ARCHIVED - Transcript
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Providing Content in Canada's Official Languages
Please note that the Official Languages Act requires that government publications be available in both official languages.
In order to meet some of the requirements under this Act, the Commission's transcripts will therefore be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of CRTC members and staff attending the hearings, and the table of contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the hearing.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DU CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES SUBJECT / SUJET: CANADIAN TELEVISION POLICY REVIEW / EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES DU CONSEIL RELATIVES À LA TÉLÉVISION CANADIENNE HELD AT: TENUE À: Conference Centre Centre des conférences Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais Place du Portage Place du Portage Phase IV Phase IV Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec) October 13, 1998 13 octobre 1998 Volume 13 tel: 613-521-0703 StenoTran fax: 613-521-7668 Transcripts Transcription Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues officielles, les procès-verbaux pour le Conseil seront bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience publique ainsi que la table des matières. Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le participant à l'audience publique. StenoTran Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes Transcript / Transcription Public Hearing / Audience publique Canadian Television Policy Review / Examen des politiques du Conseil relatives à la télévision canadienne BEFORE / DEVANT: Andrée Wylie Chairperson / Présidente Vice-Chairperson, Radio- television / Vice- présidente, Radiodiffusion Joan Pennefather Commissioner / Conseillère Andrew Cardozo Commissioner / Conseiller Martha Wilson Commissioner / Conseillère David McKendry Commissioner / Conseiller ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS: Jean-Pierre Blais Commission Counsel / Avocat du Conseil Margot Patterson Articling Student / Stagiaire Carole Bénard / Secretaries/Secrétaires Diane Santerre Nick Ketchum Hearing Manager / Gérant de l'audience HELD AT: TENUE À: Conference Centre Centre des conférences Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais Place du Portage Place du Portage Phase IV Phase IV Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec) October 13, 1998 13 octobre 1998 Volume 13 StenoTran TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES PAGE Presentation by / Présentation par: SPTV, The Specialty and Premium Television Association / TVSP, Association de la télévision spécialisée et payante 3767 CAB, Canadian Association of Broadcasters (Specialty Board) / ACR, Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs (Conseil télévision spécialisée et payante) 3849 NetStar Communications Inc. 3938 MUSE Entertainment Enterprises Inc. 4001 Radiomutuel inc. 4026 StenoTran 3767 1 Hull, Quebec / Hull (Québec) 2 --- Upon resuming on Tuesday, October 13, 1998 3 at 0900 / L'audience reprend le mardi 4 13 octobre 1998, à 0900 5 17682 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. 6 Welcome back to our hearing. Re-bienvenue à tout le 7 monde. 8 17683 Madame la Secrétaire, voulez-vous 9 s'il vous plaît inviter le participant suivant. 10 17684 Mme SANTERRE: Merci, Madame la 11 Présidente. 12 17685 The first presentation this morning 13 will be the Specialty and Premium Television 14 Association / Association de la télévision spécialisée 15 et payante. 16 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION 17 17686 MS LOGAN: Commissioners, my name is 18 Jane Logan. I am the President and CEO of SPTV, the 19 Specialty and Premium Television Association. 20 17687 It is my pleasure to introduce our 21 panel who represent most of our board of directors. I 22 will start with the front row on my far left. 23 17688 Je vous présente Gilles Desjardins, 24 directeur, Développement des affaires de RDI, le Réseau 25 de l'information. StenoTran 3768 1 17689 Next to him is Trina McQueen, 2 President of the Discovery Channel. 3 17690 To my right is Lisa de Wilde, 4 President of TMN Networks. 5 17691 À côté d'elle, Gérald Janneteau, le 6 président du conseil d'administration de TVSP et le 7 président de RDS, le Réseau des sports. 8 17692 Behind Gerry is Pierre Morrissette. 9 Il est le président et chef de la direction de 10 MétéoMédia / The Weather Network. 11 17693 Ensuite Pierre Roy, le président et 12 chef de la direction de Les Réseaux Premier Choix. 13 17694 Next is Phil Fraser, President and 14 CEO of Vision Television. 15 17695 We are hoping that Phyllis Yaffe will 16 join us beside Phil; and she is President and CEO of 17 Alliance Broadcasting, Showcase & History Television. 18 17696 We are pleased to have this 19 opportunity to appear before you today. This hearing 20 is a turning point in the evolution of the Canadian 21 broadcasting system. 22 17697 The Specialty and Premium Television 23 Association, SPTV, is the only association to represent 24 all core groups of our industry: specialty services, 25 third language networks and pay and pay-per-view StenoTran 3769 1 networks. Our members comprise 80 per cent of Canada's 2 specialty and premium television industry by revenue, 3 and 90 per cent of our sector spending on Canadian 4 programming. 5 17698 La présidente de cette audience, 6 Mme Wylie, a énuméré trois objectifs que le système 7 devrait poursuivre: en arriver à un plus grand nombre 8 d'émissions canadiennes, à des émissions canadiennes de 9 meilleure qualité et à une amélioration de la 10 rentabilité. Par ailleurs, le grand thème que les 11 télédiffuseurs conventionnels ont véhiculé est de 12 mettre davantage l'accent sur l'augmentation de 13 l'écoute. Eh bien, que nous la mesurions par l'un ou 14 l'autre de ces indicateurs, notre industrie est une 15 belle réussite. 16 17699 Comme vous le savez, les services de 17 télévision spécialisée et payante sont relativement 18 nouveaux. Mais depuis que les premiers services ont 19 obtenu leur licence dans les années quatre-vingt, nous 20 sommes devenus une composante importante du système. 21 En 1994, il existait 19 services canadiens de 22 télévision spécialisée et payante; l'an dernier, leur 23 nombre avait augmenté à 31 et, aujourd'hui, 48 services 24 canadiens sont exploités. Chaque nouveau service a 25 fait croître les dépenses que notre industrie a StenoTran 3770 1 consacrées à la programmation canadienne en plus 2 d'élargir l'auditoire canadien qui nous regarde. 3 17700 Les services de télévision 4 spécialisée et payante ont peu de poids pris 5 individuellement mais, ensemble, nous représentions 30 6 pour cent de l'écoute de la télévision câblée 7 francophone en 1997 et 22 pour cent de l'écoute de la 8 télévision câblée anglophone. Quant à nos dépenses de 9 programmation canadienne, elles se sont élevées à 262 10 millions de dollars. 11 17701 Our proudest achievement is the 12 appeal of Canadian programming in our schedules. Last 13 year, English language specialty television services 14 drew 65 per cent of their viewing with Canadian 15 material -- the reverse of private English conventional 16 television viewing trends. In the French language 17 specialty sector, audiences chose Canadian programs 18 67.5 per cent of the time. Premium services, which are 19 truly discretionary, have access to fewer Canadian 20 homes than specialty. They still play an indispensable 21 role in funding and exhibiting Canadian feature film, 22 spending $23 million on Canadian film last year alone. 23 17702 The main thrust of our submission is 24 directed at nine proposals we believe will be helpful 25 if we are to build on our Canadian programming success. StenoTran 3771 1 Each of these is aimed at improving our ability to 2 finance, distribute and promote high quality Canadian 3 programming to our audiences, through the growth of 4 established services and the launch of new ones. 5 17703 Gerry. 6 17704 MR. JANNETEAU: As a starting point, 7 we believe the Commission should consider our 8 regulatory model -- spending linked to revenue -- as 9 the best tool for improving the quality and viewership 10 of Canadian programs. 11 17705 The evidence for this belief lies in 12 our own experience. On average, our industry now 13 invests some 37 per cent of its total revenue in 14 Canadian programming, compared to 28 per cent by the 15 much larger private conventional television sector. We 16 also spend more on Canadian independent production, 17 $106 million last year, or 40 per cent of all our 18 Canadian program spending. That is in contrast with 19 private conventional broadcasters who spent $77 20 million, or 17 per cent of their Canadian budgets, on 21 independent production. Our results? As we said a 22 minute ago, our Canadian programming generates over 60 23 per cent our audiences. 24 17706 Under the specialty and premium 25 model, when we make more revenue, the system does StenoTran 3772 1 better because we automatically reinvest in Canadian 2 programming. We have what economists call a virtuous 3 circle where more revenues drive better Canadian 4 programs, which drive higher viewership and 5 subscribers, which in turn result in higher revenues, 6 which allow us to invest in even better Canadian 7 programming. 8 17707 Clearly, revenue growth is an 9 essential element of improving our Canadian 10 programming. Many of our specific recommendations 11 address factors that bear directly on revenue which 12 require the Commission's assistance. 13 17708 Our first area of concern is access 14 to the distribution system. The number of viewers we 15 reach has a direct impact on our ability to finance 16 Canadian programming. Subscriber fees are nearly 70 17 per cent of revenue for specialty, and 100 per cent of 18 revenue for pay services. As niche services, we can 19 never expect to attract ad revenues at the same levels 20 as conventional broadcasters. 21 17709 Therefore, we have recommended that 22 the Commission enhance and strictly enforce the 23 existing access rules, including undue preference. Our 24 objective here is to assure fair access to viewers for 25 all licensed Canadian services. StenoTran 3773 1 17710 Today, we live in a limited analog 2 cable environment and the additional capacity promised 3 by digital cable remains just that -- a promise. 4 17711 C'est pourquoi nous recommandons 5 aussi que le Conseil mette sur pied un groupe de 6 travail à l'échelle de l'industrie pour régler les 7 problèmes qui entravent la mise en oeuvre de la 8 câblodistribution numérique. Notre industrie a 9 absolument besoin de la distribution numérique pour 10 croître et innover. Dans le cas de la télévision 11 payante, par exemple, l'implantation de la technologie 12 numérique produira le double avantage d'accroître les 13 contributions de ces services à la programmation 14 canadienne et de fournir une arme supplémentaire pour 15 lutter contre le piratage du câble. 16 17712 L'une de nos autres recommandations a 17 trait aux défis particuliers qui se posent au marché 18 francophone. S'il est difficile de satisfaire la 19 demande pour la création de bonnes émissions 20 canadiennes dans un marché anglophone beaucoup plus 21 vaste, le problème est d'autant plus aigu pour les 22 producteurs et les services francophones. 23 17713 Comme leurs homologues anglophones, 24 les services francophones comptent sur la possibilité 25 de rejoindre le plus vaste auditoire possible à un StenoTran 3774 1 tarif équitable. C'est pour cette raison que nous 2 suggérons au Conseil d'élaborer une politique et des 3 mesures incitatives réglementaires visant à favoriser 4 la distribution des services de télévision spécialisée 5 et payante de langue française à l'extérieur du Québec. 6 17714 Obtenir un tarif équitable est 7 primordial pour tous les services, qu'ils soient 8 francophones, anglophones ou allophones. Les 9 engagements que nous avons pris à l'égard de la 10 présentation de nos émissions sont liés à des 11 projections de revenus d'abonnement appropriées, qui 12 ont été approuvées lors des demandes et des 13 renouvellements de licences. Lorsque les tarifs de 14 gros sont réduits bien en-dessous des projections du 15 plan d'affaires, il n'y a plus assez d'argent pour 16 remplir les grilles-horaires avec des émissions 17 canadiennes de qualité. Nous proposons donc que le 18 Conseil surveille les tarifs d'abonnement de gros qui 19 sont versés aux services de télévision spécialisée et 20 agisse en conséquence. 21 17715 MS LOGAN: A further distribution 22 issue is the current interest in "pick and pay" 23 marketing. This would drastically cut the number of 24 Canadians receiving each service and force huge price 25 increases. The Canadian experience shows that StenoTran 3775 1 consumers prefer many television choices at a very low 2 price. For example, far more cable subscribers have 3 opted for Family Channel now that it is part of the 4 17-service Me-TV package for $5.99 than when it sold 5 for $9.95 as an à la carte or stand-alone service. We 6 ask the Commission to be wary of these pick and pay 7 proposals, as they will have a negative impact on 8 consumer prices and on the availability of Canadian 9 choices for viewers. 10 17716 With respect to advertising revenue, 11 we have requested that specialty services have the same 12 access as conventional broadcasters to simultaneous 13 substitution. Program rights must be fundamental, 14 regardless of which channel a program is broadcast on. 15 It would allow us full value when we buy program rights 16 for the Canadian market. 17 17717 Our last two recommendations deal 18 with promotion and foreign services. Foreign specialty 19 services no longer help to sell new Canadian specialty 20 packages the way they once did -- and that was their 21 biggest benefit to the Canadian broadcasting system. 22 They have, as you know, no requirements to produce or 23 showcase Canadian programming or to create jobs, and in 24 our world of limited analog channels they displace 25 Canadian services. StenoTran 3776 1 17718 This hearing has heard that promotion 2 is a key ingredient in attracting viewers to Canadian 3 programs. We propose that advertising spots on U.S. 4 specialities and superstations be used to promote 5 Canadian television. 6 0910 7 17719 Foreign services today voluntarily 8 give two minutes an hour of free ad space for the 9 promotion of Canadian services, and we believe they 10 should do more. They say they do not sell ads for the 11 Canadian market in any case and since U.S. services 12 take about $80 million in subscriber fees out of the 13 Canadian system each year, making these slots available 14 to promote Canadian services would be a very modest 15 contribution in return. We also ask that the 16 Commission ensure distributors make these commercial 17 spots available free of charge in exchange for using 18 some of them for customer information and promotion. 19 17720 Finally, we have asked that you 20 continue the moratorium on further additions to the 21 list of eligible non-Canadian satellite services. 22 Obviously, the best of foreign services were added some 23 time ago. A moratorium would increase Canadian content 24 as new Canadian services are launched and it would 25 encourage foreign services to become minority partners StenoTran 3777 1 in Canadian offerings allowing foreign programs, but at 2 the same time ensuring Canadian programs, too, as well 3 as Canadian jobs and greater opportunities to export 4 Canadian programming. 5 17721 Violà qui met un terme à notre exposé 6 d'aujourd'hui. Nous sommes disposés à répondre à vos 7 questions que vous aimeriez nous poser. Merci. 8 17722 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Logan 9 and your colleagues. 10 17723 Commissioner Wilson? 11 17724 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Good morning. 12 Thank you for being with us, all of you. 13 17725 Before we start, I would just like to 14 sort of establish the parameters for our discussion. I 15 noted in your very first paragraph on page 6 that you 16 said you wanted to congratulate the Commission for 17 getting back to basics at a time when new technology 18 and distribution issues have diverted some of the 19 attention of all those pondering the future at the 20 Canadian broadcasting system and I am going to take you 21 at your word. 22 17726 We are not going to talk about 23 distribution and access issues. As you know, we have 24 initiated a process that's going to be dealing 25 specifically with those things and a lot of your StenoTran 3778 1 recommendations do touch on those. There are some 2 other aspects of your presentation that I want to go 3 through with you and some sort of general structural 4 and system issues that I would like to get your views 5 on, but those specific issues will have to wait for the 6 other process, which will be held next year. 7 17727 There are a couple of questions of 8 clarification that I am probably going to ask you with 9 respect to some of those issues, but I think we have to 10 sort of limit the context. I don't want to go into 11 really deep discussion of those issues because there 12 will be an opportunity specifically to deal with those 13 issues. Suffice it to say, we have heard your message 14 loud and clear. It's a very consistent message and 15 those issues will be dealt with. 16 17728 MS LOGAN: We do appreciate the fact 17 that you will be holding a framework hearing next 18 spring and it will review access issues. We will make 19 full representation at that time. Our point in 20 highlighting access difficulties in our brief is really 21 to underline that our revenue and, therefore, our 22 ability to make the Canadian content contributions we 23 are discussing here today -- they are inextricably 24 linked to our ability to reach subscribers. So, when 25 you come to make decision about Canadian content for StenoTran 3779 1 the specialty and pay industry, you can't look at our 2 contributions in isolation from access. But your point 3 is taken and we will refrain from detail. 4 17729 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, that's 5 great. 6 17730 What I would like to do is I would 7 just like to start by asking you some sort of general 8 questions and then follow that with some questions of 9 clarification regarding some of the statements that you 10 have made in your submission. The first thing that I 11 want to explore with you is really what struck me as 12 kind of a similarity between your position and the 13 position of the broadcasters, the CAB. 14 17731 On page 6 of your submission at the 15 bottom of the page, you state that: 16 "The contributions of our sector 17 ... need to be viewed in light 18 of its unique characteristics 19 and challenges and challenges, 20 which differ fundamentally from 21 those of Canadian conventional 22 networks." 23 17732 You detail three areas of fundamental 24 difference: The nature of your programming in terms of 25 appealing to a niche market, your relationship with the StenoTran 3780 1 independent production sector and the nature of your 2 revenue streams. 3 17733 Then at page 20 you suggest that: 4 "If, as a result of these 5 proceedings, the Commission 6 adopts new incentives to 7 stimulate the production, 8 promotion and exhibition of 9 Canadian programming ... 10 specialty and pay services 11 should have access to 12 corresponding incentives." 13 17734 And at page 35, in your discussion of 14 the contributions currently made by specialty and 15 premium networks, you state that the current framework 16 is demanding and receiving maximum contributions from 17 your members. Then on page 36 you talk about driving 18 viewership to Canadian programming. 19 17735 These are three of the central 20 elements of the broadcasters' proposal: First of all, 21 that they don't really want any change in their 22 Canadian content requirements, which I think is the 23 same thing that you are saying; secondly, they would 24 like some more incentives to sort of help them do what 25 needs to be done in terms of generating more Canadian StenoTran 3781 1 content; and they want us to focus on viewership. 2 17736 I know that that's kind of a very 3 simplistic way of looking at the elements of your 4 submission, but, as I was reading through it, it struck 5 me that the position is essentially the same. You feel 6 that you are making -- and this is not to take away 7 from the contribution that specialty and pay services 8 have made to the system in terms of Canadian content, 9 but you feel that you are making the maximum 10 contribution, you could use some more incentives and 11 viewership is an appropriate target. I know there is a 12 tie to spending requirements, which is the 13 recommendation you have made about the model. 14 17737 MS LOGAN: That's right. The 15 spending requirements include an automatic accelerator 16 so that, as we make more money, our contributions 17 automatically increase. Therefore, you have built the 18 growth in our contributions into the system. 19 17738 Trina, did you have something to add? 20 17739 MS McQUEEN: I think the fundamental 21 difference between the CAB and us is our belief that 22 the expenditure link to revenue model is the best 23 model. As you have seen in our submission, our 24 expenditure link to revenue is at a higher level than 25 most of the conventional services. It's not that we StenoTran 3782 1 are not saying there is no more in the system, we are 2 saying that as more revenue comes into the system, 3 there will be more investment automatically. That's 4 the so-called virtuous -- 5 17740 COMMISSIONER WILSON: The virtuous 6 circle. 7 17741 MS McQUEEN: -- circle, yes. Not the 8 vicious circle, the virtuous circle that really 9 produces a benefit. As any broadcaster becomes more 10 profitable, there is also more investment in revenue. 11 So, that's a fundamental difference. Sure, we agree 12 with the CAB that viewers are important. You have 13 raised some issues about whether bulk numbers of 14 viewers are the way we should go and we agree that 15 there are problems with that, but certainly every 16 program should strive for the maximum number of viewers 17 appropriate to its genre and its broadcaster and we 18 certainly believe in that. 19 17742 But if you ask are there fundamental 20 differences between the CAB's proposal and our 21 proposal, I would say they were. We are not quite sure 22 what the CAB means in its viewership goals and targets, 23 so we are not on feet with them in that, as I say, 24 because we don't really understand how it would be 25 implemented. Our model for expenditure is considerably StenoTran 3783 1 different from them. Where we do agree is that one 2 thing that Canadian television needs to succeed is 3 higher audiences. 4 17743 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Actually, when 5 I was looking through your viewing results, the 6 viewership data that you provided, you talk about the 7 reserve trend in viewership to specialty services that 8 in fact Canadians are watching more Canadian 9 programming on specialty services than they are on 10 conventional television channels. What do you think is 11 driving that? Is it just the fact that there is more 12 Canadian content on specialty services or that there is 13 more in prime time, that it's scheduled differently, 14 that it's promoted differently? What is working to 15 bring about that success? 16 17744 MS McQUEEN: I think it's partly the 17 audience's fault, if I may use that word. I think 18 today's audiences are looking for programs that meet 19 their needs in a more kind of defined way. Just as 20 there has been a trend to specialty magazines and 21 specialty music tastes and so on, there is also a 22 tendency of people to choose channels the way they used 23 to choose programs. So, if you are the type of person 24 who likes news, you would tend to go directly to a news 25 channel first. StenoTran 3784 1 17745 So, I think we are advantaged, first 2 of all, by the way the modern viewer behaves. 3 Secondly, I think also we have the luxury of choosing 4 our audiences. The conventional broadcasters don't. 5 We program for smaller audiences who are eager for a 6 certain type of programming and, thus, we don't have to 7 dilute the programming to reach a much larger number of 8 viewers. So, those are two things that I think help 9 the viewership. 10 17746 I think one of the things to remember 11 is that we do account for a large part of the viewing, 12 but each little niche of it is quite small. They add 13 up to a large group, but individually they are not 14 large audiences. 15 17747 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So, across the 16 48 services. 17 17748 MS McQUEEN: Yes. 18 0920 19 17749 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I want to talk 20 about the recommendation that you have made about 21 required spending levels on Canadian programming based 22 on the percentage of revenue. You noted in your 23 opening comments why you think this is the best model, 24 but in your submission, at page 20, you note that for 25 specialty and premium services it is neither possible StenoTran 3785 1 nor desirable to create a one-size-fits-all framework. 2 This also is a phrase that CAB has used, the one-size- 3 fits-all. 4 17750 You go on to say that at the time of 5 licence renewals the Commission has the opportunity and 6 tools to ensure that Canadian spending requirements are 7 equitable between services with the same levels of 8 revenue or distribution, which would take into account 9 the challenges of specific programming categories. 10 17751 Would you suggest a similar approach 11 for the conventional broadcasters? If we are going to 12 move to that model of spending requirements based on 13 the percentage of revenue, should they be evaluated on 14 a case-by-case basis? 15 17752 MS McQUEEN: We are not experts on 16 conventional broadcasting. We will go ahead and give 17 you plenty of advice, but we warn you against taking 18 any of it, as I say, because we are not experts at all. 19 17753 It seems to us that the revenue 20 linked to expenditures formula works in the sense that 21 it does not make one size fit all. It really adapts 22 itself to the individual circumstance. 23 17754 COMMISSIONER WILSON: To clarify, the 24 recommendation you are making is that you are 25 suggesting that that apply right across the board to StenoTran 3786 1 conventional broadcasters? 2 17755 MS McQUEEN: We are suggesting that 3 is a model that should be given serious consideration. 4 You would have to consider whether it should be adapted 5 to conventional broadcasters for their particular 6 circumstances, and this is where we are slightly 7 hesitant in saying you should just take it and plonk it 8 over the conventional broadcasting current structure. 9 But we do think it has a very strong potential as a 10 formula. Again, we are not sure whether it's perfectly 11 adaptable to conventional broadcasters, but one thing 12 it does - and I should have said this in response to 13 your previous questions, so I'm glad to have the chance 14 to backtrack -- I think one of the reasons that we have 15 had success with audiences is because we have invested 16 in programming in a dramatic way, and we noted that in 17 our submission. The level of our contribution, the 18 level of our investment, our licence fees, often will 19 equal the licence fees of conventional broadcasters. 20 17756 I would not want to say that good 21 television is always expensive television, but I would 22 say that there is a rough correlation between the 23 resources you put into a program and the results you 24 get. So I think we have shown that spending is part of 25 what makes good Canadian programming, and the advantage StenoTran 3787 1 of the revenue linked to expenditure formula is that it 2 does give resources on a continually, we hope, 3 increasing basis to Canadian programming, so that's a 4 good thing. 5 17757 But to return to what you really 6 asked me, whether this is a model that absolutely suits 7 every single conventional broadcaster, we think it's 8 probably a good model, but we are not 100 per cent 9 sure. What we are sure is that broadcasters, like 10 people, should play to their strengths and I think the 11 strength of what we do is specializing and the strength 12 of what the conventional broadcasters do is general 13 audiences. So we are not saying really that 14 conventional television should become more specialized. 15 What we are saying is that the revenue linked to 16 expenditure formula will probably work for conventional 17 broadcasters. 18 17758 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's actually 19 an interesting point that you just raised about 20 conventional broadcasters not becoming more 21 specialized, because it has been suggested by some of 22 the broadcasters that they have more flexibility in 23 terms of choosing the genres that they will put their 24 money into in focusing their channels a little bit 25 more. StenoTran 3788 1 17759 What is your view of that proposal? 2 17760 MR. FRASER: We have shown across the 3 board with specialty channels, Madam Commissioner, that 4 when you go for a particular niche, a specialized 5 audience, you can do a better job of delivering 6 programs to meet those audiences. If you want to talk 7 to fly tiers, for example, fly fishers, there is a very 8 small number of people and your success is measured by 9 how many of those you get. 10 17761 In conventional broadcasting, the 11 numbers game is what drives you. You want the largest 12 number of people and that leads to a more generalized 13 and perhaps different approach to programming. 14 17762 So we think that a revenue driven 15 model, if the objective is to get more money into the 16 system and more programs into the system, that's a 17 useful tool. 18 17763 MS McQUEEN: If we can add to that, 19 the fact is that the big broadcasters have revenues of 20 $200 million, $250 million. Our revenue level is about 21 $25 million to $30 million. We will never be able to 22 do the great national events; the basic coverage of an 23 election, the major documentary series, the huge drama 24 series. To us, this kind of great general interest 25 programming is the job of conventional broadcasters, so StenoTran 3789 1 I guess that's another point when we say that they have 2 to be the general interest broadcaster. 3 17764 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I would like to 4 talk briefly about your comments with respect to 5 cooperation between specialty services and conventional 6 broadcasters and I'm referring to the section on page 7 32. You suggest there that if each participant in 8 pre-buy financing could count its contribution as an 9 expenditure on original Canadian programming, 10 regardless of the window acquired, cooperation between 11 conventional and pay and specialty services would be 12 enhanced and the number and quality of Canadian 13 programs being produced would increase. 14 17765 I'm just wondering if you could 15 elaborate on this proposal. For example, I'm just 16 wondering if you are suggesting that the Commission 17 adopt a cash basis type accounting approach in favour 18 of the amortization or accrual approach presently in 19 place so that pre-buys could be counted in the year in 20 which they are made rather than in the year in which 21 the program goes to air. 22 0935 23 17766 M. ROY: Je pense qu'une des façons 24 d'aider le financement de programmation canadienne de 25 qualité, c'est justement cette coopération entre les StenoTran 3790 1 différents diffuseurs conventionnels et spécialisés, 2 entre autres en respectant les fenêtres de diffusion. 3 Je pense qu'une des choses qui est bien établie, c'est 4 un système de fenêtres entre les services spécialisés, 5 les télévisions payantes, les télévisions 6 conventionnelles. Ce système existe déjà entre autres 7 au cinéma et il pourrait être reproduit pour d'autres 8 catégories de programmation, que ce soit pour enfants 9 ou que ce soit pour documentaires. 10 17767 Cette expérience a déjà été menée au 11 Québec et a donné de très bons résultats et, pour ce 12 faire, nous demandons entre autres une modification à 13 la définition de "production originale" pour aider ce 14 financement, que ce soit à travers la langue française 15 ou langue anglaise ou à travers différents intervenants 16 qui agissent dans différentes fenêtres. 17 17768 Alors cette coopération-là aiderait à 18 un meilleur financement de programmation canadienne de 19 qualité, à une augmentation du nombre de programmations 20 canadiennes et donc est très souhaitable. 21 17769 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's great. 22 Thanks. 23 17770 The next area that I just want to 24 touch on is the notion of a distinct rates market for 25 Canada; I actually have discussed this with a couple of StenoTran 3791 1 your other members. The issue that you raise with 2 respect to the distinct rights market for Canada is the 3 purchase of North American rights by U.S. satellite 4 services or other foreign services. 5 17771 How widespread is this practice? I 6 guess what I am trying to get at is whether or not this 7 is enough of an issue to warrant regulatory 8 intervention right now or if you are just raising a 9 flag about it. 10 17772 What kind of an effect is this having 11 on your services? 12 17773 MS de WILDE: It is a good question 13 that never seems to go away, and the reason that we 14 have raised it in our brief this morning is really to 15 lay it out as one of the preconditions to the 16 successful Canadian system. I think that many of us 17 can point to individual programs where it may have been 18 an issue, but the point of putting it in front of the 19 Commission is really to underscore the importance of 20 maintaining Canada as a distinct rights market. 21 17774 The licensing that the Commission 22 engages in, the lists of authorized services that don't 23 authorize competitive services from the United States 24 to come into Canada are two of the key tools that 25 ensure that it is difficult and it is not economically StenoTran 3792 1 viable to buy North American rights. So we are 2 encouraging you to hold the line on those kind of 3 policies. 4 17775 COMMISSIONER WILSON: If it were to 5 become more of an issue, there have been a range of 6 suggestions about how to deal with it, from just doing 7 nothing and let the market decide to actually removing 8 services from the list. What are your thoughts on 9 that? 10 17776 MS de WILDE: We never like doing 11 nothing. Removing services from the list is obviously 12 at the far end of the continuum of easily implementable 13 regulator action, and I think where we would hope that 14 where we could solve the problem was before it actually 15 came to that point. So that's why we do insist on the 16 importance of licensing Canadians services first and 17 being really scrupulous about the services that are 18 added to the lists. 19 17777 COMMISSIONER WILSON: With respect to 20 simultaneous substitution -- this is an issue that you 21 raise in your submission -- we did include a provision 22 in the new Broadcasting Distribution Regulations that 23 would allow Canadian specialty services to request that 24 BDUs undertake simultaneous substitution, but it is not 25 something that was made mandatory for the following StenoTran 3793 1 reasons: The Commission recognized that the providers 2 of sports services would benefit from simultaneous 3 substitution in respect of a certain number of live 4 sports events for which they have obtained Canadian 5 rights, but it was unclear whether the providers of 6 other specialty services would similarly benefit, and 7 any regulation introduced by the Commission would 8 require BDUs covered by the regulation to install 9 switching equipment capable of handling the requests 10 from all specialty services, even though such requests 11 could be quite rare in the case of some of the 12 services. 13 17778 I am just wondering what you feel has 14 changed that makes it more urgent that the Commission 15 revisit this issue. 16 17779 MR. JANNETEAU: If I may, first of 17 all, in the area of sports there have been specific 18 requests made of cable distributors to do substitution 19 and, because it is not mandatory, it wasn't done. 20 Perhaps we can talk more specifically about that a 21 little bit later when we come back here. 22 17780 I would also like to point out that, 23 as more and more specialty services come on line, there 24 are more and more opportunities for some simultaneous 25 substitution available to other specialty services, and StenoTran 3794 1 they too would benefit from the substitution provision 2 if the cable operators would go ahead and proceed. 3 17781 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am just 4 wondering if you have done some kind of an analysis of 5 your services and how many opportunities there actually 6 would be for simultaneous substitution in terms of 7 making a request that all distributors do it on a 8 mandatory basis. 9 17782 MR. JANNETEAU: I am afraid I don't 10 have the specifics on this, but that's something that 11 we could supply to you later, if you wish, or if Jane 12 can help here -- 13 17783 MS LOGAN: I think we have seen a 14 number of services making requests for simultaneous 15 substitution, including Showcase, History and Life, in 16 addition to The Sports Network, which is the more 17 obvious example. What we are discovering is that small 18 cable operators, in fact, and DTH operators have gladly 19 agreed to some of these requests while larger 20 distributors have simply said, "No, it is not our 21 policy; we don't have to." 22 17784 So we find that the current policy of 23 leaving it to the discretion of the distributor is one 24 that's not working, and if small cable operators can 25 perform simultaneous substitution, we feel large ones StenoTran 3795 1 should. 2 17785 Really, what is at stake here are 3 program rights, and our program rights, these are 4 rights that services have paid for. 5 17786 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am just 6 trying to ascertain the extent to which those rights 7 are in jeopardy in terms of your request that that be 8 made mandatory, that full simultaneous substitution and 9 sometimes non-simultaneous substitution be effected for 10 specialty services. I think it is important for us to 11 understand the extent to which those rights are in 12 jeopardy. 13 17787 MS LOGAN: I think, from our 14 perspective, we are looking at the revenue side, and 15 the revenues for simultaneous substitution are of 16 interest; and, as we said at the outset, as we gain 17 more revenue we reinvest in Canadian programming, so 18 this would be good -- 19 17788 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You are talking 20 about the revenues from advertising opportunities? 21 17789 MS LOGAN: Yes, the increased 22 advertising revenue. 23 17790 COMMISSIONER WILSON: What have you 24 calculated those to be? 25 17791 MS LOGAN: We have not put a number StenoTran 3796 1 on it. We know as a percentage, though, it would be 2 substantively below what the opportunity as a 3 percentage is for conventional broadcasting. We are 4 talking about niche audiences and we have a limited 5 ability to perform simultaneous substitution across all 6 time zones, for example, because of the national nature 7 of most of the feeds. 8 17792 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I guess I would 9 be interested to see a bit more information on, first 10 of all, the whole rights issue and how much opportunity 11 there is for simultaneous substitution and what kinds 12 of revenues you might gain through the advertising. 13 17793 M. CHAREST: We would be pleased to 14 file additional information. 15 17794 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. 16 17795 What I would like to do now is just 17 ask you some questions of clarification flowing from 18 your submission. I am going to go through it sort of 19 page by page, but, don't worry, not every page. 20 17796 The first area I want to talk about 21 is the pick-and-pay marketing. This is one of those 22 topics on which we probably won't go into a lot of 23 detail, but you make a statement in your submission, 24 and you made it again this morning, and the two 25 examples that you give in your submission are Family StenoTran 3797 1 Channel and TSN. The TSN example goes back quite a 2 long ways, and the Family Channel, there is sort of a 3 historical decision related -- I think with the Family 4 Channel it was -- well, I don't know if it was licensed 5 that way, but those are just two examples of pick-and- 6 pay that have been implemented in Canada. 7 17797 Are you aware of any other 8 jurisdictions where pick-and-pay is being utilized to 9 any extent? 10 17798 MS LOGAN: Indeed, we are aware that 11 there are digital distributors that have fully 12 addressable systems that in fact -- 13 17799 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Are capable of 14 it. 15 17800 MS LOGAN: And that are offering 16 large packages and they are highly successful with 17 large packages at low prices and have not taken that 18 option because it is not attractive to them and it is 19 not attractive to consumers. 20 17801 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I guess I am 21 just wondering why you are raising this. Have you 22 actually had conversations -- you said that some cable 23 executives had suggested that this was one of the ways 24 that they might encourage the roll-out of digital 25 service, but if you look at the fully addressable StenoTran 3798 1 distributors, DTH and Look TV, they are continuing to 2 use packaging as their main marketing technique. 3 17802 I am just wondering where is your 4 fear really coming from and what you want us to do 5 about it. 6 17803 M. ROY: Je pense que c'est un des 7 grands mythes que l'on retrouve chez le consommateur, 8 c'est de croire que la technique à la carte est une 9 technique de mise en marché qui réussirait et qui 10 serait appréciée des consommateurs. Toutes les 11 expériences qui ont été menées aux États-Unis en ce 12 sens-là ont toutes été presque désastreuses. Le 13 consommateur, naturellement, préfère s'abonner à un 14 package de services beaucoup plus qu'un choix à la 15 carte, qui devient plus confus qu'autre chose. 16 L'impact que ça aurait sur les prix aux consommateurs 17 serait vraiment un impact très important. 18 17804 Si vous avez accès à 100 pour cent du 19 marché et vous chargez, disons, 1 $, et par la suite, 20 par une technique à la carte, vous n'avez accès qu'à 10 21 pour cent du marché, il y a de fortes chances, si vous 22 voulez maintenir la même qualité de services, que vous 23 deviez charger 10 fois plus, donc 10 $ au consommateur. 24 Donc le consommateur est perdant sur toute la ligne 25 dans cette stratégie. StenoTran 3799 1 17805 Alors c'est quelque chose que l'on 2 entend régulièrement du côté des gros opérateurs et 3 donc on est un peu inquiets parce qu'on sait que les 4 résultats seraient vraiment très négatifs pour la 5 programmation canadienne. 6 17806 Dans un marché comme le Québec, qui 7 est encore plus étroit, qui est encore plus petit, ce 8 serait la disparition pure et simple des services 9 canadiens de langue française. Souvent les seuls 10 services qui auraient les moyens de se payer une 11 stratégie pareille seraient les services américains, 12 qui ont déjà un amortissement sur leur marché et qui 13 viennent chercher des revenus additionnels ici, au 14 Canada, sans obligation aucune. 15 0945 16 17807 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I guess it just 17 struck me that -- you say that in any case where this 18 has actually been tried it has been a disaster from the 19 consumer point of view; but you would have to expect it 20 would be a disaster from a distributor's point of view 21 because people aren't going to take the services if 22 they are just taking them one by one. 23 17808 M. ROY: Je dirais que c'est un peu 24 l'ironie de la situation. C'est quelque chose qui ne 25 fonctionne pas et pour le consommateur et, par le fait StenoTran 3800 1 même, pour le câblodistributeur. 2 17809 Le coût technique pour offrir une 3 telle technique de mise en marché est prohibitif et 4 donc devrait même, du point de vue des 5 câblodistributeurs, les décourager de faire une telle 6 mise en marché. 7 17810 COMMISSIONER WILSON: We raise the 8 issue at this time because, as people discuss how will 9 digital television work, there has been on the part of 10 the cable industry a growing interest in designing a 11 digital environment that will be pick and pay; and we 12 see that, yes, they might be able to get American 13 services in at that price, but eventually as the 14 digital world rolls out it will mean that Canadian 15 choices will not be competitive. 16 17811 I guess we will talk about this 17 further next spring. 18 17812 On page 14 of your submission, in the 19 second paragraph, you make some comments with respect 20 to public funding for Canadian programming. You 21 suggest that the Commission request that the government 22 explore further tax credits and other mechanisms which 23 could alleviate the difficulties of financing top 24 quality Canadian programming. 25 17813 I am wondering if you could just StenoTran 3801 1 expand a little bit for me on what you mean by "further 2 tax credits"? Are you looking for more of the same 3 kinds of tax credits as are currently available, or 4 some new kind; and what "other mechanisms" were you 5 thinking of, that is the phrase that I think you use? 6 17814 MS LOGAN: We were looking at some of 7 the incentives with respect to the CRTC, some 8 incentives with respect to certain categories of 9 programming. 10 17815 We see, as well, that documentaries, 11 for example, are one area that could be encouraged. 12 They are very difficult to finance and we had looked at 13 documentaries specifically. 14 17816 Trina, do you want to add on? 15 17817 MS McQUEEN: I don't think we 16 proposed any specific tax mechanisms. But we noted 17 that a number of other of the submissions to you 18 contained some information on that. Our request there 19 was that you do examine those other proposals that have 20 been raised rather than us suggesting specific ones. 21 17818 I don't know whether you wanted to 22 talk about documentaries or whether it was just really 23 the question about -- exploring... 24 17819 COMMISSIONER WILSON: It was just 25 what you sort of had in mind in terms of requesting StenoTran 3802 1 that the government explore further tax credits. I was 2 just wondering if you had something specific in mind. 3 17820 MS McQUEEN: Again, not particular to 4 us, but we had noted there are a number of suggestions 5 in other briefs to you that could be explored. 6 17821 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. This is 7 also on the issue of public funds. Further along in 8 the same paragraph on page 14, you state that the: 9 "...inequities in the 10 distribution of funds between 11 projects destined for public and 12 private broadcasters as well as 13 between projects for specialty 14 and conventional broadcasters 15 need to be addressed." 16 17822 But I noticed at pages 33 and 34 you 17 make a point of the fact that the demands made on the 18 public funds by specialty services are in fact quite 19 modest. This was a point that you raised in response 20 to what you said were concerns that had been expressed 21 that both public and private conventional broadcasters 22 are being penalized by your access to the fund. 23 17823 I am just wondering what exactly you 24 are saying that your demands on the funds are so modest 25 that there is actually room for more demand, especially StenoTran 3803 1 in view of the contributions to Canadian programming 2 and viewership to Canadian programming that your 3 services make or -- because when you say the inequities 4 need to be addressed, on the one hand you are saying 5 that your demands are very modest and people shouldn't 6 be concerned, but then you are saying there are 7 inequities and they should be addressed. So what is 8 it? 9 17824 MS McQUEEN: At the time we wrote the 10 brief we were concerned about how the future 11 distribution might go because of what had happened last 12 April. However, we have been in touch -- have been, 13 well, why should I -- I am on the board of the fund is 14 what I mean -- and having that access, I think we 15 believe that the board is taking steps now that will 16 make sure that there is equitable and fair access to 17 the fund by all parties. We are satisfied at this 18 point that some of the concerns we had last April may 19 be alleviated. 20 17825 Now, the decisions aren't 100 per 21 cent made, and of course I think as specialty 22 television grows, we will always push for more access 23 to the fund, and justifiably so. But at the moment we 24 think things are going pretty well. 25 17826 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. That is StenoTran 3804 1 great. 2 17827 Again, on page 14 of your submission 3 when you are discussing direct access by broadcasters 4 to the funds, you concluded that there are difficulties 5 which leave you to reject this proposal. But you do 6 say: 7 "The quality and editorial 8 control that would result in 9 projects controlled by 10 broadcasters is appealing." 11 17828 I am just wondering what you mean by 12 that. 13 17829 MR. FRASER: I am a bit lost. Can 14 you just put your question again? 15 17830 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, on page 16 14, about halfway down the page, where you talk about 17 broadcaster access to production funds. That is a 18 notion that you reject. You say that you have rejected 19 it, but you do say in the second sentence: 20 "The quality and editorial 21 control that would result in 22 projects controlled by 23 broadcasters is appealing." 24 17831 I am just curious about what you mean 25 by that. Why would their editorial control be StenoTran 3805 1 appealing? Maybe I am being too picky but... 2 17832 MR. FRASER: I think, first of all, 3 we have to state that the root problem is that there is 4 not enough money in the various funds and there is a 5 danger of most of the money being soaked up by certain 6 kinds of programming. 7 17833 We who are niche broadcasters feel 8 that we don't have enough room for the kinds of 9 programs that we do to get access to enough funding. 10 17834 The question of editorial control, in 11 our situation where most of our production comes from 12 independent producers, is quite different from 13 broadcasters who are in a position to exercise more 14 control. 15 17835 MS LOGAN: But, of course, we mean 16 the editorial control exercised by specialty television 17 as broadcasters. 18 17836 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. 19 17837 MS LOGAN: We consider ourselves to 20 be broadcasters in this modern world. 21 17838 MS McQUEEN: I could add an anecdote 22 if that would help clarify some of this. 23 17839 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am not sure 24 that it is much clearer to me than it was. 25 17840 MS McQUEEN: I guess it is just that StenoTran 3806 1 if you are the actual producer and owner of a work, you 2 really do have an ability to sort of wade in, roll up 3 your sleeves and say, "Put that shot there," or "Go 4 back and rewrite that," as opposed to dealing with an 5 independent producer who is the creative force behind 6 the program and you are really buying into his or her 7 vision of the program. Most of the time, that is 8 wonderful. But, some times, there is a desire on the 9 part of a broadcaster who wants very strongly to 10 deliver a certain kind of program and a certain kind of 11 message to be able to do that in a more -- in a 12 stronger way. 13 17841 That's the basis of that remark, that 14 editorial control by a broadcaster can be extremely 15 useful in certain situations where you actually have a 16 vision of what you want to say to your audience and you 17 want to be able to exercise that vision. 18 17842 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. I wasn't 19 entirely clear that when you were talking about 20 broadcasters you were talking about yourselves, because 21 typically you are talking about yourselves as specialty 22 and premium services. So I thought you were talking 23 about the conventional broadcasters and, of course, 24 that is one of the issues that we are talking about, is 25 whether or not conventional broadcasters should have StenoTran 3807 1 direct access to the equity investment program, for 2 example. 3 17843 Thank you for the clarification. 4 17844 On page 18, and again this morning in 5 your oral submission, you raise, as have other parties, 6 the notion of extracting some kind of contribution from 7 the U.S. services. You also recommend that the 8 Commission authorize the use of all advertising spots 9 for the promotion of Canadian programming and services. 10 17845 I am just wondering if, as an 11 association, have you actually talked to the U.S. 12 services about -- I want to talk a little bit more 13 about the contribution side, but just about the spots, 14 the ad spots, have you actually sat down and talked to 15 them about the idea of them giving up more spots? You 16 are saying that the Commission should instruct, should 17 authorize the use of all of those spots for the 18 promotion of Canadian programming and services. And in 19 your remarks this morning you said that they had 20 willingly given up those two minutes that are currently 21 being used, the local avails. 22 17846 Have you talked with the U.S. 23 services? Have you gotten together with them as a 24 group and sort of said, "What about giving us a couple 25 more minutes an hour?" StenoTran 3808 1 17847 MS LOGAN: No, we haven't. There 2 have been some preliminary chats. We feel this is such 3 a reasonable request we are quite optimistic. 4 17848 Basically, the American services 5 can't have it both ways. They can't -- they say they 6 do not sell advertising in the Canadian markets so, 7 therefore, they cannot claim financial harm if these 8 spots are used for Canadian promotion. 9 17849 We think, given the benefits they get 10 from the Canadian market, $80 million last year in 11 subscriber revenue, it is a very, very reasonable 12 trade-off. 13 17850 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I just wondered 14 if any proposals had been discussed. I guess I am 15 curious about why you might want the Commission to 16 instruct that this happen if you haven't talked to them 17 yourselves already. 18 17851 Do you think that that is the most 19 appropriate way to handle it? 20 17852 MS LOGAN: Well, certainly, coming to 21 this hearing and looking at -- asking the question: 22 What could be done to increase the promotion of 23 Canadian television and how can we get greater 24 audiences? This is an idea that we thought we would 25 bring forward to this venue. StenoTran 3809 1 17853 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. You also 2 urge the Commission to examine other ways to insist on 3 significant contributions for foreign services. You 4 use that terminology specifically, this is again on 5 page 18, in terms of getting some kind of contribution 6 from the U.S. services for programming. 7 17854 You say that there are two problems 8 with doing this. One is the possibility that the 9 contribution will be passed on to Canadian subscribers, 10 and the other is potential trade issues. I am just 11 wondering when you urge the Commission to examine other 12 ways if you had any ideas about what other ways we 13 might do this. 14 17855 MS LOGAN: Well, we are hoping, 15 perhaps, your lawyers have sharper pencils or a new way 16 of looking at trade law and legislation. Ideally, a 17 contribution as a percentage of revenue, if we can 18 avoid the trade issues, and if we can ensure that 19 Canadians consumers don't ultimately foot the bill, 20 that would be equitable. 21 17856 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. 22 17857 MR. JANNETEAU: If I might just add, 23 surely, the issue here is that the U.S. services are 24 taking out of the system $80 million a year, our 25 estimate from Statistics Canada numbers, and are really StenoTran 3810 1 basically not contributing a lot. We recognize that 2 they have helped in the past, some of the services have 3 helped the distribution of the tiers, or the 4 penetration of the tiers. What we are suggesting is 5 that, perhaps, there could be other ways that the U.S. 6 services could be contributing to the system as we have 7 had to contribute to the system. 8 17858 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. Thank 9 you. 10 17859 Once again I just want to ask a 11 question, and we don't need to go into a lot of detail 12 in the response. On page 29 of your submission, in 13 your discussion about revenue levels you suggest that 14 the Commission "gain a window" into wholesale 15 subscriber fees. 16 17860 I know I am sort of calling you to 17 task on your phraseology here, but I am just trying to 18 get a better understanding of what you mean by some of 19 these phrases. So what do you mean by "gain a window"? 20 17861 MS LOGAN: We mean monitoring. We 21 are not asking you to step in and set rates today. 22 17862 But the economic model under which 23 our sector works is changing and there is increasing 24 downward pressure on wholesale rates. That means that 25 the services that come up for contract renewal are StenoTran 3811 1 often being asked to take less, or substantially less 2 in terms of a wholesale fee than they had before, and 3 it means that the services that this Commission 4 approves in licence hearings on the basis of very 5 specific business plans, when they go to negotiate 6 their conditions of launch are being asked to take less 7 than the levels of subscriber fees projected in the 8 business plans. 9 17863 It is a very difficult system because 10 of the inequities in bargaining power. The 11 distributors have tremendous power. They have the 12 power of life and death over the services. All 13 negotiations are in secret. What transpires is never 14 known. The outcomes are never known. Yet those 15 outcomes have the ability to undo all of your plans 16 when you pick service A over service B in a licence 17 hearing on the basis that you expect certain 18 contributions. 19 17864 We believe transparency is important. 20 We believe it would be a very useful tool for you in 21 your regulatory tool kit to know what actual rates are 22 being set for us and for the foreign services in a 23 comparative fashion. 24 17865 If you perceive problems and problems 25 developing, you will then have the ability to act StenoTran 3812 1 accordingly. So we are asking you to monitor and act 2 accordingly. 3 17866 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. I just 4 have two more questions for you. 5 17867 In your Appendix "B", you talk about 6 the restriction imposed on specialty services with 7 respect to showing infomercials, and you say that in 8 line with your call for equal treatment among 9 broadcasters you believe the authority to broadcast 10 infomercials should be extended to specialty services 11 under the same rules as conventional broadcasters. 12 17868 Do you think there is a demand on the 13 part of your viewers for infomercials, or is this 14 purely a commercial proposition? 15 17869 MS LOGAN: It's -- 16 17870 COMMISSIONER WILSON: What is the big 17 thing about infomercials these days? 18 17871 MS LOGAN: Well, I think the big 19 thing about infomercials from the perspective of 20 specialty television is that as we look at how our 21 counterparts in the United States are successful, they 22 gain large revenue from infomercials. 23 17872 Infomercials can be well done if they 24 are targeted to niche audiences; and the more 25 advertising revenue we gain, the less pressure, of StenoTran 3813 1 course, there is on subscriber rates. 2 17873 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. What is 3 your view of the CAB suggestion that infomercials 4 should be counted as Canadian content? Would you be 5 proposing the same? 6 17874 MS LOGAN: I think, yes, it is an 7 interesting concept that certainly could work. 8 17875 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. Finally, 9 in Appendix "B" you talk about the export of Canadian 10 programming and you state that this must remain a 11 secondary goal of our broadcasting system, but there 12 are other parties to this proceeding who have suggested 13 exactly the opposite as a way of trying to wean the 14 system off public funds, and that is the more 15 successful they are at producing programming for 16 foreign markets and selling those, then the more 17 freedom we will have to produce distinctively Canadian 18 programming. 19 17876 I am just wondering if you could 20 explain to me why you feel that export of Canadian 21 programming should be secondary. 22 1005 23 17877 I guess the other argument is that 24 the industrial programming meets industrial objectives 25 in terms of creating Canadian jobs. StenoTran 3814 1 17878 MS LOGAN: Gerry, do you want to 2 start with that? 3 17879 MR. JANNETEAU: I guess the first 4 point is that if the export of Canadian programs, as 5 you defined it, meets industrial objectives, it perhaps 6 doesn't always meet cultural objectives. I think that 7 many Canadian programs or Canadian-produced programs 8 that have been made primarily for export have not 9 necessarily been stories about ourselves which we want 10 to see on Canadian television. 11 17880 The other thing that we want to say 12 here and introduce is that although we still believe it 13 is a secondary goal, there are ways with specialty 14 television where we can contribute in a different way 15 to this by encouraging partnerships. There are many 16 good stories about this and some of these are described 17 in here under question 75. What those partnerships 18 enable is the kinds of agreements that have been made 19 between, say, a Canal D and A&E or Discovery Canada and 20 Discovery U.S., where co-productions are made in Canada 21 for Canadians, but also are used elsewhere by the 22 partner of that specialty service. 23 17881 We operate, in the case of RDS, in a 24 business where exports are virtually non-existent 25 because of the rights market, the sports rights market, StenoTran 3815 1 and the way it is organized, basically, we really don't 2 have much access to exports. So, in our business, in 3 any case, and in many of our specialty businesses, if 4 we made exports our number one target, I don't think we 5 would be serving our Canadian audiences very well. 6 17882 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Those are my 7 questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. 8 17883 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner 9 Pennefather? 10 17884 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci, 11 Madame la Présidente. 12 17885 I have two questions. One is on 13 closed captioning. I don't think I saw a reference to 14 closed captioning in your submission and I was 15 wondering what the status is of closed captioning 16 programming and pay and specialty. We have had 17 considerable representation to the effect that the 18 hearing impaired are frustrated by the lack of access 19 to programming on specialty services. Could you 20 clarify your position on closed captioning? 21 17886 MS LOGAN: I think I will ask Pierre 22 Roy to handle that question. 23 17887 M. ROY: Je pense que l'approche que 24 l'on aimerait favoriser du côté des services 25 spécialisés, c'est plus une approche au niveau des StenoTran 3816 1 heures qui seront réellement sous-titrées que seulement 2 de l'argent qui est dépensé. Alors nous avons mis en 3 place, par exemple au Réseau Premier Choix, un système 4 de sous-titrage à l'interne qui nous permet, pour un 5 même montant, de faire beaucoup plus d'heures que nous 6 ne faisions auparavant et, entre autres, de partager 7 les droits des films qui ont été sous-titrés avec 8 d'autres diffuseurs conventionnels. 9 17888 Donc notre approche est plus d'aller 10 dans le sens du nombre d'heures total qui est 11 accessible aux malentendants que strictement une 12 approche de dollars dépensés. 13 17889 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: À ce 14 moment-ci, combien d'heures sont disponibles en 15 général? 16 17890 M. ROY: Oh, ça dépend beaucoup de... 17 17891 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: La moitié? 18 Le quart? 19 17892 M. ROY: Ça dépend beaucoup des 20 licences, ça dépend beaucoup... je ne pourrais pas vous 21 dire de mémoire, mais ce sont des chiffres qu'on 22 pourrait vous fournir par la suite. 23 17893 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Mais est-ce 24 que c'est une politique de l'Association d'en avoir de 25 plus en plus, d'heures disponibles? StenoTran 3817 1 17894 M. ROY: Oui, tout à fait. Tout à 2 fait. 3 17895 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Vous avez 4 mentionné "descriptive video services", qu'en termes 5 technologiques c'est trop dispendieux, mais est-ce que 6 vous pouvez nous dire jusqu'à quel point c'est trop 7 dispendieux? Parce qu'il y a cette demande ici, devant 8 nous. 9 17896 M. ROY: Je dois dire que les 10 premières études au niveau technique, technologique, 11 qui ont été faites ou auxquelles on a eu accès 12 démontrent un coût vraiment tout à fait exorbitant en 13 fonction des moyens des services spécialisés. C'est 14 vrai aussi pour les conventionnels; c'est d'autant plus 15 vrai pour les services spécialisés étant donné nos 16 moyens réduits. 17 17897 Il y a des problèmes technologiques. 18 Aussi, aucun document n'est disponible actuellement sur 19 le marché, donc on ne peut pas en acheter déjà faits. 20 Il y a toutes les questions d'accès à des transpondeurs 21 qui permettraient un troisième canal pour transporter 22 ce descriptive video qui n'est pas disponible 23 actuellement pour nous. 24 17898 Donc il y a une multitude de facteurs 25 qui entrent en ligne de compte actuellement qui ne sont StenoTran 3818 1 pas seulement d'ordre technologique mais qui sont au 2 niveau des coûts, au niveau de la possibilité technique 3 de le faire, au niveau de l'accès à des produits qui 4 sont déjà accessibles avec un descriptive video. 5 17899 Donc on suit la situation, mais je 6 pense que... on parle souvent des deux rôles de la CBC, 7 et ce serait peut-être plus le rôle d'un diffuseur 8 public avec des fonds publics de faire un développement 9 dans ce sens-là. 10 17900 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci. Il 11 y a peut-être un suivi à faire à ce niveau parce qu'on 12 avait eu des représentations des groupes ici qui ont 13 décrit une situation beaucoup moins dispendieuse, comme 14 peut-être d'autres groupes nous avaient mentionné. 15 Alors je pense que leur présentation est disponible, et 16 on peut peut-être aller un peu plus loin dans ce 17 dossier. 18 17901 J'ai une dernière question. 19 17902 Vous mentionné ce matin... et c'est 20 sur la page 7 de la présentation. Vous nous suggérez 21 d'élaborer une politique et des mesures incitatives 22 réglementaires visant à favoriser la distribution des 23 services de la télévision spécialisée et payante de 24 langue française à l'extérieur du Québec. 25 17903 Auriez-vous quelques précisions ou StenoTran 3819 1 pourriez-vous élaborer sur cette idée en termes du 2 comment et du pourquoi? 3 17904 M. DESJARDINS: La question des 4 services francophones hors Québec, je pense qu'on est 5 tous d'accord à dire que c'est une situation qui n'est 6 pas très reluisante. Je pense bien que le Conseil est 7 au courant de cette situation. C'est une question, 8 d'ailleurs, qui a été débattue le printemps dernier au 9 Comité mixte du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes sur 10 les langues officielles. D'ailleurs, la présidente du 11 Conseil a indiqué au congrès de l'ACTC en mai que le 12 Conseil se pencherait éventuellement sur cette 13 question, peut-être dans le cadre de l'audience sur 14 l'accès qui va venir et possiblement dans le cadre de 15 l'audience sur les services spécialisés francophones en 16 décembre. 17 17905 Donc nous, TVSP, on espère que le 18 Conseil va arriver à établir des politiques et des 19 règlements qui vont inciter une plus large distribution 20 des services francophones hors Québec. 21 17906 Je pense que, on l'a dit, c'est 22 important pour les communautés hors Québec d'avoir 23 davantage de services francophones et aussi je pense 24 que ça pourra créer des meilleurs liens entre les deux 25 groupes linguistiques de langue officielle au Canada. StenoTran 3820 1 17907 Alors évidemment je pense que comme 2 mesure, d'abord, présente, on vous demande de continuer 3 à garder le moratorium qui existe sur les services 4 étrangers parce que si ce moratorium est levé ça 5 augmente la pression à l'extérieur du Québec par 6 rapport aux services de langue française qui sont déjà 7 là ou ceux qui pourraient être distribués. 8 17908 Évidemment, on s'est aperçus qu'avec 9 les services de satellite ExpressVu et Star Choice en 10 numérique, ça, ça permet une plus large distribution et 11 un accès plus vaste aux services de langue française. 12 Ce n'est pas nécessairement vrai pour les services MDS 13 comme Look TV parce qu'ils sont en fonction maintenant 14 en Ontario et on s'aperçoit qu'ils ne distribuent aucun 15 service francophone excepté les services francophones 16 qui sont obligatoires pour eux en Ontario selon la 17 décision que le Conseil a faite. 18 17909 Évidemment, avec le câble numérique, 19 on suppose qu'il y aura des possibilités de distribuer 20 davantage de services francophones comme c'est le cas 21 pour le satellite. 22 17910 Maintenant, entre-temps, ce que le 23 Conseil peut faire... il y a différentes mesures que le 24 Conseil peut penser à faire, comme établir une 25 motivation pour les câblodistributeurs, par exemple, à StenoTran 3821 1 distribuer un pourcentage de l'ensemble des services 2 qui sont distribués... qu'il y en ait un pourcentage 3 qui soit francophone. 4 17911 Ce qui arrive aussi, c'est qu'avec 5 l'augmentation des canaux au Canada anglais on 6 s'aperçoit que, relativement parlant, le pourcentage de 7 services francophones qui sont distribués diminue même 8 de façon absolue; sauf quelques exceptions où il y a eu 9 retrait de services francophones au Canada anglais, en 10 général, les services qui sont là ont été maintenus. 11 17912 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci, 12 Monsieur Desjardins. 13 17913 Merci, Madame la Présidente. 14 17914 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Cardozo? 15 17915 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam 16 Chair. 17 17916 I just had a question about one of 18 the long-term issues that faces us and that's the 19 matter of websites. I know to a large extent that will 20 be the matter of our new media hearing, but I am 21 wondering in the context of this hearing what we are 22 looking at, recognizing that on one hand websites is a 23 medium unto itself. To what extent do you see websites 24 as being part of your promotion strategy, for promotion 25 in general, for building brand loyalty, information StenoTran 3822 1 about programs, the Star system, and all that kind of 2 stuff that we have talked about. 3 17917 I have visited some of the websites. 4 Not all of your members, but some of them are quite 5 active. I am wondering how you see those in terms of 6 promotion with regard to the issues we are dealing with 7 here and what plans you have. 8 17918 MS LOGAN: I would like to ask Trina 9 McQueen to take that question. 10 17919 MS McQUEEN: And I hope others on the 11 panel will join me. You may be interested, 12 Commissioner, to know that it was a specialty channel, 13 actually, who had the first website -- was the first 14 network to have a website in Canada, a specialty 15 channel called Discovery, but I think that was -- it 16 seems like ancient history. There are very few 17 networks that do not have websites now and I think for 18 specialty channels it's especially important. 19 17920 Number one, the first question and 20 the most often question asked in television today is: 21 What's on? Because there are so many channels now, it 22 is very difficult for television guides, which are 23 becoming more like telephone books, to really give you 24 accurate and comprehensive program descriptions. So, 25 one of the things that our viewers use the websites for StenoTran 3823 1 is to find out what the program actually is. That's an 2 important part of making their choice. So, in 3 marketing and promotion and purely telling you what 4 time a program is on, websites are invaluable. 5 17921 Secondly, besides giving the schedule 6 information, they are extremely useful in giving people 7 an expanded experience of television. One of the 8 things that we need to do in television is to make sure 9 that our viewers converge. The mediums are converging, 10 we need to make sure that the viewers converge as well. 11 17922 One of the things we have noticed is 12 that people are willing to use television and the 13 Internet at the same time. On our website tsn.ca we 14 have a number of features which, in order to enjoy 15 them, you have to be watching TSN at the same time you 16 are using the website and, to my surprise, perhaps not 17 to everyone's, these are extremely popular. So, we are 18 seeing that the viewers are already converging and 19 using the two mediums at once. So, I think it's 20 important for every television network to make sure 21 that they can deliver that converged experience. 22 17923 I think the third thing also is that 23 we can, as specialty channels which have themes and 24 genres that are in a certain frame, make sure that our 25 website can deliver content that will reinforce those StenoTran 3824 1 genres and those themes so that things that can be 2 done, especially at great length on a television 3 program, can be picked up and recycled or even, as we 4 often do, we add original material that is specifically 5 made for that medium so that people have an experience 6 of the genre and the themes and connect them in their 7 minds. 8 17924 So, I think there are a number of 9 strong values for broadcasters and websites to work 10 together very strongly. One of the things that has 11 been very encouraging is the Bell Canada New Media 12 Fund, which has, I think, been a great success in 13 encouraging that kind of cooperation. 14 17925 MR. FRASER: I might add a couple of 15 things, if I may. I am a member of the Internet 16 Committee of the North American National Broadcasters 17 Association. We were in New York last week trying to 18 answer that very question and let me tell you that some 19 of the best brains in this business don't know the 20 answers to those profound questions about where this is 21 all going to go. 22 17926 Clearly, as Trina suggested, most of 23 us use the net now as a means of promoting our network. 24 It's increasingly becoming a means of interacting with 25 our viewers and there is some interactivity between StenoTran 3825 1 what we put on television and what is on the net. The 2 two go to together sometimes almost like backs and 3 fronts. 4 17927 In fact with the evolution of web TV, 5 which really brings the two mediums together, a lot of 6 people think that that is a large part of the future, 7 where you can enhance the television experience, the 8 viewing experience, by going to a website even on the 9 same screen and getting additional information or take 10 so much of what you are watching or enjoying. But at 11 the same time, there are great serious concerns amongst 12 all of us about where this is going to lead. 13 17928 Some people in New York last week 14 were talking about this becoming a full-fledged 15 broadcast medium in the next four or five years. Some 16 people have shorter time frames, some people have 17 longer time frames. The Committee that I am on is very 18 concerned about the issues that that brings up, such as 19 copyright and a whole constellation of other issues 20 that I am sure you are going to discuss in the 21 forthcoming hearings. 22 17929 I think it would be very difficult 23 for any of us to fully meet the needs, desires, 24 aspirations of our viewers without using the Internet 25 in some way, shape or form. So, it has become, I StenoTran 3826 1 think, for most of us an integral part of what we do. 2 17930 MR. MORRISSETTE: If I can just add a 3 few comments, there is a today issue and a tomorrow 4 answered here in your question and I think the strategy 5 in terms of how to use the Internet varies between 6 entertainment services and information services. Two 7 of the largest categories of use on the Internet today 8 is news and weather and other similar types of 9 information services. 10 17931 When you operate a specialty service 11 in either the news or weather category, traditional 12 television limits your content to 60 minutes per hour 13 minus the commercial time. The benefit of a website is 14 that it's virtual so that the users can develop a 15 website that complements your traditional television 16 programming to better serve their needs, depending on 17 what they are. The main benefit of interactivity is 18 personalized information on demand. 19 17932 So, as websites in the information 20 category develop today, it's complementary, it's also 21 used to interact with the audience, there are 22 promotional aspects involved, but looking ahead towards 23 tomorrow when technology such as set-top box and web TV 24 type of systems will enable the convergence of the PC 25 and the television in the living room, there is no StenoTran 3827 1 question that the two will evolve and mesh down the 2 road or converge down the road. This will have 3 profound impacts on programming strategies, not just 4 for the TV channel, but for the interact site as well. 5 As to entertainment services, I think the issues are 6 somewhat different, but there is a similar analogy. 7 17933 So, in summary, it's real-time 8 constraints for regular television versus virtual 9 capabilities for the interactive world of websites and 10 the major benefit ultimately from interactivity as 11 personalized information on demand. This will create a 12 new value-added benefit to the users and to 13 programmers. 14 17934 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: It's 15 interesting you note that new media provides more than 16 60 minutes to the hour, which is kind of nice, I guess. 17 There are all sorts of things we could do with 18 advertising minutes, if you think about it, in 19 television. 20 17935 Is it fair to say that in terms of 21 the interactive part of your websites where you hear 22 back from people, you are hearing back more than before 23 you had an interactive website, for those of you who 24 existed before then? 25 17936 MS McQUEEN: Yes. StenoTran 3828 1 17937 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: By a lot, by a 2 little? 3 17938 MS McQUEEN: It's hard to tell 4 because Discovery always had a website, so there was no 5 before. But certainly, in my experience at another 6 broadcaster, there was much more feedback and instant 7 feedback, so there was an ability to do something about 8 the feedback we got in a very useful way. 9 17939 MR. JANNETEAU: In our case, 10 certainly five to ten times more than before we had the 11 website. 12 17940 MS LOGAN: We provided a survey of 13 the features of specialty and pay websites in our new 14 media submission and the ability to interact with the 15 viewer and the feedback mechanism was one that all 16 participants had and were using. It was especially 17 high in terms of the use of e-mail for contesting at 18 the same time. 19 1025 20 17941 MR. FRASER: There's an interesting 21 wrinkle I might add. We have been at it for ten years 22 now and we have always had a very steady flow of viewer 23 mail. What we are getting from the web site is not a 24 lowering of that mail from people who like to write 25 letters on paper, but communication from people we StenoTran 3829 1 never heard from before, and that's why a substantial 2 amount. 3 17942 THE CHAIRPERSON: When you talk about 4 the percentage of total revenue spent by specialties 5 and the pay television industry on programming as 30 6 per cent, would it be fair to say that you take all the 7 services that are attached in Appendix A, which is the 8 entire panoply of services, and you average it out? 9 17943 MS LOGAN: Yes, the 37 per cent. 10 17944 THE CHAIRPERSON: I do not want to 11 denigrate the level of the 30 per cent, but I am 12 wondering to what extent that is a fair comparison. 13 You obviously want to make a point when you compare 14 with the 28 per cent by the private conventional 15 broadcasters when, by virtue of being niche 16 programming, as you have insisted, some of them have 17 100 per cent of their programming Canadian. 18 17945 I am not, as I say, focusing on the 19 37 per cent but whether or not much can be taken from 20 the comparison in light of the types of services and 21 the fact that a number of them, such as the news 22 channels and so on, have 100 per cent Canadian content, 23 so obviously their entire expenses for programming will 24 be on Canadian content. I know there are some that are 25 lower, but to me that number is in every representation StenoTran 3830 1 and I am wondering what value it has in your view. 2 17946 MS LOGAN: There is no doubt that 3 having news and weather at 100 per cent, or nearly 100 4 per cent, does pull up the average. On the other hand, 5 we take tremendous pride in the results because, as 6 small services, as we have said, the average revenue of 7 perhaps between 20 million and 30 million is very 8 challenging within our budgets to fill as much of the 9 schedule as we do with high Canadian content. 10 17947 THE CHAIRPERSON: I repeat; I 11 acknowledge the value of the 30 per cent. My question 12 is more whether the comparison is helpful in light of 13 the differences between the two. 14 17948 MR. JANNETEAU: Madame Wylie, si vous 15 me permettez, I think it might be worth pointing out 16 that, while there are services that are entirely 17 Canadian, there are also some services that do not have 18 very high Canadian content requirements, such as TV5, 19 which has been around a long time, and some of the 20 newer licensees. 21 17949 So I think that it is still a valid 22 point to include all of the services that are being 23 represented in this particular case. 24 17950 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think you would 25 need more complicated mathematics than simple averaging StenoTran 3831 1 to arrive at something meaningful. I did acknowledge 2 there are some that are very low, as low as 15 per 3 cent. 4 17951 Anyway, it's put there all the time. 5 17952 M. DESJARDINS: Je pense que c'est 6 important aussi de considérer que sur les télévisions 7 conventionnelles il y a des nouvelles, il y a du sport 8 et il y a de la météo qui font partie aussi de la 9 programmation canadienne des moyennes qui sont 10 utilisées pour les télédiffuseurs conventionnels. 11 17953 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, 12 Monsieur Roy, télévision à la carte. Nous avons 13 entendu l'Association des câblodistributeurs pas samedi 14 dernier mais le samedi précédent, et je ne crois pas 15 faire erreur en disant qu'eux aussi reconnaissent que 16 la télévision à la carte, ce n'est pas une formule qui 17 serait un grand succès. Il faudrait revoir le procès- 18 verbal, je ne voudrais pas leur mettre des mots dans la 19 bouche, mais il me semble que votre inquiétude relève 20 de quoi? Parce qu'il semble qu'en public on ait 21 reconnu qu'il y aurait plus de choix par l'abonné mais 22 que le choix se ferait quand même en étage. 23 17954 D'où viennent vos grandes inquiétudes 24 qu'on s'achemine vers la télévision à la carte? 25 17955 M. ROY: Vous faites référence aux StenoTran 3832 1 services à la carte, pas au pay-per-view; vous faites 2 référence aux services à la carte. 3 17956 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, aux services à 4 la carte. 5 17957 M. ROY: O.k. 6 17958 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Pardon, j'ai sans 7 doute fait erreur. 8 17959 À la convention aussi des 9 câblodistributeurs, je ne sais pas si vous y étiez, 10 mais il y avait une session en particulier qui... je 11 pense que c'était votre homologue des États-Unis, une 12 dame qui était déjà à Discovery ou qui l'est 13 maintenant, qui disait qu'aux États-Unis non plus ça ne 14 fonctionnerait pas. 15 17960 Je ne croyais pas, à moins que vous 16 sachiez quelque chose que je ne sais pas, que c'était 17 une menace qu'on essaierait de vendre à la carte, même 18 avec le numérique. 19 17961 M. ROY: Ça fait partie des 20 déclarations mêmes de certains câblo-opérateurs, qui 21 font cette déclaration qu'ils veulent utiliser cette 22 technique de mise en marché de services de 23 programmation. Alors on se fie à ce qu'on entend de la 24 part de principaux câblo-opérateurs au Canada... 25 17962 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Il faudra que je StenoTran 3833 1 revoie le procès-verbal de la présentation de 2 l'Association des câblodistributeurs. 3 17963 You have raised an issue about first 4 run or more windows at page 15 of your written 5 presentation. Are you asking the Commission to 6 redefine first run? Is that what you want? 7 17964 And could you tell me -- I may have 8 missed that but I do not see, I do not think anywhere, 9 a very precise definition that you would want. We have 10 had some suggested, such as first window should be 11 first window for that service as opposed to... Is that 12 what you want, so you could have sequential or 13 concurrent first windows? 14 17965 MR ROY: Actuellement, la définition 15 de "programmation originale" est très restrictive pour 16 être cataloguée comme diffusion originale en première 17 diffusion, il faut que cette diffusion-là soit faite la 18 première fois au Canada sur un service donné, toutes 19 langues confondues, toutes fenêtres confondues. Donc 20 c'est très restrictif et ça vient à l'encontre du 21 financement qu'on pourrait aller chercher dans 22 différents marchés ou sur différentes fenêtres. 23 17966 Donc nous demandons de réviser cette 24 définition-là pour permettre le partenariat avec des 25 diffuseurs qui font partie de fenêtres différentes de StenoTran 3834 1 diffusion et dans des territoires linguistiques 2 différents Pour éviter les abus que cette relaxation 3 pourrait amener il faudrait que les diffuseurs qui 4 veulent avoir accès à ce qualificatif soient parties du 5 financement de la production, donc aillent sous forme 6 de pré-achat et non pas d'acquisition subséquente. 7 17967 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Quand vous parlez 8 d'une définition restrictive, vous vous référez à 9 l'avis public je crois que c'est 197, où on reconnaît à 10 ce moment-là les marchés différents. Évidemment, les 11 marchés spécialisés sont nationaux; donc, s'il y a un 12 service conventionnel à une première fenêtre, est-ce 13 que vous verriez un service spécialisé avoir une 14 première fenêtre en même temps si vous avez pu 15 négocier... 16 17968 M. ROY: Peut-être pas en même temps, 17 mais une fenêtre... 18 17969 LA PRÉSIDENTE: En séquence. 19 17970 M. ROY: En séquence. 20 17971 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et là, est-ce que 21 vous verriez une possibilité de, disons, trois ou 22 quatre fenêtres une après l'autre? 23 17972 M. ROY: Ça pourrait très bien être 24 la télévision payante ou la télévision à la carte, 25 télévision payante, service spécialisé ou conventionnel StenoTran 3835 1 qui pourraient partager ou faire du co-financement et 2 aider au financement d'un plus grand nombre de 3 programmations canadiennes. 4 17973 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et le but serait 5 évidemment de pouvoir plus facilement rencontrer... 6 17974 M. ROY: Nos exigences... 7 17975 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... les exigences de 8 first run, de première fenêtre. 9 17976 M. ROY: C'est ça, tout à fait, sans 10 créer les abus qui avaient été à la base de cette 11 disposition-là. On voulait éviter au départ, si nos 12 recherches sont exactes, le fait... 13 17977 LA PRÉSIDENTE: La comptabilisation. 14 17978 M. ROY: ... qu'après le fait on 15 puisse acquérir une programmation canadienne en la 16 doublant et qu'elle soit considérée à ce moment-là 17 comme originale. 18 17979 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Quand vous parlez 19 d'abus, est-ce qu'il n'y aurait pas, inhérent à une 20 nouvelle définition ou une définition telle que vous 21 nous la donnez, un recyclage de programmation qui 22 pourrait être néfaste? 23 17980 M. ROY: Non. C'est pour ça qu'on 24 dit que, pour avoir accès à ce qualificatif, il 25 faudrait que le diffuseur fasse partie de la structure StenoTran 3836 1 financière et agisse en pré-achat pour la 2 programmation. 3 17981 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais pour l'auditoire 4 il y aurait un recyclage de programmation? 5 17982 M. ROY: Non, je ne pense pas. C'est 6 un meilleur financement sur des marchés linguistiques 7 différents, sur des fenêtres différentes. On a déjà ce 8 mécanisme de financement partagé par exemple au cinéma, 9 avec différents intervenants qui peuvent acquérir des 10 droits et aider au financement de films de cinéma. 11 17983 THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms McQueen, you 12 have made clear that you are broadcasters so, while you 13 are here, I would like some comments from you on the 14 following: At page 26 of your written presentation, 15 and this morning again, you have talked about how you 16 seem to have been able to dislodge, albeit niche, 17 audiences during peak time from watching foreign 18 programming. 19 17984 I am curious why you insist that 20 spending is the best mechanism, considering the other 21 proposals we have before us, which would be requiring a 22 certain amount of programming in certain categories in 23 peak time and where you make your efforts towards 24 reaching your niche scheduling properly to reach your 25 small audiences but, nevertheless, who would have the StenoTran 3837 1 opportunity to watch foreign programming at that hour 2 anyway. 3 17985 Why do you believe that the 4 broadcasters couldn't do the same simply if they had to 5 put Canadian programming in those hours and that that 6 would force them to spend their money and maybe we 7 would not have to have all these difficult formulas? 8 You seem to believe that it's the other way, it's 9 spending that will do it. 10 17986 MS McQUEEN: Yes, we do believe that 11 the system of requiring a certain number of hours is a 12 difficult system and is not as productive as linking 13 spending to revenue. I guess the reasons for that are 14 fairly obvious. 15 17987 The trouble with the hour-long 16 formula is that the temptation is to fill it with cheap 17 programming with low production values. That is the 18 temptation. I think we have to go back to the basis of 19 what private broadcasters are in the business of doing, 20 which is making shareholder value. If you can make 21 your shareholder value and meet your Canadian content 22 obligations by spending less money, it's almost an 23 irresistible temptation. I guess what we are asking 24 you is to lead us not into temptation. 25 17988 With revenue, we can invest in a way StenoTran 3838 1 that will please the viewers that we have chosen and 2 that our niche commands us to support. It is a 3 measurable, easily identifiable kind of formula and it 4 works. We are not suggesting that you should do away 5 with having some minimum level of Canadian content -- 6 that's obvious that we have to -- but given a choice 7 between increasing the number of hours of Canadian 8 content and requiring an expenditure formula, on the 9 basis of what we have done it seems that the 10 expenditure formula works. 11 17989 We were not told that we had to put 12 these programs in prime time. We did it naturally out 13 of the revenue-to-expenditure formula. In other words, 14 if you are going to spend a lot of money on Canadian 15 content, you naturally will put it in prime time rather 16 than putting it at six in the morning. If you have an 17 hour formula, the temptation is to put the lower cost 18 programming at six in the morning and fill your prime 19 time schedule with what you think will do well. 20 17990 That does not mean that the 21 producers' proposal, the 10/10/10 formula, we think has 22 some interest for conventional broadcasters. But the 23 programs that they are suggesting, most of them, the 24 big drama series for example, are not the programs that 25 specialty channels do and they are not suggesting that StenoTran 3839 1 as a formula for specialty channels. They have said 2 that they generally feel good about what specialty 3 channels do. 4 17991 So I guess we kind of think that if 5 something is working, if the producers like it, if the 6 statistics about programming in prime time are decent, 7 if the revenue that's spent is large, it seems to us it 8 kind of works. 9 17992 THE CHAIRPERSON: For those who think 10 that there is not enough Canadian programming that 11 attracts audiences in prime time, there are a number of 12 parties who feel that we have not succeeded in doing 13 that and want to repatriate prime time. 14 17993 I am not sure that you responded to 15 my question. My question is: We have not, to date, 16 gone very far in demanding certain types of Canadian 17 programming in prime time. You seem to assume that the 18 broadcasters will be able to afford to lose their 19 audiences in prime time by taking their chances in 20 having what you call cheap tonnage, or cheap 21 programming, in prime time. It's the combination of 22 when you have to put it on that some will argue will 23 force expenditures because you cannot afford to lose 24 those peak hours. It's not something we have done. 25 17994 MS McQUEEN: When you insist that I StenoTran 3840 1 am a broadcaster, I accept that definition, of course, 2 but I would like to be a specialty broadcaster rather 3 than a conventional broadcaster. 4 17995 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's your 5 prerogative. 6 17996 MS McQUEEN: The only reason that I 7 do not want to answer your question is because I think 8 it's a tremendously important one. In fact, it goes to 9 the heart of what you are doing here, and on the basis 10 of our limited experience with conventional 11 broadcasting it does not seem to us useful for you to 12 hear what might be an uninformed opinion. 13 17997 However, let me just continue to say 14 that the producers association proposal has some 15 interest and some advantages. It has the following 16 advantages for specialty broadcasters in that if it 17 works it would generate a supply of high quality 18 Canadian programming that we could help with by buying 19 second windows, third windows, and that would provide 20 acquisition possibilities for us outside that. So we 21 are not saying that the producers' proposal, as one 22 example of the thing that you are talking about, is 23 without merit. I think what we are saying as 24 broadcasters, specialty or conventional, is that we 25 find a great difficulty in the imposition of specific StenoTran 3841 1 hours as a way of increasing Canadian content. 2 17998 THE CHAIRPERSON: Considering that my 3 first question put into question your comparison 4 between conventional and specialty services, I will let 5 you get away with not answering and keeping your 6 specialty service hat on. 7 17999 Counsel. 8 18000 MR. BLAIS: There are four brief 9 areas I would like to follow up on. The first area 10 deals with simultaneous substitution. 11 18001 To what class or classes of BDUs do 12 you think your proposal should apply? 13 18002 MS LOGAN: The same as the 14 conventional broadcasters have. 15 18003 MR. BLAIS: So the class 1s and 2s, 16 in your view, should be subject to that requirement? 17 18004 MS LOGAN: Yes. 18 18005 MR. BLAIS: And as a result, all 19 those class 1s and 2s systems would have to put in the 20 technical ability to do it for all services. It may be 21 suggested by some parties that that would involve a 22 considerable amount of expense and perhaps, on a cost 23 benefit analysis, would not be opportune at this time 24 to get involved into that. 25 18006 Would you like to comment on that? StenoTran 3842 1 18007 MS LOGAN: We understand that the 2 costs have dropped dramatically and it is our actual 3 experience that small cable casters have been far more 4 likely to respond positively to actual requests, so 5 they don't seem to have the difficulty. 6 18008 MR. BLAIS: What is your evaluation 7 of the drop in costs to put the technical ability into 8 place if one compares to when the Commission looked at 9 this the last time? 10 18009 MS LOGAN: I would like to submit 11 that to you in writing. I am afraid today we had a 12 simultaneous substitution expert on our panel who 13 probably missed her plane and I do not have those 14 details with me. 15 18010 MR. BLAIS: Those technical problems 16 do occur. That's fine. If you could do it -- we are 17 late in the process -- perhaps by the 5th of November, 18 if that's all right. 19 1045 20 18011 MR. BLAIS: The second area I would 21 like to look at is your proposal with respect to access 22 to avails of foreign services. Mr. Buchan, when he 23 appeared with the Rogers panel, was lamenting the fact 24 that nobody raised subsection 9(2) of the Broadcasting 25 Act; this is at page 3126 of the transcript, at StenoTran 3843 1 paragraph 14905. 2 18012 As you are aware, subsection 9(2) of 3 the Act is an implementation of Canada's international 4 obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and it 5 suggests that the Commission cannot require the 6 licensee to substitute replacement material for 7 commercial messages carried in a broadcasting signal 8 received by that licensee. 9 18013 In view of the fact that Mr. Buchan 10 thinks that we haven't spoken enough about it, I wonder 11 if you had some comments on the consistency of your 12 proposal with subsection 9(2) of the Broadcasting Act. 13 18014 MS LOGAN: I think we are more 14 optimistic than Mr. Buchan. We certainly have a 15 precedent that the initial two minutes were given 16 voluntarily and we feel that proposal is entirely 17 reasonable in that the services today gain $80 million 18 from the Canadian market without creating Canadian 19 jobs, without investing in Canadian content, without 20 showcasing it. We feel this is the least they could 21 do. 22 18015 MR. BLAIS: Do you see a difference 23 between the Commission requiring deletion and 24 permitting deletion? 25 18016 MS LOGAN: We are talking about StenoTran 3844 1 permitting. 2 18017 MR. BLAIS: Thank you. 3 18018 Now, the third area I would like to 4 look at is contribution by non-Canadian services. It 5 has been suggested by some parties that the 5 per cent 6 contribution provided by BDUs already factor into 7 account the revenues related to the distribution of 8 non-Canadian services in that the gross revenues of 9 BDUs would include the activities related to non- 10 Canadian services, and therefore, indirectly, the non- 11 Canadian services are already contributing to Canadian 12 programming through the 5 per cent contribution of 13 BDUs. 14 18019 Do you agree with that? 15 18020 MS LOGAN: I thought that was 16 supposed to be the BDU contribution, and frankly they 17 earn most of their revenue from Canadian services. We 18 could also call it another indirect contribution from 19 our industry. 20 18021 MR. BLAIS: I quite agree because of 21 the revenues of your industry, but the point I am 22 getting at is that the gross revenues of those BDUs 23 would include activities related to both your services 24 as well as foreign services, and therefore, when one 25 does the calculation, one could argue that the activity StenoTran 3845 1 of the U.S. services is already indirectly 2 contributing. In fact, some have suggested that if we 3 were to ask for a direct contribution from the U.S. 4 services there would be a form of, to use their word, 5 double taxation, which I don't necessarily agree with 6 but I think just to identify their concern. 7 18022 MS LOGAN: First of all, we do object 8 to the word "tax". Our understanding is that the Cable 9 Fund was set up as a contribution from the distributors 10 for which they received some benefits in return. So I 11 am not quite sure that this could be called a tax; it 12 was a negotiated agreement that they would do this, as 13 I understand it. 14 18023 Secondly, I am not sure that to say 15 that because someone's revenue -- or a generator of the 16 revenue that is provided by the cable services is thus 17 providing revenue is kind of way down the road; in 18 other words, we have no knowledge whether there is 19 actually any contribution directly by the American 20 services in reaching that revenue; in other words, do 21 they take a lower subscription fee? We don't know 22 that. It may simply be that the cable operators, the 23 distributors are providing that revenue without 24 reference to the American services. We don't know 25 that. StenoTran 3846 1 18024 MR. BLAIS: Thank you. 2 18025 Now, the last area I would like to 3 follow up on is the area of infomercials. 4 18026 It has been suggested that the 5 rationale for the different treatment of infomercials 6 relates to the fact that your services generally have 7 access to two sources of revenues, both subscription 8 fees and advertising revenues, and since the 9 conventional broadcasters don't have access to 10 subscription fees, that that might be the rationale for 11 the distinction. 12 18027 What has changed? 13 18028 MS LOGAN: I think, when we look at 14 where the revenue comes from in the broadcasting 15 system, the overwhelming amount of advertising revenue 16 earned by the conventional broadcasters -- 1.5 billion, 17 and they have access to local advertising, which is a 18 huge difference -- completely dwarfs our 183 million in 19 advertising. We don't see this as a threat to 20 conventional broadcasters whatsoever. 21 18029 We have the kind of services that 22 cannot be supported as advertising services because of 23 the niche nature of their programming. That's the case 24 here and that's the case in the United States; 25 specialty services, even with 60 million cable StenoTran 3847 1 households, could not survive on advertising revenue 2 alone. 3 18030 So we look at the infomercials as an 4 additional opportunity to grow the revenue base that 5 will give us the ability to reinvest in Canadian 6 content. 7 18031 Perhaps what has changed in terms of 8 arguing and making the case is that there is now an 9 association to put it forward on behalf of the group. 10 So we are better organized this time around. 11 18032 MR. BLAIS: Thank you. 12 18033 Those are my questions. 13 18034 THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms Logan, one very 14 pointed specialty service question this time. 15 18035 You want us to get a better window, 16 to gain a window into wholesale subscriber fees paid to 17 both Canadian and foreign services. What kind of 18 window does your association have? 19 18036 MS LOGAN: We have extreme difficulty 20 with this issue because the contracts are negotiated in 21 secret, they are covered by non-disclosure deals, 22 services have difficulty in holding discussions, and 23 the association itself does not deal with commercial 24 and contractual issues. 25 18037 We feel nonetheless that there is a StenoTran 3848 1 growing dislocation, anecdotally we hear, between what 2 services, and especially services that have launched, 3 are taking as subscriber fees in order to get on the 4 air and in order to get those rare analog channels left 5 in the system compared to the business plans that the 6 Commission approved that contains certain expectations 7 for revenues and certain expectations for 8 contributions. 9 18038 So we are asking that you monitor and 10 we are saying this is a vital piece of information in 11 our financial structure today -- and certainly every 12 other bit of information is disclosed. We feel it is 13 time that you added this to your toolkit. 14 18039 THE CHAIRPERSON: As between your 15 members, you obviously can find out what they get per 16 subscriber, or don't get, but you don't really know 17 overall, let's say in the Me-16, how the cable 18 distributor values or how much money they get from 19 selling the American portion of it. 20 18040 MS LOGAN: No. 21 18041 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you wouldn't 22 know anything about how it is divvied up inside the 23 tier. 24 18042 MS LOGAN: No. No, we don't. 25 18043 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you need a StenoTran 3849 1 window too. You want ours to be big enough so you can 2 peer through. 3 18044 Thank you very much, Ms Logan and 4 your colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. 5 18045 We will now take a break until ten 6 after eleven. Nous reprendrons à 11 h 10. 7 --- Courte suspension à / Short recess at 1055 8 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1110 9 18046 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary, 10 would you invite the next participants, please? 11 18047 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair. 12 The next presentation will be done by the Canadian 13 Association of Broadcasters Specialty Board, 14 L'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs, Conseil 15 de la télévision spécialisée et payante. 16 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION 17 18048 MR. McCABE: Thank you. Good 18 morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners. 19 18049 It is with great pleasure that we 20 appear before you today representing the newly formed 21 Pay and Specialty Board of the Canadian Association of 22 Broadcasters. 23 18050 With me is the Chair of the Specialty 24 Board, Mark Rubinstein, Vice-Presidnet CHUM Television; 25 along with Charlotte Bell, Director of Legal and StenoTran 3850 1 Regulatory Affairs at the Global Television Network; 2 and Raynald Brière, vice-président, Canaux spécialisés, 3 Le Groupe TVA Inc.; as well as our Executive 4 Vice-President and General Counsel, Peter Miller; and 5 our Manager of Research and Societal Issues, Tandy 6 Greer Yull. 7 18051 Our panel would have been somewhat 8 larger had not the fog-making gods and Air Canada 9 conspired against us, but we will try to do our best. 10 18052 The Specialty Board of the CAB 11 believes that this hearing provides the Commission with 12 an historic opportunity to support an environment in 13 which each element of the Canadian broadcasting system 14 contributes to its success the best way it can -- 15 whether conventional or specialty; public or private; 16 broadcaster, producer, or distributor. 17 18053 Canadian specialty and pay services 18 already make a significant and unique contribution -- 19 something that has been well-recognized in this 20 proceeding. We will focus our comments today on six 21 ways the Commission can capitalize on this tremendous 22 success story -- by: One, establishing a system-wide 23 viewing goal; two, maintaining a flexible regulatory 24 environment; three, seeking contributions to Canadian 25 programming from all elements of the system, including StenoTran 3851 1 U.S. and exempt services; four, ensuring Canadian 2 services effectively reach Canadian viewers; five, 3 encouraging the development of a new partnership for 4 digital between distributors and programmers, and; six, 5 building on synergies within the system. 6 18054 The CAB Specialty Board supports the 7 establishment of system-wide goals for increased 8 viewing of Canadian programs. Focusing on viewership 9 provides all elements of the system with a winning 10 method to meet CRTC objectives of more quality Canadian 11 programs and a profitable industry. 12 18055 It is a win for viewers because it 13 gives them the quality programming they want. It is a 14 win for specialty services and producers because we 15 become partners in securing increased audiences and 16 revenues. And it is a win for you because it creates a 17 link between public policy and business objectives. 18 18056 It is true that this is a whole new 19 way of thinking about the broadcasting system, but that 20 is precisely why you brought us together this fall, to 21 find innovative ways to strengthen the Canadian 22 broadcasting system. 23 18057 With the right incentives and the 24 right regulatory framework, specialty and pay services, 25 and the distributors that make them available across StenoTran 3852 1 the country, can contribute to the increased viewing of 2 Canadian programming. 3 18058 Mark. 4 18059 MR. RUBINSTEIN: Thank you, Michael. 5 18060 To capitalize on the success story of 6 Canadian specialty television, we must nurture an 7 environment which will ensure that Canadian specialty, 8 pay and pay-per-view services, and the broadcasting 9 system as a whole, thrives. 10 18061 The regulatory framework should 11 permit -- indeed, encourage -- each element of the 12 system to contribute the best way it can. 13 18062 Flexibility is the key -- a 14 one-size-fits-all approach will not work for specialty 15 and pay services. Their very nature makes it 16 impossible for them all to operate on the same basis. 17 18063 They must be encouraged to pursue 18 niche programming opportunities; to create new demand 19 for Canadian programs in a variety of genres; and to 20 broaden the audience base for Canadian programming. 21 18064 If the Commission is truly committed 22 to expanding the resources available for Canadian 23 production, it should look to those elements of the 24 system which make no contribution, but derive 25 considerable benefit, namely, non-Canadian and exempt StenoTran 3853 1 services. As evident in the public notice launching 2 this proceeding, equitable contribution is central to 3 the Commission's review of television policy. 4 18065 Exempt services generate significant 5 revenue and take up valuable capacity without making 6 any contribution to the system. They should either be 7 licensed or required to make a direct contribution to 8 Canadian programming. 9 18066 Foreign satellite services earn 10 almost $80 million in subscriber fees from their 11 carriage in Canada. They also take up valuable channel 12 capacity, denying equitable carriage for Canadian 13 services. U.S. programming services are no longer 14 necessary to drive tiers. This is amply demonstrated 15 by the success of the all-Canadian Tier 2, which has 16 reached 70 per cent penetration, and by the viewing 17 stats for the newest tier: Canadian services like 18 Space or History Television have from launch 19 consistently outperformed U.S. services like 20 Speedvision or BET. 21 18067 It may be true that differentiated 22 U.S. services could be attractive packaging partners in 23 a digital environment. If so, they should be reserved 24 for the launch of new digital tiers. We may even wish 25 to consider moving some existing U.S. services to StenoTran 3854 1 digital tiers, reserving analog for priority Canadian 2 services. 3 18068 It is time to require foreign 4 services to make a direct contribution to the Canadian 5 broadcasting system. There are a number of ways this 6 could be implemented, including: One, requiring a 7 direct monetary contribution to an accepted Canadian 8 production fund by withholding a percentage of 9 affiliate payments; and, two, revising the policy with 10 respect to the use of local avails to ensure they are 11 used 100 per cent for the promotion of Canadian 12 services and Canadian programming. 13 18069 MS BELL: Like a flexible regulatory 14 framework, effective access is central to the capacity 15 of Canadian specialty services to succeed as 16 businesses, and to contribute to broadcasting policy 17 objectives, be they: greater diversity in programming 18 options; more hours of Canadian programming; increased 19 viewing of Canadian programming; or greater resources 20 for Canadian program production. 21 18070 While we do understand that the 22 Commission will initiate a separate proceeding to 23 examine the appropriate licensing framework for new 24 services, we believe this hearing provides an important 25 opportunity to set the tone for the future. StenoTran 3855 1 18071 The Commission should do whatever it 2 can to put real effect into section 3(1)(t) of the 3 Broadcasting Act which requires the priority carriage 4 of Canadian programming services. 5 18072 Canadian services must have the 6 opportunity to fill programming genres before 7 non-Canadian, non-contributing services are allowed to 8 occupy the turf. Among other things, this means 9 extending the moratorium on additions to the eligible 10 lists at least until the next round of Canadian 11 services are launched. New non-Canadian services 12 should only be added to digital tiers. 13 18073 This fall's launch of MuchMoreMusic 14 and CTV's SportsNet will result in more diversity; more 15 Canadian programs; more spending on Canadian 16 production; and more viewers of Canadian programming. 17 18074 But look at what Canadian Learning 18 Television, ROB-TV, StarTV and Talk TV could accomplish 19 once launched. Collectively, these services are 20 committed to spending $8 million on Canadian 21 programming by their second year. They will spend over 22 $125 million on Canadian production over their 23 seven-year terms; and, they will create almost 200 new 24 full-time jobs, plus contribute to new jobs in related 25 sectors. StenoTran 3856 1 18075 But they can only meet these 2 commitments once launched and once made available to a 3 critical mass of cable subscribers. 4 18076 M. BRIÈRE: Dans le contexte actuel 5 de la distribution, tout débat portant sur l'accès 6 doit, par définition, nous mener à une autre 7 discussion, à savoir ce que le déploiement du numérique 8 signifie pour la télédiffusion canadienne. Bien que 9 nous ayons fortement l'impression que la mise en oeuvre 10 des services numériques d'ici un an ou deux soit un but 11 illusoire, nous ne doutons pas qu'elle se fera bientôt 12 et qu'elle aura d'importantes répercussions sur le 13 système de la télédiffusion. 14 18077 De nouvelles règles seront sans doute 15 nécessaires pour gérer la transition et compléter 16 l'implantation de la distribution numérique. Le 17 nouveau contexte exigera aussi un meilleur partenariat 18 entre les distributeurs et les services de télévision 19 spécialisée et payante. Nous croyons en effet que les 20 câblodistributeurs n'ont aucune chance de réussir dans 21 le domaine du numérique sans l'apport de services de 22 programmation canadiens prospères. De la même façon, 23 nous sommes d'avis que les canaux spécialisés canadiens 24 ne pourront se tailler une place dans le monde 25 numérique sans l'aide de distributeurs concurrentiels, StenoTran 3857 1 en particulier des câblodistributeurs. 2 18078 Nous tenons donc aujourd'hui à 3 promettre publiquement que nous collaborerons avec les 4 exploitants des entreprises de câble et avec les autres 5 distributeurs canadiens à la mise en oeuvre des 6 services numériques et à leur réussite dans l'intérêt 7 des distributeurs, des services de programmation et, 8 plus important encore, dans l'intérêt des 9 consommateurs. 10 18079 MR. McCABE: We believe this hearing 11 also provides an opportunity for the Commission to 12 recognize, support, and build upon the important 13 synergies that have resulted from the diversification 14 of conventional broadcasters, independent producers, 15 and distributors into the specialty realm. These 16 synergies contribute to the expansion of Canadian 17 programming availability; create a testing ground for 18 new programming concepts; provide additional windows 19 for the promotion of Canadian stars and Canadian 20 programming; maximize the windows for 21 independently-produced product, and assure access to 22 investment capital. 23 18080 In sum, the CAB Specialty Board 24 recommends that the Commission adopt the following 25 policy proposals: First, establish national viewing StenoTran 3858 1 goals and encourage all elements of the system to 2 contribute to meeting them, including specialty 3 services and distributors; second, maintain the 4 competitive licensing and case-by-case approach to 5 setting programming obligations, rather than attempting 6 to adopt a uniform approach to be applied across the 7 board; third, expand the resources available for 8 Canadian programming by seeking contribution from 9 non-contributing U.S. and exempt services; fourth, 10 ensure that Canadian specialty services have the 11 opportunity to fill programming genres before 12 non-Canadian, non-contributing services are allowed to 13 occupy the turf; fifth, encourage a new partnership 14 between distributors and programmers for the transition 15 to digital and create the conditions under which such a 16 relationship will thrive; sixth, encourage and build 17 upon synergies within the system by creating conditions 18 which will permit Canadian specialty services owned by 19 producers, broadcasters or distributors to make a fair 20 and reasonable contribution to the system. 21 18081 We thank you for the opportunity to 22 present these comments. We would be delighted to 23 respond to any of your questions. 24 18082 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. 25 McCabe and your colleagues. Commissioner Cardozo. StenoTran 3859 1 18083 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you, 2 Madam Chair. 3 18084 Welcome back to those of you who have 4 returned, and congratulations to you, Mr. Rubinstein. 5 I hope this means you will come back often and see us, 6 and we will have many more of these meetings and, 7 hopefully, you will decide at the end of today whether 8 it is a pleasurable experience or not, but we will make 9 it as much fun as we can. 10 18085 Let me start by saying, as 11 Commissioner Wilson had mentioned at the start of her 12 questioning with the previous panel, that the issues of 13 distribution environment are, of course, largely the 14 subject of the next hearing on the licensing framework. 15 I note that you have noted that and that you are 16 putting these on the table to set the tone, so I will 17 largely leave it to that level for now. If there are 18 issues you want to get into, you can touch on them 19 briefly, but largely we will stay away from the issue 20 of the distribution framework. 21 18086 One of the underlying challenges 22 facing the specialty industry that you have noted, and 23 I wanted to just read a paragraph here, you notice on 24 page iii of the Executive Summary at the top of the 25 page you say: StenoTran 3860 1 "Specialty channels also face 2 unique challenges in securing 3 audiences. As 4 highly-specialized niche 5 services, they focus on meeting 6 the viewing needs of a 7 particular audience, whose 8 attention can be fickle. 9 Specialty and pay services 10 already deal with a smaller 11 audience market than 12 conventional broadcasters..." 13 18087 So that is, I guess, the basis of the 14 challenges that you face, but I wonder if that is just 15 the challenges by definition. You have chosen to get 16 into the specialty field which, by definition, means 17 niche marketing. 18 18088 Is that a statement of the obvious as 19 to how this industry is situated, or is there more to 20 it there? 21 18089 MR. McCABE: If I may, before I begin 22 the answer to that, just respond to your point about 23 the distribution environment very briefly and to say 24 only that we have raised it here because, for specialty 25 services, distribution is the most important factor in StenoTran 3861 1 their ability to contribute. 2 18090 So that in our mind it, the 3 distribution environment and the decisions you make 4 about it, and the ability we have to access it and what 5 terms we are able to access it, and the contribution it 6 makes and so on, are really essential, we think, to the 7 matters that concern this particular hearing as well. 8 So, we recognize, and respect, your desire to hold 9 detailed discussion of it to another time, but I did 10 want to record that. 11 18091 So your question is whether this is 12 merely a statement of the fact that we are dealing with 13 smaller audience. Peter, I think that is essentially 14 what we have meant here. 15 18092 MR. MILLER: I think that is correct. 16 I would only add that, as some of the questioning this 17 morning alluded to, there are often comparisons made 18 between sectors. We think it is important that when 19 you make these comparisons you recognize the 20 differences, the fact, for example, that specialty 21 receives 70 per cent of their revenues through 22 subscription, which has repercussions. But we also 23 note, and perhaps we will get into later, that in 24 particular specialty are probably the leading edge in 25 the television universe when looking at new media and StenoTran 3862 1 the challenges and opportunities on the web. So that 2 is correctly characterized as a function of their 3 nature, but it still has very significant public policy 4 implications that we think need to be grappled with. 5 18093 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. I just 6 want to clarify that this is a situation that has been 7 the case since the beginning of specialities and it 8 isn't something new that is unexpected. 9 18094 MR. McCABE: Well, as you know, the 10 specialty regime has evolved and the context initially 11 was one in which there was a regulatory recognition of 12 the fact that there would not in fact be -- there would 13 not in fact be foreign services that were competitive 14 with Canadian services that would enter the system; 15 second, even that services might be removed, but that 16 has now changed, obviously. So there are -- the 17 challenges have evolved. 18 18095 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. Can we 19 talk for a few minutes about the hours of Canadian 20 programming? You note in your written material, and 21 you have made some reference to it today, that there 22 has been an increase in the hours of Canadian 23 programming. On page 5 in your written submission you 24 have got a graph which shows a considerable increase in 25 the specialities in terms of the hours of Canadian StenoTran 3863 1 programming and somewhat of a reduction with private 2 sector and the CBC. 3 18096 I am wondering if you combine the 4 specialty numbers with the conventional broadcasters, 5 are we seeing somewhat of an increase in the amount of 6 product, Canadian product, because it has gone down a 7 little bit in the conventionals and gone up quite a bit 8 in the specialities? 9 18097 MR. McCABE: Yes, the mix has 10 changed, but in terms of hours we have seen, I think, 11 more than somewhat but a substantial increase in 12 overall exhibition of Canadian programs, that is, 13 availability of Canadian programming to the public. 14 18098 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. Let me 15 just flip -- I am sorry to be having you flip through 16 various pages, but if you can go to page 8 and your 17 graph following the 1.3.3, "Viewing of Canadian 18 Specialty and Pay Service", there is quite a preference 19 here, according to your figures, and I think these have 20 been discussed before, for Canadian viewing. There is 21 quite a success story there. 22 18099 What is your sense about why there is 23 a success? I am not questioning it. I am not 24 demeaning it. But why is there a success there? 25 18100 MR. McCABE: Let me start and, StenoTran 3864 1 perhaps, Mark or Peter may want to add, but, first, you 2 recall that at the beginning of the age of specialty 3 services, the assumption was that we needed Canadian 4 service -- American services to drive the penetration 5 of Canadian services. I think what happened was 6 specialty services, as they grew in Canada, began to 7 develop in a particular way that met the needs and 8 interests of Canadians. So you saw a MuchMusic and a 9 TSN, to just take a couple of examples, who do it 10 better than any U.S. counterpart. 11 18101 I think that, finally, it has been 12 the ability of specialty services, despite the fact of 13 a continued flow of U.S. services into the system that 14 had been authorized into the system, to in fact find 15 their way to a Canadian audience using the best of what 16 is available when they are not sort of cut off at the 17 pass by a foreign service entering, the best program 18 that is available in the world and marrying it to the 19 Canadian presence that Canadians want. 20 18102 I think, Mark, that is probably -- 21 18103 MR. RUBINSTEIN: I think part of the 22 brilliance of the system is that the Commission has 23 encouraged, since 1984 on, the development and 24 expansion of Canadian specialty services in areas that 25 couldn't be as well served by the rest of the system, StenoTran 3865 1 whether that was in music, or sports, or children's; 2 and so the wisdom of the Commission's licensing pattern 3 has been to focus on areas where we know there is going 4 to be an interest, even though, you know, individual 5 services may garner less than 1 per cent share to that 6 particular service as a group, we are now standing at 7 35-plus Canadian specialty services has obviously had a 8 tremendous impact. 9 18104 I think also in terms of the quality 10 of services, I think there was also wisdom in the 11 Commission licensing multiple titles to existing 12 specialty operators because it is a craft that is 13 difficult to learn and when you are -- when you have a 14 synergy of, for example, the Netstar group, which 15 operate more than one title, the CHUM group, now 16 Atlantis group, they are able to leverage off of their 17 experiences. I think that shows up on the screen 18 primarily in their ability to really promote, produce 19 and acquire the best possible Canadian programming in 20 their genre. 21 18105 I think it is a combination of at 22 least two of those elements. 23 1135 24 18106 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So, if we 25 take, Mr. McCabe, the point about viewership that you StenoTran 3866 1 have made today and that you made on the first day of 2 the hearing, what can we do in the case of specialties 3 which have already a fairly good successful track 4 record to increase the viewing of Canadian programming 5 on the specialties? 6 18107 MR. McCABE: I think, as you point 7 out, with specialities the track record has been quite 8 exceptional, but I think what you can do, again trying 9 not to range too far into the area you don't want to 10 range into of the distribution system -- obviously, 11 sitting before you here today, the first thing you 12 could usefully do is make sure that as of September 13 1st, 1999 the remaining services that have been 14 licensed are in fact carried. It will, indeed, put 15 more programming of high quality, as Mark suggests, 16 before Canadians. 17 18108 Second, I think the distribution 18 regime that we will talk about in the next hearing 19 will -- 20 18109 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But let's look 21 at the specialities that are already launched so you 22 are not dealing with the issue of whether or not they 23 get launched or licensed. 24 18110 MR. McCABE: In that respect, I think 25 you have wisely provided on a case-by-case basis a StenoTran 3867 1 system of increasing the revenue flow to Canadian 2 programming that goes up, essentially, automatically as 3 revenues go up. If you can again continue to provide 4 the distribution environment where these services can 5 succeed and do some of the other things we have 6 suggested in here, such as contribution from other non- 7 contributing areas and so on, I think we can see again 8 a growth in the flow of dollars to Canadian programming 9 and I think that will translate into quality. 10 18111 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And is that 11 translated into viewers? 12 18112 MR. McCABE: Yes. 13 18113 MR. RUBINSTEIN: What I wanted to 14 add, Commissioner, was that if the question is, "How 15 can specialty services do better to meet a viewing 16 goal", the first thing is distribution, distribution, 17 distribution. It's one word. Since the revenues of 18 the services are tied to subscriber penetration and 19 since most services have a percentage of revenue 20 formula attached as a condition of licence, every 21 dollar more that they are able to generate, a 22 significant percentage goes back into the Canadian 23 programming fact. So, access is the fundamental way in 24 which existing services can do better. 25 18114 Going back to what the Act mandates, StenoTran 3868 1 which is that we are supposed to give priority carriage 2 to licensed Canadian services, if you examine the 3 current landscape, I think the checkerboard 4 distribution that we have for services falls short of 5 that objective and that requirement. Secondly, 6 licensing new services will continue to make available 7 more and better Canadian programming on additional 8 specialty channels. 9 18115 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Let me try to 10 get back to this hearing. I see the points you are 11 making, I recognize them. Let me just ask you about 12 the viewing numbers then. 13 18116 You have talked about the viewing 14 numbers in specialities is going up, the viewing 15 numbers in the conventional system has been relatively 16 stable over a number of years, as you mentioned when 17 you appeared at the beginning of the hearing, Mr. 18 McCabe. Putting the two together, are we seeing 19 intuitively it means Canadians are watching more 20 Canadian programming when you combine the conventionals 21 and the specialities? 22 18117 MR. McCABE: When I addressed this 23 earlier, we talked about a change in the mix talking 24 about the availability of hours of programming to 25 Canadians, but on the viewing question, again the mix StenoTran 3869 1 has changed. But, as we have seen earlier, the viewing 2 to Canadian has remained relatively stable over a long 3 period of time. 4 18118 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In specialties 5 as well? 6 18119 MR. McCABE: In the system. The mix 7 has changed and, indeed, as new specialty services have 8 been added and as they have succeeded in their 9 individual niches, yes, their contribution to the 10 viewing levels to Canadian have increased. 11 18120 MR. MILLER: Commissioner Cardozo, if 12 I could add to this, one of the unfortunate 13 consequences of the current regime and the current one- 14 to-one linkage rule is that as successful as we have 15 been with Canadian specialty services, it has come at a 16 cost and the cost has been more U.S. services in the 17 system. So, rather than repatriating viewing from U.S. 18 services, unfortunately, we have allowed that shift to 19 go from U.S. conventional to U.S. specialty. 20 18121 So, that's why we haven't got the 21 overall viewing numbers going up in a positive 22 direction and that's also why the CAB suggested that 23 the Commission set as a goal viewing to Canadian 24 services, because the only way you are going to drive 25 up Canadian programming is you get more Canadian StenoTran 3870 1 services and more viewing to those services. 2 18122 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: On financial 3 issues, I wonder if you have seen Appendix A from the 4 SPTV submission where they listed the dollar amounts 5 that various specialties had to Canadian programming. 6 I have a couple of extra copies, if you need them. Do 7 you have any comments on that? 8 18123 MR. McCABE: Which page are you 9 looking at? 10 18124 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Sorry, it's 11 Appendix A and it's the first page entitled "Canadian 12 Specialty and Pay Services, Canadian Programming 13 Licence Conditions". 14 18125 MR. MILLER: If I can start, 15 Commissioner Cardozo, I think what those numbers tell 16 us is two things: First of all, that the competitive 17 licensing and bidding process has allowed the 18 Commission to maximize the contribution from specialty 19 and pay services in whatever genres they serve because, 20 as has been alluded to earlier, the contribution may, 21 on average, be close to 40 per cent, but it varies 22 tremendously from, I believe, a low of 25 and lower up 23 to a high of virtually 100 per cent of program 24 expenditures or 50, 60 per cent of total revenues. 25 18126 The second thing it shows is that StenoTran 3871 1 direct comparisons on averages is somewhat unhelpful 2 because again if you look at the average of pay 3 services, the average seems to be roughly around 20 per 4 cent. So, I suppose if you were to compare averages, 5 you could say that pay services aren't contributing 6 enough, but that would be again a false argument 7 because it is a different type of service that have 8 higher distribution costs and different programming 9 arrangements that force them to contribute in different 10 ways. 11 18127 So, to us this chart is very useful 12 just to demonstrate, as we pointed out, the genius of 13 the Commission's licensing process that, through a 14 competitive bid, allows the Commission to select those 15 services that contribute the most. 16 18128 MR. RUBINSTEIN: I was also going to 17 add that, number one, I think our first reaction is we 18 take tremendous pride in the numbers since we all 19 contribute to them. All of our members operate many of 20 these services that have secured such really remarkable 21 achievements. 22 18129 But dovetailing on what Peter was 23 saying, if the question is, "Does this mean that, for 24 example, the Commission should move to a percentage of 25 revenue model for the entire industry", vis-à-vis StenoTran 3872 1 conventional broadcasting, that's not a new thing. You 2 already offer that option, so there is nothing new in 3 that proposal. 4 18130 It's true you give other options to 5 conventional licensees for good reasons, but we don't 6 take from this that a percentage of revenue formula is 7 a new proposal to move the system further ahead. It's 8 a proposal which has already been adopted by the 9 Commission for both specialty and conventional 10 licensees. 11 18131 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But you say it 12 works? 13 18132 MR. RUBINSTEIN: It absolutely works 14 in the case of specialties, yes. 15 18133 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Can I ask, 16 while on the financial question, about access to 17 production funds by specialty broadcasters? What are 18 your views on that? 19 18134 MR. McCABE: Our view, which we have 20 expressed in another appearance before you, extends to 21 specialty services as well. There is no doubt that at 22 this stage in the development of the Canadian 23 television cum production system we are at a bit of an 24 impasse in the sense that there are severe limits to 25 the funding that is available in the system. One of StenoTran 3873 1 the ways that we in Canada can bring new money to the 2 system is to put broadcasters -- and when I say 3 "broadcasters", I do not just mean conventional 4 broadcasters, I mean conventional, specialty, pay -- in 5 a position to be producers and distributors, to be in a 6 position to invest more money in programming because 7 there is some potential for return. 8 18135 So, I think that it would be 9 shortsighted to take this proposal which is meant to, 10 in effect, draw more money into the system, expand the 11 capacity of the Canadian system, to produce high- 12 quality programming and to say, "It should only be 13 producers or it should only be broadcasters and exclude 14 specialty services." So, we most definitely do include 15 specialty services in that respect. 16 18136 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Would you see 17 any proportion of the fund being divided up or should 18 it all be open to equal access to producers and 19 broadcasters? 20 18137 MR. MILLER: I think one of the 21 useful discussions you have had through the course of 22 the hearing is what are adequate safeguards and I think 23 many of the concerns that have been raised by parties 24 can be dealt with through adequate safeguards. For 25 example, on the specialty side at present specialities StenoTran 3874 1 on average in the previous year drew about 20 per cent 2 of the funds on both the licence fee and equity side of 3 the Canadian Television Fund. 4 18138 One possible safeguard to ensure that 5 specialities don't lose access would be to set some 6 minimum envelope or some envelope for them. These are 7 the kinds of things that we are certainly very open to 8 and I have taken note of the discussions that have been 9 held here to allow us to frame them. 10 18139 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: One of the 11 prime arguments made by producers is that there is -- 12 there is a couple of arguments. One is the gatekeeper 13 argument, that the broadcaster shouldn't be the 14 gatekeeper, that it should be the producer who tells 15 the story, and that producers, especially the ones that 16 aren't too, too big, have more flexibility, ability to 17 innovative dynamism, stuff like that that when you are 18 part of a bigger corporation you can't do all that sort 19 of stuff. Do you buy any of that? 20 18140 MR. McCABE: If I may just start -- 21 and Peter and Mark may pick it up -- we are producers, 22 too. If you take a look at the expenditure on Canadian 23 programming, $145 or $146 million are spent, if you 24 will, in-house with the specialty services in fact 25 producing programming that Canadians find very StenoTran 3875 1 attractive, $110 million or so in fact goes to 2 independent outside producers. So, it isn't, I think, 3 a question of some sort of level of creativity kind of 4 resting in a group of independent producers and none in 5 the broadcasters. I think that would be a 6 misrepresentation of the situation. 7 18141 I think also when you were talking to 8 the earlier panel, Commissioner Wilson picked a 9 paragraph in which they talked about the contribution 10 that, in effect, broadcasters could make to the 11 creativity of the programming. I think Trina McQueen 12 and others dealt with that. I think that producers who 13 are independent of broadcasters need the broadcaster in 14 the equation finally if the programming is going to 15 suit the audience of the broadcaster, if it's going to 16 be maximized for performance on the air. 17 18142 So, we don't see on that side any 18 great contradiction or any great need to, in effect, 19 protect a pool of creativity over on one side on the 20 basis that there is none on the other. There is 21 creativity on both sides and both ought to be utilized. 22 18143 The first point you raised, 23 obviously, was the gatekeeper question and, as Peter 24 had said -- he may want to add to it -- our view is 25 that there should be safeguards and that these should StenoTran 3876 1 be negotiated going forward with producers. 2 18144 MR. MILLER: Just to take it in 3 context, we tend to use these terms and they all have 4 loaded connotations. Some people say gatekeeper rather 5 than decision-maker. We say synergies and others say 6 vertical integration and they have all these different 7 connotations. First of all, to start with, the 8 broadcaster is always ultimately the person that makes 9 the decision as to what show goes on the air. So, of 10 course, the broadcaster has to make that decision. 11 18145 The thing that's different now and 12 allows us, I think, to advance public policy is we are 13 no longer talking about four or five channels, we are 14 no longer talking about 10, 15 channels, we are talking 15 about on the order of 40 to 50 Canadian channels owned 16 by at least 10 major groups. So, you have so many more 17 options in terms of the number of broadcasters that air 18 programming that you can strike a new balance with 19 appropriate safeguards so that smaller producers and 20 regional producers still have the opportunity to get 21 their works aired. 22 18146 But the other thing that I think we 23 have to remember is the tremendous advantage of being 24 an independent producer. Your infrastructure costs are 25 lower, you are not tied to the same union agreements StenoTran 3877 1 that broadcasters have, and as a specialty service 2 independent producers offer a tremendous advantage 3 because rather than having to build infrastructure, you 4 can purchase directly from someone that has either 5 infrastructure or can make it available the times they 6 need it. 7 18147 So, there is always going to be a 8 role and a strong role for independent producers even 9 if there weren't safeguards, but we are not even 10 proposing that. We are proposing safeguards and we 11 think that's the way to ensure that everybody wins out 12 of a more broad access to these kinds of initiatives, 13 be it distribution or production funding. 14 18148 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Are you 15 hinting in what you were saying, Mr. McCabe, and what 16 Ms McQueen was saying earlier that the broadcaster 17 knows the audience better than the producer does? The 18 producer is an artist and you are going to deliver the 19 goods. Is that what you were getting at? 20 18149 MR. McCABE: I hope I was doing more 21 than hinting. Again Peter reinforced it as well. I 22 think that is the point, that the skilled programmers 23 who are employed by broadcasters are people who are 24 making that judgment day in, day out about what the 25 audiences want. How do we present programming to StenoTran 3878 1 audiences that will draw them to us so that we can have 2 subscribers, we have advertising revenue and so on? 3 So, that is an essential part of the judgment that is 4 missing if the system is conceived of as one in which a 5 group should make some programming and we have to take 6 it because that's all there is to take and it's our job 7 to put it on. 8 18150 I think we really have to -- yes, 9 that may have been a view and it remains a view in some 10 quarters, but I think that as we head into this much 11 more competitive world, we really do have to find the 12 kind of marriage between the people who make the 13 decision about what goes on the air and the people who 14 produce. That may perhaps most closely be found, that 15 marriage, in the ability to be partners in production 16 and distribution. 17 18151 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The next three 18 issues I want to cover deal with various aspects of 19 diversity. The first is on diversity in programming; 20 second, regional diversity; and third is cultural 21 diversity. Let me start with diversity in programming 22 and just read back one of your paragraphs. I won't 23 tell you what page it is on so you don't have to 24 shuffle around and look for it or you could still try 25 and see if you can find it. StenoTran 3879 1 "The CRTC must continue to 2 ensure that Canadian specialty 3 services are able to offer 4 distinctive programming in well- 5 defined niches, that is 6 complementary to the programming 7 offered by other services..." 8 18152 It's on page 20 if you want to find 9 the content in which you have mentioned it. 10 18153 Without getting into issues of 11 licensing here, what are you saying we should do in 12 order to continue to ensure that there is distinctive 13 programming? 14 18154 MR. MILLER: Let me start and perhaps 15 we can get into other areas of your questions. 16 18155 First of all, underlying this part of 17 our submission is the notion that the Commission has to 18 ensure that Canadian services have a chance to launch. 19 That means ensuring that niches are not otherwise 20 occupied by foreign services. So, when you have a 21 circumstance, as we do today, where the golf channel or 22 BET are available in Canada directly from the U.S. with 23 no contribution being made, that makes it very 24 difficult for Canadian services to launch in those 25 areas and, therefore, very difficult to provide StenoTran 3880 1 diversity on a Canadian basis. 2 1155 3 18156 Obviously it can be argued that PET 4 provides diversity in the system because it offers a 5 channel that may be attractive in particular to black 6 Canadians, but it would be so much better if there was 7 a Canadian black entertainment television channel, and 8 obviously it's impossible for that to be launched if 9 the niche is already occupied. 10 18157 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, but once 11 you have got the current system we have, and leaving 12 aside the Canadian-American issue, if you just take the 13 Canadian services that are licensed, is it important 14 for them to maintain a distinctiveness from each other 15 and should we be concerned about that? 16 18158 MR. McCABE: Mark may want to answer 17 as someone who in fact operates a number of channels, 18 but I think it is in the best interests of all of the 19 players that these niches be respected in order that 20 they can continue to, in effect, programmed to an 21 audience that can provide the revenue that in fact 22 feeds the system. 23 18159 MR. RUBINSTEIN: I think the system 24 we have today, by default to a great extent, already 25 ensures that. Obviously, the real success, both StenoTran 3881 1 programatically and financially, for so many of the 2 existing Canadian specialty services is focusing on a 3 genre that they have built up a loyal following to. It 4 would be a bit strange, even if they could do so under 5 their licence, to have a children's service all of a 6 sudden try and migrate into sports programming or adult 7 dramatic programming. 8 18160 So the licensing environment already 9 ensures that. Without talking about future licensing 10 decisions, it's certainly fair to say that, as the 11 Commission goes through this process and may come to 12 conclusions about areas of Canadian programming which 13 need greater support, one of the mechanisms you can do 14 is to put a priority on those specialty services which 15 target towards that demand or that under-served area. 16 And that's something the Commission has done 17 historically. Before 1997, we had no specialized 18 children's or youth television services. Now I think 19 most people would agree we have a pretty wide range of 20 quality and quantity of children's programming. 21 18161 If, for example, there was a view 22 that, for example, in the area of feature film we need 23 to have more diversity and more availability for 24 Canadian feature films in our system, is not one of the 25 ways that we can do that, without making existing StenoTran 3882 1 services change their mandate, is try to put a priority 2 on new licences for services that want to fill that 3 desperate gap in the system? 4 18162 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Is there a 5 system in process at the moment whereby, when one 6 Canadian specialty appears to be encroaching on 7 somebody else's turf, is there a mechanism to talk to 8 each other or to do something about it? 9 18163 MR. MILLER: First of all, we talk to 10 each other regularly. Obviously, the Commission is the 11 ultimate arbiter as to whether a service is meeting its 12 conditions of licence and therefore going to areas that 13 are inappropriate, but certainly, at first instance -- 14 and this did, I believe, happen in the case of the 15 Newsworld issue of last year -- that there is contact 16 at the service level first. 17 18164 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Let me move to 18 local programming, the issue of regional diversity. It 19 may seem like an unusual question to ask, but I think 20 it is an important one. Let me just lay out what I 21 think are shaping up as some of the issues around this 22 question. 23 18165 We certainly sensed a growing concern 24 that, on the one hand, broadcasters have reduced local 25 programming over the years. We talked about that when StenoTran 3883 1 you appeared earlier and you suggested that a large 2 part of it was because broadcasters have been concerned 3 with meeting the requirements of Canadian programming 4 that the Commission has imposed. 5 18166 The other area where people have been 6 concerned about is in the community channel, and people 7 have suggested that since we made that not an 8 obligatory service that the community channel service 9 has dropped considerably over the past year. But I 10 think it's a continuing issue and it likely will be for 11 the next few years. 12 18167 The writer Michael Ignatief has 13 talked about the narcissism of minor difference where 14 the more we become globalized the more we become 15 concerned about our own communities or neighbourhoods. 16 And he has talked about that more in terms of country 17 to country, or it can be applied to the whole debate 18 about Canadian content -- Canadian versus American. 19 But it applies to communities, one community against 20 the other -- not against, but from another. 21 18168 We have heard about two types of 22 things; one is people wanting to see their local areas, 23 issues about their own communities on their own 24 televisions and, to a lesser extent, people wanting to 25 see local stories from other parts of the country, StenoTran 3884 1 things that are not necessarily national news but 2 something local which may have implications for them 3 and their communities. 4 18169 In some senses, one might say that 5 national based, Canada-wide based specialties are the 6 antithesis of local programming. You do programming, 7 except for City Post 24, for example, which is a local 8 specialty, you are doing national programming for the 9 whole country and therefore you do not have room or 10 ability for local programming. 11 18170 What is your sense of how specialties 12 fit into the issue of local programming? 13 18171 May I first suggest that I think you 14 quite properly indicate that locally is one kind of 15 community, if you will, but there are other kinds of 16 communities and that specialty services, in effect, 17 probably have as their primary role speaking to and 18 helping form those kinds of communities which are 19 transnational, in effect, in which Canadians have an 20 interest across the country. And I think that's a 21 legitimate kind of community to service and to 22 recognize as an important part of the system that ought 23 to be addressed. 24 18172 The local question is one that, as 25 you can imagine, specialty broadcasters have not StenoTran 3885 1 specifically addressed except perhaps in a couple of 2 ways. One of them is the business of telling stories 3 across this whole community so that one local community 4 hears the stories of another. 5 18173 But secondly, you have in some 6 instances, for instance with CTV Sports, you have in 7 effect looked at that on a regional basis. You have 8 had before you regional applications and have indeed 9 approved such applications. 10 18174 Perhaps Nark would want to add to 11 that. 12 18175 MR. RUBINSTEIN: Commissioner 13 Cardozo, I think one of the interesting things -- I'm 14 now speaking from the Chum experience -- is what's 15 interesting is the number of local programs produced by 16 one of our conventional services that airs not only on 17 our national specialty services but in fact is exported 18 around the world. 19 18176 Take an example like Movie Television 20 which is about the promotion of information and 21 entertainment about the entertainment industry; broad 22 coverage of the movie making industry, the television 23 industry and others. That show is a local program 24 produced by Citytv, has aired consistently on a 25 national basis on Bravo and is sold to over 100 StenoTran 3886 1 countries around the world providing invaluable 2 exposure for our industries. 3 18177 So in fact, although the mandate of 4 Bravo is not to provide local programming, we have the 5 ability to produce something that's both local to the 6 greater Toronto area, which is Citytv's coverage area, 7 but has found a tremendous audience both nationally and 8 internationally. 9 18178 So I think that's not unimportant 10 because it shows a synergy and an integration between 11 what some people would like to see as separate segments 12 of our industry, which really is not true any more. It 13 may have been true in the seventies and it may have 14 been an easier world then when you had conventional and 15 specialty and production. The integration of our 16 industry and most industries around the world now shows 17 that those are not negatives when they merge; they are 18 positives, and being able to service a local need 19 through a national specialty service is a real 20 accomplishment for our system. 21 18179 MR. McCABE: One of the local 22 problems that I find here in Ottawa is that, despite 23 the fact that Much More Music has been successfully 24 launched, we cannot get it here. 25 18180 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Next hearing. StenoTran 3887 1 18181 Can I ask then, some of the 2 suggestions that have been put forward about local 3 programming is that we place a requirement on 4 broadcasters to show a certain amount of local 5 programming. I know you do not like requirements of 6 any kind but, be that as it may, you would see that as 7 a workable solution? 8 18182 MR. MILLER: Commissioner Cardozo, if 9 you can permit me, I think you know by now I have never 10 had a question I have been prepared to answer directly, 11 so I will go through a bit of a flow here. 12 18183 First of all, I think Canadians are 13 generally extraordinary well served by local media. I 14 cannot think of a time in history where people have 15 greater access to information, news, programming about 16 their communities, about their local environment. It 17 is phenomenal. Whether it be through local radio, 18 through local television, through the community 19 channel, through the newspapers, through the emerging 20 sites on the world wide web, I think that ability to 21 find out information and feel a part of your community 22 is stronger today than it has ever been, but it has 23 shifted, and in particular I think what people have 24 expressed some concerns about is how local broadcasters 25 have started to focus more on local news and less on StenoTran 3888 1 local oriented programming; how the community channel 2 has looked more broadly at serving its regions. And I 3 guess with that change comes some concerns. But you do 4 have opportunities to fill in. 5 18184 We mentioned, obviously, already the 6 issue of regionalized specialty services. That is a 7 concept that's working in Toronto and you have 8 applications before you in other markets around the 9 country -- at least five other markets -- for similar 10 type applications. 11 18185 The weather channel and MétéoMédia is 12 a national service that is highly localized. Through 13 use of new technology that Pelmorex has pioneered, they 14 have created a national service that very much reflects 15 local needs. 16 18186 So the mix has changed but it is 17 being met in different ways. So the final issue then 18 becomes what is the best regulatory environment to 19 ensure local. We strongly vote in favour of the 20 current approach, which is you have competitive 21 licensing procedures, you allow entrepreneurs and 22 visionaries to come forward and fill gaps they see in 23 their communities and in centres across the country. 24 It is then your decision -- and it's often a hard 25 decision -- to make choices, and sometimes you have to StenoTran 3889 1 make a choice between a more local oriented service or 2 a more national oriented service. But you are best 3 equipped, when you face the applications that come 4 before you in conventional hearings or in specialty 5 hearings, to make those determinations, and I think at 6 the end of the day, while many people would feel some 7 sense of assurance if there was a regulated 8 requirement, that would not result in better local 9 programming; it would result in people doing the same 10 kind of thing to meet a regulatory requirement. 11 18187 MR. McCABE: If I may just hitchhike 12 on that with one thought; despite impressions that have 13 been given here to the contrary, if you take a look at 14 the figures that we filed on another occasion, in fact 15 the expenditure by private broadcasters on local 16 programming has gone up substantially over the past 17 five years and, as Peter said, the mix has changed and 18 there are a whole range of other participants in the 19 business of local, but that has remained, I think, an 20 encouraging part of the sort of strength and support 21 for local programming. 22 18188 MS BELL: Commissioner Cardozo, there 23 is something I would like to add. When the Commission, 24 in 1991, reviewed its policy on local programming, I 25 think that it recognized that the system was evolving. StenoTran 3890 1 I think it recognized that it had it give some 2 flexibility to broadcasters in order to meet those 3 needs and that it would in fact, at the time of 4 renewals, look at the contribution that local 5 broadcasters were making in terms of fulfilling the 6 needs of their audience. 7 18189 I think that that's worked and I 8 think we are advocating that we should continue with 9 that approach rather than go back to the old mechanism 10 pre-1991. 11 18190 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, but the 12 problem still remains for us, that we have to consider, 13 is that you are saying the current system works. A 14 number of other people have come forward and said the 15 current system doesn't work, so the question is do we 16 give it time, as I think you are suggesting -- 17 18191 MS BELL: What I'm saying is that you 18 have the tool to deal with the problems where they 19 exist when licensees come up for renewal or when you 20 are looking at new licensing. 21 18192 MR. RUBINSTEIN: I was going to add, 22 Commissioner Cardozo, that in response to some of those 23 concerns, number one is we don't want coming out of 24 this hearing a change to the system that exacerbates 25 the problem. If we want to have the existing system StenoTran 3891 1 looking at the local conventional side, those who want 2 to continue to specialize and put their greater 3 emphasis on local programming must be permitted to do 4 so. To shoe horn them into some other area which moves 5 away from local obviously is not a positive thing. 6 18193 Secondly, quite apart from mandated 7 local programming obligations for specialty, it's well 8 within the resources of existing licence specialty 9 services to do more regional programming. 10 18194 Again, drawing upon our own 11 experience in the case of MuchMusic, we operate 12 regional field offices in both the Maritimes and 13 British Columbia, known as MuchEast and MuchWest. They 14 produce segments every week showcasing musical acts and 15 information from their respective territories. It's 16 fed on a national chain, so you can be in Winnipeg and 17 you may be quite interested about what's going on with 18 Sarah McLachlin in Vancouver or Sloan in Halifax. 19 18195 So it's not beyond the capability of 20 those who choose to do so to move into it, and your 21 system provides the flexibility for that without any 22 additional regulation. 23 18196 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So you are 24 saying we have got-- just to finish up on this topic -- 25 that you have got the weather network and SportsNet StenoTran 3892 1 which are mandated as regional, or at least have to 2 have a regional aspect to their programming; you've got 3 Bravo and MuchMusic through various ways, whether it's 4 MuchEast and MuchWest or Bravo picking up from other 5 networks. That's one way in which you get some local 6 on. 7 18197 So I guess you are saying if we were 8 to look at any kind of requirements, that we should 9 leave you out of the picture, out of that kind of 10 requirement and leave you to do your thing. 11 18198 MR. McCABE: In terms of 12 requirements, you are suggesting, but I think that what 13 we would urge is what Peter has suggested, that first 14 of all you look at the system in its entirety and not 15 just assume that local can be delivered in only one 16 way. And you have named off some of the pieces that 17 are useful, and Peter mentioned some of the others, in 18 looking at that system. 19 18199 And then I do think that, again, we 20 strongly feel that in the marketplace it is best to let 21 those services, as Mark said, that are expert in this, 22 that want to find their audiences in that area, in 23 effect to serve those marketplaces and not to drive 24 them out of the local area or indeed others into it. 25 18200 M. BRIÈRE: Si vous le permettez, StenoTran 3893 1 j'aimerais faire un commentaire additionnel sur ce qui 2 vient d'être dit. 3 18201 Je pense qu'il est intéressant -- je 4 vais parler de l'expérience du Québec en particulier, 5 le marché francophone -- de noter que la venue des 6 canaux spécialisés a accru, à mon sens, la 7 programmation dite locale. Je regarde dans le domaine 8 de l'information, par exemple, je regarde dans le 9 domaine du sport, de la musique, je regarde dans le 10 domaine de la santé entre autres, il y a des débats, il 11 y a des discussions qui ne se faisaient pas avant sur 12 les chaînes généralistes qui se font maintenant en 13 télévision spécialisée. Ça s'ajoute à ce qu'on a dit 14 tout à l'heure, la radio, les journaux et tout ça. 15 18202 Je pense que, en tout cas dans le 16 marché que je représente, il y a eu là un accroissement 17 du volume de sujets locaux, et je pense que la 18 télévision spécialisée a permis ça également. Je pense 19 que c'est important de le mentionner. 20 18203 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Merci beaucoup. 21 18204 Let me move to the issue of cultural 22 diversity and quickly go through some of the things we 23 have been hearing over these last two or three weeks. 24 18205 The Canadian Television Fund said 25 that the issue of whether there should be more or any StenoTran 3894 1 cultural diversity portrayed in their program was not 2 something that was in their purview, that their role 3 was to provide the money, and I still didn't quite 4 understand their answer that we would have funds that 5 get shelled out without any kinds of requirements or 6 even prioritization. 7 1215 8 18206 Of course, we have had various 9 community groups as well as others talking about the 10 lack of diversity, as one person put it, the lack of 11 reflection of Canada on our screens. 12 18207 The Canadian Media Guild has gotten 13 into the area of saying, "Well, we want to deal with 14 quality, not quantity", which is sort of a tired old 15 argument of saying if you can hire minorities, somehow 16 you obviously have to hire less qualified people, which 17 reminds me of the criticisms that we made of Bertha 18 Wilson when she was appointed to the Supreme Court; 19 people said, "There go the standards", that she wasn't 20 qualified for the bench. It turned out at the end of 21 her time that she was one of the most hard working and 22 brilliant judges of her time. 23 18208 People say it is hard to identify 24 minorities who are going to make the cut; yet, I think 25 of where the funds come from. They come from StenoTran 3895 1 taxpayers, they come from cable subscribers, and on 2 both counts, Revenue Canada and the cable companies 3 have no trouble identifying minorities and identifying 4 everybody to collect the money, but when it comes out 5 on the other end in terms of reflecting people on the 6 screen, some people get left out. 7 18209 The Canadian Diversity Network had an 8 interesting observation about some of the programming 9 from Britain, where they said: 10 "It is safe to say that 11 Canadians who watch British 12 dramas and comedies on TVO and 13 PBS are likely to see more Asian 14 and Black actors in major roles 15 than they ever will watching CBC 16 or Canada's private network." 17 18210 So, it seems like Britain is more 18 comfortable with this issue. 19 18211 The Race Relations Centre from 20 Montreal had referred to an interesting study where 21 they found that in advertising the executives were much 22 less willing to portray diversity, but polls show that 23 the average buyer out there had no problem with showing 24 diversity in advertising. So, there was this 25 gatekeeper thing where the advertisers felt there was a StenoTran 3896 1 problem and the public doesn't. 2 18212 Epitome Productions said that they 3 wouldn't think of putting together a program today in 4 Canada, in Toronto, that did not reflect the diversity 5 and they suggested that the only area they found 6 reluctance is in their advertising at the international 7 level, that the advertising agencies who advertise for 8 them internationally tend to promote their shows 9 without the non-white characters in their promotion. 10 If you look at some of the local programming -- and I 11 have just been watching the last couple of weeks -- if 12 you look at the characters in the ads in the TV Guide, 13 for example, you don't get a clue that there are non- 14 white characters in those programs as well. 15 18213 So, I come to the issue of viewing. 16 If you don't say to all the viewers out there, "There 17 is something here that might interest you", you are 18 losing your viewers. You are somehow thinking that you 19 have to go for the lowest common denominator and 20 somehow if you have minorities you might detract or 21 something like that. I don't know what the issue is 22 there. So, it seems to me there is a good business 23 argument that may not be met. 24 18214 Let me ask you for your help to 25 understand this. Do you think (a) there is an issue StenoTran 3897 1 here that we could be or should be reflecting diversity 2 more and, as some have suggested, such as the Canadian 3 Television Fund, the ball is really in your court? As 4 broadcasters, you commission or accept certain things 5 to be put on the screen. Do you have a role there that 6 others don't? 7 18215 MR. McCABE: If I may start, I will 8 hand then to Tandy Yull and to others. We have a 9 responsibility and I would suggest that responsibility 10 starts with the viewer and with the marketplace. We 11 have an interest, an intrinsic business interest, in 12 reflecting our audiences and my experience with 13 broadcasters across the country is that there is a high 14 level of recognition of that that our audiences are 15 changing, that in fact the people we are playing to in 16 Toronto and Vancouver, et cetera, are not the same 17 people we were playing to 10 and 15 years ago. 18 18216 If one ignores that whole audience, 19 one is ignoring a huge chunk of not only audience, but 20 of potential revenue. So, I think that you will see as 21 you look, in particular, in the major centres where the 22 impact of cultural change is most evident and most 23 clearly seen, you will find broadcasters who do, 24 indeed, recognize and reflect that reality of their 25 marketplace. In other areas of the country where there StenoTran 3898 1 is perhaps less clear reflection, this consciousness 2 may not be as great, but I believe it is one that is 3 fairly widespread in the industry as such. 4 18217 Tandy? 5 18218 MS GREER YULL: I think I have to 6 start by seconding what Michael has said and your quote 7 from Epitome, that the business reality is that if we 8 don't program to our audiences which are increasingly 9 diverse, it's not going to make good business sense. 10 So, it's in our own best interest to program to that 11 diversity that Canada is. 12 18219 I don't have the number with me, but 13 I believe the environmental scan included with the CAB 14 Television Board submission quoted that by 2002 the 15 population will be 50 per cent made up of visible 16 minorities. Therefore, we have to follow that trend. 17 18220 I think many of the conventional 18 stations do do diversity on their own. I know that 19 Citytv has a tremendous record in that respect, the A 20 Channel and other stations in the western provinces. 21 BCTV, for example, have a tremendous record of creating 22 programs for an adverse range of audiences. Certainly 23 specialty channels have a contribution to make in that 24 respect and already do, particularly through the third 25 language services, of course, but we all must program StenoTran 3899 1 to the diverse cultures that are Canada. 2 18221 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: What makes it 3 something for -- that City and MuchMusic and BTV in 4 Vancouver, what makes it something easier for you to 5 reflect and other people just not be able to? I am not 6 saying all the others don't. I notice in the new 7 launch of SportsNet the lead announcer was a visible 8 minority, who has been with them for a long time and 9 obviously is very good at the job. You see it in news 10 on CBC, for example. 11 18222 MR. RUBINSTEIN: Since you raise one 12 of our stations, in our case -- 13 18223 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Go ahead, 14 defend it. 15 18224 MR. RUBINSTEIN: It's something we 16 are obviously proud of, but I think there is two 17 things. Number one is, as a general comment, our 18 experience is you either believe in it or you don't. 19 It doesn't matter what the policy might be that the 20 Commission has enacted. If it's not at the core of 21 your programming philosophies, whatever you put up on 22 the screen isn't really going to be meaningful. So, 23 you really have to believe in it as a fundamental 24 philosophical approach for your station. 25 18225 In our case, secondly, with the StenoTran 3900 1 launch of City in 1972, I believe it was the natural 2 intense localism associated with that service which 3 required bringing to the screen the multicultural, 4 multiracial, multilingual reality of a new Toronto, 5 where now close to 50 per cent or over 50 per cent come 6 from backgrounds where neither French nor English is 7 their mother language. So, our intense focus on 8 localism -- we are producing 40, 45 hours per week of 9 local programming. You can't help but have to deal 10 with that new multiracial reality. 11 18226 City became the springboard -- and 12 you have all been to our facility -- for the MuchMusics 13 and the Bravos and the Spaces and the Cable Pulse 24 14 and that intense localism and that philosophy about 15 really making diversity an essential element of what 16 you are as a television service got extrapolated and 17 interwoven into every one of our other specialty 18 services. We didn't do it because there was a policy 19 which required us to do it, we did it because it was 20 something we believed in, because our audiences wanted 21 it and also because it worked out that it was also good 22 business sense. 23 18227 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Just lastly on 24 this topic, to go back to the discussion we had with 25 the Canadian Television Fund who said it wasn't in StenoTran 3901 1 their purview, it was in your purview, the broadcasters 2 who made that decision, as to whether or not it was 3 worth seeing more diversity, is there a role with 4 broadcasters? There is a role for producers, too, I 5 would assume. 6 18228 MR. McCABE: I don't think the 7 Canadian Television Fund as a funding body has a 8 particular responsibility in this area, but the 9 responsibility does rest with us and with the 10 producers. 11 18229 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: There are two 12 more issues I want to cover and I will try and be 13 quick. New media. We talked to SPTV about it. Do you 14 have anything more to add in terms of whether all your 15 members, the specialty members, have active websites 16 with interactive facility? 17 18230 MR. MILLER: I think you received an 18 excellent answer on that this morning, so I am just 19 going to add something that wasn't said and that I 20 alluded to earlier. It's the extent to which specialty 21 services will be the leading edge and must be the 22 leading edge in new media. That is because by virtue 23 of them being niche specialized services, if they fail 24 to take advantage of that opportunity, as enhanced 25 video, real-time video starts to become more available StenoTran 3902 1 on the web, they will be the first to suffer the 2 competitive consequences. 3 18231 The good news is that many Canadian 4 specialty services have already built strong brands. 5 YTV is youth, so YTV was one of the first to have a 6 very strong web presence and is building that brand in 7 whatever medium. The same is true for MuchMusic, the 8 same is true of other services. So, it's absolutely 9 appropriate for specialty to take a leading role in new 10 media because their future will depend on it. 11 18232 Again one of the unfortunate 12 consequences of allowing, for example, a golf channel 13 into Canada is you make it very hard for someone to 14 establish a golf cite because people watch the golf 15 channel and go down to the U.S. golf cite, but if you 16 can establish a Canadian service when you establish a 17 Space TV, you can build the brand and the awareness so 18 that Canadians not only go to the service, but also to 19 the site. 20 18233 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In terms of 21 promotion, do you see websites as being one of the 22 major opportunities or an opportunity to create the 23 Star system that we have talked about that exists so 24 well in Quebec or in French-speaking television, but 25 doesn't exist in English-speaking television? StenoTran 3903 1 18234 MR. MILLER: The short answer is yes. 2 I would call it cross-promotion, though. It is the web 3 service promoting the channel through scheduling and 4 giving more information about on-air talent and 5 extending the program experience through some immersive 6 environment or gaming, but it's also the converse. 7 It's the ability of you on your conventional or 8 specialty side to promote the website and draw 9 Canadians to that. 10 18235 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Lastly, I just 11 want to ask you about -- let me rename this section to 12 "synergies". I had written "vertical integration". 13 You have talked about it in your written brief and 14 orally. Let me just give you an open-ended question 15 and say: What are your thoughts about vertical 16 integration or synergies? 17 18236 MR. MILLER: Let me start. First of 18 all, it's a global reality. We are not in the 19 convenient world where a television broadcaster did one 20 thing and a telephone companies did another thing and 21 producers did another thing. We lost that world 10 22 years ago. It's only now that in public policy terms 23 we are starting to catch up with that reality. 24 18237 So, we very much echo some of the 25 views that you have heard from companies like Shaw and StenoTran 3904 1 Rogers that Canada needs to build strong multimedia 2 companies that have the capacity to compete against the 3 best in the world. That requires a building up of 4 these synergies or, to use the CBC term, 5 constellations. 6 18238 So, we see the building of 7 synergies/vertical integration as a very positive thing 8 to continue to allow the Commission to meet its public 9 policy objectives and to keep Canadian media companies 10 competitive against the world. With those advantages 11 come the need for certain safeguards, but in our minds 12 it's very important, particularly on the specialty 13 side, to recognize that without these synergies, many 14 specialty services simply couldn't get launched. 15 18239 As we enter the digital universe 16 where services are lucky they might have 500,000 to a 17 million subscribers, if they can't build on synergies, 18 they will not be able to use the revenues they get for 19 programming. They will be going instead to 20 administration and infrastructure. So, it's a major 21 plus, it's a major reality, and we note that the 22 Commission has encouraged it at most stages through the 23 last period. 24 18240 MR. RUBINSTEIN: I would come at it 25 from a slightly more practical point of view vis-à-vis StenoTran 3905 1 this hearing, which is what we recommend the Commission 2 do as it goes through a very difficult deliberation 3 process is recognize that when you have some come 4 forward and say, "Isn't it terrific that the specialty 5 services group were doing such a wonderful job and 6 let's compare them and their performance to the 7 conventional group", in many cases you are talking 8 about the same owners. 9 18241 We are glad that they applaud our 10 performances for services like MuchMusic and Bravo and 11 Space. Those services could not contribute the way 12 they do and they could not reach the levels of 13 contribution that they do and they could not meet the 14 fundamental objectives of the Act but for the synergy 15 provided by a service like Citytv. So, it's not a 16 black and white thing. We try and parse out and assess 17 contributions by sector. As the sectors merge and 18 integrate, you are looking at a total package and we 19 hope that your analysis will obviously take that into 20 account. 21 18242 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I notice the 22 answers from you this morning have been very 23 complementary to the answers that we received from 24 SPTV, which sort of leaves me with the question of why 25 two organizations, but is one of the key differences StenoTran 3906 1 that your members tend to be more linked to vertically 2 integrated companies than theirs? 3 18243 MR. RUBINSTEIN: Our membership 4 includes producers. History Television is a member of 5 our association. We obviously have very common 6 positions, but it's true that one of the things we 7 think we bring is a broader perspective. We don't sit 8 here as a board, although we represent exclusively the 9 specialty interests. We recognize that it's not that 10 simple any more and that a realistic anlaysis of what's 11 going on has to take into account the realities that we 12 all know, including common ownership and vertical 13 integration. 14 18244 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: History is a 15 member of your association and SPTV. Is that right? 16 18245 MR. RUBINSTEIN: Correct. 17 18246 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Just to finish 18 on this point, then, in terms of vertical integration, 19 one of the suggestions out there has been that for 20 those of you who are vertically integrated and have 21 more access to synergies should be prepared to put more 22 into contributions towards Canadian programming. For 23 the record, your answer? 24 18247 MR. McCABE: When you licensed these 25 services, you were aware of the synergies that they had StenoTran 3907 1 and you chose a particular level of contribution to 2 Canadian production, Canadian programming. We think 3 that that's appropriate and remains appropriate. 4 18248 I think your opportunity to review 5 that question comes at the time of their renewal when 6 you will take a look and say, "Do changed circumstances 7 make some other level of contribution appropriate?" 8 But to make some sort of general -- I think both SPTV 9 and ourselves have indicated and you yourselves have 10 reflected upon the vast variety of services and 11 circumstances in which the services operate. I think 12 some general rule that integrated services ought to be 13 contributing more would be counterproductive. I think 14 you have the tools and you have approached it in the 15 right way and will, indeed, approach it again at 16 renewal time. 17 18249 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you. 18 That covers my questions. Do come back, Mr. 19 Rubinstein. 20 18250 MR. RUBINSTEIN: I think I will be 21 back on Thursday. 22 18251 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner 23 Wilson? 24 18252 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Good morning. 25 Good afternoon, actually. StenoTran 3908 1 18253 Mr. McCabe, I just can't resist the 2 opportunity to question you on a couple of things that 3 sort of seem to be common positions between you and the 4 Specialty Board and the Television Board. Yourself in 5 your submission raised the Television Board, so I feel 6 quite comfortable asking you these questions. 7 18254 On page 2 of your oral comments this 8 morning you state: 9 "It is true that this is a whole 10 new way of thinking about the 11 broadcasting system, but that's 12 precisely why you brought us 13 together this Fall -- to find 14 innovative ways to strengthen 15 the Canadian broadcasting 16 system." 17 18255 At the risk of, I guess, being a 18 little bit of the devil's advocate, I just want to ask 19 you: Why is this a whole new way of thinking about the 20 broadcasting system and what is so innovative about 21 focusing on viewership? 22 18256 MR. McCABE: We had concluded that it 23 must be new because we were having such difficulty 24 getting people to understand it. 25 18257 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Well, you have StenoTran 3909 1 another opportunity right now. 2 18258 MR. McCABE: I think the -- 3 18259 COMMISSIONER WILSON: It doesn't seem 4 at first blush -- I'm sorry to interrupt you. I had 5 this discussion with Mr. Macdonald of WIC, as you will 6 recall, but that is your business. 7 1235 8 18260 You have been spending all this money 9 on Canadian programming, so why aren't you -- why 10 haven't you up till now been driving viewers to that? 11 18261 MR. McCABE: I think, again, if I may 12 put a context to this, our proposal was that the entire 13 system be -- have goals established for it, not just 14 that our particular part of it have goals established 15 for it. By doing that, and by your taking some 16 leadership in this matter, you do signal to, for 17 instance, distributors that in the decisions about what 18 they put on a given tier or they, indeed, bring to 19 their service at all, you signal to them that they 20 should be concerned in doing that with viewership of 21 Canadian programming. I would suggest that that is not 22 one of their considerations at the moment in respect of 23 the production sector, who, you know, quite proudly say 24 that we have got a little clause in the act that says 25 we have to make a contribution. Well, we agree. StenoTran 3910 1 18262 It seems to us, again, that back to 2 our discussion about what works on air and the judgment 3 that we have to make about it, and you have heard and 4 will hear broadcasters say that often what is made for 5 our -- that we -- often the programming that we put on 6 our screens is not made particularly for our screens; 7 that the economics drives a product that is made for 8 U.S. off prime or U.S. specialty and we have suggested, 9 and we must put it in prime time, it does not perform 10 as well with audiences. 11 18263 So, we are suggesting again that you 12 bring -- because they are representative of the act -- 13 you bring into the ambit of a system goal the 14 production community so that you may work with them and 15 we may work with them to, in fact, arrive at ways of 16 having programming for our audiences that performs 17 better. 18 18264 We have put in our proposal, in the 19 broader television board proposal, a number of 20 incentives that we think will indeed aim in the 21 direction of having better programming that will get 22 bigger audiences. Most specifically, I suppose, we 23 have had -- we have proposed that we be participants in 24 the ownership and in the distribution so that we again 25 may focus upon programming that performs. StenoTran 3911 1 18265 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So it is not 2 just -- it is not that you haven't focused on 3 viewership up until now because, as Scott Cuthbertson 4 said from TV Securities, that Canadian programming has 5 just been a cost of doing business. You make your 6 money on the U.S. programming so you buy that. You 7 exhibit that in prime time. You earn the margins on 8 that and you do your bit for Canadian programming and 9 you don't want to spend a whole lot of money on that, 10 sort of promoting it and -- because I mean you are in 11 the business to make money. 12 18266 MR. McCABE: That view that you 13 express there, and I assume you are exaggerating for 14 effect -- 15 18267 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Exaggerating 16 what? The cost of doing business. No, he actually 17 said that. 18 18268 MR. McCABE: No, the description of 19 how we go at Canadian programming, that description was 20 one that several years ago undoubtedly was a true and 21 accurate description. 22 18269 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That is sort of 23 what I took from what he said. 24 18270 MR. McCABE: Yes, that is right. 25 18271 COMMISSIONER WILSON: During your StenoTran 3912 1 presentation, that that was what he was talking about. 2 18272 MR. McCABE: And he is an independent 3 voice speaking to us from the marketplace. Often, as I 4 think some broadcasters have remarked, they know more 5 about our businesses than we do and, perhaps, are a 6 little bit more honest with us about how they really 7 operate than sometimes we are able to be. 8 18273 But, if I may, what has happened is 9 he gives you the reality today. We are having to think 10 about the reality of tomorrow. That reality is we have 11 to make money at that Canadian programming. We are 12 suggesting to you that your strongest contribution, 13 your most important contribution in this hearing could 14 be to create the situation, create the regulatory and 15 policy situation in which we have an opportunity to, in 16 fact, make money at that programming and therefore we 17 do more of it and we do better at it. 18 18274 It seems to us that that would be in 19 the public policy interest as well as in our interest. 20 There is no doubt that it is our business and, as we 21 move forward in a more competitive world, where we have 22 to find unique Canadian programming that can be 23 competitive, we have enormous obstacles to overcome in 24 terms of a budget that is typically half the cost of -- 25 for an hour of distinctive drama, half the cost of the StenoTran 3913 1 average American product, and yet we still lose $1.15 2 for every $1 we spend at that programming. 3 18275 We are trying to suggest that it 4 would be in all our interests, and it would in fact 5 provide an impetus for more and better Canadian 6 programming, if you were to help us reverse those 7 figures so that -- and what we are suggesting is focus 8 on viewership for the entire system. 9 18276 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Including 10 specialty and premium services. 11 18277 MR. McCABE: Including specialty and 12 premium. 13 18278 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, so let me 14 ask you about that. 15 18279 This morning when we talked to SPTV 16 they talked about the reverse viewing trend enjoyed by 17 Canadian specialities. They said that Canada's 18 specialty television services enjoy the reverse trend 19 to average English viewing with 64 per cent of tuning 20 to Canadian programs and 36 per cent to foreign 21 programs, which is virtually the exact opposite of 22 conventional broadcasters. 23 18280 What do you think accounts for that? 24 I went through the charts in your submission, and you 25 have a number of charts with some data but everybody StenoTran 3914 1 sort of positions their data in a slightly different 2 way and there is nothing that corresponds directly to 3 this, but do you accept those figures? 4 18281 MR. MILLER: I think the numbers are 5 accurate for what they are, but they fail to address, I 6 think, two significant issues. Number one, that to get 7 a fair representation how specialty contributes to 8 viewing, you would have to look at U.S. and Canadian 9 together and see how that plays out. 10 18282 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But I am just 11 talking about viewing of Canadian and foreign programs 12 on specialty English and French-language specialty 13 services. 14 18283 MR. MILLER: But we would submit you 15 can't just look at that because you are a regulatory 16 regime with your one-to-one linkage rule, which means 17 for every Canadian specialty you bring in another U.S. 18 can be brought in. So, as I alluded to earlier in 19 questioning from Commissioner Cardozo, the unfortunate 20 consequence is while we are building audiences to 21 Canadian services, we are not repatriating audiences 22 from U.S. services. 23 18284 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But I am not 24 talking about audiences to the services. I am talking 25 about viewership of Canadian programming on those StenoTran 3915 1 services. There is no Canadian programming on the U.S. 2 services. 3 18285 MR. MILLER: There actually is, but 4 we will not get into that. 5 18286 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Yes, maybe a 6 small percentage. But we are talking about if you look 7 at YTV, YTV carries a certain amount of Canadian 8 programming and a certain amount of American 9 programming, or foreign programming, and 64 per cent 10 overall, let's say on average, of tuning to that 11 channel is to their Canadian programs. 12 18287 MR. MILLER: I am going to answer 13 your question -- 14 18288 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Which is the 15 opposite of the conventionals, which is 65 per cent or 16 thereabouts, of tuning is to foreign programs. 17 18289 MR. MILLER: Sorry, again, I am 18 answering your question in two parts. The first part 19 of my answer is to say that those numbers are true but 20 they don't paint the full picture by virtue of the 21 linkage rule, so that the cost of those Canadian 22 specialities is tampered by the U.S. services, so that, 23 overall, the viewing doesn't go up. I think that is an 24 important context. 25 18290 Number two -- and I will come back to StenoTran 3916 1 that if it is not clear. 2 18291 Number two, specialty services 3 receive 70 per cent of their revenues from 4 subscriptions. It is an entirely different business 5 model. Where they get paid for their distribution, 6 conventional broadcasters pay for their distribution. 7 It's an entirely different model. So, as I think the 8 Chair was alluding, when you look at these numbers you 9 can't compare them one to another because the model, 10 the business model is entirely different. 11 18292 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You are saying 12 that the business model affects the viewership? 13 18293 MR. MILLER: Absolutely. Because as 14 has also been pointed out to you, again, if you compare 15 the numbers, 40 per cent of the revenues of specialty 16 services go to Canadian programming whereas less on 17 conventional goes. Again, that is by virtue of the 18 entirely different business model. 19 18294 Secondly, as Mr. McCabe has alluded 20 to, in conventional television, because you don't have 21 subscription revenues, you just have advertising, you 22 rely disproportionately on U.S. programming so that you 23 can earn revenues from U.S. programming that you put 24 back into Canadian programming. So the business model 25 is entirely different and therefore the numbers are StenoTran 3917 1 entirely different. 2 18295 MR. McCABE: I think the final point 3 that Peter makes is important, that is, on the 4 conventional side, you are running, with the Canadian 5 programming, you are running up against that powerful, 6 high budget American programming that has traditionally 7 drawn huge audiences in this country and has helped us, 8 indeed, cross-subsidize the Canadian programming where 9 we have not necessarily had the budgets to do this, to 10 in effect create often fully competitive programming. 11 But, when we operate as specialities, we are, as Peter 12 says, in an entirely different model where the 13 economics of the programming is different and you are 14 not always running up against, for the particular 15 audience that you are talking to, you are not always 16 running up against that, again, that high budget or the 17 same volume of that high budget American programming. 18 18296 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I guess what I 19 am trying to get at, and this was a question I asked 20 this morning, is there something -- I mean you are 21 broadcasters but you are also specialty broadcasters. 22 I should say you are specialty broadcasters first and 23 broadcasters second, since that is the hat you have on 24 right now. 25 18297 I mean is there anything that you can StenoTran 3918 1 learn from that? They are suggesting that the same 2 kind of spending requirement model be applied to 3 conventional broadcasters right across the board, that 4 the more money you spend on Canadian programming it is 5 going to end up in prime time and the more -- and I am 6 tying this back to this whole system-wide viewership 7 goal. 8 18298 If you look at those superficial 9 numbers, and ignore the business model underlying it, 10 and you see 65 per cent of tuning is to Canadian 11 programming, that is pretty good. Is there something 12 that the conventional broadcasters can learn from that? 13 18299 MR. McCABE: We believe that the 14 model for specialty within its particular -- the 15 regulatory model is particularly suited to its 16 particular economic model. What we are suggesting in 17 respect of -- and again this is another appearance 18 before you being revisited -- but what we are 19 suggesting is that we must address the economics of 20 Canadian programming. We can't sort of, on 21 conventional, we can't just put it to the side, we must 22 -- and we put before you proposals to, in effect, draw 23 more money in. 24 18300 We have said we are the likely source 25 of new money for Canadian programming. But what we StenoTran 3919 1 have said is we must have an opportunity to make a 2 return on that money, that again a process in which you 3 merely require us to spend more money and, perhaps, 4 continue to lose money is one that is finally not a 5 healthy process for the system, and not one that is 6 likely to in effect advance public policy goals. 7 18301 But if you will create the 8 circumstances in which that investment of money can 9 potentially see a return, then, indeed, that approach 10 becomes central to the system. But if you are 11 suggesting that, as I think was being suggested 12 earlier, although Trina McQueen did say that she had no 13 expertise in the area -- I think that, perhaps, she is 14 being too modest there, but the -- if you are 15 suggesting that in effect the kind of flexibility that 16 conventional broadcasters have at this stage, and which 17 we are proposing be increased given the nature of the 18 broadcasting system as it is developing, if you are 19 suggesting that that in effect be rescinded and a 20 single rule be -- 21 18302 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am not 22 suggesting that. 23 18303 MR. McCABE: I am sorry. If the 24 suggestion is -- 25 18304 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am not at the StenoTran 3920 1 point where I am ready to suggest anything. 2 18305 MR. McCABE: But if the suggestion is 3 then we would consider that to be a retrograde step of 4 considerable proportion. 5 18306 MR. MILLER: If I can add, I think we 6 learn two things from the experience of specialty. 7 First of all, we learn that even with a massive 8 infusion of dollars and hours of Canadian programming 9 we still haven't been able to move the overall viewing 10 numbers. The chart that we showed, the CAB television 11 panel showed -- 12 18307 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That is a very 13 interesting point that you raise because you also have 14 not scheduled it in prime time and you also have not 15 promoted it the same way that the U.S. programming has 16 been promoted. So is that really fair to say? I mean 17 I raised this issue with Richard Stursberg because he 18 actually mentioned in his submission the notion that 19 viewership has been flat at 30 per cent for almost 40 20 years. 21 18308 MR. McCABE: You earlier suggested 22 that we -- it is our business to, in fact, find the 23 biggest audiences we can. If you speak to any 24 professional programmer working with any of the major 25 broadcasting systems, they will tell you that broadly StenoTran 3921 1 speaking the Canadian programming they schedule is put 2 in the place that they best think it will get an 3 audience. 4 18309 Indeed, the suggestion that any kind 5 of programming whatsoever of whatever quality be shoved 6 right into prime time and somehow we are adrift if we 7 don't do that, I think it really betrays, in a sense, a 8 lack of knowledge, which I mean broadly speaking we all 9 have -- 10 18310 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But who is 11 suggesting that any kind of programming of any quality 12 be shoved into prime time? 13 18311 MR. McCABE: That is the suggestion 14 that is often before us. You are suggesting that we 15 are not scheduling -- we are not scheduling this in 16 prime time. 17 18312 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Well -- 18 18313 MR. McCABE: The answer is we are 19 scheduling it where it can find an audience and we are 20 looking to you to help us, one, improve the quality of 21 it so that it can find a better audience. 22 18314 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I guess what I 23 am just saying is that this 30 per cent number has been 24 relied upon by a lot of different parties as a measure 25 of how we have put all of this stuff into Canadian StenoTran 3922 1 programming but, you know, we haven't increased the 2 viewership, but there are a lot of other factors that 3 go into increasing the viewership, including airing it 4 at a time when most people are watching television, 5 which is prime time. 6 18315 MR. McCABE: Again, the other 7 possible response to the scheduling is that the people 8 involved being professionals are putting it -- given 9 the other requirements that are upon them of 10 simulcasting revenue and so on are putting it in the 11 slot where it can best find an audience and, indeed, we 12 are looking to you to expand that so that we may find 13 appropriate audiences for programming. 14 18316 So that I don't think it is -- one 15 side of the argument is we are not putting it in the 16 schedule where it can best find an audience, and our 17 view would be that is precisely what we are doing with 18 the program we have in hand. 19 18317 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But it hasn't 20 had any effect. 21 18318 MR. McCABE: That is why we have 22 before you a range of proposals to try to improve that 23 situation, precisely. 24 18319 MR. MILLER: If I can finish, because 25 I had another part to my answer, the other lesson is StenoTran 3923 1 that one size does not fit all; that the best way to 2 achieve objectives in viewing and of more money and 3 more hours is to allow players to fulfil their niches. 4 As has been pointed to by Mr. Rubinstein, that ability 5 to go into a particular niche is also true on the 6 conventional side now. 7 18320 Citytv, when it was licensed in 8 Toronto, was licensed to be different from other 9 conventional broadcasters, and that is very much a 10 fixture, I think, of the new environment we have today. 11 18321 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, thank 12 you. Those are my questions. 13 18322 THE CHAIRPERSON: When you were asked 14 whether the Commission should respond to what appears 15 to be an interest or a preoccupation regarding local 16 programming on conventional TV, your answer, if I 17 understood well, was that citizens have never been so 18 well served locally. You talked about the delivery of 19 local programming on cable and 25 per cent of the 20 population does not get cable; others don't get certain 21 tiers; that they get local information through the 22 Internet when there is 12 to 13 per cent of homes in 23 Canada who have access to the Internet. 24 18323 The third answer was we have 25 broadcasters, and broadcasters such as CHUM, can choose StenoTran 3924 1 to provide local programming and therefore people are 2 served and there is no need for the Commission to 3 intrude in that area and demand certain -- or require a 4 certain amount of local programming. 5 1255 6 18324 To this third answer some will say 7 pretty soon we may have three and even fewer corporate 8 groups serving any given market and what is eliminating 9 some of the local programming is this concentration and 10 restructuring, et cetera. So, how do you find these 11 three answers -- a level of comfort to those who think 12 that they are not getting enough local programming or 13 that they fear losing even what they have? 14 18325 MR. McCABE: I suppose at some level 15 we have to recognize that increasingly the regulatory 16 system is operating in a more competitive economic 17 environment. There is revenue that flows from local 18 programming and it seems to me that in that competitive 19 marketplace one or more of these broadcasters will seek 20 out that local revenue and attempt to provide a strong 21 local focus to their broadcasting. 22 18326 But it does not mean necessarily that 23 all of them will do it because I suspect if all of them 24 went into the marketplace and tried to tap that local 25 revenue, you might end up with three and four services StenoTran 3925 1 that were, in effect, based on that revenue, relatively 2 weak, whereas if two or three were in the marketplace 3 because they chose to be there and they were there for 4 a reason, they are not going to abandon that 5 marketplace because there is a key part of their 6 revenue base there. They will have a strong revenue 7 base, they will be able to provide strong services to 8 Canadians. 9 18327 So, I don't think -- we don't think 10 that this is in fact a concern. It only becomes a 11 concern if the effect of what you do in your decisions 12 is to, by requirement, drive dollars out of that area 13 or draw dollars out of that area to other areas that 14 you give higher priority to, which is why we have 15 suggested that you in fact signal that this remains a 16 priority. I do believe, however, in that context that 17 broadcasters will not abandon that revenue source. 18 Those who can operate well in it will in fact remain in 19 that field. 20 18328 THE CHAIRPERSON: You wouldn't give 21 any credence, then, to some of the submissions we have 22 that local news even is no longer a money-maker, 23 because you seem to think that even if there is very 24 few conventional broadcasters -- let's assume the 25 Commission feels that to serve the population of Canada StenoTran 3926 1 with a sufficient amount of local programming you have 2 to ensure that conventional broadcasters provide it for 3 the reasons that I have outlined. So, let's start with 4 that premise. 5 18329 You say somebody will do it because 6 it's a revenue-maker. So, you don't believe the 7 submissions that are made that say it's not, because 8 when you say don't drive dollars by your upcoming 9 decision on this process, I gather, out of local by 10 demanding too much on under-represented categories, 11 which is, of course, one of the fears of those who want 12 more local programming, but we have seen, according to 13 those who feel there is not enough local programming, 14 less of it long before we even purport to change the 15 regulatory system. 16 18330 The argument is it's occurring via 17 concentration and restructuring and large multi-station 18 groups. It's not obvious to me that if we do nothing, 19 it will happen. Our fear is not how many will want to 20 do it, but whether anybody will do it where CHUM isn't 21 serving. Of course, we will get new services. 22 18331 MR. McCABE: Peter will perhaps want 23 to add to this, but it seems to us that it is 24 absolutely essential that you not just take these 25 demands for more local service in isolation. Certainly StenoTran 3927 1 people who have particular interests in television or 2 in having a new car will tell you, "Yes, that's what I 3 want. I want more of that." 4 18332 I think the context that Peter set of 5 a much broader service of the local market is one that 6 it's important to establish rather than merely looking 7 at this one factor in that service for the local 8 market. So, our suggestion is that economics, one way 9 or another -- the economics of local programming are 10 essential, number one, but, number two, the context in 11 which you look at it is essential. 12 18333 Peter? 13 18334 MR. MILLER: To be clear, we are not 14 suggesting that no one should have local requirements. 15 Many broadcasters do in their conditions of licence. 16 The issue is whether everyone should have a set local 17 requirement that's put in regulation. That issue is 18 the same whether we are talking about local or 19 children's or feature film or drama. The decision the 20 Commission has to make is: Are those needs best met by 21 having everyone have those obligations or are those 22 needs best met by allowing those that want to be in 23 that area to accept obligations? 24 18335 Our proposal is: One size doesn't 25 fit all. Everyone shouldn't have children's StenoTran 3928 1 obligations, everyone shouldn't have drama obligations, 2 everyone shouldn't have feature film obligations, 3 everyone shouldn't have local obligations, but those 4 that want to do drama in prime time should be able to 5 focus on that and have a regulatory regime that 6 supports that those that want to do local should be 7 able to make that a major part of their programming 8 stream and have it recognized, those that are in the 9 children's business have that as part of their 10 condition of licence, be it conventional or be it 11 specialized. 12 18336 The genius of the regulatory 13 environment is that you, in dealing with renewals, in 14 dealing with applications, are able to determine: What 15 do I need a little bit more of? I have a broadcaster 16 who wants to serve this market. Are they serving where 17 I think the needs are met? As you point out, 18 Commissioner Wylie, you have to be concerned about 19 those Canadians that don't have cable, so you want to 20 make sure in a given market that there is a range of 21 services and you will treat broadcasters in Toronto 22 differently than you will treat broadcasters in 23 Medicine Hat to make sure that those areas that you 24 want to ensure are being served are being served. 25 18337 Our only point is that that should be StenoTran 3929 1 done through conditions of licence tailored to the 2 individual service, not a broad regulation that's 3 across the board. 4 18338 MR. RUBINSTEIN: I have hesitated to 5 wade in here because the Specialty Board did not debate 6 this issue. Michael and Peter are coming at it from a 7 conventional point of view, but I want to add two 8 things. 9 18339 One is that if you go back and look 10 at the 1995 renewals of all of the local conventional 11 stations, the Commission rejected wholeheartedly a 12 notion that you want to have everybody do a little bit 13 of the same thing. Peter was talking about that and 14 that as been a model that has been rejected for very 15 good reasons. We are a small country with limited 16 resources and, ultimately, the system benefits if you 17 allow individual licensees to concentrate on areas that 18 you identify as being important to meet the objectives 19 of the Act. 20 18340 Secondly, whether through 21 consolidation or otherwise, there become gaps in local 22 reflection. I imagine there would be no shortage of 23 applicants for new conventional stations who want to 24 purely meet that demand. You always have the ability, 25 if you have under-served areas, communities of medium StenoTran 3930 1 and large sizes, to issue that call. Speaking 2 personally, I don't think that's a bad thing. 3 18341 If one of the larger broadcast groups 4 wants to move away from local programming so they can 5 put their energies and their creativity and their 6 dollars into national drama, for example, if that 7 creates a need in a vacuum and a void for more local 8 programming in certain communities, by all means issue 9 the call. There won't be any shortage of people lining 10 up to fill that gap. 11 18342 THE CHAIRPERSON: If I recall, very 12 few of the submissions I have read suggest that there 13 should be an abandonment of the economic test as to 14 whether the market can support another station. So, 15 that may or may not be an answer. 16 18343 Mr. Miller, your view of flexibility, 17 if you were in the regulator's seat, is kind of 18 intriguing because renewals are at different times and 19 if there is only two or three stations left, even in 20 large markets, and everybody comes wanting to do the 21 same thing, we are supposed to please the first one in 22 and require the last one in to do what the other ones 23 didn't want to do. It sounds good on paper, but in 24 practice it's a view of flexibility that is -- 25 regulation is not flexibility. StenoTran 3931 1 18344 It can have more or less flexibility, 2 but inherently if there is a requirement through an act 3 of Parliament to achieve certain goals, regulation 4 means there will be as much flexibility as possible if 5 the regulator understands its business, but it means 6 restrictions because if it were just flexibility, you 7 just go out three and do whatever you can. So, 8 flexibility is a very difficult issue in saying: Let 9 people do what they want. They want to concentrate and 10 restructure, you have two or three of them left, and 11 then they may all want to do the same thing. 12 18345 So, I will leave that, anyway, 13 because you have just pointed out that you are not here 14 as the CAB Board. 15 18346 MR. MILLER: If I can just briefly 16 respond, you are absolutely correct. I hope I didn't 17 leave the impression that there are easy answers here, 18 because there are not. These are serious issues and I 19 think we are simply suggesting that the suggestion that 20 the easy answer is some regulatory requirement across 21 the board is not necessarily the way to go. You do 22 require local reflection, you have conditions of 23 licence, and that has been a good instrument for you. 24 18347 MR. McCABE: If I might add, you are 25 not starting with a tabula rasa in which everybody is StenoTran 3932 1 going to wipe the sheet clean and come up in front of 2 you and say, "I have been this kind of broadcaster and 3 I want to change to be another kind." People have 4 investments over a long period of time and they are 5 serving a market in a particular way. 6 18348 So, I think you have an opportunity 7 to take a look at that market when you have somebody 8 before you. If they want to go off in some wildly 9 different direction, it seems to me that there is the 10 capacity of their competitors in the market to 11 intervene. If you were starting, as I say, with a 12 clean sheet and you were having to make these 13 decisions, I would think it would be more difficult, 14 but that isn't the case. 15 18349 THE CHAIRPERSON: A quick question, 16 Ms Greer Yull. You answered to Commissioner Cardozo 17 when he raised diversity. I know with CHUM at the 18 table it's a different issue than when we see other 19 broadcasters, but you are speaking for more than one 20 party. Your answer was 50 per cent of the population 21 will be of minority, so, of course, we will, without 22 any type of prodding, represent them, when in fact our 23 history has been that women have been 51 per cent of 24 the population for years and it took task forces and 25 codes and sex role stereotyping rules to have a proper StenoTran 3933 1 reflection of what most of us consider a proper 2 reflection of women on the screen. 3 18350 So, I'm not sure it's that simple, 4 that things are done simply because the make-up of the 5 population changes and that there is some value in the 6 arguments made that unless you prod, the status quo 7 remains. I think the role of women in broadcasting has 8 shown that being the majority had little to do with 9 what ended up on the screen and how women were 10 reflected. 11 18351 MS GREER YULL: I think it's true 12 that it may take some time. I have to admit there are 13 also legislative requirements to increase diversity on 14 our programs. So, although it's a business reality and 15 I think we will see that cultural diversity will be 16 broadened as our audiences become more diverse, I think 17 it's also true that there are legislative requirements 18 that we do meet, including the employment equity 19 provisions, our on-air portrayal codes, and so on. 20 18352 So, I think there is still work to do 21 and, as Mr. Miller has suggested, there is also an 22 opportunity at licensing and renewal to re-examine on a 23 licensee-by-licensee basis, certainly. 24 18353 THE CHAIRPERSON: What code are you 25 referring to when you say on-air portrayal code viewed StenoTran 3934 1 from a racial perspective? 2 18354 MS GREER YULL: Actually, could I re- 3 direct that to Peter? 4 18355 MR. MILLER: Sorry, no, we don't have 5 a specific on-air portrayal code. We have, as you 6 know, a gender portrayal code and there is an earlier 7 document that I think it's time for us to look at again 8 that was published back in the 1970s dealing with some 9 of these issues. 10 18356 MR. McCABE: We are not opposed to 11 prodding, by the way. We expect that as part of our 12 life and part of your job. 13 18357 THE CHAIRPERSON: My last question. 14 Mr. McCabe, when the question of constellations or 15 large owners with cross-ownership in the programming 16 area was raised and you were asked whether or not such 17 constellations should be asked to do more, your 18 response, if I understood properly, was that the 19 Commission already took that into consideration when 20 they licensed them and can take it into consideration 21 when they are renewed. 22 18358 Would it follow that the Commission 23 should take it into consideration when they change 24 ownership and they were licensed under a single owner 25 or not a constellation and they now become the StenoTran 3935 1 ownership of a constellation? The reason I am asking 2 is because I checked back and you do advocate -- the 3 CAB advocates the elimination of the benefits test. 4 18359 MR. McCABE: Yes, that is the 5 appropriate time for you to make a judgment about the 6 level of contribution that they should be making given 7 their changed circumstances. This does not in any way 8 take away from the proposition that the benefits test, 9 as we have come to know it, which is some sort of kind 10 of flat tax, if you will, as it emerged in Commission 11 practice over a period of time, should be eliminated. 12 We believe that to be the case, but it is absolutely 13 proper and the appropriate time to make a judgment 14 about what contribution should be made and one of the 15 appropriate times is when they appear before you with 16 changed ownership circumstances. 17 18360 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 18 18361 Counsel? 19 18362 MS PATTERSON: Thank you, Madam 20 Chair. 21 18363 One of your proposals to cause 22 foreign services to make a direct contribution to the 23 Canadian broadcasting system was to, and I am quoting 24 here from your oral submission this afternoon at page 25 3: StenoTran 3936 1 "...[revise] the policy with 2 respect to the use of local 3 avails to ensure they are used 4 100% for the promotion of 5 Canadian services and Canadian 6 programming." 7 18364 I would like to know if you have had 8 the chance to discuss this proposal with foreign 9 specialty services and, if so, with what result. 10 18365 MR. MILLER: First of all, we have 11 had discussions with the CCTA about the whole issue of 12 contribution from U.S. services and we can appreciate 13 some of their concerns. 14 18366 With respect to the local avail 15 thing, it would not require any consent from U.S. cable 16 services because they already give to the cable 17 operator the right to use them. Again to be clear, we 18 are only talking about the two minutes of local avails 19 that are currently used 75 per cent and 25 per cent for 20 cable. We take note of Mr. Buchan's comments about 21 commercial deletion and, therefore, have not suggested 22 that other advertising avails in U.S. services be used 23 in the same way. 24 18367 MS PATTERSON: Thank you for that. 25 18368 A second question is the following. StenoTran 3937 1 SPTV raised the possibility of extending the 2 requirement that BDUs fulfil simultaneous substitution 3 requests to include those from specialty services. Do 4 you agree that the Commission should change its 5 approach on this issue? 6 18369 MR. RUBINSTEIN: This issue has been 7 debated amongst our Board. There is not consensus as 8 far as the CAB Specialty Board is concerned. We do 9 agree that leaving it in the hands of the distributor 10 is the worst possible thing. So, we think that the 11 Commission should make a decision and if you feel on 12 the basis of all of the evidence that it is a benefit 13 to extend it, then make it mandatory, but don't leave 14 it to the decision of the distributor. 15 1315 16 18370 MS PATTERSON: Thank you. 17 18371 A final question with respect to 18 infomercials. The rationale for restricting specialty 19 services from airing infomercials, as you know, is that 20 they generally have access to both subscriber fees and 21 advertising revenues. In your opinion, is this 22 rationale for why specialty services should have a 23 different set of rules in regard to infomercials from 24 the conventional broadcasters still valid? 25 18372 MR. RUBINSTEIN: We don't see any StenoTran 3938 1 reason why there would be a difference in terms of 2 flexibility in permitting telecast of infomercials as 3 between the specialty and conventional sectors. 4 18373 MS PATTERSON: Thank you. 5 18374 Those are my questions, thank you, 6 Madam Chair. 7 18375 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. 8 McCabe, ladies and gentlemen. 9 18376 We will adjourn for lunch and be back 10 at 2:30. Nous reprendrons à deux heures et demie. 11 --- Recess at / Suspension à 1315 12 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1430 13 18377 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madame Secretary. 14 18378 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madame 15 Chair. I would like to invite NetStar Communications 16 Inc. to make their presentation. 17 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION 18 18379 MS McQUEEN: Thank you very much. 19 Madam Chair, Commissioners, we apologize for having 20 dragged ourselves back to see you again. You have 21 probably had enough of us, but we have managed to 22 acquire some fresh faces. For the record, may I 23 introduce the panel. 24 18380 Gérald Janneteau, the president of 25 Réseau des sports; Mr. Rick Brace, president of TSN, StenoTran 3939 1 Elizabeth Duffy-MacLean, director of business affairs; 2 and Paul Brown, vice-president of business affairs, all 3 of us from NetStar Communications Incorporated. 4 18381 We believe we are the 88th of 100 5 interveners and we commend you on your stamina. As 6 number 88, we think we are in a good strategic position 7 with the ability to work with what has gone before us. 8 As Isaac Newton once said, "If I have seen further than 9 other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders 10 of giants." That's the Discovery version. The TSN and 11 RDS version is that we are batting cleanup in the 12 bottom of the ninth, whatever that means. 13 18382 In any event, it allows us the 14 opportunity, first, to assure you that the end is in 15 sight, and second, to address some of the themes that 16 have evolved. 17 18383 This hearing has been about more. We 18 have heard proposals about viewership from the CAB. 19 The producers, the directors and others have suggested 20 variations on more hours and more dollars spent on 21 Canadian programming in prime time. At the same time, 22 we have heard about the significant levels of 23 contributions being made by specialty services. So, 24 where do we go from here? 25 18384 Our view from all of this is that the StenoTran 3940 1 formula that ties revenue to expenditures on Canadian 2 programming is the key to getting more. The evidence 3 we think, is clear. At NetStar, over half a billion 4 dollars has been spent on Canadian programming in the 5 last 14 years, and between 44 and 50 per cent of our 6 gross revenue goes to Canadian content. In terms of 7 hours, the majority of all programming on all three 8 networks is Canadian. 9 18385 We think we are doing an excellent 10 job and so do lots of others, but our success is 11 fragile because of the realities we face, because of 12 more. There is more competition for audiences; there 13 is more pressure from distributors on our wholesale 14 rates; there is more competition for advertising; there 15 is more competition for programming; and for all of us 16 there are more demands for more shareholder returns. 17 18386 The answer is viewers. When that has 18 been talked about before, you have asked penetrating 19 questions about sheer audience bulk as a good measure, 20 and there are problems with that, but every television 21 program should strive for the highest appropriate 22 audience. Good audiences mean more revenue and that 23 leads to more Canadian programming. So we do have to 24 have more viewers. 25 18387 We would like to address three ways StenoTran 3941 1 to do that, to get more people to watch as well as to 2 make specialty services stronger with more money 3 flowing directly to Canadian programming. First, we 4 see simultaneous substitution as important. Second, we 5 would like to address under-represented programming, 6 and third, we would like to talk about promoting 7 Canadian programming. 8 18388 Rick, would you like to take it away? 9 18389 MR. BRACE: Thanks, Trina. 10 18390 I know we have beaten this drum 11 fairly hard and at the risk of repeating ourselves yet 12 again I would like to discuss the issue of extending 13 simultaneous substitution to specialty services. I 14 think my children could probably speak about this 15 issue, we have talked about it so much around the 16 house. 17 18391 Under the new broadcasting 18 distribution regulations, a new provision permits but 19 doesn't require distributors to carry out substitution 20 requests by Canadian specialty services. In contrast, 21 distributors are obligated to undertake substitution 22 for conventional broadcasters. 23 18392 As a result, mandatory substitution 24 for conventional broadcasters has proven to be 25 extremely successful. Increased audiences have led to StenoTran 3942 1 maximizing of advertising revenues to the tune of over 2 $100 million annually. However, under the existing 3 regulations, mandatory substitution for specialty 4 services is not required. 5 18393 The underlying issue for both 6 specialty services and conventional broadcasters is the 7 same. Simultaneous substitution is purely and simply 8 about program rights protection. What we are 9 requesting is equal treatment. Canadian television 10 broadcasters, whether conventional or specialty, must 11 have equal ability to maximize their investment in 12 broadcast rights. With increasing competition, both 13 foreign and domestic, it's now essential that Canadian 14 specialty services be treated equally and have the 15 right to require distributors to carry out simultaneous 16 substitution. With no policy basis for the existing 17 discrimination against specialty services, NetStar 18 proposes that mandatory substitution be extended to 19 requests by specialty services. 20 18394 We would further propose, for both 21 specialty and conventional broadcasters, that to 22 further the protection of program rights, the existing 23 rules should be extended to substituting over U.S. 24 cable services. With the increase in authorized 25 foreign service over the past number of years, rights StenoTran 3943 1 protection cannot be complete without extending 2 substitution to those services as well. 3 18395 NetStar would like to thank the 4 Commission for taking initial steps towards extending 5 rights protection to specialty services under the new 6 Distribution Regulations. Unfortunately, the reality 7 is that the changes had very limited success. As 8 outlined to the Commission in various documents filed 9 with you, since the regulations came into effect, TSN 10 has written to the 25 largest distributors several 11 times formally requesting substitution for a number of 12 events. While several mid-sized cable operator and the 13 DTH licensees have agreed, over 75 per cent of the 14 distributors contacted have refused our requests, 15 including the largest distributors. 16 18396 These same distributors are telling 17 us that it is not a cost issue, and with mid-sized 18 cable operators saying, yes, we know it is not a cost 19 issue. They will not undertake simultaneous 20 substitution for specialties because they are not 21 obliged to. As you will hear, other services have had 22 similar experiences. 23 18397 The benefits of this proposal will be 24 significant. First, it will allow maximum protection 25 of program rights. It will increase audiences tuned StenoTran 3944 1 into the Canadian service. In addition, the increased 2 viewership to the Canadian service will mean more 3 exposure for promotions of upcoming Canadian shows and 4 there will be significant increases in expenditures on 5 Canadian programming from any additional advertising 6 revenue, under the gross revenue formula. 7 18398 We think this makes sense and we 8 truly believe that the benefits to the specialty 9 industry and to Canadian programming are substantial. 10 We hope you will agree. 11 18399 MS McQUEEN: Almost everybody who has 12 talked to you about under-represented programming has 13 talked about drama, which is seen as the single most 14 important format that needs support in Canadian 15 broadcasting. Drama is important. It's the basic 16 block of story telling. It can fire our imagination 17 and touch our emotions. But it is also the most 18 difficult and the most expensive genre to do 19 successfully. We have spent hundreds of millions of 20 dollars of public money on Canadian dramatic 21 programming. We have had some wonderful successes, you 22 have heard about many of them, but we are not yet seen 23 on the international front as world leaders in drama. 24 We are, however, seen as international leaders in other 25 areas, including documentaries and children's StenoTran 3945 1 programming, and we are concerned that we not abandon 2 our success or our focus on these programs. 3 18400 Formats other than drama are 4 essential to the Canadian experience. Other genres can 5 reflect Canadian values, teach us about our past, 6 educate our children, entertain us and inspire us, and 7 viewers have shown a strong natural interest in 8 watching Canadian documentaries and children's 9 programming. Moreover, these programs can be produced 10 efficiently and they can make a profit. 11 18401 We propose, at NetStar, that you 12 extend the 150 per cent credit to all under-represented 13 formats equally, including documentaries. Equal 14 support will mean equal opportunity for success; for 15 more viewers, stronger services and for more Canadian 16 programming. 17 18402 M. JANNETEAU: D'une certaine façon, 18 c'est toute la programmation canadienne qui est sous- 19 représentée. C'est d'ailleurs pourquoi nous sommes ici 20 aujourd'hui. Toutes les émissions canadiennes doivent 21 être soutenues et encouragées et, pour cela, il faut en 22 faire la promotion. 23 18403 Nous nous devons de bien faire -- de 24 mieux faire -- le marketing de nos émissions 25 canadiennes. Souvent friands d'émissions canadiennes StenoTran 3946 1 et toujours prêts à célébrer leurs succès, nos 2 téléspectateurs doivent être informés, et de leur 3 existence même, et de leur place dans nos grilles de 4 programmation. 5 18404 Face à une concurrence toujours 6 croissante et à la fragmentation toujours plus grande 7 de l'offre télévisuelle, face aussi à la marée 8 publicitaire américaine, il devient de plus en plus 9 important d'encourager et de mousser le visionnement de 10 nos émissions; le marché anglophone est littéralement 11 inondé quotidiennement par la publicité en ondes des 12 émissions américaines. 13 18405 NetStar est d'accord avec bon nombre 14 d'autres intervenants: la promotion des émissions 15 canadiennes est essentielle au renforcement du contenu 16 canadien. 17 18406 Plusieurs propositions ont ainsi été 18 formulées: 19 18407 - Considérer les dépenses visant la 20 promotion d'émissions canadiennes comme des dépenses 21 admissibles de programmation. 22 18408 - Imposer une utilisation maximale 23 des disponibilités publicitaires locales des services 24 de radiodiffusion par satellite non canadiens pour la 25 promotion d'émissions canadiennes. StenoTran 3947 1 18409 - Adopter une politique d'abolition 2 des frais pour les services spécialisés utilisant ces 3 disponibilité publicitaires locales. 4 18410 NetStar appuie toutes ces 5 propositions et les considère comme des moyens 6 pratiques de soutenir la programmation canadienne. 7 18411 Trina. 8 18412 MS McQUEEN: As clean-up batters, we 9 have seen some consensus forming in a number of areas. 10 Others have agreed with us that the revenue expenditure 11 formula is key to getting more. And we think there is 12 also agreement that increasing the viewer demand for 13 Canadian programming is essential. At NetStar, we 14 believe that combining the revenue expenditure formula 15 with simultaneous substitution equals support for all 16 under-represented programming and good promotion of 17 Canadian shows will mean stronger broadcasting services 18 and larger audiences for Canadian programming. 19 18413 We thank you for the opportunity to 20 speak and we are ready to answer your questions. 21 18414 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 22 18415 Commissioner McKendry. 23 18416 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you, 24 Madam Chair. 25 18417 Thank you for your presentation. StenoTran 3948 1 Perhaps we could start by talking about promotion 2 expenditures. On page 2 of your written submission you 3 propose to allow promotion expenditures to count as 4 Canadian and to allow Canadian promos to be considered 5 as Canadian programming. I think you also discussed 6 this on page 9 of your submission as well. 7 18418 First of all, what expenditures do 8 have you in mind? Are these advertising payments to 9 third parties, the cost of producing a promotional 10 spot? 11 18419 MR. JANNETEAU: I can give you some 12 examples of some of those expenditures: animation, 13 music, the voice-over that goes on to promos, temporary 14 help such as freelance producers, travel, outside 15 creative fees that might be required on the promos and 16 so on. 17 18420 We believe that these efforts are 18 essential to the increase and getting more viewers to 19 view Canadian programs and counting Canadian promo 20 expenditures in the same way that we do Canadian 21 programming would help achieve that goal. 22 18421 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I take it you 23 take a broad view of expenditures. You are not 24 restricting it to advertising expenditures with respect 25 to acquiring advertising from third parties. StenoTran 3949 1 18422 MR. JANNETEAU: In fact, we would 2 also include third party advertising in that when it is 3 directed specifically for Canadian programs. 4 18423 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: The reason I 5 ask is we did have one party appearing before us that 6 would have restricted these expenses to third party 7 advertising. You are saying it's broader than that in 8 your view? 9 18424 MR. JANNETEAU: That's right. 10 18425 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: How would we 11 comfort ourselves or be assured, in the environment you 12 are talking about, that the expenditures reported to us 13 were properly incurred and accurately recorded? How 14 would we monitor that? 15 18426 MR. JANNETEAU: I presume that you 16 would do that in the same way that we do it for 17 Canadian programming expenditures at this time. There 18 is a pretty good definition of what is to be included 19 in Canadian programming expenditures. We submit 20 reports yearly and I presume that we would do the same 21 thing for promotion expenditures and outside 22 advertising. 23 18427 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And you feel 24 that the detail in there would be sufficient for us to 25 come to an opinion about whether or not the expenses StenoTran 3950 1 were fairly recorded? 2 18428 MR. JANNETEAU: Absolutely. 3 18429 MS McQUEEN: I think that also you 4 would develop a body of expertise very soon that would 5 enable you to know when somebody was way out of line or 6 even a little bit out of line, unless we were lying to 7 you, which would be unthinkable. 8 18430 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So you are 9 suggesting by comparing amongst the services and 10 broadcasters we would get a feel. 11 18431 MS McQUEEN: I presume that would be 12 what you would do with other kinds of expenses that are 13 reported to you. 14 18432 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I would like 15 to talk now about the formats, other than drama, that 16 you point out are equally valuable in their ability to 17 reflect our cultural values and identity. You talk 18 about that on page 2 of your written submission and I 19 think you touched on it in your oral presentation as 20 well. 21 18433 You state that these formats require 22 support because not enough product is available or 23 because the format is uneconomical to produce. Can you 24 tell me what formats you have in mind? Perhaps those 25 are the same ones that you went through in your oral StenoTran 3951 1 presentation but I would like to be clear about the 2 other formats that you are referring to here that are 3 uneconomical to produce or where there isn't enough 4 product available. 5 18434 MS McQUEEN: Particularly we want to 6 be the voice for documentaries here. We think that 7 that is a crucially important format, one in which 8 Canadians have a proud history, and I think a format 9 that can range over so many themes and do so many jobs 10 that it provides an astonishing variety of expression. 11 So that is our primary concern for documentaries. 12 18435 We also see children's programming as 13 something that Canadians are very, very good at. 14 Non-violent programming with educational values has 15 been a strength of Canadian producers and we just want 16 to make sure that in the kind of -- I don't want to 17 call it an obsession but it's pretty close to it with 18 Canadian drama -- that these formats do not sort of 19 slip away in the attention and the funding that's being 20 given to drama. 21 18436 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let's talk 22 about documentaries for a minute. Now, you are saying 23 that documentaries are uneconomical to produce. Is 24 that your point? 25 18437 MS McQUEEN: They can be uneconomical StenoTran 3952 1 to produce. Not all of them are. Some of them can be 2 profitable. But I think that there is not enough of 3 them and they seem to be ignored in many different 4 ways. 5 18438 For example, they do not even have a 6 category to themselves in the listing of different 7 formats that the CRTC has. They are included under 8 public affairs. Most descriptions of what people watch 9 include documentaries under public affairs. There are 10 two very different things; there are programs like "W5" 11 and "Fifth Estate" that are not documentaries but are 12 public affairs programs, and then there are the true 13 documentary formats, but they are all kind of lumped 14 together so that there is no really good picture of the 15 number of documentaries. But I think if you look at 16 any television guide of conventional broadcasters and 17 even specialty channels you will see that the long form 18 documentary is not a category that -- it's a category 19 that is certainly on the air but I would not say it is 20 represented. It is under-represented. 21 18439 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Would you 22 like to see us then establish a separate category 23 designation for documentaries? 24 18440 MS McQUEEN: I would like to see 25 documentaries in a category, yes, in the categories of StenoTran 3953 1 programming that you have. I also think that it should 2 be firmly given a position in the list of under- 3 represented categories. 4 18441 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Just in terms 5 of the uneconomical to produce aspect of this, you said 6 that some documentaries are quite profitable and others 7 are not. The ones that are not, is that a reflection 8 of the fact that they don't attract viewers for 9 whatever reason, they are not documentaries that the 10 public responds to sufficiently? 11 18442 MS McQUEEN: No, exactly to the 12 contrary. I think the reason -- documentaries become 13 very expensive when they require expensive research, 14 when they require many days of shooting, when they 15 require, for example in my own field, which is wildlife 16 documentaries, it may take two years of hiding behind a 17 tree before you get the exact shot of the bird that you 18 want, and that becomes extremely expensive. It's not 19 to say that those documentaries don't eventually have 20 large audiences, they do, but the daunting prospect of 21 funding them may often put people off doing the kind of 22 documentaries that have the stature and the grandeur 23 and the production values of other programs. 24 18443 That's not to say that, by contrast, 25 if I may say something about drama again, a million StenoTran 3954 1 dollars an hour for drama is a kind of weak budget. 2 It's okay but it's just barely adequate. For a 3 documentary, it's a stratospheric budget. And when we 4 talk about documentaries as being cost efficient, the 5 fact is that you can get a great many more high 6 production values for a documentary per hour than you 7 can with the same amount of money spent on drama. Not 8 to say drama is bad. I know that it's a federal crime 9 to speak against Canadian drama and I do not want to 10 get into any kind of trouble here. Do you have a 11 witness protection program? 12 18444 The fact is that documentaries are 13 more cost efficient than drama. 14 18445 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Given that 15 some dramas are profitable without public support and 16 that some require public support, how would we 17 distinguish or how would the funding agency distinguish 18 between those that should be assisted financially and 19 those that shouldn't. 20 18446 MS McQUEEN: I'm sorry, did you say 21 drama or documentaries? 22 18447 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Sorry, 23 documentaries. I apologize if I said drama. 24 18448 Let me repeat the question. Given 25 that some documentaries are profitable and others are StenoTran 3955 1 not because of high costs and so on, how would a 2 funding body distinguish between the documentaries that 3 should receive assistance and those that shouldn't 4 because they are profitable on their own? 5 18449 MS McQUEEN: Well, I am not sure that 6 most of the funding agencies regard the profitability 7 of a program as a bad thing. I think, in the cases of 8 children's and drama, most people go into it with the 9 expectation that there might actually be a profit at 10 the end of it. It does not often materialize but I do 11 not think that's one of the things that is taken into 12 account. The non-profitability becomes a big check 13 mark for any genre. 14 18450 What we would like to see for 15 documentaries is the same status and the same 16 incentives as other under-represented programming; no 17 more, no less, same procedures, same judgments as other 18 under-represented categories. 19 18451 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I would like 20 to ask you about the comment on page 3 of your 21 submission that there are occasions when broadcasters 22 should be allowed to receive Telefilm equity funds. I 23 think in your introductory comments you pointed out 24 that you have the advantage of building on the record 25 that exists and this hearing, in your comments, I StenoTran 3956 1 suppose we have the same time opportunity as well. 2 18452 I wanted to ask you about a comment 3 that Mr. MacMillan from Alliance made about this issue. 4 1450 5 18453 What I took him to be saying is that 6 the broadcasters and people that are supporting this 7 position are really making a mountain out of a mole 8 hill. He discussed this with us at page 339 of the 9 transcript in Volume 2, and what he said was, he said, 10 and I quote: 11 "I am just pointing out that 12 there are currently no barriers 13 to distributing or getting tax 14 credits or getting CTF money 15 now." 16 18454 And he was referring to the 17 broadcasters. He went on to say: 18 "The one barrier that there is, 19 however, is Telefilm equity 20 funding. That debate is, say, a 21 $30 or $35 million a year issue. 22 That's the English-language 23 private broadcaster TV portion 24 of Telefilm, roughly $30, $35 25 million..." StenoTran 3957 1 18455 Then he went on to say that this is a 2 $1.7 billion advertising driven industry; and in fact 3 the numbers in your submission put it at $2.1 billion 4 because I think he was excluding the specialty 5 advertising revenues. 6 18456 What is your reaction to his point 7 that we are really just talking about an 8 infinitesimally small amount of money in relation to 9 the funding that is available to broadcasters for 10 production, that there really are no significant 11 restrictions? 12 18457 MS McQUEEN: Mr. MacMillan is one of 13 my heroes, and I would hate to oppose him. But if it 14 is such a mole hill, why are they opposing it so 15 fiercely and with such great force? Maybe it is a mole 16 hill, but I guess our position is that anybody who 17 wants to make Canadian programming should be 18 encouraged, not discouraged. 19 18458 We agree with the specialty 20 association that there are difficulties in allowing 21 broadcasters access to the Telefilm pot of money; but 22 we do believe that those difficulties can be overcome 23 and that if they are overcome it will not mean that 24 broadcaster affiliate companies will drain Telefilm. 25 What it will mean is that on occasion broadcasters who StenoTran 3958 1 have a specifically Canadian idea, and our proposal is 2 that these programs that do get Telefilm funding that 3 are broadcaster produced have to meet much more 4 stringent conditions than those proposed by independent 5 producers. 6 18459 But if we can meet the more stringent 7 conditions, if we are willing to invest a great deal of 8 our own money in it, I am confused about why we 9 shouldn't have the same ability to make these 10 economically viable that large production companies 11 have. 12 18460 It seems to me that if we want more 13 Canadian programming, we should accept the offers of 14 everyone who wants to come to the table with a large 15 licence fee and distinctively Canadian themes, 10 out 16 of 10 Cavco points, it is a good thing. 17 18461 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So you don't 18 accept his argument that there is lots of resources 19 available to broadcasters without having access to the 20 Telefilm equity funds? 21 18462 MS McQUEEN: I guess if there were 22 lots of resources available to broadcasters to do 23 underrepresented programming, they would be doing it 24 instead of going to independent producers. That is 25 common sense to me. StenoTran 3959 1 18463 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let's talk 2 about simultaneous substitution for a few minutes. I 3 think this is an important matter to NetStar. 4 18464 Let me begin by asking you to what 5 extent your proposal would benefit other services than 6 sports services. 7 18465 MR. BRACE: Besides sports? 8 18466 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Yes. 9 18467 MR. BRACE: I think that in all 10 cases, including sports, the benefit would be in 11 several areas. I think probably the most significant 12 benefit would be the fact that any additional or 13 incremental revenues that are obtained by virtue of 14 simultaneous substitution, by view of the gross revenue 15 formula, would automatically go back into Canadian 16 programming. 17 18468 I think, secondly, that we can't 18 underestimate the opportunity to promote Canadian 19 programming through what is essentially high profile 20 programming that you are airing to a broad audience. 21 18469 So I think that those two elements 22 are certainly important. 23 18470 Probably the third is rights 24 protection, and maybe it is at the top of the list, 25 that when we go out, whether we are sports, whether we StenoTran 3960 1 are any other service for that matter, whether it is 2 conventional, we go out and we purchase rights for 3 Canada. Simultaneous substitution allows us to exploit 4 those rights, those national rights, and therefore that 5 is an opportunity for us at least, with the other two 6 points that I just raised. I think that benefits every 7 one across the board. 8 18471 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Perhaps I 9 should have been a little more specific in my question. 10 What I am looking for are there any other services 11 interested in this except sports services? 12 18472 MR. BRACE: I would like to pass on 13 to Elizabeth Duffy-MacLean on that one. 14 18473 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: Commissioner 15 McKendry, I think you are going to be hearing from 16 several other services over the next day or so, 17 including the Alliance-Atlantis people who will have -- 18 be able to better answer your questions about 19 non-NetStar benefits. 20 18474 As well, I think this morning SPTV as 21 well supported simultaneous substitution for its 22 members. 23 18475 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: If I remember 24 correctly, I think SPTV said it should be extended to 25 Class I and Class II systems, and I think your proposal StenoTran 3961 1 is Class I systems only, do I have that correct? 2 18476 MR. BRACE: Class I systems, yes, 3 those with subscribers of 6,000 or more. 4 18477 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Why do you 5 not propose to extend it to Class II as SPTV did? 6 18478 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: I think this was a 7 bit of a historical discussion we have had over time 8 with the Commission. I think at one point we said what 9 we really needed were the major markets, the Class Is. 10 We are certainly happy to accept Class I and Class II, 11 if that is on par with what the other -- what the 12 conventional broadcasters are receiving now. 13 18479 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: If I 14 understand correctly what you are saying, you are 15 telling us this can be done because you have requested 16 some medium-sized systems to do it and they have done 17 it. So therefore the big systems should be able to do 18 it. 19 18480 I guess I want to understand that 20 argument a little better. Do you have any information 21 for us about the costs that were incurred by the 22 medium-sized systems? Sort of a follow-up question to 23 that is: Did you pay for any of these costs or did 24 they pay for them all themselves? 25 18481 MR. BRACE: Mr. McKendry, just to StenoTran 3962 1 clarify one point. We actually made the request of all 2 the systems, not just the small systems, for a number 3 of programs dating from a period that went from 4 February through December of last year. 5 18482 In point of fact, it was only the 6 smaller systems, some of the smaller systems, like 7 Northern and Bragg and Mountain Cable in a couple of 8 instances that agreed to do it; and, of course, the DTH 9 services came on board as well. 10 18483 In every case, it was done willingly 11 and without any notion of costs. They didn't refer any 12 costs to us and certainly we didn't pay any cost. 13 18484 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And the 14 larger systems, have they provided you with any reasons 15 why they haven't done it other than that they don't 16 have to do it? 17 18485 MR. BRACE: In discussions I have had 18 with the larger systems, and certainly Elizabeth 19 Duffy-MacLean can talk about this as well, they raise 20 an issue of cost, although they don't quantify it. But 21 probably the biggest issue that they raise is two 22 points on viewership discontent, and if I can just talk 23 about that from a little bit of a sports standpoint. 24 18486 The first is that viewers complain, 25 as you can appreciate, when the presentations or the StenoTran 3963 1 awards or the final of an event is not shown because it 2 is run long and it interferes with other network 3 programming. So, the tendency by people who are 4 simultaneously substituting may be to leave an event 5 before its absolute conclusion. 6 18487 On that point, certainly as a sports 7 network, with one kind of niche in our market, and that 8 is to do sports programming, we of course stay right to 9 the end and we do complete the event and that is our 10 policy. So I think that that issue is taken off the 11 table. 12 18488 The other one was a kind of a strange 13 one, but it was raised by a discussion I had actually 14 with Shaw Cable, who said that the big complaint they 15 have is funnily enough on Super Bowl, where people like 16 to see the launch of the American commercials in that 17 specific event. That, of course, is not an issue for, 18 I think, the specialty services, as I don't anticipate 19 any of us will be carrying Super Bowl down the road. 20 18489 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: With respect 21 to the costs -- well, just let me make sure I 22 understand your answer. The costs, they haven't put 23 forward the costs as a reason, it is not a cost issue 24 as far as you know with the large systems, it is these 25 other reasons that you have pointed out to us? StenoTran 3964 1 18490 MR. BRACE: They identified cost as 2 an issue, but there were no specifics given. In other 3 words, when asked -- and I asked the question: Could 4 you quantify for me what it actually costs to do this? 5 The answer I got was it would have to be calculated. 6 18491 I visited with ExpressVu to see what 7 their opportunity for simultaneous substitution was. 8 They already have the technology in place, which is 9 kind of a touch and drag system, which does it 10 instantly. It is there. 11 18492 So I am really kind of in the dark 12 when it comes to answering the question of costs, 13 commissioner. 14 18493 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Have you 15 requested simultaneous substitution for the baseball 16 play-offs that are on now and are being carried by TSN? 17 18494 MR. BRACE: Yes, we have. 18 18495 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And you were 19 turned down? 20 18496 MR. BRACE: The same response, yeah, 21 we have had no luck. 22 18497 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you. I 23 would like to talk for a moment now about your 24 recommendation with respect to making the licence 25 renewal process an administrative procedure, and you StenoTran 3965 1 talk about that on page 3. 2 18498 You recommend that we make the 3 licence renewal process an administrative procedure for 4 broadcasters that exceed a 60 per cent Canadian content 5 level overall and that expend more than 40 per cent of 6 their gross revenues on Canadian programming. 7 18499 I wanted to understand what the 60 8 per cent Canadian content level referred to in order 9 that I can relate that to the 40 per cent of the gross 10 revenues. I understand that. 11 18500 But what does the 60 per cent refer 12 to? 13 18501 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: I think that was 14 our attempt at defining a level of substantialness in 15 terms of what services are doing for Canadian 16 programming. 17 18502 MS McQUEEN: But it is hours, too. 18 18503 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: But it is hours. 19 18504 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So the 60 per 20 cent is exhibition as opposed to 40 per cent which is 21 money? 22 18505 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: Right. 23 18506 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: What criteria 24 did you use to come up with these two benchmarks? 25 18507 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: Again, I think it StenoTran 3966 1 was our experience in looking at both what we do, as 2 well as what is done across the board, that there are 3 certainly other services who are doing a substantial 4 level; that 60 on the conventional side seems to be a 5 level that's required of them, and in our experience it 6 is a level that denotes some substantial contributions. 7 18508 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: You note on 8 page 23 that specialty and pay services now spend 37 9 per cent of their revenues on Canadian programming. 10 What is the equivalent number, then, for exhibition? 11 18509 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: I am sorry, the 12 equivalent level across the board? 13 18510 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Well, you are 14 proposing -- I just want to have some -- I understand 15 that your specialty industry is close to the 40 per 16 cent at 37 per cent. How close are you to the other 17 benchmark that you would need to achieve? If you have 18 the number for TSN, that is fine, but if you have the 19 number for the industry, that would be helpful as well. 20 18511 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: I don't have the 21 number for the industry in terms of actuals because I 22 think that is a function of what they come forward to 23 you with at licence renewal and say that they are 24 doing. 25 18512 In terms of the levels that they are StenoTran 3967 1 required, as you know, it ranges quite substantially 2 from 100 down to 15 and 30. There would be certainly a 3 differing degree of what people would be required to 4 do. 5 18513 I think what we were looking at in 6 putting this forward was to say that if you offer 7 broadcasters some kind of incentive, and I am probably 8 using the word "broadcasters" incorrectly as we did 9 this morning, if you ask specialty services to do a 10 substantial level, then the motivation for something 11 like a licence renewal, which everyone takes extremely 12 seriously and can take the better part of a year to 13 prepare for, if someone can prove that they are already 14 meeting a substantial level and, perhaps, 60 and 40 is 15 not that appropriate level as you might define it, but 16 that that would allow them to get something back in the 17 sense that they have already met a substantial level of 18 both hours and dollars, and that in doing that, 19 perhaps, a licence renewal becomes a little less of a 20 need, that there may not be a problem in that area. 21 18514 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: You are 22 proposing this benchmark would apply to the 23 specialities as well, this 60-40, not just 24 conventional, over-the-air broadcasters? 25 18515 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: To specialties. StenoTran 3968 1 18516 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Where are 2 Discovery and TSN at with respect to the 60 per cent 3 exhibition? 4 18517 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: They are all 5 performing at 60 per cent. 6 18518 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: For your 7 industry it is not likely that it would require much 8 more effort to get to that benchmark. You are at -- 9 for the specialities, you are at 37 per cent already; 10 you only have to get another 3 per cent. In your case 11 at least TSN and Discovery are already at the 60 per 12 cent, so just a little bit more would get you into that 13 administrative arena. 14 18519 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: Yes. 15 18520 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: The 16 conventional broadcasters, you say, are only at 27 per 17 cent with respect to -- 27 per cent of revenues are 18 spent on Canadian programming. So it would be a fair 19 leap for them to go from 27 to 40 per cent. 20 18521 MS McQUEEN: For some of them it 21 would. We have an Appendix "B" to the SPTV submission 22 which went through the entire, if you wanted to look at 23 that afterwards, it would tell you. 24 18522 Actually, for some of specialty 25 channels, it would be a considerable height to reach. StenoTran 3969 1 There are levels as low, I think, as 28 per cent of 2 revenue, and perhaps lower. I think some 3 conventionals, obviously, are above the average number 4 that you mentioned. So I don't think we can say that 5 it's huge for every conventional and not so huge for 6 every specialty. It might be a little bit huger for 7 conventionals than specialities but not by an 8 exponential factor. 9 18523 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: The hugeness 10 could be compounded I suppose for some conventionals in 11 the sense that they do drama, and in your case you 12 don't do any drama at all. 13 18524 MS McQUEEN: Well, in theory, they 14 could get to it very easily by doing a little more 15 drama whereas -- because drama is so expensive -- 16 whereas it takes a lot more documentary programming to 17 raise that percentage level. 18 18525 Are we going to do math in public 19 here? 20 18526 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: No. I just 21 want to make sure that we understand the implications 22 of your 60 and 40 recommendation. Is it something that 23 is practical? Is it something that can be held out to 24 the conventional broadcasting industry as a reasonable 25 benchmark for them to achieve? I think I can StenoTran 3970 1 understand where it might be for the specialities but I 2 am not -- I guess I am not certain that it is for the 3 conventionals. 4 18527 So you are asking us to put this in 5 place. We are going to have to decide whether or not 6 we accept your recommendation and I think we need to 7 understand what the implications of it are. 8 18528 Let me just follow up that by asking 9 you, then, what you mean by an administrative procedure 10 for a licence renewal? 11 18529 MS McQUEEN: Well, first of all, you 12 are absolutely right, we put it forward without having 13 the kind of detailed knowledge that we would expect you 14 to consider before you did it. I think our belief is 15 that it would be a stretch for many of us, but not an 16 insuperable stretch or else we wouldn't have put it 17 forward. But it is a nice benchmark. 18 18530 As to the administrative process... 19 18531 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: I think what we 20 were thinking about was, perhaps, a kind of paper 21 process that provides you with the numbers you need to 22 have the comfort that we are doing the levels, 23 substantial level, however you define it, whether that 24 be 60 and 40 or some other level. Once you are 25 comfortable with that, then you need to decide whether StenoTran 3971 1 there are other issues that require the broadcasters, 2 specialty services to come before you in this kind of a 3 process or not in a presentation-type set-up. 4 18532 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And the 5 administrative process, the administrative procedure 6 you set out would be a formality? I don"t understand 7 what you mean by "administrative procedure". 8 18533 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: I guess what I am 9 saying is the Commission needs to decide what basic 10 numbers and what basic information it requires to have 11 the level of comfort that in the area of Canadian 12 content and whatever -- what other conditions of 13 licence are being met are -- that you are comfortable 14 the services is meeting that, in kind of a report form, 15 perhaps something that's a little less than your 16 standard form. 17 18534 Certainly, this is again as Trina 18 said, not something that we have defined in an A to Z 19 fashion. What we were looking for was some kind of 20 concept that might allow the broadcaster, the specialty 21 service to have the motivation to meet whatever 22 substantial levels you define, and come away with 23 something that allows them the other half of the 24 equation, which is a benefit to not have to appear 25 before you, if you don't have other issues with them. StenoTran 3972 1 18535 We certainly do not have a form set 2 out that says this is what the Commission should ask. 3 18536 MS McQUEEN: May I give you a 4 parallel? When I went to university, if you had good 5 enough marks during the term you didn't have to write 6 the final. So this is kind of a parallel to that. 7 18537 But, of course, if there were issues 8 that the Commission wanted to examine, for example, if 9 there had been letters of complaint about us, or if 10 there were new issues in the system that you wanted to 11 explore with a personal hearing, then you could do so. 12 But if you felt comfortable that we had done well, 13 there would be a process that would not require a 14 hearing and that would not require the kind of 15 investment in time and resources for the station. As I 16 say, we wouldn't have to write the final. 17 1510 18 18538 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you. 19 18539 On page 5 you state that adequate 20 notice must be given to specialty services regarding 21 any re-tiering re-alignments or service launches. I 22 just want to make sure I understood. Does this just 23 apply to cable or to all BDUs? 24 18540 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: I think we are 25 looking at all BDUs. StenoTran 3973 1 18541 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And what, in 2 your view, would be adequate notice? 3 18542 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: You are talking 4 about the existing 30 day? 5 18543 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: You just say 6 that adequate notice must be given. What is your view, 7 30 days? 8 18544 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: We believe that 30 9 hasn't, in our experience, been adequate notice and 10 that we would be looking for something like 60 days. 11 18545 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Why wouldn't 12 you negotiate this type of notice in your arrangements 13 with BDUs? 14 18546 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: We have spoken to 15 specifically cable operators about channel re-alignment 16 issues and we have actually gone back on at least one 17 occasion and said, "You haven't even met the 30 days." 18 So, we have had those discussions. Our view is that 19 the 30 days hasn't, in reality, proven to be perhaps a 20 level that has worked to date. 21 18547 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: My question 22 is, though, why wouldn't you negotiate whatever period 23 you want with the cable operators and execute this on a 24 contractual basis? 25 18548 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: It hasn't been an StenoTran 3974 1 issue that has been negotiable to date. 2 18549 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: In the sense 3 that the other party refuses to negotiate with you on 4 this? 5 18550 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: Well, there is no 6 need for them to negotiate, I don't think, because, as 7 it stands, it is already 30 days. 8 18551 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Again why 9 should you be given notice of service -- 10 18552 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: I apologize. Is 11 it already 60 days? It's already 60 days, I'm sorry. 12 18553 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So, we could 13 reduce it from 60 to 30? 14 18554 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: No, I think we 15 will leave it at 60. 16 18555 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So, the 17 existing notice is adequate. You are not asking us to 18 do anything different here? 19 18556 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: No. 20 18557 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Why should 21 you be given notice of service launches if there is no 22 re-tiering or channel re-alignments? You say that you 23 want to be given adequate notice of service launches if 24 there is no re-tiering. So, if your service isn't 25 being re-tiered or if there isn't any channel re- StenoTran 3975 1 alignment that affects your service, why should you be 2 given notice -- why should the cable operator have to 3 give you 60 days' notice of a new service launch? 4 18558 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: I think that was 5 in the list of what we were looking at just from a 6 business perspective, the informational requirements. 7 There was not an equation there -- we were not trying 8 to equate service launches with the same level of 9 issues that channel re-alignments might give us. That 10 certainly wasn't our intention. 11 18559 MS McQUEEN: That would mean if we 12 had a service that was being launched, we would like to 13 know in advance what channel it would be on. It's not 14 that we would be asking for every service launch -- for 15 us to be informed of every service launch, it's just if 16 we actually had a new service to launch. 17 18560 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: That answers 18 my question, thank you. I thought it applied to any 19 new service launch. 20 18561 On page 5, you state that the most 21 recently authorized non-Canadian services have been 22 added to the newest tier at the expense of the 23 unlaunched Canadian specialty services. Then you go on 24 to say the non-Canadian services are the least popular 25 with viewers. StenoTran 3976 1 18562 We had a discussion with the Canadian 2 Cable Television Association about this area of 3 marketing and the point that Rogers' Mr. Allen made to 4 us is that, from a cable operator's marketing 5 perspective, you have to look at the entire package as 6 a whole. Apparently, from a marketing perspective, he 7 believes it is important to have general interest 8 services such as WTBS and The Family Channel and a tier 9 with specialized services than is the package as a 10 whole that counts. In other words, you shouldn't just 11 be looking at the Canadian special services and then 12 drawing conclusions about the Canadian specialty 13 services to explain the success of the tier. 14 18563 For example, on page 3100 of the 15 transcript, he said: 16 "We think the entire package as 17 a whole is what is important." 18 18564 What are you views on Mr. Allen's 19 thought that from a cable operator's marketing 20 perspective, it's the package as a whole that one must 21 take into account? 22 18565 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: Our issue, I 23 think, was a little bit different. What we were 24 looking at -- we certainly weren't trying to say that 25 the packaging is not important because that's certainly StenoTran 3977 1 a major issue for us, as you heard from SPTV this 2 morning. I think our point about foreign services is 3 just that in the past they have had a much larger role 4 in driving the tiers and we are saying that perhaps the 5 newer services that are coming on from the newer 6 foreign services don't have that same role. 7 18566 MS McQUEEN: Anecdotally -- well, 8 first of all, I think he is absolutely right, it is the 9 package as a whole that is important. I think what 10 they tried to do was design a package which they 11 thought would be so big that it would appeal to a large 12 number of people, but anecdotally what we hear is that 13 if there are in packages services that aren't very 14 attractive and aren't very popular, then people will 15 often say, "Well, I don't want the XY channel, so I am 16 not going to buy the whole thing." 17 18567 So, a negative service can have as 18 much effect on a tier as a positive service, so to 19 speak. I guess when we look at the ratings performance 20 of the foreign services that were chosen, our suspicion 21 is that those are at best neutral and more likely 22 negative to the acceptance of the tier. But our 23 overall point is that they aren't driving the tier. 24 18568 Certainly we have been told by cable 25 operators over and over again, and we believe it, that StenoTran 3978 1 services like A&E and The Learning Channel do help to 2 drive the tier. Our concern is that that day seems to 3 be over where there are A&Es left out there to 4 introduce and we are looking for a different form of 5 contribution from those foreign services, what can they 6 do. 7 18569 This has been the historic reason why 8 we have had foreign services in this country is because 9 they contributed to the Canadian broadcasting system. 10 The old ways don't seem to work any more, so what are 11 some of the new ways? But that's as a context to say: 12 What else could the foreign services do to earn their 13 living, so to speak, in Canada? 14 18570 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: That leads me 15 to the question I had about them earning their living, 16 so to speak. On page 6 you state that foreign services 17 added to the eligible satellite services list should 18 pay an administration fee to the CTCPF. The first 19 question I have for you in respect of that is: To what 20 extent are administration costs incurred to add a 21 service to the list? Presumably, if you are going to 22 charge an administration fee, there has to be an 23 administration cost. What are the costs? 24 18571 MS McQUEEN: Speaking informally, you 25 have to listen to us gripe about it for hours, so there StenoTran 3979 1 should be some recompense to the system for that. 2 That's in some ways a joke, but in other ways it really 3 isn't a joke. The consideration of foreign services in 4 this country does take up a considerable amount of 5 administration time. You have to make decisions about 6 the eligible services list, issue notices, have 7 meetings, do other kinds of tasks and use resources. 8 18572 Just as we pay a licence fee, it 9 seems to us reasonable that other services should pay 10 not a licence fee because they don't have licences, but 11 an administrative fee. We believed it would help the 12 system if the CRTC then could pass on that fee to the 13 Cable Television Fund for the production of Canadian 14 programs. 15 18573 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So, the 16 notion is that it would recover the regulatory costs 17 that are associated with establishing the list and 18 putting people on the list and so on? 19 18574 MS McQUEEN: And doing any other 20 tasks, including having the issue debated in front of 21 you, whatever resources that the Commission spends, 22 both human and capital resources. 23 18575 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Mr. Blais 24 discussed this morning with, I guess it was, the SPTV 25 panel the thought that when the cable operator, the StenoTran 3980 1 BDU, pays the five per cent contribution to the Fund, 2 part of that five per cent is calculated including the 3 revenues of the U.S. services and that one could argue 4 that in fact the U.S. services are making a 5 contribution to the fund. 6 18576 MS McQUEEN: I think what we are 7 looking for is something that in some way -- it will 8 never be equal. In other words, Canadian services for 9 the privilege of doing business in Canada will always 10 have to undertake more obligations than foreign 11 services that are allowed in, but I would remind you in 12 this case Canadian services are doing exactly the same 13 in the five per cent. Five per cent of our revenues 14 also go to the Canadian Television Fund or the Cable 15 Television Fund. I can't remember the new name, but 16 the CTCPF, let's call it. 17 18577 So, once again the Canadian services 18 and the foreign services are judged as equal, but, in 19 addition, we have a whole bunch of other obligations. 20 The foreign services come in, take subscriber revenue, 21 and I guess we ask: What is their contribution over 22 and above contributions that all of us make to support 23 the system? 24 18578 The other answer to that question is 25 we have no idea whether that, in effect, actually is StenoTran 3981 1 part of their obligation. In other words, for all we 2 know, the cable operators assume that and pay it on 3 their behalf. We have no idea whether it is actually 4 deducted from the revenue paid to the American 5 operators or not. 6 18579 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: If it wasn't 7 deducted, would you be satisfied then that that was a 8 sufficient contribution? 9 18580 MS McQUEEN: No. 10 18581 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: On page 6 you 11 state that foreign services that are directly 12 competitive with Canadian formats should not be 13 authorized without the consent of the Canadian service. 14 Why isn't this the same as saying consumers shouldn't 15 be able to buy Volvos unless General Motors says it's 16 okay? 17 18582 MS McQUEEN: That's an amusing way of 18 putting it and I don't want to get into metaphor hell 19 here, but I guess the difference is that if the 20 purchase of Volvos meant that General Motors wasn't 21 going to exist any longer, I think that there would be 22 a problem. 23 18583 What we are saying is that it isn't a 24 case of denying people access to certain kinds of 25 programming. It's saying that if we have a choice StenoTran 3982 1 between a Canadian sort of programming and a foreign 2 sort of programming, knowing as we do the facts about 3 the obligations on Canadian services, the fragility of 4 the population base to support Canadian services, then 5 it seems to us a reasonable thing to say: If we can do 6 it as Canadians, let's do it as Canadians. If we can't 7 do it as Canadians and Americans are ready to do it, by 8 all means come on in. 9 18584 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So, the 10 viewer that said to you, "I would like to see ESPN. 11 You just compete head to head with ESPN and if you are 12 providing a good service, I am going to watch your 13 service", you reject that argument? 14 18585 MS McQUEEN: Well, you know, it 15 really is difficult to talk about this to the average 16 consumer. We had this conversation at my Thanksgiving 17 Day dinner, actually, about it. It's not like 18 producing a physical object where we can compete 19 equally. The Americans have already, as you know, 20 covered their costs on programming that they export to 21 Canada. It is not an equal competition and an equal 22 playing field. I think every society, every 23 capitalist, democratic society has provisions that 24 encourage real competition and that's all we are asking 25 for is real competition. StenoTran 3983 1 18586 We are in a situation now where -- 2 and we do this happily -- we have obligations to serve 3 Canadian public policy in return for our licence. 4 Foreign services don't. Therefore, our business plans 5 often don't look as attractive to our shareholders as 6 they would if we didn't have those obligations. 7 18587 In return for that, we are saying: 8 We will give you the best of ESPN on RDS and TSN, but 9 we will also give you the best of Canadian programming, 10 which ESPN will never ever give you. So, what you are 11 getting, in effect, is more choice. You will have the 12 best of ESPN, you will have the best of Comedy Central, 13 you will have the best of Discovery U.S., you will have 14 the best of everything that is produced in the United 15 States and you will have Canadian content. We think 16 that's a winning deal for the consumer, especially when 17 we get it in Canada for less dollars per month than 18 Americans pay for their cable services. 19 18588 That was before the pumpkin pie. 20 18589 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I hope you 21 didn't have indigestion after this meal. 22 18590 With respect to the purchase of North 23 American rights by U.S. satellite services, can you 24 give us any information about how significant a 25 practice this is and whether or not you think the StenoTran 3984 1 practice will increase in the future? 2 18591 MR. BRACE: I think it's kind of a 3 two-phased answer, to be honest with you. In the case 4 of the world I live in, which is the world of sports, 5 we see it to a certain extent, but a lessening extent, 6 which seems to be a surprise for a lot of people. What 7 we are seeing is that rightsholders, generally 8 speaking, want to deal directly with each individual 9 market. 10 18592 In terms of Canada, they are seeing 11 Canada, once again from a sports standpoint, as a very 12 lucrative and new opportunity. So, rather than sell 13 off the rights to a North American entity, which then 14 acts as a go between or acts as agent or acts for 15 themselves in selling directly to us, it's, generally 16 speaking, going the other way. 17 18593 There are some areas where that is 18 not happening. NFL would be one, for example, where 19 ESPN purchased the rights to Canada and the U.S. 20 through their own contract, as with the English premier 21 soccer league, which Fox purchased, and is now going to 22 distribute in Canada on CTV SportsNet. But, generally 23 speaking, it tends to be going the other way, rather 24 than seeing the North American entity or the U.S. 25 entities taking over the North American rights. StenoTran 3985 1 18594 MR. JANNETEAU: Simply, to add to 2 this, it may not be the experience in other areas in 3 that it continues to be a concern for most other areas 4 of programming, but it hasn't been in sports in general 5 and, of course, in the case of RDS, we acquire the 6 rights in the same way that TSN does. 7 18595 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I just wanted 8 to end by asking you about the CAB's viewership 9 proposal because this morning you made the point that 10 you are broadcasters and I would like to have your view 11 about how NetStar, assuming it agrees with the CAB 12 approach, would fit in. 13 18596 As you know, they have proposed that 14 we set a national audience or viewership goal for the 15 broadcasting system in consultation with the industry 16 and they say that each licensee should contribute in 17 its own way towards realization of the audience goal 18 and that you should be required to demonstrate how your 19 plans would fit in with all of this. Is that something 20 that NetStar agrees with and wants to participate in? 21 18597 MS McQUEEN: I think, Commissioner, 22 that Mr. McCabe said this morning that they thought it 23 must be new and revolutionary because nobody could 24 understand it. I am afraid we have to be in the 25 category of people who aren't sure how it works. We StenoTran 3986 1 believe that the devil is in the detail, so it's very 2 hard for us to say, yes, it's a great idea or, no, it's 3 a crumby idea. 4 18598 What we do know is two things. One, 5 the answer to the issue of Canadian programming is 6 simple: Make profitable Canadian television. If we 7 could only do that across all genres, we wouldn't have 8 to talk about this. That's the key fundamental reason 9 why we don't have the kind of Canadian programming that 10 we would like to have because basically it is not 11 profitable. It's expensive to make and it just isn't 12 profitable. How do you make a Canadian program 13 profitable? By getting more viewers, which translates 14 into more subscribers and more advertising revenue. 15 18599 How you can impose a duty of 16 increasing viewership through a regulatory mechanism is 17 something that isn't clear to us. If there were a 18 concrete proposal for doing this, we would approach it 19 with enthusiasm and with an open mind, but we don't as 20 yet have what we consider to be a concrete proposal on 21 the table. We do believe that having a revenue formula 22 means that as companies become profitable, they will 23 invest more money in Canadian programming and we think 24 that there is a relationship between the resources you 25 can put into a program and the viewership it gets. StenoTran 3987 1 18600 So, we think in a way that the 2 revenue formula leads to an increase in viewership by 3 promoting better Canadian programs, but unless any of 4 my colleagues are braver than I am and would like to 5 figure out how it's done, we can't help you very much, 6 I'm sorry. 7 1530 8 18601 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you 9 very much, and thank you Madam Chair. 10 18602 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner 11 Pennefather. 12 18603 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you, 13 Madam Chair. 14 18604 Actually my question is exactly on 15 that point, so if we could just keep going with that a 16 little more so I understand your perspective on this. 17 18605 You say, and you have just said 18 again, that our view is that the formula that ties 19 revenue to expenditure in Canadian programming is the 20 key to getting more. But on page 10 of your 21 submission, paragraph 63, in making a point about drama 22 you say: 23 "More and more money has been 24 poured into the production of 25 Canadian drama and more and more StenoTran 3988 1 hours have been broadcast. The 2 impact...however -- the hard 3 evidence -- is discouraging. 4 Viewing levels...have stayed 5 relatively the same." 6 18606 Now, I think, and correct me if I am 7 wrong, that you are making that point in terms of your 8 approach to all under-represented programs, and you 9 have just said it again, increase to all genres is the 10 key. 11 18607 I would just like to clarify those 12 two points of view, that it would appear, first, that 13 the more money at drama has not worked to increase 14 viewing levels. Why would it work now? Is expenditure 15 the only key, which I think we went through again 16 earlier? 17 18608 That being said, also, why would 18 adding the other representative categories that much 19 improve viewership if it hasn't -- we have had this 20 historical challenge of trying to get more viewership 21 even though we have had different formulae applied to 22 it. 23 18609 MS McQUEEN: Commissioner 24 Pennefather, I think there are two replies that I can 25 give to your question. First of all, I think that the StenoTran 3989 1 producers made the point. They have become, over the 2 last five or so years, a more mature industry. They 3 now have very large publicly traded profitable 4 companies that are putting money, adequate resources, 5 into various kinds of programming, and I think that the 6 viewing levels to Canadian drama, although they have 7 stayed flat, that that in a way is an accomplishment, 8 considering the competition from other services, both 9 foreign and Canadian. 10 18610 Most specialty channels do not do 11 Canadian drama. That means Canadian drama has been 12 fighting for audience against a fragmenting position, 13 which is specialty services, both foreign and Canadian, 14 coming in and fighting them. 15 18611 I really think that it's perhaps 16 instructive to look at the experience in Quebec where 17 Canadian drama has amazing audiences, amazing shares, 18 probably shares that are not equaled in the western 19 world any longer, I think, where you can get a 44 or 45 20 or even a 50 share -- I think Omertá has a 50 share in 21 Quebec. I think you see there the effect that a long- 22 term investment in programming can have. 23 18612 My concern is that no matter how much 24 money -- I shouldn't say it. Drama is very, very 25 expensive and to increase, in a broad way, the number StenoTran 3990 1 of hours of Canadian programming would take such a huge 2 amount of money that I am not sure whether it's doable. 3 That does not mean we cannot have audience successes in 4 Canadian drama if we fund it better; I just don't think 5 that in the wildest imaginings for us to be able to 6 fund a huge number of hours of good Canadian drama is 7 possible. 8 18613 Maybe I am a pessimist or not 9 properly schooled in the economics of how this can be 10 done, but I just do not think it can be done. I think 11 it can be done in certain cases and I think it can be 12 done over a long term of investment, and when we look 13 at the history of Quebec television, what we see is 14 that they put resources into Canadian drama; téléromans 15 that were terrible, people in rooms talking on and on 16 for ages. But they developed writers, lighting people, 17 actors, who then, as part of their generation, went on 18 to become terrific. And I do not think that's what we 19 have had in the English Canadian system at all, is the 20 kind of long-term commitment that Quebec drama has had. 21 18614 So I am not negative about that and I 22 do not think that Canadian drama has done badly 23 considering the kind of competition that it has had. 24 My concern about it is strictly that it requires so 25 much money to get it to the point where it's StenoTran 3991 1 economically viable that I just do not think we can do 2 it in a way that will create the number of hours of 3 Canadian programming that you are talking about. 4 18615 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I take 5 that point and also the reference to the Quebec market 6 in this way; that certainly just expenditures is not 7 the reason for the success in Quebec. There were other 8 factors at play, which was part of my question, too, 9 about not just relying on expenditure requirements. If 10 you take documentaries, which is your concern, would it 11 not be the case that you would also want to propose, in 12 addition to expenditure requirements, exhibition 13 requirements so that we are talking about prime time 14 where you have our largest audiencees and which would 15 also incent larger expenditures for the production 16 values you will need to attract audiences in prime 17 time, or even peak time? 18 18616 This is the two sides of the story 19 which are on the table and yet you seem to say, as did 20 you this morning, that it is best to go with a formula 21 that just ties revenue to programs. 22 18617 MS. McQUEEN: Our position has been 23 that we believe in a floor level of hours, but after 24 that we think that revenue works automatically in every 25 way in terms of whether it's scheduled in prime time, StenoTran 3992 1 in terms of whether resources are put into under- 2 represented categories. 3 18618 The fact is that if you have to 4 invest that number of dollars in a format, you are much 5 more likely to have a good result with it than if it's 6 a mandated hour. There should be a floor level of 7 hours, there is no doubt about that, to fall back on in 8 bad times, but after that we really believe that 9 revenue is the key. 10 18619 It's true that it is not the only 11 thing that will make this enterprise successful. The 12 quality of the program matters, the promotion does 13 matter, the scheduling does matter, the competition 14 does matter. There are all kinds of other things, but 15 at base, and even in the Quebec situation, I think that 16 it was their continual investment that brought them to 17 the level that they are now in Canadian drama. There 18 really is a rough correlation between expenditure and 19 result. 20 18620 I see that with the American 21 programming. You know, it's attractive because they 22 have so much money spent before a program gets to the 23 screen, and you know the statistics. I think there are 24 1,000 scripts, 100 pilots, 10 programs that make it to 25 air and two programs that make it to a second season. StenoTran 3993 1 So even though the budgets are dramatically bigger by a 2 factor of ten, the fact is even before they get to air 3 they have spent huge amounts of money that just are not 4 in our system at all, and I think that's why those 5 programs attract viewers, is because so much money has 6 been spent developing them and we have not been able to 7 have that kind of economic power. 8 18621 I cannot figure out a way that -- and 9 we have thought about it both at SPTV and at NetStar -- 10 I cannot figure out a more general notion than if you 11 invest in Canadian programming you will have better 12 Canadian programming. It does not work every time, but 13 it's the closest we can get to a rule. It's like Mr. 14 Trudeau once said, the race is not always to the swift, 15 but that's where I would put my money. 16 18622 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: We will 17 leave it there for now. Thank you. 18 18623 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner 19 Cardozo. 20 18624 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I wonder if I 21 could just ask you a about question that hasn't 22 received much attention in the hearing but that gets 23 some responses in some of the written submissions, and 24 that's violence on television. I am looking more from 25 your perspective, not so much from AGVOT, which I know StenoTran 3994 1 you also are part of. But one of the things people 2 often say, that I hear, is despite everything we have 3 been talking about and doing, there is still a lot, or 4 too much, or more, violence on television. 5 18625 How do you respond to that kind of 6 suggestion? 7 18626 MS McQUEEN: Commissioner Cardozo, I 8 think we have set up, probably in the world that we 9 know about, the most viewer friendly system for 10 complaints about violence. It may not be a perfect 11 system, and I do not think we will ever get to be a 12 perfect system. It may not be a completely objective 13 system because people have very different views about 14 levels of violence, but we have set up an independent, 15 well funded, standards body that will accept complaints 16 about violence, that is composed of distinguished 17 adjudicators, that has the authority to make changes 18 and to make judgments and, from what I understand, 19 there are very, very few complaints made to that body. 20 So I think we have all the machinery in motion. I am 21 not sure why it does not seem to be used by the average 22 viewer. 23 18627 I do believe, and we said this all 24 through the AGVOT hearings, and many people said it 25 before us, that the problem tends to be with programs StenoTran 3995 1 that are not made in this country generally. And I 2 think there is a feeling of frustration among people 3 about dealing with programs that are not made by 4 producers here. 5 18628 When I was with AGVOT, one of the 6 things that we said was that more Canadian programming 7 would undoubtedly mean a less violent Canadian 8 broadcasting system. 9 18629 Elizabeth, has NetStar had any 10 complaints about violence in it's programming? 11 18630 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: Discovery has not 12 had anything that I can think of. 13 18631 MS McQUEEN: I know that you were 14 told that I did not write back to a viewer who 15 complained about a program before it went on the air. 16 In fact, I went through my files and I did in fact 17 write -- and I will table my answer -- to those people, 18 in which I asked them to keep me informed. Nothing 19 happened. 20 18632 You know, I think it may be -- I do 21 not exactly know, but it's tough to fight the system, 22 and I have great sympathy for people who run these 23 organizations, usually on a volunteer basis, and have 24 to use their own resources and their own time to try to 25 do something that they feel very passionately about. StenoTran 3996 1 And I can understand their frustration and I sympathize 2 with it. I am not sure that I have any answers beyond 3 what the system has already set up. 4 18633 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So if you are 5 not getting too many complaints, are you concluding 6 that we have the problem under control or that, for 7 whatever reason, people are not complaining? 8 18634 MS McQUEEN: Well, I think there are 9 only those two possible answers. I cannot think of any 10 other. 11 18635 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You do not 12 know which of the two it is? 13 18636 MS McQUEEN: No, I do not. 14 18637 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks. 15 That's the second person that says "I do not know" 16 during the whole hearing, so you get an award for that. 17 18638 THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel. 18 18639 MR. BLAIS: Along with other parties 19 that have made recommendations about documentaries, 20 this necessarily brings us to questions of definition 21 and I was wondering if you accept the CTF's definition 22 of documentaries. 23 18640 MS McQUEEN: Telefilm's definition of 24 documentaries? 25 18641 MR. BLAIS: Yes, that's right. StenoTran 3997 1 18642 MS McQUEEN: We think that it is too 2 exclusive and we would like, with your permission, to 3 table a definition that we think would be acceptable. 4 18643 MR. BLAIS: Do you have it there? 5 18644 MS McQUEEN: No, we don't, but we 6 could give it to you tomorrow or the next day. 7 18645 MR. BLAIS: That's fine, thank you. 8 So by the end of the hearing, which is the 15th. We 9 would appreciate that. 10 18646 Because you are suggesting that we 11 give 150 per cent credit, similar to the drama 12 situation, and there we need ten out of ten points, how 13 would we evaluate the Canadianness of a documentary in 14 those circumstances? 15 18647 MS McQUEEN: There is a Cavco 16 evaluation of documentaries, and you could use that. 17 18648 MR. BLAIS: So the same point system 18 as exists currently? 19 18649 MS McQUEEN: It's slightly different 20 for documentaries -- 21 18650 MR. BLAIS: I realize that. 22 18651 MS McQUEEN: -- but it does exist, 23 yes. 24 18652 MR. BLAIS: Okay. You are not 25 suggesting a more subjective evaluation of Canadianness StenoTran 3998 1 subjective test; it's an objective point system -- 2 18653 MS McQUEEN: Yes. 3 18654 MR. BLAIS: -- that you are 4 proposing. Thank you. 5 18655 With respect to your administrative 6 fees for being added to the eligible satellite list, is 7 this a one-time fee for the first time one gets listed, 8 or does it become an annual -- 9 18656 MS McQUEEN: Annual. 10 18657 MR. BLAIS: It's an annual fee? 11 18658 MS McQUEEN: It would resemble, in 12 shape and process, the licence fee that Canadian 13 broadcasters pay. 14 18659 MR. BLAIS: Which raises another 15 issue. Is there not a risk that when someone pays an 16 annual fee they start thinking they have certain rights 17 of access to the system? 18 18660 MS McQUEEN: If it's an 19 administration fee, we believe that shouldn't be a 20 problem. 21 18661 MR. BLAIS: Now, at page 56 of your 22 memorandum, you suggest -- this is with respect to 23 promotions -- you state: 24 "NetStar supports the inclusion 25 of expenditures related to on- StenoTran 3999 1 air promotions produced by 2 Canadian television licensees to 3 promote Canadian programs as 4 eligible Canadian program 5 expenditures." 6 18662 I was surprised to see that you have 7 limited it to those produced by Canadian television 8 licensees. Now, I will admit that it might not make 9 sense to farm it out to an independent producer but why 10 would one limit it to in-house promotions? 11 18663 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: We do not have any 12 objection to going beyond that. I think our point 13 there was merely that most of our promos are produced 14 in-house. 15 18664 MR. BLAIS: Thank you. Now, with 16 respect to simultaneous substitution, there was some 17 discussion about costs and you stated that no one has 18 objected so far in the voluntary system. Now, if we 19 move to a mandatory system, it would mean, in your 20 proposal, that all Class Is would have to have 21 facilities and be ready and willing to go for all the 22 specialty services. 23 18665 Is there not a possibility that that, 24 when it becomes mandatory, becomes a somewhat different 25 ball game? StenoTran 4000 1 18666 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: As we said, we 2 certainly we do not have a number on the cost issue. 3 Perhaps the "I do not know" version comes in here a 4 little bit. But I think the fundamental issue is the 5 protection of program rights, and if cost was not an 6 issue in terms of the regulation for conventional 7 broadcasters, that in our view parity for specialty 8 services requires that cost be a lesser issue here as 9 well. 10 18667 MR. BLAIS: Which raises my last 11 question -- the last point I would like to discuss with 12 you. I notice in some places in your brief you use the 13 words "equitable rules" but in other places you talk 14 about "equal rules" with conventional broadcasters. I 15 have asked others this morning this question. 16 18668 Your revenue stream is both 17 subscription based and advertising based and I was 18 wondering whether that equal treatment argument really 19 holds water across the way. 20 18669 MS DUFFY-MacLEAN: In our view, the 21 dual stream revenue is really not a reality when 9 per 22 cent of the total television advertising revenues are 23 taken by specialty services. So 9 per cent to us is 24 not equitable or equal in any way to make a dual stream 25 revenue situation apply here. StenoTran 4001 1 18670 I think the other issue is when you 2 talk about the other side of that stream, which is 3 distribution, we are also not looking at the same level 4 of distribution as the conventional services are, so we 5 like to look at them perhaps as not streams so much as 6 trickles. 7 18671 MR. BLAIS: Thank you. I think I 8 understand your point. Thank you very much. Those are 9 my questions. 10 18672 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very 11 much. 12 18673 Ms McQueen, I do not think we do have 13 a witness protection program, but we are quite prepared 14 to send you, with a high recommendation, to King 15 Solomon's court. 16 18674 MS McQUEEN: Oh dear, dividing the 17 baby. Thank you. 18 18675 THE CHAIRMAN: We will take our 19 afternoon break now. We will be back at ten after 20 four. Nous reprendrons à quatre heures et dix. 21 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1550 22 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1615 23 18676 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary? 24 18677 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair. 25 The next presentation will be by MUSE Entertainment StenoTran 4002 1 Enterprises Inc., Mr. Prupas. 2 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION 3 18678 MR. PRUPAS: Thank you very much, 4 Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak here today. 5 MUSE is a very young company and we consider ourselves 6 to be privileged to have the opportunity to make this 7 presentation here today. I thank you all very much for 8 that privilege. 9 18679 I, Michael Prupas, have had a lot of 10 experience in the entertainment business, having been a 11 lawyer at Heenan Blaikie, the senior entertainment 12 partner for 20 years, and having been the professor of 13 entertainment law at McGill University's law faculty 14 for the last two years. 15 18680 I hope that the remarks I am about to 16 address to you will be taken with whatever experience, 17 with whatever knowledge that experience may have 18 granted me and looked at from that perspective. 19 18681 I spent a lot of years looking at and 20 working in the area of Canadian programs, and I want to 21 share with you some of my observations and thoughts 22 about where we have come to in the programming industry 23 and what it means for the CRTC in its policy-making 24 decisions at this very important juncture in our 25 Canadian history. StenoTran 4003 1 18682 I think it is worth reviewing very 2 briefly the concepts, at least as we see it, behind the 3 concept of what is a Canadian program, and why we have 4 a Canadian content programming system. 5 18683 First of all, we want to encourage 6 the sense that the broadcasting system reflects who we 7 are, what we are, where we came from, and where we are 8 going to, as Canadians. 9 18684 Secondly, we want a recognition of 10 the importance of having our own professional 11 production industry so that we can have the technical 12 means -- and by that I include the creative means -- to 13 communicate our identity to ourselves and to others 14 around the world. 15 18685 Thirdly, I think we have to look at 16 our Canadian content programming regulations in the 17 context of the establishment of Canadian identity from 18 a historical perspective; that this is a country which 19 is distinct from other countries and we have 20 established that distinction in the past through other 21 means, through our transportation systems, for example, 22 through our military achievements and through our 23 social support systems. We think that the broadcasting 24 content rules fall into that same context and should be 25 looked at in that historical perspective. StenoTran 4004 1 18686 We also think, though, that the 2 context in which we are operating today has changed 3 dramatically. By that I mean that the broadcasting 4 environment of 1998, and moving into the next 5 millennium, is very different from the one that existed 6 on an international scale 10 years ago. 7 18687 First of all, we know that European 8 and Asian cultures in particular, and Latin American 9 cultures to a significant extent, have also been 10 exposed to the erosion of their cultural identities 11 through the infusion of North American-driven programs 12 primarily, and that they have -- they are now 13 experiencing some of the same kinds of problems in 14 terms of their cultural identity that Canada has 15 experienced for many, many years. 16 18688 Secondly, we note that with the 17 advent of more broadcasting channels, with the 18 availability of satellite delivery systems, with the 19 potential advent of delivery via the Internet, the 20 television-video marketplaces that we have known in the 21 past have changed dramatically; that the markets are 22 now being subdivided into narrow path segments; and 23 that the economic substructure underlying the creation 24 of Canadian programming, and programming 25 internationally, is very different from what it was 10 StenoTran 4005 1 years ago. 2 18689 I think it is worth examining that in 3 some detail, and I will take a few minutes of your time 4 today to do that, to show how that is impacting on the 5 financing of Canadian programming and what policy 6 consequences I would suggest need to be taken from 7 that. 8 18690 So, these are realities which I 9 believe obligate all participants in the Canadian 10 production industry, including the producers, the 11 financiers, and the regulators, to rethink their 12 traditional approaches and adapt to the requirements of 13 the twenty-first century. 14 18691 I believe that this adaptation can be 15 done in such a way as to nurture diversity represented 16 by many different countries and many different cultural 17 protagonists, that it can be done in a way that is 18 appealing to viewers and in significant enough numbers 19 around the world to justify their cost of production, 20 but that it must be done by fostering alliances and 21 partnerships -- en français on dit complicité -- with 22 international producers, distributors and broadcasters. 23 I will elaborate. 24 18692 Over the years, a number of 25 regulatory tools have been put in place in an attempt StenoTran 4006 1 to insure by regulation that the cultural policies of 2 the Canadian Broadcasting Act, particularly as they 3 relate to Canadian content, are implemented. Access 4 requirements and distribution linkage requirements have 5 been two such tools. 6 18693 Without such requirements, licensees 7 would have no obligation to carry Canadian programming 8 and the producers of Canadian content productions would 9 lack any certain outlet for their products. However, 10 one must ask whether the CRTC will be able to continue 11 to rely upon these requirements in the face of our 12 current and future technological advances. There 13 already exists a significant grey market of Canadians 14 who, by using American addresses, have subscribed to 15 American satellite services which have no regard to 16 Canadian cultural policies and, by extension, no 17 commitment to Canadian programming. 18 18694 Hundreds of new channels are becoming 19 available all over the world and Canadian television 20 viewers will soon be lured not only by these channels 21 but also the possibility of watching television through 22 their home computers. 23 18695 In these conditions, a continued 24 reliance on existing requirements may prove fruitless 25 in the quest to protect the availability of Canadian StenoTran 4007 1 programming. For this very reason, it may be argued 2 that the better approach would be to promote Canadian 3 programming by fostering those conditions which will 4 make such programming more attractive to a Canadian 5 audience in the first place. 6 18696 By encouraging a strong Canadian 7 production industry, which is motivated to produce 8 successful entertainment programs, the Canadian 9 government will perhaps be in a better position to 10 ensure that Canadians watch Canadian television 11 programming. 12 18697 How ought the regulatory framework be 13 modified in order to enhance the quality of Canadian 14 programming in such a manner as to, one, allow it to 15 compete successfully in the international marketplace; 16 two, be gradually weaned away from various Canadian 17 federal and provincial funding schemes; and, three, 18 maintain Canadian control and identity? 19 18698 At this point in my presentation, I 20 would like you to turn to the schedules which were 21 included at the back of my presentation, the document 22 that is entitled, "MUSE Entertainment Enterprises Inc., 23 Example 1, Example 2 and Example 3". 24 18699 What I want to do with these examples 25 is to illustrate to you -- and these are, I can tell StenoTran 4008 1 you, real cases of real Canadian television series that 2 have been produced in the last 12 months and the 3 financing schemes that underlie them. I think it is 4 important to bring to your attention the way that the 5 financing for these television series have come 6 together. 7 18700 Obviously, for confidentiality 8 reasons, I can't identify the names of the programs, 9 but you can take my word that these are real programs. 10 18701 Generally speaking, I think it is 11 fair to look at -- looking at it from a producer's 12 point of view, and we are talking here about 13 entertainment programming, either drama or sitcom in 14 both of these cases. This is a high profile 15 programming we are talking about. The world, the 16 financial world from the producers's point of view is 17 made up of three general blocks of potential sources of 18 financing, assuming that we are talking about a 19 Canadian production. 20 18702 First of all, there is the block 21 which comes from the combination of your Canadian 22 broadcasters and the Canadian tax credits. Any program 23 that is going to be broadcast in Canada is going to be 24 able to -- as Canadian content -- is going to be able 25 to qualify for tax credits from Canadian and provincial StenoTran 4009 1 -- from federal and provincial sources. 2 18703 The second block of financing, if you 3 will, is the financing that comes from now the Canadian 4 Television Fund, formerly the Canadian Cable Production 5 Fund. The first block roughly represents a third of 6 the financial package of any given production. The 7 second block, if it is available, and as you know there 8 is only -- and as was discussed here earlier this 9 afternoon -- only a small number of productions 10 actually qualify for the Canadian Cable Production 11 Fund. The fund as a whole generates $200 million in an 12 industry that is producing $2 billion or more of 13 production in a given year. So it is a small part and 14 it represents a relatively small part of the overall 15 pie of Canadian content programming on Canadian 16 broadcast networks. But, nevertheless, if it is 17 available, it can represent up to one-third of the 18 budget of any given production. 19 18704 The third third, if you will, can 20 come from a presale to an American broadcaster; a 21 presale to a foreign broadcaster; or equity financing, 22 that is to say, risk financing which is not covered by 23 any presale coming in most circumstances from a large 24 production company, which may or may not be a Canadian 25 production company. StenoTran 4010 1 18705 Now, as I pointed out, very few of 2 productions actually qualify for the Cable Production 3 Fund; and that is something that -- that third needs to 4 be replaced by one of the other three thirds that I 5 mentioned previously -- I should say two of the other 6 three thirds that I mentioned previously. That is to 7 say, the American funding; the European or foreign fund 8 -- international sales; or equity risk money coming 9 from a producer. 10 18706 So, in my first example that I wanted 11 to take you through quickly, just to illustrate this, 12 you see a case where funding was provided by the Cable 13 Production Fund, including both the licence fee program 14 and the equity investment program, where there were 15 Canadian, federal and provincial, tax credits. There 16 was in this case some additional funding from one of 17 the funds that have been authorized by the CRTC; and 18 there has been some money from the Canadian 19 broadcaster. 20 18707 The foreign licence fee in this case, 21 which did not cover sales in the U.S., again covered 22 roughly a third of the budget of the production, and 23 was a -- from a Canadian point of view, a very, very 24 generous foreign licence fee. There has been very few 25 Canadian programs that had licence fees of this size. StenoTran 4011 1 18708 The second example that I want to 2 draw your attention to, my Example 2, is a case of a 3 production which had a small amount of -- there was a 4 significant foreign licence fee, roughly half the 5 budget of the production in this case. The same sort 6 of size of Canadian broadcast fees and tax credits. 7 There was no U.S. distribution and you had a Canadian 8 distribution company that was prepared to put up equity 9 money at risk to encourage this film to -- this series 10 to get produced. 11 18709 Now, in this case, the Canadian 12 producer took a substantial risk because the history of 13 these kinds of productions is that when you have a sale 14 to the United States, it is usually quite easy to count 15 on revenues coming from the rest of the world. When 16 you have sales to the rest of the world, it is not easy 17 to count on sales being made in the United States. The 18 U.S. is a market that is often inaccessible, as 19 Canadian producers would testify to you, to most 20 Canadian productions. 21 18710 What you have here is a Canadian 22 producer taking a fairly significant amount of risk, 23 hoping that the show would be made, and the only reason 24 he was prepared to take -- that the risk would be 25 covered -- the only reason he was prepared to take that StenoTran 4012 1 size of a risk is that he had a huge licence fee coming 2 from a foreign distributor. 3 18711 The third example is an example where 4 you also had a Canadian producer making -- taking a 5 risk investment. He had his Canadian broadcaster fees. 6 He had his tax credits. But he had also a U.S. licence 7 agreement in place guaranteeing broadcast on a 8 specialty network in the United States. Actually, it 9 was a syndicated network in the United States. As a 10 result, the producer put up a relatively small amount 11 of money against a fairly high amount of coverage. 12 18712 Am I speaking too long? 13 18713 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 14 18714 MR. PRUPAS: All right. I am ready 15 to cut it off here. That is the point I wanted to 16 make. I hope I have communicated to you where I am 17 coming from in terms of the financing sources, and I 18 welcome your questions. 19 18715 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. 20 Prupas. 21 18716 Commissioner Wilson. 22 18717 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Good afternoon, 23 Mr. Prupas. It is a pleasure to have you with us this 24 afternoon. 25 18718 You have presented quite an StenoTran 4013 1 interesting scenario for the future of Canadian 2 production and broadcasting. It is based on your 3 submission of June 28th. I took a quick look through 4 your oral presentation, but I am going to focus mostly 5 on your written submission if you don't mind. 6 18719 MR. PRUPAS: Sure. 7 18720 COMMISSIONER WILSON: It struck me 8 that you might go so far as to say it is a uniquely 9 Canadian solution, in that it -- maybe what you are 10 proposing is that in order to generate quality Canadian 11 programming and strengthen the system we should make 12 programming that is valued and successful abroad, sort 13 of if it is successful in other people's eyes, then we 14 will like it better. I don't know if it is fair to say 15 that. 16 18721 MR. PRUPAS: I don't know if that is 17 a fair summary, but it is certainly true that I believe 18 that Canadians, historically, and it is unfortunately 19 the history of our country, tend to regard more highly 20 people who succeeded elsewhere than people who have 21 made it at home. 22 18722 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Yes. 23 18723 MR. PRUPAS: I think that is true to 24 some extent with our television programming, but I 25 think that the real issue is not whether it succeeded StenoTran 4014 1 abroad but whether it has met the kind of standards 2 that Canadians have for watching television. Those 3 standards, because of their exposure to American 4 television, to the depth that they have had that 5 exposure, require Canadian producers to meet those 6 American standards, if they want to get Canadian 7 audiences. 8 18724 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Is it fair to 9 say that it is your belief that the path to a strong 10 and viable Canadian broadcasting system is really 11 through focusing on industrial programming, since 12 industrial programming, sort of in the context of what 13 we have been talking about during this proceeding, is 14 the kind of programming that is more exportable than 15 distinctively Canadian programming? 16 18725 MR. PRUPAS: I personally believe 17 that Canadian programming is exportable, when it is 18 done at a certain -- of a certain quality. I don't 19 know what you mean by industrial programming. 20 18726 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Something like 21 "Traders" or "Cold Squad" or "Due South" which is more 22 exportable, even though "Due South" has the mountie and 23 that is quite clearly Canadian. 24 18727 MR. PRUPAS: I would certainly say 25 that programs like "Traders" and "Due South" are the StenoTran 4015 1 kind of things that I would be thinking about, yes, if 2 that is what you call "industrial". I have a hard time 3 defining it as industrial. To my mind, industrial is 4 programming that does not have identifiably Canadian 5 elements attached to it in a significant degree. 6 18728 I think that -- you know, I think 7 that if the contrast to industrial is programming that 8 is -- and I have worked on programs, say, like "Black 9 Harbour", which is very distinctively Canadian, and 10 "Black Harbour", unfortunately, has not had a great 11 success in its sales abroad, and I am not convinced 12 that that is because it was set in Canada, because I 13 think that shows that are set in Canada can succeed 14 elsewhere. I think it is because there is a problem in 15 the pacing and the style of that show that has just 16 made it very difficult for it to be sold elsewhere. 17 18729 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But if I am 18 understanding what you are saying in your submission, 19 you are suggesting that a focus on more generic or 20 industrial programming is probably the better way to go 21 in terms of weaning the system off taxpayer-supported 22 funds and trying to attract foreign investment and 23 building a stronger system. 24 18730 MR. PRUPAS: Let me come at that a 25 different way. StenoTran 4016 1 18731 My experience in setting up this 2 company, and in attracting, as I have, a foreign 3 investor as a minority shareholder in my company, not 4 an American company, the European company, has been 5 that they have taken the perspective that the kind of 6 programming which you may call industrial that is 7 produced in Canada -- 8 18732 COMMISSIONER WILSON: We don't need 9 to argue over the term. You know what I mean by that 10 term. 11 18733 MR. PRUPAS: I think that anything 12 that -- I am certainly advocating that Canadian 13 programming, to survive in the future, and to succeed, 14 needs to be sold internationally. I am certainly 15 saying that. 16 18734 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Which we are 17 doing. I mean we are doing that now and you note in 18 your comments today and in your submission we are the 19 second largest exporter of programming, 20 English-language programming. We could always export 21 more I guess but... 22 18735 In your experience is there an 23 international market for distinctively Canadian 24 programming? 25 18736 MR. PRUPAS: I think that there is -- StenoTran 4017 1 the answer is there is. Certain kinds of Canadian 2 programming sells very well internationally. 3 Children's programming -- 4 18737 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Distinctively? 5 18738 MR. PRUPAS: Distinctively meaning -- 6 what is a distinctively Canadian program in your view? 7 18739 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I guess one of 8 the definitions that we have been looking at is the 9 definition that is applied by the Canadian Television 10 Fund for distinctively Canadian. 11 18740 MR. PRUPAS: One of the examples that 12 you have here is a program that qualifies for the 13 Canadian Cable Production Fund and is being sold 14 internationally with this very substantial guarantee 15 that we were very heavily involved in arranging. 16 18741 So I think that there is a market for 17 that stuff and, certainly, the people that I am working 18 with internationally are saying we can take Canadian 19 stories, it doesn't have to be Chicago or New York, it 20 can be Toronto or Vancouver, and we can sell those 21 stories, or it could be the north for that matter. The 22 north, there is tremendous interest internationally in 23 Canadian wilderness and Canadian wildlife as well. 24 Those things can be sold internationally. 25 18742 But what can't be sold is programming StenoTran 4018 1 that doesn't meet that -- the kind of pacing and the 2 kind of -- that doesn't have the kind of writing that 3 international audiences, including Canadian audiences, 4 expect. 5 18743 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You make the 6 statement in paragraph 5 of your submission that the 7 quality of Canadian programming can be enhanced in such 8 a manner as to allow it to compete successfully in the 9 international marketplace while gradually being weaned 10 away from Canadian taxpayers' money and, at the same 11 time, maintaining Canadian control and identity. 12 1535 13 18744 I am just wondering. Really, you are 14 the first party who has even suggested that the 15 Canadian broadcasting system can be weaned from public 16 funds. 17 18745 MR. PRUPAS: I'm glad I was original. 18 18746 COMMISSIONER WILSON: It's always 19 good to be original, but I guess what I am wondering 20 is, having looked at your oral submission today and the 21 examples that you have given, in order to be weaned 22 away from Canadian taxpayers' money, do we have to give 23 up ownership because ownership of rights, of course, is 24 really of paramount importance to the producers. 25 18747 MR. PRUPAS: I think there has to be StenoTran 4019 1 some money put into the system by Canadians in order 2 for Canadians to retain ownership into the programming. 3 I think that that money can come and should come from 4 Canadian broadcasters. I think that there is -- I 5 would love to see at least the Canadian tax credit 6 system continue long into the future because clearly 7 the more money the Canadians are able to put into a 8 production, the more control they are going to be able 9 to maintain and to have that kind of leverage. 10 18748 But I am anticipating the day when we 11 are going to find Canadian taxpayers less willing to 12 support programming to the degree they have had in the 13 past and, furthermore, we are already at the stage 14 where a significant portion of Canadian content 15 programming is getting a relatively small portion of 16 its budget from Canadian sources. 17 18749 COMMISSIONER WILSON: From private 18 Canadian sources or -- 19 18750 MR. PRUPAS: From all Canadian 20 sources, from public and private sources. The value of 21 Canadian tax credits, for example, which is public 22 money, is roughly somewhere between 12 and 30 per cent 23 of the budget of any given production, which is not the 24 majority of the financing and not sufficient to drive 25 the production completely, yet we are able to leverage StenoTran 4020 1 those kinds of numbers into getting Canadian control 2 and Canadian content. 3 18751 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Another element 4 of your proposal is -- let me cite this. I believe 5 it's at paragraph 14. You say that: 6 "The CRTC could effectively 7 encourage greater viability for 8 Canadian programming if it were 9 willing to establish incentive 10 programs that would reward 11 productions with additional 12 content recognition percentages 13 if a certain level of 14 international presales has been 15 achieved." 16 18752 I guess these incentives wouldn't 17 hurt your business, would they? 18 18753 MR. PRUPAS: They certainly wouldn't 19 hurt my business, but I would -- 20 18754 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Since your 21 position is towards the international market. 22 18755 MR. PRUPAS: I think it would help -- 23 18756 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But that's not 24 really my question. I was just making an offhand 25 comment. StenoTran 4021 1 18757 MR. PRUPAS: It wouldn't hurt my 2 business, I won't deny that. 3 18758 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But what kinds 4 of incentives did you have in mind? 5 18759 MR. PRUPAS: I am thinking about the 6 international co-production recognition that you have 7 in regulation 1984-10 or the April 10th, 1984 8 regulation, the Canadian content regulation that goes 9 back to 1984 where you give content recognition to 10 programs that are produced under Canada's international 11 co-production treaties. 12 18760 There is already a greater 13 flexibility that you have built into the system for 14 programs that qualify under those treaties and I am 15 suggesting that those programs should be given enhanced 16 program recognition for your content system in Canada 17 in the same way you give 150 per cent for 10 out of 10 18 productions. I would suggest that international co- 19 productions that are produced under those international 20 treaties, which, as you know, exclude the United 21 States, should be given enhanced recognition. 22 18761 COMMISSIONER WILSON: At paragraph 13 23 you state: 24 "Should the CRTC decide to 25 require Canadian broadcasters to StenoTran 4022 1 increase their commitment to the 2 broadcast of Canadian 3 programming during prime viewing 4 hours, then it will be necessary 5 to create creative and economic 6 models which will allow that 7 programming to become attractive 8 to the broadcasters." 9 18762 So, what kinds of models do you think 10 would allow the programming to become attractive to 11 broadcasters? 12 18763 MR. PRUPAS: I think what I am 13 driving at there is encouraging Canadian broadcasters 14 to in fact play a role as equity participants in the 15 production of the industry, that they should be 16 encouraged to put their money in and given some at 17 least moral recognition, if not some financial 18 recognition, under your system for the contribution 19 that they make at that level. If they are going to put 20 in that extra money, certainly they could benefit from 21 the returns that their equity would bring, but perhaps 22 they could get from the CRTC additional points of some 23 sort. You know that system better than I do. 24 18764 COMMISSIONER WILSON: What is your 25 view on the broadcasters accessing the Telefilm equity StenoTran 4023 1 investment program? 2 18765 MR. PRUPAS: I guess as long as they 3 are putting their money in to producing shows and they 4 are playing a role in that, I don't see why they should 5 be treated on a different playing field than the rest 6 of the producers. I think there has to be some very 7 strong rules, though, against self-dealing and that 8 would be my big concern. 9 18766 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I guess some 10 people would argue that their direct access to the 11 equity investment program would mean that they are 12 using public money to take an ownership risk and then 13 if it pays off, in fact they haven't really put their 14 own money into it at all. 15 18767 MR. PRUPAS: Well, it's the same 16 thing with the producers. Why should they be treated 17 differently than the producers? The producers aren't 18 putting in their own money, either, arguably. This is 19 coming from somebody who has spent most of his life 20 representing Canadian producers. So, I think it's -- 21 18768 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I'm sure you 22 did an excellent job. 23 18769 MR. PRUPAS: I beg your pardon? 24 18770 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I'm sure you 25 did an excellent job. StenoTran 4024 1 18771 Are you talking about the same thing 2 then? You are talking in paragraph 13 about equity 3 participation. In paragraph 15 you say: 4 "...[the] participation of 5 Canadian broadcasters in foreign 6 sales is to be welcomed and not 7 discouraged provided that 8 safeguards are established to 9 ensure that the licence fees 10 paid by Canadian broadcasters 11 for Canadian broadcast rights 12 are not subsidized directly or 13 indirectly." 14 18772 MR. PRUPAS: Yes, it is the same 15 point in fact. 16 18773 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I just wasn't 17 sure because you had -- 18 18774 MR. PRUPAS: I had repeated it twice. 19 18775 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Well, there are 20 two different ways of describing the foreign sales. I 21 was wondering if you were suggesting something to do 22 with Canadian broadcasters getting involved in 23 distribution of the product as separate from being 24 equity participants. 25 18776 MR. PRUPAS: No, I am referring to StenoTran 4025 1 their equity participation. 2 18777 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You say that 3 broadcasters should not be encouraged to become 4 producers themselves and that: 5 "The CRTC should keep 6 broadcasters focused on their 7 audience's requirements and keep 8 the producers delivering what 9 the broadcasters need." 10 18778 I have a friend who often uses the 11 expression "stick to your knitting". Is that the 12 message that you are asking the CRTC to deliver to the 13 broadcasters? 14 18779 MR. PRUPAS: Yes, I think so. They 15 certainly should be able to be encouraged to put their 16 money into the shows and they obviously have a 17 tremendous input as to what should be in those shows 18 and how they should be handled, but I think that there 19 is a distinctive role that producers play as opposed to 20 broadcasters and that distinction should be maintained. 21 18780 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Those are my 22 questions, Mr. Prupas. Thank you very much. 23 18781 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. 24 Prupas. Thank you for your presentation. 25 18782 Madam Secretary? StenoTran 4026 1 18783 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair. 2 18784 La prochaine présentation sera faite 3 par Radiomutuel Inc. 4 18785 Messieurs. 5 1645 6 18786 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour, messieurs. 7 Allez-y quand vous êtes prêts. 8 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION 9 18787 M. BEAUCHAMP: Madame la Vice- 10 Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers, mon 11 nom est Normand Beauchamp. Je suis président de 12 Radiomutuel. À ma droite se trouve mon collègue Paul- 13 Émile Beaulne, vice-président exécutif de la Société et 14 président de notre Division de canaux spécialisés et, à 15 ma gauche, Michel Arpin, vice-président, Planification 16 de Radiomutuel. 17 18788 Comme vous le savez, Madame la Vice- 18 Présidente, Radiomutuel est propriétaire de 11 stations 19 de radio; elle exploite le réseau radiophonique FM 20 Radio Énergie et, en co-entreprise avec Télémédia, le 21 réseau radiophonique AM Radiomédia ainsi que deux 22 autres stations de radio à Montréal et à Québec. Nous 23 sommes aussi titulaires de la licence du service 24 spécialisé de langue française Canal Vie et co- 25 titulaire, avec CHUM Limited, des licences de StenoTran 4027 1 MusiquePlus et de Musimax. Radiomutuel emploie, 2 directement ou indirectement, environ 600 personnes au 3 Québec. 4 18789 Collectivement, les services 5 spécialisés de langue française apportent une 6 contribution très importante au financement, à la 7 diffusion et à la promotion des émissions canadiennes. 8 Rappelons, par exemple, qu'ils consacrent en moyenne 43 9 pour cent de leurs recettes annuelles brutes à la 10 programmation canadienne, dont une large portion par 11 l'intermédiaire de la production indépendante, 12 comparativement à 28 pour cent pour l'ensemble des 13 télédiffuseurs conventionnels privés canadiens. 14 18790 Entre 1993 et 1997, pour chaque 15 dollar additionnel affecté à la programmation, la 16 télévision spécialisée et payante a consacré 80 sous à 17 la programmation canadienne comparativement à 32 sous 18 seulement pour la télévision conventionnelle privée. 19 Soulignons également qu'en moyenne les services 20 spécialisés de langue française sont assujettis à des 21 obligations de contenu canadien en soirée de 62 pour 22 cent comparativement à 50 pour cent pour l'ensemble des 23 télédiffuseurs conventionnels privés canadiens. 24 18791 Nos propres services spécialisés ne 25 font pas exception à la règle. Tant Canal Vie, StenoTran 4028 1 MusiquePlus que Musimax sont assujettis à l'obligation 2 de diffuser 60 pour cent de contenu canadien en soirée. 3 Canal Vie s'est engagé à consacrer au moins 45 pour 4 cent de ses recettes annuelles brutes aux émissions 5 canadiennes. 6 18792 De plus, nos services de musique 7 vidéo ont des obligations particulières en matière de 8 pourcentage de vidéoclips canadiens et de vidéoclips de 9 langue française à respecter. Enfin, tant Musimax que 10 MusiquePlus se sont engagés à verser un pourcentage de 11 leurs recettes annuelles brutes à un fonds spécialisé 12 dans le financement de vidéoclips canadiens de langue 13 française. À cet égard, mentionnons que nous avons 14 contribué, depuis nos débuts, au financement de 321 15 vidéoclips de langue française, auxquels nous avons 16 consacré des investissements de plus de 2,8 millions de 17 dollars. 18 18793 Tenant compte de la contribution à la 19 programmation canadienne de la télévision spécialisée, 20 nous croyons donc qu'il n'existe pas de raisons qui 21 militent en faveur d'un changement de cadre 22 réglementaire de la télévision spécialisée ou d'une 23 augmentation de ses obligations. 24 18794 Malgré cette situation positive, les 25 exploitants francophones de canaux spécialisés doivent StenoTran 4029 1 améliorer leur situation afin de pouvoir maintenir leur 2 place et même l'accroître; c'est pourquoi nous désirons 3 vous faire part de notre vision quant aux questions 4 suivantes: l'accès aux marchés et aux revenus 5 publicitaires, l'équilibre concurrentiel entre les 6 partenaires, et les émissions sous-représentées et 7 l'accès aux fonds. 8 18795 Premièrement, accès aux marchés et 9 aux revenus d'abonnement. 10 18796 Dans l'univers à 100 canaux qui se 11 profile à l'horizon, le premier défi des 12 radiodiffuseurs de langue française, dans un marché d'à 13 peine 6 millions de téléspectateurs francophones, 14 consiste à offrir des produits imaginatifs de qualité 15 comparables à ceux en provenance du Canada anglais et 16 de l'étranger qui, eux, bénéficient d'un marché local 17 nettement plus important. Ne pas créer un cadre 18 réglementaire favorable aux canaux spécialisés de 19 langue française aura pour effet de ralentir leur 20 développement et effriter leur base opérationnelle, ce 21 qui résultera en un transfert de l'écoute vers la 22 télévision de langue anglaise, comme c'était le cas 23 dans les années qui ont précédé l'arrivée de TQS, 24 Télévision Quatre-Saisons, et de la première génération 25 de canaux spécialisés francophones. StenoTran 4030 1 18797 C'est en tenant compte de cet 2 environnement que le Conseil peut aider les services 3 spécialisés de langue française à maintenir, voire même 4 à augmenter, leur contribution à la programmation 5 canadienne. En effet, les services spécialisés de 6 langue française sont présentement désavantagés à bien 7 des égards, et ce, pour de multiples raisons. 8 Premièrement, le taux de pénétration de la 9 câblodistribution au Québec est plus faible qu'ailleurs 10 au Canada. Deuxièmement, le taux de pénétration de 11 l'étage est également plus faible au Québec qu'ailleurs 12 au Canada. Enfin, les services spécialisés de langue 13 française sont très peu distribués dans les marchés 14 anglophones au Canada alors qu'à l'inverse les services 15 canadiens de langue anglaise sont largement distribués 16 dans les marchés francophones. 17 18798 Cette circulation à sens unique fait 18 en sorte que les services de langue française sont 19 confrontés, dans les marchés francophones, à la 20 concurrence de services de langue anglaise offrant des 21 formules de programmation similaires, services 22 auxquels, pour des raisons qui nous échappent, les 23 câblodistributeurs accordent parfois une position plus 24 avantageuse que celle octroyée aux services de langue 25 française de même nature. Ainsi, dans l'ouest de l'île StenoTran 4031 1 de Montréal, les nouveaux services spécialisés de 2 langue française sont tous positionnés au-delà de la 3 position 42 alors que des services américains comme The 4 Learning Channel, Arts & Entertainment et CNN, et des 5 services canadiens de langue anglaise comme TSN, 6 Bravo!, Showcase, Discovery et même les nouveaux 7 services CTV Sportsnet et Space, the Imagination 8 Station, occupent des positions en-deçà de 40 et, pour 9 certains, en bas de 30. 10 18799 Tous ces facteurs limitent la 11 capacité des services spécialisés francophones de 12 générer des revenus d'abonnement et des recettes 13 publicitaires, recettes et revenus dont, en vertu de 14 nos conditions de licence, un pourcentage important 15 serait consacré au financement de la programmation 16 canadienne, ce qui permettrait d'atteindre les 17 objectifs que le Conseil poursuit à travers la présente 18 audience, soit plus d'émissions canadiennes, de 19 meilleure qualité et vues par un plus grand nombre de 20 Canadiens. Cela permettrait aussi à ces services de 21 continuer, comme ils l'ont fait dans le passé, à 22 favoriser le rapatriement de l'écoute des francophones 23 vers la télévision de langue française. 24 18800 Les exploitants de canaux spécialisés 25 francophones doivent prendre leur place et être StenoTran 4032 1 protégés face à l'envahissement des services de 2 programmation de langue anglaise, canadiens et 3 étrangers, tout comme les exploitants anglophones sont 4 protégés de l'envahissement des services américains. 5 C'est à cette seule condition, Madame la Vice- 6 Présidente, que les services de langue française 7 pourront prendre toute la place qui leur revient et 8 offrir aux citoyens de langue française de ce pays un 9 éventail de programmation aussi riche et diversifié que 10 celui dont bénéficient déjà leurs compatriotes 11 canadiens de langue anglaise. 12 18801 C'est pourquoi nous demandons au 13 Conseil d'adopter une démarche réglementaire en trois 14 volets: 15 18802 Premièrement, assurer que les 16 câblodistributeurs qui desservent les marchés 17 francophones respectent intégralement, pour un niveau 18 de pénétration donné, le tarif mensuel à l'abonné qui 19 figure dans le plan d'affaires des services spécialisés 20 que le Conseil a choisi d'accepter ou de renouveler. 21 18803 Deuxièmement, assurer une priorité 22 absolue et un positionnement privilégié aux services 23 spécialisés canadiens de langue française dans les 24 marchés francophones par rapport aux services de langue 25 anglaise. StenoTran 4033 1 18804 Troisièmement, créer des incitatifs à 2 la distribution des services de télévision spécialisée 3 de langue anglaise dans les marchés anglophones à 4 l'étendue du Canada et plus particulièrement dans les 5 marchés hors Québec à forte concentration de 6 francophones. À ce dernier égard, nous comprenons que 7 de tels incitatifs ne pourront sans doute être 8 pleinement appliqués que dans un univers numérique. 9 18805 Nous notons cependant que, dans 10 l'univers analogique actuel, les membres de l'ACTC se 11 sont engagés à distribuer les services spécialisés 12 canadiens à caractère ethnique lorsque les 13 ethnoculturels auxquels ces services s'adressent 14 représentent au moins 10 pour cent de la population de 15 la zone de desserte. Il nous apparaît pour le moins 16 ironique que cette disposition ne s'applique pas aux 17 minorités de langue officielle, et particulièrement aux 18 nombreux marchés anglophones où le pourcentage de la 19 population de langue française dépasse très largement 20 les 10 pour cent, comme ceux d'Ottawa, de Timmins ou de 21 Moncton. Nous croyons que cette disparité de 22 traitement devrait être corrigée le plus rapidement 23 possible. 24 18806 Je demanderais maintenant à mon 25 collègue Paul-Émile Beaulne de poursuivre notre StenoTran 4034 1 présentation. 2 18807 M. BEAULNE: Merci, Normand. 3 18808 Madame la Vice-Présidente, distingués 4 membres du Conseil, pour faire face au défi que 5 décrivait Normand il faut que, dans le marché 6 francophone, les trois partenaires que sont la 7 production indépendante, la télévision conventionnelle 8 et la télévision spécialisée travaillent de toutes 9 leurs énergies pour occuper l'espace audiovisuel avant 10 que la globalisation des marchés fasse en sorte que les 11 diffuseurs étrangers viennent s'implanter. 12 18809 Nous croyons qu'en cette matière le 13 Conseil a effectivement un rôle important à jouer pour 14 créer et assurer le maintien de forces concurrentielles 15 équilibrées. Un tel équilibre concurrentiel est à 16 notre avis nécessaire pour maintenir le dynamisme et la 17 compétitivité du système de la radiodiffusion 18 canadienne. Pour ce faire, le Conseil doit renforcer 19 les entreprises exploitantes de canaux spécialisés 20 avant de consolider les entreprises généralistes. 21 18810 À cet égard, nous croyons que le 22 Conseil devrait avoir pour préoccupation d'assurer que 23 les entreprises de télévision spécialisée et payante 24 existantes puissent diversifier leurs opérations de 25 manière à bénéficier de toutes les synergies possibles StenoTran 4035 1 afin d'offrir aux téléspectateurs une gamme variée de 2 services de programmation de qualité aux plus bas prix 3 possibles pour les consommateurs. De plus, ces 4 entreprises doivent pouvoir s'accaparer, au total 5 cumulatif, un pourcentage des parts d'auditoire et des 6 recettes publicitaires dans le marché francophone qui 7 soit significatif. 8 18811 Ces règles du jeu sont primordiales 9 pour développer une saine concurrence entre les 10 différents joueurs et pour assurer que la télévision 11 maintienne sa position comme média publicitaire. 12 18812 Nous endossons la recommandation de 13 nombreux intervenants qui demandent que le mandat de 14 Radio-Canada soit redéfini et qu'elle soit bien 15 financée comme chaîne nationale, de manière à ce 16 qu'elle sorte de la commercialisation à outrance. À 17 notre avis, octroyer à Radio-Canada de nouveaux 18 services de télévision spécialisée ne crée pas de 19 saines conditions de concurrence. En procédant ainsi, 20 le Conseil favoriserait un rapport de force 21 concurrentiel mieux équilibré entre entreprises de 22 télévision spécialisée et entreprises de télévision 23 conventionnelle privée et publique et il favoriserait 24 du même coup l'existence d'un milieu de la production 25 indépendante dynamique puisque les services spécialisés StenoTran 4036 1 ont recours à leur expertise et à leurs services dans 2 une plus large proportion que les télédiffuseurs 3 généralistes, qui sont habitués de produire à l'interne 4 une portion très importante de leur programmation 5 canadienne. 6 18813 Nous sommes loin des propos 7 alarmistes de certains intervenants, dont Télé-Québec, 8 qui au cours de cette audience ont demandé au Conseil 9 de ne pas autoriser de nouveaux services spécialisés. 10 À notre avis, les conséquences de ne pas autoriser de 11 nouveaux services sont plus lourdes pour la culture 12 française au Canada que celles perçues pour ces 13 intervenants. En effet, le pouvoir de négociation des 14 droits de diffusion et le pouvoir de contrôle de 15 l'inventaire publicitaire que craignent ces 16 intervenants est loin d'être une réalité puisqu'il 17 n'existe pas de parité entre les divers groupes 18 exploitant des canaux spécialisés. Pour ces motifs, 19 nous demandons au Conseil de ne pas retenir les 20 opinions de ces intervenants et de continuer à 21 supporter l'éclosion de nouveaux services de télévision 22 spécialisée de langue française. 23 18814 La plupart des intervenants dans le 24 présent processus public ont indiqué qu'ils souhaitent 25 que le Conseil continue de mettre l'accent sur les StenoTran 4037 1 catégories d'émissions sous-représentées, soit les 2 dramatiques, les émissions pour enfants, les 3 documentaires, les variétés et les émissions de musique 4 et de danse. Nous constatons toutefois que la plupart 5 insistent principalement sur les trois premières. 6 18815 Dans notre mémoire nous avons, pour 7 notre part, démontré le peu de place sur les écrans et 8 le peu de support financier qui sont accordés aux 9 variétés musicales. Cette situation a contribué à une 10 crise des variétés à la télévision québécoise de langue 11 française qui affecte le dynamisme même de l'industrie 12 de la musique au Québec, la popularité des spectacles 13 sur scène et, indirectement, l'industrie de la radio. 14 18816 Nous invitons donc le Conseil à 15 affirmer qu'il considère les émissions de catégorie 8 16 comme des émissions sous-représentées à la télévision 17 de langue française et à utiliser son pouvoir de 18 recommandation pour assurer que les services de 19 programmation qui contribuent le plus fortement à 20 corriger la situation de sous-représentation de 21 certaines catégories d'émissions à la télévision de 22 langue française aient un accès adéquat aux fonds de 23 financement de la programmation canadienne et nous 24 souhaiterions également que le vidéoclip ait accès aux 25 fonds de la TV canadienne. StenoTran 4038 1 18817 À cet égard, nous suggérons également 2 au Conseil de recommander que le pourcentage d'environ 3 50 pour cent des ressources du Fonds canadien de 4 télévision actuellement réservé à Radio-Canada soit 5 réexaminé immédiatement, et ce, de façon à être établi 6 en fonction de ce que représentent leurs dépenses de 7 programmation canadienne en pourcentage de l'ensemble 8 des dépenses de programmation canadienne des 9 télédiffuseurs canadiens de toutes catégories. Ainsi, 10 une portion plus juste de ces ressources serait allouée 11 aux diffuseurs privés et notamment aux services de 12 télévision spécialisée, portion qui refléterait 13 davantage les contributions de chaque catégorie de 14 diffuseurs au financement de la programmation 15 canadienne. 16 18818 Madame la Vice-Présidente, Mesdames 17 et Messieurs les Conseillers, nous vous remercions de 18 votre attention. Nous sommes maintenant prêts à 19 répondre à vos questions. 20 18819 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci, messieurs. 21 18820 J'ai quatre groupes de questions à 22 vous poser: un sur la réglementation en général, vos 23 propos sur les catégories sous-représentées, vos propos 24 et vos recommandations en ce qui concerne Radio-Canada 25 et ensuite vos recommandations en ce qui concerne les StenoTran 4039 1 canaux spécialisés. Je vais me référer à votre 2 soumission écrite aussi bien qu'à votre présentation 3 d'aujourd'hui, qui me semble, à date, être semblable 4 dans vos positions à celle écrite. 5 18821 Ce n'est pas toujours clair pour moi 6 quand vous parlez de la télévision canadienne en 7 général et celle au Québec. Par exemple, vous ne 8 préconisez aucun changement du cadre réglementaire en 9 ce qui concerne les services spécialisés et la 10 télévision payante, mais à la page 4 je pense de votre 11 résumé vous recommandez au Conseil de ne faire aucun 12 changement avant d'avoir haussé l'apport des 13 télédiffuseurs conventionnels privés jusqu'à ce qu'ils 14 atteignent ceux de la télévision spécialisée. 15 18822 Si nous examinons cette question vis- 16 à-vis les services conventionnels au Québec et ceux 17 partout au Canada, nous avons évidemment des réponses 18 différentes. Vos propos ici s'adressent à la 19 télévision canadienne en général ou à la télévision 20 québécoise? Je vais vous dire pourquoi. 21 18823 Si je regarde votre annexe 3, qui 22 indique l'obligation des diffuseurs conventionnels 23 comme étant 60 pour cent et 50 pour cent, si on examine 24 le Québec on s'aperçoit qu'elles atteignent un niveau 25 beaucoup plus élevé, les télévisions conventionnelles, StenoTran 4040 1 que le minimum 60-50, ce qui voudrait donc dire que si 2 le barème était "Ne nous demandez rien de plus jusqu'à 3 ce que les télédiffuseurs aient atteint les mêmes 4 niveaux que nous", je vous poserais la question est-ce 5 15 de TV5, 32 pour cent de Canal D, 100 pour cent de 6 Canal Nouvelles? Je ne suis pas certaine de ce que 7 vous voulez dire ici. 8 18824 M. ARPIN: Madame la Présidente, en 9 fait, on ne parle que du système francophone dans toute 10 notre intervention. 11 18825 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ah, bon. Alors vous 12 êtes d'accord avec moi que le 60-50 qu'on voit à 13 l'annexe 3 et à la réglementation mais qu'on atteint 14 beaucoup plus... 15 18826 M. ARPIN: Mais on note malgré tout 16 que finalement, quand on regarde la performance des 17 canaux spécialisés francophones par rapport à la 18 télévision même généraliste, au niveau de la journée de 19 radiodiffusion, quand on regarde notre annexe, il n'y a 20 de toute évidence pas de difficulté, on est 61 à 60. 21 Mais, pour la période de radiodiffusion en soirée, on a 22 quand même une performance de 62 par rapport à une 23 performance de 50 pour cent. 24 18827 Donc, effectivement, de ce côté-là, 25 de manière consolidée, l'ensemble des exploitants de StenoTran 4041 1 canaux spécialisés dépassent la performance des 2 télévisions généralistes. 3 18828 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais dans l'annexe 3, 4 quand on parle de la période de radiodiffusion en 5 soirée. quel est par exemple le niveau de programmation 6 de contenu canadien atteint par TVA... pas celui qui 7 est exigé mais celui qui atteint? C'est ça qu'était ma 8 question. Est-ce que vous voulez dire ce que la 9 réglementation exige ou ce qu'on atteint depuis déjà 10 quelque temps? 11 18829 M. ARPIN: Dans les faits, je n'ai 12 pas d'analyse récente de... 13 18830 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais qu'est-ce que 14 vous pensez? 15 18831 M. ARPIN: Je n'oserais pas 16 m'avancer, madame. 17 18832 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je crois que les 18 chiffres qu'on voit sont plus élevés que 50 pour cent. 19 Alors je ne suis pas certaine, qu'est-ce que vous 20 voulez dire par: "N'exigez pas plus de nous jusqu'à ce 21 que les télédiffuseurs aient atteint"... quoi? Plus 22 que la moyenne? 23 18833 M. BEAUCHAMP: Ce n'était pas 24 uniquement sur la diffusion, Madame la Présidente. Ce 25 à quoi on voulait faire allusion ici, ce sont les StenoTran 4042 1 investissements mesurables en argent à la production de 2 contenu canadien en ce sens que nos canaux... si on 3 parle aussi de Canal Vie, la formule qui semble 4 marcher, qui donne les résultats escomptés, c'est un 5 pourcentage de nos recettes et, à partir de ces 6 pourcentages de recettes là, nous réussissons à livrer 7 un produit canadien de haute qualité et un nombre 8 d'heures assez important. 9 18834 Donc on faisait allusion au système 10 comme tel qui marche beaucoup plus parce que, vous avez 11 entièrement raison, le problème de contenu canadien en 12 tant que décompte d'heures n'est pas aussi grave dans 13 le marché francophone que dans les marchés anglophones; 14 par contre, le pourcentage qu'on dépense de nos revenus 15 en programmation versus l'ouvrage accompli, quand on 16 fait allusion à ne pas trop, trop changer ça, ce 17 modèle-là marche au Québec. 18 18835 M. BEAULNE: J'ajouterais que, quand 19 on regarde l'ensemble de la télévision spécialisée, il 20 se consacre 43 pour cent des recettes annuelles brutes 21 à la programmation comparativement à 28 pour cent pour 22 l'ensemble des télédiffuseurs. Donc il y a quand même 23 un plus grand investissement fait à travers la 24 production indépendante provenant des canaux 25 spécialisés. StenoTran 4043 1 18836 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vingt-huit pour cent 2 au Québec? 3 18837 M. BEAULNE: Pour l'ensemble des 4 télédiffuseurs conventionnels privés canadiens. 5 18838 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ah, parce que je 6 croyais qu'on venait de me dire qu'on parlait ici de 7 comparaison entre les services spécialisés au Québec et 8 les services conventionnels au Québec, parce que ça 9 devient tout à fait différent; le 28 pour cent, ça, 10 c'est parce que les services québécois... attendons. 11 Recommençons. 12 18839 À la page 4 vous parlez et 13 d'émissions canadiennes distribuées et de pourcentage 14 des recettes brutes consacré à la programmation 15 canadienne et vous voulez faire une comparaison ou un 16 pont entre ce que font les services spécialisés et ce 17 que font les services conventionnels. 18 18840 Est-ce qu'on parle ici de tous les 19 services canadiens? C'est ça qu'on dit, mais vous 20 venez de me dire il y a un instant... 21 18841 M. BEAUCHAMP: Ce qu'on a voulu 22 faire, c'est de faire un genre de tour d'horizon pour 23 dire... 24 18842 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Complet. 25 18843 M. BEAUCHAMP: ... que les canaux StenoTran 4044 1 spécialisés d'une façon générale au Canada remplissent 2 bien leurs obligations en contenu canadien. Encore là, 3 ce qu'on disait, c'est que le modèle... encore là, 4 maintenant, après qu'on ait fait ce point-là, ce 5 general statement, si vous voulez, après ça on se 6 replie sur le Québec et on dit que le modèle qu'on a 7 utilisé pour faire cette programmation canadienne, qui 8 est un pourcentage de nos revenus, ça aussi, ça semble 9 bien marcher. Donc, de cette façon-là, on dit qu'il 10 n'y a pas trop, trop à changer dans le système 11 réglementaire des canaux spécialisés du Québec. 12 18844 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Du Québec, et non 13 plus, je suppose... si le niveau de dépenses et de 14 distribution de programmation canadienne au Québec 15 restait au niveau où il est de fait plutôt que le 60-50 16 exigé par la réglementation, vous trouveriez ça 17 raisonnable aussi pour leur apport dans le système en 18 général comparé aux services spécialisés. 19 18845 M. BEAUCHAMP: Oui. 20 18846 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Comme vous faites 21 partie de l'industrie de la radiodiffusion québécoise 22 ou francophone, est-ce que vous avez une préoccupation 23 à ce que le Conseil prenne des mesures pour s'assurer 24 que le niveau de performance des conventionnelles reste 25 ce qu'il est et qu'il ne descende pas à 60-50? StenoTran 4045 1 18847 M. BEAUCHAMP: Notre intervention n'a 2 pas comme objectif ou comme but, autre certaines lignes 3 de compétition et de structuration, si vous voulez, de 4 l'industrie au Québec, d'embarquer dans le débat de ce 5 que devraient faire les conventionnelles. Notre point 6 est de dire que les canaux spécialisés au Canada 7 semblent donner beaucoup au système. Au Québec, ça 8 semble vouloir fonctionner; la méthode de calcul comme 9 condition de licence pour nos engagements au système 10 semble bien aller. 11 18848 Maintenant, il y a des choses qu'on 12 pourrait encore modifier pour que ça aille plus loin, 13 beaucoup plus que de tenter d'estimer ce que devraient 14 faire ou ne devraient pas faire les généralistes. 15 18849 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Là, nous pouvons 16 facilement passer à vos commentaires sur comment on 17 traite les canaux spécialisés de langue française et 18 les problèmes que vous y voyez. 19 18850 Si je regarde, par exemple, au 20 paragraphe 13, qui est à la page 4, vous indiquez -- et 21 vous l'avez fait encore dans votre présentation 22 orale -- que les services spécialisés de langue 23 française seraient éminemment soutenus ou aidés s'ils 24 étaient distribués dans les marchés francophones au 25 Canada, en plus évidemment d'ajouter de la StenoTran 4046 1 programmation francophone au Canada. 2 18851 Vous semblez cet après-midi -- ce que 3 vous n'aviez pas fait dans votre représentation écrite 4 si je me souviens bien -- indiquer que vous seriez 5 prêts à accepter un certain pourcentage comme barème 6 pour décider si le Conseil devrait obliger la 7 distribution des services spécialisés francophones au 8 Canada anglais à un certain barème ou pourcentage de 9 population. 10 18852 M. BEAUCHAMP: Encore là, je pense 11 qu'éventuellement il va y avoir une autre audience sur 12 l'accès. 13 18853 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui. Vous allez... 14 18854 M. BEAUCHAMP: On a voulu prendre un 15 commentaire qui a été fait, quand on nous dit que... 16 les services francophones, on tente de négocier l'accès 17 à travers tout le Canada, et on nous dit toujours qu'il 18 n'y a pas de place, il n'y a pas de place, et l'ACTC 19 sont arrivés eux-mêmes et ont dit: "Pour les stations 20 ethniques, dans les communautés où il y a 10 pour cent, 21 on va trouver de la place." 22 18855 Encore là, nous, le seul point qu'on 23 amène ici, c'est de dire: Si c'est vrai pour les 24 groupes ethniques, ce avec quoi nous sommes d'accord en 25 principe, ce n'est même pas vrai pour des stations StenoTran 4047 1 francophones dans des marchés à haut pourcentage 2 francophone; on ne réussit pas à pouvoir vendre nos 3 services, pas plus Radiomutuel que tous les autres 4 titulaires de canaux spécialisés. 5 18856 Donc ce qu'on a voulu amener ici, 6 Madame la Présidente, c'est qu'à toutes fins pratiques 7 le défi de demain des canaux spécialisés au Québec est 8 particulier; nous devons compétitionner en même temps, 9 avec un plus petit marché, avec nos confrères de langue 10 anglaise et les marchés américains. Nous devons, pour 11 compétitionner d'une façon équitable, s'assurer que 12 nous tirons avantage du maximum de toutes les 13 possibilités que premièrement le marché canadien peut 14 nous offrir. 15 18857 Donc une des choses qu'on dit, c'est 16 qu'il y a des revenus qui nous seraient accessibles en 17 nous obtenant de l'aide pour faire mieux voyager nos 18 services hors Québec. Comme vous savez, tous les 19 services ou une bonne partie des services canadiens de 20 langue anglaise trouvent leur place très facilement au 21 Québec; encore en fin de semaine on a lancé deux ou 22 trois autres services de langue anglaise au Québec, 23 mais on ne réussit pas à vendre nos services hors 24 Québec. 25 18858 Le deuxième point qu'on dit, c'est StenoTran 4048 1 qu'on ne réussit pas non plus à aller chercher des 2 situations privilégiées parce qu'on n'est pas reconnus. 3 Je pense que si je pouvais, dans tout ce qu'on a, 4 sortir l'affaire qui est très, très importante, ce 5 qu'on vous demande, c'est de donner un statut 6 particulier aux services francophones au Québec. On ne 7 réussit même pas au Québec à aller chercher des 8 positions privilégiées. 9 18859 Quand on vous fait le commentaire que 10 la quasi totalité des canaux spécialisés, les nouveaux 11 canaux spécialisés, sont 40 et plus et tous les 12 nouveaux canaux spécialisés même qui viennent d'être 13 mis en ondes ont des situations de distribution plus 14 favorables que nous, ce sont toutes des petites choses 15 comme ça qui font que dans un petit marché on va 16 pouvoir tirer toutes les ficelles pour pouvoir produire 17 de la qualité, être compétitifs sans pour autant passer 18 la facture aux consommateurs ultimement. 19 18860 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Finissons la pensée 20 de la distribution des canaux spécialisés francophones 21 hors Québec et ensuite on reparlera de la distribution, 22 des termes et conditions de la distribution des 23 services spécialisés francophones au Québec. 24 18861 Vous savez que, dans le cas des 25 services allophones, ce sont des services qui doivent StenoTran 4049 1 être discrétionnaires, à moins qu'ils aient été, dans 2 certains cas, comme Telelatino à Toronto, dernièrement 3 seulement, au premier étage; mais, par exemple, le 4 système chinois de Fairchild, qui coûte je ne sais pas 5 combien, c'est près de 20 $ si ce n'est pas plus... 6 alors c'est un positionnement qui n'est pas, 7 évidemment, celui que vous cherchez. 8 18862 Je voudrais comprendre davantage ce 9 que vous voudriez hors Québec. Vous ne voudriez pas la 10 position de Fairchild. 11 18863 M. ARPIN: Non, ce n'est pas... en 12 fait ce qu'on dit... 13 18864 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non, non, mais 14 j'essaie de comprendre, parce que... 15 18865 M. ARPIN: Non, non. Ce qu'on dit, 16 c'est que l'ACTC a garanti de l'accès -- même s'il est 17 distribué comme un signal sous forme de télévision 18 payante il occupe un espace, un canal donc -- pour 19 desservir les communautés de 10 pour cent et plus. Ce 20 que nous disons, c'est que ce n'est pas nécessairement 21 le modèle qui est préconisé pour les allophones; on dit 22 qu'au niveau de l'industrie de la câblodistribution on 23 trouve de la place pour 10 pour cent mais on ne trouve 24 pas de place dans les marchés d'Ottawa, de Timmins, de 25 Sudbury, de Moncton pour 35 pour cent, 38 pour cent, 39 StenoTran 4050 1 pour cent. 2 18866 Donc, ce qu'on dit, c'est qu'il y a 3 nécessité d'une réflexion et probablement d'une 4 implication de la part du Conseil pour nous aider à 5 trouver une solution pratique à cette question-là. 6 18867 Il est notable que de tous les 7 services francophones, à l'exception de RDI, licenciés 8 après 1994 -- donc je fais une exclusion pour RDI -- 9 aucun d'entre eux n'ait réussi à percer à l'ouest de la 10 frontière du Québec et quelques-uns ont réussi à percer 11 dans le nord-est du Nouveau-Brunswick, dans la 12 communauté de Bathurst/Caraquet, mais pas tous. 13 18868 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais, si je comprends 14 bien, vous n'êtes pas prêts aujourd'hui à aller plus 15 loin. J'essayais simplement de vous demander des 16 explications: Comment voudriez-vous qu'on fasse ça? 17 Comment est-ce qu'on établirait lesquels et dans quelle 18 mesure, et là où il y a une certaine population? Parce 19 que c'est évident que ce n'est pas facile. Il faudrait 20 dans certains cas abandonner des services américains 21 sans doute, déplacer des services. Est-ce que ce 22 serait tous les services francophones? Ceux qui ont le 23 plus de programmation canadienne? 24 18869 Vous ne voulez pas parler de ces 25 détails-là aujourd'hui. StenoTran 4051 1 18870 M. ARPIN: En fait, non, parce qu'on 2 voudrait quand même avoir une discussion avec nos 3 collègues. Ce sont des questions qu'on a soulevées à 4 l'occasion au niveau de nos associations de canaux 5 spécialisés mais sur lesquelles on n'a pas encore 6 déterminé une position collective. Mais c'est une 7 question qui préoccupe l'ensemble des exploitants de 8 canaux spécialisés de langue française. 9 18871 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous voulez 10 aujourd'hui soulever le principe seulement qu'il y a 11 quelque chose qui ne roule pas rond si les services 12 spécialisés québécois... 13 18872 M. ARPIN: Ne réussissent pas à 14 percer... 15 18873 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Davantage. 16 18874 M. ARPIN: ... dans des communautés 17 francophones significatives. 18 18875 M. BEAUCHAMP: Il y a aussi la 19 notion, Madame la Présidente, à un moment donné de 20 marchés bilingues aussi et des lois de linkage, des 21 lois d'assemblage qui peuvent être pensées, parce qu'on 22 sait fort bien qu'il est impensable et que la 23 technologie ne permettra pas aux marchés qu'on a 24 mentionnés de prendre la panoplie totale de tous les 25 canaux français. Par contre, ce qu'on tente d'amener StenoTran 4052 1 ici, c'est que le système de télévision spécialisée au 2 Québec, c'est tout un défi qui nous attend pour 3 s'assurer, avec un marché de 6 millions, qu'on va y 4 rencontrer... il faut regarder toutes les avenues 5 possibles de maximiser les revenus possibles. 6 18876 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous avez sans doute 7 pris connaissance des représentations de l'Impératif 8 français, justement, surtout sur la situation à Ottawa, 9 où c'est évident qu'il y a beaucoup de signaux 10 accessibles mais censément pas suffisamment de signaux 11 de langue française à leur avis et à l'avis d'autres 12 citoyens d'Ottawa. Alors vous allez avoir l'occasion 13 d'en reparler. 14 18877 M. ARPIN: Dans les faits, on est en 15 contact avec ces communautés hors Québec qui nous 16 demandent aussi comment on doit s'y prendre. C'est une 17 situation un peu de cul-de-sac, je le réitère. Depuis, 18 donc, les services licenciés en 1988, sauf un en 19 1994... ceux qui ont été licenciés en 1988, à cause des 20 règles d'assemblage, ont réussi à avoir de la 21 distribution dans certains marchés. Mais ceux 22 licenciés après 1988 -- et il faut aller en 1994 pour 23 des services francophones -- à l'exception de RDI, et 24 pour des raisons qui sont bien connues, tous les autres 25 n'ont jamais réussi à sortir du Québec. StenoTran 4053 1 18878 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, parlons 2 du positionnement, qui à votre avis devrait privilégier 3 des services francophones dans les marchés 4 francophones, surtout au Québec. Vous en reparlez 5 aujourd'hui à la page 4 de votre présentation orale et 6 vous en avez parlé aussi dans votre soumission écrite, 7 particulièrement au même paragraphe 23, à la page 6. 8 18879 Premièrement, vous demandez qu'il y 9 ait un positionnement privilégié et, entre parenthèses, 10 par rapport aux services de langue anglaise proposant 11 des formules de programmation apparentées. Est-ce que 12 vos commentaires se limitent seulement lorsque les 13 formats anglophones sont semblables ou si c'est une 14 position générale? 15 18880 M. ARPIN: Non, c'est sur l'ensemble. 16 Quand on regarde les règlements ou la loi canadienne, à 17 toutes fins pratiques, il y a une loi canadienne pour 18 les canaux spécialisés qui stipule bien les règles du 19 jeu, vers où on veut s'en aller versus les Américains 20 et ce genre de choses là. Mais quand on regarde 21 l'industrie francophone, il n'y a pas de positionnement 22 clair, il n'y a pas cette même écriture qui dit qu'au 23 Québec... comme ce qu'on dit avec les services de 24 langue anglaise. Au Canada anglais, on dit: Priorité 25 aux stations anglaises, il y a la liste de ceux qui StenoTran 4054 1 n'ont pas le droit d'entrer, tandis qu'au Québec il n'y 2 a rien de tout ça, il n'y a pas de liste, n'importe qui 3 entre, de langue anglaise, de langue... je comprends 4 que les Américains, il faut qu'ils soient sur la liste. 5 18881 Nous, on dit qu'il est temps de 6 positionner d'une façon très claire qu'à partir du 7 moment où un titulaire reçoit une licence du CRTC pour 8 desservir des marchés francophones, à partir de ce 9 moment-là il devrait y avoir un genre de service 10 privilégié, ce qui n'existe pas. Le positionnement sur 11 le cadran, il n'y a pas une loi qui est là, on doit 12 toujours négocier, et ce n'est pas aussi clair qu'il le 13 faut. Quant à nous, c'est une lacune. 14 18882 À partir du moment où on vient 15 chercher des licences spécialisées, à partir du moment 16 où on prend des engagements, à partir du moment où on 17 doit se débattre du mieux qu'on peut pour rentabiliser 18 nos entreprises dans un marché de 6 millions de 19 personnes, il me semble qu'il y a assez de défis là et 20 au moins on devrait avoir une partie de notre plan 21 d'affaires qui est pour autant bien sécurisé. 22 18883 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais, encore là, vous 23 n'avez pas aujourd'hui de règles très précises à 24 suggérer pour corriger l'effet que vous soulevez à la 25 page 4, que même dans l'île de Montréal... StenoTran 4055 1 18884 M. BEAUCHAMP: Non, dans 2 l'application comme telle, Madame la Présidente. Par 3 contre, une priorité absolue et un positionnement 4 privilégié, que ce ne soit qu'un commentaire de 5 principe ou un positionnement ou un voeu du Conseil 6 pour venir supporter l'industrie du Québec, au moins à 7 l'intérieur de ça on sait vers où on s'en va. 8 18885 Actuellement, quand on négocie, 9 beaucoup de fois, c'est soit nous ou un canal anglais. 10 18886 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je vais vous parler 11 dans un instant de la situation des tarifs; vous parlez 12 ici de positionnement et, généralement, que vous soyez 13 positionnés plus bas sur le cadran plus tôt que plus 14 haut, c'est le problème principal. 15 18887 M. BEAUCHAMP: Oui, et aussi, juste 16 avant d'aller là-dessus, il y a des marchés du Québec, 17 et je demanderais à mes confrères... sans pour autant 18 mentionner les marchés, il y a encore des marchés du 19 Québec où Canal Vie n'est pas distribué et où les 20 canaux spécialisés reçoivent leur place et où 21 finalement on nous dit carrément: "Il n'y a pas de 22 place pour vous autres." Mais ces mêmes services là... 23 18888 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ce ne sont pas des 24 cas où il y a des services anglophones. 25 18889 M. BEAUCHAMP: Je vous parle de cas StenoTran 4056 1 de canaux... 2 18890 M. ARPIN: Des services américains. 3 18891 M. BEAUCHAMP: Je vous parle de 4 services de canaux, de services de câblodistribution de 5 catégories 1 et 2, qui ont plus de 3 000 abonnés de 6 câble, donc qui par définition ont en quelque part un 7 minimum de 50 canaux jusqu'à 75 canaux, et ce monde-là 8 ont opté pour prendre d'autres services parce qu'il n'y 9 a rien dans la réglementation qui nous donne un 10 avantage sur qui de droit. C'est soit service A en 11 anglais ou soit service B en français, et c'est tout. 12 18892 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais est-ce que dans 13 les marchés francophones les règles d'accès n'exigent 14 pas qu'ils transportent, s'ils ont des canaux, tous les 15 services de langue française? 16 18893 M. BEAUCHAMP: Dans les marchés de 17 6 000 foyers et plus. 18 18894 M. ARPIN: Dans les marchés de 19 classe 1. 20 18895 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ah, bon, je vois. 21 18896 M. ARPIN: Mais, quand même, il y a 22 encore au Québec un marché de classe 1 qui ne distribue 23 pas Canal Vie, notamment. Il trouve que c'est trop 24 cher. 25 18897 M. BEAUCHAMP: Donc tout ce StenoTran 4057 1 processus-là, depuis un an et demi, deux ans qu'on 2 négocie, qu'on tente... parce qu'il n'y a pas une 3 position claire qui dit qu'à partir du moment où il y a 4 une spécificité québécoise ou canadienne de canaux 5 spécialisés, cette industrie-là doit être protégée, 6 doit avoir accès aux canaux spécialisés avant... peut- 7 être pas avant, mais au moins, comme on dit ici, que ce 8 soit un service privilégié et qu'on ait accès au moins 9 à nos propres services de distribution. 10 18898 LA PRÉSIDENTE: À la page 5 de votre 11 soumission écrite, au paragraphe 19, et aussi au 12 paragraphe 23, vous parlez du tarif mensuel. Je 13 n'étais pas absolument certaine que je comprenais ce 14 que vous disiez à ce moment-là, mais je comprends 15 aujourd'hui, dans votre présentation orale, qu'il est 16 évident que ce que vous voudriez, c'est que le câblo 17 soit obligé de vous donner les tarifs indiqués dans 18 votre plan d'affaires, qui était, lui, échelonné selon 19 la pénétration. Alors, si vous êtes discrétionnaire 20 mais pas au service de base, qui a de fait un tarif 21 réglementé, vous voudriez que le tarif que vous aurez 22 indiqué dans cet échelonnement-là devienne obligatoire 23 pour le câblo, parce que vous dites que le Conseil a 24 accepté ce plan d'affaires là. Mais moi, ce que j'ai 25 compris, c'est que le Conseil n'allait pas entériner StenoTran 4058 1 nécessairement ces tarifs-là, qu'il entérinait 2 seulement le tarif exigé si le service était distribué 3 à la base. 4 18899 M. BEAUCHAMP: Je ne suis pas 5 convaincu qu'on demande aussi clairement que le Conseil 6 devrait réglementer d'une façon catégorique, mais ce 7 qu'on dit ou ce qu'on veut dire ici, c'est qu'en 8 quelque sorte on comprend qu'il y a une négociation de 9 gré à gré qui doit avoir lieu; encore faut-il que cette 10 négociation de gré à gré se situe dans un certain 11 environnement qui respecte en gros un plan d'affaires 12 et les engagements déposés par nous. 13 18900 De quelle façon est-ce que ça doit se 14 faire ou ça peut se faire? Sans aucun doute... 15 j'écoutais ce matin la SPTV, et on parlait de 16 transparence comme étant possiblement une des façons de 17 le faire. Je vous dirais juste qu'à quelque part les 18 télédiffuseurs ou les canaux spécialisés francophones 19 ont tellement d'autres défis que d'annuellement ou de 20 continuellement négocier leurs tarifs, ou même les 21 nouveaux services qui, espérons-le, vont voir le jour 22 une journée, de trouver un genre d'encadrement au moins 23 où il peut y avoir cette négociation-là... je comprends 24 qu'il y a de l'arbitrage, mais que cette négociation-là 25 puisse en quelque sorte... je ne pense pas que le StenoTran 4059 1 Conseil puisse... je suis un petit peu partagé entre le 2 réglementer... mais de là à totalement se dissocier du 3 processus, surtout pour un marché étroit et petit comme 4 le Québec, c'est là où on vous demande de... 5 18901 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, dans ce 6 paragraphe 19 vous parlez d'une attitude adoptée par 7 certains câblodistributeurs canadiens vis-à-vis les 8 tarifs dans les négociations, et plus bas vous dites: 9 "Cette attitude risque, si elle est reprise par les 10 câblodistributeurs du Québec". Voulez-vous dire 11 qu'elle ne l'avait pas été le 30 juin mais qu'elle 12 l'est maintenant, ou si c'est encore un "si"? 13 18902 M. BEAUCHAMP: Les négociations à 14 date, ce ne sont jamais des négociations qui s'en 15 vont... et ça va tellement, tellement bien, l'année 16 prochaine... voici, c'est toujours une négociation qui 17 s'en va beaucoup plus vers le bas que vers le haut. 18 18903 On a été mis au courant d'une 19 certaine pratique à la baisse et certaines négociations 20 qui sont plus difficiles. J'oserais dire qu'à ce 21 moment-ci les négociations sont très tendues, sont très 22 difficiles, mais elles se font d'une façon tout de même 23 assez respectable au Québec, et on voudrait juste 24 s'assurer que ça continue de cette même façon-là. 25 18904 M. ARPIN: Évidemment, notre StenoTran 4060 1 référence ici, c'est que... ça ne s'est jamais passé 2 dans le cas des services dans lesquels Radiomutuel a un 3 intérêt, mais nous savons qu'il y a eu des contrats qui 4 ont été dénoncés au Canada anglais par des entreprises 5 de distribution. Ce n'est jamais arrivé au Québec 6 qu'on contrat soit dénoncé, donc ça demeure un "si", 7 mais on a quand même la préoccupation qu'un événement 8 semblable pourrait se produire. Donc on insiste sur la 9 vigilance du Conseil. 10 18905 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, les 11 catégories sous-représentées, si je comprends bien, aux 12 pages 8 et 9 de votre soumission écrite vous nous dites 13 que les catégories d'émissions qui sont considérées 14 sous-représentées à la télévision conventionnelle de 15 langue française sont très bien représentées 16 généralement à la télévision payante et spécialisée de 17 langue française et, contrairement à d'autres 18 intervenants que nous avons entendus, vous reconnaissez 19 d'emblée que la télévision généraliste atteint tout le 20 monde tandis que la télévision spécialisée n'atteint 21 pas tout le monde mais que, malgré ça, vous voudriez 22 avoir plus d'aide financière pour continuer à produire 23 cette programmation spécialisée -- j'ai bien compris -- 24 pour les services spécialisés? 25 18906 M. BEAULNE: (Hoche la tête en signe StenoTran 4061 1 d'acquiescement). 2 18907 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et surtout vous 3 voudriez une allocation minime ou minimum par le fonds 4 pour les arts de la scène parce que je crois que vous 5 avez déposé une annexe où vous indiquez qu'il y a 6 seulement 1,25 -- l'annexe 1 -- pour cent des déboursés 7 totaux consacrés en trois ans à la catégorie arts de la 8 scène, qui recoupe la catégorie 8, ce qui 9 représenterait donc seulement 875 000 $ sur 7 millions. 10 18908 Avez-vous pensé à un pourcentage 11 quelconque qui, à votre avis, serait raisonnable? 12 C'est évidemment parce que vous avez le service Musimax 13 et MusiquePlus. 14 18909 M. BEAULNE: Mais le commentaire, 15 Madame la Présidente, qu'on faisait s'adressait à 16 l'ensemble de la télévision quand on mentionnait les 17 sous-catégories représentées, en particulier de la 18 musique et les émissions de variétés. Force est de 19 constater qu'elles sont absentes à la fois de la 20 télévision et à la fois de l'importance qu'on y accorde 21 en termes de financement. 22 18910 Jusqu'à présent, les intervenants qui 23 ont comparu devant vous ont surtout insisté sur 24 l'importance qu'on devrait accorder aux émissions pour 25 enfants, aux dramatiques ou aux documentaires. Nous, StenoTran 4062 1 on dit que les émissions de variétés et les catégories 2 de musique et danse devraient également être mieux 3 représentées au niveau du financement parce que ce sont 4 des éléments importants, en particulier dans la 5 promotion et la mise en marché des artistes et de 6 l'industrie du spectacle du Québec et, par ricochet, ça 7 a un effet sur l'ensemble de la radio, parce que les 8 émissions de variétés, on ne peut pas uniquement les 9 promouvoir par la télévision spécialisée, on a besoin 10 de l'accès à la télévision de masse. Cette présence-là 11 permettrait non seulement de soutenir les carrières 12 existantes mais surtout permettrait également un 13 excellent débouché pour les nouveaux artistes. 14 18911 Donc ce que l'on dit, c'est que, bien 15 sûr, il faut reconnaître que les émissions pour 16 enfants, les documentaires et les dramatiques sont 17 importants, mais également on devrait inclure au même 18 titre les catégories d'émissions de musique ou de 19 variétés. 20 18912 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous ne parlez pas 21 ici nécessairement d'une allocation minimum pour les 22 services spécialisés dans ces catégories-là mais pour 23 les conventionnelles autant. 24 18913 M. BEAULNE: La seule parenthèse que 25 je ferais par rapport aux télévisions spécialisées, StenoTran 4063 1 c'est bien sûr que dans l'inclusion du fonds on devrait 2 prévoir à l'avenir le financement du vidéoclip, qui 3 viendrait compléter à ce moment-là l'impact qu'on 4 pourrait créer en donnant plus de ressources à la 5 catégorie musique et variétés. 6 18914 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Quand vous parlez 7 d'un déséquilibre dans l'allocation, c'est ça que vous 8 voulez dire... 9 18915 M. BEAULNE: Exactement. 10 18916 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... qu'il y a 11 certaines catégories de programmation considérées sous- 12 représentées qui sont bien représentées aux services 13 spécialisés mais qui n'ont pas assez d'aide financière 14 parce qu'on n'en attribue pas suffisamment ou on 15 n'alloue pas suffisamment... 16 18917 M. BEAULNE: À la télévision 17 conventionnelle... 18 18918 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... dans les fonds. 19 18919 Maintenant, Radio-Canada. Nous avons 20 eu évidemment plusieurs représentations à l'effet que 21 le 50 pour cent des fonds qui sont alloués à Radio- 22 Canada devrait être revu et mis à la baisse, je 23 suppose. Ça, c'est à la page 10, au paragraphe 40. Et 24 je crois qu'aujourd'hui vous avez fait des commentaires 25 semblables. StenoTran 4064 1 18920 Expliquez-moi comment vous avez fait 2 vos calculs au paragraphe 40. Vous partez avec 50 pour 3 cent des fonds attribués à Radio-Canada, les filiales 4 de production des télédiffuseurs conventionnels privés 5 peuvent accaparer jusqu'à 33 pour cent des déboursés 6 totaux, donc les société de production affiliées au 7 télédiffuseur privé peuvent accaparer jusqu'à 66 pour 8 cent. 9 18921 M. ARPIN: C'est parce qu'il y a les 10 affiliés de Radio-Canada qui vont chercher une part des 11 fonds... 12 18922 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ah, je comprends. 13 18923 M. ARPIN: ... qui va à la télévision 14 conventionnelle privée, donc c'est ça qu'on a fait.... 15 18924 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je comprends. 16 18925 M. ARPIN: ... et qui produisent pour 17 diffusion sur le réseau national. 18 18926 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci. Je comprends. 19 18927 M. ARPIN: Alors ce sont les maisons 20 de production; ce ne sont pas les télédiffuseurs eux- 21 mêmes mais ce sont leurs maisons de production. 22 18928 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maisons de production 23 des affiliés de Radio-Canada... 24 18929 M. ARPIN: Des affiliés de Radio- 25 Canada qui produisent pour le réseau national. StenoTran 4065 1 18930 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Par exemple, une 2 maison de production qui est la propriété de Cogeco. 3 18931 M. ARPIN: Ce serait un exemple. 4 18932 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Cette réallocation- 5 là, est-ce que vous avez pensé exactement comment vous 6 voudriez qu'elle soit faite ou si c'est encore au 7 niveau des principes? 8 18933 M. BEAULNE: Je vous dirais qu'on est 9 plus près de la réalité, Madame la Présidente. 10 Évidemment, les sous-catégories qu'on a mentionnées, en 11 particulier variétés et musique, pourraient grandement 12 bénéficier d'une remise des fonds répartie plus 13 largement entre les différentes catégories. 14 18934 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je parlais ici plus 15 particulièrement de Radio-Canada. À la page 11 vous 16 dites que le pourcentage qui lui est alloué devrait 17 être réexaminé et vous voudriez que ce pourcentage-là 18 ne représente que le pourcentage des dépenses de Radio- 19 Canada sur la programmation canadienne vis-à-vis les 20 dépenses de programmation canadienne des télédiffuseurs 21 canadiens ou francophones? 22 18935 M. BEAULNE: Canadiens. 23 18936 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Partout. 24 18937 M. BEAULNE: Exactement. Le 25 pourcentage des dépenses en production canadienne de StenoTran 4066 1 Radio-Canada devrait être calculé sur l'ensemble des 2 dépenses de production canadienne de l'ensemble de la 3 télévision au Canada. 4 18938 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et ça, ce serait une 5 recommandation au fond qui viserait les dépenses de 6 l'année précédente pour décider ce qui peut leur être 7 alloué l'année suivante? 8 18939 M. BEAULNE: Exactement. 9 18940 LA PRÉSIDENTE: À la page 15 vous 10 recommandez, comme l'ont fait d'autres participants 11 dans l'industrie au Québec, que le Conseil invite 12 Radio-Canada à modérer ses visées commerciales -- ça, 13 c'est au paragraphe 56 -- et sa volonté effrénée de 14 concurrencer le secteur privé sur tous les fronts, 15 notamment en envahissant le champ de la télévision 16 spécialisée. 17 18941 Est-ce que votre problème principal, 18 c'est que Radio-Canada se lance dans la concurrence 19 avec les services spécialisés ou si vous entrevoyez des 20 problèmes aussi dans sa concurrence avec les services 21 conventionnels, bien que vous n'y oeuvrez pas vous- 22 mêmes? 23 18942 M. BEAUCHAMP: C'est une vue globale. 24 18943 Je reviens encore au défi: un marché 25 de 6 millions, actuellement avec je crois 11 télés StenoTran 4067 1 spécialisées, un défi d'un univers de, dépendant qui on 2 écoute, 75 à 100 et d'autres services. Pour qu'un 3 marché comme ça rencontre les expectatives, il faut 4 absolument que tous les éléments marchent. Ce sont les 5 éléments comme tel qu'on tente de faire ressortir dans 6 notre présentation. Ils sont peut-être petits quand on 7 les regarde, mais quand on regarde notre défi, notre 8 défi, il est grand. 9 18944 Un des points que nous tentons de 10 faire ressortir aujourd'hui, c'est que ça va prendre un 11 équilibre entre les forces concurrentielles. Si cet 12 équilibre-là au Québec n'a pas lieu et si on fait 13 uniquement renforcer -- dans ce cas-ci votre 14 question -- Radio-Canada, qui est déjà un déséquilibre 15 au niveau de la concurrence, la seule chose qu'on fait, 16 c'est qu'on affaiblit la totalité des maillons 17 nécessaires pour rencontrer la totalité des objectifs 18 du marché. 19 18945 On n'est pas contre, on est pour la 20 chaîne d'État, elle fait de l'ouvrage louable, mais 21 qu'elle remplisse son mandat et qu'elle vienne 22 complémenter ou compléter ce qu'on fait. C'est là 23 qu'on dit que, encore, ça va prendre la totalité des 24 forces concurrentielles qui vont jouer d'une façon très 25 positive et non du monde qui vont avoir des méga- StenoTran 4068 1 structures, qui vont avoir des avantages marqués qui 2 feraient qu'il n'y en aurait plus, de compétition. 3 18946 On va avoir le choix au Québec de 4 créer deux compagnies de télédiffusion francophones ou 5 de créer une industrie où toutes les composantes vont 6 travailler ensemble pour le mieux du marché. Donc, 7 dans cette optique-là, on dit que de renforcer Radio- 8 Canada dans du commercial, de lui donner d'autres 9 chaînes spécialisées à ce moment-ci, d'autant plus que 10 les entreprises privées sont prêtes à les livrer, ne 11 donne rien du tout au système et au défi qu'on doit 12 rencontrer ensemble comme industrie au Québec. 13 18947 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ce sont évidemment 14 des propos que vous allez avoir l'occasion de reprendre 15 en décembre, mais si nous parlons de la concurrence 16 avec les services spécialisés, au paragraphe 52 vous 17 parlez en particulier... un peu plus loin vous parlez 18 d'avantages concurrentiels et financiers indus que la 19 Société Radio-Canada aurait, au paragraphe 55. Et à 52 20 vous donnez un exemple, par exemple, de la promotion 21 pré-lancement et la publicité à l'antenne de la chaîne 22 généraliste Radio-Canada et que vous ne croyez pas 23 qu'elle ait été facturée à RDI. 24 18948 Est-ce que c'est là un de vos 25 problèmes principaux, si on trouvait une méthode de StenoTran 4069 1 comptabiliser d'une façon assez serrée pour éviter ces 2 avantages indus, que là, vous auriez moins de 3 problèmes, ou si vous parlez plutôt d'un principe 4 général, comme vous venez de le faire, qu'il devrait y 5 avoir un équilibre dans le marché? 6 18949 M. BEAUCHAMP: C'est un principe 7 général, mais par contre ce qui existe, et ce que la 8 quasi-totalité des intervenants du Québec ont semblé 9 vouloir dire, c'est que la situation actuelle, il ne 10 faut pas prétendre que... la situation actuelle de 11 Radio-Canada, tout le monde est d'accord que c'est à 12 l'avantage du système québécois de diffusion. C'est 13 une concurrence qui est très difficile quotidiennement, 14 et ça part à tous les niveaux; ça part de l'emploi 15 d'employés. 16 18950 Cette année Radiomutuel, qui est une 17 des compagnies les plus stables au Québec, les employés 18 qu'on perd, on les perd à la société d'État parce qu'on 19 ne peut pas rencontrer les expectatives financières. 20 18951 Donc c'est un problème qui est 21 général mais qui, dans son application... c'est-à-dire 22 qu'ici on a un diffuseur public qui prend de la place, 23 et énormément de place, dans un monde concurrentiel, 24 commercial, et veut nous concurrencer à tous les 25 niveaux, sur l'embauche d'employés, pratiques StenoTran 4070 1 commerciales, achats d'émissions, sur toute la ligne, 2 de A à Z. 3 18952 Ceci fait que c'est une industrie 4 qu'on a beaucoup, beaucoup de difficultés... il faut 5 quasiment dire: Tenez, prenez votre place, et, après 6 ça, nous, on va essayer de remplir les places que vous 7 n'occupez pas, parce qu'on ne peut pas les 8 compétitionner. 9 18953 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Avec des fonds 10 publics, évidemment. 11 18954 M. BEAUCHAMP: C'est ce qu'on dit. 12 C'est que si on veut qu'un système soit performant pour 13 rencontrer les expectatives, qu'on crée des forces 14 concurrentielles qui ont un certain niveau d'égalité, 15 ce qui fait que demain matin on va pouvoir, au niveau 16 du privé... le public, c'est défini, ce qu'ils ont à 17 faire, et ils le font bien. Ils ont un mandat à 18 remplir. Qu'on laisse la société d'État jouer et 19 prôner et développer la culture; ils font un ouvrage 20 phénoménal. Mais de les inciter à venir davantage dans 21 le marché concurrentiel n'aide rien, ne donne rien de 22 plus au marché, parce que ces services-là seraient 23 faits par quelqu'un d'autre, et bien au contraire 24 minimise la compétition entre les services et au 25 détriment de tout le système. StenoTran 4071 1 18955 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ce n'est peut-être 2 pas une question à laquelle vous voulez répondre parce 3 que vous n'oeuvrez pas dans la télévision 4 conventionnelle, mais est-ce qu'à votre avis... et 5 c'est une question que j'ai posée, disons, à TVA et à 6 d'autres intervenants du Canada français. À la 7 télévision conventionnelle, si Radio-Canada n'offrait 8 pas une concurrence, est-ce qu'il y en aurait, de la 9 concurrence? 10 18956 M. BEAUCHAMP: Je pense qu'encore il 11 faut voir où elle fait la concurrence. Tout le 12 monde... et je pense même que la télévision 13 généraliste, dans ce qu'ils le font, ils le font bien. 14 Mais demain matin, s'ils ne diffusent pas le Grand 15 Prix, le Grand Prix sera disponible au Québec. S'ils 16 ne diffusent pas certaines variétés... il y a certaines 17 émissions de cette façon-là qui seraient faites et 18 faites par les généralistes ou par les spécialisés ou 19 par le système, dans lesquelles les droits de 20 diffusion, on pourrait les négocier d'une façon plus 21 intelligente. 22 18957 Deuxièmement, on pourrait fort 23 probablement négocier la vente et les achats de ces 24 propriétés-là à la hausse et de tout amener le marché 25 par en avant au lieu de l'amener par en arrière. StenoTran 4072 1 18958 M. BEAULNE: On pourrait sans doute 2 aussi se poser la question: En quoi Radio-Canada va 3 remplir mieux son mandat qui lui est dévolu en jouant 4 un plus grande rôle dans le domaine de la télévision 5 spécialisée et en étant de plus en plus présente? 6 18959 Normand a mentionné des points, mais 7 j'aimerais juste faire valoir quelques autres points 8 sur les impacts négatifs que pourrait avoir une plus 9 grande présence de Radio-Canada en télévision 10 spécialisée. 11 18960 Il y a tout l'aspect du pouvoir 12 d'achat, notamment au niveau des acquisitions, des 13 coûts de programmes, qui seraient sans doute beaucoup 14 plus dispendieux à acquérir compte tenu du pouvoir 15 d'achat que pourrait avoir Radio-Canada. On pense à la 16 vente ou à la commercialisation; quand vous avez déjà 17 une TV généraliste avec cette puissance-là, si vous 18 additionnez d'autres éléments spécialisés, ça vous 19 donne un net avantage. 20 18961 Également, je vous dirais qu'il faut 21 tenir compte aussi de l'aspect de la production 22 indépendante. On sait que les télévisions spécialisées 23 utilisent beaucoup la production indépendante, et ce 24 n'est pas toujours le cas pour la télévision publique 25 ou la télévision privée. StenoTran 4073 1 18962 Donc ce sont des aspects qui nous 2 amènent à poser des questions, sans compter que 3 l'intégration de ces différentes produits amène 4 nécessairement un recyclage de produits qui fait en 5 sorte que ce que la télévision francophone spécialisée 6 a réussi à créer jusqu'à présent, c'est une qualité de 7 produits, une diversité et surtout une complémentarité. 8 18963 Alors, encore là, on pourrait se 9 poser la questions: Est-ce que vraiment on atteint 10 l'objectif de complémentarité en permettant à Radio- 11 Canada de venir jouer dans toutes sortes de créneaux 12 spécialisés? Je pense qu'on rejoint beaucoup plus la 13 pensée que les gens vous ont exprimée jusqu'à présent, 14 qu'on devrait revoir sans aucun doute le mandat de 15 Radio-Canada et également son financement plutôt que de 16 lui permettre d'aller chercher une double taxation en 17 jouant dans la télévision spécialisée. 18 18964 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous aurez une double 19 occasion de vous y pencher de nouveau, soit en décembre 20 et aussi au renouvellement de Radio-Canada, qui 21 s'annonce pour le printemps. 22 18965 M. BEAUCHAMP: Madame la Présidente, 23 par contre, je pense qu'ici vous avez raison et on ne 24 veut pas... mais l'audience ici va regarder tout de 25 même en quelque sorte la formation et la structuration StenoTran 4074 1 de la réglementation pour l'avenir du Québec et du 2 Canada. Donc c'est beaucoup plus... d'une façon 3 générale, il y a des choses, il y a des points qu'on 4 fait valoir parce que si... et je pense que c'est ici 5 un peu qu'il faut les faire valoir parce que s'il y a 6 une structure qui rend la réglementation non efficace 7 dans le futur, peu importe qui va être détenteur de 8 certaines licences, ça va être beaucoup plus complexe 9 pour tout le monde. 10 18966 Quant à moi, le système canadien 11 anglais marche, il va bien, il y a de la compétition, 12 il y a de l'équilibre, il y a des joueurs de taille, et 13 le système canadien, on est ici pour le faire évoluer. 14 Mais d'une façon générale il y a de la concurrence, il 15 y a un bon mix, si vous voulez, entre le privé et le 16 public. Au Québec, il faut s'assurer de créer un genre 17 de mix, si vous voulez, entre des entreprises qui 18 peuvent concurrencer, qui ont la taille, qui ont la 19 force de vouloir concurrencer. Et on sait qu'au 20 Québec, à toutes fins pratiques, la SRC, ce n'est pas 21 CBC au Canada anglais. 22 18967 Donc, notre inquiétude, ce n'est pas 23 ce qu'ils font; notre inquiétude, c'est la charpente 24 totale dans laquelle on va avoir à compétitionner. 25 Donc c'est la structure totale, et je pense que ça vaut StenoTran 4075 1 la peine d'y réfléchir, surtout dans certains projets 2 de réglementation ou dans certains positionnements 3 d'entreprise. 4 18968 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous rejetteriez donc 5 le modèle constellation pour Radio-Canada mais vous y 6 croiriez pour le secteur privé. 7 18969 M. BEAUCHAMP: Non commercial ou bien 8 financé, mais... 9 18970 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je veux dire le 10 modèle constellation que Radio-Canada met de l'avant, 11 que c'est nécessaire maintenant d'avoir des tentacules 12 dans plusieurs... 13 18971 M. BEAUCHAMP: À partir de ce moment- 14 là, Madame la Présidente, on va tout vendre nos 15 services et on aura une super-structure d'État. 16 18972 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non, non, mais est-ce 17 que vous croyez à ce modèle pour le secteur privé? 18 18973 M. BEAUCHAMP: Pas du tout. Pas 19 plus. 20 18974 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Pas non plus. 21 18975 M. BEAUCHAMP: Pour le secteur privé? 22 18976 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, le modèle 23 constellation où le même propriétaire pourrait avoir 24 plusieurs services spécialisés et une télévision 25 conventionnelle. StenoTran 4076 1 18977 M. BEAUCHAMP: Notre point de vue, 2 c'est qu'au Québec, dans un premier temps, il faut 3 renforcer la structure pour s'assurer qu'il y a une 4 base de compétition assez forte pour tirer au maximum 5 avantage de cette compétition-là. Donc vous avez les 6 entreprises... il y a à peu près cinq compagnies de 7 télé spécialisée au Québec. Il s'agit de s'assurer que 8 ces entreprises-là, demain, peuvent avoir les moyens, 9 la synergie, la complémentarité de tirer au maximum des 10 avantages de leurs opérations pour concurrencer et la 11 télévision généraliste qui est bien équipée et la 12 télévision d'État qui est, en plus d'être très 13 agressive, est très bien financée. 14 18978 On dit, nous, que ce qui est super 15 important... dans un premier temps, notre point de vue, 16 c'est de s'assurer que cette complémentarité et cette 17 compétition entre le système, à l'avantage du système, 18 soit mise en place et bien protégée avant de créer des 19 super-structures. 20 18979 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et ce que vous voulez 21 de nous maintenant, c'est que nous prenions vos 22 principes et que nous les transmettions en 23 réglementation définie. 24 18980 M. BEAUCHAMP: Ce serait très 25 agréable. StenoTran 4077 1 18981 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais vous n'avez pas 2 l'intention de nous aider à faire ça... 3 18982 M. BEAUCHAMP: Ce serait très, très, 4 très agréable, je pense. 5 18983 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... mais seulement 6 les grands principes. 7 18984 M. BEAUCHAMP: Mon intention n'est 8 pas de tout gagner ça. Non. Le but... on se présente 9 d'une façon très simple. On amène une vision du 10 Québec. Je pense que Radiomutuel, tout de même, on est 11 une entreprise d'une certaine envergure, mais avec tous 12 nos acquis de communication au Québec on a voulu amener 13 un son de cloche ici pour le bien-être du processus qui 14 est engagé pour dire: Écoutez, le défi, il est grand. 15 Le seul défi qu'on ne peut pas avoir au Québec, c'est 16 de replier ou de ne pas avancer; pour qu'on avance, 17 voici certaines conditions que le marché doit avoir 18 pour s'assurer que, pour 6 millions, on va pouvoir 19 continuer à exporter et à produire des produits de la 20 même qualité que nos confrères de langue anglaise et 21 que les Américains. 22 18985 Donc c'est à peu près dans ce 23 cadrage-là qu'on se présente devant vous. 24 18986 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions 25 de vos grands principes. On en a eu beaucoup, pas StenoTran 4078 1 autant de recommandations... oui, on a certaines 2 recommandations qui sont très particulières, surtout 3 les crédits majorés; là, ce sont des chiffres très 4 précis. 5 18987 M. BEAUCHAMP: On est disponibles 6 pour faire de la consultation au niveau du Comité 7 exécutif. 8 18988 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions. 9 18989 Avant de partir, expliquez-moi, à la 10 page 7 de votre présentation orale, la dernière phrase 11 du deuxième paragraphe: 12 "... le Conseil doit renforcer 13 les entreprises exploitantes de 14 canaux spécialisés avant de 15 consolider les entreprises 16 généralistes." 17 18990 M. BEAUCHAMP: C'est un peu ce à quoi 18 je faisais allusion, en ce sens que... assurons-nous 19 qu'au Québec il y a assez d'entreprises de 20 communication fortes pour pouvoir se livrer une 21 concurrence à l'avantage de tout le monde avant de 22 créer des super-structures. Donc c'est dans cette 23 optique-là que... comment vous appeliez ça tantôt, la 24 constellation. Je l'ai mal compris... 25 18991 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, constellation. StenoTran 4079 1 Alors là, vous parlez... 2 18992 M. BEAUCHAMP: Je ne l'ai pas saisi 3 de cette façon-là, mais je dis que nous, notre point de 4 vue dans le dossier, c'est: définissons le rôle et 5 finançons comme il faut Radio-Canada puis que, bravo... 6 18993 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et aussi les 7 conventionnelles. 8 18994 M. BEAUCHAMP: Les généralistes... 9 18995 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Les généralistes. 10 18996 M. BEAUCHAMP: ... à ce moment-ci, 11 dans un premier temps, ils auront des licences 12 spécialisées... 13 18997 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Privées. 14 18998 M. BEAUCHAMP: ... et là, il est 15 temps que l'autre vague sous ça puisse avoir les 16 éléments nécessaires pour bien concurrencer. C'est ça 17 qu'est l'acheminement de notre pensée, parce que nous 18 disons que, pour rencontrer les défis, c'est un système 19 équilibré de compétition qui va être à l'avantage de 20 tous, du consommateur jusqu'au producteur indépendant. 21 18999 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions 22 de votre présentation, et j'espère que vous aurez un 23 bon voyage de retour à Montréal. Et peut-être que, si 24 vous ne l'avez pas fait, vous pouvez regarder la 25 présentation de Radio-Canada. Il y a des petites StenoTran 4080 1 constellations colorées pour démontrer comment on doit 2 faire la radiodiffusion en l'an 2000. Alors vous 3 saurez de quoi on parle quand on parle de 4 constellations. 5 19000 M. BEAUCHAMP: On vous remercie 6 beaucoup. 7 19001 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions. 8 Bonsoir. 9 19002 M. BEAUCHAMP: Merci beaucoup. 10 19003 M. BEAULNE: Merci. 11 19004 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ça termine notre 12 journée. Nous reprendrons demain matin à 9 h 00. We 13 will adjourn now for the day and we will be back at 14 9:00 in the morning. 15 --- Whereupon the hearing concluded at 1755, 16 to resume on Wednesday, October 14, 1998, 17 at 0900 / L'audience est ajournée à 1755, 18 pour reprendre le mercredi 14 octobre 1998, 19 à 0900 20 21 22 23 24 25 StenoTran
- Date modified: