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This page has been archived on the Web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 7, 1998                         7 octobre 1998

                           Volume 11
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
membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des matières.

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


                 Canadian Radio-television and
                 Telecommunications Commission

              Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
                télécommunications canadiennes

                  Transcript / Transcription

              Public Hearing / Audience publique

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


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


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

HELD AT:                TENUE À:

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

October 7, 1998         7 octobre 1998

                           Volume 11



Presentation by / Présentation par:

CMPDA, The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors           3218

Le Regroupement québécois pour le sous-titrage            3274

CEP, Communications, Energy & Paperworkers                3320
Union of Canada / SCEP, Syndicat canadien des
communications, de l'énergie et du papier

NBRS, The National Broadcast Reading Service              3356

C-Cave, Canadians Concerned about Violence in             3395

Egale, Equality for Gays and Lesians Everywhere /         3430
Égalité pour les gais et les lesbiennes

CRARR, Center for  Research Action on Race                3458
Relations / Centre de recherche-action sur les
relations raciales



 1                                Hull, Quebec / Hull (Québec)
 2     --- Upon resuming on Wednesday, October 7, 1998,
 3         at 0900 / L'audience reprend le mercredi
 4         7 octobre 1998 à 0900
 5  15328                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Secretary,
 6     would you please invite the next participant.
 7  15329                MS SANTERRE:  Thank you, Madam Chair. 
 8     The first presentation this morning will be done by the
 9     Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association.  You
10     may present your comments.
12  15330                MR. FRITH:  Thank you, Madam
13     Chairperson and fellow commissioners, or colleagues of
14     yours.
15  15331                As mentioned, I'm president of the
16     CMPDA, and Susan Peacock, to my left, is vice-president
17     of our organisation.  We represent the interests of the
18     Hollywood studios here in Canada in all aspects of
19     their business interests, from television through to
20     feature film.
21  15332                We want to focus on three particular
22     areas that may be of some assistance to the CRTC in
23     grappling with this whole issue of broadcast policy. 
24     The three areas that we want to talk about involve the
25     non-proprietary rights condition area.  In addition,


 1     Susan is going to comment on areas that we think we
 2     have some ideas in terms of improving the Canadian
 3     content side, and in the definition of Canadian
 4     programming definition.
 5  15333                But before doing that, I'd like to
 6     talk a bit about the contributions that our industry
 7     does make to the Canadian economy, because, to a large
 8     extent, we have been rather silent in terms of our
 9     participation in the film industry in this country.
10  15334                With respect to the broadcasting
11     system, as you are no doubt aware, the non-Canadian
12     programming allows the broadcasters in this country to
13     generate the revenue that is used for the production of
14     Canadian programming.  In addition, many of our studios
15     get involved in the export of Canadian programming in
16     foreign markets, and in so doing, spend a fair amount
17     of dollars in pre-financing of the production of
18     Canadian programming.
19  15335                If you look as well at the
20     participation of the US studios in production in this
21     country, it's I don't think a well-known fact, but as
22     we sit here today, our studios are producing roughly
23     $130 million worth of programming in this country each
24     month -- largely based Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal,
25     but we are participating in probably every province in


 1     terms of production of film product.  And it employs
 2     roughly 30,000 Canadians in total across the country. 
 3     So that's a significant amount of economic activity.
 4  15336                And if you look back over the last
 5     five years, that increase in production just from the
 6     foreign studios in this country has a good success
 7     story to tell.  It has created a talent pool in this
 8     country that did not exist five years ago, to the point
 9     where, with the odd exceptions, we have indigenous
10     here, in this country, the Canadian talent to undertake
11     everything from TV production, to movie of the week, to
12     feature film.  So that's a success story that I think a
13     lot of Canadians are not aware of.
14  15337                We do other things.  If you look at
15     what drives the film industry, it's the protection of
16     copyright.  That's the raison d'être.  And the CMPDA
17     has worked very closely with our Canadian colleagues
18     from the CFTPA in making sure that Canada is at the
19     forefront of copyright protection.  So that's another
20     area that we do a tremendous amount of work in.
21  15338                In addition, just recently, with
22     pooling of resources with the cable association along
23     with the pay-per-view networks and the anti-piracy
24     group that we have had in existence in this country for
25     the last 15 years, we are now beginning to have a


 1     full-blown campaign against signal theft in the
 2     broadcasting area.  That should assist all of the
 3     participants in the broadcasting system.  If we are
 4     successful in that area of piracy of signal theft, more
 5     revenues come into the system, the healthier the system
 6     is, the more, ostensibly, can be done for Canadian
 7     programming.
 8  15339                On the non-proprietary rights
 9     condition, that is an issue that arose in one of the
10     interventions.  It was raised by CAFDE.  They have done
11     this in the past, and I have no question as to why they
12     are doing it.  It, in our view, is an obvious plan to
13     enrich their coffers.  And they always have used the
14     reason of economic need, and they always float this
15     number of 15 per cent of distribution revenues.  What
16     they have failed to inform the Canadian public and, to
17     some extent, the CRTC, is that that 15 per cent
18     represents only the distribution revenues from
19     theatrical, when if you look at Stats Canada, the
20     Canadian distribution system is relatively healthy. 
21     When you add in television programming and home video
22     product, they have 70 per cent of the distribution
23     revenue, and overall they have 50 per cent plus two or
24     three -- in that neighbourhood, 50 to 55 per cent of
25     the total distribution revenues in the country.


 1  15340                But ostensibly, the idea would be if
 2     you were to give this non-proprietary rights condition
 3     to the CAFDE membership, the idea would be, ostensibly,
 4     that there's a link between that -- the richer they
 5     are, the more Canadian programming that you are going
 6     to have.  And I don't think that's necessarily true.
 7  15341                But more importantly, if that
 8     condition were to be imposed, you should understand
 9     what we believe would happen in the marketplace.  In
10     the marketplace, our studio is no different from
11     Canadian integrated studio systems.  Their sole goal is
12     to maximize revenues.  And in so doing, if that's the
13     case, you may find in the marketplace that the studios,
14     the foreign studios, if they have to go through a
15     Canadian middleman, will simply up the price to the
16     Canadian broadcaster.  It would be built into that
17     pricing system.  That's one possibility.  The other
18     would be that they may not be able to cut a deal with
19     CAFDE members, and they may choose, in fact, not to
20     broadcast the system through the Canadian broadcasting
21     system, but broadcast the product through the American.
22  15342                And then lastly, they may, in fact,
23     delay the broadcast opportunities to the Canadian
24     broadcast system.  And delay it, and therefore their
25     revenues from the broadcasting of that product would be


 1     less, and, as  you know, the health of the broadcasting
 2     system, the health of the broadcasters is necessary to
 3     be able to flow the funds through to develop the
 4     Canadian programming that we all want.
 5  15343                In terms of one other goal, I think,
 6     that the CRTC has with respect to the export of our
 7     Canadian programming product, you are aware that
 8     Canada's now become the second largest television
 9     exporter of television product and programming in the
10     world.  And so the export market is extremely
11     important, and if the one thing that I'd like to leave
12     at the end of mine before I turn it over to Susan on
13     the Canadian content side, if the goal is export -- and
14     that's part of the Broadcast Act, to promote exports --
15     the best way to do that is to make sure that you
16     minimize the restrictions on imports, because it's such
17     a two-way street.
18  15344                When I now turn over to Susan on the
19     Canadian content side and on the definition of Canadian
20     programming, we hope this is going to assist the
21     Commission when you deal with the supply side and the
22     subsidy that goes with that supply side, in how all of
23     us want to make sure that we have the demand side as
24     with respect to viewership can be increased.  And I
25     think we have some good ideas on that side.  Susan?


 1                                                        0910
 2  15345                MS PEACOCK:  Thank you.  We are
 3     proposing a revision to the definition of Canadian
 4     programming, part of a simultaneous process that the
 5     Commission has undertaken.  Our suggestion is that the
 6     definition reflect four different factors, one being
 7     the Canadian point of view, which we see as being
 8     founded on the nationality of the storytellers,
 9     storytellers in television being directors, script
10     writers and authors of underlying works.  The second
11     factor being other key creative roles, such as
12     performers, art director, director of photography,
13     composer and editor.  The third factor being Canadian
14     expenditure and job creation.  And the fourth factor
15     being Canadian stories.  That is, Canadian themes,
16     Canadian settings and subject matter.  And this fourth
17     factor is one that is not addressed at all in the
18     Commission's current definition.
19  15346                It is our suggestion that each of
20     these four factors should be sufficient to qualify for
21     a percentage of Canadian content for the purpose of
22     quota fulfilment, as each of them is responsive to the
23     Commission's objectives.  A program's total Canadian
24     content percentage would be an aggregate of the degree
25     to which it is fulfilling each of the four.


 1  15347                CFTPA has proposed that programming
 2     which qualifies for a production services tax credit
 3     should be excluded from the definition of Canadian
 4     programming.
 5  15348                When the federal government's PSTC
 6     program was being developed, we had a number of
 7     consultations with the Department of Finance and it was
 8     very clear to us that it was not the Department of
 9     Finance's intention to exclude Canadian programming
10     from the PSTC program or vice versa.  They were very
11     aware that some programming that qualifies under the
12     Commission's current definition, which would not
13     qualify for the higher level of tax credit administered
14     by CAVCO, would qualify for this lower credit, as would
15     some programming that is not Canadian under the current
16     definition at all.
17  15349                The primary purpose of the production
18     services tax credit is job creation and Canadian
19     expenditure, which is also a goal of the Commission.
20  15350                We go farther than saying only that
21     PSTC programming should not be excluded from the
22     definition.  We go so far as to say that programming
23     which does fulfil that factor should quality for a
24     percentage of Canadian content.
25  15351                This is not a novel idea.  It is


 1     similar to the Commission's practice of allowing a
 2     dubbing credit when programs are dubbed into either
 3     official language.  I would point out that the cost of
 4     dubbing would be something less than $50,000 an hour,
 5     whereas a lot of programming that's eligible for PSTC
 6     would be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars an
 7     hour on Canadian expenditure.
 8  15352                In addition, we are suggesting,
 9     proposing for the Commission's consideration that
10     whatever the initial Cancon percentage accorded to a
11     program that when that program is broadcast, there be
12     an opportunity for that percentage to be grossed up. 
13     If the program is broadcast in prime time and/or if it
14     attains certain viewing levels, this would encourage
15     producers, distributers and, most certainly,
16     broadcasters to schedule that programming in peak
17     viewing time and it would encourage them to promote
18     that broadcast.
19  15353                A further submission is that nothing
20     in the Broadcasting Act requires that the definition of
21     Canadian programming be restricted to programs which
22     are owned or controlled by Canadian-controlled
23     production companies, or by Canadian producers.  In
24     fact, we suggest that if the production company could
25     be of any nationality, then non-Canadian controlled


 1     production companies who are not eligible for subsidy
 2     would be encouraged to produce or invest in high
 3     quality Canadian productions that would meet a number
 4     of the Commission's goals and would reduce the demand
 5     for subsidy.
 6  15354                In light of the apparent
 7     insufficiency of subsidy, as we saw last spring and as
 8     we have seen in a number of submissions that have been
 9     made to the Commission, we think it's ironic that the
10     CFTPA has proposed that special recognition no longer
11     be available for the under supplied categories.  And
12     the reason they give is that the industry no longer
13     requires access to the kinds of funding that came with
14     the special recognition types of programs.  It appears
15     to us that the industry is in need of all kinds of
16     funding.
17  15355                In conclusion, nothing in the
18     Broadcasting Act suggests that programming that
19     qualifies for PSTC or special recognition or that
20     programming made or owned by a company that is not
21     Canadian controlled, that that programming itself is in
22     any way less Canadian as a result.
23  15356                The last topic, and I'm going to be
24     very brief with this, is with respect to the issue of
25     purchase of North American rights by non-Canadian


 1     entertainment companies.  The Commission has been urged
 2     by a number of parties, including CAB, CFTPA, to
 3     require North American services, or at least those that
 4     may be added to the eligible list in the future to
 5     acquire Canadian rights but to acquire them separately
 6     from US rights.
 7  15357                Our members are in the same position
 8     as those of CAFDE and the CFTPA in the sense that they
 9     are also program suppliers.  They are also sellers to
10     Canadian broadcasters, US broadcasters, and North
11     American services.
12  15358                But our reaction to this issue is
13     different and it is based on the fact that we do see
14     ourselves predominantly copyright owners and that to
15     require two documents instead of one to require a
16     separate negotiation of rights is a diminution of the
17     copyright owner's freedom to deal with their rights in
18     the way that they think makes the most sense.
19  15359                We believe that requiring two
20     separate licences, one for Canada and one for the US,
21     when North American rights are required by a single
22     purchaser and when they are being sold by a single
23     vendor, is unlikely to increase the total licence fee. 
24     We don't think the licence fee will be higher when
25     there are two contracts than when there will be one. 


 1     We do, however, think the transaction costs might be
 2     higher and, therefore, we see no particular benefit in
 3     this.
 4  15360                MR. FRITH:  Thanks, Susan.  That ends
 5     our opening remarks.  Madam Chair, as you are aware, we
 6     put in three written interventions in June, July, and
 7     August which dealt with a myriad of the issues, but we
 8     chose these three areas to focus on this morning and we
 9     are open for question.
10  15361                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Ms
11     Peacock, Mr. Frith.  Commissioner Cardozo.
12  15362                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks, Madam
13     Chair. Good Morning, Mr. Frith and Ms Peacock.  I have
14     got a few questions that relate partly to your written
15     submissions and partly to what you talked about today,
16     but feel free to raise any and all of those issues as
17     we go through these.
18  15363                Just so that I understand, the CMPDA
19     is dealing primarily with the distribution of American
20     films, as you mentioned, Mr. Frith, in your opening
21     television and through feature film in Canada.  That's
22     the main function of the organization.
23  15364                MR. FRITH:  It goes right across the
24     waterfront.  We deal with every issue as it affects our
25     members' interests, whether it's the CRTC and the


 1     broadcasting system, to broader public policy issues,
 2     the framework of taxation, what drives the production
 3     in Canada, to the policing side, which is a separate
 4     body of employees.  But anything that impacts on the
 5     economic interest of our members, we are involved in. 
 6     We tend largely to be more focused on federal public
 7     policy and, obviously, the regulatory agencies.
 8  15365                MR. CARDOZO:  You are not involved in
 9     distributing Canadian films.
10  15366                MR. FRITH:  We are in the sense that
11     we purchase Canadian programming for our foreign
12     markets.
13  15367                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay.  And are
14     you dealing with other countries beyond the United
15     States?
16  15368                MR. FRITH:  Okay.  You are very clear
17     in your written brief, as you were today, on your view
18     in response to our question that US interests should
19     not be called on to make contributions to the
20     development, exhibition, or promotion of Canadian
21     programs.
22  15369                In paragraph six, you have noted that
23     non-Canadian control distributors have paid substantial
24     amounts for distribution rights to many Canadian
25     content programs, often providing essential production


 1     funding and, of that, you give examples like "Boys of
 2     St. Vincent."
 3  15370                MR. FRITH:  The example, I can
 4     name, -- I won't name the studio but one studio of the
 5     six that we represent, I have spent over a hundred
 6     million dollars purchasing foreign rights to Canadian
 7     programs.  So that's one example.
 8  15371                Secondly, I mean besides the fact
 9     that each one of our studios has Canadian offices and
10     employs Canadians, pays taxes, all of those issues,
11     yes.
12  15372                MS PEACOCK:  Excuse me, Commissioner. 
13     I just want to make sure that we were clear.  "The Boys
14     of St. Vincent" example was an example of Canadian
15     program that was able to get a number of sequential
16     licences in North America.  We were not involved in
17     those transactions.  We are not the buyers of those
18     rights.  We do not represent the North American
19     services.
20  15373                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So that
21     particular example, you are pointing out that Canadian
22     films, Canadian-produced films do have a market in the
23     States and, when they do, they are helping support
24     Canadian production?
25  15374                MS PEACOCK:  We are pointing out that


 1     on this question of North American rights, that when a
 2     program is as attractive as "Boys of St. Vincent,"
 3     whether it's a Canadian program or a non-Canadian
 4     program, then the program supplier does not have what's
 5     been characterized as an invidious choice between a
 6     Canadian broadcast sale or a sale to a North American
 7     service.
 8  15375                In fact, they have more choices than
 9     ever.  "Boys of St. Vincent" had two national plays in
10     Canada, then A&E bought North American rights, and
11     apparently A&E bought Canadian rights on non-exclusive
12     basis and Show Case bought Canadian rights on a
13     non-exclusive basis.  I would suggest that the supplier
14     of that program made more revenue as a result of that
15     appetite for North American rights than they otherwise
16     would have.
17  15376                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay.  So as
18     you were mentioning in your opening comments today,
19     were you not in favour of having separate rights being
20     bought for US rights and Canadian rights?  It's more
21     than just an administrative thing of having two
22     documents and two licences.
23  15377                MR. FRITH:  If you get into this
24     North American rights issue, it's not our ox that's
25     going to be gored.  We are just giving our response


 1     from the standpoint that we also defend world-wide
 2     copyright.  I mean, as I said, that's the engine and
 3     that's the raison d'être of the business.  That applies
 4     to Canadians as well as to anybody else.  It's our view
 5     that if you were to separate this out into two
 6     documents, we don't see how it's going to actually give
 7     more money to Canadian copyright holders.
 8  15378                MS PEACOCK:  I think this is what
 9     would happen.  Now, first of all, there are a number of
10     possibilities.  It may be, and it is in some cases
11     already the case, that one distributor will have
12     Canadian rights that they can licence and another
13     distributor will have US rights that they can licence
14     for the same program.  So if A&E wants to license that
15     program, they already do and must continue to enter
16     into two separate negotiations with those two
17     distributors.
18  15379                If the rights, however, are held by
19     one entity, and there's only one licensor, if they had
20     to acquire those rights separately, I think what would
21     happen, if I were A&E, what would happen, is the first
22     thing I would do is think about the price I want to pay
23     for North America because that's what I have to buy.  I
24     have to buy Canadian rights and I have to buy US
25     rights.  When I think of an amount, I'm going to have


 1     an amount in mind.  And whether I'm negotiating once or
 2     twice, I am not going to conclude either negotiation
 3     unless I can conclude both negotiations on terms that
 4     are acceptable to me.
 5  15380                So I think what would happen is you
 6     would have the negotiation.  You would have one
 7     negotiation.  You have got one buyer and one seller. 
 8     You would have one negotiation.  The North American
 9     licence fee would be negotiated and then they would
10     negotiate the allocation of that between the two
11     contracts.
12                                                        0925
13  15381                I don't see how it could happen any
14     other way.  When you have one buyer and one seller, you
15     can't pretend that you really have two buyers or two
16     sellers.
17  15382                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  But you have
18     two markets.
19  15383                MS PEACOCK:  Well, you have two
20     countries.  You have a service that is reaching
21     audience in two countries and make money in two
22     countries.
23  15384                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  The argument
24     is that the producer doesn't get any more money as a
25     result of having two licences?


 1  15385                MS PEACOCK:  I would be very -- I
 2     don't see how they could expect to get more money
 3     because they have two documents instead of one when
 4     they are dealing with one purchaser.
 5  15386                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  What do you
 6     think of the argument that some have made in terms of
 7     American programming overall, as well as the American
 8     channels, that they are drivers inasmuch as an American
 9     channel is a driver for a tier and American programming
10     is a driver for a particular broadcaster inasmuch as
11     they have got this great American that attracts people
12     to the channel or the tier, so we shouldn't -- and I go
13     back to the beginning of my question on this -- we
14     shouldn't be expecting any more contribution from
15     American broadcasters because they have this enormous
16     indirect benefit?
17  15387                MR. FRITH:  If I can, Susan, I think
18     where you are coming from is if we have American --
19  15388                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  It's not where
20     I am coming from.  I am giving you the argument.  I
21     have no views on any of these issues.
22  15389                MR. FRITH:  If you look at the
23     numbers that CAB submitted, the marketplace says that
24     for American product that is coming in, they are
25     actually making a profit, I think they said, of $115,


 1     Susan, per --
 2  15390                MS PEACOCK:  They didn't give a per
 3     dollar amount for U.S., they gave a per dollar amount
 4     of their losses.
 5  15391                MR. FRITH:  Of their losses on
 6     Canadian.  So, it's obvious for the moment until
 7     something changes in terms of the viewership habits
 8     that the non-Canadian product is what's driving the
 9     broadcaster's revenue streams up, which allows them to
10     have the healthy profits that allow them, in turn, to
11     put some of that money back into Canadian programming,
12     if that answers your question.
13  15392                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Is that a view
14     you share?
15  15393                MR. FRITH:  Yes.
16  15394                MS PEACOCK:  I would like to add
17     something to that.  I think that -- I have no reason to
18     doubt the accuracy of the CAB's numbers, but they are
19     averages and I wouldn't -- I don't know, but I wouldn't
20     be surprised if they don't also make a profit on some
21     Canadian programs and lose money on some non-Canadian
22     programs.  That may be happening, too, and it might be
23     interesting to identify which those are and try to make
24     more just like them.
25  15395                MR. FRITH:  And if you look at the


 1     numbers, the allocation of overhead, I don't know.
 2  15396                MS PEACOCK:  The other part of your
 3     question had to do with U.S. signals and services.  I
 4     guess my response to that would be kind of similar.  I
 5     think some U.S. signals are extremely attractive.  I
 6     think A&E is a very, very attractive signal to a lot of 
 7     Canadians and CNN.  Others that I won't name and maybe
 8     couldn't name may not be so and at the same time I
 9     think there are some Canadian signals and services that
10     people would just not be willing to do without.
11  15397                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  On the
12     question of simultaneous substitution, I wonder if I
13     could just get a clarification of your position.  I am
14     looking at your June 30th letter and on page 9 you
15     noted four positions that the CAB has put forward over
16     the years.  You have dismissed three of them, which
17     leaves no comment on the issue of non-simultaneous
18     substitution.  Am I to conclude that --
19  15398                MR. FRITH:  We have no problems with
20     that.
21  15399                MS PEACOCK:  We are not opposed to
22     non-simultaneous substitution.  In fact I would say we
23     are not opposed to second local channel simulcast.  We
24     only point out that as channel capacity seems to be an
25     issue at present, it might be more prudent to wait for


 1     implementation of digital technology and then to
 2     consider what to do with this increased capacity. 
 3     Maybe second local channel is the right thing to do or
 4     maybe there is something else.  By the time it's here,
 5     they will probably have more ideas for how to use it
 6     than we have today.
 7  15400                The only two of the four that the CAB
 8     has proposed historically but I don't think are
 9     proposing any longer that we recommend against are
10     program deletion and strip substitution.  Our reason
11     for that is -- partly my reason for that would be as a
12     consumer I wouldn't like to see my screen go to black
13     or to get a program substituted for the one that I
14     wanted to watch that is really not an identical
15     program.
16  15401                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay.  Another
17     of the issues you talked about is exports of Canadian
18     programming and, if I read you right, what you are
19     saying is Canadian exports are doing very well and they
20     need no help, thank you very much.  I should tell you
21     yesterday my daughter got on the Internet and went on
22     the PBS site and went to the kids' section within that.
23  15402                To my amazement and joy, most of the
24     programs they had listed were Canadian programs.  So,
25     you could find out more about "Arthur", "Whimzie's


 1     House", "Theodore Tugboat".  I figured, hey, we are
 2     really taking over the American market, at least in
 3     children's programming at PBS.  But is that an
 4     exaggeration?  Are we only doing that well in Canadian
 5     progrmaming -- I mean in children's programming.
 6  15403                MR. FRITH:  This is a success story
 7     that very few Canadians are aware of.  If you look at
 8     the market for Canadian product for export, in
 9     children's it's phenomenal.  We have Canadian companies
10     that have 82 per cent of their revenue coming from
11     export.  NELVANA is a good example.
12  15404                MS PEACOCK:  CINAR, Atlantis or
13     Alliance Atlantis as they now are.
14  15405                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  You noted
15     those in your brief, but in terms of the others, the
16     general programming, are we doing as well there?  You
17     were suggesting a hands-off policy and not do anything
18     in terms of assisting export.
19  15406                MR. FRITH:  In the sense that if you
20     look at the health of the Canadian industry, they are
21     extremely healthy today.  Look at the stock market on
22     the publicly-traded American companies.  I'm not
23     talking about the last several days, what has occurred
24     in the stock markets, but until this latest phenomenon
25     of the downturn, they have all done extremely well.  If


 1     you look at the consolidation that has taken place in
 2     the Canadian industry in the last 16 to 18 months,
 3     shareholders are quite happy with the results.
 4  15407                You notice prior to the Atlantis
 5     Alliance merger, Atlantis had over 80 per cent of its
 6     revenues coming from export.  So, they are doing
 7     extremely well.  Take some of the deals that have been
 8     cut between our American studios and Alliance.  They
 9     total $500 million worth of expenditure over the next
10     four to five years.  That's a mutually beneficial
11     marketplace decision by our studios to invest and
12     co-produce with Canadian companies.
13  15408                By and large, if you look at the
14     return on equity of those publicly traded companies,
15     they are pretty much in line with return on equity of
16     the American studios.  We are finally getting the
17     consolidation so that we can become major players and
18     play under the same rules worldwide.  It has been the
19     success that has driven the American studios or, for
20     that matter, foreign studios in Europe.
21  15409                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Given your
22     understanding and awareness of the American market, do
23     you think there is any kind of nervousness about the
24     success of our productions?
25  15410                MR. FRITH:  Not about the production.


 1  15411                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Are we showing
 2     up on the --
 3  15412                MR. FRITH:  I can tell you where
 4     there is some nervousness and that's with respect to
 5     the amount of production that has gone -- they claimed,
 6     flowed from the United States into Canada in the last
 7     three to four years.  I know for a fact some of the
 8     unions are upset by the amount of work that has been
 9     shifted to Canada and they have made representations to
10     state governors, et cetera, but other than that, no,
11     there is no -- the whole foundation of the industry is
12     to have a free marketplace.  That's what we do
13     worldwide, is to make sure that there is access for our
14     product coming into other markets and access for those
15     indigenous markets to export to the world.
16  15413                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Let me ask you
17     about Canadian content.  You suggest what appears to be
18     that we have become more flexible in terms of how we
19     assess Canadian content and what you have suggested is
20     that the nationality of the producer would cease to be
21     a criterion in the point system.  You say this would
22     bring more investment and, thereby, fuel increased
23     Canadian content.
24  15414                ACTRA, who was here a couple of days
25     ago, made an interesting argument where they said that


 1     we shouldn't be looking at issues of themes and
 2     locales, which is one way of looking at Canadian
 3     content, that just the fact that there were Canadian
 4     producers, writers, et cetera, even if it was something
 5     being, as you have given the example, an American
 6     production taking place being done in Vancouver
 7     pretending to be Los Angeles, the Canadianists, to use
 8     their term, would come through because of the producers
 9     and so forth.
10  15415                So, if we take that argument and mesh
11     it with yours, which is to allow the producer not even
12     to be Canadian, then what's Canadian about it any more?
13                                                        0935
14  15416                MR. FRITH:  Susan, you could get into
15     this.  The one -- and I find this amazing when I go
16     across the country and we talk to Canadian producers --
17     under the present definition, if a foreign studio came
18     to Canada and wanted to do a 12 one-hour television
19     series on Canadian prime ministers, it's not deemed to
20     be Canadian.  But a Canadian producer can go and study
21     milk distribution in Albania and it's deemed to be
22     Canadian content.  It doesn't make sense to me.  And if
23     you look at other jurisdictions that have our
24     background, our parliamentary system, the Australian
25     Blue Sky case, I mean, it wasn't a completely unanimous


 1     decision, but the chief justice had one opinion and the
 2     four others.  But they did agree to some extent that
 3     the content should have something to do with Australia
 4     for that matter, but here in Canada as well.  And I
 5     think we should look at this in a different light,
 6     because I do think you will get more investment in
 7     Canadian stories.
 8  15417                MS PEACOCK:  I'd like to add
 9     something to that, if I may.  What we are suggesting is
10     that there are four factors.  And any one of them
11     should result in the program having a percentage -- not
12     100 per cent, necessarily -- a percentage of Canadian
13     content.  And expenditure is probably the least
14     culturally relevant of the four, but expenditure and
15     job creation are certainly emphasized in the
16     Commission's present definition, and the only factor
17     that seems to be required to get a dubbing credit, for
18     example.  So if the Commission has a history already of
19     acknowledging that job creation and expenditure is a
20     goal of the Broadcasting Act -- it may not be a
21     cultural goal, or such a directly and obviously
22     cultural goal -- but it's a goal of the Act, and this
23     program satisfies this goal to 30 per cent, whatever
24     you wanted to give to it.  And we are saying if the key
25     creative roles are filled by Canadians, and what is now


 1     the current point system is complied with, just the
 2     tune of ten out of ten, that program would also qualify
 3     for a level of Canadian content.  Probably more than
 4     one that merely spent money in Canada and hired
 5     Canadians.
 6  15418                I think what's kind of radical about
 7     our suggestion is the notion that if a program has
 8     Canadian themes and subject matter, that that alone
 9     should qualify it.  None of the four should be a
10     requirement, but each of the four should be recognised
11     as meeting one or more objectives of the Act, one or
12     more objectives of the Commission.
13  15419                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So I'm not
14     clear on your last point --
15  15420                MS PEACOCK:  Right now you get no
16     points.  You get no encouragement --
17  15421                MR. FRITH:  To tell a Canadian story.
18  15422                MS PEACOCK:  To tell a Canadian
19     story.  Why not encourage everybody to tell Canadian
20     stories, including non-Canadians?  There are many
21     examples of movies and books and other things where a
22     story was told that we consumers and readers and
23     viewers see as being -- I think of the "Remains of the
24     Day."  Great British novel, absolutely about British
25     life and British culture, and the author is Japanese.


 1  15423                MR. FRITH:  Or the other example,
 2     where we had a Canadian author, "The English Patient,"
 3     won the Oscar, correct?  And the headline was, Gee, how
 4     did we let this story get away?  And yet, we are also
 5     equally proud of this year's "Sweet Hereafter," which
 6     was nominated, but that's by an American author.
 7  15424                MS PEACOCK:  So what's Canadian about
 8     "The Sweet Hereafter"?  Well, what's Canadian about it
 9     is the Canadian voices that told the story, but the
10     original story is not a Canadian story.  The original
11     story is an American story.  But we say, But this is
12     still a Canadian movie.
13  15425                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Sorry, "The
14     Sweet Hereafter" is -- isn't that --
15  15426                MR. FRITH:  It's by --
16  15427                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  The author of
17     the book.
18  15428                MS PEACOCK:  The author of the book
19     is American.
20  15429                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay, and the
21     producer is Atom Egoyan.
22  15430                MR. FRITH:  Correct.
23  15431                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So, okay.
24  15432                MR. FRITH:  And we are proud of the
25     success of the film.  What we are suggesting really, is


 1     that if you were to add one component to it, there
 2     would be an incentive.  You have more -- or, at least,
 3     a higher Canadian content to it.  And it's not there at
 4     the present moment.
 5  15433                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So how would
 6     these four points mesh with the current point system?
 7  15434                MS PEACOCK:  The current point
 8     system -- in our suggestion, we have taken the current
 9     point system and kind of broken it into two pieces. 
10     One being storytellers, the goal being a Canadian point
11     of view.  I'm not so sure that the nationality of the
12     composer of the music is as influential on the
13     Canadianness of the point of view as the nationality of
14     the director or the nationality of the screenwriter. 
15     You are going to get the storytellers by themselves --
16     having Canadian storytellers should make the program
17     Canadian to a degree, and I think I didn't see the
18     ACTRA presentation, but it sounds like they would agree
19     with that.
20  15435                Then we are saying there are the
21     other key creative personnel, and if you want an
22     element of creative input that is Canadian, then that's
23     another way to qualify for a degree of Canadianness,
24     Canadian content.
25  15436                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay, so on


 1     the continuum of -- if you sort of look at Canadian
 2     content and impose industrial objectives on one end and
 3     cultural objectives on the other, what you seem to be
 4     saying is we ought to move closer to the cultural
 5     objective and that the industrial come secondary, so
 6     the issue of --
 7  15437                MS PEACOCK:  No, it's not a question
 8     of secondary at all.  What we mean to say is each of
 9     these things is important.  Expenditure and job
10     creation is important.  It's an important goal.  It may
11     not be a cultural goal.  But cultural goals seem to
12     have been overlooked compared to industrial goals,
13     under the traditional definition.  And why not allow a
14     Canadian story, a Canadian theme, if the subject
15     matter, if the content, from a layman's point of
16     view -- you ask the man in the street, Is this, you
17     know, is this Canadian content?  And you show them a
18     program.  I think they are going to give their answer
19     based primarily on the theme.  They certainly aren't
20     going to do it on the --
21  15438                MR. FRITH:  Nationality of the
22     producer.
23  15439                MS PEACOCK:  -- nationality of
24     anybody except the performers.  Because they are not
25     going to even know who they were.


 1  15440                MR. FRITH:  And what we are
 2     suggesting is that if you add this component to it, you
 3     will get outside financing that frees up money at the
 4     subsidy end for what is deemed to be true cultural
 5     product.  The other side to that is that, you know,
 6     this is a problem, I guess, for government as well as
 7     the CRTC.  But with the proliferation of channels,
 8     there's more and more requirements for people to line
 9     up for subsidy.  And there's a finite amount of money. 
10     And our view is, maybe we should go back to financial
11     need.  I mean, if you are a publicly-traded company,
12     why do you need subsidy?  And that, therefore, would
13     then free up money for that cultural side.  Let the
14     marketplace decide.
15  15441                If you relax -- as an example, Susan,
16     what you have just mentioned, if the goal is to have
17     the Canadian story told to a worldwide audience, that
18     ought to form some benefit to the Canadian cultural
19     objective.  But if it's good enough, it doesn't need
20     subsidy.  We are not suggesting that our studios need
21     subsidy; that's not the case at all.  But what you want
22     to do, is to have more investment in Canadian
23     storytelling than there are ways to do this other than
24     what we are presently doing.
25  15442                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  When I read


 1     your brief, there was a sense that the Commission has
 2     this goal of attaining a certain amount of Canadian
 3     content, and that what you were saying was, let's
 4     fiddle around with the books and get there anyhow.  But
 5     what I hear you saying today, more, is a sort of
 6     creative way of allowing more Americans in to help
 7     telling Canadian stories?
 8  15443                MR. FRITH:  Or resources.  I mean, it
 9     seems to me to be ultimately --
10  15444                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And the
11     resources come with them.
12  15445                MR. FRITH:  -- what a good public
13     policy objective would be is to have such quality of
14     Canadian programming that we have a worldwide audience
15     for it, not just a Canadian audience.  And that ought
16     to be a goal, I mean, whether it's Global that invests
17     in it, or Baton, or CTV.
18  15446                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And you are
19     saying we have a better chance of being able to tell
20     that story to the world if the American producer is
21     involved?
22  15447                MS PEACOCK:  I think what we are
23     saying is you got a better chance of telling the story
24     at all if there is an encouragement for non-subsidy
25     funding.  Make more money available to tell the


 1     stories.  And if you encourage non-Canadians -- not
 2     just our members, think in terms of British or
 3     Australian --
 4  15448                MR. FRITH:  Polygram -- "Four
 5     Weddings and a Funeral," "Trainspotting" --
 6  15449                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Sorry, I don't
 7     see the connection between not having subsidies and
 8     easier to promote.
 9  15450                MS PEACOCK:  I didn't mean to say
10     "easier to promote."
11  15451                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Well, I
12     thought you were saying that if you didn't have
13     subsidies it would be easier to promote the programs
14     internationally.
15  15452                MS PEACOCK:  No, that wasn't what I
16     meant to say.  What I meant to say is --
17  15453                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Or what I'm
18     meant to hear.
19                                                        0945
20  15454                MS PEACOCK:  What I  meant to say is
21     that if you encourage the private money to fund the
22     programs that the Commission wants made, everybody
23     wins.  What's wrong -- I mean, you may want this to be
24     Canadian, or that to be Canadian, or something else to
25     be Canadian.  But surely there's no objection to the


 1     money not being Canadian?
 2  15455                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  The interest
 3     in that is, you realise you are driving a hard bargain
 4     because you are going against the trend.
 5  15456                MR. FRITH:  When we were reading
 6     through it, we were, I think, the only ones that are
 7     suggesting that if it's a Canadian story that there
 8     should be some consideration as part of the content.
 9  15457                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Interesting. 
10     Thanks very much.  Those are my questions.  Thanks a
11     lot.
12  15458                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you. 
13     Commissioner Pennefather.
14  15459                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Yes, I
15     just want to reiterate a couple of the questions to
16     make sure I understand.  You used "The Boys of Saint
17     Vincent" as an example, and as you know, that was
18     co-produced by the National Film Board and the CBC,
19     public subsidy, and Telefilm Canada, and yet it's a
20     success story, a major success story in many ways.  And
21     it is exportable, from your own example.  So your
22     proposal, then, is to encourage the private sector to
23     do the same thing.  And yet you said that if we
24     encourage the private sector, namely the American
25     private sector, we would free up subsidy money to do


 1     the cultural side.  So in fact, I see a contradiction
 2     there.  I'm not quite sure I understand what the
 3     purpose of this is, in your view, to allow American
 4     producers to produce what we can determine as Canadian
 5     content, to be precise -- I think that's what you are
 6     proposing.
 7  15460                MR. FRITH:  I will take first crack
 8     at this, if you want to add to it.  Where we are coming
 9     from is that in a finite world of government
10     subsidies -- and that can be defined as to whether
11     straight other either consolidated revenues, or for
12     some fund that comes from the private sector, as, you
13     know, the 5 per cent funds.  It is finite.  And that if
14     you were to make it easier for foreign capital, just
15     not US, you know, we don't represent Polygram, but I
16     mean Polygram is a Dutch company.  It has a worldwide
17     track record of going into the UK and getting
18     indigenous product and giving it a world export market. 
19     As they go in and put in private sector money into the
20     development of "British stories," or "Australian
21     stories" -- it's equally true that we can have that
22     done -- to have Canadian stories have a worldwide
23     market.  And the more private sector money that you can
24     bring in lessens the need for subsidy.  And so if it's
25     finite, that amount that's out of consolidated revenue


 1     can be made available for what is deemed to be true
 2     cultural product.  You can have both.  Because if you
 3     look at it as a spectrum, you have got cultural at one
 4     end, and then there's industrial policy at the other.
 5  15461                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Well, if
 6     we assume that a Canadian film or a Canadian program is
 7     cultural product, period, then I'm assuming what you
 8     are saying is, basically, allow American producers to
 9     come in and produce Canadian programming.  And if so,
10     wouldn't they do so primarily for a North American
11     audience and a world audience, as opposed to a Canadian
12     audience, as per your thesis on rights?  Normally, you
13     would expect an American producer would not produce
14     primarily -- even if it was a true Canadian story --
15     for a Canadian audience.  Do you agree?
16  15462                MR. FRITH:  Well, they may or they
17     may not.  I mean, by and large, probably, I would say,
18     yes, I would agree with that.  But, you know, if you
19     are looking at other stories, if you were to do an
20     example, say a feature film or a TV series on the
21     Hudson's Bay Company.  What makes that more attractive
22     for co-venturing is that if you broaden the story so
23     that it's not just the development of and the history
24     of the Hudson's Bay Company in Canada, a lot of the
25     people who founded the Bay and came here started off in


 1     the Orkneys and the Shetland Islands.  And so if you
 2     develop that side of the story, yes, you have a
 3     Canadian story, but then you have an export market into
 4     the UK because there would be an interest by the
 5     viewers in the UK to go through the process.
 6  15463                MS PEACOCK:  I would like --
 7  15464                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Sorry,
 8     Susan -- I can understand the point, just that we are
 9     making a point in your submission, and you are making
10     the point that we are succeeding through our export
11     revenues, so the Canadian industry has found a way to
12     do that currently, and as Commissioner Cardozo said,
13     it's an interesting but a very different approach to
14     the multiple goals that we have under the Broadcasting
15     Act.  And one of those is the continuing vibrance of a
16     Canadian production sector.  And I think we would have
17     to think carefully what the effect of this would be on
18     that objective.
19  15465                I'm sorry, but I interrupted you,
20     Susan.
21  15466                MS PEACOCK:  And now you have asked
22     another question I want to answer too.  And maybe you
23     will remind me what it is when I forget in a second,
24     because I'm going to go back to the --
25  15467                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I will do


 1     my best.
 2  15468                MS PEACOCK:  -- to the previous one. 
 3     I think that it -- well, I know, because "The Boys of
 4     Saint Vincent" is an example, that programming can be
 5     about Canada, can be a Canadian story, can be
 6     culturally significant, can have an information as well
 7     as an entertainment component, and speak very strongly
 8     to Canadians, and still have an international market. 
 9     The fact that it's Canadian, the fact that it's
10     culturally relevant does not, by definition, exclude it
11     from being of interest.  There are such things as
12     universal stories, and most of the best stories are
13     universal.
14  15469                I think our suggestion is that
15     subsidy, of which there is never enough, might be best
16     spent -- and we appreciate that it's not the
17     Commission's job to make those rules -- but that
18     subsidy might best be spent on productions which are
19     both deserving, in the sense that they meet whatever
20     criteria have been set, and have financial need -- that
21     both criteria should have to be there.  And if subsidy
22     were only available for productions that meet those two
23     criteria, there would be more subsidy available per
24     production because there would be fewer productions
25     that qualified.


 1  15470                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Just one
 2     last question.  If American-controlled companies were,
 3     indeed, producing in this country, would there not be a
 4     complaint that Canadian producers have access to
 5     subsidy, whereas American producers do not in this
 6     country?
 7  15471                MR. FRITH:  There wouldn't be a
 8     complaint from us.
 9  15472                MS PEACOCK:  Which is not to say we
10     wouldn't like subsidy.  It's just that we are not --
11     this is not a disguised --
12  15473                MR. FRITH:  To try and get subsidy.
13  15474                MS PEACOCK:  -- attempt to try and --
14  15475                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I know,
15     but it's a reality, considering the evolution of
16     international trade discussions.  I would assume
17     that --
18  15476                MS PEACOCK:  Subsidy seems to be one
19     of those few issues, one of those few ways that a
20     country can develop its cultural industries that is not
21     controversial in the trade context.
22  15477                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  It's good
23     to hear, but I haven't heard it that way.  Thank you,
24     Madam Chair.
25  15478                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.  Why


 1     would American companies come and make Canadian
 2     programming in Canada that is of interest first and
 3     foremost to Canadians and not an exportable product?
 4     There was a spot in the presentation of the two groups
 5     we have heard from at the beginning, CAB and the CFTPA,
 6     and one of them said, you know, "Money talks."  And the
 7     incentive to create programming that is a lot more
 8     exportable than indigenous would result from such an
 9     endeavour.
10  15479                You gave an example of Americans
11     coming into Canada to make a program about Canadian
12     prime ministers that would be made from a Canadian
13     perspective, because you can make a program about
14     Canadian prime ministers from a non-Canadian
15     perspective.
16  15480                MR. FRITH:  True.  But the point I'm
17     making --
18  15481                THE CHAIRPERSON:  It just looks good,
19     theoretically, but is, in practise -- I wish I could
20     find that paragraph.  But you can see what I'm saying.
21  15482                MR. FRITH:  No, and I understand
22     that.  We are not suggesting that you overturn the
23     whole applecart.  We are just suggesting you add one
24     component to it.
25  15483                In terms of our reading of the


 1     transcripts, whether it's CAFDE, and I think it was
 2     CFTPA who didn't want any changes to that rule of
 3     subject matter.  I find that strange.  I mean, if you
 4     are Canadian, and you want to have a Canadian -- why
 5     isn't the Canadian story an important and integral part
 6     of the definition?
 7  15484                THE CHAIRPERSON:  But your pitch to
 8     the Commission has been and still is vehemently the
 9     property is what matters, the rights is what matters. 
10     So that's what Canadians say.  We want a system that
11     allows us to not only tell Canadian stories, but also
12     produce programming that is exportable, but the major
13     thing is we want to own it.  And what you are saying
14     is, Canadian content would be produced by and the
15     rights to it would be owned outside of the country.
16  15485                Has that pitch been made to Americans
17     and accepted very readily?  I thought the point of the
18     Americans was cultural product is a product is a
19     product is a product, and what matters is who owns it
20     and they should have complete right to handle it as
21     their property.  And that that is absolutely crucial
22     and core to the system.  I find it very surprising that
23     you would make the pitch that Canada should have a
24     system that encourages foreigners to come and produce
25     Canadian stories and then own them at the end of the


 1     day.
 2                                                        1000
 3  15486                MR. FRITH:  If we just separate out
 4     the two issues, on the ownership side that could be
 5     negotiated in the marketplace.  You know, you put in
 6     the equity, then there is a negotiation to determine
 7     what per cent you own.  But to come back -- and this is
 8     a studio that I don't represent -- take Polygram, Dutch
 9     money.  It has a track record of going into the U.K. 
10     Look what they have created there.  There is no
11     inhibition in terms of the investment side to be able
12     to take indigenous product and give it a worldwide
13     audience.
14  15487                I can point out similar involvement
15     by U.S. studios that have gone into Australia, into
16     South America and have created some great films.
17  15488                MS PEACOCK:  "Like Water for
18     Chocolate".
19  15489                MR. FRITH:  "Like Water for
20     Chocolate".  I am just suggesting to you to try to
21     remove barriers that allow investment to come in.  What
22     we want is a worldwide audience for a Canadian story
23     and that's a great objective to have.  We should be
24     looking at barriers to the investment.  It doesn't
25     matter really where the money comes from.  If the end


 1     result is you want to have the Canadian story told to a
 2     worldwide audience, does it matter whether it's French,
 3     Dutch, German, American dollars that produce it?
 4  15490                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Presumably, our
 5     production companies that are on the stock market get
 6     money where they can, but what you are suggesting is
 7     something entirely different, which would be American
 8     production companies coming into Canada depending on
 9     the dollar exchange and what works better financially,
10     possibly using --
11  15491                MR. FRITH:  To be fair, Madam
12     Chairperson, that publicly-traded company, Atlantis
13     Alliance, with the majority of their product there is
14     no requirement, but Miramax, which is a subsidiary of
15     Disney, and New Line, a subsidiary of Warner Brothers,
16     uses Alliance for all their distribution in Canada for
17     all of their product and they do so not because the law
18     requires it.
19  15492                The law would actually allow them to
20     use an American distributor here in Canada.  They use
21     Alliance because it's a good business relationship
22     between the two and very profitable for both and
23     extremely profitable for Alliance if you look at their
24     annual report.  I just think that ownership of the
25     money isn't --


 1  15493                MS PEACOCK:  With respect to
 2     ownership, we do fervently believe that copyright is an
 3     important type of property and should have protection
 4     internationally.  I don't think -- I hope we are not
 5     perceived to be making any submission that suggests
 6     that anybody but the creator should be the first owner
 7     and that the owner should then be free to license,
 8     assign and otherwise deal with their property.  I don't
 9     think we are saying anything differently.  We certainly
10     don't intend to.
11  15494                MR. FRITH:  No.
12  15495                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.
13  15496                Counsel?
14  15497                MR. BLAIS:  Commissioner Pennefather
15     asked you a question and I don't think you had the
16     chance to give the answer.
17  15498                MS PEACOCK:  Is this the one I asked
18     to be reminded about what it was?
19  15499                MR. BLAIS:  That's right.  So, I will
20     try to remind you.  The gist of it was the impact of
21     your proposal on the Canadian independent production
22     sector, which is part and parcel of the objectives of
23     the Broadcasting Act and what impact it would have on
24     that sector, in your view.
25  15500                MS PEACOCK:  I think that it would be


 1     healthy for the independent production sector because
 2     the independent production sector is not just
 3     Canadian-controlled independent production companies. 
 4     The Canadian production sector includes a variety of
 5     Canadian production companies that are not
 6     Canadian-controlled and it includes a number of
 7     individuals -- it includes a number of companies,
 8     Canadian-controlled and not, that are not producers,
 9     but they provide production services, they provide
10     wardrobe, they provide scripts, they provide the
11     services of actors.
12  15501                All of those people are, I think,
13     part of the Canadian production sector and it certainly
14     includes the individuals themselves who operate cameras
15     and sound equipment and who are actors and writers and
16     editors.  All those people, I think, are part of the
17     Canadian production sector.
18  15502                MR. BLAIS:  So, you are basically
19     advocating that -- and I think it would be a change in
20     perspective for the Commission that the Commission
21     interpret the expression "Canadian independent
22     production sector" without regard to notions of control
23     and ownership and this relates to a point you made in
24     your opening remarks saying that nothing in the
25     Broadcasting Act requires the Commission to take the


 1     position that there needs to be Canadian ownership and
 2     control.
 3  15503                I just wanted to make sure, to be
 4     clear on this, that you are not suggesting that the Act
 5     prevents us from coming to the conclusion that it does
 6     have to be Canadian owned and controlled.  That's
 7     within the realm of what the Commission could decide,
 8     that the best way to achieve the objectives of the
 9     Broadcasting Act would be in fact to say:  Although we
10     could interpret it more broadly or apply it more
11     broadly, to achieve the goals it's better to narrow the
12     focus to Canadian controlled.
13  15504                MS PEACOCK:  I think I want to say --
14     I want to leave you with the impression that I am
15     saying that the Act does not require that the
16     production company be a Canadian-controlled production
17     company for the product to be Canadian programming. 
18     But that wasn't your question.  Your question was: 
19     Does it prohibit the Commission --
20  15505                MR. BLAIS:  That's correct.
21  15506                MS PEACOCK:  -- from making that a
22     requirement?  The answer is I don't know.  I haven't
23     studied, I have only read this Australian blue sky case
24     and their Australian content requirements were very
25     similar to the CRTC's and the High Court of Australia


 1     did agree that it was illegal in Australia, at least in
 2     the context of that case, to have that requirement. 
 3     Whether in the Canadian context and given our laws that
 4     would be the same result, I do not offer an opinion on
 5     that.
 6  15507                MR. BLAIS:  Keep in mind that I did
 7     my Master's thesis in Australia on copyright law, so I
 8     have some knowledge.  Maybe the context is somewhat
 9     different and you may want to address my specific
10     questions in your final written comments as to whether
11     there is something in our Act that would prevent us
12     from interpreting it differently.
13  15508                You have come up again with this
14     novel way of approaching the notion of a definition of
15     "Canadian programming" and, just to be clear, I take it
16     you are only proposing that for the purposes of the
17     Broadcasting exhibition quotas that we administer.  You
18     are not suggesting that that should be the definition
19     used, for instance, by the funds?
20  15509                MS PEACOCK:  No.
21  15510                MR. FRITH:  No.
22  15511                MR. BLAIS:  So, it would be strictly
23     for our quota purposes?
24  15512                MS PEACOCK:  Yes.
25  15513                MR. BLAIS:  Thanks.


 1  15514                In your opening remarks you mentioned
 2     that your member companies made various contributions
 3     to the Canadian system.  You mentioned cross-subsidy
 4     opportunities and exports and studios filming in
 5     Canada.  I was wondering if, keeping in mind the
 6     current definition of "Canadian programming", which is
 7     one based on ownership and control by Canadians, if
 8     there were any -- how much money are your members
 9     currently investing in those types of programming at
10     this time before they get produced, if any money?
11  15515                MR. FRITH:  I don't have the exact
12     number.  I can say that from one report that I read
13     from one studio alone, it was at the $100 million mark.
14  15516                MR. BLAIS:  What is that?
15  15517                MR. FRITH:  You are probably looking
16     at 350, I would say, just given the ratios that I have
17     witnessed in other areas.
18  15518                MR. BLAIS:  And what would be the
19     nature of -- are they equity investments in
20     Canadian-controlled productions or pre-sales?
21  15519                MR. FRITH:  They are both.  They are
22     both equity investments and purchasing of rights in
23     other markets.
24  15520                MR. BLAIS:  These are Canadian --
25  15521                MR. FRITH:  Programming.


 1  15522                MR. BLAIS:  -- programming, as
 2     currently defined?
 3  15523                MR. FRITH:  Correct.
 4  15524                MR. BLAIS:  And what would be the
 5     division between the two types of equity versus
 6     licensing in that $350 million?
 7  15525                MR. FRITH:  Could I say this?  Let me
 8     go back and then inquire of each of the studios to get
 9     that kind of a breakdown, rather than take and
10     extrapolate from just the one studio that I am involved
11     with that may or may not be the same once you
12     extrapolate them out over the others.  There might be
13     mitigating factors.
14  15526                MR. BLAIS:  That would be fine,
15     actually, if you could get -- do you think you could
16     get those numbers to us by the 15 of October?  We are
17     getting a bit close to that date, I know.  It has been
18     the date we have been using all along.
19  15527                MS PEACOCK:  One difficulty is going
20     to be that for anybody acquiring rights outside of
21     Canada to Canadian programming, they have no reason to
22     inquire when they are making those deals whether the
23     program is certified as Canadian content under any
24     regime at all.  We have asked for these figures before. 
25     I'm not saying we can't get them --


 1  15528                MR. FRITH:  They are not easy.
 2  15529                MS PEACOCK:  -- I'm just saying we
 3     may not be able to get them at all because the member
 4     companies have no reason to record that information in
 5     their agreements or otherwise.
 6  15530                MR. BLAIS:  I appreciate that there
 7     are some limits to this sort of information, but, just
 8     to be clear, if you could provide that, I am asking for
 9     investments or licensing fees being invested prior to
10     production commencing, not licensing once the
11     production is in the can.
12  15531                MR. FRITH:  Right.
13  15532                MR. BLAIS:  In your opening remarks
14     you also mentioned that there is a possibility -- one
15     of the contributions is this cross-subsidy of foreign
16     programming providing higher revenues for Canadian
17     broadcasters and I would like to tie that comment to
18     the discussion were you having about North American
19     rights.
20  15533                There is a concern voiced by some
21     that if rights are sold on a North American basis, they
22     may not become available to Canadian broadcasters,
23     particularly conventional broadcasters.  I will take a
24     hypothetical.  For instance, Disney, one of your
25     members, produces a film, a premium production, and


 1     decides that it will only license it to ABC in North
 2     America and, therefore, it just doesn't become
 3     available for Canadian over-the-air broadcasters.
 4  15534                If that continues or if that is a
 5     going-forward trend, hasn't that substantially
 6     minimized the value of the contribution or has the
 7     potential of minimizing this contribution you are
 8     saying that your members add to the Canadian
 9     broadcasting system?
10  15535                MR. FRITH:  When we were going
11     through the research to respond to that one particular
12     question, I think, that was raised really in the
13     initial round -- you refer to the "Lion King", I take
14     it.  That's the one that we found.  The other one was
15     "Schindler's List".  Even I, when I looked at this,
16     said, "Why would you do that because you could maximize
17     more money if you divided it."  Those were the only two
18     that we could find in our research, the "Schindler's
19     List" and "The Lion King".
20  15536                Now, if it were a trend line, I would
21     agree with you that you ought to take a look at it. 
22     From our research, those were the only two instances
23     and we didn't think that it's necessary regulatory
24     policy or public policy around it.
25  15537                MR. BLAIS:  But you would agree that


 1     if it was a growing trend --
 2  15538                MR. FRITH:  You would have to look at
 3     it.
 4  15539                MR. BLAIS:  -- it should be an area
 5     of concern?
 6  15540                MS PEACOCK:  I think if it reached a
 7     significant degree, yes, there would be -- the Canadian
 8     broadcasting system would be better off if that were
 9     not happening, but having said that, I don't know what
10     anybody is suggesting as a solution, as a regulatory
11     solution to that, if it should ever become a problem. 
12     Maybe you can enlighten me, but it seems to me peculiar
13     to even contemplate divesting a copyright owner of
14     their rights requiring -- creating a compulsory
15     licence, in effect, if that were even possible.
16  15541                MR. BLAIS:  I don't think the
17     suggestion is quite that draconian.  I think more the
18     suggestion has been put forward that as non-licensed
19     foreign services have access to the Canadian audience
20     through various regulatory means, that access be made
21     conditional, for instance, as one party suggests, be
22     conditional on that person who is trying to get that
23     privilege to get access to the Canadian market, that
24     party not engage in North American rights purchasing
25     practices.


 1  15542                MS PEACOCK:  I see how that applies
 2     to purchase -- I will keep using the same example --
 3     purchase by A&E of North American rights.  I don't see
 4     how that applies in the case of ABC, Disney choosing to
 5     licence ABC and not a Canadian broadcaster.
 6  15543                MR. BLAIS:  Well, no one has
 7     suggested it, but by parallel I would think that if the
 8     Commission can look at what services come in through
 9     the eligible satellite list, it can also do it for
10     over-the-air conventional broadcasters.  You can
11     appreciate that there are potential mechanisms there,
12     too.
13  15544                MS PEACOCK:  I can appreciate that,
14     in theory, there are potential mechanisms for excluding
15     the ABC signal from Canada.  I can appreciate that.
16  15545                MR. BLAIS:  I'm not suggesting that's
17     what the Commission intends to do at all.  I am just
18     putting it forth that it's not a question of
19     mechanisms, it's a question of whether it's an
20     opportune thing to do at this particular point in time.
21  15546                Thank you.  Those are my questions.
22  15547                THE CHAIRPERSON:  I have found the
23     paragraph in the CFTPA's --
24  15548                MR. FRITH:  I knew we should have
25     gotten out of here sooner!


 1  15549                THE CHAIRPERSON:  -- submission.  I
 2     don't think you will agree with it at all.  It's on
 3     page 17.  They are talking about financing production
 4     in Canada and de-Canadianizing of programming.  The
 5     quote is:
 6                            "' in everything else,
 7                            money talks.'  When the driver
 8                            for a production is the foreign
 9                            broadcast, the chances are
10                            greater that the production must
11                            be adapted to the perceived
12                            needs of that marketplace.  Does
13                            this mean that identifiably
14                            Canadian programming is not
15                            exportable?  Not necessarily --
16                            what it means is that the
17                            country that drives the
18                            production can reasonably expect
19                            to have a production that meets
20                            their needs."
21  15550                I fail to see that the needs of a
22     foreign broadcaster would be limited to programming
23     appealing to Canadians.  It would have to be appealing
24     to the greatest possible market and if you combine all
25     of that together, it's unlikely that they would choose


 1     to do a programming on Canadian prime ministers and all
 2     the way down the line on a continuum, but I guess you
 3     don't share that view.
 4  15551                MS PEACOCK:  I think we do share that
 5     view.  I think that it is unlikely that any of our
 6     members would come to Canada and spend a lot of money
 7     producing programming that was, first and foremost, of
 8     interest to Canadians and not exportable.  We are not
 9     saying that they would do that.  I don't think Canadian
10     producers are doing that unless they are getting very
11     large payments out of public monies to do it.  It
12     doesn't make any commercial sense for anybody to do it,
13     regardless of their nationality.
14  15552                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Except that
15     presumably what Canadian producers are saying is the
16     best solution or the best mix is for us to do both and
17     for us to get the property into programming that is
18     exportable and makes it easier to then also have
19     indigenous programming, that what we should try to aim
20     for is a mix or an equilibrium where there is as much
21     money flowing as possible, but that we retain at least
22     some capacity to tell Canadian stories that are really
23     ours.
24  15553                How one does that, I'm not sure, is
25     by thinking that we are going to get indigenous


 1     programming out of completely foreign investment with
 2     property rights resting with a foreign investor at the
 3     end.  But, in any event, I await the day when Americans
 4     come to Canada and produce a program on Canadian prime
 5     ministers that is not a comparison of how boring they
 6     are compared to their presidents.
 7  15554                Thank you very much for your
 8     presentation, Ms Peacock, Mr. Frith.
 9  15555                MR. FRITH:  Thank you.
10  15556                MS PEACOCK:  Thank you.
11  15557                THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will take a
12     15-minute break, which will allow the next party to get
13     properly organized.  So, we will be back at 10:30. 
14     Nous reprendrons donc à dix heures et demie.  Nous
15     prendrons une pause de 15 minutes.
16     --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1015
17     --- Reprise à / Upon resuming at 1037
18  15558                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Bonjour tout le
19     monde.
20  15559                Madame la Secrétaire, voulez-vous
21     s'il vous plaît inviter le participant suivant.
22  15560                Mme SANTERRE:  Merci, Madame la
23     Présidente.
24  15561                Alors le Regroupement québécois pour
25     le sous-titrage inc. va maintenant présenter ses


 1     commentaires.
 2  15562                Allez-y, Monsieur McNicoll.
 4  15563                M. McNICOLL:  Bonjour.  Avant de
 5     commencer, je vais vous présenter les gens qui sont
 6     avec moi ce matin.  J'ai Louis-Philippe Beauchamp;
 7     c'est un nouvel employé chez nous, au Regroupement
 8     québécois pour le sous-titrage.  J'ai à ma gauche
 9     Mme Monique Therrien, qui est la rédactrice des
10     documents qu'on vous a déposés.  J'ai André Lauzon,
11     personne sourde gestuelle, qui est membre du conseil
12     d'administration du RQST.  J'ai André Larivière, qui
13     est concepteur du site de la surdité, la page web si
14     vous voulez, du RQST... du Regroupement québécois pour
15     le sous-titrage; ça fait RQST.  Alors ce sont les gens
16     qui nous accompagnent ce matin.
17  15564                Il y a des personnes sourdes en
18     arrière, et gestuelles, de la région de l'Outaouais et
19     de Montréal qui sont venues nous appuyer dans notre
20     démarche.
21  15565                Est-ce que vous voulez que je
22     commence tout de suite?
23  15566                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui, allez-y.
24  15567                M. McNICOLL:  Avant d'aller plus
25     loin, on a amené un petit modèle de vidéo; c'est deux


 1     ou trois minutes.  C'est surtout des bulletins de
 2     nouvelles.  Un, ça va vous donner une idée c'est quoi,
 3     le sous-titrage, et ça va vous donner une idée aussi
 4     des lacunes, des raisons qu'on se présente chez vous
 5     aujourd'hui, ce matin, et ça va vous présenter
 6     l'importance du sous-titrage pour les personnes sourdes
 7     et malentendantes.
 8  15568                Pendant que le vidéo va tourner un
 9     petit peu, je vais le faire arrêter et je vais vous
10     expliquer c'est quoi qui nous cause des petits
11     problèmes et ensuite je passerai à mon discours, mon
12     allocution prévue pour ce matin.
13  15569                Ça va?
14  15570                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui.  Allez-y.
15  15571                M. McNICOLL:  Alors je vais faire des
16     commentaires pendant le vidéo.
17     --- Présentation vidéo / video presentation
18  15572                M. McNICOLL:  Ce n'est pas le bon
19     vidéo.
20     --- Courte pause / Short pause
21  15573                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je m'excuse...
22  15574                M. McNICOLL:  Je l'avais mis à huit
23     minutes, et il est supposé démarrer à la place que je
24     veux.
25  15575                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Je m'excuse,


 1     apparemment le vidéo ne démarre pas là où on voulait
 2     qu'il démarre.  Est-ce que quelqu'un pourrait s'occuper
 3     de reparler au technicien?
 4  15576                Nous attendons.
 5  15577                M. McNICOLL:  Mais j'ai une petite
 6     chose que je voudrais montrer.
 7  15578                Vous voyez quelque chose ici, à
 8     l'écran, au canal 29.  Dernièrement, le RQST a porté
 9     plainte au sujet de ce canal-là.  Ils ont ajouté
10     quelque chose qui est complètement nouveau; c'est ce
11     qu'on appelle des icônes d'information, comme la météo. 
12     En bas vous avez du télé-texte, des petits messages qui
13     donnent des petites nouvelles.
14  15579                Le sous-titrage a disparu
15     complètement à cause de ça.
16     --- Présentation vidéo / Video presentation
17  15580                M. McNICOLL:  Qu'est-ce que je
18     voulais vous montrer tantôt, c'est que vous avez un
19     bulletin de nouvelles qui explique une situation. 
20     C'est sous-titré; vous avez vu que le sous-titrage est
21     fait.  Et aussitôt qu'on passe à un reportage, le
22     reportage peut durer deux minutes, trois minutes, et on
23     perd complètement le sous-titrage.  On ne connaît pas
24     le sujet du reportage, on ne sait pas c'est quoi qui se
25     passe.  Ça, c'est un problème qu'on va soulever ce


 1     matin.
 2  15581                Sur le deuxième petit modèle d'à peu
 3     près une minute, c'est une émission que... on a un
 4     problème technique.  Ce matin, on a été les voir, on
 5     l'avait commencé, on avait dit quoi faire.  Je
 6     m'excuse.
 7  15582                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Est-ce qu'on peut
 8     avoir la prochaine partie du vidéo?
 9  15583                M. McNICOLL:  Il y a trois parties
10     modèles qui ne durent même pas une minute chacune.
11     --- Présentation vidéo / Video presentation
12  15584                M. McNICOLL:  Ici, vous avez un
13     reportage vidéo.  Comme vous voyez, l'émission débute
14     avec Radio-Canada... c'est sous-titré.  On s'en va à un
15     reportage vidéo, on ne sait même pas qu'est-ce qui se
16     passe.  Le sous-titrage commence à apparaître; on vient
17     de voir un sous-titrage, on vient de voir "demain" puis
18     on ne sait même pas qu'est-ce qui s'est passé.  La
19     personne continue à parler, le sous-titrage essaie de
20     rejoindre la personne.
21  15585                Ça, c'est le deuxième.
22  15586                M. LARIVIÈRE:  Le deuxième, et le
23     sous-titrage n'est pas bon.
24  15587                M. McNICOLL:  Je vais m'arrêter...
25     --- Présentation vidéo / Video presentation


 1  15588                M. LARIVIÈRE:  Ça, c'est la météo, et
 2     ça ne suit pas.
 3  15589                M. McNICOLL:  Vous avez vu des carrés
 4     blancs apparaître.  Ce sont des problèmes qu'on ne
 5     comprend pas, qui nous coupent complètement
 6     l'information.
 7  15590                Ceux qui ont une bonne connaissance
 8     du français vont s'apercevoir qu'il y a aussi pas mal
 9     de fautes.
10     --- Présentation vidéo / video presentation
11  15591                M. McNICOLL:  Nous, on se présente ce
12     matin pour quelque chose de bien précis.  On voudrait
13     avoir, à l'aube du nouveau siècle, un accès intégral à
14     la télévision.
15  15592                Il faut réaliser que la télévision,
16     pour les personnes sourdes et malentendantes, c'est la
17     seule accessibilité aux communications d'information
18     après les journaux.  Les journaux, c'est au moins 24
19     heures d'attente avant d'avoir de l'information.
20  15593                Madame la Présidente, Mesdames,
21     Messieurs les Commissaires, télédiffuseurs et
22     producteurs, bonjour.  Nous vous remercions de nous
23     accueillir à cette audience.  Pour le Regroupement
24     québécois pour le sous-titrage, cette intervention est
25     la plus importante depuis notre première visite en


 1     1980, lors de l'audience sur le renouvellement de la
 2     licence de Radio-Canada.  À l'époque, l'Agence
 3     canadienne de développement du sous-titrage, le Centre
 4     québécois de la déficience auditive, la Confédération
 5     des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec
 6     demandaient l'accès au sous-titrage pour les personnes
 7     sourdes et malentendantes.  Dix-sept ans après
 8     l'avènement de la première émission sous-titrée à
 9     Radio-Canada, le RQST est fier d'avoir pris la relève
10     de l'Association, et surtout du travail accompli dans
11     le dossier du sous-titrage.
12  15594                Aujourd'hui, en tant que représentant
13     des personnes sourdes et malentendantes usagères du
14     sous-titrage, le RQST dépose un mémoire afin de
15     partager sa réflexion sur les politiques du CRTC
16     relatives à la télévision canadienne.
17  15595                Le RQST ne s'est pas seulement penché
18     sur l'aspect du sous-titrage soulevé au point 66 de
19     l'appel d'interventions.  Il a effectué la même
20     réflexion globale que les télédiffuseurs, producteurs
21     et autres intervenants dans le dossier, mais vu à
22     travers le prisme des personnes sourdes et
23     malentendantes.
24  15596                Nous aimerions, simplement par notre
25     participation, vous sensibiliser, chers commissaires,


 1     télédiffuseurs, producteurs et public, à l'importance
 2     du sous-titrage pour les personnes sourdes et
 3     malentendantes.
 4  15597                Essayez seulement de vous imaginer
 5     dans une salle devant un téléviseur, sans accès au
 6     monde extérieur ni par le téléphone cellulaire, qui
 7     demeure toujours inaccessible pour les personnes
 8     sourdes, ni par la voie d'une radio qui offre de
 9     l'information et de la météo, les bouchons de
10     circulation ou tout autre événement d'importance.  Le
11     téléviseur constitue votre unique source d'information
12     en ce qui concerne le moment présent.  Les journaux ne
13     rapportent toujours que les événements de la veille.
14  15598                Votre téléviseur n'a plus de son. 
15     Vous êtes donc devant une boîte à images vide de sens
16     qui vous montre divers événements mondiaux, heureux ou
17     malheureux.  Vous regardez mais vous n'entendez rien. 
18     Vous voyez mais ne saisissez pas.  Vous devinez les
19     événements, vous voyez un écrasement d'avion sans
20     savoir si cela concerne un membre de votre famille ou
21     quelqu'un qui vous est cher.  Vous voyez beaucoup de
22     vent et d'eau sans savoir où s'est vécu l'événement. 
23     Vous voyez des images de guerre sans savoir pourquoi
24     elle a lieu.  Vous essayez, dans l'inquiétude et
25     l'angoisse, de comprendre ce qui se passe, mais aucune


 1     information ne vient à vous.
 2  15599                C'est ce que les sourds et les
 3     malentendants ont vécu lors de la Guerre du Golfe, des
 4     inondations du Saguenay et de la rivière Rouge, de la
 5     tempête du verglas.  Ils sont restés enfermés dans une
 6     bulle de silence qu'aucun sous-titrage n'est venu
 7     percer, ajoutant beaucoup d'insécurité à une situation
 8     parfois alarmante pour certains.
 9  15600                La fameuse boîte à images, comme nous
10     l'appelions à l'époque, existe depuis 50 ans.  De la
11     télévision en noir et blanc, en passant par
12     l'apparition des premières couleurs, des premières
13     transmissions par câble et par satellite, nous arrivons
14     maintenant à la télévision à haute définition et à la
15     multiplication des canaux, qui n'offrent guère plus
16     d'informations aux personnes sourdes et malentendantes
17     parce que peu d'émissions sont sous-titrées.
18  15601                Comment se fait-il qu'on puisse
19     envoyer un appareil explorateur téléguidé sur mars muni
20     d'une technologie de communication d'avant-garde alors
21     qu'on est à peine capables de sous-titrer une émission
22     en direct?  Les nouvelles technologies développées dans
23     le cadre de ces projets spatiaux à gros budgets servent
24     toute la communauté terrienne -- télécopieurs,
25     cellulaires et micro-ondes -- mais pas les personnes


 1     sourdes et malentendantes.
 2  15602                Le RQST croit qu'il est important que
 3     tous les intervenants comprennent bien l'impact social
 4     positif que constitue le sous-titrage parce que la
 5     télévision, c'est aussi un outil social.  Combien de
 6     Canadiens peu scolarisés ont pu apprendre grâce aux
 7     émissions éducatives et aux documentaires?  Il en va de
 8     même pour les personnes sourdes et malentendantes,
 9     lorsque ces émissions sont sous-titrées, bien sûr.
10  15603                Mais l'utilité du sous-titrage ne
11     s'arrête pas là.  Une émission sous-titrée peut aussi
12     aider les personnes immigrantes qui apprennent le
13     français ou celles qui sont en voie d'alphabétisation. 
14     Même une personne malentendante avec un rai d'audition
15     bénéficie d'un support de compréhension non négligeable
16     lorsque l'émission est sous-titrée.
17  15604                Le sous-titrage constitue aussi un
18     outil social d'intégration et d'autonomie des personnes
19     sourdes et malentendantes.  Ces mots qui défilent les
20     soulagent de demander continuellement à un membre de
21     leur famille, souvent récalcitrants, de traduire ou
22     d'expliquer ce qui se passe à l'écran.  Les parents
23     sourds peuvent difficilement compter sur leurs enfants
24     pour leur expliquer des événements aussi cruciaux que
25     ceux du verglas de janvier dernier.  Les enfants n'ont


 1     ni les connaissances requises, ni la patience d'être
 2     des interprètes à temps plein.
 3  15605                La principale fierté d'une personne
 4     sourde ou malentendante, c'est d'être autonome, et le
 5     sous-titrage leur offre cette autonomie.
 6  15606                Des coûts sociaux seront épargnés
 7     lorsque le sous-titrage deviendra un moyen
 8     d'alphabétisation et d'éducation des personnes sourdes,
 9     malentendantes, immigrantes et en voie
10     d'alphabétisation, qui s'ajouteront au bassin de
11     travailleurs actifs, d'auditeurs attentifs et de
12     consommateurs potentiels.
13  15607                Nous ne voulons plus regarder cette
14     fameuse boîte à images sans comprendre ce qu'elle dit.
15  15608                Aujourd'hui, le RQST souhaite vous
16     faire part de sa réflexion sur trois aspects
17     particuliers:  la réglementation du CRTC, le rôle du
18     CRTC et la non-discrimination envers les personnes
19     sourdes et malentendantes francophones du Canada.
20  15609                La réglementation.
21  15610                C'est bien connu de tous, le
22     volontariat mène souvent nulle part.  On peut constater
23     cette disparité dans le sous-titrage en comparant
24     l'imposition du sous-titrage du côté anglophone à
25     l'incitation du côté francophone.  L'imposition donne


 1     des résultats concrets alors que l'incitation n'a eu
 2     comme effet que seul 25 pour cent de l'ensemble des
 3     émissions francophones sont sous-titrées.  C'est
 4     pourquoi nous croyons qu'une réglementation uniforme...
 5     la réglementation en matière de sous-titrage doit être
 6     la même pour les télédiffuseurs francophones et
 7     anglophones.
 8  15611                La réglementation lors de l'émission
 9     ou du renouvellement d'un permis de télédiffusion d'une
10     station locale ou d'un service étranger devra prévoir
11     des quotas de sous-titrage de l'ordre de 50 pour cent
12     la première année, 75 pour cent la seconde année, et le
13     sous-titrage intégral de toute la programmation la
14     troisième année sans exception.
15  15612                Une réglementation basée sur
16     l'ensemble de la programmation.
17  15613                Les quotas imposés doivent l'être sur
18     toutes les catégories d'émissions, même lors de faible
19     écoute ou de reprises.  De l'avis du RQST, les heures
20     de grande écoute ne constituent pas un critère de
21     réglementation puisque les personnes sourdes et
22     malentendantes forment un bassin hétérogène d'enfants,
23     de travailleurs, de chômeurs et de personnes âgées avec
24     des besoins très différents en matière de sous-titrage. 
25     Bien sûr, elles sont là aux heures de grande écoute,


 1     mais elles comblent aussi leur journée, comme bon
 2     nombre de Canadiens, à l'aide de la télévision.  De
 3     plus, les quarts de travail fractionnés, le travail en
 4     soirée et la nuit sont de plus en plus chose courante,
 5     ce qui augmente le nombre de spectateurs à des moments
 6     dits de faible écoute.
 7  15614                La réglementation en matière de
 8     sous-titrage doit cesser d'être imposée sur les
 9     recettes publicitaires d'un télédiffuseur mais être
10     imposée sur la programmation entière d'un
11     télédiffuseur.
12  15615                Une norme qualitative du sous-titrage
13     francophone.
14  15616                La norme qualitative qui sera
15     présentée par le RQST, et dont vous aurez une copie
16     sous peu en main, devrait être incluse à la
17     réglementation afin d'uniformiser le sous-titrage à
18     toutes les chaînes francophones du Canada.  Cette norme
19     qualitative devrait entrer en vigueur pour tous les
20     télédiffuseurs à une date spécifique, et ce, sans
21     attendre le renouvellement de leur licence.  Cette
22     norme est applicable dès maintenant puisque les
23     éléments qui la constituent ne nécessitent aucune
24     technologie nouvelle ou spéciale.  Ce sont les
25     producteurs de sous-titrage ainsi que certains


 1     télédiffuseurs qui nous l'ont confirmé lors d'une
 2     rencontre du comité technique sur la norme; un
 3     représentant du CRTC était sur place.  Aucune excuse
 4     n'est donc valable pour refuser de l'appliquer.
 5  15617                Le CRTC devrait veiller à réévaluer
 6     périodiquement cette norme afin de vérifier si elle
 7     satisfait toujours les usagers.
 8  15618                Le sous-titrage:  un automatisme.
 9  15619                Les télédiffuseurs devraient être
10     tenus d'inclure à leurs prévisions budgétaires un poste
11     pour le sous-titrage.  Les télédiffuseurs et
12     producteurs qui achètent des émissions étrangères
13     devraient être tenus de les sous-titrer lors de la
14     traduction ou devraient exiger du distributeur qu'elles
15     soient sous-titrées à l'achat.
16  15620                Le sous-titrage:  seule technologie
17     acceptable.
18  15621                Il devrait être interdit aux
19     télédiffuseurs de remplacer le sous-titrage par des
20     pictogrammes ou autres techniques infographiques.  La
21     réglementaiton devrait interdire la technologie du
22     télé-souffleur, qui est inadéquate.  Les fabricants de
23     télédiffuseurs devraient être tenus d'inclure une puce
24     pour le sous-titrage dans tous leurs appareils, peu
25     importe la taille, et ce, afin d'assurer une


 1     accessibilité partout, chez les amis, à l'hôtel.
 2  15622                Je vais ouvrir juste une petite
 3     parenthèse.  Ce matin, on a travaillé très fort pour
 4     trouver un décodeur.  Alors si le Canada pouvait faire
 5     comme les États-Unis et imposer une puce de décodage
 6     dans le téléviseur, ça réglerait beaucoup de problèmes
 7     et ça permettrait à beaucoup de personnes sourdes de
 8     voyager partout au Canada et avoir accès à
 9     l'information sans problème.
10  15623                C'est gênant des fois d'aller chez
11     des amis, chez des parents, à l'hôtel ou en voyage et
12     qu'on ne peut pas avoir accès à telle nouvelle ou aux
13     informations locales.
14  15624                Le CRTC devrait accorder une
15     attention particulière au sous-titrage lors du passage
16     de la technologie analogique à la technologie numérique
17     en imposant un temps d'implantation et un pourcentage
18     minimum requis d'usagers.
19  15625                Rôle du CRTC.
20  15626                Le CRTC, nous le répétons, doit être
21     le chien de garde du sous-titrage et imposer une
22     réglementation plus sévère aux télédiffuseurs.  Le CRTC
23     doit assurer un meilleur contrôle sur le nombre
24     d'heures d'émissions sous-titrées en comptabilisant le
25     temps réel du sous-titrage et non le temps total prévu


 1     d'une émission.
 2  15627                J'ouvre une autre parenthèse ce
 3     matin.  On voulait vous montrer sur le vidéo un petit
 4     peu un exemple:  Vous avez un bulletin de nouvelles
 5     annoncé de 30 minutes.  C'est vrai que le télédiffuseur
 6     va dire:  "Trente minutes sous-titrées."  Par contre,
 7     il peut y avoir juste 15 ou 20 minutes en tout dans
 8     cette émission qui sont sous-titrées.  Comme vous
 9     voyez, les reportages en direct ne sont pas
10     sous-titrées.  On n'a pas 30 minutes de sous-titrage à
11     date; on n'en a pas.  Souvent, c'est 10, 15 minutes de
12     sous-titrage.  On a des parties d'émissions
13     d'information, mais une grosse partie essentielle de
14     l'émission, on n'y a pas accès.
15  15628                Juste pour me rappeler un petit peu,
16     hier, à Radio-Canada -- non, je pense que c'était à
17     TVA; je m'excuse, à TVA -- on parlait d'un problème
18     d'épidémie mineure de coqueluche.  L'émission disait: 
19     "Il y a une épidémie à Montréal et autour de Montréal
20     de coqueluche."  Ils donnaient des précautions, mais
21     les précautions n'étaient pas sous-titrées.  C'était un
22     élément plus essentiel de dire qu'il y a une coqueluche
23     dans Montréal.  L'élément essentiel qui disait quoi
24     faire avec cette maladie-là -- même, c'est une maladie
25     contagieuse; alors que les parents, il fallait qu'ils


 1     aillent se faire soigner, prendre des antibiotiques et
 2     tout ça -- les personnes sourdes n'ont jamais eu accès
 3     à cette information et ne l'auront jamais à moins
 4     qu'elles lisent les journaux le lendemain.
 5  15629                Alors le CRTC, je répète, doit
 6     assurer un meilleur contrôle sur le nombre d'heures
 7     d'émissions sous-titrées en comptabilisant le temps
 8     réel de sous-titrage et non le temps total prévu
 9     d'émission.
10  15630                Le CRTC doit être le catalyseur du
11     travail concerté de tous les intervenants de la
12     télévision à créer un comité aviseur chargé de débattre
13     sur le sous-titrage actuel et à venir, d'analyser les
14     nouvelles technologies et d'apporter les divers besoins
15     et réflexions du milieu qui les représente.  Ce comité
16     pourrait aussi être sollicité lors de la réévaluation
17     périodique de la norme qualitative du sous-titrage
18     anglophone.
19  15631                Le CRTC doit faire des pressions
20     auprès des intervenants chargés du financement afin que
21     l'obligation de sous-titrage soit un critère
22     d'admissibilité aux programmes d'aide et fonds
23     disponibles.  Le sous-titrage devrait être un
24     automatisme et non pas une mesure imposée.
25  15632                Le CRTC devrait créer un fonds de


 1     recherche en matière de sous-titrage, fonds dans lequel
 2     les télédiffuseurs seraient obligés de cotiser puisque
 3     peu d'entre eux effectuent de la recherche et du
 4     développement sur le sujet.
 5  15633                La non-discrimination.
 6  15634                Le CRTC, mandataire du gouvernement,
 7     donc responsable de l'application de la Charte
 8     canadienne des droits et libertés, doit faire en sorte
 9     que les télédiffuseurs ne fassent aucune discrimination
10     basée sur le handicap.  Le CRTC, mandataire du
11     gouvernement, donc responsable de l'application de la
12     Loi en matière des langues officielles, doit
13     réglementer afin qu'il n'existe aucune disparité entre
14     les obligations des télédiffuseurs francophones et les
15     télédiffuseurs anglophones en matière de sous-titrage.
16  15635                Le CRTC est tenu, par le jugement de
17     la Cour suprême du Canada, d'exiger des télédiffuseurs,
18     principalement la CBC et Radio-Canada, qu'ils offrent
19     de l'information adaptée lors de crises ou de
20     situations qui mettent en péril la vie ou la santé des
21     personnes sourdes et malentendantes canadiennes par le
22     biais du sous-titrage en direct et de l'interprétation
23     gestuelle.  L'information est un droit et non un
24     privilège.
25  15636                Le CRTC doit cesser la discrimination


 1     basée sur la langue actuellement en vigueur à la
 2     société d'État en obligeant Radio-Canada à sous-titrer
 3     en français... il me manque une page.
 4  15637                Je m'excuse, j'ai perdu une page. 
 5     J'ai distribué des documents ce matin et là, ma page
 6     est partie.
 7     --- Courte pause / Short pause
 8  15638                Je m'excuse.
 9  15639                Bref, le CRTC doit revoir sa
10     réglementation dans le respect de la minorité
11     francophone du Canada et le respect des besoins des
12     personnes handicapées.
13  15640                Le sous-titrage, c'est plus que de
14     simples mots qui défilent à l'écran, c'est l'une des
15     portes qui mènent à la connaissance, à l'autonomie et à
16     l'intégration des personnes sourdes et malentendantes
17     dans toutes les sphères de la société canadienne. 
18     C'est ce qui fait qu'une personne sourde ou
19     malentendante se sent traitée à part égale et bénéficie
20     à part égale du monde riche des communications, de
21     l'information, d'une culture et d'épanouissement
22     personnel.  Mais, pour cela, il faudrait qu'elle ait
23     accès à une télévision dont toutes les programmations
24     sont entièrement sous-titrées.
25  15641                Le mémoire qui est déposé aujourd'hui


 1     par le RQST explique plus en détail chaque point
 2     énuméré plus haut.  Nous espérons qu'il éclairera le
 3     Conseil sur la position de la communauté sourde et
 4     malentendante en matière de sous-titrage et sur
 5     l'importance pour le CRTC de réviser sa réglementation
 6     actuelle en faveur d'un sous-titrage de qualité, tant
 7     qualitativement que quantitativement.
 8  15642                Le RQST a bien fait ses devoirs dans
 9     ses dossiers; il ne reste plus au CRTC qu'à en faire de
10     même.
11  15643                Ce matin nous sommes ouverts, mon
12     équipe et moi, à toutes vos questions.
13  15644                Merci.
14  15645                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci, Monsieur
15     McNicoll.
16  15646                Je crois que vous avez abordé au
17     début la liste des groupes que le Regroupement
18     représente.  Est-ce que vous pouvez nous donner plus
19     d'informations là-dessus, combien il y a de groupes au
20     Québec qui s'occupent des malentendants ou qui
21     regroupent les buts et ce que le regroupement
22     représente, finalement?
23  15647                M. McNICOLL:  Nous avons actuellement
24     26 associations membres du RQST éparpillées partout à
25     travers le Québec et un petit peu en Ontario.  Alors ce


 1     sont les gens actuellement qui supportent le RQST.  Il
 2     faut dire aussi qu'on est le seul organisme qui défend
 3     le sous-titrage en français.  Nulle part au Canada il
 4     n'y a quelqu'un qui parle en notre nom.
 5  15648                On est aussi membres du Centre
 6     québécois de la déficience auditive, qui chapeaute à
 7     peu près 70 organismes de personnes sourdes,
 8     d'intervenants au niveau des personnes sourdes.  Alors
 9     le support que nous avons ici vient de tout ce monde
10     là.  Nous avons, dans le projet La Norme, eu un grand
11     nombre d'appuis des associations à travers le Québec.
12  15649                Vous dire on représente combien de
13     personnes sourdes exactement... je dois dire qu'on
14     représente vraiment les personnes sourdes et
15     malentendantes et leurs opinions à elles.
16  15650                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Vous avez mentionné
17     aussi cette question de normes.  Est-ce que je vous
18     entends dire qu'une norme pour le sous-titrage en
19     français qui serait compatible avec les technologies
20     existantes est maintenant accessible?
21  15651                Si je comprends bien, le gouvernement
22     avait un groupe de travail qui essayait de pousser de
23     l'avant cette question d'une norme pour le sous-titrage
24     en langue française.
25  15652                M. McNICOLL:  C'est nous, les maîtres


 1     d'oeuvre du projet.  Alors nous, on avait toujours une
 2     contrainte avec les années; en nous présentant au CRTC,
 3     plusieurs télédiffuseurs nous disaient que la
 4     technologie ne le permettait pas.
 5  15653                La norme qu'on veut imposer, c'est
 6     surtout une norme qu'on pourrait dire uniforme d'un
 7     télédiffuseur à l'autre.  Actuellement, il y a des gens
 8     qui utilisent un télé-souffleur, il y en a d'autres qui
 9     font du sous-titrage maison, il y en a d'autres qui
10     font affaire avec des firmes spécialisées.  Chacun,
11     suivant ses budgets, est porté à sous-titrer d'une
12     manière ou d'une autre.
13  15654                C'est sûr qu'actuellement, ce qu'on
14     appelle chez nous le roulement en bas de l'écran, le
15     sous-titrage qui est un peu en bas de l'écran, c'est le
16     sous-titrage le plus économique.  Dans la norme, ce
17     qu'on va dire, c'est:  O.k., si vous faites un bulletin
18     de nouvelles, si vous faites un documentaire, vous
19     allez utiliser ce sous-titrage-là; si vous faites un
20     film ou un téléroman, par exemple, là, vous allez
21     utiliser un genre de sous-titrage qui explose à
22     l'écran.
23  15655                Alors nous, avec le Comité technique,
24     les propositions qu'on a faites... quand je dis "nous",
25     ce sont les personnes sourdes, parce que ce sont les


 1     personnes sourdes qui ont été sondées, ce n'est pas le
 2     RQST qui a décidé ça.  On a rencontré un groupe qu'on
 3     appelle le "pré-test" qui ont évalué la compréhension,
 4     la qualité du sous-titrage, tous les bobos qui nous
 5     frictionnent actuellement.
 6  15656                Alors nous, on a présenté une
 7     prévision de la norme qui s'en venait aux
 8     télédiffuseurs, aux compagnies de sous-titrage, et eux
 9     nous ont assuré qu'actuellement, avec les technologies
10     disponibles à leur disposition, il n'y avait aucune
11     contrainte pour faire ce sous-titrage-là.
12  15657                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Donc cette norme-là
13     existerait en ce moment.
14  15658                M. McNICOLL:  Elle existe sur papier,
15     mais il faudrait la déposer chez vous et vous, vous
16     l'imposez.
17  15659                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors ce n'est pas
18     celle qui est utilisée par les télédiffuseurs.
19  15660                M. McNICOLL:  Non, "pantoute".  D'un
20     télédiffuseur à l'autre, ça peut être, comme je l'ai
21     dit tantôt, du sous-titrage maison, du sous-titrage bon
22     marché, le plus économique possible.
23  15661                Il y a certaines compagnies ou
24     grandes maisons qui vont utiliser du sous-titrage de
25     haute qualité mais il n'y a rien d'imposé actuellement. 


 1     C'est que chacun fait le sous-titrage comme bon lui
 2     semble.
 3  15662                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Est-ce que ce
 4     sous-titrage-là, ce serait par phonèmes plutôt que
 5     "sténotapé"?
 6  15663                M. McNICOLL:  Pouvez-vous répéter
 7     votre question?
 8  15664                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  La norme, est-ce que
 9     ça vise le sous-titrage qui serait par sons ou par
10     phonèmes plutôt que simplement quelqu'un qui tape ce
11     qu'il entend?
12  15665                M. McNICOLL:  Le sous-titrage, pour
13     nous, je ne sais pas, ce serait au son; pour nous,
14     c'est une forme de sténotypie.  C'est fait par
15     sténotypiste, à cause que la parole est trop rapide.
16  15666                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  D'accord.
17  15667                M. McNICOLL:  Il y a certaines
18     parties que c'est avec des sons, oui.
19  15668                Nous, ce qu'on veut dire, c'est que
20     le sous-titrage doit être encodé, ça veut dire sous la
21     forme sténo, et phonétique.  C'est ça, le sous-titrage.
22  15669                Quand on parle par télé-souffleur,
23     c'est un texte comme je viens de vous lire ce matin qui
24     apparaît devant le lecteur de nouvelles, et il lit.  Ce
25     n'est pas quelque chose qui est vraiment sous-titré; ce


 1     n'est pas pareil "pantoute", "pantoute".
 2  15670                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Évidemment, c'est
 3     plus difficile à faire en langue française qu'en langue
 4     anglaise.  Vous êtes d'accord que c'est un des
 5     problèmes qui a retardé le développement chez les
 6     télédiffuseurs du sous-titrage en langue française?
 7  15671                M. McNICOLL:  Je ne crois pas, et
 8     notre expérience nous dit que ce n'est pas ça.
 9  15672                On l'a vu, c'est toujours la question
10     de coût.  Le Comité technique a bien prouvé que le
11     sous-titrage en direct est faisable, sauf que c'est le
12     coût.  Si on ne crée pas une obligation ou un marché,
13     le coût ne baissera jamais et il n'y aura jamais
14     d'exploration.  C'est à partir du moment où on dit: 
15     "Vous êtes obligés", vous imposez une règle, que les
16     coûts vont baisser.
17  15673                Le sous-titrage, en 1981, coûtait à
18     peu près 1 200 $, 1 800 $ l'heure; aujourd'hui, on
19     parle de 600 $ et 800 $.  Alors, malgré que le
20     sous-titrage baisse continuellement, la ligne de
21     progression ne monte pas vite.
22  15674                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Non, je comprends vos
23     frustrations, mais au départ les coûts qui seraient
24     imposés aux télédiffuseurs pour en faire autant que du
25     côté anglophone seraient plus élevés sinon pour


 1     d'autres raisons que le fait qu'ils sont amortis sur
 2     une population plus petite, parce que vous êtes
 3     évidemment d'accord ou vous savez évidemment que du
 4     côté anglophone les exigences chez les télédiffuseurs
 5     sont plus élevées déjà que du côté francophone pour des
 6     raisons économiques, mais je vous comprends que plus on
 7     exige, plus ça se fait, et les coûts baissent
 8     évidemment.
 9  15675                Est-ce que vous êtes au courant des
10     engagements qui ont été pris par les affiliés de
11     réseaux francophones à leurs renouvellements récents?
12  15676                M. McNICOLL:  Pour les anglophones,
13     oui, mais pas pour les francophones.
14  15677                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Non, non,
15     francophones.  Est-ce que j'ai fait erreur?  Je voulais
16     dire "francophones".
17  15678                M. McNICOLL:  Vous dites que les
18     francophones... je n'ai pas eu aucun écho...
19  15679                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Les renouvellements
20     des affiliés de Radio-Canada, de TQS et de TVA, où on a
21     pris des engagements qui, je suis certaine, ne sont pas
22     suffisants pour vous, mais quand même c'est une
23     question qui a été soulevée et discutée à leur
24     renouvellement à Québec.
25  15680                Chez Radio-Canada, c'est une


 1     condition de licence qu'il y ait un certain montant de
 2     sous-titrage de fait d'ici l'an 2000, que de fait les
 3     bulletins de nouvelles locales de CBVT soient
 4     sous-titrés entièrement d'ici l'an 2000, ce qui suggère
 5     que nous aurons des engagements plus avancés de la part
 6     de Radio-Canada quand on entendra son renouvellement en
 7     1999.
 8  15681                M. McNICOLL:  (Hoche la tête en signe
 9     d'acquiescement).
10  15682                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Alors ce n'est pas
11     que le Conseil ne s'occupe pas de la chose, c'est que
12     c,est difficile d'équilibrer les coûts et les
13     exigences.  Et, évidemment, nous comprenons votre
14     frustration et le désir que tout soit fait entièrement
15     dans un délai beaucoup plus court.
16  15683                Je crois comprendre qu'une de vos
17     frustrations est que dans les bulletins de nouvelles la
18     partie qui est en direct n'est souvent pas titrée. 
19     Donc vous avez une partie titrée qui vous dit ce qui va
20     se passer, et ensuite on coupe à une partie qui n'est
21     pas sous-titrée.
22  15684                C'est bien ce que je comprends des
23     vidéos que nous avons vus?
24  15685                M. McNICOLL:  Ça, c'est un exemple de
25     frustration.  Le deuxième exemple de frustration qu'on


 1     peut vous donner immédiatement, ce matin, c'est que
 2     l'accessibilité à la télévision n'est pas uniforme pour
 3     les personnes sourdes et malentendantes.  On devient
 4     des personnes... un petit peu comme un poisson, il faut
 5     mordre à l'hameçon d'un télédiffuseur pour pouvoir
 6     écouter la télévision.
 7  15686                Ce n'est pas normal, on est rendus à
 8     l'aube du 21e siècle et on n'est pas capables d'écouter
 9     des émissions de sports sous-titrées, on n'a pas accès
10     à des émissions culturelles sous-titrées; les enfants,
11     excepté avec les canaux spécialisés comme Canal Famille
12     ou un petit peu à Radio-Canada, n'ont même pas accès
13     encore à des émissions sous-titrées.  On n'a même pas
14     accès à des débats publics comme -- la demande qui me
15     revient souvent chez les personnes sourdes -- "Claire
16     Lamarche"; ça, c'est un exemple d'émission
17     d'information essentielle ou intéressante pour ces
18     personnes-là.  On n'a pas accès à ça.
19  15687                Tout ce qu'on a accès, c'est les
20     films et les téléromans.  Est-ce qu'on doit s'accrocher
21     juste à ces émissions-là continuellement?  C'est depuis
22     1981 qu'on est accrochés sur des téléromans et des
23     films.  On aimerait ça, nous autres aussi, comme vous,
24     personnes entendantes, avoir accès mais ne pas être
25     accrochés sur un télédiffuseur, "pitonner" comme tout


 1     le monde et écouter l'émission de notre choix, à notre
 2     goût.
 3  15688                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Quand vous parlez de
 4     la puce dans les téléviseurs et l'imposition de la puce
 5     aux États-Unis, j'imagine que ça va aider au Canada
 6     aussi à mesure que les gens changent leur téléviseur,
 7     mais vous allez me dire évidemment qu'il faut qu'il y
 8     ait de la programmation sous-titrée pour que ça vaille
 9     quelque chose aux gens.
10  15689                M. McNICOLL:  C'est intéressant, ça
11     aussi, mais l'inverse pourrait être vrai aussi.  Si
12     moi, je m'en vais dans l'ouest pour m'installer et je
13     ne comprends pas la langue anglaise, le sous-titrage
14     m'aide beaucoup à l'apprentissage de la langue.  C'est
15     comme ceux de l'ouest qui s'en vont dans l'est; pour
16     apprendre le français, ils font la même chose.
17  15690                Le problème de la puce intégrée,
18     c'est que tous les pays qui ont une très bonne relation
19     d'affaires avec les États-Unis insèrent une puce de
20     décodage.  Quand on s'en va sur le côté spécialisé, les
21     compagnies de télévision spécialisées ou les compagnies
22     qui ne font pas affaires avec les États-Unis, qui 
23     rentrent par Vancouver -- beaucoup de pays asiatiques
24     vendent des produits en passant par Vancouver -- vu
25     qu'on n'a pas l'obligation au Canada d'insérer une puce


 1     de décodage, il n'y en a pas.  C'est ça.
 2  15691                L'aide qu'on demande, c'est qu'il
 3     faudrait qu'on ait une loi à peu près identique à celle
 4     des Américains pour éviter, justement, de contourne la
 5     loi américaine pour entrer sur le marché canadien.
 6  15692                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Quand vous suggérez
 7     que le Conseil ait un comité aviseur... est-ce que j'ai
 8     bien compris, que le Conseil ait un comité aviseur qui
 9     se pencherait sur ces questions en ce qui concerne le
10     marché de langue française en particulier?
11  15693                M. McNICOLL:  Vous venez de voir ce
12     matin un petit peu sur le 29, rapidement, ce que je
13     vous disais, un canal avec des icônes de météo et un
14     télé-texte en bas.  Quand ils ont sorti ça vers la
15     mi-août, le télédiffuseur était conscient que le
16     sous-titrage était bloqué probablement, la ligne de
17     sous-titrage; il en était conscient, mais il a fallu
18     que le RQST demande au CRTC qu'est-ce qui se passait,
19     et il y a d'autres personnes qui ont écrit aussi
20     directement au Canal Nouvelles pour avoir de
21     l'information sur ce qui s'était passé.  Ils nous
22     disaient:  "On a un problème technique.  On le sait. 
23     On en est conscients."  Ils ont dit:  "On a continué à
24     sous-titrer."  Nous, on n'a jamais vu le sous-titrage.
25  15694                Si on crée un projet d'un comité


 1     aviseur, ça va nous permettre, si jamais il y a une
 2     nouvelle technologie, un nouveau changement, quelque
 3     chose, de le visionner et voir... pour les personnes
 4     sourdes, et non être obligés de toujours crier après
 5     telle personne après qu'elle ait imposé ou implanté
 6     quelque chose.
 7  15695                C'est pour ça que le comité aviseur,
 8     je pense que je trouve ça intéressant d'un côté; ça
 9     nous permet de voir si la technologie est adaptée pour
10     les personnes sourdes.  Deuxième chose, c'est que ça
11     nous permet aussi de faire un suivi sur la qualité et
12     quantité, les problèmes.  Si vous dites:  "Tel
13     télédiffuseur a un problème financier", ils n'ont pas à
14     se cacher; qu'ils nous le disent, et on va voir si on
15     peut s'ajuster ou faire des compromis, comme on dit en
16     affaires.  C'est important pour nous.
17  15696                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous avons entendu un
18     groupe qui représentait les malentendants de langue
19     anglaise et qui se plaignaient, eux aussi, de
20     l'orthographe et de la qualité du sous-titrage.  Est-ce
21     qu'à votre avis ce problème-là est plus sérieux en
22     langue française?
23  15697                M. McNICOLL:  Beaucoup plus grave. 
24     Beaucoup plus grave.  On en parle dans le mémoire, de
25     toute façon, de la qualité du français.


 1  15698                Je regardais hier certains
 2     programmes, des nouvelles émissions qui sont arrivées. 
 3     Comme je vous dis, c'est vrai que les coûts baissent,
 4     mais la qualité baisse en même temps.  On est
 5     conscients de ça, mais ce n'est pas une raison... c'est
 6     parce que j'aimerais que vous lisiez le dernier
 7     bulletin du RQST que j'ai apporté avec moi.  Il y a une
 8     personne sourde qui a écrit quelque chose sur la
 9     fameuse qualité du français.
10  15699                On a un risque pour les personnes
11     sourdes et malentendantes, surtout les enfants qui
12     regardent un sous-titrage erroné.  Je vais vous donner
13     un exemple d'un mot qui a disparu pour les personnes
14     sourdes... pas pour vous autres, mais pour les
15     personnes sourdes; c'est le fameux "ça", "c cédille". 
16     C'est juste un exemple comme ça.  Ça fait 20 ans,
17     depuis 1981, qu'on a des ATS anglophones, avec un
18     clavier anglophone; on n'a pas des ATS à clavier
19     français encore, ça n'existe même pas au Québec, parce
20     que c'est importé des États-Unis.  On a un clavier
21     anglophone.  Comme ça, on fait "ça"; "ça", c'est
22     toujours "c-a", "c-a", "c-a", ça fait 19 ans.
23  15700                Dernièrement les accents avec le
24     c-cédille commencent à apparaître à la télévision, mais
25     ce n'est pas fait encore.  Il y a une personne qui m'a


 1     dit:  "Ah, 'ça', ça s'écrit avec un "c cédille"?  Je ne
 2     le savais pas."  Mais ça fait 19 ans ou 20 ans que la
 3     personne écrit "ça" pas de "c cédille".  Alors vous
 4     voyez c'est quoi, le problème de la qualité du
 5     français.
 6  15701                Si on a un mauvais exemple via la
 7     télévision, les enfants ont le mauvais exemple aussi
 8     via la télévision, c'est un gros problème.
 9  15702                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Est-ce que ce
10     problème-là est aussi dans la "syllabification", les
11     phonèmes, et caetera, où les mots deviennent
12     incompréhensibles parce qu'ils ne sont pas bien
13     divisés?
14  15703                M. McNICOLL:  Beaucoup, parce que
15     dans le projet La Norme on a montré des comparaisons
16     entre, si vous voulez, les caractères en langue
17     anglaise, tout en majuscules comme on voit
18     actuellement; on a montré des phrases pièges, comme "un
19     homme indigne", "un homme indigné"; l'exemple d'un mot
20     avec un accent et pas d'accent.
21  15704                Nous, on ne le voit pas, ça.  À moins
22     que tu sois très compétent en français et que tu
23     comprennes très bien le français... c'est là que tu vas
24     voir qu'il y a une erreur, tu sais si c'est "é" ou "e". 
25     Mais les personnes sourdes, les jeunes qui apprennent,


 1     qui entrent dans le sous-titrage avec ça, ils ne
 2     sauront jamais si ça prend un accent ou si ça n'en
 3     prend pas puis ils vont être portés probablement plus
 4     tard à écrire ces mots comme vus à la télévision.
 5  15705                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  De fait, un homme
 6     indigne et un homme indigné ne veulent même pas dire la
 7     même chose.  Je sais que vous, vous êtes indigné de la
 8     lenteur des progrès mais vous n'êtes pas un homme
 9     indigne.  C'est un exemple évidemment très à propos.
10  15706                Nous reconnaissons évidemment vos
11     désirs et vos buts et nous en avons discuté dans les
12     renouvellements très récents des affiliés que nous
13     avons entendus il y a moins d'un an, et nous entendrons
14     Radio-Canada en 1999, et je suis certaine que cette
15     question sera soulevée encore une fois.
16  15707                Nous sommes conscients du fait qu'à
17     votre avis ça ne bouge pas suffisamment, mais c'est un
18     dossier auquel le Conseil s'intéresse, et nous vous
19     encourageons à continuer vos efforts pour atteindre vos
20     objectifs.
21  15708                Nous sommes impressionnés du nombre
22     de personnes qui ont jugé bon de venir nous voir
23     aujourd'hui.  Nous vous remercions de cette
24     présentation, et nous sommes très conscients de vos
25     objectifs.


 1  15709                Mme THERRIEN:  Est-ce que je peux me
 2     permettre d'ajouter quelques petites informations?
 3  15710                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Oui, allez-y, madame.
 4  15711                Mme THERRIEN:  Il y a deux choses
 5     importantes que l'on doit dire, et c'est que le
 6     sous-titrage a été nommé comme une des priorités lors
 7     d'un colloque qui réunissait des personnes
 8     malentendantes et sourdes; donc c'est une priorité au
 9     Québec pour le Centre québécois de la déficience
10     auditive, qui appuie très fortement les démarches du
11     Regroupement québécois du sous-titrage; et d'un.
12  15712                Deux, je voudrais revenir sur une
13     question que vous avez posée à M. McNicoll un peu plus
14     tôt sur la différence entre le sous-titrage anglophone
15     et le sous-titrage francophone, parce que le bassin
16     d'anglophones est plus grand et que le bassin
17     francophone est plus petit.
18  15713                Enfin, si on regarde le sous-titrage
19     anglophone au Canada et que l'on soustrait le nombre
20     d'émissions sous-titrées qui proviennent des
21     États-Unis, la réalité du sous-titrage canadien, le
22     pourcentage réel tombe à un niveau pas très loin
23     équivalent à ce qui se fait au niveau francophone.  La
24     seule différence chez les anglophones, c'est qu'ils
25     jouissent de ce bassin-là d'émissions qu'ils achètent


 1     déjà sous-titrées, mais en réalité le pourcentage du
 2     sous-titrage fait au Canada n'est pas très élevé non
 3     plus.
 4  15714                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Mais ça recoupe un
 5     autre problème, qui est le problème de la fréquence de
 6     la programmation ou la ratio, le pourcentage de la
 7     programmation américaine ou de provenance d'outre-mer
 8     chez les télédiffuseurs anglophones.  Donc les
 9     malentendants ont beaucoup plus accès à de la
10     programmation sous-titrée parce qu'il y a moins de
11     programmation canadienne comparé à ce que vous voyez au
12     Québec; il y a beaucoup plus de programmation qui est
13     d'origine québécoise.  Comprenez-vous?  Donc, pour le
14     malentendant anglophone, évidemment, ils ont accès à
15     beaucoup plus de programmation sous-titrée parce qu'ils
16     regardent beaucoup plus de programmation étrangère.
17  15715                Mais je comprends votre point,
18     évidemment, parce qu'il y a beaucoup moins de
19     programmation produite au Canada qui est visionnée par
20     les Canadiens anglais en ce moment, qui est un problème
21     que nous examinons en ce moment.
22  15716                Par le bassin, j'incluais évidemment
23     le fait que cette programmation-là provient de pays
24     anglophones autres que le Canada.  Alors c'est plus
25     frustrant pour vous parce qu'il y a plus de


 1     programmation produite qui est canadienne qui est
 2     visionnée chez les Québécois.
 3  15717                Mme THERRIEN:  Non seulement ça, au
 4     niveau du direct, on revient à chaque fois avec la Fête
 5     du Canada qui est sous-titrée en direct; le fameux
 6     grand spectacle que l'on offre à tous les Canadiens, on
 7     l'offre strictement aux Canadiens anglais parce que les
 8     Canadiens français n'en jouissent pas, de ça. 
 9     Pourquoi?
10  15718                C'est la même société d'État; une est
11     anglophone, une est francophone.  Pourquoi est-ce que
12     les francophones n'y ont pas droit?  Et même s'ils se
13     mettent à écouter la télévision anglophone, lorsqu'il y
14     a quelqu'un qui parle en français, on arrête le
15     sous-titrage et on dit que ce n'est pas disponible.
16  15719                C'est une des très grandes
17     frustrations, principalement à la société d'État, qui,
18     quand même, doit se soumettre aussi aux lois sur les
19     langues officielles et ainsi de suite.
20  15720                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous aurons
21     évidemment l'occasion d'en reparler au renouvellement
22     de Radio-Canada, et j'ai cru entendre qu'on arrive à
23     des meilleures possibilités selon ce qu'on a entendu au
24     renouvellement des affiliés.  Alors gardez courage. 
25     Nous comprenons vos frustrations.


 1  15721                Le conseiller Cardozo a quelques
 2     questions pour vous.
 3  15722                CONSEILLER CARDOZO:  Merci.
 4  15723                Comme Mme la Présidente a dit, la
 5     semaine passée un organisme qui travaille avec les
 6     anglophones a dit qu'en anglais il y a un problème avec
 7     la programmation américaine parce que l'orthographie
 8     est différente, l'orthographie canadienne et
 9     américaine.
10  15724                Est-ce qu'il existe un problème comme
11     ça en français avec les programmations qui viennent
12     d'autres pays, comme la France ou d'autres pays?
13  15725                M. McNICOLL:  Nous avons les mêmes
14     problèmes.  Si vous parlez du marché français, ce n'est
15     pas le même standard de communication, le format de
16     communication; il y a PAL (ph.) puis il y a un autre
17     format, je ne me souviens plus quoi.  Alors, même si le
18     produit a déjà été sous-titré en France ou quelque
19     chose et qu'on l'importe au Canada, il va falloir le
20     re-sous-titrer de nouveau.  On a une preuve avec TV5. 
21     TV5, le bulletin de nouvelles de sept heures, il est
22     sous-titré deux fois; il est sous-titré en France et il
23     est sous-titré au Canada parce que ce n'est pas le même
24     format de sous-titrage.  Ça, c'est un problème qu'on a
25     souvent.


 1  15726                Pour revenir ou renchérir sur
 2     Mme Therrien, où on voit un gros problème frustrant
 3     pour les Québécois, c'est que les télédiffuseurs
 4     francophones achètent aussi du produit américain, des
 5     émissions américaines, qui sont traduites en français,
 6     bravo, mais le sous-titrage, lui, n'est pas traduit. 
 7     On n'en a pas, de sous-titrage.  C'est ça qui est
 8     "plate".
 9  15727                Est-ce qu'on est obligés de toujours
10     écouter les émissions en anglais pour nous satisfaire? 
11     Ça ne marche pas.  Si vous achetez un produit que vous
12     faites traduire dans une langue, vous faites traduire
13     aussi le sous-titrage pour qu'on y ait accès.
14  15728                Un exemple de cette année:  TQS
15     l'année passée avait sous-titré une émission, une série
16     qui se passe à l'hôpital.  Peut-être que toutes les
17     personnes sourdes et malentendantes ont suivi cette
18     série-là.  Ça passe à TVA cette année, mais TVA ne fait
19     pas le sous-titrage.  C'est intéressant!
20  15729                Alors c'est ça, on a vraiment un
21     problème au niveau de l'importation des produits, si
22     vous voulez.
23  15730                CONSEILLER CARDOZO:  Vous avez dit
24     que vous êtes contre la pictographie.  Qu'est-ce que
25     c'est?


 1  15731                M. McNICOLL:  Il faudrait revenir au
 2     début de la cassette.  C'est une nouvelle technologie
 3     que je pense qui va être utilisée.  Je viens de le
 4     remarquer sur le Canal Nouvelles de TVA, sur le canal
 5     29 sur le câble de Montréal -- je ne sais pas c'est
 6     quoi chez vous -- et vous avez aussi le canal 9 de
 7     Vidéotron qui a commencé à utiliser ça.  Les
 8     pictogrammes, ce sont des petits carrés qui montrent la
 9     météo, vous voyez des nuages qui se promènent, un petit
10     soleil qui tourne, des petites choses comme ça.
11  15732                Ensuite, en bas, ils utilisent ce
12     qu'on appelle du télé-texte.  C'est juste de brèves
13     information, nouvelles, qui n'ont aucun rapport avec
14     l'image animée d'information.
15  15733                En plus de ça, par-dessus ça, vous
16     mettez du sous-titrage.  Alors vous avez les petits
17     choses un petit peu Internet, comme des jiff (ph.)
18     Internet qui bougent tout le temps.  Vous avez en
19     arrière un écran qui change continuellement.  Vous avez
20     du sous-titrage qui se déroule continuellement.
21  15734                Comment voulez-vous qu'on écoute un
22     bulletin de nouvelles?  On n'a pas quatre yeux.  C'est
23     un champ de vision, ce n'est pas quatre champs de
24     vision.  C'est ça qui est le problème.
25  15735                CONSEILLER CARDOZO:  Mais s'il y a


 1     juste un pictographe qui donne un peu d'information,
 2     est-ce que c'est o.k.?
 3  15736                M. McNICOLL:  Le canal MétéoMédia --
 4     je ne sais pas depuis combien d'années qu'il est en
 5     ondes -- a commencé ses émissions comme ça, avec
 6     différentes sortes d'icônes d'information de météo,
 7     d'images pour ci puis ça.  De plus en plus ils font
 8     aussi du reportage.
 9  15737                Depuis que le canal MétéoMédia
10     existe, ils n'ont jamais, jamais, jamais fait de
11     sous-titrage.  Le CRTC n'a jamais, jamais imposé de
12     sous-titrage.  Dans leurs conditions de licence je ne
13     vois nulle part qu'ils sont obligés de nous rendre
14     accessibles.
15  15738                Ça de vient intéressant de mettre des
16     petites bébelles comme ça qui nous disent... mais ça ne
17     nous dit pas le fond de l'histoire.  S'il arrive une
18     tempête de verglas, s'il arrive une situation urgente
19     ou quoi que ce soit, la petite bébelle qui tourne
20     autour de l'écran ne nous dit rien.
21  15739                C'est important pour nous qu'on ait
22     la même accessibilité que vous autres... une
23     information globale totale, pas avec des dessins; même
24     si les dessins peuvent nous aider, c'est intéressant,
25     mais pour les personnes sourdes ou malentendantes, je


 1     ne pense pas que ce soit l'outil idéal pour comprendre
 2     quelque chose.
 3  15740                CONSEILLER CARDOZO:  Quelle est votre
 4     opinion sur... je ne sais pas le mot, mais peut-être la
 5     langue des signes.  Je me souviens autrefois sur le
 6     canal parlementaire il y avait un petit cercle avec un
 7     visuel et avec une personne qui parlait avec la langue
 8     de signes... sign language.
 9  15741                M. McNICOLL:  La langue des signes va
10     toujours être un besoin nécessaire, essentiel pour les
11     personnes sourdes gestuelles.  Veut ou veut pas, il va
12     falloir qu'elle reste ou il va falloir la défendre à un
13     moment donné, parce que comme on sait que ce petit
14     groupe-là, c'est un petit groupe, une petite culture
15     qui ont une difficulté de lecture, une difficulté de
16     compréhension, c'est essentiel dans toutes les
17     situations d'urgence ou les informations nécessaires,
18     comme les élections, les choses comme ça, qu'ils y
19     aient accès.
20  15742                Le RQST va appuyer fortement,
21     continuellement la demande des sourds gestuels parce
22     qu'on trouve que c,est très important pour eux qu'ils
23     accès à cette information-là.  Je ne dis pas qu'il y
24     ait l'information 100 pour cent, sept jours par semaine
25     en gestuel, mais s'ils peuvent avoir une émission qui


 1     leur appartient, les informations essentielles de base,
 2     comme quand il y a des situations de crise, d'épidémie,
 3     quoi que ce soit, c'est qu'ils deviennent privilégiés
 4     et ils devraient avoir cette information-là comme nous,
 5     on l'a.
 6  15743                Mme THERRIEN:  On a pu, d'ailleurs, le
 7     voir lors du passage de l'ouragan George en Louisiane
 8     aux États-Unis; lorsqu'il y avait quelqu'un qui
 9     annonçait les mesures d'urgence, l'avis d'évacuation,
10     la personne était devant sa tribune et tout à côté il y
11     avait une interprète gestuelle qui interprétait
12     directement.  Alors toutes les personnes étaient
13     informées et même les personnes sourdes gestuelles.
14  15744                CONSEILLER CARDOZO:  Et le signage
15     est différent entre l'anglais et le français, n'est-ce
16     pas?
17  15745                Mme THERRIEN:  Oui.
18  15746                CONSEILLER CARDOZO:  Finalement, j'ai
19     une question sur les priorités.
20  15747                Avez-vous des priorités pour les gens
21     de programmation, les nouvelles ou les programmes
22     dramatiques ou les téléromans?  Je ne pense pas les
23     téléromans.
24  15748                M. McNICOLL:  Vous avez répondu à la
25     question.  Non.  Ce qu'on vous dit, c'est que les


 1     bulletins de nouvelles, c'est essentiel, l'accès à la
 2     culture, c'est essentiel; l'accès à la culture, aux
 3     émissions dramatiques, aux émissions musicales, il faut
 4     que ce soit... c'est essentiel.  D'autres genres, c'est
 5     le sport; c'est essentiel pour nous.
 6  15749                Actuellement, on n'est même pas
 7     capables de venir devant vous et dire qu'on est contre
 8     la violence à la télévision parce qu'il n'y a rien qui
 9     soit accessible pour nous.  On ne peut pas discuter
10     comme ça.  Si vous nous dites:  "Oui, mais on va vous
11     couper ça au profit de ça"... on n'en a pas.  On veut
12     avoir la même chose... c'est comme si vous nous dites: 
13     "Dans une journée de 24 heures, on va vous couper le
14     son pendant huit heures de temps et choisissez votre
15     émission après."  Vous ne seriez pas contents.  Chez
16     nous, on n'est pas contents de cette situation-là, on
17     la trouve injuste.
18  15750                On ouvre une télévision, la
19     télévision, c'est pour tout le monde, on a accès pour
20     tout le monde sans donner des priorités.  La priorité
21     qu'on va vous donner, oui, le sous-titrage en direct,
22     depuis 17 ans qu'on le demande, et ça devrait être une
23     exigence que le sous-titrage en direct, il y ait un
24     départ.  Ça, c'est une exigence, une obligation qu'on
25     veut maintenant.


 1  15751                Pour les émissions, il ne faudrait
 2     pas choisir... je me suis déjà fait dire, je pense que
 3     c'est par la télévision d'État:  "On ne sous-titre pas
 4     les nouvelles du sport."  Actuellement, il n'y a plus
 5     de nouvelles du sport sous-titrées que sur les canaux
 6     spécialisés.  On nous dit:  "On n'a pas besoin de
 7     sous-titrer les nouvelles du sport parce qu'un autre
 8     canal le fait."  Se faire répondre comme ça, ce n'est
 9     pas correct; ce n'est pas correct.  Je pense qu'on a
10     droit au même accès que tout le monde, égalité pour
11     tout le monde, choix multiples comme tout le monde.
12  15752                CONSEILLER CARDOZO:  Merci beaucoup.
13  15753                Merci, Madame la Présidente.
14  15754                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Est-ce que je
15     comprends bien qu'un de vos problèmes avec les
16     pictogrammes aussi, c'est qu'à ce moment-là on remplace
17     éventuellement le sous-titrage complètement?
18  15755                M. McNICOLL:  C'est sûr et certain. 
19     C'est sûr et certain.  C'est une autre porte encore
20     pour les télédiffuseurs pour économiser.
21  15756                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Savez-vous,
22     Monsieur McNicoll, si pendant la tempête de verglas les
23     organisations que vous connaissez et les associations
24     que vous connaisses ont essayé d'exiger qu'il y ait du
25     gestuel au réseau?


 1  15757                Je vous vois dire oui.  Et ça n'a pas
 2     réussi?
 3  15758                M. McNICOLL:  Ça a été l'enfer.  Ça a
 4     été l'enfer.
 5  15759                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Et il n'y en a pas
 6     eu.
 7  15760                M. McNICOLL:  C'est parce qu'on
 8     disait:  "Sous-titré en direct"... faites attention,
 9     les mesures d'urgence, à cause des pannes ou quoi que
10     ce soit, il ne faudrait plus que le sous-titrage soit
11     caché.  C'est pour ça encore, pour revenir à la petit
12     puce d'intégration, c'est qu'on s'en va dans des
13     endroits de sécurité, sécuritaires, ou un déplacement
14     de gens dans un endroit, si on rentre là et qu'il n'y a
15     pas de décodeurs, on ne peut pas écouter les nouvelles,
16     ci et ça.
17  15761                La deuxième chose, on a demandé à
18     tous les télédiffuseurs, par communiqué, par téléphone
19     direct, par fax, d'envoyer des messages pour deux
20     personnes sourdes, où aller, où s'informer.  On a
21     demandé à tous les télédiffuseurs, si c'est possible,
22     de mettre une interprète gestuelle pour transmettre
23     l'information.  On a eu une fin de non-recevoir.  C'est
24     "plate", mais c'était ça.
25  15762                On a déposé un mémoire à la


 1     Commission Nicolet à ce sujet.  Si vous voulez avoir
 2     une copie de ce mémoire-là, on peut vous le
 3     transmettre, mais on dit exactement ce qu'on vous dit.
 4  15763                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Voilà pourquoi vous
 5     êtes un homme indigné.
 6  15764                Mesdames, messieurs, nous vous
 7     remercions de votre participation et aussi nous sommes
 8     contents de voir qu'il y a plusieurs personnes qui ont
 9     jugé bon de venir nous voir.  J'espère qu'elles ne
10     partent pas toutes et toutes plus indignés qu'avant
11     d'arriver.
12  15765                Merci.
13  15766                M. McNICOLL:  Merci.
14  15767                M. GUIBORD:  Sommes-nous assurés,
15     Madame la Présidente, que vous lirez, vous et les 
16     commissaires, le mémoire qui a été présenté
17     aujourd'hui?
18  15768                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Absolument.
19  15769                M. GUIBORD:  Merci bien.
20  15770                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous ne l'avons pas
21     lu encore parce qu'il est arrivé à nous seulement ce
22     matin, mais il est au dossier, évidemment, et il sera
23     lu.
24  15771                M. GUIBORD:  Merci bien.
25  15772                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Madame la Secrétaire.


 1  15773                MS SANTERRE:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
 2  15774                I would like now to invite the
 3     Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of
 4     Canada.
 5  15775                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning,
 6     gentlemen.  Proceed when you are ready.
 8  15776                M. KINKAID:  Bonjour, Madame la
 9     Présidente et membres du Conseil.  Permettez-moi
10     d'abord de me présenter.  Mon nom est James Kinkaid, et
11     je suis accompagné de M. Michael Sullivan.  Nous sommes
12     ici à titre de représentants du SCEP, le Syndicat
13     canadien des communications, de l'énergie et du papier;
14     pour le bénéfice des interprètes, Communication, Energy
15     and Paperworkers Union of Canada.
16  15777                Pour vous donner un peu l'historique
17     du SCEP, puisque c'est la première fois que le SCEP se
18     présente devant ce Conseil, le SCEP a été fondé en 1992
19     suite à la fusion de trois syndicats majeurs au Canada,
20     à savoir, le Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses
21     en communications du Canada, le Syndicat des
22     travailleurs du papier ainsi que le Syndicat des
23     employés en énergie et chimie.  Suite à cette fusion se
24     sont joints à nous les membres du SNTC, soit NABET, qui
25     eux représentent effectivement les gens en


 1     radiodiffusion.
 2  15778                Soit dit en passant, M. Sullivan a
 3     une longue expérience au niveau de la radiodiffusion et
 4     sera sûrement plus apte que moi à répondre à plusieurs
 5     de vos questions.
 6  15779                Donc, aujourd'hui nous représentons
 7     quelque 150 000 membres, dont environ 8 000 qui
 8     travaillent directement au niveau de la radiodiffusion,
 9     de la transmission ou télédistribution ainsi que de la
10     production.
11  15780                Je crois qu'il y a lieu en premier
12     lieu de féliciter le Conseil d'abord pour son excellent
13     travail et sa contribution au niveau de notre système
14     de télédistribution, de communications et de
15     radiodiffusion.  Nous considérons en gros que les
16     mécanismes réglementaires actuels ont en effet
17     contribué énormément au soutien de notre industrie et
18     ont aussi contribué au développement et aux objectifs
19     de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.
20  15781                Ce que nous proposons en gros dans
21     notre soumission du 30 juin, c'est de maintenir et de
22     resserrer les critères actuels du Conseil en matière de
23     contenu canadien mais aussi d'y ajouter des
24     considérations au niveau des contributions culturelles
25     que pourrait apporter notre système de radiodiffusion


 1     au Canada.
 2  15782                Donc on recommande entre autres de
 3     maintenir et même de renforcer l'application des
 4     critères existants et aussi d'y ajouter, si vous
 5     voulez, un système de critères ou d'évaluation, une
 6     base d'évaluation qui pourrait tenir compte des
 7     contributions que pourraient faire nos radiodiffuseurs
 8     et nos producteurs indépendants en matière de culture
 9     canadienne.
10  15783                Ce que nous voulons en gros, à
11     l'instar de plusieurs autres groupes, c'est de voir à
12     ce que les Canadiens soient mieux ou de plus en plus
13     représentés sur nos ondes.  Pour ce faire, dans notre
14     soumission nous vous suggérons d'augmenter les
15     exigences en matière de contenu canadien et que ces
16     exigences soient spécifiques pour chaque catégorie
17     d'émissions, notamment en matière de catégories
18     sous-représentées.
19  15784                Afin d'atteindre ces objectifs, ce
20     qui à notre avis aiderait énormément, c'est de
21     permettre entre autres aux radiodiffuseurs, dont
22     notamment la CBC/Radio-Canada, de générer des revenus
23     additionnels des productions auxquelles ils participent
24     via la redistribution sur les canaux spécialisés et la
25     vente de ceux-ci sur les marchés étrangers.  Nous


 1     suggérons, ce faisant, qu'aux radiodiffuseurs puissent
 2     appartenir en entier ou en partie les productions
 3     auxquelles ils ont participé financièrement et
 4     physiquement.  De plus, nous vous soumettons qu'il
 5     serait temps de permettre aux radiodiffuseurs d'avoir
 6     accès aux fonds publics de production.
 7  15785                Compte tenu de la maturité financière
 8     des producteurs indépendants et de leur rôle au niveau
 9     de la distribution, il serait selon nous effectivement
10     temps d'équilibrer les forces du marché en permettant
11     aux radiodiffuseurs un accès élargi aux fonds de
12     production canadiens.
13  15786                Enfin, dans notre soumission du 30
14     décembre, nous avons aussi tenu à souligner au Conseil
15     le rôle que nous croyons qui devrait être dévolu à la
16     Société Radio-Canada, à CBC, qui elle aussi, selon
17     nous, devrait avoir accès à ces fonds publics de
18     production.  La CBC, ou Radio-Canada, est un des
19     contribuables, si on veut, en termes de contenu
20     canadien les plus importants au Canada, bien sûr, et
21     mériterait en ce sens une façon de pouvoir bénéficier
22     des fonds publics actuels pour pouvoir, justement,
23     avoir un meilleur contrôle sur le contenu de sa
24     programmation et bénéficier ou faire bénéficier aux
25     Canadiens d'un contenu plus élevé en matière de contenu


 1     canadien.
 2  15787                Je vais maintenant céder la parole à
 3     M. Sullivan, qui a aussi certaines suggestions à vous
 4     faire et certains commentaires additionnels à vous
 5     proposer, suite à quoi nous serons, bien sûr,
 6     disponibles pour répondre à vos questions.
 7  15788                MR. SULLIVAN:  The thrust of our
 8     brief is to move essentially from a system of
 9     regulation to a system which encourages broadcasters by
10     means of a business case and a business reality, where
11     it would make financial sense for broadcasters, not
12     just because they have to, but financial sense to move
13     to a greater spectrum of Canadian content, particularly
14     in prime time.
15  15789                The tendency of broadcasters now is
16     to avoid their obligations as best they can or to
17     minimize their obligations as best they can.  We have
18     discovered in our surveys of some of our members about
19     this that -- one of the things that was appalling to us
20     was broadcasters, when they air a 15-second news
21     highlights every evening are now entitled to count the
22     full 3- or 4-minute commercial block as Canadian
23     content for 15 seconds of news; they add up 10 of those
24     and they now have half an hour of Canadian content
25     every evening for what amounts to 15 seconds of news


 1     that's repeated 10 times in the evening.  That's an
 2     example of how the private broadcasters are doing
 3     everything they can to minimize their contribution to
 4     the Canadianization of the system.
 5  15790                The private broadcasters, and the
 6     networks themselves, are leaning towards alliances with
 7     large American broadcasters.  There is no proof of this
 8     now, but it wouldn't surprise us at all if we didn't
 9     hear of strategic alliances between Baton, CTV and ABC
10     capacities in the near future as a way for them to
11     promote themselves in the States and as a way for the
12     American networks to avoid the ownership obligations
13     that occur in Canada.  And the same would be true of
14     Global, being very closely aligned with NBC and Fox.
15  15791                We also are concerned about the loss
16     of local programming as a result of the centralization
17     of the systems in Toronto and in Montreal, whereby a
18     station right here in Ottawa, CJOH, produces zero local
19     programming now with the exception of news.  That's all
20     that's left.
21  15792                As a result of that, although their
22     local sales forces are going great guns in selling all
23     kinds of ads, they do not produce anything locally, and
24     the people we represent in those stations has shrunk
25     dramatically, by over 50 per cent in the last five


 1     years.  Although you heard this morning that there is a
 2     huge infrastructure of Canadian production talent
 3     developing through Telefilm and others, that
 4     infrastructure is growing at the expense in some cases
 5     of jobs in the broadcast sector.  And, if you were to
 6     look at the Net, I doubt that the Net would be a net
 7     gain for Canada in terms of the number of jobs in the
 8     industry.
 9  15793                We are also somewhat concerned and we
10     have commented in our brief about the word
11     "complementary" towards the CBC in the call for this
12     hearing.  We don't really know what you  mean by it. 
13     We hope what you mean by it isn't what we think you
14     mean by it.
15  15794                We hope what you mean by it is that
16     CBC has a different role to play, but the word
17     "complementary" might also mean that the CBC has an
18     opposite role to play, that where private broadcasters
19     should be in popular culture, the CBC should not, or
20     that where private broadcasters should be in news, the
21     CBC should not.  We hope and trust that that's not what
22     the Commission meant by that rather provocative turn of
23     phrase.
24  15795                As you know from our brief, we took
25     you seriously that you wanted to rethink the structure


 1     and we proposed a new structure that gives broadcasters
 2     a financial and a commercial and a business incentive
 3     to produce Canadian programming, but with that some
 4     stricter regulation by the Commission in terms of the
 5     amounts they put on the air.
 6  15796                So, if we you have any questions, we
 7     would be pleased to answer them.
 8  15797                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you,
 9     Mr. Sullivan.  Merci, Monsieur Kinkaid.
10  15798                Commissioner Cardozo, please; le
11     conseiller Cardozo.
12  15799                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
13     Madam Chair.
14  15800                If it is okay with you, I will pose
15     my questions in English, and feel free to respond in
16     either language.
17  15801                MR. SULLIVAN:  That's fine.
18  15802                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  This is the
19     union, right, because you are talking about a business
20     case.
21  15803                MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes.  Foreign terms, I
22     know.
23  15804                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Is this the
24     third way the people are talking about?
25  15805                Were you guys down at that conference


 1     last week in Washington, where they were talking
 2     about -- I am just revving you, but we will come to it.
 3  15806                MR. SULLIVAN:  It is hitting home.
 4  15807                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  You talked
 5     about Canadian programming, and as I look at the
 6     continuum of how we evaluate or judge Canadian
 7     programming, one could draw a continuum with cultural
 8     objectives on one hand and industrial objectives on the
 9     other.
10  15808                In your written brief it seemed to me
11     that you wanted to move to the cultural end of things,
12     and what you are talking about with the business case
13     seems to be moving to the industrial objectives end of
14     the continuum.
15  15809                Is that fair?  I mean, it is fair to
16     do both.
17  15810                MR. SULLIVAN:  It is fair to do both. 
18     What we have said in the written brief is that, by
19     giving the broadcasters a business reason to do
20     culture, the cultural objectives will be met.  Right
21     now the broadcasters have a business reason to
22     broadcast American programming because they make more
23     money from the American programming than they do from
24     Canadian programming.  So they will avoid Canadian
25     programming as much as they possibly can and make their


 1     money from American programming.
 2  15811                What we are suggesting is that, by
 3     looking at the system as a whole, and giving
 4     broadcasters access to Telefilm for productions that
 5     they would then own and be able to bicycle through
 6     their various cable channels, the broadcasters would
 7     soon see that there is money to be made in Canadian
 8     programming.
 9  15812                We have also been advised by the CBC
10     that their experience with Canadian programming has
11     been that it is revenue neutral, that despite the
12     suggestion from the CAB or from the private
13     broadcasters, there is a net loss in Canadian
14     programming in terms of revenue.
15  15813                When the CBC switched from American
16     programming to Canadian programming, they expected to
17     lose $13 million a year in revenue.  That didn't
18     happen.  It has been neutral.  There has been no net
19     loss.
20  15814                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Is that what
21     you mean when you say advertising is essentially
22     neutral?
23  15815                MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes.  So, taking that
24     out of the complaint or taking that argument away from
25     the broadcasters that they would lose advertising


 1     revenue, you then have to look at the cost of
 2     production.
 3  15816                If it costs them three times what it
 4     takes to buy an American program -- because that's
 5     really what we are up against, is the American monster. 
 6     If it costs them three times as much, we have to give
 7     them a way to make three times as much money.  They are
 8     not going to make that in their first-run advertising,
 9     but they may be able and we suspect they will be able
10     to make that money in the ability to own and sell and
11     bicycle the product through the Canadian system and
12     into the U.S. and other systems as appropriate.
13  15817                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Can I just ask
14     who your members are?  You mentioned at the beginning
15     NABET, who I sort of associate more with the
16     technicians and so forth that you see at broadcasting
17     operations.  Are your members also producers and people
18     who work with independent producers?
19  15818                MR. SULLIVAN:  Our members in
20     television and radio broadcasting run the full
21     spectrum, right from the Executive Vice-President on
22     down of most broadcasters --
23  15819                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  That's where
24     the business case is coming from.
25  15820                MR. SULLIVAN:  Exactly -- to the CBC,


 1     where we do only represent the technical end of the
 2     CBC, and then the Canadian Media Guild represents the
 3     journalists.
 4  15821                At the French network there are
 5     different sets of unions based in Quebec who represent
 6     the French side of the CBC, but we represent almost all
 7     of the broadcasting operations in Canada, and it is
 8     usually a vertically integrated unit; everybody, from
 9     the bottom to the top, is in the unit.
10  15822                We also represent, in the freelance
11     sector, about 1,000 members in Vancouver and Toronto
12     whose job it is generally to work on independent films.
13  15823                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  The reason I
14     ask that is because there is the obvious competition
15     here, or difference of view here, between the
16     independent production sector which are saying, "Don't
17     let the broadcasters have access to Telefilm and funds
18     of that nature", and the broadcast industry, who is
19     saying they should have, more or less, and you are
20     saying very clearly that they should.
21  15824                Do you have any comments on that
22     dichotomy?
23  15825                MR. SULLIVAN:  It is not a dichotomy
24     for us because ultimately the people who will be
25     putting the programs together will still be the same


 1     people -- our members.  The broadcasters don't any
 2     more; the CBC had an infrastructure of people who can
 3     produce a film for them; that's gone.  The layoffs have
 4     completed the destruction of CBC's ability to produce
 5     programs.  So they will turn to the freelance locals in
 6     Toronto and Vancouver and elsewhere, in Halifax --
 7  15826                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  For in-house
 8     productions.
 9  15827                MR. SULLIVAN:  -- for in-house
10     productions to put those shows together, as do the
11     private broadcasters now and the CBC.
12  15828                So there will be a handful of
13     individuals who will perhaps lose something by this,
14     that being the actual named participant of Telefilm,
15     the actual independent producer who will not have as
16     much access.
17  15829                We are not suggesting that they be
18     cut off entirely, just that the playing field be
19     levelled between the independent producers and the
20     broadcasters.
21                                                        1200
22  15830                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay, you have
23     also called for 70 per cent Canadian content, and I
24     think you are the only one that I'm aware of that's
25     actually named that.


 1  15831                There are some recommendations for
 2     increased amount, the Council of Canadians talked about
 3     a specific time focus which would end up with a little
 4     more than 60.  So you are the only ones naming 70 per
 5     cent, and I refer you to Jim Macdonald, who is
 6     president of WIC Communications, and he is also chair
 7     of the CAB's television committee.  And he said that, I
 8     am paraphrasing, but he said the "do more" proposals
 9     are just not economically viable.  Now, you are saying
10     the 70 per cent is a business case.
11  15832                MR. SULLIVAN:  It's not economically
12     viable in this structure.  In the structure that they
13     currently have, they are right.  It's not economically
14     viable to not own the product and try and put 70 per
15     cent on the air.  They make lots of money now, they are
16     a very profitable organizations because close to 90 per
17     cent of what they broadcast between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m.
18     is American content.  And they can make lots of money
19     off that American content.
20  15833                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So the main
21     source of them making money on Canadian content is --
22     is it as much having access to the funds as it is being
23     able to own the rights?
24  15834                MR. SULLIVAN:  It's both.  Access to
25     the funds is a kick-start mechanism to get the program


 1     actually rolling and going, and the funds are there,
 2     and they are intended to create Canadian content.  But
 3     the broadcasters will, if they are owning the
 4     programming, be more interested in Canadian programming
 5     on their airwaves because they will then have
 6     downstream revenue potential from that program, which
 7     they don't now have if the program has to be an
 8     independently-produced, an independently-owned program
 9     that they get one airing on a licence fee basis.  That
10     structure is not profitable for the broadcasters to do
11     more than they are currently producing.  They are
12     right.  If the structure can be changed in such a way
13     that the broadcasters can have access to downstream
14     revenue, then they couldn't make that argument.
15  15835                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  If they owned
16     the rights, they would have more access to more profit
17     and they would be prepared to up the Canadian content.
18  15836                MR. SULLIVAN:  They should be, and
19     the Commission should force it.
20  15837                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay.  On the
21     third page you mentioned that I think the overall
22     industry provided meaningful employment at reasonable
23     levels.  I'm surprised you didn't discuss issues of
24     employment, job security, and those types of issues in
25     your recommendations.  But I'm wondering, is there a


 1     relationship between issues of employment conditions
 2     and job security on the one hand and Canadian content
 3     on the other.
 4  15838                MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, the broadcast
 5     industry has gone through some tremendous upheavals in
 6     the last 15 years, particularly the CBC, and there is
 7     no employment security as such any more at the CBC, or
 8     even at the private broadcasters.  So it's in that
 9     context that we make those comments.  The broadcasters
10     generally, for the people they do employ, it's a
11     reasonable standard of living, and it's reasonable
12     terms and conditions of work.
13  15839                To increase the amount that the
14     broadcasters contribute to the sector and remove an
15     American influence can only increase employment.  It
16     can't have a net decrease effect in employment.  Now,
17     it may have a neutral effect on employment if all they
18     do is shift some of the work from the independent
19     producer to them using the same people.
20  15840                But if what we see on Canadian
21     television screens becomes far less something that's
22     built outside of Canada, it can't help but increase
23     employment.
24  15841                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  You talked
25     about guarding against foreign domination, and I don't


 1     know if you were here this morning when the CMPDA were
 2     here, that's the Canadian Motion Picture --
 3  15842                MR. SULLIVAN:  We were.
 4  15843                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  --
 5     Distribution Association.  They are, obviously, of a
 6     very different view in terms of foreign involvement. 
 7     And they say their view, quite clearly, is that it's a
 8     two-way street.  If we restrict import, then the other
 9     countries will restrict our export abilities.  I guess
10     their basic view is that we are mature enough to play
11     on the global stage without any kinds of protections. 
12     What are your views on that?
13  15844                MR. SULLIVAN:  We are not --
14  15845                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  It's a
15     business case with that.
16  15846                MR. SULLIVAN:  We are not suggesting
17     that there be an import restriction.  What we are
18     suggesting is that the broadcasters be made aware of
19     the profit-making potential in producing their own
20     programming.  And then, through restrictions of
21     Canadian content -- which, I guess, you can call an
22     import restriction, except we are restricting every
23     country, not just the US -- through a 70 per cent
24     Canadian content regulation for private broadcasters
25     and a structure in which they make money putting 70 per


 1     cent on the air and more, the need for restrictions,
 2     the need for import quotas, if you will, isn't there. 
 3     That's why we are saying it's got to be financially
 4     viable.
 5  15847                The reason that you bump into
 6     broadcasters that say, don't make us put any more
 7     Canadian content on there, is because that's not
 8     financial viable.  They don't make money, or as much
 9     money off programs they don't own.  So make them the
10     programs they own which they can then sell to whatever
11     broadcaster wants them.  And with the explosion that's
12     happened in the numbers of available spaces on the dial
13     for programming, there's going to be an explosion in
14     the demand for programming.  They are going to
15     eventually run out of reruns of "Dallas" that they can
16     air on these channels, and going to want new
17     programming in order to keep attracting viewers.  We
18     better be the ones producing it.
19  15848                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Have you
20     talked to the independent production sector about this? 
21     Because, as I read it, their view is just not there at
22     all on --
23  15849                MR. SULLIVAN:  No.
24  15850                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  -- it's not
25     with you on this.


 1  15851                MR. SULLIVAN:  Absolutely not, you
 2     are right.  I knew we would be diametrically opposed to
 3     them, because their view is they own that money; they
 4     own Telefilm.  They own the right to it, and it's
 5     through significant lobbying in the early 70s with the
 6     federal government that created Telefilm in the first
 7     place, lobbying in the federal government that helped
 8     create the cable production fund in the first place,
 9     lobbying of the CRTC.  And it's our view that that's
10     public money, that no single group of individuals
11     should own that money.  That money should be used to
12     produce Canadian programming in the most effective way
13     possible.
14  15852                If a more effective way of producing
15     Canadian programming and ensuring it's on the air is
16     through allowing the private broadcasters and the CBC
17     access to the money, there's nothing wrong with that.
18  15853                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So you are
19     perhaps right in terms of the lobbying, but there was a
20     reason behind it which can perhaps be summarized as
21     being an argument that smaller, independent production
22     companies have more dynamism, more ability to change,
23     more ability to come up with new ideas and have a
24     diversity of programming which bigger corporations
25     would not.  That's the essence of their argument.  Do


 1     you see the validity of that?
 2  15854                MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, I never saw the
 3     validity of that in the first place, because a producer
 4     is a producer is a producer, and theoretically, anybody
 5     can have an idea, whether they are working for
 6     themselves or working for a broadcaster.  But the other
 7     part of their argument, the one that was bought into
 8     big time, was the industrial imperative, the need to
 9     create a vibrant, independent production sector in
10     Canada.  And we have been successful.  They are there. 
11     Do we need to continue to maintain it at the same
12     levels we had to create it?  I don't think so.
13  15855                Now that we have huge corporations
14     that call themselves independent producers, do they
15     need access to Telefilm and cable production fund in
16     the same measure that they did when they were fledgling
17     and starting out?  That's not my view.  It may be
18     theirs.
19  15856                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay, apart
20     from the question of whether the broadcasters have
21     access, would you place a preference on size of
22     producer who would have access to the funds?
23  15857                MR. SULLIVAN:  How would you police
24     that?  I don't know.  I mean, how would you say, You
25     are too small, and our cut-off line is -- you have five


 1     employees as opposed to --
 2  15858                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Or the other
 3     way around, you are too big.
 4  15859                MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, or the other way
 5     around, you are too big, you can't have any more money. 
 6     Now I think that that doesn't work.  I think you have
 7     to allow -- and that's part of our submission on the
 8     whole notion of what is Canadian content, that that has
 9     to be rolled into it.  It shouldn't be necessarily
10     whether you are independent, whether you are big,
11     whether you are small, whether you are a broadcaster,
12     whether you are not.  It's whether you have got a good
13     idea that's culturally significant.
14  15860                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  So the issue
15     of consolidation, of vertical integration, where the
16     same corporation can own a broadcaster and a production
17     entity is not of concern to you?
18  15861                MR. SULLIVAN:  It's a concern if
19     there's not a level playing field.  It's a concern if
20     it can happen in one direction and not another.  It's a
21     concern if there are certain groups of industries in
22     Canada that can own broadcasters, production companies,
23     cable companies, and be called an independent producer
24     and have access to Telefilm.  But if the group starts
25     out being a broadcaster, it can't be an independent and


 1     have access.
 2  15862                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Leaving the
 3     issue of the funds aside --
 4  15863                MR. SULLIVAN:  Right.
 5  15864                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  -- does
 6     vertical integration sit well with you?
 7  15865                MR. SULLIVAN:  Generally speaking,
 8     no.  But we are not about to stop it.  It's not -- any
 9     kind of making a bigger empire isn't necessarily a good
10     thing, as we are seeing with banks, as we are seeing
11     with the creation of huge empires in the United States
12     with Disney and MCI and the rest.
13  15866                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  But is it
14     necessarily a bad thing?
15  15867                MR. SULLIVAN:  It's more difficult
16     to, as you say, be creative and inventive in an
17     organisation that big.  I don't know if it's a bad
18     thing.  We haven't got a whole lot of experience with
19     it here in Canada.  But certainly, if it becomes a
20     situation in which a single entity or a single group of
21     entities controls everything, as is now the case in the
22     newspaper industry with Southam and unmentionable
23     names, where one individual can control 60 per cent of
24     what Canadians read, that's a problem.
25                                                        1210


 1  15868                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  In another
 2     proposal, the NABET proposal, to redesign the
 3     television system along the lines of the Autopact,
 4     would that involve changes to the Broadcasting Act or
 5     to our regulations?
 6  15869                MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes.  I mean, that
 7     kind of fell on deaf ears when we raised it several
 8     years ago, so we have not really made it a part of our
 9     presentation this time.
10  15870                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Oh, it's in
11     your written brief.  I didn't realize that.
12  15871                MR. SULLIVAN:  The idea was then that
13     it worked for the Autopact, why can't it work for
14     broadcasting?  It worked for the auto industry to say
15     that as long as we consume an equal amount to what we
16     build in this country, then there can be no
17     restrictions across the border.
18  15872                We don't consume what we build.  We
19     consume far more American product than the Canadian
20     product that we build.
21  15873                So it was our view that if we were to
22     find some mechanism to create a system whereby as long
23     as we built as much as we consumed, it didn't matter
24     where it came from.  Maybe that was a way of
25     restructuring the industry.


 1  15874                But what became apparent as we went
 2     through it was that you don't then have any way of
 3     regulating or controlling the content.  In other words,
 4     we might build only bad cars in Canada and buy good big
 5     cars in Canada and, therefore, the end result is our
 6     design standards are not up to par, and we end up with
 7     an industry that builds the summer substandard,
 8     sub-compact cars and not the big ones that make a lot
 9     of money.  Or we have no control over the design
10     standards was what we discovered in pursuing that line.
11  15875                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  On the issue
12     of the CBC, I hadn't thought that the word
13     "complementary" was provocative but --
14  15876                MR. SULLIVAN:  It was to us.
15  15877                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Anyhow, I
16     guess there's a couple of ways of looking at that and I
17     would like to know more about what your concerns are.
18  15878                One is that the origins of the
19     broadcasting system have the CBC being the main
20     national broadcaster and as we have moved along, we
21     have got others in English and potentially others in
22     French.  So instead of being in a dominant position,
23     the CBC then plays a role more on a same footing
24     perhaps as the private sector.
25  15879                Another interpretation is the use of


 1     the word "complementary" which is juxtaposed or the
 2     opposite of "competitive."  That sometimes what happens
 3     when broadcasters are bidding on certain types of
 4     programming, especially big sports events, the CBC is
 5     able to walk in there with deeper pockets and bid
 6     higher and increase the overall cost of bidding and,
 7     then whether they win or lose, they have increased the
 8     cost of this type of programming.  So there's that type
 9     of competitive situation that irks some of the private
10     broadcasters.
11  15880                So tell us your thoughts on those two
12     different interpretations and a little bit more about
13     what you mean about talking about the CBC as the
14     foundation of your system?
15  15881                MR. SULLIVAN:  It's a scary concept
16     to think of CBC as only the complementary part of the
17     broadcast system because it will quickly dissolve into
18     insignificance, if that's the case.
19  15882                Our goal or our ideal would be a CBC
20     that has no need to be competitive, that is fully
21     funded by the federal government and isn't in the
22     revenue generation business, that doesn't get $330
23     million a year in revenue from advertising in ways that
24     have to be competitive.  If you can find a way to give
25     CBC the $330 million it would need to replace that


 1     revenue, then we can get into a much nicer discussion
 2     about what's complementary and what's not competitive.
 3  15883                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  We don't have
 4     that kind of cash.
 5  15884                MR. SULLIVAN:  I know.
 6  15885                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  We don't give
 7     anybody cash anyhow.
 8  15886                MR. SULLIVAN:  So you don't have it,
 9     we don't have it.  So the CBC has to, by its nature and
10     by the nature of the mandate it's given, including
11     generating revenue, be competitive.  If it has to be
12     competitive, it has to be able to compete for just
13     about anything that's out there.
14  15887                At the same time, the CBC is given
15     some money by the Federal Government and so if you look
16     at the schedules, the CBC is not only, I think, a
17     foundation in terms of the quantity and volume of
18     Canadian content that's available out there, but is a
19     foundation in terms of the direction that the industry
20     needs to go.  The CBC will go places that privates
21     won't and it was interesting to hear about "The Boys of
22     St. Vincent," because no private broadcaster in Canada
23     would have taken that on themselves.  It would have
24     been absolutely -- forget it. They wouldn't have gone
25     anywhere near it.  CBC, because of its foundation role,


 1     was able to take that on and show the private
 2     broadcasters, look, you can make money producing
 3     controversial programming.  You have to be careful with
 4     it but you can make money.
 5  15888                The private broadcasters would love
 6     CBC to get out of their markets, to move out of news
 7     and local programming because nobody does any other
 8     local programming than news.  To move out of sports
 9     because that's where the profit is.
10  15889                Well, if you do that, somebody better
11     be prepared, including the private broadcasters to
12     replace the revenue, and they are not.  So we can't. 
13     We can't even get into that conversation because we
14     have a federal government that's not going there.
15  15890                So we have to let the CBC be
16     competitive, as well as understanding its fundamental
17     role in nurturing and bringing to the fore programming
18     that wouldn't otherwise be broadcast.  It's a very
19     tricky position for the CBC to be in.  They have to
20     answer to their political masters who say you should be
21     earning more revenue.  You should be doing more on your
22     own.  And, at the same time, those same political
23     masters saying, but don't hurt our friends over here. 
24     Don't outbid them for the sports.  Don't outbid them
25     for the Olympics for the next 10 years.  Because that


 1     then means they won't get the revenue.  Well, that's
 2     part of what CBC has to do to survive.
 3  15891                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Given
 4     everything that you have just said, can you see that
 5     the word "complementary" makes some sense?  I am not
 6     trying to wear you down and get you to agree with us,
 7     but can you see the logic of part of the issue being a
 8     complementary one as opposed to both a competitive and
 9     a dominant?
10  15892                MR. SULLIVAN:  CBC, you are right,
11     they are no longer dominant.  At one point they were
12     dominant.
13  15893                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Do you think
14     they should be?
15  15894                MR. SULLIVAN:  I think they are
16     dominant in the amount of Canadian programming that
17     they are able to produce.  They are the dominant force
18     for Canadian programming in this country.  Nobody else
19     comes near them and, if you add it all up, the CBC adds
20     up to more than anybody else produces.  So, in that
21     sense, they are still dominant.
22  15895                In terms of their number of places on
23     the ever-expanding dial, they are not dominant.  The
24     CBC is only one choice out of what is now 60 and will
25     become hundreds.  And until the CRTC recognizes that if


 1     we have an entity that is predominantly Canadian, we
 2     should be giving it more space.  We should be actually
 3     allowing it to be seen by more people rather than
 4     restricting it and holding it back.
 5  15896                The word "complementary," getting
 6     back to your original question, is an okay word in some
 7     contexts.  The CBC will be complementary to the private
 8     broadcasters in the sense that it will take on roles
 9     the private broadcaster wouldn't take on.  But you
10     can't be asked to be complementary by withdrawing from
11     roles the private broadcasters want to take on.  That's
12     the scary part.
13  15897                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I don't want
14     to carry this on, only because we have got the renewal
15     of the CBC licence next year and I hope you will think
16     of coming back to carry on this discussion.
17  15898                MR. SULLIVAN:  Oh, yes.
18  15899                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  But the flip
19     side of it is the role of the private broadcaster.  So
20     if you are saying give them more space, and if you are
21     saying CBC is or should be the leader in terms of the
22     amount and I suppose the quality of Canadian
23     programming, what does that say about the role of the
24     private broadcaster in Canadian programming?  Why would
25     you want to ramp up the amount to 70 per cent so that


 1     the private sector looks more like what you have got
 2     CBC to look like?
 3  15900                MR. SULLIVAN:  Because, ideally,
 4     that's what this Canadian system should be.  It should
 5     be ultimately as much Canadian as we can make it.  If
 6     that means at the end of the day that the private
 7     broadcasters are, in fact, duplicating what the CBC is
 8     able to do, then the government will have to rethink
 9     the CBC.  I understand that, but I don't think we are
10     anywhere near that or we are really going to go there.
11  15901                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Well, come
12     back next year and we will continue the discussion.
13  15902                Lastly, on local programming, you
14     have mentioned it in your verbal comments.
15  15903                MR. SULLIVAN:  Right.
16  15904                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I don't
17     believe it was in your written.
18  15905                MR. SULLIVAN:  No.
19  15906                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  What are your
20     thoughts about that and what we should do?  Let me just
21     add a couple of words.  In the round tables that we had
22     across the country in June, there was a lot of
23     discussion about that, both local programming, by
24     broadcasters and the community channel, community
25     television and people asking us to do something about


 1     it.  Do you think there is something we should be doing
 2     about it?
 3  15907                I think part of broadcasters
 4     conditions of licence ought to be a guarantee of a
 5     quantity of local programming that is beyond what is
 6     just the news.  And that condition should be there for
 7     the CBC as well and we already had that fight and lost. 
 8     But it is a topic that keeps coming back because, as we
 9     are finding out from the people out there, they want
10     it.  Canadian public wants to have something local,
11     something to tell them local stories.  More than just
12     the fire on Main Street but the story that takes place
13     in their community and the production that takes place
14     in their community.  That doesn't happen outside of
15     Toronto.  It doesn't happen outside of Toronto and
16     Montreal and a little bit of Vancouver.
17                                                        1235
18  15908                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And that's
19     news and entertainment?
20  15909                MR. FRITH:  And which?
21  15910                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Entertainment,
22     drama.
23  15911                MR. FRITH:  Yes.  Right now it does
24     happen to a certain extent in news, but there is no
25     production of any other genre of programming that we


 1     are aware of in most communities in this country that
 2     have a supposedly independent television station in
 3     those communities.
 4  15912                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  But you
 5     haven't answered my question about what we should do
 6     about it.  Some people have suggested conditions of
 7     licence or requirements.
 8  15913                MR. FRITH:  That's what I said, yes. 
 9     We should have conditions of licence on local stations. 
10     We are not talking about the network licences here or
11     the structural system of how we encourage Canadian
12     programming, but a condition of licence on local
13     stations, that they go beyond just an hour of news a
14     day, that that's not sufficient to satisfy the
15     requirements of being in that market.  Having a licence
16     to draw money out of that market requires more on that
17     broadcaster than just putting a newscast on the air,
18     and sometimes not a very good one.
19  15914                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
20     Madam Chair.
21  15915                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Counsel?
22  15916                MS PATTERSON:  Thank you, Madam
23     Chair.
24  15917                In your written submission you
25     propose a number of specific targets for Canadian


 1     programming in different genres.  I have a couple of
 2     questions on this.
 3  15918                First, could you explain what you
 4     mean by "target"?  Is this more in the nature of a goal
 5     or a requirement and how would such targets be
 6     implemented?
 7  15919                MR. SULLIVAN:  I would see them as
 8     being ultimate goals, but they would require a
 9     structural change first so that they can't be -- you
10     can't implement it tomorrow.  You can't say to the
11     broadcasters tomorrow, "The new structural requirement
12     for a broadcaster is 70 per cent."  That's why we use
13     the term "target", because it's somewhere in the
14     future, but it's a goal that ought to be -- we should
15     go towards that goal in the course of the next couple
16     of years of structurally changing the broadcast sector
17     in Canada.
18  15920                MS PATTERSON:  So, as you say going
19     towards that goal, would it be appropriate to implement
20     the targets through conditions of licence or is that
21     how --
22  15921                MR. SULLIVAN:  Oh, yes, as conditions
23     of licence, but with perhaps some steps attached to
24     them.  We didn't presume to know how long this process
25     would take or what parts of the process the CRTC and


 1     the other regulators would be able to do and what time
 2     frame it would take, but the intent would be that over
 3     a series of steps we reach 70 per cent overall Canadian
 4     content in the private sector within a few years.  I
 5     don't know how many years it will take.
 6  15922                MS PATTERSON:  My second question was
 7     how you arrived at these specific targets.  For
 8     example, you proposed 90 per cent for news, sports and
 9     current events, 60 per cent for arts and drama and 70
10     per cent for music.
11  15923                MR. SULLIVAN:  They were bigger than
12     the old ones, I hate to say.
13  15924                MS PATTERSON:  And as between these
14     different genres, how did you weigh them?
15  15925                MR. SULLIVAN:  News is fundamental
16     and it's already almost 100 per cent.  That's not a --
17     although if you were to watch some of the private
18     broadcasters' newscasts particularly on the weekend,
19     you would notice that a lot of the items throughout
20     that newscast are American because -- but the CRTC
21     still counts that as 100 per cent Canadian content even
22     if all of the reports come from some other country and
23     we think somebody should be looking at whether or not
24     the regulation for content is too broad when it says
25     that if a newscast originates in Canada, it's a


 1     Canadian newscast, regardless of what the parts are.
 2  15926                But news, because it's informing us
 3     about what's going on in our lives, should be almost
 4     entirely Canadian content, news and current affairs. 
 5     When we get down into the other genres, there is a --
 6     they ought to predominate, they ought to be the most --
 7     the Canadian stories in drama ought to be most of what
 8     we see on the television, but we shouldn't do that to
 9     the exclusion of good stories that are elsewhere.  We
10     shouldn't say 90 per cent just because it's a number in
11     the air.
12  15927                We may have picked 60 out of the air,
13     to be brutally honest, but it was a number that meant
14     that our stories would be the predominant part of the
15     structure without saying that they are all the
16     structure.  Maybe 70 is a better number, but I think
17     you will get less resistance to 60 than you will to 70.
18  15928                The same is true of music.  The
19     Canadian music industry benefitted greatly by Canadian
20     content regulations imposed in radio in the 1970s and
21     the Canadian television music industry doesn't face
22     those same regulations.  It doesn't face those same
23     content restrictions in terms of the amount of Canadian
24     content that it broadcasts in the same way and we think
25     that in terms of variety programming principally, not


 1     necessarily a MuchMusic type channel but variety
 2     programming, there is no reason that can't be
 3     predominantly Canadian and much more so than the drama
 4     programming that we see.
 5  15929                MS PATTERSON:  Thank you.
 6  15930                Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
 7  15931                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, counsel.
 8  15932                Nous vous remercions, Monsieur
 9     Kinkaid.  Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for your
10     presentation.
11  15933                We will now adjourned until 1:30. 
12     Nous reprendrons à une heure et demie.
13     --- Recess at / Suspension à 1228
14     --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1338
15  15934                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon.  We
16     apologize for the lateness.  We do have a good excuse. 
17     We were having a meeting.  Welcome.
18  15935                Madam Secretary?
19  15936                MS SANTERRE:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
20  15937                I would like now to introduce the
21     National Broadcast Reading Service Inc.  You may start
22     now.
23  15938                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon and
24     go ahead when you are ready.
25  15939                Perhaps I can identify us for you. 


 1     Would that be helpful?
 2  15940                MS CUTLER:  That would be very
 3     helpful, thank you.
 4  15941                THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am Andrée Wylie
 5     and I am chairing the hearing.  With me to my immediate
 6     left, your right, Commission Cardozo and immediately
 7     beside him is Commissioner Pennefather.  To my
 8     immediate right is Commission Wilson and to her right
 9     is Commissioner McKendry.
11  15942                MS CUTLER:  Madam Chair,
12     Commissioners, thank you very much for inviting us to
13     appear before you.  As you know, my name is Fran
14     Cutler.  I am the President of the Board of the
15     National Broadcast Reading Service Inc.
16  15943                For almost a decade, as a licensee,
17     we have produced and distributed a free national audio
18     news and information service called VoicePrint. 
19     VoicePrint now has a weekly reach of four million
20     listeners.  About 500,000 cite it as their primary
21     source of information.  More recently, we have started
22     two new divisions, AudioVision Canada and
23     AlternateMedia Canada.  Their current work is directed
24     at making television accessible for vision-restricted
25     viewers.


 1  15944                I have a number of colleagues with me
 2     today to talk about the future television policy.  On
 3     my right is Heather Lusignan, Director of VoicePrint. 
 4     On Heather's right is Geoff Eden, who is a Director on
 5     our board.  On my left is John Stubbs, who is the
 6     Director of AlternateMedia Canada and our management
 7     technical guru.  Behind is Bob Trimbee, who is the
 8     Executive Director of the National Broadcast Reading
 9     Service.  To his left is Stuart Robertson, who is a
10     member of our Board of Directors, and our
11     communications lawyer and on Stuart's left is Lloyd
12     Grant, who is an experienced broadcast engineer.
13  15945                As you will recall, we have appeared
14     before the Commission before, most recently at the last
15     hearing on third television networks in November of
16     1997.  Our general mission is improved access to all
17     visual media for vision-restricted Canadians.  Our
18     specific mission at this hearing is to ensure that
19     vision-restricted Canadians have access to the
20     television system in Canada as technology permits.
21  15946                We have filed with you a lengthy
22     brief and today we leave with you a technical brief. 
23     Time does not permit us to address all of the
24     recommendations in our original brief, but we would be
25     pleased to answer any questions that you may have about


 1     it.
 2  15947                At the last hearing the Commission
 3     seemed interested in the issue of described video
 4     services, DVS.  Indeed, the Commission has stated that
 5     it supports in principle the development and gradual
 6     implementation of DVS.  That was a landmark moment for
 7     blind and low-vision Canadians who need and want DVS.
 8  15948                The Commission noted the cooperative
 9     efforts by our company and the Canadian Association of
10     Broadcasters to explore the development and
11     implementation issues.  Together we were expected to
12     find solutions to any problems that may be identified.
13  15949                We have been frustrated by the lack
14     of attention of the CAB to those issues and by their
15     failure to bring forward any consensus on the relevant
16     issues so that we could speed up the process.  There
17     has been only one meeting since the November 1997 CRTC
18     hearing, after which the CAB said the whole issue was
19     premature and the CAB "might" consider some joint
20     project in 1999.
21  15950                Then when the Commission raised the
22     issue again in the Public Notice creating this present
23     process, we thought the CAB would be compelled to meet
24     with us and get on with the task of developing an
25     implementation plan.  We certainly have been working on


 1     these issues and are ready to talk to you about them.
 2  15951                However, the first we have heard
 3     about CAB's feelings on the issue was on the opening
 4     day of this hearing.  That's when the CAB announced it
 5     would be filing some report on the development and
 6     implementation issues after the hearing.  Why was the
 7     report not prepared in time for us to review and
 8     comment upon it and then filed as part of this
 9     proceeding?  What can anyone do with such a report when
10     it is not filed until after the important review of
11     television policies.
12  15952                The CAB representative, in response
13     to Commission Cardozo's questions, indicated that the
14     cost of description is insurmountable.  Frankly,
15     Commissioners, we need not wait for the CAB.  The costs
16     are not insurmountable and the technical solutions are
17     all within our collective knowledge.  We would like to
18     explain briefly what description is and is not and then
19     we will take you quickly through the costs and other
20     implementation issues.
21  15953                Let's have the video.
22     --- Video presentation / Présentation vidéo
23  15954                MR. EDEN:  Commissioners, as you have
24     just seen an example of described video, there are a
25     number of ways of transmitting information to people


 1     who can't see from the television screen.  One example
 2     would be the 800 numbers described in many commercials. 
 3     I, too, like to spend my funds and I really do like to
 4     know what's happening and know that there are 800
 5     numbers from which I may order.  But more important
 6     than that is knowing the activities that are happening
 7     on the screen in dramas.
 8  15955                I suppose the thing that you can say
 9     is it's painting a picture so that you can develop the
10     theatre of the mind in your imagination.  There is
11     certainly not much to television watching a drama
12     unless you have this extra input.  I refer you quickly
13     to the film "The Silence of the Lambs" and the basement
14     scene, which I am sure you have been exposed to.  I
15     just can't tell you how much that would be improved if
16     it were described.  It took me forever to find out
17     exactly what happened there by asking friends.
18  15956                MR. STUBBS:  Any local broadcaster
19     with a transmitter less than 25 years old can generate
20     a secondary audio program feed for a one-time cost of
21     less than $15,000 all inclusive.  The cost of
22     describing one hour of programming is less than $5,000. 
23     That hourly rate would drop as the volume of
24     description work increases.
25  15957                If description is to be used


 1     primarily for Canadian drama and original children's
 2     programming, CBC, CTV and Global could be expected to
 3     describe two hours a week each.  The cost to each of
 4     CBC, CTV and Global to describe that amount of
 5     programming would be $500,000 a year, maximum.  This
 6     cost includes local distribution of the programming
 7     through cable.
 8  15958                As noted earlier, we have prepared a
 9     technical brief for the Commission's review and it is
10     before you now.  It describes the most likely
11     distribution scenarios licensees might employ in adding
12     DVS programming to their schedules.  In our view, the
13     distribution of DVS programming is best handled through
14     the use of S.A.P. technology, an approach that presents
15     many other opportunities to enhance the Canadian
16     broadcasting system.  Mr. Grant and I would be pleased
17     to take you through the various scenarios and to
18     discuss S.A.P. technology during the question and
19     answer session.
20  15959                MS CUTLER:  Thank you, John.
21  15960                Those numbers do not add up to
22     insurmountable.  Commissioners, we must get on with
23     this.
24  15961                We ask you to establish a requirement
25     effective January 1st, 1999 that all television


 1     stations, TV networks and specialty licensees carry a
 2     minimum amount of described programming.  We are asking
 3     further that all licensees undertake a public awareness
 4     campaign about described programming and how to access
 5     it and we are also asking that the Commission establish
 6     and chair a working group.  The working group would
 7     develop an implementation plan.  It would ensure that
 8     the January 1st, 1999 start date can be met by the
 9     broadcasters on whom you place the requirement that we
10     seek here today.
11  15962                The experience we have had to date is
12     that the issue cannot be left with the CAB or, indeed,
13     with our company.  The Commission has a vital role to
14     play in delivering television broadcasting to blind and
15     low-vision Canadians.
16  15963                We would be pleased to answer any
17     questions you may have flowing from our brief of June
18     30th or from the technical brief or the arguments that
19     we have prepared and delivered to you today.
20  15964                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Ms
21     Cutler and your colleagues.
22  15965                Commissioner Wilson?
23  15966                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Good afternoon,
24     ladies and gentlemen.
25  15967                I think what I would like to do is


 1     just start by telling you that I am going to need a
 2     little bit more time to go through your technical brief
 3     just so that I can give it the attention that it
 4     deserves.  What I might do is ask counsel to forward
 5     some questions to you afterwards, after we have had a
 6     chance to look it over and examine it.
 7  15968                MS CUTLER:  We would be happy to.
 8  15969                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  There is just
 9     not enough time for me to go through it now and prepare
10     those questions.
11  15970                I want to thank you for being here
12     and I would like to take this opportunity to complement
13     you on your submission.  It was excellent.  As someone
14     who has very little experience with described video, I
15     am familiar with VoicePrint.  It was great to have that
16     much information put at my disposal to sort of bring me
17     up to speed on the issue.  So, I really appreciate
18     that.
19  15971                What I would like to do is ask you a
20     number of general questions and then talk to you about
21     VoicePrint and descriptive video and then go through
22     some of your recommendations in a little more detail. 
23     I'm sure that there are probably other questions that
24     will come up as we go along.
25  15972                At page 8 of your written submission,


 1     you state that:
 2                            "At the regulatory level there
 3                            has been considerable effort to
 4                            address the needs of people with
 5                            diminished hearing.  Nothing
 6                            approaching that commitment has
 7                            been done as yet to assess
 8                            print-restricted citizens,
 9                            though this population
10                            demographic is almost three
11                            times as large and solutions
12                            often involve little or no added
13                            cost, just an adjusted routine."
14  15973                You mentioned early in your
15     submission that the population of vision-restricted
16     Canadians is in the range of 750,000 people in Canada
17     and you also state that if you widen the demographic to
18     print-restricted people, the number actually increases
19     to about 1.5 million.  Do I have those numbers right?
20  15974                MS CUTLER:  Yes.
21  15975                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I am just
22     wondering if you have the comparable numbers for the
23     deaf and hard of hearing.  What is the ratio?  I know
24     you say that the print and vision-restricted population
25     makes up 40 per cent of all disabled persons in Canada,


 1     so what percentage do the deaf and hard of hearing
 2     constitute?  Are you aware?
 3  15976                MS CUTLER:  I don't actually have
 4     that figure, no, but one thing to bear in mind is that
 5     many people have a number of disabilities, particularly
 6     elderly people, and vision loss is, of course, relative
 7     with age.  Two-thirds of vision-impaired people are
 8     over the age of 65 and about 65 per cent of them also
 9     have some hearing loss.
10                                                        1355
11  15977                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  My dad is --
12     he's a vet, so he has got quite significant hearing
13     loss.  It is impossible to talk to him on the phone.
14  15978                But I was just going to ask you why
15     you think, I mean, those comments that you make about
16     the fact that the regulatory level -- there has been
17     considerable effort to address the needs of the deaf
18     and hard of hearing.  I am just wondering why you think
19     they have been more successful in mobilizing the
20     regulatory system in terms of moving the broadcasters
21     forward.
22  15979                MS CUTLER:  It would be speculation
23     on my part, but I would say that one reason is they got
24     at this earlier.  They really started about 20 years
25     ago, and have made very diligent efforts and are to be


 1     congratulated for that, and closed captioning is a
 2     reality and widely accepted in this country.
 3  15980                We were only licensed in 1990, as you
 4     know, and it was to provide an alternative to the print
 5     medium, magazines, and newspapers.  That has been
 6     extended now, because blind and vision-impaired people
 7     want to be able to access not just the print medium,
 8     but also electronic media, and hence the solution is
 9     something like descriptive video, which we do under our
10     sub-organization Audio Vision Canada and Alternate
11     Media Canada.
12  15981                We certainly are very pleased that
13     the CRTC licensed us in 1990 and allowed us to go ahead
14     with voice print, which I think has been successful
15     beyond anybody's hopes.  But we now think that this
16     added dimension should be proceeded with as quickly as
17     possible.
18  15982                MR. TRIMBEE:  If I might add to that
19     comment, one of the reasons why captioning has moved
20     forward is the fact that when it was introduced in
21     Canada, it was already a fact of life in American
22     broadcasting.  The FCC had already established the
23     technology, it had been accepted by the industry, and
24     therefore a ready solution that was going to be
25     involving programming that many Canadian broadcasters


 1     accessed was already on the table.  So the leap forward
 2     of the various associations that were supporting
 3     activity to improve access for people with diminished
 4     hearing in Canada had something that they could put
 5     their hands on and say, here it is, now, why can't this
 6     be done in Canada and have a continental approach?
 7  15983                Unfortunately, the same thing hasn't
 8     happened with the audio description.  It basically did
 9     not come into play in the first instance until the
10     early 1990s, at which time in Canada an industry
11     government working group was established to take a look
12     at it, and that is the genesis of our activity as well.
13  15984                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Yes, actually,
14     maybe, Mr. Trimbee, you could just answer another
15     question for me, because you raised the issue of audio
16     description, which you describe in your submission as
17     the precursor to descriptive video, and I'm just
18     wondering if you could explain a little bit more how
19     the technology developed.
20  15985                MR. TRIMBEE:  In the early 1980s, a
21     blind woman and her husband in Washington, D.C.,
22     established a protocol by which people who went to live
23     theatre who were blind or low vision could follow the
24     action through a very low-powered FM facility.  So they
25     could sit in the audience, and there would be someone


 1     describing the action on the stage in between the
 2     comments by the actors.  Unfortunately, that could not,
 3     as with video description, be recorded and part and
 4     parcel of the finished product because every night
 5     timing is a little bit off.
 6  15986                But in doing so, the idea arose that,
 7     How could this be adapted to television and to films? 
 8     And the work was picked up by WGBH Foundation who, as
 9     you know, are a significant factor within the PBS
10     system in the United States.  And with the support of
11     the Department of Education some extended
12     experimentation went on in the late 1980s.  And by the
13     early 1990s they actually went forward and the
14     significance of their activity led to the awarding of
15     the Winston Gordon Award by the CNIB to this group for
16     their activity in this area.  And it was at that time
17     that the question of how this could be done.  And
18     picking up what the parliamentary subcommittee
19     recommended in 1988, this working group was established
20     to see how this could be transplanted into Canada.
21  15987                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Thank you for
22     that.
23  15988                MR. ROBERTSON:  Excuse me, could I
24     just complete the answer in the sense that you have
25     referred here to page eight, and in reading it, it may


 1     appear as if there's some suggestion that the
 2     Commission has helped one disability group and not
 3     another, both requesting assistance.  That is certainly
 4     not the case.  It is a matter of the hard of hearing
 5     coming to the regulatory process and seeking some
 6     assistance.
 7  15989                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  At an earlier
 8     stage.
 9  15990                MR. ROBERTSON:  At an earlier stage,
10     yes.  Thank you.
11  15991                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay, thank you
12     for that clarification.  Before I go on to ask you some
13     more questions about descriptive video, I would just
14     like to go back to voice print, because I am quite
15     familiar with that service.  In fact, the channel that
16     I was associated with before I came to the CRTC is one
17     of the channels that we were looking at in terms of
18     making it available on a consistent basis across the
19     country.  But the issue that prevented us from doing
20     that was the multiple audio feeds that CPAC offers,
21     French, English, and floor sound from the House of
22     Commons and from some of the other programming.  So
23     that was an inhibiting factor.
24  15992                I'm just wondering if you can tell me
25     how many broadcasting distribution undertakings,


 1     including cable, satellite, MDS, any other ones you can
 2     think of that might be carrying voice print to their
 3     subscribers.
 4  15993                MS CUTLER:  I will ask Heather to
 5     respond.
 6  15994                MS LUSIGNAN:  Thank you, Fran.  At
 7     the moment, yes, the cable industry, certainly the
 8     class one cable systems, most of them do carry voice
 9     print, either on an alphanumeric channel behind a
10     video-only service, or they also carry it on FM,
11     either/or, and one cable operator does carry it now on
12     a S.A.P. frequency as well.
13  15995                As well as that, in the last, I
14     believe, week, week and a half, ExpressVu has also
15     begun to carry it for their subscribers.  And I believe
16     that there are a couple of other BDUs out there who are
17     now putting it in the works to make it part of their
18     package.
19  15996                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  If you sort of
20     put together the cable and the satellite distribution
21     undertakings, how many subscribers would be receiving
22     voice print at this time?
23  15997                MS LUSIGNAN:  I don't have, at this
24     stage, subscriber numbers.  I guess we sort of put it
25     in terms of households.  So there are about 5.2 million


 1     cable households.
 2  15998                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay, that's
 3     good.  5.2 million?
 4  15999                MS LUSIGNAN:  That voice print
 5     reaches, and I'm not sure what ExpressVu's
 6     subscriber --
 7  16000                MR. TRIMBEE:  It's getting close to
 8     100,000, as I understand, at the last take.  I might
 9     also add that about a year and a half, two years ago,
10     we made a detailed, random survey of 5,500 homes to try
11     and ascertain the listenership to voice print.  It was
12     at that point that we established a figure that just
13     under four million, 3.9-something people made some use
14     of voice print on a weekly basis.  Included in that
15     number were 500,000 who considered it their primary
16     source of news and information.
17  16001                So that's how the two figures were
18     into 5.2 million plus homes, and we have roughly, in
19     terms of that survey results, just slightly under four
20     million that make some use of our service.
21  16002                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Is there any
22     charge to NBRS for carrying voice print?
23  16003                MS CUTLER:  No charge to NBRS, no.
24  16004                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay.
25  16005                MS CUTLER:  The costs of the


 1     transmission are minimal to each of the --
 2  16006                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Oh, yes.
 3  16007                MS CUTLER:  I'd like to add that we
 4     are delighted that in the last year we can now say that
 5     we are into all ten provinces and both territories
 6     because the cable systems in Whitehorse and Yellowknife
 7     have come in.
 8  16008                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That's great. 
 9     What's your annual budget?  What's the annual budget
10     for NBRS?
11  16009                MR. TRIMBEE:  The budget for this
12     year is $1.7 million.
13  16010                Might I just add to the question
14     before, you said, What is the charge.  There's no
15     charge made by us.
16  16011                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  No, I said, Is
17     there a charge.
18  16012                MR. TRIMBEE:  But for those who may
19     access voice print through cable FM, they may well face
20     an extra charge for accessing cable FM.
21  16013                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That's right,
22     okay.  So 1.7 million.
23  16014                And I noted that you said in your
24     submission that you have been the recipient of some
25     benefits packages through -- I think it was cable


 1     transactions.  Is that where the lion's share of your
 2     funding comes from?  Or do you have other sources of
 3     funding as well?
 4  16015                MR. TRIMBEE:  The budget this year,
 5     the lion's share basically comes through grants.  Of
 6     those grants, about 40 per cent come through the
 7     benefits package of cable systems.  The balance comes
 8     through a unique project that we have started with the
 9     with the support of HRDC in terms of developing people,
10     primarily with disabilities, to develop skilled
11     employment within the industry adjunct to our audio
12     description activity.
13                                                        1400
14  16016                MS CUTLER:  When the federal seed
15     money ran out in the early nineties, it was Shaw and
16     Rogers who came to our rescue and we would not have
17     exist today without the major cable companies.
18  16017                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  How much longer
19     does their funding sustain?
20  16018                MR. TRIMBEE:  It ends primarily this
21     year.  We have a portion of the money available through
22     1999 for our national service, but it would be a very
23     small percentage.  I would say it would be something
24     like 12 or 13 per cent of our current budget.
25  16019                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  When you are


 1     talking about descriptive video in your written
 2     submission, and, Mr. Trimbee, you mentioned this a
 3     little earlier, you stated that PBS has really
 4     pioneered the broadcast descriptive programming and
 5     that many of its prime time broadcasts are currently
 6     described, you go on to say that some of the
 7     programming they broadcast includes described versions
 8     of familiar Canadian series, like "Street Legal," "Road
 9     to Avonlea," and "Degrassi Junior High."  It must seem
10     ironic to you that you can access Canadian programming
11     through an American channel with described video but
12     not on Canadian broadcasters.
13  16020                Is there any programming in Canada
14     besides the CBC Special on the Avro Arrow, and I think
15     there were a couple of other examples in your
16     submission that you mentioned that are currently being
17     described and broadcast on a regular basis?
18  16021                MR. TRIMBEE:  None.
19  16022                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  None?
20  16023                MR. TRIMBEE:  None.
21  16024                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  What can you
22     tell me about the narrative television network in the
23     US?  I know you talk in your submission about the
24     funding that's funded through, is it the Department of
25     Education in the US, and I think they have some grants


 1     from some foundations as well.  They are on the air 24
 2     hours a day.  Have you seen the channel?
 3  16025                MR. TRIMBEE:  I haven't seen NTN for
 4     awhile but in the early days of our interest in
 5     developing an approach to video description that would
 6     be useful and pragmatic for Canadian situation, we did
 7     look at the NTN.  It is a service that is not quite 24
 8     hours a day, but it is a dedicated two persons with
 9     disabilities, including, obviously, people with
10     diminished vision, and they have about four hours a
11     day.  It's all open description and they are funded, in
12     part, also by the Department of Education as well.
13  16026                The Department of Education, a couple
14     of years ago, decided that it probably wasn't fair to
15     put all their support for video description within one
16     group and so that they opened it up and, at that
17     particular time, a portion of the fund was available to
18     others who wished to bid for it and from that process
19     NTN was supported in a way.  But they made it very
20     careful in their submissions that they do support the
21     work of WGBH and sort of the ground-breaking activities
22     that they have used, not only for television, but also
23     for theatres and for live theatre. I am talking now
24     about movie theatres and the work that they are doing
25     there because WGBH's foundation activity extends beyond


 1     simply just a video description.  They are involved in
 2     captioning and things like that as well.
 3  16027                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  You state in
 4     your submission at page two that in 1995 you developed
 5     a cost effective description production process.  Now I
 6     am assuming that the costs that you talk about in your
 7     oral presentation today, the $5,000 an hour, are the
 8     costs that would be associated with this description
 9     production process that you have developed.
10  16028                MR. STUBBS:  To help break down what
11     that means, the cost of description by our company is
12     approximately $100 a minute, which is about, for a
13     regular television show of an hour, it breaks down to
14     about 48 minutes.  That would be $4800.
15  16029                That's the maximum charge, we think,
16     that we would make for the first hour of description we
17     do, but as more and more description is done, we can
18     achieve greater economies of scale.  The volume of
19     production minutes decreases the unit cost per minute
20     to a point where we could see the cost down to perhaps
21     $60 a minute.  And that really consists of somebody has
22     to write it and it's a creative process unlike closed
23     captioning where you are translating.
24  16030                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  You are just
25     transcribing.


 1  16031                MR. STUBBS:  And transcribing.  You
 2     have a narrator, somebody that will read it; a
 3     producer, an editor, that goes through the process;
 4     sound engineer to place all of the description into the
 5     sound track.  Administrative support supplies
 6     equipment, rent, overhead, and a reasonable premium
 7     that goes to the operation of voice print.
 8  16032                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Do you use a
 9     professional to do the narrative?
10  16033                MR. STUBBS:  Yes.
11  16034                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  It reminded me
12     actually when I was watching your video, it reminded me
13     very much of books on tape.  I drive back and forth
14     from Ottawa to Toronto a lot and I often listen to
15     books on tape because I find it makes the time go a lot
16     faster and it is very much like that.
17  16035                MR. STUBBS:  We strive to make it as
18     integrated and as seamless as possible.  You don't
19     really notice that somebody is there saying, "Well, she
20     now opens the door."  We try to blend it right in so
21     that you don't realize that you are being given
22     information, that it just flows right through.  Even as
23     you watch it, it is done so that it happens and we are
24     very precise because we use a digital editing technique
25     to get it as close to the picture as possible.  Because


 1     somebody that you are watching that can see actually
 2     looks at the picture and goes, "Wait a second. That is
 3     not what is happening yet."  So we strive to make it
 4     very pleasant for everybody to enjoy.
 5  16036                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That's great.
 6  16037                MS. CUTLER:  I might add that this is
 7     different from voice print where we use volunteer
 8     readers.  We have about 500 in our five locations and
 9     soon to be a couple of more.  We find that the level of
10     professionalism, experience, and training needed for
11     descriptive video is such that you really have to go to
12     the professionals.
13  16038                MR. TRIMBEE:  If I could just extend
14     a couple of points on this.  That because of the
15     activity we see today ourselves, we would be surprised
16     if broadcasters and others do not jump quickly into the
17     description business.
18  16039                I might also try and sort of parallel
19     costs in this country and costs in other jurisdictions
20     where this activity is now underway, our costs of
21     describing on the small volume that we have produced so
22     far, certainly is less expensive than the cost per hour
23     that WGBH faces.
24  16040                Secondly, in Great Britain, as we
25     have discussed with CAB, there now is a mandatory


 1     requirement to carry a small percentage of described
 2     programming.  It is two per cent this year. It is four
 3     per cent next year.  It goes on up to 10 per cent. 
 4     During the next few years, that will be reviewed
 5     because the RNIB, the British equivalent to CNIB, is
 6     very interested in extending the amount of described
 7     programming that is available.
 8  16041                I talked to RNIB people about their
 9     costs because we had no close association with them,
10     and I was, quite frankly, flabbergasted by the high
11     costs they face.  We have proposed to them that we
12     might do some contract work for them and our costs
13     would be something like one-third of what they now
14     face.
15  16042                So the approach we are taking, the
16     Canadian solution to this, is very unique, very
17     creative and, I think at least to this date, it is
18     certainly probably the most cost effective of any that
19     is available.  And that is not commercial.  I am just
20     trying to state a fact.
21  16043                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I was just
22     going to say --
23  16044                MR. TRIMBEE:  I might also add that
24     you made a reference to the fact that you enjoy books
25     on tape while you are driving.  During one of our early


 1     focus groups, the point was made that the way you have
 2     done it, we don't even have to worry about getting a
 3     video.  We can just listen to it on tape.  And so we
 4     have created a new product called audio cinema.
 5  16045                The beauty of that particular product
 6     is the fact that it now takes the technology outside
 7     the disability milieu and puts it into something that
 8     the general population might be attracted to and,
 9     therefore, making this a very creative business.
10  16046                In the United States, as you know,
11     the books on tape is a $1.5 billion business. I believe
12     audio cinema is a far more engaging product in terms of
13     somebody enjoying it during a drive or at other times,
14     whatever they are doing.  And perhaps others who have
15     enjoyed it could probably make a comment on that, but
16     that is a product that is developed.  And it has come
17     out of this activity, and that is why I make the
18     comment that we would be surprised if broadcasters and
19     others soon aren't in this business.
20  16047                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  So you see it
21     as a way of generating alternate revenue streams.
22  16048                MR. TRIMBEE:  Our organization,
23     because of its size and because of its structure has no
24     secure funding, as we mentioned in our brief, and,
25     therefore, we have to find creative ways in which we


 1     can become financially self sufficient.  The door is
 2     coming down on, as you noted earlier, on the funding
 3     that we have received through cable benefits packages. 
 4     By that time, voice print has to have a source of
 5     funding.  And we entered this area as a potential means
 6     of developing that income so that voice print survives. 
 7     Because when everything is scratched away, at the end
 8     of the day, our primary goal is to maintain the life
 9     line of voice print.
10  16049                Audio description is a means to an
11     end.  It's in our mission of making all media more
12     accessible, but we were set up primarily to establish
13     voice print and that's what we wish to see survive.
14                                                        1415
15  16050                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  When you were
16     talking about the comments that were made by the CAB
17     about the costs of descriptive video, I believe what
18     they said was that it would cost 500 to 1,000 times
19     more to produce descriptive video than it does to
20     produce captioning.
21  16051                MR. TRIMBEE:  We weren't quite
22     certain in reading the transcript what was said,
23     whether they said it was 500 to 1,000 times or whether
24     it was 500 to 1,000 more and it depends on which
25     interpretation that is given.  For example, the reply said:


 1                            "Secondly, in brief strokes it
 2                            has become apparent that the
 3                            cost for this are enormous, in
 4                            the order of 500 to 1,000
 5                            more --"
 6  16052                It didn't say "times":
 7                            "-- the current cost of closed
 8                            captioning."  (As read)
 9  16053                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I actually
10     wrote it down and in anticipation of my questions
11     today, I took note of that.  So, I don't know.  What I
12     wrote down was 500 to 1,000 times more, but I am just
13     wondering if you have done a comparison with the costs
14     for captioning per hour.  I mean there are many
15     different ways of doing it.  You can hire a
16     professional company to do it or you could bring
17     someone onto your staff and train them -- buy the
18     equipment and train them and have them do the
19     captioning in-house.
20  16054                MR. TRIMBEE:  In the CAB brief the
21     only point that I could refer to, the CAB brief
22     indicated that it was about $160 an hour for captioning
23     and that, on that basis, private broadcasters alone
24     during the coming year would be spending something like
25     $5 million on captioning.


 1  16055                The reason why we haven't really
 2     tried to tie the two costs together is because we are
 3     talking -- we can't really talk apples and apples
 4     because when you are talking about captioning, you can
 5     talk about 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days
 6     a year.  When you are talking about description, you
 7     are talking about a finite amount of programming.  You
 8     are talking about, in the words of the industry working
 9     group, dramatic and children's programming.  There is a
10     great amount of other material that wouldn't benefit
11     from description.
12  16056                For example, we have been anxious to
13     try and get children's programming into the catalogue
14     that we have developed to date.  Two producers of
15     children's programming have been talking to us.  The
16     first one that is anxious for us to describe his
17     program is the producer that produces "Hammy the
18     Hamster".  They sent over a couple of episodes to us
19     and when we went through it, there was nothing we could
20     add.  We couldn't embellish it.  There was no need to
21     describe the program.  His view was, "Yes, I sort of
22     had the same feeling myself."
23  16057                So, even when we are narrowing it
24     down to that very small section of programming,
25     original Canadian drama and Canadian children's


 1     programming, that doesn't say even there that it's 100
 2     per cent of the product can benefit from description. 
 3     So, therefore, to try and compare the annual cost of
 4     description against the annual cost of captioning, it
 5     really doesn't make sense.
 6  16058                As a matter of fact, in our approach
 7     to this, we have asked or we recommended that effective
 8     January 1 the CRTC require all persons receiving new
 9     television licences or all renewals would be subject to
10     a conditional of licence that they broadcast described
11     versions of all original drama programming and
12     children's programming produced using the assistance of
13     funds from one of the existing program production
14     funds, provided such programming is suited for
15     description.
16  16059                Effective January 1, the CRTC will
17     expect all television licensees to do what we have just
18     described must be done by all others, so that there is
19     an even playing field and that all original drama and
20     children's programming being produced with money
21     available through one of the Canadian program
22     production funds will be described unless the
23     programming is certified not to be suitable for
24     description.  A committee consisting of perhaps
25     representatives of the CNIB Library, consumer groups


 1     and describers could consider whether a particular
 2     program need not be described.
 3  16060                The issue of descriptive video
 4     services should be reviewed by the CRTC in about three
 5     years following a public notice issued as a result of
 6     this proceeding.  At that time, the commitments and the
 7     obligations that I have just referred to can be
 8     reviewed in the light of the actions of the industry
 9     and the receptability of the blind and low-vision
10     community to the developments at that time.
11  16061                It was interesting also in this
12     particular hearing we understand that the broadcasters
13     have appeared before you to ask for an increase in the
14     credits that they now get for producing Canadian
15     programming.  If you choose to --
16  16062                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Mr. Trimbee,
17     are you reading from something?
18  16063                MR. TRIMBEE:  It's just a little
19     background note that I had prepared on this question
20     that I thought might be asked.
21  16064                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  You and I were
22     both doing the same thing, we were doing our homework.
23  16065                MR. TRIMBEE:  If you choose to grant
24     these credits -- increases as requested by the
25     broadcasters, we say that such broadcasters should not


 1     be able to enjoy the credits in relation to any program
 2     for which they get credit unless it is described, again
 3     if it is suitable for description.  The same process in
 4     dealing with issues as to whether a program is suited
 5     to description, as we have stated before, would apply
 6     sort of to the current scenario and there would be this
 7     committee that could very quickly and without a lot of
 8     regimentation establish whether or not a program was
 9     suitable.
10  16066                So, we are saying everything should
11     be described in this area, except where it is found
12     that it wouldn't be practical.  As I just gave an
13     example, "Hammy the Hamster" obviously would not pass.
14  16067                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I'm sure there
15     are a lot of kids out there who would be disappointed
16     at that.
17  16068                With reference to your request to the
18     Commission to press what is now called the Canadian
19     Television Fund to add description to its funding
20     criteria, have you had -- I am just wondering if you do
21     any liaison at all with independent producers or the
22     funds or the broadcasters, to talk to them directly.  I
23     know that you had your one meeting with the CAB, but I
24     am just wondering if you have talked with any of these
25     other sectors directly to explore the issue of


 1     descriptive video.
 2  16069                MS CUTLER:  Yes, with a number of
 3     producers and independent broadcasters.
 4  16070                MR. TRIMBEE:  Again I sort of thought
 5     that you might ask that question.
 6  16071                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  So, you are
 7     going to read me your answer?
 8  16072                MR. TRIMBEE:  I will read part of it
 9     and come back to the point that when we looked at video
10     description in the early days and we sat and worked
11     with the industry government working group, an awful
12     lot of the challenges that are coming to the surface
13     now obviously were quite obvious to us at that time and
14     we also wanted to make sure that whatever solution we
15     came up with would be a pragmatic solution.  In other
16     words, there was no use divining an approach to
17     something that we thought in our heart of hearts was
18     extremely important for the Canadian broadcasting
19     system if it could never find the light of day.
20  16073                So, in the early days as we developed
21     our approach, we obviously had focus groups.  We
22     invited people, at that time the precursor to the
23     current Canada Television Cable Production Fund, we
24     brought them over and talked to them about the problems
25     of people who are applying for funds.  For example, in


 1     terms of the independent producer, we didn't want to
 2     create a scenario where they would have the real
 3     problem, if description became a fact of life, of
 4     having to -- where am I going to go for the funding to
 5     underwrite this added cost?
 6  16074                So, in proposing that the Commission
 7     should call for a working group of producers,
 8     broadcasters, engineers, describers, representatives of
 9     the Canadian programming, production funds and consumer
10     groups representing the blind and low vision, we felt
11     it was in that milieu there would be successful
12     answers.  We don't have all the answers, but we felt
13     that someone who wanted to describe a program from the
14     Fund should be able to go there, get 100 per cent, so
15     they don't have another worry on their shoulders.
16  16075                There are a number of creative ways
17     in which that could be recouped, as we have said in our
18     brief, through promotional messages of which a system
19     could be devised that the funding from that could be
20     monitored and tracked and it would go back to refund
21     the fund.  To give you an example for the sake of
22     discussion, if it cost $8,000 to describe a particular
23     project and the promos developed revenue of $10,000,
24     then there would be a wash to the Fund and the balance
25     would be retained by the broadcaster.


 1  16076                If, however, the alternative was that
 2     $6,000 was produced and the cost was $8,000, there
 3     would be $2,000 actually coming out of the Fund because
 4     we appreciate there are a lot of pressures on the Fund
 5     and there has to be other ways of making sure that the
 6     funding is there and you can't guarantee, such as are
 7     benefits, that they will be from here to eternity
 8     available to us.  So, that was the rationale we had in
 9     mind in terms of how this might be financed and this
10     working group could then sit down and figure out the
11     practical solutions as opposed to us coming before you
12     and saying, "This is the way it should be done."
13  16077                We have tried to address what we have
14     heard to date in how we have approached these things,
15     but we haven't said this is the one and only solution. 
16     As we have said, our costs, our activity is this, but
17     we don't believe we are going to be there alone very
18     long.  As a matter of fact, our approach to training
19     describers is to establish a core, a network across the
20     country that could pick up contract work from any
21     describer.
22  16078                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  You said
23     earlier when we were talking about the deaf and hard of
24     hearing community that there was sort of a platform
25     from which the Canadian broadcasters could launch


 1     because there was so much going on in the U.S.  I know
 2     you talked about the foundation that does the funding
 3     of described video and the narrative television network
 4     and PBS, who are all doing something.  Are any of the
 5     big U.S. networks getting into this yet?
 6  16079                MR. TRIMBEE:  Not to my knowledge,
 7     but they have legislation, as you know, the ADA, the
 8     American Disability Act, where a lot of discussion is
 9     going on now not only in terms of access by commercial
10     networks for blind and low-vision people, but also the
11     Internet as part and parcel of the same comment and
12     study that's going on at this time.  However, from our
13     vantage point and the way we are looking at it, we
14     think that there are some differences here in Canada
15     which allows us to take a different approach that
16     actually will see something implemented.
17  16080                That is that there are funds that are
18     established to do certain things and already one of the
19     funds has added to its criteria -- and that is the
20     Skippy Fund -- that for producers of children's
21     programming one of the criteria is video description. 
22     That is the only one so far, but that does not mean --
23     we have climbed Mount Everest before and we think we
24     can convince others to do the same thing.
25  16081                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I am going to


 1     ask you -- maybe it's a bit of a facetious question,
 2     but is Canadian content an issue for you when it comes
 3     to described video or do you just want programming? 
 4     Does it matter to you at this point?
 5  16082                MR. TRIMBEE:  I think I can answer
 6     part of that and perhaps Geoff might add to it.  What
 7     we have concentrated on has been, because of our
 8     activity with the industry working group, original
 9     Canadian drama and children's programming.  That has
10     been our thrust.  We do other activity now because it's
11     available for us to do it and we have not got contract
12     work to do, what the industry working group unanimously
13     decided in 1996 should be done, and that included
14     broadcast representatives on that group, as you can
15     appreciate.  As a company that's where our focus is,
16     but I think that Mr. Eden could probably embellish that
17     a lot better than I could, that answer.
18  16083                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I think I
19     noticed, too, that you do have a lot of classic films
20     in your library as well for described, the described
21     videos.
22  16084                MR. TRIMBEE:  The reason for that
23     before I turn over to Geoff is that that is now
24     available to us without any copyright problems.
25  16085                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  In the public


 1     domain.
 2  16086                MR. TRIMBEE:  Yes.
 3  16087                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That's what I
 4     figured.
 5  16088                MR. EGAN:  I think the issue of
 6     programming -- I am a die hard Canadian, I am a die
 7     hard supporter of the Canadian entertainment industry
 8     and I think that they should come first, but the issue
 9     is a delicate one, not to the exclusion of possibly
10     very high quality material which might come to us from
11     other sources that a group might decide should be
12     described if it was undescribed and would deprive the
13     vision-impaired public of Canada of something really
14     useful.  Now, that sounds pretty nebulous, but at the
15     moment I can't come at it any more clearly.
16  16089                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I think the
17     same word could probably be used to describe a lot of
18     things that happen in Ottawa.  So, that word is a word
19     I understand, "nebulous".
20  16090                In a report entitled "The Feasibility
21     of Descriptive Video", the CAB states that digital
22     signals will permit the transmission of multiple audio
23     tracks, including a descriptive audio track, and it
24     suggests that instead of attempting to implement
25     descriptive video with analog technology, which has


 1     certain limitations, it might be more appropriate to
 2     consider it as part of the whole package of services
 3     attached to the digital roll-out.  I am just wondering
 4     what your views are on that suggestion.
 5  16091                MS CUTLER:  Our feeling is that we
 6     would like to go ahead with it now even before we get
 7     into digital broadcasting, but John can give you a more
 8     detailed response.
 9  16092                MR. STUBBS:  We have broken down in
10     the technical brief the scenarios that simplify a
11     system.  So, it's not a re-doing of the entire
12     infrastructure and all the technical facilities of a
13     television station in order to accommodate it.  It
14     comes down to the synchronizing of a time coded audio
15     track to the main track that is being broadcast and
16     inserting that description into the regular audio feed
17     going to a S.A.P.
18  16093                The S.A.P. is about $15,000 to add to
19     a newer transmitter and all of the rest of the
20     technology exists in the television station right now. 
21     To have two tape machines that are synchronized
22     together is not -- that's something they do everyday,
23     so it's not new technology, it's not changing all of
24     the switchers and all of the equipment inside of a
25     television station.  So, we brought it down to be


 1     something that if the desire is there to put on
 2     described video, then it's not very hard to do.
 3                                                        1430
 4  16094                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Just with
 5     reference to the second audio program, or the S.A.P.
 6     and actually, I may have mentioned this earlier, when I
 7     was talking about CPAC, but as you are probably aware,
 8     some broadcasters currently use the S.A.P. to deliver a
 9     second audio feed of some kind, either attached to
10     their service or separate.  And in some cases, they are
11     minority language services, which may not have access
12     to other delivery means.
13  16095                So I mean, I guess, having listened
14     to you, I would assume that what you would suggest is
15     that in the interim you leave those minority language
16     services there and once digital comes along you can go
17     for the whole thing.  But, I mean, on those specific
18     channels there aren't particularly many of them, but --
19  16096                MR. STUBBS:  It's also the content,
20     because the content is, if you are talking of two hours
21     a week, even inserting and using the S.A.P. for only
22     that program, you are taking a very fraction of the
23     time to the transmission of that special program feed
24     that you are describing.
25  16097                And some, Citytv, in Toronto, has a


 1     S.A.P. that they promote the use of.  It will be there
 2     for descriptive services in movies if they come along. 
 3     But it really isn't a lot of insertion time that you
 4     are talking about using the S.A.P. for this technology.
 5  16098                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Well, that's a
 6     good point.  Those are my questions, Madam Chair. 
 7     Thank you very much.
 8  16099                MR. STUBBS:  Thank you.
 9  16100                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
10     much.  Thank you for your presentation, I remember well
11     your descriptive video discussion of technology, which
12     was an eye-opener for me.  Thank you very much.
13  16101                Madam Secretary, would you call the
14     next participant, please.
15  16102                MS SANTERRE:  Thank you, Madam Chair. 
16     The next participant is the Canadians Concerned about
17     Violence in Entertainment, with Mrs. Rose Dyson.
18  16103                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon, Ms.
19     Dyson.
20  16104                DR. DYSON:  Good afternoon.
22  16105                DR. DYSON:  Thank you, commissioners,
23     for providing me with the opportunity to appear at
24     these hearings.
25  16106                Canadians Concerned about Violence in


 1     Entertainment is an independent, national, non-profit,
 2     public interest organization.
 3  16107                It is committed to increasing public
 4     awareness about the effects of cultural violence in
 5     society.  It is financially self-supporting through
 6     annual membership dues and personal donations, with
 7     members representing a cross-section of occupations and
 8     life styles, especially educators, health
 9     professionals, members of the media, religious groups,
10     and parents.
11  16108                C-CAVE supports the premise that
12     Canadian broadcasters should carry more Canadian-made
13     programming to counteract the onslaught of American
14     programming on Canadian airwaves.  However, we have
15     concerns we would like to bring to the Commission's
16     attention, as well as to that of the Minister of
17     Canadian Heritage.
18  16109                "Made in Canada" does not
19     automatically guarantee benign programming.  It has
20     become apparent over the last several years that some
21     members of the Canadian entertainment industry are
22     willing to produce material which is just as violent,
23     anti-social, and harmful to society as anything
24     produced by their American cousins.  The following are
25     a few examples.


 1  16110                Discovery Channel is currently
 2     running a second season of "Exhibit A:  Secrets of
 3     Forensic Science."  This series, hosted by Canadian
 4     actor Graham Greene, shows the viewer step-by-step how
 5     "amazing technology and clever techniques" are used to
 6     solve some particularly gruesome crimes.
 7  16111                The show reveals information that
 8     should remain secret from those who perpetrate crimes. 
 9     In addition to providing criminals with insider
10     information on forensic crime-solving, the September
11     22nd, 1998 episode showed autopsy photographs of a dead
12     woman, which were then broadcast across the country.
13  16112                This episode, about the murder of a
14     young Toronto university student, featured pictures of
15     the dead woman's breasts mutilated by teeth marks.  Not
16     once, but three different times, dental impressions
17     taken from suspects were superimposed over the bite
18     marks on her breast.  Viewers were then advised that
19     without the teethmarks, a conviction probably would not
20     have been possible.
21  16113                The helpful tip sadists pick up from
22     this episode is that if you bite a woman hard enough to
23     leave an impression, make sure you deface the teeth
24     marks before leaving the scene of the crime.
25  16114                According to Kate Lyons, who heads up


 1     the behavioural sciences section of the OPP
 2     investigation support bureau, FBI research has shown
 3     that criminals have an insatiable appetite for
 4     information that provides insight into the police
 5     process.  In other words, serial murderers and police
 6     officers favour the same movies, books, and television
 7     programs.
 8  16115                UCLA School of Medicine forensic
 9     psychiatrist Bart Elliott Dias, who spoke at the 1992
10     Canadian Psychiatric Association's annual meeting,
11     pointed out that techniques for committing crimes
12     detailed in movie scripts and television scripts end up
13     teaching millions.  Dias, who is also a consultant to
14     the FBI, said:  "What is merely entertainment for some
15     in the media is training in crime for others."  Another
16     quotation is:  "News reports about criminal innovations
17     can quickly produce imitators on a national level." 
18     Another quotation:
19                            "Small arms manufacturers now
20                            announce to retailers which
21                            movies and television shows will
22                            feature particular guns or
23                            knives so that they can be
24                            stocked in time to meet consumer
25                            demand."


 1  16116                In this context, we consider it a
 2     serious flaw in the new federal gun control legislation
 3     that the film and television industries are exempt from
 4     having to register firearms.  We have been informed of
 5     cases where weapons have been stolen or have simply
 6     disappeared following their use as props on sets.
 7  16117                Dias recommends that crime and
 8     violence use be limited to the population affected to
 9     minimize the number of copycat crimes committed and the
10     extent of unnecessary fear.
11                            "News organisations that would
12                            voluntarily limit their coverage
13                            of criminal innovations and
14                            relevant techniques to those
15                            audience with a legitimate need
16                            for such information would be
17                            evidencing a degree of
18                            responsibility commensurate with
19                            the freedom they now enjoy."
20  16118                Instead, six years later, Discovery
21     Channel is running a second season of this highly
22     educational program with no regard for the consequences
23     to the public.  Some of these concerns were brought to
24     the attention of Trina McQueen, president of the
25     Discovery Channel, in a September 1997 letter, to no


 1     avail.  It should be noted that Trina McQueen is the
 2     chairperson of AGVOT, the industry-based Action Group
 3     on Television Violence set up during the Spicer years
 4     at the CRTC when the issue of TV violence was taken
 5     more seriously.
 6  16119                Controversial "made in Canada"
 7     movies, like "Kissed," a sensitive look at the
 8     difficult subject of necrophilia, turn up on television
 9     to help fill Cancon quotas.  Promotional material for a
10     movie like "Kissed" shows two grinning women draped
11     over the naked corpse of a man, complete with a
12     dangling toe tag, just to make sure you know he's dead.
13  16120                David Kronenberg, the most famous
14     producer-director, nurtured by Canada's taxpayer-funded
15     entertainment industry, recently tried to get a project
16     off the ground that would have turned the ultra-violent
17     book "American Psycho" into a movie.  The script was
18     written by a Canadian, Mary Heron, and although
19     Kronenberg failed, other Canadians have taken up the
20     slack.  Vancouver-based Lionsgate Entertainment is
21     producing the film, and "Variety" reports that Oliver
22     Stone is in negotiations to direct, which pretty much
23     guarantees a movie bloodbath.  With so many Canadians
24     involved, it will undoubtedly turn up on Canadian TV
25     screens as well.


 1  16121                While we don't expect that every
 2     Canadian television program or movie will be "Road to
 3     Avonlea," it is not too much to expect that the
 4     Canadian producers would ascribe to this principle from
 5     the Hippocratic Oath:  first, do no harm.  The reason
 6     we are entitled to expect this, is because so much
 7     Canadian programming is paid for by the taxpayer. 
 8     Ordinary people provide hundreds of millions of dollars
 9     to producers, some of whom repay us with material
10     harmful to our health and safety.
11  16122                Through Telefilm, women are
12     underwriting "Exhibit A:  Secrets of Forensic Science,"
13     which provides useful information to murderers on how
14     to avoid apprehension.
15  16123                "Kissed," which was completed with
16     Telefilm funding, features a female necrophiliac, and
17     although most necrophiliacs are men, even treating this
18     disgusting behaviour with sensitivity is harmful to the
19     public.
20  16124                Kronenberg rose to fame with the help
21     of taxpayer funding, and then tried to make a movie out
22     a book identified as "the Bible" of Canadian child
23     murderer Paul Bernardo in testimony that came out
24     during that trial.
25  16125                Forcing the public to fund material


 1     which is harmful to us, into which we have no input,
 2     and over which we have no control is a particularly
 3     outrageous form of taxation without representation. 
 4     The mind boggles when contemplating that the federal
 5     government is providing $100 million to the television
 6     fund.
 7  16126                This is particularly galling to those
 8     of us involved in public interest groups, because we
 9     have to pay for our own efforts, usually out of our own
10     pockets, to combat the harmful programming that
11     sometimes results, with no help from government.
12  16127                We recognise that the CRTC does not
13     control the purse strings on any of the funds available
14     to producers, but you can play a pivotal role in what
15     television programs get to air.  You can send a message
16     to the broadcast industry that harmful, anti-social
17     programming will not be tolerated on Canadian airwaves.
18  16128                Unfortunately, the message given to
19     broadcasters by the CRTC up until this point has been
20     that pretty much anything goes.
21  16129                That is why the Howard Stern radio
22     show was purchased by two of Canada's largest
23     broadcasting companies, and why CHUM Limited bought the
24     Howard Stern show.
25  16130                When CHUM got another message from


 1     one lone, courageous CRTC commissioner -- and you know
 2     who you are -- they suddenly had an attack of
 3     conscience and cancelled both the television and radio
 4     shows.  That is the power the CRTC has to shape
 5     Canadian broadcasting.
 6  16131                For the CRTC to sustain some measure
 7     of credibility with the general public as our federal
 8     regulator, this recent message on Howard Stern must not
 9     be allowed to evolve into nothing more than a rare
10     departure from business as usual.
11  16132                If a Canadian production house goes
12     out of business because they can't produce harmful,
13     anti-social programming, so be it.  Or, they can raise
14     the funds privately.  It is both arrogant and
15     outrageous to expect the public to continue to fund
16     material harmful to our well being.
17  16133                Hopefully, these hearings will mark a
18     new beginning for the CRTC with a renewed commitment to
19     build on previous initiatives to come to terms with the
20     serious and growing problem of violence in the media. 
21     And provided, I think, for your information already, by
22     the secretary of the Commission is an article that I
23     have published in my capacity as a consultant in media
24     education in the April 1998 special issue on the
25     cultural environment movement in "Gazette," the


 1     international journal for communication studies.
 2  16134                The article -- published by Sage, by
 3     the way.  The article, entitled "Media Literacy:  Who
 4     Needs it and What Does it Mean?" deals extensively with
 5     the CRTC, so it may be of particular interest to you.
 6  16135                So I'm happy to answer any questions
 7     you might have.
 8  16136                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
 9     much, Ms. Dyson.  Commissioner McKendry.
10  16137                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Thank you,
11     Madam Chair.  Good afternoon, Ms. Dyson.
12  16138                DR. DYSON:  Good afternoon.
13  16139                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I just wanted
14     to ask you for a moment, or get your reaction for a
15     moment to a public opinion survey that was submitted to
16     this proceeding by CTV.  And one of the questions they
17     asked, an open-ended question, was, "Thinking of
18     television programming these days, what do you see as
19     the most important issue?"  And the number one issue by
20     far was something characterised:  "lack of
21     morals/violence."  It was 31 per cent of the
22     respondents, by the way.
23  16140                And the second issue, just to give
24     you an idea of the lead that "lack of morals/violence"
25     had, was "quality," at 22 per cent.


 1  16141                So my question to you is this
 2     consistent with your experience in terms of how the
 3     public feels about violence on television?
 4  16142                DR. DYSON:  Yes, it is.  When I
 5     completed my doctorate on this subject, George Gerbder,
 6     who used to be at the Ananburg School of
 7     Communications, the University of Pennsylvania, was my
 8     external examiner.  He now holds the Bell Atlantic
 9     Chair at Temple University.  He has conducted numerous
10     surveys over the years using his cultural indicators
11     model that he invented.
12  16143                And time after time over the last 15
13     or 20 years that he's been using it to monitor tastes
14     and interests in television programming both in Canada
15     and the United States, it's been evident that contrary
16     to what many broadcasters would have us believe, the
17     most popular programming is not violent.  It is what
18     would be considered more wholesome and acceptable.
19  16144                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  I would like
20     to tie that to a comment you made in your article in
21     the "Gazette" that you provided to us.  And I will
22     quote from it, it's on page -- I think 158.  I have a
23     faxed copy, and the number isn't quite legible.  But
24     the quote is:
25                            "The only recourse left to


 1                            community groups was to launch a
 2                            campaign encouraging an
 3                            advertiser boycott.  On 14 May,
 4                            1997 the CRTC announced the
 5                            results -- 13 out of 25 of the
 6                            major sponsors had pulled their
 7                            advertisements about the same
 8                            time it was announced that
 9                            "Poltergeist:  The Legacy" was
10                            pulled off the air due to poor
11                            ratings.  Increasingly, it is
12                            the direction of advertiser
13                            boycotts that public pressure is
14                            proving to be most effective."
15  16145                I would like to get your comment
16     about the relevance, I guess, of direct consumer action
17     in the sense of boycotts as opposed to regulatory
18     intervention.  Are you saying this is really the way
19     it's going to work in the future as opposed to
20     regulatory intervention?
21                                                        1450
22  16146                DR. DYSON:  Well, I think both
23     strategies are necessary but the more direct one just
24     hasn't been as useful, in our experience.
25  16147                I am thinking, which I also mention


 1     in this article, the petition that was presented to
 2     Brian Mulroney when he was still Prime Minister of the
 3     country, signed by something like 1.2 million Canadians
 4     presented by Virginia LaRiviere asking the government
 5     to do something about violence on television.  Well, I
 6     am not sure that that has had so much of an impact.
 7  16148                We had AGVOT set up and then we had a
 8     rating system that was discussed with appropriate
 9     criteria to go with it.  According to my observations
10     and knowledge, this has sort of fizzled out into not
11     much of anything, whereas it seems to be more time
12     effective for us chronically overworked and underfunded
13     volunteer organizations to go directly to the
14     advertisers because they are more sensitive to what
15     their programming is associated with.
16  16149                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  And I suppose
17     the fact that public opinion surveys, such as the CTV
18     survey, show that there is apparently widespread
19     concern about violence on television.  In fact, it was
20     the number one issue in television programming in this
21     particular survey, helps you in dealing with
22     advertisers and the broadcasters in terms of achieving
23     your objectives.
24  16150                DR. DYSON:  May I just ask you, that
25     particular survey you are referring to, it was


 1     conducted this year?
 2  16151                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  It is dated
 3     June 28, 1998, and it is a survey by Compass for CTV
 4     and it is part of the CTV submission to this
 5     proceeding.
 6  16152                DR. DYSON:  Thank you.
 7  16153                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Let me ask
 8     you for a moment, building a bit on the direct role of
 9     consumers and boycotts and so on to the role of self
10     regulation because it seems to me there's been a fair
11     emphasis placed from a regulatory perspective and a
12     public policy perspective in Canada on the self
13     regulatory process with respect to broadcasters.  Do
14     you have any comments on how effective that process is,
15     the self regulatory process?
16  16154                DR. DYSON:  Well, in addition to what
17     I just said, I believe that self-regulation, without
18     effective government regulation, as in from the CRTC,
19     cannot work and never has worked.  That has certainly
20     been my observations, based on my own personal
21     experience and that of colleagues, like George Gerbder.
22  16155                If we think in terms of what has
23     occurred since Keith Spicer stepped down in 1966, I
24     think that the whole of self-regulation has been turned
25     into a bit of a joke.


 1  16156                Given the kind of extraordinarily
 2     violent programming that the Canadian Association of
 3     Broadcasters members feel free to bring to the screen
 4     and I discussed examples both in my presentation today
 5     and in the article that you have referred to that I
 6     have written, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
 7     has been set up to monitor what goes on from the
 8     standpoint of being reactive to complaints.  But the
 9     complaint procedure is very slow and hasn't worked
10     particularly well.
11  16157                I doubt that Howard Stern would be
12     coming off the air in Canada if it hadn't been for a
13     little bit of initiative displayed by the CRTC in
14     holding the broadcasters' feet to the fire in terms of
15     their own codes of conduct.
16  16158                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Perhaps we
17     could just talk about the V-chip for a minute because
18     not only in Canada but in the US, I think some people
19     see the V-chip as the answer to the violence on TV
20     problem and I am wondering, in light of the somewhat
21     evolution of the V-chip into the marketplace what your
22     views are on how it will deal with this situation.
23  16159                DR. DYSON:  I don't believe that the
24     V-chip is the full answer or the only answer, and I
25     think that it is something that many of the people


 1     within the private industry would like to have us
 2     believe.  But, as Keith Spicer used to say when he
 3     first began to promote it so much, it was only 10 per
 4     cent of the solution.
 5  16160                It can serve some useful purpose.
 6     There are even some harmful aspects to something like a
 7     V-chip because there has been some evidence from the
 8     time it was first being discussed in Canada in
 9     broadcasting circles of it almost acting like a green
10     light because of the watershed hour that was
11     established for harmful programming.  In other words,
12     it is a mixed blessing and it is a very small portion
13     of the problem.
14  16161                Much more responsibility and
15     accountability, I think, has to be expected at source
16     of production and distribution of this material.
17  16162                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  This leads me
18     to ask you in terms of the proceeding that is currently
19     underway here, and I am sure you have had an
20     opportunity to read our Public Notice, what would you
21     like to see in the decision that we write as a result
22     of this proceeding from your perspective?  What would
23     you like to see in there?
24  16163                DR. DYSON:  Well, I would like to see
25     violence or some of the other concerns that Canadians


 1     obviously have, based on CTV's survey that you
 2     mentioned, reflected or taken into consideration in the
 3     criteria that Telefilm exercises.
 4  16164                I know you don't have anything to do
 5     with Telefilm necessarily directly but I would like to
 6     see the CRTC in all of its subsequent hearings expect
 7     broadcasters to adhere to their own codes of conduct. 
 8     They are extensive.  They are well developed.  Nobody
 9     has to sit down and ponder the evolution or creativity
10     about what criteria should be used.  There are many
11     fine minds that have already gone into developing
12     these.  It is just a case of them being taken more
13     seriously, both by the broadcasters and the CRTC.
14  16165                In other words, I would like the CRTC
15     to play a much better role in expecting implementation
16     within the self-regulatory process that has already
17     been approved.
18  16166                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Just to make
19     sure I understand you, the codes of conduct, you
20     generally regard as adequate codes of conduct.  Your
21     primary concern is with implementing them and adherence
22     to the codes that exist?
23  16167                DR. DYSON:  Yes, there is always some
24     room for modification.  I think advertising perhaps
25     isn't addressed vigorously enough in the codes.  I have


 1     written things on this in the past and brought this to
 2     the attention of the CRTC in previous hearings.
 3  16168                For the most part, I think the
 4     existing codes of conduct, whether it's on violence or
 5     sexual stereotyping or discrimination, racism, and
 6     things of that sort are there.  They are developed but
 7     it is just that they tend to be ignored too much.
 8  16169                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  In our
 9     decision, you would like us to clearly remind the
10     broadcasters of their obligations under those.
11  16170                DR. DYSON:  Not only remind them but
12     when their licences come up for renewal, call them on
13     evidence of lack of adherence.  As I said in my
14     presentation, the CRTC was prepared to approve, I
15     think, CHUM's licence on Bravo, I believe it was, until
16     one Commissioner wrote a minority opinion or a
17     dissenting opinion.
18  16171                Well, this development doesn't do
19     much to inspire confidence in the CRTC as the federal
20     regulator where the general public is concerned.
21  16172                As you know, I hardly need to remind
22     the Commission that there has been a special committee
23     set up in the last year, I think three or four months
24     ago, by the Minister of Heritage, chaired by Sam Bulte,
25     a Member of Parliament for Hyde Park/Parkdale in


 1     Toronto, I believe, to inquire into just how people are
 2     appointed to the CRTC.
 3  16173                So there is obviously a great deal of
 4     discontent with the extent to which CRTC decisions tend
 5     to be made in such a way that they favour industry as
 6     opposed to the public interest.
 7  16174                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Those are my
 8     questions for you.  I appreciate you coming and
 9     answering the questions, and we always welcome and
10     encourage people from public interest groups, such as
11     yourselves to come in front of us.  Hopefully, we will
12     continue to see you in our future proceedings.  Those
13     are my questions.
14  16175                DR. DYSON:  If I might add one more
15     thing that we would like to see in your final decisions
16     is some sort of a budget set aside to enable us to come
17     forward and participate in these discussions because
18     they are very costly.
19  16176                COMMISSIONER McKENDRY:  Yes, we have
20     actually heard that comment as well from other public
21     interest groups.
22  16177                DR. DYSON:  Thank you.
23  16178                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just a small
24     correction, Ms. Dyson.  What was at issue with Bravo
25     was not its renewal.  It was whether or not the


 1     Commission would allow Bravo to join the Standards
 2     Council rather than to have a condition of licence with
 3     regard to sexual stereotyping, et cetera.
 4  16179                DR. DYSON:  Thank you.
 5  16180                THE CHAIRPERSON:  And whether or not
 6     the fact that they were airing Howard Stern on radio
 7     was a reason for not allowing them to join the
 8     Standards Council rather than have the codes remaining
 9     as a condition of licence.
10  16181                We thank you, anyway, for your
11     presentation and my colleagues have questions. 
12     Commissioner Pennefather?
13  16182                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Hello, Dr.
14     Dyson.
15  16183                DR. DYSON:  Hi, Jo.
16  16184                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  While you
17     are here, I would like your reflections on a couple of
18     points.  I have just quickly looked through the article
19     dealing with media literacy but, obviously, I would
20     like to ask you just briefly to indicate in your mind
21     how well media literacy can serve as a tool for public
22     response and the capacity to change a system if the
23     public wishes to do so.
24  16185                I think that you note that parents
25     don't seem to be taking their part.  There is something


 1     called the Media Awareness Network, which I am sure you
 2     are aware of, and I am wondering if you could just
 3     reflect for us briefly on how effective these tools are
 4     and in terms of alerting the public to the effects of
 5     violent programming to the alternatives available.
 6  16186                And, in so addressing that point,
 7     notice I said the Media Awareness Network, which is on
 8     the Internet.  So how can that medium also address this
 9     issue of violence in the media at large?
10  16187                DR. DYSON:  Okay, those are a lot of
11     questions.  I am trying to remember them all.  Remind
12     me if I haven't answered them all.
13  16188                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I will.
14  16189                DR. DYSON:  I think that media
15     literacy serves a very important role, whether it is
16     provided in schools or in a larger context for the
17     general public.  And that is what I attempt to address
18     in this article.  In fact, Canada has been one of the
19     leaders, pioneers in Canadian teachers in developing
20     media literacy.
21  16190                Where I take issue with some of the
22     leaders with the Association for Media Literacy, for
23     example, or CAMEO, and acronym that is used to make
24     reference to the umbrella organization for the entire
25     country, is the values-free approach to the way in


 1     which this material is discussed or decoded and
 2     de-constructed in classrooms and the extraordinary
 3     emphasis on at times the development of techniques for
 4     the purposes of television and film production.  Not
 5     that this isn't important and there won't always be a
 6     role for it, but I think there needs to be a little
 7     more emphasis on some of the culturally harmful
 8     components in this.
 9  16191                I mean, there is a reason why a
10     cultural environment movement has sprung up and these
11     kinds of values or concerns from the standpoint of
12     cultural pollution are not  taken very seriously.  In
13     fact, a lot of media literacy resource material now
14     actually celebrates violence.  In other words, decoding
15     and de-constructing a movie like "Silence of the Lambs"
16     in a Grade Eight classroom is considered okay in some
17     cases.  I have gotten complaints from parents about
18     this and understandably so, I think.
19  16192                I know that I have colleagues who
20     will support me on this.  Heather Jane Robertson, who
21     is in professional development for the Canadian
22     Teachers Federation has written material on this,
23     including a recent book on the commercialization of the
24     classroom as an extension of the kind of unquestioning
25     acceptance and embracing of technology or


 1     communications technology and what it is doing to erode
 2     critical thinking skills in many instances.
 3  16193                So I think that has to be recognized,
 4     acknowledged.  There is a real commercial push into the
 5     classroom that a lot of people in the education system
 6     itself are oblivious to and that is a real worry and
 7     concern to many of us.
 8  16194                The Internet, of course, it has got
 9     wonderful potential.  I certainly enjoy it, mostly
10     through e-mail messages.
11  16195                I think it has provided an
12     opportunity for public interest groups to exchange
13     information or exercise dialogue on various issues of
14     mutual concern.  We have plenty of evidence of how
15     worried the OECD is about the opposition to the MAI or
16     the Multilateral Agreement on Investment or
17     globalization issues in general.
18  16196                So the Internet, too, is sometimes
19     described as having given the printed word a new lease
20     on life.  It is, after all, a bit like the newspaper in
21     that it's print.  At least I see it that way.  There is
22     a lot of very harmful material out there and that, too,
23     has to be a concern.
24  16197                If we can address issues involving
25     privacy and copyright in other kinds of media, as well


 1     as the Internet, we should be able to address issues of
 2     content.
 3  16198                So the police, we have Project P or
 4     other law enforcement officials who are doing exemplary
 5     work, I think, in tracking down purveyors or
 6     distributors on the net of child pornography.  So many
 7     have argued, not only from the standpoint of
 8     communications or harmful content in media, but in
 9     other ways that the Internet has ironically made it
10     easier or will make it easier to provide appropriate
11     regulation of a number of kinds.  I am thinking in
12     particular of Linda McQuaig in her book, "The Cult of
13     Impotence," when she talks about regulating the flow of
14     capital.
15  16199                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  As you
16     know, we have another proceeding coming forward on the
17     media, so that might be an appropriate moment to take
18     this point a little further.
19  16200                Regarding your comments today, just a
20     clarification.  When you speak about the growing
21     problem of violence in the media, is that comment based
22     on recent research from Dr. Gerbder and yourself and
23     others?  Is this an update of statistics we have seen? 
24     Are you seeing increasingly the acts of violence which
25     within the half hour as his work has traditionally


 1     shown?
 2  16201                DR. DYSON:  Yes, his work.  I haven't
 3     brought specific studies of his along but they are
 4     certainly available.  He posts them on the Net from
 5     time to time.
 6  16202                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Now is
 7     this about American programming available to American
 8     viewers or American programming available to Canadian
 9     viewers?
10  16203                DR. DYSON:  His studies usually
11     include North America.  As you know, the Americans, for
12     many years in many different ways have considered
13     Canada part of their domestic market.  So that
14     sometimes holds from the standpoint of researching
15     techniques as well.
16  16204                But what Gerbder has pointed out in
17     his research time and again is that globalization has
18     media, along with other kinds of industry, has meant
19     that there is increasing reliance on sex and violence
20     as chief industrial ingredients because they sell well
21     on a global market and translate easily into any
22     language.  And that is something that we have to be
23     aware of.
24  16205                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  My
25     question was also that if you have specific research


 1     recently on Canadian programming.  Not American
 2     programming watched by Canadians but Canadian
 3     programming watched by Canadians.  Are you saying to us
 4     there is growing violence in that programming as well?
 5  16206                DR. DYSON:  Yes, there is.  Now my
 6     research is more qualitative in that I monitor
 7     different forums of information as well as research
 8     findings.  One example I can give you, and I suppose it
 9     can be taken with a grain of salt, but after all, at
10     the Cannes Film Festival, I believe it was in 1997,
11     when an American film -- Well, one year half the
12     critics walk out of the David Kronenberg's film,
13     "Crash," and there is an attempt to keep it off the
14     screen in various countries, but not in Canada.  In
15     Canada is promoted by mainstream media as being
16     perfectly okay, including public broadcasters.
17  16207                Then the second year when an American
18     film critic asks, I think it was Atom Egoyan, why
19     Canadians seem to be coming out with one perverse film
20     after another, he was quoted in the Globe and Mail as
21     saying, "A little known secret in Canada is that you
22     have to have a perverse title in order to get
23     government funding."  Well, you know, nobody called him
24     on it except us.
25  16208                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Well, in


 1     the myriads of Canadian films I have seen, I have had
 2     different interpretations of what a perverse title may
 3     be.  To some, it was other films that the National Film
 4     Board created at the time.  So I guess it depends on
 5     your point of view.
 6  16209                I understand your point and thank you
 7     for being here today and bringing us up to date.  My
 8     reasons, as you know, for asking about media literacy
 9     go back to the time when I had the privilege of working
10     at the Film Board and with a number of colleagues we
11     worked extensively in this area.
12  16210                And the point which is directly
13     related to the discussion of this hearing was to create
14     more choice and alternatives as opposed to look at an
15     approach to censor products as they come out.  That, I
16     am assuming, is part and parcel of this approach on
17     media literacy.  And what is interesting for us, I
18     think, in this hearing is the direct connection that
19     has to increased Canadian content and more alternative
20     viewing for Canadian viewers.  That's the focus of the
21     questions that I have in terms of how Canadian content,
22     greater availability of Canadian content will address
23     this issue as well.
24                                                        1510
25  16211                DR. DYSON:  Address the issue of


 1     media violence, or --
 2  16212                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  That is
 3     correct.  Greater choice alternatives in programming
 4     was in that time and still is one of my views, is that
 5     that is part and parcel of the solution.
 6  16213                DR. DYSON:  Well, I certainly have a
 7     great deal of respect and admiration for people who
 8     have worked for the National Film Board.  I know many
 9     of them myself.  But I am still not sure why
10     diversity -- or are you saying that diversity alone
11     should be the criteria?
12  16214                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  No, I am
13     not saying alone, but I am saying it is an important
14     part of the solution --
15  16215                DR. DYSON:  Oh, yes.
16  16216                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  -- and it
17     along with media awareness provide, I think, the basis
18     for choice which is an important part of the solution,
19     and has been in the discussions of Neil Postman and Dr.
20     Gerbder and --
21  16217                DR. DYSON:  Yes, of course, I
22     wouldn't disagree with that.  I would just like to
23     again point out that the notion of discretionary
24     funding for Canadian productions through Telefilm is
25     not a new idea.  It was first proposed by Judy Lamarche


 1     in a royal commission on violence in the communications
 2     industry when the report was released in 1977, so it is
 3     an idea that has been around for a long time.
 4  16218                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  And just
 5     to conclude, my point goes back to Commissioner
 6     McKendry's point that Canadians, in fact, when asked,
 7     as we did at the time, for a variety of programming and
 8     aren't necessarily as interested in violent programming
 9     as some may lead us to believe.  So I think it is
10     important to keep track --
11  16219                DR. DYSON:  Canadian public as
12     opposed to producers.  It is important to make the
13     distinction.
14  16220                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Well, you
15     addressed the importance we place on the public
16     interest, and that is why I am speaking to you in those
17     terms.
18  16221                DR. DYSON:  Okay.
19  16222                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you. 
20     Thank you, Madam Chair.
21  16223                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Cardozo.
22  16224                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks, Madam
23     Chair.  Dr. Dyson, thanks for your comments.  Just
24     first a comment about that -- what was it, that lonely,
25     courageous commissioner.  Lone, he may have been, but


 1     courageous is, perhaps, overstating it.  The only flack
 2     I got was a smidgen of bad press, and the sources it
 3     came from were quite satisfactory to me.
 4  16225                DR. DYSON:  That should be a real
 5     green light for the other commissioners.
 6  16226                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I wanted to
 7     ask you about how you respond to the proposition that
 8     is put to us quite often when we address issues of
 9     violence, or objectionable content, or any of those
10     sorts of things.  The free speech flag is always
11     raised, and the flip side of that being freedom to
12     watch, freedom to hear, and that if you don't like it,
13     turn it off, and if you have got a remote control, it
14     is even easier to do that.  How do you respond to that
15     argument?
16  16227                DR. DYSON:  Well, I think that there
17     is a lot of confusion between individual freedom of
18     expression and corporate freedom of enterprise, which
19     is, again, usually considered to be synonymous with the
20     expression.  Now, I know that there have been court
21     cases in America, in particular, where a corporate
22     freedom of expression has been considered legitimate,
23     okay, and comparable to individual freedom of
24     expression, or at least the people I know in the legal
25     community have brought this to my attention, including


 1     my husband, who is a judge.
 2  16228                But I think that there are also a
 3     number of legal precedents, both in Canada and the
 4     United States, and I will just refer to a couple of
 5     Canadian ones that I am aware of that have made these
 6     kinds of distinctions.  It is just that they are rather
 7     poorly reported on by journalists who -- or, perhaps
 8     people within the industry for whom it is always a
 9     greater advantage to exercise and hang onto as much
10     freedom and latitude as possible.
11  16229                We had the Irwin Toy case that was
12     decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1989.  In
13     that one it was ruled that advertising directed toward
14     children 12 years and under should not be allowed on
15     the basis of research showing harmful effects.  Now,
16     this was fought for ten years right through the Quebec
17     court system by Irwin Toys of Canada.  It is obviously
18     been flouted a great deal one way or another by
19     industry.
20  16230                But the Butler decision on
21     pornography was another Supreme Court of Canada ruling
22     that drew upon the Irwin Toy case distinctions between
23     individual and corporate freedom of expression, and
24     they also ruled -- I mean, many would argue that the
25     Butler decision was a mixed blessing, because it opened


 1     the floodgates for a lot of so-called consenting sexual
 2     depictions and things of that sort.
 3  16231                But it was indicated in that case
 4     that sometimes collective freedoms and rights, as they
 5     are defined by our Charter of Rights or Constitution,
 6     must take precedence over individual freedoms.  In
 7     other words, a pornographer's or distributor or
 8     retailer of pornography's right to freedom of, I guess,
 9     expression is not as important as the collective
10     freedom from fear or the collective safety that women
11     are entitled to, or others that are particularly at
12     risk from the distribution of some of this material.
13  16232                So as a society, if we are going to
14     take national strategy seriously for crime prevention
15     or health and safety, mental health, or civil society's
16     maintenance and protection, then there have to be some
17     trade-offs.
18  16233                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay.  You
19     have at the first part of your answer focused on some
20     of the legal mechanisms and the jurisprudence around
21     the issue, but on the question of "you can turn it off
22     if you don't like it," I guess what I am asking is, in
23     your expert view, why is this stuff bad for society? 
24     Why should we, as a commission, be concerned about it? 
25     I am not saying I am not concerned about it, but what


 1     are the responses --
 2  16234                DR. DYSON:  Well, I am sure I can
 3     turn it off if I don't like it, and I do that a great
 4     deal now.  But I am still at risk, or my children are
 5     at risk from what might be going on next door in my
 6     neighbour's house, or within the community.  I mean,
 7     the cornerstone, surely, of a democratic society is
 8     that we have to learn to obey the rules that we
 9     collectively give ourselves.  I mean, that is how civil
10     society works.  And we can't be completely reliant on
11     individual choice without considering some of the other
12     ramifications, in my view.
13  16235                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  And what is
14     your response to the defence that people are watching
15     it, people are listening to it.  On the one hand there
16     is the poll that Commissioner McKendry talked about,
17     where Canadians say they don't want more violence on
18     TV, but there is an insatiable appetite.  Maybe there
19     is another way to ask that question, but there is a lot
20     of people watching and listening to that type of
21     programming.
22  16236                DR. DYSON:  Well, yes, and we have
23     had two or three generations now who have been
24     socialised into wanting that kind of program.  You just
25     have to pick up last week's TV guide to see how


 1     cleverly this is all done with children's programming. 
 2     From one year of age on, children are very carefully
 3     encouraged to like certain kinds of entertainment, and
 4     this goes on as they get older, with violent and coarse
 5     kinds of programming.
 6  16237                I mean, this is certainly an argument
 7     we got with the "Howard Stern Show" in Canada, but I
 8     don't remember seeing protests and people out in the
 9     streets demanding "Howard Stern" be brought into the
10     country.  I think it was well-acknowledged that the
11     reason he was brought into the country was to boost the
12     sagging ratings of two media conglomerates in Canada
13     who were having difficulty with one radio station in
14     Montreal, and another in Toronto.  Nothing to do with
15     Canadian demand.
16  16238                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  It is to do
17     with Canadian demand.  I don't want to get into the
18     "Howard Stern" discussion, but it has to do with demand
19     as much as it did help their ratings.
20  16239                DR. DYSON:  Well, once he is on the
21     air, and the envelope is pushed, there were a lot of
22     discussions on the Internet about the "Howard Stern
23     Show," and I can remember people from the American
24     industry who would send me notes from time to time
25     detailing the kind of marketing techniques that are


 1     used with a shock jock radio talk show host like him,
 2     or a television talk show host like Jerry Springer, I
 3     suppose.
 4  16240                The idea is to really do something
 5     outrageous and get everybody talking about it, so then
 6     people have to see it.  And some people will,
 7     particularly adolescents are somewhat rebellious
 8     anyway, and so it is a case of the envelope being
 9     pushed more and more and that being, I guess, something
10     that dovetails with the usual sorts of rebelliousness
11     that you get in adolescents.
12  16241                I mean, there are a lot of, I think,
13     fairly subtle techniques that go into effective
14     marketing to develop a public appetite for this.  And
15     we have seen it creeping along quite a bit for several
16     decades now.
17  16242                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  This is a
18     perverse thought, but we have been talking a lot about
19     how to promote Canadian content.  And maybe one should
20     look at how some of things are done by some of the
21     shows you just mentioned.  I only say that half in
22     joking, but thanks very much for your reflections.
23  16243                DR. DYSON:  My pleasure.
24  16244                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Ms
25     Dyson, for your participation.


 1  16245                DR. DYSON:  Thank you, for hearing
 2     me.
 3  16246                THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will now take a
 4     15-minute break.  Nous reprendrons à 3 h 35.
 5     --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1520
 6     --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1540
 7  16247                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Madam Secretary
 8  16248                MS SANTERRE:  Thank you, Madam Chair. 
 9     The presentation will be done now by Equality for Gays
10     and Lesbians Everywhere/Égalité pour les gais et les
11     lesbiennes, with Mr. John Fisher and Mr. Ron Chaplin.
12  16249                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon. 
13     Proceed when you are ready.
15  16250                MR. FISHER:  Good afternoon, and
16     thank you for giving EGALE the opportunity to appear
17     before you here today.
18  16251                I am John Fisher.  I am EGALE's
19     Executive Director and, as mentioned, I am joined by
20     Mr. Ron Chaplin.
21  16252                Just in terms of who EGALE is as an
22     organization, the name stands for Equality for Gays and
23     Lesbians Everywhere, Égalité pour les gais et les
24     lesbiennes, and we are a national organization
25     committed to advancing equality for lesbians and gays


 1     across Canada.
 2  16253                We have a specifically federal focus
 3     in our work and we have been fairly active on both a
 4     political and a legal level as well as in the area of
 5     public education.
 6  16254                On the political level, we were
 7     active in working with the federal government to see
 8     changes made to the Canadian Human Rights Act to
 9     include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of
10     discrimination.
11  16255                We also worked very hard on Bill
12     C-41, which was an Act amending the Criminal Code to do
13     a range of things but to increase sanctions on crimes
14     motivated by hatred on certain grounds, including
15     hatred on the ground of sexual orientation.  And,
16     obviously, there was a view in Parliament that the
17     crimes are motivated by a desire to limit the rights of
18     particular segments with a diverse society.  And that
19     is a factor which should be taken into account in
20     increasing the severity of the penalty.
21  16256                There have been a range of other
22     political issues, particularly around the area of same
23     sex relationship recognition on which we have been
24     active.
25  16257                On the legal front, we have


 1     intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada on a
 2     number of occasions in support of adding sexual
 3     orientation to provincial human rights legislation in
 4     support of same sex relationships and also generally in
 5     relation to issues in society which impacts upon gays
 6     and lesbians, such as the recent decision of the Human
 7     Rights Tribunal that it was discrimination for a mayor
 8     to refuse to proclaim Lesbian and Gay Pride Day.
 9  16258                Our organization has members in every
10     province and territory of the country, and I have
11     travelled myself to every province and territory and
12     met with gays and lesbians to understand better some of
13     the issues and concerns which motivate our communities.
14  16259                Consistently, one of the messages
15     that are transmitted to me by our membership is the
16     feeling of exclusion and non-representation in public
17     institutions.  And I think this is a factor which is
18     particularly relevant in relation to these hearings and
19     the role of broadcasting in Canadian society.
20  16260                We are pleased to see that times are
21     changing and that to an increasing extent we are seeing
22     positive and non-stereotypical representations of gays
23     and lesbians on the airwaves.  But certainly even at
24     the time that I was growing up and the time that many
25     of our members were growing up, there was either a


 1     complete silence or invisibility which sent the clear
 2     message, I think, both to members of our community but
 3     to Canadians, generally, that lesbians and gays were
 4     not part of the fabric of Canadian society.
 5  16261                Or else if there were
 6     representations, they would be kind of stereotypical
 7     representations that we saw in all the programs like
 8     "Are You Being Served?" where a very swishy and
 9     stereotypical gay character was virtually the only kind
10     of figure with which people were invited to identify.
11  16262                Now I think we have seen a move, both
12     towards the inclusion of lesbian and gay characters in
13     mainstream programs and also towards an increase in the
14     number of television programs which are produced by and
15     for the lesbian and gay communities.
16  16263                Rogers, for example, has a show
17     called "10 Per Cent QTV" in Toronto which covers a
18     range of lesbian and gay issues on a regular basis.  I
19     am aware of a cable channel in Vancouver which has a
20     program called "Outlook," a similar channel in Montreal
21     and there are other similar experiences.
22  16264                One of the roles which we feel is
23     very important that the CRTC continue to have is to
24     ensure that there is diversity in Canadian programming
25     is recognized, respected, and actively promoted amongst


 1     broadcasters and those seeking to obtain licences in
 2     relation to the values which underpin our broadcasting
 3     system.
 4  16265                I would refer to Section 3 of the
 5     Broadcasting Act, which talks about the importance of
 6     safeguarding, enriching, and strengthening the
 7     cultural, political, social and economic fabric of
 8     Canada, as well as the encouragement of the development
 9     of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of
10     programming which reflects Canadian attitudes,
11     opinions, ideas, values, and artistic integrity.
12  16266                In terms of the values  which
13     underpin Canadian society, I believe the Supreme Court
14     has now recognized in a number of cases, such as Egan
15     v. Canadair and Vriend v. Alberta.
16  16267                The lesbians and gays are one of the
17     groups protected by The Charter of Rights.  The
18     commitment in the Broadcasting Act to equal rights and
19     to diversity should include a respect for the equal
20     rights and the diversity which incorporates the
21     expression of the lesbian and gay identity.
22  16268                And also the Supreme Court has
23     recognized that expressions which take away from those
24     values are discriminatory and do contravene the
25     Canadian Charter of Rights.


 1  16269                So, clearly, I think there is a
 2     two-level approach which is important.  On the one
 3     hand, the fostering of diversity and positive images. 
 4     On the other hand, the regulatory system to take
 5     appropriate sanctions when there are negative or
 6     hateful expressions of what it is to be lesbian and
 7     gay.
 8  16270                We are aware, of course, that one of
 9     the other values of the broadcasting system is freedom
10     of expression and that that incorporates for some the
11     ability to express views about homosexuality or gays or
12     lesbians with which our organization might not concur.
13  16271                Clearly, however, there is a line
14     that can be crossed.  It is a line that we have seen
15     occasionally,  I think, in relation particularly to
16     some of the American television evangelists, who, in
17     some cases, have gone so far as to actively promote
18     lesbians and gays as an abomination, in some cases,
19     implicitly or explicitly to suggest that we are not
20     worthy of survival even or that are sanctioned by God
21     or by the Bible.
22  16272                We are aware of cases in which the
23     CRTC has intervened and we are aware of cases in which
24     broadcasters have agreed to conduct sensitivity
25     training, for instance, following interventions by the


 1     CRTC.  And I believe there have been cases where
 2     particular broadcasters, particular programs, have been
 3     removed from the airwaves because of their highly
 4     hostile and nature in the promotion of hatred against
 5     gays and lesbians.
 6  16273                And so those are the key themes that
 7     EGALE would like to see strengthened in CRTC
 8     regulations.  We believe that there could be greater
 9     clarity around what is required to affirm diversity and
10     to ensure that negative portrayals are not the norm.
11  16274                I have the benefit, actually, of
12     receiving the written brief of the group which is to
13     follow us, the Centre for Research Action on Race
14     Relations.  They are a group with which we have had
15     dealings in the past, and I am pleased to note at the
16     end of their brief there are a number of very specific
17     recommendations around diversity issues and employment
18     equity and strengthening that within the Canadian
19     broadcasting system.
20  16275                I won't repeat those here because
21     that group can work through their recommendations in
22     greater detail.  Except to say that having had a chance
23     to review them, I am confident that EGALE is pleased to
24     endorse those, and that we would certainly look to add
25     to some of the measures recommended there, specific


 1     measures incorporating respect for gays and lesbians
 2     and the need to promote diversity in that field.
 3  16276                Ron, do you want to add to that?
 4  16277                MR. CHAPLIN:  Just a few things. 
 5     Thank you, John.  Merci, Madame la Présidente and
 6     Commissioners.
 7  16278                As you know, my name is Ron Chaplin. 
 8     I am a long standing member of EGALE, and I am also a
 9     member and a sometimes spokesperson for the Task Group
10     on Gays and Lesbians of the Diocese of Ottawa of the
11     Anglican Church of Canada.
12  16279                My message to you today is very short
13     and it is very simple.  I am here today simply to say
14     thank you, to thank you for the standards which you
15     apply in the regulation of religious broadcasting in
16     this country.
17  16280                In many parts of the world, the gay
18     and lesbian community is one of the favoured targets of
19     religious zealots.  In Canada, our broadcasting
20     regulations are now clear.  Messages of hatred
21     targeting an identifiable community will not be
22     tolerated on the public airwaves.
23  16281                Within my own church, I am actively
24     involved in the debate on homosexuality.  For many of
25     us, this is a deeply divisive issue.  Our debates and


 1     our disagreement are vigorous.  They are at the same
 2     time civilized and respectful.  The Canadian public, I
 3     feel, expects no less from our broadcasters.
 4  16282                This Commission, as well as the
 5     Government of Canada and Canada's courts recognize the
 6     line which separates freedom of expression and freedom
 7     of religious expression from messages which incite
 8     hatred.  It is one of those things which makes my
 9     Canadian citizenship one of my most valued attributes.
10  16283                So on behalf of my community and on
11     behalf of the members of EGALE, I simply want to say
12     thank you.  Merci beaucoup.
13  16284                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you,
14     Gentlemen.  Commissioner Pennefather?
15  16285                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you,
16     both, very much and thank you for being here today.
17  16286                You have been quite clear in your
18     written submission and this afternoon.  So I don't have
19     too many questions, but I would like to expand on a few
20     of the points you have raised.
21  16287                First, though, the picture you
22     painted this afternoon, was I right in hearing that you
23     think that there is generally a better or fairer
24     picture on our television screens than what was
25     described in the written submission where I read a much


 1     more negative review?  For example, that a community
 2     filled with creativity so rarely has an opportunity to
 3     express itself on the airwaves is not only unfair but
 4     denies the broader society the chance to see its own
 5     diversity.  You have seen some improvement, you are
 6     saying today.
 7  16288                MR. FISHER:  Yes, I would say it is a
 8     balance between the two perspectives that you have
 9     identified.  I think, clearly, when you look at where
10     we have come from even 10 years ago, there has been a
11     substantial step forward and it is encouraging to us to
12     see now more regular representations of gays and
13     lesbians on television programming.
14  16289                However, it still tends to be
15     something of a marginalized representation.  Lesbian
16     and gay characters frequently play nothing more than a
17     supporting role.
18  16290                And the controversy that has erupted
19     fairly recently over having a leading character, such
20     as Ellen Degeneres in her own sitcom coming out as a
21     lesbian was encouraging that that step was being taken,
22     although the show has now been cancelled for reasons
23     which we can only speculate on.
24  16291                ut it was nonetheless still a first
25     in that there weren't any other shows on the airwaves


 1     in which lesbians and gays were portraying the central
 2     and leading characters.  And being a first still acted
 3     as a lightning rod for a lot of hostility in society
 4     for many who wished to see fewer portrayals or any
 5     negative portrayals of gays and lesbians.
 6  16292                There was systematic targeting of the
 7     advertisers of that show which may or may not have
 8     contributed to its withdrawal.
 9  16293                In addition, there are a handful of
10     shows produced by and for the lesbian and gay community
11     and that is still not widespread.  And so I would say
12     that the comments in our written statement are still
13     accurate, that there is a lot of scope for development
14     there.
15  16294                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I raise it
16     also from the point of view of in fact your written
17     submission and how one moves forward and ask what you
18     think has caused the improvement, albeit I accept it is
19     not where it should be, what have been the forces at
20     play that have at least changed the picture?  And I am
21     speaking about the Canadian environment.
22  16295                I understand that Ellen's show was
23     quite a lightning rod for discussion around this area,
24     both the actress and the character in terms of your
25     point, but, in Canada, what has brought about change? 


 1     What has worked?
 2  16296                MR. FISHER:  It is difficult to point
 3     to any signal factor.  It is clear that there has been
 4     a shift forward in both the political and the legal
 5     environment that with the increase of legislation
 6     prohibiting discrimination, more and more gays and
 7     lesbians are willing to be open about themselves and
 8     their identities, willing to break the silence and the
 9     invisibility that has shrouded our lives often in the
10     past.
11  16297                As a result, I think that helps to
12     create a social environment where more and more people
13     come to personally know gays and lesbians and recognize
14     that we are not the monsters portrayed by the
15     stereotypes.
16  16298                At the same time, I think that works
17     hand in hand with the question of public and media
18     representation.  I think whereas in terms of news
19     items, for example, the only references in the media at
20     all that I heard growing up about homosexuality were
21     arrests of gay men by police forces in various
22     circumstances.
23  16299                And I think that we can't
24     underestimate the power of broadcasting in
25     communicating an image of who we are as Canadians and


 1     who is included in our society and who is not.
 2  16300                Our work as an organization is
 3     focused on political and legal interventions.
 4  16301                Many people to whom I have spoken
 5     have said that they feel that the increase in
 6     representations of gays and lesbians on the airwaves
 7     will do far more to further equality for gays and
 8     lesbians in this country and the respect for that
 9     segment of society than any piece of legislation or
10     legal change that we might seek to obtain would do.
11  16302                So it is clear to me that even within
12     the Canadian environment, some fairly simple steps,
13     like recently this year, adding sexual orientation to
14     Alberta's Human Rights legislation, nonetheless can
15     provoke a large social backlash and, fortunately, in
16     society that change is now being accepted, endorsed,
17     and is part of the human rights protections which exist
18     there.
19  16303                But there was still a widespread
20     organized effort in the society against what ought to
21     have been a fairly straightforward legal step to bring
22     the human rights legislation into conformity with the
23     Charter of Rights.
24  16304                So we feel very much that there is a
25     shift forward.  There is a long way to go and that a


 1     central part of the progress that has been made has
 2     been the increased willingness to present a more varied
 3     portrayal of gays and lesbians on the airwaves.
 4  16305                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  So,
 5     indeed, it is a combination of presence in terms of the
 6     visible presence of gay and lesbians on the airwaves,
 7     stories that are more variant and diverse and not
 8     stereotypical employment in the sense of, and correct
 9     me if I am wrong, in the sense of accessibility, having
10     people who are not only employed but also who are able
11     to make choices from various points of view.
12  16306                This brings me to the question, you
13     mentioned employment equity in your support for CRARR
14     in that effect and looking at current employment equity
15     policy in this country.  Is there some specific
16     recommendation you are making in that regard?
17  16307                MR. FISHER:  Yes, I think, as you
18     say, many of the decisions made by broadcasters are
19     going to depend, in turn, upon their own work
20     environment, and just as employment equity for women
21     seeks to place women in positions where they can have a
22     direct influence upon the internal decisions that are
23     made by the institutions in society, so to it is
24     important that, hopefully, there will be a welcoming
25     environment within broadcasters but at the least there


 1     not be a negative or a hostile environment.
 2  16308                One of the recommendations being made
 3     by the organization to follow us is that employment
 4     equity in the workplace should be a condition of
 5     granting a licence to broadcasters.
 6  16309                Lesbians and guys are currently
 7     seldom included within specific employment equity
 8     programs, but we are frequently included now within
 9     work place anti-discrimination measures and we would
10     expect, at the least, that an organization seeking to
11     obtain a licence maintain an anti-discrimination policy
12     and clearly spell out that lesbians and gays are
13     accepted members of the workplace and they will not
14     discriminate against gays and lesbians, given that
15     non-discrimination is one of the values of the Charter
16     of Rights and is reiterated and affirmed in the
17     Broadcasting Act.  I think that the least that can be
18     expected of a broadcaster is that they will not
19     themselves seek to promote discrimination against gays
20     and lesbians and maintain that in their own workplace
21     as an example.
22  16310                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I am
23     assuming in saying this that you are aware of the
24     CRTC's current role as far as employment equity is
25     concerned.  I am sure you are up to date on the various


 1     regulations regarding who we deal with in terms of
 2     employment equity and who we don't.
 3  16311                MR. FISHER:  Yes, I wouldn't pretend
 4     to be the expert but I have some of the materials which
 5     spell out some of the current programs.
 6  16312                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  But I take
 7     your point that what you are putting on the table is
 8     anti-discriminatory practices in the workplace.
 9  16313                MR. FISHER:  Correct.
10  16314                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  As a
11     component.  I want to come in then closer to what you
12     said about there is a two-level approach fostering
13     change and regulation and you used the word
14     "sanctions."  What are you referring to?
15  16315                MR. FISHER:  Well, we are aware, as I
16     say, of instances where complaints have been laid to
17     the CRTC as a result of particular hostile broadcasting
18     or a program which has been a cause of concern.  I
19     understand that is what you were referring to also,
20     Ron?
21  16316                MR. CHAPLIN:  Indeed.  Indeed, and
22     from what I understand, I am confident now that in the
23     area of religious broadcasting that the CRTC has made
24     its position very, very well known to the broadcasters
25     in this country and this is certainly a positive step


 1     forward.
 2  16317                This also brings to mind, though, the
 3     previous intervener spoke about Howard Stern and
 4     certainly that was a completely tasteless programming.
 5     We also within the gay and lesbian community, we find
 6     ourselves often still targets in local radio programs,
 7     and I am thinking specifically of open line talk shows
 8     and such on and so forth and that I would expect that
 9     that area of complaint will probably continue.
10  16318                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  So you are
11     looking to the current complaint process, the self
12     regulatory system in terms of alerting the broadcasting
13     community to where various comments across the line and
14     enter into what the broadcasting regulations refer to
15     as abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation.
16  16319                MR. CHAPLIN:  Indeed.
17  16320                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  The
18     television broadcasting regulations.
19  16321                MR. CHAPLIN:  And I think the
20     Commission now has an excellent track record and it has
21     done such in the area of religious broadcasting
22     television.  The Commission has an excellent track
23     record that it understands the difference between
24     freedom of expression and inciting hatred.
25  16322                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I am glad


 1     you raise freedom of expression because I was going to
 2     also expand the discussion into how all of this really
 3     works out, in fairness to all.
 4  16323                From my experience, this issue of a
 5     certain degree of control, which is under the Acts and
 6     under the Regulations, versus freedom of speech and
 7     freedom of expression comes into play.
 8                                                        1600
 9  16324                It also goes so far as to say if you
10     are looking at representation, be it pictorial, be it
11     stories, be it employment, you may be invading the
12     privacy of an individual in terms of determining
13     whether that individual is man, woman, black, white,
14     gay, straight, whatever.  This is a point that was
15     raised some time ago at some of the public
16     organizations with whom I have worked.
17  16325                Can you clarify what you think is the
18     best approach in fact in terms of fairness and yet in
19     terms of increasing the presence of under-represented
20     groups in our society, both in terms of stories and in
21     terms of those who work behind the scenes, which is a
22     two-pronged approach, which I think is very important. 
23     Do we risk at any time invasion of privacy of an
24     individual and do we risk at any time censorship?
25  16326                MR. CHAPLIN:  If I can address that


 1     issue briefly, it strikes me that there are two issues
 2     at play here.  One is the employment equity issue and
 3     in my former place of employment the privacy concerns,
 4     that balancing act.  It is a very delicate balancing
 5     act between privacy concerns and employment equity and
 6     I think that's going to continue to be a grey area for
 7     some time.  Certainly you don't want to force people to
 8     identify if they are members of -- they consider
 9     themselves to be a member of an oppressed minority.
10  16327                What I find very hopeful, though, is
11     what we have seen in the Canadian television
12     broadcasting industry over the last few years.  When we
13     look at portrayals of gays and lesbians in America, it
14     seems to be the situation comedy that is the method of
15     choice, being that it has never been a particularly
16     popular mode in Canada.  We started with satirical
17     programming and I am thinking of that blessed group
18     from Newfoundland who invented "Codco" and then "This
19     Hour Has 22 Minutes" and, of course, "Kids in the Hall"
20     and some of their portrayals of the community.
21  16328                But I am even more encouraged at what
22     we are seeing by both our French language and English
23     broadcasters.  I think, for example, of Maggie
24     Kinsella, who is best known as a lesbian stand-up
25     comic, who stood in for an extended period for Ralph


 1     Benmergui on CBC Newsworld, someone who is publicly
 2     known as a lesbian taking on a spokesmanship role on a
 3     public affairs program.  I think of the same example
 4     with former Quebec Cabinet Minister and sometimes gay
 5     activist Claude Charron in Quebec and I believe on TVA
 6     he had a long-running public affairs show.  I think
 7     these are very positive and very encouraging signs of
 8     our broadcasting industry promoting this kind of
 9     diversity.
10  16329                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Indeed,
11     you made the point that the creativity of everyone in
12     this country should be allowed to express itself and
13     the community which we are addressing, the gay and
14     lesbian community, has had already an enormous
15     contribution to make.  It's nice to see that we are
16     recognizing that in more concrete ways.
17  16330                You make an important point about
18     community channels in your written submission.  I think
19     I am understanding your point to be that in Public
20     Notice 1992-59 certainly there was the point that the
21     cable industry was no longer required to provide
22     community channels or, that is to say, to provide local
23     expression, although community channels still exist out
24     there.  You raise the point that you want access --
25     they have been instructive, informative, you mentioned


 1     "QTV" and "Outlook".
 2  16331                In your experience, have cable
 3     operators denied you access to community channels? 
 4     That was my reading of your -- such as they exist now,
 5     are you denied access to community channels for
 6     programming specifically designed for the gay and
 7     lesbian community?
 8  16332                MR. FISHER:  I think in our written
 9     submission we weren't intending to say that that had
10     been our own experience and as an organization, since
11     we are not in the business of seeking access, it's
12     difficult for us to offer an opinion as to whether that
13     has been a real problem.  Actually, the purpose of the
14     comments in the written submissions was just to affirm
15     the value of the community channels and recognize that
16     that has been an important source for our community in
17     being able to express itself and seek greater
18     visibility and enhanced representation.
19  16333                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  So, my
20     understanding then is "In keeping with these channels'
21     mandate ... the CRTC must ensure access to programming
22     cannot unreasonable or unfairly be denied" is more of a
23     comment on the system itself and the presence of the
24     community channel in system as a whole?
25  16334                MR. FISHER:  Exactly.  It's a comment


 1     on the role that we see the community channels playing
 2     within the system and the goal of ensuring that access
 3     to those channels remains open.  We wouldn't express an
 4     opinion in terms of currently whether there have been
 5     problems that ought to be addressed, but just to ensure
 6     that there is broad access.
 7  16335                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  That's my
 8     point.  Are there problems that should be addressed
 9     currently?
10  16336                MR. FISHER:  That's what I am saying. 
11     We ourselves as an organization have not had actual
12     experience and can't, therefore, comment on that, but
13     we do recognize and affirm the value of community
14     channels.  So, as you say, the comment in the written
15     statement is to affirm the value of that within the
16     system as a whole and the objective of ensuring that it
17     remain open.
18  16337                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  I
19     appreciate your being here and your comments in
20     summary, of course.  We are dealing largely with the
21     conventional private broadcast system here and I
22     wondered if you could just summarize quickly what you
23     think we should be doing to address your concerns
24     regarding the gay and lesbian community which you have
25     expanded on this afternoon.  In other words, we are


 1     moving forward, but we have to continue to move
 2     forward.  What specifically would you suggest that the
 3     CRTC do in this regard?
 4  16338                MR. CHAPLIN:  Well, first, I will
 5     come back to the point of commending the Commission for
 6     understanding the limits of freedom of speech and
 7     freedom of expression.  I think you have established a
 8     very good role to establish the ground rules and what
 9     is not acceptable in the Canadian broadcasting
10     industry.
11  16339                Beyond that, I would again just
12     stress what John has said in relation to the other
13     witnesses you have been hearing through the course of
14     these hearings concerned about the diversity of the
15     Canadian community.  This is a key both to our body
16     politic and to the public airwaves in this country and
17     the members of EGALE are simply seeking or reminding
18     you that the gay and lesbian community is but one other
19     reflection of this diversity of the Canadian cultural
20     community.
21  16340                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Very
22     quickly may I ask you then in terms of a goal of
23     diversity, are you supportive then of, for example, the
24     proposals of the CFTPA to increase Canadian content or
25     the Directors Guild of Canada to increase Canadian


 1     content on Canadian airwaves?  Is this connected to
 2     your goals?
 3  16341                MR. CHAPLIN:  Well, I would be
 4     speaking as an individual, but also I think I could
 5     speak for the community.  If our concern is access to
 6     the public through the Canadian airwaves, it stands to
 7     reason that you can't rely on foreigners to do that for
 8     you.
 9  16342                COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER:  Thank you
10     very much.
11  16343                That completes my questions, Madam
12     Chair.
13  16344                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
14     Cardozo?
15  16345                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thank you,
16     Madam Chair.
17  16346                I would just like to pick up on one
18     of the sections that Commissioner Pennefather was
19     talking about and that's number 8.  I will just read
20     you the sentence.  You say:
21                            "That a community filled with
22                            creativity so rarely has an
23                            opportunity to express itself on
24                            the airwaves is not only unfair,
25                            but denies the broader society


 1                            the chance to see its own
 2                            diversity."
 3  16347                It strikes me that the entertainment
 4     industry is one of the industries that has been more
 5     hospitable to people who are openly gay and lesbian. 
 6     Maybe I am jumping to conclusions.  So, (a) is it fair
 7     to assume that's one of the industries that has had a
 8     longer track record of being more open to people who
 9     are open and, secondly, is there a difference between
10     people in the industry on this question versus the
11     people who are reflected in film?  I would include the
12     music industry and the film and television industries.
13  16348                MR. FISHER:  I would say that within
14     the entertainment industry, as with other sectors of
15     society, it's a continuum where we are moving towards a
16     more tolerant environment where people are freer to
17     express themselves.  I wouldn't say that it follows
18     from that that the entertainment industry is
19     necessarily a safe haven for gays and lesbians to be
20     open and to express themselves.
21  16349                Without being a member of that
22     industry, certainly the reporting suggests that there
23     remain parameters which restrict the extent to which
24     people are able to advance in the industry.  There are
25     concerns that one frequently has articulated about


 1     people not wanting to portray those male gay characters
 2     for fear of being identified as lesbian or gay
 3     themselves, for fear of being typecast and not being
 4     able to play other than lesbian or gay characters or
 5     just for fear that the general attitudes of intolerance
 6     which still exist within that industry, as within other
 7     on some sectors, may limit the opportunities for
 8     advancement.
 9  16350                So, I certainly believe that the
10     greater representation that has taken place in recent
11     years is a reflection of more tolerant attitudes within
12     the industry itself, but I wouldn't assert that we can
13     rely upon that environment of tolerance to ensure that
14     there is appropriate representation and that is why we
15     feel that it's important that the CRTC continue to be
16     vigilant in terms of the kinds of interventions that it
17     makes.
18  16351                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Have you as an
19     organization or other organizations worked with
20     broadcasters and/or producers or had discussions with
21     them to talk about portrayal issues?
22  16352                MR. FISHER:  Not directly.  We have
23     certainly been contacted by members of EGALE who have
24     been concerned at particular programs that they have
25     seen and who have involved us or sought our advice or


 1     wanted to know who they could turn to in terms of
 2     expressing that concern.  So, we have had some degree
 3     of involvement there, but we haven't tended to be
 4     involved directly with broadcasters in terms of
 5     discussing what appropriate standards to apply, what
 6     kind of representations are affirmed into the
 7     community, what kind of representations are less so.
 8  16353                We have on occasion been involved in
 9     sensitivity awareness workshops in other sectors.  At
10     the end of this month, for example, I am participating
11     in a workshop at a conference held by the National
12     Judicial Institute, where myself and a colleague will
13     be going through a workshop with representations of
14     lesbians and gays within the legal system.  So, we have
15     some background there and certainly if it was felt that
16     there was scope for EGALE involving itself in helping
17     to identify suitable standards or look at workshops or
18     sensitivity programs, it would require some work on our
19     part, but it's certainly something we would be
20     receptive to.
21  16354                MR. CHAPLIN:  I would just note in
22     passing that there is now across Canada a network of
23     local gay and lesbian organizations, many of which do
24     take upon themselves this mandate of sensitizing local
25     medias.  It's usually done with print media, but it can


 1     also be done with electronic media to try to do some
 2     sensitivity training on appropriate spokesmanship and
 3     an appropriate characterization of issues as they
 4     affect the gay and lesbian community.  So, that happens
 5     in Canada, again largely at the local level.
 6  16355                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Is that more
 7     in the news area as opposed to TV entertainment drama
 8     meeting with producers, focusing on --
 9  16356                MR. CHAPLIN:  These local activities
10     tend to focus, yes, on news reporting.
11  16357                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks very
12     much.
13  16358                Thanks, Madam Chair.
14  16359                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you,
15     gentlemen, for your appearance.
16  16360                Madam Secretary, would you call the
17     next participant, please?
18  16361                MS SANTERRE:  Thank you, Madam Chair.
19  16362                The next presentation will be done by
20     the Centre for Research Action on Race Relations/Centre
21     de recherche-action sur les relations raciales.
22  16363                                                 1615
23                       THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good afternoon,
24     gentlemen.  Go ahead when you are ready.


 1  16364                M. BÉLIARD:  Madame la Présidente,
 2     Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers, au nom du Centre
 3     de recherche-action sur les relations raciales, je vous
 4     remercie de nous avoir accordé l'occasion de participer
 5     à ces audiences publiques.  Je me présente, mon nom est
 6     Ronald Béliard, trésorier et ex-président du CRARR, et
 7     ex-membre du conseil d'administration de Radio-Québec. 
 8     Je suis accompagné de M. Fo Niemi, directeur général du
 9     CRARR, le Centre de recherche-action sur les relations
10     raciales.
11  16365                Notre intervention d'aujourd'hui aura
12     lieu dans les deux langues officielles.
13  16366                CRARR is honoured to present to the
14     CRTC its views and opinions on issues facing Canadian
15     television for the next decade and also for the next
16     century, especially where Canadian diversity in
17     television programming is concerned.  CRARR wishes to
18     commend the CRTC for its decision to review the
19     Canadian Television Policy and to call for public
20     comments on this matter, and to applaud the CRTC for
21     including a specific section on diversity, which serves
22     as a reminder of the importance of this aspect in the
23     Canadian broadcasting system.
24  16367                As far as for the challenges for
25     Canadian television in the 21st century, three of the


 1     most significant issues where our intervention is
 2     concerned are, first of all, the globalization of the
 3     economy and culture; second, the advancement of
 4     information technology; and the fundamental demographic
 5     shifts that alter the Canadian social, cultural,
 6     economic and political landscape.
 7  16368                The first two issues are often
 8     covered and discussed in numerous forms and papers that
 9     do not require really elaboration in our submission. 
10     One factor remains of special concern to CRARR, and it
11     is the dominance of American programs on Canadian
12     television and movie screens, due partly to the
13     pervasive influence of American culture on many parts
14     of the world, including Europe and the Asia-Pacific
15     Rim, where, traditionally, individual countries from
16     these continents have strong histories and cultures of
17     their own.
18  16369                The American influence brings with it
19     distorted images of members of racial minorities in the
20     U.S.A. that reinforce stereotypes and promote bias
21     against racial minorities in Canada.  The other factor
22     is that, under international free trade rules, some
23     Canadian policies related to Canadian radio and
24     television, such as Canadian content rules, employment
25     equity and other codes of the portrayal of women,


 1     advertisement directed at children and violence, may
 2     become, over time, vulnerable to foreign countries'
 3     pressures and can be deemed to be protectionist
 4     policies.
 5  16370                We believe that it is essential that
 6     the Government of Canada can develop and adopt strong
 7     policy positions on these matters in order to ensure
 8     that Canadian radio and television programming in both
 9     English and French remains strong so as to remain
10     distinctively Canadian and withstand pressures in other
11     forms of "Hollywoodization".  One of the best ways for
12     Canadian programming to remain and evolve in a uniquely
13     Canadian world is to ensure that the basic principles
14     governing the Canadian broadcasting system, as found in
15     article 3(1)(c) of the Act, are implemented, especially
16     where diversity is concerned.
17  16371                As you know, ethno-cultural and
18     racial diversity remains, in our opinion, a cornerstone
19     of the Canadian broadcasting policy in general, and
20     Canadian television in particular, as much as it is a
21     fundamental characteristic of Canadian society.  You
22     know as well that the most recent census data confirms
23     this fact.  Out of a total of 28.5 million, 8.1 million
24     Canadians, or just about 29 per cent, reported single
25     or multiple origins other than French, British or


 1     Canadian, and the number of visible minorities is
 2     somewhere around 11.2 per cent; and about 1.1 million
 3     also reported aboriginal ancestry..  These demographic
 4     shifts will continue.
 5  16372                For Quebec, principal home of the
 6     French-speaking culture and media in Canada, it is also
 7     important to note that 14.9 per cent of the province
 8     population reported single and multiple origins of it
 9     in French, British or Canadian, and also visible
10     minorities represent 6 per cent of the Quebec
11     population.
12  16373                M. NIEMI:  je voudrais parler
13     brièvement maintenant des problèmes de
14     sous-représentation de la diversité dans les médias, et
15     je vous remercie, Mesdames et Messieurs les
16     Conseillers, de votre patience aussi.  C'est notre
17     dernière présentation de la journée, c'est la pleine
18     lune, il pleut, il fait froid, on est fatigués, donc on
19     va essayer d'aller un peu plus vite.
20  16374                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Ne vous inquiétez pas
21     pour nous, il est très tôt.
22  16375                M. NIEMI:  D'accord.
23  16376                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Nous avons siégé
24     jusqu'à après sept heures plus d'une fois.
25  16377                M. NIEMI:  Ah, oui?  D'accord.  Donc


 1     je vous remercie quand même.
 2  16378                Je crois que plusieurs intervenants
 3     dans leur présentation écrite ou orale ont déjà fait
 4     part de la sous-représentation et un manque de reflet
 5     adéquat de la réalité multiculturelle et multiraciale
 6     de la société canadienne à la télévision canadienne,
 7     tant en français qu'en anglais.  Selon nous, cette
 8     représentation inadéquate, ou sous-représentation, ou
 9     exclusion compromet l'essentiel même de la culture,
10     l'identité et la conscience nationale canadienne.
11  16379                Peut-être que dans le secteur
12     francophone un meilleur exemple de cette
13     sous-représentation est la programmation télévisuelle
14     la plus récente de l'automne, et quand on regarde la
15     télévision française ou franco-québécoise, on n'a qu'à
16     constater la difficulté à compter sur les deux mains le
17     nombre de rôles de premier plan dans les émissions de
18     variétés et les téléromans qui appartiennent à des
19     comédiens ou à des animateurs issus de diverses
20     origines.
21  16380                On the English side, if we look at
22     whether it is public broadcasting, CBC, or private
23     companies, it is very hard to find the number of
24     productions, high budget, high quality productions such
25     as those equivalent to "Anne of Green Gables", but that


 1     relate the stories and the voices of Canadians other
 2     than French, English or even aboriginal ancestries.
 3  16381                Now, we believe that, of course,
 4     racism has a part to play in it, or in a more delicate
 5     way, the resistance to racial and ethno-cultural
 6     diversity on the part of the media.  This resistance,
 7     what it does is, it leads to the perpetual portrayal of
 8     Canadian society as being a bilingual and to a certain
 9     extent a very mono-racial if not bicultural country.
10  16382                Since we are talking about the next
11     century, we have to bold, we have to be daring and we
12     also have to be courageous in order to look at the kind
13     of realities presented by the demographic shifts that
14     my colleague has talked about earlier.
15  16383                Another reason why we believe that
16     the diversity of our country is not fully reflected in
17     Canadian television programming is due to the lack of
18     effective, consistent and vigorous policies on
19     employment equity and diversity in programming, and the
20     mechanisms that enforce these policies, both within the
21     CRTC and other regulatory or enforcement agencies.  We
22     have recently completed an analysis of a study on the
23     issue of visible minorities in the Quebec media, both
24     in print and electronic, and part of this study
25     consisted of an analysis of the laws and policies on


 1     employment equity, especially where the Canadian Human
 2     Rights Commission and the CRTC are concerned.
 3  16384                Some of those we would call it
 4     perhaps "weaknesses" in the way that equity is enforced
 5     have to do with a lack of enforcement, a lack of oral
 6     questioning of broadcasters at hearings, equity not
 7     being conditions of a licence, and also the lack of
 8     consolidation of data and policy within the CRTC,
 9     because we believe that the policy, because of the
10     amendments brought on by the new Employment Equity
11     Act -- the present policy is spread throughout, in four
12     or five documents at this point in time.  Therefore, a
13     uniform approach to equity within the CRTC is very
14     difficult to decipher.
15  16385                We believe that for the CRTC in
16     particular, the tools, the legislative -- the regular
17     tools are there, and not to enforce them could subject
18     the CRTC credibility to greater public scrutiny,
19     especially in matters of employment, equity and
20     diversity programming.  Further, the lack of
21     implementation of many of these policies or the
22     regulations in matters of equity or broadcast
23     standards, as in the case of Howard Stern, which was
24     mentioned before -- when the lack of this enforcement
25     or implementation results in discrimination towards


 1     protected groups, this kind of inaction, or lack of
 2     action, can expose the CRTC to Charter challenges under
 3     sections 15, 27 and 28.
 4  16386                At this point in time, a Charter case
 5     involvement in the CRTC handling of the Howard Stern
 6     controversy, especially the delegation of its
 7     administrative authority to private industry
 8     self-regulatory bodies, as well as the analysis of the
 9     CRTC of the Groupe TVA application for a private
10     national broadcasting service in French will provide
11     perhaps interesting test cases as to the role and
12     responsibility of the CRTC in enforcing certain
13     diversity equity provisions under the law.
14  16387                This is why we believe that it is
15     important that the CRTC plays a leadership, proactive
16     and sometimes more aggressive role in addressing issues
17     of equity and diversity in television and in the
18     Canadian broadcasting and communications system as a
19     whole, because it goes to the heart of the CRTC's
20     ability to redefine Canadian television, Canadian
21     broadcasting and Canadian culture for the next century.
22  16388                Nous avons présenté dans notre
23     mémoire un certain nombre de recommandations qui
24     commencent avec un cadre conceptuel selon lequel il
25     faut que le CRTC articule un nouveau cadre conceptuel


 1     de ce que représente la diversité pour la télévision
 2     canadienne, pour la culture canadienne et pour le
 3     système de radiodiffusion du Canada.  Et il faut qu'on
 4     s'assure que, quand on parle de diversité, on ne parle
 5     pas toujours de manière trop automatique des ressources
 6     additionnelles, parce que souvent c'est cité comme une
 7     raison pour ne pas agir sur la question de la
 8     diversité, et nous voulons aussi, à l'intérieur de ce
 9     cadre conceptuel, avoir une certaine garantie à l'effet
10     que l'émergence des services spécialisés ne compromet
11     aucunement l'obligation de la part des intervenants du
12     système de respecter les normes, les objectifs d'équité
13     de diversité dans la programmation que prescrit la loi
14     actuelle en matière de radiodiffusion.
15  16389                Nous avons ici aussi présenté de
16     manière plus détaillée des recommandations portant sur
17     l'équité en matière d'emploi, que ce soit au sein du
18     CRTC ou ailleurs, et que vous trouvez dans le mémoire. 
19     Nous avons aussi mis de l'avant des propositions pour
20     améliorer la diversité dans la programmation, et là
21     encore nous insistons sur le rôle ainsi que les
22     responsabilités, tant statutaires que sociales, sinon
23     économiques, de la part du CRTC de s'assurer que la
24     diversité au sein des médias de la télévision 
25     canadienne soit une réalité concrète, tangible et


 1     mesurable.
 2  16390                Nous avons aussi, sur la question de
 3     la diversité dans la programmation, parlé de la
 4     nécessité de réexaminer les pratiques des organismes de
 5     l'industrie chargés de l'autoréglementation parce que,
 6     d'une part, ces organismes ne reflètent pas à
 7     l'intérieur de leurs établissements la diversité
 8     elle-même; deuxièmement, disons leur difficulté dans
 9     certains cas, comme dans le cas de Howard Stern, à
10     mettre en oeuvre ou à faire respecter les normes de
11     radiodiffusion non discriminatoires devient parfois
12     assez évidente.
13  16391                Finalement, nous aimerions aussi
14     parler de la nécessité peut-être à un certain moment,
15     dans un autre forum, d'examiner la manière dont les
16     fonds de production privés en matière de films ou de
17     vidéos... de la manière dont ces fonds privés traitent
18     de la question de la diversité, parce que si on regarde
19     de plus en plus la production cinématographique ou
20     télévisuelle, on sait que ce sont les maisons ou les
21     fonds de production privés qui en sont les moteurs
22     principaux, les moteurs de promotion de ces productions
23     privées.
24  16392                Nous avons aussi peut-être une
25     suggestion, qu'il faut qu'on accorde une attention


 1     assez -- est-ce que le mot serait "particulière" ou
 2     "distincte" --  à la manière dont la diversité
 3     culturelle est traitée dans le secteur de la télévision
 4     française, étant donné la place et le statut de la
 5     langue française et des francophones au pays.  À
 6     certains niveaux il y a une crainte à l'effet que,
 7     quand on parle de la diversité culturelle, on pense
 8     seulement au Canada anglais et pas suffisamment au
 9     Canada français.
10  16393                Donc, en conclusion, j'invite
11     M. Béliard à vous livrer peut-être le mot de clôture de
12     notre présentation.
13  16394                M. BÉLIARD:  Pour poursuivre avec mon
14     collègue M. Niemi, c'est qu'en gros, dans la première
15     partie de notre présentation, on vous a fait peut-être
16     voir que la télévision ou la programmation télévisuelle
17     actuellement, ou l'offre télévisuelle actuellement ne
18     reflète pas nécessairement le Canada des années
19     quatre-vingt-dix.  Deux problèmes qu'on a
20     particulièrement sont au niveau du manque de
21     responsabilité par rapport aux organismes
22     réglementaires dans le sens qu'il n'y a rien qui se
23     fait une fois qu'une employeur qui est soumis à la loi
24     ne soumet pas nécessairement ses données; ce n'est pas
25     vérifié, et il n'y a aucune responsabilité là-dessus.


 1  16395                Finalement, on aimerait beaucoup que
 2     soit une condition de licence toute la question de
 3     l'équité en matière d'emploi.
 4  16396                So CRARR believes that it is
 5     historically a unique opportunity for the CRTC to
 6     address issues of diversity and fair representation in
 7     Canadian television.  It is unique in that it paves the
 8     way for Canadian television in the 21st century and
 9     allows for the construction of a new, enriched national
10     identity and faithfully reflects the real multicultural
11     and multiracial nature of our bilingual society.
12  16397                À cet égard, le CRTC ne doit et ne
13     peut absolument pas négliger la question de la
14     diversité car il s'agit là de respect de son mandat
15     statutaire et légal, mais il s'agit également de
16     responsabilité culturelle et sociale envers un pays
17     dont l'objectif national est de pouvoir devenir
18     concurrentiel au sein du marché économique mondial et
19     dont l'aspiration est d'être un leader et un modèle
20     pour le reste de la communauté internationale en
21     matière de communications, de la gestion de la
22     diversité et surtout de développement national.
23  16398                Nous vous remercions beaucoup de
24     votre attention et nous vous invitons à nous faire part
25     de vos questions et de vos observations.  Merci.


 1  16399                LA PRÉSIDENTE:  Merci,
 2     Monsieur Béliard et Monsieur Niemi.
 3  16400                La conseillère Wilson, s'il vous
 4     plaît.
 5  16401                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Good afternoon,
 6     gentlemen.
 7  16402                I am prepared to pose my questions to
 8     you in one official language, but feel free to reply in
 9     either one.
10  16403                It is a pleasure to have you with us
11     this afternoon.  I guess I would just like to preface
12     my questions for you by acknowledging the role that you
13     played in promoting the inclusion of the phrase "the
14     multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian
15     society" in both the Broadcasting Act and the CBC's
16     mandate.  It is something I find, for me anyway, it is
17     very easy in a democratic society to take those kinds
18     of phrases for granted, and I appreciate the
19     opportunity to be able to meet some of the people who
20     worked towards getting that included in both of those.
21  16404                Having said that, it is clear from
22     your submission and from your comments today that there
23     are many areas in which the Canadian broadcasting
24     system could better reflect the reality that is
25     reflected in that phrase, which is that we live in a


 1     very diverse society, and it does have a unique
 2     multicultural and multiracial nature.  So I would like
 3     to just sort of explore some of those ideas.  I have
 4     some questions that are specific to your submission,
 5     and I have been jotting some notes as you have been
 6     talking and just would like to get your reaction to
 7     some of those.
 8  16405                In paragraph 6 of your submission,
 9     and actually again today in your oral presentation, you
10     state that numerous changes about the national and
11     international levels have created new challenges for
12     Canadian communications and culture, including
13     broadcasting, and the three that you cite are the
14     globalization of the economy and culture, the
15     advancement of information technologies, and
16     fundamental demographic shifts that alter the Canadian
17     social, cultural, economic and political landscape.
18  16406                You refrain from expanding on the
19     first two because you say that those two have really
20     been discussed in many other places, but I can't help
21     but feeling that those three are really so inextricably
22     linked, as we move forward, that we really have to
23     discuss them in the context of your presentation.
24  16407                I am just wondering if you might
25     expand for us on how you see those two issues affecting


 1     trends in Canadian broadcasting vis-à-vis the
 2     challenges they create, particularly with respect to
 3     being able to reflect the diversity of Canada in the
 4     broadcasting system.
 5                                                        1640
 6  16408                MR. NIEMI:  Well, the discussion we
 7     had on the issue of globalization of the economy and
 8     the culture, often people talk about the globalization
 9     of the economy, but they forget the cultural component
10     of it, and usually when you talk about the
11     globalization of culture, we should have said
12     Americanization of global culture -- of cultures of the
13     world because of the power of television, and
14     particularly of American films on different cultures
15     and national consciousness, including the Canadian
16     cultural psyche.
17  16409                So that aspect of globalization, I
18     believe that France -- and my colleague here can talk a
19     about it a bit more -- France and many countries in
20     Europe resist or feel that globalized effect of
21     Americanization very strongly and are finding ways to
22     resist it.  The other aspect of the globalization of
23     culture, which was also linked also --
24  16410                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Can I just ask
25     you a quick question, are the Europeans more able to


 1     resist the Americanization of their culture than we
 2     are, just because of proximity?  I mean, here we are,
 3     right next to them.
 4  16411                MR. NIEMI:  Well, perhaps let me
 5     clarify my statement by saying that actually, within
 6     the context of Canada, how we feel the globalization of
 7     culture, it is felt differently in an English-speaking
 8     sector or English-speaking television as compared to
 9     French-speaking television because, as you know, the
10     production ratio is really the opposite in each
11     linguistic sector.
12  16412                And coming from Quebec, we feel that
13     language is certainly a very important tool to protect
14     and also to promote the culture of at least French
15     Canada, or the other side of the Canadian culture.  I
16     think the Americanization of culture is much more
17     threatening to English-speaking Canadian cultural
18     productions in television more than French T or French
19     films, in particular.
20  16413                I believe that in our discussion with
21     brainstorming and consultation that that issue is also
22     in Europe.  Whether it is more francophone European
23     cultures, or English-speaking or English-oriented
24     cultures, how we receive this American influence, those
25     countries react very differently to it.


 1  16414                One other reality also related to the
 2     globalization of the economy and the advancement of the
 3     technologies is the fear that because technology is,
 4     especially the new media, which will be the subject for
 5     another hearing, and availability of specialty or pay
 6     T, that the opening up of many of these sort of
 7     broadcasting frontiers would allow for people from
 8     different ethno-cultural backgrounds and, I mean,
 9     Canadians in general, to really turn on to another
10     country's culture or television station very easily in
11     order to really find what they are looking for, based
12     on their cultural taste or the need for information or
13     entertainment.
14  16415                What it does, because those so-called
15     foreign or international programs are so available and
16     easily accessible, they could take the pressure off
17     Canadian or domestic nationally produced programs or
18     producers to continue to produce Canadian cultural
19     productions that truly reflect the culture and racial
20     diversity of Canada.  Do you understand what I am -- I
21     am going to simplify it.
22  16416                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I am not sure
23     that I understand what you mean.  I think what you are
24     saying is that with the evolution of technology and new
25     media and web T, if that is the direction that we are


 1     going, that that will take pressure off?
 2  16417                MR. NIEMI:  In terms of consumer
 3     demand, perhaps my colleague can elaborate on that,
 4     based on his ethnic marketing experience.  It is our
 5     understanding in that some ethnic homes, or amongst
 6     some ethnic communities, if they can have access to
 7     programming --
 8  16418                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Over the web.
 9  16419                MR. NIEMI:  -- over the web, or on
10     television, from their culture of origin, because they
11     need to look at cultural affinity or find that.  And
12     that at the same time they cannot find many of those
13     cultural references or symbols in mainstream
14     conventional broadcast programs so that the preference
15     will be going towards more of those internationally or
16     foreign-produced programs.
17  16420                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  And do you see
18     that as a good thing or a bad thing?
19  16421                MR. NIEMI:  From a consumer
20     perspective, it could be a good thing, because it would
21     allow for a greater sense of cultural, sort of,
22     reinforcement.
23  16422                But from the industry perspective, or
24     from a perspective that involves the production of
25     Canadian programs that reflect the diversity --


 1  16423                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Distinctively
 2     Canadian programs.
 3  16424                MR. NIEMI:  Distinctly -- that
 4     reflects the multicultural and bilingual and all
 5     that -- if there are no pressures or demands from
 6     so-called ethnic minority consumers for greater
 7     diversity in programs, because those ethnic minority
 8     consumers can find other choices and options --
 9  16425                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Can find it
10     elsewhere.
11  16426                MR. NIEMI:  -- then the indirect
12     consequence could be that many of those distinctly
13     Canadian programs or productions will not be as diverse
14     as they should be.
15  16427                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  So it could
16     have an increasingly negative impact is what you are
17     saying?
18  16428                MR. NIEMI:  Exactly.
19  16429                MR. NIEMI:  Yes, that is why the rise
20     of the specialty services, especially the impact of
21     ethnic broadcasting as a way to take away from the
22     pressure from mainstream conventional programs and
23     broadcasting programs should be an issue that merits
24     greater research or greater exploration.
25  16430                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Actually, I am


 1     going to ask you about that as we go along.  At
 2     paragraph ten of your submission, you state that:
 3                            "Ethno-cultural and racial
 4                            diversity remains a cornerstone
 5                            of Canadian broadcasting policy
 6                            and generally Canadian
 7                            television in particular as much
 8                            as it is a fundamental
 9                            characteristic of Canadian
10                            society."
11  16431                You go on to say that:
12                            "Our country's ethno-cultural
13                            and racial diversity is, to this
14                            day, inadequately represented in
15                            Canadian television
16                            programming."
17  16432                Why do you think both producers and
18     broadcasters seem to have not recognised this fact of
19     our country and reflected it in the programming that
20     they have either produced or broadcast?
21  16433                Before you answer, let me just say we
22     had a presentation on Monday, I believe it was, from
23     the Chinese Canadian National Council, and one of the
24     reasons they posited was that the reason we don't see
25     diversity reflected is because the decision-makers are


 1     still basically white males.
 2  16434                And they went on to suggest that the
 3     only real way to battle this systemic problem is to
 4     ensure that Canada's multicultural society is reflected
 5     amongst the decision-makers.  So that people are
 6     looking for what they know.
 7  16435                And then I think you made a comment
 8     today, you said, you know, racism has a part to play. 
 9     Do you think it is overt, or is it just because they
10     don't think about it?
11  16436                MR. NIEMI:  Well, we are going to
12     split our answers, because my colleague, here, also
13     sits on a board of the Quebec equivalent of the
14     Advertising Standards Foundation -- Conseil des normes
15     de la publicité -- but anyway, so the more industry
16     perspective will come from my colleague.
17  16437                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I have some
18     more industrial questions too.
19  16438                MR. NIEMI:  Okay, now, I would like
20     to, perhaps, leave with you at the end a study that we
21     did.  It is called -- in '93, it is called "Les médias
22     québécois et les communautés ethnoculturelles:  La
23     position des enterprises et médias."
24  16439                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  You referenced
25     that in your submission --


 1  16440                MR. NIEMI:  Right, yes.
 2  16441                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  -- and I think
 3     there was a quote in here that was quite stunning.
 4  16442                MR. NIEMI:  Yes.  Practically
 5     whatever survey of major media executives in Quebec,
 6     both for electronic media executives in charge of
 7     employment, programming, and marketing with regard to,
 8     like, audience and readership and so on and so forth.
 9     So some of the major conclusions that led us to make
10     that statement in here, is that there exists, at least
11     in those days, in 1993-94, a concern by many media
12     executives to the effect that there are a large part,
13     at least of certain Quebec regions or a large part of
14     the Quebec population that is not ready or is not
15     comfortable to see so much ethnic diversity on the
16     television screen because the phenomenon of cultural
17     and racial diversity is largely in the opinion --
18  16443                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  An urban
19     phenomenon.
20  16444                MR. NIEMI:  -- an urban area, and I
21     believe that Toronto, Vancouver, people in Vancouver,
22     or it would be British Columbia, may make the same
23     arguments, because once you go out of greater
24     Vancouver, it is still a largely a very sort of
25     Anglo-Saxon province.  So that sort of geographical


 1     consideration.
 2  16445                There is also a generational factor
 3     that is not talked about, because media executives tend
 4     to be of a certain age group and generation, and in
 5     those days in their youth, diversity is not something
 6     that many of them lived or grew up with, so therefore
 7     there is a certain degree of unfamiliarity and lack of
 8     comfort with.
 9  16446                As a matter of fact, I would like to
10     refer to a study done, I believe, by the Canadian
11     Newspaper Association in 1993, that survey about 82
12     press in 82 Canadian daily newspapers across the
13     country.
14  16447                One of the factors that they found in
15     interviewing news editors to explain the low number of
16     visible minorities in journalism and in the newsroom,
17     because many of them don't feel comfortable or ready
18     to -- how do we manage diversity?  How do we deal with
19     people of different backgrounds?  So that reluctance
20     could lead to the lack of reflection of --
21  16448                MR. NIEMI:  What do you mean, "how do
22     they deal with them"?  How do they deal with them as
23     employees?
24  16449                MR. NIEMI:  Yes, as people, human
25     resource management.  We are aware of some cases within


 1     certain broadcasters in Montreal, which we prefer not
 2     to mention, where because you have such a low number of
 3     visible minorities, journalists, or researchers in the
 4     newsroom, and it creates a lot of, shall we say,
 5     interpersonal relations challenges.  How do people
 6     relate to one another?  The jokes that -- I mean, the
 7     old boys used to say now they have to be more careful.
 8  16450                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  They probably
 9     had the same issues when women started working.
10  16451                MR. NIEMI:  Precisely, and those are
11     the factors that can lead to people not dealing with
12     it.  And this is why, as I say, why diversity is really
13     great.  It is on paper, but in practice it is a totally
14     different matter.
15  16452                We did the survey about a dozen
16     broadcasters that are regulated by the Employment
17     Equity Act, which is no longer your responsibility as
18     the CRTC.  And we found that between 1998 and 1995,
19     many of these broadcasters in Montreal, for positions
20     of part-time and full-time, they called out for
21     recruitment.  And recruitment were made, but
22     practically, visible minorities, year after year,
23     numbered zero, zero, zero, zero.
24  16453                There must be a very systemic reason
25     why there was no effort to employ people in all


 1     occupational categories within a media establishment,
 2     not only in the newsroom.
 3  16454                And this is why the question of
 4     diversity has to be looked at in a very thorough
 5     approach, to address on the one hand the fear or the
 6     discomfort on the part of media executives and the
 7     people in charge of producing what we see on T or in
 8     the press.  But at the same time, we have to find ways
 9     to ensure that the systemic barriers, the systemic
10     racism, which is really what we are interested in as an
11     organisation, are met by systemic solutions and
12     systemic instruments in order to remove many of those
13     things.
14  16455                Many of the policies or practices may
15     not have an intention to discriminate, but they then
16     create an effect of discrimination.
17  16456                For example, I would just like to
18     take this opportunity to raise the fact that the
19     Canadian content policy, which is partly derived from
20     the CRTC that applies to Canadian production at this
21     point in time, the first clause, I believe, it said all
22     producers must be Canadian citizens.  And then we went
23     on to how do we measure the number of people hired in
24     the production end to give them the points to define
25     what is Canadian content?


 1  16457                The definition of Canadian citizens
 2     could be faced by a court challenge, because in 1989
 3     the Supreme Court has said clearly if you use Canadian
 4     citizenship as a requirement for employment, or as a
 5     requirement, perhaps in this case, to determine who can
 6     work in a production in order for that production to be
 7     qualified as a Canadian content, that restrictive
 8     definition based on citizenship could be subject to a
 9     Charter challenge because it could violate section 15
10     of the Canadian charter.
11  16458                So this is part of the demographic
12     shifts and evolutions that leads to the evolution in
13     our institutional practices or policies that are not
14     always up with the changing times.
15  16459                MR. BÉLIARD:  Just to perhaps add to
16     what Mr. Niemi's talking about, in 1989, I believe, we
17     had a two-day conference on advertising and visible
18     minorities.  And we have mentioned about, you know, the
19     same concerns, the same problems, and then it seems to
20     me that, you know, come here and sit down even after,
21     let us say, three years, when we came to Ottawa to make
22     a presentation or make a brief about the new Employment
23     Equity legislation, is like Employment Equity
24     revisited.
25  16460                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  In what way? 


 1     The Employment Equity has worked, okay?  There are more
 2     women here than there are men.
 3  16461                MR. BÉLIARD:  Okay, okay, to a
 4     certain extent.  But regarding diversity in programming
 5     and so on, there is a still a long way to go.  There is
 6     a lot of barriers, systemic or otherwise, and our
 7     concern is that if you have a population, if you have a
 8     group of customers that are willing and able to buy
 9     your product or your services, I think the most basic
10     rule is perhaps to provide them with what they need,
11     what they want to buy.  And unfortunately that is not
12     what we see.
13  16462                We have cultural communities, or
14     ethno-cultural communities going outside to have
15     programming which they can identify with.  They go and
16     see what the Americans are producing, for example. 
17     They go to the net, and then get hooked to web radio,
18     web T, and so on, to get something they don't have over
19     here.
20  16463                Parallel to that, we have the CRTC
21     and its policy on broadcasting and Canadian content and
22     so on.
23  16464                And in 1998, while we were here
24     talking, some of the same things that we were defending
25     perhaps three or five years ago are still not reflected


 1     in what we see on T when you turn on the T.
 2  16465                We have had, also, numerous
 3     discussions with broadcasters regarding representation
 4     or fair representation, regarding multicultural and
 5     multi-ethnic representation.  And first they had some
 6     problems. I mean, it was very hard for them to recruit
 7     qualified, interested people to come and serve or come
 8     and fill positions that they had.
 9  16466                In 1988-1989, there was some form of
10     effort being done to attract those people, and then
11     what we see now are numbers is that, you know, that
12     number actually dropped, close to one, 2 per cent, and
13     even nothing, zero.
14  16467                And we started asking questions to
15     see what was going on, and then we realised that, you
16     know, not only that when they filled their report there
17     was no follow-up to it, and we also see that they don't
18     really bother about trying to find people to fill some
19     other positions.
20  16468                We might also say that to balance, I
21     mean, the negative aspect of that, there has also been
22     some economic pressure from different competitive
23     forces that forced them to, perhaps, restrict, or
24     restructure, or downsize their operations.
25  16469                But even though if you have about 30


 1     per cent of the population that is there, I mean,
 2     captive clients or captive customers, I think it is
 3     simply basic that you are going to see what you can do
 4     about at least responding or answering to their needs.
 5  16470                Regarding globalization, you know, as
 6     me, that the CRTC, more than any other regulatory body
 7     has been driven this particular century by what is
 8     going on in terms of evolution in technology.
 9  16471                And most of the time what is perhaps
10     a little bit frightening is that, you know, you have a
11     more reactive-type of posture than a proactive one.
12  16472                And we were wondering what will
13     happen about five years from now, with all the
14     advancing of what is going on the Internet.  Or what is
15     happening in terms of communication barriers that have
16     been just broken day by day by day, that people from
17     those particular groups, okay, be it multicultural or
18     multiracial, do they have to go and turn totally away
19     from what we call Canadian content, which should be
20     representative of themselves in the Canadian society,
21     to turn around and to find something in some other
22     foreign places.  What would be, then, the role and the
23     necessity?
24  16473                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Well, actually,
25     that is an interesting point that you raise, because I


 1     guess what I want to try and understand about the
 2     points that you are making is, are you talking about
 3     the reflection of diversity in mainstream programming,
 4     or are you talking about the availability of
 5     programming that reflects diversity?  Because those are
 6     two different things.
 7  16474                The one thing is that you have your
 8     conventional broadcasters and you want diversity
 9     reflected in that programming.
10  16475                The other is the availability of
11     third language ethnic programming, be it, you know, the
12     multicultural stations where there is a certain amount
13     of programming available for people who come to Canada
14     from different countries of origin.  Or are there the
15     two streams for you?
16  16476                MR. BÉLIARD:  No, I think we are
17     talking more about mainstream.  I will let Mr. Niemi
18     respond to that.
19  16477                MR. NIEMI:  I am going to mention my
20     aspect of it.  Not, you know, separate programming of
21     multilingual or multiracial --
22  16478                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Because as you
23     were talking, I was just thinking about what you said
24     earlier, about the fact that with web T people could,
25     essentially, turn away.  Are you saying that, in


 1     effect, having multicultural channels is taking the
 2     responsibility away from the mainstream broadcasters in
 3     terms of reflecting diversity because it is fulfilling
 4     a need?
 5  16479                MR. NIEMI:  Well, that could be from
 6     the broadcasters' perspective, because it is just like,
 7     you know, if you have a Big Mac and you have a Burger
 8     King, people will go with the best hamburger possible,
 9     the hamburger that really corresponds and responds to
10     their taste.
11  16480                What we have to look at is our focus
12     here on mainstream, conventional broadcasters in
13     television, because that is still the most important
14     resource and the most important communication tool, not
15     only for information, but also for the construction of
16     the Canadian identity for the next century.  So we have
17     to focus on that.
18  16481                And we have to focus on the issue of
19     resource allocation, the number amount of dollars, or
20     the amount of information technologies that are
21     allocated to mainstream, conventional broadcast
22     programming and how members of minorities can have
23     access to it.  So it is more than a matter of
24     consumption of a television production or a cultural
25     product.


 1  16482                It is also a matter of sharing the
 2     resources and actually because it goes to the heart of
 3     it, who gets the job?  Who gets the dough?  Who gets
 4     access to play, to write, to produce, and also to
 5     decide eventually what we see on Canadian television
 6     screen or on other forms of media.  So that is where we
 7     have to look at, because we are just concerned,
 8     especially in the framework of both policy-makers and
 9     broadcasters, that just because there is an ethnic,
10     easy way out called, in practice, ethnic broadcasting,
11     the pressures are from the mainstream, the national
12     broadcasters.  And we have found there is a thin line
13     between market demand and social responsibility.
14  16483                But we have to think less, in a
15     sense, sort of a fragmented way.  I say that because
16     according to the spirit of the law, which we defended
17     at the time, is that we have to conceptualize that the
18     Canadian broadcasting system is, as a whole, a system
19     saying this is what it is, and we have to go for where
20     the most important sector is, which is -- for
21     television would be the mainstream conventional --
22  16484                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Conventional.
23  16485                MR. NIEMI:  National.
24  16486                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Because that is
25     what people are watching the most.


 1  16487                MR. NIEMI:  That is right.
 2  16488                Otherwise, a lot of mainstream
 3     broadcasters, you know, are going to say, oh, wait,
 4     that is an ethnic channel, and so you go there, and so
 5     we don't have to diversify our programming.
 6  16489                I would just like to, perhaps,
 7     complement what my colleague said earlier.  In 1993-94,
 8     there was a research done by Goldfarb for the Canadian
 9     Advertising Foundation about the attitudes or responses
10     of Canadians to seeing visible minorities depicted in
11     advertising.
12  16490                I don't have the exact numbers, but
13     the survey revealed a very important discrepancy
14     between how ordinary Canadians react to visible
15     minorities in advertising, and how media executives or
16     marketing executives reacted to visible minorities in
17     advertising.
18  16491                Simply put, people in marketing media
19     and marketing executives were much more reluctant,
20     conservative, and slower in responding to the presence
21     of visible minorities in advertising.
22  16492                MR. BÉLIARD:  I might even add that
23     in 1975, Peak Media Research then, I mean, made a
24     survey regarding the Canadian population in all the
25     major urban centres in Canada, and were asking people,


 1     if there is ethnic minorities or multiracial,
 2     multicultural people in advertising or in Canadian
 3     programming, what would be the problem?
 4  16493                Let us say more than 75 per cent of
 5     the respondents say that as long as those people are in
 6     their natural and realistic environment, they don't
 7     have any problem to tolerate that, to accept that view.
 8  16494                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  What do you
 9     mean by "a natural and realistic environment"?
10  16495                MR. BÉLIARD:  An environment in
11     which, you know, you present a person as a person.  You
12     don't present it, like, stereotyping or things like
13     that.  I mean, people know; they see them every day.
14     They work with them.  They take the bus with them, so
15     they don't have any problem to look at programming
16     which reflects the real diversity of the country.
17  16496                And they realise that, you know, the
18     Canadian population is much more up to date than, you
19     know, the people --
20  16497                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Than the media
21     executives --
22  16498                MR. BÉLIARD:  -- the decision-makers,
23     the media and so on.
24  16499                And then we come back and say, the
25     only regulatory body that can do something to change


 1     that may be the CRTC, you know?  That is our basic
 2     position.  I mean, the people want it.  There is no
 3     problem with it.  But the decision-makers from the
 4     media, they have some problem with that.
 5  16500                MR. NIEMI:  In 1987, just to finish
 6     off this issue, in 1987, we did a survey of visible
 7     minorities in advertising, and we used subway
 8     advertising in Montreal as a sampling methodology.  The
 9     end result, of course, there was not a lot of
10     minorities in ads.
11                                                        1700
12  16501                But, at the time in 1987, we
13     recommended in a study that the CRTC, benefitting from
14     the example of a general portrayal in advertising, set
15     up a working group or something to look at the whole
16     issue of racial and ethno-cultural diversity in
17     advertising because advertising is an integral part of
18     programming, especially for television.  And it affects
19     so much of what we see and how it shapes our mentality
20     and opinion that we wanted to look at that.
21  16502                And do you know what last year? 
22     Again, we had to remind Eaton's.  I don't want to pick
23     on Eaton's, even if we are from Quebec.  We had to
24     remind Eaton's, you know, you guys, your campaign, your
25     ad campaign about the people with the black bag is


 1     great but where are the visible minorities?  Where are
 2     your consumers who are non-white who shop at your
 3     stores?  And we had to again raise the issue because 10
 4     years after, the issue just didn't sink in and some
 5     people just don't get it, that the people out there are
 6     much more ready to look at diversity on the screens and
 7     in advertising than media executives.
 8  16503                By the way, the Goldfarb research
 9     component dealing with Quebec show the same discrepancy
10     with regard to ordinary Quebeckers' openness to
11     diversity and Quebec advertising executives'
12     closemindedness to diversity.
13  16504                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Do you have
14     that research?
15  16505                MR. NIEMI:  No, I believe you can
16     obtain it from the Advertising Standards of Canada,
17     which is now what it is called.  It is based in
18     Toronto.
19  16506                MR. BÉLIARD:  Canadian Advertising
20     Federation.  Fédération canadienne de la publicité.
21  16507                MR. NIEMI:  And it has also a race
22     relations advisory committee on that.
23  16508                MR. BÉLIARD:  I might just to end
24     that, to conclude that, is one can wonder why is it we
25     have so much trouble, why is it we have so much trouble


 1     in our own communication industry.  Why do broadcasters
 2     have so much trouble in terms of competitiveness and
 3     profitability and so on?
 4  16509                You see there's a big difference
 5     between what people want and what they are actually
 6     providing.  No reason why people are turning toward
 7     other alternatives to watch programming that they could
 8     find right over here.
 9  16510                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  It is not
10     really my place to express an opinion or answer that
11     question.  So I am not going to.
12  16511                You mentioned in your remarks today
13     that the emergence of specialty services should not
14     relieve conventional broadcasters of their obligations
15     to reflect.
16  16512                But I am wondering if you have seen
17     amongst those specialty services any improvement over
18     what the conventional broadcasters are going?  Have you
19     seen any qualitative difference in the programming that
20     they are presenting?  And I am not talking specifically
21     about services such as South Asian television or
22     Fairchild, that are targeted at specific demographic
23     audiences, but just, in general, have you seen
24     anything?
25  16513                MR. BÉLIARD:  I want to give you a


 1     quick answer.  We were discussing that in the car
 2     driving here, and there are two specialty channels
 3     where it is evident the number of multicultural or
 4     racial minorities is much more stronger than anything
 5     else - the Sports Channel and the Music Channel.
 6  16514                MR. NIEMI:  Actually, Vision TV. 
 7     Again, in Quebec, certain specialty services are not
 8     available to the Quebec audience, but some are slightly
 9     more.  Like there's Canal Famille that addresses a lot
10     of immigrant and families or inter-generational issues.
11  16515                There is another one that has to do
12     with -- Is it Canal Savoir?  Also it seems to but,
13     again we don't have the empirical research data to
14     provide that.
15  16516                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  That is okay. 
16     I am just interested in your impressions.
17  16517                You make a number of very specific
18     recommendations in your submission with respect to
19     dealing with employment equity issues and diversity in
20     programming.
21  16518                With respect to employment equity,
22     you suggest that we make employment equity a condition
23     of licence and that we establish sanctions or other
24     measures for licensees that do not respect their
25     commitments.


 1  16519                I guess you are not in favour of
 2     incentives.  You don't think incentives work very well. 
 3     There has been a lot of talk about incentives during
 4     the course of this hearing.  150 per cent.  200 per
 5     cent credit for Canadian drama.
 6  16520                MR. NIEMI:  I think you should invite
 7     Judge Rosalie Abella to come back and explain the Royal
 8     Commission Report 14 years after.
 9  16521                We work a lot in employment equity. 
10     Some sectors respond much better than other sectors.
11     The banking sector, some banks are really a leader in
12     the field -- Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, CIBC.  Some
13     are really down in the pits.
14  16522                The research we are going to release
15     a couple of days before your hearings in December will
16     show that many of the broadcasters, their report which
17     they are required to submit to Parliament, some report
18     numbers don't add up.  Some of the reports after a
19     couple of pages are blank numbers with regard to
20     visible minority or even aboriginal women's
21     representations are blank tables.  And these are the
22     reports that go to Human Resources Development Canada
23     for monitoring and they will go the Human Rights
24     Commission after for an audit.
25  16523                So, in other words, no, the policies,


 1     the laws here don't work as much as they should because
 2     they are not applied, even though they are on paper.
 3  16524                The other thing is that incentives,
 4     according to many experiences we have had, both at the
 5     federal/provincial levels, when the financial
 6     incentives, that are usually short term, are over,
 7     everything will fall apart.  It's a public fact,
 8     so --do we have immunity when we mention it here?
 9  16525                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  No, there is no
10     privilege here.
11  16526                MR. NIEMI:  Well, let's say when the
12     federal Crown corporation --
13  16527                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Only if you are
14     in the House of Commons.
15  16528                MR. NIEMI:  When a federal Crown
16     corporation working very closely with us was
17     considering leaving the field because it was dragged
18     before the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of
19     systemic discrimination by a women's group, in 1996,
20     the assistant vice-president for employment equity got
21     pink papers because there was a new V.P. in charge. 
22     And there was a new corporate orientation.  And the
23     whole Human Rights employment equity department
24     dissolved and swallowed into a labour relations
25     department with one person responsible for human


 1     rights, official language, employment equity, and so
 2     many other things.
 3  16529                So what we are trying to say is that
 4     the laws are there, but it depends so much on each
 5     individual company and the chief executive officer's
 6     commitment to equity.
 7  16530                And I think as a country and as a
 8     system and as a democratic civil society, it is kind of
 9     hard to allow for personal whims or personal sort of
10     commitments that vary from place to place.
11  16531                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I wonder if you
12     have given any thought to what kinds of sanctions might
13     provide an incentive?
14  16532                MR. NIEMI:  We are studying right now
15     the way the Federal Communications Commission in the
16     United States enforces EEO -- Equal Employment
17     Opportunity Regulations -- especially in light of the
18     Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in the District of
19     Columbia that in the case the Lutheran Church of
20     Missouri that really declares the FCC's powers
21     regarding to regulating or to deciding on who gets the
22     licence based on the employment where affirmative
23     action practices are unconstitutional and invalid.
24  16533                I believe that perhaps we should look
25     at the way the FCC deals with employment equity,


 1     affirmative action employment in the United States with
 2     regard to American broadcasters.  Because the licensing
 3     could be much stronger and much more affirmative than
 4     the kind of very slow and very sort of passive in a
 5     subtle way that we deal with employment equity within
 6     the broadcasting sector.  That's one thing.
 7  16534                We recommend here just systematic or 
 8     a question on employment equity of licensees or a
 9     potential licensee would be an interesting thing.
10  16535                As a matter of fact, for all the
11     agencies that submitted their application for December
12     the 7th hearing in Montreal, we expect to ask each and
13     every one of them with our data from the annual
14     employment equity report.  The question I am going is: 
15     If this is your preferment so far, how are you going to
16     perform with your new specialty services?
17  16536                And that's very important because the
18     employment equity will influence the programming.  It
19     will influence the entire way the company operates
20     within not only the broadcasting system but within the
21     community toward which they have a degree of social
22     responsibility.
23  16537                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Just two more
24     questions that I have for you.  With respect to
25     production funds, we have been talking a lot about the


 1     way that the fund operates and the CRTC doesn't control
 2     that fund, but we are hoping to make some
 3     recommendations to them flowing out of this process.
 4  16538                Currently, they have a bonus system
 5     now.  There has been some discussion about whether or
 6     not they are going to alter that system.  But do you
 7     think that it would be a useful incentive for producers
 8     and for broadcasters if there were a bonus system for
 9     reflecting diversity?
10  16539                MR. NIEMI:  In our brief, we talked
11     about making equity not a condition upon the existing
12     existence of additional resources.  To simply our
13     question, we should stop saying, okay, we only give you
14     more goodies if you make equity a reality.
15  16540                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  No, sorry, I am
16     not talking about that.  I am talking about diversity
17     in programming now.
18  16541                MR. NIEMI:  That would be the same
19     thing.
20  16542                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Same thing.
21  16543                MR. NIEMI:  That would be the same
22     thing because unless we treat equity or diversity in
23     all its social diversity as a fundamental and a
24     natural, a normal fact, as Mr. Parizeau would say, a
25     normal fact, a normal reality of daily life, we don't


 1     need to make it more abnormal, more special.
 2  16544                The problem right now is people --
 3  16545                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  But I mean
 4     affirmative action and employment equity in all of
 5     those programs, in effect, those things are saying you
 6     can't treat it as a normal fact of life because that
 7     doesn't work.  Is there something that needs to be done
 8     to make it more normal for those people who don't find
 9     it normal right now?
10  16546                MR. NIEMI:  Ideally, it should be a
11     normal component of the operation.  A normal component
12     of the funding.  A normal component of the way they
13     operate.  Unfortunately --
14  16547                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  But it's not. 
15     It's not.  This is why we need the so-called special
16     measures.  But special measures should not be made
17     conditional upon the availability of special funding or
18     special bonuses.  It just meant a reorganizing of your
19     existing priority and resources to make sure they are
20     integrated within whatever you have.
21  16548                And the reason we say it is not
22     ideological because practical, a lot of people say, oh,
23     well, if you want diversity, give me more money and
24     then I will make diversity a reality.  It is not
25     supposed to be that way.  We have to think differently.


 1  16549                MR. BÉLIARD:  And just also to answer
 2     that, in 1996, when we had the legislation, it was okay
 3     to provide funding to help some companies just have
 4     what we call the cultural diversity training program,
 5     what we call also remedies to help some company to deal
 6     with the whole aspect of understanding cultural
 7     diversity and so on.
 8  16550                Now, in 1998, I don't think it is
 9     necessary to do the same thing because they have had
10     time to adjust or to readjust to those.
11  16551                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I am not sure
12     that I explained myself clearly enough.  I am talking
13     about the Canadian television fund, the production
14     fund.
15  16552                MR. BÉLIARD:  But to go back to the
16     funds, as an incentive, I don't think it would help
17     anything.  I think the stronger --
18  16553                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Well, I mean I
19     think you get like a 50 per cent bonus if it's regional
20     and you get so much as a bonus if it's distinctively
21     Canadian.  And then there is the super Canadian credit.
22  16554                What it means is it means more money
23     to the producer in terms of putting together the
24     financing to produce a program. So if they have all of
25     these elements in it, then they get more money out of


 1     the fund for producing their program.  So maybe it is
 2     an incentive for someone to create a program that
 3     reflects the diversity of the country.
 4  16555                I think Commissioner Cardozo actually
 5     asked a couple of the intervenors should there be an
 6     envelope in the Canadian television fund for diversity.
 7  16556                MR. NIEMI:  That's interesting. 
 8     Yesterday in Montreal there was a day long conference
 9     in French called "L'interculturalisme dans les
10     pratiques culturelles."
11  16557                And the issue, and I think this
12     requires much more critical thinking and also analysis
13     as to the impact of such a special incentive is that
14     these special envelopes are necessary or are acceptable
15     to the extent they are not restrictive or limitative on
16     the ability of producer or any ethnic origin to tap
17     into other existing or available funds.
18  16558                Unfortunately, in practice, many
19     special integral cultural or race relations funds tend
20     to be, in practice, applied in a very ghettoized way.
21  16559                For example, if I were a minority,
22     because it happened in a case here with Telefilm and we
23     are looked into it, is if you are a minority artist,
24     when you apply and if they see you as a minority
25     artist, people will compartmentalize you right away and


 1     you may have restricted access to other resources that
 2     may be available to everyone.
 3  16560                So those special envelopes should not
 4     be a ceiling.  They should be a floor, just like
 5     numerical objectives in equity practices.
 6  16561                And, at the same time, the existence
 7     of those special envelopes should not deter others, be
 8     they inside or outside the system, to continue to
 9     remove barriers so that artists or producers can have
10     maximum access to all kinds of funds that are normally
11     available to everyone.
12  16562                The risk of these special envelopes
13     is that they have a ghettoizing effect, if not a
14     limitative effect, that could compromise a person's
15     creativity.
16  16563                MR. BÉLIARD:  I am thinking about
17     something.  It is something that CRARR has done in, I
18     believe we started that in 1990 or 1991.
19  16564                We have had what we call awards of
20     excellence in ethno-cultural diversity in advertising,
21     and I believe it helps a lot the industry, particularly
22     in Quebec, okay, to make sure that they have
23     integration, they have diversity.
24  16565                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Promotes
25     sensitivity to it.


 1  16566                MR. BÉLIARD:  That's it, in terms of
 2     creativity.  So it is more a recognition for something
 3     good or something very interesting, something very
 4     positive that they have done rather than before they
 5     even start and say, okay, I have this available for you
 6     if you do something and then you are going to be part
 7     of that funding.
 8  16567                It is good but I don't think it is
 9     still the best way to deal with that.  That recognition
10     would be a lot better.
11  16568                The knowledge also that there is some
12     regulatory body watching because it is part of their
13     mandate to make sure that you reach that, we come back
14     to the condition of licence, which I think it may
15     appear streaked, but is one of the very interesting or
16     main points of our presentation that we would like to
17     see some changes.
18                                                        1720
19  16569                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  One final
20     question for you.  This is actually where I am going to
21     go back to the notion of industrial programming.  In
22     your concluding comments you state that addressing
23     these issues is an issue of social and cultural
24     responsibility towards a country that is not only
25     yearning to compete in a global marketplace, but that


 1     is also aspiring to be a leader and a model for the
 2     rest of the world in broadcasting diversity management
 3     and, most importantly, nation-building.
 4  16570                We have been talking a lot over the
 5     last couple of weeks about the difference between
 6     distinctively Canadian programming and industrial
 7     programming, product that is created for an export
 8     market versus product that's created for the indigenous
 9     market.  You make this comment that it's an issue of
10     social and cultural responsibility towards a country
11     that is not only yearning to compete in a global
12     marketplace.
13  16571                Do you see any contradiction at all
14     in doing a better job of reflecting the nature of our
15     country and its values to our citizens in the Canadian
16     broadcasting system and yearning to compete in a global
17     marketplace?  Are the two separate?
18  16572                MR. NIEMI:  Not at all because
19     increasingly culture is a very important economic
20     activity and we can just refer to the Quebec cultural
21     policy to see the fundamental link between culture and
22     economic activity.  We are talking only at the domestic
23     or regional level, particularly cultural technologies,
24     cultural workers.  So, in the conceptual framework, no,
25     there is no contradiction.


 1  16573                The second part is that this, I
 2     believe, requires further research because in the 1980s
 3     there were a lot of efforts to market Canadian
 4     multiculturalism as a cultural and economic commodity
 5     in tourism, in culture and in export.  Unfortunately,
 6     many of these initiatives didn't last very long,
 7     perhaps due to a lack of interested commitment from the
 8     local industries involved, but this was what we meant
 9     by:  How do we sell the Canadian image and Canadian
10     culture abroad and what makes it sell?
11  16574                This is something that we must admit
12     that we talk about in terms of the link between culture
13     and the economy or in terms of trade and that has to be
14     examined further because the analogy that was raised by
15     one person during the discussion is that the RCMP
16     culturally is a very big business overseas or selling
17     aboriginal artifacts and symbols.  How do we use the
18     distinctive aboriginal realities of Canada and use it
19     as a trade commodity, especially in European countries?
20  16575                Aboriginal peoples really in many
21     communities look at:  How do we make it more our
22     distinctive culture trade and more of an economic
23     activity, both here and to export overseas?  This is
24     something that we believe there is no contradiction
25     whatsoever.  It all depends how we present it, produce


 1     and market it, because our concern is as long as
 2     foreign countries and all the people around the world
 3     see Canada as being mostly RCMP and white males or
 4     aboriginal people in feathers, that is something that
 5     could be reinforcing stereotypes and make it less
 6     enticing economically and culturally.  So, we did talk
 7     about that.
 8  16576                We remember in 1985 or 1986 the
 9     Department of Multiculturalism did really try to
10     explore how can we make Canadian multiculturalism,
11     especially with tourism, tourism assets, and especially
12     for culture festivals like the folk festival in
13     Drummondville.
14  16577                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  But what about
15     television product?
16  16578                MR. NIEMI:  That is something that I
17     don't believe there were any studies done to that
18     effect.  We can't say without empirical support for
19     that.
20  16579                MR. BÉLIARD:  We have many examples
21     of television products that have been sold in the
22     international market.  I remember from --
23  16580                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  What I am
24     curious about, though, is whether or not -- I think the
25     product that we sell on the international market may be


 1     more of the industrial product, the product that is
 2     less distinctively Canadian.  If we are going for
 3     really distinctively Canadian, then that's a production
 4     that encompasses that multiracial and multicultural
 5     nature.
 6  16581                MR. BÉLIARD:  They are closely
 7     related.  I remember one program that has been sold all
 8     over Asia and also in Latin America, which is from
 9     Radio Québec.  It has to do with "Passe-partout". 
10     "Passe-partout" has evolved along the years and then
11     presented different characters from different types of
12     communities.  It sold very well outside, in Latin
13     America and Asia very well.  Then we also have other
14     programs that sells very well in French in Europe and
15     so on.
16  16582                I believe that the more you promote
17     Canadian diversity in programs, in products, be it
18     video or television product or call it industrial
19     programming, but your industrial programming should
20     reflect at least your society.  That's the way I look
21     at it.
22  16583                For people to buy, there are two
23     reasons.  Perhaps they want people to see your society
24     in a better way or they may want to buy it from you as
25     a distinct product from the American offering, from the


 1     French offering, from the European offering and so on,
 2     and the more we reflect what Canada is all about in
 3     terms of diversity and so on, the better we have
 4     chances to sell it overseas.  That's the way I look at
 5     it.  We have thousands and thousands of examples.
 6  16584                When you get on the international
 7     market and then you see people coming and being
 8     interested in certain Canadian television products,
 9     they have a reason to buy it:  First of all, quality
10     and, secondly, whether it reflects exactly the little
11     different aspects that they see in one particular
12     product that they don't find in the all over the place
13     American type products.  That's my impression about
14     that.  They are both very closely integrated, very
15     closely related.
16  16585                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  You mentioned
17     in your submission two studies, the 1993 research study
18     that you did and also a study that you did this fall. 
19     I am just wondering if I could ask you to send us
20     copies of both.
21  16586                MR. NIEMI:  The 1993 one is with me.
22  16587                COMMISSIONER WILSON:  Okay, that's
23     great.  It would be interesting background material for
24     us to have.
25  16588                Those are my questions.  Your input


 1     has been very thoughtful and interesting and very
 2     useful.  Thank you very much.
 3  16589                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Commissioner
 4     Cardozo?
 5  16590                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Thanks, Madam
 6     Chair.
 7  16591                I just have a few quick questions
 8     that follow up.  It's a follow-up on some of the issues
 9     that Commissioner Wilson talked to you about.
10  16592                On the matter of how we define
11     Canadian programming, there is at least two schools of
12     thought.  One says that the program should reflect
13     Canadian themes and locals, so it should be somewhere
14     that's identifiably Canadian or the people of the story
15     or something about it should be identifiably Canadian,
16     not necessarily with a beaver or a hockey player in
17     every show, but something about the story that will
18     identify it as Canadian.
19  16593                The other view is that that really
20     doesn't matter so long as the people in the
21     production -- the people involved in the show, the
22     producers, the writers, the actors and so forth are
23     Canadian, that that's all that matters.  It doesn't
24     matter what it's about.  So, it can be a sci-fi theme
25     or a story which could be anywhere in the world, but


 1     what we should be concerned about is who put this
 2     program together.  What are your thoughts on that in
 3     terms of diversity?  Does it matter whether we focus
 4     more on themes and locales or on who put it together?
 5  16594                MR. NIEMI:  I guess the example in
 6     the first case would be like "Sam and Me", the film.
 7  16595                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I suppose it
 8     could be "Degrassi", it would be "Anne of Green
 9     Gables", it could be "Traders".
10  16596                MR. NIEMI:  A second example --
11  16597                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  I don't know
12     about "Traders".
13  16598                MR. NIEMI:  The example of the second
14     case would be like "Sci Factor", the sci-fi thing you
15     see on TV.
16  16599                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Yes, or
17     "Lexx".
18  16600                MR. NIEMI:  Okay.  We have to look at
19     Canadian content or the issue of Canadian diversity in
20     television production from both perspectives, from the
21     perspective of who gets the job, because we are talking
22     about people, we are talking about cultural workers, we
23     are talking about creative talents, and that's
24     important.  This is why earlier we talked about the
25     need to perhaps review a definition of people and


 1     Canadian citizens in the Canadian content policy that
 2     exists at this point in time because our organization
 3     works with a lot of minority artists.
 4  16601                We try to promote them everywhere
 5     based on the skills and talents and what they can
 6     bring.  We produced a directory of minority artists,
 7     which was funded by The National Film Board when Mrs.
 8     Pennefather was there, and the issue that still was
 9     raised yesterday is a lot of them still don't get jobs
10     because there weren't enough roles, there weren't
11     enough positions open.  So, that is an important
12     component of Canadian content and Canadian production
13     and we are talking about opportunities, employment or
14     creative opportunities, for people.
15  16602                Secondly, of course, is about the
16     portrayal of what the Canadian soul or the Canadian
17     culture is all about.  It goes beyond the Rockies and
18     the Peggy's Coves and whatnot.  It goes to the
19     portrayal of Canadian people in all the diversity.  So,
20     that is a good question.  It is not an either/or, but
21     it will be basically two sides of the same coin that in
22     many ways will be increasingly linked without being
23     disassociated from that perspective.
24  16603                What it does also is it increases the
25     level of universality of certain aspects of Canadian


 1     culture in terms of mass consumption or global reach of
 2     the Canadian cultural products.  This sounds like a
 3     course in cultural studies.
 4  16604                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  On the matter
 5     of production funds -- and I heard what you said
 6     earlier -- we were talking with the Chinese Canadian
 7     National Council a couple of days ago about two
 8     aspects.  One was programming that reflects diversity
 9     or includes diversity, so it doesn't matter who puts it
10     together, but in the characters and the story there is
11     some aspect of cultural diversity in there.
12  16605                The other is production done by
13     minority producers for English or French programming. 
14     So, it's programs like "Inside Stories" that the CBC
15     ran some time ago, "A Scattering of Seeds" that is
16     being run on History right now.  Do you have a
17     preference for one or the other?
18  16606                MR. NIEMI:  We haven't discussed
19     those issues to that extent because they are not always
20     accessible in Quebec.
21  16607                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Lastly, there
22     have been some suggestions by various intervenors that
23     the way to approach this whole subject is to have a
24     task force similar to the one that the Commission had
25     on sexual stereotyping.  What are your thoughts on


 1     that?
 2  16608                MR. NIEMI:  I think we made that
 3     recommendation in our report back in 1987 when we did
 4     the study on visible minorities in advertising.  We
 5     suggested that there would be a need to look at this
 6     issue of race representation and portrayal in basically
 7     the electronic media, but more with advertising per se
 8     because advertising in many ways goes beyond
 9     television, especially with the economic impact that it
10     has.
11  16609                I can send you a copy of that study
12     that has the specific recommendation on it back in 1987
13     because we realize that in advertising it was then and
14     it's still now a very major, what we call, diversity
15     deficit issue for Canadian advertising.
16  16610                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Please.
17  16611                MR. NIEMI:  We recommended to that
18     task force at the time, with industry, community,
19     government and other stakeholders being part of it, to
20     come up with a mechanism or a set of guidelines partly
21     because the existing codes on gender portrayal or
22     violence in advertising with children in many ways does
23     not address adequately the issue of race, as if race
24     has always been evacuated or trivialized, and it is
25     increasingly a major issue for many Canadian urban


 1     centres.
 2  16612                We talked earlier about people
 3     raising issues of Howard Stern.  We are preparing
 4     possibly, based on the funding, a court challenge in
 5     the case of Howard Stern, not against Howard Stern and
 6     the broadcaster, CILQ, I believe, or CHOM per se but on
 7     the powers of the CRTC to regulate or not to regulate
 8     when complaints of Howard Stern are there and whether
 9     the CRTC action or inaction could be subject to a
10     Charter challenge.
11  16613                But advertising definitely is an
12     issue that eventually could be looked at because
13     advertising is so much an integral part of programming
14     and, therefore, this issue needs to be addressed.  We
15     mentioned earlier the case of Eden because it is the
16     most visible example of how in 1998 we still have to
17     remind people that, hey, in many cities it's at least
18     one-third of the city's population in your advertising. 
19     Whether in French advertising or in English
20     advertising, the issue is the same.
21  16614                MR. BÉLIARD:  I think it is a very
22     good idea.  Furthermore, it's not only because we made
23     our recommendation, but also if we look at the Canadian
24     Advertising Foundation, it has a committee on race
25     relations and then we have almost the same component in


 1     Montreal, but what they lack is structure, information,
 2     and very precise and detailed information are to deal
 3     with that particular issue.
 4  16615                I might also add, what Mr. Niemi was
 5     talking about on the question of Howard Stern and the
 6     problem that we have with the Association of
 7     Broadcasters, I believe in English, CBSC, is not
 8     necessarily Mr. Stern himself, but where do you put the
 9     accountability question.  Is it on the broadcaster,
10     where they have, I think, a certain evolution of powers
11     to that group, and when there is a question from the
12     entire population about the disturbance of what is
13     being said on the air, who do you talk to?  To go to
14     the Association, it is a bit of a self-regulatory group
15     and they take some time.  They decide or they do not
16     decide.  Then what is the position of the CRTC?
17                                                        1735
18  16616                I think it is the same thing with the
19     advertising industry.  It is a self-regulated body
20     where we take decisions and complaints from the
21     population and then we decide.  Now, what happens when
22     the person goes after an appeal, which we have an
23     appeal process, and the person is not satisfied?  Who
24     takes the last step, the responsibility?
25  16617                Is the CRTC some form of


 1     accountability there where a complete resolve of the
 2     problem within the self-regulatory body -- what do you
 3     do?  I would like to hear perhaps for argument on
 4     that -- we discussed about that in the comments we were
 5     talking about of Howard Stern, not Mr. Stern himself,
 6     but where do you drop the ball?
 7  16618                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Can I just
 8     tell you, I would love to carry that discussion on, but
 9     some other time.  The reason is, we will have next year
10     a review of the self-regulatory process, so keep in
11     touch with us on that.  But, for the purposes of this
12     hearing, you mentioned you had a report that talked
13     about a task force on advertising, so please do send us
14     that.  And you mentioned a directory; is that of actors
15     or producers?
16  16619                MR. NIEMI:  Actually, we have a copy
17     here.  We can leave it with you directly because we are
18     doing a database on it.
19  16620                Can I go back to the issue of the
20     task force?  I think the first issue is, ask the
21     advertising or the self-regulatory bodies, be they for
22     advertising, for cable or for broadcast standards, to
23     what, if any, extent they have successfully or
24     adequately addressed the issue of diversity.
25  16621                We have written to the CBSC, Canadian


 1     Broadcast Standard Council, to look at how many visible
 2     minorities they have on their regional councils -- to
 3     do that.  It took us three months, and we haven't got
 4     an answer.  We downloaded the Net; by the list, you can
 5     have an idea who is on there.
 6  16622                But, in a sense, coming back to the
 7     Howard Stern again, it is very indicative of the
 8     problem of poor or ineffective industry
 9     self-regulation, and part of the problem, whether again
10     in advertising or in broadcasting, is that these
11     industry associations do not involve and do not reflect
12     people of different ethno-cultural and racial minority
13     backgrounds, and who you put there will influence what
14     kind of decisions and what kind of outcome you have.
15  16623                If you have minorities who are
16     constantly the target of negative portrayal stereotypes
17     or propaganda, the issues with those minority people is
18     not free speech issue, it is their own right to dignity
19     and integrity and to live without being exposed to that
20     kind of stereotype and propaganda.  But if you have
21     only the members of the majority in the industry, whose
22     main concern is, can I continue to broadcast this
23     stupidity on the air and make fun out of people, then
24     the issue for them is free speech.
25  16624                So that's why the problem and


 1     fundamental flaw of this industry or self-regulatory
 2     process is that it does not involve or it does not
 3     reflect the very people whom it is supposed to
 4     represent, reflect or defend.
 5  16625                COMMISSIONER CARDOZO:  Okay.  Hold
 6     that thought and come back to us when that review is
 7     under way.
 8  16626                So you will send us the item on the
 9     task force, the recommendation that you had, and you
10     will leave us a copy of the directory.  And October the
11     15th is our magic date for receiving some of this
12     stuff, which is next week sometime.  Thanks.
13  16627                Thank you, Madam Chair.
14  16628                MR. NIEMI:  Thank you.
15  16629                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Gentlemen, you want
16     the Commission to attach a condition of licence to the
17     TV licensees.  What condition of licence is it that you
18     want attached?
19  16630                MR. NIEMI:  Equity.
20  16631                Is it equity?  Employment equity?
21  16632                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Not related to
22     diversity, related to equity.
23  16633                MR. NIEMI:  To employment equity,
24     yes, because --
25  16634                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Okay, that's fine. 


 1     I just wanted to clarify.  Thank you.
 2  16635                MR. BÉLIARD:  I just want to clarify
 3     a point here.
 4  16636                In our presentation we make the
 5     reference to 3(1)(c), I believe.  Remember 3(1)(c)? 
 6     You have in the CRTC legislation --
 7  16637                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes, I am familiar
 8     with that.
 9  16638                MR. BÉLIARD:  Okay, 3(1)(c) --
10  16639                THE CHAIRPERSON:  But you are also
11     familiar --
12  16640                MR. BÉLIARD:  -- subsection (3) or
13     (4) --
14  16641                THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am familiar with
15     that.
16  16642                MR. BÉLIARD:  So you can attach that
17     very easily to --
18  16643                THE CHAIRPERSON:  I was just curious
19     as to how that coincides with your apparent fear of any
20     special treatment, whether it be in the fund or even in
21     multilingual broadcasting -- your fear of ghettoizing
22     or of forcing abnormalities to create normality.
23  16644                How does that coincide with your
24     apparent philosophy that incentives or requirements are
25     not going to achieve your goals to force a certain --


 1     presumably you would be asking that there be a certain
 2     number of minorities, however that's defined, employed,
 3     because the condition of licence is a proactive,
 4     quite -- you seem to be familiar with the Act.  It
 5     would have to be quite specific and defined.  It would
 6     have to say, "Thou must employ" two, three producers,
 7     actors -- what is it that you would want as a condition
 8     of licence?
 9  16645                MR. NIEMI:  We are talking
10     specifically about conventional broadcasters, and first
11     of all I think those are definitions that are provided
12     in the law --
13  16646                THE CHAIRPERSON:  No, no, I
14     understand that.  But you would want a condition of
15     licence with regard to employment equity that would
16     say, "Thou shall have on your staff" X, Y, Z.
17  16647                MR. NIEMI:  Right.
18  16648                THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am a bit
19     intrigued about how that coincides with your apparent
20     philosophy that nothing should be forced, whether it is
21     access to funds or bonuses for programming, or I think
22     I even heard you not be very enthusiastic about
23     multicultural broadcasting as a category of
24     broadcasting to serve minorities.
25  16649                How does your desire for a condition


 1     of licence, which is a fairly important aspect of
 2     regulating broadcasting -- how does it fit within that
 3     philosophy of yours?
 4  16650                MR. NIEMI:  The philosophies are very
 5     consistent because we have consistently demonstrated or
 6     have seen in the past -- we are very weary of special
 7     add-ons or various stop-gaps or sort of improvised
 8     measures that have no real lasting, sustainable impacts
 9     on the industry or an institution that create
10     long-lasting change.  We are very concerned about the
11     special envelopes that are designed for artificial
12     purposes, with a short time frame, and that produce an
13     effect of restricting or limiting, a ceiling effect as
14     opposed to a minimal effect, to incentive -- as
15     incentive and to boost, because --
16  16651                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Could I not make
17     that same argument with regard to employment equity?
18  16652                MR. NIEMI:  No.  Employment equity
19     is, you fundamentally change the entire structure of
20     the operations of the company which is behind the
21     decision to program, to allocate resources, to decide
22     on funding.  Once you get the people in place -- you
23     get women in place, sex harassment becomes the key
24     issue; you get women in top corporate echelons, daycare
25     for executives will become an issue.  Otherwise, it


 1     will be just an add-on or secondary --
 2  16653                THE CHAIRPERSON:  So your condition
 3     of licence would have to be very specific, and it is
 4     Vice-President, Programming that you would have to
 5     hire.  It would have to be very specific to achieve
 6     that goal, because you could employ a number of
 7     minorities, but depending on what position they are
 8     put, if it is just to satisfy the condition of licence,
 9     it is not going to have the effect and it will go back
10     to your apparent philosophy that forcing certain
11     measures is not valuable, except you seem to stop at
12     employment and think that that's going to somehow be an
13     answer.  Without being terribly specific, it would have
14     to be in certain areas.
15  16654                MR. NIEMI:  No.  No, actually, no, it
16     is not.  If you are familiar with the system, the
17     analysis or the reporting tables for employment equity
18     in companies that address all occupational categories
19     and all aspects of the operations of the company, in a
20     media company it will be from the finance to the
21     programming to the studio to even the clerk,
22     everything, all those occupational categories will,
23     once filled by members of the under-represented groups,
24     will create a change in the organizational culture and
25     change in the way that the outcome, i.e. the cultural


 1     products or programs, will be shaped.
 2  16655                That's why we feel so important --
 3     contrary to the gender portrayal policy, which talked
 4     only about representation but does not go to the issue
 5     of representation of women in the industry -- to go
 6     straight for the jugular where the real sustainable
 7     changes will take place.
 8  16656                THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you very
 9     much.
10  16657                MR. BÉLIARD:  I want to give you one
11     more precision about that.
12  16658                In the TV or broadcasting
13     environment, there are different sectors.  You have
14     internal operation,  you have external operation, you
15     have also purchase of programs that can be either
16     national or even international.
17  16659                I believe a condition of licence that
18     probably entailed not only in terms of personal insight
19     but behind the cameras -- in production, for example,
20     in the purchase and so on, that could be global and
21     cover just about everything in terms of programming.
22  16660                I come back to the issue of
23     multicultural programming.  For me, it is more like a
24     specialty channel, the same way that we can compare
25     sports, music and everything else.  I mean, basically,


 1     after all, it is something very particular, very
 2     specific to a specific group.
 3  16661                We come back to the whole issue of
 4     global or integrated programming, mainstream
 5     programming basically that we are making the claim
 6     today.
 7  16662                THE CHAIRPERSON:  I understand the
 8     distinction.  It is just the means to get there.
 9  16663                Thank you, gentlemen.
10  16664                This concludes the hearing for today. 
11     We will resume at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.  Nous
12     reprendrons à 8 h 00 demain matin.
13     --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1745
14         to resume on Thursday, October 8, 1998
15         at 0900 / L'audience est suspendue à 1745,
16         pour reprendre le jeudi 8 octobre 1998
17         à 0900

Date modified: