Speech
IS CANADIAN TV DRAMA POSSIBLE?
Notes for an address
by Charles Dalfen
Chairman, Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission
to the ACTRA Toronto Performers Plenary
Hart House Theatre, University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
November 6th, 2002
(CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY)
Thank you for that kind introduction.
In my job I get to do a fair amount of public speaking. I have had the
privilege of addressing audiences which included many people of great ability and
accomplishment. But this is the first time that every member of the audience is
better qualified to be on the stage than I am.
I would like to congratulate the men and women of ACTRA. The simple fact of
your presence here today as performing professionals shows that you have survived
and succeeded in one of the toughest and riskiest occupations in the world.
The same is true of your guests. I understand that we also have with us
representatives of the writers, the directors, the producers, the specialized
crafts and the technical teams. I would like to salute you too.
Could there be a better place to discuss drama than this historic theatre?
Kate Reid, Wayne & Shuster, R.H. Thomson and many others-and I'm sure a number of
you-have performed right here.
I know that Paul Gross stood on this stage earlier this year to speak about
Canadian TV drama. He later came to see me with Thor Bishopric and Brian Topp. I
was impressed by their passionate commitment to that cause. And as you will hear
today, I share it.
This is the first time any Chair of the CRTC has addressed an ACTRA meeting,
and I'm very glad to be here, because I believe we have a common goal: a healthy
and distinctive Canadian broadcasting system that makes the fullest use of all
the great creative talent that we have in this country.
Let me emphasize that I do mean all the talent. I was glad to see that one of
your workshops this morning was devoted to diversity in casting. And diversity is
a subject I'd like to address before I move on to television drama.
Cultural diversity
One of our top priorities at the CRTC is to make sure that broadcasting
reflects, and is enriched by, the cultural diversity of Canada. I'd like to read
you some words from the recent Speech from the Throne that are particularly
applicable to us in the field of broadcasting:
"Canada has a unique model of citizenship, based simultaneously on diversity
and mutual responsibility. This model requires deliberate efforts to connect
Canadians across their differences, to link them to their history and to enable
their diverse voices to participate in choosing the Canada we want."
The Commission's policies in this area are directed towards three goals:
One: The presence on the screen of performers, hosts and commentators from a
wide range of ethnic groups and from the Aboriginal Peoples.
Two: The fair and honest portrayal of ethnic groups and Aboriginal Peoples,
free of any kind of stereotyping.
And three: The meaningful participation of individuals from ethnic groups
and Aboriginal Peoples as writers, directors, producers, technicians and
designers, and in all the other creative and administrative aspects of
production.
We're pleased that an infrastructure for diversity is being built up by both
new and established broadcasters. We are seeing the licensing and launching of
new ethnic stations and new Aboriginal broadcast services. Our policies also
encourage ethnic-oriented programming by mainstream broadcasters in English and
French.
I'm looking forward to seeing "Lord Have Mercy!", the new sitcom series rooted
in the Caribbean community in Toronto, which will be launched on Vision TV early
next year.
But we need more. It's projected that by 2006, one in six Canadians will
belong to a visible minority group. And these are particularly sensitive times,
when it's all the more important that we relate to each other with understanding
and mutual respect.
Last year the CRTC called upon the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to set
up a Task Force on cultural diversity which would draw input from broadcasters,
the community and program creators. We will be working very closely with the Task
Force to ensure that effective, broadly-based research is done, and that
significant progress is made.
We will also work closely with individual licensees as they develop their
corporate plans for diversity.
For us at the Commission, cultural diversity is not an add-on to other
broadcasting priorities; it's central to what we do. And we're glad that you
share our view of its importance, as this morning's workshop demonstrates.
Canadian television drama
The title of my talk today is a question: Is Canadian TV drama possible?
Let me answer that with another question: Is Canada possible?
Because if Canada is possible as an independent country, it seems to me that
Canadian TV drama is not only possible, but essential.
Drama is storytelling - and storytelling is close to the heart of all human
culture.
The Honourable Sheila Copps recently remarked: "A country that does not have
access to its own stories is a country that has no soul."
By the way, I may be talking about drama and human culture and the national
soul, all very serious concepts . but, of course, Canadians do laugh. Many of you
have been known to make us laugh. Our sense of humour is one of the most Canadian
things about us.
One person who came to know this is our great novelist Carol Shields. The
other day she was made a Companion of the Order of Canada. She was speaking of
the time when she first arrived from the United States, and she said: "It took me
many years to understand what this country meant. I could understand the
language, mostly ... But I couldn't understand the jokes."
So when I talk about dramatic programming, please take it as including comedy
as well. Canadians are good at that.
Now, it's clear that our novelists have been hugely successful at telling our
own stories to us and to the world. Carol Shields was one of three Canadians on
the short list of six for the Booker prize, along with Rohinton Mistry and Yann
Martel, who was the winner.
Three out of six. That's a great statistic.
But here's another statistic. Zero out of ten.
Of the ten top-rated dramatic series on Canadian English-language television,
none were created by Canadians and about Canadians.
In Germany, France, and Australia - where American drama once dominated - they
now have high proportions of home-grown drama in their top ten shows.
Now of course we too have high proportions of home-grown drama - in French.
But we don't have it in English.
So, as a Canadian, I ask myself: Is this the mark of a cultural colony?
I have some anglophone audience numbers for prime time in the fall of 2001.
Program categories that include news, information, education, sports and variety,
English Canadians overwhelmingly choose to watch drama and comedy.
Within that category, 91% of the programming watched during prime time is of
foreign origin and only 9% Canadian.
And those figures have been virtually unchanged for years.
Why?
Why is it so difficult to get our own stories on the air, and get them watched
by large numbers of Canadians?
Is it because we don't know how to do it? Certainly not. The Plouffe Family.
Beachcombers. King of Kensington. Anne of Green Gables. ENG. Degrassi. Traders.
Da Vinci's Inquest. All part of our national creative portfolio.
But there are practical reasons that make it difficult to build on those
successes. Many reasons, not just one.
For one thing, the economics make it much more attractive for the broadcaster
to present an American show rather than one of our own. First, the license fee is
much lower. And for this low price, the broadcaster gets the production values
that come from a budget three times greater, based on a population that's ten
times the size of ours. Many American shows also come with proven high
viewership, which reduces risk and increases advertising revenue.
But that's not the only problem. The structure of the industry has changed
radically. The proliferation of specialty channels has provided additional
windows for Canadian programs, and some original production as well. But it has
also led to fragmentation of the marketplace, and conventional broadcasters see
their audiences being chipped away. A new dramatic series is a high-cost,
high-risk investment at the best of times, and it's even riskier now.
Even in the United States, drama has lost some ground to lower-cost forms of
programming.
And even the CBC has reduced its output of regularly-scheduled drama.
Around the world, more countries are making their own dramatic series, cutting
off many of the pre-sale opportunities which once helped our own programs get
made. So there are challenges.
But we mustn't give up on drama, which remains everywhere the most popular
form of television. Last week, for example, eight of the top ten shows in the
United States were episodes of dramatic series.
A regularly scheduled series provides the best environment for developing our
creative and production teams.
With a continuing supply of programs to be delivered, a structure is built
that allows talents to emerge and skills to grow through mentoring and
experience.
A successful series establishes a long-term relationship with its audience.
The importance of that relationship was underlined by Leslie Moonves, the
president of CBS. He was explaining why he needed at least 24 to 26 episodes a
year of a top television series. He said, "There's a fear that you may lose your
audience when you only have 12 or 13 episodes. If you don't call the girl for a
date a couple of times more during the year, she's going to go out with somebody
else."
In other words, if our stories can't be told in that familiar and powerful
weekly rhythm-which draws the viewers back again and again-then the stories that
Canadians watch will, more and more, be the stories told by others.
The causes of this situation are complex. Solutions must therefore be complex
too; there's no magic wand that will cause money and productions and performing
roles to appear out of nowhere.
For example: Unilateral demands by the broadcast regulator will not work. They
would only be met at the minimal level of grudging compliance.
The solutions must be collaborative and coordinated. By world standards we are
in a small market with limited resources. Can we afford to waste our energies in
fruitless fights among ourselves?
It's important that all stakeholders understand the challenges and risks that
face the others. It's part of my job to encourage that understanding.
Two weeks ago, I reminded the Canadian Association of Broadcasters of the
importance of the cultural and social objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
What point is there in supporting a Canadian broadcasting industry if it is not
distinctively Canadian in its creative output?
And today I remind you that distinctively Canadian programming-with its
professional opportunities for you-can only be delivered by a financially healthy
broadcasting system that has the incentive to take the necessary investment
risks.
It's our task as regulator to balance the various interests at stake. For
example, in these times of mergers and takeovers, we've required since 1999 that
transfers of ownership or control be accompanied by tangible benefits to the
broadcasting system valued at at least 10% of the value of the transaction.
A very large proportion of that ten percent goes to production of new Canadian
programming, including Canadian drama, variety and documentary.
The purchase of CTV by BCE will bring 140 million dollars in benefits to
priority programming, and the sale of WIC to Global will bring 24 million.
The challenges that our industry faces are well understood by the government.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is working to coordinate the efforts of the
agencies under her jurisdiction: Telefilm, the CBC, and the Canadian Television
Fund.
François Macerola is conducting a review of Canadian content in film and
television.
The House Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is continuing its study of
the broadcasting system, with a focus on Canadian content and cultural diversity.
We at the CRTC will soon publish our Broadcasting Policy Monitoring Report,
which will help us in our continuing review of the effects of our policies.
And as you probably know, I have asked Trina McQueen to develop a proposal on
how we can bring more Canadian drama to our television screens.
Trina has been a top programming executive for both CBC and CTV, as well as a
former and current board member of the Canadian Television Fund. So she is well
aware of the issues. She'll be consulting with stakeholders in the industry and I
know she will be eager to have your input.
She will also be working with the CTF, looking at both the Licence Fee Program
and the Equity Investment Program which is administered by Telefilm Canada.
I have asked Trina to develop options and proposals to create new incentives
and a fresh environment for popular Canadian drama. That is something that I know
you, and all of us, want.
We believe it can be done. Germany, France and Australia have done it. We have
seen Canadian TV drama flourish in French, and we will be consulting with
experienced Québec broadcasters to see how that success might suggest some ideas
for English-language drama.
We have also obtained the help of Barry Kiefl, an expert in audience research,
who will study international trends in prime-time entertainment programming over
the past five years. This will increase our understanding of the context in which
Canadian broadcasters are operating.
By the end of my term, I hope to see at least a few Canadian drama and comedy
series up in the top ten. I believe that if we work together we can find the way
to do it. And I feel confident that when I am watching those shows, I'll be
seeing some of the faces that I'm looking at right now.
Thank you.
- 30 -
Contact: Denis Carmel, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2
Tel.:
(819) 997-9403, TDD: (819) 994-0423, Fax: (819) 997-4245
e-Mail:
denis.carmel@crtc.gc.ca
Toll-free #
1-877-249-CRTC (2782)
TDD -
Toll-free # 1-877-909-2782
This document is available in alternative format upon request.
Date Modified: 2002-11-06 |
