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This page has been archived on the Web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 15, 1998 15 octobre 1998 Volume 15 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 15, 1998 15 octobre 1998 Volume 15 StenoTran TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES PAGE Presentation by / Présentation par: Société canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique / Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada 4479 Great North Communications Ltd. 4529 Alliance Atlantis Communications Corporation 4583 CHUM Limited 4676 Conseil provincial du secteur des communications, 4764 Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique ADISQ, Association québécoise de l'industrie 4790 du disque du spectacle et de la vidéo StenoTran 4479 1 Hull, Quebec / Hull (Québec) 2 --- Upon resuming on Thursday, October 15, 1998 3 at 0902 / L'audience reprend le jeudi 4 15 octobre 1998 à 0902 5 20792 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to 6 everyone. Bonjour. 7 20793 Madame la Secrétaire, voulez-vous 8 inviter le participant suivant, s'il vous plaît. 9 20794 Mme SANTERRE: Merci, Madame la 10 Présidente. 11 20795 La présentation sera fait ce matin 12 par la Société canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs et 13 éditeurs de musique / Society of Composers, Authors and 14 Music Publishers of Canada. 15 20796 Welcome. 16 20797 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. 17 20798 M. VALIQUETTE: Bonjour, madame. 18 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION 19 20799 M. VALIQUETTE: Madame la Présidente, 20 Mesdames et Messieurs les Membres du Conseil, bonjour. 21 20800 Mon nom est Gilles Valiquette. Je 22 suis auteur-compositeur et président de la Socan, la 23 Société canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs et 24 éditeurs de musique. Je suis accompagné ce matin d'un 25 autre membre de notre Société, mon bon ami Glenn StenoTran 4480 1 Morley, qui est vice-président et membre fondateur de 2 la Guide des compositeurs canadiens de musique de film. 3 20801 La Socan est une association 4 canadienne sans but lucratif qui représente les 5 créateurs et les éditeurs d'oeuvres musicales du Canada 6 et du monde entier. Plus précisément, la Socan assure 7 la gestion des droits d'exécution liés aux paroles et 8 musique créées par 18 000 membres canadiens actifs. 9 20802 Le droit d'exécution, comme vous le 10 savez, est partie prenante du droit d'auteur. Le droit 11 d'auteur, c'est le droit exclusif qu'ont les titulaires 12 d'oeuvres musicales d'exécuter ou de diffuser celles-ci 13 en public, ou de permettre à d'autres de le faire en 14 contrepartie d'une redevance. En d'autres mots, le 15 droit d'auteur, c'est le salaire du créateur. 16 20803 Une somme importante de nos 17 redevances d'exécution en tant que créateurs découle de 18 l'utilisation de nos oeuvres à la télévision au Canada. 19 Il va de soi que la Socan porte un vif intérêt au 20 règlement du Conseil en matière de contenu canadien, et 21 nous vous remercions de l'occasion que vous nous offrez 22 de prendre part à votre examen des politiques du 23 Conseil relatives à la télévision canadienne. 24 20804 Le temps ne nous permet pas ce matin 25 de rappeler tous les points importants de notre StenoTran 4481 1 mémoire, mais nous espérons que vous le lirez 2 attentivement. Nous nous contenterons de souligner les 3 trois points suivants: 4 20805 - Premièrement, quelles sont 5 précisément, aux termes de la Loi sur la 6 radiodiffusion, les obligations des télédiffuseurs 7 canadiens commerciaux face à la présentation de contenu 8 canadien? 9 20806 - Deuxièmement, peut-on dire que le 10 règlement actuel du Conseil en matière de contenu 11 canadien encourage l'industrie télévisuelle à 12 s'acquitter de ses obligations? 13 20807 - Troisièmement, quelles 14 modifications y a-t-il lieu de faire subir au règlement 15 afin de garantir que les télédiffuseurs s'acquitteront 16 de leurs obligations au cours du siècle prochain? 17 20808 Avant de répondre à la première 18 question, il convient de rappeler, comme l'a souvent 19 fait le Parlement, que le système canadien de la 20 radiodiffusion utilise des ondes qui sont, en fait, 21 publiques. La Loi sur la radiodiffusion ajoute que la 22 programmation des radiodiffuseurs constitue un service 23 public qui revêt une importance essentielle pour 24 l'identité et la souveraineté culturelle du Canada. Le 25 Parlement précise également que toutes les entreprises StenoTran 4482 1 de radiodiffusion sont tenues de faire appel au 2 maximum, sinon de façon prédominante, aux ressources 3 créatrices et autres canadiennes pour la création et la 4 présentation de leur programmation. Enfin, la Loi sur 5 la radiodiffusion prévient les radiodiffuseurs qu'ils 6 sont liés à l'obligation de faire appel aux ressources 7 canadiennes de façon maximale à moins qu'une telle 8 pratique soit difficilement réalisable. 9 20809 Nous croyons que les formules 10 extrêmement précises utilisées par le Parlement 11 indiquent très clairement son intention de reconnaître 12 un droit de choisir au public canadien, lui permettant 13 ainsi de vivre une réalité artistique qui vient d'ici 14 et qui lui est propre plutôt que de subir un vent de 15 divertissement qui vient d'ailleurs. 16 20810 Maintenant que nous réalisons quelles 17 sont les obligations de la télévision canadienne face 18 au contenu canadien, passons au deuxième point et 19 essayons de voir dans quelle mesure le règlement du 20 Conseil encourage les radiodiffuseurs à s'acquitter de 21 leurs obligations en matière de contenu canadien. 22 20811 Madame la Présidente, si vous le 23 permettez, auriez-vous l'obligeance de référer à 24 l'annexe A de notre mémoire. Vous y trouverez là un 25 compte rendu relatif à la programmation de trois StenoTran 4483 1 réseaux: la Société Radio-Canada, CTV et Global TV. 2 Il s'agit de détails relatifs à la programmation d'une 3 semaine complète diffusée l'automne dernier pendant la 4 période horaire allant de 19 h 00 à 23 h 00 en soirée. 5 20812 Comme vous pouvez le constater, le 6 télédiffuseur public, Radio-Canada, affiche une 7 programmation canadienne supérieure à 98 pour cent, et 8 ce, pour chaque jour de la semaine. Quant aux deux 9 télédiffuseurs privés, CTV et Global, leur 10 programmation canadienne est inférieure à 20 pour cent. 11 De plus, la programmation de ces deux réseaux certains 12 soirs est entièrement dépourvue de contenu canadien. 13 En d'autres mots, si vous voulez voir du contenu 14 canadien le lundi soir, le mercredi soir ou le vendredi 15 soir, ce n'est certainement pas sur Global que vous le 16 trouverez. 17 20813 Les chiffres que nous venons de citer 18 indiquent que le règlement en matière de contenu 19 canadien n'encourage pas les télédiffuseurs privés à 20 faire appel de façon maximale aux ressources 21 canadiennes pour la création et la présentation de leur 22 programmation. Humblement, nous sommes d'avis que 23 votre règlement doit être mis à jour. 24 20814 Permettez-moi maintenant de céder la 25 parole à mon collègue Glenn Morley, qui traitera de StenoTran 4484 1 notre troisième point et discutera des modifications 2 qui s'imposent. 3 20815 J'aimerais souligner, Madame la 4 Présidente, que la semaine dernière Glenn s'est vu 5 décerner le prix Gemini de la meilleure musique 6 originale pour une émission de télévision, "Life and 7 Times: W.O. Mitchell Who Has Seen W.O." 8 20816 Merci beaucoup, madame. 9 20817 THE CHAIRPERSON: Congratulations, 10 Mr. Morley. 11 20818 MR. MORLEY: Good morning, Madam 12 Chair, and Commissioners. 13 20819 I have a particular interest in this 14 review because I devote a lot of my time to composing 15 music for television programming. For example, I wrote 16 the music for the program "Empire of the Bay", a 17 four-part documentary series that opened the CTV 18 Network's fall season. 19 20820 I would like to start off by 20 highlighting a fact that Gilles just mentioned when he 21 referred to the television schedule that appears in 22 Appendix A of our submission. The fall 1997 schedule 23 shows that during 28 hours of prime time programming, 24 Global's Canadian programming was only 4.5 hours. This 25 indicates that when most Canadians were tuned to their StenoTran 4485 1 televisions, Global's Canadian content was just 16 per 2 cent. 3 20821 Unfortunately, things have not been 4 getting any better. In the fall of 1998, in the 5 Toronto Television schedule filed by CBC when they 6 appeared before you on September 24th, we see that 7 Global's Canadian programming during the key 28-hour 8 period of prime evening time is currently only three 9 hours. This amounts to a meagre 11 per cent Canadian 10 content level when most Canadians watch television. 11 20822 To understand how to correct this 12 deficiency, the Commission's current Canadian content 13 rules must be examined. The rules now require private 14 television broadcasters to broadcast Canadian programs 15 for at least 50 per cent of the evening broadcast 16 period, which runs from 6 p.m. to midnight. 17 20823 In response to this rule, 18 English-language private broadcasters often schedule 19 news programming during two time periods, from 6 p.m. 20 to 7 p.m. and from 11 p.m. to midnight. 21 20824 However, as I just mentioned, during 22 the prime viewing hours of 7 p.m. to 11 p.m., Canadian 23 programming is minimal and often non-existent. This 24 demonstrates that, although the current rules may work 25 for news, weather and sports, they are not working for StenoTran 4486 1 other key categories, including drama, music and dance, 2 and variety. 3 20825 To fine-tune the Commission's rules, 4 we believe that you should specify that at least one 5 hour of Canadian drama, music and dance, or variety 6 programming be broadcast during the hours of 6 p.m. to 7 12 p.m. each and every day of the week. We believe 8 that this minimum one-hour threshold should apply to 9 over-the-air as well as cable and satellite delivered 10 services. 11 20826 To encourage the broadcasters to 12 schedule more Canadian music and entertainment 13 programming during the peak evening hours, additional 14 incentives will be required. For example, your current 15 150 per cent dramatic programming credit should be 16 extended to include Canadian programming classified 17 under Category 8, music and dance, and Category 9, 18 variety. 19 20827 How quickly should these changes be 20 implemented? In Appendix B of our submission, we have 21 included a study prepared by Nesbitt Burns that 22 demonstrates that the Canadian commercial television 23 sector is financially capable of increasing Canadian 24 programming sooner, rather than later. 25 20828 We also believe that the profit StenoTran 4487 1 figures in Appendix C speak for themselves. The 2 Commission's data shows that between 1993 and 1997 3 private Canadian television profits increased by over 4 50 per cent. In 1997 alone, this profit amounted to 5 over $260 million. 6 0910 7 20829 In spite of the private broadcasters' 8 rise in profits, their expenditures on Canadian drama, 9 music and variety programs remained relatively static. 10 These figures demonstrate that it is highly practicable 11 for private television broadcasters to maximize their 12 use of Canadian programming now. 13 20830 We therefore submit that the next 14 step in the evolution of your Canadian content rules 15 should be implemented in 1999. 16 20831 Allow me to conclude with a couple of 17 observations on some trends in the Canadian television 18 industry which were also observed in your recent 19 commercial radio policy review. 20 20832 Firstly, Canadian programming 21 production has grown under current Canadian content 22 rules. Secondly, the broadcasters' financial strength 23 has increased significantly over the last five years. 24 20833 After considering these trends and 25 other facts, the Commission just announced a new StenoTran 4488 1 commercial radio policy which contains a renewed 2 commitment to Canadian content. 3 20834 SOCAN shares this commitment and we 4 urge you to pursue it in your television review. 5 20835 On behalf of SOCAN'S members, thank 6 you again for this opportunity to express our views and 7 we look forward to continuing to work with you in this 8 important review. 9 20836 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr. 10 Morley, Mr. Valiquette. 11 20837 Commissioner Wilson. 12 20838 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Good morning. 13 I am just going to take you through your submission. 14 You actually answered a couple of my questions in your 15 oral presentation. There were a couple of things in 16 your submission that did not seem to make sense to me. 17 They seem to have been clarified but I will go through 18 them with you anyway. 19 20839 On page 3, you recommend that the 20 existing Canadian content policies be strengthened, and 21 specifically you recommend that all conventional 22 broadcasters, both public and private, as well as 23 specialty services, be mandated to include more 24 Canadian programming in categories 7, 8 and 9. And on 25 page 4 you state that the framework must be amended to StenoTran 4489 1 increase minimum levels for private commercial 2 stations. 3 20840 So on the one hand you are talking, 4 at first, about both public and private, and then you 5 sort of narrow the field to the private conventional 6 broadcasters. I am just wondering if you could clarify 7 for me whether you think the increases should apply to 8 all broadcasters or just to the private conventionals. 9 always. 10 20841 M. VALIQUETTE: Si vous me permettez, 11 je vais répondre en français. 12 20842 CONSEILLÈRE WILSON: Oui, absolument. 13 20843 M. VALIQUETTE: Définitivement, nous 14 voyons tous les télédiffuseurs adopter la même règle. 15 Nous devons avouer que nous ne sommes pas des 16 spécialistes, mais notre message est relativement 17 simple; c'est qu'on a un règlement qui fonctionne 18 admirablement bien quand on regarde les niveaux des 19 nouvelles, les sports. Ce qu'on souhaite, c'est 20 d'élever sur la liste les numéros 7, 8 et 9 au même 21 niveau. 22 20844 Dans -- comment j'expliquerais -- le 23 travail qui demeure à faire, on croit que tout le monde 24 devrait participer. Alors tous les télédiffuseurs 25 devraient mettre l'épaule à la roue dans ce sens-là à StenoTran 4490 1 notre avis. 2 20845 Alors c'est un ajustement qu'on 3 cherche à ce niveau. 4 20846 COMMISSIONER WILSON: When you refer 5 to the minimum levels of Canadian content, you are 6 referring to the 60/50 rule, and you suggested it be 7 increased. Do you have any idea what it should be 8 increased to? 9 20847 M. VALIQUETTE: Ce qu'on souhaite 10 avoir a surtout rapport avec le fait que nous désirons 11 voir du contenu canadien à travers toute la semaine et 12 nous voudrions avoir, pour les points 7, 8 et 9, au 13 moins une heure. 14 20848 Alors ça, ça peut se contenir 15 facilement dans les règles qui sont là présentement. 16 20849 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. So you 17 are not exactly suggesting that they have to be 18 increased, but you think they need to be enforced more 19 vigorously. 20 20850 M. VALIQUETTE: Exactement, madame. 21 20851 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. Just a 22 quick question in terms of the under-represented 23 programming. As you know, we have received many 24 representations about adding documentaries to the 25 definition of under-represented programming. You do StenoTran 4491 1 not mention that in your written submission or your 2 oral submission, but what are your views on that? 3 20852 MR. MORLEY: Well, the documentary 4 issue is an interesting one for me. As it happens, a 5 lot of documentary work happened this particular year 6 for myself, so there clearly is something going on. 7 And I asked the question: How come there is not a 8 documentary category in the CRTC and -- 9 20853 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You and a lot 10 of other people are asking that question. 11 20854 MR. MORLEY: Indeed. But it's not an 12 unreasonable response to look at what documentaries are 13 about and classify them on the basis of their content 14 rather than their form. So from that point of view, 15 that's an interesting argument. 16 20855 Let us take the piece on W.O. 17 Mitchell that I worked on. That's about a personality, 18 an individual. There was recently a documentary-style 19 of program on the hockey situation. I believe it was a 20 four- or five-part series that CBC did. Is that sports 21 programming; is that some kind of entertainment 22 programming, et cetera, et cetera. 23 20856 So there is a problem in terms of 24 looking at a form as a separate issue, which is, I 25 think, why that documentary category did not exist StenoTran 4492 1 before. I certainly think that we have a very strong 2 reputation as a country, that goes back many, many 3 years, particularly to the Film Board. Internationally 4 we are known as makers of documentaries as a form. 5 Their content is not what's well known, it's the fact 6 that we make very good documentaries, and certainly I 7 would like to see that that is encouraged more. But I 8 think there is a problem with content and form being 9 mixed up as the ways that the Commission might want to 10 differentiate these things and I am not sure that we 11 can give you much comfort or guidance with that. 12 20857 It is, to a certain degree, something 13 that the broadcasters have expertise as to what it is 14 that they are selling to people, and I would defer to 15 their sense about that. 16 20858 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thanks. I just 17 was interested, from the point of view of composers, to 18 see what you thought about that genre of programming in 19 general. 20 20859 On page 4 of your submission, you say 21 that the credit for news, weather and sports 22 programming should be reduced or, in addition to those 23 programs, a minimum of one hour or two half hours must 24 be broadcast each day during peak viewing hours. 25 20860 As you are probably aware, just from StenoTran 4493 1 hearing about the various issues that we have been 2 looking at during the course of the hearing, the issues 3 of local programming in particular, and local news in 4 general, were issues that were raised to quite a large 5 extent when we held our regional public forums on 6 Canadian television. 7 20861 It has been suggested by some of the 8 broadcasters that if we focus solely on 7, 8 and 9 that 9 we are devaluing news, and I am just wondering, are you 10 not concerned that by devaluing news -- I mean if you 11 are reducing credit, saying that an hour of news, 12 weather and sports doesn't count as an hour of Canadian 13 content, it only counts as a half hour of Canadian 14 content, which is, I assume, what you mean by reducing 15 the credit, because it counts for what it counts right 16 now. 17 20862 Are you not concerned that by 18 devaluing it you may be putting truly local news in 19 jeopardy? 20 0920 21 20863 MR. MORLEY: I think the key here is 22 that we say that the existing regulations should be 23 amended so that relative to other categories the credit 24 for news, weather and sports programming is reduced. 25 It's the relative issues, I think, that might be of StenoTran 4494 1 some confusion there. 2 20864 If we have that situation, it's 3 implicit in the 150 per cent credit that a drama is 4 relatively worth more than a news broadcast. If it 5 receives that credit, it's clearly worth more than a 6 news broadcast. 7 20865 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So, you are not 8 exactly saying reduce the credit for news so much as 9 you are saying increase the credit for other categories 10 as well? 11 20866 MR. MORLEY: That's correct, yes. 12 20867 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. With 13 respect to that -- actually, this is one of the points 14 of confusion for me -- on page 11 of your submission 15 you talk about: 16 "...creating additional 17 incentives ... to encourage the 18 broadcast of distinctively 19 Canadian programming in 20 categories 7 ... 8 ... and 9..." 21 20868 Then you say, for example: 22 "...the incentive that currently 23 applies to category 7 ... could 24 be extended to other categories 25 (i.e. categories 10 and 11)..." StenoTran 4495 1 20869 Those are game shows and human 2 interest categories and I was curious about your 3 suggestion that we extend the 150 per cent credit to 4 game shows and human interest. The human interest 5 suggestion has actually been made before, but the game 6 shows hasn't. Do you compose music for game shows? 7 20870 MR. MORLEY: Yes, it has happened. 8 There is two parts to the answer to that. First of 9 all, as I am sure you aware, SOCAN has a large 10 membership, some 18,000 members, and we have different 11 interests in the different kinds of television programs 12 created. Most of my interest would be in scoring 13 programs for drama. However, I do do a certain amount 14 of variety work when it happens and our concern is with 15 regard to, in particular, variety type of programming, 16 of which there is very little represented in the 17 schedule, including currently in the public 18 broadcaster, which is something that we would like to 19 encourage them to get back to. 20 20871 That's very important for our 21 songwriter members. Obviously, they are working in a 22 different business than composers who are writing 23 scores for dramas and the reason that that might 24 impinge on game shows -- I am going to tell Gilles to 25 speak to that because it's a particular issue in StenoTran 4496 1 Quebec. 2 20872 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Actually, 3 before you explain to me what the situation is in 4 Quebec, maybe I could just refer you to your comments 5 of this morning. That's where I said I thought maybe I 6 had got the answer to my question because you said your 7 current 150 per cent dramatic programming credit should 8 be extended to include Canadian programming classified 9 under category 8 and category 9. 10 20873 MR. MORLEY: Right. 11 20874 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So then I 12 thought maybe you are changing it from 10 and 11 to 8 13 and 9, because 8 and 9 makes sense to me in terms of 14 your interests. 15 20875 MR. MORLEY; Eight and 9 make perfect 16 sense and 10 and 11, undoubtedly, can be confusing. I 17 will let Gilles explain why that might be of interest 18 in the Quebec scenario. 19 20876 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That would be 20 great. 21 20877 M. VALIQUETTE: Définitivement, nous 22 avons une inquiétude face au domaine des variétés parce 23 que c'est un domaine qui s'effrite, et je voudrais dire 24 que ça s'effrite d'une façon dramatique et ça paraît 25 depuis les dernières années. StenoTran 4497 1 20878 Certaines personnes croient que le 2 problème des variétés se situe uniquement au Canada 3 anglais, mais c'est maintenant la même chose au Canada 4 français. La saison dernière quatre émissions de 5 variétés ont été retranchées chez nous, et ce qui est 6 un peu remarquable, c'est que cette saison-ci la place 7 où la chanson est prépondérante, c'est dans un quiz. 8 Il y a un quiz présentement qui s'appelle "La Fureur" 9 qui est basé sur la chanson populaire. 10 20879 Alors, en quelque part, on est 11 contents que la chanson soit importante pour 12 l'auditoire qui l'écoute mais on ne voudrait pas, par 13 exemple, que nos émissions de chansons deviennent des 14 quiz. Ça fait déjà un après l'autre que ça nous est 15 arrivé au Québec. Alors tant mieux pour les quiz, mais 16 on ne veut pas oublier que le point primordial, c'est 17 celui qu'on veut faire revenir des bonnes émissions de 18 variétés qui reflètent les artistes de chez nous et les 19 créateurs de chez nous. 20 20880 COMMISSIONER WILSON: It never even 21 occurred to me to think of -- "Name That Tune" was a 22 big quiz show. It never occurred to me you are 23 actually getting royalties from the tunes that are 24 being used in a show like that. 25 20881 MR. MORLEY: We hope we are. StenoTran 4498 1 20882 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Right, you hope 2 you are. 3 20883 On a related matter to the 150 per 4 cent credit, I just wanted to -- you answered the 5 question you would apply that -- sorry, the one-hour 6 minimum, the one hour per day of Canadian content other 7 than news, weather and sports, you would apply that 8 across all seven days of the week? 9 20884 MR. MORLEY: That's correct, yes. 10 20885 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am wondering 11 if you have given any thought to the idea that it might 12 be a little contradictory to extend the 150 per cent 13 credit to additional programming categories at the same 14 time that you are requiring a minimum of one hour a day 15 since, in order to meet the one-hour-per-day minimum, 16 the Commission might in fact have to require the 17 broadcasters do about one and a half hours per day. 18 20886 I guess what I am trying to get at is 19 that if there were a minimum exhibition requirement 20 established for under-represented programming 21 throughout the broadcast week, would the incentives 22 really be necessary if we just said, "Okay, do an hour 23 a day?" 24 20887 MR. MORLEY: Simple is nice. There 25 is no question that simple is nice and I think, as a StenoTran 4499 1 general rule, if you have the right numbers -- and this 2 was certainly brought up yesterday on several 3 occasions -- if you have the right numbers in the first 4 place, the incentives probably are not needed, but 5 looking at the framework as it exists now and that 6 there as been an increase in Canadian drama, we have 7 heard from broadcasters that that 150 per cent 8 incentive is something that has encouraged them in that 9 particular category to go ahead with projects. We are 10 again looking for the familiar tools that have worked, 11 how can we fit in with that framework. 12 20888 You can only rob from Peter to pay 13 Paul so long, we understand that, and looking at the 14 scenario of increasing a credit value in prime time, 15 our thought is that if you are going to do that, you 16 need to give the reduction somewhere. Don't do it in 17 prime time, but do it in the 60 per cent area. Allow 18 the make-up in the 60 per cent area in foreign 19 programming, but don't do it in the prime time. 20 20889 Our principal concern is to get 21 Canadian programming in front of Canadians when 22 Canadians are watching, which is, in our view, 23 principally from 7:00 to 11:00, and that's where the 24 dearth of programming and, in particular, the variety 25 areas is not -- music and variety are not well StenoTran 4500 1 represented in the private broadcaster schedules at the 2 moment. 3 20890 We are certainly encouraged by Mr. 4 Fecan's words yesterday that they intend to do that and 5 we would absolutely support that kind of initiative, 6 but if they need more help, our suggestion is: All 7 right, here is a mechanism that has been in place, it's 8 moving in the right direction for drama, let's see if 9 it applies appropriately. 10 20891 I would just like to suggest that 11 when categories 10 and 11 are suggested that you made 12 proper note of on page 11, that scenario in Quebec is a 13 bit of an oddball situation. What we are trying to 14 suggest is that there needs to be flexibility in this, 15 rather than let's have everybody get 150 per cent, 16 which is, of course, a ludicrous proposition, and we do 17 understand that. 18 20892 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's the 19 unique nature of our country, that different regions 20 require different kinds of consideration. 21 20893 MR. MORLEY: Yes. 22 20894 COMMISSIONER WILSON: On page 6 of 23 your submission you request that more support be given 24 to the production of drama, music and dance, variety 25 and other entertainment programming and, specifically, StenoTran 4501 1 you suggest that the Canadian content regulations be 2 amended to ensure that the musical works that are part 3 of all Canadian productions are works created by 4 Canadians. How would you suggest that we do this, that 5 we just say to the broadcasters and the independent 6 producers, "You must use Canadian music", or is there a 7 way to incent them to do this? What are you 8 suggesting? 9 20895 M. VALIQUETTE: Définitivement c'est 10 un problème, et je dois avouer que nous ne sommes pas 11 des spécialistes pour amener des solutions. 12 20896 Le point que nous essayons de 13 faire -- et je pense que vous l'avez bien compris -- 14 c'est que nous, les créateurs de musique, de chansons, 15 on se voit comme des partenaires avec les producteurs. 16 Nous investissons au même titre qu'eux et nous 17 souhaitons que ces émissions aient du succès ici et à 18 l'étranger. Et c'est essentiel parce que, sinon, notre 19 travail ne vaut rien puisque nous sommes rémunérés 20 juste au moment où l'émission est exécutée ou, si vous 21 voulez, quand un auditoire la regarde. Alors, quand on 22 jauge le contenu canadien de ces émissions, nous 23 voudrions que notre travail soit valorisé. 24 20897 Maintenant, le mécanisme pour mettre 25 ça en place, définitivement, nous n'avons pas étudié la StenoTran 4502 1 question puisque nous croyons que c'est un des défis 2 que la Commission a à relever ici, mais nous serions 3 certainement d'accord pour étudier la question plus en 4 profondeur si vous le désirez. On pourrait même 5 l'inclure dans notre rapport écrit final. 6 0930 7 20898 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That would be 8 great. 9 20899 On page 15 of your submission you 10 make a comment about the proposal that the Commission 11 undertake group licence renewals; and again you state 12 that you are not experts in this area and you don't 13 really feel equipped to assess the advantages and 14 disadvantages, but there seems to be some discomfort 15 with the idea of the group renewal approach. 16 20900 I am just wondering if you could tell 17 us what your discomfort might be with that, or do you 18 see it as an opportunity? 19 20901 M. VALIQUETTE: Je dois avouer que je 20 ne comprends pas exactement le but auquel vous voulez 21 arriver avec cette question. 22 20902 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. One of 23 the proposals that has been put before the Commission 24 is that instead of renewing licences on an individual 25 basis, that with the multi-station groups we renew them StenoTran 4503 1 as a group. I thought this was actually a point that 2 you had discussed on page 15 where you say: 3 "SOCAN is unable to assess the 4 advantages and disadvantages of 5 a corporate renewal 6 approach...however, it requests 7 that the Commission consider 8 changes in the licence renewal 9 structure if those changes bring 10 about a greater and more 11 effective contribution to the 12 production of Canadian 13 programming..." 14 20903 MR. MORLEY: I think the main point 15 there would be if there is overall in the system an 16 advantage to getting more money and more time for 17 Canadian content during the period of time where we are 18 concerned, that is from 7 to 11, however that works out 19 in the structure of licence renewals we would be for 20 it. 21 20904 If it works out that there are ways 22 to avoid making those commitments because of the 23 renewal process one way or the other, obviously, we 24 wouldn't be for it. But above and beyond that we are 25 just not qualified to talk about the mechanics of those StenoTran 4504 1 things. 2 20905 We basically don't want to see rules 3 used to deviate from a forward progress in getting 4 Canadian programming in front of Canadians. If there 5 is a possibility of that happening through either a 6 group licensing or not group licensing, that is, if 7 there is a possibility of a diminution of that forward 8 progress, then we are obviously concerned. But above 9 and beyond that we really don't pretend to have 10 expertise as to what would be preferable or not. There 11 are others far more qualified to speak to that 12 particular issue. 13 20906 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. You just 14 said in your comment right now that you are looking for 15 more money and more time and you addressed the issue 16 specifically in your submission about the more time 17 with the one hour per day minimum. Do you have any 18 views on the spending requirements? 19 20907 MR. MORLEY: I think we have looked 20 at some of the spending requirements, as far as where 21 the money might come from, and there are many 22 submissions about where the money would come from and 23 how much. 24 20908 We function, as I said before, in two 25 very different businesses that get broadcast and, with StenoTran 4505 1 your permission, I would like to just elucidate on 2 that. 3 20909 As a film composer, my clients are 4 producers who are making programming not just for their 5 immediate broadcasting licence but, obviously, for 6 their sales around the world, hopefully. The way that 7 we as composers make our living in that particular area 8 is that there is a front end and a back end. 9 20910 Generally, we are paid a fee to 10 create the score for the program and that fee will 11 generally include all of the costs of creating the 12 score. The fee to actually write the music is a 13 relatively small portion of the overall cost of hiring 14 studios, musicians, recording, all of those aspects 15 that go into, in fact, a little mini production by 16 itself. 17 20911 What our great hope is is that the 18 programs will be successful and that they will be sold 19 into foreign markets because where we really make our 20 money, and this is where we are very high risk 21 entrepreneurs, is we are betting that our programs, 22 that our partners' programs are going to be really 23 successful. We call them our partners because 24 basically we are joined at the hip as far as the 25 success of a program goes. StenoTran 4506 1 20912 As I am sure you understand, when we 2 are paid our royalties from foreign sources they are 3 paid by foreign broadcasters as well. 4 20913 So that is why we are very interested 5 in not just a creation of bulk but quality. Quality 6 programming is the thing that will sell in foreign 7 markets and we are very interested in having that in 8 particular with regard to the dramas and so forth. 9 That is where our -- we have this little component up 10 front that we are able to, you know, keep the doors 11 open, if you like, but our real risk is in the fact 12 that we are attaching ourselves to product that we hope 13 will sell somewhere else. 14 20914 Now, that's the area of drama. In 15 the area of variety and music, it is a very different 16 scenario. There, people who are writing songs for 17 their living are not paid up front generally anything 18 at all when their songs are played on a variety 19 program. They rely solely on the royalties that are 20 paid from their performing rights fees. So they are in 21 quite a different business; and many times what they 22 are doing on their variety programs are part and parcel 23 of promoting their records or performance tours and so 24 forth. 25 20915 I am going to let Gilles speak to StenoTran 4507 1 that because he has great expertise in this. 2 20916 M. VALIQUETTE: Oui. Définitivement, 3 la situation est différente dans le domaine des 4 variétés. 5 20917 J'aimerais souligner le fait que 6 créer une oeuvre musicale, être un compositeur, c'est 7 un travail en soi, et que performer l'oeuvre, c'est un 8 autre travail, comme lorsqu'on bâtit une maison 9 l'électricien fait son travail, le plombier fait le 10 sien. 11 20918 Alors c'est vrai que, dans notre 12 société, on a des exceptions; on a des gens qui peuvent 13 faire et l'électricité, et la plomberie. Dans notre 14 métier, c'est qu'on a des gens qui peuvent composer et 15 également performer, mais il ne faudrait pas mêler les 16 deux sauces. Si votre mandat dan la vie, c'est de 17 créer de la musique, alors la seule façon que vous 18 allez être compensé pour le travail que vous avez fait, 19 c'est au moment où l'émission va arriver, ou une 20 exécution. 21 20919 Bien entendu, c'est la récompense de 22 notre travail, ça, et c'est dans ce sens-là qu'on dit 23 qu'il n'y a pas assez d'émissions de variétés. C'est 24 important pour diffuser qui nous sommes -- les artistes 25 sont essentiellement un miroir de la société qui les StenoTran 4508 1 entoure -- et pour pouvoir faire ça d'une façon 2 adéquate, je suis entièrement d'accord avec le 3 commentaire de mon ami Glenn quand il dit qu'il faut 4 trouver des mécanismes qui vont faire que ce seront des 5 émissions de qualité. Et on va encourager n'importe 6 qui qui veut aller dans ce sens-là parce que ça habille 7 nos créations d'une façon admirable. 8 20920 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So you must 9 have been quite heartened to hear the focus on quality 10 presented by the CTV group yesterday. 11 20921 MR. MORLEY: Absolutely, we were. 12 And just to go to your initial question, which is 13 amounts, clearly the two different aspects of the 14 industry have different requirements. That is why I 15 was trying to differentiate. Certainly in the area of 16 drama production, if you hire a composer to write your 17 score, it is going to be 100 per cent Canadian. It 18 just is extremely likely. 19 20922 There is, of course, the odd thing 20 where what we refer to as source music might come in, 21 that is radio music that is seen on camera or someone 22 performing. That might be from a foreign source; but, 23 generally speaking, the underscores for a drama are 24 going to be -- if they are written by a Canadian, then 25 you have fulfilled a 100 per cent Canadian obligation. StenoTran 4509 1 Now, that is an easy one. 2 20923 Obviously, it is not so easy if you 3 have Bryan Adams singing someone else's -- a foreign 4 composer's song, right? We get into that difficult 5 area, where do you start making these adjustments? 6 20924 As Gilles has indicated, there are 7 people who, in English, we call singer/song writers. 8 The entire area of the music industry has all sorts of 9 levels of recognition of where that places itself in 10 the financial spectrum and deals are cut on that basis. 11 20925 So to have a pat answer for that 12 particular area would not really serve the interests of 13 anyone, I don't think. Again, it is one of those 14 situations that we would, perhaps, try to give you some 15 guidance in our final written submission, but it is a 16 very complicated issue in the area of variety as to how 17 much Canadian content ought to be a reasonable level. 18 20926 You could come back with a simple 19 solution that it has to be X per cent of the total 20 amount. Sometimes four or five people write a song. 21 If Crosbie, Stills, Nash and Young write a song, Young 22 is Canadian, that is 25 per cent, but he only wrote the 23 lyrics so that is 25 -- so you see where this can lead. 24 In particular, the kind of variety that we are talking 25 about often will be group productions. StenoTran 4510 1 20927 So we are also concerned about overly 2 complicating a process that need not be. But we will 3 certainly give further thought to that question. I 4 think it is a very germane question. 5 20928 M. VALIQUETTE: Si vous me permettez, 6 madame, votre question touche un peu une question que 7 vous aviez précédemment. Dans le cas des émissions de 8 variétés, une des raisons pour lesquelles on souhaite 9 que la création soit considérée comme un élément de 10 contenu canadien, c'est qu'on ne voudrait pas se 11 retrouver dans une situation où vous avez une émission 12 de variétés où les interprètes -- parce qu'on le voit 13 au Québec -- seraient obligés de chanter les créations 14 d'étrangers. Alors, en quelque part, dans notre façon 15 de voir les choses, il faudra s'assurer que la création 16 à la base soit aussi canadienne, au même titre que 17 l'interprétation, et qu'un ne prend pas la place de 18 l'autre. 19 20929 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. 20 Actually, this kind of leads into my next question. I 21 just wanted to explore a little bit with you some of 22 the statements that you make on pages 5 and 8 of your 23 submission. You talk about the fact that a large part 24 of a composer's income comes from the use of their 25 music received through television broadcasts, and on StenoTran 4511 1 page 8 you state that SOCAN writers earn more money 2 outside Canada than they do domestically. 3 20930 I am wondering if you could give me 4 an idea of what the figures are. For example, what 5 percentage of a composer's income would come from music 6 that is used in television broadcasts? 7 20931 M. VALIQUETTE: Je vais me référer à 8 une publication interne que nous avons chez nous; si 9 vous voulez en prendre note, c'est l'édition du mois de 10 juin 1998, si jamais vous voulez voir le tableau. On a 11 un pie chart, comme vous dites en anglais, qui nous 12 explique bien ce qui arrive avec les revenus. 13 20932 Au niveau de la télévision, on a nos 14 diffuseurs réguliers et on a aussi le câble. Alors ces 15 deux-là jumelés nous donnent environ 50 millions de 16 dollars à l'interne ici, au Canada. Pour ce qui est 17 des revenus qui nous proviennent de l'étranger, grosso 18 modo, on a à peu près 20 millions de dollars qui nous 19 viennent de là mais la moitié à peu près de ça, 10 ou 20 11 millions, sont attribués pour le domaine qui nous 21 intéresse ici, la télévision, sur un chiffre annuel d'à 22 peu près 100 millions. Alors cette activité-là chez 23 nous, elle est très importante présentement pour les 24 créateurs, et je dirais qu'elle devient de plus en plus 25 importante avec le temps. StenoTran 4512 1 20933 Si vous me permettez, les créateurs 2 de chez nous, pour être bien franc, trouvent 3 excessivement difficile le fait de gagner leur vie ici, 4 au Canada. Alors quand on a des politiques qui 5 encouragent des émissions de qualité, pour nous, ça 6 veut dire que nous avons une chance d'atteindre le 7 marché étranger et, à ce moment-là, je dois vous avouer 8 que là, les revenus deviennent intéressants, 9 intéressants au point qu'un créateur peut peut-être 10 penser gagner sa vie à créer, ce qui n'est pas 11 nécessairement le cas quand on se limite au domaine 12 domestique. 13 20934 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, thank you 14 for that. 15 20935 I want to just ask you next about 16 some comments that you make about CBC and sort of 17 comparing that to other broadcasters. On page 15 of 18 your submission, you state: 19 "...the private sector should 20 not depend upon the CBC to be 21 the sole source of Canadian 22 drama, music or variety 23 programs..." 24 20936 And that the production of shows like 25 these must be encouraged and their broadcast mandated StenoTran 4513 1 for all broadcasters. 2 20937 As you are probably aware, we have 3 had a number of submissions from the broadcasters that 4 suggest that what they need in a market where the 5 audience is becoming more and more fragmented is 6 greater flexibility to focus on the genres that they do 7 best. 8 20938 It has also been suggested that in a 9 market the size of Canada it is probably not realistic 10 to expect all broadcasters to be all things to all 11 people. 12 20939 I am just wondering what your views 13 are on that. 14 20940 MR. MORLEY: Well, historically, 15 flexibility certainly is something that has been 16 observed by the CRTC with regard to the private 17 broadcasters. In many instances, private broadcasters 18 have come up with some quite interesting solutions to 19 the problem, let us say, of variety. I can recall, for 20 example, the program "Circus". It is a very innovative 21 idea, combined variety and circus performance together, 22 and I believe they did quite well with that. It 23 presented Canadian performers and international 24 performers, but the hosts were Canadians, so it worked 25 quite well I think. StenoTran 4514 1 20941 With regard to how much flexibility 2 they have, their flexibility is, I think, built into 3 the system as it exists right now. You have 4 incentives, which is somewhat different from a hard and 5 fast fence that you have to operate. If the incentives 6 are there for drama with the 150 per cent credit, then 7 you are encouraged to move in that direction. If you 8 think you do something better as a broadcaster that 9 doesn't have those points, if you do it really that 10 well, then you probably won't have a problem fulfilling 11 your schedules with that particular kind of thing. 12 20942 Again, what we come back to is what 13 is the dearth right now of programming in the time when 14 Canadians can watch it? The numbers do speak for 15 themselves. You look at the schedule and you see what 16 is available. In the case of Global, we have many 17 choices of numbers to look at. They are ones that, 18 again, we look at those and say, "So where is the 50 19 per cent Canadian content?" 20 20943 Even in the instances of CTV, which 21 are approaching those levels, the variety area at the 22 present time is under-represented. Again, as I say, we 23 are encouraged by what CTV say they intend to do and 24 that they are going to really look at music 25 programming. StenoTran 4515 1 20944 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, two 2 things that I want to talk to you about. One is just 3 going back to my original question and then I want to 4 turn to the schedules. Because my original question 5 had to do, too, with the notion that you would mandate 6 all broadcasters to do drama, music or variety. So that 7 they would all have to do all three or -- 8 20945 MR. MORLEY: They all should be doing 9 all three. How their mix works out on those things is 10 up to them, but they should be doing all three of those 11 things. That is clear in the act itself that they are 12 supposed to be doing that. 13 20946 M. VALIQUETTE: Si vous me permettez, 14 madame, pour faire suite aux commentaires que Glenn a 15 exprimés précédemment, j'aimerais ajouter une dimension 16 à la réponse. 17 20947 Une des choses que les créateurs du 18 Canada apprécient, c'est qu'à la Société Radio-Canada 19 on a une reconnaissance pour le travail qu'on fait, on 20 a un certain respect de la Société, et en quelque part 21 à certains niveaux c'est aussi important que les 22 aspects monétaires de la chose. Nous espérons que 23 cette approche se reflète également ailleurs chez les 24 autres diffuseurs. 25 20948 À partir du moment où on a le respect StenoTran 4516 1 pour qui nous sommes et ce qu'on fait, ensuite de ça, 2 on a déjà une discussion beaucoup plus mature qui va 3 nous aider à rejoindre nos buts communs. 4 0950 5 20949 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. With 6 respect to the schedules, I think the two of you were 7 here yesterday afternoon when we were talking about 8 schedules and, as you know, there have been a lot of 9 schedules floating around. I am wondering if you have 10 had a chance to look at the schedules that were 11 submitted as part of both the CTV presentation and the 12 Global presentation yesterday. 13 20950 MR. MORLEY: I had a chance to look 14 at the CTV schedule. The Global schedule -- there 15 seems to be only the one copy of the Global schedule. 16 Global did not have it themselves. 17 20951 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Well, no, the 18 schedule that I think our legal counsel was showing to 19 Mr. Sward was one that was sent in to us, but they did 20 have a schedule that was part of their presentation. 21 20952 I guess what I am trying to reconcile 22 for myself is that you said earlier that you think we 23 could leave the 60/50 as it is and just enforce it more 24 vigorously. In fact, these schedules that you 25 submitted, and indeed the schedules that were given to StenoTran 4517 1 us yesterday, are in compliance. There may be nights 2 on the schedule when there is no Canadian programming, 3 but if you look across the broadcast week and the 4 requirements for the number of hours of exhibition, et 5 cetera -- 6 20953 MR. MORLEY: Our key point is the 7 number of hours in the week, and I think that this is 8 in line with something that both broadcasters we heard 9 yesterday said. They made the point quite strongly 10 that, for example, producing 13 episodes of a series is 11 not sufficient to give the momentum that they need to 12 carry through. And I think that same argument about 13 momentum, if you pull back and look at the large 14 spectrum, is equally valid, that if you don't have 15 Canadian programming all the way through the 16 schedule -- at least one hour a week is what we are 17 suggesting, and I believe that's also what the 18 directors' guild has suggested -- then you have this 19 patchwork presentation and it's not an effective 20 presentation of the Canadian mosaic. And that is what 21 we are addressing; that's our principal concern here, 22 is that when we look at these schedules, and there are, 23 as you have noted, many choices of schedules to look 24 at -- what we have looked at is what's on the record -- 25 there are -- StenoTran 4518 1 20954 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Actually where 2 did you get this schedule? 3 20955 MR. MORLEY: I believe that the one 4 we have as Exhibit A, which is the fall 1997 Toronto TV 5 schedule, I believe I referred to that as the one that 6 was presented by the CBC. Is that -- 7 20956 It's the prime peak issue, yes, of 8 course. Indeed. 9 20957 And just so there is no 10 misunderstanding, of course many of the news programs 11 that are in the six slot and at the 11 slot have their 12 theme music composed by our members and we in no way 13 wish to devalue what they are doing, but those programs 14 are doing quite well. If you take a look at the 15 situation, I think most broadcasters are happy with 16 that situation. 17 20958 What we are trying to focus on is the 18 peak prime and, again, when we look at that part of the 19 schedule, and I do not think we are really diverging 20 from many other parties in looking at it from that 21 point of view. We don't have -- 22 20959 THE CHAIRPERSON: One is a little 23 redder than the other. I did not want to interrupt but 24 I think some of the battle is between whether you are 25 looking at prime time or peak, and of course prime is StenoTran 4519 1 six to midnight, so you can get a big red band up 2 there. 3 20960 MR. MORLEY: Our principal concern is 4 peak at this point, and that's where we would like to 5 see -- again, the bulk of Canadians are watching 6 television during peak and let's give them what 7 Parliament has said they should have access to. 8 20961 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So essentially 9 you are saying keep the 60/50 but just impose some 10 tighter regulations about how you measure the 50 per 11 cent in prime time? 12 20962 MR. MORLEY: Indeed, indeed. 13 20963 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So it's one 14 hour per day and it does not include news, weather and 15 sports? 16 20964 MR. MORLEY: That's our position. 17 20965 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. The 18 Nesbitt Burns submission, the report on the financial 19 performance of Canadian television broadcasting; it 20 says the report was prepared by Nesbitt Burns for 21 Gowling, Strathy and Henderson. I am just wondering how 22 it ended up in your submission. Are they your lawyers? 23 20966 MR. MORLEY: They are our chief legal 24 counsel in many of our dealings; for example, in front 25 of the Copyright Board. That's where it comes from. StenoTran 4520 1 20967 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I was just 2 curious about what the connection was. 3 20968 And while we are on the appendices, 4 let me just ask you about Appendix C, which is again -- 5 you reference it in your submission as information that 6 was taken from the CRTC financial database and 7 certainly it looks like this was based on information 8 taken from the CRTC financial database, but if I am not 9 mistaken the analysis that goes with this does not 10 sound like something the Commission would do. 11 20969 I am just wondering; what's the 12 source of this? 13 20970 MR. MORLEY: Of the data or of the 14 analysis? 15 20971 COMMISSIONER WILSON: The data is 16 from the CRTC, but the analysis. 17 20972 MR. MORLEY: That's our analysis. 18 20973 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's your own 19 analysis, okay. 20 20974 Finally, I just wanted to touch 21 quickly on your comments with respect to specialty 22 services. On page 17 of your submission you state that 23 the Commission should, in re-examining the regulatory 24 framework applicable to conventional television 25 broadcasters, ensure that pay and specialty services StenoTran 4521 1 make a commensurate contribution to the production and 2 broadcast of Canadian programs. 3 20975 I do not know if you were able to 4 observe the presentation of the specialty services 5 through the two different associations that they belong 6 to, but both of these groups suggested that the 7 contribution that they make is, they feel, quite 8 significant and may in fact exceed the -- well their 9 position is that their contribution exceeds the 10 contribution being made by the conventional 11 broadcasters. 12 20976 I am just wondering what has your 13 experience as composers been with the specialty 14 services and what's prompting your comment. 15 20977 MR. MORLEY: Okay. I am not familiar 16 with what specialty services presented in this forum. 17 The key word here is "commensurate", of course. The 18 experience that I believe, certainly speaking at a 19 personal level, we don't have a lot of contact directly 20 in the area of creating drama. These would be 21 secondary sales. 22 20978 I think some of the specialty 23 services are dealing with some of the other areas; let 24 us say a Bravo or MuchMusic or something are dealing in 25 areas that have to do with the categories of music and StenoTran 4522 1 variety in different ways, and that I don't have a lot 2 of contact with. I couldn't speak to it. 3 20979 Perhaps Gilles, you have something. 4 20980 M. VALIQUETTE: Dans le domaine des 5 variétés, nous sommes touchés dans le domaine de la 6 chanson par les canaux spécialisés tels les 7 MusiquePlus, MuchMusic, tout ça. Alors c'est un 8 véhicule important pour nous parce que nos oeuvres, 9 encore une fois, sont diffusées et c'est là que nous 10 sommes rémunérés, mais c'est aussi une récompense de 11 prestige. 12 20981 Nous croyons que ces canaux devraient 13 être traités pas différemment d'une station 14 radiophonique dans le sens que, à la place de faire 15 jouer des chansons à la radio, on fait jouer des vidéos 16 à la télévision. Alors, en quelque part, ça mérite 17 d'être étudié, ça, ce n'est pas définitif comme 18 raisonnement, mais on aimerait que notre participation 19 soit accrue dans une station comme celle-là pour, 20 encore une fois, refléter je dirais la parité avec le 21 reste des activités artistiques que nous avons au 22 Canada. 23 20982 Je reviens à un des commentaires que 24 j'ai faits au tout début; c'est que tout le monde doit 25 mettre l'épaule à la roue et, évidemment, dépendamment StenoTran 4523 1 de ces canaux-là et des licences que vous leur 2 accordez, il y aura des variations. Alors je pense 3 qu'il faut les regarder une à une et il faut se pencher 4 sur la réalité et la volonté d'exprimer une vérité 5 canadienne. 6 20983 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So your 7 comments really then are aimed more at the music 8 oriented specialty services, not sort of the whole 9 panoply of specialty services? 10 20984 M. VALIQUETTE: Encore une fois, pour 11 nous, les items 7, 8 et 9 méritent d'être regardés 12 attentivement. Évidemment, nous sommes des 13 compositeurs de musique; moi, je fais des chansons. 14 Vous allez comprendre que c'est une activité qui va 15 m'intéresser plus que peut-être d'autres secteurs. 16 Mais, pour moi, ça fait partie d'un même tout quand on 17 regarde la culture canadienne dans l'ensemble pour que, 18 en quelque part, l'auditoire puisse se voir dans les 19 oeuvres qu'il regarde au petit écran. C'est ça, le but 20 de l'opération. J'aimerais qu'on comprenne que ce 21 n'est pas l'idée que chacun essaie de vendre sa petite 22 salade. Nous, nous croyons sincèrement que la culture 23 est un élément essentiel à qui nous sommes. 24 20985 Évidemment, en tant que travailleurs, 25 on a un bénéfice au bout de la ligne parce que, en StenoTran 4524 1 quelque part, peut-être qu'on va pouvoir gagner notre 2 vie, mais à notre avis, si la composante culturelle 3 n'est pas archi-présente, soyons réalistes, nous 4 n'avons plus de pays. 5 20986 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I think that's 6 a good note to conclude on. I would like to thank you 7 very much. 8 20987 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner 9 Cardozo. 10 20988 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you, 11 Madam Chair. 12 20989 Just on that concluding note, before 13 we finally conclude, I want to maybe work up to a bit 14 of a crescendo on it. 15 20990 I was surprised actually that you 16 didn't talk about the music channels, because the three 17 channels we now have, and we have had MuchMusic and CMT 18 for a long time, and Musimax, MusiqePlus now, and Much 19 More Music for those who thought we did not have 20 enough. 21 20991 I see those as rather important 22 vehicles to promote Canadian music and, in your case, 23 your membership who are the composers and the writers. 24 You have talked primarily in your presentation, until 25 the last comment, about the music that is written for StenoTran 4525 1 the themes and the background music for news or 2 entertainment and drama and so forth. But what are 3 your thoughts about the role of these music channels in 4 things like creating the star system, especially in 5 English speaking Canada which does not exist in the 6 same way as it does in Quebec? 7 20992 Also, just in terms of promoting 8 music, promoting Canadian stars, promoting more stuff 9 about them. MuchMusic, for example, has a show called 10 "Intimate and Interactive" where they have Canadian as 11 well as non-Canadian stars, where they have an 12 interview-music format, and they do a lot to popularize 13 music. 14 20993 The issue is related a lot to the 15 radio review that we did last year, and that tended to 16 look at radio only and we have not really looked at the 17 television piece that promotes Canadian music. My 18 sense is that there is a hell of a lot happening there 19 that nobody seems to be looking at. 20 20994 M. VALIQUETTE: Il y a beaucoup de 21 choses à dire sur ces canaux spécialisés. Évidemment, 22 nous apprécions énormément leur contribution dans ce 23 que vous avez appelé le star system mais, il faut être 24 réalistes, le star system est basé sur la performance; 25 autrement dit, ce que j'avais expliqué plus tôt, StenoTran 4526 1 l'aspect interprétation des choses. Nous sommes les 2 créateurs de la musique; autrement dit, ce n'est pas 3 nécessairement la personne qui a créé l'oeuvre que vous 4 voyez à l'écran. Alors quand j'ai parlé tantôt d'une 5 question de respect pour ce que nous faisons, je pense 6 que vous avez un bon exemple là. 7 20995 Vous avez certainement remarqué, par 8 exemple, qu'au début et à la fin de chaque vidéoclip on 9 donne les crédits, qui est le chanteur, qui est la 10 compagnie de disques. Alors comment se fait-il qu'on 11 trouve plus important de nommer à l'écran le 12 distributeur du morceau de plastique plutôt que le 13 créateur qui a fait la chanson? Dans ce sens-là nous 14 croyons qu'il y aurait un effort à faire pour souligner 15 la participation des Canadiens sur des canaux tels que 16 ceux-là. 17 20996 Évidemment, nous sommes une roue de 18 cette machine. De plus en plus ces canaux nous aident 19 à compenser pour ce qu'on ne retrouve peut-être pas 20 ailleurs. Mais, il ne faut pas se conter d'histoires, 21 le marché est souvent très aigu et nous avons besoin de 22 rejoindre l'ensemble de la population. C'est pour ça 23 que leur contribution ne remplacera jamais celle des 24 autres canaux. 25 20997 Alors nous voulons que Radio-Canada StenoTran 4527 1 participe, nous voulons que CTV et Global participent 2 parce que, quand tout le monde aura fait son petit bout 3 de chemin, les Canadiens, qu'ils soient âgés de 7 ans à 4 77 ans, auront en quelque part un contact avec la 5 culture canadienne. 6 20998 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, you are 7 still not getting to what I am asking you, which is 8 whether -- and maybe they shouldn't be doing 9 anything -- but whether they should be doing more to 10 promote Canadian stars; the singers as well as the 11 writers. You are right; we don't know much about the 12 composers and the writers. They very rarely get 13 interviewed. Sometimes we hear about them when they 14 die, really. 15 20999 So I am wondering if you have any 16 thoughts about how much further music television should 17 go beyond simply slapping on videos, but rather having 18 more intimate and interactive type of shows where 19 perhaps they interview or do other kinds of things 20 where the industry at large can be highlighted and we 21 can get to know more about the people who are part of 22 it. 23 21000 If you do not have any thoughts on it 24 now, you can file them later. 25 21001 M. VALIQUETTE: Eh bien, écoutez, je StenoTran 4528 1 comprends, mais j'aimerais quand même souligner un 2 point; c'est qu'évidemment, nous ne sommes pas des 3 diffuseurs, ce n'est pas notre compétence. Ce que nous 4 disons, c'est: s'il vous plaît, n'oublions pas le 5 créateur, parce que si vous n'avez pas quelqu'un qui 6 crée une chanson vous ne pouvez pas avoir de chanteurs, 7 vous ne pouvez pas avoir de compagnies de disques. 8 Alors nous voulons être considérés dans ce sens-là. 9 21002 À partir du moment où on va nous 10 considérer, on va nous demander de participer et, quand 11 on va nous demander de participer, on pourra avoir des 12 suggestions créatives et positives. Pour l'instant -- 13 j'ai entendu le mot "locomotive" hier utilisé 14 souvent -- nous, on se considère souvent la caboose de 15 ce métier-là parce qu'on est les derniers à qui on 16 pense. 17 21003 CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Merci beaucoup. 18 21004 C'est tout, Madame la Présidente. 19 21005 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions, 20 Monsieur Valiquette and Mr. Morley. 21 21006 Thank you for your participation. 22 Whether or not you take the train back home, I hope it 23 is a good trip. 24 21007 M. VALIQUETTE: Merci beaucoup, 25 madame. StenoTran 4529 1 21008 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Au revoir. C'était 2 un plaisir. 3 21009 MR. MORLEY: Thank you very much. 4 21010 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Madame la Secrétaire. 5 21011 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair. 6 The next presentation will be by Great North 7 Communications Limited. 8 21012 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning Mr. 9 Thomson and Ms. McNair. 10 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION 11 21013 MR. THOMSON: Good morning. 12 21014 THE CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead when you 13 are ready. 14 21015 MR. THOMSON: Thank you. 15 21016 Good morning, Madam Chairman and 16 Commissioners. My name is Andy Thompson and I am 17 President of Great North Communications of Edmonton. 18 Great North is both a producer and distributor of 19 Canadian programs through our subsidiary companies 20 Great North Productions and Great North International. 21 21017 I am joined here today by our legal 22 counsel, Kathleen McNair of Johnston Buchan I was 23 originally planning to be alone today, but after 24 appearing on the CFPTA panel several weeks ago, I 25 became spoiled. I am now accustomed to the luxury of StenoTran 4530 1 being accompanied by talented and experienced company. 2 21018 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am glad you are 3 not saying you came scared. 4 1010 5 21019 MR. THOMSON: Ms McNair has kindly 6 agreed to provide that today. 7 21020 Since it was established in 1987, 8 Great North has become a prolific producer and 9 distributor of Canadian programs. For 1998/99 we have 10 a confirmed production slate of 60 hours of TV 11 programming with total budgets of just over $14 12 million. The programming will be aired on many 13 different Canadian broadcasters, including the CBC, 14 CanWest/Global, Discovery, The Life Network, History 15 Television and Canal D. 16 21021 Great North International has a 17 catalogue of 150 mostly Canadian titles, for a total of 18 400 hours, which we sell to countries on all 19 continents. We project to sell over $3 million of 20 Canadian programming abroad in 1998/99. 21 21022 Although we are based in Edmonton, 22 Alberta, we have a coast-to-coast presence with 23 production offices in Vancouver and Halifax and a 24 business affairs office in Toronto. We employ more 25 than 30 people on a full-time basis and hundreds of StenoTran 4531 1 others who work on our productions on contract. 2 21023 Great North shares the goal that you 3 outlined in your opening remarks, Madam Chair. We, 4 too, want to see more Canadian programs, better quality 5 and increased profitability for both producers and 6 broadcasters. Most of those who have appeared before 7 you with opinions on these issues have agreed that the 8 goal must be to have more Canadians watching more 9 Canadian programs. Independent producers embrace this 10 hearing as a watershed for our industry. With mature 11 and increasingly well financed broadcast and production 12 industries, we feel that the time is right to make the 13 important decisions that will move us into the next 14 century. 15 21024 You will not be surprised to hear 16 that at Great North we feel that the best way to do 17 this is with a plan to increase the hours and quality 18 of the programming available to Canadians when they are 19 watching television in evening hours and in children's 20 prime time. You also won't be surprised to hear that 21 we feel that the main way to do this is by filling the 22 biggest hole in the broadcasting system, the private 23 broadcasters' peak viewing periods. 24 21025 You have already heard from many in 25 our industry why we feel that private broadcasters must StenoTran 4532 1 step up to the plate, so I won't repeat their analysis. 2 Today I want to tell you why Great North supports the 3 CFTPA's 10/10/10 plan. 4 21026 First, we believe that the time has 5 come for Canadians to reclaim our own prime time. In 6 order to do that, we must ensure that a significant 7 amount of the programs in the most popular categories 8 are Canadian. Since about 22 hours a week are 9 broadcast in the entertainment categories in peak time, 10 we feel that a phased-in target that will be, when 11 fully implemented, just under 50 per cent of this time 12 is a reasonable goal, particularly when broadcasters 13 tell us that their strategic advantage is Canadian 14 programming. 15 21027 Secondly, we believe that the 16 10/10/10 plan is reasonable and equitable to all 17 broadcasters and accomplishes the goal of moving the 18 bar higher for Canadian content. I would like to spend 19 some time on this point as we have heard representation 20 that the CFTPA's position is unrealistic. 21 21028 The plan will be phased in over four 22 years. In fact in the first year, 1999-2000, 23 broadcasters will be required to do seven hours per 24 week of under-represented program categories. This is 25 only a half hour more than what they would have been StenoTran 4533 1 expected to do under your Option B. Given the increase 2 of profits that the broadcasters have shown over the 3 last few years, this increase is not unreasonable. 4 21029 Much has been made that this will 5 mean that broadcasters will have to pay exorbitant 6 licence fees for Canadian programming. In fact the 7 10/10/10 plan gives the broadcasters all kinds of 8 choices from the high end distinctively Canadian drama 9 that draws the biggest licence fees to more industrial 10 drama, documentaries, music and variety programs that 11 command much lower fees. 12 21030 Speaking of documentaries, I would 13 like to add my voice to the chorus that documentaries, 14 as currently defined by Telefilm and the CTF, be 15 included in the programs that broadcasters can count 16 towards meeting their requirements in prime time. 17 Documentaries were virtually invented in Canada, 18 staring with the National Film Board in 1939, where, 19 but not when, I started my career, and continued 20 successfully by the growing Canadian independent 21 production industry. 22 21031 Documentaries help explain Canada to 23 ourselves and to the rest of the world and the rest of 24 the world to Canadians. Canadian documentaries have an 25 international reputation for excellence. They are StenoTran 4534 1 recognized by Telefilm as a legitimate genre of 2 production and the Commission itself included them as 3 one of the kinds of programming eligible for funding 4 from what was then the Cable Production Fund. 5 21032 I would now like to discuss the 6 tricky topic of bonusing Canadian programs. As you 7 know, Great North has made a number of suggestions 8 related to bonusing. First, let me point out that the 9 only reason to provide bonuses is to give encouragement 10 to certain kinds of programs. The CFTPA's proposal for 11 150 per cent bonusing is based on recognizing that if 12 we want to ensure that our prime time includes programs 13 that are identifiably Canadian, we must give the 14 broadcasters an incentive to do so. 15 21033 At Great North we agree that we need 16 to be careful about giving up shelf space. Only 17 programming that helps reflect a Canadian perspective 18 should be bonused and, as you know from our brief 19 submitted in response to the related Canadian content 20 recognition process, CRTC Public Notice 1998-59, we 21 feel that two kinds of programming deserve that kind of 22 bonusing: distinctively Canadian programs and regional 23 programs. Let me expand. 24 21034 We share the view expressed earlier 25 in these hearings by Epitome Pictures that there are in StenoTran 4535 1 fact three different classes of programming that can be 2 referred to as "Canadian" and that a system must be 3 established that gives different weight to each of 4 these three categories. We only differ with Epitome on 5 the weight that should be given to each category. 6 21035 The first and most important of these 7 three classes is distinctively Canadian programming, 8 programming that is created by Canadians, produced and 9 controlled by Canadians, is about Canada and reflects 10 and interprets Canada. We urge the Commission to make 11 use of the unique public/private broadcaster and 12 producer partnership that the newly-named Canadian 13 Television Fund represents to find a common definition 14 for distinctively Canadian programming. 15 21036 The second class of programming is 16 what we would define as commercial Canadian 17 programming. While such programs receive high point 18 counts, 8 or more out of 10, they do not necessarily 19 interpret or reflect Canada. This is Canadian 20 programming aimed at both a Canadian and an 21 international audience. 22 21037 The third type of programming would 23 be what is commonly known as industrial Canadian 24 programming. These programs meet the minimum CAVCO six 25 points, but it is unlikely that they are developed with StenoTran 4536 1 the needs of a Canadian audience in mind. This kind of 2 programming serves a significant purpose in providing 3 employment and training to members of our industry, but 4 does little to provide Canadian television viewers with 5 distinctly Canadian viewing alternatives. 6 21038 Further, in recognition of its 7 industry-building characteristics, it is this class of 8 programming that has the easiest access to both federal 9 and provincial tax credits. While we fully agree with 10 the CFTPA's 10/10/10 plan, we have proposed a bonusing 11 system which would treat an hour of distinctively 12 Canadian programming as an hour and a half, an hour of 13 commercial as an hour and an hour of industrial as a 14 half hour. 15 21039 The Commission must find ways of 16 encouraging Canadian private broadcasters to schedule 17 more distinctively Canadian programs like "Cold Squad", 18 "Jake and the Kid", "Emily of New Moon", "Traders" and 19 "Power Play" that truly reflect Canada in all its 20 diversity to fulfil their Canadian content obligations. 21 A 150 per cent bonus is the way to accomplish this. 22 21040 As a regional producer, I feel 23 equally strongly that the Canadian content in prime 24 time must not be dominated by programs about Toronto 25 and Montreal. Regional voices play an important role StenoTran 4537 1 in providing diversity, variety and regional cultural 2 reflection. 3 21041 However, the consolidation that has 4 taken place in recent years in the private Canadian 5 broadcasting industry has left very few independent 6 regional broadcasters in Canada. Programming decisions 7 are no longer being made in the regions but in Toronto 8 by programmers who, in most cases, are not in touch 9 with the regions and are not aware of the resources 10 available in the regions, both with regard to 11 infrastructure and stories. 12 21042 We don't think that it is only the 13 responsibility of funding agencies such as Telefilm and 14 the CTF to make these programmers look into the regions 15 of Canada. Their incentives for regional production 16 are a good start, but should be led by CRTC regulations 17 that encourage broadcasters to choose regional 18 programs. This is quite consistent with the 19 requirement in the Act that the programming in the 20 system come from local, regional, national and 21 international sources and it is important to note that 22 local and regional programming should not only be 23 limited to news and current affairs. 24 21043 For these reasons, Great North 25 proposes that a regional production that's currently StenoTran 4538 1 defined by both Telefilm and the CTF be given an 2 additional 50 per cent bonus above the bonus system I 3 described earlier. Finally, we wish to support the 4 proposal heard earlier from the SPTV that simultaneous 5 substitution be made available to Canadian specialty 6 channels. 7 21044 Simultaneous substitution for 8 specialty channels would enable many small and 9 medium-sized and regional Canadian producers to access 10 the large U.S. market. This market is especially 11 important for these kinds of programming as they are at 12 the bottom of the food chain when it comes to accessing 13 Canadian public funds. Both Telefilm and the CTF 14 commit 80 per cent of their funds to big budget drama, 15 leaving very little money for documentary and lifestyle 16 series, the lifeblood of many small and/or regional 17 producers. 18 21045 That concludes my comments, Madame la 19 Présidente. Ms McNair and I would be pleased to answer 20 any questions you might have. 21 21046 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. 22 Thomson. 23 21047 Commissioner McKendry. 24 21048 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Good morning. 25 21049 On page 3 of your written submission StenoTran 4539 1 in this proceeding, you set out two matters that I took 2 when I read your written submission as being central to 3 the problems that you see in the current system, and I 4 will quote the two sentences. 5 "What we do need is access to 6 more airtime on Canadian private 7 conventional broadcasters. And 8 we would certainly like to see 9 those broadcasters pay licence 10 fees, as they used to do, that 11 reflect both their increased 12 profitability and the value of 13 this programming." 14 21050 There is a reference to the licence 15 fees at the top of page 3 as well, where you note that 16 they have fallen six per cent from the average licence 17 fees paid prior to the establishment of the Fund. So, 18 I would like to talk about licence fees for a minute. 19 21051 Let me ask you about the CTV group's 20 position on this because they went to the trouble of 21 filing some evidence in this proceeding by a consulting 22 company to prove that, in their view, licence fees in 23 fact paid here are higher than they are in other 24 countries. Have you had a chance to take a look at 25 that evidence they filed? StenoTran 4540 1 21052 MR. THOMSON: No, I haven't. 2 21053 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let me just 3 give you a thumbnail sketch of it and if you don't feel 4 comfortable in responding to it because you haven't had 5 a chance to look at it, you can just tell me that. 6 21054 CTV, in their submission, concluded, 7 and I quote from their submission at page 22: 8 "Clearly, additional money for 9 production of Canadian drama 10 cannot come from higher licence 11 fees." 12 21055 They based that conclusion at least 13 in part on a study that they had done by a consulting 14 company that showed, in their view, that the CTV group 15 currently pays licence fees for 10 out of 10 Canadian 16 drama programming that meet or exceed the international 17 standard on a cost per potential viewer basis. I 18 noticed from your submission you have a lot of 19 experience in selling into the U.S. market and the 20 other parts of the foreign market. 21 21056 So, my first question to you, I 22 suppose, is: Is the cost per potential viewer a good 23 measure of evaluating licence fees paid, the argument 24 of CTV being the cost per potential viewer in the U.K., 25 the U.S. is less in fact than it is in Canada for this StenoTran 4541 1 type of programming? 2 21057 MR. THOMSON: I think a better 3 measurement would be the percentage of budget, because 4 clearly the objective is to fund the programming. If 5 one looked at it as a percentage of budget, the licence 6 fees that Canadian broadcasters pay are considerably 7 less than our experience with other countries. We are 8 producing two documentary series right now for 9 Discovery in the States and in both cases the licence 10 fees are approximately 50 per cent of the budget. 11 21058 Previously, we have produced programs 12 for U.K. broadcasters. In those cases, the licence 13 fees exceed 50 per cent of the budget. As you know, 14 Canadian licence fees for documentary programming are 15 approximately 15 per cent of budget. So, I am not sure 16 it's really fair to equate it to viewership because the 17 difficulty is: How do we fund the programming? 18 21059 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So, the 19 argument that in the U.S. when you divide that amount 20 that's 50 per cent of the budget by the population of 21 the United States and you get a number that's less than 22 it is here when you divide the budgets up here by our 23 population, really, in your view, I take it, it isn't a 24 valid basis on which to consider the adequacy of 25 licence fees here in Canada. StenoTran 4542 1 21060 MR. THOMSON: Yes. That's exactly 2 why we have the public funding programs we have, like 3 Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund. They are 4 there to make up for that discrepancy. 5 21061 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And I take it 6 you attribute the decline in licence fees to the 7 emergence of the Fund. Is that correct? 8 21062 MR. THOMSON: Yes, it's very clear in 9 information that we have from the Fund. It indicates 10 that the broadcaster licence fees in year one of the 11 Fund -- this is both licence fees and equity 12 combined -- total 29 per cent of budgets. In year two 13 they drop to 26 per cent and in year three they drop to 14 21 per cent. So, they have been dropping consistently 15 since the Fund was established. 16 21063 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I want to 17 come back in a moment to the other point you brought 18 out in terms of access to more air time, but just to 19 follow through while we are talking about selling into 20 the U.S. market and the foreign market, I was quite 21 interested in your written submission that, in terms of 22 your business, 39 per cent of your budgets seemingly 23 come from foreign sources, 27 per cent of that being 24 U.S. and 12 per cent being other countries, in 25 comparison to 18 per cent from Canadian broadcasters. StenoTran 4543 1 21064 So, it seems that you are a 2 production company that has managed to be successful in 3 accessing foreign markets as a financing source. Is 4 this a trend that, in your view, we are going to see 5 more and more in the future, where Canadian production 6 companies will be primarily relying on funds from other 7 countries? 8 21065 MR. THOMSON: Yes, I think it's 9 inevitable. I went through a personal sort of 10 transformation because when I left the Film Board in 11 1985, I was very much of the belief that making 12 programs for only Canadian audiences was our mission in 13 life and that's why we had a production industry. I 14 quickly realized that if you weren't able to access 15 foreign markets, you weren't going to be able to 16 finance enough programming to keep the company going. 17 21066 So, shortly after that, I think in 18 1990, that's when we set up our distribution company 19 specifically to give us access to foreign markets. 20 That has worked out very well for us, as you can see by 21 the numbers in our submission. 22 21067 I think it's important to note as 23 well that the public funds in Canada are going to be 24 able to contribute to less and less programming as time 25 goes by. Clearly, the funds aren't going to get any StenoTran 4544 1 bigger and the amount of programming being produced in 2 the country is going to grow as Canadian content 3 requirements increase, hopefully, and as new specialty 4 channels come onstream. 5 21068 So, I think right now -- and I am not 6 exactly sure, but I think of the Canadian content in 7 under-represented categories in prime time, about 30 8 per cent of that only is receiving money from the 9 public funds and that percentage is going to continue 10 to drop as the amount of programming continues to grow. 11 So, if producers aren't able to access foreign markets, 12 I don't see how they are going to finance their shows. 13 21069 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: How difficult 14 is it to access the U.S. market? Are there barriers 15 that go beyond what one would consider normal marketing 16 challenges associated with selling programs? 17 21070 MR. THOMSON: I think we have to 18 realize that as the Canadian specialty channels have 19 proliferated over the past five to eight years, that 20 has happened in every country in the world. So, the 21 market is increasing consistently. The U.S. is 22 certainly a tough nut to crack because they tend to be 23 a very insular nation in terms of their programming. 24 They don't accept a whole lot of non-U.S. programming, 25 but the specialty channels do. StenoTran 4545 1 21071 We do a lot of work with A&E and we 2 work with Discovery and that has a tremendous boon to 3 our company, but also internationally. There ares new 4 specialty channels and cable channels opening up 5 regularly. They are all looking for programming and it 6 isn't difficult. If the quality of programming is 7 high, it isn't difficult to sell it into the 8 international marketplace. 9 21072 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: In your 10 written submission you say, and I quote again: 11 "We cannot afford to simply see 12 ourselves in ways that are 13 attractive to others." 14 21073 I take it from that that you see -- I 15 am going to put some words in your mouth and you can 16 tell me whether they should be pulled back out. I take 17 it from that you see that the public funding that 18 exists here in Canada should focus on that kind of 19 programming and there is a market for the other kind of 20 programming that is sufficient to fund that 21 programming. Have I gone too far? 22 21074 MR. THOMSON: No. I have been a 23 major proponent of that. As you know, I sit on the 24 Board of the Fund and we have had lengthy discussions 25 about that and have agreed -- and the guidelines will StenoTran 4546 1 be announced shortly -- that certainly the licence fee 2 program should be reserved for distinctively Canadian 3 programming. 4 21075 On the other hand, it's important to 5 realize as well that one can make distinctively 6 Canadian programming that reflects Canada and fulfils 7 all the requirements of that definition without 8 accessing the public funds. We are at the very moment 9 in the middle of production of a very large budget 10 one-hour documentary about Alexander MacKenzie. 11 1030 12 21076 It was submitted to Telefilm, and 13 unfortunately it was one of the projects that got 14 turned down by Telefilm, and therefore became -- we 15 were too late to get into the licence fee program. So 16 we had a big hole in our financial structure, 17 obviously. 18 21077 Nothing could be more distinctively 19 Canadian than a documentary about Alexander MacKenzie. 20 But we realize that he was born in Scotland, so we 21 found ourselves a Scottish co-producer. The Scottish 22 co-producer sold the project to the BBC. The BBC came 23 in and now we have a fully financed documentary about 24 Alexander MacKenzie that doesn't have a single penny of 25 Canadian public funds in it other than the tax credit. StenoTran 4547 1 So it can be done. 2 21078 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: When we heard 3 from Mr. Stursberg, the chair of the fund, I took it 4 that the direction the fund is heading in is to solve 5 the problem of too much demand for too little money by, 6 I think he called it, raising the bar in the sense that 7 they will only fund programming in the future that is 8 super Canadian or a very high level of distinctively 9 Canadian. 10 21079 I take it you wouldn't see that as 11 problem as a production company because you believe 12 these other sources of funding are available. 13 21080 MR. THOMSON: No, I am not saying it 14 is a problem at all. Two things are going to happen; 15 one is Canadian producers are going to reconfigure 16 their programming to become more distinctively Canadian 17 in order to access the fund. I don't think that is a 18 bad thing. I think that is a great thing. 19 21081 I think if we make a percentage of 20 what we do as distinctively Canadian as possible that 21 reflects the values and the culture of the country, 22 that is a really positive move forward. At the same 23 time, we are totally aware of the fact that it is 24 possible to finance all kinds of programming and, even 25 as I said before, possible to finance distinctively StenoTran 4548 1 Canadian programming without relying on the fund. 2 21082 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let me ask 3 you now about your comment that, and again I will 4 quote: "What we do need is access to more airtime in 5 Canadian private conventional broadcasters." 6 21083 What are you proposing we do with 7 respect to that? Does that go to the comments this 8 morning with respect to supporting the proposal of the 9 CFPTA, or did you have something else in mind there 10 about access? 11 21084 MR. THOMSON: No. I was supporting 12 the CFPTA comments. I think that the amount of 13 Canadian content in prime time has to increase. We 14 have the lowest amount of domestic programming in 15 under-represented categories in prime time than almost 16 any civilized country in the world that has its own 17 broadcasting system and production industry. I think 18 that is unacceptable. 19 21085 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: The proposals 20 from the producers association would address, in your 21 view, what needs to be done. 22 21086 MR. THOMSON: Yes. I mean we are 23 talking about gradually increasing. As I said in my 24 oral remarks, your Option B would have them at 6.5 25 hours. Our proposal begins next year at seven and then StenoTran 4549 1 gradually increases over four years to 10. I think 2 that is quite reasonable and fair. 3 21087 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Now, I know 4 you touched on this this morning. What we have heard 5 in the course of the hearing from the Canadian 6 Association of Broadcasters and from the CTV group 7 yesterday was, well, you know, that is a nice 8 suggestion, but if we put that in place we wouldn't 9 have a business left, or at least our business would be 10 so unprofitable that it would be a major problem for 11 us. 12 21088 Now, I take it you -- I don't know 13 whether you happened to hear the CTV group yesterday. 14 What is it with their position that still -- that 15 doesn't deter you from your view that the CFPTA 16 proposal is viable? 17 21089 MR. THOMSON: I guess the first bone 18 of contention I would have with the CAB position is I 19 don't think that Canadian programming has to be a 20 money-losing proposition. Canadian programming, if 21 scheduled properly, if promoted properly, can in fact 22 attract an audience. 23 21090 I understand that "Power Play", for 24 example, all its advertising slots are sold out already 25 and it hasn't even gone to air. "Due South" is always StenoTran 4550 1 sold out. So I am not sure why it is costing them 2 money. I think we have to be patient and give it a 3 little bit of time. 4 21091 I think if "Power Play" had Tom 5 Cruise in the lead role when it goes on air tonight, 6 virtually everybody in Canada would watch it. 7 21092 What we are missing is not the 8 quality of programming or the calibre of production, it 9 is really the star system. The reason we don't have a 10 star system is we don't put our stars in prime time in 11 peak. We put them in shoulder. We put them late and 12 we put them opposite American hits. It is really hard 13 to build a star system when people don't know about the 14 stars. 15 21093 But if we force the broadcasters to 16 exhibit distinctively Canadian programming in prime 17 time with Canadian stars, they are going to develop the 18 same kind of following that American stars have, and 19 then it will be easy for them to sell out their 20 advertising and generate exactly the same amount of 21 revenue from Canadian programming as they generate from 22 American programming. 23 21094 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: In this vein, 24 let me ask you about another statement in your written 25 submission, and I will quote it: StenoTran 4551 1 "We see the financial health of 2 both the production and 3 broadcasting industries as a 4 secondary objective that ensures 5 that an infrastructure is in 6 place that can meet the goals of 7 the Broadcasting Act." 8 21095 Just elaborate on that a bit because 9 it leaves me with the impression that we should, as a 10 Commission, downplay the financial health -- and I am 11 not sure to what extent you mean -- and give a much 12 higher priority, or a higher priority, to the 13 objectives of the Broadcasting Act with respect to 14 content and so on. 15 21096 Just how secondary is secondary 16 objective? 17 21097 MR. THOMSON: Well, I agree with what 18 I said. I think the primary objective of regulation is 19 to ensure that Canadians have a broadcasting system 20 that reflects Canada and interprets Canada. At the 21 same time, you can't have that if you don't have the 22 infrastructure to provide it. So you need a system 23 that certainly enables broadcasters to survive in order 24 to act as the delivery of that programming; and you 25 certainly need a system that enables independent StenoTran 4552 1 producers to survive in order to create that 2 programming. 3 21098 So, while it is a secondary 4 objective, it is a very necessary and important 5 objective because without it you wouldn't be able to 6 accomplish the first and most important objective. 7 21099 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I take it you 8 think the broadcasters have it the other way around, 9 the primary objective is the financial health and the 10 secondary objective is the Broadcasting Act objectives? 11 21100 MR. THOMSON: Yes. I think the 12 broadcasters are sometimes maybe too concerned with 13 their shareholders. I guess our concern is with your 14 shareholders, and your shareholders are the people of 15 Canada who watch Canadian television. 16 21101 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: In your 17 written submission you said, and I will quote again: 18 "We strongly believe that 19 regional voices play an 20 important role in providing 21 diversity, variety and regional 22 cultural expression to the 23 Canadian broadcasting system." 24 21102 I wanted to discuss with you what we 25 could do to solve that problem. I think, if you were StenoTran 4553 1 here yesterday, you heard Mr. Asper say that he agreed 2 that we could do more with respect to regional 3 programming. Now, in your oral comments this morning 4 you have come forward with some specific suggestions. 5 21103 Could you just expand a bit? I 6 wasn't quite sure that I -- there is going to be a 50 7 per cent -- or you are proposing a 50 per cent bonus 8 for regional programming. Did I understand that 9 correctly? 10 21104 MR. THOMSON: That is correct. 11 21105 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And what 12 other measures did you have in mind? There was an 13 envelope you were proposing as well? 14 21106 MR. THOMSON: No. I am sorry I 15 missed Mr. Asper's comments on that because I would 16 have agreed with him, which would have been one of the 17 few times yesterday that I would have. 18 21107 As you know, Telefilm has an 19 incentive for regional production and the cable fund, 20 or the CTF, has an incentive for regional production. 21 But the difficulty there is it doesn't really 22 "incentivize" the broadcasters. It makes it easier for 23 a producer in the regions to finance a show. You get 24 an additional 5 per cent from the cable fund if you are 25 a regional producer. But that doesn't make any StenoTran 4554 1 difference to the broadcaster. He doesn't really care 2 how the producer finds that extra money. 3 21108 So I think we need some other kind of 4 incentive to encourage broadcasters to look into the 5 regions, particularly so now with all the 6 consolidation, that all the decision-making for most of 7 the broadcasters in Canada are being made in central 8 Canada. That wasn't true five or six years ago, but it 9 is very, very true now. Broadcasters in Edmonton, that 10 I used to be able to go to and sell programming to, 11 aren't able to make those decisions any more. They now 12 have to refer to Toronto. 13 21109 So it seemed to me, and I am not 14 being overly sophisticated with the regulatory process, 15 it seemed to me that some kind of bonus for regional 16 production with regard to the calculation of hours of 17 Canadian content might be a way to encourage 18 broadcasters to look out into the regions. 19 21110 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: The 50 per 20 cent bonus, then, means that if one does an hour of 21 regional programming, an extra half hour is credited, 22 is that -- 23 21111 MR. THOMSON: That is what I am 24 proposing. 25 21112 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: What would be StenoTran 4555 1 the maximum bonus that would be available to a Canadian 2 programming under your proposals, assuming that it was 3 a regional programming? 4 21113 MR. THOMSON: Under my proposal, the 5 maximum bonus would be 200 per cent, if it was a 6 distinctively Canadian program broadcast in peak time 7 and shot in the regions. Now, I know this issue was 8 visited yesterday a few times. But I must tell you 9 that that is extremely difficult to do. There are not 10 suddenly going to be dozens and dozens of big budget 11 drama series shot in the regions because of a 50 per 12 cent incentive, but it might help. It might help move 13 a little further toward that. 14 21114 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So we 15 shouldn't concern ourselves unduly that such a high 16 bonusing system would in effect result in a very low 17 amount of Canadian content because the likelihood of 18 much regional programming achieving that 200 bonus 19 would be small? 20 21115 MR. THOMSON: Yes. I think you would 21 be very lucky to see, you know, five or six major big 22 budget drama series shot in the regions where the 23 broadcasters would benefit from that bonus. So it is 24 not going to reduce the 10 hours by very much; and, as 25 you also saw in my submission, I suggested that StenoTran 4556 1 industrial programming only count for 50 per cent. So, 2 if a broadcaster chooses, and many of them do, to 3 schedule industrial programming, that will, in effect, 4 open up shelf space within our 10-hour requirement to 5 accommodate the bonusing for regional production and 6 for distinctively Canadian production. 7 21116 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Given your 8 extensive involvement in the international markets, 9 particularly the U.S. market, I would be interested in 10 your thoughts about the challenges facing your company, 11 your industry and the broadcasting system here in 12 Canada with respect to the conversion to digital 13 television which is under way, or just under way, I 14 suppose, in the United States, and we are told will be 15 significantly under way within the next year. 16 21117 As a production company, what does 17 that mean for you and what does it mean for the 18 Canadian broadcasting system? 19 21118 MR. THOMSON: That is a difficult 20 question. It is a very complicated issue and I really 21 haven't had a chance to wrap my head around it a great 22 deal. 23 21119 What I do know is that we have been 24 producing our programming in digital for a number of 25 years now. We have realized that is what we have to do StenoTran 4557 1 in order to sell to the international marketplace. In 2 fact, when we shoot on film, we always shoot on wide 3 screen to make our programming attractive to high 4 definition television, when that comes in. So we are 5 certainly taking that into account. 6 21120 Beyond that, it's something that I 7 haven't really thought about a great deal. 8 21121 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: To sell into 9 the Canadian market, do you need to produce it in 10 digital in the wide screen format or is that a demand 11 of the international market? 12 21122 MR. THOMSON: It is a demand of the 13 European market. 14 21123 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Do you think 15 the production industry is making that adaptation that 16 you have already made? Is that a typical -- 17 21124 MR. THOMSON: I think we heard 18 examples earlier from Linda Schuyler at Epitome that 19 she has equipped her studio for "Riverdale" entirely as 20 a digital studio. I think everything that is produced 21 in most of the major Canadian production companies now 22 is produced in digital. I think we are on stream. We 23 are ready to go. 24 21125 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you 25 very much for answering my questions. StenoTran 4558 1 21126 Those are my questions, Madam Chair. 2 21127 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner 3 Pennefather. 4 21128 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you. 5 21129 Good morning. I wanted just to 6 clarify a central point. You said that Cancon in prime 7 time has to increase. Your presentation, and that of 8 CFPTA, is very clear that the kind of Cancon in prime 9 time that has to increase is the distinctively 10 Canadian, but that distinctively Canadian Cancon 11 depends on public funds, which public funds you say are 12 at risk. What will be the effect, in other words, of 13 this increase of Canadian content in the highly 14 distinct -- very distinct Canadian genre of 10 out of 15 10, 12 out of 10 on the public funds? Will they be 16 there to handle that increase? 17 21130 MR. THOMSON: Well, I think, first of 18 all, that the system can afford to produce more 19 distinctively Canadian programming. A lot of the money 20 in the funds last year was spent on programming, that I 21 wouldn't call distinctively Canadian, qualified for the 22 funds under the existing guidelines. So if we simply 23 used the same amount of public funds and by changing 24 the guidelines to have the same draw on the fund last 25 year, we would probably be doubling, I suspect, the StenoTran 4559 1 amount of distinctively Canadian programming produced 2 by the fund, which probably would be about what would 3 be required to meet the 10/10 plan suggested by the 4 CFPTA. 5 21131 I also want again to say, and using 6 my Alexander MacKenzie example, that it is possible to 7 finance distinctively Canadian programming without 8 public funds. 9 21132 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So your 10 point that only 30 per cent of Cancon in 11 under-represented is in prime time has public dollars 12 is not an concern. You feel that, in fact, the highly 13 distinct Canadian will also be possible using other 14 resources? 15 21133 MR. THOMSON: Well, as I said, two 16 things, yes. I think it is possible to finance 17 distinctively Canadian from other sources; and I think 18 by removing the non-distinctively Canadian, by not 19 allowing them access to the fund, the fund will be able 20 to go much further than it has ever before in terms of 21 funding the truly distinctively Canadian programming. 22 21134 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay. I 23 am just concerned about how these definitions will or 24 will not restrict what eventually what we can call 25 Canadian content for the purpose of more Canadian StenoTran 4560 1 content in prime time in the long run. 2 21135 MR. THOMSON: I think that is one of 3 the advantages of the 10/10/10 plan, in that 4 broadcasters can approach that in any way they want. 5 They can do, you know, commercial Canadian programming 6 that would qualify for 100 per cent recognition in 7 terms of hours, probably which could be financed 8 exclusively without using the fund, but they would have 9 to do one hour for every hour. 10 21136 On the other hand, if they wanted to 11 do a distinctively Canadian program which would draw on 12 the fund, they get to count an hour and a half; and if 13 they shot it in Edmonton, they get to count two hours. 14 21137 The flexibility of our proposal 15 enables them to meet that requirement in a whole bunch 16 of different ways, not exclusively and entirely with 17 the distinctively Canadian programming that requires 18 public funds. 19 21138 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Many 20 intervenors have talked to us about what constitutes a 21 Canadian program and one of the aspects that comes to 22 mind is one wherein the program is primarily for a 23 Canadian audience, although it may be about a subject 24 that is not Canadian specifically. There is various 25 mixes of how this definition comes forward. But in StenoTran 4561 1 your experience, and not just with your recent project, 2 the Alexander MacKenzie project, but over the years of 3 making documentaries, if you have foreign partners, are 4 you still comfortable that your product will ultimately 5 be distinctively Canadian in terms of its being 6 primarily made for a Canadian audience, even though the 7 large part of its financing is coming from elsewhere? 8 21139 MR. THOMSON: Yes, I am confident. 9 That depends on the partner and it depends on the 10 percentage of the budget they bring to it. Obviously, 11 if we are doing a series for Discovery in the states 12 and they are bringing 50 per cent of the financing to 13 the project, they are going to call the tune to a 14 certain degree. But, if it is another broadcaster who 15 is bringing 30 per cent or 20 per cent, which is still 16 a significant piece of the puzzle, they have less and 17 less influence and less and less control. 18 21140 I am not concerned about us not being 19 able to make the programming we want to make because we 20 are reliant on the foreign marketplace. I think it is 21 quite possible to use that marketplace to continue to 22 produce distinctively Canadian programming. 23 21141 I think something like "Anne of Green 24 Gables" is a great example of that. There is nothing 25 more distinctively Canadian than that; and yet that StenoTran 4562 1 show probably, in retrospect, could have been financed 2 entirely in the international marketplace because it 3 sold to countries all over the world. 4 21142 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Yesterday, 5 I don't know if you were here throughout the full 6 discussion with CTV, but we certainly had a lengthy 7 discussion on the point of quality. In the oral 8 presentation it was said that the CFPTA proposals are 9 unrealistic in part because of their new definition of 10 first run. I will get back to in a moment. But they 11 also say that these proposals would force us to 12 sacrifice quality for quantity. What is your comment 13 on that statement? 14 21143 MR. THOMSON: Well, I don't think 15 that there is anything wrong with the quality of 16 Canadian programming. I think that shows like 17 "Traders" and "Cold Squad" are in every way the equal 18 of our comparable programming coming out of other 19 countries. 20 21144 I just got back from MIPCOM on the 21 weekend. I think the fact that Canada is the second 22 largest exporter of television programming in the world 23 is proof of that. Countries all around the world are 24 buying Canadian programming; in many cases, preferring 25 to buy Canadian programming over American programming. StenoTran 4563 1 21145 So I think the only difference, as I 2 said earlier, is the whole issue of the star system. 3 If we could put well known names in our Canadian 4 series, Canadian audiences would flock to them and 5 would find them every bit as attractive as a comparable 6 American show. That will come with time as we get more 7 exposure for Canadian performers. 8 21146 So, I am not sure that what we are 9 suggesting is going to cost more money. 10 21147 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I think 11 part of the discussion yesterday was, and it ended up 12 to being an agreement, that what we may be looking at, 13 if we pursued their proposal, were fewer hours with 14 Canadian shows produced with higher production values 15 which would draw larger audiences. That was certainly 16 part of the discussion yesterday. 17 21148 MR. THOMSON: Yes, and I will say 18 again I don't think we need to put a whole lot of 19 money, more money into Canadian production to draw 20 larger audiences. 21 1050 22 21149 I think we have to promote, schedule 23 and create a star system that will attract that 24 audience. I don't think we need to spend more money. 25 I am not sure that we need to shoot Canadian television StenoTran 4564 1 shows in 35 millimetre. I do not think the average 2 person across the country would notice the difference 3 between 16 millimetre and 35 millimetre, but they would 4 certainly know the difference between a name actor and 5 somebody he has never heard of before. 6 21150 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: There is 7 that star system, those two words. I assume you are 8 not referring to CBC's constellations. But this keeps 9 coming up year after year, again and again, in the 10 English market. You started to talk about it. What 11 are we going to do about it? What specifically do you 12 recommend to make sure we have a star system seeing, I 13 think you said this morning, it's the missing link? 14 21151 MR. THOMSON: I think in the CFPTA 15 proposal and in the Great North proposal we are 16 addressing that. By having more Canadian programming 17 in peak prime, Canadian stars are going to be exposed 18 to a much larger degree to Canadian audiences, and that 19 will begin to generate a star system. 20 21152 The CFPTA has encouraged broadcasters 21 to produce promotional programming liken "Entertainment 22 Now" in order to give further promotion to Canadian 23 stars and we have agreed that we think that should 24 count toward their Canadian content. 25 21153 We have also made several proposals, StenoTran 4565 1 both to the CTF and also to the CAB, with regard to 2 promotional expenditures and how we can ensure that 3 more dollars are spent promoting that. So we are 4 totally aware of that and we are trying to solve that 5 problem on many fronts. 6 21154 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So it's 7 not just by bringing up American stars like Mr. Cruise 8 to participate. 9 21155 MR. THOMSON: No, absolutely not. 10 21156 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And 11 recreating "Entertainment Tonight" Canadian style. 12 21157 MR. THOMSON: Recreating 13 "Entertainment Tonight" with Canadian content would 14 help a great deal. 15 21158 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Finally 16 then, back to your take on the first run discussion 17 yesterday wherein we were told that your proposals, 18 because of the proposal regarding first run, are 19 unrealistic and there is no way the system can fund 20 them -- and I am quoting the oral presentation at page 21 13 -- could you clarify what your position is then in 22 proposing the credit and the 10/10/10 proposal on the 23 basis of first run? 24 21159 MR. THOMSON: I think we are both 25 flexible and confused on that issue. It was StenoTran 4566 1 interesting to note that Mr. Fecan was arguing that 2 they should be able to have more runs. At the same 3 time, Ms Mawhinney from Global said that it was very 4 difficult for her to draw an audience for a second run, 5 and that's why she was arguing for longer episode 6 series, going up to 22 episodes. So we are a little 7 confused. 8 21160 However I think our position would be 9 that if a broadcaster could make a compelling case that 10 it would be good for the system and would continue to 11 draw an audience and gain a bigger audience by having 12 more runs, we would support that. I am not sure that 13 we would support bonusing past the two runs that we 14 have proposed, but certainly recognition towards the 15 ten hours for additional runs. If in fact this is 16 going to increase the audience and attract more 17 viewers, we would not have a problem with that. 18 21161 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay, 19 thank you. 20 21162 Thank you Madam Chair. 21 21163 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner 22 Cardozo. 23 21164 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you, 24 Madam Chair. 25 21165 First, I just wanted to follow up the StenoTran 4567 1 discussion on the star system that you have had with 2 Commissioner Pennefather as well as Commissioner 3 McKendry. You said that part of the problem -- or the 4 problem -- was that broadcasters don't schedule the 5 stars in time prime, or peak time. I will challenge 6 that because I look at the schedules, and take any of 7 the schedules that we have had in the past few weeks, 8 and they have programs like "Traders", "Due South", "22 9 Minutes", "Emily of New Moon" across the board in prime 10 time. So we are seeing some of these stars now, and we 11 have seen them over the years. And I think of the 12 stars that I am aware of over the years and I tend to 13 have seen them over prime time. So surely that's not 14 the only issue. 15 21166 MR. THOMSON: No, that's not the only 16 issue, though I would suggest that there might be a 17 better time slot for "Traders" than directly opposite 18 "ER" on CTV, and it probably would get a bigger 19 audience if it was given a chance to compete against a 20 less powerful competitor. 21 21167 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But that's not 22 an issue of timing in prime time's; it's an issue of 23 scheduling versus -- 24 21168 MR. THOMSON: Yeah. So the issues 25 are scheduling, promotion -- those are the big two StenoTran 4568 1 issues; scheduling and promotion. 2 21169 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In terms of 3 promotion, you talked about "Entertainment Now". I 4 would take it that, like many of the other producers, 5 you would not be in favour of a promotion program 6 counting as Canadian content as well as advertising, 7 like short advertisements? 8 21170 MR. THOMSON: We would be in favour 9 of a show like "E Now" counting toward Canadian content 10 requirements. I do not think we would be in favour of 11 promos, short promotional clips. But a show that was 12 devoted to the promotion of Canadian programming, we 13 would be happy to see that count towards the 14 conditions. 15 21171 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. One of 16 the issues that you have talked about I think more 17 today than in your written submission was the issue of 18 regional diversity, and I think the recommendation you 19 made is a useful one in terms of responding to what we 20 have heard a lot during the town hall meetings and 21 during the hearings here and through the written 22 submissions we had, especially those from individual 23 Canadians across the country. 24 21172 The related issue that I find not 25 addressed, and I wonder if the same thing would work, StenoTran 4569 1 is in relation to cultural and racial diversity. We 2 have heard from various groups that Canadian 3 programming doesn't reflect Canadians. You talk about 4 distinctively Canadian programming that reflects 5 Canada. Some people would argue, or have argued before 6 us, that the kinds of stuff that we talk about being 7 distinctively Canadian, most it have does not reflect 8 all of Canada; it reflects some of Canada and tends to 9 consistently leave out some of Canada. 10 21173 So I wonder if you would look at a 11 similar sort of bonusing or incentive system. In our 12 public notice we talked about reflecting the diversity 13 of Canadians, and one of the issues that was brought to 14 our attention was not just in what we see on screen in 15 terms of the programs, the people, the characters, the 16 themes, the issues; but also the producers: Is there a 17 diversity in terms of the producers who end up 18 producing and who get the benefits of the various funds 19 and who get on the air? 20 21174 So I wonder if the kinds of bonusing 21 you have defined here that take place with Telefilm and 22 CTF and that you're recommending for the CRTC, whether 23 you think that that is a viable instrument -- if you 24 think this is an issue that should be addressed -- that 25 would deal with diversity in programming both from the StenoTran 4570 1 point of view of what's on air as well as the 2 producers, similar to the way you're addressing 3 regional productions. 4 21175 MR. THOMSON: It's a good question 5 and I am not sure that I have a ready answer. I think 6 our concern about that direction would be the 7 fragmentation of the funds, and certainly we on the 8 board of the fund are concerned about creating too many 9 envelopes because it just becomes unmanageable. 10 21176 I think I also would agree with Mr. 11 Fecan yesterday when he said that programming that 12 reflects Canada will, of its very nature, reflect the 13 cultural diversity of Canada. And I think everybody is 14 sensitive to that and aware of that. 15 21177 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But do you 16 think it happens? 17 21178 MR. THOMSON: Well, I can only speak 18 from my experience in terms of what we produce. We are 19 in the middle of producing a series for Baton about the 20 experience of a young Chinese boy growing up in 21 Edmonton called "The Dim Sum Diaries", which we think 22 terrific. We are producing a biography series for 23 History Television which includes people like John 24 Ware, the black cowboy; Rose Fortune, the black woman 25 from the States who worked on the underground railroad; StenoTran 4571 1 Pauline Johnson, the native entertainer; Gabriel 2 Dumont, the Métis soldier, I guess he was. 3 21179 Of that series -- and we have been 4 very, very conscious in working with our broadcaster to 5 make sure that this series, which is 16 episodes a 6 year, reflects the cultural diversity of Canada. It 7 includes English Canadians, French Canadians, blacks, 8 natives -- the entire diversity. So we, certainly at 9 our company, try to do that and our experience has 10 been, particularly in this case, with the broadcaster 11 we are working with, that has been very much their 12 concern and we have worked very hard to ensure there is 13 a balance in that series. 14 21180 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Other than 15 envelopes I am wondering if there is another way of 16 addressing it, just through bonusing or incentives or 17 something but, that aside, you are basically saying 18 there is not a problem? 19 21181 MR. THOMSON: Well, we don't have a 20 problem at Great North because we consider that to be 21 very much part of our mandate, to reflect the diversity 22 of our culture, and we impose that on all the 23 programming we choose to do. 24 21182 I worry about envelopes because -- 25 21183 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I am not StenoTran 4572 1 suggesting envelopes. 2 21184 MR. THOMSON: Okay. 3 21185 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But are there 4 other ways of providing incentives? I don't think you 5 are suggesting a regional envelope either. 6 21186 MR. THOMSON: No, envelopes are a 7 concern because then you end up having to fund 8 programming that is not -- 9 21187 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: No matter what 10 you fund, you give certain types of bonuses for certain 11 things and if there is a certain kind of 12 under-representativeness, then that's an area where one 13 provides an incentive. 14 21188 MR. THOMSON: Yeah. I personally 15 would not be against a bonus kind of incentive for 16 multicultural programming at all. I would not have a 17 problem with that. 18 21189 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I would not 19 call it multicultural programming because that set 20 somebody off yesterday on quite a trip. 21 21190 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think we will 22 begin impeachment proceedings. 23 21191 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I did not mean 24 to be disrespectful but it was an issue we weren't 25 talking about. We were simply talking about StenoTran 4573 1 programming that reflects diversity, which I think 2 reflects Canada, exactly what you are talking about, 3 and we were just talking about how well do you reflect 4 Canada and do you reflect some aspects or most aspects. 5 21192 MR. THOMSON: We try as hard as we 6 can to reflect Canada and certainly from the 7 perspective of Alberta, where we come from, and that's 8 very much an objective of our programming department. 9 21193 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you, 10 Madam Chair. 11 21194 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner 12 Wilson. 13 21195 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Mr. Thomson, I 14 wonder if you could just help me with something you 15 said in your oral presentation this morning. It may be 16 just because we have been here for so many days that I 17 am kind of slow this morning, but I just do not get the 18 comment that you made about simultaneous substitution. 19 It's on page 24 of your oral remarks. You say: 20 "Simultaneous substitution for 21 specialty channels would enable 22 many small and medium sized and 23 regional Canadian producers to 24 access the large U.S. market." 25 21196 I am just wondering if you could StenoTran 4574 1 explain to me how that happens. It's probably really 2 simple and I will feel embarrassed after asking it. 3 21197 MR. THOMSON: I am glad you asked. I 4 was hoping you would because, in order to get my speech 5 under the ten-minute limit I had to eliminate a couple 6 of paragraphs that expanded on that. 7 21198 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You would think 8 we set this up or something. 9 21199 THE CHAIRPERSON: A bonus in reverse. 10 21200 MR. THOMSON: No. It is kind of like 11 the reverse of the simulcasting with conventional 12 broadcasters, but what happens is that we will often 13 sell a program to A&E or TLC or one of the U.S. 14 specialty channels that comes into Canada. And of 15 course, because they come into Canada, they have to 16 acquire Canadian rights, but because they are not a 17 Canadian broadcaster that does not enable us to trigger 18 any of the production funds or anything like that. 19 21201 Now, what will often happen is that 20 we can negotiate with one of those broadcasters a first 21 window for a Canadian broadcaster in order to be able 22 to access the Canadian public fund. However, that 23 becomes a very difficult negotiation because a window 24 could be as much as a year and the Canadian broadcaster 25 might insist that there be a one-year holdback before StenoTran 4575 1 the American channel is allowed to program that show. 2 21202 That becomes a huge disincentive for 3 the American broadcaster, particularly in the case of 4 documentaries which are quite often timely and topical. 5 So under those restrictions they normally walk away 6 from it. So we are stuck with the choice of either 7 selling it to the U.S. broadcaster for probably a 8 higher licence fee but not being able to access public 9 funds in Canada, or selling it to the Canadian 10 broadcaster, accessing public funds, but not being able 11 to sell it into the American market. 12 21203 By having simultaneous substitution 13 for specialty channels we could do both. We could sell 14 it to both broadcasters, we could find it easier to 15 finance that kind of production. As I pointed out, 16 that kind of production has a difficult time accessing 17 public funds anyway because of the huge reserve for 18 drama. So it would make the American marketplace 19 available to producers of that kind of programming 20 which right now we have to choose one or the other. 21 21204 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am glad it 22 was complicated. Thank you for the explanation. I was 23 not aware of that. Thank you. 24 21205 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Thomson, when 25 you say 50 per cent for industrial programming, which StenoTran 4576 1 you describe as something that meets 60/10, you mean 2 that that hour would be half an hour? 3 21206 MR. THOMSON: Yeah. My concern is 4 that that kind of programming takes up valuable shelf 5 space for the more reflective Canadian programming. I 6 think we can all remember back to three years ago, or 7 four years ago -- I am not sure when, but there was a 8 year when CTV fulfilled its entire Canadian content 9 obligations with industrial programming or service 10 production. 11 21207 I was on the board of the fund at 12 that point and I remember getting a breakdown -- it was 13 quite fascinating -- of the various broadcasters' draw 14 on the public funds. In that particular year, CTV 15 accessed $38,000 of the Telefilm fund. That was all 16 for development. There was no production in CTV that 17 year that used any public funds whatsoever. In that 18 same particular year, Global was accessing $12 million 19 and WIC was accessing $7 million, but CTV was accessing 20 $38,000 for development. 21 21208 So I think by only giving them a half 22 hour credit or a 50 per cent credit for that kind of 23 programming it will encourage them to fill up the shelf 24 space with the industrial programming. 25 21209 THE CHAIRPERSON: The reason for my StenoTran 4577 1 question is the following: We have heard a lot of 2 10/10/10, 7/7/7; whether you should reduce it with 3 bonuses, et cetera. And today, just so that we all 4 understand how difficult it is to say, what's more, 5 what's less, what does it end up being; you say at page 6 9 that the 10/10/10 proposal is only a half an hour 7 more than what one would have to do under option B; 8 correct? 9 21210 Now, if I look at option B for 10 1999-2000, it's 6.5 hours, so that's correct. But now 11 option B is six to 12. The CFPTA's is seven to 11, so 12 you lose two hours. And there is, as far as I 13 understand, no requirement for how many runs you can 14 get away with. You know commercially people will watch 15 it, so that is also less severe than the 10/10/10 which 16 I think is CFPTA's two runs, and now you are saying 17 that industrial programming, which would fit a whole 18 hour in here, is only half an hour. 19 21211 So I can demonstrate to you that -- I 20 don't know if you will agree or your lawyer will 21 agree -- that it's not just a half an hour more because 22 there is a reduction of flexibility. It is more. The 23 10/10/10 proposal, as it's put before us, is more than 24 what we have. 25 21212 I am not saying we have a problem StenoTran 4578 1 with that. It's just very difficult to arrive at these 2 conclusions that easily when you start bonusing, 3 cutting hours, cutting the period of time, and now 4 giving half to one hour. So I do not know whether you 5 would still hold to your comment that it's only half an 6 hour more than option B. 7 21213 MR. THOMSON: Well if you took the 8 CFPT proposal and laid over it our proposal with regard 9 to the regional bonuses and the reduction on 10 industrial, I think, just looking at the CTV schedule 11 in front of me here, I do not think they would have 12 that difficult a time reaching at least our startup 13 proposal of the seven. If we agree that documentaries 14 should be included as under-represented categories, 15 something like "W-5", or a version of "W-5" like CBC's 16 "Witness", would count, and because it would be 17 distinctly Canadian it would counted as 150 per cent. 18 "Due South" would count as 150 per cent. "Cold Squad" 19 would count as 200 per cent because it would be a 20 regional production. "Power Play" would count as 150 21 per cent. 22 21214 I think if you add all that up, yes, 23 maybe "Earth Final Conflict" would only be 50 per cent, 24 but I think if you add it up, just looking at the 25 current schedule, using my formula -- and I have not StenoTran 4579 1 done it so I am just guessing -- they'd be very close 2 to seven. 3 1110 4 21215 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, if you do file, 5 for example, an additional comment within the time 6 frame, it would be helpful for parties who make 7 proposals and arrive at these conclusions to show how, 8 because you are quite right. You may be able in half 9 an hour to show me that it's not by doing the exercise 10 the other way using everything they have put forward. 11 21216 All I am saying is we will have 12 eventually to lay out the pieces together and decide if 13 exhibition is something that we look at to get to our 14 goals, decide how we will put the pieces together and 15 how onerous it will be at the end of the day because 16 it's very difficult, I find, anyway, to look at the 17 various proposals and to easily arrive at a conclusion 18 that it's better, it's more or less whatever than what 19 we have or what so-and-so proposes. It's quite 20 possible that, indeed, you would show me that it's no 21 more by doing the type of exercise I have done just as 22 a thumb sketch. 23 21217 I had a question that I have been 24 wanting to ask producers and I will ask you. You don't 25 have to answer if you don't want to. When we heard Mr. StenoTran 4580 1 Nielsen from Norflicks, he made a comment that, in his 2 view, there was a lot of programming made in Canada 3 that managed to get itself to be Canadian, but that 4 never did get 20 per cent of the program budgeted cost 5 before having access to funds. Do you have a comment? 6 21218 I am not quoting, but it's at Volume 7 6, starting at page 1518. That's what I understand him 8 to say, that: 9 "...compliant broadcasters had 10 to be found who would pay a 11 broadcast licence fee amounting 12 to 20 per cent of the program's 13 budgeted costs. No one in the 14 industry actually believes that 15 they have paid this amount." 16 21219 At the beginning, Commissioner 17 McKendry was pointing to a comment in his written 18 intervention, which went as follows: 19 "Meanwhile, some of the major 20 production companies 21 specializing in the production 22 of American programs made in 23 Canada because of the low dollar 24 and cheaper crews, found a way 25 to make these programs StenoTran 4581 1 'Canadian', and thus eligible 2 for Cable Fund money. To do 3 this, compliant broadcasters had 4 to be found who would pay..." 5 21220 There is some belief that -- well, 6 what he says is: 7 "What is inconceivable to those 8 of us in the business that a 20 9 per cent payment would be made 10 for Canadian projects because 11 that would represent very high 12 licence fees with no benefit in 13 relation to Canadian 14 production..." 15 21221 Do you have any comment about that? 16 21222 MR. THOMSON: Well, I would only say 17 if that was the case, it isn't any more and it is 18 possible. I am not familiar with his intervention, but 19 it is possible in the early days of the Fund when we in 20 fact had more money than we knew how to spend. You can 21 imagine the Fund literally doubled or tripled overnight 22 and suddenly we had a problem of how we were going to 23 spend the money, particularly in the first year of the 24 Fund because the contribution wasn't made or announced 25 until September and most of the production had already StenoTran 4582 1 been done by then. So, we were stuck with the problem 2 of: How do you spend this large amount of money in six 3 months, in a period of time that isn't the conventional 4 production cycle? 5 21223 So, the rules were probably, in that 6 first year, fairly slack. I think by the second year 7 we began to see that demand was increasing and the bar 8 was raised a little bit. Certainly last year we 9 reduced the basic contribution from the Fund and 10 provided an incentive for being more distinctively 11 Canadian. This year, of course, only distinctively 12 Canadian programming is going to qualify. So, if it 13 was a problem -- and I can't say whether it was or 14 not -- it certainly will not be any more. 15 21224 THE CHAIRPERSON: I take your point. 16 I hadn't thought of that. Mr. Stursberg explained to 17 us, of course, that the bar would be raised in terms of 18 what kind of production, so that would take care of 19 this problem. Thanks for your clarification. 20 21225 Counsel? 21 21226 MS PATTERSON: Thank you, Madam 22 Chair, but my questions have been answered. 23 21227 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. 24 Thomson and Ms McNair. 25 21228 MR. THOMSON: Thank you very much. I StenoTran 4583 1 just want to finally add that this has been a very 2 interesting and fascinating process. I am glad you 3 initiated it and I hope it is going to serve to improve 4 the Canadian broadcasting system. 5 21229 THE CHAIRPERSON: One other 6 conversation we had with Mr. Nielsen was to tell him 7 after our exchange with him that if he prayed, we would 8 like him to pray for us; if he didn't, to keep his 9 fingers crossed. We ask the same thing of you. 10 21230 MR. THOMSON: I will do both. 11 21231 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will take a 12 10-minute break. We will be back at 11:30. 13 21232 Thank you. 14 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1120 15 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1130 16 21233 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary, 17 please. 18 21234 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair. 19 21235 The next presentation will be by 20 Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc. 21 21236 Go ahead. 22 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION 23 21237 MR. MacMILLAN: Good morning, Madam 24 Chair, members of the Commission and Commission staff. 25 I am Michael MacMillan. I am the Chairman and CEO of StenoTran 4584 1 Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc. On behalf of 2 Alliance Atlantis, let me thank you for this 3 opportunity to speak today and introduce you to our 4 panel. 5 21238 With me up front are Steve Ord, 6 Senior VP, Business Operations, Alliance Atlantis 7 Television, and Christine Shipton, Senior VP, Creative 8 Affairs, Alliance Atlantis Television. Behind us from 9 Atlantis Broadcasting are Juris Silkans, President; 10 Barbara Williams, VP, Programming; and Rita Cugini, 11 Director, New Ventures. 12 21239 We believe that the Canadian 13 Broadcasting system works very well. We believe in 14 fact that it has been an enormous success, particularly 15 in light of the unique challenges that we face as 16 English-speaking Canadians sharing the same language 17 with our immediate neighbour, the articulate and 18 entertaining U.S.A. We believe that our system is a 19 success because Canadians are watching Canadian TV 20 shows. The CAB pointed out in its submission that 21 viewing of Canadian programs has remained stable at 22 around 32 per cent of total viewing for the past 10 or 23 15 years. 24 21240 Given the enormous increase in the 25 total hours of television programming available, which StenoTran 4585 1 is largely due to the increase in the number of U.S. 2 and Canadian channels available, we find it remarkable 3 that our broadcasting system collectively has been able 4 to increase the volume, quality and diversity of 5 Canadian shows to such a degree that we still attract 6 Canadians 32 per cent of the time. This is testimony 7 to the creativity and skill of Canadian broadcasters 8 and the Canadian creative community, as well as 9 effective stimulus from the CRTC. 10 21241 During these past 10 years, 11 broadcasters have become stronger by virtue of 12 significant ownership consolidation and market 13 expansion allowing for economies of scale, national or 14 quasi-national promotional ability and scheduling 15 consistency. Over these same years the Canadian 16 production industry has also improved its ability to 17 develop, finance, produce, promote and sell Canadian 18 programs. 19 21242 The increased and experienced and 20 talented actors, writers, directors and producers has 21 resulted in Canadian programs earning Canadian 22 audiences in growing numbers, programs like "ENG", "Due 23 South", "Traders", "North of 60" or "Cold Squad", and 24 we are proud to have played a major role in the prime 25 time drama successes enjoyed by both private StenoTran 4586 1 broadcasters and the CBC. 2 21243 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what's 3 wrong with that mike. If you pushed it further back, I 4 wonder if it would help. I don't know if you hear the 5 feedback, but we do. 6 21244 MR. MacMILLAN: How is this now? 7 21245 THE CHAIRPERSON: Hopefully, that 8 will resolve it. 9 21246 MS SHIPTON: We think this policy 10 review process will be best served if the Commission is 11 able to clearly set out guidelines that can stand the 12 test of time and still be relevant as the industry 13 continues to change. This will likely be more useful 14 than producers and broadcasters debating the exact 15 number of hours of under-served programs or the exact 16 dollar level of spending required. 17 21247 Although we do note specific 18 proposals here, we are not wedded to every last 19 specific detail of our proposals. Rather, we would 20 like you to understand them as reflecting the policy 21 direction we believe the CRTC should take. 22 21248 We believe that each broadcasting 23 undertaking should have specific quantifiable 24 obligations as opposed to industry-wide targets, as 25 suggested by the CAB. Industry-wide targets will be StenoTran 4587 1 unenforceable and unaccountable and defeat the purpose 2 of setting forth clear rules which are fair rules. 3 Each broadcaster needs its own reporting yardstick. 4 21249 We should have equitable rules for 5 all station groups over a certain size. That way 6 broadcasters would know what the expectations were and 7 they would know it before they took on acquisitions, 8 launches, signal rebroadcasts or mergers. We believe 9 that in order for the Canadian content regime to be 10 embraced with enthusiasm and consistency, it must be 11 equitable and be seen to be equitable. We are pleased 12 to hear CTV take this philosophical approach yesterday 13 with respect to clear benchmarks for station groups, 14 which have access to over 70 per cent of Canadians. 15 21250 We believe that these clear 16 expectations for broadcast groups of national or 17 quasi-national status should be implemented as soon as 18 practicable rather than delayed, as some have 19 suggested. Accountability delayed is accountability 20 denied. It is only fair to broadcasters to make the 21 policy framework clear immediately so that they can get 22 on with their business. Thus, we see CTV's proposal 23 that new regulations be in place by fiscal 2000-2001 as 24 being entirely reasonable. 25 21251 We believe that key to this CRTC StenoTran 4588 1 review is a focus on the under-served categories 7, 8 2 and 9, to which we would add documentaries and Canadian 3 series which are star promotion vehicles. We believe 4 the key focus of the Commission should be prime time. 5 Prime time is when most Canadians watch television. If 6 our goal is to maintain or increase the viewing of 7 Canadian programs, we need to make them available when 8 it's convenient for Canadians to watch. To do anything 9 would be contrary to our collective express goal of 10 increasing viewership. 11 21252 MR. ORD: In our view, when setting 12 rules to stimulate under-served Canadian program 13 categories in prime time, two yardsticks are best used: 14 money and air time. This approach is set out in the 15 CFTPA submission. Of the two yardsticks, our priority 16 by far is air time. If there are meaningful air time 17 obligations such as the 10 hours per week, we do 18 believe that broadcasters would spend the money 19 necessary to ensure that valuable air time was put 20 towards viewer-attracting programs, which also tend to 21 be the most profitable ones. 22 21253 Further, the CRTC may wish to 23 consider adding some incentives to encourage 24 broadcasters to exceed Cancon minimums. For example, a 25 broadcaster which exceeds his hourly or spending StenoTran 4589 1 obligations could be permitted to sell more than 12 2 minutes per hour of advertising. As well, incentives 3 for broadcasting programs that are distinctly Canadian 4 should be continued. 5 21254 We believe it is wise to continue the 6 150 per cent time credit for 10-point shows calculated 7 against the weekly hourly prime time under-served 8 category obligation. This is consistent with 9 Alliance's written submission and contrary to what 10 Atlantis said in its written submission. 11 21255 We have had the opportunity to listen 12 to the discussion, to reflect on it, and now believe 13 that the 10 hours a week should include 150 per cent 14 bonuses. In this sense, depending on the extent of the 15 use of the bonuses, our proposal, as now revised, can 16 be seen to be effectively very similar to DGC's, 17 CFTPA's and CTV's. While each of these now differ in 18 exact detail, they are philosophically occupying the 19 same territory. 20 21256 We support the CTV's suggestion 21 yesterday that a further incentive be provided for 22 10-point dramas between episodes 14 and 22 in a given 23 season. This addresses a real need, the creation and 24 scheduling of full seasons of drama and not half 25 seasons. However, we are reluctant to go overboard StenoTran 4590 1 with all these incentives. The bonuses should not be 2 stackable. If we get carried away with bonuses, we 3 will not achieve the goal of increasing Cancon air 4 time. 5 21257 As well, in each of these cases, 6 selling extra ads for exceeding minimums, 150 per cent 7 bonus for 10-point shows and bonuses for 22 episodes 8 per season, these are carrots. These are not 9 obligations. They are designed to create flexibility, 10 Various broadcasters will follow different approaches. 11 This is good. One size certainly does not fit all. 12 These suggestions are designed to encourage diversity. 13 21258 MR. MacMILLAN: The next few years 14 will continue to see horizontal consolidation, as well 15 as vertical integration. There is much to be said for 16 this trend as it can focus resources on what matters, 17 and that, of course, is programming. Both broadcasters 18 and producers will be better able to make, promote and 19 schedule programs that can earn audiences. 20 21259 However, in this the challenge is to 21 make sure that those who are not consolidated, that 22 those who are not vertically integrated are not shut 23 out of the system. The challenge is to make sure that 24 those who are vertically integrated do not have undue 25 preference when they act as both the producer and the StenoTran 4591 1 licensee of a particular program. 2 21260 Currently, producers affiliated with 3 broadcasters can self-deal and access tax credits, they 4 can access Cable Fund money and they can qualify as 5 Canadian content for CRTC minimum Canadian content 6 level purposes. The only area off limits is Telefilm 7 Canada funding. 8 21261 On Telefilm financed projects, we 9 believe that broadcasters should be permitted to bid 10 for distribution rights as long as it is a separate 11 process and negotiation. This likely should involve a 12 monitoring process by Telefilm. CTV And Global have 13 both made this point and we do see the merit in certain 14 circumstances, with proper safeguards. 15 21262 In order to ensure that those 16 companies who are not vertically integrated still have 17 fair access to the system, we believe that there should 18 be a percentage limit of Canadian content in each 19 broadcaster's schedule where self-dealing exists. This 20 would include shows where the broadcaster is the 21 distributor. 22 21263 Barbara Williams will now speak on 23 specialty broadcasting. 24 21264 MS WILLIAMS: Thank you, Michael. 25 21265 A very positive development in the StenoTran 4592 1 Canadian broadcasting system was the successful launch 2 and acceptance by Canadian audiences of Canadian 3 specialty broadcasting services. These new services 4 have contributed greatly to the diversity of 5 programming choices. Life Network and HDTV Canada are 6 a part of this positive development in specialty 7 broadcasting. 8 21266 It is our view that now that special 9 television services have proved their value to the 10 Canadian broadcasting system and to Canadian 11 programming, they, too, should be accorded copyright 12 protection for the Canadian rights to programs they 13 own. We recommend, therefore, that mandatory 14 simultaneous substitution be extended to Canadian 15 specialty broadcasters. 16 21267 We see no downside to the proposal 17 for broadcast distribution undertakings or for 18 conventional broadcasters. In fact the upside for the 19 system, indeed, is strong. Of the increased 20 advertising revenue generated by simultaneous 21 substitution, a major part of it, in fact 65 cents on 22 each and every dollar in the case of Life Network, will 23 go directly back to increase Canadian programming, thus 24 continuing and growing the now named virtuous circle. 25 21268 MR. MacMILLAN: Alliance Atlantis StenoTran 4593 1 believes that our Canadian broadcasting system faces a 2 terrific opportunity. We should be emboldened by our 3 success to date and by the increase and quality and 4 variety of Canadian programming. We should be 5 heartened by the maintenance of total Canadian viewing 6 in the context of a huge overall increase in viewing 7 choices. We should be encouraged by the growth of our 8 creative talent and by the increasing exportability of 9 our programs. 10 21269 This is not the time to raise the 11 white flag, this isn't the time to flee from centre 12 stage or flee from prime time. Our suggestions are 13 designed to make Canadian shows central to 14 broadcasters' strategies of appealing to viewers, to 15 make sure that the broadcast of Canadian shows 16 continues to make business sense and to make Canadian 17 shows fulfil the desire of broadcasters to distinguish 18 themselves from U.S. signals. 19 21270 We believe that in the not too 20 distant future Canadian-made entertainment programs 21 will be anchors of the prime time schedules of Canadian 22 broadcasters. We have a system we can be immensely 23 proud of. It's within the CRTC's purview and the 24 system's grasp to ensure that we have even more to 25 celebrate in 10 years' time. StenoTran 4594 1 21271 We would now be happy to answer any 2 questions you have for us. 3 21272 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, ladies 4 and gentlemen. 5 21273 In order to avoid the confusion I 6 unwittingly caused yesterday morning, I would like to 7 clarify. Is it acceptable to you to refer to both the 8 Alliance and Atlantis written submissions to the extent 9 that they cover issues related not to their specific 10 broadcasting services, but to the regulatory system 11 that you would like to see in place and the comments 12 you made on that? 13 21274 MR. MacMILLAN: Certainly, we are 14 happy to answer any question. The only reason we split 15 ourselves into two presentations was because we have 16 yet to even apply to you concerning History and 17 Showcase. 18 21275 THE CHAIRPERSON: I know. 19 21276 MR. MacMILLAN: We didn't want to 20 presume to speak for them. 21 21277 THE CHAIRPERSON: My apologies. The 22 panel was not informed of the choices that you had made 23 and the only thing we are concerned about is that you 24 feel comfortable about who has asked what and that 25 everybody has had a chance to say what they wanted to StenoTran 4595 1 say. 2 21278 So, you have no problem with me 3 saying the Alliance or Atlantis and, in that case, it 4 will be Atlantis Communications because I want to 5 discuss mostly regulatory scheme concerns. I tried to 6 look this morning at whether they are -- but I don't 7 see major differences between them, so I don't see 8 where there would be a problem. But it will be easier 9 as a reference point. 10 21279 It makes the process interesting that 11 we have talked about 10/10/10, bonuses that bring it 12 down to 5, to 3, back up to 7. It shows how it's 13 difficult to arrive at what's an increase, if that's 14 what it is we want, and that any bonuses, when you 15 weigh them against the fact that they do reduce the 16 amount of exhibition, are not at cross purposes with 17 our goals. 18 1145 19 21280 So you seem to agree with that, but I 20 would like you to comment on the extent to which you 21 feel that equity or equitable requirements would mean 22 that at least for the multi-station groups that the 23 requirements are the same and that diversity will come 24 into how one chooses how to attain them. 25 21281 Do you see a regulatory advantage to StenoTran 4596 1 having the same number of hours in the same block of 2 time for each of the two or three station groups 3 according to your definition? 4 21282 MR. MacMILLAN: We do see there being 5 a regulatory advantage of having the same size block in 6 the same time period, a, because we think that is fair 7 and equitable. It will encourage clearer and more 8 enthusiastic adherence to those rules. 9 21283 But, as described, underserved 10 categories of 7, 8 and 9 added to that documentary, 11 added to that half hour of star promotion vehicle, 12 there are a number of ways for any of the broadcast 13 groups to fulfil those obligations. Even within drama 14 there is a number of ways, whether it is ongoing 15 series, or drama, comedy, feature films, television 16 movies and so on. 17 21284 So we believe there is lots of room 18 for variation or diversity within that. But we do 19 think as a base they should have the same fundamental 20 obligations. 21 21285 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, when you get 22 to spending, it gets a little more difficult because I 23 would assume that if one chooses to respond to the 10 24 hours, whatever these hours are, there will be some 25 recognition that some bonuses should be given for the StenoTran 4597 1 more difficult programming, the more expensive, by 2 giving bonuses. Is that going to be enough if you 3 retain a spending requirement so that the spending 4 requirement is equal, it is 10 per cent of advertising 5 revenues, as the CFTPA proposed? 6 21286 If spending requirements are kept, 7 can we have equity there by requiring the same, no 8 matter what the choice is made in how you fulfil the 10 9 hours? You could see the bonusing, of course, as 10 balancing that, but is that enough? 11 21287 MR. MacMILLAN: In the Alliance 12 intervention we had -- and I did say we proposed this, 13 which is really confusing -- but we had supported the 14 CFPTA spending proposal. In the Atlantis intervention, 15 we have been silent on that issue. 16 21288 We have wrestled with this a lot. We 17 do believe that there should be a spending requirement. 18 We have thought: What should it be based on? Is it a 19 fraction of spending on underserved programming? Is it 20 a fixed dollar amount based on either total program 21 spending or last year's spending? Or is it, perhaps, a 22 percentage of revenues? 23 21289 Of all those options, we have 24 concluded that a percentage of revenues is the most 25 useful because it can track growth, number one. It is StenoTran 4598 1 easily reportable and trackable without another layer 2 of micromanaging of detail. It also, unlike a flat 3 amount, is more useful in bad times because a fixed 4 amount would be absolutely difficult to live by during 5 economic downturn. 6 21290 To the extent -- and I will 7 eventually answer your direct question, but I wanted to 8 get some context for it -- you were wondering is the 9 same per cent reasonable, given that there are 10 different approaches to fulfilling the hour 11 obligations. I think it is because you have to presume 12 that the different approaches on the hour obligations 13 are designed to get the most viewers, the viewers that 14 they are targeting, to increase their revenues as much 15 as possible, to sell the most ads, and that ultimately 16 they are going to be driven by a bottom-line 17 imperative. That is a function of revenue. 18 21291 So I do think it is sensible, even 19 though there are differences in how one could fill the 20 time obligation, to have a consistent percentage of 21 revenue as to spending obligation. 22 21292 THE CHAIRPERSON: In fact, you refer 23 to the Atlantis position on that, it does -- the 24 Atlantis position does say that spending requirements 25 should remain part of the regulatory framework. StenoTran 4599 1 21293 MR. MacMILLAN: We were silent on the 2 amount. 3 21294 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, and that is 4 why I had questions about what would be the appropriate 5 amount. 6 21295 Since you were silent -- since 7 Atlantis was silent on the amount, it did raise the 8 question that we have been asking as one other way of 9 looking at it is: Is it necessary to have the spending 10 requirement to achieve equity if you have a higher 11 level of hours required, some flexibility within that, 12 and bonuses that make up for the fact that usually the 13 bonus system -- the bonus programs will be the more 14 difficult and, therefore, the more expensive? Would 15 that be enough and could the Commission look at the 16 possibility of abandoning spending requirements 17 altogether? The Atlantis proposition made me think of 18 that because it appeared you weren't sure as to how one 19 would do it and whether one should do it, I gathered. 20 21296 MR. MacMILLAN: I will let Christine 21 and Steve elaborate in a second, but, no, the punch 22 line of our answer is that we would not suggest that 23 the Commission abandon spending requirements. Our 24 silence in one of our two submissions about the 25 percentage was partly we weren't sure what it should StenoTran 4600 1 be; and we hadn't yet come to a landing internally on 2 how we thought the top-up funds through the cable fund 3 should be applied or not. 4 21297 I think that there are some creative 5 and viewer reasons why spending should be included, and 6 Christine wants to speak. 7 21298 MS SHIPTON: We all agree that our 8 goal is to have highly indigenous and high quality 9 programming on prime time. By having a spending 10 requirement, a floor, I think that serves to ensure 11 that we are all on the same page toward that goal of 12 quality. We can get into a discussion of what quality 13 is, but I think one of the tags that go along with 14 quality is a higher budget. It costs a lot of money to 15 produce quality. 16 21299 So, again, by having that floor, it 17 ensures that there is money being spent toward that. 18 21300 MR. MacMILLAN: Another factor is 19 that Canadian viewers are used to seeing drama from the 20 U.S., which generally is pretty high budget, pretty 21 slick, pretty entertaining, and if we are going to 22 deliver to Canadians an entertainment opportunity, it 23 needs to compete with the kind of programming that they 24 have been weaned on all these years. To give them 25 something vastly different that doesn't have that sheen StenoTran 4601 1 will be difficult to attract viewers. 2 21301 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible, 3 though, to establish spending requirements and hours 4 requirements when the hours requirements allow you to 5 choose between various ways of fulfilling it and there 6 can be quite a difference, as I mentioned earlier, in 7 the cost and the difficulty of doing that, and spending 8 requirements that are not established in relation to 9 what it is you are going to do? You know, we hear 10 arguments about, well, this type of programming costs a 11 lot and generates less, therefore, I shouldn't have to 12 spend as much of my money on it, et cetera. 13 21302 It becomes difficult to give the 14 flexibility within the hours and then to have a strict 15 10 per cent on spending. Is it in your view? 16 21303 MS SHIPTON: We are not suggesting 17 the 10 per cent. We are suggesting a percentage. 18 21304 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you would buy 19 CTV's apparent suggestion, if I understood it well, 20 that the Commission would have to exercise discretion 21 and see what it is that the particular broadcaster is 22 going to do and even in the non-peak hours, CTV 23 suggested, in order to have the spending properly 24 addressed, which then causes the difficulty of not 25 establishing exact types of programming that one will StenoTran 4602 1 do, if you listen to Global, who says, "My choice is 2 going to be to do fewer hours but to do drama". 3 21305 So how does one weigh the flexibility 4 required, increased hours and a fair -- established 5 amount of money if, over time, over a seven period, one 6 can change completely what one is doing, so you have 7 established a certain spending requirement based on 8 what you were told people were going to do, unless you 9 have a whole list of conditions of licence, four years 10 later the spending requirement remains the same and how 11 one performs is changed. 12 21306 We are just trying to look at can we 13 find some less micromanaged system and equity 14 nevertheless. 15 21307 MR. MacMILLAN: When Christine said a 16 moment ago that we hadn't said 10 per cent, our view on 17 10 per cent is that it is probably a reasonable number, 18 percentage; and that the Alliance submission had 19 included the cable fund top-up money to count towards 20 that as is the CFPTA's position. 21 21308 There could be merit instead of 22 having that 10 per cent, which can include the cable 23 fund top-up money, to instead go with a lower per cent 24 that isn't confused with the application of how one 25 transfers those cable fund payments, a lower per cent, StenoTran 4603 1 which is the right per cent, and we note with interest 2 that the Directors Guild, I think, said 7 per cent, 3 without including in that the cable fund top-up. 4 21309 So, in fact, depending on the amount 5 of cable fund top-up, those numbers might not be so 6 dissimilar as they first seem. So that is what 7 Christine was really trying to get at. 8 21310 We are not saying that we agree that 9 there should be idiosyncratic or widely varying 10 percentages for each broadcast group. We think it 11 should be a similar approach, and that approach should 12 be not including cable fund money in the calculation. 13 21311 THE CHAIRPERSON: But the bottom line 14 is you remain of the view, Atlantis Alliance remains of 15 the view that you can't achieve your goals and equity 16 without having spending requirements over and above 17 exhibition requirements? 18 21312 MR. MacMILLAN: That is correct. 19 21313 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is not 20 possible to achieve, in your view? 21 21314 MR. MacMILLAN: That is correct. 22 While we look for variety and flexibility in how each 23 of the groups achieves their underserved category 24 obligations, we would hope that drama would be an 25 important component part of any broadcast group's StenoTran 4604 1 strategy. It need not be ongoing series; it might be 2 feature films or television movies to greater degrees. 3 But we would be -- we think it would be very 4 unfortunate if a strategy included the abandonment of 5 the drama category and only documentaries and so on and 6 that is, frankly, another reason why a spending 7 obligation makes sense. 8 21315 I should point out that licence fees 9 for 10-point shows generally are significantly higher 10 than for garden variety 6-point Canadian content shows. 11 Also, the licence contribution by a broadcaster for a 12 documentary as a fraction of budget is often much 13 higher than it is for a drama because the budget itself 14 is much lower to begin with; and likewise a 15 broadcaster's contribution to a star vehicle promotion 16 series would probably be 100 per cent of the cost of 17 that series. So that as a fraction of the budget they 18 will vary. 19 21316 THE CHAIRPERSON: Hopefully, we have 20 raised these issues often enough that we will get some 21 more pointed comments on how this can work out in the 22 last round of written material we will get because the 23 pieces are difficult to put together and still achieve 24 the goals which should remain, that people remain 25 afloat, that they remain profitable organizations and StenoTran 4605 1 that we do get more hours and that the regulatory 2 system doesn't get tied up in a knot in checking 3 compliance with so many bonuses and promotions and so 4 on that tend to vary up and down how one meets one's 5 spending requirements. We can end up with something 6 that is difficult to manage. 7 21317 Most of these incentives, of course, 8 are to the advantage of the person who gets them; but, 9 if it is going to be equitable, they will have to be 10 monitored and we will have to be able to calculate 11 whether they are misused. 12 21318 You mention licence fees, and that 13 appears to be a major complaint of producers, that 14 licence fees have decreased. I am looking now at the 15 Alliance document at page 4, paragraph 24, where that 16 is -- the licence fees is raised. There is an 17 interesting sentence there. You say: 18 "Speaking as an integrated 19 producer/distributor, Alliance 20 can give assurances that quality 21 Canadian programs will be able 22 to be financed -- even if public 23 funding declines -- if the 24 broadcasters step up to the 25 plate with adequate licence StenoTran 4606 1 fees. That should be viewed as 2 the quid pro quo." 3 21319 What do you mean, quid pro quo for 4 what? Like what does the broadcaster gain from it? I 5 was wondering if that refers back to the quid pro quo 6 as to whether they should be allowed to have a better 7 opportunity to have access to funds. 8 21320 I was just curious to see what is the 9 quid pro quo because, presumably, funding declines, the 10 broadcaster raises his licence fees, what does he feel 11 he gets in return? 12 21321 MR. MacMILLAN: I believe that this 13 paragraph is suggesting that the quid pro quo is, in 14 part, the quid pro quo for having a broadcast licence 15 in the first place. 16 21322 THE CHAIRPERSON: I see, okay. 17 21323 MR. MacMILLAN: And that we have had 18 the observation that licence fees have declined 19 somewhat in the past -- during the '90s, during a time 20 when some public funding has increased. 21 21324 I think the other aspect of quid pro 22 quo in this sentence is that if some of that recently 23 increased public funding were to fade or not to be 24 available, then the broadcasters ought to be able to 25 step back up to the plate and increase their licence StenoTran 4607 1 fees. I think that is what that paragraph is referring 2 to. 3 21325 THE CHAIRPERSON: Of course, it 4 raises the question of, if that is the case, and we 5 have altered the regulatory system by reference to the 6 currently available money, public funds, then the 7 broadcasters tell you they will have a big problem 8 where some of our three party -- three piece opening 9 remarks of more, more quality and profitability, one 10 piece may be falling off the desk so to speak. What is 11 your answer to that? 12 21326 I think Commission Pennefather 13 discussed that earlier with Mr. Thomson, if public 14 funds disappear, licence fees increase, and we have 15 increased the number of hours of under-represented 16 categories that have to be aired. 17 21327 MR. MacMILLAN: I will let Steve Ord 18 answer that. 19 21328 MR. ORD: I think there is no 20 question that public -- or quasi-public funds like 21 Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Television Fund are 22 key to funding indigenous programs. There is no debate 23 there. Although I think if we look at the total volume 24 of the independent production sector, about 40 per cent 25 of shows in 7, 8 and 9 have money from the Canada StenoTran 4608 1 Television Fund or Telefilm Canada. The other 60 per 2 cent are relying on the market and they are also 3 relying on, say, tax credit financing. 4 21329 So I think maybe 10 years ago we 5 would -- it would have been more the other way around, 6 where, in fact, even toward 75 or 80 per cent. So the 7 industry has come a long way in terms of reaching out 8 beyond the borders of Canada and that is, I think, one 9 of the big attributes that the independent production 10 sector brings to the broadcasting system, which is an 11 ability to use its international connections to figure 12 out how to finance shows when the money is not always 13 available in Canada. It is becoming kind of a 14 practical way of approaching the limited financing pie. 15 21330 So I guess the next question that 16 would come to one's mind is: Can you produce exactly 17 the same shows without that government funding? 18 1205 19 21331 In some cases that might happen, and 20 certainly many producers have been clever to figure out 21 ways to do that, but it may well be shows that have, 22 you know, a different mix of shows. And I think that 23 as the years go by the industry is getting better at 24 figuring out how to reduce that reliance on that 25 funding. So I do not think that's a big problem. StenoTran 4609 1 21332 THE CHAIRPERSON: And of course we 2 can always try to reproduce that funding. 3 21333 In your view, if the system has 4 worked in reaching the goals that are stated, getting 5 more appealing Canadian programming, do you think it is 6 likely to have an effect on the extent to which 7 government funds remain available over time in some 8 form or other? 9 21334 MR. MacMILLAN: Well, I certainly 10 hope they remain available for a long, long time, 11 because even though we are very proud to brag about the 12 success of the system, this has not been a question 13 over the past ten years of getting some kick-start or 14 some temporary assistance to get us up and going. 15 21335 As long as we share a geography and a 16 language with the U.S., we are going to have the same 17 fundamental challenge. This is not a temporary -- I 18 hope -- not a temporary state of affairs. We 19 structurally have the need to have supply side 20 financing in this country. It's not a temporary thing. 21 21336 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because sharing the 22 border I guess is not temporary, we hope. 23 21337 MR. MacMILLAN: That was precisely 24 what I meant. 25 21338 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you think that StenoTran 4610 1 the level of licence fees should be regulated in any 2 way? By "regulation" I am talking here in broad terms, 3 whether it be by us or via the fund, that there should 4 be a real level established that has to be abided by? 5 21339 MR. MacMILLAN: I do not think that 6 the Commission should be regulating specific licence 7 fees, although I suppose broadcasters might argue that 8 if you impose a spending and a time obligation, you 9 are, in effect, regulating licence fees to some degree. 10 So I take that point. 11 21340 So I guess the answer is yes to that 12 extent, but no more than that, and otherwise the 13 marketplace is plenty flexible and can address proper 14 licence fees. 15 21341 I do think though it's perfectly 16 reasonable for a funding organization like Telefilm to 17 set licence fee expectations as an entry obligation in 18 order to access funds like Telefilm. That's perfectly 19 sensible, but I do not think you need to get into that 20 detail at all. 21 21342 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have heard me 22 bring up the preoccupation that Mr. Nielsen of 23 Norflicks talked about and the answer of Mr. Thomson 24 that that would no longer be a problem with the way 25 things work now vis-à-vis the fund. Do you agree with StenoTran 4611 1 that? 2 21343 MR. MacMILLAN: I was listening to 3 the conversation with interest and I wasn't entirely 4 sure what the initial allegation was, although it 5 sounds like the allegation was that money was not 6 really paid or there is some other high jinks going on 7 to mask a real lower payment; something along those 8 lines. 9 21344 We have not seen that. Maybe it's 10 happened, I don't know, but in our dealings with 11 broadcasters we always have boisterous negotiations 12 about licence fees, as you might imagine, but it's not 13 been our experience to witness that sort of behaviour. 14 21345 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, documentaries. 15 I think both of the presentations agreed that 16 documentaries -- and I think in one case it's 17 particularly long-form documentaries, I was not sure if 18 it was in both cases -- should be added to the 19 under-represented list. We have been asking various 20 parties -- CFPTA may have been asked, I forget -- if 21 you feel that there is a need to define documentaries; 22 that the Commission should define documentaries that 23 would satisfy that category. 24 21346 MR. MacMILLAN: There is a need to 25 define documentaries, absolutely, and in our view a StenoTran 4612 1 definition similar to -- or exactly, perhaps, -- as the 2 one that currently has been established by the Cable 3 Production Fund would seem to be logical to us. But 4 there is a need to put a barrier or a limitation around 5 the definition. 6 21347 THE CHAIRPERSON: We would appreciate 7 that, if you do file a comment at the end, that you 8 either endorse that one or provide a variation of it if 9 you choose to. It would be helpful. 10 21348 One more question about licence fees, 11 and I apologize for coming back to that. In the 12 Alliance presentation, at page 6, which is the 13 continuation of paragraph 31, it's stated: 14 "Producers have not opposed 15 equity infusions from 16 broadcasters, provided that they 17 pay real money for the equity." 18 21349 And there is a suggestion there I 19 would like to expand on, that "equity" may be 20 characterized as contributions backed by revenue 21 guarantees or priority recoupment provisions to such an 22 extent that they're really loans. 23 21350 So I gather the problem here is on 24 what terms the equity is provided. What is the problem 25 outlined? StenoTran 4613 1 21351 MR. MacMILLAN: The problem referred 2 to there, I suppose, would be if a broadcaster 3 invested -- this is not the licence fee; above and 4 beyond the licence fee -- invested in the project and 5 acquired an economic interest in territories that 6 clearly had a value, let us say, of $2, and yet the 7 investment was for $1, but there really was a $2 value 8 there, and perhaps even with a guaranteed revenue 9 stream of $2. By investing $1, by having a guaranteed 10 return of capital and a guaranteed profit, the impact, 11 by structuring that sort of arrangement, would be to 12 effectively give a rebate or a reduction on the other 13 part of the transaction in the licence fee. I think 14 that's what that sentence is referring to. 15 21352 THE CHAIRPERSON: And in conjunction 16 with lower licence fees overall then introduces to 17 broadcasters' participation? 18 21353 MR. MacMILLAN: That's correct, and 19 also that means that one is diverting some foreign 20 territory value to subsidize the Canadian licence fee, 21 which obviously is not good business, nor is it good 22 policy, I would suggest. 23 21354 But our experience is that in general 24 broadcasters have been not very interested in investing 25 equity in programs. StenoTran 4614 1 21355 THE CHAIRPERSON: Except for asking 2 for access to the Telefilm fund, yes. And I gather 3 that both Atlantis and Alliance, in their written 4 presentations, had taken the view that they are not 5 supporting that, no matter what? 6 21356 MR. MacMILLAN: That's right. Steve 7 might want to elaborate some more, but our view is that 8 a broadcaster, or a broadcast-related producer, when 9 producing for itself, ought not to be able to access 10 the Telefilm equity money. That's distinct from a 11 situation where a broadcaster or a broadcast-related 12 producer is producing a program for some arm's length 13 other user. 14 21357 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so I would 15 like you as well to discuss -- it's addressed in both 16 presentations -- what it is that the rules should be 17 and whether they should be, by conditions of licence, 18 similar to what the producers have in the cases where 19 they have broadcasting licences, whether that's enough 20 to provide this guarantee against unacceptable self- 21 dealing. What is it that you would find acceptable if 22 there were to be -- well, I suppose there would be no 23 relaxation in that case. Well, there would be because 24 right now they cannot, right? So are you suggesting 25 that if you had rules that said "not for your own StenoTran 4615 1 screen", then affiliated companies could? 2 21358 MR. MacMILLAN: We are not proposing 3 to roll the clock back and we are not proposing to 4 remove the ability of a broadcast producer to produce 5 for itself. We are not proposing to remove their 6 ability to get tax credits. We are not proposing to 7 remove their ability to get cable fund money and so on. 8 21359 THE CHAIRPERSON: But not EIP money? 9 21360 MR. MacMILLAN: We are only focusing 10 on the EIP part. 11 21361 THE CHAIRPERSON: And there is no 12 solution there, in your view, that would make that 13 possible and would be acceptable to you? There are no 14 rules that could be established that would permit that? 15 21362 MR. MacMILLAN: Well, one of the 16 difficulties is that the EIP envelope, I think, is 17 something like $30 million a year, or in that range. 18 While $30 million, by one stretch, is a lot of money, 19 when spread across a number of different series, that's 20 not a lot of different projects for any particular 21 broadcaster to access. Steve, do you want to add to 22 that? 23 21363 MR. ORD: There are a couple issues 24 here. The first is Telefilm Canada has, as we all 25 know, an underlying mandate of supporting the Canadian StenoTran 4616 1 film and television industry, not the broadcasting 2 industry. So that's something that's obviously beyond 3 what certainly Alliance-Atlantis can discuss, but 4 that's an objective that they have. 5 21364 The second point that Michael has 6 touched on is it is a finite amount of money. As 7 opposed to tax credits, which are not capped, it is 8 finite. It's a very tough competition for those 9 dollars. Those dollars go in generally the most 10 Canadian shows. They are very precious dollars to 11 access and have been used very prudently by both 12 broadcasters in terms of licensing shows and producers 13 who have produced shows. But when we come right down 14 to it, it is a finite amount of money that can fund 15 only so many shows. 16 21365 I think we have to be careful that 17 where the broadcaster is also the supplier and has the 18 ability to self-deal and determine what licence fees 19 are and that type of thing, that seems to us to put the 20 producer that is not vertically integrated in a very 21 disadvantaged position, and I think that's fundamental 22 to what is really the issue: How do you ensure that 23 there is safeguards for those players that are not 24 vertically integrated? 25 21366 I suppose the day could come where a StenoTran 4617 1 private broadcaster's affiliated production company 2 wanted to produce for an unrelated broadcaster and, 3 while that seems kind of remote, that would not seem to 4 be problematic because there is no self-dealing 5 involved. I think this is a difficult one, but really 6 I think it's about ensuring that existing Telefilm 7 Canada rules continue. 8 21367 THE CHAIRPERSON: And in some of the 9 comments that are made about what safeguards could be 10 implemented, I guess they are made in the context of 11 if, by any chance, there should be a relaxation it 12 should be reigned in in the following fashion? 13 21368 MR. MacMILLAN: Sorry, relaxation of 14 access to Telefilm? 15 21369 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 16 21370 MR. MacMILLAN: That's right. 17 21371 THE CHAIRPERSON: And that's when you 18 raise conditions similar to those applied to Show Case 19 and History where you would have a limited number or 20 you couldn't do it or -- 21 21372 MR. MacMILLAN: In fact, the Show 22 Case and History obligations, as I have come to 23 understand them recently, are far, far, far tougher 24 than these obligations that we are talking about here 25 because they prohibit original production that is cable StenoTran 4618 1 fund or tax credit or of any sort from a related 2 production company, i.e., from Alliance-Atlantis. So 3 the rules that we hope to be operating under with Show 4 Case at some point in the future are much tougher than 5 these that we are describing here for conventional 6 broadcasters. 7 21373 If I can just add on the difference 8 between Telefilm Canada equity money and the other 9 sources of funds, Global, yesterday, in their 10 presentation, made the interesting and accurate 11 observation that for ten point shows or the more 12 indigenous, more Canadian shows, while there are other 13 parts of their chart with the flags that were very 14 incorrect, I thought, one of the correct aspects was 15 that they noted that the highly Canadian shows had the 16 Canadian broadcaster at the centre of the process, that 17 it was being made specifically with their needs in 18 mind, which is terrific and appropriate. And it's 19 those shows that tend to need Telefilm Canada 20 financing. If the Canadian broadcaster is the key 21 broadcaster, is the driver of that, far more than the 22 so-called industrial shows, that means that the 23 existence or not of an arm's length relationship 24 between broadcaster and producer is all that much more 25 relevant, and that's one of the reasons why we see StenoTran 4619 1 Telefilm equity money being somewhat different than all 2 the other sorts of money available in the system. 3 21374 THE CHAIRPERSON: And should remain 4 as they are? 5 21375 MR. MacMILLAN: And should remain as 6 they are. In other words, the buyer and the seller 7 should not be related. But for clarity, if a 8 broadcaster or a broadcaster-related producer -- if 9 Fireworks, now owned by CanWest, wants to make a 10 program with Telefilm money and licence it to the CBC 11 or to CTV, God bless them. That should be allowed. 12 21376 THE CHAIRPERSON: And who would 13 monitor that; Telefilm? 14 21377 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes. 15 21378 THE CHAIRPERSON: And you would do 16 that via knowing what the licence fee is, as to where 17 it's going? 18 21379 MR. MacMILLAN: That's right. 19 21380 THE CHAIRPERSON: And what do you 20 define to be an independent as opposed to a related 21 relationship, as between the CanWests of the world and 22 the Fireworks of the world? You would have to come to 23 a determination of that as well. When is it you have 24 crossed the line where that type of limitation kicks 25 in? StenoTran 4620 1 21381 MR. MacMILLAN: I would define 2 independent as less than 50 per cent common ownership. 3 So if one owns 50.1 per cent of the other, whichever 4 way the relationship is, or have a common parent or 50 5 per cent owner, they are related. 6 21382 I would also say that companies are 7 related if their shareholding interest is lower than 50 8 per cent but if, as a condition of a shareholders' 9 agreement, they are legally and contractually entitled 10 to certain access to the airwaves of that channel. 11 What we are trying to get at here is the privilege of 12 the relationship between the two, and ordinarily that 13 privilege comes from being in control of both 14 companies. You can tell both companies what to do. 15 And if there is less than 50 per cent and you don't 16 have ordinary authority and control, but have 17 contractual privilege, that's sort of the same thing 18 and I would say that would also qualify as non-arm's 19 length. 20 21383 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you would start 21 with simply a de facto equity level, but then also look 22 at the relationship between the companies to establish 23 whether it's a control issue, I suppose. 24 21384 In the Alliance document, at 25 paragraph 14 of page 3, there is a sentence there that StenoTran 4621 1 of course the broadcasting industry as a whole would 2 not agree with. The very last sentence: 3 "...the brunt of financing 4 Canadian drama production is 5 today carried by the integrated 6 production/ distribution company 7 and the public sector, with 8 private sector broadcasters 9 lagging far behind " 10 21385 And what we hear from a number of 11 parties is add to the brunt, I guess, "and the 12 benefit", so that the sentence would read "the brunt 13 and the benefit of financing Canadian drama production 14 is carried by the production industry with the private 15 sector broadcasters lagging far behind." In other 16 words, we are told the production industry is doing 17 very well, thank you very much, and give us a break. 18 21386 In fact, one of the documents, the 19 Atlantis one, says, at page 5, "Canada's independent 20 production sector has also come of age", which would 21 tell you, yes, we are buoyant and doing very well. And 22 then parties raise not only the issue of giving 23 broadcasters a break, but also of saying, well, what is 24 the production industry doing with all this and should 25 they perhaps not put back something into the system StenoTran 4622 1 themselves. And one suggestion that has been raised 2 is, for example, what about a percentage of the money 3 they make when they export programming put back into 4 the fund. 5 21387 MR. MacMILLAN: I think we all want 6 to answer this question. 7 21388 First, let's go on record, from 8 yesterday's hearing, that we are not Communists. 9 1225 10 21389 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, there has 11 been a requirement for a lot of red colour on those 12 documents. 13 21390 MR. MacMILLAN: I won't pursue that 14 one. 15 21391 I think the independent industry has 16 come of age. We are far more able creatively and 17 financially than we were 10, 15 years ago, no doubt 18 about it. The pie chart on page 10 of the Atlantis 19 June 30th submission, I think, is an interesting 20 starting point to describe that ability. Not from a 21 creative point of view it doesn't describe it, but 22 financially it describes what we do for a living and 23 how we assemble the various bits and pieces of 24 financing in order to cover the million dollars or more 25 per hour that it costs to make competitive drama. StenoTran 4623 1 21392 Without commenting, quite frankly, on 2 what the broadcasters are doing, because you have to be 3 suspicious when producers want higher licence fees from 4 broadcasters, that's a natural relationship. We want 5 higher licence fees, they want to pay us lower licence 6 fees, and that's normal. So, not commenting on that, 7 commenting on the rest of this little pie chart, you 8 see, in terms of the foreign pre-sales, international 9 pre-sales, U.S. pre-sales, our distribution advances, 10 our investments in projects, not including Canadian 11 taxpayers' dollars, not including Telefilm or CTCPF or 12 tax credits that we bring to the party, a major part of 13 the financing, roughly 70 per cent. 14 21393 We expect rewards commensurate with 15 our risk. That goes to the point of not being 16 communists. We do think that the brunt and the rewards 17 should be commensurate, but I would also argue, though, 18 that for the broadcasters they have not done nearly as 19 badly as they might have led you to believe during this 20 hearing as to the financial viability of airing 21 Canadian drama. 22 21394 I think that Steve wanted to wade in 23 here. 24 21395 MR. ORD: Perhaps a few years back, 25 say if we went 10 years back, it was possible to StenoTran 4624 1 finance a big budget Canadian drama 100 per cent out of 2 the Canadian marketplace. In our experience -- and we 3 can really only talk from our own experience -- those 4 days are long gone. Every single drama show that 5 Alliance Atlantis produces relies on our sister 6 distribution company putting up money against rights 7 that may have value, may have no value. Risking money, 8 we invest our own money. 9 21396 That is true with the most distinctly 10 Canadian shows. A show like "Traders" cannot be funded 11 unless our sister company puts up risk against that 12 marketplace. To put the risk into the show, one hopes 13 the show will go on for many, many years and one hopes 14 the show will be terrific and sell all over the world. 15 If we all do our jobs well, that does happen. 16 21397 If we don't do our jobs well or the 17 audience does not relate to the program, then that is 18 money that is simply lost. I think the numbers that we 19 have put together based on our own experience is we are 20 risking money on every show that we do. To us that is 21 a very significant contribution to the system. 22 21398 Just two other points on that. We 23 have also seen a period where production costs have 24 risen a lot and as licence fees have not increased -- 25 in fact they have decreased as production costs have StenoTran 4625 1 gone up -- that gap is largely being paid for by 2 production companies like ours and others and 3 distribution companies. So, we feel we are making a 4 big contribution to the system. 5 21399 THE CHAIRPERSON: Of course, their 6 argument is: We provide the screens, trigger the 7 licence fee and have to struggle to make all this work 8 while you get the funds and the tax credits. You would 9 agree, I gather, that it's not quite fair to include 10 all the tax credits that eventually you get back. I 11 understand you may underwrite them for a period. You 12 probably were here or maybe it was the CFTPA. You have 13 to be careful about what tax credits really mean in the 14 end when you add up just what each party provides. 15 Would you agree? 16 21400 MR. MacMILLAN: I do agree and I 17 recall that discussion where we were dancing around 18 whether it was public money or not. 19 21401 THE CHAIRPERSON: Or who gets the 20 benefit of it at the end. 21 21402 MR. MacMILLAN: We all benefit 22 because we get a better show partly underwritten with 23 taxpayers' dollars, the broadcaster benefits, the 24 producer benefits, and so on. 25 21403 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, but it's the StenoTran 4626 1 pies that raise hackles, how small, how thin is the pie 2 of one compared to the other, and there is various ways 3 of putting all that together. 4 21404 MR. MacMILLAN: And I understand, but 5 just for clarity, the pie chart in the Atlantis 6 submission shows that as of earlier this year, it was 7 reflecting on the most recent $523 million of 8 production undertaken by Atlantis. So, it's enough 9 different shows, I think, to begin to be statistically 10 valid. It's not skewed by one show. 11 21405 In it it says that 70 per cent was 12 money either put up by Atlantis, now Alliance Atlantis, 13 or assembled by pre-sales. This is not tax dollars, 14 not Telefilm, not Cable Fund. It's 70 per cent 15 compared to 8 per cent Canadian broadcaster licence 16 fees and 1 per cent Canadian broadcaster investment. 17 That 70 per cent that we are assembling or investing of 18 our funds is not all guaranteed. It's not a slam dunk 19 and there is a bit of a myth that suggests that every 20 dollar of international sales is somehow gravy into our 21 retirement accounts. That's not the case. 22 21406 We have to, first of all, recoup 23 these investments with those international sales and, 24 as we do, the money in the first place wasn't going 25 necessarily to profit, it was going, first of all, to StenoTran 4627 1 pay for the significant -- i.e., a million bucks an 2 hour -- cost of making these programs. 3 21407 THE CHAIRPERSON: You agree, I 4 gather, in the distribution argument that a bidding 5 process for broadcasters as distributors would be 6 acceptable, or do you? 7 21408 MR. MacMILLAN: In the example cited, 8 I guess, by CTV of a series this year, I know that each 9 of Alliance and Atlantis were invited to put bids in on 10 that show. We didn't. Neither one of us felt it made 11 creative or business sense to come up with a number 12 that was satisfactory to the producer and the producer 13 ended up going to a British company. So, I can see in 14 that sort of circumstance it's very difficult to argue 15 why -- if there was another Canadian distributor or 16 even a broadcaster-related one, in this case CTV, who 17 wanted to acquire rights, why couldn't they? 18 21409 The trick here, though, is to make 19 sure that producers who don't have any affiliation, who 20 aren't part of vertically integrated companies aren't 21 shut out of the whole system. So, it would have to be 22 very clearly and publicly monitored in a way that made 23 that bidding completely separate from the decision to 24 licence in the first place and totally separate from 25 the actual negotiation of the licence fee as well. StenoTran 4628 1 21410 MR. ORD: One other point I think 2 it's important to make is that this is an issue that is 3 only about Telefilm Canada funded projects. There is 4 no policy that says broadcasters cannot distribute 5 shows that they produce internationally. There are no 6 policies. It's really only a Telefilm Canada 7 restriction. So, therefore, such an open monitoring 8 process is not all shows, it's simply those shows that 9 are funded by Telefilm that broadcasters would desire 10 to bid on the rights. 11 21411 THE CHAIRPERSON: To complete the 12 discussion of whether producers are doing so well and 13 are getting so much apple pie that they should put some 14 back in, what is your view as to whether that would be 15 a fair requirement? Obviously, it would not be one 16 that the Commission would have any control in, it would 17 be via the Fund somehow. 18 21412 MR. MacMILLAN: It's difficult 19 because there is so many different shapes and sizes of 20 independent producers. The CFTPA, I think, has 300 21 different members ranging from many ma and pa 22 operations, mid-sized companies, a number of large 23 ones, including ours, and it would be very difficult to 24 figure out what some structural obligation ought to be. 25 21413 However, most producers, and StenoTran 4629 1 certainly the larger ones, are spending a lot of money 2 every year on developing projects, on hiring and paying 3 for writers and directors and other producers to 4 develop projects, many of which never ever happen, and 5 the costs of which are simply written off. So, we 6 spend over $10 million a year in that sort of program 7 R&D and other large companies would spend similar 8 amounts pro rata. So, we would do that. 9 21414 We also participate -- and Christine 10 might want to talk about this a bit more -- in the 11 promotion of Canadian shows. We don't do enough. We 12 are doing much more than we used to do and I would 13 encourage Telefilm and the Cable Fund to put up 14 specific obligations for producers to be much more 15 proactive in how they help broadcasters promote. 16 21415 Christine, did you want to talk about 17 that? 18 21416 MS SHIPTON: We all agree if we are 19 going to produce these Canadian shows, we have to have 20 people watching them. The broadcasters know that, we 21 know that as producers. We don't want to just produce 22 something just to get it on air and have no reaction 23 back, no feedback. Promotion and a specific kind of 24 promotion is the only way to tackle that. 25 21417 I am from the Alliance side of the StenoTran 4630 1 merger. I have had very good experience with a number 2 of broadcasters in the last couple of years in terms of 3 partnering on promotional campaigns and strategies. 4 It's not just about putting hard dollars on the table, 5 it's about approach, it's about positioning, it's about 6 the overall look of the show, what to do with the 7 stars. I know you had conversations earlier about the 8 star promotion and it's something that's extremely 9 important to us. 10 21418 THE CHAIRPERSON: And you feel that 11 that is putting back into the system as the independent 12 production companies come of age? 13 21419 MS SHIPTON: It is a type of putting 14 back into the system that would result in success that 15 could only help other Canadian productions also feed 16 off that success. 17 21420 MR. MacMILLAN: I am just going to 18 observe -- and I'm not sure of the exact numbers from 19 the Alliance side of the merger, but from the Atlantis 20 side for each of the past three or four years our 21 distribution advances and our direct investments in our 22 Canadian dramas in each year exceeded the total 23 Canadian broadcaster licence fees on those shows. So, 24 I submit we do invest in the system. 25 21421 THE CHAIRPERSON: There are some more StenoTran 4631 1 specific proposals put forward in the Atlantis brief at 2 page 14, paragraphs 55 and 56, where there is a 3 recommendation that financial commitments to promotion 4 should be a condition for access to the licence fee and 5 the EIP program and there is a suggestion as to how 6 this could be done and shared between the broadcaster 7 and the producer. So, you would see that as a 8 recommendation to the Fund that this be a requirement? 9 21422 MR. SHIPTON: Yes. 10 21423 THE CHAIRPERSON: Would it be just 11 voluntary or would it be that the Fund would say, "Over 12 and above the licence fee, when you come to us, the 13 financial commitment should include an additional 14 percentage shared between the producer and the 15 broadcaster in a one-third/two-thirds proportion, 16 although inverted, one-third for the producer. Is that 17 how you would see that as added to the terms and 18 conditions for getting access to the Fund? 19 21424 MS SHIPTON: I believe this 20 suggestion was put here and filed as an example of how 21 one might impose some regulation and it would have to 22 be at the Fund level, as you suggest. In reality, if 23 you look at what this particular suggestion is 24 suggesting, it's quite minuscule. Fifteen per cent of 25 a $150,000 licence fee is not a large amount and I StenoTran 4632 1 would propose that at least five times that amount is 2 spent on a proper promotion campaign. But it was 3 placed here to get people starting to think about how 4 to concretely put into place some suggestions for the 5 partnership that needs to be put into effect. 6 21425 MR. MacMILLAN: Christine is right. 7 Our proposal was remarkably tight-fisted. I don't know 8 what we were thinking exactly. Fifteen per cent is a 9 tiny amount of a licence fee, but our point, our thrust 10 remains. 11 21426 THE CHAIRPERSON: But it was also 12 tight-fisted in another way in that the last sentence 13 says: 14 "Any such requirement should be 15 separate and distinct from 16 existing regulatory obligations, 17 and ineligible to fulfil CRTC 18 Canadian program spending 19 requirements." 20 21427 MR. MacMILLAN: I also meant it was 21 tight-fisted in that the obligation that this imposed 22 on the producer was minuscule and we think should be 23 much larger an obligation on the producer than is 24 suggested. 25 21428 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, the ratios you StenoTran 4633 1 mean? 2 21429 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes, the ratio was -- 3 21430 THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought you 4 referred to the 15 per cent. 5 21431 MR. MacMILLAN: Both. Fifteen per 6 cent is a remarkably low amount. 7 21432 THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought you were 8 referring to the 15 per cent of budget, I guess, is 9 what it would be. 10 21433 MR. MacMILLAN: No, it's of all 11 licence fees. 12 21434 THE CHAIRPERSON: Ah, yes, yes. 13 21435 MR. MacMILLAN: It's actually not a 14 lot of money and it was tilted towards the broadcasters 15 and not enough on the producers' shoulders. So, on 16 thinking about it some more, we would increase the 17 actual amount of money and probably redress the balance 18 and make it more like 50/50. 19 21436 THE CHAIRPERSON: But keep it out of 20 eligibility to meeting spending requirements? 21 21437 MR. MacMILLAN: That is correct. 22 21438 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if 23 it's something that as a producer you are concerned 24 about because, although the CFTPA did speak about this 25 first run and how that's defined, I don't know if you StenoTran 4634 1 feel that that's a broadcasting issue more than a 2 producer issue or, after hearing the various 3 definitions, whether you have any comments about what 4 it is that the Commission should retain. 5 21439 MR. MacMILLAN: Like all of these 6 issues, it's a bit of a tough one because you are 7 balancing, on one hand, our obligations that we want to 8 be greater than the current obligations and yet we 9 don't want to be unrealistic. On the other hand, we 10 want to encourage new programming, not just repeats of 11 the same old shows and, therefore, unlimited broadcasts 12 qualifying as first run would not meet that end. 13 21440 It may be in fact that the first two 14 runs should qualify as first run, including any bonuses 15 applicable to those runs, and that a subsequent run, as 16 long as taken within the first two years, could qualify 17 as first run, but without the bonus attached. I know 18 you have about 15 different variations of this model, 19 but I think you would want to make sure that there is a 20 fairly short time frame on which a first run can be 21 taken so that it's not four or five years down the 22 road -- we want to encourage new programs -- and not 23 probably unlimited because otherwise you could see one 24 or two shows stripped daily gobbling up all this time. 25 21441 But that said, there may be some StenoTran 4635 1 useful constructive compromise where the first two runs 2 could include the bonus treatment and a subsequent run, 3 as long as taken within 24 months, could count, but 4 without the bonus. 5 21442 THE CHAIRPERSON: And we already have 6 experience with that, because I believe that's what is 7 done now with drama production. Well, it's as many 8 runs as you can, I think, within the first two years. 9 You would limit it to two? 10 21443 MR. MacMILLAN: Right, but we would 11 apply -- 12 21444 THE CHAIRPERSON: Within the two 13 years. 14 21445 MR. MacMILLAN: But we would let the 15 bonuses apply and that currently is not the case. 16 21446 THE CHAIRPERSON: You mean under 17 1995-48? Under the current rules? 18 21447 MR. MacMILLAN: Currently, it applies 19 to 50/60. 20 21448 THE CHAIRPERSON: This may also be, 21 you may feel, a broadcaster question, but we have asked 22 whether this -- let me rephrase. The CFTPA has said, 23 which I gather you will both agree with both 24 submissions, that 7:00 to 11:00 be the time frame 25 within which under-represented categories have to be StenoTran 4636 1 exhibited and there has been some questions raised as 2 to whether the argument put forward by broadcasters, 3 which is not new, is that the 7:00 to 8:00 hour is good 4 for family drama. 5 21449 Do you feel that there could be a 6 danger that there would be an over-production of this 7 type? Global yesterday indicated that that would not 8 be the case, but do you think that's a preoccupation 9 that the Commission should have? 10 21450 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes, it is a risk, 11 not so much because 7:00 o'clock is earlier and fewer 12 people are watching -- and that is true, fewer folks 13 are watching at 7:00 o'clock, but more that at 8:00 14 o'clock simultaneous substitution opportunities become 15 available. That's what I think would drive a 16 scheduling decision to want to put a Canadian show that 17 was not substitutable into a 7:00 to 8:00 o'clock slot, 18 liberating more 8:00 to 11:00 time for shows that could 19 be simultaneously substituted. 20 1245 21 21451 I think there is a danger, and we do 22 have a concern about that. On the other hand, the 23 homes using television between 7 and 8 are probably 80 24 per cent of those using television at 8:00 o'clock, it 25 is less, but it is not off the cliff less. So, we have StenoTran 4637 1 proposed 7 to 11. We do see a risk, as you are 2 describing, but it is one that we think makes sense, on 3 balance. 4 21452 THE CHAIRPERSON: One would think 5 that the risk would be minimized somewhat, wouldn't it, 6 depending on how many hours one has to do of 7 under-represented categories? 8 21453 MR. MacMILLAN: We think it is 9 unlikely that a broadcaster would want to schedule 10 10 hours, although with bonuses it is really less than 10 11 hours, depending how one uses them but, in any event, 12 schedule all those hours only with so-called family 13 fare from 7 to 8. If they did that, and met their 14 spending obligations, they are probably getting a good 15 rating. 16 21454 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, an easy 17 question: In the Atlantis submission at page 23 there 18 is an exhortation to the Commission to encourage more 19 cooperation with the CBC. I would like to know how you 20 propose that this be done -- 23, paragraph 114, the 21 very last paragraph: 22 "The CBC and private sector 23 broadcasters should be 24 encouraged --" 25 21455 I guess you mean by us. StenoTran 4638 1 "-- to enter into co-operative 2 acquisition or co-licensing 3 arrangements, such as is the 4 case...with "Traders"..." 5 21456 Do you see us play a role in that, or 6 the fund or simply when we speak to the CBC at its 7 renewal you will -- 8 21457 MR. MacMILLAN: Whisper nice things 9 in their ear. 10 21458 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- you will appear 11 and intervene to tell them to cooperate better with the 12 production industry? 13 21459 MR. MacMILLAN: One thought we did 14 have, and it is sort of an obvious one, I suppose, but 15 we have a concern with it because it becomes one of a 16 list of many, many, many shows that can be bonused, and 17 we have a concern about bonusing ourselves to death and 18 starting at 10 hours and ending up back down at five or 19 something like that. 20 21460 But when we wrote this we were 21 thinking that, maybe, there could be a structural 22 encouragement for private broadcasters to share 23 resources with the CBC, who need all the allies and 24 supporters they can get. We have got a small country; 25 we need to pool resources. We thought if there was StenoTran 4639 1 some bonus for a program that did harness both, it 2 might be a smart thing. 3 21461 We haven't specifically said it here 4 because we have been concerned about bonuses for this 5 and that and everything else and, at a certain point, 6 it could undermine the effectiveness of whatever number 7 of hours you start with off the top. 8 21462 It also depends on what the bonuses 9 are. People say 150 and 200, and Kevin Shea mentioned 10 they are going to come back in writing with 250 per 11 cent, apparently -- I think he was kidding, but -- I am 12 sure he was kidding. He has a well developed sense of 13 humour. But it depends what the percentage bonuses 14 are. But that is what we are getting at here, some 15 sort of bonus, but we have an overall concern about too 16 many bonuses and the stackability of bonuses. 17 21463 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, that raises an 18 interesting question. When we speak about bonuses we 19 always speak about what I term clawing back hours. 20 Could it be, if we do have spending requirements, could 21 it be that the money spent on cooperative ventures with 22 the CBC be bonused up? Is that a possibility? 23 21464 MR. MacMILLAN: Sure it is. It is a 24 good idea. I hadn't thought of that before, but 25 that... StenoTran 4640 1 21465 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have always 2 thought of bonusing by drawing back the hours. We 3 could bonus by pulling up the value of the money spent. 4 21466 MR. MacMILLAN: Sure. That has merit 5 and it should be thought through. I will say that when 6 CBC came into "Traders" a year and a bit ago there was 7 some controversy in terms of whose licence fee was 8 going to be the one that triggered the Telefilm Canada 9 investment and so on. We have to think all the 10 ramifications of that through. But my initial reaction 11 is that that could be smart. 12 21467 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because I certainly 13 agree with you that the harnessing of capacity of both, 14 especially if the fund remains devoted or allocated in 15 large part to the CBC, would seem intelligent for the 16 system as a whole. 17 21468 Now, yesterday, Global added a grid 18 to the CAB idea about audience viewership levels and 19 showed us more schematically how one could do that and 20 also from a data point of view, and also told us that 21 if we actually did that it would have a great moral 22 suasion ability to push further into more exhibition, 23 et cetera. 24 21469 What is your reaction to the CAB 25 audience level proposal when it is seen in a more StenoTran 4641 1 practically measurable context, and if you take into 2 consideration Global's view that it would not be a 3 regulatory mechanism as such, but an important aspect 4 of the Commission's push toward its goals? 5 21470 MR. MacMILLAN: I don't think it 6 works. 7 21471 Yes, we want Canadians to watch 8 Canadian shows, but the be all and end all isn't just 9 everybody piling in to watch two or three shows in 10 enormous numbers. There is a great deal to be said for 11 variety and choice. That grid that we saw yesterday 12 would have only created moral suasion or embarrassment 13 or applause, depending on where you ranked on the list, 14 to those who had the biggest total audience numbers. 15 21472 If you talk about the Broadcasting 16 Act, it seems to me that amongst the things that it 17 strives for is variety and diversity. We can't only 18 have the equivalent of mass market paper backs 19 available. We have to have a much wider range than 20 that. That grid, to me, would have sent the mass 21 market paper back equivalent to the front of the class 22 and made everybody else feel like second class 23 citizens. That is not what I think the Broadcasting 24 Act is talking about. 25 21473 THE CHAIRPERSON: Interestingly, when StenoTran 4642 1 I read many of these, and I see sentences that say, "We 2 want Canadian audiences and Canadian audience level," I 3 always have the urge to put "some audience level" 4 because that is an argument -- well, back and forth 5 discussion about what quality means; what is it the 6 Commission is after; is there a danger that it will 7 reduce everything to a common denominator. And when 8 you look at audience levels I guess this is the point 9 you are making as well as you should add the word 10 "some". There should be diversity and there should be 11 some decent audience levels to the variety of Canadian 12 programs put forward; some decent audience levels to 13 documentaries; and, perhaps, it will be larger to soap 14 operas or drama, but nevertheless both have value and 15 you can't say, 80 per cent here and 35 per cent here is 16 not identical, possibly, if you look at the entire 17 goals that we are after and what the act tells us we 18 should push toward. 19 21474 MR. MacMILLAN: That is right, and 20 not only in raw numbers but also who they are and that 21 grid didn't, for example, comment on is that measuring 22 all the viewers or 18 to 49 or 25 to 54 where there is 23 a lot of advertising sold on. 24 21475 What about 55-plus? There is not -- 25 a lot of advertising would totally disregard 55-plus as StenoTran 4643 1 a useful demographic for buying and selling ads. If I 2 were 55-plus, I would think that that would 3 disenfranchise me from this discussion. 4 21476 THE CHAIRPERSON: Those are my 5 questions. My colleagues have some. I apologize. 6 This has been a little bit -- I had prepared for both 7 presentations discretely before finding out yesterday 8 that you were appearing concurrently, and it has been 9 what we call in French décousu, it is not quite sown up 10 together properly, but I hope it has worked 11 nevertheless and that my colleagues will pick up where 12 I did not cover everything. 13 21477 Is there anything else you feel in 14 the circumstances that you would have liked to question 15 on and didn't get any? As long as you don't ask me 16 any. 17 21478 MR. MacMILLAN: I think we better 18 wait to see what other questions come first. 19 21479 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good idea, you are 20 getting on to this process. 21 21480 Commissioner Cardozo. 22 21481 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam 23 Chair. 24 21482 I would like to pick up on a couple 25 of things you said today and a couple of things that StenoTran 4644 1 other people have said. You seem to be saying in your 2 presentation today that CTV is in sync with you in 3 terms of 10/10/10, but my understanding of what Mr. 4 Fecan said yesterday was that it was just not on. 5 21483 Could you clarify that for me? 6 21484 MR. MacMILLAN: Sorry, I would not 7 want to leave the impression that we are alleging that 8 CTV is saying 10/10/10. 9 21485 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You said that 10 they are philosophically in the same vein as you seem 11 to be. You seem to be much more definitive in saying 12 that -- 13 21486 MR. MacMILLAN: I think they were 14 saying seven hours. But the difference is our 15 understanding of CTV's presentation yesterday -- and 16 there are differences, let us be clear, between CTV's 17 proposal and ours -- is that CTV said seven hours, but 18 the 150 per cent bonus was not applicable against those 19 seven hours. It was that that 150 bonus was applicable 20 against the 50-60; and our 10-hour proposal, as revised 21 after hearing the discussion over the past few months, 22 is that the 10 hours -- and as Alliance always said -- 23 that the 10 hours does include bonusing. 24 21487 So, depending on how many hours of 25 those 10 are bonusable hours, it could be that the gap, StenoTran 4645 1 the apparent gap between 7 and 10 is nowhere as large 2 as it first might appear; but there are still 3 differences between the two suggestions. 4 21488 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: On the matter 5 of 22 episodes, I see that both Global and CTV raised 6 the concern that they want to go to 22, and I take it 7 the difference between the two is that CTV was more 8 specific in suggesting a solution than Global was. 9 21489 MR. MacMILLAN: Correct. I am 10 actually amazed that this focus on 22 and the solution 11 from CTV to my knowledge only bubbled up yesterday. We 12 have been wrestling with this issue for years. It is a 13 huge problem. I really welcomed it yesterday as a 14 contribution to the discussion. 15 21490 The difference between making 13 and 16 22 is night and day. Selling 13 internationally, very 17 difficult. In Canada, getting an audience for 13, very 18 difficult. For the broadcaster to have continuity of 19 scheduling and to make it worth their while to invest 20 in promotion, only to take it off the air because you 21 have run out of episodes, is a terrible, terrible 22 thing. 23 21491 Broadcasters and producers often try 24 and figure out ways how to stretch from 13 to 22 just 25 to get there, and this suggestion yesterday I thought StenoTran 4646 1 was a really useful one. I don't know if, Christine, 2 you wanted to add to that. 3 21492 MS SHIPTON: I think the only thing 4 to add is that the value of 22 episodes is viewer 5 loyalty. You just keep your audience that much longer 6 and it just will build on it. 7 21493 MR. ORD: One other thing. We often 8 get a lot of audience feedback through our Internet 9 sites and a lot of Canadian consumers, of course, 10 wouldn't understand the business of film and television 11 production -- I am sure some are interested, probably 12 most are not -- and don't understand why when you put a 13 show on the air in September you run out of episodes at 14 Christmastime when the U.S. shows that they also watch 15 keep going all the way to the spring, and will say to 16 us, "Why did you cancel the show?" And we say, "No, 17 no. We only made 13. We have got to wait until next 18 September to have another 13." And that is a discord 19 with the audience. 20 21494 So we were pleased to hear that 21 because that has been a concern of ours for many years. 22 21495 MS SHIPTON: It is a very good point. 23 The viewer assumes the show has been cancelled. They 24 assume a negative, which is horrendous for us. 25 21496 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: On the matter StenoTran 4647 1 of incentives for Cancon minimums on page 9 of your 2 oral presentation today you made an intriguing 3 suggestion that broadcasters be permitted to sell more 4 than 12 minutes per hour for advertising. I haven't 5 seen that before in this hearing. 6 21497 We had some discussion about 7 advertising earlier on with some of the advertisers and 8 they were talking about advertising clutter, which 9 surprised me. I would have thought they would just 10 want as much access to advertising. I guess the thing 11 there is there can be too much advertising at which 12 point people turn off. 13 21498 I can see it as being an incentive to 14 a broadcaster if they can get a few more minutes of 15 advertising. I am wondering if there is a disincentive 16 inherent in that inasmuch as I look at TV viewing you 17 have got to keep attracting a viewer every five seconds 18 or they click on to something else. If there is too 19 many advertisements, you have lost them. Isn't there a 20 grave danger with having too many minutes of 21 advertising? 22 21499 MR. MacMILLAN: Absolutely. In fact, 23 that is one of the reasons why we think the suggestion 24 might work in that we think it would be unlikely to be 25 abused because a broadcaster would have to think long StenoTran 4648 1 and hard, and it would have to ultimately obey the 2 market, because if they got too tempted and too greedy 3 and wanted to really drive 12 minutes up to 20 minutes, 4 well, their viewers would go away. They would have to 5 respect what actually worked. 6 21500 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Which is 7 probably 12 minutes. 8 21501 MR. MacMILLAN: Quite possibly. I am 9 not sure. 10 21502 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: What is 11 interesting is that now the broadcasters have asked for 12 more than 12 minutes. It seems to me that they think 13 that the 12 minutes is the optimum. 14 21503 MR. MacMILLAN: Right. We were 15 trying to figure out some carrots for the system. We 16 were trying to figure out how could we bring more money 17 into the system and this seemed one way and we thought 18 the likelihood for abuse or distortion in the market 19 was limited because the broadcasters would want to not 20 chase their viewers away. It is an opportunity to 21 bring advertising to Canadian content overachievers, it 22 seemed like a reasonable benefit. 23 21504 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Let me come to 24 something that Mr. Nielsen said when he was on a couple 25 of weeks ago and he was talking about the size of StenoTran 4649 1 production companies. He was talking about your 2 company. He said: 3 "By definition, bigness 4 encourages centralization as 5 does broadcasting --" 6 21505 Just for the record, this is on page 7 1501 of the transcript: 8 "By definition, bigness 9 encourages centralization as 10 does broadcasting, thus 11 compounding the problems 12 centralization causes. To 13 survive, smaller companies have 14 to be creatively driven while 15 bigness inevitably means that 16 the programs will be deal driven 17 and the creators forced to 18 follow on. 19 The result of deal driven 20 television is imitative 21 television, like "Traders" which 22 foreigners tend not to buy 23 because it is not the real 24 thing, which is readily 25 available from Hollywood with StenoTran 4650 1 bigger stars and better 2 production values." 3 21506 And I juxtapose that with what Mr. 4 Fecan said yesterday, I think it was something to the 5 effect the particular is the universal and if you don't 6 base your story in a place it won't have universal 7 value either. 8 21507 I am sorry to bring up that paragraph 9 on the heals of your winning the Gemini which I 10 congratulate you for but... 11 21508 MR. MacMILLAN: That is fine. 12 21509 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: It is not our 13 job to do PR for you, but to look at some of these 14 issues seriously. 15 21510 What are your thoughts on that? 16 21511 MR. MacMILLAN: Before we get to the 17 meat of the issue, we are very proud of "Traders" and 18 it is very overtly set on Bay Street, the references, 19 the characters, the plot lines, everything about it 20 shout Canada and downtown Toronto. So I don't know 21 what the reference there is about set in some uncertain 22 or unspecific place. 23 21512 Putting that aside, really the meat 24 of the issue is: Does bigness create centralization? 25 I am not sure if you meant that -- if Dick Nielsen StenoTran 4651 1 meant that in a geography point of view, or just more 2 of a metaphorical sense, but Christine may want to talk 3 about her experience prior to the merger and, in fact, 4 our plans after the merger of working with other 5 producers, because we in fact see one of the benefits 6 of bigness and one of the reasons why we merged was so 7 that we could be more attractive to independent 8 creative producers and provide them a base and a 9 partnership with which to work, but Christine might 10 want to talk about that. 11 21513 MS SHIPTON: In my mind, high quality 12 television starts with the best high quality writing. 13 Writing has no bounds. Writers live everywhere and it 14 is my job, and has been my job, to find those writers 15 and to dig them out of whatever hole they are in and 16 bring them forward. 17 21514 So, in doing that, it means I get to 18 travel across the country. I get to work with 19 different producers, different directors and, 20 obviously, different writers and encourage those 21 writers to write stories that are important to them and 22 that are reflective of their experience in this country 23 that other Canadians are going to want to see and 24 experience. 25 1305 StenoTran 4652 1 21515 I guess you just have to look at our 2 track record of the production companies and the 3 writers and writer-producers that we have worked with 4 to say that there is no geography here, whether it's us 5 distributing a show like "Black Harbour" from the East 6 Coast or "Da Vinci's Inquest" from the West Coast -- 7 "Da Vinci's Inquest" and "Black Harbour" are written by 8 our top writer-producers in this country -- or us 9 co-producing a show like "Nothing Too Good For a 10 Cowboy" in Vancouver. We are also financing "The David 11 Milgaard" story out of Winnipeg. 12 21516 I mean the story will drive where it 13 geographically is going to be set and it will be 14 written and produced by the creators and the creative 15 community from those different communities. 16 21517 So I am puzzled by the comment of 17 centralization because not everybody lives in Toronto; 18 they just don't. 19 21518 MR. MacMILLAN: Also, we would agree 20 with Ivan Fecan's comment yesterday about how 21 specificity and locality in fact can create the power 22 of a story and of characters that give it precisely 23 it's appeal. We see that, and that's why we develop 24 and chase opportunities to work with people like the 25 creators of "Black Harbour" and "Nothing Too Good For a StenoTran 4653 1 Cowboy", et cetera. 2 21519 MS SHIPTON: Just for the record, I 3 think it's important to say I don't go find these 4 writer-producers and tell them what to write. I don't 5 go and say, you know, Ivan Fecan wants a story that's 6 written about lawyers or something. It's about what's 7 out there, what's good. 8 21520 Tons of submissions come to me for my 9 opinion in terms of, gee, would this work, or is 10 somebody looking for this kind of story, but this is 11 not about us telling people what to write and create. 12 21521 MR. ORD: By way of another example, 13 we are very fortunate to be working with a terrific 14 company in Vancouver called Keitly McLeod. We, with 15 them, produce a show called "Cold Squad" which is one 16 of the new hit shows on CTV. We first worked with 17 Keitly McLeod about fours year ago as a distributor on 18 a pilot that they did for WIC that did not go to 19 series. 20 21522 We liked them so much that they 21 developed a show called "Cold Squad" and came to us 22 saying, how can you help us get this on the air, how 23 can you help us finance this. We are now pleased that 24 it's in its second season and is selling very well 25 around the world and is getting very good audiences in StenoTran 4654 1 Canada. 2 21523 So we are always looking for 3 opportunities to work with people. It does not matter 4 where they come from. 5 21524 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, just 6 flowing from that, you talked about shouting Bay 7 Street, shouting downtown Toronto. Let me get some 8 advice from you on the issue of cultural diversity and 9 how we see that better reflected, or reflected on our 10 screens. Bear with me, I just want it go through this 11 for a couple of minutes because I recognize the 12 experience you have and I would like your views on 13 this. 14 21525 As you will probably be aware, we 15 heard from community groups in the last couple of weeks 16 that they tend to see minorities either not seen or 17 reflected in a negative role, crime oriented and so 18 forth. Part of my reaction was yes; part of it was old 19 hat, we have heard this line for a long time, surely 20 things are changing. But they did not have research to 21 back it up and I was a little sceptical so I did my own 22 little research over one week, randomly picked, which 23 happened to last week, and let me tell you what I 24 found. 25 21526 I looked at "Traders" and I saw one StenoTran 4655 1 minority person in a sort of key role, who was noted as 2 a guest appearance. She had two speaking roles 3 throughout the show and spoke for a total of under 60 4 seconds. There were two background people on the 5 trading floor who didn't have speaking roles. They 6 sort of walked from one end of the set to the other 7 holding folders or briefcases and stuff like that. 8 21527 Then I looked at "Da Vinci's 9 Inquest", which is distributed by your firm but not 10 produced by you, and noted that the only non-white 11 person in the first show was a reference to an 12 aboriginal person, evidently a prostitute. She had an 13 appearance last night in the second week, although at 14 this point she was a dead body. Her brother was on, 15 had two speaking roles over the course of the hour in 16 the second show, a total of 60 second. 17 21528 So I sort of see, is this a pattern 18 when you get a minority person and give them two 19 speaking roles for a total of 60 seconds. Maybe I am 20 quite off base here, but that's, I think, not 21 completely off what we see. 22 21529 There was one person of Chinese 23 origin on "Da Vinci's Inquest" last night. She was the 24 server in a Chinese restaurant where they were eating. 25 There might have been a person in the corner, staff. StenoTran 4656 1 21530 With "Riverdale" it's interesting, 2 the show where there is a lot more diversity. We 3 talked to them about it and they pointed out that one 4 of the things that happens when their show is 5 advertised internationally it tends to be advertised 6 without the non-white characters. I looked at the 7 advertising over a two-week period and it seemed to be 8 that the advertising of "Riverdale" also tended to not 9 include the minorities. 10 21531 So it says to me, here is a show that 11 can capture a wider audience, but somebody has made the 12 decision not to reflect that, perhaps, or has not 13 thought about it, and so you are losing viewers there 14 too. There are a lot of people, I would suggest, 15 minorities and others, who would like to see a diverse 16 cast and would not know that they would see one on 17 "Riverdale" because if you looked at the advertising 18 you would not see it. 19 21532 If you tell me I am wrong in those 20 examples, I would be delighted to be corrected on 21 those. 22 21533 I look at "Traders" and I say, does 23 that reflect the financial district of the day, and my 24 guess is it does not. I think, at the board room 25 level, yes, not many minorities, but on the trading StenoTran 4657 1 floor level, my sense is there are more. I know you do 2 not go tell your writers to do what they should do, but 3 I kind of wait for the day when we see a program 4 where -- a "Law and Order" program, for example, in 5 British Columbia which might have a walk-on of the 6 Attorney General of the province who happens to be a 7 Canadian Sikh, or a program that has four black guys 8 who win a medal for Canada, or a regulatory agency that 9 has more women than men on it. 10 21534 Some people think these things are 11 far out, but at what point does television imitate 12 reality? 13 21535 MS SHIPTON: I don't think you are 14 wrong at all, and just a clarification; I don't tell 15 writers what to create but once they have created it we 16 do have the ability to monitor, as executive producers, 17 distributors, financiers, and mold what it is that they 18 are producing, along with the broadcasters who have, 19 obviously, just as much at stake. 20 21536 I agree that we need to take a more 21 proactive role in reflecting on our screens our 22 communities. I think it's something that I think we 23 have heard the broadcasters agree to, or at least most 24 of them. But as producers, we have to make that vow to 25 do that. I think when you get a show like "Da Vinci" StenoTran 4658 1 which is attempting to reflect a certain arena of 2 Vancouver -- it's the only word I can use because I was 3 actually there one night on the shooting, down at 4 Hastings and Main, and to see what was there on the 5 street, you couldn't tell what was in the show and what 6 was on the street and who had needles in their arms and 7 who didn't. 8 21537 I encourage you to keep watching "Da 9 Vinci" to that extent, to see what they are reflecting 10 on the screen. That's not about diversity of race or 11 colour; that's about reflecting something that's very 12 important to that particular creator, Chris Haddock, 13 that he wants Canadian people to see something that 14 they need to know about. 15 21538 So when you get to a certain subject 16 matter, it behooves all of us to say, are we reflecting 17 this subject, this world, the best as it is. And I can 18 tell you, we need to do more of that. 19 21539 When I look at a show like "Straight 20 Up" that we produced for the CBC last year, in which 21 the producers delved into the world of teens on Yonge 22 Street, I believe we reflected what is out there on 23 Yonge Street, and that has to do with age, sex, race, 24 you name it. And again, it was part of the producer's 25 original mandate to say, I want to show what it is, StenoTran 4659 1 what's there, the texture. 2 21540 Perhaps when we get to the higher 3 concept shows we are not paying attention to that as 4 much as we should. That's my opinion. 5 21541 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You say it's 6 not about diversity, and there are different kinds of 7 things we can be looking at. One is the story of 8 immigrant groups such as "The Scattering of Seeds" and 9 yes, of course, you would obviously reflect diversity 10 there, but if it's about "Law and Order", if it's about 11 "Traders" and not about diversity, is there still 12 something wrong in reflecting that diversity? 13 21542 I guess I just wait for the day when 14 you will see a corporate board room on Bay Street just 15 happen to be more women than men. I have never seen 16 it. Correct me if I am wrong. 17 21543 MS SHIPTON: You are right. We have 18 just started production on a series called "Cover Me" 19 for CBC which follows a CSIS undercover operative and 20 an RCMP undercover operative who move through the halls 21 of power in Ottawa, and I hope that they will reflect 22 what people see in Ottawa. It's something that every 23 producer needs to be reminded of. 24 21544 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: As 25 Commissioner Wylie noted last week, the change did not StenoTran 4660 1 come naturally in terms of gender portrayal. It came 2 after a lot of prodding by the Commission task force 3 and that sort of thing. 4 21545 Do you think something of that nature 5 would help in terms of raising awareness? I do not 6 think the issue is sort of heavy regulation or quotas 7 and all that kind of stuff. We have asked this 8 question of a number of people and I have not sensed 9 people saying, no we are not going to do this. It's 10 either people saying, we do it and somehow people 11 aren't seeing it, or people have not gotten to doing it 12 for whatever reason, and I think part of it is perhaps 13 just people thinking through the various things that 14 you can show, partly because that's the reality that we 15 live in and, for social reasons, we ought to see that 16 partly because it's a business case, that you may do 17 better business wise. I don't know, maybe you won't. 18 21546 MS SHIPTON: If our goal is to have 19 successful Canadian programming, it means it has to 20 appeal to the widest possible audience. So I am 21 agreeing with you. And to reach that wide audience, we 22 have to be reaching every Canadian and therefore they 23 have to be reflected somehow. 24 21547 What we don't want to have happen is 25 that it's unnatural, that it's, okay, well we better StenoTran 4661 1 put a girl there and a French Canadian there and a 2 black there. It has to be natural. 3 21548 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Exactly. The 4 point is it seems to have been natural to have selected 5 the prostitute to be aboriginal. The writer didn't 6 think there was anything wrong there. What's 7 interesting is they even used the term "aboriginal 8 female" when the call came in over the radio phone. So 9 there was some sense of political correctness, that you 10 don't use "native" or "Indian", that you use the term 11 that aboriginal people prefer. 12 21549 But think of it; this is the big show 13 that CBC was launching. For an aboriginal person 14 watching that and thinking, hey, here's a new Canadian 15 show, it was not exactly an exhilarating experience. 16 21550 MR. MacMILLAN: I am sure it was not, 17 and we do need to do a better job. We sometimes like 18 to brag about specific projects we have made, like "The 19 War Between Us", which is about the Japanese interment 20 camps, as an example of cultural diversity. And it's 21 fine, marvellous; the problem is that we cannot only do 22 that sort of project because that can, by itself, 23 ghettoize the reflection of how diverse the country is, 24 and we need to do it day in and day out in every show. 25 21551 Your viewing test last week would not StenoTran 4662 1 lead you to believe this, because those are pretty 2 depressing results, but we actually do specifically 3 have discussions with our casting agents and our 4 individual producers specifically on this topic. 5 Specifically; please make sure you do cast and write 6 characters that are reflective, that aren't 7 pigeon-holing in a bad way or in a limiting way. We 8 obviously do not do it well enough, but we are doing 9 it. 10 21552 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: There's 11 nothing wrong in showing the negative characters, they 12 are there, but if that's all you are seeing, that's a 13 problem. 14 21553 MR. MacMILLAN: It's a serious 15 concern and we do have exactly those discussions with 16 the creative teams, but your test would not see much 17 evidence of that. 18 21554 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I hope we can 19 have this discussion a year from now and my test will 20 be completely wrong. Thank you for your comments. I 21 find those very helpful. 22 21555 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have been 23 thinking that too many Bay Street boardrooms filled 24 with women would only get on the Comedy Network. 25 21556 Commissioner Wilson. StenoTran 4663 1 21557 COMMISSIONER WILSON: My questions 2 are, I think, going be to a little easier to answer. 3 They really are some questions of clarification and 4 opinion. 5 21558 The first one refers to a comment 6 that you make on page 16 of your submission, the 7 Atlantis Communications submission. You say: 8 "The 150 % Canadian drama credit 9 appears to have had a positive 10 effect on scheduling..." 11 21559 I am just wondering in what context 12 you are really using the word "scheduling". If you are 13 talking between seven and eight and 10 and 11, there is 14 a nice little bracket there for the main prime time. 15 It certainly has not had any effect to scheduling 16 between eight and ten, so I am just wondering if you 17 could-- you did qualify by saying "appears to have 18 had". 19 21560 MR. MacMILLAN: We didn't use the 20 word "appears" in order to weasel our way out of the 21 sentence, but the word "scheduling" is probably the 22 wrong word. What we meant to say there was "has a 23 positive effect on ordering shows", because compared to 24 ten years ago there are more demonstrably or 25 identifiably Canadian dramas on the air than there were StenoTran 4664 1 ten years ago, and that's what we meant, the decision 2 to commission and schedule a show. 3 21561 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. The 4 second thing is actually on the same page in paragraph 5 65. It is just something I am curious about; not the 6 idea so much as one of the words that you use in here. 7 You say that we need a rejuvenated system of incentives 8 that emphasizes rewards rather than penalties, and you 9 have suggested a number of rewards, or carrots as you 10 have called them in your oral remarks of today. 11 21562 Maybe it's just because I have not 12 been at the Commission long enough to know, but what 13 are the penalties that you see we have in our tool box 14 to sort of fix things? I would like to know because 15 maybe I could use them. 16 21563 MR. MacMILLAN: I don't know really 17 that you have that many penalties. I think that we 18 were really referring here to our view that Canadian 19 content obligations are pretty much seen to be a 20 ceiling, not a floor. 21 21564 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Or a penalty. 22 21565 MR. MacMILLAN: And a cost of doing 23 business that some cynics might say. 24 21566 What we are trying to figure out is 25 how to make it for sure a floor and something that can StenoTran 4665 1 be exceeded and makes good business sense to make it 2 worthwhile exceeding. 3 21567 So I do not think there is penalties 4 per se, it is just that it is perceived to be an 5 onerous obligation and we just hope it could be 6 reconstructed to be a minimum. 7 21568 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Sort of just 8 shift perspective a little bit. 9 21569 Finally -- and anyone who has been 10 listening to me over the last days of this hearing will 11 understand that this seems to be a preoccupation of 12 mine, but I was very interested in the way that you 13 positioned the 32 per cent viewership, because 14 everybody else positions it as quite an awful thing and 15 you say you think it's quite remarkable that, in view 16 of all of the choices that have developed, that we have 17 been able to maintain a 32 per cent viewership share. 18 21570 I am just wondering what makes you 19 look at it that way versus everybody else who sort of 20 uses it as this benchmark of what's wrong with the 21 system and therefore we need to focus on viewership. 22 21571 MR. MacMILLAN: Well, I think that 23 others who have been wringing their hands about it have 24 not taken into account that during those seven years 25 some other things did not change. We still only have StenoTran 4666 1 seven days in the week, and there are still only 24 2 hours in each day, and people still have to eat and 3 sleep and go to work. They cannot, unfortunately, 4 watch TV all the time. The total use of TV -- 5 21572 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Unless you are 6 Peter Sellers in whatever that movie was. 7 21573 MR. MacMILLAN: The total viewing of 8 TV has remained fairly constant, I think around 20 or 9 21 hours a week, or thereabouts, for quite some time; 10 remarkably resilient given the PC. I would have 11 thought that that hourly weekly viewing would have 12 declined more. But anyway, it's still only X hours a 13 week. The choice of the books in the library or on the 14 magazine rack has increased enormously. In other 15 words, the choice of programs to watch is double, 16 triple, what it was 15 years ago. So given the same 17 finite number of hours that they are going to devote to 18 watching TV, given the huge increase in the number of 19 foreign programs that are available -- both foreign 20 programs on new Canadian services, but also foreign 21 programs on new foreign services -- I think it's bloody 22 fantastic that we have been able to keep up with that 23 avalanche, with that Niagara of opportunity and choice 24 from elsewhere and, given choice, it means that 25 Canadians could have gone to so many other places to StenoTran 4667 1 watch. 2 1325 3 21574 So, we must have improved the quality 4 and the quantity and the variety. So, I see that glass 5 as being half full or 32 per cent full, anyway. 6 21575 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So, what do we 7 need to drive it higher or does it really matter? 8 21576 MR. MacMILLAN: Please don't be left 9 with the impression that we are content. 10 21577 COMMISSIONER WILSON: No, I'm not, I 11 am just picking your brains on this one. The CAB and 12 the broadcasters would have us believe that viewership 13 is the only thing to look at it, so now I am just 14 throwing out the opposite view, which is -- 15 21578 MR. MacMILLAN: A number of things. 16 21579 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Do we need to 17 look at it at all? 18 21580 MR. MacMILLAN: Sure, absolutely. 19 It's worthwhile, absolutely, because ultimately if 20 nobody is watching, it doesn't matter. 21 21581 A number of things. In the 22 under-served categories, which seem to be predominating 23 this whole hearing, some of the suggestions about an 24 even playing field I think will stimulate the 25 production of under-served category programs, but what StenoTran 4668 1 else to do in the years ahead -- and I know it's not 2 the purview of this hearing, but what the heck -- 3 21582 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Lots of other 4 people have used this hearing to talk about other 5 things. 6 21583 MR. MacMILLAN: License more Canadian 7 specialty channels in genres that haven't yet been 8 licensed before the Americans or other non-Canadians 9 let their channels in those same genres get either too 10 embedded in this country or too well established 11 somewhere else, that by the time we get around to 12 licensing and launching Canadian versions, they will be 13 ripe to come into this country and occupy the 14 territory. 15 21584 One of the reasons why we have been 16 able to maintain our viewing has been the huge progress 17 in specialty channels and I think that looking out 10 18 years that number of 32 per cent will decline unless we 19 quickly and defiantly capture those yet unclaimed 20 genres in specialty channels. 21 21585 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I don't want to 22 leave you with the impression as well that viewership 23 is not something that I am concerned about, but I am 24 just trying to figure out how much emphasis, because 25 this number has been quoted extensively and I think StenoTran 4669 1 that it's in some ways misleading as a negative thing 2 to say, "Well, it has only been 32 per cent", because 3 there are lots of things that could have been done over 4 the years that have not been done that might have 5 increased it. 6 21586 MR. MacMILLAN: I bet if you looked 7 10, 15 years ago in any major city, such as Winnipeg, 8 the viewing of Canadian would have been shared amongst 9 four or five signals -- probably a bit more than that, 10 TSN was on the air then and so was YTV, but amongst one 11 or two handfuls of signals. Today it's shared amongst 12 30 different ones. 13 21587 So, that means that the Canadians, 14 when they exercise their right to choose to watch 15 Canadian programs 32 per cent of their time, are doing 16 so picking and choosing a much wider range of choices. 17 So, I have to think that that's good for the system 18 because that goes to the heart of the Broadcasting Act 19 in terms of diversity, of a range of choices. It's not 20 just raw viewing, it's how much choice did we really 21 have. 22 21588 COMMISSIONER WILSON: And what does 23 that represent. 24 21589 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes. 25 21590 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay, thank StenoTran 4670 1 you. 2 21591 THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel? 3 21592 MS PATTERSON: Thank you, Madam 4 Chair. 5 21593 In discussion with Commissioner 6 Wylie, Mr. Ord said that only 40 per cent of category 7 7, 8 and 9 programs have access to the funds. You have 8 also suggested that this has decreased over time. I 9 was wondering if you could tell us what database this 10 information is based on. Specifically, how did you 11 calculate the total amount of 7, 8 and 9 produced in 12 order to arrive at the 40 per cent that accesses the 13 funds? 14 21594 MR. SILKANS: The numbers I give you 15 are an approximation. Basically, if we look at the 16 levels of certified production that, say, CAVCO 17 certifies as opposed to the CRTC, it's in the range of 18 about $1.4 billion production a year. Almost all of 19 that is 7, 8 and 9 because news programming and sports 20 programming do not normally go to CAVCO because they 21 wouldn't quality. So, it's around $1.4 billion. It's 22 hard to get exact numbers. 23 21595 If we look at what Telefilm and the 24 Cable Fund support, it's somewhere around $600 million 25 of production, tops. So, if you look at it that way, StenoTran 4671 1 it's around 40 per cent. If we go back, say, five, six 2 years, the proportion was much greater. There was more 3 the anomaly to fund something without a lot of public 4 support. Today the industry has diversified its 5 ability to tap into other revenue sources and I think 6 in the submission that we put in and looked at our own 7 experience of the $500 million of production, those 8 funding sources are a minority of the full funding pie. 9 21596 MS PATTERSON: Thank you for 10 explaining that. 11 21597 My next question has to do with the 12 Atlantis Broadcasting submission. A year ago the 13 Commission included a provision in the new broadcasting 14 distribution regulations that would allow Canadian 15 specialty services to request that BDUs undertake 16 simultaneous substitution. The Commission did not make 17 the fulfilment of that request by BDUs mandatory, 18 however, for the following reasons. 19 21598 While the Commission recognized that 20 the providers of sports services would benefit from 21 simultaneous substitution in respect of a certain 22 number of live sports events for which they have 23 obtained Canadian rights, it was unclear whether the 24 providers of other specialty services would similarly 25 benefit and any regulation introduced by the Commission StenoTran 4672 1 would require BDUs covered by the regulation to install 2 switching equipment capable of handling substitution 3 requests from all specialty services, even though such 4 requests would be very rare in the case of most 5 services. 6 21599 Installing switching equipment to 7 handle this number of services would represent a 8 considerable expense to distributors, especially those 9 operating smaller undertakings. It was decided, 10 therefore, that there would be limited benefits for the 11 providers of most specialty services, but a 12 considerable burden on BDUs required to perform 13 mandatory simultaneous substitution. What has changed 14 that makes you feel that the Commission should revisit 15 this issue? 16 21600 MR. SILKANS: What has changed is 17 that we have requested substitution and the cable 18 companies have said no to our requests. Secondly, with 19 regard to costs, we have never been told by the cable 20 companies what it would cost, but my understanding is 21 that because the equipment is automated, there would be 22 a small incremental cost. I wouldn't say that it's as 23 simple as programming a clock radio, but it's not much 24 more complicated. 25 21601 In our case, we asked for StenoTran 4673 1 substitution for one show, "Martha Stewart", which is a 2 daily show, and the benefit in this particular case for 3 one show, we estimate, would be roughly half a million 4 dollars. Because we spend 65 per cent of gross 5 revenues on Canadian content, there is a direct benefit 6 right there of $325,000. 7 21602 You have said that it would be 8 something for which limited requests would be made and 9 that's true because we are 80 per cent Canadian 10 content, but even those limited requests would generate 11 significant benefits to the Canadian broadcasting 12 system. With regard to the costs, we are prepared and 13 in fact we would encourage the use of the third party 14 to determine what the costs would be. 15 21603 MS PATTERSON: Thank you. 16 21604 Do you have any examples beyond your 17 "Martha Stewart" example to give us at this time? 18 21605 MR. SILKANS: Perhaps Barbara 19 Williams can respond to that. That's the major one and 20 again, because of the high Canadian content, it may be 21 the only one. There may be one or two others. 22 21606 MS WILLIAMS: I think that is the 23 obvious one when one thinks about simultaneous 24 substitution in its most traditional form, but where it 25 also is of value to us is something that Andy Thomson StenoTran 4674 1 referred to earlier this morning in fact, where there 2 are opportunities for us to be involved in programming 3 that we are being cut out of because an American 4 specialty service that comes into Canada has taken 5 North American rights on that program and we have not 6 been able to have Canadian rights to it, so we have not 7 been interested in participating in that program 8 because we can't be a primary broadcaster of it. 9 21607 If simultaneous substitution were 10 available to us, it would offer us as a potential 11 partner in the financing of that program and that would 12 benefit the opportunity for a producer like Andy to 13 have another party involved in that program and make it 14 a viable opportunity for us to broadcast. But until we 15 have a way to preserve the Canadian exclusive rights on 16 it, it's not something that we can viably get involved 17 in. 18 21608 MS PATTERSON: Thank you. 19 21609 Just returning then to the Atlantis 20 Communications brief, you have proposed that -- 21 actually, in your oral submission this morning you 22 proposed that there should be a percentage limit of 23 Canadian content in each broadcaster's schedule. This 24 would help ensure fair access to the system by those 25 companies that are not vertically integrated. Do you StenoTran 4675 1 have a percentage limit that you feel would be 2 appropriate? 3 21610 MR. MacMILLAN: In the 25 per cent 4 range. 5 21611 MS PATTERSON: Thank you. 6 21612 Finally, you propose adding Canadian 7 series which are star promotion vehicles to the 8 under-represented categories. What types of series 9 would fall into your view of the star promotion 10 vehicles? 11 21613 MS SHIPTON: The most obvious that 12 has been referenced a lot here is the "Entertainment 13 Tonight" style, "E Now" kind of programming. 14 21614 MS PATTERSON: And it would be 15 limited to that type of program? 16 21615 MS SHIPTON: Yes. 17 21616 MS PATTERSON: Okay, thank you very 18 much. 19 21617 Thank you, Madam Chair. 20 21618 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 21 21619 Thank you, Mr. MacMillan, ladies and 22 gentlemen. We have kept you very long. I hope that 23 that's a good sign for you and that you will continue 24 bringing us your views. We thank you and have a good 25 trip back to whichever boardroom it is you go to. StenoTran 4676 1 21620 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I hope there 2 are lots of women in it. 3 21621 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sure everybody 4 is relieved that Commissioners still have time to watch 5 TV. 6 21622 We will be back at 2:30. Nous 7 reprendrons à deux heures et demie. Merci. 8 --- Recess at / Suspension à 1339 9 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1430 10 21623 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. 11 21624 Madam Secretary. 12 21625 MS SANTERRE: Thank you, Madam Chair. 13 I would like now to invite CHUM Limited to present 14 their comments. 15 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION 16 21626 MR. SHERRATT: Madam Chair, members 17 of the Commission, good afternoon. 18 21627 My name is Fred Sherratt, Executive 19 Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer of CHUM 20 Limited. Before beginning our formal presentation, I 21 would like to introduce you to my CHUM television 22 colleagues. 23 21628 On my left is Denise Donlon, 24 Vice-President and General Manager, MuchMusic and 25 MuchMoreMusic. To my right is Moses Znaimer, President StenoTran 4677 1 and Executive Producer of the CHUMCITY Group. Beside 2 Moses is Marcia Martin, Vice-President, Production, 3 Citytv and Vice-President and General Manager of SPACE, 4 Imagination Station. Beside Marcia is Jay Switzer, 5 CHUM Television's Vice-President of Programming. 6 21629 In the row behind me, on my far left 7 and closest to you, Paul Gratton, Station Manager for 8 the Bravo! Network. Beside Paul is Diane Boehme, 9 Manager of Independent Production. Beside Diane is 10 Mark Rubinstein, Vice-President and General Manager, 11 CHUM Television. Beside Mark is Ron Waters, President 12 of CHUM Television; and beside Ron, Sarah Crawford, 13 Director of Communications, MuchMusic and 14 MuchMoreMusic, and Director of Media Education CHUM 15 Television. 16 21630 Members of the Commission, CHUM is 17 the last of the English-language television companies 18 to appear before you. Having had the opportunity to 19 listen to most of the submissions, it is apparent that 20 there are some major issues that have gained more 21 discussion and focus than others. 22 21631 Our approach today is threefold: to 23 address the concept of equitable contribution; to 24 comment on the problems associated with both the CFTPA 25 and the DGC proposals; and to summarize the StenoTran 4678 1 recommendations put forward by CHUM which we believe 2 support your objectives. 3 21632 With respect to equitable 4 contribution, we recommend you utilize four tools; two 5 that are existing; two that are new. 6 21633 The existing ones are Option A, 7 expenditures on Canadian programming, and Option B, 8 exhibition of underserved programming in prime viewing 9 periods. The two additional options that would further 10 contribute to achieving equitable contribution while 11 maintaining diversity are: expenditures on 12 under-represented programming, but more expansively 13 defined; and production and exhibition of 14 local/regional programming. 15 21634 Each of these speaks to the 16 objectives of the act, would significantly contribute 17 to program diversity, and could be used stand alone or 18 in combination. 19 21635 We believe that equitable 20 contribution can be achieved by enabling licensees to 21 meet your objectives in different yet complementary 22 ways. The contributions of individual licensees, or 23 corporate groups of licensees, will depend upon 24 individual circumstances recognizing the significant 25 differences in the mandate and resources of the StenoTran 4679 1 undertakings. 2 21636 Within the context of assessing 3 equitable contribution, we support the view that 4 quality can better translate into viewership. This 5 means that we should use the limited resources 6 available in the system -- public funding, subscription 7 fees, licence fees and the other measures -- in the 8 most efficient and creative manner possible. We 9 suggest that proposals before you that advocate a 10 "tonnage" only approach to Canadian programming are out 11 of touch with the demanding expectations of Canadian 12 viewers. 13 21637 While we support the objective in 14 reviewing the issue of equitable contribution in the 15 system, we believe this must be considered at two 16 different levels. First, ensuring that each sector -- 17 conventional, specialty, pay, distribution 18 undertakings, exempt and foreign services -- are each 19 fairly contributing to the support of Canadian 20 programming. 21 21638 Secondly, we agree with others that 22 by requiring equitable contribution, the Commission 23 could balance any significant differences between 24 national English language, conventional television 25 broadcast groups. We have put forward national reach StenoTran 4680 1 by corporate groups as being 75 per cent or more of 2 English-language households, which was the benchmark 3 frequently used at the network hearing. 4 21639 We would, however, urge that 5 equitable contribution be measured against basic 6 industry standards, and not include above normal 7 commitments made by applicants in competitive or other 8 licensing scenarios. Clearly, if one over-commits in 9 the heat of the moment, that should not become the new 10 industry norm. 11 21640 This principle has been set out in 12 several presentations. However, the CFTPA version goes 13 much further with its so-called 10/10/10 proposal. 14 That proposition is defective in three key areas. 15 21641 First, as we have stated, reach, not 16 station revenues as they suggest, should define the 17 application of any potential increased requirements. 18 We note that the concept of reach as the defining 19 threshold was supported by Baton yesterday. 20 21642 The suggestion by the Producers and 21 the Directors Guild that all conventional stations with 22 revenues above $10 million be included is out of touch 23 with the realities of local television. The reach 24 benchmark is much more in touch with market realities. 25 21643 Secondly, their objective of 10 hours StenoTran 4681 1 and 10 per cent of revenue is unrealistic. In the case 2 of Citytv as an example, it would necessitate a 3 dramatic reduction in the 45 hours of local programming 4 that has been City's raison d'être for over 25 years. 5 21644 Third, the proposal that all 6 conventional broadcasters exhibit three hours of 7 children's programming each week is equally difficult 8 to support. This one-size-fits-all approach doesn't 9 recognize today's specialized, fragmented world. It 10 runs counter to the last round of local station licence 11 renewals in 1995, when the Commission rejected the 12 notion that broadcasters be required to be all things 13 to all people, and fails to recognize the emergence of 14 the numerous Canadian specialty services devoted to 15 children's programming. 16 21645 MR. ZNAIMER: Commissioners, CHUM 17 Television is comprised of a diverse number of 18 elements. On the conventional side, we operate local 19 television stations in small and medium-size 20 communities in the Province of Ontario. But we are 21 perhaps best known for originating the most individual 22 and intensely local television service in Canada, many 23 international observers would say in the world, that 24 is, Citytv, a street-front, storefront, participatory 25 and interactive downtown Toronto station. StenoTran 4682 1 21646 Among other achievements, Citytv 2 takes special pride in the following: One, Citytv 3 produces 45 hours per week of local television -- more 4 than any other local television service in Canada. 5 Two, Citytv finances, promotes and exhibits more 6 Canadian feature films in prime time than any other 7 over-the-air Canadian television service. Currently, 8 we have over 160 Canadian feature films under licence, 9 including over 60 new films in the past four years. 10 21647 Our history of support encompasses 11 all the important names in Canadian film: Atom Egoyan, 12 Ron Mann, Bruce MacDonald, Francois Girard, Albert 13 Nirenberg, Paul Donovan, Holly Dale, Mina Shum, and so 14 on. 15 21648 Citytv produces and exhibits more 16 local programming in the underserviced category of 17 music on television than any other television station 18 in Canada. Everyone mentions categories 7, 8 and 9, 19 but really they only talk about 7, drama. We operate 20 heavily in number 8, music, and we wish more attention 21 was paid to this. 22 21649 Citytv exports over 250 hours per 23 year to over 100 countries of in-house produced 24 Canadian programming, including FashionTelevision, 25 MovieTelevision, MediaTelevision, OohLaLa, TheNewMusic, StenoTran 4683 1 Electric Circus, and new this year, StarTV, BookTV, and 2 SexTV, plus many others. 3 21650 Finally, Citytv has been widely 4 recognized as the original role model for television in 5 properly reflecting the relatively new reality of 6 Canada as a mix of multi-lingual, multicultural and 7 multi-racial people. 8 21651 As I believe many of you know, your 9 regulatory counterparts from France, England, Germany, 10 Holland and Finland, to name a few, have toured Citytv 11 to discover our secret. In fact, several have been 12 directed to us by the CRTC, most recently M. Herve 13 Bourges of The CSA in France. We are told by your 14 staff that he loved his visit. The primary aim of all 15 these visits is to figure out how these officials can 16 create and nurture local television in their respective 17 countries to achieve something as remarkable as they 18 think Citytv is. 19 21652 CHUM Television has also pioneered 20 the establishment of Canadian specialty services. We 21 launched one of the very first, MuchMusic, in 1984, 22 devoted to the underserviced area of music on 23 television. Over the years, we have developed 24 additional specialty titles, including MusiquePlus, 25 Bravo!, MusiMax, Space, CablePulse 24 and, on October StenoTran 4684 1 5, just last week, we celebrated the launch of 2 MuchMoreMusic available almost everywhere in English 3 Canada. 4 21653 Our written submission sets out a 5 number of ideas and incentives that we believe, if 6 implemented, will assist all participants in the system 7 to reach more of the objectives that you have outlined 8 in your Public Notice. In particular, we support the 9 following initiatives: One, add to the definition of 10 under-represented programming to include shows that 11 provide exposure and glamour in support of the English 12 Canadian star system that everyone says they want. In 13 fact, we have and have had an entire channel devoted to 14 this task still awaiting distribution. As a stop-gap, 15 we are launching "StarTV: the show", this week. 16 21654 Second, adopt a 200 per cent Cancon 17 credit for 8, 9 and 10 point Canadian feature films 18 telecast within the broadcast day and not restricted by 19 original run criteria. Constant presence and lots of 20 repetition play a key role in the making of stars. 21 21655 Amend the definition of Canadian 22 programming expenditures to include all expenditures on 23 the promotion and advertising of Canadian programming. 24 This will lead to a major shift in the marketing 25 visibility of Canadian content. StenoTran 4685 1 21656 Vigorously recommend changes to 2 Canadian Heritage that eliminates blanket 3 discriminatory broadcaster access to production funding 4 and distribution. We say let those who want to 5 produce, produce. The Commission often says it wants 6 more drama -- we would be happy to give you more drama, 7 but we don't see ourselves as merely buyers or 8 investors or bankers. We are creators ourselves. If 9 you help us get to a level playing field, we will 10 create drama too. 11 21657 Five, provide enhanced airtime credit 12 for Canadian documentaries and educational programming. 13 In my opinion -- this is very personal to me -- one of 14 the small tragedies of recent events has been our 15 inability to get a national English 16 educational/instructional channel for Canada, and by 17 Canada, going. 18 21658 Six, support as a priority the 19 licensing of a national English language specialty 20 channel primarily dedicated to the exhibition of 21 Canadian feature films. 22 21659 Seven, amend the current specialty 23 linkage rules from one Canadian, one foreign to two 24 Canadian for one foreign. This would address more 25 forcefully the obligation under the act to give StenoTran 4686 1 Canadian services priority carriage. 2 21660 Eight, extend the moratorium on 3 adding new foreign services to the eligible list until 4 after the licensing and carriage of all Canadian 5 specialty services to be licensed in the next round. 6 21661 Nine, require fair contributions from 7 exempt and foreign services who extract a great deal 8 from Canada and give back precious little. 9 21662 Thank you for the opportunity to 10 appear. We await your questions. 11 21663 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. 12 Sherratt, Mr. Znaimer and welcome to you all. 13 21664 In your written presentation, you 14 seem to be of the view that this was no time to make 15 any changes to the broadcasting system and the current 16 exhibition quotas provide sufficient flexibility and 17 predominance of quality Canadian programming and no 18 need for minimum requirements for Cancon in peak time. 19 21665 I gather that you are of the view, 20 having participated albeit maybe from a distance in 21 this process, that you now would like to look at some 22 recommendations for change. 23 21666 MR. SHERRATT: Yes, we followed the 24 discussion, and we have followed it with great 25 interest. One of the great concerns we have in StenoTran 4687 1 following it is the fact that through no fault of 2 anything other than the process and the people who have 3 been before you, the discussion has concentrated on 4 category 7, drama in prime time, and not just drama, 5 but series drama. That is not something that is part 6 of the kind of television or the mix of television that 7 we do. 8 21667 Our fear, as we come to the end of 9 the hearing, is that if so much focus has been placed 10 on that that the rest of what is arguably the finest 11 television system in the world gets lost, local 12 service, local programming, the ability to promote and 13 air feature films, that would be a disservice to the 14 entire system. So we see that what you have been 15 concentrating on is a part of the system, an important 16 part of the system, but only a part. The fear that we 17 have as we followed it is that, perhaps, we will lose 18 much of the other parts in trying to push this one 19 area. 20 21668 Moses. 21 21669 MR. ZNAIMER: Well, further to that, 22 and picking up on your first point, I know there have 23 been references through the hearing to the search for a 24 magic bullet, some radical new insight which can 25 somehow simplify things for all our benefit. I think StenoTran 4688 1 everybody would dearly love for there to be one or for 2 there to have been one. 3 21670 My impression after all of these 4 deliberations is this may not be the situation where 5 that will apply. It may well be a case of building on 6 what is there, refining it a little bit in order to get 7 more of what you are after, and that is just life. 8 21671 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is too bad 9 because we had put CHUM at the end of the process fully 10 expecting a magic bullet from them. We thought you 11 would tell us exactly what to do with the others. 12 21672 MR. SHERRATT: We would be happy to 13 do that. 14 21673 MR. ZNAIMER: May I speak to that? 15 21674 We had a sense that you were looking 16 for something when you put us last. It wasn't just a 17 homage to my surname. When you're called Znaimer you 18 usually figure out where to line up. 19 21675 In past hearings, I think we have 20 been helpful that way. We asked ourselves the question 21 and began to try and draft something for you when we 22 realized that we are not in it, and until we are in it, 23 until we are there, until we have that 75 per cent 24 reach that would qualify us to be a national network 25 with all the obligations and the responsibilities and StenoTran 4689 1 the opportunities that that gives you, it would be 2 actually quite presumptuous for us to try and suggest, 3 you know, operating systems for other people. 4 21676 So, in that sense, we decided that 5 the better part of valour and the better part of 6 honesty was not to pretend to come up with that bullet. 7 21677 THE CHAIRPERSON: You may not get off 8 as easily as all that. Number one, what if you get 9 there? Maybe you would like to have an input into how 10 that other system works. 11 21678 Secondly, you will be operating in 12 the same market, so I would have thought you would have 13 some interest -- obviously, you have some interest in 14 participating in what we do, with your experience, et 15 cetera, with the regulatory framework, even if it were 16 for others; and, Mr. Sherratt, it wasn't just drama. 17 We had a lot of discussion about documentaries, for 18 example. 19 21679 MR. SHERRATT: I am using that 20 category 7 group. 21 21680 THE CHAIRPERSON: And some suggestion 22 about variety. Drama is always focused on because it 23 is so expensive and more complicated to finance. 24 21681 To get back to my comment, do you see 25 a possibility that the Commission would, once we have StenoTran 4690 1 decided what a multi-station group is, that we would 2 devise a regulatory grid of some sort, many aspects of 3 which we have discussed, but that would apply only to 4 multi-stations and leave the world as it is for those 5 who are not in that position? 6 21682 MR. SHERRATT: We followed with 7 interest the discussion yesterday with Baton who 8 obviously put something before you that you could look 9 at and see and it was -- it is always comforting to 10 have a piece of paper where you can see things and they 11 add up and you say you have a solution. 12 21683 If you were to ask us if that was a 13 good solution, we would have said, well, we haven't 14 really studied it, but it sounded like it was a good 15 solution for them as a network operator, or a 16 multi-station operator, where all of the stations are 17 operating in a similar manner and are the supporting 18 key stations in a network that is driven by series 19 programming. It may be the ultimate answer. I know 20 you had a good discussion with Mr. MacMillan about that 21 this morning. 22 21684 Even if we were to achieve the 75 per 23 cent threshold, or whatever it might be, we would 24 continue to see ourselves, at least now if we were 25 there, as operators of individual stations in StenoTran 4691 1 individual communities designed specifically to serve 2 that community, and be heavy providers of local 3 reflection and local programming. 4 21685 That takes a lot of money. We do 45 5 hours of it, as Moses said, on Citytv, and that drives 6 a lot of our expenditure. 7 21686 The other part of the system that we 8 support in a broad range of ways is long form, feature 9 films. There certainly isn't the output of that that 10 there is of series programming. And so a quota on 11 dramatic programming in those key viewing hours that 12 didn't take into consideration the fact that there just 13 wouldn't be sufficient features to achieve it with that 14 kind of programming would be difficult. 15 21687 Jay, do you want to speak to the 16 drama situation and the feature? 17 1450 18 21688 MR. SWITZER: Yes. We have made a 19 priority, across most of our stations, to make Canadian 20 feature films our method of telling Canadian stories. 21 It is our number one priority. It is both exciting and 22 sometimes frustrating because it can take as much 23 time -- months and months and months of development and 24 work and creative activity with producers to come out 25 with one great film. StenoTran 4692 1 21689 Let me think of an example. Francois 2 Girard's "Red Violin". I do not know if you had a 3 chance to see it. It opened the Toronto Film Festival. 4 It's an extraordinary film. We were fortunate enough 5 to work with the producers, Rhombus, and with the 6 director, and to have been the key Canadian financing 7 trigger for that film -- many, many hundreds of 8 thousands of dollars. 9 21690 It's probably two or three years of 10 work from the time it was first presented until the 11 time it gets completed, and then it will go to 12 theatrical and then to home video then to our friends 13 at Pay TV and then to us. Years and years of work on 14 their part and we end up with an extravagant event, a 15 Canadian film that is beautiful, that is important 16 story telling, that is quite expensive and we are very 17 proud of, and it is two and a half hours. 18 21691 It's a different business than the 19 series business. We have chosen, in our environment, 20 in our stations, to make our mark, to do what we do 21 best, in telling Canadian stories with movies, and it 22 is fundamentally a different business than the series 23 business. 24 21692 MR. ZNAIMER: Madame Chair, if I may, 25 I was very encouraged to hear you say "you might get StenoTran 4693 1 there". That's exciting news for us. We'd like to get 2 there. 3 21693 THE CHAIRPERSON: But the story is 4 not over though. 5 21694 MR. ZNAIMER: Yes, and, as you know, 6 it's not for want of trying to get there. 7 21695 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is not in your 8 brief. 9 21696 MR. ZNAIMER: So we are not, in that 10 sense, dodging anything. 11 21697 Our view about participating now in 12 order to help establish guidelines or actual thresholds 13 at which things happen in the eventuality that we might 14 get there is that by the time we get there who knows 15 what the situation will be and would it not be 16 appropriate to talk about it then. At that point, 17 what's under-represented today may no longer be under- 18 represented. The point is that the closer you are to 19 the event, the more accurate your take on it can be. 20 21698 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Getting there 21 may not necessarily mean having enough stations to 22 reach 75 per cent or whatever the magic number is. It 23 could also mean that the Commission will decide that 24 multiple station groups, even if they are not all 25 subjected to the same type of regulatory framework, may StenoTran 4694 1 nevertheless be looked at together for the purpose of 2 establishing to what extent, when you have more 3 stations, you can achieve more of whatever goals it is 4 you choose. In your written presentation you did have 5 some comments about what would be a good idea and a bad 6 idea in establishing a regulatory framework, so I hope 7 you did not come all the way from Toronto to tell us 8 you do not want to talk about them. 9 21699 MR. SHERRATT: We will be happy to 10 talk about them. 11 21700 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have heard CTV 12 also remind us that the local effort should be taken 13 into consideration and not lost sight of and it's 14 certainly, as you have heard through this hearing, 15 something we have heard a lot about; the importance of 16 local and the loss of it in many places. And of course 17 you are in every market, so the conventional 18 broadcaster is still -- of the multi-station groups -- 19 are still left with serving that population there who 20 may not choose to take cable or may not take certain 21 tiers that provide them with certain information. So 22 the provider of overall programming is still the 23 conventional station. 24 21701 I want you to know, Mr. Znaimer, 25 that -- it was Mr. Rubinstein when he was here earlier StenoTran 4695 1 this week who suggested that it was very easy to 2 satisfy the appetite for local programming; we just 3 give CHUM a licence in every market. 4 21702 Didn't you say that? 5 21703 MR. RUBINSTEIN: I think what I said, 6 Madame Chair, was that there would be no shortage of 7 applicants to fill voids in market-places. 8 21704 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's just my 9 interpretive skills got away with me. 10 21705 MR. ZNAIMER: But it's a great idea. 11 21706 THE CHAIRPERSON: But it illustrates 12 that, to the extent that you emphasize the value of the 13 local then, where you are not, it's important for us to 14 focus on that. 15 21707 In your written presentation, you 16 did -- and you're experienced broadcasters so it would 17 be interesting to get your views. You seem to be of 18 the view that it's a useless exercise for the 19 Commission to try to improve the quantity or the number 20 of hours of programming of certain categories in peak 21 viewing hours because people are going to watch 22 American shows anyway. 23 21708 Do you believe that it's 24 absolutely -- and I think your comments were the net 25 effect will be the revenues of Canadian stations would StenoTran 4696 1 be severely reduced, limiting funding to Canadian 2 programming. Number one, that's circular, 3 unfortunately. The less Canadian programming people 4 get, the more American therefore, therefore the more 5 Canadian they'll get because there will be more money 6 to pump into Canadian programming. 7 21709 But are you of the view that it's not 8 possible for a conventional station -- I don't mean 9 CHUM, I mean a conventional station in Canada -- to 10 attract viewers in peak viewing time? 11 21710 MR. SHERRATT: No, I do not think we 12 believe that it's impossible. You are looking at our 13 brief? 14 21711 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. At page 15 at 15 the third bullet it says: 16 "The 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. window is 17 used primarily by US networks to 18 broadcast their top rated 19 programs... The imposition of a 20 'peak viewing hour' quota would 21 remove the flexibility of 22 Canadian broadcasters to 23 simulcast these shows in the 8 24 p.m. to 11 p.m. period...would 25 not increase viewership to StenoTran 4697 1 Canadian programming. Instead, 2 Canadian viewers would watch the 3 shows directly on the U.S. 4 networks..." 5 21712 And then it would follow that there 6 would be less money. I read from that that you are 7 dubious about the ability of conventional large 8 broadcasters, if they were pressed to do it, if they 9 had more of the peak viewing time devoted to Canadian 10 content, that it would push quality. 11 21713 You see, we always hear -- you used 12 the word "tonnage" again today. How much can a 13 broadcaster afford to consider that, just tonnage, and 14 lose its audiences? Can we not produce programming 15 that will compete and attract viewers during those 16 hours? Are these paragraphs saying no, we cannot? 17 21714 MR. SHERRATT: I have read the 18 paragraph you are looking at and I think that probably 19 what's meant by that paragraph is that if you imposed a 20 large quantitative requirement so that there was not 21 room in the Canadian system for the top American shows 22 to be put into simulcast, those shows would still 23 attract audiences, whether they were on the Canadian 24 station or just on the American station, because the 25 American service is available to virtually all StenoTran 4698 1 Canadians one way or another, and you would be then 2 faced with the problem that was discussed here a couple 3 of times over the last 24 hours, that a top show gets 4 put against a top show and "Traders" has trouble 5 competing with "ER". If you get a tonnage quota that's 6 large enough, then it would start to have an effect on 7 the ability to generate the money that you can generate 8 against the American simulcasts to fund the programs. 9 21715 That's why I think, in our oral 10 presentation and in this presentation, we talk about 11 tonnage as opposed to quality, and we think that 12 quality will get audiences. 13 21716 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, there is 14 tonnage and tonnage. When we look at some of the 15 schedules we see, you are into poundage, not tonnage. 16 You know, there is just pounds, not tonnes, of 17 programming. We have not reached a ton in many cases 18 and there is a lot of flexibility. 19 21717 Does it mean that if there is less 20 flexibility because you have a 10/10/10 or a 7/7 21 reduced by bonuses and so on, that this addition is 22 going to so remove the flexibility as to make it 23 impossible to schedule shows against the ERs of the 24 world that will attract viewers? Is that what you are 25 saying, that it's impossible, that you have to have StenoTran 4699 1 enough hours so you can put your Canadian programming, 2 no matter how good, between the big American shows, 3 that it's not possible to increase what we have? You 4 know how little, sometimes, peak time Canadian 5 programming we get. I want to know whether you feel 6 it's impossible to increase it and still keep the 7 system profitable. 8 21718 MR. SHERRATT: I think rather than 9 slave the point of a paragraph that I'm having a little 10 trouble interpreting for you, I would like to strike it 11 from our written presentation and carry on from there. 12 21719 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just tell us 13 whether -- 14 21720 MR. SHERRATT: Because I do not think 15 anyone at this table believes that. We are very much 16 into the belief that we can attract audiences with 17 Canadian programming and we do it. I would like some 18 of the programmers here to talk about the kind of 19 programming we do and how we do it. 20 21721 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, yes, we know 21 that. You have given us a good presentation of what 22 you can do and how you can -- I am talking about those 23 for whom we are going to change the system because your 24 view is it's fine for you. 25 21722 I gather if we came out of this StenoTran 4700 1 hearing saying CHUM is going to continue under the 2 regulatory scheme we have, that would be fine for you; 3 A and B, 60/150. 4 21723 MR. SHERRATT: Yes, it works for us. 5 21724 THE CHAIRPERSON: And maybe you would 6 be required to come forward and respond to the 7 suggestion that, as a station -- not a multi-station 8 group but a multi-station owner -- maybe we are 9 entitled to take into consideration that you should 10 increase or do more because you have more licences or 11 because you have come for a licence and you have, of 12 course, as you mentioned, not exaggerated what you were 13 going to do, you were just right on the line. 14 21725 Is that what you think would work, 15 that if the system remained the same for you, you would 16 be happy? 17 21726 MR. SHERRATT: We have suggested that 18 you might want to add a couple of other criteria for 19 everyone and we did not limit that to the 75 per cent 20 people, and you might use one or two of those together. 21 21727 THE CHAIRPERSON: Like the bonuses. 22 21728 MR. SHERRATT: Well, we talk about A 23 and B that are in existence now, and there have been 24 good suggestions about putting a dollar commitment 25 against the under-served areas in peak, and we think StenoTran 4701 1 it's important that you include commitments to local 2 programming and those things all be weighed and 3 different weight given to different approaches, given 4 the circumstance. 5 21729 We really think the big idea is 6 already here, it happened, it's called the CRTC. 7 That's the big idea that we have in this country, that 8 we have a regulator who can look at the system, weigh 9 the checks and balances, look at the services that are 10 available in given areas and given communities and say, 11 yes, in a place like Toronto we should have a station 12 that is focused in a very specific area, as was decided 13 in the last round of licence renewals, but in some very 14 rural remote parts they should continue to be part of a 15 network, provide different kinds of programming to 16 serve different areas, because there is no other local 17 voice available. 18 21730 And that's something that we have in 19 this country that they do not have in the United 20 States, and that's an intelligent regulator. 21 21731 THE CHAIRPERSON: I gather also from 22 your earlier comments you would prefer a more ad hoc 23 system than attempting to create a grid. 24 21732 MR. SHERRATT: You need rules so 25 everybody knows where we're going, but we think that StenoTran 4702 1 what can be done, and what historically has happened, 2 that's the way we've grown; good and bad. There have 3 been good decisions and bad decisions, from everybody's 4 standpoint. Well, not good and bad; some better than 5 others perhaps. Let's put it that way. 6 21733 We think that's the unique advantage 7 we have in the system. I heard you say to somebody in 8 the last 24 hours, would you just like to leave it with 9 us and take your chances with us when you come back? 10 Sure. We'd like that better than saying everybody will 11 drive 60 kilometres an hour. It doesn't matter what 12 you've got, what the road is like, what the conditions 13 are, whether you're in Toronto or Weyburn, 14 Saskatchewan; that's the speed limit, we don't have to 15 worry about anything any more. 16 21734 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's not quite as 17 drastic. I think the exercise has been in the 18 under-represented categories, which include a number of 19 categories, as I've pointed out, documentaries and 20 children. Do we have enough programming that Canadians 21 want to watch and that is available on conventional 22 television stations, and are our conventional 23 broadcasters able to do more, even if it's a little 24 more complicated and it has to have a change of 25 attitude and look at the world differently? That's StenoTran 4703 1 what we're doing, is looking at can we improve what it 2 is we have that may, in the view of some, not be 3 working sufficiently well. 4 21735 But I take your point. If you don't 5 want to particularly comment on how multi-station 6 groups are regulated, that's fine. 7 21736 MR. SHERRATT: Well, we used to call 8 them networks and now we're calling them multi-station 9 groups. Whatever it is, it's a reach of the country. 10 It's a common program schedule. Is it perfect? No. 11 We don't have anything that's perfect, and it can 12 always be improved and all of the people that I'm 13 associated with at this table and the 1,500 people in 14 our stations across the country work at improving it 15 day in and day out. And all of the people who have 16 been before you, whether they be station operators or 17 whether they be producers, are attempting to improve 18 everything they do every day. That's what it's all 19 about and that's why we've had the success that we've 20 had with the Canadian system. 21 21737 It really is a miracle that we have 22 the system that we've got, given that we live along 23 that border with the United States who are the biggest, 24 most prolific output of entertainment in the world. 25 The rest of the world gobbles up what they've got and StenoTran 4704 1 it's dumped in us. It's been our right as Canadians -- 2 our Parliamentarians have said this for years -- to 3 have our own system and everything that the United 4 States puts out. 5 21738 That's quite a cup of tea for a 6 little country like ours. 7 21739 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure 8 whether I should consider myself honoured to be trying 9 to improve on a miracle, or feel foolish about it. 10 21740 MR. SHERRATT: I truly have said 11 this, and this is in no way patronizing. I believe 12 that we have the successful system we have because of 13 regulation, not in spite of it. 14 21741 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Znaimer has 15 been wanting to say something. 16 21742 MR. ZNAIMER: I was hoping to get in 17 this gentle reminder, and that is the thought that 18 companies that hold multiple licences perhaps should 19 come forward with something more than just the 20 individual obligations of each licence is not a new one 21 and so, in that sense, we have been posed this question 22 at every step in our growth and have answered those 23 questions at the different stages in our growth, and in 24 some cases to the satisfaction of the Commission, in 25 other cases evidently not. StenoTran 4705 1 21743 So I think in that sense this notion 2 of something more is already built into whatever we 3 have managed to grow into up to this point in time. 4 21744 THE CHAIRPERSON: But once these 5 larger groups -- once the consolidation and 6 restructuring has occurred in a piecemeal fashion, and 7 the synergies and cost effectiveness and other 8 effectivenesses -- scheduling, program amortization, 9 whatever, that follows consolidation -- once it has 10 occurred and you find yourself with a very minimal 11 number of large groups, you don't think that there is 12 some value in reassessing whether, on an ongoing basis, 13 when these are renewed, et cetera, there should be a 14 second look at the regulatory system to see whether, 15 number one, it's equitable, considering what we end up 16 with, piecemeal, and whether it's effective, whether it 17 satisfies the goals that we have. 18 21745 I thought that this was the exercise, 19 was to say, now that it happens piecemeal, when we 20 renew should we have perhaps a second look at how we do 21 things, because it's not, obviously, part of your 22 particular concerns but there are obviously varying 23 views as to who gets away with too much compared to 24 what's asked of someone else, considering how the 25 groups tend to get to look more like one another. StenoTran 4706 1 1510 2 21746 That's the exercise, but I understand 3 you don't consider yourself part of that and you appear 4 to be reluctant to say very much about how that should 5 be done or whether it should be done. 6 21747 MR. SHERRATT: We would agree with 7 you, but that's -- 8 21748 THE CHAIRPERSON: The particulars you 9 don't want to -- 10 21749 MR. SHERRATT: How you do it, I think 11 Moses just said -- 12 21750 MR. ZNAIMER: At renewals. 13 21751 MR. SHERRATT: -- it's really 14 incumbent upon the groups who come before you at 15 renewal time or whenever they come to come forth and 16 say, "This is what we are going to do." Then we 17 believe that you then will be the judge of whether what 18 they are doing is equitable or whether it isn't and you 19 put enough rules in place, you have enough yardsticks 20 there that you can really make a judgment about that. 21 It's really down to two things. It's down to hours -- 22 21752 THE CHAIRPERSON: And spending. 23 21753 MR. SHERRATT: -- and dollars and 24 what you do to reflect the community. 25 21754 THE CHAIRPERSON: But you don't think StenoTran 4707 1 that there is some regulatory virtue in having -- there 2 are some parties who would tell you that it has been 3 very disadvantageous at the end of the day for them not 4 to have had a regulatory framework to look to when they 5 come for acquisitions or new assets or even renewal, 6 that if they had had -- we use the word grid, but a 7 better expressed idea of what it is that they have to 8 come and meet, the regulatory system would work better. 9 So, that's different from the system we have now where 10 you come at renewal. 11 21755 Yes, we have the A and B options, but 12 on an ad hoc basis there has been additions to parties 13 who have changed status or where the Commission has 14 felt there should be more done. What we are attempting 15 to do now, for better or for worse, is to say can we 16 get some other way of looking at it so that when the 17 group comes for renewal there are some benchmarks 18 established already that have attempted to be more 19 equitable for those groups that fit within the 20 multi-station groups, but you don't seem to see that of 21 any regulatory value. 22 21756 MR. SHERRATT: If you are talking 23 about stringent rules that are all the same, but as you 24 were saying that I was thinking that there is quite a 25 difference between licence renewals and applications StenoTran 4708 1 for new licences -- acquisitions or new licences. 2 21757 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sometimes there 3 isn't because if you are a multi-station group and you 4 are adding a station to the group, if you knew what is 5 expected of you as you get bigger, it would be easier 6 than if you took the position that this is just another 7 station with a competitive applicant. I don't think 8 the world is as simple as that. At least that's 9 certainly something we hear that there is some value in 10 reassessing what's expected. 11 21758 You know, when you talk about 12 stringent rules, it depends how you look at it. If 13 under-represented categories have music and dance, 14 variety, drama, documentaries and then children, well, 15 you are getting some flexibility there. So, to say you 16 have to have X hours of that within this hour and that 17 hour over a week with bonuses that reduce it if you do 18 certain things, how stringent is that? 19 21759 Have you been completely -- all 20 facility to have a diverse view or have scheduling 21 flexibility has not completely disappeared, has it? 22 What's so stringent about the type of proposals that 23 have been made? If you don't talk about the level, 24 whether it's 10/10/10 or 7/7/7, don't they leave some 25 flexibility? StenoTran 4709 1 21760 MR. SHERRATT: I think that that 2 needs addressing and I think we should address it from 3 a couple of approaches. 4 21761 Why don't you start, Moses, and then 5 we will go to how it works. 6 21762 MR. ZNAIMER: Yes. Well, the only 7 tangible suggestions on the table have been either 8 10/10/10 or 7/7/7 or this matrix as offered by Mr. 9 Fecan. 10 21763 THE CHAIRPERSON: Or all exhibition 11 and no spending. There has been more than just that. 12 There has been a number of suggestions and each one has 13 been whittled down or up, depending. 14 21764 MR. ZNAIMER: Yes, and you have 15 expressed your frustration because you see yourself 16 heading into a more and more complex system. I am sure 17 that's how our tax code, you know, got to be, whatever, 18 10,000 pages deep. It started as a relatively simple 19 piece of legislation, probably on whatever, 10 sheets 20 of paper, and then over the years clarifications, 21 adjustments, prodding in this direction, prodding in 22 that direction. 23 21765 So, if you wanted to imagine a 24 system, Madam Chair, that had more stages in it than 25 the one that appears to be on the table here, either StenoTran 4710 1 you are a network national operator and you have 2 achieved a reach of 75 per cent or more or you are not, 3 then you will have to imagine even more stages. 4 21766 Our company has a 45 per cent reach. 5 Do you propose new terms of reference for every five 6 per cent of reach, every ten per cent of reach? Do you 7 think that you can imagine today a grid, a matrix, a 8 formula which can capture all of these iterations or 9 wouldn't it be better to discuss them as the iterations 10 come up? 11 21767 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, depending on 12 which end of the telescope you look at. You can bring 13 it down to a rather bizarre tax act type of view, five 14 per cent, three per cent. The other end of the 15 telescope is could we have more predictability and, 16 therefore, equitability or equity, rather, in the 17 system. So, I think there is a continuum there that 18 can be brought down to a ridiculous level or be so 19 broadly stated as to not be helpful. 20 21768 But it would seem to me a broad 21 statement inside of which, as CTV has made the point, 22 you should consider the fact that they do local news, 23 Global has made the point you should be able to 24 consider the fact that they will do more drama than 25 other things, and there are many ways of doing that. StenoTran 4711 1 You can bonus the drama or you can say because it's 2 drama, it will be fewer hours or less spending. There 3 are ways of doing that, but I think formulas can be 4 expressed in a manner that may be easier. 5 21769 It is not to say that the system we 6 have now is that simple. You have seen us do the 7 exercise with some intervenors, especially if you add 8 in all the recommendations we get about how you 9 calculate spending and what is a fair way of doing it 10 from one to the other. It's not like what we have is 11 not getting more complex as well. We get people who 12 say, "You should take amortization into consideration." 13 People have different configurations, as CHUM well 14 knows. 15 21770 These are all complicated matters 16 that parties feel are necessary to achieve equity. So, 17 to not have them for anyone is perhaps one way of 18 looking at the world. It's not easy to arrive at, but, 19 nevertheless, something maybe we should aim for. 20 21771 MR. SWITZER: Madam Chair, if I might 21 add, because you speak of equity or equitable, part of 22 what works well for us now in the system with the 23 fundamental choice of A or B is that with dollars, with 24 A, we are able to make our contribution in the area of 25 feature films. The three big national players, CanWest StenoTran 4712 1 and Baton and WIC, are all serious broadcasters. They 2 are not in the movie business. They may have a few now 3 and then, but they are making their legitimate 4 contribution in series. 5 21772 Our contribution, both because it's 6 important and it's not being done and we believe we do 7 it very well, is in movies and none of the proposals 8 that we have heard in the last 10 days, none of the 9 possible scenarios or formulae or grids or matrices 10 have ever contemplated the effect on a movie 11 broadcaster. The A and B scenario lets us contribute 12 in a way that's serious and meaningful, but let's us 13 make our contribution in an area that may not yield the 14 same number of hours, but in a different and important 15 programming and cultural way make a significant 16 contribution. 17 21773 That is what is so perhaps 18 frustrating for us to look at all of these models which 19 are being discussed and kicked back and forth. They 20 are built for series broadcasters and essentially we 21 effectively have no series on Citytv, for example, we 22 are in the movie business. This is what we are trying 23 to deal with. 24 21774 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's why I asked 25 you earlier whether you would see a regulatory StenoTran 4713 1 framework that would leave you to what you are doing 2 and presumably it's just as well if we don't ask them 3 to do movies, isn't it? 4 21775 MR. ZNAIMER: That's right. 5 21776 MR. SWITZER: That's right and in 6 fact there are voices that are. 7 21777 THE CHAIRPERSON: I won't pursue this 8 because you obviously -- it's fair that you don't want 9 to talk about the particulars of what has been proposed 10 and whether one proposal is better than the other and 11 for what reason. I accept that. 12 21778 MR. ZNAIMER: We haven't been able to 13 imagine one that can encompass what we do, what we do 14 well, what we would like to continue to do and still 15 make things simpler, which is one of the, I think, 16 things you are looking for. You are looking -- 17 21779 THE CHAIRPERSON: Even if it were to 18 be applied to others and not to you, because not 19 everyone -- you know, everyone comes here, we know what 20 it is they do, but the idea was to get as many people 21 as possible, and that's the way your submission was 22 written as well, to tell us what it is we should do so 23 that we had as much advice as possible. So, that's the 24 spirit in which the questions are asked. 25 21780 MR. SHERRATT: And that's the spirit StenoTran 4714 1 in which we put forward the proposition to you that the 2 two Options A and B now, whether alone or in 3 combination, work probably in some instances when they 4 are in combination. Secondly, if you wish to put 5 emphasis on drama or 7, 8, 9 and the heart of prime, 6 then maybe you just direct either one of those along 7 with one of the others at that specific area and for 8 other broadcasters who are heavy into local and doing 9 things like we do, we wouldn't take the hours, we would 10 take the expenditure and we would make a commitment to 11 local. 12 21781 We think those kinds of broader 13 regulatory tools give you enough ammunition to balance 14 the system, to correct any inequities that are there, 15 albeit you can only do that if they are discovered 16 presumably at licence renewal time, but it does give 17 you the tools to do that, but it gives broadcasters the 18 opportunity, whether they be national or not, to move 19 into the areas that they do best and make their 20 contribution in those areas. 21 21782 I think Mark wants to speak to the 22 point that you have been trying to get to. 23 21783 MR. RUBINSTEIN: Thank you, Fred. 24 21784 Madam Chair, I want to address a 25 couple of things. The first is we have said in our StenoTran 4715 1 oral presentation today that we support the notion of 2 equitable contribution. After all, that, to a large 3 measure, is what got us to this hearing in the first 4 place. We had an Order-in-Council, which led to a 5 network hearing, which led to this hearing. 6 21785 We fully support your using existing 7 and new tools to remedy imbalances in contributions 8 between national or de facto national conventional 9 broadcast routes. We fully support your exercise in 10 that. So, that's point number one. 11 21786 Point number two is: Can the system 12 do more? We say, yes, it can do more, but our view is 13 we can't all do everything. We have to pick and choose 14 those things that play to our strengths, to our 15 viewers' interests and to the system's objectives. So, 16 CHUM Television on the conventional side is the single 17 biggest supporter of dramatic feature film. It's a 18 world wholly different from the world of series. 19 That's one of the ways in which we make a major 20 contribution. 21 21787 We are also the role model for local 22 reflection, equally important under the Act, equally 23 important as other obligations. It doesn't mean that 24 you cannot move forward and prioritize where you want 25 to see contributions coming from different players -- StenoTran 4716 1 and you can do it at licence renewals, you can do it at 2 acquisition hearings -- and we are not opposed to 3 coming back, if you decide you want to bring corporate 4 groups back, and we just don't mean conventional 5 groups, all the groups. We bring back corporate groups 6 who own specialty and pay services, we bring back BDUs 7 that own specialty services. After all, it's a system 8 approach we are looking at. We are not opposed to 9 coming back at a timetable that you say and say, "How 10 can you do more for us?" 11 21788 So, I just wanted to make it clear in 12 terms of the precision of our attitude on this. We 13 support you wholeheartedly in remedying inequitable 14 contributions if you find they exist. We have 15 suggested four tools, two existing, two new. There are 16 defects, substantial defects, in some of the proposals 17 before you because they cast their net far too wide. 18 They are not interested in reach and, after all, 19 equitable contribution should mean equitable reach. 20 21789 They are interested in the greatest 21 possible extraction. They are not wholly interested in 22 preserving the other side of the success story of local 23 television, for example, which is what we feel it's so 24 important to put on the record. If we want to have 25 local reflection, allow those who specialize in it to StenoTran 4717 1 put most of their resources into it. 2 21790 So, I hope that's helpful in trying 3 to better clarify our position on some of these very 4 essential issues. 5 21791 THE CHAIRPERSON: Promotion. You 6 have heard and you are very involved in promoting 7 artists because of your television station and the 8 broadcasting specialty licences you have. You have 9 heard all of the suggestions that were made, especially 10 getting some programming considered as 11 under-represented, which would be aimed at promotion 12 and developing a so-called star system to a greater 13 extent. 14 21792 The other side of the coin has been, 15 number one, these programs should be produced by 16 independent producers and, secondly, they should be 17 Canadian. Suggestions have been made even to the 18 extent that the items on them should be 66 per cent at 19 least Canadian artists and so on. 20 21793 What has been your experience with 21 this type of programming or the production of it when 22 you look at it from the perspective of how Canadian is 23 it? 24 21794 MR. ZNAIMER: We would love the 25 inclusion of these kinds of programs in StenoTran 4718 1 under-represented categories because it is a good deal 2 of what we do. We were doing it long before it was 3 deemed to be important. We saw the importance of these 4 kinds of programs years ago and have established them. 5 I am talking about the MovieTelevisions and the fashion 6 televisions of the world and, indeed, all our music 7 channels because we thought it was the right thing to 8 do and because we thought we could contribute. 9 21795 We are not afraid of a little more 10 micro-management in terms of the balance of stories 11 because -- well, Marcia, is the supervising producer 12 for MovieTelevision. 13 21796 Why don't you tell us about 14 MovieTelevision? 15 21797 THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I should 16 tell you before that my understanding from the staff is 17 that a look at the last 35 episodes of MovieTelevision 18 shows that items relating to the Canadian industry are 19 outnumbered by four to one or five to one by those 20 related to the American industry. So, that was the aim 21 of my question. 22 21798 If we were to consider this type of 23 programming as under-represented in the manner 24 suggested by a number of parties, would it be fair to 25 ensure that the view is to promote Canadian stars and StenoTran 4719 1 create a Canadian star system and are you of the view 2 that if, indeed, MovieTelevision is to that extent 3 American, is that going to do the job? 4 21799 MS MARTIN: First of all, I have a 5 concern about that statistic because MovieTelevision 6 is, as you know, in our tenth year, a program that has 7 a Canadian focus and what we do is feature stories on 8 Canadian stories, the making of movies. We do have 9 stories also on the international scene, but it has 10 always been our focus to do Canadian stories. 11 21800 If you look at our last season alone, 12 over 100 of our features on 39 shows have been Canadian 13 stories. It's the best example right now of what we 14 are doing to promote and exhibit and showcase our 15 stars, but there are lots of other programs that we do 16 in conjunction with MovieTelevision. 17 21801 First of all, I would have a concern 18 with that number because I don't think that's true. 19 It's encouraging to hear producers and broadcasters 20 talk about having this kind of program recognized and 21 part of category 7, in drama. I think that's 22 important. 23 21802 It would be nice to have 24 MovieTelevision mentioned along with "E Now" because we 25 have been doing it for so long, but we also have been StenoTran 4720 1 the official media sponsor of the Toronto International 2 Film Festival for the past 15 years and that kind of 3 sponsorship presents daily coverage of the festival, 4 weekly coverage obviously on MovieTelevision, and it 5 continues, too, on the facts on MuchMusic and on Bravo! 6 1530 7 21803 So there are lots of ways in which we 8 are getting the star system focus and promotion across 9 Canada. 10 21804 One thing about our syndicated 11 efforts also, MovieTelevision, we certainly are 12 introducing our stars to the Canadian audience, but we 13 are also, because that program is syndicated around the 14 world, introducing actors and filmmakers and producers 15 to markets that sooner or later will be approached by 16 the "Traders", or "Due South", to buy those programs; 17 and since we are always there first on location before 18 those are actually being seen, it is another 19 introduction and promotion of what we are doing. 20 21805 THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that 21 our counting skills should be improved or that we 22 shouldn't worry about that type of level? 23 21806 MR. SWITZER: Madam Chair, if I might 24 add, the mission statement of this show is to be 25 predominantly Canadian from the very beginning. I can StenoTran 4721 1 only guess and speculate that many of the shows, for 2 example, we have a production team Marcia runs out of 3 Vancouver, for all of the Vancouver and West Coast 4 action. I can only speculate that some of the movies 5 and specials and made-for-television movies that were 6 covered, which might have appeared American were in 7 fact Canadian. That is pure speculation. 8 21807 We are happy to look at the count. 9 This is the charge to the show and this is a charge 10 that we are proud of. In fact, we are proud to -- or, 11 very prepared to commit that should this change happen 12 that in fact whatever rule you might be contemplating 13 should in fact only apply to shows that are 14 predominantly Canadian in content. 15 21808 THE CHAIRPERSON: How would you 16 suggest that that be measured? You know, I don't -- I 17 think it was, perhaps, the CFPTA, I am not sure, who 18 proposed that it be 66 per cent, I think it was. But I 19 don't think we ever got into how one would measure 20 that, and we obviously have, right off the bat, 21 difficulty with doing that because we seem to be 22 completely at odds about how Canadian MovieTelevision 23 is. 24 21809 MR. SWITZER: Our overview would be 25 that it would be by running length, by running time, StenoTran 4722 1 and that it be predominantly Canadian and, in fact, 2 Marcia has worked on a draft specific description of 3 what that might be. 4 21810 MS MARTIN: In an attempt to help us 5 all identify that, I am happy to read this for the 6 record also. 7 21811 Just to reiterate -- I mean, 8 obviously, the purpose is to encourage broadcasters, 9 Canadian broadcasters to telecast these kind of 10 programs in prime time, as MovieTelevision is. It has 11 always been in prime time and continues to be. And the 12 mechanism that we would suggest is to amend the 13 television regulations and specialty television 14 regulation section 7(g), Other, as follows -- I think 15 it might help, we have a definition here: 16 "Broadcasters who telecast 17 Canadian entertainment magazine 18 programs that devote more than 19 half of the program length to 20 the broadcast of Canadian 21 entertainment stories featuring 22 Canadian productions, television 23 programs, movies, sound tracks, 24 plays, songs and other Canadian 25 artists will be accorded a time StenoTran 4723 1 credit if it meets the following 2 criteria: 3 (a) is produced by a licensee or 4 an independent production 5 company after January 1999, and 6 is 7 (b) recognized as a Canadian 8 program. 9 Each licensee will receive a 10 time credit for each showing of 11 a program occurring within a 12 two-year period from the date of 13 first showing." 14 21812 I think that would help identify it. 15 21813 I would like to speak about StarTV 16 when it is -- 17 21814 THE CHAIRPERSON: But I am not sure 18 if that -- any way, we can look at it -- but whether 19 that definition satisfies the requirement or the 20 calculation of whether or not the mission statement is 21 indeed accomplished inside of the program because I 22 have a few mission statements in the entrance of my 23 house, and it hasn't been good enough for the rules to 24 be followed. 25 21815 MS MARTIN: I have a feeling that Jay StenoTran 4724 1 probably -- 2 21816 THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can 3 also discuss with the staff how they arrived at it so 4 that we understand better. 5 21817 But you can see the possibility that 6 E Entertainment and this type of programming can 7 eventually just fall into the American star system. 8 21818 MR. SHERRATT: That is why we are 9 saying it has to be predominantly Canadian and the 10 running length of every piece in it, the average 11 running length in the show must be better than 50 per 12 cent on Canadian stars or Canadian features or -- 13 21819 THE CHAIRPERSON: Another way of 14 looking at it, of course, is items. You could have a 15 Canadian item that lasts 20 minutes and then many, many 16 foreign that are short and still have the same effect 17 of promotion or pursuing. 18 21820 MR. ZNAIMER: Yes. I think it would 19 be an overly managed system if you got down to that 20 level. I mean, if we did a magazine show with three or 21 four items in it and the overwhelming majority length 22 went to a Canadian story, surely, that would be a good 23 thing, even though we might do two, three other hits 24 about what else was going on in the world. 25 21821 This discussion hurts a little bit StenoTran 4725 1 because we are the pioneers in all of this. We have 2 been doing it for a long time. Nobody said thank you 3 or 'atta boy or whatever. And when we first took these 4 shows into the international market we were met with 5 the usual resistance, especially from Americans who 6 think that some southern accent is okay, but a French 7 Canadian accent or an Ottawa Valley accent is too 8 regional. They would say to us -- Jay, you must 9 remember -- we will take FashionTelevision, it is a 10 great show; but do we need that story from Toronto? We 11 told them to buzz off -- actually, we said it more 12 forcefully than that. 13 21822 THE CHAIRPERSON: Not to an Ottawa 14 Valley person? 15 21823 MR. ZNAIMER: No, we said to the 16 buyer, to the American buyer, "Buzz off. You take this 17 show as we make it for our audience in Toronto. It is 18 a great show." We did that first with fashion, and 19 then with movie, and then with media, which we haven't 20 discussed, and then with OohLaLa, and now that it is 21 what, politically correct, or more appropriate, on 22 everyone's agenda, people come along and say, "Well, 23 you are not doing enough." 24 21824 We have also grown with the strength 25 of these industries. When we started doing StenoTran 4726 1 MovieTelevision, there wasn't as much of a Canadian 2 movie industry as there is today. These are symbiotic 3 things. There needs to be an industry in order to talk 4 about an industry in order that there might be stars in 5 the industry. 6 21825 MR. SWITZER: If I could add a short 7 anecdote, and I will keep it short, but we try to 8 syndicate in Canada MovieTelevision into markets where 9 we don't have stations, which is most of the country. 10 In some cases, where the show had previously been 11 played, in major western Canadian markets, the show is 12 now not being played because it did not qualify for 13 their own category 7 requirements. That is frustrating 14 because it is a show devoted to the promotion of the 15 business. I think we all agree that the promotion of 16 drama is an important part of the story telling. 17 21826 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Znaimer, this 18 is not a renewal where we are looking at whether CHUM 19 is doing a good job or not. We are discussing 20 regulatory framework and whether this idea is good or 21 not; and, if it is, whether it should have parameters 22 put around it and, as an example, experienced analysts 23 can come up with this type of numbering, which is to 24 you ridiculous, because it can't be. So we are just 25 looking at how easy would it be as a regulatory tool to StenoTran 4727 1 manage considering the difficulties. 2 21827 So we are not looking at whether 3 MovieTelevision is good or bad or well done. We are 4 looking at the difficulties in doing these things and 5 monitoring them because, obviously, if we account for 6 that and somebody is not doing it properly and the 7 other one is spending more money or effort in doing it 8 properly, we have a problem. That is what is inherent 9 in regulation. 10 21828 MR. ZNAIMER: We have accepted the 11 spirit and have offered a formulation which we think is 12 in the right spirit. 13 21829 THE CHAIRPERSON: And, perhaps, even 14 you can discuss how you would -- you calculate yours to 15 arrive at different -- how you calculate it to arrive 16 at different -- because I don't know how it was done, 17 but it certainly illustrates the possibility of our 18 difficulty. 19 21830 MR. ZNAIMER: Marcia would like to 20 add something. 21 21831 MS MARTIN: I feel very strongly 22 about this, if you will allow me one more comment on 23 it. 24 21832 There are many stories that we do 25 across the country, and if we are on the set of StenoTran 4728 1 "X-Files" and that not being a Canadian production and 2 that is considered non-Canadian, perhaps it is not 3 understood that when we are on the set of "X-Files" we 4 are interviewing an actor by the name of William B. 5 Davis who has the role of Cancerman and that is a 6 Canadian. So when we are on the set of those films, we 7 are taking a Canadian angle and that story, to us, is 8 Canadian and not foreign. 9 21833 So that might be where some of the 10 discrepancy is because we are very proud of what we 11 have been doing for 10 years. 12 21834 THE CHAIRPERSON: And it illustrates 13 as well the difficulty of establishing regulatory tools 14 that are used equitably. 15 21835 MR. SHERRATT: To answer your direct 16 question, Madam Chair, we think it is a wonderful idea. 17 We say hurray to the idea and, yes, we think they 18 should be predominantly Canadian and we will work with 19 your staff on what that is -- 20 21836 THE CHAIRPERSON: As to how you 21 measure that. 22 21837 MR. SHERRATT: -- but it will be. 23 Thank you. 24 21838 THE CHAIRPERSON: U.S. services, we 25 have heard many suggestions as to how we can extract StenoTran 4729 1 more contribution, or one that is more congruent with 2 the advantages that are financial, advantages that are 3 drawn out of the country by them. There have been many 4 suggestions as to how you can somehow surcharge or get 5 the eligible services to contribute financially and 6 also get a system that is more protective of Canadian 7 rights. 8 21839 You mention in particular in your 9 written submission the difficulty of the evasion of 10 program substitution by, I guess, scheduling techniques 11 by border stations or stations that are brought into 12 Canada by cable, and suggest that something should be 13 done about this. 14 21840 Do you have any concrete suggestions, 15 one, as to how one measures -- well, one, how broad a 16 problem is this? Secondly, how would one measure when 17 the station has been guilty of it? Thirdly, what are 18 some solutions to that? 19 21841 MR. ZNAIMER: We do have some 20 concrete suggestions. Mr. Rubinstein will handle the 21 question. 22 21842 MR. RUBINSTEIN: The first question 23 you asked, Madam Chair, had to do with the U.S. service 24 contribution so perhaps I can start with that. 25 21843 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think you do -- StenoTran 4730 1 you suggest a surcharge. 2 21844 MR. RUBINSTEIN: We do. 3 21845 THE CHAIRPERSON: And you heard the 4 various comments about the difficulties in all that. 5 21846 MR. RUBINSTEIN: I am not sure I 6 believe the hysteria about -- 7 21847 THE CHAIRPERSON: Tell us about that, 8 too. 9 21848 MR. RUBINSTEIN: We would like to. 10 21849 Our view is that we agree with the 11 often-stated premise that it is a privilege to hold a 12 licence in Canada. That is certainly true. It is also 13 a privilege to take a foreign service into our country 14 and that there have to be obligations associated with 15 that. 16 21850 We also, by the way, start from the 17 premise, as we said in our opening remarks, that 18 equitable contribution means that on a sector-by-sector 19 basis there has to be reasonable contributions by all 20 sectors. If you did it on a spectrum and looked at 21 those sectors that contribute the most and those that 22 contribute the least, at the bottom of the spectrum 23 would be foreign services and exempt services. 24 21851 On the foreign services issue, the 25 proposal we have is that on a going-forward basis we StenoTran 4731 1 would add as a criteria to being added to the eligible 2 list a requirement that a percentage of the subscriber 3 fees received by a foreign service would be withheld by 4 the BDU, the distributor, and then remitted to an 5 appropriate recognized Canadian programming fund. 6 21852 Our understanding -- and there has 7 been no evidence filed in this proceeding that would 8 suggest that that in some way violates free trade 9 agreements. Our understanding is if the rules are fair 10 and transparent and equal to all, they should be 11 enforceable. 12 21853 After all, the Commission 13 historically has dealt with the issue of other kinds of 14 requirements to be on the eligible list. Several years 15 ago, you looked at the issue of programming rights and 16 the concept of, if you want to be on the list, you 17 better make sure that you have acquired rights in 18 Canada for those programs. So this is an extension of 19 that. 20 21854 To avoid a concept of double taxation 21 for those who argue that, well, cable already -- cable, 22 as an example, already remits 5 per cent, you could 23 take out that portion of the U.S. fees from that 24 calculation. So we think that is a very appropriate 25 mechanism. StenoTran 4732 1 21855 On the question of border stations, 2 there are lots of examples. The example that we are 3 familiar with in Toronto, for example, would be the Fox 4 affiliate in buffalo. Jay Switzer can talk about it in 5 more detail if you like. But there have been an 6 ongoing series of problems where, in order to evade the 7 principle of simulcast and the right of simulcast, that 8 affiliate would engage in last-minute scheduling 9 changes to ensure that they would not be captured by 10 the simulcast rules. 11 21856 I would think that we should be able 12 to bring to the Commission a certain weight of evidence 13 in terms of the number of these kinds of occurrences 14 where you could reasonably conclude that they are 15 actively engaging on a last-minute basis in frustrating 16 the policy behind simulcast. 17 21857 Lastly, related to that, of course, 18 would be the solicitation of revenues on an active 19 basis by border stations. 20 21858 The solution to that would be to 21 bring in from another market, a more distant market, a 22 similar affiliate. I believe there are some examples 23 in the Maritimes where there was a switch-out with 24 Boston affiliates. There was no disruption in terms of 25 service to viewers. There were few, if no, complaints, StenoTran 4733 1 and it seemed to work well. 2 21859 So, in general, that is how we would 3 see both of those issues being addressed. 4 21860 THE CHAIRPERSON: The first one, the 5 surcharge, some parties have a concern that what it 6 will end up doing is increasing the fee and it will be 7 passed on to subscribers. 8 21861 MR. RUBINSTEIN: Well, the 9 Commission -- 10 21862 THE CHAIRPERSON: There has been as 11 much as, I think, 25 per cent suggested as a -- when 12 the eligible service negotiates terms, once it is on 13 the eligible list, they will just get the same amount 14 of money by adding -- you have heard some party 15 yesterday say that they had accidentally seen the -- 16 through the famous window where one knows how inside a 17 tier the allocation is made, and presumably it could 18 just increase and have not a whole lot of effect other 19 than funnelling more subscriber money into the fund, 20 and possibly making the tiers less attractive, if they 21 are more expensive, if the cable operator is not 22 willing to reshuffle. 23 21863 MR. ZNAIMER: Our impression is that 24 those prices are going up in any case and nothing is 25 being left in Canada. StenoTran 4734 1 21864 THE CHAIRPERSON: That is exactly the 2 problem that was presumably exposed yesterday. 3 21865 MR. SHERRATT: If you were an 4 American operator and you were not here now -- we are 5 talking now on a going-forward basis -- and you knew 6 that the price of coming into Canada was to get a fee, 7 a per subscriber fee that was higher than the one you 8 are getting in the United States, and you had to leave 9 25 per cent of it on the table here, and it was a free 10 ride for you, would you pay the tariff? In a minute. 11 21866 THE CHAIRPERSON: The suggestion by 12 one party at least was, of course, to combine that with 13 not allowing -- I think it was Global -- not allowing a 14 subscriber fee -- that one of the conditions of being 15 on the eligible list was that your fee could be no 16 higher than the lowest fee you get in the states. So, 17 if you had that type of -- you would have to have that 18 window that would be known to -- for this to work, to 19 work in the sense that it wouldn't be simply passed on 20 to the subscriber -- 21 21867 MR. SHERRATT: We agree with you. 22 21868 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- or exacted from 23 the party. 24 21869 MR. SHERRATT: It doesn't accomplish 25 anything for Canadian citizens, if it is just another StenoTran 4735 1 pass through or pass along, I agree with that. 2 21870 MR. ZNAIMER: That is a pretty good 3 suggestion, though. 4 21871 THE CHAIRPERSON: You would have to 5 know more than we now know about how all this works. 6 21872 I don't have any other questions. My 7 colleagues may have some and, until they do, I thank 8 you for your participation. 9 21873 I think Commissioner Cardozo has. 10 21874 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam 11 Chair, and, Mr. Znaimer, just so you don't go away 12 without somebody saying, 'atta boy, let me just go over 13 a few things that I wanted to 'atta boy about because 14 we have heard a lot about some of these issues, and I 15 say them not in the context, as the Chair has 16 clarified, in terms of your licence but, rather, the 17 context of this hearing, which is how does one go about 18 these things and, perhaps, I want to mention a few 19 examples and then ask you how you go about these 20 things. 21 1550 22 21875 It's also a good time to reflect on 23 these issues as being, this being the last day, and I 24 just wanted to mention a few things that we have heard 25 over the course of this process. StenoTran 4736 1 21876 Various groups have talked about 2 gender equity and offensive content, and I notice in 3 your written submission you talked about your work in 4 the area of gender equity on-air, off-air, including 5 behind the camera, and your senior something 6 management. I notice your recent statement on high 7 standards. 8 21877 Various groups have talked to us 9 about the reflection of cultural and racial diversity 10 and you have noted in your brief and today that you 11 consider yourself one of the leaders, and I think most 12 people would. There is a station out on the West Coast 13 which is nipping at your heals on that issue, but we 14 will not mention them for now. 15 21878 And I suppose in terms of cultural 16 diversity, you may be thinking of working on your 17 senior management next, but I am not asking about that 18 either. 19 21879 We heard from the Council of 20 Canadians with Disabilities in Winnipeg and they talked 21 about reflection of people with disabilities and I 22 think that yours is the only station that has a 23 reporter who happens to be in a wheelchair, and I think 24 that that offers us a very pleasant view and a change 25 of things from a different perspective, because it StenoTran 4737 1 introduces a whole lot of new issues about how you 2 shoot news. 3 21880 MR. ZNAIMER: Actually, Mr. Cardozo, 4 we have two. 5 21881 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So much the 6 better. I thought one would not be the end of it. 7 That was going to be my next comment. 8 21882 EGALE, the organization that 9 addresses issues the rights of gays and lesbians talked 10 to us about reflection on issues of concern to them. I 11 note "Q Files" is a new program you have got and 12 probably the only broadcaster -- don't tell me have you 13 two programs too -- but the only broadcaster who has a 14 program that deals with gay and lesbian issues. Rogers 15 has two programs they told us, but that's cable TV. 16 21883 So I guess my overall question on 17 this is, is all this stuff -- and I guess most of it -- 18 no, some of it deals with all your operations, but some 19 of it deals specifically with Citytv. Is this just a 20 Toronto thing? Is that what makes it happen? At what 21 levels do you make these decisions? Do you just happen 22 to do them or at some level are you thinking about it? 23 Lastly, could you tell us your thinking on issues of 24 closed captions and descriptive video service? 25 21884 Take that in any order. StenoTran 4738 1 21885 MR. ZNAIMER: The origin of this 2 practice -- well, it lies with both the personal and 3 the public. On a personal level -- and I have told 4 this story before -- it was not hard for a kid called 5 Znaimer to see that representation on Canadian 6 television in the early seventies seemed to me stuck in 7 too narrow a band, that there was not the 8 representation of ethnic background, let alone 9 multi-racial background and so on. 10 21886 So in a way it begins, as I think 11 many good things do, with an experience that's etched 12 into your personal life. 13 21887 On further reflection, though, we 14 thought that corporately it was the right thing to do 15 and that it was something that was particularly 16 reflective of Toronto, which seemed to be leading that 17 change in Canada at the time. 18 21888 And finally, over time, I think 19 people come to see that it's a pretty smart thing to 20 do. It's where the population curve is going and 21 therefore, ultimately, it's not just an act of charity, 22 it's also a sensible thing. 23 21889 How does it happen in our company 24 today? It's a reflex; it's second nature to us, and in 25 that sense we are perhaps not the same as other StenoTran 4739 1 companies who are pushed by Royal Commissions or quotas 2 or the need to appear politically correct. 3 21890 I notice that the representation made 4 by that woman from the NAC, was it? She talked about 5 how visible minorities, some of them had left Citytv to 6 go on to other companies. My sense was that there was 7 an implied criticism there and I thought, well, what a 8 thing to be proud of, that we had launched so many 9 people of colour, Asians -- well, across a broad 10 spectrum, and that they had gone on to other companies. 11 21891 The downside of that, of course, is 12 when something stops being the essential nature of the 13 company and becomes an imposition, say, for regulatory 14 reasons, the people who are imposed upon don't know how 15 to do it, so their reflex is to go shopping at the 16 Citytv talent store. If you have a bigger transmitter, 17 you can pay more money and you can then snap up staff 18 that you have not developed in the name of an idea that 19 you never really had, but it's one whose time has come. 20 21892 So what I am saying is that for us 21 it's bred in our bone and therefore, as we acquire 22 other channels or we get involved in other situations, 23 as indeed we have here in Ottawa with the conversion of 24 CHRO to the New RO, you immediately begin to see this 25 different way of looking at the world reflected on air StenoTran 4740 1 and, where you go to those buildings yourself and walk 2 through the hallways and environment, you would see 3 that that holds true throughout the entire body of 4 employees. 5 21893 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Any comments 6 on closed captioning? 7 21894 MS CRAWFORD: As Moses talked about, 8 issues of not only cultural diversity but accessible 9 are defining principles for everything that we do. In 10 terms of closed captioning, the Commission knows, 11 through the CAB and through our own reports, that we 12 have got a very good news story to tell about closed 13 captioning. 14 21895 We currently, through all of our 15 licensees, meet, and in some cases exceed, our closed 16 captioning requirements. We have been recognized 17 recently from various organizations for significant 18 industry-wide contributions in this area, most 19 recently, having received the Gold Cup Award. Our 20 in-house captioning head, Liz Chartrand, has been 21 instrumental in working with the closed captioning 22 community and now, through our station, in our 23 on-staff, in-house captioning facility, she was 24 recognized this year at the Gold Cup Awards with the 25 Humanitarian Award. StenoTran 4741 1 21896 Also, Citytv has been recognized in 2 developing some pretty key technology in the closed 3 captioning area, notably the voice write technology. 4 Liz and our in-house team are also involved in 5 collaborating with other members of the CAB to develop 6 a voluntary, industry-wide captioning standards manual 7 which is now in its first draft and will be probably 8 completed within the next several weeks, which is 9 something we are also consulting with the captioning 10 consumers on. 11 21897 MR. WATERS: Sarah, you should 12 probably just help out on that diversity question and 13 describe something we are doing on a proactive basis 14 that you may be interested in the media education. 15 21898 MS CRAWFORD: Just one final thought 16 on closed captioning I should mention. In terms of the 17 music side and specialty side of what we do, through 18 VidoeFact, which is the mechanism which provides 19 funding to first time music video makers that is 100 20 per cent funded by MuchMusic and MusiquePlus, we now 21 underwrite 100 per cent of the cost of closed 22 captioning for all of the new videos. 23 21899 VideoFact has currently been 24 responsible for the creation of new Canadian videos. I 25 think we are up to about 1,500 Canadian videos now in StenoTran 4742 1 the history of MuchMusic, to the tune of about $12 2 million. 3 21900 In terms of diversity and 4 accessibility, CHUM Limited has recently embarked on a 5 very significant social initiative to do with media 6 education. We believe that this is key, not only to 7 issues of cultural diversity but also to accessibility. 8 Right now what we do is create programming that 9 encourages teachers, parents and students to think 10 critically and analytically about screen-based media. 11 21901 So in the same way that children 12 right now are instructed to decode and understand and 13 analyze printed text in schools, we feel that it's 14 becoming increasingly important to understand 15 screen-based text in schools, in both television and 16 movies. 17 21902 So we have underwritten the cost of 18 providing study guides, programming copyright cleared, 19 free of charge, to teachers across the country. We 20 have been doing this for many, many years, since the 21 beginning of our specialty activity certainly, and even 22 since the beginning of the "New Music" on Citytv. We 23 provide the programming, through a variety of 24 mechanisms, primarily cable in the classroom, of which 25 CHUM is a founding member. StenoTran 4743 1 21903 That program has seen the cable 2 industry and the specialty programming service 3 providers provide cable hookups to over 8,000 Canadian 4 schools right now, and CHUM is the significant provider 5 of this media education programming which encourages 6 people to think critically analytically about the 7 media. 8 21904 We think this is a big help in not 9 only the area of violence, as has been noted in past 10 CRTC hearings, but also in the areas of cultural 11 diversity. 12 21905 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And on 13 descriptive video service? 14 21906 MS CRAWFORD: On descriptive video we 15 have been working with the CAB to develop an industry 16 model. As you may know, again, Citytv has been one of 17 the first broadcasters in the country -- in fact it may 18 be the first broadcaster in the country, to have aired 19 a described version of a couple of movies. Citytv has 20 a SAP channel, and that is the technology that enables 21 us to do that. 22 21907 As you know, there are difficulties 23 on the technical side and on the cost side to providing 24 descriptive video, and that is something that we are 25 looking at very seriously with the CAB on the joint StenoTran 4744 1 societal trends and issues side of things and also as 2 an industry to move forward on. 3 21908 We think it's important but, as 4 outlined in our presentation, there are some hurdles 5 that are standing in our way that we, as an industry, 6 need to look at. 7 21909 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: The other 8 issue I wanted to ask you about is local programming. 9 As you know, that's also one of the issues we have 10 heard a lot about, both in our town hall meetings and 11 in the input we have had in writing and during these 12 hearings. 13 21910 You mentioned the New RO and what you 14 did with local programming, and I am thinking, besides 15 the Citytv model, what is the model you are looking at 16 in your other cities and what does it assure in terms 17 of what others could be doing -- not that you want 18 others to do what you are doing because that would not 19 be in your best interest. But what basically is your 20 model for these new stations in Ontario? 21 21911 MR. ZNAIMER: Our model begins with a 22 significantly enhanced news operation. That usually 23 means significant growth in the size of staff, the 24 calibre of staff, and in the amount of air time devoted 25 to news and local reflection. StenoTran 4745 1 21912 In addition to that, our longer-term 2 view is that each of the stations -- and now we are 3 thinking of the grid that is encompassed by CHRO as it 4 becomes the New RO, the New VR, the New PL, the New NX, 5 the New WI -- our thinking over the longer term is that 6 each of these stations will also develop an ancillary 7 local programming specialty that is appropriate to 8 their area. 9 21913 So in the case of the New VR, where 10 we have been operating it in this new way for a number 11 of years, can you see that for a station located in the 12 heart of cottage country where recreation is an 13 essential part of the local culture and a huge local 14 industry, that sports and recreation seems to be an 15 appropriate place for that station to specialize as a 16 local manifestation. 17 21914 In the case of Ottawa, we have just 18 begun, as you are well aware. We have just bought a 19 new facility that has to be renovated in our style. A 20 lot of money goes into that. But when the smoke 21 clears, we think that in Ottawa the natural drift of 22 things would suggest some programming that is political 23 in its nature, but also perhaps some programming that 24 reflects the role of Ottawa in the new high technology 25 industries, and we are working on development in that StenoTran 4746 1 direction. 2 21915 On the other hand, if you look to the 3 south and to the west, let us take the extreme opposite 4 end of the grid -- it's a grid for purposes of my 5 description. We don't run it like a grid, we run it as 6 a group of individual stations. But if you look then 7 at Windsor, I would think that the specificity for 8 Windsor would have some involvement with the concept of 9 industry, labour and business and their relationships 10 and what that means to Ontario and what it means to 11 Canada. 12 21916 I hope that addresses your question. 13 21917 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: It does 14 largely. So you are looking at enhanced news and 15 sports. Is there room for local drama? I ask that 16 because, in terms of people's concerns about local 17 reflection, there is a sense that the networks have 18 moved towards national and away from local, that the 19 community channels have reduced their local community 20 programming. So what I guess we are looking at is 21 where do we get back this kind of local reflection? 22 21918 MR. ZNAIMER: Jay is dying to get in 23 on this. Before I let him, I do want to say this: You 24 have been told for years now that drama is high cost 25 and complex -- the number of million bucks an hour has StenoTran 4747 1 been repeated quite a few times at this hearing -- and 2 that national reach is required to sustain this. So to 3 turn around and expect a region infinitely smaller, 4 like Pembroke-Ottawa or Wingham-Windsor, to support a 5 very significant drama project is perhaps ambitious. 6 21919 At the same time, I must tell you 7 that we are ambitious people, and I think we have 8 proven ourselves to be reasonably ingenious people, and 9 there was a time at the beginning of the conversion of 10 what had been the Canadian Film Development Corporation 11 into what is today Telefilm, when we made an effort at 12 local drama. It was called the Toronto Trilogy. We 13 organized it in the form of a drama competition and did 14 it directly in response to a request from the then 15 director of that fund to come up with ideas. 16 21920 Our notion was, obviously, to tell 17 different kinds of intensely local stories, but also to 18 see whether we couldn't apply the same ingenuity that 19 we had applied to news; the development of the concept 20 of the videographer, for example, the notion of 21 Speaker's Corner and so on, to the business of telling 22 drama, and to do it in a tape-based way and using other 23 qualities, techniques and efficiencies that we had 24 learned in the reality business and apply that to 25 drama. StenoTran 4748 1 21921 Toronto Trilogy was an enormous 2 success. We did these half hours at been $100,000 3 apiece instead of the much larger numbers that are 4 discussed. Our reward for this exercise was that an 5 agreement was put through, without consultation and 6 without discussion, which then disqualified us from any 7 relationship with these funds because we were classed 8 "a broadcaster". 9 21922 It's a big sweeping word. 10 Broadcaster can refer to CTV and to Global, and it also 11 refers to Citytv, but there is no equivalence there. 12 We have argued for many years that in that context we 13 should be seen as a different kind of animal, that we 14 in fact behave in many ways like an independent 15 producer. When we want to attempt projects of larger 16 scale, we must accumulate those resources pretty much 17 like any other independent producer. We have, for 18 example, a couple of projects in which we sought the 19 partnership and received the partnership of CBC who 20 then had first telecast. 21 21923 We have attempted every which way to 22 get active in drama, only to be told over and over 23 again, by these various rules, that you are not wanted 24 here. We have begged and screamed and sought meetings 25 and made representations to the various fund and to StenoTran 4749 1 Telefilm and so on and slowly, slowly, things are 2 giving way and it appears that there is some relaxation 3 in the offing which might allow us to participate 4 again. 5 21924 So that's perhaps getting a little 6 something off my chest. Just a month ago, we did a 7 life two-hour drama in the window, street-front, 8 store-front at Citytv. I don't think Canada has seen 9 anything like that for 25 or 30 years. But's it's not 10 easy for us to do when we are denied access to the same 11 mechanics and incentives that an independent producer, 12 or so-called, gets for attempting the same exercise. 13 21925 Jay, what do you want to add? 14 1610 15 21926 MR. SWITZER: It's an important 16 question, Commissioner Cardozo, and while everybody 17 else -- there have been references to cutbacks and 18 reductions in local and regional programming bandied 19 about these past few weeks. As you very well know, we 20 have been actively increasing our efforts there, both 21 in traditional local production and in fact in the area 22 of drama, which for us means movies. 23 21927 Moses touched on this extraordinary, 24 at the local Toronto level, at the Citytv level -- I 25 don't know if any of you saw this, but it has not been StenoTran 4750 1 done in many years. We fully financed or almost fully 2 financed and co-produced with the very talented Bruce 3 MacDonald a live two-hour teleplay from our lobby, an 4 extraordinary live dramatic experience. I hope there 5 will be more of them and I think it's a really 6 interesting model of what can be done on a local basis 7 by a broadcaster in drama as something that's possible. 8 21928 You talked about the smaller centres 9 and even in smaller centres we are specifically looking 10 for long-form movies that we can pre-license. In fact 11 we have one under our belt, a successful film that was 12 done -- at the time, it was CKVR, now the New VR -- 13 called "Coming of Age", an extraordinary drama which we 14 actually sold to CanWest Global. We gladly took their 15 money and when their window is over, we are going to 16 play it on our Citytv service. 17 21929 We have two or three projects in 18 development specifically with independent producers at 19 the local level in Ottawa and the valley and in London. 20 It will only take a few short seconds, but you asked 21 specifically what can be done. We are trying to take 22 the desire to find local stories and do them even at 23 the local level. I would like to ask Diane Boehme, our 24 Manager of Independent Production, to just briefly tell 25 you these two or three examples. StenoTran 4751 1 21930 MS BOEHME: Thanks, Jay. 2 21931 Just to give you an example of what 3 we are doing right now in this marketplace, about two 4 years ago I came to know a local filmmaker that's based 5 here. She had a project that she had been nurturing 6 for quite some time and had been kind of floundering 7 with it creatively. It took her a while, but she did 8 eventually hook herself up with a producer that was 9 going to be able to give her the guidance that she 10 needed. They came through the door over a year ago and 11 we gave them some development support to make sure that 12 the project was nurtured and developed creatively, 13 which is -- for our concern, the script is where it 14 always starts first. 15 21932 Because it's important for us to 16 develop the local talent so that it can be displayed on 17 a national level with credibility, it was important for 18 us to make the right introductions. We introduced her 19 to a good story editor who had an affinity for the 20 material. In fact the latest round of the script was 21 delivered to me at the hotel last night. I think if it 22 shows the promise that the previous drafts have shown, 23 about a year from now, with any luck at all, it might 24 be in the Toronto Film Festival. 25 21933 I think this woman has taken a story StenoTran 4752 1 that's based in the valley. It's not a specific 2 location, although they have, they tell me, found a 3 location where they plan to shoot it, but it's 4 representative of an area where she grew up and it's 5 very important. It's about her, her personal 6 background and what she has to say about living in this 7 community in a dramatic way, which she has never had 8 the opportunity to do before. 9 21934 I am routinely here speaking to the 10 Ottawa-Hull Film and Television Producers Association. 11 We take pitches from producers associations that are 12 being found right now in the London area and there is 13 an awful lot of people who are very excited about the 14 opportunity that we are presenting for them to do 15 long-form drama. There are a number of projects that 16 we have in development and it's up to us to find the 17 right way to matchmake, if you will, and make sure that 18 those projects, when they come to our screen, are not 19 just local but they work around the country for 20 audiences. 21 21935 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you for 22 those answers. That covers my questions. 23 21936 MR. SHERRATT: Commissioner Cardozo, 24 we are very pleased that you did zero in on local 25 programming because our mission today was to be as StenoTran 4753 1 helpful as we could in every area, but to attempt -- 2 against the background of the last round of licence 3 renewals, when the Commission said, "It is no longer 4 necessary for each conventional station to schedule 5 programming from all of these categories" -- that's 6 sort of out of the longer paragraph -- we concentrate 7 on local reflection and feature films and if we have 8 been able to convince you that there is more to 9 Canadian television than one type of television station 10 that exhibits one type of programming, we will have 11 fulfilled our mission and, hopefully, we have been able 12 to make a contribution to the proceedings. 13 21937 Madam Chair, I couldn't help but -- I 14 don't know whether you saw the Globe and Mail this 15 morning, but underneath the quote of the day, which was 16 a quote from here yesterday from Mr. Sward, which I 17 sincerely hope none of us make the Globe tomorrow as 18 the quote of the day, your morning smile was: 19 "I am studying Nesbitt's book, 20 'The Universe and All That 21 Surrounds It'. He says the 22 earth is spinning into the sun 23 and we will all be burned to 24 death." (As read) 25 21938 But he ends the book on a note of StenoTran 4754 1 hope. He says, "I hope this will not happen." 2 21939 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner 3 Pennefather? 4 21940 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: On that 5 note, I would like to, if I am the last person to 6 speak, conclude on a musical note. We haven't talked 7 music yet. 8 21941 MS DONLON: Thank you. 9 21942 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: You are 10 welcome. 11 21943 My question is very simple. It's 12 related to the fact we have had representations and 13 will have that music, category 8 specifically, is in 14 quite a bit of difficulty in that it remains an 15 under-represented category. Is that what you meant in 16 your oral presentation today by, "We wish more 17 attention was paid to this", the category 8 reference? 18 21944 What did you mean by that, because in 19 your written submission you seem to indicate that 20 music, as part of the overall group of 21 under-represented categories, is doing well and our 22 staff work also seems to indicate that in fact, if we 23 look at an enhanced BBM database and you look at the 24 array of programming offered to Canadians from all 25 sources, American, conventional stations, cable StenoTran 4755 1 networks, Canadian, specialty and pay, we found that 2 3.8 per cent of the programs, Canadian and foreign, are 3 in these categories. Now, here I am talking 8 and 9, 4 music and variety. 5 21945 When we look at conventional 6 English-language services, one finds 4.3 per cent in 7 these two categories. So, are we talking still about 8 an under-represented category, number one? Number two, 9 on the definition of category 8, is it still 10 appropriate as a definition? 11 21946 MR. ZNAIMER: Let's begin with the 12 definition question. 13 21947 Mark, do you have something? 14 21948 MR. RUBINSTEIN: We don't -- 15 21949 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I'm sorry, 16 I forgot. You have to sing your answers. 17 21950 MR. RUBINSTEIN: What format should 18 it be in? 19 21951 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I am going 20 all the way here. 21 21952 MR. RUBINSTEIN: We haven't 22 identified a problem in terms of having a definition 23 that in some way doesn't capture programming which 24 generally fits what we take to be that kind of 25 category. So, no, we don't have a problem with the StenoTran 4756 1 definition. 2 21953 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Is that 3 true in the English and French markets? I know you 4 know something about the French market. I would like 5 your comment on the category and its representation in 6 the French market. 7 21954 MR. ZNAIMER: Well, I think we make a 8 huge contribution in both linguistic groups. I am 9 rather fixated on your point or your question about 10 whether or not the reward for having done a job well is 11 that the job that you are doing is then removed from 12 the essential category, so that the effect of that 13 might be that we stop working in that category and then 14 head over to the category that remains 15 under-represented so that the category that is now 16 fully represented can become under-represented again. 17 You see my point? 18 21955 Other than that, I think you directed 19 your remarks essentially to Denise and she is the right 20 person to tell you about our -- 21 21956 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: My point, 22 to be very clear, was that we have had representations 23 that music and variety are being ignored. I thought 24 that was the tone of your paragraph today in your oral 25 presentation, yet I wanted your comment on whether in StenoTran 4757 1 fact 8 and 9 remain under-represented categories before 2 we address ways that others are bringing forward to 3 improve that situation. 4 21957 MR. RUBINSTEIN: Commissioner, a 5 couple of additional points. We obviously haven't seen 6 the data that Commission staff came up with to make an 7 assessment. We have done a little work to go back and 8 examine that and I think we will file something which 9 shows quite a different story in the written process 10 following the hearing. I think on a numerical basis in 11 fact it is still under-represented. 12 21958 I also think the other point we tried 13 to make in our written presentation -- and it goes back 14 to local programming -- is not every broadcaster has an 15 infatuation with music on television. Most don't. The 16 one group that does primarily is before you today. It 17 so happens that most of those programs on our 18 conventional services are local. 19 21959 Were there to be a system 20 modification coming out of this hearing that would 21 disrupt our ability to continue to do local, it 22 wouldn't just harm local service, but in fact would 23 have a domino effect of harming service in categories 24 that to date are under-represented. So, that's not an 25 unimportant fact. It's a double whammy in a sense and StenoTran 4758 1 that's why, as Fred said a moment ago, the job we do in 2 local reflection has much greater consequences to the 3 system beyond just local reflection to our audience in 4 a given community. 5 21960 MR. SHERRATT: There is one aspect of 6 it that perhaps Denise could talk about, though. 7 21961 MS DONLON: I think if part of the 8 question is whether or not a show like the "New Music", 9 for example, which is a Toronto-based show that has its 10 first run on Citytv and then is syndicated not only 11 throughout the country and Canada, but is shown on 12 MuchMusic and then syndicated internationally, if 13 that's a show that would be better served as being 14 categorized under 8, then the answer is I would say 15 there is a very good argument for that, much the same 16 as the argument that Marcia gave earlier for 17 MovieTelevision in the fact that it does promote a 18 Canadian star system. 19 21962 We would be happy again to work on 20 some sort of parameters that say what is Canadian, what 21 designates the Canadian content therein, because it 22 does promote the stars, promote the Canadian stars and, 23 more importantly, it introduces new stars into the 24 system in a contextual way so that it's not just a 25 video that is being shown, it's an interview usually in StenoTran 4759 1 their place of residence or their place of work and 2 that sort of thing. 3 21963 So, I think having the new music in 4 that category would go a long way again to answer some 5 of the other broadcasters' urgings to create a star 6 system that better enhances this cycle that we are 7 talking about. 8 21964 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: It's an 9 interesting point of view on how you analyze it. ADISQ 10 is coming up and they, among other things, point to a 11 study in Quebec on private conventional French-language 12 television. The numbers of programs which present les 13 arts de la scène has dropped dramatically. I am 14 looking for the reasons for that and I will be talking 15 to them about that. 16 21965 MR. ZNAIMER: In part it's because 17 you now have channels that do that all the time. I 18 would hope that you will resist some of this pressure 19 which tends to have everybody do the same thing. 20 That's not the drift of the times, it's not the intent 21 of this tremendous wave of licensing that we have had 22 over the last few years. In fact since the advent of 23 Citytv, we have begun to get away from the notion that 24 every station must be a generalist that does a little 25 bit of something for everybody sometime. So, it may StenoTran 4760 1 not be inappropriate that some channels de-emphasize 2 this kind of work because our channels emphasize it to 3 an enormous degree. 4 21966 MS DONLON: I would like to add 5 something to that, actually, because I think that's 6 part of the question, whether or not these categories 7 are being served by conventional. They are in fact 8 being very well served by specialty and I would also 9 just like to speak to the perhaps perception that a 10 music channel like MuchMusic or MuchMoreMusic or 11 MusiMax or MusiquePlus, for that matter, is a music 12 video channel only. They are not. They are channels 13 that have a lot of long-form programming on them that, 14 in effect, do the job of what variety in a traditional 15 sense does. 16 21967 There is the "Intimate Interactive" 17 series that you mentioned earlier, there is the "Snow 18 Jobs", the MuchMusic Video Awards, we shoot concerts, 19 we go live with multi-camera satellite mobiles from 20 Canada Day, Edge Fest, "Summer Salts". There is 21 interviews and bands in everyday providing context 22 so -- 23 21968 MR. ZNAIMER: And even the politics. 24 21969 MS DONLON: And even the political 25 coverage and things that we do because we believe it StenoTran 4761 1 brings relevance to our viewers. So, perhaps we are 2 looking at it in an old eyeglass as to variety on 3 convention. A lot of it is being taken up on the 4 specialty service and we are happy to be there for it. 5 21970 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Great. 6 That's why I mentioned 8 and 9 and their definitions. 7 Looking at them, I wanted your comment on how they are 8 working or not in support of the artists, in support of 9 the programming, in support of whether it's live 10 performance or pre-recorded or video clip or other 11 kinds of programming that you have on Bravo! I see 12 Paul back there. 13 21971 MS DONLON: It's all of it. I think 14 every one of those channels that's mentioned, including 15 Bravo!, have a lot of live performances in their 16 studio, but again they do it with a particular view to 17 what their audience is. In a specialty world, it's a 18 very narrow audience and we want to make sure that we 19 don't divorce our core and that we embrace who we are 20 and be very careful to entertain them in manners and 21 that means we have to borrow occasionally from all of 22 the other conventions. How do we do that? 23 21972 So, we are being a variety series, we 24 are being a video channel, we are being a talk show, we 25 are doing political coverage. We are doing all of that StenoTran 4762 1 as long as it's musical, and that's what makes it fun 2 and enjoyable to watch, anyway. 3 21973 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you 4 very much. 5 21974 Thank you, Madam Chair. 6 21975 THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel? 7 21976 MS PATTERSON: Thank you, Madam 8 Chair. 9 21977 You have proposed amending the 10 definition of Canadian programming expenditures to 11 include all expenditures on the promotion and 12 advertising of Canadian programming. Does that include 13 the value assigned to the air time you provide for the 14 promotion of your own programs? 15 21978 MR. SHERRATT: No. 16 21979 MS PATTERSON: Okay, thank you. 17 21980 You have also suggested -- and this 18 is at page 4 of your written submission -- that if a 19 border station is trying to frustrate the simulcast 20 opportunity that one potential solution would be to 21 replace the border signal by a distant affiliate of the 22 same network, wouldn't this have cost implications? 23 21981 MR. SHERRATT: Not really and, in any 24 case, not costs that are insurmountable. As I think we 25 have stated, there is precedent for it in the Maritimes StenoTran 4763 1 area and we can't see any reason why we can't do it in 2 the central area. 3 21982 MS PATTERSON: Thank you. 4 21983 Finally, you have proposed on page 2 5 of your oral submission today a fourth option that you 6 have called Option D, which is the production and 7 exhibition of local and regional programming. I would 8 just like to know, would this involve exhibition and 9 spending or a choice between the two? 10 21984 MR. SHERRATT: It could be either, 11 but we see it as an exhibition -- one might think when 12 we thought it up as an exhibition and tie it in with a 13 commitment to spending in the total service. We looked 14 at all the combinations that you might do. If you were 15 going to have more than one, then you would have an 16 exhibition requirement or commitment from the licensee 17 in terms of local programming, but at the same time 18 there would be an expenditure requirement against the 19 service. 20 21985 MS PATTERSON: Thank you for those 21 clarifications. 22 21986 Thank you, Madam Chair. 23 21987 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. 24 Znaimer, Mr. Sherratt, ladies and gentlemen. We thank 25 you for your contribution and we hope you have a good StenoTran 4764 1 trip back. 2 21988 MR. SHERRATT: We would like to thank 3 you and your colleagues for your amazing stamina over 4 these almost four weeks and we wish you well in your 5 deliberations. 6 21989 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 7 21990 We will now take a 15-minute break. 8 We will be back at a quarter to 5:00. Nous reprendrons 9 à cinq heures moins quart. 10 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1632 11 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1647 12 21991 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary. 13 21992 Mme SANTERRE: Merci, Madame la 14 Présidente. 15 21993 La prochaine intervention sera faite 16 par le Conseil provincial du secteur des 17 communications, Syndicat canadien de la fonction 18 publique. 19 21994 Messieurs, madame. 20 21995 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour, madame, 21 messieurs. 22 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION 23 21996 M. CHABOT: Bonjour, Madame la 24 Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers, 25 membres du Conseil. StenoTran 4765 1 21997 Mon nom est Bernard Chabot. Je suis 2 le président du Conseil provincial du secteur des 3 communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction 4 publique. Je suis aussi président du syndicat des 5 employés de CFCM-TV, connue dans l'appellation 6 populaire sous l'appellation de Télé-4 à Québec. 7 21998 J'ai le plaisir d'être accompagné 8 aujourd'hui, à ma gauche, de M. Henri Massé, qui est 9 secrétaire général de la Fédération des travailleurs et 10 travailleuses du Québec, à ma droite de M. Gilles 11 Charland, directeur québécois du Syndicat canadien de 12 la fonction publique et, à mon extrême droite, de 13 Mme Linda Craig, responsable de la recherche pour le 14 CPSC. 15 21999 Dans un premier temps, nous aimerions 16 remercier le Conseil de nous permettre d'exprimer notre 17 point de vue dans le cadre de cette importante 18 audience. On ne vous le cache pas, plusieurs 19 travailleurs et travailleuses que nous représentons 20 sont à l'écoute et sont conscients que cette audience 21 risque d'être déterminante pour leur avenir. 22 22000 On le sait, les décisions qui sont 23 prises par le Conseil ont toujours des impacts plus ou 24 moins directs sur les travailleurs et travailleuses qui 25 oeuvrent au sein des entreprises de radiodiffusion. StenoTran 4766 1 Vous pouvez en témoigner, puisque nous n'en sommes pas 2 à notre première comparution devant vous, que le CPSC 3 n'a pas l'habitude d'évoquer l'enjeu des emplois dans 4 le cadre des audiences publiques. Cependant, les 5 décisions qui seront prises au terme de la présente 6 audience pourraient avoir des conséquences économiques 7 négatives pour les télédiffuseurs et, par conséquent, 8 pour les personnes qui y travaillent. 9 22001 Au même titre que les autres acteurs 10 du système, nous croyons qu'il est légitime pour ceux 11 qui le façonnent quotidiennement, pour ceux qui sont 12 aussi au coeur de la production canadienne, de vous 13 faire part de leurs préoccupations. L'inquiétude est 14 d'autant plus vive que les télédiffuseurs semblent être 15 l'unique cible de la majorité des interventions que 16 nous avons entendues au cours de ce processus. 17 22002 Notre intervention a pour but 18 d'insister sur l'importance d'assurer un bon équilibre 19 entre tous les éléments du système de radiodiffusion. 20 Vous vous en doutez certainement, l'idée que l'on se 21 fait d'un système équilibré diffère de celle que 22 peuvent avoir les intervenants du secteur indépendant. 23 22003 La production interne au Québec est 24 un élément essentiel et dynamique du système de 25 radiodiffusion francophone et, n'en déplaise à StenoTran 4767 1 certains, elle a contribué et contribue encore 2 grandement au succès que connaît la programmation 3 canadienne de langue française. Ce succès est le 4 résultat des efforts conjugués de tous les 5 intervenants: les télédiffuseurs, le secteur 6 indépendant et les artisans oeuvrant à l'interne, ceux 7 que l'on oublie malheureusement trop souvent. Bref, la 8 production canadienne, ce n'est pas seulement la 9 production indépendante. 10 22004 Quoi qu'en pensent les producteurs 11 indépendants, le maintien et le développement de la 12 production interne font aussi partie des solutions aux 13 défis qui attendent la télévision canadienne du 21e 14 siècle. La production interne existe depuis le début 15 de la télévision et doit continuer d'exister parce 16 qu'un système de radiodiffusion équilibré est un 17 système qui favorise le développement de toutes les 18 forces en présence. Nous nous permettons d'ailleurs de 19 rappeler qu'au départ les télédiffuseurs ont dû se 20 doter d'importantes infrastructures de production pour 21 obtenir leur licence. 22 22005 Les objectifs donc de cette audience 23 sont avant tout de trouver des moyens pour augmenter la 24 production canadienne de qualité et d'élargir les 25 auditoires. Ces objectifs répondent, selon nous, à un StenoTran 4768 1 besoin criant dans le Canada anglophone, car il faut 2 bien reconnaître que la situation est totalement 3 différente au Québec. De nombreuses études, déposées 4 au cours du présent processus public, démontrent en 5 effet que les télédiffuseurs québécois consacrent une 6 grande part de leur budget de programmation aux 7 émissions canadiennes et que les téléspectateurs 8 québécois apprécient leur télévision et l'écoutent en 9 grand nombre. Il en va autrement dans le reste du 10 Canada. 11 22006 Cependant, il ne suffit pas 12 d'applaudir le succès du Québec; encore faudrait-il 13 reconnaître la spécificité de son marché et ne pas lui 14 appliquer la même médecine que celle que l'on pourrait 15 envisager pour le reste du pays. La feuille de route 16 des télédiffuseurs francophones en matière de 17 programmation canadienne et en termes de recours au 18 secteur indépendant répond plus qu'adéquatement aux 19 exigences du Conseil et aux dispositions de la Loi sur 20 la radiodiffusion. 21 22007 Depuis le début de cette audience on 22 entend le secteur indépendant exiger toujours plus en 23 matière de réglementation, de financement, et ce, en sa 24 faveur évidemment. On croirait entendre une jeune 25 industrie qui a besoin du maximum de soutien pour se StenoTran 4769 1 mettre au monde et qui viendrait vous dire: 2 Donnez-nous toutes les chances, y compris au détriment 3 des autres acteurs, et ne nous demandez surtout rien. 4 22008 Toutefois, au sujet de la production 5 indépendante, on ne peut plus parler d'une industrie 6 naissante. On parle ici d'une industrie florissante 7 qui a amplement eu le temps de se mettre au monde, qui 8 a largement bénéficié, et bénéficie toujours à au moins 9 60 pour cent de sa structure financière, de sommes 10 considérables provenant des deniers publics et qui a le 11 plus profité de l'arrivée des canaux spécialisés; une 12 industrie rendue à maturité qui dit craindre la 13 concentration mais qui tend elle-même à se concentrer 14 davantage. Ainsi, la production indépendante compte 15 des groupes importants, cotés en bourse, et parfois 16 même détenus par des entreprises prospères, encore plus 17 fortunées que les télédiffuseurs francophones. Pensons 18 par exemple à SDA, qui est détenue par Coscient, 19 elle-même détenue par Télésystème, détenue à son tour 20 par le géant Téléglobe. 21 22009 L'étude de la firme Coopers & Lybrand 22 intitulée "Environmental Scan - Canadian Television", 23 produite pour l'ACR, note que 7 des 25 plus importantes 24 compagnies de production indépendante sont maintenant 25 cotées en bourse et accaparaient déjà, en 1997, 52 pour StenoTran 4770 1 cent des revenus totaux des revenus de l'industrie de 2 la télévision canadienne. De plus, cette étude 3 souligne que l'industrie canadienne de production 4 télévisuelle s'est consolidée depuis quelques années et 5 note même une tendance à la concentration puisque le 6 nombre de maisons de production indépendante est passé 7 de 741 à 541 de 1990 à 1996, et ceci sans compter les 8 prises de contrôle des unes par les autres. 9 22010 Nous croyons fermement que le moment 10 est venu de revoir les règles du jeu afin d'assurer une 11 meilleure répartition des responsabilités, des risques 12 et des bénéfices entre tous les acteurs. 13 22011 Bien sûr, nous sommes conscients 14 qu'il est encore nécessaire d'allouer des fonds publics 15 à la production canadienne si nous voulons concurrencer 16 les productions étrangères et particulièrement celles 17 qui nous arrivent des États-Unis, mais on se demande 18 toutefois jusqu'où nous devons aller. Jusqu'à quel 19 point les Canadiens, qui paient déjà cher leur système 20 de radiodiffusion, doivent-ils financer une industrie, 21 cotée en bourse, vivant largement de l'argent public et 22 n'ayant pourtant aucun compte à rendre à ses principaux 23 bailleurs de fonds que sont les contribuables et les 24 abonnés du câble? Où est la limite raisonnable? 25 22012 Alors que les télédiffuseurs, compte StenoTran 4771 1 tenu du contexte réglementé dans lequel ils évoluent, 2 doivent régulièrement rendre compte de leurs faits et 3 gestes auprès du Conseil, la dépendante industrie de la 4 production indépendante qui, elle, bénéficie très 5 souvent des décisions du Conseil et ne cesse d'en 6 réclamer davantage, n'a paradoxalement aucun compte à 7 lui rendre. 8 22013 Par ailleurs, les producteurs 9 indépendants sont contraints d'admettre que les sources 10 de financement public ne sont pas illimitées. Ils vous 11 demandent donc, encore une fois, de réglementer en leur 12 faveur en exigeant que les télédiffuseurs versent un 13 certain pourcentage de leurs revenus à la production 14 indépendante et, par conséquent, allouent moins de 15 budget à leur production interne. Si le Conseil 16 accédait à cette demande, il mettrait sérieusement en 17 péril la santé financière des télédiffuseurs, les 18 emplois qui s'y trouvent ainsi que le volume même 19 d'émissions canadiennes qu'ils peuvent maintenir. 20 22014 Déjà, on a pu constater que l'arrivée 21 massive des producteurs indépendants, sous la pression 22 de plus en plus forte du CRTC sur les radiodiffuseurs 23 pour les obliger à s'approvisionner à l'extérieur, 24 ainsi que la multiplication des subventions et crédits 25 gouvernementaux en faveur de ces entreprises toujours StenoTran 4772 1 plus dépendantes, ont eu pour conséquence d'affecter 2 sérieusement la rentabilité de la production maison du 3 fait de la sous-utilisation des ressources internes. 4 Par exemple, ce phénomène a entraîné la perte de 400 5 emplois à Télé-Métropole seulement, auxquels s'ajoutent 6 300 emplois perdus à Télé-Québec et des milliers 7 d'autres éliminés à Radio-Canada et à CBC. 8 22015 Or, seul un volume d'activités 9 important et régulier peut assurer aux télédiffuseurs 10 une continuité et une masse critique suffisante pour 11 bénéficier des économies d'échelle liées à la 12 production interne. En s'attaquant à la capacité de 13 production des radiodiffuseurs, les producteurs 14 indépendants mettent en péril leur survie, entraînant 15 la ronde infernale des coupures. 16 22016 Et que dire de la production 17 régionale ou des segments de production comme 18 l'information, créneau dans lequel les producteurs 19 indépendants voudraient cantonner les télédiffuseurs? 20 Ces segments risqueraient fort de faire les frais d'une 21 réglementation qui favoriserait encore plus le secteur 22 indépendant en devant assumer à toutes fins pratiques 23 seuls les coûts structurels des productions des 24 télédiffuseurs. 25 22017 Si le CRTC oblige les télédiffuseurs StenoTran 4773 1 à financer la production indépendante à même leurs 2 revenus, et donc à même nos emplois, il n'aura plus à 3 réglementer pour limiter la production interne car, du 4 point de vue économique, les radiodiffuseurs ne 5 pourront simplement plus produire. Réduire les 6 télédiffuseurs au silence ne servirait pas les 7 objectifs de la loi et ne servirait pas l'intérêt 8 public. 9 22018 Depuis le 23 septembre dernier vous 10 avez entendu un nombre important de représentants de la 11 production indépendante se plaindre que les 12 télédiffuseurs ont tendance à produire à l'interne. 13 Cependant, jamais ne nous explique-t-on les causes de 14 cette supposée tendance. Serait-il possible que, 15 malgré les nombreuses subventions dont bénéficient les 16 producteurs indépendants, ces derniers ne représentent 17 toujours pas une alternative économiquement 18 intéressante pour les télédiffuseurs? Il nous semble 19 que poser la question, c'est y répondre. 20 22019 À notre avis, au Québec à tout le 21 moins, l'équilibre entre les sources de production 22 d'émissions canadiennes est en péril depuis quelques 23 années déjà. Donner raison aux nouvelles exigences de 24 la cohorte des producteurs dits indépendants 25 condamnerait inévitablement toute une partie de notre StenoTran 4774 1 système de production à l'effondrement. Est-ce là le 2 résultat recherché? 3 22020 Si l'objectif du CRTC est d'augmenter 4 la production canadienne, il devrait plutôt favoriser 5 l'ensemble des éléments du système et faire en sorte 6 que tous les acteurs puissent, de manière équitable, 7 avoir accès aux mêmes sources de financement. Le CRTC 8 devrait également inviter le gouvernement à mettre en 9 place des mesures de contrôle pour obliger les 10 producteurs indépendants à être plus transparents, à 11 rendre compte de l'utilisation détaillée qu'ils font 12 des sommes perçues. 13 22021 Pourquoi les télédiffuseurs 14 devraient-ils produire moins alors que l'objectif est 15 d'augmenter la production canadienne? Le Conseil doit 16 réglementer en faveur de l'accroissement de la 17 programmation canadienne et non en faveur d'un seul 18 secteur du système. Il doit viser le meilleur 19 équilibre possible au bénéfice de l'ensemble des 20 Canadiens. 21 22022 Merci de nous avoir entendus. Nous 22 sommes maintenant disposés à répondre à vos questions. 23 22023 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci, 24 Monsieur Chabot. 25 22024 À votre avis, quelle est la raison StenoTran 4775 1 principale pour laquelle il y a moins de production 2 locale et régionale, qui est une de vos préoccupations? 3 Ici, je ne parle pas nécessairement qu'elle soit faite 4 par les télédiffuseurs ou les producteurs indépendants, 5 mais je crois que vous avez un problème avec la 6 soi-disant disparition de la programmation appelée 7 programmation miroir, et je crois même que vous 8 suggérez que le Conseil devrait obliger les réseaux 9 eux-mêmes à garder un créneau qui obligerait les 10 télédiffuseurs affiliés à faire de telles productions. 11 22025 Est-ce que votre problème avec la 12 production faite par les producteurs indépendants, le 13 problème que vous y voyez, est relié à la soi-disant 14 disparition de la programmation locale et régionale? 15 22026 M. CHABOT: Je pense que ce sont deux 16 choses qui sont distinctes. D'une part, la disparition 17 de la production locale et régionale, elle est devenue 18 problématique ou elle s'est accrue, si on veut, à 19 partir du moment où les réseaux se sont constitués de 20 plus en plus grandement. Si on prend l'exemple de 21 Québec capitale, du temps où la station pour laquelle 22 je travaille était une entité indépendante affiliée à 23 un réseau comme TVA, sa marge de manoeuvre était plus 24 grande. 25 22027 À partir du moment où les contraintes StenoTran 4776 1 économiques ont fait que les réseaux se sont construits 2 et ont possédé les stations, bien sûr, en termes de 3 ventes en publicité, c'est plus rentable de vendre et 4 d'offrir à General Motors, par exemple, un produit sur 5 l'ensemble de ses stations en même temps et c'est plus 6 facile, et c'est plus économique aussi, de produire une 7 émission qui va être diffusée et vendue à la General 8 Motors partout à la même heure. Donc c'est une 9 contrainte qui s'est accrue avec le temps. 10 22028 Je ne suis pas convaincu qu'on puisse 11 la lier à cet autre problème de la production 12 indépendante. Je pense que le phénomène de la 13 production indépendante, il s'est accru avec le temps, 14 avec les exigences qui sont apparues dans la loi. 15 Lorsque la loi a dit que le radiodiffuseur devait faire 16 appel de façon notable aux producteurs indépendants, le 17 Conseil a commencé à poser plus de questions et à 18 exiger de plus en plus la présence de ces productions 19 de l'extérieur. 20 22029 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je vois très bien que 21 c'est au désavantage, évidemment, des employés 22 syndiqués dans les stations, mais comment voyez-vous ce 23 phénomène de la production indépendante comme étant 24 contraire aux objectifs de la loi, qui sont finalement 25 d'apporter de la programmation aux auditoires StenoTran 4777 1 canadiens? 2 22030 Si on examine le problème de cette 3 façon-là, il s'agit de voir qu'est-ce qu'il y a aux 4 écrans plutôt que qui l'a formulé, mais je suppose que 5 vous allez me répondre que ça dépend qui l'a payé, 6 parce que ça vient des fonds publics. 7 22031 M. CHABOT: Si vous permettez, Madame 8 la Présidente, j'aimerais laisser la parole au 9 secrétaire général de la FTQ, qui a eu la générosité de 10 venir nous accompagner aujourd'hui. Vous constatez 11 qu'on est plus nombreux que d'habitude parce que 12 justement cette audience nous apparaissait tellement 13 importante -- et nous avons suivi avec assiduité vos 14 travaux -- que je pense qu'on croyait vraiment urgent 15 de venir vous rencontrer et de vous exprimer avec 16 clarté nos propos. 17 22032 Je pense que M. Massé pourra vous 18 parler là-dessus. 19 22033 M. MASSÉ: Merci, Madame la 20 Présidente, de nous donner l'opportunité de s'exprimer. 21 22034 À la Fédération des travailleurs et 22 des travailleuses du Québec nous avons très rarement 23 participé aux travaux du CRTC, pas parce que nous ne 24 croyons pas ça important mais parce que nos syndicats 25 affiliés le font de façon compétente et régulière. StenoTran 4778 1 Mais aujourd'hui nous pensions qu'il était de notre 2 devoir, à la fédération, de mettre je dirais le poids 3 politique ou le poids moral des 500 000 travailleurs et 4 travailleuses que nous représentons au Québec dans ce 5 débat-là. 6 22035 Pour nous, ce n'est pas une question 7 de production privée contre production par les 8 télédiffuseurs, mais on pense qu'à ce moment-ci il n'y 9 a pas le même problème au Québec que dans le reste du 10 Canada quant au contenu de la production locale et au 11 contenu canadien de la production. On pense qu'il y a 12 une tentative de diversion de la part des producteurs 13 indépendants, et je dirais même des fois, dans certains 14 cas, de fausses représentations qui, profitant de ce 15 débat-là, essaient tout simplement d'avoir une part du 16 gâteau plus grande alors que ça n'a rien à voir avec le 17 contenu canadien. 18 22036 C'est important qu'on se fasse 19 entendre là-dessus parce que c'est une question, 20 d'abord... si les entreprises sont capables de faire 21 valoir le côté business, et on n'a rien contre, je 22 pense qu'on est en droit aussi de faire valoir toute la 23 question des emplois. 24 22037 On peut nous laisser entrevoir que 25 c'est un emploi pour un emploi, que ce soit fait par StenoTran 4779 1 les télédiffuseurs ou par les producteurs privés, mais 2 ce n'est pas tout à fait la même question, ce n'est pas 3 tout à fait la même chose. Souvent, c'est un emploi de 4 qualité contre un emploi à la pige, temporaire, et où 5 il n'y a quasiment pas de stabilité d'emploi. On a 6 vécu cette situation-là de façon dramatique au Québec 7 et on pense qu'il y a encore peut-être des centaines et 8 des centaines d'emplois dans le même problème. 9 22038 Il y a aussi toute la question de 10 l'infrastructure. Au Québec, il y a une situation 11 particulière; on a mis des années à bâtir une 12 infrastructure importante au niveau des 13 télédiffuseurs -- on peut citer Radio-Canada, 14 Télé-Métropole -- et on ne voudrait pas voir 15 démantibuler cette importante structure là qu'on a mis 16 des années à bâtir. On pense même que, si on laissait 17 aller ça et qu'on allait trop dans la production 18 privée, il y aurait risque à un moment donné au niveau 19 de la qualité de la production. Donc ça peut coûter 20 cher en emplois de qualité, cher au niveau de la 21 qualité de la production; c'est aussi, on pense, une 22 perte de contrôle du CRTC sur toutes ces questions-là, 23 parce que les producteurs privés sont souvent de 24 juridiction provinciale et non couverts par le CRTC. 25 22039 En tout cas, nous, on se demande à StenoTran 4780 1 l'heure actuelle... on ne voit pas d'entreprises, par 2 exemple, qui sont obligées de se faire imposer des 3 fournisseurs; on voit ça pratiquement nulle part dans 4 le secteur économique privé, à moins qu'il y ait des 5 intérêts nationaux en jeu. Et, encore une fois, on est 6 ici pour vous dire qu'au Québec, toute la question du 7 contenu de la production, du contenu canadien n'est pas 8 en cause; donc, il n'y a pas d'intérêts nationaux à ce 9 niveau-là qui sont en cause. 10 22040 On aimerait que nos producteurs 11 privés n'essaient pas de faire passer des vessies pour 12 des lanternes; qu'on fasse le vrai débat. On est 13 d'accord avec ce qui peut se passer dans le reste du 14 Canada mais, encore une fois, la situation au Québec 15 est particulière à ce niveau-là. 16 22041 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous soulevez la 17 question de la programmation au Québec; le niveau de 18 programmation canadienne à l'antenne vous semble à un 19 niveau bien acceptable, mais je trouve un peu 20 surprenant, dans votre mémoire écrit, que vous 21 suggériez que le 50 pour cent en soirée est trop bas et 22 qu'il devrait être mis à 75 pour cent pour ajouter aux 23 heures, et aussi qu'il n'y a pas suffisamment de 24 dramatiques diffusées. 25 22042 Est-ce que, à votre avis, on StenoTran 4781 1 n'atteint pas suffisamment un niveau élevé ou si c'est 2 parce que vous voulez que le niveau atteint soit de 3 fait endossé dans la réglementation? Est-ce qu'il est 4 plus de 50 pour cent à votre avis ou seulement à 50 5 pour cent, parce que vous suggérez 75 pour cent au lieu 6 en soirée. 7 22043 Mme CRAIG: On sait qu'au Québec, 8 effectivement, souvent même ça dépasse les exigences. 9 On le mentionne aussi dans notre mémoire écrit qu'on 10 est bien conscients qu'au Québec, la situation est fort 11 différente. 12 22044 Maintenant, pourquoi on parle de 75 13 pour cent? On pense que, pour augmenter la 14 programmation canadienne, il vaut mieux peut-être y 15 aller en demandant qu'on en mette plus en ondes plutôt 16 que de vouloir donner des sous plus aux producteurs 17 indépendants pour essayer de l'augmenter. On pense que 18 c'est mieux de passer par les télédiffuseurs. 19 22045 En ce qui concerne les dramatiques, à 20 moins que je me rappelle mal ce qu'on a écrit, ce n'est 21 pas tant de déplorer qu'il n'y ait pas assez de 22 dramatiques comme le fait qu'on se rendait compte, à 23 partir de l'avis public même du Conseil, qu'il est 24 quelquefois peut-être plus facile de ne pas en mettre 25 en ondes à cause du nombre d'heures de grande écoute, StenoTran 4782 1 où on peut facilement mettre un peu de nouvelles, 2 mettre un talk show, et finalement on obtient notre 50 3 pour cent sans avoir mis de dramatiques. 4 22046 Alors ce qu'on suggérait, c'était 5 peut-être de donner un crédit de temps aux dramatiques 6 qui soit un peu plus élevé; présentement, c'est à 150 7 pour cent, le mettre à 200 pour cent pour peut-être 8 faire en sorte que les télédiffuseurs soient plus 9 tentés, plutôt que d'imposer des dramatiques. On le 10 mentionne; on dit qu'on pourrait faire ça, on pourrait 11 imposer de mettre, entre telle heure et telle heure, 12 une dramatique, mais on pense que ce serait trop 13 contraignant pour les télédiffuseurs de le faire parce 14 que, bon, on sait comment se bâtit une grille de 15 programmation. Donc on aimait mieux suggérer plutôt 16 d'augmenter le crédit de temps qui est accordé pour les 17 dramatiques. 18 22047 Je voudrais juste revenir sur une de 19 vos questions de tantôt concernant la production 20 régionale. 21 22048 Jusqu'à maintenant je ne pense pas, 22 effectivement, que l'arrivée de la production 23 indépendante ait à ce point touché, comme le disait 24 Bernard, la production régionale. Plutôt, ce qui a 25 fait que cette production-là a été souvent en StenoTran 4783 1 diminuant, c'est la façon que se sont rebâtis les 2 télédiffuseurs, c'est la façon qu'on repense la 3 programmation sur une échelle, si on parle du Québec, 4 plus provinciale. Par contre, si les télédiffuseurs 5 doivent prendre une partie de leurs revenus pour les 6 consacrer à la production indépendante, on craint, oui, 7 que les segments de programmation comme l'information 8 ou encore la production régionale pourraient être 9 affectés effectivement parce que, si les télédiffuseurs 10 doivent aller chercher des sous dans leurs revenus, il 11 va falloir qu'ils l'enlèvent en quelque part. 12 Généralement, ce n'est pas très compliqué, il faut 13 qu'ils le prennent en quelque part, cet argent-là. 14 22049 Alors il y a des bonnes chances que 15 déjà les sous qui allaient en production régionale... 16 la production régionale, pardon, va faire les frais 17 d'une telle réglementation, si réglementation dans ce 18 sens-là il y a. 19 22050 M. CHABOT: D'ailleurs, Madame la 20 Présidente, je pense que vous avez eu des 21 représentations déjà de groupes de petits producteurs 22 basés à l'extérieur des grandes villes qui sont venus 23 réclamer eux aussi accès aux télédiffuseurs dans les 24 stations locales. Donc on sent qu'il y a une pression, 25 qu'on veut non seulement produire pour les réseaux mais StenoTran 4784 1 on veut produire pour les stations locales des réseaux. 2 22051 Le danger est donc décuplé dans ce 3 sens-là; puisque la production régionale est déjà très 4 limitée, vous voyez que le danger est plus grand. 5 22052 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Comme le système 6 existe en ce moment, où voyez-vous le problème qui, à 7 votre avis, a comme résultat que la production est 8 généralement... ou est à un niveau trop élevé faite par 9 les producteurs indépendants? Qu'est-ce qu'il faudrait 10 changer pour que les télédiffuseurs en fassent plus 11 eux-mêmes? 12 22053 M. CHABOT: Je pense que vous avez 13 entendu au cours de cette audience des gens qui 14 représentaient justement les télédiffuseurs et qui sont 15 venus vous dire qu'ils réclamaient l'équité. Ce qui 16 freine actuellement la production interne, la 17 production maison, c'est le fait que nos télédiffuseurs 18 n'ont pas accès à tous les programmes de subvention, 19 tous les crédits d'impôt qui sont accordés aux 20 producteurs indépendants, et les télédiffuseurs 21 réclament d'avoir accès à ces argents-là et je pense 22 qu'ils devraient y avoir accès. C'est une question 23 d'équité. 24 22054 Je pense que la production, qu'elle 25 soit faite à l'interne ou qu'elle soit faite à StenoTran 4785 1 l'externe, elle peut être d'excellente qualité. 2 Pourquoi privilégier plus un canal de production, un 3 type de production plus qu'un autre? Je pense qu'on 4 devrait instaurer un système plus équitable. C'est un 5 frein, actuellement, ça. 6 22055 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors, vraiment, on 7 arrive aux recommandations qui nous ont été faites par 8 les télédiffuseurs au-delà du Québec. Je crois que 9 vous parlez aujourd'hui surtout de la situation au 10 Québec... 11 22056 M. CHABOT: Bien sûr. 12 22057 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... qu'ils veulent un 13 accès équitable aux fonds. 14 22058 Alors vous recommanderiez que toutes 15 les exigences qui vont à l'envers de l'accès par les 16 télédiffuseurs directement soient éliminées. 17 22059 M. CHABOT: Oui, mais je vous dirais 18 qu'une de nos préoccupations, c'est qu'on croit que les 19 fonds publics, ils sont rares; dans tous les domaines 20 maintenant, je pense que même dans la télévision, dans 21 les crédits accordés à la télévision, on cherche des 22 sous maintenant, et je pense qu'on devrait être plus 23 sélectifs, plus exigeants dans les critères de qualité. 24 22060 Pour nous, il y a des types de 25 production qui sont admissibles présentement à des StenoTran 4786 1 crédits d'impôt, à des subventions de Téléfilm ou 2 d'autres organismes, et on croit que ce type 3 d'émissions là ne devraient pas avoir accès à ces 4 subventions-là. Je pense qu'on devrait réserver les 5 fonds publics à des productions coûteuses, des 6 téléromans ou des grandes séries que les télédiffuseurs 7 ou que l'économie d'une province comme le Québec ne 8 pourrait pas produire, ou même que le Canada ne 9 pourrait pas produire seul. 10 22061 On sait qu'on est un petit marché. 11 Donc, il faudrait réserver ce soutien-là vraiment à la 12 grande production, qui met en valeur la culture 13 canadienne. Mais je pense que les talk shows, par 14 exemple, pour ne prendre que cet exemple, ça ne devrait 15 pas avoir accès aux subventions. 16 22062 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors tout ça, à 17 votre avis, ça devrait être maison, ça devrait être 18 fait par les télédiffuseurs. 19 22063 Est-ce que vous iriez jusqu'à dire 20 que les fonds publics soient accessibles seulement pour 21 les dramatiques lourdes? 22 22064 M. CHABOT: Oui, tout à fait. 23 22065 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors il faudrait 24 refaire les règles de l'accès aux fonds. 25 22066 Vous réalisez, évidemment, que ça ne StenoTran 4787 1 découle pas directement du Conseil. 2 22067 M. CHABOT: Bien sûr, mais je pense 3 qu'on a commencé un travail au Québec... et j'aimerais 4 peut-être passer la parole à Gilles Charland sur cet 5 aspect. 6 22068 M. CHARLAND: Nous, ce que nous 7 disons là-dessus, c'est qu'il faut rééquilibrer les 8 forces. Ce qu'on sent actuellement, c'est qu'il y a un 9 travail je dirais de vive voix qui se fait et il y a un 10 travail souterrain qui se fait par les producteurs 11 indépendants, et nous, ce qu'on demande, c'est d'être 12 sur le même pied d'égalité. 13 22069 On est conscients que le Conseil 14 n'est pas là pour faire des relations de travail, mais 15 en même temps il ne faut pas que, par ses politiques et 16 sa réglementation, il fasse indirectement ce qu'il ne 17 veut pas faire directement. Je m'explique. Si le 18 Conseil avantage les producteurs indépendants, 19 indirectement ce sont les diffuseurs et, par le biais, 20 les emplois que les employés occupent, qui vont écoper. 21 À ce moment-là le Conseil -- c'est ça que je dis -- 22 ferait indirectement ce qu'il ne veut pas faire 23 directement en disant: Moi, ma politique, c'est de ne 24 pas me mêler des relations de travail et des emplois. 25 22070 L'autre élément -- je pense que vous StenoTran 4788 1 y avez bien touché -- c'est tout l'accès aux fonds de 2 production. Je pense que le noeud est là. Tout 3 récemment au Québec les télédiffuseurs ont demandé au 4 gouvernement d'avoir accès aux mêmes crédits d'impôt 5 que les producteurs indépendants pour pouvoir, quand 6 ils font des soumissions de l'interne versus les 7 producteurs indépendants, au moins compétitionner sur 8 les mêmes marchés et sur les mêmes bases de comparaison 9 de coûts. On a eu un lobby important. 10 22071 Ça s'est réglé au bureau du premier 11 ministre, il a fallu intervenir comme organisation 12 syndicale dans les différentes instances 13 gouvernementales parce que les producteurs indépendants 14 ont fait un lobby public et en coulisse pour exclure 15 les télédiffuseurs. Et c'est ce qu'ils sont venus dire 16 encore pendant les présentes audiences -- c'est-à-dire 17 donnez-nous la voie et excluez les télédiffuseurs -- et 18 on sait fort bien qu'il y a un lobby politique qui va 19 se faire par en arrière. On connaît leurs tactiques. 20 22072 Ce qu'on vient vous dire, c'est qu'on 21 va prendre un peu les mêmes moyens pour pas juste 22 défendre comme syndicat nos emplois mais aussi défendre 23 une pratique d'équilibre. Et là, s'il y a un 24 équilibre, la compétition jouera à ce moment-là son 25 rôle, et quel le meilleur l'emporte à ce moment-là. StenoTran 4789 1 Mais au moins on veut être sur les mêmes blocs de 2 départ que les producteurs indépendants, et non pas 3 trois milles en arrière. 4 22073 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et vous auriez sans 5 doute le même problème avec des sociétés de production 6 qui seraient des affiliées des télédiffuseurs. 7 22074 M. CHABOT: Je ne suis pas sûr de ça. 8 22075 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Dans les cas où il y 9 a des producteurs qui sont vraiment indépendants et 10 ensuite il y a le phénomène des compagnies de 11 production soi-disant indépendantes qui sont affiliées 12 aux télédiffuseurs, pour vous, c'est le même problème? 13 22076 M. CHABOT: Bien, oui. Mais ces 14 compagnies, elles sont nées du fait que les 15 télédiffuseurs ont cherché tous les moyens imaginables 16 pour essayer d'avoir accès à ces fonds. Si l'équité 17 était établie, et même si ces compagnies affiliées ont 18 été mises en place, ça ne leur a pas donné accès à tous 19 les crédits. Mais je pense que leur existence ne 20 serait plus nécessaire, bien sûr, si l'équité était 21 établie. 22 22077 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Si vous avez suivi 23 l'audience, vous êtes au courant que nous avons 24 plusieurs représentations à cet effet de la part des 25 télédiffuseurs et de la part aussi d'autres StenoTran 4790 1 organisations qui sont plus semblables à vous. 2 22078 Je ne sais pas si mes collègues ont 3 des questions. Non? 4 22079 Alors nous vous remercions de vos 5 représentations. Vous venez de Québec ou de Montréal? 6 De Québec, je crois. 7 22080 M. CHABOT: Moi, de Québec, mais mes 8 collègues viennent de Montréal. 9 22081 LA PRÉSIDENTE: De Montréal. Alors 10 bon voyage de retour. 11 22082 M. CHABOT: Merci bien. 12 22083 M. MASSÉ: Merci beaucoup, madame. 13 22084 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci. 14 22085 Madame la Secrétaire, voulez-vous 15 inviter l'intervenant suivant, s'il vous plaît. 16 22086 Mme SANTERRE: Merci, Madame la 17 Présidente. 18 22087 La prochaine présentation sera de 19 l'Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du 20 spectacle et de la vidéo. 21 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION 22 22088 M. PILON: Bonjour. Mon nom est 23 Robert Pilon. Je suis vice-président aux Affaires 24 publiques de l'ADISQ, l'Association des producteurs de 25 disques, de spectacles et d'émissions de télévision de StenoTran 4791 1 variétés du Québec. Je voudrais saluer tous les 2 conseillers et conseillères, Madame la Présidente... 3 Madame la Présidente ou Vice-Présidente, présidente de 4 l'audience mais vice-présidente du CRTC. Je suis 5 accompagné de ma collègue Solange Drouin, qui est 6 directrice générale et conseillère juridique. 7 22089 Notre mémoire -- je pense que vous en 8 avez pris connaissance -- aborde fondamentalement deux 9 grands thèmes concernant la question de la place 10 qu'occupent la chanson et la musique, et plus 11 généralement les arts de la scène, à la télévision 12 canadienne: d'abord, le thème de la 13 sous-représentation, une sous-représentation qui s'est 14 accentuée au cours des dernières années, et 15 deuxièmement le thème du sous-financement. 16 22090 Alors je vais d'abord laisser la 17 parole à ma collègue Me Drouin sur la question de la 18 sous-représentation. 19 22091 Me DROUIN: Merci. 20 22092 Alors, comme mon collègue vient de 21 vous le préciser, à l'ADISQ, on a choisi dans un 22 premier temps de concentrer notre intervention sur la 23 section de l'avis public que vous avez émis, qui a 24 initié cette vaste audience, sur la question qui traite 25 des catégories d'émissions sous-représentées. À ce StenoTran 4792 1 sujet, nous avons conclu dans notre mémoire que les 2 émissions présentant principalement des performances 3 d'artistes de la chanson et de la musique sont 4 fortement sous-représentées dans le système canadien de 5 radiodiffusion de langue française, et plus 6 particulièrement à la télévision conventionnelle et 7 que, malheureusement, malgré cette sous-représentation, 8 il semble que le CRTC n'a pas reconnu cette réalité et 9 n'a pas mis en place des mesures pour endiguer cette 10 sous-représentation. 11 22093 Avant d'aborder plus en détail ce 12 problème, je vais rappeler rapidement le cadre 13 définitionnel et réglementaire actuel des différentes 14 catégories d'émissions que vous avez vous-mêmes établi. 15 22094 Aux fins de l'application du 16 Règlement de 1987 sur la télédiffusion, le Conseil a 17 proposé, propose et définit 11 catégories d'émissions. 18 Les cinq premières catégories visent l'information, la 19 sixième catégorie le sport et les cinq autres 20 catégories, le divertissement. 21 22095 Le CRTC, dans les cinq catégories qui 22 visent le divertissement, vous avez établi fort à 23 propos une distinction entre les émissions qui visent 24 principalement des performances d'artistes de la 25 chanson et de la musique, la fameuse catégorie 8, dont StenoTran 4793 1 je reparlerai, et les émissions qui peuvent accueillir 2 ponctuellement les artistes de la chanson et de la 3 musique, la catégorie no 9 pour la variété dans un sens 4 très large, catégorie no 10 pour les jeux et la 5 catégorie no 11 pour l'intérêt général; mais ce sont 6 toutes des choses, évidemment, que vous savez. 7 22096 En nous référant à une étude déposée 8 dans le cadre des travaux d'un groupe de travail qui a 9 été mis sur pied au Québec par la ministre de la 10 Culture et des Communications, Mme Louise Beaudoin, une 11 étude qui a recensé l'ensemble des émissions originales 12 canadiennes consacrées principalement ou accessoirement 13 à la chanson et à la musique de 1992 à 1998, grâce à 14 cette étude-là qui a donc été déposée, nous avons été à 15 même de constater que l'immense majorité, plus de 80 16 pour cent, des émissions qui sont consacrées à la 17 chanson et à la musique ne le font qu'accessoirement et 18 que, évidemment, par conséquent, en contrepartie, les 19 émissions consacrées principalement à la chanson et à 20 la musique n'occupent qu'une part très mince de l'offre 21 télévisuelle. 22 22097 Quelques chiffres que je reprends de 23 l'étude elle-même préparée par Michel Houle pour 24 illustrer cette sous-représentation croissante des 25 séries d'émissions de catégorie 8 aux heures de grande StenoTran 4794 1 écoute à la télévision de langue française: En 1992 et 2 jusqu'en 1994 Michel Houle a recensé 176 heures de 3 séries d'émissions de la catégorie 8. Ce 176 heures 4 passe à 56 heures deux ans plus tard, et finalement, en 5 1996-97, ce nombre-là tombe à 38,5 heures seulement 6 pour une année, sans compter que finalement, en 7 1997-98, au moment où l'étude a été déposée, donc en 8 juin, aucune série régulière de catégorie 8, donc qui 9 est consacrée principalement aux prestations d'artistes 10 de la chanson et de la musique, n'était présentée à la 11 télévision de langue française aux heures de grande 12 écoute, ce qui est une catastrophe en soi. 13 22098 Bien sûr, depuis le dépôt de l'étude, 14 il y a deux émissions qui sont apparues dans la 15 programmation: une dans la programmation de la Société 16 Radio-Canada, l'émission "La fureur", et une aussi à 17 Télé-Québec qui s'appelle "Le plaisir croît avec 18 l'usage". Bien sûr, c'est deux pas dans la bonne 19 direction, mais de zéro à deux émissions, à quelques 20 heures, évidemment, c'est, selon nous, pas suffisant 21 pour enrayer le problème de la sous-représentation, 22 bien entendu. 23 22099 Maintenant que cette 24 sous-représentation est établie, nous avons constaté 25 également que, malheureusement, elle n'était pas StenoTran 4795 1 reconnue, cette sous-représentation n'était pas 2 reconnue par le Conseil. Bien sûr, vous pourrez me 3 dire que, pour la télévision de langue anglaise, le 4 CRTC a identifié quatre catégories d'émissions 5 sous-représentées, à savoir les dramatiques, les 6 émissions pour enfants, les documentaires et les 7 variétés. 8 22100 Malheureusement, c'est bien sûr que 9 les émissions de catégorie 8 sont incluses dans le mot 10 ou le vocable "variétés", mais ça ne règle pas le 11 problème parce que ce que ça permet à un 12 radiodiffuseur, c'est que, en traitant de façon globale 13 le terme "variétés", en ne visant pas une catégorie 14 d'émissions précise comme la catégorie no 8, ça permet 15 à un radiodiffuseur de faire plus de jeux, de faire 16 plus d'autres émissions d'intérêt public qui sont dans 17 la variété sans pour autant consacrer plus de temps 18 pour une émission qui est consacrée principalement aux 19 arts de la scène. 20 22101 Donc ça règle le problème à la 21 télévision de langue anglaise plus ou moins, mais c'est 22 encore plus catastrophique quand on regarde ce qui se 23 passe à la télé de langue française parce que le CRTC 24 n'a reconnu que deux seules catégories d'émissions qui 25 sont sous-représentées, à savoir les documentaires et StenoTran 4796 1 les émissions pour enfants. Nous considérons justement 2 qu'en exigeant des télédiffuseurs conventionnels de 3 langue française qu'ils proposent une stratégie de 4 présentation d'émissions sous-représentées excluant la 5 variété, le Conseil a malheureusement indirectement 6 encouragé l'accentuation de ces catégories d'émissions 7 sous-représentées. Nous espérons que le présent 8 processus qui est en cours vous permettra de corriger 9 le tir et, finalement, d'ajuster le cadre réglementaire 10 en conséquence. 11 22102 Je vais maintenant passer la parole à 12 mon collègue, qui vous entretiendra du financement de 13 ces émissions. 14 22103 M. PILON: L'envers de la médaille de 15 la sous-représentation des émissions mettant en 16 vedette, à la télévision conventionnelle de langue 17 française, les artistes de la chanson et de la musique, 18 l'envers de cette médaille, c'est évidemment le 19 sous-financement de ces émissions-là. Là encore, 20 l'étude de Michel Houle démontre, notamment au tableau 21 à la page 13 de même qu'au tableau à la page 16, à quel 22 point ce phénomène de sous-financement est dramatique 23 au cours des années. 24 22104 Je vous invite à regarder juste deux 25 secondes le tableau qui est à la page 13. Quand on StenoTran 4797 1 regarde la part des investissements, prêts et avances 2 alloués aux émissions de variétés dans le Fonds de 3 développement des émissions canadiennes de télévision, 4 et par la suite le Programme de participation au 5 capital du FTCPEC, autrement dit Téléfilm pour 6 simplifier, l'étude ou le tableau à la page 13 montre 7 l'évolution de 1987 à 1997, sur une période de 10 ans, 8 et on voit très bien qu'en début de période il y a en 9 moyenne, à peu près, 3 millions de dollars par année de 10 consacrés, et ça représentait entre 10 et 15 pour cent 11 du total des sommes investies par Téléfilm dans les 12 émissions. Donc il y avait une représentation 13 significative. 14 22105 La politique de Téléfilm change à 15 partir de 1991, et on voit les conséquences dramatiques 16 qui se produisent. Quand on regarde les cinq dernières 17 années, ce n'est même pas un million au total; c'est 18 moins de 200 000 par année. Vous vous imaginez, moins 19 de 200 000 par année... 200 000, ce n'est même pas une 20 heure d'émission de variétés. Moins de 200 000 par 21 année, c'est moins de 1 pour cent du total des sommes 22 investies par Téléfilm, Téléfilm qui est un organisme 23 fédéral, un organisme financé par le gouvernement 24 fédéral, et donc qui a une politique. 25 22106 Il y a là un manque. Ce n'est pas StenoTran 4798 1 forcément vous qui êtes à blâmer pour ça, mais -- ce 2 sont des représentations qu'on a faites au gouvernement 3 fédéral aussi d'ailleurs -- il y a un manque crucial en 4 termes de représentation d'une composante essentielle 5 de la culture canadienne, qui est la chanson, la 6 musique canadienne... évidemment, la chanson ou la 7 musique populaire qui n'est vraiment pas représentée. 8 Quand on regarde les autres catégories d'émissions de 9 télévision qui sont soutenues par Téléfilm, quand moins 10 de 1 pour cent des sommes vont aux émissions mettant en 11 vedette des artistes de la chanson, il y a sérieusement 12 un problème. 13 22107 On aurait pu penser que ce 14 problème-là aurait pu se résorber, au moins 15 partiellement, avec la création du Fonds des câblos, 16 qui change de nom et qui devient -- et là, on regarde 17 au tableau à la page 156 -- le Programme des droits de 18 diffusion du FTCPEC, et là encore on constate 19 exactement la même situation. La situation ne s'est 20 pas améliorée. Là encore, on parle en moyenne d'à peu 21 près 150 000 ou un peu plus de 150 000 par année et de 22 1,3 pour cent du total des sommes dépensées par le 23 Fonds des câblos ou le Programme des droits de 24 diffusion consacrés à des émissions mettant en vedette 25 les artistes de la chanson. Là encore, c'est 1 pour StenoTran 4799 1 cent; c'est vraiment une sous-représentation. 2 22108 Les fonds privés comme Cogeco et 3 Maclean Hunter, on n'en parlera pas puisqu'ils sont 4 axés essentiellement sur les dramatiques et les 5 dramatiques lourdes; donc il n'y a rien là, ou 6 pratiquement rien, pour la variété. 7 22109 Les effets de l'ensemble de ça, on le 8 voit au Québec, notamment, on parle d'une crise de 9 l'ensemble du secteur de la chanson. Vous êtes assez 10 familiers avec ça, ne serait-ce que pour avoir examiné 11 à plusieurs reprises les fameuses questions de quotas 12 de chansons de langue française; on a comparu souvent 13 devant les membres du Conseil. La façon dont 14 fonctionne l'industrie de la musique, de la chanson 15 populaire, il y a une synergie. La base de tout ça, 16 c'est un star system. Dans une économie de marché 17 comme la nôtre, s'il n'y a pas de star system, il n'y a 18 pas d'industrie de la chanson et de la musique. 19 22110 Un star system, ça a plusieurs 20 composantes. La carrière d'un artiste, c'est un 21 disque, c'est un spectacle de chansons, mais c'est 22 aussi une présence à la radio, c'est aussi une présence 23 à la télévision et une présence dans les médias écrits. 24 Si vous enlevez un de ces éléments-là de la chaîne, ce 25 sont tous les autres éléments de la chaîne qui sont StenoTran 4800 1 affaiblis. 2 22111 Alors la sous-représentation de la 3 chanson et de la musique populaire à la télévision 4 canadienne -- et je pense que c'est vrai également au 5 Canada anglais, entre autres avec la disparition 6 d'émissions comme "Rita McNeil", par exemple, qui était 7 une émission fantastique -- a des conséquences graves. 8 Ce n'est pas juste qu'on prive le public canadien d'une 9 part importante de l'accès à sa propre culture, la 10 chanson, la musique populaire, mais également ça 11 affecte l'ensemble de l'industrie puisque ça affecte la 12 production de disques, ça affecte la production de 13 spectacles et ça affecte les revenus de tous les 14 artistes et artisans dans ce secteur-là. 15 22112 Par conséquent, l'ADISQ suggère un 16 certain nombre de recommandations pour remédier à la 17 situation. 18 22113 Je repasse la parole à ma collègue 19 rapidement sur les recommandations concernant la 20 représentation et je reviendrai sur les recommandations 21 concernant le financement. 22 22114 Mme SANTERRE: Excusez, Madame Drouin, 23 est-ce que ça va conclure avec vos recommandations? 24 22115 M. PILON: Ça va prendre deux minutes 25 à peu près, deux minutes et demie. StenoTran 4801 1 22116 Mme SANTERRE: D'accord, mais 2 pouvez-vous ne pas parler trop vite, quand même, pour 3 les interprètes. 4 22117 M. PILON: Ah, d'accord. 5 22118 Me DROUIN: Oui. Si on a deux 6 minutes et demie, c'est bien. 7 22119 Quant aux recommandations, je ne les 8 relirai pas, vous les avez sûrement tous lues, mais 9 dans un premier temps on suggère au CRTC de rebaptiser 10 cette fameuse catégorie 8 dont je vous ai entretenus, 11 qui s'appelait "musique et danse" pour l'appeler 12 maintenant "arts de la scène", de façon à englober 13 toutes les prestations d'artistes, autant dans le 14 domaine de la musique populaire traditionnelle, de la 15 chanson, de l'humour... qui n'apparaissait pas dans la 16 définition actuelle; la danse, le théâtre, la comédie 17 musicale y apparaissaient déjà, mais évidemment, pour 18 l'ADISQ, on est très sensibles à tous les arts de la 19 scène. Bien entendu, notre champ d'activités, c'est la 20 musique et la chanson et l'humour, mais on est 21 sensibles évidemment à toutes les prestations 22 d'artistes dans le domaine des arts de la scène. 23 22120 Ce qu'on vous recommande aussi, c'est 24 d'identifier clairement les catégories 25 sous-représentées, non seulement de parler d'une StenoTran 4802 1 catégorie fourre-tout, de viser, si vous jugez, et on 2 l'espère, que la catégorie 8, c'est une catégorie 3 sous-représentée, ne pas l'englober dans un 4 fourre-tout, dans un vocable "variétés" mais de le 5 préciser, et évidemment de reconnaître que la catégorie 6 8 est une catégorie sous-représentée. 7 22121 De façon plus précise encore, dans le 8 formulaire de demande ou de renouvellement de licence 9 de stations ou des réseaux conventionnels, on vous 10 propose d'exiger dans ce formulaire, en conséquence, 11 que le demandeur ou la titulaire propose une stratégie 12 de présentation de ces émissions visant à réduire leur 13 sous-représentation... je parle toujours, évidemment, 14 de la fameuse catégorie 8. 15 22122 Finalement, comme mesure incitative 16 qui pourrait être adoptée rapidement, qui pourrait être 17 adoptée sur une base temporaire, à réévaluer dans trois 18 ou cinq ans, de reconnaître les émissions de la 19 catégorie 8 qui sont produites et qui sont présentées 20 entre 19 h 00 et 22 h 00, un crédit, une bonification 21 au titre du décompte du contenu canadien de 150 pour 22 cent. On ne vous demande pas 200 pour cent, comme 23 l'ont fait nos collègues avant; nous, on est à 100 pour 24 cent et on vous demande 150 pour cent. 25 22123 Voilà. StenoTran 4803 1 22124 M. PILON: Encore une fois, l'envers 2 de la médaille de ces recommandations-là sur une 3 meilleure représentation, ce sont des recommandations 4 sur un meilleur financement. Mme Wylie signalait à des 5 intervenants précédents que, bien sûr, à ce niveau-là, 6 le Conseil ne peut avoir qu'un pouvoir de 7 recommandation puisqu'il s'agit de politiques qui sont 8 mises en place par le gouvernement fédéral ou ses 9 organismes, comme Téléfilm, mais je pense que tout le 10 monde est conscient de l'immense pouvoir de 11 recommandation que peut avoir le CRTC. 12 22125 C'est pour ça qu'on aimerait bien que 13 le CRTC, dans sa décision, reconnaisse le problème de 14 la sous-représentation et du sous-financement et 15 utilise son pouvoir de recommandation pour inciter les 16 administrateurs de fonds publics ou de fonds publics et 17 mixtes, de soutien au financement des émissions, à 18 accorder une priorité et à consacrer une portion 19 appropriée de leurs investissements aux catégories 20 sous-représentées, et notamment le secteur des 21 émissions mettant en vedette les artistes de la chanson 22 et de la musique. 23 22126 Plus spécifiquement, on pense que, 24 dans le protocole entre le gouvernement fédéral et le 25 ministère du Patrimoine et Téléfilm, il y aurait lieu StenoTran 4804 1 de faire en sorte qu'un minimum de 5 pour cent des 2 ressources du FTCPEC soit consacré d'ici les deux 3 prochaines années, et on pourrait monter graduellement 4 pour atteindre 5 pour cent du total. On pense que 5 5 pour cent du total, pour une composante aussi essentiel 6 de la culture canadienne, ce ne serait pas exagéré. 7 22127 En terminant, deux secondes pour dire 8 que je pense que le Conseil serait très cohérent 9 d'accepter nos recommandations. Je faisais état tantôt 10 de notre secteur comme étant un secteur où il y a une 11 synergie entre ce qui se passe sur disque, ce qui se 12 passe en spectacle, ce qui se passe à la radio, ce qui 13 se passe en TV. On a salué avec beaucoup de plaisir la 14 décision du mois d'avril dernier du CRTC suite à sa 15 revue de la réglementation de la radio. Le CRTC a 16 confirmé et accru les quotas de contenu canadien à la 17 radio et les quotas de contenu francophone, et je pense 18 que l'ensemble du milieu l'a saluée comme étant une 19 décision extrêmement positive. 20 22128 On pense que ce serait faire preuve 21 d'infiniment de cohérence d'avoir des obligations 22 cohérentes à la télévision, parce qu'on ne peut pas, je 23 pense, avoir une politique qui dit qu'il faut mettre en 24 vedette nos artistes à la radio et on ne fait rien à la 25 TV. Il y a quelque chose qui ne marche pas là-dedans. StenoTran 4805 1 Si on veut, et s'ils veulent, les pouvoirs publics, que 2 nos artistes soient en vedette à la radio, il faut 3 aussi qu'ils soient en vedette à la télévision. 4 22129 Alors on vous remercie beaucoup. 5 22130 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions, 6 Madame Drouin et Monsieur Pilon. 7 22131 Madame Pennefather. 8 22132 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Bonjour. 9 22133 M. PILON: Bonjour. 10 22134 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: C'est vite 11 fait, mais on peut répondre tranquillement, pas trop 12 vite. Je n'ai que quelques questions, parce que je 13 pense que le mémoire est clair, mais j'aimerais juste 14 passer sur quelques points. 15 22135 Le contexte du mémoire est surtout le 16 marché francophone, la télévision de langue française. 17 C'est vrai? 18 22136 M. PILON: Excusez-moi, j'ai raté la 19 question. Le contexte...? 20 22137 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Le contexte 21 de votre mémoire, c'est le marché francophone, la 22 langue française? 23 22138 M. PILON: Oui, et vous m'amenez à 24 préciser ici -- je pense qu'il y a une petite lacune 25 dans le mémoire -- que les deux tableaux, à la fois StenoTran 4806 1 celui de la page 13 et de la page 16, c'est mentionné 2 au bas du tableau à la page 16 qu'il s'agit de données 3 en ce qui concerne le marché francophone; ce n'est pas 4 mentionné au tableau de la page 13, mais ce sont 5 également des données pour le marché francophone. On 6 n'a pas étudié la situation pour le marché... mais, 7 écoutez, le souvenir que j'ai des données que j'ai vues 8 il y a quelques années, c'est à peu près la même chose, 9 je pense. Et si je vous posais la question: 10 Nommez-moi trois émissions mettant en vedette les 11 artistes de la chanson au Canada anglais, dans les 12 réseaux canadiens anglais, vous seriez incapable d'en 13 nommer une seule; je pense qu'il n'y en a plus une 14 seule. 15 22139 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Bien... 16 22140 M. PILON: Depuis la disparition de 17 "Rita McNeil"... 18 22141 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Je ne suis 19 pas sûre de ça, mais quand même, ce n'était pas le 20 point. Ma remarque était sur la page 1 de votre 21 mémoire écrit. C'est le résumé, en effet... c'est 22 intéressant que même si on parle surtout du système de 23 langue française, on dit ce qui suit: 24 "... la situation qui prévaut 25 dans le système de la StenoTran 4807 1 radiodiffusion de langue 2 anglaise en matières d'émissions 3 de cette catégorie offre de 4 nombreuses similitudes avec 5 celle [qui est décrite dans le 6 mémoire de l'ADISQ]." 7 22142 Vous connaissez ce milieu comme il 8 faut. Qu'est-ce que sont ces similitudes? Il faut 9 qu'on soit un peu plus précis là-dessus. 10 22143 M. PILON: Je pense que c'est un peu 11 la même chose, c'est-à-dire sous-représentation 12 également à la télévision de langue anglaise des 13 émissions mettant en vedette les artistes canadiens 14 d'expression anglaise de la chanson et sous-financement 15 également des émissions de variétés. Je pense que, 16 écoutez, on n'a pas étudié les chiffres en détail, mais 17 encore une fois, si on essaie de mémoire de nommer des 18 émissions, que ce soit à CTV, à Global ou à CBC, qui 19 mettent en vedette sur une base régulière... je ne dis 20 pas des spéciaux, je ne dis pas un spécial Céline Dion 21 à l'occasion, je vous parle d'une émission régulière 22 comme "Rita McNeil" à l'époque, par exemple. Il n'y en 23 a plus. Alors il y a un problème. 24 22144 Je dirais qu'à Global, il n'y en a 25 jamais eu, je pense; à CTV, à ma connaissance, il y a StenoTran 4808 1 eu des spéciaux mais il n'y a jamais eu de séries 2 régulières mettant en vedette les artistes de la 3 chanson. 4 22145 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Il y a des 5 études qu'on a faites à l'interne ici, au Conseil, qui 6 démontrent peut-être, en effet, une perspective un peu 7 différente, que parmi toutes les diffusions qu'on 8 reçoit dans le Canada anglais de toutes les sources, il 9 y a en effet une représentation assez intéressante sur 10 la télévision conventionnelle, à peu près 4 à 5 pour 11 cent, la présence des deux catégories 8 et 9, music and 12 variety. C'est quelque chose à voir. 13 22146 On sait qu'hier le représentant de 14 CTV a mentionné qu'il est très intéressé à inclure plus 15 de variétés. Ça, c'était à l'intérieur d'une 16 discussion sur la qualité à la télévision, et on va 17 revenir à ça à la fin de notre discussion. 18 22147 Aussi, une autre chose qui m'a 19 frappée en vous écoutant aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on parle 20 souvent dans les discussions sur le côté anglais, le 21 marché anglais, du succès sur le côté français et 22 surtout en termes de bâtir un star system avec les 23 vedettes en chanson de toutes formes, et là, vous nous 24 dites aujourd'hui que c'est faux, qu'il n'y a plus ce 25 système-là. StenoTran 4809 1 22148 M. PILON: Non, je pense que le 2 système est encore là, mais la situation aujourd'hui... 3 évidemment, il y a beaucoup de facteurs qui expliquent 4 ça, notamment la longue récession; certains 5 observateurs disent qu'on n'est pas encore vraiment 6 sortis de la longue récession depuis le début des 7 années quatre-vingt-dix. Il y a pleins de facteurs. 8 22149 Mais le star system au Québec, il 9 faut le dire -- et nos amis du Canada anglais bien 10 souvent l'ignorent -- est beaucoup plus faible, 11 beaucoup plus fragile aujourd'hui qu'il ne l'était il y 12 a 10 ans. On le voit, par exemple, au niveau de la 13 désaffectation dans les spectacles; par exemple, les 14 spectacles étrangers, évidemment de langue anglaise, 15 les spectacles américains, ont beaucoup plus de succès 16 au Québec, y compris auprès des publics francophones. 17 22150 Le nombre de spectateurs aux 18 spectacles d'artistes de chansons francophones au 19 Québec est en diminution et en diminution radicale au 20 cours des cinq dernières années, et je pense que, comme 21 dirait mon ami Brian Chater, he doesn't need to be a 22 rocket scientist pour comprendre qu'il y a un lien 23 assez direct entre le fait qu'on voit de moins en moins 24 les artistes de la chanson francophone à la 25 télévision... on les voit à des talk shows, des choses StenoTran 4810 1 comme ça, mais on les voit de moins en moins en 2 spectacle, en train de performer. Et, si on les voit 3 moins à la TV, ça affaiblit le star system et ça 4 affecte également le secteur des concerts, des 5 spectacles, où il y a moins de spectateurs. Ça affecte 6 les ventes de disques. La part du disque d'artistes 7 québécois, la part de marché, était de 30 pour cent; 8 elle est retombée à 25 pour cent au cours des dernières 9 années. 10 22151 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Oui, je 11 vois l'étude qui est là, mais juste une question et on 12 va y revenir. 13 22152 Quand vous dites qu'il y a une 14 baisse, on parle surtout comme étude de présentations 15 dans lesquelles le chanteur est sur scène au lieu des 16 vidéoclips et des autres présentations... 17 22153 M. PILON: Talk shows. 18 22154 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: ... parce 19 que je voulais savoir si on couvre la télévision 20 conventionnelle et la télévision spécialisée dans vos 21 commentaires que le tout baisse, ou est-ce qu'avec les 22 services spécialisés il y a une présence accrue de la 23 chanson et des chanteurs et chanteuses québécoise. 24 22155 M. PILON: On n'a pas souhaité 25 aborder en détail le problème des émissions StenoTran 4811 1 spécialisées; ça pourrait faire l'objet d'une autre 2 audience. Il y a un certain nombre de problèmes 3 particuliers, notamment au niveau de la couverture de 4 l'actualité à MusiquePlus, par exemple, la couverture 5 de l'actualité des artistes francophones et québécois, 6 qui est en déclin. On a voulu concentrer ici nos 7 commentaires sur la situation de la chanson dans les 8 télévisions conventionnelles. 9 22156 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Ça va. 10 Alors, avec l'étude, vous mentionnez en effet ces 11 précisions. 12 22157 Pour vous, on voit la chute qui est 13 mentionnée avec les chiffres... l'étude que M. Houle 14 nous présente. Quelles sont les raisons principales 15 pour cette réduction constante de la disponibilité des 16 séries régulières de catégorie 8 présentées aux heures 17 de grande écoute, pour être précis? C'est de ça qu'on 18 parle. Qu'est-ce qui se passe? Pourquoi? 19 22158 M. PILON: Moi, je pense que 20 peut-être le facteur clé, c'est le changement de 21 politique de Téléfilm en 1991-92, qui est mentionné 22 dans notre mémoire, je pense, à la page 14, au 23 paragraphe 28. Je pense que ça a été un point 24 tournant. Ça a été une décision malheureuse de 25 Téléfilm qui, à l'époque, disait: StenoTran 4812 1 "... sans refuser de considérer 2 les projets qui lui seront 3 soumis dans la catégorie 4 VARIÉTÉS, Téléfilm Canada ne 5 leur accordera désormais qu'une 6 priorité et une participation 7 moindres." 8 22159 C'est évident que ça correspond en 9 contrepartie, je pense, à l'époque où se sont 10 développés tout le phénomène des miniséries, les "Lance 11 et compte", les choses comme ça. Ça, ça a été un 12 succès magnifique de la télévision francophone, toutes 13 ces miniséries, et Omertá par la suite et ainsi de 14 suite. C'est positif et ça doit continuer. 15 22160 Ce qu'on dit, c'est que peut-être, à 16 partir du moment où on a voulu concentrer des fonds 17 dans ces secteurs-là, on a négligé une composante 18 importante de la culture canadienne, qui est 19 l'expression musicale, l'expression de la chanson, et 20 on pense qu'il faut revenir à un plus juste équilibre. 21 De toute façon, les sommes qui sont en jeu sont 22 infiniment moindres pour produire même une excellente 23 émission de chansons, mais ce qui définit... vous 24 voyez, un acteur, on le connaît; Luc Picard dans 25 "Omertá", on le connaît, pas parce qu'il passe à "Julie StenoTran 4813 1 Snyder", on le voit parce qu'il performe dans une 2 émission, il joue un rôle. Un artiste de la chanson, 3 si on le voit juste dans les talk shows, ce n'est pas 4 ça, son métier. Son métier, c'est de chanter, c'est de 5 produire un spectacle, c'est de créer de l'émotion. 6 Alors il faut lui donner l'occasion non seulement de 7 passer à "Julie Snyder" en talk show mais de passer 8 dans un spectacle, un spectacle qui est organisé, qui a 9 un décor, qui a des musiciens, qui coûte un peu de 10 sous. 11 22161 Alors il y a un cercle vicieux là. 12 Les gens de la télévision interrogés par Michel Houle 13 vont dire: "Bien oui, mais c'est parce que ça ne 14 génère pas beaucoup de cotes d'écoute." Ça ne génère 15 pas beaucoup de cotes d'écoute si vous avez un chanteur 16 qui est là avec une guitare et qui met le pied sur une 17 chaise. Si vous produisez une émission, comme on le 18 fait, nous, par exemple, au "Gala de l'ADISQ", avec des 19 sommes substantielles, avec des décors, avec du 20 glamour, et caetera, les gens vont écouter. Mais pour 21 faire ça, il faut plus de fric, et pour avoir plus de 22 fric, il faut peut-être que les fonds d'investissement 23 publics et mixtes y consacrent un peu plus de revenus. 24 22162 Mais pour ça il faut également -- et 25 c'est là que c'est un cercle vicieux -- une cohérence StenoTran 4814 1 dans la politique. Encore faut-il qu'il y ait une 2 incitation, et tout la question des définitions, des 3 règlements devient importante, justement, et 4 l'incitation peut-être avec un pointage à 150 pour cent 5 devient aussi un facteur important. 6 22163 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Pas trop 7 vite. En effet, j'essaie de savoir pourquoi vous 8 voulez rebaptiser la définition de catégorie 8, lui 9 donner une autre nom, et c'est parce que vous trouvez 10 que ce changement de définition va faire en sorte qu'on 11 aura plus d'émissions séries régulières des arts de la 12 scène? Parce que si on parle de la chanson, la 13 composition, l'interprétation, et caetera... à titre 14 d'exemple, vos collègues de Socan sont arrivés ce matin 15 en disant qu'il faut supporter le 7, le 8, le 9, le 10 16 et le 11, parce qu'à l'intérieur de toutes ces 17 définitions-là on peut trouver un moyen d'être plus 18 présents. Là, vous mettez l'emphase sur le 8 et vous 19 changez le 8. Pourquoi? 20 22164 Me DROUIN: Écoutez, nous, l'étude, 21 le constat qu'on a fait, c'est que, oui, comme mon 22 collègue le disait, les artistes dans la catégorie 9 23 pour les émissions causerie, on les voit. Il y en a 24 quelques-unes dans la télévision conventionnelle de 25 langue française, "Julie Snyder", "L'Écuyer"; on les StenoTran 4815 1 voit mais on ne les voit pas performer. 2 22165 Il y a un membre de notre conseil 3 d'administration, Charles Joron, le vice-président, 4 Spectacles, qui a déjà fait, justement, l'analogie que 5 je trouvais très brillante et qui disait: Il y a 6 beaucoup d'émissions de sports qui parlent de sports à 7 la télévision, mais les Canadiens ont droit à leur 8 trois heures, leurs matchs... on diffuse quand même 9 leurs matchs à la télé, les Expos, on diffuse leurs 10 matchs, mais on en parle aussi dans des émissions 11 causerie. Je trouvais ce parallèle-là très bon. 12 22166 Ce n'est pas parce qu'on fait parler, 13 comme mon collègue Robert le disait, je ne sais pas, 14 moi, une artiste comme Laurence Jalbert sur sa 15 carrière, si on ne la voit pas performer, on ne donne 16 pas le goût aux jeunes nécessairement de la voir. 17 22167 Pour ce qui est de la définition de 18 "arts de la scène", c'est que, en la faisant plus 19 englobante, on est conscients qu'il y a un problème 20 dans la chanson mais on est conscients que nos amis de 21 la danse, du théâtre, des comédies musicales, du ballet 22 ont un problème aussi avec la culture. C'est la 23 chanson mais c'est autre chose aussi, et en ayant une 24 définition plus englobante, on est censés mettre toutes 25 les émissions de performance d'artistes. StenoTran 4816 1 22168 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Plus 2 englobante. Alors j'aimerais juste comprendre. La 3 définition existante, no 8, music and dance -- je l'ai 4 en anglais malheureusement -- est: 5 "Programs primarily concerned 6 with live or pre-recorded 7 performances of traditional and 8 popular music, including 9 videoclips and including opera, 10 operetta, ballet and musicals." 11 (As read) 12 22169 Ça ne décrit pas ce que vous avez 13 sous le 8(a) et (b) dans vos définitions proposées? 14 22170 Me DROUIN: Dans la recommandation 1A 15 qu'on fait au paragraphe 44, la définition, il y a 16 quand même certaines références à la chanson qui 17 n'apparaissaient pas dans la définition actuelle; 18 l'humour n'apparaissait pas, la danse n'apparaissait 19 pas et le théâtre n'apparaissait pas. 20 22171 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Alors vous 21 incluriez quelques éléments de variétés là-dedans. 22 22172 Me DROUIN: C'est ça, oui. 23 22173 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Alors vous 24 changez le 8 et le 9. 25 22174 M. PILON: Oui, mais c'est à StenoTran 4817 1 l'exclusion des jeux, des quiz, des talk shows, qui 2 sont dans la définition actuelle de "variétés". 3 22175 Me DROUIN: On insiste toujours sur 4 des émissions consacrées à des performances d'artistes. 5 22176 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Je 6 comprends. 7 22177 Pourquoi ce changement de définition 8 va-t-il changer, d'après vous, la présence de cette 9 catégorie à la télévision conventionnelle? Pourquoi ça 10 changerait cette situation dévastatrice que vous 11 décrivez aujourd'hui? 12 22178 M. PILON: Je pense que l'élément 13 essentiel, peut-être au-delà de la définition ici... 14 parce que, bon, on vous propose une définition, vous 15 pouvez en retenir une autre qui est légèrement 16 différente. L'élément important, c'est que les 17 catégories qu'on décrit, et notamment le spectacle de 18 chansons et de musique, soient considérées comme un 19 secteur sous-représenté et qu'au moment des 20 renouvellements de licence, comme c'est le cas 21 présentement, il doit y avoir des engagements qui sont 22 pris à l'égard des émissions sous-représentées, et les 23 engagements... 24 22179 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Est-ce que 25 vous êtes... StenoTran 4818 1 22180 M. PILON: Juste pour terminer 2 rapidement... les engagements que doivent prendre ces 3 radiodiffuseurs-là à l'égard des émissions 4 sous-représentées -- pour l'instant, je pense que du 5 côté francophone ce ne sont que les documentaires et 6 les émissions pour enfants -- si on dit au prochain 7 renouvellement de TVA ou de TQS: "Vous devez prendre 8 des engagements non seulement de diffuser plus de 9 documentaires ou d'émissions pour enfants mais 10 également plus de spectacles mettant en vedette les 11 artistes de la chanson et de la musique", ça change 12 tout. Si, en parallèle, on leur donne accès à un 13 financement, ça change tout. 14 22181 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Vous nous 15 suggérez une condition de licence en exigeant cette 16 catégorie d'émissions. Un certain nombre d'heures? 17 Une certaine dépense? Qu'est-ce que vous suggérez 18 spécifiquement? 19 22182 M. PILON: Je pense que c'est au 20 Conseil... écoutez, je ne suis pas familier 21 entièrement, mais je pense qu'à l'heure actuelle vous 22 variez, ça dépend des réseaux, vous avez des conditions 23 de licence qui sont variables d'un secteur à l'autre en 24 ce qui concerne les émissions sous-représentées. Je 25 pense que vous cherchez à faire en sorte qu'il y ait du StenoTran 4819 1 rattrapage dans certains cas et un peu moins dans 2 d'autres cas; ça dépend de la situation concrète. Je 3 pense que ça, c'est un peu à votre discrétion. 4 22183 Ce qu'on dit... et les statistiques 5 sont éloquentes; il n'y en a plus, pratiquement, de 6 variétés, de chansons à la télévision. Il y en a eu un 7 peu cet automne, mais... 8 22184 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: C'est ça. 9 En plus, vous proposez un crédit de 150 pour cent. 10 22185 M. PILON: C'est ça. Bien, c'est une 11 mesure incitative comme il en existe déjà dans d'autres 12 secteurs de la programmation. 13 22186 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Mais qui 14 ajoute d'autres... à propos justement des incitatifs, à 15 titre d'exemple, APFTQ a proposé, pour les émissions 16 régionales en première diffusion produites par le 17 secteur indépendant, 150 pour cent; pour les 18 dramatiques lourdes, documentaires, émissions pour 19 enfants, productions majoritaires, 125 pour cent; 20 téléromans plus... est-ce que vous proposez un autre 21 bonus, crédit aussi? 22 22187 M. PILON: On propose une seule 23 mesure spécifique. 24 22188 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Une seule? 25 O.k. Parce que vous pensez qu'il y a déjà trop StenoTran 4820 1 d'emphase sur les autres types d'émissions? C'est ça? 2 22189 M. PILON: Notre propos n'est pas de 3 dire qu'on fait trop de ci, on fait trop de ça. Notre 4 propos est de dire qu'on ne fait pas suffisamment 5 d'émissions mettant en vedette les artistes québécois 6 de la chanson. 7 22190 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: J'avais une 8 autre question sur le bonus... "bonus"; excusez-moi. 9 Je suis fatiguée. Vous dites "qui sont présentées 10 entre 19 h 00 et 22 h 00". Je comprends que vous 11 voulez les heures de grande écoute, mais la question 12 que j'avais, ce n'était peut-être pas approprié, mais 13 pour les jeunes, les auditoires plus jeunes, est-ce que 14 c'est une bonne idée de juste aller vers ce créneau-là 15 ou est-ce qu'on peut aller vers un créneau un peu plus 16 large? 17 22191 Ça m'est juste venu à la tête, parce 18 que c'est un élément très important, côté musique. 19 22192 M. PILON: Écoutez, il faut, je 20 pense, développer tous les publics, les jeunes, les 21 adolescents et les adultes. Mais, dans la situation où 22 on est, qui est vraiment une situation de rattrapage, 23 une situation un peu dramatique. Si on pouvait au 24 moins commencer et si chaque réseau avait au moins une 25 heure d'émissions de variétés, comme on a connu StenoTran 4821 1 autrefois... on peut remonter à l'époque de Michelle 2 Tisseyre quand j'étais tout petit en passant par une 3 série d'émissions, "Jean-Pierre Ferland" et ainsi de 4 suite, et des émissions qui existent encore en France, 5 par exemple, avec Michel Drucker et des choses comme 6 ça. Si on pouvait revenir avec ça, une grande émission 7 mettant en vedette, à chaque semaine, des artistes de 8 la chanson à chacun des réseaux, ce serait déjà un 9 grand pas. 10 22193 Dans un deuxième temps, on pourrait 11 peut-être penser au public plus jeune, au public des 12 enfants, au public des adolescents. 13 22194 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Il y a 14 d'autres interventions, d'ACTRA et d'autres groupes, 15 qui ont proposé aussi une condition, une exigence 16 concernant un certain montant d'argent pour la 17 formation, ACTRA Works à titre d'exemple ou d'autre 18 manière, ou programme qui peut supporter la formation 19 pour les arts de la scène. 20 22195 Est-ce que vous avez un commentaire 21 sur cet aspect-là? 22 22196 M. PILON: Malheureusement, je n'ai 23 pas eu l'occasion de prendre connaissance de la 24 recommandation, donc je ne me sens pas tout à fait en 25 position... mais, d'une manière générale, il est StenoTran 4822 1 évident que dans notre secteur il manque énormément de 2 formation, c'est sûr. 3 22197 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Il y a une 4 autre question aussi. On a mentionné -- et vous avez 5 une recommandation là-dessus -- les canaux spécialisés; 6 les services spécialisés, on vient d'en parler, avec 7 Citytv, qui certainement ont certains services qui 8 supportent la musique, la chanson, les interprètes. 9 22198 Est-ce que pour vous ce n'est pas un 10 élément important dans le but large d'être certain 11 qu'il y a plus de présence de nos artistes musicaux à 12 la télévision? Est-ce que vous avez mis ça de côté un 13 peu? 14 22199 M. PILON: Non. Coincés par d'autres 15 contraintes, on n'a pas pu développer tout, mais, oui, 16 c'est un élément important. À preuve, on est 17 intervenus récemment dans une instance à propos de 18 Canal D, où Canal D demandait d'être relevée de ses 19 obligations de diffuser des émissions mettant en 20 vedette des artistes de la chanson. On a demandé au 21 Conseil de ne pas accéder à cette demande-là et de 22 maintenir l'obligation de Canal D, et le Conseil a 23 effectivement -- et c'est une excellente décision -- 24 maintenu cette obligation-là. 25 22200 Donc, oui, la présence de la chanson StenoTran 4823 1 dans les canaux spécialisés, à partir du moment... j'ai 2 été frappé par cette statistique effarante des canaux 3 spécialisés qui, l'été passé, ont fait 20 pour cent de 4 l'écoute au total. Je comprends que ça diminue rendu à 5 l'automne, mais quand même, les canaux spécialisés se 6 développent ici comme ailleurs, et il va y en avoir de 7 nouveaux, vous allez attribuer de nouvelles licences 8 cet hiver. 9 22201 À partir du moment où la télévision 10 conventionnelle occupe moins de place et les canaux 11 spécialisés plus de place, oui, je pense qu'il faudrait 12 aussi que des obligations adéquates soient là. On va 13 revenir, d'ailleurs, à l'audience en décembre je crois 14 avec des propositions concrètes. On a d'ailleurs 15 commencé cette semaine à examiner les différentes 16 propositions, Réseau des arts, et caetera, et on aura 17 des recommandations à faire sur le sujet. 18 22202 Je pense que, pour l'instant, là où 19 le bât blesse principalement, c'est les grands réseaux 20 conventionnels. Je pense que c'est là qu'il faut faire 21 un changement d'abord et rapidement, avant que la 22 situation ne se détériore encore plus. 23 22203 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: L'autre 24 question est, sur le fond, côté financement, il y a 25 beaucoup de discussions sur la possibilité que les StenoTran 4824 1 télédiffuseurs auront accès au fonds de Téléfilms. 2 Est-ce que pour vous ce serait important qu'ils aient 3 accès à ce fonds pour aller plus loin en supportant 4 cette catégorie d'émissions qui, comme vous dites, a 5 des coûts assez hauts, parce qu'on parle d'un certain 6 type de production, je pense. Est-ce que c'est une 7 bonne idée ou non? Parce que les producteurs 8 indépendants s'opposent à ça. 9 22204 M. PILON: Vous posez la question à 10 un vice-président d'une association de producteurs 11 indépendants, donc vous connaissez déjà sans doute ma 12 réponse. Je pense qu'on va tout à fait soutenir la 13 position qui a été développée par l'APFTQ et la CFTPA. 14 Je pense que le secteur indépendant a fait preuve de 15 suffisamment de dynamisme, a contribué énormément au 16 renouvellement de l'offre télévisuelle au Canada. On 17 pense que ça doit demeurer ainsi. On pense d'ailleurs 18 que, s'il y avait des mesures spécifiques dans le 19 secteur comme celles qu'on suggère, donc 5 pour cent 20 des fonds, que les producteurs indépendants pourraient 21 également contribuer au renouvellement de notre 22 programmation en programmation d'émissions spécialisées 23 sur la chanson et la musique populaire. 24 22205 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Ma dernière 25 question est: Un autre groupe, l'ACR, a proposé que le StenoTran 4825 1 but de toutes nos discussions devrait être qu'il y ait 2 plus d'auditoire, que vraiment ce qu'on appelle en 3 anglais "viewership" soit le but principal de toutes 4 nos discussions. Qu'est-ce que vous pensez de ce 5 propos? 6 22206 M. PILON: J'ai combien de temps pour 7 répondre? 8 22207 C'est toujours le même problème, ces 9 discussions-là. On l'a eu aussi avec nos amis de l'ACR 10 durant l'audience sur la politique radio. Le problème 11 de l'ACR, c'est un manque de confiance dans la culture 12 canadienne. 13 22208 Si télédiffuseurs et les 14 radiodiffuseurs offrent au public canadien des 15 émissions de radio et des émissions de télévision de 16 bonne qualité mettant en vedette nos artistes et les 17 faisant connaître, développant le star system, on pense 18 qu'au contraire, à court, moyen et long terme, c'est la 19 survie financière aussi des entreprises de 20 radiodiffusion. Et, si on veut éviter que le public se 21 déplace vers les stations américaines, qui vont entrer 22 de plus en plus ici, il faut développer une 23 programmation spécifique. On pense que c'est dans 24 l'intérêt de tout le monde de développer des émissions 25 qui mettent en vedette nos artistes. StenoTran 4826 1 22209 On pense que nos amis de 2 l'Association canadienne des radiodiffuseurs devraient 3 faire preuve d'un peu plus d'audace à ce sujet-là, 4 d'être moins négatifs, de faire un peu plus confiance 5 au public canadien. 6 22210 CONSEILLÈRE PENNEFATHER: Merci. 7 22211 Ce sont toutes mes questions, Madame 8 la Présidente. 9 22212 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Monsieur le 10 Conseiller juridique. 11 22213 Me BLAIS: Monsieur Pilon, 12 Maître Drouin, ce n'était pas pour vous poser des 13 questions que j'ai demandé le micro mais, si on a 14 terminé l'item, que, puisque TQS n'a pas pu être avec 15 nous pour les fins du dossier public, je voulais tout 16 simplement mentionner qu'il se peut que nous adressions 17 des questions par écrit à TQS pour compléter leur 18 soumission, et ces questions écrites seraient ajoutées 19 au dossier public. 20 22214 Donc je vous remercie. Votre mémoire 21 était très clair, donc je n'ai pas de questions 22 concernant vos recommandations. Merci. 23 22215 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Donc, Madame Drouin, 24 votre travail n'est pas fini. Il faudra retourner au 25 dossier et voir qu'est-ce qu'il y a de plus. Vous StenoTran 4827 1 aurez le temps de faire ça juste avant de vous préparer 2 pour l'audience de décembre. 3 22216 Me DROUIN: Avant le Gala de l'ADISQ, 4 auquel vous êtes tous conviés d'ailleurs, le 1er 5 novembre. 6 22217 M. PILON: C'est le 20e anniversaire 7 de l'ADISQ et de son gala. 8 22218 Si vous permettez, Madame Wylie, 9 juste très, très rapidement en terminant, je l'ai 10 mentionné tantôt mais je veux revenir là-dessus parce 11 que, pour moi, c'est fondamental; c'est la question de 12 la cohérence. 13 22219 Je ne veux pas tomber dans la 14 flatterie, encore une fois, mais la décision sur la 15 politique radio était une excellente décision, une 16 décision courageuse du Conseil, difficile mais 17 excellente. Il faut une cohérence. 18 22220 Je sais qu'au centre de vos débats 19 depuis un mois maintenant -- peut-être que ça vous a 20 semblé un an parce que ça a été une audience 21 monumentale sur la télé -- c'est sûr que la question 22 des émissions dramatiques, des émissions pour enfants, 23 des documentaires, des choses comme ça a été beaucoup 24 plus au centre de votre audience, et c'est normal. La 25 question de la musique, je ne pense pas qu'elle ait été StenoTran 4828 1 au centre de cette audience. 2 22221 Il nous apparaît important que, dans 3 les audiences sur la TV, trop souvent, parce que c'est 4 tellement gros, les émissions dramatiques, finalement, 5 on n'a pas beaucoup d'attention à consacrer à des 6 créneaux particuliers comme la chanson. On vous prie 7 cette fois-ci d'y consacrer l'attention nécessaire. Ça 8 nous apparaît important. Ce type d'audience là, ça 9 arrive une fois par 10 ans ou par 15 ans. Si rien 10 n'est fait maintenant pour accroître la vitrine de la 11 chanson à la télévision canadienne, je pense qu'il va y 12 avoir des conséquences dramatiques sur l'expression de 13 la chanson et, par conséquent, de la culture 14 canadienne. 15 22222 Donc c'est un moment clé pour vous. 16 22223 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je vous entends donc 17 dire que l'un nourrit l'autre. 18 22224 M. PILON: Oui, exactement. 19 22225 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Si on donne naissance 20 au bébé, il faut maintenant le nourrir. Voilà. 21 22226 M. PILON: Exactement. 22 22227 Merci beaucoup. 23 22228 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions 24 de votre collaboration. 25 22229 Nous avons maintenant terminé la StenoTran 4829 1 partie orale de l'examen de la politique télévisuelle. 2 Bien que ce processus ait été long, il a été, à notre 3 avis, fort intéressant. Il nous a permis par la même 4 occasion d'en explorer plusieurs sinon toutes les 5 facettes. 6 22230 Nous avons échangé avec près d'une 7 centaine d'intervenants qui nous ont offert un éventail 8 d'opinions sur la télévision. Tous ont fait des 9 suggestions quant à la façon dont le système télévisuel 10 pourrait davantage refléter les attentes et l'intérêt 11 des Canadiens. 12 22231 And all of them have agreed on the 13 importance of television to the lives of Canadians in 14 their communities, as part of a unique region with 15 unique characteristics and stories, and as citizens of 16 Canada. 17 22232 It is important for us to remember 18 that this is a policy review. It is not a renewal 19 hearing for individual licensees. The Commission's 20 intent at the end of this process is to articulate a 21 broad regulatory framework that will fulfil the public 22 interest objectives of the Broadcasting Act. This 23 framework must also be adaptable to the new economic, 24 social and technological realities we all face. 25 22233 In my opening remarks I said that the StenoTran 4830 1 Commission's objective is more Canadian programs, 2 better quality and increased profitability. We have 3 received many suggestions as to how this can be 4 accomplished, and I expect we will receive even more 5 before the file is closed on November 19th, 1998. 6 22234 It will then be our job to pull 7 together all this information and input, review it, and 8 from there develop a balanced and effective regulatory 9 framework. We hope to have finished our work and to 10 release a balanced decision in the public interest 11 during the spring of 1999. 12 22235 Finally, for those participants who 13 will be submitting final written comments, we request 14 that these comments be brief and focused on suggesting 15 practical ways to achieve our objectives. 16 22236 Before leaving, and on behalf of my 17 fellow Commissioners and the Commission, I would like 18 to thank all of you who have made written submissions 19 to the Commission or who have come here to make a 20 presentation in person. We deeply appreciate the time 21 and effort you have spent to help us develop a good 22 understanding of your concerns and interests concerning 23 television policy in Canada. 24 22237 J'aimerais également remercier mes 25 collègues pour leur précieuse collaboration et tous StenoTran 4831 1 ceux au sein du Conseil qui nous ont soutenus au cours 2 de ces dernières semaines d'audience. 3 22238 Merci à Jean-Pierre Blais pour ses 4 conseils juridiques et à sa collègue; Nick Ketchum et 5 son équipe pour leur expertise et leurs conseils. 6 Merci aussi aux secrétaires de l'audience, Mmes Carole 7 Bernard et Diane Santerre, pour la gestion de ce 8 processus. 9 22239 Mes remerciements vont également aux 10 traducteurs et aux sténographes, de même qu'à tous ceux 11 qui nous ont fourni les services nécessaires pour mener 12 à bien ces audiences, sans oublier les autres employés 13 du CRTC qui ne se trouvent pas nécessairement dans 14 cette salle. 15 22240 I would also like in closing to thank 16 Rogers Cable for making these hearings accessible to 17 many people who did not have the opportunity to attend 18 them in person. 19 22241 Thank you and good night to all. 20 Merci et bonsoir à tous. 21 --- L'audience se termine à / Whereupon the hearing 22 concluded at 1806 23 24 25 StenoTran
- Date modified: