ARCHIVED - Transcript, Hearing 19 November 2012
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Providing Content in Canada's Official Languages
Please note that the Official Languages Act requires that government publications be available in both official languages.
In order to meet some of the requirements under this Act, the Commission's transcripts will therefore be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of CRTC members and staff attending the hearings, and the table of contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the hearing.
Volume 1, 19 November 2012
TRANSCRIPTION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
To consider the broadcasting applications for the licence renewals for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s French- and English-language services as listed in Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-379, 2011-379-1, 2011-379-2, 2011-379-3, 2011-379-4 and 2011-379-5
140 Promenade du Portage
19 November 2012
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.
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
To consider the broadcasting applications for the licence renewals for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s French- and English-language services as listed in Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2011-379, 2011-379-1, 2011-379-2, 2011-379-3, 2011-379-4 and 2011-379-5
Véronique LehouxLegal Counsel
Aspa KotsopoulosHearing Managers
140 Promenade du Portage
19 November 2012
- iv -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE / PARA
Presentations by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation9 / 47
Présentations de la Société Radio Canada
1. Presentation on Corporate issues, followed by
questions from the Commission
2. Presentation on matters related to its
French-language broadcasting services, followed
by questions from the Commission
Télévision de Radio-Canada
La Première Chaîne
- v -
PAGE / PARA
Undertaking67 / 316
Undertaking70 / 334
Undertaking180 / 934
Undertaking184 / 961
Undertaking239 / 1199
--- Upon commencing on Monday, November 19, 2012 at 0900
1 LE PRÉSIDENT : À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.
2 Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs.
3 Au cours de cette audience, nous examinerons la demande de CBC/Radio-Canada en vue de renouveler les licences de ses services de radio et de télévision.
4 La Société, en tant que radiodiffuseur public national, a un rôle unique à jouer au sein de l'élément public du système de radiodiffusion, tel qu'il est prévu dans la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.
5 Elle doit notamment être principalement et typiquement canadienne et doit refléter la globalité canadienne et rendre compte de la diversité régionale du pays, tant au plan national qu'au niveau régional, tout en répondant aux besoins particuliers des régions.
6 Elle doit également contribuer activement à l'expression culturelle et refléter la situation et les besoins particuliers des deux collectivités de langues officielles, y compris ceux des minorités de l'une ou l'autre langue, tout en contribuant au partage d'une conscience et d'une identité nationale.
7 The last CBC/Radio-Canada renewal was in 2000, though the process started in the last millennium. Since then, in terms of technology, the players involved in the communication landscape, both here in Canada and abroad, consumers have more and more choice of Canadian and foreign specialty services.
8 The widespread availability of digital media has also changed Canadians' expectations with respect to broadcasting services. The Corporation has adapted by offering numerous services on those new distribution platforms.
9 Although the Commission exempted digital media from the requirement of the licence, we wish to discuss the services the Corporation is providing to Canadians through those new platforms, including the interplay with more traditional broadcasting platforms.
10 We will, moreover, have much to review with the Corporation over the two weeks of the hearing in order to make sure that Canadians fully enjoy the services provided by the public broadcaster.
11 However, it's important to clarify that this proceeding is a regulatory proceeding. Our role is not to review the Corporation's legislative mandate but to examine how it contributes to the achievements of the goals of the Broadcasting Act in light of the parliamentary appropriation it receives and other available funds.
12 Like all licence renewal processes, this renewal is a timely opportunity -- I'm not sure about the timely bit but -- for the Commission to review the Corporation's conduct in light of its regulatory obligations that were imposed at the last renewal.
13 We will also determine in light of the public record the duration and the terms of the new licence.
14 En premier lieu, le comité d'audition étudiera les enjeux qui touchent l'ensemble de la Société, y compris son rôle en tant que radiodiffuseur public national et la mise en oeuvre des objectifs de la Loi, l'approche réglementaire en général.
15 Notre examen est organisé sous trois grands volets : premièrement, l'imputabilité; deux, la disponibilité; et troisièmement, le reflet.
16 Avec le volet sur l'imputabilité, nous discuterons notamment de la responsabilité de la Société envers les Canadiens, y compris envers les services de nouvelles, le rôle des ombudsmans, le traitement des plaintes et commentaires du public, et les rapports fournis par la Société.
17 Dans le deuxième volet, celui de la disponibilité, nous aborderons entre autres la disponibilité des services radiophoniques et télévisuels d'un bout du pays à l'autre, l'accessibilité pour les personnes handicapées et l'impact de la transition au numérique.
18 Et finalement, avec le troisième volet, celui du reflet, nous nous pencherons notamment sur la programmation de ses services de radio et de télévision conventionnels et spécialisés de langue française avant de revoir ceux de langue anglaise. Nous discuterons de la qualité des services en français et en anglais, la représentation des communautés de langues officielles en situation minoritaire et le reflet des régions.
19 As with all public proceedings, the opinion of Canadians is very important in helping us to fulfil our legislative mandate. We therefore wish to thank all citizens who have agreed to participate in this hearing either by submitting comments or by appearing before us. We received over 8,000 comments in connection with this proceeding. This shows how important the Corporation's services are to Canadians.
20 Je vous présente les membres du comité d'audition :
21 - premièrement, Mme Elizabeth Duncan, conseillère de la région de l'Atlantique et du Nunavut;
22 - Mme Louise Poirier, conseillère nationale;
23 - M. Stephen Simpson, conseiller régional de la Colombie-Britannique et du Yukon;
24 - M. Tom Pentefountas, vice président de la radiodiffusion; et
25 - moi-même, Jean-Pierre Blais, et je présiderai d'ailleurs l'audience.
26 L'équipe du Conseil qui nous assiste comprend notamment :
27 - Aspa Kotsopoulos et Guillaume Castonguay, coordinateur de l'audience et analyste principal des politiques;
28 - Véronique Lehoux et Jean-Sébastien Gagnon, conseillers juridiques; et
29 - Jade Roy, secrétaire de l'audience et superviseur des audiences publiques.
30 Donc, j'invite maintenant la secrétaire de l'audience madame Roy à vous expliquer le déroulement de l'audience et je passe immédiatement la parole à madame la secrétaire.
31 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci, Monsieur le Président, et bonjour à tous.
32 Avant de débuter, j'aimerais souligner quelques points d'ordre pratique qui contribueront au bon déroulement de cette audience publique.
33 Tout d'abord, lorsque vous êtes dans la salle d'audience, nous vous demandons de bien vouloir éteindre vos téléphones car ils peuvent causer de l'interférence avec l'équipement utilisé par nos interprètes et sténographes.
34 The hearing is expected to last two weeks. We will advise you of any scheduling changes as they occur. Participants are reminded that they must be ready to present on the day scheduled or, if necessary, the day before or after depending on the progress of the hearing.
35 You can examine all documents on the public record of this proceeding in the examination room which is located in the Papineau Room.
36 Le service d'interprétation simultanée est disponible durant l'audience. L'interprétation en français se trouve au canal 2. Nous désirons rappeler aux participants d'allouer un délai raisonnable pour la traduction lors de leur présentation à vive voix, tout en respectant le temps alloué pour leur présentation.
37 Please note that simultaneous interpretation is available during the hearing; the English interpretation is on channel 1. We would like to remind participants that during their oral presentation they should provide for a reasonable delay for the interpretation while respecting their allocated presentation time.
38 There is a verbatim transcript of this hearing being taken by the court reporter sitting at the table to my right, which will be posted daily on the Commission's Web site.
39 Veuillez noter que les documents seront disponibles sur Twitter, sur le compte du Conseil à arobase CRTCaudiences au pluriel, en utilisant le mot-clic diaise CRTC.
40 Please note that the Commission will also be tweeting the documents during the hearing at CRTChearings using the hashtags #CRTC.
41 Just a reminder that pursuant to section 41 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures you must not submit evidence at the hearing unless it supports statements already on the public record. If you wish to introduce new evidence as an exception to this rule, you must ask permission of the Panel of the hearing before you do so.
42 Nous aimerions vous rappeler que conformément à l'article 41 des Règles de pratique et de procédures, les seules preuves admissibles à l'audience sont celles faites à l'appui d'allégations déjà sur le dossier public. Si vous souhaitez présenter une preuve nouvelle comme une exception à cette règle, vous devez demander la permission au comité d'audition avant de le faire.
43 And now, Mr. Chairman, we will begin Phase I of this hearing, in which we will hear the presentations by the Applicant.
44 We will begin with the presentation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on corporate issues.
45 Nous débuterons maintenant avec la présentation par la Société Radio-Canada sur les enjeux touchant l'ensemble de la Société.
46 Veuillez s'il vous plaît vous présenter et présenter vos collègues, après quoi vous aurez 20 minutes pour votre présentation. Merci.
47 M. GUITON : Merci beaucoup.
48 Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, Commissioners and staff. My name is Steve Guiton and I am Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer at CBC.
49 With me this morning are:
50 - Mr. Hubert Lacroix, President and CEO;
51 - Ms Kirstine Stewart, Executive Vice-President, English Services; and
52 - Mr. Louis Lalande, Executive Vice-President, French Services.
53 Also with us, from your left to right behind us:
54 - Marie-Philippe Bouchard, Executive Director of Strategic Planning, French Services;
55 - Mr. Stan Staple, Senior Director, Research and Strategic Analysis;
56 - Mr. Neil McEneany, General Manager, Finance and Strategy, English Services; and
57 - Ms Bev Kirshenblatt, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs.
58 As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, we will be addressing the overarching corporate issues identified by the Commission in the Notice of Consultation. The French and English Media panels will then speak to the Corporation's proposals for the individual licensed services.
59 I will now turn it over to Hubert to begin our presentation.
60 MR. LACROIX: Thank you, Steven.
61 My turn to say good morning, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, Commissioners, staff. It's a pleasure to be with you this morning. Bonjour à tous.
62 Much has changed in the broadcasting world since 1999 when CBC/Radio-Canada last appeared before the Commission in a licence renewal process. Back then broadcasting was predominantly an analog business. There were a large number of regional players, broadcasters and distributors, both on the television and on the radio side. DTH was just starting out. Video over the Internet was a nice idea for the future. Cell phones were actually used to make phone calls. There was no iPhone, no iPad. YouTube didn't exist nor did Facebook and tweeting was actually the sound that birds made in the park.
63 The environment has changed dramatically and so have we.
64 While the Corporation has consistently led the way when it comes to adopting new technologies and serving Canadians via new platforms, we have in the last 13 years streamlined our operations and gained new efficiencies as we have evolved into an integrated multiplatform broadcaster.
65 We believe that our licence conditions and the regulatory framework applicable to our licensed services should reflect our evolution. That is why we have proposed a simplified approach which would impose a package of significant high-level commitments in key areas and eliminate the plethora of obligations and soft commitments which typified the approach of the 1990s.
66 J'y reviendrai plus tard. Pour le moment, je voudrais insister sur la chose qui n'a pas changé. Nous sommes toujours et encore le radiodiffuseur public national du Canada et avons le mandat de servir tous les Canadiens de la façon la plus efficace et la plus efficiente possible, et ce, en vertu de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Et c'est ce que nous faisons jour après jour.
67 Notre plan stratégique, Stratégie 2015, s'appelle « Partout, Pour tous », avec raison.
68 À CBC/Radio-Canada, nous servons les Canadiens de la façon suivante :
69 - deux réseaux de télévision nationaux hertziens;
70 - quatre réseaux de radio nationaux hertziens;
71 - cinq services spécialisés;
72 - notre service du Nord, CBC North, en français, en anglais et en huit langues autochtones;
73 - deux portails en ligne importants qui offrent des nouvelles, du sport, des émissions de télévision et de radio, de la musique et des services régionaux;
74 - quatre services de musique en ligne;
75 - Radio Canada International en ligne maintenant en cinq langues;
76 - des balados;
77 - la diffusion en continu sur Internet; et
78 - des services et des applications mobiles sans fil, pour n'identifier que quelques-uns de nos services.
79 Nous utilisons toutes les plateformes disponibles pour joindre les Canadiens, et lorsque de nouvelles technologies seront disponibles, nous nous assurerons d'y être aussi.
80 Nous avons l'obligation de servir les Canadiens de la façon qu'ils choisissent de consommer tant l'audio que la vidéo. Et chose certaine, des choix, ils en font.
81 Quatre-vingt pour cent des Canadiens consomment d'ailleurs notre programmation sur une ou plusieurs de nos plateformes à chaque semaine.
82 And over 8,000 Canadians, I have just heard, participated in this licence renewal, Mr. Chairman, in order to express their views to you. Not all of these views are fully supportive or flattering, I am sure, and we think that you've got some of these interventions up there with you, Mr. Chairman, that may be from that group.
83 But we are delighted and proud of the interest that Canadians have in our services and the time that they have taken to make their views known.
84 Here are some examples of what Canadians have to say about the Corporation's services.
85 Carole Deacon from Toronto:
"The CBC is a Canadian institution that is part of our everyday life. It informs all that listen from sea to sea to sea of Canadian issues, talent, and values. It is the one voice that unites the minds of its listeners. No other television and, especially, no other radio station in Canada can lay claim to this like the CBC. Without the CBC - a strong CBC - Canada is a poorer country, and we are a poorer people. A strong CBC requires generous investment if it is to continue enriching our lives."
86 Here is what Mark Furlong from Hampton, New Brunswick has to say:
"I feel that CBC does a fine job of upholding its mandate. ...they offer a broad spectrum of Canadian programming that seems to offer something to just about anybody. One thing I think that all Canadians can agree on is that they are a great source for news."
87 Francesco Napoli from Toronto:
"We are a great country, an informed country, and a fair and reasonable country in part because of the CBC. CBC is an integral part of my life from its news to arts, to documentary programming. I am a teacher and the CBC informs my teaching, provides me with reliable and valuable knowledge, programs, and video that I can share with my students. I support the CBC entirely."
88 Francis Pomerleau de Montréal:
« En tant que citoyen et musicien qui suis profondément attaché à son pays, et toujours passionné de le connaître davantage sous toutes ses multiples facettes, Radio-Canada représente pour moi la Voix nationale de notre grand pays, qui nous rassemble tous, quelque soient les distances qui nous séparent et où que l'on soit; ... »
89 Et, enfin, Francine Portelance de Kelowna B.C. :
« Je suis native du Québec, j'ai aussi habité en Ontario, en Alberta, et je réside maintenant en Colombie-Britannique depuis 21 ans déjà. La radio et la télévision sont des outils indispensables pour garder le lien avec ce qui se passe dans mon pays. J'aime savoir ce qui se crée au Canada, que ce soit dans le domaine des arts, l'environnement, la politique, la spiritualité ou les sports. Les Canadiens sont des gens très créatifs et dans les autres postes de radio et de télévision, ils n'ont pratiquement pas de visibilité. »
90 We are grateful for these comments. They demonstrate the important contribution that we are making to the broadcasting system. They actually confirm that everyone, every way, is what should be guiding us.
91 And at this point I would like to show you a very short video on Strategy 2015, "Our vision of the next few years."
--- Video Presentation
92 MR. LACROIX: As you have seen, Strategy 2015 has three pillars: national spaces, regional spaces and digital spaces.
93 National spaces are about nation building. They are about providing Canadians with programming that helps shape a shared national conscientiousness and identity. Events like the Olympics, historical documentaries, Canadian drama and nationwide signature events.
94 All of these types of programs contribute to the vision that Canadians have of themselves, of their society, of their culture and of their nation. Like everything we do now, our approach to national spaces spends all of the platforms we have available to us: television, radio, online.
95 This is a deliberate choice on our part but, frankly, it's an easy choice, a necessary choice in the contemporary world that we live in.
96 Audiences expect you to be everywhere, for everyone, in every way.
97 Le deuxième pilier de la Stratégie 2015 sont les espaces régionaux. Nous avons pris l'engagement d'approfondir notre relation avec les différentes régions du Canada et d'améliorer les moyens de les refléter au pays.
98 Nous avons identifié les régions mal desservies et avons élaboré un plan pour mieux les servir. Nous avons renforcé notre approche face aux communautés linguistiques en situation minoritaire. Nous continuons de servir le Grand Nord d'une manière unique et développons des façons d'améliorer notre service pour les communautés autochtones partout au pays.
99 Ici encore, nous adoptons une approche multiplateforme pour mobiliser les Canadiens. La plateforme en ligne nous permet de joindre des régions éloignées et mal desservies, des communautés locales, des auditoires régionaux, nationaux et étrangers.
100 For example, we identified Hamilton as an underserved area in Ontario with respect to our services but quickly realized that because of spectrum constraints the traditional over-the-air radio platform was not available. So we moved online and built a Web presence specifically for Hamilton residents.
101 It has been a tremendous success locally. It provides local news, information, as well as keeping Hamiltonians up to date on events and activities taking place in their city, which now takes me to the third pillar of Strategy 2015, digital spaces.
102 We have set ourselves the goal of doubling our commitment to digital platforms by 2015 from 2.5 percent to 5 percent of our media line budgets. We have been leading the way online since the mid 1990s and we feel that this financial commitment confirms our intention to accelerate that process.
103 We began with simple Websites and streaming. Then came podcasts, Bande à part, Radio 3. Now, we have added Tou.TV, CBC Music, Espace.mu. We are on Facebook, we are on Twitter, we are on YouTube. Everyone, every way. This is much more than simply a slogan for us. It is our reality.
104 The three pillars of Strategy 2015 mark and guide our approach to the future. When faced with the recent budget cuts from DRAP and in the loss of the LPIF, it was Strategy 2015 which guided us in deciding what to cut and what to save. It was the filter through which every decision was taken.
105 In response to the cuts of our parliamentary appropriation, we have preserved local and regional. We have preserved our presence in the regions by leveraging digital technology and we continued with our commitment to double the percentage of our digital expenditure.
106 In response to the loss of the LPIF, we chose to preserve as much as we could of the local and regional programming which had been enabled by the LPIF and we are making cuts elsewhere.
107 But let me be clear. This is challenging.
108 Ongoing change is thus the order of the day for us and it is in that context that we have developed our proposals for the next licence term.
109 Comme je l'ai mentionné plus tôt, CBC/Radio-Canada est un fournisseur de contenu multiplateforme qui sert les Canadiens en tant qu'individus, en tant que citoyens et en tant que membres de nombreuses communautés, différentes les unes des autres, partout au pays.
110 Je répète que nous sommes un radiodiffuseur de plus en plus intégré. Prenons les nouvelles, par exemple. Nous pensons en fonction de toutes les plateformes à la fois, la télévision, la radio, les chaînes spécialisées et le Web. Nous développons et offrons notre contenu de nouvelles en pensant à toutes les façons dont les Canadiens peuvent choisir d'y avoir accès.
111 Nous ne commençons pas par la télévision pour ensuite passer au Web, pas plus que nous séparons la télévision et la radio. Il s'agit d'un produit, les nouvelles, que nous développons de façon simultanée pour toutes nos plateformes.
112 Conséquence : Nous sommes loin de l'approche « une plateforme à la fois » qui est utilisée dans le monde de la réglementation. Ce n'est pas notre quotidien.
113 C'est donc cette réalité multiplateforme, combinée à nos défis financiers et à l'environnement de la radiodiffusion en évolution, où les auditoires passent facilement d'une plateforme à une autre, qui nous a amenés à développer et à vous demander une approche réglementaire simplifiée et rationalisée qui porte sur un ensemble d'objectifs clés.
114 Let me emphasize. We have elevated both the type of commitment, conditions of licence instead of expectations, as well as the substance of the commitment such as the amount of Canadian content. What we have stepped away from is a host of lower level commitments that, in our view, are not compatible with the world we live and operate in. We are pleased to make serious regulatory commitments but we want them to make sense in the current and in the future environment.
115 For example, in our view, why have genre-specific commitments for a particular platform when audiences may well move away from that platform or their preferences may shift, or both? We should not be required to come back to the Commission every time we need to change what we are doing in order to serve Canadians properly.
116 Similarly, it makes no sense for the Corporation to make a commitment on hours or otherwise that is not financially sustainable. The financial challenges that we face are daunting, but we will meet them and we will balance our budgets. So we cannot and we will not make commitments that we know we may not be able to fulfill.
117 What we can do is make very serious commitments with respect to very key objectives, but we need flexibility and that is what we have proposed.
118 Enfin, je voudrais parler de la question de la responsabilisation.
119 CBC/Radio-Canada a un mandat clair en vertu de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Nous avons un conseil d'administration indépendant. Nous rendons des comptes au Parlement par le ministre du Patrimoine. Nous présentons un rapport annuel au Parlement. Nous faisons l'objet de vérifications par le vérificateur général.
120 Nous sommes assujettis à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information. Nous avons un ombudsman pour les services français et un autre pour les services anglais, et nous sommes réglementés par le CRTC, par vos licences et vos décisions. Nous vous remettons également un rapport annuel qui, en matière d'information, va au-delà de ce qui est exigé de n'importe quel autre radiodiffuseur.
121 We work hard at all of these elements and we are very proud of our high levels of transparency and accountability and of our continuous efforts to improve. It is in that context that we have asked to have our administrative burden lightened by limiting what we report annually to the Commission.
122 We recognize the importance of measurement. In fact, the fourth element of our Strategy 2015 is the development of metrics for all of our activities.
123 So in addition to every report I just listed, we now publish a report card every year which allows Canadians to assess our progress against our plan. We would be happy to use these measures as one means of providing the Commission with meaningful reporting.
124 Mr. Chairman, I am confident that together we can work out an approach to reporting and to CBC/Radio-Canada's other obligations that will ensure that both the Corporation and the CRTC play their respective roles in the Canadian broadcasting system in the manner Parliament intended.
125 I am also very confident that the next five years for CBC/Radio-Canada will continue to be a time of tremendous challenges and tremendous accomplishments. By 2017, I am certain that Canadians will be much richer for the efforts we have all made to ensure that Canada has the best broadcasting system in the world.
126 Au cours des deux prochains jours, c'est avec plaisir que nous allons discuter avec vous de nos plans et de notre proposition, et ensuite, évidemment, répondre aux intervenants à la fin de l'audience dans deux semaines.
127 Merci beaucoup de votre attention. Nous sommes prêts à répondre à vos questions.
LE PRÉSIDENT : Alors, bienvenue, Monsieur Lacroix et aux membres de votre équipe.
128 Je suis désolé, tout à l'heure, j'ai eu un petit problème avec mon ordinateur. C'est vrai qu'on n'avait pas ce genre d'ordi la dernière fois qu'on a fait des renouvellements de Radio-Canada, mais parfois, ça flanche et c'est un outil maintenant indispensable.
129 Donc, premièrement, je voulais vous féliciter pour votre récente renomination. Vous êtes, de toute évidence, une personne qui aime les grands défis, d'avoir accepté ce nouveau cinq ans.
130 Lors d'une récente audience, je me suis permis de poser, parce que moi aussi, je commençais un quinquennat, et je me suis permis de poser la question à des intervenants. Puisque c'est votre première comparution au monticule, je me permets de vous poser la même question au début de votre deuxième quinquennat : C'est quoi votre vision du monde des communications et, plus particulièrement, le monde de la radiodiffusion en 2017?
131 M. LACROIX : Alors, merci, pour vos bons voeux, je pense.
132 M. LACROIX : Je fais les miens à votre nomination également.
133 Monsieur le Président, lorsque nous regardons l'environnement dans lequel CBC/Radio-Canada travaille, on travaille beaucoup à identifier les tendances.
134 So we are into trends. We focus on trends. We try to read trends so that they will influence some of the decisions and some of the choices that either our 2015 plan or our daily activities will bring.
135 What I would like to do for the Commission, if I can, is spend a few minutes on how we see these trends and the buckets in which we actually have organized them.
136 There are five buckets: persons, the person itself, devices, the content, creation, the actors in the system and the delivery or the innovation that comes with the delivery of these services. And afterwards, we will conclude with where does that leave us, CBC/Radio-Canada, in this environment as we read them.
137 First off, it's pretty obvious that on the person piece, on the first bucket, this content, people now actually want their content -- and everybody reads about this -- whenever, however and wherever they are. Nobody is surprised by this, these are the pillars of 2015. But now, the person has become the focus of everybody's attention. It's no longer the home.
138 I remember years ago when we would value cable companies, we would value them on the number of homes they would hook up. Now, it's about the people, it's about their devices and it's about interacting and engaging with all of these people in the homes instead of the actual building.
139 It means that these people are picking and choosing events in a very different way. They want choices that are more simple and they only want to pay for value-added services. I think that's a conversation that is going to come back in front of you over the years.
140 So the same as skinny packages that we spoke of, I think that's what people are interested in and I think they are looking to add to what they are viewing according to their interests.
141 So that's about the person and it's about the person because it's all about their personal devices, their personal accounts, their recommendations on Twitter, their Facebook page.
142 C'est les personnes.
143 Then let's talk about the devices because that's also changing the way we look at the way we deliver our services. More and more, it's about connected devices. It's about smartphones much more than the PC. It's about tablets more than PCs. It's about changing also the screens on your telephone. So that will change the way the content is also delivered.
144 And it is also about connected TVs because at home now there is much more on that television screen than ever before, and it can be connected to your computer, thus opening for us and for every broadcaster a completely different world.
145 Then I need to talk to you about content and content creation, because broadcasters are not only the only ones that are commissioning content. You are seeing people or organizations like Netflix that not only delivers over the air but now is commissioning content. They are going to do something with a series that one of the big U.S. corporations has dropped, "Arrested Development," and they are investing substantial amounts of money and they are becoming a commissioner of content in the same way as a YouTube that now asks people for content that will fit particularly on their platform. Again, it affects the way that we look at our environment.
146 Let's talk about the actors in the system. You know, it is about Google and I think it is about Apple when they are purchasing sports packages; that is going to happen. It is about them choosing on their own devices in their own environments to show you whether it is football or hockey or sports, right. I think they will play in that game one day.
147 And it is about Apple all of a sudden wanting to challenge other media services for advertising base Internet radio services. That is a place that they were never before.
148 And it is about all sorts of people becoming broadcasters. It is not only about us and CTV and Global and TVA. All of a sudden, you have got brands. You have got Burberry, who is actually launching -- when they launched their new fashion fall collections, they are actually broadcasting that on the Internet. They bring people together. They are a broadcaster.
149 Television -- newspapers are becoming also broadcasters in the way that they will put audio and video content on their Website. It is much more than it was before in terms of their way of connecting with consumers.
150 And it is also, in my last bucket, the delivery and innovation part. It is really about content being delivered more and more without infrastructures or very, very small infrastructures, and at the other end of the spectrum, more and more big players with deep pockets becoming more powerful.
151 So it's about innovation, it's about apps, it's about software more than it is about the platforms.
152 Alors, in this -- with all these trends, how does that affect CBC/Radio-Canada and what do we see in the future?
153 Well, I think television is still very strong because of the multiplication of the screens. If you actually look over the last 10 years, there is actually about an average of four more hours of watching television than it was 10 years ago according to our stats and we think that is going to continue because of the multiplication of the different screens that you have and the devices that you have.
154 I think on the audio side, you have une baisse -- a drop perhaps in the listening hours. But all of a sudden, with the Internet and the way that you can connect people and audio on the Internet, that is going to become something that is going to resurrect, I think, the opportunity for broadcasters and people to deliver content on the audio piece in reaching more Canadians.
155 And you have the digital part of everything we have been talking about, which is clearly complementary to everything we do and whether it's because we have to make some choices when we can't do what we used to do because of financial resources, the piece that then comes in and complements in a region or on a service is the digital piece. It also enhances the relationship that we have with the viewer at the same time.
156 So that's what we see as trends. That's the way we look at them. And that is why we have grouped them under 2015, under the national spaces, the Canadian programs. There's still a lot of content there.
157 About the regions, we need to do this in the regions in a different way and there sometimes the digital technology will help us roll out different services.
158 And the last piece is the actual investment in the digital play itself. Because it is not about technology on the digital, on the third access, it is really about changing your mindset and thinking three platforms at a time.
159 So this was a long introduction because the question was very open but it gives you an idea, Monsieur Chairman, that we are reading trends, because depending on the trends, each one of the things that I talked about today has either a direct influence or an indirect influence on how we deliver our services and how we see 2015. And that fed the 2015 plan that you just heard about a little more.
160 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I bet it was the first Q and A in your book as well.
161 MR. LACROIX: Well --
162 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm predictable in my Q --
163 MR. LACROIX: Not only, Mr. Chairman -- no, because we think about this all the time. So whether we are travelling or whether we are sitting together or having a coffee, these are the kinds of things that we talk about every day.
164 Whether it is a newspaper article that we picked up or a conference we attended or a conversation that we had with another broadcaster somewhere in the world or with a person we deal with every day, we are constantly bombarded by this information and our thinking process has to be constantly living and not simply reacting to an important Q and A.
165 LE PRÉSIDENT : Oui. Donc, c'est une très bonne réponse, sauf que j'aimerais tester quelques petits concepts dans votre réponse.
166 La première, c'est -- vous parlez beaucoup -- votre premier volet était les personnes, et c'est un défi auquel j'ai fait face lorsque j'étais au ministère du Patrimoine canadien. Parce que c'est vrai, en se préparant pour les nouvelles réalités numériques, il ne faut pas laisser personne derrière non plus. Nous avons des membres de nos communautés qui ne sont pas aussi branchés, pour toutes sortes de raisons : leur désir d'être branché ou non, leur proximité aux nouvelles technologies pour des raisons d'âge, d'éducation, toutes sortes de raisons.
167 Comment vous -- c'est bien beau parler de ces nouvelles plateformes, mais qu'est-ce qu'on fait pour cette tranche de la population qui n'est pas nécessairement aussi branchée? Et on a comme un défi d'avoir à gérer deux réalités qui sont parfois en parallèle.
168 M. LACROIX : Alors, Monsieur le Chairman, la question que vous posée, je vais vous ramener encore à une des premiers commentaires que j'ai fait aujourd'hui.
169 On a choisi de doubler de 2.5 à 5 pour cent de nos budgets média notre investissement dans les plateformes numériques. Ça veut dire que c'est 5 pour cent.
170 Il y a 95 pour cent des ressources de CBC/Radio-Canada qui sont encore investies dans ce qu'on appellera les plateformes un peu plus traditionnelles : la télévision, la radio. Et notre objectif, évidemment, c'est de comprendre où vont les Canadiens, quels sont les besoins des Canadiens.
171 Je comprends aussi que broadband Internet, l'Internet à haute vitesse, est disponible à, de façon terrestre, à peu près 97 pour cent de la population canadienne. Il y en a qui choisissent, pour des raisons peut-être de coûts ou des raisons personnelles, de ne pas vouloir s'y connecter. Ça, c'est une chose.
172 Mais nous, notre travail, c'est de continuer avec les plateformes traditionnelles. La radio et la télévision -- puis on vous a dit ou je vous ai dit, il y a un instant, à quel point on pense que ces plateformes-là sont importantes -- dans les cinq prochaines années seront aussi importantes qu'elles le sont dans le moment et que le côté Internet vient simplement complémenter ou vient en support aux plateformes principales.
173 LE PRÉSIDENT : Avec ces changements que vous prévoyez dans l'avenir, 2017, j'aimerais vous entendre un peu plus sur le rôle particulier qu'un radiodiffuseur public, le radiodiffuseur public national, a par rapport à cette réalité.
174 Tout à l'heure, vous avez parlé de votre plan, mais à un plus haut niveau, est-ce que vous avez une responsabilité qui est unique en raison de votre mandat législatif?
175 M. LACROIX : Absolument, Monsieur le Chairman. Dans notre -- dans la loi, on parle du mandat que nous avons de livrer aux Canadiens une programmation variée qui informe, qui éclaire et qui divertit.
176 Alors, ces concepts-là sous-tendent tout ce qu'on fait chez CBC/Radio-Canada. On est un service public. Donc, l'objectif, lorsque vous regardez l'écosystème dans lequel on vit, c'est d'y contribuer en réussissant à parler aux Canadiens de la meilleure façon, en leur livrant des services qu'ils veulent à l'endroit où ils veulent, de la meilleure façon qu'ils veulent, en leur faisant comprendre les enjeux du Canada, en leur faisant comprendre comment se comportent leurs citoyens canadiens.
177 Notre travail est donc de faire de notre rôle de service public des programmes à un contenu canadien important pour continuer à supporter les créateurs du Canada qui font cela. Parce que vous savez, si nous autres, on n'est pas là... On fait à la hauteur de 752 millions de dollars par année. L'an dernier, toute l'industrie à côté de nous en a fait pour 500 millions. C'est correct, ça, parce que ça, ça fait partie de notre mandate de supporter les créateurs du Canada.
178 Sur le côté de tout ce qui s'appelle les espaces qu'on essaie de créer pour les citoyens, on veut leur donner des endroits où ils sont capables d'échanger leurs idées, de réfléchir sur les grands enjeux d'une façon impartiale, dans un environnement sécure où ils peuvent communiquer leurs visions, ils peuvent communiquer leurs intérêts, et, en fait, échanger sur les grands enjeux.
179 Alors, nous, non seulement il y a 2015, mais 2015 vient en support à la stratégie qui est d'enrichir la démocratie et évidemment d'être la personne qui exprime le mieux la culture canadienne.
180 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci.
181 Bon, on est en train de faire cette audience. Il y a des bonnes chances que la décision ne sera pas rendue avant le début 2013 sur les renouvellements et votre plan stratégique porte la date de 2015.
182 Pour un terme de licence qui pourrait être de cinq ans, sept ans ou 13 ans, comme la dernière fois...
183 LE PRÉSIDENT : ...donc, 2015 me paraît plutôt à courte vision.
184 Comment peut-on équilibrer ça avec votre plan, à la lumière que nous, on doit regarder un petit peu plus loin que 2015?
185 M. LACROIX : Alors, 2015 avait comme objectif de donner à notre entreprise une carte de route qui nous permettait de regrouper sous un parapluie les engagements qu'on prenait et notre interprétation du mandat que la loi nous donne dans une forme de modernité.
186 Au même moment où nous continuons à livrer 2015, qui est un peu bousculé dans le moment à cause de nos enjeux financiers, mais quand on livre 2015 et on continue, on commence à réfléchir à qu'est-ce qu'il y aura après 2015.
187 Mais les axes stratégiques que vous voyez là, Monsieur le Chairman, ce seront toujours les axes stratégiques sur lesquelles le radiodiffuseur public va continuer à travailler. En 2015, on n'arrêtera pas de faire de la programmation canadienne aux heures de grande écoute. On n'arrêtera pas de s'intéresser aux régions. On n'arrêtera pas de s'intéresser à ce qui se passe dans le numérique, avec toutes les tendances que je vous ai énumérées tantôt.
188 Alors, en même temps qu'on va atterrir en 2015, tout le travail est déjà débuté en fonction de notre prochaine étape, qui sera 2020 -- 2020.
189 Mais ça, c'est une évolution normale. Alors c'est pour ça que nous croyons toujours que ce terme de licence-là de cinq ans fait du sens dans l'environnement dans lequel nous sommes.
190 LE PRÉSIDENT : Donc, je peux prendre votre plan stratégique et biffé 2015 et mettre 2017?
191 M. LACROIX : Pas tout à fait. Ce que vous verrez en 2017, c'est la continuation de ces enjeux stratégiques-là, ajustés en fonction de l'environnement qui sera celui-là, mais également la continuation de l'évolution du broadcaster.
192 Parce que dans les cinq dernières années, il y a eu une transformation de CBC/Radio-Canada comme jamais on en a vu avant. Notre entreprise continue ou, en fait, travaille ensemble.
193 On parle de deux solitudes. Chez nous, ces deux solitudes-là n'existent à peu près pas. CBC travaille beaucoup plus avec Radio-Canada que jamais avant. On s'intéresse aux régions. On s'intéresse aux grands enjeux. Et le travail que nous faisons nous amènera toujours à avoir les priorités du radiodiffuseur public que je vous ai identifiées.
194 Donc quand on arrivera en 2015, en 2016, en 2017, on regardera l'environnement dans lequel on est et on verra maintenant comment continuer cette évolution-là pour être à l'affût des besoins des Canadiens mais également de notre meilleure façon de rencontrer leurs besoins.
195 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you are going to have to help me a little bit here.
196 MR. LACROIX: Yes, for sure.
197 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because, you know, I understand that you will have to course adjust during the period. So I can't just whiteout 2015 and replace it by 2017, as you have answered.
198 But by the same token, we have a legislative obligation to ensure that we are ensuring that you carry out your legislative mandate. And I get that there are changing environments, broadcasting environment, technologies, ownership structures and so forth, and financial realities.
199 So how do we then frame the renewal that goes well beyond 2015 if you are telling me that there is likely to be adjustments?
200 MR. LACROIX: The environment in which we are working, the pace of change is incredibly fast. It is constantly accelerating. And what you see from us right now is our vision and the priorities that we have set ourselves landing, we hope, around 2015.
201 But this is not -- as I said a few seconds ago, this is not, Mr. Chairman, something that is going to stop. The axis on which we are pushing right now, the investments that we are making, the choices that we and Kirstine are doing in the programming piece, I mean they are going to continue on.
202 What you will then see in 2015, 2016 and 2017 is our adjustment to the environment of that time, trying to constantly keep CBC/Radio-Canada, as a public broadcaster, a modern, an efficient and a very active broadcaster in the lives of Canadian citizens.
203 MR. GUITON: Mr. Chairman, the licence proposals that we have in front of you are good for five years, so changes that we will be making in 2015 to 2017 will be through the evolution, but we are going to continue to stay with the licence renewals. The key conditions of licence that we propose will be there for us right to 2017.
204 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will get back to terms of licences, but, you know, it is daunting because the pace of change pushes us to have short-term views and that is not what we want to have. We want to have longer-term views and I appreciate the condition of licences are there, but they are there to give life to broader strategic objectives, yours and ours, in terms of implementing our mandate under the legislation. But I am trying to figure out how one weighs that.
205 MR. LACROIX: And you know, Mr. Chairman, there is another complicated factor that we have hinted at but we have not really touched upon yet, and it has nothing to do with you. It is the way we are financed.
206 Being financed on a 12-month basis and knowing in February -- and that's okay, that's part of the cards that we're dealing with and we have argued for stable funding over a number of years, it makes some of the choices that we are making right now obviously vulnerable to the stability factor.
207 So we are making the choices that we are making right now. We have a view towards 2015. We constantly look for trends. We constantly look for what Canadians want. I'm very interested in the three pillars that you have identified: the creators, the citizens and the consumers. We, I think, understand that very well, because that is what we are interested by.
208 But this is an environment in which there is no certainty. I can't tell you what 2017 is going to look like right now. Because if you simply look at one of the widgets that we are using it wasn't there, and the way the content is now on the widget it didn't exist a few years ago.
209 That is only one part of the pieces and the balls we have now.
210 MS STEWART: To put a frame of reference around it in terms of how the media lines interpret the 2015 plan, I think it's -- we look at it, you know, despite all the changes that are going to happen over time, as really a reflection of the pillars, the things that remain true to public broadcasting.
211 You know, in a sense, digital is a reflection of how we anticipate the public to be using and want access to our programming. Regional is a reflection of how we are expected to cover the country. You know, these are pillars which would stand. You know, they were in different forms prior to this plan and they will survive past 2015.
212 THE CHAIRPERSON: You raised, in your presentation and in your questions -- your answers that you have just given, the challenging shifting financial framework that you are facing.
213 Maybe I can take those in two phases. First of all, your parliamentary appropriations, I'm sure if you had your druthers, you wouldn't have been facing the sort of challenges you have over a couple of years, but it is what it is and --
214 So my question is more how did you go about making the choices you had to face?
215 I know you answered at a high level that you used your 2015 strategy as the filter to make the choices, but I was wondering if you could give us a little bit more detailed examples of how those broad guiding principles were applied in practice when you had to make choices.
216 MR. LACROIX: I would be happy to. I think the Senior Executive Team of CBC/Radio-Canada have all been CFOs for the last three and a half years, more than they have done what they have to do under the job descriptions that we all have because that was part and parcel of the realities that we faced.
217 We're very happy by the way that we have managed ourselves through that, happy in terms of yes, we made some gut-wrenching choices, but when we look at where we are now and the focus that the organization has, and some of the choices we made now I think are proving out to be okay choices. We have been able to balance our budgets and we look forward to balancing it again come March 31st.
218 So choices. We looked at every single line item in our business. The teams worked at then focusing on 2015 and saying: Okay, what are we going to protect in those choices?
219 I will give you some percentages because that will give you perhaps, Monsieur Chairman, what you are looking for.
220 If you look at one of the things that we say we do, protecting the regions, well, if you look at the number of -- the percentage of cuts that we made, 89 percent combining both French and English media; 89 percent of the cuts were made at the network level and 11 percent in the regions.
221 So one way for us to make the commitment live that we care about the regions and to protect the second pillar is to not have a proportional cut in the way that we look at services being delivered in the regions. So when I say we protected the regions -- and I have said that very often -- that's an example of it.
222 When we chose the technology -- for example, on the technology piece, we looked at how are Canadians consuming right now our services. We thought that the analog business and the analog signals and the way that that was being delivered was no longer -- when you looked at, again, the choices that we made we had to make -- was no longer the best way for Canadians to consume their services. So we chose to accelerate the end of the analogs in our environment. That saved us $10 million.
223 When we looked at Radio-Canada International -- because that was an important and a very difficult decision to make -- we looked at shortwave and we looked at whether shortwave in 2012 was still an investment that we wanted to make. We took that piece out, transformed Radio-Canada International into a Web service, and all of a sudden, the -- l'achalandage, the number of people that went there and are using the site has gone up.
224 Now, it doesn't do much for the 85 jobs that we took out of Radio-Canada International and we feel very strongly about this, because at the end of the day, there's about 1,650 jobs that were taken away from CBC/Radio-Canada over the last three years, were taken away that we chose, because those are the choices we made.
225 But what I am trying to tell you, sir, is that when we look at 2015, we looked at it, we looked at it in programming, we looked at it in efficiencies, and those are simply three of the -- or two or three examples of how we thought, as we were going through the expenses we made on the expenses side, of how we could link the way we invest the dollars that the taxpayers give us and our commercial revenues in the best possible way.
226 On the revenue side, same issue. Where could we actually increase the amount of revenue so as to limit the cuts that would come to CBC/Radio-Canada? That's when trying to maximize our television revenues came up. That's where the request that we're making in front of you to try to introduce ads on Radio -- Espace Musique and Radio 2 comes about. Because those dollars flow to the whole Corporation, they protect the service and they actually allow us to continue delivering services to Canadians.
227 In the regions, one of the most important things that we made as a decision was not to close stations, whether it's radio stations or television stations, because in our environment right now we think that that's absolutely critical, with the resources that we have, to continue to be present in the regions to deliver our services to Canadians because we think that's part of our mandate. But you can definitely understand that making those choices means that something else has to give.
228 And when you look also at whether it's the television side or the radio side that gets most of the cuts, we actually also protected the radio piece to the tune of -- about 84 percent of the cuts went on the television side, 16 percent of our cuts went on the radio side.
229 So again, choices in accordance -- I keep pointing to the television set because I have the video again très frais dans ma mémoire, so that's what we talked about.
230 Does that help understand the framework with which we work?
231 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, to a certain degree, but maybe I can -- you know, we share a common challenge in that we each have jobs that deal with technology that everybody has. Everybody owns a radio or a laptop or a television or several of those often, and they all have a view, right. Canadians, 30 million plus, all have a view on how to do that.
232 You talked about how you made choices. Could you explain to me how you engaged Canadians in making those choices?
233 You know, I remember the words in the song "You Can't Always Get What You Want," so I appreciate that you won't be able to satisfy everyone. But when you went through your process of making choices -- and I will get in a second, that may be an ongoing reality -- I want to get a sense of how you will engage Canadians.
234 MR. LACROIX: Mr. Chairman, we didn't engage Canadians -- we don't engage Canadians on particular ad hoc issues unless we want to report on that particular question in a survey environment.
235 What do I mean by this? I mean that we constantly speak to Canadians. We have a presence in the regions and the media panels will tell you actually, particularly on the French side, how with different communities that we speak to what processes we have to gain constant feedback.
236 Because it's not about one moment in time. We have this -- for example, when we did the financial re-engineering we had a $179-million issue. We didn't go to Canadians and say, "All right, could you help us fix $179 million in three months?" That didn't work. When we had the DRAP conversation, $115 million, again in a few weeks, that's not the way we worked.
237 What we did, though, and what we do on a constant basis is that we exchange, we have views, we survey Canadians. We have formal processes and informal processes.
238 And I go back to being present in the regions. So we are in the regions. The people that run the stations and the people that work there bring feedback because they constantly meet with the opinion makers.
239 When we travel we have these kinds of exchanges also. We have formal processes. We have surveys about what services Canadians want. We report on those surveys. We make that information public.
240 So it's an ongoing dialogue that we have with Canadians to ensure that when we made these choices in very finite time with some of the consequences that we were actually going to deliver -- we actually started from the Broadcasting Act because the Broadcasting Act, as you know, is the foundation of 2015.
241 We wanted to respect the Act, we wanted to respect 2015, we wanted to reflect what Canadians were telling us on a regular basis, and that's how we made our choices.
242 THE CHAIRPERSON: So going forward, because that sets aside some of the uncontrolled events in terms of your budgetary or parliamentary appropriations, but going forward you mentioned earlier you have a number of requests before us for additional sources of revenues, which of course we could accept, but we could also deny in whole or in part.
243 MR. LACROIX: Yes.
244 THE CHAIRPERSON: So in light of that possibility -- you are obviously hoping for favourable decisions, but in light of the possibilities of partial denials or total denials, help me understand how you will make adjustments and how you will set priorities going forward.
245 MR. LACROIX: The priorities are still set and we always come back to 2015. So the choices -- and let's talk about ads on radio -- if that is I think the main purpose of your question, what would happen if the CRTC chose not to allow us to have ads and sponsorships on our musical networks, we will go back to the choices we make. We have no intention of closing those radio stations down but they will change in format and content.
246 We have already started thinking about this. Louis and Kirstine might want to add some of the views that we have with respect to some choices, but it is going to be about the whole of the services of CBC/Radio-Canada being affected by this decision because, as you saw, we expect if you -- and we believe our numbers, $15 to $35 million over seven years would flow to us and that would allow meeting some of the challenges that we have.
247 MS STEWART: And I can add that we live in a framework of constant change. I think, as we have said before, as Hubert has said, you know, our lives have been changed to being one that's very responsive to the resources that we have at hand. So, multiple plans are always under way.
248 We have -- obviously, knowing the different effects that we had with things like LPIF and the changes that were coming ahead, we always plan ahead. We plan for the worst and hope for the best.
249 And I think it's important to understand that in addition to the surveys and all the work that we do speaking to Canadians -- because it is important, we are a Canadian public service -- we also notice -- we have usage data, we also have the ratings data, we have information about how Canadians actually use our services, which is incredibly important, that helps us guide the choices that we make.
250 So in a world where we are in constant flux of what kind of resources are available to us, whether through the appropriation or through other funding, or through revenue, to be frank, because that also changes on a yearly basis, we have constant reassessment of what we are doing and plans about what we would do and how we would react and they are always under the same framework, always making sure that service is important, always making sure that we give people the content that they are looking for and that we supply them with what they need and what they expect from us as a broadcaster.
251 THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me give you an example of I think a choice you made -- and I'm not second-guessing it, but I'm just trying to understand. It's my understanding that faced with less financial resources you had to eliminate the cross-cultural fund which I believe was supposed to contribute to share programming and documentaries, dramas, TV series between the French and English realities.
252 How did you come about making that particular choice and, notwithstanding that particular choice, how are you still delivering on this notion of a shared national consciousness?
253 You invoked earlier, you know, that you operate and try to break the two solitudes. So how -- notwithstanding that specific operational decision, how are you still reaching that objective?
254 MR. LACROIX: The way budgets were built there was an amount of money that was not in the two media lines set aside, $10 million, for cross-cultural programming. I told you that we have never, I think in the history of our corporation, been so close and so focussed on working together.
255 So we took away the $10 million earmarked for those kinds of projects and then imposed on Kirstine and on Louis the obligation to continue the nature and the spirit of that, because we are a public service, in the programming choices and in the valuation of their work on a yearly basis.
256 So it went from a budget position that was separate from their media line budgets to flowing back into the two media line budgets, allowing them to continue the programming they do, with the obligation of continuing that cross-cultural, that signature event, that kind of programming.
257 And what it did -- and Louis can speak to this -- is instead of having two or three or four events of importance like "8th Fire" -- which was a spectacular Aboriginal series, four-part, took about a year in the making -- it allows them to actually do more, perhaps not in that kind of signification in those kinds of events but more in terms of the daily work they do to support the reflection piece that we are talking about.
258 Louis, do you want to speak on that?
259 M. LALANDE : J'aimerais premièrement ajouter que c'est le genre de décision qui est très difficile à prendre et je pense que ça illustre bien les discussions qu'on peut avoir à notre niveau quand on fait face à des défis comme ça.
260 Kristine et Hubert ont parlé du challenge continu qu'on a avec une situation financière qui est souvent instable, mais ça illustre un peu les défis, donc, une décision qui n'est pas simplement prise sur le coin de la table.
261 Moi, ce que je retiens de ça, la chose principale, c'est celle-là. C'est que ce fonds-là a servi vraiment à créer des liens avec très grand succès. On a établi des mécanismes de fonctionnement en production conjointe, et maintenant cet esprit-là s'est vraiment déployé dans l'ensemble des unités de programmes et autant au niveau des réseaux qu'au niveau des régions.
262 Parce que maintenant, cet esprit-là du travail conjoint sur des sujets d'intérêt commun se répercute maintenant dans toutes les formes de programmation. On a autant en variété qu'en dramatique qu'en documentaire, qu'en nouvelles.
263 Dernièrement, si vous nous écoutez, vous avez vu un reportage assez exceptionnel sur les drones déployés au Yémen. C'est effectivement un travail conjoint de CBC News et du service d'information de Radio-Canada qui nous permet d'affronter et de rendre compte aux Canadiens de situations particulières.
264 Donc, ce que je retiens, c'est que maintenant, c'est déployé. Cet esprit-là est déployé dans l'ensemble de l'entreprise. Mais j'insiste sur une chose. Ce n'est pas des décisions qui sont faciles et on en discute beaucoup avant de prendre ces décisions-là. Mais il faut les prendre.
265 MS STEWART: To add to what Louis and Hubert have been saying, I think it's also a reflection of the ubiquity of the spirit of working together.
266 I think at one point it was a separate discrete fund that promoted and actually kept a bit more of a silo actually situation where you would actually have a discrete fund to finance cross-cultural programming, but as it has become second nature to us and as we have been working closer together over the last few years, I think the change of the funding mechanism is actually more of a reflection of the fact that it is considered on a daily basis and our teams work incredibly well together in terms of programming and making sure that we could actually reflect events that affect the nation whenever we can.
267 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure you don't want to go through those same exercises of cuts, but it's almost interesting that the financial constraints force you to break some of the divides that had been there in seeking financial efficiencies.
268 MR. LACROIX: It's actually a strange consequence but I think it's more about the leadership and how the DNA of the Corporation has changed. It also starts in the regions. And yes, you are right, when a region goes from X to Y on a budget and all of a sudden the 45 people in the station, les anglais et les français mélangés, all of a sudden have less resources, you know what, it accelerates the conversations between the people in the room and they might actually start sharing even more.
269 So that's where we were going. What these cuts did was simply accelerate the process by which we're working at be even more efficient.
270 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you for that.
271 Let me turn to a somewhat different subject. And we will have the two panels later on --
272 MR. GUITON: Yes, absolutely.
273 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- but I want to talk about an issue more at a higher level, and it's our regulatory approach generally.
274 You are obviously coming forward and saying, you know, you want more flexibility, a lighter hand of regulation so that you can adapt, for instance reducing certain conditions of licence, certain undertakings and expectations, and help me understand how that lighter hand will, notwithstanding that approach, still allow us to carry out our legislative mandate.
275 Let me explain. Yes, in some markets your services don't play a dominant role, although some places you are quite successful, but in terms of Canadian content you do play a significant role and if we lighten our approach to that, isn't there a risk that certain types of programming will be lost to the system because of the very real financial challenges looking forward you have to deal with and the changes to technology? We may actually, if we aren't more detailed in our conditions of licence, lose out on Canadian choices in particular programming categories.
276 MR. GUITON: Let me try and start on this one because I think it's an important and fundamental point to get that out because it's where we started from when we started to design the licence renewal process. And it didn't start just with the recent announcement that the Commission was restarting our licence renewal, nor did start a year ago when we had our original application in.
277 Mr. Chairman, it actually goes back to one of your decisions, 2009-411, when you actually looked at all broadcast groups and you were trying to -- that is a quote from the Commission itself. The objective was:
"...to establish an overall regulatory framework that provides all (television) broadcast groups with the flexibility to adapt to the rapidly changing communications environment, while ensuring that the Canadian broadcasting system is distinctly Canadian..."
278 So the way we took that and the way we understood your approach generally was to find this balance between granting licensees flexibility while making sure that the substantive values of Canadian content were promoted.
279 That's what we have tried to do in coming to you with this application today, is to put forward something that's very strong in terms of conditions of licence for Cancon, for PNIs, for local programming on the television side and on significant commitments for Canadian content on the radio side, and we are trying to do that in the spirit of finding that balance that you, I think, struck for the whole industry. That's the balance we have found and we are coming to you with what we think is the best balance.
280 THE CHAIRPERSON: But we discussed earlier that the public broadcaster, national public broadcaster, has a special role to play and it's not -- you know, you are comparing yourself in a sense to private broadcasters which have a different role to play.
281 I mean, if you are not present in variety --
282 MR. GUITON: Right.
283 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- in drama, in arts, performing arts, and children's and all those categories, and we have at the same time private broadcasters who are driven by other interests, perhaps less driven by public service as you are --
284 MR. GUITON: Right.
285 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- isn't there a risk that the system as a whole -- you know, we have the responsibility to ensure that the system as a whole delivers on the objectives of the Act, whether that is lost.
286 MR. GUITON: Right. Right.
287 And if I suggested to you that we were trying to compare ourselves to the private sector, that wasn't the intention.
288 What I was trying to say is that in 2009 you looked at the entire broadcasting sector and that finding a balance applied to us, as it did to the privates. We were a party to all of those proceedings over the past four to five years where you have been looking at this notion, in our view, of finding the right balance of encouraging flexibility and at the same time making sure a minimum level of Cancon and other commitments are there to make sure that what you have just identified as concerns from the Commission are addressed.
289 We have come forward with what we think will do that. Certainly, we are very happy to discuss with you, certainly in the media panels, have we struck the right balance. Very pleased to discuss that with you.
290 I wasn't suggesting that this is a comparison between us and the privates at all. It was really just the Commission's -- what we took the Commission's overall goal, changing environment, let's give some flexibility but let's make sure that all the essential ingredients are still met.
291 THE CHAIRPERSON: You would agree with me, though, that the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, particularly section 3(1) aren't self-implementing, that the only way they have life is either through generally applicable regulations, sometimes policies of general application to which we can make exceptions, but mostly through conditions of licence, but that's how we give section 3(1) life and we can't just hope and approach it by "Trust us, they will occur."
292 MR. GUITON: That's true. I agree with that. And what our package of proposals is we hope will allow you to consider whether we have struck the right balance in meeting the objectives of the Act.
293 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And we will have a chance to unpack that with the various panels.
294 Now, one of the conditions, though, that you are asking us to remove, and I understand in a sense you want to look at your services not like a group licence like for the privates, but that we see you as a single media group with various platforms, both more traditional platforms and new platforms and probably emerging platforms that we don't even imagine today that will arrive at some point. And one of the conditions you are asking us to remove is the conditions that relate to the separate accounting of the specialty services vis-à-vis the general conventional networks.
295 One of the historical reasons associated with that has been in the way parliamentary appropriations have been done, that is, that there was a recognition historically that the conventional platforms, radio and TV, conventional television, were one thing and that your presence in the specialty world was closer to being in direct competition with some private operators and that the cross-financing between those two was inappropriate.
296 So I appreciate your desire to have flexibility, but how do we ensure that there is not inappropriate activity and cross-financing of public money into private more commercial activity?
297 MR. GUITON: The condition dates back I think to 2000 -- you have the separate accounting -- and when we looked at it we -- as we said, I think we responded to you in an interrogatory on this point -- and when we looked at it our thought was we are operating as a quite integrated environment. The market itself is not -- is very diverse now. The Commission is encouraging competition everywhere. There's a very rich and, as they would say in economics, a very thick market everywhere.
298 So our thought was just to allow ourselves to get the efficiencies by not continuing to report on that basis and to operate as an integrated environment, we would ask for the condition to be removed.
299 THE CHAIRPERSON: The question I'm asking you is not unique -- it's not a public policy question that's unique to Canada, it occurs as well in the European Union --
300 MR. GUITON: Yes.
301 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- where they are very concerned when state-financed undertakings are operating in the private sector --
302 MR. GUITON: Right.
303 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- that there is a balance, that there is not an unfair action on the part of publicly financed companies, state or Crown corporations in our lingo, operating in the private sector and one could argue that those conditions of licence were an attempt, granted with some consequences, but were an attempt to ensure that there wasn't money flowing across those Rubicons.
304 MR. GUITON: Right. But just to be clear, Mr. Chairman, those conditions were with respect to CBC News Network and RDI only, and generally the Act doesn't set us up as being distinct in that we are only active in certain areas for fear that we might go over into areas that other players are in. The Act sees us as partnerships with the privates. We are all in there doing our thing promoting the Broadcasting Act.
305 At the time when you put that condition on, the idea I think was that News World and -- sorry, CBC News Network and RDI would be quite significant services that would dominate the environment and your concern was with fewer specialties at that time, fewer news services at that time, your concern was those are not the traditional conventional services of the CBC and Radio-Canada that we understand go out to promote the objectives of the Act at the same time as the privates are in the marketplace and no restrictions there.
306 Your thought was really with respect to new services and the danger there. You thought that these two could be quite significant relative to the privates' news services.
307 Our thought right now in requesting that that condition of licence be removed is that the environment has become so competitive and the news services are -- clearly we are not that dominant that it's not necessary anymore to have that condition.
308 But certainly, if the Commission thinks that that's an issue with respect to those, too, that's fine. We understand and respect that.
309 THE CHAIRPERSON: My mind is still open. I'm just trying to understand why -- you see, the challenge we may have is that some will accuse you of using either parliamentary appropriation funding, revenues from cable subscription and moving programming back and forth across platforms, which I think is exactly what you want to do, but will say: Well, that's unfair because we only have subscription or advertising revenue, whereas you have this additional source of financing.
310 MR. GUITON: You have ruled on this recently in a case where the question was whether undue preference was given to some of our activities because they were funded by parliamentary appropriations and I take your point that the issue is much more prevalent now as there are a lot more platforms and more innovative services in which we participate.
311 But I think at the end of the day the Commission has to recognize that what we do in a lot of cases is new platforms. We are doing the risky stuff, the risky programming, the more innovative programming.
312 To go the route that you are suggesting or that maybe is a concern would be to limit us to a distinct and narrow range of opportunities. We don't think that's in the objectives of the Act, we don't think that that's good for the Canadian system and we think you really do want to encourage us to be going out onto new platforms and to using, as you just said, Mr. Chairman, all of our activities intertwined so that we can develop new and interesting programs for Canadians.
313 THE CHAIRPERSON: Have you actually -- perhaps you haven't -- costed out what this separate accounting condition of licence actually costs you to operationalize?
314 MR. GUITON: I don't have an answer to that question. I'm sure we could find out and we could come back to you at the break if you like.
315 THE CHAIRPERSON: At least in a ballpark --
316 MR. GUITON: Sure. Absolutely.
317 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- just so we understand. You know, we can be reasonable about things but better understand how things balanced out.
318 In your presentation you make a long list in terms of accountability of various people you are accountable to. I think it's at page 12 of your presentation and it seems like a fulsome list.
319 But I come back to the role which you acknowledge that we have to ensure the objectives of the Act are carried forward. You, like many other cultural Crowns, are not subject to Part X of the Financial Administration Act, which for other Crowns allows ministerial direction and more interference in the going activities of Crowns because there is a social consensus that cultural Crowns are in a particular situation and we want to ensure the independence of that.
320 And so you, in a sense, are independent and we are independent, but we are not independent of each other. We are independent of each other across this room.
321 Would you agree with us, though, that because Part X of the Financial Administration Act doesn't allow that same sort of oversight that we have a particular role to play to ensure that your corporate objectives are properly carried out?
322 MR. LACROIX: I think that the mandate that the CRTC has under the Act is to look at all of the actors we have, public broadcasters, private broadcasters, community broadcasters, and ensure that each plays its role and contributes in the way that the Act has objectives for each of these different players.
323 In our case it goes one beyond, because I think that you have a role to play to regulate what we will call the programming plan or the strategic direction that CBC/Radio-Canada is in, in delivering the services that it needs to deliver under all of the requirements that the Act has on us.
324 So I'm not sure whether it is related to the Financial Administration Act in any kind of way. I think your jurisdiction on us and on what you do and on the other players in the system is very clear. It stands on its own.
325 THE CHAIRPERSON: But we may have a particular obligation vis-à-vis the public broadcaster as a Crown corporation because of the absence of other mechanisms associated with you as a Crown corporation.
326 MR. LACROIX: Steve, do you want to add something on that?
327 MR. GUITON: I actually don't have an answer to that question, but we would be happy to think about that over the break, if you would like. It's something that we had not discussed.
328 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
329 MR. GUITON: It wasn't the first question in our binder, so I'm sorry.
330 MR. GUITON: Yes.
331 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's probably one of those esoteric questions of somebody who has been around for too long at the Treasury Board Secretariat as well that would ask that sort of -- but perhaps you can think about it over the break.
332 MR. GUITON: Yes. But just to be clear, you would like us to come back with an answer on that question, Mr. Chairman?
333 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It's because in a sense, you know, it goes -- I get your arguments about a more light-handed approach regulation, conditions of licence light in a sense and all -- not just conditions of licence, all the commitments. I mean I take your point that you were boxed in with a lot of expectations and conditions at the last renewal, but that may be the nature of the beast in terms of achieving your objectives.
334 MR. GUITON: All right.
335 THE CHAIRPERSON: Not your objectives, but the objectives Parliament has given us and you in the system and the governments we have.
336 MR. GUITON: So that's a very good segue to talk about, just what it is we are seeking.
337 We are not -- the term "conditions of licence light," I wouldn't characterize that's what we are proposing here. I was going to say conditions of licence strong.
338 What we are trying to say is rather than have a whole variety of conditions that may or may not be useful to achieving what I described to you before as what we understood as the Commission trying to make sure there is effective Canadian content produced by the system while granting them that balance of flexibility, we wanted to come forward with some really strong conditions of licence for you, give you a package that you could say all of those little things that they used to do, in fact it's better to have some really key strong things that we can be sure. We don't have to worry about foreign feature film because they are stepping up and their Cancon is going to become conditions of licence and it's very high. We don't have to worry about that stuff.
339 We still report to this day, Mr. Chairman, on foreign feature films. We have no regulatory obligation with respect to foreign feature films, we report on it.
340 So what we are trying to do is actually conditions of licence strong, you and I and this panel and your panel working together to identify what it is the Commission thinks it needs exactly to feel it's granting some flexibility while still getting that Cancon that you think is important.
341 We have come forward with our Cancon strong -- our COL strong, but it may not be strong enough in your view and we would be happy to talk about that when the media panels come up.
342 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. But without getting into the details of the various media panels, have you given some thought? You refer to the corporate report card, I see suggestions in your opening statements that you would be willing to work with us in terms of that public accounting, have you given some thought of exactly what that would look like?
343 I understand the reasonableness of that --
344 MR. LACROIX: Right.
345 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- we ourselves have to account to Parliament and to the Treasury Board Secretariat and to all sorts of people, and what we try to do is to make sure that we do it once so that it meets several objectives.
346 Is that what you are envisaging?
347 MR. LACROIX: That's exactly the point, sir. What we would like to do is ensure that we meet the objectives that you want to see in the reporting, but that we don't keep reporting for the sake of reporting. And we do so much reporting right now we would like to make sure that some of the stuff that we are doing for other purposes can actually be used by the CRTC to meet some of the challenges -- or not the challenges, but some of the... les attentes, some of the expectations that you have of us and if there are pieces that you want us to report on in addition, we will do that, but it's the idea of ensuring that we can use all of the stuff we do in your environment.
349 MR. GUITON: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Just procedurally -- as I understood part of your question, was procedurally how could we do that. We thought about -- we have a package of metrics that we produce for ourselves, for our reporting requirements with you, for our reporting requirements across the board and we would like to somehow determine exactly what reporting requirements you think you would like to use out of that whole package and we would be more than happy to tailor it to your needs. The question is: Procedurally how do we go about doing that? Do we do this with staff online to show them exactly what we have? We are in your hands really. We are open to at the end of this process, during the process, providing a better education to people what it is we report on right now and what is our internal reporting in terms of all sorts of indicators of performance in terms of regional information, online information. We would be more than happy to show you what it is.
350 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because you refer to the corporate report card, do you have a straw man to propose at this stage?
351 MR. LACROIX: We actually have -- this report exists because we are now into the first year of it that can be surely used. And you can look at it because it's public and it's on our Website.
352 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So that's the sort of balance score card that private sector sometimes --
353 MR. GUITON: Yes.
354 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's what you're --
355 MR. GUITON: Exactly.
356 THE CHAIRPERSON: And it is of course a bit difficult for us to have a conversation until we know exactly what conditions. I appreciate the difficulty of it, but it would be possible perhaps to have a follow-up at some point to figure out how exactly you would report. Is that something you would be able --
357 MR. GUITON: Definitely we would. We would be happy to do that.
358 THE CHAIRPERSON: And because it is something that we have to report to Canadians as well, because they are looking at it, that we probably would need to have more general views on that document.
359 MR. GUITON: Yes, we agree with that.
360 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, help me with the digital platforms. Obviously, depuis le dernier renouvellement, le monde a changé considérablement.
361 Et nous avons la réalité que beaucoup de radiodiffuseurs et, comme vous avez mentionné dans vos présentations, même des gens qui ne sont pas des radiodiffuseurs traditionnels, qui sont maintenant sur ces plateformes-là, ils agissent en grande partie comme des radiodiffuseurs.
362 M. GUITON : Dites-moi, c'est un peu comme j'ai mentionné dans mes commentaires au tout début, nous ne réglementons pas ou nous ne donnons pas des licences. Plus précisément, nous réglementons, parce qu'on a donné des exemptions. C'est une forme de réglementation. Mais on n'octroie pas de licence pour les activités que vous mettez en ligne.
363 Par contre, si je comprends bien votre stratégie, c'est d'utiliser ces plateformes numériques pour enrichir ou palier des choses que vous ne pouvez pas faire pour des raisons financières ou parce que vous jugez que - je pense à votre volet, vos cinq volets de l'environnement au début, que c'est peut-être une meilleure façon de proximité par rapport au public canadien d'être sur ces plateformes-là plutôt que sur des plateformes plus traditionnelles.
364 Vous nous avez mentionné la situation à Hamilton. Je pense qu'à Longueuil aussi c'est une autre réalité où vous utilisez ces plateformes-là.
365 Mais pour nous, c'est un peu difficile, parce qu'à un certain niveau, la Loi nous oblige de regarder comment vous livrez certains services publics aux Canadiens. Mais vous les livrez en partie sur des plateformes qui ne sont pas assujetties à des licences.
366 Donc, aidez-moi à comprendre comment on peut, nous, accomplir notre mandat législatif et quand même accepter que, dorénavant, certaines obligations publiques, vous allez les rencontrer sur ces nouvelles plateformes. Vous ne voulez pas qu'on réglemente ces plateformes, j'espère.
367 M. LACROIX : Je ne suis pas surpris de la question, Monsieur le Président.
368 Je n'ai aucune intention de vous suggérer de vous mettre à réglementer cette plateforme-là non plus. Cependant, ce que je crois que CBC/Radio-Canada peut faire pour vous satisfaire que ces plateformes-là viennent en support à nos services principaux, et comme vous l'avez dit, que ce soit la Rive-Sud, la Rive-Nord de Montréal, qui ont maintenant des sites Web un peu particuliers, ou que ça soit à Hamilton, notre suggestion c'est vraiment de passer par tout ce qui s'appelle reporting, le faire à part, pour que vous puissiez voir que les objectifs qui sont dans les conditions de licences et les attentes que vous avez de nous sont quand même rencontrés même si, je répète, on prend une plateforme numérique ou une initiative numérique pour venir supporter l'obligation principale.
369 Je pense que c'est la meilleure façon et, franchement, parce que vous n'avez aucune intention, je pense, de vous mettre à réglementer ces nouvelles plateformes-là et je pense que c'est la meilleure façon pour nous de vous assurer et vous, de vous assurer, que ces attentes-là sont rencontrées.
370 N'oubliez pas, je répète, la division entre 95 pour cent de notre budget des lignes médias qui sont présentes devant vous dans le moment sont dans nos plateformes plutôt traditionnelles. Il n'y a que 5 pour cent de notre budget qui sont dans le numérique et ça sera une progression jusqu'en 2015-2016 à peu près lorsqu'on se reverra en 2017, peut-être vous plus que moi, on aura à ce moment-là une conversation sur la prochaine étape.
371 LE PRÉSIDENT : Ou 2019 parce qu'on peut octroyer les licences pour sept ans. La situation peut évoluer considérablement. Je veux bien comprendre votre point de vue si vous nous dites que vos obligations sont là.
372 Mais si je comprends bien, dans le cadre de votre bulletin Corporate Reporting, dont on parlait tout à l'heure, vous pourriez envisager de fournir l'information dans le cadre de ça par rapport aux nouvelles plateformes aussi?
373 M. LACROIX : C'est certain.
374 M. GUITON : Il y en a, oui, là-dedans, un problème maintenant, et vous le savez très bien, je pense que tout le travail du CRTC est dans le domaine des nouveaux médias. Il y a une question des standards pour mesurer les informations. On n'est pas là encore pour standardiser toutes les choses. Mais on a des informations pour nous-mêmes qu'on peut partager avec vous, absolument.
375 If I could just mention one other thing, I thought with respect to the line of questioning you just started, Mr. Chairman, an important point, in terms of how the Commission, I thought you were saying, should be looking at us over the licence renewal with respect to traditional and online digital platforms.
376 It is certainly the case that we perceive that traditional platforms will remain over the licence term the principal way by which we meet our mandate, no doubt about it. It is the case, however, that we do have to meet audiences where they are and we do have to think about innovative ways of doing things.
377 But traditional platforms, traditional broadcasting services will remain for us the main way that we fulfill our mandate over the next five years.
378 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right, but the goal is not to be a barrier to innovation, quite the contrary. We are looking at our legislative mandate and saying, okay, well, if some of that is now being delivered on alternate platforms, how do we ensure ourselves that the objectives that Parliament has entrusted to us are met which is a bit of a change, a management issue that we are struggling with.
379 MR. GUITON: We understand that and we have the same issue ourselves when we are creating content. We now create content differently as Hubert was saying in his opening remarks. The point we just want to make clear is over the next five years, we are not thinking, particular with respect to your idea about regulating digital, we are not thinking that digital is going to be taking over traditional platforms to the point that we can't fulfill our mandate via traditional platforms.
380 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand, I understand.
381 All right, then, let me turn to another subject matter and the very delicate issue of balance in news reporting and, of course, all the journalists in the room will get all very excited about it as they are dearly concerned about these matters.
382 Of course, one of the bigger challenges is that on all news reporting, whether it's on your platforms anywhere else, how you perceive balance is very much embedded in how your own views of the world are. But we have seen recently with events at the BBC that it's something public broadcasters have to be particularly mindful of, I think.
383 Could you perhaps describe how you ensure that there is balance in your news reporting, how you measure balance, if you do it at all, how do you self-assessments, do you have guidelines? What kind of guidance? I respect journalistic independence, but from a structural perspective, from a framework perspective, how do you go about that?
384 MR. LACROIX: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be talking about balancing news and how important this is in our lives because we think that the public broadcaster's credibility starts from that spot. Unless we can prove to Canadians from coast to coast to coast that we do this well in a world standard way, then we don't fulfill our role.
385 So let me suggest four pieces to the framework because I think, like you, of a framework with respect to news and then I am going to ask Kristin and Louis if they want to add to the pieces when I finish, and you will also hear that a lot from Jennifer McGuire and from Michel Cormier who is the new person in charge of news at CBC.
386 So four pieces to the framework.
387 Journalistic policies, it starts with the standards against which we look at the way we deliver the news. I will come back to that in a second.
388 The training piece, what happens in the newsroom, the organization itself and how we pick up the information, the stories, how we distribute them, what we choose to make what's in the newsroom and the training that we give journalists to be able to meet those standards.
389 The third piece, it's about listening to Canadians again for feedback and the consultation as to whether, and here comes the report card again, they think that we deliver on the mission of our delivery on news, whether it's fair, whether it's balanced, whether it's accurate and impartial, or intègre, and I just listed the five values that we have in our journalistic policies.
390 It's also about the remedies. It's about when you think it doesn't go well, I mean where can you actually complain and that's the ombudsman's process at CBC/Radio-Canada and it's also complaining directly to the newsroom and having them deal with the concern.
391 So I see four pieces to the framework around which we deliver news.
392 Let me start quickly again with the standards, JSPs, our Journalists Standards and Practices. They were reviewed in 2010, months of work. They were then, through our shop, reviewed by two independent experts because we want these to be world-class and then approved by a board of directors. So that's very important for I think the CRTC to understand the standards that we set ourselves against, the JSPs.
393 Les normes et pratiques journalistiques ont fait partie ou ont fait l'objet d'une révision très récente qui fait en sorte que maintenant, je crois qu'elles sont franchement world-class.
394 Second piece, what's in the newsroom, to ensure that we have the standards, we have ongoing training and we have also redesigned the way Radio-Canada and CBC identify the news stories, pick up the news stories, they go to one place, all of these details, either now or later on, we can give you.
395 I will go back to the feedback piece, the report card, I think that is pretty obvious and we will tell you how much we survey and how often we survey, and what we do with the surveys. All that is public. It's on our Website.
396 Then, I will finish with the ombudsman because I think we did with the ombudsman again what we did with the journalistic standards and policies. Last year, in 2011, I asked a group of experts led by Jodi White, and that's why we call it the White Report, with five experts, to look at the ombudsman position to benchmark us against the ombudsman position or like positions, the public editor position, for example, in the newspaper, of key broadcasters or key organizations in the world because we or I and the board also, we wanted to make sure that the ombudsman's mandate was current, clear, dealt with the right issues, particularly in a social media environment because we had not perhaps adjusted the mandate to reflect that. We knew what was going on. We just wanted to make sure that it was clear so that when you go on to the Website of CBC/Radio-Canada or on the ombudsman's Website, you have exactly what the ombudsman's position is.
397 So we did that in 2011 and we are very proud of the framework which I just summarized around which and with which we think we deliver news in a very accurate, fair, balanced, impartial and intègre way. What's "intègre" in English? Integrity way. Sorry.
398 LE PRÉSIDENT : C'est le défi de la dualité linguistique. Des fois, il y a des parties du cerveau qui ne veulent pas réagir aussi vite que l'autre.
399 With respect to logger tapes, what's your practice? How long are they maintained? Because balance is often seen not by individual stories, but a whole series of behaviours. So what is your practice with respect to maintaining logger tapes, but also examining in case of complaints?
400 MR. LACROIX: Frankly, sir, I don't have that detail with me. I would be happy to have the people who do news answer that question when they show up here.
401 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that would be acceptable.
402 When you look at journalistic balance in news reporting, is one of your metrics regional reflection as well?
403 MS STEWART: There's a number of them. Besides the key values that Hubert talked about in terms of what we look at in maintaining journalistic standards, there is a sense of balance and diversity of voice and key to that are different pieces, you know, diversity of region, diversity of gender, diversity of opinion. It's incredibly important, even on the very basis of setting up the overall structure for news to make sure that those diverse opinions are heard and we figure that is an excellent way to measure balance because you don't have a one-sided opinion, it is something that is reflected in the various ways that Canadians want to be reflected.
404 I think when you look at the journalistic standards and practices, they are very much based on the values and the fact that we strive for diversity of voice. It's a great document that was recently reviewed, as Hubert has said, and it stretches over both French and English. It is a document that was come to together in order to take into consideration all of the changes that have happened recently, all source of media, all of the different things that can affect or influence news and how it breaks and how it gets reported. It is actually considered world standard, it is something that other broadcasters have looked to to see how they can also maintain that kind of a code of journalistic standards and diversity of voice is a big part of that.
405 THE CHAIRPERSON: But as you know, on the record and in general discussion, in society, there are some people who think that the choice of news items that are being selected on both English and French services, tend to be either Montreal-centric or Toronto-centric and that the other parts of the country only get reported on -- I don't want to say that this is my view, but some might say -- when there is a gruesome murder in that particular community and that's the only way those folks get to be talked about.
406 MR. LACROIX: We have heard that. We have heard that from a number of people, including my mother.
407 When you actually look at the numbers, Mr. Chairman, and we will be happy, and if you want me to do this now, I can give you a summary, because I think the direction in which you are headed -- et il est peut-être présomptueux pour moi de présumer ça -- but it's actually on the French side and the fact that the regions of Canada, because you have some people who have voiced their recent concerns about that, que les régions du Canada ne sont pas reflétées au Téléjournal, par exemple.
408 If we want to have that conversation, I would like to bring you back, though, to one place. It's about all of the services being used to deliver the reflection of les Canadiens qui parlent français à travers le Canada. C'est beaucoup plus que les 45 minutes des nouvelles.
409 But even if you only look at Le Téléjournal and how it reflects, or The National reflects stories of Canadians, you have to take into consideration that those very important platforms for us deal with international news, our view of the world, Canada explained to Canadians through the eyes of the Canadian.
410 J'apprenais ce matin que Jean-François Bélanger de Radio-Canada a été un des premiers journalistes à traverser sur la bande de Gaza, qu'il est dans le moment, being rained on by bad things. Mais ça, c'est expliqué aux Canadiens dans le moment de ce qui est vraiment en train de se passer à travers les yeux d'un journaliste qui va faire des rapports tant chez Radio-Canada que chez CBC de ce qu'il est en train de voir. Petit aparté.
411 Alors, il y a les nouvelles internationales, les nouvelles nationales qui concernent le Canada en entier, where we are reflecting Canadians, what is happening in the country, et ensuite, il y a évidemment le côté démographique qui fait en sorte que 91 ou 92 pour cent des gens qui parlent français sont dans la Province du Québec et dans la région Ottawa-Gatineau. Alors, ça, ça nous fait un défi encore plus important.
412 Je connais la préoccupation et je pense que le Conseil a de cet aspect-là de nos services. On est prêt à y répondre. Louis et Michel Cormier, lorsque Michel Cormier se présentera devant vous cet après-midi, je pense, si la cédule va bien, on y répondra et on pourra y aller dans les détails.
413 Mais le message que j'essaie de passer, c'est que dans le contexte du Téléjournal, les 45 minutes, le mandat de Radio-Canada est un mandat qui touche à la fois l'importance du côté international, l'importance du côté national, refléter la démographie et refléter les régions et ce qui intéresse les personnes dans les régions sur les nouvelles qui s'y rendent au réseau et l'importance qu'on y attache à faire les ajustements parce qu'il y a eu des annonces qui ont été faites récemment, Monsieur le Président, pour continuellement ajuster notre programmation.
414 Louis, est-ce que tu veux ajouter quelque chose sur ça?
415 M. LALANDE : Oui, merci, Hubert.
416 Simplement, et effectivement, ça me fera plaisir cet après-midi d'aborder cette question-là plus en détail avec, entre autres, Michel.
417 Mais je veux juste rassurer quand même le Conseil sur une chose. L'équité et l'équilibre, c'est les valeurs fondamentales pour Radio-Canada parce que comme Hubert le mentionnait plus tôt, c'est la crédibilité du service public et de son service de l'information qui en dépend. Je peux vous dire là-dessus qu'on est très sensible à la perception du public à cet égard. On mesure régulièrement la perception des Canadiens face à cet enjeu de l'équité et l'équilibre.
418 Je peux vous dire que les résultats que l'on récolte dans ces mesures de perception sont encourageantes parce que les Canadiens reconnaissent qu'on a des scores élevés dans cette façon d'assurer l'équité et l'équilibre dans nos programmations.
419 Mais comme je vous dis, ça me fera plaisir certainement cet après-midi d'aborder ça plus en détail concrètement avec notre équipe de direction des Services français.
420 LE PRÉSIDENT : Et on va le faire avec les panels parce que c'est une préoccupation qui est reflétée beaucoup dans les interventions.
421 Before we take a break, I have one last question which I approach with a lot of hesitation.
422 You talked about the importance of credibility and public perception. I bet this will be Twittered about by journalists. There has been recent discussion about, when you talk about credibility and public perception, of journalists suddenly leaving the services of Radio-Canada to carry out new work elsewhere.
423 You know, public office holders like ourselves are generally -- there is more and more accountability about this, about post-employment obligations and whether journalists -- and I don't want to deny them other sources of living, but aren't you concerned that if a journalist, in a very short period of time, who has been on your airwaves, turns around and gets involved directly in an advocacy group or even in public life, that that somehow taints what you are trying to do with respect to credibility and public perception? Have you done some reflection on that going forward?
424 MR. LACROIX: Top of mind, Mr. Chairman. Top of mind, because in our environment if Canadians who listen to our news think that the person who is delivering the news has a particular bias, then we fail. As simple as that.
425 I'll give you an example of what we did when rumours started flying about the possible move of one of our journalists on the French side to public life in the Province of Quebec in the context of the upcoming or of the then upcoming elections. It will just give you an idea of how important that was.
426 When we heard about this, we actually, Louis, Michel Cormier and I, had a conversation about this because it's very important to us. The conclusion of that conversation was let's ask the journalist what are your intentions. We have to believe the answer we get.
427 Then it was about -- the issue was colours. Can you go back and see whether there is in the way that he delivered his reportages, his stories over a certain period of life, can you go back and see whether the standards had been met and that also was something that was done.
428 You can ask Michel to elaborate on this, this afternoon because I know that this is a conversation -- he can give you his side of the conversation we had and what he did with it.
429 But it's also about believing the person who gives you the answer. It's about looking at them straight in the eye and saying, will you be doing this, what's all this about, and believing the answer that is given to us.
430 But you are absolutely right. When these moves happen -- and they happen in our environment in Quebec -- there are only -- well, there were two and now there are three options. So when you leave our service and you want to do politics, you used to have one party or the other, and it was very obvious that if you chose one side, a certain colour came with it.
431 Now, you have a third option which perhaps will allow us to not be boxed in in terms of the political views that come in through the eyes or the perceptions that come in through the eyes of the people who watch us.
432 It's not an easy answer. It's an answer that goes to the credibility of our people on the floor.
433 Louis, at this time, before Michel comes on later today, do you want to add something there?
434 M. LALANDE : Juste brièvement.
435 Premièrement, il n'y a pas une organisation d'information qui est à l'abri d'une décision d'un de ses journalistes. C'est arrivé à Radio-Canada, mais ça arrive à peu près dans chaque média à travers le monde. C'est déjà arrivé. Ce sont des situations qui vont probablement encore se produire parce qu'il y a une espèce de proximité qui s'établit souvent entre le milieu journalistique et le milieu politique. On l'a déjà vu.
436 Je pense que notre responsabilité, elle se situe au niveau de mettre en place des mécanismes qui assurent que lors du travail journalistique, et je pense que vous avez eu une bonne description de l'ensemble de ce que comprennent les politiques journalistiques, donc, dans chaque organisation et particulièrement à Radio-Canada, notre responsabilité, c'est de s'assurer que le travail qui se fait par chacun des journalistes soit un travail qui respecte les normes de crédibilité.
437 Quant à la décision personnelle, là-dessus, un coup qu'on lui a demandé dans les yeux et que la réponse...
438 LE PRÉSIDENT : Mon but n'est pas de retourner vers le passé.
439 M. LALANDE : Non, non.
440 LE PRÉSIDENT : Moi, je regarde vers l'avenir. Je me pose la question. Dans vos ententes contractuelles avec ces journalistes-là... Comme moi, demain, si je quitte le Conseil, je ne peux pas aller travailler pour les entreprises de radiodiffusion. Il y a des périodes de cooling off, qui disent qu'en somme, je dois prendre un peu de distance pour toute sorte de raisons de politique publique.
441 Je me pose la question pourquoi qu'on n'a pas une réflexion semblable quand on parle des nouvelles et la crédibilité, et la perception publique, de quelque chose qui va au coeur de notre démocratie.
442 M. LALANDE : J'ajouterais pour votre bénéfice que les journalistes sont dans un univers qui est syndiqué. Donc, nous ne sommes pas dans une relation contractuelle, individu par individu. Donc, quand on affronte cette réalité-là, on affronte un univers qui est beaucoup plus complexe, donc, qui n'est pas aussi simple que ce qu'on souhaiterait.
443 Mais je veux vous rassurer que ça fait toujours partie des discussions et des craintes qu'on peut avoir de voir des gens faire le saut parce que c'est quelque chose qui est déjà arrivé et qui, probablement, pourra arriver à d'autres moments donnés et ça touche non seulement pas juste Radio-Canada mais d'autres médias.
444 M. LACROIX : Et ça revient à votre question, Monsieur le Président, l'encadrement. Est-ce que cet encadrement-là est suffisant? Est-ce que nos politiques journalistiques... Parce que tantôt, j'ai parlé d'encadrement, si vous voulez, au niveau journalistique, mais il y a également les politiques de programmes qui viennent... lorsqu'on parlait de diversité tantôt et d'autres aspects de la qualité de l'information qui est livrée, il y a des politiques programmes.
445 Lorsque vous mettez tout ça ensemble, est-ce que l'infrastructure, l'encadrement qui est donné nous permet d'assurer aux Canadiens qui nous écoutent que le contenu des nouvelles... et je vais vous répéter en français en deux minutes les mêmes cinq valeurs fondamentales que nous avons dans nos politiques journalistiques. Si on n'est pas capable de livrer ça aux Canadiens, je répète, we are at fault.
446 LE PRÉSIDENT : On aura l'occasion peut-être de poser la question aux journalistes, aux associations de journalistes qui se présenteront devant nous pour voir leur point de vue sur cette question.
447 Il est 11 h 04. On va prendre une pause de 10 minutes et on va revenir à 11 h 15.
--- Upon recessing at 1104
--- Upon resuming at 1113
448 THE SECRETARY: Please take your seats.
449 LE PRÉSIDENT : Donc, à l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.
450 J'ai quelques autres questions avant de procéder à passer la parole à mes collègues.
451 You anticipated that I would be asking you about interventions. In fact, it probably would be more efficient if you just gave us your Q & A book, but you're quoting what individuals?
452 I didn't actually choose the same interveners as you did, but --
453 MR. LACROIX: I'm not surprised.
454 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- but I did want then to put a few to you to see. My question will always be, you know, what do you say to these folks.
455 For those of you that might want to pull these out, I've got Intervention 1862 from Steven Jones from Vancouver, British Columbia, and he writes and I am just -- I can't read it all, it's too long:
"...but I consider a free and independent news media a cornerstone of democracy. Manipulating the opinion of the public by not reporting pertinent facts is not the CBC mandate. With me, the CBC has lost its credibility. I tried to post the following comment regarding facts missed in a story."
456 I'll skip the details of it.
"My comments were not posted. I do not belong to a political, environmental or any other organization, group or party. I have never had comments rejected by the Huffington Post."
457 So what do you say to Mr. Jones?
458 MR. LACROIX: I would say to Mr. Jones that Madam McGuire who is the head of news and who will be able to tell you about why exactly his post was not posted.
459 I am not sure whether it's content, words, whatever, but we have processes by which the comments are looked at and either chosen or not chosen to be posted. And that's really a question, Mr. Chairman, if I can ask for your indulgence to ask again to Madam McGuire.
460 THE CHAIRPERSON: In a sense, I am not -- you have done this a couple of times, wanting to suggest that the individual panel should answer and the group here is the head, right?
461 I am not so much interested and I didn't read the details of it precisely because it's not about the details. It's about the perception.
462 MR. LACROIX: Okay. So, if the question is what I would tell Mr. Jones: Mr. Jones, we listen to Canadians on a constant basis. The numbers were actually spectacularly high in terms of, let's say, audience relations of the number of people that --it's 155,000 people or 155,000 pieces of mail or e-mails that went to us -- en français, c'est à peu près la même chose, si vous voulez avoir les chiffres exacts, ça va me faire plaisir de vous les donner dans un instant.
463 So we are constantly listening. We are always trying to create spaces for these debates to happen. There are some rules.
464 I mean, depending on what you say and what you don't say, offensive language and stuff like this, that's why I am not too sure of why his comments were not posted, whether it's a technical error or whether it's a substance issue.
465 But at the end of the day, we want those views, we want them posted, we want to an animated debate and we -- that's our job. So, we are sorry, Mr. Jones, that your comments were not posted.
466 THE CHAIRPERSON: Another one, this is Intervention 2407, Ms Susan Ogilvy from Whitby, Ontario:
"While living in a rural area, I was so thirsty for regional news, I was driving to work two and a half hours away from Toronto, yet listening to news about rush hour traffic. It was awful, though it did make me appreciate my peaceful commute. Regional CBC is quintessential to bring communities together. If CBC sharply reduces non-news production in many of its regional centres, it guts a community. It makes that community weaker. We don't need weaker communities or more people feeling disconnected and lonely. We need to foster connections and communities to make people stronger and more capable."
467 What do you answer?
468 MR. LACROIX: That's exactly what happened in Hamilton and how we started identifying areas where we felt either Canadians were being underserved or unserved and our answer to Hamiltonians was: Let's try to deliver news and in a different way because we don't have the resource to do it in the more traditional way. Let's make sure that if Torontonians want to know about Hamilton, they don't have to go through the regional programming that comes out of Toronto to deliver news and traffic -- et la circulation aux gens qui sont à Hamilton, so -- and maybe Kirstine can tell you.
469 THE CHAIRPERSON: But just to be fair, I mean, how do you tell this woman who is wanting --
470 MR. LACROIX: Certainly.
471 THE CHAIRPERSON: You know, how does she get her local community news while driving? Surely, you are not suggesting that she should be driving and looking at the ads at the same time?
472 MR. LACROIX: No, no. On the contrary, the ads that the Quebec government has done with tweeting and driving are -- sont très percutantes, by the way. You don't want to do that.
473 So, it's about the services that come out of Toronto and how they can, with the means they have, regionalize it during the day.
474 MS STEWART: I think this is part of what was the cornerstone of what we called the "Local service extension plan," which, I think, you know, we've talked about in front of some of you before, about how we view news and how we can better serve underserved or completely unserved markets.
475 And it is true, as Hubert said, we have to look at a variety of cost-efficient ways to get this done, particularly, you know, with the recent pressures that we've had financially. It does become aware at some point, you know, CBC cannot serve everyone in the minutia or the definite community news that they might feel that they need or deserve and we don't like that.
476 We wish we could be there for everyone, but unfortunately our constraints are such that we do the best we can with a set of criteria that makes us, you know, evaluate what areas do we feel that we can go into and provide an effective service that we can provide to Canadians.
477 It's about the population of the area, it's about what other markets -- what other broadcasters are there in the market and we evaluate that and we look at our various platforms. We look at television, we look at radio, we look at digital as the different ways that we can try to serve the individual communities.
478 But it is true that if you are looking for specific information about one particular community, we might not be there. We might not have that kind of granular information for that particular location. However, we have extended that in a major way in the last few years and I think we have done, you know, the best we can, given the constraints we have.
479 Can we do more? Absolutely, but we have had to slow down our local service extension plan based on the cuts that we just went through.
480 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Well, maybe we will be able to pursue that on the other panels, but in the interest of time I will move on.
481 I have intervention 2503 from Georgia Simms from Guelph, Ontario:
"I very much appreciate and respect the CBC. I think it's an extremely valuable part of the Canadian culture as it offers intelligent coverage of important local and global issues."
482 So, I am not just choosing negatives ones.
483 But she goes on:
"I'm not a hockey fan. I respect the sport and see value in the athleticism and strategic play, but I do not believe that it would take up as much space in our collective conscientiousness as it currently does, nor should it be the focus of significant CBC funds. There are many other things that make us Canadian. It would be nice to feel like other ideas were valued, in addition to hockey."
484 MR. LACROIX: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I missed what she was complaining about?
485 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think there is -- maybe there is too much emphasis on hockey, perhaps not at this particular juncture, but more generally.
486 MR. LACROIX: As you said, I'm not sure she is complaining about hockey right now.
487 Hockey is to us, obviously, part, a very important part of CBC's programming. It contributes to also uniting Canadians and doing on Saturday nights around -- whether it's in a sports bar, in the comfort of your home with your kids, it's an event and it has been like this -- it should have been like this for 60 years this year.
488 The emphasis on hockey is in the normal context of the programming we have. We think it's a fair balance. They play hockey on Saturday nights. Yes, we cover the playoffs, it comes with the territory.
489 We feel that what we do on the sports strategy there is delivering another piece of Canadian culture to Canadians.
490 And in terms of the cost of it, it's cost effective, it makes sense for us. Hockey is Saturday nights and "Hockey Night in Canada".
491 Plus, what we do with it -- and Kirstine will tell you a little more about hockey in a second -- it's not only about hockey. It's what we do with the brand and how we have been able to take hockey and to create events around hockey, whether it's Hockey Day in Canada or whether it's with a sponsor going across the country and holding clinics for 3,000 kids.
492 I mean, we do more with simply hockey than broadcast it in prime time when the professional players play.
493 MS STEWART: And I think it's true and it's a good point that Hubert makes about the kind of familial nature of hockey and the fact that it actually does bring people around the television or radio, wherever they are participating in hockey together in a multigenerational kind of way.
494 And actually, if you look at the past few years of CBC Television and kind of the rejuvenation that has happened in terms of our connection to Canadians and how many people come in and watch other forms of programming on CBC, a lot of it was based around actually the principles that "Hockey Night in Canada" brought us on a Saturday night, the fact that we could build programming that multiple, you know, Canadians came to watch, that they enjoyed together.
495 We then built a Sunday Night where we brought in shows like "Heartland" and other kinds of drama shows that actually played on the fact that we have audiences coming to hockey and we can build on that same audience in other nights of the week.
496 The benefits of hockey are not just the cost effectiveness of it, which, of course, is incredibly important, it does fill a great part of our schedule to help us invest in other programming with the margin that we make on "Hockey Night in Canada", but it also gives us a promotional opportunity.
497 With that rejuvenation of CBC Television we actually use a lot of the time in "Hockey Night in Canada" to promote to those wider audiences the opportunity to come back and watch, you know, other shows, "Little Mosque on the Prairie," "Rick Mercer," the news.
498 It gives us a platform by which we can speak to a mass of Canadians in a promotional way and get them interested and intrigued in the other programming that is similar in brand to what they're watching, and that has been incredibly effective.
499 I think the most interesting anecdote I can tell you is that when we did that launch about five years ago, six years ago I guess now, of programming which Canadians are suddenly watching more than they have in the past, we put the promotional aspects through "Hockey Night in Canada".
500 The next week, after the launch of "Little Mosque on the Prairie," which was such a huge audience grabber, the producers of "Hockey Night in Canada" asked for promotion in the "Little Mosque on the Prairie" slot.
501 So, I think it shows you kind of the symbiotic nature of hockey and how we play it to a family audience and we don't cover it in the same way that I think other broadcasters do.
502 MR. LACROIX: And allow me one more minute on this, Mr. Chairman. I am going to give you a little story.
503 We are always interested in who is watching "Hockey Night in Canada". We discovered that a number of people that actually watch "Hockey Night in Canada" are the immigrants, the people that come in, first Canadians into our country, and we're trying to figure out why is that and we realized very simply that when you don't speak English very well and you're in a work environment, you need a subject of conversation with your colleagues.
504 So, what's the easiest subject of conversation with your colleagues? Sports. What's the sport in Canada during the winter? Normally it's hockey.
505 So, by having Chinese-speaking or Filipino people watching hockey on Saturday night, it's actually a facilitating mechanism for them to come in and actually become better Canadians because we are creating opportunities for them to speak. It's easier for them to integrate the workplace. It goes on. It's a social phenomenon. It's much more than simply delivering hockey at 8:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. on a Saturday night.
506 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci.
507 Le prochain, j'aurais pu le soulever lors du panel sur la télévision francophone, mais je pense que c'est mieux de le faire au niveau corporatif parce que je veux bien comprendre votre point de vue au niveau corporatif parce que c'est la direction de la société dans son ensemble.
508 C'est l'intervention 2795 de madame Monique Leblanc de Moncton et, évidemment, madame Leblanc est dans le domaine de l'audiovisuel. Elle est productrice et présidente d'une société et puis elle écrit :
« Il est clair et évident que la présence de cette institution dans nos régions, le visage de la francophonie canadienne sur nos écrans de télévision... sans Radio-Canada, le visage de la francophonie canadienne sur nos écrans de télévision serait excessivement rare. Devant ce constat, je ne peux que demander au CRTC de renouveler la licence de la Société Radio-Canada, de ARTV, de RDI. C'est également mon souhait le plus cher que le CRTC incitera la Société à inclure encore davantage de produits réalisés à l'extérieur de Montréal. »
509 Est-ce que c'est votre intention?
510 M. LACROIX : Il est très important de regarder d'où vient la programmation. On la voit à nos ondes. Louis va vous faire dans un instant une description, j'en suis convaincu, de certaines des grandes dramatiques, où elles se font.
511 Puis je ne veux pas lui enlever les mots de la bouche là, mais quand on parle de « La Petite Séduction », où est-ce que « La Petite Séduction » est faite ou « Belle-Baie », et les endroits desquels we source, on va chercher les idées et, encore une fois, le reflet du Canada à notre écran.
512 Je répondrais à madame que c'est une préoccupation essentielle de CBC/Radio-Canada, pas seulement du côté francophone mais également du côté de CBC.
513 Puis je vais en profiter pour vous parler de CBC, qui a quelque chose qui sort de Terre-Neuve, "Republic of Doyle," qui va faire "Little Mosque on the Prairie" dans le milieu des Prairies, qui va faire "Artic Air" au Yukon et en Colombie-Britannique, qui va faire, je ne sais pas, "Erika"... quand on faisait "Erika" à Toronto, "18 to Life" à Montréal.
514 Alors, on utilise constamment la géographie canadienne et les différents endroits pour être à l'extérieur de Toronto, de la même façon que quand on parle à Montréal, on essaie de plus en plus de refléter les régions à l'extérieur de Montréal.
515 Louis, qu'est-ce que tu ajouterais à ma réponse?
516 M. LALANDE : Ce que j'ajouterais, c'est que si vous regardez nos rapports, il est très clair que nous avons une progression importante au niveau de toute la programmation qui origine de l'extérieur de Montréal au réseau. Donc, ça c'est vraiment, je dirais... ça l'a augmenté dans les dernières années, et il n'y a pas de raison de voir qu'on va se retrouver dans une diminution, sinon qu'il y a certains éléments qu'il faut remettre quand même un petit peu en considération.
517 Je peux vous assurer que le fait que nous devons faire face à la disparition du Fonds d'amélioration de la programmation locale qui a beaucoup aidé non seulement à faire des programmations locales, mais à établir avec beaucoup de force l'industrie de la programmation locale à travers le pays. Il y a eu effectivement des effets bénéfiques au niveau du réseau aussi parce que, forcément, plus on fait de la programmation, plus il y a des chances qu'on capte de nouvelles idées et que de nouveaux talents émergent.
518 Alors outre cette petite bosse, là, qui peut être embêtante, je peux vous rassurer sur une chose, la stratégie régionale et les discussions que nous avons au Comité de direction font en sorte que la priorité d'avoir toujours accès à du contenu des régions est toujours là. Et sur l'ensemble des plateformes c'est là et j'ai consulté mon rapport et je pense que c'est très éclatant.
519 LE PRÉSIDENT : Donc, c'est au-delà de faire une production qui est tournée peut-être en région, mais qui est en fait produite par les gens des régions.
520 Parce que la réponse tout à l'heure, Monsieur Lacroix, quand vous me dites, bon, il y a des émissions qui ont été tournées un peu partout au pays, effectivement, c'est bien, c'est une façon de diversifier, sauf qu'elles ne sont pas toujours produites par les gens de la place.
521 M. LALANDE : Mais je vous dirais là-dessus que chaque projet est unique et un projet comprend plusieurs aspects, comprend, bien sûr, des auteurs, des réalisateurs, bref, toutes les maisons de production, l'infrastructure de production.
522 Donc, dans le fond, tous ces éléments-là en fonction d'un projet, sont... il faut les calibrer quand on se lance dans un projet.
523 Je pense que, encore là, en regardant l'ensemble de nos rapports, il y a une variété d'éléments et de types de productions et de genres qui sont faits et qui sont produits et qui sont aux antennes réseau.
524 M. LACROIX : Mr. Chairman, il y a plusieurs de ces productions-là qui sont faites avec les gens du milieu, avec les artisans de l'environnement, tant chez CBC que chez Radio-Canada. Notre dernier conseil d'administration s'est fait à Terre-Neuve. Il y a 23 millions de dollars d'investissements de "Republic of Doyle."
525 D'ailleurs, les gens ont dit souvent que ça a été un des acteurs importants... un des acteurs... pardon the pun. Cette production-là a été super importante dans l'économie de la Ville de St. John's à Terre-Neuve et c'est fait avec des gens de la place, avec des artisans de la place, dans des décors qui sont bâtis et qui sont fixes à Saint-Jean, Terre-Neuve.
526 Donc, il y a plusieurs... en fait, la plupart des productions qu'on fait sont des productions qui utilisent des artisans du milieu dans lequel on a investi et duquel on va chercher, pour des raisons fiscales, pour des raisons également de proximité puis des raisons de coûts.
527 M. LALANDE : De points de vue aussi.
528 LE PRÉSIDENT : Donc, si je comprends bien du panel corporatif, c'est l'objectif, ça fait partie de vos objectifs?
529 M. LACROIX : Absolument, et c'est ce qu'on fait, Monsieur Chairman, aussi. Évidemment... je ne voudrais pas m'éterniser là-dessus, là, mais la perte du LPIF et les choix qu'on a faits va influencer ce qu'on a appelé "non-news programming," la programmation dans les régions non-news.
530 On a protégé certaines choses, mais un des aspects qui va être affecté par ces enjeux financiers-là, ça va être our non-news programming in the regions.
531 MS STEWART: There actually is not a genre, I don't think, at the CBC that is not reflected regionally. When I think back to sports and documentaries and kids, I think they are all actually being made across the country in different ways with partners, with our producers, as Hubert has said, by ourselves. We have a lot of non-news regional programming that we also produce.
532 It's incredibly important to us. It's the basis -- we have actually found that when you make a show in the region, and the "Republic of Doyle" is a great example of that, St. John's being reflected across the country is actually something that people -- they actually are attracted to the fact that it's in a location that maybe they are not from.
533 It's not only a reflection from a community within the community but it's a reflection of a community outside of itself and to the rest of Canada.
534 So, this is our opportunity to do both local for local and local for national because this is a great, you know, opportunity for us to reflect the different communities across the country not just to themselves but to other communities that don't necessarily have the opportunity to see them on a regular basis.
535 THE CHAIRPERSON: The next one relates to your presence online by Mario Pratola(ph). He is from Waterloo, Ontario, which is, as you know, the heart of a lot of the high-tech sector, and on top of that, as a 35-year old working at the CBC, he writes:
"I have seen the evolution of CBC experiment and the experiment is not over by any means. Since the CBC has terminated over-the-air broadcasting in my area, I have had to turn to the Internet for my news and entertainment, but not the CBC as the CBC has no live feed over the Internet. What a shame and what an opportunity for the CBC. I now watch BBC, Rai, CNN, Al Jazeera and others. CBC should launch a live Internet station 24 hours FREE [in all capitals]. If they don't, they may as well lock the doors and throw away the key."
536 So, what do you respond to that?
537 MR. LACROIX: We are not going to lock the doors and we're not going to throw away the key.
538 As we said a few seconds ago, this is about evolving. This is about trying to see in the context of our financial resources where we can meet Canadians. I talked too about trends at the beginning. We're following trends. We will see. Stay tuned.
539 MS STEWART: I think too the question -- because he has particularly phrased it around streaming, I just want to put a context around that.
540 We might not be streaming, for example, CBC Television on a daily basis, but we have a player. We have cbc.ca. Louis has TOU.TV. We have radio, which is also available on the CBC music platform. They are pieces that are available. You can come to see a show the day after it has been on the air. You can watch news live as it happens. We do stream actually some of the newscasts across platforms.
541 So, there might not be a specific streaming of the CBC linear channel in the same way online, but all of the pieces, most of them, the ones that we can clear for those rights anyway, are actually available online for their downloading for their podcasting, for their -- we have a quite extensive material inventory that we would like to get into the hands of Canadians.
542 THE CHAIRPERSON: I go back to the five pillars of how you do your environmental scan and one of the first ones was persons. And this individual, I think, is demanding not podcasts but what other broadcasters -- it is impossible for you to meet everybody's expectations or are you saying that you will eventually evolve towards that?
543 MR. LACROIX: Well, we'll see where that goes. We'll see whether that's the proper way, whether the technology is the proper way, but we can't be everything to everyone. I mean, there used to be -- when I grew up, there was one CBC. You went there for -- en anglais et en français -- for sports, for all of your programs. I mean, we all know that this is not the situation anymore.
544 But what we need to mean -- and this is not a corporate line or a throwaway line, this is what we look at each other and speak and repeat all the time. We've got to mean something important to every single Canadian in this country.
545 So to this person, it is surely not going to be streaming our CBC News Network or something else on a 24-hour basis. But it might actually be: Oops! Can you go audio and you might pick it up on the audio level because that is available for you on the Internet right now, and that is one way for us to connect to him. But we need to be able to do this. We can't do this. We're not everything to him.
546 LE PRÉSIDENT : D'accord. Ne vous inquiétez pas, le supplice prend -- va prendre fin bientôt. Un dernier commentaire, c'est l'intervention 4034 de Madame Nathalie Bujold, qui vient de Montréal. Elle écrit :
« Au fil des ans, on a pu constater un nivellement par le bas de notre radio et télé publique. Sauf de rares exceptions, quelques émissions intelligentes et animées par quelques animateurs brillants, le divertissement et le populisme ont la cote. Les émissions de télé et de radio qui élèvent l'esprit se raréfient. Je n'aime plus que quelques émissions. J'espère que le temps que j'ai mis à pouvoir m'exprimer dans mes propres mots sur ce bien public ne soient relégués au statut de campagne par carte postale. »
547 Donc, une citoyenne qui est préoccupée de la qualité de vos émissions, qu'est-ce que vous lui répondez?
548 M. LACROIX : Monsieur le Chairman, je faisais référence à ma mère tantôt. Ma mère aussi a des opinions sur nos programmes, ce qu'elle écoute, ce qu'elle aime, ce qu'elle n'aime pas. Moi aussi, j'en ai, sur ce que je regarde à CBC/Radio-Canada.
549 Madame... puis malheureusement, je n'ai plus son nom.
550 LE PRÉSIDENT : Madame Bujold.
551 M. LACROIX : Madame Bujold pense que certain des programmes que nous avons ne rencontrent plus ses attentes.
552 Moi, je crois que lorsque nous regardons ce que nous mettons à l'écran, la qualité des programmes que nous mettons à l'écran, les différents genres, que ce soit les émissions d'affaires publiques, que ce soit les émissions d'information générale, que ce soit, vous savez -- quand on met sur Radio-Canada, à la télévision, « La Galère », « Tu m'aimes-tu? », « Une heure sur terre », puis « Enquête » dans la même semaine, aux heures de grande écoute, je pense qu'on a une brochette de genres intéressants et différents.
553 Lorsqu'on écoute à la radio, par exemple la nouvelle émission de Michel Auger qu'on fait et qui est une émission théoriquement phone-in mais sans téléphone, alors qu'on échange avec les gens sur la base de ce qu'ils nous disent par l'Internet, encore une fois, on évolue.
554 Moi, je crois au contraire qu'on -- qu'à chaque jour, CBC/Radio-Canada monte la barre. Je regarde le nombre de récompenses pour la programmation que nous recevons, que ce soit aux Gémeaux ou que ce soit dans le quotidien de tous les différents concours auxquels on participe, moi, je vous dis sérieusement que la programmation de CBC/Radio-Canada n'a jamais été d'aussi grande qualité, aussi diversifiée, et on espère que Madame Bujold, au fur et à mesure de regarder d'autres choses dans nos grilles de programmes, s'intéressera à notre programmation et y verra la même chose que moi. Mais c'est une question de point de vue.
555 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci. On aura la chance, sans doute, d'échanger plus entre nous. Mais pour le moment, je vais passer la parole à Monsieur le vice-président, qui a des questions pour vous.
556 COMMISIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Well, thank you, Mister Chairman. Far be it for me to intervene, to get in the way of the battle of interveners. You would probably do better numbers than "Battle of the Blades" with lower productions costs. I see Kirstine's eyes flickering, she is always on the lookout for great ideas.
557 But just to touch on something that the Chair asked about earlier with respect to the alarming rate with which you are losing Quebec City bureau chiefs to the political sphere, and the fact that there are two or three or a multiple of other parties, I don't think that it makes it any less serious a matter.
558 Mais sur la -- Monsieur Lalande a soulevé la question et le fait que ces journalistes sont syndiqués. Et peut-être que j'ai mal compris que -- dans le sens où cela contribue à vous rendre, pas tout à fait, mais presque impuissant face à ce fléau qui touche au coeur des questions d'intégrité et de crédibilité du département de nouvelles de Radio-Canada.
559 M. LALANDE : Je répondais simplement à une question soulevée par Monsieur Blais, à savoir la relation contractuelle que nous avons avec un journaliste en particulier. C'est dans cet esprit-là. Parce que quand on a une relation contractuelle avec quelqu'un de façon, je dirais, très, très, très contractuelle, donc il est possible d'inclure un certain nombre de clauses face à cet égard.
560 Tout ce que j'ai dit, c'est que dans l'univers journalistique, à Radio-Canada, les journalistes sont syndiqués. Donc, on fait affaire -- quand on aborde ces questions-là, on fait affaire avec un syndicat qui s'occupe des intérêts de ses membres.
561 Pour ne pas lancer un débat, j'ai bien compris qu'il y aura des gens ici de ces différents syndicats qui pourront répondre à certaines questions.
562 J'ai dit que... puis vous appelez ça un fléau. J'ai dit que Radio-Canada n'est pas unique au monde avec cette possibilité-là. À peu près toutes les grandes organisations de presse au monde ont eu à faire face à un moment donné à des départs de journalistes qui sont devenus politiciens et qui ont quitté.
563 Ce que j'ai redit, c'est que notre responsabilité, elle s'applique au moment où cette personne-là travaille pour nous et de s'assurer que dans l'exercice quotidien de ses fonctions, elle respecte, dans son travail journalistique, les grands principes évoqués dans la politique journalistique.
564 M. LACROIX : Monsieur le Vice-président, il y a une chose -- vous savez, cette question-là n'est pas évidente -- elle n'est pas évidente, because it touches a whole bunch of things. It touches civil liberties, it touches the right to choose to run. It affects contractual rights. Yes, it affects also collective bargaining agreement and what is in there. It affects your ability to compete for the best journalists in the world.
565 Because if you only -- yes, we are a public broadcaster and we have a different standard and we have JSPs in the framework. But if I perceive a journalist and I perceive that my ability to -- if I am fired or if I don't like CBC/Radio-Canada because it is not only à dessein or, you know, il n'y a pas de plan machiavélique, je pense, dans la tête des gens en disant : Je vais aller travailler chez Radio-Canada, je vais faire des reportages, puis ensuite je vais profiter de ma plateforme pour aller me lancer en politique.
566 I think there are a lot of things there. The Chair asked, I think, a good question: Is there, in your view, a reflection to have there? The answer is: It is top-of-mind, it is of concern, but I think the framework - and I come back to this - the framework that we have there is exactly there for that.
567 MS STEWART: I think it is important to remember there too that the journalist is not solely responsible for the piece of news that they are reporting on. There's a number of checks and bounds, as we have discussed before. The Journalistic Standards and Practices obviously are in effect and they are very strong, and they require a number of reviews of a news piece before it actually gets to air, whether on television or radio or digitally.
568 So the time that the journalist is working with the CBC, they are very much governed by their Journalistic Standards and Practices, which make it very clear about how a bias is treated and how it will be reflected, and -- to make sure that we do have balance. It is very evident in the Journalistic Standards and Practices.
569 I think the other piece that I can refer to is the fact that we also have, within the Journalistic Standards and Practices, rules the cooling off period for the opposite, should they -- someone involved in public life wanted to come and become a reporter or on-staff of the CBC. There is a national cooling-off period that is applied.
570 So it is something that is considered, that, you know, we need to take a look at, what happens with public life when they are entering CBC, but at the same time, while they are in CBC, they are very much governed by the Journalistic Standards and Practices. So they are --
571 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: And the fact that they are unionized, if there is bias, what can people like yourself and Mr. Lalande and superiors do about it? Monsieur Lacroix?
572 MR. LACROIX: I don't think being unionized has anything to do with this. I mean they are not sick, they are part of a collective bargaining agreement. So we have a code, everybody walks in, they adhere -- ils adhèrent aux politiques --
573 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Oui, mais c'est assez clair dans la réponse que le fait d'être syndiqué, cela a empêché d'agir en pleine liberté, de la façon que vous auriez peut-être souhaité le faire. Et si j'ai mal compris, cela va, et si ce n'est pas le cas, il faut qu'on mette les choses au clair. Que le fait qu'ils sont syndiqués ne vous empêche pas d'agir et d'agir d'une façon -- avec assez de force pour assurer l'intégrité et les apparences d'intégrité autour du département de nouvelles de Radio-Can.
574 M. LACROIX : Je peux vous assurer que les checks and balances, l'encadrement, nous permet aux personnes qui ont à intervenir, d'intervenir dans le cadre du travail quotidien de nos journalistes, aucun doute.
575 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Et le fait d'être syndiqué ne met pas des bâtons dans les roues?
576 M. LACROIX : Être syndiqué fait partie du -- fait en sorte qu'ils ont -- qu'ils ont une convention collective, they pay dues and that's it.
577 M. LALANDE : Pour le cas dont on parle ici -- et Hubert l'a bien dit ce matin -- dès qu'il y a eu question de rumeurs, parce que les rumeurs ont commencé à être publiées à l'extérieur de Radio-Canada, il y a eu des conversations entre Hubert, moi et Michel, et Michel s'est assuré, avec sa direction, de rencontrer effectivement l'employé concerné et d'aborder cette question-là, et la réponse a été satisfaisante à ce moment-là. Donc cela n'a aucun rapport avec le fait qu'il soit syndiqué ou pas.
578 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Et si les gens peuvent vous regarder dans les yeux et pas vous dire nécessairement toute la vérité, là, il n'y a absolument rien à faire?
579 M. LACROIX : Ou... puis je ne veux pas traiter la personne en question de menteur, mais peut-être qu'à ce moment-là, ce n'était pas encore réglé. Peut-être qu'il hésitait. On ne peut pas... Je pense que notre rôle, pas juste à nous là mais à toutes les personnes qui sont dans notre salle de nouvelles, c'est de poser les bonnes questions et de s'assurer que l'encadrement répond à nos attentes.
580 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Merci pour les éclaircissements.
581 Pour retourner au sujet du jour, et le Président a effleuré en quelque sorte ces questions brièvement. Mais quant aux exigences en matière de production de rapports, si j'ai bien compris votre soumission, votre requête est à l'effet que vous aimeriez certains allègements?
582 Et peut-être que dans le cadre d'un diffuseur public -- si je peux m'exprimer ainsi, ou financé en partie par le public -- est-ce que la société canadienne doit s'attendre à ce que nous mettions la barre plus haute et qu'on soit plus exigeant? Et conséquemment, de diminuer les rapports qui doivent être produits par la Société n'aide pas ce désir des Canadiens d'être bien informés.
583 On a parlé des intervenants et il y a peut-être matière qu'on n'utilise pas sur une base quotidienne, nous, au Conseil, mais il y a certains Canadiens qui s'y intéressent, et qu'on limiterait en quelque sorte leur accès à ces informations-là.
584 Que répondriez-vous à cette question de principe plus qu'une question détaillée?
585 M. LACROIX : D'aucune façon est-ce que la demande de CBC/Radio-Canada devant vous concernant l'allègement sur faire rapport ne devrait être perçue -- puis j'espère que ce n'est pas ce qu'on fait -- comme étant une intention de se soustraire à présenter aux Canadiens de l'information pertinente ou du reporting qui va être sur des questions qui nous intéressent collectivement.
586 Tantôt, les gens qui nous suivent vous parleront, parce qu'à la pause, Monsieur le Chairman, la question du Chairman de tantôt sur separate accounting, on a une réponse très claire. On va vous montrer qu'effectivement, il y a un autre rapport qui fait à peu près double emploi avec celui-là, et c'est pour ça que ce n'est pas très inquiétant de ne pas avoir de separate accounting. On vous expliquera cela dans deux minutes.
587 Alors cela, c'est un exemple de double emploi, efficience, efficacité, ne pas faire en sorte que des rapports soient bâtis sans qu'il y ait quelqu'un qui s'en intéresse et qui comprenne les raisons pour lesquelles il est bâti.
588 Mais d'aucune façon est-ce qu'on veut réduire la transparence qu'on a sur le radiodiffuseur public. Je suis très confortable avec ça.
589 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Monsieur Guiton.
590 M. GUITON : Oui, merci. C'est juste pour dire que dans certains cas, comme vous le savez très bien, Monsieur le Vice-président, qu'on propose des conditions de licence qui n'existent pas maintenant. Dans le temps de Cancon, on va plus haut qu'on avait dans la période précédente.
591 Alors, on ne voit pas ça comme une diminution de notre...
592 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Non, mais en matière de production de rapports, la demande est à l'effet que vous voulez un allègement ou qu'il y ait un chevauchement. Et peut-être pour rentrer plus dans les détails, où voyez-vous ce chevauchement-là dans tous les rapports que vous avez à produire?
593 M. GUITON : Bien, j'ai donné un exemple aujourd'hui au président, l'idée qu'on fasse... qu'on donne une formation sur les films de...
594 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Les films de...
595 M. GUITON : Je ne sais pas comment dire ça en français, des blockbuster films. Et je peux vous dire exactement ce qu'on donne au CRTC maintenant, même si...
596 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Mais dans votre... Je ne veux pas vous interrompre, Monsieur Guiton, mais dans votre rapport, dans votre soumission...
597 M. GUITON : Oui?
598 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : ...il semble y avoir une expression -- et corrigez-nous aussi si on l'a mal lu -- à l'effet qu'il y a du chevauchement, que vous êtes obligé de rapporter à plusieurs niveaux plusieurs documentations, une hyper-paperasserie, et que, conséquemment, vous voulez avoir plus de flexibilité à cet égard-là.
599 Alors, comme exemple concret, où est-ce qu'il y a du chevauchement? Je vais vous permettre de l'expliquer comme il faut, de présenter votre cause pleinement.
600 MR. GUITON: I will just try to explain it this way. We are not retreating, clearly. I think it is fair to separate the two pieces.
601 We have certain regulatory obligations right now. They are numerous and we consider them to be of a smaller nature. There are a lot of them that are not conditions of licence.
602 We have come back to you with a package of conditions of licence without the smaller things. That's on the obligations.
603 On the reporting side, we produce for you every year an annual report with respect to our obligations as well as numerous things, for example the foreign feature film.
604 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Right.
605 MR. GUITON: We are trying to streamline the reporting to make it more aligned with our regulatory obligations. That is all we are doing.
606 So the idea of the annual report, which last year, as you may know, Monsieur le Vice-Président, was over 80 pages for 2010-2011. A good part of that was not related to the actual regulatory obligations that we needed to provide you information on it, it had to do with just reporting, generally. As I said, with respect to foreign feature films, I can go through the list of things that we have to provide to you, if you would like.
607 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Oh, I understand that, but just in terms of -- des rapports plus détaillés sur les productions indépendantes, sur les productions par régions, par genres, par langues, par langues officielles, la situation minoritaire. Est-ce qu'on peut s'attendre à ce que ces éléments-là vont continuer à faire partie de ce que vous apportez au Conseil?
608 MR. GUITON: I think that is going to be something we are going to discuss with you by the end of this proceeding, we hope to discuss with you.
609 But here is how I would look at it. There are certain things perhaps that the Commission would like to know on an annual basis for our regulatory obligations. There are other factors that the Commission would like to know happened over the whole term.
610 What we have been doing is both every year. That is how you have got us going now. Every year we report on obligations plus we report on a wide variety of other information.
611 And what we would like to see, if you are asking for our proposal right now, is some sort of reporting that respects what we are obliged to do under our conditions of licence and other expectations, aligned with that information for sure and then any other information aligned with what we can provide you as part of our metrics.
612 Any additional information we would be more than pleased to provide you with at the end of our licence term, as you do normally. You provide us with interrogatories, a whole pile of information asking for us to report on our performance during the last licence renewal. We would be happy to do that every time we come before you.
613 Our arrangement now is different, it is a little bit every year we are doing that with a, as I said, quite a significant amount of reporting.
614 MR. LACROIX: So can we, for example, incorporate, by reference, some of the stuff that is in the annual report that we file with the government and have that being the description of what is going on, the ruling over the plans, the content. That is the idea behind this demand.
615 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: That is fine. With respect -- because if we are going to be able to test you with respect to your responsibilities, then we need to have -- and it is just with that goal in mind that I ask a question, and I think the Chair, the President, answered.
616 MR. GUITON: And we are certainly very happy to give you any information you feel you need.
617 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : O.K. Si on peut continuer avec le rôle de l'ombudsman. Juste un point de questionnement. Y avait-il une époque où l'ombudsman pouvait recevoir les plaintes sur des questions autres que strictement nouvelles et affaires publiques? Puis si on regarde l'historique?
618 M. LALANDE : L'ombudsman reçoit en ce moment des plaintes sur toutes sortes de choses qui sont dans notre programmation et qui touchent journalistic activities dans différents secteurs.
619 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Et il ne traite que les plaintes relatives aux émissions de nouvelles, n'est-ce pas?
620 M. LALANDE : Émissions... et là, je vais vous renvoyer à notre mandat. Les standards journalistiques, les nouvelles, mais...
621 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Cela se limite à cela?
622 M. LALANDE : Non, non, mais je voudrais... Je vais les lire parce que je veux absolument m'assurer qu'on comprenne très bien leur rôle. J'ai malheureusement seulement celle en anglais devant moi...
623 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: No, that is okay, go ahead. That is the point of the hearing anyways.
624 MR. LALANDE:
"Jurisdiction over all news, current affairs and public affairs content on radio, television and the Internet that falls within the scope of the JSPs, news, current affairs and public affairs, political, economic and social, journalistic activities in agriculture, arts, music, religion, science, sports and variety, and user-generated content."
625 So we have different criteria that apply to this information. If you are on information content, the five values apply. If you are on general interest programs and content when dealing with current issues, then balance and fairness apply. I mean this is why we did this very important clarification on the mandate of the ombudsman.
626 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: But programming at large, would he be able to able to respond to those complaints?
627 MR. LALANDE: Give me an example of what -- because I think I covered a lot of people -- a lot in the description of his mandate to you. Could you think of something, when you are asking this question, do you have something in particular?
628 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: No, programming at large, variety, I mean -- yes, Mister Guiton?
629 MR. GUITON: Programs with non-journalistic activities would not be covered, yes, by the ombudsman.
630 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: That was my understanding, okay.
631 MS STEWART: But the ombudsman does refer -- sorry.
632 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: I think we have too many microphones on.
633 MS STEWART: The ombudsman does accept, obviously, all the issues and points that I get before --
634 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: But he only treats questions of journalistic news, that is clear.
635 MS STEWART: Those are the ones he rules on. He does forward any of the other issues or complaints to the program heads in order for us to deal with those.
636 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Okay. So why wouldn't we enlarge the -- la portée du mandat de l'ombudsman, et en faisant ainsi, est-ce qu'on n'accroîtra pas l'imputabilité ou la transparence devant le public en lui permettant de traiter toutes les plaintes?
637 MR. LALANDE: And why wouldn't we do that, Mister Guiton? Why not open it up?
638 MR. GUITON: You have asked us about that and we responded to you explaining that what you would be basically asking us to do is to replicate the CBSC structure for the CBC alone.
639 We simply -- we don't have the resources. We would create something that is probably much larger than the existing ombudsman office. We would have to have -- as you know the CBSC is set up on the basis of panels, complaints come in. We have no expertise in that area in-house and we would have to recreate such a thing, and it would be quite onerous, in our view.
640 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: But isn't it important given the fact that it goes to transparency and accountability of the CBC?
641 MR. GUITON: Well, that is important. We are not -- we report to the CRTC on all our complaints, ultimately.
642 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: I understand that.
643 MR. GUITON: So there isn't a question of trying to evade or miss the transparency. If there is an issue, if someone doesn't like the CBSC's answer, if someone doesn't like our ombudsman's answer, they can come to the CRTC.
644 And with non-journalistic issues, they come to us, they complain, we respond to their complaints. They can always come back to the CRTC. There is no loss of oversight here.
645 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: There is no loss of oversight and you are raising an awful lot of issues that I would like to get into. But getting back to the -- le CCNR -- what is the English acronym?
646 MR. GUITON: CBSC.
647 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: CBSC. A couple of things. Let's start first of all with allowing the ombudsman to expand his role, and why wouldn't we do that? You mentioned it was a question of cost, right? And I think there was an interrog at some point and you were supposed to get back to us with what those costs may be and how you would justify those costs. Would you have that for us today?
648 MR. GUITON: If we have not fully met your interrog questions, then I apologize. I did not know we were short on replying to you on something.
649 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: My understanding is that the detail is not there in terms of the cost. You mentioned that the cost would be overwhelming, overbearing --
650 MR. GUITON: Right.
651 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: -- and that is the means by which you justify the fact that you need to restrict the ombudsman's purview?
652 MR. GUITON: No, no. The question was put to us: Can you recreate basically the CBSC structure? You would maintain your ombudsman operations for journalistic activities, what about the non-journalistic, could you do that again on that side?
653 And our answer was with two national TV stations, TV networks, four radio, Internet, both French and English, to do all that would be quite onerous for us and --
654 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Mais Monsieur Guiton, il est déjà en place. Il est déjà en place.
655 MR. GUITON: No, we don't have the expertise for that --
656 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Il est question de...
657 MR. GUITON: Let me just finish one point here before I pass it on.
658 The ombudsman position requires expertise in journalism, not expertise in the other codes and other standards such as violence, role portrayal, et cetera. We don't have in-house expertise on those questions and that's --
659 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Alors, seriez-vous d'accord avec moi pour dire que le CCNR a l'expertise nécessaire pour faire face à ces questions?
660 MR. GUITON: That's what they do.
661 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Okay. So why aren't your members of the CCNR?
662 MR. GUITON: Well, we have tried. We asked to become members. We were told we were not allowed to be members.
663 MR. LACROIX: We are not welcome. We are a public broadcaster, they don't want us there.
664 MR. GUITON: I believe the letter to that effect was filed with the Commission.
665 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: You have to have a chance to answer the question.
666 MR. LACROIX: Mr. Pentefountas, let me bring you back to a comment I made a few minutes ago.
667 We have taken the office of the ombudsman and we have benchmarked our ombudsman, the description of the work against PBS, NPR, France Télévision, the BBC, the ABC in Australia, the New York Times, the Toronto Star with -- and the Jodi White Committee.
668 This committee came back, looked at the jurisdiction of the ombudsman and the public editor in all of these organizations, looked at our mandate, adjusted the mandate, made recommendations and we acted on every one of those recommendations. It was then approved by the board.
669 So in terms of the ombudsman and how our system works at CBC/Radio-Canada, I can assure you we are world-class.
670 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Who names the ombudsman at CBC?
671 MR. LACROIX: Sorry?
672 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Who names the ombudsman? Who appoints the ombudsman at CBC?
673 MR. LACROIX: There is a committee that is formed. The rules are in the policies. Two people from the outside. We are just going through one right now. A person from the outside chairs it. We have two people from the inside. They will report the final candidate to me. I will interview the final candidate. I will present this person to the board and the ombudsman, as you know, reports to me and to the board.
674 So that is the story of how it goes.
675 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: The ombudsman reports to the --
676 MR. LACROIX: To me directly.
677 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: To the CEO and President directly?
678 MR. LACROIX: Exactly. And then through me to the board. This week, actually, we have our quarterly board meeting. At the November board meeting every year, the ombudsman will present his report. The report --
679 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: To you?
680 MR. LACROIX: No, to the board.
681 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: To the board? But before that, he reports to you, does he not?
682 MR. LACROIX: It is presented to me at the same time. I mean I don't comment nor do I question the content of the ombudsman's report. The ombudsman delivers the report to the board. The management teams, the news management will respond and will have comments on the comments that the ombudsman has. Those comments will also be tabled with the board. All of this is on our website and very public.
683 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: And what the ombudsman reports to the CEO and President is public, is placed on the website?
684 MR. LACROIX: The link to me?
685 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Yes.
686 MR. LACROIX: Absolutely.
687 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: It is.
688 MR. LACROIX: Absolutely.
689 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Everything that comes to you becomes public knowledge.
690 MR. LACROIX: Everything that what?
691 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Comes to you becomes public knowledge.
692 MR. LACROIX: In terms of -- I mean I don't --
693 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: The ombudsman reports to you?
694 MR. LACROIX: Let me tell you about the relationship --
695 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Go ahead.
696 MR. LACROIX: Let me tell you about the relationship that I have with the ombudsman.
697 Frankly, I don't speak to the ombudsman. The only time that in my first five years at CBC/Radio-Canada I had dealings with the ombudsman is when I was concerned about -- not rulings because I don't get involved in rulings -- I was concerned about the perception that one would have with respect to social media and with respect to views being expressed on blogs and social media sites and that was the triggering point for the Jodi White Committee.
698 And I said, all right, we have an issue here, I can't solve this, go out and try to find out how the world works, come back to us, please tell us how to deal with this. And that's how the Jodi White Report came to be and came to be tabled in November of last year, 2011, to the board. That's how it works.
699 I don't speak to the ombudsman on a daily basis.
700 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: I understand that. The ombudsman does make recommendations to the board?
701 MR. LACROIX: The recommendations are made not only to the board, but also to the workings. He expresses comments once a year and, again, those are all public, as to the workings of the treatment of information or some of the concerns that he has about what's going on in the world. Yes, again, those are public and I am telling you they are going to the board this week.
702 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Est-ce que les recommandations de l'ombudsman, est-ce qu'elles sont adoptées régulièrement? Y a-t-il des cas où il y a une recommandation de l'ombudsman qui est écartée?
703 MR. LACROIX: The ombudsman's reports are absolutely approved by the board. I have never seen, again in five years, the board not say that they have approved the whole of the report from the ombudsman. I know that each of the recommendations, the management team of CBC and of Radio-Canada expressed a comment on and that's the way it goes.
704 M. GUITON : Monsieur le vice-président, juste un point de clarification. Vous ne voulez pas dire les revues sur les plaintes.
705 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Les recommandations de l'ombudsman.
706 M. GUITON : Vous parlez du rapport à la fin de l'année quand l'ombudsman regarde tout et il donne un rapport au conseil d'administration.
707 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Oui. Il y a deux éléments. Un, c'est les recommandations comme telles sur le rapport et l'autre, c'est des cas individuels. C'est ça?
708 M. GUITON : Mais en termes de cas individuels, votre question est si ses conclusions sur les cas individuels sont respectées? Qu'est-ce que vous voulez dire exactement? Je ne comprends pas.
709 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Bien, laissez-moi poser la question autrement.
710 Seriez-vous prêt à dire que les décisions de l'ombudsman, sont-elles contraignables?
711 MR. LACROIX: All, right, let's step back so I understand your question, sir.
712 The ombudsman, when he is involved in a review process, it means that somebody has complained. It went to the news-gathering team, Jennifer McGuire or Michel, and they express an opinion. They have a conversation with you, you are complaining, Mr. Pentefountas, you are complaining, we can't satisfy your complaint. He then says, you, sir, you have a right and we say this in the correspondence with you, you have a right to elevate this to the ombudsman. The ombudsman looks over your complaint and makes a review.
713 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Makes a review and he says I am right in my complaint.
714 MR. LACROIX: Makes a review of your complaint and then there is a decision that is rendered. Those decisions are public. They're immediate and the board -- I can tell you that if they are not in favour of CBC/Radio-Canada, certain other media will be happy to make sure that the whole of the country knows that --
715 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: But are you obligated to follow his decision, Mr. Lacroix?
716 MR. LACROIX: I am not sure what obligated to -- there is a review as a --
717 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: By not being sure, I would suggest that you are not.
718 MR. LACROIX: No, I don't understand.
719 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: In other words, you have free reign. He doesn't have any power to impose his recommendations or his decision on the decision-making of Radio-Canada and CBC?
720 MR. LACROIX: This line of questioning, sir, doesn't work with me simply because I don't understand the question.
721 The decision comes out. The decision is -- in this particular program, we didn't respect this particular journalistic standard, we were not accurate. We will deal with the fact that we were not accurate. We will put out a correction if there is a particular thing about a story. It's obvious that we respect the ombudsman.
722 Les décisions contraignables, there is no process of law. There were 91 reviews that were made last year by the ombudsman. Some of them were in our favour, some of them were not in our favour. Some of them said that the journalistic policies were correctly applied, others were not.
723 Je pense que le pourcentage, c'est entre 0,5 pour cent et 3 pour cent de situations where a correction or a journalistic standard was not upheld.
724 So the process flows. The decisions are rendered. I can't intervene. I don't intervene in the reviews. He reports to me basically on administrative situations. I don't understand "contraignables."
725 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: What happens in the cases where he has found fault?
726 MR. LACROIX: We adjust, there is an error.
727 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Is it an automatic adjustment? Do you feel obligated to adjust and to follow suit?
728 M. LACROIX : Absolument.
729 Louis, veux-tu ajouter quelque chose là-dessus?
730 M. LALANDE : Écoutez, premièrement, s'il y a eu une erreur de fait, elle est corrigée, ça, c'est clair.
731 Deuxièmement, juste pour vous dire, le travail de l'ombudsman, quand il fait sa révision, c'est un travail qui est très complexe. L'ombudsman revoit l'ensemble de l'équipe sur laquelle la plainte porte. Donc, l'ombudsman revoit, consulte, discute avec l'équipe afin de se faire une opinion. C'est un processus qui est très complet et ça permet, tout le long de ce processus, pour l'ensemble de l'équipe de vraiment se faire challenger dans le fond sur la façon dont ils ont développé l'élément de nouvelles.
732 Après ça, lors de la publication du rapport, bien forcément, s'il y a une faute, quelque soit en fonction des principes, je ne connais pas beaucoup de journalistes qui aiment ça se faire noter une faute. Alors, je peux vous garantir une chose. Quand une faute est soulevée, ça discute dans l'équipe et puis les gens s'organisent pour vraiment tirer une leçon de ça. Et c'est comme ça que ça fonctionne.
733 Mais s'il y a une erreur factuelle, c'est clair qu'elle est corrigée. Elle est corrigée de façon très correcte.
734 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Pour les fins des apparences, Monsieur Lacroix, ne serait-il pas plus approprié à ce que l'ombudsman rapporte à quelqu'un d'autre et non pas le président et PDG?
735 M. LACROIX : Vous voudriez qu'il se rapporte à qui, Monsieur le vice-président?
736 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Personne. Une entité indépendante.
737 M. LACROIX : Une entité indépendante de CBC/Radio-Canada?
738 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Oui.
739 M. LACROIX : Je viens de vous nommer...
740 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Est-ce que vous voyez un problème avec vos liens qui peuvent être perçus un peu comme étroits entre le président et l'ombudsman?
741 M. LACROIX : Le vérificateur interne de notre entreprise qui doit s'assurer de l'intégrité du milliard qu'on reçoit des contribuables plus le 1,7 millions de dollars que nous avons, se rapporte directement au comité de vérification et à moi également. On a toute sorte de checks and balances dans notre entreprise.
742 Le fait que l'ombudsman se rapporte directement à moi, et d'ailleurs, si vous regardez ce qui vient de se passer au Globe and Mail, ils ont fait le changement, ils ont passé l'éditeur au publisher pour exactement ces raisons-là.
743 La personne ultimement responsable de ce qui se passe chez CBC/Radio-Canada, c'est moi. Je peux vous assurer que dans les huit autres broadcasters que je vous ai identifiés ou entreprises de journaux, c'est toujours la personne qui est en haut de la pyramide qui voit l'ombudsman ou public editor à qui on se...
744 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Est-ce que ça n'exige pas un contact assez serré entre le président et l'ombudsman?
745 M. LACROIX : Absolument pas. C'est une indépendance complète. Jamais je ne voudrais que les Canadiens s'imaginent ou que les membres du CRTC ici s'imaginent que j'interviens dans des décisions de l'ombudsman, et c'est super important, ça.
746 Sans vouloir être méchant là, est-ce que vous avez récemment regardé un rapport de notre ombudsman? Si jamais peut-être vous l'avez fait récemment et vous vous ne souvenez pas, regardez comment c'est bâti. Il y a trois ou quatre pages au début où l'ombudsman nous fait un rapport de ses constatations générales durant l'année. Par exemple, are we concerned about social media? Are we concerned about timeliness, la rapidité?
747 Quand on parle de recommandations, c'est pour ça que j'ai été surpris par votre question parce que ce sont des recommandations générales et qui parlent de tendances et qui nous alertent au fait de faire attention à ceci ou de faire attention à ça, ou de prendre en considération, par exemple, trop d'opinions. Faites attention dans les rapports qui vont être déposés au Conseil cette semaine.
748 Il va nous dire il y a confusion des fois parce que les journalistes ont le droit, basé sur les faits qui leur sont rendus, de rendre ou d'avoir une opinion. Entre ça et avoir une opinion, simplement généralement une opinion, la confusion est peut-être là, alors, faites attention et assurez-vous que ça soit très clair pour le public.
749 Ce sont ce genre de recommandations qu'il fait. Jamais est-ce qu'il va dans la granularité des nouvelles et la façon dont ces nouvelles-là sont bâties chez nous. Alors, c'est pour ça que j'étais surpris par vos questions, connaissant le contenu du rapport de l'ombudsman.
750 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Did you want to answer that, Mr. Guiton?
751 MR. GUITON: I didn't want to enter into that discussion, but I was just going to bring you back to one point we may have overlooked in all of this.
752 You started off asking about the CBSC and sort of the relationships, et cetera. I just wanted to circle back a little bit to remind you that the CBSC comes out with its reports and its findings and then it requires broadcasters, if they find them in fault of something, to broadcast the effect on TV or radio. We put ours on the Internet.
753 The ombudsman's report is on the Internet. His report is public as to the findings. Management has a chance to respond to that at the end of every year. So it's very above board.
754 The CBSC's report does not force any retroactive behaviour on the broadcasting question, just like the ombudsman's findings don't force any retroactive behaviour, but it's a credibility important point that we all respect.
755 When there is something that has been reported publicly, and where there has been a finding by the ombudsman or the CBSC's and as I understand with public broadcasters, they aim to correct it, of course, because it doesn't help their credibility to find out these things are happening all the time and complaints are being accepted and they need to do something.
756 We have the same credibility issue. If we don't demonstrate that we are changing our ways when there is a fault, we have a problem.
757 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: I understand that now. I also understand the reporting is thorough, Mr. Lacroix, having taken a look at a number of them.
758 Does the ombudsman investigate any journalistic integrity complaint or is there some kind of vetting process and, if so, by whom?
759 MR. LACROIX: No vetting. If somebody complains on something to which his jurisdiction applies, 100 percent of whatever happens on or falls on his desk is reviewed by him, not reviewed. Everything that falls on his desk starts the process because as we were telling you, it's not all of the complaints that fall on his desk that end up being reviewed.
760 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: But he does --
761 MR. LACROIX: They get solved in a conversation, you get your answer, the ombudsman opines and the person says, no, you don't have to review this, I'm okay, we exit or, no, I'm not okay, please review.
762 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: I will put a question to Mr. Guiton.
763 Would you accept as a condition of licence a condition whereby you are obligated to put in practice recommendations made by your ombudsman?
764 MR. GUITON: If the recommendation of the ombudsman, you mean a conclusion on a review or recommendations that he provides in the annual report?
765 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Both. Let's take a look at both.
766 MR. GUITON: Let's start with the first one.
767 If there is a finding by the ombudsman that a month ago, we had a problem in one of our journalistic reports that violated or was not really on-line with our journalistic code, what would the condition of the licence be?
768 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: That you would have to respect any recommendation.
769 MR. GUITON: It happened a month ago.
770 MR. LACROIX: It's done, sir. It was a story and the journalist went beyond --
771 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: But there may be recommendations that may be involved with that story --
772 MR. LACROIX: No, no.
773 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: If there were --
774 MR. LACROIX: There were none.
775 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: There never are.
776 MR. GUITON: Well, I think this point, Mr. Vice-Chairman, I would have trouble with such a condition to licence.
777 MR. LACROIX: Absolutely. I would have the same issue.
778 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Does the ombudsman make recommendations as to how you conduct yourselves in terms of journalism and the integrity of journalistic practices?
779 MR. LACROIX: The jurisdiction of the ombudsman is to ensure that our journalistic standards and policies are applied as they should be according to the book.
780 For example -- and I am thinking of Kirk Lapointe right now but it could be Pierre Tourangeau -- last year, Kirk came down with 91 rulings, 91 reviews. They are all done, it's in the books. We were never going to revisit these.
781 For the purposes of our collective wisdom and lessons learned, we might point to them in the normal course of education, but they are done. They have no life anymore, it's a ruling.
782 On the go-forward, there are a couple of recommendations that are very soft recommendations because, and as I said, because I reviewed the ombudsman's reports that are coming to the board tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday, you couldn't put them in conditions of licence because they are recommendations that are so soft that I'm not sure how we could monitor this.
783 So for me, as you heard from Steven, that doesn't work.
784 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: With respect to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, since we are coming back, I understand that you feel that they don't want you and they feel that you don't want them, we are not going to get into that debate.
785 MR. GUITON: I'm sorry, that's not correct.
786 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: That's clear for you --
787 MR. GUITON: No, no, that's not correct.
788 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: -- that clearly, you have been rejected by them?
789 MR. GUITON: No, what you just said was that we don't want them and they don't want us. We applied. You, the Commission, asked us to investigate is it possible for you to join the CBSC, how would it work for you, what kind of framework would it be for you.
790 We went to the CBSC with no view as to whether it would be good for us or bad for us. We said let's find out, maybe it could work. We didn't have a view, Mr. Vice-Chairman.
791 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: The conclusion of that?
792 MR. GUITON: Then they were very kind. We had very good relationships with them. We discussed the issue. After they consulted their shareholders, they decided they would like to keep their organization as a private broadcaster organization. No hard feelings, that was their conclusion. It was not because we didn't want to become members. It was because both sides reviewed it, they'd rather we didn't join.
793 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: That's fine.
794 Ça va être tout pour moi, merci.
795 THE CHAIRPRSON: Just to clear up on that, you described the current governance process around the ombudsman. It's on your website. We summarized it here.
796 Would you be okay if we codified that through a condition of licence because c'est un peu aléatoire. Vous pourriez demain changer la gouvernance autour de ça, sauf que le processus par lequel les rapports sont amenés à vous, vous êtes indépendant, ça va éventuellement au conseil d'administration pour leur revue. On pourrait donner un peu de vie autour de ça pour s'assurer que ce n'est pas éliminé.
797 M. LACROIX : Je suis tellement convaincu de l'importance de l'ombudsman chez CBC/Radio-Canada du fait que nous sommes le seul broadcaster, comme vous savez, avec un and that's fine parce que je considère que nos standards devraient être plus élevés. Je n'ai aucun problème à organiser ça d'une façon où le poste d'ombudsman est protégé et dans un langage qui fait du sens, absolument pas.
798 LE PRÉSIDENT : Je ferais écho aussi à la conversation qu'on vient d'avoir. Dans le domaine public, de temps en temps, le bureau du vérificateur général du Canada fait des recommandations et les gestionnaires des programmes parfois donnent des réponses, les management response. Des fois, pour une raison quelconque, on les rejette.
799 Est-ce qu'on pourrait envisager dans le cadre d'une condition de licence que tout ce qu'on vous demanderait, c'est soit de les mettre en vigueur s'il y a lieu de les mettre en vigueur... et je peux comprendre que des fois, elles ne sont pas exécutoires par leur nature même, mais que si jamais vous les rejeter parce que vous avez tout à fait raison, vous êtes ultimement responsable, vous et le conseil d'administration, de la gestion de l'entreprise, que vous pourriez être dans une situation où nonobstant une recommandation particulière, vous décrivez pourquoi vous avez décidé de ne pas la suivre en particulier. Est-ce que ça, ça serait quelque chose, un peu modelé, là, sur le modèle des rapports du vérificateur général en matière financière?
800 M. LACROIX : Monsieur le Président, on fait déjà ça. Lorsque l'ombudsman nous fait une recommandation, mercredi et jeudi cette semaine, lorsque Kirk et Pierre vont déposer leur rapport, les réponses et les commentaires de notre équipe de direction vont être déposés en même temps.
801 Alors, je ne suis pas certain de ce que vous voudriez qu'on fasse avec ça, mais c'est déposé au conseil, c'est approuvé par le conseil d'administration. Ça fait partie de notre quotidien.
802 LE PRÉSIDENT : Tout ce que je vous propose, c'est qu'on codifierait dans une condition de licence votre pratique actuelle.
803 M. LACROIX : La pratique, aucun problème. Évidemment, il ne faudrait pas qu'on soit lié de façon automatique aux recommandations, mais codifier ce processus-là, je n'ai aucun problème.
804 LE PRÉSIDENT : Au contraire, la raison que je posais la question à propos du modèle du vérificateur général, c'est que les recommandations du vérificateur général, la gestion peut toujours dire, on les accepte ou on ne les accepte pas.
805 M. LACROIX : C'est exactement ça.
806 LE PRÉSIDENT : Vous pouvez vous modeler sur ce modèle-là.
807 M. LACROIX : Je n'ai aucun problème avec ça.
808 LE PRÉSIDENT : D'accord. Merci.
809 On va continuer jusqu'à peu près 13 h. On va prendre une pause à 13 h.
810 Mais madame la conseillère Poirier aura des questions. Puis à un moment opportun, selon les questions, elle pourra prendre une pause. Mais au plus tard à 13 h.
811 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Alors bonjour. Les trois questions que je vais aborder vont être l'accessibilité, le système national d'alerte et la publicité aux enfants.
812 Mais juste avant de poursuivre, puisqu'on parlait de l'ombudsman, nous avons eu une intervention d'un citoyen qui a eu mal à partir chez vous, monsieur Néron.
813 Et monsieur Néron, bon je vois par votre regard, Monsieur Lacroix, que vous reconnaissez bien le nom.
814 Je ne veux pas en faire un cas d'espèce ici aujourd'hui, mais simplement vous proposer sa recommandation, qui serait celle que ce devrait être le CRTC qui nomme les deux ombudsmans de la SRC et de la CBC.
815 Alors, j'aimerais entendre vos commentaires, parce que monsieur Néron sera devant nous cette semaine.
816 M. LACROIX : Permettez-moi de faire rapidement, parce que moi non plus je ne veux pas ressusciter les conversations d'une situation qui, je pense, Madame la Commissaire, remonte à plus de 20 ans.
817 Depuis ce temps-là, nos pratiques journalistiques ont été renouvelées deux fois.
818 On est en constante évolution vis-à-vis pour s'assurer que nos standards sont les meilleurs. Et j'espère vous avoir convaincu de l'importance qu'on y attache en les maintenant constamment également à la fine pointe, en utilisant les personnes de l'extérieur pour venir les réviser. En fait, que le conseil d'administration les approuve et que ce soit nos normes et principes journalistiques, ou que ce soit le mandat de l'ombudsman.
819 Alors, ça vous montre l'importance qu'on aille.
820 Lorsqu'on arrive à choisir un ombudsman, les politiques de chez nous sont très claires, on investit ce processus-là avec des personnes avec une expertise de l'extérieure, soit une personne de l'intérieur. Il y a un chasseur de têtes qui est nommé. Le processus est important.
821 Ce que j'essaie de vous dire, je crois que l'expertise de nommer un ombudsman dans une organisation comme nous autres, avec un processus qui a été bien mené à travers années/années, c'est sa preuve.
822 Je ne crois pas qu'il soit nécessaire pour un organisme de l'extérieur de venir dire à CBC, voici l'ombudsman et voici avec tu vas être obligé de travailler ou avec qui travailleras pendant les prochaines années.
823 Je ne crois pas, mais j'ai bien entendu et j'en prends acte, je prends acte de sa recommandation.
824 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Alors pour résumer votre position, vous dites que depuis les 20 dernières années, la situation que ce monsieur semble avoir vécue aurait plus de difficulté à se reproduire, puisque vous avez fait des modifications dans vos processus en général de sorte que ce qui lui est arrivé, aurait moins de chance de se produire maintenant.
825 M. LACROIX : C'est ce que je crois, Madame Poirier.
826 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Merci beaucoup.
827 On va aller avec l'accessibilité.
828 L'accessibilité touche maintenant beaucoup de gens. Parce que la population est vieillissante. Ça touche pas seulement les personnes malentendantes et non voyantes. Mais beaucoup de nos personnes âgées aussi qui vivent des problématiques.
829 Je pense que la Société Radio-Canada et CBC se comportent bien du côté de l'accessibilité. Et nous avons mis de notre côté des nouvelles normes en place qui sont pour la plupart maintenant adoptées par l'ensemble des radiodiffuseurs depuis septembre de cette année.
830 Cependant, deux sujets que je vais aborder sont vos non-conformités. Et aussi une exception que vous demandez une condition de licence. Et ensuite on parlera, si vous le voulez bien, d'accessibilité sur les nouvelles plateformes. Parce que c'est un sujet aussi qui nous a été demandé par le public en général.
831 Alors, I wonder if you accept the standard condition of license for described video, because you submitted, in reality, no proof to explain why we should grant you an exception and the exception is relating to the average number required weekly hours over the entire year instead of a weekly basis.
832 So I wonder, do you still stick to your request or you accept the standard condition of license?
833 MR. GUITON: We will accept the standard condition of license.
834 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: We do appreciate that. Thank you very much.
835 On another basis.
836 Et celui-ci, je pense que je vais en parler en français, parce que ça touche sûrement des non-conformités concernant un service qui est le plus important, celui du sous-titrage codé dans plusieurs de vos stations. Les stations de Québec, probablement Moncton, Ottawa et Montréal ont eu des non-conformités par rapport au sous-titrage au lieu de sous-titrer 100 pour cent de ce qui devait être sous-titré, ça a été à 92 à 98 pour cent seulement.
837 Et on se demande si de ce côté-là, vous avez fait des modifications dans vos processus pour vous assurer que cela ne se répètera plus dans le futur.
838 Monsieur Lalande? Oui.
839 M. LALANDE : Nous avons fait des modifications et ça ne se reproduira plus dans le futur.
840 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Et pourquoi ça se passait? Est-ce qu'il y avait une différence? C'était dans le milieu francophone par rapport aux anglophones. Est-ce que c'était à cause d'une différente approche pour le sous-titrage codé?
841 M. LALANDE : Je ne dirais pas une différente approche. Mais comme vous savez, il y a eu plusieurs changements reliés autour de ces stations-là. La station de Moncton est maintenant rendue le centre pour l'ensemble de l'Acadie. Québec s'est recentré sur le marché de Québec.
842 On avait à l'époque, à l'intérieur de la station de Québec la diffusion du Téléjournal de l'Est du Québec.
843 Et Ottawa avait aussi la responsabilité non seulement de s'assurer de la production locale d'Ottawa, mais aussi la production de l'Ontario.
844 Donc, c'est à la suite de l'ensemble de ces changements-là qu'il y a eu quelques difficultés pour faire la transition.
845 Et maintenant, je peux vous assurer que la situation est sous contrôle et qu'on a l'intention de maintenir ce niveau-là qui pour nous est important.
846 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Juste pour nous rassurer. Quels sont les moyens que vous avez mis en oeuvre? Quels sont-ils exactement?
847 M. LALANDE : Bien premièrement, s'assurer d'avoir le bon personnel à l'ensemble des heures de production, particulièrement au niveau de la production en direct.
848 Et aussi de s'assurer que les autres types de production soient bien complétés.
849 Il y a un endroit où on ne respecte pas... c'est-à-dire où on n'atteint pas les autres niveaux. Mais c'est des conditions de licence qui vont être régularisées lors du renouvellement. C'est les anciennes stations de Cogeco qui avaient des niveaux dans leur licence, donc des niveaux plus bas.
850 Donc, afin de s'ajuster, on respecte ces niveaux-là. Mais ce n'est pas des niveaux qui sont équivalents à ceux que l'on fait dans nos autres stations.
851 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Même si le Web semble recevoir les nouvelles plateformes que cinq pour cent de votre budget, votre stratégie dans plusieurs endroits semble être de vous tourner vers, que ce soit Player, TOU.TV, ou même des services de nouvelles presque en continu pour certaines régions semble se tourner vers le Web.
852 Or, on avait exprimé en 2009, on avait tenté d'encourager Radio-Canada pour que, peu importe la plateforme où vous vous retrouvez, qu'on puisse offrir des services de sous-titrage codé.
853 J'ai pris quelques heures pour aller voir sur l'ensemble de vos plateformes et ce que j'ai réalisé, c'est d'ailleurs Media Access Canada nous en parlent, they even requested that the Commission impose a condition of license requiring that programming is provided on an accessible format on all platforms.
854 Alors, vu leur demande et vu le fait que vous avez une stratégie qui s'en va vers le numérique de plus en plus, j'ai remarqué entre autres que Player offrait souvent le sous-titrage codé.
855 Mais quand on allait chez TOU.TV, il n'y a pas de sous-titrage codé.
856 Alors, j'aimerais que vous m'expliquiez, puisque c'est votre nouvelle orientation, pourquoi cela se passe-t-il et pourquoi chez les francophones, on ne l'a pas?
857 M. LALANDE : Si vous permettez, Madame la Conseillère, j'aimerais aborder cette question-là lorsque je serai en compagnie des gens compétents lors du panel français.
858 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Parfait.
859 M. LALANDE : Cette question spécifique.
860 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : O.K. Mais quelle est votre approche générale pour le sous-titrage codé par rapport à l'ensemble des plateformes et des services numériques que vous offrez.
861 Et ça, c'est une question plus générale.
862 What is your general approach on the usual closed captioning regulation that is used on the traditional media? You look at one another and you don't seem to have an answer to what I'm asking.
863 MS STEWART: We do.
864 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Because it's part of your policy, okay, now to move on that --
865 MR. GUITON: Right.
866 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: -- digital new era.
867 MR. GUITON: So in terms of the digital, are you asking about digital platforms?
868 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: In general.
869 MS STEWART: In terms of the digital platforms, we are currently working with the WCAG Guidelines, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, that have been established pretty much internationally.
870 The points that you make about not all of the content being available and subtitled is true, but it tends to be a technological issue, not necessarily our own willingness or want to do it.
871 Short-form video, the technology has not yet caught up to be able to subtitle that in an on-stream basis so we have had difficulties and we are waiting for technology to catch up to that and we are quite willing and happy to start once the technology catches up. That's why you will see long-form, like most of our news and sports and other programming does have subtitles, because the technology is sufficient for us to carry that there.
872 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: But do you intend to increase the --
873 MS STEWART: Yes, absolutely.
874 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: -- amount of programming that is closed captioned? Yes?
875 MS STEWART: Yes. Yes. And I think right now in terms in traditional platforms we are at 100 percent I think on the English side, both on News Network and CBC Television.
876 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay. And it appears that closed captioning is also done on YouTube, your new YouTube platform?
877 MS STEWART: Yes. That's right.
878 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Who does it? Is it you internally or is it YouTube doing it?
879 MS STEWART: No, we do -- all the programming we supply, whether it's distributed on YouTube or other platforms digitally, we are the ones who are encoding it with the digital -- with subtitling. However, like I said, it's not all technologies can play it, so it's a matter of whether they can catch up and actually use it.
880 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay. Well, we think we saw a difference of quality between the YouTube closed captioning that is provided to users and the other platforms. So you feel there shouldn't be any difference in quality?
881 MS STEWART: There shouldn't be a difference in quality. It could be, again, the technology prohibiting some of the ways that we would normally do it on a traditional basis.
882 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : O.K.
883 Alors on maintenant aborder un autre sujet qui est celui du système national d'alertes au public.
884 Comme vous le savez, Radio-Canada, c'est un radiodiffuseur qui est partout à travers le Canada. Et il est très important d'informer les Canadiens d'alertes météo de toutes sortes qui se produisent dans leur communauté.
885 Et on sait que c'est un sujet aussi qui est très local. Généralement, une tornade est dans un secteur en particulier, n'est pas ailleurs.
886 Vous avez décidé de mettre environ 1.35 million pour pouvoir offrir aux Canadiens un service à la radio FM. Et vous entendez le faire sur la Première Chaîne, sur Radio One, Espace Musique et Radio 2.
887 Et vous allez centraliser à Montréal et à Toronto la façon de procéder.
888 Alors, on se demandait, au CRTC, dans un premier temps, pourquoi avez-vous choisi la radio uniquement pour offrir un tel service à tous les Canadiens alors que comme Shaw nous l'a dit et nous l'a demandé, you know Shaw raised concerns about the Corporation's alert plans as it didn't include distribution of OTA TV. So why haven't you thought of OTA TV as well as radio?
889 MR. GUITON: We are an active member in the Public Alerting System, as you know, Madam --
890 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Yes.
891 MR. GUITON: -- and when we looked at this, this was a couple of years ago when we started this plan. We were looking at, of course, the eventual shutdown of analog TV which we knew was coming and we knew also that the BDU penetration was up to 95 percent, and so we wanted to make sure that what we did would in fact cover off an area that we knew wouldn't be covered.
892 One of the big areas that's being discussed in those public alerting context is the fact that cable companies and satellite companies will be distributing alerts, what we wanted to do is have another means of getting to those subscribers, which is not just via TV but also by radio.
893 So we have been focussing on radio it's true, we have been going through the transition, as you know, in the shutdown of analog. It's been our first priority to start with radio and that's where we are. Will we go ever to over-the-air TV, I think we would like to nail down radio first, that is our first priority right now.
894 It is, as you may know from the information you are reading, we are in the middle of a pilot program, we are going to be sending out -- doing an alerting system in Nova Scotia, and it's similar to what is going on in Alberta. Again, it's radio-only, that's our priority, we have committed money to do radio so that we are hoping that within three to four years we will have the entire country covered with radio.
895 Will we go further at that point with TV, I think at this point in time I would rather say we would like to see how the radio goes, and I will explain if you want me to go on.
896 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay. Yes, but wait a moment. We will move to radio later on.
897 MR. GUITON: Okay. Okay.
898 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: I just want to make sure that we get all the answers about TV.
899 Have you at least evaluated the cost? Is it because it's too costly that you don't want to move to TV? Is it a concern?
900 MR. GUITON: It's simply a priority, we are doing radio first.
901 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: So it's not a matter of money, of budget?
902 MR. GUITON: Well, I don't want to say that that's the case or not, we simply have not evaluated it.
903 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay.
904 MR. GUITON: We looked at radio as our first priority for public alerting because we know that our radio networks cover over 99 percent of the Canadian population.
905 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay. But you know that effectiveness of emerging alerting increases with the use of different medial, okay. The more media that provides the information, the better it is for the clients. The clients in your case are all Canadians, so why haven't you decided to proceed with TV?
906 MR. GUITON: It's simply we know that over 95 percent of Canadians are covered by BDUs.
907 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay.
908 MR. GUITON: They are covered. What we are doing is another platform --
909 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Yes.
910 MR. GUITON: -- we want to make sure that radio listeners get public alerting as well, and we consider ourselves to be the best broadcaster placed to do that since our coverage of radio is fantastic. That's our priority right now, to participate in the public alerting through radio right now.
911 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: So it would duplicate?
912 MR. GUITON: Possibly. With 95 percent of the people in this country getting cable service and DTH service, TV is pretty well covered; radio is not.
913 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Parfait.
914 Maintenant, passons à la radio.
915 Vous allez utiliser la radio pour transmettre les alertes aux citoyens canadiens. Et on aimerait savoir de quelle façon vous allez travailler. Allez-vous être très, très localisé dans votre approche? Par exemple, si à Shédiac arrive une problématique particulière, comment est-ce que ça va fonctionner pour que les gens de Shédiac soient avisés dans leur localité?
916 MR. GUITON: I may have to take an undertaking, you may have gone beyond my limits --
917 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Yes. Okay.
918 MR. GUITON: -- but I can give you an example.
919 In the case of Nova Scotia the province will be broken into five areas, so there will be separate public alerting for each one of those five. I couldn't tell you exactly how it's broken, it's by transmitter, right. It's that we have the five transmitters in the province and each of them is able to broadcast a different signal.
920 The actual geographic space and whether it's by population area, I could not say right now.
921 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Yes, we would appreciate an undertaking just to understand how local you are going to be in alerting with radio Canadians in a particular area.
922 MR. GUITON: Yes.
923 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: You could use the Shediac example --
924 MR. GUITON: Perfect.
925 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: -- or any other.
926 M. GUITON : Merci.
927 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay.
928 MR. GUITON: Yes.
929 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just to be clear on that, when would you give us that?
930 MR. GUITON: How quickly would you like it? Would by the end of the week be good or sooner?
931 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, the problem is we are going into reply -- other interveners come in and if we --
932 MR. GUITON: We will try and get it by the end of day tomorrow.
933 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
934 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Thank you very much, okay.
935 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Well, for the radio stations you also said that it would take five years to provide the service on your different radio to all Canadians. Cinq ans, ça nous paraît vraiment un échéancier très, très long quand on sait que l'équipement est déjà disponible, que Pelmorex est prêt à faire le travail, nous, nous aimerions nous assurer pour le bénéfice de l'ensemble des Canadiens que vous accepteriez une condition de licence de 18 mois, ou tout au plus 24 mois pour offrir le même service partout au Canada sur les radios.
936 MR. GUITON: I don't think we would be able to accept that condition and I will say it's not because we wouldn't like to, it's really -- it is a technological issue and I will explain why.
937 As you said at the start of your question, we are not operating by putting public alerting equipment in each transmitter site. We are not doing that. We have a system now, a broadcast system that's called a presentation where all broadcast feeds on the French side are brought to Montreal and distributed from Montreal by satellite, and on the English side the same thing happens in Toronto, all broadcast fees are brought to Toronto from across the country and the programming is inserted and then redistributed back across the country.
938 We want to use the public alerting -- we want to use that system, that set-up, for public alerting. So our goal is to actually put the public alerting equipment in Toronto and in Montreal. The manufacturer's equipment today is made to go into the transmitter site, it's a box, it's a large sized box, we will be putting about 100 of these in Toronto and Montreal. We don't really know how to do that because it would take up space.
939 So what we have done, we have put out an RFI, the RFI went out last month actually, trying to get manufacturers to come to us with a solution where we can put this in a smaller space and thereby be able to produce this in the system we have, which is a presentation system that's aggregated.
940 In the meantime, we have moved ahead with Nova Scotia, as I said, to make sure we can learn from the technology and understand what's going on. So for that reason, because I don't know when the equipment will be ready, I would be hesitant to commit to 18 months or 24 months. However, I would be pleased to come back to you with more information based on the RFI information that we receive, because we have received bids already, and I may be able to update the timeframe that we have put into our application.
941 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Naturally we would love you to update it, okay --
942 MR. GUITON: Yes.
943 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: -- because for a service that is said to be offering new technologies to all Canadians, I believe they will hear it in the -- they will read it in the newspaper before they hear it on the radio --
944 MR. GUITON: Right.
945 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: -- if we follow the deadlines that you provided us with. So that's not really good --
946 MR. GUITON: I understand. And it's for that reason we moved forward with Nova Scotia, to speed things up so that we could learn.
947 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Yes. And you are in Alberta, too, I believe.
948 MR. GUITON: For a long time we have been in Alberta, that's correct.
949 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay. So you have been in two provinces offering the service?
950 MR. GUITON: No, but just to be clear, what we are doing in Nova Scotia is actually putting this equipment at the transmitter sites. We don't want to do that nationally. As you now, we have a large number of transmitters --
951 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Yes, okay. It's a different approach.
952 MR. GUITON: So what we wanted to do is to go to Nova Scotia, get the trial running, learn how the technology works, make sure we understand it, so that once we have the manufacturers delivering the equipment we need, we are ready to go.
953 Our application was dated before we put out the RFI. The four to five years that you are referring to, I don't know if that has changed, but I would be happy to come back to you and tell you if we can do it faster based on the RFI information we have received.
954 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: So what I hear is that assuming that some surrounding issues are dealt with you would be willing to shorten your timelines?
955 MR. GUITON: I would be willing to come back to you and tell you if I can shorten it.
956 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay, but could we negotiation at least three years at the most I would say? You don't know?
957 MR. GUITON: I actually don't know the answer to the question.
958 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: But you understand the message?
959 MR. GUITON: I certainly do.
960 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay.
961 MR. GUITON: The answer to that question, I can certainly come back to you before the end of day tomorrow.
962 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Oui. Vous comprendrez, Monsieur Lacroix, que...
963 M. LACROIX : Madame la Commissaire, point taken!
964 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Je vois votre langage corporel.
965 M. LACROIX : Oui
966 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Et vous vous dites oui.
967 M. LACROIX : Oui.
968 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Un radiodiffuseur public doit être capable d'informer tous ses Canadiens beaucoup p lus rapidement que dans cinq ans. Parce que...
969 MR GUITON : Oui, oui. Mais en même temps, on veut que ça marche.
970 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Oui, on le comprend. Mais il faut mettre une priorité à ce moment-là pour que ça marche.
971 M. GUITON : Oui, on le sait.
972 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Parce que d'autres vont le faire aussi.
973 M. GUITON : Oui.
974 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Si les autres réussissent à le faire, il faut que notre service public réussisse à le faire rapidement.
975 M. GUITON : Et vous savez, on a été dans les discussions depuis des années. Parce qu'on participe avec Pelmorex. Mais avant ça, CANALERT et toute l'initiative du gouvernement du Canada, on a été là.
976 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Parfait, on apprécie votre réponse et on attend un peu plus d'informations de votre part, bien sûr.
977 M. GUITON : Merci beaucoup
978 COMMISSIONER POIRIER:
979 I will move to the last topic I have to address to you this morning, it is advertising to children. Yes, CBC wants to remove the condition of license that prohibits it from broadcasting any commercial message during any child direct programming, including children of preschool age.
980 I just want to make sure you still stick to that request or you changed your mind?
981 MR. GUITON: We have changed.
982 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Thank you. Could you explain what you have changed?
983 MR. GUITON: We are pleased to accept the condition of license will be no ads in the programming.
984 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: So we are coming back to the former --
985 MR. GUITON: Yes.
986 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: -- condition of license --
987 MR. GUITON: We are coming back to the former licence, but so the principle -- yes, we will not -- we will accept a condition of license no ads in children's -- the way that the licence was written previously was extremely complicated. I can't tell you why that is, but it was extremely complicated and what we would like to do is to come back to you with a rewritten one that accomplishes exactly the same thing but with language that is clearer.
988 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Qu'est-ce qui vous a fait changer d'idée?
989 MR. GUITON: I believe, I think it was an error on our part because when we were streamlining our proposal to you I think it -- and I have expressed this to other people, I think it got lost in the weeds and we had no intention of ever putting commercials in children's programming. That was not our intention. Our mistake.
990 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay. Wow, I rarely get an answer so straightforward. "Our mistake," I appreciate it.
991 Mais il reste une question importante. Parce qu'en allant sur les sites web de Radio-Canada, ce que j'ai remarqué - et d'autres personnes l'ont remarqué aussi, c'est que dans les sites pour les enfants, vous avez une approche différente.
992 Pour regarder certaines émissions, je pense, ou pour jouer dans certains jeux, on nous dit tout d'abord qu'on doit voir des commerciaux. Et ensuite, on pourra faire les jeux ou regarder les émissions pour les enfants.
993 Nos services ont vérifié cela la semaine dernière.
994 Alors, j'aimerais savoir quelle est votre approche pour les nouvelles technologies? Est-ce que vous avez une approche respectueuse des enfants dans les médias traditionnels et une approche commerciale et je dirais, pour un radiodiffuseur public, un peu moins respectueuse de nos enfants et de leurs parents quand vient le temps de diffuser des émissions, des jeux sur le web?
995 MS STEWART: I can address that in a broader sense as well, because what we know to be true is that what is acceptable in the digital space is a little bit different than is acceptable on traditional media.
996 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Yes.
997 MS STEWART: But there are some things that hold true regardless of the media that they are on.
998 So, for example, I will use an example as news. When it comes to news editorial content there is no advertising -- no advocacy or advertising in the news, so that as an example of when we ring, fence or determine that something is important enough that it goes beyond the current platforms that it go throughout the platforms and we make sure that we maintain that.
999 When it comes to the kids programming there is also still a code around what is acceptable advertising to take in kids online and it is specific to funding, as you say, the games and things that are on the websites.
1000 Those games are not -- just to be clear so that people who might not be aware of those kind of games, those games are specific to programming and learning, the games do not in themselves do anything with regards to pushing any kind of product or any kind of placement of that, but they are -- you know, our ability to be able to create that more rich programming needs funding. So we do accept ads in the children's area, but they are also abiding by a code in which we can talk to you more about when we talk on the English media panel, but we do to ensure that it matches, that it is not disruptive.
1001 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: I wonder if it's worthwhile to put advertising to pay for those sites for kids because the general public doesn't expect that from the CBC mostly when programming is addressed to kids.
1002 MS STEWART: Yes.
1003 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: So how much money does it bring to you and do you really need that money for at least the sites that the children are exposed to?
1004 MS STEWART: We can, when we talk on the English services panel, I think particularly because we have the people here who are responsible for children's, can give you a sense of what that is and also the people who are in charge of revenue who talk about what they do and the difference between the rules and the code that they follow than other broadcasters do, but I can say that particular over-the-air we found it to be incredibly important because we are specifically focussed on the education and engagement of preschoolers that that programming remain commercial free. So there is a commercial-free safe space for Canadians to come to on CBC to enjoy children's programming and that was important to us.
1005 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay. So we will wait for that presentation --
1006 MS STEWART: Certainly.
1007 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: -- to get a little bit more news on that matter which preoccupies the CRTC a lot because it seems to be a different approach on traditional media and then on the web you allow yourself to put advertising, so we would love to hear more about it.
1008 MS STEWART: Yes.
1009 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Mr. Chair, because I got short answers, I'm done.
1010 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's good.
1011 Mr. Guiton, with respect to the advertising to children, you said you reworked it, could you also give that by the end of day tomorrow?
1012 MR. GUITON: Yes, we can.
1013 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
1014 So, as I promised, we will take a break now, but before we do that I'm going to take the occasion to mention something.
1015 We have gotten into a bad habit, we are in a hearing, we are not at a cocktail party, people coming up to Commissioners at breaks to shake hands makes us incredibly uncomfortable. It's not welcome and I ask you to act accordingly. We have other occasions where we can socialize, a hearing is not the place for it. I'm not pointing to anybody in particular, it is something that has developed over time, I'm not quite sure why, but there it is.
1016 So we will take a break puis on sera de retour à 14 h pour continuer les questions.
1017 Merci bien.
--- Upon recessing at 1257
--- Upon resuming at 1357
1018 LE PRÉSIDENT : À l'ordre, s'il vous plaît.
1019 I understand before we resume the questions that you wanted to clarify something?
1020 MR. LACROIX: Mr. Chairman, we have an answer from Mr. Jones and for you because I was very concerned this morning that a Canadian could actually access or try to access one of our platforms and that he would have that reaction to us.
1021 We're supposed to be inclusive and what happened there. So, sorry about the open Blackberry, but I am going to read from it.
1022 We see from the intervention of Mr. Jones that he was trying to comment on the Artic Greening story. We have no record of that or of his e-mail address submitting a comment on that story, but we know him.
1023 He has commented in the past, we have four comments from him in November, two of which were published and two did not make our stated guidelines. One was gibberish and it didn't come out clearly and the other one, it was about him using somebody else's comments and posting it up.
1024 So, my message to you simply, sir, is: Thank you for pointing this out and in return, we just wanted you to know that we have the systems to find out what happened to Mr. Jones and why his comments were not posted in less than it took to have lunch.
1025 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am glad of your response, but he did send his comment on the 24th of September. Did you not read the Interventions?
1026 MR. LACROIX: Oh! yes, we have it and we actually, from that Intervention, understood that he wanted to comment on that simply because we read the Intervention, but what we were concerned about -- oh! you mean, in the original intervention binder?
1027 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.
1028 MR. LACROIX: It was not brought to my attention. I am sure that somebody in our team did --
1029 THE CHAIRPERSON: You know, one of the reasons I am reading these is (a) because we have a challenge of getting Canadians to come to our hearings and so it's a way to bring it. But it also has, I hope, the ricochet effect of getting interveners -- applicants to actually read what the interveners are sending because I think we have to be listening to them.
1030 MR. LACROIX: Yes.
1031 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, good, thank you. Is that it for now? Okay.
1032 Giving the floor to Commissioner Simpson, please.
1033 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Hello! I am going to have two subjects to talk about this afternoon to pave the way. First, it's going to be digital media. And I am going to ask questions with respect to distribution strategies versus revenue tactics.
1034 I want to talk about revenue opportunities, your perceptions with respect to how digital satisfies your obligations under the Act. I would like to talk about some of the characteristics of digital media because they -- in spite of the fact that digital media is a delivery system, it's not always perfect twin to what you are doing in broadcast and I would like to get your views on some of the property differences of the media and also of the consumer of contempt via digital.
1035 I would like to talk about cultural objectives and also what advantages digital media affords you in your ability to reach, as you've said earlier in your testimony this morning, reaching deeper in the communities and, you know, what can do with respect to -- let's call it the capillary effect that digital media can provide, but also some of the extenuating issues that may result from having to produce more content because you are going deeper and that might change the model of how you operate now as broadcaster.
1036 So, with all that said, I would like to start with digital media. You had mentioned -- and reinforced today -- you had mentioned in your initial submissions that your intent was to double your commitment to your investment in digital media.
1037 And just for clarification, the figures that have been used originally was that you're doubling it from two and a half to five percent of budget. Is that a percentage of what? Is it a percentage of the broadcast budget? Is it a percent of the overall budget?
1038 MR. LACROIX: Media Line budgets.
1039 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Ah! Okay. The next question I have is with respect to the budget. You in many instances refer to the fact that CBC is not -- because you are not profit driven, it affords you the opportunity to take greater risks with your programming content and decisions as to how you distribute content.
1040 But for clarification, when you say you are not profit motivated, is it -- in new spending areas, is it not surplus to overheads from revenue that creates the money to invest in new ventures or is this money that you are appropriating coming from somewhere else and if so, where?
1041 MR. LACROIX: It's all coming from the same budget. It's redirecting some resources from, let's say, more traditional media platforms.
1042 When we announced the drop cuts on April 4th, I actually told our employees that there was about 450 to 550 jobs that we saw actually morphing from the traditional media platforms to the -- to a digital environment or to the more progressive parts of our business.
1043 So, it's all the same money, it's reallocated differently and that's how we source the funds for these ventures.
1044 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. With respect to the properties that I spoke of earlier, coming from the advertising business at one point in my life, I remember getting very stern lectures from media buyers on the various properties in media and how each meeting reacts differently and it has different values and different economics.
1045 And with respect to digital, I don't think any just really know in a pure thought state what digital media really represents up against some of the more traditional mediums.
1046 But when it comes to -- he was a broadcaster and your stated objective of essentially reaching a point of duopoly where you have everything you are doing in broadcast, in some form, in the digital ground within the next few years, how much will that content change from how you currently manufacture and put it out over the years as a broadcaster?
1047 I guess where I am going with this is to hear your thoughts on streaming, which essentially would be duplicating what you are doing on broadcasting versus any tendencies or trends that are going more toward on-demand podcasting and capturing and -- the PVR equivalent of digital.
1048 MR. LACROIX: So back to trends maybe where -- which was my opening question to the Chair.
1049 When CBC Radio-Canada realized that it was -- that Canadians wanted to watch our newscast, the National, in a different format on one of their widgets, we went there, created something that you can see of the platform.
1050 When Canadians decided that catch-up tv was something very important, particularly because of the content that they couldn't reach at the -- well, they used the PVR machine, sure, but some of them didn't and some of them wanted to perhaps catch it in a different environment, TOU.TV came.
1051 I am just giving you these two examples. CBC Music; we saw an incredible interest for music and a music and a combination of Canadian artists applauding their content somewhere, of Canadians reaching out and touching those artists, and we created CBC Music. Espace.mu was already there.
1052 And the point of these four initiatives was to show that we actually are following trends and for me, sir, frankly, Mr. Simpson, to look at in the next few years and tell you exactly what it's going to look like, that's kind of difficult.
1053 The choices that we will make or that Kirstine we will make in respect to which program will be streamed, we decided that 40 different music channels are now being streamed live -- well, live -- are being streamed on the CBC music platform.
1054 Had we not seen an interest for those, had we not broken the genres of classical music or of music that you saw because it was a demand, we've read a demand in the public market, you would not have seen 40.
1055 So, it's really about us continuing to read and getting feedback and adjusting as we play, and that's why the choices of either stream of broadcasting or of getting content to you on a particular platform is very fluid. It's kind of, frankly, you might not like the answer, but it's going to depend.
1056 MS STEWART: Well, I think we have to, also on the media lines tend to look at digital content in a couple of ways or the digital accessibility point, for example, means an opportunity for people as you said, to kind of come in as they want, when they want to access, you know, great Canadian content that they may have missed on the traditional platform.
1057 So, that's one way of dealing with digital content.
1058 The other way is what we tend to do on a lot of our digital projects is we tend to act as second screen or with enriched content that actually goes deeper into what we maybe we could not delve into on a linear basis and I think CBC Music is an example of that.
1059 But it also happens with our programming on our television shows, with our news items, with our documentaries. We have very rich content sites, websites with a lot of information about -- you know, for example, we did a memorial site when it was the anniversary of the World War, when it was Remembrance Day.
1060 We talk about and put up a great deal of information for teachers, for students, for people who were interested to be able to come to and get more information on. "8th Fire," for example, had a huge rich website which was an actual cross-cultural production between the two French and English services, which provided another form of information.
1061 So, we look at it as interactivity, we look at it as enriched content and we look at it as an opportunity for people to get content in the way that they want to. It really is as a public broadcaster.
1062 It's kind of an opportunity to give people, you know, access to what they want and maybe even more information around the shows that they may have seen or the programs they may have heard on the radio, so they get a full experience.
1063 M. LALANDE : Si je peux me permettre d'ajouter un peu pour compléter ce que Kirstine vient de dire et ce que Hubert vient de dire, il y a un autre aspect. Je vais vous parler du cas de TOU.TV, où dans le cas de TOU.TV, bien sûr, il y a une portion rattrapage que les gens utilisent.
1064 Mais un des aspects les plus populaires de la consommation de TOU.TV, c'est justement les contenus originaux spécialement produits et réalisés pour cette plateforme-là, donc des contenus qui sont plus courts. On parle de webdocumentaires qui sont en train vraiment de faire évoluer la forme documentaire traditionnelle de façon extraordinaire.
1065 D'ailleurs, à cet égard-là un des webdocumentaires qu'on a fait d'ailleurs en collaboration avec CBC s'est mérité le Prix Italia qui est un des prix les plus prestigieux dans le domaine. Alors, ça nous donne quand même une idée, là, de l'évolution.
1066 Il y a eu aussi des webséries. Donc, il s'est développé une nouvelle forme de faire des séries courtes. On va même jusque dans la science fiction.
1067 Tout ça pour vous dire que c'est en train... cette initiative-là est en train aussi de donner des indications à l'ensemble de l'industrie qui s'adapte et qui, par un output comme TOU.TV, profite d'une occasion de faire évoluer l'ensemble de son modèle de fonctionnement et je rappelle que c'est au meilleur bénéfice, forcément, des utilisateurs.
1068 MR. LACROIX: So, Commissioner, just in summary, it's not about a particular stream, a particular choice. It's about the content evolving and us trying to create a better connection with Canadians, whether it's as Kirstine just said, with a second screen as you are watching over the rainbow and they're asking you to send a picture of Dorothy somewhere in Canada that you have seen and have you supported it or it's a conversation that is going on as Evan Solomon is delivering his show and they ask you a question and you're home.
1069 So, it's much more -- it's in the DNA now. It's trying to extend what we do in connecting with Canadians as they are enjoying our services.
1070 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: It absolutely is. It's changing broadcasting from a dialogue -- or a monologue to a dialogue and I find that compelling, but also it brings about questions with respect -- going back to Commissioner Pentafountas' questions on how you interact with the audience. One of the things that -- you know, the beauty of the Internet is that you can tell what's going on in terms of how -- it's like instant polling, you can tell how you're doing right away. And the bad thing about the Internet is that everybody has a mechanism by which to tell you. And so, the question is: How do you process that dialogue?
1071 I am not trying to open the lid on the Ombudsman question again, but how do you intermediate those conversations? There's parts that you are going to be able to take in a stride to improve the quality of the content and relationship that you're building with the audience, but with respect to the bad as well as the good, how do you intermediate those relationships in a two-way conversation?
1072 MR. LACROIX: So there are a number of rules to make sure that the conversation is respectful and doesn't go to places where it shouldn't be going and those are all posted in the standards that we have if you want to start interacting with the people around us.
1073 If you want to, I will go there. I have information as to what you can put and can't put. We have a set of very clear guidelines. That is to make sure that we have a conversation and that the conversation is inclusive and doesn't create an issue between interveners.
1074 But then you have to allow sometimes to lose control of the conversation, because you can't monitor everything that is around you. That is why the guidelines are there, that's why the ice is actually flooded and you play on that ice. When we talked this morning about the ombudsman and when the ombudsman comes in and will intervene on this kind of user-generated content he has jurisdiction over there and we will have the other standards and journalistic policies that also apply to the web, because that's what we did when we updated and actually modernized -- maybe not the right word, but -- yes, modernized the mandate of the ombudsman, that's what we were trying to seek, a way for us to regulate, without being constraining, the environment in which we are now playing, inviting Canadians to have conversations with us without stifling them with rules and regulations or a way for them to perceive that their liberty of expression is being affected or played with by the national public broadcaster.
1075 So that's what we do every day.
1076 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: With respect to the evolution, which I fully believe is going to be ever evolving, but at some point there is going to -- we are all going to arrive at a destination where something is going to happen with respect to digital distribution of signal to the point where over-the-air perhaps is rendered meaningless at some point in our future, given not just the specifics but the spirit of the Broadcast Act and something that keeps us awake at night, how do you think we should participate in measuring and monitoring your activities in a pureplay web situation given that it perhaps renders all or part of the Broadcast Act somewhat obsolete at some point?
1077 How do we keep our finger on that pulse?
1078 MR. LACROIX: I'm not surprised that this is for you an important question.
1079 This morning we expressed out opinion that in the next five years, at least if you look at the budgets of CBC/Radio-Canada, just as a measure 95 percent of our budget -- I'm going there again -- will be again on traditional media and the 5 percent of our media budgets is on digital platform. So it's going to take some time between the 5 percent becoming more than that and making the other platforms no longer useful.
1080 We actually find that quite the contrary, they are very, very complimentary. I think the additional screens allow television -- and television, you heard the stats this morning, we actually have numbers that showed that people are still consuming 27 or 20 hours of television on a monthly basis and that they actually watch it and because of all these other screens they are watching more of it, so they are consuming their content maybe in different ways, maybe they PVR, maybe they go somewhere else, but they are watching it, whether it's catch-up TV or something. So that's not going to die.
1081 We told you about our view on radio, I think that's -- actually, the Internet allows you more opportunities to deliver your content on the audio piece. I think it's about reporting, I think it's about these platforms being complementary to the system and allowing the broadcaster and Canadians to continue following the trends and ensuring that when they get to a spot we can show you that we are still meeting our conditions of licence, report on it and we meet the general broadcasting -- the guidelines of the Broadcasting Act and the objectives of it.
1082 Do you want to add something to that, Steve?
1083 MR. GUITON: Yes. I would just add, I think a point I was raising earlier, Commissioner Simpson, was that certainly over the next five as Mr. Lacroix was saying, we consider traditional services, traditional OTA, as you mentioned, might someday become obsolete. We don't think that it's going to change our offering over the next five years, that's for sure. We think we are still going to be doing most or meeting all of our mandate via traditional programming.
1084 But the one thing I wanted to mention which I raised a little earlier is, we are seeing now the measurement of online data, online usage, we are starting to see it standardize. So, for example, next year, as you probably know, BBM is piloting right now and they hope to be able to measure by September 2013 some data. We think that is going to continue over the next five years of our licence renewal that there will be some standardization and that by the time we get back here to see you again in five years, we will be able to then see where we are at in our ability to measure the information, not just ourselves but the industry will have some standards, the advertising industry will have some standards, everybody will start to use it in a basically commoditized way and I think it's in that next licence renewal period that we will start to understand what the impact will be.
1085 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you.
1086 Into the two areas of programming and making a buck with this aspect of the business. I was struck by looking at the vast array of services you have right now within the corporation, by my math there is 14 different enterprises in some form. You know, I'm talking your four national radio networks, your two TV networks, and so on, the sum total of which, by my math, I arrive at 14 enterprises, and what struck me is that currently eight of that 14, including some online advertising that's in your new music service, eight of the 14 or a very small preponderance of the total is deriving some revenue through advertising.
1087 Where I'm going with this is that in the course, regardless of how we find with respect to your request for advertising on Radio 2, the very presence of Radio 2 in the digital world, along with all your other properties will -- because it's an exempt medium as far as we are concerned -- bring about the possibility of advertising on all of your properties.
1088 Now, what I'm interested in is the cost right now versus the return. I know that an awful lot of what you have filed is confidential, but I do recall an interview or a statement that was made by one of your executives to the Wire Report and it was more or less to do with the cost of the new music service and that revenues are nowhere in relationship to paying for the service. You know, in other words it's a new service, it's going to take time to build, but is the economics in terms of revenue as you move strategically into digital delivery going to be able to foot the costs of getting into this business or is this going to be a new cost area for you or is it going to be a revenue return for you?
1089 MR. LACROIX: There's a lot in your question.
1090 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yes.
1091 MR. LACROIX: Let me maybe take what I think is the question and correct me if I heard you well. I think the question is: When you choose to go into a cbcmusic.ca environment and you add a new service to your 30 services in different areas of business, are you making money out of it on day one?
1092 Is that the question?
1093 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: No, I wouldn't presuppose that that would ever happen, but are you going to --
1094 MR. LACROIX: Is it your intention to make money off of it?
1095 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Is it your intention to make money off it or is the revenue that you are deriving a nice offset to the new costs?
1096 MR. LACROIX: It's a combination of both. Right now we are looking at every single initiative at CBC/Radio-Canada has to have some way to either break even in terms of new initiatives or to give us some idea of a business model, and if that is not the case then it has to be a service that is absolutely core to our 2015 plan. If it's a service that's core to 2015, then we will make sure that we find the dollars by taking them somewhere else to fund that.
1097 In the case of Espace musique, Espace.mu, CBCMusic.ca and Radio 2 and that environment, I think that what's pretty fascinating is that we were able, by redistributing some of the dollars, repositioning some jobs, to actually create or to actually -- yes, create CBCMusic.ca plus continue running Radio 2 with basically the same dollars that we had at the beginning on simply running Radio 2.
1098 Maybe Kirstine wants to add to that.
1099 MS STEWART: Sure. I think it's important to note that when we look at new services or new platforms for any of our content we look first at service. It's a matter of, okay, so we are the public broadcaster, how are Canadians ingesting this kind of content, what do they want, what do they expect of us and can we add something different to that particular service or platform that isn't necessarily offered by others that can give someone a deeper experience.
1100 So CBCMusic is a good example of that. We face a challenge in radio and I will let -- when we get to the English panel I think Chris Boyce, who is the head of radio and audio can speak to this very well -- but when we look at the Radio 2 channel in particular, it's a linear channel. There are only so many hours you can program in a given day. We have a lot of demands, as you can see from the interveners, there is a lot of different music lovers of different types who would like to hear their music played on Radio 2. We don't have that capability simply because there is not enough hours in the day.
1101 Something like a CBCMusic gives us a twofold opportunity. We can first of all provide more service, we provide 43 streamed channels. There's not only that, but 30,000 artists have uploaded their information so there is rich content which also provides information around Canadian music artists, where they are touring, what their albums are, and so it provides a service as a complement to what we could do on Radio 2, but in a much deeper and broader way.
1102 If in doing that we have an opportunity to make revenue which helps us offset the costs which gets invested back into service, we certainly look for that because that's an opportunity. We know we have diminishing resources in terms of how we are being funded. We, like many other public broadcasters around the world, are told, "Go find some of this yourself", and so this is what we do in order to make sure that we can maintain a level of service that Canadians expect of us.
1103 But the first and foremost thought when we look to what can we do in the new platform is what kind of content do we have and how can we get this content into the hands of Canadians.
1104 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: So if I can sum up, you wouldn't be doing this, you wouldn't be spending this money if you didn't think that there was going to be a revenue return that would be reasonable? This is not a "nice to have" strategically, this is a "need to have" from an expectation of return on investment?
1105 MS STEWART: I think there's an expectation that we can get revenue that offsets the cost, if not all the cost at least partially some of the cost because we have a finite pool of resources that we are dealing with, but we have an infinite number of requests in terms of how Canadians expect or want to be served by us, so it's the balance of the two and making sure that we do things under a service mandate first and then seeing what we can do in order to offset those costs. Like I said, it's a predicament unfortunately a lot of public broadcasters around the world find themselves in. There aren't many that don't have to go to a advertising model in some form in order to pay for what it is they serve their public with.
1106 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yes. When it comes to -- this may not be a fair question in terms of putting you on the spot in answering because of discussions or negotiations, but how -- you are not a vertically integrated organization from the standpoint that, you know, you're in all these different arenas, but you have a very robust and ambitious digital agenda and it is obviously reliant on some kind of working relationship with ostensibly your competitors who operate these platforms.
1107 How are things going in those relationships?
1108 MR. LACROIX: As you have identified, this is always -- and as the number of companies around us that are BDUs shrink through mergers and acquisitions or choices, it's obvious that this is a difficult conversation. When you sit and start negotiating a distribution agreement with somebody that competes with you on Saturday and Sunday nights in a very tough way, it makes the conversation complicated, but we were able to do it.
1109 Hey, we were even able to do it with Quebecor recently and, as you know, the relationship sometimes with that particular broadcaster are not easy. So if we are able to do it there I'm not going to say we are going to be able to do it everywhere, but that is surely an example of smart, commercially responsible people trying to come to an agreement over content that we have that perhaps Canadians want and the distributor realizing that, yes, his clients might also want that and offering a good value in return for the content we bring.
1110 MS STEWART: I think it's interesting because CBC is in this, you know, in an overall media landscape in this delicate ecosystem that we like to talk about. We play in a way that is very much a content provider. We make content, we provide content and it's great Canadian content. I think as much as the private broadcasters have certain financial challenges in maybe making a lot of Canadian content, that is our mandate and that is our reason for being.
1111 So we actually act with private distributors or broadcasters as suppliers of content in a lot of ways. Our content that goes on the Rogers SVOD system, it's our content that we license to Netflix. You know, these are all opportunities to get Canadian content out there and that's the way that CBC kind of plays within a larger system in Canada as a main commissioner of Canadian content that can then be distributed in partnership and in licensing with all these other platforms.
1112 MR. GUITON: Which doesn't take away from the importance of your vertical integration rules and your undue preference rules of course.
1113 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Absolutely.
1114 MR. LACROIX: And in that environment, just to close, you are going to start seeing more and more what I call crazy partnerships, partnerships that we would never have expected to enter into a few years ago because the people that actually could be our partners are new people, it might be a Google, it might be a YouTube, it might be a Netflix. I mean we need to and will continue to be, I hope, a good commercial partner for a number of people so that our content gets out there in the best possible way and that we actually get paid for it so that we can reinvest the revenues we make into the programming we do.
1115 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Yes. Going back to the economic model that seems to prevail in a lot of the over-the-top operators like the Netflix who I notice distribute some of your content, the model they are working on is a subscription model -- and again this may not be a fair question but it has to be asked -- if the digital world evolves to the point where a combination of subscription and/or download fees or pay for play similar to what Apple is doing seems to be the way the world works. Have you thought about what that does with respect to your present funding? Because if the public is having to ostensibly pay twice, there has to be some fallout in the thinking there.
1116 MR. LACROIX: You are quite right and that's why CBCMusic.ca is free, so that Canadians can actually enjoy it and it's part of the experience that we provide on the music part of CBC.
1117 As we look for different sources of revenues, Commissioner Simpson, it's always top of mind to see, all right, what are the newspapers doing? They create paywalls. Behind the paywalls now there used to be only some stories, some newspapers right now are putting all of their newspapers behind a paywall. You have a few teasers and then if you really want to know what the story was all about, you have to pay and you have to go behind it.
1118 Some models are actually per-news or per-story instead of being per-paper. Instead of Globe and Mail, I mean let's say that you enjoy John Doyle and that you want to read John Doyle's article, you won't pay the $6.00 a month or whatever it's going to cost you, you are going to pay $0.99, whatever the iTunes model, for that particular John Doyle story.
1119 We think about this. We think about what that could do to TV. It's part of a strategic thinking. I mean, if we were to ask Canadians to pay a second time, or to pay twice, we really would have to create some incredible value there for us to justify being able to do this. We are not there yet at all.
1120 MR. GUITON: But if I could just add, Commissioner Simpson, there is no inherent contradiction there about going into the marketplace for the public broadcaster and drawing revenues that way. The bottom line is, if we didn't -- if we were funded to the levels of our operations we wouldn't have to do that, but obviously we are not and therefore for the same logic you recall we went through in a lot of different proceedings before you, we have to look for revenues in other places and it is no contradiction that we would be seeking -- this notion of double charging doesn't seem to -- it doesn't work for us because really the government appropriations is paying for part of it, but our costs are actually higher than that, so we have to get those revenues from advertising and publicity and other means if possible.
1121 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: But I definitely sense and hear that you are sensitive to that issue and that you would look long and hard before you leapt into anything like that.
1122 MS STEWART: We actually test that, too, Mr. Simpson, and before we enter a system we often -- or enter a new platform or a new project, we actually test with the public in a focus group kind of way, what are they willing to accept, what did they expect when they get this kind of service delivered to them.
1123 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: If I may, I would like to -- we will go about about another 5 minutes and then we will finish on this section -- to talk about what you're learning from being a producer as well as programmer as you get into digital. The areas again are not just repurposing content, but originating new content. What is that going to do to your cost structure? Are you able to move the talent you have from an older medium to a new medium and satisfy the voracious demands of the Web. That's number 1.
1124 Number 2, will you tell me a bit more about some of the positive attributes of how digital is going to allow you to drive deeper into communities and interest groups, I'm thinking not only of remote areas in the lower -- below 60 but above 60 as well and how this move pays digital dividends if you like to you as a public broadcaster in fulfilling your mandate.
1125 MR. LACROIX: So I will start on that if I can and then we will add some initiatives that -- or some examples of initiatives to show you how much the digital platforms or digital economy and the challenges that they bring, but also the very positive aspects, how that is influencing our business.
1126 The Chair talked about Rive-Nord and Rive-Sud, one of the initiatives. I will just give you the highlights.
1127 We realized in Montreal that we were speaking to a million people on the Island, but there were a million people north of Montreal, a million south of Montreal and they were not being spoken to and their reality of what was going on in the Montreal life was not at all what we thought it was.
1128 So Louis' team addressed that completely in the same kind of fashion that we addressed Hamilton and Toronto. Hamilton learned from what we had done in Rive-Nord and Rive-Sud.
1129 I told you a few seconds ago in terms of what we do with the programs. When we open a program up to its digital power and we ask people to vote or we have a conversation there, again it's us being able to touch people in different communities and that allows us, as a public broadcaster, to deliver our content, the programming, the Canadian programming in prime time to these people, engage them in a conversation.
1130 It wouldn't be the same experience if you watched something and three judges decided -- nowadays in 2012 and three people decided whether contestant number 1, 2 or 3 or was going to win. Now it's really you, you are part of it.
1131 And I will tell you the story. When Kirstine's team did "Over The Rainbow", in the last week they actually asked, as the last two contestants were in play, to show how they were going to support their contestants in their different communities.
1132 Within a week 6,000 people uploaded videos and pictures and stuff and I brought them back to the broadcaster saying "This is why we support Candidate No. 1". We had an Air Force person in a jet with "Vote For" so and so. We had people in different communities on the street, barber shops, I mean it was kind of incredible to see what we had generated by asking a question and the interaction again.
1133 So it's all about these opportunities that are being open to us to engage Canadians. And in 2015 we talked about resurrecting this connection that we have with Canadians. I think the platforms are there, the traditional platforms are very strong, people come to us, but for the conversation piece, that's where the digital come into play.
1134 M. LALANDE : Moi, la chose qui m'a le plus frappé avec l'évolution de toutes ces plateformes-là, c'est qu'une bonne histoire, c'est une bonne histoire, qu'elle soit racontée dans une forme longue ou dans une forme courte.
1135 Donc, l'idée du storytelling, elle est importante. Elle est importante parce qu'on découvre maintenant que, que ce soit sur nos activités de mobilité ou que ce soit sur les nouvelles formes que l'on est en train de découvrir et de mettre en forme sur TOU.TV, les gens s'intéressent à une bonne histoire.
1136 Je vous ai raconté tantôt l'histoire du documentaire. Mais on a une série qui a été développée en format court, qui s'appelait « En audition avec Simon », qui a eu un succès très, très, très fort sur TOU.TV. Et dans le fond, il y a une équipe qui a travaillé en enfer une émission complète pour la télé. Donc, diffusion sur une autre plateforme. Donc, la télé traditionnelle.
1137 Donc, ça vous illustre un petit peu ce qui peut se produire. Mais il n'y a pas de modèle unique.
1138 Je vous donne un autre exemple. Lors de la dernière campagne électorale au Québec, nous avons utilisé ce qu'on appelle la boussole électorale. The vote compass, que CBC a utilisé. C'est un outil qu'on utilise conjointement.
1139 Mais juste pour vous donner une idée de l'impact, maintenant qu'on l'utilise depuis plus qu'une fois.
1140 Lors de la dernière élection fédérale, durant tout le processus de la campagne électorale, il y a plus d'un demi-million de Québécois qui sont venus consulter la boussole électorale par l'entremise d'un service numérique de Radio-Canada.
1141 Deuxièmement, la relation qui s'est établie entre chacun de ces citoyens-là et Radio-Canada en fonction d'un enjeu démocratique comme l'élection québécoise nous a permis d'établir une relation et d'avoir un input extraordinaire sur les intérêts des gens, ce qui les préoccupait. Ça nous a permis de développer même des couvertures et d'adapter notre couverture tout au long de la campagne en tenant compte de la relation et de la discussion qui se passait avec la boussole.
1142 Troisièmement, ce demi-million de personnes là, on s'est aperçu que c'était quelque chose qui se faisait beaucoup en famille. Donc, on a aussi eu une relation avec des plus jeunes sur un enjeu important.
1143 Alors pour nous, c'est différents aspects qui font en sorte que dépendamment du projet qui est développé et dépendamment de l'aspect numérique qu'on va y associé, on découvre et on absorbe un certain nombre d'éléments qui nous permettent toujours de s'assurer d'apporter du contenu canadien original puis, deuxièmement, d'être en relation avec les auditoires.
1144 MS STEWART: The structure also of how we build ourselves as an organization to be able to support digital initiatives has changed over the last couple of years. Previously digital was a separate department and a place where things were though of because it was more experimental, it was more like an innovation department. Because I truly believe innovation can't be in one department, it has to be across an organization, that's what we did, we moved the digital expertise across the company so that as the kind of examples that Louis is giving like between news and -- it's in every area, it's in documentary, it's in sport, we get an economy of scale when we actually act tri-medially or when we act in a multi-media type of basis.
1145 So people are having to work in different ways than they used to in the past so instead of setting up a separate digital entity which had to bill things separately and had a different cost structure, it is actually -- we have a savings because what we do now is, particularly in the regions where we are looking for news coverage that can be delivered on radio and television and online, people are charged with providing that news and information in those ways so that we can also take advantage of the fact that the news piece doesn't have to be written three times, it's written once. But it can be amended for the different usages, but it's the idea that we try to have an economy of scale when we do this.
1146 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I substantial evidence of those benefits in the Vancouver converged newsroom, you know, where everyone was retrained and, as you say, it's write once, publish many, which makes profound sense.
1147 But it's more my preoccupation from two standpoints, it's the follow-on. The nice thing about television and radio is that everything is a 30-second clip in news. The devil is always in the detail of the follow-on story which was always left up to the print media which now becomes part of your purview, if you like, and I'm just curious what that does for the challenges of that additional content from a cost standpoint both in news and public affairs programming, but also on the positive side how you will use that attribute of the follow-on ability to drive down more content to interest groups in remote areas.
1148 MS STEWART: It's true and I think CBC Hamilton is a good example of that, but it is more of a microcosm because it's a more innovative structure where we have actually taken, for all intents and purposes, a virtual newsroom because they have no television or radio frequency in Hamilton, but they do have five people located in Hamilton on the ground, three of which are journalists and videographers who can make video programming and also audio programming that goes on the CBC Hamilton website and delivered digitally, but can also then be -- because it's being recorded it can come up to "Metro Morning" or it can come up to CBC Radio or "The National" or something if the story warrants it.
1149 I think the opportunities, the extensiveness by which you extend and put context around a news story, that's what digital gives us and that's a huge opportunity for us. It isn't fair to say that we can expect the same journalist to then do all this work without it taking more work, it definitely takes more work, so there is at some point where when you are expanding on a news item, yes, you can get the benefits of an economy of scale by having one report filed three times or filed in three places, but that context does require additional journalism, there are people who are employed to do that and that is an extension of our service and that does cost money, but there is a benefit, as I said, to the fact that the initial stories are also being delivered in that kind of tri-medial way.
1150 So digital does have an expense, that's why 5 percent of our budget is put aside for it, but we think it's a worthwhile one that people use and we can see them using it.
1151 MR. LACROIX: And the challenge is to make sure that once the piece is up that it's followed up on -- that's why resources now write for the web -- and that those people actually send the information back. It can start with something on the web picked up by a user that ends up, as Kirstine just said, just being sent back through radio and television and not always the web being the tail end of the game. Not at all. Those three platforms work in a completely unified way. So there's a challenge there no doubt.
1152 Future, that's your question again, I think it's a good one. There are no bad questions.
1153 So going forward you know one of the challenges that we have is we have to continue being different and differentiating ourselves not only from the other broadcasters but also from the newspapers. They are actually moving into more and more audio and video and sometimes they are a broadcaster, actually I think they are often a broadcaster without the infrastructure that we carry, so they have an advantage there.
1154 But it's about making sure that the presence, particularly if we want to go there, if you want that to be the extension of our services. If it's a digital platform in the region, then we have to make sure that the resources are there to ensure that it's a living thing, that it's not simply a place where we post a story, park something and then come back to it whenever. It doesn't work that way.
1155 Everybody else, I mean the competition around us in any event, I mean they are updating their stuff and very quickly Canadians, I mean they will find out whether we are timely in the delivery of our news or not.
1156 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you very much. That was a very complete answer.
1157 Two quick questions, not that it implies that they are unimportant, but I believe that we can get these things out of the way.
1158 I have been very keen on learning and seeing broadcasters adopt and adapt technology to accessibility, it's been something that I just think technology is a wonderful tool if it is used with the spirit of trying to make people's lives better, people with disabilities, sight and hearing problems and mobility problems.
1159 What are you learning? As a world class broadcaster who is now into the digital realm with both feet, what have you seen and what are you trying to do to adapt and adopt this technology to bring CBC to those who are less fortunate because of disabilities?
1160 MS STEWART: As we had answered earlier, I think this is an opportunity for us because it's another -- you know, if people are coming to a digital platform to see our programming they are expecting the form of accessibility to it so they can either have described video or closed captioning with it.
1161 The dilemma or the area that we get within that that's difficult for us to manage is when you look to for example, you know, the YouTube example that was used before, that the level or the quality of that closed captioning isn't always consistent simply because it's not always within our control. If the programming has been uploaded to YouTube without us being part of that, which does happen, then we don't have that level of control.
1162 But that being said, that's a small issue when you consider the opportunities of what we have through digital content and we make sure where we can -- as I said, technology right now is preventing us from doing a lot of short-form video content digitally with closed captioning, but the long-form, as much as we can, we have been making it closed captioned.
1163 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Lastly, and this is I think more of a general interest area, we have seen research, I think some of it submitted by you, other components of it coming from private sources, but with respect to the consumption of media over the digital realm, we are seeing the numbers increasing. I think a figure that was in your submission was 17 percent to 27 percent increase in people consuming content via digital reception versus broadcasting.
1164 My question is this: If that is true -- and I believe it to be true -- that consumption of media over digital is on the rise and fairly aggressively, yet I see that broadcast audience levels are remaining relatively standard and protected, where is this audience coming from?
1165 MS STEWART: Well, they are doing two things at once. They are multitasking. I think the best example of something like an "Over The Rainbow" which is, for those of you who don't watch -- though sadly if you don't -- all the CBC programming, "Over The Rainbow" was a participatory audience opportunity to select the next Dorothy for the production of "Over The Rainbow" on Toronto's version of Broadway. So it actually gets -- you know, the reason people are doing and seeing things -- well, you see the numbers increasing on digital as well as television because there actually increasing on television.
1166 The interesting thing is -- and perhaps, you know, there is a lot of theory that the advent of SecondScreen is actually driving a little bit longer viewing in terms of the actual traditional television forms of viewing because it creates extra stickiness, extra opportunity to really delve into something. It actually is people -- people are literally, I'm sure it happens in a lot of living rooms around here, I know it happens in my household, you have the television on, you have your iPad on, you have your cell -- your cell phone is on Twitter, you know, it's a constantly multimedia space which is why, you know, if that's what the consumer is moving to and that's what Canadians want, we think it's important to help them experience the CBC or Canadian content on all those different platforms.
1167 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. I have a few questions on another matter.
1168 It's always fun to ask questions when there is an elephant in the room, but in the instance of terms of trade the elephant isn't in the room yet and what's even worse is that even if it was I don't think we could talk about it, but I do have a few questions to try and get some information for the Commission on where things are at.
1169 We are hoping that a Terms of Trade Agreement will magically fall out of the sky and everybody will be extremely happy and move onto other parts of their business relationships, but I would like more information on how close we are to that happening. If we were on a pilgrim's progress from Halifax to Vancouver, you now, are we in Fredericton, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary? Where?
1170 MR. LACROIX: So let me just make one general comment and then we will go to the two media lines who are, obviously, as you know, having separate conversations.
1171 There will be Terms of Trade Agreements signed at one point in time. You saw what we filed with you on November 5th, it was an update of what we think are the ongoing set of negotiations, particularly on the CBC side.
1172 We didn't want to go into the details of that because we think that that is not the jurisdiction of the Commission, but we wanted to show the Commission that we are actively involved and care about a Terms of Trade Agreement and that it's important for us to have those in place. We think that they will facilitate the conversations with the producers, but you also know obviously that they don't prevent us from having conversations with them from commissioning the content and from meeting the conditions of license to which we are going to agree with you.
1173 So that's the background. Against this background here are the answers to your question on how are we doing with the negotiations.
1174 M. LALANDE : Du côté français, les négociations se poursuivent toujours. Je vous dirais que depuis quelques mois, les négociations se sont intensifiées. Il n'y a rien dans une négociation qui arrive par magie. C'est vraiment de la discussion sur des enjeux qui sont sérieux des deux côtés de la table.
1175 Donc, je peux vous confirmer que nous discutons avec les principales associations qui sont la PFTQ que nous avançons, que nous sommes beaucoup plus avancés qu'il y a quelques mois. Et que j'ai très bon espoir que nous arrivions à une entente assez rapidement.
1176 Par ailleurs, j'aimerais aussi ajouter que pendant ces négociations-là, nous sommes en relation d'affaires avec tous les producteurs et avec l'Association des producteurs et on continue à développer des projets. On continue à développer des ententes des fois particulières pour chacun des produits. Et que malgré ce processus-là, l'industrie de la production n'est pas en danger. On fonctionne. On réussit quand même à fonctionner.
1177 Mais je vous dis que les négociations devraient se conclure quand même assez rapidement et nous nous parlons, et nous avançons.
1178 MS STEWART: As to your question of the proximity, let's hope it's just around the corner.
1179 The present state on the English side is that we actually have a terms of trade agreement that was signed some time ago, so this really a revision -- a revisiting of our existing Terms of Trade and renegotiation of it.
1180 It's been obviously a long process, there have been changes of leadership, both on the CMPA side and on our own side at CBC, and they have also been preoccupied, understandably, with a lot of their own agreements with regards to ACTRA and some of the other guilds that they work with.
1181 But we have been speaking, we have been speaking as recently as the last couple of weeks and we look forward to coming to some form of favourable conclusion soon. So it's just a matter of time we are hoping.
1182 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: You are absolutely right, Mr. Lacroix, you know, the details of the agreement are not our purview, but it is within our ability to stipulate that an agreement does exist at some point going into your new license period I believe and I guess I'm going to have to ask the question that should you for some reason be unable to reach terms that are acceptable to all parties, would you be willing to accept a shorter license term until an agreement is reached?
1183 MR. GUITON: No, we wouldn't, Commissioner Simpson. I just have to take you back. I didn't quite catch the part of the jurisdiction that you were saying.
1184 What Monsieur Lacroix was saying was that our ability to make commitments on our condition of license to enter into a minimum level of PNI -- a minimum level of PNI for example to ensure that we work with independent producers at a level that you think is appropriate, we are stepping up to that because we don't think that the lack of a terms of trade has any impediment on our ability to do production deals with the independent production sector. That's why we are able to make those commitments to you, because the terms of trade doesn't impede that commitment.
1185 So I'm not following you on the other part about -- could you just repeat where the basis of that question came from?
1186 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I think what I'm trying to say is that I agree with you that we may not be able to stipulate what the Terms of Trade Agreement is, but I believe that we have some right to expect that one would be in place at the time of your license renewal.
1187 MR. GUITON: We don't have a view. I don't know if I can agree with you or not agree with you on that, I have never really looked at that question.
1188 The question that we have always looked at is as a commercial arrangement is there a responsibility for the Commission to weigh in. We have thought not. That was the view that we thought was prevalent in the industry. We don't have a legal opinion, but we would be happy to go and get one, if that's what you're asking me to do.
1189 We do know and we have made the commitment that this is not impeding our activity and not impeding the ability of the Commission, we believe, to allow us to work with the independent production sector and make whatever commitments you think are appropriate for us. We are ready to commit to those. The terms of trade, the lack of it does not prevent us from doing that.
1190 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: We have this spiffy new mediation service available, should you want to avail yourself of it. We are getting pretty good at it.
1191 We also have a Twitter account and a Tweet that came in from inside the room from one of our people asks if the terms of trade will be settled before or after the NHL lockout?
1192 MR. LACROIX: I was going to offer -- maybe, you should offer your mediation services to Mr. Bettman and Mr. Fehr. I think they need it more than we do.
1193 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I think that would be a fruitless discussion because I think we would probably wind up in our own lockout over the discussion of the fee, which he is pretty good at arbitrating.
1194 So I think I'm pretty much finished my questions, other than I certainly encourage you to try and find some terms that are workable to everyone.
1195 I suppose I do have one question. With respect to the existing agreement that is between the producers and the private broadcasters -- this is the agreement that I know you know well -- is it feasible that it, in whole or in part, can be the basis for a satisfactory conclusion to these agreements?
1196 I guess where I'm coming from is, what makes you different from the privates that that agreement doesn't work?
1197 MR. GUITON: I believe that a year ago or less we filed a document with the Commission indicating the differences between our needs and what's in the Private Broadcaster Terms of Trade and we would be very happy to re-file that document for you.
1198 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I would like that very much.
1199 MR. GUITON: Thank you.
1200 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Legal, any other questions that I have missed?
1201 I think I'm done. Thank you.
1202 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Simpson.
1203 I will give the floor to our colleague --
1204 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thanks.
1205 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- Commissioner Duncan. I'm sorry, it's late. Maybe the coffee hasn't kicked in this afternoon yet.
1206 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thanks.
1207 I just have a few areas to go over and I think we are going to take a break after the first two.
1208 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I understand there is a change of panel required at one point so at one point just before we get to Commissioner Duncan will be asking questions on advertising on radio, so when we finish that off we will switch around.
1209 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So I first of all want to talk about the length of the license term and the Chairman touched on that this morning. I just want to explore a few things with regards to that, first of all, why you decided five years would be preferable to seven or some other number. What was your sort of logic in that?
1210 MR. GUITON: There was nothing too much more complicated than as I was saying earlier to the Chairman, that in the proceedings where we were involved with the private broadcasting sector with respect to a group licensing and we were talking about the regulatory flexibility balance, five years was established in those proceedings and we took that as sort of the new standard.
1211 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay. I'm sure you're aware that Friends of Canadian Broadcasting have expressed considerable concern over the impact of losing Hockey Night in Canada, if that were to happen on CBC, or also if you are faced with a considerable price increase, so they suggested that we have a mechanism that if that happened that we would be able to review the term of your license.
1212 So I'm just wondering what kind of a provision you feel we could put in place to address that?
1213 MR. LACROIX: With all due respect to friends of Canadian broadcasting, we are not a hockey channel. I mean we are the public broadcaster. We have diverse programming. We reach Canadians through a whole bunch of ways. We have no intention of not being part of the hockey equation. We think that making plans if and possibly when we would lose Hockey Night in Canada of which we have no intention of losing. Yes, sure, there is going to be negotiation, but I think that the environment in two years from now will be perhaps different than what it is now. We will see.
1214 But to make our condition of licence or the length of our licence dependent on a negotiation with a third party, frankly, I don't think, Commissioner Duncan, that is something that makes any kind of sense in our environment.
1215 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Or even a provision to review it at that point, you don't agree with that?
1216 MR. LACROIX: I mean the content will be the content that a public broadcaster -- in view of the Act, with 2015 as we have discussed it, should we no longer have hockey, there are other ways for us to deliver our services to Canadians, other content that will be of interest at that time.
1217 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I guess the follow-up question that I have to that is that if it were to happen or if the prices were to increase substantially, and you have the flexibility that you are asking for in this next licence term, how would we protect against reductions in documentary, feature films, children and youth, regional programming? What would be the safeguard for those?
1218 MR. GUITON: Certainly, if something catastrophic was to happen, and it's not necessarily just hockey, if anything happened to us, if we were having trouble meeting our conditions of licence with you with respect to the PNIs, necessarily, according to the licence, we have to come back in and try to work with you on that and let you know about that.
1219 If your question goes to I think earlier discussions we had about the level of flexibility we are asking for, as I said earlier this morning, we think we can come with the right balance. We don't think that the Commission need to come in on every specific genre with a requirement to do any exact number of hours on any specific area. We are hoping that through the commitments we have offered to you, the conditions of licence, that we are giving you enough there that you can be sure we are going to be committing to Can con on TV for the very first time, a condition of licence, committing to local, committing to PNIs, committing to the independent production sector. We have a lot of commitments there and we think that those will allow you to be sure that whatever happens, we will be delivering.
1220 In the event that are not able to deliver on those COLs, we will be back. We hope that won't happen.
1221 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I am sure we are going to have ample opportunity to discuss the details of that tomorrow for sure and over the next two weeks. But I'm just concerned about the mechanism by which you come back to us because if the licence is renewed for five years, as you have suggested, then it is conceivable that it could be the full five years before you came back.
1222 MR. GUITON: I can give you an example, Commissioner Duncan.
1223 During our last licence renewal, the Commission asked on the French side of our services, television, to do music, dance and variety, a certain minimum of hours. Just because the nature of that programming had changed over the period, it was very difficult and I am speaking for Louis Lalande here, but I am sure he can explain this better than I, but the formatting of music, dance and variety changed. We weren't able to do the condition of licence.
1224 We came back in right away within I think three to four years. We saw you right away. We worked with staff and the vice-chairman at the time and what we had done is we had spoken about the problem with you, we had set up some reporting, extra reporting, and we had pushed it to the licence renewal of the next time. But you had assessed the problem and, unfortunately, the licence renewal of the next time took another seven years, but that aside, we came in right away and there were steps taken, working with the Commission staff and the Commission itself to try and figure out what we could do in the sense of not meeting that condition.
1225 If you would like to know why we couldn't, I would pass it to my colleague.
1226 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: No, that is sufficient for now. I guess we will discuss later on when we consider what the conditions might be, or the modifications you are making, what has been accomplished over the ten years.
1227 Unless you had something else you wanted to add about that. No?
1228 I am going to move on to the next area that I had which was on distribution. I have a couple of questions there.
1229 You indicated that the Commission could support the funding of the Corporation's specialty services by requiring BDUs to include these services on basic or in a broad penetration tier with prominent channel placement.
1230 I am just wondering what constitutes prominent channel placement in a digital world where programming services are grouped thematically, and I guess as an extension to that, where we want to give consumers more choice.
1231 MR. GUITON: Right. In part, your answer goes to the 9(1)(h) request for CBC News Network and RDI, I believe?
1232 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I'm not sure. I thought you wanted that for all your specialty services.
1233 MR. GUITON: Right. We don't have that many, but the idea at that time, I think, where you are quoting from, has to do with the 9(1)(h) for CBC Newsworld and RDI, that's one side. We also have a request in front of your for ArTV which is trying to get just a better visibility outside Quebec. It's not related to any revenue requests from us. It's really just trying to make sure that francophones outside Quebec have some access to it.
1234 If you look at our financials, you will see that we do not make any more money from this request. I would say it was in the Chairman's category of initiatives. It's for the citizens, it's the idea that Canadians can get access, francophones outside Quebec can get better access. So that's the prominence part with respect to those three services.
1235 I think the other thing we were trying to do as well has to do with our conventional television services, but I'm not sure that that's your quote.
1236 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I think all your conventional services would be on basic anyway.
1237 MR. GUITON: That's true. It's just that at the time we wrote this application, Commissioner Duncan, your decision on satellite distribution was not yet out.
1238 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay, of course.
1239 MR. GUITON: And so what we were trying to get is to make sure that our local television services were distributed across the country. Throughout the application, it has been pointed out to me, we have used that term, "prominence" throughout the application and we were referring to all of those instances at that time, trying to make sure our services were very available in the marketplace. We are now a year and a half or so along and that decision is out and that decision is great, and we look forward to making sure soon that our services are available.
1240 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay. Another major change over the last little while.
1241 MR. GUITON: That's right.
1242 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay.
1243 There is also a statement that you made I understand in a May 18, 2012 letter that the Commission can constrain BDUs and licence VOD operators from using their position as gatekeepers to divert advertising revenues to themselves and away from CBC/Radio-Canada. You comment that this is an ongoing concern for the Corporation.
1244 I am just wondering, I didn't understand it.
1245 MR. GUITON: And nor do I, and I apologize.
1246 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That's okay.
1247 MS KIRSHENBLATT: Could you please restate from where you are reading it?
1248 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: It says May 18th application.
1249 MS KIRSHENBLATT: Thank you.
1250 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: But if it's not right at hand, you could wait and let us know.
1251 MR. GUITON: Yes, could we get that, Jenn? I'm sorry about that. But we will definitely get you an answer about what that means.
1252 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Sure, not a problem.
1253 MR. GUITON: Thank you and we will supply it at the end of day tomorrow as well, if that's okay.
1254 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes, that's fine.
1255 MR. GUITON: Thank you.
1256 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: The other area is on distribution and that, of course, was interesting, the availability of your signals and that was interesting, of course, in the Atlantic region and in Newfoundland, for example, where we have lost so many transmitters.
1257 But I am just wondering what type of information you can give us on the number and nature of complaints that you had. Were they what you expected? More? Less?
1258 MR. GUITON: With respect to the analog shut-off?
1259 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes.
1260 MR. GUITON: Sure. We can get you the exact numbers. Again, we can file that tomorrow with you, but I can tell you, if I can just say this, we did a very thorough job of giving people a heads-up. We did an incredible amount of work on our own website and by working with community groups to make sure they knew. We also did an incredible job with official language minority communities, making sure that they knew that this was coming.
1261 The complaints have been far less than we had thought. The only ones where there have been some, let me call them "complaints after the fact" have related to, in some cases, cable companies who were using our over-the-air transmitters to feed their systems, particularly, I'm sure as you know, up on the big coast of Newfoundland. We had a problem there trying to get them a signal. When we did this analog shutdown, for nearly a year I think beforehand, we gave cable companies a heads-up. I think it was maybe not a year before, but we gave them a significant amount of time. We don't know how their systems are configured. We were just hoping to give them some lead time so that they could find a way out of this. Unfortunately, some of them couldn't. So in particular, Newfoundland and there was another case in Ontario where people couldn't access the local signal. They were still getting a CBC signal. It's just they weren't getting their local signal in those cable systems.
1262 Those were some complaints that we got and we have responded and, of course, we are looking forward to getting that fixed once Shaw gets its satellite up and we hope that all our signals will then be available and they can access the local signal.
1263 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes. That's along the lines of my understanding as well. But I would be interested in the numbers if you have them and sort of the nature of --
1264 MR. GUITON: We can definitely provide those to you.
1265 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That would be interesting.
1266 As far as the official language minority communities, how were they impacted? How have they dealt with the change? Halifax, for example, is a city where our French service came from Moncton.
1267 MR. GUITON: Right.
1268 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: And so we lost that service in Halifax.
1269 MR. GUITON: In terms of the complaints, we didn't notice that they're higher in OLMCs than in others. I think to be honest, we are talking about a very small part of the population of Canada. We estimated that 1.9 percent of Canadians were using our analog transmitters, that's all. So there weren't a lot of people out there. And for people that were out there, we did an excellent job, I think, and this is a hats-off to Shaw because Shaw is offering, as you know, this service that allows people, for free, to get access to a small package of services via satellite. So we made people aware of that. I think that also helped official language minority communities and others.
1270 So I think that the overall impact has been small in all markets. So few people have been impacted. I think that's the reason why.
1271 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That's great, thank you.
1272 One last question on this area is I understand there is a new technology called Mobile DTV and I am just wondering if you can share any of that with us. It is a means of extending service to rural areas.
1273 MR. GUITON: I'm sorry, I don't know very much about Mobile DTV --
1274 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I could give you what I have --
1275 MR. GUITON: The CBC has organized in its technology strategy, we have a board, a technology strategy board, and on the English panel is the English president of that board and he would be able to tell you all there is to know about that if you would like to know that.
1276 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay, good. All right, well, we can ask that tomorrow.
1277 MR. GUITON: Sorry, I don't know.
1278 COMMISSINER DUNCAN: That's fine, thank you.
1279 That's it for my questions right now. Thank you.
1280 THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you folks going to be disappearing or a whole new panel would be coming up?
1281 MR. LACROIX: No. A couple of people are going to be added to us and that's it. It's going to take about five minutes.
1282 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because I think the commissioners may have follow-up, but since you will still be there, we are going to do that later.
1283 Okay, all right, so bring up the new people. We will take a two-minute break to allow that. When we come back, you should identify them so that the stenographers know who they are.
1284 MR. LACROIX: Four minutes, Mr. Chairman so we can run and come back?
1285 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, okay, five minutes. I am very generous.
--- Upon recessing at 1513
--- Upon resuming at 1523
1286 THE SECRETARY: Please take your seats.
1287 LE PRÉSIDENT : Donc, à l'ordre, s'il vous plaît. Et donc si vous pouvez me mentionner les noms, identifier les nouveaux membres pour les sténographes.
1288 M. GUITON : Excusez-moi. On a passé un document, mais on a ajouté une personne. Est-ce que vous voulez que je dise c'est qui?
1289 LE PRÉSIDENT : Oui. Faites-le.
1290 M. GUITON : Voulez-vous que je fasse tout ou vous avez le...
1291 LE PRÉSIDENT : Seulement les nouveaux noms pour que la sténographe puisse identifier les visages et les noms. Comme ça, la sténographie peut identifier qui a parlé.
1292 M. GUITON : D'accord. D'accord. Dernier corridor, deuxième personne au bout là, il s'appelle Alan Dark. Alan Dark est General Manager -- he is the General Manager of the Revenue Group for English Services.
1293 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous l'avons.
1294 M. GUITON : O.K. C'est tout. Merci.
1295 THE CHAIRPERSON: Any other names are identified for the stenographer on the sheet of paper?
1296 MR. GUITON: I have been told by the Secretary that she has all the names and the names are there.
1297 THE CHAIRPERSON: Excellent! Okay.
1298 So Commissioner Duncan.
1299 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I have a fair number of questions here, so I hope you will bear with me when I try to understand where you are coming from.
1300 So first of all, you're anticipating operating budget cuts of $115 million and forecasting advertising revenue from Radio 2 and Espace Musique would amount to $27 million and almost $1.9, respectively.
1301 If your proposal is approved, Radio 2 is expected to generate 9.5 percent of the advertising revenue, with Espace Musique generating only 6.5 percent.
1302 So first of all, I am curious as to the difference in the services that would explain the larger increase, such a significant difference in the revenues you are expecting from Radio 2 as compared to Espace Musique.
1303 MR. LACROIX: So we will go there in a second. I will have the right answers for you.
1304 But let me just come back on the numbers. The 115 is the DRAP cut. It's the deficit reduction action plan cut that was imposed on us by the government, as you know.
1305 In there, there are a number of cost measures; another of revenue measures. The revenue measures that you're referring to in the first year, the first three years, the life of our plan, is about $20 million in there, something like that.
1306 Over the span that we are talking about these are the numbers that you referred to --
1307 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes.
1308 MR. LACROIX: -- just so that we start from the same page.
1309 Let's talk about differences in markets and let's talk about the difference in the revenue generation ability of Espace Musique and Radio 2.
1310 I think we will go to Chris to tell you about -- and Kirstine perhaps on Radio 2 first.
1311 MR. BOYCE: So in terms of Radio 2, specifically, you would like me to speak about the revenue potential?
1312 MR. LACROIX: So --
1313 MR. BOYCE: Why are we different than --
1314 MR. LACROIX: Why are we different in terms of the revenue generation. And then we have Debra in the back, who has built the numbers, that we will ask to help us with respect to what went where.
1315 MR. BOYCE: So I think there's obviously differences between the French and the English markets, both in terms of the size of the audience and even in terms of the services themselves, in terms of the range of music that is played in them.
1316 We also, with Espace and with Radio 2, live in a slightly different regulatory environment in terms of some of the conditions of licence that dictate the music that is played on the service.
1317 So I think that the services themselves are different, but to get into more of the detail about the revenue projections and how it is detailed, I will hand it over to Debra.
1318 MR. LACROIX: So you have a much wider -- I mean Espace Musique is more confined in its geography and that is -- I mean one of the reasons why you have both sides showing up with different numbers and substantially different numbers.
1319 And maybe, Debra, you can help us with how we built the model.
1320 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Excuse me, Mr. Lacroix. Just to start with, did you -- you didn't have an issue with the numbers that I had, did you? Year 2016 is what I was quoting.
1321 MR. LACROIX: Okay. I thought that you were referring to the first year and that is -- okay.
1322 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: No, year 2016.
1323 MR. LACROIX: Okay. Okay. That's exactly right.
1324 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay.
1325 MR. LACROIX: Thank you.
1326 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you.
1327 MS McLAUGHLIN: Okay. Commissioner Duncan, I can walk you through how the numbers were developed and that might in part answer why they are different.
1328 Each one of the licensed markets for both Espace Musique and R2 were developed as we would in any radio application. So we started at the station level with each of the time blocks, Breakfast, Day, Evening drive, and we figured out what the rates were in the market.
1329 In order to do this, we used two approaches. For the French markets, where we had more intel based on what Espace Musique knew themselves and what they could glean from the market, we used a cost per rating point in the end use -- you know, the number of unit sellout, multiplied it out by the audience anticipated and came to revenues.
1330 For the R2 markets, we had less information in terms of actual intel from the specific markets. So what we had to do was look at unit costs and we collected those in the same way, Strategic Inc. does for all of them. We contacted the agencies, we contacted the broadcasters themselves and we got unit rates.
1331 Then we figured out what the sellouts were again by each of the time blocks over the various seasons of the year to come up with figures. This was all summed up.
1332 Why would the two markets or the two services be proportionately different? Well, it's a function of demand. It's a function of the rates being paid in the market. It's a function of awareness in terms of what those services offer. It's a function of share.
1333 So all of the same forces that go into differentiating a Toronto from a Vancouver, a Toronto from a Calgary, come to play in the calculation of these revenues.
1334 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Well, that makes perfect --
1335 THE SECRETARY: Sorry, Madam Duncan, your microphone. Thank you.
1336 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So it was obviously a very thought-out exercise. So that's fine.
1337 I'm just wondering then, if we do deny the application -- we see quite a hit on Radio 2's revenues. I notice with Espace Musique, you are planning to give them more of the government appropriation. What would be your plans with respect to Radio 2 if it is not approved?
1338 MR. LACROIX: So let me remind you of how we built, if I can.
1339 It is actually very simple and I was very surprised that so many intervening parties thought that we had a Machiavellian plan to create an issue by not taking parliamentary appropriation and putting them to support Espace -- or Radio 2 and that is why we artificially created this issue. I mean let's just talk about our budgeting process.
1340 We have services. When we look at services, the first thing that we do is how many of them will be generating commercial revenue. We attribute and allocate those commercial revenues to the services. We then see the difference, the delta, between is that surface covered fully by commercial revenue or not? If it isn't, government appropriation goes there and we see what kind of services at the end, the package of services we deliver to Canadians.
1341 Should you choose to not grant our application here and allow us to use ads on Radio 2 and Espace Musique, we would look at the services. We have no intention of shutting down Radio 2 and Espace Musique. We would change surely some of the content in the format that they are in because we can't support them that way.
1342 And the dollars, the appropriation dollars would flow to supporting Radio 2 in its new format and Espace Musique in its new format and it would all be a function of the choices that the programmers that are around here would make in giving you a new -- let's say a new sound or a new content, but not a new mandate. The mandate of Radio 2 and Espace Musique would still be the same; we would go at it differently. And maybe that is where the programmers can come in.
1343 MS McLAUGHLIN: Sure. As we've said in other circumstances, when we look at platforms and the support of them, what we look to see is what we can do in terms of revenue to perhaps, in this case of Radio 2, offset the service that we give, and the service that we give on Radio 2 currently is a very robust one.
1344 And what we are looking at is if we don't -- if we are not successful in this application, a completely different form of Radio 2. And I would like the programmer of Radio 2 to give you some examples of what we do now and what it would look like after if we are denied.
1345 MR. BOYCE: So clearly, we would need to look at where the things are, where we could find economies or save on money.
1346 So to start with, the most expensive form of production you do on a music network is live music production, and CBC is really the only broadcaster left in the country that still invests in live music.
1347 So if I was to look at the kind of things that we would probably be unable to afford in the future, it would be things like, you know, two events that we did out West this year, the Honens International Piano Competition and the Banff International String Quartet Competition. Those would be the kinds of, you know, live productions where we go to and record, in the case of the Banff competition where the winner actually came into a CBC studio and got to make what was, I believe, their first recording.
1348 Or an event like one that we are planning right now to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Jazz Great Oscar Peterson's seminal Night Train release, where we are planning an event with, you know, the preeminent jazz musicians in Canada today, in Toronto and Montreal, commemorating the anniversary of the album again in a live event.
1349 Or something like the Juno songwriters circle, that we do tie into the Juno Awards every year, where songwriters come up on stage and not only play the songs that they are known for and famous for but talk about what inspired them, how they got to the song.
1350 So I think it is this, you know, range of content. We would still be on the air but some of that depth, some of that extra, some of the live, some of the stuff that nobody else does, unfortunately, would be the stuff that we would regrettably I think be faced with losing.
1351 The other thing that we would have to look at is how wide a range of genres of music can we feature on the service. And I think that is again just a result of the expertise we would require in-house to program that wide range of music.
1352 MR. LACROIX: So on the Espace Musique side?
1353 M. LALANDE : Sur le côté d'Espace Musique, c'est un peu sensiblement la même chose. L'endroit où on a le plus de dépenses, c'est forcément tout ce qui concerne les captations musicales. Donc forcément, ce serait plus là qu'il y aurait un impact. Forcément, l'impact est moins grand au niveau des montants, mais c'est un impact qui restera là quand même.
1354 You want me to -- let me try it --
1355 M. LALANDE : L'impact... Ça va? L'impact...
1356 Alors, je reprends. Du côté d'Espace Musique, l'impact se ferait surtout sentir au niveau, effectivement, des captations musicales que l'on fait à travers le pays. Donc, c'est vraiment l'endroit où il y a le plus de dépenses. On va continuer à en faire, mais il y aurait une réduction, ce qui fait que le mandat d'Espace Musique serait respecté, mais forcément, il serait livré de façon différente.
1357 MR. LACROIX: Can I just add something, Madam Duncan?
1358 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Certainly.
1359 MR. LACROIX: There's one thing that I hope we made clear, and if I haven't done a good job, let me try again.
1360 In terms of what those dollars mean to us, they go to way beyond the support of Espace Musique and Radio 2. The idea is that the source of revenue also goes to the general programming of CBC and all the other services that we provide. Because over time, what we are trying to do is we are trying to generate revenues for the whole of the services of CBC/Radio-Canada.
1361 So should you deny ads on radio, on Espace Musique and on Radio 2, not only are we going to change because we don't have a choice, you heard some of the expenses that come with some of the national music networks that we are managing, but that would also affect because of the size of the amount that we are planning on, it would affect other pieces of our programming.
1362 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I guess you have lost me there because the projections that I have just look to be dealing with those services. They don't show the impact on other services.
1363 MR. LACROIX: Because what we have done is we have built our budget based on these revenues coming in, supporting Espace Musique and Radio 2.
1364 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Will you have --
1365 MR. LACROIX: And over time, there will be more dollars we hope available to us and dollars that will flow to the other services that we have. I mean a dollar is a dollar. This is all part of our CBC/Radio-Canada budget.
1366 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Just following on conversations earlier about how one service supports another, you were talking about it in the terms of the television, radio and digital. But is there an opportunity here or do you share music productions with what is heard on SIRIUS?
1367 MR. LACROIX: On SIRIUS?
1368 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes.
1369 MR. LACROIX: Do you want to talk about what you do for SIRIUS, please?
1370 MR. BOYCE: Sure.
1371 So essentially, we have two CBC English services that are carried on SIRIUS. One is a version of Radio One and the other is Radio 3 which is our network for emerging Canadian artists.
1372 Certainly, some of the Radio 3 material is concert material. We have done stuff in the past that is actually run both on Radio 3 and on other SIRIUS channels as well. Some of the concert material that we record is on Radio One as well.
1373 So, you know, the fallout from not having the funding for Radio 2 would actually go beyond just what people hear on Radio One. It would affect the concert material people hear on on Radio One or on some of the SIRIUS channels as well.
1374 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I actually was expecting that maybe there would be something on SIRIUS that would end up on this service. But it goes the other way, does it?
1375 MR. BOYCE: That is certainly something that we will look at. Most of our experience with SIRIUS has been around us producing material that ends up on SIRIUS and I think some of it is the challenge of again, there are just very few other broadcasters or even entities in this country that are still in the live music production gang.
1376 MR. LACROIX: And being paid, I'm looking for that content with real dollars.
1377 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Perhaps Ms McLaughlin, you have answered this next question, but the projected tuning shares for Espace Musique and for Radio 2 are comparable, but the financial projections are different. I take it that's because the rates are lower in those markets or for that service?
1378 MS McLAUGHLIN: Rates and demand because it's a function of both.
1379 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay.
1380 I want to read you my question, but I have to read it first.
1381 It appears that from the revenue numbers that you are forecasting allowing national advertising revenues on Espace Musique which will have minimal impact on the French market, French radio market, but you're forecasting revenues amounting to 1.3 percent of national revenues in 2014.
1382 Given the relatively small amount of revenue that you are projecting to generate on Espace Musique, 1.6 in 2014 and 2.2 in 2018, and considering the opposition to the application, would you consider abandoning your plan of advertising on Espace Musique -- it is a relatively small amount of money -- as suggested by one of the interveners here, le Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du syndicat canadien de la fonction publique?
1383 MR. LACROIX: We would not, Madame. I was in Europe a few weeks ago and I talked about commercial revenues at CBC where actually, everybody is listening to us because all the broadcasters of the world will have the same kind of challenges. We are pretty up on the curve in terms of the initiatives that we have had.
1384 Every single dollar that we can raise to protect content, jobs and to ensure that we can deliver 2015 is important to us. Those millions of dollars count. It's about the long tale like the book. I mean it's as many resources and many sources of funds that we can generate, we will count on them.
1385 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay.
1386 So you are forecasting Radio 2 will generate slightly over $27 million of revenue in 2016. I'm looking ahead and it looks like the Corporation's total revenue would be $2 billion around that time, 2016. I might be off a little bit, but the point I'm trying to make is $27 million is relatively small as compared to $2 billion.
1387 I'm thinking, following on on your earlier conversation with Commissioner Simpson, that there will be the potential for you to generate additional revenues maybe from mobile phone apps or services offered to wireless companies. So I am just wondering is the selling of ads on Radio 2 the best or only way to address the recent cutbacks especially when you consider that they will likely represent 1.4 percent of your total revenues in 2016?
1388 MR. LACROIX: Commissioner Duncan, $27 million in the context of CBC/Radio-Canada is a big number. When you look at how we have projected ourselves out, some of the challenges that we have right now, I would rather try to build a sponsorship, an ad program that fits within the sound and the DNA of Espace Musique and Radio 2 than think about potential revenues three, four, five down the road of potential apps on potential widgets.
1389 Right now, we have some issues, we have some financial challenges. I think we hinted to them in our conversations today. They are really well detailed in the application and the information that we filed with you. We need the dollars now. We need the revenues to be applied to our services. If not, we generate more cuts, more jobs and for us, also, as you know, every time that we make a cut, it generates an issue of severance which complicates cash flow. I'm not going to go into these details, if you want to, but for us, an amount of $27 million is a very significant amount.
1390 MS STEWART: It's important to know, too, that we take a long view of revenue and we would look to all the other sources of revenue as you suggested. I just wanted to pass it to Alan Dark who is our head of Revenue to talk about where we look to other sources of revenue. We do look for every penny because we spend it all on programming and the services. So it's important to us.
1391 I will pass it to Alan to give you a sense of where we look overall for revenue.
1392 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you.
1393 MR. DARK: We are very optimistic about digital in the future, but the reality is it's growing, you are starting with a very small base.
1394 Although the radio dollars that we are looking to generate seem relatively small, and they are in the vast radio advertising space, currently, I think our projections are really for only 1.1 percent of the total advertising radio spending in Canada, it is very important to our bottom line. As we continue to push emerging markets, we will absolutely look at finding other ways of driving revenue through digital into the future because that is a growth factor in Canada.
1395 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I'm sure. Thank you. I'm glad to hear that.
1396 I guess it leads me to that question, why wouldn't it be wiser or more important to preserve the commercial-free nature of this service.
1397 MR. LACROIX: Commissioner Duncan, I wish I could and I wish CBC/Radio-Canada could actually look at you and say that we have found another way to generate these revenues or to adjust to the financial realities of what the last three or four years have brought to us, $400 million dollars of cuts to the base budget. So that's out of our Corporation. On top of that, about $100-million hit on one-time costs and adjustments.
1398 We have actually had to sell assets to be able to pay severance and to be able to match our cash flow, which in management workshops might not be Management 101 with respect to your balance sheet, but we had to do that.
1399 That's all behind us. We are managing and I think we have got a solution and we see some light at the end of our tunnel right now. But in those assumptions, as we go forward, ads on Radio 2, on Espace Musique are important to us and an integral part of the assumptions on which we have based our budget from now to 2015 to be able to deliver what you saw on your television sets a few hours ago.
1400 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I am sure they are tough decisions because I know I was personally disappointed to hear the change in plans in Halifax with respect to the development of the sites there. So it's indeed unfortunate.
1401 Assuming then that it is approved, I have some questions of clarification. With respect to the definition you are proposing for national advertising:
"National advertising shall mean advertising material that is purchased by a company or organization that has a national interest in reaching the Canadian consumer."
1402 I guess I had trouble with that definition. It seems like it's pretty broad and I tried to find another definition and couldn't. Then I started thinking about a company, for example, like Irving who you would consider to be a national company, but I am sure that there are those things like shipbuilding or reforestation that might be more local, like reforestation in New Brunswick, they might not be running those ads across the country.
1403 So I'm just wondering, to avoid what might be disputes later on, CBC selling local or regional ads when they are only mandated to sell national, if you could or would or have considered a more specific definition for national advertising.
1404 MR. LACROIX: I am going to ask Alan and Deborah to give you the details, Commissioner Duncan, because we have actually thought about this long and hard, and I think we will satisfy you with the answers.
1405 MR. DARK: Yes, we have actually. If I outline the plan, I think it will be a little bit more in focus with the kind of information that you are looking for.
1406 The reality is we are not going to sell these ads ourselves. What we are going to do is we are going to hire one of the national rep firms in Canada to represent our brands because we want to make very clear that we are not in the business of selling local advertising.
1407 There is a clear definition that these folks use and most of these companies are owned by the public -- or, sorry, by the private broadcasters, where they have a definitive breakdown of advertisers and splits of those clients because they offer services on both sides of the fence.
1408 They have local sales teams that manage the local sales in their specific markets across Canada and the national rep firms represent the national clients that are coming in and buying in any market across Canada.
1409 So, we will be sticking with the breakdown of those clients and we will live up to that breakdown and how they manage those businesses in that infrastructure.
1410 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So, if I understand your explanation then, for a particular company, they would break down -- if it was Irving, for example, they would acknowledge some of those ads would be regional, but some others would be national and you are focusing on the national. Is that right?
1411 MR. DARK: Yes, absolutely.
1412 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay. The other thing that caused me concern was that you submitted that you will not be soliciting regional or local advertising revenue, but I am sure we have all been around enough, so to the next question.
1413 Would you be willing to agree not to accept or solicit and hearing your comment there that the way you are going to do it, it doesn't seem like that would be an issue for you, but except it gets to be an issue sometimes?
1414 MR. DARK: Exactly. And so, I mean what would happen is, obviously there -- if it was a local advertiser that National Rep from we'd kick that back to their local sales reps, which we would have none, so we would not accept it.
1415 But the reality is that we will obviously be overseeing any advertising that comes in, we will have final say and anything that is of a local nature we will not accept.
1416 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So, a COL to that effect wouldn't be troubling?
1417 MR. GUITON: No, it would not.
1418 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you.
1419 Some of the interveners, notably community radio stations, have a concern because they draw a lot of revenue from donations and federal government ads and so, you know, they're concerned they could lose a lot of their revenues, and I am just wondering if you have any studies done on what might be the potential impact of ads on these services on community radio stations or even what percent of your ads would be commercial versus government would be helpful.
1420 M. MONGEAU : Madame la Conseillère, sur le marché des radios communautaires et les radios étudiantes, particulièrement pour ce qui est des marchés hors Québec qui a fait partie des interventions que nous avons entendues à l'effet de ce dommage potentiel, particulièrement auprès de la publicité provenant du Gouvernement du Canada, j'émettrais l'opinion contraire à l'effet que notre arrivée dans le milieu publicitaire de la vente nationale sera plutôt à l'avantage des radios communautaires parce que nous allons rajouter de l'échelle au volume total publicitaire et au marché potentiel en s'introduisant dans ce marché-là et en travaillant de paire dans les marchés présentement occupés par les radios communautaires.
1421 Alors, de ce côté-là, il est certain qu'on sera plutôt un allié plutôt qu'un adversaire.
1422 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So, you are suggesting to me that your presence would actually attract more advertising in the market?
1423 M. MONGEAU : Exactement.
1424 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay. All right.
1425 MR. LACROIX: We'll grow the pie.
1426 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay. And what again about the government ads, your comment about government ads?
1427 M. MONGEAU : Mon commentaire était à l'effet que notre présence dans l'univers média, particulièrement dans l'exécution des stratégies publicitaires du Gouvernement du Canada, le fait qu'on s'introduise dans ces marchés-là, dans les mêmes marchés que les radios communautaires, va juste permettre un meilleur accès à la stratégie publicitaire de chacun de ces marchés-là à travers le pays, particulièrement dans les marchés hors Québec.
1428 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay. I understand now. Thank you.
1429 There's also -- and I know you're not going to be surprised by this question, is the big concern that if this would set a precedent and open the door to similar requests for Radio One and La Première Chaîne, and I am interested in how you address that.
1430 MR. LACROIX: Commissioner Duncan, you're right, I am not surprised by that question.
1431 I am surprised by though some of the intervening parties saying, you know what, please deny access to Espace Musique and Radio 2 because in a few years maybe they will come and it is a slippery slope and once you've agreed to that, they'll come back with other stuff.
1432 Truth of the matter is that we are not in front of you on nos deux chaînes de radio parlée. We thought about that obviously. We looked at whether this was the proper environment for ads and sponsorships, decided not, decided against doing this.
1433 If we had wanted to do this, we would be in front of you with that request. We have no intention whatsoever of putting ads on La Première Chaîne or on Radio One.
1434 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you.
1435 MR. LACROIX: I also need a coffee.
1436 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: And I guess the concern would be that -- I mean, I know you are sitting here today and you are saying that, but if something were to change?
1437 MR. LACROIX: If we come back to you and I am repeating my commitment, we will not come back with you -- in front of you with this. If we were, you can shut us down at that point in time and choose to not allow this.
1438 But linking the two together, linking something that we need now for purposes of CBC/Radio-Canada, that has been thought out with reasonable numbers, and you've heard percentage of revenues that are targeted in both networks by our intervention in those markets, when you look at the downside of us being there, and the upside that comes to us from these revenues as we struggle with making some challenges, that stands on its own.
1439 For us to link this or for anybody to link this with a possible demand in some future time, on some future request, I think that's absolutely uncalled for and inappropriate.
1440 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay. Forgive me for asking the question.
1441 MR. LACROIX: But not -- I know that you're not asking the question. I know that you're reflecting the question on the interventions that we have seen and as I said, I am not surprised, Madam Duncan, by that question.
1442 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: All right. Okay.
1443 Many parties have expressed a concern about the number of minutes of advertising per hour and how it will alter the nature of the services. I am just curious to know what other options you might have considered that would be a middle position between approval of what you are asking for and now, for example, four minutes of advertising or --
1444 MS McLAUGHLIN: If I could just draw the Commission's attention to the sell out rights that we have.
1445 First of all, the commercial load planned on this is nine minutes, which is below what most commercial entities are running now. And that was done out of respect to the listeners.
1446 A lot of research that wasn't visible to the Commission has gone into this and I was fortunate to be able to have access to that and I could read what people's sentiments were about advertising and, you know, through our own researches to this again, we sort of know what the drop-off point is whenever you have commercial load.
1447 If you look at there isn't any of these stations that we have loads that are really more than four and a half minutes. So, the reality is, although it's planned for nine, we don't expect to realize much more than that by virtue of what the service is, by virtue of when you become commercial, it's not that you are not sensitive to the consumer at any other point in time, but suddenly you have a report card that's coming in.
1448 And there is a recognition here that you have to limit the ads, that although it's planned for nine, you know, we are not looking at selling all of those out and we can't.
1449 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Sorry, that's helpful. Would a COL to that effect be acceptable?
1450 MR. LACROIX: Steven?
1451 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I'm just wondering if you would accept a COL for the lesser minutes.
1452 MR. GUITON: I apologize, Commissioner Duncan, for I was just anticipating a question like yours and we were just trying to understand.
1453 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I hope I asked the question.
1454 MR. GUITON: Your question was fantastic and it was far better than the one that I had thought in my mind. But where I am struggling with, and I apologize again for not giving you my full attention, I was just trying to ask the question.
1455 Here is my dilemma. I think if we are limited to below the nine that's been modelled here, we may have trouble guaranteeing to the Commission that we will keep the services in their correct formats.
1456 And the reason that I am saying that and this is subject to check, I have just -- I just talked this through now, if it's below, for example, four minutes, we are still -- we still have got a revenue shortfall.
1457 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Well, actually, just based on what Ms McLaughlin said that it's actually -- you have said nine minutes, but if I understood what you've said the projections were based on four.
1458 MS McLAUGHLIN: Well, the sell out rates actually work out to be that, but that's in year one through about four. You can see that they start to move up towards the end and that is to hit that number. So --
1459 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay.
1460 MS McLAUGHLIN: If you're limited in the front end, you wouldn't reach the revenues in the back end of this licence term.
1461 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay, I understand that then. So, just out of interest, obviously you are not trying to be a commercial radio station. What would the normal be for a commercial radio station as a -- you said it's not nine minutes, it's more, but --
1462 MS McLAUGHLIN: In the commercial, whether as you know, there are limits and if you look at some of them in practice, they're as high as 15 minutes an hour and it drops during the day, but it picks up again and drive not to the same 15 minutes, but somewhat lower.
1463 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay, all right. Yes. In earlier applications from the corporation looking for advertising revenues or additional revenue sources, you talked about sponsorships. And I think earlier today I heard Mr. Hubert refer to sponsorships. So, is this advertising, advertising or sponsorship?
1464 MR. LACROIX: It's a combination of what we can find, it's sponsorship and it's advertising, again, trying to maximize the revenues out of the minutes that you've just heard.
1465 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay. And so, do you have any split on what would be --
1466 MR. LACROIX: No, we don't.
1467 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: No. Okay.
1468 MR. LACROIX: I don't think so. Have you -- no? The answer is no.
1469 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So, it would depend, I presume, then on who your client is. And right now, I think I would like to talk to, yes, I wanted to know if your projections took into account the fact that when you put advertising on this service, you might lose audience. So, it's not -- it's a net gain, if you like, I would think?
1470 MS McLAUGHLIN: Yes. They did. We, in both services, about Espace Musique and Radio 2, we had research to use to look at what drop-up would be.
1471 In the case of Radio 2, if you look at it, there's some growth projections there and that's simply because with a revenue stream currently it's not promoted outside the CBC's own services this would allow for the service to be promoted.
1472 And one of the things our research showed was that the awareness of Radio 2 isn't as high, for example, as Radio One. So, a combination of being able to promote the service would create some expansion in that share. In addition, being able to promote it on Radio One a little more when there is a revenue possibility for Radio 2 would add to the growth that we see.
1473 But initially we did discount on both sides the audience, assuming drop-up.
1474 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That's an interesting comment because the answer to my question is fine, but you promote on Radio One a special or a feature coming up on Radio 2? Is that what you are saying?
1475 MR. LACROIX: In the normal course of a process, that's what we do every day.
1476 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Certainly. Okay.
1477 MR. LACROIX: We cross-promote. We promote plan, we promote events, hosts a particular show and we do that all the time.
1478 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: The only thing that is going to be changing now is that you will have more of a commercial service on?
1479 MR. LACROIX: On Radio 2 and Espace Musique and this is not an easy choice to make. It's a necessary choice to make. A number of us have different experiences. My best experience is and I know every time I say this I get -- I get really bad looks from our team, but my preferred service of all the services is Radio 2.
1480 I am a crazy Radio 2 fan. I enjoy Radio 2 a lot. I consume a lot of Radio 2 and for me, the experience will be that of having to suffer to keep Radio 2 in its current format, I will live with a few minutes of advertising because I know, being in the position that I am, that if I don't do this, if I don't accept this as a listener, all of a sudden what I really enjoy and the music I find and the groups that Richard Turf and I, we were talking about this at the break, he introduced me to -- he -- listening to him in his drive home he listened to -- he introduced me to another group.
1481 We went on YouTube, we found it, we enjoyed the music and all of a sudden, if this changes, I lose access to a great radio statio, a radio network. I would be disappointed by that.
1482 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So you're thinking your audience is going to feel the same way?
1483 MR. LACROIX: I would like to think so.
1484 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: But why is your team -- why does your team not responds the same way then?
1485 MR. LACROIX: Well, because no, because I make quite clear of the fact that I am a Radio 2 crazy person and they say: yes, but how about my service and my program and don't you like this and then I give it. That's a slippery slope.
1486 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I see that's what you mean.
1487 MR. LACROIX: That's a slippery slope.
1488 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay. So, if the advertising projections aren't realized, what would be your next step?
1489 MR. LACROIX: We go back to deciding what is the next phase for those two musical networks. They get impacted in some of the ways that you've heard. We then look at the other cuts that come with the numbers not being or the dollars not being those that we expect and there would be more cuts in the organization and away we go again, less services to Canadians.
1490 MS STEWART: But they are conservative estimates, they're realistic for conservative estimates as they are set now.
1491 MR. LACROIX: Oh! I'm sorry. I didn't -- I think I just missed and thank you for this, I think I misunderstood your question. Was it about ads on radio or the revenue that we have projected?
1492 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: The revenue.
1493 MR. LACROIX: Oh, I'm sorry. So, I --
1494 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: No, I understood. That's okay.
1495 MR. LACROIX: Okay. Thank you.
1496 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That's okay. Both those comments were helpful because what you are telling me is that you don't expect not to reach them because they are conservative targets.
1497 MR. LACROIX: Absolutely.
1498 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay. So, now then, I would like to talk about possible conditions of licence related to selling advertising on the service and first of all, with respect to Category 3 music.
1499 Staff examined the Espace Musique schedule dated August 20th and it showed that there were 72 hours of programming that featured mostly Category 3 music, 57 percent of the 126 hours in that Broadcast Week, was Category 3.
1500 And on Radio two, same period and time, 39 percent. And the rest of the music on both services, they point out much of it could be either two or three. So, what I did and did have 57 percent Category 3 on Espace Musique and 39 percent on Radio 2.
1501 So, what would you recommend, considering those results for an acceptable COL?
1502 M. LALANDE : Je vais demander à Marie-Philippe Bouchard de répondre à cette question.
1503 MME BOUCHARD : Bonjour, Madame. Pour Espace Musique, je crois qu'on a eu des échanges avec le Conseil dans le cadre du renouvellement, dans lequel justement on nous a demandé si on était prêt à s'engager à des niveaux particuliers de sous-catégorie de musique et de catégorie de musique.
1504 L'engagement traditionnel d'Espace Musique est en contenu canadien et très élevé en contenu canadien de Catégorie 2 et aussi élevé pour la Catégorie 3 par rapport à l'ensemble de l'industrie.
1505 Cela dit, Espace Musique est une radio multi genres. Donc, nous avons fait une place très importante à la chanson francophone, entre autres, et évidemment, nous avons aussi toutes sortes de genres dans la sous-catégorie 3 : du jazz, de la musique classique bien sûr et toutes sortes d'autres genres.
1506 Et donc, c'est une radio aussi de découvertes et c'est une radio qui doit rester actuelle et dans ce sens-là, se figer dans des proportions spécifiques de contenu musical de Catégorie 2 et de Catégorie 3 nous empêche l'évolution naturelle qui suit les grands courants musicaux et qui suit aussi l'évolution de la production musicale canadienne.
1507 C'est pour ça que nous n'avons pas proposé de condition de licence qui limite la quantité de musique de Catégorie 2 ou de Catégorie 3 ou qui crée des espèces de petits pigeonniers dans lesquels, puisqu'on pige dans toutes les catégories musicales, dans lesquelles nous serions confinés.
1508 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: It wouldn't be -- thank you for that. Actually I am looking for a minimum level, so it wouldn't be as restrictive state that way.
1509 MME BOUCHARD : Alors, ça dépend comment on compte aussi la musique parce que la musique de Catégorie 2 et chaque pièce est de durée plus courte que la musique de Catégorie 3 particulièrement dans le domaine de la musique de concert.
1510 Alors, en Catégorie 2 on a tendance à compter par nombre de pièces, en Catégorie 3, si on compte par nombre de pièces, je ne sais pas exactement ce qu'on compte.
1511 Ça devient des problèmes de gestion de comptabilité qui ne facilitent pas l'administration d'une chaîne musicale et particulièrement sa programmation. Il faut savoir aussi que Espace Musique est une chaîne largement éditorialisée. Sa programmation est construite autour de l'expertise de ses animateurs dans des genres musicaux divers.
1512 Et si vous vouliez avoir une forme de réconfort que les deux genres musicaux de Catégorie 2 et de Catégorie 3 seront représentés, ce qu'on ne veut pas se retrouver, c'est avec des pourcentages qui égalent 100 pour cent. Vous me suivez?
1513 On ne veut pas être pris avec des conditions de licence qui font en sorte que quand on additionne les deux niveaux, on arrive à 100 pour cent puis on a aucune flexibilité.
1514 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Now, I understand that. So, are you able then to suggest a rate of Category 3 that would be acceptable for Espace Musique?
1515 MME BOUCHARD : En terme de durée d'écoute ou en terme de nombre de pièces?
1516 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I guess, perhaps you could help me here. How is Category 3 normally measured? I gather from this it's by pieces?
1517 MME BOUCHARD : Bien, je ne sais pas. Ça dépend comment vous, vous l'avez calculé. Nous, comme on n'a pas de condition de licence à cet effet, on n'a pas rapporté de façon régulière ces proportions-là. Cela dit...
1518 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Perhaps -- sorry. Perhaps you could listen to -- or look at your statistics for that week, August 20th, and maybe touch base with staff and they could show you the 57 percent? And you could give that some thought.
1519 MME BOUCHARD : Je ne dispute pas le pourcentage, hein, parce que ça ne m'étonne pas. Je crois que, effectivement, en durée, on doit avoir l'équivalent d'à peu près 60 pour cent de musique de Catégorie 3 à l'heure actuelle. Donc, ce n'est pas des chiffres qui m'étonnent.
1520 C'est juste au niveau de prendre un engagement minimal, je ne sais pas ce qu'il serait.
1521 MR. BOYCE: And I would say likewise for Radio 2, we would have many of the same concerns in that in both Category 2 and in Category 3, in terms of what we think are some of the most important things, we have industry leading Canadian content commitments in both Category 2 and Category 3.
1522 I think once we get down to what is the minimum amount of those specific categories, in essence we are beginning a conversation about genres or restrictions or regulating -- regulating the format of the station.
1523 And from our point of view, in light of the Commission's policy framework of not make for managing stations formats, you know, we believe strongly that, you know, the service needs to continue to evolve over time and that the balance between Category 2 and 3, both of which are important and will continue to be important to us, that in the rapidly changing environment that we find ourselves in today, that we need the flexibility to be able to adjust the format and the programming as the market demands.
1524 And I think the evolution and change of both listening habits of the Canadian population as well as the format of a radio station is the reality. It's a natural evolution and we want to make sure that we have a flexibility to provide the best programming to fulfil our mandate under the Broadcasting Act without being in a position where we have to come back to the Commission to make what we would consider normal programming adjustments.
1525 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I think the -- I understand what you are saying, both of you, but I guess the concern I would have is that you're getting to be more of a commercial broadcaster now with government money; right? And so, I'm just --
1526 MR. BOYCE: And I don't think that's the case in that there are some things that will be similar to what we do to commercial broadcasters and that we will carry commercial messages. I can guarantee you there will be no commercial service in the country that looks like ours and I think that's the range of music that we play, I think that's the variety of live music and other content, context and curation that we provide.
1527 So, although certainly there are similarities to what we do to the commercial part of the broadcasting system, I think the bulk of what we do will remain distinctive and it will remain unique and we do realize that we are asking for something and that there's valid questions of what we are going to do to maintain the distinctiveness of the service.
1528 And I think some of the conditions that are already in place around Canadian content, whether it's the 50 percent Canadian content for Category 2, which is something between 40 and 50 percent higher than most commercial licensees in this country, or the 20 percent commitment to Category 3, which is double those commercial licensees in this country, is part of what will help keep us distinctive.
1529 We are also willing to make a fairly significant content around emerging Canadian artists, something that we think is a core of what's actually vital in this country to build and expose -- to expose new talent.
1530 So we are willing to make commitments. They are the commitments though that we feel are compatible both with the service that we see operating, the service we want to operate in the future and the one that we think has the most benefit to the audience and to musicians.
1531 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I guess, understanding the reason in pursuing the question, I think is that it just goes back to my previous discussion with Mr. Hubert, that what happens if you don't meet your advertising targets, will you then be incented to become more like a commercial broadcaster so you can get the advertisers placing your ads?
1532 MR. BOYCE: First off, we feel very confident on the revenue targets and we have put a lot of time, effort and thought into how to properly project them, given that our circumstance is somewhat different than a commercial broadcaster.
1533 But beyond that, to follow the logic of the question that you have asked, if we did find ourselves in a situation where, for whatever reason, whether it's the global economy collapses or we are not in the revenue targets, I would actually say in that case, we would have even less incentive to become more like the commercial broadcasters in this country.
1534 What is making us appealing to the audience and what makes us appealing therefore to advertisers is the fact that the service is distinctive, that it is unique. My feeling quite passionately is that if we were to make the service less distinct, if we were to abandon what differentiates us from the competition, not only are we less appealing to the audience, but we would become even less appealing to advertisers as well.
1535 MR. LACROIX: I think Marie-Claire wants to add something, Commissioner Duncan.
1536 MME BOUCHARD : Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec mon collègue, c'est exactement la même position dans laquelle Espace Musique se trouve. Espace Musique est dans un espace musical complètement différent des radios privées qui l'accompagnent dans son écosystème par le type d'artistes qui sont joués, par la quantité de contenu canadien, par l'engagement très important envers les artistes émergents et également envers les artistes de langue française, ce qui est vraiment une richesse pour le marché de langue française.
1537 En plus, on a proposé aussi une condition de licence en ce qui a trait au nombre de pièces différentes par mois parce qu'on croit fondamentalement à la diversité musicale et à cette occasion que ça nous donne de faire vraiment rayonner le talent canadien.
1538 Donc, je pense que c'est l'espace qu'on occupe, c'est le territoire qu'on a développé avec Espace Musique, avec beaucoup de succès et on n'aurait vraiment pas intérêt, surtout dans le cas des revenus escomptés pour Espace Musique, ça ne serait pas la peine de disperser ou de dilapider la marque qu'on a créée dans le monde de la radio musicale.
1539 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you. I think that's very helpful.
1540 I will move on, I think. You sound like you have some convincing arguments for that, but I have a few other things and we can talk about them, there might be other ways to go about this. Of course, that's not a decision on that point, but anyway, we will just look at these other areas.
1541 One thing that has been a concern is that imprecise music definitions make it difficult to categories, sometimes make it difficult to categorize music between category 2 and 3 and lead to problems measuring compliance and sometimes, the Commission and, I'm sure, the broadcasters have found this very time-consuming and sometimes visceral. We want to avoid that.
1542 Would you be prepared to accept a COL requiring a minimum playlist size instead of a COL governing emerging artists and a minimum playlist size, so instead of a combination, just a COL regarding minimum playlist size?
1543 MME BOUCHARD : Dans le cas d'Espace Musique, si le niveau de diversité musicale requis est l'équivalent de ce qu'on a proposé, oui, bien sûr, parce que de toute façon, en ce qui a trait à notre effort pour les artistes émergents, il va continuer. Qu'il y ait une condition de licence ou pas, la mission d'Espace Musique, c'est de faire une place significative aux artistes émergents. On fait du dépistage et on soutient les artistes. On soutient les artistes non seulement pendant qu'ils ont le statut d'émergent au sens de la définition que vous avez créée, mais puisque cette définition-là fait en sorte qu'au bout de quatre ans, après la production de leur premier album, ils cessent d'être émergents, Espace Musique continue à faire jouer des artistes que les radios commerciales ne font pas jouer.
1544 Donc, notre engagement envers le talent musical francophone canadien est important et la condition de licence reflète cet engagement-là. Mais même sans la condition de licence, nous allons certainement continuer notre effort.
1545 MS STEWART: I think it is important, too, to note that the definition of emerging artist is different in the French language than it is in the English language services. I wanted Chris to speak a bit about the plan to preserve the opportunities for emerging artists that we would do on Radio 2.
1546 MR. BOYCE: That notion of a minimum playlist size and emerging Canadian artists were among the things the Commission asked us to look at and to consider whether we would be willing to make commitments.
1547 It was something we thought about a lot and the lens through which I looked at it was what was the commitment that I felt would have the biggest benefit to the musical community in this country. I think hands down on that, I felt that making a strong commitment around emerging Canadian artists was the most beneficial commitment that we could make.
1548 I think there is some tension between a strong commitment for emerging Canadian artists and a commitment around distinct musical selections, which is essentially I think the same notion as a minimum playlist size. I think a lot of it comes down to how people listen to music and listen to the radio. I think there is a long history and bases of knowledge in radio programming that a degree of familiarity is essential. Nobody wants to listen to unfamiliar music all the time.
1549 The biggest challenge of programming emerging Canadian artists as vital as we believe it to be is that by nature of being emerging Canadian artists, they are inherently unfamiliar. So when you are playing emerging Canadian artists, a certain level of rotation or repetition is necessary to establish the artists, to make them become familiar to the audience. However, when you are repeating or rotating an artist more often, that diminishes your ability to play a larger number of distinct musical selections. So that, to me, is the tension between the two of them.
1550 Beyond that, and again, I think this is very different, the francophone market and the English market are very different. Certainly, if you look at the definition of emerging Canadian artist, it is a very different definition on the French side than on the English side.
1551 But if you look at the CBC Duplication Project that the Commission commissioned I believe about 18 months ago, and you look at the commercial radio market in English Canada, and you look at what the stations were that had the highest number of distinct musical selections, if you take CBC Radio 2 out of that and you look at the commercial stations in English Canada, the ones that had the highest number of distinct musical selections were an oldies station, a classic country station and a classic rock station. That's not the game that we want to be in and that's the reason why we feel so strongly that the right thing to do for us is to make a strong commitment to emerging Canadian artists, but not to the distinct musical selections.
1552 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Just on the amount of emerging artists that you are prepared to commit to, I understand, is 7.5 percent of total Category 2 for Espace Musique and 17.5 for Radio 2 which I think we thought seemed low.
1553 MR. BOYCE: Again, the challenge with emerging Canadian music is you are dealing with music that is inherently unfamiliar, so it is in many ways the most challenging form of music to program to a broad audience, clearly easier when you are programming to a niche audience. So if I can use the example of Radio 3 which is a channel that we program on Sirius and online, which is available again because of the nature of distribution to a niche and small audience, we actually program a much higher level of emerging Canadian artists, but that's because it's to a narrow audience that is already a fan of that genre of music and those musicians.
1554 With Radio 2, what we are trying to do is program a broad service for the largest number of Canadians and that's why what we have tried to do is balance emerging Canadian artists along with established Canadian artists. So we don't want to be a service that doesn't play the Gordon Lightfoots, the Neil Youngs, the Joni Mitchells, as well as the other musical needs.
1555 So that's the number that we landed at when we looked at it and tried to think of what a balanced scheduled is. So we think it's a strong commitment and that's how we arrived at it.
1556 MME BOUCHARD : Je faisais référence tout à l'heure à la différence dans les définitions.
1557 Alors, pour le marché francophone, vous êtes arrivés à une définition qui a pour effet de renouveler constamment le bassin d'artistes émergents parce qu'il y a une durée limitée à leur statut qui est une durée dans le temps, qui peut être déclenchée par deux facteurs. Le premier facteur, c'est simplement le passage du temps. Alors, après quatre ans après la publication de leur premier album, un artiste cesse d'être émergent dans le marché francophone. Ça, ça n'existe pas dans le marché anglophone. Dans le marché anglophone, avec la définition que vous avez choisie, en accord avec l'industrie manifestement, un artiste peut rester émergent toute sa carrière.
1558 Alors, qu'est-ce qui arrive? Une artiste comme Catherine Major, par exemple, qui a été dépistée par nous, qui a été soutenue par Espace Musique dans le cadre du programme qui s'appelait Sacré Talent à l'époque, qui est devenue une révélation à Radio-Canada. Cette artiste-là a gagné des prix à l'international. C'est une artiste qui est de grande qualité. Cependant, elle n'a pas un son qui est retenu par les radios commerciales. Cette artiste-là a cessé d'être une artiste émergente, mon dieu, il y a déjà passablement de temps. Elle a cessé d'être une artiste émergente. Excusez-moi, je ne trouvais pas l'année. Elle a cessé d'être une artiste émergente, mais elle continue d'être soutenue par Espace Musique.
1559 Un autre exemple beaucoup plus récent, Lisa Leblanc est une artiste qui a fait partie des révélations Radio-Canada, que nous avons donc l'engagement de soutenir sur toutes nos plateformes pendant un an. Lisa Leblanc a sorti son premier disque et il est très, très rapidement monté au palmarès et il a atteint le statut de disque d'or. Ce qui fait que la durée pendant laquelle elle reste émergente dans la définition francophone est de seulement six mois. Dans la définition que vous avez retenue dans le marché anglophone, un artiste émergent qui atteint le Top 40 va rester émergent pendant trois années supplémentaires.
1560 Alors, vous voyez notre bassin à nous, il est beaucoup plus restreint et c'est un choix qui peut se défendre. Je pense que l'ADISQ défendrait ce choix-là parce qu'il pousse dans le fond à la découverte et à la stimulation des artistes, mais il fait en sorte que notre bassin, pour se qualifier dans votre définition, est beaucoup plus restreint.
1561 On a fait aussi un autre exercice parce que ça nous intéressait. On a fait une analyse de la programmation musicale d'une semaine entre Espace Musique et deux radios commerciales musicales de Montréal, Rythme FM et Rouge FM. Faisant cette analyse-là, on a constaté que, effectivement, ces radios-là jouaient aussi des artistes émergents au sens de la définition du Conseil. Cependant, leur catalogue d'artistes émergents n'est pas le même que celui d'Espace Musique. Ils ont tendance à jouer des artistes, pas exclusivement, mais beaucoup, des artistes qui sont, disons, issus du programme Star Académie. C'est des artistes qui sont joués aussi sur Espace Musique, mais pas de façon majeure. Espace Musique tend à jouer des artistes émergents qui ne sont pas dans les catalogues des radios privées.
1562 Donc, chacun contribue à sa façon dans le système, mais comme vous aviez choisi une définition d'artiste émergent qui est très restrictive, notre engagement en ce sens-là doit refléter la diversité musicale qu'on soutient et notre engagement à long terme envers des artistes d'ici qui ne sont pas joués dans les radios commerciales.
1563 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That's a very helpful explanation from Espace Musique's perspective. I am just looking at a list that I have been given of different formats, and AC, adult-oriented, rock, country, et cetera, and it ranges from 6.1 percent to 22.8 percent. So having listened to Mme Bouchard's explanation, how does your 17.5 percent on Radio 2 seem adequate?
1564 MR. BOYCE: Without having seen the list, that --
1565 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I can tell you if you like, if it would help.
1566 MR. BOYCE: I would imagine looking at the list, there are some formats that are at the bottom.
1567 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes, there are.
1568 MR. BOYCE: Some are at the top. Again, from listening to me, I hope you can hear the passion that I have for this particular commitment where I see in the vision of the service. We looked at it in terms of looking at the entire schedule, the range of genres that we play, the wide variety of music and trying to imagine in the rotation what the number was that we thought found the balance between the other programming and musical commitments that we had and what would be a number that would make a significant difference, that would make an impact on the industry.
1569 If after that, the Commission feels that the proposal we have made is inadequate, we would be happy to go back and look at it again. Although, we did, again, arrive at it based on our analysis of all of the competing needs of our schedule and it is challenging. I believe what you are probably looking at is an analysis based on single format genres and we do face a bit of a challenge in that we program what is, I would say, an unusual format in Canadian radio and that it covers such a wide range of music in different genres.
1570 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you very much. Obviously, you have given this a lot of thought.
1571 Just turning then to playlist size, and I am sure that you won't be surprised by this question either, but research conducted by Nielsen for the CRTC found 4,655 distinct selections were broadcast on Espace Musique during the period of January 31st to March 31st, 2011 in Quebec City which was their test market, but you are suggesting a playlist of 3,000 distinct selections.
1572 Would you feel more comfortable with a minimum playlist size of 4,300 per month without an emerging artist COL?
1573 MME BOUCHARD : Non. Si on est arrivé à ce choix-là, 3 000 sélections musicales, c'est parce qu'on y a bien réfléchi. Les arguments que mon collègue Chris Boyce vous faisait valoir en ce qui a trait à l'importance de pouvoir jouer à une certaine fréquence les artistes émergents sont tout à fait applicables au marché francophone.
1574 La semaine échantillon représente une période aussi dans laquelle la formule musicale d'Espace Musique qui était encore en évolution, nous sommes arrivés à un certain nombre de constats par rapport à la programmation multi genres. Comme Chris le disait, c'est unique. C'est unique, je pense, dans le monde d'ailleurs. C'est très peu répandu comme format musical. Les radios musicales ont tendance à se nicher. La nôtre est vraiment fondée sur une proposition unique, mais elle nécessite un peu d'ordre. Et c'est ce qu'on a commencé à faire dans le sens où plutôt que de jouer tous les genres musicaux différents en même temps dans une même programmation pendant une heure, on apporte davantage des univers musicaux autour d'une expertise aussi, autour d'animateurs qui ont une certaine expertise musicale dans chacun de ces genres-là.
1575 Donc, la variété est encore là et les genres musicaux sont déclinés dans notre offre d'une façon un peu plus ordonnée.
1576 Cela dit, la proposition de 3 000 pièces distinctes, elle est ferme, réaliste, durable et elle nous permet de donner aux artistes émergents le maximum de potentiel d'émergence en nous permettant de les appuyer correctement.
1577 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: So I understand then that the 4,655 that Nielsen arrived at in that two-month sample was an exception, that at that point, the service was new and involving and that now, in fact, the right number is 3,000.
1578 MME BOUCHARD : Ce que je vous dis, pour la prochaine période de licence, le chiffre de 3 000 est un chiffre avec lequel on est confortable. Il pourrait être dépassé à certaines périodes. Pendant certaines périodes, il pourrait être au-dessus de ça, mais certainement 3 0000 est un plancher sur lequel on est confortable.
1579 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you.
1580 On the Radio 2 side, they -- sorry, did somebody have something?
1581 Nielsen's found on the Radio 2 side, they used the Calgary market as the test market and they found 3,356 distinct selections in that period in 2011 that I mentioned. On the Radio 2 side, are you agreeable to a 3,000?
1582 MR. BOYCE: No, we would not be. Again, I think it comes back to the inherent tension that I think exists between properly exposing and developing, and growing and building emerging Canadian artists. In essence, you could hit a number of distinct musical selections as the classic country, classic rock and all these stations demonstrated by playing a very broad catalogue of already familiar music.
1583 So as we look to the service that we think is most important to and has the most value to Canadians and we look at the service that we are operating, we would, again, much rather make a significant commitment around emerging Canadian artists and not make a distinct musical selections commitment because as we look at the English language market, it doesn't seem to be, to our mind, a terribly valuable commitment.
1584 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you. I understand.
1585 I have a couple more things here, but I need to refer to something here.
1586 Perhaps what I will do is I will ask Legal to deal with that. It's the wording of a COL, the kind of information, reporting information that we might need. Mike Emodio(ph) sent me the email. Do you have it? Can I forward it to you? It is lengthy, so for me to read it is going to be -- I will just send it. Just bear with me a second. Sorry. I think they will handle that.
1587 There is one other thing that I wanted to ask you. I read the intervention from the CAB Radio Council and it's certainly not in favour of your proposal and they make a lot of statements. I think I would like to have your answer to it. Rather than me going through and picking and choosing sections, would you be prepared to respond to that by the end of the day tomorrow?
1588 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe they can do it now.
1589 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Pardon?
1590 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe they can do it now.
1591 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Well, if they can.
1592 THE CHAIRPERSON: You can do it right now if you wish. You have read it.
1593 MR. GUITON: We would respond as we did in our reply, Mr. Chairman. We have responded in full to that intervention. There are other issues that they raised that are in the intervention that we did not respond to such as they have tried to suggest, by going back to 1962, that when you put inflation to the amount of money that we received in 1962 that, in fact, you know what? We don't need all the money we have. So we just thought that was too stupid a thing to do so we didn't respond to it.
1594 Overall, our responses of a substantive basis are in the reply. To go through the document again --
1595 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Excuse me for a second and I apologize because I didn't see the reply. So I will search for the reply and if I have any other questions, I will ask you and give you an opportunity to do that.
1596 MR. GUITON: Thank you. If anything comes up during their examination, I will certainly address it, we will reply on the 30th.
1597 COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay, that's fine for me.
1598 So is that okay, Jean-Sébastien, or do you want me to do that?
1599 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe the Commissioner will still have some questions and you can look back at the end on that.
1600 Peut-être, Monsieur Lacroix, j'aurais une petite question concernant Espace Musique. Bon, c'est très courageux de votre part d'avoir avoué que vous préférez Radio 2. C'est toujours dangereux de dire quel enfant qu'on préfère.
1601 M. LACROIX : C'est exactement ça mon problème.
1602 LE PRÉSIDENT : Pour ma part, j'aime à la fois la radiodiffusion et les télécommunications d'une façon égale...
1603 LE PRÉSIDENT : ...juste pour le mettre sur le dossier public.
1604 Mais le fait demeure que je crois quand il y a eu l'évolution de l'ancienne chaîne culturelle, il est clair qu'il y a encore des cicatrices chez les auditeurs par rapport à ce changement-là face au nouveau mandat ou la nouvelle mouture, ou le branding associé avec Espace Musique.
1605 Si je comprends bien votre position, parce que c'est quand même une décision importante que vous nous demandez de prendre, que ce n'est pas seulement un enjeu par rapport à Espace Musique ou Radio 2, mais c'est vraiment un choix bien que la répercussion va être vue surtout pour ceux qui écoutent Espace Musique ou Radio 2, c'est vraiment un choix que vous devez faire pour l'ensemble du groupe radio canadien. Est-ce exact?
1606 M. LACROIX : C'est exactement ça, Monsieur le Président, parce que ça déborde.
1607 LE PRÉSIDENT : Alors, quelqu'un pourrait demander si on accepte la thèse que vous devez faire face à une situation financière grave, et je ne mets pas ça en doute, pourquoi avez-vous choisi cette solution-là plutôt qu'une autre?
1608 M. LACROIX : Lorsqu'on regarde les sources, je vais revenir à mon bilan. En fait lorsqu'on regarde les enjeux financiers de CBC et Radio-Canada, il y a un aspect de nos démarches qui touche nos coûts. La façon dont on livre nos services, l'intégration de nos services, certaines choses qu'on veut faire, qu'on ne veut plus faire, on arrête de faire. Donc, il y a un coût.
1609 Ensuite, on regarde les services, les choses qu'on fait qui sont capables de nous générer des revenus.
1610 Mais à un moment donné, on fait un choix entre, est-ce qu'on est capable de générer plus de revenus chez nous pour ralentir les coupures et les compressions, les choix négatifs que nous faisons dans la programmation de nos lignes médianes?
1611 C'est là l'enjeu. Nous croyons que dans l'environnement actuel, aller chercher entre 15 et 25 millions de dollars ou en fait, un 30 millions de dollars sur la vie des années, des sept ans qu'on a devant vous dans nos projections. Il n'y a pas d'endroit dans notre entreprise qu'on est capable d'aller chercher ce genre de revenu-là dont le delta est significatif pour nous malgré que si vous faites 27 divisé par un milliard de dollars ou deux milliards, tout dépendant où vous êtes. Ça semble pas important.
1612 Pour nous, c'est significatif et super important.
1613 Donc, c'est dans nos choix l'endroit où les revenus sont les plus disponibles. Une fois qu'on fait ce choix-là, si les revenus du Ministère (ph) ne nous étaient pas disponibles, dans notre environnement et Espace Musique et Radio 2 seraient transformés. C'est le choix que nous faisons pour protéger la Première Chaîne, pour protéger notre programmation à la télévision de Radio-Canada, à la télévision de CBC, nos autres services aux Canadiens et certains des choix qu'on fait sur l'Internet. C'est là qu'on est rendu dans nos choix.
1614 Et c'est pour ça qu'on fait un lien entre les revenus qui sont générés de ces deux réseaux nationaux musicaux-là, c'est qu'ils peuvent apporter, non seulement à la survie dans l'environnement... pas l'environnement, mais le format actuel, mais également leur contribution à l'ensemble des services CBC et Radio-Canada.
1615 J'espère que j'ai répondu à votre question.
1616 LE PRÉSIDENT : Donc, en somme, le statu quo n'existe plus. Donc, il faut faire un changement. Soit amoindrir la qualité puis la diversité, puis ce qu'on comprend être, dans ce cas-ci, l'Espace Musique. Ou faire souffrir l'ensemble du groupe?
1617 M. LACROIX : Faire les choix ailleurs. En fait, affecter le contenu de la programmation qui vient d'Espace Musique et de Radio 2 pour en réduire les coûts pour pouvoir permettre -- parce que vous voyez 30 millions dans notre environnement c'est beaucoup -- pour pouvoir faire d'autres choix dans d'autres morceaux de Radio-Canada et de CBC qui nécessitent d'être financés.
1618 Mais même à ça, vous comprendrez parce que vous avez fait les calculs avec nous il y a quelques instants, qu'il va y en avoir, que si jamais ces dollars-là n'étaient pas disponibles, c'est pas juste Radio One et Espace Musique qui vont être frappés. Il y a d'autres aspects de notre entreprise qui vont devoir encore une fois subir des compressions.
1619 C'est malheureusement les cartes avec lesquelles on joue.
1620 LE PRÉSIDENT : Donc, vous, vous êtes passionné de Radio 2 et vous avez le choix de l'être parce qu'on n'est pas là, nous ici au CRTC pour imposer les goûts à personne.
1621 Mais il y a beaucoup de gens qui sont passionnés par l'Espace Musique.
1622 Qu'est-ce que vous leur dites à ces gens-là? Parce que vous risquez de les perdre.
1623 M. LACROIX : On leur dit de la même façon aux gens à qui on parle que notre vision de la musique se transformera. Il devra se transformer parce qu'on n'est plus capable, dans l'environnement actuel, de faire exactement, de continuer dans les formats que nous avons si on ne trouve pas une autre source de financement ou si on conserve ces formats-là, il y a d'autres endroits dans l'entreprise qui sont affectés. Ce sont des choix.
1624 Je vois Marie-Philippe qui veut intervenir sur Espace Musique. Puis -- maybe for the record, j'aime Espace Musique beaucoup aussi!
1625 MME BOUCHARD : Merci, Hubert. Je vais le dire à l'équipe d'Espace Musique certainement de l'entendre on the record.
1626 Je dirais bien sûr qu'on a une certaine appréhension qu'il y a des auditeurs qui seront dérangés par la présence de la publicité. Et Debra vous en a fait part.
1627 On a estimé qu'il y aura un certain facteur d'érosion au moins initialement.
1628 On a confiance par contre que notre produit, notre offre musicale, elle est suffisamment riche, elle est suffisamment unique pour que les auditeurs l'accueillent quand même.
1629 Et par ailleurs, j'aimerais souligner que selon les données que nous avons, les auditeurs d'Espace Musique, en majorité, écoutent aussi la radio commerciale.
1630 Ce ne sont pas les auditeurs qui sont complètement captifs à Espace Musique. Certains le sont sûrement. Mais il y a au moins 60 pour cent sur le réseau qui écoutent autre chose qu'Espace Musique. À Montréal, cette proportion-là est de 80 pour cent.
1631 Donc, manifestement, ces auditeurs-là sont aussi familiers avec la présence de publicité à la radio et à la radio musicale, et ne s'en trouvent pas à ce point irrités qu'ils cessent d'écouter la radio commerciale.
1632 Donc, on a confiance que notre proposition va quand même leur permettre de profiter de l'espace éditorialement et musicalement riche qu'offre Espace Musique.
1633 LE PRÉSIDENT : Et dans ce pourcentage-là, est-ce que vous faites abstraction des gens qui écouteraient aussi la Première Chaîne?
1634 Parce qu'évidemment, les gens de la Première Chaîne écoutent. Sinon monsieur Lague(ph) taquinerait pas les gens de...
1635 MME BOUCHARD : Oui.
1636 LE PRÉSIDENT : ... d'Espace Musique.
1637 MME BOUCHARD : Je parle de gens qui écoutent la radio commerciale et non pas la Première Chaîne.
1638 LE PRÉSIDENT : O.K. D'accord.
1639 Lorsque vous avez envisagé ce choix-là qui est un choix difficile, je veux pas le minimiser, est-ce que vous avez fait des groupes-témoins, faire un montage pour voir comment un auditeur moyen réagirait au nouveau son, un genre de focus group?
1640 Vous avez pas...
1641 MME BOUCHARD : On était pas rendu là.
1642 LE PRÉSIDENT : O.K.
1643 MME BOUCHARD : Je ne crois pas, en tout cas, du côté d'Espace Musique qu'il y a eu de ce genre de... comme je vous dis, on a fait des analyses de comportement d'auditoire, mais delà à faire une expérience ou un pilote, non. On ne l'a pas fait encore.
1644 LE PRÉSIDENT : D'accord.
1645 M. LACROIX : Je pense que Debra veut ajouter quelque chose.
1646 LE PRÉSIDENT : Oui, je pensais que madame Mclaughlin vous avait laissé entendre que vous n'aviez fait peut-être.
1647 Did you do any focus groups?
1648 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: For Espace musique or R-2?
1649 THE CHAIRPERSON: I was asking about Espace musique, but did you do anything on Radio 2?
1650 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: Absolutely.
1651 First of all, there have been focus groups being conducted for the past 16 months on a variety of programming issues to do with radio so we did have that base information to look at and to understand where in the order of programming elements non-commercial status actually played into the listening choice for R-2 listeners.
1652 We also had a survey that was done across Canada and this was for R-2 with over 3,000 people. Of that I think it was 1,400 were R-2 listeners and we asked them what their reaction would be in terms of commercial content and what that load should be. And the responses that we got, you can see if you look at our individual market projections, varied by market, and that's in response to those levels collected at the market level.
1653 THE CHAIRPERSON: Was there something similar for Espace musique or was that solely Radio 2?
1654 MME BOUCHARD : Quand je donnais des données tout à l'heure sur l'attitude des auditeurs d'Espace Musique, c'est des données de même nature.
1655 Je répondais à votre question très spécifique. Est-ce que nous avons fait jouer un ruban témoin?
1656 Non. On n'a pas fait jouer un ruban témoin, mais on a sondé les intérêts et les sensibilités de nos auditeurs à travers les focus groups et à travers les sondages.
1657 LE PRÉSIDENT : O.K.
1658 Donc ça, ces questions-là portaient sur la réaction du public.
1659 On a vu dans le dossier public jusqu'à maintenant, il y a une réaction aussi par des joueurs en présence dans le marché.
1660 Est-ce que vous avez songé possiblement pour minimiser le choc, de pas aller, de nous proposer plutôt des conditions de licence qui permettraient plus de publicité, mais en escalier, c'est-à-dire, augmenter un pourcentage d'heures sur plusieurs années.
1661 Est-ce que c'est une possibilité? J'ai bien compris, Monsieur Lacroix, est-ce que le besoin financier est trop urgent pour permettre cette possibilité-là ou est-ce que c'est quelque chose que vous pourriez envisager?
1662 M. GUITON : C'est justement, on a discuté avec madame Duncan avant, Monsieur le Président.
1663 On n'est pas certain si on limite dès le début, les minutes de publicité. On n'est pas sûr si on peut garder le format existant. Il faut retourner dans nos analyses pour comprendre si ça touche le format.
1664 LE PRÉSIDENT : Si vous faisiez d'une autre façon?
1665 On aura la chance d'en discuter plus amplement pendant les deux prochaines semaines.
1666 Donc, il y a peut-être d'autres questions des autres conseillers.
1667 Je crois que le vice-président aurait une question pour vous.
1668 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Merci, Monsieur le Président.
1669 Écoutez, madame Duncan et monsieur le Président on vraiment fait le tour du jardin pas mal. Et je cite, Monsieur le Président, le PDG, il n'est pas impressionné. He's a Radio 2 crazy person. As as long as he's a Radio 2 crazy person and not just a crazy person.
1670 Alors, juste pour retourner sur quelque chose qui a été dit, d'abord, vous pensez pas que vos projections de revenus sont trop optimistes? Ça a été assez clairement réitéré et vous avez des études qui puissent appuyer votre contention à l'effet que vous êtes assez conservateur.
1671 M. LACROIX : C'est l'intervention que madame Debra a faite. Je ne sais pas si Debra a bien entendu en français?
1672 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: First of all, if you would grant me the indulgence to go back to how we calculated these, we went into each market, we looked at the Radio 2 shares, we looked at the response of consumers in those markets in this survey that I talked about. In cases where we had done focus groups where we have the order priority in terms of the programming elements and we used that to alter the shares going forward.
1673 We also looked at the promotional opportunity that would be provided by increased revenue and the opportunity to promote on Radio One, which in many markets is a very strong contender. We had all of the rates, the commercial rates from each of those markets. We had conversations with advertisers, not on the local level but on the advertiser agency level. We also had firsthand experience because, as the Commission would be aware, at times of election Radio 2 is allowed to carry commercial content and we actually put together that rate card and sold it to the agencies.
1674 So with that firsthand experience, the market intel, the consumer feedback, we were able to take each single time block in the day, just as I would do for anybody applying for an application, and estimate what the sellout rate, the unit rate, the number of units that would be sold and multiply that by the unit rate for each time block over four seasons. We added that up and we came to the numbers that we did. Then we looked at the growth in those markets where it was available and we projected that forward, again using a conservative number.
1675 Finally, on our last test to this, was we looked at the retail sales, again on a market level, looked at the projections that were provided to us by the Conference Board or Financial Post or even the economic units in the city, to determine where the retail sales were likely to go and we used our projected shares against those retail sales to say, "Does this pass a reasonableness test?"
1676 So once we got that, with all of that data we felt we had relatively conservative projections.
1677 On the Espace musique side we had a different set of intel, we had cost per points for all of those markets and we were able to confirm that again by agency, by checking rate cards for competing broadcasters and applying that same test, but it all followed the same methodology that the Commission has seen many times, often referred to as the bottom-up and top-down test, and we did this for each one of the markets.
1678 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: And would your market share be comparable with what private broadcasters are getting for the same market share?
1679 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: In terms of revenue?
1680 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Yes.
1681 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: No, because ours --
1682 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Per point, I'm sorry.
1683 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: Well, the costs per point were the same, the units were the same, but our revenue per share is different because we have a smaller pie. We are not going after local so we don't --
1684 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: But would it be -- so it would be less? It would be smaller than that?
1685 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: That's correct.
1686 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: And when you look at it strictly on the national revenue front, would you be comparable or would you be higher or lower in your estimates?
1687 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: It's difficult to say because you get into that sort of grey area of what is their national share and that's impossible for us to determine. It becomes a function of reporting.
1688 You know, I worked at a national rep shop for many years and we had the debate every year what was a truly national and local, so I would say at best we are on par and most likely we are below, because you have to remember the structure of the industry. Radio 2 in all of the markets will still be a single FM selling against multiple ownership.
1689 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Right.
1690 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: So that suggests they have no leverage and that they are going to have to sell on the distinctiveness that Mr. Boyce was describing.
1691 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: So you have taken that into consideration in your --
1692 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: Absolutely.
1693 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: And a final question, the fact that there will be another player in these markets, are you bringing added value or are you simply taking a piece of the pie that already exists and is that part of your study?
1694 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: Well, it absolutely is, because we were able to look at what the breakdown of the --
1695 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: It is that you are adding? You are contributing to the system?
1696 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: We are contributing in the system --
1697 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Okay.
1698 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: -- because in order to do that you have to bring new listeners into the commercial part of the system, and if you look at the audiences for R-2, 60 percent of the tuning is done by 20 percent of the audience and of that one-third don't listen to any other radio station in the market --
1699 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Okay.
1700 MS MCLAUGHLIN: -- two-thirds of that listen to one other. So you really have a very large proportion of people who are outside the commercial radio system and right now when I have talked to advertisers where they are going to get those people are another medium, they are going online, they are going into magazine, they are going into outdoor, and unless you provide a vehicle for people to get to them, which Radio 2 does, that money won't come back to the system.
1701 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: So those advertising dollars are not coming from within the regulated radio system? They may be coming from other sources, media, print, but not from radio per se?
1702 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: Well, I'm a researcher so we don't deal in absolutes so I'm going to say most of them will be coming from outside, but not all of them.
1703 COMMISSIONER PENTEFOUNTAS: Okay.
1704 MS MCLAUGHGLIN: There is going to be some impact, there has to be.
1705 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Monsieur Lacroix, vous avez dit à un moment donné qu'on vous accorde ce droit de publicité ou non, le mandat d'Espace Radio et de Radio 2 changera pas.
1706 Mais juste le fait de permettre des annonces, est-ce que ça ne change pas l'expérience de l'auditoire, et conséquemment, ça touche le mandat comme tel?
1707 M. LACROIX : M. Vice-Chairman, vous avez entendu clairement de la part de Marie-Philippe, j'espère et de Chris, que l'importance que ces deux réseaux musicaux-là ont à mettre en valeur les artistes canadiens émergents. Et ça, ça ne changera pas.
1708 C'est pour ça que vous avez entendu toutes sortes d'engagements vis-à-vis... c'est la continuation de cette mission-là.
1709 Vous avez j'espère qu'également dans Debra, entendu, an answer to Madam Duncan's question of a few minutes ago with respect to the distinctiveness of that Radio 2 and Espace musique.
1710 If we go away from being distinctive we shoot ourselves in the foot because the advertisers are looking -- perhaps, we hope -- to this niche and for us to continue to deliver content to this niche.
1711 So in terms of what you are going to listen to, perhaps the sound is going to be different because every hour you are going to have let's say 9 minutes of advertising that you were not supposed to hear before we introduced it, but I don't think it's going to change anything with respect to the nature and the mandate of Radio 2 and Espace musique.
1712 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Et pour retourner sur le marché brièvement, on entend souvent dire que dans le domaine de la télé, vous venez à rabais vos spots, vos annonceurs et que ça a un impact négatif sur le marché, at large.
1713 Et si on permettait exactement le même genre d'attitude dans le domaine de la radio, eh bien là, vous endommageriez la santé du marché en conséquence.
1714 Quelle serait votre réponse?
1715 M. LACROIX : Je vais demander à Jean Mongeau de répondre à cette question-là s'il vous plaît.
1716 M. MONGEAU : Je vous dirais que les informations que nous recueillons dans le marché depuis l'existence de nos activités de ventes publicitaires dans le domaine de la télé dans le domaine des ventes numériques positionnent Radio-Canada et CBC d'une façon extrêmement positive au niveau du pricing et que nous ne sommes pas là pour abaisser les coûts, loin de là.
1717 Et vous savez, dans toutes sortes de circonstances, on a l'occasion d'avoir les oreilles assez bien collées sur le marché. Et on sait pertinemment que ce n'est pas le cas.
1718 Et ce n'est pas le cas ni notre intention non plus dans le marché publicitaire de la radio.
1719 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Pour retourner, je pense, au début des questionnements, des questions qu'on a posées à madame Duncan, monsieur Lacroix, vous avez dit que - vous avez décrit une situation un petit peu désespérée dans le sens qu'il nous faut des revenus presque peu importe la source de ces revenus-là.
1720 Et vous avez trouvé ça un petit peu presque inacceptable le fait que les gens vous questionnent. Bien, pourquoi si le but de l'exercice c'est d'aller chercher des revenus peu importe l'endroit, eh bien, c'est sûr que l'endroit où vous pouvez maximiser vos revenus, ça sera de demander des annonces sur la Première Chaîne au Radio One, in English.
1721 Pourquoi ne pas aller piger dans cette source-là?
1722 M. LACROIX : Monsieur le Vice-président, ce que j'ai trouvé inacceptable tantôt, c'est pas la question pourquoi est-ce que vous voulez avoir de la publicité sur Espace Musique ou Radio 2. De la même façon, je ne trouve pas du tout inacceptable la question, est-ce qu'un jour, vous allez vous représenter devant nous pour faire la même demande sur la Première Chaîne et sur Radio One.
1723 Ce que je trouve vraiment compliqué, et je vais réutiliser mon mot « inapproprié » ou « inacceptable », c'est de lier les deux. Parce que dans le moment, il n'y en a pas de liens à faire.
1724 Nous sommes dans une situation où la demande, c'est sur Espace Musique et Radio 2.
1725 Lorsque nous avons... on a discuté longtemps, est-ce qu'on va sur la Première Chaîne ou sur Radio One, la conclusion rapide à laquelle nous sommes arrivés, c'est non, on ne veut pas dénaturer ces chaînes-là.
1726 Tantôt, vous avez entendu Marie-Philippe vous parler d'un auditoire qui accepte plus parce qu'il voltige entre nos stations musicales et les stations musicales d'autres, a peut-être une écoute plus... a peut-être une écoute ou une attitude plus acceptable vis-à-vis l'ajout de cette musique-là ou de, pardon, de cette publicité-là sur les ondes de nos radios musicales.
1727 C'est pour ça qu'on fait ce choix-là.
1728 Et je veux revenir aussi, je vais en profiter pour dire, la fois où t'es rendu là, pourquoi est-ce qu'on fait ce genre de choix-là?
1729 Parce que lorsqu'on a fait - et je pense que c'était ça tantôt, il y a un instant, la question du Chairman.
1730 Pourquoi est-ce qu'on est rendu à faire un choix dans l'Espace Musique Radio 2?
1731 Si vous regardez les pourcentages de compression que nos services ont subis à travers les 400 millions de dollars, à peu près 86 pour cent des coupures se sont faites au niveau de la télévision générale dans la programmation, dans la partie programmation, à peu près 14 pour cent à la radio.
1732 On a donc protégé la radio et on a protégé la radio depuis plusieurs années à travers ces compressions-là.
1733 Je ne vous dis pas que les gens de radio sont satisfaits des coupures qu'on leur a imposées.
1734 Mais lorsque proportionnellement vous regardez les budgets qui leur sont alloués et les compressions qu'on a faites, la télévision générale, tant chez CBC que chez Radio-Canada, a été plus sévèrement impactée.
1735 On est rendu à un point où on ne peut plus continuer à faire ça dans les deux vaisseaux qui sont la télévision. Et c'est pour ça que là, c'est rendu à la radio qu'on demande de contribuer à l'ensemble des revenus de CBC et Radio-Canada.
1736 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Est-ce que vous avez pensé également à l'idée de vous restreindre? Parce que si on se donnait une déclaration suivante à l'effet, seriez-vous d'accord à ce que... pour dire que les commanditaires ont moins d'effet de perturbation sur l'auditoire que les annonceurs placés comme tels?
1737 Et est-ce que votre projet ne fonctionnera pas en vous limitant strictement à des commanditaires et non pas des annonceurs traditionnels?
1738 M. LACROIX : Où que votre commanditaire...
1739 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Si vous référez au modèle PBS aux États, il n'y a pas d'annonces comme telles.
1740 Mais bon, cette émission-là, "This show is brought to you by Esso" or peu importe.
1741 M. LACROIX : Alors, nous ne voulons pas nous limiter à ça. C'est un marché qui est beaucoup plus profond aux États-Unis au niveau des dollars qui sont disponibles, au niveau des fondations...
1742 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Je donne ça comme exemple, strictement dans vos projections, dans votre modèle. Est-ce que ça ne sera pas une façon de minimiser la dénaturalisation, si vous voulez, de votre service en vous limitant strictement à des commanditaires et non pas à des annonceurs plus traditionnels?
1743 M. LACROIX : Monsieur le Vice-président, notre objectif est de lever entre 15 et 30 millions de dollars sur la vie des projections financières que vous avez devant vous.
1744 S'il y a des fondations ou s'il y a des entreprises qui veulent acheter une heure de temps chez nous et commencer notre programme en disant, this program is brought to you by, on va être très content de les introduire chez nous, et je suis convaincu que Jean et Alan vont faciliter...
1745 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Mais est-ce que vous avez étudié cette possibilité? Parce qu'on...
1746 M. LACROIX : Mais on ne veut pas se limiter, Monsieur...
1747 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : On s'en va de neuf minutes à trente secondes, dans une heure. Et l'impact comme tel sur l'auditoire -- je pense toujours à l'auditoire, vous le premier -- je pense qu'ils seront moins...
1748 M. LACROIX : J'ai compris que vous pensiez à moi.
1749 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : ...ils se sentiront moins atteints et moins dérangés avec ce modèle-là et non pas des annonceurs traditionnels, comme on voit dans la radio privée.
1750 M. LACROIX : Alors, je vais vous suggérer que si on ne réussit pas à vous convaincre de l'importance pour nous d'avoir accès à de la publicité sur Espace Musique et Radio 2, que ce que les gens entendront par la suite, c'est significativement plus compliqué pour eux et que le service va changer d'une façon et dénaturer Radio 2 et Espace Musique d'une façon encore bien plus grande que l'obligation d'écouter neuf minutes de publicité banale.
1751 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Mais Monsieur Lacroix, est-ce faisable, par voie de commandites et non pas par voie d'annonceurs?
1752 M. LACROIX : Je ne pense pas que le marché au Canada est profond de cette façon-là. Est-ce que je peux demander à Jean...
1753 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Et est-ce que vous avez des études à l'appui de cette...
1754 M. LACROIX : Je vais demander à Jean, Monsieur le Chairman...
1755 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Merci.
1756 M. LACROIX : ...de répondre et d'ajouter à ma réponse.
1757 M. MONGEAU : Ce qui est certain, c'est que le marché publicitaire est toujours basé sur le même principe, celui de la valeur.
1758 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : O.K.
1759 M. MONGEAU : Que ce soit en média traditionnel, c'est-à-dire en média publicitaire par le billet d'annonces, ou que ce soit par le billet de commandites, les deux critères qui sont... le seul critère qui est utilisé, c'est la valeur qui est apportée à l'annonceur.
1760 Or, il est clair que si on avait envisagé -- et sur le plan mathématique, on avait déterminé que l'aspect commandite pouvait être un scénario -- il aurait représenté une infime partie des sommes d'argent que nous envisageons maintenant dans nos projections de revenus, parce qu'en commandites, on ne réussit pas à soutirer des sommes de la même envergure.
1761 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Même avec une clientèle ciblée nationale?
1762 M. MONGEAU : Même avec une clientèle, la valeur...
1763 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : La valeur ajoutée à cela...
1764 M. MONGEAU : Il y a une valeur ajoutée.
1765 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Vous êtes d'accord avec moi?
1766 M. MONGEAU : Absolument.
1767 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : On n'a qu'à parler aux Facebooks et aux Googles de ce monde pour comprendre qu'on vise à cibler vraiment le marché, maintenant?
1768 M. MONGEAU : Pour avoir été responsable...
1769 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : Et on est prêt à payer une prime pour ce privilège-là.
1770 M. MONGEAU : Absolument. Je vous dirais, pour avoir évolué dans le domaine de la commandite pour des organismes à but non lucratif, dont entre autres l'Orchestre symphonique de Montréal, pendant des années, je peux vous dire que l'opération de levée des commandites, sur le plan des revenus, de la valeur intrinsèque de cela, n'a rien à voir avec les médias traditionnels et les médias de masse.
1771 CONSEILLER PENTEFOUNTAS : O.K. Monsieur le Président, merci.
1772 LE PRÉSIDENT : Madame Poirier?
1773 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Oui. Bonjour.
1774 Trois questions.
1775 La première : Est-ce qu'il va y avoir -- et peut-être que je n'ai pas compris -- un pourcentage des revenus de publicité qui vont être directement affecté à la programmation d'Espace Musique et de Radio 2 ou est-ce que les argents récoltés par la vente de publicité va être disséminé dans toute la corporation?
1776 M. LACROIX : Madame Poirier, un dollar, c'est un dollar. Quand on va faire nos budgets, que ce dollar vienne de l'appropriation ou qu'il vienne des revenus, si on réussit à augmenter le nombre de revenus pour CBC/Radio-Canada, cela va nous permettre... parce qu'on ne reçoit pas notre appropriation, nos crédits parlementaires en fonction d'une boite ou d'un pigeonnier, tantôt, qui a été expliqué. Lorsqu'on va ajouter les revenus publicitaires qui viennent d'Espace Musique et de Radio 2 à nos autres revenus commerciaux ou aux crédits parlementaires, on va se retrouver avec assez d'argent pour continuer ce qu'on fait avec Espace Musique et Radio 2.
1777 Alors c'est certain que si vous faites abstraction de tout -- puis ce n'est pas comme cela qu'on devrait penser -- mais un dollar venant d'un revenu publicitaire va être ajouté à Espace Musique et à Radio 2 jusqu'à temps qu'on complète leurs budgets.
1778 Si, au début, nos revenus publicitaires ne rencontrent pas les objectifs, on va y palier avec des crédits parlementaires, comme on fait dans n'importe quel de nos services, la télévision, par exemple.
1779 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Donc pour l'auditeur, ce n'est pas : plus on en fait, plus on en vend de publicité, plus on va avoir des bons services? Ce n'est pas comme cela que cela va fonctionner?
1780 M. LACROIX : Il va y avoir les services de programmation, le contenu de ce que vous voyez dans le moment, qui va continuer, s'enrichir au fur et à mesure qu'on va évaluer dans Espace Musique et dans Radio 2, mais ce n'est pas pour ajouter des revenus au-delà du coût de notre programmation actuelle et du support qu'on va chercher des revenus publicitaires. C'est pour faire cela et ensuite aider à l'ensemble des revenus de CBC/Radio-Canada.
1781 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Merci. C'est beaucoup plus clair.
1782 Deuxième chose, vous n'avez pas testé le son musical mais avez testé le son commercial? C'est-à-dire chez... C'est drôle mais je m'attendrais chez vous à avoir un son pour les commerciaux qui n'est pas le même son que la radio commerciale en général. Et comme auditeur, il me semble que cela me choquerait moins si je savais ce vers quoi vous vous en allez.
1783 Est-ce que vous avez eu une réflexion sur le son des commerciaux chez vous?
1784 M. LACROIX : Absolument et Jean va vous en parler.
1785 M. MONGEAU : C'est effectivement --
1786 M. LACROIX : Et Alan aussi, parce que je viens de... Oui.
1787 M. MONGEAU : C'est une excellente question et elle est en partie au coeur du choix que nous avons fait dans la clientèle que nous avons ciblée dans notre opération de commercialisation.
1788 Le son, évidemment, inhérent aux publicités de clients nationaux est totalement différent du son qu'on obtient d'une clientèle de nature plus locale qui opère dans des marchés locaux et qui vend toutes sortes de produits et services.
1789 Et donc c'est fondamentalement une des dimensions qui a été au coeur de notre réflexion.
1790 MR. LACROIX: Alan, do you want to add something to national sales and how they -- and the sound of a commercial --
1791 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: But help me, give me a way I can imagine how it will sound.
1792 MR. DARK: Yes. Well, I think if we go back to sponsorship, I would like to touch on that because there is an opportunity for us to work with our on-air people to help deliver that message for the advertisers. It is not the large amount -- we don't deliver a large amount of revenues via that model but for the listener, the creative is absolutely tied to the creative or to the music that we are serving.
1793 And a great example of that could be, you know, as we approach the holidays, we could have certain holiday renditions of music brought to you by a specific advertiser and kind of tie those messages together.
1794 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : O.K. Et ma dernière question... parce qu'on pourrait en parler très longtemps de tout cela. Vous semblez avoir pris une décision d'affaires, et c'est honorable que la SRC et CBC prennent une décision d'affaires.
1795 Mais même dans la radio commerciale, il faut tenir compte de l'auditoire; c'est un critère de base. Une radio commerciale ne peut pas avoir des bons revenus publicitaires si elle ne donne pas au client ce qu'il veut entendre.
1796 Depuis tantôt, on parle de focus groupes. Monsieur le Président l'a fait et l'a dit, et vous-même, Monsieur Lacroix, vous avez dit : Hé, moi, il y a un niveau que je suis prêt à accepter mais un niveau que je ne serais peut-être pas prêt à accepter comme auditeur.
1797 Alors je me demandais : Est-ce que vous avez testé en quelque part l'idée de dire à vos auditeurs, Écoutez, pour garder les programmes live, les concerts, il faut absolument qu'on garde ou qu'on introduise des commerciaux? L'avez-vous testé, cette idée-là? Parce que sinon, c'est un peu comme si vous alliez blind, aveuglément, dans une direction que votre auditoire ne veut pas. Et cela, ce n'est pas la base du succès en affaires.
1798 M. LACROIX : Madame Poirier, je vais revenir et je pense que je vais repasser la parole à Debra, qui va vous parler des sondages qu'on a faits.
1799 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : J'aimerais entendre les résultats, effectivement. On n'en a pas parlé, et savoir si vous voulez les déposer, même, pour nous ici.
1800 MS McLAUGHLIN: Yes, we can file them. And part of the findings that we are drawing on are from focus groups that were not primarily or singularly focused on this but rather larger programming questions, and we can pull some of the learning out of those, though the whole study itself probably shouldn't be filed, correct, Steve?
1801 MR. GUITON: I am not that familiar with the study, so I am afraid -- we are going to find out what we can file. We will file something with you. I just don't know if it is a complete study.
1802 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: Okay. This I understand, yes. Okay. You will file what is --
1803 M. GUITON : On va regarder ce soir le document.
1804 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : O.K.
1805 M. GUITON : On va décider tout de suite, Madame Poirier.
1806 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: But can you give us today some results that are related to the question I asked? What kind of question have you asked your present listeners? Will they support the fact that you have to put advertising if you want to still offer them some live concerts throughout Canada?
1807 MS McLAUGHLIN: We did not frame it that way because that would, in research terms, be a leading question and we would get a larger response.
1808 What we actually tested was how much do they listen. So we qualify them into more than three times a week, once or twice weekly, sometimes or once to three times per month, rarely, and never. So we sent out this questionnaire to 3,600 people. We got back about 1,200 people who are actually Radio 2 listeners, who claim to have listened in the past six months. And then we qualified them in that way.
1809 Then, what we did drill down on was what the commercial load was that would change their listening habits. So we tested several levels and what we came up with was that nine minutes was a good load. We will lose some but we won't lose enough to be critical.
1810 But again, I must balance that with the fact that we also tested awareness generally of R2 and it is not as high as Radio One.
1811 So when you start to promote the music that really can't be found anywhere else in the system, you have an opportunity to develop listeners and I have just about in every market in Canada and certainly in these markets, run format finds. One of the number one formats that are always found to be missing is classical music. If you stop and think about that, this is offered on R2.
1812 So the question becomes: Why does a listener think or, you know, a typical -- respondent in these surveys think that there isn't any classical music. Well, it is because they don't know about R2. And why don't they know about R2? Because R2 doesn't have as broad awareness, because there isn't a lot of money funneled into advertising, outside of CBC properties.
1813 So if you have the opportunity to promote it, you actually will develop awareness. And as we know that this is one of the formats that is unique and comes up, you know, it is reasonable to assume that for some of the drop-offs that we are going to lose, we are going to gain through new listeners who are looking for that music.
1814 COMMISSIONER POIRIER: And this might be a silly question but I will ask it. I will take the chance. Are there some people who find that listening to advertising is a good thing because they learn plenty of things going on and they learn about programs offered by the government or national advertisers? Are there people that believe that it is good to listen to advertising?
1815 MS McLAUGHLIN: Yes, and the key of that is relevancy. If you have the wrong ads placed on a commercial entity, you actually have a very high score of irritation. If the ads are properly targeted to the consumer group that is listening, they don't score as high a level of irritation and that is because they do find it informative.
1816 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Monsieur Lacroix, pour terminer, j'ai lu avec beaucoup d'intérêt le commentaire de la sénatrice Andrée Champagne. Madame Andrée Champagne a travaillé pour vous et elle se plaignait déjà des changements faits dans la programmation quand on est passé de la programmation du style classique à une programmation beaucoup plus éclectique. Cela a été un coup pour une grande majorité de vos auditeurs.
1817 Maintenant, vous arrivez avec de la publicité. Est-ce que vous ne pensez pas perdre vos irréductibles qui sont restés avec vous malgré tout, avec peine et misère, et là, maintenant, ils devront entendre de la publicité; vous risquez de les perdre à tout jamais pour la dernière fois?
1818 M. LACROIX : D'ailleurs, Madame Champagne, la sénatrice, est encore à nos ondes. On l'a vue la semaine dernière, je pense, dans « La Galère. »
1819 Il est certain que tous les choix que nous faisons, en particulier celui-là, va éveiller des réactions quelconques. On est très conscient de cela. Vous avez entendu et c'est pour cela que je trouvais important que Debra vous replace la recherche.
1820 Dans le contexte du niveau de tolérance à un certain nombre de minutes, Madame Poirier, de publicité, lorsque ce choix-là de passer d'Espace Classique à Espace Musique; lorsque nous sommes passés de Radio 2, qui était à peu près classique à presque 100 pour cent à maintenant une radio qui a plus de genres de musique... D'ailleurs, l'ancien président du CRTC, à chaque fois qu'il me rencontrait, quelle que soit la raison de notre rencontre, me parlait du fait qu'il n'était plus capable d'écouter sa musique classique. Et moi, je lui disais : Écoutez, moi, je suis... j'aime beaucoup le jazz.
1821 Alors, we are sharing the airwaves now. You can listen to some classical music. I can listen to some jazz. We are all happy campers.
1822 Et c'était cela qui était le contexte à l'intérieur duquel on faisait ce changement-là.
1823 Alors oui, il y a des changements. On pense que ce changement-là est important pour nous. On pense qu'il assure également la pérennité et l'avenir de nos radios musicales, de nos réseaux et de nos deux radios musicales, oui. Et c'est pour cela qu'on a pris tant d'attention à bâtir le plan d'affaires, à être raisonnable dans les revenus et les projections qu'on y fait, à être raisonnable dans le nombre de minutes qu'on va mettre de l'heure, raisonnable dans la programmation et dans l'objectif de continuer à supporter les artistes canadiens émergents, et qu'on se présente devant vous avec la demande d'aujourd'hui, très conscients des conséquences possibles.
1824 Mais on pense sur le long terme qu'il va être au bénéfice d'Espace Musique et de Radio 2, Madame Poirier.
1825 CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Merci beaucoup.
1826 LE PRÉSIDENT : Juste pour revenir sur la question du son des annonces, je comprends que vous n'allez pas avoir, je ne sais pas, moi, le vendeur de meubles de Saint-Clin-Clin avec ce son qu'on connaît bien à la radio commerciale.
1827 Mais il se pourrait qu'on ait d'autres annonceurs du côté national qui aussi ont des sons parfois un peu agressant.
1828 Dois-je comprendre que le format que vous proposez et donc l'auditoire cible que vous allez proposer à un annonceur national va être en sorte qu'on n'aurait peut-être pas -- pas pour dénigrer les annonces de bière -- mais admettons une annonce de bière qui a un certain style, qui n'est peut-être pas aligné avec ce que vous cherchez sur Espace Musique et Radio 2.
1829 Donc comment allez-vous gérer cela, et il n'y aurait pas une tentation à un moment donné d'accepter ces annonces-là si les revenus ne sont pas au rendez-vous?
1830 M. LACROIX : Alors, deux choses. Il y a Marie-Philippe qui va ajouter à ma réponse de tantôt et, Monsieur Chairman, je vais demander à Alan et à Jean de répondre à votre question sur le son, encore une fois.
1831 MME BOUCHARD : Alors, Madame Poirier, j'ai bien entendu que vous avez des préoccupations par rapport aux auditeurs de la Chaîne culturelle et du passage de la Chaîne culturelle à Espace Musique. Je voudrais simplement vous souligner qu'à l'occasion du passage de la Chaîne culturelle à Espace Musique, si on compare les données de portée de la Chaîne culturelle en 2000 à celle qu'elle avait en cahier d'écoute, la même mesure, en 2008, après le passage, et après que la chaîne Espace Musique se soit établie, la portée avait doublé.
1832 Alors, je pense qu'on sait comment construire notre auditoire avec une offre musicale qui est riche et on a prouvé qu'en fait, on avait réussi à le faire.
1833 Maintenant, en ce qui a trait au son, je vais juste dire qu'il y a une question d'habillage aussi, et encore une fois, on est sensible à l'écoute et au flow de l'écoute, et ce sera en partie notre responsabilité en termes de programmes de s'assurer que l'encadrement autour de l'insertion publicitaire soit le plus harmonieux possible pour les auditeurs.
1834 Maintenant, en ce qui a trait au contenu publicitaire lui-même, je laisserais mes collègues des revenus en traiter.
1835 M. MONGEAU : J'aimerais faire valoir deux dimensions.
1836 La première, c'est qu'évidemment, ce qui attire la clientèle, ce qui attirera la clientèle d'annonceurs à Espace Musique et à Radio 2, ce sont évidemment les environnements qui sont offerts par ces deux chaînes distinctives.
1837 D'ailleurs, j'aimerais rappeler dans les appuis que nous avons reçus, les appuis du Conseil des directeurs médias du Québec, par exemple, qui disait que l'introduction de la publicité nationale pour Espace Musique offrira aux annonceurs un accès unique à un auditoire de choix.
1838 L'Association des agences de publicité du Québec disait, dans sa lettre d'appui : L'introduction des publicités sur Espace Musique et Radio 2 permettrait aux annonceurs et aux agences d'avoir un accès à une clientèle unique et pertinente à leurs stratégies.
1839 Alors, il est évident que pour les annonceurs et les agences à qui nous parlons et à qui nous avons parlé au cours des derniers mois, ils ont la même préoccupation de faire en sorte que les produits et les créatifs qui sont mis en ondes collent aux environnements publicitaires que nous offrons. Parce que leurs objectifs, ce n'est pas de défaire leurs images auprès de leur clientèle cible mais plutôt de bâtir du capital de sympathie. Et dans ce sens-là, on est tous aussi soucieux de faire ce bon travail-là auprès des clientèles visées.
1840 MR. DARK: It's the agency's responsibility to target their advertising to audiences that make sense. I mean the Radio 2 listener is highly educated, makes more money than the average person. So our expectation is the advertisers who are attracted to those types of folks will be using our airwaves to reach them. And then that creative tend to lend itself directly to those listeners.
1841 So our expectation is you will have a more targeted higher-end advertiser approaching our listeners.
1842 THE CHAIRPERSON: Notwithstanding that, would you veto certain advertising because the sound isn't aligned with your programming?
1843 M. MONGEAU : Absolument. Absolument. Il est clair que nous faisons déjà ce choix-là pour ce qui est de la publicité sur nos ondes et sur nos plateformes numériques, et nous aurons très certainement les mêmes préoccupations avec les annonceurs radio.
1844 LE PRÉSIDENT : D'accord. Merci.
1845 Le Conseiller Simpson, je crois, a quelques questions pour vous. Steve?
1846 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Now to the fun stuff, which is radio engineering. Now I will try to be brief. I know that it has been a long day.
1847 But I would like to ask you a few questions regarding availability of radio programming. Specifically, I'm going to be asking about your LRRP, which I think may need some revisiting or clarification. Also, where you are at in your ongoing plans to go from AM to FM; and lastly, on digital radio.
1848 So getting in our wayback machine, back in 1983 the Corporation introduced your long-range radio plan. And I am wondering if you could comment on where you were at with the LRRP today. There was a submission made, as I understand, that may be amended as a result of some conversations with the Neuron(ph) Group. So I was wondering if you wanted to comment on that.
1849 MR. GUITON: We filed in our interrogatory responses to you that we don't wish to continue the LRRP, simply because in terms of our Radio One and Première Chaîne services, we are already serving 99.something percent of the Canadian population. We have extended service during the last licence period for R2 and for Espace Musique. I think we are short in a couple of locations only.
1850 Right now, the way we are -- given our financial situation, Commissioner Simpson, what we are trying to do is to develop a model to sustain the service as it exists today and not to try and grow it anymore.
1851 So in terms of the long-range radio plan, which was a growth model for us, we are now saying radio is really good.
1852 We have got a great service going on the two levels of the Radio 2 -- sorry, Radio One, Première Chaîne nad Espace Musique and Radio 2, and we would like to come up with a model within our financial limits right now to maintain those services as they are, and looking at the capital expenditures that we are going to have to make over the next licence period and beyond, so we are withdrawing the long-range radio plan.
1853 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Can you give us any idea of that timeline as to when it will expire, the LLRP? Are you planning on ending the plan or just modifying it?
1854 MR. GUITON: No, no, it is ending. We are ending it. And what it was was a planning vehicle for us, an internal planning tool for us to be able to look forward and say where we are expanding our service.
1855 And what we are trying to do now is say we think we are going to sit with what we have got so far and we are not expanding further. We have done, I think -- you will see through your material we filed with you. We expanded Radio 2 coverage immensely over the last period.
1856 And so what we are trying to do, because of our financial restrictions we are saying, okay, let's stop the expansion looking outward, let's make sure that we can maintain the coverage that we have and the service that we have today.
1857 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Just to qualify, so is it dead or just dead in the water?
1858 MR. GUITON: Well, what we -- I guess we are proposing to kill it.
1859 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay.
1860 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you.
1861 With respect to the evolution of the LLRP -- that's a mouthful -- the Corporation has been making a systematic advance into moving the quality of its signal in marketplaces from AM to FM.
1862 Could you comment on where you were at -- you know, given the pain we all feel, which is that FM spectrum is remarkably scarce now. Because of our proximity to our U.S. friends, basically it just cuts the inventory in half. What are your plans in markets where FM is still available as a medium that you can move AM to?
1863 MR. GUITON: I think unless Marie-Philippe or Chris want to speak to that, that would be a question directed for the media panel themselves.
1864 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay.
1865 MR. GUITON: If that is all right with you. If we could, we would take that up with the specific services themselves.
1866 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Perfect. We can do that tomorrow.
1867 MR. GUITON: Thank you.
1868 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: When I'm asking this question, I will keep it broad, but I'm really thinking the Yukon here, I am thinking Whitehorse.
1869 As you migrate a signal from AM to FM, AM has all these cool residual benefits like propagation and the fact that even though you have got a contour that, you know, when the perfect plans of an engineer reach a certain threshold of audience AM quite often overachieves because of its nature.
1870 As you move to FM, you find yourself in a situation, as I understand Whitehorse, but I would like to apply this to migration to FM in general, you find yourself in a situation where you can be in a situation where you might be able to completely replicate the initial plan of AM and the audience within that contour, but there are unexpected casualties in audience that was never intended to get the signal in the first place because of AM that now feel marginalized because they are outside that FM threshold.
1871 Are you finding this a problem in general and does it bring about difficulties in having to look at extra costs for fill-in through FM repeaters?
1872 MR. GUITON: Again, I think I'm familiar with the Whitehorse case, which is that my understanding of that is not really the case that we were moving from AM to FM intentionally. It was because of a lease, I think, we had to move the --
1873 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: It was.
1874 MR. GUITON: It was a --
1875 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: A land use thing.
1876 MR. GUITON: Yes, it was a land use. So there was an unintended consequence.
1877 Normally, there are two types of issues when we are doing AM to FM transfers. Often, we are doing nested FM, which the Commission approves for us, which is really again overall because we are getting a better signal in the urban area and the AM signal continues. So those are just net improvements.
1878 Other instances when we do go from the AM to FM, we try to minimize any of the impacts that you're talking about with Whitehorse. Whitehorse was very unusual. It was just a case of the landlord. We had to vacate the premises and so that caused the situation you are talking about.
1879 I think more specifically, again, I don't want to keep referring you to the media panels, but if there are instances of problems like that, we could certainly bring them up with the media panel. I'm not aware of any beyond the Whitehorse.
1880 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I take your point. Whitehorse was a very unique situation, but it still resulted in the problem I was really getting at on an underlying basis, which is that in the process of jumping from AM to FM there are losses that are not necessarily planned for.
1881 I guess I'm asking the question, would that consequence affect your thinking about staying with FM in more remote markets because a bad signal is better than no signal? Because that has got to be --
1882 MR. GUITON: Staying with AM you mean?
1883 MR. BOYCE: I would look at the flip side of it as well, is that there have been markets where we have been on AM and had significant coverage issues where the flip to FM has remedied the problem. I think what we are finding in a bunch of markets is there are contours, there are geographies, there are physical conditions where AM is better, where FM is better and, in some cases, what we find is 500 people are better served and there are 500 other people who are less well served, and it does end up being a trade-off.
1884 But in most cases, it's a small number of people overall who are affected and usually, and again, this is our aim, that just as some people may experience worse coverage, there are people who then experience better coverage.
1885 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: But that said, in remote rural markets, quite often, there aren't alternatives when a band switch is contemplated. I guess I was trying to get some level or a notion of the sensitivity that you might apply to instances where you might be the only voice in the wilderness and whether or not that occupies your thinking as you go to FM.
1886 MR. GUITON: Significantly.
1887 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: That's great, thanks.
1888 Last line of questioning, just a couple of quick questions.
1889 It's funny, it's like Kleenex, HD radio is becoming a euphemism for digital radio and it really is a brand name. So I will call it IBOC, which is more appropriate.
1890 But the question I have here has to do with your plans to deploy in-band on-channel digital within your existing AM/FM footprints because there seems to be not just a groundswell, a significant movement by particularly the car companies in moving to an HD radio device in-car, which is going to cause many broadcasters to have to think about moving over to HD or IBOC.
1891 Where are you at with that whole issue?
1892 MR. BOYCE: We continue to look at it. I think the challenge is a bit of a chicken and egg situation in that, especially if you look at public radio in the United States, there was a significant investment supported by the Corporation for public broadcasting for public radio stations to invest tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrading transmission infrastructure to support digital radio.
1893 I think the experience with the exception of a few markets is that the actual uptake on the part of consumers, even those who have the devices installed in vehicles, has actually been quite low and those stations now not only have the upfront capital investment that they made, they are also dealing with the cost of programming those channels.
1894 So I think our approach so far -- and Steven may want to add in -- has been to wait and see and our approach has been to go where the audience is and so far we have seen little or no evidence in Canada that there is a significant audience for that kind of digital radio.
1895 MR. GUITON: I am really going to apologize about this, Commissioner Simpson, but as I mentioned earlier, on the English panel is a president of our Technologies Strategy Board who could talk to you about the strategy generally, about where we are going with different radio platforms and if that's helpful to you, other than what Chris has offered, that's all we are really able to give you.
1896 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I take it under advisement. It's just one more place to spend money, Mr. Lacroix, and one more thing to worry about.
1897 MR. LACROIX: Monies, as you probably now figured out, that we don't have.
1898 COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you. Those are my questions.
1899 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
1900 I believe legal counsel has some questions at this point. Go ahead.
1901 Me GAGNON : Merci, Monsieur le Président.
1902 J'ai deux questions pour compléter nos dossiers.
1903 La première question a trait aux ententes commerciales. Je voudrais revenir à la condition de licence qui avait été imposée l'été passé dans la décision 2011-441. C'est la décision du renouvellement des licences par groupes de propriétés pour les télévisions de langue anglaise.
1904 Je vais vous lire le texte à la condition parce que j'aimerais savoir si CBC/Radio-Canada accepterait la même condition :
"Le titulaire doit adhérer aux modalités d'une entente commerciale avec la CMPA."
1905 Naturellement, la même condition peut aussi se répéter avec l'APFTQ. Alors, je voulais savoir si ce langage-là est acceptable ou non.
1906 M. GUITON : Je vous dérangerais de répéter le début de votre phrase.
1907 Me GAGNON : De la condition de licence?
1908 M. GUITON : Oui.
1909 Me GAGNON : Oui. La condition de licence se lit comme suit:
"Le titulaire doit adhérer aux modalités d'une entente commerciale avec la CMPA."
1910 M. GUITON : Ça, c'est une condition d'une licence de la décision de...
1911 Me GAGNON : Des renouvellements de licence par groupe pour les services anglophones.
1912 M. GUITON : On n'accepterait pas cette condition maintenant parce qu'on n'a pas une entente en place. Comme j'ai dit tantôt, on pense que ce n'est pas nécessaire pour nous de faire un engagement envers la production indépendante.
1913 Me GAGNON : Est-ce qu'il y a du langage que vous pouvez proposer ou vous ne voulez pas vous engager du tout?
1914 M. LACROIX : Non. Il n'y en est pas question. Je pense que notre conversation avec le Commissaire Simpson sur les terms of trade était claire à cet effet-là. Négociations commerciales qui continuent. On a déposé au CRTC le portrait de ce qui se passait. Les deux vice-présidents exécutifs des lignes médias vous expliquent que les conversations continuent. Ce n'est pas du langage ici. C'est une question de ne pas se soumettre à une condition de ce genre.
1915 Me GAGNON : Maintenant, je voudrais revenir à la condition de licence dont madame Duncan voulait parler tantôt. C'était sur les artistes émergents et sur les listes de pièces musicales.
1916 C'est une condition de licence qui est assez longue. Je voudrais vous faire une proposition, puis je vais demander à Monsieur le Président s'il est d'accord.
1917 Je vous propose de vous remettre une copie papier de la condition de licence pour que vous puissiez commenter dessus en même temps que vos autres engagements pour demain. Et je déposerai en même temps la proposition de condition de licence sur le dossier public. Est-ce que ça vous va?
1918 M. GUITON : On va regarder la proposition.
1919 Me GAGNON : O.K. Maintenant, je veux juste vous rappeler qu'il y a de nombreux engagements. Je ne vais pas tous les répéter. Je pense qu'ils sont quand même assez clairs, mais je voudrais juste vous rappeler qu'ils sont dus pour demain pour 17 h 00. J'aimerais ajouter l'heure pour que ce soit plus clair.
1920 M. GUITON : 17 h 00 demain.
1921 Me GAGNON : Merci.
1922 M. GUITON : Parfait. Merci beaucoup.
1923 Me GAGNON : Merci, Monsieur.
1924 LE PRÉSIDENT : Merci bien.
1925 Je crois que c'est la fin des questions pour ce panel. Je sais que la journée a été très longue.
1926 Alors, Monsieur Lalande, vous avez un choix à faire.
1927 Nous pourrions prendre une petite pause et vous pourriez faire votre présentation ce soir, mais on ne poserait pas de questions et on commencerait demain matin à 8 h 30 ou on peut suspendre ce soir et commencer demain à 8 h 00.
1928 Donc, préférez-vous faire de la télévision le soir ou le matin?
1929 M. LALANDE : Monsieur le Président, même si le prime time est la notion qui compte en télévision, je vais prendre l'option de commencer demain matin à 8 h 00.
1930 LE PRÉSIDENT : C'est excellent. Je suis désolé de vous faire commencer à 8 h 00 le matin. Je sais que c'est de bonne heure pour tout le monde, surtout pour ceux qui ont peut-être des obligations de garderie et tout ça, mais on doit rattraper un peu sur notre horaire.
1931 Donc, on va suspendre ce soir et on reprend demain matin à 8 h 00. Merci bien. Bonne soirée.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1736, to resume at 0800 on Tuesday, November 20, 2012
- Date modified: