     strong challenges.
23  5739                 I was then a little surprised when
24     you concluded that, as a result, we really should not
25     do much at this point, despite these important forces
                          StenoTran

                             1266

 1     at play.
 2  5740                 MR. AUDET:  Speaking from our vantage
 3     points, that of our companies, we know what we are
 4     doing, the forces we are having to deal with in terms
 5     of, for example, rebuilding our cable networks,
 6     acquiring the digital platform that will be the choice
 7     enabler for consumers.
 8  5741                 That is why we say we don't think it
 9     would be a good idea, for example, to raise the percent
10     of revenues to be sent to a Canadian programming fund. 
11     That is the key reason our cable company currently
12     spends about 100 percent of its internally generated
13     cash flow to reinvest in the cable plant.
14  5742                 The dividends we send to our
15     shareholders represent under 10 percent of internally
16     generated cash flow.
17  5743                 We do not think that is out of
18     proportion.  Quite the contrary: we think we are
19     devoting all, if not most, of our resources to
20     upgrading the plant and bringing through the choice
21     enablers.  That is on the cable side.
22  5744                 On the broadcast side, the Commission
23     is very familiar with the economics of operating the
24     regional TV stations which we happen to operate, as
25     well as the circumstances in which the networks
                          StenoTran

                             1267

 1     operate.
 2  5745                 And of course we are not a network,
 3     so I will not insist on that particular aspect of it. 
 4     The Commission is well familiar with that.
 5  5746                 Of course, we believe the Commission
 6     has to ask itself, now that we have a set of rules and
 7     we have a set of encouragements for people to produce
 8     Canadian programs:  Is everyone delivering according to
 9     that pattern?
10  5747                 There may be isolated instances where
11     the Commission will find that individual operators are
12     not in fact delivering their fair share, in which case
13     that would warrant action on your part.
14  5748                 I guess what we are trying to get at
15     here is:  What is the economic ability of enterprises
16     such as the ones we are representing before you today
17     to contribute more than what they are presently?
18  5749                 I have tried to demonstrate that.
19     Right now all our resources are fully committed to
20     achieving what is essential in the near term, in our
21     view, and we think in your view as well.
22  5750                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  You then
23     feel that we should maintain the regulatory framework
24     as it currently is as opposed to making any changes
25     which would address the forces that you have discussed
                          StenoTran

                             1268

 1     in your paper?
 2  5751                 MR. AUDET:  Generally speaking, the
 3     levels of contributions, of monetary contributions,
 4     which you have edicted for the players in the cable
 5     industry and the regional television station operations
 6     such as our own, we believe, are adequate.
 7  5752                 I will restrict my comments to what
 8     we know best and what we do.
 9  5753                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Just to be
10     clear, you said in your oral presentation that you are
11     aware of the presentations by the CAB and the CCTA.
12  5754                 Speaking of the CAB, am I to presume
13     that you support their proposals?
14  5755                 MR. AUDET:  I think our presentation
15     provides the context in which to decode those proposals
16     to those in which we are in favour and those about
17     which we are less enthusiastic.  We recognize that the
18     Commission has the difficult task of striking the right
19     balance between representations of the different
20     parties.  And we understand that is not an easy task.
21  5756                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  True.  But
22     working together, I am sure we can move forward.
23  5757                 That is partly why I was asking the
24     rationale behind your opening remarks and seeing where
25     you would strike the balance.
                          StenoTran

                             1269

 1  5758                 If you permit, I would like to ask
 2     you for your comment as a major player in the
 3     broadcasting production and distribution environment in
 4     Canada.  What you do think of the CAB's central
 5     proposal to set national viewing targets as the
 6     ultimate criteria for this framework?
 7  5759                 In so doing, would you give us some
 8     reflection on what that would mean specifically for the
 9     French language market.  I think you are in a very
10     unique position to make that comment.
11                                                        1335
12  5760                 M. CARTER:  Merci.
13  5761                 Essentiellement, le CAB, qui lui
14     aussi est un organisme pan-canadien, est arrivé avec
15     des objectifs qui sont clairs.  Les avantages qu'ils
16     ont, c'est qu'ils fixent un objectif.  Maintenant, la
17     grande question est comment vont les radiodiffuseurs à
18     travers le pays faire pour arriver à rencontrer
19     collectivement les objectifs qui ont été fixés?
20  5762                 Ce que nous trouvons intéressant,
21     c'est que ça permet à chacun des radiodiffuseurs
22     d'avoir un créneau qui peut être différent de son
23     voisin, mais tous ensemble vont contribuer à en arriver
24     à un objectif commun d'écoute par la population
25     canadienne des canaux canadiens et par la population
                          StenoTran

                             1270

 1     canadienne des émissions canadiennes.
 2  5763                 En ce qui concerne le deuxième volet
 3     de votre question, au Québec, déjà je pense que le
 4     Québec est un success story en termes d'écoute par la
 5     population des canaux francophones, des canaux
 6     canadiens et des émissions canadiennes.  Je pense que
 7     l'objectif de l'ACR de faire en sorte que le niveau
 8     actuel soit maintenu dans le futur compte tenu de la
 9     croissance de la compétition qui s'en vient d'autres
10     services spécialisés, l'Internet, qui est un
11     compétiteur en soi au moins pour le temps d'écoute
12     disponible, sera certainement adéquat à notre point de
13     vue.
14  5764                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Alors dans
15     son ensemble leur proposition, qui aussi mentionne une
16     certaine flexibilité pour les radiodiffuseurs... est-ce
17     que pour vous cette proposition va avoir comme résultat
18     plus de programmation canadienne dans les heures de
19     grande écoute?
20  5765                 M. CARTER:  Je pense que l'objectif,
21     c'est d'avoir plus de Canadiens qui écoutent la
22     programmation canadienne.
23  5766                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Mais est-ce
24     qu'il y aura plus de programmation canadienne?
25  5767                 M. CARTER:  Est-ce qu'il y aura plus
                          StenoTran

                             1271

 1     de programmation canadienne?  À mon avis, ça va
 2     dépendre encore une fois de chacun des réseaux, des
 3     objectifs que chacun va se fixer pour y arriver.
 4  5768                 Le Conseil, évidemment, conserve tous
 5     les outils qu'il a actuellement, si on pense du côté
 6     anglophone particulièrement, le pourcentage de revenus
 7     ou le nombre d'heures de production canadienne, ou une
 8     troisième alternative que l'ACR a proposée en termes de
 9     dépenses dans les catégories sous-représentées... alors
10     le Conseil conserve ces outils-là plus les conditions
11     de licence spécifiques à chaque fois qu'un
12     radiodiffuseur revient devant lui pour assurer, si vous
13     voulez, une certaine quantité de programmation
14     canadienne en ondes, et je ne vois pas comment la
15     programmation canadienne pourrait, compte tenu de tous
16     les outils en place, diminuer.  En fait, au contraire,
17     on devrait s'attendre à ce qu'elle augmente.
18  5769                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Good.  Je
19     suis d'accord.
20  5770                 Est-ce que maintenant on peut se
21     tourner vers les recommandations spécifiques? 
22     Premièrement, au paragraphe 20 de votre intervention
23     écrite vous parlez d'équilibrer les besoins de
24     financement en programmation d'émissions canadiennes et
25     les besoins financiers émergeant du système de
                          StenoTran

                             1272

 1     radiodiffusion et de télédistribution, tels que, par
 2     exemple, la conversion numérique et les améliorations
 3     aux infrastructures dont M. Audet a fait mention.
 4  5771                 Recommandez-vous donc que le Conseil
 5     maintienne le statu quo en ce qui concerne la
 6     contribution des télédistributeurs au financement de la
 7     programmation canadienne?  Et est-ce que vous avez
 8     d'autres commentaires sur ce paragraphe?  Je dois vois
 9     dire que je n'étais pas claire sur ce paragraphe.
10  5772                 M. CARTER:  Oui, certainement.
11  5773                 Notre principale préoccupation, nous,
12     en tant que radiodiffuseur...
13  5774                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Je vous
14     entends très mal, Monsieur Carter.
15  5775                 M. CARTER:  Excusez-moi.
16  5776                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Merci
17     beaucoup.
18  5777                 M. CARTER:  On me dit souvent que je
19     ne parle pas assez fort.
20  5778                 Notre principale préoccupation en
21     tant que radiodiffuseur, c'est d'avoir l'opportunité
22     d'avoir accès à l'ensemble des fonds de financement qui
23     sont disponibles pour la production.  En ce qui
24     concerne l'acquisition par les radiodiffuseurs de
25     productions indépendantes, nous sommes à l'aise avec
                          StenoTran

                             1273

 1     les niveaux actuels recommandés par le Conseil.
 2  5779                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Alors c'est
 3     un paragraphe qui parle surtout de votre recommandation
 4     aujourd'hui concernant l'accès pour les radiodiffuseurs
 5     au Fonds de production.  Est-ce que j'ai bien compris?
 6  5780                 M. CARTER:  Oui.  Nous voulons que
 7     les radiodiffuseurs aient un accès complet, par
 8     exemple, au Fonds de capital de Téléfilm.
 9  5781                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Pourquoi
10     vous pensez que les producteurs, certainement
11     représentés par APFTQ, le CFTPA et d'autres producteurs
12     indépendants, s'opposent à ce que les radiodiffuseurs
13     aient cet accès au Fonds de production?
14  5782                 M. CARTER:  Depuis quelques années,
15     évidemment, le régime a fait en sorte que la production
16     indépendante soit une petite chasse gardée.  C'était
17     certainement approprié il y a plusieurs années alors
18     que la production indépendante commençait.
19  5783                 Aujourd'hui, si on regarde les
20     statistiques, on se rend compte que les profits cumulés
21     des producteurs indépendants, si on regarde au Québec
22     et dans l'ensemble du Canada, sont égaux ou supérieurs
23     à ce que les radiodiffuseurs ont comme profitabilité. 
24     Alors les barrières qui, à un moment, étaient
25     nécessaires pour s'assurer d'avoir une industrie de
                          StenoTran

                             1274

 1     production indépendante vivante et vibrante, à notre
 2     avis, ne sont plus nécessaires aujourd'hui parce que
 3     cette industrie-là est aussi forte sinon plus forte que
 4     l'industrie du broadcasting comme telle.
 5  5784                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Si le
 6     Conseil décide en effet de recommander ou va dans cette
 7     direction de manière à ce que les radiodiffuseurs
 8     devraient avoir accès au Fonds de production, est-ce
 9     que vous mettriez ce qu'on appelle en anglais des
10     safeguards, des limites, des conditions?
11  5785                 M. CARTER:  Si on regarde, par
12     exemple, l'accès des radiodiffuseurs au Fonds de
13     production, il y a une limite quant à la portion du
14     Fonds de production à laquelle les radiodiffuseurs ont
15     accès, ce qui est une forme de safeguard, si vous
16     voulez, pour assurer que les deux industries continuent
17     de vivre dans le futur.
18  5786                 L'objectif, ce n'est pas de détruire
19     l'industrie de la production indépendante.  D'ailleurs,
20     le jour où les radiodiffuseurs ont accès à certains
21     fonds réservés, ça ne veut pas dire que les
22     radiodiffuseurs vont être capables de faire une
23     production indépendante de dramatiques lourdes, par
24     exemple.  Les radiodiffuseurs ne seront pas capables de
25     faire ça.  On n'a pas l'infrastructure, on n'a pas
                          StenoTran

                             1275

 1     l'organisation, on n'a pas les talents pour faire ça.
 2  5787                 Alors ça a bien fonctionné avec, si
 3     vous voulez, la proportion accordée au Fonds des
 4     câblos; ça pourrait très bien fonctionner de la même
 5     façon avec les autres fonds auxquelles les
 6     radiodiffuseurs n'ont pas accès... donc une proportion
 7     du fonds réservée aux producteurs indépendants et une
 8     proportion réservée aux radiodiffuseurs.
 9  5788                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  En parlant
10     de la production, de la programmation, le Groupe
11     Coscient et l'APFTQ ont proposé de modifier le crédit
12     de 150 pour cent alloué à certaines catégories
13     d'émissions de la manière suivante:  150 pour cent aux
14     fictions lourdes et les dramatiques pour enfants, 125
15     pour cent pour les téléromans plus.
16  5789                 Que pensez-vous de cette proposition,
17     et auriez-vous d'autres niveaux ou catégories à
18     proposer pour encourager la production et la diffusion
19     des émissions canadiennes?
20  5790                 M. CARTER:  Encore une fois, nous
21     sommes membres de l'ACR et nous comprenons que l'ACR a
22     proposé le maintien du 150 pour cent et a proposé un
23     nouveau niveau de 200 pour cent pour certaines
24     productions super canadiennes.  Alors nous endossons la
25     position de l'ACR.
                          StenoTran

                             1276

 1  5791                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Merci.
 2  5792                 Aux paragraphes 35 et 36 de votre
 3     soumission écrite vous traitez de la forte concurrence
 4     qu'amènera la technologie numérique sur les
 5     fournisseurs de services spécialisés et de télévision
 6     payante en soutenant que ces derniers feront face à une
 7     concurrence féroce.  Vous poursuivez en disant, et je
 8     cite, que "le Conseil doit être prudent en augmentant
 9     les exigences du contenu canadien et de dépenses s'il
10     ne recherche pas des moyens de les protéger de l'entrée
11     de nouveaux compétiteurs."
12  5793                 Quand vous parlez de la concurrence
13     et de la protection réglementaire, faites-vous allusion
14     à la concurrence entre les services de distribution ou
15     faites-vous allusion à la concurrence qu'une chaîne
16     spécialisée ou payante pourrait subir de la part d'une
17     autre chaîne canadienne ou américaine opérant dans le
18     même créneau... sports, nouvelles, et caetera?
19  5794                 M. AUDET:  Vous savez, lorsqu'on a
20     rédigé ce paragraphe, on essayait principalement de
21     faire état de l'accroissement de la concurrence, on
22     essayait de faire état du fait que les consommateurs
23     veulent de plus en plus choisir ce qu'ils désirent et
24     que la vidéo sur demande sera l'outil par excellence
25     pour satisfaire ce besoin-là.
                          StenoTran

                             1277

 1  5795                 Malheureusement, la structure
 2     industrielle actuelle en est une qui divise les revenus
 3     de télévision payante en trois tranches, le quasi vidéo
 4     à demande en trois tranches:  une tranche pour le
 5     détenteur de droits, une tranche pour l'opérateur de
 6     télévision payante canadienne et une tranche pour
 7     l'opérateur de câble.
 8  5796                 Dans le moment, les technologies qui
 9     permettent de stocker et de distribuer les longs
10     métrages à demande sont arrivées à toutes fins utiles
11     dans une plage de prix économique qui fait qu'on pourra
12     les mettre en oeuvre et les utiliser.  Le seul
13     empêchement à ça à l'heure actuelle, c'est la division
14     des revenus en trois parts égales.
15  5797                 Donc ce à quoi ce paragraphe a tenté
16     de vous alerter, c'est de dire:  Écoutez, cette
17     structure-là ne pourra pas continuer.  Il faudrait que
18     les câblo-opérateurs aient la même latitude qu'aux
19     États-Unis, c'est-à-dire que la moitié du revenu va au
20     détenteur du droit et l'autre moitié reste à
21     l'opérateur de câble, et ces fonds-là sont nécessaires
22     pour pouvoir offrir le service.
23  5798                 Je pense que c'est en grande partie
24     ce à quoi ce paragraphe-ci s'adressait.  À ce moment-
25     là, au moment où on a écrit ceci, déjà, au congrès de
                          StenoTran

                             1278

 1     l'Association nationale des câbles à Atlanta, on avait
 2     pu voir les équipements de stockage électronique de
 3     films, et déjà on pouvait voir que le prochain
 4     empêchement est un empêchement structurel au Canada, ce
 5     ne sera pas un empêchement technique.
 6  5799                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Sur ces
 7     questions du numérique, je veux juste être certaine que
 8     j'ai bien compris en termes de... si je peux utiliser
 9     le mot "timing".  Quand pensez-vous que les Canadiens
10     et Canadiennes vont avoir, à leur maison, accès à la
11     programmation canadienne numérique?  Et j'ai parlé de
12     la programmation, pas seulement de la diffusion.
13  5800                 M. AUDET:  D'accord.  Alors votre
14     question est plus large.
15  5801                 Écoutez, pour ma part, la réponse à
16     votre question, je ne la connais pas.  Je sais que le
17     Comité McEwen s'est penché sur cette question et est
18     arrivé avec une série de recommandations que je serais
19     incapable de vous réciter mais qui m'apparaissaient
20     sages.
21  5802                 Je peux vous dire que, comme câblo-
22     opérateur, nous, on se prépare à retransmettre les
23     chaînes numériques quelle qu'en soit l'origine, et le
24     point de pression immédiat en ce qui nous concerne,
25     c'est Détroit; le système de câble que nous venons
                          StenoTran

                             1279

 1     d'acquérir à Windsor devrait être capable de
 2     transporter les chaînes de Détroit qui opéreront en
 3     HDTV, de pouvoir les offrir.
 4  5803                 À quelle vitesse?  Je pense que le
 5     Comité McEwen recommandait que les diffuseurs canadiens
 6     se tiennent prêts à offrir de la programmation en forme
 7     numérique avec un décalage, si mes souvenirs sont bons,
 8     d'environ 18 mois.  Est-ce que les opérateurs canadiens
 9     vont être en mesure de le faire?  Je présume que oui,
10     mais je ne le sais pas.
11  5804                 Je sais qu'en ce qui nous concerne,
12     comme diffuseur opérant dans des stations régionales,
13     c'est évident qu'on ne sera pas au début de la chaîne
14     mais bien plutôt à la fin puisque notre flexibilité
15     pour les revenus est très faible dans les stations
16     régionales.
17  5805                 Excusez-moi un moment.
18     --- Courte pause / Short pause
19  5806                 M. AUDET:  M. Carter me signale que
20     les décalages entre les grands marchés et les petits
21     marchés risquent d'être environ cinq ans.
22  5807                 Ceci ne nous empêche pas, du côté du
23     câble, de se doter de toute l'infrastructure de
24     retransmission en numérique, à cause d'abord du fait
25     que c'est l'instrument de choix privilégié par la
                          StenoTran

                             1280

 1     clientèle, donc il faut qu'on l'ait, mais également en
 2     raison du fait que ces investissements-là sont
 3     tellement massifs qu'il y a toujours un délai dans
 4     l'exécution du plan.  Alors le plus vite nous pourrons
 5     commencer, le plus tôt le déploiement sera complet.
 6  5808                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  C'est une
 7     discussion qui date depuis quelque temps, et je pense
 8     que c'est un point très important non seulement pour
 9     l'accessibilité mais pour la programmation aussi, et
10     c'est certainement le but, mais la question était aussi
11     de savoir si vous pensez que le milieu numérique, c'est
12     une occasion, une opportunity, pour la programmation
13     canadienne au lieu de peut-être un défi ou même pire.
14  5809                 Est-ce qu'il y a des opportunities,
15     as we say in English, that digital will bring us for
16     Canadian programming?  Should we be overly concerned?
17  5810                 MR. AUDET:  Well, it is an
18     opportunity that comes at a great cost also, and
19     striking the balance will not be easy, in our opinion,
20     because the costs are substantial.  But, on the other
21     hand, we can't ignore it because the competition will
22     have it, so we must have it.
23  5811                 I think it has served Canada well to
24     always be at the forefront of new technologies, and in
25     fact in many cases to develop them and promote them. 
                          StenoTran

                             1281

 1     In this particular case it so happens that our
 2     neighbour, being more powerful, will have broadcast
 3     stations on the air before we do, and that's a reality
 4     we will have to cope with.
 5  5812                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I am sure
 6     you would agree, then, that, as the reality for
 7     Canadian business emerges, it will be important to have
 8     the product, and considering that we all support
 9     Canadian product within today's environment and
10     tomorrow's environment, I am sure you will agree it
11     will be important that we all contribute to the
12     creation of or development of digital product as well.
13                                                        1350
14  5813                 This brings me to my last question
15     which is really more of a point of information on the
16     development fund.  If you could just bring us up to
17     date on how the Cogeco program development fund is
18     working, how many films or programs have been created,
19     what kind of partnerships are being put together.
20  5814                 I'm very interested to know if any of
21     these products are reaching Canadian viewers and
22     perhaps viewers elsewhere, such as in the U.S. market.
23  5815                 MR. MAYRAND:  Maybe as an update, we
24     mention in our verbal presentation that initially the
25     Cogeco fund was set up as a capital fund with gradual
                          StenoTran

                             1282

 1     capitalization reaching $5 million with contributions
 2     of $1 million per year over a five year period.
 3  5816                 The fund was the result of a
 4     commitment made back in 1990.  Initially, the fund had
 5     only one program.  It was concerned with mostly script
 6     and concept development.  The original intent was to
 7     foster to the extent possible script and concept
 8     development of programs intended for Canadian
 9     television that would eventually air in both languages.
10  5817                 In practice, this has proved to be a
11     difficult goal to achieve.  Most productions, if not
12     all, as a matter of fact have been basically tailored
13     for either the French language or the English language
14     market.
15  5818                 We have had a number of contributions
16     to very important series and I don't have the full list
17     with me.  I will be glad to provide that to you as an
18     addendum, if you wish.  By and large, a number of
19     series to which the fund has been put to task at the
20     script development stage have made it to air over the
21     years, including very high profile series in both the
22     French language and the English language markets.  That
23     includes dramas and very substantial productions.
24  5819                 Now, more recently, actually this was
25     announced later this spring, the Cogeco fund has set up
                          StenoTran

                             1283

 1     a new and separate program which is not a capital fund
 2     project.  It's a current expenditure fund, financed
 3     essentially through contributions from our cable
 4     sector.
 5  5820                 It was, after consultation in
 6     production circles, considered that there was a useful
 7     contribution to be made to the production of telefilms. 
 8     Therefore, we have now at the Cogeco fund a new program
 9     entirely devoted to supporting this time at the
10     investment level the production of telefilms.
11  5821                 It is really at this point of time to
12     say whether the concept will work well, if it will be
13     successful in terms of ultimate productions.  These
14     things take a little while to materialize.  However, it
15     has certainly been to our knowledge very well received
16     by production circles.
17  5822                 I should emphasize that both programs
18     run by the Cogeco fund are managed completely
19     independently from the Cogeco companies.
20  5823                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you
21     for that information.  I would like to thank you for
22     the discussion and sharing your thoughts and
23     recommendations.
24  5824                 That completes my questions, Madam
25     Chair.
                          StenoTran

                             1284

 1  5825                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Just a couple
 2     of questions I would like to ask you with respect to
 3     your oral presentation.
 4  5826                 One of the comments that you make in
 5     your presentation on page 3 is with respect to the
 6     present condition of the French language television
 7     market.  It states:
 8                            "The new French language and
 9                            English language specialty
10                            services have reaped a
11                            disproportionate share of the
12                            increase in the advertising pie
13                            to the detriment of general
14                            interest broadcasters."
15  5827                 It's about three or four lines from
16     the bottom of page 3.
17  5828                 I noticed when I was reading the
18     submission by Astral that they made two points about
19     the impact of pay and specialty on the conventional
20     broadcasters.  They provided some statistics that
21     showed that the market share had dropped very slightly
22     from -- they gave two time periods.
23  5829                 Between 1982 and 1987, they quoted
24     the market share for the conventional broadcasters as
25     being 79.4 per cent.  Between 1988 and 1997, during
                          StenoTran

                             1285

 1     which there were three waves of introductions of
 2     specialty services, the market share dropped to 76.8
 3     per cent on average.  They have a whole chart full of
 4     numbers.
 5  5830                 They also made the statement that one
 6     of the net benefits to the broadcasting system was the
 7     growth of the Canadian television advertising market
 8     with no negative impact on the advertising revenues of
 9     conventional networks.
10  5831                 I'm just wondering if you have some
11     research that suggests that their numbers might not be
12     the whole picture that you could put on file with us
13     just to help us understand what you see the market
14     conditions being as opposed to the Astral group.
15  5832                 MR. CARTER:  Well, we certainly don't
16     disagree with respect to the number of listeners of
17     which you have just talked about.
18  5833                 Our comment here had to do with what
19     portion of the advertising pie the specialty services
20     are taking.  I have here the statistics from the TVB
21     which is called la télévision 98 that shows that the
22     revenues of the specialty have come up by 18 per cent
23     between 1995 and 1996 whereas at the same time national
24     revenues have come up by 1.5 per cent and local by 2.7
25     per cent.
                          StenoTran

                             1286

 1  5834                 All that we are saying is that they
 2     grab a larger portion of the increase.  That doesn't
 3     mean that the conventional broadcasters have decreased. 
 4     Okay?  They just grabbed a larger portion.  They
 5     grabbed in 1996 28 per cent.  They had a 28 per cent
 6     increase in their revenues whereas at the local level,
 7     for example, our increase was 2.7 per cent.
 8  5835                 Do you see where we are getting at? 
 9     The whole pie has increased.
10  5836                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I do.  The
11     reason I ask is because the next sentence says:
12                            "The advertising market for
13                            French language television is
14                            also undermined."
15  5837                 What you are saying is that in terms
16     of the increase in the advertising market, they are
17     taking more than you are but it's not really
18     undermining you.  Is that what you are saying?
19  5838                 MR. CARTER:  What we are saying is
20     because they are there, they have been the main
21     beneficiaries of the increase of the pie.  Therefore, 
22     we are more stagnant.
23  5839                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Would the pie
24     have increased if they weren't there?
25  5840                 MR. CARTER:  Yes.  We believe so.
                          StenoTran

                             1287

 1  5841                 MR. MAYRAND:  If I may, it seems to
 2     me that the next sentence you are referring to really
 3     addresses the question of price leadership.
 4  5842                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Right, but I'm
 5     just saying it says "is also undermined".  I mean it
 6     indicates that what you were talking about in the
 7     previous sentence undermines the advertising revenues.
 8  5843                 MR. MAYRAND:  We should have probably
 9     said is further or is undermined.
10  5844                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay.
11  5845                 MR. MAYRAND:  We were really
12     referring in that sentence to the issue of discounting
13     and price leadership by the market leader on the
14     conventional side.
15  5846                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay.  On page
16     8 I just wanted a clarification on one of your points
17     under Canadian program funding and the impact on cable
18     distribution activities.
19  5847                 Your third point is with respect to
20     television activities:
21                            "100 per cent of our programming
22                            expenditures are, of course,
23                            applied to Canadian
24                            programming."
25  5848                 You are talking about your radio and
                          StenoTran

                             1288

 1     television broadcasting undertakings.
 2  5849                 MR. AUDET:  We are talking about our
 3     television broadcasting operations.  I think Michel
 4     Carter could comment on that.
 5  5850                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  So you spend
 6     100 per cent of your -- you don't buy any foreign
 7     programming at all.
 8  5851                 MR. CARTER:  No.  We don't buy any
 9     foreign product.
10  5852                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I was just
11     curious.  I have seen very high figures for other
12     broadcasters in the Quebec market, but I haven't seen
13     100 per cent, so I just wanted to clarify it.
14  5853                 MR. CARTER:  You recall that we are
15     an affiliate, so therefore we carry most of the network
16     programming.
17  5854                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Yes.
18  5855                 MR. CARTER:  Our programming expenses
19     at local are essentially towards news, public affairs
20     and production that we do for the network, which is 100
21     per cent Canadian programming as well.
22  5856                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Great.
23  5857                 Thanks very much.
24                                                        1400
25  5858                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Vous nous avez
                          StenoTran

                             1289

 1     indiqué que, d'après vous, le consommateur est roi.  Au
 2     Québec, évidemment, la pénétration du câble n'est pas
 3     aussi élevée que dans les autres parties du Canada
 4     généralement.
 5  5859                 Si le consommateur est roi, est-ce
 6     que le consommateur ne se doit pas de s'attendre à une
 7     programmation diversifiée, une programmation canadienne
 8     diversifiée sur les réseaux conventionnels, et comment
 9     agencez-vous cette proposition avec celle qui voudrait
10     réduire la réglementation des réseaux conventionnels?
11  5860                 Est-ce que vous croyez que le marché
12     lui-même assurera que la diversité de la programmation
13     canadienne sur les réseaux conventionnels qui sont
14     recevables sans le câble ou sans payer pour des
15     services discrétionnaires est suffisante pour garder
16     cette diversité de la programmation canadienne et la
17     qualité?
18  5861                 M. AUDET:  Il y a plusieurs intrants
19     dans votre question; je vais essayer de les toucher
20     tous, et j'en oublierai certainement.
21  5862                 D'abord, la radiodiffusion hertzienne
22     offre dans le moment une bonne variété.  La plus grande
23     menace à cette variété-là dans la langue française, ce
24     serait d'exiger la spécialisation des chaînes.  Par
25     exemple, certains ont suggéré que Radio-Canada devrait
                          StenoTran

                             1290

 1     devenir un service plus artistique, faisant les choses
 2     que les autres ne veulent pas faire.  Cela, selon nous,
 3     serait une erreur parce qu'à la longue ce réseau ferait
 4     ce que tous les autres réseaux qui ont tenté de devenir
 5     trop élitistes ont fait, c'est qu'il se marginaliserait
 6     et serait voué à l'extinction.
 7  5863                 Donc, pour avoir une bonne variété de
 8     l'offre, il faut quand même qu'il y ait une concurrence
 9     dynamique, réelle et vibrante où les joueurs ont
10     suffisamment de marge de manoeuvre économique pour
11     prendre des initiatives, tenter des choses qui parfois
12     sont en concurrence et parfois sont distinctives.  Mais
13     essayer de les cantonner dans des rôles, selon nous, ça
14     conduit à leur extinction.
15  5864                 Alors ça, disons, ce serait le volet
16     de notre réponse pour la radiodiffusion hertzienne.
17  5865                 Pour la câblodistribution,
18     évidemment, il y a d'autres facteurs qui entrent en
19     jeu.  Le plus important, c'est que ce que le câble
20     avait à offrir comme programmation de langue française
21     distinctive n'était peut-être pas en aussi grande
22     quantité que ce que le câble pouvait offrir en langue
23     anglaise dans les marchés anglophones.  C'est ce qui a
24     retardé la progression du câble.
25  5866                 Cela étant dit, on serait tenté de
                          StenoTran

                             1291

 1     dire:  Eh, bien, offrons plus de chaînes francophones
 2     et on fera monter la pénétration du câble.  Je pense
 3     que ce serait une affirmation juste, mais il faudrait
 4     voir dans quel délai.  Je m'explique.
 5  5867                 Nous avons, à l'automne dernier,
 6     ajouté les quatre nouvelles chaînes francophones qui
 7     ont obtenu des licences, Canal Vie, Musimax, le Canal
 8     Nouvelles et Télétoon, qui étaient de très belles
 9     additions.  Nous les avons ajoutées à notre volet
10     discrétionnaire avec une hausse de tarif
11     correspondante.
12  5868                 Il est déjà manifeste auprès de nos
13     clients à qui nous parlons dans des focus groups ou
14     dans des sondages qu'ils en sont à un point où ils sont
15     essoufflés de se faire offrir plus de produits, ce qui
16     nous incite à la plus grande prudence pour l'offre des
17     services à venir.  Comprenez-moi bien, je ne suis pas
18     en train de dire qu'on ne devrait pas offrir plus de
19     services francophones à la population francophone.  On
20     devrait en offrir, il faudra en offrir, ce serait dans
21     le meilleur intérêt de tout le monde de le faire, mais
22     à ce moment précis il y a visiblement une fatigue chez
23     le consommateur et un délai serait dans l'ordre des
24     choses pour permettre au consommateur de digérer cette
25     nouvelle offre.
                          StenoTran

                             1292

 1  5869                 Même si les taux de pénétration n'ont
 2     pas chuté beaucoup -- je pense qu'ils sont passés de 82
 3     pour cent à 78 pour cent, ce qui n'est pas beaucoup --
 4     le sentiment d'insatisfaction et de frustration, lui,
 5     il est palpable.
 6  5870                 Alors il faudra faire preuve de la
 7     plus grande prudence face à l'attribution de nouvelles
 8     chaînes, voire même -- et c'est sûrement l'option que,
 9     pour notre part, nous privilégions -- différer
10     l'attribution de licences d'un an ou deux pour
11     permettre au marché d'absorber l'offre la plus récente
12     qui vient d'avoir lieu.
13  5871                 Je ne sais pas si ces deux volets de
14     ma réponse en fait répondent à votre question.
15  5872                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ma question n'était
16     peut-être pas claire, mais puisque nous examinons
17     aujourd'hui la télévision conventionnelle et les
18     spécialisées, ma question à vous était:  Comment,
19     puisque vous suggérez une certaine déréglementation de
20     la télévision conventionnelle, certainement pas plus de
21     réglementation, et comme certaines parties l'ont
22     proposé, et moins que le statu quo d'une certaine
23     façon... ma question était:  Le consommateur qui est
24     roi et qui, lui, décide de ne pas s'abonner au câble,
25     ce qui est assez commun, encore plus commun au Québec,
                          StenoTran

                             1293

 1     comment fait-on ou doit-on, comme agence de
 2     réglementation, s'assurer que justement les services
 3     conventionnels, dont je voudrais surtout vous parler en
 4     ce moment, continuent à offrir une diversité et une
 5     qualité de produits au consommateur roi qui, lui, ne
 6     veut pas s'abonner au câble?
 7  5873                 Est-ce que vous faisiez un pont entre
 8     la concurrence que les services conventionnels
 9     ressentent face aux services spécialisés pour suggérer
10     que c'est plus difficile pour les services
11     conventionnels de garder leur performance ou si vous
12     m'aviez mal comprise?
13  5874                 Je regarde maintenant la télévision
14     conventionnelle.  Comment la garde-t-on riche, diverse
15     et de qualité et populaire, ce qui est le cas au
16     Québec... comment fait-on maintenant pour garder ce
17     niveau-là précisément pour les conventionnelles tout en
18     déréglementant?
19  5875                 M. AUDET:  J'ai tenté de vous donner
20     l'opinion qui est la nôtre...
21  5876                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Où vous faites le
22     pont...
23  5877                 M. AUDET:  ... et la nôtre, c'est de
24     s'assurer que tous les joueurs demeurent pleinement
25     compétitifs sur la pleine gamme, mais peut-être que
                          StenoTran

                             1294

 1     Me Mayrand aimerait ajouter à ce point de vue là.
 2  5878                 Me MAYRAND:  Peut-être pour tenter de
 3     répondre plus précisément à votre question, Madame la
 4     Présidente, notre point de vue, c'est que d'abord les
 5     réseaux conventionnels de télévision du marché
 6     francophone, en somme, je pense, de l'aveu de la
 7     plupart des intervenants, réussissent fort bien dans
 8     les circonstances, et en fait, comparativement,
 9     réussissent mieux peut-être que dans l'autre marché à
10     offrir ou à dispenser le genre de qualité et de
11     diversité et de présence d'émissions à teneur
12     canadienne dans différentes catégories que nous
13     souhaitons tous.
14  5879                 Les commentaires que nous avons faits
15     quant à la nécessité pour le Conseil d'exercer une
16     certaine prudence et une vigilance ont trait à
17     l'accroissement de l'offre télévisuelle dans ce
18     contexte-là, compte tenu du fait que c'est un marché
19     restreint qui, pour différents facteurs structurels
20     qu'on a tenté de décrire de façon sommaire dans notre
21     présentation orale ce matin, ou cet après-midi
22     plutôt... compte tenu de ces facteurs-là, c'est un
23     marché qui est également vulnérable.
24  5880                 Alors je pense qu'on ne parle pas de
25     déréglementation des réseaux conventionnels qui ferait
                          StenoTran

                             1295

 1     qu'on perdrait les acquis; il n'y a pas de proposition
 2     dans nos mémoires qui vise ça.  Tout ce qu'on vous dit,
 3     c'est:  Attention, nous avons un acquis important ici,
 4     nous avons vraiment une histoire plutôt réussie d'amour
 5     entre le public québécois et sa télévision
 6     conventionnelle... et là, on n'entre pas dans la
 7     question de savoir s'il pourrait y avoir plus ou moins
 8     de créneaux spécialisés représentés dans le marché
 9     francophone.  En tout cas, il y a clairement une forte
10     correspondance, une forte complicité entre le public
11     québécois et ses chaînes conventionnelles.
12  5881                 Alors on vous dit:  Attention, compte
13     tenu des caractéristiques propres à ce marché-là, qui
14     est beaucoup plus petit, qui est fragile, il faut faire
15     très attention pour ne pas, par l'adoption de nouvelles
16     mesures et l'augmentation rapide de l'offre audio-
17     visuelle, créer une instabilité qui, finalement,
18     produit un effet contraire.
19  5882                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors à ce moment-là
20     vous verriez les réseaux conventionnels avec des
21     possibilités diminuées de garder l'acquis à cause de la
22     fragmentation de l'auditoire dans un marché assez
23     étroit.
24  5883                 Me MAYRAND:  Sûrement.  Je pense que
25     la perspective qu'on traçait un peu et à laquelle
                          StenoTran

                             1296

 1     Michel référait tantôt, qui est un peu préoccupante
 2     pour les radiodiffuseurs qu'on dit conventionnels,
 3     c'est le fait qu'en pratique on n'arrive plus à aller
 4     chercher une part proportionnelle de l'augmentation de
 5     l'assiette publicitaire.  Ce n'est pas encore une
 6     décroissance, mais c'est un manque de croissance qui
 7     fait que ça va devenir délicat et difficile, plus
 8     difficile qu'auparavant de maintenir les acquis.
 9  5884                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  À ce moment-là, est-
10     ce que vous avez une position quelconque sur,
11     justement, l'intégration horizontale, disons, où il y a
12     propriété commune entre un réseau conventionnel et des
13     services spécialisés, justement pour contrer la
14     tendance à la fragmentation en gardant son auditoire? 
15     Si on en perd, au moins on le garde chez soi.
16  5885                 M. AUDET:  Vous savez, nous, nous
17     sommes favorables à la propriété conjointe ou croisée
18     de tous les services, que ce soit la câblodistribution,
19     la télédiffusion ou la radiodiffusion conventionnelle
20     ou les services spécialisés.  Jusqu'ici le Conseil,
21     dans ses décisions antérieures, a exprimé des réserves
22     sur la détention de canaux spécialisés par une
23     compagnie de câble, mais il n'y a pas de doute que le
24     secteur radiodiffusion dans notre compagnie parfois
25     aimerait bien pouvoir offrir un canal spécialisé pour
                          StenoTran

                             1297

 1     maintenir sa croissance.
 2  5886                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Vous préconisez le
 3     maintien du entry test.  Est-ce que dans ce test on
 4     devrait examine ou mesurer aussi cette concentration ou
 5     cette propriété croisée?
 6  5887                 M. AUDET:  À ma connaissance, vous le
 7     faites déjà, n'est-ce pas?  Vous le faites déjà, il me
 8     semble.
 9  5888                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Parce que vous avez
10     établi il y a un moment vos inquiétudes par rapport à
11     l'ajout de services spécialisés.  Est-ce que c'est à
12     votre avis pire si ces services spécialisés sont la
13     propriété de services conventionnels?
14  5889                 M. AUDET:  Je pense qu'il devrait
15     exister une relative liberté pour les compagnies
16     d'offrir les services qu'elles désirent offrir,
17     qu'elles soient ou non propriétaires d'un réseau de
18     câble ou qu'elles soient ou non propriétaires de
19     stations de radio et de télévision existantes.
20  5890                 Le Conseil a édicté une
21     réglementation pour s'assurer qu'il y ait égalité
22     d'accès pour les services.  Je sais que le Conseil dans
23     le moment a des procédures en cours pour revoir
24     certaines anicroches qui ont été reprochées...
25  5891                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je parlais de
                          StenoTran

                             1298

 1     concentration horizontale, pas verticale, entre les
 2     services conventionnels et les services spécialisés,
 3     parce qu'il y a des contradictions quelconques.  Vous
 4     vous inquiétez de l'ajout de services spécialisés à
 5     cause de la concurrence trop aiguë qui rendrait plus
 6     difficile aux services conventionnels et aux titulaires
 7     du moment de vraiment pouvoir garder les acquis, et
 8     caetera, et vous préconisez l'entry test, et caetera.
 9  5892                 Alors c'est un peu contraire à donner
10     la possibilité à des services conventionnels qui ont
11     d'autres permis spécialisés.  Est-ce que ça ne va pas
12     encore plus à l'encontre de ce que vous préconisez, qui
13     est d'essayer de garder ce que vous avez en ce moment
14     sans fragmenter l'auditoire ou sans ajouter de
15     concurrence qui vous semble indue s'il y avait des
16     services additionnels avant deux ans, je crois que vous
17     avez dit.
18  5893                 M. AUDET:  Je sens le besoin de faire
19     une mise au point.  Notre référence au fait qu'il y a
20     cette fragmentation et qu'il y a eu croissance beaucoup
21     plus vigoureuse des revenus des canaux spécialisés que
22     de la télévision conventionnelle, ce n'était pas pour
23     exprimer le point de vue qu'on devrait indûment limiter
24     l'octroi de licences futures, c'était simplement pour
25     indiquer que, dans ce contexte-là, le secteur de la
                          StenoTran

                             1299

 1     radiodiffusion traditionnelle n'a pas les moyens qu'on
 2     lui impose des contributions supplémentaires au
 3     chapitre de la programmation canadienne.  C'était le
 4     but de cette intervention-là, tout simplement.
 5  5894                 Me MAYRAND:  Pour compléter, si vous
 6     me permettez, Madame la Présidente, très rapidement, je
 7     pense que nous n'avons pas dit qu'il ne devrait pas y
 8     avoir de nouveaux services dans le marché francophone. 
 9     On s'est contentés de dire:  Attention, dans le proche
10     avenir il y a, d'après nous, un problème.  Alors ce
11     n'est certainement pas une interdiction ou un édit ou
12     un préjugé toujours défavorable à l'inclusion de
13     nouveaux services.  Et notre réflexion est
14     littéralement stimulée par les commentaires que nous
15     recevons des téléspectateurs et des abonnés du câble
16     dans nos régions.
17  5895                 Alors ça, c'est une chose.
18  5896                 Par ailleurs, lorsque vous soulevez
19     la question de la propriété croisée, on n'a pas énoncé
20     de commentaire à l'effet qu'il ne peut pas y avoir de
21     croisement de propriétés et des liens horizontaux...
22  5897                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Non, non, c'était une
23     question de ma part.  Je ne vous ai pas attribué ces
24     mots.  Je vous demandais simplement si le problème
25     était rendu encore plus difficile...
                          StenoTran

                             1300

 1  5898                 Me MAYRAND:  Pour compléter là-
 2     dessus, je pense que notre réflexion à ce stade-ci,
 3     c'est que le concept de propriété croisée dans un
 4     marché qui évolue vers une plus grande concurrence et
 5     une plus grande multiplicité d'intervenants, c'est un
 6     contexte qui se prête à parler plutôt de règles ou de
 7     garanties visant à s'assurer qu'il n'y ait pas de
 8     dominance d'un groupe de joueurs ou d'un joueur et
 9     qu'il n'y ait pas de problèmes de préférence indue ou
10     de discrimination plutôt que le phénomène de la
11     propriété croisée ou d'intérêts horizontaux en soi.
12  5899                 Alors de ce point de vue là, c'est
13     clairement une évolution du discours et des
14     préoccupations du Conseil par rapport à celles qu'on
15     avait il y a 10 et, encore plus, il y a 15 ans.
16  5900                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je crois bien que
17     l'intégration que j'appellerais horizontale, où les
18     services de programmation conventionnelle et services
19     de programmation spécialisée ou payante sont sous la
20     même propriété, à mon avis, soulève des problèmes qui
21     diffèrent de ceux que soulève une intégration
22     verticale, où le distributeur a aussi propriété dans la
23     programmation, et nous examinons surtout maintenant ce
24     que moi, j'appellerais l'intégration horizontale dans
25     le contexte du processus d'aujourd'hui.  Voilà pourquoi
                          StenoTran

                             1301

 1     je vous posais ces questions.
 2  5901                 Maintenant, je vais me contredire
 3     moi-même puisque je vais vous poser une question qui
 4     est strictement une question câble.
 5  5902                 Est-ce que vous croyez vraiment que
 6     le pick and pay, ça va exister, dans le sens où le
 7     consommateur va acheter un seul service à la fois?
 8  5903                 M. AUDET:  Je trouve que votre
 9     question est excellente.  De fait, le pick and pay pur
10     n'existera probablement pas, sans quoi les compagnies
11     feraient probablement faillite.  Alors ce que nous
12     entreverrions, par contre, c'est le raffinement des
13     packages.  Par exemple, dans le moment, notre troisième
14     volet discrétionnaire au Canada anglais compte 14
15     services.  Dans un univers numérique où le consommateur
16     a le choix, probablement que ça pourrait être réduit à,
17     je ne sais pas, moi, cinq canaux par offre et peut-être
18     avoir des offres plus regroupées quant à leur centre
19     d'intérêt.
20  5904                 Alors c'est l'évolution qu'on
21     entrevoit pour l'avenir.  Ce sera plutôt des sous-
22     groupes un peu plus petits.
23  5905                 Par contre, là où le numérique nous
24     offrira d'immenses avantages, c'est celui d'offrir la
25     télévision sur demande, true video on demand.  Ça, ce
                          StenoTran

                             1302

 1     sera:  "Je veux voir 'Docteur Zhivago' à huit heures et
 2     quart ce soir", et "Docteur Zhivago" est dans une
 3     librairie de films et le consommateur peut y avoir
 4     accès instantanément.
 5  5906                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Lorsqu'il s'agit de
 6     films...
 7  5907                 M. AUDET:  Donc on aura les deux
 8     choses.  On aura l'accès au film précis sur demande
 9     mais on aura l'accès à des chaînes en quantité moins
10     grande mais quand même par groupements de quatre ou
11     cinq, selon nous.
12  5908                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Une dernière
13     question:  Vos soumissions écrites, je ne crois pas
14     que... en tout cas, je n'ai pas trouvé de commentaires
15     à cet effet.  Est-ce que vos recommandations visent le
16     marché francophone uniquement ou est-ce que, quand vous
17     entérinez les propositions de l'ACR, vous entérinez
18     celles qui visent le marché anglophone aussi?
19  5909                 M. AUDET:  De façon générale, nous
20     essayons dans nos représentations de couvrir également
21     les marchés francophones et anglophones parce que notre
22     philosophie, c'est d'être un opérateur canadien.  Il
23     s'adonne que nos activités de radiodiffusion jusqu'ici,
24     pour des raisons historiques, ont été principalement au
25     Canada français.  Donc peut-être que dans ce cas-là,
                          StenoTran

                             1303

 1     pour ce qui est de la radiodiffusion dite
 2     traditionnelle, nos commentaires sont plus orientés
 3     vers la radiodiffusion francophone.
 4  5910                 Autre que ça, de façon générale, nos
 5     commentaires devraient être valides à l'ensemble du
 6     pays.
 7  5911                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ayant participé à des
 8     discussions sans doute avec vos collègues du Canada
 9     anglais dans le contexte de l'ACR, voyez-vous le besoin
10     de réglementation plus aigu du côté anglophone pour
11     essayer d'atteindre les succès du côté francophone ou
12     si vous pensez que les propositions de l'ACR vont
13     suffire pour y arriver?
14  5912                 M. CARTER:  Nous constatons que les
15     recommandations de l'ACR sont différentes, marquent une
16     différence entre les objectifs proposés pour le marché
17     anglophone et les objectifs proposés pour le marché
18     francophone.  Par ailleurs, la réglementation actuelle
19     montre déjà une différenciation; si je pense par
20     exemple aux options A et B, en fait elles ne
21     s'appliquent pas au marché francophone, elles ne
22     s'appliquent exclusivement qu'au marché anglophone. 
23     Donc il y a déjà une différenciation.
24  5913                 Je pense que cette différenciation-
25     là, en tout cas pour celle qui existe, doit continuer.
                          StenoTran

                             1304

 1  5914                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Considérant les
 2     succès au niveau de la programmation offerte et au
 3     niveau des dépenses, le succès des services
 4     conventionnels francophones, j'imagine qu'il faudrait y
 5     aller loin vis-à-vis le Canada anglais pour que vous ne
 6     soyez pas en conformité.
 7  5915                 M. CARTER:  Oui, c'est exact.
 8  5916                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous vous remercions,
 9     messieurs, et bon retour à Montréal.  Au plaisir de
10     vous revoir.
11  5917                 M. AUDET:  Merci.
12  5918                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Madame la Secrétaire,
13     voulez-vous inviter l'intervenant suivant, s'il vous
14     plaît.
15                                                        1425
16  5919                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
17  5920                 The next presentation will be by
18     Craig Broadcast Systems Incorporated.
19  5921                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon. 
20     Proceed when you are ready.
21     PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
22  5922                 MR. D. CRAIG:  Good afternoon, Madam
23     Chairperson and members of the Commission.
24  5923                 My name is Drew Craig and I am
25     President of Craig Broadcast Systems.  With me today is
                          StenoTran

                             1305

 1     my father, Stuart, and Joanne Levy, the Executive
 2     Director of the A-Channel Drama Fund.
 3  5924                 We are pleased to be appearing before
 4     the Commission today.  As you know, we are a third
 5     generation, family-owned broadcaster based in Brandon,
 6     Manitoba.
 7  5925                 Exactly one year ago, we launched the
 8     fourth English language commercial television service
 9     in Calgary and Edmonton, under the name "A-Channel". 
10     The stations utilize all digital equipment and are the
11     first new TV stations in Calgary and Edmonton in over
12     25 years.
13  5926                 We also operate the fourth English
14     language television service in Manitoba, licensed 12
15     years ago.  We were also responsible for launching the
16     first digital MMDS system in Canada.  Our SkyCable
17     wireless service is now deployed across the province of
18     Manitoba and has over 10,000 urban and rural
19     subscribers.
20  5927                 This hearing is about television
21     policy, and we thought it would be appropriate to tell
22     you a bit about the A-Channel model, and how that model
23     addresses the issues raised in your public notice.
24  5928                 The launch of A-Channel has been a
25     remarkable success, and after just one year on the air,
                          StenoTran

                             1306

 1     our stations in Alberta are offering viewers a fresh,
 2     innovative and exciting local Canadian programming
 3     service.
 4  5929                 Our commitment to local reflection
 5     goes back over 40- years, as Stuart Craig will tell
 6     you.
 7  5930                 MR. S CRAIG:  Thank you, Drew.
 8  5931                 We have always had a unique affinity
 9     to local programming.  Our Brandon station, CKX-TV, has
10     offered indispensable local service in southwestern
11     Manitoba since its launch in 1954.
12  5932                 When we were licensed in 1986 to
13     provide the fourth service in Manitoba, based in
14     Portage la Prairie/Winnipeg, we committed to provide
15     over 15 hours of original local news per week on that
16     station as well.
17  5933                 One of the local programs carried on
18     our Manitoba stations is the "Manitoba Farm Report,"
19     which has provided a weekly half-hour program for the
20     Manitoba farm community for over 30 years.
21  5934                 MR. D. CRAIG:  Thank you, Stuart.
22  5935                 When we launched the A-Channel
23     stations in Calgary and Edmonton last year, we also
24     committed to local reflection.  A-Channel now provides
25     54 hours per week of such programming, including five
                          StenoTran

                             1307

 1     hours of locally-produced news, variety and
 2     entertainment programming in both Calgary and Edmonton
 3     every week day.
 4  5936                 We also air a program called "The
 5     Sharing Circle."  This is a weekly aboriginal magazine
 6     program produced by and for First Nation Canadians. 
 7     The program is produced as a joint venture of our
 8     Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Brandon stations, using
 9     separate crews working out of Calgary, Edmonton and
10     Portage la Prairie, with the program assembled in
11     Winnipeg.
12  5937                 This is the only aboriginal
13     television magazine program running weekly in prime
14     time in the prairies, and we are very proud of its
15     quality and the increasing response the program is
16     getting from our audience.
17  5938                 In addition to our focus on local
18     programming, we also introduced a new element to the
19     Alberta model, namely a significant mandate in support
20     of long-form Canadian drama.  And to tell you more
21     about it, I will ask Joanne Levy to provide some
22     details.
23  5939                 MS LEVY:  Thank you, Drew.
24  5940                 Madam Chairperson and members of the
25     Commission, the A-Channel Drama Fund will spend over
                          StenoTran

                             1308

 1     $14 million in our first licence term to develop and
 2     exhibit original Canadian movies made in Alberta.  To
 3     date, we have licensed 12 movies with combined
 4     production budgets of about $35 million.  Seven of our
 5     movie projects are complete and an eighth is half way
 6     through principal photography.
 7  5941                 One of the ,movies that we completed,
 8     called "Ebenezer," was sublicensed to Baton and
 9     received a national exhibition last December.  Another
10     of our movies, "Heart of the Sun," premiered at the
11     Montreal International Film Festival in August and will
12     also show at the Vancouver Film Festival this Thursday
13     evening.
14  5942                 Other stations in the private
15     television sector in Canada have tended to concentrate
16     on series drama rather than on long-form drama.  A-
17     Channel was launched with a national strategy for long-
18     form drama, which was strongly applauded by all of the
19     Canadian creative community and by Alberta producers.
20  5943                 Our strategy for long-form drama is
21     based on the concept that independent television
22     stations or station groups can work together to provide
23     a national window for distinctive Canadian dramatic
24     programming.
25  5944                 In order to accomplish this, A-
                          StenoTran

                             1309

 1     Channel pays national licence fees for films made by
 2     Alberta-based producers, and then we arrange for the
 3     broadcast of those films in other markets across
 4     Canada, in exchange for offer an exhibition window for
 5     Canadian drama produced outside Alberta.
 6  5945                 Just to give you some detail, the
 7     licence fee paid by A-Channel is, as we mentioned, a
 8     national broadcast fee.  So, for instance, a film
 9     costing $2 million could receive a $300,000 national
10     broadcast licence fee from the A-Channel stations.  A-
11     Channel schedules these films in its own Canadian Movie
12     Night and also arranges to have them broadcast on other
13     stations across Canada, through reciprocal program
14     arrangements with other station groups and group
15     owners, such as Baton, CHUM and WIC.
16  5946                 MR. D. CRAIG:  Thank you, Joanne.
17  5947                 At this point I want to the time to
18     correct the record.  The program schedule for our
19     Winnipeg station filed by the Friends of Canadian
20     Broadcasting last week failed to note that we run a two
21     hour Canadian movie in prime time every week on that
22     station, just as we do in both Calgary and Edmonton.
23  5948                 Our stations in Calgary, Edmonton and
24     Winnipeg are making very significant expenditures on 7,
25     8 and 9 Canadian programs, over 6 per cent of our ad
                          StenoTran

                             1310

 1     revenues in Winnipeg and over 11 per cent of our ad
 2     revenues in Calgary and Edmonton.
 3  5949                 And these expenditures are producing
 4     viewing results.  We are proud to report that the
 5     Canadian movies aired on our stations are achieving
 6     viewership numbers comparable to many of the Hollywood
 7     movies being shown on the A-Channel stations.
 8  5950                 Notwithstanding the success that we
 9     have achieved in developing a business model based on
10     Canadian local and underrepresented programming, the
11     proper regulatory environment and policies are crucial
12     to ensure that we and other broadcasters are able to
13     continue to support Canadian programming.
14  5951                 In particular, our strategy of
15     focusing on long form Canadian drama and the successes
16     we have achieved to date would not have been possible
17     without public funding.
18  5952                 In putting forward our A-Channel
19     model, we do not suggest that this is the only approach
20     or that this is necessarily appropriate for other
21     stations.  However, we believe it is working well in
22     the circumstances in which it has been introduced.
23  5953                 In our written submission we made
24     several recommendations to the Commission regarding how
25     private broadcasters could better fulfil their duties
                          StenoTran

                             1311

 1     under the Broadcasting Act with respect to Canadian
 2     programming.  I would now like to restate some of these
 3     recommendations.
 4  5954                 First, we urge the Commission to
 5     expand the definition of "underrepresented" Canadian
 6     programming to include documentaries.  By limiting the
 7     current definition to Categories 7, 8 and 9, the
 8     Commission has made it more difficult for independent
 9     documentary makers to find a berth in prime time.
10  5955                 Second, we agree with the CAB
11     proposal to extend the 150 per cent drama credit
12     outside of prime time.  This would provide a major
13     incentive to support the airing of 10 out of 10 point
14     drama in daytime.
15  5956                 We also support the concept of a new
16     200 per cent drama credit for "distinctively" Canadian
17     drama in peak time.  This would stimulate support for
18     programs that are the most difficult to finance.
19  5957                 We also think that a 200 per cent
20     scheduling credit should apply for Canadian "made-for"
21     TV or theatrical feature films, given the size of the
22     budgets required for this category of long-form drama. 
23     This idea is reflected in the Australian content rules
24     which, as we understand it, give a significantly higher
25     scheduling credit for longer form drama programs.
                          StenoTran

                             1312

 1  5958                 Finally, we agree with the
 2     introduction of a peak time exhibition incentive, which
 3     would allow licensees to reduce their daytime Canadian
 4     content according to a formula for each half hour per
 5     week of Category 7, 8 and 9 programs exhibited in peak
 6     time above and beyond current commitments.
 7  5959                 By implementing these
 8     recommendations, we believe that broadcasters like
 9     ourselves will be better able to concentrate their
10     support on certain underrepresented Canadian program
11     areas, and to schedule these programs more effectively
12     and maximize their audience.
13  5960                 Thank you very much for the
14     opportunity to share our experiences with you.
15  5961                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Madam
16     Levy, Messrs Craig.
17  5962                 I would ask Commissioner Pennefather
18     to address some questions to you, please.
19  5963                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Good
20     afternoon.
21  5964                 I would like to ask you a number of
22     questions and clarifications regarding in effect the
23     recommendations which you have repeated here today and
24     look at the broader picture.  First, a couple of
25     questions on the model and particularly the long-form
                          StenoTran

                             1313

 1     drama, and thank you for the information you brought to
 2     us today about that.
 3  5965                 In addition to what you have
 4     mentioned, in terms of the other financiers of the
 5     projects is there investment through the Telefilm
 6     Equity Investment Fund -- in other words, these are 10
 7     out of 10 projects?
 8  5966                 MS LEVY:  So far, of the 12 projects
 9     that we have committed to there were three that had
10     Telefilm as part of their plan.  Two of them were
11     turned down, so that of the essentially eight that have
12     been made so far only one has Telefilm Equity financing
13     in it.
14  5967                 The rest, there are three of the
15     eight that have been made with neither licence fee
16     top-up or Telefilm, so of the five that are left that
17     have been made, only one -- they all have licence fee
18     top-up in them and one also has Telefilm.
19  5968                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  And the
20     average budget for each of the --
21  5969                 MS LEVY:  The average, up until this
22     eighth, which is a very much higher budget than most,
23     the average was around $2 million.  So, we had a high
24     of about $3.4 million and a low budget of $1.3 million
25     in terms of the production budget.  Now with this
                          StenoTran

                             1314

 1     eighth I think our average will probably be closer to
 2     $2.5 million to $3 million because it sort of skews
 3     things higher.
 4  5970                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  It's an
 5     interesting approach.  In general, who are the other
 6     partners then in the financing of the films?  Is film
 7     the correct -- shall I call it long-form drama or film?
 8  5971                 MS LEVY:  Well, whichever one you
 9     wish.  We have a number of feature films as part of our
10     roster.  We like feature films.  Some of them are MOWs.
11  5972                 In the case of one of our television
12     movies it had a huge presale to the United States, so
13     there was a Showtime sale there and that was very
14     important to getting that project completed.  Again,
15     that was one that has neither Telefilm nor licence fee
16     top-up in it.
17  5973                 Other investors for those that have
18     gone completely private have been Screen Partners which
19     offers time variable contingency insurance financing. 
20     So, there are various partners that come to the fore,
21     but generally those that have been able to do the best
22     have been those that have substantial foreign presales
23     as part of the financing package.  That's really,
24     really important.
25  5974                 We are also extremely proud of the
                          StenoTran

                             1315

 1     fact that these movies have that kind of international
 2     appeal and are giving exposure to our crafts people and
 3     our stories, not only across Canada, but across the
 4     world.
 5  5975                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  That,
 6     obviously, was one of the points I was getting to is,
 7     as you know, the discussion here and elsewhere in the
 8     milieu, obviously, is the exportability of product not
 9     only artistically, but also in terms of financial
10     arrangements.  So, there is and you are planning for a
11     U.S. market for these long-form dramas?
12                                                        1435
13  5976                 MS LEVY:  Our producers that are
14     partnering with us in these projects -- and I suppose
15     we are, as they say, just the renter, but we like to
16     think we are the key renter -- we are the ones who
17     trigger it.  They are obviously interested in a wider
18     business, but I don't think that that needs to
19     compromise the quality of the story or the quality of
20     its relevance to a Canadian audience.
21  5977                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I'm sure
22     you have been following the debate in fact regarding
23     distinctive Canadian vis-à-vis -- and I use "vis-à-vis"
24     in different ways -- exportability, and that's a
25     simplistic way of saying --
                          StenoTran

                             1316

 1  5978                 MS LEVY:  I don't think they are
 2     mutually exclusive.  In fact my experience has been
 3     that a good movie, well made with a universal appeal,
 4     can travel anywhere and can also be successful.
 5  5979                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  And are
 6     you getting good reception in Canada with Canadian
 7     viewers?
 8  5980                 MS LEVY:  In most cases, we started
 9     licensing, in effect, triggering even before we went on
10     the air and we have only been on the air for a year. 
11     So, we have had limited experience actually exposing
12     some of our products to Canadian viewers because they
13     have mostly been in production or post-production and
14     because a number of ours are feature films that require
15     theatrical release, we haven't had a change to see how
16     many of them get that far.
17  5981                 I must say that I have been part of
18     the feature film review and the rest of that sort of
19     process and it is still extremely difficult in this
20     country for a domestic feature film to find a screen. 
21     So, in many cases the broadest possible Canadian
22     audience for these feature films will be on television.
23  5982                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Was your
24     reference "finding a screen" a television screen?
25  5983                 MS LEVY:  No, a theatrical screen. 
                          StenoTran

                             1317

 1     I'm just saying if it wasn't for television, these
 2     movies would not get seen by most Canadians.
 3  5984                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  The other
 4     day we had representatives from AMPIA and I am sure you
 5     have seen their intervention and presentation.  They
 6     did express some concern in fact about air time for
 7     their programs.
 8                            "...we currently face a
 9                            situation where at some stations
10                            the only air time that is
11                            available for our programs is
12                            the back half-hour...  We
13                            despair that soon we will have
14                            nothing but rebroadcast
15                            stations..."
16  5985                 I didn't get a sense of how the model
17     was impacting on the local community.  Is this just a
18     question of timing or why weren't they more --
19  5986                 MS LEVY:  It's also genre.  When they
20     are talking about the back half-hour of the news, they
21     are generally talking about half-hour one-off
22     documentaries that are extremely difficult to find a
23     home for nationally.  I sit as the broadcast
24     representative on the board of AMPIA and I know from my
25     associations with the independent producers the
                          StenoTran

                             1318

 1     difficulty that they face outside of Craig Broadcast
 2     Systems because we actually live there and can talk to
 3     them where they live.  Their difficulty is finding the
 4     champion in the local affiliate who can take their
 5     cause and take their program to the national
 6     programmer.
 7  5987                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  You are
 8     doing that, but you are saying your focus is long-form
 9     drama?
10  5988                 MS LEVY:  Our focus is long form, so
11     in the case of someone who is doing a half-hour one-off
12     documentary, there will be some opportunities for
13     people to have that material programmed.  We haven't
14     moved in that direction and that's outside the drama
15     fund and outside my authority.
16  5989                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I remember
17     not only from today but from chatting with you and with
18     a number of people from the community in Calgary during
19     our regional consultations this point not only about
20     certain genre but about implication -- we say in French
21     implication -- in the community and also you have
22     mentioned today your tradition in local programming. 
23     This is an area I would now like to discuss.  The AMPIA
24     made a recommendation that:
25                            "...regional productions be
                          StenoTran

                             1319

 1                            given a 50 per cent bonus when
 2                            the CRTC calculates the hours of
 3                            Canadian programming in the
 4                            under-represented categories
 5                            broadcast by a Canadian
 6                            broadcaster towards their
 7                            condition of licence."
 8  5990                 This is over and above current
 9     regional bonuses.  What is your comment on that
10     proposal?
11  5991                 MR. D. CRAIG:  I think that's a very
12     innovative approach and I think that we recognize the
13     difficulty in producing regional programs.  It's
14     tougher to produce it as a regional broadcaster than it
15     is as a national broadcaster.  We have to assume a
16     great deal more risk when we produce it in the region. 
17     As Joanne mentioned, our trigger, as an example, on our
18     drama fund is about $300,000 typically to trigger the
19     LFP side of things or the Telefilm side of things.
20  5992                 When we look at ad revenue in Alberta
21     that we could generate through that production, with
22     two plays of that film delivering a reasonable audience
23     share somewhere in the range of three to four rating
24     points, we could typically deliver about $50,000 in ad
25     revenue back to the station.  So, there is a tremendous
                          StenoTran

                             1320

 1     risk.
 2  5993                 What we have to do is rely on sales
 3     to other stations.  We have to carve out other windows
 4     so that we allow the film to get a pay run, maybe a
 5     theatrical release.  So, we have to be flexible.  It's
 6     much more difficult as a reasonable broadcaster to
 7     trigger the fund and take that risk.  So, I think we
 8     would be very encouraged by an incentive for regional
 9     producers.
10  5994                 Joanne may want to speak to the
11     regional incentives currently at the LFP, which seem to
12     be under attack, but we are certainly concerned that
13     the LFP continues to give regional producers an added
14     incentive.
15  5995                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  As you
16     comment further, you might also -- I note that
17     Saskatchewan Communication Network has a position that
18     regional programming should be afforded a time credit
19     synonymous with a 150 per cent drama credit now in
20     effect.  In other words, there is two proposals there
21     that are looking at possible support to regional
22     programming.  If you could clarify for us the
23     definition of "regional", because this is another word
24     that is used and when we have you here we really want
25     to get a sense of what that means.
                          StenoTran

                             1321

 1  5996                 MR. D. CRAIG:  I will just give you
 2     -- I will let Joanne clarify the definition as we see
 3     it, but I think another important aspect to a regional
 4     incentive is if the Commission were to grant a regional
 5     incentive to one of our movies, as an example, over and
 6     above the 150 per cent, if it was a 10 out of 10 -- so,
 7     let's say it was a 200 per cent project -- and other
 8     broadcasters got that benefit.  In other words, let's
 9     assume we produce it under our model.  What it would
10     then do would provide an incentive for other
11     broadcasters to licence that film and play it
12     nationally because they would get that regional
13     incentive.
14  5997                 So, I think there is another sort of
15     side incentive to this regional discussion because it
16     would provide incentive for other broadcasters to buy
17     our product.
18  5998                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Move it
19     around the country, in other words.
20  5999                 MR. D. CRAIG:  Yes.
21  6000                 MS LEVY:  It would make the regional
22     production travel with the product to wherever it
23     landed for broadcast or cablecast in the case of pay
24     television, for instance.  The definition of regional
25     that we use in Alberta is our province, but we are
                          StenoTran

                             1322

 1     certainly cognizant of regions being defined under
 2     Telefilm and other rules as those areas outside the
 3     major production centres of Toronto and Montreal.
 4  6001                 We encourage co-productions between
 5     the producers in Alberta and those in other provinces
 6     as well.  So, we are trying to take full advantage of
 7     all of the regional incentives and all of the regional
 8     tax credits and all of the regional whatever is out
 9     there because, especially for long form, they are so
10     expensive to produce, you have to find every means to
11     raise the money.
12  6002                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Local, on
13     the other hand, on which we spent quite a bit of time
14     in Calgary with many presenters talking about what that
15     meant in terms of support for community events
16     programming, what does "local" mean?
17  6003                 MS LEVY:  I think it means more the
18     sort of city boundaries or the more closely defined
19     boundaries or, in our case, our broadcast sort of
20     footprint, if you like.
21  6004                 MR. D. CRAIG:  I would agree with
22     that definition.
23  6005                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Because
24     you in fact have presented a picture and a strategy
25     model which combines these two, what would seem, great
                          StenoTran

                             1323

 1     extremes of local programming and long-form drama
 2     hitting United States markets.
 3  6006                 MR. D. CRAIG:  Right.
 4  6007                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  And you
 5     talk as well about regional programming.  We talked
 6     about it from the point of view of incentives and
 7     access to audiences and financing, but if you look at
 8     the CAB's suggestion, for example, or proposal the
 9     regulatory framework that we are talking about more or
10     less adjusting or not is fundamentally based, in their
11     view, on a setting of national viewing goals for
12     Canadian television.
13  6008                 I understand you support the CAB's
14     submission, so I am very interested in having your
15     perspective on this proposal, particularly in terms of
16     what it means if you think audiences for local,
17     audiences for regional, audiences for national.  How do
18     you adjust all of that?
19  6009                 Getting audiences for Canadian
20     programming has been the point from the very beginning,
21     I would assume, the Broadcasting Act and policies and
22     regulations.  Why this now and why do you support this
23     proposal when, obviously, you have smaller audiences
24     for a large part of your programming?
25                                                        1450
                          StenoTran

                             1324

 1  6010                 MR. D. CRAIG:  I think in hearing our
 2     oral presentation you understand what aspects of the
 3     CAB proposal we support.
 4  6011                 We are not a national system.  I
 5     think it is important for us --
 6  6012                 Our focus is on two areas.  One is on
 7     an intensely local service, but also providing a
 8     platform for regional producers to access a national
 9     licence fee.
10  6013                 In our particular case, we are
11     focused on news and we are focused on national drama. 
12     I think that the local programming that we do provides
13     the personality for the station and the attachment to
14     the community.
15  6014                 In essence, what the local
16     programming does is create a platform that you can get
17     a viewer to tune to, to play this larger scale
18     programming within.
19  6015                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  The
20     viewing targets -- it is not clear to me if you think
21     that is --
22  6016                 MR. D. CRAIG:  Generally speaking, I
23     think the whole notion of the industry focusing on
24     getting more viewers to watch Canadian television is a
25     very noble one.
                          StenoTran

                             1325

 1  6017                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  What about
 2     more viewers for Canadian programs on Canadian
 3     television?
 4  6018                 MR. D. CRAIG:  Absolutely, it is a
 5     very noble one.
 6  6019                 We fully expect the Commission, on
 7     top of those, to look at the station's individual
 8     commitments that will vary market by market.
 9  6020                 I think it is very positive to look
10     at an industry-wide goal being the garnering of more
11     audience share for Canadian programs.  We would all
12     like to see that.
13  6021                 I think it is something we should all
14     work toward.
15  6022                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I would
16     like to go through some of the other points you
17     support, to be sure I understand why in your particular
18     circumstance, in your particular approach to
19     broadcasting, the Craig Model, why you are interested
20     in this.
21  6023                 Several intervenors from the
22     independent production sector disagree with the
23     practice of allowing television stations to add CTV's
24     financial support in the calculation of their expenses
25     in Canadian programming.
                          StenoTran

                             1326

 1  6024                 According to them, instead of
 2     providing increased opportunity for additional Canadian
 3     programs to be produced, this practice only replaces
 4     one financing source with another, without necessarily
 5     increasing the quantity of high quality Canadian
 6     programs.
 7  6025                 What is your view on this proposal? 
 8     What is your comment on that practice?
 9  6026                 MR. D. CRAIG:  On the practice of?
10  6027                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Of
11     allowing television stations to add CTF financial
12     support in the calculation of their Canadian
13     programming expenses.
14  6028                 Is this appropriate?  Is this
15     helpful?  Is this something we should be concerned
16     about as the independent production sector is concerned
17     about that?
18  6029                 MR. D. CRAIG:  I think that the whole
19     notion of the top-up was to provide a higher quality
20     product.  I would like to think that it would be tied
21     to audience:  the more we spend, the higher the
22     audience level would be.
23  6030                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  You think
24     it will end up with more being spent by the
25     broadcasters on Canadian programming?
                          StenoTran

                             1327

 1  6031                 MR. D. CRAIG:  I believe so.
 2  6032                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Not less.
 3  6033                 MR. D. CRAIG:  We are certainly
 4     taking full advantage of it right now.  If you look at
 5     where we are in percentage terms on 7, 8 and 9, I think
 6     it demonstrates our commitments to those categories.
 7  6034                 So we certainly have stepped up to
 8     the plate in terms of our expenditures on 7, 8 and 9,
 9     and we are taking full advantage of using these funds
10     to make better programs to get audiences.
11  6035                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  In
12     paragraph 30 of your written submission you say that
13     you:
14                            "...agree with the CAB proposal
15                            to extend the 150% drama credit
16                            outside of prime time."
17  6036                 And I think you repeat that today.
18                            "As an incentive to run ten out
19                            of ten Canadian shows in
20                            daytime."
21  6037                 I want to be clear why, as well in
22     paragraph 32, you also say that:
23                            "...a peak time exhibition
24                            incentive would allow licensees
25                            to reduce their daytime Canadian
                          StenoTran

                             1328

 1                            content..."
 2  6038                 How do the two come together?
 3  6039                 MR. D. CRAIG:  I think they are two
 4     different proposals.
 5  6040                 The whole notion of being able to
 6     take credit in daytime for Canadian drama, in our view,
 7     is going to benefit two key program genres; namely,
 8     children's programming and potentially daytime serial
 9     television -- both of which have had a hard time
10     finding shelf space.  It is tough to make a business
11     case for those types of genres.
12  6041                 I think it would certainly assist the
13     producers of children's programming and potentially
14     open up a new market for daytime serial television.
15  6042                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  But is it
16     to the detriment of drama in peak time?
17  6043                 MR. D. CRAIG:  I don't think so.
18  6044                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  You think
19     the two will occur.
20  6045                 MR. D. CRAIG:  Yes.  The thresholds
21     have been established by the Commission in terms of
22     what those numbers would be over the course of a
23     licence term.
24  6046                 Option B, as we all know, is very
25     explicit in terms of those numbers.  So I don't see it
                          StenoTran

                             1329

 1     as in any way reducing that commitment .
 2  6047                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I think we
 3     have heard -- just so I am clear -- a number of
 4     broadcasters and the CAB speak to the need for greater
 5     flexibility in scheduling.
 6  6048                 Do you agree with this approach?
 7  6049                 MR. D. CRAIG:  Yes, I do.
 8  6050                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  With this
 9     in mind, how is this going to end up with more Canadian
10     programs in prime time?
11  6051                 MR. D. CRAIG:  I think you can find
12     audiences in those shoulder periods of peak time.  So
13     it would be nice to have the flexibility.
14  6052                 For instance, in our case in Alberta
15     where the U.S. signals come to us on a Pacific feed
16     from Spokane, there is an opportunity to program
17     Canadian programming that is free and clear of big U.S.
18     network simulcast material.
19  6053                 It would seem logical that there is
20     an opening, if you will, for Canadian programming in
21     that time period, between 7:00 and 8:00, and that could
22     garner perhaps a larger share of audience than it might
23     otherwise against a U.S. network show.
24  6054                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  You feel
25     you should have a certain degree of flexibility to
                          StenoTran

                             1330

 1     program foreign programming in peak time, and then to
 2     play certain kinds of Canadian programming in positions
 3     where you think they would do well.
 4  6055                 But what I read is that that could
 5     end up in less Canadian programming in prime time.  Do
 6     you agree that it would be less Canadian programming in
 7     prime time?
 8  6056                 MR. D. CRAIG:  I don't think there
 9     would be less.  I think it just might open up an
10     opportunity and a better business case to garner
11     audience with a Canadian program, as opposed to playing
12     it up against, in certain cases, an American program.
13  6057                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  But here
14     is where the audience focus would drive that thesis; to
15     say we will put the Canadian programming where it gets
16     audience.  That may not be in prime time, which is of
17     course what the independent production community's main
18     point is; that that is where Canadian programming must
19     be secured and in fact increased.
20  6058                 Do you see a contradiction here?
21  6059                 MR. D. CRAIG:  Yes, there is a
22     contradiction, although there are two sides to the
23     argument.  You want to have the flexibility, as a
24     programmer, to put that show in the spot that is going
25     to garner the greater audience share.
                          StenoTran

                             1331

 1  6060                 We have had cases ourselves with
 2     programs that garner greater audience shares outside of
 3     prime time than they did in prime time.
 4  6061                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  You also
 5     stress the importance of including documentaries in
 6     under-represented categories.  They will draw
 7     audiences, but they may be flexible in terms of
 8     numbers.  So numbers alone don't speak.
 9  6062                 You would be interested in running
10     Canadian documentaries in peak time against, let's say,
11     a "Seinfeld" or against a high draw?
12  6063                 MR. D. CRAIG:  We are supportive of
13     expansion of the definition.  We don't have any direct
14     plans to get into the documentary game.  We are very
15     clearly focused on long form, and that is where we are
16     going to stay.
17  6064                 We support the spirit of expanding
18     it.  We know that producers have come to us with lots
19     of documentary projects.
20  6065                 One comes to mind.  We are airing a
21     two-hour documentary this November in prime time,
22     between 7:00 and 9:00.
23  6066                 What we are supportive of is the
24     whole expansion of 7, 8 and 9 into the documentary
25     genre.
                          StenoTran

                             1332

 1  6067                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  The model
 2     that you have discussed in your submissions -- and I
 3     think today you mentioned the importance of aboriginal
 4     programming in that model.
 5  6068                 Could you repeat for us how you feel
 6     this model, both from the inclusion and focus on local
 7     programming and long form drama, really does provide
 8     more space in the Canadian television system for
 9     diversity of programming -- and by that, I mean
10     cultural diversity.
11  6069                 MR. D. CRAIG:  I think we have always
12     recognized that it is a great privilege to have a
13     broadcast licence; and that we need to reflect the
14     community that we live in and that we do business in.
15  6070                 Certainly in our particular market
16     focus on aboriginal programming is very appropriate. 
17     It is garnering significant audience share, as well. 
18     It is good television and it is good business.
19  6071                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  So
20     conventional television should see cultural diversity
21     as good business.
22  6072                 MR. D. CRAIG:  We think so.
23  6073                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  And you
24     could go forward with that as things are now?  We don't
25     need to tell you to do that, in other words.  It is
                          StenoTran

                             1333

 1     good business to go forward.
 2  6074                 MR. D. CRAIG:  That is correct.
 3  6075                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Speaking
 4     of the future -- which is perhaps less far away than we
 5     think -- what is the timeframe you are looking at for
 6     the launch of digital transmission?
 7  6076                 Do you have comment, then, on the
 8     availability of Canadian digital programming?
 9  6077                 MR. D. CRAIG:  First of all, I should
10     point out that when we built our new television
11     stations, they were some of the most state of the art
12     facilities in North America.  They are a full digital
13     facility, from news gathering to the end product.
14  6078                 We are in essence, with our new
15     operations, ready for digital transmission.  We have
16     digital transmission facilities for our Edmonton stick,
17     as an example, by way of off-air distribution.  We have
18     an antenna that is ready for it.
19  6079                 So our transition is going to be
20     relatively simple and easy.
21  6080                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  When will
22     that be?  I am sure I did not understand the timing.
23  6081                 MR. S. CRAIG:  I sit on the Committee
24     for Canadian Digital Television.  I am one of the three
25     broadcasters that sits on that committee.  We are very
                          StenoTran

                             1334

 1     excited about what is happening.
 2  6082                 I think we are probably two or three
 3     years away from the first stations going on the air.  I
 4     know there are some tests being done, new transmitters
 5     being put in to test the digital signals to see how far
 6     they would go.  That is one of the proposals that is
 7     before us right now.
 8  6083                 I would hope that we could tell you
 9     in the very near future that the Alberta stations will
10     probably be one of the first ones to go on the air,
11     because we are basically ready.
12  6084                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  In terms
13     of supply, the movies that we license are all shot on
14     35 millimetre film.
15  6085                 Thank you very much, Messrs. Craig
16     and Joanne Levy.  Those are all of my questions.
17  6086                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
18     Cardozo?
19  6087                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
20     Madam Chair.
21  6088                 I have a question on local
22     programming following on a number that Commissioner
23     Pennefather had asked you.
24  6089                 I guess it relates to the history of
25     Craig; that you do quite a bit of local programming. 
                          StenoTran

                             1335

 1     But is it your sense that you do more than a number of
 2     other broadcasters?
 3  6090                 MR. D. CRAIG:  Yes.
 4  6091                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Why is that?
 5  6092                 MR. D. CRAIG:  It has become apparent
 6     that we are one of the few broadcasters that is not in
 7     the specialty game.  We recognize that the future for
 8     local Canadian conventional private broadcasters is to
 9     do a very good job in local programming.
10  6093                 It is important that the Commission
11     does not forget that.  As they say, I think that
12     provides the station with its personality and its
13     connection to the community and provides the platform
14     for all these other programs that we want to produce
15     that may have national significance.
16  6094                 We just upped our local production in
17     Alberta, effective about two weeks ago, to 27 hours a
18     week.  So we just added another two and a half hours a
19     week of local programming.
20  6095                 We are doing more in our market than
21     anybody else is.  We think there is a great business
22     case for that, and we think that differentiates us from
23     everybody else on the dial, including the U.S.
24     stations, and including the specialty channels.
25  6096                 We can do something that no one else
                          StenoTran

                             1336

 1     can, and that is by providing that connection to the
 2     local community.
 3  6097                 COMMISSIONER CORDOZO:  Is that good
 4     for your ratings or is it a big risk?
 5  6098                 MR. D. CRAIG:  It is a tremendous
 6     risk, but we think there is a huge upside.
 7  6099                 We have committed significantly over
 8     and above what we did in our Application.  But the way
 9     we viewed it, from a business perspective, is we said: 
10     There are two ways to do this.  We can phase it in or
11     we can throw it all at the wall and hopefully it is
12     going to stick.
13  6100                 We have had tremendous results.  All
14     the local new shows that we produce actually have some
15     numbers after the first year on the air, and are being
16     very widely accepted by the communities that they
17     serve.
18  6101                 I think it is important to note, too,
19     that the model we used in Alberta was that each station
20     would have local autonomy.  The Edmonton station and
21     the Calgary station are two separate units.  Their news
22     programs operate independently of each other, and they
23     have different personalities in terms of how they
24     approach their local communities.
25  6102                 We think that makes good business
                          StenoTran

                             1337

 1     sense.
 2  6103                 COMMISSIONER CORDOZO:  Some of the
 3     ideas that are coming before us on this matter are
 4     suggesting that we should provide increased incentives
 5     or increased requirements on broadcasters to do more
 6     local programming.
 7  6104                 Are you in favour of that or not;
 8     inasmuch as if we do and they did, would that be good
 9     or bad for your competition?
10  6105                 MR. D. CRAIG:  From our perspective,
11     we hope you don't.  We are probably going to do more if
12     they do less.
13  6106                 COMMISSIONER CORDOZO:  Thank you.
14  6107                 Thank you, Madam Chair.
15  6108                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Craig, you
16     mentioned being involved with the digital television
17     endeavour. Your colleagues Mr. McEwen and Mr. Sward
18     were here on Saturday discussing some of the
19     implications with the Commission.
20  6109                 Given the very widespread penetration
21     of cable and reliance on cable in Canada for receipt of
22     video programming -- which is larger in the States and
23     is more entrenched, is older -- when you mention in
24     three years there would be some substantial movement on
25     the part of broadcasters, do you see broadcasters
                          StenoTran

                             1338

 1     spending large amounts of money, especially if you are
 2     talking about retrofitting as opposed to building new,
 3     spending a great amount of money on digital television
 4     until and unless cable digitizes?
 5  6110                 MR. S. CRAIG:  The arguments of the
 6     cable companies, of course, is that they are going to
 7     need more spectrum in order to fit the digital signals
 8     into their service.
 9  6111                 I might mention to you that we are
10     already in a digital distribution system with our Sky
11     Cable System in Manitoba.  We are limited in the
12     spectrum that we have there and available to us.
13  6112                 It is going to use more spectrum,
14     because there is more information that is going to have
15     to be transmitted.
16  6113                 I think it is about time the cable
17     companies got to work and started putting in some of
18     these boxes.  We are putting them in every day, so I
19     can't see what the hold-up is there.  They should be
20     going forward faster, in my opinion.
21  6114                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You may or may not
22     want to answer this question, especially since it is
23     not probably the proper context.
24  6115                 There have been many numbers bandied
25     around about the extent to which your over the air MDS
                          StenoTran

                             1339

 1     system is able to dislodge cable, so to speak.
 2  6116                 What is the proportion of your sales
 3     of MDS that represents disconnection from cable; and
 4     secondly, from cable in the city or cable that is a
 5     state of the art system as opposed to a marginal cable
 6     system that has very little spectrum or has fewer
 7     channels than a state of the art system.
 8  6117                 MR. S. CRAIG:  I can tell you that
 9     the first people who wanted to sign up for our service
10     are the ones in the rural areas, because they did not
11     have access to cable.  We now have our system in a
12     position where it is very reliable.
13  6118                 I cannot give you the exact numbers,
14     but I know last week we signed up 500 homes in the
15     cable area.  So things are going well.
16  6119                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  That represent
17     disconnection to cable.
18  6120                 MR. S. CRAIG:  Yes.
19  6121                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You mentioned that
20     MDS had larger spectrum, or could have larger spectrum. 
21     But you would see, I gather, a problem in deploying
22     digital television if the cable operators do not
23     digitize.
24                                                        1505
25  6122                 MR. S. CRAIG:  Yes.  I think that's -
                          StenoTran

                             1340

 1     - and I think that they have to obviously put the
 2     Canadian signals on first.  That should get priority
 3     and the U.S. networks involved.
 4  6123                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
 5     much.
 6  6124                 Thank you, Madam Levy and both Mr.
 7     Craigs.
 8  6125                 We will now take a 15 minute break so
 9     we will be back at 25 after.
10     --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1508
11     --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1530
12  6126                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Secretary,
13     would you invite the next participant, please.
14  6127                 MS BéNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
15  6128                 The next presentation will be by
16     Goldi Productions Limited and I would invite Mr. Goldi
17     to start the presentation.
18     PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
19  6129                 MR. GOLDI:  Thank you, Madam Chair,
20     Commissioners.
21  6130                 My wife just said I could start first
22     because she always has the last word at home.
23  6131                 We are going to entertain you a bit
24     here, give you some insight away from the sort of
25     bureaucratic kind of regulatory talk you are used to.
                          StenoTran

                             1341

 1     We would like to give you some insight into what a
 2     Canadian family production company experiences under
 3     the system the way it is now set up.
 4  6132                 We have been doing this for 20 years,
 5     not for profits, but we have been doing it for 20
 6     years.
 7  6133                 MS GOLDI:  What do you mean not for
 8     profit?  It's supposed to be for profit.
 9  6134                 MR. GOLDI:  We started as teachers. 
10     We were teachers for many years before we started film
11     producing.  Because we saw that in schools there was
12     very little or no programming, in 1979 we turned in our
13     teachers' pension, got a loan from the government for
14     $55,000 at 17 per cent interest and started making our
15     business making Canadian heritage programming for
16     schools in the Northwest Territories.
17  6135                 I will give you a couple of the ideas
18     of the kinds of films we produced.  We did one called
19     "Dene Family".  We thought as teachers that Indian kids
20     didn't have a very good family view of their community
21     from the kind of material that was out there, so we did
22     a wholesome family, pro-family show about native kids
23     in the settlements and in the communities.
24  6136                 It won first prize at the American
25     Indian Film Festival in San Francisco.  Sesame Street
                          StenoTran

                             1342

 1     picked it up.  All kinds of things happened to it.
 2  6137                 Another program that we did, also
 3     with our own funding, was "Cold Water, The Silent
 4     Killer".  It was a program to save lives in the
 5     Canadian outdoors because many of our friends in native
 6     communities had died this way.  We made ultimately a
 7     series of four films, which we also did with our own
 8     money mostly and distributed across Canada.
 9  6138                 The federal government picked it up
10     for the Department of National Defence for all their
11     survival training schools and so on.
12  6139                 We also did, finally, a film called
13     "My Land is My Life", also from our interest in trying
14     to produce for native people a view into the outside
15     world of what family life was like for northern native
16     people.
17  6140                 It won a bronze award behind a
18     National Geographic silver and a PBS gold at Houston. 
19     It won a finalist at New York.  The Canadian government
20     made into one of its first CD Roms, installed it in the
21     British Museum, the Canadian Museum of Civilization. 
22     Another film that came from our hearts.
23  6141                 We ultimately came to Toronto about
24     ten years ago.  I guess before and after that we
25     started a series of about seven films on young people
                          StenoTran

                             1343

 1     exploring their communities across Canada, Quebec,
 2     Halifax -- seven cities altogether.  These films we
 3     funded with our own money as well because there was
 4     very little money available to do this kind of
 5     programming.
 6  6142                 What kind of reception did it
 7     receive?  At the Western Canada Film Showcase were 32
 8     distributors from all over the world came to show their
 9     videos.  The Alberta Motion Picture Association people
10     picked the ten top videos from the 100 most highly
11     recommended videos.
12  6143                 Of the top ten, we had four.  They
13     said no producer or distributor had ever achieved that
14     before.  In the other group, two were from National
15     Geographic, one from the NFB and there were none in the
16     top ten from CBC or TVO, but there were four of ours. 
17     It gives you an idea of the kind of reception that our
18     quality of programming has received.
19  6144                 When we moved to Toronto, we finally
20     -- we did all kinds of federal government work as well. 
21     I guess one of the reasons we're here is because we
22     entered a competition which ultimately saw 251
23     proposals from across Canada go to Life Network and the
24     Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund for possible
25     investment in developing into a television series.
                          StenoTran

                             1344

 1  6145                 They picked ten, of which we were
 2     one, to give development funding to.  We called it
 3     "Outdoor Adventure Canada".  Of those ten, about two
 4     went to air and production.  Ours was one.  It went on
 5     air in September of 1996.
 6  6146                 We ultimately produced 26 shows and
 7     it has been on air on Life Network ever since September
 8     until last week, so it has been running non-stop.  The
 9     show has received fantastic reviews from all the people
10     who have seen it.
11  6147                 We got fantastic viewer mail from all
12     over Canada which is on our web site.  We publish it
13     all on the web site that we have.  It has fantastic
14     ratings.  For instance, Trina McQueen at Discovery was
15     very pleased when she had a show that consistently got
16     a hundred thousand.  Well, our ratings for our show
17     were 120s, 140s, 180s, 190s.
18  6148                 On the week of the Olympics when all
19     eyes were on the CBC, we got 216,000.  Ontario
20     Ploughing Match got 208,000, if you can believe it. 
21     "Westward Ho, The Wagons", which was a wagon train we
22     took across southern Saskatchewan and Alberta, got
23     193,000.
24  6149                 Our top ratings for different shows
25     got 27, 28, 216, 232, 237, 242, 244 which everybody
                          StenoTran

                             1345

 1     agrees are phenomenal ratings for a specialty channel.
 2  6150                 We also have won a lot of awards, an
 3     unprecedented number of awards.  Right now we have so
 4     far received in the past year 46 awards for 54 per cent
 5     of our programs.  Over half of the shows we did have
 6     won medals.
 7  6151                 We have got two golds, ten silvers,
 8     twenty thirds, bronzes, six finalists, three awards of
 9     merit from Houston, New York, every place you go.  I
10     won't belabour it.  I can give you the things here. 
11     But, wherever we went, we were the top Canadian in
12     medals wherever we went.
13  6152                 For instance, at the North American
14     Outdoor Wildlife Film and Video Festival, we won --
15     where the CBC had programs, Great Canadian Parks had a
16     program, the NFB had a program, so did Keg Productions. 
17     We won the gold medal, we won the bronze medal -- the
18     silver medal.  We won both first and second prize, plus
19     an award of merit for videography.
20  6153                 At every festival we have attended,
21     we were either the top Canadian medal winner or the top
22     overall medal winner, which is how we ended up with 46
23     medals.
24  6154                 When we are talking about quality
25     Canadian programming, we need quality Canadian
                          StenoTran

                             1346

 1     programming.  What are we talking about?  We are
 2     talking about ratings.  They were fantastic.  What
 3     about viewer response?  Read them on our web site. 
 4     They will make you cry.  And look at the medals our
 5     show has won.
 6  6155                 Yet all this stuff was produced in
 7     the second year, the ratings without any promotion by
 8     our broadcaster.  They said "We can't promote a show in
 9     its second year.  You are out of luck this year.  We
10     can't promote all our shows", so "Outdoor Adventure
11     Canada" was not promoted.
12  6156                 We got our ratings of a hundred and
13     two hundred thousand just by word of mouth.  When our
14     first show for the season, which was not announced,
15     went to air, "Whale of a Tale", we got 104,000.  On its
16     first re-run when people started becoming aware of it,
17     we got 237,000.
18  6157                 MS GOLDI:  Excuse me.  Just to
19     interject.  Our broadcaster in their glossy to promote
20     the wonderful things they are doing and the wonderful
21     things they are going to do, they happen to have taken
22     the very week of that show called "Whale of a Tale" on
23     Newfoundlanders and humpback whales and whale watching,
24     that show which was their top show.  That's the week
25     they picked to tell their potential, I don't know,
                          StenoTran

                             1347

 1     stockholders, whoever it may be, what a great
 2     percentage of the Canadian viewership they are getting.
 3  6158                 They didn't say it was our show.  We
 4     just -- when we saw this, we went back and looked and
 5     we said "Sure enough, that's the week".
 6  6159                 MR. GOLDI:  We were the top show on
 7     Life that week and we had been cancelled the week
 8     before.
 9  6160                 I guess all we are saying in the
10     upshot is in spite of producing by every measure a
11     fantastic series, all Canadian on all-Canadian topics
12     on all-Canadian locations with fantastic viewer
13     response, ratings and fantastic medals from all kinds
14     of international film competitions, the show was
15     cancelled by the broadcaster.
16  6161                 It was replaced with a show that was
17     not Canadian.  The only thing Canadian in it was the
18     man who picked up the cheque.  It was a show which
19     featured flying American tourists to Africa and doing
20     crocodile analysis and things like that.
21  6162                 MS GOLDI:  That's the pilot.
22  6163                 MR. GOLDI:  That's the pilot for that
23     show which was a one hour.  I guess you can see that we
24     are upset that so much foreign programming is coming in
25     and squeezing out home grown product of the kind that
                          StenoTran

                             1348

 1     we like to produce.
 2  6164                 MS GOLDI:  Do you want to clarify --
 3  6165                 MR. GOLDI:  Go ahead.
 4  6166                 MS GOLDI:  I just wanted to clarify
 5     the program that is replacing ours is a similar kind of
 6     program, but it's shot in other parts of the world. 
 7     It's getting more Canadian money.  We had cable
 8     funding, but when I had inquired about the potential
 9     for telefilm equity film -- I won't say who said this
10     because they don't want to hear it -- they told me it
11     was too Canadian actually, it's not an export kind of
12     show, so I didn't bother applying for telefilm.
13  6167                 I told it was too Canadian by a kind
14     person who was saving me the trouble of filling out the
15     paperwork, which I appreciated.
16  6168                 The show that is replacing ours,
17     which is shot all over the world, taking tourists to
18     different places, to archaeological digs, to nature
19     places, a similar kind of thing to the thing we did in
20     Canada, has telefilm and cable funding and obviously is
21     a Canadian content show.  It obviously qualifies for
22     the Canadian content qualification.  I guess it
23     probably has Canadian writers and so on.
24  6169                 We are very upset, needless to say,
25     about what Canadian content is.  It happens.  It's not
                          StenoTran

                             1349

 1     just that one.  I mean I'm not just picking on that
 2     one.  We watch television a lot because we like to see
 3     what the competition is doing.  We check the credits. 
 4     We see all the time shows that are repackaged.
 5  6170                 Foreign footage is repackaged with a
 6     Canadian voice or they stick a Canadian host on there. 
 7     American footage, European footage, whatever it may be
 8     and its Canadian content.  I can't believe that it's
 9     Canadian content.  The broadcasters get their brownie
10     points for Canadian content.  I think it's time this
11     changed.
12  6171                 I know the CRTC is addressing this. 
13     I know you are doing it in different hearings.  We just
14     would like to put in our two cents worth because it's a
15     real tough thing on people who really want to produce
16     Canadian stuff, not because we don't like the rest of
17     the world.  We have been in the rest of the world.  We
18     spent a couple of years in East Africa with CUSO.  We
19     have travelled all over the place.
20  6172                 We wouldn't object actually to doing
21     world jaunts on taxpayers' expense.  It's just that we
22     happen to have spent a lot of time being committed to
23     getting Canadian documentary programming into schools
24     on air and so on.  I think that makes the point.
25  6173                 Another thing --
                          StenoTran

                             1350

 1  6174                 MS BÉNARD:  Ms Goldi, I'm sorry, you
 2     have run quite over your time.  If you could resume.
 3  6175                 MS GOLDI:  Okay.
 4  6176                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you.
 5  6177                 MS GOLDI:  Do you want me to just sum
 6     up?  Okay.
 7  6178                 The one other thing that I am very
 8     concerned about is the power of consolidating
 9     broadcasters, broadcasters as producers and as
10     distributors.  Small companies like us are really
11     threatened.  Now, in my written submission I wrote some
12     material on that.
13  6179                 I figure if broadcasters become
14     producers and get access to the funding, companies like
15     us are dead in the water.  We will get some shows, but
16     we will get the little amounts of money and the
17     broadcasters' companies will get the big amounts of
18     money.
19  6180                 There's a lot of issues that I drew
20     to your attention in my written submission.  Just
21     listening to our experience, I hope you will realize
22     there are lots of other people like us across Canada.
23  6181                 Thank you.
24  6182                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you Mr. and
25     Mrs. Goldi.
                          StenoTran

                             1351

 1  6183                 Commissioner McKendry.
 2  6184                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you,
 3     Madam Chair.
 4  6185                 Thank you for your presentation and
 5     thank you for coming to talk to us today.
 6  6186                 I will start by asking you a couple
 7     of questions about "Outdoor Adventure Canada" and your
 8     experience with that program.  Then I will talk a
 9     little bit more generally about some of the broader
10     points you made in your written submission.
11  6187                 One of the things that struck me in
12     your written submission about "Outdoor Adventure
13     Canada" and you touched on it earlier, is that not only
14     has it had significant recognition within Canada,
15     apparently it has had significant recognition outside
16     Canada as well, I notice on the list of awards that you
17     have cited here.
18  6188                 Is that a common thing for a Canadian
19     documentary, to receive that kind of international
20     recognition as well as domestic?
21  6189                 MR. GOLDI:  No, it's not for those
22     who are in the business.  They can't believe the kind
23     of awards that we have won internationally for our
24     show, let alone a cable show, but by the same token, we
25     killed ourselves.
                          StenoTran

                             1352

 1  6190                 We are sort of at the peak of our
 2     career.  We are all peaking at this age, you know.  We
 3     put the best possible amount of work into this show
 4     that anybody could.  We have friends who produced one
 5     hours for Discovery who did a very good job, but they
 6     spent less time editing than we did on our half hour
 7     shows.
 8  6191                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Now, the Life
 9     Network, who owns the Life Network.
10  6192                 MS GOLDI:  Atlantis.  Oh, sorry,
11     Atlantis Broadcasting.
12  6193                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  And I
13     understand from your submission that you tried to
14     negotiate a distribution deal with Atlantis or they
15     tried to negotiate one with you.
16  6194                 MS GOLDI:  We were approached by
17     Atlantis just after they had renewed our show for the
18     second year.  Well, he said he was just going off to
19     Cannes and would we sign a contract right away, would
20     we consider signing a contract.  He wasn't pressuring
21     me.  He just said there was a short time.
22  6195                 We have been distributors in the
23     non-theatrical market across Canada and we have also
24     talked to other film makers a lot about distribution,
25     so we know an awful lot of the problems.  We have got a
                          StenoTran

                             1353

 1     lot of film maker friends who have never received
 2     anything back much from their distributors.  We also
 3     have heard lots of distributors say "You're crazy to be
 4     in production, you should be in distribution.  That's
 5     where the money is".
 6  6196                 We are fairly suspicious and we are
 7     fairly careful and we would like to have lawyers go
 8     over the contract.  Basically in this case, I told the
 9     person that the deal he was offering was unacceptable
10     because it had open ended expense accounts for the
11     distributor, but I said I would be glad to discuss
12     better terms at a later date.  He said "Well, this is
13     the time because I'm going off to the show".  Later I
14     phoned him back and I never got a return call.
15  6197                 I don't know.  I'm not saying it had
16     anything to do with the situation.  It may or may not
17     have.  But it left a big question mark because not long
18     after that we were told that our show was not going to
19     be promoted that year, by somebody else, not directly
20     by him.  I don't want to get sued by Atlantis.  I can't
21     afford it.
22  6198                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I realize
23     Atlantis is a much larger company than your company,
24     but do you regard Atlantis as a competitor to your
25     business?
                          StenoTran

                             1354

 1  6199                 MS GOLDI:  No.  We were very glad
 2     that they picked up our show.  I mean we are glad to
 3     have had two years' work with them.
 4  6200                 MR. GOLDI:  We were on good terms
 5     with everybody.
 6  6201                 MS GOLDI:  Yes.
 7  6202                 MR. GOLDI:  Atlantis.  Jan Platt,
 8     before she left, picked our show.  Before she left she
 9     said "John, a lot of shows that look good on paper
10     don't perform very well, but your show which looked
11     great on paper has thrilled us no end", and then she
12     left Atlantis and a new administration came in.  All
13     the Executive Producers at Atlantis loved our show.
14  6203                 MS GOLDI:  We don't know what
15     happened in between.
16  6204                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  What I want
17     to get at here is there's a written implication in your
18     written submission that because Atlantis owns life,
19     your program was terminated.  Is that the impression
20     you wanted -- is that your position?
21  6205                 MS GOLDI:  No.  I don't think it's my
22     position.  I guess I should change that and say it left
23     a question in my mind and whatever the question is, I
24     think I would like to see separation of powers.  That's
25     within the CRTC's regulatory power to do that.
                          StenoTran

                             1355

 1  6206                 We have got big players there
 2     becoming distributors.  Quite a few of the people who
 3     own specialty channels are becoming distributors.  It's
 4     not just Atlantis.  Other ones are.  There's pressure
 5     on their producers to possibly hand over their stuff
 6     for distribution.  It's a very uneasy situation.
 7  6207                 The answer to your question is no, I
 8     don't want to implicate Atlantis.
 9                                                        1550
10  6208                 You put a question in our mind and I
11     think it is something that would make a lot of small
12     producers very uneasy.  You don't want a big company
13     being your broadcaster and also suggesting that perhaps
14     they should also distribute your product if you felt
15     uncomfortable with that.
16  6209                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  So, I take it
17     then the reason that this highly successful program on
18     a number of levels, whether it is viewers or awards,
19     was cancelled is that it didn't have in the view of
20     Life an adequate international orientation?  Is that
21     what it comes down to then?
22  6210                 MS GOLDI:  Well, that I would
23     definitely agree with because when it was being
24     cancelled and I asked what's the reason, we were told
25     our foreign product does very well for us and we were
                          StenoTran

                             1356

 1     also told what it was being replaced by, which is the
 2     show I described.  Of course, after I spoke to Michael
 3     MacMillan about it, our foreign product does very well
 4     for us.  We never heard about it again and I don't
 5     think the person who said it -- oh, I am sure the
 6     person who said it to me probably heard about it, but
 7     that's all I can conclude.
 8  6211                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  How will you
 9     change your business after being told by Telefilm that
10     your program or an idea you had was too Canadian, and
11     in light of your experience with Outdoor Adventure
12     Canada what's the point of view of business people
13     trying to run a successful business?  Will this cause
14     you to refocus your business at all?
15  6212                 MR. GOLDI:  We are constantly
16     refocusing our business.  We have had a lot of success.
17     For instance, the PBS Acquisitions Director in Buffalo
18     said, "Your show is fantastic.  We want to broadcast
19     it."
20  6213                 So, Americans really like our hard
21     core Canadian shows.  So, we are going to have to look
22     to the U.S. to make a living.  The U.S. produced "Ken
23     Burns."  There hasn't been one produced in Canada and I
24     don't think there ever will be, as long as keep mixing
25     up the Industrial Fund with the Heritage Fund.  It's a
                          StenoTran

                             1357

 1     conflict that will never be resolved.
 2  6214                 You can't make something for Canadian
 3     Heritage that will sell in Bucharest.  How many
 4     Yugoslavian television series developed by Yugoslavian
 5     TV to talk about Yugoslav heritage have come to Canada? 
 6     None.  How many from Bulgaria?  And it works the
 7     opposite.
 8  6215                 Stuff which we produce to teach our
 9     young people about their culture, heritage, history --
10  6216                 MS GOLDI:  Or our adults.
11  6217                 MR. GOLDI:  -- just will not travel
12     overseas.
13  6218                 MS GOLDI:  In order to make a living,
14     unless things change in the funding sense, we are
15     obviously going to have to do the international stuff,
16     but we would rather concentrate on Canadian, but as
17     long as are in competition for Canadian funds that are
18     going to Canadians who are doing overseas stories we
19     haven't got a chance.  Actually, we have two proposals
20     and after this.  They may be dead in the water because
21     they are into the same broadcaster and one is a similar
22     kind of series on Canada and one is on an international
23     series.
24  6219                 We would rather do the Canadian one. 
25     There still is not nearly enough programs about Canada
                          StenoTran

                             1358

 1     on television.
 2  6220                 MR. GOLDI:  You see, we don't doubt
 3     there should be an Industrial Fund, but Bombardier,
 4     which makes lots of money overseas and produces a good
 5     product, does not tap the Heritage Fund to make a go of
 6     it.  They tap a separate Industrial Fund.  Why isn't
 7     there an Industrial Fund for overseas export which does
 8     not bleed off the local stuff for Canadian consumption?
 9  6221                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  This leads me
10     to a question I wanted to ask you, on page 2 of your
11     written submission you state and I will quote:
12                            "Documentaries should only be
13                            classified as Canadian if they
14                            are shot in Canada."
15  6222                 This is a view that contrasts with
16     the view that we were given by the Canadian Independent
17     Film Caucus and Vision I think as well would not agree
18     with the view you are putting forward.  Vision told us
19     the primary criteria for deciding whether or not
20     something was Canadian was the primary target audience,
21     so that a Canadian could go somewhere and shoot
22     something that may or may not be relevant to -- or not
23     have a Canadian perspective, but as long as it was
24     directed towards a Canadian audience then it should be
25     Canadian content.  Are you members of the Canadian
                          StenoTran

                             1359

 1     Independent Film Caucus?
 2  6223                 MS GOLDI:  Yes.
 3  6224                 MR. GOLDI:  Joan was on the executive
 4     for several years.
 5  6225                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  It's a
 6     difficult issue for us to hear from an association that
 7     is taking a view that is the opposite of your view and
 8     then we hear from producers such as yourself who have
 9     another view.  How do we reconcile in your mind the
10     views of an association that represents I think they
11     said 300 producers with comments from individual
12     companies?  How do we balance those?
13  6226                 MR. GOLDI:  The problem is always who
14     do you listen to.  Do you listen to film-makers or do
15     you listen to the viewers, the people of Canada.
16  6227                 Film-makers love travelling the world
17     and making shows and saying, "You have to see this
18     fantastic show I have done."  This has been a complaint
19     from teachers from coast-to-coast for 20, 30 years; 
20     film-makers are not making stuff overseas or in Canada
21     that is of any use to any viewers, but film-makers --
22     and the CBC was one of the worst misbehaved of this
23     kind until Perrin Beatty brought them home.
24  6228                 We have strong views.  We don't think
25     that when you put Asian-Canadian subject matter on TV
                          StenoTran

                             1360

 1     for the first time that you should put a film on
 2     selling children into prostitution, paid for by the
 3     taxpayer, in front of Canadians.  If that's the first
 4     exposure that Asian kids in Toronto have to seeing
 5     themselves on CBC "Witness" and they see a program
 6     where their people and life people back in India is
 7     portrayed as that, that's negative stuff that I don't
 8     think the taxpayer should be paying for.
 9  6229                 MS GOLDI:  I think we have to divide
10     things into two things.  I have no objection to people
11     doing programs in other parts of the world.  My
12     objection is to Canadian taxpayers' money supporting
13     those documentary programs, when we are not doing
14     programs in Canada.
15  6230                 If something is shot overseas because
16     it is genuinely part of a Canadian story, like if you
17     are doing a person's war story, you might want to go to
18     Europe because that's part of the story if you are
19     taking the person.  I mean I would stretch it that far,
20     but that's as far as I would stretch it in terms of
21     Canadian funding.
22  6231                 There are a lot of shows that have
23     absolutely nothing to do with Canada which are great
24     documentaries.  They are fascinating, but why when
25     there is so little money -- I mean $100 million or so
                          StenoTran

                             1361

 1     went in one day in April.  Obviously, there isn't
 2     enough money around and there is probably not going to
 3     be a lot more.  So, let's allot it to shows that tell
 4     Canadian stories and that are shot primarily in Canada,
 5     when we are talking documentary.
 6  6232                 MR. GOLDI:  For instance, the ebola
 7     story, a great documentary, but why is a Canadian
 8     taxpayer paying for a show which praises the work
 9     American doctors are doing in combatting the ebola
10     virus?
11  6233                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  We started
12     out talking about Outdoor Adventure Canada and let me
13     just end my questions with one more question about it.
14  6234                 What happens next with Outdoor
15     Adventure Canada?  Is that the end of the road or is
16     there a possibility that you can sell that program
17     somewhere else?
18  6235                 MS GOLDI:  After we got our
19     broadcaster to get rid of what they cutely called the
20     blackout clause, now we can start peddling it.
21  6236                 We had a clause in our contract. 
22     This is another thing I did not put in my submission
23     and I would like to see the CRTC getting into putting
24     some limits on what broadcasters can put in contracts. 
25     We had in our contract a clause that if our broadcaster
                          StenoTran

                             1362

 1     chose not to renew it for another season we were not
 2     allowed to take it to another broadcaster for two years
 3     after the end of the term -- the term being five years. 
 4     In other words, the show was dead and gone.
 5  6237                 Now, when I yelled and screamed the
 6     clause was finally signed away, but by then it was too
 7     late for me to go to another broadcaster.  So, we would
 8     like to see it revived, but we now have to go to other
 9     broadcasters.  So, by then it may be dead and gone
10     because, generally, you can't interrupt a series for a
11     year.
12  6238                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you.
13  6239                 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
14  6240                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
15     much, Mr. and Mrs. Goldi.
16  6241                 MS GOLDI:  Thank you very much for
17     inviting us.
18                                                        1600
19  6242                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Madame la Secrétaire,
20     voulez-vous inviter l'intervenant suivant, s'il vous
21     plaît.
22  6243                 Mme BÉNARD:  Merci, Madame la
23     Présidente.
24  6244                 La prochaine présentation sera celle
25     de la Fédération nationale des communications.
                          StenoTran

                             1363

 1     PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
 2  6245                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Madame la Présidente,
 3     Mesdames, Messieurs les Commissaires, bonjour.  Merci
 4     d'avoir accepté de nous accueillir à cette importante
 5     audience du CRTC.
 6  6246                 Permettez-moi d'abord de vous
 7     présenter mes collègues:  à ma droite, Pierre Roger,
 8     qui est secrétaire général de la Fédération nationale
 9     des communications et, à ma gauche, M. Yvan Sinotte,
10     qui est conseiller à la Fédération nationale des
11     communications.
12  6247                 La FNC représente 7 000 artisans du
13     secteur des communications, dont 11 syndicats, chez les
14     principaux télédiffuseurs privés et publics
15     francophones, y compris dans les régions du Québec.  La
16     FNC représente également 2 000 travailleurs autonomes
17     qui travaillent dans le secteur de la production
18     indépendante.  Ils sont membres de l'Association des
19     professionnels de la vidéo du Québec et membres de
20     l'Association des journalistes indépendants du Québec.
21  6248                 La Fédération n'a pas l'intention, au
22     cours de cette audience, de remettre en question
23     l'ensemble des règles qui régissent l'industrie de la
24     télédiffusion et de la production télévisuelle.  La
25     Fédération souhaite quand même que cette audience
                          StenoTran

                             1364

 1     contribue à protéger et consolider l'industrie de la
 2     télédiffusion et de la production.
 3  6249                 Il nous apparaît essentiel d'évaluer
 4     le fonctionnement actuel de ce secteur d'activités pour
 5     nous assurer qu'en dépit des pressions économiques et
 6     technologiques nous serons en mesure de garantir au
 7     public l'accessibilité à une programmation diversifiée
 8     et de qualité, et ce, à des coûts raisonnables.
 9  6250                 Les règles actuelles de financement
10     de la production télévisuelle font partie des mesures
11     qui permettent de promouvoir l'expression des identités
12     culturelles.  Les mesures dites protectionnistes ne
13     suffissent plus, ce qui renforce l'importance de
14     favoriser le développement de produits nationaux
15     concurrentiels qui obtiennent également l'adhésion du
16     public.
17  6251                 Avec l'invasion des produits
18     étrangers, facilitée par les nouvelles technologies,
19     les télédiffuseurs doivent pouvoir offrir des contenus
20     qui se distinguent de ceux offerts par les concurrents
21     internationaux et qui font appel aussi à des moyens de
22     production permettant d'offrir des produits de niveau
23     concurrentiel.
24  6252                 Le passage au numérique sera coûteux
25     pour les télédiffuseurs, ce qui favorisera sans doute
                          StenoTran

                             1365

 1     des fusions et des concentrations d'entreprises.  Le
 2     Conseil devra s'assurer que les différentes initiatives
 3     de consolidation servent réellement l'intérêt public et
 4     offrent des avantages tangibles.  Il pourrait fixer des
 5     exigences pour protéger la diversité et la qualité des
 6     programmations et de l'information ainsi que le
 7     maintien des services locaux et régionaux.
 8  6253                 Les diffuseurs doivent obtenir
 9     l'assurance qu'ils demeureront une partie importante du
10     processus de production télévisuelle pour s'engager
11     dans le développement technologique.  Comme rien ne
12     garantit que le niveau et le système de financement de
13     la production demeureront les mêmes, il est essentiel
14     de préserver et d'encourager la capacité de production
15     des télédiffuseurs.
16  6254                 Les télédiffuseurs conventionnels
17     doivent aussi conserver une part de marché convenable,
18     ce qui est loin d'être assuré par la multiplication des
19     services spécialisés.  Une augmentation mal contrôlée
20     des services de télédiffusion pourrait conduire à une
21     dilution des contenus et même à une télévision à deux
22     vitesses, soit l'une pour les riches, l'autre pour les
23     pauvres, d'autant plus que pour protéger leur marché
24     les diffuseurs conventionnels veulent s'implanter dans
25     les services spécialisés.
                          StenoTran

                             1366

 1  6255                 Les règles du CRTC et le système de
 2     financement de la production ont réussi à stimuler la
 3     production, la diffusion et la promotion d'émissions
 4     canadiennes de haute qualité.  Les entreprises de
 5     télédiffusion doivent demeurer actives dans le
 6     processus de production puisqu'elles détiennent un
 7     savoir-faire qui a généré la production d'émissions de
 8     qualité.
 9  6256                 Les entreprises de télédiffusion
10     doivent pouvoir exercer un contrôle sur la production
11     des contenus car elles sont en fait les seules
12     responsables de l'application des règles du système de
13     radiodiffusion.  Les règles d'attribution du
14     financement doivent donc davantage tenir compte des
15     responsabilités qui sont confiées aux télédiffuseurs
16     par le Règlement de 1987 sur la télédiffusion et par
17     les conditions de licence.
18  6257                 Il devient primordial que des
19     critères objectifs, comme la qualité et les besoins des
20     télédiffuseurs en matière de programmation, guident la
21     distribution du financement.  Les dérapages constatés
22     lors de la distribution des budgets du Fonds des
23     câblodistributeurs le printemps dernier démontrent que
24     l'attribution du financement n'est pas toujours
25     tributaire de critères favorables à l'application des
                          StenoTran

                             1367

 1     exigences reconnues par le règlement du CRTC.
 2  6258                 L'intérêt du public ne réside pas
 3     uniquement dans la diffusion de dramatiques
 4     canadiennes.  Tous les Canadiens doivent avoir accès à
 5     des émissions de qualité, diversifiées et reflétant
 6     leur réalité.  Cela  implique aussi la diffusion
 7     d'émissions et d'information destinées aux populations
 8     locales et régionales.
 9  6259                 Nous croyons que les réseaux et les
10     propriétaires de plusieurs stations doivent rencontrer
11     ces exigences, d'autant plus qu'il s'agit aussi d'un
12     moyen particulièrement utile de rencontrer les
13     objectifs du Conseil en matière de contenu canadien.
14  6260                 Les réseaux et les propriétaires de
15     plusieurs stations devraient se voir fixer un taux de
16     programmation produite localement et régionalement pour
17     le bénéfice de ces auditoires.
18  6261                 Pour maintenir une programmation de
19     qualité, il demeure aussi essentiel de préserver la
20     capacité des télédiffuseurs d'assumer pleinement leurs
21     responsabilités, en évitant de créer des coûts
22     d'acquisition d'émissions démesurés et en évitant de
23     centraliser la production dans le secteur de la
24     production indépendante.
25  6262                 Il faut bien sûr freiner certaines
                          StenoTran

                             1368

 1     pratiques des télédiffuseurs qui, pour obtenir du
 2     financement, transfèrent à la production indépendante
 3     certaines émissions qu'ils produisaient et peuvent
 4     encore produire.  Cela nous prive de ressources pour la
 5     production des émissions des catégories sous-
 6     représentées.
 7  6263                 Nous croyons qu'il faudrait fixer un
 8     taux de diffusion et de production d'émissions
 9     destinées aux enfants.  Au Québec, il s'agit d'une
10     catégorie sous-représentée chez les télédiffuseurs
11     privés depuis l'adoption en 1980 de la loi qui interdit
12     la publicité destinée aux enfants.  En 1993, sans la
13     contribution de Canal Famille, Radio-Canada et Télé-
14     Québec, les enfants au Québec n'auraient eu accès qu'à
15     six heures d'émissions par semaine.
16  6264                 Sans un financement suffisant, la
17     Société Radio-Canada peut difficilement assumer
18     pleinement son rôle auprès du public et des
19     télédiffuseurs privés.  Depuis le début des années
20     quatre-vingt-dix, Radio-Canada a subi des diminutions
21     des crédits parlementaires de plus de 20 pour cent.  Le
22     télédiffuseur public, qui devrait pouvoir offrir des
23     contenus distinctifs, se retrouve malheureusement
24     parfois dans l'obligation d'offrir une programmation
25     qui s'apparente à celle des télédiffuseurs privés.
                          StenoTran

                             1369

 1  6265                 La situation financière de la SRC a
 2     aussi des effets négatifs sur les stations régionales
 3     affiliées.  Cette année, la SRC a renégocié à la baisse
 4     ses contrats avec ses stations affiliées du Québec, et
 5     la perte des revenus des stations régionales risque de
 6     nuire à leur capacité de produire et de diffuser des
 7     émissions destinées aux populations qu'elles
 8     desservent.
 9  6266                 Il reste encore, bien sûr, beaucoup à
10     faire pour que l'ensemble de la population francophone
11     canadienne hors Québec puisse avoir accès à des
12     contenus de qualité adaptés à sa réalité culturelle. 
13     L'exigence de contenu canadien demeure prioritaire dans
14     un contexte de mondialisation et de développements
15     technologiques pour protéger l'identité culturelle
16     propre aux deux communautés.
17  6267                 Il est préférable de maintenir le
18     cadre réglementaire actuel en limitant à 12 minutes la
19     publicité par heure puisque les émissions des
20     télédiffuseurs peuvent puiser dans différentes sources
21     et formes de revenus qui ne sont pas calculées à
22     l'intérieur du minutage autorisé par le Conseil.  Il
23     faut surtout éviter que des téléspectateurs soient
24     découragés d'écouter leurs médias et les télédiffuseurs
25     conventionnels parce que surchargés de publicité.
                          StenoTran

                             1370

 1  6268                 En conclusion, la Fédération aimerait
 2     vous dire que nous souhaitons réellement qu'il sera
 3     possible de garantir un avenir viable à l'industrie de
 4     la télédiffusion qui, au cours des prochaines années,
 5     aura à assumer d'importants investissements en
 6     technologie, notamment dans le numérique.  Les
 7     télédiffuseurs doivent obtenir la garantie qu'ils
 8     continueront d'occuper une place importante en
 9     production et en diffusion avant de s'engager davantage
10     dans les investissements nécessaires au virage
11     numérique.
12  6269                 L'utilisation de fonds publics à des
13     fins de production doit permettre:  de produire des
14     émissions des catégories sous-représentées; de produire
15     des émissions qui ajoutent réellement au contenu
16     canadien et qui se distinguent de celles
17     traditionnellement produites à l'interne par les
18     télédiffuseurs; et aussi de réaliser les objectifs de
19     programmation des télédiffuseurs.
20  6270                 Les responsabilités confiées aux
21     télédiffuseurs par le CRTC doivent être prises en
22     compte dans le processus de production des émissions.
23  6271                 L'atteinte des objectifs contenus
24     dans la Loi sur la radiodiffusion repose sur un réel
25     partenariat entre les télédiffuseurs et les
                          StenoTran

                             1371

 1     producteurs.
 2  6272                 Voilà.  Ça complète notre
 3     présentation verbale.  Merci.
 4  6273                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci, Madame
 5     Larouche.
 6  6274                 Une de vos préoccupation principales
 7     est l'apport de la production locale et régionale dans
 8     la réalité de télédiffusion canadienne; et dans votre
 9     soumission écrite et dans votre soumission orale
10     aujourd'hui vous y faites référence et vous suggérez
11     que les réseaux, les propriétaires de multi-stations,
12     de plusieurs stations, devraient se voir fixer un taux
13     de programmation produite localement et régionalement
14     pour le bénéfice de ces auditoires.
15  6275                 Nous avons eu différents producteurs
16     nous élaborer leurs inquiétudes à cet effet-là et ils
17     ont suggéré, comme vous, qu'il y ait un taux ou un
18     pourcentage de programmation canadienne qui soit locale
19     ou régionale, mais nous avons eu évidemment des
20     soumissions différentes de certains producteurs de
21     certaines provinces.
22  6276                 À votre avis, est-ce qu'il s'agit de
23     production qui a une allure locale et régionale, qui
24     est à propos de sujets locaux et régionaux, ou
25     simplement qui serait produite par soit des
                          StenoTran

                             1372

 1     producteurs... le télédiffuseur, évidemment, est local
 2     ou régional, mais si c'est une production acquise d'un
 3     producteur, est-ce que si le producteur est régional ça
 4     suffit ou est-ce qu'il faut que le sujet traité soit
 5     régional?
 6  6277                 Nous avons eu des soumissions
 7     différentes à cet effet.
 8  6278                 Mme LAROUCHE:  En fait, nous ne sommes
 9     pas fermés, nous, à une approche mixte.  Il est
10     pensable que des régions puissent contribuer au contenu
11     des réseaux sur le volet national.  Mais ce qui nous
12     préoccupe particulièrement, c'est l'espace qui est
13     réservé par les réseaux et les propriétaires de
14     plusieurs stations aux régions pour leur permettre
15     d'avoir davantage d'information qui concerne les
16     populations régionales et aussi des émissions comme on
17     en a vu déjà et on n'en voit plus à caractère culturel
18     qui s'adresse directement aux populations concernées,
19     donc dans les régions.
20  6279                 On a vu une diminution importante du
21     nombre d'heures produites par les régions pour les
22     régions et on aimerait bien que soit intensifiée la
23     contribution des réseaux et des différents
24     télédiffuseurs à la programmation régionale.
25  6280                 M. Sinotte aimerait apporter un
                          StenoTran

                             1373

 1     complément d'information là-dessus.
 2  6281                 M. SINOTTE:  Travaillant sur le
 3     dossier de Radio-Canada particulièrement, où je suis
 4     détaché en exclusivité, cette question-là de production
 5     des régions pour les régions refait continuellement
 6     surface dans les population concernées.  Quand on a
 7     fermé les stations de Radio-Canada en région les gens
 8     se sont retrouvés avec des centres de diffusion
 9     éloignés de chez eux et avec une perte nette
10     d'information au sens large du terme... je ne le prends
11     pas comme uniquement de la nouvelle, mais avec une
12     perte d'information au sens large les concernant.
13  6282                 Je ne sais pas si vous vous rappelez
14     ces audiences où Radio-Canada avait annoncé la
15     fermeture des stations et s'était présentée ici au CRTC
16     et où on avait parlé de fenêtres, fenêtres pour les
17     régions dans la programmation nationale.  On s'est
18     retrouvés avec des fenêtres fermées et avec des
19     rideaux, et les régions ne se voient plus.
20  6283                 Il y a un effort qui se fait
21     actuellement sur le plan de la nouvelle pour l'est du
22     Québec, à partir de Québec, comme ça se fait un peu
23     pour Windsor au réseau anglais, mais ça ne peut pas
24     compenser pour ce que les régions recevaient
25     précédemment.
                          StenoTran

                             1374

 1  6284                 Donc si cette dynamique-là est vraie
 2     pour les régions concernant Radio-Canada, il est sûr
 3     que la même dynamique existe pour les radiodiffuseurs
 4     privés qui également sont en région.
 5  6285                 Moi, je me rappelle une période où
 6     Télé-7, par exemple, à Sherbrooke, CHLT-TV, produisait
 7     beaucoup pour la région de l'Estrie.  Je me rappelle
 8     d'une période où CFCM-4 produisait beaucoup pour
 9     Québec.  Je me rappelle d'une période où, à Chicoutimi-
10     Jonquière CKRS et la station affiliée à TVA
11     produisaient beaucoup localement et régionalement.  Ça,
12     ça n'existe plus.  On ne fait plus d'affaires
13     publiques, on ne fait plus d'émissions de services, on
14     ne fait plus d'émissions consacrées au tissu local et
15     reflétant les préoccupations locales.
16  6286                 Donc c'est sûr que les populations
17     actuellement sont perdantes parce qu'on a relâché
18     complètement les obligations à cet égard, et moi, je
19     pense que le CRTC a une lourde responsabilité sur cet
20     aspect-là de la question.  Les régions, si elles sont
21     désertées, c'est sans doute parce qu'il y a des gens
22     qui ne se reconnaissent plus dans leur région; et le
23     miroir des régions passe par l'écran de télévision,
24     qu'on le veuille ou non.
25  6287                 On pense que les radiodiffuseurs
                          StenoTran

                             1375

 1     régionaux devraient avoir accès à des ressources pour
 2     être capables de produire des émissions qui ressemblent
 3     à leur auditoire.
 4  6288                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Comment faudrait-il
 5     s'y prendre si vous voulez que le CRTC s'immisce dans
 6     cette question et essaie d'assurer qu'il continue d'y
 7     avoir cette fameuse programmation miroir, je crois, la
 8     programmation dont vous parlez, qui reflète justement
 9     la communauté à elle-même et qui est produite
10     normalement soit par des producteurs régionaux, mais
11     pas nécessairement, ou par le diffuseur régional lui-
12     même?  Comment faudrait-il s'y prendre?  Exiger un
13     certain niveau de dépenses, un certain nombre d'heures?
14  6289                 Vous parlez aussi de la
15     globalisation, je crois, de la programmation et
16     évidemment du désir alors de faire de la programmation
17     qui est vendable ailleurs, qui est exportable.  Comment
18     équilibrer... quels mécanismes réglementaires
19     suggéreriez-vous pour qu'on ait un meilleur équilibre
20     entre cette globalisation ou cette mondialisation d'un
21     côté et le désir de la population de recevoir cette
22     réflection miroir, et évidemment le désir des
23     producteurs régionaux et locaux de pouvoir produire et
24     exhiber ou diffuser ou voir diffuser leur
25     programmation?
                          StenoTran

                             1376

 1  6290                 Mme LAROUCHE:  On n'a pas réfléchi en
 2     profondeur à l'ensemble de la mécanique, mais on disait
 3     qu'un taux ou un nombre d'heures hebdomadaires pourrait
 4     être fixé serait une mesure intéressante, et à notre
 5     avis la production locale et régionale pourrait être
 6     classée dans les catégories sous-représentées au niveau
 7     de la production télévisuelle.
 8  6291                 Par rapport à la globalisation, ce
 9     que j'aimerais vous dire, Madame la Présidente, c'est
10     que ce qu'on constate au Québec -- et je pense que
11     c'est généralisé à travers le monde -- c'est qu'avec la
12     globalisation il y a une tendance lourde des
13     populations à vouloir se donner des outils de
14     communication qui sont rapprochés de leur réalité.  On
15     a vu une montée des médias, des journaux communautaires
16     notamment, et on pense que le fait d'offrir aux
17     populations régionales et locales des services de
18     qualité reflétant leur réalité ne va pas à l'encontre
19     du fait qu'on est une société aussi qui est en train de
20     se globaliser.
21  6292                 En même temps qu'on a besoin de se
22     projeter vers le monde, je pense qu'on a aussi besoin
23     de se regarder de notre point de vue et voir d'où on
24     part vraiment avant de se projeter.  Et ce que révèlent
25     plusieurs analyses entre autres, c'est que, oui, avec
                          StenoTran

                             1377

 1     le développement mondial il y a une forte tendance
 2     aussi pas nécessairement au repli sur soi mais une
 3     forte tendance à vouloir se rapprocher aussi et à mieux
 4     cerner nos racines.
 5  6293                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Quand vous préconisez
 6     un système où les télédiffuseurs demeureraient, je
 7     crois que vous dites une partie intégrante du processus
 8     de production, évidemment vous représentez ceux qui y
 9     sont impliqués.  Nous avons donc les producteurs soi-
10     disant indépendants qui veulent réaffirmer leur intérêt
11     à produire pour les télédiffuseurs et les
12     télédiffuseurs qui veulent eux-mêmes se lancer
13     davantage en production.  Donc tout le monde parle des
14     effets nocifs de cette concentration verticale.
15  6294                 Vous semblez dire qu'il est important
16     que les deux puissent y oeuvrer.  Est-ce que vous
17     retenez les inquiétudes de ceux qui nous parlent des
18     effets nocifs de l'intégration verticale entre
19     télédiffuseurs et producteurs?
20  6295                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Je vais demander à mon
21     collègue Pierre Roger de répondre à votre question,
22     Madame la Présidente.
23  6296                 M. ROGER:  Madame la Présidente, tout
24     d'abord, en termes de représentation, nous représentons
25     aussi des gens du secteur de l'industrie de la
                          StenoTran

                             1378

 1     télédiffusion et nous représentons également tout près
 2     de 1 400 artisans du secteur de la production
 3     indépendante au Québec.  Alors on pourrait dire qu'on
 4     est un peu coincés aussi en termes de représentation
 5     parce qu'on représente les deux types de travailleurs
 6     dans l'industrie de la télévision.
 7  6297                 Évidemment, c'est une industrie qui
 8     est fragilisée depuis quelques années.  Ce dont on se
 9     rend compte, c'est qu'il y a d'un côté les
10     télédiffuseurs, il y a de l'autre côté les producteurs
11     indépendants, et chacun veut évidemment sa part des
12     subventions pour arriver à produire comme tel.
13  6298                 Ce qu'il est important de noter là-
14     dedans, c'est qu'il ne faudrait pas que les décisions
15     soient prises évidemment pour faire qu'on pourrait
16     mettre en péril cette industrie de la production
17     indépendante qui a été mise au point depuis quelques
18     années.  Par contre, ce qu'on remarque et là où on a
19     des inquiétudes, c'est qu'au niveau des télédiffuseurs
20     traditionnels, avec l'ajout de canaux spécialisés et la
21     venue de la télévision numérique, on pourrait voir une
22     diminution de la qualité du produit télévisuel offert
23     au niveau des télédiffuseurs traditionnels, parce que
24     plus il va y avoir de canaux... là, je pense que c'est
25     une réalité qui est inévitable, et je pense que la
                          StenoTran

                             1379

 1     qualité de la production va s'en ressentir comme tel. 
 2     Ça, c'est sûr.
 3  6299                 L'arrivée de la télévision numérique,
 4     ce qu'il faut comprendre là-dedans aussi, c'est qu'elle
 5     va être beaucoup plus coûteuse au niveau des
 6     télédiffuseurs qu'elle ne va l'être au niveau des
 7     producteurs indépendants.  Les infrastructures de
 8     production et de télédiffusion sont essentiellement la
 9     propriété des télédiffuseurs.
10  6300                 Le virage numérique, il y en a une
11     partie qui s'effectue par le changement normal des
12     équipements à l'intérieur d'une station de télévision
13     ou même d'une maison de production, et ces coûts-là
14     sont des coûts semblables aux anciens équipements; on
15     renouvelle les équipements, mais les nouveaux sont
16     numériques.
17  6301                 Par contre, au niveau des
18     télédiffuseurs généralistes traditionnels, eux, ils
19     auront à assumer le coût du changement du système de
20     transmission numérique, c'est-à-dire le parc
21     d'émetteurs pan-canadiens.  Simplement ce coût-là va
22     s'élever à 500 millions de dollars pour 10 ans.
23  6302                 Alors il faut s'assurer que les
24     télédiffuseurs auront la capacité de mettre en place
25     les investissements nécessaires, et pour ça il faut
                          StenoTran

                             1380

 1     s'assurer qu'ils puissent avoir les ressources
 2     financières d'y arriver comme tel, sinon on risque de
 3     handicaper notre système de télédiffusion comme tel.
 4  6303                 Évidemment, quand on parle
 5     d'intégration verticale, c'est déjà un fait accompli
 6     dans beaucoup de secteurs au Québec.  On l'avait tantôt
 7     avec M. Audet, Cogeco, où il y a une certaine forme
 8     d'intégration verticale du côté câble et télévision; on
 9     la retrouve du côté Vidéotron/TVA au Québec, où eux
10     sont déjà en intégration verticale importante et ils
11     cherchent même à aller à l'horizontale, comme vous
12     l'avez mentionné aussi, avec TVA qui demande des
13     licences de canaux spécialisés et Radio-Canada qui fait
14     la même chose, pour essayer de s'assurer de conserver
15     des parts de marché parce qu'ils sentent que leur part
16     de marché s'effrite avec la venue des canaux
17     spécialisés et ils ont peur de ne plus être en mesure
18     aussi d'offrir des produits de qualité.
19  6304                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors vous voyez là
20     le coût, justement, de la numérisation pour les
21     télédiffuseurs...vous y voyez une raison pour laquelle
22     le Conseil ne doit pas être trop sévère et empêcher les
23     télédiffuseurs de se lancer dans la production.
24  6305                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Moi, j'aurais tendance
25     à dire, quand on parle des télédiffuseurs, quand on
                          StenoTran

                             1381

 1     nous dit "les autoriser à se lancer dans la
 2     production", que depuis les débuts de la télédiffusion
 3     ils sont des producteurs.  Malheureusement, la manière
 4     dont les choses ont évolué, ils ont perdu une place
 5     importante.
 6  6306                 Nous, on pense que le modèle actuel,
 7     où cohabitent production indépendante et
 8     télédiffuseurs-producteurs, est un modèle intéressant. 
 9     Cependant, ce que nous constatons, c'est
10     qu'actuellement les télédiffuseurs, pour être en mesure
11     d'offrir une production de qualité, subissent des
12     pressions économiques importantes liées au coût
13     d'acquisition des émissions et ont de la difficulté à
14     investir ailleurs que dans l'acquisition des émissions. 
15     Certains ont même dû se départir complètement de leurs
16     effectifs et de leurs équipements en matière de
17     production.
18  6307                 Compte tenu de l'évolution de
19     l'industrie, et comme on n'a pas de certitude quant au
20     niveau du financement et au type de financement qui
21     sera maintenu pour la production au Canada, notre
22     inquiétude est de savoir comment vont réagir les
23     télédiffuseurs.  Qu'est-ce qui se passera dans dix ans,
24     dans cinq ans, si les télédiffuseurs ne sont plus en
25     mesure de produire de contenu et n'ont plus le savoir-
                          StenoTran

                             1382

 1     faire en matière de production de contenu?
 2  6308                 À notre avis, ils ont été des
 3     producteurs efficaces dans le passé et ils doivent
 4     demeurer des joueurs dans l'industrie de la production,
 5     mais on ne veut pas concentrer non plus la production
 6     chez les télédiffuseurs, pas plus que chez les
 7     producteurs d'ailleurs.
 8  6309                 M. ROGER:  Permettez-moi, Madame la
 9     Présidente, si on pousse le raisonnement peut-être à
10     l'extrême, il y aurait un danger à long terme d'arriver
11     à une télévision, comme le mentionnait tantôt, à la
12     lecture du document, Mme Larouche, à deux niveaux;
13     c'est-à-dire que si le processus va trop loin on
14     arrivera un jour avec des télévisions généralistes qui
15     vont produire un contenu dont la qualité sera évacuée,
16     et le produit de qualité se retrouvera seulement sur
17     les canaux spécialisés ou à travers les
18     câblodistributeurs.  À ce moment-là, le public canadien
19     devra payer pour avoir accès à un contenu de qualité,
20     alors qu'actuellement il y a un grand contenu de
21     qualité qu'on retrouve chez les télédiffuseurs
22     traditionnels.
23  6310                 Ça, il ne faudrait pas l'oublier. 
24     Les télédiffuseurs traditionnels ont actuellement quand
25     même une part de marché encore intéressante au Canada,
                          StenoTran

                             1383

 1     qui est près de 70 pour cent, mais il faudrait faire
 2     attention pour éviter qu'elle ne s'effrite trop
 3     grandement au cours des prochaines années.  Il faut
 4     s'assurer qu'ils puissent avoir les ressources de
 5     continuer à offrir un produit de qualité pour que les
 6     Canadiens puissent avoir accès gratuitement à ce
 7     contenu.
 8  6311                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais vous ne suggérez
 9     pas ici qu'il serait impossible que l'industrie de la
10     production dite indépendante ne continue pas à offrir
11     des contenus de qualité...
12  6312                 M. ROGER:  Non, non...
13  6313                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... ou parlez-vous
14     ici de la production qui serait généralement celle des
15     télédiffuseurs, comme les nouvelles, l'information, et
16     caetera?  Parce que si le télédiffuseur ne produit pas
17     la programmation mais qu'il achète de la programmation
18     de qualité produite par des producteurs canadiens
19     indépendants et qui sont diffusés à la télévision
20     conventionnelle, je ne vois pas l'effet que vous
21     suggérez.
22  6314                 M. ROGER:  Ce qui peut arriver, c'est
23     que s'il y a effritement des parts de marché des
24     télédiffuseurs traditionnels, eux n'auront plus les
25     mêmes moyens financiers pour acquérir des émissions;
                          StenoTran

                             1384

 1     donc ils devront acquérir des émissions à des coûts
 2     moindres, donc automatiquement des émissions qui sont
 3     de moins bonne qualité.  Et les émissions de qualité,
 4     on les verra à la télé payante ou par les différents
 5     services de télédistribution, où là, ça va être les
 6     consommateurs canadiens qui devront payer pour avoir
 7     accès à ces contenus de qualité.
 8  6315                 Je ne veux pas amener une vision trop
 9     pessimiste de l'avenir de la télévision au Canada, mais
10     je dis simplement qu'il faut faire attention pour
11     essayer de conserver nos télédiffuseurs traditionnels
12     et de maintenir aussi les producteurs indépendants,
13     parce que c'est un bon système aussi.
14  6316                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Vous parlez ici du
15     Canada français.
16  6317                 M. ROGER:  Oui, principalement.
17  6318                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Il est, évidemment,
18     un peu tôt pour s'inquiéter indûment de l'effritement
19     de l'écoute des stations conventionnelles de
20     télévision.
21  6319                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Si on...
22  6320                 M. ROGER:  Bien...
23  6321                 Mme LAROUCHE:  On veut tous répondre.
24  6322                 Si on parle du Canada français, il
25     faut l'admettre, on a quand même en matière d'adhésion
                          StenoTran

                             1385

 1     publique un niveau qui est assez enviable, c'est vrai. 
 2     Cependant, on pense qu'on a atteint justement un niveau
 3     d'adhésion du public lié à la qualité des contenus qui
 4     n'est pas tributaire strictement de l'apport des
 5     producteurs indépendants.  Ils y sont pour quelque
 6     chose, parce qu'effectivement ils ont contribué
 7     fortement à améliorer les programmations, mais les
 8     télédiffuseurs aussi y sont pour quelque chose, et
 9     actuellement ils peuvent se payer une programmation qui
10     permet de maintenir l'adhésion populaire.
11  6323                 Par contre, dans les prochaines
12     années, ils auront des investissements majeurs à faire
13     dans le développement technologique, dans le virage
14     numérique, au niveau des émetteurs et peut-être qu'ils
15     auront moins d'argent pour faire de l'acquisition
16     d'émissions.  Alors est-ce qu'on va les exclure tout à
17     fait de la capacité de production canadienne?  Ce
18     serait dommage.  Ça leur permettrait peut-être de
19     réduire les coûts.
20  6324                 Il faut voir aussi que le système
21     actuel, au niveau de l'acquisition d'émissions et du
22     financement de la production, n'est pas parfait.  Nous,
23     on estime qu'il s'agit d'un modèle fort utile qui a
24     permis d'améliorer la qualité des contenus télévisuels.
25  6325                 Cependant, il y a des pratiques au
                          StenoTran

                             1386

 1     niveau de l'acquisition des budgets et au niveau aussi
 2     de la vente des émissions qui ne sont pas toujours
 3     utiles au système canadien de télédiffusion.  On vous
 4     parle dans le mémoire de ce qui s'est passé lors de
 5     l'attribution des budgets du Fonds des
 6     câblodistributeurs au printemps.  Quand on dit "premier
 7     arrivé, premier servi", c'est-à-dire que le premier
 8     producteur arrivé ou le premier représentant sur les
 9     lieux avait accès au budget; il n'était aucunement
10     question des besoins des télédiffuseurs en matière de
11     programmation.  Or, on pense que les télédiffuseurs,
12     qui ont une responsabilité envers le système et qui
13     auront des charges importantes à assumer au cours des
14     prochaines années, devraient avoir davantage de
15     contrôle sur ce qui est produit pour leurs services de
16     télédiffusion.
17  6326                 M. SINOTTE:  Je voudrais juste
18     compléter.
19  6327                 Historiquement, la Fédération
20     nationale des communications... moi, je contribue à la
21     rédaction de mémoires devant le Conseil depuis une
22     quinzaine d'années.  Historiquement, la fédération a
23     toujours été favorable à un système où il y avait
24     l'apport des producteurs indépendants mais sur la base
25     de l'innovation.  D'ailleurs, c'était l'esprit qui
                          StenoTran

                             1387

 1     prévalait.  Lorsque l'industrie de la production
 2     indépendante s'est constituée, c'était sur la base de
 3     l'innovation, c'est-à-dire qu'on allait produire là ce
 4     qu'on ne retrouvait pas dans la production des
 5     radiodiffuseurs.
 6  6328                 Or, on a vu le glissement avec les
 7     années et les produits ont commencé à se ressembler, et
 8     il y a eu comme une espèce d'uniformisation qui s'est
 9     établie.  Ça, c'est un peu regrettable parce que ce
10     n'était pas ça, l'esprit du départ.
11  6329                 Et vous faites bien, Madame la
12     Présidente, lorsque vous dites "la production soi-
13     disant indépendante".  Effectivement, c'est une
14     production indépendante dans sa gestion mais publique
15     dans sa finance.  Et l'argent dont profite la
16     production indépendante, c'est l'argent dont Radio-
17     Canada ne dispose plus maintenant.
18  6330                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais qui donne un
19     produit que le télédiffuseur peut vendre.
20  6331                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Oui.  Ça, nous ne le
21     rejetons pas.  Ce que nous disons simplement, c'est: 
22     Soyons prudents.  Il ne faudrait pas affaiblir indûment
23     les télédiffuseurs pour maintenir une industrie de la
24     production saine.  On pense que l'industrie de la
25     production est sur ses rails, va bien, doit être
                          StenoTran

                             1388

 1     maintenue, doit continuer de cohabiter avec la
 2     production des télédiffuseurs cependant.
 3  6332                 Comme on le dit, il y a un
 4     glissement.  Il y a certains télédiffuseurs qui font
 5     maintenant produire à l'externe ce qu'ils produisaient
 6     à l'interne.  Et là, on ne parle pas de valeur ajoutée,
 7     on parle de produits uniformes à ceux qu'on produisait
 8     il y a 10, 15, 20 ans et qui, soudainement, se
 9     retrouvent à la production indépendante alors qu'on a
10     les studios et qu'on serait en mesure de les produire à
11     l'interne.
12  6333                 Alors pour nous, ce n'est pas un
13     ajout à la qualité de la programmation et ça nous prive
14     de ressources qui pourraient servir d'autres types de
15     productions plus lourdes.
16  6334                 M. ROGER:  J'aimerais peut-être,
17     Madame la Présidente, apporter une nuance aussi.
18  6335                 Il y a parfois des produits
19     télévisuels qui sont fabriqués aussi par les
20     producteurs indépendants mais dont tous les droits ne
21     sont pas nécessairement achetés par les télédiffuseurs. 
22     Parfois le télédiffuseur va acheter les droits pour un
23     certain nombre de diffusions et parfois le produit va
24     continuer à être diffusé en vidéocassette ou dans
25     d'autres sortes de formats, et ces profits-là vont
                          StenoTran

                             1389

 1     aller aux producteurs indépendants, pas nécessairement
 2     aux diffuseurs.
 3  6336                 Je compléterais tantôt aussi, quand
 4     on parlait de télévision numérique, il y a un point
 5     important qu'il faut se rappeler... et il n'y a
 6     personne encore, je pense, qui en a parlé.  Ça va
 7     coûter à peu près 20 pour cent de plus produire une
 8     émission en haute définition numérique.  Alors ce sont
 9     des coûts qui vont accaparer des ressources financières
10     importantes qui sont déjà investies dans la production
11     actuellement.
12  6337                 S'il y a une augmentation de 20 pour
13     cent dans les coûts de production, on va sûrement avoir
14     moins de produits comme tel.  Et si on augmente les
15     canaux de distribution, les chaînes spécialisées, on va
16     sûrement se ramasser en bout de ligne avec peut-être
17     une qualité d'émissions diminuée.
18  6338                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, au
19     paragraphe 2.4 de votre présentation orale vous faites
20     un commentaire avec lequel le Conseil, évidemment, ne
21     peut pas... que le Conseil entérine.  Justement, vous
22     reliez ou faites le pont entre le passage au numérique
23     qui sera coûteux et qui favorisera des fusions, des
24     concentrations d'entreprises, et que le Conseil devrait
25     s'assurer que les différentes initiatives de
                          StenoTran

                             1390

 1     consolidation servent réellement l'intérêt public et
 2     offrent des avantages tangibles.  Évidemment, le
 3     Conseil historiquement et maintenant continue à croire
 4     que ces consolidations-là devraient avoir comme
 5     résultat une meilleure offre de programmation au
 6     public.
 7  6339                 Est-ce que, à votre avis, le Conseil
 8     devrait obtenir des fameux bénéfices tangibles ou est-
 9     ce que le Conseil, quand il permet la concentration ou
10     quand il fait face à des propriétaires qui ont
11     plusieurs licences, devrait avoir des exigences
12     différentes justement pour s'assurer que la
13     programmation offerte... qu'il y en a plus et qu'elle
14     est de meilleure qualité parce que l'entreprise a plus
15     de force initiale?
16  6340                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Nous, en tout cas
17     traditionnellement, lorsqu'il a été question de
18     consolidation ou de concentration d'entreprises, nos
19     exigences ont beaucoup porté sur l'apport de ces
20     radiodiffuseurs au niveau du contenu régional, local et
21     au niveau de l'information, notamment parce qu'ils ont
22     une structure... certains se consolident en faisant des
23     acquisitions en région, d'autres verticalement; ça
24     dépend évidemment de la manière dont la concentration
25     est faite.  Mais pour nous, des avantages tangibles, ça
                          StenoTran

                             1391

 1     veut dire améliorer l'accessibilité à des contenus de
 2     qualité, à des contenus d'information et à des contenus
 3     qui reflètent la réalité des téléspectateurs.
 4  6341                 Ça dépend toujours du modèle de
 5     concentration dont il est question.  Ça peut être une
 6     consolidation qui va permettre d'établir une tête de
 7     réseau sur plusieurs régions.  Le modèle peut
 8     déterminer quel genre de demandes ou d'exigences on
 9     peut fixer.
10  6342                 Si on parle de réseau, notamment de
11     réseaux nationaux, il me semble qu'il est normal qu'on
12     leur fixe des exigences quant aux services aux régions
13     notamment.
14  6343                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Le modèle,
15     évidemment, est important parce qu'il y a plusieurs
16     intervenants qui nous disent que justement la
17     concentration va à l'encontre de la production locale
18     et régionale parce que, lorsqu'il y a réseau -- c'est
19     peut-être encore plus vrai au Canada anglais -- il y a
20     une tendance à produire pour toutes les stations et à
21     mettre ses sous dans la production plus nationale que
22     locale.  Alors à ce moment-là il y a une perte plutôt
23     qu'un gain.
24  6344                 Évidemment, dépendant de l'optique,
25     si la production nationale dans les catégories sous-
                          StenoTran

                             1392

 1     représentées devient de meilleure qualité et plus
 2     d'heures de production, il y a certaines parties qui
 3     diraient:  On a justement eu un avantage tangible pour
 4     les auditoires résultant ou découlant de la
 5     concentration.  Alors il s'agit d'équilibrer les deux.
 6  6345                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Oui.  Je vous dirais
 7     que pour nous, dans les catégories sous-représentées,
 8     on pourrait parler d'émissions à caractère régional et
 9     local notamment.  Pour nous, ça fait partie, lorsqu'on
10     se promène en province, des catégories sous-
11     représentées, et il nous semble qu'un réseau qui est
12     établi nationalement devrait réserver des espaces et
13     prévoir des effectifs suffisants en matière
14     d'information, en matière de programmation, dans les
15     régions pour être en mesure de desservir les
16     populations où ces réseaux s'établissent.  Pour nous,
17     c'est vital.
18  6346                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, dans les
19     catégories sous-représentées -- ma dernière question --
20     vous avez soulevé dans votre soumission écrite et
21     également dans votre soumission orale aujourd'hui la
22     problématique de la programmation destinée aux enfants.
23  6347                 Comment significative est
24     l'incapacité d'y insérer de la publicité?  Quelle est
25     la part de ce problème-là dans l'absence ou la semi-
                          StenoTran

                             1393

 1     absence de programmation destinée aux enfants?
 2  6348                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Il y a deux écoles de
 3     pensée là-dessus.  Ce que je peux vous dire, c'est que
 4     ceux qui ont légiféré nous disent que ça n'a pas eu
 5     d'impact réel sur l'apport de revenus des
 6     télédiffuseurs et que cette législation est un prétexte
 7     pour ne plus investir dans la programmation destinée
 8     aux enfants.  Cependant, quand nous lisons les
 9     documents du Gouvernement du Québec et nous amenons en
10     référence ce document, le document établit clairement
11     que les télédiffuseurs privés, à partir du moment où il
12     y a eu entrée en vigueur de la loi, ont diminué le
13     niveau de production d'émissions et de diffusion
14     d'émissions destinées aux enfants.
15  6349                 Alors on peut dire que ça n'a pas eu
16     d'effet, c'est peut-être un prétexte -- peut-être; nous
17     ne le savons pas -- sauf qu'une chose est claire: 
18     depuis, le nombre d'heures d'émissions destinées aux
19     enfants a diminué de façon considérable, et on pense
20     qu'il faudrait essayer d'y voir, d'autant plus que le
21     problème qu'on voit par rapport aux émissions destinées
22     aux enfants, comme on le dit dans le mémoire, c'est que
23     sans Canal Famille, Télé-Québec et Radio-Canada, les
24     enfants auraient eu très peu d'heures, c'est-à-dire six
25     heures par semaine d'émissions leur étant destinées. 
                          StenoTran

                             1394

 1     Or, Canal Famille est accessible par le câble.
 2  6350                 Nous, on dit:  Enlevons Canal
 3     Famille, il en reste combien d'heures d'émissions
 4     destinées aux enfants?  Alors nous, on pense, bien que
 5     ça demande un effort des télédiffuseurs, y compris
 6     financier, qu'il faut ramener aux responsabilités des
 7     télédiffuseurs la nécessité de diffuser du contenu
 8     destiné aux enfants.
 9  6351                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous voyons au Canada
10     anglais, même s'il n'y a pas ces mêmes restrictions de
11     publicité, il y a aussi beaucoup de revendications à
12     cet effet, qu'il n'y a pas assez de programmation
13     destinée aux enfants sur les stations conventionnelles,
14     et il y a certaines parties qui ont demandé au Conseil
15     d'établir un certain nombre d'heures exigé par semaine
16     de programmation destinée aux enfants et diffusée aux
17     heures qui seraient les heures normales d'écoute des
18     enfants.
19  6352                 Est-ce que vous pensez que cette
20     approche est nécessaire au Canada français, ou qu'elle
21     serait utile?
22  6353                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Un nombre d'heures fixé
23     aux télédiffuseurs en matière de...
24  6354                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui.  Il y a plus
25     d'une partie du côté télédiffusion anglophone qui a
                          StenoTran

                             1395

 1     suggéré une exigence de trois heures par semaine, qui
 2     est je crois une exigence que la FCC aux États-Unis
 3     demande de ses télédiffuseurs.
 4  6355                 Est-ce que vous pensez que c'est une
 5     solution d'avoir une exigence horaire?
 6  6356                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Ça aiderait sans doute,
 7     oui, à augmenter le niveau de production et de
 8     diffusion.
 9  6357                 M. SINOTTE:  Au même titre que la
10     programmation régionale.  Tant que les radiodiffuseurs
11     n'auront pas une obligation de le faire, il est clair
12     qu'entre le rendement des actionnaires et les dépenses
13     de programmation, le rendement des actionnaires va
14     l'emporter.
15  6358                 C'est sûr que les émissions pour
16     enfants, ça ne sera jamais rentable comme on l'entend,
17     comme la programmation régionale, ce n'est sans doute
18     pas rentable parce que c'est difficile de vendre de la
19     publicité nationale là-dedans.  Mais à un moment donné
20     je pense que le Conseil a l'obligation d'arbitrer le
21     conflit, si on veut, et de le faire à la faveur des
22     auditoires.
23  6359                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  On nous a parlé plus
24     d'une fois de ce dossier de la publicité dans la
25     programmation destinée aux enfants et qu'il y a un
                          StenoTran

                             1396

 1     dossier actif en ce moment qui essaie de changer la
 2     forme de la législation, et il y a d'autres parties qui
 3     disent que la législation n'empêche pas, c'est une
 4     mauvaise interprétation, et caetera.
 5  6360                 Est-ce que c'est un dossier que vous
 6     suivez, puisque vous semblez avoir un intérêt bien
 7     spécial à la diffusion d'émissions destinées aux
 8     enfants?
 9  6361                 M. ROGER:  Si je peux me permettre,
10     Madame la Présidente, à ce qu'on en connaît, je pense
11     qu'il n'y a pas d'évolution dans le dossier.  La Loi
12     sur la protection du consommateur est claire:  il ne
13     doit pas y avoir de publicité dans les émissions pour
14     enfants diffusées aux Québec... c'est-à-dire qu'il peut
15     y avoir d'autres formes de publicité, mais pas destinée
16     aux enfants.  Alors évidemment, c'est très difficile
17     pour un télédiffuseur de vendre une émission pour
18     enfants avec des produits qui ne sont pas destinés aux
19     enfants; le public qui regarde ces émissions-là sont
20     des enfants comme tels.  Mais il n'y a pas de véritable
21     évolution, je pense, dans le dossier actuellement.
22  6362                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Peut-être que vous
23     auriez avantage à revoir les commentaires de l'APFTQ,
24     je crois, à ce sujet qui disait justement qu'on avait
25     fait une étude de certaines catégories qui avaient
                          StenoTran

                             1397

 1     l'allure de la publicité chez Télé-Québec et qu'on
 2     avait déterminé que ce n'était pas vraiment un
 3     problème, qu'il s'agissait d'interprétation.
 4  6363                 M. ROGER:  Ça dépend aussi, parce
 5     qu'évidemment il y a eu des types d'émissions où
 6     l'émission en elle-même est une publicité.  Il y a des
 7     émissions avec des personnages animés pour les enfants
 8     et on retrouve les personnages en vente dans les
 9     magasins.  Alors l'émission elle-même est une
10     publicité; c'est une façon déguisée d'offrir un contenu
11     aux enfants, mais c'est souvent pas très éducatif,
12     malheureusement.
13  6364                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Voilà.  Alors c'est
14     une question d'interprétation, évidemment.  Mais c'est
15     un sujet d'importance, je suppose, à cause du manque
16     d'heures de diffusion destinées aux enfants, et sans
17     doute, comme M. Sinotte nous le répétait, une
18     justification peut-être pour un manquement sérieux à
19     une certaine catégorie de programmation.
20  6365                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Moi, j'aimerais
21     renforcer ce que M. Sinotte disait.
22  6366                 Bien sûr, on reconnaît la nécessité
23     pour l'ensemble des gens de l'industrie d'aller
24     chercher des revenus et de rentabiliser ce qu'ils
25     diffusent.  Cependant, on pense qu'il y a encore un
                          StenoTran

                             1398

 1     niveau de responsabilité qui doit être maintenu et
 2     protégé par le Conseil et, dans des cas comme ceux-là,
 3     où parfois l'argent prend le dessus sur la
 4     responsabilité, on pense qu'il est important que le
 5     conseil réagisse.
 6  6367                 M. SINOTTE:  Juste pour rajouter,
 7     actuellement au Québec il n'y a pas de remise en
 8     question de cette réglementation qui interdit la
 9     publicité destinée aux enfants.  Le consensus social
10     est encore favorable à cette question-là.  C'est pour
11     ça que nous, on ne le remet pas non plus en question et
12     on pense que la société ne veut pas le retour à la
13     période où, effectivement... parce qu'il y a eu des
14     raisons pour lesquelles ça a été adopté, cette loi-là. 
15     C'est parce qu'on pensait qu'il y avait certains abus
16     et, en tout cas qui se dégage actuellement, il n'y a
17     pas une remise en question de la loi et de sa
18     pertinence.
19  6368                 Donc, pour nous, on ne voit pas
20     exactement pourquoi on devrait suivre une évolution qui
21     est peut-être existante dans l'esprit de certains
22     producteurs mais sûrement pas dans la société
23     québécoise en général.
24  6369                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je vous remercie,
25     Madame Larouche, Monsieur Roger et Monsieur Sinotte.
                          StenoTran

                             1399

 1  6370                 Conseiller juridique.
 2  6371                 Me BLAIS:  Vous avez piqué ma
 3     curiosité quand vous avez dit que les frais de
 4     production dans un environnement numérique pouvaient
 5     être aussi élevés que 20 pour cent de plus.  Sur quoi
 6     vous vous basez pour en venir à ces conclusions-là et
 7     de quel genre de frais on parle?
 8  6372                 M. ROGER:  Je me base sur des
 9     conférences que j'ai suivies du côté américain dans les
10     expositions; je pense entre autres aux grandes
11     conférences qu'il y a à Las Vegas à tous les printemps
12     au niveau de la télévision.  Aussi, entre autres, le
13     chiffre que j'avance est le chiffre qui a été publié
14     dans le rapport qui a été remis par le Comité pour la
15     télévision numérique au Canada, un document que vous
16     avez reçu; j'ai vu quelqu'un le montrer l'autre jour à
17     la table à l'avant.  Alors c'est à l'intérieur de ce
18     document-là où on cite le chiffre de 20 pour cent
19     d'augmentation des coûts de production.
20  6373                 Quand on dit "les coûts de
21     production", ce ne sont pas simplement les équipements
22     et l'acquisition.  On pense aux décors, parce qu'en
23     télévision numérique les décors devront être plus
24     détaillés, plus minutieux, donc ça va coûter plus cher. 
25     Les studios devront dans certains cas être réaménagés
                          StenoTran

                             1400

 1     parce que l'écran va être plus large, ce qu'on va aller
 2     chercher.  Tout ça va amener des changements importants
 3     comme tels.
 4  6374                 Me BLAIS:  Je comprends.  Merci.
 5  6375                 À la lumière de vos recommandations
 6     et dans le cadre de ses délibération le Conseil aura
 7     possiblement à s'interroger sur des définitions, comme
 8     "production locale" et "production régionale".  Je ne
 9     vous demanderai pas, à moins que vous soyez à l'aise
10     dès maintenant de le faire, de me donner des
11     définitions aujourd'hui, mais est-ce que ce serait
12     possible de nous fournir des définitions, ce que vous
13     entendez par "production locale et régionale" d'ici le
14     15 octobre?
15  6376                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Oui, on pourrait le
16     faire, mais je peux vous donner une idée.
17  6377                 C'est plus facile pour la radio, mais
18     il fut un temps où, en télévision notamment, on
19     pourrait arriver dans une région du Québec... et encore
20     là on va peut-être avoir un langage différent, un
21     vocabulaire différent, parce qu'il y a les régions
22     canadiennes mais il y a les régions québécoises, et
23     dans ces régions il y a différentes localités.  Par
24     exemple, une ville est une localité, et il fut un temps
25     où on avait plusieurs bureaux chez un télédiffuseur,
                          StenoTran

                             1401

 1     par exemple, pour alimenter dans une même région
 2     certaines localités de cette même région.  Alors on
 3     pouvait avoir un service de nouvelles ou un journaliste
 4     qui était présent dans les localités et des émissions
 5     qui provenaient de ces localités pour alimenter
 6     l'antenne régionale.
 7  6378                 Ce qu'on peut faire, c'est s'engager
 8     à vous soumettre d'ici le 15 octobre un texte qui vous
 9     préciserait davantage quelle est, vue du côté
10     francophone du Canada, la définition de "région" et
11     "localité", parce qu'il y a quand même des distinctions
12     importantes.
13  6379                 Me BLAIS:  Donc vos recommandations
14     portent surtout au niveau du Canada français.
15  6380                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Oui.
16  6381                 Me BLAIS:  D'accord.
17  6382                 Et -- je voulais juste le préciser
18     pour les fins du dossier -- dans vos précisions de
19     définitions, est-ce que c'est fenêtre, miroir?  Est-ce
20     que c'est suffisant que la production soit produite
21     localement?  Par exemple, on pourrait penser à une
22     production qui, dans son contenu, est régionale mais
23     est produite dans une autre région, par exemple.  Donc
24     à préciser dans votre réflexion ce que vous voulez
25     dire, à la lumière de tout ça, par "l'expression locale
                          StenoTran

                             1402

 1     ou régionale".
 2  6383                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Nous allons vous
 3     envoyer un document qui précisera tout ça.
 4  6384                 Me BLAIS:  Merci bien.
 5  6385                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Merci.
 6  6386                 Me BLAIS:  Ce sont mes questions,
 7     Madame la Présidente.
 8  6387                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Il est intéressant
 9     d'entendre les gens de l'Alberta, par exemple; pour
10     eux, l'Alberta est une région, le Manitoba est une
11     région.  Au Canada français vous parleriez de
12     Sherbrooke ou le nord, peut-être, de la province ou la
13     région du Saguenay.
14  6388                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Oui.
15  6389                 M. SINOTTE:  La Société Radio-Canada
16     aussi n'a pas la même définition des régions.  Pour
17     eux, des régions, ce sont les plus grands ensembles,
18     tout ça.
19  6390                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Évidemment.
20  6391                 M. SINOTTE:  Donc autant on est,
21     autant on peut avoir de définitions, effectivement.
22  6392                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Il s'agit pour le
23     Conseil et pour tout le monde de déterminer quel est
24     l'intérêt ou qui sont ceux qui nous parlent de
25     régionalisme ou de production locale.  Mais c'est très
                          StenoTran

                             1403

 1     bien.  Il faut entendre les propos et les intérêts de
 2     tout le monde.
 3  6393                 Alors nous vous remercions de votre
 4     apport et de vos commentaires écrits et oraux, et vous
 5     aurez évidemment l'occasion d'en ajouter.
 6  6394                 Mme LAROUCHE:  Merci beaucoup, Madame
 7     la Présidente.
 8  6395                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci et au revoir.
 9  6396                 M. SINOTTE:  Merci beaucoup.
10  6397                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Madame la Présidente,
11     would you invite the next participant, please --
12  6398                 Mme BÉNARD:  Merci, Madame la
13     Présidente.
14  6399                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... Madame la
15     Secrétaire, pardon.  Je n'abandonne pas mon rôle.
16  6400                 Mme BÉNARD:  Merci, Madame la
17     Présidente.
18  6401                 The next presentation will be by
19     Epitome Pictures Inc., and I would invite Ms Linda
20     Schuyler and Mr. Stephen Stohn to come forward.
21  6402                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Bonjour, Madame
22     Schuyler.  Vous nous aimez bien; vous êtes de retour.
23  6403                 Mme SCHUYLER:  Je ne parle pas
24     français.
25                                                        1655
                          StenoTran

                             1404

 1  6404                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I will repeat this
 2     in English then.  I said you like us a lot since you
 3     are back.
 4  6405                 MR. SCHUYLER:  For someone who has
 5     never done this before, I seem to be here quite a bit.
 6  6406                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  It's nice to see
 7     you again.  Go ahead when you are ready.
 8     PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
 9  6407                 MS SCHUYLER:  Thank you.
10  6408                 We very much welcome the opportunity
11     to amplify our submission and respond to some of the
12     issues that have been raised by other organizations.  I
13     am Linda Schuyler from Epitome Pictures.  Our corporate
14     perspective is very much that of a small to medium-
15     sized company.  We have a history of working on one
16     project at a time beginning nearly 20 years ago with
17     the various permutations of the "Degrassi" series,
18     continuing with numerous documentaries, the dramatic
19     "Liberty Street", and now with English Canada's first
20     prime time soap opera, "Riverdale".
21  6409                 With me is Stephen Stohn, partner in
22     the entertainment law firm Stohn, Henderson, Director
23     of Epitome Pictures and executive producer of
24     "Riverdale", the HGTV series "Savoir Faire", and the
25     1999 Juno Awards.
                          StenoTran

                             1405

 1  6410                 A cornerstone to our submission is
 2     our strong support for the CFTPA 10/10/10 plan.  One
 3     important question which has arisen over the last few
 4     days is the extent to which both branches of the
 5     10/10/10 plan are necessary.  There is no question that
 6     increasing shelf space for Canadian programming will
 7     require increased financing, but we believe there are
 8     at least three ways to introduce flexibility into the
 9     amount of new programming which is required and the
10     practical question of how that programming will be
11     financed.
12  6411                 The three components of our proposal
13     are:  One, the introduction of low-cost, high-volume
14     drama into the programming mix of private broadcasters;
15     two, a three-way program recognition credit for
16     Canadian drama programming; and, three, increased
17     licence fees from private broadcasters, but with the
18     blow softened by the three-way program recognition
19     credit.
20  6412                 As you know from our written
21     submission, the studios we constructed to produce our
22     "Riverdale" series are already digital.  The three-way
23     camera shooting style for "Riverdale" is a new
24     phenomenon for North American drama and it is the
25     concept of low-cost, high-volume drama aimed at prime
                          StenoTran

                             1406

 1     time.  But elsewhere in the world this type of drama is
 2     a mainstay of prime time schedules.  In fact we studied
 3     in Britain on the sets of both "Coronation Street" and
 4     "Eastenders" as part of our research.
 5  6413                 We strongly believe that within an
 6     overall programming mix, there is a significant role to
 7     be played by low-cost, high-volume drama such as
 8     "Riverdale".  Right now the costs of producing
 9     "Riverdale" and, therefore, the licence fees required
10     to broadcast it are approximately one-half of that of
11     conventional prime time drama.  The benefits of low-
12     cost drama to a broadcasting system which faces a
13     squeeze on funding mechanisms is self-evident.
14  6414                 At the same time, in Britain,
15     Australia, Europe and elsewhere in the world where such
16     programs are integral to their broadcasting systems,
17     there are not only immediate financial benefits, but
18     also long-term structural and training benefits.  These
19     programs act as a training ground for actors,
20     technicians, writers and directors and can then
21     springboard into high-end drama shows and make those
22     even better.
23  6415                 So, in summary, we submit that a
24     mature broadcasting system benefits from a diverse mix
25     of low-cost through high-cost drama.
                          StenoTran

                             1407

 1  6416                 Stephen?
 2  6417                 MR. STOHN:  The second component to
 3     our proposal is a three-way program recognition credit
 4     for Canadian drama programming; namely, that basic
 5     Canadian drama would be entitled to a 100 per cent
 6     credit, enhanced basic Canadian drama would be entitled
 7     to 150 per cent and identifiably Canadian drama 200 per
 8     cent.
 9  6418                 We would like to step back for a
10     moment and say that on the public side we applaud the
11     CBC's move to a virtually all-Canadian line-up and on
12     the private side we believe that CTV should receive not
13     just recognition but congratulations for the strong
14     levels of Canadian drama programming they will be
15     presenting this year.  But even CTV's strong
16     performance will fall short of the full 10/10/10 CFTPA
17     plan.  If the Commission wished to find a way to bridge
18     some of this gap, one response might, of course, be to
19     reduce the 10-hour target to a slightly lower level. 
20     Another response might be to change the definition of
21     "first-run" so that more plays would qualify as first-
22     run since this would have the same practical effect as
23     lowering the 10-hour objective.
24  6419                 But we submit that a third response
25     should also be in the mix; that is, to implement a 200
                          StenoTran

                             1408

 1     per cent credit for identifiably Canadian drama
 2     programming.  There are three positive features to this
 3     response which are not captured in either of the other
 4     two.  First, the broadcaster is given a high degree of
 5     flexibility.  One broadcaster might find success in
 6     programming a mix of more basic Canadian programming,
 7     while another might be quite pleased with the ability
 8     to reduce the shelf space devoted to Canadian
 9     programming, but making that programming really
10     Canadian, identifiably Canadian.
11  6420                 Second, the 200 per cent approach
12     provides a real incentive to broadcast the type of
13     programming which we all probably agree is the most
14     desirable of all, programming which reflects Canada to
15     Canadians.  The third feature is also the third
16     component of our proposal.  Increasing shelf space for
17     Canadian programming will require increasing financing
18     and part of that financing must come from increasing
19     broadcaster licence fees, but broadcasters will be more
20     than willing to pay proportionately higher licence fees
21     for programming which receives higher CRTC credit so
22     that the programs which are the most dificult to
23     finance, identifiably Canadian programs, would embody a
24     real incentive for increased licence fees.
25  6421                 In this context, we would also like
                          StenoTran

                             1409

 1     to comment on the somewhat push/pull demands which are
 2     made on Canadian programming.  On the one hand, there
 3     is a strong basic desire to produce programs which
 4     reflect Canada to Canadians.  On the other hand, there
 5     is the desire that these programs be commercially
 6     attractive enough to reach the largest possible
 7     domestic and international audiences.
 8  6422                 We suggest that these conflicting
 9     demands cannot be normally met and should not be
10     expected to be normally met by each single program or
11     series.  Rather, they should be met over the full
12     spectrum of Canadian under-represented programming.  We
13     suggest it is entirely appropriate that there be
14     different types of Canadian programming, some of which
15     is Canadian in many respects, but is primarily geared
16     towards international success, some of which is
17     primarily focused on telling Canadian stories to
18     Canadians regardless of the international market and,
19     finally, some which lie between the two extremes.
20  6423                 We are hopeful that our 100 per
21     cent/150 per cent/200 per cent proposal duly reflects
22     the spectrum of possible programming while giving
23     broadcasters flexibility to decide their own particular
24     programming mix.  This broad spectrum approach differs
25     from the CAB proposal for a national system-wide
                          StenoTran

                             1410

 1     umbrella focusing on numbers of viewers as the
 2     fundamental standard.  Although we agree that, on
 3     average, the audience should be the ultimate measure,
 4     we feel the CAB proposal is too narrow in its goals and
 5     would lead to a lowest common denominator approach, the
 6     antithesis of diversity.
 7  6424                 MS SCHUYLER:  So, in conclusion, the
 8     three components of our proposal are:  One, the
 9     introduction of low-cost, high-volume drama into the
10     programming mix of private broadcasters; two, a three-
11     way program recognition credit for Canadian drama
12     programming: and, three, increased licence fees from
13     the private broadcasters, particularly for the
14     difficult to finance identifiably Canadian drama
15     programs with the incentive offered by the 200 per cent
16     credit for these programs.
17  6425                 It is our position that there is a
18     valuable contribution for small to medium-sized
19     companies such as Epitome to make to the broadcasting
20     system.  Such companies have contributed
21     disproportionately well in the past, particularly in
22     producing programming which pushes the boundaries of
23     conventional broadcasting, and they can be expected to
24     continue their innovations and contributions in the
25     future.
                          StenoTran

                             1411

 1  6426                 Our long-term objective at Epitome is
 2     not to grow significantly in size.  As we set out in
 3     our submission, we feel there is a strong argument that
 4     creative projects are often best fulfilled by smaller
 5     organizations and certainly in our case what we love
 6     most is the process of creating, developing, writing,
 7     producing and editing, much more so than the management
 8     and bureaucratic functions that will be required if we
 9     grew significantly in size.
10  6427                 We hope that sharing some of our own
11     experience with you has given some flesh and blood to
12     our submission that there is a unique role for small to
13     medium-sized companies to play in creating innovative
14     programming which reflects Canada to Canadians.  We
15     thank you again for the opportunity to make these
16     remarks and would be happy to answer any questions you
17     might have.
18  6428                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
19  6429                 Commissioner Cardozo?
20  6430                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
21     Madam Chair.
22  6431                 Thank you, Ms Schuyler, Mr. Stohn. 
23     It's nice to see you back again.  It will be shorter
24     this time than the last time you were here.
25  6432                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are not being
                          StenoTran

                             1412

 1     critical, are you?
 2  6433                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  No, no, I'm
 3     not commenting on your last performance.
 4  6434                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Or mine, I would
 5     hope.
 6  6435                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Or the
 7     possibility that my fellow Commissioners may have a lot
 8     more questions.  I am the lead gun here.
 9  6436                 Just a couple of questions first on
10     some of the things that you have talked about today and
11     then I want to talk to you about some larger questions
12     as somebody who has been in the business for a long
13     time and is also in the centre of the whirlwind quite a
14     bit.
15  6437                 What you are asking us here in terms
16     of small and medium-sized producers, what is it that
17     goes beyond what was talked about in the CFTPA proposal
18     as one of the key issues, understanding the value of
19     low-cost, high-volume drama, and if that's the case,
20     what do you want us to do about that other than value
21     it and say it's nice?
22  6438                 MS SCHUYLER:  What we are making the
23     case for here is diversity of voice and we feel very
24     strongly that it's the small to medium-sized companies
25     that will provide that.  I guess one of the places that
                          StenoTran

                             1413

 1     I look is to how we have treated multiculturalism in
 2     this country.  We had a very different approach to it
 3     than they had in the United States and this is very
 4     similar to what's happening with our production
 5     community.
 6  6439                 In the United States they tend to
 7     have studios whereby the studios can be somewhat
 8     interchangeable.  What we have grown up with here is
 9     smaller voices from one country to the other, which I
10     think have done an extremely good job of creating and
11     keeping diversity on our airwaves.
12  6440                 So, if I am asking you, "How can you
13     support that" rather than just acknowledge that it's
14     good, perhaps one of the ways is by recognizing that a
15     lot of our success has been due, in fact, to the
16     support from public financing, particularly from
17     Telefilm Canada, and we know that there is some
18     question as to whether broadcasters should have access
19     to this.  This is a system that has worked really well
20     in the past to support independent production and I
21     guess what we would be asking is that that system be
22     maintained and that it be used as the sole use for the
23     independent producer and not be expanded to
24     broadcasters.
25  6441                 MR. STOHN:  If I could just add, the
                          StenoTran

                             1414

 1     one hallmark of our submission which is not necessarily
 2     a focus of the CFTPA is, of course, this focus on
 3     identifiably Canadian programming itself.  So, to us
 4     small to medium-sized producers have a particularly
 5     good track record in this area.  So, anything that
 6     gives an incentive -- and we have, of course, suggested
 7     our three-way credits being one of those incentives --
 8     gives an incentive not only to identifiably Canadian
 9     programming, but also to the small to medium-sized
10     producers who have had such a good track record in
11     producing it.
12  6442                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  The only point
13     about the three-way program recognition, 100/150/200,
14     is the conundrum that the more we give to some
15     programs, the less hours there will be overall.  So,
16     one suggestion is just do 100 and that's it. 
17     Otherwise, to go another route, you would give some 50
18     per cent, but let's not get into that.
19  6443                 MS SCHUYLER:  I think what we have
20     stated very clearly off the top, we only see this
21     three-prong credit working in conjunction with the
22     CFTPA 10/10/10 plan.  So, we would need to have a
23     combination of hours and dollars in order to make this
24     work, but we are recognizing that there is a serious
25     financing gap here.
                          StenoTran

                             1415

 1  6444                 So, one of the ways of doing it --
 2     yes, if somebody chose to do all 200 per cent
 3     programming, they could achieve their 10-hour objective
 4     in prime time with five hours of programming, but that
 5     would then be that we would have five hours of very
 6     identifiably Canadian shows.  So, one could argue that
 7     there would be a real benefit to that, rather than
 8     having 10 hours of industrial Canadian, which is
 9     nothing wrong with that, but that could be a
10     broadcaster choice.
11  6445                 We know that to reach the 10/10/10
12     benchmark is very, very difficult.  So, what we are
13     trying to build in there is some incentive so that we
14     can get an opportunity for the most Canadian of
15     Canadian shows to find a home in the broadcasting
16     system.
17  6446                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Good
18     rationale, but the conundrum is still there.  But that
19     is helpful.
20  6447                 Let me go to the first of my larger
21     issue questions.  I think you get the award for using
22     the Multiculturalism Board without being asked to do
23     so.  The issues give me some trouble in this hearing
24     because there seems to be really a strange reluctance
25     to deal with the issue.  I raise it with you because I
                          StenoTran

                             1416

 1     think you will be comfortable talking about it.  Are
 2     you?
 3  6448                 MS SCHUYLER:  The very first
 4     documentary film I ever made was about that.
 5  6449                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Just a yes.
 6  6450                 MS SCHUYLER:  So, yes.
 7  6451                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So, you are. 
 8     You did "Degrassi", so you know about the stuff, you
 9     have talked about it for a long time, but I feel like I
10     have to ask because I have asked a couple of other
11     people and they just about went pale when I raised the
12     topic.  It's like a social disease or the hottest topic
13     in broadcasting.  To me it's simply dealing with the
14     reality of today and tomorrow.  You have done
15     "Degrassi", you are one of the leading people.  Perhaps
16     "King of Kensington" was the only one that preceded you
17     that dealt with diversity.
18  6452                 I was thinking about this this
19     morning as I was dropping my kids off to school.  They
20     are halfway through elementary school.  I stopped and
21     looked at the line-up for kindergarten and for some
22     reason the kids in that line-up were a lot more diverse
23     than in the upper grades.  I cast my mind back to when
24     my kids were in kindergarten three, four years ago and
25     there were probably one or two non-white kids in the
                          StenoTran

                             1417

 1     group and today there were about 10 out of the 15 who
 2     were non-white.  Even in the white kids there were
 3     probably some immigrants from Russia and Bosnia and
 4     places like that.  There seem to be a lot in the
 5     neighbourhood where the school is.
 6  6453                 Then you go back to your television
 7     set and you look at the industry and, with respect, the
 8     people who have been coming here, they don't resemble
 9     that kindergarten class at all.  If you think of
10     television as such a powerful medium where the
11     television image becomes reality, that classroom
12     becomes the aberration, in fact it's the other way
13     around, the classroom is a reality that's going to be
14     there forever.
15  6454                 I guess I shouldn't go lecturing you,
16     but this all occurred to me and I thought maybe I could
17     ask you why it's such a hot topic, why we can't talk
18     about it and why we don't see that much of it on the
19     screen.  Why is it difficult to do?
20  6455                 MS SCHUYLER:  I feel we might be
21     having a conversation about preaching to the converted
22     here.  I couldn't agree with you more.  I am the proud
23     recipient of the very first ever multicultural award at
24     the Geminis, which I believe is now called the Canada
25     Award, and it was for the multicultural representation
                          StenoTran

                             1418

 1     that we did in "Degrassi".  It is a theme that has been
 2     there in my work ever since my first documentary and if
 3     you take a look at "Riverdale", which I have on the air
 4     right now, it's an ensemble cast as well.  You will see
 5     strong representation from the Greek community, from
 6     the black community.  There are many, many ethnic
 7     minorities that are represented in my huge cast that I
 8     have.
 9  6456                 By being represented, I think it's
10     really important that what I try to do as a producer is
11     not to have those roles filled by just some secondary
12     person who might be a background character, but they
13     are actually front and centre characters where a
14     dramatic story spins around them.  So, it's a very hard
15     question to put to me because I am completely sold that
16     that is what we need to be doing.  That is what I hope,
17     that if we were to introduce this 200 per cent credit,
18     when we say that we are reflecting Canada to Canadians,
19     that would have to be a very important component of
20     that.  But you are talking to someone who is already
21     sold on the issue.
22  6457                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I am wondering
23     if people say to you, "Don't talk about this", or
24     anything like that.
25                                                        1720
                          StenoTran

                             1419

 1  6458                 MS SCHUYLER:  I haven't run into
 2     that.
 3  6459                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  There is in
 4     society the whole sort of backlash thing about
 5     employment equity and affirmative action, where it is
 6     all turned around to be promoting people who are not
 7     qualified, and all the rest of it.  We have heard all
 8     of those kinds of arguments.
 9  6460                 I am wondering if any of that filters
10     through into the broadcasting debate that says:  Well,
11     don't be just politically correct and stick this or
12     that kind of person in because it fills some
13     politically correct quota.
14  6461                 MS SCHUYLER:  But we can't produce
15     programming that is politically correct.  We have to
16     have stories spun around interesting characters because
17     they are interesting characters.
18  6462                 I welcome all sorts of ethnicities
19     and we are quite happy to spin stories around that. 
20     But to try and sit back and say that we are going to
21     produce politically correct programming, I think is a
22     bit of a recipe for disaster.
23  6463                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  You don't
24     think the flip is there is no fall-out for dealing with
25     these issues economically --
                          StenoTran

                             1420

 1  6464                 MR. STOHN:  If I could answer that in
 2     a small way:  Oddly enough, the international
 3     marketplace is the one area where we found this
 4     reluctance; where our international distributor, in
 5     selling the show, has chosen specifically to produce
 6     promotional reels which emphasize not the diverse side
 7     of the show but the characters who are non-diverse.
 8  6465                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Which
 9     countries was he trying to sell to?
10  6466                 MR. STOHN:  In general -- you will
11     think this is odd.  You would think that in Europe when
12     you are making sales, you would celebrate the
13     diversity.  But the caution out there expressed by our
14     distributor has been:  No, we want the more American
15     look.
16  6467                 It is a very distressing thing to
17     hear, and it is something that we tend to close our
18     eyes to because we don't have to deal with it
19     ourselves.
20  6468                 The show that Linda produces is the
21     show that she wants to produce.  But the way of selling
22     it internationally is unfortunately slanted in a way
23     that is non-diverse.
24  6469                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And you don't
25     get that from advertisers or promoters domestically?
                          StenoTran

                             1421

 1  6470                 MR. STOHN:  No, not in Canada.
 2  6471                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  This used to
 3     be a problem in advertising 10, 20 years ago, when they
 4     didn't show non-bites in advertising for goods.
 5  6472                 But you have not found that in
 6     promotion here.
 7  6473                 MR. STOHN:  No.
 8  6474                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  That helps a
 9     bit in understanding some of this stuff.
10  6475                 I was surprised that groups like the
11     CAB, who talked about diversity in their written brief,
12     and that the way you respond to a growing diversity is
13     to have additional specialty channels.  And only when I
14     asked them a very leading question did they say:  "No,
15     no, that is not what we really meant to say.  We would
16     kind of like to see diversity happening in the
17     programming, but we don't want to count it."
18  6476                 So the new adage of "if you don't
19     count it, it won't happen" -- which applies to viewers
20     -- does not apply to diversity; but somehow it will
21     happen with diversity when you don't count it.
22  6477                 Changing subjects, let me ask you
23     about one of the other comments that was made a couple
24     of days ago by Jim Macdonald -- who of course is
25     President of WIC Broadcasting but also a key member of
                          StenoTran

                             1422

 1     the CAB -- in terms of some of the things that you have
 2     asked for today, and that others have asked for since
 3     the beginning of this hearing.
 4  6478                 Let me quote a couple of sentences:
 5                            "We are here today...to try and
 6                            provide a 'reality check' as
 7                            opposed to a blank cheque, for
 8                            the forces of 'make them do
 9                            more'."
10  6479                 Later on in that same page, it says:
11                            "The 'do more' proposals you
12                            have heard are simply not
13                            consistent with the economic
14                            viability of the engine that
15                            pulls the system."
16  6480                 Can you see his point of view?
17  6481                 MR. STOHN:  Really, when we come
18     forward with our three-way program recognition credit,
19     I think off the top we are saying:  "Yes, we see the
20     CFTPA 10-10-10 plan, and we do realize that some
21     flexibility is required."
22  6482                 In fact, the CFTPA itself, in its
23     submission, I think tried to underscore the point that
24     they were flexible to hearing how best to achieve the
25     goals.
                          StenoTran

                             1423

 1  6483                 Our three-way credit in effect would
 2     pull back from that 10-10-10 system, because it would
 3     give some flexibility to a broadcaster to, in some
 4     cases, do as little as five hours of first run dramatic
 5     programming in prime time.
 6  6484                 This was really our way of trying to
 7     say:  "Well, yes, maybe Jim Macdonald does have a
 8     point."  And rather than taking just a simplistic
 9     approach and saying "well, does that mean we do the
10     9.7-9.7 approach, or is there some other way", we hope
11     that our program recognition credit, our three-way
12     credit, actually has some additional positive features
13     as well as addressing his concern.
14  6485                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  That is
15     building on what you said when you were here with CFTPA
16     and some of the thoughts you have had since then?
17  6486                 MS SCHUYLER:  Yes, very much so.  As
18     I said earlier on, we understand that it is difficult
19     for broadcasters.
20  6487                 But in your question, were you also
21     asking us to comment on the broadcasters wanting to use
22     the audience as the measure?
23  6488                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I didn't ask
24     that, but feel free to comment on it.
25  6489                 MS SCHUYLER:  I would like to give
                          StenoTran

                             1424

 1     you a little anecdote about a review that came out on a
 2     show.  It went something like this:  "Mundane
 3     characters, dreary music, depressing themes.  This show
 4     will never last its first run."
 5  6490                 That review was about a show in
 6     Britain called "Coronation Street".  And 36 years
 7     later, "Coronation Street" is topping the charts of
 8     British television, gaining in excess of 18 million
 9     viewers per week in a country that has about 65 million
10     population.
11  6491                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And you are
12     trying to put a dent in that.
13  6492                 MS SCHUYLER:  If one were using a
14     ratings model alone, "Coronation Street" would not have
15     lasted its initial run.
16  6493                 You can come up with similar stories
17     of "Party of Five" in the States, of "Seinfeld" in the
18     States, who if they had been purely asked to perform
19     just in their first season would never have lasted.
20  6494                 So although we support -- and we do
21     understand what the broadcasters are saying about how
22     at the end of the day an audience measure has to be the
23     final measure.  We are very, very cautious about this
24     approach, that it is just across the board.
25  6495                 We have spoken quite a bit today here
                          StenoTran

                             1425

 1     and at the CFTPA about the importance for diversity of
 2     voice.  We really believe that if that kind of system
 3     is implemented, there will be no room for risk-taking;
 4     there will be no room for hearing smaller stories or
 5     taking a chance on a series that might have a shaky
 6     start but might end up being around for 36 years.
 7  6496                 We are very, very cautious about that
 8     model.
 9  6497                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Let me move to
10     another issue of, depending how you put it, funding
11     that goes to production companies.
12  6498                 On page 5 of your written submission,
13     you say:
14                            "...the policies adopted by the
15                            CRTC should protect and nourish
16                            the role of these companies..."
17  6499                 That's small and medium sized
18     companies.
19                            "...as prime creators of
20                            distinctive and innovative
21                            content."
22  6500                 Louis Audet of Cogeco this morning
23     had a different opinion.  His view is that a wider use
24     of available funds be allowed and that all broadcasters
25     be afforded fair access to public and private
                          StenoTran

                             1426

 1     production funds.
 2  6501                 And then he goes on to say that
 3     independent producers -- he is talking primarily about
 4     in the Quebec milieu -- no longer need preferential
 5     access to funding.
 6  6502                 Can you outline for us your argument
 7     about why producers should get access to these funds
 8     and broadcasters should not.
 9  6503                 MR. STOHN:  I think there may be
10     three points that we could make here.
11  6504                 First, it is difficult to respond to
12     this without appearing self-serving.
13  6505                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Of course you
14     will be self-serving.  But what I am looking for are
15     arguments as to what is in it for the viewer.
16  6506                 MR. STOHN:  Our view simply is that
17     the current system has worked extremely successfully to
18     date.  Independent producers have accessed these funds,
19     and the result is a proven track record of high quality
20     diverse programming.
21  6507                 There is no indication that giving
22     broadcasters access to Telefilm funding -- and that is
23     what we are really talking about.  Broadcasters do have
24     access to the top-up funding and a whole array of other
25     funding mechanisms.  So we are really just talking
                          StenoTran

                             1427

 1     about this one pot of telefilm.
 2  6508                 There is no indication that giving
 3     them access to this funding would improve the quality
 4     or the diversity of the program.  There is the danger,
 5     though, of permanent damage to small to medium sized
 6     companies if broadcaster access to this funding, which
 7     is already becoming scarcer, were further diluted by
 8     broadcaster access.
 9  6509                 Having said that, though, I think we
10     have some sympathy with the overall position in some
11     ways.  And there are two related issues to this.
12  6510                 One is whether broadcasters should be
13     able to participate on an equity basis in television
14     programs.  We have heard a lot about if they could only
15     participate in the back end of programming, this would
16     make a big difference to them.
17  6511                 Our response to that is to welcome
18     them with open arms.
19  6512                 If broadcasters want to be equity
20     participants in the programming, that would be
21     wonderful.  The one thing we ask is that the licence
22     fee component be a separately negotiated arm's length
23     negotiation on that licence fee.  And we know what the
24     licence fee thresholds are through the public funding
25     organizations.
                          StenoTran

                             1428

 1  6513                 That first tranche of licence fee
 2     should not get encumbered by additional rights.
 3  6514                 But after that point, if the
 4     broadcasters want to come in and on a reasonable basis
 5     participate in equity, in the same way that any private
 6     investor or Telefilm would come in, we would welcome
 7     that.
 8  6515                 The second aspect is broadcaster
 9     ability to distribute programming.  In some ways, this
10     is a similar issue.
11  6516                 Again, we would welcome that addition
12     to the system, as long as there are adequate safeguards
13     built in to ensure that they don't use this
14     distribution activity to leverage a decrease or an
15     encumbrance of the licence fees.
16  6517                 In this regard, I think we looked
17     quite favourably at the CTV/Baton proposal, which would
18     have allowed some safeguards, and I think recognized
19     that there should be some safeguards, including perhaps
20     Telefilm Canada acting as a final arbiter of the
21     fairness of these mechanisms.
22  6518                 Indeed, perhaps that same approach
23     could be used in terms of actual equity investment as
24     well, just to ensure that it is at arm's length and at
25     market rates.
                          StenoTran

                             1429

 1  6519                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I am still not
 2     clear.  What is the crux of your argument as to why
 3     this --
 4  6520                 Is this whole mechanism an industrial
 5     policy or a cultural policy?  Is the reason preference
 6     is given to production companies and not to
 7     broadcasters an industrial policy issue or a cultural
 8     policy issue?
 9  6521                 MR. STOHN:  I will answer first and
10     then Linda may want to add something.
11  6522                 In our submission, the point we are
12     trying to make -- and it is a somewhat esoteric point
13     to make, although over the years I have been absolutely
14     fascinated by the whole problem of management in the
15     arts.
16  6523                 I spent a long period of my life in
17     the music industry.  You would look at different music
18     companies, like Warner Brothers or Sony, who had a
19     completely different approach to management.
20  6524                 But the central problem that they
21     faced was:  How does a large organization produce
22     creative projects?  And it is a real problem.
23  6525                 They have approached it in different
24     ways.  We see in the record industry where they split
25     themselves off into highly competitive separate smaller
                          StenoTran

                             1430

 1     record companies.  We see in Canada where the large
 2     production companies are doing more co-productions with
 3     smaller companies to get the energy and the creative
 4     drive, not to just produce cookie-cutter types of
 5     programs but diverse programs, programs which push the
 6     boundaries.
 7  6526                 So we are really saying that the
 8     smaller companies do have a role to play, and they are
 9     not the only ones who should be doing this programming. 
10     But they have been doing it, and doing it fairly well.
11     So why would you take the chance of watering down and
12     perhaps permanently damaging them at the expense of
13     broadcasters who have had the ability in the past to
14     produce this programming; have had access to LFP top-
15     up; have much larger capital reserves than the small
16     producers; but have not produced it to the level by any
17     means that these small to medium size companies have.
18  6527                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  You don't feel
19     a broadcaster could throw a small amount of cash at an
20     in-house producer and get the same product as something
21     that Epitome produces.
22  6528                 MS SCHUYLER:  The interesting thing
23     about "small amount of cash" is that if a broadcaster
24     at this point throws 20 cents in to an independent
25     production, they get a dollar's worth back.
                          StenoTran

                             1431

 1  6529                 And that is not just because of
 2     Telefilm.
 3  6530                 I think the point is that there is
 4     nothing stopping broadcasters producing these kinds of
 5     shows right now in the under-represented categories. 
 6     It is very interesting to look in the licence fee top-
 7     up area.  They are able to access, I believe it is, to
 8     a third.  Over the last two or three years, they have
 9     only accessed about 5 percent of that.
10  6531                 So what we have demonstrated from the
11     independent production community, from one side of this
12     country to the other, is a great yearning, a tremendous
13     drive to want to tell stories.  We have taken on the
14     challenge of using a 20 percent licence fee -- which we
15     hope to see increase.  But we have taken a 20 percent
16     licence fee and one way or another, we have pieced
17     together the little bits and pieces of financing,
18     public and private, that have 100 percent financed our
19     show.
20  6532                 A producer inside a broadcaster would
21     not have that ability to do that.
22  6533                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So you are
23     saying there is a sort of dynamic cultural element and
24     an economic industrial element to the current system.
25  6534                 MS SCHUYLER:  Absolutely.  The growth
                          StenoTran

                             1432

 1     of independent production in this country goes back to
 2     1983 when Telefilm began their real broadcasting
 3     initiative.  They did have a double imperative.  They
 4     were building up infrastructures and companies, and at
 5     the same time wanting to hear a cultural voice.
 6  6535                 There has been tremendous success.
 7  6536                 If you look at where we were in the
 8     early 1980s to where we are now, in terms of company
 9     building, I just have to --
10  6537                 I look with awe at my friend Michael
11     MacMillan.  He was graduating from Queen's at the same
12     time that I was leaving the classroom, and we both
13     started independent production companies at the same
14     time.  I look at this mega-merger that he is
15     undertaking, with a huge amount of respect and
16     admiration.
17  6538                 We have done a tremendous job in this
18     country in terms of industry building and
19     infrastructure building over the last 15 years.  What I
20     think you are going to see now is more and more
21     emphasis on the cultural message.
22  6539                 I know that the CTC -- now called the
23     CTF Fund -- after the big run that happened last April,
24     is seriously having to examine what are its priorities
25     for financing shows.  I know you are going to see a
                          StenoTran

                             1433

 1     much stronger cultural imperative come out of that fund
 2     this year, which certainly pleases us as independents
 3     who very much are producing the distinctively Canadian
 4     shows -- which again plays back to our three-way bonus
 5     system, whereby these kinds of shows should be
 6     supported in bonus throughout the system in various
 7     ways.
 8  6540                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Speaking about
 9     priorizing and your friend Michael, should he get the
10     same access to the fund as -- I don't want to say "as
11     you" -- as the small or medium sized companies?
12  6541                 Should there be any kind of
13     preferential scheme of things within the whole gamut of
14     independent producers?
15  6542                 MR. STOHN:  Certainly to date
16     Atlantis has been a producer of high quality
17     identifiably Canadian shows, as well as programs that
18     are less identifiably Canadian.
19  6543                 I don't think we would see any reason
20     that they should not carry on accessing these funds. 
21     The way that the CTF is now set up, there are caps so
22     that each individual corporation can only access the
23     funds to a certain cap level, to avoid one organization
24     from taking over the fund.
25  6544                 Of course, with the merger of
                          StenoTran

                             1434

 1     Atlantis and Alliance, they would be falling under one
 2     corporate cap.  In that sense, they would be cut back a
 3     little bit.
 4  6545                 We work very closely with Atlantis
 5     and Alliance.  Michael is a friend.
 6                                                        1735
 7  6546                 Atlantis distributes all our product
 8     internationally.  We look on the merger as a positive
 9     thing.  I don't want to pick on him or the merger, but
10     I'm just wondering whether there should be any kind of
11     preferential for the small and medium as opposed to the
12     large.
13  6547                 MS SCHUYLER:  I think what should be
14     the deciding factor here is content.  If Michael
15     MacMillan's company is going to do a show like
16     "Traders" or as Alliance had "North of 60", these are
17     the sorts of shows that they would not undertake if
18     there was not public funding for it.
19  6548                 I think what would happen if we
20     didn't see Alliance Atlantis getting public funding,
21     then we wouldn't see shows like "Traders" and "North of
22     60" being produced.  They are quite able to keep their
23     company going, their bricks and mortar paid and
24     everybody happy just with industrial shows.
25  6549                 I think it really is not should they
                          StenoTran

                             1435

 1     get funded or not, it's what are the shows that they
 2     are trying to get on the air is whether they should be
 3     funded or not.
 4  6550                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks very
 5     much.  That covers my questions.
 6  6551                 Thanks, Madam Chair.
 7  6552                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
 8     Pennefather.
 9  6553                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
10  6554                 I, too, will take advantage of your
11     particular expertise and experience, but in children's
12     programming just to clarify if part of your game plan
13     here involves children's programming.  I think the
14     CFTPA recommended a certain number of hours per week. 
15     Was it three?  Do you have a similar formula for
16     children's programming?
17  6555                 MS SCHUYLER:  We hadn't included it
18     here.  We know that the broadcasters are saying that
19     they should be getting 150 per cent for Canadian shows
20     out of prime time.
21  6556                 Our proposal is very much tied in
22     with the CFTPA  10/10/10 solution.  I suppose there
23     could be an argument though if one is thinking about
24     the 60/50 rule that perhaps you could look at a credit
25     like this for children's.
                          StenoTran

                             1436

 1  6557                 I actually feel quite badly about not
 2     being able to answer your question well because, as you
 3     know, children's programming is something that I have
 4     worked at for a long time.  We didn't really address
 5     that, did we, Stephen?
 6  6558                 MR. STOHN:  No, we didn't.  To
 7     respond specifically to the question of 150 per cent
 8     which would normally be outside of prime time for
 9     children's programming, for instance children's drama
10     programming even, the proposal which has been discussed
11     by the CAB has talked about 150 per cent credit.  If
12     that's as far as it went, we would all be quite
13     supportive of it.
14  6559                 The second part of the proposal
15     which, as I understand it, would claw back some of the
16     10/10/10 or whatever out of prime time sort of throws
17     the monkey wrench in the works.
18  6560                 At the risk of having our cake and
19     eating it too, and I don't even think it's that way,
20     yes, I think we would be very supportive of 150 per
21     cent credit outside prime time for drama programming,
22     including children's programming, but not if it
23     requires a dilution of the presence of Canadian
24     programs in prime time.
25  6561                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Which has
                          StenoTran

                             1437

 1     been one of the themes we are trying to track, which is
 2     what any suggestion means.  You can take many different
 3     perspectives, but what any suggestion means for the
 4     presence of programming in prime time, Canadian
 5     programming.
 6  6562                 Perhaps it's too long a discussion,
 7     but I'm also sure you agree that children are watching
 8     prime time and this relates to Commissioner Cardozo's
 9     questions as well.
10  6563                 I guess if I asked you then what
11     identifiably Canadian content is, and I don't mean it
12     facetiously because we have also had important
13     discussions around that, and you have drawn some
14     interesting distinctions here.
15  6564                 I am going to assume that children
16     are watching identifiably Canadian programming and ask
17     you just to define it for me.  What is identifiably
18     Canadian in this perspective here so that I am clear?
19  6565                 MR. STOHN:  You have really touched
20     on a very interesting and key question, particularly in
21     the children's programming area, because the way that
22     we have looked at identifiably Canadian programming
23     really is that there is an element that somebody
24     looking at a screen can say "Oh, yes, that's a Canadian
25     character.  That's Paris, Ontario.  That's something
                          StenoTran

                             1438

 1     that I know".  There's a reference to --
 2  6566                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  "Is there
 3     a place called --  Oh, yes, I remember."
 4  6567                 MR. STOHN:  There's a reference to
 5     Lucien Bouchard or there are other references that
 6     really bring the story home, or there's simply locales. 
 7     Yes, we see that it's set in Vancouver and it's not
 8     Vancouver trying to look like New York or Chicago or
 9     L.A.  It is really being Vancouver or a smaller centre.
10  6568                 In the area of children's programming
11     and in the area of animation, quite often some of those
12     distinctions just aren't as easily met.  In an animated
13     cartoon, you don't have the backgrounds that identify
14     immediately the show as Canadian.
15  6569                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Unless
16     it's the sweater.
17  6570                 MS SCHUYLER:  Yes.  In "Dudley the
18     Dragon", well, you know, Dudley the Dragon is not
19     necessarily Canadian.  He's not non-Canadian.  What do
20     you do with these kinds of shows?
21  6571                 I guess our personal Epitome response
22     has been twofold.  One, for the purpose of the public
23     funding and for the CTF, these shows which are, you
24     might not say identifiably Canadian but they are not
25     non-Canadian, do deserve to be in the mix.
                          StenoTran

                             1439

 1  6572                 In terms of our three way program
 2     recognition credit, we have said well, the truly
 3     identifiably Canadian shows do have an inherent
 4     encumbrance built within them possibly.  That is that
 5     the exportability will have a tendency not to be as
 6     high as in shows that are either not non-Canadian or
 7     specifically non-Canadian.
 8  6573                 What we have said is well, those
 9     shows, and this includes children's shows and animation
10     shows but any other kind of drama shows that are not
11     identifiably Canadian, have the benefit of potential
12     increase for an export sale and, therefore, that's why
13     we haven't gone to the 200 per cent credit there.
14  6574                 We do applaud these non-Canadian
15     shows and that's why we say we really think yes, they
16     do deserve the 150 per cent credit and they deserve
17     access to all the public funding stream.
18  6575                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  So the
19     identifiably Canadian for audiences of all shapes and
20     sizes is a show in which there is a sense of place.  Is
21     that how you describe identifiably?
22  6576                 MR. STOHN:  That would be one
23     element.  Another possibility is a sense of character,
24     knowing that these are Canadian characters.
25  6577                 I mean, I think we could probably go
                          StenoTran

                             1440

 1     down a list of shows and probably wouldn't have too
 2     much difference if we went down the list and said well
 3     is "Due South" a Canadian show?
 4  6578                 Well, even if it's shot in Chicago or
 5     parts of it are in Chicago, that's a Mountie out there
 6     and yes, that's reflecting Canada to Canadians.  "Cold
 7     Squad" is set in Vancouver.  "Riverdale" clearly is set
 8     and talks in Canadian voice.
 9  6579                 Shows like "Sigh Factor", which are
10     wonderful shows and they are highly Canadian, I think
11     even achieve ten out of ten points on the CAVCO scale,
12     are not identifiably Canadian and don't pretend to be. 
13     They are done already with the foreign pre-sale before
14     they even started shooting.
15  6580                 MS SCHUYLER:  I think another
16     component of our proposal is that the writing be
17     Canadian and not just the writing, but also the story
18     editing and also the creative producers.  I think we
19     agree with the Writers Guild here.  Often you will find
20     that the writers are Canadian, but the actual show
21     runner might be foreign.
22  6581                 The show runner is the story editor
23     who ends up having a huge control over the voice and
24     what really is in those scripts.  For our identifiably
25     Canadian, we are also asking that the writing right
                          StenoTran

                             1441

 1     through from story editor, show runner, all be
 2     Canadian.
 3  6582                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Okay.  If
 4     these identifiably Canadian programs are for prime
 5     time, as I assume, you are suggesting that the
 6     incentive will be one thing to bring along the
 7     broadcasters in terms of carrying these shows in prime
 8     time, I mean peak viewing hours.
 9  6583                 Is there enough money in the system
10     to do that?  From all the sources that we have talked
11     about with these identifiably Canadian eliminated
12     export, just for the sake of discussion, granted
13     "Degrassi" sells, but just for the sake of discussing,
14     you said they are less exportable, perhaps rightfully
15     so.
16  6584                 What other financing options are
17     there?  Is there enough to make this happen?
18  6585                 MS SCHUYLER:  Well, along with our
19     increased bonus, we do expect increased licence fees. 
20     If one was expecting a 25 per cent licence fee as a
21     threshold, we would be expecting at least a 32 per cent
22     licence fee for an identifiably Canadian show which is
23     getting the double bonus.
24  6586                 It's still a benefit financially to
25     the broadcaster and yet it is an increased contribution
                          StenoTran

                             1442

 1     towards the budget for the producer.
 2  6587                 It's not that these shows will not be
 3     able to get some export.  It's that they are not being
 4     written for an export market right off the top.
 5  6588                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  No.  I
 6     understand that distinction.  It's just in order to be
 7     sure that we eliminated that piece.
 8  6589                 MS SCHUYLER:  Right.
 9  6590                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  This comes
10     back to my point earlier about the Council of Canadians
11     in fact saying that an export strategy is contrary to,
12     in your terms, an identifiably Canadian programming
13     strategy if we draw some very hard lines just to make
14     sure we all know what's up here.
15  6591                 Okay.  Thank you very much.
16  6592                 MS SCHUYLER:  Thank you.
17  6593                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
18     McKendry.
19  6594                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you,
20     Madam Chair.
21  6595                 Earlier today we had a presentation
22     by Goldi Productions.  One of the points they made to
23     us was that in their view being too Canadian was a
24     marketing problem in terms of getting exhibition and a
25     problem in terms of getting funds from the government
                          StenoTran

                             1443

 1     agencies.  Is that your experience?
 2  6596                 MS SCHUYLER:  Although we can
 3     sympathize with the Goldis on that, no, that has never
 4     been our experience.  We have had tremendous support
 5     for the shows that our company has done over the years
 6     from Telefilm Canada.
 7  6597                 It is true that what we are talking
 8     about here is a very important crux of what we are
 9     talking about in Canadian content.  You know, on the
10     one hand we are asking shows to be exportable and on
11     the other hand we want them to be identifiably
12     Canadian.  The two thoughts are very, very difficult to
13     reconcile.
14  6598                 It's a huge problem for all of us in
15     the industry and it's a problem for you as you look
16     through how we are going to deal with this Canadian
17     content.
18  6599                 Where I guess I come from at the end
19     of the day is I want to be putting stories for and
20     about Canadians on the screen.  Stephen is absolutely
21     right that when our shows are sent out for export, the
22     promotion reels are quite severely edited so that there
23     is only a certain viewpoint that seems to be going out
24     there in the promotional material.
25  6600                 Because of this problem, and it's a
                          StenoTran

                             1444

 1     huge one that we face in this country, we can't though
 2     let the exportability of shows be the sole driver of
 3     what we are doing.  If we do, we might as well just
 4     stop with regulation right now and just say "Okay, just
 5     let it be a free and open market and there you go".
 6  6601                 If we really want to try and protect
 7     some of our airwaves for Canadian stories, and we live
 8     in the most difficult country in the world for that, my
 9     feeling is maybe we won't be able to have public
10     funding for our shows the day we stop sharing a border
11     with the United States.
12  6602                 Until then, we are living beside the
13     largest exporter of entertainment product in the world. 
14     We share a language with them.  We have the smallest
15     per capita support of the cultural industries when you
16     look at Britain, Australia, France and we have to
17     producet all our culture in two official languages.
18  6603                 I think we do a tremendous job with
19     what we have there.  We are never going to reconcile
20     this export -- what drives an export and what we are
21     creating for Canadians which is why I think it's very
22     important that we look at the system as a whole.
23  6604                 There are going to be some shows,
24     which are your industrial shows, which are your job
25     creators, your industry builders, that are very
                          StenoTran

                             1445

 1     important to the system and they are often going to
 2     come into the system with very substantial pre-sales
 3     and do a good job internationally.
 4  6605                 Then you are going to have the other
 5     end of the spectrum which are those shows -- "North of
 6     60" has not sold anywhere outside of Canada and yet
 7     "North of 60" was a very important show for CBC to
 8     running.  It ran for five years.  People in the remote
 9     communities responded to that show.
10  6606                 Our point is it's not that you can't
11     reconcile export and creative, but you can't expect it
12     all from each individual project.  We can expect it
13     from a system at large, but each show cannot do that. 
14     The moment you ask each show to do that, as I said, we
15     might as well give up.
16  6607                 What we have to do is provide a
17     broadcasting landscape where the flexibility is there
18     for this mixture.  That's partly why we really like the
19     CFPTA 10/10/10 plan and we like our three point credit
20     plan because we feel by a combination of these we are
21     allowing broadcaster flexibility to order things that
22     are highly Canadian and might not sell internationally
23     or they can order the industrial, but the mix has to
24     come from the system as a whole and not from each
25     individual show.
                          StenoTran

                             1446

 1  6608                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  In your
 2     experience, do contracts between independent producers
 3     and broadcasters for a series contain a clause that if
 4     the broadcaster cancels the series, the producer cannot
 5     sell the series to somebody else for an extended period
 6     of time?
 7  6609                 MS SCHUYLER:  We have over the 20
 8     years dealt pretty much exclusively with the CBC.  That
 9     type of clause has existed and is the source of
10     extended negotiation in each contract.  Sometimes we
11     have been able to get that clause removed and sometimes
12     we have not succeeded in getting that clause removed.
13  6610                 Obviously to us it's an egregious and
14     unconscionable, horrible clause.  You have taken all
15     this risk to produce a show and then if the broadcaster
16     doesn't want it, you would say well, at least I should
17     have a chance to go to another broadcaster and get that
18     window.
19  6611                 Yes, that clause does exist in the
20     CBC and I don't know to the extent that it exists with
21     respect to the private broadcaster.
22  6612                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  In your view,
23     do distributors who are also broadcasters offer
24     inadequate distribution deals to independent producers
25     in return for broadcast exhibition?
                          StenoTran

                             1447

 1  6613                 MS SCHUYLER:  I can answer that in
 2     the one show that I am involved that Linda is not, the
 3     "Savoir Faire" show which is one of HGTV's prime shows.
 4  6614                 In that case we received a licence
 5     fee between the Canadian and U.S. exhibition because
 6     there was a licence fee from both HG in the States and
 7     HG in Canada which virtually covered the production of
 8     the show and it was just a pure licence fee.  It ended
 9     after a few years.
10  6615                 Independently of that, we have
11     ourselves approached Atlantis Broadcasting, and they of
12     course are the owners of HGTV, and have negotiated a
13     distribution arrangement, but as far as I can tell, it
14     has been entirely at arm's length.  In fact, they have
15     bent over backwards to make sure that there was no link
16     between the two.  The negotiation of the distribution
17     happened many months after the negotiation of the
18     initial licence agreement.
19  6616                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you.
20  6617                 I'm glad you are back for a number of
21     reasons, but I am also glad you are back because I have
22     a follow-up question about your digital facility that
23     you talked to me about the last time you were here.
24  6618                 I just wanted to be sure that I
25     understood correctly.  You indicated that there was
                          StenoTran

                             1448

 1     loan financing from a bank with respect to this
 2     facility.  I assume that that financing was obtained on
 3     the basis of a business case that you put to the bank
 4     about the virtues of converting to digital from a
 5     business point of view.
 6  6619                 Do I have that right?
 7  6620                 MS SCHUYLER:  Can one get a loan any
 8     other way?  If so, I would like you to tell me.
 9  6621                 MR. STOHN:  Although to be fair,
10     banks and particularly Canadian banks being as they
11     are, and we love our bank which is the Royal Bank --
12  6622                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  No advertising
13     allowed on this channel.
14  6623                 MR. STOHN:  The fact is that a large
15     part of the financing was backed by a great deal of
16     security, not simply a business plan but the land,
17     buildings and other assets, tangible and intangible, at
18     any time or from time to time of Epitome Pictures, so
19     it's not simply the business case for digital.  That
20     would be an oversimplification.
21  6624                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I suppose
22     that explains why the CEO of a major broadcaster last
23     Saturday called your move courageous.
24  6625                 MS SCHUYLER:  Courageous or stupid. 
25     We like to think of it as courageous and we like to
                          StenoTran

                             1449

 1     think that we have been thinking forward to the new
 2     digital world.
 3  6626                 We have taken a risk.  Who knows? 
 4     Obviously it was a calculated risk.  It was a risk that
 5     was necessary to get a show done at a time.  We had an
 6     order to do a soap opera.  We needed to produce it on
 7     video.  It would have been very short-sighted not to
 8     have gone digital.
 9  6627                 There were a lot of circumstances
10     that converged at the time to make this choice. 
11     Hopefully over time it is going to prove to be a wise
12     choice.
13                                                        1755
14  6628                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you
15     very much.
16  6629                 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
17  6630                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
18     Wilson?
19  6631                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I just want to
20     ask one question of clarification.  It's about your
21     friend Michael again because I'm not sure that I
22     understood your answer.
23  6632                 I think you made a comment about the
24     decision being driven by content, on who gets funded,
25     but the point that has been raised by the broadcasters
                          StenoTran

                             1450

 1     is that it's incongruous that a broadcaster-affiliated
 2     production company can't access the EIP, but that
 3     production companies which hold broadcasting licences,
 4     like your friend Michael, can.  I am just wondering.  I
 5     need your help to try and reconcile this in my mind. 
 6     They are both vertically integrated companies, so
 7     what's the difference?
 8  6633                 MR. STOHN:  It's a very -- it's a
 9     good question:  What is the difference?  I guess one
10     thing we can say is that the existing system that has
11     worked well for a number of years had included Telefilm
12     funding for the production sector.  That has included
13     small to medium-sized companies and it has included the
14     large publicly-traded companies.
15  6634                 In what we have said and talked about
16     the creative drive of small to medium-sized companies,
17     you might expect us to be saying, "Well, really, that
18     funding then should be reserved to those small to
19     medium-sized companies", and I guess what we are saying
20     is, "Let's just look to what has worked in the past and
21     why try and change the system, why bring in the
22     broadcasting element."
23  6635                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  If it ain't
24     broke.
25  6636                 MR. STOHN:  Exactly.  That's the
                          StenoTran

                             1451

 1     short answer.
 2  6637                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I guess,
 3     actually, I am just recalling something, I think, that
 4     Michael MacMillan said, which is that there are
 5     safeguards that are in place in terms of projects that
 6     they get funding for and they can't be shown on the
 7     channels that they hold licences for.
 8  6638                 MR. STOHN:  Yes.  Certainly in that
 9     side, you are absolutely right.  I don't think Atlantis
10     Alliance produces shows that are on the Life or HG
11     network.  I could be wrong on that, but they
12     certainly --
13  6639                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I don't think
14     they are allowed to.
15  6640                 MR. STOHN:  Yes.
16  6641                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I think there
17     are conditions of licence or something that prevent
18     them from doing that.  But if there were -- let's say
19     we thought it would be inconsistent to exclude the
20     broadcasters if there were safeguards in place that
21     were similar to that.  How would you feel about that in
22     terms of their access to the equity investment program?
23  6642                 MR. STOHN:  So, if a broadcaster --
24  6643                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  A broadcaster-
25     affiliated production company.  If there were
                          StenoTran

                             1452

 1     safeguards in place in terms of how they accessed the
 2     funds and where the programming is going.
 3  6644                 MR. STOHN:  I guess we would have to
 4     say -- I mean we would fall back on two things.  One is
 5     the small companies being ones that have out-performed
 6     in the past, but, secondly, it's hard to get too down
 7     on a situation.  If the affiliated production company
 8     were willing to say, "We are producing not for the
 9     broadcaster, we are producing for the CBC" or if we are
10     a CTV-affiliated production company, "We are producing
11     a show that's going to run on Global", it's hard.  Your
12     question is very good because how could we say that
13     that independent production company with the safeguard
14     built in shouldn't have access.
15  6645                 Where the real problem comes is where
16     the CTV-affiliated production company decides that it
17     wants to produce itself for CTV.  It is then the
18     gatekeeper that triggers the licence fee, that triggers
19     all the other funding and then is the ultimate
20     recipient of it and not only that, but the broadcasting
21     licence that goes along with it.  Your question is very
22     good.
23  6646                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Thanks.  Your
24     answer was very good.
25  6647                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
                          StenoTran

                             1453

 1     Cardozo?
 2  6648                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
 3     Madam Chair.
 4  6649                 The questions by my colleagues
 5     triggered two small questions that I wanted to ask just
 6     to complete some of these thoughts.  With regards to
 7     exportability of programs, what kind of proportion do
 8     you earn on programs exported -- on the export of the
 9     program versus what you are earning on the sale of the
10     program domestically?
11  6650                 MR. STOHN:  I will just start in.  It
12     does vary.  The "Degrassi" series -- there were five
13     years of the "Degrassi Junior High" and "Degrassi High"
14     series and those were initially funded approximately
15     the following way.  Obviously, it varies all over the
16     map.  Each individual episode was approximately covered
17     by one-third licence fee from CBC, one-third licence
18     fee from PBS and one-third other funding, which would
19     include Telefilm funding or producer investment,
20     whatever.
21  6651                 Over the years, the "Degrassi" series
22     -- two of the series are now in a recouped position. 
23     Actually, a third is now in a recouped position as of
24     the most recent period, two are almost in a recouped
25     position.
                          StenoTran

                             1454

 1  6652                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Sorry, what is
 2     a recouped position?
 3  6653                 MR. STOHN:  Sorry, "recouped" means
 4     that final third through sales internationally
 5     primarily, but also that includes subsequent sales
 6     within Canada to, say, the Showcase Network.  So,
 7     overall that would be a roughly 50/50 mix over the
 8     years, but clearly a show like "Degrassi", which, of
 9     course, has been tremendously successful here and is
10     still shown in about 80 countries around the world,
11     there is a lot of risk involved and when broadcasters
12     talk about wanting the back end of the show, I'm not
13     sure that they really mean the back end of a show that
14     takes 10 years to recoup its production costs.
15  6654                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  But --
16  6655                 MR. STOHN:  In the case of -- sorry.
17  6656                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Don't get this
18     wrong, but are you selling it for peanuts abroad?
19  6657                 MR. STOHN:  No, it just takes a long
20     -- the production costs are high and -- I mean I will
21     give you an exact example.  Recently "Degrassi" was
22     sold for $10,000 U.S. an episode in Germany.  Well,
23     that's nice, particularly with the way the U.S. dollar
24     is, that's another $15,000, but if you are producing
25     shows, which nowadays conventional drama can cost $1
                          StenoTran

                             1455

 1     million an hour, $15,000 and $15,000 there adds up.
 2  6658                 In the case of "Riverdale", it's very
 3     important on shows to reach a magic number, which is
 4     usually 65 episodes, in order to really start
 5     triggering international sales, and we are not there
 6     yet.  So, the international sales have been very low to
 7     date.  The other factor with "Riverdale" is, of course,
 8     serial dramas traditionally take two or three years to
 9     build a core audience.  So, we will wait to see on
10     that.
11  6659                 But if one were going to the bank to
12     find the financing to produce "Riverdale" and to build
13     a digital studio and basing it on the back end foreign
14     sales, that would be a difficult scenario because those
15     are highly speculative.
16  6660                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So then this
17     whole business of exportability production is really
18     quite a stab in the dark.
19  6661                 MS SCHUYLER:  The most money to come
20     from the international market is on your pre-sale.  If
21     you can negotiate a pre-sale internationally, that's
22     where you get your top dollar.  You should ask -- and I
23     am sure you will -- Atlantis about this because they
24     have a figure that is sort of the maximum that you can
25     get and I think it's around $200,000 an hour if you
                          StenoTran

                             1456

 1     sell -- do you know the figure, Stephen?  Steve Sward
 2     was talking about it the other day.
 3  6662                 If you don't do your pre-sales and go
 4     in and get a good licence fee off the top before you
 5     even roll into production, there is sort of a maximum
 6     figure that you can expect because the types of numbers
 7     that Stephen just gave you for Germany, you can go
 8     through country-by-country what the expectations can
 9     be, and Telefilm do this all the time.  They ask us for
10     our projected sales plan.  You look at Australia and
11     you say, "We might be able to do maximum there $20,000
12     a half hour", you go through Germany, you go through
13     France.
14  6663                 But these are not large ticket items
15     because if they are not coming in in a co-production
16     capacity right off the top, then you are out there
17     after their domestic shows, after their co-productions,
18     after all the American shows.  Then with the few little
19     bits of shelf space they have left, they have a lot of
20     negotiating power because there is a lot of product and
21     not a lot of shelf space.
22  6664                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So, is the
23     $10,000 the average, is it high, is it low?
24  6665                 MR. STOHN:  That might be about an
25     average.  Clearly, the smaller countries can be as low
                          StenoTran

                             1457

 1     as a couple of hundred dollars almost an episode.  But
 2     the real difference, I think, that Linda is talking
 3     about is whereas if you were to do a pre-sale up front,
 4     say, to a U.K. broadcaster where you might be able to
 5     achieve o50,000 or $100,000 an episode, if you tried to
 6     make that sale after the fact, you are probably limited
 7     very much to about a fifth of that amount.
 8  6666                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And how many
 9     of those countries are running it in English and how
10     many are dubbing it?
11  6667                 MS SCHUYLER:  Dubbing is interesting
12     because this is another factor that you have to bring
13     into account when you are selling internationally.  For
14     instance, we have a situation now whereby somebody
15     wants to buy "Riverdale" in France, but it's not enough
16     of a sale that will warrant the high-quality dubbing
17     that they require.  So, we have to wait until we can
18     piece together a couple of other French sales so that
19     then there will be enough money coming in from that so
20     that you can dub it.
21  6668                 In other markets -- we just sold to
22     Poland.  I think probably they are just subtitling in
23     Poland and, therefore, there isn't that expense to it. 
24     But each market has its own discrete set of
25     requirements and its own discrete set of limits as to
                          StenoTran

                             1458

 1     what they can pay.
 2  6669                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And you do the
 3     dubbing here.  Do you have any control over it?
 4  6670                 MS SCHUYLER:  No.  For the most part,
 5     again it's a case-by-case issue.  Mostly it's handled
 6     by our distributor and in this case our distributor is
 7     Atlantis.
 8  6671                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks.
 9  6672                 Thanks, Madam Chair.
10  6673                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Ms Schuyler, was
11     "Coronation Street", in your view, an indigenous
12     product or an exportable product when it was first
13     criticized as being depressing and had no future?
14  6674                 MS SCHUYLER:  Indigenous.  In fact --
15  6675                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Would you call it
16     indigenous now?
17  6676                 MS SCHUYLER:  Yes.
18  6677                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Why is it that we
19     all know what it is?
20  6678                 MS SCHUYLER:  Interestingly enough,
21     we know what it is here in Canada because it plays and
22     does extremely well on the CBC.
23  6679                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But it doesn't in
24     other parts of the world?
25  6680                 MS SCHUYLER:  It doesn't sell a lot. 
                          StenoTran

                             1459

 1     They haven't bought it in the States because they can't
 2     deal with that wacky accent.  They are fine with the
 3     BBC English, but -- well, even that they have some
 4     trouble with, but that north Manchester accent is
 5     indecipherable to the American ear, so it hasn't sold
 6     there.
 7  6681                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I was at dinner at
 8     Ottawa U, so was Commissioner Pennefather, on Saturday
 9     night celebrating their 150th anniversary gala and Alex
10     Trebek, who actually was in my class when I was an
11     undergraduate -- there is a person who knew exactly
12     what he wanted to do and did it, but he said -- some of
13     the banter he treated us to was, what's the definition
14     of a bilingual person and of a trilingual person and
15     then a unilingual person, and the answer was an
16     American.  So, you have driven this further now.  It's
17     accent as well.
18  6682                 Mr. Stohn, you were speaking of the
19     CAB and the credits and clawing back.  My recollection
20     -- well, in their submission they say, on page 2 of
21     their first appendix, that they believe that minimum
22     requirements for Canadian content within peak viewing
23     hours are not necessary.  So, they would have the
24     credit if it's in peak hours and presumably clawback
25     from daytime since they have no requirements in peak
                          StenoTran

                             1460

 1     hours.
 2  6683                 Your proposal, which follows the
 3     CFTPA 10/10/10, is that the 10 hours is in peak viewing
 4     hours.  So, your clawback is even worse, is it not,
 5     because when you get 150 or 200, you claw back from
 6     peak viewing hours since you appear to believe that
 7     peak viewing hours -- you endorse that proposal -- is
 8     important.
 9  6684                 MR. STOHN:  Yes, you are absolutely
10     right.  In other words, what we are saying is there is
11     the 10/10/10 -- that the focus is the peak viewing
12     hours and we are prepared to introduce that flexibility
13     in the 10/10/10 within the peak viewing time if the
14     shift is towards this really identifiably Canadian
15     product.
16  6685                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But their credit
17     would also be identifiably Canadian product, but it
18     would possibly claw back from daytime.  I am just
19     focusing on what Commissioner Cardozo raised, which is
20     this problem of these credits clawing back hours.  You
21     criticize the CAB for this clawback, but your clawback
22     is smack in prime time.  So, instead of 10/10/10, you
23     are going to get 5/10/10.
24  6686                 MR. STOHN:  Yes, so perhaps I should
25     withdraw any criticism of the CAB for clawing back.
                          StenoTran

                             1461

 1  6687                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  At least that's how
 2     I understood your comment and it piqued my curiosity
 3     because Commissioner Cardozo talked about this
 4     conundrum of these credits actually clawing back.  So,
 5     when you claw back from the peak viewing hours, which I
 6     understand the CAB doesn't believe in overall other
 7     than maintaining the 60/50, the clawback becomes fairly
 8     severe because it's in peak viewing hours.
 9  6688                 MR. STOHN:  Yes, and really I think
10     we were starting out and saying the 10/10/10 is that,
11     an achievable objective, even over the transition
12     period.
13  6689                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Are you wavering on
14     that?
15  6690                 MR. STOHN:  Yes.
16  6691                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you think the
17     CFTPA should?
18  6692                 MR. STOHN:  I believe personally,
19     yes, that there needs to be some flexibility on that
20     and that is why we have suggested this flexible three-
21     way credit, to provide some relief to the full
22     10/10/10.
23  6693                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is there any other
24     way of making it less severe if you are now finding
25     that perhaps it's a bit stringent and that you started
                          StenoTran

                             1462

 1     with as much as possible so you couldn't be negotiated
 2     down to zero, which is what my children did all their
 3     lives.  They started wanting to stay up all night and
 4     then it ended up being if you came in at 1:00 in the
 5     morning, you were a great kid.
 6  6694                 If we go back to page 4 of your oral
 7     presentation, you talk about the 10/10/10 and then you
 8     talk about this 100 per cent or 150.  Do I
 9     misunderstand something or is the 100 per cent simply
10     the status quo?
11  6695                 MR. STOHN:  Exactly.
12  6696                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay.  It just
13     sounds good that way, but it's simply what one gets if
14     one has a Canadian number for an hour of programming.
15  6697                 MR. STOHN:  Exactly.
16  6698                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  And then you talk
17     about the 150 and then the identifiably Canadian at 200
18     per cent.  You say you want to step back and look at
19     how difficult this may be and then you go on to say in
20     the large middle paragraph:
21                            "If the Commission wished to
22                            find a way to bridge some of the
23                            gap, one response --"
24     Of the Philistines, I guess:
25                            "-- might be of course to reduce
                          StenoTran

                             1463

 1                            the 10 hour target to a slightly
 2                            lower level."
 3  6699                 To that you say "no".
 4                            "Another response might be to
 5                            change the definition of first-
 6                            run so that more plays would
 7                            qualify as first-run, since this
 8                            would have the same practical
 9                            effect as lowering the 10 hour
10                            objective."
11  6700                 To that you say "no".
12  6701                 In the next paragraph you say, "We
13     will tell you how to do it so that we don't have this
14     horrible reduction and then you proceed with a plan
15     that gives a credit, which has the effect of lowering
16     to half in one circumstance, to five.
17  6702                 I understand the other side, which is
18     it's going to be distinctly Canadian programming, but
19     the CFTPA has told us -- and Ms Schuyler, you told us
20     -- put programming in peak viewing hours that is
21     Canadian and people will watch it.  So, this type of
22     clawback, what is its value?  If it's thematically
23     Canadian to the point where it has the disadvantage of
24     not being exportable and it also means that it's
25     reducing the number of hours in peak time, is that
                          StenoTran

                             1464

 1     helpful?
 2  6703                 MR. STOHN:  If I can respond -- and
 3     then I know Linda will want to respond as well -- in
 4     the oral remarks I don't think we said "no" to
 5     reductions or to the first two.  I think what I was
 6     trying to say was that in the mix we think a credit
 7     should be considered if you are going to try and bridge
 8     the gap between the 10/10/10 that the CFTPA has put
 9     forward.  If you say, "If that really is too high a
10     standard for the broadcasters to achieve, the full
11     10/10/10, how can we soften that blow in a way that
12     also incentivizes the kind of productions that we find
13     most desirable", that's really what --
14  6704                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But you could
15     reduce it to seven instead of effectively giving a
16     means of reducing it to five.
17  6705                 MR. STOHN:  Exactly, yes.  There is
18     different ways.  You could make it a 10/10/7 rule or a
19     10/7/10.
20  6706                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  And you are not
21     discarding that altogether?
22  6707                 MR. STOHN:  I think we have given our
23     thought as to one way which incentivizes programming,
24     so we think it's an interesting thought to throw into
25     the mix, but clearly you could reduce any of the 10s
                          StenoTran

                             1465

 1     and that's a simple way of addressing it.  We just want
 2     to propose this incentivized way of achieving a similar
 3     kind of objective.
 4                                                        1815
 5  6708                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  It runs against
 6     some other concerns that are brought to us, such as
 7     anglo-Canadians want to see American type programming,
 8     and we want to be able to make exportable programming. 
 9     This very distinctive programming runs against that.
10  6709                 If it is a 10, already it is
11     Canadian.
12  6710                 MR. STOHN:  Yes.  Although what we
13     have tried to say here is not that it should not be a
14     10, but that if it is a 10 with the more American
15     programming that you have suggested, one broadcaster
16     might well choose to keep it at the 10 but with the
17     more American programming.  Another broadcaster might
18     say:  "Hey, if I can do some really Canadian
19     programming, I can get some credit for it, keep some
20     American simulcast shelf space and put more money into
21     this programming."
22  6711                 I guess what we are trying to say is
23     that that is a good range of possibilities.  And we are
24     not saying which way it should be.
25  6712                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  What we should
                          StenoTran

                             1466

 1     retain from this is that 10-10 is quite difficult.
 2  6713                 MS SCHUYLER:  Even as the CFTPA made
 3     its submission, we knew that 10-10-10 was difficult. 
 4     But we maintain strongly that it should be what we
 5     should be aiming for; that where the creativity and the
 6     flexibility has to come in is in how we are going to
 7     implement this.
 8  6714                 I did say, when I was here with the
 9     CFTPA panel, that there would be various different ways
10     that different people who appear in front of you will
11     have recommendations.
12  6715                 What is critical about the 10-10-10
13     plan -- and it is the same with the Director's Guild
14     plan of the 7-7-7 -- is that we are tying money to
15     hours.  That linkage we do not want to lose.
16  6716                 All we are trying to do today is say
17     that if there is a way of keeping the system very alive
18     and having a great mix in it, and if we are combatting
19     this conflict between culture and exportability, we
20     feel that this plan is a way of bringing that into
21     consideration; keeping the 10-10-10 plan in place and
22     giving the broadcasters flexibility.
23  6717                 They can still do 10-10-10 of
24     industrial programming.  That is fine.
25  6718                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You consider
                          StenoTran

                             1467

 1     "Riverdale" an indigenous program.
 2  6719                 MS SCHUYLER:  Yes.
 3  6720                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Have you given any
 4     hope of exporting it ever?
 5  6721                 MS SCHUYLER:  Well, it is already
 6     available to our friends in South Africa and in Poland.
 7  6722                 My feeling is -- and it was the same
 8     with my "Degrassi" experience -- that you have to start
 9     out with a particular point of view when you are a
10     storyteller and when you are a producer.  If you start
11     out from the point of view that we have a co-producer
12     in Australia and a co-producer here in Canada, and we
13     have to make both of those markets happy, that is a
14     different way of approaching your scripts than when I
15     say I've got CBC as my broadcaster, and the Canadian
16     public are my first audience.  I approach my story-
17     telling differently.
18  6723                 If at the end of the day it does
19     speak to more than Canadians and it is exportable, that
20     is a tremendous bonus and a delight.  But it is not
21     what is driving the creative force right off the top.
22  6724                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  One last question,
23     Mr. Stohn.
24  6725                 You raised the matter of how you
25     would welcome broadcasters to invest equity into
                          StenoTran

                             1468

 1     programming.
 2  6726                 I found the spot in the CFTPA's
 3     proposal, at page 27, where they say:
 4                            "We welcome broadcasters'
 5                            investments in our programs but
 6                            these equity investments should
 7                            not be considered as a portion
 8                            of the licence fee.  Such
 9                            investments are intended for
10                            business purposes, not to meet
11                            the obligations of the Act."
12  6727                 So if you had a $10 million
13     requirement -- since you endorse the 10-10-10 -- do you
14     also take the position that that equity investment
15     should have absolutely nothing to do with meeting the
16     $10 million?
17  6728                 I gather that that is what is
18     intended by "such investments should be for business
19     purposes, not to meet the obligations of the Act"; that
20     none of that money should go toward satisfying spending
21     requirements.
22  6729                 MR. STOHN:  Yes.
23  6730                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So coupled with
24     your welcoming the broadcasters in equity, not for
25     meeting the 10.
                          StenoTran

                             1469

 1  6731                 MR. STOHN:  That is correct.
 2  6732                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
 3     much.
 4  6733                 Counsel Blais.
 5  6734                 MR. BLAIS:  I just want to clear up
 6     three points with you.
 7  6735                 The first one -- and Ms Schuyler, you
 8     will appreciate this, in view of your teaching
 9     background.  I am going to send you home with a bit of
10     homework
11  6736                 MS SCHUYLER:  I thought I was off the
12     hook at the end of today.
13  6737                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We have only gone
14     to junior high and high school.
15  6738                 MR. BLAIS:  It is following up on
16     your discussion with Commissioner Pennefather when you
17     were talking about this notion of identifiably
18     Canadian.
19  6739                 What came from that discussion were
20     very subjective factors, I would suggest.  You were
21     talking about sense of play, sense of character, the
22     origin of the author -- although that raises questions
23     about new Canadians telling stories about the country
24     they come from.
25  6740                 Would it be possible for you to
                          StenoTran

                             1470

 1     provide us in writing with a definition of what you
 2     mean by "identifiably Canadian"?
 3  6741                 And in doing so, keep in mind that we
 4     will have to incorporate it, according to your
 5     suggestion, into a regulatory framework.  We need
 6     something that is fair to everyone; that is not vague;
 7     and does not create an undue regulatory burden on the
 8     Commission to administer.
 9  6742                 It is quite clear that there are a
10     lot of hours of production being produced out there.
11  6743                 The assignment is that.  But I do
12     give you an extension to the 15th of October.
13  6744                 Secondly, again when you were talking
14     about the identifiably Canadian issue, you mentioned
15     the fact that licence fees might have to be raised
16     because it may have an impact on exportability.
17  6745                 I want to be sure that you are not
18     looking to us to help you raise those licence fees.
19  6746                 Are you?
20  6747                 MR. STOHN:  No.  We are hopeful that
21     it would follow, perhaps not as neatly as night follows
22     day.  But the CTF, for example, already sets certain
23     minimum thresholds.  Those threshold would simply be
24     increased and that the broadcaster should be quite
25     happy to take a program which one day was getting 150
                          StenoTran

                             1471

 1     percent credit and now it is suddenly getting a 200
 2     percent credit.  So you would think that the licence
 3     fee again should be a third on top, and that would be
 4     something that they would be quite happy to participate
 5     in.
 6  6748                 MR. BLAIS:  That would be the effect
 7     in the marketplace.
 8  6749                 MR. STOHN:  Yes.
 9  6750                 MR. BLAIS:  The third point I want to
10     clear up is with respect to the 150 percent credit.
11  6751                 Right now we apply that in terms of
12     the regulations but not necessarily in terms of the
13     various COLs out there, the Conditions of Licence.
14  6752                 Is it your view that it should be
15     extended, as well, to COLs?
16  6753                 MR. STOHN:  I am not sure I entirely
17     understand the question.
18  6754                 If it were part of the regulations --
19  6755                 MR. BLAIS:  Exhibition requirements
20     related to content do not necessarily base themselves
21     on this 150 percent credit.  It is a factor that is
22     linked to the Canadian content regulation, the TV
23     regulations per se.
24  6756                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Stohn, are you
25     confused by COL?  It is Condition of Licence.
                          StenoTran

                             1472

 1  6757                 MR. STOHN:  Well, Condition of
 2     Licence, yes.
 3  6758                 I had thought, without being expert
 4     in this area, that this would be included in
 5     regulations.  I don't know what the difference would be
 6     to including it in Conditions of Licence as well.
 7  6759                 MR. BLAIS:  Let me try to explain it.
 8  6760                 The 150 percent is used when we come
 9     to calculate the 50-60 percent under the TV regs, but
10     not necessarily under exhibition requirements that are
11     made as part of particular licensees' Conditions of
12     Licence.
13  6761                 MR. STOHN:  If I am understanding you
14     correctly, then it would seem appropriate that it would
15     be both in the regulation and in the COLs.
16  6762                 MS SCHUYLER:  I am not sure about
17     that, Stephen.  If it was there in regulation, I am not
18     sure why it would be necessary to have it in the COL.
19  6763                 MR. BLAIS:  Right now we have both
20     COLs and regulations that deal with Canadian content. 
21     It is additional obligations or obligations that relate
22     more specifically to the circumstances of a given
23     licensee.
24  6764                 MS SCHUYLER:  But if a COL included
25     -- and I don't really know much about this -- a certain
                          StenoTran

                             1473

 1     amount of hours, could those hours not be made up under
 2     our scheme of doing various types of programming; some
 3     of which would get bonus one way, another or another,
 4     and it would be up to the licensees to decide how they
 5     would make up that number of hours requirement?
 6  6765                 MR. BLAIS:  Precisely.  That is the
 7     point; that the 150 percent could be used theoretically
 8     for more than just meeting the 50-60 rule.  It could be
 9     used to meet Condition of Licence.
10  6766                 Perhaps what I could suggest is that
11     you give it some thought, and it could be part of your
12     written submissions in the final phase.
13  6767                 MR. STOHN:  Yes; thank you.
14  6768                 MS SCHUYLER:  I would like to respond
15     briefly, though, to this rather awesome homework
16     assignment that you so easily tossed out there --
17  6769                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Ms Schuyler, I
18     think it is not that difficult.
19  6770                 Your proposal and the CFTPA's have an
20     additional component where everyone would have to do 10
21     hours per week of first run Canadian programming in
22     particular hours, and 150 percent credit would be
23     attributable or usable if you had a Canadian program
24     during that period.  It would give you a break on the
25     10 hours during that period.
                          StenoTran

                             1474

 1  6771                 What we do not have right now from
 2     most licensees -- we have maybe a combination for two
 3     licensees -- is a requirement of particular --
 4  6772                 We have a 60 overall requirement and
 5     a 50 requirement from 6:00 to midnight, but not what
 6     you propose, 7:00 to 11:00, 10 hours of Canadian
 7     programming per week.
 8  6773                 The question, I gather, is:  Would
 9     you want that 150 credit to go to reducing the 10
10     hours?  And I suspect that the answer is "yes", from my
11     conversation with you earlier.
12  6774                 If someone did a 200 percent credit
13     program one week, that week they would only have to do
14     five hours to be in compliance during that particular
15     period, 7:00 to 11:00.
16  6775                 MR. STOHN:  That is correct.  You
17     mentioned 7:00 to 11:00 --
18  6776                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Well, it is the
19     CFTPA --
20  6777                 MR. STOHN:  Yes.  We were talking in
21     the 8:00 to 11:00, which is a particular question with
22     respect to us since "Riverdale", as you know from our
23     submission, is one of the very few first run dramas
24     that runs in the 7 o'clock --
25  6778                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Am I right about
                          StenoTran

                             1475

 1     the CFTPA proposal being 7:00 to 11:00?
 2  6779                 MR. STOHN:  8:00 to 11:00.
 3  6780                 MS SCHUYLER:  No.  Prime time is what
 4     we define as 7:00 to 11:00.  But the credit would be
 5     8:00 to 11:00.
 6  6781                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  8:00 to 11:00;
 7     excuse me.  That's right.
 8  6782                 Did I confuse things, counsel?
 9  6783                 MR. BLAIS:  Perhaps we can have some
10     discussion off-line to make sure that you understand
11     the preoccupation, and that way you can get your answer
12     on the record appropriately.
13  6784                 I think you had some preoccupations
14     concerning the so-called homework assignment.
15  6785                 MS SCHUYLER:  Yes.  Obviously, what
16     you have asked is a very serious question, and it is a
17     huge question.
18  6786                 I do know that right now on the board
19     of the CTF they are grappling with exactly this
20     question as they try to make the fund go to support
21     more identifiably Canadian shows.
22  6787                 In order to come up with a response
23     to your question, it would be done in discussion with
24     the CTF.  I know, as well, that they are grappling with
25     this.  It would be wonderful if somehow we could come
                          StenoTran

                             1476

 1     up with a definition that would work for everybody.
 2  6788                 We will certainly work on it.
 3  6789                 MR. BLAIS:  Good.  We will be seeing
 4     them later on, as well.  Perhaps I will give them the
 5     same homework assignment.
 6  6790                 Thank you.
 7  6791                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Not that I watch
 8     "Degrassi High" that often, but if you don't do well,
 9     we will not detain you or suspend you.
10  6792                 We certainly appreciate your coming
11     back again.  You see what happens when you are popular. 
12     It is very tiring.  It is now 6:30.
13  6793                 Enjoy the rest of your evening.
14  6794                 MS SCHUYLER:  Thank you very much.
15  6795                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Secretary,
16     please.
17  6796                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
18  6797                 The next presentation will be by
19     Running Dog New(s) Service, Mr. Stephen Wiggins.
20     PRESENTATION / PRESENTATION
21  6798                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good evening, Mr.
22     Wiggins.  I hope it is helpful to you to appear today
23     rather than tomorrow.
24  6799                 For the record, TOUT ÉCRAN ne
25     participera pas oralement mais, évidemment, leurs
                          StenoTran

                             1477

 1     soumissions sont au dossier public.
 2  6800                 Please go ahead.
 3  6801                 MR. WIGGINS:  As a small producer, it
 4     means that I save one more room at the Ramada Inn.
 5  6802                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We are happy to
 6     accommodate.
 7  6803                 MR. WIGGINS:  I am a Canadian
 8     independent documentary producer.  My name is Steven
 9     Wiggins.
10  6804                 I am here to describe the process I
11     encountered during my attempts to obtain a broadcast
12     licence to air my documentary film.
13  6805                 Articulating this is strong enough in
14     itself to act as a self-censoring mechanism --
15  6806                 You will have to excuse my
16     nervousness.  I was scheduled to speak tomorrow, so I
17     am a little off balance.  I had a white shirt pressed
18     and a tie and a jacket, because I respect the CRTC.  I
19     respect public broadcasters.  I am here out of respect
20     for this hearing.
21  6807                 I speak to challenge the myth that
22     Canada produces timeless long form documentary films on
23     difficult subjects freely.  We once did.  I speak in
24     the hope that we can renew tradition.  I believe my
25     story is telling.
                          StenoTran

                             1478

 1  6808                 I am here to talk about content over
 2     context.  Whatever it is about the current system, it
 3     failed my film.
 4  6809                 My topic is tainted blood, or perhaps
 5     I should say it was.  My topic was tainted blood, and I
 6     did my homework.  As an emerging producer, I knew that
 7     no public broadcaster should, or could, risk taxpayer
 8     money.
 9  6810                 Several years ago I was taken by the
10     considerable effort government made to suppress the
11     Krever Inquiry.  The former Red Cross helped and, of
12     course, there were lawyers -- 18 months of them, as I
13     recall.
14  6811                 I wanted to record those individuals
15     infected in this vacuum when it was unclear if their
16     voices would ever be heard.
17  6812                 During this period I travelled across
18     Canada, visiting households and those individuals
19     infected.  To do this properly, I convinced the best
20     engineers to assist me.  Lorne Tulk has over three
21     decades of experience at the CBC; Vic Parsons, the
22     esteemed journalist of two and a half decades with
23     Canada Press and the author of the definitive book "Bad
24     Blood:  The Tragedy of the Canadian Tainted Blood
25     Scandal".
                          StenoTran

                             1479

 1  6813                 Vic Parsons introduced me to the
 2     reticent community of those infected with HIV, Aids and
 3     hepatitis.
 4  6814                 My team in place, I crisscrossed
 5     Canada between Newfoundland and British Columbia.  I
 6     recorded those Canadian voices when government tried to
 7     censor public inquiry to reflect Canadians honestly to
 8     Canadians.
 9  6815                 When I had gathered as many words and
10     images as I could, I approached the public
11     broadcasters.  TV Ontario and the CBC acted abysmally.
12  6816                 I expected that this work would be
13     cross-checked and scrutinized; and once verified, I
14     would be given an opportunity to earn a licence on
15     merit.
16  6817                 I knew I had to do what a public
17     broadcaster could not contemplate:  20,000 kilometres
18     of travel; 100 location remotes; legal clearances;
19     lights, cameras, action...
20  6818                 I knew that CBC could not film in
21     this manner.  So I did.
22  6819                 I expected to prove our licence merit
23     by content and relevance, not pitch or context.
24  6820                 I listened when the Canadian
25     Independent Film Caucus told me about vertical
                          StenoTran

                             1480

 1     predatory integration.  I know a bit about Option B.  I
 2     am told that out of every dedicated tax dollar, 17
 3     cents reaches the producer.  I learned that of 49
 4     "Witness" documentaries produced in 1997, over half
 5     were delivered by former or current CBC employees.
 6  6821                 I knew about diversity and mandates
 7     and broadcast licences.  What I was not prepared for
 8     was how contemptuous those public broadcasters are
 9     toward the truly independent filmmaker.
10                                                        1835
11  6822                 In the fall of 1997, having spent
12     several years gathering and editing this material, I
13     approached the public broadcasters and after some
14     efforts I was successful and granted an opportunity to
15     showcase some of the assembled rough material.
16  6823                 This is the stage when my experiences
17     turned for the worst and in summary, I can only
18     conclude that the broadcasters acted dishonestly,
19     discourteously and unprofessionally.  Original material
20     was ignored, lost and required my considerable efforts
21     to retrieve.
22  6824                 Correspondence reported our meeting
23     inaccurately, forcing me to concentrate my efforts on
24     confrontation about dishonest reporting of our history.
25  6825                 To speculate on why public
                          StenoTran

                             1481

 1     broadcasters turned mute to further inquiry is
 2     pointless, but in summary, it is their blindness to
 3     courteously and professionally respond to our
 4     considerable efforts.  That's what concerns me most.
 5  6826                 Specifically, why, as guardians of
 6     the single most ingredient, the broadcast licence, with
 7     which to disseminate our documentary with Canadians,
 8     they dismissed a promising dialogue and how there is no
 9     avenue for accountability.
10  6827                 Ultimately, it is a question of why
11     our documentary remains apart and removed from any
12     possibility for further viewing and judgment by those
13     Canadians who believe their tax dollars go to support
14     exemplary Canadian documentary production.
15  6828                 The NFB pronounced and I quote:
16                            "Your proposal reflects the type
17                            of socio-cultural subjects that
18                            the NFB has supported over the
19                            many years that we have been
20                            producing films and we
21                            congratulate you on your effort
22                            in preparing and researching
23                            this subject."
24  6829                 This documentary film was awarded a
25     total of two thousand, five hundred dollars.
                          StenoTran

                             1482

 1  6830                 While it is sad that all of my
 2     resources spent on attempting to articulate this topic
 3     to a Canadian audience were wasted, my point in
 4     describing this experience today is to inquire what it
 5     is about this system that despite the extraordinary
 6     efforts of professionals, ensures my production cannot
 7     ever consider telling another story beyond this one.
 8  6831                 I have no solutions to offer this
 9     Commission, just this story of not producing a
10     documentary rather than showing an audience the
11     finished film.
12  6832                 I had the vision to document events
13     before they became our history.  If those same public
14     broadcasters had considered my material one year ago
15     when I presented it to them, I believe that this film
16     would be complete and able to air nationally today.
17  6833                 Is it not ironic that the words of
18     those individuals who our government attempted to
19     censor are silenced yet again?
20  6834                 Broadcasters must be denied direct
21     access to production funds.  Those funds should be made
22     available to truly independent documentary producers. 
23     Broadcasters must be denied direct access to broadcast
24     licences allowing access to production funds by their
25     direct connection to non-arms length productions.
                          StenoTran

                             1483

 1  6835                 As it stands now, current practice
 2     limits funds available to truly independent production
 3     companies and discourage a meaningful dialogue between
 4     producers and broadcasters.  The result if
 5     self-censoring among those producers granted a licence
 6     held by the broadcasters.
 7  6836                 The CRTC must separate the selection
 8     criteria of suitable content of documentaries from the
 9     broadcaster to remove the prohibitive control and
10     censorship they exercise which determines the most
11     inexpensive, speedily produced monster-home/life and
12     times film airs rather than the "large scale"
13     thoughtful documentary Canadians believe they produce.
14  6837                 If this separation is accomplished in
15     a meaningful way, the kind of false dialogue that I
16     experienced with CBC and TV Ontario can be eliminated,
17     enabling broadcasters to restrict their efforts to air
18     and to schedule programs that offer independent
19     producers the true opportunity to envision meaningful
20     and honest content that both challenge and inspire our
21     national audience and result in documentary films
22     worthy of international audiences.
23  6838                 This might also resolve another
24     aspect whether government directs our money to agencies
25     that do not offend or embarrass otherwise.
                          StenoTran

                             1484

 1  6839                 There are two quotes that I would
 2     like to contrast.  One is by E. L. Doctor:
 3                            "Creativity is like driving a
 4                            car at night.  You never see
 5                            further than your headlights but
 6                            you make the whole trip that
 7                            way."
 8  6840                 The other quote is from Mark
 9     Starowicz.  I am sure you are aware he is ahead of
10     documentaries at the CBC.
11                            "What I am good at is the most
12                            unpleasant part of the job:  the
13                            politics of the CBC."
14  6841                 Thank you.
15  6842                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr.
16     Wiggins.
17  6843                 Commissioner McKendry.
18  6844                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you and
19     thank you for coming to Hull to meet with us.
20  6845                 I have a couple of questions about
21     your particular experience that you have described to
22     us and then I have some questions that flow from that
23     particular area in relation to the recommendations that
24     you set out at the end of your written submission.
25  6846                 I noticed you say in your written
                          StenoTran

                             1485

 1     submission, and you repeated that, I think, earlier,
 2     you spent several years gathering and editing this
 3     material.  How long did it take you to put this
 4     together?
 5  6847                 MR. WIGGINS:  I actually began the
 6     collecting of the interview material in August of 1996. 
 7     Winter forced me to stop in early February of 1997.  I
 8     edited the material.
 9  6848                 I would like to give you an idea of
10     the content.  We were able to speak to 60 individuals
11     at a hundred remote locations between St. John's,
12     Newfoundland, and Victoria, British Columbia.  The
13     transcripts of those digital audio conversations total
14     6,000 pages.  We were able to digest the 6,000 pages,
15     to distil those to an audio edit script of under 200
16     pages.
17  6849                 To come back to your original
18     question, I approached the broadcasters, having
19     gathered my material, edited my material, approximately
20     one year ago, in the fall of 1997.  There was
21     considerable work that I had done before August of 1996
22     to prepare for this trip.
23  6850                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you.
24  6851                 I take it you have only tried to sell
25     the film to TV Ontario and the CBC.  Have you
                          StenoTran

                             1486

 1     approached any of the other potential buyers for your
 2     film?  I'm thinking, for example, of the specialty
 3     channels that exist in Canada.
 4  6852                 MR. WIGGINS:  My focus at the time in
 5     November of 1997 was on the public broadcasters.  I
 6     think it's very important that I share something that I
 7     am ashamed of now.
 8  6853                 The public broadcasters told me that
 9     Canadians didn't want to know about this topic, that
10     they didn't want to hear the material.  Our household
11     believed them and we stopped further work on the film
12     at that time.
13  6854                 I allowed them to second-guess my
14     vision.  I am ashamed because if I had finished, if I
15     had somehow found the resources, the energy to edit
16     that material, then I would have had a film that could
17     have aired, at least to a small audience in an
18     auditorium, in a gym, instead of now being here telling
19     you about a film that's not finished.
20  6855                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I guess
21     what's leading me to ask this question is the market,
22     as I understand, in Canada wouldn't go beyond TV
23     Ontario and the CBC.  For example, we had on Saturday
24     an independent producer tell us of her experience of
25     shooting a film in South Africa on her own initiative
                          StenoTran

                             1487

 1     without any financial support other than her own
 2     resources and, I suppose those of her family.
 3  6856                 She was shooting it because she had a
 4     passion to shoot this film.  It was a film about the
 5     role of women in the new South Africa.  She had
 6     approached buyers or potential buyers of her film,
 7     showing them rough cuts and ultimately found one. In
 8     this case it happened to be Vision.
 9  6857                 I guess what I am wondering is have
10     you explored or do you think you should explore any
11     other opportunities other than the CBC or TV Ontario?
12  6858                 MR. WIGGINS:  I guess I can answer
13     that honestly.  I am a touch hesitant because I haven't
14     signed a formal contract and it puts a slightly
15     different perspective on this discussion.
16  6859                 Don Haig is our Executive Producer. 
17     This is, as I qualified it, not formalized in a legal
18     sense but I have a great deal of confidence in our
19     relationship.
20  6860                 Don, as an example, produced the two
21     hour Nettie Wild documentary on Chiapas that had two
22     hours on CBC just this past week.  Don Haig was awarded
23     an Oscar for the documentary on Artie Shaw.  Don Haig,
24     if there's a broadcast to be obtained, a broadcast
25     licence, I have every confidence that he will obtain
                          StenoTran

                             1488

 1     that.
 2  6861                 The perspective that I talked about
 3     is that Don Haig is 66 years of age.  He has produced
 4     documentaries for longer than I have been alive.  I
 5     think you can understand what I am alluding to.  He's
 6     on the inside.
 7  6862                 The content hasn't changed.  The film
 8     material didn't change from the day that I distilled it
 9     to today.  The only difference is who tells the
10     broadcasters context, not content.
11  6863                 I may be lucky.  I may get a chance
12     to have this film finished.  The experience with Don
13     Haig was an angel descending from the heavens.  I want
14     to try and focus the CRTC to look at my experience not
15     as sour grapes because there are some tremendous
16     moments of triumph in it.
17  6864                 The context, and as I said earlier
18     whatever it is in the system, the system couldn't,
19     wouldn't or didn't want to look at my topic.  I just
20     set out to tell a Canadian story.  I didn't have time
21     because of the vacuum in which the Red Cross and the
22     Canadian government had held the Krever Inquiry at the
23     Supreme Court level of Canada.
24  6865                 I didn't have the luxury of trying to
25     find an Executive Producer or make the pitch.  I had to
                          StenoTran

                             1489

 1     go out and get that material then.
 2  6866                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Let me ask
 3     you about one of your suggestions or recommendations to
 4     us in your written submission.  You ask us, and I quote
 5     here, it's on the last page of your submission:
 6                            -- separate the selection
 7                            criteria of suitable content of
 8                            documentaries from the
 9                            broadcaster to remove the
10                            prohibitive control and
11                            censorship they exercise --"
12  6867                 I'm wondering if you can elaborate on
13     this and specifically, I'm wondering if you are
14     suggesting that the broadcaster would have to take
15     content selected by another party.  Is that what your
16     recommendation boils down to?
17  6868                 MR. WIGGINS:  Let me start with the
18     first part of your question.  I believe it centres
19     around the relationships with independent production
20     houses or non-arm's length production houses.
21  6869                 If a broadcaster can award himself a
22     broadcast licence or at least a production house with
23     an intimate relationship, then the topic I believe is
24     secondary to the context of the funding mechanism. 
25     This is what marginalizes the funds and the broadcast
                          StenoTran

                             1490

 1     licences available to me.
 2  6870                 As an example, I spoke about
 3     "Witness" in 1997.  Out of 49 documentaries
 4     commissioned, over half were done by the CBC or former
 5     CBC employees.  In fact, one individual was responsible
 6     for seven.
 7  6871                 Now, I don't believe that one
 8     individual can produce seven diverse content
 9     documentaries in one broadcast season.  More
10     importantly than that, because I'm not particularly in
11     humiliating myself or another film maker in attempting
12     to balance who's content is superior, it's the
13     unreasonable relationship when context broadcast
14     licence funding triggers in a relationship.  A
15     symbiotic relationship is what's more important to a
16     broadcaster, i.e. the mechanisms of producing over the
17     content.
18  6872                 I don't know if I have answered your
19     question very clearly.
20  6873                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Well, you
21     certainly have helped me understand your view.  I guess
22     the bottom line of my question is if we did what you
23     are suggesting, does that mean that the broadcaster
24     would have to accept content that was determined by
25     somebody else?
                          StenoTran

                             1491

 1  6874                 MR. WIGGINS:  I'm sorry, I had
 2     actually slipped that second part of the question which
 3     I did want to address.  I contemplated that and I don't
 4     have an easy answer.  The last thing I want to do is
 5     tell anybody what they have to air.
 6  6875                 I happen to believe that those two
 7     contrasting points have a middle ground.  I believe
 8     that CBC as an example should be subjected to the same
 9     content selection criteria that my film would as
10     opposed to short-circuiting and immediately go from
11     broadcast licence to funding.
12  6876                 I don't think that immediately
13     connects to CBC being told by an outside party what
14     they have to air.
15  6877                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  During the
16     proceeding, and I don't know whether you have had an
17     opportunity to consider any of the other submissions
18     that have been made to us with respect to
19     documentaries, but there have been several submissions
20     about steps we can take to give documentaries in a
21     general higher profile in prime time, for example, by
22     allowing more credit and so on than they receive now.
23  6878                 Do you have any thoughts about that
24     as a documentary film producer?  Is there anything you
25     think we could do or should do to give documentaries a
                          StenoTran

                             1492

 1     higher prominence?
 2  6879                 MR. WIGGINS:  I believe that I said
 3     in my statement that I would try and leave the Canadian
 4     Independent Film Caucus, which I was a member of, the
 5     opportunity to debate policy because they are certainly
 6     well equipped, more so than I am.
 7  6880                 I do know a little bit about specific
 8     categories, under-represented categories.  I don't know
 9     the history, but I do know that documentaries have been
10     precluded and, therefore, marginalized from prime time
11     viewing.
12  6881                 The networks have absolutely no
13     incentive, in fact there are disincentives, to air long
14     form documentaries during prime time.  That to me is
15     unacceptable.  To quote the Canadian Independent Film
16     Caucus, there should be a level playing field. 
17     Documentaries should be brought up to par with the
18     under-represented categories.
19  6882                 In fact, the credit should probably
20     be over 100 per cent because I truly believe that
21     documentaries reflect Canadian stories to Canadians
22     more accurately than any other genre.
23  6883                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you
24     very much.  Those were the questions that I had for
25     you.
                          StenoTran

                             1493

 1  6884                 I wish you well with your film.  It's
 2     a topic that hasn't gone away, so perhaps you will be
 3     able to find an opportunity to have it exhibited.
 4  6885                 Thank you very much.
 5  6886                 MR. WIGGINS:  Thank you.
 6  6887                 I had a vision once.  I perhaps
 7     shouldn't have swayed from that vision.  I should have
 8     finished that film.
 9  6888                 Whatever is going to unfold will
10     unfold, so it's very important for me to not try to be
11     remembered at this Commission that these are the sour
12     grapes of a film maker who's topic was turned down.
13  6889                 A commissioning producer at CBC or
14     TVO should have every right to exercise a subjective
15     decision on what he is responsible for.  That's not my
16     point.  My point is that the dialogue based on merit
17     didn't occur.  I believe that dialogue didn't occur
18     because the broadcasters are not motivated to air long
19     form documentaries as we spoke about and, (b) the
20     non-arm's length relationship that I spoke about, and I
21     used "Witness" as an example, prohibits their interests
22     in any meaningful discussion with people outside that
23     particular envelope.
24                                                        1855
25  6890                 So, I am here to talk more, to focus
                          StenoTran

                             1494

 1     more about the way business is done -- or, excuse me, I
 2     am here to talk about the business of telling stories
 3     to Canadians, not the business of how stories are told. 
 4     Canadians want to hear Canadian stories, Canadians
 5     don't want to hear CBC telling Canadians how CBC tells
 6     Canadian stories.  I have a story to tell and I am
 7     confident that it will be heard and seen at some point.
 8  6891                 Thank you for your interest.
 9  6892                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you
10     very much.  We greatly appreciate hearing from people
11     such as yourself who are struggling to make films and
12     struggling to see their visions carried through.  So,
13     it's very, very helpful to us to have people such as
14     yourself come and talk to us.
15  6893                 Thank you.
16  6894                 MR. WIGGINS:  It's not a particularly
17     good way to get a broadcast licence.  So, I am sorry if
18     I was nervous to begin with.  I hope I articulated
19     clearly.
20  6895                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  You were very
21     clear.  Thank you.
22  6896                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
23     Cardozo?
24  6897                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  It seems to me
25     you have two stories to tell.  One is the tainted blood
                          StenoTran

                             1495

 1     and the other is the business of making films, which
 2     you have told us very passionately.
 3  6898                 I don't have a question, it's just to
 4     let you know that one of the things you said in your
 5     comments and which was in your written brief helps
 6     answer the question that I have been asking a few
 7     witnesses, which is, "Why should production funds go to
 8     -- why should broadcasters not be eligible for the
 9     production funds that independent producers are
10     eligible for", and I think you have outlined in your
11     written submissions some of those arguments very
12     pointedly.  I just wanted to note that and thank you
13     for that.
14  6899                 MR. WIGGINS:  I am glad that they
15     connected.  Thank you.
16  6900                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
17     Pennefather?
18  6901                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Mr.
19     Wiggins, thank you for bringing the question of freedom
20     of expression information in this country to our
21     attention.  My only comment is to hope, indeed, that
22     you can conclude your relationship with Mr. Haig.  He
23     is probably one of the greatest demonstrations of how
24     that is done in this country and I do hope and I wish
25     you well in your association with him.
                          StenoTran

                             1496

 1  6902                 MR. WIGGINS:  I believe in Don Haig. 
 2     He has only come on board between the time that I
 3     submitted my draft, which I believe was June 20th or
 4     thereabouts, and this actual hearing.  I had some
 5     consternation about introducing that relationship and I
 6     think it's very important that we contemplate for a
 7     moment not only that he, by his merits of his history
 8     -- I think I believe that I understood and I said that
 9     he has been producing documentaries perhaps as long as
10     I have been alive -- maybe not quite so, I don't want
11     to tell on his age that accurately -- but what about
12     the person that Don Haig didn't get a chance to speak
13     to?
14  6903                 I referred to him as an angel because
15     I am blessed that he found me and I am blessed that he
16     understands and shares my vision, but how many other
17     filmmakers are there out there that he cannot talk to?
18  6904                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Well, he
19     has covered a lot of ground over the years and I should
20     encourage you, in my experience, that they are there.
21  6905                 MR. WIGGINS:  Few and far between.
22  6906                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  But they
23     are there.
24  6907                 MR. WIGGINS:  Thank you.
25  6908                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr.
                          StenoTran

                             1497

 1     Wiggins.  Have a good trip back.  You will go back with
 2     your clean shirt and your clean suit.  You should
 3     consider that a bonus.  We enjoyed having you.
 4  6909                 MR. WIGGINS:  Thank you.
 5  6910                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will now adjourn
 6     until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning.
 7     --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1900,
 8         to resume on Tuesday, September 29th, 1998
 9         at 0900 /  L'audience est ajournée à 1900,
10         pour reprendre le mardi 29 septembre 1998
11         à 0900
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                          StenoTran
Date modified: