Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
www.crtc.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE CANADIAN RADIO‑TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DEVANT
LE CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES
SUBJECT:
Review of the Commercial Radio Policy /
Examen de la Politique sur la radio commerciale
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
140 Promenade du Portage 140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)
May 16, 2006 Le 16 mai 2006
Transcripts
In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages
Act, transcripts of proceedings before the Commission will be
bilingual as to their covers, the listing of the CRTC members
and staff attending the public hearings, and the Table of
Contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded
verbatim transcript and, as such, is taped and transcribed in
either of the official languages, depending on the language
spoken by the participant at the public hearing.
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.
Canadian Radio‑television and
Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications canadiennes
Transcript / Transcription
Review of the Commercial Radio Policy /
Examen de la Politique sur la radio commerciale
BEFORE / DEVANT:
Charles Dalfen Chairperson / Président
Michel Arpin Commissioner / Conseiller
Rita Cugini Commissioner / Conseillère
Andrée Noël Commissioner / Conseillère
Joan Pennefather Commissioner / Conseillère
ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:
Chantal Boulet Secretary / Secrétaire
Peter Foster Hearing Manager /
Gérant de l'audience
Bernard Montigny General Counsel,
Broadcasting / Avocat
général, Radiodiffusion
Anne-Marie Murphy Legal Counsel /
Conseillère juridique
Robert Ramsey Senior Director, Radio
Policy and Applications /
Directeur principal,
Politiques et demandes
relatives à la radio
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre de conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
140 Promenade du Portage 140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec Gatineau (Québec)
May 16, 2006 Le 16 mai 2006
TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE / PARA
PRESENTATION BY / PRÉSENTATION PAR:
Songwriters Association of Canada 411 / 2376
SOCAN 438 / 2540
ADISQ 464 / 2704
ACTRA 591 / 3466
iBiquity Digital Corporation 604 / 3541
ARC du Canada 632 / 3700
ARPIF 754 / 4305
Astral Média Radio 823 / 4708
Cogeco Diffusion Inc. 884 / 5006
Gatineau Quebec / Gatineau (Québec)
‑‑‑ Upon commencing on Tuesday, May 16, 2006
at 0902 / L'audience débute le mardi
16 mai 2006 à 0902
LISTNUM 1 \l 1 \s 23622362 THE CHAIRPERSON: Order, please. À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12363 Good morning, everyone. Unfortunately, the interpreters have not yet arrived. That is what you get for starting early, I guess.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12364 I don't know whether there is anyone in the room who ‑‑ s'il y a quelqu'un dans la chambre qui a besoin absolument de la version française. Si oui, on va attendre jusqu'à l'arrivée des interprètes. Si non, on va commencer, et dès qu'ils arrivent ‑‑ ça ne va pas être long ‑‑ ils vont commencer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12365 Est‑ce qu'il y a quelqu'un dans la salle qui a absolument besoin de l'interprétation pour le moment?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12366 O.K. Je ne vois pas personne. Comme ça... nos apologies. Je ne sais pas pourquoi c'est arrivé, mais ça arrive de temps en temps, et dans le but de continuer avec notre horaire, qui est assez serré quand même, on va continuer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12367 Madame la Secrétaire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12368 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci, Monsieur le Président.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12369 For the record, the Canadian Music Publishers Association, CMPA, who were listed on the agenda have informed us that they cannot attend the hearing today. The CMPA has filed their presentation with the panel, which is available in the public examination room.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12370 I would now invite the next participant, the Directors Guild of Canada, to make their presentation.
‑‑‑ No answer / Aucune réponse
LISTNUM 1 \l 12371 THE SECRETARY: We will now go along. I would now invite the next participant, the Songwriters Association of Canada.
‑‑‑ Arrival of interpreters / Arrivée des interprètes
LISTNUM 1 \l 12372 LE PRÉSIDENT : Les interprètes sont arrivés. Tout est correct. Si vous avez des machins, on peut les utiliser. The interpreters have now arrived.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12373 THE SECRETARY: Appearing for the Association is Mr. Stan Meissner.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12374 Mr. Meissner, you have 10 minutes for your presentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12375 MR. MEISSNER: Thank you.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
LISTNUM 1 \l 12376 MR. MEISSNER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I will just allow you to get your document there.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12377 My name is Stan Meissner. I am the President of the Songwriters Association of Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12378 Let me first just tell you a bit about who we are.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12379 The Songwriters Association of Canada or SAC is Canada's only association solely representing the interests of songwriters.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12380 The SAC is a non‑profit national art service organization and we are led by professional songwriters committed to the development and recognition of Canadian composers, lyricists and songwriters.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12381 Our mission is to protect and develop the business and creative environments for songwriters in Canada and around the world.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12382 As songwriters, our members fall into two categories: songwriter recording artists and non‑performing songwriters who derive their living primarily from receiving public performance royalties primarily from having their songs recorded by others and broadcast on the radio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12383 For these songwriters who don't perform, they don't make money from concerts or selling merchandise of T‑shirts and they make a limited amount of money, only 8 cents for each song contained on a CD that is bought, and as you know, in this reality fewer people are buying CDs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12384 Songwriters make nothing for songs that are downloaded and they don't have any of the collateral benefits that the artists might have, like raising the awareness of the Act, getting people out to their shows and selling merch.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12385 No, for songwriters, radio is the Holy Grail and for this reason we caution that the CRTC be mindful of tinkering with some of the systems that allow a fragile profession like ours to exist.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12386 Our comments will focus on five main points while referencing points made by the CAB in their submission.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12387 These points are: levels of CanCon; new and emerging music; the MAPL system; CTD funding; and specific allocations within CTD funding.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12388 Since its inception in the 70s it is clear that CanCon has been of great benefit to all Canadians, helping to create a vibrant, unique Canadian musical culture and a healthy Canadian music industry.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12389 Songwriters in Canada have been given a great opportunity to have their music heard throughout the country, which in turn has encouraged and enabled countless international successful careers for Canada's creators.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12390 Within the Canadian Broadcasting Regulatory Handbook itself it states that:
"Each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use and in no case less than predominant use of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation of presentation of programming."
(As read)
LISTNUM 1 \l 12391 It is clear that the intent is to play as much Canadian content as possible and the term "predominant" even suggests that the majority of the content should be of Canadian origin.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12392 For this and for the following reasons, our position is that CanCon should be increased to 50 per cent. We recognize that songwriters and radio broadcasters need to work together and we feel that the facts will show that both parties have and will continue to prosper given fair legislation of the appropriate amount of mandated Canadian music.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12393 As you are aware, even with the current rate of 35 per cent, most newly licensed stations are already committing to play 40 per cent Canadian music, some as high as 45 per cent. Clearly, there is a healthy market and appetite for Canadian music on our airwaves as reflected in increased advertising revenues year over year and the general growth of the commercial radio industry.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12394 When broadcasters remark at the difficulties for them of playing too much Canadian music, one only needs to examine just how healthy the radio business is.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12395 You don't need to hear from me the specifics of how well they are doing, I shall leave that to others, but it is certainly clear to all, as has been published in many reports and the CRTC's own report, that the radio business is good.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12396 Thus, we can agree that the current de facto 40 per cent level creates no hardship for the radio business model in Canada and therefore there is absolutely no argument that could be made to suggest lowering these levels below 40 per cent under any circumstances.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12397 Given the clear success of both the quality and quantity of Canadian music and the health of the radio industry with regard to the amount of Canadian music played on the radio, as mandated in the Broadcasting Regulatory Handbook, we feel justified that these levels should be further increased from where they are now.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12398 We echo comments made by SOCAN, CIRPA, CRIA and others in this regard but, as I said, we feel that it should be increased to 50 per cent, giving Canadians a level playing field on our own airwaves.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12399 With regard to diversity, it is clear that for reasons known only to Canadian radio programmers, commercial radio in Canada generally concentrates on a very narrow playlist. As this playlist contains 35 to 40 per cent Canadian content, it follows that radio in Canada also plays a very narrow Canadian playlist. Thus, there are very limited opportunities for Canadian acts, both new and old, to get radio play.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12400 If this lack of diversity creates difficulty for new and emerging acts in Canada to be played on the radio, the Commission could examine ways to encourage radio to play more Canadian music, new Canadian music, by legislation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12401 While broadcasters themselves may lament this lack of diversity, and they do propose solutions within their submission, it should be noted that this is a situation of their own making and it is clearly within their control.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12402 Nothing stops radio programmers now from programming more new Canadian music within their currently mandated CanCon amounts. It can be proven by the fact that new Canadian artists such as Feist, Daniel Powder, Arcade Fire, et cetera, continue to make international headway that there is more than enough quality new and emerging Canadian music to be amply included in any radio station's playlist without the need for further incentives within the mandated Canadian percentage.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12403 However, in the CAB's submission they seek a 25 per cent bonus for playing emerging music but with a floor of 30 per cent. We see this as an obvious attempt to get away with playing less Canadian content and it makes us call into question the sincerity of to what degree the radio stations are supportive of Canadian music at all.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12404 They want to trade a bit of new Canadian music to allow them to play 5 per cent more American music. How does this serve Canadians?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12405 These licences are a privilege and not a right and they are the property of the people of Canada, and for the right to profit from their value, radio needs to pay the price of supporting our own, their own.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12406 Historically, radio stations have played all kinds of games to hide or reduce their Canadian content quota, so much so that time of day restrictions had to be put in place to stop the ghettoization of Canadian music that was being crammed into the wee hours of the night.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12407 Radio has been playing a shell game with CanCon for years and their idea of a bonusing mechanism with a reduced floor is the next generation of that game.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12408 If there had to be some percentage within the CanCon quota devoted to new or emerging music, we might be supportive of it. However, even if this had to be done by some sort of bonusing mechanism within CanCon, we feel very strongly that under no circumstances should any bonusing mechanism allow the CanCon level to be reduced.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12409 In our proposal to increase CanCon to 50 per cent, we would see room for a bonusing system to be implemented, if necessary, provided these bonuses do not allow the aggregate level of Canadian music to fall below a floor of 45 per cent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12410 I would just like to stray from my prepared notes here for a moment in that I have had the luxury of having an additional night to roll in bed and ruminate over some of the possibilities as discussed yesterday here and I guess the sceptic in me makes me think that the idea of bonusing or even a mandated percentage within CanCon might still be abused by radio stations given the way they tend to deal with Cancon and I will illustrate it in the certain manner.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12411 In any given year, you get a very successful act. You usually do, not every year but you have people like Avril Lavigne or Sam Roberts or people like that and there is nothing to stop radio from just taking that one act that is already hugely successful, that clearly qualifies as emerging by whatever definition and whatever legitimate definition we may be able to define, from playing ‑‑ nothing stops them from taking that one act or that one song and playing it 100 times a day, thus satisfying its emerging quotient, and then reducing CanCon down to a level of whatever the floor is.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12412 I think that possibility sort of illustrates the problem with the CAB's idea of 35 per cent with a 30 per cent floor or a smart 35.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12413 And again, I don't mean to harp on this but I don't think we are here to be reducing the CanCon percentage. I think that, as was made apparent yesterday by comments made by other people, that the CRTC in 1998 did look forward to five years down the road at a 40 per cent CanCon level and I think, clearly, the CAB is going in the other direction.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12414 Anyway, I will resume my prepared notes here.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12415 With regard to the MAPL system of qualifying Canadian music, as songwriters we feel that it has been a very effective method and we would oppose any tinkering with this tried and true mechanism.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12416 For very sound reasons, the architects of the MAPL system placed much importance on the value of the Canadian song, as is evidenced by the fact that with both the "M" music and the "L" lyrics, the Canadian song makes up half of the value of MAPL.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12417 Anyone who grew up in Canada listening to the radio up until the early 70s will recall that Canadian music back then usually consisted of Canadian artists doing cover versions of American songs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12418 Under CanCon regulations in the MAPL system, we have transformed into a country where virtually every Canadian artist sings Canadian songs. As well, many international acts sing more than the praises of our excellent Canadian works.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12419 This illustrates the value of the Canadian song and why so much importance, literally 50 per cent, is placed on it within MAPL. Any tinkering with the letters or points within the MAPL system would water down the value of the Canadian song within the formula and that would be totally unacceptable to us.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12420 In recognition, again, of the privilege for private radio companies to receive licences, we are very supportive of the concept of the responsibility of radio to support Canadian talent development funding.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12421 Through FACTOR and the Radio Starmaker Fund, Canada's radio industry has helped develop the careers of many Canadian artists as diverse as Blue Rodeo, Tragically Hip, Arcade Fire, Chaos, Julie Black and countless others.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12422 Clearly, the value of such contributions is immeasurable as they help sustain the quality of Canadian music that is to be programmed on the radio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12423 In the CAB submission they make reference to the fact that they would like to direct all of the CTD funds to the control of the Radio Starmaker Fund, their own fund, for administration.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12424 We see this as quite curious. Why should the radio industry and not an infrastructure created by the music industry such as FACTOR be the primary benefit and custodian of these funds?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12425 After all, this component of their licence requirement is the quid pro quo for the privilege of operating a publicly owned broadcast licence and is a small compensation for being given an extremely valuable piece of property by the CRTC.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12426 We feel strongly that radio stations should directly fund both FACTOR and Radio Starmaker. We see these programs as being complementary in that they serve different purposes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12427 By the existence of FACTOR funding to facilitate independent Canadian recordings, we have allowed countless success stories to get on the radar and to go on to qualify for Radio Starmaker funds.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12428 These funding infrastructures are like the chicken and the egg. One cannot exist without the other and they must exist independently.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12429 Furthermore, given the difficult climate and all the current challenges facing the music industry, not to mention the hardships of being a songwriter or artist in Canada, and in light of the record financial successes of the radio business, we feel that current funding levels are far below what is necessary to sustain growth within the Canadian community.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12430 Given the radio industry's great health and robust growth, we propose that the total amount of CTD funding through licence renewals, new licences and transfers of ownership as well be raised to no less than $15 million per year.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12431 Finally, we feel that it is important that these funding bodies are mandated to create programs specifically aimed at songwriters to aid in their career development and the creation of valuable Canadian works.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12432 One cannot argue that the Canadian songs are at the heart of the Canadian radio industry and without supporting this important and integral part of the musical equation, we neglect the foundation upon which this entire industry is built.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12433 Therefore, we propose that 10 per cent of all CTD funding initiates be focused on songwriters and songwriter development.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12434 So to recap, on behalf of the songwriters in Canada, we propose that:
LISTNUM 1 \l 12435 We increase CanCon levels to 50 per cent, giving Canadians a level playing field on our airwaves;
We encourage radio to play new and emerging music by creating a percentage within CanCon for new and emerging music if need be;
However, if bonuses are necessary, under no circumstances should the aggregate level of Canadian music fall below a floor of 45 per cent;
We propose that we maintain the MAPL system without any changes;
That we increase CTD funding to no less than $15 million through existing funding infrastructures, FACTOR and the Radio Starmaker Fund;
And we allocate 10 per cent of all CTD funding initiatives to be focused on songwriters and songwriter development programs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12436 We feel that these changes and initiatives would serve songwriters, all Canadians and the radio industry as well.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12437 I thank you for your time and I welcome your questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12438 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12439 Commissioner Pennefather will begin.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12440 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Good morning.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12441 MR. MEISSNER: Good morning.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12442 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I wanted to just get some further clarification from you on your proposals in Canadian talent development and then perhaps move on to some other points.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12443 Both today and in your written intervention you suggest that the total amount of CTD funding through renewals, new licences and changes in ownership be raised up to $15 million per year.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12444 Where did you get the $15 million? Why $15 million?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12445 MR. MEISSNER: It seems that historically ‑‑ if I understood the charts shown yesterday by the CAB, they said that they had spent $165 million since 1999. So that means they have been putting in at least $20 million a year, I think. I don't know if that counts five years or six years but it is between $22 and $27 million a year and yet they want to be mandated to contribute less. So I don't think $15 million is all that high a figure relative to the historical norm.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12446 As well, if I have the figures right, it seems to me that the radio business last year earned something like $1.3 billion gross and roughly 1 per cent of that would get you to a range of around $15 million.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12447 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Would you feel that the mechanism going forward to look at CTD funding would be best on a percentage of revenues or a percentage of profit margins? Rather than a number, would that mechanism be also ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12448 MR. MEISSNER: I suppose it would be.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12449 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: What are you looking for in particular, an amount of money or consistency? What is your goal?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12450 MR. MEISSNER: Consistency would be nice, in that these hearings happen every so often. I know the CAB is suggesting that they happen again in three years. Typically they probably happen usually more along the time line of five years.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12451 There would certainly be time to rejig a number if it was a hard and fast number, but if it was based as a percentage of the gross profitability or gross revenue of the radio stations, then I'm sure that would be workable to us.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12452 One might suspect that they may try to redefine those numbers so they would obviously have to be clean numbers that would be audited and approved by all.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12453 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: One of the points you make as well is the importance of FACTOR and the Starmaker Fund, both with different objectives and different purposes, as you say today. I understand that you are not supportive of the proposal from CAB in terms of everything being directed through the Starmaker Fund.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12454 There are other proposals before us, for example a grassroots fund, which would be a new fund.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12455 Do you have any comment? Because indeed the rationale behind such a fund would be to support, amongst others, grassroots songwriters, grassroots musicians, and so on.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12456 What is your comment on that point?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12457 MR. MEISSNER: I tend to think that the infrastructure of FACTOR is much more established and well‑prepared to deal with funding for grassroots independent artists.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12458 Honestly, I believe that FACTOR could do more in that regard and there is no reason that they shouldn't be directed to have more programs for independent recording artists. I know for the FACTOR loans for example, one of the criteria is that you have to have distribution, either with a major label or with a Canadian independent label, and that is hard to get for a lot of independent artists.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12459 I know as an independent artist myself, those deals sometimes can be like signing a deal with the devil in order to qualify for the FACTOR funding that you require to make the record that you are trying to make.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12460 So perhaps FACTOR should have certain programs that don't require that kind of distribution as a condition of being eligible.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12461 Clearly in this world of digital distribution of music, et cetera, there are a lot of ways to get music out there and perhaps those rules as defined by FACTOR were based on a paradigm that has moved a little left of that place.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12462 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: With that in mind, your 10 percent of CTD funding initiatives, how would that work?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12463 I read at first that you saw a separate fund.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12464 MR. MEISSNER: Not at all.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12465 What we would like is ‑‑ again, and I guess it's not quite within the CRTC's purview to be telling FACTOR what to do, but of course they would probably hear it if it was written down just as an observation or a comment.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12466 I think through the FACTOR mechanism that they could very easily develop programs that would help songwriter development. I think it would be easy to do.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12467 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Over and above what they currently have.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12468 MR. MEISSNER: Yes. They have some demo programs that are good ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12469 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: They do.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12470 MR. MEISSNER: ‑‑ but one of the things that you need to do as a songwriter is you need to collaborate with other songwriters and going to Nashville or going to Los Angeles or something like that to collaborate with other songwriters that do what you do, that may be more plugged in than you are, or just to cross‑pollinate your difficult contacts that you might have or they might have, those kinds of trips are quite expensive, as you can imagine, and for an independent songwriter you just have to go out‑of‑pocket and it's almost like an investment in your own career. Clearly there could be FACTOR programs that could, you know, co‑fund those kinds of initiatives.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12471 There are all kinds of other things that would be helpful to songwriters that FACTOR could develop.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12472 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So your 10 percent is really 10 percent of FACTOR?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12473 MR. MEISSNER: I would be comfortable with that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12474 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12475 Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12476 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12477 Commissioner Cugini...?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12478 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Good morning.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12479 MR. MEISSNER: Good morning.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12480 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: With regards to your proposed level of Canadian content, increasing it to 50 percent, as you know broadcasters are saying that if we increase Canadian content all that is going to do is drive listeners to alternative formats, including internet, internet radio and downloadable music, and so on.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12481 Now, especially from your perspective, given the fact that you say that songwriters don't make any money when their music is downloaded, first of all: Is that true, even on iTunes and Puretracks, the songwriters don't receive anything?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12482 MR. MEISSNER: No, no, no. I'm talking about peer‑to‑peer downloading.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12483 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Peer‑to‑peer, okay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12484 MR. MEISSNER: We don't make any money for that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12485 iTunes and Puretracks, we get paid the equivalent of what would be the $0.08 per song downloaded. That $0.08 is shared between the songwriter and the publisher, and in the case of a song that is co‑written, it is shared between the co‑writer and your respective publisher. So that $0.08 can be come $0.02 very quickly.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12486 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Okay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12487 MR. MEISSNER: In answer to your question about, "W would playing more Canadian music drive listeners away from radio?", that follows the basic assumption that Canadian music is not good and that the Canadian people don't want to listen to it. I don't buy that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12488 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: It also addresses, however, the point you made earlier off script, where you said ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12489 MR. MEISSNER: Yes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12490 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Is that really what radio broadcasters are going to do? Is that how they are going to serve their listeners, by playing the same song 100 times?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12491 MR. MEISSNER: They kind of do that now. If people are being driving away ‑‑ it's not my job to tell radio how to program their programming day, but don't you hear the same songs on the radio over and over, be they American songs or Canadian songs or whatever? This is just the model of what their ‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12492 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: I ask the questions here. Just kidding.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12493 MR. MEISSNER: I'm sorry.
‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires
LISTNUM 1 \l 12494 MR. MEISSNER: That seems to be the model of how radio does its business. Obviously they hire people who tell them that this is good for business, and clearly the numbers show that I guess it is. So that is the way they do what they do.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12495 I am playing devil's advocate by making some kind of accusation as to how they may fill their commitment, but I do think ‑‑ and I believe this honestly ‑‑ that I think that they will try to work around the rules to try to reduce the CanCon percentage, because I think they would much rather be playing Eminem than Sam Roberts.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12496 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: As an independent artist, as you define yourself, and based on what you have heard so far in these proceedings, do you have a definition or is there a definition of "new and emerging artists" that you have heard that you agree with?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12497 MR. MEISSNER: That's an interesting question.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12498 CRIA's definition ‑‑ actually, there have been so many it's hard to keep track.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12499 If it was CRIA's definition that talked about getting into the Top 40 and then adding a year to that, I don't think that is a very reasonable test. If a record happens to peak to 39 for a moment, for a week on whatever chart, and then drops away, that is fairly under the radar. If that is all that act every does and it takes them two more records to have any kind of exposure in the world, they are still emerging.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12500 Perhaps selling gold is something that is at least some kind of a mark in the sand that might define some degree of success that is measurable.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12501 If it had to be chart position, I would have to say it would have to be higher than Top 40. I would think it would have to be Top 20 or even Top 10.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12502 As far as how many CDs, I would think at least two, regardless of how successful the first one might have been. Emerging is emerging. It takes time to develop a career. One never knows how someone is going to do, even on the heels of a very successful debut album. Careers are very hard to sustain, and I guess that's the problem with bonuses or whatever, is that if that means radio is going to be more inclined to pay some and less inclined to play others, there are going to be winners and losers in that came as well.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12503 But our feeling is that if CanCon is just raised as a whole, there is just more room. And if radio is as committed to new and emerging music as they claim to be, then they should be doing that within a higher, raised CanCon percentage, and it's up to them to not burn records too many times because that is completely within their ability to change that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12504 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Once we have landed on a definition of "new and emerging" do you think that we should also impose a quota? For example, CIRPA said 45 percent CanCon of which 50 percent should be independents. Others have suggested varying percentages of the overall Canadian content to be devoted to new and emerging artists.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12505 Do you think that would be useful?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12506 MR. MEISSNER: If I had to choose between a quota or a bonus system, I would probably choose a quota. There is just a little less room, a little less wiggle room as far as the overall CanCon percentage.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12507 Clearly, if there is a bonus mechanism I would bet that radio stations would do what they could to get themselves closer to the minimum number, to the floor number, as opposed to sticking within the otherwise minimum number.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12508 As has been stated before, and as has been made very clear by the way radio in Canada programs music, the 35 percent currently is a ceiling. It's not a minimum. They do whatever they can to meet it and they do whatever they can to get by just to that line and they don't go out of their way to exceed it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12509 So I think any percentage is going to be treated that way.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12510 So I think we need to be prepared to recognize that, you know, minimum is what we may call it, but that's not how it is effective in the real world.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12511 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you, Mr. Meissner.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12512 MR. MEISSNER: No problem.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12513 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are all my questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12514 THE CHAIRPERSON: Monsieur Arpin...?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12515 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Mr. Meissner, you alluded in your oral presentation to the fact that a good number of your songwriters are living on royalties that they are getting through various mechanisms.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12516 In asking the Commission to increase Canadian content up to 50 percent, have you made an estimate of how much more money songwriters could make from royalties?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12517 MR. MEISSNER: Arguably, in that the difference between 35 percent and 50 per cent is not quite 50 percent more, maybe it's 40 percent more, perhaps there will be 40 percent more money in the public performance money pools that would end up in the pockets of Canada's creators.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12518 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: But you don't have an idea of how much money that represents?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12519 MR. MEISSNER: SOCAN might be better prepared to answer this question. I think that the amount of money that they collect from broadcast radio is somewhere in the $35 million range annually. Of course, some of that money gets paid out ‑‑ that is collected for all works on the radio, so that money gets paid out to international societies. But if 35 percent of that amount of money, so approximately $10 or $12 million, is going to Canadians from Canadian music broadcast on Canadian radio, then perhaps that $10 to $12 million would be increased by as much as 40 percent if radio had to play more Canadian music.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12520 Basically it means that Bruce Springsteen would make a little less money and Bruce Cochburn would make a little more. I think that's okay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12521 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Would Bruce Cochburn be eligible for your 10 percent FACTOR allotment to songwriters?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12522 MR. MEISSNER: Knowing what I know about Bruce Cochburn, I don't think he would be accessing those funds. I think probably more hungry songwriters that are looking to develop their careers would be more attracted to those funds than successful songwriters would be.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12523 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Meissner.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12524 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12525 Counsel...?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12526 MS MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12527 In light of your concerns, what are your views on imposing a maximum repeat factor as the Commission had done in the past? Would that answer your concerns with respect to the bonus system?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12528 MR. MEISSNER: With regard to all music they play or with regard to Canadian music only?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12529 I would have no problem with it. If it's a reasonable number, by virtue of that you would get more diversity of music on the radio even if ‑‑ of all nationalities. If they can't play Madonna more than "X" number of times in a broadcast day or in a broadcast week, then if that number is a lower number than what they are already doing then to fill the space there will have to be more diversity.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12530 So something like that could work.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12531 MS MURPHY: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12532 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12533 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Meissner, those are our questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12534 MR. MEISSNER: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12535 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary...?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12536 THE SECRETARY: I will now invite the next participant, SOCAN, to make their presentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12537 Appearing for SOCAN is Mr. Paul Spurgeon.
‑‑‑ Pause
LISTNUM 1 \l 12538 THE SECRETARY: Mr. Spurgeon will introduce his colleagues.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12539 You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.
PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
LISTNUM 1 \l 12540 MR. SPURGEON: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12541 My name is Paul Spurgeon, General Counsel of SOCAN. With me today is SOCAN's President, Earl Rosen, and SOCAN's Past‑President, Gilles Valiquette.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12542 I will turn the microphone over now to Earl Rosen
LISTNUM 1 \l 12543 MR. ROSEN: Thank you, Paul.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12544 Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Earl Rosen and, as Paul said, I am the President of SOCAN. I am also the founder and president of a music publishing company de Sade Songs and our affiliated record company Marquis, which has been a leading independent classical and jazz label for the past 24 years.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12545 I'm here today in my position as the elected president of the Society of Composers, Authors, Publishers of Canada, the full name for SOCAN.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12546 Gilles Valiquette, who will speak to you shortly, is a well‑known Québec composer, performer and recording artist. As Paul said, he is our past‑President.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12547 SOCAN is the only music organization appearing at these hearings which represents both Francophone and Anglophone creators, all musical genres, and creators from the very outset of their career to the most successful.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12548 Today we will highlight some of our key points in our submission and then answer your questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12549 First, I will explain why Canadian content is so important to our members. I will summarize the changes that should be made in the Canadian content rules to ensure that they reflect the realities.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12550 Gilles will discuss the rationale for the changes we are seeking.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12551 Mr. Spurgeon will conclude with SOCAN's presentation with some comments on some of the other parties' submissions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12552 Then of course we would be very pleased to answer your questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12553 Mr. Chairman, to appreciate why Canadian content is so important to SOCAN's members you must understand who SOCAN represents and what we do.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12554 SOCAN is a not‑for‑profit Canadian‑owned and operated organization that represents all composers, lyricists, songwriters and music publishers from across Canada and around the world. On behalf of our over 25,000 active Canadian members and the members of the affiliated societies from around the world, SOCAN collects and administers the performing rights in music and lyrics, which are often known as musical works.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12555 The performing right is that part of copyright which gives owners of musical works the sole right to performing public, to broadcast their work or to authorize others to do so in return for royalty payments.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12556 Canadian content is essential to SOCAN's members because songwriters are not paid upfront for writing songs. They depend very heavily on the performing rights royalties they receive when songs are used by music users in public performances or on radio and television.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12557 When radio broadcasters or other music users play musical works written by Canadians, royalties remain at home with Canadian creators. On the other hand, when users play more foreign music, the royalties are paid to foreign societies.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12558 For this reason, SOCAN has always supported measures which promote the use of Canadian music, including the Broadcasting Act and the Commission's Canadian content rules. We commend you on your rules. They are a public policy success story and we believe they must continue to evolve and be strengthened to ensure they reflect current realities.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12559 In paragraph 65 of your Notice, the Commission specifically recognized that the Canadian broadcasting system has an important role to play in the development of Canadian artists, primarily through airplay. Our goal is to ensure that we appreciate that there is a direct relationship between the airplay of Canadian music and the amount of copyright royalties SOCAN members received.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12560 Yesterday Monsieur Arpin asked the CAB how copyright payments advance Canadian artists. I don't think he really received an answer from the CAB, but perhaps I can supply an answer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12561 Simply put, the higher level of Canadian content, more money stays in Canada and is distributed to Canadian creators.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12562 As a musical work performing rights society, SOCAN members are directly interested in maximizing the airplay of Canadian music. To ensure that this airplay is maximized, we believe the Commission should update its Canadian content rules.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12563 Before I pass the microphone to Mr. Valiquette, I wish to conclude by summarizing the changes that should be made in Canadian content rules that govern Category 2 music and Category 3 music.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12564 With respect to the popular music classified as Category 2, we submit that the Commission should raise the minimum Canadian content threshold from 35 to 51 percent. This is not a radical proposal. In fact, 51 percent is already below the de facto level of Canadian content on French language stations in Canada. Generally, that is about 52 to 54 percent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12565 Since 2001 the Commission has licensed a classical musical station with a minimum Canadian content of 15 percent and four jazz radio stations with a minimum Canadian content of 35 percent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12566 The Commission has noted increases in the availability of classical music selections which qualify as Canadian.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12567 It is our position, SOCAN submits that the Commission should confirm and regulate that the minimum Canadian content threshold for Category 3 music, including classical music and jazz, should be 35 percent and higher thresholds applied on a case by case basis.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12568 Now Monsieur Valiquette will discuss the rationale for these changes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12569 M. VALIQUETTE: Monsieur le president, Mesdames et messieurs les Commissaires, bonjour.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12570 J'aimerais utiliser le peu de temps qui m'est alloué pour bien souligner les raisons pour lesquelles le seuil minimum de contenu canadien devrait être rehaussé de 35 à 51 pour cent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12571 Pourquoi 51 pour cent? On trouve la réponse dans le document qui définit les paramètres de toute discussion sur le contenu canadien, la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12572 Monsieur le Président, on ne part pas à zéro en ce qui a trait à la question du contenu canadien. Le Parlement a déjà défini la portée de ce débat. Je suis, par conséquent, étonné de constater que certains mémoires semblent oublier le fait qu'il existe déjà une obligation statutaire à l'effet que la programmation radiophonique doit être au minimum principalement canadienne.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12573 Monsieur le Président, comme mon collègue l'a déjà mentionné, je suis auteur‑compositeur, en d'autres mots j'écris les musiques et les textes de mes chansons.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12574 Although I may not be a lawyer, I do know about words and what they mean.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12575 Everyone in this room today knows that to be predominant means that something must be the largest or the most important element. Anything less than 51 percent is not predominant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12576 Remember, Parliament has stated that each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use and in no case less than predominant use of Canadian content. In other words, the 51 percent requirement is the minimum level, not the maximum level.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12577 The bottom line is that 51 percent is a floor, not a ceiling.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12578 Mr. Chairman, I realize that the Broadcasting Act contains an exception to the predominant rule in cases where it is impracticable to respect the rule.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12579 Parliament has been very clear in this regard. The radio broadcaster's obligation to make maximum and no less than predominant use of Canadian content is a binding obligation unless they can demonstrate that it is impracticable to do so.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12580 The dictionary meaning of impracticable is "impossible in practice".
LISTNUM 1 \l 12581 As a result of this clear statutory language, the onus is on the broadcasters to establish that it is impossible in practice to use popular music radio programming that is predominantly Canadian.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12582 Toute cette question est discutée en détail aux paragraphes 31 à 47 du mémoire préliminaire de la SOCAN.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12583 Avant de conclure, j'aimerais souligner trois points bien importants. Premièrement, il n'y a aucune preuve tangible pouvant avancer la notion qu'il n'existe pas assez de musique canadienne pour suffire à la demande des radiodiffuseurs domestiques.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12584 De fait, nos chansons continuent d'alimenter le réseau international au point où nos redevances provenant de l'étranger ont triplé entre 1994 et 2004. Le Canada est aujourd'hui l'un des trois plus grands producteurs de musique au monde.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12585 L'importance de la demande de musique canadienne au niveau international démontre la disponibilité et la haute qualité de notre musique et prouve qu'il est facilement réalisable d'en faire jouer davantage chez nous.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12586 De toute évidence, avant d'exister ailleurs, notre musique doit exister ici au Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12587 Deuxièmement, il n'y a pas de preuve que l'augmentation de contenu canadien nuit à la bonne santé financière des radiodiffuseurs, les faits démontrent plutôt le contraire. Depuis que le Conseil a rehaussé à 35 pour cent le seuil de contenu canadien dans le cadre de son examen de la radio en 1998, les recettes et les profits de ces entreprises ont augmenté de façon significative.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12588 Tel que le Conseil lui‑même l'a fait remarquer, les radiodiffuseurs ne peuvent prétendre qu'il est difficile pour eux de faire jouer davantage de musique canadienne en raison des dépenses directes encourues par les stations de radio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12589 Contrairement aux télédiffuseurs, les radiodiffuseurs n'ont pas à assumer de dépenses additionnelles significatives quant à la production d'émissions à contenu canadien.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12590 Troisièmement, il n'existe aucune donnée pour prouver que les radiodiffuseurs aient eu de la difficulté à se conformer au seuil de 35 pour cent de contenu canadien. Bien au contraire, plusieurs nouveaux détenteurs de licences radiophoniques dépassent ce seuil et se sont volontairement engagés à respecter des seuils d'au moins 40 pour cent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12591 Si vous me le permettez, Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais aborder un dernier point avant de passer le micro à maître Paul Spurgeon.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12592 Les paragraphes 48 à 54 du mémoire de la SOCAN relèvent certains faits troublants en ce qui concernent la diffusion de la musique populaire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12593 Le seul fait de rehausser les niveaux de contenu canadien ne suffit pas pour respecter l'esprit et la lettre de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Pour être crédible, votre règlement doit aussi maximiser la diffusion des pièces canadiennes aux heures de grande écoute.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12594 Issu d'un domaine qui a longtemps souffert d'un complexe d'infériorité face au niveau international, je suis fier des succès que les créateurs d'ici ont pu réaliser à travers le monde au cours des dernières années.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12595 Il n'y a jamais eu de bonnes raisons de reléguer les oeuvres canadiennes aux heures de faible écoute sur nos propres ondes publiques et il y en a encore moins aujourd'hui.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12596 Je vous remercie bien de votre attention.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12597 MR. SPURGEON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I will be brief.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12598 In accordance with paragraph 145 of your Notice, SOCAN will be filling a reply in response to the other submissions that you have received.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12599 Today I would like to alert you to a couple of key areas of concern.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12600 First of all, there appears to be some confusion on page 6 of the CAB's submission on the relationship between the broadcasters' obligations to financially support Canadian music in recognition of their use of public airwaves on one hand and the payment of copyright royalties to SOCAN and other copyright holders on the other hand.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12601 Let me set the record straight on this issue. It was raised earlier by CIRPA.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12602 SOCAN's members receive copyright royalties when radio broadcasters and others use their intellectual property. These royalties are paid pursuant to international copyright treaties and are set by the Copyright Board in accordance with Canada's Copyright Act.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12603 Copyright royalties have nothing to do with the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC or the financial contributions broadcasters are required to make as a result of receiving state‑sanctioned monopolies for the use of public airwaves.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12604 My final point relates to the MAPL system which is discussed in paragraphs 55 and 63 of SOCAN's preliminary submission.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12605 We note that the CAB and others argue that the MAPL definition of what constitutes a Canadian musical selection should be changed in order to promote new music or emerging artists or Indies.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12606 SOCAN submits that if the Commission decides to make any changes, the relative weight of both the music and the lyric elements or portion of the formula must not be diminished or diluted in any way and the overall amount of Canadian content should not be reduced by creating so‑called bonuses for certain elements in the definition.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12607 In our view, bonuses are nothing but a discount. They are not a bonus; they are a discount of existing obligations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12608 Thank you very much. We are now pleased to respond to any questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12609 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12610 Commissioner Cugini?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12611 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12612 Gentlemen, good morning. I am just going to ask you a few questions on your proposed Canadian content level and then my colleagues may have other questions for you.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12613 As you know, broadcasters are saying that if we impose too high a level of Canadian content‑‑ and if you were here yesterday, you will have heard the phrase the 800 pound gorilla living to the south of us will only drive listeners to other sources of music, because of the great promotional machine that the 800‑pound gorilla provides, because they will not hear that music on their Canadian radio stations.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12614 How would you respond to that criticism?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12615 MR. ROSEN: Well, first, I think we have to make it clear that we are only talking about English language programming. As I mentioned, there is a de facto Canadian content on francophone stations that is already well over 50 percent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12616 I think Mr. Meissner previously answered that question extremely well, and I totally agree with his response.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12617 Canadian audiences support and love Canadian music. There is tremendous evidence to that.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12618 CRIA yesterday mentioned in some of their surveys that they have done that Canadians respond to Canadian music. I think we have no evidence, whenever Canadian content has been increased, that listenership has gone down.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12619 At the last set of hearings broadcasters were being quite apocalyptic that there would be out of market tuning and everyone in Toronto, for instance, would listen to Buffalo. There has been no significant change in the out of market tuning when Canadian content went up in the last round.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12620 We believe there is a tremendous supply of excellent Canadian music. Canadian music fans are very supportive of Canadian music, as we know both by record sales and by attendance at concerts.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12621 We think, in fact, that broadcasters should look at this as an opportunity to build loyalty with their listeners by supplying them with something that is indigenous, that they support, that they believe in.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12622 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Also in your written submission you say that the rules regarding the distribution of popular music should ensure maximum exposure of Canadian music during hours of higher listening.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12623 Is your proposal to increase Canadian content to 51 percent throughout the day or are you proposing even higher levels of CanCon during peak listening times?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12624 MR. SPURGEON: First of all, as has been stated‑‑ and I will repeat it‑‑ the CanCon rule is supposed to be a minimum. It is unfortunately looked at as kind of a ceiling or a cap.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12625 We want to see a reasonable spreading, as it were, of Canadian music throughout the day so that Canadians can be exposed to the expressions of their fellow Canadians in a meaningful way and not have a ghettoized approach to it. We want to avoid that situation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12626 So if the level were raised, then there should be a proportionate‑‑ it has to be in proportion‑‑ a proportionate performance of Canadian music throughout the day.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12627 Therefore, if it were 51 percent, then 51 percent spread throughout the day.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12628 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: You said it a couple of times this morning, that 35 percent is a minimum. And it is.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12629 But in the last four or five years the Commission has licensed radio stations at 40 and some at 45 percent, and those applicants volunteered that percentage.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12630 MR. SPURGEON: Indeed.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12631 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: We licensed them at that percentage. So it could go even higher.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12632 MR. SPURGEON: Indeed.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12633 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Are you not therefore risking 51 percent to become the absolute maximum, and that there will be no voluntary increases in Canadian content?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12634 MR. SPURGEON: It is interesting that you should say that, because the fact that we now have de facto 40 and higher, as I understand‑‑ and certainly many stations are over 35‑‑ they can do it. They have demonstrated that they can do it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12635 Moreover, they are successful in doing it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12636 All these Chicken Little scenarios which we are hearing, and doom and gloom, just have not come to pass. They are showing that they can earn revenue playing Canadian music, not that they are going to lose money playing Canadian music.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12637 So I think, to answer your question, they have proven they can go to 40. And I think when you raise the bar, it is going to prove the point: that the more Canadian music, the more success they will have and the more Canadians will hear the music of their fellow Canadians.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12638 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: We already are hearing that because you do say across the popular music format, and some existing broadcasters who operate classic rock stations, for example, are struggling to meet the 35 percent because there just is no more new classic rock being produced.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12639 So how would you propose that operators of classic rock stations, for example, meet that 51percent?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12640 MR. ROSEN: Well, certainly there is an enormous back catalogue of terrific music, and I think there are many musicians now who are writing material that is compatible with that classic rock style of music.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12641 I think I would like to see new music encouraged on all formats. So I think that definitely would be a possibility.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12642 If I could change my hats from SOCAN and music publisher to my real life activities as a record label, I think every independent and every major label has had the same experience of being told by a radio station time and time again, "We don't need any more CanCon this week. We don't need any more CanCon this week or this month."
LISTNUM 1 \l 12643 To respond partly to your previous question to Paul, I think whatever the level is, it becomes for most stations a maximum whether we like it or not. There are the odd exceptions that will go out of their way to exceed the quota, but that is a rare example.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12644 COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Your position is clear. Thank you, gentlemen.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12645 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12646 THE CHAIRPERSON: Monsieur Arpin?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12647 CONSEILLER ARPIN: Monsieur Valiquette, vous nous avez donné tout un raisonnement pour augmenter de 35 à 51 pour cent le contenu vocal de la musique populaire, mais vous avez tout simplement dit d'augmenter le contenu canadien de la musique classique de 10 à 35 pour cent, et je vais séparer le classique du jazz.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12648 Même sans nous donner de fondement ou d'argument pour augmenter de 10 à 35 pour cent la musique classique, est‑ce que je pourrais avoir les motifs qui justifient, justement, cette augmentation?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12649 MR. ROSEN: With your permission, Monsieur Arpin, I will answer that since I‑‑
LISTNUM 1 \l 12650 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: You are a producer.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12651 MR. ROSEN: I work in the classical genres very heavily.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12652 There are a lot of releases coming out, both from the CBC, from a number of independent labels and from individual musicians every year that is building up the overall library of Canadian classical music.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12653 Unlike a lot of pop genres where music comes and goes rather quickly, a classical recording has a very long life, and on the radio I still hear recordings I released 20 and 25 years ago played quite frequently.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12654 There are very few classical stations in this country, as we know. They now are running with very tight play lists. Actually the classical stations, the commercial classical stations, in Canada are almost like Top 40 classical.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12655 If you remember many years ago Billboard published a cover which was called "The Greatest Hits of 1760", and it looked like a billboard chart. That is very much what is going on in classical music on radio today.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12656 It is very much a limited play list of well‑known classical music, and virtually all of that repertoire is available by Canadian performers, produced in Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12657 So there is plenty of classical music to fill a 35 percent or higher quota for classical music.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12658 I would certainly be prepared to provide a station with evidence to that effect.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12659 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Well, I think it would be worthwhile.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12660 I am a bit more aware of what is going on in Montreal, and I notice that a good number of Canadian musicians are recording outside of Canada. So only the artist is Canadian but the production is not. It is done in Czechoslovakia, in Scotland, in other European countries where obviously the recordings and the payments for the orchestra is much cheaper than obviously taking the Montreal Symphony Orchestra or the Toronto Symphony Orchestra to do a recording.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12661 There obviously are some that are made here in Canada, to my knowledge, but they are not in that great number.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12662 MR. ROSEN: If you are referring only to one sub‑genre of classical, which is orchestral music, there is actually still a great number produced because the CBC produces a large number of orchestral recordings right across Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12663 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Yes. Are they making them available?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12664 MR. ROSEN: They are available and broadcast‑‑ actually, they are probably broadcast‑‑ in Toronto I know they are broadcast more on Classical 96 than they are on CBC itself sometimes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12665 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Okay.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12666 MR. ROSEN: Plus there is the whole range of chamber music, small orchestral music, vocal music by classical musicians that is readily available.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12667 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: With regard to jazz and the jazz genre, are you holding the same view?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12668 MR. ROSEN: Yes, we hold the same view and there is actually a greater repertoire because so much more is written by Canadians also. So, you often get jazz recordings where maybe they are recorded outside of Canada, but the compositions are Canadian or the compositions and the performers are Canadian. So, there is a tremendous amount of jazz.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12669 I think the challenge is that a lot of it is produced by independent artists, both in jazz and in classical, because there is not as much infrastructure to distribute as there is in the pop genre.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12670 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Thank you. My next question and maybe Mr. Spurgeon is in a better place to answer to that one, and the question I asked to Mr. Missener regarding the increased Canadian quota, say, from 35 to 51 per cent and my question to Mr. Missener was: what will be the financial impact for the creators?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12671 MR. SPURGEON: Well, there will be a proportionate increase. Obviously, creators will make more. The exact dollar I can't tell you, but I can tell you that you changed the rule back in 1998, if I am not mistaken, and so in 1999, which was the first year of the rule change to 35, the amount of money we ‑‑ domestic license fees now we paid to our members, just to Canadian members, was 32.5 million. Now, that includes ‑‑ that's more than just radio, that's everything. And then, in 2005 it went up to 79 million dollars.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12672 So, you have got to appreciate that would taken into consideration increases in licence fees in other areas, domestic licence fees and also the industry, the radio industry itself because, you know, radio is doing better.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12673 But the point here is that Canadian music is being exposed more to Canadians, not just on the radio, but everywhere, which generates more air play and the license fees we collect from all these sources adds up and it goes out the door to Canadian composers, lyricism, song writers and their publishers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12674 So, it went up in a fairly big jump there, perhaps not entirely due to the increase in the Canadian content regulation, but, you know, other factors and I think you'll see a similar kind of jump when you increase the content percentage even more.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12675 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Well, this has been over three decades now that the Commission has established a ‑‑ is it three or four ‑‑ three decades, that the Commission has established Canadian Contents Rules.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12676 Are there other countries in the world that have established National Contents Rules and do you have a list of those?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12677 MR. SPURGEON: I have a list of them. Now, I have a list, I have a summary or survey of them that was undertaken by CISAC the Confederation, the international Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12678 They did this last year and while not all european countries responded to the survey, many did and there are a number of european jurisdictions that have adopted Content Regulations and I should tell you, I'm really pleased. I get calls, not all the time, but maybe one or two a year from a country and they'll say: we've heard a lot about your Content Regulations and we would like to examine them.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12679 I sent them down and they take a look at them. I discuss it with them and they often then go off and they are not like ours necessarily, but they adopt rules that provide for Content Regulation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12680 So, I'm really proud to be a Canadian and proud that we have this system that has allowed the music industry infrastructure to develop the way it has and we owe a lot to this body and your predecessors for coming up with this cultural policy that's part of Canada's cultural tool kit.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12681 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Could you make available a copy of that report to the CRTC?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12682 MR. SPURGEON: I can.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12683 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Well, as we've said yesterday morning, you could file it only by May the 29th and we would appreciate receiving a copy.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12684 MR. SPURGEON: I undertake to do so.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12685 COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Okay. Fine. Thank you very much. Those were my questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12686 THE CHAIRPERSON: On that point, Mr. Spurgeon, have you seen the CAB's attachment to their filing where they purported to be listing a number of countries exhibition quotas?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12687 MR. SPURGEON: I think I have reviewed it, but I am not that familiar with it.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12688 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. You may want to, in providing your information, make any comments you want on the information on that document as well?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12689 MR. SPURGEON: Certainly and I should point out that the information I have here from CISAC was restricted to the european economic area, not other countries.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12690 There are other countries that have Content Regulations as well and I'm talking about television in addition to radio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12691 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have documentation regarding other countries?
LISTNUM 1 \l 12692 MR. SPURGEON: I can undertake to find if there is anything, but this is all I have for now.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12693 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Well, whatever and we surely are very interested in what you have and whatever you could find regarding other countries.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12694 MR. SPURGEON: And I should tell, there is another interesting point. When Canada signed on to the International Treaty for Cultural Diversity, this has created a whole new interest in cultural diversity and an interest that countries have in ensuring their diversity is protected and Content Regulations, I think you're going to see more and more interest in these kinds of rules over the next few years as a result of that Treaty.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12695 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much gentlemen. Those are our questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12696 Madame la Secrétaire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12697 THE SECRETARY: I would now invite the next participant, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA).
LISTNUM 1 \l 12698 J'inviterais maintenant l'ADISQ à faire leur présentation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12699 THE CHAIRPERSON: We are going to take a very quick break while you are setting up.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12700 On va prendre une pause pour cinq minutes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12701 We'll resume in five minutes.
‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 1007 / Suspension à 1007
‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1017 / Reprise à 1017
LISTNUM 1 \l 12702 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madame la secrétaire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12703 LA SECRÉTAIRE: Madame Solange Drouin comparaît pour l'ADISQ et elle nous présentera ses collègues. Vous disposez de 15 minutes pour faire votre présentation.
PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
LISTNUM 1 \l 12704 MME DROUIN: Merci beaucoup. Bonjour.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12705 Au nom des producteurs indépendants d'enregistrement sonore du Québec, je tiens à vous remercier de nous recevoir ce matin. Je suis Solange Drouin, vice‑présidente aux Affaires publiques et Directrice générale de l'ADISQ.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12706 Permettez‑moi de vous présenter le président de l'ADISQ, monsieur Yves‑François Blanchet que vous connaissez déjà, et à ma gauche également à mes côtés se trouve Annie Provencher, directrice de la radiodiffusion et de la recherche à l'ADISQ.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12707 À la droite de madame Provencher, monsieur Benoît Gauthier de la firme Réseau CIRCOM et à la droite du président, Paul Audley and Doug Hyatt de la firme Paul Audley & Associates.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12708 Messieurs Audley, Hyatt et Gauthier ont contribué, comme vous le savez, par leurs recherches à notre mémoire et ils sont également disponibles pour répondre à vos questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12709 Vous avez déjà lu et notre mémoire et les quatre études qui l'accompagnent. Nous allons essayer aujourd'hui de les mettre en lumière en analysant des propositions concurrentes énoncées par certaines autres parties.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12710 Vous conviendrez que dans le quart d'heure qui nous est alloué, en parlant lentement, une telle analyse ne saurait être que superficielle. Nous espérons néanmoins qu'elle sera éclairante et comptons sur vos questions pour nous permettre de la préciser.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12711 Dans un premier temps, permettez‑nous de situer notre intervention dans son contexte historique et économique. Je prête donc la parole pour ce faire à Yves‑François Blanchet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12712 M. BLANCHET: Mesdames et messieurs les commissaires, bonjour. C'est un privilège très apprécié que d'être entendu par vous aujourd'hui puisqu'il est en effet devenu urgent que les règles du jeu de la radiodiffusion commerciale soient revues.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12713 Je m'exprimerai donc brièvement au nom unanime, je le souligne, de mes collègues de l'Industrie québécoise de la musique dans le but de souligner quelques principes. Si un seul d'entre eux se loge au coeur de votre arbitrage à venir, nous croyons que celui‑ci en sera plus juste et équitable.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12714 En 1998, lors d'audiences similaires à celle‑ci l'Industrie de la radio commerciale vous a dit être en difficulté. Notre arbitrage leur a été très favorable, le CRTC a alors réduit de façon importante la contribution des radiodiffuseurs au développement du talent canadien.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12715 Aujourd'hui, leur situation, tant en termes de consolidation que de résultats financiers, s'est améliorée de façon spectaculaire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12716 Aujourd'hui aussi, pour un ensemble de raisons largement connues, au premier chef le piratage, la dématérialisation des supports qui affectent le monde entier, c'est la création même qui est en péril.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12717 Les créateurs et les petites entreprises de la musique vous disent donc: *Il est temps de rétablir l'équilibre.+
LISTNUM 1 \l 12718 Je vous demande humblement de ne pas vous laisser entraîner dans les modèles statistiques alambiqués et une rhétorique trompe‑l'oeil.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12719 Le temps est venu de rééquilibrer, en effet, l'équation entre le contenu et le contenant.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12720 Je ne connais personne qui s'abonne au câble pour le fil, qui syntonise la radio pour les ondes, qui se branche à Internet pour le modem.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12721 La technologie transporte tout juste la création et l'information des développeurs de contenus jusqu'au public canadien qui les sollicite.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12722 Dans cet univers des contenus, les radios et nous sommes partenaires. Mais si on vous suggère que dans ce partenariat les diffuseurs doivent et puissent choisir à qui, quand et selon quels termes leur contribution sera octroyée, alors refusez.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12723 Aussi, dans une industrie de la radio où les formats s'uniformisent et convergent vers une similarité troublante, si le CRTC permettait aux radiodiffuseurs d'intervenir davantage sur le choix des artistes à financer, nous devons alors craindre que le contenu aussi s'uniformise et que la création musicale soit canalisée vers un sous‑produit publicitaire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12724 Nous partageons tous, artistes et producteurs, ainsi que radiodiffuseurs, une responsabilité envers la création et la culture canadienne et québécoise; assurez‑vous, s'il vous plaît, que la musique ait les moyens de sa diversité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12725 Merci beaucoup.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12726 Mme DROUIN: Nous aimerions maintenant vous inviter à une analyse de trois principales questions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12727 Dans un premier temps, nous tenons à attirer votre attention sur une perception non fondée qui est souvent véhiculée, qui l'a été encore hier, dans le cadre du présent examen.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12728 Cette perception veut que l'environnement concurrentiel de la radio commerciale a changé à ce point, depuis le dernier examen de la politique, qu'il faudrait alléger considérablement le cadre réglementaire de la radio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12729 A ce sujet, l'ACR propose dans son mémoire une représentation qui semble démontrer une marginalisation de la radio dans, je cite, comme ils l'ont appelée, *la chaîne de valeurs du continuum sonore+.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12730 Cette représentation où une palette de technologies naissantes occupe désormais autant d'espace que la radio commerciale est trompeuse à trois égards.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12731 D'abord elle ne met pas en lumière les poids relatifs aujourd'hui et sur l'horizon de l'application de la politique, donc cinq ans, de ces différentes parcelles de concurrence.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12732 Comme vous le savez, nous avons, quant à nous, essayé de quantifier cet environnement. Les études de la firme CIRCUM sont très claires.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12733 Sur une base non bêtement énumérative mais pondérée, la radio occupe toujours la même place dominante dans le continuum du sonore. Elle est et elle demeurera, dans l'avenir prévisible, en conjonction avec le secteur de l'enregistrement sonore, la force motrice du continuum auquel se réfère l'ACR.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12734 Cette perception est trompeuse pour une deuxième raison, elle présente comme nouvelles des réalités qui font partie du paysage commercial de la radio depuis des décennies et qui n'altèrent en rien son marché actuel.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12735 Par exemple, les appareils personnels de copie et d'écoute mobile de la musique sont des réalités omniprésentes depuis la fin des années 70.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12736 Ils ont pris mille formes, du walkman jusqu'au discman, jamais durant toutes ces années n'ont‑ils diminué une concurrence pour la radio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12737 Aujourd'hui, il est vrai, ces appareils deviennent 100 pour cent numériques. Leur apport concurrentiel à la radio pourtant demeure inchangé.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12738 Cessons de tout confondre. Ce n'est pas cette industrie que les iPods de ce monde sont en train d'anémier, c'est celle du CD vierge et plus encore celle de la cassette audio.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12739 Ce n'est pas la radio que le iPod pousse à de nouveaux modèles d'affaires, c'est notre industrie à nous, celle de la musique.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12740 L'analyse de l'ACR est trompeuse pour une troisième raison. Elle en appelle à une déréglementation accrue de la radio sous prétexte que ses prétendus nouveaux concurrents eux sont déréglementés.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12741 Ce point de vue est faux parce qu'il sous‑tend que l'exemption réglementaire des nouvelles plateformes est éternelle et leur conférera à jamais un avantage concurrentiel.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12742 Or, la position du CRTC est très claire à ce sujet, comme le Conseil l'a encore rappelé dans sa décision sur la télédiffusion mobile en direct il y a de cela à peine un mois, c'est strictement parce que ces technologies sont embryonnaires qu'elles bénéficient pour l'instant d'une exemption réglementaire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12743 Il est acquis que lorsque la croissance de ces technologies deviendra significative, le Conseil mettra en place un cadre réglementaire adapté.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12744 Faire l'inverse, comme le demande l'ACR, c'est‑à‑dire déréglementer ce qui est déjà réglementé, ce serait aller en sens contraire de la réalité du marché et aussi de l'esprit de la loi.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12745 Nous aimerions maintenant, dans un deuxième temps, analyser le système de prime à la nouveauté proposé par l'ACR.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12746 A première vue, l'idée a un certain charme. Dans les faits, elle ne présente aucune garantie de favoriser la promotion de la relève, au contraire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12747 Imaginons que ce système de prime entre en vigueur aujourd'hui même. Chaque nouveauté compte donc soudain pour un point cinq diffusion au lieu d'une.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12748 Nous comprenons tous que sans ajouter une seule nouveauté à sa programmation une station francophone pourra programmer moins de diffusions francophones au total puisque certaines pièces, diffusées de toute façon, compteront pour 50 pour cent de plus.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12749 L'ACR elle‑même estime qu'un niveau de 30 pour cent de nouveautés aurait pour effet de ramener de 65 à 50 pour cent le quota de musique vocale de langue française. En cela, je me réfère à un tableau qu'ils figurent eux‑mêmes dans leur mémoire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12750 Notre analyse est encore plus inquiétante. Au paragraphe 124 de notre intervention, vous avez sûrement constaté que nous évaluons que le taux de nouveautés pour une station de format grand succès tourne généralement autour de 40 pour cent.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12751 Le 40 pour cent, évidemment il faut préciser que ce n'est pas en nombre de titres différents, mais en nombre de diffusions.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12752 Sans que nous prononcions ici sur la méthode de calcul de l'ACR, nous ne pouvons donc que constater que leur proposition, en un clin d'oeil, ramènerait le contenu francophone à des niveaux bien inférieurs à 50 pour cent au lieu de 65, je le rappelle.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12753 Dans les faits, sans rien modifier à leur programmation, les radiodiffuseurs se verront offrir un relâchement majeur de leur obligation, zéro nouveauté en plus et au minimum 15 pour cent de musique francophone en moins. Ce n'est pas, selon nous, le résultat que cherche le Conseil.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12754 La proposition d'une prime à la nouveauté découle d'une vision selon laquelle une pièce d'un nouvel artiste serait un cune off pour l'auditeur.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12755 Cette affirmation gratuite n'a jamais été appuyée par des preuves concrètes. En fait, une étude récente du patrimoine canadien démontre exactement le contraire. Selon cette étude, de toutes les sources auxquelles s'approvisionnent les Canadiens pour connaître les nouveautés musicales, la radio est de loin la plus importante. Pas moins de 50 pour cent des Canadiens s'y réfèrent. C'est, par exemple, deux fois plus que le bouche à oreille et près de sept fois plus qu'Internet.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12756 Quant à nous, nous constatons que les radiodiffuseurs vivent dans deux réalités parallèles, celle de leurs annonceurs d'une part et celle des amateurs de musique d'autre part.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12757 Aux annonceurs, les radios ventent leur immense capacité à générer une demande pour leurs produits, même lorsque ceux‑ci sont inconnus. Ils mettent de l'avant leur habileté à créer des marchés en insérant ces produits dans les bonnes plages horaires et selon les stratégies les plus imaginatives.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12758 Pourtant, lorsqu'il s'agit de mettre en valeur de nouvelles pièces musicales, les radios perdent soudain tous leurs moyens; aucune énergie, aucune innovation, nous sommes face à une simple machine à donner au consommateur ce qu'il désire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12759 Il faudrait qu'on nous explique pourquoi la nouveauté serait un cune off en matière de musique et un cune on en matière de publicité.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12760 Il va de soi que la nouveauté à la radio doit être abordée sur un autre angle. Il est faux, comme le prétend l'ACR qu'une prime à la nouveauté inciterait les radios à risquer une programmation qui leur conférerait un avantage concurrentiel.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12761 Cette affirmation est un leurre parce que tous les outils sont déjà là pour leur permettre de se donner une programmation originale.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12762 Cependant, puisque toutes les radios se contentent de puiser à une fraction des titres disponibles, 18 pour cent des titres en 2005, elles choisissent de s'en priver.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12763 Ce n'est pas un système de prime qui changera quoi que ce soit à cette mentalité. Nous croyons que la solution que nous proposons sous la forme de nouveaux quotas est beaucoup plus prometteuse.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12764 Le dernier point que nous voulons aborder est celui de la contribution financière des entreprises de radio, développement des talents canadiens.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12765 Les derniers chiffres publiés par le Conseil montrent que l'industrie de la radio est en excellente santé au Canada. On n'a d'ailleurs qu'à observer l'effervescence des marchés devant les projets du groupe Standard pour mesurer la capacité du secteurà attirer de nouveaux investissements.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12766 Si nous sommes à l'aube d'un cycle difficile pour les radiodiffuseurs, il semble que les seuls à qui ils ont oublié de le dire, ce sont leurs propres investisseurs.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12767 Dans le marché francophone, les grands groupes issus de la vague de consolidation encouragés par le CRTC bénéficient de marges de profits impressionnantes. Les deux entreprises qui, à elles seules, représentent 73 pour cent du marché francophone, Astral et Corus, ont affiché respectivement des bayas de 34 pour cent et de 26 pour cent en 2004.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12768 Dans ce contexte, on ne peut pas expliquer la faiblesse de certains autres maillons de la chaîne en prétendant que les quotas de musique francophone exercent un poids sur leur rentabilité ou la rentabilité des stations francophones en général.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12769 Comme vous le savez, nous mettons de l'avant dans notre mémoire un modèle financier que nous avons baptisé le plan de l'ADISQ par opposition au plan du l'ACR.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12770 Outre qu'il tient compte de la capacité financière des radiodiffuseurs, ce modèle, croyons‑nous, est à même d'optimiser les effets concrets de leur contribution au développement de talents canadiens.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12771 Nous avons été surpris de trouver dans le mémoire de l'ACR une vision à la fois moins définie et singulièrement différente de la nôtre. Il est vrai que nos partenaires de l'ACR y vont d'une tentative téméraire, ils essaient de définir avec trop peu de nuance la réalité globale de notre industrie, l'enregistrement sonore au Canada.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12772 C'est pourquoi nous n'y reconnaissons d'aucune façon celle de la production indépendante de musique et encore moins celle de la production indépendante québécoise.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12773 L'ACR soutient qu'au cours des dernières années l'artiste serait graduellement devenu au centre de notre industrie, de l'industrie de la musique.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12774 Que cela soit présenté comme une découverte qui aurait le potentiel de bouleverser notre réalité commerciale a de quoi laisser perplexe.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12775 En fait, il est évident que depuis l'émergence de la production indépendante au Québec, donc depuis plus de 30 ans, l'artiste a toujours été au centre de notre industrie.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12776 Je vous invite, à cet égard, à consulter le diagramme qui précède le paragraphe 149 de notre mémoire. Ce diagramme illustre le modèle financier de l'industrie de l'enregistrement sonore au Québec. L'artiste y est, plus encore que le centre, la fondation même de toute cette organisation.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12777 Nous croyons comprendre que c'est précisément ce modèle que l'ACR remet en question. Les radiodiffuseurs semblent déplorer que leur contribution puisse se perdre dans une structure industrielle plutôt que de servir directement l'artiste. Ils préféreraient sans doute un modèle qui s'apparenterait à celui qui apparaît au paragraphe 148 de notre mémoire.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12778 Pour quiconque connaît notre industrie, une telle vision est aussi troublante que le visage de Big Brother. Elle met en scène des radiodiffuseurs déjà réticents à diffuser des pièces francophones qui seraient soudainement responsables non seulement de la demande de ce contenu, mais également de son offre.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12779 Plutôt que de contribuer au développement de l'artiste par des contributions au fonds de développement de l'industrie, les radiodiffuseurs laissent entendre en effet qu'ils serviraient mieux l'artiste en utilisant un canal direct vers celui‑ci.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12780 Ces prétentions témoignent d'une méconnaissance étonnante du rôle de chaque maillon de la longue chaîne industrielle qui rend possible une création musicale francophone au Canada. Notre industrie, en fait, en est une qui s'apparente à la recherche et au développement et ses marges de profits sont sans commune mesure avec celles des groupes de radios, la nôtre à peine 0,5 pour cent en moyenne pour les entreprises de production indépendantes canadiennes.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12781 La structure de financement en place est la seule qui lui permette de déployer une véritable dynamique industrielle au bénéfice de nos artistes. Il est inadmissible qu'on pense lui substituer un modèle mal défini sous le prétexte que, ô, grande nouveauté, l'artiste serait au centre. A moins, bien sûr, que l'on préfère voir l'artiste passer plus de temps à gérer les réalités administratives qu'à écrire ou interpréter des chansons.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12782 A l'ADISQ, nous avons toujours soutenu les mesures d'aide financière directe à l'artiste. Seulement, si ces mesures sont conçues au détriment de ce qui permet à l'artiste de commercialiser son art et d'en vivre, elles seront contre‑productives.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12783 Signalons enfin une dernière fausseté invoquée par l'ACR lorsqu'elle affirme que pour soutenir la commercialisation des disques, la radio doit désormais se juxtaposer à d'autres médias et à d'autres activités comme les tournées de spectacles.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12784 En fait, c'est là une autre réalité séculaire de notre industrie, rien qui puisse motiver une remise en question de la réglementation en place.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12785 Le cadre réglementaire actuel est certes imparfait, mais il constitue le meilleur moyen d'encadrer le partenariat mutuellement bénéfique des industries de la radio et de la production musicale.
LISTNUM 1 \l 12786