Few changes needed to Canadian content, specialty, conventional broadcasters agree

In two separate filings, both the television board and the specialty and pay television board of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) agree that the current definition and certification systems for Canadian content should not be changed, with the exception of their application to animation. Filed August 30 as part of second-round comments to Canadian Heritage’s review of Canadian content, the two submissions by the separate CAB boards follow a vague two-page submission filed by the association during the first-round of the consultation process (CCR, June 7/02, April 12/02). "The specialty and pay board is in full agreement with the many interveners in this proceeding that the current Canadian content framework and funding system criteria generally function well, and would benefit from stability," states the specialty and pay board’s submission. "It should be noted that well-intended changes to definitions and criteria might nonetheless introduce systemic bias against niche broadcasters and niche programming. The specialty and pay board shares the Director’s (sic) Guild view that changes often produce unintended negative consequences, and the impact of any changes on all stakeholders must be carefully assessed in advance of implementation." Where Canadians viewed Canadian dramaHours viewed of Cancon% of overall viewing*CBC89,874 40%CBC Affiliates9,4334%Total CBC99,30744%CTV50,34923%Global37,05017%CH24,51611%CHUM9,5684%Craig3,4492%Independents**70%Total Private Net124,93956%* All percentages have been rounded off** Non-CBC/CTV network programming for independents other than CHUM or CraigSource: August 30 submission to Canadian Heritage by the Television Board of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters; data from BBM Spring 2002, Monday-Sunday 7 p.m. - 12 a.m. The CAB television board concurs. "The CAB supports the current Canadian content measures that are based on Canadian ownership of production companies, the nationality of producer and key creative personnel and cost requirements for production services paid to Canadians or incurred in Canada," it states. The television board further points out that the current system has been so effective that Canadian production has grown nearly 130 per cent over the last seven years from just under $3 billion to $5 billion. One of the challenges that exists relating to Canadian content that both CAB boards note has to do with how Canadian content is assessed in animation productions. Changes are necessary in this genre, states the CAB’s specialty and pay board, to reflect the many technical innovations taking place in animation. A discussion concerning the matter is set for October 2 in Ottawa. Recommendations for potential changes to the Canadian content point system for animation advocated in Corus Entertainment Inc.’s initial filing will be fundamental to the discussion. Corus, which owns animation house Nelvana Ltd., tells Canadian Heritage that the point system needs to be revised for animation to take into account changes that have occurred in the production of animation, such as modeling and "inbetweening," as well as compositing versus camera operation. The specialty and pay board also suggests that the criteria by which documentaries are evaluated should also be re-examined. In their submissions, both boards reiterate recommendations that have long been advocated by the CAB. Suggestions being repeated in this process by both boards include the elimination of Part II licence fees (CCR, Nov. 9/01, Oct. 26/01), revisions to the Food and Drug Act that would allow direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising (CCR, Jan. 31/02), continued film and television production financing through the Canadian Television Fund, and copyright reform. Other suggestions common to both submissions include financing for third-language productions and the development of tax credits for money spent on the promotion of Canadian productions. The television board notes that the creation of Canadian content should not rely only upon supply, but also demand and profitability. It points out that a tax credit for money spent on the promotion of films and television productions would be an excellent way to stimulate demand for Canadian content. The television board also suggests the government start a venture capital fund to stimulate the export of Canadian content, especially drama and comedy. Given its reliance on subscriber revenues, the pay and specialty sector recommends that Canadian Heritage allocate funds to assist with ongoing industry efforts to combat signal piracy, particularly in enforcing the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that made it illegal under the Radiocommunication Act to sell unlicensed direct-to-home satellite TV equipment (CCR, May 9/02, April 25/02). It also urges policy makers to recognize that regulatory measures of success dependent on audience share should consider that specialty channels have a cumulative approach to building audience, and are restricted in total audience size by their niche nature and their distribution in discretionary tiers. The television board repeats its contention that private broadcasters deliver the highest audiences to Canadian programming, even though the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. delivers the most in terms of quantity. The pay and specialty board, however, is quick to point out in its submission that specialty channels spent a record $520 million on Canadian programming in 2001, which was more than the $502 million spent by private conventional television.

Few changes needed to Canadian content, specialty, conventional broadcasters agree

Broadcast | September 12, 2002

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us