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 OVER-THE-AIR TV POLICY /

EXAMEN DE CERTAINS ASPECTS DU CADRE RÉGLEMENTAIRE

DE LA TÉLÉVISION EN DIRECT

HELD AT:                              TENUE À:

Conference Centre                     Centre de conférences

Outaouais Room                        Salle Outaouais

Portage IV                            Portage IV

140 Promenade du Portage              140, promenade du Portage

Gatineau, Quebec                      Gatineau (Québec)

December 4, 2006                      Le 4 décembre 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 OVER-THE-AIR TV POLICY /

     EXAMEN DE CERTAINS ASPECTS DU CADRE RÉGLEMENTAIRE

                 DE LA TÉLÉVISION EN DIRECT

BEFORE / DEVANT:

Michel Arpin                      Chairperson / Président

Rita Cugini                       Commissioner / Conseillère

Richard French                    Commissioner / Conseiller

Elizabeth Duncan                  Commissioner / Conseillère

Ronald Williams                   Commissioner / Conseiller

ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:

Chantal Boulet                    Secretary / Secrétaire

John Keogh                        Legal Counsel /

Valérie Lagacé                    Conseillers juridiques

Shelley Cruise

Peter Foster                      Hearing Manager /

Gérant de l'audience

HELD AT:                          TENUE À:

Conference Centre                 Centre de conférences

Outaouais Room                    Salle Outaouais

Portage IV                        Portage IV

140 Promenade du Portage          140, promenade du Portage

Gatineau, Quebec                  Gatineau (Québec)

December 4, 2006                  Le 4 décembre 2006

           TABLE DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                PAGE /  PARA

PRESENTATION BY / PRÉSENTATION PAR:

Ontario Ministry of Culture and                 1627 /  8980

  Ontario Media Development Corporation

Canadian Television Fund                        1657 /  9155

Media Access Canada                             1679 /  9271

L'Union des artistes (UDA) et SARTEC            1698 /  9387

Coalition of Canadian Audio‑visual Unions       1734 /  9552

Writers Guild of Canada                         1770 /  9765

Directors Guild of Canada                       1791 /  9882

ACTRA                                           1823 / 10040

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers         1852 / 10171

  Union of Canada

Media Awareness Network                         1884 / 10346

The New Canada Institute                        1910 / 10472

                 Gatineau, Quebec / Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ Upon resuming on Monday, December 4, 2006

    at 0830 / L'audience reprend le lundi

    4 décembre 2006 à 0830

LISTNUM 1 \l 1 \s 89738973             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Order, please.  À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18974             Madame la Secrétaire.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18975             LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci, Monsieur le Président.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18976             Good morning, everyone.  Before we begin I would just like to indicate to all parties and participants in these proceedings that there is additional documentation that has been added to the record since the beginning of this hearing.  The documents are available in the examination room.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18977             L'interprétation gestuelle est également disponible à cette audience.  Toute personne qui aimerait utiliser l'interprétation devrait m'en aviser, et puis je le communiquerai aux interprètes qui sont ici, à ma gauche.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18978             We will now proceed with the next participant, which is the Ontario Ministry of Culture and the Ontario Media Development Corporation.  I would ask Minister Caroline Di Cocco to introduce her panel, after which you will have 15 minutes for your presentation.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18979             Minister.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

LISTNUM 1 \l 18980             HON. CAROLINE DI COCCO:  Thank you.  Thank you very much and good morning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18981             Ontario is pleased to contribute to the Commission's review of the regulatory framework for over‑the‑air television.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18982             Joining me today are:  to my right, Stephen Stohn, a member of the Board of the Ontario Media Development Corporation; Steven Davidson, to my left, Assistant Deputy Minister of Culture; and Kristine Murphy, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Media Development Corporation.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18983             As Ontario's Minister of Culture, I am here in support of culture and cultural industries.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18984             Ontario is home to the largest critical mass of Canada's cultural industries.  These industries are creating content in a multiplicity of forms.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18985             Ontario is also home to an array of content creators, producers as well as writers, musicians, performers and other artists who breathe life into our culture industries and who also deserve recognition.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18986             Over‑the‑air broadcasters provide major market access and much needed exposure for Ontario's and Canada's creative content.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18987             Entertainment and cultural industries are key economic drivers as well, contributing $9.9 billion to Ontario in 2005 and accounting for almost half of Canada's culture GDP.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18988             Ontario's over‑the‑air broadcast sector is a significant part of this contribution.  It is nearly $1.4 billion to Ontario's economy and supporting an estimated 5,500 jobs.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18989             However, as the Commission knows, sweeping new market forces are now under way.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18990             Cultural industries are facing constantly evolving changes in technology, intense international competition and new business models.  To address these challenges and to build globally competitive industries, Ontario has adopted a strategic policy framework that we are calling the Entertainment and Creative Cluster Strategy.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18991             The cluster strategy is designed to harness the full potential of our cultural industries by encouraging individual players to increase their competitive advantage through the pooling of knowledge and resources.  This strategy emphasizes partnerships, innovation, research and development.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18992             As a major segment of Ontario's Entertainment and Creative Cluster, over‑the‑air broadcasters clearly stand to benefit.  Ontario's cluster strategy aligns well with the goals of the Broadcasting Act.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18993             We are looking forward to working together with you as we navigate this environment of change.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18994             Ontario has some specific comments to offer the Commission, which my Assistant Deputy Minister Steven Davidson will address in his remarks.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18995             So I am going to turn it over to Steven.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18996             MR. DAVIDSON:  Thank you, Minister.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18997             Ontario's support of its entertainment and creative industries is longstanding and constantly evolving.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18998             As the Minister described we recently adopted a new cluster strategy, one that focuses on innovation, transition to new technologies and partnerships.  This strategy informs our response to the issues put forward at this hearing.

LISTNUM 1 \l 18999             We believe the cluster strategy aligns well with key objectives of the Broadcasting Act, particularly facilitating the provision of Canadian programs to Canadians, the development of Canadian expression and diverse perspectives and ensuring that the broadcasting system is readily adaptable to scientific and technological changes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19000             Recognizing that the current regulatory tools may be less effective in the future, our strategy emphasizes the use of incentives and aligns with a light approach to regulation.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19001             As video‑on‑demand, podcasting, IPTV, mobile television and other new technologies emerge, they bring with them new challenges and business models.  Greater flexibility in regulatory requirements and increased use of incentives would permit industry players to innovate and compete with those who operate outside regulation, both in Canada and around the world.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19002             I would like to highlight three main points from our submission.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19003             The first addresses the Benefits Policy.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19004             We believe that the Commission's current Benefits Policy works well.  Benefits funding encourages risk‑taking and provides capital to get promising new projects off the ground.  The current Benefits Policy has the capacity to support targeted research and development activities.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19005             We support the principle that the benefits should flow to the community in which the transaction occurs.  This is especially important where broadcasters such as CHUM make strong contributions to community and diversity, elements that contribute to the unique nature of our local and national voice.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19006             Our second point addresses how best to facilitate the transition to new digital technologies.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19007             The Commission has identified this as a priority not just for over‑the‑air broadcasters but for all types of content producers.  We agree that producers need to build a library of high definition television programming to remain competitive in international markets.  The question is how to speed up this transition so we are not left behind.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19008             It is also important to ensure that funds make their way through the system so that content creators are encouraged to produce HD content for national and global audiences and markets.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19009             To balance the different perspectives expressed at this hearing we have proposed several options for the Commission's consideration:

‑ Incentives for HD programming;

‑ Flexible advertising guidelines could accommodate innovation by enabling broadcasters to bring new ad revenues on stream;

‑ Carriage fees for value‑added HD services; and

‑ Funds from the auctioning of analog channels could be an effective method of generating additional funding for content producers.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19010             Finally, the development and dissemination of Canadian content is key to the success of our entertainment and creative industries.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19011             Because content creators are central to the success of cultural industries, we support an expenditure approach to programming requirements that allows broadcasters and producers to adapt to changing market conditions as quickly as possible and encourages a wide range of programming, including high‑quality drama, documentary, children's and cross‑platform convergent forms.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19012             These activities, we believe, will result in a more profitable, sustainable cultural sector.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19013             Ontario's cluster strategy encourages partnership and collaboration among a range of players.  We believe that our strategy will help manage the rapid transition to a new and diverse multi‑platform universe.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19014             The Commission's decisions will be critical to helping foster an environment in which creators of Canadian content can innovate, embrace new technologies and find new audiences in national and international markets.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19015             I will now invite Stephen Stohn to comment on behalf of the OMDC.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19016             MR. STOHN:  Thank you, Steven.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19017             The OMDC, Ontario Media Development Corporation, is an agency of the Ontario Ministry of Culture and we have been in existence for 20 years.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19018             Initially we were the Ontario Film Development Corporation ‑‑ you might know us as that ‑‑ but six years ago our mandate was expanded to capture books, magazines, music and interactive digital media along with, of course, film and television industries.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19019             So the OMDC, we feel, truly is a vehicle through which the Ontario government supports the growth of Ontario's entertainment and creative cluster.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19020             At OMDC we are proud of our ability to support Ontario's independent production companies that play such a pivotal role in the Canadian broadcasting system.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19021             We do this in a variety of ways, including six individual media tax credits, film commission activities ‑‑ that is location services ‑‑ as well as support for content creation, marketing and export activity.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19022             And the OMDC, together with the Ministry of Culture, delivers the Entertainment and Creative Cluster Partnerships Fund.  This Fund promotes growth in the cluster through things like capacity‑building, prototype development and domestic and international market support.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19023             Given our role in supporting the production industry in Ontario, OMDC would like to highlight the following points from our submission.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19024             First, we support the establishment of an expenditure requirement for Canadian programming.  Such an expenditure requirement should promote a strong and broad mix of genres on Canadian television.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19025             Second, the Commission's current expectation that at least 75 percent of all priority programming should be produced by independent production companies, we believe, should be maintained.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19026             And third, OMDC supports the current Benefits Policy.  To ensure ongoing commitment to local programming and news in any transfer of ownership, we believe the policy's emphasis on local benefits and diversity should be maintained.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19027             The diversity found throughout Ontario's urban centres as well as its rural communities is a defining feature of Ontario's entertainment and creative cluster and Ontario companies are demonstrating their eagerness and ability to embrace emerging technologies and to produce innovative content.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19028             As a result, we feel Ontario's independent production community working hand‑in‑hand with broadcasters are uniquely positioned to create and distribution information and programming that reflects Canadian perspectives to Canadians and Canadian diversity and creativity to audiences around the world.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19029             Thank you.  I now invite Minister Di Cocco to provide her final comments.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19030             HON. CAROLINE DI COCCO:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19031             Our presence here today, I just want to say, reinforces the importance that we attribute to this hearing and I would like to state how important it is that we work cooperatively in this new world of rapid and complex change in the entertainment and creative cluster industries.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19032             Ontario wants to strengthen and support its industries in meeting the challenges and opportunities in this changing environment and these challenges must be met in order to ensure that Canadian voices are heard and that our industries remain competitive globally.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19033             We believe that the Commission has a pivotal role to play here.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19034             Our submission has the intent to provide, we hope, some useful comment to inform your policy deliberations.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19035             We are happy to answer any questions that you may have.  I would ask that you maybe direct your questions to my Assistant Deputy Minister Steven Davidson.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19036             Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19037             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Minister.  I am asking Commissioner Cugini to ask the first questions.  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19038             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Good morning and welcome to all of you.  I do find your comments very useful and I would like to thank you very much for participating in these proceedings.  I understand it is your first time in front of a CRTC Commission, so I hope to make this as painless as possible.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19039             HON. CAROLINE DI COCCO:  Thank you for that.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

LISTNUM 1 \l 19040             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  I have questions that are specific to both of your submissions and I also have questions that I am sure will be common to both of your submissions.  So I just invite you, if either the OMDC or the Ministry has something to add to one of my questions, to just please turn your microphone on and we will be glad to receive your comments.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19041             The first question I have is with regard to the cluster strategy and I just want to put some logistics around it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19042             Is it a forum where you meet on a regular basis with the members of the cluster strategy or exactly how does this exchange of information work in a practical sense?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19043             HON. CAROLINE DI COCCO:  Well, I will just begin.  The whole aspect or the whole, if you want, approach is about collaborators from all these different areas, that they come together in innovative ‑‑ it is kind of a network of creation basically.  I mean it is the new paradigm that our creators are working in.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19044             And what we are trying to do with the cluster is maximizing opportunities, opportunities from sharing of information and new processes basically, and also sharing business models to create products, products that are innovative, that are visionary and that are about the future, about being competitive globally.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19045             I will give you an example.  In Toronto there is the Liberty Village.  This is kind of an example of the model that we hope comes from this approach.  The Liberty Village, there are producers who are specializing in animation, in children's TV, convergent products, ITV, web or mobile, mobile content forms, and they come together and they share expertise and skill.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19046             Then, out of that, there are also satellite hubs that have grown throughout Ontario around this type of centre.  There are game producers for instance in St. Catharines that have come out of this hub, London as well.  Then there is digital media and animation in Sudbury.  It has come out of this concept, if you want, of everybody coming together.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19047             It is a new approach.  This approach is forward‑looking.  It is unique and it recognizes that there is this rapidly changing transition to new digital formats and distribution technologies.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19048             I will pass it over to Stephen Stohn because he can give you some more detail, but it is basically the premise is about supporting this new era for the sector, and it is about keeping us globally competitive.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19049             It is new.  Again, it is a way that we are going to be measuring as well what works in this and what doesn't.  So in a year or two's time we will be able to be able to say this is how this investment or this approach has worked.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19050             Because it hasn't been done before in this way, it is kind of groundbreaking.  But we believe that the model and working with our stakeholders that we really have great hope that it will help in this development of this innovative new world that we live in.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19051             Stephen...?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19052             MR. DAVIDSON:  Before Stephen talks about some of the programmatic approaches that we are taking to implement the strategy, I would just build on what the Minister has said.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19053             One of the core competitive advantages that we have recognized in Ontario is our strength across a breadth of creative industries, from film, television, book publishing, music, interactive digital, so the notion of the cluster is really based on an appreciation of the common challenges being faced across these sectors in terms of the importance of transition into new technologies and the importance of being able to undertake innovative activities to help support that transition.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19054             So the cluster strategy is really about defining some specific approaches that can be taken both by government and collaboratively amongst the members of the sector.  "Members" I use very loosely, it is really just a whole group of companies, large, small, who do a variety of things but share an interest in a common marketplace.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19055             So in terms of the kinds of strategic thrust that we are pursuing underneath the cluster strategy, one is working with market forces to incent the kind of innovative activities that are so critical to enabling our creative cluster companies to embrace new technologies.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19056             Encouraging partnerships is a key way of doing that.  Stephen will talk in a second about a Partnership Fund that we have just launched, but recognizing the value of small companies in particular, small and medium, coming together and pooling their knowledge and their resources to address issues of common interest and together come up with new approaches that might not otherwise be possible if they were working on their own.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19057             Finally, improving our access to global markets, thinking particularly in terms of HD and that kind of thing.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19058             So those are some of the components of the strategy.  It is really a policy framework that we have developed, but Stephen can talk a little bit more about some of the programmatic approaches we are taking.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19059             MR. STOHN:  Yes.  I will just try and be very brief because the OMDC, one element is delivering certain programs, and that is what we do.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19060             In essence, almost all the programs of the OMDC contribute to the cluster strategy, either indirectly because they are aimed at helping to increase the core strength of individual partners, and also there are programs that are more directly related.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19061             I have already talked about the entertainment and creative cluster Partnership Fund which we administer with the Ministry of Culture, and just to quickly restate that that supports specifically strategic partnerships amongst players in the cluster, so two or three or more partners coming together from different backgrounds for projects that include capacity‑building and prototype development and skills development and export marketing.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19062             The Interactive Digital Media Fund is very important to us.  That assists interactive digital media producers to move their proprietary projects into production.  Of course, in so many of the innovations today interactive play is a part.  It's not just the interactive digital media, it is television, film, books, magazines.  They are all moving into that interactive universe.  So that is a core program.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19063             Finally, as Steven has mentioned, the Export Fund is very important.  It provides eligible companies with funding to pursue export development activities that correspond to a strategic company growth initiative.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19064             Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19065             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Thank you.  I certainly think ‑‑ I'm sorry.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19066             MS MURPHY:  I'm sorry, Commissioner Cugini.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19067             MS MURPHY:  I was just going to add to what Steven Davidson was saying, and Stephen Stohn, as they mentioned all of the programs of the Agency relate to the culture, but I would also like to state that we do have content and marketing programs for the book publishing sector, for the magazine sector, and for the music sector, and we also have a Feature Film Fund as well.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19068             As Steven mentioned, they all in their way contribute to the growth of that cluster.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19069             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Thank you for that additional information.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19070             I think you guys have placed quite a bit on your plate and you are to be commended.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19071             Your written submission talked about a $7.5 million investment in the cluster strategy announced by the government.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19072             Is this to provide funding for initiatives that stem from the cluster strategy or as a result of this cluster strategy having been implemented?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19073             MS MURPHY:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19074             The $7.5 million that was announced in the budget is specific to the cluster Partnerships Fund and that is money that will spent over the next few years, so this year the government is going to invest $2 million into those initiatives.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19075             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Have you been able to target what specifically those initiatives will be?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19076             MS MURPHY:  At this point the applications are in and they will be adjudicated by a jury.  The applications have come in across those four theme areas that were mentioned in terms of capacity‑building, prototype innovation, marketing, that sort of thing.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19077             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Okay.  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19078             MS MURPHY:  So we will get back to you on the results of that.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

LISTNUM 1 \l 19079             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  The Deputy Minister spoke also about the transition to new technology.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19080             Would this cluster strategy, for example, fund new, innovative HD programming, or would it fund transmitter build‑up to allow for digital HD transmission?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19081             In particular here I am thinking about TVOntario.  We heard that they have a number of analog transmitters.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19082             Would the upgrade of their transmitters be eligible for funding from the cluster strategy?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19083             MR. DAVIDSON:  No.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

LISTNUM 1 \l 19084             MR. DAVIDSON:  The Partnership Fund is really intended to do two things, to encourage partnerships amongst content‑creating industries and, second, to fund innovative activities.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19085             So investments in infrastructure is outside the scope of the fund.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19086             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19087             One thing you said about the Benefits Policy in your written submission, and you repeated it today in your oral, is that the emphasis should be on the communities in question and that it is necessary and appropriate.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19088             I'm wondering if you could elaborate for me.  For example, if broadcasters are based in Ontario they should be encouraged to allocate some monies to local programming for example, a majority of the monies to local programming?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19089             In other words, what do you mean exactly when you say "communities in question"?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19090             MR. DAVIDSON:  We support the current Benefits Policy which does, my understanding is, attach priority to allocation of funds to the community affected.  So our understanding of that is that the transaction, if it were to occur in Ontario, then a significant portion of the benefits should be invested into that community, Ontario.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19091             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Including local programming or local news?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19092             MR. DAVIDSON:  Yes.  We would encourage a broad definition of what would be eligible, so across genres and acknowledging the importance of drama, documentary, children's, cross‑platform programming, the important role of the local broadcasters versus the larger ones.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19093             So we would favour a broad ecumenical approach.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19094             COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19095             Subscriber fees.  As you know, it is one of the major subjects of these proceedings.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19096             In your written submission you thought it should be restricted.  Today, in your oral presentation, you said perhaps for the provision of HD programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19097             Do you think it should be exclusively given to broadcasters who transmit HD programming?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19098             MR. DAVIDSON:  Our interest in the Commission's consideration of a fee for carriage is to support and expedite the transition of our content‑creating industries to these new platforms, HD specifically.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19099             So we have proposed a couple of tools that would be available for the Commission's consideration to move that process along more quickly.  So our interest in a fee for carriage is within that context, so we have, in our submission, suggested it as one way where a fee could be applied for HD services and the cost borne only by those receiving those services as one source of revenue, amongst others, that could help fund that process.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19100             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  There are varying points of view as to which broadcasters should be eligible for a fee for carriage.  Some think it should only be over‑the‑air broadcasters privately held; others think that it should exclude religious and ethnic broadcasters; others believe the publicly‑funded broadcasters should be there and others think that they shouldn't.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19101             What is your opinion?  In particular, TVOntario of course.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19102             MR. DAVIDSON:  Well, our view is that all broadcasters, private, public, educational play an important role in the entertainment and creative cluster that, as have said, we define quite broadly as all those engaged in the creative content industries in Ontario.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19103             So we would not discriminate against public or educational broadcasters, including TVO, as eligible candidates for funding for the transition to HD.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19104             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  You would include CBC in that?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19105             MR. DAVIDSON:  Yes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19106             COMMISSIONER CUGINI:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19107             During these proceedings the distributors, the cable companies, commissioned a report wherein they wanted to get from average Canadians their points of view on a fee for carriage and, in summary, they say that there is very strong opposition from Canadians to a fee for carriage.  And in almost all of the indicators the strongest opposition came from Ontario no matter what the reason was for applying a fee for carriage.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19108             And for HD programming they say:

"... two‑thirds of subscribers, 67 percent, continue to impose the imposition of a fee if some of the fee is intended to cover the cost of providing channels in a high definition format.  Opposition is again notably strong, one in two, so 49 percent of subscribers strongly oppose even with this rationale.  The most intense opposition came from Ontario at 70 percent."  (As read)

LISTNUM 1 \l 19109             Would you care to comment on these findings?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19110             MR. DAVIDSON:  Again, I would say that we have, in our submission, suggested a number of tools that could be available for the Commission and the fee for carriage for HD services is only one, incentives for HD programming is another.  Perhaps introduction of greater flexibility in advertising regulation could be another and then even the, you know, revenues drawn from auctioning off of analog channels through the transition to digital process could be another.   So certainly those findings are of interest.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19111             COMMISSIONER CUGINI: So they are one of a number of options ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 19112             MR. DAVIDSON: That is right.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19113             COMMISSIONER CUGINI: ‑‑ that would be satisfactory?  Okay.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19114             Now, both the OMDC's submission and the Ministry's submissions supported maintaining the 75 per cent requirement of priority programming be produced by independent producers.  Again, through these proceedings one of the things that the broadcasters have said about that 75 per cent requirement is that this is a legacy requirement imposed at a time when major broadcasters owned production companies and it was a way of ensuring that the independent production community would continue to thrive and that broadcasters wouldn't have all of their priority programming produced or a majority of their priority programming produced by these productions companies that they owned.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19115             That is no longer the case and therefore broadcasters feel that this 75 per cent requirement is therefore no longer necessary, that it shouldn't matter who produces the shows, as long as the shows are shows that Canadians want to watch.  They also say that there are certain genres of programming, probably the higher budget programs, will never be produced in‑house and that they will always rely on independent producers.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19116             So I don't know if you had an opportunity to hear this point of view from the broadcasters, but this is it in a nutshell, if I did it any justice, and I would just like to ask you to comment.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19117             MR. STOHN: Sure.  Well, there is no question that the aim in the end is high quality programming that engages Canadian audiences.  As you pointed out, there are genres of programming that it is absolutely appropriate that broadcasters produce in‑house, it is by far the most efficient way of going.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19118             There are areas of programming and it is particularly the high‑cost areas of programming, it is drama, children's and youth, high‑end documentaries that I think we all want to encourage and incent and, partly, that is what this hearing is all about.  Those areas of programming, typically because the costs are high, it would be very difficult except in extraordinary circumstances for the broadcaster to cover, you know, more than a portion of the production costs.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19119             So, you know, consistent with the cluster strategy which says let us go with the core strengths of the individual partners.  The producers, one of their core strengths is in finding those sources of financing through international distribution arrangements perhaps and working with the funding agencies like Canadian Television Fund and others to help fund those projects.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19120             You know, if we couple a requirement for independent production along with a meaningful expenditure requirement, the two have a very interesting synergy and in that case it may be that the requirement almost becomes moot.  Because if there is a meaningful expenditure requirement there is only so many broadcast hours in a day, I think we are going to see more of that high‑cost programming and therefore we are going to see a lot of that programming automatically be produced by independent production companies and not just at the 75 per cent level, probably at much higher levels.  So in that sense, the market itself would drive us to even higher levels.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19121             So if there is a meaningful expenditure requirement it may be that as a matter of course the 75 per cent isn't necessary in some sense because in fact the market drives it up.  But we still think that the current policy ‑‑ it is not just a legacy policy ‑‑ it really reflects the value that the independent production community brings.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19122             COMMISSIONER CUGINI: You know I am going to ask you what, in your opinion, is a meaningful spending requirement.

‑‑‑ Laughter / Rires

LISTNUM 1 \l 19123             MR. STOHN: Well, you know, our approach ‑‑ and I will answer the question ‑‑ but our approach has been to come with some frameworks for suggestion and to open a dialogue and to, you know, introduce ourselves to you and hopefully to carryon, not to come in with the specific figures.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19124             Clearly, we would think that an expenditure requirement that was lower than the current levels that are being spent would probably not be meaningful.  Something that is higher than the current levels that are being spent would be meaningful.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19125             COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Just one more detail question about that.  Do you think it should apply to Canadian programming or do you think a spending requirement should be required of particular genres of Canadian programming?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19126             MR. STOHN: We know that some submissions have been made that would target, for example, drama.  We have take a very broad approach.  If the expenditure requirement is significant and meaningful, we believe that as a matter of course that the high‑cost programming, which will include the drama and the children's and youth and the high‑end documentaries, will as a matter of course end up being a focus in the priority programming.  But really, we have talked generally about Canadian programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19127             COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Well, thank you very much, Minister Di Cocco, Deputy Minister.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19128             Did you want to add something before..?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19129             MR. DAVIDSON: If you don't mind, Commissioner.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19130             COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Please.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19131             MR. DAVIDSON: If we could just go back to the fee for carriage question.  There is one other point I would like to make just because I think it illustrates what we mean when I talked earlier about the entertainment and creative cluster strategy and working with market forces.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19132             So in terms of our thinking in arriving that as one of the options that we would propose, our thinking on that is based on the acknowledgement that consumers have identified a value for high definition content or the market has identified a value for that, but the revenues generated by that higher value aren't flowing through to the creators of that higher value content.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19133             So our thinking in proposing this as one of the options is simply to acknowledge that fact and to look at a way that the market's recognition of that value and associated revenues can then move through to support the quicker transition of the content producers to those higher value formats.  So that is just by way of illustrating our thinking behind this.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19134             COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you.  I think you did make that point in your written submission.  Certainly, the OMDC talked about producers who had responded to the survey saying that they have to produce in high definition if they have any hope of selling their programming internationally.  So I thank you very much for being here this morning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19135             Those are all my questions, Mr. Chairman.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19136             THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Cugini.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19137             Mr. Stohn, just for me to better understand the role of OMDC, is it similar to SODEC somehow?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19138             MS MURPHY: Thank you, I will answer.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19139             The OMDC is an agency of the Government of Ontario, specifically the Ministry of Culture, so in that regard I believe we are similar to SODEC because they are an agency of the Government of Quebec.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19140             We have a similar mandate, in that our breadth is across a number of industries as we talked about.  I can't comment specifically on SODEC, so I can't ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 19141             THE CHAIRPERSON: Their mandate also covers books ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 19142             MS MURPHY: That is right.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19143             THE CHAIRPERSON: ‑‑ music and film as well.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19144             MS MURPHY: Right, so we are similar.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19145             THE CHAIRPERSON: So you are, both organizations have similar mandate.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19146             MS MURPHY: That is correct.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19147             THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you working in cooperation sometimes?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19148             MS MURPHY: We actually do cooperate with a number of our fellow funding agencies across the country and SODEC is one of those, yes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19149             THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19150             Minister, Thank you.  Gentlemen, madam, thank you very much.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19151             Madame Secrétaire.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19152             LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci, Monsieur le Président.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19153             I would now call on the next participant, the Canadian Television Fund, if they would come forward for their presentation.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19154             Mr. Douglas Barrett is appearing for the CTF.  Mr. Barrett, once you've introduced your panel, you will have ten minutes for your presentation.  Please go ahead.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

LISTNUM 1 \l 19155             MR. BARRETT:  Monsieur Arpin, Commissioners.  My name is Douglas Barrett et avant de commencer notre présentation, je veux introduire mes collègues de C.T.F.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19156             À ma droite, j'ai Valerie Creighton, présidente de F.C.T.  À sa droite, madame Michèle Fortin, membre du conseil d'administration de F.C.T. et aussi membre du Comité de finances.  Elle est aussi la présidente de Téléquébec.  À sa droite, j'ai monsieur Stéphane Cardin, le vice‑président Politique stratégique et relations avec l'industrie de F.C.T.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19157             I thank the Commission for presenting the Canadian Television Fund with the opportunity to participate in this important public policy hearing.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19158             The Commission does outline specific goals regarding the continued success of high quality Canadian programming in its P.M.  In 1994, the Commission created a precursor to the C.T.F., the Cable Production Fund specifically to support under‑represented genres in prime time on Canadian television screens.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19159             Cet appui au F.C.T. s'est avéré d'une importance capitale et a favorisé son avancement et son succès ainsi que ceux de la production et de la diffusion d'émissions de télévision canadiennes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19160             Notre mandat de portée pan‑canadien est de soutenir et de nourrir une programmation de grande qualité et distinctement canadienne au profit de l'auditoire télévisuel canadien, tout en assurant à la télévision un rôle d'influence en tant que moyen d'expression culturelle.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19161             In Canada today, the C.T.F. is one of the only forms that brings together all members of the television industry with the sole purpose of bringing great distinctively Canadian television to Canadians.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19162             The C.T.F. is a non‑profit profitable corporation that unites public, private and educational broadcasters in both official languages as well as producers, government and other stakeholders to deliberate the issues affecting Canadian programming and production.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19163             The industry leaders and experts who make up the C.T.F.'s Board of Directors ensure that the fund operates efficiently and transparently.  Policies and decisions are made at the board by a double majority consisting of stakeholder representatives on the one hand and independent directors on the other, to ensure that all C.T.F. programs are equitable, professionally administered with rules and guidelines.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19164             This significant rules based funding environment has professionalised and improved the development and inventory of high quality Canadian dramatic productions in both English and French, such as "DaVinci's Inquest" and *Annie et ses hommes+.  It has also been an important leaver to assist broadcasters to maintain their condition of licence.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19165             MS. CREIGHTON:  The Canadian Television Fund is marking its tenth anniversary as a public private partnership between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Broadcasting Cable Satellite and direct‑to‑home industries.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19166             The partnership has exercised the representation on the board and the policy direction that's provided through the Contribution Agreement between the C.T.F. and the Department of Canadian Heritage.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19167             This partnership has been an outstanding success, having supported more than 23,000 hours of original high quality Canadian programming delivered in prime time to hundreds of millions of viewers.  After tax credits, the Canadian Television Fund is the largest funder of television production in Canada supporting those programs that cannot always find sufficient financing in the marketplace.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19168             In 2005‑2006, the C.T.F. invested more than $264 million in Canadian production, creating 2,300 hours of quality new programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19169             The C.T.F. supports the production of broadcasted programming that speaks to Canadians about our culture, our issues, our stories.  All C.T.F. funded projects, therefore, must meet four essential requirements to verify their authenticity as Canadian content.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19170             To meet these essential requirements a project must receive ten out of ten Canadian audiovisual certification points, speak and reflect Canadian themes and subject matter, be shot and set primarily in Canada, and Canadians must own and significantly develop the underlying rights.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19171             The Canadian Television Fund supports the under‑represented genres of drama, documentary, children and youth and variety in performing arts on Canadian television in both official languages in prime time.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19172             C.T.F. funding is delivered through an objective ruled based broadcaster performance envelope stream and special initiatives programs.  Broadcaster envelopes are financial allocations accorded to broadcasters by the C.T.F. and are calculated on the four performance factors of historic access, above average licences, regional production licences and a growing audience success component.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19173             Production companies apply at the C.T.F. and receive financial support for projects.  These projects are required to have a financial commitment from the broadcaster allocated from their envelope in order to be eligible for C.T.F. financing.

In 2005‑06, 65 broadcasters were allocated envelopes which supported 435 new productions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19174             Mme FORTIN:  Le Fonds canadien de télévision finance également les initiatives spéciales pour le développement, le doublage et le sous‑titrage des productions de langue française à l'extérieur du Québec et les productions en langues autochtones.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19175             L'aide financière de ces deux derniers programmes est accordée sur une base sélective afin d'encourager la production d'émissions en milieux linguistiques minoritaires et en région et d'assurer le succès et l'accès à ces productions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19176             Depuis 1996, le Fonds canadien de télévision a accordé son appui à plus de 133 projets en langues autochtones, ce qui représente plus de 445 heures d'émissions originales.  Avant la création du Fonds canadien de télévision, ce type d'émission n'existait pratiquement pas.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19177             Investir dans des émissions de télévisions peut être risqué, spécialement pour les télédiffuseurs puisque rien ne peut garantir le rendement du capital investi.  Le Fonds canadien de télévision est important catalyseur qui favorise le développement de projets.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19178             En 2005‑2006, le Fonds canadien de télévision a versé un montant total de $27 millions de dollars pour assurer le développement de productions de langues française, anglaise et autochtones.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19179             De plus, en 2004‑2005 seulement, le Fonds canadien de télévision a distribué plus de $251 millions de dollars pour appuyer des productions totalisant $841 millions de dollars qui ont généré 22,400 emplois à temps plein.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19180             Ces productions télévisuelles sont réalisées dans toute les régions du Canada, assurant le développement de compétences sur les plans créatifs et techniques d'un bout à l'autre du pays.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19181             MR. CARDIN:  Canadian programming is growing in audience appeal.  This is extremely important to the C.T.F. as it is our objective to fund high quality Canadian programming watched by Canadians.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19182             In 2003‑04, the C.T.F. began tracking television audiences of C.T.F. funded programs, specifically during peak viewing hours or prime time.  C.T.F. financed productions make up a significant percentage of viewing to Canadian programming and C.T.F. genres in both the English and French markets.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19183             In 2005‑06 more than 41 per cent of viewing to Canadian drama series in English during prime time was the C.T.F. financed productions.  In French markets, more than 68 per cent of viewing to Canadian drama was the C.T.F. financed productions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19184             The success of quality program has also been acknowledged by Canadian broadcasting industry.  C.T.F. funded productions have consistently received more awards than non‑C.T.F. productions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19185             In 2005, almost half, that is 38 out of 75 Gemini Awards in eligible categories were given to C.T.F. funded productions, including "The 11th Hour", "Beethoven Air" and "This is Wonderland".

LISTNUM 1 \l 19186             Les productions de langue française financées par le F.C.T. ont même rapporté davantage de prix.  En 2005, près des deux‑tiers des Prix Gémeaux attribuables aux catégories soutenues par le F.C.T., soit 48 sur 74, ont été attribués à des productions ayant bénéficié du soutien financier du F.C.T. dont *Annie et ses hommes+, *Rumeurs+ et *Ramdam+.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19187             Au Canada, le Fonds canadien de télévision est le principal outil permettant de diffuser les histoires canadiennes partout dans le monde et de définir la place du Canada sur la scène internationale.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19188             Certaines émissions ont fait le tour du monde.  Selon le New York Time, l'émission distinctement canadienne *Degrassi, the next generation+ serait l'émission pour les jeunes la plus populaire aux États‑Unis et des émissions de langue française à succès comme la comédie de situation *Un gars, une fille+ et la série documentaire *Les Artisans du rebut global+ ont été vendues sous différents formats dans plusieurs des principaux marchés de télévision à l'échelle internationale.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19189             MR. BARRETT:  Commissioners, I am now in my third year as Chair of the fund and it has been a challenging complex and interesting experience to say the least.  I tell you this because I continue to be struck by the incredible importance of the fund in the context of the overall Canadian Broadcasting System.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19190             Simply put, this is a great success story and a genuinely and uniquely Canadian one at that.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19191             The C.T.F. puts thousands of hours of high quality visibly and unabashedly Canadian programming into the prime time schedules of some 65 Canadian broadcasters.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19192             Il s'agit d'une programmation que le diffuseur élabore, commande, diffuse et promeut avec fierté.  C'est une programmation que le public espère et que des millions et des millions de canadiennes et canadiens regardent.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19193             And its programming that's produced, written, directed and performed by thousands and thousands of creative professionals in every province and corner of Canada in English, in French and in numerous aboriginal languages.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19194             And the industry expertise present on the board along with the extensive stakeholder consultations we do every  year, ensure that the C.T.F. is in a position to monitor the production environment constantly and to assess the challenges the industry is facing not only now, but in the future.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19195             I would remind you that the original creator of the funds forbearer was the Commission itself.  With your initial push in 1994 and design work by the way, and the ongoing support of Canada's distribution undertakings on the Government of Canada, this project has delivered everything that has been expected of it.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19196             And needless to say in order to continue this work, to continue to provide the supply side leaver to the demand side regulatory framework of the Commission, the Canadian Television Fund needs your continued support and encouragement.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19197             We appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning and we are obviously available for any questions you might have.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19198             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr. Barrett.  I am asking Vice‑Chair French to ask the first questions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19199             COMMISSIONER FRENCH:  Thank you for being here, Mr. Barrett and colleagues.  Do you have specific policy recommendations you would like to comment to our attention today?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19200             MR. BARRETT:  No.  We see ourselves as an instrument of the process.  The job to make the policy determinations that affect the fund's future belongs to the Government of Canada through whom we operate under a Contribution Agreement and yourselves, using your regulatory framework.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19201             Our job is to operate the fund under the policy guidelines that we are provided and to make sure that the Rules and Regulations are transparent and fair and equitable and that we deliver the services to our customer and client base in a user friendly fashion at modest costs.  So, we are an operation agency not a policy‑maker.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19202             COMMISSIONER FRENCH:  You've indicated in your brief today that audiences for Canadian programming are growing.  And yet, probably the most important issue before the Commission in this proceeding is the result of declining audiences for Canadian conventional broadcasters, those same broadcasters who tell us, and I have no reason to think they're wrong, as they are primary vehicle for Canadian content.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19203             How would you reconcile your assertion that audiences for Canadian programming are growing with the consistent story that we've heard from all the general broadcasters that their audiences are diminishing?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19204             MR. BARRETT:  Well, I guess I'll make a couple of opening comments and ask Valerie and perhaps Stéphane to add a comment.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19205             The first thing, I think, is that we focus on the audience performance of individual shows that we support and we look at those shows in a competitive environment against their peers on ‑‑ broadcast on both conventional and specialty and across a variety of genres and those genres naturally draw different levels of audience in different circumstances.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19206             One of the things I've had an association with the fund for a very long time and the tradition in Canada has been to use what's known as a selective system for selecting programs for funding.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19207             So that essentially, in that environment programs were assessed, there were competing programs assessed prior to production without any audience data before them in terms of how those programs would do.  So, it was very hard to bring an audience measurement factor to determining what programs would be funded.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19208             When we switched to the envelope system two years ago, we are now focusing on measuring the performance of broadcasters as a whole in a competitive environment against their peers and we reward their success in promoting and scheduling and achieving audience success with their programs.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19209             What we found when we moved into the envelopment environment was that the audience measurement tools that were available to track both Canadian programs and also specifically C.T.F. funded programs were quite primitive and so, we have been on a catch‑up game to work with the various rating agencies to introduce measure that accurately track the success of our programs.  We are now two years into the program.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19210             So, we are beginning, only beginning with the switch in a kind of phases of how the decisions, the funding decisions are made.  We are only two years into building the kind of audience measuring base of what to allow us to actually specifically answer your program.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19211             And the only other comment I would say before I pass of to Valerie is that I think there is a difference between raw audience to an individual program and success or failure in that context and share of market vis‑à‑vis specialty and conventional and I think we have heard a lot of information over a period of time about the relative shift in an audience share between the conventionals and the specialties as a group.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19212             MS. CREIGHTON:  I would just add that in terms of the system, audience success is one of the mandates we are directly compelled to respond to in terms of the Contribution Agreement and this was an initiative of the Federal Government towards us, which we appreciated.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19213             And in the first year of the envelopes, we used the measurement for audience at 30 per cent.  As we go into the 07‑08 year, that factor will be increased to 40 per cent, so it's clearly the focus of what the fund is all about in terms of ensuring those audiences are growing and developing and building through our programs.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19214             MR. BARRETT:  Stéphane, tu veux ajouter quelque chose?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19215             COMMISSIONER FRENCH:  So, while the C.T.F. is paying attention to the audiences for the programs that it sponsors, it doesn't have any evidence to offer us that Canadian programming is growing in audience appeal?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19216             MR. BARRETT:  We can only track the aggregate audiences on a year‑over‑year basis to the pool of programs we support and as I say, we're two years into that, to the ability to do that exercise.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19217             COMMISSIONER FRENCH:  Yes.  I guess I can only note that if indeed it were true across the board as you assert that Canadian program we were growing in audience appeal we would be unlikely to be here with the kinds of problems that the conventional television broadcasters are bringing us, unless I'm missing something in the equation.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19218             Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19219             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Barrett, I don't know if you feel comfortable to comment, but some of the interveners that we've heard over the last couple of days have suggested to us that the Commission contemplate increasing the genre categories, particularly including category 11 as eligible category for access to the qualifier priority programming.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19220             If the Commission was to go into that direction, will that impact on C.T.F.?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19221             MR. BARRETT:  We have ‑‑ the genres of programming that we fund is established in the contract that we have with the Department of Canadian Heritage.  So, we are given a pool of money that applies to the specific genres.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19222             So, I think what would happen is if the Commission changed its approach to priority programming, there would be a reconsideration presumably at that level as to what could be funded or not.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19223             But unless I'm missing something, I don't think that all genres which the Commission currently treats as priority programming are in fact eligible for us.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19224             So, I think there are certain priority programming genres that you have that we do not support and I'm going to get ‑‑ I don't want to get caught out on details.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19225             But the other thing that I would say is ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 19226             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Surely we could have our staff to investigate that.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19227             MR. BARRETT:  Yes.  But I think we look to the Contribution Agreement to set the broad framework for us and while the Contribution Agreement doesn't directly apply to the revenues received from the Broadcasting Distribution Industries, as a practical matter, we administer the monies as a pool and we make no distinction in terms of the rules and regulations that apply to the BDU revenues, as opposed to the Department of Canadian Heritage revenues.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19228             The other point I was going to make to you and it's a point that may come up in other questions, is this:

LISTNUM 1 \l 19229             We have had a period of growing revenues in the late nineties with the introduction of various new table services, but the contribution of the Department of Canadian Heritage has remained stable for ten years and as a result, the overall pool of funds available to the Canadian Television Fund really doesn't change very much from year to year.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19230             And in that context, and in the same time period, that same ten year time period, something in the order of 40 odd new television channels that are technically eligible to receive, to have an envelope from the C.T.F. have come on stream.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19231             So, we feel we find ourselves under growing pressure to manage these different appetites in the context of our current rules and one of the things that comes up whenever we're asked to consider a new opportunity or a shift in eligibility or an addition of another program category or whatever, is we tell our stakeholder community because we work very very closely with them, that all of these things require, have a cost, because it is an income shift or a resort shift debate that we have, so, if we take on something new, it has to be paid for out of the resources we are currently applying in some other area.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19232             And so, currently, for instance, we have genre allocations among the various genres, we  often hear a view, for instance, that a particular genre is under greater distress than another and we should increase our resources applicable to that genre.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19233             Well, that's a fine debate to have until you ask which other genres will we take it from in order to satisfy that appetite.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19234             So, we look at any new challenge as a ‑‑ in a somewhat stressed environment because we won't have and there is no immediate prospect for significantly resources to be able to manage those challenges.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19235             LE PRÉSIDENT:  Comment expliquez‑vous que les deux principaux diffuseurs généralistes francophones se soient retirés de la diffusion de séries lourdes et qu'en est l'impact pour le Fonds canadien?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19236             Est‑ce que ça libère des crédits qui peuvent être utilisés de manière différente ou si ces crédits‑là vont servir?  Enfin, parce que c'était des sommes importantes quand même qui étaient allouées aux séries lourdes, probablement davantage... c'est toujours en fonction des coûts de production?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19237             M. BARRETT:  Tu veux répondre à ça?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19238             Mme FORTIN:  Je pense que, globalement, le genre c'est dramatique et ce qu'ils ont choisi de faire, c'est de faire moins de séries lourdes et davantage de séries mi‑lourdes avec le même argent.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19239             Dans le cas de Radio‑Canada, l'enveloppe est fermée, ça ne change rien.  Au lieu de faire une série 800 000,00 $, ils en font deux à 400 000,00 $.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19240             Je veux dire, par rapport au Fonds, comme c'est leur choix, je veux dire c'est une stratégie des diffuseurs, qui ne change rien par rapport à la réallocation par genre.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19241             LE PRÉSIDENT:  Bien, écoutez, ce sont l'ensemble de nos questions.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19242             Mr. Barrette, madame Fortin, Mrs Creighton et monsieur Cardin, je ne vous demanderai pas si la SODEC c'est la même chose que l'OMDC.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19243             Mme FORTIN:  Est‑ce que je peux...

LISTNUM 1 \l 19244             LE PRÉSIDENT:  Oui, madame.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19245             Mme FORTIN:  J'aimerais conclure sur quelque chose.  Je veux dire, quelles que soient les orientations de l'avenir de la télévision, il y a des choses que nous savons, c'est que la compétition va être de plus en plus grande, je veux dire par rapport à l'international, les plate‑formes, les chaînes, et caetera.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19246             Mais, je veux dire, la diversité culturelle pour laquelle nos gouvernements se battent sur le plan international et qu'ils supportent par des fonds publics, je veux dire, va devenir l'élément essentiel si on veut que les Canadiens aient des histoires canadiennes à se mettre sous la dent et ce qu'on voudrait témoigner ici, c'est quels que soient les arrangements, il faut tenir compte que le contenu canadien, surtout dans les genres que nous finançons, je veux dire, n'est pas nécessairement quelque chose qui peut être financé par le marché uniquement.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19247             Il est important que le contenu canadien soit support, je veux dire, dans un contexte de diversité culturelle et de compétition internationale.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19248             LE PRÉSIDENT:  Évidemment, j'apprécie votre témoignage, madame Fortin.  Évidemment, je pose... on pose nos questions en fonction de votre présence comme représentants du Fonds canadien de la télévision et non pour des rôles principaux que vous jouez...

LISTNUM 1 \l 19249             Mme FORTIN:  Bien sûr.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19250             LE PRÉSIDENT:  ... dans d'autres milieux.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19251             Il y a aussi des questions qui sont... dont la réponse est d'une certaine évidence.  Il y a des intervenants qui nous ont suggéré de ne pas autoriser de redevances, mais d'accroître les contributions des distributeurs au Fonds canadien de la télévision.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19252             Je ne vous pose pas la question parce que tout le monde...

LISTNUM 1 \l 19253             Mme FORTIN:  Je n'ai pas d'opinion là‑dessus.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19254             LE PRÉSIDENT:  Un, vous n'avez pas d'opinion... vous n'avez pas d'opinion mais si vous en aviez une, de toute façon...

LISTNUM 1 \l 19255             Mme FORTIN:  Vous avez raison; je n'en aurai pas.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19256             LE PRÉSIDENT:  Et on n'a pas besoin de poser la question pour connaître la réponse.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19257             Mme FORTIN:  Non, non, mais je pense que ça veut juste illustrer l'importance du contenu...

LISTNUM 1 \l 19258             LE PRÉSIDENT:  Oui.  Non, non, mais...

LISTNUM 1 \l 19259             Mme FORTIN:.. dans tout cette... dans tout ce débat‑là.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19260             LE PRÉSIDENT:  ... on apprécie votre témoignage.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19261             M. BARRETT:  Nous sommes non‑partisans ici ce matin.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19262             LE PRÉSIDENT:  C'est ça.  Merci beaucoup.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19263             M. BARRETT:  Merci beaucoup.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19264             LE PRÉSIDENT:  Nous prendrons dix minutes d'interruption, donc de retour à 0950.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 0938 / Upon recessing at 0938

‑‑‑ Reprise à 0955 / Upon resuming at 0955

LISTNUM 1 \l 19265             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Order, please.  À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19266             Madame la Secrétaire.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19267             LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci, Monsieur le Président.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19268             I would now call on the next group, Media Access Canada to come forward for their presentation.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19269             Ms Beverly Milligan will be speaking on behalf of Media Access Canada.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19270             Ms Milligan, you have ten minutes for your presentation, whenever you are ready.  Thank you.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

LISTNUM 1 \l 19271             MS MILLIGAN:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19272             Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19273             My name is Beverly Milligan, and I have a certain expertise in broadcast technology, the Canadian disability community, policy and standards and a hands‑on historical understanding of the evolution of accessible media in Canada in the work that I did in closed captioning for Canadian broadcasting.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19274             I'm here today to represent a body of thinking, not of a specific membership base.  This body of thinking, primarily representative of the senior citizen community and the disability community and substantiated in market research done over the last two quarters of fiscal 2006, are the footings of what we know today as Media Access Canada, a non‑membership based research and information sharing organization that specializes in the disability and seniors demographics as they relate to media and its accessibility.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19275             In the CRTC's review of certain aspects of the regulatory framework for the over‑the‑air television, the Commission, in paragraph 57, asked for ideas around the exploration of ways to improve the accessibility of television programming for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19276             In a written response we addressed the specific questions posed by the Commission and today would like to further detail the Commission's request for concrete and specific proposals to address the ongoing concerns about captioning quality.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19277             At this point it is important to note that accessible media is more than just captioning, closed captioning, but that captioning has traditionally set precedent for other media.  It is critical therefore to all accessible media that we understand what is happening right now with captioning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19278             In 1998 Canada Captioning, then a charitable organization, donated the Association of Broadcasters its captioning quality standards that were later published on the CAB website.  The CAB Closed Captioning Manual ‑‑ and I quote:

"...was approved in principle by both the CAB's television and specialty and pay boards at their last meeting in October 2002 and is designed to establish English language closed captioning standards acceptable to all stakeholders, the captioning consumers, the captioning creators and private broadcasters."

LISTNUM 1 \l 19279             The CAB and its membership approved it but today, while we do not have the empirical evidence of the existence of poor quality captioning, we have received enough negative feedback to write paragraph 57 in the CRTC review of the regulatory framework for over‑the‑air television.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19280             If the CAB and its members cannot self‑regulate, then what needs to happen?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19281             The opportunity to remedy the spirit of Public Notice 1995‑48, where the Commission mandated as a condition of licence 90 percent caption broadcast day, does not happen often.  Today I will provide tangible and achievable activities that would improve the quality of captioning and set the baseline precedent for future accessible technologies.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19282             First, require all revenue gained from the social marketing advertisement "closed captioning brought to you by" be directed to accessible media spending and not become part of general revenues.  Currently this airtime is considered non‑advertising.  Common sense tells us that if there is accountable revenue, then there is accountability.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19283             Second, existing CAB conditioning caption guidelines become an industry standard for the purposes of research.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19284             Third, regular and ongoing monitoring of accessible media‑based on the industry standard.  This monitoring would occur on a rotational basis across all CRTC‑licensed media.  We propose that this data become compiled and circulated to all stakeholders, including the CRTC, government, service, business and community organizations so that they might better understand the state of accessible media content delivery services in an industry sector.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19285             A sample of this type of monitoring is the Monitor Project, a comprehensive study undertaken by the Canadian Captioning Development Agency in 1992.  This study did not identify any one broadcaster.  Instead, it randomly measured quality and quantity of captioning to create a baseline of captioning activity that could be measured through future studies.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19286             The monitor project will form part of this presentation today.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19287             Lastly, any over‑the‑air broadcaster who may in the future receive new revenues from BDUs contribute to a fund that underwrites industry‑wide accessible media monitoring of their content.  The Commission has demonstrated through its ongoing published monitoring reports the importance of such work.  We hope you agree that ongoing monitoring for accessible media is also important.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19288             We believe measurement and accountability is the beginning of improved quality.  We have presented just a few ways in which monitoring could be underwritten, and MAC, this body of thinking and research from over 450 stakeholders in the Canadian disability and senior sector, has many more practical ideas for win‑win solutions to accessible media inclusion.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19289             Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19290             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Ms Milligan.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19291             I will have Commissioner Williams ask you the first question.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19292             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  Good morning, Ms Milligan.  Welcome to our process.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19293             MS MILLIGAN:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19294             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  In reading through your written submission that you submitted electronically, in the area of background you talk about ‑‑ just to quote you:

"However, with the establishment of a baseline standard for captioning 10 minutes of a 30 or 60‑minute program could be captioned would qualify the entire 30 to 60 minutes as captioned falling within the 90 percent rule.  Illegible captioning falls within the 90 percent rule.  Further, there has never been any actual monitoring to ensure consistency for what has been reported captioned and what is actually captioned."

LISTNUM 1 \l 19295             Is there more that you wish to add to that to help give us a better understanding of how captioning that doesn't sound to be that effective has actually been coded to and qualifies as captioning?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19296             MS MILLIGAN:  Certainly.  You will see it in the Monitor Project.  One of the things that was measured and one of the greater complaints is that, first of all, captioning that can't be understood for a number of reasons, or inappropriate, or some kind of quality of captioning that makes a program illegible, for example; or that for whatever reason ten minutes of a program is captioned in a 30‑minute program, so parts of it.  Again, this is considered quality of captioning; that is, that the whole program isn't captioned.  And these types of things do occur.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19297             Falling under the rule, because it is captioned, it is reported captioned regardless of the quality of the captioning, first of all.  And also if only a portion of that programming is captioned, it still would be reported as captioned and fall within the 90 percent rule.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19298             We will see this in news.  We will see this in live events and in many other areas where they are using a certain style of captioning in an inappropriate programming venue.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19299             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19300             Are you proposing that your group become the independent adjudicator of captioning complaints?  And if so, could you elaborate.  How would you do that?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19301             MS MILLIGAN:  I think what our group is looking for ‑‑ it certainly could become an independent adjudicator because it's a collaboration of all of the stakeholders, inclusive of the producers of closed captioning, consumers of closed captioning, service organizations and virtually anybody else that wants to participate in the process.  It's an open process of ongoing dialogue and information sharing.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19302             So this organization certainly could do that and has the qualifications for that.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19303             The primary goal of this organization, however, is to see a continuation of the type of research done and the underlying monitoring of accessible media and captioning in particular so that we have an idea of where we are on an ongoing basis.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19304             This has traditionally not happened, and in fact it has been since 1993 that the last research undertaking in this particular area has happened.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19305             Again, the Monitor Project was a random activity; that is to say, it monitored broadcasters across the country quite randomly.  It did it over the course of eight weeks and then dissected what was going on and gave the full report.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19306             It needs to happen a little bit more often than every 15 years, we believe.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19307             If we have some kind of baseline 15 years later for accessible media, then we can, first of all, see where we are and start going forward, not only in English but English captioning and English accessibility is far further ahead than French, for example.  So there needs to be a lot of work in that area as well.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19308             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  Can you tell us what you would do about the monitoring of French programming, and how would you go about the monitoring of quality programming in both French or English?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19309             MS MILLIGAN:  As you will see in the Monitor Project, what we would do is we would randomly select taped programming and then we would dissect it based on CRTC programming categories and based on a standard.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19310             This standard that we used 15 years ago is in fact the same standard more or less in the current voluntary code that the CAB has published on its website, because we in fact donated that standard to them and they worked it for their purposes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19311             First of all, in the area of French language, there isn't any published standard.  So we need to get a baseline going, a baseline standard that all organizations and stakeholders would collaborate on.  This is really important because what we have out there right now is, for example, we have captioning businesses, producers that in order to keep competing with each other, are really pushing down the quality of the captioning because the cost to caption is a very real cost, and to do it cheaper and cheaper is really compromising captioning quality.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19312             That doesn't need to happen.  The revenues are there through on‑air sponsorship in other ways.  There's all kinds of win‑win solutions to get revenue.  So there is no need for that quality compromise if in fact there is a baseline standard that everybody can follow.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19313             So that is where you begin, and then you just monitor randomly on a rotational basis and report back.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19314             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  In your written presentation again, you stated that it is important to note that all American programming arrives at a broadcast facility already fully captioned.  Telefilm underwrites 100 percent of the time all closed captioning of any program it invests in, and most broadcasters put in their co‑production broadcast licence agreements that a captioned master is delivered.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19315             The only programming a Canadian television broadcaster will underwrite is their original programming, like news and live sporting events.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19316             Are you saying that that is the portion that has to be monitored or would you monitor all?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19317             MS MILLIGAN:  No.  I would monitor right across the board, absolutely.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19318             There are certain styles and there are certain levels of quality that you can introduce into captioning due to the time that you have to caption.  So you would use a differing technology, allowing you to produce better quality captioning, more literate, more attached to depending on ‑‑ for example, a drama ‑‑ and I guess this is true too just with production in general.  In a drama you have a far better quality of captioning than you would get in news, and that is accepted and that is understood.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19319             But it's not happening.  What is happening is they are using the style and the way in which they capture news for drama, and this really affects the quality.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19320             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  You have also stated in your written remarks that there are profit opportunities for the broadcasters in captioning.  Can you elaborate on that and give us a few examples?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19321             MS MILLIGAN:  Certainly.  Canada Caption Inc., for example, a lot of what it did was that it brought closed captioning ‑‑ brought to you by that sponsorship ‑‑ to the market and created an awareness, and eventually introduced a sunset clause and gave back to the broadcast industry the idea and the proven business model to generate revenue through the model.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19322             For example, our 10‑second piece in the Super Bowl, which we were working on with one of the broadcasters, we sold for $10,000.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19323             This was way back.  This was 15 years ago.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19324             Did it cost $10,000 to close caption the program?  Of course not.  It cost $400 then.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19325             The rest of the revenue, because we were a charity, went to caption other programming for that particular broadcaster, and that $10,000 went a long way.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19326             We see closed captioning brought to you across all channels, and throughout the broadcast day.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19327             Typically, again, this is empirical, because there have not been a lot of studies, but certainly, through anecdotal research and discussions, what we are finding is that, in fact, it is now being thrown in to close a bigger deal.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19328             We will just throw in that sponsorship and close the bigger deal.  Where is the revenue for that?  There is nothing there.  It goes into general revenues, and that is that.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19329             When it was done outside, or separate from ‑‑ through CCI ‑‑ and I am not suggesting that that happen again, I am just saying that if, in fact, it goes into a different pot, then we all know it is there.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19330             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  CCI was the non‑profit ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 19331             MS MILLIGAN:  Charitable organization.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19332             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  Canada Caption Incorporated.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19333             MS MILLIGAN:  Yes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19334             I am not suggesting that that be started again, but I am saying that the idea of a separate line, or a separate pot that this would go into ‑‑ one, it would generate new revenues for the broadcasters, because, suddenly, the power to throw it in to close a deal isn't there any more.  They need to actually show revenue.  So it wouldn't be treated in the way it is currently being treated.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19335             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  You suggest that, since this change has happened, the quality of captioning has progressively worsened.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19336             MS MILLIGAN:  It certainly has.  Absolutely.  It has progressively worsened.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19337             In fact, when we implemented the sunset clause for CCI in 1998, and finally closed up around 1999, we were working with Heritage Canada and the CRTC and Industry Canada to figure out who was going to take care of the quality of captioning issue, which had not been resolved.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19338             Nobody, at that time, was able to ‑‑ everybody was sort of finger pointing at each other, saying:  No, it is Industry, because it is technology.  It is Heritage, because it is culture.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19339             Then, of course, the CRTC can only do what it can do in terms of its mandate.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19340             So it never ever actually got resolved.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19341             I think that, certainly, the quality issue has affected the industry of closed captioning ‑‑ the production industry that we call the accessible media production industry.  It has really been affected.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19342             We are going to see the same things happen as we see more and more descriptive video.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19343             Is descriptive video today overpriced?  Absolutely.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19344             Should it come down?  Is there room for it to come down?  Absolutely.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19345             But do we want to set the precedent, like we already have with captioning, where it is virtually, in some programs, illegible?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19346             We are beginning to see that development as the descriptive video production industry grows, as well.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19347             It is hurting the production industry.  It is virtually useless, if you are depending on it to understand the program.  It is completely frustrating.  And it is just not necessary.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19348             There are really simple, tangible, win‑win solutions to fixing the problem.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19349             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  Ms Milligan, what do you think of the Monitoring Committee established by Radio Canada?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19350             Would such committees be a satisfactory way to monitor the quality of captioning by individual broadcasters?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19351             MS MILLIGAN:  I'm sorry, I am not familiar with that.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19352             Radio Canada is self‑monitoring?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19353             Are you suggesting self‑monitoring?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19354             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  Yes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19355             Not as the total monitoring, but just to help the organization itself.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19356             MS MILLIGAN:  I think, in that particular case, absolutely.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19357             First of all, I think that any monitoring is good.  One has to assume that if you are monitoring, whether or not you are self‑monitoring ‑‑ albeit, there is an implied bias ‑‑ it is, nonetheless, better than nothing; so, yes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19358             In a perfect world would that be my first choice?  No.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19359             I think that it doesn't have to be that way.  I think there is some precedent, in terms of voluntary codes that haven't been adhered to in any way, that are strong indicators that maybe what we want to do, if we are looking at this, is third party it out to some independent research organization.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19360             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  If broadcasters were to work together to develop and implement universal standards, which organization, in your view, should be responsible for coordinating such a working group?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19361             Should it be, say, an individual broadcaster, or the CAB?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19362             Who do you think would be best to coordinate ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 19363             MS MILLIGAN:  To coordinate ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 19364             I'm sorry, could you ask me that again?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19365             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  Sure.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19366             MS MILLIGAN:  Are you suggesting that, if the broadcast community, the industry itself, wanted to get together and look at this ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 19367             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  Yes, and implement some universal standards.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19368             Which organization, in your view, would be the best to pull it all together?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19369             MS MILLIGAN:  The Canadian Standards Association, as suggested in 57, would be perfectly fine.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19370             It could boil down to a different set of numbers, and a different set of criteria, and be part of a reporting process.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19371             That is to say:  Okay, we have captioned it and in this program ‑‑

LISTNUM 1 \l 19372             You know, valuing ‑‑ assigning a number to the different styles and correlating them to programming categories.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19373             It could be quite streamlined and quite simple, so that, ultimately, it wouldn't have to become huge.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19374             But it is getting there.  Do I think that we should let the broadcast communities and the CAB do this?  I think they have tried, and I think it is great what they have done, the initiatives they have taken, and I believe, sincerely, that the CAB and a number of broadcasters and employees of broadcasters out there have a tremendous sensitivity to accessible media, but I am not convinced that that is going to be the solution to the issue of quality.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19375             I think that there are many ways that are not ‑‑ let's put this group of people together in the same room as this group of people and let's spend the next year and a half hammering something out that, then, goes on a shelf or goes on a website, and we get a little bit of publicity from it, and then we move on.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19376             I certainly hope that isn't what the opportunity is here, because I think this is an extraordinary opportunity to fix a little problem, which seems really, really big.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19377             It is like coming up with a whole broadcast standard, like MPEG‑10.  You plan now, and you put accessibility into it, and when it comes to fruition in 15 years, it is there.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19378             That is what I see the opportunity being, and that is what we would like to see in our world.  We would like it to go a little bit beyond the CAB.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19379             COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:  Thank you, Ms Milligan.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19380             Thank you, Mr. Chair, that concludes my questioning.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19381             THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr. Williams.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19382             Ms Milligan, thank you very much for your presentation.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19383             We will now move to the next item.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19384             MS MILLIGAN:  Thank you.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19385             LA SECRÉTAIRE : J'appellerais maintenant le prochain groupe, l'Union des Artistes et la SARTEC, à se présenter à la table en avant.

‑‑‑ Pause

LISTNUM 1 \l 19386             LE PRÉSIDENT : Monsieur Curzi, à votre convenance.  Nous vous écoutons.

PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION

LISTNUM 1 \l 19387             M. CURZI : Merci, Monsieur le Président.  Bonjour, mesdames les commissaires, messieurs les commissaires.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19388             Donc, je me présente, Pierre Curzi, président de l'Union des Artistes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19389             Je suis accompagné de Marc Grégoire, le président de la SARTEC; accompagné par Anne‑Marie des Roches, notre directrice des affaires publiques de l'Union des Artistes; et par monsieur Yves Légaré, directeur‑général de la SARTEC.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19390             Vous avez reçu notre mémoire.  Il est axé surtout sur les télévisions généralistes privées.  Je ne reviendrai par sur ce mémoire‑là.  Je voudrais juste insister sur deux points.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19391             Le premier, c'est, quelque soit le résultat de l'examen du cadre réglementaire de la télévision en direct, pour nous, cet examen doit atteindre un objectif très précis, qui est l'augmentation du contenu des émissions prioritaires, et non seulement l'augmentation du contenu des émissions prioritaires, mais plus spécifiquement du contenu des émissions prioritaires dramatiques.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19392             On pense que cet objectif‑là, de la création du contenu, doit être l'objectif premier de quelque mesure que ce soit.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19393             Nous ne sommes pas défavorables, par exemple, à l'augmentation des redevances, mais nous croyons que les redevances doivent être en lien direct avec la production de contenu canadien spécifique, et en ce sens‑là, ce que le Fonds canadien de télévision déploie comme investissements dans des émissions prioritaires nous apparaît être un cadre beaucoup plus conforme à nos attentes que les conséquences des décisions qui ont été prises en '99.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19394             Donc, dans un sens, nous souhaitons qu'il n'y ait pas d'élargissement du contenu des émissions prioritaires, mais, au contraire, un resserrement, parce que notre but clair et net, et ça touche l'ensemble des membres que nous représentons, c'est qu'il y ait plus de contenu canadien, plus de dramatiques et plus d'émissions prioritaires canadiennes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19395             L'autre aspect sur lequel je voudrais...  Ceci dit, il y a plusieurs des affirmations qui ont été faites la semaine dernière, avec lesquelles nous sommes plus ou moins d'accord.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19396             La première, et la plus importante, à mon sens, c'est qu'il faut cesser de considérer que TVA ou TQS sont des organismes détachés de l'ensemble des autres parties des groupes à l'intérieur desquels ils existent, et qu'il y a un mensonge profond à dire que les auditoires diminuent et que les revenus publicitaires diminuent, alors que, par ailleurs, les sources de revenus de différentes formes proviennent de l'ensemble du secteur.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19397             Alors, on croit qu'il y a là une inadéquation dont il faudrait commencer à parler sérieusement.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19398             L'autre aspect sur lequel je veux insister, c'est l'introduction du placement de produits et des commandites.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19399             Là, évidemment, on a été obligé de vivre avec le développement du placement de produits à l'intérieur des émissions, mais, très franchement, si on avait eu le choix ou si on avait été conscient de ce vers quoi nous allions, on aurait refusé qu'il y ait du placement de produits, et on pense qu'il faut, au contraire, éviter soigneusement d'ouvrir encore plus la possibilité d'avoir du placement de produits dans les émissions, parce que c'est une menace directe à l'intégrité des oeuvres.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19400             Et s'il y a des phénomènes qui ont amené des baisses d'auditoire, on peut se dire que peut‑être que l'abus publicitaire a été une des raisons, mais chose certaine, aller dans le sens d'une augmentation, à la fois de la quantité ou de la façon d'introduire de la publicité, aurait pour résultat de contrer tout effort pour produire du contenu canadien.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19401             Donc, si on augmente le contenu canadien, mais que ce contenu‑là est en quelque sorte gangrené par la publicité, je pense qu'on n'atteint pas l'objectif fondamentale de toutes les politiques culturelles du gouvernement du Canada, qui est de permettre aux Canadiens d'avoir accès à une culture diversifiée et de qualité.  Voilà.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19402             M. GRÉGOIRE : Dans le même ordre d'idées, la multiplication des émissions de téléréalité américaines, avec surimpression vocale francophone, les émissions qu'on appelle comme * Les drôles de vidéos +, * Les bloopers +, ça, ça nous fait craindre le pire.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19403             Il ne faut pas oublier que les deux télédiffuseurs privés vont mettre fin à sept ans d'avantages liés aux transactions en 2008.  Les dépenses consacrées aux émissions canadiennes, et ça inclut les émissions prioritaires, sont en bonne partie attribuables à ces avantages.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19404             Nous le constatons tous, la politique de '99 constituait un début de flexibilité en ce qui concerne la réglementation, et elle a mené à une réduction des émissions de fiction.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19405             Vous avez lu notre mémoire.  J'aimerais terminer en vous rappelant les faits saillants de celui‑ci :

LISTNUM 1 \l 19406             ‑ d'abord, que l'usage des radio fréquences canadiennes constitue non pas un droit, mais un privilège;

LISTNUM 1 \l 19407             ‑ que c'est la télévision généraliste qui, en grande majorité, déclenche le financement des émissions prioritaires originales;

LISTNUM 1 \l 19408             ‑ que seules des licences de diffusion plus élevées, un nouveau financement gouvernemental et des exigences précises du CRTC pourra assurer la pérennité d'émissions prioritaires;

LISTNUM 1 \l 19409             ‑ qu'il faut exiger un traitement équitable de l'ensemble des grands groupes, dont TQS, avec un minimum de huit heures d'émissions prioritaires originales par semaine, et que, sur ces huit heures, il y ait un minimum de cinq heures de dramatiques originales par semaine de toutes les chaînes généralistes francophones, par condition de licence;

LISTNUM 1 \l 19410             ‑ et finalement, d'accepter un tarif d'abonnement à la condition que les exigences en matière de contenu soient accrues.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19411             Un dernier point.  Pour ce qui est des demandes nombreuses qui concernent la déréglementation, l'augmentation ou l'ouverture au placement de produits, comme parlait Pierre, nous tenons à réitérer notre ferme opposition et à souligner l'importance des oeuvres des créateurs et de leur public.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19412             Les créateurs et les artistes sont au cour de notre secteur audiovisuel, ce sont eux qui définissent le caractère original des oeuvres, et puisqu'ils sont les premiers titulaires du droit d'auteur, ils doivent être associés à la vie économique des oeuvres de façon équitable.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19413             Voilà.  Merci.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19414             LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci, messieurs Curzi et Grégoire.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19415             Je vais peut‑être commencer par le biais de la production indépendante par rapport à la production faite à l'interne pour la production des émissions prioritaires.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19416             Il s'est fait toute sorte de représentations au cours des derniers jours quant à la politique actuelle qui favorise de manière notable la remise de la production des émissions au secteur de la production indépendante.  Certains, notamment les télédiffuseurs, ont demandé au Conseil une relaxation de cette règle‑là, qui exige, notamment, que 75 pour cent des émissions dites prioritaires soit dévolu à la production indépendante et qu'on révise ce quota‑là à la baisse, de façon à permettre aux télédiffuseurs qui voudraient eux‑mêmes le faire, de produire des émissions de plus grande envergure, ou encore, de favoriser l'intégration entre le secteur de la production indépendante et le secteur de la télédiffusion, comme ça s'est fait aux États‑Unis, où on a vu les Viacom devenir les partenaires de CBS, puis les Disney les partenaires de ABC, donc, de faire en sorte que peut‑être qu'on pourrait permettre au secteur de la télévision d'être mieux intégré avec les producteurs indépendants.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19417             Est‑ce que vous avez des commentaires, des observations à faire par rapport à ce secteur?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19418             M. CURZI : Bien, le premier commentaire, c'est qu'on reviendrait sur un historique qu'on a mis beaucoup d'énergie à créer, c'est‑à‑dire la création d'un secteur indépendant de production.  On sait bien que c'est ce qui existait auparavant, c'est les télédiffuseurs étaient les principaux producteurs, et on a souhaité... pour augmenter la qualité, la compétitivité, la diversité surtout, on a souhaité créer un secteur indépendant.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19419             Alors, maintenant, revenir sur cet état de fait nous apparaît comme étrange, et d'autant plus que le système ne fonctionne pas mal.  Ce qui fonctionne moins bien, c'est la façon dont les revenus sont générés et répartis.  Il y a là une espèce de déséquilibre actuellement, très, très évident, puisqu'on multiplie les moyens de diffusion qui génèrent des revenus importants et qu'il n'y a pas suffisamment de revenus qui retournent au niveau de la production.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19420             Donc, le système est un petit peu débalancé, mais je ne vois pas trop quels seraient les intérêts ‑‑ ou si je les vois, je ne suis pas sûr que je les souhaite ‑‑ à ce qu'il y est une fusion plus intime entre les deux.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19421             LE PRÉSIDENT : Bien, un des motifs, et probablement le motif central de cette réflexion de la part de ceux qui nous invitent à considérer cette possibilité, c'est le fait qu'on veut être capable d'utiliser les produits pour les diffuser sur des multi plates‑formes, alors que, présentement, les droits sont limités uniquement à la diffusion sur l'antenne hertzienne, et ils ne peuvent, donc, être réutilisés à d'autres fins, et les télédiffuseurs, évidemment, qui font cet argument là disent : Bien, nous, on veut amortir sur des multi plates‑formes ces coûts de production, pour être capables, effectivement, de continuer à générer d'autres activités.  Donc, c'est le sens de leur démarche.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19422             Et vous, je sais très bien que vous avez...  La raison pour laquelle je vous pose la question, je sais que vous avez un intérêt au dossier des multi plates‑formes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19423             M. CURZI : Oui.  En fait, ce qu'on cherche... puis là, vous entrez directement dans certaines remarques qui sont dans certains des rapports où semble‑t‑il qu'on n'empêche l'utilisation des multi plates‑formes ou qu'on complique les choses.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19424             Effectivement, on les complique, puis on va continuer à les compliquer.  C'est l'objet d'une négociation, ce que les syndicats... que nous représentons ce que nous sommes.  On cherche à trouver un nouveau modèle d'affaires qui tienne compte de la réalité.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19425             La réalité, quelle est‑elle?  Il y a une diminution de l'importance de la télévision généraliste, puis une multiplication des autres plates‑formes de diffusion.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19426             Nous, ce qu'on dit, c'est qu'il faut associer intimement les créateurs ‑‑ c'est vrai pour les auteurs, c'est vrai pour les interprètes ‑‑ à la vie économique de l'ouvre.  Donc, dans un sens, le modèle d'affaires qu'on cherche serait de favoriser la création en n'augmentant pas nos demandes exagérément au moment où il y a production des oeuvres, du contenu, mais en s'assurant que lorsqu'il y a revenus ou succès, les créateurs touchent une part équitable des oeuvres qui fonctionnent bien, et on travaille fortement sur ce modèle là.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19427             Et ce modèle‑là est très souple.  On peut envisager des pourcentages de revenus de ventes de location.  On peut envisager différents modèles économiques pour tenir compte de la réalité.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19428             Ce qui est vrai, c'est que le modèle qui préexistait ‑‑ en tout cas, je parle pour l'Union des Artistes ‑‑ était un peu archaïque, et actuellement, tout l'effort de notre négociation avec les producteurs indépendants et avec les télédiffuseurs, dont TVA et TQS, cherche à créer de nouveau modèle là, qui va être adapté à la réalité de l'utilisation des oeuvres.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19429             Mais le principe fondamental, c'est que lorsqu'il y a succès ou vie économique heureuse du contenu, on veut y être associé.  On prendra des parts de risque qu'il faut pour maintenir la qualité de la production, mais on va s'assurer qu'il y a un juste retour lorsqu'il y a bénéfices.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19430             Et en ce sens‑là, il faut s'interroger sur ce dont on parlait tantôt : quand une émission est produite par TVA, il est sûr que l'empire qui l'entoure, qui entoure TVA, va utiliser toutes les façons possibles de générer des profits.  Et on l'a vu dans leur démonstration, ils sont les premiers au niveau des revues, les premiers au niveau de l'exploitation de la musique, les premiers partout.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19431             On n'a rien contre, mais il est clair maintenant qu'un contenu, il est multiplié et que les sources de revenus qui en sont tirées sont multipliées.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19432             M. LÉGARÉ : Et le débat va devoir se faire, qu'on parle de production à l'interne des diffuseurs ou de productions indépendantes, donc, que les plates‑formes sont utilisées, de toute façon, peu importe le secteur, et les enjeux sont les mêmes.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19433             LE PRÉSIDENT : Oui, c'est évident que... d'ailleurs, on a eu les représentations de l'APFTQ, vendredi dernier, qui nous ont aussi fait part de leur ouverture à la négociation avec les télédiffuseurs, un peu sur le même modèle que celui que vous proposez, qui est l'objet de négociations bipartites et multipartites, finalement.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19434             Vous avez fait état dans votre présentation orale que plutôt de penser à élargir les catégories ou les genres d'émissions prioritaires, qu'on devrait plutôt les restreindre.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19435             Si je vous demandais quelle catégorie d'émissions vous voudriez qui ne soient plus considérées comme des émissions prioritaires, qu'est‑ce que vous nous suggérez?

LISTNUM 1 \l 19436             MME des ROCHES : Bien, je pense le premier principe qui devrait prévaloir, c'est de ‑‑ pour les fins de cohésion en termes de politiques culturelles ‑‑ probablement lier davantage la définition des émissions prioritaires aux émissions qui sont finançables sous le Fonds canadien de télévision.

LISTNUM 1 \l 19437             Alors, au départ, les dramatiques, on inclurait maintenant la jeunesse, et nous, ça surtout dans le documentaire.  Il y a deux choses, le documentaire de longue durée... des émissions comme les quotidiennes de * Star Académie