Familiar divide in reaction to government’s response to Lincoln broadcasting report

Reaction to the government’s response to the Lincoln report on broadcasting is divided along familiar lines – the broadcasters on one side and the unions representing creators on the other. The unions’ complaints are familiar, saying that Canadian Heritage Liza Frulla’s 65-page second response to the Lincoln report is a failure because it doesn’t recommend revisiting the 1999 TV policy, which they blame for a decline in drama. "I find it quite disappointing. Really, it is a very lukewarm response to a report that was quite far-reaching and innovative, …particularly in regard to drama," Writers Guild of Canada (WGC) executive director Maureen Parker tells Canadian Communications Reports. "They didn’t address an order-in-council regarding the 1999 TV policy. They also did nothing to address the (Canadian Television Fund) stability or increasing the CTF. They announced another $60 million to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., but we already knew that – it had been announced in the budget. There is no increase in the tax credit, which would assist us again in production. Instead, it seems to be a lot of tweaking and administrative review." While the unions criticized the response for what it did not contain, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) praised it for what it did spell out. Frulla’s response in a document entitled Reinforcing Our Cultural Sovereignty – Setting Priorities for the Canadian Broadcasting System, which was tabled in the House of Commons on April 4, noted that the federal government would emphasize local and regional programming, the digital transition, and the streamlining of its related organizations, such as the CRTC, the CBC, Telefilm Canada, the CTF, the National Film Board, the Canadian Film or Video Tax Credit and the Canadian Audio-visual Certification Office (CAVCO). "In general, from our point of view, it was extremely positive," says CAB senior VP of policy and regulatory affairs David Keeble. "(The government) has created what amounts to a blueprint for moving forward. It’s an outline. It’s a blueprint. It doesn’t contain all the details, but the details will develop as they move forward. That’s been the line from the minister’s office as well: that this is a response, and that it’s a step, and there will be more." Parker, however, sees the lack of details as a flaw. "We also need to take some action as well and that seems to be completely missing," she says. "No tax credit, no announcement on the stability of the CTF or an increase, no review of the 1999 TV policy. Even fines, I’m kind of surprised by that one because I thought that was a definitive, but there you go." The report notes that the government will explore whether monetary penalties should be added to the CRTC’s toolkit for ensuring compliance with broadcasting regulations. In briefings prior to the release of the report, industry players were led to believe that the CRTC would definitely be given fining powers. The commission came under pressure when it revoked Quebec City radio station CHOI-FM’s licence – the only means at its disposable to punish the licensee for not complying to its condition of licence. The government will also ask the CRTC to prepare annual reports concerning the steps it has taken to streamline its rules, regulations and decision-making processes. "This is consistent with the government’s overall smart regulation agenda," notes the report. Under the governance and accountability section, Canadian Heritage also points out that there is room to improve the degree of synergy and comple-mentarity among the various players. The CAB was particularly pleased by the government’s response with regard to Canadian content, cultural diversity, digital transition, fair commercial practices, the CRTC and signal theft. "The government’s response recognizes and emphasizes that building audiences is key to a successful Canadian programming strategy. The CRTC 1999 television policy provides programming flexibility resulting in increased spending on independent production in both, priority programming and needs of Canadian viewers," notes the CAB in a statement. "The government has taken the first course to preserve the flexibility allowing broadcasters to meet the needs of Canadian viewers. Additionally, the CAB endorses the recommendation to develop a new governance plan for the Canadian Television Fund, and recognizes the benefits to the broadcasting system that will flow from a streamlined regime." Like Parker, Pamela Brand of the Directors Guild of Canada (DGC) finds fault with that approach. "We know from experience – we have facts, numbers, everything – that unless regulated, private broadcasters do not do Canadian drama," she adds. "We are very disappointed, and I must say we don’t really understand it. This government has always said that we have strong cultural objectives – how are they going to implement and reach those objectives if they do not have the regulation to give it backbone? It’s a slap in the face to Canadian creators. There’s no point having review after review, and report after report." Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) national executive director Stephen Waddell tells CCR, "I think that this is really, unfortunately, all talk and no action in respect of the government’s response. On our issues, it’s particularly silent." The Coalition of Canadian Audio-visual Unions (CCAU), to which the DGC, WGC and ACTRA belong, states that the federal government’s response to the Lincoln report falls short because it fails to call for an overhaul of the 1999 TV policy. The CCAU has long urged the government to address what it calls a crisis in English-Canadian TV drama by implementing the Lincoln report’s recommendation to revise the 1999 TV policy. "Canadian culture is the victim of the Martin government’s policy of ‘dithering’," said Peter Murdoch, national vice-president of media for the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. The CEP is also a member of the coalition. Under the section on looking to the future, the government notes that it would like to help accelerate the transition to digital. The government is calling on the CBC to submit a fully-costed digital transition plan, in recognition that the public broadcaster can play a leadership role in the rollout. The government also expects the CRTC to actively encourage other broadcasters, especially the private conventional broadcasters, to accelerate their transition to digital. "To ensure Canada’s cultural policy instruments remain appropriate, the government will proactively undertake several initiatives to assess rapidly evolving trends in technology and evaluate their impact on existing regulatory and policy models," reads the report. Keeble says the CAB agrees with this approach. "What we took encouragement from was...(the government) recognizes the difficulty of finding sufficient satellite capacity to make the high-definition transition to digital…The main thing is that they’re taking this seriously. They’re taking concrete steps to make sure that they’re properly informed about it because they also talk about undertaking new initiatives to assess the trends and adoptions of various technologies and evaluate their impact on current regulatory and policy models." The CAB executive also notes that the government isn’t suggesting that a deadline for completion of the transition be adapted as is the case in the United States. "They’re saying they want to make sure that all of their programs encourage producers and broadcasters to make the transition," Keeble notes, adding that one impediment is having access to enough HD programming. "I think the government sees (the transition) as still market-driven, consumer-driven, and that the main initiative in moving forward would be removing impediments on the supply side of the programming end. The impediment is a lack of a business model for creating HD content." Ian Morrison, spokesperson for the watchgroup Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, has a middle-of-the-road reaction to the government’s response, giving it a B grade. "It’s certainly a much stronger document than the first response," he says. "The first response was fluffy rhetoric. I don’t think a government of Canada has paid this much attention to the nuances of broadcasting since Mr. (Brian) Mulroney’s Broadcasting Act was passed in 1991." He agrees with the unions in their beef about the response ignoring the 1999 TV policy, but doesn’t fault the government for not spelling out in detail its priorities for the broadcasting industry. "What I mean to say is that the government correctly is taking an overview," he notes. "A government policy statement on broadcasting has to be more at 30,000 feet than getting into every little detail. I would say the strength in this is that it is a policy overview and it has put a number of processes in place." In terms of content, the response does note that the "government will actively encourage the development of compelling programming – particularly drama, children’s and cultural programming and documentaries – that reflects the Canadian experience and reaches out to large numbers of Canadians." In particular, though, the government is leaning toward more regional and local voices. The government notes that it will direct the CRTC to increase its efforts to ensure that Canadians in communities of various sizes have access to local and regional news and public affairs programming from a variety of sources. It has also asked the CBC’s board of directors to deliver a strategic plan by September 2005 on the provision of its English and French television services. Reinforcing Our Cultural Sovereignty – Setting Priorities for the Canadian Broadcasting System is the government’s second response to the Clifford Lincoln-chaired Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage’s two-year study of Canadian broadcasting. In November 2004, the standing committee asked the government to provide a more detailed response to the 97 recommendations contained in the report, which was released in June 2003 (CCR, June 20/03). Canadian Heritage, under the leadership of Sheila Copps, was non-committal in the government’s first response to the recommendations made in Lincoln report (CCR, Nov. 14/03).

Familiar divide in reaction to government’s response to Lincoln broadcasting report

News | 04/08/2005 4:00 am EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us