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.