We'll begin.
Ms. Lavallée.
Evidence of meeting #21 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was crtc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #21 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was crtc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you very much for letting me speak, Mr. Chairman.
Two days ago, we had quite an active meeting in which members around the table were disrespectful toward the witnesses. Those witnesses complained in various ways.
First, an article in this morning's La Presse refers to the Conservatives as “rude”. That's the word that is used. It names the colleagues around the table who were disrespectful.
What is more, a few hours ago, we received an e-mail containing a copy of a letter from the Radio-Canada Communications Union complaining to none other than Prime Minister Stephen Harper. According to the letter, two colleagues around this table—and they are named—were arrogant and impolite, particularly toward francophone groups. Those groups say that the members listened to virtually none of their presentations, that they rose in turn and left the room instead of questioning them on their respective briefs or presentations, that they launched into long and vehement verbal protests claiming that the groups were there only to criticize the Conservative government, and that they accused them of not being duly mandated by the people they represented.
Mr. Chairman, you'll understand that receiving witnesses and being disrespectful toward them to this degree is unacceptable. I was wondering whether the individuals, who know who they are, would like to apologize and make a firm resolution not to do it again.
For my part, what I find the most unpleasant, apart from the incident on Monday, is that, when we receive francophone witnesses, people known to be unilingual anglophones remove their headsets and talk amongst themselves, to be sure they neither hear nor understand what is going on.
As a francophone, I find that attitude particularly insulting. I would ask that, in the batch of excuses those individuals will be making, they also tell us that they don't intend to adopt this attitude again, including not listening to witnesses who speak French.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
First of all, that's not a point of order.
Secondly, Madam Lavallée, when witnesses come in and decide they are going to play partisan politics as witnesses, they should expect to be drawn into partisan fights. That's what happens.
You know what I didn't appreciate? I didn't appreciate the fact that they alleged that Conservative members were taking “smoke breaks” during the meeting. Not a single member of our party even smokes. They should apologize for even making the insinuation.
There is no apology required, whatsoever. If you come before the committee and make partisan dissertations, you have to expect that parties are going to defend themselves. That's the way it is.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
An hon. member
Thank goodness.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
--though I agree partly with Madam Lavallée.
But our witnesses are here. We have to show them respect. I would start right away.
3:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
That's right. I agree: we don't want to take any time away from our witnesses. I think that's disrespectful.
3:35 p.m.
An hon. member
Hear, hear!
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
We welcome everyone here today to the twenty-first meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study on the evolution of the television industry in Canada and its impact on local communities.
I will ask each of the presenters to try to stay as close to 10 minutes as you can. I usually hold up my pencil or something when you're getting close. I will be a little lenient, but not very, so try to stay to 10 minutes.
Our first presenter is from the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, ACTRA.
Go ahead, please.
3:35 p.m.
Richard Hardacre National President, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA)
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
My name is Richard Hardacre. I'm a professional actor. I'm the elected president of ACTRA. Also speaking for ACTRA today is one of our proudest members, our award-winning member and actor, Wendy Crewson.
We're here as the voice of ACTRA's 21,000 members who live and work in every corner of this country. Our members are English-speaking artists whose performances cross all delivery platforms: film, television, sound recordings, radio, and digital media. ACTRA also speaks on behalf of the AF of M, representing 17,000 professional musicians in Canada.
We thank you for holding these important meetings and for giving our members a chance to be heard.
We've been following these hearings and, frankly, we're a bit alarmed by what we've seen and heard. Canada's private conventional broadcasters have come in here and declared that the system is broken and that it's a state of crisis. They've threatened to shut down local stations unless we all meet their demands for deregulation and fee-for-carriage. We've watched broadcasters and big cable companies taking out national, full-page, expensive advertisements to buy and sell TV stations for the price of a cup of coffee and a donut.
You may think we have many reasons to be pessimistic about our industry, but we're not. Certainly, ACTRA is concerned, as are all Canadians, with reports of layoffs, programming cuts, and the shutting down of local TV stations. A healthy, vital broadcasting system is critical to the social, the cultural, and the economic fabric of our country.
According to the Conference Board of Canada, our cultural industries contribute $85 billion to Canada's economy--7.5% of the gross domestic product. The film and television industry is a big share of that, generating more than 131,000 jobs in 2008. And every dollar that is invested in our industry generates a return of $10 in economic activity. We must protect and preserve Canadian broadcasting to do that. We may need to make adjustments, but we do not need the mass deregulation that broadcasters are calling for.
We appeared before the CRTC last Friday. We made an unusual request. We urged the CRTC to do nothing with respect to Canadian priority programming regulations for now, to maintain the status quo by issuing one-year licences to the private conventional broadcasters with the condition that they spend the same amount on Canadian drama this coming year as they did in the renewal year. We urged the commission, as we urge you, not to buy into the panicked cries and threats from private broadcasters.
It is our belief that the conventional television system is not en crise. It is facing the same challenges as any industry in transition confronting a global recession. While the days of double-digit growth in conventional advertising revenues may be gone, conventional broadcasting will not disappear tomorrow. Canadians will still want to tune in to their local news and event drama. YouTube is not going to replace CTV or NBC as a means of mass advertising any time soon.
In 2008 private conventional television broadcasters in Canada made a profit on their operations. While it was low by historical standards, they still made a profit. Specialty channels continue to make record revenues: $2.9 billion last year. The health of the specialty channels gives weight to the idea that you need to take a look at the industry as a whole. Don't forget that CTVglobemedia, Canwest, and Rogers own the majority of these specialty channels. CTV owns 32 and Canwest 21 of them.
If broadcasters are having difficulty with the downturn, it's the result of some of their own bad business decisions. Unfortunately, here and at the CRTC, private broadcasters have pointed the finger at everyone but themselves: the CRTC and its regulations; the Internet; the recession; the cost of U.S. programming; the cost of Canadian programming; digital transmission; cable conglomerates; and independent producers. They even point their finger at you, the government.
What about their gross overspending on U.S. programming? They bid up the price of U.S. programs, sometimes buying a series not because they want to air it, but to stop their competitor from getting it. English-language private conventional broadcasters spent 61% more on foreign programming than on Canadian programming: $778 million last year versus $453 million. That's a lot of money and a lot of jobs being shipped right out of this country.
Then there are the billions they spent acquiring new broadcasting properties. To do what? To go into fantastic amounts of debt? To become, what, media moguls? Their reckless business decisions meant that, even after years and years of often record-breaking profits, when the advertising market softened, they had no flexibility to adapt and to ride out the temporary downturn.
The broadcasters believe they have a right to profit and to profit without limit. That's fair. They're businesses. But with broadcasting licences comes responsibility to the people, to the public. We, the public, grant broadcasters the right to profit in exchange for contributing to our cultural identity by covering and airing Canadian stories, real and fictional.
And we want you to be convinced that it's your job to ensure that these corporations give back to the public.
3:40 p.m.
Wendy Crewson Member, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA)
So instead of taking responsibility for their mistakes, the private broadcasters are seizing on what they call a crisis to hold us hostage on the issue of fee-for-carriage, to leave communities without newsrooms, and to free themselves of regulations that perhaps they never wanted in the first place. I'm sure they'd love it if you and the CRTC told them that it was okay to shut the local newsrooms, forget about Canadian programming, go on down to Los Angeles, and buy up all their content there.
Canadian programming, drama, sports, and news are the only reasons why we need Canadian broadcasters. If they're not going to offer that, then what is their purpose?
Private broadcasters must be required to produce and broadcast local news. The CRTC has already taken steps to assist broadcasters to fulfill their obligations by creating the new Local Programming Improvement Fund, which will put an additional $60 to $70 million into that system every year.
They must also be required to air Canadian drama. We would argue that they be required to do more, not less. Let us be absolutely clear here: Canadian programming isn't what got the broadcasters into trouble in the first place. Conventional broadcasters spent embarrassingly little on Canadian content, particularly drama.
In 1999 the CRTC gave the broadcasters flexibility. That removed expenditure requirements for Canadian programming, and it changed the rules so that now, out of a total of 28 hours a week of prime time, only eight of those hours have to be priority programming. Thanks to that 1999 ruling, low-cost entertainment magazines and variety and reality shows are counted in those eight hours.
English-language Canadian TV drama has all but disappeared. This week, when we look at the prime-time television schedules, we see that CTV and Global each have only two hours of scripted Canadian drama scheduled out of a possible 28 prime-time hours on each channel--two hours.
We've all heard the broadcasters say over and over that they can't make money on Canadian programming. CTV claims that even a hit show like Corner Gas loses money. What they don't tell you is that they can and do make money. Maybe not the first time they air it, but how many times do they repeat it? And then it goes to their specialty channels and it keeps on making money. Canadian programming is the gift that keeps on giving.
We commissioned a study that was released last week and demonstrates that when one accounts for repeat viewings and airings by station group, broadcasters can recoup the investment on Canadian programming, and in many cases make a profit, despite the fact that Canadian programming is set up to make less money. Did you know that advertising rates are automatically discounted because it's Canadian? It can be a top ten show like Flashpoint, but because it's Canadian you get an automatic 25% discount. I find that insulting, especially now when Canadian television is making history.
There are four one-hour dramatic series being simulcast on U.S. networks. Due South is the only other series that has done that. Now we have four: Flashpoint, The Bridge, The Listener, and Copper. This is the economic model for the future.
Of course, the only reason we have such a wealth of production right now is that the private broadcasters were primping for their licence renewals. But it proves that when broadcasters have the incentive to make an effort, Canadians have the skill, talent, and tenacity to produce world-class television.
In addition to less Canadian programming, broadcasters are also demanding fee-for-carriage. We are not against fee-for-carriage. What we are against is giving private broadcasters a new source of revenue and getting nothing in return. If it were determined that fee-for-carriage is the best way to ensure the long-term vitality of the conventional broadcasting system, we would support that decision, with three conditions.
First, we need guarantees that the revenues from the fee-for-carriage will be seen on the screen in the form of local and dramatic programming.
Second, cable giants should not be allowed to pass the buck on to the public. With more than $8 billion in revenues and $2 billion in profits, cable can afford to foot the bill.
Third, the CBC must be included. We are disappointed that the private broadcasters have used these hearings to beat up on our public broadcaster. Now more than ever, when we see why we can't rely on private broadcasters, the role of the CBC comes into sharp focus. While private broadcasters answer to the shareholders, CBC answers to us.
Unfortunately, the CBC's ability to deliver has been weakened from years of chronic underfunding. We don't want to see it engaged in ratings wars and trying to squeeze every last advertising dollar by broadcasting American game shows. This is the wrong direction.
To that end, ACTRA supports the recommendation of the heritage committee last year that the annual allocation for the CBC be increased by $7 per Canadian. ACTRA, along with the CEP and Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, has also proposed that advertising be removed from CBC television except during sports. In return, it should be financed either by a levy on cable companies or through general government revenues, or by some combination.
Let's be clear: we do not support taking away ads from the CBC unless the revenue stream can be replaced with another source. This would transform it into a genuine public broadcaster and would free up potential ad dollars for public broadcasters.
These hearings have made it painfully clear that we will not get leadership from the cable companies or from broadcasters. We and your constituents are looking to you for leadership to present a strong vision for a vibrant, independent Canadian broadcasting system. This is a turning point in Canadian broadcasting, not because we have a crisis, but because we have an opportunity.
3:45 p.m.
National President, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA)
I will sum up.
Canada has some of the most educated creative minds in the world. We have a diverse culture. We have the technological knowledge and the skilled workers to deliver some of the leading communication technology in the world. We're looking to you to help craft a 21st century vision that will bring all these elements together.
Let's put our culture and hard-working Canadians ahead of broadcasters and big cable. Help us create a broadcasting system that serves all Canadians and provides thousands of skilled jobs, strengthens communities, and, above all, ensures that Canadians will have a strong, independent voice that can be heard coast to coast to coast and around the globe.
Thank you, committee members.
Mr. Chair, later we'd be happy to take any questions you may have.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you.
Next we have the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations, CACTUS.
3:45 p.m.
Catherine Edwards Spokesperson, Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS)
Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here. Thanks for giving us this opportunity.
The Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations is building a bilingual national membership of independent community television channels, cable co-op community television channels, some private cable companies that still practice community access television, and the public who uses and watches them. As an association, we believe that individual members of the public should be able to participate in the broadcast system.
The Broadcasting Act specifies that the system should enable a diversity of voices to be heard and that there should be broad-based access to it. The economic crisis has also focused attention on the scarcity of local programming. But the latter problem is not new. Both CBC and private broadcasters have been cutting back on production and shutting channels in smaller population centres for years.
Over the same period, BDUs have progressively regionalized and professionalized community television production, also resulting in station closures and fewer hours of local programming. This is a great pity, as it is the community sector that has the greatest capacity to address all three needs, that is, the needs for diversity, for access by as many Canadians as possible, and for local programming and expression.
It is impossible to have more diversity and more broad-based access than to enable every Canadian, every organization in civil society, and every community to be a producer. This has been the genius of the Canadian community access model, a brainchild of the National Film Board. It was enabled in the 1970s by the introduction of portable video recorders and the presence of cable television in communities across the country. This model has been copied worldwide and today is a robust part of the broadcasting systems of more than 30 nations, including the majority of western democracies.
Most have recognized community broadcasting as a third tier, which functions according to a paradigm that is different from that of public and private broadcasting. In September of 2008, the European Union recommended that members support the tier both financially and legislatively as a key policy tool to reduce racial tension and promote multicultural dialogue.
Meanwhile, here in the cradle of the community access movement, the sector has been gutted by successive rounds of CRTC legislation and misuse of community channel funds by the country’s biggest cable operators. The damage began in 1997, when community TV was deregulated.
Funding to the sector was cut from 5% to 2% of cable gross revenues in large markets to make way for the Canadian Television Fund, and cable operators were given the choice on whether to have a community channel at all. Most opted to keep the 2% rather than give it to the CTF, but began to look at the channels as potential revenue sources.
In response, the CRTC relaxed rules against advertising on the channels, which has further fragmented the advertising market for private broadcasters. Many so-called community programs today are thinly disguised vehicles for product promotion, and often for national and international companies, not even local ones.
The public in centres such as Vancouver, Calgary, and Winnipeg have been kicked off the channels in favour of professionally produced formats that mimic commercial production.
For example, in Calgary, where I worked as the volunteer coordinator from 1993 to 1997, 400 volunteers and half a dozen staff produced more than 35 hours of new production per week, in every conceivable genre, from mobile sports to seniors and kids programs, and from live arts and entertainment to local issues and phone-in debates. No other sector can produce this volume of programs. But after the channel was professionalized, production was reduced to one hour or less of news per day--in a city that already had three other sources of professionally produced news.
Studios in smaller communities have been closed. Where Vancouver once had twelve neighbourhood offices, there is now one, in Shaw’s corporate tower downtown. Where New Brunswick once had thirty studios, today Rogers offers only six. Not only are cable operators closing studios on their own initiative without repercussion from the CRTC, but the CRTC is facilitating the closures by enabling mergers of service areas in the name of streamlining.
In 2002, in response to public outcry, the CRTC reintroduced the requirement that cable community channels air at least 30% to 50% of “access production”--a far cry from the channels being 100% at the disposition of the community, but better than nothing--and that they should offer training and equipment to the public. Most of the big cable BDUs simply ignore these rules, because there has been no monitoring nor disciplinary action by the CRTC.
Policy 2002-61 also enabled community groups to apply for over-the-air licences, but there was no funding formula offered, and fewer than 10 community groups in English Canada have stepped up to the plate. Most survive on bingos and advertising.
The 2002 policy also stipulates that if a cable operator is not providing community programming in the spirit of CRTC policy, another organization within the community can apply for the levy, but all such applications have been turned down. As a double whammy, the lower-power licence-holders who are actually offering access are not allowed to apply for the levy.
Despite the CRTC announcement that it will hold a hearing into the community sector this fall, recent rulings continue to damage it. In December, the CRTC ruled in a closed hearing in less than 10 minutes that Shaw could buy the Campbell River TV Association, which had been providing community programming on Vancouver Island for over 50 years.
Also, distinctions between cable licence classes may soon be removed, resulting in a reduction in funding from 5% to 2% of gross revenues for small communities, those with fewer than 20,000 subscribers. This change was proposed in policy 2009-176, whose deadline for interventions was just this Monday.
When concerned parties contact the CRTC, the CRTC staff themselves often seem unaware of how changes affect the sector, so CACTUS fears that the CRTC lacks the expertise, willpower, and political backing to make the structural changes necessary. The loss to Canada is that the one sector that could best respond to the crisis in local programming has been successively undermined.
So how is the community sector different? First, because the sector employs volunteers, community channels can produce five to ten times as much programming as professional channels for the same budget, as in my example from Calgary. Any public or BDU funding acts as seed money, which is multiplied in the hands of the community to produce for the community.
The regionalization and commercialization of community TV we've seen has meant that the same economics limiting local production in the public and private tiers have come into play in the community tier as well. This needs to be reversed to get production back into the communities and to leverage the economic and creative genius of the access model.
Second, because program ideas come from the community, the programs are better targeted to community needs.
Third, citizen participation in TV production, which is still the medium by which most Canadians derive information and entertainment, develops a more engaged and critically aware populace. It's a fertile training ground for the public and private sectors.
What would we like the standing committee to do?
First, to revitalize this sector so that it can help fulfill the diversity and access expectations of the Broadcasting Act, we ask that the $120 million being spent yearly by cable companies on so-called “community programming” be liberated for independently run community channels that are accessible to all, representative of their communities, and present in those communities.
The creation of an independent fund was recommended in the Lincoln report, “Our Cultural Sovereignty”, six years ago. While cable companies may once have been the obvious trustee of community access production, the era of the small cable company that was a close partner with the community is gone.
Furthermore, at a time when cable operators buy commercial TV stations for a dollar--and may soon buy commercial TV networks--it's disquieting that they are also gatekeepers for the issues that can be discussed on our community channels, the one—at least potentially—truly free grassroots window in the broadcasting system. This tier, when functioning as designed, is a safety valve for our democracy.
Second, as was recommended by the Lincoln report, non-cable BDUs should also contribute to local reflection.
Third, as was recommended by the Lincoln report, technological options should be explored so that DTH can carry local channels, perhaps several per region.
Fourth, space should be made on all BDU basic services for a national public access channel as a platform for programs of national interest by the independent and voluntary sectors and to facilitate exchange between communities.
Fifth, an ombudsman's office within the CRTC should be created to monitor the coherence of the CRTC's decisions and their impact on the community sector.
What will we pledge to do in response? We have a new vision. In the 10 years during which community TV has languished here in Canada, it has made great advances elsewhere. With the adoption of digital camcorders and computer editing suites, access centres in other countries are producing programs that are indistinguishable from professional content except in ways that we view as advantages: they are fresh, they take risks, and they showcase real people taking stands on local issues.
Not only has the video production technology changed, the distribution platforms have changed as well. The most advanced community access centres in the world are platform-independent. They offer free training and equipment not only for video and radio production, but also for web design and computer skills. They are often housed in live theatres, libraries, and community centres so that residents can one-stop shop to get their messages out. The resulting productions have must-carry status on all platforms, including over-the-air, cable, satellite, and Internet.
If community access centres of this kind can be adequately funded from the existing cable levy or from new sources, CACTUS has the expertise to rebuild this tier to provide this level of service and fill the gaps in local programming. Where Canada once led the world in the use of new technologies at the local level, we would do so again.
Thanks a lot for your time.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you for your presentation.
We will now move to Stornoway Communications, please.
3:55 p.m.
Martha Fusca President, Stornoway Communications
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of Parliament, and ladies and gentlemen.
When you stop and look closely at most if not all successful Canadian public policy, you invariably find a fork in the road where policy-makers chose to put Canada first. It's not always an easy choice and it's generally not the option of the more exclusive, but putting Canada first never shortchanges our long-term interests and never diminishes our national character.
As this committee reviews options to address the challenges facing our broadcasting system, we respectfully suggest that each recommendation be weighed in terms of putting Canada first.
I'm Martha Fusca, president of Stornoway Communications, owners and operators of three digital specialty channels: ichannel, the public and social affairs issues channel; bpm:tv, the dance channel; and The Pet Network. I began my career in television production upon graduating from York University and co-founded Stornoway Productions in 1983.
Stornoway has produced many award-winning, critically acclaimed investigative, geopolitical, and national documentaries produced for Canadians as well as for foreign broadcasters.
I'd like to mention but a few: Agents of Deception, an examination of the Soviets' global disinformation campaign; End of an Empire, a four-part series that foreshadowed the demise of the Soviet Union; Caught in the Crossfire, an exploration of Canadian peacekeeping and conflict resolution missions around the world that was launched at the United Nations in New York; Dragons of Crime, an investigation into Asian smuggling into North America; Does your Vote Count?--and I brought you all a copy--an examination into the life of MPs and the parliamentary structure within which they work; and A Question of Honour, a five-part series that examines the life of a Canadian soldier from their point of view in the field and here at home.
The life of the independent producer is a constant struggle and, along with actors, directors, and writers, they do what they do not because there's a lot of money in it, but because they love it. Artists are like that, and we should not forget that artists are the soul of a nation.
By 2000 I was ready for a new challenge and decided to move into the broadcasting business. I was in for a big surprise. I was positively thrilled when we got our licences and I naively believed that we would thrive if we delivered good programming to consumers and would wither on the vine if we didn't. Since we had a long track record for delivering outstanding programming, I determined that we would do very well. But it doesn't work like that.
We're very pleased that you've extended your review of these important issues to include Stornoway's voice representing small, privately funded, independent broadcasters, a scarce commodity in a market dominated by BDUs and large consolidated companies.
Yes, we need strong, well-capitalized Canadian media companies in broadcasting and distribution, but we also need to ensure that there will be room for small independents and new players.
Yes, we need balance in our broadcasting policy and regulatory framework; however, what is clearly emerging from these hearings is an unequivocal indication that an imbalance of power exists within our industry, a result of public policy, regulation, or lack thereof, where BDUs totally dominate the broadcaster-distributor relationship.
By any reasonable measure, we in Canada have three major cable territorial monopolies, with Bell ExpressVu providing an important service to rural communities, but little or no competition to the monopolies. These monopolies--not consumers--can either make or break a broadcasting business.
As early as 2004 we placed on the record with the CRTC our experiences with BDUs, and we have reported numerous examples of the obstacles and barriers that have impeded both our success and our ability to contribute to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
Further, a move to so-called market forces has created an untenable situation for the broadcasters, one that is flowing down the value chain to the other sectors, including the producers, the actors, the writers, directors, and crews. Market forces alone cannot be counted on to replace regulatory support for key pillars of the Broadcasting Act, such as diversity and access to the system.
This hearing can--and in my view should--go a long way toward redressing the imbalance of power that exists between broadcasters and BDUs, as well as some broadcasters and producers, by recommending policies that benefit everyone instead of one sector at the expense of all the others.
Let me cut to the chase and use the precious time we have to focus on five key recommendations, which we believe are warranted by the conclusions our company has drawn from the very careful and extensive situational analysis of broadcasting in Canada and which we urge you to consider in putting Canada first.
In our “Canada first” approach, we propose that the Canadian basic tier include mandatory carriage with a minimum mandatory fee for independent analog and category 1 services on the basic or digital basic service.These services, like our ichannel, make significant contributions to Canadian content and Canadian program expenditures and they're vital contributors to the diversity of the Canadian broadcasting system. For independent services, mandatory carriage without a mandatory subscriber fee simply doesn't work.
We recommend that you permit category 2 or new services to apply for category 1 status. Access to category 1 licences provides the opportunity for additional independent Canadian programming services to step up to the plate, meets the commission's requirements, and enhances diversity, Canadian content, and Canadian content expenditures. This is a win for the entire system: the broadcasters, the distributors, the producers, the talent, and Canadian television consumers. It also helps the smaller independent broadcasters, who currently have a fragile foothold in the industry, to develop into more stable business concerns.
We recommend that you prohibit distribution carriage fees charged by BDUs. Under the act, we have a responsibility as broadcasters to deliver our signals to BDUs. The delivery of signals by BDUs to subscribers is the responsibility of the BDUs and the cost should be borne by them. BDUs should not be allowed to levy abusive charges on programming services licensed by the CRTC. We fear that this problem will become significant as we prepare to transition to HD. Attempts by BDUs both to determine whether they will carry our HD signals and then to charge us exorbitant fees to carry our HD signals will prevent the deployment of HDTV by independent broadcasters. This would be a significant competitive setback for our services.
We recommend enforceable access to BDU-controlled marketing venues at reasonable cost. The most important and effective marketing opportunities available to us are those marketing venues controlled by the BDUs. In the case of local avails, notwithstanding clear direction from the CRTC, often these are available to independent services like ours only on very expensive and restrictive terms, so much so that we can't afford to use them. BDUs are unfortunately keen to profit by selling these avails rather than promoting Canadian programming and advising Canadian consumers of available Canadian content.
We recommend that broadcasters support unaffiliated independent producers and contribute to the production of drama, children's programming, documentaries, arts, and variety.
Mr. Chair, members of Parliament, and ladies and gentlemen, we believe these five recommendations would help ensure that my company has a reasonable opportunity to survive and grow. They would provide a similar opportunity to other independent broadcasters, send a signal to potential new entrants that they can participate in our broadcasting system, preserve our unique contribution to Canadian content, and support diversity while making independent services accessible to all Canadians.
These are five recommendations that put Canada first, recommendations that are consistent with the Broadcasting Act and that support all sectors, not just one, while allowing BDUs the flexibility to seek beyond the Canadian first basic package.
Thank you very much for your attention and the opportunity to participate in this proceeding. I'm truly grateful.
I'm delighted to be sitting here with ACTRA and the folks from the community channel. I have an enormous regard for both of these groups.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you very much.
Our first question is from Mr. Rodriguez, please.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Since there's only one round, after my four minutes I'll leave my last minute to Ms. Fry.
Welcome to all of you.
Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for being here today.
I'm speaking to the ACTRA representative. You're essentially saying that private conventional television is using the current crisis as a pretext to get rid of regional stations or operations that are too costly. Is that what you think?
4:05 p.m.
National President, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA)
Yes. They're also using it as an excuse to claim that they need to divest themselves of Canadian content, which is our bigger problem.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I want to assure you that the Liberal Party of Canada is opposed to deregulation. We think that more Canadian content is needed, not less. That's our official position. That's what it was before and that's what it still is today.
The specialty channels must deal with the Internet and specialty television stations that are going after major market share. The figures prove it. Do you think we'll have to help them in some way?