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This page has been archived on the Web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.



                       SUBJECT / SUJET:


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 29, 1998      29 septembre 1998

                           Volume 6



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


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


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

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 29, 1998      29 septembre 1998

                           Volume 6


Presentation by / Présentation par:

Norflicks Productions Ltd.                        1498

Stornoway Productions                             1558

Salter Street Films                               1590

Groupe TVA inc.                                   1620

CTEQ Television Inc.                              1717

Breakthrough Films and Television Inc.            1760

GRJM, Groupe de recherche sur les jeunes          1813
et les médias

CINAR Films Inc. and/et Nelvana Limited           1849

TVNC, Television Northern Canada Inc.             1901


                           Volume 3
           September 25, 1998 / Le 25 septembre 1998

Page    Line /  

1316     15     "change"
                should read / devrait se lire

1336      2     "COMMISSIONER CORDOZO"
                should read / devrait se lire
                "COMMISSIONER CARDOZO"

1337      2     "COMMISSIONER CORDOZO"
                should read / devrait se lire
                "COMMISSIONER CARDOZO"

         13     "COMMISSIONER CORDOZO"
                should read / devrait se lire
                "COMMISSIONER CARDOZO"

1473      9     "Condition of Licence"
                should read / devrait se lire
                "Conditions of Licence"


 1                                Hull, Quebec / Hull (Québec)
 2     --- Upon resuming on Tuesday, September 29, 1998,
 3         at 0900 / L'audience reprend le mardi
 4         29 septembre 1998, à 0900
 5  6911                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning,
 6     everyone.
 7  6912                 Madam Secretary, would you invite the
 8     next participant, please.
 9  6913                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
10  6914                 The first presentation this morning
11     will be made by Norflicks Production Limited and I
12     would invite Mr. Wesley to introduce his colleague.
14  6915                 MR. WESLEY:  Thank you.
15  6916                 We would like to thank the Commission
16     for allowing us this time to state our views on the
17     question of Canadian content and the state of our
18     industry.
19  6917                 I am David Wesley, Vice-President
20     Development for Norflicks Productions.  With me is
21     Richard Nielsen, President and owner of Norflicks
22     Productions.
23  6918                 Norflicks is a medium sized
24     production company with revenues of approximately $2
25     million annually, employing nine people with various


 1     associated free-lancers, and the larger free-lance
 2     community providing people for bigger projects.  More
 3     than 80 per cent of our total revenues go in wages and
 4     salaries.
 5  6919                 We are undergoing significant
 6     expansion and presently have $40 million worth of
 7     projects in active development with various
 8     broadcasters, including the CBC, ChumCity, the History
 9     Channel, Vision, WIC and Global.  Over 60 per cent of
10     the programs in development also have co-production
11     partners in Britain, Germany, France and the United
12     States.
13  6920                 It is, therefore, vital to our
14     continued existence that the Commission not penalize
15     co-production by insisting on Canadian content
16     requirements that discriminate against treaty
17     co-productions by requiring 100 per cent Canadian
18     personnel.
19  6921                 The present level of co-production
20     activity has been fostered by co-production treaties
21     solemnly entered into by the Canadian government with
22     other friendly countries.  Let's not destroy that
23     initiative in the rush to solve other problems.
24  6922                 Norflicks Productions is a successor
25     company to Primedia Productions, of which Richard


 1     Nielsen was Chairman, and Nielsen-Ferns International,
 2     of which he was President.  Norflicks, like those
 3     companies, has attempted to produce as many of its
 4     programs as possible in both French and English, not
 5     only for the good of the country, but because we found
 6     it to be profitable.
 7  6923                 We believe that Norflicks and its
 8     predecessor companies have produced more bilingual
 9     programs, conceived as such, than the CBC and Radio
10     Canada in the same 25 year period.
11  6924                 Norflicks and its predecessor
12     companies have produced five feature-length movies and
13     two major dramatic series and have yet to employ their
14     first American actor.  At least two of the series have
15     been very successful abroad.
16  6925                 Series you might associate with these
17     companies and Norflicks include "No Price Too High/Le
18     Prix de la LIberté", "Hal Banks:  Canada's Sweetheart",
19     "Tin Flute/Bonheur d'Occasion", "The Newcomers/Les
20     Arrivants". "Images of Love", "Words of Hope" with Jean
21     Vanier, the feature film "The Wars", and "Quebec/Canada
22     1995", a drama produced in 1983, also done as a play in
23     French, and which predicted a constitutional crisis in
24     1995.
25  6926                 We think Norflicks is illustrative of


 1     the kind of company the Commission's regulations should
 2     try to foster.  Most of the programs we have done would
 3     not have been initiated by a broadcaster.  Some were
 4     initially resisted by them.
 5  6927                 Since Norflicks is small enough to
 6     exist viably in any one of seven or eight Canadian
 7     centres from coast to coast, we and production
 8     companies like us, effectively regionalize production
 9     without cumbersome regulation and bureaucratic
10     intervention.
11  6928                 Public company has meant that
12     companies like ours, some smaller, some larger, are
13     scattered literally coast to coast.  Bigness, as
14     exemplified by Alliance/Atlantis, has not served the
15     country nearly as well.
16  6929                 By definition, bigness encourages
17     centralization as does broadcasting, thus compounding
18     the problems centralization causes.  To survive,
19     smaller companies have to be creatively driven while
20     bigness inevitably means that the programs will be deal
21     driven and the creators forced to follow on.
22  6930                 The result of deal driven television
23     is imitative television, like "Traders" which
24     foreigners tend not to buy because it is not the real
25     thing, which is readily available from Hollywood with


 1     bigger stars and better production values.
 2  6931                 The jewels in Atlantis' crown were
 3     all placed there in the first five or ten years of its
 4     existence when it was about the same size as Norflicks. 
 5     Companies like Norflicks, or larger ones like Salter
 6     Street, can do large projects.
 7  6932                 The free-lance infrastructure
 8     fostered by American productions, taking advantage of
 9     the low Canadian dollar, has done that for us, but
10     large companies cannot and will not do the smaller
11     projects like "No Price Too High" which often serve the
12     interests of the Canadian public and the Canadian
13     industry better.
14  6933                 Above all, the Commission must
15     correct its error in giving certain production
16     companies broadcast licences.  Broadcasters
17     legitimately ask if producers can be broadcasters, then
18     why cannot broadcasters become producers.
19  6934                 We all know that if broadcasters do
20     become producers, it will put an end to the independent
21     production industry.  We, for instance, under those
22     circumstances would fold our tent and seek jobs with
23     one broadcaster or another.  Also, of course, the
24     subsidies that presently come to us and which
25     broadcasters seek for themselves would quickly


 1     disappear if networks were to be given access to them.
 2  6935                 What politician could defend hundreds
 3     of millions of taxpayers' dollars going to Baton or
 4     Global, both highly profitable as a result of being
 5     granted broadcast licences by this Commission?
 6  6936                 You have received our brief and we
 7     will therefore not read it, but we hope you will.  It
 8     is short enough that we hope you will not need to
 9     resort to summaries, despite the number of briefs you
10     have received.  We made 20 recommendations of which the
11     most important are the following.
12  6937                 The decision as to whether a program
13     is Canadian must be determined, not by any point system
14     which can be manipulated, but by an agency, preferably
15     Telefilm, that bases its judgment on whether a program
16     is designed for a Canadian audience, made mainly by
17     Canadians and produced by a Canadian company:  programs
18     for, by and of Canadians, to paraphrase Lincoln.  Thus,
19     all programs requiring funding will have to apply for a
20     Canadian certificate.
21  6938                 What is essential is that the
22     certification procedure be discretionary, not subject
23     to a point structure, and that it be independent of the
24     mechanism responsible for allocating cable money.
25  6939                 The allocation of cable fund money


 1     should be made on the basis of the broadcaster's
 2     financial interest.  Those projects with the largest
 3     licence fees as a percentage of budget should be funded
 4     first, and so on, until all the money in the fund is
 5     expended.
 6  6940                 Foreign co-production money should be
 7     added to the broadcaster's licence fee as a means of
 8     encouraging producers to seek co-producers abroad and
 9     of assuring foreign producers that Canadian producers
10     will supply the money they undertake to provide. 
11     Presently there is no such assurance and European and
12     other co-production partners are often left in the
13     lurch, thus damaging Canada's reputation.
14  6941                 To summarize, one, the object of all
15     government policy must be to foster a Canadian cultural
16     presence at home and abroad.  Two, a Canadian TV
17     program, film or series is one that is made primarily
18     by Canadians, financed mainly by Canadians for a
19     Canadian audience by a company controlled by Canadians.
20  6942                 Three, an agency, perhaps Telefilm,
21     must determine what is and what it not a Canadian film,
22     applying only the criteria in clause two.  Four, no
23     broadcaster should be able to access any of these
24     production moneys except through an independent
25     producer.


 1  6943                 Five, a broadcaster is anyone who
 2     owns a broadcast licence.  Six, the total funds
 3     available must be available to all on an equal basis,
 4     i.e. no special CBC envelope but no ceiling either.
 5  6944                 Seven, in order to encourage
 6     development of successful programs, the cable fund
 7     should allocate 5 per cent of its total resources to
 8     broadcasters to be paid by them to independent
 9     producers to help ensure that independents will develop
10     the kind of product the networks require.
11  6945                 This money will be allocated to
12     broadcasters on the basis of money spent by them in the
13     previous fiscal year on independent programs.  The
14     broadcaster will also be required to contribute 10 per
15     cent of development costs from its own resources.
16  6946                 The above recommendations and those
17     not included here are meant to encourage broadcaster
18     participation in the development of programs, to ensure
19     that programs that require financial support are made
20     by Canadians for a Canadian audience, to force
21     broadcasters to pay more for Canadian programs by
22     channelling funding to those whose licence fee is
23     highest as a percentage of the total budget.
24  6947                 To encourage co-production as a means
25     of subsidizing Canadian content by allowing such moneys


 1     to help assure CTCPF funding assistance.  To encourage
 2     that segment of the industry that services American
 3     production, without permitting its interests to
 4     undermine other aspects of the film and television
 5     policies designed to foster genuine Canadian
 6     production.
 7  6948                 To maintain a felicitous separation
 8     between broadcasting and production and to protect
 9     producers from unfair competition from broadcasters who
10     in some cases have become both our customers and our
11     competitors.
12  6949                 To level the Canadian playing field
13     so that American and foreign producers can compete on
14     even terms for the right to co-produce Canadian content
15     with Canadian producers, thus increasing the money
16     available.
17  6950                 Inevitably, those who come before you
18     tend to brag.  We did a little of that today and in
19     doing so, we risk creating a false impression that all
20     is well in the Canadian production industry.  It is
21     not.  Canadian broadcasters, this Commission, and
22     Canadian independent producers must accept
23     responsibility for the fact that Canadian programs
24     often fail to attract or delight Canadian audiences.
25  6951                 Of the 20 most popular TV programs in


 1     the Toronto area, not one is Canadian.  No country in
 2     the world has a record this bad.
 3                                                        0910
 4  6952                 Contrary to newspaper hype and what
 5     you have heard from the CAB, Canadian programs do not
 6     sell well abroad.  Our export total is wildly inflated
 7     by the sale of U.S. shows that come back here to be
 8     made.  They are Canadian in name only.  We have had
 9     success in children's programs and animation, and very
10     little else.
11  6953                 You and your predecessor commissions
12     have consistently paid too much attention to
13     commercial, technological, political and bureaucratic
14     interests, and not enough to creative realities.
15  6954                 Hollywood is a success not because of
16     its business acumen and practices, but because its
17     creators have created a demand for what Hollywood
18     makes.  That's show business, and it's not an
19     industrial achievement, but a creative one.  We can do
20     that too, but only if we make Canada a good place in
21     which to make programs.  It is not that now and has not
22     been for some time.  To make Canadian broadcasters
23     producers would be to ignore their dismal record as
24     such.
25  6955                 With an exception here and there,


 1     Canadian broadcasters lack faith in Canadian ideas and
 2     talent, and this is the major barrier to excellence
 3     that needs to be overcome.  So be careful not to make
 4     things worse by rewarding failure.  Look carefully at
 5     what has succeeded with Canadian audiences and foster
 6     that.
 7  6956                 Money is part of the problem -- it
 8     always is.  But it's not the core of the problem. 
 9     Everywhere that good TV is made, the actual creative
10     units are small.  The present system which compels
11     producers and broadcasters to be in partnership, can be
12     made to work if broadcasters can be persuaded to adopt
13     the positive attitude toward Canadian talent that
14     independent producers already possess.
15  6957                 That, after 15 years of being forced
16     to work together, broadcasters should now seek our
17     destruction, is an indication of how grudging their
18     participation has been.  The partnership mandated by
19     the regulations of what was formerly the Broadcast Fund
20     and is now the TV Fund, has been substantially
21     undermined by the attitude of broadcasters, both public
22     and private.  Don't reward them for their
23     intransigence.
24  6958                 I would like to also note that you
25     have a chart that we have added.  Norflicks is in a


 1     unique position because it and its corporate ancestors
 2     have been independent producers of television for over
 3     three decades and we did a little math to look at where
 4     the funding for our programming has actually come over
 5     that period.  We would be happy to answer any questions
 6     on the chart or anything else.  Thank you.
 7  6959                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr.
 8     Wesley.
 9  6960                 Commissioner McKendry.
10  6961                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you,
11     Madam Chair.
12  6962                 Good morning.  I have a couple of
13     questions about your chart but, as you mentioned to us,
14     Norflicks has been in this business for a long time.  I
15     thought it might be helpful to us if you could just
16     give us a sketch of what your perception is of the
17     major changes that have taken place in the industry in
18     that time and have now left you to conclude that I
19     guess all is not well in the Canadian production
20     industry because you say in your oral comments this
21     morning:
22                            "Inevitably, those who come
23                            before you tend to brad.  We did
24                            a little of that today, and in
25                            doing so, we risk creating a


 1                            false impression, that all is
 2                            well...."
 3  6963                 If you could give us a sketch of the
 4     last couple of decades, the major trends and changes in
 5     the production industry.
 6  6964                 MR. NIELSEN:  I think the major
 7     trends that I would note are since 1984 when the
 8     Broadcast Fund was created, which my then partner and
 9     I, Pat Ferns, were credited by Knowlton Nash with
10     having lobbied successfully for.  Its intent was to get
11     independent producers a kind of equality with
12     broadcasters.
13  6965                 What has happened, essentially, is
14     the CBC created an independent production department
15     and so on to facilitate business relationships and this
16     was really very successful.  I think a lot of the
17     programs done under that initially were sort of
18     producer driven.
19  6966                 Subsequent to that, we have seen a
20     constant erosion, to the point where that department
21     not longer exists at CBC, where we frequently deal with
22     program departments whose direction basically
23     determines what we do.
24  6967                 A few years ago the CBC, I think
25     because of its budget cuts, decided to finance programs


 1     like its biography show, what is it, "Life and Times,"
 2     with very large payments by Telefilm, up to 49 per cent
 3     of its costs.  This is one of the things that depleted
 4     the Telefilm fund when we approach -- that explains
 5     last spring when there was too little money there.
 6  6968                 So that a lot of that -- we are in
 7     the position where we go in and do development with the
 8     CBC, where they say, "Well, you can't access Telefilm. 
 9     We determine whether you can access Telefilm or not."
10  6969                 The money that was put in the
11     Broadcast Fund, which was to give us some kind of
12     equality, is now regarded as broadcaster money.  It is
13     very much a matter of attitude here.  The people who
14     suffer most from this are not simply us, but very
15     little is talent driven.
16  6970                 The success of something, whether one
17     likes it or not, I happen to like it, but Finkelman's
18     stuff on the CBC is successful because it is driven by
19     his insight into what he wants television to be.  He
20     has an opportunity to forge a relationship with
21     audience based upon his view of audience based upon his
22     view of audience.  He, therefore, has an opportunity to
23     learn from that.
24  6971                 When you have broadcasters being very
25     certain about what it is they want, the creative


 1     community -- the creative community doesn't respond to
 2     that.  We respond to that and then we go to the
 3     creative community and we hope on occasion we are parts
 4     of it, but we go to them and try to wedge their
 5     interests into that process.
 6  6972                 I don't think we will ever be able to
 7     compete with the factory production of Hollywood, much
 8     of which I admire.  I think that the future for
 9     television in Canada is to improve on the opportunity
10     that talent has in the North American setting because
11     inevitably the factory systems of Hollywood, though
12     it's strange to go there -- I mean, Seinfeld is created
13     because somebody loves Seinfeld.  That doesn't happen
14     very often in Canada and that is the central problem
15     that we face.
16  6973                 I think the scramble to be seen to be
17     doing Canadian things -- I mean I am sorry we have to
18     attack "Traders" because there is nothing particularly
19     wrong with "Traders," but there's nothing particularly
20     good either.  We are in a business where mediocrity is
21     death and competence isn't enough.  You have to be
22     better than that.
23  6974                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you.
24  6975                 I just had a couple of questions on
25     the chart you distributed this morning, "Sources of


 1     Financing."  There is a statement on there:
 2                            "What the three decade figures
 3                            reveal is a very substantial
 4                            subsidy by Norflicks to Canadian
 5                            broadcasters, in particularly,
 6                            the CBC."
 7  6976                 Then you go on to say:
 8                            "Taken together, the CBC has
 9                            received --"
10     almost $12 million:
11                            "-- worth of programs of
12                            $1,805,000 in license fees, or
13                            approximately 15% of the total
14                            budgeted cost."
15  6977                 This may seem like a naive question
16     to you, but I as a consumer regularly pay a licence fee
17     for software I use in my computer that would be a tiny
18     fraction of the cost of the development of that
19     software.  Is this situation that you are describing
20     here different than normal licensing arrangements,
21     where one would not pay for the entire cost of a
22     production typically through a licence fee?  Is there
23     is something in the production industry, though, that's
24     different?
25  6978                 MR. NIELSEN:  No, that's not typical


 1     of television.  What is typical of television on
 2     American networks and in British networks and around
 3     the world is that they pay upwards of 90 per cent.  In
 4     the U.S. what they pay is very carefully calculated, so
 5     that the reruns will in effect -- in other words, the
 6     Americans will pay say 60 per cent or 70 per cent if it
 7     is anticipated that the bank will carry the difference
 8     between that and 100 per cent of the cost because of
 9     anticipated revenue from reruns and foreign sales.
10  6979                 The CBC figures are out of whack with
11     almost anything and indeed would surprise them.
12  6980                 Now, there are a few things in there
13     that explain part of that.  One of them is very
14     interesting.  In the seventies we sold Imperial Oil the
15     possibility of doing "The Newcomers, Les Arrivants,"
16     for their eightieth anniversary.  The CBC then was much
17     less friendly to independent production even than it is
18     now.
19  6981                 It not only paid nothing for the
20     program that Imperial had funded.  It forced Imperial
21     to take ads, even though Imperial didn't run any ads. 
22     So that what you had in that case was a huge subsidy to
23     the CBC, where they got the programs, which were highly
24     successful, for absolutely nothing and indeed were paid
25     for carrying them.  But, as I say, that was another


 1     era, but typically you do not in television -- the
 2     aftermarket for a television program, particularly on
 3     that is Canadian -- in other words, that is directed
 4     with Canadian subject matter, its residual earnings
 5     after its first play, you are very lucky if they count
 6     for 15 per cent.
 7                                                        0920
 8  6982                 So, what is happening here is there
 9     is the subsidy which the government has provided
10     through its agencies and part of what we found
11     interesting when we did this was that we discovered
12     that while those are very important to us, we had from
13     private funding supplied a subsidy and this is very
14     important in the context of the broadcasters now
15     wanting to initiate their own programming and to have
16     access to government funds.
17  6983                 What they will not do is what we have
18     done or approach with nearly as much energy as we have,
19     the collecting of funds from the private sector, from
20     foundations and so on.  No price too high would never
21     have been made.  Two-thirds of the money to make no
22     price too high came from foundations and individuals
23     and agencies.  Very frequently we find that when we
24     want to do something that we think will strike a chord
25     with the Canadian public, if we are right about that,


 1     we can get private people and foundations to support
 2     it.
 3  6984                 What we have difficulty with is
 4     getting broadcasters to support it and it's because
 5     broadcasters' view of that kind of programming is that
 6     it somehow is not mainstream.  They haven't
 7     demonstrated that by ratings, but it is a firm belief.
 8  6985                 I sometimes have compassion for
 9     Canadian broadcasters because going with American
10     programs is so easy.  It isn't just that the American
11     program is there, it's that it has been broadcast and
12     tested so that you know -- unless you are buying the
13     newest issue, you know what you are getting and with us
14     they don't know what we are getting.  Usually, we don't
15     have a series that's going to run for four or five
16     years, so we don't solve as many of their problems.
17  6986                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  The other
18     thing that struck me about your schedule or your
19     sources of financing is looking from the 1970s to the
20     1990s it seems to me at least in your case there has
21     been a shift from private sector funding to government
22     funding in the 1990s.  I added up what I thought were
23     the public components of the funding sources and I was
24     about 51 per cent.  I took the CBC and the government
25     agencies in the NFB.  So, has there been a shift over


 1     the period of time in the industry from private to
 2     public?
 3  6987                 MR. NIELSEN:  Yes, the 1980s and the
 4     1990s represent, of course, the dawn of the broadcast
 5     fund.  That's why that is up and why it's up even
 6     further in the 1990s is that we include the cable fund,
 7     which is not strictly a government fund, but,
 8     nonetheless, is required so that we have that in there
 9     and that's what explains that increase.
10  6988                 What is interesting is CBC's
11     percentage.  I think most people have the perception
12     that it is CBC that is most friendly to independent
13     production.  I have not found that and I hesitate to
14     say that because we have quite a number of projects
15     with the CBC at the moment in development, but in fact
16     that represents a very welcome change.  We have found,
17     as the licence fees indicate, that the private sector
18     broadcasters have been more receptive to what we did in
19     recent years than the CBC.
20  6989                 Another very important factor is the
21     Film Board.  The Film Board in both of the last two
22     decades has been a very important source of funding for
23     us and I don't think it's usually counted as that.  But
24     I also think its regional presence across the country
25     is very important.  I wish it did.  It has recently


 1     changed its policy.  It is now doing less with
 2     independents than it was and I deplore that, but apart
 3     from that, I think its contribution needs to be noted.
 4  6990                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Let me ask
 5     you a couple of questions now about your written
 6     submission and I would like to ask you a question about
 7     a statement made at the bottom of the first page.  I
 8     will read a quote.
 9                            "Meanwhile, some of the major
10                            production companies
11                            specializing in the production
12                            of American programs made in
13                            Canada because of the low dollar
14                            and cheaper crews, found a way
15                            to make these programs
16                            'Canadian', and thus eligible
17                            for Cable Fund money.  To do
18                            this, compliant broadcasters had
19                            to be found who would pay a
20                            broadcast licence fee amounting
21                            to 20 per cent of the program's
22                            budgeted costs.  No one in the
23                            industry actually believes that
24                            they have paid this amount."
25  6991                 What can you offer us today to


 1     substantiate that perspective?
 2  6992                 MR. NIELSEN:  I suspect that the ways
 3     in which this is done are various enough so that it
 4     would be hard to trace them back.  I meant that
 5     statement to read exactly as it says.
 6  6993                 I was at Banff at around this time. 
 7     I literally, in the manner of CNN, asked perhaps 20
 8     people if they believed that the terms of the broadcast
 9     fund had to be 20 per cent of program cost applied in
10     these cases.  I found no one who believed that that was
11     the state of affairs, but I don't know precisely what
12     it is.  I don't know -- there are a number of things. 
13     I don't know whether the budget stated is as having
14     been spent here.
15  6994                 Often these projects are done without
16     the overhead showing on Canadian books because a lot of
17     the overhead is in L.A. or elsewhere.  If the 20 per
18     cent was simply based upon the Canadian money, then it
19     would be a false figure, but it would not be false in
20     terms of what had actually been spent here.  That might
21     be one of the ways in which that is achieved.
22  6995                 What is inconceivable to those of us
23     in the business is that a 20 per cent payment would be
24     made for Canadian projects because that would represent
25     very high licence fees with no benefit in relation to


 1     Canadian production, marginally successful in ratings. 
 2     I don't think any of their schedules are driven by
 3     these programs.  The Commission has the resources to
 4     look at these things and I hope they will.
 5  6996                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you.
 6  6997                 I have a question.  On page 2 you
 7     criticize Alliance and Atlantis for treating Telefilm
 8     equity investment as income and I am wondering what
 9     your suggestion is as to what the proper accounting
10     treatment for that would be if it's not to be treated
11     as income.
12  6998                 MR. NIELSEN:  Well, it's an equity
13     investment in a program.  What we receive from Telefilm
14     is an equity investment that has to be paid back, that
15     has to be accounted for.  When it is treated as income
16     in the year in which it's received, I think it raises
17     questions about that accounting practice and I think it
18     is also -- my accountant tells me that it's improper to
19     mislead myself as to how well I am doing.  I think it's
20     equally dangerous to mislead other people as to how
21     well they are doing and I think that when all but two
22     million of Alliance's profits are accountable by funds
23     from Telefilm, which are in fact not just designed but
24     are legally equity, questions need to be raised.
25  6999                 I don't want to suggest that this --


 1     I mean their financial statements note this.  This is
 2     not a case of something nefarious having been
 3     discovered, but it's something that it is a practice,
 4     which I think is highly questionable.
 5  7000                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  How do you
 6     treat it in your company?
 7  7001                 MR. NIELSEN:  Well, it's a private
 8     company and it may function as income, it keeps us
 9     afloat, but we certainly in the statements do not
10     regard it as profit.
11  7002                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  So, you set
12     it up as some sort of deferred revenue?
13  7003                 MR. NIELSEN:  Telefilm has an
14     investment in those productions.  We certainly use the
15     money in the production.  That's what it's designed
16     for.  It isn't a question as to its application.  Its
17     application is that it helps pay for the show.  It is
18     simply -- once that is done, it represents -- if you
19     were getting equity into the company, you would not be
20     permitted to treat it as income, would you.
21                                                        0935
22  7004                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I understand
23     this to be different than the nature of investment by
24     an owner in the company.
25  7005                 MR. NIELSEN:  Perhaps.


 1  7006                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Perhaps I
 2     could ask you a question about something you brought up
 3     with us this morning in your oral comments.
 4  7007                 This is discussed at page 3 of your
 5     written submission, where you deal with the point
 6     system.  You criticize the point system because, in
 7     your view, it can be manipulated.
 8  7008                 And then you go on to say that it is
 9     essential that the certification process be
10     discretionary.
11  7009                 The question that raised in my mind
12     is:  What could be more subject to manipulation than a
13     discretionary system?
14  7010                 I would like you to reconcile the two
15     views for us.
16  7011                 MR. NIELSEN:  I think the value of
17     discretionary systems is that the people who make the
18     decisions have to take responsibility for them.  The
19     danger of a point system is that everybody says "well,
20     they hit the point system".
21  7012                 Anyone in our business can tell you
22     that it is extremely easy to manipulate the point
23     system.  An art director is worth a point; and over and
24     above the art director can be a production designer --
25     who, if he is an American, is not worth a point.


 1  7013                 A cinematographer can be a lighting
 2     director.  There are a great many variations on that.
 3  7014                 What I object to in that -- and what
 4     anybody in our business objects to -- is that we all
 5     sit around calculating those things and turning
 6     ourselves into semi-crooks to do it.  And we should not
 7     have those kinds of regulations.
 8  7015                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  You are not
 9     concerned that a discretionary process would make the
10     system unduly vulnerable to influence what might be
11     perceived as not independence or fair to competitors?
12  7016                 MR. NIELSEN:  I think all through our
13     lives we rise to that challenge -- and always
14     imperfectly.  But I would encourage it.
15  7017                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Let me ask
16     you about your recommendation that Canadian content
17     should be reduced to 30 percent and that news and
18     sports should be eliminated in calculating Canadian
19     content.
20  7018                 How did you arrive at the percent?
21  7019                 I guess another question related to
22     that is:  What impact do you see this having on the
23     production and scheduling of news and sports, if we
24     adopted this?
25  7020                 MR. NIELSEN:  I think that notably in


 1     the CBC we are getting too much news.  Being a sports
 2     fan, I don't apply it to sports; but my wife does.
 3  7021                 I can't imagine a situation in which
 4     broadcasters are not going to broadcast news.  They
 5     make money from it.  It attracts the Canadian audience.
 6  7022                 But in terms of Canadian content, we
 7     have too much Canadian content; that is, sort of news
 8     and current affairs stuff.  Every time the CBC has to
 9     come up with a new program to Canadianize its schedule,
10     the temptation is there to get that program out of a
11     department that is already funded.
12  7023                 So I think it would be very salutary.
13  7024                 You asked where do I get the 30
14     percent?  Popped into our heads, you know.  We don't
15     have the means of knowing what would be appropriate
16     here.
17  7025                 But we are saying drop that.  People
18     are not going to stop producing Canadian sports.  Let
19     them produce Canadian sports.  Let them produce news. 
20     Drop the quota down significantly and concentrate it
21     where you want to concentrate it, which is in the area
22     of drama and the rest of it -- stuff that we can, if we
23     get good at it, substantially subsidize by sales
24     abroad.
25  7026                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Let me end my


 1     questions by asking you about an area that has been of
 2     some interest to us in this proceeding; and that is,
 3     the emergence of digital television.
 4  7027                 As a program producer that has been
 5     in the business for a long time and is expanding your
 6     business, what are your views on the conversion to
 7     digital TV, particularly as it impacts the production
 8     community?
 9  7028                 MR. NIELSEN:  I gather that the
10     Americans have made a decision that we are going to get
11     this -- what is it, in 2007?  They have evolved a
12     scheme for transferring their whole system from analog
13     to digital.
14  7029                 If they are going to get it, I think
15     we are going to need to follow on.
16  7030                 Also, as a producer, I am as excited
17     as hell by it.  I think the idea that we will digitize
18     all our images and ultimately they will be in a bank
19     somewhere, where I can sit down at a sophisticated
20     editing machine and have access to endless images and
21     create a program out of that -- I think we are going to
22     get back very close to the novel, where one person
23     could sit down and make a film.
24  7031                 Canadians need to be very concerned
25     with what we are doing with our archives, in the light


 1     of this.  I think it would be a great pity if
 2     international companies were able to buy up these
 3     images and charge the earth for them.
 4  7032                 But if I understand what is happening
 5     in the States correctly -- and I might not -- I think
 6     that they are moving toward seeing a totally digitized
 7     system.  We are moving toward that.
 8  7033                 I think it would be very dangerous,
 9     because we have built in a lot of analog components, to
10     resist that change.
11  7034                 It is like the railways.  You hold on
12     to that too long, and you handicap yourself.
13  7035                 Certainly, from a creative point of
14     view, it is marvellous.
15  7036                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you
16     very much.
17  7037                 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
18  7038                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
19     Pennefather, please.
20  7039                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you,
21     Madam Chair.
22  7040                 Good morning.
23  7041                 MR. NIELSEN:  Good morning.
24  7042                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Mr.
25     Nielsen, I would like to ask you to comment on your


 1     proposal regarding feature films.  I believe your
 2     written submission speaks to a proposal that would in
 3     fact permit Canadian features to access the Cable Fund,
 4     to a total of 15 percent of the budget, up to $2
 5     million, since virtually all Canadian features
 6     eventually find their way to television.
 7  7043                 I don't know, but perhaps they do.
 8  7044                 Again, this is important in terms of
 9     the future of feature films, but also the relationship
10     between feature films in Canada and the broadcasters.
11  7045                 You go on, as well, to suggest the
12     pre-buy by broadcasters.
13  7046                 In your response, could you explain
14     to me how feature film producers would be comfortable
15     with this relationship with broadcasters -- which I
16     gather from your previous remarks could end up to be an
17     uncomfortable one, as well, because of the control
18     broadcasters may exercise in terms of the content of
19     the film.
20  7047                 MR. NIELSEN:  One, the business about
21     making features, you tend to have more freedom because
22     it is a one-off.  I don't think broadcasters would be
23     interfering.
24  7048                 I think one of the great weaknesses
25     of the Canadian broadcasting system is how little it


 1     has done for Canadian feature films.
 2  7049                 Europe has maintained a feature film
 3     industry very largely on the basis that television has
 4     subsidized it and paid very large sums of money for
 5     feature films; in Germany, sometimes up to 90 percent.
 6  7050                 Channel 4 in England did the same
 7     thing.
 8  7051                 MR. WESLEY:  PBS in the U.S.
 9  7052                 MR. NIELSEN:  And PBS to some degree.
10  7053                 I think that the need to bring
11     features -- I also think features are a very good thing
12     for Canadians to be producing.  I don't see much of a
13     future for us being able to sell abroad the kind of
14     thing that "Traders" represents, because I don't think
15     we have the star power to do that.
16  7054                 Feature films have a huge network of
17     publicity.  They sell in all sorts of countries.  It is
18     an area certainly dominated by the Americans, but not
19     to the same degree.
20  7055                 I think there is an opportunity here
21     if they get access to Cable Fund; they pre-sell the TV
22     market; they go into theatrical distribution first. 
23     And then our broadcasters then get a product that has
24     had pre-publicity, which is always very useful, and
25     which far too few of our Canadian programs can manage


 1     to achieve.  Features can do that.
 2                                                        0940
 3  7056                 I think that having access to --one
 4     of the great problems of producing a feature in Canada
 5     was that Telefilm came in with huge equity.  In the
 6     case of "The Wars I Did", the NFB also came in with
 7     huge equity.
 8  7057                 I had two partners who expected to
 9     share in the profits and I had a domestic marketplace
10     in television where I was getting 5 per cent of my
11     budget.  The chances of making a profit under those
12     circumstances or of paying back my investors was
13     nothing.  Of course, I made nothing until they were
14     totally paid back.
15  7058                 We have penalized feature film
16     producers by simply the methods we use to finance and
17     of course the excuse the CBC offers if you go and say
18     why are you only giving me 5 per cent is they says you
19     got 75 per cent of your money from Telefilm and the
20     National Film Board, so why are you coming to us for
21     money.
22  7059                 The thing is to establish yourself as
23     a viable film producer under those circumstances or to
24     produce something that is likely to make a return is
25     almost impossible.  I think that one of the reforms


 1     that we should be looking to is a situation in which
 2     the broadcasters not only play Canadian films, but that
 3     they actually put some money into them.
 4  7060                 Incidentally, I don't think it would
 5     be a bad idea if broadcasters -- despite the general
 6     tenure, I think they have a contribution to make.  I
 7     think sometimes they know their audience.  I think it's
 8     not a bad thing for a producer to sometimes run up
 9     against somebody who has a different view of the
10     audience than he has.
11  7061                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I gather
12     that your thesis would include spending and exhibition
13     requirements possibly for future for long form drama,
14     as we were discussing yesterday with Channel A.
15  7062                 MR. NIELSEN:  Yes.
16  7063                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  One last
17     question.  I wanted to be clear.  You said in your
18     presentation this morning that Canadian programs do not
19     sell well abroad despite the hype.
20  7064                 MR. NIELSEN:  Yes.
21  7065                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  And I
22     think you just said to Commissioner McKendry that we
23     have the potential for terrific sales abroad.  Why
24     aren't Canadian products selling well now and what will
25     make the difference that suddenly they will be


 1     acceptable in foreign markets?
 2  7066                 MR. NIELSEN:  Well, I think we should
 3     look at the areas that do sell well abroad, our
 4     children's and cartoon areas and so on.  The reason
 5     they sell is because we are very good.  Whatever one's
 6     taste about "Anne of Green Gables" and so on, anybody
 7     knows that they are totally state of the art when it
 8     comes to children's programming anywhere and
 9     conceivably even have an edge.
10  7067                 I think that the same thing is true
11     of a lot of our cartoons.  When I say there is a huge
12     opportunity for Canadians, the two languages that
13     Canadians speak, you know, represent 85 per cent of the
14     world's TV market.  It's to have the U.S. open to us
15     and speaking English with the same accent, all these
16     things are huge advantages.
17  7068                 The great problem is that if we
18     imitate the Americans, we aren't going to sell these
19     markets.  We probably aren't going to sell anybody else
20     either because why buy an imitation if you can buy the
21     real thing?
22  7069                 If we in fact are different, and you
23     can see this in terms of the highly successful comedy
24     that the CBC has.  Satirical comedy doesn't travel that
25     well because it's tied to a subject matter that limits


 1     it, but not in terms of the range.
 2  7070                 Look at the comics that we send south
 3     to the States who do extremely well.  I want to say
 4     this because I have known a lot of the people who went
 5     south, known them when they were in Canada.  I have
 6     known not one of them who went there for the money. 
 7     First of all, usually Hollywood doesn't call up and
 8     offer you a job.  You go down there.
 9  7071                 They went there for creative freedom
10     and an opportunity to develop their talents.  In
11     general, we haven't done that.  When I'm talking about
12     opportunities, I am saying that we are better situated
13     than any country in the world because of our accents
14     which the Americans accept as theirs, because of our
15     languages and we have not taken -- I mean I do not find
16     when I go to international marketplaces that there are
17     hot Canadian properties, except in the areas that I
18     talked about.
19  7072                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  What's
20     stopping us?
21  7073                 MR. NIELSEN:  What's stopping them is
22     I believe we have an attitude substantially on the part
23     of broadcasters that Canadian talent is not going to
24     ring a lot of bells for them.  I might say that given
25     the record of Canadian shows, entertainment shows, on


 1     Canadian television, there's a good reason for that
 2     attitude.
 3  7074                 Nonetheless, we have to find some way
 4     to break through that barrier.  We have to do our stuff
 5     that is as distinctive as the Australian stuff is, not
 6     distinctive in a national sense.  Incidentally, I
 7     really fear Canadian content defined by a lot of things
 8     I saw.
 9  7075                 I was late in seeing Aton Egoyan's
10     "Calendar", his feature film, a very, very cheap and
11     economical and more Armenian in it than English. 
12     Despite the fact that it says more about our ethnicity
13     in a more profound way than everything I have ever
14     seen, I doubt that it would be considered if we applied
15     some of the rules that are now being discussed to it,
16     either in terms of language and much of it was shot in
17     Armenia.
18  7076                 We have to trust.  I don't think
19     Canadians trust their creative community.  We are very
20     generous in terms of money, reasonably generous in
21     terms of money, but there's never any creative
22     accounting.  We account for the money in all sorts of
23     ways, but we don't go out and say our people with
24     ideas, given the opportunity, to do this.
25  7077                 There are producers out there


 1     searching for Canadian talent, and if they find it, do
 2     they get a receptive response from broadcasters?  This
 3     really doesn't go on very much.  What you have is we
 4     make very bad use of our talent and consequently our
 5     talent drifts south, sometimes to England.
 6  7078                 We kid ourselves when we talk about
 7     gross export sales figures inflated by this or that. 
 8     No one goes -- if you go to a marketplace, you don't
 9     see people rushing around snapping up Canadian
10     material, looking for it.  We push very hard.  We have
11     had a lot of assistance.  Everything tends to sell, but
12     what price does it sell at?
13  7079                 MR. WESLEY:  The first step is to
14     make Canadian programming that Canadians prefer to
15     watch over someone else's programming.  We don't do
16     that now.  If we can't do that as a first step, then
17     it's a little much to expect that other people also
18     want to buy Canadian programming.
19  7080                 I spent a lot of my career as a
20     journalist as a TV critic.  Twenty years ago I was
21     writing columns about the fact that at the time of "The
22     Great Detective" and "King of Kensington", Canadians
23     weren't given Canadian programming that they preferred
24     to watch over the American top 20.
25  7081                 Twenty years later, a number of


 1     Commissions, a number of broadcast policies, that
 2     hasn't fundamentally changed.  I think that's quite
 3     sad.  Looking at how we get that Canadian programming
 4     in front of people to watch to anyone else's
 5     programming is the key.  That involves the kind of
 6     funding and policy decisions that you are here to make.
 7  7082                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you,
 8     Madam Chair.
 9  7083                 THE CHAIRPERSON:
10  7084                 Commissioner Cardozo.
11  7085                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks, Madam
12     Chair.
13  7086                 Mr. Nielsen, I just wanted to follow
14     up on part of your discussion with Commissioner
15     Pennefather right now when you were talking about our
16     assets in terms of languages.  You suggested 85 per
17     cent of the world would be interested in English and
18     French programming.
19  7087                 I am wondering to what extent, as
20     this hearing is looking at the long term future of
21     television and the industries around it, to what extent
22     are other languages part of what we can be exporting.
23  7088                 I look at markets like China and
24     India which collectively have about two billion people
25     and also have protective policies that don't encourage


 1     English programming coming but may encourage
 2     programming in Chinese and Indian languages.
 3  7089                 To what extent do you think the
 4     production industry could make use of the languages
 5     which we have among our midst for local and export
 6     purposes?
 7  7090                 MR. NIELSEN:  We have a project at
 8     the moment that we very much want to get under way with
 9     India.  The Indian industry and Stirling Gunnarson, a
10     friend and colleague of ours who just came back from
11     having made a film in Bombay, despite his problems, is
12     very excited about the process and what it was
13     artistically.
14  7091                 I think there is a real opportunity
15     for this.  We are developing a major project for a
16     daily teenage program, drama, half hour, set in
17     Toronto.  When we sat down to try to map out or create
18     the bible for this, we realized that if we were going
19     to shoot in any Toronto high school, we would have to
20     have in the show an ethnic mix that would correspond to
21     the corridors, the people there.
22  7092                 What you would end up with is a
23     situation where you would have to have people speaking
24     the language.  You couldn't have a Thai girl at Jarvis
25     going home to parents who wouldn't be speaking another


 1     language and similarly.  I think the cosmopolitan
 2     nature of our cities and what you can do with them is
 3     part of what interested me in what Atom Egoyan had done
 4     with his Armenian heritage.
 5  7093                 This is something that would be a
 6     wonderful development.  Again, it has got to be
 7     creatively driven.  Atom Egoyan knew how he wanted to
 8     use Armenian language and in what context.  A lot of
 9     Canadian film makers do that.
10  7094                 I know more Indian film makers than
11     Chinese ones, but a lot of the investors, Chinese who
12     moved to Toronto, are used to investing in Hong Kong
13     films.  There are fascinating possibilities.
14  7095                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZA:  So at this
15     point you think it is more a matter of potential and
16     possibilities than what is happening.
17  7096                 MR. NIELSEN:  Well, I think so,
18     except as I say, we actually have a property on our
19     desk which can only be done -- most of it would be shot
20     in India.  The logic of it would be to use the two
21     languages.  It would be intrinsic to it.
22  7097                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Is this "Such
23     a Long Journey" by Rohinton Mistry?
24  7098                 MR. NIELSEN:  "Remember Me".  Are you
25     familiar with it?


 1  7099                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Sorry?
 2  7100                 MR. NIELSEN:  Are you familiar with
 3     "Remember Me"?
 4  7101                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  No.
 5  7102                 MR. NIELSEN:  It's based on a book
 6     that was published last year here in Canada by
 7     Bernadette Ruehl.
 8  7103                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay.  You
 9     mentioned Gunnarson who had done "Such a Long Journey"
10     which is a Rohinton novel.
11  7104                 MR. NIELSEN:  That's right.
12  7105                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay.  Thanks
13     very much.
14  7106                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Nielsen, I know
15     that this is not a CBC renewal and it will only come in
16     the spring, but you were very critical of how the CBC
17     deals with independent producers.
18  7107                 You may or may not be aware that the
19     CFTPA has made a suggestion that the CBC be required by
20     us to make a policy statement to govern its dealing
21     with independent producers and that this policy
22     statement be developed by the corporation in
23     consultation with those production industries and be
24     binding on the CBC and then the creation of the
25     position of ombudsman for independent productions


 1     reporting directly to the Executive Vice-President,
 2     Media.
 3  7108                 Do you think that this could be a way
 4     of improving those relationships?  You mentioned
 5     particularly that independent producers had to go to
 6     particular program departments of the CBC.
 7  7109                 MR. NIELSEN:  Yes.
 8  7110                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is there any merit
 9     in this?
10  7111                 MR. NIELSEN:  I'm always worried when
11     you have an ombudsman, sort of anticipating problems. 
12     I would like to get a system that worked that didn't
13     have to be monitored in quite that way.  CBC has a way
14     of disposing of ombudsmen too.  The last one had a
15     grizzly fate.  He ended up in England.
16  7112                 I think that the CBC has really gone
17     from not great to bad in this respect.  I think if they
18     reconstituted the kind of department they had before
19     and they abandoned around 1992 or 1993 -- that system
20     worked.
21  7113                 You can't take away from the area
22     heads at the CBC their power to determine what the
23     corporation is going to buy.  Somebody has to be
24     responsible for that.  What I find is happening now at
25     the CBC, and it's strange because people say that the


 1     CBC is being bureaucratized because people think that's
 2     what it has always been, but there's a division going
 3     on there now between the financial side of the company
 4     and the creative side which is truly disastrous.
 5  7114                 You have to sit and discuss with
 6     their business side in an atmosphere in which the
 7     business side, if it doesn't like the contract, will
 8     abort a project which you are continuing on the
 9     creative side very amicably.
10  7115                 This is deeply disturbing to writers
11     and to other people who are involved in that.  I think
12     the CBC needs to rethink.  The other thing that has
13     happened, and I mentioned it on "Life and Times" and
14     those programs, where the series has a very clearly
15     defined objective.
16  7116                 When you go out to independent
17     producers and ask them to produce for such a series,
18     you are robbing them of their independence.  Our chief
19     value is that we are going to come up with some ideas
20     and enrich a system.
21  7117                 If we are just being used as
22     free-lancers to supply programs which the CBC has
23     already decided it wants to make, I'm not against them
24     making those.  I think they should make them.  But the
25     relationship whereby an independent producer becomes


 1     that sort of surrogate, bringing with him the money
 2     that is in the broadcast fund and so on, or the cable
 3     fund, is not going to lead to happy relationships and
 4     it's not going to lead to good programs.
 5  7118                 My answer to you, I think my
 6     organization is correct to draw attention to this
 7     problem.  I'm not quite sure about ombudsman, but I
 8     think there does need to be an examination of the way
 9     in which CBC deals with independents.
10  7119                 Some of it is related undoubtedly to
11     their simple wish to solve their financial problem and
12     to use other agencies to do it.
13  7120                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You see it as a
14     systemic problem, but sometimes the establishment are
15     focusing on the problem, even if you don't believe in
16     ombudsman, the exercise can be helpful in redirecting
17     or solving the systemic problem.
18  7121                 MR. NIELSEN:  I certainly withdraw my
19     remarks about that.
20  7122                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  To just put an
21     ombudsman in place is one thing, but if the aim is
22     first to sit down with the independent producers and
23     try to hammer out a policy statement, it could go some
24     ways into fixing a problem and creating a dialogue.
25  7123                 MR. NIELSEN:  Yes.  And I think the


 1     time is overdue to do it, yes.
 2  7124                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You propose, the
 3     sixth point in your recommendation on page 4, no
 4     special CBC envelope but no ceiling.  Wouldn't the no
 5     ceiling create a problem in your industry?
 6  7125                 MR. NIELSEN:  I want to encourage
 7     networks to see co-production with independent
 8     producers as a solution to their problems.  I think the
 9     idea of the 50 per cent envelope encourages the CBC to
10     think this is our money and this is their money.
11  7126                 I think it would be very useful to
12     improving CBC's relations with independent producers if
13     they realized -- for all broadcasters, not just the CBC
14     -- that they are in fact competing for that money and
15     that the decision is going to be made on the basis of
16     how much money they are prepared to make available. 
17     This is really part of the rest of what I was
18     suggesting, that the allocation of money be based upon
19     the size of their licence fees.
20                                                        1000
21  7127                 If it is that, then I don't think
22     there should be any barrier.  I think that if the CBC
23     because of its renewed interest in independent
24     production can claim 75 per cent, I have no objection. 
25     I don't think they would though.  I think that it would


 1     create a situation in which all broadcasters would feel
 2     that they had to commit themselves to this kind of
 3     production and that it would, therefore, be beneficial.
 4  7128                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Nielsen, are
 5     you saying that in your view "Traders" or that type of
 6     programming should not be produced because it is an
 7     exercise in futility, it's not the real thing and you
 8     are going to have to have it competing with the real
 9     thing?  Therefore, we should have programming that is
10     much more distinctively Canadian and not an attempt to
11     compete for viewers with American programming.
12  7129                 MR. NIELSEN:  What I chiefly think is
13     that it is a mistake to think -- I mean, I don't want
14     to condemn a particular genre, but I think if you
15     devise that program, rather than imitatively drawing on
16     the American experience -- for a Canadian audience if
17     you just -- I am not against the subject matter.  I am
18     not against the length of the program.  I am saying
19     that if your primary reason for doing something is
20     imitation, that can succeed in the United States
21     because you can add the star power to it that will get
22     an audience.
23  7130                 We don't have the opportunity to do
24     that.  If you don't have that, those are vehicles
25     primarily for very skilful writers and a very skilful


 1     body of actors who are going to get the kind of
 2     exposure which can gradually create a dynamic.  We
 3     can't do that.
 4  7131                 "Traders," in order to be sustained,
 5     the CBC had to buy it in order to sustain the cost of
 6     it.
 7  7132                 I just recently saw a Danish sort of
 8     version of "ER" of a hospital drama called "The
 9     Kingdom," which is utterly bizarre, very good
10     television.  Good enough television so that it has been
11     in Canadian theatres, despite the fact that it is only
12     subtitled, but it is totally -- the production values,
13     they are in the sense that the acting is good, but they
14     make the kind of program they can make and add
15     imagination to it which doesn't cost anything.  So that
16     you get something that is marvellously different and
17     commercial within the context of Telefilm, despite the
18     fact that it was very bizarre.
19  7133                 I wouldn't be able to buy it here if
20     it wasn't commercial.  The kind of thing with "Traders"
21     is that as I say it isn't that it is particularly badly
22     done.  It is that it doesn't have the elements that
23     those shows usually have if they are made in the
24     States, which is star power, massive promotion.
25  7134                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Nielsen, you


 1     are here and so I can't resist asking you:  You have a
 2     lot of experience and I am sure you must be aware of
 3     what is going on in French Canada, where this exact
 4     thing is successful, where you make indigenous
 5     programming which garners huge audiences.  In your view
 6     was it impossible for English Canada to try to nurture
 7     or create a similar situation as we have in Quebec,
 8     create a star system, have indigenous programming that
 9     will be more appealing to viewers than American
10     programming?  Is it just a question of language or is
11     English Canada incapable of creating that or reaching
12     it because of the American presence and, therefore, we
13     had better look at doing something else or we will fail
14     all together?
15  7135                 MR. NIELSEN:  No.  One of the reasons
16     that I do a lot of the stuff we do in French is because
17     I love that community, I mean the television community. 
18     There is a confidence there that is quite different
19     than in English Canada.
20  7136                 The reason is because it has had
21     success with its own audience.  Nothing beats that.
22  7137                 I don't think it is impossible at all
23     in English Canada.  I think we have really not given it
24     a very good try.  I think, for instance, where CBC has
25     done it in the last few years with comedy, I mean the


 1     sort of stuff that "22 Minutes" represents and so on,
 2     has deep appeal in this country and you get it talked
 3     about.
 4  7138                 But in drama, where it is a matter of
 5     creating stars, we have never -- you know, you can't do
 6     this with 2 per cent of your schedule being Canadian
 7     drama.  Everybody knows that Martha Henry is a great
 8     star, but if you see her for six programs every three
 9     or four years then she becomes a star from somewhere
10     else, namely the theatre.
11  7139                 I mean I came out of the CBC.  I was
12     there for 11 years.  I remember one meeting at which we
13     were all accused that all our shows looked alike.  I
14     knew that was going to be the accusation and so I had
15     done some arithmetic.  All our shows were budgeted at
16     exactly the same amount for political reasons.  We were
17     a cantankerous bunch and nobody wanted to get in
18     trouble by giving us different amounts and, basically,
19     our mandates were similar.
20  7140                 I have hardly ever in Canada been
21     asked to do a cheap drama.  I did the "Quebec Canada
22     1995" which cost $400,000 and was an hour and a half
23     long, had wonderful performers in it and it became
24     quite successful.  It got revived again and so on and
25     so forth, but nobody ever asked me to do another one.


 1  7141                 I have two such proposals before the
 2     CBC at the moment and they are considering them, but we
 3     have not done at all what French Canada did, is simply
 4     saying for reasons we are going to make these programs
 5     if we don't make them our audiences are not going to
 6     have something.  People have not done that and English
 7     Canada culturally is a colony.  It's a colony of the
 8     United States.
 9  7142                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Nielsen, I
10     think I heard you say that it was a question of
11     attitude on the part of broadcasters towards the
12     creative community.  In the meantime, here is the
13     regulator with an Act of Parliament that it is supposed
14     to see fulfilled.  What are the means we can use to
15     incite a change in attitude?
16  7143                 I see that in your Recommendation 15
17     you say that we should reduce Canadian content required
18     because you are satisfied that news and sports would be
19     done in any event, but you do believe in regulatory
20     intervention to require certain categories of
21     programming?
22  7144                 MR. NIELSEN:  I am a very strong
23     believer in regulatory intervention in the Canadian
24     context.
25  7145                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I may have missed


 1     that, but I don't think I see anywhere whether or not
 2     you endorse the CFPTA recommendation that it be in
 3     prime time as well --
 4  7146                 MR. NIELSEN:  Oh yes.
 5  7147                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  That a certain
 6     number of hours be in prime time?
 7  7148                 MR. NIELSEN:  Yes.
 8  7149                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  When you say that
 9     news and sports will be done in any event, you are
10     aware that we get a lot of appeal by the population
11     and, of course, by regional producers that regional or
12     local programming, other than these categories of
13     drama, of feature film, documentary, variety, et
14     cetera, will disappear and that's a large concern.
15  7150                 MR. NIELSEN:  You see, what I think
16     is important, I deplore what is happening with regional
17     programming now, both the CBC and CTV have abandoned
18     any regional time slots.  You can't make a program for
19     the maritimes any more.  You can't make a program for
20     the prairies any more, on those two networks at any
21     rate.  I think what is important regionally -- I mean
22     one of the successes of Canadian broadcasting, since I
23     am knocking it, it's really marvellous that Halifax
24     exists in terms of what comes out of there.  The fact
25     that we have in Vancouver, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto


 1     four major centres in terms of potential production
 2     centres, as well as three or four others, I think is a
 3     real asset.
 4  7151                 But again, the system is out of
 5     joint.  It is hard to get air time on a regional basis
 6     anywhere in the country.  I think that documentaries,
 7     which are a wonderful form and are a way of cutting
 8     across the very stereotype news coverage that exists
 9     everywhere in the world, Canada as well, and so I think
10     the fact that we got -- I think most documentaries that
11     are made for a region will travel well, but they should
12     be assured exposure first in that region.
13  7152                 I think there are dramas.  I tend to
14     think of the country in some ways as -- I am sure if I
15     was producing a drama in Alberta I would want the
16     privilege of having the best director and if I thought
17     he was in Vancouver I would want to be able to bring
18     him in.  So, we can't carve up the country in this way. 
19     But I think the CBC -- I remember when a lot of the
20     vitality in CBC drama was coming out of Vancouver.  I
21     think it was stuck on the head and they brought the
22     bodies to Toronto where they didn't function nearly as
23     well.  I think that the very independents that has been
24     established in Halifax is the reason for its vitality.
25  7153                 So, I have a recommendation in there


 1     that would force the networks to only produce 60 per
 2     cent of their programming in any one centre and 90 per
 3     cent in three, so that there would be a variety of
 4     network production activity across the country.  So
 5     that that wouldn't be damaged, I think that already
 6     exists to some degree, but also I think the Commission
 7     should look into the decisions not to broadcast
 8     regionally.
 9  7154                 As I read the Broadcasting Act, those
10     people come before you and promise these stations that
11     they are going to do so much programming.  Then I go
12     down to them and say, "This is a program that you might
13     be interested in buying regionally," and they would
14     say, "We do nothing but news regionally."
15  7155                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.  You would
16     agree that those centres you are talking about, whether
17     it is Halifax or Vancouver, often end up making network
18     programming.
19  7156                 MR. NIELSEN:  They do.
20  7157                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Because otherwise
21     they won't last and I think what we hear from ordinary
22     Canadians when we had these round tables in June was
23     not exactly that type of activity.  People are speaking
24     more about local local in the sense of local news as
25     they compared to network news and that's a problem.


 1  7158                 MR. NIELSEN:  There is a relationship
 2     here to creativity.  Audience performers or writers who
 3     require a certain intimacy with their audience -- often
 4     artists feel more comfortable starting out by making
 5     Nova Scotians laugh and then discovering that they can
 6     make the whole country laugh.
 7  7159                 If you rob them of that, it's like
 8     when people ask me why don't you produce for the
 9     international market.  My reply is that nobody else
10     does anywhere in the world.  Nobody does that.
11  7160                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So it can become a
12     sort of laboratory that is maybe aiming for network
13     broadcasting, but as it gets there provides the type of
14     local reflection that people are looking at.
15  7161                 We thank you very much, Nr. Nielsen. 
16     We kept you longer than we thought.
17  7162                 I have a couple of questions for Mr.
18     Wesley.  We don't have an opportunity to see you often
19     or to see people who have been in the business long.
20  7163                 On your chart where are tax credits?
21  7164                 MR. NIELSEN:  Tax credits are a
22     recent thing, but we apply them to the government
23     agency.  Really, the government agencies, that is the
24     sort of thing that have been mandated by the
25     regulation.


 1  7165                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes, because that
 2     was my next question.  The Cable Fund is really
 3     subscriber money, isn't it?
 4  7166                 MR. NIELSEN:  That's right.
 5  7167                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  To the extent that
 6     those who have cable are probably, I think it would be
 7     fair to say, watchers of television, it seems fair that
 8     they put back some money on the system and those who
 9     are not probably watch less.
10  7168                 MR. NIELSEN:  This was a shocking
11     thing to me.  Also, what happened to our licence fees
12     when the Cable Fund came in?  It's the broadcasters who
13     thought 30 per cent was adequate dropped them to 15. 
14     We certainly benefit in the sense that it was more
15     money in the system and to --
16  7169                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But of course the
17     argument has been put before us by many parties that
18     subscribers then are subsidizing the broadcasters,
19     which is the point you are making.
20  7170                 MR. NIELSEN:  Yes, exactly.
21  7171                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will try to fix
22     all that, Mr. Nielsen.
23  7172                 MR. NIELSEN:  Good luck.
24  7173                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Hopefully, when you
25     come back before us -- it's a bit depressing actually.


 1  7174                 MR. NIELSEN:  It's a very tough job.
 2  7175                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  It is.
 3  7176                 MR. NIELSEN:  We are a wily bunch out
 4     there.
 5  7177                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  It is.  How did you
 6     survive this long in the business?
 7  7178                 MR. NIELSEN:  I didn't know how to
 8     get out.
 9  7179                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You look like a
10     happy man.
11  7180                 We are not quite finished.  Counsel
12     has some questions.
13  7181                 MR. BLAIS:  Yes, before you stand
14     down I have a few quick questions concerning co-
15     productions and when I use the term "co-productions" I
16     mean official co-productions under the official co-
17     production treaties.
18  7182                 The French producers, producers from
19     Quebec, have said that for co-productions where it's a
20     majority Canadian co-production that that should be
21     granted a 150 per cent credit.  I don't know if you
22     have some views on the impact that might have on the
23     co-production treaty system as a whole?
24  7183                 MR. NIELSEN:  If I understand it
25     correctly, it would make their use more likely.  At the


 1     moment we have co-productions, three with Britain, one
 2     with France, one with Germany, and I think this system
 3     which Canada to some degree pioneered is reaching the
 4     stage where it is beginning to pay off.  What is needed
 5     is an inducement.  I find that the products that we are
 6     looking at with them are ones that will have much more
 7     appeal to a Canadian audience.  A lot of the early ones
 8     were sort of compromises.  We and they hadn't got the
 9     knack and you didn't know what projects.
10  7184                 I think anything that encourages co-
11     production gets that money into the system, allows us
12     to work with other talented people, which is also one
13     of its benefits I think is very good.  I think if we
14     can encourage the broadcasters to look to that and
15     that's what I assume they are trying to do, then I am
16     for it.
17  7185                 MR. BLAIS:  By the same token, one
18     could ask whether minority Canadian co-production
19     should also be given Canadian content credit, in the
20     sense that minority/majority co-productions sort of
21     work hand in glove over the long term.
22  7186                 MR. NIELSEN:  Yes.  I think that's
23     why I am glad I am not a regulator.  I think that's
24     tricky, but I think it is probably I would come down on
25     the principle that we shouldn't discriminate between


 1     majority and minority, unless those two get very much
 2     out of balance because I think in some cases when I do
 3     business with German co-producers I will say this one I
 4     am only in for 30 because I want you to come in on this
 5     next one and I want you, you know, and that one I will
 6     come higher.
 7  7187                 MR. BLAIS:  On the level of
 8     terminology I notice in paragraphs 16 and 17 you use
 9     the phrase co-production.  I was wondering whether you
10     were using it in the same sense as I was in the sense
11     of official co-productions, or were you using it there
12     more in terms of --
13                                                        1020
14  7188                 MR. NIELSEN:  Which submission is
15     this?
16  7189                 MR. BLAIS:  This is your written
17     submission.
18  7190                 MR. NIELSEN:  The written submission.
19  7191                 MR. BLAIS:  It's Recommendations 16
20     and 17.
21  7192                 MR. NIELSEN:  Could you read them?  I
22     haven't got that with me, actually.
23  7193                 MR. BLAIS:  It is:
24                            "Foreign co-production should be
25                            encouraged by adding the amount


 1                            of money..."
 2  7194                 MR. NIELSEN:  Yes, that's as official
 3     co-production.
 4  7195                 MR. BLAIS:  However, on 17 you refer
 5     to:
 6                            "No co-production from any
 7                            particular country should have
 8                            priority over any other (the US
 9                            would be included, since no
10                            undue influence is to be feared
11                            if the Canadian certification
12                            procedure is independent from
13                            the funding procedures)."
14  7196                 Since we don't have an official co-
15     production treaty with the U.S. and you seem to suggest
16     co-production in that context, I was wondering if you
17     actually meant official co-production.
18  7197                 MR. NIELSEN:  The production
19     community in the United States that is likely to want
20     to co-produce with us is a community that is very
21     similar to us and I think it's a pity that we are not
22     in some ways fusing those interests.  I think also in
23     terms of the U.S. market in creating an alternative
24     there.
25  7198                 I don't think the big studios would


 1     co-produce with us, but I agree what I am really
 2     suggesting there is an inconsistency.  I think I regard
 3     my remarks about the U.S. that I would like to see some
 4     way in which -- I think that if our certification
 5     procedures are right, if it is a Canadian product, then
 6     I don't fear very much where the money is coming from. 
 7     If it's a Canadian company, if it's a product made for
 8     a Canadian audience -- you see, from a point of view I
 9     am also a screenwriter and what I think is decisive
10     here is who something is made for and if it's made for
11     a Canadian audience.  I'm not so worried about where
12     the money comes from.
13  7199                 MR. BLAIS:  Are you going as far as
14     suggesting that we should have an official co-
15     production treaty with the U.S.?
16  7200                 MR. NIELSEN:  I am in favour of that,
17     but I fear that there might be something hidden under
18     the table there that would -- I'm not really sure of my
19     ground.  This is something I would like the Commission
20     to look at, but I think if we could avoid Disney simply
21     sweeping us under the table -- if somehow wording could
22     be established and if our certification procedures were
23     clear, I would favour some kind of relationship, yes.
24  7201                 MR. BLAIS:  I appreciate that.  Thank
25     you very much, those are my questions.


 1  7202                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr.
 2     Wesley, Mr. Nielsen.  Mr. Nielsen, if you pray, pray
 3     for us.  If you don't, keep your fingers crossed.
 4  7203                 MR. NIELSEN:  Oh, I pray.
 5  7204                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
 6     much.
 7  7205                 Madam Secretary, would you call the
 8     next participant, please?
 9  7206                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair. 
10     The next participant will be Stornoway Productions and
11     I would invite Ms Martha Fusca to please come forward
12     and make the presentation.
13  7207                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Fusca,
14     proceed when you are ready.
16  7208                 MS FUSCA:  Thank you.
17  7209                 As President of Stornoway
18     Productions, I want to thank the Commission for
19     allowing us to participate in this most welcomed
20     review.  Stornoway, which was founded in 1983 to
21     produce international investigative current affairs
22     documentaries is also currently producing Canadian
23     public affairs documentaries and drama.  We are,
24     therefore, addressing concerns we have with regard to
25     these two genres.


 1  7210                 We are both pleased and proud that
 2     all of the five drama projects that we put into
 3     development are now either being co-produced with
 4     Canadian broadcasters or are in development with
 5     Canadian broadcasters.  Our concern, which I will deal
 6     with in detail later, is whether we will be able to
 7     fully finance these projects given our current
 8     regulatory environment.  On both the drama and
 9     documentary front, we wish to discuss that portion of
10     the Act which states that the Canadian broadcasting
11     system should serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen
12     the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of
13     Canada.
14  7211                 Since the CFTPA, of which we are
15     members, has provided you with facts and figures which
16     are most instructive, it relieves you and me from going
17     through them again.  Suffice it to say that their
18     information is of critical importance if we are to have
19     an effective Canadian production industry and if you
20     and I are to make a difference, the Commission must
21     deal with their recommendations.
22  7212                 With some exceptions with regards to
23     drama, I do not believe that "appalling" is too strong
24     a word to use to describe Canada's current prime time
25     schedule as it pertains to the scheduling of Canadian


 1     programming.  I'm aware that some voluntary efforts are
 2     being made and I strongly encourage those endeavours,
 3     but those voluntary efforts are clearly not enough.
 4  7213                 I appear before you today because
 5     Stornoway and companies like our own may not be able to
 6     produce commercially viable programs, which we can
 7     export successfully without addressing some basic
 8     problems.  You may ask:  What does commercially viable
 9     mean?  By commercially viable, I mean a program that
10     can be financed and finds an audience.
11  7214                 A commercially viable project does
12     not include one where the producer and a number of
13     other individuals involved in the project never get
14     paid.  A commercially viable project does not include
15     one where the producer mortgages his or her home to
16     produce it.  A commercially viable project is one that
17     generates a profit of some kind for the producer, that
18     allows the producer to grow and flourish so that they
19     can support and nurture Canadian talent.
20  7215                 While I believe and support the
21     notion that we can produce programming that is 10 out
22     of 10 and deals with specific Canadian themes, this can
23     only be done if producers have the fair and
24     unconditional support of the industry.  That includes
25     broadcasters, distributors, funding agencies, other


 1     government initiatives and the Commission.
 2  7216                 We have too many examples from Canada
 3     and abroad that clearly point out that the greatest
 4     majority, if not 100 per cent of the financing, must
 5     come from the domestic market if we are to have a
 6     recognizable Canadian program schedule.  I believe that
 7     this is the only way to produce a commercially viable
 8     program, as defined above, with 10 out of 10 points and
 9     one that deals exclusively with Canadian themes.
10  7217                 As quite rightly cited in the CFTPA
11     submission, "A strong domestic demand which provides
12     the most significant portion of the financing, will
13     ensure distinctiveness."  But now what happens to all
14     of the other possible production scenarios for
15     producing a commercially viable program?  What happens
16     when a Canadian producer options a Canadian novel that
17     deals with a non-Canadian subject?  Incidentally,
18     Canadians deal with an awful lot of non-Canadian
19     subjects.
20  7218                 The producer manages to find a writer
21     who shares the producer's sensibility for the project
22     and is available to commence work on the project and
23     not leaving the country for Los Angeles.  The producer
24     is also in luck because one of the Canadian
25     broadcasters has agreed that they will assist with the


 1     development of the script after only two months of
 2     discussions for anywhere between 15 to 25 per cent of
 3     the development budget, and this producer is on a roll
 4     because the broadcaster will allow her to go Telefilm
 5     for up to 49 per cent of the budget.
 6  7219                 Now if, and that's a big if, Telefilm
 7     comes in for the 49 per cent, which is unlikely, she
 8     still has to make up between 26 and 36 per cent of the
 9     budget.  Now she is faced with deferrals of her
10     producer's fees, her overhead, and additional out-of-
11     pocket expenses of seven or more per cent.  Oh, dear. 
12     You can't apply to Telefilm because they don't assist
13     in pay TV projects and the Citytv development advance
14     is too low, but you can try the Harold Greenburg fund.
15  7220                 This is one tenacious producer.  The
16     script is complete, she hasn't earned a penny, but,
17     fortunately for her, her husband is very supportive
18     and, better still, he has a job.  Everyone loves the
19     script, but the total licence fee from the Canadian
20     broadcaster is not even enough to trigger the Canadian
21     Television Fund, not enough to trigger Telefilm.  The
22     other broadcasters whose licence fees hit the minimum
23     currently required by Telefilm and the Canadian
24     Television Fund love the script, but don't want to do
25     it; not a Canadian theme.


 1  7221                 Never mind, let's try the Americans. 
 2     Why them?  They are our neighbours, they are close, we
 3     speak the same language.  Isn't it the largest market
 4     in the world?  We do have a free trade agreement with
 5     them, but they will want to co-produce.  No, they can't
 6     do that.  They will want to have a recognizable star. 
 7     Hey, that's okay, we can make that work, but just
 8     because they are putting up better than half the budget
 9     doesn't mean to say that they can have an opinion on
10     the director, the DOP, the rest of the cast, the
11     editor.
12  7222                 No, we can't use an American
13     director.  No, we can't use an American actor.  Three
14     years later this project might get produced by a
15     Canadian, written by a Canadian, adapted by a Canadian,
16     but it's not commercially viable in Canada because of
17     our current regulations.
18  7223                 I have been and continue to be
19     terribly concerned and frustrated by the extremely
20     narrow focus we as an industry have tended to take when
21     it comes to Canadian content issues.  As with the
22     example I have just given, there are many more such
23     scenarios which can employ predominantly Canadian
24     professionals, labour and ancillary personnel, but will
25     be penalized by our current Canadian content


 1     regulations.  For example, broadcasters will pay next
 2     to nothing for this programming citing current Canadian
 3     content regulations.  The same is true for feature
 4     films.
 5  7224                 I believe that it is critical not to
 6     penalize productions and producers for coming in at,
 7     say, five or six points out of ten and on productions
 8     that may deal with Canadian themes which are
 9     commercially viable and find audiences both at home and
10     abroad, which allow for the growth of employment,
11     development of industry expertise and are fundamentally
12     Canadian programming, which independents such as myself
13     can export.  To quote the CFTPA's submission,
14     "Canadians write and produce excellent science fiction,
15     detective and mystery series, historical and fantasy
16     stories..."
17  7225                 At this point, I would like to turn
18     our attention to the broadcast community as it exists
19     today.  Since producers need the commitment of
20     broadcasters to air a program to access most kinds of
21     public funds, broadcasters, both private and public,
22     have increasingly and alarmingly used their leverage to
23     reduce licence fees to the minimum required by the
24     various funders.  To make matters worse, in some cases
25     these broadcasters require that producers give a price


 1     beyond the over-the-air standard number of runs over
 2     the traditional two to three-year licence period.
 3  7226                 Initially, I believe that the
 4     Canadian Television Fund was set up to assist in
 5     providing much needed top-up financing for Canadian
 6     programming.  What it has in fact become is a subsidy
 7     for broadcasters who now pay lower licence fees. 
 8     Forgive me for being repetitive, I gather.  What the
 9     government intended to provide for Canadian production,
10     on the one hand, was taken almost instantly away with
11     the other hand by the networks.
12  7227                 Minimum licence fees must go up from
13     15 to 25 per cent.  It is both ludicrous and
14     professionally embarrassing that we can get a higher
15     licence fee out of the U.K., Germany, France, the U.S.,
16     and so on than from our country and then hope to retain
17     creative and financial control.  Of course, the
18     independent sector has been skilfully and surprisingly
19     successful at doing just that, but I believe the
20     success stories are a small fraction of what we as a
21     nation could accomplish with the proper tools.
22  7228                 Furthermore, we are terribly
23     concerned that currently there are no safeguards with
24     regards to the amount of programming that those who
25     hold single or multiple licences can acquire from


 1     themselves or related production companies.  We ask the
 2     Commission to provide safeguards which include minimum
 3     commitments to the acquisition of programs from
 4     unaffiliated production companies and that the programs
 5     produced by related companies will not be able to
 6     access public funds; not just limit themselves in
 7     accessing public funds, no public funds.
 8  7229                 We would also strongly urge the
 9     Commission to limit the number of programs produced in-
10     house or by affiliated companies that would qualify for
11     the broadcasters' Canadian content quota.  We,
12     therefore, wish to reiterate the CFTPA's position that,
13     "Therefore, it is understandable that producers are
14     nervous about the increasingly aggressive attempts by
15     broadcasters to move in the production and program
16     distribution fields and to have access to public
17     funds."
18  7230                 Lastly, we do not have a problem with
19     broadcasters who wish to have an equity position on a
20     program.  In fact we welcome it.  However, we cannot
21     emphasize enough that the licence fee is separate from
22     their equity portion and that the licence fee will not
23     be reduced by the fact that they may choose to take an
24     equity position no more or less favourable than that of
25     any other equity participant.


 1  7231                 Now I would like to turn our
 2     attention to the area of documentary broadcasting in
 3     Canada.  If broadcasting in Canada is meant to "ensure
 4     a strong Canadian presence in content that fosters
 5     creative talent and reflects Canadian society", as
 6     stated in the Commission's Vision statement, then we
 7     must object to the manner in which the CBC decides
 8     which documentaries that it does not itself produce are
 9     to be broadcast by the network and which are not.
10  7232                 It has been my long experience that
11     if producers who choose to tackle a project that does
12     not suit the tastes of the particular buyers at any
13     given time, despite the potential audience appeal and
14     critical praise, the CBC will reject the program or
15     programs with their own brand of rationale.  While the
16     CRTC states that in this hearing we are pursuing
17     together an inquiry through open dialogue, I can assure
18     the Commission that no such inquiry or open dialogue
19     exists when producers put forth documentary proposals
20     or near finished programs to CBC.
21  7233                 We have produced numerous
22     documentaries that sat on CBC's shelves for nearly two
23     years because CBC had no slot for them.  This was also
24     true for documentaries produced by others.  We all
25     waited and we were finally told that independent


 1     producers would have their very own slot.  This was
 2     accomplished primarily by Trina McQueen and the slot
 3     was called "Witness".  Incidentally, by the time our
 4     documentaries were broadcast, The Journal produced two
 5     of their own which were incredibly similar to the two
 6     of the four we had produced nearly two years earlier.
 7  7234                 I'm sorry, I am just a little
 8     nervous.
 9  7235                 Recently, Stornoway produced a three-
10     part documentary that was rejected by the CBC as a one-
11     note documentary, one that represented the views of
12     only a minority of Canadians, we were told.  The series
13     has had numerous favourable print reviews, reviews by
14     scholars, thinkers, et cetera.  It was broadcast on PBS
15     prompting one Canadian viewer that I'm aware of to
16     write to CBC asking them to broadcast it.  PBS used the
17     series as a fund-raiser during the hours of 7:00 p.m.
18     to midnight.  It was very successful for them and they
19     have subsequently rebroadcast it.  We are now in the
20     midst of developing a university course based on the
21     material.
22  7236                 Documentary producers have been very
23     supportive of CBC and the launch of Newsworld, where
24     programs produced for CBC were licensed on condition
25     that Newsworld could rebroadcast them without financial


 1     contribution to the producer.  We worked hard for a
 2     strand for independent production and we have been
 3     betrayed as producers.  Worse still, when Canadians are
 4     not allowed to voice their concerns, share their points
 5     of view about their country, their economy, when the
 6     views of Atlantic Canadians and those of western
 7     Canadians do not coincide with those of the CBC's
 8     Toronto office, then Canadians should know, even if
 9     they are a minority, that they will be silenced.
10  7237                 It does not surprise me that the
11     CFTPA has been unsuccessful in meeting with CBC's
12     senior management with regards to the concerns
13     expressed by their own members and those of the caucus. 
14     Whether you like our documentaries or not, we have co-
15     produced multi-million dollar documentaries with
16     broadcasters here in Canada, Japan, Germany, the U.S.,
17     Austria, et cetera, and yet we could not get a 15-
18     minute meeting to discuss our series because, I was
19     told, there was no point.
20  7238                 To be fair, we did get a meeting with
21     a senior member of the CBC who told us that he did not
22     have a problem with the series, but could not go over
23     the head of his people.  He is apparently trying to get
24     independent producers their own slot.  Here we go
25     again.  I firmly support the CFTPA's submission that


 1     the CBC establish an ombudsman's office for independent
 2     producers and, despite the fact that I live in Toronto,
 3     I firmly believe that a civil society is based at least
 4     in part in our ability to share our experiences, our
 5     views in an honest and open fashion without fear of
 6     reprisal and for the benefit of the greater community
 7     called Canada.
 8  7239                 We will inevitably disagree with one
 9     another on some issue or other, but that's natural. 
10     What is not natural is for a public institution that
11     survives primarily on taxpayers' dollars to tell that
12     very public that its voice must not be heard.
13  7240                 In conclusion, we cannot set cultural
14     objectives which we have tried to for far too long with
15     a sound financial underpinning of the production
16     sector.  That, above all, is what the CRTC has to
17     grapple with.  History has shown us that without
18     enlightened and knowledgeable regulations, those with
19     the power will, indeed, abuse it.
20  7241                 The problem is that the reality of
21     the small non-integrated producer who may be the one
22     best placed to produce the magic that the country and
23     the CRTC are looking for on our screens is the one who
24     has the least safety net and is the poor relation of
25     the industry.  With the proper tools, which include a


 1     flexible approach to financing Canadian programming
 2     with foreign partners, I firmly believe that we can
 3     accomplish the Commission's favourite expression, "more
 4     programs, better quality and increased profitability."
 5  7242                 Thank you.
 6  7243                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Ms
 7     Fusca.
 8  7244                 Commissioner Wilson, please.
 9  7245                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Thank you,
10     Madam Chair.
11  7246                 Good morning.  I see we share the
12     same first name.  There aren't that many Marthas
13     around.
14  7247                 You expressed some very similar views
15     to the views that Mr. Nielsen expressed when he
16     appeared before us this morning, but I don't imagine
17     you agree with this comment that there is too much
18     Canadian content that's new and current affairs
19     since --
20  7248                 MS FUSCA:  If you watch television
21     the way that I do anytime between 7:00 and 10:00, I
22     don't want to mention anybody in particular because
23     they are all equally bad, but tell me what's on when. 
24     That's what I want to know.  I will be so bold as to 
25     say that I noticed that we are doing this all little


 1     Canadian thing now.  I was wondering if it had anything
 2     to do with the hearings, but what else apart from those
 3     little promotions is Canadian on the schedule?
 4  7249                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That's a good
 5     point.  I guess the point I wanted to --
 6  7250                 MS FUSCA:  I don't see anything on
 7     the schedule.  I don't disagree with Richard.  If
 8     Richard means that perhaps, if we reduce it --
 9  7251                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Actually, what
10     he said was that there is too much Canadian content
11     that's news and current affairs.  Considering the focus
12     of your company, I don't imagine you would agree with
13     that since you are basically focused on current affairs
14     and public affairs.
15  7252                 MS FUSCA:  Apart from CBC, actually,
16     who else is doing current affairs?  I guess maybe "W5",
17     Rudy Buttignol has a strand on TVO.  I am talking
18     current affairs, I am not talking news.  Then why is it
19     restricted to broadcasters?  I mean why don't we have
20     Canadians at large producing that kind of information
21     if you will?
22                                                        1045
23  7253                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  In your oral
24     submission, at page 2, you say:
25                            "While I believe and support the


 1                            notion that we can produce
 2                            programming that is 10 out of 10
 3                            and deals with specific Canadian
 4                            themes, this can only be done if
 5                            producers have the fair and
 6                            unconditional support of the
 7                            industry..."
 8  7254                 Could you explain to me what your
 9     view is of "fair and unconditional support".
10  7255                 MS FUSCA:  First of all, I think we
11     have to start out with a realistic licence fee.  I
12     think that everything that is being pooled into --
13  7256                 I always thought that when the tax
14     credit first came out, it was actually meant to be an
15     incentive for producers to put some of that money back
16     into their companies, into development.  That is what I
17     thought.
18  7257                 Suddenly, all of the tax credits are
19     being used as part of the financing.
20  7258                 Anyway, I think we have to have
21     proper licence fees.
22  7259                 I am most grateful for the -- I call
23     it the Cable Production Fund still -- the Canadian
24     Television Fund.  I think that is incredibly useful.
25  7260                 We are also very lucky that we still


 1     have Telefilm.
 2  7261                 You are going to need it all.  The
 3     realities of the marketplace are such that if you want
 4     to do something really indigenous, whether it is a
 5     documentary or drama -- I have had experience in both
 6     now -- it is virtually impossible to try to get
 7     anything but very little money outside of the country
 8     before that product is finished, in any event.  That is
 9     what I mean by it.
10  7262                 If they are really sincere, they
11     should put their money where their mouth is.
12  7263                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Do you agree
13     with Mr. Nielsen that the point system can be
14     manipulated?
15  7264                 MS FUSCA:  Yes.
16  7265                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Do you feel
17     that a discretionary system would work better?  I think
18     he said that a discretionary system would force people
19     to be responsible for the decisions that they make.
20  7266                 MS FUSCA:  No, I am not into
21     developing other systems.  My God, we have so many
22     systems already that I am fatigued completely by them
23     all.
24  7267                 I would suggest that we have a system
25     in place.  Make it flexible.  Just make it flexible. 


 1     If you have 10 out of 10 points, that program is worth
 2     150.  If it is 6 or 7, make it worth 100.  I am not
 3     suggesting that they are equal.  The greatest desire
 4     for the greatest good is to do the 10-10-10 thing.
 5  7268                 It is virtually impossible right now
 6     in Canada to produce something that is a Canadian
 7     subject and then use maybe two or three people that you
 8     may need specifically for that production that you
 9     currently cannot use.  So what do you do?
10  7269                 You abandon the entire system is
11     actually what you do and pretend that you don't live
12     here.
13  7270                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  On page 3 of
14     your submission this morning, you said:
15                            "I have been and continue to be
16                            terribly concerned and
17                            frustrated by the extremely
18                            narrow focus we as an industry
19                            have tended to take when it
20                            comes to Canadian Content
21                            issues."
22  7271                 When you use the phrase "we as an
23     industry", are you using that in sort of broad brush
24     strokes:  the independent producers, the broadcasters,
25     the regulators, all of them?


 1  7272                 MS FUSCA:  Yes, I am actually.
 2  7273                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  And what do you
 3     mean by "the extremely narrow focus"?
 4  7274                 MS FUSCA:  Again, I think it is a
 5     content issue.  We have had CFTPA conferences where I
 6     think somebody starts talking about:  "Is 'Due South'
 7     really Canadian?"  It's Canadian.
 8  7275                 Frankly, where I digress from Richard
 9     is on "Traders".  It's Canadian.
10  7276                 You know, you get to that point where
11     you think --
12  7277                 I am reading a story right now
13     written by two women about a little boy and this woman
14     and an abusive father.  Is that Canadian?  Could that
15     situation not exist elsewhere, but it does exist here? 
16     That is all I really worry about.
17  7278                 Actually, I am also really worried
18     about the whole idea that the minute that I might want
19     to use --
20  7279                 Because it is appropriate.  It is
21     what makes something commercially viable, both
22     economically and in terms of getting people to watch
23     your program, to use an American director or -- I don't
24     know -- a director from Timbuctoo.  You can't do it. 
25     That is what I worry about.


 1  7280                 And my own organization, the CFTPA,
 2     while they say that we can write and produce science
 3     fiction and mysteries, it is a bit of a throwaway. 
 4     Their primary focus is on the 10-10-10 thing.
 5  7281                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I was going to
 6     ask you about the whole notion that maybe what we need
 7     to do is split the fund into two areas -- and this
 8     flows out of something that Mr. Nielsen also spoke
 9     about this morning, and that a number of other
10     intervenors have talked about.
11  7282                 It is that there are programs like
12     "Traders" and "Due South" that are really made more for
13     export than to be distinctively Canadian.
14  7283                 Should we split our objectives and
15     recognize that we have industrial objectives and
16     cultural objectives?
17  7284                 MS FUSCA:  That actually might really
18     help.  However, I just want to say that as a parent of
19     four children, all of whom were born here, I do
20     consider that what I do, despite perhaps the theme, is
21     very Canadian.
22  7285                 But I don't object.  And I think we
23     do have to find a solution.
24  7286                 If the solution means that yes, we
25     should, and maybe we get a little bit less because our


 1     focus currently is to get into --
 2  7287                 Canadian heroes would be a wonderful
 3     thing for my kids to see instead of always doing stuff
 4     where we are talking about how horrible those Canadians
 5     were.  It would be really nice.  And for sure, I would
 6     certainly welcome that.
 7  7288                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  You make a
 8     number of comments about the CBC.  The CBC seems to be
 9     a bit of a target this morning.  Mr. Nielsen also was
10     talking about some of his experiences.
11  7289                 In view of the comments that you make
12     on pages 5 and 6 of your submission this morning, do
13     you think that the CBC's portion of the funding and the
14     fund should be more limited?  Or should there be
15     requirements attached to their accessing of those funds
16     in terms of exhibiting independent production?
17  7290                 MS FUSCA:  I have to admit I had not
18     really given any thought to divvying up the envelope as
19     it currently stands.  And I would rather not comment on
20     that without having thought it through.
21  7291                 I don't really think that that has an
22     effect, personally, on my concern.
23  7292                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  What would deal
24     with the concerns that you have expressed?
25  7293                 MS FUSCA:  I think that the CFTPA at


 1     least put forth one suggestion.  I do know that there
 2     are producers who would not come up and shake as much
 3     as I did telling you what I felt was really important
 4     to say, something that has been brewing in me for a
 5     very long time -- and something, by the way, that I
 6     have not avoided sharing with senior people at CBC.
 7  7294                 I am not coming here before you today
 8     and telling you something, for example, that Sloko
 9     Klimku doesn't know about how I feel.  It has gone on
10     for far too long.
11  7295                 If today I wanted to do a piece that
12     was positive police, I know that I would stand very
13     little chance of doing that.  Pro defence is just not a
14     good subject.  But if I want to do the single mother
15     and how bad the Harris government is, that would get
16     done.
17  7296                 It is very clear to me, then, that we
18     are not independent.
19  7297                 And worse still is that if Canadians
20     have a certain point of view, they cannot express it.
21     And I don't believe that that is either in the charter
22     of the CRTC or even the charter of the CBC, for that
23     matter.
24  7298                 I think that all those John Stuart
25     Mill types, on liberty and classical liberals, are


 1     turning over in their graves.  I think it is dangerous.
 2  7299                 So I think that that is a step.
 3  7300                 I also think that perhaps my coming
 4     to you and saying this might cause somebody at CBC to
 5     have a conversation amongst themselves.  I am not into
 6     developing more rules and more regulations and watching
 7     over everybody's shoulder.
 8  7301                 But they really have to be careful. 
 9     They cannot discount producers that way, and they
10     cannot discount public opinion that way either.
11  7302                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I would like to
12     turn to the written submission, which I believe was
13     submitted by your colleague Kitson Vincent.
14  7303                 MS FUSCA:  He is the Chairman of our
15     company, yes.
16  7304                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  In the
17     submission, Stornoway suggests that the "Commission
18     place greater emphasis on scheduling of long-form,
19     independently produced Canadian documentary programs"
20     by "crediting documentaries, broadcast in peak viewing
21     times, with 150 percent Canadian".
22  7305                 Can you think of any other incentives
23     there might be?  Your company is primarily occupied by
24     producing documentaries.  Are there any other --
25  7306                 MS FUSCA:  Actually, we are not.  We


 1     have two streams.  Mr. Vincent does the documentary
 2     stream, and I do the drama stream.  That is the way we
 3     have split it up.
 4  7307                 I think the reason we wrote that is
 5     because we understood clearly a few years ago, when
 6     drama was given a leg up -- and I think there was good
 7     reason for it.  At this point, I think they have had
 8     long enough to go.  It's like we have gone from toddler
 9     to maybe childhood.
10  7308                 I just think we require a level
11     playing field for documentary producers.
12  7309                 The other thing is that if
13     documentaries are worth as much, then those
14     broadcasters who might wish to do long form
15     documentaries now have a better incentive.
16  7310                 Broadcasters have used that as an
17     excuse, saying:  "Look, it is not worth the same."
18  7311                 I am not sure about all of their
19     motives.  I just think it is to provide a level playing
20     field between the two genres at this point.
21  7312                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  If we were to
22     add documentaries to the under-represented categories,
23     would --
24  7313                 I am glad that you clarified for me
25     that Stornoway has the two different streams of


 1     production, the documentaries and the drama, because
 2     that was not apparent from Mr. Vincent's written
 3     submission.
 4  7314                 MS FUSCA:  He did it while I was
 5     away.
 6  7315                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  The Commission
 7     has for some time placed additional emphasis on the
 8     production of scheduling of programming Categories 7, 8
 9     and 9, primarily Canadian drama.
10  7316                 What impact do you think adding
11     documentaries would have on that?
12  7317                 MS FUSCA:  I only have one fear.  I
13     sort of wear two different hats, so I do have one fear
14     that I did not voice in my submission; which is that if
15     it is left up to broadcasters what will make up their
16     Canadian content quotas, for lack of a better word,
17     what I fear is that it is a lot easier to give a
18     producer $50,000 to produce a documentary, or $100,000
19     to fill up two hours, versus a couple of hundred
20     thousand to buy a drama.
21  7318                 That is a genuine concern of mine.
22  7319                 Frankly, I am not really sure how to
23     address that, other than perhaps to say that of the
24     content, a certain amount, a minimum amount, should be
25     drama.  That way, if the rest wanted to do drama, they


 1     could.  But they could also commission documentaries.
 2  7320                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Some of the
 3     intervenors who have appeared before us have suggested
 4     that in order to qualify as a Canadian program, a
 5     documentary need not deal with a Canadian subject.
 6  7321                 MS FUSCA:  I would agree.
 7  7322                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  You would
 8     agree?
 9  7323                 MS FUSCA:  For example, one of the
10     documentaries that we did -- mind you, it was a huge
11     documentary.  It was predominantly about peacekeeping,
12     and Canada plays such a huge role in peacekeeping.
13  7324                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That is a very
14     Canadian thing.
15  7325                 MS FUSCA:  I know.  But having said
16     that, what if we had decided that as -- which we
17     incorporated in this documentary.  But what if after
18     that we had decided that we wanted to look at the
19     aftermath of the Gulf War and how the U.N. was dealing
20     with the Kurdish situation.
21  7326                 How Canadian was that really?  It
22     involved for the very first time U.N. security guards
23     going in as humanitarian assistance.
24  7327                 We definitely have our own view about
25     those kinds of things, obviously.  That is what makes


 1     us --
 2  7328                 I don't have any problem
 3     distinguishing myself from Americans.
 4  7329                 I think it is really important.  I am
 5     really rather surprised --
 6  7330                 I was talking to Rudy Buttignol about
 7     this concern that some people have about Canadians
 8     using stock footage to produce a documentary.  Well,
 9     how else are you going to do an historical piece?  Does
10     this mean that a Canadian might never have a desire to
11     do a piece on Tibet, another documentary on the Dahli
12     Lama?  That would preclude us doing it.  I just don't
13     really see the point.
14  7331                 What would we do?  Buy documentaries
15     from foreigners to broadcast here on those kinds of
16     subjects?  Is that the alternative?
17  7332                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  This is sort of
18     pointing toward what I had raised with you earlier --
19  7333                 MS FUSCA:  No, I have absolutely no
20     problem.
21  7334                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  -- which is the
22     industrial objectives which are employing Canadians and
23     creating jobs, and the cultural objectives.
24  7335                 MS FUSCA:  But dealing with a non-
25     Canadian subject, having done both, I don't recall


 1     employing more or less people.  Albeit when you are
 2     buying stock footage, if we don't have it in Canada,
 3     you are forced to buy it abroad.  But foreigners do the
 4     same thing.
 5  7336                 The notion that we should have a
 6     Canadian buy it from a foreigner and then have the
 7     producer buy it from the distributor makes no sense at
 8     all.  And it is going to cost more.
 9  7337                 I must say that people who produce
10     documentaries really do it for the love of it, I swear. 
11     You don't do it for any other reason than that.
12  7338                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I am going to
13     ask you if I should ask you this, considering that your
14     colleague filed this while you were away.
15  7339                 He attached quite an interesting
16     article about Neil Postman.  It basically has to do
17     with documentaries.
18  7340                 I don't know if you want to address
19     that.
20  7341                 MS FUSCA:  You can try me.  I read it
21     a long time ago.
22  7342                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Richard Nielsen
23     said this morning about documentaries that they are a
24     wonderful way of cutting across the stereotyped news
25     coverage.  I was interested because that is essentially


 1     what Neil Postman talks about.
 2  7343                 I will quote a little bit of this and
 3     maybe you can speak to it.  I thought it was
 4     interesting in terms of encouraging broadcasters to
 5     carry more documentaries.
 6  7344                 He says:
 7                            "The problem with TV
 8                            that the networks impart too
 9                            much information and not enough
10                            knowledge and wisdom.
11                            The result?
12                            An audience left without 'a
13                            sense of coherence' about the
14                            world, an audience who simply
15                            turns off."
16  7345                 He goes on:
17                            "To people in TV news who, by
18                            choice, or by corporate edict,
19                            care about ratings, news is what
20                            is 'important'.
21                            But, more often, it's about what
22                            will keep the eyeballs glued to
23                            the channel.
24                            So, instead of hearing much
25                            about health care, education or


 1                            what impact a day's developments
 2                            will have on a community,
 3                            viewers get crashes, crimes and
 4                            presidential (body parts)."
 5  7346                 I won't quote the word that was used
 6     in the article.
 7                            "These are what Postman calls
 8                            information, 'statements we make
 9                            about the facts of the world'.
10                            Knowledge, on the other hand, is
11                            information organized for
12                            coherence while wisdom is
13                            understanding the implications
14                            of the knowledge."
15  7347                 I guess Mr. Vincent, your colleague,
16     submitted this because he felt that by adding
17     documentaries to the under-represented categories,
18     maybe what we can do in an age of information overload
19     is provide more context and more coherence for the
20     viewer.
21  7348                 MS FUSCA:  That's right.  I think
22     that when you can attract an audience in a documentary,
23     what you actually do --
24  7349                 Everybody worries about
25     desensitization.  We have heard a lot about that.  But


 1     when you put it into context, both in terms of
 2     geography, time, issue, if you will, I think that you
 3     -- Richard may not agree with this.  I think you help
 4     to undo the damage of desensitization, because you
 5     become more involved.
 6  7350                 That is if you can bear to watch it
 7     in the first place in some instances, albeit.
 8  7351                 I think that that is really all that
 9     we are saying.  Oftentimes broadcasters will say: 
10     "Well, we covered that in the news."
11  7352                 Neil Postman says it for us, I
12     suppose.  That's how we feel about the way that news,
13     by its very nature -- this is not anything about news. 
14     Just by its very nature, that is how news covers
15     information.
16  7353                 We are saying we believe that for --
17  7354                 Documentary producers can actually be
18     quite altruistic.  But for the good of, in this
19     instance, the Canadian public we should have that kind
20     of information available.
21  7355                 While we are on the subject, I want
22     to say that what CBC should do is listen to CBC radio
23     "Ideas".  It might help.
24  7356                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  You mean CBC
25     television should listen to CBC radio?


 1  7357                 MS FUSCA:  Yes, should listen to CBC
 2     radio.
 3  7358                 If you listen to Lister Sinclair --
 4     he is on at 9 o'clock almost every night -- there is an
 5     enormous range of subject matter that deals with
 6     varying points of views, from around the world
 7     oftentimes.
 8  7359                 I think it is healthy.  The more you
 9     know, the better you are equipped to deal with your
10     life, your community and your country.
11  7360                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Thank you for
12     your views.  I want to say it has been very helpful to
13     me.  This is my first hearing, and I have not been at
14     the Commission that long.  It is really helpful to me
15     to have so many people from such a wide cross-section
16     of the industry appear before us.
17  7361                 It is very useful in terms of helping
18     us grapple with these issues.
19  7362                 Thank you very much.
20  7363                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Ms
21     Fusca.
22  7364                 MS FUSCA:  Thank you.
23  7365                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will now take a
24     15-minute break.  We will be back at 11:15.
25  7366                 Nous reprenderons à onze heures et quatre.


 1     --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1105
 2     --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1120
 3  7367                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Secretary,
 4     would you invite the next participant, please.
 5  7368                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
 6  7369                 The next presentation will be made by
 7     Salter Street Films and I would invite Mr. Bishop and
 8     Mr. Galipeau to make the presentation.
 9  7370                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning.
11  7371                 MR. BISHOP:  Good morning, Madam
12     Chairman, Members of the Commission and Commission
13     staff.
14  7372                 My name is Charles Bishop and I am
15     Vice-President of Production for Salter Street Films. 
16     With me is Claude Galipeau, our Vice-President for
17     Corporate Planning.
18  7373                 We would like to apologize for the
19     absence of Michael Donovan, our Chairman and CEO, and
20     of Catherine Tait, our President and COO.  Michael
21     could not make it today for health reasons.  Catherine,
22     whom you met last week when she appeared on the CFTPA
23     panel, is in Europe preparing for MIPCOM.
24  7374                 Before beginning, we would like to
25     present a few clips from some of our shows.


 1     --- Video Presentation / Présentation vidéo
 2  7375                 We would like to thank you for this
 3     opportunity to participate in the Commission's review
 4     of television policy.  We believe these hearings are
 5     central to the future of the broadcasting system and
 6     will determine whether Canadian viewers in the future
 7     have greater access to the stories that reflect their
 8     interests, ideas, passions, values and tastes.
 9  7376                 Salter Street is committed to the
10     objectives of the Broadcasting Act and wants to help
11     meet the challenges to ensure that more Canadian
12     programs appear on television, that the quality of
13     these programs increases and that profitability for all
14     parts of the broadcasting system improves.
15  7377                 The Canadian production sector is now
16     quite mature, with solid growth experience, tested
17     infrastructure and excellent talent.  As a sector, we
18     can now produce the high-quality programs demanded by
19     the Canadian public.
20  7378                 As our submission notes, it is now
21     time to focus policy instruments so that Canadian
22     programs, especially in the under-represented
23     categories, have better access to prime time.
24  7379                 Greater access to prime time will
25     ensure more choices for the Canadian viewing public,


 1     and thus greater diversity in the broadcasting system. 
 2     In this regard, we endorse the CFTPA's 10/10/10 plan. 
 3     Now is the time to reclaim prime time for Canadian
 4     programming.
 5  7380                 We do not, however, agree with the
 6     CAB's proposal to self-regulated viewership targets. 
 7     We believe that this would likely maintain the status
 8     quo and, from our experience, status quo meals falling
 9     licence fees, less diversity and fewer regional
10     productions.
11  7381                 We strongly support the CFTPA's
12     proposal of linking exhibition requirements for
13     conventional broadcasters with increased spending
14     requirements for programming in the under-represented
15     categories.  We accept that achieving the 10 per cent
16     of revenues and ten hour goals will require a phased-in
17     approach, however, we believe that together this will
18     be the most powerful tool to achieve the objectives of
19     the Broadcasting Act.
20  7382                 MR. GALIPEAU:  Let me introduce you
21     to our company and describe its business strategy.
22  7383                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Your mike, please.
23  7384                 MR. GALIPEAU:  Sorry.
24  7385                 Salter Street was founded 15 years
25     ago and has grown to become an integrated entertainment


 1     company that is unique in this country.  All our
 2     operations are based in Halifax.  We are the only
 3     publicly traded entertainment company east of Montreal. 
 4     We have built our business on a 100 per cent Canadian
 5     production strategy, that is on proprietary productions
 6     where we own a minimum of 50 per cent of the rights. 
 7     On this point, we believe that intellectual property is
 8     the real estate of the future and our business plan
 9     depends on owning rights.
10  7386                 We have also applied for three
11     specialty applications and, if granted, we would be the
12     only private specialty broadcaster in the Maritimes.
13  7387                 Salter Street's business strategy is
14     based on two crucial assumptions:  First, that high
15     quality Canadian programming can compete and win
16     substantial Canadian audiences and, second, that high
17     quality Canadian productions can compete and win
18     international sales and audiences, particularly in
19     evergreen genres such as science fiction and children's
20     programs.
21  7388                 In our experience, producing Canadian
22     programming is not just exciting, but is a viable
23     business opportunity, even in the regions.  The
24     evidence shows that when programmed correctly, high
25     quality Canadian programming attracts audiences.


 1  7389                 For example, our program "This Hour
 2     Has 22 Minutes", which is broadcast twice weekly on the
 3     CBC, regularly reaches over two million cumulative
 4     viewers per week.  Each broadcast of "This Hour"
 5     achieves an audience share between 10 and 17 per cent. 
 6     Moreover, in regular viewership, episodes of "This
 7     Hour" or "Air Farce" often outpace most U.S. programs
 8     for the attention of Canadian viewers, even in prime
 9     time.
10  7390                 Salter Street's experience also
11     confirms that Canadians greatly enjoy homegrown
12     dramatic stories.  When "Emily of New Moon", our
13     co-production with CINAR Films, premiered in January
14     1998 on the CBC, in the heart of prime time, it reached
15     1.3 million viewers.  As a piece of event television,
16     the first "Emily" episode ranked in the top three
17     programs offered that night by broadcasters in the
18     major Canadian markets.
19  7391                 In addition, our four two-hour
20     science fiction television series, "LEXX", did very
21     well in the Canadian market.  When the first movie
22     aired on CHUM Citytv on April 18, 1997.  It reached
23     almost one million viewers in the Toronto area, making
24     "LEXX" the highest rated Canadian movie in the history
25     of Citytv.


 1  7392                 These entertainment programs were
 2     aired in prime time.  Their success is proof that large
 3     numbers of Canadians will watch programs in the
 4     under-represented categories when these programs are
 5     scheduled in prime time.  Each one of the examples
 6     cited has been renewed, and in the case of "This Hour",
 7     six times.
 8  7393                 MR. BISHOP:  We do not agree with the
 9     CAB's proposal that viewership be the sole measure of
10     performance in the broadcasting system.  Of course, as
11     producers we are committed to reaching large audiences. 
12     As Linda Schuyler said last week, high ratings mean
13     that our programs are renewed.
14  7394                 Indeed, this is a compelling business
15     reason for producing high quality content.  But to be
16     successful, programs must be produced with adequate
17     licence fees and properly scheduled.  The CAB's
18     proposal offers no guarantees on spending or proper
19     scheduling.
20  7395                 We do agree with the CFTPA's concerns
21     regarding structural separation in the broadcasting
22     system.  We think it is important that the gatekeeper
23     who triggers licence fees should not also control the
24     distribution of that particular program or access to
25     Telefilm funding.


 1  7396                 The "independent" in independent
 2     producer means controlling the destiny of intellectual
 3     property.  Safeguards must be put in place so that
 4     licence fee contracts and distribution agreements
 5     remain distinct.  The autonomy and financial viability
 6     of the independent production sector are dependent on
 7     such a structural separation.
 8  7397                 Structural separation is even more
 9     important from the perspective of regional producers,
10     such as Salter Street.  While we recognize the global
11     trend of consolidation in our industry, risks to
12     diversity are inherent in this.  Access for regional
13     producers is more difficult, not to say threatened,
14     when all the broadcasters are based in central Canada.
15  7398                 We need to be attentive to the risks
16     of undermining access for those producers who provide a
17     wide range of programming to Canadians, a range that
18     allows "Emily of New Moon" to be filmed in P.E.I. and
19     for a comedy troupe from Newfoundland to become the
20     unofficial editorial board of the country on "This Hour
21     Has 22 Minutes".
22  7399                 Incentives must remain in place or be
23     strengthened to ensure that national private
24     broadcasters provide entertainment programming that
25     reflects all the regions of the country, in partnership


 1     with the independent production sector.  This job
 2     should not be left solely to the CBC.
 3  7400                 While the existing regional
 4     incentives in public funding mechanisms, such as the
 5     CTF, have worked, as the squeeze on those funds
 6     tightens, they are at risk.  We believe that
 7     requirements to work with regional producers should be
 8     present in broadcasters' conditions of licence.
 9  7401                 As a production company, Salter
10     Street has focused on producing for both the Canadian
11     and international markets.  Within the spectrum of
12     certifiable Canadian content, we recognize that
13     Canadian programming has a range of domestic and
14     international appeal.  "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" does
15     not travel well abroad, for example, while "LEXX" does.
16  7402                 However, we believe that a goal for
17     the domestic broadcasting system should be to exhibit
18     Canadian content that is made by Canadians.  That is
19     why we recommend that the Canadian content be defined
20     as ten out of ten CAVCO points and that this objective
21     be a goal for the system.
22  7403                 We wish to emphasize that we do not
23     believe that Canadian content should be defined on the
24     basis of Canadian themes or locales.  What is important
25     is control by Canadians of the creative process and the


 1     holding of rights.
 2  7404                 We do diverge from the CFTPA position
 3     on the issue of promotion.  We do not believe that
 4     precious shelf space for entertainment programming in
 5     prime time should be sacrificed to promotion.  If
 6     broadcasters program in prime time, if they spend
 7     appropriate amounts in licence fees to produce high
 8     quality entertainment programming, then they will spend
 9     on promoting Canadian programming.  Such spending will
10     be part of their normal course of business, that is,
11     they will do so to attract audiences and meet the
12     expectations of their advertisers.
13  7405                 MR. GALIPEAU:  In sum, we do not
14     agree that the CAB's proposals will help us get more
15     Canadian programs, of better quality and increase the
16     profitability for all parts of the broadcasting system. 
17     We endorse the position of the CFTPA and its 10/10/10
18     plan.
19  7406                 This plan, with one notable exception
20     on the issue of promotion, will help to increase the
21     demand and supply of high quality Canadian television
22     programming, augment choice for the viewer in the heart
23     of prime time by widening the shelf space for Canadian
24     content, further Canadianize prime time and build on
25     the successes of past policies in creating a viable


 1     independent production sector in Canada.
 2  7407                 Thank you for your attention.  We are
 3     ready to answer your questions.
 4  7408                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you,
 5     gentlemen.
 6  7409                 Commissioner Cardozo.
 7  7410                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks, Madam
 8     Chair.
 9  7411                 Thanks, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Galipeau.
10  7412                 I wonder if we could start by talking
11     about identifiably Canadian.  I ask you this question
12     in special light of the three of your top programs that
13     Catherine Tait mentioned as well when she was here last
14     week, "22 Minutes", "Emily of New Moon" and "LEXX".
15  7413                 "22 Minutes" as I understand it is,
16     of course, identifiably Canadian, doesn't have legs,
17     doesn't travel because of the kind of content.  "Emily
18     of New Moon", also identifiably Canadian, but does
19     travel and "LEXX' not identifiably Canadian, a
20     co-production, maybe, maybe not -- well, you can tell
21     me that and correct me if I'm wrong -- and does travel
22     well.
23  7414                 You note in your comments today that
24     "Canadian" should not be defined in terms of themes and
25     locales.  I guess a couple of questions.


 1  7415                 How do you define "Canadian"?
 2  7416                 MR. BISHOP:  Well, what I would say
 3     there is what we talk about is the control by
 4     Canadians.  It's important that the creative process is
 5     a Canadian process and that the holding of rights is
 6     also a Canadian process.  In that case "LEXX" does
 7     qualify.
 8  7417                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  In terms of
 9     themes and locales which a number of other people have
10     talked about as things that would identify it as
11     Canadian, it doesn't strike much there.
12  7418                 MR. GALIPEAU:  On the identifiable
13     Canadian and the issue of themes and locales, I would
14     just make one general point.
15  7419                 Canadians should be able to produce
16     dramatic programming which is not necessarily related
17     to theme or locale but is part of a dramatic story
18     which they can present in a unique perspective. 
19     Canadians should be able to produce Shakespeare, not
20     necessarily have it take place in Halifax, but give it
21     a unique Canadian flavour or at least have full
22     creative control over that product.
23  7420                 That's definitely the case in theatre
24     with Robert Lepage, for example.  It's certainly
25     possible with Stratford.  It's possible to have that. 


 1     We wouldn't want to see that precluded.  The important
 2     thing really is creative control.
 3  7421                 "LEXX" in particular is a production
 4     that is based in Halifax, but it's in a sound stage. 
 5     It is set in a parallel universe.  It's not a Canadian
 6     locale necessarily or a Canadian theme.  It is written
 7     by Canadians, by Nova Scotians, and the creative
 8     process is controlled by Canadians.
 9  7422                 It does have some things that are --
10     when we go into the international marketplace and try
11     to sell "LEXX", it's known as a Canadian product and in
12     a certain way which it is not identified as an American
13     product because it does certain things with the genre
14     of science fiction that you don't find in American
15     science fiction, that is that it doesn't have a happy
16     ending, it has kind of misfits, it's odd-ball, it's off
17     the wall.  It plays with the genre of science fiction. 
18     It's not a kind of a "Star Trek" kind of thing.
19  7423                 Canadians are quite good in fact at
20     playing with genres.  They do it in comedy.  SCTV, for
21     example, would be an example of something that has
22     themes which are strictly American very often, but
23     Canadians replay back American content to Americans and
24     to Canadians in an ironic way.  That's what Canadians
25     are able to give.  It was a Canadian program.


 1  7424                 When you get into the themes and
 2     locales, we just had a problem.  We think the most
 3     important thing is really creative control and the
 4     holding of rights to define something as distinctively
 5     Canadian.
 6  7425                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  One might say
 7     you are only doing that because "LEXX" doesn't rate
 8     high in terms of the themes and locales whereas the
 9     other two do and you are just trying to come up with a
10     justification for putting "LEXX" on the Canadian
11     screen.
12  7426                 I kind of draw a continuum between
13     cultural objectives on one end and industrial
14     objectives on the other which you are giving as a
15     definition that rates closer to industrial objectives.
16  7427                 MR. GALIPEAU:  No.  I was just trying
17     to deal with the argument that for aesthetic reasons,
18     you know, you couldn't call "LEXX" Canadian.  I am just
19     trying to make an argument that perhaps you can.
20  7428                 Clearly, it's important for a company
21     such as Salter Street and other production companies to
22     have a range of product.  That's what we do.  We
23     consider it's important to have some product that
24     travels extremely well internationally in order to make
25     money, but also build an infrastructure, use our talent


 1     and so on.
 2  7429                 MR. BISHOP:  I think there's some
 3     inherent dangers in specifying that all programming
 4     must have, you know, Canadian locales or that sort of
 5     content because you will find -- perhaps you will find
 6     just Canadian references dropped into the middle of a
 7     dramatic program for no apparent reason other than the
 8     fact that they are indeed Canadian and that will then
 9     qualify the show as having been shot in Canada. 
10     Perhaps it will have a Mountie walk into the frame or
11     something like that which will give it that Canadian
12     location.
13  7430                 I think that there is a danger in
14     going in that direction.
15  7431                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Just so that
16     we understand a bit more about what's about there for
17     production, can you tell us a little bit about your
18     sound stage.
19  7432                 MR. BISHOP:  Sure.  It's called
20     Electropolis.  There are four sound stages in the
21     complex.  The ceiling height I think is around 70 feet. 
22     I don't know all the dimensions, but it's a very
23     sophisticated sound stage and will adequately hold any
24     feature film, series, television production, whatever
25     we can put in it.


 1  7433                 MR. GALIPEAU:  It's a particularly
 2     good sound stage for special effects because it's an
 3     abandoned -- well, it used to be a power structure so
 4     it's a very, very large structure.  You are able to go
 5     very far back from the green wall, the green screen
 6     which used to be called the blue screen, but it's
 7     actually green.  You are to go very, very far back to
 8     maintain perspective and to have very good shots in
 9     space.
10  7434                 It's a very good sound stage for
11     that.  It's extremely soundproof.  It's made out of
12     reinforced concrete.  It was built after the second
13     world war and was a strategic asset, so it's very, very
14     solid.  It's floodable.
15  7435                 It's a multi-use sound stage.  Those
16     who come to visit from around the world are rather
17     impressed by it and its facilities and its
18     capabilities.
19  7436                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So you use it
20     for all these productions -- well, not necessarily "22
21     Minutes", but you can use it for something like "Emily"
22     as well as --
23  7437                 MR. BISHOP:  Yes.  We have used it on
24     "LEXX", "Celtic Electric".  We are starting up another
25     children's series and we will be using the facilities


 1     for that.  It is being used by other independent
 2     producers in the region as well.  It's not exclusively
 3     used by Salter Street Films.
 4  7438                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  One of the
 5     other issues you talked about is what you referred to
 6     as structural separation, I think, as to why producers
 7     shouldn't have access to the same funds, to the kinds
 8     of funds that -- the broadcaster shouldn't have access
 9     to the funds that the independent producer has.
10                                                        1140
11  7439                 Would that change if Salter had as
12     you have applied before and are applying again for a
13     specialty and were to be licensed?
14  7440                 MR. GALIPEAU:  We appeared before the
15     Commission in a previous round presenting a specialty
16     application for comedy.  In that application we were
17     very aware of the issue of self-dealing and we at that
18     time had concerns about vertical integration.
19  7441                 We specifically built into that
20     application and we think it is very important to see in
21     the system, especially when producers are involved in
22     broadcasting and vice versa, that there be clear
23     safeguards against self-dealing.  So, we had in the
24     previous application had put forward a proposal of
25     having a certain percentage of expenditures be spent in


 1     the independent production community and it be fully
 2     arm's length from the shareholders.
 3  7442                 So, we were trying to work on trying
 4     to establish safeguards.  When we talk about structural
 5     separation in this brief, we are just trying to
 6     reinforce the need for safeguards against self-dealing.
 7  7443                 With regard to broadcasters in the
 8     situation, now that we are in a situation where
 9     broadcasters do trigger licence fees and we are
10     actually concerned that now that they have a trigger
11     they also have a hammer as well.
12  7444                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  But having
13     said that, do you think that there is strong
14     justification for keeping that structural separation? 
15     Is there something that an independent producer can do
16     that an in-house producer or broadcaster can't because
17     at some point if you were to have a specialty you are
18     going to look a lot like the production arm of a
19     broadcaster?
20  7445                 MR. BISHOP:  I would expect that we
21     would want to be accessing the broadest range of
22     creative talent in the community and, therefore, it
23     would be to the best interests of the station to go and
24     access the independent production community and licence
25     quality creative programs from the independent sector


 1     to put on those specialty channels.
 2  7446                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  In terms of
 3     international productions could you tell us a little
 4     bit about "Lexx?"  It sounds like an interesting
 5     undertaking.  It is, as I think you put it, a
 6     Halifax/German co-production.  How does that work in
 7     terms of putting it together?  How does it work in
 8     terms of shooting and in terms of funding and language?
 9  7447                 MR. GALIPEAU:  I will talk a little
10     bit about it and then Charles will as well.  It is
11     produced under an official co-production treaty with
12     Germany.  Our co-producer is Time in Germany.  We shoot
13     both in Berlin, as well as in Halifax, and we also do
14     special effects both in Berlin and in Halifax.  Maybe
15     Charles could comment on the creative.
16  7448                 MR. BISHOP:  As we have already said,
17     the writers are Canadian and the director is as well. 
18     The principal photography does take place in Halifax
19     and most of the special effects and model building. 
20     There is enormous set construction and giant bugs and
21     things like that that we build in Halifax.
22  7449                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  The bugs are
23     Canadian?
24  7450                 MR. BISHOP:  The bugs are definitely
25     Canadian.


 1  7451                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  That's good, a
 2     good start.
 3  7452                 MR. GALIPEAU:  They are built in a
 4     Via hangar, an abandoned Via hangar.
 5  7453                 MR. BISHOP:  A Via-Rail hangar which
 6     is across the road from the studio.
 7  7454                 There is a small percentage of the
 8     2-D special effects that come from Berlin as well.  But
 9     the majority of the production is taking place in Nova
10     Scotia.
11  7455                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Now, what
12     language?  Is it made in English or German?
13  7456                 MR. BISHOP:  It is made in English
14     and there is dubbing.
15  7457                 MR. GALIPEAU:  It is dubbed
16     afterwards.
17  7458                 MR. BISHOP:  In Germany they are
18     quite used to seeing dubbed programs.  It is not
19     something that Canadian audiences would find
20     acceptable, but in the German market they are so used
21     to it and it's accepted.
22  7459                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And is it
23     selling elsewhere?
24  7460                 MR. GALIPEAU:  Has it been sold?
25  7461                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Yes.


 1  7462                 MR. GALIPEAU:  It has been presold
 2     in, I don't know, 100 territories.
 3  7463                 MR. BISHOP:  I think so.
 4  7464                 MR. GALIPEAU:  About 100 territories
 5     and what the strategy here is with regard to "Lexx" was
 6     to do something that would work in the international
 7     marketplace, but where we did not in fact presell in
 8     the United States in order to give up creative control.
 9  7465                 We presold around the world and not
10     in the United States and used the German co-production
11     treaty in order to increase our financing in order to
12     make something of very high quality for the
13     international marketplace.  To be able to follow that
14     strategy, you are able to basically presell and finance
15     all your costs of production and then have something
16     that you can bring to a very large marketplace like the
17     United States.
18  7466                 For example, we are going to Nipkon
19     right now to sell the program in the United States.  So
20     that's another thing we have discovered in terms of
21     working in the co-production field with international
22     co-productions is that it gives us a certain kind of
23     ability to pivot away from the American market and
24     buyer and maintain control in a creative process and
25     then go into the American marketplace with somewhere


 1     where we have actually basically financed it completely
 2     without the Americans.
 3  7467                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  But your co-
 4     producing partner in Germany is Time?
 5  7468                 MR. GALIPEAU:  Yes.
 6  7469                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Time of -- the
 7     American?
 8  7470                 MR. BISHOP:  No, no.  It's Time --
 9  7471                 MR. GALIPEAU:  Time Film.
10  7472                 MR. BISHOP:  Time Film.
11  7473                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And it is
12     completely separate from Time Warner?
13  7474                 MR. GALIPEAU:  Yes.
14  7475                 MR. BISHOP:  Completely separate.
15  7476                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So you are
16     saying it is easier to go to the United States from
17     Canada via Germany than if you were to go directly to
18     the United States?
19  7477                 MR. BISHOP:  In this case it was the
20     way the project came together.  It came together with a
21     co-production partner in Germany.  It conceivably could
22     have come together with a co-production partner in
23     another treaty country.
24  7478                 MR. GALIPEAU:  It could have, but the
25     director and principal producer, Paul Donovan, who is


 1     one of the founders of Salter Street Films, once tried
 2     -- when he did the first series of "Lexx," which are
 3     four MOWs, he did present the proposal in the United
 4     States.  He had been working with someone at a
 5     specialty channel there, a cable network.  At one point
 6     that person changed and when he returned to Los Angeles
 7     he was told that, "Well, you know that we have this
 8     deal that we are going to do this science fiction.  You
 9     are going to do the science fiction program the way we
10     say you are going to do it."  Paul basically left and
11     followed another strategy, which enabled him and Salter
12     Street to have greater creative control.
13  7479                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  On the CFTPA
14     10, 10, 10 proposal -- I don't have the page reference
15     to it, but you were in favour of 150 per cent for a
16     certain type of programming.  Is that correct?
17  7480                 MR. GALIPEAU:  A 150 per cent bonus
18     for feature film?
19  7481                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  For a feature
20     film.
21  7482                 MR. GALIPEAU:  For a feature film.
22  7483                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  The question I
23     have and I am not concerned about the precise area, but
24     just the question of the more bonus you provide in one
25     area means less in another area.  I am wondering is


 1     that fine for you to say since now you are big boys and
 2     girls of course, and you have got this successful
 3     thing.  So you are sort of fully in the door, your
 4     programs likely will do well, as opposed to a smaller,
 5     newer producer.
 6  7484                 So, the issue of not using too many
 7     hours up for extra credit means that somebody is going
 8     to get squeezed out, likely newer producers.  Is that
 9     unfair?
10  7485                 MR. GALIPEAU:  It might be somewhat
11     unfair, given the fact that the broadcasting system is
12     fragmenting as it is often said and that there are many
13     buyers in the Canadian market for a wide variety of
14     programming.  So, there is still, I believe, quite a
15     bit of room for -- you called it small producers to
16     produce product for the Canadian broadcasting system.
17  7486                 With regard to the bonusing, we were
18     agreeing with the CFTPA and in order to create as many
19     incentives as possible and flexibility in the system to
20     Canadianize prime time.
21  7487                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  But you
22     realize that what happens now, the 10, 10, 10 is 10,
23     10, 10 if necessary, but not necessarily 10, 10, 10, to
24     paraphrase an old historical phrase.
25  7488                 Lastly, I want to ask you about


 1     regional and local programming.  Do you see that you
 2     have a specific role in regional programming?  I
 3     suppose not local, but you talked about being the
 4     largest outfit east of Montreal.  Certainly "22
 5     Minutes" has a very regional flair, as does "Emily."
 6  7489                 MR. BISHOP:  I think what we have
 7     done there is created programs from the region that
 8     speak to all Canadians.  They are not regional programs
 9     as such.  I think their regionality is they are
10     produced in Atlantic Canada, but they also travel
11     across the country and are uniquely and distinctly
12     Canadian television shows.
13  7490                 With respect to --
14  7491                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  With a locale
15     and a theme.
16  7492                 MR. BISHOP:  Exactly.
17  7493                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And legs.
18  7494                 MR. BISHOP:  But with respect to
19     local windows, I believe that the CBC has a one-half
20     hour local or regional show called "Land and Sea" that
21     is still produced in the region, but as far as I know
22     that may be the only window available for independent
23     producers trying to do regional documentaries in
24     Atlantic Canada.
25  7495                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  But with


 1     "Emily" and "22 Minutes" and its predecessor "Codco,"
 2     and "Codco started out as a regional program out of
 3     Newfoundland, as I understand it, did the regional
 4     thing help to get it onto the national stage and then
 5     it took off?  Like does it help to provide any kind of
 6     incentive to broadcasters to do that because one of the
 7     great things about both those programs, and perhaps
 8     more "Emily" than "22 Minutes" is that it really began
 9     this business of telling stories, telling Canadian
10     stories to each other.  People across the country can
11     get this very P.E.I. centred story.
12  7496                 MR. GALIPEAU:  I think it actually is
13     important.  If you look at something like "This Hour
14     Has 22 Minutes," one of its unique qualities is that it
15     does come from the regions and the talent is regionally
16     based.  I would say it is not accidental that that is
17     the case, that if you go to Nova Scotia, if you go to
18     Newfoundland, the gaze onto the rest of the country is
19     one of ironic distance.  They are phenomenally good at
20     sending us all up here in central Canada.
21  7497                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I think also
22     the politicians of Atlantic Canada aren't as amusing as
23     they used to be in the old days.
24  7498                 MR. GALIPEAU:  Yes.
25  7499                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  That covers my


 1     questions.  Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
 2  7500                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
 3     Pennefather.
 4  7501                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
 5  7502                 You talked just now with Commissioner
 6     Cardozo about the importance of incentives.  We were
 7     looking at it from the point of view of the credit
 8     system and how it increases or not Canadian programming
 9     in prime time.  But when it comes to incentives for
10     promotion, you are not keen on that approach.
11  7503                 We all know the importance of
12     promotion.  If there is one thing that Salter Street
13     has done, it has promoted or insisted on promotion.
14  7504                 I take it from your oral presentation
15     you would leave that to the broadcasters with no
16     incentives because of the idea of taking shelf space.
17  7505                 Could you elaborate on the point of
18     promotion?  You say at the end that a key is to
19     increase the demand and the supply.  I am sure by
20     demand you mean consumers and broadcasters.  So, let's
21     talk about promotion a little bit.
22  7506                 MR. GALIPEAU:  I will say a few
23     things and then Charles will supplement.
24  7507                 I think with regard to the promotion
25     what we were concerned about was particularly the half


 1     hour being given away on the shelf space, as being
 2     very, very precious.
 3  7508                 With regard to spending, I think that
 4     we would support any kind of sharing of responsibility
 5     on the part of producers and broadcasters for spending
 6     on promotion, as that might be part of the Broadcast
 7     Fund, the CTF.
 8  7509                 So, when we wrote in our brief that
 9     we were really concerned about, promotion is really
10     just exclusively about shelf space, but we are willing
11     to put the dollars to promote and we also think the
12     broadcasters would be willing to put dollars to promote
13     programs if they are presenting a Canadian program in
14     that very prime real estate of shelf space in prime
15     time.
16  7510                 MR. BISHOP:  I would just add to that
17     that it is a very, very precious time.  I think you
18     have heard from other producers about how important it
19     is to have those windows to play their dramas or
20     documentaries.
21  7511                 I would agree that the broadcasters
22     will promote their own shows.
23  7512                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  But you
24     are not satisfied with the current promotion of
25     Canadian programming in this country, are you?


 1  7513                 MR. BISHOP:  I think we could always
 2     do more.
 3  7514                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Would you
 4     have some --
 5  7515                 MR. BISHOP:  I am not sure that
 6     giving away a half an hour of prime time, valuable
 7     prime time would be the way to do it.  I don't have the
 8     answers.
 9  7516                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Not even
10     for the "Entertainment Tonight" style of promotional
11     program, provided that it was a majority Canadian
12     content in the show itself?  You don't like that idea? 
13     It has been bandied about quite a bit.
14  7517                 MR. BISHOP:  It's not that I don't
15     like the idea.  I just think that there are perhaps
16     some other Canadian voices, Canadian stories that might
17     not get heard.
18  7518                 MR. GALIPEAU:  It's actually, I
19     think, if I might add, it's a genre issue because I
20     think the crucial thing is to help make -- spend a
21     sufficient amount of money to make high quality
22     dramatic programming and programming in the under-
23     represented categories.
24  7519                 Now, an "Entertainment Tonight" kind
25     of program is an information program.  It is a news


 1     program and broadcasters, as I think demonstrated, are
 2     quite good at doing those kinds of programming already
 3     and that they do use their existing schedule, as well
 4     as to broadcast news and current affairs, which this
 5     would be current affairs about entertainers.  They do
 6     meet much of their obligations, Canadian content
 7     obligations by already providing that kind of
 8     programming.
 9  7520                 So, they are tested and they do that
10     already.  They just didn't want to give away prime time
11     supplement promotion, entertainment programming for
12     promotion.
13  7521                 MR. BISHOP:  I think that there are
14     many ways to promote Canadian television shows.  There
15     are many mediums that television shows can be promoted
16     on and the people that appear in them and their themes
17     and there are many ways of advertising those programs. 
18     Therefore, I just think it is too valuable a time to
19     give away.
20  7522                 MR. GALIPEAU:  I again would like to
21     add about this promotion issue.  We work quite hard in
22     promoting our programs with publicists and the like and
23     it is done in other media.  It is done in newspapers. 
24     It is done in magazines.  It is done in TV-Guide and
25     these kinds of things.  It is done on the radio.  It is


 1     done on websites now, so we are all trying to work to
 2     help promote our product, as well as the broadcasters
 3     trying to do so as well.  But we are actively trying to
 4     do so.
 5  7523                 Just to comment a little bit on the
 6     point that there is an insufficient amount of promotion
 7     and not a very good star system in Canada.  We kind of
 8     work for a company or a part of a company that has a
 9     number of recognizable stars.  They have achieved that
10     status by being in prime time, but also basically going
11     out and being present in the newspapers and magazines
12     and elsewhere.
13  7524                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
14  7525                 Thank you, Madam Chair.
15  7526                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr.
16     Galipeau and Mr. Bishop.
17  7527                 I am sure your regional Commissioner,
18     Vice-Chairman David Colville, is watching and on his
19     behalf I say hello.
20  7528                 MR. BISHOP:  Thank you.
21  7529                 MR. GALIPEAU:  Thank you.
22  7530                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  And have a good
23     trip home.
24  7531                 MR. BISHOP:  Thank you very much.
25                                                        1205


 1  7532                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Secretary,
 2     voulez-vous s'il vous plaît inviter le participant
 3     suivant.
 4  7533                 Mme BÉNARD:  Merci, Madame la
 5     Présidente.
 6  7534                 La prochaine présentation sera celle
 7     de Groupe TVA inc., et j'inviterais M. Lamarre et ses
 8     collègues à s'avancer à la table.
 9  7535                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Bonjour, Monsieur
10     Lamarre.  Nous connaissons l'efficacité de TVA et son
11     désir de bien utiliser son temps; donc j'ai une
12     proposition à vous faire pour m'assurer que vous allez
13     avoir un working lunch.
14  7536                 Nous allons entendre votre
15     présentation, ensuite je vais vous donner un aperçu des
16     questions que j'ai et nous allons ensuite prendre une
17     pause d'une heure pendant laquelle vous allez
18     travailler sur mes questions et je vais examiner pour
19     une deuxième fois votre soumission écrite.  Ça va?
20  7537                 M. LAMARRE:  Tout à fait.  Ça nous
21     convient tout à fait, et je vous remercie de votre
22     délicatesse.
24  7538                 M. LAMARRE:  Alors Madame la
25     Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers,


 1     membres du Conseil, mon nom est Daniel Lamarre.  Je
 2     suis président et chef de la direction du Groupe TVA.
 3  7539                 J'ai le plaisir d'être accompagné
 4     aujourd'hui, à ma droite, par M. André Provencher, qui
 5     est vice-président, Programmation et directeur général
 6     de l'antenne; à ma gauche, M. Claude Lizotte, qui est
 7     directeur général, Marketing et Créativité média.  À la
 8     table derrière nous se trouvent M. Farès Khoury de la
 9     firme Étude Économique Conseil, qui a préparé le modèle
10     économique produit avec notre mémoire, et Me Françine
11     Côté, conseiller juridique de TVA en matières
12     réglementaires et gouvernementales.
13  7540                 C'est avec plaisir que nous prenons
14     avantage de l'invitation du Conseil à discuter des
15     propositions pour la révision de la politique de la
16     télévision canadienne.  J'aimerais préciser, Madame la
17     Présidente, que TVA a pris votre invitation très au
18     sérieux.  Pour les fins de cet exercice, TVA a
19     constitué un comité à l'interne avec la collaboration
20     de différents consultants pour produire un mémoire et
21     un modèle économique adaptés au système de
22     radiodiffusion de langue française.
23  7541                 Groupe TVA, comme vous le savez, est
24     le plus important radiodiffuseur privé de langue
25     française au Canada.  De fait, la principale raison de


 1     notre présence aujourd'hui, c'est de vous parler de la
 2     spécificité du système de radiodiffusion de langue
 3     française et vous convaincre d'adapter le cadre
 4     réglementaire en conséquence.
 5  7542                 Plusieurs intervenants tels l'APFTQ
 6     et Télé-Québec ont eu l'occasion de le souligner, la
 7     réalité du marché francophone est tout à fait
 8     différente de celle du reste du Canada et commande des
 9     règles de jeu également différentes.  La Loi sur la
10     radiodiffusion aborde d'ailleurs spécifiquement cette
11     réalité fondamentale depuis 1991.  Le Conseil a reconnu
12     cette réalité dans plusieurs décisions et le besoin de
13     règles ou politiques particulières à cet égard. 
14     Malheureusement, le Règlement relatif à la télévision
15     ne reconnaît pas, dans ses règles actuelles, la
16     spécificité du système de langue française.
17  7543                 Permettez-moi de rappeler brièvement
18     les éléments qui démarquent le paysage audiovisuel
19     francophone en Amérique du Nord.
20  7544                 L'étroitesse du marché en termes
21     d'auditoire et de recettes constitue une réalité avec
22     laquelle nous devons composer.  À titre d'exemples, le
23     marché francophone est quatre fois plus petit que le
24     marché canadien anglais.  Les sources de revenus
25     confondues, incluant la publicité, les revenus


 1     d'abonnement, les programmes publics d'appui et autres
 2     représentent moins du tiers de celles du système
 3     canadien de langue anglaise.  Je voudrais également
 4     souligner que les marchés d'exportation de nos produits
 5     en langue française sont beaucoup moins importants et
 6     plus difficiles à pénétrer.
 7  7545                 En dépit de cela, le succès de la
 8     télévision francophone fait envie.  Notre public
 9     exprime clairement sa préférence pour des produits
10     locaux.  Au printemps 1998 les sondages révélaient que
11     76,5 pour cent de l'écoute de la télévision par la
12     population totale au Québec était dévolue aux services
13     conventionnels et spécialisés de langue française.
14  7546                 TVA, vous le savez, est le champion
15     des diffuseurs privés au titre de la production
16     d'émissions originales canadiennes.  TVA consacre plus
17     de 85 pour cent de son budget de programmation aux
18     émissions canadiennes, ce qui le place en tête des
19     diffuseurs privés au Canada.  C'est sans doute ce qui
20     explique que TVA obtient les meilleures cotes d'écoute
21     dans son marché.  Que ce soit au printemps ou à l'été
22     1998, TVA emporte la palme pour l'ensemble des heures
23     d'écoute.
24  7547                 Dans sa grille d'automne, TVA diffuse
25     six heures et demie de téléromans de grande écoute par


 1     semaine.  Ces téléromans attirent des auditoires de 1 à
 2     2 millions de téléspectateurs sur un marché potentiel
 3     de 6 millions.  La grille d'automne de TVA comporte 68
 4     pour cent de contenu canadien et 84,5 heures de
 5     programmation originale canadienne.  Huit des dix
 6     émissions les plus regardées cet été sont diffusées à
 7     notre réseau, ce qui confirme le lien privilégié entre
 8     TVA et les téléspectateurs.
 9  7548                 Les diffuseurs francophones ont su
10     s'adapter aux perturbations de leur environnement en
11     dépit de la crise structurelle de la télévision.  Il
12     faut le reconnaître, notre environnement sera toujours
13     en mutation puisque nous sommes directement tributaires
14     des fluctuations de la conjoncture économique.  La
15     situation actuelle est porteuse de risques accrus pour
16     l'avenir, en particulier pour les télévisions
17     conventionnelles du segment francophone, où l'histoire
18     des 15 dernières années montre une variabilité
19     significative des résultats, en termes de rentabilité,
20     des télédiffuseurs conventionnels.  La multiplication
21     des services et la mondialisation des marchés sont
22     aussi des agents de changement importants pour notre
23     industrie.
24  7549                 En s'exerçant en défaveur du groupe
25     des télévisions conventionnelles, la fragmentation de


 1     l'assiette publicitaire a aussi pesé sur leurs
 2     conditions d'opération et leur rentabilité.
 3  7550                 Faut-il le rappeler, TVA a connu
 4     plusieurs années déficitaires avec des pertes très
 5     lourdes au début des années quatre-vingt-dix.  Notre
 6     situation financière s'est nettement améliorée à la
 7     faveur d'une conjoncture économique des plus favorables
 8     et d'un marché qui a connu une hausse sensible au cours
 9     des dernières années.  Cependant, force est de
10     reconnaître que la croissance s'est fortement ralentie
11     et qu'il y a haut lieu d'anticiper un recul marqué de
12     l'activité économique dans l'avenir immédiat.  La
13     volatilité des marchés et l'incertitude des économies
14     mondiales sont des indices clairs à cet effet.
15  7551                 Dans le système actuel, le mode de
16     gestion du cadre réglementaire a réduit les marges de
17     manoeuvre des télédiffuseurs en leur imposant des
18     exigences uniformes qui limitent en quelque sorte les
19     stratégies de différenciation et les approches
20     innovatrices que les forces du marché devraient
21     spontanément susciter.  Il nous apparaît donc
22     primordial de prévoir un cadre réglementaire qui
23     intègre la réalité de l'asymétrie des marchés et qui
24     assure la souplesse et la flexibilité aux
25     télédiffuseurs du marché francophone pour leur


 1     permettre de se différencier et mieux servir les
 2     objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.
 3  7552                 Ceci étant dit, nous pensons que le
 4     système des licences est toujours pertinent, surtout
 5     dans un système de concurrence plus ouverte.
 6  7553                 En résumé, donc, les caractéristiques
 7     du cadre réglementaire que TVA souhaite pour l'avenir
 8     sont les suivantes:
 9  7554                 Asymétrie:  pour refléter la
10     spécificité du marché francophone.
11  7555                 Flexibilité:  pour susciter des
12     stratégies différenciées et innovatrices afin d'offrir
13     la diversité et la complémentarité recherchées.
14  7556                 Equité:  pour promouvoir la qualité
15     des contenus tout en assurant la vitalité des
16     différents intervenants dans le marché, par une
17     meilleure répartition des revenus entre télédiffuseurs.
18  7557                 Sur cette toile de fond, je
19     demanderais à André Provencher de poursuivre sur la
20     question de nos rapports avec différents éléments du
21     système de radiodiffusion, soit les producteurs
22     indépendants, la télévision publique et la télévision
23     spécialisée.
24  7558                 M. PROVENCHER:  Bonjour, Madame la
25     Présidente, mesdames et messieurs.


 1  7559                 Dans un premier temps, j'aborderai la
 2     question de nos relations avec l'industrie de la
 3     production indépendante.  TVA reconnaît d'emblée le
 4     rôle et la contribution tout à fait marquante de la
 5     production indépendante dans le système francophone. 
 6     Ainsi notre grille d'automne comporte 26 heures
 7     produites par le secteur indépendant.  En 1998, TVA
 8     consacrera un montant de 18 millions de dollars à la
 9     production indépendante.  TVA considère que son apport
10     comme télédiffuseur privé constitue une contribution
11     exceptionnelle à l'essor de la production canadienne.
12  7560                 Cela étant dit, TVA estime que sa
13     stratégie gagnante repose sur un équilibre entre
14     l'apport des producteurs indépendants et celui de sa
15     production interne.  Les objectifs de la Loi sur la
16     radiodiffusion visent à faire en sorte que les attentes
17     des téléspectateurs canadiens soient satisfaites; le
18     téléspectateur, quant à lui, n'est aucunement intéressé
19     à savoir si l'émission qu'il regarde est produite à
20     l'interne ou à l'externe.  La mesure du succès et de la
21     pertinence des émissions se vérifie par les auditoires
22     qu'elles génèrent, par la satisfaction des
23     téléspectateurs.
24  7561                 L'industrie de la production
25     indépendante est maintenant florissante.  À titre


 1     d'exemples, en avril 1998 neuf sociétés canadiennes de
 2     production étaient cotées en bourse, dont Coscient et
 3     Cinar, totalisant une valeur boursière de 1,7 milliards
 4     de dollars, soit 50 pour cent des recettes globales de
 5     l'industrie.
 6  7562                 Nous pensons que le moment est
 7     approprié pour suggérer une meilleure répartition des
 8     responsabilités, des risques et des bénéfices entre
 9     diffuseurs et producteurs indépendants.  Ces nouveaux
10     rapports devraient comprendre l'accès des diffuseurs
11     privés aux fonds d'aide à la production et
12     l'établissement d'un véritable partenariat avec les
13     producteurs indépendants pour l'exploitation des
14     produits dans lesquels nous investissons, tant sur le
15     marché domestique que sur le marché international.
16  7563                 J'aimerais maintenant aborder la
17     question des rapports entre la télévision publique et
18     la télévision privée.
19  7564                 La Société Radio-Canada se trouve
20     proportionnellement moins affectée par la fragmentation
21     du marché publicitaire, compte tenu de l'importance
22     relative des subventions dans son financement.  De
23     surcroît, comme l'explique notre modèle économique, la
24     Société Radio-Canada utilise des fonds publics pour
25     exercer des surenchères dans l'achat de droits


 1     d'émissions recherchées par les diffuseurs privés. 
 2     Elle exerce un effet de déflation sur le marché
 3     publicitaire et entraîne les autres radiodiffuseurs
 4     dans une spirale à l'effet pervers.
 5  7565                 Le nouveau cadre réglementaire
 6     devrait permettre de redresser cette situation.  Les
 7     téléspectateurs canadiens seraient ainsi clairmeent
 8     gagnants puisqu'on éviterait une dilapidation inutile
 9     des sources de financement des émissions, déjà très
10     dispersées.
11  7566                 D'autre part, il nous apparaît
12     inéquitable, ainsi que le font valoir plusieurs
13     intervenants, que 50 pour cent de la portion du fonds
14     Téléfilm du Fonds de télévision canadien soient
15     réservés à la Société Radio-Canada.  Une formule de
16     répartition qui reconnaît la performance de l'écoute
17     d'une émission serait plus juste pour tous les
18     télédiffuseurs et permettrait d'utiliser ces fonds de
19     manière plus efficace, en assurant une plus grande
20     visibilité aux émissions financées à même les fonds
21     publics.
22  7567                 Je conclus mes remarques en abordant
23     l'effet de la télévision spécialisée sur la télévision
24     généraliste.
25  7568                 L'extension des services de


 1     télévision spécialisée et payante est un moyen utile et
 2     nécessaire pour accroître la diversité et la variété
 3     dans le système de radiodiffusion canadien.  Toutefois,
 4     il ne faut pas perdre de vue que la télévision
 5     conventionnelle privée de langue française est le
 6     moteur de la création, l'expression et la promotion de
 7     la culture française au Canada, a fortiori dans un
 8     petit marché comme le nôtre.  La télévision spécialisée
 9     peut être conçue comme un complément concurrentiel de
10     la télévision généraliste.
11  7569                 À cet égard, et dans cette mesure, il
12     serait souhaitable de voir la télévision généraliste
13     participer de plus en plus directement à l'essor du
14     segment spécialisé de la radiodiffusion de langue
15     française.  L'enjeu est de mettre en place des
16     conditions et moyens qui permettront aux télédiffuseurs
17     généralistes de langue française de capitaliser sur des
18     synergies et des complémentarités avec des
19     télédiffuseurs spécialisés et autres partenaires,
20     autant au Canada qu'à l'étranger.
21  7570                 Tout en ayant accès aux revenus
22     d'abonnement, les chaînes spécialisées comptent pour
23     une partie croissante de leurs revenus sur le marché
24     publicitaire.  Il n'y a pas, cependant, de
25     justification économique logique pour restreindre une


 1     catégorie de télédiffuseurs au seul marché publicitaire
 2     alors que d'autres ont accès à des sources de
 3     financement diversifiées.
 4  7571                 Il est clair aujourd'hui que les
 5     radiodiffuseurs conventionnels doivent recouvrer une
 6     plus grande marge de manoeuvre en matière de gestion de
 7     leurs revenus publicitaires et de leurs autres revenus. 
 8     Il suffit que des éléments de flexibilité soient
 9     introduits de manière à permettre à la concurrence de
10     jouer pleinement et s'assurer que la télévision
11     généraliste joue le rôle structurant nécessaire pour
12     garantir que notre système de radiodiffusion offre la
13     variété, tant au niveau généraliste que spécialisé.
14  7572                 Je cède la parole à Daniel pour le
15     mot de la fin.
16  7573                 M. LAMARRE:  Alors, pour conclure,
17     nous pensons que le nouveau cadre de réglementation
18     doit survivre aux changements accélérés qui s'amorcent
19     pour les 10 ou 15 prochaines années.
20  7574                 Vous aurez l'occasion en novembre
21     prochain, tout juste après avoir terminé le présent
22     processus, de commencer une autre consultation publique
23     relativement à la politique sur les nouveaux médias.
24     Selon nous, la télévision généraliste est au coeur du
25     développement des nouveaux médias.


 1  7575                 Le nouveau cadre réglementaire de la
 2     télévision devrait donc s'harmoniser avec le principe
 3     de facilité, encourager et promouvoir le développement
 4     des nouveaux médias en considérant la télévision comme
 5     point d'appui de ce développement.  Nous espérons que
 6     les quelques pistes que nous vous avons suggérées à cet
 7     effet seront utiles à votre réflexion.
 8  7576                 Nous vous remercions de votre
 9     attention et nous sommes prêts à écouter vos questions.
10  7577                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Bonjour, madame,
11     messieurs.
12  7578                 Votre intervention écrite et le
13     mémoire de la firme Étude Économique Conseil qui
14     l'accompagne reposent en grande partie sur un certain
15     rejet du système de réglementation de la télévision en
16     place, qui est décrit plus d'une fois comme un micro-
17     management ex ante.  D'après vous, les forces du marché
18     peuvent de plus en plus assurer la protection de
19     l'intérêt public.  Le système doit donc être, selon
20     vous, délesté de ses redondances et doit être plus
21     flexible là où la concurrence le permet ou le justifie,
22     avec un Conseil qui se limiterait à redresser les abus.
23  7579                 Pourtant, ni vos soumissions ni le
24     mémoire n'offrent beaucoup de précisions ou de méthodes
25     très concrètes en ce qui concerne un système de


 1     réglementation plus souple, basé, je suppose, sur le
 2     management ex post.
 3  7580                 Vous recommandez en même temps que le
 4     Conseil continue à réglementer l'entrée de nouveaux
 5     joueurs dans le domaine des canaux spécialisés mais
 6     qu'il se fie à la concurrence et permette les
 7     télévisions généralistes avec une plus grande liberté
 8     d'intégration horizontale et verticale, présumément
 9     pour limiter la concurrence.
10  7581                 Lorsqu'il s'agit de Radio-Canada,
11     vous proposez un système d'interventions des plus
12     précises.  Je veux donc surtout, d'une part, vous faire
13     préciser le système de réglementation que vous
14     préconisez pour l'avenir et, de l'autre, clarifier les
15     apparentes contradictions que j'ai soulevées -- et il y
16     en a d'autres -- dans vos propos en ce qui concerne le
17     protectionnisme que vous jugez toujours nécessaire dans
18     certains cas.  J'aurai aussi des questions sur des
19     sujets précis, entre autres la concentration et
20     l'intégration verticale, la complémentarité entre les
21     secteurs public et privé, généraliste et spécialisé, et
22     les limites de la publicité à l'antenne.
23  7582                 Donc je vous souhaite un bon lunch.
24  7583                 Nous reprendrons après le déjeuner à
25     1 h 20, puisque nous avons une journée bien remplie. 


 1     Alors ça nous donne donc une heure pour nous amuser.
 2  7584                 Au revoir.
 3     --- Suspension à / Recess at 1220
 4     --- Reprise à / Upon resuming at 1322
 5  7585                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous vous redisons
 6     bonjour, madame et messieurs de TVA.  Vous avez bien
 7     déjeuné?
 8  7586                 M. LAMARRE:  Oui.
 9  7587                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors maintenant, si
10     on revient à mon intention d'essayer de préciser
11     davantage ce que vous préconisez, je vais débuter en
12     vous demandant... je crois que c'est juste de conclure
13     que vous parlez surtout pour le marché francophone.
14  7588                 M. LAMARRE:  Oui.
15  7589                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Malgré ça, vous avez
16     indiqué au paragraphe 14 de votre soumission écrite que
17     vous souscrivez au mémoire de l'ACR dans l'instance.
18  7590                 Doit-on conclure que vous êtes
19     d'accord avec la proposition de l'ACR selon laquelle le
20     Conseil, avec l'industrie, établirait des objectifs
21     d'écoute qui seraient utilisés comme barème de réussite
22     ou non dans le système de radiodiffusion?
23  7591                 M. LAMARRE:  La réponse à ça, c'est,
24     oui, c'est ce que nous proposons avec l'ACR.
25  7592                 Ce qu'on a fait dans notre mémoire et


 1     la démarche que vous faisons devant vous aujourd'hui
 2     toutefois va beaucoup plus loin parce que, comme on
 3     vous l'a mentionné ce matin, nous croyons comme
 4     diffuseur que nous avons deux responsabilités
 5     importantes dans le marché francophone.
 6  7593                 La première, c'est un engagement
 7     culturel que nous avons, comme vous le reconnaissez
 8     vous-même, bien répondu parce que le Réseau TVA a
 9     véritablement une feuille de route exemplaire à cet
10     égard.  L'autre responsabilité que l'on a -- et
11     j'aimerais insister sur ce point -- c'est un engagement
12     économique vis-à-vis nos actionnaires et vis-à-vis nos
13     employés.
14  7594                 Il y a une notion que j'aimerais
15     amener sur la table à cet égard; c'est que pendant
16     toutes les audiences jusqu'à maintenant on a
17     l'impression, comme observateurs, que la production
18     télévision est d'un côté de la salle, c'est-à-dire les
19     producteurs indépendants, et que de l'autre côté de la
20     salle il y a les diffuseurs.
21  7595                 J'aimerais vous suggérer très
22     fortement, étant l'employeur de 1 200 employés qui sont
23     en production télévision tous les jours et qui
24     produisent 1 500 heures de diffusion, que le Réseau TVA
25     est un des plus gros producteurs de contenu canadien au


 1     Canada, et c'est forts de cette position-là que nous
 2     souhaitons que les règles du jeu qui seront établies
 3     par vous au cours des prochaines années nous permettent
 4     de continuer à être non seulement un diffuseur mais un
 5     producteur de contenu de qualité.
 6  7596                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Si on revient à
 7     l'objectif auditoire, évidemment, en ce moment, la
 8     télévision de langue française n'a pas à s'inquiéter
 9     d'atteindre des auditoires parce qu'elle les atteint
10     avec grand succès; il s'agit évidemment de maintenir
11     cette popularité, mais c'est évident qu'il y a peu de
12     barèmes qu'on pourrait établir pour la télévision de
13     langue anglaise qui ne seraient pas dès maintenant
14     dépassés de beaucoup par la télévision de langue
15     française.  Mais je vois bien que vous aussi, vous êtes
16     d'avis que l'écoute est importante.
17  7597                 Par exemple j'ai remarqué, au
18     paragraphe 38 je crois, que vous suggérez une notion
19     d'impact ou de cote d'écoute chez le spectateur comme
20     critère dans le système d'attribution d'aide à la
21     production.  Donc, évidemment, pour vous c'est
22     important aussi.  L'utilité de ce système-là, je
23     suppose, ne vous intéresse pas beaucoup parce que vous
24     dépassez, comme je viens de le mentionner, tout barème
25     qui serait suggéré probablement.


 1  7598                 Maintenant, vous mentionnez à plus
 2     d'un endroit... et je relève une mention à la page 6,
 3     où vous dites que la popularité des émissions
 4     canadiennes est bien assurée dans le marché
 5     francophone -- nous reconnaissons ça évidemment -- et
 6     que le défi d'après vous est de maintenir un
 7     financement adéquat pour la production d'émissions de
 8     langue française de qualité.
 9  7599                 Même au Canada français, est-ce que
10     la notion de popularité, qui est un peu un des
11     problèmes qui a été soulevé par plusieurs intervenants
12     dans la proposition de l'ACR... c'est que la notion de
13     popularité ne sert pas ne sert pas nécessairement la
14     notion de diversité.  Par exemple, même au Canada
15     français, est-ce qu'il n'y a pas encore un rôle à jouer
16     pour assurer la diversité dans certaines catégories
17     sous-représentées?  Par exemple, est-ce que les
18     programmes populaires au Canada français qui vous
19     donnent des cotes d'écoute élevées ne sont pas en
20     général... là, je ne parle pas de nouvelles ou
21     d'information, mais si vous parlez de programmation
22     dans les catégories sous-représentées, est-ce qu'il n'y
23     a pas danger que même là vous pouvez avoir des cotes
24     d'écoute très élevées sans atteindre la notion de
25     diversité dans ce qui est considéré comme les


 1     catégories sous-représentées; par exemple, les
 2     émissions pour enfants, les émission de variétés.
 3  7600                 M. LAMARRE:  En fait, j'aimerais
 4     réagir à deux points, Madame la Présidente, que vous
 5     venez de soulever.
 6  7601                 Le premier point a trait à
 7     l'imputabilité.  Vous avez parlé de performance, vous
 8     avez parlé de popularité.  Il y a une notion qu'on
 9     aimerait mettre sur la table ici aujourd'hui, si vous
10     nous le permettez, et c'est que l'imputabilité,
11     évidemment, à cause de la réglementation, est seulement
12     du côté du diffuseur.  Ça, on trouve que c'est un peu
13     triste parce que le contenu canadien au Canada... et on
14     nous le rappelle à tous les jours pendant les
15     audiences, les producteurs indépendants sont aussi des
16     producteurs de contenu canadien.
17  7602                 L'invitation qu'on vous faite et
18     qu'on fait au milieu, c'est que l'imputabilité ne
19     devrait pas être le seul adage du diffuseur.  Nous, on
20     est très heureux de prendre des engagements vis-à-vis
21     le Conseil, on est très heureux de venir défendre nos
22     intérêts, mais on souhaiterait également... et on
23     trouve dommage que jusqu'à maintenant personne du côté
24     des producteurs indépendants semble répondre à notre
25     invitation d'imputabilité.  On souhaiterait ça nous


 1     aussi, que pour améliorer, pour faire plus de contenu
 2     canadien, des engagements soient pris par l'ensemble
 3     des partenaires de l'industrie.
 4  7603                 Alors voilà pour la notion
 5     d'imputabilité.
 6  7604                 En ce qui a trait à la diversité,
 7     moi, je pense que le questionnement que vous amenez
 8     doit être au coeur des débats de cette audience parce
 9     que c'est le point central de ce que vous avez souligné
10     dans votre avis public et c'est aussi un point central
11     qu'on veut soulever dans la spécificité du marché
12     francophone parce que le risque que l'on court... et
13     c'est peut-être la notion dont on voulait vous faire
14     part.  Si on n'arrive pas à reconnaître la spécificité
15     du marché francophone et si on n'arrive pas à bien
16     définir le rôle de chacun des diffuseurs publics et
17     privés, le risque que l'on court -- et on le voit de
18     plus en plus dans les contenus de programmation --
19     c'est d'avoir des diffuseurs qui présentent
20     essentiellement le même contenu de programmation.
21  7605                 Nous, on souhaite très fortement que
22     les nouvelles règles tiennent compte de ces rôles-là de
23     chacun des diffuseurs, et c'est particulièrement vrai
24     dans un marché comme celui du Québec.
25  7606                 Je demanderais à André, notre vice-


 1     président des programmes, de compléter là-dessus.
 2  7607                 M. PROVENCHER:  Madame la Présidente,
 3     je pense que la mesure de la popularité est un bon
 4     indicateur à la fois de la pertinence... à partir du
 5     moment où nos efforts sont concentrés dans les
 6     émissions canadiennes, la popularité est certainement
 7     un bon indicateur non seulement du succès mais de la
 8     pertinence de ce que nous faisons.
 9  7608                 J'aimerais vous signaler que la
10     grille de programmes qui est mise en place par le
11     Réseau TVA, qui obtient un succès presque inégalé
12     certainement au Canada mais ailleurs dans le monde
13     aussi, avec 40 pour cent des heures d'écoute qui lui
14     sont consacrées et qui repose essentiellement sur les
15     contenus canadiens, est une offre de programmes qui est
16     extrêmement diversifiée et qui déborde non seulement
17     les émissions d'information et d'affaires publiques
18     mais aussi qui déborde les émissions dramatiques; nous
19     offrons un grand nombre d'émissions de variétés, nous
20     offrons un grand nombre d'émissions de services.
21  7609                 Il y a certains secteurs de
22     programmation dont nous sommes malheureusement plus
23     absents, mais nous ne considérons pas que ça handicape,
24     bien au contraire, l'offre que nous présentons à nos
25     téléspectateurs.  Nous estimons que cette offre-là est


 1     cohérente, qu'elle est pertinente, qu'elle rejoint les
 2     objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, qu'elle
 3     s'inscrit dans l'ordre de la politique culturelle
 4     canadienne, qui est définie, en ce qui nous concerne,
 5     par la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, et que ça devrait
 6     normalement suffire pour conclure à la pertinence et à
 7     la qualité de cette offre de programmation là.
 8  7610                 Quant à la diversité, il est clair
 9     qu'avec un marché qui est aussi étroit que le marché
10     francophone canadien, il est indispensable que les
11     joueurs soient invités à offrir des contenus qui
12     répondent à une stratégie qui leur est propre, bien sûr
13     sous réserve des objectifs de la loi, mais qui
14     s'inscrivent dans une dynamique et dans une stratégie
15     qui leur est propre.
16  7611                 Moi, je reconnais, par exemple, que
17     cette année, en observant les grilles de programmation
18     qui sont offertes par les principaux diffuseurs au
19     Québec... je constate qu'il y a là des signes
20     encourageants.  Par exemple, Télévision Quatre-Saisons,
21     qui s'est présentée devant vous il y a quelques mois
22     pour obtenir un transfert de propriété, offre cette
23     année des choix de programmation qui sont fort
24     différents et qui semblent, pour l'instant, rencontrer
25     certains critères de la part des téléspectateurs


 1     puisqu'elle remporte plus de succès.  C'est la même
 2     chose pour un autre intervenant que vous avez entendu
 3     plus tôt dans le cours de l'audience, Télé-Québec, qui
 4     aussi s'est repositionnée autour d'un certain ordre de
 5     programmes.
 6  7612                 Je pense que ce sont des facteurs qui
 7     devraient être encouragés dans le cadre réglementaire
 8     pour permettre à chacun des joueurs de pouvoir
 9     intervenir à sa manière, encore une fois sous réserve
10     des objectifs généraux de la loi, mais intervenir avec
11     une offre de programmes qui le distingue, qui se
12     complète et qui, de manière globale contribue au succès
13     de notre système.
14  7613                 La mesure de ce succès-là peut très
15     bien être la performance au niveau de l'écoute, et sur
16     ce point-là on rejoint tout à fait les propos qui ont
17     été tenus par l'Association des radiodiffuseurs plus
18     tôt en ouverture de cette audience.
19  7614                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Radio-Canada à part,
20     c'est la responsabilité de laquelle des deux chaînes,
21     s'il y a deux chaînes privées, d'être distincte de
22     l'autre?  Si vous utilisez les cotes d'écoute et la
23     popularité d'un certain genre de programmes comme étant
24     le point de référence pour mesurer le succès, est-ce
25     qu'il n'est pas normal à ce moment-là que les deux


 1     chaînes vont essayer de produire de la programmation
 2     qui va leur apporter des cotes d'écoute semblables?
 3  7615                 Par exemple, quand vous parlez de
 4     maintenir un système de licences et l'entrée de
 5     joueurs, et caetera, vous parlez à ce moment-là de
 6     freiner ou d'examiner ou de contrôler justement une
 7     concurrence exactement contre ce qui existe dans le
 8     marché, qui est un peu contradictoire de dire qu'il
 9     faut que le système soit souple, que chaque joueur ait
10     le droit de faire ce qu'ils pensent qu'ils peuvent
11     faire le mieux, mais il faut aussi s'assurer qu'il y
12     ait diversité.  C'est la responsabilité de qui, si ce
13     n'est pas celle de l'agence de réglementation?
14  7616                 Normalement, quand on a une deuxième
15     demande ou des demandes de projets spécialisés, c'est
16     ce qu'on entend le plus fort... non à telle et telle
17     proposition parce que ce sera une concurrence et rien
18     d'autre; "Forcez ce nouveau joueur à faire quelque
19     chose qui est autre que ce que nous faisons", ce qui
20     exige à ce moment-là un cadre réglementaire quelconque
21     pour y arriver.
22  7617                 Alors je comprends mal comment on
23     peut réglementer pour empêcher ce genre de concurrence
24     malsaine ou nocive et laisser la souplesse au système
25     qui est préconisé dans le mémoire que vous avez déposé.


 1  7618                 M. PROVENCHER:  Laissez-moi peut-être
 2     dans un premier temps vous raconter une petite
 3     histoire, Madame Wylie.
 4  7619                 Il n'y a pas si longtemps nous avons
 5     eu à faire l'examen de l'offre que nous faisons aux
 6     téléspectateurs et nous l'avons fait en analysant ce
 7     qu'il était possible dans notre marché de pouvoir
 8     trouver, les secteurs dans lesquels nous pouvions
 9     exceller, se différencier des autres joueurs et pouvoir
10     apporter le succès à la fois pour les actionnaires qui
11     supportent notre action et à la fois pour le système
12     dans lequel nous évoluons.
13  7620                 Je pense que cette analyse assez
14     pointue des occasions à l'intérieur du marché a été un
15     des facteurs déterminants dans la réussite qu'on
16     souligne aujourd'hui, tant sur le plan des affaires que
17     de la force que nous occupons dans le marché.
18  7621                 Je pense que c'est la responsabilité,
19     pour tout nouveau joueur qui veut se présenter, de
20     pouvoir venir vous dire quelle est la position ou quel
21     est le segment de marché qu'il pense avoir identifié et
22     qui pourrait être desservi par l'offre qu'il veut faire
23     aux téléspectateurs.
24  7622                 Je pense que, encore une fois, à
25     l'intérieur du cadre réglementaire, et bien sûr


 1     toujours en respectant les objectifs de la Loi sur la
 2     radiodiffusion, vous pouvez déterminer dans un échange
 3     avec les requérants si le segment existe bel et bien et
 4     si l'offre qui est faite va bien desservir ce segment-
 5     là.  Je pense que, de cette manière-là, on peut en
 6     arriver à composer une offre globale qui soit riche en
 7     termes de qualité, qui soit extrêmement diversifiée et
 8     qui comble l'ensemble des segments qui composent
 9     l'écoute de la télévision.
10  7623                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais en même temps
11     vous préconisez la souplesse, ce qui veut dire que le
12     télédiffuseur généraliste, lui, devrait être libre de
13     choisir ce qu'il va faire et ce qu'il ne va pas faire,
14     même si à ce moment-là la télévision généraliste
15     n'offre pas toute la gamme ou la diversité, et
16     M. Khoury mentionne quelque part dans son mémoire que
17     le fait que la télévision généraliste est sur les ondes
18     devient de moins en moins important, mais c'est
19     important, au Canada anglais, à 25 pour cent de gens
20     qui n'ont pas le câble, et ça l'est encore plus au
21     Québec.
22  7624                 Alors de dire que les télédiffuseurs
23     généralistes, pour rencontrer les objectifs de la loi
24     peuvent faire ce qu'ils veulent sans intervention
25     réglementaire sauf ex post, s'il y a des abus par


 1     quelqu'un et des plaintes... que la réglementation
 2     n'est pas nécessaire parce qu'il y a un besoin de
 3     souplesse.
 4  7625                 M. LAMARRE:  J'aimerais préciser deux
 5     choses.
 6  7626                 Premièrement, nous, ce que nous avons
 7     fait, nous avons demandé à l'économiste M. Khoury, qui
 8     pourra vous expliquer dans quelques minutes le modèle
 9     économique... à partir du modèle économique qu'il a
10     fait nous avons nous-mêmes développé une position
11     réglementaire que nous vous soumettons aujourd'hui.
12  7627                 Quand nous parlons de souplesse, nous
13     sommes prêts, et heureux, à vivre avec un contrat
14     social avec le CRTC comme on l'a fait dans le passé. 
15     Ce sont des engagements qu'on a pris, ce sont des
16     engagements qu'on a respectés et ce sont des
17     engagements que nous avons dépassés.
18  7628                 La crainte que nous avons, c'est
19     celle-ci... et je vais tenter de vous l'énoncer le plus
20     clairement possible.  La crainte que nous avons, c'est
21     qu'après ces audiences-ci, qu'on ait soulevé une série
22     de problèmes et qu'on croit qu'on peut servir une
23     solution unique à l'ensemble des diffuseurs au Canada.
24  7629                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Qu'est-ce qui vous
25     fait penser que c'est la position de qui que ce soit? 


 1     Parce qu'on part avec des chiffres et des réalités
 2     tellement différents que ce serait un peu... et c'est
 3     dans la loi expressément.  C'est un peu une inquiétude
 4     qui est un peu surprenante de penser que le Conseil ne
 5     reconnaît pas -- la loi lui dit de le faire --
 6     l'étroitesse du marché.
 7  7630                 De là à suggérer souplesse sans
 8     indiquer quel genre de réglementation serait encore
 9     nécessaire sauf tous les petits points très intrusifs
10     suggérés... vous avez Radio-Canada et l'entrée des
11     nouveaux joueurs, mais moi, je n'ai pas trouvé dans le
12     mémoire de M. Khoury, sauf pour Radio-Canada, des
13     précisions sur le contexte réglementaire que vous
14     préconisez ni n'ai-je trouvé où que ce soit des
15     précisions sur la raison pour laquelle vous trouvez le
16     système réglementaire existant un micro-management dan
17     le mémoire au paragraphe 38, qui est déraisonnable.  On
18     dit, au paragraphe 38 que c'est un:
19                            "... 'micro-management ex ante'
20                            des licences [qui] devient, à
21                            toute fin pratique, un 'casse-
22                            tête' à la fois 'ingérable' et
23                            contradictoire avec la recherche
24                            d'une concurrence dynamique."
25     Et aujourd'hui encore, à la page 3, vous avez dit, dans


 1     votre soumission orale, que:
 2                            "... le Règlement relatif à la
 3                            télévision ne reconnaît pas dans
 4                            ses règles actuelles la
 5                            spécificité du système de langue
 6                            française."
 7  7631                 Moi, je voudrais bien que vous me
 8     disiez comment ce n'est pas reconnu et qu'est-ce qu'il
 9     y a dans le règlement du moment qui manque de
10     souplesse?  Est-ce que c'est le 60/50?  Est-ce que
11     c'est les limites sur la publicité?  Oui, vous adressez
12     ça.  Est-ce que c'est que le Conseil devrait limiter la
13     concurrence davantage?  Être plus ouvert à la
14     concentration et à la propriété croisée?
15  7632                 Qu'est-ce qu'il y a dans le système
16     actuel via-à-vis le Canada français, Radio-Canada à
17     part, qui manque de souplesse et qui crie pour des
18     corrections?
19  7633                 M. LAMARRE:  D'accord.  Alors, dans
20     un premier temps, je demanderais à M. Khoury de peut-
21     être clarifier la nature de son étude, parce qu'il
22     semble y avoir une certaine confusion.  Donc je vais
23     lui demander de clarifier ses points techniques de
24     l'étude.  Par la suite, j'aimerais peut-être répondre
25     plus précisément de la part de TVA aux questions que


 1     vous venez de soulever.
 2  7634                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je voudrais que vous
 3     y ajoutiez, si on manque de souplesse et que le système
 4     de réglementation que nous avons en ce moment a des
 5     problèmes que vous allez m'identifier, aussi, donnez-
 6     nous des correctifs.  Quels sont les correctifs?  Vous
 7     nous avez donné des correctifs de réglementation, très
 8     minutieux pour Radio-Canada et assez importants pour
 9     les nouveaux joueurs:  maintenir le système de
10     licences, surveiller qui va faire la concurrence, vous
11     laisser concurrencer vous-mêmes, et caetera, mais à
12     part ça je ne vois rien, moi, qui détermine quels sont
13     les problèmes et quels sont les correctifs nécessaires.
14  7635                 Alors, Monsieur Khoury, je vous
15     invite à ajouter ou clarifier ce que j'ai mal compris.
16  7636                 M. KHOURY:  Merci, Madame la
17     Présidente.
18  7637                 Écoutez, tout d'abord, il faut bien
19     comprendre la problématique de temps, l'horizon temps
20     dans lequel on se place, dans lequel est ce mémoire. 
21     Il s'agit de réfléchir, si j'ai bien compris, à un
22     cadre réglementaire qui va être valide pour un grand
23     nombre d'années à venir.  Donc ce qui devient
24     important, c'est de marquer les différences qu'il y a
25     entre le contexte dans lequel la réglementation a vu le


 1     jour et le contexte dans lequel la réglementation aura
 2     cours.
 3  7638                 La première des différences,
 4     essentielle et très importante, est la suivante:  À une
 5     certaine époque, le simple octroi d'une licence en
 6     particulier à une télévision généraliste diffusée sur
 7     ondes hertziennes était une licence à imprimer de
 8     l'argent.  À cette époque-là, révolue depuis déjà un
 9     certain nombre d'années, le simple fait de programmer
10     des émissions permettait de fabriquer des auditoires,
11     de les commercialiser, de dégager du revenu et de
12     réaliser des profits.
13  7639                 Dans un tel contexte, dans lequel on
14     ne pouvait pas lancer plusieurs réseaux de façon
15     concomitante, on faisait de l'argent; c'était un bien
16     public, c'était une rente consentie à un propriétaire
17     privé.  Il était normal de réglementer toute une série
18     de considérations, dont des considérations relatives à
19     ce qui devait aller en ondes, la manière avec laquelle
20     ça devait aller en ondes, et caetera, et caetera, et de
21     faire en sorte qu'effectivement cette rente économique
22     soit correctement répartie entre l'effort de
23     l'entrepreneur ou du détenteur de la licence et le
24     public canadien.
25  7640                 Graduellement, ce système a évolué,


 1     et le Conseil a opté pour l'élargissement de la
 2     concurrence.  Le Conseil a émis des licences et en a
 3     émis de plus en plus.
 4  7641                 Dans un contexte dans lequel on va
 5     finir par pouvoir en émettre bien davantage -- ce qui
 6     n'est pas le cas aujourd'hui, ce qui n'est pas encore
 7     tout à fait le cas aujourd'hui -- on aboutira à une
 8     économie réellement, complètement et purement
 9     concurrentielle, c'est-à-dire dans laquelle, à la
10     limite, même l'entrée n'aura plus besoin de subir une
11     réglementation.
12  7642                 Nous sommes encore dans un contexte,
13     certainement dans le cas du Québec, d'un marché à
14     capacité malgré tout contingentée.  Le simple fait que
15     la capacité soit contingentée à un nombre limité de
16     joueurs requiert qu'il y ait un organisme à caractère
17     public comme le Conseil qui se penche sur des questions
18     d'intérêt public lors de l'octroi des licences.  Ça,
19     c'est le premier point.
20  7643                 Donc, comme nous ne sommes pas encore
21     dans un contexte dans lequel la contrainte de capacité
22     a totalement disparu et est totalement levée, on ne
23     peut pas faire sauter le verrou de sécurité qui existe,
24     qui est celui de l'émission de licences.
25  7644                 En corollaire de cela, le mécanisme


 1     et le processus d'émission de licences est en fait la
 2     première, je dirais, barrière de sauvegarde du système
 3     qui va assurer la diversité, parce que le candidat à
 4     l'obtention d'une licence doit exprimer le genre de
 5     choses qu'il va vouloir mettre en ondes, et de la somme
 6     de ces expressions ressort une vision de la variété et
 7     de la diversité.  Ça, c'est la première des choses.
 8  7645                 La seconde, à l'époque où les canaux
 9     étaient limités, les détenteurs de licences limités
10     également, il était normal de se préoccuper du contenu
11     canadien, il était normal de se préoccuper du découpage
12     et du saucissonnage de ce contenu canadien en émissions
13     par genre d'émissions, en différentes catégories, comme
14     ça a été le cas jusqu'à maintenant.
15  7646                 Je crois que, dans un contexte où le
16     Conseil lui-même a opté pour élargir le nombre de
17     détenteurs de licences à aller vers les canaux
18     spécialisés, le Conseil a opté pour une solution
19     d'organisation du secteur de la diffusion, laquelle
20     solution porte en elle-même je dirais la disparition
21     quasi-naturelle de cette réglementation relative à la
22     grille de programmation elle-même.
23  7647                 Ceci veut dire qu'aujourd'hui le
24     résultat qui est imposé par la politique canadienne de
25     radiodiffusion, le résultat ou la préoccupation qui se


 1     transporte d'avoir du produit canadien sur les ondes en
 2     matière de produit audio-visuel est aujourd'hui garanti
 3     à un plus grand niveau de sécurité de résultat dans le
 4     marché francophone par le simple fait de cette
 5     multiplication de licences.  Ceci crée un contexte
 6     concurrentiel, et dans le marché du Québec cette
 7     concurrence-là est forte et elle existe, et elle met en
 8     place une pression qui, par elle-même, génère des
 9     programmations qui doivent se différencier et se
10     distinguer.
11  7648                 Plus on précise la manière avec
12     laquelle chaque détenteur doit organiser sa propre
13     programmation, plus on incite, dans un marché dans
14     lequel, malgré tout, la taille est petite, dans lequel
15     le nombre de produits audio-visuels à produire
16     potentiellement par année est limité, plus on va
17     inciter les gens à avoir des images en ondes, les
18     radiodiffuseurs à avoir des grilles de programmation
19     fort similaires.
20  7649                 Donc, si on voit ça dans la durée --
21     imaginons le cadre réglementaire pour les prochaines
22     années -- la suggestion qui est faite dans le "modèle"
23     du cadre réglementaire qu'Étude Économique Conseil a
24     soumis avec TVA ici consiste à dire:  On se dirige dans
25     un système dans lequel il sera de moins en moins


 1     nécessaire de se préoccuper du résultat individuel
 2     parce que c'est de l'interaction de tous ces détenteurs
 3     de licences que le résultat va émerger.
 4  7650                 L'obligation qui est faite à
 5     l'ensemble du système est une obligation globale.  Si,
 6     en fait, on finissait par avoir une programmation qui,
 7     dans l'ensemble, produit globalement un certain
 8     pourcentage de produits audio-visuels canadiens de
 9     langue française, et qu'il y ait à l'intérieur de ce
10     système une ou deux exceptions dans le cadre de la
11     mission qu'ils se sont donnée et pour laquelle vous
12     leur auriez consenti une licence, ça ne devrait pas
13     faire l'objet, comment dirais-je, d'un comportement
14     alarmiste ou d'une inquiétude particulière, parce que
15     l'interaction de l'offre dans le marché et des demandes
16     dans le marché produirait ce résultat-là.
17  7651                 Donc, ce que nous vous suggérons dans
18     le modèle économique, c'est que le chemin que vous avez
19     choisi d'ores et déjà vous engage à utiliser davantage
20     l'instrument des licences; moi, je vous dirais, à la
21     limite, d'utiliser des conditions de licence à
22     application suspensive:  si, au bout d'un an, avec une
23     obligation de reporting relativement à la
24     programmation, le Conseil estime qu'un barème global
25     n'est pas obtenu par l'ensemble de l'industrie au


 1     regard d'un niveau de programmation canadienne ou d'un
 2     mix de programmation, à ce moment-là vous pourriez
 3     rendre effectives ces conditions de licence auprès des
 4     détenteurs de ces licences-là.
 5  7652                 En fait, on est dans un système où,
 6     globalement, on avait un contexte il y a de ça 30 ans,
 7     20 ans, 15 ans.  Ce contexte a bougé; il a bougé dans
 8     le sens que la réglementation voulait qu'il aille.  Il
 9     est en train de se diriger de plus en plus dans ce
10     sens-là, et l'adaptation du cadre réglementaire, c'est
11     juste de ça qu'il s'agit.
12  7653                 Je ne veux pas prendre trop de votre
13     temps.  J'espère que je vous ai répondu au moins à
14     cette question-là.
15  7654                 Le second point principal,
16     Madame Wylie, que vous avez introduit, c'est que cette
17     volonté de "libéralisation", de souplesse, est en
18     contradiction avec l'existence de licences, le maintien
19     des exigences de propriété, autre mesure que vous avez
20     qualifiée de protectionniste.  Cette contradiction, en
21     réalité, elle n'est qu'apparente, comme vous l'avez
22     vous-même souligné.  Elle n'a de contradiction que
23     l'apparence.
24  7655                 Ce n'est pas parce qu'on bouge d'un
25     cadre qui était relativement rigide et nécessaire dans


 1     un contexte dans lequel il n'y avait que peu de
 2     détenteurs de licences vers un contexte dans lequel on
 3     a de plus en plus de licences, de plus en plus de
 4     détenteurs de licences, que forcément on va tout faire
 5     éclater le système et qu'il faut le déverrouiller
 6     complètement et faire en sorte qu'on vive dans un
 7     univers de déréglementation totale.  Ce n'est pas de ça
 8     qu'il s'agit.
 9  7656                 Je pense qu'il y a un processus
10     graduel dans lequel des balises continuent d'être
11     nécessaires et pour lequel, au contraire, la
12     concurrence va augmenter.
13  7657                 Le fait de l'intégration n'est pas
14     contradictoire avec le maintien de pressions
15     concurrentielles.  Le fait de vouloir faire en sorte
16     que la Société Radio-Canada obéisse à un certain nombre
17     de règles n'est pas non plus contraire à la
18     concurrence; au contraire, ce ne sont que des
19     renforcements de concurrence loyale.  Donc tout ceci,
20     pour moi, est un schéma plutôt cohérent.
21  7658                 J'espère que j'ai un tout petit peu
22     répondu à votre question.
23  7659                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  C'est cohérent pour
24     votre cliente, évidemment, parce que vous ne
25     m'embaucheriez sans doute pas dans votre étude parce


 1     que ma façon simpliste de voir tout ça, c'est: 
 2     "Réglementez le voisin et laissez-moi tranquille."
 3  7660                 M. LAMARRE:  Non.  Non, non.
 4  7661                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  "Laissez-moi obtenir
 5     des licences"...
 6  7662                 M. LAMARRE:  Non, pas du tout.
 7  7663                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... "mais quand les
 8     gens viennent demander une licence, exigez que ce soit
 9     vraiment complémentaire immiscez-vous très
10     particulièrement chez Radio-Canada, laissez-nous accès
11     aux fonds."
12  7664                 Par exemple, je vous demanderais,
13     Monsieur Khoury... au paragraphe 45 vous dites qu'il
14     doit y avoir un système de licences pour contrôler
15     parce que:
16                            "Si les opérateurs pouvaient
17                            entrer librement dans le
18                            secteur, il ne serait pas
19                            douteux que les télédiffuseurs
20                            en place seraient exposés à de
21                            fortes perturbations
22                            concurrentielles susceptibles
23                            d'entamer les acquis du système
24                            canadien de radiodiffusion."
25     Et, au paragraphe 64, vous dites, par exemple, que:


 1                            "... il n'existe qu'une seule
 2                            grande voie au niveau du cadre
 3                            réglementaire: 
 4                            l'assouplissement au niveau des
 5                            conditions et exigences les plus
 6                            spécifiques de contenu et de
 7                            dépenses dans l'octroi des
 8                            licences."
 9  7665                 Moi, je vois mal comment... par
10     exemple, je suppose qu'au paragraphe 45 vous parlez de
11     services spécialisés qui offrent une concurrence assez
12     aiguë dans le système, mais ce n'est pas simplement de
13     dire:  "Vous voulez avoir un service spécialisé genre
14     comédie.  Allez-y, parce que ça, ce n'est pas
15     concurrentiel."  Mais si on n'attache pas des
16     conditions et des exigences plus spécifiques, qu'est-ce
17     qui va assurer que le système va rester cohérent?
18  7666                 M. LAMARRE:  Mais nous sommes
19     d'accord avec ça.  On ne vous demande pas de
20     libéraliser à outrance le système.
21  7667                 Vous parlez à quelqu'un qui a une
22     belle feuille de route avec le CRTC.  Vous parlez à
23     quelqu'un qui a non seulement respecté des engagements
24     mais qui les a dépassés, qui est un modèle pour le
25     système de la radiodiffusion au Canada.  Ce même


 1     citoyen-là...
 2  7668                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Le système est pour
 3     tout le monde.
 4  7669                 M. LAMARRE:  Mais, Madame Wylie,
 5     c'est là où on a un irritant majeur, et permettez-moi
 6     de l'exprimer.
 7  7670                 On ne peut pas en même temps
 8     applaudir la belle feuille de route du marché
 9     francophone et ne pas accepter la spécificité du marché
10     francophone.  Tout ce qu'on vous dit -- et c'est notre
11     argumentaire de base -- c'est:  Acceptez que le marché
12     francophone est un marché distinct; acceptez qu'on
13     oeuvre dans un bassin qui est beaucoup moins important,
14     et nous vivons, et nous sommes prêts à vivre, avec des
15     engagements sociaux importants avec le CRTC.  On n'a
16     aucun problème avec ça, au contraire, on le favorise.
17  7671                 Tout ce qu'on vous dit, c'est: 
18     Faisons-le dans un cadre qui respecte notre spécificité
19     et qui nous donne une certaine souplesse, une certaine
20     marge de manoeuvre.
21  7672                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, on parle
22     souvent, et dans votre soumission et dans le mémoire de
23     M. Khoury, d'un manque d'équité en ce qui concerne le
24     secteur privé, d'un manque d'équité dans le système de
25     télédiffusion.  Est-ce que vous pouvez m'indiquer, par


 1     exemple -- Radio-Canada à part -- quels sont les
 2     problèmes?  Est-ce que c'est la complémentarité dont
 3     vous parlez entre les stations conventionnelles et les
 4     services spécialisés?  Où y a-t-il un manque d'équité
 5     qui doit être corrigé?
 6  7673                 M. LAMARRE:  Je pense que, pour nous,
 7     nous sommes dans un système où la pression est
 8     continuellement sur le même joueur, c'est-à-dire le
 9     diffuseur.  On se plaît, dans des discours, à épiloguer
10     un peu partout dans le milieu industriel et dans les
11     corridors du CRTC que l'industrie de la production
12     canadienne est un partenariat entre les producteurs
13     indépendants et les diffuseurs.  Et à chaque fois qu'on
14     arrive à un rendez-vous comme c'est le cas
15     présentement, les seules personnes qui fatalement se
16     retrouvent à devoir répondre et à devoir être
17     imputables, c'est les diffuseurs.
18  7674                 Alors on aimerait croire que si, d'un
19     côté, on veut donner des privilèges... parce que je
20     vais reprendre le discours des producteurs.  Les
21     producteurs ont dit:  Les diffuseurs ont des
22     privilèges.  Permettez-moi de vous souligner de façon
23     importante que nos amis les producteurs indépendants
24     ont aussi des privilèges énormes parce qu'une très
25     forte partie de leurs productions sont des productions


 1     subventionnées.  Ils ont eux aussi un contrat social
 2     avec l'État pour lequel ils ne sont pas imputables.
 3  7675                 Alors quand on parle d'équité, Madame
 4     la Présidente, c'est de ça qu'on parle précisément.  Et
 5     je ne mentionnerai pas Radio-Canada, puisque vous
 6     semblez vouloir l'exclure.
 7  7676                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  On y arrive.  On y
 8     arrive plus tard, mais ça brouille un peu les cartes. 
 9     On en reparle.
10  7677                 Alors ce manque d'équité là, ce
11     serait entre l'industrie de la télédiffusion et celle
12     de la production indépendante, où il manque...
13  7678                 M. LAMARRE:  Tout à fait,
14     Madame Wylie, parce que c'est un langage présentement
15     qui est à sens unique.
16  7679                 Si je peux me permettre un petit
17     commentaire éditorial, on le sent plus que jamais dans
18     le cadre de ces audiences-ci, parce que dans le cadre
19     de ces audiences-ci il n'y a qu'une cible visée, et
20     c'est les diffuseurs.  Ça, je suis obligé de vous
21     souligner ma tristesse à ce sujet-là parce que le
22     contenu canadien... vous avez convié, le CRTC, tous les
23     intervenants du milieu à un rendez-vous historique
24     important où on doit tenter ensemble de trouver des
25     solutions pour améliorer le contenu canadien, et


 1     malheureusement, ce qu'on observe depuis le début des
 2     audiences, c'est un procès d'intention des diffuseurs.
 3  7680                 Je suis obligé de réagir au nom de
 4     mes 1 200 employés et de vous dire que, comme
 5     producteur de contenu canadien qui a une belle feuille
 6     de route à défendre, on ne craint pas d'être
 7     imputables, Madame la Présidente.  On ne l'a pas craint
 8     dans le passé et on ne le craint pas dans le futur. 
 9     Mais j'aimerais éventuellement qu'on trouve une façon
10     que tous les joueurs de l'industrie soient également
11     imputables.
12  7681                 M. PROVENCHER:  Si vous me permettez,
13     Madame la Présidente, de compléter, on était tout à
14     fait ravis la semaine dernière entendre nos collègues
15     de la production venir dire devant vous que le succès
16     du secteur francophone de la radiodiffusion est
17     indéniable, et ils ont utilisé des arguments avec
18     lesquels nous sommes tout à fait d'accord, des
19     indicateurs qui sont tout à fait révélateurs.  Il y en
20     a qui disent, par exemple, que de manière générale les
21     radiodiffuseurs francophones consacrent une large
22     part -- ils ont dit 89 pour cent -- de leurs dépenses
23     de programmation à l'acquisition de contenu canadien. 
24     Ils vous ont dit également que plus de 70 pour cent des
25     heures d'écoute, par exemple, sont consacrées, au


 1     Québec, à des émissions qui sont de contenu canadien.
 2  7682                 Nous sommes tout à fait heureux que
 3     ces succès-là soient bien soulignés devant vous et nous
 4     considérons qu'ils devraient être le point de départ
 5     d'une relation à la fois de confiance, de partenariat
 6     entre les différents joueurs de l'industrie.
 7  7683                 Ce qui s'en est suivi malheureusement
 8     nous a attristés parce qu'on vous a présenté une liste
 9     de nouvelles demandes disant:  "Quatre-vingt-neuf pour
10     cent, ce n'est sans doute pas assez.  Les
11     radiodiffuseurs ont fait de l'argent l'année passée. 
12     Voulez-vous leur demander, s'il vous plaît, de
13     contribuer encore davantage?  Voulez-vous leur
14     demander, s'il vous plaît, d'apporter plus d'émissions
15     dramatiques à budget élevé, de prendre plus de risques
16     dans ce secteur-là?  Voulez-vous leur demander, par
17     exemple -- en les contraignant, bien sûr, pas
18     simplement leur demander -- des contraintes de fournir
19     des émissions dans le secteur de la programmation pour
20     enfants, par exemple, et voulez-vous leur demander
21     aussi de se retirer de la production d'émissions
22     dramatiques?"  Nous voulons, dans le fond, bâtir de
23     nouvelles chasses gardées, et nous ne sommes pas du
24     tout d'accord avec cette approche-là.
25  7684                 Encore une fois, nous l'avons dit


 1     tantôt dans notre soumission orale, nous pensons que le
 2     téléspectateur, quand il est devant son écran de
 3     télévision à la maison, avec les membres de la famille
 4     autour de lui, il va porter un jugement sur ce qui lui
 5     est offert et il n'a pas, dans le fond, à savoir si
 6     l'émission qui lui est proposée et qui l'intéresse et
 7     qu'il juge de qualité et qu'il juge pertinente... que
 8     cette émission lui soit fournie par un producteur
 9     indépendant ou par une autre source d'approvisionnement
10     plus près du diffuseur.  Je pense qu'il a à évaluer,
11     lui, si la loi qui a été mise en place et le cadre
12     réglementaire qui la suit lui fournit des valeurs qui
13     l'intéressent et envers lesquelles il se reconnaît.
14  7685                 Nous aimerions souligner encore une
15     fois que TVA s'est particulièrement distingué dans ce
16     secteur-là et continue d'être le chef de file
17     incontesté d'une diversité de produits et d'une qualité
18     de produits qu'il n'a cessé d'évaluer et qui est
19     reconnue par les téléspectateurs, qui lui consacrent
20     encore une fois quatre heures sur dix des heures de
21     programmation qu'il fait chaque semaine.
22  7686                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais vous allez
23     convenir que nous essayons d'examiner un système
24     réglementaire pour le système en général, incluant les
25     services spécialisés, la télévision payante et les


 1     autres joueurs dans le marché.  La seule chose que je
 2     peux vous dire, c'est que nous sommes plus ou moins
 3     contents que la mauvaise humeur de la production
 4     indépendante ne se soit pas dirigée vers nous.
 5  7687                 M. LAMARRE:  Je pense que nous
 6     acceptons de bon gré, Madame la Présidente, l'état de
 7     fait que vous soulevez.  Le point qu'il faut soulever
 8     par ailleurs -- et je suis convaincu que vous l'avez
 9     déjà observé -- c'est qu'on assiste de plus en plus à
10     la naissance de deux catégories de producteurs, c'est-
11     à-dire d'une part des producteurs qui sont des géants
12     de l'industrie, des producteurs dont la taille dépasse
13     de beaucoup la taille du Groupe TVA, et d'autre part
14     des entrepreneurs qui tentent tant bien que mal de
15     tirer leur épingle du jeu dans ce contexte-là.
16  7688                 Je pense que de plus en plus il
17     faudra tenir compte dans l'avenir, lorsqu'on parlera de
18     réglementation, d'engagement des diffuseurs... je pense
19     qu'il faudra éventuellement faire une distinction entre
20     les petits producteurs entrepreneurs qui ont de bonnes
21     idées, de bons concepts, et les grands conglomérats qui
22     sont en train de se créer présentement.
23  7689                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Vous avez raison,
24     Monsieur Provencher, que le spectateur, lui, ne
25     s'inquiète pas de qui a produit l'émission, mais il


 1     reste quand même qu'au niveau légal, législatif, vous
 2     demeurez, le télédiffuseur, imputable.
 3  7690                 M. PROVENCHER:  Tout à fait, et...
 4  7691                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je peux voir
 5     l'inquiétude... je suppose que vous suggérez que le
 6     producteur indépendant ne l'est pas évidemment pas,
 7     c'est vous qui avez le permis et qui êtes imputable.
 8  7692                 Évidemment, vous pouvez utiliser cet
 9     argument-là pour nous dire:  Laissez-nous davantage
10     faire de la production nous-mêmes et avoir les outils
11     nécessaires pour le faire.
12  7693                 M. PROVENCHER:  Madame la Présidente,
13     nous acceptons ce principe d'imputabilité sans aucune
14     réserve.  Nous sommes fiers de venir défendre devant
15     vous nos résultats et notre contribution aux objectifs
16     de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.  Nous le faisons sans
17     aucune réserve.
18  7694                 Ceci étant dit, la loi reconnaît
19     également -- et nous sommes tout à fait en accord avec
20     ça -- l'industrie de la production indépendante parmi
21     les acteurs qui doivent contribuer au succès du système
22     de radiodiffusion, et nous vous faisons la suggestion
23     que ce secteur-là, qui est reconnu par la loi, devrait
24     en quelque part aussi être soumis au principe de
25     l'imputabilité.  Je ne saurais pas vous proposer par


 1     quel mécanisme ce principe d'imputabilité pourrait se
 2     vérifier; nous osons croire qu'il y a du travail à
 3     faire de ce côté-là.
 4  7695                 Par ailleurs, j'aimerais partager
 5     avec vous certaines des préoccupations que nous
 6     entretenons.
 7  7696                 Nous pensons que le succès que nous
 8     avons connu, particulièrement au cours des dernières
 9     années, s'est appuyé en grande partie sur la
10     contribution des producteurs indépendants.  Pour nous,
11     ce ne sont pas des adversaires, ce sont des
12     partenaires, et nous n'aurions pas bâti ces succès-là
13     si nous n'avions pas fait appel à leur créativité, à
14     leur talent dans l'agencement des ressources qui sont
15     nécessaires à de bonnes productions.
16  7697                 Ce ne sont pas des gens que nous
17     voulons exclure de notre circuit, bien au contraire. 
18     D'ailleurs, nous faisons appel de plus en plus, à
19     chaque année, aux services des producteurs
20     indépendants.  On vous a mentionné plus tôt dans notre
21     présentation orale que cette année, par exemple, c'est
22     plus de 18 millions de dollars qui seront consacrés à
23     l'acquisition de droits d'émissions auprès des
24     producteurs indépendants.
25  7698                 Ce qui nous inquiète, par ailleurs,


 1     c'est que, dans l'avenir, nous ne puissions pas compter
 2     sur la même diversité des sources.  Nous assistons,
 3     comme vous j'imagine bien, à un certain phénomène de
 4     concentration dans l'industrie de la production
 5     indépendante et si cette année, par exemple, nous
 6     faisons appel à une vingtaine de maisons de production
 7     pour nous fournir des émissions qui sont cohérentes par
 8     rapport à l'offre que nous voulons bâtir... que ce
 9     nombre-là puisse rétrécir d'année en année, ce qui pour
10     nous pourrait résulter en un appauvrissement des idées.
11  7699                 Imaginons, par exemple, que dans cinq
12     ans il ne demeure que quatre ou cinq grandes maisons de
13     production et que nous devions ne faire appel qu'à ces
14     maisons-là pour pouvoir bâtir l'offre de programmes que
15     nous envisageons, que nous jugeons pertinente; je pense
16     que nous serions soumis à un appauvrissement des idées.
17  7700                 Nous avons vécu cette situation-là,
18     et c'est pour ça que nous vous en parlons avec aise. 
19     Ce n'est pas un secret de polichinelle, TVA est ouvert
20     depuis à peine 11 ou 12 ans aux contributions des
21     producteurs indépendants, et je pense qu'ils ont été un
22     facteur de succès.  Dans notre stratégie, l'idée est la
23     clé de nos succès, c'est-à-dire que le concept et
24     l'idée sont rois et maîtres dans notre programmation,
25     et si ces idées-là viennent des producteurs


 1     indépendants, nous sommes fiers de pouvoir nous appuyer
 2     dessus et de pouvoir les intégrer dans notre grille de
 3     programmes.
 4  7701                 Nous ne voudrions pas pour tout l'or
 5     du monde retourne à un système où nous serions
 6     autosuffisants parce que ce ne serait pas un contexte
 7     dans lequel les idées pourraient se développer et dans
 8     lequel on pourrait s'appuyer sur une grande diversité
 9     de concepts, comme c'est nécessaire pour connaître le
10     succès.
11  7702                 Alors il est possible, avec le
12     phénomène de concentration, qui n'est soumis à aucune
13     forme d'examen public, le phénomène de concentration
14     dans le domaine de la production, que nous fassions
15     face dans l'avenir à un niveau de concentration qui
16     raréfie les idées ou qui les soumette à une autre forme
17     d'arbitrage avant qu'elles soient... encore hier soir
18     un auteur avec qui je discutais me faisait part de
19     l'incapacité de pouvoir faire évoluer ses idées et ses
20     projets à travers le système parce qu'il y a déjà un
21     phénomène de rejet des idées chez certains grands
22     entrepreneurs ou de contrôle des idées chez certains
23     grands entrepreneurs du domaine de la production.
24  7703                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Monsieur Provencher,
25     une grande partie de votre discours est exactement le


 1     discours de la production indépendante.  Vous vous
 2     inquiétez que, de 20 maisons de production, on en
 3     arrive à cinq.  Les producteurs indépendants disent: 
 4     "Si vous permettez la concentration et l'intégration
 5     verticale et l'accès aux fonds, il y aura seulement une
 6     idée, celle du télédiffuseur."  Alors c'est un discours
 7     qui est le discours des indépendants, la diversité de
 8     l'offre.
 9  7704                 M. PROVENCHER:  Mais nous vous
10     soumettons respectueusement, Madame la Présidente, que
11     le phénomène de l'intégration dans le domaine de la
12     radiodiffusion demeure soumis et demeurera soumis à
13     l'examen public; c'est-à-dire que chaque fois qu'il y a
14     une question de transfert de propriété ou qu'il y a une
15     nouvelle demande de licence qui s'inscrit dans un axe
16     de concentration de la propriété, le Conseil, avec son
17     jugement et avec le cadre réglementaire qui lui sert de
18     guide, peut prendre les décisions qu'il juge les plus
19     appropriées.
20  7705                 Malheureusement, ce phénomène-là
21     n'est soumis à aucune forme d'examen ni de contrôle
22     quand il vise le secteur de la production, qui a
23     intégré sans aucune contrainte, par exemple, tout le
24     secteur de la distribution, de la commercialisation à
25     plusieurs égards.  Nous, nous soumettons que c'est une


 1     réalité qu'il faudra, tôt ou tard, examiner de plus
 2     près.
 3  7706                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Pour qu'on s'entende
 4     bien, normalement, quand je parle d'intégration
 5     verticale ici, je parle d'intégration entre le secteur
 6     télédiffuseurs et le secteur de production
 7     indépendante, et la concentration ou l'intégration
 8     horizontale, pour moi, c'est quand les télédiffuseurs
 9     sont aussi détenteurs de licences de services
10     spécialisés.
11  7707                 Alors mon commentaire était que votre
12     discours d'il y a quelques minutes est justement le
13     discours de la production indépendante, qui dit qu'à ce
14     moment-là on n'aura que ce que le radiodiffuseur voudra
15     bien obtenir de sa filiale.  Alors c'est dans ce
16     contexte-là.
17  7708                 Maintenant, au paragraphe 37 vous
18     proposez de mettre en place une structure de
19     financement des émissions canadiennes qui permettra
20     l'établissement d'un véritable partenariat entre les
21     producteurs indépendants et les télédiffuseurs.  Est-ce
22     que c'est la structure que je retrouve dans vos
23     soumissions écrites et dans le mémoire de M. Khoury ou
24     si c'est autre chose que vous voulez proposer?  Le
25     partenariat, c'est celui que vous préconisez ou


 1     décrivez dans vos soumissions du moment?
 2  7709                 M. PROVENCHER:  On vous a fait part,
 3     depuis le début de ces audiences, qu'un des défis de
 4     notre système de radiodiffusion était à la fois de
 5     mieux satisfaire les exigences des téléspectateurs
 6     canadiens en lui offrant des produits qui sont
 7     distinctifs mais aussi d'en assurer un financement qui
 8     soit adéquat.
 9  7710                 Nous pensons que, pour pouvoir
10     réaliser cet objectif-là, il faudra s'assurer dans
11     l'avenir qu'il y ait des rapports beaucoup plus de
12     proximité entre les fournisseurs de programmes et ceux
13     qui sont chargés de les diffuser et de les distribuer.
14  7711                 Ce partenariat-là pourrait très
15     certainement s'enrichir de schémas d'exploitation, par
16     exemple, des produits sur d'autres marchés, établir des
17     stratégies qui fassent des situations de gagnant-
18     gagnant, des win-win comme on dit couramment, entre les
19     producteurs et les exploitants, qu'on puisse réaliser
20     par exemple des plans d'affaires pour chacun des
21     produits et que ces plans d'affaires là s'appuient non
22     seulement sur la diffusion au premier niveau, à la
23     première fenêtre, mais puisse également s'appuyer sur
24     d'autres scénarios d'exploitation.
25  7712                 Nous sommes prêts à travailler avec


 1     les producteurs dans ce sens-là.  Nous voulons nous
 2     rapprocher de leurs objectifs, nous voulons qu'ils
 3     comprennent les nôtres et nous voulons surtout bâtir
 4     des plans, des scénarios qui nous permettent à l'un et
 5     à l'autre de pouvoir mieux servir le système canadien
 6     et de pouvoir assurer la viabilité financière de nos
 7     entreprises.
 8  7713                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Au niveau de la
 9     concentration, disons, horizontale, qui n'a rien à
10     faire avec le secteur indépendant mais plutôt avec la
11     complémentarité et diversité à l'intérieur du secteur
12     de télédiffusion, vous mentionnez, par exemple au
13     paragraphe 55, qu'il est nécessaire pour vous de vous
14     lancer dans ce modèle d'intégration comme stratégie de
15     défense.  Vous dites que:
16                            "... les radiodiffuseurs
17                            conventionnels n'ont donc pour
18                            alternative que de participer à
19                            la propriété de ces services
20                            dans des structures de propriété
21                            où les risques sont partagés."
22  7714                 Alors est-ce que ça inclut aussi la
23     concentration au niveau des stations de télévision,
24     qu'à votre avis le Conseil devrait assouplir aussi sa
25     politique vis-à-vis de la concentration dans le marché


 1     où il y aurait plus d'une station qui serait la
 2     propriété d'un seul titulaire?
 3  7715                 M. LAMARRE:  Ce qu'on est en train
 4     d'observer, tout comme vous j'imagine, c'est une
 5     concurrence de plus en plus féroce à l'intérieur du
 6     Canada mais aussi de plus en plus avec une intrusion
 7     des services étrangers, avec toutes les nouvelles
 8     technologies et les modes de distribution.  Alors je
 9     pense que, dans le fond, le rendez-vous auquel vous
10     nous conviez, c'est de se projeter vers l'avant, et
11     présentement c'est comme si ce phénomène-là allait
12     exister plus tard.  Mais ce phénomène-là n'existe pas
13     plus tard, ce phénomène-là a commencé aujourd'hui.
14  7716                 Je pense que de plus en plus on voit,
15     avec le satellite, les gens qui ont maintenant 200
16     canaux... c'est quelque chose dont on parlait il y a
17     deux ou trois ans et ça apparaissait comme quelque
18     chose d'immatériel.  Nous sommes rendus là.  Et au
19     moment où nous sommes rendus avec cette intrusion de
20     beaucoup de services étrangers, nous sommes audacieux
21     et nous nous lançons un défi de contenu canadien, ce
22     qui est assez extraordinaire.
23  7717                 Les deux ne sont pas
24     irréconciliables, je crois, et nous, on est prêts à
25     relever ce défi-là.  Mais, pour ça, il faut nous


 1     assurer dans l'avenir que nous devenions un joueur
 2     important.  Donc, si on veut qu'il y ait plus de
 3     contenu canadien, il va falloir qu'il y ait plus de
 4     joueurs forts.
 5  7718                 Donc on ne peut pas en même temps
 6     subir la segmentation qui nous viendra des produits
 7     étrangers et subir la segmentation qui va venir des
 8     canaux spécialisés.  Alors le choix stratégique qu'on a
 9     fait pour continuer à être un bon producteur de contenu
10     canadien et surtout d'avoir les moyens de produire plus
11     de contenu canadien, c'est de mettre sur pied des
12     canaux spécialisés.
13  7719                 Ce que ça a comme avantage, c'est
14     d'offrir aux téléspectateurs une plus grande diversité. 
15     Pour prendre un exemple extrêmement précis, nous
16     offrons depuis un an aux téléspectateurs québécois un
17     canal de nouvelles, LCN, qui est diffusé 24 heures par
18     jour, qui rejoint 1 800 000 téléspectateurs par
19     semaine.  Le canal de nouvelles LCN peut réussir à
20     offrir ce service-là à la population francophone parce
21     qu'il bénéficie de la synergie de notre infrastructure.
22  7720                 Je pense que dans l'avenir, si on
23     veut réussir à financer des canaux spécialisés et à
24     maintenir des généralistes forts, il faudra avoir des
25     joueurs forts.  Quand je dis ça, Madame la Présidente,


 1     je ne prétends pas que seul le Groupe TVA doit être un
 2     joueur; déjà au Québec on a plusieurs joueurs dans ce
 3     segment-là, que ce soit Astral, que ce soit Radiomutuel
 4     et plusieurs autres, et je pense que c'est sain.  Mais
 5     il faut s'assurer que ces joueurs-là, comme c'est le
 6     cas présentement, conservent une stature suffisamment
 7     solide pour qu'on rejoigne en même temps deux
 8     objectifs:  l'objectif public, qui est d'assurer aux
 9     téléspectateurs francophones une diversité de choix et
10     l'objectif d'entreprise, qui est de s'assurer que ce
11     soit économiquement viable.
12  7721                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et c'est à ça que
13     vous vous adressez au paragraphe 8, sauf que vous
14     utilisez "verticalement".  Vous dites:
15                            "... qu'il est nécessaire à
16                            cette fin que les entreprises
17                            canadiennes soient fortes et
18                            intégrées verticalement pour
19                            optimiser les différentes
20                            ressources et talents que le
21                            système offre."
22  7722                 Dans mon langage à moi, ça, ce serait
23     horizontalement.
24  7723                 M. LAMARRE:  Alors on s'est
25     probablement mal exprimés dans le mémoire...


 1  7724                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Non, non...
 2  7725                 M. LAMARRE:  ... mais ce qu'on
 3     signifiait, c'est...
 4  7726                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... on utilise les
 5     termes différemment, mais à ce moment-là il s'agit
 6     simplement de s'entendre sur ce qu'on dit.
 7  7727                 Alors, à votre avis, le Conseil
 8     devrait reconnaître la petitesse ou l'étroitesse du
 9     marché québécois et être encore plus souple dans cette
10     intégration horizontale...
11  7728                 M. LAMARRE:  C'est exactement la
12     nature...
13  7729                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... qu'au Canada
14     anglais, où il y a plus de possibilités.
15  7730                 M. LAMARRE:  Exact.
16  7731                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais vous ne vous
17     opposez pas à ce que le Conseil s'assure que ce
18     système-là reste concurrentiel ou raisonnable et qu'il
19     donne justement des avantages à l'auditoire en
20     réglementant ou en s'assurant que le système demeure
21     cohérent, ce qui veut dire que possiblement le
22     titulaire qui est intégré horizontalement aura des
23     exigences plus élevées.
24  7732                 Est-ce que M. Khoury accepterait ça?
25  7733                 M. LAMARRE:  Je ne peux pas parler


 1     pour notre consultant, mais je peux parler pour le
 2     Groupe TVA.
 3  7734                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais il a parlé pour
 4     vous.
 5  7735                 M. LAMARRE:  Je pense que le point
 6     que vous soulevez est important parce que ça me permet
 7     d'amener la clarification suivante:  Comme je l'ai
 8     mentionné tout à l'heure, si notre passé est garant de
 9     l'avenir, et je pense qu'il l'est, le mot clé que
10     j'aimerais évoquer -- et je comprends la position du
11     CRTC -- c'est le mot "équilibre".  Nous sommes pour un
12     système équilibré.  Donc, si nous réclamons des droits
13     accrus, des responsabilités accrues, ça implique que
14     nous devons vivre avec des engagements additionnels
15     pour assurer l'équilibre des forces.
16  7736                 Je pense qu'André tout à l'heure l'a
17     bien évoqué:  Les producteurs indépendants ne sont pas
18     des adversaires, ils sont des partenaires.  On veut un
19     équilibre dans notre partenariat.
20  7737                 Les canaux spécialisés, pour nous, ce
21     ne sont pas des adversaires, ça va devenir un outil
22     synergique qui va nous permettre de nous assurer
23     d'offrir plus de choix aux consommateurs, parce que
24     dans le fond, dans tout ce que vous soulevez comme
25     questionnement -- et c'est extrêmement pertinent --


 1     vous voulez vous assurer d'un équilibre des forces en
 2     présence.  Nous adhérons à ce concept-là et nous sommes
 3     prêts à nous y soumettre.
 4  7738                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui.  Ce qui est très
 5     intéressant, c'est que justement dans votre mémoire
 6     écrit, dans celui de TVA, vous parlez de la nécessité
 7     de la complémentarité entre trois aspects: 
 8     télédiffuseurs et production indépendante, télévision
 9     conventionnelle et spécialisée, et télévision publique
10     et privée.  Mais M. Khoury, lui, au paragraphe 34, dit
11     que ce qui existe, c'est un déséquilibre.
12  7739                 M. LAMARRE:  Oui.
13  7740                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors nous allons en
14     reparler avec Radio-Canada plus tard.  Puisque c'est
15     tellement chatouilleux, je veux garder ça pour la fin
16     au cas où vous me lanciez vos crayons.  À ce moment-là
17     je pourrai reprendre mon allure pendant la pause.
18  7741                 Maintenant, à la page 9, au
19     paragraphe 28, vous parlez de l'accès aux fonds publics
20     qui à ce moment-là serait justement ce sujet
21     d'intégration verticale, et vous dites que:
22                            "l'accès aux fonds publics...
23                            doit être fondé sur les seuls
24                            critères de qualité et
25                            d'efficacité et être ouvert à


 1                            tous, de façon équitable;"
 2     sauf à Radio-Canada.
 3  7742                 Qu'est-ce que vous entrevoyez pour
 4     que ce soit ouvert de façon équitable et basé sur la
 5     qualité et l'efficacité?  Qu'entrevoyez-vous comme
 6     changements à la structure qui existe?
 7  7743                 M. PROVENCHER:  Vous n'êtes pas sans
 8     ignorer les problèmes qui ont été rencontrés le
 9     printemps dernier dans l'allocation des fonds qui sont
10     disponibles au Fonds canadien de télévision.  Les
11     images de ces files d'attente ont été, je pense,
12     l'objet de bien des cauchemars, mais je pense qu'elles
13     exprimaient surtout le bon côté des choses, et c'est
14     qu'il y a un appétit, une demande pour le financement
15     de contenu canadien qui dépasse de beaucoup l'offre. 
16     Je pense que c'est un signe qui est extrêmement
17     encourageant.  Évidemment, il y a de l'autre côté la
18     nécessité de bien choisir les priorités, de bien
19     choisir les critères selon lesquels les fonds seront
20     alloués.
21  7744                 Depuis ce temps il y a eu une
22     réflexion qui, je pense, rejoint à peu près tout le
23     monde dans l'industrie pour bien choisir les lignes
24     directrices qui serviront désormais à l'allocation des
25     fonds; plusieurs idées ont été avancées, et une de


 1     celles-là est certainement de reconnaître l'impact sur
 2     l'auditoire des projets qui allaient être financés.
 3  7745                 C'est un objectif, c'est une
 4     perspective avec laquelle nous sommes d'accord.  Je
 5     pense que nous devons le plus possible encourager le
 6     bon usage des fonds, l'efficacité du financement, et
 7     une façon de le faire, c'est d'introduire parmi les
 8     critères cette question d'auditoire.
 9  7746                 Évidemment, nous desservons 40 pour
10     cent du marché francophone et nous espérons non pas
11     recevoir 40 pour cent des fonds, ce serait certainement
12     une utopie, mais tout de même que, dans les mécanismes
13     de financement, qu'on puisse accorder un poids relatif
14     à l'impact des projets sur l'auditoire.  De cette
15     manière-là, nous pensons que les fonds seront mieux
16     utilisés.
17  7747                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Quand vous parlez
18     d'accès aux fonds pour les télédiffuseurs, est-ce que
19     vous préconisez qu'ils aient un accès direct ou que ce
20     soit par l'entremise de ces partenariats avec la
21     production indépendante dont vous nous avez parlé?
22  7748                 M. PROVENCHER:  Le Réseau TVA
23     assume -- et Daniel y a fait référence tout à
24     l'heure -- des activités de production assez
25     importantes, à peu près 1 400 heures de production qui


 1     sont faites chaque année par notre filiale de
 2     production, qui s'appelle "JPL".  Ce fournisseur
 3     déploie une offre qui est assez diversifiée dans toutes
 4     sortes de programmations, y compris les émissions
 5     dramatiques.
 6  7749                 Nous pensons qu'il est nécessaire,
 7     dans l'avenir, de pouvoir assurer à ces émissions-là un
 8     niveau de qualité et un financement qui soit
 9     appropriés.
10  7750                 Ce sont des arguments que nous avons
11     fait valoir auprès de plusieurs instances, d'abord
12     auprès du Conseil lorsqu'il a établi les lignes
13     directrices du Fonds de la câblodistribution il y a
14     quelques années de cela, des arguments que nous avons
15     fait valoir aussi auprès du gouvernement fédéral,
16     auprès du Gouvernement du Québec, pour ce qui est des
17     conditions qui déterminent l'accès au programme de
18     crédit d'impôt remboursable.
19  7751                 Nous pensons, sous réserve de
20     certaines mesures de protection, que l'accès au
21     financement doit exister pour les idées qui sont de
22     qualité et qui sont pertinentes du point de vue des
23     téléspectateurs.  Je pense que l'accès au financement
24     devrait, en ce sens-là, se poursuivre.
25  7752                 Est-ce que, pour le Canada français,


 1     vous n'acceptez pas le principe qui est soumis par
 2     certains intervenants, surtout du côté du Canada
 3     anglais, que même... il y en a évidemment qui ne
 4     veulent pas d'accès au fonds par les télédiffuseurs un
 5     point c'est tout et d'autres qui disent que, s'il y a
 6     intégration verticale avec une compagnie de production
 7     et le télédiffuseur, à ce moment-là le télédiffuseur ne
 8     devrait pas non plus pouvoir diffuser la production qui
 9     lui vient de sa filiale, et d'autres qui disent qu'on
10     peut y mettre des minima quelconques.
11  7753                 Est-ce que vous rejetez les deux
12     propositions, celle qui ne permettrait pas la diffusion
13     et celle qui insérerait des minima, et jusqu'à quel
14     point est-ce que ce que le Conseil serait prêt à
15     retenir du côté du Canada anglais devrait être
16     différent de ce qu'il serait prêt à retenir du côté du
17     Canada français?
18  7754                 M. PROVENCHER:  Très souvent la
19     production qui provient de notre filiale fait l'objet
20     de toutes sortes de remarques.  Encore la semaine
21     dernière l'Association des producteurs vous en a fait à
22     ce sujet-là.
23  7755                 Ce que j'aimerais vous souligner, et
24     référant à...
25  7756                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Quel genre de


 1     remarques, Monsieur Provencher?  Je suis rendue
 2     curieuse.
 3  7757                 M. PROVENCHER:  À l'effet que nous
 4     avons tendance, à TVA, à nous replier sur nos
 5     ressources internes pour alimenter les besoins de notre
 6     programmation.  J'aimerais vous dire que ce n'est pas
 7     le cas du tout, que nous ne faisons pas plus
 8     aujourd'hui à l'interne que nous faisions il y a trois
 9     ou quatre ans lorsque le Conseil, d'une manière bien
10     éclairée, a choisi de permettre l'accès des filiales
11     des entreprises liées à des radiodiffuseurs au nouveau
12     Fonds de câblodistribution.  Ça a été l'occasion
13     d'énoncer certaines lignes directrices concernant le
14     self-dealing, et j'ose croire que ces mesures-là ont
15     été non seulement bien identifiées mais ont été
16     également très efficaces.
17  7758                 Je n'ai pas entendu beaucoup de
18     plaintes à cet égard-là, alors que le Conseil avait
19     permis, par exemple, que les sociétés liées à des
20     radiodiffuseurs pouvaient utiliser jusqu'au tiers des
21     fonds disponibles; ça n'a jamais dépassé le plafond de
22     3 ou 4 pour cent, et souvent ça s'est situé autour de 1
23     pour cent.  Donc ce n'est pas une situation d'abus qui
24     demanderait des correctifs et qui demanderait d'être
25     administrée autrement.


 1  7759                 Je pense que ce qui nous préoccupe,
 2     c'est l'équilibre des forces, c'est de permettre à tous
 3     ceux qui ont des idées de pouvoir les soumettre et de
 4     permettre leur réalisation en bénéficiant du système
 5     qui est en place pour le financement de ces idées-là.
 6  7760                 M. LAMARRE:  Vous comprendrez, Madame
 7     la Présidente, quand on soulève ce sujet-là, que c'est
 8     un sujet qui est éminemment chatouilleux à l'interne
 9     chez nous, parce que dans le fond on parle ici
10     d'emplois stables, de 1 200 employés, et nous avons
11     réussi à maintenir un équilibre entre les productions
12     avec les producteurs indépendants et l'interne de façon
13     à maintenir ces emplois-là.  Mais je pense, au même
14     titre que les producteurs indépendants ont soulevé
15     beaucoup de droits -- et on adhère à ce principe-là --
16     que nos employés aussi ont beaucoup de droits, et c'est
17     notre devoir comme employeur de tenter de maintenir un
18     équilibre qui fait que, sur le plan économique, les
19     1 200 employés qui sont dispersés dans toutes les
20     régions du Québec puissent réussir à maintenir leur
21     emploi parce que ces gens-là aussi sont dans la
22     production de la télévision, ces gens-là aussi ont des
23     ambitions de produire des programmes de qualité, et je
24     pense que ça aussi, ça maintient un juste équilibre
25     dans notre industrie.


 1  7761                 M. PROVENCHER:  Encore une fois,
 2     Madame la Présidente, je ne vois pas de situation
 3     d'abus qui indiquerait au Conseil qu'il devrait mettre
 4     en place de nouveaux mécanismes pour prévenir, par
 5     exemple, les situations qui ont été évoquées par les
 6     intervenants devant vous.
 7  7762                 Ce que j'aimerais porter à votre
 8     attention, c'est le fait suivant:  Il y a trois ou
 9     quatre ans, au moment où le nouveau Fonds de
10     câblodistribution a été mis en place, nous consacrions
11     à ce moment-là environ 11 millions de dollars à
12     l'acquisition de droits d'émissions auprès des
13     producteurs indépendants.  Ce chiffre n'a jamais cessé
14     d'évoluer depuis, et nous avons fait part, avec
15     beaucoup de fierté je dois dire, qu'aujourd'hui c'est
16     18 millions de dollars par année que nous consacrons à
17     l'acquisition de droits auprès des producteurs
18     indépendants et que donc, même sous les conditions
19     d'accès au financement, leur niveau d'affaires avec TVA
20     n'a jamais cessé de s'améliorer.
21  7763                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Il faudra sans doute
22     surveiller à savoir si TVA se met à acheter des sacs de
23     couchage pour l'an prochain.
24  7764                 M. PROVENCHER:  Oui, on propose ça
25     aux producteurs quand ils viennent nous soumettre un


 1     projet, de leur fournir, en même temps qu'une lettre
 2     d'engagement, un sac de couchage.
 3  7765                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Non, mais si vous y
 4     allez vous aussi directement, on pourra voir jusqu'à
 5     quel point vous êtes sérieux si vous achetez des sacs
 6     de couchage, si vous allez joindre...
 7  7766                 M. PROVENCHER:  Madame Wylie, notre
 8     sens du partenariat est tellement développé que nous
 9     pensons acheter même des sacs de couchage double.
10  7767                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Il ne faut pas aller
11     trop loin.  Attention.  Attention.
12  7768                 Maintenant, vous parlez d'équité et
13     de complémentarité aussi entre les télédiffuseurs
14     conventionnels et spécialisés.  Je crois que vous avez
15     accepté que le Conseil peut-être considérerait le fait
16     qu'un télédiffuseur qui a aussi des licences de
17     services spécialisés aurait l'avantage d'utiliser des
18     ressources et des infrastructures communes, et caetera,
19     et donc de pouvoir avoir peut-être une proposition plus
20     riche, et caetera.  Mais au niveau de l'équité entre
21     les deux, quels problèmes voyez-vous maintenant?  Est-
22     ce que c'est l'accès à différents modes de financement,
23     le contrôle de la programmation par le Conseil...
24  7769                 M. LAMARRE:  C'est clairement l'accès
25     à plusieurs sources de financement.  Encore une fois,


 1     comme je l'exprimais précédemment, c'est une question
 2     d'équilibre.
 3  7770                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  D'avoir les mêmes
 4     possibilités...
 5  7771                 M. LAMARRE:  Tout à fait.
 6  7772                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... entre les deux.
 7  7773                 M. LAMARRE:  Exact.
 8  7774                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, parlons
 9     de complémentarité.
10  7775                 À la page 4, je crois, au paragraphe
11     17, vous parlez de ces trois secteurs de
12     complémentarité qui, à votre avis, devraient exister
13     entre la télévision publique et privée, entre la
14     télévision francophone et anglophone et entre la
15     télévision généraliste et spécialisée, payante et à la
16     carte, dont nous avons parlé.
17  7776                 Maintenant, au niveau de la
18     complémentarité entre la télévision francophone et
19     télévision anglophone, et le fait que M. Khoury trouve
20     qu'il y a déséquilibre, quel est le problème que vous
21     entrevoyez en ce moment et qui devrait être corrigé?
22  7777                 M. LAMARRE:  Tout ce à quoi on
23     faisait référence, au fond; c'est qu'on a un marché qui
24     est trois fois plus petit que le marché anglophone. 
25     Donc, encore une fois, au nom de la spécificité de


 1     notre marché, on veut s'assurer qu'il y ait un
 2     équilibre parce que c'est évident que quelqu'un qui a
 3     accès à un marché qui est trois fois plus grand que le
 4     nôtre, à ce moment-là, a potentiellement accès à des
 5     revenus beaucoup plus grands et, comme vous le savez
 6     parce que vous voyez tous les chiffres, c'est aussi le
 7     reflet de la réalité.
 8  7778                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Est-ce que vous y
 9     voyez...
10  7779                 M. PROVENCHER:  Si vous me permettez,
11     Madame Wylie, je pense aussi...
12  7780                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... un mécanisme...
13  7781                 M. PROVENCHER:  ... que nous
14     pourrions prévoir certains mécanismes pour encourager
15     par exemple une plus grande circulation des émissions
16     entre les secteurs francophones et anglophones.  Nous
17     avons commencé depuis un certain temps à travailler
18     avec nos collègues du Canada anglais à développer des
19     projets qui puissent avoir des retombées dans
20     l'ensemble des marchés, et je pense que c'est un
21     objectif, eu égard à la politique, à la Loi sur la
22     radiodiffusion, qu'il faudrait certainement encourager.
23  7782                 Peut-être qu'un des mécanismes qui
24     serait approprié serait de reconnaître, par exemple, un
25     crédit additionnel pour ces émissions-là qui sont


 1     distribuées dans les deux langues officielles du pays.
 2  7783                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, au niveau
 3     de Radio-Canada, vous avez là des suggestions ou
 4     recommandations des plus précises et vous préconisez
 5     que le Conseil, soit directement ou indirectement,
 6     s'occupe de freiner Radio-Canada de façon assez
 7     sérieuse.
 8  7784                 Monsieur Provencher dit non, mais
 9     vous proposez par exemple, au paragraphe 41, que:
10                            "... la part allouée sur les
11                            budgets des fonds de production
12                            à la Société Radio-Canada
13                            pourrait être diminuée par
14                            tranche de 10% à chaque année
15                            pour assurer une meilleure
16                            équité.  Par exemple, pour la
17                            prochaine année, la part des
18                            diffuseurs publics serait de
19                            40%, celle des diffuseurs privés
20                            conventionnels serait également
21                            de 40%, alors que celle des
22                            autres radiodiffuseurs serait de
23                            20%."
24  7785                 Premièrement, où sont les
25     indépendants dans cette formule et, deuxièmement, vous


 1     préconisez une diminution par tranche jusqu'à ce que
 2     vous voyiez quoi?  Rien du tout à Radio-Canada?m
 3  7786                 M. LAMARRE:  Non, pas du tout.  Pas
 4     du tout.
 5  7787                 Permettez-moi peut-être d'entrée de
 6     jeu de dire ceci:  Je pense qu'une des raisons qui fait
 7     que nous avons une télévision de qualité dans le marché
 8     francophone, c'est qu'avec la Société Radio-Canada et
 9     le Réseau TVA vous avez deux excellents diffuseurs qui
10     diffusent de la programmation de très, très grande
11     qualité, et on ne veut pas d'aucune façon que vous
12     freiniez Radio-Canada.  Toutefois, il y a des règles du
13     marché qui doivent s'appliquer.
14  7788                 Comme vous le savez, Radio-Canada,
15     comme diffuseur public -- et c'est bien clair dans la
16     Loi sur la radiodiffusion -- doit avoir un rôle de
17     diffuseur public.  Le problème que nous vivons et que
18     vous venez de décrire est un problème aigu.  Tout à
19     l'heure, vous avez fait part de sacs de couchage, vous
20     avez fait part de problèmes de financement...
21  7789                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Pas avec Radio-
22     Canada.
23  7790                 M. LAMARRE:  Non, ça, c'est certain. 
24     Mais mon point est le suivant; c'est que le problème de
25     financement, comme vous l'avez bien décrit, est un


 1     problème aigu.  Le problème que nous avons dans le
 2     marché francophone, c'est que notre concurrent
 3     principal, qui est la Société Radio-Canada... donc
 4     notre concurrent principal, c'est le gouvernement
 5     fédéral.  Alors le gouvernement fédéral, qui donne des
 6     sources de financement, assure, garantit une enveloppe
 7     de 50 pour cent à la Société Radio-Canada dans un
 8     contexte où l'autre 50 pour cent est maintenant divisé
 9     entre les autres téléviseurs généralistes et les autres
10     réseaux spécialisés.
11  7791                 Ceci veut dire que ce qui se produit
12     concrètement, sans aucun égard à la cote d'écoute... ce
13     qui se produit présentement, c'est que Radio-Canada
14     reçoit son enveloppe de 50 pour cent et après ça
15     l'ensemble des diffuseurs privés viennent littéralement
16     se battre pour obtenir leur part de l'autre 50 pour
17     cent.
18  7792                 Alors c'est cet état de fait qui crée
19     un déséquilibre énorme, et j'aimerais ça qu'André vous
20     décrive peut-être, dans la préparation de sa grille
21     horaire, qu'est-ce que ça veut dire comme
22     fonctionnement.
23  7793                 M. PROVENCHER:  Il est clair que les
24     contraintes auxquelles nous faisons face, malgré la
25     plus grande abondance des fonds disponibles, sont plus


 1     importantes aujourd'hui qu'elles l'étaient avant le 8
 2     septembre 1996 lorsque Mme Copps a annoncé cette
 3     heureuse nouvelle que le gouvernement fédéral allait
 4     investir davantage dans le financement de la production
 5     d'émissions canadiennes.
 6  7794                 Le grand nombre de joueurs qui se
 7     sont installés dans le marché ont créé une demande pour
 8     les fonds, je pense, qui, sans être hors de contrôle,
 9     dépasse de beaucoup les prévisions qui avaient été
10     établies, avec le résultat suivant, que TVA
11     aujourd'hui, par exemple, lorsqu'il envisage de
12     financer à travers des maisons de production
13     indépendantes des séries dramatiques à budget élevé, ne
14     puisse pas le faire, soit extrêmement limité dans sa
15     capacité de le faire.
16  7795                 Nous nous sommes fait dire, par
17     exemple, il y a quelques mois à peine, par Téléfilm
18     Canada que tout ce que TVA pourrait planifier au cours
19     de la prochaine année serait probablement, en dehors
20     d'une série qui s'appelle "Diva", une autre série
21     dramatique à budget élevé de huit heures.  Dans le même
22     temps, la Société Radio-Canada, qui est notre principal
23     concurrent lorsqu'il s'agit d'attirer les auditoires et
24     de pouvoir récupérer des recettes de la vente de ces
25     auditoires-là aux annonceurs, est dans une situation où


 1     il peut faire 40 à 45 heures d'émissions de même
 2     catégorie par année.
 3  7796                 Alors nous considérons qu'il s'agit
 4     là d'une situation assez évidente de déséquilibre et
 5     nous espérons que nous puissions établir le principe de
 6     la concurrence dans l'accès au fonds.  Actuellement
 7     cette situation de concurrence là n'existe pas
 8     puisqu'un des joueurs dispose non seulement d'une
 9     enveloppe fermée mais également de la capacité de
10     planifier, sans aucune contrainte, son offre de
11     programmation et qui ne permet pas à l'administrateur
12     du fonds d'investissement d'exercer son discernement
13     dans l'allocation des fonds.  Il doit respecter
14     exclusivement la soumission des projets qui lui a été
15     faite pour diffusion alors que nous, nous nous
16     inscrivons plus dans un processus de loterie, si vous
17     me permettez l'expression, entre guillemets.
18  7797                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Jusqu'à quel point
19     cette concurrence entre Radio-Canada et TVA, par
20     exemple, découle de l'étroitesse du marché et du fait
21     qu'il y a moins de joueurs dans le marché, ce qui est
22     assez difficile à... vous avez résisté,
23     Monsieur Lamarre, et Monsieur Provencher aussi, à
24     l'idée que les suggestions qui sont faites ici ne
25     viseraient pas à freiner Radio-Canada.  Mais à ce


 1     moment-là, si je regarde par exemple dans le mémoire de
 2     M. Khoury, que j'imagine vous endossez, en plus de
 3     cette diminution de l'accessibilité aux fonds vous avez
 4     des choses très précises, comme un droit de préemption
 5     devrait être accordé au télédiffuseur privé dans
 6     l'acquisition des droits pour les émissions de sports
 7     et films, séries, mini-séries étrangères et pour les
 8     émissions spéciales de variétés; aussi, que Radio-
 9     Canada ne puisse pas surenchérir par rapport aux
10     télédiffuseurs privés lors des appels d'offres pour
11     l'acquisition des droits et que, lorsque Radio-Canada
12     envisage de produire, diffuser ou programmer une
13     émission, elle devrait d'abord s'assurer que les
14     télédiffuseurs privés ne sont pas prêts à allouer leurs
15     propres ressources privées pour produire, diffuser ou
16     programmer cette émission, et que les offres de Radio-
17     Canada ne devraient entrer en vigueur que si aucun
18     télédiffuseur privé n'a présenté de soumission ou si
19     aucune offre privée n'a été retenue.
20  7798                 J'ai du mal à ne pas voir ça comme
21     freiner, et ma question est:  Dans l'étroitesse du
22     marché et du fait qu'il y a moins de joueurs, est-
23     ceu'il n'y a pas un problème à empêcher, justement, la
24     concurrence, parce que dans cinq ans c'est vous qui
25     serez dans la position de Radio-Canada avec des


 1     exigences législatives qui sont différentes?
 2  7799                 M. LAMARRE:  Au moment où nous nous
 3     parlons, Madame Wylie, l'autre concurrent privé va
 4     perdre 6 millions de dollars.  Alors je pense que, si
 5     vous cherchez un exemple spectaculaire pour montrer
 6     l'étroitesse du marché, il est très clair que le marché
 7     est très étroit et qu'on doit avoir un équilibre entre
 8     le public et le privé.
 9  7800                 Ce que vous venez de décrire n'est
10     pas un modèle typique qui a été créé par un concurrent
11     privé frustré; c'est un modèle qui existe dans beaucoup
12     de pays dans le monde.  Si vous êtes le gouvernement et
13     que vous confiez à une société public un mandat, il
14     faut s'assurer que ce mandat-là soit respecté.
15  7801                 Je ne crois pas que le gouvernement
16     fédéral subventionne la Société Radio-Canada pour que
17     la Société Radio-Canada vienne faire de la surenchère à
18     TQS et à TVA pour du contenu américain.
19  7802                 Il m'apparaît assez facile à
20     comprendre, pour un diffuseur public dans un contexte
21     où le CRTC nous convie à plus de diversité de contenus
22     canadiens, de reconnaître le rôle tout à fait unique du
23     diffuseur public.
24  7803                 Tout à l'heure vous avez parlé -- et
25     je pense que c'est tout à fait pertinent -- que dans un


 1     marché petit, où les ressources sont relativement
 2     limitées, on doive avoir des contenus de programmation
 3     diversifiée.  La façon la plus logique à très court
 4     terme d'assurer la diversité dans le contenu canadien
 5     dans le marché francophone... autant j'accepte votre
 6     commentaire que vous avez dit tout à l'heure sur les
 7     producteurs indépendants, que ce n'est pas de votre
 8     ressort, je pense qu'il est éminemment du ressort du
 9     CRTC, parce que c'est écrit dans la loi, de s'assurer
10     que notre diffuseur public soit complémentaire au
11     diffuseur privé.
12  7804                 Si le diffuseur public ne fait que de
13     la duplication du diffuseur privé, à ce moment-là, nous
14     n'atteindrons pas, comme industrie, les objectifs de
15     diversité de contenu canadien.
16  7805                 M. PROVENCHER:  Si vous me permettez
17     d'ajouter un commentaire, Madame la Présidente, c'est
18     le suivant:  Je pense que notre discours est
19     extrêmement cohérent.  Nous avons dit qu'il y a des
20     facteurs qui ont contribué au succès du marché
21     francophone et, dans l'évolution du cadre
22     réglementaire, il faudrait que ces facteurs-là puissent
23     demeurer.
24  7806                 Nous sommes tout à fait heureux de
25     souligner, comme Daniel vient de le faire, la


 1     contribution de la Société Radio-Canada au succès de
 2     ces résultats-là, et Radio-Canada propose une
 3     télévision qui est populaire, qui est de qualité et
 4     nous tentons de répondre à cette invitation à
 5     l'émulation en offrant aussi des émissions qui sont
 6     pertinentes et qui sont de qualité.
 7  7807                 Ceci étant dit, le président du
 8     Conseil supérieur de l'audio-visuel, M. Bourges, qui
 9     nous faisait l'honneur d'être ici la semaine dernière à
10     l'ouverture de la séance, faisait remarquer que la
11     situation du financement de la télévision publique
12     devient en France aussi une question de préoccupation,
13     parce que la part d'autofinancement des chaînes
14     publiques s'accroît d'année en année et la mission
15     commerciale des chaînes publiques aussi se précise et
16     se confirme d'année en année.
17  7808                 Nous suggérons qu'on doit, en quelque
18     part dans les règles du jeu, pour qu'il y ait saine
19     concurrence, refléter cette situation particulière dont
20     bénéficie le radiodiffuseur public, et nous avons pensé
21     que le modèle que nous proposons, loin de créer des
22     entraves au radiodiffuseur public dans les choix de
23     programmation qu'il pourrait faire à l'égard du contenu
24     canadien, par exemple... il n'y a aucune limitation à
25     ce qu'il peut faire.  Par ailleurs, dans d'autres


 1     secteurs de programmation qui sont peut-être moins
 2     pertinents, comme dans l'offre par exemple de contenu
 3     étranger à ses téléspectateurs... et j'aimerais
 4     souligner, par exemple, que la Société Radio-Canada a
 5     diffusé dans les 18 derniers mois un peu plus de 80
 6     films étrangers, particulièrement américains, dans des
 7     moments où la nécessité de rejoindre des auditoires
 8     commerciaux est peut-être un peu plus déterminante.
 9  7809                 Je pense qu'il doit y avoir en
10     quelque part des conditions qui s'installent pour
11     pouvoir refléter cette situation particulière là.  Si
12     nous étions dans la même situation, Madame Wylie, et
13     que notre financement s'appuyait sur, par exemple, 60
14     pour cent de fonds publics, il est clair qu'on ne
15     tiendrait pas le même discours devant vous, on dirait: 
16     Nous sommes dans des situations qui sont tout à fait
17     comparables, et que le meilleur l'emporte.
18  7810                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Vous vendriez votre
19     sac de couchage tout de suite.
20  7811                 M. PROVENCHER:  À un bon prix quand
21     même.
22  7812                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, un sujet
23     plus facile:  les limites de publicité.
24  7813                 Vous proposez que la limite de 12
25     minutes soit supprimée au moins à l'intérieur des


 1     émissions canadiennes, et je crois, au paragraphe 32,
 2     que vous proposez une révision de la définition du
 3     matériel publicitaire pour en exclure toute référence
 4     au matériel de promotion.  Voulez-vous dire promotion
 5     de la programmation canadienne?
 6  7814                 M. LAMARRE:  Oui.  On parle de...
 7     non.
 8  7815                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Toute promotion.
 9  7816                 M. LAMARRE:  Oui.  Une des forces...
10     permettez-moi de soulever un point dans votre question. 
11     Chez nous, ce n'est quasiment pas une question qui se
12     pose parce que...
13  7817                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  C'est presque tout
14     canadien?
15  7818                 M. LAMARRE:  ... c'est presque tout
16     du contenu canadien.  Dans le fond, on parle de peut-
17     être 10 à 12 pour cent de contenu étranger.  Alors pour
18     nous, ce n'est pas un gros problème, on est un
19     diffuseur de contenu canadien.
20  7819                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais ça inclurait,
21     par exemple, la promotion d'un film étranger, si par
22     hasard...
23  7820                 M. LAMARRE:  Oui, mais vous comprenez
24     que pour nous...
25  7821                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Il n'y en a pas...


 1  7822                 M. LAMARRE:  ... ce n'est pas un
 2     enjeu.
 3  7823                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, vous
 4     garderiez vous-mêmes le jugement de quand ça va à
 5     l'encontre de votre auditoire et à l'encontre de votre
 6     but d'atteindre le plus grand auditoire possible.
 7  7824                 M. LAMARRE:  Tout à fait, parce
 8     que...
 9  7825                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Parce qu'en anglais,
10     on nous a parlé de "clutter" -- je ne pas quel mot on
11     utiliserait en français -- qui devenait à ce moment-là
12     un désavantage.
13  7826                 M. LAMARRE:  Je pense que c'est une
14     question de bon goût.  C'est une question de bon goût. 
15     On ne peut pas se permettre de mettre trop de contenu
16     commercial parce qu'à ce moment-là on va perdre notre
17     auditoire.  Donc, encore une fois, c'est une question
18     d'équilibre.
19  7827                 Le problème qu'on a, malheureusement,
20     à cause des cycles publicitaires, c'est que, si vous
21     voulez acheter du temps d'antenne au Réseau TVA, nous
22     pouvons vous en offrir abondamment dans certaines
23     périodes, comme vous le savez, c'est-à-dire janvier et
24     février, et pendant l'été.  Et malheureusement, dans
25     les périodes de forte écoute, comme octobre-novembre,


 1     on est dans une situation où notre temps est
 2     complètement vendu.  Donc ça veut dire qu'on a un
 3     manque à gagner.  Nous pourrions, dans ces périodes-là,
 4     vendre un peu plus de temps.
 5  7828                 Donc dans le fond, ce qu'on veut,
 6     c'est une marge de manoeuvre pour que, dans des
 7     périodes de pointe, où les demandes des annonceurs sont
 8     très grandes, qu'on puisse y répondre et ça nous
 9     donnerait un peu plus de flexibilité.  Encore une fois,
10     on ne peut pas se prendre nous-mêmes à notre propre
11     jeu; c'est qu'on ne peut pas devenir commercial à
12     outrance et que là, le téléspectateur décide d'aller
13     chez notre concurrent.
14  7829                 Alors c'est une question, encore une
15     fois, juste de se donner un peu de marge de manoeuvre
16     et de se donner les moyens financiers de nos ambitions.
17  7830                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Si le 12 minutes
18     était supprimé, il n'y aurait pas nécessité à ce
19     moment-là de définir... je suppose qu'il y aurait moins
20     d'importance de redéfinir la publicité s'il n'y avait
21     pas de limite.  Ce serait à vous d'y insérer de la
22     promotion ou...
23  7831                 M. LAMARRE:  Exact, et c'est ce que
24     nous prétendons.  Mais, du même souffle, je dois vous
25     ajouter que je ne pense pas que la teneur commerciale


 1     totale sur un an subirait un changement important.  Je
 2     pense que ce serait juste une question de période pour
 3     répondre à la demande additionnelle lorsqu'elle se
 4     présentera.
 5  7832                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Quand vous parlez du
 6     désavantage du milieu francophone comparé à vos
 7     homologues anglophones qui bénéficient de la
 8     substitution simultanée, est-ce que vous parlez à ce
 9     moment-là du bénéfice que vous auriez si vous
10     pouviez... faire quoi exactement?  Parce qu'en général
11     la substitution simultanée dans le milieu anglophone,
12     ce n'est pas totalement vrai, mais c'est de programmer
13     à l'encontre de la programmation américaine.
14  7833                 Est-ce que c'est ça que vous voyez,
15     ou si c'est la substitution d'un autre service qui a la
16     même programmation que vous?  Est-ce que la
17     programmation étrangère est de telle importance que
18     vous bénéficieriez de la substitution?
19  7834                 M. PROVENCHER:  Non.  Je ne pense pas
20     que le concept de la substitution est un concept viable
21     dans le contexte de la télévision francophone.  Ce que
22     nous voulons souligner d'autre part, c'est que c'est un
23     défi considérable, compte tenu de la taille du marché
24     francophone, de recouvrer nos coûts de programmation
25     sur le marché de la publicité compte tenu des cycles et


 1     compte tenu de la concurrence qui existe.
 2  7835                 Alors est-ce que nous pourrions
 3     développer une plus grande souplesse à l'intérieur du
 4     marché francophone compte tenu que la substitution ne
 5     génère pas de revenus?  Est-ce qu'on pourrait trouver
 6     d'autres moyens d'élargir l'assiette des revenus pour
 7     assurer la rentabilité des émissions que nous
 8     diffusons?  C'est cette question-là que nous souhaitons
 9     qui soit examinée.
10  7836                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Est-ce que vous
11     faites un pont entre ce désavantage et la suggestion
12     que peut-être tôt ou tard il y aurait lieu que vos
13     homologues des services spécialisés -- vous l'êtes
14     vous-mêmes -- puissent avoir un revenu quelconque de la
15     distribution de vos signaux?  Ce que vous soulevez,
16     est-ce que ce serait une façon de compenser pour le
17     fait que vous n'obtenez pas de revenus liés à la
18     substitution simultanée?
19  7837                 M. PROVENCHER:  Il est clair que nous
20     sommes soumis plus que quiconque aux intempéries du
21     marché.  Il est clair que nous sommes ouverts -- et
22     nous l'avons vécu dans le passé -- aux cycles haussiers
23     et baissiers du marché de la publicité et que, quand il
24     fait beau, généralement nous en bénéficions mais, quand
25     il ne fait pas beau, nous sommes ceux qui écopons le


 1     plus parce que notre seule source de revenus, à 90 pour
 2     cent et plus, c'est la publicité.
 3  7838                 Donc, sans proposer de modèle très
 4     précis, nous demandons au Conseil de considérer
 5     l'assouplissement des règles publicitaires pour que
 6     nous puissions nous assurer et planifier une
 7     récupération plus sécuritaire de nos investissements
 8     sur le marché de la publicité.
 9  7839                 La double source de revenus, pour
10     nous, c'est difficilement concevable, sinon par la
11     concentration horizontale qui nous permettrait, par
12     l'intermédiaire de chaînes spécialisées dont nous
13     détiendrions les licences, d'avoir accès aux revenus
14     d'abonnement, mais je pense que c'est une perspective
15     qui est assez éloignée.
16  7840                 Donc ce que nous pensons, nous sommes
17     confiants de pouvoir tirer notre épingle du jeu en
18     utilisant le plein potentiel des recettes publicitaires
19     sous réserve qu'il y ait des mesures plus souples à cet
20     égard-là.
21  7841                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, une
22     dernière question.  Je vous lis le paragraphe 69 du
23     mémoire de M. Khoury, qui dit:
24                            "En l'occurrence, l'adoption de
25                            règles générales plus flexibles


 1                            et durables constitue en soi le
 2                            principal incitatif pour assurer
 3                            la présence, la variété et la
 4                            qualité des émissions à contenu
 5                            canadien dans un contexte de
 6                            concurrence où les consommateurs
 7                            sont demandeurs de telles
 8                            caractéristiques."
 9  7842                 Pouvez-vous, en quelques phrases,
10     nous faire un aperçu du système des règles générales
11     plus flexibles et durables que vous envisagiez si nous
12     émettions un document absolument idéal pour vous et
13     pour votre vision de l'avenir à la fin de cet exercice? 
14     Et vous avez cinq minutes.
15  7843                 M. LAMARRE:  Je peux résumer ça en
16     moins de temps.  Je vais vous le résumer en trois mots: 
17     asymétrie, flexibilité, équité.
18  7844                 Asymétrie parce qu'on juge
19     important... et c'est pour ça sans doute qu'il est
20     difficile pour nous de ne pas cacher notre enthousiasme
21     aujourd'hui et notre ferveur; c'est qu'on croit que ce
22     rendez-vous ci est un rendez-vous unique pour tous les
23     partenaires du marché francophone de venir, comme l'ont
24     fait d'autres intervenants, vous demander de
25     reconnaître de façon très claire, lorsque vous


 1     réviserez les règlements du CRTC, la spécificité du
 2     marché francophone.  C'est notre premier souhait.
 3  7845                 Notre deuxième souhait, c'est la
 4     flexibilité.  Étant à la tête d'une entreprise qui a
 5     perdu de l'argent pendant quelques années et qui a donc
 6     dû prendre des décisions drastiques dont beaucoup
 7     d'employés ont été victimes par leur perte d'emploi,
 8     nous pensons que c'est de notre responsabilité
 9     d'assurer l'avenir économique de notre entreprise.
10  7846                 Pour ça, quand nous vous parlons de
11     flexibilité, comprenez bien qu'on ne vous demande pas
12     un chèque en blanc; on est prêts à vivre avec des
13     engagements, mais on veut avoir une flexibilité qui
14     tient compte de notre marché, qui est extrêmement petit
15     comparativement au marché anglophone.  On veut aussi
16     atteindre une flexibilité qui nous permettrait, d'une
17     part, une stratégie de différenciation face au
18     diffuseur public et également une diversité de
19     programmation pour le consommateur francophone entre
20     les différents joueurs dans le marché francophone.
21  7847                 Nous souhaitons également une équité
22     comme je vous l'ai dit tout à l'heure, où tous les
23     joueurs de l'industrie devraient être imputables à la
24     mesure et à la taille de leur entreprise, ce qui nous
25     permettrait, nous, d'avoir une stratégie à plus long


 1     terme.
 2  7848                 S'il y avait un terme qui résume la
 3     pensée du Groupe TVA -- et c'est le terme sur lequel
 4     j'aimerais conclure -- c'est l'équilibre.  Nous
 5     reconnaissons que l'équilibre est quelque chose de
 6     précaire dans une industrie hautement réglementée comme
 7     la nôtre.  Nous sommes prêts à participer à l'équilibre
 8     de l'industrie en prenant, lorsque nous viendrons
 9     devant vous, des engagements formels qui correspondront
10     au potentiel de marché auquel nous prétendrons lors de
11     nos futures licences.
12  7849                 Je m'en voudrais de conclure sans
13     vous dire qu'on a un attachement incroyable, à TVA,
14     pour le contenu canadien.  À chaque fois que notre
15     vice-président des programmes est confronté avec un
16     choix où il pourrait facilement prendre sur les
17     tablettes un contenu américain et simplement l'adapter,
18     croyez-moi qu'il fait beaucoup de pirouettes pour
19     trouver une façon de financer un projet canadien, parce
20     que non seulement ça rejoint plus de téléspectateurs,
21     mais pour nous, comme diffuseur, je peux vous dire que
22     c'est beaucoup plus le fun à produire.
23  7850                 Je vous remercie.
24  7851                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je vous passe au
25     conseiller juridique maintenant mais, avant de


 1     terminer, je voudrais vous rappeler que, quand vous
 2     avez comparu lundi, je vous ai invités à continuer à
 3     dialoguer avec vos collègues anglophones pour leur
 4     donner les trucs nécessaires pour y arriver.  J'espère
 5     que vous allez continuer de le faire.
 6  7852                 M. PROVENCHER:  Si vous me permettez
 7     juste un tout petit commentaire avant qu'on passe aux
 8     questions du conseiller juridique, Madame Wylie, je
 9     pense qu'il y a une situation au Québec qui est tout à
10     fait remarquable, et c'est la suivante:  Je pense
11     qu'aujourd'hui la demande des téléspectateurs est un
12     plus grand incitatif que le devoir réglementaire ou la
13     contrainte réglementaire pour offrir aux
14     téléspectateurs une offre essentiellement de contenu
15     canadien.
16  7853                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors pourquoi vous
17     inquiéter de la réglementation du CRTC?
18  7854                 M. PROVENCHER:  On s'inquiète, et nos
19     préoccupations, Madame Wylie, sont souvent à l'égard de
20     ceux qui voudraient imposer des contraintes
21     additionnelles dans un système dont ils disent eux-
22     mêmes qu'il va très bien.
23  7855                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui.  Ça me rappelle
24     un professeur de mathématiques que j'ai déjà eu à
25     l'école secondaire:  Si on obtenait presque toutes les


 1     réponses on avait 105 sur 100 parce que lui avait mal
 2     calculé son histoire.  Mon père était bien
 3     impressionné.
 4  7856                 Maître Blais.
 5  7857                 Me BLAIS:  Trois points.
 6  7858                 Le premier point, c'était pour
 7     clarifier, mais je pense que vous avez commencé à
 8     répondre de toute façon.  Quand vous avez peur d'une
 9     sur-réglementation, vous ne préconisez pas l'abolition
10     du quota existant de 50/60.  Ça, il peut demeurer en
11     place sans difficultés.
12  7859                 M. LAMARRE:  Compte tenu de notre
13     performance, pour nous, sans vouloir être désobligeant,
14     je vous dirais que ce n'est pas un enjeu.
15  7860                 Me BLAIS:  D'accord.
16  7861                 Monsieur Khoury, je voyais avec un
17     peu d'étonnement en haut de votre page, de votre
18     mémoire, "Ne pas citer sans autorisation".  J'espère
19     que si le Conseil voulait vous citer dans sa décision
20     vous n'auriez pas de problème à ce niveau?
21  7862                 M. KHOURY:  Oui, tout à fait.  Ce
22     serait même avec plaisir.
23  7863                 Me BLAIS:  Merci.  Je ne voulais pas
24     mettre le Conseil dans des difficultés.
25  7864                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Moi, j'ai


 1     complètement ignoré ça.
 2  7865                 Me BLAIS:  J'en ai bien peur, parce
 3     que vous l'avez cité deux fois sans demander la
 4     permission.
 5  7866                 Ma dernière question -- et on a parlé
 6     beaucoup du milieu francophone et des succès que vous
 7     avez eu -- est un peu dans l'esprit du dernier
 8     commentaire de Mme la Présidente concernant le dialogue
 9     avec le Canada anglais.  Je me demandais, eu égard à
10     votre belle feuille de route et les succès, si par
11     hypothèse on vous demandait, peut-être vous,
12     Monsieur Provencher, de prendre le mandat d'être en
13     charge d'un des réseaux anglophones du Canada pendant
14     une période de trois à cinq ans, quelle serait votre
15     stratégie pour au moins tenter d'obtenir les résultats
16     que vous avez pu obtenir au Canada français?
17  7867                 M. PROVENCHER:  D'abord, je dois vous
18     dire que je fréquente de plus en plus mes collègues du
19     Canada anglais et j'y découvre un niveau de compétence
20     qui m'impressionne grandement.  Je pense qu'il y a là
21     plein de gens qui sont bien avisés et qui disposent de
22     tous les outils pour faire progresser la télévision de
23     langue anglaise au Canada et, je pense, dans le sens
24     qui est recherché par le Conseil.
25  7868                 Je pense qu'à cet égard-là, les


 1     engagements qui ont été proposés devant vous par
 2     l'Association des radiodiffuseurs la semaine dernière
 3     vont tout à fait dans ce sens-là, de bâtir un système
 4     qui soit plus performant.
 5  7869                 Ceci étant dit, il est clair qu'il y
 6     a un ensemble de conditions qui existent et que nous
 7     devons respecter.  La télévision de langue anglaise est
 8     soumise à un environnement qui est différent de celui
 9     que nous connaissons.  Ils sont beaucoup plus ouverts,
10     par exemple, à la concurrence des services en
11     provenance des États-Unis, ce qui est notre cas aussi,
12     mais la protection de la langue constitue encore un
13     facteur qui freine la pénétration des services de
14     langue anglaise, canadien anglais ou américain, dans
15     notre marché.
16  7870                 Je pense qu'une stratégie de
17     différenciation constitue l'atout principal pour
18     pouvoir faire progresser les services de radiodiffusion
19     de langue anglaise, particulièrement les réseaux
20     conventionnels.
21  7871                 Moi, je suis très heureux de
22     constater, dans les conversations que j'ai, dans les
23     discussions que j'ai avec mes collègues du Canada
24     anglais, qu'ils sont tout à fait engagés dans cette
25     voie-là, et j'ai l'impression que, dans l'avenir, CTV


 1     ne sera pas Global et ne sera pas CBC, que chacun a une
 2     conception du rôle qu'il peut jouer dans le système
 3     canadien de radiodiffusion qui soit un rôle qui soit
 4     distinctif, qui lui soit propre et qui soit tout à fait
 5     conforme aux intérêts du système canadien de
 6     radiodiffusion dans le sens de la promotion du contenu
 7     canadien.
 8  7872                 Je pense que ces efforts-là sont
 9     beaucoup plus sentis aujourd'hui qu'ils ne l'étaient il
10     y a quelques années, alors que, par exemple, la
11     distribution d'émissions par satellite n'était pas
12     encore une réalité, que le marché n'était pas aussi
13     ouvert qu'il l'est aujourd'hui à la distribution de
14     signaux des États-Unis et qui concernent la télévision
15     spécialisée.
16  7873                 Moi, je pense que j'aurais tendance à
17     faire confiance à mes collègues du Canada anglais pour
18     qu'ils réussissent le formidable défi qui est devant
19     eux de bâtir un système, de bâtir un star system aussi,
20     qui est absolument incontournable pour pouvoir obtenir
21     du succès.  Moi, je pense que j'apprends beaucoup à
22     travailler avec eux.
23  7874                 Un autre des volets, je pense, du
24     travail que nous pouvons faire conjointement est
25     certainement de rechercher des projets, compte tenu des


 1     difficultés de financement, qui puissent avoir des
 2     retombées, comme je l'ai dit tantôt, dans les deux
 3     secteurs linguistiques du système canadien de
 4     radiodiffusion.
 5  7875                 Me BLAIS:  Donc, malgré les
 6     différences apparentes au niveau de la langue, de la
 7     culture, il y a quand même des décisions qu'on pourrait
 8     décrire comme des décisions d'affaires qu'on peut faire
 9     pour maximiser les rendements au niveau de ce qui nous
10     préoccupe, nous, le Conseil, au niveau des objectifs de
11     la Loi sur la radiodiffusion:  plus de contenu
12     canadien...
13  7876                 M. PROVENCHER:  Tout à fait.  Je
14     pense que l'approche de la différenciation doit reposer
15     en bonne partie sur le contenu canadien, et je pense
16     que nos collègues du Canada anglais ont à se
17     différencier entre eux mais ils ont aussi à se
18     différencier par rapport à l'offre qui est en
19     provenance des États-Unis.
20  7877                 Je pense qu'ils doivent rechercher
21     des idées, des concepts qui leur permettent d'être
22     perçus de la part des téléspectateurs comme étant un
23     proposeur intéressant et significatif, ce qui veut dire
24     rechercher l'endroit exact, la position exacte dans le
25     marché de l'écoute qu'ils peuvent occuper et qu'ils


 1     peuvent desservir mieux que leurs concurrents.
 2  7878                 Je pense que, en s'appuyant davantage
 3     mais progressivement... je pense que ce n'est pas
 4     strictement une question de volonté, c'est aussi une
 5     question de capacité.  C'est inconcevable qu'on puisse
 6     offrir davantage de contenu canadien de qualité dans le
 7     contexte actuel du financement de la production
 8     d'émissions canadiennes.
 9  7879                 Je pense que c'est là où,
10     malheureusement, la réalité rejoint les ambitions et
11     souvent les contraignent.  Je pense que les efforts et
12     la volonté sont là; on doit déployer plus
13     d'imagination, plus de créativité au niveau du
14     financement, on doit bâtir de nouveaux partenariats
15     entre radiodiffuseurs francophones et radiodiffuseurs
16     anglophones, entre radiodiffuseurs anglophones et peut-
17     être certains partenaires à l'étranger à l'occasion
18     pour pouvoir amortir les droits d'émissions sur des
19     auditoires plus larges, mais essentiellement je pense
20     que de bâtir une offre distinctive pour chacun demeure
21     la clé, et moi, ce que j'ai entendu la semaine
22     dernière, c'était un discours qui est tout à fait
23     cohérent par rapport à ça.
24  7880                 Me BLAIS:  Merci pour vos
25     commentaires.  Malheureusement, on n'a pas de...


 1  7881                 M. PROVENCHER:  Je retiens votre
 2     offre d'emploi quand même.
 3  7882                 Me BLAIS:  Malheureusement, on n'a
 4     pas de budget pour payer vos conseils, mais merci quand
 5     même.
 6  7883                 C'est tout, Madame la Présidente.
 7  7884                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci, Maître Côté,
 8     merci, Monsieur Lamarre et vos collègues.  Nous vous
 9     souhaitons un bon dîner où, contrairement au déjeuner,
10     vous n'aurez pas à penser à nous.  Bon voyage de
11     retour.
12  7885                 M. LAMARRE:  Merci.
13  7886                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous reprendrons à
14     trois heures et demie.  We will take a 15-minute break
15     and we will be back at 3:30.
16     --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1514
17     --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1530
18  7887                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Secretary,
19     would you please invite the next participant to come
20     forward.
21  7888                 Mme BÉNARD:  Merci, Madame la
22     Présidente.
23  7889                 La prochaine présentation sera celle
24     de CTEQ Télévision Inc., et j'inviterais Mmes Griffiths
25     et Verthuy à faire la présentation.


 2  7890                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Thank you very much,
 3     Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commission staff.  Thank
 4     you for giving us the time today to address this
 5     hearing.
 6  7891                 My name is Marie Griffiths, President
 7     of CJNT.  With my is my colleague, Véronique Verthuy,
 8     General Manager.
 9  7892                 Having sat on both sides of the
10     fence, having been on the production side, never
11     completely pleased with the broadcasters' position on
12     everything or anything and having been the last four
13     years on the broadcasters' side as a holder of a
14     conventional over-the-air, off-the-air free TV licence,
15     it has been an interesting transition for me to try to
16     find a happy medium for both.
17  7893                 Somebody made reference to the
18     mismanagement of Canadian projects or productions.  I
19     have seen a lot of that.  I don't want to get into that
20     too much right now, but maybe if broadcasters were
21     allowed to directly use the Production Fund, then maybe
22     we could set up a system or a structure where we would
23     hire the producers or directors from a list of
24     independents.  It might just work out better because
25     they do have the management experience, there is no


 1     doubt about it, but most importantly the broadcaster is
 2     directly accountable to the Commission.
 3  7894                 Madame Bertrand has repeatedly said
 4     that the interest and values of Canadians is what she
 5     puts above all anything else.  Well, this brings me to
 6     a topic that we have spoken about and CJNT has had the
 7     chance to file other briefs on it.
 8  7895                 Foreign services, and I am not
 9     referring to American foreign services.  Please keep
10     this in mind.  Third language foreign services, as far
11     as we are concerned, should pay through the nose for
12     the right to come here and take a third-language
13     viewer, a Canadian viewer who we are trying to teach or
14     inform or at least make him feel or sense some kind of
15     Canadian identity.
16  7896                 We actually would like to see the
17     Commission come up with some kind of structure to
18     protect in our case the over 1 million viewers in
19     Montreal of ethnic origin who can just tune out of the
20     whole Canadian context and just simply live their land
21     of origin through their TV sets in their homes here in
22     Canada.  This I find is totally unfair and a huge, huge
23     danger and threat for the future of our industry and
24     how our Canadian society will develop as a whole.
25  7897                 Also, remember that these viewers


 1     when they finish watching their particular show in
 2     their language of origin over a service like CJNT will
 3     then tune in to one of your English or French licensees
 4     or broadcasters across the country.
 5  7898                 If we don't let these new Canadians
 6     develop at least in some way as a Canadian, and we all
 7     know the influence television has on society today, it
 8     is not going to happen that we keep this Canadian
 9     identity and support it to grow and flourish.
10  7899                 Antenna 1 from Greece is one of the
11     examples who is illegally servicing this country with
12     its programming out of Greece and is presently carrying
13     three local ads from Montreal.  These are being sold
14     and this merchandising is being done here with no
15     control of the CRTC, no supervision and these services
16     are accountable to no one.
17  7900                 There is some middleman in Montreal. 
18     You will see the same structure set up in Toronto and
19     in major cities across this country, who will do these
20     sales.  The fees are being paid for their satellites
21     and subscription to descramble these services for them
22     in their homes to Americans in the United States
23     directly over their credit cards.  Antenna 1 has just
24     informed the Montreal market and Toronto market that
25     they are scrambling a new signal, they are putting up a


 1     new dish to supply live soccer games for $50 a month
 2     U.S. and a $500 fee to get the original dish and the
 3     descrambled service.
 4  7901                 I say make them all pay through the
 5     nose.  Today I am going to be very brief at this
 6     hearing.  You are looking for suggestions from us and
 7     for answers on how we can help the conventional
 8     broadcaster.  The conventional broadcaster is burdened
 9     with most of the regulations and thus faces the highest
10     cost of production.  The conventional broadcaster whose
11     free TV signal can influence and plays a major role in
12     developing the society.
13  7902                 Again, I say make them all pay
14     through the nose.  Charge them all.  Set up a fine
15     system for illegal satellite beaming.  Make stations
16     who want to be on the eligible satellite list pay a
17     fee.  Deutschvella, Arab 1, Antenna 1, WWBA or N, or I
18     forget the initials right now, which is a Russian
19     service out of New York, there is no shame in telling
20     these services that if they want to play in our
21     marketplace there is a cost.  If you are in the
22     television business you are used to costs.  It is not
23     anything that would shock them.
24  7903                 I would think they are more shocked
25     that we don't, that Canada with an open-door policy


 1     just lets them come in and manipulate and have
 2     advantages that we don't have as Canadians here in the
 3     broadcast system.
 4  7904                 There is an old saying in our
 5     industry, you pay to play.  There is no free ride in
 6     our industry and there shouldn't be because that would
 7     be an abuse.
 8  7905                 The Commission is here to make sure
 9     that we don't abuse the communication industry.  There
10     is too much at stake here and what is the main danger
11     is losing our Canadian identity and no future
12     development of our Canadian identity.  Please keep in
13     mind that Canada is made up of one-third ethnics or new
14     Canadians.
15  7906                 We must identify as Canadians who
16     speak a third language, not as a person of a third
17     language living in Canada.  Although that might sound
18     the same to you, it is not, and that is where our
19     Canadian identity topic comes in.
20  7907                 I believe as a broadcaster it is
21     worth giving up 50 per cent of our prime time on
22     Canadian television for American programming or
23     whatever other kind of non-Canadian programming that
24     helps to bring in the revenues that will allow us to do
25     that great Canadian television show during the other 50


 1     per cent to keep our viewers, to inform, to entertain
 2     under the Canadian banner.  The better we make these
 3     Canadian programs the greater the opportunity to sell
 4     also to a wider market.
 5  7908                 I would like to make a little aside
 6     at this point.  There has been a lot of discussion
 7     about the role of the independent producer.  For the
 8     purposes of our brief I would like to clarify the term,
 9     if I may.
10  7909                 As we understand it, independent
11     producers are those who from beginning to end turn out
12     a finished product to be aired by a broadcaster.  He or
13     she, along with their team, work with theme, story
14     line, scripts and produce most of the time quality
15     programs.  This is important because there are those
16     who have worked on community channels.  In our case,
17     producers who worked on a community multilingual
18     television or even several of the third-language
19     producers that work with us now on CJNT believe that
20     because of that experience they can now be referred to
21     as independent producers.  Whereas the context and the
22     interpretation that we use at hearings and in your own
23     paperwork and ours is the previous one that I have
24     stated.
25  7910                 There is a place for independent


 1     productions on CJNT.  We recently aired the docudrama
 2     produced by a young Canadian film-maker named Michael
 3     Jarvis.  He received his funding from agencies like
 4     those that we speak of here at these hearings today. 
 5     The story he chose to do was "Life and Times of Manuel
 6     de Costa," the first free black man in Canada and the
 7     role he played in helping Samuel de Champlain.  Well,
 8     it's a Canadian production and it sure is Canadian
 9     content.
10  7911                 Jarvis was not able to get his short
11     film air play on any of the conventional over-the-air
12     broadcasters until he came to CJNT.  There were flaws
13     in his production, we have to be quite honest, there is
14     no doubt about it, but we believe that if a project is
15     funded by the Telefilms and the Production Funds, et
16     cetera, which as broadcasters we have no say in, well,
17     if after such a tedious screening process and producers
18     who have been involved in it know what it means, if
19     they are approved and funded, then they should be
20     aired.  In fact, we told the Commission as much when we
21     were first heard during our licence application.
22  7912                 That being said, we would also
23     support the suggestion that the Commission changed the
24     definition of prime time since it insists on
25     establishing some kind of mean prime time because we


 1     have differing opinions on that, but if it does, yes, I
 2     think it would help broadcasters from the current 8:00
 3     p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, to the one put
 4     forward by the CAB, that is to say from 7:00 p.m. to
 5     11:00 p.m., seven days a week.
 6  7913                 In return, broadcasters should set
 7     aside a one-hour block during weekends.  Our preference
 8     is Saturday daytime, where we don't run much of our
 9     money making shows, like the American shows, for the
10     express purpose of showcasing unconventional TV.  Many
11     of these independent productions are very Canadian, but
12     may be somewhat flawed or will not generate revenues
13     for the station in question.
14  7914                 Nevertheless, I feel it is our duty
15     to provide such an opportunity to these independent
16     producers, especially since our institutions in place
17     deemed fit to fund them in the hundreds of thousands or
18     even millions of dollars.
19  7915                 This Canadian television policy
20     review might be the most important the Commission has
21     ever held.
22  7916                 Véronique.
23  7917                 Mme VERTHUY:  Bonjour.  J'aimerais
24     revenir sur le point fait tout à l'heure par Mme
25     Griffiths en ce qui a trait aux services étrangers de


 1     tierce langue.
 2  7918                 Dans nos sociétés à forte
 3     immigration, et afin de faciliter l'intégration de nos
 4     nouvelles populations, certaines chaînes, dont la
 5     nôtre, diffusent dans diverses langues minoritaires. 
 6     Les émissions sont de deux sortes.  D'une part, il y a
 7     les productions canadiennes, l'oeuvre de réalisateurs
 8     et de réalisatrices néo-canadiens, qui témoignent aussi
 9     de la nature plurielle de notre culture.  D'autre part,
10     ces mêmes stations diffusent un certain nombre
11     d'émissions enregistrées à l'étranger mais visionnées à
12     l'avance et approuvées par des personnes compétentes
13     ici, au pays.  Les stations se portent garantes, en
14     quelque sorte, de la qualité et du contenu de ces
15     importations.
16  7919                 De plus en plus de pays, cependant,
17     voire des groupes à l'intérieur de ces pays, sont
18     maintenant en mesure d'émettre de plus en plus de
19     programmes qui sont directement captés à travers le
20     monde grâce surtout aux satellites et aux antennes
21     paraboliques.  Ces émissions, qui sont reçues ici,
22     contrairement aux programmes américains ou canadiens,
23     ne sont soumis à aucun contrôle, ne connaissent aucun
24     filtrage... une liberté qui paraît fort admirable.
25                                                        1540


 1  7920                 La diversité offre des aspects fort
 2     positifs; pourtant, la liberté ne doit jamais être
 3     absolue car, poussée à l'extrême, elle comporte
 4     toujours des dangers.  Tout exercice intelligent de la
 5     liberté exige des balises.
 6  7921                 Dans le cas d'émissions diffusées en
 7     une des deux langues officielles et non retransmises
 8     par une chaîne canadienne ou américaine agréée, elles
 9     seraient immédiatement intelligibles à une large
10     majorité de la population.  L'on pourrait penser que,
11     de ce fait, un contrôle de facto s'exercerait.  Dans
12     l'idéal, tout programme qui prendrait des valeurs
13     contraires à nos valeurs canadiennes fondamentales
14     ferait rapidement l'objet de vives protestations ou de
15     commentaires avisés.
16  7922                 Malheureusement, un tel contrôle
17     demeure parfaitement aléatoire dans la mesure où
18     institutionnaliser son existence dépend des réactions
19     individuelles des téléspectateurs.  De plus, il existe
20     à côté de ces émissions-là celles qui nous arrivent
21     dans une langue qui n'est parlée que par une minorité
22     linguistique.  Les inconvénients sont tout de suite
23     plus apparents. L'on conçoit aisément en effet une
24     situation où une telle émission pourrait véhiculer des
25     valeurs totalement inacceptables dans le contexte


 1     canadien sans que la population dans son ensemble,
 2     voire les autorités intéressées, en soit consciente.
 3  7923                 L'on conçoit non moins aisément que
 4     toute protestation que cette émission pourrait
 5     éventuellement provoquer aurait vraisemblablement lieu
 6     dans la même langue minoritaire; elle risquerait donc
 7     de passer tout aussi inaperçue du grand public. 
 8     Autrement dit, en l'absence de tout contrôle, un
 9     travail de propagande surnois pourrait facilement
10     exister, existe déjà peut-être à notre insu.
11  7924                 L'on ne saurait trop insister sur le
12     péril que représente cette situation.  Nous savons déjà
13     l'utilisation que font de l'Internet les pédophiles,
14     les racistes, les intégristes de toute obédience et
15     autres indésirables.
16  7925                 À l'heure qu'il est, on se rend de
17     mieux en mieux compte du danger inhérent dans le libre
18     accès à la diffusion et à la réception sur le Net. 
19     Faut-il y ajouter l'arrivée dans nos salons et salles
20     de séjour, voire nos chambres à coucher, par le biais
21     de la télévision, de programmes véhiculant
22     éventuellement le même genre de contenus?
23  7926                 Cette hypothèse ne met nullement en
24     question, bien sûr, la valeur citoyenne des communautés
25     culturelles.  D'où qu'ils viennent, et malgré une


 1     certaine nostalgie bien compréhensible pour le pays de
 2     leur enfance, les immigrants affirment le désir de se
 3     faire accepter, d'apporter leur contribution propre à
 4     une culture canadienne en évolution et reconnaissent ce
 5     que le Canada peut leur offrir, ce qu'il peuvent offrir
 6     en échange.
 7  7927                 Nous devons veiller à ce que la route
 8     vers l'intégration ne soit pas semée d'embûches
 9     importées de l'extérieur.  Les émissions par satellite
10     font partie des domaines où cette responsabilité est à
11     exercer.  L'heure, pour ne pas dire la mode, est à la
12     déréglementation.  Au nom de la libre circulation des
13     idées comme des marchandises, il est donc tentant
14     d'adopter à l'endroit de ces émissions par satellite
15     une politique de laisser-faire. Selon cette politique,
16     on ouvrirait nos frontières aériennes, nos cieux à
17     toutes les propagandes d'où qu'elles viennent, quel
18     qu'en soit le contenu.
19  7928                 Hélas, les risques que comporte une
20     telle politique sont grands.  Nous ne devons pas
21     chercher à imiter certains pays à parti unique et
22     interdire aux citoyens et aux citoyennes tout accès à
23     ces émissions par satellite car une telle censure
24     absolue serait justement contraire à nos habitudes et à
25     nos principes.  Nous croyons néanmoins qu'il faut


 1     procéder ici comme nous le ferions dans d'autres champs
 2     d'activité.  Effectivement, nous pensons qu'il incombe
 3     au CRTC, qui ne doit pas craindre d'intervenir là où
 4     les circonstances le justifient, l'exigent même,
 5     d'exercer un contrôle raisonnable et raisonné sur ces
 6     émissions.
 7  7929                 Voilà.
 9  7930                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
10     Cardozo?
11  7931                 COMMISSAIRE CARDOZO:  Merci beaucoup.
12  7932                 Merci, Madame Griffiths et Madame
13     Verthuy.
14  7933                 Let me start my questioning by
15     turning to the central issue or one of the central
16     issues of your presentation, which is on foreign
17     programming.  You say there was a lot of foreign
18     programming coming in.  I am just wondering, do we have
19     a lot or enough of Canadian-made third language
20     content?  Is there sufficient enough that these people
21     ought to be doing better?  Is it a matter of lack of
22     supply or is it a matter of cost as to why they are
23     running so much foreign programming?
24  7934                 MS GRIFFITHS:  I think the reason
25     that the foreign services want to come in and beam


 1     their signals to the ethnics in this country is because
 2     it's a market.  It's television business.  It's a
 3     market and they are not meeting any resistance.  It
 4     would be ludricous for them not to come in.  When we
 5     set the precedent about four years ago and the other
 6     countries heard about it, they just added -- you know,
 7     one came in after the other.
 8  7935                 Do we do ethnic Canadian programming? 
 9     As far as I know, there are two broadcasters that this
10     Commission has licensed, CFMT and CJNT.  CJNT has only
11     been on the air a year.  We were late getting started. 
12     We don't differ -- we might differ in our language of
13     programming, but one thing I learned coming from the
14     production side, no matter what I thought the costs
15     would be to do professional broadcast TV, it floored
16     me.  I mean it's a whole other world and it's too bad
17     that producers who are out there demanding all these
18     things of broadcasters can't maybe tune into it or
19     maybe we can't get closer together to find that happy
20     medium.
21  7936                 The costs are astronomical, Mr.
22     Commissioner.  We do talking head shows because they
23     are still of great interest to ethnics who want to know
24     what the President of their local association said or
25     whatever.  We will send out a beta cam crew or we will


 1     turn out a half-hour show for about $3,100 and it will
 2     get all the viewership.  It will get top viewership as
 3     a target market in that ethnic community because of the
 4     need.  The context is not the same, obviously, for our
 5     English colleagues, whereas the French television can
 6     do local, not for $3,100 for a half hour if you want to
 7     sell $20,000 a spot or $10,000 a spot or even $1,000
 8     for 30 seconds.
 9  7937                 So, yes, cost which comes with
10     professional on-air broadcasting is applicable to all,
11     even to us as a multilingual station.  We would love to
12     be able to bring up our quality of productions to turn
13     out some of the stuff that we are buying from CFMT. 
14     They are doing some excellent work.  They do a show
15     called "Chinese Business Week", which would stand up
16     against a "20/20" in the States, but it's in Chinese.
17  7938                 We get "La Mira" now, an amazing
18     Portuguese show from them and my hat goes off to them
19     because what they did is they took the context of
20     producing a high-quality English or French local
21     Canadian show, except they did it in a third language. 
22     Somebody needed to make that jump and it's funny
23     because the people who did were not of ethnic origin. 
24     They were just professionals and whether it was a
25     professional from the production side or from the


 1     business side who understood this is how you will be
 2     able to sell this show to make those spots come in and
 3     the advertising rights higher, they turned out some
 4     amazing programming.  The costs are very high, sir.  We
 5     face them everyday.
 6  7939                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  The program
 7     you are talking about is primarily non-drama, it's more
 8     current affairs?
 9  7940                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Yes, current affairs
10     newsworthy.  News sells a lot, obviously, also to the
11     ethnics.  What's nice about having the money to do that
12     kind of news like Rogers does and some of the shows we
13     are starting to do this second year is that it's about
14     Canadian things.  It's an up-beat magazine newsworthy
15     show, but about Canada, about things happening here
16     across the country.  They might reflect to the country
17     of origin, but always in a comparison with something
18     they covered or some story in Canada, and that's the
19     essence.  That's the essence of programming as far as
20     we are concerned to ethnics, to maintain that Canadian
21     identity or to help develop it, because the ethnic
22     doesn't come with it.
23  7941                 MS VERTHUY:  I'm sorry, Mr.
24     Commissioner, if I may jump in here, I think also the
25     issue we have isn't so much that foreign services are


 1     coming in and we don't think that the Canadian citizen,
 2     if you will, of ethnic origin should not have access to
 3     it.  Our concern is more that they are coming in
 4     without any form of regulations at all.
 5  7942                 They are coming in and -- for
 6     instance, if I were Chinese and living here, I would
 7     very much like to have programming directly from China,
 8     but that then brings the risk of my living in Chinese
 9     virtually 24 hours a day without ever really
10     understanding the larger Canadian context in which I am
11     now situated.  So, what we are saying is we cannot
12     block airways, we understand that, but perhaps if these
13     services are going to come into Canada, is there a way,
14     as Mrs. Griffiths so graphically put it, for them to
15     pay through the nose, that that money could then go
16     towards providing Canadian Chinese-language programming
17     then.
18  7943                 This would help contribute to the
19     fund or funds available to Canadian broadcasters to
20     ensure that on top of the Chinese programming they may
21     get directly from China, they are also going to want to
22     watch local Chinese programming that reflects their
23     Canadian reality now.
24  7944                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Right.  So,
25     your complaint is not against the local third-language


 1     specialties, such as "Fairchild" and Asian television,
 2     but against foreign services that are just being piped
 3     in holus-bolus?
 4  7945                 MR. GRIFFITHS:  Allow me to say that
 5     there is obviously a difference.  You are referring to
 6     Canadian services that have been licensed by the
 7     Commission that are carrying --
 8  7946                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Right.  Your
 9     complaint is not with them?
10  7947                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Well, if this Canadian
11     specialty service just becomes a bus that says "Canada"
12     on front, but inside all it loads up is foreign
13     programming and he becomes a distributor with no
14     regulations like the conventional, no costs like the
15     conventional, not accountable to you as we are the
16     conventionals, at that point I would like to see some
17     kind of system or structure where they also have to put
18     some money in the kitty, the distributors, and, yes,
19     the DTH services, even the cable -- I know the cable
20     companies do, but if you are going to make money from
21     taking programming that's not Canadian and offering it
22     to Canadian homes, il faut faire un compromis.  You
23     can't hit us from both sides.
24  7948                 Somewhere these people have to pay. 
25     So, either in this new structure when this policy is


 1     revised you say, "Okay, well, what do we do with this,
 2     with the ones who want to be on the eligible list, the
 3     ones that cable wants to carry, the ones that DTH wants
 4     to carry", because they make money by just carrying
 5     these services.  Of course, a Greek is going to pay to
 6     see Greek every single day from a station from Greece.
 7  7949                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Not
 8     necessarily.
 9  7950                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Unless our programming
10     in Greek is very good, but then the costs are high. 
11     So, help us balance it out.  That's what we are saying.
12  7951                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So, what
13     programming is available, Canadian-made programming, in
14     third languages?  Is it mostly talking heads of the
15     kind that you are running or is there a lot of stuff
16     like the example you gave from CFMT?
17  7952                 MS GRIFFITHS:  CFMT right now -- and
18     we hope to meet them at least equally one day or
19     probably beat them in our budgets we do put up for a
20     good third-language Canadian production.  CFMT
21     obviously has the experience, has been around a long
22     time, and is able and is organized to put big money in
23     doing productions like the ones I mentioned to you.
24  7953                 On CJNT, we do the talking heads, but
25     we have also gone a little further.  We have tried


 1     doing some series.  Actually, we did a children's
 2     series that was very interesting that was in a third
 3     language.  The quality was there, everything.  We
 4     couldn't add the segments as we would have liked to, we
 5     couldn't build a puppet that someone wanted $8,000 to
 6     do.  It was motorized and that.  So, there were a few
 7     things missing.
 8  7954                 The experience was good, though, and
 9     we noticed that they did watch the show.  We had a
10     great hostess who would take the kids and sit and talk
11     to them.  We incorporated questions about Canada, we
12     made it fun.  We had good writers on it.  We couldn't
13     keep it up because of the costs.  We are a new station,
14     we don't have the advertising sell-out we thought we
15     would, et cetera, et cetera.
16                                                        1555
17  7955                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  What are the
18     prospects of joined ventures?  What we are seeing,
19     because of the increasingly high cost of producing good
20     programming, is that producers and broadcasters, or
21     producers themselves get together and produce joint
22     ventures.
23  7956                 How much prospect is there where you
24     could do, say, a puppet show or a children's show which
25     could perhaps be produced and then filmed twice; once


 1     in English or once in French and once in another
 2     language or in other languages?
 3  7957                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Actually, we bought
 4     some programming that is Canadian.  One of the series
 5     was called "Stop Watch".  This program was originally
 6     done in English and aired on English channels all
 7     around the country.
 8  7958                 We bought it as an after market,
 9     dubbed in Arabic.  This was done by a French production
10     company called Mediamax out of Montreal.
11  7959                 We are also airing right now a series
12     called "Foreign Affairs".  It is Canadian, produced
13     with the funding from the fund and Telefilm, and all
14     that.  It is beautiful.  It is like a soap opera.  They
15     dubbed it in Spanish.
16  7960                 CJNT acquired those rights, and we
17     are running it in Spanish.
18  7961                 Could I have gotten a real Spanish
19     one?  Yes.  It was our choice to encourage the Canadian
20     production.  We wanted to give it the after market.  We
21     believe in encouraging the efforts of the Canadians
22     that made that soap opera, dubbed in Spanish today,
23     called "Foreign Affairs" -- which, by the way, is a big
24     success on CJNT.
25  7962                 We would one day like to see a co-


 1     production, like you said.  If CJNT was to use it, I
 2     see no reason why we could not be part of that
 3     production, where we would pay maybe a smaller amount
 4     because we would use it on a second level, after it was
 5     aired in English or French.
 6  7963                 I have not had time to sit with
 7     French colleagues who I think can identify a little
 8     more with our need to do local-regional programming,
 9     because the situation in the French context versus an
10     English Canada is sort of the same.
11  7964                 So yes, I am sure there are
12     opportunities there that I would like to have the time
13     to look into.
14  7965                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  In terms of
15     local programming, most of your programming, which you
16     have called talking heads, is of a local nature which
17     would be relevant to people living in the Montreal area
18     market.
19  7966                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Yes.  I find it hard
20     to be a conventional, off-the-air free TV broadcaster
21     in a major city and not reflect some kind of local. 
22     Actually, I find it kind of impossible.
23  7967                 I think the reason why the Commission
24     has never insisted on quotas is maybe because it just
25     stands to reason that it would be a little redundant. 


 1     It is normal.
 2  7968                 We do more, I think, than what a big
 3     city commercial on-air TV station would do, simply for
 4     the reason that there is a need for more.
 5  7969                 Again, I have to tell you, we are
 6     very lucky.  In one way we are unlucky, because we have
 7     to do 25 languages -- it is a Condition of Licence --
 8     which we are very happy with, because we feel we serve
 9     a large percentage of the people of our city.
10  7970                 In return, though, our production
11     costs are much lower.  A conventional broadcaster is
12     probably listening to me now saying:  "What?  They have
13     to produce locally in 25 different languages a month? 
14     My God, their budget must be in the hundreds of
15     millions of dollars."  Au contraire.
16  7971                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Is it?
17  7972                 MS GRIFFITHS:  No, Mr. Commissioner.
18  7973                 One day, if we can just charge all
19     these people that are making the big money around the
20     world that want to come into Canada with their
21     programs, maybe we would have that kind of a budget. 
22     And there would not be an issue any more of independent
23     producers not being able to produce.
24  7974                 There would not be an issue for you
25     to worry about doing enough Canadian content, because


 1     we would probably want to do more than you even ask
 2     for.  If the productions are good, the eyeballs are
 3     there and it translates to revenues.
 4  7975                 It is an easy equation.  To me, it is
 5     quite simple actually.  It is finding somebody to fund
 6     it.  Canadian conventional broadcasters cannot keep
 7     putting their hands in their pockets all the time to
 8     meet the need and to develop the society.  Somewhere,
 9     somebody else --
10  7976                 We have to say:  "Hey, wait a minute. 
11     Who else is not contributing but is benefiting and
12     profiting from the Canadian viewing public?"
13  7977                 There is a big list there that we
14     have not even tapped into, sir.
15  7978                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  One of the
16     other issues that has been coming up a lot is the issue
17     of export in order to fund the rather expensive
18     production costs.  Export becomes a very important
19     avenue to get revenue.
20  7979                 Perhaps this is early going, but have
21     you done or are you planning or thinking about any
22     other either co-productions or exports to countries who
23     would be interested in the languages in which you
24     produce?
25  7980                 MS GRIFFITHS:  We tried discussing


 1     with two countries about co-productions about two years
 2     ago, and both of them fell through.  Not long after
 3     they fell through, they were going great.
 4  7981                 But right after they fell through, a
 5     while later we found out why.  One had applied through
 6     someone else to be on the eligible satellite list. 
 7     That was of no use to them.  Why should they come and
 8     spend money and co-produce with us and not have 100
 9     percent rights?
10  7982                 They were going to beam their own TV
11     station, whatever they were already spending on.  They
12     were picking up a free after market at no cost.
13  7983                 These negotiations came to a halt.
14  7984                 In one of the briefs we had filed
15     with the Commission at the time for the eligible
16     satellite list, I believe we made reference to that. 
17     We said it is hurting our industry.
18  7985                 I am not pleased.  I am not pointing
19     the finger at the Commission -- that would be suicide. 
20     But what I am saying is that we would like to make you
21     aware, maybe because we do operate every day working
22     with other countries and third language Canadian
23     viewers, not your standard English and French -- which
24     is basically what this policy and this Commission and
25     this country is about:  the two founding people.


 1  7986                 That is wonderful and that is great. 
 2     But here we are.
 3  7987                 You dealt with the problem
 4     beautifully.  Canada's policy is tremendous.  I can't
 5     think of other countries that have licences like CJNT
 6     and CFMT and specialty third language services, et
 7     cetera.
 8  7988                 It just turned against us completely. 
 9     Here we were thinking:  "Wow.  Now that we have a
10     licence, we are going to go deal with these countries,
11     because they want a way in.  And now that we are an
12     official broadcaster, we can supply this way in, either
13     through co-productions or we buy at good rates; we will
14     do something with advertising."
15  7989                 They did not need us.  They found a
16     back door in.
17  7990                 So I am hoping that we can reverse
18     the situation, where they will find that it is
19     interesting to sit with us and work on something
20     together in the future.
21  7991                 MS VERTHUY:  May I just add a
22     comment.  It is not quite as specific with regard to
23     third language.
24  7992                 I heard some of the other comments
25     with regard to "what is a Canadian program".


 1  7993                 I believe strongly, obviously, that
 2     it involves Canadian content; that it reflects Canada. 
 3     But I think there should also be some recognition of a
 4     Canadian production.
 5  7994                 I think earlier today you were
 6     talking with Salter films about -- which I have not
 7     seen.  I have not seen this show called "LEXX".  But I
 8     have seen others, that even though it may not be
 9     specifically Canadian -- it can hardly be if it is
10     another dimension.
11  7995                 Nevertheless, Canadians do have a way
12     of looking at the world, do have a way of presenting
13     stories that are specifically Canadian.  It may not
14     have "Canada" blazoned across the top of the screen,
15     but the feel of it is Canada, because we do have our
16     own particular way of looking at things.
17  7996                 I think that is also important so
18     that when we look at products that are exportable, I
19     think we should not necessarily think of Canadian
20     productions that are so specifically Canadian when we
21     want to give it a Canadian production credit or a
22     Canadian content credit.
23  7997                 I think there is a lot to be said for
24     what a Canadian director, a Canadian producer, a
25     Canadian cameraman will bring to how the show looks and


 1     can qualify as a Canadian show, and becomes hopefully
 2     exportable as well.
 3  7998                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  You say it
 4     does not relate that much to a third language issue --
 5  7999                 MS VERTHUY:  No, I didn't say it
 6     didn't relate.  I said it was not a specific comment
 7     about third language.  I just wanted to qualify that my
 8     statement was a little larger than just specifically
 9     third language.
10  8000                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  What you just
11     said in terms of defining Canadian programming, does
12     that not apply to third language programming as well --
13  8001                 MS VERTHUY:  Absolutely.  It was a
14     general statement.  That is the only point I wanted to
15     make.
16  8002                 I was making a general statement;
17     that it did not have to relate only and specifically to
18     third language.
19  8003                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  From what you
20     said earlier, I want to clarify that your producers can
21     access CTF funding when they are producing shows for
22     you, when they are producing programming for you.
23  8004                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Are you referring --
24  8005                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  The CTCPF
25     Telefilm funding.


 1  8006                 MS GRIFFITHS:  We have not partaken
 2     at all in that funding.
 3  8007                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  But can your
 4     producers access that funding?
 5  8008                 MS VERTHUY:  Yes, the independent
 6     ones, the ones who are not produced directly by us, who
 7     are their own independent production house, can, if
 8     they so choose, go and do that.
 9  8009                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Even if they
10     are in a third language.
11  8010                 MS VERTHUY:  I am saying yes, because
12     that is the information I have been given.
13  8011                 MS GRIFFITHS:  I don't know the
14     Fund's reaction to that, to tell you the truth.  We
15     have not done the exercise.  I don't know if the Fund
16     would set aside --
17  8012                 As you well know, there are not
18     enough funds originally, from what we hear.  So I don't
19     know if the Fund --
20  8013                 I know if I were someone on the Fund,
21     I would say:  "Look, if I had to make a choice between
22     English, French and a third language, and I can't give
23     to all three, what do you do"?
24  8014                 I don't want to hurt anyone's
25     feelings, but I think it is easier for me to say --


 1     because I am an ethnic and I am an immigrant that came
 2     here on the boat in the fifties -- I would have to go
 3     with the two founding languages, sir.  I would have to
 4     give it to the English and the French.
 5  8015                 It is a belief of mine that if you
 6     work in a third language, when there is not enough to
 7     go around --
 8  8016                 That's why it is so important that 
 9     what we do in the third language prepares them under
10     that Canadian identity and Canadian context, so they
11     don't feel left out when they tune in to a French or
12     English.  They feel part of it also.
13  8017                 That can also be done in a transition
14     form originating from programming in their own
15     language, which is the one they understand best and
16     they are the most comfortable with.
17                                                        1605
18  8018                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Speaking about
19     the English and French broadcasters, is it your view
20     that they reflect the multicultural diversity of the
21     country?
22  8019                 MS GRIFFITHS:  I hope not because you
23     wouldn't need stations like ours.
24  8020                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I didn't think
25     you would be so blunt about that.  I was wondering. 


 1     Thank you for that answer.  But you and I might have a
 2     disagreement on the value of that.
 3  8021                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Okay.
 4  8022                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  A couple of
 5     other things I just want to mention to you for your
 6     information in case you are not aware, and you probably
 7     are, just some of the things that you mentioned.
 8  8023                 One is regarding the Internet.  We
 9     have a proceeding on New Media which is later this
10     fall.  The deadline is October 1, which is this
11     Thursday.  The others are also doing a review of what
12     in our parlance we call the ethnic broadcasting policy,
13     but essentially it is their language and all that kind
14     of stuff which will happen somewhere over the next six
15     months.  Hopefully you will consider being part of both
16     those processes.
17  8024                 That covers my questions. Thanks very
18     much.
19  8025                 Thanks, Madam Chair.
20  8026                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
21  8027                 Ms Griffiths, which Canadian or
22     foreign ethnic services on the eligible list are
23     available to viewers via cable in the coverage area of
24     CJNT?
25  8028                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Oh, Ms Wylie --


 1  8029                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Not authorized, but
 2     available.  I would expect since you see them as such a
 3     threat that you would know what is being carried by the
 4     cable companies.
 5  8030                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Well, Ms Wylie, I will
 6     tell you, we have known each other for a long time. 
 7     You have always had a knack of putting me in the hard
 8     spot and you have just done it again.
 9  8031                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Me, such a nice
10     lady.
11  8032                 MS GRIFFITHS:  I'm learning.  I
12     learn, I learn, Ms Wylie.  I will tell you, I know that
13     when we intervened, and again it's not that my homework
14     isn't done, I think it's so depressing for us.  It's
15     something like, you know --
16  8033                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You would not
17     rather not.
18  8034                 MS GRIFFITHS:  If you ignore it --
19     yes, you think it's going to away type of thing.  We
20     know they are there.  We know the Russian one was
21     approved actually.  Someone informed us that it was
22     approved not long ago, the one out of New York.
23  8035                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But there's a
24     difference between being on the list and being carried. 
25     My question was not what's not the list.  I am well


 1     aware of that.
 2  8036                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Okay.,
 3  8037                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  What is being
 4     carried by the cable company in your coverage area,
 5     which seems to be one of your major concerns.
 6  8038                 MS GRIFFITHS:  No.  Right now from
 7     foreign complete television services, not Canadian
 8     specialties like Telelatino or Odyssey or Chinavision. 
 9     Actually there's not any positions I know on Videotron,
10     the merger Videotron made.  There was no position as of
11     today where they are carrying any third language
12     television station.
13  8039                 Needless to say, we have made our
14     opinions and position very clear to them also.  I don't
15     think they took us to heart and overlooked a great
16     business deal because revenues are very important in
17     this business.  We sort of look at the Commission and
18     the regulating and any structure you set up for that. 
19     That's basically what we are saying today.
20  8040                 The illegal ones, not the ones on the
21     satellite list, have caused us the most difficulty
22     right now.  They are in a lot of homes.  They are being
23     advertised.  Flagrant, like right in our faces.
24  8041                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  This is a --
25  8042                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Antenna One.


 1  8043                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  -- penetration of
 2     illegal dishes.
 3  8044                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Yes.
 4  8045                 MS VERTHUY:  That's right.  It's not
 5     so much -- excuse me -- that they are carried on cable. 
 6     It's exactly that.  Even if they have been approved for
 7     carriage on a list and haven't been carried by the
 8     cable companies, it's not preventing them from being
 9     carried in Canada.
10  8046                 The Portuguese and Italian, the
11     Greek --
12  8047                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Arab.
13  8048                 MS VERTHUY:  -- the Arab are just
14     four of the ones we know.  The Russian, as far as I
15     know, is also -- they are receiving Russian.  As far as
16     I know, they are communities that we see programming
17     from their countries of origins via satellite via
18     satellite dishes.
19  8049                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you know what
20     the penetration of satellite dishes is in the area
21     covered by CJNT?
22  8050                 MS GRIFFITHS:  No.
23  8051                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Which would be
24     Montreal.
25  8052                 MS VERTHUY:  Yes.  No.  It's a survey


 1     we wanted to undertake.  The station has had it's share
 2     of problems, as you know, before it went on the air. 
 3     We weren't able to pay that luxury, se payer une
 4     traite, parce que pour moi, ce serait une traite.
 5  8053                 I would love to know.  There's no
 6     doubt about it.  Actually, what we are telling you from
 7     is word of mouth, what we get from our producers.  The
 8     advertising, we were approached to advertise these
 9     dishes.  I mean, it was ridiculous.  It was
10     unbelievable.
11  8054                 Basically, when people miss some of
12     the shows, because we work 25 target markets all
13     together it makes for a big viewing audience but, you
14     know, each one is not that large, except for Italian,
15     which is about 150,000 strong.
16  8055                 We know from these markets when we
17     run a certain show or contest and we find out oh, they
18     missed it, too bad we don't have re-runs because they
19     were watching so and so that was coming down that they
20     picked up on their satellite from their station from
21     their country of origin.
22  8056                 It gets to the point where you say
23     all right, if they were kicking back some money and it
24     was helping us here to do better Canadian programs so
25     maybe they won't tune in that next Tuesday again to the


 1     four hour movie that they run.  The Arab one runs
 2     movies.  It's the only country where you need a four
 3     hour block to run their movies.  These are not 120 or
 4     90 minutes or 100 minute movies.
 5  8057                 They will tune in to one of those
 6     movies.  We have to be careful to put our Arabic
 7     programming around that.  Quelqu'un d'autre qui est
 8     maître de notre cédule presque; but its unfair
 9     competition.
10  8058                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Who provides these
11     dishes?  Is it provided by DirectTV?
12  8059                 MS GRIFFITHS:  The video shots, yes.
13  8060                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Not directly via as
14     in the satellite company.
15  8061                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Oh, no, no.
16  8062                 MS VERTHUY:  There are middle men. 
17     For instance the Antenna One, we know that it's centred
18     in New Jersey and that there are representatives in
19     Montreal.
20  8063                 MS GRIFFITHS:  There are stores where
21     you buy VCRs and that.
22  8064                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  No, no, I was not
23     asking where you get the satellite dish.
24  8065                 MS GRIFFITHS:  The signal.
25  8066                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  How do you get the


 1     signal?  It would be down-linked from a foreign
 2     satellite in the States somewhere.
 3  8067                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Yes.
 4  8068                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  And then provided
 5     by the States.
 6  8069                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Exactly.
 7  8070                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now, the Canadian
 8     ones.  Is Chinavision available in Montreal?
 9  8071                 MS GRIFFITHS:  No.
10  8072                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Well, it's not
11     called Chinavision.
12  8073                 MS GRIFFITHS:  No.  I was going to
13     say --
14  8074                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Fairchild.
15  8075                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Yes, Fairchild.
16  8076                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I'm old.
17  8077                 MS GRIFFITHS:  No.  Actually --
18  8078                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  It's not.
19  8079                 MS GRIFFITHS:  On the cable channels,
20     there is no unique channel position given except for
21     Telelatino, but again is a pay, as you well know.
22  8080                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you know what
23     the penetration of Telelatino is?
24  8081                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Our Italian producers
25     tell us -- well, you know, in this business your


 1     competitor always hurts you.  Because of the soccer,
 2     which is the rights Telelatino has carried from the
 3     beginning, rights which we would love to have as a
 4     broadcaster, no doubt.
 5  8082                 We have tried to negotiate actually
 6     something with Mr. Marchand.  We learned last year that
 7     Shaw that had bought a percentage in Telelatino.  Then
 8     we had our own problems to take care of in our own back
 9     yard.  We didn't have much time for anything else for a
10     while.
11  8083                 We are told by an Italian producer
12     who is a stand-alone in the sense that he brokers air
13     time on CJNT, they have a lot of costs on their own to
14     assume, that it's hurting them and that the low rates
15     that are offered by these specialty services for the
16     advertising hurts them also.
17  8084                 MS VERTHUY:  What hurt them
18     particularly was when all these specialty services came
19     on line a year or so ago, Videotron, because they then
20     amalgamated CF and Videotron, dropped dramatically the
21     price for Telelatino.  Where you used to have to pay
22     over $12 a month, something like that, extra to get it,
23     so many Italians chose not to because they were
24     receiving community Italian.  When it dropped to
25     something like $2 a month extra, boy, many of them


 1     subscribed to it.
 2  8085                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So now if you have
 3     the decoder you can get Telelatino for $2 a month in
 4     Montreal.
 5  8086                 MS VERTHUY:  That's right.
 6  8087                 MS GRIFFITHS:  If I can just add, we
 7     are not an Italian station.  Even though the Italian
 8     market is a very large market, and this is what's fun
 9     about our business.  Sometimes it's not necessarily the
10     numbers that will bring you a return.  It's not only
11     numbers.  It's the need for the service.
12  8088                 The Italian community has assimilated
13     a lot.  I have noticed that CFNT has also taken the
14     focus off doing major Italian programming, that it used
15     to concentrate on 10 or 15 or 12 years ago, and is now
16     adapting also to a more... une audience plus cible, qui
17     en a plus besoin; par exemple they are Portuguese, they
18     are south Asian, they are Chinese.
19  8089                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But Telelatino only
20     does Spanish, Spanish and Italian.
21  8090                 MS GRIFFITHS:  A lot of Italian.
22  8091                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.  But you are
23     saying that the need in Italian is decreasing because
24     the population is older.  Then there is Spanish.  I
25     think it's something like 60/40.


 1  8092                 I'm just trying to get a fix on how
 2     it is that our regulatory system regarding the eligible
 3     list and the available ethnic services are the cause of
 4     all your problems.
 5  8093                 MS VERTHUY:  I don't think we are
 6     suggesting that they are the cause of all our problems
 7     with all due respect, Madam Chair.  I think what we are
 8     saying is that the arrival of foreign services in
 9     Canada is posing perhaps a greater threat than we are
10     quite aware of right now.
11  8094                 I think that's our argument.  We feel
12     very comfortable in the role we have.
13  8095                 MS GRIFFITHS:  It's in reference to
14     the Canadian identity.  That's what we are referring
15     to.  We are here today to discuss, and I think in my
16     notes I said Madam Bertrand, and I have heard her speak
17     in several sessions, is very keen on the Canadian
18     identity and what happens in developing the Canadian
19     society and a Canadian viewer's interest as a Canadian.
20  8096                 What we are trying to tell you, and
21     maybe I didn't explain myself properly.  I apologize if
22     I didn't, Madam Chair.  What we are trying to say is if
23     we don't look at this problem today at these hearings,
24     for the new century, juste le prendre en compte when
25     you sit and you have your own discussions.


 1  8097                 We are talking to you literally from
 2     the third element.  We are not the English broadcaster
 3     and we are not the French broadcaster, but we are there
 4     and we are serving millions of people across the
 5     country between just CFMT and CJNT.  The ethnic
 6     potential viewership of new Canadians that are not
 7     comfortable in English or French, but that a third
 8     language is a language they are secure in and that they
 9     are happy in or that you can entertain them or inform
10     them in.
11                                                        1615
12  8098                 The danger is that we will not have
13     them readily available to be able to make that
14     transition and at least help them even develop a
15     Canadian identity if they have at their fingertips "je
16     vais aller acheter ma soucoupe", like they do.  They
17     put it up at their house.  My salesmen come back and
18     say, "Look, I try to go sell and they are telling me
19     they were watching on Antenna 1 the special that's
20     really rowdy, it's a bit like Jerry Springer", and all
21     these things coming out of Greece, which is at a whole
22     different state right now in their television.  They
23     are going like very wild and liberal and things we
24     wouldn't watch here or you wouldn't allow us to do.
25  8099                 So, here they are going on and going


 1     in Canadian homes.  We are saying, "Wait a minute", you
 2     know.  I mean we are trying to do all these things that
 3     your policy says.
 4  8100                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Especially Greek,
 5     we don't allow.
 6  8101                 MS GRIFFITHS:  It's true, Madam
 7     Wylie.  I have big shoulders.  They have put everything
 8     else on my shoulders.  Go ahead, I will take the blame
 9     for that, too, me and El Ni¤o, like this.
10  8102                 So, we are just saying keep us in
11     mind.  We are trying to do our role as a good Canadian
12     broadcaster and even though we are facing the same
13     problems as our colleagues in English and French where
14     we want to use the production fund directly, we want to
15     be able to work with the independents that we choose. 
16     We think that as broadcasters, the management skills
17     are there and the accountability to you.
18  8103                 Anything that involves a lot of money
19     or that influences our society, please put your
20     framework in place so we have to be accountable to you. 
21     Then if something goes wrong, there is always that --
22     like the goalie, you know.  If the defence missed it
23     and your centre couldn't carry the puck up and the
24     trouble is coming, at least there is you.  To us that's
25     important.


 1  8104                 There was a time we suggested some
 2     kind of gatekeeper system.  We wanted the CAB to put --
 3     we had spoken with Mr. Scarth about a year and a half
 4     ago.  We suggested to the CAB that they look into it
 5     and come to you with it.  It's an important element of
 6     Canadian society.  You can't keep not looking at us the
 7     same way.  That's why we are saying the danger of these
 8     services -- control them, charge them, make them pay. 
 9     If they want our market, they will pay; if they don't,
10     one less competitor.  So your Canadian licensees -- we
11     benefit either way.
12  8105                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We thank you, Ms
13     Griffiths and Ms Verthuy.  It's nice to see you haven't
14     lost your enthusiasm.
15  8106                 MS GRIFFITHS:  Thank you, Ms Wylie,
16     and you haven't lost your efficiency.  It's a pleasure
17     to have you here.  Thank you all.
18  8107                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Goodbye.  Have a
19     good trip.
20  8108                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Just remember
21     it was Madam Wylie who asked you the tough questions,
22     not me.
23  8109                 MS GRIFFITHS:  I am going to start
24     speaking Greek next time, okay, and say that this
25     country should speak every single language, so we can


 1     all feel equal.  Thank you, bye.
 2  8110                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
 3     much.
 4  8111                 Madam Secretary, would you invite the
 5     next participant, please?
 6  8112                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
 7  8113                 The next presentation will be made by
 8     Breakthrough Films and Television Inc. and I would
 9     invite Mr. Williamson and his colleague to please come
10     forward.
11  8114                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon,
12     gentlemen.  Proceed when you are ready.
14  8115                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Good afternoon,
15     Madam Chairperson and Members of the Commission.  My
16     name is Peter Williamson and with me is my partner, Ira
17     Levy, whom you met last week with the CFTPA.  We are
18     the partners and executive producers of Breakthrough
19     Entertainment, an integrated production and media
20     company situated in Toronto.  We specialize in
21     children's and documentary production.
22  8116                 We are a couple of filmmakers who got
23     into this business to tell stories to entertain, inform
24     and delight people.  We soon realized that we loved the
25     business and that if we wanted to continue, we needed


 1     to grow and professionalize.  In 1985 we incorporated
 2     Breakthrough and it has developed to be a leading
 3     supplier of television programming to Canadian and
 4     international audiences.
 5  8117                 Last year alone, we delivered 110
 6     hours of programming, including two children's series,
 7     a documentary series for the History network and the
 8     cooking show "What's for Dinner?" for the Life Network. 
 9     One of our children's shows, "The Adventures of Dudley
10     the Dragon", won last year's Gemini for best children's
11     show and Graham Green won the Gemini for his role as
12     "Mister Crabby Tree".
13  8118                 With our core staff of nine, we
14     manage and coordinate all aspects of these programs,
15     from developing the concept to engaging the key
16     creative staff to give them life.  We assume the risk
17     of the financing and undertake the shooting and editing
18     and exploit the worldwide rights.
19  8119                 We are here today to deliver one key
20     message to you.  We want to reclaim children's prime
21     time with a minimum of three hours per week of quality
22     Canadian children's programs.  We have brought along a
23     colleague who has played a key role in our success here
24     and abroad.  In fact he insisted on coming.  You know
25     how TV stars can be.  You are on, Dudley.


 1     ---  Dudley the Dragon performs and sings / Dudley
 2          le dragon fait son numéro et chante
 3                            "Hi! Everyone....
 4                            We're here today to celebrate
 5                            What makes our children's TV
 6                            great
 7                            But we have sworn to keep it
 8                            short
 9                            So we have one thing to report
10                            Take a look and you'll see
11                            The very best on TV
12                            You gotta blow, blow, blow your
13                            own horn
14                            This is our chance to say it's
15                            true
16                            Nobody does it like we do
17                            Throughout the world there's
18                            such a choice
19                            We need to share our special
20                            voice
21                            Take a look and you'll see
22                            The very best on TV
23                            You gotta blow, blow, blow your
24                            own horn
25                            There's Shirley Holmes and


 1                            Babar, Stickin' Around at
 2                            Wimzie's House, Ants in Your
 3                            Pants, Re-boot, Animal Crackers,
 4                            Ready or Not, Flash Forward and
 5                            Hello Mrs. Cherrywinkle, My Life
 6                            as a Dog, Nilus the Sandman,
 7                            Groundling Marsh, Mr. Men,
 8                            Little Bear, Comfy Couch, The
 9                            Never Ending Story, Arthur,
10                            Little Star, Once Upon A Hamster
11                            Oh Dudley the Dragon, the
12                            Dragon, the Dragon
13                            Dudley the Dragon is here to
14                            say....
15                            Take a look and you'll see
16                            The very best on TV
17                            You gotta blow, blow, blow your
18                            own horn
19                            You gotta blow, blow, blow your
20                            own horn."
21  8120                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Thanks, Dudley.
22                            "Take a look and you'll see
23                            The very best on TV
24                            You gotta blow, blow, blow your
25                            own horn


 1                            You gotta blow, blow, blow your
 2                            own horn.
 3                            Bye-bye."
 4  8121                 MR. LEVY:  We agree with Dudley that
 5     producers of children's programming have a lot to blow
 6     our own horn about.  Canada has become a powerhouse of
 7     kids' programming, both live action and animation. 
 8     More than 150 countries around the world have purchased
 9     our children's programming because of its high quality
10     and its emphasis on entertaining and informing children
11     while also espousing pro-social values.  Some programs
12     are very reflective of Canada while others have a more
13     universal theme, but they all strike a chord with kids
14     here and around the world.
15  8122                 Television consumes a large amount of
16     children's free time and provides a great deal of their
17     entertainment and their learning.  Since the pre-school
18     years are such a critical time in a child's
19     development, at no other time does the programming our
20     telecasters offer matter as much.  It's clear to us
21     that broadcasters have an important role to play here. 
22     Indeed, it is one that the Broadcasting Act assigns
23     them stating that "the programming provided by the
24     Canadian broadcasting system should ... be varied and
25     comprehensive, providing a balance of information,


 1     enlightenment and entertainment for men, women and
 2     children of all ages, interests and tastes."
 3  8123                 Private conventional broadcasters
 4     have an important role to play.  Many of them fill
 5     their mornings, particularly Saturday mornings, with
 6     foreign animation that is all too often more an
 7     infomercial for toys.  We feel that it is time to start
 8     to reclaim a modest amount of this time for high-
 9     quality child-centred Canadian programs.
10  8124                 While some may argue that the
11     specialty services, the CBC and the educational
12     broadcasters provide enough of this material, we do not
13     feel that that is an adequate answer.  Specialty
14     services are only available to kids whose parents can
15     afford to buy cable or satellite and pay for additional
16     tiers, which leaves almost a quarter of our population
17     unserved.  The educational networks are not available
18     in all provinces and our kids deserve diversity, too. 
19     While the CBC, specialty and educational broadcasters
20     all do a fine job, the private broadcasters should be a
21     part of this mix.
22  8125                 In your opening remarks, Madam Chair,
23     you noted that you want to assure that quality Canadian
24     programming, particularly in under-represented
25     categories, is produced and broadcast to the largest


 1     number of Canadians and that the system has access to
 2     sufficient financial resources to benefit Canadian
 3     programming and all of us, whether broadcasters,
 4     producers or regulators, wish to see the audiences for
 5     Canadian programs grow.
 6  8126                 Peter?
 7  8127                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  The plan to require
 8     three hours of children's programs and the requirement
 9     that broadcasters increase their investment in Canadian
10     programming will ensure that Canada's kids also have a
11     diversity of high-quality programs and the system will
12     benefit by having a new high-quality children's program
13     to introduce each year.
14  8128                 As anyone who has lived with young
15     children knows, children watch television differently
16     than adults.  They enjoy the second, third, even the
17     seventeenth viewing of a favourite show more than the
18     first time.  Just think of how often kids ask for their
19     favourite bedtime stories.  This means that pre-
20     schoolers' programs can be enjoyed many times on
21     conventional television, on specialty channels and even
22     on video cassettes.  Generally, we sell broadcasters
23     multiple runs of our programs.
24  8129                 An investment in our programming can
25     deliver significant audiences to the broadcasters. 


 1     "Dudley's Adventures" may attract as many viewers in
 2     children's prime time as other critically acclaimed
 3     adult programs do in evening prime.  Dudley is seen on
 4     YTV, educational channels and on Showcase and on PBS,
 5     and children's programs are evergreen.  A new audience
 6     comes along every five or six years.
 7  8130                 The specialty services do a great
 8     job, but they are not always able to pay the same kinds
 9     of licence fees that a conventional broadcaster who has
10     access to 100 per cent of the Canadian audience can. 
11     Priming the pump with high-quality programs on the
12     conventional services will create the quality shows
13     that will then spread through the various windows
14     within the system.
15  8131                 To do this, we need the broadcasters
16     to pay more significant licence fees than they pay at
17     present.  Minimum licence fees at the 20 per cent level
18     would mean that more money could be put into
19     productions and that the productions would be of even
20     higher quality.  We recognize that we are asking the
21     broadcasters to pony up a larger part of the budget
22     and, in exchange, we are ready to explore new
23     partnerships and the possibility of equity
24     participation, once a fair market licence fee is paid.
25  8132                 While the broadcaster pays more money


 1     up front, they win on a couple of levels.  They get a
 2     high-quality program that will draw the children's
 3     audience in significant numbers.  The program will draw
 4     revenues for many years, both here and abroad.
 5  8133                 As you can tell from my accent, I am
 6     a Canadian by choice rather than by birth.  I have had
 7     the privilege of exploring this country from coast to
 8     coast to coast and I am always struck by its incredible
 9     ethnic, racial, linguistic, cultural and regional
10     richness and yet when I turn on the television, that
11     spectacular diversity and incredible programming
12     resource is barely present.  We need to ensure that our
13     kids grow up with a sense of their place here in
14     Canada, rather than as quasi-citizens of the United
15     States.  That means all of the national broadcasters,
16     CTV and CBC and soon Global, need to commit to reflect
17     that reality to our kids.
18  8134                 Ira?
19  8135                 MR. LEVY:  It's ironic that despite
20     the various funding options available to us, it's more
21     difficult to make distinctively Canadian television
22     programming now than in the past.  The broadcasting
23     environment has significantly changed.  Broadcasters
24     would rather licence a lower-cost program that has a
25     licence from a U.S. network even if we can bring the


 1     Canadian Television Fund and Telefilm money to the
 2     table.  If Dudley hadn't already proved himself, we are
 3     not sure that we would have had the chance to launch
 4     him in today's environment.
 5  8136                 So, how do we solve this problem? 
 6     Just as for adult Canadian programming, we need a
 7     number of things: access to schedules, incentives to
 8     choose distinctively Canadian programs, sufficient
 9     financial resources and good promotion.
10  8137                 So, we offer you a number of
11     recommendations today:  The CFTPA's 10/10/10 plan and,
12     in particular, three hours of first-run kids'
13     programming per week phased in over four years.  We
14     believe that the CTF should adjust its eligibility
15     rules to raise the broadcaster's licence fee necessary
16     to trigger access to the fund to a minimum of 20 per
17     cent of the budget.  Although the criteria of the Fund
18     are not subject to your regulations, we would suggest
19     that the 150 per cent bonus be extended only when the
20     licence fees are raised.  Finally, we agree with CFTPA
21     on a 10 per cent spending requirement phased in over
22     four years.
23  8138                 We want you to understand that we are
24     not here just with our hands out.  If broadcasters give
25     us the orders, we will make the programs.  We have been


 1     doing this for a long time and we know how to put
 2     funding together.  In fact, we are actively exploring
 3     new ways of funding our programs, such as sponsorships,
 4     and we are quite willing to extend the hand of
 5     partnership to our broadcasters by offering equity in
 6     our programs once a fair licence fee is provided.
 7  8139                 There is a business opportunity here
 8     that we think Canada cannot pass by.  The explosion of
 9     new channels around the world has created a voracious
10     demand for programming.  In most countries of the
11     world, people want high-quality, non-violent children's
12     programming of the kind that we do so well in Canada. 
13     We are the producers that do it and we are the
14     producers who have the reputation for doing it.
15  8140                 Thank you for this opportunity to
16     share our experiences with you.  We will try to answer
17     any questions that you have, but bear in mind we
18     wouldn't dare try to speak for Dudley.
19  8141                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Welcome back, Mr.
20     Levy.  Now I know why you were absent Tuesday morning. 
21     You had to go home and feed him.
22  8142                 MR. LEVY:  A big appetite.
23  8143                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
24     Wilson?
25  8144                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Good afternoon,


 1     gentlemen.
 2  8145                 Mr. Levy, it is a pleasure having you
 3     back because you were only here for a very short time
 4     when you first appeared with CFTPA and that was also a
 5     real pleasure to finally meet Dudley, whom I must admit
 6     I first heard about my niece who lives in Kalamazoo,
 7     Michigan and watches him on PBS.  So, I guess that
 8     speaks to the success of his exportability.  I think he
 9     is her favourite, so she will be very excited to hear
10     that I met him.
11  8146                 You addressed two specific genres of
12     programming in your written submission and again today
13     in your oral submission, children's programming and
14     documentary programming.  I wonder if I could just ask
15     you briefly because the focus of your oral submission
16     today was essentially the children's programming, but
17     what kind of documentary programming do you produce?
18  8147                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  At this present
19     time, for example, we have two documentary series that
20     are currently running.  One is up for a Gemini for best
21     documentary this weekend, actually, at the awards -- it
22     seems like yesterday -- with Rick Mercer and we also
23     produce, we will call it, factual programming, "What's
24     for Dinner?", for the Life channel with Ken and Mary-
25     Jo, who are also up for a Gemini this weekend.  We have


 1     recently produced the "Riot at Christie Pits" for
 2     Global Television, which was the history of Canada's
 3     biggest race riot, and I think we also won a Gemini for
 4     another documentary that we did for CBC Arts &
 5     Entertainment called "Cry of the Ancestors", a profile
 6     of Inuit artist Mannasee Akpaliakpic.
 7  8148                 We have done quite a bit of --
 8     actually, our background is documentary filmmaking.  We
 9     went to school together back in 1906.
10  8149                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I was going to
11     say careful.
12  8150                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Our background is in
13     fact for 10 years we did documentary filmmaking and
14     that's the origins our company.  That's how we started.
15  8151                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I guess my
16     questions are primarily going to focus on the whole
17     issue of children's programming because that, I think,
18     is the issue that I am most interested in exploring
19     with you.  In your written submission you made some
20     comments about the placement of Vision TV and the
21     effect that that has had on independent producers and I
22     notice that you didn't really touch on that again today
23     in your oral presentation.
24  8152                 We have heard from Vision and we have
25     heard from a number of other producers on this same


 1     issue about the assistance that Vision has provided to
 2     them and we are certainly happy to hear about your
 3     relationship with them, but with respect to the channel
 4     placement, I think we have initiated a public process,
 5     during which we can explore issues like that and that
 6     will take place some time next year.
 7  8153                 In your written submission -- I am
 8     going to go through that first and then go to your
 9     opening remarks, your oral presentation for today, but
10     in your submission you say that children must have
11     available programs that acquaint them with their
12     country, programs in which entertainment and
13     information are seamlessly woven together to ensure
14     that young audiences want to watch them.  I guess,
15     actually, on page 4 of your oral presentation you say:
16                            "Some programs are very
17                            reflective of Canada while
18                            others have a more universal
19                            theme..."
20  8154                 And later you say:
21                            "When I turn on the television,
22                            that spectacular diversity and
23                            incredible programming resource
24                            is barely present."
25  8155                 I guess I would like to start my


 1     questioning by asking you a question that Commissioner
 2     Pennefather asked yesterday afternoon and that is:  In
 3     your experience, in your opinion, what is an
 4     identifiably or distinctively Canadian children's
 5     program?  How do you place it in Canada?
 6  8156                 MR. LEVY:  I think there is probably
 7     two parts to the answer.  I think, to begin with, as
 8     creators of children's programming in Canada, I think
 9     the ability to create a program and the ability to own
10     that program or to own the majority of that program
11     certainly is a very important aspect of defining it as
12     a Canadian program.
13                                                        1635
14  8157                 I think we concur with a number of
15     our colleagues on this, because to create something
16     without the interference of foreign broadcasters, the
17     ownership becomes a very important factor.
18  8158                 In terms of children's programming,
19     there are lot of unique areas in children's
20     programming.  A lot of children's programming takes
21     place in many cases in a fantasyland or a never-never
22     land.  At times, the actual specific locations that are
23     in children's programming, both animation and live
24     action, are not necessarily a specific place in Canada.
25  8159                 That is not to say that they could


 1     not be.  But for the most part, because of the
 2     information especially pre-schoolers have about the
 3     world around them, they see the world in broader
 4     strokes rather than in terms of Saskatoon or Regina or
 5     Halifax or Toronto.
 6  8160                 When we try to make children's
 7     programming that is identifiably Canadian, I think it
 8     has to have something more than just allocation.  It
 9     really has something to do with the types of values
10     that Canadian children's programming really espouses.
11  8161                 To a large extent, I think that we
12     make programs that are non-violent; I think that we
13     make programs that espouse positive social values.  I
14     think that is what Canadians recognize.
15  8162                 Interestingly enough, that is what
16     people around the world who buy Canadian programming
17     say.
18  8163                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  I might add to that
19     that in the example of "Dudley the Dragon", it actually
20     was developed as a character by the Government of
21     Ontario to educate children in Ontario about the wise
22     use of energy, back in 1981, and pretty much developed
23     through TV Ontario, the educational channel.
24  8164                 That is actually how we got involved
25     with it.


 1  8165                 I think that other than the issues of
 2     creative control, which are very crucial, and financial
 3     control of a project -- which I think Salter touched
 4     upon this morning.
 5  8166                 I think the sensibility of
 6     programming -- which may not be apparent perhaps to a
 7     child.  As Ira points out, they may not be so aware of
 8     the specifics at the age group that say "Dudley" is
 9     aimed at.
10  8167                 For example, the whole staging of
11     "Dudley", the set design and everything about it, is
12     actually based upon real photographs of the B.C. rain
13     forest.  You can say that is definitely an identifiable
14     locale in Canada, but I don't think that is how kids
15     would necessarily see it.
16  8168                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Does he talk
17     about the rain forests in B.C.?
18  8169                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  No, he does not talk
19     about it in B.C.  But he does talk about it in various
20     programs.
21  8170                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  In general.
22  8171                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Yes.  Actually, we
23     talk about the rain forests all over the world,
24     including the children's rain forests in Costa Rica. 
25     Children can enjoy programs on that universal level,


 1     which I think does actually release the creative to
 2     become bigger than any specific locale.
 3  8172                 However, having said that, I also
 4     think that it is more likely that Canadian producers
 5     are going to want to set a drama series in Iqaluit or
 6     in Baker Lake, somewhere that is identifiably Canadian,
 7     than American producers would want to, or for that
 8     matter British producers.  It is our country, so we are
 9     inspired by it.
10  8173                 I think there is a crucial, sort of
11     creative artistic thing going on there that is very
12     hard to legislate in specific --
13  8174                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  When you said
14     some programs are very reflective of Canada while
15     others have a more universal theme, what would
16     distinguish those two?
17  8175                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Sorry?
18  8176                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  What you said
19     about "Dudley" essentially.  And that is right,
20     children's programming is very universal.
21  8177                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Good programming is
22     universal, yes.
23  8178                 MR. LEVY:  To specifically answer the
24     question, when you look at a program like "Theodore
25     Tugboat", we know that it is set in Halifax.  We get


 1     the sense of the harbour.  We get the sense of the east
 2     coast and the Maritime flavour in it.
 3  8179                 So that would be something that would
 4     be specific, I would contend.
 5  8180                 Whereas when we look at something
 6     that would be more like -- well "Dudley" in particular. 
 7     It is dealing with broader themes.  And although Peter
 8     did say that our set design was based on the B.C. rain
 9     forest, it is not trying to be identifiably Canadian in
10     that sense, in locale.  But it is in terms of themes
11     and it is in terms of the underlying message behind the
12     shows.
13  8181                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I don't have
14     children of my own, so you will have to help me with
15     this.  When I was a kid, we didn't watch as much
16     television as kids do now.
17  8182                 What is children's prime time?
18  8183                 MR. LEVY:  Children's prime time is
19     not clearly defined.  But traditionally it has been the
20     hours of 7:00 to 9:00 during the week days, and 3:00 to
21     6:00 during the afternoons.  And then on the weekends,
22     the morning hours, from the early morning up to noon,
23     and some of the hours in the latter part of the
24     afternoon.
25  8184                 It is not a specific area.  In fact,


 1     we are comfortable that broadcasters choose within
 2     those general parameters.
 3  8185                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That is
 4     helpful.
 5  8186                 Obviously not all broadcasters
 6     currently carry children's programming, and that is one
 7     of the reasons that you are here.  But some
 8     broadcasters, like Canwest Global, have obviously
 9     decided that this is a niche that they want to fill.
10  8187                 We have also heard quite a bit from
11     the broadcasters that in a world of fragmenting
12     audiences, they need to be able to distinguish or
13     differentiate themselves, and they need the flexibility
14     within the regulatory system to do that.
15  8188                 Do you think there is something to
16     that, or do you think that all conventional
17     broadcasters have to exhibit Canadian children's
18     programming?
19  8189                 MR. LEVY:  Yes, I do believe that all
20     broadcasters should be exhibiting Canadian quality
21     children's programming.  I think there is limited shelf
22     space for all Canadians in this area.
23  8190                 If we look at the situation right
24     now, we see that in the case of stations like YTV, it
25     is on basic cable.  But 25 percent of Canadians don't


 1     get basic cable.
 2  8191                 Then we have other specialty channels
 3     like Teletune, which are all great channels, but again
 4     they are at a higher tier so it means usually people
 5     that have a little more money can afford to have these
 6     channels.
 7  8192                 So in terms of parents and kids
 8     having the choice, that choice has to be made on the
 9     private conventional broadcasters.  Certainly CBC does
10     it.
11  8193                 When we refer back to the CFTPA's
12     10-10-10 plan and we look at broadcasters that have
13     over $10 million worth of revenue, we see that those
14     are the broadcasters that have not yet met that part of
15     what we are requiring, what we are asking for, what we
16     are trying to get mandated, to be honest.  And that
17     means that a lot of Canadian kids out there just are
18     not being served that way.
19  8194                 As far as diversity goes within the
20     format, if you think of the different types of
21     children's programming, we are not saying mandate at
22     least a minimum of three hours of pre-school
23     programming or animation or live action or puppetry or
24     for tweens -- which are older than pre-school kids.  We
25     are saying a broadcaster can choose within that area to


 1     establish what it is that they are going to represent
 2     as a broadcaster.
 3  8195                 That is basically our take on why we
 4     feel that there is in fact flexibility within our
 5     proposal for the minimum of three hours.
 6  8196                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  You chair the
 7     Children's Programming Committee at the CFTPA.  Is that
 8     right?
 9  8197                 MR. LEVY:  Yes, that is correct.
10  8198                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  And the three
11     hours, I noticed actually in the CINAR Nelvana
12     presentation that they have made reference to --
13  8199                 I believe that Commissioner Wylie
14     asked where the three hours came from, at the same time
15     that she asked where the ten came from, and was there
16     some scientific method to arriving at it?
17  8200                 I noticed that the FCC in 1996
18     adopted rules requiring at least three hours per week
19     of core educational programming in all licensed
20     television services.
21  8201                 Is that something that you have
22     looked at?
23  8202                 MR. LEVY:  It is certainly something
24     that we have admired from afar.  In the United States,
25     if the FCC can mandate that, the commercial


 1     broadcasters there can carry three hours of educational
 2     programming.
 3  8203                 We are the ones that in fact are
 4     producing the quality Canadian children's television
 5     programming that is seen around the world.  It does not
 6     seem like a far cry, a large demand, for us asking
 7     Canadian private conventional broadcasters to do that
 8     as well.
 9  8204                 What is interesting is if you look at
10     the success of the type of programming that has come
11     around in the United States, there has been a shift. 
12     There are less violent programs for kids.  Although
13     there is a lot of toy-based programming still, there
14     still is a shift away.
15  8205                 That is in the United States.  I
16     think we can do better in Canada.
17  8206                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That brings me
18     to the questions that I want to ask you with respect to
19     your oral presentation today.
20  8207                 You said on page 4 that:
21                            "More than 150 countries around
22                            the world have purchased our
23                            children's programming..."
24  8208                 Are you aware of whether or not any
25     of these international broadcasters are exhibiting them


 1     for more than three hours per week, just out curiosity?
 2  8209                 I don't know if you have looked at
 3     that.
 4  8210                 MR. LEVY:  No, I am not aware of
 5     that.
 6  8211                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  What about on
 7     PBS?  Are you familiar with what kinds of Canadian
 8     programs are carried on PBS?
 9  8212                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  On PBS, I think
10     there is quite a variety of Canadian programming
11     carried.
12  8213                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  More than three
13     hours a week?
14  8214                 MR. LEVY:  I don't think it is
15     mandated, unless the American government has changed
16     their mind on that.  That would be great.
17  8215                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Yes:  you must
18     play three hours of Canadian programming per week.
19  8216                 MR. LEVY:  What is interesting about
20     that observation is that in a world where PBS can
21     choose from all the different programs from around the
22     world, all the quality children's programming, they
23     have chosen so many Canadian shows which have been
24     primarily made for a Canadian audience.
25  8217                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I know


 1     "Theodore Tugboat" is on --
 2  8218                 MR. LEVY:  "Theodore Tugboat",
 3     "Dudley the Dragon".
 4  8219                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  "Arthur".
 5  8220                 MR. LEVY:  "Arthur"; "Wimzie's
 6     House"; "The Big Comfy Couch".
 7  8221                 This is a tremendous achievement.
 8  8222                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  In fact, if you look
 9     at the "ready to learn" block on PBS, it is dominated
10     by Canadian produced programs.
11  8223                 "Shiny Time Station" is another. 
12     There are a great number of programs that have been
13     picked up in the United States on the educational
14     service, on the PBS service.
15  8224                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Are all of
16     those programs also carried on television here?
17  8225                 MR. LEVY:  Yes, they are.
18  8226                 Sometimes in the carriage on PBS,
19     though, if they are carried on the alternative PBS
20     carriage system, they might not reach all the Canadian
21     border stations.
22  8227                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Saturday
23     mornings filled with foreign animation:  what is the
24     cost differential?  We have had some models presented
25     in terms of drama, the cost of producing Canadian drama


 1     versus the cost of purchasing an American program.
 2  8228                 What is the cost differential per
 3     hour or half hour between U.S. and Canadian children's
 4     programming?
 5  8229                 MR. LEVY:  To be honest, I am not
 6     sure of the purchasing price of the American programs. 
 7     I know that at times Canadian broadcasters do out-put
 8     deals where they are buying in bulk.  So it might be
 9     very difficult to establish what the actual amount is
10     that the conventional broadcasters buy this programming
11     from the United States.
12  8230                 Looking at it from the economic side,
13     from the Canadian producers's side, I think what is
14     interesting is that in our proposal where we are asking
15     for a minimum licence fee of 20 percent of the budget,
16     where traditionally we have had 15 percent of the
17     budget as part of the licence fee, at least in live
18     action children's programming, just doing the math,
19     probably the average Canadian kid's show -- not in
20     animation because it is a little more expensive -- but
21     the average Canadian kid's show is in the $100,000
22     range.
23  8231                 We are talking about licence fees in
24     the neighbourhood of $15,000 to $20,000.
25  8232                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Is that for an


 1     hour or a half hour?
 2  8233                 MR. LEVY:  That is for half an hour.
 3  8234                 When you look at the benefits that a
 4     broadcaster can get from that with respect to 150
 5     percent Cancon, if it is the 10 out of 10, and you look
 6     at the way the broadcasters have the multiple plays of
 7     kids' shows -- because kids' shows usually have a
 8     broadcast licence that does not give just one or two
 9     plays, but multiple plays -- there is an opportunity
10     for them to amortize the cost over more plays.
11  8235                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Yes. I loved
12     that comment, actually, about the 17th time.  It is so
13     true for children; they will just watch or read and
14     read and read.
15  8236                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  It is an advantage
16     for the producers, of course, because of their library.
17     The libraries evergreen, so it has allowed private
18     producers to build up a library.
19  8237                 But at the same time, it is a great
20     advantage for the broadcasters, because they can go on
21     multiple plays, running episodes of Canadian shows over
22     and over again.  And kids enjoy that.  They like that.
23  8238                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Actually, I was
24     going to ask a question about that.  And you will be
25     able to tell, of course, that I am not a producer when


 1     I ask this question.
 2  8239                 I actually thought to myself:  Well,
 3     if you can keep it on the shelf for so long and you get
 4     these multiple plays, doesn't that kind of work against
 5     you as a producer because they don't have to buy as
 6     much product?
 7  8240                 MR. LEVY:  Interestingly, no.  I
 8     think this is part of the way that we strategically
 9     would say that the conventional broadcasters have a
10     role in being the first window for Canadian quality
11     kids' programming.
12  8241                 What happens after that, after it
13     runs a number of times, is that the program can then be
14     sold to a second window, let's say to a specialty
15     channel; and then perhaps to a third window, to an
16     educational channel.
17  8242                 In fact, what happens is that the
18     channels that don't necessarily have as much money can
19     use that programming after the primary broadcaster has
20     used it.  And that of course leaves space for new
21     programming to be put into the system.
22  8243                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  What is the
23     difference between a licence fee paid by a specialty
24     channel and a licence fee paid by a conventional
25     broadcaster?


 1  8244                 You mentioned in your presentation
 2     today that a specialty channel usually does not pay as
 3     much.
 4  8245                 MR. LEVY:  It depends on the
 5     specialty channel; it depends on the coverage.
 6  8246                 Certainly with channels like
 7     Treehouse, it is a very modest licence fee; and with
 8     the educational channels, because they are under
 9     tremendous pressure in terms of their government
10     funding, their licence fees don't necessarily from any
11     one educational broadcaster amount to an awful lot of
12     money.
13  8247                 It is a little difficult to compare
14     the two, other than to say that the private
15     broadcasters, because of when they could be
16     broadcasting these shows, could potentially get that
17     much more revenue.
18  8248                 It is a little bit all over the map. 
19     But generally speaking, the conventional broadcasters
20     have the ability to pay more money.  After all, they
21     have the national audiences.
22  8249                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  When you say
23     "we are ready to explore new partnerships", you
24     mentioned equity participation.
25  8250                 Is that the only kind of new


 1     partnership?  Have you come up with other ideas about
 2     how --
 3  8251                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Distribution rights.
 4  8252                 MR. LEVY:  Perhaps.  But I think
 5     probably the central one would --
 6  8253                 It is interesting, as a producer,
 7     when you start to put together a program.  If you think
 8     of it, there are a lot of equity funds around,
 9     government equity funds, such as Telefilm, Shaw Cable
10     Fund, et cetera.
11  8254                 But probably one of the natural
12     partners, if a broadcaster is paid a fair licence fee,
13     would be a broadcaster as far as equity participation.
14  8255                 Our experience has been a number of
15     different ways working with broadcasters, which we
16     would hope we could bring to the table as other
17     possible suggestions.
18  8256                 This happens to be outside of
19     children's programming.  But it has to do with, at
20     times not only getting equity, if the licence fee is
21     significant enough, but also looking at joint
22     sponsorship approaches where we can share in revenue. 
23     The broadcaster can use that to recoup some money, and
24     we can use that as part of our production financing.
25  8257                 We have also dealt in certain cases


 1     with facility deals.
 2  8258                 So there are other ways that a
 3     broadcaster could get involved over and above the
 4     licence fee.  And they are, to a certain degree, a
 5     natural partner.
 6  8259                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Just a question
 7     of clarification on page 8, where you make your
 8     recommendations.
 9  8260                 Are these recommendations specific to
10     children's programming?
11  8261                 MR. LEVY:  Yes, that is correct.
12  8262                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  The 150 percent
13     credit.  I am not sure that I am clear on that.
14  8263                 Broadcasters would get 150 percent
15     credit for exhibiting Canadian children's programming?
16  8264                 MR. LEVY:  For first run and for
17     programs that at least have the minimum of 10 out of
18     10.
19  8265                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  One other thing
20     from page 8.
21  8266                 You say that it is more difficult to
22     make distinctively Canadian television programming now
23     than in the past.  Why is that?
24                                                        1655
25  8267                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  What I think we are


 1     seeing is a trend towards programs that are being
 2     pre-licensed in the States.  The follow-on from that is
 3     you see an awful lot of programs about aliens.  It
 4     sounds ridiculous, but there are an awful lot of shows
 5     on TV and suddenly you have got aliens.  There's a
 6     reason for that.
 7  8268                 If a Canadian producer is developing
 8     a concept and he or she knows that he or she is going
 9     to have to sell it to the Americans first, the Fox or
10     Family or whatever, then you are going to look for a
11     generic concept, something that's going to work in the
12     U.S. market.
13  8269                 That's fine, you know.  That's a god
14     business strategy.  We have seen it done very well, but
15     it means that you get a load of those generic sort of
16     formats for children's programming.  That's what's
17     starting to happen.
18  8270                 Now, it's a lot easier to finance
19     things starting in the States, you know, getting the
20     interest of the U.S. broadcaster and then coming and
21     talking to a broadcaster in Canada.  Then they know the
22     program is going to get made.  They can put up the
23     licence fee, the result of that being programs that are
24     actually financible because you can sell them in the
25     U.S. market.


 1  8271                 It won't necessarily reflect the
 2     Canadian reality, not that we are saying every program
 3     should, but that is one of the reasons why there are a
 4     lot of generic children's programs.  What we are seeing
 5     is --
 6  8272                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Or generic
 7     programs in general.
 8  8273                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Yes, absolutely.  So
 9     when we think about Dudley, it's very interesting that
10     when we first started to get Dudley off the ground in
11     the early eighties, although there was a definite
12     support from the educational community for the project,
13     there was no interest in the project commercially from
14     commercial broadcasters at that time.
15  8274                 I think we have seen a tremendous
16     change.  Now, of course, commercial broadcasters are
17     very interested in toy related programs.  We have seen
18     a change there on the one hand, but coupled with this
19     move to a more kind of generic kind of creative where
20     we see programs that can sell internationally.
21  8275                 It's a whole process that's going on. 
22     I think Dudley on the one hand, you know, you could
23     argue that because it has potentially merchandising
24     attached to it or a Dudley program might be perhaps
25     easier to get off the ground.  On the other hand, you


 1     know, you are competing in a market where really you
 2     are trying to make programs that can be very
 3     international, so that would discourage you from making
 4     any kind of specificity to Canadian realities or
 5     environments or culture for that matter.
 6  8276                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  When I was
 7     listening to the folks from Salter Street this morning,
 8     Commissioner Cardozo was questioning them about "LEXX". 
 9     We were talking about Canadian programming.
10  8277                 I believe one of the Salter Street
11     guys said something about oh well, it's not in Canada,
12     it's in a parallel universe.  It sort of occurred to me
13     that in some ways Canada is sort of like a parallel
14     universe to the U.S., we are so influenced by that
15     border and the shared language and so many of those
16     things.
17  8278                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  A lot of that
18     programming is actually a reaction to American
19     programming.  Some of our programs set us up to be a
20     critique of U.S. programming which gives it a
21     distinctively Canadian feel actually.
22  8279                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  What do you
23     mean it sets itself up to be a critique?  It sort of
24     takes an ironic view of the American style of
25     programming?


 1  8280                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Yes.  I am just
 2     trying to pull programs off the air.  I mean even "This
 3     Hour" and "Twitch City", which is, you know, I think
 4     almost a critic of the sitcom really.
 5  8281                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Yes.
 6  8282                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  I'm trying to think
 7     of other examples.
 8  8283                 MR. LEVY:  SCTV.
 9  8284                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Yes.  SCTV, of
10     course, is the classic example.
11  8285                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Yes.
12  8286                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  We are sending out
13     American culture.
14  8287                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  A great
15     tradition of Canadian satire.
16  8288                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Yes, indeed.
17  8289                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Yes.
18  8290                 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
19  8291                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
20     much.
21  8292                 Commissioner Pennefather.
22  8293                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
23  8294                 Hello.
24  8295                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Hello.
25  8296                 MR. LEVY:  Hello.


 1  8297                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  There are
 2     a couple of questions first just to check.  When you
 3     are talking about children's programming, what age
 4     group are you considering?
 5  8298                 MR. LEVY:  Well, usually children's
 6     programming in our experience is defined as kid's
 7     programming that is 16 and under.  However, at times
 8     that gets crunched to 12 and under, but in our mind 16
 9     and under.
10  8299                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Sixteen. 
11     Yes, I notice that was the case with CINAR Nelvana as
12     well.  So that's the audience we are talking about.
13  8300                 MR. LEVY:  That's correct.
14  8301                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Two to
15     sixteen.
16  8302                 MR. LEVY:  Pardon?
17  8303                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  The
18     audience we are talking about is two to sixteen year
19     olds.
20  8304                 MR. LEVY:  That's correct.
21  8305                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  What are
22     they looking for from television these days?  Mine are
23     17 and 30 now, so I want to check in on that.  What are 
24     they looking for from television?
25  8306                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  The universal


 1     quality of children's imagination is classic.  I think
 2     they still enjoy classic stories, new stories told
 3     classically.
 4  8307                 My kids are very  young. I have a
 5     three year old daughter, so I can't imagine that my
 6     three year old is really any different to your three
 7     year old when she was three.
 8  8308                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  He.
 9  8309                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  He.
10  8310                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Just in
11     case he's watching.
12  8311                 MR. LEVY:  Then they were different.
13  8312                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  I think that
14     superficially things change, but very much I think
15     children are looking for the same things really.
16  8313                 There's I think a great place for a
17     very creative and exciting, visually stimulating
18     programming.  I think perhaps the success of -- you
19     might want to actually say zero to 16 where the target
20     audience is for infants.  I think that's a new thing.
21  8314                 When I think back to even many, many,
22     many decades ago when I was a kid growing up in the
23     early fifties, the programming then on the BBC when I
24     was living in England, in a way it's not so much
25     different from what it is now.


 1  8315                 In fact, I see "Noddy" is coming
 2     back.  "Noddy" is coming back this year or has come
 3     back to PBS and to CBC.  I grew up with "Noddy".  I'm
 4     trying to think of the railway.
 5  8316                 MR. LEVY:  "Thomas the Tank".
 6  8317                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  "Thomas the Tank
 7     Engine".  These are concepts that seem, you know, to go
 8     on forever.
 9  8318                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I'm trying
10     to carve out and not just from you, but from discussion
11     from people like yourselves who have been involved in
12     producing for children, we mean 2 to 16, what the
13     balance is.  Has it shifted at all with entertainment
14     information?
15  8319                 MR. LEVY:  That's a very good point. 
16     I think you have to delineate even within the
17     children's market because it's a pretty vast age range.
18  8320                 If we start off with pre-school area,
19     I think Peter is absolutely right.  You do tend to get
20     classic stories.  You get stories that sort of
21     entertain, stories that have song and a sense of life
22     and colour, a story that sort of addresses the world of
23     the child, which could be the world that geographically
24     is not a very big area.  It could be their home and
25     their back yard and their aunts and their uncles, but


 1     that is their world.  I think good television, kids
 2     twig into that.  They watch that type of programming.
 3  8321                 We had a very interesting way of
 4     developing scrips for "Dudley the Dragon".  What we
 5     would do is the head writer, a fellow by the name of
 6     Alex Gladus, who also did the voice of "Dudley the
 7     Dragon" would write down stories and then he would go
 8     to a grade school to a grade one class.  He would read
 9     the stories to the kids.  This is before we went to a
10     script stage.
11  8322                 The kids would tell him what they
12     liked about the story, what they didn't like about the
13     story.  They were our audience.  They were intelligent. 
14     They were perceptive.  He knew when they were listening
15     and when they weren't.  Because he was the voice of
16     Dudley the Dragon, he could also tell it in Dudley's
17     voice which, of course, made it that much more
18     entertaining.
19  8323                 I think the key thing there is that
20     what he found time and time again is that they did like
21     to have a story told to them and that if the story
22     included even ideas of story lines that related to
23     their world, then they really enjoyed the stories.
24  8324                 I think if you look at pre-school,
25     that's one way of defining it.  I think what has


 1     changed is probably the speed at which kids get
 2     information.  I'm looking at my oldest now who is very
 3     adept at getting on to the Internet and using a
 4     computer.  You know, the speed that he gets information
 5     is quite different from myself at seven years old.
 6  8325                 The pace of those types of programs
 7     for the older group, let's say six to eight or nine, is
 8     a little different, but still underlying it is that
 9     they want to have a sense of place, an understanding of
10     the world around them and be entertained.  That is a
11     common thread I think amongst all audiences.
12  8326                 I think where we feel comfortable in
13     defining audiences is in the area that we do primarily
14     that programming for.  I think perhaps it's a little
15     more difficult to define all the things that a slightly
16     older audience is looking for, but still I think that
17     the underlying themes and stories and characters that
18     we are talking about are still relevant, even for a
19     teenage audience.
20  8327                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  It's a
21     long subject, I'm sure.  Is it your observation that
22     what we call programming for children is really
23     offering them diversity and a view of the world that is
24     different or the same as what we offer them in
25     so-called adult programming?


 1  8328                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  The question is, is
 2     there enough?
 3  8329                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Is it
 4     different?  Do we offer them enough choice within what
 5     we call children's programming?  You said here that the
 6     three hours and increased investment would assure
 7     greater diversity for children's programming.  Why do
 8     you say that?
 9  8330                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Well, I don't think
10     we do.  I mean, I think we feel that there's not enough
11     diversity in their programming.  We have talked a
12     little about how, especially for older kids, the
13     programming is becoming much more generic.
14  8331                 I believe, very strongly in fact,
15     that there is not a diversity of programming for older
16     children.  I see a lot of obviously very glamorous and
17     quite often violent actually, violent glamorous
18     programming which is coming out of the States which we
19     are picking up.
20  8332                 I don't think there's a lot of
21     programming that's aimed at sort of the issues that
22     kids, teenagers for example, and older kids or younger
23     kids, say seven or eight year olds, are dealing with in
24     their actual lives.
25  8333                 I noted one evening that my eight


 1     year old son was suddenly glued to the television set. 
 2     He was watching a show on The Women's Channel actually,
 3     which he never watches, I might add, which was dealing
 4     with a friend who was suddenly -- I'm trying to think
 5     of the plot.  It had to do with acceptance of racial
 6     differences, quite a complex issue, and how somebody at
 7     school, actually it was a little girl who had a friend
 8     who was from India.
 9  8334                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Yes.
10  8335                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  There was some
11     problem and now they were banished from the house for
12     some reason.  He was absolutely rapt.  Unfortunately,
13     the program came to an abrupt halt and there was a
14     panel discussion in the middle of it.  Obviously, this
15     was not formatted for kids.
16  8336                 It struck me then that there's really
17     nothing on television that deals with issues to do with
18     -- well, very little anyway, I will put it that way. 
19     There are programs like "Ready or Not".
20  8337                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  That's
21     sort of what I'm getting at.
22  8338                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Absolutely.
23  8339                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Within the
24     area we call children's programming, are we treating
25     these audiences with the respect they deserve, in other


 1     words with a variety of programming from craziness to
 2     "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" to things that you watched
 3     last week.
 4  8340                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  I don't think so.
 5  8341                 MR. LEVY:  Where I think we are
 6     succeeding, and maybe it's a clue where we should be
 7     moving, is we do have the diversity, I believe, in the
 8     children's pre-school programming.  I think we could
 9     have more, but I think we are doing a very, very good
10     job and I think that's recognized around the world.
11  8342                 When you look at the diversity of
12     voices across Canada that are creating children's
13     pre-school programming, you have people creating it
14     from coast to coast.  I think when you then look at the
15     shelf space, the space available for these other types
16     of programs that you and Peter have been discussing,
17     that's why we go back to give us just a minimum of
18     three hours of children's quality programming.  It
19     allows for that diversity.
20  8343                 We have the ability to do it.  It's
21     even recognized internationally.  It's a half an hour a
22     day.  It's not very much.
23  8344                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
24  8345                 One last, if I may.  We all talk a
25     lot about the digital era and we talk about our kids on


 1     the Internet and using the computer and so on.  What's
 2     your opinion of the place of the digital era in
 3     children's programming?  Is this a challenge?  Is this
 4     an opportunity?  Has it affected your plans for
 5     production?
 6  8346                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  I think it's a great
 7     opportunity for democracy actually to have choice for
 8     children, for all of us actually.  Looking back
 9     historically, my ex-country, my old country, where we
10     started of with one broadcaster back in the thirties.
11  8347                 I remember a story about the BBC.  I
12     think they were the only broadcaster at the time in the
13     world.  They were the dispenser of news to the British
14     population at the time.  I remember -- it's a famous
15     story -- how on one occasion the news, which was read
16     by somebody wearing a dinner jacket and speaking into a
17     microphone, was actually instructed that there was no
18     news that day, that in fact there wasn't anything worth
19     broadcasting, so they didn't read the news on that
20     particular news that day in the thirties because the
21     BBC didn't think that they should.
22  8348                 We come to the digital era when we
23     have almost a magazine rack approach to broadcasting. 
24     I think that the opportunities there are fantastic for
25     diversity.  This is the exact sort of advance we are


 1     looking for.  There's unfortunately another issue that
 2     is starting to come up which I note in your opening
 3     remarks, Madam Chair, that you tend to look at another
 4     time, which is the merging together or conglomerating
 5     of interests in broadcasting.
 6  8349                 One of the antidotes to merging and
 7     huge corporations and bigger and bigger corporations
 8     getting together and buying up more of the broadcasting
 9     assets is the potential of the digital age and of
10     multichannel broadcasting as long as diversity of
11     ownership can be somehow mandated into that.
12  8350                 I think that the opportunities are
13     phenomenal and should be protected.  In fact, they are
14     a great challenge and a great opportunity for special
15     groups, minority groups, alternate programming. 
16     There's a great deal of programming, a great deal of
17     diversity of opinion, of approach, which is simply not
18     on television today.
19  8351                 We are looking at a very homogeneous
20     television network rather than a homogeneous television
21     landscape, considering there are so many channels. 
22     Unfortunately, they are being owned by fewer and fewer
23     people.
24  8352                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you
25     very much.


 1  8353                 That completes my questions.
 2  8354                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
 3     Cardozo.
 4  8355                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks, Madam
 5     Chair.
 6  8356                 Like Commissioner Wilson, I can earn
 7     some brownie points with having met Dudley today.  The
 8     only reason I am asking you a question is that I can
 9     tell my kids that I talked to the producers of
10     "Dudley".
11  8357                 I just want to mention a couple of
12     points though that you did make that I noted.  One was
13     about the way kids watch programs, that they can watch
14     them over and over again.  I think it's also a matter
15     of the children's programming because I find that
16     adults can also watch those same programs again and
17     again, unlike programs perhaps made for adults.
18  8358                 The other point I noted with interest
19     was your views about cultural diversity and giving kids
20     a sense of their place here in Canada.
21  8359                 I have a question which is large, but
22     just give me a very quick response.  Why is it that we
23     are so successful in Canada in kid's programming, and
24     Dudley was very nice to mention what you produce and
25     what some of your competitors produce too?  Why is it


 1     we are doing so well both for our markets and
 2     internationally and why can't we do as well with
 3     general production?
 4  8360                 MR. LEVY:  Well, first of all, I
 5     think we are doing well because of a series of
 6     regulations which have allowed television producers,
 7     writers, directors, creative people to basically
 8     germinate, to start to flower.
 9  8361                 We are beside the biggest cultural
10     giant in the world, a massive marketing machine.  We
11     should not have been able to express ourselves at all,
12     but somehow we have managed to allow ourselves to put
13     up this curtain and what it has allowed us to do with
14     the small population base that we have is nurture our
15     own talent.
16  8362                 I think in the children's area,
17     probably because of a very simple reason, it's an
18     economic reason.  Children's programming is less
19     expensive to produce than prime time programming.  As
20     business people as well as creative people, we have
21     converged to start in that area.  A lot of independent
22     producers have started in that area.  Some have
23     continued and done very, very well in it as well.
24                                                        1715
25  8363                 So, I think that that's an important


 1     thing to keep in mind.  When you start to broaden that
 2     base -- and I will go back to what we were saying with
 3     the Producers Association -- to try to expand that
 4     curtain and to give us more room to nurture our own
 5     talent and our own programming with more participation
 6     from the broadcasters and more shelf space, that's
 7     what's going to allow us to have truly a golden age in
 8     terms of Canadian television.
 9  8364                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  I absolutely agree
10     with everything that Ira said.  I think that the
11     potential is great for us to do as well in other genres
12     of television as we have begun to do with children's
13     television or, rather, that we have achieved with
14     children's television.
15  8365                 I think that if the support is there
16     from the broadcasters for independent production and
17     producers, from which I think it's reasonable to say
18     that there has been a renaissance of creativity across
19     Canada over the last 10 years or so, thanks to the
20     support and the regulation of the industry by the
21     government and government agencies, there can be a
22     bright future.  We do have an opportunity to move
23     ahead, but I would stress that we have to make sure
24     that a fair share of resources are being channelled
25     towards that production community by broadcasters.


 1  8366                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay, thanks.
 2  8367                 Thanks, Madam Chair.
 3  8368                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Counsel?
 4  8369                 MR. BLAIS:  I just have a few points
 5     of clarification to bring, although I will admit, Madam
 6     Chairman -- and Commissioner McKendry will appreciate
 7     this -- I was looking for a pressing issue of
 8     credibility in order to swear in Dudley, but I guess
 9     that would be for another time, much to the
10     disappointment of my niece and nephews.
11  8370                 The first point is by letter dated 26
12     August the Commission provided you with an opportunity
13     to submit some additional supporting data.  I just
14     wanted to confirm that that was not -- you had not done
15     that and it's not a question of us having misplaced it
16     or anything.
17  8371                 MR. LEVY:  That's correct.
18  8372                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  That's correct, yes.
19  8373                 MR. BLAIS:  Thank you.
20  8374                 With respect to the 150 per cent
21     bonus you raise, already under our rules of
22     certification if it's drama destined for children and
23     it's broadcast in an appropriate children's viewing
24     time, it already receives the 150 credit.  Are you
25     suggesting that we should expand that to all forms of


 1     children's programming and not just limit it to drama? 
 2     Is that the sense of your recommendation?
 3  8375                 MR. LEVY:  I think the recommendation
 4     comes in the form of looking at programming that does
 5     have the 10 out of 10.  I think the notion of expanding
 6     is certainly a possibility.  We haven't figured out the
 7     complete ramifications of something like that, but what
 8     we are trying to say is that broadcasters need to
 9     continue to be profitable and get involved with the
10     right sort of licence fees.  We are willing to be
11     partners that way, so 150 per cent should be
12     maintained.
13  8376                 MR. BLAIS:  Just so we are clear, the
14     recommendations you are making, are they vis-à-vis the
15     English market or the French market as well?
16  8377                 MR. LEVY:  That's a good question. 
17     It is for the English market.
18  8378                 MR. BLAIS:  Just the English market.
19  8379                 You have mentioned also that your
20     three hours for first-run kids' programs should be with
21     respect to precisely that, first-run children's
22     programming.  If children's programming is, as you have
23     mentioned, evergreen, one could ask why is it necessary
24     that it be first-run.  A cynical person might even
25     suggest that it's to add the commercial value of your


 1     productions.
 2  8380                 MR. LEVY:  I think, as we explained
 3     before, the reason why we wanted the private
 4     conventional broadcasters to get involved in this
 5     requirement is because that could actually be the first
 6     window and that there was a chance for subsequent
 7     windows, subsequent tiers.  I'm not sure I am answering
 8     your question.
 9  8381                 MR. BLAIS:  They could also meet a
10     three-hour requirement by running evergreen previously-
11     produced programming, not necessarily new first-run
12     programming.
13  8382                 MR. LEVY:  Sure, but in our request
14     we are looking for a place -- a home for first-run
15     programming.
16  8383                 MR. BLAIS:  Which is to the benefit
17     of producers that are producing first-run programming.
18  8384                 MR. LEVY:  Also, it's to the benefit
19     of the children's audience that's out there.  We are
20     talking about diversity, we are talking about shelf
21     space.
22  8385                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  It's also to the
23     benefit of emerging producers as well because if you
24     are sitting on a huge library as opposed to doing a
25     very first show, this would be of great help to you to


 1     get your first show onto the air.  So, it's helping a
 2     younger generation of producers as well.
 3  8386                 MR. BLAIS:  Sure.  I appreciate those
 4     points because I think those have to be put on the
 5     record.
 6  8387                 Now, you have mentioned a phase-in
 7     over four years.  Do you have any specific ideas of
 8     exactly how we would do this phase-in or are you
 9     basically adopting the position the CFTPA has and will
10     be putting on the record?
11  8388                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Yes, we are adopting
12     that position.
13  8389                 MR. BLAIS:  Thank you.  Those are my
14     questions.
15  8390                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr.
16     Williamson, Mr. Levy.  Before you leave, I want
17     assurances from you that you will make sure Dudley
18     doesn't confuse 10/10/10 with a harmful garden spray
19     that he feels a need to speak against on TV.
20  8391                 MR. LEVY:  You have our assurances.
21  8392                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  If you would like to
22     meet Dudley after the show, we can arrange that.
23  8393                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You did mention
24     that he was interested in environmental concerns, so we
25     wouldn't want the CFTPA's proposal to be confused with


 1     anything harmful by the broadcasters.
 2  8394                 MR. LEVY:  Thanks very much.
 3  8395                 MR. WILLIAMSON:  Thank you.
 4  8396                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will now take a
 5     five-minute break to stretch our legs and we will, if
 6     it's acceptable to parties, hear the last three parties
 7     that were scheduled to be heard today because we are
 8     not sitting tomorrow.  So, it would mean resuming on
 9     Thursday morning.  If that's a problem with any of
10     these three parties, please advise the Secretary while
11     we are taking this short break, but we are prepared to
12     hear you and take whatever time it takes.
13     --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1721
14     --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1730
15  8397                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Welcome back.
16  8398                 Madame Secretary, would you call the
17     next participant; s'il vous plaît, voulez-vous inviter
18     le participant suivant.
19  8399                 Mme BÉNARD:  Merci, Madame la
20     Présidente.
21  8400                 La prochaine présentation sera celle
22     du Groupe de recherche sur les jeunes et les médias,
23     M. André Caron.
24  8401                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Bonjour, Monsieur.
25  8402                 M. CARON:  Bonjour.


 2  8403                 M. CARON:  Madame la Présidente,
 3     mesdames et messieurs membres du Conseil, on a beaucoup
 4     entendu les diffuseurs se vanter aujourd'hui des
 5     grandes réussites, on a entendu aussi les producteurs
 6     tout dernièrement aussi avec les succès de Dudley, mais
 7     en guise d'introduction j'aimerais aussi souligner la
 8     reconnaissance internationale qui vient d'être décernée
 9     au CRTC par la Fondation Bertelsmann, par le biais du
10     prix "Innovation et responsabilité au sein de la
11     société de l'information" le 10 septembre dernier. 
12     Alors, vous avez droit aussi à vos félicitations.
13  8404                 Ceci dit, je remercie le CRTC de nous
14     donner l'opportunité de partager nos observations sur
15     les politiques relatives à la télévision canadienne. 
16     En effet, ces audiences s'avèrent une excellente
17     tribune nous permettant de partager le fruit de nos
18     dernières recherches, notre principale préoccupation
19     étant l'optimisation de la qualité de la télévision
20     pour enfants.
21  8405                 Le Groupe de recherche sur les jeunes
22     et les médias, du département de Communication de
23     l'Université de Montréal, se consacre à la recherche
24     dans le domaine pour enfants et ce, depuis plus de dix
25     ans.  D'ailleurs, à notre connaissance, nous sommes


 1     parmi les rares groupes de recherche universitaires
 2     bilingues au Canada qui s'investit dans un tel domaine
 3     de recherche.
 4  8406                 Par conséquent, notre présence
 5     aujourd'hui s'inscrit dans une démarche favorisant
 6     l'amélioration de la télévision pour enfants dans une
 7     perspective de préoccupations sociales.  Le mémoire que
 8     nous avons déposé reflète d'ailleurs ces
 9     considérations.  En fait, la recherche principale qui a
10     servi à appuyer ce mémoire est "L'analyse de l'offre et
11     de l'écoute de la programmation télévisuelle pour
12     enfants".  Compte tenu du fait que cette recherche est
13     faite tous les ans depuis une décennie, elle offre une
14     lecture dans le temps et une vue d'ensemble de la
15     programmation télévisuelle pour enfants tout à fait
16     unique.
17  8407                 En fait, au fil des années nos
18     recherches ont été guidées par trois questions
19     principales, soit:  Quelle est l'offre d'émissions pour
20     enfants qui leur est proposée du point de vue du nombre
21     d'heures et de la diversité des genres et des origines? 
22     Au niveau de l'écoute, les enfants regardent-ils les
23     contenus qui leur sont spécifiquement destinés?  Cette
24     écoute est-elle variée et de contenus canadiens? 
25     Enfin, comment s'est modifié le paysage télévisuel


 1     compte tenu de tous les changements survenus depuis
 2     quelques années?
 3  8408                 Avant tout, je tiens à spécifier que
 4     même si nos recherches se consacrent généralement tant
 5     au milieu francophone qu'anglophone, je ne pourrai
 6     aborder aujourd'hui que les réalités francophones
 7     compte tenu du temps qui est alloué.  Par contre, le
 8     mémoire déposé au CRTC contient aussi une analyse du
 9     secteur anglophone.
10  8409                 Aussi, nous avons largement analysé
11     l'ensemble de l'offre télévisuelle qui est proposée aux
12     enfants.  Nous constatons d'abord que tant dans le
13     marché francophone qu'anglophone de Montréal, le nombre
14     d'heures offertes d'émissions pour enfants dépassent
15     230 heures, ce qui est particulièrement appréciable. 
16     Évidemment, l'arrivée des canaux spécialisés a fait
17     sensiblement augmenter ces heures de programmation.
18     Mais si on pense à cette offre-là, on en vient à près
19     de 30 heures par jour d'émissions pour enfants,
20     comptant les canaux spécialisés, et environ six à huit
21     heures par jour si on considère les canaux
22     généralistes.
23  8410                 Dans cette lecture, on doit cependant
24     garder à l'esprit les foyers non câblés qui bénéficient
25     d'un nombre plus restreint d'heures de programmation


 1     pour enfants.  Je reviendrai d'ailleurs sur ce point
 2     plus loin dans mon exposé.
 3  8411                 De façon générale, la question qui se
 4     pose aujourd'hui est davantage de s'interroger sur la
 5     qualité des émissions. Non pas qu'elle ne soit pas
 6     présentement de qualité.  On l'a vu avec les
 7     présentations qui ont précédé, et celles qui vont
 8     suivre, avec Cinar, le Canada est reconnu comme ayant
 9     d'excellentes émissions pour enfants.  Mais il est
10     question d'être bon dans un domaine et il est question
11     aussi d'être meilleur.  On peut ainsi se demander s'il
12     y a un équilibre au niveau de la diversité des genres.
13  8412                 Comme vous pouvez le constater en
14     regardant les tableaux qui accompagnent ce texte, en ce
15     qui concerne les télévisions généralistes, c'est
16     environ le tiers des émissions proposées aux enfants
17     qui sont de type dessins animés, ce qui laisse place à
18     une certaine diversité dans les genres.  Toutefois,
19     lorsqu'on inclut les canaux spécialisés -- Canal
20     Famille et Teletoon dans le cas de Montréal -- on
21     retrouve, au niveau de l'offre, près des deux tiers des
22     émissions qui sont de genre dessins animés.  Nous
23     verrons plus loin, du point de vue de la réception, de
24     ce que les enfants regardent,  si cette présence a
25     provoqué un déséquilibre dans la variété de genres


 1     regardés.
 2  8413                 Par ailleurs, pour ce qui est de
 3     l'origine des émissions, la proportion d'émissions
 4     100 pour cent canadienne dans la programmation pour les
 5     enfants, qui se maintient au fil des années à environ
 6     50 pour cent, reflète sensiblement les conditions
 7     générales du CRTC imposées aux stations généralistes. 
 8     Cependant, bien qu'il y ait des quotas imposés pour
 9     l'ensemble de la programmation télévisuelle, il n'y a
10     pas de quotas spécifiques pour les émissions pour
11     enfants.  Il serait peut-être approprié de se
12     questionner à ce propos.
13  8414                 En effet, les conditions de licence
14     pour les chaînes thématiques pour les jeunes étant
15     fixées à un quota de 60 pour cent pour les émissions
16     d'origine 100 pour cent canadienne, on peut se demander
17     s'il ne serait pas approprié d'appliquer cette règle à
18     toutes les chaînes et, en plus, exiger qu'une partie
19     prédéterminée de ce pourcentage soit des émissions
20     originales.  De cette façon, il est probable que tant
21     l'industrie que l'auditoire enfants y gagneraient par
22     un apport de productions originales et une
23     diversification des genres offerts.
24  8415                 D'autre part, l'analyse des grilles
25     horaire de 1997 nous a aussi permis de constater un


 1     manque au niveau de la programmation pour enfants les
 2     matins de semaine.  De fait, il n'y avait aucune
 3     émission pour enfants dans la grille horaire de
 4     l'automne 1997 offerte par les chaînes généralistes
 5     publiques et éducatives en matinée sur semaine.  Ces
 6     chaînes, rappelons-le, étant presque les seules à
 7     desservir en cette matière les 25 ou 30 ou 35 pour cent
 8     de foyers, selon les différentes sources, qui n'ont pas
 9     accès au câble, cette situation était des plus
10     surprenantes.
11  8416                 Heureusement, une lecture rapide des
12     grilles horaires de l'automne 1998 nous indique que la
13     situation s'est améliorée.  En effet, Télé-Québec offre
14     maintenant des émissions pour enfants en matinée, de
15     7 h 00 à 8 h 00 le matin, tandis que Radio-Canada met
16     en ondes ses émissions pour enfants de 6 h 00 à 7 h 00
17     tous les matins de la semaine.  En plus, Télé-Québec a
18     presque doublé son nombre d'heures de programmation
19     pour enfants, tandis que Radio-Canada les a légèrement
20     augmentées.
21  8417                 Si ces changements sont
22     encourageants, on doit quand même se demander, au
23     niveau de l'amélioration de la télévision jeunesse, si
24     ces diffuseurs répondent à toutes leurs obligations. 
25     Toutefois, il faudrait peut-être envisager aussi des


 1     mécanismes afin qu'une situation comme celle de 1997-98
 2     ne se répète pas.
 3  8418                 Pour ce qui est de l'écoute, si l'on
 4     considère uniquement les télévisions généralistes, une
 5     émission sur quatre regardée par les enfants leur est
 6     spécifiquement destinée, tandis qu'avec l'apport des
 7     télévisions spécialisées pour les enfants, cette
 8     proportion croît à une émission sur deux.  Ces données
 9     d'écoute nous indiquent qu'il y aurait peut-être lieu
10     que l'on s'interroge de plus près sur la disponibilité
11     réelle des créneaux horaires et la complémentarité des
12     programmes entre les diffuseurs.
13  8419                 Du point de vue de l'origine, c'est
14     environ 50 pour cent les émissions écoutées par les
15     enfants qui sont d'origine 100 pour cent canadienne. 
16     Une augmentation des quotas, tel que mentionné
17     précédemment, devrait entraîner une augmentation de
18     l'écoute des émissions canadiennes.
19  8420                 Enfin, pour ce qui est du genre des
20     émissions pour enfants regardées, une sur deux est de
21     type animation si seules les chaînes généralistes sont
22     incluses, et ce taux augmente à 70 pour cent lorsqu'on
23     inclut les chaînes thématiques pour enfants, et c'est
24     une estimation conservatrice.  On constate donc une
25     surconsommation de ce genre par rapport à l'offre


 1     réelle.  On doit par conséquent se demander, en
 2     présence d'une chaîne thématique qui n'offre que de
 3     l'animation, quel est le rôle des autres diffuseurs si
 4     on souhaite une plus grande diversité des genres.
 5  8421                 Compte tenu de tous les changements
 6     qui surviennent depuis quelques années dans la
 7     programmation télévisuelle, nous sommes donc à même de
 8     nous demander si les mandats des diffuseurs doivent
 9     rester les mêmes.  En fait, on doit reconnaître que les
10     émissions pour enfants ne pourront jamais concurrencer,
11     du point de vue de la rentabilité, la télévision pour
12     adultes.  La question du développement et de la
13     bonification de la télévision pour enfants ne devrait
14     plus être considérée d'un point de vue exclusivement de
15     rentabilité économique immédiate, mais plutôt d'un
16     point de vue de rentabilité sociale à long terme. 
17     Ainsi, peut-être devrait-on laisser à certains
18     diffuseurs, qui ont des intérêts et des ressources
19     spécifiquement dédiés à cet auditoire, le mandat
20     explicite de s'occuper de ce secteur.  La tendance de
21     programmation pour l'automne 1998 tend d'ailleurs vers
22     cette logique.
23  8422                 En fait, même si nous considérons que
24     le CRTC a été vigilant dans ses décisions, nous
25     réalisons que la réalité d'aujourd'hui demande une


 1     meilleure coordination et surtout un engagement continu
 2     des différents intervenants de premier plan.  Ce qui
 3     prime dans le cas de la télévision pour enfants, c'est
 4     non seulement de reconnaître le statut distinct de la
 5     programmation pour enfants, mais d'obtenir de tous les
 6     acteurs des politiques cohérentes et complémentaires: 
 7     par exemple, ajuster la correspondance entre le nombre
 8     d'heures produit grâce au soutien de Téléfilm et le
 9     pourcentage des budgets qui lui sont accordés;
10     considérer des engagements plus spécifiques de la part
11     de Radio-Canada pour les budgets de télévision enfants
12     vis-à-vis de Téléfilm; ou encore prévoir des
13     pourcentages prédéterminés de budgets réservés pour le
14     secteur enfant dans les différents fonds de télévision.
15  8423                 Bref, bien au-delà des questions
16     purement réglementaires, il pourrait y avoir des
17     conciliations d'intérêts autour de la télévision pour
18     enfants.  Le créneau d'émissions pour enfants ne doit
19     plus faire l'objet de discussions à la pièce dans le
20     cas d'un renouvellement de licence d'une station donnée
21     ou même d'une audience générale sur la télévision.  De
22     fait, les données que nous avons recueillies jusqu'à
23     présent et les discussions soutenues avec les
24     différents intervenants dans ce secteur indiquent que
25     le moment propice est venu de mobiliser ces derniers


 1     pour établir un consensus et ainsi arriver à une
 2     politique commune.
 3  8424                 Dans cette optique, ces acteurs
 4     devraient, selon nous, adopter des principes communs
 5     pour faciliter et privilégier ce secteur, mais aussi
 6     entreprendre des démarches concrètes pour le dynamiser
 7     et ainsi procéder à l'ajustement d'un cadre
 8     réglementaire reconnu et appliqué par tous.  Le CRTC, à
 9     notre avis, pourrait jouer un rôle de catalyseur et
10     réunir dans un tel forum les principaux acteurs
11     concernés.
12  8425                 Merci.
13  8426                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci, Monsieur
14     Caron.
15  8427                 Vous êtes bien gentil de souligner
16     qu'on a décerné au CRTC le prix Bertelsmann, et je vous
17     assure que je transmettrai toutes vos félicitations à
18     notre personnel, dont le travail exemplaire permet au
19     Conseil de rencontrer ces objectifs.  C'est avant tout
20     leur prix.
21  8428                 Conseillère Pennefather, s'il vous
22     plaît.
23  8429                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Bonjour,
24     Monsieur Caron.
25  8430                 M. CARON:  Bonjour.


 1  8431                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Merci
 2     beaucoup pour l'étude, qui est très instructive et je
 3     pense importante dans nos discussions pour la
 4     télévision en général et surtout pour la programmation
 5     pour les enfants.
 6  8432                 J'aimerais commencer avec ce que je
 7     dirais être un positionnement de votre part, je pense,
 8     qui influence non seulement la présentation écrite mais
 9     votre présentation orale aujourd'hui.  Ensuite, j'ai
10     quelques questions sur l'étude, mais par exemple la
11     présentation orale en effet, je dois souligner, a
12     clarifié certaines choses déjà.  Et j'ai d'autres
13     questions vis-à-vis des propos spécifiques que vous
14     avez faits.
15  8433                 Commençons avec le contexte et la
16     base de votre intervention.
17  8434                 Dans le résumé de votre soumission
18     écrite, et encore au paragraphe 65, vous dites ce qui
19     suit:
20                            "Les modèles économiques
21                            applicables à la programmation
22                            et à l'auditoire adulte ne
23                            peuvent être transposés à
24                            l'auditoire enfants."
25                            "Il s'agit d'éviter que les


 1                            décideurs des télévisions
 2                            privées et publiques soient
 3                            confrontés à la situation selon
 4                            laquelle la programmation
 5                            jeunesse soit mise... en
 6                            compétition avec la
 7                            programmation pour adultes."
 8  8435                 Est-ce qu'en effet ça résume ce que
 9     vous dites aussi, que c'est une approche plutôt sociale
10     qu'économique?  Pouvez-vous nous expliquer pourquoi
11     vous avez choisi cette route de recherche et de
12     discussion?
13  8436                 Évidemment, ces propos arrivent en
14     conclusion.  Ils sont la suite de plusieurs
15     discussions, plusieurs interventions et recherches
16     qu'on a faites avec le milieu.  On travaille beaucoup
17     avec le milieu, vous comprendrez, et on entend bien des
18     commentaires, comme vous en entendez aussi, selon les
19     différents intérêts.
20  8437                 Je veux être certain qu'il y a une
21     perception, et la bonne perception, de ce qu'on a
22     présenté.  C'est que le milieu de télévision pour
23     enfants est un milieu extrêmement dynamique en ce
24     moment.  On le voit non seulement au niveau national,
25     mais au niveau international.  Les gens qui travaillent


 1     dans ce domaine-là travaillent beaucoup par amour pour
 2     le domaine et non seulement aussi... évidemment, s'il y
 3     a des retombées économiques appréciables, c'est
 4     toujours bien, mais on voit que, comme ils disent en
 5     anglais, "there is a dedication".
 6  8438                 On se rend compte que depuis quelques
 7     années, malgré ces bonnes intentions, d'une certaine
 8     façon, il y a des coupures dans les budgets -- on peut
 9     penser à la télévision de l'État, par exemple -- et il
10     y a des réalités économiques aussi pour les télévisions
11     privées qui font que lorsqu'ils ont à prendre des
12     décisions, ils ne font pas les décisions uniquement par
13     rapport à la programmation pour enfants, c'est-à-dire
14     qu'il y a des vases communicants.  Je vais vous donner
15     un exemple.  Lorsque Radio-Canada doit se présenter
16     pour aller chercher les fonds à Téléfilm, ils vont
17     décider s'ils réservent une certaine somme pour la
18     programmation pour enfants ou pour un téléroman ou une
19     série, et caetera.  C'est dans ces situations-là qu'on
20     voit que finalement la télévision pour enfants est mise
21     en concurrence avec la télévision adulte.
22  8439                 Un autre exemple.  Dans la télévision
23     privée, si vous aviez demandé, par exemple, aux gens de
24     TVA, M. Provencher ou l'autre, quels auraient été les
25     créneaux pour la télévision pour enfants, il ne vous


 1     aurait certainement pas dit 5 h 00 de l'après-midi
 2     parce que, pour générer les profits dont ils ont
 3     besoin, ils aiment mieux placer une émission qui va
 4     aller chercher un auditoire beaucoup plus large, qui
 5     est beaucoup plus rentable économiquement, que
 6     desservir l'auditoire enfants, qui a quand même une
 7     certaine limite.
 8  8440                 Alors c'est dans cet esprit-là que,
 9     en discutant avec les gens de l'industrie, on se rend
10     compte que, ça peut être malgré eux, mais il y a cette
11     concurrence-là entre le bottom line, si on peut dire,
12     une programmation plus générale pour adultes, et celle
13     pour enfants.  Et celle pour enfants, malheureusement,
14     n'a pas beaucoup de poids dans ce genre de discussion.
15  8441                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Qu'est-ce
16     qui changerait cette situation-là, d'après vous?  Est-
17     ce que c'est la même chose pour laquelle vous
18     mentionnez, à la page 18, que la raison pour laquelle
19     il y avait cette chute en 1997, disons, où, par
20     exemple, Radio-Canada avait complètement évacué la
21     programmation pour enfants les matins, que cela
22     s'explique à cause d'une panoplie de facteurs, y inclus
23     les priorités personnelles fixées par les vice-
24     présidents à l'information.  Qu'est-ce que ça veut
25     dire?


 1  8442                 M. CARON:  Je ne visais pas Stéphane
 2     Turcotte à Radio-Canada. C'est un énoncé plus général. 
 3     Mais...
 4  8443                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Oui, je
 5     sais, mais c'est dans cet esprit que je vous demande
 6     est-ce que...
 7  8444                 M. CARON:  C'est-à-dire que si vous
 8     regardez l'analyse qu'on a faite sur dix ans -- prenez
 9     par exemple, TVA -- vous allez voir que ça fluctue
10     beaucoup d'une année à l'autre.  Il y a des fois où il
11     pouvait y avoir dix heures de programmation pour
12     enfants, puis une autre ça pouvait être six, puis une
13     autre, quatre.  Et pourtant, c'était les mêmes
14     conditions, si on peut dire, tout étant égal.  Donc il
15     y avait certains choix qui se faisaient par rapport à
16     prioriser certaines programmations par rapport à
17     d'autres.
18  8445                 Alors ce n'était pas des accusations,
19     mais c'est dans le sens où si, par exemple, Radio-
20     Canada, la programmation jeunesse en général, pas juste
21     celle enfants que nous, on catégorise comme les 2-11
22     ans, pour préciser une question que vous aviez demandée
23     au groupe précédent... si on prend la programmation
24     jeunesse et celle-ci représente, admettons, 22 pour
25     cent de leurs heures de diffusion, on trouve quelque


 1     peu désavantageux pour les émissions pour enfants
 2     qu'ils aillent chercher, admettons, 15 pour cent ou 16
 3     pour cent des budgets Téléfilm pour ce même créneau-là.
 4  8446                 Voyez-vous, il y a un genre
 5     d'incohérence en tant que telle, et c'est à ce niveau-
 6     là que ce commentaire-là je pense est posé.
 7  8447                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Si je
 8     comprends bien, par rapport à ça, vous dites
 9     aujourd'hui... je ne suis pas certaine si je peux
10     trouver, mais certainement dans la présentation écrite,
11     au paragraphe 63 vous abordez cette question en
12     proposant une approche de complémentarité qui fera en
13     sorte que les télédiffuseurs privés pourraient
14     s'attarder à un créneau plus rentable et plus large,
15     tel que les cinémas familiaux télévisés.
16  8448                 Est-ce que vous nous dites que les
17     télédiffuseurs privés n'ont pas une responsabilité
18     envers la programmation pour enfants?  Est-ce que vous
19     nous suggérez qu'on ne devrait pas s'attendre à ce
20     qu'ils prennent un rôle plus important?  C'est une part
21     très importante, parce que vous avez souligné aussi le
22     fait que 25 pour cent ou même 30 pour cent des foyers
23     au Québec n'ont pas accès au câble.
24  8449                 Est-ce que j'ai bien compris que vous
25     pensez que c'est le temps de changer le mandat de la


 1     télévision privée envers les enfants?  Et dans quelle
 2     direction?
 3  8450                 M. CARON:  La question que je pose,
 4     c'est:  Quel rôle doivent jouer les différentes
 5     télévisions?  C'est une question que le CRTC aussi
 6     pose.
 7  8451                 Il y a deux avenues, à mon avis, si
 8     on regarde le marché francophone au Québec.  Si on
 9     parle à la télévision privée, ils vont dire qu'ils
10     n'ont pas suffisamment de revenus au niveau... parce
11     que vous connaissez la loi interdisant la publicité
12     pour les émissions pour enfants, quoiqu'il y a des
13     messages publicitaires, mais mettons ça de côté.  Ils
14     vont dire que ce n'est pas économiquement rentable de
15     faire des émissions pour enfants.
16  8452                 Alors ou bien le CRTC décide que
17     c'est une responsabilité sociale, et si c'est le cas,
18     ce n'est plus la rentabilité économique, parce que par
19     le passé vous avez eu des décisions, par exemple, qui
20     ont dit à des télévisions privées:  "Vous devriez
21     augmenter votre nombre d'heures, vous devriez avoir un
22     nombre d'heures minimal", et caetera.  Si vous regardez
23     la grille de cette année, de l'automne 1998 de TVA, ils
24     ont deux demi-heures d'émissions pour enfants, point.
25  8453                 Alors est-ce que c'est une


 1     responsabilité sociale?  Si oui, si le CRTC le décide,
 2     à ce moment-là il devrait peut-être se plier aux
 3     recommandations qu'on voit du côté des producteurs de
 4     trois heures minimum par semaine de productions pour
 5     enfants.
 6  8454                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Vous êtes
 7     d'accord avec ça.
 8  8455                 M. CARON:  Je ne serais aucunement en
 9     désaccord avec ça parce que le principe de départ est
10     que c'est une contribution sociale.  Comprenez-vous? 
11     Et on n'essaie pas de rendre ça aussi économiquement
12     rentable qu'une production pour adultes.  À ce moment-
13     là, c'est une décision sociale, c'est de dire:  "Vous
14     devez, dans votre mandat de diversité, répondre à tous
15     les auditoires, dont celui pour enfants."
16  8456                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  On ne peut
17     pas dire la même chose pour d'autres programmations qui
18     répondent aux besoins de la population diverse... les
19     femmes, les autochtones?  Je pense que c'est un devoir
20     social aussi.  Alors ça fait partie de la réponse pour
21     toute la télévision.
22  8457                 M. CARON:  Oui, sauf que, que ce soit
23     les préoccupations pour les minorités ou que ce soit
24     les préoccupations pour les femmes ou autres, ça, on
25     peut y répondre par d'autres véhicules.  On peut y


 1     répondre par des documentaires, par des dramatiques,
 2     par tout ça.  Mais lorsqu'on parle de télévision pour
 3     enfants, là on est vraiment dans une catégorie qui est
 4     très particulière, qui est très précise.
 5  8458                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  À la page
 6     26 de la soumission, il y a une liste de programmes. 
 7     Il est intéressant de voir, si j'ai bien compris cette
 8     liste à la page 26, tableau 9, quels sont les
 9     programmes que les enfants regardent.
10  8459                 Je voudrais savoir si vous pouvez
11     nous dire si les enfants regardent les émissions
12     destinées aux enfants, ou est-ce qu'ils regardent
13     plutôt l'autre type de télévision, du type "La Petite
14     Vie", par exemple.
15  8460                 M. CARON:  Si vous voyez,
16     habituellement on fait ce genre de palmarès-là des 20
17     premières émissions, et caetera, et en regardant
18     celles-ci, à la page 26, vous voyez tout ce qui est en
19     caractère foncé, en bold qu'on appelle, ce sont des
20     émissions qui sont spécifiquement destinées aux
21     enfants.  Il y a une majorité, c'est à peu près 60 pour
22     cent de ces émissions-là.
23  8461                 Ça, c'est un peu comme un hit list,
24     mais il faut regarder toutes les heures que les enfants
25     regardent.  Si les enfants regardent 19 heures par


 1     semaine, ça compte juste pour quelques heures en tant
 2     que tel.
 3  8462                 On a fait cette analyse-là, Madame la
 4     Commissaire, et on s'est aperçu que les enfants, s'ils
 5     avaient uniquement les canaux généralistes, il y avait
 6     une émission sur quatre qui leur était spécifiquement
 7     destinée.  Lorsqu'on ajoutait les canaux spécialisés,
 8     là on arrivait à une émission sur deux.  Et ça, dans la
 9     communauté francophone, c'est supérieur à ce qu'on
10     trouve du côté anglophone, par exemple, qui est
11     beaucoup plus des émissions américaines, qui sont plus
12     family, plus vieux.  Mais c'est une bonne base.  Est-ce
13     que c'est suffisant?  Là, c'est une autre question.
14  8463                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Est-ce que
15     vous nous dites que c'est vraiment les services
16     spécialisés qui devraient et qui vont prendre vraiment
17     le leadership en termes de la programmation pour
18     enfants?
19  8464                 M. CARON: Non.  Moi, je pense que si
20     on fait ça, à ce moment-là on exclut 30 pour cent des
21     foyers. Ce serait vraiment... non.
22  8465                 Je pense qu'il faut reconnaître
23     qu'ils occupent un espace très important maintenant. 
24     Teletoon a dépassé Canal Famille, a dépassé Radio-
25     Canada.  Si on regarde l'écoute des émissions pour


 1     enfants, les canaux spécialisés sont venus prendre une
 2     part importante, ce qui n'existait pas il y a trois
 3     ans, il y a quatre ans, il y a cinq ans.  Alors il faut
 4     reconnaître ce rôle-là, leur présence là.
 5  8466                 Mais il faut absolument, dans les
 6     télévisions généralistes, que les Radio-Canada, que les
 7     Télé-Québec, et dans l'esprit que j'ai dit tout à
 8     l'heure les télévisions privées aussi, occupent ce
 9     rôle-là, parce que les télévisions généralistes
10     rejoignent 100 pour cent les foyers.
11  8467                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Je pense
12     que vos soumissions et les soumissions de Cinar/
13     Nelvana parlent d'un cadre réglementaire totalement
14     renouvelé envers la programmation pour enfants.  Est-ce
15     que vous avez des suggestions précises en ces termes-
16     là?
17  8468                 Je remarque que vous en avez fait
18     quelques-unes à la page 5 aujourd'hui.  Pouvez-vous
19     m'expliquer quelles sont ces étapes précises que vous
20     nous recommandez?
21  8469                 M. CARON:  Écoutez, je pense que
22     malgré toute votre bonne volonté... j'ai juste passé la
23     journée aujourd'hui ici et je suis en admiration vis-à-
24     vis votre patience et l'intérêt que vous pouvez mettre
25     sur ces questions-là, mais je pense qu'on est à un


 1     moment propice où le CRTC pourrait convoquer un forum,
 2     pourrait convoquer un groupe de travail qui ne
 3     regarderait que ces questions-là, parce que c'est
 4     beaucoup plus complexe qu'on le pense.  D'une part, il
 5     y a toute la réalité francophone, mais il y a celle
 6     anglophone, où il y a peut-être des ponts qui seraient
 7     semblables mais il y a peut-être aussi des aspects très
 8     distincts, comme M. Lamarre a dit un peu plus tôt.
 9  8470                 Dans ces cadres-là, il faudrait
10     regarder la question des quotas.  On en a fixé pour les
11     télévisions thématiques; comment se fait-il qu'on n'a
12     pas pensé de les fixer pour les généralistes dans le
13     temps?  Parce qu'on se disait que ça va s'équilibrer en
14     tant que tel?  Il y avait cette question-là.
15  8471                 Il y a la question de l'accès aux
16     fonds.
17  8472                 Il y aurait aussi des choses qui ne
18     relèvent pas directement du CRTC mais pour lesquelles
19     le CRTC pourrait influencer le processus, si on
20     pourrait dire, d'une façon incitative.  Et là, ce sont
21     des rapprochements vis-à-vis les différents fonds, vis-
22     à-vis Téléfilm, vis-à-vis les mécanismes d'accès, vis-
23     à-vis définir des pourcentages, parce que beaucoup des
24     politiques c'est de dire:  Ah, le secteur de télévision
25     pour enfants est un secteur qui devrait être considéré. 


 1     Il est sous-représenté, il est ci, il est ça.  Mais on
 2     ne va pas plus loin que ça, et on laisse à Téléfilm et
 3     aux autres de définir les politiques vis-à-vis ça.
 4  8473                 Moi, je pense qu'il faut réunir ce
 5     monde-là autour d'une table et dire:  Là, précisons,
 6     opérationnalisons comment doivent se passer ces choses-
 7     là, pour que pour les producteurs indépendants le
 8     processus soit plus clair, pour les diffuseurs que ce
 9     soit plus clair, et pour les bailleurs de fonds aussi
10     que ce soit plus clair.
11  8474                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Je pense
12     que, en effet, on commence... ce n'est peut-être pas un
13     forum, mais je pense que c'est un moment très
14     important, et la programmation pour enfants est un
15     aspect très, très, très central à nos discussions.
16  8475                 Je pense que l'étude est surtout sur
17     le marché francophone, si je comprends bien.
18  8476                 M. CARON:  C'est sur le marché de
19     Montréal...
20  8477                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  De
21     Montréal?
22  8478                 M. CARON:... mais on a aussi regardé
23     du côté anglophone de Montréal.
24  8479                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Anglophone
25     de Montréal.


 1  8480                 M. CARON:  Oui.
 2  8481                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Est-ce que
 3     l'étude que vous avez faite, ou peut-être d'autres
 4     études... vous dites que les jeunes francophones
 5     regardent de plus en plus la programmation anglophone.
 6  8482                 M. CARON:  Non.
 7  8483                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Ils restent
 8     toujours sur le côté francophone?
 9  8484                 M. CARON:  Oui.
10  8485                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  J'ai vu
11     d'autres études ou commentaires, je pense que c'est
12     l'étude CROP, qu'on a faite ici pour ces audiences, qui
13     indique que ça devient un problème.
14  8486                 M. CARON:  Si vous parlez des enfants
15     de 2-11 ans...
16  8487                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Deux à
17     onze?
18  8488                 M. CARON:  Deux-onze ans... et vous
19     regardez depuis dix ans les parts d'écoute qui vont aux
20     stations anglophones au Québec, les parts d'écoute
21     consacrées par les francophones, c'est toujours
22     inférieur à 10 pour cent.
23  8489                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Pourquoi
24     avez-vous choisi de faire l'étude sur 2 à 11 plutôt que
25     2 à 16, comme les recommandations de Cinar/Nelvana et


 1     de Breakthrough qui touchent ce groupe-là?
 2  8490                 M. CARON:  Il y a deux raisons.  La
 3     première raison, c'est que le secteur jeunesse a
 4     traditionnellement été composé de deux segments, c'est-
 5     à-dire les 2-6 ans et les 7-11 ans.  Ça a été défini de
 6     cette façon-là par l'industrie même.  BBM, si vous
 7     regardez les cotes d'écoute et tout ça, on rapporte
 8     toujours les 2-11 ans.  Et on sait que lorsqu'on arrive
 9     à 12, 13 ans, on tombe dans, finalement, une période
10     différente aussi de pré-adolescence, d'adolescence, qui
11     a peut-être des besoins différents, qui a peut-être
12     moins besoin de balises, si on pourrait dire, que le
13     groupe plus jeune de 2-11 ans.
14  8491                 Donc, on regarde des émissions
15     évidemment des fois comme, je ne sais pas, "Watatatow",
16     ou des émissions comme ça, qui sont plus adolescents,
17     14 ans, 15 ans, mais on les inclut rarement dans nos
18     premières études parce qu'on trouve que ça déforme le
19     portrait un peu.  Je n'ai pas vu vos données sur CROP,
20     mais possiblement que le glissement vers l'écoute
21     anglophone que vous constatez est peut-être un peu plus
22     vieux; c'est peut-être vers du 14, 15 ans qu'on trouve
23     davantage ça, mais chez les 2-11 ans, on croit avoir
24     une bonne lecture de ça.
25  8492                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Ça reste


 1     toujours là.
 2  8493                 Dans vos réflexions et
 3     recommandations, est-ce que vous avez aussi en tête les
 4     enfants qui ont, comme on dit en anglais, des
 5     disabilities, les malentendants, les enfants aveugles,
 6     et caetera?  On a des représentations ici, surtout des
 7     adultes, qui parlent des services et du manque de
 8     services qui leur sont offerts par le monde télévisuel. 
 9     Est-ce que ça fait partie de vos réflexions?
10  8494                 M. CARON:  Je dois vous dire qu'en me
11     préparant un peu pour les audiences ici je m'attendais
12     à ce qu'on me demande la question "Quelle est une
13     émission de qualité?  Qu'est-ce que c'est une bonne
14     émission?"  Et peut-être que la question va venir!
15  8495                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Ça s'en
16     vient, ça.  Ça s'en vient.
17  8496                 M. CARON:  Mais je pense que ça
18     touche le point que vous venez de mentionner, c'est-à-
19     dire que lorsqu'on regarde des émissions pour enfants
20     et on cherche cette qualité-là, on doit se demander
21     quelles sont les valeurs qui sont transmises.  Si on
22     parle de valeurs, ça peut être tolérance vis-à-vis
23     d'autres ethnies, par exemple, ça peut être
24     représentation, justement, de groupes handicapés, et
25     caetera.  Ce sont ces critères-là, je pense, qu'il faut


 1     encourager en tant que tel.
 2  8497                 Lorsqu'on parlait tout à l'heure de
 3     150 pour cent et tout ça, je pense que même en
 4     regardant une reconnaissance de 150 pour cent canadien,
 5     elle ne devrait pas être donnée automatiquement à
 6     n'importe quoi qui a le drapeau dessus.  Je pense
 7     qu'elle devrait être donnée justement pour encourager
 8     ce genre d'émissions-là qui reflète ces genres de
 9     valeurs là, ces genres de diversités là; et, vous savez
10     la réponse comme moi, il n'y en a pas assez
11     présentement.
12  8498                 Je pense qu'il y a quand même un
13     effort, et s'il y a un endroit dans toute la
14     programmation où ça devrait apparaître et avoir ses
15     premiers effets, c'est bien dans la programmation pour
16     enfants.
17  8499                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I am not
18     sure of the term in French, so I will say it in
19     English.  Are you aware if there is descriptive video
20     programming for children?
21  8500                 MR. CARON:  Descriptive video...?
22  8501                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: 
23     Descriptive video programming.
24  8502                 MR. CARON:  I am not sure what -- if
25     we can have the translation.


 1  8503                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: 
 2     Descriptive video is a process by which the blind can
 3     watch television by virtue of the scene and the action
 4     being described to them on a separate track.
 5  8504                 MR. CARON:  I am not aware.
 7  8505                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  J'aimerais
 8     aborder un autre facteur dans la vie des auditoires de
 9     jeunes, 2 à 11, 2 à 16, 2 à 55 peut-être, comme moi!
10  8506                 M. CARON:  On est tous jeunes!
11  8507                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  C'est,
12     comme j'avais demandé au Breakthrough, le monde
13     digital... le monde numérique, je veux dire.
14  8508                 Quelle est l'influence dans vos
15     réflexions de cette nouvelle ère numérique sur le
16     choix, sur la diversité, sur un sujet dans lequel vous
17     êtes impliqué depuis très longtemps, la violence dans
18     les médias, surtout les média destiné aux enfants.
19  8509                 Où on en est là-dedans?  Est-ce que
20     l'ère numérique, c'est un avantage?  Est-ce que c'est
21     quelque chose néfaste?  Est-ce que c'est important? 
22     Qu'est-ce qu'on devrait faire?
23  8510                 M. CARON:  Je pense que c'est une
24     réalité qui approche.  On ne pourra pas vraiment y
25     résister.  Je pense qu'il faut voir quelles sont les


 1     capacités.
 2  8511                 Vous avez posé un peu plus tôt la
 3     question d'Internet, par exemple.  On a fait une petite
 4     étude il y a un an à peu près sur la consultation du
 5     site jeunesse de Radio-Canada.  Radio-Canada a été le
 6     premier à créer un site jeunesse sur l'Internet pour
 7     leurs émissions et tout ça, et on voulait voir un peu
 8     si ça venait, justement, en concurrence avec leurs
 9     émissions ou quel était l'effet de ça.
10  8512                 Dans nos discussions préliminaires...
11     c'est une étude exploratoire, ce n'est pas une très
12     grande étude, mais dans nos discussions on s'est aperçu
13     que ça peut être un allié très utile, c'est-à-dire que,
14     loin de distraire les jeunes de l'écoute des émissions,
15     ça peut les encourager et ça peut les encourager aussi
16     à fouiller davantage.  Je pense, admettons, à une
17     émission comme "Les Débrouillards"; c'est une émission
18     qui a un côté très naturel pour que les enfants aillent
19     consulter l'Internet par après et fouillent des
20     dossiers, et caetera.
21  8513                 Je pense que, de toute façon -- il ne
22     faut pas sous-estimer nos enfants -- s'ils veulent
23     aller sur l'Internet, ils vont y aller, et si on peut
24     les guider de ce côté-là, ça peut devenir
25     complémentaire avec la télévision.


 1  8514                 On ne le réalise pas, mais d'ici dix
 2     ans, la jeune génération déjà regarde la télévision
 3     différemment et elle va la regarder encore très
 4     différemment de comment nous autres, on la perçoit, et
 5     l'Internet va en faire partie, soit comme
 6     complémentaire ou des fois comme compétiteur, mais ça
 7     va faire partie de leur environnement en tant que tel.
 8  8515                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  En effet,
 9     vous avez parlé de la programmation de qualité, mais je
10     vais sauter la programmation de qualité en prenant pour
11     acquis qu'on parle de la programmation canadienne.
12  8516                 M. CARON:  Oui.
13  8517                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Comment
14     définir le contenu canadien?  Qu'est-ce que c'est, un
15     programme de contenu canadien pour les enfants de 2 à
16     11 ans?
17  8518                 M. CARON:  Moi, je pense que c'est
18     permettre aux enfants de se reconnaître dans leur
19     quotidien.  Je pense qu'il y a des valeurs qui sont
20     proprement canadiennes, qui sont différentes des
21     Français ou des Américains ou des Italiens, et caetera,
22     et notre façon de raconter des histoires nous est
23     propre.
24  8519                 Les référants dans notre entourage
25     nous sont aussi propres.  Il y a des thèmes universels;


 1     c'est pour ça que nos émissions traversent bien aussi. 
 2     Qu'un thème soit universel, ça, il n'y a pas à en
 3     douter, mais la façon d'aborder ce thème-là, c'est ce
 4     qui fait que c'est propre à une culture ou à une langue
 5     en tant que telle.
 6  8520                 Où j'ai des regrets, moi, c'est de
 7     voir si peu d'échange entre nos cultures canadiennes,
 8     ou notre culture canadienne à deux facettes, si on
 9     pourrait dire... à multi-facettes certainement, mais
10     certainement il y a le côté français et anglais.  Là,
11     c'est un peu étrange parce que... on le fait un peu en
12     animation, ça semble traverser, ça, mais dans bien
13     d'autres genres on ne semble pas l'exploiter autant
14     qu'on pourrait l'exploiter.
15  8521                 Je me rappelle avoir préparé un
16     rapport pour la Commission Juneau-Herrndorf, qui
17     constatait justement, par exemple juste entre CBC et
18     Radio-Canada, ce peu d'échanges là.  Il y a
19     d'excellents produits, qui traverseraient très bien. 
20     Les enfants résistent beaucoup moins que les adultes à
21     ces genres de transferts là.  Et là, je pense qu'on
22     rate une belle occasion de ce côté-là.
23  8522                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  En résumé
24     alors, Monsieur Caron, je pense que vous nous dites
25     qu'on avait fait du progrès en termes de la


 1     programmation pour enfants mais on peut toujours être
 2     meilleur, on peut aller plus loin.
 3  8523                 M. CARON:  Oui.
 4  8524                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Alors en
 5     résumé, qu'est-ce que le CRTC, d'après vous, devrait
 6     faire en termes d'assurer cette amélioration et ce
 7     progrès?
 8  8525                 M. CARON:  Je pense qu'il faut
 9     regarder ce qui est présentement en vigueur, c'est-à-
10     dire que vous avez des réglementations qui encouragent,
11     qui cautionnent certaines choses plus que d'autres, et
12     il faut maintenant regarder ce que le milieu vous dit
13     aussi, c'est-à-dire qu'il y a des réalités qui ont
14     changé et il faut voir si ces arrimages-là peuvent être
15     plus faciles en tant que tel.
16  8526                 Ce n'est pas parce qu'on est un bon
17     modèle qu'on doit s'asseoir et dire:  Voilà, on n'a
18     rien d'autre chose à faire.  On a cet avantage-là, puis
19     cet avantage-là, on l'a parce que justement on se remet
20     en question.  Se remettre en question, ce n'est pas
21     quelque chose de mauvais.
22  8527                 Je pense qu'en ce moment, on est à un
23     moment propice, avec les nouvelles technologies, la
24     nouvelle situation des canaux spécialisés, et caetera,
25     pour pouvoir repenser à ces encadrements réglementaires


 1     là et ces incitatifs-là, et pouvoir bonifier et rendre
 2     peut-être moins tortueux et complexe cette situation-là
 3     de production et de diffusion d'émissions pour enfants.
 4  8528                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Donc vous
 5     êtes d'accord avec les producteurs de l'APFTQ, qui
 6     recommandent d'inscrire à leur horaire une plus grande
 7     proportion d'émissions pour enfants.  Vous êtes
 8     d'accord?
 9  8529                 M. CARON:  Oui.
10  8530                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Est-ce que
11     vous avez pensé à l'impact que ça peut avoir sur le
12     contenu canadien dans les horaires dans leur totalité? 
13     Est-ce que le résultat va être une diminution du
14     contenu canadien d'autres types si on insiste pour
15     insérer plus de programmation pour enfants?
16  8531                 M. CARON:  Vous savez, ça dépend aux
17     dépens de qui.  Si vous le faites aux dépens des
18     infomercials, il n'y aurait peut-être pas beaucoup de
19     plaintes.
20  8532                 Écoutez, il faut être cohérents.  Par
21     exemple, à Radio-Canada, il y avait un temps où ils
22     avaient une programmation en matinée qui était très
23     présente; je parle de 9 h 00, 10 h 00, 11 h 00 le
24     matin.  Ce n'est plus là.  Il y avait à TVA des
25     émissions entre 4 h 00, 5 h 00, pour les enfants; il


 1     n'y en a plus non plus.  Donc elles ont déjà été
 2     déplacées, les émissions pour enfants.  Peut-être qu'on
 3     leur demande de reprendre la part qui devrait leur
 4     revenir.
 5  8533                 Alors il y a une évolution dans tout
 6     ça, mais je pense que si on a des productions
 7     originales canadiennes qui s'ajoutent, il n'y aura pas
 8     de perte.  Il ne faut pas oublier que c'est un
 9     investissement, les enfants.  C'est aussi une aide à
10     fidéliser à son réseau.  Il y a plein d'avantages,
11     comme je dis, peut-être indirects, mais à long terme
12     qui sont là.
13  8534                 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER:  Merci,
14     Madame le Présidente.
15  8535                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Conseiller Cardozo.
16  8536                 CONSEILLER CARDOZO:  Merci, Madame la
17     Présidente.
18  8537                 J'aimerais savoir si votre groupe a
19     étudié le sujet de la quantité de programmation.  Je
20     voudrais demander s'il serait possible d'avoir une
21     situation avec trop de programmation pour nos enfants? 
22     D'un côté, nous voulons des programmations appropriées,
23     non violentes, éducatives, et caetera, mais de l'autre
24     côté nous voulons des enfants actifs.
25  8538                 M. CARON:  J'aurais deux réponses à


 1     ça.
 2  8539                 La première question, c'est qu'on
 3     peut devenir obsédé avec la quantité d'émissions pour
 4     enfants, vous avez raison.  Quand on dit qu'il y a 230-
 5     quelques heures en tant que tel d'émissions
 6     disponibles, c'est peut-être moins une question de
 7     quantité que de disponibilité aussi, à quel moment
 8     c'est présenté.
 9  8540                 Si les trois heures que vous ajoutez,
10     admettons qu'on ajoute au niveau de la télévision
11     privée, de programmation, ils vont mettre ça le samedi
12     matin contre cinq autres canaux qui programment déjà le
13     samedi matin, vous n'offrez pas beaucoup plus.  C'est
14     pour ça qu'il faut regarder ça de cette façon-là.
15  8541                 Alors la question d'augmenter le
16     nombre d'heures, c'est la question d'augmenter du first
17     run ou quelque chose qui est original et qui est
18     canadien en tant que tel.  Je pense que c'est ce qui
19     prime.
20  8542                 Est-ce qu'on propose trop d'émissions
21     aux enfants?  C'est une bonne question.  Si vous
22     regardez le nombre d'heures qu'ils regardent depuis dix
23     ans, depuis trois ou quatre ans ça s'est stabilisé, du
24     moins au Québec c'est assez stable; mais si vous
25     regardez il y a dix ans, ils regardaient 22 heures


 1     d'émissions par semaine, et aujourd'hui ils en
 2     regardent 19.  Ça fluctue, 19, 20, en tout cas. Donc
 3     ils regardent un peu moins de télévision.
 4  8543                 Alors les enfants sont peut-être
 5     beaucoup plus rusés qu'on le pense et regardent la
 6     télévision dans la mesure où ils veulent la regarder,
 7     mais je ne pense pas que si on augmente le nombre
 8     d'heures vous allez avoir des enfants qui regardent 24,
 9     25 heures de télévision par semaine tout d'un coup. Je
10     ne pense pas que ça va se passer.
11  8544                 De toute façon, dans notre société en
12     ce moment... et je pensais peut-être que la question
13     serait posée pourquoi, finalement, il y a eu une baisse
14     depuis dix ans; c'est que les enfants sont sollicités
15     par plein d'autres activités maintenant.  Ils sont dans
16     des situations, des structures, qui sont très
17     différentes d'il y a 10, 15 ans en tant que tel.
18  8545                 Donc, le 19 heures, 20 heures de
19     télévision qu'ils regardent, malgré l'ajout des
20     Teletoon, des YTV, de tout ça, ça reste à peu près à ce
21     niveau-là.  Je pense qu'ils risquent probablement de
22     rester à peu près à ce niveau-là.
23  8546                 CONSEILLER CARDOZO:  Avez-vous une
24     opinion sur la meilleure quantité par semaine pour un
25     enfant?


 1  8547                 M. CARON:  Non.  Je n'ai pas un
 2     chiffre magique à vous proposer.
 3  8548                 CONSEILLER CARDOZO:  Merci beaucoup.
 4  8549                 Merci, Madame la Présidente.
 5  8550                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci beaucoup,
 6     Monsieur Caron, et nous vous remercions d'avoir
 7     patiemment attendu pour vous présenter devant nous.
 8  8551                 Nous vous souhaitons un bon voyage de
 9     retour.
10  8552                 M. CARON:  Merci.
11  8553                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Madame la
12     Présidente... Madame la Secrétaire; no, I am not giving
13     up my job.
14  8554                 Madam Secretary, would you please
15     invite the next participant.
16                                                        1815
17  8555                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
18  8556                 The next presentation will be made by
19     CINAR Films and NELVANA Limited and I would invite Mrs.
20     Charest and Mr. Hirsh to please come forward.
21  8557                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good evening, Madam
22     Charest, Mr. Hirsh.  Go ahead when you are ready.
24  8558                 MS CHAREST:  Thank you very much.
25  8559                 Bonjour, Madame la Présidente et


 1     membres du Conseil.  It is a pleasure to appear before
 2     you today to present our views.  My name is Micheline
 3     Charest and I am the Co-Chairman and Chief Executive
 4     Officer of CINAR Films.  To my right is Michael Hirsh,
 5     Chief Executive Officer of NELVANA Limited.
 6  8560                 NELVANA, based in Toronto, is one of
 7     the world's leading production, distribution and
 8     merchandising licensing companies specializing in
 9     animation for all ages and CINAR Films Inc., based in
10     Montreal, is an integrated entertainment company
11     involved in the development, production, post-
12     production and worldwide distribution of non-violent
13     quality programming and educational products for
14     children and families.
15  8561                 Madam Chair and Panel Members, we are
16     here to share our vision of where the Canadian
17     broadcasting system should go in the next decade.  Our
18     vision is centred on goals, objectives and policies
19     that recognize a central role for children's
20     programming on television.  Children are Canada's
21     greatest resource and unless we protect and enhance
22     this resource, our country will be diminished.
23  8562                 CINAR and NELVANA believe that the
24     Canadian broadcasting system has a fundamental
25     responsibility to provide high-quality television


 1     programming for children.  This principal is widely
 2     supported by the stakeholders in Canadian broadcasting,
 3     the viewing public and Canadians in general. 
 4     Recognition of this responsibility is not only
 5     important in itself, but also because in this country
 6     there is a need to develop audience loyalty to high-
 7     quality Canadian content.  Familiarizing children with
 8     high-quality Canadian children's programs is an
 9     excellent way to begin developing life-long loyalties
10     to Canadian television.
11  8563                 In our submission of June 30th we
12     demonstrated how television can benefit Canadian
13     society by helping to educate and inform children.  In
14     today's presentation we will address five issues of
15     concern to CINAR and NELVANA regarding children's
16     programs and the Canadian television broadcasting
17     system.
18  8564                 First, the importance of high-quality
19     Canadian children's programming on conventional
20     services; the need for greater Canadian content
21     requirements in the under-represented categories of
22     programming; the extent of broadcasters' leverage in
23     the current Canadian regulatory environment; the impact
24     of vertical integration on independent production; and
25     the role of the Canadian independent production sector


 1     in the broadcasting system.
 2  8565                 Despite the arrival of specialty
 3     services targeting children over the last few years,
 4     there continues to be a lack of high-quality children's
 5     programs on Canadian television, particularly on the
 6     conventional services.  The relative absence of
 7     advertising revenue available for children's
 8     programming is a major contributing factor to this
 9     situation, particularly in Quebec.  As a result,
10     children's programs have become the responsibility of
11     public broadcasters and the specialty services.
12  8566                 However, as the government funding of
13     public broadcasters declines and public broadcasters
14     pursue programming strategies more and more similar to
15     those of the private sector, they are focusing on prime
16     time and reducing their commitment to children's
17     programming, especially high-cost, high-quality
18     programming.  Sorely needed financial resources
19     necessary to achieve excellence are diminishing.
20  8567                 Public sector broadcasters were at
21     one time creative leaders and innovators in children's
22     programming.  Now specialty services are becoming the
23     primary source of children's programming on Canadian
24     television.  There are two problems with this.  First,
25     high-cost, high-quality Canadian programs, particularly


 1     those that embrace educational objectives, may not fit
 2     with the strategic approach of the specialty services.
 3  8568                 Second, specialty services fail to
 4     reach an important part of Canadian viewers.  Twenty-
 5     five per cent of Canadian households still do not have
 6     access to cable television or specialty services and
 7     the new wireless distribution technologies, such as DBS
 8     and MMDS, will not fundamentally change this situation. 
 9     Over-the-air broadcasting remains the primary source of
10     programming for Canadian households.  Children in
11     under-served areas should not be deprived of high-
12     quality television programming because their parents
13     don't subscribe to cable or the other newer
14     distribution technologies.
15  8569                 Madam Chair and Panel Members, a
16     significant presence of Canadian children's programs on
17     all services in Canada would develop audience loyalties
18     to Canadian programs for family and mature audiences in
19     later life.  Contrary to press headlines to the effect
20     that "English Canadians still favour U.S. shows",
21     Canadian children prefer Canadian children's
22     programming whenever it is available.  We believe that
23     a new regulatory environment that enhances the
24     availability of new original children's programs on all
25     television services, especially conventional services,


 1     would bridge the social, cultural and economic
 2     objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
 3  8570                 In the United States, even the
 4     Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, has
 5     conceded the importance of children's programming on
 6     conventional services.  In August 1996, the FCC adopted
 7     rules requiring at least three hours per week of "core
 8     educational programming" on all licensed television
 9     services.  To qualify as core educational programming,
10     a program must be more than of general interest with
11     some incidental educational value.  It must be
12     specifically designed to meet the educational needs of
13     children.
14  8571                 The three-hour weekly requirement has
15     worked in the U.S.  Saturday morning children's
16     programming on ABC and CBS, for example, bears no
17     resemblance to that of three or four years ago and
18     during weekdays the success of Canadian programs, such
19     as "Arthur" and "Magic School Bus" on PBS, has
20     attracted tremendous attention in the U.S media.
21  8572                 MR. HIRSH:  In our vision, the
22     worldwide success of Canadian children's programming is
23     brought home to the benefit of our own kids.  How can
24     this be done?  In the last few years, the licensing of
25     new services, the competition for viewers, the


 1     fragmentation of audiences and the migration of
 2     children's programs to the specialty services has
 3     resulted in lower licence fees for individual programs. 
 4     This has hurt high-quality children's programs.
 5  8573                 CINAR and NELVANA believe that every
 6     television service licensed by the CRTC should be
 7     required to provide three hours per week of high-
 8     quality first-run Canadian children's programs from the
 9     independent production sector in each broadcast year. 
10     Such a requirement would be comparable to the FCC's
11     requirement in the United States and it has also been
12     proposed by the CFTPA, the Directors Guild of Canada,
13     the Writers Guild of Canada and the SARDEC and other
14     producers who have appeared today.
15  8574                 In addition to this, all conventional
16     Canadian television stations should be required by
17     condition of licence to broadcast in the peak viewing
18     hours a minimum average of 10 hours per week of first-
19     run Canadian programming within categories 7, 8 and 9
20     or documentary programming from the independent
21     production sector.  This requirement has also been
22     proposed by the CFTPA and in other submissions.
23  8575                 There is another important issue we
24     wish to address.  The current broadcast regulatory
25     environment in Canada was designed for broadcasters,


 1     not for independent program producers.  This regulatory
 2     environment was already in place before the rise of the
 3     independent production sector in the 1980s.  The tying
 4     of eligibility requirements for government financing,
 5     including tax credits to a Canadian broadcast sale, has
 6     had the effect of making broadcasters the gatekeepers
 7     of the program funding system and added to
 8     broadcasters' enormous leverage.
 9  8576                 More recently, the subjugation of
10     Telefilm Canada's Broadcast Fund to the Canadian
11     Television Fund's Board of Directors has diminished
12     Telefilm's authority and reduced its ability to mediate
13     between producers and broadcasters.  As demonstrated in
14     CINAR and NELVANA's June 30th submission to the
15     Commission, private sector broadcasters are very
16     profitable.  So too are the specialty services that are
17     dedicated to children's programming.  The Canadian
18     television broadcasting system now requires a re-
19     balancing, with more attention paid to the under-
20     represented categories of Canadian programs, such as
21     children's and animation programs.
22  8577                 Throughout the United States, Europe
23     and Canada, the globalization of trade relations and
24     the resulting competition among broadcasters is leading
25     to the concentration of ownership and vertical


 1     integration.  In the U.S. concentration of ownership,
 2     the end of the Financial Syndication Rules, the FINSYN
 3     Rules, and vertical integration has resulted in a
 4     lessening of opportunities for independent producers in
 5     the U.S market and the virtual disappearance of the
 6     U.S. independent television production sector.  The
 7     U.S. experience demonstrates how changes in government
 8     policy can have unforeseen and unintended consequences. 
 9     We do not want this to happen in Canada.
10  8578                 Today the independent production
11     sector continues to thrive only in countries such as
12     Canada and France and, to a lesser extent, in Germany
13     and the United Kingdom, where significant government
14     support is available.  This underlines the need for
15     controls on vertical integration by the broadcast
16     regulator, together with adequate government financing
17     of indigenous production if the independent program
18     production sector is to continue to flourish.
19  8579                 Developments related to
20     globalization, concentration of ownership and vertical
21     integration are now threatening the Canadian program
22     production industry where broadcasters already have
23     tremendous leverage as a result of their role as the
24     gatekeepers of government financing and incentives. 
25     For example, the concentration of ownership of


 1     television broadcast assets or horizontal integration
 2     is proceeding ahead in Canada just as it did in the
 3     United States.  Increased vertical integration
 4     represents a huge new threat to the existing
 5     equilibrium between Canadian program producers and
 6     broadcasters and could be very damaging if not properly
 7     managed.
 8  8580                 The disappearance or weakening of
 9     Canada's independent production sector would not only
10     result in a serious loss of development, production and
11     distribution expertise, it would also create a hiatus
12     in terms of new ideas and concepts.  The independent
13     production sector provides a diversity of voices and
14     contributes to Canada's unique cultural agenda for
15     broadcasting.
16  8581                 Producing television programs in the
17     under-represented categories, particularly high-quality
18     children's and animation programs, is different from
19     broadcasting.  Canadian broadcasters are already the
20     gatekeepers for the airing of independently produced
21     programs.  Now they want to produce and distribute
22     Canadian programs in the under-represented categories
23     themselves, even though their trade association, the
24     CAB, says such programs are non-revenue generating.
25  8582                 CINAR and NELVANA consider this to be


 1     an irreversible trend and have no choice but to live
 2     with the consequences.  If absolutely necessary, the
 3     CRTC could consider allowing Canadian broadcasters to
 4     continue to air programs in the under-represented
 5     categories produced by their affiliated production
 6     companies, subject to Canadian rules comparable to the
 7     FINSYN and other rules governing self-dealing.
 8  8583                 However, we do not agree to Canadian
 9     broadcasters accessing the Canada Production Fund's
10     Equity Investment Program administered by Telefilm. 
11     Instead, negotiations in regard to broadcasters' equity
12     participation in Canadian programs should be more
13     transparent and more in line with practices worldwide,
14     which allow broadcasters to reap the benefits from a
15     legitimate sharing of risk in the financing of
16     independently produced programs.  We recommend the CRTC
17     establish guidelines to this effect.
18  8584                 Madam Chair and Members of the
19     Commission, studies cited by CINAR and NELVANA in our
20     June 30th submission confirm that children can benefit
21     substantially from viewing high-quality programs
22     targeted at their age group.
23                                                        1830
24  8585                 That television has the power to
25     teach is important because nearly all Canadian children


 1     have access to television and spend considerable time
 2     watching it.  Television reaches 99 percent of all
 3     Canadian homes, and children aged 2 to 17 watch, on
 4     average, more than two hours of television each day.
 5  8586                 Over-the-air broadcasting continues
 6     to be an important source of programming for children
 7     and for members of low income families in non-cabled
 8     households, especially children.
 9  8587                 For these reasons, programs in the
10     under-represented categories, and particularly Canadian
11     children's programs, require an increase in
12     conventional broadcast shelf space.
13  8588                 In our vision, Canadian children will
14     have access to high quality, innovative, content-driven
15     programs of relevance to their life experiences.  These
16     will include live action and animation, together with
17     products that combine the best of educational and
18     entertainment values.
19  8589                 Our vision of a new requirement of
20     three hours weekly of children's programs on
21     conventional services contains all of the elements that
22     the Commission seeks:  it is clear and simple; it is
23     measurable; it has been tried elsewhere and worked
24     effectively; and it fulfils the objectives of the
25     Broadcasting Act.


 1  8590                 Wouldn't this be a wonderful gift for
 2     the children of Canada, both francophone and
 3     anglophone, to enjoy as we enter the new millennium
 4     together.
 5  8591                 Madame Chair, this completes our
 6     presentation.  We look forward to answering any
 7     questions you might have.
 8  8592                 Thank you.
 9  8593                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
10  8594                 You support the proposal put forward
11     by the CFTPA.  Some elements I did not find completely
12     clear.
13  8595                 You support the 10 percent of the
14     previous year's revenue as an expenditure on the 13
15     hours.  So, for you, the importance would be 10-13-10.
16  8596                 MR. HIRSH:  Right.  We look at the
17     three as being on top of that.
18  8597                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are focusing
19     more on the three, although it is part of their
20     proposal as well.
21  8598                 In paragraph 3 of your written
22     submission, in the Summary, you say that "a new
23     regulatory environment is required" and that there
24     should be "quality of Canadian children's and animation
25     programs on all Canadian television services".


 1  8599                 You are talking here of conventional
 2     stations.
 3  8600                 MR. HIRSH:  Yes.
 4  8601                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  In paragraph 62,
 5     which is on page 15, you say that one of the reasons
 6     for this proposal would be to:
 7                            "compensate Canadian viewers and
 8                            content providers for the
 9                            horizontal and vertical
10                            integration of the Canadian
11                            television broadcasting system
12                            that has occurred over the last
13                            few years..."
14  8602                 Are you suggesting that only those
15     who are either horizontally or vertically integrated
16     should be subject to this requirement?  Or is the
17     Category 7, 8 and 9 documentaries and children's --
18  8603                 You are just making a general
19     statement that the system has lost something and there
20     should be compensation for it?
21  8604                 MR. HIRSH:  Yes, it is a general
22     statement, and we do believe that it applies to
23     everybody.
24  8605                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You would support
25     the imposition of these requirements for services


 1     making less than $10 million if they are part of a
 2     multi-station group as defined by CFTPA?
 3  8606                 MR. HIRSH:  Yes.
 4  8607                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You feel that this
 5     three-hour minimum is certainly an important way of
 6     getting more quality Canadian children's programming on
 7     television.
 8  8608                 Are there other requirements that
 9     could be used, for example, to encourage the broadcast
10     of children's and animated programs; such as special
11     credits for it, special spending for it?
12  8609                 I notice in paragraph 93 you suggest
13     that there should be specific allocations within the
14     fund for children's programs.  So that would be an
15     additional incentive.
16  8610                 Have you thought of other incentives
17     besides the three hours?
18  8611                 Of course, with respect to the
19     spending, you are not really going to know under this
20     formula how much spending there will be to get quality
21     children's programming on the air, because the
22     broadcaster will be free to spend proportionately more
23     on other categories and still be within the 10-10-10
24     formula or 10-13-10.
25  8612                 MS CHARES:  There are some rules of


 1     the industry right now.  If we are talking about first
 2     run programs --
 3  8613                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes, I would like
 4     you to tell me what you mean by that.
 5  8614                 MS CHARES:  Essentially, first run
 6     programs are programs that are produced with adequate
 7     funding to begin broadcasting on a given network.  It
 8     does not necessarily have to be only one network.  I
 9     think we have to get away from that definition that it
10     was the first run on a specific outlet.  It could be a
11     combination of services that would provide the
12     necessary funding for a program to be made.
13  8615                 What we are really concerned with is
14     about new programming that has to be made to support
15     the quality that we want to see on the broadcasting
16     system in Canada.
17  8616                 Inevitably, for new programming to be
18     made, it has to fit within the economics of the
19     production industry.  Right now, we have some
20     requirements to access other sources of funding in
21     Canada.  In the case of children's programming, it
22     requires that broadcasters contribute 15 percent of the
23     production budget unless you are a regional producer,
24     which then is lowered to 10 percent.
25  8617                 We would not be able to pinpoint how


 1     much money the broadcaster would have to spend.  But it
 2     would have to be commensurate with how much it costs to
 3     create original programming.  And that, again, is a
 4     wide range of numbers.  You can produce excellent
 5     programming at $50,000 per half hour; and other
 6     categories of programming require $300,000 per half
 7     hour.
 8  8618                 The point that you have touched is
 9     the allocation in the funding.  Right now, as Mr. Caron
10     referred to, and as we have experienced, the funding
11     mechanism does not privilege dollars to be allocated
12     for children's programming.
13  8619                 We have seen broadcasters
14     specifically denying producers access to some of that
15     funding.  So we would like to see some allocation of
16     the funding provided by the various discretionary funds
17     to be allocated for children's programs.
18  8620                 Right now, although it technically is
19     available, the broadcaster has the discretionary power
20     to tell the producer that he cannot use it.
21  8621                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  On the spending
22     front, you say at paragraph 114, at page 24 of your
23     written submission, that in the definitions that are in
24     Public Notices of the Commission with regard to
25     eligible expenses, the definition of "eligible


 1     expenses" is too broad and that the Public Notices, or
 2     what they contain, are not being systematically
 3     applied.
 4  8622                 You mean by this when the CRTC
 5     monitors or examines compliance.
 6  8623                 You say, number one, that they are
 7     not systematically applied; and that there are problems
 8     of definition.
 9  8624                 Do you have any particular problems
10     in that area?
11  8625                 MR. HIRSH:  Not that we can recall as
12     we sit here today.  But we would be happy to send you a
13     written response to that question.
14  8626                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You also say in
15     that paragraph that in no circumstance should any
16     contributions from the Licence Fee Program be
17     considered as eligible Canadian programming expenses.
18  8627                 MS CHARES:  That is correct.
19  8628                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is that one of the
20     problems you are focusing on?  Or are there two
21     problems identified in that paragraph?
22  8629                 One would be the Commission's failure
23     to interpret or apply properly its own criteria when
24     examining compliance.  And the other --
25  8630                 Is that something that is occurring


 1     now, that you would want to end?
 2  8631                 MS CHARES:  To the first part of the
 3     paragraph, I cannot answer right now, Madam Chair.
 4  8632                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But you obviously
 5     remember the circumstances.
 6  8633                 MS CHARES:  But with respect to the
 7     second one, I could definitely reiterate that we do not
 8     believe that the licence fees should be considered as
 9     an eligible Canadian programming expense.
10  8634                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So they should not
11     be part of the 10 percent of the previous year's
12     revenues and expenditures.
13  8635                 MS CHARES:  No.
14  8636                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You also, of
15     course, have a problem with the level of the licence
16     fees.
17  8637                 How do you think that can be
18     addressed?  What mechanism, regulatory or otherwise, do
19     you see addressing the level of the licence fees?
20  8638                 MR. HIRSH:  I think there is a norm
21     in the industry, as Ms Chares pointed out, that we look
22     to licence fees that trigger production to be in the 15
23     percent of licence fee category.
24  8639                 Having said that, I think we have to
25     recognize that in the special case of animation, we


 1     have often believed that that percentage is probably
 2     too high, because the cost of animated shows is
 3     significantly greater than the cost of other children's
 4     shows, such as "Dudley", which we saw earlier today.
 5  8640                 The figure has to be related to what
 6     kind of income stream a broadcaster might reasonably
 7     enjoy from the exhibition of the show.
 8  8641                 In the case of animation, I do fee
 9     that 15 percent is too high.
10  8642                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  And in Quebec,
11     presumably anything above zero is too high.
12  8643                 MS CHARES:  The situation in Quebec
13     is completely different.  We only have the public
14     broadcaster, and their contribution to original
15     programming is limited; and insofar as animation, it is
16     non-existent.
17  8644                 In fact, if you want to address the
18     higher cost drama, it has also just about been
19     eliminated from the original programming slate, because
20     the cost must be deemed too high.
21  8645                 At the same time, I don't think our
22     position should be interpreted as a need to look at
23     reducing the contribution from the broadcaster.  We
24     have lived with a systematic decrease of licence fees
25     over the last 15 years.  There is a threshold at which


 1     point the viability of financing is not going to be
 2     achieved.
 3  8646                 So it is a question of balance.  I
 4     think one ought to look at the different categories of
 5     programming and exercise some discretionary decision in
 6     so far as what the level should be.
 7  8647                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  When you support
 8     the 10-13-10 formula --
 9  8648                 That is for English language
10     television of course.
11  8649                 MS CHARES:  Yes.
12  8650                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you have any
13     recommendations to make about children's programming on
14     French language television?
15  8651                 You produce for both markets.
16  8652                 MS CHARES:  Yes, we do.  And I think
17     the situation in Quebec is a pretty sad situation,
18     actually, because we have lost completely and entirely
19     the contribution of the private broadcasters.  The
20     reasoning partially comes from the lack of advertising
21     revenues, but also the mission and the vision of what
22     that programming should be is clearly viewed the way as
23     fragmentation and specialty services have occurred.
24  8653                 I believe that the recommendation
25     that we are making is absolutely viable for the


 1     province of Quebec, and it is a question of will for
 2     the system to spring back to fulfilling a mandate that
 3     it was originally intended to do.
 4  8654                 Children do watch the private
 5     broadcasters in Quebec.  They are just not served by
 6     them.
 7  8655                 That financial contribution that used
 8     to happen before is sorely missed.
 9  8656                 The programming is just not being
10     made in Quebec, and the diversity of programming that
11     we used to received from the public broadcasters and
12     the private is really no longer there.  So the
13     deficiencies are particularly noticeable in that
14     market.
15  8657                 MR. HIRSH:  I think Micheline has
16     made a very important point here; that children are
17     watching broadcasters during children's hours when
18     shows that are not age appropriate, shows that are
19     often inappropriate, are being broadcast for them.
20  8658                 I think that is one of the reasons
21     why it is so important that each broadcaster have this
22     commitment to the children's audience.  It is a chance
23     to put some shows on during children's hours that are
24     specifically designed and are age appropriate.
25  8659                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  In light of the


 1     possible difficulty of getting revenues consistently
 2     from children's programming, do you think that your
 3     proposal that all three hours be provided by the
 4     independent production sector is entirely fair?
 5  8660                 Your proposal is that in both cases,
 6     7, 8 and 9 and documentary programming --
 7  8661                 And although you make the point that
 8     children's programming is included in some of those,
 9     you want an additional three hours.  So that is 13
10     hours per week, but all to be provided by the
11     independent production sector.
12  8662                 Is that absolutely crucial to your
13     proposal, since the aim is to ensure that quality
14     children's programming gets on the air and that it is
15     an area that has inherent financial problems?
16  8663                 MR. HIRSH:  I think we are talking
17     about minimums.  I think that three hours of children's
18     programming in a week, when you think of a seven-day
19     week and a full schedule, should not be considered a
20     maximal amount.
21  8664                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But that is not
22     what you find at the moment.
23  8665                 MR. HIRSH:  That is correct, on every
24     station -- although there are some stations that are in
25     fact performing that function and providing programming


 1     that would qualify as high quality programming.
 2  8666                 I think it is fair to say that we
 3     think these are a minimal.  As we sit here today, and
 4     it is 1998 -- and the end of 1998 approaching us -- I
 5     think there is room for greater Canadian content on
 6     Canadian television.  I think that is the case for
 7     adults as well as for children.
 8  8667                 One of the problems that we face as a
 9     system, when we look at the future when we have to
10     compete as a broadcasting system, with programs coming
11     in from around the world, more sources of programming
12     being available, is that we have to in fact generate a
13     body of work that draws an audience that is Canadian
14     and that appeals to our audience that is Canadian.
15  8668                 Unless we get started and increase
16     the quantum, I don't think we will ever get there.  And
17     I think it is achievable.
18  8669                 In the area of children's, I think it
19     is very safe to say that this is one area where the
20     programming is absolutely as appealing as foreign
21     programming.  Canadian children's shows rate very well
22     on Canadian systems.  They often are in the top ten and
23     often are in the top five on the services that carry
24     these shows.
25  8670                 What we have seen is that we have


 1     proven, as an industry, that we can make shows that are
 2     highly successful.  And now we have to, in looking at
 3     the larger industry, accomplish the same thing in
 4     drama.
 5  8671                 I think if we limit ourselves to too
 6     few hours, we will never get there.  And the reason is
 7     that it is really a question of opportunity.  It is a
 8     question of, using a baseball term, at bats.
 9  8672                 If you look at the American system,
10     they can be very successful because one out of ten
11     shows succeeds, or one out of twenty shows succeeds. 
12     If you are only offering the public ten shows a year,
13     it is going to be hard to ever get to those success
14     moments.
15  8673                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You were here, I
16     think in part, when the TVA panel was here, were you?
17  8674                 MS CHARES:  No.
18  8675                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You know, of
19     course, that one of the controversial aspects of this
20     hearing is the apparent desire of the broadcasters to
21     get into production, and the resistance by the
22     production industry to that -- which is quite total for
23     you.
24  8676                 The TVA panel talked about
25     partenariat and better relationships and alliances, and


 1     so on, that would allow working more closely with the
 2     independent production industry; and together -- in the
 3     same sleeping bag, I understood -- perhaps they would
 4     go knocking on the door or line up in the cold next
 5     time to get funding.
 6  8677                 I see Madame Chares rolling her eyes.
 7  8678                 MS CHARES:  I am sorry I missed the
 8     presentation.
 9  8679                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You don't believe
10     in these partnerships.
11  8680                 We did speak about sleeping bags.  I
12     may be adding a little bit here.  It is late, and we
13     have to wake ourselves up.
14  8681                 You don't believe, obviously, in
15     these.
16  8682                 Are you raising your eyebrows at the
17     vision of the sleeping bag or at the vision of the
18     partnership with the broadcasters rather than a
19     complete denial of the possibility that there would be
20     some changes with regard to this vertical integration
21     between broadcasters and production?
22  8683                 MS CHARES:  Actually, I believe that
23     partnerships are essential to the survival of our
24     industry altogether.
25  8684                 To me, a partnership means that you


 1     are standing on equal footing; and that, together, you
 2     go along to create something that you will both fairly
 3     reap the benefits of.
 4  8685                 I think we stated more than once in
 5     our presentation today that we believe that right now
 6     the broadcasters are the gatekeepers of much of the
 7     funding that is accessible to the independent
 8     production sector in Canada.
 9  8686                 If on top of that we add integration
10     without some very clear and well defined rules as to
11     the extent to which each of the parties can play in the
12     garden of the other one, then I think we run some very
13     serious risk that there will be some real
14     destabilization of the industry.  And I believe that
15     the independent production sector is the one that will
16     suffer.
17                                                        1850
18  8687                 I do believe that it is possible, but
19     it has to be under some very clear understanding.  We
20     have lost some of our leverage to be an equal partner
21     with a broadcaster by the diminishing of our own
22     financial resources that used to be directed for use by
23     the independent production industry.
24  8688                 Right now the licence is the
25     triggering factor for all the benefits that will fall


 1     to the independent producer.  That is a very powerful
 2     tool.  We have to look at it, but very carefully.  We
 3     recommend that there are some guidelines as to what
 4     that partnership cannot be.
 5  8689                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You propose some. 
 6     You state at page 8 of your oral submission that
 7     increased vertical integration represents a huge threat
 8     and could be very damaging if not properly managed.  Do
 9     you suggest that -- are the suggestions or
10     recommendations you make in your proposal, both written
11     and oral, the management that you recommend or do you
12     have other possibilities that are not contained here?
13  8690                 For example, you say that
14     broadcasters should not have access to the equity
15     investment program and that if they want to wear
16     programming that was produced by them or their
17     affiliated companies, it should be governed by what is
18     referred to as the fin/syn rules which are very
19     restrictive.
20  8691                 MR. HIRSH:  Yes.
21  8692                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is that the
22     management you suggest or did you have something else
23     in mind or something that you think that we could do
24     that hasn't been mentioned yet?
25  8693                 MR. HIRSH:  I think, you know, those


 1     particular rules are important.  I think any rules that
 2     govern limiting the percentage of programming that a
 3     broadcaster can do for their own service which, again,
 4     was a rule they had in the United States that worked
 5     quite well and when that rule was eliminated, it
 6     basically, you know, was one of the issues that led to
 7     the demise of the independent production centre.
 8  8694                 If there is any doubt, everybody
 9     should really understand that there is close to zero
10     independent production community left in the United
11     States.  You know, we could find ourselves in the same
12     situation.  It's not a doomsday situation where we have
13     just seen this happen down south.
14  8695                 I think, you know, the ability to
15     demonstrate programming that's on your network and
16     limiting that is very important.  I think limiting of
17     how much a broadcaster can produce for their own system
18     is very important.  Though it's a small fund, the
19     telefilm fund is just one small fund that currently
20     doesn't allow broadcasters to access it for their own
21     purposes, for their own stations.
22  8696                 I think it's important to keep that
23     as a separate fund, but I think these would be three
24     very simple rules that would work for us.
25  8697                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  At the bottom of


 1     page 8 you talk about the role of the independent
 2     production sector, and if I recall, it's growing
 3     disappearance in the United States.
 4  8698                 I just want to relate the sentence at
 5     the bottom to what you have said before:
 6                            "CINAR and NELVANA consider this
 7                            to be an irreversible trend and
 8                            have no choice but to live with
 9                            the consequences."
10  8699                 Do you mean that this depends on the
11     production industry, vertical integration?  What are
12     you addressing there?  It isn't clear to me.  What is
13     an irreversible trend?
14  8700                 MS CHAREST:  It is the vertical
15     integration that is happening on a worldwide basis that
16     is having a tremendous impact on the industry.  It is
17     clearly a path that started about two and a half, three
18     years ago, that did not start to impact the independent
19     production community here until probably this year and
20     will increasingly do so because it is going to curb the
21     ability of our export potential.
22  8701                 Inevitably what you are seeing are
23     larger groups that are producing, distributing and
24     broadcasting not only in their own market but worldwide
25     and occupying a greater portion of air time.


 1  8702                 Inevitably it is curbing the ability
 2     of the independent production sector to produce because
 3     a lot of that ability to access revenues from those
 4     markets or even from those services have been curbed by
 5     broadcasters that are now producing themselves.
 6  8703                 Clearly, if we have any opportunity
 7     to make sure that this trend does not happen in Canada
 8     to the degree that it will wipe off the industry
 9     overnight as it has happened, if you think that three
10     years in the U.S. is not very long, it is quite
11     startling in terms of the impact, I think we owe it to
12     ourselves to look at it very carefully.
13  8704                 At the same time, it is clear to us
14     also that to survive, there will have to be
15     consolidation and concentration of power, if you wish. 
16     I think it would be naive to pretend that producers did
17     not have a need to get into the broadcasting business
18     the same way as the broadcasters are looking to be in
19     the producing business.
20  8705                 The question is how and can we keep a
21     balance that will make sure that that transition is not
22     going to be deadly to either one of the sectors?
23  8706                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Basically what you
24     are saying is it's going to happen, we can't resist it,
25     let's find solutions to manage it and place rules on


 1     it, but you do perceive that there will be greater
 2     integration, that it's inevitable and you would rather
 3     focus on how you contain it rather than say just don't
 4     relax the rules.
 5  8707                 MR. HIRSH:  Yes.
 6  8708                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Which is something
 7     we have heard from a number of parties.
 8  8709                 MS CHAREST:  That's right.
 9  8710                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You feel this is
10     not a wise way of doing it, to just say no completely,
11     it's better to manage it.
12  8711                 MR. HIRSH:  Yes.  I think it would be
13     unrealistic for us to, you know, go against what is a
14     worldwide trend.  It's not just, you know, a North
15     American trend.  It's happening all over the world.  We
16     want Canadian companies that can compete on a worldwide
17     basis because we envision, I guess, a future where
18     Canadian companies, i.e. broadcasters and producers,
19     have to be competitive with fewer national safeguards
20     perhaps because there is more free movement of
21     programming, whether it be through the Internet or
22     through telephony or some other mechanism.
23  8712                 We need a very good strong industry. 
24     What's great right now is we have built a very healthy
25     Canadian production industry.  It's one of the


 1     healthiest in the world.  I think our broadcasters are
 2     getting stronger and more healthy.  We have a, you
 3     know, more rationalized system that we are about to
 4     look at and get into.
 5  8713                 We have built some great specialty
 6     services, but we have to help those services and we
 7     have to help those producers grow and survive and
 8     compete.
 9  8714                 When we talk about competition, it's
10     kind of interesting.  Our competition that we face
11     every day on a worldwide basis are not one billion
12     dollar companies, they are generally not $5 billion
13     companies.  They are companies that are $20 billion to
14     $100 billion in market capitalization.
15  8715                 The size of the competition is
16     enormous.  We have to, I guess, evolve the system over
17     time here that allows Canadian broadcasters and
18     producers to compete in that challenging world.
19  8716                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So it may not be
20     unwise to buy a very large sleeping bag then.  On the
21     one side you make rules.  On the other, it's the same
22     in the radio industry, for example.  Sooner or later
23     people have to learn to make whatever alliances and
24     compromises, I suppose, that can work for both sides of
25     the industry.  So rules on the one side but an attempt


 1     to work at such alliances where possible and shared
 2     risk taking and so on that can be negotiated.
 3  8717                 You state at page 12, which is
 4     paragraph 52, that following paragraphs on the
 5     tremendous leverage that you see enjoyed by the
 6     broadcasters and you think that it's time to rebalance
 7     the Canadian broadcasting system to ensure there are
 8     some limits based on broadcasters' powers and that the
 9     contribution to the system is commensurate with their
10     financial gains resulting from the current regulatory
11     regime.
12  8718                 I imagine that contribution can be
13     required by this 10 per cent spending requirement. 
14     It's not the most difficult.  How do you rebalance
15     their leverage or power?  Are you suggesting that the
16     licence fee no longer be a trigger for accessing funds? 
17     What do you mean by the rebalancing which is not
18     financial?
19  8719                 MR. HIRSH:  We are not suggesting
20     that licence fees be changed, you know, in that way.  I
21     think what we are suggesting are the kind of safeguards
22     we were talking about just a moment ago.  Because of
23     the unbalanced power between producer and broadcaster
24     because broadcaster is gatekeeper, we put a limit on,
25     you know, what percentage of their programming for


 1     their overall service that a broadcaster can provide,
 2     distribution rights, precisely the kinds of things we
 3     just talked about.
 4  8720                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  There is a
 5     paragraph in your presentation that I can't really
 6     understand all that well that I would like you to help
 7     me with.  It's 143 at page 28.  I think it's in more
 8     than one place, but I see it there.  It is related to:
 9                            "-- equity investment by
10                            broadcasters over-and-above
11                            existing levels is acceptable
12                            subject to the conditions of a
13                            universal rule, such as the one
14                            that commonly prevails now: 
15                            broadcasters can take an
16                            ownership position in a
17                            production equivalent to 50% of
18                            the value of their investment
19                            (over-and-above licence fee
20                            requirements) after full
21                            recoupment of their investment."
22  8721                 MR. HIRSH:  Yes.
23  8722                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Can you tell me
24     exactly what this means.
25  8723                 MR. HIRSH:  I think what we are


 1     recognizing here is that some broadcasters want to
 2     invest in programming and believe that that programming
 3     investment is a valuable investment that will generate
 4     returns for them as the program travels around the
 5     world.  It's helpful to the Canadian producer to have
 6     that extra investment.
 7  8724                 What we are laying out, because there
 8     is an imbalance between the power between the two
 9     negotiating parties, there really should be a standard
10     formula.  This formula that is proposed here is in
11     fact, I would say, an industry standard formula that
12     has been used since I started in the business 27 years
13     ago.
14  8725                 The way that it basically works is
15     you are looking to the broadcaster to put in their full
16     licence fee that they would have invested whether they
17     got equity or not.  Then you are looking to them to put
18     in extra equity, if they so desire.  That reward for
19     their equity is just for the extra risk money beyond
20     the licence fee and that number becomes a numerator and
21     the denominator is the budget of the show.
22  8726                 That fraction is then multiplied by
23     50 per cent.  The theory is that 50 per cent of the net
24     profits or net proceeds of the show go to the creative
25     elements, you know, the actors, the talent, the


 1     producers, the underlying rights holders who have
 2     created a property and the other 50 per cent is there
 3     for compensation for the financial investors.
 4  8727                 This is a pretty standard industry
 5     formula.
 6  8728                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  It ensures that the
 7     property remains controlled by the independent
 8     producer.
 9  8729                 MR. HIRSH:  That's correct, but it
10     also ensures that there is a, you know, recognized
11     transparent formula that dictates what is an equitable
12     deal.
13  8730                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  And you would like
14     this practice to be made, especially if there is a
15     relaxation of the participation of broadcasters, to be
16     enshrined as a rule.
17  8731                 MR. HIRSH:  Yes.  I think it's
18     important because what we are facing as independent
19     producers is a situation -- this applies particularly
20     to the small, new independent producer who doesn't have
21     perhaps the negotiating strength of the larger
22     companies and perhaps the experience so they are more
23     vulnerable.  I think it would just be a good safeguard
24     in the system that would be appreciated.
25  8732                 MS CHAREST:  May I add that the


 1     competition for time slots is fierce.  The financial
 2     resources are limited everywhere.  The negotiating
 3     power for that magic licence fee that will trigger the
 4     other source of financing is lopsided very much.
 5  8733                 Unfortunately, the producer does not
 6     have very much as leverage to compete.  The broadcaster
 7     is the single most important factor that will decide if
 8     a production will happen or not and if the funding will
 9     come or not.
10  8734                 What has happened in the past few
11     years is that broadcasters have started accessing
12     equity position, revenue streams, part ownership, and
13     not necessarily commensurate with additional investment
14     that would have been deemed appropriate for the amount
15     of ownership they will end up getting at the end
16     because the producer most likely cannot say no.
17  8735                 Even if the licence fee only
18     represents 15 or 20 per cent, too much financing is
19     triggered by that licence fee.  The loss to the
20     producer means that the show will not happen.  It has
21     been used unfairly at times to access ownership.  One
22     should remember that ownership of the program is the
23     ultimate value to the producer.
24  8736                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  What would be the
25     likely effect on the level of licence fees of making


 1     this a hard and fast rule?
 2  8737                 MS CHAREST:  It shouldn't have any.
 3  8738                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  None at all one way
 4     or the other.
 5  8739                 MS CHAREST:  None at all.  It
 6     shouldn't have any.
 7  8740                 MR. HIRSH:  One thing that I would
 8     just like to add to Micheline's answer is that it's not
 9     the case that many broadcasters are currently abusing
10     this kind of power, but you know, it has happened. We
11     are an industry that it has happened.
12  8741                 We think that this kind of safeguard
13     is more of a future preventative than curing what is
14     now a runaway problem.  It is not in fact a runaway
15     problem.
16  8742                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  They would prevent
17     it from requiring remedy later.
18  8743                 MR. HIRSH:  Yes.
19  8744                 MS CHAREST:  They would establish the
20     parameters at least.
21  8745                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Especially if there
22     is, as you mentioned, an industry practice that is not
23     that far from the rule you propose.
24  8746                 Did either of you have a chance to
25     look at the Canadian Media Guild suggestions with


 1     respect to broadcaster access to production funds?  No? 
 2     Let me see, now that I have gotten into this.
 3  8747                 The first is they propose that
 4     broadcasters, both private and public, be permitted to
 5     access a small percentage of the existing funds, let's
 6     say 10 to 15 per cent, which would be set aside
 7     especially for them instead of relaxing the rules with
 8     some safeguards.
 9  8748                 The second would be to establish a
10     dedicated fund through a levy on what broadcasters
11     spend to purchase foreign programming.  The suggestion
12     is 2 per cent of their cost.
13  8749                 The idea, I guess, would be to have a
14     discreet fund accessible to broadcasters in response to
15     their request for having more access to the funds.  You
16     can have a look at it if you wish and you may want to
17     address it if you file a final, but go ahead if you
18     have a comment.
19  8750                 MR. HIRSH:  All I was going to say
20     was that broadcasters currently can access tax credits,
21     the cable fund.  The only fund that I believe they are
22     restricted from, and it's only in the case where they
23     are producing for their own service, is Telefilm
24     Canada.  Let's remember that's not that big a fund. 
25     That's a reasonably small quantum of money for the


 1     whole system.
 2  8751                 I'm not sure that there is any need
 3     to rectify the current situation where the broadcasters
 4     currently participate on a free basis.
 5  8752                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now, promotional
 6     expenditures were a large part of the CAB's proposal
 7     and the suggestion that promotional expenditures be
 8     considered so important to reaching viewership goals of
 9     Canadian programming, that there should be incentives
10     and that they should be taken into consideration by in
11     part removing them from the definition of advertising
12     and in some other cases simply deregulate the 12
13     minutes.
14  8753                 Some other interveners suggested that
15     promotional expenditures be considered in the spending
16     requirements.  I take it from your proposal that you
17     are against any of that.
18  8754                 MR. HIRSH:  Yes.
19  8755                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Also, a suggestion
20     was made as to this entertainment type programming,
21     that half an hour be considered.  You don't think that
22     incentives have to be provided.
23  8756                 MS CHAREST:  No.  It's the
24     responsibility of the broadcaster to promote its
25     program.


 1  8757                 MR. HIRSH:  We promote our own shows.
 2  8758                 MS CHAREST:  Yes.
 3  8759                 MR. HIRSH:  We are working with
 4     broadcasters today promoting every show that we deliver
 5     to a Canadian broadcasters.
 6  8760                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  They also had
 7     suggestions for what you should be doing in the
 8     promotion area.
 9  8761                 You don't endorse the CAB's position
10     which would match this, counting a promotion as
11     illegible expenditures, that we look at viewership
12     levels as a reference point for measuring success. 
13     Your position is make them put the programming in the
14     proper hours when people are watching and they will
15     need to get audiences.  Therefore, they will spend
16     money on the programming and they will promote it.
17                                                        1910
18  8762                 MS CHAREST:  Correct.
19  8763                 MR. HIRSH:  We are partners in
20     promotion.
21  8764                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  That would be your
22     position?
23  8765                 MS CHAREST:  Correct.
24  8766                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
25     much.  I don't know if my colleagues have questions.


 1  8767                 Commissioner Pennefather?
 2  8768                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Do you not
 3     address on page 16 the definition of a Canadian program
 4     and say it requires revision with regard to children,
 5     particularly animation?  If you could just explain to
 6     me what you mean "a new definition of Canadian
 7     programming".
 8  8769                 MS CHAREST:  It has been talked about
 9     quite extensively today by intervenors.  I think we now
10     have the basis to establish what a Canadian program is
11     under the CRTC and the CAVCO rules.  We also have what
12     I think is a logical recognition of what is
13     identifiably Canadian in a Canadian situation, but also
14     should allow for a Canadian vision of the world in as
15     expanded, as imaginary and as creative a way as we can
16     possibly make it.  It never fails to surprise me how we
17     go through the trouble of looking for definition and
18     trying to limit ourselves.  It is what Canadian
19     individuals wish to translate through the medium in the
20     best of their capacity.
21  8770                 Now, in the case of kids'
22     programming, we talked earlier -- and it was spoken
23     about -- about possibly the lack of diversity of
24     programming.  It is true that with the diminishing
25     resources, we have seen trends where certain kinds of


 1     programming -- where it is not as necessarily tangible
 2     that the programming be Canadian because it has to be
 3     exported and it is only because of these export dollars
 4     that the programming is made.  Thus, it is shying away
 5     from tangibly identifiable Canadian references and
 6     hopefully by accessing three hours of air time for
 7     children's programming, we would see new, more
 8     identifiably Canadian programs emerge because we need
 9     it badly.
10  8771                 We need more Canadian dramas for
11     children that are set in Canada, but it doesn't mean
12     that because an animation series doesn't reflect a
13     Canadian geographical specific place that it is not
14     Canadian.  I think we have to remember that this is a
15     creative endeavour and that the origin of the idea
16     makes the programming as Canadian as the point system
17     in many ways in terms of division.
18  8772                 Also, I would specifically mention
19     that certain kinds of children's programming have to be
20     looked at with different rules because they are made
21     differently, the economics are different and the
22     reality of the position they have in the marketplace is
23     different as well, such as the case for animation.  So,
24     we can't unilaterally have the same definition.  That
25     does not work.


 1  8773                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Do you
 2     have a specific definition for children's programming
 3     and animation that you would bring forward in your
 4     follow-up because it is, as you know, part of our
 5     parallel process.
 6  8774                 MR. HIRSH:  Perhaps we should send it
 7     in as part of a written submission.
 8  8775                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
 9  8776                 MS CHAREST:  Can I just add one
10     thing?  However different a definition may be in terms
11     of drama, variety or animation, there is one common
12     ground that should really be recognized.  It is that
13     the program is owned by Canadians.
14  8777                 MR. HIRSH:  I would support that
15     fully.  I think it's one that we have missed as an
16     industry and it's really the one telling point.
17  8778                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Yes, we
18     heard that this morning.  There are many different
19     discussions around definition, depending on sometimes
20     the purpose of looking at a definition.  Thank you very
21     much.
22  8779                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Counsel?
23  8780                 MR. BLAIS:  Thank you.
24  8781                 The end is near.  I just have four
25     points.  The first one is one of housekeeping.  You


 1     were having a discussion with Mrs. Wylie concerning
 2     paragraph 114 and were saying that you might want to
 3     provide a written answer to that.  Just to clarify, we
 4     would appreciate that by the 15th of October to be put
 5     on the public record.
 6  8782                 On the second point, you mentioned
 7     that following the abolition of the SYNFIN Rules in the
 8     U.S. the independent sector disappeared, which raises
 9     for me a question of definition because my notion of
10     what the independent sector in the U.S. context is a
11     bit different than I have understood it to be in the
12     Canadian context.
13  8783                 I noticed in your written submissions
14     you define "independent sector" in terms of
15     independence from a broadcaster, whereas I have always
16     understood the word "independent" in the U.S. to be
17     independent from the major studios.  So, I was
18     wondering how you were using the phrase "independent
19     sector" when you were saying that it had disappeared.
20  8784                 MR. HIRSH:  I think we would include
21     both independent from major broadcast assets and
22     independent from the major studios.
23  8785                 MR. BLAIS:  So, there are in the
24     States, obviously, some independent producers in the
25     way we define it in Canada that is independent of


 1     broadcasters?
 2  8786                 MR. HIRSH:  That's correct.  The
 3     major studios that don't own networks would qualify.
 4  8787                 MR. BLAIS:  So, perhaps it's the
 5     smaller independent sector that would have disappeared?
 6  8788                 MR. HIRSH:  That's correct.  A good
 7     example is Stephen Cannell's company.  He was a well
 8     known producer of one-hour shows, who could not
 9     function in the environment any more.
10  8789                 MR. BLAIS:  Thank you for that
11     clarification.
12  8790                 The third point relates to this
13     notion of first-run.  As I understand, your point is
14     that the first-run could be on several different
15     Canadian broadcasters, but I am wondering how this
16     could roll out in practice and what safeguards we might
17     envisage because one could imagine that one would have
18     progressive so-called first-run windows on several
19     conventional broadcasters, French and English, and
20     several specialty broadcasters.
21  8791                 I am wondering, if that's
22     theoretically possible.  What does that do to diversity
23     in the system when there have been regulatory
24     incentives created to have that same hour of children's
25     programming getting all these windows?


 1  8792                 MS CHAREST:  The share windows is a
 2     function of economics.  When a broadcaster wants a show
 3     for itself, he pays for it.  So, it's in the case of
 4     not wanting to provide sufficient funding that he looks
 5     to share with another broadcaster and usually is
 6     amenable to share the windows.  So, you could be
 7     looking at defining what's in a certain time frame, for
 8     example, when the first broadcast would have to take
 9     place on all the participating broadcasters.
10  8793                 But we are seeing now with the
11     fragmentation of the market that more broadcasters are
12     actually willing to pay the full licence fee necessary
13     to trigger the funding and keep the program for
14     himself.  But in the event that he would not wish to do
15     that, we should not penalize him because he has to
16     access or the producer would have to access another
17     partnering broadcaster to reach the sufficient licence
18     fee necessary to trigger the funding.
19  8794                 MR. HIRSH:  And some of those
20     windows, by the way, aren't simultaneous windows, but
21     are staggered, so it's first window with one
22     broadcaster and then moving to another broadcaster.  If
23     you look at just some interesting numbers, both
24     "Arthur", which CINAR produces, and "Magic School Bus",
25     which we produce and other shows follow this pattern,


 1     are on many stations at one time in the market and they
 2     are drawing huge audiences in Canada whether they are
 3     on PBS or TVOntario or on Teletoon or CBC
 4     simultaneously.
 5  8795                 What we are seeing is that if some of
 6     these high-quality shows that we would like to see
 7     generated from this initiative are seen by more
 8     Canadian children because they are on several
 9     broadcasters at once, that's not a bad thing, that's a
10     good thing.
11  8796                 MR. BLAIS:  Although you will
12     appreciate that when we look at it, we are looking at
13     it in the context of the Broadcasting Act, which does
14     seem to suggest that we should have diversity.  The
15     same point was made with respect to adult -- I should
16     probably say non-children programming, that one can get
17     second windows.
18  8797                 Could it be that it's less of a
19     concern here because of the fact that children perhaps
20     don't get as tired of seeing the same thing; in other
21     words, it has an entertainment value for the same
22     children to see it in different windows?
23  8798                 MS CHAREST:  But it's not something
24     that we desire to see necessarily the program on three
25     networks.  We would rather get three new original


 1     programs from three different networks.  It's a
 2     function of the lack of financing in this market that
 3     we have to stagger the broadcast pattern and in an
 4     ideal world it would not happen.  But I'm not sure that
 5     preventing it is going to achieve anything because
 6     shows won't be made.  I mean there is a certain minimum
 7     required for certain kinds of programs and there is no
 8     way around it.
 9  8799                 MR. BLAIS:  Thank you for that.
10  8800                 The last question I have is I noticed
11     you were here during Dr. Caron's presentation.  I was
12     wondering if you had some comments to make on it.  For
13     instance, he did suggest that there may be an over-
14     supply in the animation field as far as children's
15     programming.  I'm not sure if you had comments on that
16     particular point or other points he has raised.
17  8801                 MS CHAREST:  I think that there is a
18     lot of animation.  There is not necessarily a lot of
19     Canadian animation.  I mean animation is still the
20     favourite programs of children.  I think it has been
21     proven over and over.  I think that we still face the
22     competition where Americans dump their program at very,
23     very low licence fees in this market and children watch
24     it.  I do totally concur with Mr. Caron that there
25     isn't enough diversity in the marketplace, thus the


 1     necessity of creating some obligations on the
 2     broadcasters, and I believe that that obligation will
 3     foster the variety of programming that we believe the
 4     market deserves.
 5  8802                 But insofar as the success of one
 6     genre, it's not because it's successful that you should
 7     curb it.  What we would like to see is an opportunity
 8     for more Canadian animation, which is very popular, but
 9     not very plentiful because it is so costly.
10  8803                 MR. BLAIS:  Thank you.  Those are my
11     questions.
12  8804                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes, Commissioner
13     Cardozo.
14  8805                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I have one
15     question.  The hour is late, so maybe you can just send
16     this to us in writing.  I am really quite interested in
17     some of the promotion you do for "Magic School Bus" and
18     "Arthur" and I wonder if you could just let us know
19     later the range of things that you do, because I see a
20     range of things like computer games, toys, books and
21     stuff like that.  I think if you compare it to a lot of
22     other kids' programming, it seems to be that that's one
23     of the best ways of promotion.
24  8806                 MS CHAREST:  Sure.
25  8807                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks.


 1  8808                 MR. BLAIS:  Again that would be by
 2     the 15th of October, if you could.  Thank you.
 3  8809                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Rather than
 4     right now.
 5  8810                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Charest, Mr.
 6     Hirsh, thank you very much.  We thank you for patiently
 7     waiting.  The only consolation prize is you don't have
 8     to stay with us for another 24 hours because we are not
 9     sitting until Thursday morning.
10  8811                 MR. HIRSH:  Thank you very much.
11  8812                 MS CHAREST:  Thank you very much.
12  8813                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So, we appreciate
13     your patience.  We knew we would have a long day and we
14     did.
15  8814                 There has been an urgent request for
16     a 10-minute break before we hear the last participant. 
17     So, we will be back here in 10 minutes to hear TVNC.
18     --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1920
19     --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1929
20  8815                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Welcome back.
21  8816                 Madam Secretary, would you please
22     introduce the last presentation of the day, please.
23  8817                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
24  8818                 The next presentation will be made by
25     Television Northern Canada Inc. and I would invite Mr.


 1     Tagalik to start the presentation.
 3  8819                 MR. TAGALIK:  (Native language
 4     greeting).  Thank you.
 5  8820                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good evening.
 6  8821                 MR. TAGALIK:  Good evening.  Madam
 7     Chairperson and Commissioners, I am Abraham Tagalik,
 8     Chairman of Television Northern Canada.  With me today
 9     is Patrick Tourigny, TVNC's Director of Regulatory
10     Affairs.  I wish to commend the Commission for
11     undertaking this timely review of television policy. 
12     It is the first major review in many years and the
13     first since the implementation of the new Broadcasting
14     Act that was proclaimed in June 1991.
15  8822                 I wish to emphasize that we are not
16     here to promote our application for a national
17     aboriginal service.  However, it will be necessary for
18     me to touch on the current state of aboriginal
19     broadcasting in order to illustrate some points we wish
20     to make at this proceeding.
21  8823                 Although Public Notice CRTC 1998-44
22     poses dozens of questions for possible discussion
23     during these proceedings, I will restrict my comments
24     to the following topics that are of most interest to
25     aboriginal broadcasters, producers and journalists: 


 1     One, are aboriginal people well served; two, the role
 2     of public and private stations and networks; three,
 3     balanced programming in news and public affairs; four,
 4     training of aboriginal talent; five, production funds.
 5  8824                 TVNC filed its written comments on
 6     the television policy review not only on behalf of
 7     TVNC's current members, but also on behalf of the
 8     numerous independent aboriginal producers and
 9     journalists we have been in contact with over the past
10     several months.  We have conducted considerable
11     grassroots research into the current state of
12     aboriginal broadcasting and production.  Although much
13     of that information is anecdotal, a number of themes
14     have emerged.  Access to distribution systems is a key
15     concern, fairness and balancing news and public affairs
16     programming is another access to production funds,
17     criteria and size of envelopes is yet another concern.
18  8825                 Access to distribution systems has
19     been an issue ever since native television began over
20     20 years ago.  In the government's 1983 Northern
21     Broadcasting Policy, it was assumed that native
22     broadcasters such as those operating in the Yukon,
23     MacKenzie Delta, Eastern Arctic, Arctic Quebec and
24     Labrador would have "fair access" to northern
25     distribution systems.  In other words, CBC Northern


 1     Service was expected to carry our programs.
 2  8826                 This placed the CBC in a difficult
 3     position as it had its own mandate to fulfil and was
 4     prohibited by head office from pre-empting network
 5     programs.  As a result, native programs often received
 6     inappropriate time slots and were themselves subject to
 7     constant pre-emptions by hockey and other programs
 8     deemed to have greater importance.  It was an untenable
 9     situation that was only resolved when TVNC came into
10     existence.
11  8827                 Finally, in 1991, 13 years after the
12     first northern aboriginal programs were produced,
13     northern aboriginal broadcasters, producers and
14     journalists had their own distribution system.  The
15     initial expectation that "fair access" would take care
16     of itself was recognized as a naive concept.  Southern
17     aboriginal broadcasting has fallen behind the gains
18     made in the north because there has been no federal
19     program to support it.  Producers shop their programs
20     around, but conventional broadcasters show little
21     interest.  More often than not, the images that are
22     shown are negative and stereotypical.
23  8828                 Also, in answer to the Commission's
24     question, "Are aboriginal people well served", I have
25     to report that in most of the north aboriginal people


 1     are reasonably well served, in spite of shrinking
 2     government funds, in that they receive a minimal amount
 3     of programming produced by and for the native people in
 4     the various regions of the north.  However, in southern
 5     Canada there is and has been a resounding void.
 6  8829                 Those rare programs that do include
 7     aboriginal people and themes are most often produced by
 8     non-natives.  To quote one of the respondents in our
 9     focus group research, "'North of 60' is nothing like
10     any reserve I have ever been on."  There is an urgent
11     need for conventional broadcasters to commission
12     programs from aboriginal producers so that Canadians
13     can periodically view Canada through a native prism.
14  8830                 This brings me to our second point: 
15     What is the role of public and private stations in
16     meeting the needs of aboriginal peoples and in
17     reflecting Canada's cultural diversity?  Certainly, it
18     is our view that the Broadcasting Act has placed a
19     requirement on public and private stations and networks
20     to reflect aboriginal cultures to the rest of the
21     country.  When this provision was introduced as part of
22     the Act in 1991, we didn't observe any discernible
23     increase in the recognition by broadcasters of the
24     "special place of aboriginal peoples" within Canadian
25     society.


 1  8831                 Even if TVNC is successful in its
 2     application for a new national aboriginal network, we
 3     believe that public and private stations and networks
 4     still have an obligation to serve the needs of
 5     aboriginal peoples just as they are obligated to
 6     provide closed captions for the hearing impaired.  What
 7     is desperately needed is access to the system by
 8     aboriginal writers and storytellers and by native
 9     producers and directors.  In our discussions with
10     aboriginal producers, we learned that many of them
11     found that they can sell their product abroad, but
12     cannot find air time at home.
13  8832                 It is our hope coming out of this
14     proceeding the Commission will put broadcasters on
15     notice that their performance in the area of serving
16     the needs of aboriginal peoples will be reviewed at the
17     time of licence renewal, transfer of ownership or
18     application for a new licence.
19  8833                 A related matter to the area of
20     serving the needs of aboriginal peoples is the issue of
21     whether television news and public affairs programming
22     is balanced in matters of public concerns.  I was
23     deeply disturbed to learn last week and in the
24     newspaper chain that British Columbia has imposed a
25     strong anti-native bias in its editorial coverage of


 1     the Nisga'a land claim settlement.  Certainly, no
 2     broadcaster to my knowledge has embarked on such an
 3     outward and glaring bias against aboriginal issues. 
 4     However, there is a perception among the aboriginal
 5     population that news coverage of native issues is often
 6     superficial and one-sided.
 7                                                        1940
 8  8834                 What is needed is more in-depth
 9     coverage of aboriginal issues.  More airtime is
10     required to explain why certain events occur.  The
11     historical context is often missing or inadequately
12     explained.  Instead, what we often see is a jaunty and
13     superficial thirty-second clip designed to appeal to
14     base emotions.
15  8835                 What is needed is a deeper
16     understanding of aboriginal issues and a greater
17     respect for native cultures.  Therefore, what is
18     urgently needed is for broadcasters to hire aboriginal
19     journalists to cover aboriginal issues (along with
20     mainstream reporting), so that Canadians can be exposed
21     to news events, and especially aboriginal news events,
22     from a native perspective.
23  8836                 Seeing Canada and the world through
24     aboriginal eyes would, as the saying goes, be an eye
25     opener.


 1  8837                 Now I would like to turn to the issue
 2     of training.  I guess it would be an understatement to
 3     say that there is not an over-abundance of native
 4     journalists working in television in this country.  If
 5     we are to expect broadcasters to hire native
 6     journalists, then we have to produce more of them.
 7  8838                 I believe that broadcasters have a
 8     responsibility to nurture the development of native
 9     journalists, producers, writers and other craft skills. 
10     They should provide in-house training and internship
11     programs, or direct contributions to community colleges
12     and other recognized training institutions.
13  8839                 TVNC recommends that the Commission
14     encourage the major ownership groups and the CBC/Radio-
15     Canada to make specific commitments toward the training
16     of aboriginal persons in the broadcasting field.
17  8840                 Finally, I would like to say a few
18     words about production funds and independent producers. 
19     In its Public Notice, the Commission posed the
20     following question:
21                            "Production funds are currently
22                            available, for the most part,
23                            only to independent producers. 
24                            What would be the impact if
25                            broadcasters, or broadcast-


 1                            controlled production companies,
 2                            were provided with direct access
 3                            to these funds?"
 4  8841                 While we don't have a strongly held
 5     position on this matter, I would only point out that
 6     the funds are already over-subscribed to.  Increasing
 7     the potential competition to a fixed amount of
 8     available dollars would only seem to exacerbate a
 9     system which is already characterized by too many
10     proposals scrambling for too few dollars.
11  8842                 While I am on the subject of
12     production funds, I want to make one final point, just
13     in case anyone from the Department of Canadian Heritage
14     is listening.
15  8843                 Aboriginal producers are pleased that
16     their lobbying efforts have resulted in specific
17     envelopes for native productions:  $1 million in each
18     of the Licence Fee Program and the Equity Investment
19     Program, for a total of $2 million, or 1 percent of the
20     $200 million which Telefilm Canada administers.
21  8844                 According to the 1996 Census, the
22     aboriginal population, as a percentage of the total
23     population, is 2.8 percent.  We would like to see these
24     envelopes increased so as to correspond more closely to
25     our composition in Canadian society.  This would be


 1     consistent with the generally accepted practice of
 2     dividing English and French funds according to
 3     population size.
 4  8845                 Thank you very much for your kind
 5     attention.
 6  8846                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr. 
 7     Tagalik.
 8  8847                 Commissioner McKendry.
 9  8848                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Good evening.
10  8849                 I have many questions that I would
11     like to ask you; but I think as you note, because you
12     have an application before us for a national service, I
13     will only ask you a few questions.
14  8850                 I wanted to explain that, because I
15     did not want you to think that my lack of extensive
16     questioning was a reflection on your submission here
17     today or the value we place on your views.
18  8851                 Let me ask you, first, about a
19     question you ask on page 5 of your submission, and I
20     will quote it.
21  8852                 It says:
22                            "Why haven't the major players
23                            commissioned works from the over
24                            150 independent producers who
25                            ply their trade in Canada?"


 1  8853                 It seems to me that is a question
 2     that is central to your submission, and I am going to
 3     turn the question back on you.  This is something that
 4     you must have thought about and reflected upon.
 5  8854                 What is your answer to that question?
 6  8855                 MR. TAGALIK:  I think so many times
 7     when you discuss aboriginal issues and news events, it
 8     comes down to who controls the network and who decides
 9     what gets on at what time and what kind of angle gets
10     put on to a story.
11  8856                 I think a lot of that has to do with
12     those people in those positions.
13  8857                 Even in Nunavut, when you look at
14     certain things like that, it really reflects on the
15     producers, the directors, the program people.  If you
16     don't have people in there that take the native point
17     or issue, then it just gets sidestepped.  I think a lot
18     of that is part of the problem.
19  8858                 I don't know if I have totally
20     answered your question.
21  8859                 I think it is a matter of will.  Part
22     of it that I mention in here too is the stereotypical
23     issues that relate to coverage of aboriginal events and
24     issues.
25  8860                 It is all in who decides what gets


 1     put on a lot of times.
 2  8861                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Why are there
 3     not more aboriginal people in positions to decide what
 4     gets put on?
 5  8862                 MR. TAGALIK:  Part of it is training;
 6     part of it is the system.  So many times it is hard to
 7     climb, if you are a native person.  There have been a
 8     few success stories.
 9  8863                 But for the most part, when you are a
10     young person either looking for employment or you look
11     to go to a sector and look for a role model, if there
12     are not that many role models in that sector, I think
13     it is very hard to set the seed and get the young
14     people going in that area.
15  8864                 So many times -- I never really feel
16     it personally -- racism is raised.  I think not only
17     natives but ethnic minorities face that same problem.
18  8865                 It comes down to the will and partly
19     also the government not setting the priorities right. 
20     We also don't reflect a huge part of the population
21     that way.
22  8866                 There have been some good people come
23     through.  There are some native journalists that I
24     heard, especially in the Oka crisis, that finally made
25     it through the lines into the camp because they were


 1     aboriginal.
 2  8867                 When you talk about issues like that,
 3     I think these are real fundamental issues that are hard
 4     for aboriginal people.  It is an uphill battle.  It is
 5     tough.  If you have a choice between being a carpenter
 6     or a journalist, a lot of times it is a lot easier to
 7     be a carpenter or a mechanic than to be a journalist
 8     fighting all the way up.
 9  8868                 That is partly to do with it.
10  8869                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  During the
11     Oka crisis, the aboriginal or native journalists that
12     made it through the barriers to enter inside Oka, were
13     they primarily working for native media, aboriginal
14     media --
15  8870                 MR. TAGALIK:  No.  That was through
16     the CBC.
17  8871                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Is there a
18     difference between the reaction aboriginal producers
19     get from the conventional private media and the new
20     specialty channels?  Is there any difference there at
21     all?
22  8872                 MR. TOURIGNY:  No.  In our
23     discussions with --
24  8873                 I think we have been in contact with
25     over 150 independent aboriginal producers.  When we


 1     started this, we had no idea that there were that many. 
 2     We are quite amazed that they are.  But they are all
 3     very small operations, for the most part.
 4  8874                 The economics of television mean that
 5     if you do have a program with aboriginal themes --
 6     "North of 60" has been mentioned, and there are other
 7     programs -- they are designed for the broader audience.
 8  8875                 There has been some good intentioned
 9     progress over the last ten years.  But they are just
10     scratching the surface.
11  8876                 A lot of these programs are written
12     by non-aboriginals.  Again, they mean well, but it is
13     hard to avoid stereotypes even though you mean well.
14  8877                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  One thing
15     that struck me, when I read your submission and thought
16     about it, is that aboriginal visual art has found its
17     way into non-aboriginal society.  It seems to me that
18     that is evidence of interest in non-aboriginal society
19     and aboriginal culture, because much of the art is
20     rooted in aboriginal tradition and themes that are
21     particularly relevant to aboriginal people.
22  8878                 The question that came out of that --
23     which goes back to the discussion that we have already
24     had -- is:  What has happened to TV?  Why hasn't the
25     same thing happened in television?


 1  8879                 I don't know whether you want to
 2     comment on that, or whether you have anything to add to
 3     what you have already said to us.
 4  8880                 MR. TAGALIK:  I think a lot of that
 5     would relate to our application.
 6  8881                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Then we
 7     should not enter into that discussion.
 8  8882                 You go on to note that many
 9     aboriginal producers have found that they can sell
10     their work abroad.
11  8883                 What is it in the international
12     market that brings that about?
13  8884                 MR. TOURIGNY:  I think it is what you
14     just said about the art market.  There is a curiosity.
15     There is a recognition that there is something unique
16     here, a different perspective, and an opportunity in
17     Australia, Europe, different parts of the world, to
18     show an interest in aboriginal film and television
19     production.
20  8885                 It is a shame that that same interest
21     has not shown up in Canada.  The economics of
22     television is such that if something is going to get a
23     prime slot on a major network, it has --
24  8886                 They use the formulas that have
25     proven themselves over the years.  The aboriginal


 1     programs have not had a chance to get out there and
 2     test the waters to see what level of interest there
 3     would be.  It would be a tremendous gamble on the part
 4     of broadcasters.
 5  8887                 Yet in 1991, when this new provision
 6     was put in what was stilled called the new Broadcasting
 7     Act that the broadcasting system should reflect the
 8     special place of aboriginal peoples within Canadian
 9     society, there was no discernible difference.  It was
10     not a wake-up call.
11  8888                 We are here today to say that maybe
12     as part of this proceeding, that one element in the Act
13     can be re-emphasized and broadcasters taken to task.
14  8889                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I take it
15     that licence renewal time for broadcasters is when you
16     would like us to take them to task, if that is the
17     appropriate thing to do under the circumstances?
18  8890                 MR. TOURIGNY:  Sure.
19  8891                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Have you
20     intervened in previous licence renewal proceedings?
21  8892                 MR. TAGALIK:  What I have noticed is
22     that at times of licence renewal, they tend to prop
23     things up a bit higher.
24  8893                 We have never stopped going to the
25     companies, and we have never stopped pressing the


 1     issue.  I think we have sort of become the aboriginal
 2     voice in the broadcast industry.  Every chance we get
 3     to intervene or to make a few comments, we do that. 
 4     And we will continue to do that.
 5  8894                 But I still say that there is not
 6     enough commitment so many times for aboriginal
 7     producers in general.  It is a lot of work to get that
 8     commitment either from a company or from a broadcast
 9     corporation as such.
10  8895                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  We have had
11     some presentations today about children's programming,
12     and I noticed that you were here for much of that.
13  8896                 Is children's programming and
14     conventional broadcasting experiencing the same
15     problems that you have described for us about
16     conventional broadcasting in general?  Or is there
17     anything unique about children's programming that you
18     see today, from your perspective?
19  8897                 MR. TAGALIK:  One of the differences
20     we have in children's programming is trying to set a
21     base based on culture; telling the kids who they are.
22  8898                 If you ask me what a Canadian is, I
23     would have a hard time telling you.  But if you ask me
24     what an Inuuk is or an Eskimo, I can really relate that
25     easier to a child than trying to get them to recognize


 1     the Canadian identity, maybe other than hockey or that
 2     kind of thing.
 3  8899                 When we look at programming for
 4     children, we look at the cultural aspect living within
 5     our environment.  It is not the same things you have in
 6     the south.  But in the aboriginal community in general,
 7     our young people have lost a sense of who they are, and
 8     that is a very serious base to erode.  That makes them
 9     wonder:  Are they native?  Are they Canadian?  They
10     don't at times know where they stand.
11  8900                 I think that is part of the mandate
12     that we have been given as TVNC, and hopefully with
13     APT.  We can also look at that and deal with that
14     issue.
15  8901                 My boy, who is 3 years old, also
16     loves to watch television.  Some of the programs that
17     were mentioned today he totally enjoys:  "Arthur" and
18     the "Magic School Bus".  He knows all those characters. 
19     There is not enough programming in Inuktituk for him.
20  8902                 I think as part of the funding issue
21     and the commitment to aboriginal programming, somewhere
22     there has to be the right balance.
23  8903                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Earlier this
24     year I was in Iqaluit, and I watched television when I
25     was there.  I guess I was struck by the contrast in


 1     what I was seeing on television.
 2  8904                 On one hand, I was seeing Detroit car
 3     dealerships, and on the other hand there was the
 4     service you provide.
 5  8905                 In northern Canada, is there a
 6     balance that adequately addresses the kinds of concerns
 7     that you would like to see addressed?
 8  8906                 MR. TAGALIK:  I think it does not go
 9     as far as we would like.  If you watch television being
10     introduced to the north, especially in Iglulik in the
11     mid-1970s, the only reason they allowed TV to come in
12     was if they could produce some from their own point of
13     view.  I think that was based on children and cultural
14     programming.
15  8907                 As we mentioned in our presentation,
16     there are not government funds.  We have the network
17     and we are cut.  All our producers, our members are
18     just scraping by to get one or two hours a week, or
19     even half an hour a week.  And that certainly does not
20     come close to meeting what is needed or what they would
21     like to do, not only in children's programming but in
22     all the other parts of the spectrum.
23  8908                 Part of it is there, but it is
24     definitely not adequate.
25                                                        2000


 1  8909                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I wanted to
 2     ask you about television news.  You made the comment
 3     about the chain of newspapers in British Columbia where
 4     the owner and the publishers directed a particular
 5     editorial stance with respect to the Nisga land claim
 6     settlement there.
 7  8910                 I just wanted to get some sense of
 8     whether you felt -- I detected in your comments that
 9     you felt TV news was more balanced that print news is,
10     generally speaking, when it comes to aboriginal issues
11     or am I reading too much into what you are saying?
12  8911                 MR. TOURIGNY:  If I could just say
13     something here.  Broadcasters are regulated and
14     newspapers aren't, so there's a big difference there. 
15     I mean, even the Broadcast Standards Council would, I
16     am sure, censure that type of activity and the RNTDA
17     and these different associations wouldn't allow that in
18     the broadcast media and yet it's perfectly all right
19     for this gentleman who has almost a monopoly.  I think
20     he has 60-odd community newspapers in British Columbia
21     to take that position and then defend it on "As It
22     Happens".
23  8912                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Let me just
24     end up by discussing with you a minute another
25     important aspect of your submission, the training of


 1     aboriginal journalists.
 2  8913                 In your view, is that best done on
 3     the job or is that something that journalism schools
 4     need to address?
 5  8914                 MR. TAGALIK:  I think it's a bit of
 6     both.  What I went through, I never went to journalism
 7     school, but I started off with the CBC doing Inuktituk
 8     programming.  What you learn on the job, I think a lot
 9     of times it can really help.  I think some of the
10     things we have done pushed companies to take an
11     aboriginal person and put them in the studio, put them
12     behind the camera, put them in the switching room where
13     things are happening, you know, and have them follow
14     along with a Director.
15  8915                 I do see the importance of a
16     journalism school and going through that academic route
17     to enhance their journalism skills.  I think that can
18     only help.  I don't know if you wanted to add anything
19     on that one.
20  8916                 They have to be given the
21     opportunity.
22  8917                 MR. TOURIGNY:  I think Abe is living
23     proof of the opportunity.  He got his start in CBC and
24     then went to Inuit Broadcasting and worked his way up
25     through the ranks there and is now chairing the


 1     Northern Aboriginal Network.  It shows that, you know
 2     -- where did you start, in radio in or in television?
 3  8918                 MR. TAGALIK:  Radio, yes.
 4  8919                 MR. TOURIGNY:  There's a lot of
 5     activity up there.  We commend CBC on the radio side. 
 6     They are doing an awful lot.
 7  8920                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you
 8     very much for answering my questions.
 9  8921                 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
10  8922                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
11     Pennefather.
12  8923                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
13  8924                 Actually, Commissioner McKendry asked
14     the main question I was going to ask you just now in
15     looking at the most desirable way of gaining
16     experience, training, development in all the skills you
17     were talking about which would be preferable.  You
18     mention on the job and/or contributions to
19     institutions.
20  8925                 In my experience at the NFB, both
21     were absolutely necessary, but certainly actual work
22     was perhaps more important.
23  8926                 MR. TAGALIK:  Yes.
24  8927                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  We talked
25     about news and journalism.  Do you feel the same


 1     necessity in terms of other kinds of production
 2     experience such as documentary programming?  Do you
 3     have any other suggestions as to what would be the best
 4     way to assure not only training, but exposure to the
 5     system of who is out there as aboriginal producers
 6     already to go?
 7  8928                 I don't want to make the assumption
 8     there is no one ready to go.  There is, but they are
 9     not getting into the system.
10  8929                 MR. TAGALIK:  What I find as
11     aboriginal people, whether it be Inuit or an Indian, is
12     that we have an oral society.  We never had a writing
13     system.  I think the story ideas and the stories are
14     there.  I think that when you have the message there,
15     part of your work is already done.  It's just the
16     mechanics of making it happen.
17  8930                 What I mentioned earlier, in house as
18     well as journalism, but for the other sectors, I think
19     there has to be more -- you have to look at it per
20     industry and see what you can do.
21  8931                 I think the Banff Centre for the Arts
22     has a really good program.  You know, we have had some
23     producers go through from the different organizations
24     within TVNC.  That's a good way to do it.  Scholarship
25     funds.  On the job training, I think that that's so


 1     very, very crucial.
 2  8932                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Just a
 3     quick question.  Were you at the Canada Council
 4     gathering of aboriginal artists?
 5  8933                 MR. TAGALIK:  At the House here in
 6     the springtime?
 7  8934                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  No.  There
 8     was one just this week --
 9  8935                 MR. TAGALIK:  No.
10  8936                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  --
11     bringing in aboriginal people from around the world
12     more in terms of what Commissioner McKendry was
13     mentioning, the visual arts, but theatre.  I was
14     wondering if there was a discussion around that.
15  8937                 MR. TOURIGNY:  Some of our associates
16     were there, some of the people -- I don't want to get
17     into APTN, but some from the advisory group were there,
18     so we know people who were there and what was going on. 
19     I think one of our staff people was there as well.
20  8938                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
21  8939                 MR. TAGALIK:  Thank you.
22  8940                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
23     Cardozo.
24  8941                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
25     Madam Chair.


 1  8942                 Commissioner McKendry asked all the
 2     questions that I had in preparing for today, but a
 3     couple of other things pop out after looking at your
 4     oral submission.
 5  8943                 I thought it was -- I will try not to
 6     be too biased -- refreshing here that you mention at
 7     the top of page 5 that even though you have TVNC and
 8     have the application for APTN that you would still like
 9     to see the other broadcasters do their bit to reflect
10     aboriginal issues and peoples, which was unlike a
11     comment I got in response to another broadcaster
12     earlier today who was doing ethnic broadcasting.  She
13     felt that if the other broadcasters did too much, there
14     wouldn't be much need for her service.
15  8944                 Are you aware of any reporters on the
16     national scene among the national networks or national
17     station groups who are aboriginal?  I can think of
18     perhaps Waterloo people at local levels, but are there
19     any reporting on national issues?
20  8945                 MR. TAGALIK:  Not currently.
21  8946                 MR. TOURIGNY:  I think Geoff Barry
22     used to stuff for the National, but now he is with one
23     of the new Vancouver stations, the new Vancouver
24     station.
25  8947                 MR. TAGALIK:  The ones I remember was


 1     like Brian Merrico, more from the radio side.  I think
 2     there was also Ian Morriseau, I think that's his name.
 3  8948                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Are you aware
 4     of the program that I think existed, I don't think it
 5     still exists, at the University of Western Ontario at
 6     the journalism school during Peter Debra's time.  He
 7     had a program that focused specifically on aboriginal
 8     students.
 9  8949                 I remember him saying a couple of
10     years ago that they hadn't a lot of students.  They
11     were very successful, they did well, they graduated,
12     but most of them, if not all, didn't end up in the main
13     networks, but did end up in the aboriginal broadcasting
14     companies, so it enriched the aboriginal broadcasting
15     scene but didn't do anything for the main stream
16     broadcasters, which leaves the question you can train
17     them, but will they get hired?
18  8950                 MR. TOURIGNY:  Go back to licence
19     renewal time and the type of review you have with
20     broadcasters.  You review employment equity.  You
21     review the closed captioning.  You have got the whole
22     check list that you go through.
23  8951                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Yes.
24  8952                 MR. TOURIGNY:  All we are saying is
25     add this little extra box.


 1  8953                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay.  That's
 2     my last question specifically.  What is it you would
 3     want us to be asking at the time of licence renewal,
 4     transfer of ownership application for a new licence? 
 5     Is it the points that you have laid out on pages, I
 6     believe, 1 and 2 or perhaps more in the three pages at
 7     the top of page 2, balance programming, training of
 8     aboriginal talent, production funds.
 9  8954                 MR. TOURIGNY:  Yes.  In terms of
10     employment equity, you say Western was producing
11     journalists, and it's true, but they weren't finding
12     their way into the main stream, certainly on a national
13     basis, because that was another question, how many are
14     operating on a national basis.  I don't know of any at
15     the moment.
16  8955                 You review with the major players,
17     the major ownership groups and CBC as to where's that
18     presence, you know, have you acquired any independently
19     produced aboriginal programming, if not why not.  You
20     know, who fills your newsroom.  You look at the
21     questions you ask on employment equity and say you
22     know, there are schools turning out journalists, where
23     are they going?  Why aren't they getting into the main
24     stream?
25  8956                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay. 


 1     Specifically you are saying employment overall,
 2     programming or reflection in programming and reflection
 3     in newsrooms.
 4  8957                 MR. TOURIGNY:  Yes.
 5  8958                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And then from
 6     page 2 I see, I guess it's sort of hard to ask about
 7     balance and news at that point.
 8  8959                 I guess what I'm asking you is we
 9     could, if we decided to go on this route, ask each
10     licensee are you doing your aboriginal thing and they
11     will say yes or no.  Rather than have something like
12     that, I wonder if you could give some thought to any
13     specific points such as the ones that we just talked
14     about that we could ask them and perhaps get back to
15     us.
16  8960                 MR. TAGALIK:  We can do that, yes.
17  8961                 MR. TOURIGNY:  By October 15, so says
18     the counsel.
19  8962                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  That covers my
20     questions, Madam Chair.
21  8963                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  And it covers
22     counsel's admonitions as to what ought to be done.
23  8964                 That ends the day.  We are most
24     grateful for you having waited so long.  Hopefully it
25     has been somewhat helpful to you as well so you don't


 1     have to stay tomorrow.
 2  8965                 MR. TAGALIK:  I have one more
 3     comment.
 4  8966                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.
 5  8967                 MR. TAGALIK:  You have all the flags
 6     here.  There will be a new one come April 1.  We are
 7     quite excited about that.
 8  8968                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.  You should
 9     be.  We will have another one.  We will have to get rid
10     of one Commissioner and replace it with a flag.  I'm
11     really glad I'm chairing this panel so I can make the
12     rules.
13  8969                 It has been a pleasure to have you
14     with us, Mr. Tagalik and Mr. Tourigny as well.  We have
15     to shake our heads to wonder what are you doing there. 
16     You should be on the other side.
17  8970                 Good evening to you both.
18  8971                 We will resume at nine o'clock
19     Thursday morning.  Nous reprendrons à 09 h 00 jeudi
20     matin.
21     --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2010,
22         to resume on Thursday, October 1, 1998,
23         at 0900 / L'audience est ajournée à 2010,
24         pour reprendre le merdredi 1er octobre 1998
25         à 0900
Date modified: