TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DU
CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES
SUBJECT / SUJET:
MULTIPLE BROADCASTING AND OWNERSHIP APPLICATIONS /
DEMANDES DE RADIODIFFUSION ET DE PROPRIÉTÉS MULTIPLES
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
Portage IV Portage IV
140 Promenade du Portage 140, Promenade du
Portage
Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec)
June 19, 2001 Le 19 juin 2001
Volume 1
Transcripts
In order to meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act, transcripts
of proceedings before the Commission will be bilingual as to their covers, the
listing of the CRTC members and staff attending the public hearings, and the
Table of Contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript
and, as such, is taped and transcribed in either of the official languages,
depending on the language spoken by the participant at the public hearing.
Transcription
Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues officielles, les
procès-verbaux pour le Conseil seront bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page
couverture, la liste des membres et du personnel du CRTC participant à
l’audience publique ainsi que la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu textuel des
délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée et transcrite dans l’une ou
l’autre des deux langues officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le
participant à l’audience publiqe.
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et
des télécommunications canadiennes
Transcript / Transcription
Multiple broadcasting and ownership applications /
Demandes de radiodiffusion et de propriétés multiples
BEFORE / DEVANT:
Martha Wilson Chairperson / Présidente
Andrée Wylie Commissioner / Conseillère
Andrew Cardozo Commissioner / Conseiller
Barbara Cram Commissioner / Conseillère
Ron Williams Commissioner / Conseiller
ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:
Peter McCallum Legal Counsels /
Leanne Bennett Conseillers juridiques
Michael Burnside Hearing Manager and Secretary
/ Gérant de l’audience et
secrétaire
Lynne Poirier Hearing Secretary /
Secrétaire de l’audience
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
Portage IV Portage IV
140 Promenade du Portage 140, Promenade du Portage
Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec)
June 19, 2001 Le 19 juin 2001
Volume 1
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES
PAGE / PARA NO.
APPLICATION BY / DEMANDE PAR
MusiquePlus Inc. 6 / 18
INTERVENTION BY / INTERVENTION PAR
Association Québécoise de l’industrie du 123 / 467
disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ)
REPLY / RÉPLIQUE 137 / 513
APPLICATION BY / DEMANDE PAR
Vision TV: Canada’s Faith Network 140 / 529
INTERVENTION BY / INTERVENTION PAR
Canadian Cable Television Association / 276 / 1191
Association de télévision canadienne par
câble (CCTA)
Baha’i Community of Canada 287 / 1242
Extended Films 301 / 1293
Raheel Raza 313 / 1350
The United Church of Canada 324 / 1398
REPLY / RÉPLIQUE 333 / 1438
--- Upon commencing on Tuesday, June 19 2001 at 9:00 a.m. / L’audience débute
le mardi 19 juin 2001 à 9h00.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to
the public hearing of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission.
- Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs, et bienvenue à cette audience publique du
CRTC.
- During this hearing, we will examine applications for license renewals by
specialty channels and radio stations. We will also hear an application for
the licensing of a new French language ethnic radio station in Montreal and
for a new national specialty television service.
- Nous examinerons des demandes de renouvellement de licence de canaux
spécialisés et de stations de radio. Nous étudierons également une nouvelle
demande de licence de station de radio ethnique de langue française à
Montréal, ainsi qu’une autre de service national spécialisé de télévision. Je
précise que vous pouvez vous adresser à nous aussi bien en français qu’en
anglais.
- I’d like to point out that you can use either French or English in your
interventions. My name is Martha Wilson. I’m the Commissioner for the Ontario
region and I will be presiding at this hearing. Here on the Panel with me are
my colleagues, Commissioners Andrew Cardozo, Barbara Cram and Ron Williams,
and of course our Vice-Chair of Broadcasting, Madame Andrée Wylie. I’d also
like to introduce to you the CRTC staff who will be working with us during the
public hearing, our legal counsels Peter McCallum and Leanne Bennett, and the
Hearing Manager Michael Burnside who is in the back row. Michael Burnside will
also be sharing the Secretary’s duties with Lynne Poirier, and Pierre
Ladouceur will be responsible for the public examination room, which is in the
Patenaude Room as usual. Please don’t hesitate to address any of your
questions or concerns to them.
- Si vous avez des questions, n’hésitez pas à les consulter.
- The process for each application considered at this public hearing is to
be divided into three parts. First, we will hear the applications to renew the
license for specialty channels. Following that, we will hear from radio
stations looking to renew their licenses, as well as an application to operate
a new ethnic radio station on an AM frequency in Montreal. Finally, we will
hear from World Television Network, le Réseau télémonde inc., WTM, an
applicant seeking a license to carry on a national specialty television
service.
- Most of the applicants for specialty television programming appearing here
today are groups who have been licensed for a very long time. These applicants
have been called to appear before the Commission so that they can present
their plan for future programming in order to renew their licenses. The
Commission will assess individual applications in light of the proposed
initiatives and will also look at a range of societal issues, such as cultural
diversity, close captioning and access for the blinds.
- The Commission will also hear from radio stations intending to renew their
licenses. Three of these stations who are appearing for alleged violatins of
regulatory requirements will have to present evidence to convince the
Commission that they should not receive mandatory order. We will also hear
from the applicant CPAM for a new license for a radio station in Montreal.
Finally, we will hear an application for a new specialty television service
from World/Télémonde. This group proposes to offer services in both English
and French on two separate channels. WTM is proposing a national specialty
service dedicated to providing news, public affairs, film and entertainment
programming from around the world, some of which will be subtitled and thus be
accessible to the mainstream audience.
- In order for the Commission to have the clearest and most comprehensive
exchange of information, the Commission believes it necessary to gather
specific information concerning each and every applicant. We expect this
hearing will last approximately three days, until June 21st 2001.
We will begin every morning at 9:00 a.m. and will continue until about 5:00
p.m. We will advise you of any changes in the schedule that may occur.
- As a final note, I’d just like to talk about cellular phones and pagers,
which is one of our favourite topics at the end of our opening remarks. I just
want to remind all those who are present to please turn off your cell phones
and pagers when you’re in the hearing room, as they tend to distract the
applicants, interveners and Commissioners, although sometimes it’s the
Commissioners themselves who leave their cell phones on. We would appreciate
your cooperation in this regard throughout the hearing.
- I will now call on the Hearing Secretary to explain the process we will be
following. Madame Poirier?
- MME L. POIRIER: Thank you, Madam Chair. Cette audience va se
dérouler en trois phases. La première phase, nous allons entendre les
demandes. Chaque requérante a 20 minutes pour présenter sa demande. C’est
ensuite suivi d’une période d’intervention. Chaque intervenant dispose de 10
minutes pour présenter son intervention. Et ensuite, la requérante peut
revenir en réplique 10 minutes additionnelles pour terminer la phase.
- Nous alons débuter avec une demande présenter par MusiquePlus Inc., une
demande présentée en vue de renouveler la licence de son service spécialisé de
langue française connue sous le nom de MusiquePlus qui expire le 30 novembre
2001. J’aimerais inviter les représentants de MusiquePlus à s’approcher s’il
vous plaît?
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Monsieur Arpin et vos collègues, bonjour et
bienvenue.
- M. M. ARPIN: Bonjour. I will let Mr. Marchand make the
presentation.
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci beaucoup.
APPLICATION / DEMANDE
- M. P. MARCHAND: Bonjour. Donc, Madame la Présidente, distingués
membres du Conseil, je suis Pierre Marchand. Je suis vice-président directeur
général de MusiquePlus. M’accompagnent aujourd’hui, à votre gauche, Madame
Johanne Ménard qui est Vice-présidente des programmes, et, à sa gauche,
Monsieur Ralph Boncy, Directeur musical. Vous avez certainement reconnu à ma
droite Michel Arpin, Secrétaire corporatif de MusiquePlus.
- Cet automne, Madame la Présidente, MusiquePlus fêtera ses 15 ans. Quinze
ans d’évolution, de changements, d’innovation, 15 ans demeurés au diapason et
à vivre au rythme de l’auditoire cible auquel elle s’adresse, c’est-à-dire les
12 à 24 ans. En constant renouvellement, MusiquePlus a donc su s’adapter aux
goûts et aux saveurs du jour, à l’évolution du marché et du paysage
télévisuel, y compris la naissance d’une petite soeur, MusiMax. En 15 ans,
nous avons beaucoup grandi, au point où MusiquePlus est devenue non seulement
la chaîne musicale mais sans doute la chaîne de référence pour les
pré-adolescents, les adolescents et les jeunes adultes francophones. C’est un
résultat dont nous sommes très fiers.
- Avant d’aborder la façon dont nous prévoyons évoluer au cours du prochain
terme de la licence que nous sollicitons aujourd’hui, je voudrais dresser un
rapide bilan du chemin parcouru et des accomplissements de la période de
licence écoulée.
- Depuis ’94, MusiquePlus s’est diversifiée. De chaîne de vidéoclips, elle
est devenue chaîne musicale à part entière, offrant à ses téléspectateurs de
nombreuses émissions axées sur le sujet de la musique. La diffusion de
vidéoclips continue bien sûr de constituer la part prédominante et l’ossature
de notre programmation, mais nous nous sommes rapprocher de plus en plus de la
mission globale que le Conseil nous a confié; c’est-à-dire de nous consacrer à
la musique sous toutes ses formes.
- L’époque du robinet à clips est révolue. L’effet de nouveauté des clips
dont nous avons bénéficié à nos débuts s’est estompé. C’est devenu pour nous,
comme pour l’industrie et les artistes, un instrument de promotion parmi tant
d’autres.
- Aussi, devons nous enrichir sans cesse nos blocs quotidiens de vidéoclips,
comme nos blocs thématiques consacrés à des genres musicaux particuliers,
d’interventions de nos vj’s, d’entrevues avec les artistes, preuve de mise en
contexte. Nous avons aussi dû développer en parallèle une programmation de
plus en plus importante de concerts en direct, d’émissions mensuelles
consacrées à des artistes vedettes, de profils et portraits consacrés à des
artistes québécois, canadiens et francophones, de prestations d’artistes en
studio, de longs métrages musicaux, ainsi que de galas et autres cérémonies
célébrant la musique à travers la planète.
- Ce faisant, nous avons augmenté notre contribution au développement de la
musique canadienne et à la promotion des artistes de chez nous. Nous avons
fait de MusiquePlus une vitrine incontournable, un lieu chaleureux et
convivial où les jeunes amoureux de la musique, et c’est presqu’un pléonasme,
peuvent trouver quotidiennement tous ce qui les intéressent, tous ce qui
contribue à alimenter leur passion. Un lieu dynamique, un lieu de proximité
situé en plein coeur du centre-ville où les créateurs et les artistes d’ici se
sentent chez eux et sont toujours acceuillis avec enthousiasme, un tremplin
sur lequel ils savent pouvoir compter pour se faire connaître et entendre pour
promouvoir leurs albums ou leurs spectacles, pour faire découvrir et mieux
apprécier l’homme ou la femme qui se cache derrière l’artiste.
- Bien avant la radio, c’est MusiquePlus qui a fait découvrir et apprécier
de nombreux artistes et groupes québécois. Ainsi, au cours de la dernière
année, nous avons fait découvrir des artistes aussi divers que Daniel Boucher,
Yvon Krevé, Stefie Shock, Projet Orange, Infini-t et Muzion, pour en nommer
que quelques uns. Nous avons aussi fait découvrir au public québécois nombre
d’artistes canadiens de l’extérieur du Québec, par exemple, Our Lady Peace,
Sarah McLachlan, Moist, Barenaked Ladies, Tea Party, Econoline Crush,
Tragically Hip, Nelly Furtado et Subs. Encore une fois, ces découvertes de
MusiquePlus ont été connues de nos téléspectateurs bien avant leurs premières
diffusions à la radio.
- Nous couvrons annuellement plusieurs manifestations auxquelles nous sommes
étroitement associé, comme les Francofolies de Montréal par exemple, le
Festival d’été de Québec, celui de Woodstock en Beauce, ainsi que les Mimis et
Polliwog qui sont deux manifestations consacrées à la scène musicale
indépendante.
- En moyenne au cours d’une année, nous diffusons près de 1,400 entrevues,
dont 35 pour-cents sont consacrées à des artistes canadiens dont la majorité
est francophone. Nous avons organisé chaque année depuis 1995 des journées
portes ouvertes qui connaissent un succès retentissants et qui permettent au
public de rencontrer sur l’espace de quatres jours une pléiade d’artistes
d’ici dans l’environnement même de MusiquePlus. Ces activités illustrent
parfaitement la philosophie de programmation de MusiquePlus qui est de traiter
les artistes d’ici sur le même plan que les grandes vedettes internationales,
tout en les rendant accessibles au grand public.
- MusiquePlus est devenue une machine de promotion culturelle complexe,
diversifiée, bien huilée, très largement dévouée aux artistes québécois,
canadiens et francophones. Tout celà, nous l’avons accompli en respectant
scrupuleusement toutes nos obligations, que ce soit en matière de pourcentage
global de contenu canadien, de pourcentage de vidéoclips canadiens ou de
pourcentage de vidéoclips francophones. En investisant des sommes
considérables pour fournir un encadrement enraciné dans la réalité culturelle
d’ici, à une programmation musicale extrêmement diversifiée et puisant aux
racines de toutes les musiques du monde.
- Même cet engagement global qui ne s’est jamais démenti depuis notre
création a eu pour effet de limiter la rentabilité de l’entreprise au point où
elle se situe au plus bas de tous les services spécialisés privés de langue
française. Comme de tous les services musicaux canadiens, nous continuons à
croire en notre mandat. On pourrait même dire aux vues de nos prévisions
financières que MusiquePlus persiste et signe. En effet, pour la prochaine
période, nous demandons la reconduction quasi intégrale de nos conditions de
licence, ce qui devrait avoir pour effet principal d’accroître de façon très
substantielle notre contribution globale à l’industrie de la musique, y
compris notre contribution au financement de vidéoclips canadiens de langue
française, et ce, dans des conditions de développement telles que la
rentabilité de MusiquePlus continuera de se maintenir à un niveau très
inférieur à la moyenne de l’industrie.
- Si nos prévisions financières se réalisent, Madame la Présidente, notre
contribution à VidéoFACT augmentera en effet de près de 33 pour-cent au cours
de notre prochaine période de licence, par rapport à la période écoulée, soit
plus de $600,000 pour l’apporter à près de 2.5 millions de dollars en sept
ans. Cette croissance de 33 pour-cent supérieure au 26 pour-cent qu’a connu la
production de vidéoclips canadiens de langues française depuis sept ans
devrait nous permettre non seulement d’accompagner l’évolution préssentie de
cette production pour les années à venir, mais de la stimuler et de
l’acccélérer.
- Notre proposition nous apparaît donc tout-à-fait réaliste et généreuse.
D’autant que MusiquePlus ne demande aucune augmentation de son tarif de base
et qu’elle est la seule chaîne spécialisée de langue française à tirer la
majeure partie de ses revenus de recettes publicitaires plutôt que des
abonnements. Certains ont laissé entendre que notre proposition de reconduire
nos obligations en terme de pourcentage de vidéoclips canadiens et de
vidéoclips francophones était conservatrice, voir paresseuse. Rien n’est plus
faux à notre avis. Comme nous l’avons déjà indiqué dans notre demande, nos
obligations actuelles de diffusion sont largement supérieures au pourcentage
de disponibilité de vidéoclips canadiens et francophones. Certes, notre
présence et notre action contribuent à réduire progressivement l’écart entre
ces deux réalités. Les vidéoclips canadiens et francophones représentaient
respectivement 15 pour-cent et 8 pour-cent des nouveaux vidéoclips que nous
avons reçu en 1993, alors qu’ils représentent aujourd’hui 17 pour-cent et 11
pour-cent des nouveaux vidéoclips reçus en 2000. Il y a donc eu une
progression encourageante, mais ces pourcentages de disponibilité demeurent
très inférieurs à notre obligation de diffusion.
- Je voudrais ajouter, Madame la Présidente, que le pourcentage global de
vidéoclips canadiens présentés à notre antenne ne reflète que bien
parfaitement l’emphase réelle que nous leur accordons. Les vidéoclips
canadiens ont une priorité de diffusion en terme de nombre de passage et de
durée de vie. L’obligation actuelle de 30 pour-cent de vidéoclips canadiens
nous permet de couvrir un éventail d’oeuvres musicales en provenance des
quatres coins du monde, tout en nous autorisant à accorder un appui décisif
aux oeuvres québécoises et canadiennes à travers une promotion maximale.
- Il y a désormais deux chaînes musicales de langue française :
MusiquePlus et MusiMax. Cela permet à chacune des ces chaînes d’être mieux
ciblées et de ne pas courir tous les publics à la fois au risque de les
décevoir tous, comme c’était un peu le cas avant 1997. Concrètement, cela veut
dire MusiquePlus doit, depuis l’automne 1997, consacrer encore plus d’énergie,
d’effort, d’inventivité pour atteindre les pourcentages minimaux auquels elle
avait consenti en 1994, d’autant que la production de disques au Québec comme
dans la francophonie est plus abondante du côté adulte, couvert principalement
par MusiMax, que dans les styles musicaux qui visent l’auditoire plus jeune de
MusiquePlus. La reconduction de nos conditions de licence dans ce contexte
nous obligent à prendre l’engagement d’être encore plus proactif, encore plus
attentif au vidéoclips canadiens et francophones.
- En terminant, Madame la Présidente, je voudrais rappeler que le
financement et la diffusion de vidéoclips ne sont qu’une composante de notre
contribution au développement de l’industrie canadienne de la musique. Ainsi,
par les efforts que nous déployons, se concrétise à chaque année par une
quarantaine de prestations et de concerts en direct d’artistes canadiens, plus
de 500 reportages avec des artistes québécois de chez nous, une couverture
systématique de lancement de disques dans les genres musicaux que nous
couvrons chez MusiquePlus par la présentation à chaque semaine de portraits
d’artistes, par une émission hebdomadaire de commentaires et de critiques sur
les nouveautés de disques qui paraissent sur le marché et finalement, par des
lancements de disques réalisés en direct dans l’environnement même de
MusiquePlus. Tous ces éléments de programmation renforcent la mission globable
de MusiquePlus auprès des adolescents et des jeunes adultes. Comme je l’ai dit
en introduction, MusiquePlus est aujourd’hui dans tous le sens du mot une
chaîne musicale.
- Nous sommes convaincus que le public que nous déservons, comme les
artistes et le milieu de la musique d’ici, sont les grand gagnants de cette
évolution. C’est pourquoi nous entendons poursuivre dans cette voie pour la
prochaine période de licence et faire en sorte de nous consacrer plus que
jamais à la musique sous toutes ses formes. Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et
Messieurs les Conseillers, je vous remercie de votre attention et nous serons
maintenant heureux de répondre à vos questions.
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci, Monsieur Marchand. Madame la Vice-présidente.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Bonjour, Monsieur Marchand, Madame et vos
collègues. J’espère que vous avez quelqu’un sur le Panel qui puisse adresser à
vos projections financières?
- M. M. ARPIN: Certainement, oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Evidemment, c’est un renouvellement et la raison
-- bien que votre renouvellement ait été déposé sur une base statu quo, le
Conseil a évidemment des questions à vous poser et peut-être des suggestions à
vous faire ou à discuter avec vous. La première serait la description de votre
service. Comme vous le dîtes, vous aurez bientôt 15 ans et à ce moment-là le
Conseil n’imposait pas de balises aussi précises qu’il le fait maintenant pour
décrire la nature du service. Alors, je vais me baser dans es questions pour
peut-être établir ce genre de balises sur le renouvellement très récent de
votre compagne anglophone MuchMusic. Est-ce que par hasard vous avez une copie
de cette décision?
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Avec vous en ce moment.
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Autrement, ça va être un peu pénible de suivre
les conditions de licence. Alors, l’exercice est d’essayer de décrire la
nature du service de MusiquePlus avec plus de précision et de façon plus
similaire à celle des autres services. Je me réfère maintenant à l’Annexe A à
la partie 2 de votre demande. Vous avez de fait établi une nature de service.
Et premièrment, contrairement à la condition de licence du moment, au lieu de
dire dans la partie A -- vous avez bien l’Annexe A -- je crois que la
condition de licence en ce moment est exclusivement dédiée à la musique et
vous avez maintenant établi au moins 90 pour-cent de la programmation de
musique. Donc, il y a ce changement que vous proposez.
- Et ensuite, vous faites une liste des catégories desquels doivent être
choisi la programmation et évidemment il y en a beaucoup plus que dans le cas
de MuchMusic. Et je me demande si toutes ces catégories sont nécessaires pour
avoir un service à 90 pour-cent de la programmation musicale. Et aussi, si
dans certains cas, il n’y aurait pas lieu comme on l’a fait avec MuchMusic
d’établir des balises ou des pourcentages, surtout à la catégorie 8(b) ou (c).
Je reconnais que dans le cas des long métrages à l’Annexe A au paragraphe C,
vous êtes prêts à reconduire les mêmes paramètres.
- Mais je vous invite à voir que dans la décision du Conseil, il y a une
définition ou une description beaucoup plus précise de ce qui est un ration
60/40 musique création orale. Alors, j’aimerais vos commentaires sur la
possibilité de reconduire dans votre -- ou d’ajouter à votre demande à vous
les mêmes catégories que MuchMusic et si vous y voyez un problème. Vous
trouvez peut-être que c’est -- est-ce que c’est quelque chose sur laquelle
vous vous êtes penché comme possibilité que le Conseil essayerait d’établir un
lien entre les deux? Autrement, c’est un peu difficile. Peut-être je vous
donnerais la chance d’examiner la chose de plus près.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Écoutez, Madame la Vice-présidente, nous avons
certainement consulté le renouvellement de licence de MuchMusic. J’aimerais
peut-être préciser dans un premier temps que si nos chaînes sont similaires
dans l’approche et dans le concept, ils désservent quand même deux des marchés
totalement différents avec des réalités de marché culturel totalement
différent.
- Je m’explique. Par exemple du côté québécois, il existe certainement un
star system fondamental qui est très présent dans le marché et ce star system
a été mis en place et je pense qu’il continue d’être alimenté par une chaîne
comme MusiquePlus, par le biais de ses initiatives diverses dans sa
programmation pour mettre en relief les artistes, les artisans et leurs
oeuvres en fait et leur musique. Donc, c’est certainement une réalité qui est
un petit peu différente de celle de nos collègues de Toronto qui vivent dans
un marché fortement influencé par la musique anglo-saxone américaine.
- Je pense que c’est important déjà au point de départ de souligner cette
différence-là et de la reconnaître dans le but d’établir des balises qui ne
peuvent pas être les mêmes à 100 pour-cent je crois en raison de cette
différence culturelle importante et de star system qui s’est installé chez
nous.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Si on examine par exemple la demande de
MuchMusic au paragraphe 3, vous n’avez pas 7(a), donc ce n’est pas un
problème. Série dramatique 7(e) que vous avez indiqué, une émission
d’animation pour la télévision, et ici il y a une limite à 15 pour-cent. Le
fait que vous êtes prêts à vous limiter à 90 pour-cent de la programmation à
la musique ne vous empêcherait pas de faire plus de 15 pour-cent de films ou
émissions d’animation pour la télévision. Je suppose si elles étaient basées
sur la musique.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Donc, votre question précisemment c’est -- je
m’excuse, j’ai mal saisi.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Bien, j’essais de comparer. Je regarde le
paragraphe 3, la condition numéro 3 de MuchMusic. Ils ont eux aussi fait (e)
films et émissions d’animation pour la télévision et il y a une balise qu’ils
ne peuvent pas en faire plus de 15 pour-cent la semaine. Si on établit pas
cette balise-là, vous pourriez avoir plus que 15 pour-cent de programmation à
la semaine qui serait constituée de films et émissions d’animation parce que
le 90 pour-cent dédié à la musique ne vous empêcherait pas d’avoir plus
d’animation, en autant que c’est basé sur la musique.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Tout à fait, mais ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et à ce moment-là, je suppose que la question
est, est-ce que plus de 15 pour-cent d’animation, c’est acceptable dans
MusiquePlus puisque nous avons déjà un service d’animation? Voilà le but.
C’est simplement de cerner et de vous entendre sur les limites que vous n’êtes
pas prêts à accepter qui ont été établies pour MuchMusic qui est quand même un
service semblable. Je reconnais que le marché est différent.
- M. P. MARCHAND: J’aimerais peut-être juste qu’on observe, Madame la
Vice-présidente, les deux mandats de licence que MusiquePlus a vécu depuis
1988. Et lorsque vous regardez le résultat de ce que MusiquePlus a fait, nous
avons toujours consacré notre grille de programmation à des émissions
musicales. Si on a touché à l’animation, c’est arrivé dans certains cas.
Peut-être que Madam Ménard pourrait nous donner des exemples tantôt. Mais à de
très rares occasions, nous avons touché à l’animation mais c’était de
l’animation qui touchait la musique. Ce n’était pas de l’animation qui peut
être vu sur des chaînes spécialisées qui sont consacrées à ce style de
télévision.
- Donc, nous avons respecté et nous souhaitons continuer de respecter ce
mandat-là qui fait de MusiquePlus un succès. C’est-à-dire donc de consacrer
ces différents types d’émissions qui sont reliées d’une façon ou de l’autre à
la musique.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Dites moi surtout pourquoi limiter à 15
pour-cent à la semaine serait un problème? Nous essayons simplement d’arrimer
avec le système comme il existe maintenant qui n’était pas le cas à ce
moment-là.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Madame la Vice-présidente, ce n’est pas un
problème. J’ai jamais dit que c’était un problème, pas du tout.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Oh, voilà.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Pas du tout. Nous ne cherchons pas à faire -- le 15
pour-cent est un pourcentage appliqué (inaudible).
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, peut-être qu’on pourrait -- si vous
trouvez que vous n’avez pas assez de temps à penser à cette description de
service, nature du service que nous proposons, on peut attendre après la pause
pour nous revenir, mais il s’agirait d’examiner ce qu’il y a comme dans le cas
-- les catégories qui sont incluses dans le cas de MuchMusic et les balises
qui sont établies dans chaque catégorie pour voir si vous seriez prêts à
accepter une même description de service ou si ça vous causerait des
problèmes. Et comme vous allez voir pour la définition d’un long métrage et
comment on examine si le ration 60/40 est respecté, c’est un peu plus élaboré
ici. Et c’est pour les prochains sept ans, voilà.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Tout à fait. Ce qui serait souhaitable peut-être,
Madame la Vice-président, c’est peut-être qu’on puisse le consul -- parce
qu’on l’a regardé certainement, qu’on puisse en discuter entre nous. De façon
majoritaire, la licence de MuchMusic peut s’applique à MusiquePlus. Je ne
pense pas qu’elle puisse s’appliquer intégralement dans toutes les conditions.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Non. Il s’agirait d’examiner là où vous avez des
problèmes, mais que nous établissions une nature de service qui est un petit
plus serrer disons que l’Annexe A où il y a plusieurs catégories qui remettent
en question peut-être la pertinence de ces catégories-là et de reserrer
certaines catégories qui feraient concurrence, disons un service d’animation,
avec le même esprit que les longs métrages, d’essayer d’établir des
paramètres.
- M. M. ARPIN: Madame la Vice-présidente, je comprends que le Conseil
veuillent se rapporter à des situations existentes ou à des précédents comme
celui de la licence de MuchMusic. Mais je voudrais quand même vous mettre en
garde sur le fait que MusiquePlus a une vocation qui est beaucoup plus large
que celle de MusiquePlus dans ce sens que depuis sa mise en oeuvre en 1988,
MusiquePlus est devenu rapidement la chaîne culturelle pour les adolescents et
les jeunes adultes. Et c’est vers MusiquePlus que la population jeune se
retourne pour toutes les formes de contenus musicaux, tout ce qui se passe sur
la scène culturelle québécoise pour son information sur les spectacles, sur
les événements qui touchent la fibre des jeunes.
- Donc, l’ensemble des catégories qui ont été mises dans l’Annexe A
répondent et Monsieur Marchand pourrait faire une nomenclature en prenant
chacune des catégories et vous dire qu’est-ce qu’on a fait à ce jour qui
touche chacune des catégories. MusiquePlus, c’est un sevice dédié à la musique
sous toutes ses formes et utilise la palette des catégories que le Conseil lui
a autorisé de se servir depuis 1998 pour atteindre cet objectif-là et c’est ce
qu’elle demande de renouveler.
- Quand on demande de renouveler, quand on dit 90 pour-cent et c’est
d’ailleurs la seule nuance par rapport à la licence actuelle, c’est pour
s’assurer que finalement à l’occasion on a eu des hommes politiques qui sont
venus à MusiquePlus rencontrer les gens.
- Oui, ils ont parlé de leurs ambitions culturelles, de leur vue. Ils ont
même dit qui étaient leur artistes préférés mais à chaque occasion, ils en ont
profité aussi pour s’adresser plus spécifiquement aux jeunes électeurs qui
pouvaient effectivement un jour appuyer leur vision ou quoi que ce soit.
- De même nature, MusiquePlus appui des oeuvres sociétales carrément dédiés
aux jeunes qui -- les jeune itinérants, les jeunes contrevenants. Il y a
plusieurs causes sociétales que MusiquePlus a pris à sa charge parce qu’elles
s’adressent carrément à l’auditoire qui écoute MusiquePlus. Ça, c’est pas
nécessairement directement lié à la musique même si on a réussi dans tous les
cas à en faire des liens parce qu’on a trouvé le moyen avec les gens qui sont
impliqués à venir aussi parler de leurs goûts musicaux et tout. On veut être
capable de continuer à faire ça et on veut le faire sans controverse.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Monsieur Arpin, est-ce que -- là vous me parlez
de la catégorie 2 je crois, analyse et interprétation. Il y a une limite de 5
pour-cent semaine dans la décision de MuchMusic. Les questions que je vous
pose c’est simplement est-ce que ça causerait un problème si certaines de ces
catégories-là étaient limitées comme il l’est dans les licences qui ont été
accordées plus récemment et le dernier renouvellement de MuchMusic?
- C’est pas une question de rediscuter ce que vous pouvez faire. Vous nous
avez suggéré le statu quo mais avec 90 pour-cent. Donc, moi je vous demande
est-ce dans les catégories que vous établissez, dans certaines, est-ce que
vous accepteriez les balises qui sont à MuchMusic? Alors, l’exercice n’est pas
de dire vous ne pouvez plus faire de l’interpétation. Est-ce qu’un encadrement
de 5 pour-cent par exemple serait acceptable dans cette catégorie-là? Et en
animation, est-ce que l’encadrement qui a été imposé de 15 pour-cent à
MuchMusic vous serait acceptable pour essayer de reserrer un peu plus la
définition (inaudible)?
- M. M. ARPIN: Je serais tenté de vous répondre oui, 90 pour-cent du
temps. Parce que l’autre 10 pour-cent, parce que quand on est en période
électorale, les chefs de parti veulent tous venir la même semaine, sauf que ça
dure rien qu’une semaine. Donc, c’est pour ça que je serais tenté de vous
répondre c’est oui, mais dans 90 pour-cent du temps parce qu’effectivement
cette semaine-là ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, quand vous faisiez ça dernièrement,
c’était à l’encontre de votre nature de service qui était de 100 pour-cent?
- M. M. ARPIN: Non. Parce que j’ai dit qu’on le liait toujours. On a
toujours réussi à le lier quand ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: À la musique.
- M. M. ARPIN: À la musique. On a réussi ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Monsieur Landry joue de la guitare?
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui, puis Monsieur Pariseau qui est venu nous parler
de ses artistes préférés puis qui nous a même présenté des vidéoclips en onde.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Voilà, à ce moment-là ce n’est plus -- c’est
peut-être un vidéo de musique ou un vidéoclip. Mais, l’exercice n’est pas très
compliqué. Il n’est pas question de vous limiter indûment. C’est simplement
question d’essayer d’utiliser à peu près la même méthode pour établir une
nature de service à laquelle on peut faire référence. Et il me semblait à moi
que le plus intelligent serait de commencer par MuchMusic et voir si ça vous
cause des problèmes. Alors, peut-être que après la pause, on pourra en
reparler. Le but n’est pas de vous limiter. Le but est simplement de vous
imposer une nature de service à peu près de la même façon qu’avec les autres
services.
- Maintenant, vous aviez quelque chose à ajouter?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Oui, Madame la Vice-présidente. Simplement pour
vous dire que certainement on va se consulter mais on est prêt à vivre avec
certains pourcentages dans certaines catégories. J’aimerais peut-être juste
vous apporter un exemple. Par exemple, aujourd’hui même, la première catégorie
peut paraître inopportun pour MusiquePlus, les nouvelles. Nous recevons ce
soir chez MusiquePlus Sheila Copps pour parler de son nouveau programme de
fonds. Donc, ça c’est à l’intérieur d’un environnement de MusiquePlus, donc de
musique et de nouveau média. C’est dans ce sens-là qu’on demande cette
permissivité de pouvoir donc renseigner les jeunes sur des projets comme
ceux-là.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, c’est à vous peut-être de ---
- M. P. MARCHAND: Peut-être de faire une proposition sur les
pourcentages. Tout à fait.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: C’est ça. Parce que dès qu’il y a un 10
pour-cent, c’est évident que vous n’étiez pas -- si vous comptez que vous
étiez 100 pour-cent dédié à la musique dans les derniers sept ans, vous avez
créé des liens. Alors, vous pouvez nous suggérer une façon d’établir des
balises pour que le 10 pour-cent ne soit pas par exemple 10 pour-cent
d’animation à chaque semaine possiblement. Parce que l’exercice de reserrer
les natures du service est évidemment dans ce but-là et le but n’est pas de
vous limiter mais simplement d’avoir un point de repère qui ressemble
d’avantage à celui des autres.
- Au chapitre des longs métrages, alors vous acceptez le statu quo, les
balises qui sont déjà là. Maintenant, même dans les catégories 8(b) et (c),
vidéoclips et émissions de musique vidéo, dans le cas de MuchMusic, il y a eu
une limite acceptée par eux ou imposée en tout cas par condition de licence
que ce soit 65 pour-cent pour bien nous assurer que c’est le genre de service
que vous avez. Est-ce que vous avez un problème avec une limite de genre-là,
soit sur (b) ou sur (c)?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Madame la Vice-présidente, je pense que l’on serait
prêt à accepter un pourcentage. Celui de 65 pour-cent nous paraît élevé et je
vous explique pourquoi. Quand je regarde encore une fois le genre de chaîne
télévision qu’on opère chez nous, elle est différente un peu de MuchMusic dans
l’intégration culturelle que l’on fait avec le milieu. On se fait toujours
dire au Québec vous parlez beaucoup. Il me semble que vous parlez plus que les
anglophones à Toronto. C’est un fait. On parle beaucoup. Mais c’est notre
nature latin je pense qui fait en sort que l’on parle davantage.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais vous, il faut que vous le chantiez.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Pardon. Il faut chanter. On peut chanter mais on
fausse de temps à autre lorsqu’on chante. Donc, on a une tendance à inviter
des artistes de façon probablement plus régulière qu’à MuchMusic. On a chaque
jour dans l’environnement des gens qui viennent nous parler de musique. On va
inviter des comédiens par exemple qui sont des stars du Québec à venir
présenter des clips, à être ce qu’on appelle des "guest VJ". C’est pas le bon
terme francophone vous allez me dire, mais des VJ invités. Donc, pendant une
heure de choisir leur musique, de la présenter, de nous parler de ce qu’ils
font aujourd’hui, et caetera, et ça fait parti du paysage de la télévision et
du star system québécois. Et ça s’est très, très différent de ce que l’on vit
à Toronto avec MuchMusic. C’est pour ça que le 65 pour-cent pour moi je vois
ça comme un carcan un petit peu. On est prêt à vivre avec un pourcentage. On
pourrait certainement s’entendre avec vous sur un pourcentage et 65 nous
paraît un peu élevé.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Avez-vous une suggestion de ce qui serait
raisonnable et est-ce que entre 8(b) et (c), vous croyez qu’il y en a un des
deux qui serait plus approprié? Et ce serait une façon évidemment de nous
assurer qu’il y a une allure générale du service qui est un service de
musique. Si 65 pour-cent est trop élevé, qu’est-ce qui vous semble plus
raisonnable? Ce que vous me dites c’est qu’il y a plus de création orale.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Il y a plus de création également, Madame la
Vice-présidente, de moments spontanés, de prestations, d’interviews. Y’a plus
de ce genre de format de télévision musicale, parce que la télévision musicale
pour moi, je l’ai dit dans mon introduction, ce n’est pas un robinet à clips.
C’est révolu ça aujourd’hui et je ne pense pas -- parce que le but d’une
chaîne musicale, toutes les chaînes auxquelles vous donnez des licences, c’est
qu’elles soient rentables et qu’elles désservent la population. Et je ne pense
pas qu’en mettant en place un carcan qui soit serré, vous allez nous aider à
avoir une santé financière très positive.
- Ce que je veux dire c’est qu’il faut nous permettre donc de respecter par
contre la musique et ça on est prêt à le faire à 100 pour-cent. On est très
commis dans la musique, mais qu’on trouve des façons différentes et
audacieuses de le faire. On a inventé plein de façon de faire de la télévision
au Québec avec MusiquePlus qui est emprunté aujourd’hui dans la télévision
généraliste par exemple et emprunté ailleurs. Mais on a toujours gardé la
musique comme point de mire. Donc en fait, c’est lorsqu’on parle d’émissions
vidéoclips et de vidéoclips, on est prêt à vivre avec un pourcentage. On
pourrait parler de 45-50 pour-cent. Mais au-delà de ça, je trouve que l’on se
met un carcan qui fait en sorte que vous changez la nature un petit peu de ce
que l’on est au Québec en terme de télévision en la comparant trop étroitement
à MuchMusic.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors vous me revenez après la pause avec une
suggestion comment cerner 8(b) ou (c) qui assurera que c’est le genre de
service que vous diffuserez. Et aussi, vous allez vous pencher sur les
catégories qui sont évidemment celles que -- sur lesquelles le Conseil s’est
penché vis-à-vis MuchMusic pour mettre des balises à certaines de ces
catégories. Par exemple, on l’a fait pour les longs métrages, possiblement
pour les sports professionels -- par pour les sports, pour l’animation -- on
revient aux sports -- et analyse et interprétation.
- Mais maintenant, je suis sûr que dans votre sagesse vous pouvez trouver
des mots qui peuvent cerner par exemple le domaine des nouvelles, le domaine
de l’interprétation pour le relier davantage à la musique. Il s’agirait
simplement d’avoir un carcan quelconque. Monsieur Arpin n’aime pas les
carcans, mais avec des trous suffisants pour vous rendre comfortable et que
nous nous ayons un point de repère qui ressemble aux autres services.
- Maintenant, les sports. Dans votre description de émissions, à l’Annexe C,
il semble y avoir une émission assignée à 6(a), émission de sports
professionels, SPAM. Qu’elle est cette émission et est-ce qu’on jouait au
soccer au son de la guitare?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Non. D’une part, ce n’est pas du sport
professionel. SPAM est une émission qui est basée sur une trame musique, donc
de la musique jeune, de la musique habituellement techno ou très rock, et ce
sont des loisirs et des activités plein air que les jeunes font. Par exemple,
ce qu’on appelle des sports extrêmes, dont le "snowboard". Je cherche les
termes français mais le "snowboard" par exemple ou le vélo BMX. Donc, c’est ce
genre d’activités auxquels les jeunes sont très associés et ils en font
régulièrement. Donc, c’est une émission qui parle aux jeunes. On s’adresse pas
à des professionels jamais dans cette émission-là et toute l’émission est
bâtie sur une trame de musique. C’est monté comme un vidéoclip finalement si
vous le regardez avec des interviews qui sont insérés au sein de ces
montages-là et en fait ça permet aux jeunes téléspectateurs de voir les jeunes
évolués dans différentes activités extérieures de sports extrêmes qui sont non
professionels.
- M. M. ARPIN: Madame la Vice-présidente, la définition de la
catégorie 6, c’est de la couverture d’évènements sportifs en direct ou en
différer de sports professionels ou de sports amateurs. C’est justement pas ça
que MusiquePlus fait, même si on parle effectivement de jeunes qui font ds
activités de loisir qui sont assimilables aux sports. Ça dépend du traitement
et nous on pense que -- on est convaincus que on est pas dans le domaine du
sport. On est plus dans le domaine ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Même si vous l’avez catégorisé comme 6(a).
- M. M. ARPIN: Une erreur permise.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Voilà.
- M. M. ARPIN: La perfection n’est pas de ce monde.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, ce serait des émissions qui seraient
mieux catégorisées comme vidéoclips ou émissions de musique mais qui sont
basées sur les sports.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Émission de divertissement générale, d’intérêt
général davantage.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Qui serait la catégorie 11 qui je ne crois pas
est dans la liste -- ah oui, elle est là pour MuchMusic aussi. Alors en tous
cas, vous voyez le but c’est d’essayer en respectant les façons courantes du
Conseil pour établir la nature de service, sans vous causer des problèmes
indus et en réconfortant les autres que vous allez demeurez un service de la
nature qui a été établie. Alors, vous me revenez après la pause en utilisant
peut-être comme point de départ MuchMusic qui semble être le plus semblable.
- Maintenant, au niveau des vidéoclips canadiens, vous nous donnez dans
votre demande et ce matin aussi plusieurs raisons pour laquelle vous ne pouvez
pas accéder au suggestions de certains itervenants qu’il devrait y avoir une
augmentation vers le 35 pour-cent immédiat ou à la fin du terme de la licence.
Vous nous aviez dit en 1994 évidemment que 30 pour-cent était un pourcentage
qui était raisonnable tenant compte des niveaux prévisibles de production à
l’époque.
- Vous avez indiqué dans votre présentation orale que ce pourcentage a de
fait augmenté depuis. A la page 7 je crois, si avant on avait canadiens et
francophones représentaient 15 pour-cent et 8 pour-cent des nouveaux
vidéoclips en ’93, maintenant il représente 2 pour-cent de plus, 17 pour-cent
et 3 pour-cent de plus respectivement canadiens et de langue française.
Maintenant, ceux de langue française, ce sont tous les vidéoclips de langue
française, pas seulement les canadiens qui sont dans ces pourcentages.
Possiblement, il pourrait y en avoir de langue française qui ne sont pas
canadiens.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Oui. Tout à fait, oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, il y aurait eu une augmentation de 2
pour-cent dans le cas des canadiens et de 3 pour-cent dans le cas des
francophones. Et sur cette augmentation que vous trouvez minime je suppose,
vous vous basez sur cette augmentation pour nous indiquer que vous préférez le
statu quo et que ce n’est pas possible d’augmenter le pourcentage de
vidéoclips canadiens.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Madame la Vice-présidente, de façon réaliste, quand
je regarde les documents que j’ai devant moi et j’ai différents documents qui
sont certainement pour la discussion qu’on a aujourd’hui, d’une part la
production annuelle de vidéoclips francophones, de vidéoclips canadiens au fil
des années, et je vois qu’effectivement la progression est minime. Les
chiffres qu’on vous a donné sont basés sur tous ces chiffres-là. Également, je
regarde par exemple dans -- parce qu’on a parlé -- j’ai dit dans
l’introduction tantôt que le vidéoclip canadien francophone était toujours
privilégié au sein de la diffusion chez nous. Je parlais de fréquence. Je
parlais de durée de vie.
- Et j’ai ici devant moi un document qui retrace les trois dernières années.
Par exemple, des 150 clips les plus joués en onde chez nous à MusiquePlus et
ça représente un nombre de passage important, on parle d’un nombre de passage
de plus de 12,000 passages par exemple en l’année ’99 comme exemple, et je
vois que sur 150 clips, il y en a 54 qui sont québécois et là-dessus 52
francophones, et il y a 18 vidéos canadiens. Donc, si je regarde là, c’est
donc un pourcentage de 75 vidéoclips -- 85 vidéoclips qui sont canadiens et
francophones, donc québécois francophones, qui ont été diffusées.
- Donc, c’est un pourcentage important des vidéoclips qui ont bénéficié de
la plus grande diffusion, donc qui ont joué un nombre de fois accru. Au-delà
de ça en plus, un vidéoclip par exemple international va avoir une durée de
vie chez nous d’environ huit à 10 semaines. Un vidéoclip québécois va jouer
15, 18, 20 semaines chez nous.
- Donc, je vous donne ces données-là parce que ce qui m’inquiète en
augmentant un pourcentage, que ce soit en canadien, que ce soit en
francophones, parce que je pense que les deux arguments se rejoignent, c’est
le danger de la surexposition. C’est quelque chose qui me fait peur. Je pense
que trop c’est comme pas assez dans la vie. Je pense qu’on a réussi à trouver
avec MusiquePlus une balance intéressante. Si vous regardez l’historique, on a
toujours respecté nos quotas. On a quand même des quotas importants.
- On a des quotas de 30 et 35 pour-cent, dont 30 pour-cent canadiens, 35
pour-cent francophones. On ne dit pas que c’est trop. On dit que c’est
probablement juste à l’heure actuelle. On regarde le nombre de disques qui se
produisent, le nombre de clips produits à l’intérieur des ces disques-là.
C’est un clip par album, un peu plus d’un clip par album. Les radios par
exemple c’est 65 pour-cent francophone, 30 pour-cent de musique canadienne.
Donc, on a pas -- pardon, 35 pardon. La réalité n’est pas du tout la même
lorsqu’on regarde la réalité du vidéoclip et celle d’un album.
- Donc, sur un album, je reprends cet argument-là, vous avez 14 chansons en
moyenne. Vous avez un clip, parfois deux clips. Donc, déjà faire 35 pour-cent
comparé au 65, c’est déjà un tour de force. La seule chose en toute honnêteté
qu’on peut vous dire aujourd’hui c’est quand on regarde notre historique et on
a certainement cette expertise-là parce qu’on aide le financement vidéoclip
également, c’est de voir qu’on va donc jouer encore davantage les vidéoclips
canadiens, encore davantage les vidéoclips francophones et toujours les mêmes.
Un moment donné, est-ce que c’est bénéfique? Nous pensons que non.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Vous parlez du financement de vidéoclips.
Justement, vous nous indiquez que, et si on fait le calcul, il y en a presque
deux millions, 1.9 millions sur sept ans qui a été dépensés pour la production
de vidéoclips et dans la dernière période de licence. Et il y aurait selon vos
projections financières une augmentation à 2.6 millions. Donc, il y en aura
davantage.
- Est-ce que ce que vous me dites c’est que vous utiliserez ces vidéoclips
-- ce nombre supérieur pour réduire les reprises et rendre votre service plus
attrayant? Est-ce que c’est ça votre argumentation? Parce qu’évidemment, il y
en a plus. Il y a une légère augmentation du pourcentage depuis ’93 et puis
j’imagine avec les sommes excédentaires que vous allez donner à VidéoFACT pour
augmenter le nombre de vidéoclips, vous allez en avoir sensémment davantage
dans les prochains sept ans.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Oui. J’aimerais peut-être répondre, Madame la
Vice-présidente, à cette question-là parce que d’une part, vous connaissez
VidéoFACT. Je pense que les gens de MuchMusic vous en ont parlé. Nous sommes
donc partenaires à l’intérieur de VidéoFACT et VidéoFACT est opéré par un
tiers parti, donc pas par nos chaînes. Donc, on a un "Chairman of the Board"
qui gère donc le financement de toute l’opération VidéoFACT. C’est un
organisme à but non-lucratif, donc pour subventionner les vidéoclips canadiens
et francophones canadiens.
- Il y a une chose qu’il faut prendre en considération c’est oui, on va
mettre plus d’argent. Je pense que c’est important quand vous regardez nos
revenus qui -- notre plan de revenus qui va augmenter donc automatiquement.
Vous avez parlé de $600,000. C’est les chiffres que j’ai donné au départ. Les
coûts de production augmentent également pour la production de vidéoclips. Ce
n’est pas une industrie qui est stable. C’est une industrie qui comme toutes
les autres industries en télévision, les coûts augmentent d’année en année.
Donc, j’espère que cet argent-là va permettre de faire des vidéoclips de
qualité et continuer à leur donner de la valeur, assez d’outils donc pour
fabriquer les meilleures vidéoclips qui sont en compétition avec des
vidéoclips étrangers sur nos chaînes.
- Je pense qu’au départ, c’est pour ça. Est-ce qu’il se fera plus de
vidéoclips? Peut-être un peu plus mais il pourra s’en faire le double et je ne
pense pas que le marché québécois francophone pourrait accepter ce genre de
production-là.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: On ne parle pas de double. On parle par exemple
de la possibilité pendant les sept ans d’ajouter peut-être un pour-cent par
année pour arriver à 35 pour-cent de vidéoclips canadiens comme possibilité.
- Maintenant, vous nous avez donné l’historique. Il y a eu une augmentation,
ce matin dans votre présentation à la page 7, depuis ’93. Puisque votre terme
de licence s’il était de sept ans vous conduirait à 2008, est-ce que vous avez
une projection quelqconque sur l'augmentation des vidéoclips, de
l’accroissement du nombre de vidéoclips d’ici 2008 en pourcentage? Est-ce que
vous essayez de me dire maintenant que le coût de les produire va être tel
qu’il y en aura pas plus?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Écoutez, je pense que c’est difficile pour nous
d’évaluer le nombre de vidéoclips qui seront produits dans trois ans, quatre
ans ou cinq ans. L’industrie du vidéoclip est tributaire de l’industrie du
disque au départ. Le produit brut est d’abord et avant tout une chanson et
cette chanson-là est mise en image pour des fins de promotion et de vente de
disque et de vente de spectacle. L’industrie du disque dans le moment connaît
des difficultés. Je pense qu’il ne faut pas se le cacher. Elle connaît des
difficultés qui sont dues je pense à un nombre de facteurs. Par exemple, le
"downloading" de musique est certainement un des problèmes de la vente de
disque dans le moment.
- Donc évidemment, la courbe des vidéoclips devrait suivre l’évolution donc
de l’industrie de la musique au Canada et au Québec. C’est difficile pour nous
de vous donner des chiffres à cet égard-là parce que ce n’est pas notre
industrie en premier. C’est-à-dire que nous sommes en parallèle avec cette
industrie-là. Nous travaillons avec ces gens-là en synergie, mais nous ne
sommes pas producteurs de disques au Québec et au Canada.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: En ’94, vous nous aviez dit que vous aviez
intérêt à offrir aux téléspectateurs des produits qui répondent à leurs
attentes. S’il y avait plus de vidéoclips d’ici disons trois ans, vous
considéreriez le 30 pour-cent comme un plancher ou un minimum ou un maximum?
Est-ce qu’à ce moment-là vous en diffuseriez davantage ou diminueriez les
reprises? Ce que les requérantes évidemment nous disent toujours, je peux pas
vous dire ce qui va se passer dans trois ans. Et souvent si les Conseillers
sont de mauvaise humeur, on demande à ce moment-là voulez-vous un
renouvellement de trois ans et puis on examinera ça à ce moment-là. Je suis de
bonne humeur. Il est encore tôt.
- M. P. MARCHAND: J’espère que l’on ne vous gardera pas trop
longtemps pour garder votre bonne humeur. Écoutez, vous avez avec MuchMusic
dans le renouvellement de leur licence, vous avez étudié cette question-là et
je lisais dans l’argumentaire que MuchMusic on fait valoir qu’au Canada, un
clip se produisait par album. Et donc, vous avez -- le CRTC, au renouvellement
de leur licence, a donc conserver à 30 pour-cent l’obligation et les quotas de
clips canadiens. Je pense que le marché québécois à cet égard-là est
certainement tributaire du marché canadien. Et je ne vois pas comment
l’imposition d’un pourcentage plus grand pour le marché québécois pourrait
être réaliste à la lumière de votre politique pour MuchMusic.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais s’il y en a plus, vous les diffuserez?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Mais, c’est ce que l’on fait absolument. S’il y a
plus de vidéoclips, c’est certain. C’est pour ça que je vous donnais, Madame
la Vice-présidente, le nombre d’exemples que je vous donnais d’artistes qui
sont passés par MusiquePlus et par le vidéoclips pour se faire connaître. Les
vidéoclips, on les diffuse. On espère qu’ils soient le meilleur possible et on
prend certainement je dirais -- on ose quoi, on ose donner la chance à des
jeunes qui vont être boudés par d’autres médias. Et c’est ce qui a fait
probablement le succès de notre chaîne chez nous. Et c’est pour ça que j’ai pu
vous faire une nomenclature de la dernière année, par exemple en français, qui
est imposante. Ce sont tous des artistes qui vendent entre 25 et 200,000
albums.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Passons à quelque chose de plus facile, vos
projections financières. Maintenant, vous nous avez produit l’Annexe 20
sous-pli confidentiel. Alors, je vais respecter ce statu. Mais vous y mettez
les recettes qui proviendraient d’abonnés du SRD et du STSAC pour l’année 2001
qui sont quand même de beaucoup supérieures à l’année 2000. Il s’agit d’un
pourcentage assez élevé que j’ai calculé mais que j’oubli -- oui, il s’agit
d’un augmentation d’à peu près 42 pour-cent. Maintenant, dans vos projections
financières pour les sept ans, les sept ans qui s’en viennent, vous avez
utilisé quel genre de pourcentage pour projeter vos revenus de SRD?
- M. M. ARPIN: En fait, Madame la Présidente, on note effectivement
cette année une croissance assez importante des revenus SRD, compte tenu du
fait que les deux entreprises ont développé les sous-marchés qui étaient mal
désservis par la cablo-distribution et qu’ils ont donc ammené un nombre
significatif de nouveaux abonnés qui nous a permis d’avoir pour l’année 2001
des projections de revenus qui sont en croissance par rapport à l’année 2000.
- Pour l’avenir et on le constate déjà d’ailleurs, on commence à voir de la
fragmentation entre la cablo-distribution et le SRD. Le développement de
nouveaux territoires est en partie compléter (inaudible) où cette
croissance-là va être plus stable et ça signifie que -- mais les compagnies de
-- les exploitants de satellites évidemment anticipe la croissance et leur
plan d’affaire nous indique qu’ils perçoivent qu’ils ont encore une ou deux
bonnes années de croissance avant d’arriver à une certaine maturité et que
cette nouvelle croissance-là va se faire au dépend des exploitants de cable,
plus qu’elle s’est faite à ce jour. Donc, un dans l’autre, ce que l’on peut
gagner d’une main, on risque de le perdre de l’autre.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Il y a aussi je suppose un nouveau développement
où la croissance des cablos sera peut-être moindre parce qu’ils perdront
certains nouveaux développements au SRD. Donc, vous vous êtes basés entre 2000
et 2001 sur 42 pour-cent. Et ensuite, vous voyez je suppose un certain
plafonnement parce que, entre 2001 et 2002, 3.1 pour-cent.
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et de là, vous avez je crois à peu près 8
pour-cent par année d’augmentation.
- M. M. ARPIN: Effectivement. En fait, c’est que pour les données que
vous retrouvez à l’Annexe 20, évidemment au moment où on les a produit, on
avait déjà une partie de l’année fiscale réalisée. Donc, on était en mesure
d’ajuster l’information pour qu’elle soit le plus conforme à la réalité perçue
au moment où les projections financière ont été déposées.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Maintenant, votre projection d’une augmentation
de 42 pour-cent, vous êtes prêts maintenant de la fin de l’exercice, est-ce
qu’elle s’est réalisée?
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, pas plus ni moins, à peu près
correctement?
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: L’Annexe 20 serait à peu près ce qui va se
produire pour la fin d’août.
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: À l’Annexe 18, vous avez vos hypothèses qui
sous-tendrent vos prévisions financières et vous suggérez le statu quo pour le
tarif de base pour les sept ans. Mais vous indiquez un tarif qui s’accroîtrait
de 3 pour-cent par année hors Québec. Est-ce que vous pouvez m’expliquer de
quoi il s’agit et de le relier au fait que la distribution des services hors
Québec normalement se fait à un tarif moindre? Ce serait une augmentation de 3
pour-cent par année à compter de quelle somme?
- M. M. ARPIN: Mais pas du service de base. Ce que nous anticipons et
évidemment ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: (inaudible) à l’étage.
- M. M. ARPIN: Ça sera à un étage et puis c’est qu’il pourrait y
avoir une progression dans l’augmentation du tarif à partir donc d’un plancher
pour pouvoir effectivement investir au démarrage pour être capable d’en
récupérer une -- pour arriver à un tarif plus équilibré.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et c’est ce que vous croyez dans le domaine du
possible dans les négotiations parce que c’est à l’étage.
- M. M. ARPIN: En fait, c’est qu’on a déjà des abonnés hors Québec.
On a déjà une réalité. Je veux dire on est distribué dans environ 400,000
foyers hors Québec. La grande majorité de ces 400,000 foyers-là évidemment
sont en Ontario et au Nouveau-Brunswick, dans les confins du Canada français,
avec la ville d’Ottawa qui représente un peu plus de 200,000 foyers et le
Nouveau-Brunswick à lui seul un autre 90,000 foyers. Et dans ces
territoires-là, on a déjà des ententes qui prévoient dans certains cas déjà
des augmentations. Dans nos prévisions financières, on a pas mis de nouveaux
abonnés hors Québec, compte tenu que on a produit premièrement notre demande
avant que la politique soit rendue public. Mais surtout parce que c’est dans
un univers numérique, dans des marchés où pour lesquels on a peu de données au
moment des présentes et pour des conditions qui nous sont encore inconnues.
- Donc, par souci de présenter un portrait qui conforme à la réalité et
plutôt que conforme à des expectatives, on n’a pas essayé d’être des
prévisionnistes en ce sens-là. Mais de toute façon l’expérience acquise avec
la distribution des services francophones hors des territoires francophones,
c’est un univers de petits nombres.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, voyez-vous un problème à ce que vous vous
en teniez à ce que l’on avait discuté lors de l’exercice pour la distribution
des services en milieu minoritaire? Je pense qu’on avait discuté que ça ne
dépasserait pas plus de 10 à 15 pour-cent du prix à l’étage au Québec. Ce 3
pour-cent ne dépasserait quand même pas cette attente-là.
- M. M. ARPIN: C’est sûr que vous pouvez compter sur les
distributeurs pour nous le rappeler si jamais nous l’oublions.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: (inaudible) eux ils ne sont pas -- ils ne
s’acharnent pas quand ils veulent quelque chose. Alors, c’est pour ça que je
vous le demande à vous. Maintenant, vous avez sans doute en lisant la décision
MuchMusic réalisé que l’augmentation des contributions à VidéoFACT de 5 à 7
pour-cent était basée en partie sur une analyse du Conseil de la rentabilité
ou du BAI du service en question. Donc, il nous est important d’examiner si
aussi le niveau du BAI et les raison pour lesquelles il est à ce niveau-là. Et
une question qui est soulevée c’est l’augmentation de certains frais, les
dépenses d’administration entre ’99 et l’an 2000 qui sont assez surprenantes.
- Entre ’99 et 2000, il y a eu une augmentation surtout au poste dépenses
professionelles de presque 100 pour-cent et qui a eu l’effet évidemment de
réduire la marge de BAI de MusiquePlus de 18.9 pour-cent en ’99 à 10.9
pour-cent en l’an 2000. Et s’il n’y avait pas eu cette augmentation qui est
d’une somme importante, la marge de BAI aurait été plutôt de 14.6 pour-cent ou
de 15 pour-cent en l’an 2000. Nous sommes un peu curieux de savoir pourquoi il
y a eu cette augmentation au poste services professionels de cette envergure.
- M. M. ARPIN: Madame, la réponse est malheureusement trop simple.
C’est tout ce qui a entouré la comparution de MusiquePlus à la Commission du
droit d’auteur pour le droit de reproduction. On a fait l’objet d’un arbitrage
demandé par la SODRAC et on s’est retrouvé devant la Commission du droit
d’auteur avec des experts et avec des conseillers juridiques. Vous pouvez me
croire la facture s’est avérée extrêmement salée et la décision de la
Commission aussi. Donc, elle aura aussi une incidence dans le temps.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et ce qui expliquerait ce qui est de la moyenne
de vos dépenses à ce poste-là est à peu près de $75,000 et même plus bas que
ça dans certains cas. Dans vos prédictions pour les sept années qui s’en
viennent, de fait on commence à je crois $58,000. D’accord?
- M. M. ARPIN: Exact. C’est un ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, cette année-là c’était un demi million.
- M. M. ARPIN: C’est un événement.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Il faudrait retourner à la pratique du droit.
- M. M. ARPIN: Ou à la consultation parce que ce n’est pas juste des
honoraires légaux. Je vais prendre la défense des avocats.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, sauf cette abberation-là, vous êtes
d’accord avec moi que votre BAI pour l’an 2000 aurait été plutôt de 15
pour-cent.
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui. Mais chaque année a son lot de situation.
MusiquePlus est une entreprise qui a pris sa taille et puis sa place et cette
année, elle est actuellement en cours d’une négociation d’une convention
collective, ce qui ne se fait non plus sans avoir des dépenses. Et on pourrait
croire que le futur va aussi nous apporter des événements fortuits qui font
que on est obligé d’engager des sommes plus importantes que historiquement
nous l’avions fait au niveau de dépenses d’honoraires externes ou d’honoraires
professionels.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Est-ce que la création de la compagnie TV Max
Plus Production aurait cet effet-là sur vos dépenses d’administration et de
services professionels?
- M. M. ARPIN: Non.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Maintenant, le calcul des revenus est ressorti
comme un certain problème et c’est important évidemment de savoir quel est le
point de référence des recettes auquel est appliqué le 2.4 pour-cent ou un
autre pourcentage qui établissent vos contributions à VidéoFACT. Et vous
insistez que les recettes auxquelles le 2.4 pour-cent devrait être appliqué ne
devraient pas inclure certaines recettes. De fait, ne devraient inclure que
les recettes d’abonnement et de publicité nationale.
- Et à la page 3 de votre réponse aux lettres de lacune, vous établissez
justement les postes qui ne devraient pas être inclus et c’est assorti de
certaines concessions dans la réplique où vous indiquez que certains postes
par exemple qui sont inclus dans les exclusions vous accepteriez, par exemple,
si vous faisiez de l’infopublicité. Et qu’est-ce que vous nous avez dit en
réplique au sujet des recettes non monétaires?
- M. M. ARPIN: Je vous ai dit qu’il y en avait essentiellement deux
sortes. Y’en a une qui est reliée carrément à -- qui est du troc et qui est
pour les biens et les services pour lesquels on consent à ce qu’ils fassent
partis des revenus publicitaires sur lesquels on paierait le 2.4 pour-cent. On
a dit que l’autre portion est directement associée à la promotion de notre
service et d’autres services de radiodiffusion et qui font l’object aussi de
troc.
- On pense que ce type de publicité non monétaire devrait pas faire partie
du compte pour la simple et unique raison qu’elles servent à faire la
promotion de notre service et puis d’autres services d’autres médias. Donc,
c’est finalement d’attirer l’attention de nos téléspectateurs sur la
consommation de produits canadiens et que c’est donc bénéfique pour le
système.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Nous pourrons reparler de cette question. Est-ce
que c’est déduit des recettes de radiodiffusion simplement parce que c’est
bénéfique pour le système quand il s’agit d’appliquer le 2.4 pour-cent? On
peut en rediscuter.
- M. M. ARPIN: Bien, c’est parce que l’autre alternative, Madame la
Présidente, c’est de ne pas en faire. Je ne suis pas sûr qu’on en bénéficie
parce que bon, évidemment il y a ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Vous voulez dire que ---
- M. M. ARPIN: --- il y a de la publicité croisée parce qu’à
l’intérieur de -- MusiquePlus est à l’intérieur de deux grandes familles de
radiodiffuseurs et MusiquePlus diffuse des messages promotionnelles des
entreprises qui sont membres de l’une et de l’autre des familles.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Vous n’avez pas -- vous n’essayez pas de me
dire, Monsieur Arpin, que si le Conseil décidait d’y appliquer le 2.4
pour-cent, vous ne feriez plus de promotion pour MuchMusic?
- M. M. ARPIN: On ne fait pas de promotion pour MuchMusic mais on
fait de la promotion pour CKMF, pour CHOM, pour Radio Énergie, pour d’autres
services de (inaudible), pour d’autre services de télévision canadienne.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais si vous en faites pour MuchMusic, est-ce
que c’est comptabilisé?
- M. M. ARPIN: Bien oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et est-ce que c’est exclus?
- M. M. ARPIN: C’est ça qu’on exclus.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: C’est (inaudible).
- M. M. ARPIN: C’est ça, oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, ma question ---
- M. M. ARPIN: C’est de ça qu’on parle.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Ma question demeure pertinente que vous n’allez
pas me dire que si par exemple le Conseil insistait que c’est inclus dans les
recettes pour calculer le 2.4 pour-cent, vous allez arrêter d’en faire.
- M. M. ARPIN: Une décision d’entreprise à prendre.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Voilà.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Madame la Vice-Présidente, si je peux me permettre,
nous ne sommes pas d’avis en tout cas qu’à l’intérieur de la même compagnie,
lorsqu’on se rend des services à l’intérieur d’une même boîte, qu’on doit
calculer par exemple ce genre de pourcentage.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: (inaudible) que c’est bénéfique au système.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Oui. Certainement il y a un côté bénéfique c’est
certain.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais la question est est-ce que c’est une
recette qui est une recette de radiodiffusion?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Mais déjà si vous on faisait la part par exemple
entre ce que je vais appeler des contrats échanges avec des tiers partis et
des contrats échanges à l’intérieur de la même famille, je pense qu’il faut
faire une différence à cet égard-là. On ne travaille pas de la même façon à
l’interne chez nous qu’avec l’extérieur.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et si c’étair des tiers partis, est-ce que ce
serait inclus dans les recettes qu’on utilise comme point de référence pour
calculer le 2.4 pour-cent?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Ce n’est pas ce que l’on souhaite mais ---
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui. On a dit que c’est pour des biens et services.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais la promotion par exemple d’un autre
service.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Écoutez, c’est certain qu’on ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: C’est un tiers parti aussi.
- M. P. MARCHAND: C’est certain qu’il est important pour nous de --
donc je pense qu’on s’entend quand même sur la différence qu’il y a entre les
deux. Ce n’est pas notre premier choix d’accepter le fait sur un échange avec
un autre média qui n’est pas dans la famille. Mais ça pourrait être la limite
qu’on accepterait effectivement de notre côté de dire qu’au moins à l’interne
vous reconnaissez que dans la famille, ça ne sera pas comptabilisé commes des
revenus et dépenses puisque c’est d’une poche à l’autre.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Seulement dans la famille.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Maintenant, si je regarde vos projections
financières révisées, si nous examinons la première année par exemple, est-ce
que toutes ces exclusions sont incluses dans les sommes qui sont sous les
postes vente, souscription d’émission, production et autres?
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Pour un total en 2001 ou en 2002, 2003 à peu
près de $300,000. Toutes les exclusions y sont?
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui. Si je me permets, si je réfère au document-là, ce
que l’on a identifié comme recettes de publicité nationale à 7,250,000, c’est
des revenus qui ne comprennent pas les échanges publicitaires dont on parlait.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Oui. Ma question était --
- M. M. ARPIN: On parle de recettes publicitaires. Par ailleurs, si
je regarde maintenant ventes de souscriptions 205,000, production 31, autres
produits dérivés 72,000, ce serait exclus de la contribution de 2.4 pour-cent
parce que ce n’est pas pour des activités reliées nécessairement à la
radiodiffusion.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et ma question était toutes les réductions
peuvent être retrouvées sous ces postes-là?
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et donc, pour établir le 2.4 pour-cent, mon
addition s’arrête à recettes publicité nationale.
- M. M. ARPIN: C’est ça.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et dans ce chiffre-là, il n’y a pas de ---
- M. P. MARCHAND: Il n’y pas d’échanges de biens et services.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et à la page 2 de lacune, vous avez indiqué que
pour l’année 2001, vous avez déduit 192,000 à peu près pour Internet et
139,000 pour ventes de temps d’antenne à des tiers, pour un total qui est
semblable, qui est à peu près de $332,215. Est-ce que ça été -- oups, je
n’aurais pas dû mettre ce chiffre sur les -- au dossier.
- M. M. ARPIN: Non.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Ah, non. C’est pour ---
- M. M. ARPIN: Ils sont dans le dossier public.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: --- pour l’année 2001. Mais l’année 2001
supposément n’est pas au dossier. Je m’excuse. Maintenant, est-ce que vous
avez fait des déductions comparables pendant les sept dernière années?
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Pour le calcul. Est-ce que les dépenses qui sont
attribuables à ces recettes excluses sont incluses dans les dépenses au poste
de dépenses? C’est-à-dire, les dépenses qui sont nécessaires pour produire ces
recettes, est-ce qu’elles sont incluses dans les dépenses ou si vous les
séparer?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Madame la Vice-présidente, lorsqu’on fait allusion
aux autres revenus, donc qui ne sont pas comptabilisés dans le calcul du 2.4
pour-cent, il n’y a pas de frais directs encourus qui sont calculés à
l’intérieur des dépenses. Non.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Vous voulez dire par exemple que si je regarde
le poste programmation et production, la production de commerciaux que vous
excluez, est-ce que les dépenses encourues pour les produire ces commerciaux
et les revenus qui en découlent sont inclus ou non dans le $6,740,000 pour la
première année?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Les frais de production ne sont pas inclus dans les
frais (inaudible) ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Où sont ces dépenses?
- M. P. MARCHAND: C’est net. C’est un net qu’on vous présente ici.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, ça inclu aucune dépenses encourues pour
générer les recettes excluses.
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui, parce que c’est net.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Ça c’est pour -- ça c’est évidemment dans vos
états fianciers ce serait différent. Vous voulez dire c’est net pour les
rapports au Conseil.
- M. M. ARPIN: En fait en ce sens que peut-être que si je prends une
année, mettons ’99 où je vois un montant à autres de $374,000, le revenu réel
était peut-être de 500. Il y a eu $126,000 de dépenses. Donc, on a produit le
revenu net à 374,000.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Par exemple, pour les revenus qui pourraient
découler de l’Internet et qui pourraient causer des dépenses peut-être
supérieures aux revenus pour vous préparer pour l’avenir, et caetera, est-ce
que vous êtes d’accord avec moi que s’il y avait des dépenses assez
importantes qui seraient incluses, elles auraient l’effet de baisser votre
BAI?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Vous avez tout à fait raison.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et de résister à la suggestion que vous êtes
dans une position où le Conseil peut exiger davantage.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Mais les dépenses, Madame la Vice-présidente, qui
sont reliées directement à la création des ces revenus ne sont pas
comptabilisées dans ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Vont continuer -- elles vont continuer à ne pas
être comptabilisées pour l’exercice du rapport annuel au Conseil.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Tout a fait.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Vous vous engagez à ce cas-là, parce que par
exemple vous pourriez décider que faire des sommes -- dépenser des sommes
importantes pour l’Internet même si vous n’avez pas de revenus est une bonne
décision corporative pour se préparer pour le futur. Donc, vous êtes prêts à
accepter que ces dépenses-là ne soient pas incluses.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Tout à fait.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Elles ne sont peut-être pas importantes en ce
moment mais elles pourraient l’être. Maintenant, êtes-vous au courant si chez
MuchMusic on utilise cette même façon d’établir les recettes auxquelles sont
mulitipliées le pourcentage pour fin de contribution?
- M. M. ARPIN: En fait, dans le cas de MuchMusic, on a eu une
discussion avec certaines personnes de leur groupe et on sait que les revenus
et les dépenses Internet sont dans une filiale non règlementée.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Je parle surtout des autres postes que vous
voulez exclure des recettes. Par exemple, du temps d’antenne à des tiers, la
production de commerciaux qui ressemblent beaucoup plus à des recettes qui
découlent de vos activités de radiodiffusion.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Par exemple, Madame la Vice-présidente, sur la
production de commerciaux, ces frais-là sont rechargés au client. Donc, le
revenu qui est présenté est net. La dépense est appliquée contre le revenu.
Donc, le revenu intégré dans nos chiffres est net de cette dépense-là.
- Je vais vous donner à l’exemple la production commerciale par exemple
parce que vous venez d’en faire allusion, donc ce que Monsieur Arpin vous
disait au niveau de MuchMusic, évidemment je sais qu’ils ont des filiales de
production par exemple pour la vente d’émissions, que c’est produit à
l’extérieur et vendu par une filiale qui s’appelle "Chum City International"
(phonétique) (inaudible) pas sous le chapeau de MuchMusic ou de MuchMoreMusic.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Là, ma question ne visait plus les dépenses mais
surtout sur le calcul que MuchMusic fait. Et leur calcul inclut les revenus
autres que je suppose sont autres que la publicité normale et qui pourrait
possiblement inclure la vente de temps d’antenne à des tiers. Il semblerait
selon les rapports que j’ai que MuchMusic ne fait pas ces déductions-là.
Peut-être que l’Internet est ailleurs, mais je vous parlait surtout de ce qui
ressemble beaucoup à la publicité, c’est-à-dire la vente de temps d’antenne.
C’est un peu curieux d’argumenter que ce n’est pas un revenu de
radiodiffusion.
- M. M. ARPIN: Ce qui apparaît sous autres dans notre document c’est
en fait la vente d’émissions. MusiquePlus vend des émissions à Télé-Québec, à
Radio-Canada, à TVA. On vend à TV5 et il faut rapporter le revenu en quelque
part. Alors, il est rapporté sous autres.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais ce que je vous suggère c’est que c’est un
revenu de radiodiffusion et vous vous l’excluez du calcul du 2.4 pour-cent,
pour les fins du 2.4 pour-cent.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Mais, Madame la Vice-présidente, je suis en
désaccord un peu avec vous sur le fait que le revenu d’une vente d’émission
qui est en fait un financement, nous on inclut ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Pas de vente d’émission, de vente de temps
d’antenne.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Ah, bien oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Je me suis peut-être mal exprimé.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Ah bien, tout à fait.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: À des tiers.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Mais ce n’est pas inclus dans autres ça. C’est pas
inclus dans autres.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Non. Mais vous l’excluez quand même des recettes
auxquelles on applique le 2.4 pour-cent, le revenu d’antenne, de temps
d’antenne à (inaudible).
- M. P. MARCHAND: Non, non. Pas du tout, pas du tout. Tous les
revenus de temps d’antenne sont inclus, sauf ce qu’on appelle les contrats
échanges ou les échanges de bien qu’on parlait au départ. Mais tous les
revenus de temps d’antenne sont comptabilisés à l’intérieur des revenus et le
2.4 pour-cent est calculé sur ces revenus. Je pense qu’on s’est peut-être mal
compris en quelque part.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, ils ne sont pas exclus -- ils ne sont pas
inclus dans la liste d’exclusion auquelle on se référait plus tôt.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Non. Le calcul du 2.4 est basé sur tous les revenus
de commercialisation, donc de temps d’antenne, et tous le revenus d’abonnés de
distribution, donc ce soit cable ou DTH. Et sur ces montants que sont calculés
le 2.4 pour-cent. Aucune exclusion au niveau du temps d’antenne, sauf les
contrats échanges de biens et services que vous avez adressé au tout début qui
ne sont pas comptabilisés à l’intérieur du chiffre qu’on vous présente.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et aussi la publicité pour les services de la
famille corporative.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Ce qu’on appelle nous en langage interne le contrat
échange, non ce n’est pas comptabilisé à l’intérieur de ce chiffre-là.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, pour l’année 2002, la première année,
qu’est-ce qu’il y a sous autres, $72,000?
- M. P. MARCHAND: C’est des revenus de ventes d’émissions que nous
revendons à des tiers après diffusion.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais il y a un poste pour vente d’émissions
séparé, $205,000, et un poste additionnel, $72,000.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Pardon. Ce sont des produits dérivés, je m’excuse
là. Ce sont des produits dérivés, donc on pourrait appeler du "merchandising",
ou autres serait donc des intérêts sur les placements.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, rappelez moi maintenant quelles sont les
exclusions si nous examinons ce que vous avez dit d’abord, ce que vous avez
dans la réplique et ce que vous me dites maintenant? Pour les fins du dossier
public, quelles sont les recettes qui ne sont incluses quand vous allez
calculé votre 2.4 pour-cent?
- M. M. ARPIN: Les revenus non monétaires associés à la promotion de
médias, les revenus de ventes d’émissions à des tiers, les revenus Internet,
les revenus de ventes de produits dérivés et les revenus de production de
messages commerciaux qui sont fait au bénéfice de tiers, les revenus
d’intérêts de placement s’il y a lieu.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Prenons l’année 2001, vous avez à l’Annexe 2
établi les ajustements que vous avez fait en 2001. C’est l’Annexe 2 attaché à
votre lacune et cette somme est de beaucoup plus élevée que ce que -- pour les
exclusions, les ajustements que ce que vous nous avez dit que vous avez fait
pour l’an 2001 dans la lettre de lacune où vous nous avez dit en 2001 avoir
déduit -- nous avons fait le calcul quelques minutes.
- Si je regarde toutes ces sommes qui sont les ajustements, elles sont de
beaucoup plus élevées que le $192,347 que vous avez indiqué à la lettre de
lacune que vous aviez déduit. Il s’agit ici de 1.2 millions d’ajustements. Ces
ajustements sont des déductions. Pourquoi sont-elles si élevées comparées au
$300,000 dont nous parlions il y a quelques minutes?
- M. P. MARCHAND: D’une part, Madame la Vice-présidente, ce qu’on
appelle contrat échange varie d’une année à l’autre. Ce qu’on vous présente en
2000-2001 est le montant véritable de contrats échanges qui ont eu lieu durant
l’année, donc, d’échanges de biens non monétaires. Ces montants-là peuvent
varier aisément d’une année à l’autre. Les revenus autres de vente ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: À ce niveau-là?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Absolument, absolument. Je peux vous confirmer
qu’en date d’aujourd’hui, nous n’avons rien de signé avec des tiers partis
pour des échanges de biens et services pour l’année fiscale qui commence en
septembre.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, ce que vous dites c’est que possiblement
dans l’année qui s’en vient que MusiquePlus aurait dans ses états financiers
des recettes de beaucoup supérieures à celles que nous voyons nous au rapport
annuel.
- M. P. MARCHAND: On parle d’échanges non monétaires. Donc, ils ne
sont pas comptabilisés comme des revenus.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et vous les avez comptabilisé ici. Moi, je vois
cette ligne-là comme des ajustements au revenu. Après ajustements, il y a une
réduction de 1.2 millions.
- M. M. ARPIN: Je veux être certain que tous ça est bien compris
parce que vous avez parlé de rapport annuel. Le rapport annuel qui est déposé
par MusiquePlus à chaque année au 30 novembre est (inaudible) tout à fait
conforme à la réalité de l’exploitation de MusiquePlus. C’est pas fait --
c’est pas des projections. Et d’ailleurs, il est supporté par des états
financiers vérifiés qui sont également déposés à la même occasion.
- Donc, dans ce sens-là, le rapport annuel est en pleine conformité avec les
états financiers. Les projections financières qui ont été déposées sous la
cote Annexe 20 peuvent être nettes de certains revenus pour avoir de la
consistance avec les projections financières qui ont été utilisées pour
appuyer la demande de renouvellement.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais si on se penche sur ce qui -- nous sommes
curieux de ces ajustements que vous faites et si c’est légitime de faire des
ajustements-là pour la fin des contributions à VidéoFACT. Et pour 2001 par
exemple, les sommes que je voit à l’Annexe 2, même sous autres, sont
supérieures à tous les ajustements qui sont fait dans les prédictions
financières de l’Annexe 20. Nous discutions justement que sur vos projections
financières, il s’agit d’ajustements qui se limitent à quelques $300,000. Ici,
nous avons 1.2 millions. Le niveau des ajustements ne semble pas être le même
que celui dont vous parlez dans votre lettre de lacune -- dans votre réponse à
la lettre de lacune et dans l’Annexe 20.
- M. M. ARPIN: J’ai pas de réponse, Madame.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: J’essais de déterminer quel est le niveau
justement des ajustements.
- M. M. ARPIN: Écoutez, dans l’Annexe 2, dont vous faites référence
là, les données sont celles du rapport annuel déposé par MusiquePlus au 30
novembre.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Oui, et voilà pourquoi je me demande finalement
pourquoi l’Annexe 20, qui est sensée être historique et projetée, a des
rajustements sous ce que vous appelez -- aux postes qui sont en dessous de ce
que vous appelez vos revenus de radiodiffusion pour les fins du calcul du 2.4
pour-cent sont de beaucoup inférieurs à celles qu’on voit à cette annexe qu’on
examine ensemble. Il s’agit de ventes, souscriptions d’émissions canadiennes,
$200,000, production $30,000 et autres $70,000 pour un total de $300,000.
Tandis que pour la même année, les ajustements sont de 1.2 millions dans
l’Annexe 2 attachée à votre lettre de lacune.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Madame la Vice-présidente, l’Annexe 2 est
certainement la plus près de réalité aujourd’hui. C’est certain. On vous a
défini quatres postes ici qui sont les revenus d’Internet, les revenus de
commissions, ce qu’on appelle commissions Much pour la vente de publicité
qu’on fait pour eux comme représentants sur le territoire francophone. Les
revenus autres sont des revenus de ventes d’émissions principalement et ce
qu’on appelle contre échanges sont les revenus non monétaires, en fait la
valeur des non monétaires qui n’est pas véritablement un revenu. Ce sont donc
les quatres exclusions au revenus totaux que l’on indique.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Madame la Présidente, je prends l’engagement de
vous redéposer l’Annexe 20.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Revenons maintenant à vos prédictions
financières pour les sept ans du terme qui s’en vient. Les sommes qui sont
excluses des recettes sont à peu près de $300,000 et c’est curieux de voir
pourquoi celles de 2001 à l’Annexe 2 étaient de plus d’un million et pour 2000
aussi et qu’elles n’atteindront jamais un chiffre qui ressemble à ça avant
l’année -- avant même la dernière année du terme qui s’annonce.
- M. P. MARCHAND: D’une part, Madame la Vice-présidente, il y a des
postes qui sont très variables d’une année à l’autre. Je vais vous donner
l’exemple de la vente d’émissions de télévision. Il n’y a pas de revenus
anticipés annuellement sur la vente d’émissions de télévision, contrairement
par exemple à Internet où il y a un plan d’affaire sur Internet et un
développement d’Internet avec des prévisions.
- Donc, par exemple, les revenus de ventes d’émissions peuvent varier
énormément d’une année à l’autre. L’année que vous avez sous les yeux
effectivement, les revenus peuvent paraître imposant à comparer à l’Annexe 20.
L’an prochain, ils peuvent être plus bas que l’Annexe 20. Je veux dire on a
pas -- donc, c’est changeant. Ce sont des revenus véridiques qu’on vous dépose
ici auprès de la réalité d’aujourd’hui avant la fin de l’année fiscale.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Les projections ne sont pas basées sur la
réalité vécue en 2000 et 2001.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Les projections de l’Annexe 2?
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Les ajustements.
- M. P. MARCHAND: De l’Annexe 2?
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mh’m, et l’Annexe 2 n’a même pas l’allure de
l’Annexe 20 à ce poste-là. Vous comprenez?
- M. M. ARPIN: L’Annexe 2 a été produit en réponse à une demande du
Conseil pour couvrir la période 1994 à 2001.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Oui, je comprends ça. Ma question est pourquoi
ce sont des sommes qui sont si évidemment plus élevées que celles que vous
projetez et si vous avez des raisons pour les projeter si basses, le niveau
des ajustements?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Tout simplement -- j’aimerais ajouter tout
simplement elles reflètent davantage la réalité dans l’Annexe 2. Ça c’est
certain. C’est des produits beaucoup plus tard que l’Annexe 20 au départ.
Donc, elles reflètent davantage la réalité. Cette année, c’est une bonne année
par exemple pour la vente d’émissions de télévision. Ça crée un changement
important s’il y a beaucoup d’échanges non monétaires qui ont été fait au
courant de cette année fiscale actuelle. Donc effectivement, c’est ce qui vous
donne l’impression que les montants sont très différents de ce qu’on a déposé,
qui a été fait sans tenir compte de la réalité de cette année.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Parce que vous comprenez que pour les fins du
calcul du 2.4 pour-cent, si le Conseil accepte vos ajustements, c’est assez
clair. Mais pour les fins du BAI, quand on calcule quelle sera la marge BAI
dans les huit première années, il est important d’avoir des projections qui
vont avoir la même allure que la réalité. Parce qu’évidemment maintenant nous
allons discuté de cette question de est-ce que le 2.4 pour-cent devrait être
augmenté comme le Conseil l’a fait pour MuchMusic? Et il faut à ce moment-là
examiné quel effet s’aurait sur la marge BAI et quelle est la marge BAI
projetée de la façon la plus réaliste pour les sept ans qui s’en viennent.
- Alors, vous avez sans doute fait ou je ne sais pas si l’ADISQ peut-être
l’a fait dans leur intervention, mais nous nous avons fait le calcul à 3.4
pour-cent, disons dès maintenant et pour les sept ans qui s’en viennent, qui
serait une augmentation comme on l’a fait pour MuchMusic et en fait d’une
certaine façon pour le Country Network, qui serait une augmentation de presque
40 pour-cent, mais qui quand même vous permettrait d’avoir une marge BAI qui
ne serait pas inférieure à 11 pour-cent. Est-ce qu’à votre avis c’est un
calcul qui est correct?
- M. M. ARPIN: Mais à 11 pour-cent qui sera une des plus basses sinon
des entreprises de radiodiffusion commerciale.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et ce calcul qui ne serait pas inférieur à 11.6
pour-cent même quand c’est calculé sur toutes les recettes brutes, pas
seulement sur le 2.4 pour-cent. Alors, ce serait moins si c’était calculé
selon les ajustements que le Conseil trouve appropriés. Alors, le calcul que
nous avons fait et qui donne pas moins de 11.6 pour-cent si on augmentait de 1
pour-cent, c’est-à-dire de 2.4 pour-cent à 3.4 pour-cent la contribution. J’ai
fait le calcul moi sur les recettes brutes totales, sans ajustements. Et la
marge de BAI ne descend jamais en bas de 11.6 pour-cent.
- M. M. ARPIN: Mais, encore une autre fois, je me répète. Mais je
vais pour prendre le risque de me répéter pour dire que ça fait un BAI à la
marge pour un service qui a quand même une fonction importante dans la société
québécoise. Et qui si je regarde -- parce que je n’ai pas fait le même calcul
que vous, mais si je regarde la demande de l’ADISQ et l’ADISQ elle demande
qu’on double la contribution, alors que ce que nous avions projeté nous comme
augmentation de BAI (inaudible) cumulée sur la période de sept ans
représentait une augmentation de 42 pour-cent. Donc, qui est moindre que la
moitié de ce que voudrait avoir l’ADISQ.
- Et puis si on prend la proposition de l’ADISQ, ça fait une augmentation de
19 pour-cent de la marge bénéficiaire aussi cumulée sur sept ans, ce qui
représente une augmentation de la marge bénéficiaire de 3 pour-cent par année.
On ne couvre pas l’inflation du dernier mois.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Même, vous avez fait le calcul de la proposition
de l’ADISQ et il n’y a qu’une année où c’est 10.9 pour-cent. Évidemment, tout
dépend si les projections au niveau des recettes se réalisent aussi. Alors,
vous trouvez qu’une marge BAI de 11 pour-cent n’est pas acceptable. Donc, avec
2.4 pour-cent, la marge est tout au près de 13 ou plus.
- M. M. ARPIN: Dans la vie, tout est relatif. Tout ce compare à
d’autres choses. Et les services musicaux de langue anglaise ont quand même
des BAI nettement supérieurs à celui de MusiquePlus. Les autres service
spécialisés bien établis de longue date, la même chose. MusiquePlus aussi,
c’est une donnée qu’on a pas considéré ici parce que -- mais on a fait le
calcul. On a aussi une des masses salariales les plus importantes des canaux
spécialisés de langue française et puis des canaux musicaux. C’est notre
contribution. C’est notre façon de faire, mais ça nous donne aussi notoriété.
On ne demande pas de changer ça. Mais c’est aussi notre contribution à la
société. On fait travailler plus de monde que bien d’autres entreprises.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais, j’ai d’autres -- j’ai quelques questions
sur le service aux malentendants, la vidéo description, la diversité
culturelle et le reflet hors Québec que je vais garder pour après la pause. Et
nous allons prendre une pause. Je laisse à la Présidente d’établir le temps
qui vous donnera peut-être le temps de vous pencher un peu plus sur la nature
du service et comparer à MuchMusic comment on peut cerner mieux la description
de votre service. Merci. Madame la Présidente.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Monsieur Arpin, how long do you think you’ll need
to come up with the answers to the questions that the Vice-Chair has been
asking you?
- M. M. ARPIN: Ten minutes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: You’re fast.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: Oh, you’re agreeing to everything.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So, you’re ready to break now. You want to
continue with some questions.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: Yes, yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So, we’ll take a short break, 15 minutes
then, until 11:05. That’s right. An extra five minutes, we’ll throw that in.
Thank you. Merci.
--- Upon recessing at 10:50 a.m. / L’audience est suspendue à 10h50.
--- Upon resuming at 11:10 a.m. / L’audience est reprise à 11h10.
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour Monsieur Arpin et Monsieur Marchand. Vous
êtes prêts?
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui. Merci, Madame la Présidente. Madame la
Vice-présidente, si vous me permettez en premier lieu de répondre aux
questions sur lesquelles vous nous avez demandé de nous pencher. Je voudrais
en premier lieu m’excuser pour la confusion peut-être de certaines de nos
réponses et j’espère que nous pourrons clarifier avec plus de précision ce que
nous voulions vous dire.
- En premier lieu, je vais parler des conditions de licence et de la nature
du service, si vous permettez, pour réitérer que ce que nous demandons c’est
que 90 pour-cent de notre programmation soit reliée à la musique tel que nous
l’avions spécifié. En ce qui regarde la diffusion de vidéoclips, nous serions
prêts à ce que le Conseil indique comme condition de licence que la majorité
de notre programmation doit être dévolue au vidéoclips. En fait, la majorité
signifiant 50 pour-cent et plus.
- En ce qui a trait aux catégories 7(a) et 7(b) -- et 7(e), pardon, nous
sommes prêts à accepter la limitation que vous avez donné à MuchMusic comme
condition de licence. Pour ce qui est des catégories 7(d) -- (a), (b), (c) et
(d), nous sommes prêts à accepter des conditions de licence qui sont stipulées
dans la décision MuchMusic. Et finalement, en ce qui regarde la catégorie 2,
sur la question des analyses interprétation, nous sommes prêts également à
accepter la condition de licence attribuée à MuchMusic.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et en ce qui concerne le reste, par exemple
nouvelle documentaire de longue durée, vous vous fieriez à ce moment-là au 90
pour-cent musique pour garder une limite ou une balise quelconque.
- M. M. ARPIN: Exact.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Merci, Monsieur Arpin. Les conseillères peuvent
aussi porter à confusion. Alors, j’accepte facilement. C’est probablement ma
faute aussi, pas les conseiller, les conseillères seulement. Maintenant,
services pour malentendants ---
- M. M. ARPIN: Madame la Présidente?
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Oui.
- M. M. ARPIN: Également, en ce qui a trait au calcul du 2.4
pour-cent, j’aimerais quand même revenir sur cette question-là et être encore
plus spécifique. Évidemment, ce que nous demandons au Conseil, je voudrais le
réitérer, c’est que dans l’application du calcul du 2.4 pour-cent, le Conseil
exclus les contrats à échange qui sont avec d’autres médias, qu’ils soient de
la même famille ou qu’ils soient avec des tiers, ainsi que les revenus qui
sont pour les ventes d’émissions de production, de produits dérivés, les
revenus d’intérêts, les revenus d’Internet et les commissions que MusiquePlus
obtient pour la vente de publicité au bénéfice de MuchMusic. C’est un service
qui est intégré. Donc, c’est ce que nous demandons de manière spécifique.
- En ce qui regarde la confusion qui puisse exister entre l’Annexe 20 et
l’Annexe 2 de notre réponse aux lacunes, je réitère que les données de
l’Annexe 2 sont des données exactes. Alors que celles de l’Annexe 20 sont des
données nettes de certaines dépenses. Ceci étant dit, si -- et l’Annexe 20
aurait dû plutôt, et pour les années subséquentes également, montré que les
autres revenus pourraient être de l’ordre de 1 million et plus plutôt que de
$300,000. Ceci étant dit, si je mettais les revenus de contrats à échange, il
faudrait aussi que je mettre des dépenses de contrats échange parce qu’elles
ne sont pas dans le modèle financier.
- Donc, ce qui viendrait affecter le BAIA et pas la différence entre 1.2
millions et $300,000, donc 900,000 qui irait enrichir le BAIA. Il faudrait
aussi y inclure un certain nombre de dépenses qui sont associées et qui
n’apparaissent pas dans les données financières. On peut prendre l’engagement
de vous déposer des nouvelles -- et ainsi qu’aux intervenants des projections
financières qui vont montrer l’incidence des autres revenus tels qu’on peut
l’anticiper au moment de les présenter et basés sur l’historique de
MusiquePlus au cours des 14 dernières années qui vont faire en sorte que le
Conseil aura un portrait tout à fait exact. Je réitère que nous nous excusons
d’avoir peut-être confondu le Conseil avec des données qui sont nettes plutôt
que des données brutes.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et que cette ventilation-là nous donne une idée,
parce que le Conseil peut ou non accepter tous les ajustements que vous
faites. Et évidemment, il ne s’agit plus à ce moment-là simplement du 2.4
pour-cent. Mais aussi le Conseil se penche et vous aussi sur la marge de BAI
pour dire on ne peut pas faire plus parce que le BAI va être trop bas. Si les
recettes ne sont pas très bien expliquées, le BAI est plus bas évidemment. Et
ce n’est pas une question du 2.4 pour-cent à ce moment-là mais une question de
la rentabilité et donc de la faisabilité d’augmenter sans que votre marge de
BAI soit trop basse. Alors, je pense que maintenant on s’entend bien mieux et
que vous pourrez peut-être nous ventiler la différence de façon raisonnable
pour les années à venir.
- M. M. ARPIN: On en prend l’engagement ferme.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Merci.
- M. P. MARCHAND: J’aimerais peut-être ajouté quelque chose, Madame
la Vice-présidente, parce qu’on vient quand même d’éclaircir un petit peu la
confusion qu’il y avait. Donc, ça donne une lecture d’environ $500,000 de BAI
parce qu’on exclue des revenus et dépenses de contrats échanges qui
s’annulent. J’aimerais juste vous faire prendre en considération tout de même
que donc ça nous laisse quand même dans une marge bénéficiaire plus basse que
la moyenne. Ce qui faut prendre en considération c’est l’argent également
qu’on investit dans la production, donc à travers le personnel, la production
pour donner une vitrine aux artistes autres que le vidéoclip.
- Je pense que c’est important qu’on prenne ça en ligne de compte parce que
je vois des dépenses qui varient de 6.7 millions à près de 9 millions à la fin
de l’année de la licence, des sept ans. Donc, c’est un montant considérable
qui est mis finalement à la disposition de notre industrie puisque l’on met
toujours en vitrine des gens de chez nous et on l'a démontré à travers les
différents exemples qu’on vous a donné depuis ce matin.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Maintenant, passons au service aux
malentendants. Vous vous êtes engagés si je comprends bien à ce que toute la
programmation soit sous-titrée avant la fin du terme de la licence -- 90
pour-cent de la programmation sauf les vidéoclips. Je comprends bien?
- M. M. ARPIN: Exact.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et aussi que vous allez continuer à exiger de
VidéoFACT et aussi des vidéoclips qui sont produits avec l’aide du Fond Astral
Média qu’il y ait sous-titrage de ces vidéoclips-là.
- M. M. ARPIN: Et nous savons aussi que les vidéoclips qui sont
produits avec le soutien financier de Musique Action comporte également cette
exigence.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Maintenant, à la réplique au paragraphe 7, vous
nous dites aussi qu’au moins 90 pour-cent des vidéoclips canadiens postérieurs
ou produits après l’année ’95 seront sous-titrés codés.
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, il s’agirait -- le 10 pour-cent qui reste
s’agirait de très vieux vidéoclips?
- M. M. ARPIN: Premièrement, et ça vous pouvez le demander au
spécialiste qui nous accompagne ici ce matin, les vidéoclips ne sont pas tous
produits avec du financement de VidéoFACT ou de Musique Action ou du Fond
Rodrinburg (phonétique).
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Quelle est la proportion?
- M. R. BONCY: Madame la Vice-présidente, les vidéoclips
subventionnés par VidéoFACT représentents grosso modo la moitié de notre ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Oh, seulement la moitié.
- M. R. BONCY: Donc, il y a beaucoup de vidéoclips indépendants par
des artistes qui ne sont pas encore signés sur des étiquettes de disques mais
qui veulent quand même pénétrer le marché et on pas effectivement le contrôle
au moment de la livraison sur le sous-titrage et le codage.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et vous vous engagez à ce qu’ils soient
sous-titrés codés à 90 pour-cent avant le terme de la licence. Donc, ce 50
pour-cent là ce serait fait à vos frais à vous.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Si je peux me permettre, Madame la Vice-présidente,
y’a donc trois sources importantes de financement au Canada pour le vidéoclip.
On parle de vidéos canadiens pour l’instant parce que le vidéo étranger, c’est
une autre discussion qu’on peut avoir avec vous. Pour le vidéo canadien, Ralph
Boncy nous confirmait que c’est environ la moitié des vidéoclips qui sont
subventionnés par l’organisme VidéoFACT au Canada.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et eux, ils sont sous-titrés.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Ils sont sous-titrés. C’est une obligation dans la
livraison du vidéoclip pour avoir donc le paiement, donc la subvention. La
même chose existe au niveau du Fond Rodrinburg (phonétique) et au niveau de
Musique Action. C’est donc un nombre encore plus grand de vidéoclips parce que
ce n’est pas tous les vidéoclips qui profitent des subventions de VidéoFACT et
de Musique Action simultanément.
- Donc, il y a un nombre plus grand que 50 pour-cent des vidéoclips
canadiens qui sont déjà sous-titrés pour malentendants. En fait, c’est déjà un
grand pourcentage. Nous demandons aux producteurs de sous-titrés leurs oeuvres
dans la mesure du possible, de toujours nous le livrer sous-titré. Dans le cas
des vidéos étrangers, nous n’avons pas ce contrôle de relation avec les
producteurs, avec les distributeurs.
- Nous travaillons avec des multinationales du disque qui nous fournissent
les vidéos, en fait qui nous sont prêtés pour des montants annuels de licence.
Et ces vidéoclips-là, on n’a pas le droit évidemment dans aucun cas de les
toucher ou de les retravailler et la majorité d’entre eux malheureusement ne
sont pas sous-titrés pour malentendants.
- Nous avons même fait démarches chez nous auprès des américains, auprès de
MTV par exemple pour voir le sous-titrage et ce n’est pas quelque chose qui
est très mis de l’avant. On pousse de ce côté-là chez nous, mais on a aucun
contrôle sur ce produit-là. Il nous est tout simplement livré et on le diffuse
ou on ne le diffuse pas. C’est en fait la seule flexibilité qu’on a avec les
vidéos étrangers.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: À la réplique au paragraphe 7, vous disiez qu’au
terme de la licence, il y aura 90 pour-cent des vidéoclips canadiens qui
seront sous-titrés et monsieur me dit que seulement que 50 pour-cent viennent
des vidéoclips subventionnés. Comment allez-vous vous organiser pour vous
assurer que le reste de ceux qui ne sont post ’95 ---
- M. P. MARCHAND: C’est-à-dire que ce que Monsieur Boncy vous a dit
ce sont les vidéoclips qui sont subventionnés par VidéoFACT. Il y a deux
autres source de financement au Canada.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Ah, bon.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Donc, il y a plus. Ce que je vous disais tantôt, je
n’ai peut-être pas été clair, il y a donc un pourcentage déjà à l’heure
actuelle plus élevé que 50 pour-cent des vidéoclips canadiens qui sont
sous-titrés pour malentendants.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Sous-titrés parce qu’ils sont subventionnés.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Parce qu’ils sont subventionnés.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et qu’on exige le sous-titrage.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Parce qu’ils sont subventionnés parce que la
politique est la même partout. Ils sont tous dans la même direction pour que
les vidéoclips canadiens soient sous-titrés.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Donc, on accroît d’année en année le pourcentage
sous-titré qui vous permet de vous engager à ce qu’il y en est 90 pour-cent de
ceux qui sont post ’95 à la fin du terme de la licence qui soient sous-titrés.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Précisément.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Maintenant, au niveau du sous-titrage, le RQST
n’est pas d’accord avec vous sur le fait que c’est traduit plutôt que
sous-titré dans la langue du vidéoclip. Je veux bien comprendre. Il y a des
vidéoclips que vous recevez qui est dans une langue autre que le français.
Disons que c’est en anglais. Et ce que vous montrez à l’écran c’est une
traduction en français des paroles anglaises.
- M. M. ARPIN: On ne parle pas ici de vidéoclips. On parle ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: On parle de programmation, d’accord.
- M. M. ARPIN: On parle dans la programmation d’entrevues avec des
artistes où on laisse à l’antenne la personne s’exprimer dans la langue de son
choix et nous traduisons à l’écran en français pour le bénéfice de l’ensemble
des téléspectateurs.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: De l’auditoire.
- M. M. ARPIN: Le RQST n’est pas d’accord. Évidemment pas dans le
mémoire qu’il a déposé ici parce qu’il n’a pas soulevé cette question-là dans
sa lettre. Mais dans d’autres circonstances, il a déjà indiqué qu’il ne
considérait pas que la traduction à l’écran était du sous-titrage pour
malentendants. C’est du sous-titrage mais pas pour malentendants.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Pourquoi ne pouvez -- alors, si je comprends
bien, cette programmation disons qu’elle est en anglais, elle est sous-titrée
en français pour votre auditoire.
- M. M. ARPIN: Pour l’ensemble de notre auditoire.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et elle n’est pas sous-titrée pour les
malentendants en anglais. Donc, ils n’entendent pas la programmation je crois
---
- M. M. ARPIN: Non. Je ne pense pas que ce soit ce que le RQST est
demandé. C’est que le RQST nous dit les malentendants utilisent la trame de la
ligne 21 et quand leurs appareils est ouvert sur cette trame et lorsque vous
présentez en surimposition à l’écran, bien la trame laisse la petite boîte
noire en vide ou le récepteur (inaudible) ne se télécharge pas aussi
rapidement. Donc, nous considérons que oui, c’est du sous-titrage, mais ce
n’est pas du sous-titrage pour malentendants.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et qu’est-ce qui vous empêcherait de faire les
deux pour atteindre votre 90 pour-cent? Est-ce que vous pouvez avoir et la
traduction et le sous-titrage dans la langue originale?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Mais c’est un peu, Madame la Vice-présidente, ce
qu’on confirme dans notre renouvellement, le 90 pour-cent de nos émissions
préenregistrées.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Incluant ceux-là.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Exactement. Il n’y a aucun problème à le faire dans
les sept prochaines années de la licence et arriver à un pourcentage de 90
pour-cent des émissions qui sont préenregistrées. En fait, le problème que
l’on rencontre chez nous, MusiquePlus c’est une télévision certainement
différente des autres télévisions que l’on retrouve spécialisées au Québec de
langue française et le fait que nous sommes en direct chaque jour.
- Donc, la traduction est simultanée et véritablement pour le sous-titrage.
C’est-à-dire malentendant simultané est un problème réel. Nous n’avons pas
trouvé de solution à ce jour pour le contourner. Il n’existe pas d’appareil
technologique adapté pour la langue française qui nous permet donc de
sous-titré malentendant en temps réel. Ça c’est véritablement un problème.
Donc, c’est pour ça qu’on vous dit pour les vidéoclips, 90 pour-cent des
vidéoclips canadiens. Donc, nous controlons -- ils seront sous-titrés
malentendant et 90 pour-cent de notre programmation préenregistrée sera
sous-titré pour malentendant à la fin de la licence de sept ans.
- M. M. ARPIN: Les coûts associés au sous-titrage en direct sont
extrêmement élevés et comportent -- parce que je cotoie le RQST régulièrement
-- comportent un nombre d’erreurs assez importants pour ceux qui les
utilisent. Les deux principales têtes de réseau française au Québec font du
sous-titrage en direct et le RQST fréquemment porte à leur attention la
qualité du sous-titrage. MusiquePlus s’est engagé avec l’ensemble des
télédiffuseurs francophones dans une démarche avec le RQST pour trouver des
solutions au sous-titrage en direct par le processus de la reconnaissance de
la voie et par le langage machine.
- Notre engagement d’atteindre 90 pour-cent est lié à notre confiance que
des solutions soient mise en place au cours de la prochaine période de
licence. Les experts consultés par le RQST -- et j’ai assisté à des rencontres
d’experts consultés par le RQST -- nous laissent entendre que l’avancement
technologique est sur le point de nous donner la possibilité d’arriver à ce
genre de solution. Alors, notre engagement, notre espoir est mis dans la
réalisation de ce projet-là.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Monsieur Arpin, expliquez-moi d’avantage ce
problème des vidéoclips qui vous arrivent avec une trame de sous-titrage.
- M. M. ARPIN: Bien, si ils nous arrivent avec un ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et que vous avez des problèmes de droit d’auteur
à substituer une autre version.
- M. M. ARPIN: Enfin, si le vidéoclip est en langue anglaise, par
exemple qui est financé par VidéoFACT, mais c’est un vidéoclip de langue
anglaise, la question -- évidemment, nous passons le vidéoclip tel quel parce
que c’est une oeuvre audiovisuelle protégée par le droit d’auteur et nous la
diffusons tel que nous la recevons. D’aucun pourrait nous poser la question
oui, mais vous êtes un diffuseur de langue française. Est-ce que la trame ne
devrait-elle pas être en français? Nous croyons que un, nous ne pouvons la
modifier. L’oeuvre ne nous appartient pas d’une part et puis on est certe pas
équipé non plus pour faire ce genre de travail-là.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: La modifier, vous voulez dire ---
- M. M. ARPIN: Bien, y substituer une trame en français, même si
l’interprète chante en anglais.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais, il pourrait y avoir une traduction en
français. Je croyais qu’une des revendications du RQST était que dans certains
cas, la programmation est traduite de l’anglais au français, plutôt que
sous-titré pour que le malentendant entendre ce que le francophone entend,
c’est-à-dire l’anglais. Et s’il le veut, il peut utiliser aussi le français en
le lisant si c’est ça qu’il veut faire. Est-ce que ce n’est pas une des
revendications?
- M. P. MARCHAND: C’est-à-dire qu’à ce jour MusiquePlus fait beaucoup
de traduction. Moi j’appelle ça de la traduction. Ça va être un autre mot
différent. Ça va être plus clair un petit peut. Donc, nous traduisons les
entrevues qui sont présentées en langue anglophone sur les ondes de
MusiquePlus avec du sous-titre, donc du titrage francophone qui n’est pas
encodé pour malentendants en date où on se parle aujourd’hui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Est-ce que les malentendants s’attendraient à
voir l’anglais?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Pas nécessairement. Moi j’ai compris que les
malentendants s’attendre à le voir encodé dans le système d’encodage pour
malentendants. Nous ne le faisons pas dans le système. C’est simplement
incrustré dans l’image.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais pourquoi est-ce que ce n’est pas possible
de faire les deux?
- M. P. MARCHAND: C’est tout à fait possible. C’est l’engagement
qu’on prend pour les prochaines années.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et vous allez le faire dans le futur à 90
pour-cent.
- M. P. MARCHAND: C’est l’engagement qu’on prend, voilà.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Avant la fin de la période de licence.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Précisément.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, c’est vraiment leur revendication, c’est
qu’ils veulent avoir sur leur système à eux la langue originale.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Dans leur système de sous-titrage pour
malentendants plutôt que juste sur l’écran.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Oui. Et donc ils sont dans la même position que
les francophones. Ils entendront en anglais et ils pourront lire en français
s’ils veulent.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Exactement.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Maintenant, au niveau de la vidéo description,
vous dites dans votre demande que vous n’avez pas les infrastructures
nécessaires et que vous préférez attendre que l’industrie soit en mesure de
mettre au point une solution collective plus efficace et apte à répondre aux
nécessités du procédé de la vidéo description avant d’accepter aucun
engagement à ce niveau-là. Est-ce que vous avez quelque chose à ajouter? Vous
savez que dernièrement, pendant les renouvellements des groupes de télévision
conventionnel, nous avons établi des attentes. Est-ce que c’est simplement
pour MusiquePlus ou si vous pensez que, au niveau des services spécialisés, il
est trop tôt pour exiger ce genre d’attente?
- M. M. ARPIN: Je dirais deux choses. Évidemment, un service dédié à
la musique pour les malvoyants en fait c’est un peu -- pour un malvoyant un
peu comme écouter une station de radio. Et puis je pense qu’ils en tirent un
bénéfice même s’il n’y a pas de description vidéo. La description vidéo
s’applique beaucoup plus dans le dramatique que dans l’opération studio et
présentation de vidéoclips comme le fait MusiquePlus. Ce que nous disons c’est
qu’au moment des présentes, on a une partie des équipements parce que certains
équipements ont déjà les bases pour faire de la transmission de vidéos
descriptifs parce que ça prend quatre canaux audios. On a une partie de nos
équipements.
- Au fur et à mesure que nous remplaçons de l’équipement, évidemment nous
faisons les investissements avec les technologies les plus de pointe. Donc,
nous prenons tous les moyens pour arriver un jour à être aussi au diapason
avec les autres télédiffuseurs et on y arrivera probablement sensiblement au
même moment.
- Ceci étant dit, nous croyons que la solution pour les exploitants de
canaux spécialisés qui sont de petites opérations, c’est de travailler comme
on le fait actuellement avec le RQST, collectivement à la recherche de
solutions semblables pour tout le monde. Et on prend l’engagement d’être actif
dans ce développement-là, au fur et à mesure que les équipements deviendront
de plus en plus facile d’accès.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Au niveau de la diversité culturelle, vous nous
expliqué longuement la participation de MusiquePlus dans le reflet de la
communauté dans tous ces aspects. Mais le Conseil s’intéressait à savoir quels
sont vos commentaires vis-à-vis une participation éventuelle d’apport et
d’appui et problablement de contribution financière si nécessaire au groupe de
travail dont on a discuté pendant les renouvellements de Global et CTV pour
avancer ce dossier-là davantage et qui est un dossier assez courant? Je
remarquais par exemple dans les coupures de journaux sur la conférence à Banff
que ça avait un aspect assez important. Alors, on voudrait savoir qu’est-ce
que vous pensez de cette idée de groupe de travail et quelle participation
vous pourriez voir MusiquePlus apporter?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Avant de parler de groupe de travail, j’aimerais
peut-être moi vous -- peut-être soit sensibiliser les membres du Conseil, vous
raconter un peu là-dessus notre philosophie, notre histoire, parce que
MusiquePlus qui en fait est né en ’86 avec l’extension de MuchMusic a une
philosophie de base d’être dans un milieu très urbain et de refléter un Québec
dans lequel nous vivons moderne et contemporain, et ça c’est depuis la
première journée. C’est pas des quotas qu’on s’est imposé. C’est pas une
façon. C’est une philosophie de boîte.
- Donc, dès le début, on a mis à l’antenne chez nous des gens de minorité
culturelle. On a été les premiers à le faire au Québec. Et ce courant-là
continue à se développer au fil des années, si bien qu’aujourd’hui on retrouve
à l’intérieur de la télévision québécoise différente je veux dire culture en
onde, en vitrine sur les écrans. Cette philosophie-là a également exploser à
l’intérieur de la boîte, parce qu’en fait elle reflète tout simplement la
réalité urbaine dans laquelle nous travaillons.
- Nous sommes basés à Montréal sur la rue Sainte-Catherine et la rue
Sainte-Catherine à Montréal où Montréal n’est pas un centre uniquement
francophone, 37, 38 pour-cent je pense de la population maintenant à Montréal
est allophone. On a toujours eu cette volonté de refléter un Québec moderne et
contemporain. Donc, à cet égard-là, beaucoup de gens qui travaille derrière
les caméras viennent de milieux divers. Je regardais une statistique récemment
à l’intérieur de la boîte, 14 pour-cent des employés de MusiquePlus sont des
employés de racine culturelle autre que francophone québécois. Vous avez ici
Ralph Boncy qui est notre directeur musical, qui est un des représentants
certainement de ces cultures autres que l’on met dans la vitrine à
MusiquePlus.
- Deuxièmement, à travers la grille de programmation, on a toujours reflété
des genres musicaux par le biais d’émissions, les goûts et les aspects de
cette culture-là. Je pense récemment à tout le mouvement Rap ou Hip-Hop qu’on
appelle récemment qui est vraiment une culture noire fondamentale, une culture
certainement pas francophone québécoise blanche. On a été les premiers à le
mettre de l’avant et on reflète cette culture-là quotidiennement et de façon
hebdomadaire à travers des émissions sur MusiquePlus. Et même l’animateur qui
est chez nous s’appelle Chahid (phonétique), donc qui est même présent dans le
monde culturelle.
- On a participé récemment avec lui comme porte-parole un mouvement pour la
discrimination jeunesse-là au niveau raciale. Donc, on est très, très actif
chez MusiquePlus et ça fait partie de notre philosophie. Je pense simplement
que je trouve ça bien quand j’entends parler de groupe de travail et tout ça.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et voilà, si vous le faites si bien, votre appui
serait important pour enseigner aux autres comment faire.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Bien, ça fera plaisir de pouvoir y participer.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Bonne réponse.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Absolument, mais je pense que quand vous parliez de
-- vous parliez tantôt est-ce que vous seriez prêt à mettre de l’argent, on le
fait déjà depuis des années finalement en embauchant des gens, en faisant
travailler les gens de ces cultures-là.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: On vous a parlé plutôt de la structure d’un
groupe de travail qui évidemment va, je suppose, générer des dépenses et où
l’appui de tous les radiodiffuseurs va être important.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Oui. Et il ne fera très plaisir ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Alors, nous comptons sur vous.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Il nous fera très plaisir même de les inviter chez
nous et qu’ils puissent constater la façon comment ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Comment on fait ça.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Oui. Et puis c’est un avantage certainement qui a
profité à MusiquePlus au fil des ans d’avoir des points de vue de différentes
cultures à l’intérieur d’une même boîte, donc pour dicter une façon de voir et
de penser.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Parce que c’est évident que c’est devenu un
sujet beaucoup plus -- les gens sont davantage conscients et mon collègue
Monsieur Cardozo s’assure que tous les gens y pensent. Et c’est évidemment une
question au Canada de grande importance que les médias s’y penchent et que
vous participiez. Alors, vous êtes d’accord que c’est une idée qui devrait ---
- M. P. MARCHAND: En fait, je vous dirais même qu’on y participe déjà
à notre façon depuis longtemps.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: D’accord.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Et qu’on va continuer à y participer.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: D’accord. Maintenant, le reflet hors Québec,
nous avons parlé un peu au niveau de la clarification de votre stratégie de
mise en marché dans les marchés hors Québec. Et vous nous avez parlé aussi
assez longuement de vos efforts pour sortir de Montréal et aller participer --
donner une certaine participation aux régions dans la programmation. Est-ce
que vous pouvez nous parler de ce à quoi vous avez pensé au niveau du reflet
des francophones hors Québec? N’oubliez pas que ça m’inclut.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Donc, je serai doublement prudent dans mes
réponses. D’une part peut-être juste faire un aparté sur la présence de
MusiquePlus en terme de chaîne de télévision, une époque où on était beaucoup
plus présent dans le Canada anglais en terme de chaîne de télévision. On avait
même à une époque près d’un million de foyers qui étaient abonnés à
MusiquePlus hors Québec. Aujourd’hui, ce nombre-là est malheureusement un peu
plus limité. C’est dommage. Je pense qu’on est environ -- je pense que Michel
peut me corriger -- 400,000 foyers qui sont abonnés à MusiquePlus hors Québec
dans le moment. Donc, j’espère que tout le mouvement du numérique qu’on vit
dans le moment nous permettra d’offrir, même sur un étage de façon
facultative, MusiquePlus pour permettre aux gens qui vivent donc hors Québec
et qui sont francophones ou qui ont des intérêts pour la francophonie de
pouvoir avoir accès à un véhicule et à une vitrine 24 heures par jour qui fait
la promotion de cette culture-là, parce que la culture francophone n’est pas
uniquement québécoise. Elle est canadienne.
- Au niveau de la visibilité, par exemple ce que l’on fait depuis plusieurs
années avec nos collègues de MuchMusic, parce que je pense qu’ils ont un rôle
là-dedans, je pense que c’est important, les gens de MuchMusic nous ont permis
depuis plusieurs années de les approvisionner pas seulement en vidéoclips,
mais en terme de contenu pour une émission qui s’appelle "French Kiss".
- Je dirais presque que nous sommes les producteurs délégués pour eux de
cette émission-là parce qu’on leur envoie des reportages qu’on fait au Québec
ou avec des francophones. Et on leur envoie donc les nouveautés. On les tient
en fait au courant de ce qui se passe et grâce à ce contenu-là, ils font une
émission d’une demi-heure par jour, cinq jours semaine. Donc, déjà c’est une
belle visibilité pour la francophonie à travers le pays parce qu’eux, leur
pénétration à travers le pays est indiscutable.
- Également par le biais de MuchMusic, il y a certainement un réseau de
collaborateurs. On a pas une compagnie chez nous MusiquePlus assez grande,
assez forte. On vous le montrait tantôt. C’est la profitabilité qui est la
plus faible à peu près dans le milieu francophone pour installer à travers le
pays des unités de reportages. C’est là qu’on travaille en synergie avec un
groupe comme MuchMusic pour avoir accès à du personnel de chez eux et pouvoir
avoir donc des reportages sur ce qui se passe au Canada anglais.
- Donc évidemment, le moindre mouvement francophone hors Québec nous
intéresse, c’est certain, que ce soit le festival de Vancouver qui a lieu
l’été, francophone de Vancouver, ou à Sudbury, ça nous intéresse. Donc, le
maximum de reportages qu’on peut obtenir des gens de MuchMusic, on le prend et
on le met en ondes et on travaille en synergie avec eux.
- Je pense que la véritable façon dont on peut aider les francophones hors
Québec c’est véritablement par VidéoFACT. On met cette année donc un bon
montant. On parle de $325,000, $350,000 cette année pour la musique
francophone, parce que MuchMusic est présent avec nous et couvre très bien
l’anglophone. Nous on couvre le francophone et on est plus -- c’est-à-dire que
les gens hors Québec sont plus que bienvenue à appliquer.
- Par exemple, Brasse Camarade qui vient hors du Québec ont eu une
subvention pour un vidéoclip par VidéoFACT. Et c’est probablement le moyen le
plus efficace pour nous parce que ça leur donne des moyens et ça leur donne
ensuite une visibilité sur les ondes chez nous parce que c’est certain qu’un
vidéoclip qu’on subventionne, on a un double intérêt de le jouer. C’est-à-dire
un intérêt de le jouer, de le faire voir en tout cas, et donc c’est une façon,
une action concrète qu’on fait et qu’on stimule le marché francophone hors
Québec.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: En région au Québec, si je me souviens bien,
vous avez parlé de possibilité quelquefois de concerts qui sont radiodiffusés
et qui proviennent des régions.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Mais c’est-à-dire on fait différentes choses hors
Montréal. On collabore -- je parlais un peu plus tôt aujourd’hui dans mon
introduction de différents festivals, en autre le Festival d’été de Québec. On
fait des choses avec eux. On a fait des captations, un nombre de captations au
Festival d’été de Québec. Et lorsqu’on en a pas fait, on a travaillé avec des
producteurs indépendants pour obtenir du matériel qui venait justement des
concerts tournées hors Montréal pour donner une visibilité également à la
région. Je sais que les gens n’aiment pas ça entendre le mot régions mais je
vais appeler ça les territoires hors Montréal. Donc, c’est une action qu’on
fait concrètement.
- On a des animateurs qui font le tour du Québec régulièrement. Par exemple
cet été, le décompte de MusiquePlus se fait en province partout à travers le
Québec et ça nous permet d’entrer en contact avec ces gens-là et de leur
donner une visibilité sur nos ondes chaque semaine à raison d’une heure, deux
heures par semaine. Et c’est une chose qu’on fait de plus en plus et qu’on
essaie de faire grandir à l’intérieur de la boîte.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et qui pourrait s’adapter si vous réussissez à
percer hors Québec. La même méthode pourrait être utilisée hors Québec aussi.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Ce serait très intéressant, Madame la
Vice-présidente, si MusiquePlus était diffusé à travers le Canada de penser à
avoir des reportages de façon régulière de ces régions-là, mais il faudrait
vraiment être diffusé là-bas. Dans le moment, notre diffusion comme je vous
l’ai dit est malheureusement très limitée pour des raisons X, Y, Z qu’on
pourrait discuter. Mais c’est certain que nous ne sommes pas simplement
ouvert. Notre raison d’exister à MusiquePlus c’est de refléter la
francophonie. Et je pense que la raison d’exister de MuchMusic est de refléter
le Canada, sinon il s’appelerait MTV tout simplement et ce n’est pas la
volonté certainement des gens qui sont qui sont là aujourd’hui.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Je vous remercie messieurs. Merci Madame la
Présidente. Voilà mes questions.
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci Madame. Peut-être les autres Conseillers ont
des questions? Mr. Cardozo?
- CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Merci Madame la Présidente. J’ai une question
sur le sujet de la coopération ou des synergies entre MuchMusic et
MusiquePlus. Trouvez-vous qu’il y a beaucoup de duplication de musique entre
votre service et MuchMusic?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Vous parlez en terme francophone ou en terme
générale?
- CONSEILLER CARDOZO: En général.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Parce qu’évidemment du côté de la francophonie, le
pourcentage de MuchMusic est je pense de l’ordre de 5 pour-cent, donc beaucoup
plus minime. Donc, il y a très peu de recoupement à ce niveau-là. Au niveau de
la musique canadienne, il y a énormément de recoupement qui est fait avec
MuchMusic parce que l’on encourage en gros les mêmes artistes canadiens. Il y
a eu des exceptions, des artistes au Canada anglais qui ont très bien
fonctionné et qui n’ont pas fonctionné au Québec. Rankin Family par exemple
est un bon exemple d’un artiste qui n’a pas fonctionné chez nous au Québec
mais qui a eu un succès considérable au Canada anglais.
- Rita McNeil par exemple est un autre exemple d’un artiste qui chez nous
est à peu près inconnu, tout comme chez nous il y a des artistes qui percent
le marché. Je pense à Day Moist (phonétique) par exemple, Our Lady Peace, qui
ont commencé véritablement, pas par MuchMusic, mais par MusiquePlus à se faire
connaître au pays. Le Québec a toujours été une pierre angulaire.
- Donc, à ce niveau-là, il y a un recoupement. Il y a quand même des
spécificités sur des marchés qui sont différents. Il faut le reconnaître. Mais
il y a quand même un recoupement qui existe. Au niveau de la musique
internationale, Madonna c’est Madonna. Madonna, elle fonctionne partout. Je
vous prends des exemples faciles parce que ça illustre bien.
- Il y a quand même des exemples internationaux qui fonctionnent beaucoup
mieux en Canada français qu’au Canada anglais, et vice versa. Donc, je ne sais
pas le pourcentage de recoupement des deux chaînes. J’ai jamais fait de
chiffres, mais je vous dirais que -- je ne sais pas si quelqu’un dans mon
équipe, dans mes experts aurait une idée là-dessus?
- M. R. BONCY: Mais c’est le principe quand même de deux stations
soeurs qui travaillent sur une base d’échange continuel. Donc, déjà on
s’échange le matériel des vidéoclips. Alors que, en ce qui concerne le
francophone, ils sont approvisionnés très régulièrement et de manière en fait
très à jour sur tous ce que nous recevons, ce qui leur permet d’assurer la
programmation de l’émission "French Kiss". Et il y a un autre exemple qu’on
pourrait mentionner, c’est le fait qu’ils est inclus de manière annuelle dans
le MuchMusic Video Awards un prix pour meilleur vidéoclip francophone. Ça
serait une manière de dire le meilleur vidéoclip québécois chaque année qui
est honoré sur une chaîne canadienne.
- CONSEILLER CARDOZO: En général, est-ce qu’il y a beaucoup de
similarités entre les palmarès anglophones et francophones dans les deux
services?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Je vous dirais que le palmarès de MusiquePlus est
composé de matériel francophone et anglophone, presqu’à 50/50 je dirais.
Tandis qu’au Canada anglais, c’est à peu près 100 pour-cent anglophone le
palmarès, les ventes de disques et de vidéoclips (inaudible).
- CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Est-ce qu’il y a des artistes francophones qui
sont populaires dans le monde anglophone?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Vous voulez dire qui chante en français? On ne
parle de Céline Dion évidemment.
- CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Non. Des artistes qui chantent (inaudible).
- M. P. MARCHAND: Des artistes qui chantent en français et qui sont
populaires? Je pense qu’il y a eu Mitsou à une époque qui a connu un certain
brin de popularité hors Québec.
- M. R. BONCY: Je pense qu’on pourrait parler aujourd’hui de Jovan
(phonetic) qui commence à se payer sa place à travers du Canada.
- M. P. MARCHAND: Ce sont des exceptions. Il y en a très, très peu
qui se produisent.
- CONSEILLER CARDOZO: Okay. Merci beaucoup. Merci, Madame la
Présidente.
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci, Monsieur Cardozo. Perhaps before I pass you
over to our legal counsel, I hope you’ll permit me to tell the story to you in
English because it will be a little easier. But I was amused by the comment
that you made about how you think that one of the differences between the
Québec culture and the Anglophone culture in Canada is that you maybe like to
talk a little bit more. About 15 years ago, I was producing videos on
Parliament Hill and I was doing a half-hour show with a Cabinet Minister from
Québec. At the interview, we asked him one question and he spoke for 17
minutes.
(LAUGHTER / RIRE)
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So, maybe that’s what you were talking about.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: Almost as good as Mr. Arpin.
(LAUGHTER / RIRE)
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Conseil juridique s’il vous plaît?
- Me McCALLUM: Deux ou trois questions très rapides. Vous avez dit
que vous déposerez une ventilation des chiffres, notamment des dépenses. Je
voulais just un échéancier pour le dépôt de cette ventilation. Quand est-ce
que vous prévoyez pourvoir déposer cette ventilation?
- M. M. ARPIN: Si vous me le permettez, d’ici vendredi de la semaine
prochaine parce que je dois m’absenter pour les trois prochains jours de toute
façon. Donc, on parle du 28.
- Me McCALLUM: Au 28 juin.
- M. M. ARPIN: Oui.
- Me McCALLUM: Merci. Okay, parfait. Ceci est juste pour clarifier si
nous avons bien entendu ce que vous avez dit. Pour les vidéoclips qui viennent
de l’étranger notamment ou qui sont en anglais, qui contiennent déjà un
sous-titrage en anglais, si je vous ai bien saisi, vous n’enlevez pas le
sous-titrage en anglais mais vous le passez tel qu’il est.
- M. M. ARPIN: Exact. Exact.
- Me McCALLUM: Venant de l’étranger et chaque fois que ça contient un
sous-titrage en anglais, vous passez tel qu’il est.
- M. M. ARPIN: Absolument parce que MusiquePlus également présente
des vidéoclips en d’autres langues que le français et l’anglais. Et si le
vidéoclip nous ai fourni avec trame de sous-titrage dans une autre langue que
le français et l’anglais, la trame de sous-titrage sera représentée telle
quel.
- Me McCALLUM: Merci. Et finalement, just pour finir avec une
discussion des conditions de licence 3 et 4 de la licence de MusiquePlus, 3
dit au moins 30 pour-cent du nombre total de vidéoclips doivent être des
vidéoclips canadiens. Si je vous ai bien entendu, vous auriez une difficulté
si le Conseil voulait monter ce pourcentage à 35 pour-cent. C’est exact ?
- M. M. ARPIN: C’est exactement ce que nous avons dit et nous avons
expliqué au Conseil pourquoi.
- Me McCALLUM: Et si le montant devenait 35 pour-cent à la fin de la
licence, ça vous causerait également un problème?
- M. M. ARPIN: Évidemment, c’est plus difficile à répondre avec la
même clarté puisque dans sept ans, il peut se passer bien des choses au cours
d’une période de sept années. Donc, c’est difficile de dire que la dernière
année, le pourcentage serait de 35 pour-cent. Donc, on demande conséquemment
le statu quo avec la situation actuelle.
- Me McCALLUM: Donc, comment réagiriez-vous si le conseil mettait un
échellonnage disons des pourcentages au cours des années pour devenir 35
pour-cent à la fin, commençant par exemple en l’année disons 4 pour devenir 31
pour-cent ainsi de suite jusqu'à la fin?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Si on regarde l’évolution de la musique canadienne
au fil des dernières années, c’est-à-dire la parution de disques sur le
marché, l’augmentation de vidéoclips disponibles et la réalité au Canada
anglais, entre autre avec MuchMusic, je vois difficilement comment nous
pourrions vivre avec 35 pour-cent de musique canadienne sur nos ondes quand le
pendant anglophone par exemple qui diffuse de la musique anglophone canadienne
a pu le concevoir et vous faire concevoir que le 30 pour-cent est un chiffre
réaliste.
- Me McCALLUM: Mais si le conseil décidait de faire ça, vous vivrez
avec une telle condition?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Nous vivrions avec ces conditions mais ce serait
certainement une contrainte.
- Me McCALLUM: Même chose, même question et même réponse est-ce que
je présume pour la condition de licence 4 qui dit que pour chaque semaine de
diffusion, 35 pour-cent ou plus du nombre total de vidéoclips distribués
doivent être en langue française. Si la condition devenait 40 pour-cent vers
la fin de la licence et aussi échelonné à 40 pour-cent au cours de la licence,
est-ce que c’est la même série de réponse que vous donneriez?
- M. P. MARCHAND: Tout à fait.
- Me McCALLUM: Merci. Merci, Madame la Présidente.
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci, Monsieur McCallum et merci mesdames et
messieurs pour votre collaboration ce matin. Madame la Secrétaire?
- MME L. POIRIER: Merci, Madame la Présidente. Nous allons maintenant
passer à la phase 2 qui est l’intervention présentée par l’Association
québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, l’ADISQ,
représentée par Solange Drouin et Annie Provencher.
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour Madame.
INTERVENTION
- MME S. DROUIN: Bonjour. Alors oui, je suis accompagnée d’Annie
Provencher, Analyste aux affaires publiques, mais également de Pierre
Rodrigue, Président sortant de l’ADISQ que vous connaissez déjà. J’aimerais
d’abord vous dire qu’on a pas l’intention de reprendre -- je vais parler
lentement pour vous faire, Madame Wylie et aux traducteurs.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Je ne suis pas très vite, moi.
(RIRE / LAUGHTER)
- MME S. DROUIN: Alors, j’aimerais vous dire qu’on a pas l’intention
évidemment reprendre notre mémoire. Je pense que nos demandes par rapport ou
nos demandes de MusiquePlus sont assez claires. Elles sont appuyées aussi.
Mais on aimerait plutôt prendre le temps qu’on a, les 10 minutes et le temps
que vous jugerez bon pour nous entretenir de ce renouvellement-là, pour plutôt
avoir des commentaires sur la réplique déposée par MusiquePlus et aussi un peu
nos réactions face à la présentation orale.
- Avant moi de passer à des éléments plus particuliers de la réplique,
j’aimerais d’abord tout de suite céder la parole à Pierre Rodrigue qui va vous
présenter un peu de façon générale le sentiment de l’ADISQ face à la réplique
de MusiquePlus.
- M. P. RODRIGUE: Eh bien malheureusement, Madame la Présidente, j’ai
le regret de transmettre au Conseil le sentiment de déception des producteurs
de disques du Québec face à la réponse de MusiquePlus, une réponse équivalente
à une fin de non recevoir alors que nous proposions des avenues intéressantes
pour continuer à progresser ensemble. Que ce soit au niveau des quotas de
contenu canadien ou francophone ou à celui même des contributions, nos
demandes se basent sur des réalités historiques propre à MusiquePlus et des
cadres récemment suggérés par le Conseil.
- MusiquePlus aura beau plaider de la grandeur de son mandat, son amour de
la musique et répéter adnoséame (phonétique) son rôle moteur dans le
développement du star system québécois et canadien, la réalité est brutalement
mercantile. MusiquePlus est un commerce dont l’object fraye et frôle avec la
musique et la culture, mais ils ne sont pas dans le commerce de la musique, ni
dans la culture propre qui s’exprime par la musique.
- Les inquiétudes de MusiquePlus pour la surexposition ou encore pour un
potentiel problème d’alimentation en vidéoclips nous laisse froid. Cousine des
radios, les arguments de MusiquePlus sur les quotas n’ont jamais ébranlé le
Consei. Et évidemment de l’avis de l’ADISQ, le fait de n’avoir jamais été
ébranlé constitue un des plus grands faits d’arme du CRTC.
- MusiquePlus a une responsibilité envers les canadiens et l’ADISQ soutient
qu’après 15 ans, MusiquePlus doit faire mieux que ce qu’elle propose.
- MME S. DROUIN: De façon plus technique, j’aimerais reprendre deux
arguments qui ont été soulevés par MusiquePlus dans leurs répliques qui ont
été déposées devant le Conseil. La première évidemment a rapport à la base de
comparaison que conteste MusiquePlus, base de comparaison que l’ADISQ a
utilisé pour établir le taux de rentabilité de MusiquePlus par rapport -- son
taux de rentabilité relatif par rapport aux autres services. Ce qu’on a fait à
l’ADISQ c’est d’utiliser les chiffres sommaires utilisés par le CRTC qui
amalgament à la fois les services anglophones et les services francophones.
C’est selon nous la façon judicieuse de le faire. On persiste et on signe.
- Et aussi, on pense sincèrement qu’il est nécessaire que le CRTC maintienne
cette comparaison-là parce que ce sont des données objectives de comparaison
qui ne s’adaptent pas justement selon les intérêts de l’un ou l’autre service.
On prend les données de la base de comparaison globale sur les services et en
faisant cette base de comparaison-là, bon -- premièrement MusiquePlus rejette
cette base de comparaison-là et se fait plutôt sa propre base de comparaison
qui le sert bien sûr, qui sert ce service dans le cadre de la présente
audience. Il dit tout simplement bon, c’est pas l’amalgame des services
anglophones/francophones que le CRTC devrait considérer pour établir le taux
de rentabilité de MusiquePlus, mais plutôt la base, le rapport avec les
services francophones seulement et pas tout les services francophones. On va
en retirer quelques uns, donc les quatre qui sont les derniers en liste qui
sont hautement déficitaire.
- Alors, c’est comme si MusiquePlus était, on a l’impression -- c’est
peut-être pas leur intention, mais on a vraiment l’impression que MusiquePlus
a voulu se faire la base de comparaison qu’il souhaite et qui est la plus
avantageuse. C’est-à-dire en démontrant son caractère non rentable par rapport
aux autres services. Donc, ils se sont comme concocté leur propre base de
comparaison qui nous, selon nous n’apparaît pas du tout objective.
- D’ailleurs, on trouve un petit peu bizarre que MusiquePlus même utilise
cette base de comparaison parce qu’à la fois dans le même mémoire, après avoir
fait cette démonstration-là que ce devrait être la base de comparaison des
services francophones seulement, il vous soumet -- il soumet au CRTC que dans
la décision de MusiquePlus où vous avez décidé pour augmenter le service de 5
à 7 pour-cent, vous vous êtes basé sur deux choses: la solide situation
financière de MuchMusic et la rentabilité supérieure à la moyenne de ce
service-là. Et ce que MusiquePlus vous soumet c’est utilisez donc les mêmes
critères de comparaison. À ce que je sache, la solide situation financière de
MuchMusic -- bon évidemment elle est là. Celle de MusiquePlus on peut dire
qu’elle est là aussi.
- Ça fait cinq ans que ce service est rentable et prévoit un taux de
rentabilité important aussi au cours de la période de licence. Et le deuxième
argument qui est rentabilité supérieure à la moyenn, MusiquePlus vous dit vous
devriez regarder ça aussi. À ce que je sache aussi, dans la décision de
MuchMusic, comme vous avez regardé rentabilité supérieure à la moyenne, c’est
pas précisé rentabilité supérieure à la moyenne des services anglophones.
- C’est par rapport à l’industrie en générale que le CRTC a analysé le
service de MuchMusic. Alors, soit que vous prenez l’ensemble des arguments que
vous avez utilisé dans MuchMusic, ou vous en prenez aucun ou vous en prenez
d’autres. Mais à la fois, MusiquePlus ne peut pas utiliser le parlé des deux
côtés de la bouche dans ce sens-là.
- Un dernier point parce que j’aimerais aussi encore retourner la parole à
Pierre Rodrigue, il y a un autre argument qui traite pas nécessairement des
contributions à VidéoFACT, mais plutôt un autre argument qui a été soulevé par
MusiquePlus pour refuser justement l’augmentation des quotas au motif que dans
la discothèque -- je ne sais pas, vidéothèque je devrais dire, pardon, totale
de MusiquePlus, il n’y avait pas 30 ou 35 pour-cent de contenu canadien ou
francophone. On vous a dit ici il y a plutôt de l’ordre de 11 ou 17 pour-cent.
On trouve cet argument-là hautement farfelu dans le sens que c’est comme si
MusiquePlus à chaque semaine devait passer 100 pour-cent de sa discothèque à
chaque semaine. On sait très bien que c’est pas ça.
- C’est sûr et c’est évident que dans sa vidéothèque, MusiquePlus il y aura
toujours un nombre beaucoup plus grand de vidéoclips étrangers et non
francophones. C’est l’entièreté de la production mondiale qui peut être
là-dedans. Alors bien sûr, la proportion de vidéoclips canadiens et
francophones, c’est sûr qu’elle est moins en proportion. Elle sera toujours
moins que 35 pour-cent. Alors, on pense que c’est un argument hautement
farfelu que de vous le soumettre.
- Par exemple aussi, pour aller dans le même sens, c’est comme si vous aviez
attendu le CRTC que les stations de radios commerciales aient vraiment accès à
65 pour-cent de disques francophones et canadiens pour imposer des quotas.
C’est sûrement pas ça que vous avez fait. Vous vous êtes dit écoutez, il y a X
pour-cent de disques francophones disponibles. Il y en a pas 65 pour-cent dans
le marché mondial. Ça c’est bien sûr, mais vous avez jugé la disponibilité
suffisante avec le facteur de répétition pour établir un taux, un quota de 65
pour-cent pour les radios francophones.
- Sans compter aussi que pour les stations de radios francophones, on peut
dire -- puis ça peut-être que MusiquePlus va trouver ça un peu tiré par les
cheveux mais quand même je le dis -- que les stations de radios commerciales
ont accès à peu près au même bassin de disponibilité de disques francophones
que MusiquePlus. Parce que pour un disque, c’est vrai qu’il y a 12 chansons
sur un disque, mais c’est pas vrai que les stations de radio ont accès aux 12
chansons sur un disque. Un producteur va soumettre à une station de radio de
jouer ce premier single-là. Je ne sais pas comment le dire en français, ce
premier -- cette première place-là et peut-être une deuxième et puis peut-être
dans certains cas une troisième sur un même disque. Mais ce n’est pas vrai que
les stations de radios francophones commerciales, à cause que sur un disque il
y a 12 chansons, qu’ils ont 12 fois la disponibilité de MusiquePlus.
- Je retourne la parole à Pierre Rodrigue.
- M. P. RODRIGUE: Un tout petit mot concernant les propriétaires de
la requérante parce que le Conseil a déjà affirmé être intéressé par l’état et
le statue des propriétaires. Astral et CHUM sont toutes deux très actives sur
le marché des acquisitions, deux joueurs majeurs au Canada. Et quand à nous,
deux joueurs qui ont toutes les ressources suffisantes pour attaquer les
prochaines années avec des obligations accrues. Merci.
- MME S. DROUIN: On est maintenant ouvert à vos questions.
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Madame la Vice-présidente, encore une fois?
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Merci. Acceptez-vous, Madame Drouin, la
suggestion faite à la page 7 de la présentation ce matin -- je ne sais pas si
vous étiez déjà là -- que depuis ’93, il y a eu une augmentation des
vidéoclips canadiens et francophones de 15 pour-cent, à passer de 15 à 17 et
de 8 à 11? Acceptez-vous ces chiffres?
- MME S. DROUIN: D’une façon écoutez, on n’a pas fait l’analyse
exhaustive, mais de façon générale, ça nous apparaît conforme.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Juste,
- MME S. DROUIN: Oui, juste.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Et quel est votre commentaire sur les
revendications de MusiquePlus à l’effet que, avec une augmentation qui est
quand même assez basse considérant que c’est depuis ’93 et nous sommes déjà en
-- je pense que leur point de repère était 2000, donc il s’agit de sept ans,
que si on exigeait plus, il y aurait un effet sur la qualité du service à
cause des reprises de vidéoclips canadiens et de langue française?
- M. P. RODRIGUE: Écoutez, c’est pas scientifique comme réponse. Ce
que je peux vous dire c’est que ces arguments-là au moment de fixer ou de
réévaluer les quotas en radio, je répète, n’ont pas affecté le jugement du
Conseil et c’est tant mieux. Ce que ça fait, ça stimuler la création et la
production. Un pour-cent d’augmentation par année ou par cycle de -- je ne
sais pas, 5 pour-cent sur sept ans, ça peut laisser une chance au marché de se
placer et ça ne devrait pas mettre en péril la programmation efficace et
gagnante de MusiquePlus.
- MME S. DROUIN: Écoutez, là-dessus si je peux rajouter, les quotas
nous en tous cas à l’ADISQ on ne les a jamais vu en vase clos. C’est sûr qu’il
faut voir ça avec pas nécessairement -- même on le dit dans notre mémoire
encore une fois -- on persiste à dire que les quotas on un effet générateur.
- Il ne faut pas baser les quotas sur la disponibilité actuelle des
produits. Mais on croit sincèrement qu’avec des niveaux de quotas un peu plus
élevés que la disponibilité, évidemment les sources de financement adéquats
qui le soutiennent et ce qu’on propose aussi nous évidemment d’augmenter, on
pense sincèrement que -- conjuguer ces deux éléments-là, on pense sincèrement
qu’une augmentation de un pour-cent par année, même pas un pour-cent par année
sur une période de sept ans de 5 pour-cent, on pense que MusiquePlus devrait
être capable de s’en tirer.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: (inaudible) s’appelerait le 3.4 pour-cent et
l’oeuf serait 35.
- MME S. DROUIN: Pour nous la poule s’appelle plutôt 5 pour-cent sur
une période graduelle. On a vu que le CRTC avait déjà ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais c’est 3.4 pour-cent la première année.
J’essayais de ne pas trop décourager Monsieur Arpin là.
- MME S. DROUIN: Même nous on est plus -- on est moins dure que vous
parce que nous la première année c’est 2.4, 3.4, 3.4, 4.4, 4.4, 5.5. Alors,
---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Oui, oui, d’accord, 2.4 pour-cent la première
année. Maintenant, au sujet de la façon de terminer la comparaison pertinente
de la marge de BAI, vous dites qu’évidemment MusiquePlus a choisi la façon la
plus avantageuse et vous aussi je suppose, en y mettant les -- pour que la
marge de BAI soit basse, en y mettant même les nouveaux services plutôt que de
faire une comparaison avec les services qui ont déjà atteint une certaine
maturité. Alors, c’est un jeu qui se joue
- à deux, non?
- M. P. RODRIGUE: Mais avec respect, Madame la Vice-présidente, la
méthode de calcul qu’on a pris est celle de votre Conseil. On a pas trouvé une
troisième piste avantageuse. On a pris celle que vous avez utilisé
dernièrement.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Dans le cas de MuchMusic?
- M. P. RODRIGUE: Oui.
- MME S. DROUIN: De façon générale, l’évaluation des services
spécialisés au Canada, on les fait globalement et les chiffres sont publiés.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Mais ça dépend pour quel -- ça dépend dans quel
but évidemment.
- MME S. DROUIN: Et de façon générale, écoutez on peut comprendre
MusiquePlus qui dit bon, avec une marge avant impôt de -- nous la proposition
qu’on fait -- la proposition qu’ils font évidemment vous l’avez vu dans notre
document au tableau 3. On dit évidemment avec 2.4 pour-cent en moyenne, ils
auraient une marge avant impôt de 13 pour-cent. Avec votre proposition à 3.4
pour-cent, mettons si on la gardait stable, c’est 12.1 pour-cent et notre
proposition c’est 11.4 pour-cent. Nous on pense que c’est un taux de
rentabilité hautement correct.
- Ce n’est pas le taux de rentabilité avec lequel nous dans l’industrie du
disque et du spectacle avec lequel on était habitué de travailler. Alors là,
pas du tout. Mais, c’est un taux de 11.4 pour-cent qui est amplement suffisant
pour que MusiquePlus puisse rencontrer des obligations accrues et c’est encore
très correct là évidemment.
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Je vous remercie, madame et monsieur. Merci,
Madame la Présidente.
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci beaucoup, Madame Drouin. We’re going to take a
lunch break now until 1:30 and we’ll reconvene then.
- There has been a change of plans. Befoe we take our lunch, we are going to
have MusiquePlus do their reply. And then, we’ll break for lunch. Monsieur
Marchand?
REPLY / RÉPLIQUE
- M. P. MARCHAND: Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente, Madame la
Vice-Présidente. Vous voyez, je suis seul, donc ce sera pas très, très long et
Monsieur Arpin est resté sur la chaise, donc ça va être un peu moins long.
- En fait, on a pas ---
- CONSEILLÈRE WYLIE: Pas de déjeuner pour monsieur.
(RIRE / LAUGHTER)
- M. P. MARCHAND: Et ce n’était pas méchant pour Michel au contraire.
En fait, on a très peu de commentaires à faire suite à l’intervention de
l’ADISQ. Je pense qu’on a couvert en gros tous les points que l’ADISQ ont bien
voulu mettre devant vous, vous exposer aujourd’hui c’est quoi la base de
comparaison qui n’incluait pas les nouvelles chaînes, que ce soit le
pourcentage de clips dans la banque totale ou l’arrivage annuelle. On a passé
à travers tous ces points-là.
- La seule chose que moi j’aimerais peut-être rajouter c’est simplement une
chose. C’est que on vous a fait mention de la fréquence et de la durée des
vidéoclips francophones et canadiens. On vous a expliqué un peu plus tôt qu’un
vidéoclip canadien ou québécois ou francophone je devrais dire va jouer
facilement jusqu’à deux fois plus longtemps et ça c’est une réalité qu’on vit
chez nous depuis des années.
- Et quand on nous dit que c’est la même de comparaison, le nombre de
disques disponibles à la radio c’est le même nombre de clips disponibles,
c’est la pire insanité que j’ai entendu depuis tellement longtemps. Parce que
quand il se fait un clip par album ou deux clips, je peux vous dire moi que
j’ai pris une note tantôt. Un peu moins de 60 pour-cent des chansons qui sont
dans le palmarès francophone québécois à l’heure actuelle ont des vidéoclips.
Donc, déjà nous sommes pénalisés de 40 pour-cent tout de suite.
- Et en plus, ils sortent trois ou quatre ou cinq singles par album et s’il
font deux clips, c’est déjà beaucoup. C’est tout ce que l’on a à dire comme
commentaire. Je pense que les autres points on les a fait très clairement.
Merci beaucoup.
- LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Marchand. Now, we’ll take
our lunch break. We’ll still come back at 1:30.
--- Upon recessing at 12:18 p.m. / L’audience est suspendue à 12h18.
--- Upon resuming at 1:31 p.m. / L’audience est reprise à
13h31.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. Welcome back
to our hearing.
- Before we start, I’m just going to have our secretary review some
procedure. We went over it this morning in the other official language and now
we will do it in the other official language.
- MR. M. BURNSIDE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
- I would just like to point that for the remaining applications on the
agenda of this hearing, they all unfold in three phases each. In Phase I the
applicant will be provided with a maximum of 20 minutes to do their
presentation.
- In Phase II, intervenors to the particular item will appear; a maximum of
10 minutes each will be granted for the interventions.
- And in Phase III, the applicant will be provided with the opportunity to
rebut the interventions; a maximum of 10 minutes will be allowed for the
rebuttal.
- I would now like to call the representatives of Vision TV, Canada’s Faith
Network, to present their application for the renewal of their licence for a
national English language specialty television service.
- Mr. Roberts.
APPLICATION / DEMANDE
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the
Commission and staff. My name is Bill Roberts. I’m the President and CEO of
Vision TV, Canada’s Faith Network.
- Before starting our presentation in chief, I would like to introduce our
team to you. To my immediate left is Erika Kramer, our Director of Technical
Operations; to Erika’s left is Rita Deverell, one of Vision TV’s founders,
Vice President New Concept Development and the Executive Producer of our
flagship program, "Skylight"; to my immediate right is Susan Bower, our Chief
Operating Officer who has been with Vision TV since 1989.
- In the row behind me, starting on our left, your left, Kaan Yigit of the
Solutions Research Group, who undertook the consumer research filed with our
application. Beside Kaan is the newest member of our team at Vision TV, Joan
Jenkinson, our Director of Programming Operations. Joan came to us in May
after five years as Executive Director of Women in Film and Television,
Toronto. Beside Joan is Grant Buchanan of McCarthy Tetrault, our regulatory
counsel. And beside Grant is Paul de Silva, our Vice President of Programming.
Paul has been with Vision TV since 1996.
- I would also like to point out the presence of some of our board members
in the front row of the audience. On your right in the row is Irving Abella,
historian, professor and author as well as Chair of Vision TV’s Board of
Directors and beside him is Charles Keating, Secretary-Treasurer of our Board.
- And just before beginning I would like to acknowledge our gratitude to the
more than 2,400 individuals and associations who wrote to support our
application. They are certainly here with us today in spirit.
- We are now ready to start our presentation in chief.
- Madam Chair, members of the Commission, this is my first opportunity to
appear before you since joining Vision TV. We are approaching this renewal and
application for a rate increase with a view to both continuity and change.
Continuity because Vision TV remains constant to its mandate of meeting an
ongoing public policy objective, and change because we face enormous
challenges in the way we fulfil that mandate.
- Vision TV was licensed in 1987 to provide television programming that
speaks to the single-faith viewpoints of a wide range of Canadians, without
the problems inherent in religious broadcasting models from elsewhere.
- Vision TV is unique both here in Canada and internationally, providing
millions of Canadians with a connection to spirituality in its broadest sense.
Our programming serves people of diverse faiths, as well as those on their own
personal quest for meaning and purpose.
- At Vision TV, we consider ourselves to be a public service broadcaster.
- Why public service?
- First -- our mandate. Vision TV provides a wide range of religious
programming, in an environment of respect for different viewpoints and voices.
We are a multi-faith, multi-cultural and multi-racial broadcaster, dedicated
to reflecting Canada’s diversity in our programs, our workforce and our on-air
personnel.
- Second -- our structure. As a not-for-profit broadcaster and as a
charitable corporation, Vision TV does not respond to the demands of
shareholders, but to its mandate and the needs of its audience.
- Third -- our unique relationship with the independent production sector.
Vision TV provides significant support for small independent producers,
helping ambitious and sometimes difficult-to-finance projects get off the
ground.
- Fourth -- the audiences we serve. We cater to many viewers not sought by
other broadcasters or advertisers, such as older Canadians and small
multi-cultural groups. More than 60 per cent of our viewers are female and
nearly half over the age of 50, a fast-growing demographic group. We bring to
these audiences content that others do not air.
- Fifth -- a unique perspective on issues. We are one of the few services
left that is not part of a large corporate group. Vision TV is an independent
broadcaster.
- Since Vision TV was first licensed in 1987, the ownership of media has
become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, both nationally and
internationally. To ensure that Canadian interests and concerns are addressed
and Canadian stories are told, this country needs large, integrated companies
with the ability to produce, broadcast and sell Canadian programs. These
companies and the content they produce must be able to compete with the best
from around the world.
- But at the same time, we need to ensure that there remains a place in the
system for services like Vision TV that are not part of large corporate
groups. It is these smaller, independent and often not-for-profit broadcasters
that provide the diversity in our system and ensure that truly distinctive
voices are heard.
- Competition and costs are escalating in a television marketplace that
grows ever more fragmented. A station like ours, which cannot derive cost and
revenue synergies through affiliation with distributors or other analogue
channels, is increasingly at risk of losing the ability to deliver a high
quality of service. Our programming inventory has reached the end of its life
cycle. Our hardware and software systems are in urgent need of renewal. We
have suffered several operating deficits during this licence term. Vision TV
faces a crisis.
- Today we wish to outline in further detail Vision TV’s importance to the
Canadian broadcasting system, to our viewers and to independent producers and
our need for an increase in our basic rate to maintain current levels of
service and to provide additional programming not readily available in the
system.
- I will now call upon one of Vision TV’s founders, Rita Deverell.
- MS R. DEVERELL: Vision TV has been addressing the spiritual needs
of Canadians since its inception. Over this term of licence, our paid-to-air
Mosaic programs have served 1666 different faith groups and congregations
representing 20 denominations, including Roman Catholics, Protestants,
Muslims, Sikhs, Baha’is and Hindus. Our Cornerstone schedule added programs on
many faiths and spiritual practices. Among them, Judaism, Buddhism and
Aboriginal spirituality.
- In addition, Vision TV broadcasts a very popular values-based block of
family programs, inspirational music, documentaries, current affairs programs,
all of these enrich and enhance and provide balance in the schedule.
- Our Code of Ethics, Standards and Practices ensures that all faiths are
treated with respect and that audiences will not be subjected to questionable
fundraising practices.
- At present, more than seven million Canadian households receive Vision TV.
More than three million people tune in at least once a month.
- Our network’s most important relationship, however, is not with cumulative
numbers but with the individual viewer, with the audience of one. For the Sikh
in Truro, the Muslim in Fort McMurray, the Baha’i in Regina, the Catholic
shut-in in Toronto, Vision TV is a link to their faith and to their community,
as well as a window to other cultures. This was noted by many intervenors,
such as Rabbi Irwin Zeplowitz of Hamilton, who wrote:
- "Vision’s TV’s programs reflects the religious diversity and pluralism of
our society. Unlike many other religious networks, Vision TV provides a
variety of voices, which only strengthens our country."
- Vision TV’s Cornerstone schedule complements our Mosaic program with
content devoted to issues of faith, morality and the human condition. This
includes in-house productions such as "Skylight," our Gemini Award-winning
human affairs show. In its exploration of the spiritual and ethical dimensions
of current events, "Skylight" has given voice to more than 370 community
groups and organisations across the country.
- The Cornerstone schedule also includes many point-of-view documentaries,
commissioned or acquired from independent producers. Through programs such as
these, Vision TV tells important stores with an impact where it matters most
-- on the millions of individual Canadians who are moved, informed, helped or
inspired by this.
- Vision TV also partners with other Canadian broadcasters. Recent examples
include a live special with CPAC on the ethics and values in the last federal
election and a collaboration with APTN and Newsworld on a two-part special and
interactive Web site on the Aboriginal Residential Schools issue.
- More than 2,400 Canadians wrote to you, and more than a third of their
letters spoke of Vision TV as a valued alternative to mainstream television.
Many of them also noted the personal impact of our programs. Viewer Ann
Goddard wrote:
- "The programs on this station ... have had a huge beneficial impact on my
recovery from bereavement and recent illness ... I could not have coped so
well without their uplifting messages and the company they provide."
- Now, we would like to note some of Vision TV’s accomplishments in
developing Canadian content, particularly with the independent sector. Here is
Paul de Silva, Vice President of Programming, and himself an independent
producer for two decades.
- MR. P. de SILVA: Thank you, Rita, and good afternoon.
- Vision TV devotes a major part of its program budget to independent
Canadian productions. This spending falls into three areas.
- First, script and concept development. About $1.2 million dollars has gone
into this critical area over the last seven years, much of it with new
producers. This is among the highest development expenditures of any English
language specialty service. Many programs simply would not be made without
this initial commitment from Vision TV.
- Recent examples include "Journey to Little Rock," a documentary widely
regarded as a contender for next year’s Academy Awards and the Inuit feature,
"Atanarjuat," which won high honours at the Cannes Film Festival this year.
Our development funding was vital to the financing of both these films,
enabling their producers to access other sources of investment.
- The impact of Vision TV’s seed money is felt by many of our fellow
broadcasters as well. Projects on which we have taken a risk often end up
appearing on other channels besides Vision TV, including CBC, Bravo!, History
Television, Life Network and WTN.
- The second area of program spending is acquisition of shelf product, often
on second and third windows for documentaries relevant to our mandate. This is
an important source of funds for small independent producers and distributors.
- The third area is commissioning of new product. A total of $13 million
dollars went into new Canadian programs over the course of our last licence,
mainly on first windows. This is the area in which Vision TV excels, working
with our regional offices and with other broadcasters to create new Canadian
content.
- In all, nearly a third of our Canadian programming expenditure over this
licence term has been in the independent sector, a total of almost $20 million
dollars.
- In the new term, we propose to earmark $108.2 million dollars for Canadian
programming, of which 44 per cent will go towards independent production. This
includes a $1.7 million investment in script and concept development.
- Numbers, however, tell only part of the story. Vision TV also helps to
nurture the independent production industry through the work of its
development offices. Our representative, Charles Doucet in Halifax and Maureen
Levitt in Victoria and our programming staff in Toronto lend invaluable
support not only to the individual producers with whom they work day to day,
but also to the sector in general.
- More than a hundred independent filmmakers, as well as the CFTPA, the
Canadian Independent Film Caucus and the National Film Board of Canada wrote
to you in favour of our application. Many noted our support for important
projects that, while unique and valuable, are not necessarily of interest to
profit-driven services. Vision TV is frequently the way films like these, many
of them critically acclaimed, many of them award winners, find their way to a
national audience.
- Susan.
- MS S. BOWER: Madam Chair, Vision TV wants to continue to provide
this level of service. But to do so, we need access to more subscriber
revenues. We are requesting a seven cent increase to our current rate of eight
cents per subscriber per month.
- In the application and in our replies to deficiencies, we detailed the
pressures on our revenues.
- The English language speciality services that reported to the Commission
in 2000 had annual revenues averaging $29.5 million. Vision TV operates with
less than half of that at $14.5 million.
- Those same services averaged operating profits of $6.9 million, while
Vision TV has operated precariously close to break-even over the last six
years. We have suffered deficits in three of the past four years, and project
the largest one yet for the current year.
- Most of the reporting services are part of large, integrated companies and
benefit from synergies that include shared facilities, multiple program
windows, co-promotion and joint sales teams. While Vision TV, as a
not-for-profit charitable corporation, does not enjoy the advantages of having
a large parent company, it faces all the same economic pressures as the bigger
players.
- Since our last renewal, the Commission has licensed two rounds of new
specialty services, many of which feature documentaries. New conventional
religious television stations have also been licensed in Toronto, Lethbridge
and Vancouver. These new services offer additional choices to viewers. But
they have also fragmented the audiences of existing services, and have
increased competition and costs, for quality programming, for public funding
and for staff. With 21 new Category 1 services and an uncertain number of
Category 2s expected to launch this fall, we anticipate that these trends will
become even more pronounced.
- Eight years have passed since Vision TV last received a rate increase.
Over the course of this licence term, we have undertaken concerted efforts to
increase revenues from other sources. We have nearly doubled our advertising
sales, and are projecting annual growth of 7 per cent in ad revenues over the
next licence term. We have also embarked on new fundraising initiatives, and
plan to continue our activities in this area.
- Unfortunately, none of these efforts will be sufficient to meet our needs.
Growth in advertising revenues, for example, will inevitably be limited by the
nature of our viewing audience, which includes a high concentration of adults
50-plus, not a group that most advertisers seek out. Almost half of our
schedule, moreover, consists of Mosaic programming which does not carry
commercial availabilities.
- While we can achieve modest revenue gains by raising the fees we charge to
Mosaic groups for this air time, significant rate increases are out of the
question. To do so would disenfranchise the faith communities we are dedicated
to serving.
- At the same time, our costs continue to rise. The price of both Canadian
and foreign programming has grown significantly, and the introduction of new
specialty services will only push it up further. Demand for staff is also
increasing. Unless we pay competitive salaries, we risk losing talented
people, and we need significant investments in both hardware and systems to
make it all work. It will take a rate increase to ensure that Vision TV can
maintain its existing level of service.
- In addition, our viewers continually tell us about programming that they
would like to see. For example, of the more than 2,400 Canadians who wrote to
you, nearly 40 per cent mentioned music programs that no service other than
Vision TV presents or produces. From viewer comments, letters and e-mails, we
also know that there is a high demand for programming devoted to spiritual
journeys, examining the bridges between traditional religious faith and more
unorthodox practices.
- We have costed a number of programming initiatives. To better address our
audiences’ preferences, we will need additional subscriber fees.
- We feel that a total increase of seven cents is a reasonable request, one
that will enable us to preserve the quality and integrity of the service and
enhance our offering in the areas that matter most to viewers.
- To find out what cable and satellite subscribers, as well as our core
viewers, think of Vision TV and to gauge the reaction to a potential seven
cent increase, we asked Solutions Research Group to undertake a national
survey. The results are clear, Vision TV viewers strongly support the
increase. Of other cable and satellite subscribers, 40 per cent support an
increase and only 29 per cent oppose it.
- From its earliest days, Vision TV has maintained a lean, efficient
organisation and will continue to operate in such a manner. As a
not-for-profit institution, should our revenues be higher than anticipated,
more original programming will be produced or acquired.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Finally, Madam Chair, we would like to speak to the
issue of compliance with Canadian content exhibition levels. We realise now
that we failed to devote proper resources to the systems necessary to ensure
compliance on an ongoing basis.
- Immediately upon my discovery of this problem, I took responsibility for
the introduction of new procedures that will ensure we know exactly our
position with respect to Canadian content. Most importantly, we are taking
logging in-house and have hired an experienced scheduling executive, Chris
Johnson, who handled Canadian content effectively for TVOntario for several
years. Joan Jenkinson and her staff will be responsible for monitoring
performance effectively. And I have made Canadian content exhibition levels
the highest priority of our management team.
- The team sitting at this table can assure that we are in compliance now
and will be, without fail, throughout our licence term.
- Please understand that we did not deliberately attempt to avoid our
responsibilities. This problem grew out of inexperience and frugality. It has
been my number one priority to make certain this failure of our systems is
repaired. We trust that this blemish does not obscure our considerable
achievements.
- Over the past seven years, Vision TV has made a significant contribution
to the broadcasting system.
- We have delivered programming that speaks in a balanced way to the
spiritual lives of Canadians. We have reflected Canada’s multi-faith,
multi-cultural and multi-racial reality through our programming, and in the
face we present both on air and behind the scenes. We have offered a unique
and independent voice and we have provided critical support to this country's
independent production sector.
- Now, we face a crisis situation. We have had operating losses for three of
the last four years. Programming costs have increased steadily and we need to
make significant investments in both hardware and systems. We are asking that
you help Vision TV continue its record of accomplishment by granting us a rate
increase of seven cents per subscriber per month.
- Thank you for your attention and we would be pleased to reply to your
questions.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Thank you to all of
you.
- Ms Deverell, I thought you were on sabbatical. I was surprised to see you
sitting at the table. I thought -- but, of course, you wouldn’t want to miss
this.
- MS R. DEVERELL: It doesn’t start until September.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see because I remember you telling me about
it a few months ago.
- I’m going to be doing the questioning this afternoon. Maybe what I will do
is I will just give you an idea of where I'm going.
- Obviously, the major issue that we are going to want to look at is the
rate increase. Leading into that I am going to go through some of your
financial information and get you to clarify some of that for me, and I want
to talk with Mr. Yigit about the survey, which I know he enjoys because I have
talked to him before about surveys. But he always likes to be asked questions
about them.
- We are going to talk about your Cancon non-compliance in spite of your
very eloquent apology, and your request regarding carriage, the addition of
certain categories to your nature of service and then some of the societal
issues that I mentioned in my opening remarks.
- And forgive me if I’m sort of shuffling back and forth amongst pieces of
paper. As you can see, I have been busily reading as much of your submission
as I possibly could and tagging the pages to try and help me go back and
forth. But sometimes I might refer to things without actually telling you
where they are and hopefully somebody on your team will remember kind of where
it is.
- So let’s start off with the financial stuff and I guess Ms Bower is going
to help me with some of this. Basically what I want to do is just go through
the schedule, starting with Schedule 20 we will go through. I just want to
clarify some of the information and look at some of the assumptions underlying
your projections. I know that there were a number of different statements that
were filed. The ones that I’m looking at right now are the ones that were
filed as part of the original application. Ms Bower, I will leave it to you to
sort of point me to any area in those statements that may have been updated as
a result of either of the other two, although I realise the other two
statements were based on a denial scenario.
- The first thing I wanted to ask you about, and basically the whole purpose
of the financial questions really is to test your assumptions about what kind
of economic needs you have in order to justify a rate increase to the entire
basic subscriber base. So I want to ask you some questions about some of your
spending and how it relates and that is where this stuff is coming from.
- If you look at page 1 of Schedule 20, which is your financial projections
for 2001, and when I looked through your projections for the seven year
licence term, there is sort of a similar relationship showing. But you look at
your national advertising revenue of about $1.5 million and your sales and
promotions expense budget of $2.6 million, and I am just wondering if you can
explain to me what the relationship is between those two lines in the budget?
- Because typically the sales and promotion budget would be there to support
the generation of advertising revenues. It just struck me as odd that the
amount that you are spending on sales and promotion is significantly higher
than what you are actually generating in terms of advertising revenue. So I
wonder if you could explain to me how those two numbers relate to one another?
- MS S. BOWER: Thank you.
- Vision has always wrestled with this challenge of selling advertising
within the context of a religious offering, and it has been a struggle from
day one. I would like to draw your attention to historically we have nearly
doubled our advertising revenue over the term of the existing licence. A large
part of that increase was driven in 1996/97 as a result of putting the Family
Drama Block on in the afternoon as a result of the last licence renewal. That
Family Drama Block drives about 75 per cent of our advertising revenue.
- I think the piece that is perhaps missing from the equation here, if you
simply looked at the advertising revenue in isolation, is the sale of air time
for the Mosaic faith groups, which is 50 per cent of our schedule, and
co-relates directly to the promotion expense, helps to drive that up and
position Vision as a worthwhile and valuable venue for Mosaic groups to place
their programs.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So you do not have people breaking your door down
to place their programs. You actually have to go out and solicit people and
build them as ---
- MS S. BOWER: No, sorry. I didn’t mean to indicate that the sales
team was -- or those expenditures are not related to selling Mosaic air time.
No.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: They are not.
- MS S. BOWER: No.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: The $2.6 million.
- MS S. BOWER: No.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so ---
- MS S. BOWER: There is about $350,000 or $300,000 of expenditure
related to promoting the service as a charitable service and soliciting
donations. Our viewers guide is part of those costs, which is a vehicle for
communicating directly with viewers for instance and it’s not a traditional
sales tool.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. So how much of those -- of the $2.6 million
would be directed towards actually increasing your revenue stream in some
area?
- MS S. BOWER: Those are general promotion and communications
expenditures. Placing ads in TV Guide, placing ads in other magazines, radio
advertisements. It’s more of a general promotion nature rather than directly
related to securing revenue.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. The next question that I have -- actually I
think this may have been -- something that I saw in your Statement of Changes
in Financial Position at Schedule 21. I think I understand it now. It’s
presented in a way that I’m not familiar with, but if you look at the bottom
line, maybe because these numbers are presented in brackets, which is
typically the way that you would present a loss.
- The way that I’m -- the way that I was reading that before I checked the
side of the schedule where it explains that -- well, even then I was confused.
Are you saying that by the end of your new licence term you will be in debt to
the bank to the tune of $8.5 million?
- MS S. BOWER: No, just the opposite. Your reading is correct. The
indebtedness is at the beginning of the period, the $322,000 and we gradually
grow out of indebtedness over the term.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So I checked this with one of my financial guys
and he had never seen this. It is sort of like a positive being presented as a
negative because it’s in brackets, which is typically how you present a loss
in financial statements, or an amount owing. So I was just -- okay. So you are
not indebted to the bank. That is the bottom line.
- MS S. BOWER: And there was no intention to obfuscate. No.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I wondered because I thought well if you
were really indebted to the bank to the tune of $8.5 million, no wonder you
are asking for such a big rate increase.
- Okay. Balance sheet, the pro forma financial statements. The seven year
summary, it’s page 1, part 1, Schedule 22. You show a loan to Vision
Digital and I have checked through, again I have reviewed this with our
financial people and the loan shows in the amount of -- under your assets --
$1.6 million, and it remains flat across the seven years. When does that
loan get repaid by Vision Digital?
- MS S. BOWER: That loan is primarily for Vision Digital’s
participation in the new Category 1 service, which was formerly called
"Wisdom" and now is called "One, The Body, Mind and Sprit Channel." And that
new service does not have a break even point in our projections until year
seven. So there would be some repayment after that point in the future.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So that would be like shareholder equity in the
service if you had such a thing?
- MS S. BOWER: That is right. Vision Digital Inc. is the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Vision TV.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.
- MS S. BOWER: It is a for-profit entity. And it will participate --
is participating as an equity holding shareholder in "One, the Body, Mind,
Spirit" channel, and so that represents that.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: And how much of that $1.6 million would come
from that rate increase?
- MS S. BOWER: None of it.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: None of it.
- MS S. BOWER: No.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Madam Chair, I think that is an important point to
underline, that we are not cross-subsidising any of those digital channels.
All of our suppositions for the purpose of this licence renewal are based on
Vision direct cost. There is no cost subsidy involved.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think I was going to ask you that and I may
as well just ask you now.
- But you do talk in your submission about the synergies between Vision and
One and you talk about the technical facilities needing to be upgraded and
that those technical facilities will be shared. There is a cost directly
attributable to the upgrade of those technical facilities in your
justification for the rate increase. So maybe you want to clarify that.
- How much of -- I mean the amount -- am I to assume that the amount of the
technical upgrade that you are showing as part of the justification for the
rate increase is only half of what it is actually going to cost or two-thirds
or whatever? Because obviously -- and then you get into the whole issue of the
fact that "One" is a for-profit entity and Vision is not. So who should be
paying for that upgrade?
- MS S. BOWER: Any provision of services from Vision to the new
service would be at fair market value. There is two existing Canadian
broadcasters that are minority shareholders in that arrangement and the
shareholders’ agreement and the management agreement that have been filed with
the Commission indicate that any provision of services will be at fair market
value. So there is a built-in safeguard, if you like, in terms of any
possibility of cross-subsidisation.
- In terms of -- we have reflected on our income statement, management --
revenue from management services coming from our provision of services to One
and you will see that revenue which ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: What statement are you ---
- MS S. BOWER: The income statement. It is page 5 of the ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: The pro forma.
- MS S. BOWER: It’s line number 6 of the revenue.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So you are looking at $4.3 million over seven
years.
- MS S. BOWER: Exactly.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: That is management services. That doesn’t include
the upgrade to the technical facility.
- MS S. BOWER: Any leasing of the facility -- so Vision would pay for
the upgrade and then One would lease it.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Madam Chair, if I could turn to Erika for some
clarification on the technical facilities.
- MS E. KRAMER: We absolutely have to upgrade our technical
facilities for Vision TV. We have built a production facility in 1996 in order
to produce "Skylight" but filled it with a lot of used equipment, which is
reaching its end of life. And we have to ensure that we are producing content
in a digital format so that it will have some shelf life and will take us into
the future.
- In regards to our master control facility, that needs to be upgraded as
well. We still have our operators manually rolling tapes from printed logs and
we have to introduce automation and digital master control.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Madam Chair, before we go back to Susan, I can
assure you that since November I have found that Vision TV has some of the
very best technology of the late 1970s and perhaps early 1980s. Furthermore to
assure you that the spending proposals contained in this application for
renewal are strictly for Vision regardless of other properties.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Roberts.
- If you look at page 8 of the pro forma financial statements, I want to
look just a little bit at the new programming initiatives from a cost
perspective. You are budgeting $28 million over seven years for, I believe,
it’s four new programming initiatives. I was just wondering if you could tell
me how many hours of original programming that translates to in each year?
- MS S. BOWER: I would like to turn to my colleague, Rita, for that
answer.
- MS R. DEVERELL: The new programming initiatives total 72 hours of
original programming in a year. I would like to stress that these are 72
additional new hours of programming. Each time we have increased our revenues,
when we went from zero cents to eight cents, we added 104 hours of original
programming and with these new initiatives we will add 72 hours.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So if I were going to be really cynical I could
say, well, maybe that would help you meet your Cancon obligations, those 72
hours with one repeat thrown in. But that would be very cynical.
- MS R. DEVERELL: Yes, we won’t deal in cynicism.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So 72 hours each year, at a cost of $3.5
million a year going up to $4.5 million.
- Okay. I had a bit of a chuckle when I was reading through, it’s actually
section 3, I guess, of your supplementary brief when you talked about the
shoestring budget. I think the place that I used to work had an even shorter
shoestring that you do. It operated at about one-third of the level of your
annual budget.
- On page 8 you talk about some of the changes in the broadcasting
environment that you have faced, including being moved, having your channel
placement changed and licensing of specialty services resulting in audience
fragmentation and increased competition for advertising sales, the pressure on
funds available from the CTF, competition for programming product, competition
for staff, the renewed interest by conventional broadcasters in documentaries,
which I am sure was helped by our TV policy decision when we made
documentaries a priority program.
- I want to ask you about this 37 per cent decline in audience. Because a
lot of the underlying assumptions that you use to argue for the rate increase
have to do with the downward pressure on the channel, and yet the information
that I have from both BBM and Neilsen shows no audience -- reduction in
audience at all after your move. It is not borne out in your advertising
revenues either which increase year over year on average 7 or 8 per cent.
- So I am just wondering how you reconcile the notion that your audience has
declined 37 per cent when it’s not reflected in your numbers and it’s not
reflected in your ad revenues? Where is that coming from?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Yes. Before Susan gathers her response to that, I
would like to go back to some of the suppositions provided by the Chair.
- This is a service that is running on empty. This is a service that has
lost money in the last three of the last four years. This is a service that
will incur its largest operating deficit of this current licence period this
year, and it is a service that operates dangerously close to the break-even
level.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Aren’t you supposed to as a not-for-profit
service?
- Not-for-profit didn’t mean no profits I don’t think. I have worked in
public broadcasting and in private broadcasting in this country, the United
States and Asia and Europe and in South America. And I would be hard pressed
-- I would challenge anyone actually to find another broadcaster that can
stretch a dollar the way Vision TV has been able to stretch a dollar. I find
it frankly amazing what Vision has been able to do, what this team has been
able to do.
- Anyway, Susan.
- MS S. BOWER: I believed we supplied to you some audience statistics
in Appendix 10 to the supplementary brief, which are the statistics that we
track our performance, both ability to sell advertisement and in terms of
reporting back to our Mosaic clients how their programs are being received.
We, both in the stats for weekly share, weekly reach and average audience, we
have seen a substantial decline over the past four years and ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Where are you getting those statistics?
- MS S. BOWER: This is Neilsen statistics.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I am just wondering why our Neilsen numbers would
be different then. Numbers speak in different languages.
- MS R. DEVERELL: If I might add to that.
- You may perhaps be reflecting that immediately upon the channel change
there was no decline in audience? No.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: No, what I’m talking about is the constant
audience figure for Vision over a period of five years.
- MS R. DEVERELL: Then we do have different numbers.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: But I have looked at both BBM and Neilsen and they
don’t show that. But I will have a word with our staff and see if I’m off
track somehow on this.
- Okay. So BBM, your Neilsen numbers say that you have declined 37 per cent.
Our BBM numbers say there has been no decline and your advertising revenues
have gone up, which would be a pretty good indicator in any case since
advertising revenues are based on share.
- So since your advertising revenues have gone up and we both agree on that,
explain to me what the downward pressure is with respect to the audience
fragmentation? I mean, would you not suspect, as I would have at CPAC when I
was there, that you appeal to a certain demographic, to a certain segment of
the audience. And that is the segment of the audience that you are generally
going to appeal to for the rest of your life just as CPAC. Maybe you can shift
it a bit this way or that way. If you throw enough money at something, I guess
you could, expand it or shift it to a completely different demographic.
- I guess what I am trying to figure out is whether or not there really is
significant downward pressure on your audience and if that is a valid
underlying assumption to the request for a rate increase?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Madam Chair, it’s a very important question and
thank you for posing it.
- Once again while Susan gathers her response, I think it is important to
think these things through often in a context. We have offered a fairly
aggressive approach to our advertising revenues over the next seven years in
the 5 to 7 per cent growth range. Over the same next seven years, CTV and
Global offered a 2 to 3 per cent growth rate with regard to their advertising
revenues. Discovery offered a 3 per cent average growth in advertising
revenues. TSN offered a 2 per cent.
- So I think we are being fairly aggressive with regard to where we can go
in this marketplace for our advertising revenues practically double what some
of these other players are suggesting.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Although it is based on -- and you are using
historical reference points because that is the rate at which your advertising
revenues have increased over the past five years, generally speaking, in the 7
per cent range. So there would be some reference point for that aggressive
projection.
- Is that what it’s based on, your historical performance?
- MS S. BOWER: It’s based on our historical performance. There is
some jumps in those historical performances that we don’t expect that we can
repeat. The addition of the Family Block in 1995/96 resulted in an increase in
1996/97. We won’t be able to repeat that because we are not putting in another
Family Block.
- We also have a fairly aggressive, I think, go forward position. Even
though our audience has tended to skew towards the 50-plus audience, we don’t
think it necessarily has to be limited there. So we will be positioning
programming for younger audiences and we will always do that. And that is
because people who are interested in spiritual issues dip into that at any
point in their life, whether it’s a crisis precipitated by a death of a family
member of an illness. So it is not something that is necessarily confined to
an older generation. So that is why we are looking fairly aggressively towards
the future.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. The other thing that I wanted to ask you
about was on page 9 of your supplementary brief where you talk about US avails
and the fact that they now cost approximately $300,000 per year.
- If you were to spend that $300,000, what budget would that come out of?
Would that come out of the sales and promotion budget?
- MS S. BOWER: Yes, that is where it is.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So that is where you do creative emplacement?
- MS S. BOWER: That is right.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: And is that, if you were getting placement on the
avails of all the US channels that are available, the US specialties or can
you just pick one or another to have your spot run on?
- MS S. BOWER: I’m not familiar how they work.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Because I was just wondering, it seemed to me
that, for example, A&E and I think you mention A&E in terms of
viewership, it’s in the Solutions Research Group study actually, awareness: 93
per cent of the people surveyed were aware of A&E. Why you wouldn’t chose
-- I mean it has very high viewership -- why you wouldn’t chose to put your
promotional spots or your ad spots there as opposed to -- it seems to me that
it would be a good expenditure of $300,000. I kind of take the point where it
used to be free and now it’s not. But sometimes it is still better to pay more
than you were paying before but still not as much as you would if you were
actually trying to buy that time on that channel at standard rates.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Madam Chair, that is a very interesting suggestion
and I think one that we will take up.
- The underlying issue is, however, one of how a charity, a not-for-profit
like Vision TV, maximises its awareness throughout a viewing public. We are
not able to cross-promote as might some others, I think of CanWest and the
Post for example. The loss of the US avails for a not-for-profit and for a
charity is a staggering blow and this kind of strategy is one that we will
certainly look into.
- The research has told us that there is a question of visibility. Once
people find us, they like us. But it’s getting to know us part that is so
important, and we are certainly in the business of trying to reach new eyes.
So we appreciate that.
- MS S. BOWER: I would just like to add to that, the context of our
expenditures, I think over the next licence term we are proposing an average
of 2.8 million annually. Vision spends about 10 per cent of its total
expenditures on sales and promotion compared to an industry average of about
13.8 per cent. So we are still quite low. The WeatherNet, for instance, which
has a very high awareness rating, still spends 3.3 million annually. So our
budget -- we try to stretch it as far as we can.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I have been in that position so I am well aware of
the kinds of choices that you have to make.
- I want to look at the -- let me just pick this book up so I can see my
little labels here. Looking at your assumptions, it is Part 1, Schedule 18, so
there are a number of things again that I wanted to ask you about with respect
to whether or not you should be funded by the general base of subscribers.
- You talk about the increased cost of Internet activity and marketing and
promotion, inflation of 3 per cent, technology upgrades and salary increases
of 7 per cent. Just so you know, there are a lot of people who would like to
come to work at Vision if the salary increases are really 7 per cent annually.
Because that seems quite generous compared with what is happening in the
federal government, for example, and a number of other organisations that I am
familiar.
- But how did you get to the 7 per cent? It’s the average annual growth
rate, I think. I mean most places are talking 2 per cent, 2 and a half,
3 per cent increase, if that.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: I know Susan wants to jump in here but there are
just two small table-setting points. One is that perhaps inflation is a
misnomer for our purposes. What we are really dealing with is competitive
pressures, and competitive pressures are infrastructure which are integral to
the nature of a broadcaster.
- Secondly, with regard to salaries, Vision TV’s salaries are significantly
below industry standard with regard to the broadcasting industry. And as to
infrastructure or fixed assets, our fixed assets of somewhere around 1.8
million are perhaps the lowest, if not amongst the lowest, in the broadcast
industry. So just small matters of clarification.
- MS S. BOWER: I would just like to further clarify that the 7 per
cent was not intended as an annual merit increase or performance bonus. I
think it’s a good thing we are not televised and that is getting out to staff
today. It’s an average annual growth rate that combines both merit increases
that are roughly about 3 per cent, 2 to 3 per cent annually, plus just the
increase of adding staff to maintain your competitiveness. Where it was taken
from, is historically that is what we have had to pay in terms of base
remuneration over the last licence term and it has to do with growing our
staff from about 20 in 1994 to 44 over the past six years.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: When I looked at the inflation, obviously you have
looked at other applications by analogue specialty services for basic rate
increases and most of them which included inflation as a reason have been
denied. So when I saw inflation at 3 per cent I thought well this is the
triumph of hope over experience. Because there is not much -- I mean not that
the Commission can’t take a different position. Certainly one never knows. But
inflation has generally not been used as a reason for a basic rate increase.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: I think it was perhaps a victory of misnomer over
fact. We should not have referenced it as inflation. It is truly competitive
pressures.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, how many hours a week is Mosaic programming
on?
- MS R. DEVERELL: Mosaic programming represents approximately 45 per
cent of our schedule. So 45 per cent of the total number of broadcast hours.
If, by any chance -- no, I won’t assume where you are going with that.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: That is okay. You can assume if you want to.
- MS R. DEVERELL: I will assume that maybe one of the places that you
are going with that is the cost of Mosaic air time, and historically we have
privileged Canadians in the selling of that time. So we sell Mosaic air time
to Canadian groups at a lower cost than to offshore folk.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: That was partly where I was going. I wanted to ask
you about it because I think in your opening remarks you mentioned the fact
that you couldn’t really increase what you charge for Mosaic programming, in
terms of trying to find the balance between the groups who can’t afford to pay
those dollars.
- So it is essentially your foreign Mosaic programmers who are paying the
high rates and the Canadian programmers are paying the lower rates?
- MS R. DEVERELL: That is correct, yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Because the notes that I wrote at the bottom of
the page was, can some afford higher rates than others, and I say this being
one, but the Catholics, for example, could they not afford to pay a bit more?
Would that be one way? I’m trying to look at different ways of generating
revenue out of this service. So I say that with all due respect to the
Catholics.
- MS R. DEVERELL: In recent years we have had some increases in our
Mosaic rates. But I would also like to advance the notion that this has also
been affected by our audience numbers. One of the reasons Vision is attracted
to Mosaic clients is because of its overall audience numbers. So when we did
experience the disputed decline, this made it much more difficult to raise
Mosaic rates.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Madam Chair, if I could just add very briefly that
the relationship of advertising or Mosaic or even donations from viewers is
directly related to our ability to refresh, revitalise and renovate our
program initiatives, which are part and parcel of this rate request.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Another point that you have made in terms of
the pressures on your revenues are the licensing of the new digital services.
In your opening remarks today you said that you anticipate that these trends
of fragmentation of audience and increased competition and cost will become
even more pronounced.
- How soon in your projections are you expecting that they are going to
become more pronounced? The reason I am asking is because when you talk about
carriage for Vision, and I think that you have modified your position on
carriage since the initial filing because there is a decision that has come
out since. But when you were making your argument about carriage you were
talking about how low those digital numbers are going to be, and yet, when you
talk about the pressures on your revenues, you talk about how those services
are going to have an impact on you.
- So I’m trying to reconcile once again the disparity between those two
pictures. It’s like is it that or is it not. I mean the Commission itself when
we went through the whole licensing process of the digital specialty services
and developing that framework expected that it was going to be some years.
You, yourselves have a break-even point of seven years down the road for one.
- So how realistic is it to suppose that those digital specialties are going
to have a real impact on an analogue basic specialty service with 90 per
cent penetration of the cable subscriber or the distribution subscriber
universe?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: I would like to begin that response and then turn
it over to Susan and perhaps others of my colleagues.
- But there is currently tremendous competition for programming in the
marketplace which as a direct impact on Vision TV as a not-for-profit. We are
in need of replenishing our programming and that is extremely competitive at
this moment.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So you are talking about, when you say there is
tremendous competition for programming, you are talking about the second and
third acquired -- second and third window acquired programming that Vision --
and what proportion of your schedule is that?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Rita.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: And what proportion of your budget is that?
- MS R. DEVERELL: I could turn that over to Joan.
- MS J. JENKINSON: The percentage of our programming budget for the
new programs would be for the new initiatives 25 per cent of the total budget
for Canadian programs.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: That is for the four new programs, the 72 hours a
year?
- MS J. JENKINSON: That is correct.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: What I am asking about is the acquired programming
that you are competing for in the marketplace that Mr. Roberts was just
talking about.
- MS J. JENKINSON: That represents 44 per cent of our total
Canadian programming budget.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Acquired programming.
- MS J. JENKINSON: Yes, acquired.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: But how much of that acquired programming is
programming that other people are running on their channels? Like it may be
44 per cent of your overall programming budget that you are spending
on acquired programming but you wouldn’t be competing in the marketplace for
all of those hours. Because some of those hours would not be appropriate for
other channels that are in the system.
- MR. P. de SILVA: Madam Chair, if I could just make a comment on
that.
- I think -- I don’t have an exact percentage of what the acquired
programming that we would have would be on other channels, but we can find
that out for you and provide that to you. But in general, the kinds of
acquired programming that are Canadian for us would tend to be in the
documentary genre. There is some drama that is available to us. For instance,
we will be running "Anne of Avonlee" starting this fall. But the kind of
programming that is available is very, very limited, partly because drama, as
you know, there is a short supply of drama in our genre in terms of family
programming. We have been, in fact, waiting for almost five years for "Anne,"
which is very suitable for our family audience to become available because
Showcase has it after CBC.
- In terms of the documentary programming, we generally presale most of our
documentary programming. But there are second windows that have been either --
have had a run on CBC initially or History or WTN, et cetera. I would take a
guess that maybe it might be 25 to 30 per cent or more of that.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Twenty-five (25) to 30 per cent of your
schedule is documentaries?
- MR. P. de SILVA: Yes, 25 per cent of our prime time, in fact,
is documentaries.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: At the time. Okay.
- I just have a couple more and then I want to talk to Mr. Yigit.
- One of the things that you said to us in our back and forth leading up to
this hearing was that you might have trouble meeting your Canadian programming
expenditures if your rate increase request was denied. Your CPE is 45 per
cent, I believe, of previous years’ revenues.
- So how would that work? Since your CPE condition is a percentage of the
previous years’ revenues, regardless of what the revenue is, what would the
impact of denial of your request be on the Canadian programming expenditures?
I mean you have overspent it quite significantly over the course of last --
the last licence period.
- MS S. BOWER: Yes, I think there is several factors in the
environment that impinge on our ability to continue it to achieve the success
level that we have been able to achieve. As a not-for-profit, I should just
point out that one of the reasons we overachieve is because what in another
broadcaster might go into profit and go into shareholder dividends, does go
into our primary activity, which is programming.
- We began the last licence term at a high -- at a much higher rate, 62 per
cent of our expenditure went into programming and that has declined gradually.
This past -- this last year or this current year it will be at 49 per cent. So
we see it diminishing as time goes on. So we have to ask why is that? And it
is primarily because of the reasons Bill and Paul have been pointing to, that
we are operating in a much more competitive environment and that competition
has a big impact on the availability to us of the public funding for license
fees that we can trigger. We have seen those license fees rise from 15 per
cent to 30 per cent in order to trigger the top-up funding. The new services
that were created in 1995/97 created that new demand.
- In comparison, Vision does have a high percentage rate going into Canadian
programming. But it is on a much lower base to begin with. So it’s less
absolute dollars even though we are competing within the market arena of the
competitive environment. So in fact what is happening is we are paying more
for less hours as time goes on.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: But it wouldn’t actually reduce the percentage of
your previous years’ revenues.
- MS S. BOWER: No, but it would reduce our ability to fill the
schedule with interesting programming that fulfils our mandate. I guess what I
wanted to come back to and remind ourselves of is that Vision is this
incredibly unique broadcast undertaking that provides a balanced religious
service. That is not something that is easily identifiable for the mass market
consumer.
- When you say religious broadcasting, a lot of immediate connotations come
to mind. So in order for us to carry out this broad-base service that we have
been providing, we have to do interesting, different, special -- very special
kinds of programs. That has been our privilege and it is one that we would
like to continue.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Two of the proposals that you include in your plan
pursuant to being granted a rate increase are expanding your interactive
elements and the enhancement of your offshore program sales. I wonder if you
could just explain why you think that those two things, which I mean the first
one, the interactivity and improving -- enhancing the web site I guess you
could certainly make your argument that there is a benefit to subscribers. But
the offshore sales, I guess you could also make an argument that there is a
flow through in terms of what kind of programming. So I am answering your
question for you.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: But we would like to help too.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: This is a great hearing. You just have to sit
there. I will ask and answer all the questions.
- I am just trying to understand -- I mean it might be argued that those
initiatives are more to your benefit than they are directly to the benefit of
subscribers and yet you are seeking a rate increase from the entire base. So
explain how they are -- other than how I explained that they were -- of
benefit to the subscriber.
- MS S. BOWER: I think Erika would like to add something when we talk
about the interactivity and probably could speak about some examples that we
have experimented with this year. What we see there is a very, very modest
proposal in terms of an expenditure line to basically keep our toe in the
water and keep dabbling at this thing that we are calling "interactivity" so
that we can continue to move as the stream is moving.
- In terms of offshore distribution, we have been trying to give you a
picture of Vision TV which is not readily apparent, which is that as a
not-for-profit we simply don’t have capital at our disposal, nor do we have
the means to access capital. We can’t just sell an equity share in the venture
for instance and raise capital.
- So one of our strategic directions is to create strategic alliances. The
first of that being the participation of the new Category 1, and as part of
what we would like to do is create programming that will have legs and that
can travel and can bring a return back to the primary business. Hopefully that
will lead to strategic partnerships with others around the world that are
interested in spirituality programming.
- But Erika probably would like to talk about some of our experiments in
interactivity.
- MS E. KRAMER: We have found that consumers expect to find
interesting program enhancing information on the Internet. I just want to
refer to the Residential Schools project that we worked on in cooperation with
Newsworld and APTN.
- We partnered with Ryerson on developing some embedded interactivity and we
even produced a high definition half hour documentary. So Ryerson is working
on embedding interactivity in that. Now, that is very futuristic.
- But on our web site with a small investment of $13,000 we developed a very
comprehensive web site with links to resources, and it gave people the
opportunity to share stories. Our intention was initially to only have the web
site up for one month before the broadcast of the program and one month after.
But we still have it up and we still have people coming into the web site to
get more information and they continue to share stories with us. Once you put
it out there, it’s pretty hard to take it back.
- MS S. BOWER: Interactivity has always been a hallmark of the
network before "interactive" became a fashionable word. We have always
solicited viewer input and read viewer letters on air, and that has been an
integral part of "Skylight" as well with the phone-in show. That is because
the nature of the programming is about spirituality and where spirituality
happens is in the stories of people’s lives and it’s in the sharing of those
stories that we create our common identity.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: It is interesting to see how the definition of
interactive has changed over the years from reading mail on air to phone-in
shows to a web site and interactive television.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Not to mention that old term "information highway"
that went somewhere.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Where exactly is that road?
- In response to one of our deficiency questions you suggested that if your
rate increase request were denied, that the programming initiatives that you
are proposing would fall by the wayside but there would also be cuts in other
areas.
- I am just wondering if you could explain, Ms Bower, I guess this will be
you, how you arrived at some of those cuts? And I will give you some examples:
3.65 million over seven years for administration and other expenses such as
institute relations, business development, membership in associations; a
decrease of 6 million in sale of air time to Mosaic programs; audience
erosion factors projected to reduce overall advertising revenues by 2.4
million and donations and grants would reduce to the tune of 5.3 million
because of audience erosion.
- So how did you come up with those? How far down did your audience go and
what is that based on?
- MS S. BOWER: The total package that we have presented to you for
the new term, including the seven cent rate increase is a package of about
$84 million above current levels of spending over the seven years. The
way I understand our needs here is that less than one-third of that is in
effect priming the pump to keep the operation whole, to keep it -- to have
some integrity, to be able to carry out the business in a competitive manner.
About 36 per cent of that $80 million is for maintaining the interesting high
levels of Canadian programming that we have become familiar with that can be
seen on Vision TV. Then the final third is for the new initiatives that are a
direct response to viewer inquiries and interest.
- In terms of what Vision would do to cope with not getting a rate increase
is very challenging. Would we first of all not take care of business and not
look after primary operational requirements? Well, I don’t think so because we
need to keep carrying out our business. Would we reduce expenditure in
Canadian licences? That would be a very difficult choice to make because that
is what has made us so distinctive.
- So the first thing we took off the list was the new program initiatives.
Then that led to what would the impact be on our revenues. We have already
talked about the pressures, the difficulty in raising Mosaic rates year over
year. We think that if we continue to lose audience that it would be difficult
to justify a rate increase, because those constituencies depend on donations
to pay their bills. So we had flat-lined that in our go forward projections. A
corollary to not replenishing the programming schedule, and I don’t think we
-- we should spend a little time talking to you about our repeat factor, how
high it is. Some of the programs that we created four and five years ago are
still being repeated on a regular basis on Vision and we need to replenish
those.
- In the face of not doing that replenishment, it would be difficult to
generate the fundraising growth that we have anticipated in the seven year
plan. So we have reduced that. And the advertising is corollary to the
decrease in audience share.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: How do you arrive at the decrease in audience
share? I mean how do you calculate that or is it a guesstimate that if you
don’t replenish your programming, your audience is going to drop so much or is
it based on some historical data that you have collected or ---
- MS S. BOWER: It’s based on the trend lines that we see in the
audience share and reach numbers that we have presented in the Appendix tab.
So it is just based on a trend.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So if you were to use my numbers, it might not be
such a bad trend? It might not be going downwards. It might be going straight
out or even up if you use the BBM.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: Madam Chair, if I could jump in here. I’m not sure
we know what numbers you are basing your questions on or asking questions ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: The Bureau of Broadcast Measurement audience
shares.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: There is lots of different sequences, lots of
different cuts, age groups, demos, years, sequences.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Two plus, all day.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: Do we have on the record of this proceeding what
you are talking about?
- MR. P. McCALLUM: I think the BBM numbers are available to members
of BBM.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: They are available to members of BBM. Are they on
the record at this ---
- MR. P. McCALLUM: Not as such, but as an expert gathering body where
we gather information. This is information that the Commission has normally
gathered from the industry.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: It just seems that we are having a disagreement
about whether -- the extent of audience erosion or whether indeed there ever
was any. And it’s very difficult to have a sensible conversation if you are
not aware of what numbers you are using to compare them to the numbers that
are in Appendix 10 that we filed.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, we subscribe to BBM as we have for years and
those are the numbers that we use to cross-reference the numbers that are
given to us by applicants. So when you file your numbers, we have a way of
double checking to see if -- otherwise, I mean, if the CRTC doesn’t have some
way of trying to verify the veracity of the numbers, then there is no way to
come up with ---
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: We are not quibbling with the use of BBM. I just
don’t know what it is you are quoting from that you don’t think there was any
erosion whereas the panel seems to think there was.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
- MR. K. YIGIT: If I could just try to help here.
- I haven’t verified these but the ones that were filed are Neilsen Media
Research, their full year, two-plus, weekly reach numbers, average-met
audience numbers under Appendix 10 and weekly share of viewing numbers. This
doesn’t come from our research, which I know you will want to discuss a little
later. Also in response with efficiency, I see here -- yes, Toronto/Vancouver
numbers filed. But the source is Neilsen Media Research full year numbers and
it’s not completely unheard of for Neilsen and BBM not to agree.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: No, it’s not.
- MR. K. YIGIT: So there might be something that I’m not quite sure.
I haven’t seen those BBM numbers whatsoever. So I’m just trying to help out in
terms of what is filed here and it does show a decline, and most radically
from 1996/97, which I believe, is the year prior to the channel line-up
change. Then there is a sudden drop, 1997/98, 1998/99, and 1999/2000 numbers
are soft decline but it could be depending on which scale you use. It could
almost be flat, but there is a drop that I see here from those numbers, from
the Neilsen Media Research numbers, full coverage, two plus.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Madam Chair, I would just like to embroider on
Kaan’s comment that we do subscribe to Neilsen. This is also reflected in the
audience decline of what our sales folks also reflect in terms of their
ability to sell advertising.
- On the other hand, since we don’t subscribe to BBM, if granted the rate
increase, we will do that immediately.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: And on that note I think we will take our
afternoon break and we will reconvene at a quarter after three. Thanks.
--- Upon recessing at 2:58 p.m. / L’audience est suspendue à 14h58.
--- Upon resuming at 3:20 p.m. / L’audience est reprise à 15h20.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back. Before I move on to the Solutions
Research Group study, there was one other question that I wanted to ask you,
Mr. Roberts and Ms Bower, about synergies between Vision and One. I know that
you said that on a technical basis there won’t be any cost to Vision that
wouldn’t be recovered through the digital specialty.
- What about programming? Synergy and programming. Will there be any
programming being shared between the two channels and of that, for example,
the new programming initiatives that you are undertaking the 72 hours a year,
will any proportion of that be run on One?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Let me begin. The answer is no. There is no
cross-subsidy whatsoever between our analogue core service and these digital
undertakings.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Right.
- Mr. Yigit, nice to see you again.
- MR. K. YIGIT: Good to see you too.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I think I am going to be an expert on surveys by
the time I finish at the Commission since I have read a lot of them.
- MR. K. YIGIT: Not a bad thing.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Many of them have been yours.
- You did 1,008 interviews, 603 of them were the total cable DTH universe
and then you did two smaller subsets; not actually subsets of that 603 but two
smaller groups that were identified for you by Vision through their lists, the
donors and the GBG subscribers.
- MR. K. YIGIT: Correct.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So the total cable DTH universe that you
looked at, I just want to bring this down to some real numbers.
- So when you say on page 4, for example, the fourth point down, four and
five Vision TV viewers, you are talking about the 26 per cent of subscribers
18 and older?
- MR. K. YIGIT: Correct. Those who have reported in our survey having
viewed the channel at least once.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So 26 per cent of the 603?
- MR. K. YIGIT: That is correct, yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Which is 156 people.
- MR. K. YIGIT: Correct. Yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Then of those 156, of those 26 per cent,
then you start looking at support for the rate increase?
- MR. K. YIGIT: Yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So 63 per cent of the 26 per cent, and those are
actual viewers?
- MR. K. YIGIT: Yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: People who have watched Vision?
- MR. K. YIGIT: That is right. That is right.
- It is really in effect the same measure recorded for different bases,
viewers in this instance.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So then when you look at the total cable DTH
universe you are ---
- MR. K. YIGIT: That is the next page, correct?
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Where we are looking at two and three viewer
support, a seven cent per month rate increase. If you don’t look at this very
carefully, you would think 63 per cent that is pretty good but it is 63 per
cent of 26 per cent.
- MR. K. YIGIT: Yes. In all cases the support numbers are as most
other measures in the survey are reported against different relevant bases.
The one relevant base is obviously what is the level of support or what is the
level of anything for that matter among Vision viewers. So we report that.
- We also report the same set of numbers basically across the whole
universe, meaning, you know, the random selection of cable subscribers. In
separate instances, I think, they are also reported for what Vision calls the
super core. They are donors who financially support the station plus the
subscribers of their program guides. So depending on what we are looking at,
those different universes, if you will, are reported.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So then in the next point, and you actually
expand on this on page 19, where ---
- MR. K. YIGIT: Yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: --- where you are doing your summary of support
for these initiatives and specifically support for the notion of a rate
increase you say, "a plurality express support." I love that word.
- MR. K. YIGIT: It means ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: What is the dictionary definition of "plurality"?
- MR. K. YIGIT: We had this discussion over the years and ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: It sounds good. It sounds really good. It’s not a
majority.
- MR. K. YIGIT: The roots are in political research to be honest.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: It is the minority.
- MR. K. YIGIT: It means the largest of different numbers without
that number being the majority. What it is saying is, well if you look at the
numbers, obviously there is 40 per cent expressing support for the rate
increase, 29 per cent in opposition and 31 per cent "I have no opinion." They
don’t Vision enough to be able to take a stand one way or the other.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So it actually means the largest of different
numbers?
- MR. K. YIGIT: Yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Then that is not right. Unless you add the 33 and
the 7. Oh, I guess the 33 is the largest. The 40 itself is not the largest.
- MR. K. YIGIT: Yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: The 33 per cent that support ---
- MR. K. YIGIT: Right.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: --- that is the largest.
- MR. K. YIGIT: If you were cutting into individual scale points,
yes, that would be correct.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So then that still means that less than half
the people who were in the cable DTH universe support it?
- MR. K. YIGIT: That is right.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Fewer than half. Only 40 per cent.
- MR. K. YIGIT: It would be 40 per cent. Yes. You know, if
you did a poll tomorrow, arguably, and picked a hundred cable subscribers at
random, what this survey is saying that 40 would -- if you asked them the
question that we asked -- 40 would be in support, 30 would be in opposition,
30 will probably say "I don’t know," to the specific proposal of Vision
increasing its rates. Correct.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you make any assumptions about the "I don’t
knows"? The ones who say that they cannot express an opinion due to lack of
familiarity?
- MR. K. YIGIT: Well, there is two things you can do. In some types
of research, especially in the kind of political research that you hear on
CNN, sometimes -- well, more often than not the "no opinion response" is
considered to go as -- in other words, when they are forced into a response
that they would break out much as the respondent did. That is number one.
- But number two here, I wouldn’t even make that assumption. I think that
group may be in opposition to cable rate increases period of any sort. But,
you know, in this context they can’t tell you whether or not Vision is, you
know, they simply don’t know enough. But a common assumption is to assume that
"don’t knows" will eventually fall, and that is the important point,
eventually fall as the responding categories.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
- MR. K. YIGIT: But we didn’t make that assumption. As you can see in
the research, we simply kept it as, we didn’t say, well, they will just come
on to the support side or anything like that. We just left them as is.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, a famous broadcast ---
- MR. K. YIGIT: One point for context though ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I remember a famous broadcasting example of that
during the referendum when they got efforts for guessing on a pro rata basis
how much was going to yes or no, and they were wrong.
- MR. K. YIGIT: Yes, and it can happen if it’s a very close kind of
race in something of great public policy matter.
- I just want to make sure that it’s -- the numbers are read in context
without trying to make them sound better or anything like that. But the
numbers have to be interpreted in context of two things. One, you know, what
is the appetite for support for any rate increase for cable for any channel.
Number one.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Did you measure that?
- MR. K. YIGIT: Unfortunately no, not in this instance. Not in this
survey research, but generally speaking, of course, people will tell you that
they are tired of rate increases.
- Having said that, there is an expectation that there will always, each
year as the price of bread maybe goes up by two or three cents, that it will
rise by a few cents. That is not going to get people to take to the streets if
I could put it in those terms.
- But if you look at Vision as a niche broadcaster, with appeal to somewhere
in the neighbourhood of one in three Canadians or one in three cable
subscribers, the support level is really arguably consistent with the
viewership or even the knowledge and understanding of the channel.
- If I did a survey today of support for a rate increase for YTV, let’s say,
okay, a well-known channel, a big audience, but really when you get down to
it, relevant to something like 35 per cent of Canadian households
and no more. I may get those 35 per cent of Canadian households saying they
are in support and another 15 per cent coming along for the ride.
- The point I’m trying to make is when asked these questions in this
context, the days where you could get majority support anything are well past.
They were in the early nineties, maybe really early nineties. For niche
services you will get the segments that those services speak to coming along
and supporting you for any initiative like this. And others may be -- and what
you are hoping for is that there isn’t hard opposition, meaning there isn’t a
large number of -- group of people who say, "Oh, I’m really strongly opposed
to this," and that kind of thing.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that how you would read this?
- MR. K. YIGIT: Sorry?
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that how you would read this situation? That
there is -- I mean if you are saying the best we can hope for is no hard
opposition, is that ---
- MR. K. YIGIT: Well, I think we ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess what I am asking is ---
- MR. K. YIGIT: Yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: --- what is the usefulness of this information to
---
- MR. K. YIGIT: Purely that. I mean if I ask people, do you want a
rate -- nobody wants a rate increase. We know that. But will you take to the
streets if there was a rate increase of this magnitude, that is more relevant
for the Commission I would argue. But I don’t want to step out of the bounds
of what we reported here. But if you were trying to figure out how to place
any kind of research of this sort, support is much more context driven in this
instance.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.
- So I guess what I would like to do, just on the issue of the rate increase
before I move on to the other issues, is sort of wrap up by offering you an
opportunity, Mr. Roberts, to sort of on a philosophical level and a practical
level, I guess, explain why you think passing a rate increase through to the
entire subscriber base is justified in this instance.
- Let me just create a bit of context for you, which is that the Canadian
analogue specialty service industry is a big success. There were certain
decisions, regulatory decisions made in the mid-eighties about how to create
that industry, about how to create Canadian panels and Canadian content and
that included giving the analogue specialty services, some of which were
licensed as recently as 1996, preferred status, a lot of regulatory support, a
rate which you originally did not have, the sometimes carriage on basic,
sometimes on discretionary or basic if agreed, modified dual status.
- That was a very heavy time I think for specialty channels because their
business plans were guaranteed. They knew that they had revenues coming in
from certain streams and they knew that they could turn a profit if that is
what their motivation was based on that scenario, and the subscribers were the
big supporters of that regulatory initiative. We have built an immensely
successful Canadian broadcasting system on that basis.
- But times have changed. Now we are moving to digital and the whole push to
digital is subscriber choice and putting that choice back in their hands and
offering them the opportunity to be able to choose, for once, what they are
going to see instead of having to buy in bulk in the analogue environment
where you get tier 1, tier 2, tier 3. That is the way it is, that is what you
are offered. Sort of like the commercial with Mike Bullard, you know, here you
go. That is what you can have. They are finally going to be able to choose.
- When I made the comment about the triumph of hope over experience a little
earlier, and you look at sort of the recent decisions coming out of the
Commission, I think certainly they are pointing in that direction. Why
shouldn’t they point in that direction for you?
- I mean you have had many of the same benefits and supports. I hear what
you say about the losses that you have suffered. Could it be that you were
inattentive? The same way that you were inattentive to your Cancon by
outsourcing it. Inexperience and frugality, I think are the words that you
used in your opening remarks.
- Is it possible that those losses flowed partly from that, from an approach
to -- I don’t know. I don’t work there. But these are questions that I have to
ask because what you are asking is a lot. What you are asking of subscribers
is a lot so I have to ask you a lot in return in terms of justifying it. So I
guess I would like you to sort of talk about how that environment, the
regulatory environment has changed and why you should be an exception to that?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Susan is going to
want to speak to part of this as well and I do believe there will be a chart
coming up at Susan’s part of the response. But an important question.
- Why is it a lot? Our rate increase that we are requesting of the
Commission can be characterised somewhat as follows: 0.4 of 1.0 per cent of
the basic cable rate is another way of characterising that rate. I also heard
this morning, just to show I was paying attention, heard this morning that
there was another licensee before you who claimed that 11 per cent PBIT was
insufficient and inflexible and difficult to wrestle with.
- I think you would make a collection of right arms at this panel if we
could get 11 per cent. We are operating at about 1 per cent, and as
I repeat, three of the last four years at a loss and this year the most
profound loss.
- Was it a matter of mismanagement? No, it was a matter of being frugal. It
was a matter of being frugal with the intention of maximising our contribution
as a distinct public service entity within the broadcasting system as a
not-for-profit, as a charity and not wanting to invest in the -- necessarily
in the infrastructure, hence the third party farming out, but to put it on the
screen and to put it into the hands of independent producers, not into
shareholders, not into dividends.
- I made reference to, and perhaps it would seem somewhat in jest, the best
technology of the late 1970s and early 1980s. It might be a little amusing but
it is also true. This broadcaster, this licensee has put it into content, not
into infrastructure. If we are going forward into a world, which is
increasingly competitive, this broadcaster needs to be there with regard to
infrastructure and technological investment where it is not simply going to be
a matter of being under water, it will be thoroughly submerged.
- I would like to think that what we are asking for is a relatively modest
investment in the ongoing distinctiveness of the Canadian broadcasting system.
I have also mentioned that it is not inflation. This is dealing with
competitive pressures and it is also a broadcaster that is broke and yet still
pulls out all the stops to put on the screen that tremendous contribution to
Canadian content and to independent production community.
- I think one of the other issues that Madam Chair alludes is one that
hasn’t really been fleshed out here too much and it is, is there a future for
divergent and alternative voices in the Canadian broadcasting system. In an
era where convergence and merging and bigger is the theme, can not-for-profit,
charitable, alternative, public service entities survive especially where they
can’t access capital markets? This is an important question. Susan.
- MS S. BOWER: Thank you, Bill.
- We prepared a chart for you to illustrate our profitability challenge and
the downward trend that we are facing. The blue line is the average
profitability, PBIT for all English specialty channels. It is about 16.8
average over the last five years, six years and Vision is at a
1 per cent PBIT and a declining trend. The reasons for that are the
increased costs of original Canadian production, the higher triggers required
to access the funding bodies, increased competition so pressures on wages and
salaries, need to replace capital equipment.
- We have presented to you a restraint model that if we didn’t get a rate
increase what kinds of restraints we could impose on our operation. They are
fairly significant. They begin with advertising and promotion but they also
then go to basic administration costs and then they end up affecting
programming.
- This is an operation that takes very seriously it’s commitment to original
Canadian production. We take very seriously our commitment towards balanced
spiritual programming and it is one that requires -- needs a rate increase to
continue to support it.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: With respect to your non-compliance on Cancon and,
you know, I certainly -- I acknowledge the work that you have done with
independent producers and the incredible work that you did trying to reconcile
the discrepancies in the numbers for the last four years. As I said, Mr.
Roberts, you were very eloquent in your apology. And I probably shouldn’t even
mention this person in the same breath as Vision TV but it reminded me of
Machiavelli, which I studied in first year university, who said if you are
caught red-handed, you may as well just admit it, apologise and get on.
Because people forget pretty quickly if you are humble.
- I guess what I want to find out is you have talked about what you have
done a little bit in terms of bringing this activity in-house and adding staff
in order to be able to monitor it better. Could you just describe in a little
bit more detail for me what exactly you are doing?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Yes, Madam Chair, although I think I would have
preferred some allusion to Leviticus as opposed to Machiavelli.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I know. I said I hesitated to mention it.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: And well you should. Well, you should have.
- But I think in Leviticus there is some paragraph that refers to every
seven years having the wisdom to forgive if someone transgresses.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Leviticus isn’t the one that Dr. Laura was
quoting. It might have been.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Madam Chair, I am going to turn this over shortly
Joan because she is putting those instruments in place. But I want to kind of
try and stick to the message here a little bit.
- This is a good broadcaster. This is a good licensee. This is a licensee
who is zealous about creating and nurturing Canadian content and overreaching
in that nourishing and that exhibition of Canadian content.
- What it has not been so good at is counting. It has invested in the
creation and exhibition but not in the infrastructure of counting.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: It actually hasn’t exhibited the amount that it is
supposed to. So that is not just necessarily accounting.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Well, we might come to that in what is actually
logged and counted versus exhibited. But yes, I admit, we dropped the ball. We
dropped the ball and we have taken precise measures to correct that, to pick
that ball up and run with it.
- For the first time in Vision’s 13 year history, we now have a planned 52
week schedule. So we know where we are going to be with regard to Canadian
content.
- Now, this has also been a systemic issue with other broadcasters and
specialty services and I recognise that and the CAB has become involved as
well. But internally, this is the first agenda item on a bi-weekly basis for
our executive management committee from now going forward.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: We are so glad to hear that.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Leviticus.
- We will be in compliance. I have said to staff and to others, we will be
in compliance if I have to dance under a halogen bulb in our studio, we will
be in compliance. I will turn if over to Joan.
- MS J. JENKINSON: Thank you, Bill.
- My position as the Director of Programming Operations at Vision TV is a
new one as of May of this year. It is now my responsibility to develop,
implement and monitor systems to ensure compliance. We have completed a
thorough review of our programming system and we now have a complete
understanding of the causes of our deficiencies and how to correct them. As a
result we have put the following measures into place.
- First, software. We now have a comprehensive software solution for program
inventory management and scheduling. The software is used to project Canadian
content level during the schedule planning stages. Before we programmed by
season, now we program on a 52-week schedule, as Bill has mentioned. We can
now monitor the Canadian content of the schedule on a daily basis and any
corrections to the schedule, if needed, will be implemented immediately to
ensure the year end totals achieve 60 per cent.
- Second, staffing. The programming department has increased to ensure
greater efficiency. To eliminate the tracking problem, I am now overseeing the
work of three people who will, as part of their job, be responsible for the
following: calculating and monitoring Canadian content levels; bringing
in-house reporting to the CRTC; reviewing errors and omissions reports;
resubmitting reports; maintaining regular contact with CRTC staff to keep
abreast of changes; and making timely corrections and adjustments as required;
obtaining CanRec and CAVCO number for as many programs currently in our
inventory as possible; and for programs for which we are unable to obtain
numbers, they will be hidden or archived in our system. So now we have four
people doing the work and taking on this responsibility where previously there
were none.
- And thirdly in our business affairs policies, we have decided that no
program will go to air without the proper certification and documentation that
it is Canadian content. We will treat all programs without numbers as we would
foreign content.
- On a go forward basis as part of the deliverables that we are requiring of
producers, they will have to show us proof of application at the principal
photography stage, which will allow the producers enough lead time to apply
and to account for any delays in the process.
- On final delivery, programs requiring CanRec or CAVCO numbers will not be
accepted without these numbers. So we are confident that these changes that we
have made will ensure compliance this year and in the future.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: I’m having fun embroidering on some of these
things.
- Let me be clear, we will never be in non-compliance, not this year, not
ever on a going forward basis.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is good. You just answered the question
I was going to ask you, which I learned from the Vice-Chair. Can you ensure us
that you will never be in non-compliance?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Not now, not never in non-compliance.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. If we were to go away and not feel confident
in your assurances and decided that we were going to impose some kind of a
condition of license to ensure that you are going to be better at tracking
your Cancon and reporting it, for example, over a six month period rather than
over a yearly period, what would be the impact? I mean from the sounds of it
with the service -- the staff that you have got in place and the system that
you are developing it should be no problem for you to report every six months
as opposed to every year.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: I think we would be prepared for that undertaking,
yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, I said earlier that I thought you had
clarified in one of your deficiencies, your carriage question. Is that
correct? You are not asking for anything specific now that the decision has
come out with respect to ---
- MR. B. ROBERTS: That is correct, Madam Chair. There was some
uncertainty at the time of filing of our -- given the time lag, et cetera,
with regard to filing our application. But our existing carriage status with
regard to dual status along with the developments along access rules and the
Class 1 clarification, we are fine.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. You did make a comment, I think, with
respect to the transition to digital. But, of course, that is being discussed
in another forum. So I think we can leave that.
- Just a few other matters to wrap up with. You have done a lot in the area
of cultural diversity and I think that you have probably heard, coming out of
the group TV renewals for CTV and Global that we are going to be setting up,
there is probably -- it’s not "we" necessarily, but it looks like there will
be an industry task force of some kind. And would you be prepared to
participate in that and fund -- and don’t come back and say if we get our rate
increase, we will -- but fund the participation of one of your staff members
in that task force in terms of developing some strategies system-wide?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Absolutely.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Descriptive video. Did you follow the Group
TV renewals? And you are familiar with the offers that have been put on the
table by both Global and CTV with respect to descriptive video?
- I think that you have said that it is your position that it is
inappropriate, it is an inappropriate time for the specialty services to be
required to do described video programming. Has your position changed at all
since you heard about what the conventional broadcasters are prepared to do
over their licence term?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Yes, an important question and I will actually ask
Erika to contribute to the response. But yes, it is a very important
initiative especially with the ageing population that Vision serves. But at
the same time, as a charity and as a not-for-profit, I don’t think we can
ignore the economics of descriptive video. CanWest and CTV with revenues
approaching about $1 billion a year each over their licence term are talking
about four hours a week. So our capacity is a little limited here given our
current financial straits or given the fact that we are broke.
- So yes, we are interested in following these trends. We are interested in
seeing what happens in the United States, but there is some financial capacity
that still makes it price prohibitive. Erika.
- MS E. KRAMER: We have been in touch with AudioVision and are
actually looking at their catalogue of programs which are available which have
been described. Unfortunately there is not too much in their catalogue right
now which fits in within our mandate, Paul I think ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: This is the NBRS library.
- MS E. KRAMER: That is right. Yes. And it would be a reasonable
amount of money to license a described version of a program on occasion if we
do find something in their catalogue that fits in with our mandate. But the
other thing that we need to consider is the technical distribution of
described video and what we might do is if we can find a program is run it in
open description, which would increase awareness.
- We are also working with industry associations such as the CAB and the
Canadian Satellite Users Association looking at alternative means of
distributing described video, which would make it a little more cost-effective
and a more widely available.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thanks. I am sure you are aware that in the
TV policy we encouraged some movement in that area and after a couple of years
discovered there had been none. So it was really gratifying when the networks
came forward and made these offers and said yes, they were actually going to
do something. Of course, the decision in the US has helped. There will be a
supply there and there is some stuff going on in other countries.
- Now, captioning, I just want to ask you about your numbers. If you look at
9.4.2 of the actual application form and the numbers of captioning that you
have done is 2,460 for year six. Then for the new term you are projecting
4,022, that is with the rate increase. You have a lot of extra money there to
pay for captioning, I guess. That is a huge increase in captioning hours. You
are going from 2,400 to 4,022 right off the bat next year and maintaining that
level right across. So how do you get there that fast?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: I’m going to let Erika respond to how do we get
there that fast, but I would like to underline why we get there.
- Given the nature of our audience and I referred to the nature of our
audience in the previous line of questioning around descriptive video, but we
are committed as Vision, as a public service entity, to optimal access for all
of our viewing audience. So this is a very important undertaking for us and we
treat it as a real priority.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So it’s really a philosophical choice that you are
making to increase?
- MS E. KRAMER: We have actually been working towards captioning our
entire Cornerstone library and this year, by the end of this year, we project
we will be at 3,200 hours. So it won’t be quite a stretch for us to reach
4,200 next year.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. It seems like a big jump in one year to go
that many hours. But that is why I thought I would ask.
- Finally, with respect to your nature of service, and I actually meant to
touch on this when I was going through your financials. But you want to add,
right now your COL 1B, I believe, says that 90 per cent of your
programming has to come from Category 4 and you want to add Categories 12, 13
and 14 to that. So interstitials, public service announcements and
infomercials.
- The interstitials and PSAs I think are fairly understandable. You already
have 10 per cent of your schedule that you can do virtually anything you want
with. You can use any category you want. So what would the effect be of adding
those categories to COL 1B, which is 90 per cent has to be from Category
4. Are you proposing limits on any of those and I mean, you are talking about
including infomercials now in the 90 per cent that is supposed to be
religious programming. Are they going to be religious infomercials? I’m being
a little facetious but I’m just trying to ---
- MR. B. ROBERTS: It went with Machiavellian, okay.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean you could fundamentally change if there are
no limits attached to those or -- I mean we could say, no, this just doesn’t
make sense. But you could fundamentally change the nature of your service by
-- not with PSAs and interstitials but infomercials certainly.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Although, Mr. Buchanan and I did have a very
interesting discussion about infomercials in 1999, which I haven’t forgotten
and how good they are.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
- I am going to ask perhaps two or three people to contribute to the
response here. First, Rita with regard to history of nature of services, to
touch upon that a little bit. Secondly, Erika to deal with some of the logging
aspects of this query. And then perhaps, lastly, legal counsel to address some
of the implications on nature of service.
- But in order to set this up a little bit, of the 2,400 intervenors,
positive and negative, all of them supported the value and nature of our
service. I think that we would be quite adamant in arguing that everything we
do is religious. So it is a hundred per cent essentially, subject to some
logging and other considerations. Erika -- excuse me -- Rita, I am wondering
if you can speak to that from a historical perspective.
- MS R. DEVERELL: We have no desire to change the nature of service,
and it is interesting that this discussion has come up when we were licensed
originally 13 years ago and at our renewal, whether there was any of our
programming that was not religious. When we get down to that discussion, it is
essentially a discussion about the difference between form and content. In
content, our programming, all of it always has been religious. Even when we
were licensed, we got into the discussion of how religious programs could be
drama, could be music, could be documentary, that religious programs did not
mean church services.
- So we have never intended to change the nature of our service. Those three
categories, however, are new categories that have been introduced into the
logging system and we were updating to reflect that change.
- So certainly you are correct that interstitials and PSAs fall within the
religious parameters. Our interstitials certainly do. They are always faith
based in content and PSAs, as well. You are also correct that infomercials,
which we run in the middle of the night, are not religious, however they do
meet our code of advertising standards.
- MS E. KRAMER: In terms of logging, it probably would make more
sense for us to log the infomercials as part of the 10 per cent and everything
else under the 90 per cent. So it might be more accurate to have our
conditions of license reflect that.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, I was just trying to figure out -- I mean,
if we are saying that 90 per cent of your service should be religious
programming and then a big hunk, or not a big hunk of it, but a hunk of it is
infomercials, like what is that hunk and what is the 10 per cent?
What is that? What is making up the 10 per cent and why are the
infomercials -- I would assume looking at your schedule knowing what your COLs
are, that the infomercials are being logged under the 10 per cent
and not under the 90.
- MS E. KRAMER: Yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So it just raised a red flag. It’s sort of like
well, you are going to reduce the 90 per cent with the infomercials so why
would we do that. There would have to be some really good reason when you have
already got the space.
- MS E. KRAMER: I think we were just concentrating and not changing
the nature of service.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So now you are changing.
- MS E. KRAMER: We want to stay in -- well, we want to be able to
reflect the schedules more accurately in keeping with the logging softwares.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. But then the infomercials would not become
part of COL 1B?
- MS E. KRAMER: No. Not if we were to make that change.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that right, Mr. Buchanan?
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: I’m enjoying listening to this evolve. That sounds
like that is correct. But it is all subject to 1A, which says "shall consist
exclusively of interfaith religious programming." So I only raise that in the
context of your suggestion that you can run anything you want. I know that was
a hyperbole but ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. Except that if you put infomercials in 1B,
you will be out of compliance. Because your infomercials are not religious or
multi-faith. Right? You are saying they are all subject to 1A? That they shall
all be.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: I would not put it like that. I think where Rita
was going with the non-religious has to do with Category 4 and not logged as
Category 4 religion. You have got a Category 4 religion that says it’s
programming dealing with religious and religious teachings, including
spiritual condition.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: And you have got an umbrella condition that covers
all of your programming that says almost the same thing. It says "exclusively
of inter-faith religious programming inspired by people’s spirituality," and
so on.
- So I think you have reached a consensus that the logical thing to do is to
have the 10 per cent that you were referring to at the outset
capture the infomercials and move it out of what was proposed in 1B.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: And allow it to become part of the grab bag.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: That is exactly what I’m saying.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: I think that makes a lot of sense.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So you wouldn’t want it in 1B?
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: It sounds like you are prepared to have it in one
-- in the 10 per cent that is outside of 1B and that seems to make good sense.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. That makes me happy. Does that make the
lawyers happy?
- Okay. So that concludes my questions. I will just see if any of the other
members have questions before I turn it over to our legal counsel. Oh, we have
lots of questions for you. Okay, Madam Vice-Chair, we will start with you.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: How long have you been trying to resolve the
Canadian content problem and how much financial energy has been put into that?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: For a while and considerable. Erika, could I ask
you to respond to this.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: In terms of one physical year, six months? And
what is the expenditure? I heard Madam Jenkinson, I believe, say that four
people are involved in doing this. Obviously to get into compliance there
appears from reading the application there has been a lot of energy put into
it that will not continue at that level once you get it right.
- So what has been the amount you have spent at it and the cost and on an
ongoing basis how will it compare with sourcing it out, doing it in-house at
the end of the day once you have cured the problem? Just to get a better feel
of how costly this exercise has been in recent months or perhaps even years.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Madam Vice-Chair, I want to be clear about --
before I pass to my colleagues -- I want to be clear about what we have done
with regard to third party or farming out our CanRec responsibilities. We have
brought those responsibilities in-house, not on a temporary basis but on a
permanent and ongoing basis.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: Oh, I understand that. My questions was more
all this energy into trying to cure the past, if you are right that you now
have a system that will keep it going is obviously not going to continue or is
it going to continue as expensive as it has been in the last year. You must
have had people looking for producers and trying to backtrack and so on.
- I just want to get a feel because what we have is the licensee says it is
in crisis financially and we love to regulate, of course. But it is kind of
difficult to hear you say we are in crisis and what we have been doing in the
last year is expending our energy, meeting your regulatory requirements and
your logging and the reporting and so on. So I would like you to put it in
perspective financially for us.
- MS E. KRAMER: In February of 2000 was the first time we became
aware that there was a problem. It took us about two months to peel this onion
and get to all the layers of what the different problems were. At that time we
hired a consultant to help us refile our logs applying correct key figures to
the programs.
- We also invested in program inventory management and scheduling software,
which is about $50,000 a year on an ongoing basis. We spent about $250,000
implementing the program. I’m not sure how much we spent on the consultant.
Perhaps Susan has that figure. But another consultant was brought in to help
us analyse our staffing needs in the programming department and as a result of
that we hired Joan and the additional staff in programming to help us manage
this on a go-forward basis.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: So these additional employees and resources,
in-house resources were not involved in correcting the past. They are going to
be. And how will that compare to the cost of sourcing it out which did not --
was not very successful? Is it going to be much more expensive? We know it is
going to be more successful because Leviticus or the Holy Ghost is going to
get into it.
- MS S. BOWER: It is in fact new costs for us. The sourcing out was
rolled into the Commission structure for the ad sales, which was part of the
logging. So it’s a little hard for me to unravel exactly what it costs for us
to be non-compliant. I can tell you be in compliance, it is about three or
four salaries plus about half a year’s worth of additional labour to do catch
up in the past.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: Now, if we eliminate the catch-up, would you
say that on an ongoing basis being in regulatory compliance is going to be
more expensive than in non-compliance? And you don’t know the exact figure but
---
- MS S. BOWER: In terms of the staffing and the resources it is about
a quarter of a million dollars and then you have to overlay on top of that the
licence fees for the program inventory and scheduling software that Erika has
mentioned.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: I gather you can’t tell us how that compares
with the sum which was rolled in with the Commission? You don’t even have a
sense of a ballpark figure?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: We don’t have a ballpark figure but it is a
significant increase in terms of ---
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: In compliance.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Correct.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: I only have one other question. You filed with
a deficiency response, I believe, projected financial operations on an
approval scenario what would be the effect of the seven cent increase.
- Now, you also stated, I gather, that half of the increase would go to new
programming initiatives and half simply continue the existing level of
service, including, I gather, in that filing this additional resource for
being in compliance would be under the expenses that are here in that appendix
that you filed with the response.
- MS S. BOWER: Yes. The half of the rate increase is -- we have
indicated that is for economic need or competitive pressures. It is also to
keep us operationally whole and sound and compliance is part of that.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: Including the compliance.
- MS S. BOWER: Yes.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: But in the financial projections you have put
to show what an approval scenario would give, are included the new programming
initiatives as well?
- MS S. BOWER: Yes.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: Have you -- and I gather half would be the
programming initiatives of the increase and half for being in compliance and
continuing the existing level of service. Have you run this schedule with a
3.5 cent increase? In other words, taking out the new programming initiatives,
staying alive and remaining in compliance.
- MS S. BOWER: We haven’t run them specifically. We have considered
what the impact would be and can’t give you exact quantitative results but we
do see the programming initiatives as central to the refurbishment and the
replenishment of the schedule and for positioning Vision for the future in
terms of increased audience and broadening the audience scope.
- If we didn’t have the initiatives, then we perhaps wouldn’t achieve the
same levels of the growth in the advertising dollars and the fundraising
growth.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: What does that mean that half of the seven
cents would allow you to keep the same level of service. It means, since you
don’t have the new programming initiatives, more repeat of your inventory?
What does it mean?
- MS S. BOWER: That is what it means is primarily a repeat of the
inventory. Rita can speak to this more carefully than I can. But we also are
aware of the increase. We have mentioned the increases in the licence fees and
the triggers to access the top-up funding that is available.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: Yes. But I’m trying to figure out whether half
of the increase -- you have stated that you were a licensee in crisis and that
you need seven cents to stay out of crisis. By crisis I mean not being able to
operate. And I think you have stated that half of the seven cents would allow
you to maintain the existing level of service and perhaps with Leviticus and
the Holy Ghost, lo and behold you would do not too badly. But you would do
much better because you would have more programming initiatives, et cetera, et
cetera, being able to refurbish more easily with seven cents. Would you be in
crisis if you had a 3.5 cent increase is my question?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Rita.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: I know you want seven cents.
- MS R. DEVERELL: We would be in less of a crisis if we had 3.5 cents
but it is a bit of a downward spiral. The reason I say that is this would
leave us not refreshing our programming, not reducing our repeat cycle and I
will give you what for us is perhaps the most glaring example in terms of
programming, which was an enormously popular program, is an enormously popular
program called "Let’s Sing Again."
- We have been unable to produce that program, new episodes for some years.
It has a tremendous amount of audience involvement and so on and so forth.
Checking the mail recently, we are starting to get literally complaints about
the number of repeats of that program, and that is just one program. So it is
a bit of a downward -- we can’t really tread water.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: I haven’t brought up my grandchildren yet in
this hearing. So it would be like saying to the grandmother, "Not that one
again."
- MR. P. de SILVA: If I may add, Madam Vice-Chair, there was a
very direct connection with the CTF, for instance. The fact that we had to put
more money into topping up the licence fees to get programming and we had to
take it from somewhere, which was from the production of the "Let’s Sing
Again" program. So that is now becoming, as you say a grandmother complaining
about it, "Not that one again." We certainly are getting those complaints. And
in order to refresh that very important program to our core viewers, we need
this money to produce those programs in addition to keep the independent
sector alive and at the level of Canadian production that we would like to.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: If I look at the approval scenario in the
second year of the new licence you would be in a positive cash flow. Correct?
You haven’t run how -- what would happen if it were a lower increase, four
cents, three cents?
- MS S. BOWER: No, we haven’t run those specific iterations. Just to
underscore though that in terms of being in a positive cash flow, we have to
understand that in context again for a service that only has $1.8 million in
net assets, that is really only two and a half months of operating cash. So as
the business grows and the operation becomes more expensive, you need a little
more cash each year to be solvent and to be able to pay payroll on time.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: That would be the scenario of the existing
level of service including repeat "Let’s Sing." Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Cardozo.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just three quick
questions and I don’t want to take too long. I see your intervenors and
supporters are here. I wouldn’t want to bore them into leaving.
- In 1997 when we had the hearing for the licensing of Cross Roads, Vision
expressed quite a bit of concern there and a concern that you would lose
viewership to Cross Roads, especially in the Toronto/Hamilton area. How did
that fair? How has the licensing of CTS affected Vision? How has it affected
your numbers? Do you have any sense of that?
- MS R. DEVERELL: In fact, the year from the move in the GTA to
Channel 60 to the licensing of Cross Roads, which was, I think, precisely a
year was when this sharp audience decline happened. I suspect that it is
related to two things, the main one being channel position. The multi-faith
broadcaster is less accessible at Channel 60 than the single faith, the
balanced broadcaster at Channel 9 in more than half the television sets in
Canada.
- The other thing is there are certain overlaps in programming and in the
construction of the schedule. So both of those factors -- you can get there
faster and do some of the same things. So it did precipitate a drop in
audience.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: A drop in audience but your revenue numbers
had been largely increasing or steadily increasing over this period?
- MS R. DEVERELL: Susan, do you want to answer that?
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Did it affect your revenues?
- MS S. BOWER: The way it affected our revenues is we believe we
didn’t achieve the audience advertising sales that we had expected and had
planned for. So that was the primary direct impact.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: On the matter of cross-promotion, Mr.
Roberts, you mentioned as a standalone service you don’t have the abilities
that other integrated companies might. But as I recall about a year ago, if
not more, you signed or began a cross-promotion agreement with APTN, if I am
not mistaken. Is that the kind of thing you can still do? Does that -- I mean
are there other public service broadcasters that you can cross-promote with,
have agreements of cross-promotion?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Yes, Commissioner. I think by and large those sorts
of cross-promotion opportunities amongst not-for-profit or public service
broadcasters still deal with market values. What I was referring to earlier
was cross-promotion within a corporate entity where it is a heavily subsidised
cross-promotion, where there are internal synergies which simply aren’t
available to independent or standalone entities.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Do you see yourself, like just in terms of
the kind of cross-promotion that you have or have had going with APTN, do you
see those expanding or continuing?
- MS S. BOWER: Just to clarify, Commissioner, it really wasn’t a
cross-promotion relationship. It was us providing services to them in
affiliate relations and basically it was a cost-recovery ---
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I understand that. I thought that you were
going to be promoting their channel and they were promoting yours. Have I got
that wrong?
- MR. P. de SILVA: May I make a comment, Commissioner Cardozo?
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Please.
- MR. P. de SILVA: I think that there was no formal arrangement in
terms of cross-promotion. But there was quite a bit of discussion about
co-producing programs where Susan has referenced the shared sales activities
as well as the cable affiliate activities. But there was discussion about
co-production and that has increased a bit. In fact, Mr. Cherniack, who is one
of our intervenors here today is a case in point of a major landmark program,
a five-part series of Alkali Lake that is being done with Vision as a first
window and APTN as a second and there are several others in development.
- So I think our focus was in terms of co-producing programs that would
result in cross-promotion eventually.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Well, that leads to my third question which
was shared windows. You had mentioned "Journey to Little Rock," and I know a
little bit about this because the protagonist, Mary-Jane Brown is a
personality here in Ottawa. We have some local personalities and she is one of
them.
- As I understand that film, that is shared with other -- other networks
have windows in that film as well?
- MR. P. de SILVA: That is correct. I believe WTN and SCN and
Knowledge Network have windows and it is a particular case in point where the
initiating broadcaster was Vision TV. But in order to make the numbers work
for CTF and the other funding, it is necessary to bring second windows in. But
we were the initial investor in terms of both the development and for
financing the first window broadcast.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So do you find yourself at Vision doing more
shared windows than you might have done say five years ago?
- MR. P. de SILVA: I would say we do more shared windows now. I think
there has always been the two kinds of programs that we have done. One is the
kind of core value programs that have -- it’s only application, if you will,
or only broadcast window on Vision TV. They are the kinds of programs, a lot
of them that have been done by the sleeping giant production company, Life
After Death, the Dreams Program, et cetera. Then there are others that have a
cross-over, that may have a second window on. We have done, in fact, shared
windows with Bravo! for instance. We in this case had a second window
arrangement with WTN on a series called "Mystic Women of the Middle Ages," and
then we flipped. We took a second window on a series called "Spiritual
Journeys."
- So to answer the question, I think there is definitely an increase in the
number of second and third windows now that has been triggered by the fact
that you have to have a higher licence fee now to trigger the CTF. So it is
forcing producers to go around and get those second windows prior to
production as part of the pre-sale package rather than as a post-production
sales scenario.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: (Off mike) -- would it not?
- MR. P. de SILVA: Yes, very much so. In fact, this was a major topic
in terms of recently as, you know, the hot box conference was -- I was on a
panel with all the major documentary commissioning editors. Everyone says we
want first windows in terms of landmark programming. So there is an increased
competition for first windows, which means we also would like to have first
windows particularly in programs that are core to our genre. But that means in
order to trigger the financing for it that we have to anti up. I have seen
licence fees for instance go from when I joined Vision as Head of Independent
Production of limits of 15,000. They are now peaking at about 55-60, in order
to get those first windows.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. Thanks very much.
- Thank you, Madam Chair.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Cram.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank you. I guess my first question is that,
Mr. Roberts, you said that the cost of monitoring the Canadian content is
significantly higher. I find it difficult to understand that because you don’t
know what the costs were in the first place. In order to give us some idea,
when was this contract first entered into and maybe if we looked at that
financial year versus the year before, we could ascertain some costs of the
contracting out. Are you doing that, Ms Bower, right now?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: The contract for services, I believe, began in 1988
and perhaps I wasn’t clear. It was my supposition that they would be
significantly higher given that this was a fee built into another fee
structure. But I would ask Susan to be more specific.
- MS S. BOWER: I think probably a comparison to the beginning of the
commission structure wouldn’t be accurate because a lot of what was required
from the commission wasn’t in place at that point. But if we just look at the
past couple of years, probably what is built into our commission is probably
1 per cent of the total commission would be -- if the commission is
about 13 per cent or 14 per cent. So if we assume 1 per cent of
that is related to servicing, because I think it is understood that about
12 per cent is industry average for commission on sales, somewhere
in that area, 11 to 12 per cent.
- So it is a very, very small amount that we would -- if we are able to
negotiate a recoupment of that, given that our gross advertising sales are
only 1.4 million. You know, we are talking about probably recouping less than
$10,000 on an annual basis from a sales agent versus now having three or four
salaries plus our own programming inventory and scheduling system in place. So
it’s a very minuscule amount.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: I would expect next year or the year after or
the year after, that the computer will be able to handle almost all of the
issues of monitoring. I mean once you -- the software system is set up, it
really is not going to take four people full time to monitor the Cancon
compliance. I just have a lot of difficulty in believing that.
- MS S. BOWER: It’s not just putting numbers into the computer
system, which is a straightforward data entry task. But because of the high
number of independent sector and one-off programming that we do commission,
there is a lot of tracking and monitoring of the relationship with those
independent producers and ---
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: So it is more in the commissioning of the work
---
- MS S. BOWER: Yes.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: --- that other broadcasters would have to do
anyway. They would have to do the same thing, wouldn’t they?
- MS S. BOWER: Yes, there certainly is parallels there. We have a
much higher percentage of our inventory coming from the outside.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: That is another thing that I wanted to get into
because I was getting confused.
- Forty-five (45) per cent of your total programming is Mosaic programming
over which you have -- you are paid to air it and there is no advertising. Out
of the remaining 55 per cent, how much is acquired programming? Because we got
into 45 per cent of something and I didn’t understand if we could break it
down. Forty-five (45) per cent is Mosaic, 55 per cent is left. How much of
that is acquired programming?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: I would like to ask Joan to respond to that.
- MS J. JENKINSON: As I said, 44 per cent of our total Canadian
programming is programs that are licensed by Vision TV.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: If you say 44 per cent of your total
Canadian time, then that is -- I then would do 44 per cent by 60 per cent to
end up with 24 per cent would be acquired Canadian programming?
- MS S. BOWER: That is correct.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Of your total time. So then the remainder is
in-house.
- MR. P. de SILVA: It is a combination of in-house and pre-sales,
Madam Commissioner, of independently acquired programming.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: So would that not also be acquired programming?
- MR. P. de SILVA: Yes.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: So as a percentage of a hundred, excluding the
Mosaics, which leaves you with 55 per cent left, how much is
acquired programming in that very contentious market that you are -- that
competitive market that you are talking about?
- MS R. DEVERELL: Just to leap in here for one moment. It is not 45
and 55. It’s 45 and 45 because of the 10 per cent that we were just talking
about earlier.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay. So out of that 45 per cent how
much is acquired programming that is in that very competitive rights market?
- MR. P. de SILVA: Sorry. Go ahead, Joan.
- MS J. JENKINSON: About 10 per cent of our programming is programs
that we do at the Canadian programming, programming that we do in-house. The
other 90 per cent we either acquire or do commission with independent
producers.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: So then 41 per cent of the total programming
then is acquired programming?
- MS J. JENKINSON: That is correct.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank you.
- I found it interesting when you were talking about the purpose of the
increase. Have I got it correct that half of the increase would be to maintain
where you are, but the other half would be these new programming, this new
four hours? Is that correct?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: That is correct.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Why didn’t you at the same time volunteer to
increase your Canadian content then? Because if that adds up to four hours,
and believe me, my colleagues know me as a mathematician, four hours a week
out of 126 hours, that adds up to three per cent. You play it twice in a week,
that is 6.6 per cent.
- So if you want us to give you something, i.e., a rate increase, for
something that you say is an increase in Canadian content in new programming
that will be four hours a week. And if it is played twice, eight hours a week,
6.6 Canadian content. Why wouldn’t you offer to increase your Canadian content
to 66.6 per cent, I gather?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: If the Commissioner is suggesting that perhaps
moving from our 45 per cent condition of licence with regard to expenditure on
Canadian content to ---
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: No, percentage.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Exhibition.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yeah, exhibition. Four hours out of 126, which
is six to twelve -- six to twelve to twelve, 18 hours a day.
- MS E. KRAMER: We need the new program initiatives to replenish some
of the content we are repeating over and over again on the air. There are some
programs that we have run eight times, eleven times in the last five or six
years. So it is not additional Canadian content but it is to replace some of
the ageing Canadian content.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Oh, I thought that was just the cost of
maintaining what you got now. I thought that was what the 50 per cent was for,
was maintaining what you had now and then the other 50 per cent was for the
new programming. But the new programming is not going to be additional or
incremental programming. It is going to be replacement programming of your
present Canadian content. Is that it?
- MS E. KRAMER: Yes, some of it.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: So then I’m having a problem distinguishing
between the 50 per cent that is going to maintain your present commitments and
the new programming. Because some of it is not going to be essentially
incrementally new programming, is it?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: That is a question we hadn’t anticipated, but let
me begin a response.
- If what the Commissioner is suggesting is that we would move, let’s say,
60 to 65 per cent in prime, that would be a condition of licence we would
consider. Yes.
- MR. P. de SILVA: I would also like to add, Madam Commissioner, that
there are implications of repeat factor here as well that if we were replacing
some of the programming, that means replenishing. That in order to balance the
60 per cent, we would naturally have to also, if we were increasing, you know,
in terms of, yes, we are going to be creating new programming and we are
taking on some old programming. But in order to maintain the levels that we
are doing, we also have a very significantly high repeat factor. So it would
affect the repeat factor. So I would want to be crunching those numbers before
I committed to increasing our Canadian content in terms of what the
implications for repeat factor might be as well.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: You see my problem is I just want to see what
the money is for. Forty million you say is to keep you where you are at, which
is the 3.5 per cent. The other 40 million is for new programming and you
have named four programs, four hours, and it doesn’t sound like it is new
Canadian content. It doesn’t sound like it is incremental Canadian content to
me, which is the impression I had from when you said 50 per cent is to
maintain where you are at and the rest is for new programming.
- So what is the 50 per cent for new programming? Is it new incremental
Canadian content or no? Is it simply to maintain your present Canadian content
commitment and replenish or replace programming that is presently on?
- MS R. DEVERELL: It is new Canadian content. But as Paul says, there
is still the factor of reducing our number of repeats. As our revenues have
grown, we have lessened our repeat wheel each term of licence. So it is new
content. But we are also retiring repeated programs.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: So is one-half of this increase for incremental
Canadian content programming on your station -- on your channel or not?
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: Can I give a comment from the back row here,
Commissioner Cram?
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Sure you can.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: It sounds like the way you are posing the question
is that the only way this could be incremental is if the Canadian content
level rose.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: That is exactly what I am saying. Incremental
Canadian content.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: And I think the answer is it’s incremental
Canadian content that would not otherwise get made, but it’s replacing old
stale Canadian which will be taken off the schedule and replaced with it. So
incremental, I think the word is tripping us up here. You are looking for a
quantitative incremental as opposed to a replacement incremental and what I
heard Mr. Roberts start down the road was if what you are looking for is
incremental dollars and performing the alchemy of converting those dollars
into incremental Canadian content, he thought you were headed towards the
revenue condition which may make a lot of sense.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: So then I will summarise. The increase as
requested will not result in any increased Canadian content exposure on this
channel.
- MS E. KRAMER: I would like to elaborate just a little bit.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Well, that is the question. Is there going to be
more Cancon on the channel or not?
- MS E. KRAMER: There will be unique Cancon.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Is there going to be more?
- MR. P. de SILVA: We would not be looking to increase the 60 per
cent Canadian content because of the new initiatives.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank you. That was my question.
- My next question comes to -- and I know we are not talking about the
foundation tier. But in the event that something like a foundation tier is
considered, and in the event that Vision would be in that, I hear you, Ms
Bower, saying that all of that money would go to Canadian content if you made
more money as a result of being in a foundation tier or any increased revenue.
Is that correct? Above that being budgeted.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Yes, I think what Susan was referring to, and I
stand to be corrected, is that any surpluses beyond our budget forecasts would
perforce go directly to the screen, go directly to Canadian content.
- I’m not sure that is necessarily related to the foundation tier concept
but that is related to the nature of Vision TV itself as a not-for-profit.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: So then my concern is if we do grant you an
increase and if, and of course based on your -- your presumptions are based on
present day presumption, not if there were a foundation tier and if Vision
were placed in a favourable place as a result of that. What would happen to
the moneys, the unexpected revenues that you would receive as a result of
being on a foundation tier? Would that all go to Canadian programming?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Yes, it would.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: And would you, if that should happen in the
meantime between today and your next renewal, you would report that in your
next renewal to the Commission on the moneys you have -- the unexpected
revenues you would have received?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Correct.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank you. That is all my questions.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Williams.
- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. I have a question for Mr.
Roberts or Ms Bower.
- What is the interest rate on the proposed loan to Vision Digital?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: We are looking it up.
- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
- MS S. BOWER: I think I put it in at 8.75.
- COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That is my only question. Thanks.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Legal counsel. One moment, please.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: Madam Chair, I had one additional item to raise
and it was suggested to me that perhaps before we turned to legal, it might be
a good time to do it.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: That relates to the condition of licence regarding
the Board of Directors. It currently says "The Board shall consist of nine
members." During the run-up to this, we thought it might make a little more
sense to have it say a minimum of nine members and a maximum of say 12 members
in order that when someone resigns, you would not be left out of compliance.
It seemed all other terms and conditions of that would remain the same,
including the diversity of the different religions and so on. But it was a
housekeeping matter where I don’t think anyone had focused on the fact that it
did not say a minimum of nine, it said nine. So we wanted to raise that and if
we could deal with that as a housekeeping matter, it would save us having to
apply later to change it.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: You don’t really want an even number on the Board,
do you?
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: It speaks to the nature of Vision that that is not
the kind of board it is.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Just checking.
- Ms Bennett.
- Maybe while we are waiting for counsel, I could just go back to saying
that the outsourcing of the monitoring of your Canadian content was quite
minuscule because it was 1 per cent. Is it 1 per cent of the 13 per cent
or is it like just less than 10 per cent of that total amount?
- MS S. BOWER: I referred to those figures because if we contemplate
what we could recoup of the commission, I think that is probably all we would
be able to recoup against the new costs that we now have. So I just wanted to
give Commissioner Wylie some response in terms of the costs.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any notion at all of what that would
translate into in terms of dollars?
- MS S. BOWER: Yes, it would be less than $10,000.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Less than $10,000. And the four people that you
have got, the only function they will be performing is monitoring of Canadian
content or they will be doing other things? Scheduling, commissioning. Okay.
- MR. P. de SILVA: Actually I wanted to clarify that as well. Those
people are also in our business affairs department, Madam Chair, and the
functions include contracting, monitoring of return in terms of the CTF
financing. So this is part of their function, but it’s also making our
business affairs departments more robust as well, which will have the result
in our better reporting. So ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So that is just one of the benefits that will flow
from it.
- MR. P. de SILVA: Yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: So I am just trying to -- following on what the
Vice-Chair said about, is it costing you to be in compliance, because I guess
based on the answers that you have given, the notion that it is costing you to
be compliant with virtually the only obligation that you have as part of the
broadcasting system which is Canadian content, kind of goes against -- I mean
you are a non-profit for sure. That means you are supposed to come in close to
the line every year. But part of your costs of running your operation is to be
compliant with that regulatory requirement.
- So to me it’s not really the same equation.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: I understand the Chair’s point. I hope I was candid
in saying that the ball was dropped here. I hope that there have been other
inferences with regard to the infrastructure needs of Vision that are long
overdue and that part of that infrastructure deals with assuring on-going
compliance. However, that requires an investment. And really what we are
talking about is being viable as a broadcaster in what is only going to be a
more and more challenging environment.
- Madam Chair, as legal counsel is still caucusing, I wanted to ask for one
moment of clarification with regard to the BBM/Neilsen matter that we broke
with earlier.
- It is my understanding, I have consulted with my colleagues, that BBM is
purchased only for local television stations and that virtually no networks or
specialty channels buy or use BBM. They survey only a few weeks and focus on
the US Sweeps. The November Sweeps in themselves are not representative of the
programming year. So they are principally used by local broadcasters. Network
program data is not recorded. So just in terms of clarification for the
panel’s benefit.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is not my understanding. I mean the
CRTC has subscribed to BBM for decades. Those are the numbers that we use,
that we have used.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: I am only sharing with the Commission industry
practice.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean across the country BBM -- they may use
different methodology but their sample is 80,000 people versus what -- 8 to 10
for Neilsen. So as Mr. Yigit knows if the margin of error drops, the larger
your sample size is. So I guess we could -- I mean the bottom line is -- I
mean you could talk about the audience going up a point or down a point and if
you look at the charts that you submitted based on Neilsen, you have got 0.4,
you have 0.3, you have got 0.5, you have got 0.3, you have got 0.4. It’s
pretty -- if you take off the end two bars, you can see a downward trend. But
if you put on those -- and I’m talking about the charts that you submitted in
Appendix 10. If you look at that whole picture, you are looking at a fairly
stable audience level across a period of five years, which is the point that I
was making is that the audience level was pretty much stable.
- Now, we may have been using different numbers but -- and there may be
fluctuations and variations along the way, but last year it went back up to
0.4 according to Neilsen. Now, in terms of raw numbers, I saw Mr. Yigit’s
light go on.
- MR. K. YIGIT: I just wanted to add I think that in part the issue
is, and with all due respect to the different methodologies and they will, you
know -- I think the currency that agencies tend to use in real terms for the
kind of television we are talking about is Neilsen.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: It’s Neilsen with people ---
- MR. K. YIGIT: Exactly.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: BBM is introducing meters and ---
- MR. K. YIGIT: Yes. So I mean, and of course, this has been a major
struggle, not only for the Commission but for us in the business too. So if we
did call up a range of agencies after this hearing and asked them, you know,
as far as television is concerned, who would you go with, it is not that they
don’t use BBM in certain contexts. But for the kind of context we are dealing
with, I think it is fair to say that they will say Neilsen because people know
it’s instant data, it’s overnight, it’s more range of things, notwithstanding
sample size issues. So that is -- neither are wrong, neither are completely
right.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. Just like a survey you would do versus the
survey some other company would do.
- MR. K. YIGIT: Right. But as far as the -- I’m having a hard time
recalling the last time I have seen BBM numbers in this kind of context.
Typically a lot of the work that we do when we do secondary work on behalf of
our clients typically tends to be Neilsen-based for specialty television. I
mean that is the distinction I want to make, for specialty television of the
kind that we are dealing with.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
- MR. K. YIGIT: I’m not sure that we are going to resolve it fully,
but I think there are -- those are the ---
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, your comments will be part of the record,
Mr. Yigit.
- MR. K. YIGIT: Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms Bennett.
- MS L. BENNETT: Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, one moment, please.
- Commissioner Wylie.
- COMMISSIONER WYLIE: I would hate to leave with the impression that
we have a misunderstanding as to what being a non-profit organisation is. Mr.
Roberts, does it mean trying to get even every year or is it supposed to make
every effort to actually generate cash, to plough back in the following year
into the operation?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: A fair and pertinent question. I don’t think that a
not-for-profit goal should be to lose money. I do believe that a
not-for-profit goal, especially as a public service, should be to create a
surplus, both for strategic reasons and also for the reinvestment in content.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms Bennett.
- MS L. BENNETT: Thank you. We just wanted to follow up on your
responses to a couple of the questions that Commissioner Cram asked you
relating to Canadian content exhibition.
- Your responses seemed to intimate that if your requested rate increase was
granted that that might result in a higher CPE percentage. Was that the case?
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Yes, I said we would be willing to consider it. My
preference and I’m sure the panel’s preference on this side would be to look
at dollar expenditures, not hours.
- MS L. BENNETT: So if the CPE percentage went up, what would the
percentage be?
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: Maybe it would be appropriate if we took a minute
to caucus about this. Obviously you are aware at 60 and 60 there is nobody
higher on basic cable. And to push it up higher at this point with a repeat --
sorry -- other than all news services, but amongst general interest services,
these are very high percentages anyway together with 45 per cent of
revenue there is nobody.
- MS L. BENNETT: Maybe I should clarify what I am referring to is the
45 per cent Canadian program expenditure.
- MR. G. BUCHANAN: Okay. The question was misunderstood then.
- MS L. BENNETT: Okay. If you are going to caucus, maybe I will
finish the question.
- What would the percentage be if the percentage would increase and would
you accept that as a condition of licence.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: I think we would like to caucus and if you would
give us a second.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Let’s take a five minute break. Two minutes. Well,
we will take five minutes actually. It is an appropriate time. We will
reconvene at 5:00 p.m. Thanks.
--- Upon recessing at 4:53 p.m. / L’audience est suspendue à 16h53.
--- Upon resuming at 5:00 p.m. / L’audience est reprise à 17h00.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I trust you have had a fruitful few minutes to
discuss -- oh, I’m sorry. I’m minus one member. One moment, please.
--- Pause / Pause
- THE CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Shall I go?
- Yes, we had a chance to caucus and thank you very much for affording us
that.
- With regard to if Vision TV were successful with regard to its seven cent
rate increase, we would be willing to accept a condition of licence which
moved us from 45 to 50 per cent with regard to expenditures in year one, and
from year two through the remainder of the licence, two through seven, to
extend that 50 to a 55 per cent investment expenditure.
- I should add this coupled with the 60 and 60 with regard to hours,
probably puts Vision TV at the very top of the heap with regard to Canadian
content commitment with regard to all English language non-news services on
basic.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any other questions? No.
- Thank you very much for spending this time with us. I hope it has been as
fun for you as it has been for us.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: And we will look forward to seeing you at reply.
We will move on to the intervenors.
- MR. M. BURNSIDE: We will now begin Phase II, the intervention
process and I would like to call Canadian Cable Television Association.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, Ms Yale. Welcome.
- MS J. YALE: Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Anytime you are ready.
INTERVENTION
- MS J. YALE: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is
Janet Yale and I’m President and CEO of the Canadian Cable Television
Association. With me today is Suzanne Blackwell, Vice President, Economic
Research.
- CCTA is appearing today only on the matter of Vision TV’s request for an
increase to its wholesale rate. While we had some initial concerns on Vision
TV’s carriage-related proposals, we note that in its reply comments that
Vision TV has addressed these issues to the complete and total satisfaction of
CCTA.
- Vision TV is requesting an increase of seven cents for its wholesale rate,
from the current level of eight cents per subscriber per month. This increase
would generate $54 million in new revenue over the seven year licence term.
- About $24 million of the additional money is sought to cover inflationary
increases in expenses, and I know we have had quite a discussion already about
that term. Another $28 million is being requested to pursue new programming
initiatives.
- In our view, the rate increase is not fully justified for four key
reasons.
- First, Vision TV has underestimated growth in advertising revenue. Vision
TV has demonstrated advertising revenue growth of almost 20 per cent
annually over the past several years. In contrast to this strong track record,
Vision TV is now forecasting annual growth in ad revenue of only
7 per cent annually.
- Second, the Commission generally does not approve requests for rate
increases to compensate for inflation. Notwithstanding this practice, Vision
TV has based almost one-half of its rate increase, as I said $24 million, on
the need to offset these inflationary pressures.
- Third, Vision TV’s forecast operating expenses for the first year of the
licence period are more than 22 per cent higher than those projected for the
year 2001. This is before taking into account $3.5 million planned for
new programming initiatives. The sudden jump in expenses in a single year is
unprecedented and cannot be reasonably attributed to "inflationary pressures."
- Fourth, there is some question as to the impact on Vision TV’s operations
resulting from the launch of its affiliated Category 1 digital service, and I
know there was also discussion of that here today. When the new service was
proposed, Vision TV projected expense savings and other financial benefits. In
contrast, Vision TV is now projecting substantial increases in expenses.
- CCTA has filed with the Commission and Vision TV a more detailed analysis
of Vision TV’s financial projections. This analysis demonstrates that the
proposed rate increase is not needed for Vision TV to be able to maintain, as
well as build on its current service levels.
- Those are our opening comments and thank you for the opportunity to
provide them. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Yale.
- Commissioner Cram.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank you, Ms Yale, and welcome for the
first time at this hearing.
- I did read your intervention that you filed with us and I would like to
take you to Table 1.2. If I understand enough of your appendix -- I’m sorry.
- If I understand Vision correctly, it was the year 1996/97 when they
brought in the Family Block, I think that is correct. So if one took out that
year, the 63 per cent increase, would you more logically come down to
something along the lines of seven to eight to nine per cent?
- MS S. BLACKWELL: We haven’t actually had an opportunity to do that
calculation. I would note, though, that there have been other years when the
revenue increases have been over 20 per cent and other years where even the
15, 16 per cent increase. So it is not unreasonable, I would think, to be able
to achieve those levels in other years.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. I also think and I’m trying to -- if I have
got it right 1994 was the first year they were able to advertise. So an
increase over that base year, that that 32 per cent, 32.8, wouldn’t really be
something that I would necessarily follow on. So if I took out 1995 and 1997
as being abnormal years, we would probably end up at somewhere around seven to
ten per cent growth in revenue? Subject to check.
- MS S. BLACKWELL: That may be the numbers that come out. As you
mentioned earlier, you are the math whiz on these.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. You have got the wrong person. I’m into
math.
- MS S. BLACKWELL: There are other years and it just depends on how
you want to select which years. It is a well-recognised brand. It is
distributed to 90 per cent subscriber base. Those are the kind of
fundamentals that we think a service such as Vision TV can draw on to have a
strong going forward track record on advertising.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: You also said in your written intervention, and
it is at paragraph 11, that Vision has assumed only 10 minutes per hour
advertising as opposed to 12.
- MS S. BLACKWELL: Yes.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Is that based on your calculations would be ten
minutes for each broadcasting hour? Like six to midnight, 6:00 a.m. to
midnight?
- MS S. BLACKWELL: It is drawn from Schedule 18 of their application,
paragraph 6. It says:
- "Thus while the network is permitted 12 minutes per hour, the network
chooses to limit the avails in order to provide a more meaningful program
experience and financial projections assume on average 10 minutes avails at
CPM OF $5."
- So that is where that information is taken from.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: So Vision, however, could change that assumption
if the necessity arose and increase their revenues by two over 12, which would
be about ---
- MS S. BLACKWELL: That is one possibility.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: --- 12 per cent.
- You heard Mr. Roberts talk about inflation, which he calls competitive
pressures. If I understand competitive pressures, and I may not, I understand
him to be talking about essentially the number one, the necessity to upgrade
the infrastructure and that would be, would you agree, a fairly common expense
that broadcasters would have especially going into the digital age?
- MS J. YALE: Yes.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: The second issue, if I understand him correctly,
is the issue of purchasing rights. That also would be -- would that be
something that they would have in common with other broadcasters also?
- MS J. YALE: There is no disagreement that these are pressures that
are faced by a variety of service providers. What is unusual is the 22 per
cent jump from 2001 to 2002 in expenses. We don’t see that even though there
are common pressures across service providers. So it’s the fact that it stands
out is unique in terms of the per cent increase that has caused us to suggest
that perhaps it could be scaled back to what would be ordinary levels of
increases as reflected by the Commission’s own past practice in this area.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank you. Thank you very much.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Cardozo.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you for that. I just wanted to get your
thoughts or your guidance on when you think the Commission should be
entertaining a request for an increase in rate, whether you think there are
certain circumstances which you could support?
- MS J. YALE: I think what we are looking for on behalf of our
customers is to see added value. So where as we don’t support rate increases
because of what we labelled in our intervention "inflationary expenses," what
we were focused on in our analysis is whether or not they needed the money to
deal with some of their new programming initiatives. Because then there is
added value potentially that would be seen on the screen and that you could
argue, from a customer perspective, is something that they wouldn’t otherwise
have access to.
- We did some adjustments to the financial projections, both on the
advertising side and on the inflation side, which suggested that over the
licence term they would be able to implement about 90 per cent of their
proposed programming initiatives. But would have to clearly implement some of
them later in their licence term than would otherwise be the case. So they
would have to defer some of the implementation of the new programming
initiatives, but over the course of the licence term, would be largely able to
implement those initiatives.
- I think that is a judgement call for the Commission obviously to make as
to whether or not that is a reasonable trade-off. But our focus would be on
whether or not the money is really needed to focus on those new programming
initiatives having made the adjustments that we think is appropriate both for
the underestimation of advertising revenues as well as the overstatement of
expenses because of the inflation adjustments.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. So I guess in terms of added value, one
of the things they were saying was they would be able to do their 60 per cent
Cancon with less repeats. So now given their budgetary situation, they have
more repeats than they would like to have with this increase. There would be
less repeat factor, more original programming. Is that added value or are you
saying there are other adjustments they could make that could take care of
their interest in having less repeat and more original Canadian content?
- MS J. YALE: No, I agree with the thrust of what they are trying to
do from a programming perspective. We have no quarrel with that. The question
is whether or not -- they are saying those new programming initiatives would
cost them about $28 million. That is the chunk of the money that they are
looking for with the adjustments we have made. If you look at our Appendix 2
in Table 2.3, we made a couple of adjustments to their operating revenues to
reflect the increase in advertising revenues we think it is reasonable to
assume on the one hand. And we have adjusted their operating expenses to
exclude the -- what we call sort of abnormal, if you will, one time jump in
expenses and so on. If you look at the net operating income in Table 2.3 that
flows from that, there is operating income that can finance those new
programming initiatives without the need for a rate increase.
- So as Table 2.3 says, over the seven year licence term, they would have
$25 million of funds available to fund new programming initiatives. And that
$25 million is what we compared to the $28 million that they have targeted for
new programming initiatives, which is why we say that they could fund 90 per
cent of their new programming initiatives without the need for a rate
increase. Obviously not entirely, and the timing of that would be different
and that is really a choice for the Commission to make in terms of the timing.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. Thanks very much.
- MS J. YALE: Thank you.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam Chair.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Ms Yale, Ms Blackwell.
- MR. M. BURNSIDE: I would now like to call Gerald Filson,
representing the Baha’i Community of Canada.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
- DR. G. FILSON: Good afternoon.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Any time you are ready.
INTERVENTION
- DR. G. FILSON: Madam Chair, and fellow Commissioners, I am Gerald
Filson. I’m Director of Public Affairs for the Baha’i Community of Canada. I
also am the Executive Producer of our regular program on Vision TV and have
been for the past 13 years. I co-chair the Mosaic Program Management Group,
which is a committee advising Vision TV made up of the representatives of the
Mosaic partners or those who purchase air time on Vision TV.
- You have heard earlier, and you are going to hear later probably from some
of the other intervenors, about the importance of Vision TV being a voice of
diversity, religious understanding and a service that offers programs of
ethical, spiritual and cultural values largely absent on many of the other
services. So I won’t go into that in much detail, except to say that the
30,000 members of the Baha’i Community who are in 1,400 localities, every
province and territory, a small community, thinly spread out through the
country, are very, very supportive of Vision TV.
- When I checked my e-mail basket yesterday before leaving our office in
Toronto, two e-mails caught my attention. One was from Professor David
Randall, a former chair of the Physics Department at Memorial University. He
was saying good luck with the appearance before the CRTC, hopefully Vision TV
will achieve its goals. The other was from Manou Greenall (phonetics), an
Iranian Canadian from West Vancouver who sits on the Police Commission of West
Vancouver and is very active in cultural education, cross-cultural education
with the West Van and North Vancouver Boards of Education. She too said that
we hope things are successful before the CRTC. These were just two voices
expressing their strong support for Vision Television.
- Amongst our sister communities in other countries, Vision TV is the envy
of our colleagues. In February of this year I was in Israel at our
administrative centre and there were representatives of 22 countries; six
Asian countries, five European -- five African, six European, six from the
Americas. We were discussing a special broadcast we wanted to have, a landmark
event in the history of our community that took place last month. We discussed
what we could do in our countries to get our opening of our World
Administrative Centre on television. I described to them Vision Television and
what it does and it was the envy of the room let me tell you. It was something
that simply doesn’t exist in other countries.
- Between 1994 and 1997 I participated in a series of television conferences
in seven countries around the world that drew together people from the
development community, the religious community, the broadcasting sector and
independent producers, with an attempt to describe to them the need for
development agencies and religious communities to cooperate together to
produce programs that put the spotlight on people in civil society, in the NGO
sector because conventional television is not doing that. At those conferences
in Chile, India, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Georgetown, Guyana, in Jamaica, I described
the Vision Television Network and it again drew gasps and "awes" from the
audience, particularly in India and in Guyana because I was speaking at a time
shortly after major religious conflict in the streets of those countries.
Again, they said how we wish we had a regulatory framework in our countries
that would allow the development of a network such as Vision Television.
- So it is a success, and it has been a success. I have been observing it
and participating in Vision Television well before the licence itself was
granted. But what I want to talk about a little bit is the 21st
century and where Vision TV can go.
- We have in this country a genius for mixing public and private sector, and
we have done that in our communication infrastructure with public supported
television, with the CBC. No one is more a fan of that than I am. We have a
terrific competitive and high quality private sector. You just simply have to
travel in Europe or Asia, turn on the television and realise that no country
offers the variety on their cable systems that we have here in Canada.
- However, there is this third sector of society, the voluntary sector, the
non-profit sector, the non-governmental sector and religious communities are
at the heart of that sector, which has emerged over the past two decades that
is, I would say, the promise of humanity. That sector has not received the
attention from conventional television nor the public sector television that
it deserves.
- We have sports heroes, political heroes, movie stars. We have not made
heroes of the people who are doing the voluntary work, the development work,
the non-profit work in our communities. Vision TV has done that. They have put
the spotlight on them.
- But to maintain it and to move it ahead, they have to have the kind of
resources and the kind of quality programs that allow them to seize and
capture audiences. I can tell you that with the move to Channel 60 in the
GTA, my first degree was in mathematics and my second was in educational media
research, so I followed the Neilsen’s figures and I have to report them to the
National Executive in my community. I, like other Mosaic partners, saw a drop
in our audiences. Those are figures, both BBM and the Neilsen figures, are at
the bottom end of the range therefore there is the floor or ceiling effect as
statisticians would tell you. So the figures are not that reliable.
- But when we look at phone calls. When we look at the number of complaints
about the move, we know that it had an effect and there was a dampening and
depressing effect on the Mosaic partners.
- What we have seen with Vision TV over the last three or four months has
been a new dynamic. The seasoned senior executives at Vision TV along with
some of the new staff have developed a dialogue with the Mosaic partners that
is fresh and new. There is a new energy there. We have had discussions with
the President, the Vice President for Programming, the Executive Producer of
"Skylight" that we did not have before. Therefore we see that this is an
opportune time to refurbish and rebuild Vision TV so that it can become and
continue to be a Canadian example that really should draw the attention and
the applause of the world.
- On that point I would end and just hope that the Commission will take
seriously the submission by the Vision TV team. Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Filson.
- Commissioner Cardozo.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks. Thanks for coming. I just have a
couple of questions with regards to, in a sense, the part that you talked
about last.
- Well, actually just one question on the Baha’i Community. What is your
estimate of the size of the Baha’i Community in Canada?
- DR. G. FILSON: Our size is 30,000. In the last census in 1991, our
numbers were exactly those of the census. They were 16,000. Since then we have
moved up to 30,000.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You have been doing the program you said for
13 years and you have been co-chairing the Mosaic community for how long?
- DR. G. FILSON: Just for the last year.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I just want to get a sense of your -- well, I
would like to get your sense of how Vision TV is run. Because in this renewal
we are faced with two things. One is the fact that things went askew in terms
of Canadian content and things may be somewhat askew in terms of the budgetary
situation, the financial crisis that they are facing.
- There is no question, and certainly the record has talked a great deal
about the value of Vision that all its supporters have written in about and we
are well aware of that part of it.
- But in terms of the administration of the organisation, what is your sense
about why things have gone wrong in these two areas and do you see that
turning -- do you see things -- a corner being turned?
- DR. G. FILSON: I think it was because it was understaffed. I think
that Vision TV -- if you look at the variety of what they have done and the
different constituencies that they have had to work with, the variety of
religious communities alone, I think that they were understaffed. I think that
it was an operation that was new, that attempted to seek out new kinds of
programming and my own estimates of the problems they have had has to do with
that, has to do with their seeking programs that would attract audiences but
faced with -- faced against the kind of competitors that we know are on some
of the other channels. That was my opinion. I have always been impressed with
the administration.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But isn’t part of the responsibility of
running any organisation, but a television station that you, to use the old
cliché, you cut the cloth ---
- DR. G. FILSON: Cut the ---
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: --- according to the cloth -- cut the cloth
according to the coat. I mean you can’t sort of take on more than you can
deliver or you can’t promise to run an organisation that is more than you can
afford in a sense. Should they have come back to us at an earlier time?
- DR. G. FILSON: I think it was a very ambitious project. It’s unique
and I think it’s a very odd kind of network if you really look at it. I mean
to bring together our Mosaic management group and we sit around that table,
you know, I can’t tell you the variety of religious groups we have there. It’s
quite extraordinary. That, plus the fact that they had to mix in with this
documentaries that reflected ethical, spiritual values.
- Now, you look at our networks, our television that is being produced. We
don’t have a lot of material out there that reflects a high level of ethical,
spiritual, moral values. So I think they had to hunt and choose. They brought
in a lot of British programming, I think, because some of that did do that out
of a very fine public broadcasting system. So they perhaps went overboard on
that.
- We, ourselves, and I think the religious communities, and I know the
Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints are a little bit like us, in
that when you run a very thin operation, as we have done, we too have a
problem with the Cancon regulations because we don’t draw borders. I mean we
are an international religious community. So that was not high on our
priority.
- At the same time what Vision TV has allowed the religious communities in
this country is to increase the vitality of their audio-visual work. I can
speak a little bit for the United Church and certainly for us, by having to
produce a regular program on Vision TV, what it did, it allowed us to
stimulate video production within our own community using those programs for
other kinds of off-air, visioning off-air kind of distribution and so on. All
of that served as a tremendous -- a tremendous stimulus for those religious
communities that took advantage of it.
- I think there was, speaking for myself, my own observation, there has been
some disappoint that the conventional religious communities in this country
over the last few years have run into other financial constraints at the very
time when they probably would have preferred to support their broadcasting on
Vision, which might have allowed Vision to access more dollars through their
Mosaic purchasers. We were -- as I say, we are a small community although on a
per capita basis, I suspect we are one of the leading purchasers of Vision
time. But we thought the costs were high until we began to look elsewhere and
we realised we have a terrific, terrific opportunity there.
- Our sister community in the United States, from time to time they will
have special broadcasts on Black Entertainment Television at very odd hours of
the day and night but they can’t access something like we can access.
- But the religious communities of this country could have bought more time
or they could have bought time at a higher price. Vision TV has held the line
on that purchase price. We have not had to pay higher because we know the
kinds of struggles that our communities are in.
- So I certainly have been impressed once I took a real look at the
administration of Vision TV and as I got to know it more. But as I say, they
were very ambitious.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Yes. What are some of the issues that you
deal with as a Mosaic Committee?
- DR. G. FILSON: Well, we engage Vision senior staff once a year in a
discussion of the kinds of programming that they chose so that the Cornerstone
programming has some input from the religious communities. So okay, that is
one.
- Two, if there are differences of view or issues, for instance, I can
mention one, between the Sikh community and the Indian community, a program
that maybe went over the line in attacking one side or the other, we have set
up panels of members from different religious communities not involved in the
dispute to regulate the dispute. To bring the parties together and to decide
in a fair and equitable way how to resolve the issue. So we do that from time
to time.
- And we also generally have a great deal of sharing of insider notes on the
kind of production challenges we are facing as religious communities. We buy
studio time at the United Church headquarters to do our voice overs for our
program. We started our programs initially with Shan Shandra Shaker’s
(phonetic) operation. He was doing programs for, I believe, the Hindu
community and the Muslim community. We were sharing his studio in the early
days. So we have had those kinds of cooperative arrangements.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Do any of you use the studios of Vision TV?
- DR. G. FILSON: We have never. I’m not sure that ---
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But the others?
- DR. G. FILSON: I think some have. I mean we have -- obviously we
have been involved in some of the "Skylight" programming, which if I could add
on this point. I have just finished my term as the Chair of the National
Executive, the Network in International Human Rights, a coalition of 40 Human
Rights groups in this country. Nobody other network has looked at the human
rights issues the way Vision TV has. I think they just did a series on
"Skylight" two weeks ago.
- This is critical because the reporting -- one of the great achievements of
humanity over the last 50 years was the human rights system in this world. But
none of the other networks look beyond a superficial glance at it. Vision TV
has gone out and interviewed people, has gone and looked at the families and
the homes and the suffering in human rights cases, and my God, we need that.
Many of the church groups and the religious communities are involved in those
human rights efforts. We haven’t yet learned to access all those stories but
the stories are out there waiting to be told. We need Vision TV to tell them.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. Thanks very much, Dr. Filson.
- DR. G. FILSON: Thank you.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Cardozo, and thank you Dr.
Filson.
- DR. G. FILSON: Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I called you Mr. Filson earlier and I stand
corrected. Mr. Secretary.
- MR. M. BURNSIDE: Yes, I would now like to call David Cherniack of
Extended Films. This is a change in the order. We will go back to number 3
after this.
INTERVENTION
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Cherniack.
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: Good afternoon.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for being with us and for waiting for
us.
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: Thank you. It has been a very, very interesting
afternoon. I have been able to watch the wheels of the Commission grind and
grind and grind.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure I’m flattered by that.
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: No, no, it’s been fascinating. It really has been
interesting and I would like to begin by stating that I’m delighted to be here
on behalf of Vision TV and especially on behalf of their application for a
rate increase, which I think, from my point of view as a filmmaker, is
extremely important. Because I’m going to tell you that Vision TV provides a
service for documentary filmmakers in this country that no other broadcaster
provides.
- Let me begin with a brief personal introduction. After obtaining my BSC in
Physics -- there is a lot of mathematics around here today -- from Manitoba, I
spend four years in Prague at the Film Academy studying feature filmmaking.
When I came back to this country I began doing documentary films. It seemed
like the Canadian thing to do and I have never really regretted it.
- In 1981 I was asked to join the "Man Alive" production unit at CBC where I
spent 14 years doing the kinds of films that I really wanted to do as a
documentary filmmaker. When the CBC decided it could no longer afford the "Man
Alive" production unit, I began producing films through my own production
company. I have produced over 51 of documentary films and that doesn’t include
obviously any series that I may have done.
- I am also a practising Buddhist and I count being a student of the Dalai
Lama one of my life’s great treasures.
- As a documentary filmmaker, I travel around the world a great deal and
meet filmmakers from all over. They are incredibly envious of the kinds of
filmmaking that I can do for Vision TV and express it with great envy. In a
way, Vision TV is a gift and I think it deserves your wholehearted support
actively.
- I just want to say a few brief words about the importance of spiritual
programming in the cultural life of this country, really in any country.
Because I think it is, as Gerald was saying just now, it is a very neglected
-- it is a very neglected forum in the broadcasting landscape.
- Our broadcasting landscape really consists, the vast majority of it of
entertainment. I would like to say that after studying the art of media,
entertainment puts people to sleep. It encourages them to avoid dealing with
life’s problems. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it is a rather low
thing.
- At the other end is programming which enriches our lives, that encourages
us to deal with life’s problems. This kind of programming is the highest
aspiration that television can really obtain. It rarely does so, but when it
does, it changes people’s lives. That I think is the critical thing and that
is what Vision TV attempts to do. In that sense it is quite unique in the
programming landscape in this culture and really around the world.
- Nobody else is really interested in doing it. I think that the public
broadcaster in this country gave it somewhat of a luke-warm support. In fact,
"Man Alive" was very much considered to be an odd duck in the Current Affairs
Department at CBC, and I think the end of the programming unit at CBC really
speaks to that fact. Right now on the public broadcaster there is no prime
time spiritual programming at all. None. Doesn’t exist and that tells us
something.
- I will avoid talking about the private networks. I don’t want to -- I
don’t really wish to become too negative. But Vision TV supports programming
that wakes people up. It funds content that is not dominated by considerations
of the marketplace, or of that most creatively deadening of monsters, format.
- I have done films for Vision TV where we could get rid of commercials. I
find it unbelievable -- sorry, I’m going to try not to become too negative.
But I am quite passionate about commercials in spiritual programming, and for
representatives of the Cable Company to get up and suggest that Vision TV can
increase its revenue by increasing its commercial content is unbelievable to
me. Programming that attempts to change people’s lives can run without
commercial content and should be encouraged to do so.
- My own experience as a filmmaker since leaving the CBC has been actually
quite wonderful thanks to the opportunities that I have had to do projects
that are creatively and spiritually fulfilling. Much more so than all my time
and all my programs at "Man Alive." These are films that could not have been
made for any other broadcaster in this country. I will just give you a few
examples.
- I did a film called "Fire on the Mountain," which is a documentary about a
gathering of Shamans from around the world three or four years ago to discuss
what they had in common and to do rituals for one another. The program ran for
two hours on Vision TV. It was quite a unique experience to watch these people
from Siberia, from Africa, from South America, from North America and from
Australia discover what they had in common. Not just ritually, which was a
fascinating thing to watch, but the kinds of pressures that they were facing
from the modern world were the same wherever you went around that circle of
people. It was really the beginning, I think, of a kind of movement.
- Now, Vision TV funded that film. No other broadcaster in this country
would touch it. I did approach one of the public broadcasters in Ontario who
actually -- the commissioning editor for documentary films told me, "We don’t
do things like that. That is the providence of Vision TV."
- I did a 26-part series called "Spiritual Literacy," for a company called
"Sleeping Giant," that was broadcast on Vision TV, which attempted to -- they
were tone poems on the experience of meditation. But they were actually more
than that in that they attempted to create the experience of meditation on
television. I think the people from Vision will tell you that the mail that
they received confirmed that for the people who watched it.
- At present I am doing a very interesting project that Paul de Silva
alluded to. It’s five one hours on a First Nations Reservation over the course
of a year. Cinema verité following 30 people around through one year. It will
be landmark programming, not just on Vision TV, but really in this country
because nobody has ever done anything like this. There is no other broadcaster
who would have attempted it. It is being done with APTN as a second window and
with SCN and with the support of Telefilm Canada and the LFP. But it couldn’t
have happened without the support of Vision and I think that hopefully it will
really give people a window on a situation that has existed in this country
for the last hundred years that people have never had before.
- In conclusion, I just wanted to say that as an agency that regulates
media, you should aim to encourage the making and viewing of life-enriching
programs through the policy you set. Seven cents on top of eight cents in this
landscape is not a lot. If you don’t do that, I think you are avoiding your
responsibility to the public and I think that is what you are here to -- that
is who you are here to serve. I think this is one way that you can do it and
do it very effectively by providing something that provides a long-term
benefit to Canadians.
- Thank you very much.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Cherniack.
- Commissioner Cram.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank you.
- Mr. Cherniack, welcome. For the record it was me who said that Vision
could add two minutes per hour.
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: You didn’t.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: I asked the CCTA.
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: Could I tell you what happened to "Man Alive"
when they had to increase their commercial content?
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Sure.
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: We went from 27.50 down to 22.50 in the space of
about three and a half, four years. This is on the half hour. The effect on
the stories we could tell was devastating. It really made a huge difference.
In 27.50 we could actually tell a story which built character. In 22.50 we
were doing long form items and everybody on the unit felt that, yet there was
not choice. So you can add commercials but you take away from content and
ultimately that hurts.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: I guess the question in my mind and it is one
for another day is if there aren’t ads, then who pays for the programming?
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: Oh, I think ads have their place. I’m not saying
they don’t. I’m not sure that you go ahead and willy-nilly start expanding
their time on the dial.
- I was awake late last night and I was flipping down the dial. Incidentally
in the hotel I was staying at there was no Vision TV. They only went up to
Channel 38. But as I flipped, I was hitting 40 per cent, I counted,
40 per cent commercials or infomercials. Mind you, this was at two o’clock in
the morning, the infomercial time, 40 per cent. You know, at 13, 14 minutes on
the hour, it’s a substantial bite.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: I actually wanted to talk to you about something
totally different.
- We were listening to Mr. Roberts this afternoon talking about the market
for acquired programming being very, very competitive and having to pay higher
and higher rates. Yet, what I hear from you is that some of your programming,
which frankly I would be very interested in seeing, nobody -- nobody else
would want to air that kind of programming. So ---
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: How do I explain the contradiction?
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. Like I mean there is -- I am assuming and
Mr. de Silva was talking about it, particularly in documentaries there is a
fairly heavy duty competition. So like are you underselling yourself or what?
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: No, I don’t think so. You can ask Mr. de Silva
about it because he is the one that is making that statement. I can only
really talk about the kinds of programming that I love to produce. I don’t
have a window elsewhere and this is -- but this is -- these are kinds of films
that are uniquely Vision TV material. There is a lot of programming that
Vision runs that is overlap and it is, I believe, those kinds of films that
Mr. de Silva is talking about. So not really -- it’s just an apparent
contradiction.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: So of those kinds of programs that you have sold
to Vision and that is -- especially "Fire on the Mountain," and "Spiritual
Literacy," would you say Vision would do at least 10 per cent, 15,
20 per cent of their programming of that kind of genre that really has no
appeal to anybody else?
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: Well, if they did, I could be employed for a long
time.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Okay. So they do 1 per cent, 2, per
cent perhaps if we are lucky?
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: I think this is true. Although they would have to
speak to that. I’m just guessing.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: There is no cross-over, I heard you talk about
SCN and, of course, I’m from Saskatchewan so I mean I know they are a
wonderful broadcaster. But there is no cross-over with SCN on a lot of your
programming or APTN?
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: This was the first project that we did co-fund.
And we only co-funded after the LFP rejected it the first time for not having
high enough points just on the Vision TV licence. Then we went out and we
managed to get APTN and SCN involved. So there is always the opportunity to
produce with everybody. I didn’t stop at SCN. We tried to get Alberta in and
B.C.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Yes. You will never get them. Sorry. I didn’t
mean that.
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: No, I know.
- COMMISSIONER CRAM: Thank you very much and thank you very much for
coming here.
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Cherniack.
- MR. D. CHERNIACK: Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Bon voyage. Mr. Secretary.
- MR. M. BURNSIDE: I would like to now call Gerry Kelly representing
the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
- Okay. Gerry Kelly had to leave.
- I will now call Hammond Grange representing Industry Pictures.
- I will now call Raheed Raza.
INTERVENTION
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, Ms Raza.
- MS R. RAZA: Good afternoon. The name is actually Raheel just for
the record.
- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, good afternoon. Now, that I have
got my name correct, I am a media consultant and a free-lance journalist. I am
also an immigrant who came to Canada 12 years ago, just probably a year after
the inception of Vision Television. My faith background is Muslim and I truly
value ethnic and cultural diversity and fair representation in media.
- I happen to have both a personal and professional interest in seeing
Vision’s licence renewed for seven more years at seven additional cents so
that it can be easily accessible by the largest number of Canadians.
- When I first came to Canada, I saw my faith reflected on Vision for the
first time and it was like a breath of fresh breath and I was immediately
hooked. I will also tell you that I never watch television except for Vision
Television because to me that is not just commercial television, it is an
education. It is a voice for the minority and it is a voice for the voiceless
in the mainstream.
- Since that time when I first arrived, I have been involved with Vision
both as a viewer and as a participant, very enthusiastically promoting the
cause of Vision, which is why I am here today while my two boys are writing
school exams. In my experience with media in the past 12 years, I believe that
no other broadcaster has so openly and honestly invited faith groups to
participate the way Vision has. To me it is a true and accurate reflection of
Canada’s multi-faith, multi-cultural, multi-racial mosaic.
- Vision gave the Muslim community the first opportunity to actually present
a 13-part series called "Salaam," and the reason why it was very special was
that Vision not only gave us the time but gave us the technical assistance and
advice on how to actually run quality programming. I was co-producer of that
program so I have very, very fond memories of the kind of work that we did
with Vision.
- This was a time when Vision was seen all across Canada and I also remember
it was seen in small communities and I still recall the positively amazing
feedback that we received from Muslims all over Canada. As you know, sadly
that easy channel access is now an issue and I think it affects all faith
groups, not just the Muslim community because it is not accessible to
everyone.
- During elections last year, Vision invited me to be part of a CPAC special
debate about values within the political framework. This once again to me was
an opportunity to be a voice for our community. So to me Vision represents not
only a multi-faith network, but it actually represents -- it is the only
broadcaster that invites people of different faiths to discuss social, moral
and ethical issues. This is through their "Skylight" programming.
- Earlier this year I had a very special arrangement with Vision when they
invited me to come in as a Muslim woman on a controversial BBC documentary
titled "Licence to Kill." I’m extremely impressed of the way Vision handled
this because it was very important to have an introduction by a Muslim woman
to this documentary. At that time I was recovering from surgery and I couldn’t
go to the Vision studio. So as they say in our faith that when Mohammed can’t
come to the mountain -- when Mohammed can’t go to the mountain, the mountain
will come to Mohammed. So they actually brought the entire Vision studio to my
house and they taped the introduction.
- So these are only a few reasons why I believe that Vision should have the
support that it is asking for. It certainly has my full support and the
support of many people in our community.
- As a not-for-profit broadcaster, Vision reflects the diversity of nearly
one million South Asians across Canada, including nearly 650,000 people in the
Muslim community. Apart from exclusive faith programming, Vision has given
South Asians an opportunity to reflect their thoughts on various mainstream
ethical, social and moral issues. I have been personally part of multi-faith
panel discussions on Vision through their "Skylight" programming, a concept
that I haven’t seen taking place truly in any other country of the world or in
any other network.
- I have also been part of Vision’s Mosaic Program Management Group on an ad
hoc basis and you just heard someone talk about that. This actually ensures a
code of ethics and balanced representation.
- It is not only about programming, about faith programming. What Vision
actually represents is quality faith programming. And in answer to a question
that I think that one of you had asked the gentleman here a while ago, that
although there are other networks that do represent minority faiths in a very
casual sort of a way, Vision actually gives time for people of different
faiths to have a voice and to actually have Canadian content so to speak. So
these are programs made by us with their help with Canadians.
- So I can’t reiterate how important it is that Vision get not only the
renewal of their licence but the seven cents extra fee. I think as a view I
would have absolutely no problem supporting them, not only for that amount but
even if it went to a higher amount. Because I think for us and the future
generations of minorities living in Canada, Vision is very, very important for
our continued stay and to give us spiritual satisfaction and I thank you for
your time.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your time, Ms Raza.
- Commissioner Cardozo.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I just wanted to ask you about the -- by the
way, do you write columns for the Toronto Star?
- MS R. RAZA: Yes, I think you do too.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Yes, I did too in my previous life and I
thought you were a fellow columnist at one time.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Please use your mike.
- MS R. RAZA: Yes.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I just wanted to get from you as well what
you find your experiences working with Vision in terms of the Mosaic
committee. What are the kinds of issues that you deal with at the committee?
- MS R. RAZA: As I mentioned, I’m not a permanent member of the
Mosaic committee. I have sat in for the Muslim representatives when they have
not been there. So it has been on an ad hoc basis.
- But I found that sitting on the Mosaic Management Group has, you know, it
is discussion about fair and balanced programming. It’s discussion about, for
example, when we wanted to air our program "Salaam," it was an issue of, you
know, how we could afford to do it within prime time. What were the various
resources we could use to make it viable, to make it affordable, to see that
we didn’t have to bring in commercial programming in the middle of this
program, where we would get the technical help, where we could actually go and
record the program.
- So the Mosaic Management Group actually helped us, as a Muslim community,
put together our 13-series program.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. You say you don’t watch TV. I have a
question for you in reference to other television but is there programming
that you know of, since you don’t watch TV, on other channels such as CFMT or
Asian Television Network, other places where there is programming that
reflects the Muslim community or allows the Muslim community to have a say?
- MS R. RAZA: I think I lied there a little bit. I do pick up bits
and pieces of CFMT and ATN. This is in passing. When I meant I don’t watch
television, I guess what I was saying, to sit down and actually watch a half
hour program, which is virtually impossible when you are a mother.
- But yes, CFMT and ATN do not reflect the Muslim community from a faith
perspective. They reflect the Muslim community from more of a cultural
perspective. They will once in a while come and, you know, cover as reporters
various events taking place. But in terms of having actual programming and
quality programming is what I’m stressing here, you know, a half an hour
program which reflects the issues and the passions of the Muslim community
living in Canada, no. I have never seen that taking place on any other
television.
- I will mention here at various times in my career, much to the regret of
Rita and my friends at Vision, I have appeared on CTS on invitation of
Michael Coran (phonetics) for various debates. But once again, the
difference there is that they invite you for a specific agenda item and in
many ways it is just you are there as a guest. You are not really not
representing the entire community.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: In terms of the quality of the programming
for the Muslim community beyond the series that you have mentioned, are you
generally satisfied with what you see there?
- MS R. RAZA: Absolutely. Absolutely.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. Lastly on the matter of seven cents,
which you have bravely mentioned a few times. If we were to grant this, would
you continue to be brave about this and go and speak to the media? I say this
seriously, not to get your support ahead of time for something we may or may
not do.
- But in general increases in prices don’t go down very well in an
atmosphere when you have seen reduction in taxes and people wanting to pay
less for things like taxes and sometimes people look at cable fees as
something they don’t have that much choice about.
- Do you see a lot of negative reaction to it? You are an avid supporter of
Vision so I am sure you are going to say no. But how does -- maybe you will
say yes. But how does one deal with explaining why -- how will the Commission
explain why an increase is warranted and why people who may not watch Vision
as much as you do should be prepared to pay for it?
- MS R. RAZA: Well, Commissioner, if the Commission ever decided to
hire me as a spokesperson, I would be certainly very happy to go out and round
up the crowds.
--- Laughter / Rires
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Well, that may be part of the increase that
Vision will hire you to do that.
- MS R. RAZA: I have absolutely no qualms in going out and speaking
about that support. My support to Vision comes purely from the heart and I can
speak from, I think, quite safely on behalf of a community which really needs
to see itself reflected in a very fair and balanced way. Obviously if you have
been following media, you know that the Muslim community has had its share of
media bashing. So at this point in time more than anything else, our
community, like many other minority communities, needs support of a
broadcaster like Vision to be able to have that time -- to be able to have
that affordable time.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Yes. I mean that is dealing with the issue of
support for Vision.
- MS R. RAZA: Yes, and I am coming to ---
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: That part I can deal with.
- MS R. RAZA: And I am coming to the point -- the point about the
increase. In order to have that kind of reflection, I think that the community
-- well, I can’t speak for all of them. But I certainly think that the part of
the community that I deal with would be very supportive of the increase
because everything comes with a price. I mean there is inflation, yes. So why
not put some of that money, why not put some of our effort into something that
is going to give us a better understanding with the mainstream, that is going
to give us a better placement and I think something that will place us as a
minority Muslim community in a better light for our life in Canada.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. Well, thanks very much for that, and as
a columnist at the Star, I wish you the best. I now have to keep my opinions
to myself as I’m in this job. So I hope you will continue to expose and
expound on your views.
- MS R. RAZA: Thank you very much.
- COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks for coming here.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Ms Raza.
- Mr. Secretary.
- MR. M. BURNSIDE: I would like to now call Reverend John Hartley
representing the United Church of Canada.
INTERVENTION
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, Reverend.
- REV. J. HARTLEY: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners,
others present. It is good to be here.
- I am a filler in though. I think you are all aware of that. You would be
normally looking at Marion Party (phonetics), the Moderator of the United
Church of Canada. She has been unable to come and so I was asked to sub. So I
am here in that mode.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: We are just as happy to see you.
- REV. J. HARTLEY: Thank you very much.
- I’m also here as a local minister of the United Church. It’s St. Andrews
United Church in Toronto.
- After hearing all that has been said today what is left to be said, except
to share some of the passion and maybe some of the history if I may do that.
Because I think the name of the channel sums it up: Vision.
- It came as a result of vision in the country from people who cared about
having an inclusive and diverse channel of communication within Canada. I
would like to take you back to a very early incident.
- You may not be aware that some of us believe it was the multi-faith
community that gave rise to one of the radio institutions of Canada. A program
called "As It Happens." Now, you may see it differently as the CRTC but when I
was in Montreal, I was on the Montreal Religious Advisory Committee to the CBC
and one of the things we did was get involved in programming. One of the
programs that I was part of was something called "Clergy View the News." A
priest, a rabbi, yes, and a minister. We were given the opportunity to hear
"The World At Six" at five. On the basis of newspaper and stories, we managed
to put together about three items that could be done in a half hour and we
were invited to bring in a guest, a specialist in the field and the odd time a
telephone call.
- Now, the FLQ crisis happened in that year, in 1970. We were taken off the
air in those weeks. We didn't reappear, but you know what did? "As It
Happens." So we take some credit for the birth of "As It Happens."
- Now, through that we moved from that kind of representation and reflection
on radio to a vision of a deeper sin. We discovered after the fact that we
were into sin by the virtue of the acronym from the group that was established
called the -- it was a movement to bring about a Canadian Interfaith Network
and the acronym is CIN. A lot of work done across the country, in grassroots
communities and congregations with people interested in bringing together a
voice for people to be included, as it were and those who were not being heard
from a faith perspective.
- That took well over ten years or more involving people and the United
Church was very much a part of that. We were paying the salaries of two people
at the time when there was no Vision TV but to help do the research, to do the
connecting with people, to really see if this was a need that would be
responded to by Canadians and by the CRTC. Eventually Vision was born. We were
part of that and we believed in that vision then and we believe in it now.
- St. Andrews, the congregation I serve, in fact I’m told that we were first
out of the gate to offer some free space when there was no money at all. I
recall our committee of stewards working on how are we going to pay for this.
We had to re-establish wiring, establish a studio and a room, a control room,
which we did. It was just part-time of course. They came in and did a number
of hours of programming there and we think we helped get it launched.
- As we look at it now, we find it is a very successful venture and vision,
that grew out of Canadian concern.
- Now, the United Church has been involved fairly heavily for 14 years, up
till last year. We had a full season of programming. Now, we are into
documentaries but I think you are aware that we are facing some very major
issues financially in relation to the community. But part of the issue of
Residential Schools, for example, is not something that is being hidden. It's
an attempt through the various media to bring to bear the stories from all
sides. It’s to look to the future, to find some form of reconciliation and
growth for the Canadian society with some of the major issues that have
emerged from the past and which we face and want to work through together.
- I’m watching my watch and I hope you are too and you will give me the
right signal because I can go on. Who do I look to? All right. Thank you. This
is the danger, you know, when you are a preacher.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you use one of those at the pulpit as well?
- REV. J. HARTLEY: I like that idea though. Yes, it’s excellent.
- The one at the pulpit, I heard the story where one church they have a
clock in front of the minister and they also have a button. When the clock
strikes twelve, the button is pressed and he disappears or she disappears.
--- Laughter/ Rires.
- REV. J. HARTLEY: So timing is really important. So I will try to
keep on time.
- So I want to tell you about people I have talked to when I knew I was
coming. It was last minute obviously but I just made some just on the street
kinds of things from United Church People.
- Grace Scott, a biologist who really believes that science and faith need
to connect with each other. They are necessarily interrelated. She said, you
know, "I get from it," of course over the years, she said, "I have got a lot
of information about my own church, the United Church." She said, "I have
learned so much more about other churches and other faith communities and I
like the music too."
- Helen Ducloud (phonetics), blind, I note this in your opening remarks
about the blind and access. She does sit by her TV and her response to Vision,
she said, "It really helps me to understand other faiths," and her term was
this, "and nurtures me spiritually."
- Marjorie Kirby (phonetics) is a senior and she said, "I can’t -- I didn’t
write out one of those papers and send in one to the CRTC but I did do this
for you." She gave me a little poem, I’m not going to read it. But she wrote a
little poem and it is quite interesting she would take the time to do that so
that she could express her feeling about Vision.
- Then last Friday I just happened to be having lunch with Roseanne Runta
(phonetic) who is President of Victoria University, University of Toronto and
I didn’t tell her I was coming here. But I asked her what she knew about
Vision TV, and she said, "Oh, do you know last year at Expo 2000, have you
heard, at Expo 2000 in Hanover, Germany, they were noting exemplary projects."
This is her wording, "Exemplary projects around the world of people working
together using technology to better humanity. Vision TV was one of the five
selected for Canada."
- I think from the United Church perspective the issue of humanitarian
concerns is vital. The United Church has had that kind of role in this country
for decades and continues to feel very strongly in terms of the United Church
reconciliation and healing ministries with First Nations as a critical
example.
- Also the clear decision of the United Church not to use the medium for
social -- at least not for evangelism but for social ministry. To discuss, to
be in dialogue with people across the country, other faiths, about social
issues.
- As I said, we are facing a financial crunch at the moment. But I do not
for one moment believe that that will end our commitment in any way, shape or
form. We will be there and supporting. That is why I am here today.
- I would just like to add as a final comment, speaking on behalf of the
United Church of Canada through its Moderator, that we support the request for
seven year renewal. We didn't think that was particularly in doubt but we also
support the seven cent rate increase.
- As a citizen I would like to add a note. I have watched the CRTC over the
years. It’s a major commitment of time and effort and a wealth of experience.
You used two words today that I would like to pick up on and end with. You
spoke of experience and hope. Well, I believe quite honestly that for Canadian
citizens for many -- for the most of us, I think, the wealth of experience
that you represents embodies for us, you embody the promise, the hope of a
fair and equitable sharing of the channels of communication of radio and
television in this country. It is a wonderful responsibility and I’m here to
thank you for having had an opportunity to be part of it.
- Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Reverend Hartley. Just to clarify
that quotation, the triumph of hope over experience was Samuel Johnson’s
definition of a second marriage, I believe, if I recall correctly studying
Samuel Johnson in fourth year university and probably in Victoria College at U
of T.
- REV. J. HARTLEY: Yes.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: I don’t have any questions for you. Thank you for
your comments and your views and for sharing the views of some of the people
that come from your community as well.
- REV. J. HARTLEY: Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: We will certainly take those into account. Just on
a final note I want to tell you, we seem to have something in common with "As
It Happens." The Vice-Chair of Broadcasting, Madam Wylie, always mentions her
grandchildren when she is chairing hearings, I always like to mention my dog.
You may be responsible for "As It Happens," but my dog sings to the theme song
of "As It Happens."
- REV. J. HARTLEY: That is your dog?
- THE CHAIRPERSON: My dog. Every time you put on "As It Happens"
theme music, the dog starts to sing. So I don’t know. It’s a great program.
- Anyway, thank you very much for being with us. That concludes our
interventions. I will now turn it over to our secretary.
- MR. M. BURNSIDE: I would like to ask the representatives of Vision
TV to come forward to present their rebuttal.
REPLY / RÉPLIQUE
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back, Mr. Roberts.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: It’s the end of a long day.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: It has.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a bit more eloquence in you? You may
proceed whenever you are ready.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
- Good afternoon again, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission and staff. My
name is Bill Roberts. With me are Susan Bower, Erika Kramer, Rita Deverell and
our regulatory counsel, Grant Buchanan.
- We are here to reply to the interventions, both written and oral, that
have been submitted to our application. First I would like to thank again the
more than 2,400 individuals and organisations that wrote to you in support of
our application. They represent a wide range of Canadians from all regions and
backgrounds. I would also like to thank the intervenors who took their time
out of their busy schedules to appear here today, and I wish to acknowledge
the endorsement by the CCTA that our proposed new programming initiatives are
value-added for their customers and are supported.
- Now, I would like to turn to the interventions that oppose part or all of
our application for a rate increase.
- When we look at the major BDUs, it is interesting to note that the
satellite providers did not oppose our rate increase. ExpressVu indicated
support for Vision TV’s renewal, while Star Choice did not choose to file an
intervention. LookTV and the CCTA did oppose our application with the Cable
Association taking the position that a full rate increase was not justified.
- First I would like to address one issue related by both Look and CCTA.
- Both characterised the proposed increase as a staggering and unprecedented
87 per cent increase. Well, let’s put this in perspective. A large increase in
percentage terms, yes. But it is a large percentage of a very small amount.
Raising a one cent fee by another cent could easily be categorised as a
staggering 100 per cent increase but we are still only talking about a single
penny.
- Let’s look at the real impact in percentage terms of implementing Vision
TV’s proposed increase. The chart on the easel indicates what portions of the
average basic cable costs Vision TV currently makes up. If the current average
basic fee is $21.29, Vision TV makes up less than four-tenths of
1 per cent. If the rate increase is approved, we will make up less
than three-quarters of 1 per cent of the average basic rate. A total
increase of less than one-third of 1 per cent of what the basic
cable subscriber pays. If you can see the difference, you have got better
eyesight than I do.
- Vision TV’s advertising projections are realistic. The CCTA states that
Vision TV has increased its advertising revenues at an annual -- average
annual rate of 20 per cent over the course of this licence. In fact, since
1996, our annual growth in advertising has averaged 9.6 per cent, less than
half that figure. A substantial part of the growth, moreover, was a one time
increase of 64 per cent from 1996 to 1997, resulting from the introduction of
our Family Viewing Block. We cannot expect such a dramatic increase again.
- It is true that over the last two years we have seen 20 per cent growth in
advertising. This has been fuelled mainly by an increase in gross audience
numbers, which in turn reflects a substantial growth in DTH subscriptions. But
that growth has come to the pursuit of new customers outside the cable
universe. Having plucked the low-lying fruit, DTH providers now must try to
win over cable households, a far more difficult task. I repeat the point.
- We begged, borrowed and stole to stay afloat over the last few years. All
that saved us was the totally unexpected arrival of DTH. For this reason we
expect only modest growth in subscriber revenues over the licence term and
thus only modest growth in our advertising dollars.
- Moreover, we are entering a period of heightened competition. Conventional
religious television stations have launched in Lethbridge and Toronto and a
third licence has been licensed in Vancouver. Additional applications for
London and Ottawa are forthcoming.
- These stations sometimes air family programming identical to our own since
we cannot afford to buy exclusive rights. Added to this is the prospect of as
many as 60 new digital channels launched in the fall, all vying for
advertising revenues. Given these circumstances, we believe that a projected
average of 5 per cent growth annually is realistic if not
optimistic. At least much more optimistic than the two and three per cent ad
growth projected by such licensees as TSN, Discovery, Weather, Musique Plus,
both appearing and not appearing at this hearing.
- The increases in operating costs are not normal inflationary increases. I
will grant that we may have erred in our application by describing escalation
and Vision TV’s costs as inflationary. In fact, it is caused by increased
competition and by the need to make investments in both hardware and systems.
As we noted in our application and in reply to questions earlier today, Vision
TV operates in a world of intense competition, for programming, for audiences,
for advertising and for people.
- Programming, in particular, accounts for much of the pressure in our
operating costs. Vision TV has a unique mandate, to focus upon the religious
beliefs and practices of Canadians and on issues related to spirituality in an
environment of respect, for diversity and balance. Programs that fit this
mandate rarely can be bought off the shelf. So Vision TV must produce or
commission much of what it puts on the air, an extensive proposition,
especially given the ongoing escalation of licence fees.
- As an independent broadcaster, we are not able to buy programs in bulk for
a variety of windows. A rate increase would allow us to invest in new
programming initiatives result in 72 incremental, original, first-run hours of
Canadian programming in each year of the new licence term.
- Madam Cram, earlier this afternoon you asked me where is the increase in
Canadian content? We are willing to accept a condition of licence on these 72
incremental and original hours.
- Have we overestimated our expense increase? The CCTA has provided a chart
showing the increases in a number of categories of expenses. Once again we
need to deal with percentage increases in context.
- For example, they point out a 40 per cent increase in
administration costs. In fact, our administration costs include an increase in
client services that is more than covered by increased management fee
revenues. When you take out these charges, the actual increase in
administration is 6.5 per cent. The industry average for mature
services is 10.2 per cent, while we spend only nine. If anything, we have
underestimated our expenses.
- Already in the course of the current year we have had to increase spending
in several areas well beyond projected levels outlined in our application. The
need for improved systems to ensure Canadian content compliance, among other
things, has pushed us over budget. At the end of the day, our spending in most
categories, other than Canadian programming, is below the industry averages,
as is the average salary paid to our staff. This application attempts to bring
us more in line with industry norms.
- This rate increase is not a subsidy to one. The intervenors allege that
our application does not reflect the operational synergies we hope to realise
with the launch of our new Category 1 digital service, "One, The Body, Mind
and Spirit Channel." Indeed the CCTA expresses some concern that the expenses
filed include some that will be incurred on behalf of the new channel. I would
like to make a number of points here.
- First, One will launch this September well in advance of the introduction
of any rate increase. We have partners in the channel, none of whom have
proceeded with their investments or would have proceeded with their
investments if they thought that our participation was dependent upon an
application for a rate increase.
- Second, our investments in digital equipment are intended solely for
Vision TV, not for our digital channels. We need to replace ageing equipment
to reduce costly downtime and repairs. A wholesale migration from analogue to
component digital is required for Vision TV to ensure that it can provide
technically acceptable programming and to operate efficiently into the future.
- Third, although there are some expenses in the budget that are incurred on
behalf of One, they are more than covered by the increase in management fees
in the revenue line.
- Vision TV’s case is based on economic pain, not private gain. Madam Chair,
in our opening remarks we outlined the financial crisis facing Vision TV. The
chart on the easel illustrates it more clearly. Vision TV has suffered pre-tax
losses in most of the years of this licence term. Compare our performance in
2000, the averages for English language specialties. Clearly we are not
rolling in money. Vision TV stands at a crucial juncture now. We face
ever-increasing competition for programs, audiences, advertising revenue and
people. Much of our programming inventory has been repeated so often, it is
growing stale. We need investments in systems and equipment to put ourselves
on a more business-like footing.
- This request is not about increasing Vision TV’s profitability. It is
about ensuring that we continue to provide the outstanding service that so
many intervenors, even those who oppose the rate increase, spoke of in their
letters, their faxes and their e-mails. Our request is exceedingly modest,
just seven cents per subscriber per year. Surely the risks involved are vastly
outweighed by the benefits.
- Thank you for your attention. We would be pleased to reply to your
questions.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts. Thank you
for the time that you spent with us today. We have no questions for you.
- MR. B. ROBERTS: Thank you.
- THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
- I’m sorry. I’m a little new at this.
- The hearing is adjourned for the day.
--- Proceedings adjourned at 6:30 p.m. / L’audience est ajournée à
18h30.