HERI Committee Report

THE STATE OF
THE SYSTEM

Chapter 7
Not-For-Profit Broadcasting

Apart from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are several Canadian broadcasters that for all intents and purposes operate as public broadcasters. While some are relatively small community-based services with limited distribution and reach, others are substantially larger non-for-profit operations that rely on a combination of funding sources such as provincial or federal funds, subscription fees and/or advertising revenues. Taken together, these broadcasters, according to one analyst, are "probably without rival in any other country."¹

This chapter presents summary information on the larger broadcasters in this category. These are: national services, international services and provincial educational services. Where applicable, what the Committee heard about these broadcasters will be raised.

A. National Services

Excluding the CBC and its specialty services, Canada has three other specialty television services that can best be described as national public broadcasters. These are: The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN); Vision TV (a multi-faith religious service); and, the Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC).

The Aboriginal People's Television Network

As noted in Chapter 2, Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act recognizes the "special place of Aboriginal peoples" within Canadian society and that "programming that reflects the Aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system."

In response, the CRTC confirmed in 1998 that a national Aboriginal channel should be "widely available throughout Canada in order to serve the diverse needs of the various Aboriginal communities, as well as other Canadians."² The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN) was licenced soon thereafter.

The launch of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network in September 1999 was a significant milestone in Canadian broadcasting. The network is mandated to provide a primary level of service for Aboriginal peoples, reflecting their concerns and the diversity within their cultures. It offers First Nations, Inuit and Metis people the opportunity to share their stories with the rest of the world. APTN also strives to offer all Canadians a window into the worlds of Canada's indigenous peoples to create "a bridge between cultures to foster understanding among all Canadians."³

Recent APTN programming has included a mixture of news, current affairs, children's series, educational programs, variety, North American exclusive dramas, documentaries and movies. In October 2002, the network launched a daily national newscast, the APTN National News. The network has also launched a weekly call-in forum for on-air discussions on the topics and newsmakers of the day that affect Aboriginal communities across Canada.

Sixty percent of APTN's programming is in English, 25% is in Aboriginal languages and 15% is in French. By condition of licence, it must offer at least 70% Canadian content.⁴ APTN is available to eight million Canadian households via cable, direct-to-home satellite and wireless services. In 2002, it received $15.8 million in subscription fees, $2.1 million from the Department of Canadian Heritage, and a further $4 million through advertising and other sources, for total revenues of nearly $22 million.

APTN met twice with the Committee in Winnipeg (in a formal hearing and later at its downtown facilities) during which the network's representatives detailed a trail of broken promises and unfulfilled recommendations. For example, a study released by the Department of Canadian Heritage (The McGregor Report) in 2000 recommended that $4.74 million for equipment upgrades be given to organizations funded by the Northern Native Broadcast Access Program (NNBAP).⁵ Another recommendation proposed that NNBAP organizations that are ineligible for television receive $7.062 million. To date, however, the Department has not acted on these recommendations.

APTN's chairman, Mr. Clayton Gordon, told the Committee that an immediate cash infusion for capital expenditures is badly needed:

The first and most urgent [issue] is the need for a one-time capital replacement fund. Crippled by two decades of cuts, many of the NNBAP-funded broadcasters are reduced to working with obsolete cameras, editing systems, and audio gear that would not be accepted in a local cable company, let alone on a national network.⁶

Furthermore, because APTN buys much of its programming from independent producers, its representatives raised concerns over the gradual decline in funding for Aboriginal producers. In this regard, Mr. Jim Compton, APTN's program director, pointed out a distressing irony: although distribution has become bigger and better with the arrival of APTN, funding through NNBAP now is lower than ever. He noted, "[t]his is like announcing a national program to build highways and simultaneously declaring a ban on automobiles." ,^7,8

Mr. Compton elaborated on this point, explaining that at one time the NNBAP:

... supported 13 northern groups right across the country, from B.C. to Labrador. Every region made an initial decision about the kind of service it was going to offer, radio or television, with the understanding that all of these 13 NNBAP groups would shortly be funded to provide services in both media — television and radio.

Unfortunately, funding for the growth of the NNBAP was frozen following the 1984 election, and the radio producing groups were never allowed to expand into television. Entire regions of Canada were left without television service in their language. There are no NNBAP-funded TV producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, francophone Quebec, B.C., or among the first nations of the Northwest Territories.⁹

Problems with mainstream funding sources were also raised by APTN, particularly with Telefilm Canada and the CTF. The CTF rules, APTN explained, do not adequately take into account the needs of Aboriginal producers. For example, if a film is to be shown to a national audience, an English or French version is required; the Aboriginal envelope, however, requires programming to be shot in Aboriginal languages. This forces APTN to make multiple versions — at great expense — simply to be eligible for funding. As Mr. Gary Farmer told the Committee in Halifax:

First you spend 150 years taking our language away from us, and now that we all speak English and French, you won't allow us to work in those languages.

[Now w]e have to work in our first nations languages in order to access the funds ...¹⁰

Accordingly, APTN would like to see Aboriginal envelopes that include English- and French-language productions. APTN would also like an additional $1.5 million for French-language production and $6 million for English-language production to coincide with its conditions of licence.

Chapter 10 makes a number of specific recommendations concerning capital replacement costs, funding and training programs for Northern and Aboriginal broadcasters, which the Committee believes will help address many of the issues that were raised by APTN. That said, the Committee also recognizes that APTN's faces unique challenges as Canada's Aboriginal television network. For this reason, the Committee makes the following recommendations:

The Cable Public Affairs Channel

Canada became the first country to televise live political debates in 1977. From 1979 to 1991, responsibility for providing coverage of the proceedings of the House of Commons was assumed by the CBC.

In 1991, the CBC announced that it would stop funding the House of Commons service for financial reasons, but the House subsequently authorized payment to continue satellite-to-cable carriage of its proceedings. Soon thereafter, a consortium of cable companies took over the service's operations under an agreement with the Speaker of the House of Commons.¹¹

In 1993, the Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) received a one-year experimental licence for coverage of the proceedings of the House of Commons and public affairs programming. Two years later, the Commission renewed CPAC's licence for a full seven years. In May 2002, the service appeared before the Commission with proposals for the next seven.

Based in Ottawa, CPAC is Canada's only bilingual, national, satellite-to-cable, commercial-free, not-for-profit service. It is principally owned by three of Canada's largest broadcast distributors: Rogers Cable Inc. (42.6%), Shaw Cablesystems (25.8%) and Vidéotron ltée (21.7%).¹² More than 80 Canadian cable companies fund CPAC's operations ($6.7 million in 2001-02) and deliver the service, free of charge to approximately 8.6 million homes. The network receives no government funding, nor is it affiliated with any government department or agency.

Every week about 1.6 million Canadians tune into CPAC's selection of political and public affairs programming. Programming from the House of Commons, Senate (proceedings and committees) and the Supreme Court is given to CPAC free of charge. In July 2002, 62.5% of its schedule consisted of House of Commons and Senate proceedings, while the remaining 33.9% was public affairs and 3.6% was foreign programming. Apart from its parliamentary programming, the network also produces a nightly current affairs program, Primetime Politics, and the interactive political discussion forum, Talk Politics.

In the 2001-02 budget year, CPAC carried 155 public events from across the country. With a full-time staff of 40 based in Ottawa and a pool of freelancers working in every major Canadian city, House of Commons programming is made available to CPAC in three versions: English, French and floor sound.¹³

CPAC's President, Ms. Collette Watson, described the service's mandate and role as follows:

CPAC plays a crucial role in the Canadian broadcasting system by providing a forum for diversity of voices. CPAC's mission is to create a television destination where Canadians can become informed on public policy initiatives and form their own opinions without editorial direction from a corporate or government entity. Now more than ever, as convergence takes its toll on the number of editorial voices in Canada, CPAC plays an important role in providing a forum for public policy debate and in ensuring the presence of a diversity of voices and viewpoints in a broadcasting system.¹⁴

Most of CPAC's primetime programming is translated into French. In May 2002, CPAC proposed to air a new French-language daily public affairs program and to commit 20% of its long-form coverage programming to conference and inquires originating in French. It also committed to applying 25% of its licence fees for documentaries to original documentaries in French.¹⁵

The Committee notes that a February 2003 report by the Standing Committee on Official Languages studied reasons why CPAC is not always distributed in both official languages or available in certain régions. In this regard, it observed:

... that a certain proportion of BDU subscribers are required to pay a monthly fee for a signal they cannot receive in the official language of their choice, and that it is technically possible to offer them that signal in the official language of their choice.¹⁶

For this reason, it concluded: "that the Governor in Council, pursuant to its authority under the Broadcasting Act, [should] correct this undesirable state of affairs."¹⁷

The Committee agrees with this conclusion. Therefore, it repeats the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Official Languages below:

VisionTV

VisionTV is a not-for-profit specialty television service that is the only multi-faith and multicultural broadcaster in the world. It is expected by the CRTC to be "a broadly based network programming service devoted to serving the varied religious practices and beliefs of Canadians, on a national interfaith basis."¹⁸

VisionTV received its first licence in 1987. It is now available as part of basic cable or satellite service to than eight million households. The network is funded largely through advertising and subscription revenues and is allowed by the CRTC to collect 8 cents per subscriber each month. In 2001, Vision had revenues of approximately $15 million.

Vision delivers two types of programming: "cornerstone" and "mosaic." Cornerstone programming is produced or acquired by the network and represents about half of its schedule (48%). It includes both acquired foreign programming, as well as in-house productions. Mosaic programming is purchased airtime for shows that are produced and presented by groups from a variety of religious denominations, including Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Baha'is, Sikhs and Hindus. Approximately 75 different faith groups purchase airtime from VisionTV each year. Many of these programs cater to the needs of audiences that no other broadcaster serves.

The main point raised by Vision during its appearance before the Committee was its proposal that a mandatory "foundation tier" (or "green space") be created for the cable and satellite distribution of key Canadian networks, particularly Canada's public and not-for-profit broadcasters. This matter is discussed later in this chapter.

A second point raised by Vision concerned onerous compliance costs associated with CRTC licence renewals and the associated financial burden. Since this issue has to do with the CRTC's regulatory practices, it will be addressed in Chapter 19.

B. International Services

Canada has two international public broadcasters: Radio Canada International, a federally funded short-wave radio service; and, TV5, a federally (and Quebec) funded, French-language television service.

Radio Canada International

Radio Canada International (RCI) is Canada's broadcasting portal to the world beyond our borders. RCI is Canada's version of the BBC World Service, the Voice of America and Deutche Welle (Germany). RCI began as CBC's international service on Christmas Day 1944 and was in official operation by February 1945 as a way for our soldiers to keep in touch with events at home, and as an uncensored news source for international listeners. It was renamed Radio Canada International in 1972.

Although the CBC houses RCI, it is supported under the terms of a contribution agreement with the Government of Canada. In 2001, its total operating and capital funding was $20.5 million dollars. RCI provides a fully Canadian content service in seven languages: French, English, Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic, Russian, and Ukrainian. Programming is available via short-wave radio, the Internet, satellite, and a network of AM and FM partner stations around the world.

In the past, proposed or actual cuts to RCI have immediately triggered high-profile public campaigns to protect the service and its place in the Canadian broadcasting system. Since 1991, the CBC's obligation to the service has been enshrined in Section 46(2) of the Broadcasting Act:

The Corporation shall, within the conditions of any licence or licences issued to it by the Commission and subject to any applicable regulations of the Commission, provide an international service in accordance with such directions as the Governor in Council may issue.

Two groups, the RCI Action Committee and the Canadian International DX Club, made passionate submissions to the Committee. The RCI Action Committee told the Committee that the government's support for an international service:

... must go further than just a general statement to "provide an international service". The Broadcasting Act must outline RCI's mandate to "attract an international audience" and develop "international awareness of Canada" [the CBC's Corporate Policy No. 14]. It must specifically oblige RCI to prepare such programming in both official languages, English and French. There should be sufficient guidelines in the Act to ensure most regions of the world are covered, and to ensure RCI broadcasts in major foreign languages, and any others deemed important or useful. Without necessarily enumerating each region and language, these directives must be strong enough to prevent anyone but Parliament from being able to change the mandate of RCI. At the moment, there is very little that prevents the CBC from cutting services back radically. This despite the fact that all of RCI funding comes from the Canadian Heritage Department.¹⁹

Several recent studies have made similar recommendations.²⁰ For example, a recent Senate Committee study recommended:

That the government ask the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to review the mandate of its international broadcasting service in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada with a view to clarifying and strengthening it. This review would consider the inclusion in the mandate of an obligation on the part of Radio Canada International to produce and create English and French language programs to be broadcast to all mandated geographic regions, prioritizing these regions to include countries such as Japan, Germany, and China.²¹

The RCI Action Committee further noted that:

in June of this year [2001], RCI-produced newscasts in seven languages were eliminated on weekends. Live programming was

also cut on weekends. Morning shows in English and French to Africa, the Middle East and Europe, were eliminated, as well as an evening broadcast to India. One hour broadcasts to Russia and Ukraine, were cut to half an hour.²²

Similar service reductions occurred in 1991 when Czech, German, Hungarian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese (Brazil) and Slovak-language programming services were cut, and French and English services were scaled back. These cuts reduced programming hours by 85%, compelling RCI to replace them with material from CBC. Not surprisingly, audience figures dropped by approximately 10 million weekly listeners in 1989 to 5 million in 1991.

The Committee regards Radio Canada International to be an essential international service through which Canadian perspectives can be shared with the world. It agrees with the recommendation made by the Senate Committee and for this reason:

TV5

With concerted efforts and funding support from five governments (France, Switzerland, Belgium, Quebec and Canada), TV5's international French-language television network has experienced remarkable growth since its beginnings in 1984. TV5 covers almost the entire globe, reaching 65 million households by cable or satellite. It is recognized as one of the world's foremost satellite-based networks and is considered by many to be one of the greatest collaborative achievements of the international French-speaking community.²³

TV5's service areas include: Quebec-Canada, Africa, Latin America, Asia, the United States, Europe (France/Belgium/Switzerland; non-francophone) and the Middle East. In Canada, TV5 Quebec-Canada is licenced as a not-for-profit corporation. Although the majority of its programming originates from France, Belgium, Switzerland and certain parts of French-speaking Africa, TV5 operates in Canada with a Canadian licence and is required to carry 15% Canadian content.

The network — which has been in operation in Canada since September 1988 — had an overall budget of $65 million in 1996. Two large corporations manage TV5: TV5 Europe in Paris and TV5 Quebec-Canada in Montreal. In 1996, Canada's total contribution to TV5 was $13.2 million, consisting of funds from the Government of Canada ($3.8 million), the Government of Quebec ($2.4 million) and cable revenues ($7 million).

In short, TV5 is a particularly unique public broadcaster. It provides Canadians with high-quality programming via a platform upon which Canadian values can be shared both domestically and internationally.

C. Provincial Educational Broadcasters

Although education is a provincial responsibility under the Constitution Act, 1867, federal interest in educational television surfaced in 1967 when Prime Minister Pearson's government proposed the creation of a national educational television agency, the Canadian Educational Broadcasting Agency (CEBA).²⁴ Due to opposition from the provinces, however, a bill that would have created the Agency was withdrawn just a few months after its introduction.

After long negotiations, federal and provincial governments agreed in 1970 to the terms and conditions for educational broadcasting in Canada. Order-in-Council 1970-496 stated:

Where, within its jurisdiction, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, on the direction of the Governor in Council, stipulates that at least one channel of a cable transmission facility be set aside for the use of a provincial authority for educational broadcasting or where the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation acts as agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada in providing a transmission facility for the use of a provincial authority for educational broadcasting ...²⁵

Under this agreement, provincial educational authorities in Ontario and Quebec soon began to provide educational television.

In 1986, the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy noted: "it is inappropriate for federal authorities to define the meaning and scope of educational broadcasting since the content of education clearly falls within provincial jurisdiction."²⁶ That said, the Task Force expressed the view that "educational broadcasters in the provinces have a significant contribution to make to the Canadian broadcasting system beyond their borders." Furthermore, since "both English-speaking and French-speaking Canadian children are inadequately served by our broadcasting system" it recommended that educational broadcasters be invited to participate in TV Canada, a proposed satellite-to-cable public broadcaster.²⁸

Although the creation of TV Canada was never pursued by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's government, two references to educational programming were included in the revised Broadcasting Act of 1991:

... the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should ... Include educational and community programming.

... educational programming, particularly where provided through the facilities of an independent educational authority, is an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system.

Today, Canada has five provincial educational broadcasters: The Knowledge Network (British Columbia), Access (Alberta), Saskatchewan Communications Network, TVOntario/TFO and Télé-Québec.²⁹ This section provides background information on these services; where applicable, witness concerns or comments are included.

The Knowledge Network

British Columbia's provincial educational broadcaster — The Knowledge Network — was launched in January 1981. It is available to all households in British Columbia and averages more than one million viewers each week.³⁰ The network broadcasts a variety of educational programs for viewers of all ages, including general interest instructional programs in languages other than English.

Knowledge Network is a division of the Open Learning Agency, which provides educational resources, training, career counselling, and distance education for young and adult learners. Some of these courses combine traditional print resources with television technologies and other media, such as computer or telephone assistance for students.³¹

The network is "dedicated to providing quality, affordable television and other digital media products and services for the educational and cultural development of the peoples of British Columbia." To this end, it offers "a full range of quality, commercial-free television programming ... [and] ... offers expertise in a suite of online services including Webcasting, content production, and packaging of the Internet."³²

When the Knowledge Network appeared before the Committee, its General Manager, Mr. Wayne Robert, noted:

In the 10 years since Knowledge Network began pre-licensing Canadian programming, supply and demand has changed dramatically. ... As a result, though these funds continue to support conventional and specialty broadcasters in the development of their industry, the amount of funding for programming directed toward the public interest is diminishing.³³

With this in mind, the Knowledge Network recommended:

[an] investment in productions that do not necessarily fit commercial mandates or meet only the needs of large national audiences. Exciting possibilities could include development or redirection of funds for specific regional production. New models could also involve subscription fees for provincial broadcasters in recognition of their role as regional broadcasters.³⁴

Access Television

Access Television is Alberta's educational broadcaster and was, until 1994, a not-for-profit broadcaster. It is owned and operated by Learning and Skills Television of Alberta Ltd. (LTA), which is a private, for-profit corporation controlled by CHUM Limited (60%). Access was originally licenced in 1974 to produce educational programming for use by Alberta television stations. At its inception, Access was publicly funded and controlled by a Board of Directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on behalf of the provincial ministries of Education and Advanced Education.

In 1994, provincial funding for Access Television was cut off. A year later, the CRTC approved LTA's acquisition of Access's assets and granted the station an educational broadcasting licence. In the process, LTA became the only privately owned, for-profit corporate enterprise in Canada licenced as a provincial educational broadcaster.³⁵

Access Television is now funded primarily through the sale of commercial advertising time and program sponsorships. In addition, Alberta's provincial ministries of Education and Advanced Education purchase broadcasting time from Access to deliver educational and instructional programming.

Access broadcasts 24 hours a day and is available to all residents of Alberta. Daytime programming is directed at preschool and school-age children and includes programming intended to supplement the province's education curriculum. The prime time schedule features programming related to, and part of, the courses offered at post-secondary institutions in the province. Access also broadcasts general interest educational programming.

During its meetings in Edmonton, the Committee did not hear any concerns from witnesses with respect to the unique private-public partnership that Access has forged with the Alberta Government. In Vancouver, however, The Community Media Education Society told the Committee that:

There is fear that the Knowledge Network, B.C.'s educational channel, may face a private takeover. That has happened with ACCESS in Alberta. It is hard to provide public education using private ethics. Far too often there are social costs down the road.³⁶

That said, Ms. Jill Bonenfant, Director of Learning and Skills Television of Alberta, told the Committee in Edmonton that the private-public partnership:

... has been very successful. ... The partnerships and working relationships between ACCESS and the Ministry of Education and educational institutions in Alberta have been outstanding. We have gone a long way since privatization to working with post-secondary institutions and with the government. The key factor in the privatization of ACCESS was this partnership — a private-public partnership with the government.³⁷

The Saskatchewan Communications Network

The Saskatchewan Communications Network (SCN) received its educational broadcasting licence in 1991. It distributes a variety of educational, informational, and cultural programs, which are available to all residents of the province through cable, wireless cable, and direct-to-home services. According to its 1999-2000 Annual Report, the SCN's broadcasting network has a potential viewership of 700,000 people.³⁸

The SCN is comprised of a broadcasting network and a training network. The broadcasting network has two educational programming streams: the first is aimed at primary and secondary school children, while the second is aimed at adult learners. The bulk of its programming is in English, although a limited number of programs are produced in the Metis language.

Through its training network, the SCN works with Saskatchewan's post-secondary institutions to provide distance education to over 150 communities, using one-way video and two-way audio satellite services. Courses in Cree and French are also offered. All told, it delivers over 5,000 hours of curriculum support and informational programming on its broadcast network, and 3,000 hours of live, televised for-credit high school and post-secondary classes on its training network each year.

When SCN addressed the Committee it noted that:

In the Broadcasting Act, the Canadian broadcasting system is required to provide alternative television programming services, where necessary, to ensure the full range of programming contemplated is made available throughout the system. In provinces and regions not currently served by any provincial or alternative regional program service.³⁹

For this reason, argued SCN, regional broadcasters would benefit from subscription fees and a new production fund that targets regionally specific information programs. As SCN's President and General Manager, Mr. David Debono explained:

The fund must have a way to ensure that the regions with the greatest needs, the lowest population densities, and the highest cost of service per unit of volume have a priority access. The fund must also be designed to help meet your needs for informational programming, and not just become a way to subsidize the cost of a national broadcaster's local franchise.⁴⁰

TVOntario/TFO

The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, TVOntario, was launched in 1970. Its English-language service, TVO, is available to 98.5% of all Ontario households, while its French-service, TFO (which was launched in 1987), is available to approximately 77% of all Ontario households.⁴¹

TVO's mandate is to "to initiate, acquire, produce, distribute, exhibit or otherwise deal in programs and materials in the educational broadcasting and communications fields." It also seeks "to foster lifelong learning via all available media technologies." Approximately 70% of TVO and TFO broadcasting schedules are devoted to educational programming; this includes a "virtual classroom" that provides real-time, virtual interaction, including event footage and expert interviews, as well as distance education, and curriculum resources for educators.

TVOntario has been an extremely successful undertaking, winning more than 850 awards for its programming since its inception. In 2000-01, it had total revenues of $66 million, including a provincial grant worth $50.2 million. Using these resources, more than 1,500 hours of in-house programming was produced by its English- and French-language networks in 2000-01.

TVOntario's French-language service is especially unique in that it is the only provincial educational network authorized to collect a subscriber fee for delivering programming services to other provinces — namely New Brunswick and Quebec. That said, not all households in Quebec can receive TFO. As TFO's General Manager, Ms. Claudette Paquin, told the Committee:

Although TFO is currently accessible to nearly 1 million Quebeckers, the fact remains that we are still shut out of most of this market, thereby confirming the anomaly of our position in the Canadian television landscape. Indeed, TFO is the only French-language network to come out of the francophone Canadian minority community and the only French-language network that currently is unable to distribute in the majority francophone market.⁴²

In 2000, the CRTC rejected an application from TVOntario, which proposed mandatory carriage of TFO in Quebec on a fee-per-household basis. In its Decision, the CRTC noted: "Viewers in Quebec, who already receive the educational service Télé-Québec, should not be obliged to pay for a second educational service that originates in another province."⁴³

TVOntario feels otherwise. It explained to the Committee that:

The rules of the game have changed and the [Act] must be amended in order to establish what we refer to as a level playing field for TFO. Market forces alone will not do this and the progressive weakening of TFO will ultimately lead to less diversity in the francophone voices in this country.⁴⁴

Several witnesses shared this perspective. Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, for example, claimed that the Commission has been "affected by commercial interests."⁴⁵ Another organization, Impératif français, added that TFO should be "available free-of-charge to all subscribers on the basic package."⁴⁶

Taking these points a step further, the Commissioner of Official Languages told the Committee that access to educational programming should be used to promote linguistic duality. Ms. Dyane Adam explained:

One way to do this would be to promote free Canada-wide broadcasting of the provincial education television networks, such as Télé-Québec and TFO in French, and TVO, Access, SCN and Knowledge in English.... This major change would encourage the habit of listening to Canadian broadcasts in both official languages from a young age everywhere in Canada.⁴⁷

For its part, Quebec's educational broadcaster, Télé-Québec, was more concerned with economic survival in today's competitive environment. Mr. Mario Clément told the Committee:

TFO is a television station which provides youth, documentary, cultural or magazine-type programming. This is exactly the same market segment as Télé-Québec. Consequently, this is why we are taking issue — given the current market — with competition between two television stations offering the same type of program in the same market.⁴⁸

For this reason, Télé-Québec would much prefer "greater cooperation with TFO in terms of establishing partnerships and co-producing programming, rather than competing with TFO for the same market."⁴⁹

Notwithstanding Télé-Québec's position⁵⁰ on this matter, TVOntario recommended to the Committee that the Broadcasting Act be amended to include the principle that "channels from minority francophone communities ... be given access to the majority [francophone] market, namely the Quebec market, so as to facilitate their existence and development."⁵¹

Télé-Québec

Télé-Québec, known as Radio-Québec until 1996, began operation in early 1968, producing French-language educational programs for broadcasters such as Télémedia and the CBC. Four years later, the service began to distribute its own programs to viewers in Montreal and Quebec by cable. In 1975, Télé-Québec, with television stations in Montreal and Quebec, launched its own television network. By 1980, three more stations had been added in Hull, Val-d'Or and Rouyn-Noranda.

Télé-Québec receives more than three-quarters (78.5%) of its revenues from the province of Quebec. Remaining revenues are earned from commercial advertising. In 2000-01, its total revenues were $68.1 million, of which $53.4 million were a provincial grant.

Over time, Télé-Québec's mandate has grown to include the production and distribution of audio-visual materials. Its objectives are:

... to operate an educational and cultural broadcasting undertaking to ensure public access to its products by all broadcasting means. The Société may also operate a service for the production and distribution of audio-visual, multimedia and television broadcast material, including derivative merchandise and related documentation.⁵²

In 2001-02, Télé-Québec enjoyed an average audience share of 2.8% in the province of Quebec.⁵³ The network provided programming in four areas: youth, formal education, cultural and information (public affairs, history and society, science and nature, and long-form documentaries). It also delivered some performing arts programming. In collaboration with the provincial Ministry of Education, the network also maintains a collection of publicly accessible educational video and multimedia materials.

Télé-Québec told the Committee that it "invests 85% of its programming budget in producing and broadcasting Canadian programs and 70% of that same budget goes to private enterprise production."⁵⁴ Co-productions and acquisitions represent 91% of Télé-Québec's original programs, and 92% of its entire program schedule.⁵⁵

Aside from Télé-Québec concerns over competition with TFO, its main concern was to "obtain the rights for the distribution of [its] programs for educational and non-commercial markets."⁵⁶ It would like educational broadcasters to have co-ownership of copyright (along with the independent producers) for foreign distribution since this "could lead to stimulating business partnerships."⁵⁷

Proposed Action

Witnesses who raised educational programming issues identified two main problem areas. First, educational broadcasters receive insufficient and unequal distribution across Canada. Second, certain regions simply do not have the needed population or resources to support an educational service broadcaster. The Committee is gravely concerned by these circumstances; for these reasons, it is of the firm belief that the distribution of such programming, given its importance to the public interest, merits improved availability. Accordingly:

D. Conclusion

The Role of Not-for-Profit Broadcasters

In light of the above discussion, the Committee recognizes that it is important to draw the line between public, not-for-profit and profit-driven broadcasters. Apart from the not-for-profit and educational broadcasters described above are many distinctly Canadian for-profit services that could just as easily have been included. For example: the Issues Channel, Bravo!, Showcase, Historia, The Discovery Channel, Canal Vie, History Television, the Miracle Channel, Life Network, Women's Television, and Canal Vrak are all channels that strive in some way to inform, educate and entertain. Indeed, many of these channels rebroadcast syndicated CBC and Radio-Canada programming.

Furthermore, some for-profit, programming services have become extremely adept at delivering what could easily be defined as public broadcasting. Toronto's multicultural channel, CFMT, for example, is noteworthy in its public service.⁵⁸ While it may show popular programs such as The Simpsons and Frasier to cross-subsidize its other programming, it also broadcasts 60% of its line-up in at least 15 different languages to more than 18 different cultures, including newscasts in Italian, Portuguese, and Cantonese.

Thus, if public broadcasting in the public interest rests somewhere in the words to inform, educate and entertain, it is clear that Canada's Broadcasting Act has successfully helped foster an impressive group of Canadian broadcasters that — in one way or another — fulfill these expectations.

The Committee, while recognizing this reality, wishes to acknowledge the special contribution made by Canada's not-for-profit broadcasters. Accordingly:

Channel Placement

An issue that was raised by witnesses on several occasions was how to distribute public broadcasting services and programming. This section describes and discusses a proposal raised by VisionTV: the creation of a mandatory "foundation tier" for the distribution of key Canadian networks — particularly Canada's public and not-for-profit broadcasters. This "foundation tier" has frequently been referred to as a "green space."

At present, CRTC regulations require BDUs to carry specific services as part of their basic package, but it does not regulate channel placement. This means that broadcasters have very little control over their placement in BDUs' channel line-ups. APTN, which earns a percentage of its revenues from viewer-dependent advertising, indicated that a higher channel placement harms revenues and viewership totals. As Mr. Ron Nadeau explained:

In a perfect world, we would like every Canadian, whether Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, to be able to watch our programs. One of the issues that we highlighted was the fact that we have a problem with channel placement. Of the viewers that we surveyed, the non-Aboriginal audience, 70 percent of them didn't know we existed. The problem is, we were granted mandatory carriage in our network nationally, but with the carriage we've been given ... how does that get our programming out to Canadians such as you? So ... channel placement holds the key to many doors. It would unlock many doors for us.⁵⁹

According to VisionTV's President, Mr. Bill Roberts, the solution to this problem is to create an "oasis within the market-driven environment" by requiring BDUs to cluster specific Canadian networks in a "foundation tier" on the lowest possible channels numbers available.⁶⁰ The rationale for such a move is that "public service broadcasters require carriage on low-price, high-penetration tiers ... to remain economically viable, [otherwise t]here may be little hope for their survival in an 'à la carte' universe,"⁶¹ in which subscribers pick and pay for programming on a channel-by-channel basis.

VisionTV firmly believes that the foundation tier proposal may well offer a number of potential benefits for the broadcasting system. These include: a reduction in public service channel costs as they would "no longer be compelled to devote their modest resources to purchasing space on the dial and undertaking major communications campaigns to reach viewers",⁶² an assurance that "shelf space" exists for Canadian content within the system; a smaller basic package that would cost subscribers less; the opportunity for BDUs to charge market-driven prices for formerly available U.S. over-the-air services (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS); a reduction in Canadian content requirements for privately owned Canadian broadcasters; and, an increased level of foreign ownership for privately owned Canadian broadcasters.⁶³

But which broadcasters should be included in a foundation tier? Such a tier, in their view, would include broadcasters who: are licenced specifically to address public policy goals; air a minimum of 60% Canadian content; spend a minimum of 50% of their revenue on Canadian programming; are wholly owned by Canadians or "at least be under supra-majority control by Canadians"; are controlled by not-for-profit corporations, collectives, partnerships, co-operatives or charitable institutions.⁶⁴ Local community channels could also be included in the foundation tier.

One witness argued that public and not-for-profit broadcasters should assume the burden of the foundation tier, in the name of public service: "... economic viability should be bolstered by requirements that private sector broadcasters contribute funding, while cable operators are mandated to carry the signals."⁶⁵ Other interested parties also see the creation of a new tier as a new income stream. The Independent Film and Video Alliance (IFVA) asked that the Committee "consider special status for the educational and not-for-profit broadcasters (Knowledge Network, SCN, TVO and VisionTV) ... the IFVA proposes that Heritage require the CTF to change its guidelines regarding the value of licence fees from these broadcasters."⁶⁶ In other words, the IFVA would like larger government subventions.

Other witnesses were far less receptive to the foundation tier initiative. The CBC, for example, acknowledged the arguments in favour of a "green space" for public sector broadcasting, but did not accept the view that the Corporation's services should be included in this category. As the CBC's President, Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, explained:

With respect to platform placement, we are created by an [A]ct of Parliament. We are the distinct public broadcaster. We have historically been in partnership with the private sector. I am not opposed to Vision and APTN and others trying to create what they call a "green space". We are a green space, and we will continue to be a green space. I think we should be handled quite separately from

those specific specialty channels. I don't deny their argument, but I don't think it encompasses us.⁶⁷

If the CBC were put on a "green space," it would be segregated from the other major networks. Viewers who are not interested in foundation services might begin their television experiences on channel 5, 10, or 20 to avoid it — thus marginalizing the public broadcaster. Such is the risk of creating a "foundation tier." However, those who have much lower ratings than the CBC and who suffer inhospitable channel placement are warm to the idea.

Representatives of the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) were opposed to the concept of a foundation tier and had:

... a hard time understanding the advantages of this so-called green space concept. At the end of the day, the services on this list are all carried and offered by cable companies already. It's not a question of services that aren't available today that someone thinks would be a good idea to add. All the services are there.⁶⁸

Furthermore, explained the Association's President, Ms. Janet Yale:

One of the things we've learned is that you can't change things for customers.... If the services are already there and offered, why would you move them around to put them together? I don't see this as an advantage. Secondly, and most fundamentally from a customer perspective, I would say that the most you can do is make sure services are available. ... just because something must be carried, that doesn't make it must watch or must take. In the digital environment, this is more and more true. You can make something available to customers; you can't make them watch it and you can't make them pay for it if they don't like it any more. Those days are gone.⁶⁹

Mr. Roberts believes that it is justifiable to burden the public as a whole to benefit civil society. He writes that "[w]e may never need open-heart surgery, but we don't object to putting our tax dollars into the health-care system."⁷⁰ Ms. Yale, however, argued that stronger promotional efforts would be a much more sensible solution:

... what we really have to do is promote — promote services and the value of those services, promote the Canadian services aggressively and continue to make sure the costs of funding productions of our Canadian stories in this country are covered. We do this. We make this contribution through the 5% of our gross revenues that goes to the Canadian Television Fund. It's about promotion, not about restriction.⁷¹

Mr. Chris Frank, Bell ExpressVu's Vice-President of programming and government affairs told the Committee that, in his view, the foundation tier already exists. He said:

... we're quite familiar with the so-called "foundation tier"...that people like those at VisionTV have proposed, and as I said before, we're very pleased to tell you that we have this foundation tier embedded within our basic service. So we are in fact converts. We're there already, and we have been essentially since we launched our service. We made a commitment to an all-Canadian basic service, with certain key elements such as Vision, such as educational broadcasters, CBC, the national private networks, the Weather Network, Newsworld, RDI, and CPAC — in other words, bringing information, public affairs, and basic entertainment services to Canadians for an affordable price.⁷²

In light of these concerns, the Committee recognizes that the financial advantages and drawbacks of altering channel placements for broadcasters, audiences and, in particular, BDUs is an issue that must be carefully explored. That said, it is important to note that the CRTC has recently observed that it:

... considers that the introduction of the foundation tier concept would be disruptive for consumers and would have major technical and operational implications for distributors and programming service providers. Furthermore, it would represent a major change to the regulatory framework relating to basic service. The Commission is, therefore, of the view that the foundation tier is neither practical nor appropriate.⁷³

The Committee has carefully considered various aspects of this argument as well as the perspectives of witnesses who raised this issue and is of the view that the question of channel placement will likely be resolved by the transition to digital technology. In the meantime, however, the Committee disagrees with the CRTC that "the foundation tier is neither practical nor appropriate." For this reason:

Endnotes