Lise Lareau and Karen Wirsig from the Canadian Media Guild present to the CRTC Decemmber 1, 2006

Lise Lareau and Karen Wirsig from the Canadian Media Guild
and Barbara Byers from the Canadian Labour Congress
make presentations to the CRTC on December 1, 2006

Over-the-air TV should be considered
part of our infrastructure

Index

1 Over-the-air TV remains the standard everywhere
2 CBC funding has been cut and never restored
3 Viewers in Kamloops have lost over-the-air CBC
4 Digital TV means more than High Definition TV
5 Over-the-air broadcasters are obliged to maintain service
6 Citizens regard CRTC hearings as a technical process
7 Debate is being formed by cable and satellite, not public
8 Digital broadcasting would allow various TV and radio channels

Appendix

1 Kamloops without the CBC

Back to the news page

We will now proceed with the next participant, the Canadian
Media Guild, if they would like to come forward.

--- Pause

THE SECRETARY: Mrs. Lise Lareau will be introducing her
panel, after which you will have ten minutes for your
presentation. Please go ahead whenever you are ready. Would
you please turn on your microphone.

PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION

MS LAREAU: Good morning. I am Lise Lareau and I am
President of the Canadian Media Guild. I'm joined by Barbara
Byers of the Canadian Labour Congress next to me; and Karen
Wirsig, who is the Canadian Media Guild's Communication
Co-ordinator. The Canadian Media Guild has more than 6,000
members across Canada. We work both in the public and
private sector in television and conventional and specialty
broadcasters.

Our employers are CBC, Radio-Canada, TV Ontario, the APTN,
which is the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, Alliance
Atlantis, Vision TV, Sun TV, which is a local station in
Toronto owned by Quebecor. We also represent employees at
Canadian Press, Broadcast News and Reuters wire services as
well. Our members produce much of the news content that
Canadians access on TV, radio and the Internet.

We work behind the scenes to make sure that this programming
reaches Canadians, and we have authority in this area. Our
membership is actually growing because media employees on
the front lines of our industry in Canada are being shaken
by the shifts in the industry, some of which you have heard
about this week. We have more than doubled in size in the
past three years, partly because of that. Media employees
are not only looking for workplace representation and things
like salaries and all those things; they are also looking to
join a group that advocates for better quality in the media
industry. After all, media workers stand by what goes on
the air. It's their faces. They provide the look and the
sound of the product that you read on the Internet and see
on the air. They are committed to serving their audience as
well.

MS BYERS: Good morning; bonjour. My name is Barbara Byers.
I am a Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour
Congress, and I'm pleased to be here this morning with
members of the Canadian Media Guild who are an affiliate of
the Canadian Labour Congress. I think that the CLC, which
represents over 3 million members and their families across
Canada, is in a good position to speak on behalf of the
audience that is out there. We are the largest popular and
democratic organization in the country and our members
regularly talk to us about the kinds of programming that
they need. Our members form a large portion of the Canadian
TV viewers. I can also say from a personal perspective, I
now live in Ottawa but I come from Saskatchewan very
proudly. But I'm not very proud or happy with what has
happened to local programming in a province such as that,
and I have seen over the years many cuts. We think that it
is absolutely right and appropriate that the CRTC continues
to concern itself with what Canadians can find on their TV
dials. It is a matter of public interest, and it is a
matter of watching out for the public's interest. No
earth-shattering event has occurred in the last seven years
to make a regulator irrelevant in this national
conversation, despite what some may tell you. In fact, we
think that there are opportunities for the CRTC to renew its
relevance to Canadians in this new media era.

MS LAREAU: Now that you have a sense of where we are coming
from, I would like to share with you our four-point proposal
for ensuring that Canadian television serves Canadians well.

One, make sure Canadian television programming is accessible
to all Canadians. At the very least, make sure there is a
full public debate about the future of over-the-air
television before you allow broadcasters, one by one, to
mothball their transmitters in the places they deem to be
inconvenient and unprofitable. After all, over-the-air TV
remains the standard everywhere in the world, even in those
places that have already made the switch to digital and to
deliver news and entertainment, as well as information in
the event of an emergency. We will give more details on our
proposal in a moment.

Two, ensure that local programming continues to be
available. What Canadians always say in all polling is what
they value on TV is what is available to them locally. Even
if it's not where they spend the majority of their hours,
they value local programming, especially news. As TV
employees and as TV viewers, we can tell you that local TV
is in serious trouble. We will give you some concrete
examples of this from our own experience, as well as reason
for some optimism in a moment. We urge you, the CRTC, to
make sure that local and regional programming remains
available to Canadians wherever they live.

Three, set clear and effective rules for airing and spending
on important Canadian programming, news and current affairs,
documentaries, drama and variety, especially in prime time.
We know you have heard this week, and you will hear next
week as well, from our industry colleagues on this point.
We fully agree with the principles such as ACTRA, the CRPF
earlier today, and the Canadian Coalition of Audio-Visual
Unions, I think on Monday. They have views about the
Canadian content rules and we support what they have been
saying.

Four, free up new money to make quality Canadian programming
happen. We propose that you create a fund using cable and
satellite fees that you have heard so much about this week,
and we propose that this fund pays for new programming by
public broadcasters that runs without commercials and for
new programming by private broadcasters that exceeds the
Canadian content requirements in their licences. We believe
that this way the CRTC can leverage subscribers'
contributions to make sure they and all Canadian TV viewers
get the programming they deserve from the broadcasters. The
details of our proposal are laid out in our original
submission.

I would like to give you a bit more detail about what is
happening with local news. First of all, you may have heard
yesterday that the CBC has a plan to reinvigorate
English-language local TV in cities across the country. We
see a lot of promise in this plan, but we also fear it may
not succeed unless the CBC is granted new money to carry it
out. After all, local programming, as we all know, was cut
back at the CBC over the last decade and a half precisely
because of funding cuts. That funding has never been
restored to pre-1995 levels and now the public broadcaster
is dealing with a decline in the ad revenues that were used
to compensate for the cuts in public funding. We think the
CRTC could leverage money from cable subscribers to help the
CBC plan succeed.

The CBC's plan -- and this is important to note -- is a
response, in part, to the decline in local news really over
the last few years in t his country, particularly in places
such as Vancouver where CHUM recently cancelled its local
newscasts, along with four other newscasts in cities across
the country. We note that this week in this room CanWest
Global also raised doubts about the future of its local news
programs. We can also tell you that SUN TV, where we
represent people in Toronto, cancelled an hour-long local
news program that was aimed at the diverse communities in
Toronto, and they replaced it with a local news show that
has no electronic news gathering capability at all. SUN TV
is effectively offering news that is recycled from the
company's newspapers. Even at TV Ontario the award-winning
current affairs show "Studio Two" was replaced this fall by
a show called "The Agenda". "The Agenda" relies on
in-studio dialogue rather than reporting and news gathering
from across Ontario. One of the stated intentions of the TVO
programming was to save on production costs. What we are
left with at the end of the day is despite what you may hear
about this 500-channel universe, integrated platforms, all
the language you have heard this week -- and people will
leave you with the impression that there is all kinds of
information out there -- what there really is is you can get
lots of news, pretty generic international news. You can
get the latest from the Middle East on any channel you tune
into.

But finding out what is happening at your local municipal
council, even in a big city like Toronto, is next to
impossible. And if you live in a smaller province, good luck
finding out what's going on in your provincial legislature
on an ongoing basis. We can tell you that the number of
people paid to do this reporting work has dropped
significantly in the last decade, and in the CBC's case that
is because of dwindling public funding. In the case of the
private broadcasters, it's because profits are being chased
elsewhere. The other importance of local TV is the ability
to drill down in communities, whether in a big city or a
small town, and to actually reflect what's going on in the
diversity of the community and to reflect back the diversity
of the community to the audience. That's what is being lost
as well. So with effective rules and a new funding
mechanism, which is what you are evaluating over these
hearings, this decline in local TV news could be turned
around. We believe that would serve the public interest.

MS WIRSIG: Bonjour. The other issue we need to address
more in detail today is the future of over-the-air TV
transmission. We were frankly taken by surprise by the
apparent consensus among TV networks to cut off Canadians
from free access to TV programming in small towns and rural
and remote parts of the country this week. We don't believe
that consensus actually reflects the policy direction put
forward so far by the CRTC, and we strongly urge you to make
sure that there is a fuller public debate about the issue
before conventional broadcast licences are renewed.

We should point out that viewers in Kamloops, B.C. -- and
you probably are aware of this -- were recently cut off from
free over-the-air CBC service after an affiliate station
broke off its relationship with the CBC earlier in the year.
A group has formed and is collecting signatures on a
petition to restore their public broadcaster to the public
airwaves. We have attached a testimonial from a Kamloops
resident to our submission today, but I just want to read
you a brief excerpt. "As the highest quality source of
programming in Canada, paid for by Canadian tax dollars, it
is downright appalling that it is no longer available for
everyone. We appreciate that media technology is changing
and funds are limited, but the CBC must not drop its most
loyal communities in short-sighted decisions. To lose the
CBC in our community has been heartbreaking."

We believe that if the networks get their way, you will soon
hear from thousands more people in towns across the country
in the same way. Et nous craignons encore que ce soit les
francophones hors du Québec qui perdent leur télévision
publique. While we represent a large group of the most
skilled TV transmission technologists in the country, we are
the first to admit we do not have all of the answers on how
to ensure that Canadians continue to have access to free
programming over-the-air in the future. However, we note
that no other industrialized country appears to be
abandoning a universal over-the-air transmission system.
Even in Germany, where cable and satellite penetration
levels are higher than in Canada, the public broadcasters
were mandated to assure full coverage over the air following
the upgrade to digital. That is because, contrary to popular
belief, over-the-air transmission is not a dinosaur. OTA
frequencies are in high demand in urban areas for wireless
services, including the so-called last mile transmission of
mobile TV.

Because there aren't the same bandwidth constraints, high
definition quality is over the air than it is via cable or
satellite. Digital transmission allows other options besides
HD, such as offering additional signals and programming, and
nothing beats over-the-air capacity during an emergency. We
decided it would be best for us simply to put some of our
concerns on the record. We hope you will address them, or
at least repeat them in your final report. Perhaps you will
recommend an appropriate forum for public debate about this.
First off, how will local programming and in particular
local emergency programming be assured in a system that
relies heavily on satellite delivery? We know that TV is
increasingly the place people turn to in an emergency. Will
it not cost about as much to increase satellite capacity to
carry local stations as it would to simply upgrade the
public infrastructure to allow the continuation of at least
CBC television over the air? CBC's Robert Rabinovitch has
talked about the unique roll played by CBC Radio because of
its extensive transmission network. In the 21st century, TV
should not be left out of the mix in emergency planning, we
would argue.

We are quite concerned that much of what is driving the
industry's approach so far, aside from the obvious funding
shortage at CBC Radio-Canada, is a push by companies
interested in getting more of the distribution in
direct-to-home transmission business, and it may well end up
costing subscribers, the people of Canada, a lot more money
over time to help these companies upgrade their
infrastructure to take over the job. We understand there is
even talk of subsidies or incentives to get DTH providers to
carry local signals. We are certainly no experts on this,
but it may be a good idea to consider the full costs of all
transmission scenarios before proceeding to dismantle a
national piece of infrastructure that took decades to
create.

MS BYERS: Over those same decades conventional broadcasters
have turned a tidy profit using the public airwaves. The
Broadcasting Act says they continue to have an obligation to
serve the public interest. We need to be asking why they
should be suddenly let off the hook when it comes to
maintaining their transmission infrastructure. Now, there
may be good reasons and a new approach may be a good idea,
but we don't think that the issue has been fully explored.
The public's interest demand that it be fully explored and
there no reason to let broadcasters off the hook when it
comes to content requirements. Canadians are looking for
quality on their TV dial. The only way to make sure they get
quality Canadian content is to continue to mandate the
broadcasting system to provide it and to leverage some
funding to help make it happen. After all, isn't that what
these hearings are all about, ensuring Canadians have access
to the kind of TV programming they want to watch?

MS LAREAU: So thanks for listening to us, we know it has
been a long week here and we would be pleased to answer your
questions.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, ladies. I am asking
Mrs. Duncan to ask the first question.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you very much. Your brief and
your presentation is very helpful and interesting. I have a
number of questions for you, I am sure the others on the
panel will as well. You have made an interesting proposal
with respect to a new framework for classifying
broadcasters. Currently, over-the-air private broadcasters
are entitled to simultaneous substitution and priority
carriage and the simultaneous substitution has been
estimated to be worth as much as $300 million a year under
your model, which sees over-the-air and specialty being
treated the same. On what basis should these simultaneous
substitution privileges be made available? For instance,
should they be available to everybody?

MS LAREAU: You know, we don't have firm thoughts about that
particularly. Our brief suggests that you treat
conventional and specialty channels in broadly the same way
when approaching policy, that the distinctions that were
made many many years ago are less and less distinct and, you
know, those are not our areas of expertise. We are here
because we know: a) that Canadians want good Canadian TV;
b) that there are vehicles to create that for them; and c)
that we worry when we hear many people in this room this
week talk -- although they won't say these words -- they are
talking about dismantling parts of the Canadian broadcasting
system and those are our main concerns before you. The
areas that you are talking about are not our main areas of
expertise.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay, thank you. With regards to the,
I believe you referred to it as the modest increase to BDU
bills, that would be directed towards the new Canadian
broadcaster program fund --

MS LAREAU: Um-hmm.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: -- that you propose. Would these funds
be in addition to the funds the BDUs are currently
contributing to the CTF?

MS LAREAU: Yes, they would be separate and designed for a
separate policy initiative as well. I mean, we know the CTF
is designed to promote independent Canadian television and
film and this is about programs that would be designed for
broadcasters to broadcast. So it is a separate and distinct
fund. Now, I should say while we are on the topic, you know,
again, we are not married to elements of the fund. We have
gone into detail about how we think a fund could work and
the logistics. But, you know, these things I think should
be discussed far more fully.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you. So the focus of the fund
then, the new fund, I gather would be on programming not
currently supported by CTF then?

MS LAREAU: That is correct.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: And you are suggesting like the news
and current affairs?

MS LAREAU: News, current affairs, kids', children's,
documentaries.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: What about local programming?

MS LAREAU: Absolutely, local programming.

MS WIRSIG: Yes, I was going to add local and regional
programming. I think TVO made a comment that it is difficult
for them to get --

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes, they did.

MS WIRSIG: -- access to CTF, because the regional criteria
are not that clear.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you, they did. How would a board
to manage such a fund be structured or did you get that far
into your..? Your presentation is very detailed so, but it
didn't --

MS LAREAU: Yes. In terms of how a board would be structured
and the infrastructure, we don't go into that, but we do
have some ideas about how the money would work. I think it
is important, as a principle, that the people who are making
money from the Canadian television system contribute to it.
We know, you have heard all week, how difficult it is to
fund Canadian programming. The fact is that less and less
of it is being funded and we are seeing that when you just
flip your dial.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Regarding your proposal that the fund
be funded by a fee of $1.00 to $2.00, I have a number of
questions on that. I am wondering first of all because, you
know, we have received a number of surveys, did you do any
kind of surveying at all to see what subscriber reaction
might be to that?

MS LAREAU: No, because one of the things we found out is
that there is differing views from even the BDUs about the
degree to which they would be able to absorb these costs. I
think you have heard a wide range this week. But I believe,
and all of us believe, that Canadians would be prepared to
support a very modest increase, extremely modest increase in
their bills if they knew it was going to something tangible
and valuable. If it was broken out in their bill that this
part of your bill is going to the creation of good Canadian
TV, I think they would be there with you. We know, you pay
your bills and so do I, and the cable and satellite bills
have been going up up and up with no explanation whatsoever.
We think they would value an explanation for a very modest
increase and have it very clearly spelled out and detailed
about what that increase is for.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Did you give any thought or could you
give me your ideas on where that rate might go, say after
three, five, seven years? I mean, is it reasonable to
expect it would be constant if it was originally established
say at $1.50, because that is the midpoint? Is it
reasonable to expect it would stay at that level or..?

MS LAREAU: I think it is. I think it is fairly reasonable.
I mean, on a per capita basis, you know, I see, you know,
obviously cost of living, all those things. I see it as the
same proportion of the bill over time, a very modest
proportion. I don't think that people are looking at some
massive grab that is going to get bigger and bigger. I
think what Canadian television needs is a stability of
funding for a diverse -- what I mean by diverse, you know,
kids, documentary, local, all the things that aren't being
funded adequately now.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: I just want to just pick-up on a word
that you use there, because you mentioned the same
proportion of the bill which, of course, I don't know that
you meant to say that, but we should discuss it. Because
the bills might go up over time for different reasons and we
wouldn't want to automatically assume that this should be --

MS LAREAU: No, no.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay, so that is fine. So it may
increase, but you are thinking that --

MS LAREAU: Right. I don't see this as an expanding grab, if
that is what you are getting at.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes, I was being more tactful.---
Laughter / Rires

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay, so that is good. I was also
concerned, because it is the BDU subscribers that would pay
for the bill, if you think that that is fair? You know,
that we had some discussion --

MS LAREAU: Well, yes.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: -- from other --

MS LAREAU: Right. My colleagues can join in here, but the
subscribers are the people that are actually watching
television, so I --

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: But, excuse me, now let me just..
Forgive me for that, because the over-the-air people are
watching it too, sorry, I am --

MS LAREAU: Well, I think that you will find in most surveys
that is actually probably not true. I think the people who
have chosen satellite and cable, for the most part, are the
people that will watch it in greater hours. They have made
a choice for that in most cases. The research that I have
seen indicates that the people, particularly in rural
communities, that rely on over-the-air transmission are
dedicated viewers but perhaps not in the same number of
hours on a weekly basis.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you, that is a reasonable
explanation.

MS WIRSIG: Could I also add just one other thing, which is
that I think it is clear that some public subsidy already
goes to television production in this country and that all
Canadians pay for that already. So I think the principle is
already there, whether you watch television or not, you do
support television production and television exhibition in
this country. So the principle would not be that different.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Again, that is another reasonable
addition to that comment, thank you, and it leads also into
my next question, which is about the CBC. Because they, as
you have just said, all Canadians are funding it and I
understand the funding problems that they are having, but is
it reasonable to ask subscribers to pay again for monies
that will go to the CBC?

MS LAREAU: I think so, and the reason why is, as you see in
our proposal, the money that would be accessed by the public
broadcasters in this country for this money would be for
programming that is commercial-free. So again, this would
be a benefit to you the viewer and to the people providing
that programming. And I think what we tried to approach
everything we did here is what serves the public interest.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: That is excellent, thank you. How would
you expect -- and this is in regards to the expenditure
requirements and you propose that the broadcasters should
still be subject to, and I quote, "straightforward
exhibition and expenditure requirements" -- and I am just
wondering how you think that expenditure requirement should
be structured?

MS LAREAU: That is a toughie, we haven't gone into a lot of
detail on that. You know, I think what is more important
here is to talk about more the principle rather than how
that would work. You know, there are certain formats that we
see in licence renewal hearings that might be applicable.
You know, I have not been before a regulator and having to
do that kind of thing and it would be something that could
be worked out with people that have more experience doing
that.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay, I appreciate that. Maybe then I
will skip over a few questions here, just give me a second.
I had a question on how we determine the expenditure
requirement for the CBC, would you care to make a comment on
that? The expenditure requirements, I think, are often done
in relation to the revenue, and maybe always done in
relation to the revenue. But what with CBC that is a
difficulty, because they don't know, of course, what their
annual appropriation is. Do you have any thoughts on how
that expenditure requirement might be established for the
CBC?

MS LAREAU: No, I mean, not where I would have any expertise
to give you.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Okay, I appreciate that then. Thank
you. I did have a question regarding the allocation of the
funds that you spoke of there, the 60/40 and the 60 per cent
would be commercial-free and the broadcasters' of course is
lower as you explained because they are able to sell ads.
Did you have an scientific, so to speak, reasoning for
arriving at 60/40?

MS LAREAU: That is a good question. No, we threw this out
as a point of discussion. I think, obviously, we have an
interest in how the public broadcasters fair in this,
because you could even see it this week where the public
broadcasters don't really speak of themselves as public
broadcasters. I think that your body should really look at
public broadcasters seriously and distinctly in your
deliberations, so the 60/40 came out of that. But we are
not married to any of these numbers, it is a principle.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Thank you. I appreciate your concern
about the over-the-air and if it were shutdown because of
the situation that we face, the U.S. shutting down the
available spectrum. How do you think we would fund --
because one of the options that has been presented is to
provide subscribers with a box, all the current over-the-air
or the over-the-air customers at that point or Canadians at
that point -- how would we provide those or fund the boxes
that had to be provided to those subscribers? You have
considered this, I can tell.

MS LAREAU: You know, to be frank, we I think collectively
are much more concerned about how you would assure those
people some semblance of local service if you gave them a
box. So financing that: a) is going to be extremely
difficult, there is no question. How do you figure out who
would deserve a free box and a certain baseline of service?
I can tell you, I got an e-mail from a woman in Salmon Arm,
B.C., and the frustration was coming out of the e-mail about
what has happened to them in terms of what they can get over
the air, what they can't get over the air. They go to
cable, what they pay for cable, then what the cable company
decides to include in that basic package, and then the price
of cable triples. I mean, the frustration is palpable once
you stop knowing: Hey, I live in this community. Here are
the over-the-air signals I can capture in this community.
That means here are some sort of local or at least regional
services I can get. Once you are put into the hands of BDU,
that kind of assurance of service goes out the window. In my
mind, that's almost a bigger question than how to finance
boxes to people. It's not clear what kind of service you
are offering them if you are giving them a box, I think.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Again, that's a very good point. Did
you have any comments you wanted to make on Bell ExpressVu's
concern about the cost and the availability -- actually, I
should put it the other way around -- the availability of
spectrum and the cost to deliver or uplink all the
over-the-air channels on satellite? They proposed an
omnibus channel. I don't know if you have had a chance to
give any thought to that.

MS WIRSIG: An omnibus...

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Channel for local programming.

MS WIRSIG: It could work. I would like to know -- the one
paper we did have a look at that was presented on Monday, I
guess, added to the documents on Monday about the extra
satellite capacity that might be required for all of this
local service. That is a big question about how much that
would cost and who is going to pay for it.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Yes.

MS WIRSIG: In the end, would it not make sense to think
about an over-the-air service and figuring out how to pay
for that? In that case, you can at least guarantee some
local service. Yesterday I was listening to the presentation
by the CBC about how they are going to try to go back to
more local and regional programming, and the specific
instance of emergency programming came up. They are
prepared to do emergency programming over radio, which is
very important; no question. A similar principle could
probably be applied to television. So in the case of a
localized storm or flood, for example, they could isolate a
few transmitters and transmit key information about what's
going on in that area, have a special broadcast for those
people. I think it's worth looking at, in rural areas in
particular where Internet access may not be as good. It's
an interesting thing to examine.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: We are actually trying to get Internet
access. It's actually quite widely available and we are
actually trying to ensure that even greater capacity is
available across the country. Also on the point about CBC, I
think in their brief they made it clear that they have so
many transmitters that the cost of upgrading them is a huge
problem. At any rate, I appreciate your comments.

MS WIRSIG: On the cost question specifically, I think it is
clear. We don't think the money for upgrading those
transmitters should come out of content production. That is
clear. So perhaps it's worth asking the government whether
this is a public policy direction they are willing to
finance, and it's perhaps worth having a public debate over
that first so that Canadians can say: Is this something we
want our tax dollars to go to? The other question I would
have -- and it's something we've sort of bounced around and
I don't think we would like to state a position either way.
One possibility is that Canadians not only rely on the CBC
over the air; they have a number of other local and national
services that they can still capture over the air. If those
services decide to shut down transmitters and the CRTC
agrees that in the interests of the financial health of the
system that is allowed, perhaps they would be asked to pay a
small penalty for shutting down their over-the-air service
and that penalty could go towards a fund that would help
rebuild the public infrastructure and upgrade it to digital.
That way, that public infrastructure remains. It could even
be used to help get wireless Internet access in remote
areas. It could be used for a number of things.

COMMISSIONER DUNCAN: Excellent comments. Thank you very
much.

Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Williams.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good morning, panellists. I have a
question for Ms Lareau and Ms Wirsig. In your oral
presentation today you stated that a full public debate
about the future of over-the-air television should take
place before and if we allow the broadcasters to shut down
their transmitters. You further stated that you were frankly
taken by surprise by the apparent consensus amongst the
television networks to cut off Canadians from free access to
television programming in small towns and in rural and
remote parts of the country. Do you think this issue should
have its own specific public process? What new information
could we hope to gain on this issue? And would licence
renewal time perhaps be appropriate to have this debate? So
there are three elements.

MS LAREAU: Yes. First of all, I think public debate is
essential. I'm going to tell you a story.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.

MS LAREAU: When the CRTC call went out, the transmission
issue was sort of hidden in that in a way, we felt. We
didn't really look at it that seriously. Then certain phone
calls would come into the office: Are you going to be
looking at it? As we delved into it, we realized the
complexity of it and the public interest aspect of it. It
exceeded what I had understood initially. I believe it
would be an interesting worthwhile public debate because
this is about public infrastructure that we take for granted
in this country. I liken it to really our water supply. We
all used to drink tap water and then bottled water came
along and it became okay to pay two bucks for a bottle of
water. Over-the-air TV is like your tap water. It is public
infrastructure and people are talking about taking it away
or dismantling it just because it is becoming expensive. I
understand the economies of it. It's tough. But it's
valuable. It's valuable not just in an emergency, but it's
valuable as a conveyor of -- we know that from digital if we
convert to digital, the value of those transmitters goes up
exponentially. There are many more channels that can be
broadcast. So I urge you not to confuse HD with digital, by
the way, which a lot of people were doing earlier this week.
I don't think HD is part of the OTA discussion. I think
making sure OTA exists is what the discussion is, and I
think it is a wonderful public debate. As we went through
our research, we started hearing from people, and I think
Canadians would like to know this discussion is even on. So
I will throw it to my colleagues to expand on that.

MS WIRSIG: To respond specifically about the licence
renewal, I would want to know, first of all, what policy
direction you will be considering, if there is a global
policy you would be using to make those decisions during
licence renewals. I think we now know what the broadcasters
are going to be proposing in their applications. In the case
of the CBC, it's a hybrid model. We sit across from the CBC
at a lot of tables and I don't want to get into a spat
necessarily with the CBC, but I do have a question about
their hybrid model. Why 44 markets? Frankly, I don't have
the list. I've been asking for the list for several weeks,
and I still don't have the list of actual transmitters. But
I do understand it's like 26 English markets and 18 French
markets; right? Maybe you folks have the list. But why 44?
They have told us it's the biggest markets. Why? I don't
know if the answers are out there exactly. I don't know if
there is any good reason for it except that everybody knows
those are going to be the markets where you want to hold
onto your over-the-air licence because those frequencies are
going to be very valuable; are today and will continue to be
very valuable. So you don't want to give up your
frequencies in the big markets. When you sit down with a
particular broadcaster and they talk about their business
plan and their business case, I think the whole public needs
to be clear what the framework is for making those
decisions. We think it has to go beyond the individual
business case of each particular broadcaster. It may not be
you folks that have to make that final decision. At the end
someone is going to have to foot the bill, and it may have
to be the Government of Canada.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have any comments to add, Ms
Byers?

MS BYERS: I am just going to comment about the question of
larger public discussions, because I think that is where you
started out. I think it would be always helpful for an
organization like yours, a board such as yours, to go out
and hear again those examples that come from communities
about what it is. Although they may not understand all the
technicalities -- and I'm in awe of some of the questions
that were asked today and so on -- they do understand what
is happening to them and what they are afraid of losing in
terms of their local programming, in terms of issues around.
I had not been aware until I sat down with these folks about
the question of emergency programming, all of those things
that as a member of the public they've got things to say to
people such as yourselves. They may not have the technical
information, but they do want to deliver a public message to
you about what they want to see in terms of the programming
and Canadian programming. It's really general, but I know
when I talk to our members when we are talking around media
issues or what's happening in their communities, the
question of local programming, Canadian programming,
regularly comes back, about what's happening and how people
feel like they are being disconnected. It's a big country.
People feel like the plug is being pulled on them across the
country so that they know less about their own communities
and they know less about each other's communities as well.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. That's my
question, Mr. Chair.

THE CHAIRPERSON: On the issue of emergency matters, there
was a public hearing that was held sometime during the month
of March. CBC was a participant. We received over a
thousand interventions; at least 50 appeared. So I think it
was surely brought to the attention of the general
population. Regarding Ms Lareau's analogy between tap water
and bottled water, it is an interesting analogy that you are
making. But we are now close to 90 percent of Canadians
that are using bottled water and in some localities, it was
the evidence that was filed by the various participants in
this process. Outside major markets, it is close to 100
percent of the population that is using bottled water.
That's why they came along with the idea of the hybrid
project. Some came without saying even the best solution
would be to provide a decoder to each and every household
that doesn't have one now. We did receive also a lot of
interventions in this process. We did receive letters from
viewers by the thousands particularly seeking that global be
carried by satellite in some of the regions. There are
thousands and thousands of those letters. So you may have
not been made aware until you really started to dig up for
your oral presentation, but the reality, I think the public
forum on those questions is currently taking place.

MS WIRSIG: What worries me really is --

THE CHAIRPERSON: Obviously we could have toured the country
and stopped in Salmon Arm, Kamloops and numerous other
communities. The likelihood is that yes, people will say
they love over-the-air even if they watch it through cable.

MS WIRSIG: I think this all comes back to the local news
question and the news question generally. I'll tell you, the
people in Kamloops who are organizing around this very issue
right now in Kamloops didn't fully understand that this
process would partly address the broader part of their
concern about the future of over-the-air television and CBC
over the air. They didn't know that. They found that out
--

THE CHAIRPERSON: But we did receive an intervention when
Global asked to withdraw from carrying the CBC and then the
CBC let us know formally that they were not to implement
even a rebroadcast of Vancouver in Kamloops. They were
citizens that wrote us.

MS WIRSIG: And then I think what happened was after it got
turned off there were other citizens that sort of, ah what
has happened? I mean, I respect your process, I respect the
public process, I think the CRTC, frankly, by us and by
millions of Canadians, is seen as an industry process, is
seen as a technical process. People even like us, who read
technical documents a lot, have to take a lot of time to get
up to speed with the public discussions on this that have
happened so far. I just think it will be a shock to a lot
of Canadians in five years if we start pulling the switches
in their local communities. We actually had some further
analysis on the actual numbers and I know the people in
Kamloops believe the number is much higher than BBM states
about who relies on television over-the-air. I don't know,
I mean you would have to go door to door there probably to
figure out the right number. I don't want to fight about
the numbers here. But our research shows that CBC viewers
are actually a higher proportion over-the-air than the CBC
stated in their own brief. If you look at overall
television watching, obviously, most television watching
does happen over satellite, the vast majority over satellite
and cable. But for people who turn on the TV five hours a
week, many people rely on over-the-air and they turn to CBC.
So what is getting lost in the global numbers is the amount
of local television that is watched by people who don't
watch very much TV and I think that those people are getting
lost. I mean, in this testimonial I have from Kamloops they
describe people who choose not to get satellite and cable
because they don't want their kids exposed to the
200-channel universe. They would rather see their kids read
a book and play with their friends. However, they would
also like their kids to be able to see -- I want to say Mr.
Dressup, but I don't even think that is on anymore -- they
want --

MS BYERS: I don't want to break it to you, but he is
gone.--- LAUGHTER / RIRES

MS WIRSIG: I know. You know, they may want to have their
kids, if they are home sick, watch a couple of hours of
quality of children's programming during the day, they maybe
want to watch The National at night and that is it. We are
going to be disenfranchising those people or, in the case of
the CBC, sending them into the 200-channel universe where
public broadcasting may not be even their top five choice
anymore. I think it is an interesting proposition.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You said that you had conducted research.
Have you filed that research with the Commission?

MS. WIRSIG: You know what, I meant to append it and I
didn't, but I will.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You --

MS WIRSIG: I can give you that research right at the end of
this discussion if that would be..

THE CHAIRPERSON: Since you have been referring to it, I will
ask that you do so.

MS WIRSIG: Yes, absolutely. It does show that actually it
is in some of the smaller communities, and this is about CBC
viewership specifically, in some of the smaller communities
across the country outside also of the owned and operated
stations that are run by CBC, which is what they focused on.
You know, it is as much as a fifth of people watch CBC
over-the-air.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MS LAREAU: If I could also elaborate. I think there is a
danger if you follow these proceedings, and certainly the
media accounts of them, in some ways the BDUs are framing
the debate about OTA and that is unfortunate. I share my
colleagues' views that there needs to be -- again, that is
the public debate about a public infrastructure and we
cannot leave it to the BDUs to do that for us and I think
that has been a problem this week. To your first point, as
you dismantle the infrastructure of course it becomes a less
attractive method for delivery of television. I think in a
digital era we know this and we presented it to you. In
Germany, for example, where everything is digital
over-the-air you can get up to 30 channels over-the-air
because of the digital capacity. That would be wonderful
choice for Canadians I think, but has that been presented to
you? No, because the BDUs are framing this debate so, you
know, these are things to think about.

COMMISSIONER FRENCH: Ms Lareau, I have been here for four
days and I have heard all the BDUs testify. Videotron is
indifferent to whether or not there are antennas in small
towns. Shaw thinks that local programming is vitally
important, he thinks that the complaints about the failure
of carriage for local programming are important and he never
once said that he was in favour of dismantling the
transmitter network. Rogers said dismantling the transmitter
network was one of the silliest thing he had ever heard and
he said that if I were in that business I would be
rebuilding, because the digital spectrum is extremely
important. So how are the BDUs framing the debate in a way
that you don't like?

MS LAREAU: You make good points, obviously, and the Rogers'
point, in particular, was a good one, we welcomed what
Rogers said. You know, I may have over-characterized it, I
will admit to you that. But their point of view is
reflected, I think, disproportionately in the media about --

COMMISSIONER FRENCH: Whose point of view?

MS LAREAU: The BDUs' point of view.

COMMISSIONER FRENCH: And what is the BDUs' point of view on
your account?

MS LAREAU: There is an emphasis on perhaps.. Listen, I
don't want to get into a debate about this, it is not worth
it. This isn't the main crux of our brief. Our brief is to
make sure that people understand that the OTA network is
valuable and for us not to get sidetracked on that. I don't
want to get sidetracked off that.

COMMISSIONER FRENCH: Yes, but it is part of a broader
structural problem with your presentation, which is that
whenever we try to focus on specifics you tell us well you
didn't really think about it or you didn't have the time or
you are not too sure, but you heard from somebody that said
this, that or the other. You know, this is not helpful to
us. We have to make specific recommendations which are
practicable, which are applicable. This is the working out,
Ms Lareau, it is not for next week or next month or a public
debate, this is the working out, that is what the President
was trying to convey to you. So when you tell us there ought
to be a debate or we heard that or we are very concerned but
by the way we don't have any details and we haven't thought
about it, you are really not helping us.

MS LAREAU: I am sorry you think of it that way. I think
that you are a public body and that you should be receptive
to principle discussions and not always details. Some
people are not going to come --

COMMISSIONER FRENCH: Well let us talk about it. Sorry, go
ahead.

MS LAREAU: -- not everybody is going to come before your
body with detailed, choreographed, prescriptive suggestions,
because we all have different interests in this country. So
you can throw out principled stuff, that is up to you. But
I think you are a public body and you should have a sense of
public discourse in your approach.

COMMISSIONER FRENCH: Well, let us talk about public
discourse. Ms Wirsig, you said and I think you are right,
you may not make the final decision. You also said that
people think of us as an industry process, the burden of
which was, I guess, that people had other things to do than
to follow the CRTC and I certainly understand that. But it
is in relation to those observations and your
recommendations about public broadcasting and, more
specifically the CBC and Radio-Canada, I would just like to
ask you the following question. Given what you have
eloquently stated to be the limitations of our process,
which we understand fully and share, why would we
second-guess the duly-elected Government of Canada or
provincial assemblies and their financing of provincial
broadcasters to give them more money than the
democratically-accountable publicly-representative processes
in fact produced?

MS WIRSIG: Because you actually are closer to the Canadian
broadcasting system than the Government of Canada. You have
the opportunity, we think, to leverage money, you do it all
the time. You leverage money through the licence renewal
processes and the rules you set. We just wonder why public
broadcasting would get excluded from that process and left
fully in the hands of the governments. Don't imagine for a
minute that we are going to let the government off the hook,
by the way. We just know this is not the place here to be
telling the governments, both the Government of Ontario in
our case for TV Ontario and the Government of Canada in the
case of CBC to give the CBC more money, there is no
question.

And I think we also said that we believe the Government of
Canada should pay for the upgrade to digital. So no
question, it is just that we know asking you to do that,
asking you to get the Government of Canada to pay up is not
the right way to go, so that is why we haven't emphasized
that here. However, as part of the Canadian broadcasting
system you also oversee the CBC and the CBC's role and the
balance in which public and private broadcasters play their
roles in this system. So we are just encouraging you to
think creatively about what you might be able to do to
leverage more quality Canadian programming. And I think in
the English-Canadian system it is particularly interesting,
because we know that the private broadcasters, given the
simultaneous substitution rules, are less likely to make a
lot of what Richard Stursberg would call shelf space
available in prime time for Canadian programming, right?
Like, they will do the minimum requirements they have to do,
because they can make more money showing Lost, House, CSI,
one, two, three, four and five. So if you, the CRTC, are
interested in seeing more quality Canadian shows in
primetime, the CBC is clearly the way to do it and I think a
lot of people in the system recognize that.

So we are just wondering if maybe there is a way for you to
actually financially help make that happen and it is not
about second-guessing the government. I think pressure from
people like us and Barb's organization needs to continue to
come to the government, because it is clear that public
broadcasters in Canada are under-funded. And the CBC's
research has shown that there is no good reason for them to
be under-funded. They probably pay the most valuable role
for any public broadcaster in the world, given the
conditions in Canada, we all know that. You can't do
anything about that, that is clear. But there may be some
creative things you can do to make sure that quality
Canadian programming, including news, including children's,
including drama get on the air when people are watching
television, that is all we are saying

COMMISSIONER FRENCH: And, Ms Wirsig, all I am saying to you
is that that is a perfectly legitimate plea, but it can't be
married to a critique of our processes that suggest we are
an industry process. Because if we are just an industry
process, how can we become legitimate and second-guess
democratically-elected governments who are accountable to
the people much more regularly and directly than we are that
they have made a mistake in the funding of public
broadcasting?

MS WIRSIG: I don't want to critique this process, I have
full respect. I think we said that before, full respect for
the process. I am just giving you a very honest assessment
of what your regular average Canadian thinks about when they
think about this process, that is all I am saying. It is
not your fault exactly, it is not our fault exactly, we have
tried to actually increase the awareness of our members of
the process. It is a reality in the world that people hear
the letters CRTC and go like blank in the face.

COMMISSIONER FRENCH: I can't say that I blame them.---
LAUGHTER / RIRES

MS WIRSIG: Right. So I am not saying that this is a
critique of your process and I am not saying I critique all
of the BDUs and the broadcasters for coming here and making
their pitch in their very technical jargon, I am not blaming
them either, that it doesn't help obviously. And the fact
that it is taking place in Gatineau, I mean, we had to spend
our members' money to come here to make this presentation to
you. People in Salmon Arm, I mean, they will send letters,
but they are not going to get any coverage about this and as
soon as people don't hear this stuff about people in their
own neighbourhoods making these points, they think all is
lost. I really think that that is part of the problem, is
people have given up in some ways. Until they hear other
people like them talking about it, which is perhaps what a
public debate about this could generate, is some real
discussion about regular people talking about the future of
television and it may not be up to you folks. I don't know,
maybe that is up to you to decide.

Maybe you already know what your policy framework is. I just
hope that that policy framework about over-the-air
television is clearly reflected in your report though.
Because certainly, if we don't like it we want to be able to
go to the government and say we don't think this fits with
the Broadcasting Act, so something has to happen here,
either the Broadcasting Act has to be changed or a new
directive has to go to the CRTC. I will be perfectly frank,
that is what we will do if we don't think that what you guys
come up with reflects the current approach of the
Broadcasting Act and we have every right to do that. And we
have every right to get all of our members across the
country to do that too.

COMMISSIONER FRENCH: No one is questioning your rights. Ms
Lareau, you suggested that we had to distinguish between
high definition and digital. Did you, by that comment, mean
to say that you think there is a long-term future for
standard definition digital broadcasting?

MS WIRSIG: We are getting our research from a report that I
think you have seen, prepared by Michael McKeown, about
what's going on in other countries. We noted with great
interest about what is going on in the U.K. and Germany
around multiplexing and the possibilities that are offered
with multiplexing. Having read this e-mail from Salmon Arm,
I can tell you right now that that woman in Salmon Arm would
be over the moon if she happened to have the right TV
receiver. I understand all this stuff has to get worked
out. But say in five years she can buy a TV that gets
standard definition digital reception and she could get CBC
Radio Two over her TV set. She could get Newsworld over the
air, and she could get the main CBC. She could get
Radio-Canada.

What I understand from this multiplexing thing is that that
could actually happen in remote and rural areas that aren't
particularly well served by analog or digital or cable at
the moment -- sorry, not digital; satellite or cable. I
think there are some interesting opportunities there that go
beyond the high definition application. Those are in that
report from Michael McKeown about Germany and the U.K. where
this has also happened and where the take-up, therefore, of
digital transmission, standard definition digital
transmission, has been, as I understand it, quite high and
there is a lot of excitement about it. The train may have
left the station because of the drive from south of the
border for HD. I don't know. There may be some technical
questions. Can there be a hybrid HDSD transmission system?

THE CHAIRPERSON: My question to you is: Are you suggesting
that Canada adopt a different standard than the U.S.? We
have done so with radio in adopting DAB. There are about 25
people who have receivers in this country and they are 56
radio on air.

MS WIRSIG: If I understand correctly from an engineer,
there could be a TV set -- I mean, the receiver part of your
TV is a digital receiver, whether you're getting HD. It
could be HD ready, but if you have a digital receiver for
over the air you could get SD too. So is it not possible for
different decisions to be made from different transmitters
about what service goes out? Could we look at that kind of
hybrid? Could we look at a hybrid system where the hybrid is
actually in the home, where in some cases you want to get
over the air because there's a storm and you really need the
local service; and in other cases when you want to do time
shifting and stuff, you receive your satellite or your cable
service. Are there other ways of thinking about this? I'm
very sorry that we have come late to this discussion. I
realize this has been going on now for five years, or more
probably. But they are just questions that we have because
we are thinking about people who sit at home and watch TV.
We are not thinking about people who sell TVs or sell cable
and satellite service. Do you know what I mean? We are
actually thinking about people who produce TV that we want
people to watch and care about and people who watch TV
because we care about it.

COMMISSIONER FRENCH: We are too.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ladies, thank you very much for your
presentation. I think your points are very well made. I
think they have been very well recorded and surely will be
part of our deliberations. We will wait for your reading of
our decision and see what is going to be the next step. So
thank you very much.

MS LAREAU: Thank you very much. We will append that
research that we were referring to.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Fine; thank you.

Back to the news page

Appendix

Appendix: A City without the CBC

On March 1, 2006, the residents of Kamloops, BC (pop: 82,000) lost their over-the-air CBC Television programming. Since that time, our group, Save Our CBC Kamloops, has had the chance to speak to thousands of concerned residents. The spectrum of affected and concerned viewers is varied and their concerns are heartfelt and honest. We would like to share these thoughts with you. (paraphrased)

· Families have said that the CBC had been a source of high quality children and family shows and there was no desire to watch anything else. The content was both stimulating for all family members and promoted conversation of Canadian issues and ideas.

· Kamloops teachers have said that once they’d been able to use home viewing for educational purposes and can no longer do this. Programs such as the Greatest Canadian and Canada: A People’s History had ignited interest and pride in classrooms about our heritage and culture. Now, only those students whose families can afford cable can have access to them can participate. Families without are forced to make a choice to miss out or expose their kids to multi-channel TV world when they might have played with friends or read a book.

· Kamloops has over 10,000 University students who are unlikely to pay for cable. Students have said that they are drawn to the CBC for its high intellectual value, Canadian humour, and, of course, hockey coverage.

· Seniors with limited income have said that losing the CBC is downright “unCanadian.” It had been a way to stay in touch with other parts of the country where loved ones may reside. It was a trusted source of good-natured humour, fascinating documentaries, and reliable news. It is a slap in the face to have it pulled out from under.

· Hundreds of professionals, young and old, have said that they chose not to have cable, relying only on the CBC as their television media. CBC programming is sophisticated and intriguing. It also stirs our national passion for Canadian arts, business, sports, and culture.

The CBC is the citizens’ broadcaster, reflecting who we are as Canadians. Its stories are written from Canadian hearts and minds for Canadian hearts and minds. It’s a place where Canadians can think, learn, and laugh together. By losing access to it, we have no refuge from the bombardment of television programs that are routinely sensationalistic and simple.

The CBC touches all citizens, young and old, in an intelligent and sophisticated way. In a time when we are called upon to understand increasingly complex issues, it’s all the more important that this service is always available in rural areas, small and large Cities. As the highest quality source of programming in Canada, paid for by Canadian tax dollars, it is downright appalling that it is no longer available for everyone. We appreciate that media technology is changing and funds are limited, but the CBC must not drop its most loyal communities in short-sighted decisions. To lose the CBC in our community has been heartbreaking.

Pam Astbury, Kamloops BC

November 30, 2006

www.saveourcbckamloops.ca

Appendix: A City without the CBC

Pam Astbury, Kamloops BC

November 30, 2006