Mixed reactions to wide-ranging recommendations in Heritage committee’s broadcasting report

The long-awaited House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage report on the Canadian broadcasting system has been described as being both daring and a dud. The 872-page report, Our Cultural Sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting, makes numerous wide-ranging recommendations aimed at strengthening Canada’s broadcasting system, including an overhaul of the responsible bureaucracy. Following a two-year study of the broadcast system, the Clifford Lincoln-chaired committee called for more initiatives to boost local and not-for-profit broadcasters, a review of the CRTC’s mandate, the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) and Telefilm Canada. As well, the report advocates a single piece of legislation governing both the broadcasting and telecommunications industries that would be overseen by a new communications department that merges Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada (CCR Update, June 11/03). Foreign ownership stance criticized The cable industry considers the report a dud because the committee recommended the status quo on foreign ownership, as expected (CCR, March 13/03). Janet Yale, president and CEO of the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA), says the report looks more at the symptoms than the causes of problems in the broadcasting system. “Competition and new technologies are creating fundamental changes in the economic marketplace and the landscape in which we operate. And we were hoping that the recommendations would address that big issue,” Yale tells Canadian Communications Reports. “It is in that context that we had tabled the issue of access to foreign capital. Because, of course, we believe that as one of the key infrastructure providers in this country, one of the best ways that we can respond is to have greater access to capital so we can continue to upgrade and invest in new technologies. While there are 97 recommendations, they sort of nibble at the periphery of a whole bunch of issues without confronting what we believe to be the key challenge.” But Richard Paradis, president of the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters and a consultant who prepared a governance report prepared for Canadian Heritage, calls the report courageous and daring for its stance in support of keeping existing limitations on foreign ownership. “The CCTA is speaking for its members who are big cable operators, often owned by family-based businesses,” he says. “And if you look at it coldly, they are looking for a cash-out. I think the Heritage committee had the courage to say – and it says it quite clearly in a number of places – that if we start selling off our carriers, and when we see the impact that it’ll have on our cultural industries, we’ll never be able to turn it around.” He says the most important element of the report is that it clearly establishes “the fact that the Canadian market is distinct from the American market.” He adds, “The fact that the Parliamentary committee decided to use the title of cultural sovereignty (for its report) says a lot in response to the Industry committee report that was looking toward opening up foreign ownership of our broadcasting and distribution undertakings.” Merge Canadian Heritage, Industry Canada But while the Heritage committee report is at odds with the complete liberalization of foreign ownership rules recommended by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, both committees agree that there should be a return to one Department of Communications. The mega-department would oversee broadcasting, telecommunications and the cultural industries. A merger of the departments must also lead to a re-examination of the enabling legislation, the Heritage committee report states. The new department should “investigate the benefits to be gained from having one piece of legislation that covers communications, telecommunications, broadcasting and their regulation,” the report reads. “Indeed, the committee is of the view that there could be great benefits from having a comprehensive piece of legislation that deals with these areas. Therefore the committee recommends that the government consider whether a comprehensive communications act is required to integrate the existing Broadcasting Act, Telecommunications Act and Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Act into one piece of legislation.” “The way that it’s set up now (the legislation) with two different silos with a regulator called the CRTC, basically it creates a problem because we’re always going to have conflicting views if we don’t have everything at the table at once,” Industry committee chair Walt Lastewka tells CCR. Review CRTC mandate, appointment process The Heritage committee report also makes a series of recommendations with regard to the CRTC. It calls for a review of the mandate of the CRTC, and it wants its powers to be limited in its regulatory supervision of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. to the approval of new licences. Paradis says this makes sense since the CBC reports to Parliament and any CRTC directives over the public broadcaster are not legally enforceable. “So (the CBC) goes and does the mimics in front of the commission and everyone knows that it can tell them that they have to do something, but they don’t have to do it legally,” he notes. There have been some suggestions that the CBC will use an ongoing process surrounding its request for a licence amendment that would allow it to continue to broadcast Hollywood movies to tell the CRTC that such things are none of its business (CCR, May 23/03). The Heritage committee also raises concerns about the perceived coziness of the regulators and the regulated, and how people are named to the CRTC and CBC board. The committee wants criteria and guidelines governing the nomination of CRTC commissioners and of CBC board members developed by June 30, 2004. The committee also wants CRTC staff and senior staff to wait two years, rather than the current one year, after leaving the commission before going to work for a company that is regulated. “This requirement shall be made a condition of commission employment or membership. During this time, they should receive up to 75% of their regular salary if they are unable to find suitable employment other than in the broadcast industry,” the report states. The committee also calls for a reduction in the number of CRTC commissioners from 13 to nine. CRTC chair Charles Dalfen supports that view (CCR, May 9/02), and it’s a measure the CCTA has previously advocated. Re-examine 1999 TV policy The Heritage committee also wants the CRTC to review its 1999 television policy with respect to rules on the exhibition of priority programming in prime time. Some have blamed that policy for a decline in the amount of Canadian drama being broadcast. But former veteran broadcaster Trina McQueen says such a review is not needed. “(That policy) didn’t go into effect until the year 2000. So we’ve only had two years of that policy,” she tells CCR. “I worry that this broadcast system is unstable enough now. If we go back and re-regulate you’ve got to have a Cabinet directive, then you’ve got to have the CRTC come up with a new bunch of regulations. That’s going to take a year to 18 months. In the meantime, everyone in the system is going to be left up in the air. I really worry about a system in which we give people a licence in good faith after a public hearing and then say to them – just kidding, we don’t really mean it.” She adds that constant rule changing brought on by complaints is what got the CTF into its current troubles. But McQueen praises other recommendations made in chapter five of the Heritage committee report. Section 5.1 (d) calls for the development of a comprehensive and integrated Canadian programming policy and strategy that includes a strong emphasis on measures to ensure that Canadian programming is viewed by Canadian audiences. McQueen notes that these recommendations dovetail with the audience-building focus of her recent report, Dramatic Choices: A Report on Canadian English-Language Drama (CCR, June 5/03; CCR Update, May 28/03). CTF needs revamping Her report also calls for a revamping of the CTF process, which she calls “hideous” and says “wastes great amounts of money, time and energy. It dulls the creative process.” Not surprisingly then, she’s pleased that the Heritage committee report suggests that Canadian Heritage “investigate ways to create greater efficiencies in the administration of the CTF and Telefilm Canada, including the adoption of mechanisms that would allow for a centralized and harmonized application process and a reduced paper burden.” Among the suggestions that McQueen makes in her report is that a one-stop application procedure be developed for the CTF. CTF president and CEO Sandra Macdonald says the fund will be re-examined over the summer with the possibility of changes coming. “I think (the recommendations) were logical and cautious. They didn’t offer a prescription,” she tells CCR. “They just said there are things that should be looked at, and I think there’s a general consensus that those are indeed good things to look at.” The Heritage committee report also recommends stable and long-term funding for both the CTF and the CBC. CBC chair Carole Taylor stated in a media release that the report “reaffirms the importance of public broadcasting as an essential tool for developing, preserving and sustaining Canadian culture.” CAB compliments report Glenn O’Farrell, president and CEO of the Canadian Broadcasters Association, says there are positive signs in other areas, such as the report’s suggested review of the Part II licence fees, the possibility of allowing pharmaceutical advertising on TV (CCR, Jan. 31/02), and a proposed review of the MAPL system for determining Canadian content on radio. “We see (good) in terms of Part II fees that the committee has recognized are an illegal tax,” O’Farrell tells CCR. The committee report calls for a study of the rationale and fairness of those fees and that the industry “be encouraged to develop a plan for the reallocation of all or a portion of the former value of Part II fees back into the Canadian broadcasting system.” O’Farrell notes that some progress has been made on the Part II fees front, which a year and a half ago garnered the support of Canadian Heritage minister Sheila Copps (CCR, Nov. 9/01). He points out that the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations after hearings held this month is expected to come out with its own recommendations on Part II fees within weeks. He adds, “We see (the report) recognizing…that the MAPL system needs to be revised, updated and liberalized so that Bryan Adams will be considered Canadian content when it is played on private radio.” Some of the recommendations are bound to displease direct-to-home (DTH) satellite TV distributors. The report asks the CRTC to revisit its exemption of DTH distributors from having community television channels, that a solution on the carriage of out-of-market signals not lead to reduced contributions to the CTF (CCR, Jan. 16/03, Nov. 22/02, Oct. 10/02), that they carry local CBC signals, and that they provide CBC North programming to Canada’s Northern regions. The cable industry also notes that a recommendation urging the regulator to permit distributors to offer a wider range of international programming services does little for it. “(The recommendation) is primarily for third-language services and certainly there is nothing today that prevents us from adding third-language services,” Yale notes. “And the one thing that they did exclude was adding services from the United States that are not in a third-language. I’m not sure what problem they are trying to address.” Support for community TV The report also leans heavily toward supporting not-for-profit, community-based and regional broadcasting. It wants the Broadcasting Act to be amended to recognize not-for-profit broadcasters as an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system. It also calls on the government to develop a community, local, and regional broadcasting policy in consultation with key broadcasting industry stakeholders. And it asks Canadian Heritage to create a Local Broadcasting Initiative Program to assist in the provision of radio and television programming at the community, local and regional levels. The report suggests that the government investigate the feasibility of creating new digital channels to distribute the best of that local programming. The Heritage committee also wants the establishment of a Canadian broadcasting monitor, which would be incorporated into the Auditor General’s office, to report annually on how well the objectives of the Broadcasting Act were being met. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) immediately embraced the report, which contains two dissents. “Finally someone speaks for Canada in the broadcast industry, and it’s about time,” ACTRA national executive director Stephen Waddell said in a media release. “Committee reports tend to be good doorstops and dust collectors. Let the Lincoln Report not be one of those – let’s have the government take action on these recommendations right away.” But several sources note that then report will likely end up collecting dust on a shelf, given that it was released before a change of leadership in the Liberal government, and a probable election next spring.

Mixed reactions to wide-ranging recommendations in Heritage committee’s broadcasting report

Broadcast | June 20, 2003

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