The CRTC's commercial radio policy expects radio to be relevant to local communities.47 It defines local radio programming in the following manner:
Local programming includes programming that originates with the station or is produced separately and exclusively for the station. It does not include programming received from another station and rebroadcast either simultaneously or at a later time; nor does it include network or syndicated programming that is five minutes or longer unless it is produced either by the station or in the local community by arrangement with the station.
In their local programming, licensees must include spoken word material of direct and particular relevance to the community served, such as local news, weather and sports, and the promotion of local events and activities.48
Concern over cross-media ownership prompted the CRTC to revise its commercial radio policy in 1998. The Commission now limits ownership or control of radio stations in a given market to:
... three stations ... with a maximum of two stations in any one frequency band. In markets with eight commercial stations or more operating in a given language, a person may be permitted to own or control as many as 2 AM and 2 FM stations in that language.49
The Commission has also addressed general concerns about the consequences of the consolidation of ownership on news programming. In this regard, the Commission has adopted:
... a case-by-case approach in assessing programming commitments. Applicants seeking to acquire ownership or control of more than one AM and one FM station in a given language and market will be required to outline how their proposed programming will benefit the community and further the objectives of the Act. The Commission will retain the option of requiring adherence, by condition of licence, to particular commitments made by applicants.50
While there are Canadian content requirements that stipulate certain levels of Canadian vocal music in English and French (which range from 35% to 65%), very little can be said about the delivery of local news and non-news programming by Canadian radio stations. This is because local programming is not like other radio program types such as music, which is typically subdivided for licencing purposes into a set of discrete categories (i.e., country music, oldies, middle-of-the road, etc.).
What the Committee Heard
The Committee notes that witnesses rarely raised concerns with the local services provided by Canada's commercial radio broadcasters. On the contrary, the major "local" issue raised by witnesses had to do with local television news and non-news programming and the concentration of media ownership.
The CRTC's 1999 television policy makes the following observation concerning local news programming:
The Commission has carefully evaluated the availability, profitability and success of local news programs throughout the country. It has also considered the changing broadcasting environment and, in particular, the availability to Canadians of alternative sources of local news and information. In larger Canadian markets, viewers are able to choose among local or regional news provided by the CBC or Radio-Canada, and two to four private stations. In addition, some community cable channels provide regular local newscasts. A regional specialty service, Pulse 24, provides news and information primarily in southern Ontario. Various information services are also increasingly available on the Internet for those who need specific types of local information or who wish to discuss local issues.51
Furthermore:
The Commission believes that, in the new television environment, there are sufficient market incentives to ensure that audiences will continue to receive a variety of local news without regulatory requirements. News programming is a key element in establishing a station's identity and loyalty with viewers and is generally profitable. Further, licensees may not solicit local advertising in a market unless they provide local news or other local programming.
That said, shortly after the launch of the Committee's study, the CTV television network announced that its nightly MCTV newscasts from Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, North Bay/Muskoka, and Timmins would be merged into a single program, to be broadcast from Sudbury.
According to Mr. Arthur Simmons, CTV's decision to consolidate local programming is merely a sign of the times:
Despite overwhelming opposition from Saint John residents and other New Brunswick communities, the CRTC approved CanWest Global's acquisition without demanding it retain a local presence. Today, CanWest Global serves New Brunswick with a pretaped newscast that is fed from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. It doesn't even have a production studio in New Brunswick. ... This is the scenario you will find across Canada, outside of the large urban centres. Local reflection isn't somewhat lacking, it's on the verge of becoming extinct.52
In a letter to the Committee, CTV defended itself by stating that the CRTC "acknowledged the value of an approach which combined local inserts in a regional newscast by considering the entire program as local content to each station providing input."53 Thereafter, in an appearance before the Committee, CTV's parent company, BCE, added that it is particularly difficult to service smaller markets such as Northern Ontario due to the impact of satellite competition in rural and remote areas. As Mr. Alain Gourd explained:
There is pressure from the erosion of viewing on conventional stations, and there is a greater impact of direct-to-home in these areas, as opposed to downtown Ottawa or Toronto. These pressures are reducing the financial ability to sustain the provision of local voices. What we have tried to do ... is to keep the provision of local voices, whether in Atlantic Canada or northeastern Ontario, by using digital technology to maximize the allocation of the resources toward coverage, toward the gathering of news, as opposed to having full-fledged production facilities in each of the localities.
So what we are trying to do is to develop a model where in a given community, like Atlantic Canada, we put the production facilities in one central location; however, we keep journalists in the various localities to cover the news. In northeastern Ontario, we still have 43 people in the news department, including 26 reporters. And we're the only ones there. There's nobody else in TV. We maintain across the board, whether in Atlantic Canada or northeastern Ontario, a commitment to provide 15.5 hours of regional and local programming. And for each community, there is a local segment that will be dedicated to that community only and will not be reproduced elsewhere.54
The Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) showed some sympathy for CTV's situation. It observed that the provision of local services is a demanding exercise — especially in smaller markets. The Association drew special attention to the plight of small distribution systems and noted that geographic remoteness, small customer bases, smaller cable network capacities, the cost of capital, financing difficulties and competition with legal and illegal satellite services all hurt local programming. Some small cable operators, they added, are shutting down, leaving satellite services as the only available choice for consumers in their areas.55
Despite extensive testimony from witnesses concerning the apparent demise of local news, the Committee also saw compelling evidence that local programming is alive and well in some contexts. In Toronto, for example, the Committee toured CHUM's vibrant storefront studios at CityTV and spent time talking to their energetic and enthusiastic on-air and off-air staff. CHUM's programming model, which it has replicated in smaller centres, uses a downtown location and an open studio format so that on-air hosts may seamlessly blend interactions with the local community into live and recorded programming.
This storefront approach has been so successful that it has spawned scores of imitators across Canada and, indeed, around the world. In fact, even the CBC has recognized the value of this model. As Mr. Robert Rabinovitch told the Committee:
Open the doors, let the public in to see what you're doing, see who your stars are, and see them in operation. This is one of the reasons we want to do it, especially for faceless radio. We find in Winnipeg, where there is a studio open to the public, the people come by, wave, say hello, and look.56
As for solutions to the challenge of delivering local new and non-new programming, Mr. Drew Craig, president of Craig Broadcast Systems, suggested that the Committee think in terms of a diversity of ownership. He noted that a "diversity of ownership ensures that the broadcasting system does not become too staid and allows for innovation and new program ideas" and that a diversity of ownership is necessary in order to have a diversity of voices.57 Taking this point a step further, Mr. Jan Pachul, argued that "preference to local ownership of stations" should be a priority and that "[o]ut-of-town owners should only be considered if there are no local applicants."58
The Minister of Canadian Heritage raised another potential solution. She proposed public-private partnerships between the CBC and its private sector counterparts, such as CTV in Northern Ontario:
I learned only last week that CBC television has just signed an agreement with TQS in Quebec, to actually have CBC reporters working in TQS stations. I see that as an innovation. I see that as a way for the public broadcaster to be present in the regions without necessarily having to establish the whole infrastructure. If CBC and CTV were able to work out a similar arrangement in northern Ontario, I would see that as a win-win for everybody.59
Chapter 6 has more on the CBC's role in the delivery of local programming. Before proceeding, however, it is worth closing with the thoughts of Professor David Taras on the importance of loyalty in any broadcaster's local programming strategy:
I can give you a very local commentary based on my experience in Calgary. When CBC decided to leave Calgary and close the local supper hour news, it was second in the market in a thriving market and was making money. It decided at that point, in 1990, because of the overall budgetary picture, not to continue with a local strategy. Calgarians left in droves. In fact, in one night, 60,000 people went from CBC to the local CFCF, a CTV affiliate. They have never come back. I think there's an extent to which people in the west feel abandoned by the CBC because there's no strong local connection. There's no sense of loyalty because the local face isn't there.60
C. Regional Broadcasting
The Broadcasting Act makes four specific references to regional expectations for the Canadian broadcasting system. Section 3.(1)(i)(ii) states that: "programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should ... be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources." Section 3.(1)(m)(ii) notes that the CBC should "reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions." Section 3.(1)(r)(iii) expects programming provided by alternative television programming services to "reflect Canada's regions and multicultural nature." And, Section (5)(2)(b) calls for the CRTC to take "into account regional needs and concerns" in its oversight of the Canadian broadcasting system.
The CRTC defines regional broadcasting as follows:
... "regional television station" means, in relation to a distribution undertaking, a licensed television station, other than a local television station, that has a Grade B official contour that includes any part of the licensed area of the undertaking.61
With the notable exception of the CBC, regional television is almost exclusively the domain of provincial educational broadcasters. Canada's educational broadcasters are widely recognized as voices of their respective regions. These services appeal to broad audiences, ranging from adult learners and adolescents, to pre-school children and specific demographic groups. Five provinces have provincial broadcasters; Manitoba and the four Atlantic provinces do not. These provincial services are profiled in Chapter 7.
The CRTC very rarely talks about regional broadcasting and when it does it is typically mentioned in parallel with local concerns. To determine which programs qualify as regional, it does, however, make the following distinctions:
Canadian regionally-produced programs [are] English-language programs at least 30 minutes long (less a reasonable amount of time for commercials, if any) in which the principal photography occurred in Canada at a distance of more than 150 kilometres from Montréal, Toronto or Vancouver. Programs in which the principal photography occurred on Vancouver Island will also be considered regionally produced programs.
French-language programs at least 30 minutes long (less a reasonable amount of time for commercials, if any) in which the principal photography occurred in Canada at a distance of more than 150 kilometres from Montréal.
Programs of News (Category 1), Analysis & Interpretation (Category 2), Reporting & Actualities (Category 3) and Sports (Category 6) are excluded.62
What the Committee Heard
Most of what the Committee heard about regional concerns had to do with the CBC's programming priorities. These issues are dealt with in Chapter 6. There were, however, four other areas raised about Canada's regions: definitions of regional; regional inequities; regional programming and production support; and, support for educational broadcasting.
In his appearance before the Committee, Mr. Arnold Amber summed up well the problem with the word "regional":
We must clear up in the [A]ct what is regional and what is local. Having been at CBC for a number of years, I have had the great advantage of seeing one administration at CBC determine that regional was local, and another one determine that local is regional. It depends on what's playing in that administration in a given year, and this must be cleared up.63
Indeed, part of the problem with the term regional is that one person's regional can be someone else's local, regional or provincial; and, depending on one's location, it can be all three. For example, in Prince Edward Island, Mr. David Helwig made the following observation about local and regional:
The problem with discussing the Island as an example is that the population is so small. It is a province, it is a unit, it is a unity, but the point that is being made here is that the question of what is local, what is provincial, and what is regional is blurred a little bit here. In P.E.I. clearly you need to have what may appear to be local broadcasting, but it is also provincial broadcasting. So the analogy between the locality here and the locality of Brandon, for example, is perhaps not a legitimate one. For that reason, I'm not sure that writing "local" into the [A]ct would make any significant difference.64
But in the case of regional inequities, it was clear that Prairie and Atlantic Canadians have a very specific sense of what is regional. These citizens told the Committee that they were troubled by the concentration of financial resources in Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver. In Edmonton, for example, Ms. Nancy Wahl, observed that "the majority of the work is being done in [Central Canada]."65 Furthermore, scheduling decisions have become so centralized that they are detrimental to the wishes of local, and by extension, regional audiences. She explained:
Due to programming decisions being made outside the community, there is no effort being made to place these programs where they will be seen. Instead, they are being put into slots where almost no one is watching. It doesn't seem like much of a commitment to our community or the talents of the independent producers in the area, not to mention the regional commitment.66
Making matters worse is that broadcasters have no obligation to carry regional programs.67 As Ms. Gretha Rose explained:
There are no requirements for broadcasters to carry a portion of their programming from the regions. The regions do not normally have access to central Canada where all the decisions are made, let alone the international marketplace to put together international co-productions. Regional representation does not exist, in my opinion.68
Moreover, because broadcasting is no longer the mass communications medium that it once was, the costs for regional programming have increased. As the Saskatchewan Motion Picture Association noted:
... the television world has splintered into dozens of specialty channels... However, the financing available to those channels to buy our [regional] products has also splintered. Their marketplace, their ability to gain commercial revenue has been divided into smaller and smaller slices of the pie, that we all know. Therefore, the amount of money that they are able to provide to fill a half hour or an hour of broadcasting time is far less than the cost of producing a quality ... product. And while we have a lot of customers, they don't have a lot of money.69
Several Nova Scotians forcefully outlined another regional concern: large corporations are buying regional entities, appropriating their regional status, and either reducing regional commitments or reaping the benefits intended for specific regions. Mr. Stephen Comeau of Collideascope Digital Productions cited the case of the Independent Film Channel, based in Halifax, which lost its Halifax-based production office six months after Alliance Atlantis purchased it in 2001.70
Similarly, in late 2001, Corus Entertainment moved its recently acquired Women's Television Network (WTN) assets from Winnipeg to Toronto. This was announced just six days after the CRTC had openly stated that the new proprietor should maintain the station in Western Canada. When asked about this move by Corus, the CRTC's Executive-Director of Broadcasting, Mr. Jean-Pierre Blais, told the Committee "we have ... situations where we speak out loud, we just note, or we expect. This was more on the level of an expectation — hindsight's 20/20 sometimes."71 For Mr. Comeau, however, this move was "a blatant disregard for the CRTC's desire to have diversity in ownership geographically".72
Alliance Atlantis also bought Salter Street Films of Halifax in 2001. According to several witnesses, this type of acquisition means that regional producers are now competing with powerful subsidiaries of production houses based in Toronto, Vancouver or Montréal. For example, Mr. Richard Zurawski, of East West Media in Halifax, felt strongly that his company had unjustly been denied CTF funding. He explained:
... we received 59 out of 59 points. We received the maximum allotted from the CTF, yet we did not qualify. We were the only Atlantic Canada production, and this office in Atlantic Canada gave the only money from their envelope to Alliance Atlantis, Salter Street, which I find outrageous...it's like being the only hockey team that shows up and it still loses the game.73
The Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association (AMPIA) raised a related problem, when it pointed out that:
There appears to be a belief by some broadcasters that regional programming would not be of interest to national viewers. AMPIA respectfully disagrees. It is only by telling the stories of the unsung Canadian that we as a country can truly come together. Prior to recent consolidations, relationships with broadcasters at the regional level have allowed stories from Alberta to be developed and told to the rest of Canada and to the world. It is difficult now to find a program decision-maker in our region.74
Provincial educational broadcasters also raised the issue of support for production outside Canada's major centres. In its brief to the Committee, the Saskatchewan Communications Network argued:
Regulatory structures and mechanisms put in place have served the interests of the portions of the Canadian broadcasting system located in the Toronto and Montréal "Centres of Excellence", while ignoring the other sectors and program types listed as being essential in the Act".75
For this reason, the Network believes that there is a regional void in programming options for Canadians:
If television is the mirror we use to reflect our society and culture, then we have a problem, because we can't see our reflection. Television looks pretty much the same in Banff and Yorkton as it does in Vancouver and Toronto; you don't see anything about Yorkton or Banff in any of those places. Often the most significant regional or local programming is the changing ads on the TV listings channel.76
To deal with the challenge of producing and delivering regional programming, the Canadian Independent Film Caucus suggested that the Broadcasting Act could encourage a regime to foster viable inter-regional co-productions, acquisitions, and commissions.77
The SCN recommended proposed Canadian content bonus points for regional informational programming: 150% in non-peak viewing periods, and 200% in peak times. Furthermore:
"Regional Informational Programming" be declared an underrepresented program area, in the same way as children's and drama programming, and is due similar access to production fund sources. SCN recommends that [the government]78 create a dedicated fund for the needs of these programs.79
Similarly, AMPIA suggested that the CRTC "include all regional benefits as conditions of licence," as there is "a devastating effect on regional production when the money flows back outside the region."80 AMPIA was also of the view that the CRTC should:
... establish clear public policies that avoid potential self-dealing practices for all broadcasters. We also recommend exploring reasonable limits to company ownership, so independent producers truly remain independent.81
For his part, Mr. Dan Viau urged regulation to ensure that regions with low population densities are served. He explained:
... if the federal government, through the Broadcasting Act and the CRTC, does not require a strong and meaningful commitment to local and regional programming by off-air broadcasters, the Maritimes community will probably never again see itself on television outside of news shows.82
Finally, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters argued that local programming should be considered priority programming and called upon the government to create a special credit for non-news local programming.83
D. Proposed Solutions
In general, the Committee regards the CRTC's new community television policy as a step in the right direction. In particular, the newly created community television class (i.e., the community programming service) may, in some communities, help fill the void created by cable providers that do not (or cannot) serve local citizens. The Committee also supports the creation of a separate licence class for community-based television programming undertakings. It agrees that there are fundamental problems with the production and delivery of community and local programming and that there is a pressing need to create new spaces for such voices.
That said, several aspects of the CRTC's approach to community, local and regional programming troubles the Committee. Indeed, the Committee observed a clear consensus among those who spoke on community, local and regional programming that the status quo is unsatisfactory and that the federal government must take action. The Committee therefore makes the following proposals and recommendations, which it believes will help preserve and reinforce the important role of community, local and regional broadcasting in the Canadian broadcasting system.
Citizen Access
The Committee firmly believes that citizen access should remain a fundamental objective of the Canadian broadcasting system as it is only through access that a diversity of voices, views and representations can be ensured. Indeed, it is gravely concerned that the CRTC's post-1997 community television policy has significantly altered the way community cable stations are operated (for example, through centralization and networking by the cable companies). Therefore, even though the CRTC's 2002 community media policy includes the expectation that cable undertakings provide citizen access and promote training, the Committee is not convinced that this will necessarily trigger the desired result. For this reason, the Committee believes that citizen access to community television facilities should be a CRTC requirement, rather than an expectation.
RECOMMENDATION 9.1:
The Committee recommends that the CRTC require all broadcast distribution undertakings to provide community groups and volunteers with greater access to community television facilities for the production of local and community television programming. |
The Committee recognizes that the way in which this requirement is implemented will necessitate recognition of the different situations of Canada's broadcasting distributors (i.e., cable vs. satellite). It should not, however, exempt any of these stakeholders from the provision of certain levels and types of citizen access.
Definitional Ambiguities and Inconsistent Policies
The Committee is of the view that the CRTC's new community media policy does very little to resolve the definitional ambiguities and inconsistencies inherent in the existing uses of the terms community, local and regional. On the contrary, it merely sheds light on the problem when it states that:
... the Commission considers local community television programming to consist of programs, as defined in the Broadcasting Act (the Act), that are reflective of the community, and produced by the licensee in the licensed area or by members of the community from the licensed area. Programs produced in another licensed area within the same municipality will also be considered local community television programming.84
In the case of large metropolitan cities such as Montréal, Vancouver and Toronto, the Commission is even less clear:
Licensees that provide community programming in the greater Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver areas will be expected to set out their plans and commitments at licence renewal time as to how they will reflect the various communities within their licensed areas in these urban centres.85
While some might argue that these new definitions lend clarity to notions of what is local within the context of community television, the reality remains that they merely amplify the many definitional problems raised by witnesses who appeared before the Committee. Indeed, as should be clear by now, finding satisfactory definitions of community, local and regional is difficult.
It is equally clear that many of the issues raised in this chapter stem from the absence of a common understanding of key terms and the bewildering array of policies that the CRTC has developed over time. For example, community channels could be independently run and advertising regulations could be harmonized. This is why the Committee believes that the time has come to rationalize and harmonize the many CRTC policies that address various elements of community, local and regional broadcasting. Accordingly:
RECOMMENDATION 9.2:
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage develop a Community, Local and Regional Broadcast Policy in consultation with key broadcasting industry stakeholders, including public, private, community, educational and not-for-profit broadcasters and related interest groups. |
The Committee is of the view that the desired outcome of this process should be the formulation of one clear and coherent policy for community, local, regional programming and broadcasting, which would also bring together policy parameters for ethnic, low-power, campus and minority language broadcasting. The Committee also expects this policy to include a clear statement of objectives, realistic estimates of the cost of meeting those objectives and a comprehensive set of performance measures.
This policy should also recognize the contributions that can be made by different elements within the system, such as community access, and should — unlike existing circumstances — be technologically neutral with respect to different distribution mechanisms. In other words, the demands on the cable system should not be materially different than the demands on over-the-air broadcasters or satellite distribution undertakings, the latter of which are discussed below.
The Role of Direct-to-Home Satellite
Despite the rapid growth of Canada's direct-to-home (DTH) distribution market (from a 2.6% market share in 1998 to 16.2% in 2001), the Commission's new community media policy reaffirms its earlier decision that it "does not consider the concept of DTH community channels to be in keeping with its proposed objectives to ensure more locally-produced and locally-reflective community programming."86
In other words, the fastest growing mode of broadcast delivery in Canada remains exempt from the delivery of community-based programming since it is not "in keeping" with the Commission's objectives. The Committee finds this particular determination to be highly disconcerting and reminds the CRTC that Canada's broadcasting policy states that our broadcasting system is a single system comprised of "public, private and community elements." Wishing to underscore this fundamental point — a point which is emphasized in the chapters that make up Part III of this report — the Committee makes the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION 9.3:
The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada take steps to ensure that the departments and agencies responsible for the Canadian broadcasting system continue to treat the system as a single system. |
Keeping this important policy principle in mind, the Committee therefore insists that a solution be found to ensure that Canada's DTH satellite services play a more direct role in the delivery and provision of community television programming. Indeed, the Committee is aware of at least two options (time-slicing and satellite Internet (see inset)) that would enable Canada's satellite service providers to play a more active role in community programming.
Some Delivery Options for Community Television
A number of scenarios can be seen to exist for the delivery of Community television:
The Traditional Delivery Model — Where a community is served by cable, the cable operator provides the community channel as part of the suite of retransmitted TV channels.
Micro Transmission — Where no cable exists but a local micro transmitter is in place, community television signals can be retransmitted using regular VHF frequencies rather than by cable. (Note there is some interest in using 802.11/802.16 for this "last mile" transmission in some smaller communities).
DTH Satellite — All DTH receivers can be programmed individually (through the use of transmitted codes) to be able to allow access to any broadcasted channels. In addition, it is possible to program those same receivers to be able to "time-slice" those same channels. This opens up the possibility for a community channel bulletin board to be transmitted on a time-shared basis, stored locally and to be updated based on a set schedule. Where a larger audience is required to watch a community video across many communities, a transmission of the appropriate code could allow this. (Note that while the elements of this solution are commonly used, use in the way suggested is not a current practice). The question remains of how the information would get to the Broadcasters hub (in the ExpressVu case this would be to its Toronto location) and what return (i.e., financial) the DTH provider would see for the use of this channel.
Satellite Internet — Not strictly a broadcast solution. This solution seems to be the most easily accessible and cost-effective. Satellite broadband Internet services are fast being implemented within the rural and northern communities (Knet is one such suppliers there are seven to eight currently offering the backbone network). There are an increasing number of ISPs (FCNQ being one) who offer Internet service to communities using the satellite backbone network. In this case a community could work with an established ISP (Internet Service Provider) to set up a community web site with some designated (and trained) person within that community or a contracted third party who could take local input and create a suitable Internet page (or series of pages). Many Northern communities have already gone this route.
Source: Keith Fagan and Associates, Satellite Broadcast Information, Prepared for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. |
Accordingly:
RECOMMENDATION 9.4:
The Committee recommends that the federal government by order in council direct the CRTC to revisit its decision to exempt DTH satellite services from the provision of community television services. |
In this regard, the Committee notes that the capacity of the broadcasting system to carry additional channels has increased considerably over the past decade. On cable systems, for example, eight digital channels can replace one analog channel; moreover, depending on the number of transponders, most modern satellites can easily handle more than 100 channels. In addition, accordingly to information supplied to the Committee, each channel on a Canadian satellite typically costs between $150,000 and $200,000 a month. This means that another eight to ten digital channels offering the best of English and French-language community, local or regional programming could very easily be launched and delivered for less than $20 million a year.87
Thus, since it is apparent that it is already technologically (and economically) feasible to create more space in the Canadian broadcasting system, the Committee believes that it is imperative that the government and industry work together to develop a strategy for the creation of new digital channels (in both official languages) that would deliver the best of Canada's community, local and regional programming to Canadians. With this in mind:
RECOMMENDATION 9.5:
The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada investigate the feasibility of creating new digital channels for the distribution of the best of Canada's community, local and regional programming to Canadians. |
This feasibility study should address how these channels would be owned and operated, how programming would be selected and distributed and how revenues would be appropriately shared to support the production of additional programming.
The Committee was also told by a number of witnesses that the provision of local signals to subscribers by Canada's DTH service providers is, at best, unsatisfactory. While the Committee is aware that there are proposals from Bell ExpressVu and StarChoice before the Commission concerning this matter at this time and that negotiations are underway to find a fair solution, it is gravely concerned that these proposals would lead to less money for the Canadian Television Fund (this point is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 5). Thus, while the Committee is encouraged that efforts are being made to address this situation, it nevertheless feels compelled to make the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION 9.6:
The Committee recommends that the CRTC work with broadcasting industry stakeholders to find a solution for the carriage of local signals via DTH satellite, to ensure as much local programming as is appropriate and feasible is made available to subscribers. This solution, however, should not lead to reduced contributions by DTH satellite service providers to the Canadian Television Fund. |
That said, the Committee is also aware that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages issued a report in February 2003 in which it called for the delivery of all CBC/SRC regional signals via DTH satellite. In light of the Corporation's importance as a public policy instrument and the necessity that all Canadian citizens have equal and fair access to a local (or regional) CBC and SRC signal, the Committee makes the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION 9.7:
The Committee recommends that the government by order-in-council direct the CRTC to require Canada's direct-to-home satellite service providers to carry the signals of local television stations of the CBC/SRC. |
This does not mean, however, that the Committee believes that every CBC and SRC station requires carriage on DTH satellite. On the contrary, the Committee is of the view that a strategy could (and should) be developed to ensure that a reasonable amount of CBC/SRC local and regional news and non-news programming is made available to DTH subscribers.
Funding Support
The Committee is very concerned that licencing restrictions, arbitrary distribution limitations and ill-considered regulations are preventing community, local and regional programming from being launched or properly distributed. Moreover, it cannot help but conclude that existing mechanisms and players have been proven short of the task of providing community, local and regional programming. As the Committee pointed out in the chapter dealing with the CBC, the Corporation lacks the resources to fulfill its mandate. In addition, as noted above, there are serious problems with the delivery of local signals via satellite.
Witness testimony on these points was eloquent, with many, including the Minister of Canadian Heritage, suggesting that partnerships would go a long way to resolving these challenges. For these reasons, the Committee believes that an innovative, new funding measure is required, one that is tailored to the needs of the Canadian system, as expressed by witnesses. Accordingly:
RECOMMENDATION 9.8:
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage create a Local Broadcasting Initiative Program (LBIP) to assist in the provision of radio and television programming at the community, local and regional levels. |
As envisioned by the Committee, the LBIP will have a number of bold features. The Program should be designed so that initiatives will come from local communities and have the backing and involvement of key partners. As different communities will have different needs, a variety of models will flourish. In one community, a civic group, a local company and a broadcaster might apply to the Program to broadcast a local talent show, a charitable event, or a holiday concert. In another community, a local broadcaster could, with appropriate backing, set up a studio or buy critical equipment so that local events can be better covered. While the LBIP would be accessible to all broadcasters, it would also be a means for drawing the CBC back into local broadcasting.
The Committee notes that the Department of Canadian Heritage will need to develop clear definitions, criteria, objectives and targets for the funding of "community", "local" and "regional" broadcasting projects. In the Committee's view, the Local Broadcasting Initiative Program should reflect the objectives developed as part of a new Community, Local and Regional Policy (discussed above). Furthermore, it should allow local communities to identify specific needs and should be attractive to broadcasters who otherwise have no incentive to do local programming. As a consequence, it need not be symmetrical across Canada but should allow for projects tailored to particular needs.
Overall, the Committee is persuaded that partnerships of the sort that would be made possible by the LBIP would go a long way to resolving many of the problems with community, local and regional programming production. It would also allow local broadcasters to add value to their program offerings and would provide a new range of possibilities for community broadcasters.
Accountability
As noted throughout this report, the Committee has grave concerns with the absence of valid and reliable data on the Canadian broadcasting system. Moreover, it is deeply troubled by the lack of measurement and reporting on various elements of the system. For example, as observed earlier on, the Committee was very frustrated by the absence of data on community television and is dismayed that virtually no information exists on what happens as a result of cable company expenditures (approximately $75 to $80 million) in support of community television each year. For this reason:
RECOMMENDATION 9.9:
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage in collaboration with the CRTC be required to issue an annual report on community television. This report should include information on training, citizen access and involvement (paid and volunteer), types of support and the hours and range of programming produced. |
Furthermore, and in light of the recommendations made in this chapter:
RECOMMENDATION 9.10:
The Committee recommends that the changes to community, local and regional broadcasting that result from the implementation of the recommendations made in this report be evaluated by the appropriate department within two years of their introduction and at reasonable intervals thereafter (e.g., every five years). These reports should also be submitted to this Committee. |
Endnotes
1 | Ethnic, low-power, campus and francophone minority radio and television are profiled in Appendix 11. |
2 | Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Policies Respecting Broadcasting Receiving Undertakings (Cable Television), 16 December 1975, p. 4. |
3 | Report of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy (Caplan-Sauvageau) (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1986), p. 491. |
4 | Public Notice CRTC 1997-25. |
5 | Public Notice CRTC 2002-61. |
8 | Public Notice CRTC 2001-129. |
9 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 27 February 2002. |
10 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 21 March 2002. |
11 | Rogers Television, Out of the Fog, Sample of Viewer Feedback for 7 November to 24 April 2002, Site Visit, 29 April 2002. |
14 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 27 February 2002. |
16 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 25 Feb 2002. |
17 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 19 March 2002. |
18 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 2 May 2002. |
19 | Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Cogeco Cable, 15 June 2000. |
20 | Unlike independent community radio stations, independent organizations such as the CTGC are not licenced by the CRTC. It follows that practically all community television — directly (BDU-run channels) or indirectly (independently-run channels) — are dependent on cable transmission. |
21 | Cogeco Cable, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 15 June 2000. |
22 | Lynda G. Leonard, Letter to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 20 February 2002. |
23 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 21 May 2002. |
24 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 2 May 2002. |
25 | See Public Notice CRTC 2000-13. |
29 | Impératif français, , Brief to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,, p. 1. |
30 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 9 April 2002. |
31 | On 17 April 2003 the CRTC approved a radio licence for La Coopérative radiophonique de Toronto Inc. for the Greater Toronto area. |
32 | Meeting of the SCOCH, 9 April 2002. |
33 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 2 May 2002. |
34 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 30 April 2002. |
35 | Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada, Brief, p. 3. |
36 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 25 February 2002. |
38 | Normally, Department of Canadian Heritage funding is considered annually. See "Les radios communautaires reçoivent l'aide de Patrimoine Canada," L'Acadie Nouvelle, 26 July 2002. Since Mr. Desgagne's testimony, the Ministry has promised $470 000 to be given to the Alliance des radio communautaires du Canada over the next two years ($235 000 each year). |
39 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 28 February 2002. |
41 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 19 March 2002. |
42 | Public Notice CRTC 1994-32. |
43 | An "official contour" means a service contour marked for a licenced television station, licenced AM station or licenced FM station on the map most recently published under the Department of Industry Act by the Minister of Industry pertaining to that station. See: Public Notice CRTC 1997-84. |
44 | Public Notice CRTC 1999-97. |
45 | Indeed, the elasticity in local programming expectations for conventional broadcasters is so great that some markets are expected to air no less as few as 1.5 hours of original local programming each week (e.g., CKNY-TV-11 Huntsville), while others are required to broadcast more than 40 or more hours (e.g. CHAN Vancouver). |
46 | The decline in AM stations is due largely to the migration of AM stations to FM frequencies during this period to take advantage of better signal quality and to maximize revenues. |
47 | Public Notice CRTC 1998-41. |
48 | Public Notice CRTC 1993-38. |
49 | Public Notice CRTC 1998-41. |
51 | Public Notice CRTC 1999-97. |
52 | Arthur Simmons, National Representative, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 25 February 2002. |
53 | Letter to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 26 October 2001. |
54 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 7 May 2002. |
55 | Ownership concerns issues were also raised with regard to CanWest-Global's control of Southam newspapers and BCE's control of the Globe and Mail newspaper. The main concern, which has to do with editorial independence, is addressed in Chapter 11. |
56 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 14 March 2002. |
57 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 1 March 2002. |
58 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 19 March 2002. |
59 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 8 November 2001. |
60 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 29 January 2002. |
61 | Public Notice CRTC 1997-84. |
62 | Public Notice CRTC 1999-205. |
63 | Arnold Amber, Director, The Newspaper Guild Canada, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 27 February 2002. |
64 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 27 February 2002. |
67 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 1 May 2002. |
69 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 28 February 2002. |
70 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 30 April 2002. |
71 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 29 November 2001. |
72 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 30 April 2002. |
74 | Connie Edwards, President, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 27 February 2002. |
75 | Saskatchewan Communications Network, Brief, p. 3. |
77 | Canadian Independent Film Caucus, Brief, p. 7. |
78 | The SCN Brief, called "Voices in the Wilderness" was submitted to the CRTC in 1998. SCN, at that time, called upon the CRTC to implement its recommendations. Presumably the network's recommendations are now directed at Parliament, through the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. |
79 | Saskatchewan Communications Network, p. 17. |
80 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 27 February 2002. |
81 | Connie Edwards, Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 27 February 2002. |
82 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 1 May 2002. |
83 | Meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, 21 March 2002. |
84 | Public Notice CRTC 2002-61. |
87 | Keith Fagan and Associates, Satellite Broadcast Information, Prepared for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. |
| |
|