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This page has been archived on the Web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)

October 1, 1998         1er octobre 1998

                           Volume  7
tel: 613-521-0703          StenoTran          fax: 613-521-7668



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
membr5es 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)

October 1, 1998         1er octobre 1998

                           Volume  7



Presentation by / Présentation par:

Trinity Television Inc.                                   1929

PIAC, Public Interest Advocacy Centre/le Centre           1966
pour la défense de l'intérêt public representing/
représentant the National Anti-poverty
Organization (NAPO), la Fédération nationale des
associations de consommateurs du Québec (FNACQ),
One Voice, The Canadian Seniors Network and
Rural Dignity of Canada

Astral Communications inc.                                2012

Le Groupe Coscient inc.                                   2108

CAFDE, Canadian Association of Film Distributors          2164
and Exporters/ACDEF, Association canadienne des
distributeurs et exportateurs de films

DGC,  Directors Guild of Canada/GCR, La guilde            2197
canadienne des réalisateurs

SPACQ, Société professionnelle des auteurs et des         2247
compositeurs du Québec



 1                                Hull, Quebec / Hull (Québec)
 2     --- Upon resuming on Thursday, October 1, 1998
 3         at 0900 / L'audience reprend le jeudi
 4         1er octobre 1998, à 0900
 5  8972                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning to
 6     all.
 7  8973                 If this were New York City the TV
 8     screens would have said the temperature is such and
 9     it's a bad hair day.  We don't have that in Canada yet. 
10     We haven't had any recommendations to that effect, but
11     it is bizarre.  They do do that.
12  8974                 Madam Secretary, good morning.  Will
13     you please call the next participant.
14  8975                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
15  8976                 The first presentation will be by
16     Trinity Television Incorporated.  Mr. Thiessen.
17  8977                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning.
18  8978                 MR. THIESSEN:  Good morning, Madam
19     Chair.
20  8979                 I don't have a problem with a bad
21     hair day.  I dealt with that issue.
22  8980                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Lucky you.  You
23     just want a bit of sympathy.
25  8981                 MR. THIESSEN:  You have mine.  My car


 1     fogged up so badly coming into the parking lot that I
 2     couldn't see.
 3  8982                 Commissioners, I thank you for the
 4     opportunity to once again appear before you.  I am
 5     Willard Thiessen and I am here today as the President
 6     of Trinity Television Incorporated.  We produce a range
 7     of Christian television programs that include a
 8     nationally broadcast daily Christian talk show of some
 9     22 years running, an award winning, internationally
10     broadcast children's program with over 100 episodes,
11     and a brand new, Manitoban, interactive talk TV show. 
12     As you are well aware, we are also a persistent
13     applicant for a single faith owned broadcast licence,
14     most recently having applied in the Toronto market.
15  8983                 Because of our past and present
16     interest in broadcasting and because of our work in the
17     field of religious and specifically Christian
18     programming, Trinity is able to offer a perspective
19     somewhat unique to these hearings and I sincerely thank
20     you for extending us a personal invitation to be a
21     voice in this hearing.  You may refer to our written
22     submission for a more specific listing of our
23     recommendations, but today I have come to talk about
24     three points that are of utmost concern to us as a
25     religious program producer and we believe to you as the


 1     regulators of such programming.
 2  8984                 My first point is that Canadians have
 3     a measurable thirst for Christian programming that the
 4     Commission has only begun to satisfy.
 5  8985                 Secondly, Canadian content in
 6     religious programming is desirable and needed and our
 7     broadcasting system must deliberately foster its
 8     production.
 9  8986                 Third, I seek clarity on the nature
10     of applying for religious broadcasting licences.
11  8987                 But, in order for me to truly
12     communicate to you about these issues, it is necessary
13     that I first explain to you my understanding of
14     Christian programming, what it is, and to reconcile
15     this with the Commission's own definition of religious
16     programming.
17  8988                 I see that religion really has two
18     facets:  The first facet being the place, time, the
19     people that are part of where we express our formal
20     worship, teach and indoctrinate, and interrelate.  This
21     may be a church, a synagogue, a temple, a quiet place,
22     a hall or even a home.
23  8989                 Secondly, a second face, the way in
24     which faith is expressed throughout the life of the
25     person.  This will include her/his interaction with


 1     people, motivations, the responses to life situations
 2     and our goals.
 3  8990                 Traditionally, religious television
 4     has been related to the first area, the formal
 5     religious ceremony.  But we would like to contend that
 6     a faith expression will affect all areas of life. 
 7     Therefore, faith television programs should include all
 8     the aspects of that second facet, the complete genres
 9     of drama, variety, music, comedy, news, debate and
10     interaction, hospitality, sports, youth, et cetera. 
11     Perspectives on educational issues, medical
12     breakthroughs, science and technology, the arts and
13     entertainment, all have religious implications, and are
14     grippingly interesting to viewers.
15  8991                 People of faith express their beliefs
16     by how they choose to live.  While the Commission has
17     captured this truth in their guiding definition of
18     "religious," namely, "Anything directly relating to,
19     inspired by, or arising from an individual's
20     relationship to divinity, including related morale or
21     ethnical issues," the implementation of the policy has
22     become one dimensional due to the religious program
23     category "040'.  The rigidity of this category
24     radically limits programs to church related content,
25     the first facet above, which is only part of the whole. 


 1     The simple solution might be to expand the "Religious"
 2     program category into subcategories which reflect a
 3     range of genres that would allow us to more accurately
 4     describe our programs.
 5  8992                 If this recategorization does not
 6     take place, not only as a regulatory process but more
 7     importantly, philosophically, people of faith will
 8     continue to be limited to working in the church context
 9     and that is the opposite of what we at Trinity
10     Television are all about.  The honest truth is, the
11     Christian life is one that is engaged in a process of
12     renewal by Christ, and the beliefs and values of such a
13     life are made real as the renewing takes place
14     throughout the whole of that person's life.
15  8993                 Christian television is part of the
16     process of renewal.  It encompasses the whole of life,
17     and at its root, is good, healthy and sound
18     programming.  It is programming that is in line with
19     God given paradigms of communication and
20     interrelationship.  It has a loving and free view of
21     reality and of that which is good and true.  It is
22     about the church, but it is also about the world
23     outside the church, for God created them both and all
24     of creation is in need of renewal.  I am speaking as a
25     Christian in this, but I believe that at the heart of


 1     this I also speak for numerous other faith groups.
 2  8994                 Just an aside, I have spoken to some
 3     of my Hindu and Muslim friends in Toronto as we worked
 4     on the Toronto application and they expressed
 5     considerable interest in that very same area.  We were
 6     talking and we had a tremendous interrelationship, one
 7     another, as to where we were concerned about the
 8     opportunity for broadcasting our desire to speak into
 9     these various areas.
10  8995                 Now, if you are tempted to question
11     the truth or relevance of these ideas, I would
12     encourage you to look again at the study prepared by
13     COMPAS for CTV in June of 1998.  When asked the
14     open-ended question, "What is the most important issue
15     in television programming?" 31 per cent of people said
16     that "The lack of morals and amount of violence on
17     television" was the single most important issue in
18     television programming today.  This is compared to the
19     second highest consensus of 22 per cent who felt
20     quality was the most important issue.
21  8996                 When asked, 96 per cent of this same
22     group of people said that it was important to improve
23     the quality of television programming.  The survey did
24     not ask how important it was to improve morality, but
25     the math clearly infers that improving the moral


 1     climate of television is a most important issue facing
 2     the Commission today.
 3  8997                 Further proof is found in an
 4     Environics survey conducted by Trinity Television in
 5     1996 in the Toronto marketplace.  It found that 80 per
 6     cent of the respondents wanted to watch programming
 7     that reflected the spiritual renewal of the whole life. 
 8     The message is that people today want television
 9     programming that is constructive, not destructive. 
10     They want programs that do not harm their children,
11     their youth, and even their grown-up, adult selves,
12     with false or even perverse portrayals of reality. 
13     People want programs that are sound and good, important
14     and helpful.  To go back to the language introduced
15     earlier, people want programs that are in line with God
16     given paradigms of communications and interrelation. 
17     They want programming that is life-renewing.
18  8998                 Religion is not something that can be
19     fit into one day of the week.  The popularity of that
20     idea has long faded away and it is time for Canadian
21     programming to reflect spiritual realities.  More and
22     more people are rediscovering that they are in fact
23     spiritual creatures who have spiritual needs.  They
24     have longings that cannot be met by physical gain. 
25     They are getting in touch with themselves and the world


 1     around them.  And as they gain awareness of the
 2     importance of the spiritual, they are acting on their
 3     beliefs rather than reacting to the physical events
 4     around them.  Religious beliefs are not beliefs to be
 5     sidelined; they are foundational beliefs.
 6  8999                 As the Commission creates policies,
 7     we believe that when you speak about Canadian culture
 8     and community, you are talking about spiritual
 9     foundations and religious expressions.  Every culture
10     and every community expresses the twin ideas of "Who we
11     are" and "How we ought to live."  Cultures and
12     communities are fundamentally religious.  Every view
13     and every value a person holds comes from their heart
14     and their mind and is filtered and read through their
15     own belief system.  They are religious expressions.  As
16     you prepare the policies that take us into the next
17     millennium, you must keep these truths to the fore.
18  9000                 Starting from such a premise will
19     result in a profitable return, both in the communities
20     and we believe to the broadcasters.  There is no
21     question that viewers want good, wholesome programming;
22     programming that has been renewed by spiritual truth. 
23     The question is "Where will it co,me from?"
24  9001                 Where does it come from?  One day I
25     would like that answer to be Canada.  Why?  Because I


 1     believe we are different.  We are a distinct people
 2     with distinct world views and we deserve to hear our
 3     own stories.  Right now, in Canada, Canadian
 4     programming supplements American programming schedules. 
 5     Whom does it serve?  Is this the ideal?
 6  9002                 As a Christian program producer I
 7     need honest answers to these questions.  I need answers
 8     because these questions affect my organization on a
 9     daily basis.  We are not in this business to make
10     money.  All we want is to make good, meaningful
11     programs and we have a passion to do this.  But like
12     many other Canadian program producers there is a wall
13     between us and our objective and that wall is a lack of
14     funding and a lack of Canadian distribution; and I
15     referred to these problems in our written submission
16     earlier.
17  9003                 MS BÉNARD:  Mr. Thiessen, could I ask
18     you to slow down a bit.  Our translators are having a
19     hard time following you.
20  9004                 MR. THIESSEN:  I am sorry.  I tend to
21     speak too quickly on television as well.  I am sorry.
22  9005                 The Commission has effectively
23     implemented the religion broadcast policy to benefit
24     Canadians on a number of occasions.  In 1995 the CRTC
25     licensed CJIL in Lethbridge, Alberta.  In 1997 you


 1     refused approval of several American religious
 2     satellite applicants, who were without a Canadian
 3     sponsor.  Recently, you licensed CTS, the Crossroads
 4     Television System in the Toronto market.  For all these
 5     things, we are very grateful.
 6  9006                 However, there remain problems in the
 7     application process that we would like to address.  So
 8     far we have been denied five times and it has been
 9     rather humbling.  But we still have a goal of obtaining
10     a religious broadcasting licence.
11  9007                 We are a relatively small, non-profit
12     organization, and have spent hundreds of thousands of
13     dollars on the application process.  With each
14     application we have made every effort to meet the
15     communicated requirements as outlined by the CRTC for
16     licence approval.
17                                                        0910
18  9008                 With all of our experience, some of
19     the Commission's expectations and priorities in
20     granting licences to religious broadcasters are still
21     unclear.  The application process has impacted us. The
22     more we work at it, the more intent we find ourselves
23     desiring a station format that will best meet the broad
24     needs of the community, that will encourage Canadian
25     production, and that will minimize or preferably


 1     eliminate foreign brokered programming.
 2  9009                 In our most recent application for
 3     Toronto, we evidenced a commitment to Canadian
 4     programming by promising to have no foreign brokered
 5     programming.  This seemed, reasonably, to be an action
 6     that made a significant contribution toward the goal of
 7     the Broadcast Act.
 8  9010                 By contrast, CTS in their application
 9     expressed the intention of selling a significant
10     proportion of brokered time to foreign programmers,
11     both in prime time and elsewhere in their schedule.
12  9011                 We are uncertain of the Commission's
13     views on foreign programming, and the result of this
14     decision seems to compromise the Broadcast Act.
15  9012                 We do plan to apply again.  That is
16     why this is such a critical issue.  We need to clearly
17     understand what your expectations are and how you
18     prioritize your concerns.  What I am getting at is that
19     the CTS application now seems to be the template for a
20     winning religious broadcasting system.
21  9013                 Is that in fact the case?  If so, I
22     want to submit for your consideration that prime time
23     programming on CTS is prominently foreign and
24     prominently reflects the formal aspects of religion. 
25     What we really need and hope for is an open dialogue


 1     with the Commission on the implication of the CTS
 2     licence for future religious licence applications.
 3  9014                 We want to be religious; we want to
 4     be Canadian; and we want to be about the whole of life. 
 5     We will continue to apply because we believe, and have
 6     measurable reason to believe that that is what
 7     Canadians want.  And we hope that that is what the CRTC
 8     wants and will respond to.
 9  9015                 In conclusion -- and I again refer
10     you to our written submissions -- I ask for five
11     things:
12  9016                 1.  Note that cultures and
13     communities are concerned with "Who we are" and "How we
14     ought to live" and are therefore fundamentally
15     religious.  Likewise, be aware that the views and
16     values of a person or a group are, by definition,
17     religious expressions.  Religion is not limited to
18     church but encompasses all of life.
19  9017                 2.  Create divisions within the "040"
20     category so that it better reflects spiritual reality
21     and allows religious programs to be more appropriately
22     described.
23  9018                 3.  Please protect Canadian
24     television.  Strongly encourage all broadcasters to
25     become investors into excellent Canadian programming.


 1  9019                 4.  License additional Christian
 2     broadcasters and so create a climate favourable to the
 3     production of Canadian Christian programming -- or
 4     should I say, Canadian religious programming.
 5  9020                 Furthermore, solidify and clarify
 6     your licensing priorities to allow for confidence in
 7     the application process.
 8  9021                 5.  Please listen to the people of
 9     Canada and favour public production funding of
10     programming that is good, moral and life renewing. 
11     Discourage programming that is bad, false or perverse
12     in its view of reality.
13  9022                 Our prayers are sincerely with you as
14     you endeavour to make these ideals more real.
15  9023                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr.
16     Thiessen.
17  9024                 Commissioner Cardozo, please.
18  9025                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
19     Madam Chair.
20  9026                 Good morning, Mr. Thiessen.  It is
21     nice to see you again.  The last time we met was at the
22     licensing hearing that you talked about here, which was
23     last December.
24  9027                 Of course, CTS, as I understand it,
25     was just launching last night.


 1  9028                 MR. THIESSEN:  Last night was their
 2     opening day.
 3  9029                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So it is
 4     somewhat significant that we talk this morning.
 5  9030                 With regard to your specific
 6     recommendation -- I made note of all of them, as we do. 
 7     In terms of the issues you have raised about wanting
 8     clarification, this is an appropriate time for you to
 9     raise them, but this is a forum where you answer the
10     questions, not us.
11  9031                 So I will not answer those detailed
12     questions, and suggest that there are other avenues for
13     you to meet with the staff of the Commission to carry
14     on those discussions.  We certainly make note of the
15     concerns you raised.
16  9032                 What I would like to do with you in
17     particular, sir, given your background, your leadership
18     in religious broadcasting -- I hope I am not going too
19     far as to say certainly a leader in Canada in moral and
20     ethical issues.
21  9033                 I want to get some of your
22     impressions -- if I can use the term -- sort of do a
23     bit of a "blue sky" exercise with you, raising some of
24     the issues you have raised.  On page 5 you say:
25                            "As the Commission creates


 1                            policies, we believe that when
 2                            you speak about Canadian culture
 3                            and community, you are talking
 4                            about spiritual foundations and
 5                            religious expressions."
 6  9034                 I want to ask you, as somebody who is
 7     both a force in religion and moral issues, as well as
 8     on television, to give us your thoughts about how you
 9     see Canadian programming at large.
10  9035                 If you were the CRTC alone and you
11     had a few years to reconstruct the whole system, what
12     are the kinds of things you would like to see on TV?
13  9036                 MR. THIESSEN:  It is pretty broad. 
14     Certainly we think about this a lot, not from your
15     perspective but from the perspective of what we would
16     like to see.
17  9037                 One of the things that I think
18     disturbs us at times is the funding arrangements.  We
19     refer to it in our letter.  We believe that some of the
20     funding that has come through the Canadian system has
21     fostered programming or production of some programs
22     that are fringe programs and continue to speak to just
23     a fringe group of people.
24  9038                 I don't want to particularly refer to
25     names of productions, but we have had some produced in


 1     Winnipeg that very few people watch, that really are
 2     not financially viable.
 3  9039                 We have some great programs produced
 4     in Canada.  I have no problem with that.  But we also
 5     have some that are really fringe and the outside realm
 6     of things.  Some of these producers and directors
 7     continue to get finances and continue to produce these
 8     programs.
 9  9040                 One of our thoughts is that we would
10     like to see the Commission encourage programming that
11     becomes financially viable, where the programs
12     eventually start paying for themselves.  Maybe the
13     directors and writers should get money at the beginning
14     of the thing, but eventually if they are not reflecting
15     the mores and desires of the country, that possibly
16     they not be encouraged to continue to produce some of
17     the programs that they do by accessing the funding
18     programs that are so much in place.
19  9041                 I don't believe that putting
20     restrictions on producers, in the sense of deciding for
21     them what morality is, will help.  I know that we can't
22     put a lot of restrictions in there.
23  9042                 There is a dearth, a lack of --
24  9043                 We tend to -- and I am looking at the
25     American side of things.  Of course, they come in


 1     strongly, but the programs now are always pushing the
 2     edge of what is acceptable in our society.  We are
 3     always pushing the edge.  There is a part of all of us,
 4     I guess, that likes to look at the dark side, like to
 5     look at the seamy side of life.
 6  9044                 We think that that is the only area. 
 7     But I refer to the fact that programming like "Touched
 8     by an Angel" is affecting our community in a strong
 9     way.
10  9045                 We were watching a movie last night
11     on one of our local channels.  It was a movie aired on
12     a Canadian station.  I don't know who produced the
13     movie.  But it was very life giving, life producing and
14     I found myself very intrigued.
15  9046                 I think there are many good programs
16     coming out of television now.  I think there are, and I
17     encourage those kinds of things.  But how, as a
18     Commission, you discourage or encourage -- encourage
19     the right and discourage the wrong -- I really don't
20     know.
21  9047                 But somewhere there must be a way to
22     respond to what people -- maybe declaring; people are
23     motivating us to move to those things that build up
24     rather than tear down.
25  9048                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  What are your


 1     thoughts about the quote you have here from the COMPAS
 2     CTV Poll:
 3                            "The lack of morals and amount
 4                            of violence on TV was the single
 5                            most important issue in TV
 6                            programming today."
 7  9049                 Do you agree with that?
 8  9050                 MR. THIESSEN:  I think, by and large,
 9     that is a concern.  But I believe that television
10     reflects a community.  I don't think it is television's
11     fault.  I believe it also reflects the community.
12  9051                 Speaking from across the line, I
13     noticed some of the commenting that was going on as a
14     result of the President's difficulties across the line.
15     Some of the commentators mentioned the fact that it
16     seems as though America is in a moral vacuum in many
17     ways.  They were speaking about that.
18  9052                 I think that, as a country, our
19     morality has been --
20  9053                 As a religious person, I am very
21     concerned about where our morality is going.
22  9054                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  With the
23     coverage of the whole scandal, or whatever you call it,
24     in the United States, do you think we are different
25     from that?


 1  9055                 If we had a similar situation here,
 2     would it have been covered in the same exhaustive way?
 3  9056                 MR. THIESSEN:  I don't think our
 4     television commission or our television --
 5  9057                 Well, we may --
 6  9058                 I don't think we are quite as open
 7     about some of those things.  We do have the problems,
 8     but I don't think we talk about them as openly as the
 9     Americans do.
10                                                        0920
11  9059                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Rightly so or
12     wrongly so?
13  9060                 MR. THIESSEN:  I don't know that it
14     always serves our best interests to reveal all of the
15     garbage that goes on because we don't talk about the
16     good things as much as we do about the bad things.
17  9061                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Yes.
18  9062                 MR. THIESSEN:  You know, as a result
19     I think we have such a focus -- I was actually wanting
20     to include that part in my statement, talking about the
21     American problems out there, where people say we are a
22     total moral vacuum.
23  9063                 I personally don't believe we are,
24     but I think we tend not to be aware of where we are not
25     and we are not as aware of -- in fact, I believe


 1     there's a great deal of morality in Canada.  I believe
 2     there's a great deal of desire.  There's a lot of
 3     wonderful things happening.  I would like to portray
 4     those kinds of things.
 5  9064                 You know, the kinds of things that --
 6     I mean Reader's Digest finds stories continually about
 7     people that are worthy of note, that have made a mark
 8     on their community.  A child that has saved his
 9     father's life is in one of the recent issue where a
10     four or five year old was out fishing with his dad. 
11     His dad broke his leg and he found his way out.
12  9065                 Those are such positive, wonderful
13     things.  I believe our society is full of them.  I
14     really believe that.  There is a tremendous spiritual
15     desire that is rising in our community and I think in
16     some ways it is being reflected by Hollywood with
17     "Touched by an Angel", some of those areas, but I think
18     it's much stronger than the media is even aware of.  I
19     think it's stronger than certainly Hollywood is aware
20     of.  I think they are almost the last ones to find out
21     what's going on here.
22  9066                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  You think
23     television doesn't reflect enough of the positive.
24  9067                 MR. THIESSEN:  I don't think it does.
25  9068                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  How about news


 1     on television?  I'm thinking both of Canadian news and
 2     international news coverage of conflict.
 3  9069                 MR. THIESSEN:  I would like to see
 4     more positive news.  I mean, I think news is absolutely
 5     vital.  I think it's wonderful, although the news
 6     channels are -- well, some people talk about the fact
 7     that we are always looking for news stories and we will
 8     find anything sensational and project that.
 9  9070                 I personally am in favour of the news
10     channels.  I think they're great, but I believe there
11     are some areas of positive news that I would like to --
12     you know, I don't think people are only looking for --
13     and we are.  The news does pick up some of the other
14     stories, but I think there's more good stories to pick
15     up.
16  9071                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  When you are
17     talking about sort of the negative news or violence on
18     TV, one of the reasons it happens is that there's a
19     market for it.
20  9072                 MR. THIESSEN:  I know that. 
21     Absolutely.  It's just like why is Gerry Springer on? 
22     Why do people watch Gerry Springer?  It's very little
23     social redeeming value that comes out of it.
24  9073                 I think that the people that are on
25     this program are fringe people.  I don't think they


 1     represent the majority of people in our society.  They
 2     go out of their way to look for subject matter that
 3     they believe is at the edge.  I find that --
 4  9074                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  What do you do
 5     when it is a very popular program, and among young
 6     people?
 7  9075                 MR. THIESSEN:  Be aware of where it's
 8     leading.  I don't think the CRTC can legislate
 9     morality.  I don't believe this is the place to do it. 
10     I don't believe that the legislature or that Parliament
11     can legislate it.  I don't believe that our local
12     government can legislate.  I don't believe that.
13  9076                 I think by encouraging -- you know,
14     secular television, not secular, commercial television
15     is about money.  It's about an audience.  It's about
16     doing those things.  PBS in the States is not about
17     that.  PBS is about doing things are right.
18  9077                 I believe religious television by and
19     large has the interest of the community at heart.  I
20     really believe that.  I don't believe that CTS or if we
21     were licensed or CGIL is not the intent -- I think that
22     sometimes we are perceived as being out to try to get
23     our message across which is to convert everyone to
24     becoming like we are.
25  9078                 I don't think that that is the


 1     primary purpose.  I believe that certainly is a part of
 2     what goes on, but to try to bring help to society, all
 3     of us wouldn't have the number of counsellors on the
 4     telephone helping people -- I mean, we spend a lot of
 5     resources in simply helping our community.  There's a
 6     lot of resources that are spent to try and encourage
 7     people.
 8  9079                 We are not asking them what faith or
 9     what area they are from at all, but it is trying and
10     desperately desiring to be an input of hope, of
11     encouragement, speaking into despair, speaking
12     possibility into people's lives.
13  9080                 I really think that those are the
14     areas where the Commission can strongly help by helping
15     those -- and money isn't where it's at for us.  We are
16     not out to make millions of dollars.  We don't have
17     shareholders that are demanding -- the people that
18     support our program are giving their money freely. 
19     They don't want 10 per cent back or 5 per cent or 20
20     per cent back at the end of the year.
21  9081                 They are content to give it because
22     they believe that something that's happening is going
23     to affect their lives and I believe that religious
24     television could have a very strong input into our
25     society, I believe that, and without the requirement


 1     for funding.
 2  9082                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So you are of
 3     the view that with some of the, if I can call it,
 4     harmful programming that you are concerned about that
 5     the Commission shouldn't be bothered so much about
 6     that, but that if we had more of your type of positive
 7     programming that that would --
 8  9083                 MR. THIESSEN:  I think that would
 9     raise the water line.  I think that providing an
10     alternative is always an important thing.  Obviously
11     Canadians feel that way or they wouldn't have the CBC. 
12     I mean, the CBC has always been an area that isn't
13     looking only at ratings, but trying to foster a
14     Canadian culture, encouraging those things that are
15     Canadian.
16  9084                 I understand the view of the CBC is
17     to move more and more towards Canadian programming. 
18     That is an expression of -- now, that's helping a
19     Canadian culture.  That is a concern of the Canadian
20     government.  Oddly, the similar concern, you say, how
21     do I now help not just Canadian culture which I believe
22     does include a religious content?
23  9085                 You can't separate culture and faith. 
24     It's impossible to separate those.  It's been kind of a
25     no, no.  It has been a taboo subject to actually


 1     encourage the faith side of things.
 2  9086                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  But we do sort
 3     of have this, which is the American notion of
 4     separating church and state.  Doesn't that --
 5  9087                 MR. THIESSEN:  I think that's a
 6     very -- we have got this notion that we are separating
 7     it.  What we are doing is excluding it.  I don't think
 8     you separate faith from life because everything we all
 9     do are faith perspective and motivates what we do.  All
10     of us.  There's not a person that isn't motivated or we
11     live our lives out of it, the way we spend our money.
12  9088                 The job I take is affected by my
13     faith or by my perspective of living.  I think we
14     should acknowledge that.  I think that there's a fear
15     of acknowledging faith in our society.  There's a fear
16     of admitting that it's real, a fear of admitting that
17     somehow the intellectual side of things of our society
18     have become so prominent that we have forgotten what's
19     at the heart is the issue.  I could get passionate on
20     this.
21  9089                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I'm convinced
22     that if we did a poll of young children and asked them
23     who's name comes to mind at Christmas time, I think
24     most kids would pick Santa Claus over Jesus Christ.
25  9090                 MR. THIESSEN:  Precisely, which is


 1     the commercial over the faith side.
 2  9091                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Right.  Could
 3     we talk for a couple of minutes about children's
 4     programming.  You have mentioned in your written
 5     submission that you have got a new children's show
 6     called "Sun Shiny Day".
 7  9092                 MR. THIESSEN:  Yes.
 8  9093                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Am I
 9     pronouncing that right?
10  9094                 MR. THIESSEN:  "Sun Shiny Day" is
11     absolutely right.
12  9095                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay.  Tell me
13     what that's about and what you are doing in that that
14     is not out there already.
15  9096                 MR. THIESSEN:  "Sun Shiny Day" is --
16     it's more about the personalities that put shows
17     together than anything else.  It's actually our
18     daughter that produces the program.  She has won some
19     awards on it in the United States, not in Canada --
20  9097                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  It's your
21     "Daughter Shiny Day".
22  9098                 MR. THIESSEN:  It's my daughter.  She
23     is a sun shiny day, yes.
24  9099                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay.
25  9100                 MR. THIESSEN:  She has got a very


 1     bright personality.  She writes a lot of great music
 2     for children.  She hosts the program, works with
 3     puppets, works with kids and talks about life from a
 4     faith encouragement perspective, not just -- I think
 5     that, you know, there's a lot of things about take
 6     it -- you know, don't do this, do that.  There's that
 7     kind of programming.
 8  9101                 There's an element that I think faith
 9     brings into programming where there's hope.  I believe
10     that the "Sun Shiny Day" brings out a dimension of
11     possibility and of hope that I think makes it different
12     or gives it a different perspective that good
13     Christian --- that good children's programming --
14     there's great children's programming out there that is,
15     you know, is morally right and teaches values and so
16     on.
17  9102                 There's an element I think faith can
18     bring which produces possibilities into people's lives
19     and that's something I believe the program does
20     strongly.  The response we have had -- it's been airing
21     in some areas of the former Soviet Union.
22  9103                 We are working with some people out
23     there that come back and mention how positively the
24     program is viewed by the household which is surprising
25     because out here it is children that would watch the


 1     programming.
 2  9104                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Yes.  You have
 3     talked a bit about Canadian culture and television
 4     reflecting that.  What are your thoughts about whether
 5     television does justice to reflecting Canada and
 6     building or encouraging a sense of nationhood and who
 7     we are.  Can we do that given the American channels
 8     that we have?
 9  9105                 MR. THIESSEN:  I think we just are --
10     I think we are working at it.  You know, there's a
11     desire in some people's minds and hearts across this
12     land to bring a sense of national unity or of working
13     together.  I speak from my point of view on our
14     program.  We have had a number of people on the "It's
15     You" day program, the daily program.
16  9106                 We have had people from France -- I
17     mean from the French part of our country come out and
18     speak.  We have had people from Hull, from Montreal. 
19     For faith people, this is an issue, what our country
20     does.  This is an issue for us.  We are very concerned
21     about division.
22  9107                 Faith to us means resolution.  It
23     means working together.  It means bringing down walls
24     of division among us.
25                                                        0935


 1  9108                 I believe that faith, perspectives on
 2     television can help to bring unity to our country.  I
 3     believe that.  I don't think we have always seen that
 4     in the past.  I think that some faith that people --
 5     and I think the problem is we have had particular
 6     people that have been maybe very vocal and have said
 7     things that don't reflect the overall community, the
 8     faith community, but I find within the faith community
 9     a strong desire of working together, of understanding
10     one another.
11  9109                 I personally -- I mentioned this at
12     the hearings in Toronto, that the very fact that we
13     were required to present a balanced programming format
14     to the Commission as a Christian station we would have
15     to bring people from other faiths to work alongside of
16     us.  That very thing has required me to rub shoulders
17     with people I would not have rubbed shoulders with in a
18     natural part of life.  Those relationships are going on
19     today.
20  9110                 We don't have an application and I
21     will never have one in Toronto, and yet I have
22     continued a relationship with some of the people that
23     came out of that process because I have never
24     understood something I never understood before.  Now,
25     there is where you have done something to bring


 1     something, not to the whole nation, but to my heart
 2     that I think is a positive thing.
 3  9111                 Often we want to change everybody.  I
 4     think life is about changing individuals, working with
 5     individual hearts, working with individual lives.  If
 6     Christian television -- if we were looking only at the
 7     masses, I would be very discouraged about going in and
 8     saying we are going to change our whole world.
 9  9112                 But I believe we can change
10     individual lives.  I think we can change perspectives
11     for some people and bring hope to some people that are
12     in absolute despair today.  I believe they can be
13     helped.  I think that is what we are saying, that there
14     is somebody we want to speak to.  We are speaking to
15     some and with the opportunity we would speak to more.
16  9113                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Speaking about
17     crossing cultural lines, we had a presentation a couple
18     of days ago by Television Northern Canada, which is an
19     aboriginal service.  They were talking about the need
20     for Canadian television to better reflect aboriginal
21     peoples and we were trying to think of examples of
22     where television does reflect aboriginal peoples in a
23     positive light.  We didn't have many thoughts.  What
24     are your thoughts about that question, whether
25     television can or should reflect aboriginal people and


 1     whether faith programming can do anything in that area?
 2  9114                 MR. THIESSEN:  Yes.  I think it
 3     should.  I think, obviously, there are a few programs
 4     that reflect some of the aboriginal perspectives that I
 5     have seen at various times.  I know there are a number
 6     of aboriginal people that want or will be on television
 7     more than are already.
 8  9115                 Certainly when we were making our
 9     application we had a number of leaders in the
10     aboriginal community that expressed a strong desire in
11     knowing who they are and knowing what their impact is
12     in the communities that they work in today, I believe
13     they would make excellent producers of programs that
14     would reflect their community and the desires that they
15     have for their community.
16  9116                 I believe television can have a very
17     positive input in the lives of people, just as I
18     believe it can have a negative input.  I believe it is
19     morally relevant.  Television is that.  It is
20     culturally relevant because it reflects us as people.
21  9117                 Jerry Springer does reflect a part of
22     our society and some of us want to know what is going
23     on there obviously.  But I believe that there are also
24     other people that are looking at other programming and
25     it may not be the majority, but there are people


 1     looking at other programs and they are being affected. 
 2     I believe they are the people that if you met them in
 3     the community they are the ones that are building our
 4     communities up.  They are the ones that are a very
 5     positive force for our community.
 6  9118                 I really believe that and the people
 7     that are looking for those values are the ones that are
 8     making a mark and a difference in our society in a
 9     strong way.
10  9119                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you very
11     much.  That has really helped us understand some of
12     these wider issues from the perspective that you have
13     been working in.  I hope you keep in touch with us. 
14     You talked about templates.  Some people may interpret
15     things to be templates, but I think as the decision in
16     Toronto was a competitive process there will always be
17     competitive processes I think, so keep that in mind
18     too.  But keep in touch with us and keep reminding us
19     of the issues that you have raised today.  Thank you
20     very much.
21  9120                 MR. THIESSEN:  Thank you very much,
22     Commissioners.
23  9121                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
24     Madam Chair.
25  9122                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.


 1  9123                 Commissioner Pennefather.
 2  9124                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Good
 3     morning.
 4  9125                 I would like to also take advantage
 5     of you being here just to briefly look at another
 6     component of television.  I noticed here you talk about
 7     the paradigm communication and inter-relation and then
 8     you have launched a new interactive talk TV show.
 9  9126                 What are your thoughts on television
10     as a communication among people?  Is this a growing
11     need where, in addition to the voyeuresque show, is
12     there a place that we should be considering more
13     carefully for the kind of program that allows people to
14     talk to each other?
15  9127                 MR. THIESSEN:  We are just in the
16     process.  This is just happening.  A local station
17     offered us an hour of time a day and we are very
18     reasonable.  In fact, they are helping us get going on
19     this.  Eventually they hope to get some commercial
20     benefit out of it, but they are actually investing in
21     us at this time.
22  9128                 We have been talking about this and
23     we did some -- speaking of the community, talked about
24     what we wanted to get at here.  We found a strong
25     response from our community, saying we would like to


 1     find opportunity to interact with people.
 2  9129                 Now, it is going to be telephone
 3     interaction at this point in time.  We still don't have
 4     the internet at the place where we -- and I think that
 5     day will come, where people will log on and we may not
 6     get a sharp picture all the time, but I think that day
 7     is coming.
 8  9130                 But there is a desire and I think an
 9     interest.  We tend to have only specialists speak to
10     us.  We have got the impression that anyone that isn't
11     a specialist can't make a difference in our world.  I
12     think the majority of the work that is done in our
13     world is done by normal people that aren't specialists.
14  9131                 Children are raised by normal moms,
15     not by psychologists and sociologists.  Most of them
16     are raising wonderful kids.  The impact that is made in
17     our community is made by -- I mean the greatest idea --
18     a lot of the good ideas come out of just normal people
19     that are working behind the scenes in factories.  Some
20     of the brightest ideas come out of guys that are
21     working on the floor.  As an engineer when I was
22     working, back in the days designing rocket payloads, I
23     went to the technicians because they knew how it fit. 
24     We could design it, but they knew how it fit.  I think
25     there is a whole world out there that knows how things


 1     fit because they are working it.
 2  9132                 I believe interactive television --
 3     we want to interact.  The more populous we become, it
 4     seems the more separated we are.  We interacted more on
 5     the farm back in the old days when we lived a mile
 6     apart than we do when we live -- I can throw a stone
 7     past four houses on my street and we don't talk enough. 
 8     I think there is a longing in the hearts of people to
 9     communicate, just a desperate desire to know that they
10     have a voice, to know that they have value, to know
11     that they have worth.
12  9133                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you
13     very much.
14  9134                 Thank you, Madam Chair.
15  9135                 Counsel.
16  9136                 MS PATTERSON:  Thank you, Madam
17     Chair.
18  9137                 Good morning, Mr. Thiessen.
19  9138                 MR. THIESSEN:  Good morning.
20  9139                 MS PATTERSON:  In your written
21     submission and also this morning in your oral
22     presentation to the Commission you mentioned creating
23     divisions within the 040 category, so that it better
24     reflects spiritual reality and allows religious
25     programs to be more appropriately described.  I am


 1     wondering if you have a specific proposal for the
 2     expansion of the religious programming category into
 3     subcategories?
 4  9140                 MR. THIESSEN:  Actually, I would like
 5     to see them have virtually the same subcategories that
 6     the Commission has for other programs.
 7  9141                 For instance, in our application for
 8     the station in Toronto we wanted to show that our
 9     station would reflect a diversity of programming, that
10     we showed news, we showed drama, we showed other things
11     and yet as a religious station we are required to show
12     040 for everything.
13  9142                 But we felt that a station that
14     projects a diversity of programming would have greater
15     interest for the community and we would like to reflect
16     that in our application.  So that's where -- you know,
17     children's programming, et cetera, just as we show it
18     in the -- something to that nature we think would be
19     beneficial in reflecting what we would like to do in an
20     application.
21  9143                 MS PATTERSON:  So would it be fair to
22     say that at page 2 of your oral presentation today,
23     down at the bottom you list a group of genres, would
24     those reflect the type of subcategories that you are
25     thinking of?


 1  9144                 MR. THIESSEN:  I think that's maybe
 2     further than -- what is it, 12 or 13 in the Commission
 3     right now?  It has been a while since I looked at
 4     these.
 5  9145                 I wouldn't say this is the full
 6     extent, but to some degree reflecting the kinds of
 7     programming possibilities, yes.
 8  9146                 MS PATTERSON:  Thank you.
 9  9147                 Thank you, Madam Chair.
10  9148                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
11  9149                 Thank you, Mr. Thiessen.
12  9150                 I hope we get a sunshiny day later.
13  9151                 MR. THIESSEN:  It is coming.  It is
14     going to be windy, but sunny.  Thank you.
15  9152                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
16  9153                 Madam Secretary, would you invite the
17     next participant, please.
18  9154                 MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
19  9155                 The next presentation will be by la
20     Fédération nationale des associations de consommateurs
21     du Québec, the National Anti-poverty Organization, One
22     Voice, The Canadian Seniors Network and Rural Dignity. 
23     I would invite Mr. Reddick to please come forward.
24  9156                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning, Madam
25     Vallée and Mr. Reddick.  Proceed when you are ready.


 2  9157                 MR. REDDICK:  Hi.  How are you this
 3     morning?
 4  9158                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We are fine,
 5     despite the bad hair day.
 6  9159                 MR. REDDICK:  My name is Andrew
 7     Reddick and I am with the Public Interest Advocacy
 8     Centre.  We are representing FNACQ et al today.  With
 9     me today is Marie Vallée of FNACQ.
10  9160                 First., we would like to thank the
11     Commission for inviting us to appear today.  This is an
12     important policy proceeding and it will shape our
13     broadcasting system for years to come.  With limited
14     resources we have not been able to address all the
15     issues raised by the Commission and other parties in
16     this proceeding.
17  9161                 In our written submissions we
18     addressed a number of issued raised by the Commission
19     which we think are of particular concern to our groups
20     and we are going to address some of those today.
21  9162                 In general with respect to matters
22     relating to content/viewing requirements,
23     contributions, local expression and underrepresented
24     categories, FNACQ et all believe that these policies
25     have been very successful and should be continued as we


 1     move forward.  If there is to be change, it should be
 2     progressive as opposed to regressive in nature.  As
 3     such, we generally support increasing levels of
 4     contribution to these initiatives.
 5  9163                 Conventional over-the-air
 6     broadcasting constitutes a universally basic
 7     broadcasting service for most Canadians.  For as much
 8     as 25 per cent of households, over-the-air broadcasting
 9     is their only form of television service.  In addition,
10     a number of DTH subscribers are also using over-the-air
11     signals to complement their satellite service with
12     local programming.
13  9164                 Policy or regulations emanating from
14     this proceeding should confirm and not alter the
15     ability of Canadians to receive signals using this
16     technology.  While the Commission did not raise this
17     issue in the Public Notice, we feel that the issue
18     needs to be addressed for two main reasons.
19  9165                 First, Industry Canada is about to
20     embark on a process of selling off publicly-owned
21     spectrum through an auction process.  While their
22     interests are currently focused on telecommunications,
23     with the pending move to digital broadcasting, spectrum
24     currently used for over-the-air analog broadcasting
25     could become an attractive resource for the merchants


 1     of Industry Canada.
 2  9166                 Secondly, there is a cost incurred by
 3     broadcasters to provide over-the-air signals.  With
 4     many citizens in markets receiving signals by cable or
 5     other means, there may be growing reluctance by some
 6     broadcasters to continue an over-the-air signal.  We do
 7     not believe that it is the policy of the Commission or
 8     the Government of Canada to cut off basic television
 9     service over-the-air for several million Canadians and
10     would like to see this reaffirmed by the Commission as
11     part of the decision from this proceeding.
12  9167                 In section 22 of the Public Notice,
13     the Commission asked whether other elements should be
14     contributing to the development of Canadian programs. 
15     In the past, the Commission has indicated that it would
16     be able to deal with matters relating to convergence
17     without specific amendments to the Broadcasting or
18     Telecommunications Acts.  With the development of new
19     forms of electronic content, including Canadian
20     cultural content, the Commission may need to revisit
21     the definition of program.
22  9168                 Part of the problem we are facing is
23     that there is a lack of a substantive and inclusive
24     national Canadian content policy framework which
25     addresses the development and availability of the


 1     different forms of Canadian content, such as
 2     traditional programming and new forms of electronic
 3     content, in a coherent manner.  Where the government
 4     chooses not to make policy, the matter often falls to
 5     the Commission and it may in this case.
 6  9169                 Increasingly, programming and
 7     distribution undertakings, and telecommunication
 8     providers are providing services and content which
 9     either through the means of delivery or in the form of
10     content, straddle both Acts.  As well, exempt and
11     non-programming services, commercials ISPs,
12     tele-communications providers and others are developing
13     and distributing new forms of content, often integrated
14     or jointly marketed with conventional forms of content,
15     such as broadcast programming.
16  9170                 This content is also being packaged
17     and marketed in what the industry calls "channels" or
18     "programming."  With the blurring of these lines, not
19     only does the concept of program need to be revisited
20     under a broader policy umbrella of 'content,' but these
21     commercial providers should be contributing to the
22     development and availability of new forms of Canadian
23     content.
24  9171                 As a start, FNACQ et al submit that,
25     in a comparable methodology to that imposed on


 1     Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings and in
 2     consideration that broadcast licensees are already
 3     required to make contributions to the system, that
 4     telecommunications carriers and commercial ISPs should
 5     be contributing up to 5 per cent of gross annual
 6     revenues to facilitate access and to support new forms
 7     of content and programming.
 8  9172                 In priority, these funds should be
 9     used, first, for facilitating affordable technical
10     access to the information highway as this relates to
11     the governments Connecting Canada policy agenda;
12     secondly, the development of non-profit Canadian
13     cultural, historical, citizenship and related
14     information resources in new electronic formats and,
15     thirdly, to augment the multimedia fund for the
16     development of other Canadian cultural content.
17  9173                 In section 41 of the Public Notice,
18     the Commission raised the issue of concentration of
19     ownership.  FNACQ et al submit that it is important for
20     the Commission to have a policy of limiting a person to
21     ownership of no more than one over-the-air television
22     station in a market.  Concentration of ownership in
23     this, and other areas of the industry, risks eroding
24     the diversity of expression and information, as well as
25     undermining the notion of excellent in programming


 1     being realized through competition.
 2  9174                 Beyond the issue of concentration of
 3     ownership at the local level, this should also be a
 4     major policy concern to the Commission at the regional
 5     and national levels.
 6  9175                 While FNACQ et al appreciate the
 7     industry's arguments of the need to vertically and
 8     horizontally integrate in order to be competitively and
 9     economically viable, rules and limits need to be
10     applied, even if on a case-by-case basis, to ensure
11     that our broader public interest, industrial, cultural
12     and social policy objectives are achieved.  Again,
13     central to this concern are the issues of competition
14     and diversity of expression.
15  9176                 It is also important that the
16     Commission establish clear rules about levels of
17     concentration of ownership of across production,
18     broadcasting and distribution sectors, given the
19     increasing liberalizing trade policies of Canada. 
20     Without specific policies and rules for the Canadian
21     marketplace, if substantive foreign ownership is
22     permitted at some point in the future, the industry and
23     corporate structures and practices of other
24     jurisdictions which may not complement our system, may
25     come to be imposed without out ability to pursue any


 1     recourse.
 2  9177                 With respect to local programming,
 3     local stations and large multi-station groups, FNACQ et
 4     al submit that it is necessary to continue the
 5     provision of high quality local services by requiring
 6     local stations to broadcast minimum quantities of local
 7     news and information.
 8  9178                 An important issue for consumers is
 9     also the move to digital broadcasting.  We believe that
10     there should not be a quick move to digital-only
11     broadcasting.  Proposals and recommendations about
12     digital broadcasting to date, have been poorly
13     researched and poorly thought out., with much of the
14     financial projections approximating "casino
15     economics" -- a roll of the dice and guesswork using
16     consumers' money in the final analysis.
17  9179                 In the near term, digital will be an
18     extremely expensive option.  A quick switch would cut
19     off television service for millions of Canadians who
20     could not afford the equipment.  Again, we do not take
21     this to be the policy of the Canadian government or the
22     CRTC.
23  9180                 FNACQ et al recommend that rather
24     than establishing a specific date for the cessation of
25     analog signalling, dual signalling of analog and


 1     digital be provided until a threshold of at least 90
 2     per cent of consumers have adopted digital equipment,
 3     whether using a digital television or a set-top box
 4     capable of converting this signal to analog.  At such
 5     time, the Commissioner should hold a public review of
 6     whether a complete switch to digital should be made.
 7  9181                 As final comments, we would like to
 8     address a proposal made last week by the Canadian
 9     Association of Broadcasters about measuring the success
10     of Canadian programming using a ratings system or
11     levels of viewership.  It would appear that their
12     intentions for the health of Canadian content and
13     programming are good, but we find the proposal of a
14     viewership or ratings criteria coupled with an
15     apparently voluntaristic approach for contributions in
16     obtaining Canadian content to be inappropriate and not
17     sound.
18  9182                 The development of healthy Canadian
19     production and broadcasting sectors has been based on
20     obligations, performance requirements and subsidies of
21     different forms.  These tools are not unique to the
22     sector in our society, or even to Canada.  These are
23     common tools of governance which have been, and will
24     continue to be necessary to achieve a range and balance
25     of national economic, industrial, cultural and social


 1     goals.
 2  9183                 It would appear in reading the
 3     submission that the CAB is proposing that broadcasters
 4     keep the money, the subsidies, but not the obligations
 5     and required performance activities.  Instead, we are
 6     to go on faith that they will deliver, but we will
 7     assess success based on a ratings system of viewership.
 8  9184                 We feel that obligations, performance
 9     requirements and subsidies will continue to be an
10     important and necessary part of our system, given
11     domestic realities and in terms of trends in
12     international trade agreements.  If the current
13     framework is considered a regulatory minimum by the
14     broadcasters, if they are so committed to the
15     development of the system, there is no reason that they
16     cannot come forward under the existing regime with
17     goals and implementation plans to increase quality and
18     viewership.  Nothing needs to be changed to do this,
19     and guarantees will continue in the system through
20     regulation that has proven to be a great success.
21  9185                 A ratings approach is an economics
22     tool used to measure consumption, but it is not
23     appropriate for Canadian content in this or other
24     areas.  There are certainly economic costs to the
25     various initiatives which support Canadian content. 


 1     But the value and importance of our cultural products
 2     and artifacts are measured using social, cultural and
 3     political criteria as much, or at times more so than
 4     economic or ratings criteria.
 5  9186                 If we measured the success of the
 6     development of Canadian literature based on readership
 7     or viewership, then instead of the work of Davies,
 8     Laurence, Tremblay and others, our libraries would
 9     stock comic books, because more people have probably
10     read them.  It took 30 years to develop Canadian texts
11     in the areas of geography, history, the social sciences
12     and politics, so we would know something about our
13     country in addition to the Spanish Armada, the U.S.
14     Civil War and the capitals of U.S. states.  A majority
15     of Canadians may not read these, but their value is
16     measured by other, considered more important criteria.
17  9187                 We also feel that a viewership or
18     ratings model would contravene the Broadcasting Act. 
19     For example, would subsection 3(d) need to be rewritten
20     to state that the Canadian broadcasting system should
21     encourage the development of Canadian expression by
22     providing a wide range of programming that reflects
23     Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas and values and
24     artistic creativity, where the broadcaster wants or
25     levels of viewership warrant?  Or would subsection


 1     3(i), the programming provided by the Canadian
 2     broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive,
 3     providing a balance of information, enlightenment and
 4     entertainment for men, women and children of all ages,
 5     interests and tastes where broadcasters want or levels
 6     of viewership warrant?
 7                                                        0955
 8  9188                 There are also international trade
 9     dimensions to this issue.  In recent trade
10     negotiations, such as the MAI, Canada's negotiators
11     have been underachieving with respect to exemptions and
12     reservations in the areas of broadcasting and
13     telecommunications.
14  9189                 For example, there were no
15     substantive Canadian reservations put forward for
16     culture.  For telecommunications, the 10-year old NAFTA
17     reservations were offered up.  In telecommunications,
18     two main changes have occurred since NAFTA:  the
19     Internet and multimedia.
20  9190                 We have yet to establish a broad
21     Canadian cultural and content policy framework in the
22     area of telecommunications in the context of
23     maintaining national integrity in this area in relation
24     to freer trade.
25  9191                 In broadcasting, if we weaken or


 1     remove some or all of our existing obligations,
 2     performance requirements or subsidies, even to just
 3     address domestic considerations as part of this
 4     proceeding, then they are gone forever under trade
 5     agreements.  We may not have them, or the ability to
 6     redesign them in future as needed, with the changing
 7     realities of our trade relations.
 8  9192                 We do not need to help the Jack
 9     Valenti's of the world in this process.
10  9193                 That concludes the presentation of
11     FNACQ et al.
12  9194                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr.
13     Reddick.
14  9195                 I will direct my questions to both of
15     you, and feel free to respond in either language, as
16     you see fit.
17  9196                 You have been a little bit more
18     specific about your concerns this morning -- as you
19     were in your written presentation -- but they remain:
20  9197                 (1) a fear that those consumers who
21     would not have programming provided to them unless they
22     subscribe to a paid distribution method of reception;
23  9198                 (2) the concern that local
24     programming, which the consumer is interested in, in
25     your view, should be diminished;


 1  9199                 (3) that any emphasis on certain
 2     under-represented categories may be at the expense of
 3     truly local programming would be another concern of
 4     yours; and also concentration of ownership.
 5  9200                 (4) a fourth concern I see is that as
 6     various methods of creating content are used, a greater
 7     number of industrial participants, or industry
 8     participants, be made to provide funds for the
 9     production of Canadian programming.
10  9201                 Would that be fair?
11  9202                 MR. REDDICK:  Yes.
12  9203                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  If we start with
13     your concern that over-the-air broadcasting, never mind
14     its quality but that its actual availability be
15     maintained, are you concerned that broadcasters would
16     shut off their transmitter and feed their programming
17     to a distribution system; that is, wire or possibly
18     satellite?
19  9204                 MR. REDDICK:  Yes.  Eight years ago,
20     when I was a policy advisor to the federal government,
21     the idea of auctioning of spectrum, while it was
22     abhorrent to everybody in government, now it has
23     happened.  So anything is possible.
24  9205                 When I look at that issue, for many
25     broadcasters it is very important to have the off-air


 1     signal AC as an important part of its service.  For
 2     others, particulary in large urban centres where the
 3     majority of the citizens receive signalling through
 4     cable, they may look at that and say:  "Well, it costs
 5     us a lot to run a transmitter service.  Maybe we don't
 6     need to do this.  Maybe for that 5 percent in this
 7     city, we don't need to do that."
 8  9206                 I think the precedent would be wrong. 
 9     It is basic service in broadcasting, in our view.
10  9207                 Cable is not a basic service, but
11     of-air is basic.
12  9208                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Considering that 25
13     percent of the population is not subscribing to cable,
14     and suppose that some of the new methods of delivery,
15     such as DTH, do succeed in diminishing the number of
16     subscribers who rely on cable -- DTH is not going to
17     offer them a local programming station, at the moment
18     anyway -- I have difficulty with your fear.
19  9209                 And if you are saying that the
20     auctioning of spectrum is what would lead to that, the
21     government would be shooting itself in the foot if it
22     auctions these frequencies at a price that the
23     broadcaster is going to find so outrageous as to shut
24     down its transmitter.
25  9210                 The policy would not work very well,


 1     would it, if the aim is to make money with the sale of
 2     frequencies?
 3  9211                 I find it difficult to see that as a
 4     big concern.
 5  9212                 MR. REDDICK:  We have tried that
 6     argument ourselves sometimes.
 7  9213                 One other point, stepping back a bit.
 8  9214                 In rural areas, I think roughly half
 9     of the population has cable, and the rest rely on
10     off-air signalling.  While DTH is an option for some,
11     it is still a very expensive option in terms of the
12     equipment and the monthly service; and also you do not
13     get the local programming.
14  9215                 That is very important for rural
15     Canadians.
16  9216                 Mme VALLÉE:  Je pense aussi qu'il ne
17     faut pas oublier que dans plusieurs villes
18     canadiennes -- je pense entre autres à Québec et à
19     certaines parties de Montréal -- les gens sont abonnés
20     au câble parce qu'ils n'ont pas d'autre choix, parce
21     que les signaux par air n'arrivent pas à transmettre...
22     je ne dirais même pas de la qualité, mais juste de la
23     neige.  Alors il faut quand même ne pas oublier cet
24     aspect-là de l'équation, que des gens sont pratiquement
25     abonnés de force au câble, parce qu'ils n'ont pas de   


 1     réception.
 2  9217                 Pour nous, la question de l'accès
 3     dans les zones rurales est une question fondamentale,
 4     mais aussi je pense que les statistiques qu'on a sont
 5     peut-être un peu biaisées dû au fait que déjà la
 6     qualité de transmission a baissé, et c'est pour ça
 7     qu'on est quand même extrêmement préoccupé par le fait
 8     qu'il faut que ça demeure du service de base, la
 9     transmission de la programmation télévisuelle, par la
10     voie des airs.
11  9218                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Vous voulez dire par
12     ondes hertziennes.
13  9219                 Mme VALLÉE:  C'est ça.
14  9220                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et c'est justement ce
15     qui serait votre inquiétude, c'est que pour une raison
16     ou une autre, incluant la vente du spectre, les
17     télédiffuseurs fermeraient leurs transmetteurs et
18     apporteraient leur signal...
19  9221                 Mme VALLÉE:  C'est ça, à la tête de
20     ligne du câblo ou par...
21  9222                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ou d'une autre...
22  9223                 Mme VALLÉE:  C'est ça.  Ou d'un autre
23     dispositif de...
24  9224                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Si c'est au
25     satellite, c'est très dispendieux pour une station


 1     hertzienne.
 2  9225                 Mme VALLÉE:  Effectivement.
 3  9226                 Il ne faut pas oublier qu'il y a des
 4     coûts pour l'industrie, mais ces coûts-là ultimement
 5     sont toujours répercutés dans le tarif que le
 6     consommateur paye, et actuellement beaucoup des
 7     installations ont été subventionnées, ou sont déjà
 8     payées.  Il faut les maintenir, il faut probablement
 9     les moderniser, mais c'est probablement moins cher
10     ultimement pour le consommateur, cette
11     modernisation-là, que de devoir payer pour soit la
12     diffusion directe par satellite ou même le câble, parce
13     que dans certains cas le câble n'est même pas offert.
14  9227                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Passons maintenant à
15     votre inquiétude au sujet du contenu qui est offert par
16     les stations hertziennes, assumant qu'on continue à les
17     recevoir et qu'il n'y a pas le problème que vous
18     soulevez au niveau technologique.
19  9228                 Et votre présentation orale et votre
20     présentation écrite s'inquiètent que la programmation
21     locale disparaisse des stations hertziennes, et je vous
22     avoue que pendant nos réunions avec le public en juin
23     nous avons eu évidemment beaucoup de représentations à
24     cet effet.
25  9229                 Est-ce que vous savez qu'en ce moment


 1     les stations doivent présenter à leur antenne des
 2     nouvelles?
 3  9230                 Mme VALLÉE:  Oui, on est au courant
 4     qu'elles doivent présenter des nouvelles locales, mais
 5     c'est généralement leur définition de "locales" qui
 6     prime, et dans certains cas, je vais prendre au Québec,
 7     c'est extrêmement limité, ce qu'ils offrent comme
 8     contenu local.  Si c'est dix minutes sur une diffusion
 9     d'une heure, ce n'est pas énorme, vous conviendrez avec
10     moi.
11  9231                 MR. REDDICK:  One thing I would like
12     to add is that one of our concerns about local content
13     is that as you move to larger station owner groups or
14     takeovers in the industry, the question is:  How much
15     incentive is there to produce content or news at
16     national or regional levels as opposed to the local
17     level?
18  9232                 One of our concerns is that as those
19     kinds of trends in the industry take place, it is
20     important to make sure that there is diversity of
21     programming and a substantive amount of local
22     production continuing.
23  9233                 So independent stations where they
24     may be owned within the community is one thing; but
25     where they become part of a national chain, if you


 1     will, then we have some concern as to what happens to
 2     diversity of content.
 3  9234                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  In your written
 4     submission, at page 4, paragraph 8, you talk about the
 5     need to have regulations and incentives which would
 6     improve the availability of quality Canadian content in
 7     peak viewing hours.
 8  9235                 And you say that you have no specific
 9     recommendations about new regulations or incentives at
10     that time.
11  9236                 I was going to ask you whether having
12     followed the hearing, if you did, and having heard
13     various presentations, or knowing about various
14     presentations, whether you have any more comments to
15     make.
16  9237                 You did this morning refer to and
17     discount the CAB's use of viewership levels as an
18     incentive or regulatory mechanism.
19  9238                 You seem to have understood that the
20     CAB is asking to be relieved of all the regulations it
21     is under now, which is not quite fair.  I believe the
22     CAB's position was to keep the A and B choice -- which
23     refer to either spending requirements or exhibition
24     requirements -- albeit with some relaxation related to
25     promotion, advertising, credits for specific types of


 1     programming, but then not asking for more, the way the
 2     producers are asking for more; instead, putting this
 3     viewership goal as a grid or incentive to ensure that
 4     we improve the quality and viewership of Canadian
 5     content.
 6  9239                 Do you have any other comment now
 7     about what the Commission should do with regard to
 8     certain types of programming in peak viewing hours?
 9  9240                 MR. REDDICK:  A couple of comments.
10  9241                 First, we have not had a chance to
11     get deeply involved in this proceeding because, without
12     intervenor cost awards, we cannot devote the time.
13  9242                 We devote about 20 percent of our
14     resources to pro bono work each year --
15  9243                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just as I was about
16     to say:  "We are very pleased to see you participating
17     in broadcasting.  I hope that you enjoy yourself and
18     that you come back."
19  9244                 MR. REDDICK:  So I will move on from
20     that point.
21  9245                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But like the
22     broadcasters, you think that that would be too
23     expensive without some help.
24  9246                 MR. REDDICK:  Well, it is a lot of
25     work.  On the telecom side, as you well know, we put in


 1     a lot of work and effort and spent a lot of time and
 2     resources on that side, because we know that we will
 3     still be in business a week later.
 4  9247                 For this, we have not been able to
 5     commit the same kinds of resources, because we are a
 6     not-for-profit organization and it is difficult for us
 7     to make contributions to the CRTC that way.  We prefer
 8     to give it to poverty groups and to seniors.
 9  9248                 So we cannot offer much more in the
10     way of ideas on that front.
11  9249                 In terms of the CAB, we read through
12     their documentation, especially page 42 of their
13     written submission several times, and we found the idea
14     interesting but very poorly developed and not at all
15     clear.
16  9250                 Some of the points in some of their
17     plans of how to establish goals and the approach that
18     would be used, we found not very clear, and some
19     implicit suggestions there that maybe there would be
20     less regulation or less performance requirements in
21     terms of their contributions and more voluntaristic
22     approach to how they use the funds or what types of
23     programs they may make.
24  9251                 With respect to the lack of clarity
25     and the fuzziness of some of the points, we chose to


 1     err on the side of caution and assume that they wanted
 2     to be released from some of the regulatory requirements
 3     as part of the voluntaristic approach.
 4  9252                 We have some concerns with that and
 5     also with the notion of viewership or using a ratings
 6     approach to measure success.
 7  9253                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Reddick, are
 8     you --
 9  9254                 Mme VALLÉE:  Je m'excuse, madame...
10  9255                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui, allez-y.
11  9256                 Mme VALLÉE:  J'aimerais citer Mme Lise
12     Payette, qui, lors de la remise des prix Gémeaux
13     dimanche dernier, nous a dit que "tout réduire aux
14     seules cotes d'écoute nous entraîne plutôt vers le bas
15     que vers le haut", et à ce titre-là je pense que la
16     suggestion de CAB serait effectivement de regarder avec
17     extrêmement d'attention, parce que si c'est comme ça
18     qu'on juge la qualité d'un programme, je pense qu'on
19     risque de vraiment errer dans le sens d'aller vers le
20     bas, et ce serait extrêmement regrettable.
21  9257                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ce serait vers les
22     bandes illustrées.
23  9258                 Mme VALLÉE:  Oui, effectivement.
24  9259                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But, Mr. Reddick,
25     do I hear you say that with sufficient funds, you could


 1     find a way of making this project work; that it is
 2     poorly thought out, but the idea is not necessarily to
 3     be rejected?
 4  9260                 MR. REDDICK:  If the underlying
 5     assumption is that there is a problem with the current
 6     regulatory approach, in that broadcasters see the
 7     existing regulations as minimal targets -- this is all
 8     they have to do and they do no more -- then that is a
 9     problem and they are not contributing enough to the
10     system.  Perhaps this is a better carrot, if you will,
11     or a way of showing good faith and goodwill.
12  9261                 My response is:  I would like to see
13     some evidence of that with the existing system; see
14     them go well beyond the existing floor, if you will, of
15     regulation to prove the point rather than to take the
16     risk of going on a voluntaristic approach or a code
17     approach without that regulatory framework to ground
18     that.
19  9262                 Let's see if it can happen under the
20     existing framework and see what kind of success we
21     have.
22  9263                 I think the problem is good
23     intentions, but when they butt up against shareholder
24     interest, I am willing to bet that the good intentions
25     are likely to lose on some of those issues.


 1  9264                 One other suggestion that I heard
 2     recently is that the Canadian Production Fund is
 3     proposing new guidelines, I understand, where instead
 4     of taking a first-come/first-served approach on
 5     funding, they would adjudicate proposals based on the
 6     Canadianness of the applications.
 7  9265                 I think when companies or
 8     broadcasters come forward in future for licensing, that
 9     may be another way of sort of thinking about how to
10     improve the content:  Is it just indigenous production
11     for Canada, regardless of whether there is economic
12     potential?  Or is there also an export potential here?
13  9266                 Or is it just a visual widget, if you
14     will, for export?
15  9267                 Perhaps there is a way of finetuning
16     what we think as Canadian content.
17  9268                 I know we have a proceeding coming up
18     on that later.
19  9269                 Beyond that, we did not have the time
20     to go into substantive details on these issues.
21  9270                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  When you talk about
22     progressive rather than regressive on the first page of
23     your presentation, you would say demand more, not less,
24     than they are now doing; but stop short of doing it at
25     the expense of the real local, local programming.


 1  9271                 MR. REDDICK:  Exactly.  We have to be
 2     careful.  There is a certain amount of hand-wringing
 3     going on, saying:  "We have 32 percent viewership of
 4     English programming."  And people think that is
 5     terrible.
 6  9072                 I think it is really good when you
 7     look at other countries; for example, the United
 8     States, where they have very little options other than
 9     American programming.  We have that, plus we also have
10     our programming.
11  9273                 If we look at other areas, like
12     Canadian books, what have you, that greatly exceeds
13     those levels.
14  9274                 So we are doing quite well.  But we
15     can do better.  I think as we plan to do better, we
16     have to be very careful that we don't trade off one
17     part of the sector, whether it is local programming or
18     under-represented categories for entertainment.  We
19     have to be very careful in the approaches that we take.
20  9275                 This requires probably some thought
21     and balance between "are we just talking about an
22     economic commodity for export", or "how do we balance
23     that with Canadian indigenous productions".
24  9276                 That is a tough job.  I know it is
25     your job to do that.  How you resolve that, I can't


 1     help you too much on that today.
 2  9277                 I think that comes down to the core
 3     of the issue.
 4  9278                 Mme VALLÉE:  Je pense qu'il ne
 5     faudrait pas que vous oubliez aussi qu'il y a comme
 6     deux marchés au Canada, et que le niveau d'audiences au
 7     Québec pour les productions de langue française est
 8     extrêmement élevé, et qu'il faudrait faire attention à
 9     ne pas détruire ce qui existe déjà en modifiant des
10     règles qui sont déjà quand même pas si exigeantes que
11     ça pour les producteurs et les distributeurs.
12  9279                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui, parce que vous
13     réalisez que les règles au Québec sont probablement
14     moins exigeantes que les règles au Canada anglais. 
15     Donc il y a des facteurs assez complexes, qui dépassent
16     même la langue, dont on a discuté dans plusieurs
17     soumissions, qui nous ont donné ce système.  Et je suis
18     d'accord avec vous qu'il y a plusieurs intervenants qui
19     veulent s'assurer que l'acquis soit gardé et qu'on ne
20     glisse pas vers moins de productions canadiennes.
21  9280                 Mr. Reddick, you mentioned both this
22     morning and in your written submission this balance you
23     feel has to occur between the production of what you
24     could call indigenous programming and programming that
25     is exportable -- not to say that the one can't become


 1     the other.
 2  9281                 MR. REDDICK:  Right.
 3  9282                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But you don't
 4     discount the value of having a mix to reinforce the
 5     production industry to the benefit of the viewer.
 6  9283                 MR. REDDICK:  No.  I think it is
 7     extremely important to have the mix, because you have
 8     to have an overall healthy industry.  Obviously, some
 9     areas are not as profitable as other areas.  We do have
10     an industrial policy to create jobs and develop the
11     industry, and the economic side of that is very
12     important.  The ability to undertake those other
13     activities requires that kind of financial health.  So
14     I think that is very important.
15  9284                 You are right that it is a question
16     of balance, and how we find that balance is probably
17     the key.  That will change, and we will probably have
18     to revisit that over time.
19  9285                 I think the biggest challenge for the
20     Commission over the next little while is, if we are
21     taking a more flexible approach in terms of policy --
22  9286                 It is going to be a lot more work for
23     you to see what happens and who is proceeding with what
24     types of initiatives to achieve those kinds of
25     balances.


 1                                                        1015
 2  9287                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  With regard to
 3     concentration of ownership, you seem to be quite
 4     concerned that at the local level that there not be two
 5     stations owned by the same owner and that would be
 6     regardless of how many stations there are.
 7  9288                 You do seem to acknowledge that
 8     concentration may, or do you, provide stronger parties
 9     that are more likely with a balanced regulatory system
10     to give the results that you want.
11  9289                 MR. REDDICK:  Yes.  In a competitive
12     market, producers are winners and losers.  The natural
13     outcome is that one or a few companies wind up
14     dominating the marketplace, you know, given the freedom
15     to compete over time.  That's fine.
16  9290                 The important thing is to ensure that
17     as we move in that direction that there is not
18     dominance or particular control or market power by a
19     few companies in the industry.  Yes, it's very
20     important, especially given global growth in the
21     industry, that we do have a very healthy broadcasting
22     industry and it's important to have the resources to be
23     able to undertake, you know, the types of requirements
24     they are going to need to survive domestically and deal
25     with international competition.


 1  9291                 At the same time, it comes back to
 2     that word balance.  It would be ironic --
 3  9292                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Which is what you
 4     are leaving to us.
 5  9293                 MR. REDDICK:  Well, it is, but I
 6     would observe that it would be ironic if we are victims
 7     of our own success.  You know, 20 years ago we had an
 8     industry that was dominated by a couple of broadcasters
 9     and a few production companies.  We may end up coming
10     full circle if we're not careful, having an industry
11     dominated by a few distributors and a few production
12     companies and a few major broadcasters and the rest are
13     following along on their coat-tails.
14  9294                 The question is how many, how big and
15     to what degree.  If that's okay, then how do you
16     regulate it, what kind of conditions or requirements do
17     you need, if any?  I think that's an ongoing review.  I
18     don't think it's a hard and fast framework or answer
19     you can impose and say this will stand forever.  I
20     think you have to look at how the industry changes over
21     time.  I think it is an important issue.
22  9295                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  As you know, and
23     you alluded to it, we are holding a process on new
24     media, so I expect you will be there.  Some of your
25     suggestions today address that area, in particular, by


 1     suggesting an additional levy on additional parties,
 2     including carriers.
 3  9296                 Are you looking at carriers that get
 4     involved in content only or Internet providers who do
 5     nothing but to provide access to the Internet?
 6  9297                 MR. REDDICK:  At this stage we are
 7     recommending that telecommunication carriers and the
 8     ISP commercial providers as the only initial first
 9     step.
10  9298                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  No, but this would
11     be regardless of whether they are providing content. 
12     They are only providing carriage.
13  9299                 MR. REDDICK:  Right.
14  9300                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I have a bit of
15     difficulty with where you would find the Commission's
16     ability without any legislative amendment to require
17     telecom carriers who are not involved in content to
18     provide funds for the purpose of providing content.
19  9301                 MR. REDDICK:  Well, it's something
20     that we thought about.  We have addressed this issue at
21     previous proceedings.  A couple of observations.  One,
22     you may have to make an amendment at some point.  This
23     goes back to the notion of trying to bridge the two
24     Acts and are they flexible enough to deal with this
25     issue.


 1  9302                 It also goes to the question of
 2     there's a policy vacuum out there in our minds in
 3     dealing with content and the various forms of content,
 4     whether it's broadcasting on television, whether it's
 5     multimedia, Internet, CD Rom, what have you.  There
 6     needs to be some more coherence and concordance between
 7     content policies.
 8  9303                 Specifically, with
 9     telecommunications, you know, we have moved well
10     beyond.  We have evolved beyond basic telephone service
11     in terms of communications and telecommunications. 
12     There are social obligations within the
13     Telecommunications Act under section 7.  They are not
14     explicitly defined, but presumably with the amendment
15     earlier this year which refers to basic
16     telecommunications services in the plural as an
17     evolving concept, one would presume that if we were
18     moving beyond basic telephone and that we can receive
19     broadcasting and other forms of multimedia content
20     through the telecommunications system that there should
21     be some obligation there in terms of making that
22     accessible and also helping -- do they want summaries
23     or to see that new form of content which is not
24     programming in the traditional sense.
25  9304                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You will be a very


 1     popular man with some parties at this hearing if you
 2     are suggesting that 5 per cent of gross annual revenues
 3     of all telephone carriers annually be funnelled into a
 4     fund for the production of content.
 5  9305                 MR. REDDICK:  And access.
 6  9306                 MS VALLÉE:  Madame Wylie, j'aimerais
 7     que ce soit bien clair. Cette proposition-là est reliée
 8     à l'ensemble de la problématique de l'accès, et pas
 9     seulement à l'accès à la programmation télévisuelle.
10  9307                 Si vous regardez notre soumission à
11     la page 8 et 9, il est très clair que pour nous c'est
12     l'accès aux info-routes, ce qui comprend le téléphone,
13     le multimédia, la télévision, la radio, et toutes les
14     formes de communication.  Soyons bien clairs.
15  9308                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Vous voulez dire des
16     subventions... il y aurait une partie de ce fonds qui
17     irait à la production de la programmation, et une
18     partie qui irait à subventionner l'accès.
19  9309                 Mme VALLÉE:  Effectivement, et je
20     pense que cette proposition-là, pour nous c'est à la
21     base la même que celle que vous nous avez déjà entendu
22     faire dans certaines audiences de télécommunication. 
23     Celle qu'on a mis de l'avant dans l'audience sur le
24     service téléphonique dans les zones de desserte à coûts
25     élevés, et pour nous c'est intimement relié.  Je pense


 1     que nous...
 2  9310                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  L'accès au contenu
 3     plutôt que la production de contenu, ou les deux?
 4  9311                 Mme VALLÉE:  Les deux.  Mais c'est
 5     notre troisième objectif dans notre proposition.  C'est
 6     d'abord l'accès au contenu, et ensuite l'aide au
 7     développement de contenu local, régional, national.  Et
 8     je pense qu'il faut la voir dans ce sens-là.
 9  9312                 Nous avons déjà fait le saut dans le
10     monde de la convergence, et notre proposition s'inscrit
11     dans ce sens-là.
12  9313                 MR. REDDICK:  I would just like to
13     add that 5 per cent is a level that broadcast
14     distribution undertakings are required to contribute. 
15     Given that their industry is about one tenth the size
16     of the telecommunications industry, we thought it would
17     be a fair and reasonable place to start.
18  9314                 Again, I would just like to reaffirm
19     what Marie said about the disbursements of the funds. 
20     One idea is to put it into telecommunications access. 
21     When we look at programs such as the governments
22     connecting Canada program, community access, cap sites,
23     what have you, as the Commission has heard in this past
24     summer on the high cost of hearing proceeding, there's
25     a major access problem in terms of costs of multimedia


 1     or Internet service, if you will, in rural areas.  Part
 2     of those funds could be used as part of that universal
 3     fund or connectivity fund or whatever you want to call
 4     it under telecommunications.
 5  9315                 Explicitly, we did say that the other
 6     fund -- the rest of the money should be channelled to
 7     the multimedia fund, but also for non-profit cultural
 8     groups, historical groups and others to develop
 9     content.
10  9316                 The interesting thing is, unlike
11     television programming where you require studios and a
12     mass of employees and expensive equipment and what have
13     you to produce content, with the Internet and
14     multimedia you require creativity, a computer, a
15     scanner and some local resources or regional resources.
16  9317                 A lot of cultural groups and heritage
17     groups have those resources.  What they lack is the
18     means and the assistance and the lack of some sort of a
19     national policy to develop that.
20  9318                 There's a real opportunity for these
21     groups and organizations across the country to develop
22     this new form of content, but there's a lack of the
23     different programs or procedures in place to do that
24     right now.  That would be the other fund.
25  9319                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  So in both cases,


 1     both access and as an incentive to the production of
 2     content, you would have some criteria for access to it
 3     based on inability to either pay or participate without
 4     funding.
 5  9320                 MR. REDDICK:  Yes.  Ideally, we would
 6     see this as separate funds, separate from the
 7     broadcasters themselves who don't have to get involved
 8     in the licensing issue, how do you license a fund or
 9     how do you license a community network.  We don't need
10     to get into that if the funds are accrued for those
11     purposes like any and all the other funds.  People can
12     apply for that support.
13  9321                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  But if your aim is
14     to produce local programming, it's the broadcaster
15     usually who produces the local programming.
16  9322                 MR. REDDICK:  Yes.  We are talking
17     about new forms of content though, using this fund.
18  9323                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  That are not
19     over-the-air available to all the Canadians and all the
20     consumers that you are representing.
21  9324                 MR. REDDICK:  Right.  Electronic
22     content, multimedia.
23  9325                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.  It is 13 per
24     cent of homes now have the equipment necessary to have
25     access to the new forms of content on the --


 1  9326                 MR. REDDICK:  It ranges between -- it
 2     depends on whose numbers you look at -- 15 and 25 per
 3     cent.  At the moment, it's still quite low.  It is
 4     growing, but it's the type of thing where I think over
 5     the next several years we will see increasing options
 6     of how people will have access, whether it's through
 7     television or other modes, but I think it's something
 8     that we need to start thinking about now in terms of
 9     development.
10  9327                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.  It's a little
11     bit at odds with your aim to ensure that over-the-air
12     broadcasters get all the help they can and the
13     producers who produce programming for it so that the
14     highest proportion of the population get a diversity of
15     quality Canadian programming because generally
16     speaking, even with subsidies, I would imagine that
17     these new forms of access, and 25 to 30 per cent of
18     Internet access at home seems high to me, but in any
19     event, we see various numbers.
20  9328                 It still remains that it's not the
21     consumer that you are aiming for whose life would be
22     enriched, that is the consumer who is relying only on
23     the over-the-air broadcaster to offer entertainment,
24     information, et cetera.
25  9329                 MR. REDDICK:  I agree with your


 1     point.  The problem is that there's no real choice for
 2     consumers on this.  We are moving to digital
 3     television.  A lot of the information, products and
 4     service produced by governments and others are only
 5     being made available on the Internet.
 6  9330                 It's not a question -- you know, some
 7     of our clients don't want this, don't need this,
 8     probably won't want to use this, but the problem is
 9     they will have less and less choice over the next
10     several years so we are looking ahead in a transition
11     and saying if they are not going to have choice about
12     whether they have to access some of these content
13     services, whether it's government services or
14     commercial services, down the road, if they are not
15     going to have choice about whether they have to have
16     digital television or a set-top box over the next
17     several years, then at least what we should do is put
18     in place different types of funds or means of support
19     for both access, to facilitate access at the community
20     level and also different forms of support for content
21     which is relevant to their needs, which gives them a
22     reason beyond there down the road.
23  9331                 You're right.  Today it's not that
24     big an issue, but over the next several years it will
25     become an issue.  We have to be thinking ahead for


 1     that.
 2  9332                 Mme VALLÉE:  C'est ça, et je pense que
 3     notre proposition s'inscrit très bien dans la volonté
 4     réitérée à maintes reprises par le gouvernement du
 5     Canada, et particulièrement par le ministre de
 6     l'industrie, qu'il y ait des points d'accès
 7     communautaires, qu'il y ait de la production
 8     communautaire qui pourront, oui, être diffusés par le
 9     canal, l'Internet, et donc par des moyens
10     technologiques plus avancés, mais qui pourrait
11     également être reprise par les télédiffuseurs
12     traditionnels et diffusée soit localement, soit
13     régionalement.
14  9333                 Je pense qu'il faut aussi donner aux
15     communautés la chance d'être au même niveau que les
16     entreprises commerciales -- peut-être pas au même
17     niveau mais, en tout cas, pas un dinosaure par rapport
18     à une Ferrari, n'est-ce pas, quand le temps va venir où
19     on n'aura plus le choix, et que là ce soit seulement
20     les fournisseurs commerciaux qui aient les moyens de
21     développer des applications qui vont refléter, dans le
22     fond, la volonté et la diversité des communautés.
23  9334                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais vous vous
24     rappelez que nous parlons maintenant de radiodiffusion.
25     Nous ne parlons pas de capacité d'avoir accès à


 1     E-Commerce, E-Mail.  Nous parlons ici de broadcasting,
 2     de programmation, de divertissement, d'information,
 3     news, et caetera.
 4  9335                 Mme VALLÉE:  On n'est pas des grands
 5     promoteurs du commerce électronique.  On répond au...
 6  9336                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Non, mais la
 7     nécessité que les gens soient au même diapason est plus
 8     sérieuse dans... in the area where one has to have
 9     certain access to be able to participate in the world
10     the way other people are participating.
11  9337                 It would seem to me if we provide in
12     the widest available technology means possible the best
13     programming possible that is diverse and of quality, in
14     the sense of broadcasting would be the aim.
15  9338                 It appears to be your aim in ensuring
16     that those transmitters are not turned down.
17  9339                 MR. REDDICK:  Yes.
18  9340                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  If we put too much
19     money into providing video to a very small portion of
20     the population, it seems contradictory to the main aim
21     of your presentation.
22  9341                 I want to ask you a last question. 
23     On page 13, paragraph 22, of your written submission,
24     you speak of the significant benefits test and that it
25     should be continued.  In other words, that when there


 1     are transfers or concentration of ownership, the
 2     Commission continue to demand that something be put
 3     back in the system for the benefit of viewers.
 4  9342                 You say that there should continue to
 5     be a comprehensive package of benefits as part of
 6     licensing and a definition and imposition of these
 7     should be done in an open, transparent processes.  Are
 8     you suggesting that that is not the case at the moment
 9     and there needs to be a change or review in the manner
10     that the Commission imposes significant benefits?
11  9343                 MR. REDDICK:  No.  We just want to
12     make sure it continues on in future.
13  9344                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  In the same manner.
14  9345                 MR. REDDICK:  In the same manner.
15  9346                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are aware that
16     we have public notices as to what are benefits that are
17     acceptable and what are not.  Often, especially in
18     larger transactions, they are discussed very openly --
19  9347                 MR. REDDICK:  That's important.
20  9348                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  -- and are in the
21     application and people can criticize or comment.
22  9349                 MR. REDDICK:  Especially for viewers
23     in different communities, you know when there are
24     changes in ownerships and what have you.  It's very
25     important that they know what's going on and have an


 1     opportunity to input into what's going on.
 2  9350                 One of our concerns in that as we
 3     move to greater ownership of more and more station by
 4     large owner groups that if the benefits are shifted
 5     away from the community and promises are made to
 6     produce other than at a regional or national level, we
 7     want to make sure that people in the communities aren't
 8     losing out on that.
 9  9351                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  As you know, in
10     radio recently the Commission changed it's policy to a
11     case by case approach -- well, it's case by case in the
12     sense that it's related to the monetary level of the
13     transaction and a percentage was struck.
14  9352                 Do you find that a more acceptable
15     method than an ad hoc method where the percentages may
16     indeed vary rather than simply applying a percentage
17     and then dictating where it goes.
18  9353                 MR. REDDICK:  Yes.  I think you have
19     to be flexible.  The reality is we have to take things
20     on a case by case basis these days because every
21     situation will be a bit different.  I don't think you
22     can have a hard and fast rule.
23  9354                 You may find you have to, I don't
24     know, but I think if the system is going to work and
25     given the different realities of different markets and


 1     the different companies involved, you may need to take
 2     a more flexible approach on that.
 3  9355                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Those are my
 4     questions.  My colleagues may have some, especially
 5     Commissioner McKendry indicated he does.
 6  9356                 I hope you enjoyed yourselves
 7     sufficiently to come back on a rainy day and without
 8     funds.
 9  9357                 MR. REDDICK:  We will get walking
10     back, but we will be okay.
11  9358                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
12  9359                 Commissioner McKendry.
13  9360                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I just have
14     one question I wanted to ask you about the 5 per cent
15     contribution by telecommunications carriers and
16     commercial ISPs.
17  9361                 Cable rates are 5 per cent higher
18     than they would be otherwise because of the
19     contribution by the cable companies.  It's not really
20     the cable companies that make the contribution to the
21     fund.  It's you and me and the cable companies'
22     customers.
23  9362                 Do you think that consumers would
24     cheerfully accept a 5 per cent increase in their phone
25     bills and in their ISP --


 1  9363                 MR. REDDICK:  How much do you get
 2     back each month from your phone company when you pay
 3     your bill?
 4  9364                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Just to
 5     finish my question.  Do you think that consumers would
 6     cheerfully accept a 5 per cent increase in their phone
 7     bills and in their ISP access fees for the purposes
 8     that you have set out here?
 9  9365                 MR. REDDICK:  Again, I would answer
10     the question and I will continue with how much do you
11     get back each month from your ISP and your phone
12     company out of your phone bill?  What we are proposing
13     may increase your fees by 5 per cent.  The difference
14     is that it's consumer money going back for consumers
15     and for public interest us.
16  9366                 I think given the trade-off, it's
17     probably well worth it.  Marie?
18  9367                 Mme VALLÉE:  Je pense aussi que
19     peut-être que ça ne se traduira pas nécessairement par
20     une hausse de 5 pour cent de la facture du téléphone de
21     base, compte tenu qu'actuellement on le sait... je ne
22     voudrais pas tomber dans une audience de telecom, mais
23     que les compagnies de telecom ont de la misère à
24     rencontrer les obligations qui leur sont imposées par
25     le plafonnement des prix.  Alors peut-être que ça va se


 1     traduire par une hausse de 5 pour cent; peut-être pas
 2     non plus.  Ce sont des choses qui devront être
 3     débattues quand on discutera des fonds à mettre en
 4     place pour aider à l'accès dans les régions rurales
 5     éloignées, pour les personnes économiquement
 6     défavorisées, et peut-être aussi pour aider à
 7     contribuer au développement de contenu canadien.
 8  9368                 Mais est-ce que ça va effectivement
 9     donner directement une hausse de 5 pour cent?  C'est ce
10     qu'on verra.  Par ailleurs, je crois que Andy a soulevé
11     un point très important, à savoir que, oui, peut-être
12     que nos tarifs de câble sont légèrement plus élevés
13     qu'ils le seraient, mais je pense que ça nous donne
14     aussi un meilleur éventail de productions canadiennes,
15     de contribuer comme ça.
16  9369                 C'est sûr qu'il va y avoir des gens
17     qui ne seront pas contents, mais je pense que c'est le
18     rôle du Conseil et du gouvernement canadien,
19     d'équilibrer, balancer, comme on dit en anglais, les
20     intérêts individuels avec l'intérêt public, l'intérêt
21     collectif, et si c'est le prix à payer, on le paiera.
22  9370                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you.
23  9371                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Counsel?
24  9372                 MR. BLAIS:  Just one question.
25  9373                 I was noticing that your


 1     recommendations dealt with the broadcasting sector
 2     generally.  I was wondering more specifically from a
 3     consumer perspective whether the specificity of either
 4     the English or the French sector should influence those
 5     recommendations.
 6                                                        1030
 7  9374                 Do the consumer interests -- are they
 8     in line with the notion that each sector is distinct?
 9  9375                 Mme VALLÉE:  Je pense que vous ne
10     pourrez pas faire autrement que d'en tenir compte,
11     n'est-ce pas, mais je crois aussi qu'il y a des choses
12     qui s'appliquent à travers tout le pays au titre de
13     protéger le contenu canadien, qu'il soit francophone ou
14     anglophone.  C'est évident qu'il y a des spécificités
15     dans la production et dans la distribution du contenu
16     francophone et qu'on veut préserver ce qu'on a réussi à
17     atteindre à travers les années, mais je pense qu'il ne
18     faut pas non plus lâcher trop de corde du côté de la
19     production et de la distribution au Canada anglais non
20     plus.
21  9376                 Me BLAIS:  Peut-être ma question
22     touchait plus la structure de l'industrie du côté
23     francophone.
24  9377                 Je me demandais si, étant donné les
25     trois tests de ce marché, on ne devrait pas avoir des


 1     règles qui sont un peu différentes du Canada anglais,
 2     et je me demandais si du point de vue des consommateurs
 3     ça vous créait des problèmes.
 4  9378                 Mme VALLÉE:  Dans le sens de la
 5     propriété, ou...
 6  9379                 Effectivement, je pense que le marché
 7     étant extrêmement concentré et très petit, ce que nous
 8     avons mentionné s'applique probablement encore avec
 9     plus de précaution ou d'attention au Québec, compte
10     tenu de... effectivement, déjà il y a un très haut
11     niveau de concentration.  Il faut faire encore très
12     attention à ce niveau-là.
13  9380                 Ceci dit, je pense que le marché
14     canadien-anglais n'est pas si immense que ça.  Le
15     Canada est un grand pays, mais le marché n'est pas plus
16     grand parce qu'il est géographiquement étendu, et je
17     pense que dans l'ouest, entre autres, tous les
18     mouvements qu'on a vus, entre autres, la compagnie Shaw
19     faire des acquisitions verticales, tout ça, il va
20     falloir de ce côté-là être aussi extrêmement prudent.
21  9381                 MR. REDDICK:  I would just like to
22     add at the outset of the proceeding, I think it was the
23     Chair stated that there are distinct differences
24     between the different markets and we respect and
25     understand there may be different applications in a


 1     general level of some of the different ideals.  So,
 2     yes, we acknowledge that.
 3  9382                 Me BLAIS:  Merci.  Ce sont mes
 4     questions.
 5  9383                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci.  Nous vous
 6     remercions et, au revoir.
 7  9384                 Nous allons maintenant prendre une
 8     pause de 15 minutes.  We will be back at 10 to 11:00.
 9     --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1035
10     --- Reprise à / Upon resuming at 1055
11  9385                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Bonjour, mesdames et
12     messieurs.  Je m'excuse, il semble que je sois un peu
13     en retard.
14  9386                 Madame la Secrétaire.
15  9387                 Mme BÉNARD:  Merci, Madame la
16     Présidente.
17  9388                 La prochaine présentation sera celle
18     de Astral Communications inc.  J'inviterais M. Bureau à
19     nous présenter ses collègues.
21  9389                 M. BUREAU:  Madame la Présidente,
22     Mesdames, Messieurs les Conseillers, je suis André
23     Bureau, président du conseil d'Astral Communications et
24     président et chef de la direction du Groupe de
25     radiodiffusion Astral.


 1  9390                 À mes côtés aujourd'hui, à ma droite,
 2     Lisa de Wilde, présidente de TMN - The Movie Network,
 3     MOVIEPIX et Viewer's Choice Canada; à sa droite, Sophie
 4     Émond, conseiller juridique, Heenan Blaikie; à ma
 5     gauche, Pierre Roy, président et chef de la direction
 6     de Super Écran, Canal Famille et Canal D; derrière moi,
 7     en commençant par ma gauche, René Bourdages,
 8     vice-président et directeur général de Canal Indigo;
 9     Len Cochrane, président et chef de l'exploitation de
10     Family Channel, qu'Astral détient à part égale avec
11     WIC; Alicia Ortiz, directrice à la planification
12     stratégique de TMN Networks; et John Riley, président
13     de Teletoon, dont Family Cannel est le principal
14     actionnaire.
15  9391                 Comme vous le savez, Madame la
16     Présidente, le Groupe de radiodiffusion Astral exploite
17     quatre réseaux de télévision spécialisée, Canal D,
18     Canal Famille, Teletoon en français et Teletoon en
19     anglais; quatre réseaux de télévision payante, Super
20     Écran, TMN, MOVIEPIX et Family Channel; ainsi qu'un
21     réseau de télévision à la carte de langue française,
22     Canal Indigo, et un de langue anglaise, Viewer's
23     Choice.
24  9392                 Par le biais de ces réseaux, nous
25     avons contribué plus de 325 millions de dollars au


 1     développement de scénarios, au financement, à la
 2     promotion et à la diffusion d'émissions canadiennes
 3     depuis le lancement de nos premiers réseaux au début
 4     des années quatre-vingt.  Mais, encore plus important,
 5     nos contributions financières ont porté vers les
 6     catégories d'émissions canadiennes sous-représentées,
 7     soit les longs métrages, les séries dramatiques, les
 8     documentaires et les émissions pour enfants.  De plus,
 9     ces émissions voient fréquemment leur qualité reconnue
10     sur la scène nationale et internationale.  Une liste
11     contenant le nombre impressionnant d'émissions ainsi
12     primées est jointe à notre présentation.
13  9393                 Nos réseaux Super Écran, TMN,
14     MOVIEPIX, Viewer's Choice et Canal Indigo sont des
15     acteurs clés du secteur canadien de la télévision
16     payante et à la carte, qui représentent la plus grande
17     source de financement des longs métrages canadiens
18     provenant du secteur privé.  De plus, nos réseaux
19     constituent la fenêtre la plus importante permettant
20     aux téléspectateurs canadiens de voir à ces enseignes
21     des films canadiens.  Ainsi, par exemple, "Le Violon
22     Rouge", "No!", "Last Night" et "Hathi", qui ont connu
23     beaucoup de succès lors du récent Festival
24     international du film de Toronto et au Festival des
25     films du monde de Montréal, seront diffusés par nos


 1     réseaux dans moins d'un an.
 2  9394                 À Canal Indigo, "Les Boys" détient le
 3     record de tous les temps pour le plus de ventes en une
 4     journée pour un film offert à la carte.  De plus, Canal
 5     Indigo a fait sa marque dans le soutien d'événements
 6     dont le public québécois raffole avec, par exemple, les
 7     galas du Festival Juste pour Rire et des concerts du
 8     Festival d'été international de Québec.  Viewer's
 9     Choice, pour sa part, fournit une programmation unique
10     à un auditoire de niche; "The Sahara Cup Cricket" en
11     est un bon exemple.
12  9395                 Bien que les émissions pour enfants
13     soient parmi les catégories les plus sous-représentées
14     à la télévision canadienne, Canal Famille, Family
15     Channel et Teletoon offrent un menu quotidien
16     d'émissions pour enfants et d'animation de qualité en
17     provenance du secteur indépendant.  De plus, ils
18     apportent un soutien financier critique à ces émissions
19     et les enfants canadiens les écoutent fidèlement:  Les
20     productions canadiennes "Franklin", "The Busy World of 
21     Richard Scarry" et "Kleo The Misfit Unicorn" font
22     constamment partie de la liste des dix émissions les
23     plus populaires de Family Channel dans le bloc
24     préscolaire.
25  9396                 Au premier anniversaire de Teletoon,


 1     nous pouvons affirmer que les productions canadiennes,
 2     telles "Fifi Brindacier" et l'émission préscolaire
 3     "Caillou", ont grandement contribué au succès du
 4     lancement du réseau.  D'ailleurs, "Caillou" a remporté
 5     un prix Gémeaux la fin de semaine dernière.  Quant à
 6     Canal Famille, nous sommes fiers d'être associés aux
 7     cinq prix Gémeaux décernés aux productions suivantes
 8     dimanche dernier, "Pin-Pon", "Radio-Enfer" et "Les
 9     Zigotos".
10  9397                 Canal D, quant à lui, fournit un
11     soutien financier important aux producteurs canadiens
12     de documentaires, une catégorie d'émissions fortement
13     sous-représentée à la télévision de langue française
14     avant l'arrivée de Canal D.  Depuis son lancement en
15     1995 Canal D a diffusé des séries primées, tel "Des
16     Crimes et des Hommes", des documentaires d'auteur tel
17     "Aller simple pour Sirius" et "Anatomie de Tarzan".
18  9398                 En plus de notre contribution au
19     Fonds Harold Greenberg, nous sommes heureux d'annoncer
20     aujourd'hui la création du Fonds de programmation
21     Astral.  Ce nouveau fonds jouera un rôle dans le
22     financement, le développement et la production
23     d'émissions canadiennes en se concentrant tout d'abord
24     sur les documentaires.  Le fonds injectera 10 millions
25     de dollars supplémentaires sur cinq ans dans la


 1     production canadienne.  Ceci contribuera à générer un
 2     volume de production de documentaires de 50 millions de
 3     dollars.
 4  9399                 MS de WILDE:  The current regulatory
 5     framework ensures that the contribution of the
 6     specialty and pay television sector automatically
 7     increases as revenues grow.  In the last five years pay
 8     and specialty services have increased their total
 9     revenues by more than 60 per cent, while Canadian
10     programming expenses have increased by almost 90 per
11     cent.  In fact, 80 per cent of all the new incremental
12     dollars that have been spent on programming by pay and
13     specialty services went to Canadian programming.
14  9400                 In contrast, conventional
15     broadcasters have increased their revenues by more than
16     15 per cent over the last five years, but have only
17     increased their Canadian programming expenditures by 8
18     per cent.  For conventional broadcasters, the
19     proportion of those new dollars spent on Canadian
20     programming represented only a third of all the new
21     programming dollars spent.  We have included in the
22     package an appendix that explains this calculation. 
23     The point of it, though, is to demonstrate that the
24     conditions of licence that are attached to pay and
25     specialty in fact drive increased contributions as long


 1     as revenues are increasing.
 2  9401                 The contribution of pay and specialty
 3     services can be even larger if we can eliminate a
 4     number of the bottlenecks that currently limit our
 5     access to viewers and hence hold back or hold down our
 6     revenues.
 7  9402                 It is urgent that efforts be made to
 8     eliminate the piracy, which has a very dramatic
 9     negative impact on Canadian pay television and
10     pay-per-view revenues.  Each year this signal piracy
11     translates into losses of millions of dollars to the
12     detriment of rightsholders as well as to the whole
13     Canadian system.  Indeed, the elimination of piracy
14     would more than double the expenditures of pay TV and
15     pay-per-view, which currently spend $23 million each
16     year on Canadian movies.
17  9403                 We believe that the best way to
18     eliminate piracy is to accelerate the transition from
19     analog to digital cable distribution.  The more
20     sophisticated encryption technology that is associated
21     with digital will shut down the signal thieves.
22  9404                 This is also why we have recommended
23     that the Commission establish and chair a working group
24     in which all the players with an interest in digital
25     cable distribution can work together to formulate a


 1     viable business plan for the roll-out of digital cable.
 2  9405                 Secondly, for Canadian viewers to be
 3     able to watch high quality Canadian programs, those
 4     programming services which exhibit those programs have
 5     to be made available to them.  To this end, we suggest
 6     several regulatory initiatives to eliminate some key
 7     bottlenecks and to therefore increase our contribution
 8     by increasing our revenues.
 9  9406                 First, we suggest that the Commission
10     should establish a floor wholesale rate for specialty
11     services since it is these revenues that underpin the
12     licence commitments for Canadian programming.
13  9407                 Second, the regulatory framework
14     should favour the packaging of specialty services
15     rather than an à la carte approach.
16  9408                 Finally, in a digital world, the
17     distribution of French-language services must be
18     expanded to markets where at least 10 per cent of the
19     population is French speaking.
20  9409                 M. ROY:  Certains radiodiffuseurs
21     conventionnels favorisent une intégration plus poussée
22     du système qui permettrait aux radiodiffuseurs
23     conventionnels d'augmenter leurs activités de
24     production et d'avoir davantage accès aux fonds publics
25     pour cette activité.


 1  9410                 Avec ce scénario, nous croyons qu'il
 2     y a un risque réel que les petits et moyens producteurs
 3     indépendants soient marginalisés.  Pour les services de
 4     télévision spécialisée et payante comme les nôtres, qui
 5     ont choisi de dépendre des producteurs indépendants
 6     pour l'approvisionnement de toute leur programmation
 7     canadienne, cela serait dévastateur.
 8  9411                 Nos réseaux, qui globalement génèrent
 9     moins de revenus que TVA, ne sont pas suffisants à eux
10     seuls pour assurer la viabilité du secteur indépendant. 
11     En fait, le Canada ne compterait pas 48 réseaux de
12     télévision spécialisée et payante si chacun d'eux
13     dépendait uniquement de sa production maison.  Le
14     soutien des réseaux conventionnels à la production
15     indépendante est donc également essentiel.
16  9412                 Pour maintenir un secteur sain de la
17     production indépendante, nous suggérons donc d'exiger
18     de tous les radiodiffuseurs conventionnels qu'ils
19     consacrent un pourcentage de leurs dépenses de
20     programmation à des émissions produites par des
21     entreprises non affiliées.
22  9413                 Si le Conseil en venait à recommander
23     que les radiodiffuseurs aient accès au Programme de
24     participation au capital du Fonds canadien de
25     télévision, cet accès devrait être limité aux


 1     productions qui ne sont pas présentées à leur antenne
 2     en première fenêtre.  Cette approche serait consistante
 3     avec les règles empêchant les producteurs qui
 4     détiennent des réseaux spécialisés d'accéder aux fonds
 5     pour leurs propres réseaux.
 6  9414                 Nous suggérons que l'allocation de 50
 7     pour cent allouée aux productions destinées à la
 8     Société Radio-Canada doit être revue.  Cette allocation
 9     est devenue disproportionnée par rapport au poids réel
10     de la Société Radio-Canada dans l'univers télévisuel
11     canadien.
12  9415                 En ce qui a trait à la ventilation
13     des ressources par catégorie d'émissions, nous
14     soumettons qu'elle devrait mieux refléter les
15     préoccupations du Conseil concernant toutes les
16     catégories d'émissions sous-représentées.
17  9416                 Nous recommandons également, afin de
18     générer des droits de licences supplémentaires pour les
19     producteurs, que la définition d'"émission originale en
20     première diffusion" soit élargie pour faciliter le
21     financement d'émissions canadiennes de catégories
22     sous-représentées, particulièrement des émissions pour
23     enfants et des documentaires.  La définition proposée
24     dans notre mémoire permettrait à des diffuseurs de
25     langues anglaise et française, discrétionnaires et


 1     spécialisés, de contribuer conjointement au financement
 2     des émissions tout en étant toujours considérées comme
 3     émissions originales en première diffusion sur chacune
 4     des fenêtres.
 5  9417                 MR. COCHRANE:  Now, I would like to
 6     turn to the promotion of Canadian programming and
 7     services.
 8  9418                 We agree that increasing the
 9     resources dedicated to the promotion of Canadian
10     programming is a desired objective.  We must emphasize,
11     however, that it is also vitally important to promote
12     Canadian programming services and not only Canadian
13     programs.  In an increasingly competitive universe, the
14     promotion of Canadian services must also be a primary
15     objective.  This is especially the case for truly
16     discretionary pay television services, which must sell
17     subscription to the service each and every month by
18     promoting the services through unscrambled venues, like
19     cross-channel avails.
20  9419                 MR. RILEY:  As our final point, we
21     wish to support the widely held view that the
22     contribution of authorized non-Canadian services should
23     be increased.  We agree with the suggestion made by
24     SPTV to use all advertising avails on U.S. satellite
25     services to promote Canadian programming and Canadian


 1     services.
 2  9420                 It must be stressed that this new
 3     contribution by U.S. satellite services should in no
 4     way lead to any relaxation of the current rules which
 5     favour the licensing and distribution of Canadian
 6     services, nor would we want to see an end to the
 7     moratorium on additions to the List of authorized
 8     foreign services.
 9  9421                 MR. BUREAU:  This concludes our
10     remarks.  A summary of our key points is attached to
11     our presentation, and we look forward to answering your
12     questions.
13  9422                 Thank you very much.  Merci beaucoup.
14  9423                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci.
15  9424                 Commissioner  Wilson.
16  9425                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Good morning,
17     Mr. Bureau, and good morning to all of your colleagues,
18     including Mr. Riley in the back row there.  It is a
19     pleasure to have you with us.
20  9426                 MR. RILEY:  Good to see you.
21  9427                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  If you don't
22     mind, I would like to take advantage of the fact that
23     you have some experience in this area by exploring your
24     submission in the context of a number of the proposals
25     that have been presented to us.  Then I would like to


 1     ask you a couple of more general questions and some
 2     questions with respect to your oral submission; you
 3     have added some detail in there to expand on some of
 4     the points that you have made in your submission, and I
 5     would just like to clarify a couple of issues.
 6  9428                 You make six specific recommendations
 7     in your submission, one of which deals with access and
 8     distribution.  As you are probably aware, since you
 9     filed your submission we have initiated a public
10     process at the Commission that will deal with these
11     issues, and as a result it would be imprudent of me to
12     engage in lengthy discussion with you on those issues,
13     but I want to assure you that the points that you made
14     with respect to unrealized contributions to Canadian
15     programming have been noted, and that certainly is the
16     area which touches directly on our exploration right
17     now.
18  9429                 In your introduction, when you talk
19     about the success of the Canadian television system,
20     you say that this success is the result of five
21     critical regulatory policies and you describe these
22     policies as the fundamental building blocks essential
23     to the success of the Canadian broadcasting system and
24     to the fulfilment of the objectives outlined by the
25     Commission and set out in the Broadcasting Act, and you


 1     go on to say that they should be kept in mind
 2     throughout the current public process.
 3  9430                 It occurred to me when I read that
 4     that maybe there is just a bit of a frustrated
 5     regulator expressing himself in those words and I
 6     wondered if maybe you missed the days when you had a
 7     more direct impact on all of this, but I wonder if you
 8     would mind articulating for us why you think these five
 9     policies in particular are the most important ones for
10     the Canadian broadcasting system.
11                                                        1110
12  9431                 MR. BUREAU:  Madam Wilson, I will
13     obviously not comment on your suggestion, but I will
14     say that these five key elements that we have mentioned
15     in our submission, we have developed them over the past
16     few years, not only for the purpose of this process
17     here but because we are involved in some other venues
18     with strategic positions for the Canadian government
19     vis-à-vis the rest of the world in terms of treaties,
20     in terms of international agreements and things of that
21     nature.
22  9432                 On these occasions we had to rethink
23     how we should position our country, how the success
24     that we have had here could "benefit other countries"
25     if they were to try and establish something, some sort


 1     of an infrastructure, some sort of a regulatory
 2     framework that would work and would create the proper
 3     environment for a strong, unique, distinctive Canadian
 4     broadcasting system.
 5  9433                 So, we came up with these five
 6     critical regulatory policies that we have put in our
 7     submission here, the first one being the Canadian
 8     ownership.  As we all know, this notion is debated at
 9     every level of government and in every instance where
10     there are some international discussions and we still
11     believe that it is the fundamental regulatory measure
12     that will ensure that we maintain a distinctive and
13     strong Canadian broadcasting system.
14  9434                 The second one is the separate
15     Canadian territorial market for program rights and
16     obviously the minute we abandon that, the minute we
17     forget about that or we allow something to deteriorate
18     that situation, there is no possibility for Canadian
19     broadcasters to compete against, for example, the
20     Americans who would be in a position to acquire North
21     American rights while we cannot acquire North American
22     rights.  So, we cannot afford to do that.  So, we would
23     be in position where we would be deprived of access to
24     a lot of programming coming from outside Canada.
25  9435                 The third one is the access and


 1     distribution rules and --
 2  9436                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That's the one
 3     that we are not really going to talk about.
 4  9437                 MR. BUREAU:  That's the one that we
 5     won't talk about.  All right, we won't talk about it,
 6     but they are very fundamental.
 7  9438                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I'm sure you
 8     will talk about it later.
 9  9439                 MR. BUREAU:  We will have other
10     venues.
11  9440                 The next one is the Canadian content
12     exhibition and spending requirements for all Canadian
13     broadcasters and what we have alluded to in our oral
14     presentation is that what you have seen happening on
15     the side of the specialty services by having an
16     approach to the contribution of those licensees to the
17     usage of some of their revenues to acquire or invest in
18     Canadian programming has been working very well and we
19     believe that this point here is a very, very important
20     one that needs to be stressed.
21  9441                 The fifth one is the favourable tax
22     treatment for advertising on Canadian broadcasting
23     networks and we believe that these together would form
24     the five critical regulatory policies that need to be
25     maintained.  Now, in addition to that, before I let my


 1     other colleagues comment on that, if you wish, if you
 2     allow us, there is a pretty fundamental overall
 3     structure that is not part of any rule in the
 4     regulatory framework that we have, but it has been
 5     established over the years and I think that it is very
 6     key that we maintain that.
 7  9442                 The Canadian system here has been
 8     flourishing, has been a real success, because you have
 9     the Canadian conventional broadcasters that form one
10     element of it, you have the Canadian independent
11     production industry and you have the specialty and pay
12     services.  I insist on the Canadian independent
13     production industry because it is clear, as we have
14     also mentioned in our oral presentation, that if they
15     were not there, if they were not that strong as they
16     are at the present time -- which is the envy of the
17     rest of the world, except the United States, but for
18     the rest of the world -- if they were not there, we
19     would not have 48 specialty and pay services in Canada
20     here.  We would have had to import more foreign
21     services because we could not afford separately these
22     48 services, could not afford to establish a production
23     infrastructure to provide the Canadian content that we
24     provide.
25  9443                 So, these three are very key elements


 1     of the system and if we allow any one of the three to
 2     deteriorate or to be impacted negatively, it will have
 3     an impact on the overall system.  For example, if the
 4     Canadian independent production industry were to
 5     disappear or were to be seriously negatively impacted
 6     by some rules --
 7  9444                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  As it has in
 8     the U.S., for example.
 9  9445                 MR. BUREAU:  Exactly.  The specialty
10     services would be in great need of some quality
11     Canadian production and where would they buy it because
12     they cannot by themselves justify the maintenance or
13     the existence of a Canadian production industry --
14  9446                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I am going
15     to --
16  9447                 MR. BUREAU:  -- and the three have to
17     work together.
18  9448                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I am going to
19     explore that in a little more detail with you as I go
20     through your recommendations, so we will have more of
21     an opportunity, but I would like to turn to the first
22     of the recommendations that you made, at least the
23     first one that we are going to talk about, and that's
24     the support for under-represented program categories.
25  9449                 You noted at page 10 of your


 1     submission that programs from the under-represented
 2     categories are a prominent element of the schedules of
 3     pay and specialty networks, but you also feel that all
 4     licensed programming services should actively support
 5     the creation and exhibition of programming in these
 6     categories.
 7  9450                 One of the suggestions that we have
 8     heard from the broadcasters is that the Commission
 9     should stop placing such heavy emphasis on the
10     under-represented categories, thereby devaluing other
11     categories of programming such as news or local
12     reflection, and they also propose that we allow them
13     the flexibility to differentiate themselves and
14     contribute greater diversity to the system by allowing
15     them to concentrate their efforts on the specific
16     genres of Canadian programming that they feel they do
17     best.
18  9451                 What is your reaction to that
19     proposal?  I mean as a business person whose network
20     schedules are comprised to a very large degree of the
21     under-represented categories of programming, isn't it
22     in your interest to have that niche carved out for
23     yourself and not worry so much about all of the other
24     licensed programming undertakings?
25                                                        1120


 1  9452                 M. ROY:  Non.  Nous croyons que ces
 2     catégories sous-représentées devraient être maintenues
 3     et même nous pensons que pour le marché francophone,
 4     par exemple, il y a encore un besoin accru de supporter
 5     ces catégories sous-représentées par une meilleure
 6     allocation des fonds qui leur sont consacrés. 
 7     L'équilibre dont André parlait entre les producteurs et
 8     tout le système, les diffuseurs et les services
 9     spécialisés, je pense que cet équilibre doit aussi
10     exister au niveau des catégories sous-représentées et
11     que ça ne doit pas être le seul fait des chaînes
12     spécialisées.
13  9453                 À l'occasion nous faisons des accords
14     de co-financement avec des chaînes conventionnelles,
15     que ce soit dans notre propre marché ou dans le marché
16     anglophone.  Donc elles aussi doivent contribuer à leur
17     façon au financement et à la diffusion de ces
18     catégories sous-représentées de programmation.
19  9454                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  So when you say
20     that you need increased support, especially in the
21     French-language market, for the under-represented
22     programming categories -- in fact, I think in your
23     submission you outline that in the English-language
24     market it is drama, variety, music and dance,
25     children's, documentaries, but in the French-language


 1     market drama is much more prevalent and much more
 2     successful in terms of viewership.
 3  9455                 M. ROY:  Tout à fait.  Nous avons une
 4     longue tradition de succès au niveau des séries
 5     dramatiques au Canada français, mais le financement
 6     d'émissions pour enfants ou de documentaires de qualité
 7     est vraiment problématique parce que nous avons un
 8     petit marché, des ressources limitées, et dans ce
 9     sens-là nous proposons qu'il y ait une meilleure
10     allocation des fonds.
11  9456                 Je pense que l'annonce que l'on fait
12     aujourd'hui de la création du Fonds de programmation 
13     Astral, qui va d'abord s'intéresser au financement de
14     documentaires de haut calibre, va tout à fait dans une
15     de ces directions pour aider ce financement-là.
16  9457                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay.  I was
17     going to ask you, actually, about your suggestion with
18     respect to the inclusion of documentaries in the
19     under-represented program categories, apart from the
20     fact that you have Canal D and Canal D does exhibit
21     documentaries, so there would be some motivation from
22     that aspect, but I think your response has clarified
23     that for me, especially with respect to the French
24     market.
25  9458                 M. ROY:  Je pense qu'au-delà de Canal


 1     D le documentaire a connu au cours des dernières années
 2     sur la scène internationale un regain de popularité. 
 3     Il y a de plus en plus de demandes qui vont dans ce
 4     sens-là, de demandes de licences, de nouvelles licences
 5     qui veulent proposer du documentaire.  Alors ce n'est
 6     pas seulement pour un besoin immédiat de Canal D mais
 7     bien dans un trend qui s'inscrit dans une mouvance
 8     internationale où le documentaire est de plus en plus
 9     apprécié des publics.
10  9459                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  And in fact I
11     guess a number of the interveners to this proceeding
12     have made the point that, in addition to drama,
13     considering Canada's reputation for producing
14     documentaries and the quality and how exportable they
15     are, that they really should be considered, along with
16     drama, as one of the most important ways for us to
17     express our national character.
18  9460                 M. ROY:  Absolument.
19  9461                 MR. BUREAU:  And, Madam Wilson, I
20     think that, when we talk about documentaries, we wish
21     to stress that we are not only talking about what we
22     call "les documentaires d'auteur" but we talk about
23     documentaries in its larger sense, because there are a
24     number of new categories of documentaries that are done
25     now.  At the present time the Telefilm definition only


 1     talks about the documentaires d'auteur, and we wish to
 2     mention here that documentaires should be much larger
 3     than the definition that is currently used by Telefilm.
 4  9462                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Do you have a
 5     definition you would like to give us --
 6     --- Power outage / Panne de courant
 7  9463                 MR. BUREAU:  That will give us time
 8     to think about it!
 9     --- Short pause / Courte pause
10  9464                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I think as the
11     lights went out I was just asking if you would be able
12     to suggest a wider definition than the one that's
13     currently used by Telefilm.  If you don't have it right
14     off the top of your head right now you could perhaps
15     supply it to us before the 15th of October.
16  9465                 MR. ROY:  Yes, we will do that.  Je
17     pense que, de la même façon qu'il y a différents genres
18     de dramatiques -- il y a des séries, des mini-séries,
19     des téléfilms -- il y a aussi différents genres de
20     documentaires.  Le documentaire d'auteur est un des
21     genres de documentaires, mais il y a des documentaires
22     historiques, biographiques, animaliers.
23  9466                 Donc la définition de "documentaire"
24     devrait couvrir beaucoup plus de genres que celle de
25     Téléfilm, qui a été instituée à une époque où c'était


 1     d'abord du documentaire d'auteur qui se produisait et
 2     dans des buts peut-être aussi de limiter la demande
 3     face à des fonds qui étaient limités.  Mais aujourd'hui
 4     Téléfilm interprète cette définition d'une façon très
 5     large et accepte d'autres genres de documentaires.
 6  9467                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  The other
 7     suggestion that you make in terms of support for
 8     under-represented program categories is that the
 9     definition of original first play be adjusted, but I
10     noticed in your submission you say a program that has
11     been previously exhibited by a truly discretionary
12     service, pay or pay-per-view, and a program that is
13     exhibited for the first time on a pay or specialty
14     service in a language other than the language in which
15     it was initially exhibited by another broadcaster.
16  9468                 The CFTPA has suggested a slightly
17     different adjustment of that definition of "first run",
18     and I am just wondering if you could tell me why you
19     think it should be limited to the pay and specialty and
20     not extended to conventional broadcasters.  Is there
21     some reason for that?
22  9469                 M. ROY:  Je pense que ce sont surtout
23     les services spécialisés et les pay qui ont des
24     conditions de licence rattachées à de la production
25     originale en première fenêtre.  C'est peut-être pour ça


 1     qu'on a voulu concentrer de ce côté-là.  Cette mesure a
 2     été instituée pour éviter les abus, afin que des
 3     productions produites dans une langue ou dans une autre
 4     ne soient pas doublées par la suite et deviennent des
 5     productions originales.
 6  9470                 Alors ce que l'on propose aujourd'hui
 7     pour éviter ces abus-là, c'est qu'une émission ou qu'un
 8     programme soit considéré comme original en première
 9     fenêtre en autant que le diffuseur y aille par
10     pré-achat, donc à l'étape de la pré-production, et donc
11     fasse partie de la structure financière, du montage
12     financier du projet, et ce, par fenêtre et par langue,
13     anglais ou français, au Canada.
14  9471                 MS de WILDE:  If I can just add a
15     slight precision to that, underlying the whole idea of
16     expanding the definition of what would qualify as first
17     play is a desire to promote multiple contributions from
18     different players within the system to the financing of
19     a program.  So that's why we stress it is important
20     that the player come in initially, when the financing
21     is being put in place, and then what that in fact
22     produces is a bigger budget, a stronger budget and a
23     stronger program.
24  9472                 So, fundamentally, we don't have a
25     problem with little differences between our suggested


 1     definition and the CFTPA's; the policy goal that we
 2     would like to stress is let's encourage as many players
 3     as possible to come to the table and support a given
 4     program.
 5  9473                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay.  Thanks
 6     for the clarification.
 7  9474                 On page 2 of your Executive Summary
 8     and then on page 32 of your submission you talk about
 9     feature film and you say that we should ensure that
10     conventional broadcasters pay a complementary role to
11     pay and specialty services and you talk about
12     contributions on page 32, contributions by
13     non-regulated sectors involved in distribution and
14     exhibition of feature films.
15  9475                 I am just wondering if you could
16     explain how you see that working.
17  9476                 MS de WILDE:  I would be delighted
18     to.
19  9477                 The feature film industry is one that
20     is being looked at with great interest right now in
21     Canada, and I think we are at a moment that is perhaps
22     a really propitious one, but the whole area is one that
23     is extremely challenging to everybody who plays in the
24     area.  It is one where the budgets for movies are, by
25     their nature, much larger than they are for other


 1     categories of programming.  So the challenge is to
 2     produce more and better movies in a market that also
 3     faces or sits on top of the largest and most successful
 4     producer of movies, namely the United States.
 5  9478                 So when we look at where we have been
 6     successful in extracting contributions to the creation
 7     of movies, we can point to the broadcasting sector, and
 8     frankly the broadcasting sector, namely pay television
 9     and pay-per-view, drives $23 million into the creation
10     of Canadian movies every year, which compares pretty
11     favourably to even what we managed to put together from
12     public funding to Canadian movies, which is probably in
13     the neighbourhood of about $55 million.
14  9479                 So, to your question of how would we
15     harness unregulated players and get them to make a
16     contribution, that is one of the great thorny questions
17     because there is no regulatory body like the CRTC that
18     can look at video rentals, for example.  So that is a
19     question that the Feature Film Policy Advisory
20     Committee is wrestling with, recognizing that we have
21     an example of something that works.  Could it be
22     applied, obviously in a different way to those players
23     who aren't currently contributing back to Canadian
24     movie production although they are involved in the
25     exhibition of movies.


 1  9480                 Theatrical is obviously also another
 2     window that, if you could tap the revenues that are
 3     generated in theatrical exhibition, that would be an
 4     additional source.
 5  9481                 So I think, in summary, the need is
 6     to find additional sources of revenue to support the
 7     creation of movies.
 8  9482                 When we look at the role that other
 9     broadcasters could play with regard to Canadian movies,
10     the point we want to stress is it is an under-financed
11     sector, so let's not do anything that would simply move
12     dollars from one portion of the broadcasting sector to
13     another portion; let's make sure that in fact in the
14     end we end up with incremental new dollars put into
15     Canadian movies.
16  9483                 So, to be really clear, let's not
17     create a system where, for example, the CBC would
18     decide to buy out all of the windows for a movie
19     because at the end of the day the producer doesn't end
20     up with more dollars, all he ends up with is dollars
21     from one window instead of from another.
22  9484                 That's really the two points I think
23     that are important.
24                                                        1135
25  9485                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I would like to


 1     move now to some of the comments that you made about
 2     ensuring a distinct Canadian programming rights market. 
 3     On page 14 of your submission you state that:
 4                            "A Canadian domestic market for
 5                            programming exhibition rights is
 6                            achieved as a result of a
 7                            complex set of legislative and
 8                            regulatory tools, each of which
 9                            is critical to maintaining a
10                            sustainable Canadian
11                            broadcasting system market."
12  9486                 And you state that tools include the
13     licensing power held by the Commission, the Canadian
14     ownership and control rules, and oversight by the
15     Commission of U.S. satellite services which are carried
16     by licensed broadcasting distribution undertakings.
17  9487                 On page 16, when you talk about the
18     list of eligible satellite services, you say:
19                            "If services on the List were
20                            duplicative of Canadian
21                            services, the latter would find
22                            themselves competing for the
23                            same programming rights in the
24                            Canadian market (likely on an
25                            exclusive basis)."


 1     And you made this point earlier:
 2                            "Due to the size differentials
 3                            between US services and Canadian
 4                            services, the dominant
 5                            purchasing power of the US
 6                            services would result in their
 7                            successful purchase of North
 8                            American-wide ... rights..."
 9  9488                 The way you describe it, in the
10     absence of a continuing moratorium on adding services
11     to the list, it sounds like we have all the tools that
12     we need to protect Canadian programming rights, but we
13     have heard from a number of intervenors that there are
14     already foreign services doing just that, buying up
15     North American-wide rights.  I am just wondering if you
16     could tell me if you are aware of this phenomenon, does
17     it have an effect on you at all, and what would you
18     suggest is the best way to try and deal with that.
19  9489                 MS de WILDE:  What we are suggesting
20     in enumerating those three tools is that they are
21     critical tools that give us a handle on defining a
22     separate rights market for Canada.  They are not a
23     slam-dunk guarantee that an American player will decide
24     not to buy North American rights, but what it ensures
25     is that in the case of those Canadian services, they


 1     have a chance to go and buy Canadian rights.
 2  9490                 But if you were to take the most
 3     dramatic example of an American movie service, but for
 4     the fact that we have a licence for TMN or Super
 5     Channel in the west, we would have no standing to go to
 6     the table and talk to the U.S. studios and say, "We
 7     want to buy the rights for Canada for --"
 8  9491                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  But for the
 9     fact that you have a licence and they don't, they can't
10     come, except through the grapevine.
11  9492                 MS de WILDE:  That's correct, and it
12     really is one of those "but for" conditions.  It's like
13     it's an essential one that you have to have the licence
14     from the Canadian regulator in order to go to the table
15     and then there is really no incentive in the case of
16     that niche -- namely, movies -- for the American
17     rightsholder to sell the rights for North America
18     because there is nobody who is authorized to distribute
19     them in Canada in the pay television window, other than
20     us and our colleagues in the west.
21  9493                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Another one of
22     the recommendations that you make is with respect to
23     redefining the role of the CBC and you stress, in
24     particular, the differences between the CBC and the
25     English-language market and the SRC in the


 1     French-language market in terms of the impact of its
 2     programming strategies on these respective markets.
 3  9494                 I was interested in your comments
 4     about CBC Radio vis-à-vis stressing the distinctiveness
 5     and complementarity of the radio services.  It has
 6     occurred to me that CBC Radio has been very, very
 7     successful in carving out its identity as a public
 8     broadcaster and that TV could probably learn something
 9     from it, but one of the ways you say that it has
10     developed this distinctiveness is that their approach
11     has been to withdraw completely from the advertising
12     market and I am just wondering, in view of the
13     competition posed by SRC in the French market and by
14     the CBC to a lesser extent in the English market, are
15     you suggesting that they should withdraw altogether
16     from advertising?
17  9495                 MR. BUREAU:  A few years ago when
18     Radio-Canada decided to go without advertising on
19     radio, it was after a long period of discussion where
20     people were talking about the terrible impact it would
21     have and things like that.  Radio-Canada has shown that
22     they can offer a national service of very high quality
23     that is still very "popular" by Nielsen standards or
24     BBM standards, that it is still there, that it is still
25     being appreciated by Canadians.


 1  9496                 Obviously, they had to be very
 2     creative, very demanding of their people, their
 3     creators and producers and everybody, but they are
 4     doing a very good job, an excellent job.  As a matter
 5     of fact, it's a fantastic job that they are doing at
 6     the present time on radio in any market and in fact
 7     even against very aggressive commercial radio stations
 8     they are still playing a very important, vital role in
 9     any market.
10  9497                 We are saying CBC and Radio-Canada --
11     and Radio-Canada probably in particular -- could
12     probably learn from that experience and what it would
13     mean is that they would probably have to -- well, be a
14     little bit more cautious, if I may use that term, in
15     terms of their way of expending their money to acquire
16     programming.  It would be less frustrating for their
17     competitors in the market to see that for a program
18     that used to be bought at, let's say, $5,000 for half
19     an hour, CBC or Radio-Canada is paying two to three
20     times that amount of money now, out-bidding obviously
21     the commercial competitors.
22  9498                 We are saying there has been over the
23     past few years a number of discussions involving the
24     conventional broadcasters, in particular, in the
25     French-language market saying, "We are in an unfair


 1     situation vis-à-vis la Société Radio-Canada."  We are
 2     saying that we are --
 3  9499                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Are you in an
 4     unfair position vis-à-vis Radio-Canada?
 5  9500                 MR. BUREAU:  We are saying that from
 6     a specialty service point of view, we are beginning to
 7     feel the same thing.  Pierre Roy might be able to add
 8     to that because he is involved in Canal D, which is
 9     involved in the type of programming that RDI, for
10     example, is also involved in and la Société
11     Radio-Canada is more and more involved in, although
12     they were not that involved in before l'arrivée de
13     Canal D.
14  9501                 M. ROY:  On parle de Canal D, mais il
15     faut parler aussi de Canal Famille.
16  9502                 Radio-Canada a diminué sa production
17     originale pour enfants du côté francophone, et est
18     allée plus du côté des acquisitions.  Ce faisant, on
19     est en compétition directe avec eux sur le marché des
20     acquisitions canadiennes et étrangères.  Il est certain
21     qu'une chaîne de spécialités ne peut pas lutter avec un
22     diffuseur conventionnel qui jouit à la fois de fonds
23     publics et de revenus publicitaires.
24  9503                 Nous subissons dramatiquement cette
25     concurrence-là, autant à Canal Famille qu'à Canal D, et


 1     c'est une concurrence déloyale tout à fait.
 2  9504                 Comme disait André, ils n'offrent pas
 3     seulement 25 ou 50 pour cent de plus que les licences
 4     qu'on est capable de payer, mais c'est souvent deux à
 5     trois fois le prix qu'on offre pour des émissions. 
 6     Alors, c'est vraiment disproportionné comme
 7     concurrence.
 8  9505                 MR. BUREAU:  What we suggest, Madam
 9     Wilson, is that there should be more collaboration --
10     more complementarity, more collaboration between la
11     Société Radio-Canada and the other ones, including the
12     conventional broadcasters or the specialty services. 
13     At the present time we don't see that collaboration
14     existing and, in fact, whether it is a question of
15     movies that are acquired by CBC or la Société
16     Radio-Canada or by talking about children's programming
17     or documentaries, instead of collaborating and doing
18     things together, they use their leverage to acquire
19     exclusive rights and I don't think it's in the best
20     interests of the overall system.
21  9506                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  We have had
22     quite a number of intervenors this week talking about
23     the CBC, so much so that they issued a press release
24     this morning I think talking about some of their
25     contributions, but how would you go about encouraging


 1     that more collaborative approach?
 2  9507                 MR. BUREAU:  I hope we will have an
 3     occasion to be more specific when they come for their
 4     renewal.  If we can wait for that, we would like to
 5     participate there.  We believe that CBC still has a
 6     very major role to play in the Canadian broadcasting
 7     system.  Don't misinterpret, please, what we are
 8     saying.  We are saying times have changed.  Everybody
 9     has to adapt to the new environment and they should,
10     too.  We will come up and make some suggestions.
11  9508                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  So, I guess at
12     that time we can look forward to you talking a little
13     bit more about how the Commission -- you say the
14     Commission should urge the CBC to refocus on its
15     mission as a national public broadcaster.  Of course,
16     when they appeared here, they showed us their schedule
17     for this year.  It's very Canadian.  There is maybe
18     five per cent foreign programming in it, if that, but I
19     guess we will wait to talk about that as well.  I'm
20     sure you will have some specific ideas.
21  9509                 With respect to stimulating Canadian
22     independent production, you state on page 20 of your
23     submission that in order to ensure a strong domestic
24     production industry on which to build an export base,
25     it will be critical to ensure maximum contributions


 1     from all Canadian broadcasters.  We have heard a range
 2     of proposals on what the meaning of the word "maximum"
 3     should be from the broadcasters who have suggested that
 4     we leave things essentially as they are now and focus
 5     on viewership to the independent producers who have put
 6     forward what they call their 10/10/10 plan.
 7  9510                 I am just wondering what you mean by
 8     "maximum", if you have any specific ideas, and also
 9     what do you mean by "ensure" in terms of extracting
10     this contribution.  Do you have a formula in mind, are
11     there specific regulatory incentives?
12  9511                 MS de WILDE:  The way that we have
13     approached this issue is to look at what has worked
14     with the conditions of licence that are currently
15     applied to pay and specialty, which require a
16     percentage of every dollar of revenue earned to be
17     returned into Canadian programming.  So, we think that
18     that kind of an approach, a percentage of the revenues
19     going into Canadian programming is the preferable
20     approach to tap into the contribution of the
21     conventional broadcasters.
22  9512                 When it comes specifically to the
23     issue of the contribution that they would make to
24     independent production, there we believe it is
25     important that there be a specific identified


 1     contribution that does flow from conventional into
 2     independent production and there we fall back on the
 3     approach that the Commission has adopted with regard to
 4     specialty services where there is a condition that it's
 5     fine-tuned and reflects the individual circumstances,
 6     the niche, the type of programming that a specific
 7     service would have and we suggest that really it is
 8     that kind of a case-by-case approach that does produce
 9     the best result.
10  9513                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Do you think
11     that having a specific spending requirement, a per cent
12     of revenue, is more effective than the exhibition
13     requirement?  Currently, they have two options.  They
14     can choose from A or B.  I think a couple of networks
15     have combined, but do you feel that it's sufficient to
16     require the percentage without some exhibition
17     requirements as well?
18  9514                 MS de WILDE:  We believe that both
19     requirements are part of the tool kit and you need to
20     have the supply and then you need to have the
21     exhibition and that both are required.
22  9515                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  One of the --
23     in fact a number of the intervenors to this process
24     have said essentially the same thing, that if we are
25     creating programming for export, it's not Canadian


 1     programming.  I am just wondering if you could comment
 2     on whether you see the two as mutually exclusive, if we
 3     should be following two separate strategies in terms of
 4     funding programming, one industrial strategy, one
 5     cultural strategy, or do we find some way just to
 6     satisfy both needs within the one system?
 7  9516                 M. ROY:  Je pense que la première
 8     condition pour réussir à l'exportation, il faut d'abord
 9     avoir accès à un marché domestique important. Donc,
10     toutes les règles qui encouragent la production de
11     programmation canadienne doivent être d'abord en place
12     pour maximiser cette production canadienne, et ensuite
13     établir un marché domestique fort, et ensuite avoir
14     peut-être accès à l'exportation.
15  9517                 Il y a des choses qui nous inquiètent
16     un peu actuellement quand on regarde les nouvelles 
17     règles du Fonds canadien de télévision.  La notion de
18     "super Canadian", on pense que c'est une notion qui
19     peut-être a sa place au Canada anglais pour éviter
20     certains abus, certaines séries américaines qui peuvent
21     être déguisées en séries canadiennes.  Peut-être que
22     cette notion est nécessaire pour éviter ces abus-là,
23     mais pour nous au Canada français, on pense qu'on n'a
24     pas à s'inquiéter de cette notion-là.  Nos productions
25     sont généralement fortement canadiennes.  Le nombre de


 1     points, de 10 sur 10 ou 8 sur 10, est très très élevé.
 2  9518                 Donc, nous redoutons un peu cette
 3     notion de super canadienne, puisqu'elle pourrait
 4     affecter notre capacité de coproduction.
 5  9519                 Contrairement au Canada anglais, qui
 6     trouve une partie de son financement sur le marché
 7     international par le biais de pré-vente, au Canada
 8     français ce sont plutôt des coproductions qui sont
 9     mises en place pour assurer le financement de
10     productions importantes.
11  9520                 Pour donner des pourcentages, le
12     niveau de coproductions au Canada anglais est autour de
13     17 pour cent, et au Canada français, il est d'environ
14     50 pour cent du volume de production. Donc, on voit
15     bien que ces règles-là pourraient être dommageables si
16     elles étaient appliquées d'une façon universelle au
17     Canada français et au Canada anglais.
18  9521                 MR. RILEY:  Commissioner Wilson, if I
19     could just add one point, some of the discussion a
20     couple of days ago centred around children's
21     programming and particularly animation.  A lot of
22     children's programming, including children's animation,
23     doesn't take place anywhere, especially animation.  One
24     of Teletoon's tag lines is "It's unreal" because it
25     takes place somewhere in a fantasy land.


 1  9522                 So, the danger of requiring that a
 2     maple leaf or a beaver appear in the program so that it
 3     is identifiably Canadian, so that it qualifies for
 4     funding, would, in our view, seriously be to the
 5     detriment of the funding of children's programming,
 6     which, of course, is one of the goals.
 7  9523                 So, in any effort to determine what
 8     is the appropriate use of those funds, in addition to
 9     balancing what is distinctly Canadian, one must also
10     look at what are the goals of that funding, and that is
11     to create a certain kind of programming.  That is one
12     area, children's programming and particularly
13     animation, that might be overlooked in this effort to
14     come up with something that is intrinsically or
15     distinctively Canadian.
16  9524                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That's a good
17     point.  I guess what I am trying to get at is just your
18     views on whether or not -- and maybe this goes to the
19     point that you are making, Mr. Riley -- industrial
20     programming is really strong enough to stand on its own
21     and that we shouldn't be giving funds to that area,
22     that we should be funding only Canadian programming,
23     whether it's animation and it's not set in a specific
24     place.  I understand, I take your point.  We met Dudley
25     the Dragon the other day in person.


 1  9525                 That's really the point that I am
 2     trying to get at is that there have been some
 3     suggestions that industrial programming such as
 4     "Traders" or "Cold Squad" or "Due South" don't really
 5     need the support of the public funds, that the public
 6     funds should go more towards making that stronger sort
 7     of domestic programming.
 8                                                        1150
 9  9526                 MR. BUREAU:  I am not sure it is that
10     simple.  I think that, if we were to look at the
11     category of documentaries, for example, we would see
12     that good documentaries that are produced in Canada
13     here, or are co-produced, as Pierre has alluded to, can
14     travel, can be exported, and they are essentially done
15     by Canadians, but they still have very a very large
16     attraction outside of the Canadian market.  So they
17     don't need to be what you call the industrial type of
18     programs.
19  9527                 We believe that they are pure
20     documentaries and we would have to be careful not to
21     deprive access to the Canadian funds for some
22     documentaries that would be done that would involve,
23     because of their nature, the history of the world at
24     some point because it would be the essence, for
25     example, of those series of documentaries, whether they


 1     are biographies or whether they are on history like the
 2     war or things like that.  It is pretty difficult to
 3     imagine how you could get to be that super Canadian if
 4     we were to try to give a view of what has happened
 5     during the war overall, not just in Pointe-du-Lac.
 6  9528                 So we would have to determine how it
 7     could have access to that and I think that we have to
 8     be careful not to close the access to the funding for
 9     these types of programs.
10  9529                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay.  The next
11     area that I was going to talk to you about was direct
12     access by the broadcasters to the funds, but in your
13     oral presentation this morning you actually answered
14     the question that I had prepared, which was -- well,
15     actually, maybe you haven't.
16  9530                 They want greater access to the
17     Equity Investment Program, the broadcasters or
18     broadcaster-affiliated production companies, and one of
19     the arguments that they are making is that they believe
20     it is incongruous that production companies who hold
21     specialty licences like Atlantis Alliance -- or
22     Alliance Atlantis, I can't remember which one it is --
23     hold broadcasting licences and they have access, so why
24     shouldn't they.
25  9531                 You said this morning, we suggest


 1     that all conventional broadcasters be required to
 2     devote a percentage of their Canadian programming
 3     expenses to programming produced by non-affiliated
 4     companies and that their access should be limited to
 5     productions that the broadcaster cannot exhibit in
 6     their first window.
 7  9532                 So, with appropriate safeguards in
 8     place, would you feel comfortable with their access?
 9  9533                 MR. BUREAU:  I think that it is
10     something that needs to be monitored over time, but,
11     yes, we have tried to come up with a solution to the
12     debate that has been going on between those who say no
13     access at all and those who say, well, why not, because
14     our competitors in the specialty services have access.
15  9534                 So we are saying, all right, let's
16     try to establish a fair type of approach provided that
17     they don't use that money to produce a program or a
18     series or whatever to be exhibited in the first window
19     on their own service.  If it is not the case, then, let
20     them have access.  But keep in mind that if it were to
21     end up depriving the independent production sector of
22     the money they need to remain strong, there will be an
23     impact, and that impact will be felt very dramatically
24     by the sector of the specialty services.
25  9535                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay.  I guess


 1     another issue that you raised this morning in your
 2     submission with respect to the funds was, you suggested
 3     the allocation of 50 per cent of the financial
 4     resources of the CTF to productions intended for the
 5     CBC/SRC needs to be reviewed because it has become
 6     disproportionate to the actual weight of the public
 7     broadcaster in the Canadian television universe.
 8  9536                 I wonder if you could just expand a
 9     little bit more on that.
10  9537                 M. ROY:  Quand le pourcentage de 50
11     pour cent a été établi, il existait beaucoup moins de
12     télévision conventionnelles et certainement presque pas
13     de services spécialisés, et ce pourcentage-là est
14     demeuré le même au cours des années après l'ajout de
15     chaînes conventionnelles -- on parle de TQS par exemple
16     au Québec -- de nombreux services spécialisés et qui
17     doivent se partager toujours un 50 pour cent dans des
18     pointes de plus en plus petites.
19  9538                 Alors quand on prend le poids relatif
20     de la CBC dans la programmation canadienne, son poids
21     relatif au niveau du volume de production canadienne
22     est d'environ un-tiers pour la CBC et deux-tiers pour
23     le reste de l'industrie, et on pense que ça pourrait
24     servir de barème plus réaliste pour faire face à la
25     nouvelle situation que l'on vit aujourd'hui, sans


 1     compter les nouvelles licences qui seront accordées
 2     éventuellement et qui viendront encore diminuer chacun
 3     des morceaux qu'on à se partager dans le 50 pour cent
 4     actuel.
 5  9539                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  And yet there
 6     are some who might say that the CBC really bears the
 7     burden of exhibiting Canadian programming and
 8     supporting Canadian programming, that the conventional
 9     broadcasters, with their prime time schedules
10     essentially full of American programming --
11  9540                 M. ROY:  Du côté des services
12     spécialisés, nous, on a des engagements très fermes à
13     diffuser de la programmation canadienne, on a des
14     ressources beaucoup plus petites que les
15     conventionnelles...
16  9541                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That's true.
17  9542                 M. ROY:  ... on a des ressources de
18     revenus de publicité beaucoup plus limitées, et donc
19     ces fonds-là sont essentiels pour permettre le
20     financement de programmation canadienne de qualité,
21     comme ce à quoi s'attend le public.
22  9543                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Thank you.
23  9544                 You made another point in your oral
24     submission this morning on the contribution of
25     non-Canadian services and you say that you agree with


 1     the suggestion made by SPTV to use all advertising
 2     avails on U.S. satellite services to promote Canadian
 3     programming and Canadian services.  There have been
 4     other suggestions that we should actually find some way
 5     of extracting some kind of financial contribution from
 6     them to Canadian programming, but I wonder if you could
 7     just expand on that a little bit more.
 8  9545                 MR. RILEY:  The idea of harnessing
 9     some sort of contribution is a good one, and looking
10     for ways to do so involves a number of I guess impacts,
11     including cross-jurisdictional impacts; for example,
12     with respect to saying, well, a certain percentage of
13     the wholesale fee must go to the CTF fund may involve
14     simply an increase in the actual wholesale fee.  So, in
15     other words, if the price was X and 5 or 25 per cent
16     was required now to be put into the fund, I think in
17     pretty short order you would see the price of those
18     U.S. services be X plus that 5 or 25 per cent, which
19     doesn't I think achieve the goal that was --
20  9546                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Or passes it
21     through to the consumer.
22  9547                 MR. RILEY:  Essentially, that's what
23     it does; it goes right through and it doesn't achieve
24     that particular goal, it is just an increase in the
25     price.


 1  9548                 So that's why we suggested that at
 2     least at a starting point all the use of the avails
 3     would be something that can be done quite simply, quite
 4     directly, and without maybe an unintended consequence
 5     that doesn't, in the long run, benefit.
 6  9549                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I am just
 7     wondering if you floated this idea to any of the U.S.
 8     services and what their response might have been.
 9  9550                 MS de WILDE:  Well, they didn't laugh
10     right in my face; in fact, I had the beginnings of
11     serious conversations with a couple of them and they
12     don't walk away nor do they tell me that I am crazy. 
13     So I thought that was a very good beginning.
14  9551                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Maybe they were
15     just being polite.
16  9552                 MS de WILDE:  It doesn't usually
17     happen to me.
18  9553                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  People aren't
19     usually polite to you?
20  9554                 MS de WILDE:  Not just to be polite.
21  9555                 MR. RILEY:  Another point is that the
22     U.S. services, when selling those advertising avails,
23     not in all cases is there payment for the Canadian
24     market because quite often the product being sold is
25     one that even if a Canadian says, "Oh, that's terrific,


 1     I really like that", it is one that's not going to be
 2     purchased in the United States or is not available in
 3     Canada.  So it is not as if it is removing something
 4     that's already there or something that has been paid
 5     for and depriving the advertiser of a benefit that the
 6     advertiser has paid for.
 7  9556                 MR. BUREAU:  But let's not kid
 8     ourselves, they will feel that this is something that
 9     is hurting them --
10  9557                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Sure.
11  9558                 MR. BUREAU:  -- and what we are
12     saying is that we are trying to find a way where the
13     consequence will not be an immediate increase in the
14     price that will have to be borne by the subscribers.
15                                                        1200
16  9559                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay.  You did
17     submit a lot of material with respect to the role and
18     the impact of pay and specialty services on the
19     Canadian broadcasting system.  We will be exploring
20     that issue in a fair amount of detail with SPTV when
21     they appear, so I am not going to go through all of
22     that with the exception of one of the proposals that
23     you made which I was fascinated.  It's nice to actually
24     have somebody offer something up, the 2 per cent
25     digital kicker.


 1  9560                 I wonder if you would just like to
 2     explain what prompted that largesse.
 3  9561                 MR. BUREAU:  We are used to being
 4     very generous with cable.
 5  9562                 MS de WILDE:  In all seriousness, the
 6     rollout of digitable cable is something that is of
 7     pivotal significance to the pay television sector in
 8     particular.  What we did was we said, you know, piracy
 9     is such a huge problem that if an incremental
10     expenditure on Canadian programming could help to
11     trigger regulatory attention to it, it's a really good
12     tradeoff from our point of view.
13  9563                 When you think about the way in which
14     digital technology, really new encryption technology,
15     would change the revenues and hence the contribution of
16     pay-tv, we just find it a very exciting vision of the
17     world.  We are more than prepared to step up to the
18     plate on that.  I mean, what it amounts to is it would
19     increase our Canadian content spending by about 10 per
20     cent.  We think that that's something that we are
21     prepared to do.
22  9564                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Thanks.
23  9565                 Mr. Bureau, I would just like to ask
24     you to comment on a couple of things for me.  The first
25     one is the CAB's viewership model.  I'm just wondering


 1     if you have given any thought to how this would
 2     increase not only the quality but the quantity of
 3     Canadian programming.
 4  9566                 I have been trying to come up with
 5     sort of the business case for it, it's viewership, it's
 6     greater ad sales equals higher contribution to Canadian
 7     programming, but how do we get that out of this model? 
 8     I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts.
 9  9567                 MR. BUREAU:  That's one case where I
10     didn't feel any frustration at being sitting in your
11     place.  When I heard that proposal the first day of the
12     hearing, I was trying to understand it and, quite
13     frankly, I'm not sure I do still understand exactly how
14     it would work and how it would improve the situation.
15  9568                 I'm not saying that in a
16     self-deprecating way.  I am really looking at it. 
17     Until your colleague asked a very specific question and
18     said that 35 per cent objective or goal that you are
19     talking about, would that include the audience from CBC
20     and the specialty services, and the answer was
21     obviously yes.
22  9569                 That I don't understand because the
23     32 per cent I had understood was for conventional, the
24     existing conventional level of audience.  We are
25     probably already above the 35 per cent if you add to


 1     that the audience to the specialty, and CBC in
 2     particular.
 3  9570                 I'm not sure I understand the
 4     fundamentals of this proposal there.  Maybe it's my
 5     limited understanding of the proposal that makes me
 6     feel nervous about making further comments on that.
 7  9571                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay.  One
 8     other comment that came out of the CAB presentation was
 9     one of their consultants who was with TD Security said,
10     and he was actually quoted in Maclean's magazine this
11     week, to put it bluntly from a financial standpoint,
12     Canadian programming is a cost of doing business.
13     I just wonder if --
14  9572                 MR. BUREAU:  I couldn't believe it
15     when I heard that.
16  9573                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  That's when the
17     lights went out.
18  9574                 MR. BUREAU:  Surely as far as I am
19     concerned it happened.
20  9575                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  It's clear why
21     he is in securities and not sitting up here, for
22     example.
23  9576                 MR. BUREAU:  It has been the story of
24     the Canadian broadcasting system.
25  9577                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  But is there


 1     any truth to that comment?
 2  9578                 MR. BUREAU:  Excuse me?
 3  9579                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Is there any
 4     truth to that comment in your mind that it is just a
 5     cost of doing business?
 6  9580                 MR. BUREAU:  There are some aspects
 7     of it that are true, but listen.  We are successful
 8     with Canadian programming.  We are successful with
 9     Canadian programming in categories that are
10     under-represented categories.
11  9581                 I can't believe that I would hear
12     something like that from a broadcaster.  Thank God,
13     he's not.
14  9582                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  No, he's not.
15  9583                 MR. BUREAU:  Thank God he's not our
16     banker.  I just couldn't believe it.  It is, of course,
17     the basis for the maintenance of a strong, distinctive
18     Canadian broadcasting system that we have to invest in
19     Canadian programming.  If he has not understood that, I
20     don't know what he was doing for the CAB in particular. 
21     I can't believe it.
22  9584                 MS de WILDE:  But in fact it all
23     depends on how far back you step to look at what he's
24     suggesting.  I think he was looking at it from rather
25     close up and saying "It's a line item on the P&L and it


 1     doesn't pay out when I calculate the advertising
 2     dollars that I receive from each hour".
 3  9585                 Where we would look at it is from
 4     slightly further back which is, frankly, our raison
 5     d'etre.  If we weren't delivering Canadian programming
 6     to Canadian viewers, there would be a very weak
 7     argument for why we have the privilege of regulatory
 8     licences and the regulatory licences are the
 9     underpinnings of our businesses.
10  9586                 I think he was just honing in a
11     little bit too narrowly on the P&L, quite frankly, and
12     not looking back at what underpins the assets.
13  9587                 MR. BUREAU:  Thank you, Lisa.
14  9588                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  You're looking
15     a little flushed, Mr. Bureau.
16  9589                 MR. BUREAU:  That's why I never come
17     alone.
18  9590                 COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Those are my
19     questions, Madam Chair.
20  9591                 Thank you very much.
21  9592                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
22     Pennefather.
23  9593                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
24  9594                 Well, now that Life has got you
25     going, I think we will continue.  Another area --


 1  9595                 MS de WILDE:  I thought that might
 2     get a rise.
 3  9596                 MR. BUREAU:  I heard.  Don't you
 4     dare.
 5  9597                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Okay. 
 6     Well, I have a question for Madam de Wilde as well in
 7     an area she is passionate about.
 8  9598                 What I want to talk to you about, Mr.
 9     Bureau, Commissioner Wilson raised the rights issue. 
10     You are very clear on the importance of maintaining
11     rights in this country.  Madam de Wilde also spoke to
12     three basis elements in the current regulatory
13     framework, licensing, the ownership, direction and
14     regulations such as the eligible risks.
15  9599                 That being said, considering as you
16     mentioned earlier your own involvement in a number of
17     ways with the whole issue of changing international
18     environment and the trade environment, are these three
19     tools going to be sufficient?  Will they run into very
20     serious problems soon in terms of particularly the
21     American reactions to our ability, in fact, to maintain
22     this framework?   Are there other tools we should be
23     exploring now to assure that we do maintain a separate
24     market for products in this country?
25  9600                 MR. BUREAU:  Well, I guess first of


 1     all these tools have worked pretty well.  Of course,
 2     they are being discussed and some foreign countries'
 3     representatives would like to have them modified.
 4  9601                 Our government has up to now made
 5     sure that we wouldn't change our position on these
 6     issues.  Frankly, it's not a new debate.  These issues
 7     have been there and have been debated for the past 30
 8     years.  The objectives of the rightholders in the
 9     United States have been the same since then.  They are
10     a little bit more cautious now in terms of what they
11     say, but at times where they are sitting with
12     international forums, they come back and they try again
13     to modify those rules because what we have done here is
14     being a model for what is being developed in other
15     countries.
16  9602                 The thorn that we represent for the
17     United States to be able to have free access to the
18     rest of the world, this damn thing that is existing in
19     Canada, so if they could change it here, they would be
20     probably free.  It would be easy for them to go around
21     the world.
22  9603                 We are the first to be attacked. 
23     There is no question about that.  At the regulation, I
24     think that the tools that we have have worked well and
25     we should maintain them and make sure that we don't


 1     abandon them.
 2  9604                 At the level of policy, at the level
 3     of government policy, there are other ways of facing
 4     those attacks or facing those demands.  I believe that
 5     this is probably where new tools are being developed or
 6     will be developed to try and ensure the strengthening
 7     of our broadcasting system vis-à-vis on that specific
 8     question and support that needs to be maintained.
 9  9605                 I am sure that there are new tools
10     that are being contemplated.  We have heard about some
11     of them and whether they are new forms of treaties, I
12     mean international basis, whether they are support from
13     other countries that are being gathered around these
14     ideas and are being supportive of these, but that's at
15     another level, at the level that will continue to
16     maintain the support for our regulatory approach.
17  9606                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you. 
18     That gives me some comfort.  I know these issues are
19     not new, but there are certain new elements, I believe,
20     in the international trade discussions which I think we
21     must take a practical realistic look at.
22  9607                 I wanted to ask Madam de Wilde on
23     digital.  Commissioner Wilson did go back to you on the
24     piracy matter.  You mentioned digital rollout and its
25     importance from the point of view of encryption.  I'm


 1     sure you also were referring it to from the point of
 2     access for Canadians to a number of services.
 3  9608                 You didn't comment on digital in
 4     terms of production and in terms of supply of Canadian
 5     programs for the digital universe.  Do you have any
 6     comments on how ready we are or not, certainly from
 7     your point of view, in terms of taking a Canadian
 8     presence as services convert to digital?
 9  9609                 MS de WILDE:  I probably don't have a
10     lot of details to add to that discussion.  It certainly
11     is an issue that we look out at when we do three year
12     plans to understand what's coming up.  There are some
13     portions of our businesses, movies in particular, where
14     the transition to digital will not be very difficult.
15  9610                 When it comes to things that would be
16     more in the nature of a series, it will require changes
17     in the plant.  It's coming and we all recognize that we
18     have to get ready for it.
19  9611                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  You
20     mentioned a working group in your presentation this
21     morning.  Could you expand on that and how it relates
22     to current groups such as Canadian Digital Television?
23  9612                 MS de WILDE:  Thank you.  It is in
24     fact an idea that is much narrower in focus than
25     Michael McEwen's digital television group.  As I


 1     understand his effort, and we are part of that as well,
 2     it is something that is looking at the whole
 3     infrastructure from transmission through to television
 4     sets whereas the issue that we are raising is the
 5     really much more narrowly focused one of how do you
 6     roll out digital distribution on the cable plant.
 7  9613                 What we are suggesting is that in the
 8     same way that the Commission chaired some working
 9     groups in order to push through some of the tougher
10     issues of competition in the telecommunications
11     services, we think that it would be really useful for
12     the Commission to set up a working group for the
13     Commission to chair a working group that would put
14     around the table all of the players who have an
15     interest in helping to develop a business plan that
16     will work.
17  9614                 We all recognize that it has been
18     difficult to come up with that business plan, but we
19     recognize it is really important and we as pay
20     television services are more than prepared to
21     contribute to that exercise.  There are undoubtedly
22     others in the industry who also have some ideas.
23  9615                 What we need to find is additional
24     sources of revenue.  We know that pay television will
25     derive some additional revenues with the rollout of


 1     digital.  There will be new media services that will
 2     also provide a source of new revenues.  We need to look
 3     at whether there are creative regulatory incentives
 4     that could help to make it fly.  That's the kind of
 5     exercise that we had in mind.
 6  9616                 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you.
 7  9617                 Thank you, Madam Chair.
 8  9618                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
 9     Cardozo.
10  9619                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks, Madam
11     Chair.
12  9620                 A couple of questions.  One of the
13     issues that was put before us a couple of days ago was
14     the matter of reflection of aboriginal people on TV. 
15     This was on a presentation by Television Northern
16     Canada.  Their sense was that there was very little
17     reflection of aboriginal people and usually when there
18     is, it's negative or stereotyped.
19  9621                 I wonder if you have any thoughts or
20     how you approach this issue in the programming that you
21     do.
22  9622                 MS de WILDE:  In all of our
23     acquisitions or in the investment decisions that we
24     would make at the level of the pay networks, we use the
25     pay-tv standards and practices as an essential element


 1     of any discussion that we have with a potential
 2     producer.
 3  9623                 It is part of the mix that is put on
 4     the table and the producers would understand that we
 5     are looking for stories that reflect Canada.  You know,
 6     that's something that at the level of our
 7     Vice-Presidents of Programming in particular, you know,
 8     they have a mandate to help to trigger, be it series or
 9     movies or made for pay television movies, that we will
10     add something to our programming mix that is Canadian.
11  9624                 It is a challenge.  It's something
12     that is part of our mandate.
13  9625                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Your networks
14     are involved in purchasing and commissioning
15     programming.
16  9626                 MS de WILDE:  When we look at movies,
17     in fact, you know, we have a role, but we are one of
18     the players at the table.
19  9627                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Yes.  I am
20     wondering if you do it more in Family as opposed to
21     TMN.
22  9628                 MS de WILDE:  Yes.  I think I should
23     turn to Len Cochrane who can talk to you about the
24     Family channel experience.
25  9629                 MR. COCHRANE:  I think, Commissioner,


 1     that one of the great things that Teletoon or Family
 2     Channel or Canal Famille does is not only buy from the
 3     large independent but very much the small independent. 
 4     We're not sure we help create.  We develop scripts.
 5  9630                 I think they come from all walks of
 6     life.  It's one of the great challenges that we have,
 7     spending a huge amount of time with those new guys on
 8     the block and seeing something on the screen gives us a
 9     tremendous amount of pride.
10  9631                 The ability for aboriginal or guys
11     who are animators who decide that they are going to try
12     and produce a series, it's very important for us, and
13     we all spend a lot of time with those small guys.
14  9632                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I don't want
15     to be putting you on the spot, but I wonder if you have
16     suggestions.  I don't want to put you on the spot about
17     what you have or haven't done, but do you have any
18     suggestions about how to -- if you think that there is
19     room to reflect aboriginal people more on television --
20     if you have any suggestions as to how it can be done at
21     the level of what you are doing.
22  9633                 MR. RILEY:  I might be able to give
23     actually a precise example.  First of all, Teletoon
24     launched this year a program which in this case is
25     distinctively Canadian, "Nanook of the North", which


 1     was a program that was launched this September. 
 2     Actually, the ratings have been quite strong for the
 3     program.
 4  9634                 It's an adventure series based on the
 5     stories of Nanook.  The producers in question consulted
 6     with aboriginal sources in the making of the series, so
 7     it was true to the heritage.
 8  9635                 In all of our cases, I think what can
 9     be done and what we do is to try and do the best job of
10     making ourselves available everywhere to give everyone
11     access and an opportunity to approach the network.  For
12     example, we have a person that is specifically hired to
13     source out programming proposals from everywhere and
14     from everyone.
15  9636                 The Ottawa Animation Film Festival is
16     taking place this week as we speak.  We have
17     representatives, in fact that person, that developer of
18     new projects, is here.
19  9637                 Last year the very successful
20     Animation Festival also launched a student animation
21     festival.  We again appeared there.  Everyone has
22     access to our network and we look at every single
23     proposal, as evidenced by some of the programming
24     that's appearing there.  I know that's the same with
25     the rest of the networks that are in the group.


 1  9638                 I think we can continue to make
 2     efforts in that area to develop those kinds of
 3     projects.
 4                                                        1220
 5  9639                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  One of the
 6     things -- that's very helpful, by the way -- that
 7     television really in Canada pointed out was that the
 8     CPF had set aside $1 million -- $2 million; $1 million
 9     from each of the funds -- for aboriginal programming,
10     and they were pointing out that in fact that was below
11     the proportion of people; 2.8 per cent of the Canadian
12     population is aboriginal whereas 1 per cent of the fund
13     was reserved for that type of programming, programming
14     by aboriginal producers.
15  9640                 What are your thoughts about that
16     idea of whatever the percentage is, and be it CPF or
17     one of the funds such as the one you are announcing
18     today, of having monies targeted to under-represented
19     categories within the under-represented categories?  Do
20     you think that's a worthwhile way to go?
21  9641                 MR. BUREAU:  Mr. Cardozo, I think
22     that in fact Canadian broadcasters have been the first
23     in the world to really put on television the people
24     that form the diverse country that we are and the
25     ethnic people, the different kinds of people that are


 1     forming part of this country here.  Over the years we
 2     have been very successful at doing that.  We should in
 3     fact do something about that.
 4  9642                 I am not sure that we have the exact
 5     answer to your question this morning, but we should
 6     find a way because they are really part of our lives. 
 7     So we should have them on television, or behind if they
 8     are producing something, but I cannot give you a more
 9     precise answer.
10  9643                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay, that's
11     fine.  I guess part of that is whether we look at it as
12     just a social objective or whether there is a business
13     case in the whole issue of reflecting --
14  9644                 MR. BUREAU:  Hopefully, it will be
15     both.
16  9645                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Yes.
17  9646                 The other question I just wanted to
18     ask you was with regard to CBC.  You mentioned that
19     they come in and outbid you not by a few per cent but
20     two or three times the amount.  I am wondering if part
21     of your thinking is that the reason their numbers in
22     terms of Canadian programming are so much higher than
23     others is because they are able to do that or they do
24     that, and if they weren't in a market, would everybody
25     else's numbers in terms of Canadian programming be much


 1     higher?  Would you be able to afford a whole lot more
 2     Canadian programming if CBC wasn't betting at the high
 3     rates that they are, or was your question more just in
 4     terms of buying American programming?
 5  9647                 M. BUREAU:  Ce n'est pas seulement en
 6     fonction des achats de programmation américaine, c'est
 7     pour tous leurs achats que le problème se retrouve.  Je
 8     pense qu'il y a une différence de moyens.  On est liés
 9     à des budgets qui sont liés à nos revenus, qui sont
10     beaucoup plus limités.  On n'a pas l'argent public dont
11     jouit la CBC pour supporter cette compétition-là.
12  9648                 On a une profitabilité à assurer à
13     nos actionnaires au bout de l'année, alors on ne peut
14     pas comme ça "bidder" sur des programmes d'une façon
15     inconsidérée puisqu'on n'arriverait pas à maintenir une
16     business viable au bout du compte.
17  9649                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So is it your
18     view -- and I am pushing you a little bit here because
19     you didn't quite say this, but I am wondering if behind
20     what you are saying is that perhaps they are inflating
21     the market, and if they weren't doing that, you and
22     others would be able to do more Canadian programming.
23  9650                 MS de WILDE:  I think what we are
24     trying to say about the CBC is that, if they viewed
25     their role as less competitive with the private sector


 1     and as more of playing a complementary and distinct
 2     role, they then wouldn't attack their advertising sales
 3     with ferocity, which in turn leads them to be willing
 4     to pay higher amounts for a program because they
 5     believe it will in turn support those advertising
 6     sales.
 7  9651                 So it is really when you step back
 8     and you say, if their role were different and they
 9     weren't going after advertising revenues with the same
10     vigour, they would be, of course, forced to react to
11     their lower revenues by playing a different role when
12     it came to program acquisitions.
13  9652                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So it is not
14     just a matter of licence fees but advertising as well?
15  9653                 MS de WILDE:  I think it is the two
16     ends of the equation.
17  9654                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  All right.  In
18     a sentence, what would that unique role be for the CBC
19     that would not be other people's role?
20  9655                 MR. BUREAU:  Ah-ha!  You are trying
21     to draw us into the next process.
22  9656                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Yes, I guess I
23     am.
24  9657                 MR. BUREAU:  I think, in order to be
25     fair with la Société Radio-Canada and CBC, we should,


 1     at the time of their renewal, have a complete image of
 2     what they want to do and a reaction that is based on
 3     what is their plan for the future.  We sincerely hope
 4     at this point in time that the words "complementary"
 5     and "collaboration" will mean something in fact in the
 6     future of la société d'État and that we will see in
 7     their plans for their renewal something that will
 8     indicate to us that they are transforming their role a
 9     little bit to adapt it to the new environment.
10  9658                 They are not the only ones providing
11     programming to all Canadians any more.  That's not the
12     case any more.  So maybe they should do something
13     different, and by doing something different, they may
14     not need the same type of programming or the same type
15     of money or subsidies or access to advertising --
16     maybe.  We will see.
17  9659                 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And if they
18     don't, then, we will count on you to give us the magic
19     answer to my question.
20  9660                 Thanks very much.
21  9661                 Thanks, Madam Chair.
22  9662                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
23     McKendry.
24  9663                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you,
25     Madam Chair.


 1  9664                 I couldn't pass up the opportunity,
 2     Mr. Bureau, to ask you a question, having sat where you
 3     are sitting now while you asked me questions from up
 4     here.
 5  9665                 MR. BUREAU:  I hope you will be more
 6     kind to me than I was to you.
 7  9666                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Always.  But
 8     let me begin by saying it is very refreshing to be
 9     reminded of your passion for things Canadian, and we
10     appreciate people coming to our hearing room and
11     speaking with passion about these things -- and please
12     come by yourself if you want.  We welcome passion here.
13  9667                 I am going to touch on something
14     Commissioner Wilson raised with you and Commissioner
15     Cardozo just raised too where, when you were speaking
16     to Commissioner Wilson, you said everybody has to adapt
17     to the new environment, and so should the CBC.
18  9668                 My question really isn't about the
19     CBC, but I want to make sure I understand the new
20     environment from your perspective.  Is it one of
21     fragmentation?  Is that what you mean?
22  9669                 MR. BUREAU:  Well, it is one where we
23     have seen the number of services that are offered to
24     the Canadian population increase in a fantastic way,
25     where the quality of programming has increased, where


 1     the thematic approaches have developed to the point
 2     where a number of the things that only CBC was offering
 3     in the past are now being offered, with quality, by
 4     other services.
 5  9670                 So, in my mind, it raises the
 6     question of, all right, now, since some of the things
 7     that we were the only ones or almost the only ones to
 8     offer with high quality are now being available at some
 9     other address, should we not try to concentrate on some
10     of the other things that remain not completely taken
11     care of, or should we take the other way around and
12     evacuate those things into specialty services?
13  9671                 I think that this is the overall
14     picture.  I didn't want to be drawn into a discussion
15     about the specialty services, but you almost forced me
16     to go there.
17  9672                 My feeling is that the CBC and
18     Radio-Canada are trying to develop their almost
19     business as do conventional broadcasters or specialty
20     broadcasters, and I am not sure that this is the way
21     for la Société d'État to look at its own role in the
22     future.  And I am nervous that at some point the
23     government might say, "Why do we need la société
24     d'État, since it is doing in a large part what others
25     are already doing?"


 1  9673                 I think that for the sake of
 2     maintaining, within a unique and distinctive Canadian
 3     broadcasting system, a unique and distinctive role for
 4     la société d'État, it is important that they look at
 5     the environment and determine where can they play a
 6     very specific role.
 7  9674                 In 1983 or 1984 I believe -- and that
 8     shows you my age -- the government published I believe
 9     it was a blue book in those years, I don't remember
10     exactly the colour, but I remember that Francis Fox was
11     Minister of Communications at the time and Mr. Juneau I
12     believe was at Radio-Canada.
13  9675                 Mr. Fox came out with a book that
14     defined, even then, what should be the complementary
15     role of the CBC.  Boy!  It was shot in flame by
16     Mr. Juneau, who decided that he would have to be at the
17     Cabinet to fight against those silly ideas, and at some
18     point he became a member of the Cabinet.  But, anyway,
19     the fact remains that even then there was, within the
20     government, some thinking about what should be the role
21     of the société d'État vis-à-vis the rest.
22  9676                 Well, if at that time it was
23     important for them to look at that and define the
24     complementary role, imagine today.  And I am always
25     nervous that at some point somebody at the government


 1     level will ask the question, and I think we need a CBC
 2     or Société Radio-Canada but with probably a more
 3     focused role is in general what I would suggest.
 4                                                        1230
 5  9677                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you
 6     very much.
 7  9678                 Let me ask a question now about theft
 8     of your services, or Pay TV services, and the
 9     conversion of the cable network to digital.
10  9679                 My understanding is that in the
11     United States, the FCC has mandated that the set-top
12     box will have a separate security pod that will be
13     provided by the cable operator, and the box will be a
14     retail item that consumers will buy in retail outlets.
15  9680                 Are you comfortable that the security
16     pod approach, where the security is not integrated into
17     the box, will provide the kind of security that you are
18     looking for?
19  9681                 MS de WILDE:  Yes, we are.  Not only
20     does it provide new security, but it provides security
21     that can be changed when inevitably it is corrupted and
22     we have to find another way to shut down people who
23     have figured out a way around it.
24  9682                 In other words, we don't delude
25     ourselves that it is the answer that will solve all of


 1     our problems forever.  I think everybody who works with
 2     encrypted data knows that it is an ongoing challenge.
 3  9683                 But the beauty, as I understand it,
 4     of the digital approach to encryption, and especially
 5     the cards that you are adverting to, is that you can
 6     change the cards -- on an infrequent basis, one
 7     hopes -- in order to keep one step ahead of them.
 8  9684                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  You don't
 9     anticipate that cable operators would be reluctant to
10     change the cards frequently due to the cost of
11     distributing new cards to their customers?
12  9685                 MS de WILDE:  There will undoubtedly
13     be challenging discussions in that regard.  But it is
14     important to keep in mind that we do both share an
15     interest in shutting down pirates.  Cable loses money
16     and we lose money.
17  9686                 The difficulty that we are
18     confronting right now is that we are at that ugly point
19     in the technology conversion cycle where no one wants
20     to leap forward and fix it until it is a big fix;
21     namely, a transition from analog to digital.
22  9687                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  In any event,
23     you would prefer the card or pod approach to security
24     integrated into the set-top box.
25  9688                 MS de WILDE:  It seems to me that it


 1     is more flexible.
 2  9689                 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you.
 3  9690                 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
 4  9691                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Ms de Wilde, when
 5     you say that you need a 2 percent kicker, I think what
 6     you said was to get the regulator to pay attention to
 7     digital employment and encryption.
 8  9692                 That criticism is of course levied at
 9     former Commissioners.
10  9693                 MS de WILDE:  And former Commission
11     counsel.
12  9694                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't think it
13     would be fair to say that in the last ten years some
14     attention has not been paid to the need for digital
15     deployment and sometimes attempts to regulate as though
16     it was actually occurring.
17  9695                 MS de WILDE:  In fact, the capital
18     expenditure provision that the Commission put into
19     place in the early 1990s was an inspired decision to do
20     precisely that.  Unfortunately, technology did not
21     happen as fast as people would have hoped.
22  9696                 When I say that we are prepared to
23     spend an additional 2 percent, it is because we see the
24     advantages of it.  We need all of the support we can to
25     nudge the system along.


 1  9697                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Nudge rather than
 2     kick?
 3  9698                 MS de WILDE:  I think that depends on
 4     where you are sitting.
 5  9699                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Radio-Canada.  I am
 6     not as kind as my fellow commissioners.  Vous êtes bien
 7     entouré, Monsieur Bureau, et vous avez soulevé la
 8     question de Radio-Canada, alors vous ne vous en
 9     sauverez pas si facilement.
10  9700                 Ce matin, et dans votre soumission
11     écrite, mais ce matin, à la page 9 on a soulevé que
12     vous avez dit que l'allocation de 50 pour cent allouée
13     aux productions destinées à la Société Radio-Canada
14     doit être revue.
15  9701                 Je comprends, selon M. Roy, que la
16     base de cette révision se ferait selon l'argent dépensé
17     dans la production canadienne en considérant les
18     dépenses totales aux dépenses canadiennes, de
19     programmation canadienne?
20  9702                 M. ROY:  Ça pourrait être une
21     approche, oui, pour refléter...
22  9703                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et ça, c'était votre
23     tiers/deux-tiers?
24  9704                 M. ROY: C'est ça.
25  9705                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et vous vous basiez


 1     sur le Canada de langue française, sur SRC, ou...
 2  9706                 M. ROY:  Non; l'ensemble du Canada.
 3  9707                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mettons à part la
 4     question CBC, et examinons la question SRC au Québec.
 5  9708                 Vos collègues de TVA ont été beaucoup
 6     plus précis et beaucoup plus aventuriers à nous donner
 7     des suggestions de ce qu'il faut faire pour freiner
 8     Radio-Canada.  M. Lamarre n'a pas accepté ce mot-là,
 9     mais nous avons eu des suggestions.  Par exemple, vous
10     dites qu'ils attaquent le marché de la publicité
11     férocement.
12  9709                 M. Lamarre se plaignait que la
13     publicité était vendue beaucoup trop basse, mais les
14     programmes étaient achetés sur enchères.  Il avait,
15     lui, des suggestions très très précises pour
16     essentiellement couper un peu les ailes de la
17     concurrence de Radio-Canada. Je ne sais pas si vous
18     avez lu leurs suggestions, mais elles étaient très
19     précises.
20  9710                 Par exemple, les droits à la
21     programmation ne pouvaient pas être achetés par
22     Radio-Canada à moins que le marché... j'espère que je
23     ne fais pas d'erreur ici, mais que le marché n'ait pas
24     essayé de miser sur l'achat de ces droits, et même que
25     Radio-Canada ne devrait pas faire de programmation si


 1     le secteur privé voulait la faire elle-même.
 2  9711                 Considérant la pénétration du câble
 3     au Québec et le fait que dans certains genres
 4     d'émissions, dont TQS s'est retiré, il n'y a que deux
 5     parties en langue française, conventionnelles, pour
 6     ceux qui n'ont pas le câble, est-ce qu'à votre avis le
 7     Conseil et les fonds et tous ceux qui s'occupent
 8     d'essayer de, justement, allouer les sommes dont vous
 9     parlez, devraient prendre en considération que si
10     Radio-Canada ne faisait plus certains genres de
11     programmation, il n'y aurait que TVA qui l'offrirait
12     aux gens sur ondes hertziennes?
13  9712                 Les spécialisés, c'est
14     discrétionnaire et, en plus, la pénétration du câble
15     est basse, et ceux qui voudraient peut-être s'abonner
16     aux services SRD n'auront pas les services locaux. 
17     Est-ce qu'on devrait mettre dans la soupe une approche
18     différente pour le Canada français à cause de ça?
19  9713                 Madame Fortin, elle, dit que c'est
20     inévitable que Radio-Canada et TVA font se faire
21     concurrence.
22  9714                 M. BUREAU:  Je pense qu'en principe
23     il faut toujours s'assurer que les règles qui sont
24     envisagées soient adaptées aux deux marchés, et il peut
25     bien y avoir des règles différentes pour le marché


 1     francophone par rapport au marché anglophone.
 2  9715                 Ceci étant dit, la raison, je pense,
 3     pour laquelle TQS -- on parle seulement de ceux qui
 4     peuvent rejoindre tout le monde par diffusion
 5     hertzienne.  La raison pour laquelle TQS s'est retirée
 6     est qu'ils n'étaient pas capables de concurrencer
 7     Radio-Canada eux non plus.  Ils ont essayé d'en faire,
 8     des émissions, comme celles que Radio-Canada faisait
 9     dans le sport, dans d'autres catégories comme ça, des
10     séries et tout ça.  Ils se sont retirés simplement
11     parce qu'ils n'étaient pas capables de supporter, si
12     vous voulez, la concurrence par rapport à Radio-Canada. 
13     Ils entraient dans une ligue qui était beaucoup trop
14     élevée et trop riche pour eux.  Si Radio-Canada n'était
15     pas là...
16  9716                 S'il y avait un droit de premier
17     refus, si je comprends bien, une des suggestions...
18     s'il y avait un droit de premier refus sur certaines
19     catégories d'émissions en faveur de la télévision
20     conventionnelle et que la télévision conventionnelle
21     disait non, je ne le prends pas, pour n'importe quelle
22     raison, je pense bien qu'à ce moment-là, dans le but de
23     s'assurer que ceux qui ne sont pas abonnés au câble ou
24     qui ne sont pas abonnés à la télé en direct aient accès
25     à ce genre de programmation, Radio-Canada pourrait y


 1     venir.
 2  9717                 Ce n'est peut-être pas une mauvaise
 3     idée que d'essayer cette formule-là mais, vous savez,
 4     avec la télé en direct, qui entre de façon assez
 5     significative maintenant dans le marché francophone et
 6     qui, au niveau du marché francophone est aussi
 7     populaire que tout le reste du Canada anglais en termes
 8     de nombre d'abonnés à la télé en direct, on va voir à
 9     un moment donné que la pénétration limitée du câble, à
10     laquelle on a été habitué au Québec pendant un certain
11     nombre d'années, va probablement être complétée par une
12     pénétration des services de télé en direct, ou
13     peut-être par le nouveau service MMDS, dépendant de la
14     façon dont la mise en marché va être faite.
15  9718                 Donc, ces choses-là vont venir
16     changer peut-être les données de base, les statistiques
17     de base dont on se sert pour dire qu'il reste une
18     grande partie de la population qui n'est pas servie.
19  9719                 Même dans le cas où ça ne changerait
20     pas, il y a quand même deux autres joueurs.  Il y a TVA
21     et TQS qui sont là, et ces deux autres joueurs-là, les
22     deux ont manifesté de l'intérêt pour le genre de
23     programmes que la société d'État achète, à ce qu'ils
24     considèrent, eux, un prix trop élevé, et je pense que
25     ce serait peut-être dans l'intérêt de tout le monde


 1     s'il y avait cette espèce de formule de droit de
 2     premier refus.  Je ne sais pas qui serait l'arbitre
 3     là-dedans, mais...
 4  9720                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  C'était une de leurs
 5     suggestions, mais ils en avaient plusieurs très
 6     précises dans ce genre-là.  Mais vous, vous ne voyez
 7     pas le résultat de ce qui se passe en ce moment au
 8     Québec avec SRC plutôt qu'au Canada anglais avec le
 9     CBC...  vous ne voyez pas que c'est aussi un problème
10     qui est inhérent au Québec à cause de la petitesse du
11     marché, et qui devrait être considéré différemment?
12  9721                 M. BUREAU:  On dit toujours ça, et
13     c'est vrai. Alors, il faut toujours le considérer un
14     peu différemment.  Ça ne veut pas dire que c'est
15     totalement différent.  Il y a des nuances à apporter
16     là-dedans et on aura, j'espère, l'occasion d'en
17     discuter.
18  9722                 Peut-être que M. Roy a quelque chose
19     à ajouter sur ce sujet-là en particulier.
20  9723                 M. ROY:  On a vu plus souvent la
21     Société Radio-Canada aller vers des formules offertes
22     par les diffuseurs conventionnels privés que l'inverse.
23     Donc, au lieu de développer ses propres formules et
24     donner une offre alternative en tant que société
25     publique, on est allé directement sur le terrain des


 1     joueurs privés, et dans ce cas-là c'est vraiment la SRC
 2     qui vient priver le public d'une sorte de programmation
 3     que peut-être les privées n'avaient pas offerte jusqu'à
 4     maintenant.
 5  9724                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je ne suis pas
 6     certaine que j'ai bien compris votre position vis-à-vis
 7     la production indépendante.  Moi, j'ai la version
 8     anglaise de votre soumission écrite devant moi, et à la
 9     page 24 vous dites:
10                            "...only independent production
11                            companies should be given access
12                            to Telefilm funds and to
13                            assistance programs for Canadian
14                            film and television productions,
15                            for several reasons:"
16  9725                 Which you outline.
17  9726                 Did I hear you respond to
18     Commissioner Wilson that, with some safeguards, it
19     would possibly be acceptable?
20  9727                 MS de WILDE:  That is correct.  In
21     fact, that position has evolved.
22  9728                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  And on page 8 -- en
23     français, vous dites:
24                            "Tous les radiodiffuseurs
25                            conventionnels devraient


 1                            consacrer un pourcentage de
 2                            leurs dépenses de programmation
 3                            à des émissions produites par
 4                            des entreprises non affiliées."
 5  9729                 Vous envisagez ici un pourcentage de
 6     leurs dépenses de programmation qui irait, à ce
 7     moment-là, à des compagnies indépendantes pour la
 8     production d'émissions.
 9  9730                 Avez-vous envisagé un pourcentage
10     quelconque?
11  9731                 Mme de WILDE:  Non.  On pense que
12     l'approche devrait être plutôt ad hoc.
13  9732                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et ça, ce serait
14     seulement pour les radiodiffuseurs conventionnels, et
15     les services spécialisés...
16  9733                 Mme de WILDE:  On le fait déjà.
17  9734                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Est-ce que la
18     position ad hoc que le Conseil utilise maintenant est
19     satisfaisante dans le futur?
20  9735                 Mme de WILDE:  C'est exact.  Oui.
21  9736                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et on la
22     transporterait, à ce moment-là, au service
23     conventionnel.
24  9737                 Mme de WILDE:  Oui.
25  9738                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant,


 1     CINAR/Nelvana nous a proposé une suggestion que j'ai,
 2     moi, un peu de mal à comprendre, mais Mme Charest m'a
 3     aidée un peu à la comprendre.  J'aimerais savoir ce que
 4     vous en pensez.
 5  9739                 Ils soutiennent, eux, que
 6     l'investissement en capital par les diffuseurs de la
 7     façon suivante est reconnue ou prévaut dans le marché,
 8     et que, eux, ils devraient la transformer en règle. 
 9     Leur position serait la suivante:  Que les diffuseurs
10     puissent obtenir une part de propriété dans une
11     production qui équivaut à 50 pour cent de la valeur de
12     leur investissement, en sus des droits de diffusion ou
13     de la licence qu'ils ont donnée, une fois qu'ils ont
14     recouvert entièrement leur investissement.
15  9740                 Je comprends à ce moment-là qu'ils
16     pourraient être propriétaires à un niveau qui
17     équivaudrait à 50 pour cent de la valeur de leur
18     investissement en capital, au-delà ou en sus des droits
19     de diffusion ou la licence qu'ils ont donnée.
20  9741                 M. BUREAU:  Sur un budget de
21     production de 2 millions, si un diffuseur payait en
22     droits... investissait...
23  9742                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui.  En capital, en
24     sus du droit de licence ou de droits de diffusion,
25     qu'il donnait, disons, 25 pour cent ou 20 pour cent,


 1     mais en sus, une somme quelconque.
 2  9743                 M. BUREAU:  À ce moment-là...
 3  9744                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Qu'il pourrait
 4     aboutir avec la propriété dans la production à un
 5     niveau à 50 pour cent la valeur de cet investissement.
 6  9745                 M. BUREAU:  Après remboursement,
 7     avez-vous dit?
 8  9746                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Une fois qu'ils ont
 9     recouvert entièrement leur investissement.  Ce n'est
10     pas une formule qui vous est familière.
11  9747                 J'imagine que leur proposition vise à
12     encourager l'investissement des diffuseurs dans les
13     productions, sans qu'ils aient le contrôle de la
14     propriété.
15  9748                 M. BUREAU:  On aura certainement
16     l'occasion d'examiner la transcription...
17  9749                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  C'est dans la
18     proposition de CINAR/Nelvana.
19  9750                 M. BUREAU:  ... et de faire des
20     commentaires au moment des commentaires écrits, Madame
21     Wylie.
22  9751                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui, parce que la
23     position de M. Hirsh et Mme Charest était que c'est
24     assez commun dans l'industrie et qu'eux voudraient,
25     comme incitatif à l'investissement en capital, que ce


 1     soit reconnu comme une règle.
 2  9752                 Je vous donnerai la page exacte...
 3     vous l'avez?
 4  9753                 M. BUREAU:  On l'a déjà, la page.
 5     C'est l'échange que vous avez eu avec Mme Charest qu'on
 6     va avoir dans la transcription.
 7  9754                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui, qui peut-être
 8     aiderait, parce que c'était... Je suis charmée de voir
 9     que vous non plus ne comprenez pas d'emblée.
10  9755                 M. BUREAU:  Mais, venant de
11     Mme Charest, ça a l'air trop beau pour être vrai.
12  9756                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Vous avez discuté
13     avec plus d'un de mes collègues de cette idée d'avoir
14     un groupe de travail qui examinerait les questions de
15     distribution et de déploiement de numérisation.
16  9757                 Évidemment, quand vous avez écrit
17     votre soumission, vous ne saviez pas que le Conseil
18     allait, justement, ouvrir un processus quelconque pour
19     examiner les questions qui entourent la distribution. 
20     Est-ce que vous envisageriez ce groupe de travail comme
21     faisant partie de cet exercice-là, dont maintenant vous
22     avez connaissance du fait que le Conseil se propose
23     d'avoir un processus quelconque?
24  9758                 Est-ce que vous considérez que ça
25     fait partie intégrante des questions que nous allons


 1     soulever dans cet examen structurel?
 2  9759                 Mme de WILDE:  Non, pas vraiment. 
 3     J'ai pensé vraiment que ce serait plutôt un groupe de
 4     travail, et pas un processus avec...
 5  9760                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Non, mais est-ce que
 6     ce groupe de travail là, ce ne serait pas normal qu'il
 7     fasse partie de cet examen?  Est-ce que ce n'est pas
 8     une des questions...
 9  9761                 Mme de WILDE:  Moi, je ne sais pas
10     exactement ce serait quoi les questions que le Conseil
11     va poser dans l'intérêt de cet exercice.
12  9762                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais vous avez vu
13     l'avis public du Conseil?
14  9763                 Mme de WILDE:  Oui.  On avait en tête
15     plutôt les groupes de travail que le Conseil a menés
16     dans le cadre des télécommunications, où les questions
17     étaient plutôt techniques.
18  9764                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Comme le processus
19     CISC...
20  9765                 Mme de WILDE:  Oui.  La partie 6? 
21     Est-ce que c'est ce que...
22  9766                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Non.  Le processus
23     CISC, C-I-S-C.  Ça ne me vient pas en français en ce
24     moment.
25  9767                 Mme de WILDE:  C'est plutôt le


 1     processus qui a touché le "number portability".  C'est
 2     celui-là qui m'a frappée le plus.
 3  9768                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui.  Le processus
 4     CISC, c'est CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee.
 5  9769                 Mme de WILDE:  C'est exactement ça.
 6  9770                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Dans l'industrie, où
 7     le Conseil... ça pourrait se produire en même temps,
 8     mais pas nécessairement intégré à l'examen de la
 9     structure.
10  9771                 Mme de WILDE:  C'est ça.
11  9772                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, une
12     petite question sur la promotion.
13  9773                 Vous suggérez qu'il y ait plus de
14     ressources dédiées ou dévouées à la promotion.  Est-ce
15     que vous vous êtes penchés sur les suggestions qui ont
16     été faites que ça fasse partie des dépenses
17     canadiennes, à la programmation canadienne, ou si c'est
18     simplement un objectif que vous voulez... qu'il y ait
19     des incitatifs très clairs pour encourager la
20     promotion, que cet incitatif-là soit même financier?
21  9774                 M. BUREAU:  Je pense que notre
22     position serait que les coûts de promotion qui sont à
23     l'extérieur du service qui soit utilisé...
24  9775                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  À des tierces
25     parties.


 1  9776                 M. BUREAU:  À des tierces parties, ne
 2     fassent pas partie de ce calcul-là dont vous parlez, à
 3     moins...
 4  9777                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui, qui est
 5     contraire à certaines propositions.
 6  9778                 M. BUREAU:  Oui.  C'est pour ça qu'on
 7     le spécifie.
 8  9779                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et vous, vous pensez
 9     simplement que c'est le rôle des radiodiffuseurs de
10     faire la promotion de la programmation, et que les
11     incitatifs devraient être les impératifs du marché,
12     mais pas des incitatifs financiers, parce qu'il y a eu
13     beaucoup de propositions, que le Conseil devrait revoir
14     la définition de la publicité, inclure la promotion
15     dans les dépenses.
16  9780                 MS de WILDE:  We think that there are
17     some useful ideas on the table.  The one that we are
18     alluding to right now is that it does not seem to make
19     a lot of sense to include what would be marketing
20     expenditures on, for example, billboards as Canadian
21     content expenditures.
22  9781                 In contrast, if one were to change
23     the definition for some of the advertising to permit
24     the promotion of Canadian services by other Canadian
25     services, that would be a compelling way to enhance the


 1     promotion of Canadian.
 2  9782                 If we were to find additional ways to
 3     use the cross-channel avails, if we were to change the
 4     treatment of the entertainment type of shows to put
 5     them into a special category, those are powerful tools
 6     that can start to create, especially in the English
 7     language market, as Pierre always insists on
 8     underlining, those are the types of tools that we need
 9     to develop in English Canada.
10  9783                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Now, I am going to
11     transgress Commissioner Wilson's rules and ask you a
12     question.
13  9784                 On page 7, your Number 2
14     recommendation or concern, you suggest that:
15                            "...the Commission should
16                            regulate the wholesale rate for
17                            specialty services since these
18                            revenues underpin their licence
19                            commitments for Canadian
20                            programming."
21  9785                 You are looking here at regulating
22     the amount of money that flows from cable to
23     specialties?
24  9786                 M. BUREAU:  Oui, tout à fait.
25  9787                 Quand nous déposons une demande de


 1     licence, il y a un plan d'affaires qui est joint, et
 2     qui est basé sur des revenus, un tarif de gros.  De ça
 3     découlent les engagements en programmation canadienne.
 4  9788                 Quand le Conseil prend une décision
 5     face aux différentes propositions de la licence qui
 6     sont devant lui, nous considérons qu'il accepte, de ce
 7     fait, s'il choisit une licence particulière, dans un
 8     processus souvent compétitif, qu'il accepte de ce fait
 9     la plan d'affaires et les engagements de contenu
10     canadien que ça sous-tendait.
11  9789                 Donc, dans la dynamique actuelle que
12     nous rencontrons avec les câblo opérateurs, nous ne
13     voyons pas d'autres moyens que d'en arriver à établir
14     un plancher pour le tarif de gros sur une distribution
15     sur l'étage.
16  9790                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et on a déjà ça
17     évidemment quand c'est une distribution sur le service
18     de base.  Alors ce que vous entreverriez c'est le plan
19     d'affaires qui est basé sur le pourcentage de
20     pénétration?  C'est assez difficile d'établir un taux
21     sans aussi réglementer le packaging.
22                                                        1255
23  9791                 M. BUREAU:  Madame Wylie, on a, à
24     plusieurs reprises... et il y a plusieurs requérants
25     qui ont présenté devant le Conseil des demandes et qui


 1     avaient une espèce d'échelle de tarifs qui était basée
 2     sur la pénétration.  À partir de ce moment-là, si le
 3     Conseil juge que c'est raisonnable comme demande vu
 4     l'ensemble du projet qui est mis devant lui, on devrait
 5     s'attendre à ce qu'on ne soit pas forcés de négocier
 6     ces choses-là, évidemment à la baisse, quand on arrive
 7     avec le distributeur.
 8  9792                 À partir de ce moment-là, quand le
 9     distributeur nous dit:  "Non, vous n'aurez pas 40
10     cents, vous allez avoir 20 sous", puis on dit:  "On a
11     des engagements qui font qu'on ne peut pas se permettre
12     de faire un service à ce prix-là" et qu'il dit:  "Moi,
13     je m'en fous.  Moi, je vous donne 20 sous, point, à la
14     ligne", alors nous autres on dit qu'il y a un forum où
15     n'importe qui peut venir pour dire:  "On trouve que
16     c'est déraisonnable de demander un service qui va
17     coûter ce prix-là éventuellement."  Ça peut être un des
18     éléments qui va être débattu à ce moment-là, comme on
19     va discuter de la programmation, comme on va discuter
20     de l'expertise de ceux qui font la demande et tout ça.
21  9793                 Le Conseil a déjà eu à choisir, à la
22     dernière ronde de services spécialisés, entre des
23     demandes concurrentielles où il y avait un différentiel
24     au niveau du prix qui était considérable, entre deux
25     demandes en particulier dont je me souviens très bien,


 1     et le Conseil en a choisi une; il a en fait choisi
 2     celle dont le prix était le plus élevé.
 3  9794                 Je suis sûr que le Conseil, en
 4     prenant cette décision-là, a pris la décision en se
 5     disant:  "C'est la meilleure demande, c'est la
 6     meilleure chance qu'on a d'avoir un bon service", et il
 7     n'a pas vu dans le différentiel de coût un élément qui
 8     fasse que le Conseil se soit dit:  "L'autre peut nous
 9     offrir la même qualité mais à la moitié du prix.  Il y
10     a quelque chose qui ne va pas.  On va choisir l'autre."
11  9795                 Alors tout ce qu'on dit, c'est que le
12     forum pour déterminer ce genre de choses là, ça devrait
13     être ici, et quand le Conseil a fini de prendre sa
14     décision sur les demandes que le Conseil entend, il
15     devrait dire:  "Voici, on vous donne la licence, et ça
16     implique que le prix de gros va être à tel prix."
17  9796                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will have an
18     opportunity to discuss that with Commissioner Wilson
19     when we do have our process, but it is not a new
20     concept, it is just that the Commission hasn't retained
21     it as a requirement.
22  9797                 MR. BUREAU:  We have not yet
23     suggested that cable rates should be regulated on a
24     tier.
25  9798                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Not yet.


 1  9799                 MR. BUREAU:  What did I say?  My
 2     English is very poor.
 3  9800                 THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
 4  9801                 Counsel.
 5  9802                 Me BLAIS:  Je ne veux pas vous
 6     retenir trop, trop de votre déjeuner, mais j'ai deux
 7     petites questions à vous poser, et c'est vraiment pour
 8     réagir à des propositions mises de l'avant par d'autres
 9     parties.
10  9803                 Premièrement, l'ACR propose, à
11     l'annexe 1, à la page 6, une proposition... j'ai le
12     texte ici en anglais, si vous ne l'avez pas devant
13     vous.
14                            "However, the CAB has proposed
15                            two incentives that will ensure
16                            the greater presence and
17                            promotion of theatrical feature
18                            films"
19     et le deuxième, c'est:
20                            "an exclusion of any promotion
21                            of Canadian feature films from
22                            the definition of advertising
23                            content irrespective of whether
24                            the broadcaster carries it." (As
25                            read)


 1  9804                 Je me demandais si vous aviez des
 2     commentaires à faire sur cette proposition-là.
 3  9805                 MS de WILDE:  We think that both of
 4     those are very good ideas.
 5  9806                 MR. BLAIS:  You know, I didn't
 6     mention the 200 per cent credit.  I was asking more for
 7     your reaction on the second, but I take note that you
 8     also agree with the first proposal.
 9  9807                 Monsieur Bureau, je sais que vous
10     aviez été impliqué, je pense que c'était à la fin des
11     années quatre-vingt, suite à la directive en Europe sur
12     la télévision sans frontières et les quotas en Europe
13     relativement aux coproductions officielles, et je
14     voulais savoir si vous aviez une réaction à la
15     proposition de l'APFTQ à l'effet qu'il y a un crédit de
16     150 pour cent pour les coproductions majoritairement
17     canadiennes, les coproductions officielles, évidemment.
18  9808                 Je me demandais qu'en est-il de la
19     notion du retour d'ascenseur entre les coproductions
20     majoritaires et les coproductions minoritaires?  Est-ce
21     que ça pourrait débalancer le système de coproduction?
22  9809                 M. BUREAU:  C'est très complexe. 
23     Toute cette discussion-là avec nos partenaires
24     étrangers est extrêmement complexe.  Il y a toutes
25     sortes de choses qui entrent en ligne de compte, y


 1     inclus la politique.
 2  9810                 Je pense qu'il y a certainement
 3     avantage à encourager les coproductions dans lesquelles
 4     on va être majoritaires, et ça peut prendre la forme
 5     qui est suggérée par l'APFTQ, mais je n'irai pas
 6     au-delà de ça dans mes commentaires parce que
 7     justement, à l'heure actuelle, il y a toutes sortes
 8     de... peut-être pas de problèmes, mais certainement de
 9     questions qui sont soulevées au niveau de l'application
10     des traités à l'heure actuelle relativement à la
11     portion minoritaire ou la portion majoritaire de la
12     coproduction, et ça fait l'objet de débat par des gens
13     qui sont bien mieux qualifiés que moi à l'heure
14     actuelle.
15  9811                 Me BLAIS:  Néanmoins, certains ont
16     proposé que les traités de coproduction se trouvent
17     être un engin pour aider l'exportation de produits
18     canadiens, et je vous inviterais alors, dans les
19     commentaires du mois de novembre, si vous pouviez
20     peut-être nous aider dans ce sens en matière de
21     coproduction officielle.
22  9812                 M. BUREAU:  On va certainement
23     essayer.
24  9813                 Vous avez parlé de novembre?
25  9814                 Me BLAIS:  Oui.  C'est ça, au mois de


 1     novembre.
 2  9815                 M. BUREAU:  Oui.
 3  9816                 Me BLAIS:  Merci bien.
 4  9817                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous vous remercions,
 5     mesdames, messieurs.
 6  9818                 Nous allons maintenant prendre une
 7     pause pour le déjeuner et nous reprendrons à 2 h 00. 
 8     We will be back at 2:00.
 9     --- Recess at / Suspension à 1300
10     --- Reprise à / Upon resuming at 1402
11  9819                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Bienvenue et bonjour.
12  9820                 Avant de débuter, je voudrais avertir
13     tout le monde que ce soir nous allons ajourner à 6 h 00
14     ou à peu près, dépendant de comment les choses se
15     déroulent.  C'est un peu difficile en ce moment de
16     déterminer exactement combien de parties nous pourrons
17     entendre; nous aurons une meilleure idée peut-être à la
18     pause.
19  9821                 We will be adjourning at 6:00 or
20     approximately 6:00 tonight; depending on where we are
21     at, it might be slightly before.  It is difficult to
22     say how many parties we will be hearing, but we should
23     have a better idea by the break.
24  9822                 Madam Secretary.
25  9823                 Mme BÉNARD:  Merci, Madame la


 1     Présidente.
 2  9824                 La prochaine présentation sera faite
 3     par Le Groupe Coscient iInc.  J'inviterais M. Crevier à
 4     nous présenter ses collègues.
 5  9825                 M. CREVIER:  Merci.
 7  9826                 M. CREVIER:  Madame la
 8     Vice-Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers,
 9     mon nom est Guy Crevier.  Je suis accompagné
10     aujourd'hui de M. Laurent Gaudreau, qui est à ma
11     droite, qui est vice-président du conseil et fondateur
12     de Coscient; à sa droite, Mme Marie-Christine Dufour,
13     vice-présidente, Affaires publiques, et M. Michel
14     Houle, consultant.
15  9827                 C'est la première fois,  Madame la
16     Vice-Présidente, que j'ai le plaisir de me présenter
17     devant le Conseil en tant que chef de la direction du
18     Groupe Coscient, qui est, comme vous le savez, le plus
19     important producteur indépendant de films et
20     d'émissions de télévision au Québec et le second en
21     importance au Canada.  Je me fais un plaisir ici de
22     vous signaler qu'au grand gala francophone de la
23     télévision, dimanche dernier, Le Groupe Coscient a
24     amassé un record de 18 Gémeaux.
25  9828                 Au cours des 20 dernières années j'ai


 1     oeuvré dans les domaines de la diffusion, de la
 2     production, de la distribution et des nouveaux médias. 
 3     L'exercice de ma profession m'a amené à entrer en
 4     contact avec une foule d'intervenants à travers le
 5     monde.  À chaque reprise, j'ai constaté combien le
 6     système canadien de radiodiffusion fait l'envie des
 7     observateurs étrangers.  C'est un success story
 8     d'autant plus remarquable que la dualité linguistique
 9     nous a obligés, en pratique, à construire deux systèmes
10     de radiodiffusion canadiens, l'un de langue anglaise et
11     l'autre de langue française.  C'est un success story
12     d'autant plus unique que nous avons dû le créer et le
13     développer à proximité du géant américain, c'est-à-dire
14     de la plus puissante industrie culturelle à l'échelle
15     planétaire.
16  9829                 La force du système de radiodiffusion
17     de langue française réside dans la popularité
18     exceptionnelle de ses émissions sur le marché
19     domestique.  Année après année, 90 pour cent des
20     émissions les plus populaires à la télévision de langue
21     française sont canadiennes.  Et, en dépit de l'ajout
22     d'un très grand nombre de services de programmation de
23     langue anglaise, canadiens et américains, les
24     francophones du Québec regardent la télévision de
25     langue française dans une proportion plus grande


 1     aujourd'hui qu'il y a 15 ans.
 2  9830                 Les émissions canadiennes de langue
 3     anglaise, pour leur part, connaissent des succès
 4     exceptionnels sur les marchés étrangers au point que le
 5     Canada est devenu un des plus importants exportateurs
 6     d'émissions de télévision après les États-Unis.
 7  9831                 Je suis convaincu que ces deux
 8     systèmes peuvent apprendre beaucoup l'un de l'autre et
 9     se prêter mutuellement assistance.
10  9832                 Les producteurs et les diffuseurs
11     d'émissions canadiennes de langue française doivent
12     apprendre à exporter davantage leurs produits, de façon
13     à pouvoir en faciliter le financement, à les rendre
14     plus attrayants, plus compétitifs et plus profitables.
15  9833                 Malheureusement, au Canada anglais,
16     l'objectif partagé par tous de rejoindre un plus grand
17     auditoire avec le contenu canadien n'a pas encore été
18     atteint.
19  9834                 J'ai fait allusion au début de ma
20     présentation à la qualité et à la pertinence du système
21     canadien.  Il faut toutefois admettre qu'il s'agit d'un
22     système qui exige de la part des contribuables
23     canadiens un effort considérable.  Je pourrais citer à
24     titre d'exemple le coût de la télévision publique, les
25     crédits d'impôts, les fonds de financement des


 1     produits.
 2  9835                 Pour que cet effort des contribuables
 3     soit efficace et justifié, il faut que les entreprises
 4     de diffusion canadiennes participent également à cet
 5     effet.  En particulier, il faut que les diffuseurs
 6     conventionnels de langue anglaise, comme le font déjà
 7     les diffuseurs conventionnels privés de langue
 8     française et les télévisions spécialisées des deux
 9     langues, consacrent une plus grande part de leurs
10     revenus et de leurs dépenses de programmation et de
11     promotion aux émissions canadiennes pour que celles-ci
12     deviennent plus populaires, plus compétitives sur le
13     marché domestique comme sur le marché international et
14     réussissent à rejoindre une plus grande part de
15     l'auditoire.
16  9836                 Il faut savoir miser sur nos forces
17     respectives mais aussi tirer des leçons de l'expérience
18     de l'autre, pour corriger nos faiblesses.  Si nous
19     réussissons à relever ce défi, la réussite du système
20     canadien sera encore plus éclatante.
21  9837                 M. GAUDREAU:  On peut dire que le
22     contenu canadien est vraiment la pierre angulaire de
23     notre système de radiodiffusion.  C'est ce qui fait
24     qu'il est unique.  C'est ce qui fait qu'il n'est pas
25     une simple extension du système américain.  C'est ce


 1     qui fait qu'il contribue à l'affirmation de notre
 2     identité culturelle.  Il n'y a donc aucun doute dans
 3     mon esprit qu'il faut favoriser une haute teneur de
 4     contenu canadien.
 5  9838                 Mais la quantité n'est pas le seul
 6     facteur qui compte.  Dans un environnement de plus en
 7     plus concurrentiel, il faut aussi favoriser la qualité
 8     et la compétitivité des émissions canadiennes, leur
 9     capacité de séduire les auditoires d'ici et d'ailleurs,
10     car c'est ainsi qu'on pourra accroître leur
11     rentabilité, stimuler leur exportation et contribuer à
12     résoudre le problème de leur financement.
13  9839                 Le défi que nous avons collectivement
14     à relever est vraiment de produire de plus en plus
15     d'émissions qui ne s'adressent pas uniquement aux
16     auditoires domestiques mais qui peuvent aussi rayonner
17     à travers le monde.
18  9840                 C'est d'ailleurs dans cette direction
19     qu'entend résolument s'orienter Le Groupe Coscient, qui
20     n'en est pas à ses premières armes, d'ailleurs,
21     puisqu'il a déjà réussi à exporter un magazine
22     scientifique comme Omni Science dans 117 pays et à
23     faire des percées intéressantes avec des séries
24     dramatiques comme "Scoop" et "Omertà" ainsi que des
25     séries d'animation comme "Bob Morane".


 1  9841                 Du côté de la télévision de langue
 2     anglaise, le défi se situe vraiment du côté domestique. 
 3     Il faut assurer une présence plus régulière des séries
 4     dramatiques et pour enfants canadiennes; là aussi, le
 5     défi fondamental est de rendre ces émissions plus
 6     rentables pour les producteurs et les diffuseurs
 7     canadiens, en faisant en sorte qu'elles soient plus
 8     attrayantes pour les auditoires d'ici, mieux placées
 9     dans les grilles horaires, promues avec plus de moyens
10     et d'intensité.
11  9842                 Le nouvel environnement réglementaire
12     devrait donc avoir pour objectifs de favoriser à la
13     fois la disponibilité, la qualité, la compétitivité et
14     la rentabilité des émissions canadiennes.  Il doit
15     reposer sur une vision industrielle globale, sans pour
16     autant négliger, bien sûr, les objectifs sociaux et
17     culturels de la loi.  Cet environnement réglementaire
18     doit aussi avoir la souplesse nécessaire pour
19     permettre, voire encourager le risque, pour récompenser
20     le succès et pour relever le défi international de
21     l'exportation.
22  9843                 M. CREVIER:  La réussite du système
23     de radiodiffusion canadien repose en grande partie sur
24     le modèle assez unique que nous avons développé, un
25     modèle qui permet aux différents partenaires du


 1     système -- producteurs/distributeurs indépendants,
 2     télédiffuseurs conventionnels et services
 3     spécialisés -- d'apporter une valeur ajoutée aux
 4     produits.
 5  9844                 Nous croyons que cette structure à
 6     trois piliers a contribué à créer un système de
 7     radiodiffusion dynamique, compétitif et innovateur, et
 8     que le Conseil devrait avoir à coeur d'assurer la
 9     pérennité de ce modèle industriel, qui permet à toutes
10     les composantes du système de se développer, de
11     disposer d'un espace de croissance et d'ajouter de la
12     valeur.
13  9845                 Nous ne sommes pas opposés à la
14     création de groupes intégrés, au développement
15     d'alliances stratégiques et de partenariats entre ces
16     trois composantes.  Au contraire, nous avons suggéré
17     dans notre mémoire diverses mesures qui favoriseraient
18     l'établissement de tels partenariats, car nous croyons
19     qu'ils sont nécessaires pour renforcer le système
20     canadien de radiodiffusion et pour relever le défi de
21     la compétition sur la scène internationale.  La
22     relation qui s'est développée entre Télé-Système et Le
23     Groupe Coscient en est d'ailleurs un bel exemple.
24  9846                 Ce que nous disons, c'est que des
25     balises doivent encadrer ce processus pour éviter


 1     d'accorder à l'un de ces trois piliers une position de
 2     dominance telle que la dynamique globale, la
 3     productivité et la compétitivité du système en soient
 4     négativement affectées.  C'est pourquoi nous suggérons
 5     au Conseil d'adopter une politique d'accès des
 6     producteurs indépendants au système de la
 7     radiodiffusion canadienne qui assure qu'une fenêtre
 8     leur soit toujours ouverte, comme la Loi sur la
 9     radiodiffusion l'exige.
10  9847                 À cet égard, le moyen qui nous
11     semblerait le plus approprié est d'assujettir tous les
12     télédiffuseurs à l'obligation de consacrer un
13     pourcentage de leurs dépenses de programmation
14     canadienne à l'acquisition d'émissions produites par
15     des entreprises non affiliées.
16  9848                 En résumé, nous croyons que le
17     contenu canadien est la pierre angulaire du système
18     actuel.  C'est en réalisant des émissions canadiennes
19     plus rentables, de meilleure qualité et plus
20     compétitives sur la scène nationale et internationale
21     qu'on créera de la richesse et qu'on consolidera le
22     système de la radiodiffusion canadienne.
23  9849                 Nous croyons également que la force
24     du système repose sur ses trois composantes:  les
25     producteurs/distributeurs indépendants, les


 1     télédiffuseurs conventionnels, la télévision
 2     spécialisée et payante, et que l'encadrement
 3     réglementaire doit assurer à chacune un espace de
 4     créativité et de croissance, tout en encourageant le
 5     développement de partenariats et d'alliances
 6     stratégiques entre elles.
 7  9850                 Enfin, nous croyons que le Conseil
 8     doit privilégier une vision industrielle globale qui
 9     permette au système de la radiodiffusion canadienne de
10     relever le défi de la mondialisation, d'exporter son
11     expertise et ses produits sur les marchés
12     internationaux.
13  9851                 Madame la Vice-Présidente, Madame et
14     Messieurs les Conseillers, je vous remercie de votre
15     attention.
16  9852                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci,
17     Monsieur Crevier et Monsieur Gaudreau.
18  9853                 Votre soumission ou votre bref écrit
19     est assez complet et intéressant.  Je vais poser des
20     questions assez spécifiques sur vos soumissions.  Donc
21     nous vous félicitons de l'apport à notre processus, qui
22     semble avoir été bien pensé et vous semblez y avoir mis
23     beaucoup de travail.
24  9854                 Il y a quatre secteurs où j'ai des
25     questions.  Je voudrais poser des question sur vos


 1     propos sur la concentration, sur l'intégration
 2     verticale et l'accès aux fonds par les télédiffuseurs
 3     et sur la question de ce que vous proposez comme
 4     dépenses à la programmation canadienne, comme exigences
 5     pour les télévisions, et vos propos sur Radio-Canada. 
 6     Pauvre Radio-Canada, on en a parlé beaucoup ce matin et
 7     avant-hier aussi.
 8  9855                 Maintenant, au niveau de la
 9     concentration, vous proposez à votre recommandation 9
10     qu'on s'assure que les entreprises privées soient
11     fortes et se développent dans le secteur de la
12     télévision conventionnelle et dans le secteur de la
13     télévision spécialisée et payante, mais que ces deux
14     secteurs demeurent relativement autonomes et en
15     concurrence entre eux, surtout au Canada français.
16  9856                 Comment réconcilier ces deux
17     objectifs, de s'assurer que nous ayons des entreprises
18     fortes, incluant des entreprises conventionnelles, mais
19     de garder les secteurs, si je comprends bien, de la
20     télévision conventionnelle et de la télévision
21     spécialisée et payante comme étant autonomes et
22     concurrentiels.
23  9857                 Alors comment va-t-on encourager des
24     entreprises fortes qui peuvent se développer et
25     participer davantage dan la programmation sans accepter


 1     qu'il y aura cette intégration que moi, je considère
 2     comme horizontale, dans l'étroitesse du marché
 3     francophone?
 4  9858                 M. CREVIER:  Dans le fond, je
 5     pourrais vous répondre en plusieurs volets, mais ce qui
 6     me frappe beaucoup, moi, c'est qu'on fait face, comme
 7     tout le monde, à une globalisation, et je ne crois pas
 8     que la concentration soit nécessairement une mesure de
 9     développement.  Je pense qu'on voit souvent la
10     concentration comme une mesure défensive.
11  9859                 Je vais vous donner peut-être un peu
12     l'exemple du groupe à qui j'appartiens, Coscient.  Je
13     viens de Télé-Système et j'ai encore des racines chez
14     Télé-Système.  Télé-Système est une entreprise qui a
15     participé beaucoup à un grand nombre d'alliances
16     stratégiques mais qui n'est pas majoritaire dans aucun
17     de ces investissements.
18  9860                 Ce que nous suggérons, c'est qu'on
19     favorise des alliances stratégiques et que ces
20     alliances stratégiques soient multiples mais qu'elles
21     soient stratégiques, qu'elles soient reliées à des
22     possibilités de conquête de marchés, d'exportation,
23     d'exportation de notre savoir-faire, mais non pas à un
24     simple phénomène de concentration où, en bout de ligne,
25     on se retrouve dans un environnement où il n'y a plus


 1     de concurrence.  Absence de concurrence, pour moi, ça
 2     veut dire également absence au niveau de la qualité.
 3  9861                 Il faut peut-être se rappeler et
 4     retourne un petit peu en arrière et retourner aux
 5     années soixante-dix; je suis convaincu que dans tous
 6     les différents mémoires qui ont été déposés à ce
 7     moment-là auprès des organismes réglementaires et des
 8     différentes commissions qui ont eu lieu au début des
 9     années soixante-dix... on doit se rappeler qu'au
10     Canada, dans le début des années soixante-dix, il y
11     avait très peu de joueurs et qu'on a créé un système et
12     on a favorisé un système dans lequel il y avait
13     effectivement plusieurs niveaux de joueurs, des
14     producteurs, des diffuseurs et des distributeurs, de
15     façon à enrichir l'offre et les produits, et je crois
16     qu'on a bien atteint ça.
17  9862                 Ce serait dommage maintenant que,
18     face à un marché qui est un marché global, notre
19     premier réflexe soit de permettre une concentration qui
20     n'est axée que sur des mesures défensives.
21  9863                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors est-ce que vous
22     entrevoyez comme étant une intégration horizontale ou
23     une concentration des investissements minoritaires
24     entre les télévisions conventionnelles et les
25     spécialisées?  Votre proposition, à la page 30 ou 31,


 1     la recommandation 9, on parle de favoriser le
 2     développement de réseaux ou de groupes de propriétés de
 3     télévisions conventionnelles privées forts, mais un
 4     système qui découragerait -- à la page 31, juste avant
 5     le paragraphe 89 -- une trop grande intégration
 6     télévision conventionnelle/télévision spécialisée.
 7  9864                 Évidemment, comme producteur, je ne
 8     pense pas que vous soyez charmé de l'idée d'intégration
 9     verticale entre les producteurs et les télédiffuseurs
10     non plus.
11  9865                 Donc, au Canada français en
12     particulier, dans un marché étroit, si on ne permet pas
13     cette concentration ou cette intégration horizontale et
14     verticale, comment peut-on favoriser un système de
15     télévision ou une industrie de la télévision plus
16     forte?
17  9866                 M. GAUDREAU:  Vous avez raison. 
18     Évidemment, le système dans lequel on évolue au Québec,
19     c'est un système où la notion de complémentarité est
20     bien structurée, bien organisée, et évidemment les
21     joueurs veulent de plus en plus se donner de la
22     dimension et travailler en association avec les autres. 
23     Mais je pense que les prises de participation
24     minoritaires ne constituent pas des intégrations. 
25     C'est la même chose que, dans certains cas, les


 1     diffuseurs peuvent devenir des investisseurs dans le
 2     produit.
 3  9867                 Cette relation d'affaires là peut
 4     s'établir à plusieurs niveaux sans pour autant que ce
 5     soit vraiment des propriétés à part entière structurées
 6     à travers un diffuseur conventionnel, diffuseur
 7     spécialisé et producteur.
 8  9868                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Qu'est-ce que vous
 9     considérez comme une position minoritaire ou un
10     investissement minoritaire acceptable, pour ne pas
11     léser votre proposition de ne pas encourager une
12     intégration trop poussée?  Un des problèmes, à votre
13     avis, serait que le contenu canadien serait recyclé.
14  9869                 Mais, avant de répondre à cette
15     deuxième partie, est-ce que vous avez pensé à ce que
16     vous considérez comme un investissement qui ne
17     dépasserait pas la philosophie que vous proposez quand
18     vous dites "minoritaire"?
19  9870                 M. CREVIER:  Trente-trois pour cent.
20  9871                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Trente-trois pour
21     cent, avec rien d'autre qui donnerait un pouvoir
22     spécial.  À ce moment-là, ce ne serait pas pour vous de
23     l'intégration horizontale.
24  9872                 M. CREVIER:  Exact.
25  9873                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous allons revenir à


 1     l'intégration que moi, j'appelle verticale entre
 2     producteurs et télédiffuseurs et tout ce qui en
 3     découle.  Évidemment, on ne parlera pas aujourd'hui
 4     d'intégration entre télédiffuseurs et distributeurs, ce
 5     sera pour une autre journée.
 6  9874                 Maintenant, vous avez proposé, à la
 7     page 31, au paragraphe 89, que votre recommandation
 8     était basée en partie sur le fait que des entreprises
 9     intégrées et en position dominante dans le marché
10     recycleraient constamment et auraient un incitatif pour
11     ou une tentation de recycler le même contenu canadien.
12  9875                 Est-ce que c'est le seul résultat
13     nocif d'une intégration horizontale trop poussée qui
14     vous porte à faire cette recommandation?
15  9876                 M. CREVIER:  Non, je ne crois pas. 
16     Je crois que, essentiellement, notre système est basé
17     sur un rapport de force actuellement, un rapport de
18     négociation, le diffuseur, bien entendu, étant celui
19     qui décide de l'acquisition d'un produit mais qui, en
20     décidant de l'acquisition d'un produit, déclenche une
21     série de financements du produit, déclenche une série
22     d'éléments qui favorisent le financement du produit.
23  9877                 Je pense qu'il faut être très
24     prudents dans cet environnement-là pour ne pas faire en
25     sorte qu'on ne vienne pas qu'à bâtir un système qui


 1     soit axé sur une expression qui est le self-serving, et
 2     non pas sur la pertinence, la qualité et la nécessité
 3     d'un produit.
 4  9878                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors ce serait nocif
 5     dans le sens que ça empêche une négociation normale
 6     dans le marché de se dérouler, et ça découle un peu
 7     aussi sur vos positions vis-à-vis Radio-Canada, je
 8     suppose... ou celles qu'on a entendues, mais on peut en
 9     reparler plus tard...
10  9879                 M. CREVIER:  On peut en reparler.
11  9880                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... où il y a une
12     position trop dominante, surtout dans un marché étroit
13     où les pistes sont faussées à cause du pouvoir de
14     négociation d'une partie ou de l'autre.
15  9881                 Vous avez aussi relevé, à la page 43,
16     qui est votre recommandation 15, qu'il devrait
17     continuer à y avoir une diversité de propriétaires de
18     stations hertziennes dans un même marché tout en
19     favorisant la consolidation des groupes de propriétés à
20     l'échelle régionale et nationale.
21  9882                 Au Canada français en particulier,
22     qu'est-ce que ça voudrait dire de s'assurer que dans
23     chaque marché il y a une diversité de propriétaires de
24     stations hertziennes mais favoriser la consolidation à
25     l'échelle régionale?  Comment est-ce que vous


 1     entrevoyez le résultat de cette recommandation pour le
 2     Canada français?
 3  9883                 J'ai remarqué que vous avez...
 4     quelquefois, c'est un peu difficile à décortiquer. 
 5     Quelquefois vous vous adressez aux deux marchés,
 6     anglophone et francophone, et d'autres fois seulement
 7     au francophone.  Vous n'avez pas d'objection à ce que
 8     moi, je précise dans mes questions, parce que je pense
 9     que nous sommes d'accord qu'il y a des circonstances
10     qui sont assez différentes.
11  9884                 Vous oeuvrez beaucoup plus dans le
12     marché francophone, ou au Québec.
13  9885                 M. CREVIER:  Nous avons procédé il y
14     a presque deux ans de ça à l'acquisition d'une
15     compagnie de distribution qui s'appelle Motion, qui
16     nous a ouvert les portes de façon considérable sur les
17     marchés anglophones et les marchés américains.  Quand
18     je faisais allusion aux prix Gémeaux tantôt, je peux
19     vous dire qu'on est en nomination également pour deux
20     prix Gemini qu'on produit ou vend pour la presque
21     totalité des réseaux anglophones.
22  9886                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais il ne serait pas
23     injuste de vous considérer comme le producteur majeur
24     au Canada français...
25  9887                 M. CREVIER:  Absolument.


 1  9888                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... dans le passé, et
 2     caetera.  Ça ne veut pas dire que...
 3  9889                 M. CREVIER:  Vous avez entièrement
 4     raison.
 5  9890                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... vous n'oeuvrez
 6     pas dans les deux domaines.
 7  9891                 Donc, puisqu'il s'agit ici d'une
 8     audience de politique et d'essayer d'avoir de l'aide
 9     des gens, vous allez peut-être trouver que, puisque
10     vous êtes là, je vais vous poser des questions sur le
11     marché francophones surtout.  Nous avons bien des
12     opportunités du côté anglophone et moins du côté
13     francophone.
14  9892                 Alors maintenant, pour revenir à ma
15     question, comment entrevoyez-vous cette
16     recommandation-là en pratique au Québec?
17  9893                 M. CREVIER:  Si vous me permettez, je
18     vais laisser M. Gaudreau répondre parce que moi, la
19     dernière fois que j'étais assis devant le Conseil,
20     c'était pour favoriser la fusion entre TVA et
21     Quatre-Saisons.  Je suis bien embêté avec ce que vous
22     venez de poser.
23  9894                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Même quand on est un
24     homme on peut toujours...
25  9895                 M. CREVIER:  Changer d'idée.


 1  9896                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... changer d'idée.
 2  9897                 M. CREVIER:  Vous êtes bien gentille. 
 3     Je vais profiter de votre conseil.
 4  9898                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Les hommes apprennent
 5     des trucs qui fonctionnent dans la vie.
 6  9899                 Allez-y, Monsieur Gaudreau.
 7  9900                 M. GAUDREAU:  Écoutez, effectivement,
 8     quand on s'est présentés ici la dernière fois, c'était
 9     vraiment pour défendre le principe de la multiplicité
10     des canaux hertziens au Québec, et je pense
11     qu'aujourd'hui on peut constater effectivement qu'il y
12     avait quand même des acheteurs potentiels pour
13     Télévision Quatre-Saisons et que cette chaîne-là
14     pouvait trouver un avenir au Québec.
15  9901                 Fondamentalement, la situation de
16     monopole dans un marché fermé comme le Québec donnerait
17     une situation privilégiée à Télé-Métropole si c'était 
18     Télé-Métropole, mais au diffuseur privé, mais je pense
19     qu'effectivement il peut y avoir une extension à
20     travers les régions.  Au Québec, il y a quand même des
21     diffuseurs régionaux, et je pense qu'il peut y avoir un
22     lien, un rapprochement qui peut se faire entre certains
23     de ces diffuseurs régionaux -- ça existe déjà du côté
24     de Télévision Quatre-Saisons -- avec certaines stations
25     régionales.  Je pense qu'aussi il peut y avoir une


 1     extension du côté de certains services spécialisés.
 2  9902                 M. CREVIER:  Je veux juste vous
 3     rappeler que nous étions très favorables aussi -- et
 4     nous l'avons appuyé et nous sommes prêts toujours à
 5     l'appuyer -- au fait que le réseau TVA devienne réseau
 6     national.  C'est quelque chose de très bien pour le
 7     Québec.
 8  9903                 Je vous dirais que le principal
 9     problème au Québec actuellement, que ce soit pour les
10     diffuseurs ou les producteurs et les distributeurs,
11     c'est de sortir de leur marché.
12  9904                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  De sortir...
13  9905                 M. CREVIER:  De sortir du marché
14     domestique, d'exporter le savoir-faire.
15  9906                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et c'est là que vous
16     voyez régional et national, parce que vous
17     reconnaissez, évidemment, que le marché est très
18     étroit.
19  9907                 J'allais vous poser des question sur
20     Radio-Canada à la fin, mais je vais vous les poser
21     maintenant, parce qu'à mon avis -- mais je veux savoir
22     ce que vous en pensez -- c'est relié, de fait.  Nous
23     avons Radio-Canada qui s'est présentée devant nous et
24     qui a conclu qu'au Québec il n'y a pas grand choix,
25     Radio-Canada va continuer à être en concurrence au


 1     niveau de la télévision.
 2  9908                 Évidemment, ce n'est pas une opinion
 3     partagée par les télédiffuseurs québécois
 4     nécessairement et, par exemple, je vois que vous aussi,
 5     à la page 45, au paragraphe 142, vous dites que le 50
 6     pour cent réservé à Radio-Canada au fonds devrait être
 7     revu à la baisse pour refléter mieux la réalité.
 8  9909                 Nous avons entendu différentes
 9     suggestions sur quel serait le point de référence pour
10     le baisser.  Quel est le vôtre?
11  9910                 M. CREVIER:  Je vais sortir un peu du
12     cadre de la présentation pour tenter d'y répondre.
13  9911                 Moi, je dois dire au départ que j'ai
14     beaucoup de respect pour la Société Radio-Canada et
15     pour la contribution...
16  9912                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais j'en suis sûre.
17  9913                 M. CREVIER:  ... que Radio-Canada a
18     faite au système.
19  9914                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui, oui.
20  9915                 M. CREVIER:  Je veux dire, c'est
21     vraiment un système de qualité.
22  9916                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ce sont les problèmes
23     qui sont entrevus maintenant...
24  9917                 M. CREVIER:  Absolument.
25  9918                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  .. que nous voulons


 1     discuter.
 2  9919                 M. CREVIER:  Le problème qu'on
 3     rencontre avec la société d'État, je pense que c'est
 4     une question qui est reliée beaucoup à son financement. 
 5     La société d'État a dû, dans les dernières années,
 6     compter énormément sur ce que j'appelle les revenus
 7     publicitaires et a adopté, par le fait même, une
 8     orientation qui est davantage commerciale.
 9  9920                 Dans un contexte où il y a un débat
10     de fond au Canada sur le rôle de la télévision publique
11     et qu'on convient de financer de façon adéquate
12     Radio-Canada, c'est dans ce contexte-là que moi, je
13     voyais que Radio-Canada pourrait éventuellement se voir
14     restreindre son accès à ces fonds-là puisque, d'un
15     autre côté, elle pourrait compter sur un financement
16     plus stable.
17  9921                 Maintenant, quel est le pourcentage,
18     quel est le barème, comment le calculer, je pense que
19     ce débat-là n'est pas tellement un débat qui est du
20     ressort de l'entreprise privée mais davantage un débat
21     qui est un débat de population.  Quel type de société
22     d'État voulons-nous avoir?  Quel est le coût de cette
23     société d'État là?  Et est-ce qu'on peut financer
24     directement la société d'État au lieu de passer par une
25     série de programmes et faire en sorte que la société


 1     d'État vienne toujours en compétition avec le secteur
 2     privé, ce qui est aberrant, à mon point de vue.
 3  9922                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors c'est le fait
 4     que la société d'État a accès à la publicité et aux
 5     fonds et aux allocations parlementaires.
 6  9923                 M. CREVIER:  Le fait également
 7     qu'elle se comporte comme un réseau privé.
 8  9924                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Comme...?
 9  9925                 M. CREVIER:  Comme un réseau privé.
10  9926                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui.
11  9927                 Maintenant, laissez-moi essayer de
12     mettre ensemble les paragraphes qui suggèrent un
13     certain marché.  Vous dites au paragraphe 129 que, dans
14     certaines programmations, qui est des catégories que le
15     Conseil essaie d'encourager, les fictions lourdes,
16     qu'il n'y a que deux clients qui achètent des séries
17     dramatiques de fiction lourde parce que TQS et
18     Télé-Québec s'en sont retirées.  Donc nous avons deux
19     clients en concurrence dans un domaine assez important
20     pour la programmation canadienne.
21  9928                 Vous dites aussi au paragraphe 62,
22     qui est à la page 21, en parlant justement
23     d'allocations parlementaires, que les déboursés du
24     fonds destiné à Radio-Canada sont venus simplement
25     compenser la baisse des allocation parlementaires. 


 1     Donc nous avons un Radio-Canada qui a accès au fonds,
 2     mais ça ne remplace que les allocations parlementaires
 3     qu'ils avaient avant.  Et vous parlez aussi, à la
 4     recommandation 9 dont nous avons parlé plus tôt, de la
 5     concurrence.
 6  9929                 Alors si on essayait d'empêcher
 7     Radio-Canada, justement, de concurrencer dans ces
 8     certains domaines là, qu'est-ce qu'on aurait comme
 9     concurrence dans le marché au niveau des stations
10     hertziennes?  Vous m'avez entendue poser la même
11     question ce matin.  Quand on parle de Radio-Canada et
12     du secteur francophone, comment, à ce moment-là,
13     réconciliez-vous... vous n'êtes pas d'accord, je
14     suppose, avec Mme Fortin qui dit qu'on n'a pas le
15     choix, au Québec, Radio-Canada va concurrencer.
16  9930                 Vous voyez le portrait que je vous
17     fais selon vos propres recommandations et votre vue du
18     secteur comme il existe?
19  9931                 M. CREVIER:  Personnellement, je
20     trouverais ça très dommageable, et très regrettable
21     surtout, que Radio-Canada se retire des séries
22     dramatiques lourdes et des séries dramatiques en
23     général parce que Radio-Canada a aidé beaucoup à créer
24     ces séries-là et a vraiment fait un travail de qualité
25     et, je pense, même, doit être récompensée pour le


 1     travail que Radio-Canada a fait.
 2  9932                 Quand je parle, moi, du côté
 3     commercial de Radio-Canada, je ne le vois pas sur un
 4     certain nombre d'éléments et de production qui
 5     reflètent de façon... parce que les productions lourdes
 6     et les dramatiques également reflètent la culture
 7     canadienne.  Moi, je le vois davantage sur les
 8     négociations sur les jeux olympiques, les droits du
 9     hockey, des achats de films américains, des
10     acquisitions et non pas des productions maison.  Tout
11     ça fait en sorte que Radio-Canada, là, vient
12     compétitionner le secteur privé.  Mais on ne doit pas
13     retirer totalement Radio-Canada d'une expertise
14     extraordinaire qu'elle a développée et des succès
15     remarquables qu'elle a enregistrés aussi.
16  9933                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Donc ce genre de
17     production, pour vous, s'insérerait dans votre
18     recommandation de s'assurer que la télévision d'État
19     soit complémentaire.  Et que faites-vous des autres
20     catégories de programmation?  Si on enlevait, à ce
21     moment-là, la concurrence de Radio-Canada dans... vous
22     avez vu sans doute les recommandations de TVA à cet
23     effet, qui sont assez précises.  Vous étiez là ce
24     matin, je pense, quand on en a discuté plus tôt.
25  9934                 Pour essayer de maintenir


 1     Radio-Canada, de lui enlever cette force-là dans le
 2     marché francophone, est-ce qu'à votre avis il y aurait
 3     des effets sur la concurrence dans certains secteurs de
 4     programmation ou s'il faudrait se fier, à ce moment-là,
 5     à la concurrence entre TQS et TVA au niveau des ondes
 6     hertziennes?
 7  9935                 M. CREVIER:  Je reviens sensiblement
 8     à la même allusion que je faisais sur les séries
 9     dramatiques:  Je pense que Radio-Canada peut amener en
10     termes de qualité dans les produits une concurrence qui
11     est saine dans notre système.  Moi, quand j'ai fait,
12     par le passé, toujours référence à Radio-Canada en
13     termes, je dirais, d'abus de pouvoir, c'était surtout
14     relié à l'acquisition de droits, à l'acquisition des
15     olympiques, à l'acquisition des droits de sports, à
16     l'acquisition des films américains.  Je n'ai jamais
17     compris pourquoi l'argent des contribuables canadiens
18     servait à acheter des films américains à gros prix à
19     Radio-Canada et compétitionner le secteur privé.
20  9936                 Que Radio-Canada vienne
21     compétitionner TQS, Télé-Québec, TVA dans le secteur
22     des variétés, des séries dramatiques, des documentaires
23     et tout ça, et de l'information, je trouve ça
24     extraordinaire; au contraire, ça contribue à créer la
25     richesse dans un système et de créer un environnement


 1     compétitif sain... parce que la compétition, ce n'est
 2     pas uniquement malsain, ça peut être très sain.
 3  9937                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors quand vous
 4     parlez de la modification du système d'accès de
 5     Radio-Canada au fonds, vous verriez possiblement une
 6     modification qui ne serait pas totale mais qui serait
 7     limitée à certaines catégories visant la
 8     complémentarité de Radio-Canada plutôt que la
 9     concurrence avec le secteur privé.
10  9938                 M. CREVIER:  Oui, c'est une façon de
11     le voir.  L'autre façon de le voir, ça pourrait être
12     tout simplement de modifier les enveloppes budgétaires
13     et de financer convenablement Radio-Canada pour ses
14     besoins et dire à Radio-Canada:  "Maintenant, vous
15     n'avez plus besoin d'avoir accès à ces fonds-là parce
16     qu'on vous a donné les crédits nécessaires pour
17     atteindre vos objectifs et votre mission."
18  9939                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  À ce moment-là, vous
19     qui êtes dans le secteur de la production, vous verriez
20     un système beaucoup plus sain.
21  9940                 Mme DUFOUR:  Ce qu'on peut ajouter
22     aussi, c'est que lorsque le 50 pour cent a été établi,
23     il y a une partie qui était pour combler le financement
24     de Radio-Canada, mais l'autre partie, il n'y avait pas
25     nécessairement les joueurs que l'on retrouve


 1     nécessairement aujourd'hui dans les réseaux
 2     spécialisés.  Il y a de nouveaux joueurs qui font du
 3     contenu canadien.  Il n'y a peut-être pas la nécessité
 4     aujourd'hui de concentrer la moitié d'une enveloppe
 5     destinée à un contenu canadien au diffuseur public;
 6     c'est de partager plus l'enveloppe avec des joueurs si
 7     on veut que les diffuseurs privés et spécialisés s'y
 8     impliquent plus, qu'il y ait un accès plus grand parce
 9     que le marché a changé.
10  9941                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  En tenant compte de
11     cette partie de télédiffuseurs qui est assez nouveau. 
12     Mais on revient toujours au Québec, évidemment, et
13     partout au Canada, il y a une proportion de la
14     population pour qui les services spécialisés ne sont
15     pas nécessairement une offre alléchante parce qu'ils ne
16     sont pas abonnés au système de distribution qui leur
17     permettrait de les recevoir.  Donc les ondes
18     hertziennes restent encore, pour rencontrer le mandat
19     de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion assez importante.
20  9942                 Allez-y.
21  9943                 M. HOULE:  Je voulais juste dire que
22     la règle a été établie en 1983 au moment de la création
23     du fonds de Téléfilm Canada, et à ce moment-là, même au
24     niveau de la télévision hertzienne, par exemple dans le
25     marché francophone TQS n'existait pas; dans le marché


 1     anglophone au Québec Global n'était pas présent, Global
 2     était un service régional.  Le Conseil a attribué de
 3     nouvelles licences à des groupes de propriétés dans les
 4     marchés aussi au Canada anglais à Winnipeg, à
 5     Vancouver, et caetera.
 6  9944                 Donc, même dans l'univers de la
 7     télévision hertzienne accessible à tout le monde, le
 8     poids de Radio-Canada, le poids relatif, a diminué du
 9     fait de l'ajout d'une plus grande diversité, et ce
10     qu'on demande, c'est simplement qu'il y ait un certain
11     suivi pour faire des ajustements de sorte que la règle
12     qui a été établie il y a 15 ans reflète un peu plus la
13     composition actuelle de l'industrie.
14  9945                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Évidemment, toutes
15     ces règles ne découlent pas nécessairement du CRTC,
16     mais je pense qu'il est intéressant de voir quand même
17     la vision que les parties intéressées ont de ce que le
18     système dans sa totalité... quelle allure le système
19     devrait avoir.
20  9946                 Au niveau de l'intégration verticale
21     entre les télédiffuseurs et la production, si je
22     comprends bien, vous êtes d'avis que l'accès aux fonds
23     ou les avantages fiscaux pour les télédiffuseurs ne
24     devraient pas exister mais, en contrepartie, vous
25     suggérez un fonds nouveau ou une règle nouvelle qui


 1     permettrait des investissements de 20 pour cent ou plus
 2     de la part canadienne d'un budget, et que ce 20 pour
 3     cent là pourrait être comptabilisé comme dépense vers
 4     la programmation canadienne, si je me souviens bien, ou
 5     si vous recommanderiez qu'il soit accessible pour des
 6     crédits fiscaux?  C'est votre position?
 7  9947                 M. GAUDREAU:  Effectivement, on pense
 8     qu'il y aurait peut-être une avenue intéressante à
 9     explorer du côté de la participation des télédiffuseurs
10     dans le produit au-delà des droits de diffusion, des
11     droits de licence.  On pense à un investissement dans
12     le produit sur lequel ils pourraient recevoir un crédit
13     d'impôt du même type qu'on reçoit actuellement.
14  9948                 M. CREVIER:  Juste peut-être une
15     petite remarque; c'est qu'on parle bien
16     d'investissement et on ne parle pas de dépense, qui
17     sont deux nuances totalement différentes.
18  9949                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  D'investissement en
19     capital mais qui pourrait être comptabilisé, à votre
20     avis...
21  9950                 M. CREVIER:  Non.
22  9951                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ah, bon.
23  9952                 M. CREVIER:  Pour nous, un
24     investissement, c'est vraiment un investissement et ça
25     doit être...


 1  9953                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  En capital seulement.
 2  9954                 M. CREVIER:  En capital.  Ça doit
 3     être traité comme un investissement.
 4  9955                 À titre d'exemple, je ne sais pas,
 5     nous, on vient de décider de se lancer dans la
 6     production de produits IMAX, et la Caisse de dépôt du
 7     Québec a investi 6 millions de dollars au capital du
 8     projet IMAX, mais d'aucune façon ça ne fait partie de
 9     dépenses; c'est vraiment un investissement.
10  9956                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et qu'est-ce que vous
11     recommandez comme dépenses qui seraient éligibles pour
12     rencontrer le pourcentage de dépenses à la
13     programmation canadienne que vous recommandez soit
14     exigé?
15  9957                 M. GAUDREAU:  Voulez-vous reprendre
16     la question, s'il vous plaît?
17  9958                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je pense que vous
18     acceptez la proposition de l'Association des
19     producteurs qui continuerait d'exiger, pour les
20     télédiffuseurs, une certaine proportion de leurs
21     revenus vers les dépenses canadiennes.  Vous
22     recommandez de continuer la formule A et B au choix des
23     télédiffuseurs.
24  9959                 Alors je vous demande quelles
25     seraient les dépenses qui seraient éligibles pour


 1     rencontrer ce pourcentage des recettes de l'année
 2     précédente.
 3  9960                 M. HOULE:  Ce que nous disons, c'est
 4     qu'on suggère que tous les diffuseurs doivent consacrer
 5     une partie de leurs revenus, un pourcentage de leurs
 6     revenus à titre de dépenses d'émissions canadiennes,
 7     comme le Conseil le pratique dans le secteur de la
 8     télévision spécialisée et payante depuis déjà plusieurs
 9     années, et toute personne qui veut obtenir une licence
10     dans ce secteur-là doit prendre un engagement de cette
11     nature-là.  On pense que cette formule s'est avérée
12     efficace dans le secteur de la télévision spécialisée,
13     qui fait beaucoup de contenu canadien et qui livre des
14     auditoires canadiens, et qu'elle devrait être appliquée
15     aux télédiffuseurs conventionnels également.
16  9961                 Le pourcentage exact, je pense,
17     devrait être débattu par le Conseil au cas par cas avec
18     chaque diffuseur pour tenir compte de la nature de ce
19     diffuseur-là, de son passé, de sa situation
20     particulière, mais que le principe devrait être que
21     chacun doit consacrer un pourcentage.  De cette
22     façon-là, ça assure que s'il y a croissance des revenus
23     des diffuseurs, il y aura croissance des dépenses de
24     programmation canadienne, ce qui n'est pas le cas
25     actuellement.  Si on regarde les chiffres que le


 1     Conseil a publiés en annexe de l'avis public, on voit
 2     que la croissance des dépenses de programmation
 3     canadienne des diffuseurs conventionnels au Canada est
 4     largement inférieure à la croissance de leurs revenus.
 5  9962                 M. CREVIER:  Je me permettrais, si
 6     vous le permettez, Madame Wylie, aussi un commentaire
 7     peut-être qui déborde un peu le cadre de votre question
 8     et qui est plus large.  Vous connaissez très bien la
 9     mécanique quand il y a une tenue d'audience comme ça;
10     chacun, chaque groupe, chaque compagnie développe ses
11     points, son mémoire, parle à ses associations
12     respectives pour s'assurer également qu'il y a une
13     forme de concordance.
14  9963                 Moi, ce qui m'a beaucoup frappé sur
15     ces audiences-ci, quand j'ai commencé à prendre
16     connaissance un peu de l'ensemble des documents, c'est
17     qu'il y a beaucoup de ce que j'appelle de suggestions
18     concernant la micro réglementation.  Quand je me
19     mettais à lire ça, je me disais:  Il y a quelque chose
20     qui ne fonctionne pas.  On s'en va dans une orientation
21     de globalisation des marchés, et ça a été clairement
22     démontré dans le passé que, quand on visait une
23     globalisation des marchés, la micro réglementation ne
24     pouvait pas tenir.
25  9964                 Moi, je pense que ça devrait


 1     s'appliquer à ces audiences-ci et à la résultante de
 2     ces audiences-ci.  Il n'y a pas un pays qui a réussi à
 3     développer de façon énergique un secteur industriel
 4     dans une orientation de globalisation de marchés quand
 5     on a été excessif du point de vue de la micro
 6     réglementation.  Je regardais même le mémoire que nous,
 7     on vous a déposé; il y a plein d'éléments de micro
 8     réglementation, de pourcentages, de calculs et tout ça.
 9  9965                 Dans les faits, je pense qu'il y a
10     quatre grands secteurs qui devraient être adressés par
11     la réglementation de façon simple et efficace:  des
12     obligations et un pourcentage sur du contenu canadien;
13     des obligations et un pourcentage sur des dépenses de
14     programmation canadienne; des règles sur la propriété,
15     l'exemple du 33 pour cent d'intégration verticale; et
16     des incitatifs à l'exportation parce que ce qu'on veut
17     également, c'est exporter notre savoir-faire.
18  9966                 Donc je pense que ce sont les quatre
19     grands secteurs qui devraient être couverts par des
20     règles simples et efficaces et sans viser une micro
21     réglementation lourde et qui ne pourrait résister, de
22     toute façon, au phénomène de la globalisation.
23  9967                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais il reste quand
24     même que vous continuez à favoriser la formule A et B
25     et qu'à la page 17, au paragraphe 42 je crois, vous


 1     semblez entériner les recommandations qui visent à
 2     consacrer un pourcentage plus élevé des recettes
 3     totales de l'année précédente aux émissions de
 4     divertissement et aux documentaires canadiens.
 5  9968                 À ce moment-là, est-ce que vous
 6     entérinez la fameuse proposition 10/10/10 et est-ce que
 7     c'est en sus de A et B?  Et ça me semble assez micro,
 8     finalement, d'établir... alors c'est un peu
 9     difficile...
10  9969                 M. CREVIER:  Vous êtes rendue
11     exactement au point où je faisais tantôt la remarque...
12  9970                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui, ce sont vos
13     recommandations.
14  9971                 M. CREVIER:  Ce sont nos
15     recommandations, mais ce que je vous disais, c'est que
16     même moi, en prenant connaissance de la
17     réglementation...
18  9972                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ah, vous n'aimez même
19     pas votre propre dossier.
20  9973                 M. CREVIER:  Bien, je pense qu'il y a
21     eu abus de la part de l'ensemble des participants dans
22     une orientation de micro réglementation, y compris nous
23     autres.
24  9974                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Depuis le début de
25     l'audience.


 1  9975                 M. CREVIER:  Oui, absolument.
 2  9976                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et vous avez
 3     participé à cette...
 4  9977                 M. CREVIER:  À cette réflexion.
 5  9978                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... mauvaise
 6     orientation.
 7  9979                 M. CREVIER:  Nous avons participé...
 8  9980                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Il ne faut pas...
 9  9981                 M. CREVIER:  ... mais vous m'avez dit
10     tantôt que j'avais le droit de changer d'idée.
11  9982                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Il faut recommencer.
12     On recommence... le 1er novembre on recommence avec
13     M. Crevier, qui va nous mettre sur la bonne piste.
14  9983                 Alors vous n'êtes plus d'accord avec
15     la formule A et B et 10 pour cent en sus.  Alors lequel
16     des deux, ou est-ce qu'on laisse tout tomber?  Est-ce
17     que vous êtes toujours d'avis que c'est nécessaire?  Ce
18     n'est pas parce que vous avez vu dans le journal que
19     les radiodiffuseurs allaient tous faire faillite que
20     vous avez pris la peur comme ça?
21  9984                 M. CREVIER:  Non, bien au contraire. 
22     Je pense que tout le monde doit être assujetti à un
23     pourcentage de dépenses de programmation.
24  9985                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais au paragraphe 43
25     vous êtes très précis, 10/10; 10 pour cent des recettes


 1     brutes de l'année précédente, ça, vous trouvez que
 2     c'est trop spécifique.
 3  9986                 M. HOULE:  Je pense qu'au départ on a
 4     consulté les associations; Coscient est membre à la
 5     fois de l'APFTQ et du CFTPA, et nous avons appuyé la
 6     recommandation du CFTPA, qui visait plutôt une
 7     recommandation en termes de pourcentage de dépenses, de
 8     pourcentage d'heures, et caetera.  Ce que Guy indique
 9     maintenant, c'est qu'on appuie largement l'esprit dans
10     lequel la CFTPA l'a fait mais on dit que peut-être
11     qu'il faudrait trouver des règles qui soient moins
12     spécifiques à dire trois heures de tel contenu, 10 pour
13     cent de tel autre et sept heures de tel contenu mais
14     plutôt dire qu'il faut, donc, un pourcentage de contenu
15     canadien qui soit significatif, un pourcentage des
16     dépenses de programmation canadienne... des revenus qui
17     soit consacré aux dépenses de programmation canadienne
18     qui aille en croissant, et laisser un peu plus de
19     souplesse à l'intérieur de ça aux différents diffuseurs
20     pour établir leurs politiques de programmation, mais
21     qu'ils aient des obligations globales en termes
22     d'émissions canadiennes et notamment d'émissions
23     canadiennes de divertissement.
24  9987                 M. CREVIER:  On disait également dans
25     notre présentation... Laurent y faisait référence dans


 1     la présentation en disant:  Il faut également
 2     encourager le risque mais récompenser également la
 3     réussite.
 4  9988                 Moi, je pense que dans le système
 5     actuellement, et avec Téléfilm et avec vous, il y a
 6     plein d'éléments de récompense pour les gens qui se
 7     conforment à l'essence et qui sont dynamiques à
 8     l'intérieur du système.  Plein de gens se présentent
 9     devant vous pour demander des canaux spécialisés; les
10     gens qui font une contribution majeure au système
11     devraient être priorisés pour ces canaux spécialisés
12     là, les producteurs qui apportent des produits de
13     qualité de contenu devraient être également encouragés
14     dans leur accès à des fonds.  On pourrait modifier
15     aisément quelques règles qu'il y a dans le système
16     actuellement pour arriver à un système qui est beaucoup
17     plus dynamique et qui favorise la réussite.
18  9989                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Examinons maintenant
19     quelle autre proposition vous changez.
20  9990                 Celle à la page 39, la recommandation
21     5, ou page 5... la recommandation qui dit qu'un
22     pourcentage des dépenses aux indépendants devrait être
23     exigé de tous les télédiffuseurs, incluant les
24     télédiffuseurs spécialisés; un pourcentage très précis
25     des dépenses devrait aller dans la production.


 1  9991                 Cette recommandation-là, vous y tenez
 2     toujours.
 3  9992                 M. CREVIER:  Absolument.  Ça fait
 4     partie des quatre grandes catégories qu'on a décrites
 5     tantôt et c'est une des suggestions que nous faisons
 6     relativement aux entreprises à l'intégration; ça
 7     s'adresse aux entreprises qui sont non liées.
 8  9993                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ça, ce serait un
 9     pourcentage des dépenses totales ou un pourcentage du
10     pourcentage que nous exigerions auquel vous ne croyez
11     plus?
12  9994                 M. GAUDREAU:  Moi, je pense qu'on
13     parle d'un pourcentage en fonction du diffuseur auquel
14     on s'adresse.  On sait que TQS, de par sa licence, doit
15     confier une certaine partie de son budget à la
16     production indépendante.  Je pense que ça pourrait être
17     le cas pour d'autres diffuseurs, mais à mon avis il
18     faut analyser ça un peu cas par cas parce qu'il y en a
19     qui ont un historique de production dans leurs
20     stations, dans leurs chaînes; d'autres, c'est peut-être
21     plus facile d'aller vers la production indépendante,
22     mais je pense que ça devrait être une politique qui
23     s'applique à tous les diffuseurs.
24  9995                 M. CREVIER:  D'ailleurs, je pense que
25     ce système-là a été très bien appliqué pour les canaux


 1     spécialisés.  M. Bureau faisait référence ce matin que
 2     pour eux autres c'était un environnement qui est très
 3     viable.
 4  9996                 Je voudrais quand même prendre la
 5     peine de corriger un petit peu... je ne voulais pas
 6     vous laisser sur une fausse impression.  Ce que je
 7     disais tantôt, ce n'est pas qu'on ne veut plus avoir de
 8     réglementation, bien au contraire, mais qu'on ne veut
 9     pas avoir de micro réglementation.
10  9997                 Les quatre grands secteurs que j'ai
11     énumérés tantôt sont des secteurs essentiels.  Des
12     pourcentages précis sur le contenu canadien, des
13     pourcentages précis sur les dépenses de programmation
14     canadienne, des règles sur la propriété et des
15     incitatifs à l'exportation, c'est quatre grands
16     secteurs qui devraient être totalement couverts par la
17     réglementation.
18  9998                 Ce qui m'a frappé, ce que vous
19     expliquais, c'est que quand j'ai pris connaissance des
20     différents mémoires, où chacun arrive avec sa micro
21     réglementation, et là il faut, selon les catégories,
22     ajouter des multiples, multiplier, diviser, on va
23     sortir une bible qui, en bout de ligne... j'ai
24     l'impression, moi, dans une orientation de
25     globalisation, que cette micro réglementation là ne


 1     tient pas.
 2  9999                 LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Quelles autres
 3     recommandations ont été faites que vous trouvez micro? 
 4     Si vous acceptez que des pourcentages de recettes
 5     annuelles soient dépensés vers la programmation
 6     canadienne et qu'à l'intérieur de ça on exige un
 7     certain pourcentage pour les indépendants, quand on
 8     établit des pourcentages, c'est micro au début.
 9  10000                M. CREVIER:  Non, micro, moi, je
10     parlais des facteurs multiplicateurs sur les incitatifs
11     à la programmation...
12  10001                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Comme les crédits...
13  10002                M. CREVIER:  Les crédits...
14  10003                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... majorés, ce genre
15     de chose là.
16  10004                M. CREVIER:  Oui, absolument.  Ça, je
17     trouve que c'est de la micro réglementation.  Les
18     pourcentages, pour moi, c'est la base même du système. 
19     Ça, ce n'est pas de la micro réglementation.
20  10005                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors vous ne
21     croiriez pas, par exemple, au micro management de la
22     promotion et tout ces trucs-là, vous n'y croyez pas.
23  10006                M. CREVIER:  Absolument.  Je trouve
24     qu'on devrait...
25  10007                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et alors ce serait à


 1     la base, qui n'est pas tellement différente de ce que
 2     le Conseil fait maintenant, mais vous y ajouteriez des
 3     pourcentages précis vers les indépendants.
 4  10008                Maintenant, vous dites que ce n'est
 5     pas nécessaire d'obliger les télédiffuseurs à
 6     rencontrer les exigences additionnelles en matière de
 7     diffusion.  Vous voulez dire par là les catégories et
 8     les heures de diffusion.
 9  10009                Qu'est-ce que vous voulez dire par
10     "additionnelles"?  Parce que c'est évident qu'en ce
11     moment, au Canada français, on fait beaucoup plus que
12     ce qui est requis.  Vous voulez dire additionnelles à
13     ce qui se fait en ce moment ou le simple 60/50?
14  10010                M. HOULE:  Je pense que vous faites
15     référence à un passage où on parle de la radiodiffusion
16     de langue française, si je ne me trompe.
17  10011                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui.  Ça, c'est au
18     paragraphe 48, à la page 18, et je pense qu'il y a
19     quelque chose de semblable à la page 16, au paragraphe
20     39.  Allons voir.
21  10012                M. HOULE:  Je crois que ce qu'on
22     dit...
23  10013                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Parce qu'il y a
24     toujours cette idée de...
25  10014                M. HOULE:  ... c'est que dans le


 1     système de la radiodiffusion de langue française, règle
 2     générale, les diffuseurs conventionnels privés non
 3     seulement respectent mais outrepassent les exigences
 4     minimales en matière du contenu canadien, le 50/60, ils
 5     consacrent une partie de leurs revenus en dépenses de
 6     programmation canadienne qui est supérieure à celle des
 7     diffuseurs de langue anglaise.  Donc on ne voit pas
 8     vraiment de raison d'imposer aux diffuseurs
 9     conventionnels de langue française des obligations
10     additionnelles à celles qui sont déjà là, le 50/60 en
11     termes de contenu.
12  10015                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je vous ai donné des
13     paragraphes et des pages au lieu de l'inverse.  C'est à
14     la page 18, au paragraphe 48, où vous dites:
15                            "En ce qui a trait aux
16                            télédiffuseurs de langue
17                            française, privés et publics,
18                            nous ne croyons pas qu'il soit
19                            nécessaire d'instaurer des
20                            exigences réglementaires
21                            additionnelles..."
22     Et on met l'accent sur "additionnelles" avec un
23     caractère différent, et alors je me demandais qu'est-ce
24     que ça voulait dire, "additionnelles".
25  10016                Je vais vous dire pourquoi,


 1     Madame Dufour.  C'est qu'on a parlé beaucoup du côté du
 2     Canada français de s'assurer de garder ce qui est
 3     acquis, qui est beaucoup plus que 50/60.  Alors c'est
 4     pour ça que je me demandais si vous ne voulez pas
 5     d'exigences additionnelles... on me dit additionnelles
 6     à 50/60, qui serait un recul assez sérieux vis-à-vis ce
 7     qu'on a ou ce qu'on attend au Québec.  C'est dans cette
 8     optique-là que je vous pose la question.
 9  10017                Vous avez mis l'accent sur le mot
10     "additionnelles", et je me demandais ce que vous
11     vouliez dire.
12  10018                M. HOULE:  Je pense que c'est une
13     façon d'indiquer qu'on pense que la réglementation
14     actuelle de 60/50 doit demeurer et on ne croit pas
15     qu'on doit ajouter ni enlever.
16  10019                Guy a parlé tantôt de récompenser le
17     succès, et je pense que ce serait un drôle de
18     raisonnement de dire, parce que les diffuseurs de
19     langue française font plus que les obligations
20     réglementaires ou dépensent plus il faut augmenter ses
21     obligations réglementaires pour les amener au niveau
22     où...
23  10020                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Non, vous me
24     comprenez mal.
25  10021                M. HOULE:  O.k.  Je m'excuse.


 1  10022                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Le 60/50 est beaucoup
 2     moins que ce que les radiodiffuseurs font en ce moment
 3     et ils semblent pouvoir survivre avec ce qu'ils font. 
 4     Un intérêt du Conseil et de la population est
 5     évidemment est-ce qu'on maintient les acquis et comment
 6     le fait-on.
 7  10023                Mme DUFOUR:  Je pense que,
 8     premièrement, pour expliquer le "additionnelles" et
 9     pourquoi il est en caractère gras, on se réfère à la
10     première partie du mémoire, qui fait un peu une étude
11     de cas sur ce qui se passe au Canada anglais et ce qui
12     se passe au Canada français.  On dit qu'au Québec, dans
13     la production francophone, la programmation canadienne,
14     ce n'est pas un problème.  Le problème réside dans le
15     financement.
16  10024                Alors, lorsqu'on dit qu'on n'a pas
17     besoin de créer des règles supplémentaires ou
18     additionnelles, je pense que le "additionnelles" venait
19     en référence aux problèmes dans le marché québécois.
20  10025                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors, à ce
21     moment-là, vous suggérez que ce soit par l'entremise
22     des pourcentages des dépenses qu'on garderait les
23     acquis dans le marché.
24  10026                M. HOULE:  Exact.  Je pense qu'un
25     pourcentage des revenus devrait être appliqué aux


 1     dépenses de programmation canadienne...
 2  10027                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et, à votre avis, si
 3     le but du Conseil est de maintenir les acquis, ce
 4     serait suffisant, avec les impératifs du marché, et
 5     caetera, et l'appétit de la population, pour garder le
 6     même niveau de programmation canadienne.
 7  10028                M. CREVIER:  Est-ce que votre
 8     question vise à savoir si les quotas devraient être
 9     augmentés?
10  10029                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Non, non.  C'était
11     simplement que j'étais curieuse de savoir qu'est-ce que
12     vous vouliez dire par "des exigences réglementaires
13     additionnelles", parce que si on reste à 65, le marché
14     change, la fragmentation, la concurrence... à ce
15     moment-là, est-ce que le Conseil ne devrait pas
16     s'inquiéter de la possibilité que le système serait tel
17     qu'on irait à la baisse vers le 60/50?
18  10030                M. CREVIER:  Écoutez, moi, je pense
19     qu'il faut tenir compte de deux choses... et c'est là
20     un petit peu tantôt quand je parlais aussi d'une
21     question de micro réglementation et de récompenser la
22     réussite.  Si vous adoptez un système comme ça, qu'à
23     chaque fois que quelqu'un réussit à aller plus haut que
24     la barre, vous montez la barre, les gens vont hésiter
25     beaucoup à aller plus haut que la barre.


 1  10031                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais là, vous me
 2     dites qu'"additionnelles", c'est plus que ce qu'ils
 3     font en ce moment.
 4  10032                M. CREVIER:  Non, pas nécessairement.
 5  10033                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais pas plus que
 6     60/50.
 7  10034                M. CREVIER:  Admettons que vous
 8     décidiez que la norme est à 60 pour cent, il n'y a pas
 9     de problème du côté canada français.  Les gens ont
10     toujours dépassé de façon considérable ces éléments-là.
11  10035                Si on parle d'un phénomène où la
12     barre était à 60 pour cent et les gens ont réussi à
13     monter ça à 75 pour cent, moi, je pense qu'on devrait
14     dire bravo et on devrait souligner l'effort de ces
15     gens-là et faciliter leur vie.
16  10036                Si, par le fait qu'ils ont monté à 75
17     pour cent vous décidez de mettre la barre à 75 pour
18     cent, je suis certain que ces gens-là vont y penser
19     deux fois avant d'aller à 80 pour cent.  Ce n'est pas
20     une mesure qui encourage la réussite, et moi, je suis
21     dans un système où je trouve qu'on devrait encourager
22     la réussite.
23  10037                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, si nous
24     revenions à l'intégration verticale, si je comprends
25     bien votre recommandation 19, ce serait investissements


 1     en capital qui ne dépasseraient pas plus que 20 pour
 2     cent, je crois.
 3  10038                M. CREVIER:  Ça dépend.  C'est 33
 4     pour cent la propriété de l'entreprise et 20 pour cent
 5     dans le financement d'un produit.
 6  10039                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui, et ça assurerait
 7     à ce moment-là que la propriété du produit resterait
 8     celle du producteur, même s'il y avait...
 9  10040                M. CREVIER:  Je crois que c'est une
10     mesure de protection de la propriété intellectuelle,
11     effectivement.
12  10041                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais en donnant quand
13     même un incitatif pour l'investissement en capital par
14     les télédiffuseurs.
15  10042                Vous nous recommandez, à la page
16     49 -- je pense que c'est bien ça -- recommandation 21,
17     que le Conseil favorise un accès plus large à la
18     coproduction internationale.  Comment entrevoyez-vous
19     les efforts du Conseil dans cette direction-là?
20  10043                M. CREVIER:  Essentiellement par la
21     reconnaissance des accords de coproduction.  Je crois
22     qu'il y a des accords de coproduction actuellement dans
23     plus de 40 quelques pays, ce qui est une opportunité
24     extraordinaire.  Je pense que le Canada également est
25     dans une situation remarquable du fait qu'il est


 1     capable de maîtriser une production à la fois en
 2     anglais et à la fois en français, nous avons une
 3     ouverture vers les marchés américains et européens.
 4  10044                On vit, comme j'y faisais référence
 5     tantôt, dans un environnement de globalisation.  Je
 6     pense qu'il y a là une création importante de richesse
 7     pour le Canada.  Si on réussit à exporter notre
 8     savoir-faire, et on a un savoir-faire qu'on a très bien
 9     développé, il s'agit juste d'être ouverts à ça et de
10     s'assurer que... dans les quatre catégories que je
11     citais tantôt, il y en avait une qui était des
12     incitatifs à l'exportation.  Je pense que c'est
13     souhaitable.
14  10045                On tient ce langage-ci devant le
15     forum du CRTC, mais on pourrait également le tenir
16     auprès de Téléfilm.  Et je pense que c'est souhaitable
17     que toutes les règles canadiennes visent à
18     l'exportation de notre savoir-faire.
19  10046                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Voyez-vous des
20     mesures concrètes?  Est-ce que vous entrevoyez des
21     mesures concrètes ou des changements que le Conseil
22     pourrait faire lui-même pour favoriser ces productions?
23  10047                M. GAUDREAU:  Je pense que les fonds
24     actuellement disponibles devraient favoriser
25     particulièrement les coproductions internationales.


 1  10048                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors ce sont surtout
 2     les règles du fond qui sont en cause, pas celles
 3     nécessairement du Conseil.  Alors ce serait simplement
 4     une recommandation que nous recommandions...
 5  10049                M. GAUDREAU:  Absolument. 
 6     Absolument.
 7  10050                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... si possible, ou
 8     que nous discutions des règles pour encourager ces
 9     productions.
10  10051                M. HOULE:  Si je peux ajouter un
11     point, Madame la Vice-Présidente, le Conseil a amorcé
12     en parallèle un processus de consultation sur la
13     définition d'"émission canadienne", et là, le Conseil
14     peut intervenir directement.  Il l'a déjà fait dans le
15     passé...
16  10052                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Par l'entremise...
17  10053                M. HOULE:  ... pour reconnaître les
18     coproductions...
19  10054                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  De ces définitions
20     elles-mêmes...
21  10055                M. HOULE:  ... comme des émissions
22     canadiennes.
23  10056                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... mais qui seraient
24     plus vide de sens si le fond n'est pas aussi au même
25     port.


 1  10057                Mme DUFOUR:  Oui.  Il y a également la
 2     reconsidération de la définition.  On peut considérer
 3     le crédit de 105 pour cent au dramatique qui, je vous
 4     donne un exemple, peut être étendu aux coproductions.
 5  10058                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  En parlant de micro
 6     réglementation, à la page 46, au paragraphe 146, vous
 7     considérez ou recommandez qu'il y ait des seuils minima
 8     pour les droits de diffusion que doit verser un
 9     télédiffuseurs, et ils sont micro exacts:  25 pour cent
10     de la part canadienne du budget d'une émission
11     dramatique et 15 pour cent des autres catégories
12     d'émissions.
13  10059                Avez-vous changé d'idée sur ce
14     paragraphe?
15  10060                M. CREVIER:  Je n'ai pas changé
16     d'idée, comme je n'ai pas changé d'idée sur la micro
17     réglementation.  Je vais vous dire franchement que, si
18     le Conseil fait un effort remarquable pour ne pas aller
19     dans la micro réglementation et que vous laissez tomber
20     tous les aspects, pas uniquement celui-là, je vais être
21     très favorable à ça.
22  10061                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  C'est un bon quid pro
23     quo à votre avis.  Mais ça, ce serait encore le fonds
24     qui établirait ces seuils.
25  10062                M. HOULE:  Quand le Conseil a créé


 1     effectivement le Fonds de production, il avait lui-même
 2     établi des seuils  minima de licence.  Ceci dit, sans
 3     viser la micro réglementation du tout, ces seuils ont
 4     été modifiés à plusieurs reprises suite à des
 5     représentations au fond.
 6  10063                Ce qu'on tente d'indiquer, c'est
 7     qu'il y a eu des représentations qui ont été faites
 8     devant vous de certains diffuseurs qui voudraient qu'on
 9     considère les droits de diffusion qu'il verse pour
10     acquérir une émission comme un investissement, et on
11     dit qu'il faut faire la distinction entre des droits de
12     diffusion et un investissement en capital; l'un ne peut
13     pas servir pour l'autre.
14  10064                Les diffuseurs ont manifesté
15     l'intérêt de participer à la propriété des émissions
16     indépendantes à travers l'investissement.  On dit:  On
17     est d'accord, on est favorable à ça, mais à la
18     condition qu'elles ne viennent pas se soustraire si on
19     nous donnait avant 25 pour cent de la valeur du produit
20     en droit et on dit:  Maintenant, on vous en donne 10
21     pour cent et on investit 15.  Il n'y a pas plus
22     d'argent dans le système.
23  10065                Donc il faudrait qu'ils aient payé
24     d'abord le droit de diffusion selon la valeur marchande
25     du produit avant, et on a repris les seuils qui avaient


 1     été proposés par le Conseil dans le Fonds de
 2     production.
 3  10066                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, dans un
 4     continuum entre la position du CFTPA, que vous
 5     endossiez jusqu'à il n'y a pas longtemps, qui est
 6     beaucoup plus précise, et celle de l'ACR, est-ce que
 7     vous atteignez le milieu ou vous allez plus loin? 
 8     Est-ce que vous pensez que la position de l'ACR de se
 9     fier sur des objectifs d'auditoire pour y arriver est
10     un peu trop macro?
11  10067                M. CREVIER:  Je vais vous dire que je
12     suis assez embêté de répondre à cette question-là parce
13     que j'ai cru remarquer dans le déroulement des
14     audiences que c'était une question qui revenait à peu
15     près à tout le monde, et je n'ai pas encore entendu
16     quelqu'un qui était capable d'y répondre, tout comme
17     j'ai parlé à beaucoup d'intervenants dans le milieu et
18     je n'ai pas encore rencontré quelqu'un qui comprend la
19     proposition de l'ACR.
20  10068                Je vais vous dire même franchement
21     que je me permettrais peut-être un petit commentaire à
22     l'effet que je ne suis pas sûr qu'ils la comprennent
23     très bien eux-mêmes, quand je regarde les explications
24     qu'ils ont données.  Donc, si vous permettez, je
25     m'abstiendrais de commenter la position de l'ACR.


 1  10069                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Maintenant, nous
 2     allons terminer avec une micro question.  Vous m'avez
 3     entendue poser cette question-là.
 4  10070                Nous sommes un peu curieux de la
 5     position de CINAR/Nelvana, puisque vous êtes vous-même
 6     dans la production, qui proposait ou qui nous suggérait
 7     qu'il y a une... que dans le marché c'est assez commun
 8     que les diffuseurs puissent obtenir une part de
 9     propriété dans une production équivalent à 50 pour cent
10     de la valeur de leur investissement en sus des droits
11     de diffusion une fois qu'ils ont recouvré entièrement
12     leur investissement, et eux, ils étaient d'avis que
13     cette méthode soit entérinée en règle quelconque.
14  10071                Est-ce que vous comprenez bien ce
15     dont ils parlent et est-ce que vous êtes d'accord?
16  10072                M. CREVIER:  Oui, je comprends bien
17     ce dont ils parlent, en tout cas je pense bien le
18     comprendre.  Ce que je crois comprendre, dans le fond,
19     c'est que CINAR dit oui à ce que quelqu'un puisse
20     investir comme investisseur, mais CINAR propose de
21     limiter le rendement de l'investissement à 50 pour
22     cent.
23  10073                Pour moi, j'ai un peu de difficulté à
24     comprendre la nécessité d'imposer une limite sur un
25     rendement.  Quand vous investissez dans une production,


 1     vous prenez un risque, et ce risque-là, si la
 2     production est mauvaise, vous n'avez pas de rendement,
 3     vous avez un rendement qui est négatif; si la
 4     production est bonne, vous avez un rendement qui est
 5     positif.
 6  10074                Je ne vois pas pourquoi on limiterait
 7     en bout de ligne le rendement à 50 pour cent pour
 8     quelqu'un qui décide d'investir.  Si quelqu'un décide
 9     de nous accompagner dans une production IMAX, à titre
10     d'exemple, et que nous autres, on décide de produire un
11     film sur les caribous, il y a un risque qui est énorme. 
12     Si la personne prend le risque et c'est le hit de
13     l'année, je pense que son risque est récompensé si la
14     production fait beaucoup d'argent et va au-delà d'un
15     rendement de 50 pour cent, mais déjà un rendement de 50
16     pour cent, c'est beaucoup.
17  10075                J'ai de la difficulté à comprendre
18     pourquoi CINAR tient à... je suis convaincu que
19     Micheline maîtrise très bien ce dossier-là aussi et
20     qu'elle a une raison de vouloir limiter le rendement,
21     mais j'ai de la difficulté, moi.
22  10076                On est dans un concept
23     d'investisseur, et je ne vois pas pourquoi on limite un
24     rendement dans un concept d'investisseur.
25  10077                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors vous préférez


 1     votre position, qui serait une limite de 20 pour cent
 2     de la propriété?
 3  10078                M. CREVIER:  Dans les deux cas il y a
 4     des limites, parce qu'il ne peut pas y avoir un
 5     investissement de plus que 49 pour cent.  Si
 6     l'investisseur investit plus de 49 pour cent, ce n'est
 7     plus une production...
 8  10079                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Est-ce que le but ici
 9     n'est pas de limiter...
10  10080                M. CREVIER:  Non, ça ne limitait pas
11     l'investissement, ça limitait le rendement sur
12     l'investissement...
13  10081                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ça limitait le
14     rendement sur l'investissement.
15  10082                M. CREVIER:  ... ce qui est très
16     différent.
17  10083                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Voilà.  Merci
18     beaucoup.  Au revoir et bon voyage de retour.
19  10084                Nous vous remercions de toutes vos
20     micro réponses.
21  10085                M. CREVIER:  Je vous remercie
22     beaucoup.
23  10086                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Madame la Secrétaire.
24                                                        1510
25  10087                MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.


 1  10088                The next presentation will be by the
 2     Canadian Association of Film Distributors and
 3     Exporters, l'Association canadienne des distributeurs
 4     et exportateurs de films.  J'inviterais M. Paradis et
 5     ses collègues à s'avancer.
 6  10089                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon,
 7     gentlemen.  Go ahead when you are ready.
 9  10090                M. PARADIS:  Madame la Présidente,
10     Mesdames et Messieurs les Membres du Conseil, je me
11     présente, je suis Richard Paradis, président de
12     l'Association canadienne des distributeurs et
13     exportateurs de films.  Je suis accompagné aujourd'hui,
14     à ma droite, d'André Link, qui est le chef
15     d'exploitation de Lions Gate Films, d'Andy Myers, qui
16     est vice-président, Distribution chez Behaviour; à ma
17     gauche, Victor Loewy, qui est le président du conseil
18     d'Atlantis Alliance Motion Picture Films, et de Dan
19     Lyon, qui est le vice-président chez Motion
20     International.
21  10091                L'association représente les intérêts
22     des plus importantes entreprises, sous contrôle
23     canadien, de distribution au Canada.  En se présentant
24     devant vous aujourd'hui, l'association vise un objectif
25     fort précis.  Nous voulons assurer au cinéma canadien


 1     sa juste part dans la programmation offerte au public
 2     canadien par les télédiffuseurs.  Nous sommes d'avis
 3     que la télévision est un médium extraordinaire pour
 4     diffuser des longs métrages canadiens ainsi que pour
 5     éveiller l'intérêt des téléspectateurs pour de tels
 6     films.
 7  10092                Comme vous le savez, l'ensemble des
 8     intervenants du domaine du cinéma canadien travaillent
 9     actuellement avec le ministère du Patrimoine à revoir
10     notre politique nationale dans le domaine du long
11     métrage, et nous pouvons vous affirmer d'ores et déjà
12     qu'il se dégage un consensus parmi les différents
13     intervenants.  En effet, créateurs, producteurs,
14     distributeurs, propriétaires de salles de cinéma et le
15     public canadien s'entendent pour dire que les
16     radiodiffuseurs doivent jouer un rôle plus important
17     dans la production, promotion et la diffusion de notre
18     cinéma national.
19  10093                It is important to note that when the
20     Department of Canadian Heritage and its Minister,
21     Sheila Copps, launched its Canadian Feature Film Policy
22     Review in February of this year, it was clearly stated
23     in the department's discussion paper and we quote:
24                            "With respect to broadcasting,
25                            many suggested that Canada


 1                            should build on the success of
 2                            broadcasters, such as the UK's
 3                            Channel 4 or Canal + in France. 
 4                            These broadcasters have
 5                            demonstrated a strong commitment
 6                            to their respective national
 7                            film industries by participating
 8                            actively in their financing,
 9                            promotion and broadcasting. 
10                            Another possibility is modifying
11                            broadcast licences upon renewal
12                            to encourage Canadian
13                            broadcasters to dedicate more
14                            financial resources and
15                            broadcasting time to feature
16                            films."
17  10094                CAFDE believes strongly that the
18     Commission must use this historic public hearing to
19     formally recognize the important role of feature films
20     in the Canadian broadcasting system and the programming
21     schedules of both conventional broadcasters and
22     specialty and pay services.
23  10095                Broadcasters, both private and
24     public, have a habit of using feature films extensively 
25     during this critical three week survey sweeps in the


 1     fall and spring of each year, which help determine for
 2     the following year the advertising rates the
 3     broadcasters can then charge the advertisers.  There is
 4     no doubt that feature films deliver audiences.
 5  10096                What we are asking the Commission to
 6     do is much like you have done in the past for
 7     conventional programming, require from broadcasters a
 8     commitment and dedicated funding towards Canadian
 9     feature films to be shown in prime time.
10  10097                And what does the public, the
11     viewers, think of our proposal, especially in light of
12     the CAB's statements regarding the need to concentrate
13     on increasing viewership to Canadian programming?
14  10098                In the survey research we submitted
15     with our written brief, 69 per cent of respondents
16     strongly agreed that it is very important that Canadian
17     feature films be shown on Canadian television. 
18     Approximately six out of ten respondents strongly
19     agreed that people would watch Canadian feature films
20     if they were promoted and advertised better.
21  10099                In your own CROP survey, 54 per cent
22     of respondents claimed that there are not enough
23     Canadian films presented on television.  The lack of
24     Canadian films got the highest score of dissatisfaction
25     from respondents.


 1  10100                As distributors, we are convinced
 2     that the only way to create an interest in our films is
 3     if Canadians get to see them and considering that
 4     Canadians spend an average of 23 hours a week watching
 5     television, it remains in our eyes one of the best
 6     means available to reach them to promote Canadian films
 7     and to have them watch them.
 8  10101                For Canadians to truly be able to
 9     access Canadian feature films through television,
10     conventional broadcasters have to be part of the mix. 
11     The share of viewing of Canadian pay and specialty
12     services, while growing in the case of specialty,
13     remains marginal relative to the tremendous draw of
14     viewers to programming presented by conventional
15     broadcasters.
16  10102                As we mentioned earlier, both in
17     France and Great Britain broadcasters are increasingly
18     involved in financing and broadcasting feature films.
19  10103                In Canada, broadcasters contribute
20     little to the actual development and production of
21     Canadian feature films.  A recent study released by la
22     SODEC covering 1996-97, shows that the share of
23     broadcaster investment in 30 feature film projects with
24     a total budget of over $107 million, was a meagre 2.1
25     per cent, representing $450,000 in investment and $1.8


 1     million for licence fees.
 2  10104                With regards to the CAB proposal,
 3     that Canadian broadcasters should not be excluded as an
 4     eligible producer or distributor of Canadian feature
 5     films, or any other type of production, CAFDE shares
 6     the position of the two producer associations in
 7     rejecting that proposal.
 8  10105                Broadcasters already have a choice
 9     privilege to use the airwaves, to benefit from the low
10     cost to them of high-quality productions from the
11     independent producers and have their program rights
12     protected through simultaneous substitution.  We fail
13     to see how their moving in on the independent sector
14     will ultimately benefit the broadcasting system without
15     seriously affecting the capacity of both the producers
16     and distributors of being able to maintain viable
17     operations.
18  10106                It is not appropriate for
19     broadcasters to get involved in distribution rights in
20     either feature films or television programs unless they
21     are major equity investors in either type of project. 
22     The only way Canadian independent production and
23     distribution companies can survive and grow in the long
24     term is by building up their catalogue.  Conventional
25     broadcasters, for their part, have been consistently


 1     reducing their share of commitment to Canadian
 2     programming their licence fees over the last few years.
 3  10107                The Minister of Canadian Heritage,
 4     Sheila Copps, made her views clearly known on this
 5     issue at this year's Banff Television Festival.  At
 6     that time, the Minister stated that she had no
 7     intention of caving in to TV broadcasters lobbying to
 8     change current funding rules to cut out the independent
 9     production sector and get public funding directly. 
10     Such a move would also give them world distribution
11     rights for programs.  The Minister stated clearly that
12     the fear of the independent production sector was, and
13     we quote:
14                            "...a legitimate fear:  A
15                            licence to broadcast television
16                            is not necessarily a licence to
17                            take over production.  If you're
18                            talking about being a partner, a
19                            partner means putting your money
20                            where your mouth is."
21  10108                We agree with the Minister.
22  10109                With regards to the CBC, we believe
23     that the public broadcaster should assume much more
24     responsibility for the production, promotion and
25     broadcast of Canadian feature films.  However, we


 1     disagree with the approach proposed by the CBC which
 2     wishes to get involved at all levels of feature film
 3     production from script writing to distribution.  The
 4     CBC should be an active participant only as an
 5     investor, broadcaster and promoter of Canadian films,
 6     much like the BBC does in Britain.
 7  10110                Furthermore, when the Commission
 8     reviews the plans of the CBC next year, it should
 9     review the role of the public broadcaster in actively
10     supporting Canada's feature film sector.  Why does the
11     CBC not have an ongoing television program offering in
12     prime time some visibility to our domestic cinema and
13     its actors, its creators, its producers and directors? 
14     Why does the CBC not promote Canadian films when they
15     are in the theatre circuit?
16  10111                CAFDE recommends the Commission
17     examine all proposals fro,m broadcasters, both private
18     and public, at renewal time to evaluate what
19     commitments each one is prepared to do to help the
20     Canadian feature film industry.
21  10112                On the issue of North American
22     rights, our association considers the Commission must
23     use this unique opportunity to resolve the serious
24     problem which has undermined our capacity as
25     distributors to fully benefit from the potential of our


 1     own domestic market.  The CRTC must put in place a
 2     regulatory structure which will at last recognize
 3     Canada as a distinct market from the U.S. for film and
 4     television rights.
 5  10113                The Commission is aware of the recent
 6     appeal that the association launched with regards to
 7     the CRTC decisions regarding DTH pay-per-view and the
 8     issue of Canada being recognized as a distinct market
 9     for acquiring non-proprietary film product from foreign
10     sources.  The federal government decided on June 4 to
11     uphold the CRTC decisions, but at the same time stated
12     that the government is nonetheless, and we quote:
13                            "...committed to the development
14                            of a strong Canadian film and
15                            television industry, which
16                            includes a distinct Canadian
17                            market for film and television
18                            rights.  The feature film policy
19                            review and the CRTC's policy
20                            review on Canadian programming
21                            now underway will be examining
22                            ways to achieve this objective."
23  10114                On this issue, it was mentioned by
24     both producer associations earlier in this proceeding
25     that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get the


 1     American studios to recognize that Canada is in effect
 2     a separate country from the United States.
 3  10115                Canadian feature film producers and
 4     distributors have to deal on a daily basis with the
 5     overwhelming domination of American product on our
 6     theatre screens, which historically has not resulted in
 7     any concrete benefits for the Canadian feature film
 8     industry.
 9  10116                The Commission must realize that
10     Canadian distributors control less than 15 per cent of
11     the feature film distribution revenues generated in
12     Canada and that this seriously limits the capacity of
13     Canadian-owned distributors to contribute to the
14     production and distribution/promotion of Canadian
15     films.
16  10117                CAFDE believes that the present
17     policy review offers a unique opportunity to truly
18     integrate the Canadian feature film industry as
19     full-fledged partner in developing quality Canadian
20     content which can effectively contribute to adding
21     value to the program schedules of Canadian broadcasters
22     on an ongoing basis.
23  10118                En guise de conclusion, nous
24     demandons au CRTC de faire siennes les recommandations
25     suivantes:


 1  10119                - Exiger des télédiffuseurs privés et
 2     publics non seulement qu'ils investissent dans les
 3     longs métrages canadiens mais qu'ils en fassent aussi
 4     la promotion et qu'ils les diffusent aux heures de
 5     grande écoute.
 6  10120                - Reconnaître la nécessité d'un
 7     marché canadien distinct et indépendant dans le domaine
 8     des droits des émissions de télévision et des longs
 9     métrages.
10  10121                - Exiger que tous les télédiffuseurs
11     canadiens acquièrent des distributeurs canadiens les
12     droits de non propriétaires des longs métrages
13     étrangers.
14  10122                Nous vous remercions de votre
15     attention et sommes prêts à répondre à vos questions.
16  10123                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  La conseillère
17     Pennefather.
18  10124                Good afternoon, gentlemen.
19  10125                It is a pleasure to see you all here
20     today.  I feel the urge to take advantage of the
21     presence of such experience from those who built, a
22     number of you, the Canadian film distribution industry
23     in this country, to quiz you at length about the future
24     of Canadian feature films, but I understand you have a
25     pressing engagement, so I will be as precise as


 1     possible.
 2  10126                In fact, your oral presentation has
 3     brought certain precisions to your written submission
 4     and I appreciate that.  So, I would like to in fact
 5     just make sure that I have understood some of the
 6     points that you raised this afternoon that clarify your
 7     written submission, or we can clarify it further as the
 8     case may be.
 9  10127                On peut répondre en anglais ou en
10     français, comme on veut.  On va faire ça dans les deux
11     langues.
12  10128                I will refer to the written
13     submission first.  It is very clear from what you have
14     said, both today and in that submission, that Canada's
15     broadcasters are key to the future of feature films.
16  10129                I don't think this is a new concept. 
17     In fact, broadcasters tell us that they currently
18     acquire the rights to all Canadian features that are
19     available and suitable for conventional television. 
20     Notice I said conventional television.
21  10130                So, when one sits back and says on
22     the one hand we are being told they are doing what they
23     can and on the other hand you obviously have another
24     opinion on that, can you give me a comment on this
25     position, that in fact they are using what is available


 1     and suitable at this moment, and I did say conventional
 2     television.
 3  10131                MR. PARADIS:  I think at the table
 4     you are in your right, we do have just about the
 5     history of Canadian film and distribution in Canada. 
 6     We have discussed this question --
 7  10132                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I do have
 8     to say I said "messieurs" with a touch of a wink.  I am
 9     sure there are other players, but of course you would
10     expect me to say that.
11  10133                MR. PARADIS:  Who are members, by the
12     way.
13  10134                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Yes. 
14     Thank you.
15  10135                MR. PARADIS:  We now have Red Sky,
16     who is very well represented by the other gender group
17     in our association.
18  10136                I think what we are worried about and
19     why we are bringing this up and we do know that there
20     is this myth out there that Canadian broadcasters and
21     specialty or pay use Canadian films, the ones that they
22     would say are appropriate for their channels, but I
23     think that I would leave André Link and Victor to maybe
24     discuss this because they are both quite aware of what
25     the deals are with the broadcasters.  Our


 1     under-standing is that there is nine out of ten
 2     Canadian films that could be on television that don't
 3     show up on television.
 4  10137                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  That would
 5     be appreciated.  Thank you.
 6  10138                MR. LINK:  First of all, I must say
 7     that for a Canadian distributor to find a broadcaster
 8     to put the film on the air is a very difficult and
 9     arduous task.  It is not granted a situation that it's
10     the way that a film can get on to pay television.  If
11     it is a theatrical feature it is not a problem.  They
12     will play.
13  10139                It gets put on in some of the
14     specialty services, but to get on to the convention and
15     over-the-air is very difficult.  It is especially
16     difficult to get on prime time.  Occasionally, the
17     problem is that if you don't get the major networks to
18     carry your films, it means that the population is
19     deprived from being able to see it.
20  10140                We are selling Canadian films.  Some
21     get sold in Montreal and some get sold in different
22     parts of the country on the basis of selectively
23     selling each market, but it is very difficult to sell
24     feature films, Canadian feature films unless they are a
25     locomotive to the overall system.  The CBC has cut


 1     back, CTV is playing very few of them, Global is not
 2     playing any of them.  It is a little better in Quebec. 
 3     I must say that the Quebec situation is better, but
 4     even there there is no relation between the cost of a
 5     film and the licence fees that we receive.
 6  10141                Therefore, there is a great
 7     difficulty in getting sufficient monies back, so that
 8     we can get the system rolling.  It is not at all the
 9     same in other countries, like in Europe where there is
10     much more significant involvement by the broadcasters
11     and this is what we are lacking.
12  10142                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Yes.  I
13     take your point.  I think that is putting your finger
14     on it, the involvement of the broadcasters.
15  10143                What I read in your paper and our
16     discussion is how to arrange a new partnership which is
17     more effective for the present promotion and financing
18     of feature films.  So, if we go through each of those,
19     you have said in your brief, you also say that
20     appropriate financing should be allocated towards
21     developing Canadian features, both from broadcaster
22     commitments to Canadian programming and also from
23     public or private funds that exist and will be created
24     in the future.
25  10144                Regarding the will be created in the


 1     future, do you know something that we don't know?  Is
 2     there something there?  That's kind of an open-ended
 3     comment.
 4  10145                MR. PARADIS:  We heard this morning
 5     this morning that if we take 5 per cent of the telecom
 6     receipts in a year we are looking at quite a bit of
 7     money.
 8  10146                THE CHAIRPERSON:  It's already in the
 9     works.
10  10147                MR. LYON:  The CRTC could buy
11     Polygram with that money.
12  10148                MR. PARADIS:  I think we were looking
13     at the fact that the DTH people are coming in with new
14     funds.  There are applications before the Commission
15     for new licences and, obviously, there are going to be
16     new players coming in with new money.
17  10149                As you know, the fund that was
18     created for the Canadian Television Fund, the essence
19     of the money is going to more conventional television
20     programming and there is a component for film.  A lot
21     of it is for film that is made for television.
22  10150                So, we are trying to get at feature
23     films and trying to do -- we tried in our written brief
24     to show you how foreign and you know that foreign
25     broadcasters are quite heavily involved in films.  Yes,


 1     it is different in France and Great Britain because of
 2     the history, but we do think that in Canada, as we are
 3     looking at a new regulatory mode for broadcasting and
 4     Canadian content that we have come to the point where
 5     we have to say Canadian feature films are an important
 6     component and how can we help that.
 7  10151                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I gather
 8     from your statement today you are saying to the
 9     broadcasters that if indeed you are looking for
10     viewership feature films will draw viewers.  I assume
11     that is the comment there.
12  10152                But in addition to that, you are
13     saying you want greater commitment.  Are you supporting
14     the 10, 10, 10 proposal of the CFTPA or are you
15     supporting, for example, I believe it is the 7, 7, 7,
16     11 of the Directors Guild?
17  10153                MR. PARADIS:  Well, anywhere between
18     7, 7, 7 and 15, 15, 15.  I think you are being put
19     forward all kinds of numbers.  I think that some of the
20     proposals go quite a distance from what we have in the
21     actual context now.  The CAB is trying to do another
22     numbers game to say that if we did go to the 10, 10, 10
23     it would mean that they wouldn't be in the broadcasting
24     business any more.
25  10154                So, I think it is for the Commission


 1     to take all these proposals and to figure out what the
 2     measure is to give the broadcasters opportunities to
 3     make interesting revenues, but also ensure that they
 4     are contributing back to the system.
 5  10155                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  So, in
 6     those terms too feature films as a component of
 7     underrepresented categories, you want to be very
 8     precise.  You are talking about feature film.
 9  10156                If we put an emphasis on feature film
10     in prime time are we risking the disappearance of or a
11     difficulty in placing the other kinds of
12     underrepresented programming?
13  10157                MR. PARADIS:  No.  I think that in
14     the case of the CFTPA they have shown that there is
15     still room in what we call prime time for Canadian
16     programming and some English broadcasters have even
17     more space left in prime time for Canadian programming
18     than others.  Even if we had one Canadian feature film
19     in prime time on one broadcaster once a month, it would
20     be a big improvement on what we have right now.
21  10158                So what we are saying is that when we
22     get the feature film policy and whatever we get out of
23     the policy to develop more Canadian films.  We are
24     hoping that everything will be in sync so that these
25     films that will be made -- the film industry is going


 1     to try and generate about 35 theatrical-released films
 2     a year.  If they don't get an opportunity to be seen by
 3     Canadians -- it's a circle in a way.  If people see
 4     these films on Canadian television, they will start
 5     going to see Canadian films.
 6  10159                It is a little bit the same dilemma
 7     you had at the Commission 10 or 15 years ago when
 8     Canadian broadcasters weren't interested in Canadian
 9     content.  It was more or less imposed on them and now
10     they are coming here and they say, "Hey, that's the
11     biggest thing we have ever had."  So, we think we have
12     got to do the same thing with feature films right now.
13  10160                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  It does
14     seem that we have been going around this circle for
15     some time and this is why I find it important that get
16     I hope a little time to ask you how Canada's feature
17     film industry is finally going to move forward.  I know
18     there is the review going on.
19  10161                In this particular discussion we are
20     looking at broadcasting and features and there are two
21     pieces of the puzzle.  I just want to make sure I have
22     understood your proposals, the promotion side and the
23     financing side.
24  10162                On the promotion side, you are
25     encouraging broadcasters to promote features.  Should


 1     this promotion time be counted as expenditures on
 2     Canadian programming?  Do you have any concerns about
 3     that?
 4  10163                MR. LINK:  If I may, I believe it
 5     should because anything that we would get air time to
 6     create interest would benefit greatly the feature film
 7     sector.  It would get people in a theatre.  It would
 8     get them familiar with the themes of the pictures being
 9     shot and so on.
10  10164                So, I believe if that is the offset
11     why not.  It would certainly help us.
12  10165                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Do you
13     also agree with the proposal that promotion of Canadian
14     features not count as advertising time if the
15     broadcaster promotes a film while in theatrical
16     release, even if the broadcaster is not carrying that
17     same film?
18  10166                MR. LINK:  Absolutely.
19  10167                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  What about
20     the famous star system in English Canada?  Ça n'existe
21     pas.  Nécessairement, je veux qu'on soit clairs qu'on
22     parle des deux marchés et qu'il y a des points
23     distincts, et je pense que vous avez fait ce point-là.
24  10168                Promotion in terms of English Canada,
25     besides what we have mentioned, what more can we do? 


 1     What more would you suggest that the broadcasting
 2     community do?
 3  10169                Mr. Loewy, do you wish to answer?
 4  10170                MR. LOEWY:  I really think we don't
 5     have enough entertainment shows in prime time which
 6     originate in Canada.  So, first of all, we have no
 7     place to promote the films and promote the stars.  The
 8     shows that are going on now are mostly on TV in the
 9     small regional carriers, so there is no national show
10     left dedicated to the feature film industry.  They are
11     mostly American pick-ups.
12  10171                So, I don't know how we can oblige
13     the broadcasters to show more of this type of show.
14  10172                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  That is
15     basically my question.  Do you have a proposal for what
16     would make it worth their while, encourage them to do
17     so?
18                                                        1535
19  10173                MR. LOEWY:  No, I don't.
20  10174                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Right here
21     and now today.
22  10175                MR. LOEWY:  No.  It is something we
23     have wrestled without throughout our career, and
24     unfortunately we don't have a solution to that.  When
25     somebody becomes famous and well-known in English


 1     Canada, they invariably go to Hollywood and we lose
 2     most Canadian stars.
 3  10176                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  We are
 4     talking about feature films.
 5  10177                MR. LOEWY:  Yes.
 6  10178                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I wanted
 7     to be clear that that came with certain difficulties;
 8     not movie of the week, not long form drama feature.
 9  10179                MR. LOEWY:  Yes.
10  10180                MR. PARADIS:  If you watch Pamela
11     Wallin on the CBC, she on occasion invites people from
12     the industry to talk about the industry; either actors
13     or people that are producers.  Although she seems to be
14     trying to do that more often, how many people are
15     actually watching in that kind of a specialized market
16     area?
17  10181                It is not a show that is dedicated to
18     that, in the same way that "Entertainment Tonight"
19     might be.
20  10182                I think what we are trying to say --
21     and producers are also saying the same thing -- is that
22     we have to find a way in English Canada, and some
23     broadcaster has to come up with the genie idea of how
24     to do a show that is going to interest Canadians and
25     talk about the whole industry and how it is moving.


 1  10183                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  This
 2     brings me to the financing side.  If I am correct, you
 3     have said that broadcasters should not have access to
 4     the Production Fund, to the EIP or the Telefilm Fund.
 5  10184                MR. PARADIS: That is right.
 6  10185                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  On the
 7     other hand, you want to be a full-fledged partner in
 8     developing Canadian content, and you expect the
 9     broadcaster to be a partner in the future of feature
10     film.
11  10186                What about equity investments now? 
12     Are you comfortable with, on the other hand,
13     broadcasters investing in the production of feature;
14     and if so, how would that happen?
15  10187                MR. LINK:  There is no reason why
16     there should not be equity investors that get a
17     proportionate share of the returns and profits.
18  10188                I would say that it would be very
19     useful to have them as partners.
20  10189                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I think
21     Madam Wylie raised a point, in terms of the kind of
22     partnership that was suggested to us yesterday by
23     CINAR; that one of the formulae used in the industry is
24     that broadcasters can take an ownership in a production
25     equivalent to 50 percent of the value of their


 1     investment, over and above licence fee requirements,
 2     after full recoupment of their investment.
 3  10190                Is this something that you would
 4     propose as possible?
 5  10191                MR. LINK:  I am not sure that I would
 6     like to fix the parameters.  But I think when that
 7     proposal was made, it reflects pretty well what
 8     Telefilm's position is when they are investing.
 9  10192                It could be that 50 percent of the
10     profit goes to talent and 50 percent goes to investors. 
11     Maybe that is what she was referring to.
12  10193                I don't know in what context she made
13     that.
14  10194                There seems to be a traditional
15     split, either 50/50 or 60/40 in favour of either side. 
16     It all depends on the project; it all depends on the
17     financial involvement, the risk.  But that should be
18     negotiated freely, I would think -- unless she had
19     experiences where she felt the demands put on them were
20     too strong, and they wanted a ceiling rather than a --
21  10195                I am not sure.
22  10196                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I am not
23     sure.  Basically, this formula is mentioned in the
24     context that several people here have talked about the
25     possibility of equity investment but certain safeguards


 1     coming into play or certain formulae.
 2  10197                For example, such investment be
 3     negotiated and be entirely separate from licence fee
 4     requirements.
 5  10198                Are you along the same --
 6  10199                MR. LINK:  They definitely should be
 7     separate and distinct from -- and licence fees should
 8     reflect reality.  We could give you some examples of
 9     the distortion of licence fees in our country versus
10     some other situations, where the licence fees are so
11     low in Canada compared to the cost of the film that it
12     is really out of whack.
13  10200                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Did you
14     want to suggest to us any other ways?  You talked about
15     the Channel 4 model; you talked about Canal Plus and
16     its history and features; the German situation.
17  10201                Do you think any of those models will
18     work for Canada?
19  10202                MR. LINK:  I think that we have --
20     and I am perhaps going to answer to you in a roundabout
21     way.
22  10203                We have a lot of talent here.  We
23     have a lot of possibilities.  We have established
24     ourselves in our home market and abroad -- sometimes
25     better abroad than even here.


 1  10204                If the broadcasters would play a more
 2     active role, whether that would be un incitatif or
 3     coercion -- if you need to use that term -- we would
 4     gain a lot by that.
 5  10205                When a picture is finished and is
 6     available and it is not shown, it is a crime.  It is a
 7     crime that the Canadian public cannot see the films at
 8     a time when they are watching television.
 9  10206                It is no use putting it on at 2
10     o'clock in the morning.  It is no good putting it on in
11     the mornings.  We have to reach the public.  We are
12     going to build on it.
13  10207                Time and again you can see that the
14     Canadian public appreciates its drama, be it the long
15     form, be it the movies of the week.  We have talent,
16     but we have to get it on the air.
17  10208                Somehow or other, we have to make the
18     broadcasters who have the means to reach the largest
19     segment of the public at the lowest cost give us this
20     window and get us air time.  This is really what we are
21     asking from you:  look at how you can get the
22     broadcasters --
23  10209                It might be a quota within a quota. 
24     Can you say:  "If you are playing say 50 or 75 features
25     a year on your system, would you then play 10 or 15


 1     Canadian films."?  Something that we would get in front
 2     of the public Canadian features.
 3  10210                And more and more the more important
 4     films we make, I think the Canadian public -- again, it
 5     will take some time, but we believe they will respond
 6     favourably.
 7  10211                We had some great successes in Quebec
 8     recently.  We had some very good successes in English
 9     Canada, as well.  It is a matter of entraînement.  You
10     have to give the public the taste -- l'appétit vient en
11     mangeant.
12  10212                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  We are
13     here to look at all the options in fact to try to move
14     that dossier forward.
15  10213                As you know, the Commission mandate
16     allows us to take certain steps, and in certain areas
17     it is up to other institutions.  But in terms of what
18     we can do, looking forward from here, it is important
19     that you present whatever precise suggestions that you
20     want to make in terms of how that structure should
21     work.
22  10214                One of the other areas you touched on
23     is CBC/Radio-Canada.
24  10215                Est-ce que vous avez d'autres
25     précisions en termes de leur rôle?  Je pense que


 1     c'était clair que vous voulez qu'ils... il y a plus de
 2     films à la télévision de Radio-Canada, il y a plus de
 3     promotions.  Est-ce qu'il y a un rôle spécifique que
 4     vous voulez mentionner?
 5  10216                MR. LOEWY:  First of all, I just want
 6     to add some words to the previous question.
 7  10217                We have been discussing for years and
 8     years what the role of the Canadian broadcaster should
 9     be.  I think we have come away empty-handed each time,
10     because the broadcasters always came up with all kinds
11     of excuses, pleading poverty.  In the meantime, they
12     are buying up more networks and their profits are
13     really growing.
14  10218                Yet the model in the U.K. and in
15     France is expanding.  I think at the last CRTC
16     hearings, Canal Plus was really actively involved in
17     big licence fees and investment in local French films. 
18     Today, we have TF-1, France Deux and France Trois who
19     are investing big money, both for licence and
20     investments.  The same thing with the BBC and Channel
21     4.
22  10219                Here, we are still at the stage of
23     talking about it.
24  10220                With respect to your question about
25     the CBC, being here since this morning, everybody is


 1     finding reasons to attack the poor CBC on all kinds of
 2     misdeeds and bad behaviour.
 3  10221                Even though the CBC is paying very
 4     low licence fees, at least they are buying films --
 5     which is more than can be said about any of the private
 6     broadcasters.
 7  10222                What we would like to see more of is
 8     more promotional efforts on their part, which does not
 9     cost any money.  It is not something where they have to
10     come back to the government and ask for additional
11     funds.  They can simply get more involved in the
12     promotion of Canadian films.
13  10223                We have a bit of that in Quebec with
14     some broadcasters, and I think we can expand on that. 
15     It would be an invaluable tool to have.
16  10224                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you
17     for that.
18  10225                On the matter of North American
19     rights, we have had suggestions on how to deal with
20     this, ranging from doing nothing, to let the market
21     decide, to taking U.S. services off eligible lists.
22  10226                In fact, I think that is the CFTPA
23     point in their submission.
24  10227                We are of course, as you noted, aware
25     of the history.  I was wondering if you had any other


 1     comments on that area.
 2  10228                MR. PARADIS:  I am going to ask Dan
 3     Lyon to talk about that.
 4  10229                MR. LYON:  The thing that is very
 5     important for the Commission to note is that it is very
 6     difficult for distributors to police the situation
 7     where a U.S. service coming into Canada may be
 8     broadcasting a program which has already been bought
 9     for Canadian broadcast, originating in Canada, by a
10     Canadian distributor.
11  10230                Most of the companies have eagle-eyed
12     people who will scan the guides and hopefully catch a
13     lot of the problems.  In some cases, we do get good
14     cooperation.
15  10231                It is a very frustrating situation to
16     imagine that, as bad as it is now, it is only going to
17     get worse with the proliferation of satellite signals
18     and Internet broadcasting, and whatever else is coming
19     down the pike for us.
20  10232                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you. 
21     I was going to ask you as a group what you saw
22     vis-à-vis digital carriage and digital technology in
23     the business of features.
24  10233                I have one last question.  I can't
25     resist asking it.


 1  10234                Another discussion that has been had
 2     frequently involves a parallel process to this one; and
 3     that is the identifiable Canadian product.
 4  10235                In looking at this table and the
 5     experience you have had, when you read proposals of
 6     what is Canadian, basic Canadian, enhanced basic, it is
 7     distinguishable Canadian.
 8  10236                To add to our record, what is your
 9     definition of a truly Canadian feature film?
10  10237                MR. PARADIS:  I think you missed
11     "super Canadian".
12  10238                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Sorry.
13  10239                MR. LOEWY:  I believe that a film
14     that is done by Canadians is a Canadian film.  It is
15     not necessarily treating a typically Canadian situation
16     that is Canadian.  I think it is what we come up with
17     as a story to tell.  But of course it should not be
18     something where we are disguising a Canadian city for
19     Washington, or whatever.
20  10240                I think we have to give the freedom
21     to our creators to tackle any subjects that they want. 
22     But necessarily it has to have the Canadian elements in
23     there in proportion.
24  10241                One of the biggest things that I had
25     the privilege of participating in was "Meatballs". 


 1     "Meatballs" was a Canadian story; it was summer camp. 
 2     Yes, we had Bill Murray, who was an American actor. 
 3     But it was a Canadian film.
 4  10242                I think we have to be open-minded on
 5     that.  Certainly we should resist the type of disguised
 6     foreign productions masquerading as Canadian.  But I
 7     think Canadians should have the choice of making films
 8     that they feel they should bring to the screen.
 9  10243                MR. LYON:  I believe during this
10     proceeding you did hear a few people speak about
11     official co-productions as well.  We would like to see
12     certainly increasing emphasis on those productions as
13     Canadian productions -- which they are.
14  10244                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  When we
15     are told by some that a framework which encourages
16     export of cultural products, including feature films,
17     is contrary to one which would encourage more
18     indigenous Canadian product, how do you respond to
19     that?
20  10245                How do we do both at once?
21  10246                MR. PARADIS:  I think you are raising
22     two issues.
23  10247                I sit on the board of the Canadian
24     Television Fund, and I am also taking part in the
25     policy review for the film.


 1  10248                In the Television Fund, the way the
 2     board is going, the requirements we are going to have
 3     for what is Canadian or not Canadian are going to
 4     require more criteria of Canada.  But that is in
 5     television.
 6  10249                In television, I think the feeling of
 7     the people on the board is that that is what we are in
 8     the business of doing:  Canadian productions.  It does
 9     not stop anybody from doing other types of productions. 
10     But if they want to have access to public money, they
11     have to do productions that reflect Canada and that are
12     Canadian.
13  10250                For feature film, we are at the point
14     where we are now discussing what the criteria might be. 
15     There is an ongoing discussion on what the criteria
16     would be, not necessarily the same as in television. 
17     Feature film is not the same as conventional
18     television.
19  10251                So until we know what it is finally
20     going to look like, we don't really have a hard line
21     opinion on it.
22  10252                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  An
23     interesting comment.  We are discussing feature films
24     on conventional television, so I would suggest that the
25     two not be kept too far apart.


 1  10253                MR. PARADIS:  They probably won't be
 2     since they both have to report to the same minister.
 3  10254                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you,
 4     gentlemen.
 5  10255                Thank you, Madam Chair.
 6  10256                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you,
 7     gentlemen.
 8  10257                We will now take a 15-minute break
 9     and come back at 4:05.
10  10258                Nous reprenderons à quatre heure
11     cinque.
12     --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1550
13     --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1606
14  10259                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon.
15  10260                Madam Secretary, would you invite the
16     next participant, please.
17  10261                MS BÉNARD:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
18  10262                The next presentation will be by the
19     Directors Guild of Canada.  I would invite Mr. King to
20     introduce his colleagues.
22  10263                MR. KING:  Thank you.
23  10264                Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and
24     members of the Commission.
25  10265                My name is Allan King and I am


 1     President of the Directors Guild of Canada.  With me is
 2     Pamela Brand, our National Executive Director, and
 3     Peter Grant, our regulatory counsel.
 4  10266                As a labour organization representing
 5     key creative and logistical personnel in the film and
 6     television industries in Canada, the Directors Guild
 7     has a very special interest in these hearings.
 8  10267                The issues being addressed by the
 9     Commission deal with the fundamental structure of the
10     television industry in Canada.  In our written
11     submission, we have chosen to focus on the lack of
12     sufficient financial and scheduling support give to
13     Canadian entertainment programs by Canada's private
14     English language broadcasters.
15  10268                Over the last decade, the Commission
16     has properly focused on the issue of the
17     under-represented programming, and why it is still a
18     scarce commodity on our TV screens, compared with the
19     dominance of U.S. drama in prime time.
20  10269                The Commission has also developed a
21     number of expenditure and scheduling rules to address
22     this issue.  We applaud the Commission for these steps
23     and for focusing your attention on the issue in this
24     hearing.
25  10270                We are not here to recommend a


 1     wholesale change in regulatory approach.  Our
 2     suggestion is that you work with the tools you already
 3     have, the expenditure and scheduling rules, and make
 4     them more effective by focusing them on the central
 5     issue, the need for more first-run Canadian
 6     entertainment programs in prime time.
 7  10271                In particular the Directors Guild has
 8     proposed the adoption of what we call the "7 & 7 from 7
 9     to 11 solution".  Allow me to take a minute to describe
10     the proposal for you.  This approach would establish a
11     regulatory benchmark for private television stations of
12     spending a minimum of 7 per cent of broadcast revenues
13     on Canadian entertainment programming per year and
14     airing a minimum of seven hours of first-run Canadian
15     entertainment programming from the hours of 7:00 to
16     11:00 p.m. each week.
17  10272                In our submission to the Commission
18     last year on the establishment of new networks, we
19     urged that the CRTC set a benchmark for private TV
20     expenditures on Canadian entertainment programs of 7
21     per cent of gross advertising revenues.  In our written
22     submission for these hearings, we have taken our
23     suggestion a step further by adding a scheduling
24     component to it.
25  10273                When the CAB appeared before you,


 1     they criticized our proposal, arguing that Canadian
 2     drama loses money and they should be given more
 3     incentives to schedule it.
 4  10274                But broadcasting in Canada is not
 5     just a business that anyone can enter.  Broadcasting is
 6     a privilege and a valuable franchise with all kinds of
 7     protections, including barriers to entry, the benefits
 8     of the simultaneous substitution rule and the like. 
 9     And with that franchise comes an obligation to do
10     certain things, even if those particular projects lose
11     money on an individual basis.
12  10275                The CAB talked about doing more for
13     Canadian entertainment programming to increase its
14     viewership, but they didn't talk about spending more
15     money on it, which is surely the real test of
16     commitment.
17  10276                The licence fees paid by Canada's
18     private broadcasters as a percentage of the budget for
19     Canadian drama are but a fraction of what private
20     broadcasters in other countries pay for their
21     indigenous drama.  We are the only country in the world
22     which pays higher licence fees for U.S. drama than for
23     its own drama.
24  10277                The reason why a tightened
25     expenditure rule is required is very simply because it


 1     is obvious that in the absence of such a rule,
 2     broadcasters will reduce rather than increase their
 3     real expenditures on Canadian drama.
 4  10278                Yesterday the CAB released a study
 5     purporting to show that the Directors Guild proposal
 6     would result in a net loss to English language
 7     broadcasters of $50 million or more per year.
 8  10279                We have already identified a number
 9     of major flaws in the CAB study and we consider it
10     wildly exaggerated and based upon faulty assumptions. 
11     It also fails to note that English language
12     broadcasters actually increased their profits by $38
13     million in 1997 while reducing their 7, 8 and 9
14     Canadian expenditures.
15  10280                We are preparing a detailed report
16     rebutting the CAB study which we will file with you in
17     due course.
18  10281                I will now ask Pamela Brand to
19     address a different issue.
20  10282                MS BRAND:  One aspect of the
21     Directors Guild's brief that I would like to speak
22     about specifically concerns the ability of broadcasters
23     to claim the licence fee program top-up moneys coming
24     from the Canadian Television Fund as if they had spent
25     it themselves.


 1  10283                On September 17 the Guild published a
 2     study of the implications of the CRTC policy allowing
 3     the top-up credit.  We filed the study with the
 4     Commission last week and we have included a copy with
 5     our oral presentation today.
 6  10284                The study reached some disturbing
 7     conclusions.  Although in 1996 and 1997 relatively few
 8     broadcasters claimed the benefit of the top-up in their
 9     financial returns, the increase in the LFP funding will
10     make it possible for private broadcasters to claim
11     millions of dollars of LFP money annually as if they
12     had spent the money themselves.
13  10285                In fact, just by reason of the LFP
14     grants in the year ended August 31, 1998, English
15     language private broadcasters will be able to claim on
16     their future returns up to $24 million in LFP grants as
17     part of their Canadian programming expenditures.  This
18     cannot be supported.
19  10286                We urge the Commission to ensure that
20     any solution that it decides to adopt in order to
21     increase the supply of under-represented Canadian
22     programs does not allow private broadcasters to avoid
23     their responsibilities by enabling them to claim LFP
24     top-up money as if they had spent it themselves.
25  10287                MR. KING:  Thank you, Pamela.


 1  10288                This brings me to another point that
 2     I would like to address, namely the issue of
 3     broadcaster access to Canada's public production funds. 
 4     In our written submission to you, we urged that the
 5     Commission maintain restrictions on broadcasters'
 6     ability to access public funding.
 7  10289                The emergence of a strong and
 8     globally competitive independent production sector is
 9     one of Canada's most notable success stories.  Much of
10     it is due to the structural support provided by the
11     Commission and by Telefilm Canada.  The edifice is a
12     remarkable tribute to intelligent government policy. 
13     It took a generation to build.
14  10290                Permit me a moment of personal
15     reflection on that earlier time.  Having spent a decade
16     building a successful independent documentary film
17     studio in London in the sixties, I returned to home to
18     Canada in its centennial year, 1967, hoping to do the
19     same here.
20  10291                It was a desert here then for
21     Canadian independent producers.  The CBC did everything
22     in-house and the very few Canadian entertainment
23     programs found on the schedules of private broadcasters
24     were also self-produced.  It was an environment that
25     stifled diversity.


 1  10292                We have come a long way from that
 2     time.  We now expect private broadcasters to support
 3     independent production of Canadian entertainment
 4     programs and we would be remiss if we did not single
 5     out a few broadcasters to congratulate them for their
 6     recent initiatives.
 7  10293                The Guild is very supportive of the
 8     model being used by the Craigs in Alberta to help
 9     finance long-form Canadian drama with expenditures far
10     in excess of our proposed 7 per cent rule.
11  10294                The Guild also wants to commend
12     CTV/Baton for its recent initiatives in increasing its
13     quantity of distinctive Canadian drama in prime time. 
14     We are eager to see Mr. Fecan's vision come to life on
15     the CTRV schedule and we look forward to its
16     elaboration at the CTV renewal hearing next year.
17  10295                In sum, the Directors Guild urges the
18     Commission to continue its good work in building the
19     remarkably diverse structure that is the Canadian
20     broadcasting system.  We respectfully urge you to move
21     forward to levels of Canadian content comparable to
22     jurisdictions such as Britain, France and Germany.
23  10296                To this end, we urge the adoption of
24     a benchmark similar to the "7 & 7 from 7 to 11"
25     solution that we have proposed.  This will ensure that


 1     our television system offers Canadians the amount of
 2     distinctive Canadian entertainment programming that our
 3     broadcasting system needs and deserves.
 4  10297                Thank you.  That concludes our
 5     presentation.
 6  10298                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you Ms Brand,
 7     Mr. King.
 8  10299                Commissioner McKendry.
 9  10300                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you,
10     Madam Chair.
11  10301                Let me begin by talking to you about
12     your September 17 study on the CTCPF Licence Fee
13     Program and Canadian Program Expenditure Commitments. 
14     Let me note that in your accompanying press release for
15     that, and as an aside, let me say I am rather taken in
16     this hearing with the number of press releases that are
17     being issued by yourselves and by the CAB.  It seems
18     that there are almost two hearings going on, the one we
19     are doing in this room and the one that is going on in
20     the media.
21  10302                I noticed that there was an article
22     this morning in the Globe and Mail where CAB has filed
23     more data.  I want to come back to this in a few
24     minutes, although sometimes when I read the press
25     clippings and I see the word tonnage, I'm not sure


 1     whether we are talking about Canadian content or a
 2     whale hunt.
 3  10303                You state in the accompanying press
 4     release with your study that our decision, Public
 5     Notice 1994-10, to allow private broadcasters to claim
 6     a portion of the licence fee contributed by the fund as
 7     eligible Canadian program expenditures "undermines the
 8     whole integrity of the broadcasting system".
 9  10304                It's a pretty serious allegation so I
10     want to make sure that I understand how you came to
11     your conclusions.
12  10305                Let me begin by turning you to page 5
13     of the study.  There you state about the third
14     paragraph, half way through the third paragraph.  Let
15     me quote:
16                            "Projects can now quality for
17                            support even when broadcasters
18                            contribute licence fees that are
19                            as little as 15% of the program
20                            budget.  However, the licence
21                            fee top-up can now increase this
22                            to as much as 45% of the
23                            budget."
24  10306                How did you derive the figure of 48
25     per cent?


 1  10307                MS BRAND:  Actually all of these
 2     figures were derived from the CRTC studies which is
 3     included with the package, but the figure 45 per cent,
 4     I'm going to let Peter Grant answer that question.
 5  10308                MR. GRANT:  The 45 per cent is
 6     included in the LFP top-up guidelines, Commissioner
 7     McKendry.  It is the maximum amount of the budget that
 8     is available for certain regional productions.
 9  10309                For national, non-regional
10     productions though of drama, the maximum top-up would
11     be about 30, 35 per cent of the budget.  This is a
12     comment about the bonus that could apply in some cases.
13  10310                I think though that if you take a
14     look at the numbers for the most recent year past,
15     which I think are included in attachment 6, the actual
16     broadcaster cash in all projects from private
17     broadcasters was $26.3 million and that generated
18     licence fee top-up of $24.4 million.
19  10311                The ratio in the last year overall is
20     about one to one, give or take, which again is much
21     more than it was originally envisaged.  Originally the
22     bonus would have been 43 per cent.  It appears now the
23     bonus in the last year would amount to about 100 per
24     cent.
25  10312                There could be some specific projects


 1     in which the bonus could work out to 200 per cent
 2     though.  They would have to fit within the narrow
 3     definitions for those projects in the LFP top-up
 4     guidelines.
 5  10313                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  How many
 6     projects would the 200 per cent number apply to?
 7  10314                MR. GRANT:  Well, it would be
 8     obviously a small number because there have been
 9     relatively few regional projects until recently that
10     have even gotten into the LFP.  That's a new
11     development.
12  10315                That is the new guidelines.  The LFP
13     does allow up to 45 per cent in those projects, so to
14     the extent those increase over time, they will show up
15     more.  Right now the most recent year shows that the
16     bonus is about 100 per cent.
17  10316                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Do you have
18     an answer in terms of how many of the projects would be
19     as much as 200 per cent?
20  10317                MR. GRANT:  No, I don't have that for
21     the 1998 year.  No.
22  10318                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Do you have
23     it for the previous years or was it not applicable in
24     the previous years?
25  10319                MR. GRANT:  No.  This is a policy


 1     that has been changed in the last year.
 2  10320                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Perhaps we
 3     could just to understand that policy take a look at
 4     decision 94-10 which you included as attachment 2 to
 5     your study.  We could look at the section headed "The
 6     Mechanism" which is 2(h).
 7  10321                I would like you to relate the 200
 8     per cent factor that you now say is part of the fund to
 9     what's set out there.  What it says there is:
10                            "-- under-represented
11                            programming must obtain licence
12                            fees of not less than 15% of the
13                            total budget from Canadian
14                            licensees."
15  10322                It goes on:
16                            "For the purpose of meeting
17                            their required Canadian program
18                            expenditures as expressed --"
19  10323                Sorry.  Let me just back up one
20     sentence.
21                            "The production fund shall
22                            provide payments representing
23                            30% of the licence fees."
24  10324                How do we get up to 200 per cent by
25     relating what's in this section of the decision to what


 1     you just told me.
 2  10325                MR. GRANT:  Well, you have raised
 3     exactly the point, I think, that is made, Commissioner
 4     McKendry.
 5  10326                If you take a look at those two
 6     numbers, and I am focusing particularly on -- take a
 7     look at the top line in that paragraph which says the
 8     licence fee shall be not less than 35 per cent.  Then
 9     it says:
10                            "The production fund shall
11                            provide payments representing
12                            30% of licence fees."
13  10327                Remember, the 30 is of the 35. 
14     That's 10.5.  So the practical result back in 1994, and
15     this was all understood, was that a broadcaster would
16     actually put 24.5 per cent of his real cash and the
17     extra 10.5 would bring the matter up to 35 per cent and
18     that works out because 30 per cent of the 35 per cent
19     would be treated as if he had spent it himself.
20  10328                That was the understanding, I think,
21     that the Commission had as to how it would work in
22     1994.  A year and a half later the guidelines for the
23     fund were handed over to the Heritage Department and in
24     fact the Heritage Department added $50 million to the
25     budget for LFP.


 1  10329                Those rules became changed.  It no
 2     longer was required to have 24.5 per cent.  It steadily
 3     reduced to 20 and, in fact, if you take a look at the
 4     average contribution of broadcasters to LFP projects,
 5     as disclosed in the LFP document in attachment 6, it's
 6     barely 15 per cent.
 7  10330                The expectation in 1994, it seems to
 8     me, has been not met.  The broadcasters are not putting
 9     in 24.5.  They are now putting in about 15.  In certain
10     projects they could actually put in less and they are
11     getting more top-up benefit than was initially
12     envisaged.  It was originally thought that the top-up
13     would take them from 24.5 up to 35.  That's a 43 per
14     cent bonus.
15  10331                You now see in the 1998 numbers that
16     they are getting closer to a 100 per cent bonus.  It's
17     a combination of those two features that have all
18     happened since 1994, and I have to say were nothing to
19     do with the Commission.  This was just the rules being
20     changed and more money being put in and so forth.
21  10332                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Now, you say
22     this has nothing to do with the Commission.  Perhaps
23     you can help me here because I look at the preamble to
24     decision 94-10, in the fourth paragraph, and I will
25     quote:


 1                            "Although the LFP Guidelines are
 2                            now administered by the CTCPF,
 3                            the Commission continues to have
 4                            exclusive jurisdiction over the
 5                            funding mechanism, including the
 6                            obligation of distribution
 7                            undertakings to contribute to
 8                            the fund, and the extent to
 9                            which private broadcasters can
10                            claim LFP contributions as
11                            eligible 'Canadian expenditures'
12                            under their licence conditions."
13  10333                MR. GRANT:  That's right.
14  10334                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Are you
15     telling me that the fund has the power to make its own
16     rules and guidelines and if we happen to notice that
17     one of those rules or guidelines isn't consistent with
18     what we would like to have done, we have the
19     jurisdiction to change it.
20  10335                Is that what's happening?
21  10336                MR. GRANT:  Yes.  I mean the way a
22     broadcaster would read down at "The Mechanism" section,
23     they would look at that third paragraph.  It just
24     says|:
25                            "-- for the purpose of meeting


 1                            their ... program expenditures
 2                            ... private broadcasters will be
 3                            permitted to claim full amount
 4                            of the licence fee, including
 5                            that portion contributed by the
 6                            fund --"
 7  10337                They will say well, then, the
 8     Commission didn't put any rules there.  The rules as to
 9     how much we put in and what the bonus is, that's now up
10     to Heritage.  They have changed since 1994.
11                                                        1625
12  10338                Now, if you were to, as a Commission,
13     say -- just announce as a policy announcement that our
14     position is that the top-up was never intended to be
15     more than 43 per cent -- that was the original idea --
16     and clarified that, that would certainly go a long way
17     to eliminating the problem.  It wouldn't go the full
18     way.  You still have this much larger amount of money
19     because they are including not just the amount of money
20     that would have been in the Production Fund by virtue
21     of cable contributions, which again was all that was
22     thought of in 1994, but they are also getting credit
23     for the added money coming from Heritage, which was not
24     in the Fund in 1994.
25  10339                So, as a lawyer, I would take the


 1     view that this is a matter that the left hand,
 2     obviously, should know what the right hand is doing,
 3     but it is within the power of the Commission to address
 4     this by clarifying exactly what they intended.
 5  10340                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  And the Fund
 6     does not need our permission or approval to make the
 7     changes that you have just described in light of the
 8     mandate that's given to us here to have jurisdiction
 9     over these matters?
10  10341                MR. GRANT:  Yes.  Now, my
11     understanding is that in fact the Commission addressed
12     a letter to the Fund about this issue a year or so ago
13     asking whether they had a position -- with all these
14     changes, whether there would be a need to revisit this
15     policy and this is mentioned in the backgrounder issued
16     by the Guild.  The Fund set up a subcommittee to review
17     it, but deadlocked on the matter and was not able to
18     come up with a resolution or a recommendation to the
19     Commission.  So, I take it from that that this is
20     really now fully in the hands of the Commission to deal
21     with.
22  10342                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  And just to
23     summarize this point, we have rules at the Fund that
24     are in conflict with this section of our decision.
25  10343                MR. GRANT:  With the expectation,


 1     yes, in this decision.
 2  10344                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  It's more
 3     than an expectation, it's a requirement or a
 4     regulation, isn't it?
 5  10345                MR. GRANT:  It's interesting,
 6     actually.  This was issued as a policy statement and it
 7     was never implemented by way of a reference in licence
 8     conditions or regulations, but the way it has been
 9     administered so far has simply been that the Commission
10     has put in a line item in the Annual Report called
11     Cable Production Fund credit.  As I understand it, of
12     course, if broadcasters choose to, on their annual
13     return, provide the information as to what their own
14     projects got as licence fee program top-up, that will
15     then be entered into that return and, of course, will
16     then count towards their Canadian program expenditures.
17  10346                Now, there is an interesting
18     question:  What year do they get to claim it and who
19     gets to claim it?  You will have some broadcasters
20     trigger it, but then resell the project to other
21     broadcasters.  So, I don't think that has been
22     determined.
23  10347                The other issue is that it would seem
24     more logical that you would claim it, not at the time
25     that the licence fee top-up money is given to the


 1     product but, rather, at the time the actual program, as
 2     made, shows up on the schedule, because the Commission
 3     have accounting rules.  They are in Public Notice
 4     1993-93 that say you can only account for your
 5     expenditures on licence fees for drama programs at the
 6     time they actually are amortized over the broadcast
 7     schedule.  So, you can't count them earlier, you have
 8     to count them in the year that the broadcast is run.
 9  10348                Most of these programs that we are
10     talking about are only starting to run now.  In fact
11     the ones that were financed from the 1998 money we are
12     talking about, the $24 million, some of those may not
13     even run and start to be showing up in returns until
14     the fiscal year 1999-2000.
15  10349                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I want to ask
16     you about a follow-up on that, but again let me be
17     clear that I understand this.  The fund is doing
18     something that the Commission didn't intend it to do by
19     virtue or based on decision 1994-10?
20  10350                MR. GRANT:  Well, the Commission
21     basically delegated the decision-making on the ratios
22     of licence fees and so forth for various projects to
23     the Fund.  I don't know that the Commission has
24     disapproved it or approved it.  It hardly matters.  The
25     issue here is:  How do you want to handle it for the


 1     purposes of your internal accounting?  How do
 2     broadcasters get a claim?  That's uniquely a CRTC
 3     issue.
 4  10351                The Fund doesn't have jurisdiction
 5     over how you decide how a broadcaster will get credit. 
 6     So, you could very well find no problem with how the
 7     Fund is proceeding, but still say, in terms of giving
 8     credit to a broadcaster for this top-up, it should work
 9     within these rules back in 1994 or, as the Guild is
10     suggesting, frankly, over time remove them.
11  10352                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  With respect
12     to the 45 per cent number that was on page 5 that
13     started off this discussion, when I first looked at it,
14     I thought there was a possibility you had gone to
15     subsection (h) and added together the 15 per cent
16     that's in there with the 30 per cent.  So, that is not
17     the case.  That's what you are telling me.  You have
18     derived the 45 per cent number by looking at the actual
19     expenditures?
20  10353                MR. GRANT:  No, actually looking at
21     the LFP top-up and guidelines, as issued by the CTF,
22     which say that in certain projects they will permit a
23     15 per cent trigger to generate a top-up of another 30
24     per cent.
25  10354                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  So, the


 1     number of $24 million, as I recall -- I think it's
 2     $24.2 million --
 3  10355                MR. GRANT:  Yes.
 4  10356                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  -- that is a
 5     calculation that flows from looking at the rules at the
 6     Fund, as opposed to what actually happened?
 7  10357                MR. GRANT:  That's right.  No.  No,
 8     the $24 million is what actually happened last year. 
 9     Those are the reported numbers of licence fee top-up
10     credits for projects that were licensed by
11     English-language Canadian private broadcasters.
12  10358                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  And the 45
13     per cent is what's possible under the rules?
14  10359                MR. GRANT:  Yes.
15  10360                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Good.
16  10361                You mentioned that some of this money
17     has not been claimed.  My question is:  Why was it left
18     on the table?
19  10362                MR. GRANT:  I think the answer is a
20     number of answers.  The key one, I think, is that it
21     would normally be claimed at the time that the program
22     is broadcast.  So, there is a regulatory lag then of a
23     year or two because the programs are financed and the
24     commitment letter is issued, but a project may not get
25     concluded and then be put on the air for a year or so. 


 1     That's one explanation.
 2  10363                Another explanation, I am sure, is
 3     that some broadcasters may not have felt it necessary
 4     to do it, they didn't feel -- or their accounting
 5     department hadn't picked up on it.  There is a variety
 6     of possible reasons.  I must say I don't see anything
 7     turns on that because there is nothing to stop them
 8     from going back and restating those returns or picking
 9     them up in the future years when the programs are
10     broadcast.
11  10364                The key, of course, moment for a
12     broadcaster to concern himself with this is actually at
13     the renewal time because at that point the Commission
14     will ask on the renewal form, "Have you complied with
15     all your licence conditions", and one of the licence
16     conditions that's looked at is the Canadian program
17     expenditures rule.  It would be possible then for a
18     broadcaster to say, "Well, I know you might think in my
19     returns that I didn't quite qualify, but now I am
20     putting in all my LFP top-up and you will see I very
21     easily qualify."
22  10365                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  You mentioned
23     this earlier, but just clarify for this for me.  What
24     is the basis for allowing a retroactive claim to be
25     made?


 1  10366                MR. GRANT:  Retroactive or -- I'm
 2     sorry?
 3  10367                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Well,
 4     refiling one's form or claim.
 5  10368                MR. GRANT:  Just basically refiling
 6     to -- I suppose you would file it just to correct what
 7     you would say was an error in your return.  It would
 8     probably then show that you over-spent on Canadian
 9     programming that year.  Then you would carry that
10     forward to average out for the licence renewal period.
11  10369                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  So that
12     broadcasters who are paying careful attention to this
13     hearing will be examining their returns and considering
14     whether or not they should correct them, I assume.
15  10370                Let me leave the study now then and
16     ask you some other questions.
17  10371                Actually, let me ask you one more
18     question about it before I do that.  In Decision
19     1994-10 we were, it struck me when I read it, fairly
20     clear that the policy set out or the mechanism set out
21     in subsection (h) had -- we were quite clear about what
22     we were trying to do.  We were trying to make it
23     possible to do more programming in the
24     under-represented areas.  There was an explicit policy
25     objective attached to it.  I take it it's your view


 1     that this mechanism is no longer appropriate for
 2     achieving that policy objective that we set out in
 3     1994-10.
 4  10372                MR. GRANT:  I think that's true and I
 5     guess there is two points to be made about that.  One
 6     is that if you examine the applications that were filed
 7     for new licence applications in the markets where the
 8     Commission issued new licences in the last few years,
 9     which is to say Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and
10     Montreal, the financial projections filed by all of the
11     applicants failed to make any account of this
12     particular mechanism.  You can tell whether they would
13     have because it would have dropped to the bottom line
14     as a credit against -- a revenue item coming, as it
15     were, a fictional revenue item, but adjusting their
16     Canadian programming.
17  10373                So, their projected profits and
18     losses, as presented to the Commission, did not require
19     any incentive from this program.  So, for it now to be
20     claimed for those licensees, it seems to me, is
21     something of a windfall for them.  Now, there might be
22     a valid reason to allow them to have a windfall if
23     there is some real new things put on the table, but
24     most of the new licensees made very important
25     commitments to Canadian content.  They had budgeted for


 1     them, they have allowed themselves a reasonable profit. 
 2     It seems to me in those situations it's hard to argue
 3     why there should be this credit.
 4  10374                For existing stations again, those
 5     that were renewed recently, at least those renewal
 6     applications I have looked at, again did not include
 7     any reference to the LFP top-up.  They just projected
 8     their revenues and expenses in the normal way and
 9     showed a reasonable profit line.  So, again that's why
10     it looks like this top-up would be really a windfall.
11  10375                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I will now
12     leave that area.
13  10376                Let me ask you a question.  I think I
14     mentioned earlier the war of press releases here that
15     is going on and one of the early salvos was a media
16     release from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters
17     on September the 17th.  They took you to task or they
18     took the Guild to task in it.  They said that you, and
19     I quote, "called for increased regulatory burden on
20     broadcasters".  They went on to suggest that you had
21     taken the wrong focus stating, "We should focus on
22     policies that will ensure results, more viewers
23     choosing to watch quality programs."  Do you agree that
24     your recommendations are contrary to the concept of
25     more viewers watching quality Canadian programs?


 1  10377                MR. KING:  That our proposals...?
 2  10378                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Are contrary
 3     to the idea of more Canadians watching quality Canadian
 4     programs.  How do you relate your proposals to
 5     Canadians watching quality Canadian programs?
 6  10379                MR. KING:  Fundamentally, the real
 7     need is for more money to be spent on Canadian
 8     programs, particularly drama.  If you are trying to
 9     attract an audience, you need the best production value
10     as possible, the best quality of work, and that costs
11     money.  We are competing against the best-funded drama
12     in the world coming from the States, which has a market
13     ten times ours.  Therefore, if you are going to attract
14     audiences, you must spend money in order to put values
15     on the screen.  There is your Crop Study, for example,
16     which suggests that the edge that audiences seem to
17     feel on American programs are particularly around this
18     area.  So, that's a major thing that has to be dealt
19     with.
20  10380                Furthermore, if there is not space on
21     the screen, if there is not time on the screen, it's
22     very, very difficult for audiences to get to the
23     Canadian programs.  At the moment, we are at the level
24     of three, three and a half hours of Canadian
25     entertainment in prime time a week.  That's on the


 1     order of 10 or 15 per cent of the schedule.  We are
 2     suggesting that it would be reasonable to have
 3     something on the order of an hour a night.  That would
 4     be a quarter of the schedule for Canadian programming,
 5     but it would have to be at a quality that will attract
 6     audiences.
 7  10381                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  That brings
 8     us to today's press article on the subject in the Globe
 9     and Mail where it says, "CAB chides proposals made to
10     the CRTC".  You mentioned more money.  According to
11     this article, CAB now has a study from
12     PricewaterhouseCoopers that shows if your suggestions
13     are implemented, they won't have any money left or they
14     won't have any profits left.
15  10382                The article sets out two reasons for
16     this: one, they can't get as much for a commercial or
17     an advertisement for a Canadian program as they can for
18     an American program and, secondly, Canadian
19     programming, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, costs
20     a lot more to make than American programming.  So, if
21     you get your way, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers
22     and the CAB, that's it, they don't have an profits
23     left.  Have you had an opportunity to look at the
24     PricewaterhouseCoopers study?
25  10383                MR. KING:  Yes, we have and one thing


 1     we have concluded is it will take a good deal of time
 2     and careful examination to explore all the implications
 3     proposed or suggested in that and others following from
 4     it.  We do find a number of erroneous assumptions in it
 5     that exaggerate the results considerably.  We would
 6     argue with a number of things.  Well-made Canadian
 7     programs, particularly distinctively Canadian programs
 8     are in fact drawing very high advertising revenues. 
 9     "Due South", for example, has a very, very strong pull
10     for audiences.
11  10384                The advertising sold in advance on a
12     program like "Power Play" will show a profit for the
13     broadcaster.  I think it's worthwhile for us to do and
14     we would like to do a very careful examination of the
15     suggestions and particularly of the costing of what we
16     are proposing and we would like to undertake that.
17  10385                I would like to invite Peter Grant to
18     expand on that a little.
19  10386                MR. GRANT:  The Directors Guild was
20     just given a fax of that study late yesterday
21     afternoon, Commissioner McKendry --
22  10387                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  You are well
23     ahead of us.
24  10388                MR. GRANT:  -- so it would take some
25     time to analyze it, but a few points do jump out that


 1     are quite flawed.  The basic study assumes that
 2     essentially two hours of U.S. prime time drama will be
 3     displaced and replaced then by two new hours of
 4     Canadian.
 5  10389                Of course, what that fails to take
 6     into account is that it is quite logical that it will
 7     be Canadian reruns of 7, 8 and 9 that will end up being
 8     displaced, not U.S. programs, because many of the
 9     stations that would be affected by the Directors Guild
10     proposal are already required by the Commission to
11     offer six hours of 7, 8 and 9 this year, rising to
12     seven in a year or two.
13  10390                So, there will be seven hours over
14     the evening hours of 7, 8 and 9, but the problem is
15     some of it -- much of it may not be first run.  So,
16     that would be the programming, it seems to us, that
17     would be logically replaced with first run and first
18     run will always get a higher audience than rerun and it
19     won't displace any U.S. programs because those
20     broadcasters have already made room for Canadian
21     programs 7, 8 and 9 in the evening hours.
22  10391                Now, there will be readjustments of
23     the program schedule required and that's the other
24     point.  The study appears to suggest it's a flash cut
25     of impacting as if it occurred today, which means they


 1     can't readjust and cut back on already made purchases. 
 2     There is a number of factors in there that speak to
 3     that.
 4  10392                The proposal of the Guild is to phase
 5     this in over the renewal period.  This wouldn't happen
 6     for two or three years and, as a result, there is all
 7     kinds of ways that a broadcaster could use to readjust
 8     the overall spending and, in particular, the overall
 9     Canadian spending because right now, average, about 30
10     per cent of the expenditures is on Canadian, but only
11     three and a half per cent is on 7, 8 and 9.
12  10393                Increasing that to seven doesn't mean
13     that your profit drops.  It could mean that your
14     expenditures on news and sports and game shows and talk
15     shows would drop by that extra three and a half.  I
16     mean that's a factor that's not factored in.
17  10394                Then, finally -- and this I am
18     surprised at because it was very much the Directors
19     Guild idea to try and make this work for the system --
20     the Directors Guild proposal specifically says that for
21     any additional hours of distinctive drama put in prime
22     time, as proposed, they would be open to a scheduling
23     concession in day part where you would allow more U.S.
24     programming in day part, say a stripped half hour, at a
25     time of the day when less people are watching


 1     concededly, but Canadian stations right now are having
 2     to program talk shows and game shows because, in
 3     effect, they have a 65 per cent Canadian content rule
 4     in day part by the combination of the rules in quotas. 
 5                                                        1645
 6  10395                That would produce immediate revenue
 7     because there is a whole line-up of American programs
 8     that are available on the market to go in day part, but
 9     there is more time for them on broadcasters' schedules. 
10     They are now running these inexpensive, but very poorly
11     performing Canadian programs because they have to fill
12     the quota in day part.
13  10396                Well, if the incentive was, which the
14     CAB itself has proposed and the Directors Guild is
15     supporting in part, that you could for every additional
16     hour of Canadian distinctive drama put in the heart of
17     prime, you are allowed a little bit of leeway in the
18     day part.  Again, that factor would need to be taken
19     into account and it was not in this study.
20  10397                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you
21     very much.
22  10398                I want to talk to you now about some
23     of the specifics of your particular recommendations,
24     but on my way there let me just ask you a question
25     about a matter that twigged my interest when I was


 1     reading your written submission on page 21.  I take it
 2     you give substantial weight to the success of Australia
 3     and the U.K. in producing top rated domestic programs.
 4  10399                I stopped and I thought about that
 5     for a minute and let me put it to you that this could
 6     be an apples and oranges comparison.  I do have some
 7     numbers, but I won't give them to you unless you want
 8     me to.
 9  10400                It just strikes me that in Australia
10     cable penetration is extremely low.  In Britain it is
11     low and, in fact, cable is a relatively new phenomena
12     in Australia.  There is no over-the-air spillover from
13     the United States into Australia or the U.K.
14  10401                So that if we had a similar situation
15     here in Canada, where there was very low cable
16     penetration and somehow there was an electronic shield
17     at our border that kept out the spillover, we would
18     probably be more likely to be in a similar situation to
19     Australia and the U.K.  So, let me put it to you that
20     it may be an apples and oranges comparison.  Do you
21     have any comments on that?
22  10402                MR. KING:  I think there is a very
23     clear advantage to having a much bigger preponderance
24     of your own shows and your own networks in your country
25     and to have that kind of a shield.  It means your


 1     audience has grown up with a taste for its own
 2     material, it treasures its own actors and knows them
 3     well and they become characters in the life of the
 4     country.  I think it's an advantage as big as the
 5     language barrier.
 6  10403                But we have to take account of that
 7     in establishing our own cultural sovereignty, which is
 8     why indeed we are making the proposals we are making. 
 9     Even then the climate here has been such that the
10     amount of time that we are giving on our schedules to
11     Canadian entertainment and the amount of money that we
12     are paying for it to our producers by way of licence
13     fees and other income is dramatically lower than it is
14     in the other jurisdictions.  So, their situation is a
15     much easier one than ours and we have considerable
16     disadvantages coming out of it and they are still a
17     long way behind in supplying quality programs to our
18     audience.
19  10404                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Let me now
20     ask you a few questions about your "7 & 7 from 7 to 11"
21     proposal.  I take it you probably resisted the
22     temptation to call it the 7/11 proposal, which was the
23     first thing that entered my mind when I read it.
24  10405                MR. KING:  It may have played a part
25     in the creative notion.


 1  10406                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Let's talk
 2     first about the seven hour component.  How did you get
 3     to seven hours?
 4  10407                MR. KING:  It seems to me reasonable
 5     to expect an hour a night of Canadian entertainment
 6     programming.  Seven hours a week is, I would have
 7     thought, a minimum.  We haven't got it yet, but unless
 8     you have a sufficient amount of programming available
 9     to an audience it doesn't develop a taste for it.  It
10     doesn't begin to know it is that kind of quality of
11     program.  You need to have reasonable space on the
12     shelf, on the screen, in the library for the material. 
13     So that's the primary reason for it.  It raises the
14     level from 10 or 15 per cent to 25 per cent a night and
15     for the week.
16  10408                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Do I take it
17     from your oral comments, if I have recalled them
18     correctly, that you feel this is within the realm of
19     doability because the Craigs and Batons and CTV are
20     there or nearly there.  Is that correct?
21  10409                MR. KING:  I think it is.  We have no
22     wish to drive the private broadcasters into bankruptcy. 
23     We welcome their profits.  We congratulate them on
24     them.  What seems to us important is that they do their
25     share in earning the franchise that they are given and


 1     that share is to spend an amount of money, for example,
 2     comparable to that spent in other countries.
 3  10410                We think that they can afford it.  We
 4     think that it's a doable thing.  We will do some
 5     further work exploring possibilities as to how that may
 6     play out.  We think they undercut or underplay as they
 7     have for a long time what they can make from Canadian
 8     programs, particularly distinctive Canadian programming
 9     and I think the record shows that the ratings for such
10     programs have improved.  They are, for example, as I
11     understand it, markedly better than, for example,
12     Canadian industrial programs with a much lower point
13     count, 6 or 8 point programs.
14  10411                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  The 7 per
15     cent revenue contribution -- first of all, let me ask
16     you a point about something you just said.  You said
17     you have to do some or you will be doing some further
18     work.  Will that be work that will become part of the
19     record of this proceeding and your final comments on
20     the proceeding?  Is that what you are suggesting?
21  10412                MR. KING:  Yes, indeed, and we don't
22     propose to release it through the press.
23  10413                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you
24     very much because we would like to be able to have a
25     look at it.


 1  10414                The 7 per cent revenue contribution
 2     required for those seven hours.  Again, where did the 7
 3     per cent come from?  Is there any study or analysis
 4     underlying the 7 per cent or is it again in the realm
 5     of it seems reasonable under the circumstances?
 6  10415                MR. KING:  It seems to us it is
 7     reasonable.  It seems to us that rather than declining,
 8     the percentage of money going from the broadcasters
 9     should be rising rather than declining, profits have
10     been continuing to increase and for the private
11     broadcasters their market capitalization has doubled. 
12     So, it would seem that it is not just the Directors
13     Guild or the Producers Association which thinks that
14     the prospects of the broadcasters are profitable and
15     exciting.  The market says so as well.
16  10416                As to the exact number, seven, it
17     seems a useful number to work at and thus chosen.
18  10417                Did you have anything further to add
19     on that, Peter?
20  10418                MR. GRANT:  There are some
21     broadcasters that have promised more than seven in
22     English Canada.  Some broadcasters, while not at seven,
23     are getting close to it.
24  10419                So, it is an issue in which each
25     broadcaster will have a different take on it and some


 1     will be much farther behind than others, which makes
 2     it, I suppose, more difficult to apply and again I
 3     would emphasize that the Directors Guild proposal is
 4     for a bench mark, which means that it isn't an
 5     automatic regulation.  It is applied on a case-by-case
 6     basis and you would allow individual broadcasters to
 7     argue for in their own circumstances flexibility or
 8     they would be higher on one, lower on the other for a
 9     time, or they would move in transition.
10  10420                But the approach is to have this as a
11     principal bench mark that would essentially apply to
12     the private broadcast sector and set out a goal that
13     the Commission will look to in renewal hearings to seek
14     to achieve.
15  10421                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I expect or
16     suspect that the CAB would say, "Well, this is the old
17     tonnage solution again.  You have got to be thinking
18     viewers."  Where do viewers come into this?  How do you
19     factor viewers into what you are talking about here, or
20     viewership I guess to use the CAB expression?
21  10422                MR. KING:  I don't know that I have
22     ever met a film or television maker who doesn't want
23     the largest and doesn't expect the largest possible
24     audience.  It is the objective of all of us.
25  10423                I think we also realize that while


 1     money isn't the only answer to programming, it is very,
 2     very difficult to attract an audience with poor
 3     quality, underfunded work.
 4  10424                We have the difficulty, for example,
 5     in the feature film industry where we make feature
 6     films very often for less money than many people make
 7     movies of the week.  We call them feature films.  We
 8     send them to the theatre.  They are shot in less time
 9     than a movie of the week and we are surprised that they
10     have sometimes a hard time drawing audiences.
11  10425                Very clearly, the experience through
12     the industry is that if you spend money you have at
13     least the basic condition of drawing an audience.  You
14     can't buy an audience.  It is absolutely impossible to
15     buy an audience, but you have to spend money to make an
16     attractive product.
17  10426                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  You may have
18     answered my next question in your reference to the
19     bench mark, but let me clarify this.  I take it from
20     your recommendations that with respect to entertainment
21     programs that they are addressed to every English
22     language private conventional TV station regardless of
23     size.  The CFTPA, for example, I think applied it to
24     stations with revenues in excess of $10 million, but
25     perhaps you have answered the question I was going to


 1     pose as to is that fair or does that create a problem
 2     by applying it universally to all stations.
 3  10427                I think you told me earlier that this
 4     is a bench mark and you would look at each case on a
 5     separate basis.
 6  10428                MR. KING:  Yes.  I think the needs
 7     and the audience for different stations, different
 8     station groups vary.  To dogmatically push people in a
 9     direction they aren't designed to go would be foolish. 
10     So, indeed allowance can be made and special variances
11     can be made for particular circumstances.  It is a
12     guideline.  It is a bench mark.
13  10429                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  And this
14     would apply to the 7 per cent expenditures of previous
15     years' revenues and for some stations this would be a
16     big, big jump and you are prepared to look at the jump
17     in terms of phasing it in, I take it?
18  10430                MR. KING:  As was mentioned earlier,
19     it will take time in any event to phase in, to play
20     in -- yes, to impose it overnight would be a disaster. 
21     It has to be done bit by bit as people can work through
22     the experience as the renewals come up and so on.
23  10431                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Broadcasters
24     can make equity investments in programs produced by the
25     independent sector, but they can only claim the losses


 1     on these investments to account as eligible
 2     expenditures.  As a measure to encourage equity
 3     investment in Canadian production, the CAB has proposed
 4     that any investment in a Canadian program count as an
 5     eligible expense.  You seem to be against this
 6     proposal.  Could you elaborate on why such a proposal
 7     wouldn't be beneficial to the system?
 8  10432                MR. KING:  I am not sure that I have
 9     understood the question.  That equity investments
10     should be opposed?
11  10433                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Broadcasters
12     can make equity investments in programs today, but they
13     can only claim the losses on those investments as
14     eligible expenditures.  The CAB is proposing that any
15     investment, that is not just losses, would count as an
16     eligible expense and we take it that you don't agree
17     with that and we are wondering if you could elaborate
18     on that?
19  10434                MR. KING:  Peter.
20  10435                MR. GRANT:  I guess the issue is that
21     once you allow a broadcaster to treat equity towards
22     their Canadian program expenditure, unless you have
23     some means of monitoring the level of licence fees it
24     will be in its interest to convert a licence fee into
25     equity because equity there is a chance of recoupment. 


 1     Licence fees to rental payment, it is money out of
 2     pocket, it never comes back.
 3  10436                You do in fact give them credit for
 4     unrecouped equity investments, which is fair ball
 5     because in that event it was risky.  The risk didn't
 6     turn out.  They lost the money.  You are giving them
 7     full credit for that.
 8  10437                For them to include account for
 9     equity when it is recouped, I think in terms of how to
10     police it and it is so difficult to figure out whether
11     the equity is at a fair market level.  For example,
12     some equity is backed by back-up revenue guarantees or
13     priority recoupment and so it often reduces the real
14     risk of the equity and it becomes almost a loan.
15  10438                Again, you don't give credits for
16     loans unless they are unrecouped.  So, I can understand
17     why broadcasters would love to have this as a potential
18     benefit because they get credited for money that they
19     never really had to spend or they spent quickly and got
20     back quickly.
21  10439                I think it is very important if the
22     Commission wants integrity in the process to make sure
23     what they are measuring is money that went out and
24     didn't come back, so you don't have double counting of
25     it and so forth.


 1  10440                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you
 2     very much for answering my questions.  Those are the
 3     questions I have for you.
 4  10441                Thank you, Madam Chair.
 5  10442                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
 6     Pennefather.
 7  10443                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you,
 8     Madam Chair.
 9  10444                Good afternoon.
10  10445                A few very quick questions.  On page
11     38 we are talking about feature films, a minimum amount
12     on Canadian feature film and a minimum number of
13     Canadian features.  Any suggestion there?  Is it 7, 7,
14     7?  I am exaggerating, but I was wondering, the very
15     top of the page, if you had an amount, a specific
16     amount.  What do you mean by minimum amount?  Is it
17     part of the 7 and the 7?
18  10446                MR. KING:  Yes, it is.
19  10447                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  And within
20     the 7 and 7 is there a suggested proportion for
21     features?
22  10448                MR. KING:  As between features and
23     other drama, no, we have not.  They are programs --
24     they are station groups, channels that are particularly
25     focused on features.  There are others who have no


 1     interest in it.
 2  10449                We do feel that because the feature
 3     films so seriously need money that there should be 150
 4     per cent allowance for them.
 5  10450                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Yes, I
 6     have that.
 7  10451                In addition, just a quick question
 8     and I guess as you say this is the orderly marketplace
 9     way of doing things.  So, if this is out of order tell
10     me, but just in terms of promoting the feature film in
11     this country is there not a possibility it might be
12     useful to be promoting them on television early in the
13     game to build the following for them, the star system? 
14     It is just a thought or a question here.
15  10452                MR. KING:  Indeed.  There is a great
16     deal of work to be done in greater promotion for
17     feature films.  We hope that will be examined and work
18     will come out of it through the Canadian Heritage
19     examination of enhancing the feature film industry.
20  10453                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  So you are
21     flexible on that proposal?
22  10454                MR. KING:  Yes.
23  10455                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  On
24     broadcaster access to public funds, you have several
25     alternatives here.  On page 43 you speak about limited


 1     access permitting a small amount of total spending
 2     and/or scheduling commitments regarding Canadian
 3     programming to be met by self-produced publicly funded
 4     programming.
 5  10456                In the next place, however, you say
 6     restrictions on broadcaster access should be maintained
 7     and enhanced.  So I am not sure which you really feel
 8     more comfortable with?  Is it finding solutions for
 9     limited access or enhancing the restriction?
10  10457                MR. KING:  We are very strongly
11     opposed to broadcaster access to public funds and
12     getting into the production business.  It was the bane
13     of film and television 30 years ago.  It took a long
14     time to get the diversity and build up an independent
15     production capacity with the kind of diversity it has
16     now.
17  10458                Broadcasters tend to have a terrific
18     leverage and self-dealing is very, very difficult to
19     monitor to police.
20  10459                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Then the
21     Canadian Media Guild, I don't know if you noticed, made
22     two suggestions with respect to broadcaster access,
23     again looking at this as some possibilities as you were
24     proposing, assuming we might move and allow some
25     flexibility there.  The first they have was that


 1     broadcasters, private and public, be permitted to
 2     access a small percentage of the existing broadcast and
 3     cable funds, 10 to 15 per cent, which would be set
 4     aside specifically for them.
 5  10460                The Canadian Media Guild's second
 6     proposal was to establish a dedicated fund through a
 7     levy on what broadcasters spend to purchase foreign
 8     programming. perhaps 3 per cent of these costs.  Can
 9     you comment on that?
10                                                        1710
11  10461                MR. KING:  Levy on what they are
12     going to invest in production?
13  10462                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Purchase
14     of foreign programming.
15  10463                MR. KING:  It would seem to me that
16     would take money away from a place where it should be. 
17     It also seems to me that dedicating a chunk to the
18     private broadcasters to become involved in production
19     is rather like letting the camel get its nose in.  Once
20     the camel has its nose in, it tends to go all the way.
21  10464                It is very difficult to do it.  All
22     the problems of self-dealing are there.  It is very,
23     very difficult to do.
24  10465                And I don't see any advantage to it.
25  10466                Of course, any enterprise would like


 1     to own everything from the cash register in the ticket
 2     window all the way back to owning Eastman Kodak and the
 3     emulsion on which the film is photographed.  It is the
 4     objective of all enterprises to become a monopoly.
 5  10467                Generally speaking, the greater the
 6     competition, the greater the diversity and the greater
 7     the failures drop out and the successes are rewarded. 
 8     And when they become tired, they can move aside.
 9  10468                The monopolistic inclinations of
10     enterprises, it seems to me, have to be watched very
11     carefully if you are going to have a healthy culture, a
12     healthy industry and a healthy system.
13  10469                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you
14     for those comments.
15  10470                Thank you, Madam Chair.
16  10471                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Counsel?
17  10472                MR. BLAIS:  Thank you.
18  10473                We were talking yesterday or the day
19     before about parallel universes.  I understand that the
20     CAB, in light of the exchanges that are occurring out
21     there somewhere, will be filing its report.
22  10474                Considering the discussion earlier,
23     you are suggesting that you will have a reply or a
24     surreply -- I am not sure at which stage we are at at
25     this point.


 1  10475                Would it be possible for you to file
 2     that by the 15th of October?
 3  10476                MR. GRANT:  This is the response to
 4     the CAB expert report?
 5  10477                MR. BLAIS:  That is correct.
 6  10478                MR. GRANT:  I think that would be
 7     possible, yes.
 8  10479                MR. BLAIS:  I have been using the
 9     15th of October throughout as probably a pretty good
10     indication that the Commission would expect -- and
11     perhaps other parties should be aware -- that the
12     factual record would be pretty much finished by then. 
13     So everyone has a fair chance to --
14  10480                MR. GRANT:  We will meet that
15     deadline.
16  10481                MR. BLAIS:  Thank you.
17  10482                Your recommendation no. 7 is:
18                            "A relaxation of Canadian
19                            scheduling requirements in
20                            day-time can be considered for
21                            broadcasters who increase the
22                            amount of first-run
23                            under-represented programming
24                            shown in peak hours."
25  10483                Could you be a bit more specific as


 1     to what you actually mean?  And how different is this
 2     from the CAB's proposal, at 250 percent credit?
 3  10484                MR. GRANT:  The concept is very
 4     similar to the CAB proposal.  I think the difference
 5     would probably simply be in the amount of credit that
 6     would be given.
 7  10485                My recollection is that the CAB would
 8     like that an additional half hour in prime of
 9     distinctive Canadian would trigger an ability to run a
10     half hour across Monday to Friday of a U.S. strip.
11  10486                I think the Guild would want that
12     level to be higher in prime.  Maybe an hour would
13     generate a half hour strip.
14  10487                That is the kind of issue that is
15     uniquely for the Commission to weigh.  You would have
16     to take into account what would be the impact on day
17     part for each additional incremental hour that you add
18     in prime.
19  10488                But the idea is a good one.  The
20     Guild thought that that proposal made a lot of sense. 
21     It allows broadcasters to increase their revenue
22     significantly in day part because of the problems of
23     their scheduling quota right now, and that will
24     contribute a bit to the costs that will be involved in
25     adding prime time Canadian drama.


 1  10489                MR. BLAIS:  I appreciate that the
 2     Commission has to weigh things.  But it needs something
 3     to weigh against.
 4  10490                You are saying perhaps an hour.  Is
 5     it an hour or is it an hour and a half?
 6  10491                MR. GRANT:  I think the thought was
 7     that an hour in prime, or the heart of prime, would
 8     trigger a half hour Monday through Friday, in day part.
 9  10492                MR. BLAIS:  Thank you.  Those are my
10     questions, Madam Chair.
11  10493                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr.
12     Brand, Mr. King and Mr. Grant.
13  10494                We will take a five-minute break and
14     then hear SPACQ.  We will start in the morning with
15     Shaw, because of lack of time.
16  10495                We hope that that is not
17     inconveniencing people beyond being courteous.  But
18     that is the reality.  It will be 5:20 by the time we
19     resume, and we will be unable to hear two more parties
20     in the remaining time.
21  10496                We will start with Shaw at 9 o'clock
22     tomorrow morning and hear SPACQ in the rest of the
23     allotted time.
24  10497                We will be back in five minutes.
25     --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1715


 1     --- Reprise à / Upon resuming at 1720
 2  10498                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Madame la Secrétaire,
 3     s'il vous plaît.
 4  10499                Mme BÉNARD:  Merci, madame la
 5     Présidente.
 6  10500                La prochaine présentation sera faite
 7     par la Société professionnelle des auteurs et des
 8     compositeurs du Québec, M. Bertrand et Mme Bertrand-
 9     Venne.
10  10501                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Bonjour,
11     Madame Bertrand-Venne, Monsieur Bertrand.
13  10502                M. BERTRAND:  Je voudrais commencer
14     par un préambule:  rappeler aux gens qu'on fête cette
15     année le 50e anniversaire de la Déclaration universelle
16     des droits de l'homme, et rappeler aussi que le droit
17     d'auteur est un de ces droits humains reconnus par
18     l'ONU. C'est un droit reconnu à une personne physique
19     et non à une personne morale.  Notre intervention
20     s'inscrit donc dans cet esprit.  Nous souhaitons
21     vivement que le droit d'auteur continue à être
22     considéré comme un droit humain dans l'avenir.
23  10503                Maintenant, en bref, pour vous dire
24     un peu qui nous sommes, la SPACQ, c'est la Société
25     professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du


 1     Québec.  La SPACQ représente les auteurs de chansons et
 2     compositeurs de musique québécois, y compris les
 3     compositeurs de musique de commande.
 4  10504                La SPACQ est un organisme accrédité
 5     par la Loi sur le statut de l'artiste, tant au fédéral
 6     qu'au provincial.
 7  10505                D'abord, qu'est-ce qu'un auteur ou un
 8     compositeur?  C'est un créateur.  Un créateur, c'est
 9     quelqu'un qui a le rare talent de pouvoir inventer
10     quelque chose à partir de rien.  Un créateur et son
11     oeuvre sont au sommet de la pyramide, la source, la
12     matière première, dont tout le reste dépend et découle. 
13     Sans le créateur, pas de chansons, pas
14     d'artistes-interprètes, pas de spectacles télévisés,
15     pas d'émissions de variétés, pas de scénarios, pas de
16     réalisateurs, pas de films ou de téléséries, pas de
17     trames sonores, pas de public, pas de télévision, pas
18     d'industrie culturelle, pas de société distincte,
19     fut-elle québécoise ou canadienne.
20  10506                Sans auteur, il n'y a pas de
21     ministère du Patrimoine, pas de CRTC, pas de Téléfilm,
22     pas de Fonds des câblodistributeurs.  Il n'y a pas non
23     plus de télédiffuseurs ou de producteurs, et nous ne
24     sommes pas ici en ce moment à discuter de la politique
25     générale du CRTC sur la programmation de la télévision


 1     ou de définition à donner à l'expression "émission
 2     canadienne", puisqu'il n'y a plus de contenu dont on
 3     puisse parler.
 4  10507                Le créateur est sur la ligne de
 5     front. C'est le créateur, et lui seul, qui sait comment
 6     reconstruire quotidiennement la fragile digue
 7     culturelle sans cesse menacée par la force considérable
 8     de la présence étrangère.  C'est au créateur, et à lui
 9     seul, qu'on se fie et à qui on demande de faire ce
10     boulet.
11  10508                Le créateur crée de la richesse pour
12     tout le monde dans son sillage:  de la richesse
13     économique, bien sûr, mais aussi, et surtout peut-être,
14     de la richesse de coeur, d'âme, et d'émotions. 
15     Autrement dit, c'est le créateur qui crée la diversité,
16     la richesse et la différence culturelle de ce pays.
17  10509                Il est important de rappeler que les
18     télédiffuseurs ne sont pas propriétaires des ondes. 
19     Les ondes appartiennent au pays et aux citoyens; donc,
20     à vous et à nous.  C'est donc un privilège que les
21     citoyens canadiens octroient aux détenteurs de licences
22     par le biais du CRTC.
23  10510                La télévision est considérée comme
24     une industrie culturelle, et profite donc directement
25     de l'exception culturelle négociée dans l'ALÉNA.  La


 1     propriété des postes de télévision et obligatoirement
 2     canadienne, par exemple.
 3  10511                Les télédiffuseurs opèrent donc dans
 4     un marché protégé par les lois du pays.  Ce n'est pas
 5     du tout le cas des créateurs québécois et canadiens
 6     qui, eux, ne bénéficient d'aucune protection, et dont
 7     les oeuvres sont en compétition directe et quotidienne
 8     avec des créations provenant du monde entier.
 9  10512                La Loi de la radiodiffusion, destinée
10     à assurer la présence d'un environnement culturel
11     canadien sur le territoire national, a très bien servi
12     l'intérêt des Canadiens en général, et en particulier
13     celui des télédiffuseurs.  Ces privilèges accordés aux
14     entreprises entraînent des devoirs et des
15     responsabilités envers les citoyens canadiens.
16  10513                On ne peut pas, d'une part, plaider
17     qu'on est une industrie culturelle quand il s'agit de
18     jouir des avantages certains qui y sont associés, et
19     d'autre part continuellement exiger de fonctionner sans
20     contraintes, comme une entreprise régulière.
21  10514                Les télédiffuseurs doivent se
22     comporter en bons citoyens corporatifs et défendre la
23     culture de ce pays, sous peine de perdre leur licence
24     et leur statut d'industrie culturelle protégée par
25     l'ALÉNA.  D'autres intervenants seraient très heureux


 1     de prendre leur place et souscrire à toutes les
 2     conditions que le CRTC voudrait leur imposer.
 3  10515                Imaginons un instant qu'on abolisse
 4     totalement les quotas de contenu canadien.  En moins de
 5     deux, les télédiffuseurs se donnent une programmation
 6     semblable à celle des Américains.  En moins de deux
 7     aussi, ils perdent toute identité propre et sont
 8     emportés dans la tourmente, incapables de se démarquer
 9     par la différence de leur contenu.
10  10516                En ce qui concerne les exigences de
11     contenu canadien et francophone, nous pensons qu'ils
12     devraient plutôt être définis en fonction de la place
13     qu'on décidera d'accorder aux productions étrangères
14     sur nos écrans.  Il nous semble moins humiliant, plus
15     juste et plus élégant, de définir plutôt l'espace que
16     nous allons décider d'accorder aux étrangers qui
17     veulent venir chez nous.
18  10517                En ce qui concerne la politique du
19     CRTC dans le domaine de la chanson francophone, nous
20     vous faisons remarquer que la chanson canadienne
21     d'expression française ne se retrouve pas dans les
22     critères actuels, ce qui fait qu'un poste de télévision
23     francophone pourrait s'acquitter de ses devoirs et
24     responsabilités et remplir tous les critères du CRTC en 
25     ne faisant pourtant jouer aucune chanson canadienne


 1     d'expression française.  Il faut que le CRTC remédie à
 2     cette situation, car il en va de la bonne santé de
 3     l'industrie de l'enregistrement sonore et de tout le
 4     star système québécois.
 5  10518                Année après année, les télédiffuseurs
 6     francophones diminuent le déjà très maigre espace
 7     consacré à la chanson, surtout dans les grandes heures
 8     d'écoute.  Probablement pour la première fois dans
 9     l'histoire de la télévision québécoise, aucune longue
10     série régulière de Catégorie 8 n'a été diffusée à la
11     télévision hertzienne pendant la majeure partie de
12     1997-98.
13  10519                Il n'y a qu'une série d'autre
14     catégorie que 8 qui soit principalement consacrée à la
15     chanson, une émission qui s'appelle "Moi ma chanson",
16     mais comme il s'agit d'une série composée de très
17     courts épisodes d'une minute chacun, sa durée annuelle
18     de diffusion est de moins de 30 minutes.  Bien sûr, une
19     année ne fait pas une tendance lourde, mais tous les
20     indicateurs statistiques confirment que 1997-98
21     constitue un creux de vague historique en ce qui a
22     trait à la présence de la chanson à la télévision
23     francophone.  Il en résulte donc une érosion de plus en
24     plus critique de notre fragile autonomie culturelle et
25     de notre souveraineté nationale.


 1  10520                Nous pensons par ailleurs qu'il est
 2     grand temps que les "radios visuelles", que sont
 3     MusiquePlus, Musimax, MuchMusic et compagnies, soient
 4     soumises aux mêmes règles et critères que les radios
 5     commerciales.  Actuellement, les exigences de contenu
 6     canadien et de contenu francophone sont respectivement
 7     de 30 pour cent et 35 pour cent pour MusiquePlus, de 30
 8     et 20 pour cent pour Musimax.
 9  10521                Ces "radios visuelles" ont l'avantage
10     non négligeable de ne pas souffrir de la concurrence
11     directe de chaînes américaines, comme MTV ou VH-1, sur
12     le territoire canadien.  Ce privilège leur est accordé
13     pour qu'elles puissent mettre en valeur et promouvoir
14     des oeuvres canadiennes.  En fait, à cause des quotas
15     trop bas les régissant, la programmation est avant tout
16     composée d'oeuvres et d'artistes provenant de
17     l'étranger.
18  10522                Il y a une synergie, une imbrication,
19     une interdépendance, qui lient inexorablement entre eux
20     télédiffuseurs, radiodiffuseurs, journaux, interprètes,
21     auteurs, compositeurs, producteurs, éditeurs,
22     diffuseurs, propriétaires de salles de spectacles,
23     distributeurs, détaillants de disques, et j'en passe.
24  10523                La diminution de la présence de la
25     chanson sur les écrans de télévision a un effet domino


 1     dévastateur sur toute la chaîne des intervenants
 2     économiques qui vivent de la chanson, y compris les
 3     télédiffuseurs eux mêmes, car plus le vedettariat
 4     artistique est développé, plus cela profite à toutes
 5     les composantes.  Le contraire est hélas tout aussi
 6     vrai.
 7  10524                La véritable bataille n'est pas entre
 8     l'industrie de la télévision ou entre l'industrie de la
 9     musique canadienne.  Le véritable danger, l'ennemi, il
10     se trouve au sud de la frontière.  Nous sommes les
11     voisins du pays le plus riche et le plus puissant du
12     monde, et ce voisin comprend parfaitement bien, lui, et
13     depuis longtemps, la formidable arme psychologique,
14     économique et sociale que représente la culture,
15     véritable cheval de Troie moderne.
16  10525                Déjà, avec le libre-échange, ça a
17     tout pris pour qu'on puisse introduire une exception
18     culturelle dans le contrat et, depuis, les Américains
19     ne cessent d'essayer de faire sauter ces exceptions par
20     tous les moyens et dans tous les pays.  Ils ont d'abord
21     essayé lors de la négociation de l'accord du
22     libre-échange nord-américain, l'ALÉNA, puis par le
23     biais du GATT, ensuite via l'Organisation mondiale du
24     commerce, l'OMC, et ils reviennent maintenant à la
25     charge avec l'Accord multilatéral sur les


 1     investissements, l'AMI.
 2  10526                Nous sommes donc assiégés, en
 3     perpétuel danger d'assimilation culturelle, et, comme
 4     tous les pays du monde, menacés de disparition en tant
 5     que société et entité politique autonome.
 6  10527                C'est dans ce contexte qu'il faut
 7     comprendre et analyser la situation, et imposer
 8     courageusement les correctifs qui s'imposent.  Nous
 9     devons donc nous serrer les coudes et tout mettre en
10     oeuvre pour augmenter notre indépendance culturelle, en
11     augmentant le contenu culturel canadien sur nos ondes. 
12     C'est dans notre intérêt à tous.  Il faut réaffirmer
13     l'importance de la diversité culturelle, et le droit à
14     la différence de tous les pays du monde.
15  10528                On parle de contenu, de propriété
16     intellectuelle, de territorialité des droits, et nous
17     espérons vivement que vous n'oublierez pas les
18     créateurs de contenu, les industries culturelles, dans
19     vos prières.
20  10529                Nous tenons à vous rappeler que c'est
21     pour cela que le CRTC existe: pour créer et défendre un
22     espace culturel canadien sur le territoire canadien.
23  10530                Merci de votre attention.
24  10531                J'aimerais céder la parole à ma
25     directrice générale, Francine Bertrand-Venne.


 1  10532                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  J'aimerais aussi
 2     souligner que les membres de la SPACQ sont aussi... il
 3     n'y a pas que la chanson, mais il y a les compositeurs
 4     de la musique originale, des oeuvres audiovisuelles,
 5     que vous retrouvez à la télévision.
 6  10533                Nous avons été accrédités en vertu de
 7     la Loi canadienne sur le statut de l'artiste, qui nous
 8     permet de négocier les conditions de la prestation de
 9     services de la composition de l'oeuvre originale
10     musicale dans tout programme de télévision.  De plus,
11     nous sommes à négocier en vertu de la Loi québécoise
12     provinciale avec l'APFTQ, les producteurs indépendants.
13  10534                Je voulais que vous sachiez que nous
14     sommes tout à fait pertinents de finalement nous
15     préoccuper de l'utilisation de l'oeuvre musicale et de
16     sa création dans la télévision.  Il y a donc tout le
17     volet des programmes de télévision qui nous préoccupe.
18  10535                Je voudrais aussi vous
19     sensibiliser... évidemment ici les gens se présentent
20     pour parler d'affaires, des plans d'affaires, et nous
21     sommes ici pour vous dire, oui, nous sommes ici pour
22     discuter de culture et de sa survie, mais nous sommes
23     ici pour vous dire est-ce que les créateurs de ce pays
24     peuvent vivre de cette merveilleuse industrie
25     télévisuelle?


 1  10536                Les créateurs vivent de deux choses:
 2     de la prestation de services, quand un producteur
 3     commande une oeuvre, qu'il soit diffuseur-production
 4     public ou privé, ou qu'il producteur privé, il commande
 5     à un auteur-compositeur une oeuvre originale pour son
 6     film ou son programme de télévision.  Ça contribue à
 7     faire, pour ce producteur, un produit qui est
 8     commercialisable.  Il s'agit de savoir ici est-ce que
 9     ces gens sont suffisamment respectés, est-ce qu'ils
10     sont suffisamment rémunérés, est-ce qu'ils profitent de
11     l'essor de cette industrie?
12  10537                J'aimerais vous sensibiliser au fait
13     que la production privée versus la production publique,
14     bien, vous ne serez pas étonnés que demain il y a une
15     première historique:  la SPACQ est la seule association
16     de créateurs musicaux au Canada de s'être prévalue de
17     la loi canadienne, et donc nous signerons demain notre
18     première entente collective avec Radio-Canada, dans les
19     bureaux de Radio-Canada à Montréal, et c'est tout à
20     l'honneur de notre diffuseur public de l'avoir fait en
21     quatre mois, dans une négociation soutenue, et d'avoir
22     respecté intégralement le droit d'auteur.
23  10538                Comme diffuseurs, ils n'ont jamais
24     demandé d'abaissement de paiements, ni à la SOCAN, ni à
25     la SODRAC, qui gèrent le droit de reproduction des


 1     oeuvres musicales québécoises, en général.
 2  10539                C'est très important ce que je vous
 3     dis.  Je ne veux pas faire ici d'éloge outre mesure. Il
 4     y a des problématiques qui se regroupent sur l'ensemble
 5     des diffuseurs et de la production, quant au quota,
 6     quant au pourcentage attribuable, par exemple, aux
 7     dramatiques par rapport aux variétés.
 8  10540                J'aimerais suggérer, dans cet état
 9     d'esprit, que le 150 pour cent qui est attribuable à
10     des téléséries, par exemple, en dramatiques, soit
11     attribuable à des émissions de variétés, parce que la
12     chanson est un parent pauvre de la télévision, et on a
13     noté que le compositeur de l'oeuvre originale d'un
14     programme de télévision reçoit ou accorde au producteur
15     un pourcentage, un point, de contenu canadien, tandis
16     que dans la variété, c'est l'artiste-interprète qui
17     obtient le point, ou qui octroie le point au
18     producteur.  Ce qui veut donc dire qu'on encourage un
19     artiste-interprète.
20  10541                Ça va bien quand un
21     artiste-interprète peut chanter ses propres oeuvres, sa
22     propre création, mais il arrive souvent qu'un
23     artiste-interprète, et on le sait, dans les postes
24     privés au Québec, on incite l'artiste-interprète
25     souvent à jouer du répertoire étranger.  Nos amis du


 1     CAB l'ont dit lors des audiences de la radio, "Canadian
 2     music is no good", et la musique francophone fait fuir
 3     les auditeurs francophones des stations francophones.
 4  10542                Nous sommes ici pour vous dire rien
 5     n'est moins vrai.  Vous avez vu de grandes compagnies
 6     de producteurs privés qui s'enorgueillissent d'avoir
 7     créer du contenu canadien.  Il y a définitivement de
 8     grandes affaires qui se font actuellement au Canada,
 9     nous en sommes très fiers, mais je crois que tout ça
10     est parti d'un diffuseur public qui a eu l'obligation
11     de faire du contenu canadien à l'origine et qui, au
12     Québec, assurément, a créé une habitude d'écoute chez
13     les Québécois qui fait en sorte que cette habitude
14     d'écoute profite grandement et aux diffuseurs privés et
15     aux producteurs privés.
16  10543                Quand on crée une habitude... je
17     viens d'entendre nos collègues canadiens-anglais, les
18     réalisateurs.  Je constate que les problématiques ne
19     sont pas les mêmes au Canada anglais, mais chez nous au
20     Canada français, les Québécois écoutent majoritairement
21     la télé francophone, produite par des gens d'ici, par
22     des gens du Québec, et c'est beaucoup grâce à
23     Radio-Canada qui, en respectant les créateurs... et je
24     pense ici pas seulement aux musiques, mais aux
25     réalisateurs, aux scénaristes, qui ont créé une


 1     télévision qui soit bien québécoise, qui soit bien
 2     fréquentée par les gens de notre pays.
 3  10544                Donc, en quelque part c'est important
 4     que vous considériez que nos amis les producteurs,
 5     diffuseurs privés, je crois que la SOCAN va comparer
 6     devant vous, ont obtenu des grands rabais de paiements
 7     de droits d'auteur, et je vous dis bien franchement que
 8     c'est important que vous soyez conscients de toutes ces
 9     problématiques pour le créateur, parce que...
10  10545                Mme BÉNARD:  Madame Bertrand-Venne,
11     est-ce que vous pourriez résumer, s'il vous plaît?
12  10546                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  C'est tout.
13  10547                Je cède la parole aux commissaires.
14  10548                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Madame
15     Bertrand-Venne, les problèmes que vous venez de
16     souligner sont des problèmes de droits, mais qui
17     évidemment s'insèrent dans toute la thématique
18     télévisuelle aussi.
19  10549                Votre inquiétude principale que vous
20     voulez nous apporter dans le contexte de cette audience
21     est l'absence de programmes variétés à la télévision,
22     ou au moins une baisse.  J'ai lu la soumission de
23     l'ADISQ, et caetera. Est-ce qu'il y a, à votre avis...
24     et vous avez fait sans doute une recherche à laquelle
25     je pense on se réfère dans un autre contexte pour


 1     examiner l'absence ou la baisse des programmes variétés
 2     à la télévision.
 3  10550                Rappelez-moi quel est le cheminement
 4     ou le changement, ou la baisse, de cette catégorie.  À
 5     votre avis, on y arrivait mieux déjà.
 6  10551                M. BERTRAND:  Oui.  Je n'ai pas
 7     l'étude avec moi, mais...
 8  10552                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais à peu près?
 9  10553                M. BERTRAND:  ... je sais qu'en
10     quatre-vingt...
11  10554                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Une baisse de
12     80 pour cent.
13  10555                M. BERTRAND:  Oui.  C'est énorme
14     comme baisse.
15  10556                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Depuis quand?
16  10557                M. BERTRAND:  Depuis 1994 ça a
17     diminué.
18  10558                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Dans une période de
19     quatre ans.
20  10559                M. BERTRAND:  Oui.
21  10560                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  À quoi attribuez-vous
22     cette baisse?  Est-ce que c'est l'oeuf et la poule, ou
23     est-ce qu'il y a un contexte spécifique, ou est-ce que
24     c'est la façon qu'on attribue les fonds, ou...
25  10561                Si je me souviens bien, l'ADISQ


 1     suggère que ce sont nos définitions qui sont un
 2     problème et qu'elles devraient être... je pourrais en
 3     discuter avec eux, mais vous avez sans doute lu leur
 4     soumission?
 5  10562                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  C'est que nous,
 6     la façon dont on voit ça c'est que les incitatifs du
 7     CRTC qui ont été donnés aux dramatiques n'ont pas été
 8     donnés à la variété.  C'est un peu dans ce sens-là.
 9     Quand on lu que 150 pour cent était attribuable à des
10     dramatiques, on ne retrouve pas ça du côté des
11     émissions de variétés, "variétés" étant compris comme
12     de l'exécution publique... enfin, entendre des artistes
13     chanter.
14  10563                Vous savez, les producteurs parlent
15     beaucoup de la culture mais ne la pratiquent plus, et
16     ça aussi c'est une grande constatation qu'on a faite.
17  10564                Le CRTC peut nous aider en ce sens
18     qu'il peut affecter et finalement créer des incitatifs
19     pour qu'il y ait de la production dans ce secteur.
20  10565                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et vous croyez que
21     c'est surtout ça qui a encouragé les télédiffuseurs
22     à...
23  10566                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Ça ne va
24     certainement pas nuire.  Il y a toute une
25     problématique; évidemment ils vont nous objecter la


 1     rentabilité.  Ce sont des hommes d'affaires.  Ils
 2     pensent à 50 choses et ils décident, eux, ce qui est à
 3     la mode.  Ils ont quand même de grandes libertés. Ils
 4     ont des préoccupations économiques, et c'est sûr qu'ils
 5     ont leur façon de voir les choses, mais on espère que
 6     dans un univers réglementé...  c'est justement pour ça
 7     qu'on se présente devant vous.  C'est qu'on s'attend
 8     que tous les éléments du système puissent profiter de
 9     la radiodiffusion, et en télévision, il faudrait bien
10     que ce soit aussi la chanson qui soit présente, ou
11     enfin que la musique populaire soit plus présente sur
12     nos ondes.
13  10567                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ça inclut la musique
14     aussi.  Ce n'est pas seulement... un programme de
15     variétés pourrait inclure la musique aussi.
16  10568                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Absolument.
17  10569                M. BERTRAND:  Oui.  La musique
18     instrumentale aussi.
19  10570                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Est-ce que ça
20     inclurait des programmes dont on parle du côté Canada
21     anglais ou télévision de langue anglaise, des
22     programmes qui visent à projeter des personnalités, des
23     stars, et caetera, à votre avis?
24  10571                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Mais
25     certainement.


 1  10572                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  En même temps.
 2  10573                M. BERTRAND:  Oui.
 3  10574                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  C'est indéniable.
 4  10575                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Même si ça n'incluait
 5     pas la composante musique.  Même si c'était simplement
 6     un genre interview, mais dans le genre
 7     divertissement...
 8  10576                M. BERTRAND:  Ça, on en a eu
 9     beaucoup.  On en a, de ça, mais ce n'est pas... ce sont
10     des émissions où on met en valeur le vedettariat, le
11     star system.  On s'intéresse...
12  10577                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Plutôt que la
13     chanson.
14  10578                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Voilà.
15  10579                M. BERTRAND:  Oui.  On s'intéresse à
16     l'individu plutôt qu'à l'oeuvre, et nous, on est une
17     association de créateurs, donc ce qu'on veut c'est que
18     la chanson soit entendue à la télévision et qu'il y ait
19     un engouement qui fasse que ça fasse boule de neige et
20     que ça puisse avoir des répercussions dans le domaine
21     du spectacle vivant aussi, parce que, parce qu'il n'y a
22     plus d'émissions de télévision traditionnelles comme il
23     y en a eues à une autre époque...
24  10580                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ça ne mousse pas
25     l'industrie.


 1  10581                M. BERTRAND:  ... ça a des
 2     implications sur toute la chaîne au complet, et donc ce
 3     serait important que les télévisions fassent leur
 4     effort.
 5  10582                Ce que je disais dans le mémoire
 6     aussi est que ça va servir... tout le monde est prêt à
 7     faire le jeu, et c'est un problème.  Évidemment ça
 8     coûte cher, faire des émissions de variétés, avec des
 9     musiciens, des équipes.  Il faut peut-être renouveler
10     la formule aussi.
11  10583                Peut-être que le CRTC pourrait
12     trouver une façon, entre autres, en augmentant la
13     valeur du pointage pour l'oeuvre ou le contenu de la
14     chanson par rapport aux oeuvres dramatiques.  Si les
15     points qui étaient accordés pour le contenu canadien
16     étaient plus élevés, ce serait déjà une façon de
17     contribuer, votre façon de contribuer.
18  10584                Il faudrait peut-être penser aussi à
19     des façons de trouver du financement.  Peut-être qu'on
20     n'est pas au bon forum, mais il y a des argents, des
21     banques culturelles peut-être qu'il faudrait qu'il y
22     ait des enveloppes qui soient obligatoirement dépensées
23     dans un domaine de variétés de chansons.
24  10585                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Est-ce que ce sont
25     des incitatifs qui ont été discutés dans le projet...


 1  10586                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Le groupe de
 2     travail de la chanson, vous voulez dire?
 3  10587                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui. Est-ce qu'il y a
 4     d'autres incitatifs qui ont été discutés au Québec,
 5     dans le contexte assez récent, d'examiner toute cette
 6     problématique?
 7  10588                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Ça a été ciblé
 8     comme un des grands problèmes, en tout cas.
 9  10589                M. BERTRAND:  Oui.  On siège en ce
10     moment...
11  10590                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  C'est encore...
12  10591                M. BERTRAND:  On est sur le point de
13     rédiger le rapport final, mais c'est sûrement une des..
14     enfin, tout le monde est d'accord pour dire qu'il y a
15     un problème.  Les télédiffuseurs eux mêmes sentent
16     qu'il y a quelque chose d'anormal. Ils voudraient eux
17     aussi qu'on revienne à une formule où la chanson serait
18     plus présente.
19  10592                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Où ça existe.
20  10593                Est-ce que le fait qu'il y a
21     maintenant des chaînes spécialisées qui font des vidéos
22     24 heures par jour remplace un peu ce genre de
23     programmes, ou...
24  10594                Je vois que vous suggérez que leurs
25     exigences au niveau de la programmation canadienne des


 1     dépenses soient plus élevées.
 2  10595                M. BERTRAND:  Surtout la
 3     programmation comme telle.  La quantité d'oeuvres
 4     canadiennes et québécoises ou, enfin, d'expression
 5     française, soit plus élevée, parce qu'en ce moment ils
 6     jouent, grosso modo, peut-être 15 pour cent de leur
 7     programmation et de la chanson canadienne d'expression
 8     française.  Pour le reste, c'est de la musique
 9     étrangère.  Donc, c'est une très très faible vitrine
10     par rapport à ce qu'on a réussi à obtenir en radio, par
11     exemple.
12  10596                À mon point de vue, et d'après nous,
13     c'est une radio visuelle, que MusiquePlus ou Musimax,
14     donc ils devraient être tenus aux mêmes règles, ou ça
15     devrait se rapprocher de façon beaucoup plus
16     significative des exigences de contenu auxquelles les
17     radios sont déjà tenues.  Je pense que ça aiderait
18     beaucoup.
19  10597                Par exemple, il y a une émission qui
20     s'appelle "Fax 57".  C'est toujours, toujours, la
21     promotion des artistes américains ou étrangers, ou à
22     peu près, presqu'exclusivement. À un moment donné, ça a
23     un effet d'entraînement. C'est du non-dit, c'est
24     subliminal, mais les gens s'identifient à tout ce qui
25     vient d'ailleurs plutôt qu'à ce qui vient d'ici, et la


 1     culture d'ici devient parent pauvre par rapport à ce
 2     qui vient d'ailleurs.  Nul n'est prophète dans son
 3     pays, et c'est la preuve qui est en train de se faire
 4     jour après jours à travers la façon de procéder de
 5     MusiquePlus et de Musimax.
 6  10598                Je pense qu'ils ont un rôle important
 7     à jouer, surtout auprès du jeune public, et c'est le
 8     jeune public qui va être le public adulte de demain. 
 9     Pour le moment, on n'est pas assez présent, d'après
10     nous, dans cette forme de télévision, qui forme
11     l'écoute et le public de demain pour la chanson de
12     demain.
13  10599                Je pense que MusiquePlus ou les
14     radios spécialisées, ce que j'appelle les radios
15     visuelles...on devrait revoir leur mandat et être
16     beaucoup plus exigeant dans le travail qu'ils ont à
17     faire.
18  10600                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais généralement
19     aussi, je suppose que ces vidéo clips très courts ne
20     sont pas exactement le genre de programmation que vous
21     envisagez quand vous parlez de programmation de
22     variétés.
23  10601                M. BERTRAND:  Non.
24  10602                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  C'est autre chose.
25  10603                M. BERTRAND:  Il y a un autre


 1     problème.  Je pense que les télédiffuseurs
 2     traditionnels se disent, on n'a pas besoin de faire ça
 3     maintenant, parce que MusiquePlus le fait, Musimax le
 4     fait, on n'a plus ce mandat-là à soutenir.  Mais dans
 5     les faits, voir un artiste en vidéo clip jour après
 6     jour, c'est une façon de faire une promotion, mais ça
 7     ne vend pas le spectacle sur scène, ça ne donne pas le
 8     contact privilégié qu'on peut avoir avec un artiste
 9     quand il y a une interview, quand on le voit jouer de
10     la guitare, quand il raconte sa vie, quand il raconte
11     comment il a écrit ses chansons.
12  10604                Il y a moyen d'avoir des interactions
13     dans une émission de variétés.  Par exemple, l'auteur
14     de la chanson qui vient chanter avec l'interprète que
15     tout le monde a entendu à la radio.  Il faut trouver
16     des façons d'interaction et une façon de présenter les
17     chansons et ceux qui les font de façon à ce que ça
18     devienne intéressant, et qu'on apprenne des choses
19     nouvelles, mais à travers la chanson et non pas à
20     travers des émissions où c'est des quiz et la chanson
21     sert de faire valoir un quiz.  C'est plutôt le
22     contraire qui doit se faire maintenant.  C'est de
23     mettre la chanson en évidence, la chanson en vedette,
24     et les artistes et les créateurs qui la font aussi
25     soient remis à la place qui leur revient.


 1  10605                Je pense que c'est vers ça que les
 2     télédiffuseurs devraient... et je pense que tout le
 3     monde veut le faire.  Je pense qu'il y a de la bonne
 4     volonté de toute... j'ai bon espoir que c'est vrai, que
 5     les gens veulent faire plus de variétés à la
 6     télévision.  Il s'agit de trouver les moyens, et les
 7     encouragements nécessaires, et peut-être que justement
 8     le pointage augmenté que vous...
 9  10606                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ce serait un
10     incitatif.
11  10607                M. BERTRAND:  Ça pourrait aider, je
12     pense.
13  10608                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Et de le
14     rapporter à l'auteur-compositeur de la chanson...
15  10609                M. BERTRAND:  Oui, au contenu.
16  10610                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  ... et pas
17     seulement à l'artiste-interprète.
18  10611                M. BERTRAND:  Encore là, je pense
19     que...
20  10612                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  C'est un critère
21     qu'on a en radio, ça.
22  10613                M. BERTRAND:  Oui.  En général, on
23     pense que le critère fondamental qui fait que l'oeuvre
24     est canadienne, ou que le produit, si on veut employer
25     des termes de l'industrie, que le produit est canadien,


 1     c'est d'avoir avant tout le contenu, donc, la création
 2     comme telle -- l'auteur, le scénariste, dépendant du
 3     domaine dont on parle; l'auteur, le compositeur, le
 4     scénariste, le réalisateur -- ce sont les éléments
 5     créateurs qui font que l'oeuvre est canadienne. Donc,
 6     ça devrait être privilégié, à plus forte raison dans le
 7     domaine de la chanson parce que là, carrément, c'est le
 8     point principal qui fait que la chanson est canadienne. 
 9     Ça devrait être considéré comme étant la composition,
10     comme ça l'est, comme disait Francine Bertrand-Venne,
11     en radio.
12  10614                Le critère est reconnu en radio; il
13     devrait l'être aussi en télévision pour la chanson.
14  10615                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  C'est intéressant de
15     voir... je ne me souviens plus où, mais dernièrement
16     j'ai vu un de ces anciens programmes variétés avec
17     Félix Leclerc, et je pense Jacques Normand.
18  10616                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Oui, probablement
19     lors du décès de Jacques Normand...
20  10617                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  C'est vrai qu'on
21     manque ça.  Ce ne serait pas la même chose, parce que
22     ce sont des artistes différents, mais quand même
23     c'était...
24  10618                M. BERTRAND:  Et vous avez
25     probablement vu cette émission-là à Canal D ou à une


 1     série spécialisée.
 2  10619                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Pas Canal D, parce
 3     que je ne le reçois pas, mais de toute façon j'ai vu ça
 4     à la télévision.  Ça m'a attiré.
 5  10620                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Je voudrais aussi
 6     attirer votre attention que quand on relègue la chanson
 7     à des stations spécialisées, bientôt il y aura une
 8     multitude d'offres, et il y aura des bouquets de
 9     services.  À ce moment-là, on peut banaliser, ou on
10     peut rendre la culture...
11  10621                M. BERTRAND:  Marginaliser.
12  10622                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Marginaliser une
13     certaine facette de la culture.  Il s'agit, quand on
14     est diffuseur, d'avoir une vision beaucoup plus large
15     de la culture, et c'est aussi à ce niveau-là qu'on fait
16     l'intervention.
17  10623                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Vous voulez dire la
18     question de se fier sur les services spécialisés...
19  10624                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Oui.
20  10625                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... et de vider les
21     ondes hertziennes de certaines...
22  10626                M. BERTRAND:  Voilà; responsabilités
23     traditionnelles.
24  10627                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et surtout évidemment
25     au Québec, dans la région de Montréal, où la


 1     câblodistribution n'a pas une pénétration assez élevée,
 2     il y a quand même une proportion assez grande de la
 3     population qui ne recevrait pas les services, ou qui
 4     n'achèterait pas le bouquet, est votre point.
 5  10628                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Oui.
 6  10629                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Donc, ce serait...
 7  10630                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Ils en
 8     achèteraient peut-être, mais je veux dire que c'est
 9     important qu'on soit...
10  10631                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ce serait relégué
11     plutôt que...
12  10632                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  ... dans une
13     vitrine de diffuseurs conventionnels aussi.
14  10633                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Que de faire partie
15     de la télévision conventionnelle.
16  10634                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Oui, tout à fait,
17     parce que je crois que la télévision en téléromans et
18     en dramatique a fait ses preuves.  Un star system, nous
19     autres au Québec, on en a un.  Les artistes connus, on
20     les a.  On a fait une preuve de ce côté-là, et il faut
21     puiser dans...
22  10635                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et vous voulez que...
23  10636                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Il faut puiser
24     dans ce succès.
25  10637                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Quand vous parlez, au


 1     paragraphe 2, je crois, à la deuxième page de votre
 2     soumission, où vous parlez de quotas:  Les quotas
 3     doivent demeurer, doivent être obligatoires aux grandes
 4     heures d'écoute.  Vous parlez ici en général de
 5     certains genres de programmation?
 6  10638                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Oui.  Absolument,
 7     parce qu'il me semble que ça doit être proposable à
 8     tous, parce que j'écoutais mes collègues de différents
 9     secteurs, que ce soit producteurs privés, diffuseurs ou
10     producteurs privés, ou le diffuseur/producteur public,
11     en quelque part il me semble que les quotas canadiens
12     devraient être proposables à tous, et dans ce sens-là
13     ce devrait être tout à fait...
14  10639                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Là, vous parlez pour
15     tout le Canada?
16  10640                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Oui.
17  10641                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Parce qu'au Québec,
18     on n'a pas senti à date le besoin de faire plus que de
19     dire 60-50, et c'est de beaucoup dépassé évidemment les
20     heures de diffusion de programmation canadienne, même
21     aux heures de grande écoute, qui sont beaucoup plus
22     élevées, vraiment, que l'exigence.
23  10642                Je suis un peu alarmée par le fait
24     que vous aimeriez qu'on envisage qu'un pourcentage des
25     sommes d'argent qui proviennent des licences et qui


 1     servent au fonds du roulement du CRTC soit retourné au
 2     soutien du financement de Radio-Canada, dans le fonds
 3     consolidé du Canada.  Vous n'avez pas l'intention de
 4     nous enlever nos salaires?
 5  10643                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Non, non, pas du
 6     tout.  C'est le surplus que génèrent les licences.
 7  10644                Il me semblait que tout ce que vous
 8     avez entendu précédemment est que cette grande
 9     polémique entre le diffuseur public et les diffuseurs
10     privés et les producteurs privés provient du fait qu'au
11     Canada on a décidé que la radio d'État, on n'allait pas
12     la financer plus que ça.
13  10645                Le danger est de voir le diffuseur
14     public être obligé de glisser vers des pratiques
15     commerciales et obligé de faire une programmation et
16     piger, finalement, être en concurrence avec les
17     diffuseurs privés.  Il me semblait que ce serait une
18     bonne idée d'être capable de pouvoir encourager un
19     certain soutien d'une autre façon, et de penser à des
20     façons de faire, puisque en quelque part il y a
21     peut-être des argents qui pourraient servir à la
22     culture qui vont au fonds consolidé des pays.  Voilà.
23  10646                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je suis rassurée,
24     parce que j'aurais eu du mal à rapporter à Mme Bertrand
25     qu'il fallait...


 1  10647                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  Non, non, non. 
 2     Ce n'était pas mon propos.  C'était dans...
 3  10648                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  ... couper son budget
 4     pour le donner à Radio-Canada.
 5  10649                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  C'était dans ce
 6     qui pouvait excéder les besoins du CRTC.
 7  10650                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je vous remercie.
 8  10651                Conseiller juridique.
 9  10652                Me BLAIS:  J'ai une seule question,
10     et c'est un peu pour avoir votre réaction à une
11     proposition de l'ADISQ.  C'est au paragraphe 61 des
12     recommandations de l'ADISQ. Je sais que vous ne l'avez
13     peut-être pas devant vous, donc je vais vous lire ce
14     qu'ils proposent.
15  10653                Ils disent qu'au moins 5 pour cent
16     des ressources du programme de participation au capital
17     et du programme de droit de diffusion du CTCPEC soit
18     alloué aux émissions de catégorie 8, et que ce serait
19     un objectif à atteindre sur une période de deux ans.
20  10654                Que pensez-vous de cette
21     recommandation?
22  10655                M. BERTRAND:  C'est un petit peu ce
23     que j'essayais de dire tout à l'heure, de façon
24     peut-être un peu moins claire, un peu plus ambiguë,
25     mais oui, c'est une réflexion qu'on a partagée


 1     ensemble, dans le fond, à travers le groupe de travail
 2     sur la chanson québécoise.  C'est un peu ça, je pense. 
 3     C'est de définir un montant à travers les argents qui
 4     sont déjà disponibles, mais qui soit attribué de façon
 5     prioritaire ou obligatoire à la production d'émissions
 6     de Catégorie 8, parce qu'il n'y en a plus.  Il n'y en a
 7     pas en ce moment, ou il y en a peut-être une qui vient
 8     de commencer.
 9  10656                La télévision en ce moment... enfin,
10     la chanson est parent pauvre à la télévision
11     traditionnelle, et ça a un impact à tous points de vue:
12     sur la vente de disques, sur l'achat de billets de
13     spectacles.
14  10657                Je pense qu'il y a un problème, mais
15     la roue doit tourner, et tous les intervenants... il
16     faut huiler la roue qui grince, et je pense que la
17     télévision est la roue qui boitte en ce moment, et les
18     autres morceaux devraient repartir.  Je pense que tout
19     le monde peut y gagner en ayant des émissions de
20     qualité dans les grandes heures d'écoute à la
21     télévision.
22  10658                Le public va retrouver ses artistes,
23     et ça va se répercuter sur les ventes de disques, sur
24     les spectacles.  Donc on est d'accord finalement avec
25     cette idée-là.


 1  10659                Me BLAIS:  C'est très bien.
 2  10660                Merci.  Ce sont mes questions.
 3  10661                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous vous remercions,
 4     Madame Bertrand-Venne, Monsieur Bertrand, et bon retour
 5     à Montréal.  Vous rentrez ce soir?
 6  10662                M. BERTRAND:  Oui.  On n'a pas les
 7     moyens d'avoir une chambre d'hôtel.
 8  10663                Mme BERTRAND-VENNE:  On était bien
 9     contents de passer aujourd'hui.
10  10664                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  C'est bien.  Je vous
11     voyais assis là.
12  10665                Nous avons siégé souvent jusqu'à même
13     8 h 00, alors ça nous...
14  10666                M. BERTRAND:  Vous allez pouvoir vous
15     reposer.
16  10667                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous essayons
17     d'accommoder autant que possible.
18  10668                M. BERTRAND:  On vous souhaite un bon
19     appétit, un bon souper, un bon dodo.
20  10669                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci.  Bonsoir.
21  10670                Nous reprendrons demain matin à
22     9 h 00.  We will be back tomorrow morning at 9:00.


 1     --- The hearing adjourned at 1752, to resume on
 2         Friday, October 2, 1998, at 0900 / L'audience
 3         est ajournée à 1752, pour reprendre le
 4         vendredi 2 octobre 1998, à 0900
Date modified: