HERI Committee Report

THE STATE OF
THE SYSTEM

Chapter 9
Community, Local and Regional Broadcasting

In the early days of radio, programming was not specifically designed for community, local, regional or national audiences because technological limitations prevented most broadcasters — apart from the radio network operated by the Canadian National Railways — from reaching beyond a particular geographic contour. Furthermore, beginning in the 1930s, regulations made national programming the exclusive domain of Canada's public broadcaster, the CRBC, and later on, the CBC.

Regulations for Canadian television, however, did not and could not follow this precedent. Due to the great costs involved in producing audio-visual material, most television stations from their earliest days needed to affiliate with networks or purchase programming from other sources. As a result, unlike radio, several private television networks have developed over time, including CTV, TVA, Global and TQS.

By the 1970s, cable distribution was widely available to Canadians. Cable companies rebroadcast over-the-air signals, often greatly improving the quality of reception in the process. But cable also allowed the distribution of distant signals to Canadians from other cities, provinces, regions and other countries, most notably the United States. This allowed Canadians from Victoria to St. John's to easily and affordably watch the best of Canadian and American programming.

Although transmission by cable did not depend on the public airwaves, the CRTC recognized that broadcasting distribution undertakings could contribute to the public interest needs of Canadians. For this reason, in 1975, the Commission imposed conditions on cable operators, which included the expectation that they:

Through the course of its hearings and travels, the Committee heard that technological innovations combined with audience fragmentation have disrupted the traditional broadcasting model for community, local and regional broadcasting. It learned that Canadians are abandoning traditional broadcasting sources for a multitude of new services. It heard that citizens feel that they have less access than ever before to community broadcasting services. And it was told that the provision of high quality local and regional television content is becoming less economically viable and therefore in danger of disappearing altogether.

This chapter looks at the current state and future prospects for community, local and regional broadcasting in Canada. For the purposes of this discussion, issues have been divided based on CRTC definitions and witness uses of these terms. Community refers to the delivery of community radio and television services when labelled as such by the CRTC; local addresses issues raised by witnesses concerning the delivery of local news and non-news programming; and, regional deals with specific programming concerns faced by regional programmers and provincial educational broadcasters.

A. Community

The Broadcasting Act makes two references to community broadcasting. Section 3(1)(b) states that: "the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages and [is comprised of] public, private and community elements." Section 3(1)(l)(iii) notes that "the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should ... include educational and community programs."

The Committee notes that it is extraordinarily difficult to talk coherently and systematically about community television and radio service provision. This is because the CRTC has, over time, developed a complex and convoluted array of policies and expectations for such broadcasters. These include policies for community cable channels, ethnic television, low-power television, community radio, ethnic radio, low-power radio, campus radio and radio and television services for francophone minorities outside Quebec. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, this section restricts its profile of services to community television and radio.¹

Community Television

In 1975, the CRTC identified the following expectations for community cable channels:

... identify communities ... such as neighbourhoods, wards, boroughs and, where appropriate, municipalities, and give opportunities to individuals and groups in these communities to express their ideas and aspirations; cover the activities of municipal councils and school boards; search out and give opportunity for expression to individuals and groups with "communities of interest"; reflect where appropriate the bilingual nature of the communities they serve.²

These principles — which place a strong emphasis on the importance of citizen participation — are essentially the same ones that shape CRTC policy in this area today.

In 1986, the Report of the Task Force on Broadcasting argued that community broadcasting "must be seen as an essential third sector of broadcasting if we are to realize the objective of reasonable access to the system."³ Five years later, in 1991, the revised Broadcasting Act made "community" one of the three elements of the system, rather than an adjunct to public and private services. In 1997, however, the CRTC decided that cable companies should no longer be required to provide a community channel since it was the Commission's belief that opportunities for local expression would continue without regulatory requirements.⁴

The CRTC's decision to grant regulatory flexibility to cable companies quite naturally caused many to predict that there would be a decline in the number of community channels. The available evidence, however, does not support this concern. On the contrary, as figure 9.1 shows, the number of community channels increased between 1997 and 2000.

Furthermore, during this same period, the total number of cable systems making contributions to community channels increased slightly from 238 in 1997 to 245 in 2000. The problem with these numbers, of course, is that they do not tell anything about the quality or types of service offered; nor can they tell us whether these channels are meeting the objectives of the CRTC's community programming policy.

The CRTC's 2002 Community Media Policy

On 10 October 2002, the CRTC released a new policy framework for community-based media.⁵ According to the Commission, this new policy should:

... ensure the creation and exhibition of more locally-produced, locally-reflective community programming ... [and] a greater diversity of voices and alternative choices by facilitating new entrants at the local level.⁶

This new policy also reaffirms the role of the community channel as "a public service ... facilitating self-expression through free and open access by members of the community."⁷ It argues that community channels should complement programming provided by conventional broadcasters and that "the public service orientation of the community channel can best be achieved through stable funding provided by cable licensees, with limited reliance on advertising revenues."⁸

New Policy Elements for Community Television

• Community channels are now required to provide a minimum of 60 percent locally produced programming per broadcast week;

• Cable licensees are now expected to promote citizen access and provide and promote the availability of training programs;

• Cable community channels are now required to provide a minimum of 30 percent and up to 50 percent of access programming (local programming created and produced by community members) per broadcast week;

• Specific measures have been introduced to ensure equitable access for not-for-profit television corporations whose formal purpose is to produce local community television programs;

• A limited use of full-motion video in sponsorship messages is now allowed;

• Not-for-profit community groups may apply to the CRTC for a licence to operate a Community programming undertaking in areas where cable operators choose not to operate a community channel; and,

• Self-promotion by cable companies on the community channel is now limited to two minutes per hour.

To further enhance the availability of community and local programming the Commission has also created a new class of community-based television — Community-based television programming undertakings — with two sub-categories: Community-based low-power television undertakings and Community-based digital services.

These new community television services (which are open to for-profit and not-for-profit applicants) will be expected to provide high levels of Canadian and locally-produced programming and will be required to devote over the broadcast year a minimum of 80% Canadian content and 60% local programming. They will also be permitted to broadcast up to 12 minutes of local advertising per hour. These programming services will not be granted priority distribution on analog cable channels, but cable systems offering digital services will be required to distribute them on the digital band.

Revenues

The CRTC requires all broadcasting distribution undertakings to contribute 5% of their gross annual revenues to an eligible programming fund, such as the Canadian Television Fund (CTF). Those cable companies that operate a community television station, however, are allowed to keep between 2% and 3% of this 5%.

Figure 9.2 shows community channel expenditures for the period 1997 through 2001. Whether these expenditures translate into opportunities for citizen access (e.g., employment and volunteer positions) is unknown. This is because the CRTC does not monitor — nor do the cable companies report on — how these monies are spent. As can be seen, cable company expenditures on community channels were relatively stable during this five-year period, ranging between about $73 and $80 million dollars.

That said, large cable company contributions (i.e., Class 1) seem to have declined by more than $8 million since 1997. This drop may mean that these BDU's have been exercising their option to contribute to an eligible programming fund. As figure 9.3 shows, cable company contributions to programming funds increased by more than $20 million between 1998 and 2001, from nearly $55 million to just over $75 million.

The exact reason for this impressive increase in contributions to Canadian programming funds is unclear. On the one hand, it may mean that cable companies are less willing than they once were to invest money into community television; on the other hand, it may reflect a growing commitment to the creation of Canadian programming. At the very least, these data, coupled with the relative steady state of investment into community television, highlight a pressing need to unravel the existing linkage between funding support for community television and the funds that support Canadian programming. The potential separation of these two funding mechanisms is addressed by a recommendation in Chapter 5.

What the Committee Heard

The main issues raised by witnesses when talking about community television had to do with: the importance of community television; the role of volunteers; the role of cable companies; changes in programming priorities; and, the recent creation of community cable networks.

Mr. Richard Ward of The Community Media Education Society, for example, told the Committee:

Community television encourages people to seek out events affecting their neighbourhoods. Action extends beyond the technicians and producers. Community organizers are surprised and delighted to be noticed. When their neighbours see the event, interest snowballs. That is how mass media are supposed to work. Make no mistake, by historical standards or Internet standards, community TV is a mass medium.⁹

Seen through the lens of a small market cable company, Mr. Marc Simard, Chairman of the Board of Télé Inter-Rives ltée. shared the following story with the Committee:

... on a January Sunday afternoon, I was driving around with my wife and I decided to take a trip to the back country. As we arrived in a small town we saw a gathering of cars. I said to my wife that this was probably an accident and we went to see what was going on. As we got closer, we realized that this was not the case. Many people had gathered in the neighbouring field; some kind of activity was going on. Suddenly, I saw a banner in the distance with the letters identifying both our stations.

... When they introduced the event's organizer, they told me that I could not imagine how thankful they were. They thought that they would expect 300 to 400 persons at their event, but now they had a problem: they were running out of lemonade, hot-dogs and fries because a crowd of 2,000 people had turned up.

I was told that on the previous night, during the Montréal Canadians hockey game, our Radio-Canada station had broadcast their message free-of-charge, as well as before the TVA network news, during peak listening time. They had never expected such a large turn out and they were very happy. So the people shook hands with us, practically embraced us in their arms to thank us.¹⁰

With respect to volunteer involvement in community programming, the Committee saw first-hand the important contributions that volunteers make to community programming. In St. John's Newfoundland, for example, the Committee met the gifted and enthusiastic volunteers and staff at Rogers Cable who produce a popular local community program, Out of the Fog. The following viewer feedback captures well the enthusiasm that the Committee witnessed for community television during its stay in St. John's:

I'm a very strong fan of your show. I watch it every day without fail and would recommend it to all of my friends and family! It's great that us Newfoundlanders finally have our own television talk show featuring Newfoundland guests. I love being able to kick back after a hard days work, and be entertained by Newfoundlanders, for Newfoundlanders!¹¹

We almost never miss an episode and really enjoy the featured local talent as well as the current issues you cover daily ... I think it is great that you can provide local high school students with valuable on-the-job experience in television production and we consider your program a valuable asset for St. John's residents to keep abreast on all the local issues.¹²

It gives me a great lift to know what is going on around our city and province. It also makes me feel good after listening to the other Canadian and U.S. channels. There is so much negativity and loudness on these channels. Your channel gives a lot of entertainment and peacefulness and gives great information about our own province. I hope this continues because it is exactly what people need a lift and your program does that.¹³

In other regions, however, the Committee heard discouraging stories of volunteers being laid off or relieved of certain responsibilities. Mr. John Grogan, for example, told the Committee that:

... it used to be that people could come in, walk in off the street and say "I want to be a volunteer". They could volunteer to run a camera, for script writing, producing, editing. Now, basically, all they're allowed to do is very basic things. That discourages people from participating the next time. They say that wasn't a stimulating or rewarding experience.¹⁴

Similarly, Mr. Rogers Davies said:

... in Cranbrook ... with a change in program director, a new format was imposed. Volunteers were fired. That thing became autocratic, totally controlled by the company and its employees. I think that is totally unacceptable as a format. Volunteers as such cannot access that channel...¹⁵

This same sense of frustration prompted Mr. Chow Tan from the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians to state that:

... if the cable companies were doing a good job on the cable community channel, they would be proud to show their records and we all [community volunteers] would have more time and money" for programming.¹⁶

According to one witness, a change in programming priorities is one reason why volunteers are used less than they once were. Mr. Jan Pachul of Star Ray TV noted:

You can't go in there to get a show done; it's all professional — professionally run, professional people running everything — and there is no access to the community.¹⁷

Indeed, as Mr. Ken Marshall, vice-president and general manager for Rogers' Atlantic region, explained:

... in the community channel world, where we are trying to evolve the programming from the cooking type of show and fly-tying shows to these Focus NB shows — as we saw last week, Out of the Fog in Newfoundland, and Melanson Live — we're trying to really be a focus on the community [with higher quality productions].¹⁸

The decline in volunteer opportunities due to new programming strategies was sometimes raised in parallel with concerns over the growing consolidation of community stations into small networks. For example, Canal Vox, run by Videotron in Quebec, combines local programming with centralized programming from Montréal. But, according to La Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, this strategy has reduced community participation and programming diversity, particularly in outlying areas.

Cogeco Cable, however, argued that these new arrangements are better suited to attract larger audiences and, as such, are contributing to community needs and goals. As Ms. Hélène Dubuc explained:

Programming which is essentially local does not exclude the possibility of exporting certain programs to other regions, where an interest has been noted. Today's technologies offer these opportunities and we believe that it is wise to use them judiciously, to everyone's benefit.¹⁹

But several witnesses pointed to a side effect of the cable companies' audience-maximization strategy. The independent community channel, La Corporation de Télédiffusion du Grand Châteauguay (CTGC), for example, was unilaterally removed by Videotron from its programming grid in November 1999.²⁰ Moreover, according to the CTGC:

About a dozen or so corporations have been withdrawn from the airwaves by the cable companies in Quebec. Others are in the process of losing their position in British Columbia. Many communities no longer have access to air time. The 1998 deregulation ha[s] overturned the fragile equilibrium that hung on obligations and conditions of licence.²¹

In light of these circumstances, the CTGC proposed to the Committee that community channels be made entirely independent from Canada's cable companies. Similarly, Ms. Lynda G. Leonard told the Committee that: "it would be in the best interests of all Canadians to have community channels run by non-profit groups operated at arms-length from the cable companies."²²

Others witnesses, however, proposed that the symbiotic relationship between cable companies and community channel be modified, rather than simply abandoned. Mr. Peter Sandmark of the Independent Film and Video Alliance, for example, proposed that:

... the community channels should be independently run, and financial support for them should be found by transferring the percentage the CRTC requires cable companies to invest in community TV into a direct financial subsidy to community channels, which would be publicly run by non-profit community organizations.²³

In some communities, cable companies operate two distinct community channels, one in French and another in English. But these companies are only eligible to deduct the 5% Canadian production requirement that it would if it ran a single unilingual service. Rogers Cable therefore proposed:

... that 2% of the 5% gross broadcasting revenues be provided towards a production fund to assist cable companies operating a second community channel serving the needs of a minority official language in the same market. ...

Rogers strongly believes the redirected funding, which would amount to $998,000 a year, is essential to maintaining and further enhancing the local programming available to bilingual markets.²⁴

For their part, the CCTA suggested that small cable systems be allowed to "repatriate" the entire 5% of gross revenues devoted to Canadian production. Similarly, Access Communications proposed that all cooperatives be allowed to "repatriate" the full 5% devoted to the Cable Fund for their community channels.

Community Radio

The CRTC's policy on community radio is designed to foster the availability of local programming that differs in style and substance from that provided by commercial stations and the CBC. Programming is expected to be relevant to the communities served, including official language minorities. Such programming is also expected to add diversity to the broadcasting system by increasing programming choice in both music and spoken word.²⁵

The CRTC describes the role and mandate for community radio as follows:

The primary focus of a community radio station is to provide community access to the airwaves and to offer diverse programming that reflects the needs and interests of the community that the station is licensed to serve, including: music by new and local talent; music not generally broadcast by commercial stations; spoken word programming; and local information.²⁶

The Commission distinguishes between two types of community radio stations — Type A and Type B. These two station types are defined by the Commission as follows:

A community radio station is a Type A station if, at the time of licensing, no other radio station, other than one owned by the CBC, is operating in the same language in all or part of its market. ...

A community radio station is a Type B station if, when the licence is issued, at least one other station, other than a station owned by the CBC, is licensed to operate in the same language in all or any part of the same market.²⁷

According to the CRTC, there were 36 Type A and 32 Type B community stations in 2002. In 2000, all limits on advertising on community radio were lifted since it was the Commission's belief that "placing limits on advertising is not the most effective way to guarantee that community stations offer programming that differs in style and substance from that provided by other types of stations."²⁸ Apart from advertising sales, revenues for these stations may also be supplemented by fund-raising, grants and other sources.

Revenues

Not all community radio stations file returns with the CRTC. Figures 9.4 and 9.5 show advertising revenues for community stations that submitted returns for the period 1996 through 2000. These figures demonstrate the importance of advertising for community radio undertakings. Indeed, Type A and Type B community radio stations generate about half of their revenues from advertising.

What the Committee Heard

The Committee heard very few general comments about community radio. French-language minority communities, however, had much to say about problems with service provision outside Quebec.

The Impératif français, for example, was worried by the way communities are designated as francophone or anglophone:

... an anglophone market is any market where citizens whose mother tongue is French represent less than 50% of the population (section 18(4)b). This means that if the population in a given area is 49% francophone and 22% anglophone, the remaining 29% who are neither will be counted with the anglophones to tilt the balance in their favour. What is depicted here resembles the demographic and linguistic make-up of the Island of Montréal in the near future.²⁹

Another concern was the CRTC's refusal on two occasions to grant the Coopérative radiophonique de Toronto a radio licence. As Mr. Christian Martel explained, a Toronto francophone "is far better informed about what is going on in Québec or the Outaouais region than about what is going on in his or her own community".³⁰ Indeed, many witnesses could not understand why Toronto, Canada's largest city, has just one local French-language broadcaster (the CBC) and a small amount of French language community programming on the University of Toronto's CUIT-FM campus radio station.³¹

Ms. Dyane Adam, Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages, was particularly concerned by the CRTC's actions in this regard. She noted:

The various examples ... clearly indicate that the CRTC must take into account the impact of its decisions on the official language communities. Not only must ... radio ... be available to the linguistic majorities and minorities, but they must also reflect them and help contribute to Canada's social fabric, one based in particular on linguistic duality. We must think about the means needed to obtain this objective. To this end, the Commission has an obligation to achieve results.³²

This prompted the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Canada to wonder how the CRTC interprets its own mandate to balance cultural, social, and economic objectives.

Mr. Gilles Arsenault, of Radio Béausejour told the Commitee that: "for linguistic minority communities, community radio is the only communication tool that belongs to the community."³³ Similarly, the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse noted that:

Acadians have little access to this form of mass communication [community radio]"; "other than in [the] Chéticamp and Baie Sainte-Marie areas, there is no [French-language] community television. Furthermore, the latter have very modest means".³⁴

In short, when talking about community radio, most witnesses were concerned with access to programming. To deal with these challenges, many witnesses called for an expansion of community radio services. The Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada argued that:

In major urban centres and isolated regions such as Toronto, Victoria and Whitehorse, where Radio-Canada's local programming scarcely exceeds 40 hours a week, the [Broadcasting] Act should encourage a sharing of broadcast time with the various community associations."³⁵

Mr. Digby Peers, a former CBC radio producer, speaking of his involvement in community radio workshops, told the Committee that he "was both amazed and appalled at how much they could get done on how little money and how good their technicians were at putting together old pieces of equipment."³⁶ Mr. Peers therefore suggested that there be a stronger relationship between the CBC and community radio organizations. The Corporation, he explained, has the equipment and expertise to support community radio by training its volunteers and providing essential resources:

If the CBC is restructured to do the job properly, I don't think there's a heck of a lot of money involved in having part of their funding and part of their mandate, with specific criteria that's researched, to go out into some of these towns that would have to service a certain group or a certain large population or a little population, and just give them a little coaching from time to time. It doesn't have to be all done at the same time".³⁷

Other new models to support community radio in Canada were not proposed. More often, organizations expressed the desire to have current programs maintained or bolstered, especially Department of Canadian Heritage programs to support minority language communities.³⁸ As one witness explained to the Committee:

... at this time, it isn't really the CRTC that is preventing the development of community radio services; rather, it is the absence of a well-defined [Department of Canadian Heritage] program that is adapted to today's new technologies.³⁹

With this in mind, Mr. Daniel Levesque of Radio MirAcadie proposed that up to 75% of all start-up costs for minority-language community radio be funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Other francophone community associations asked that FM frequencies be reserved in their areas (by the CRTC and Industry Canada) for minority-language community radio.

As for low power radio, more powerful frequencies was the most common request. The Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise, for example, told the Committee that because the francophone population of Saskatchewan is geographically dispersed, 250 watt transmitters should be licenced in place of the current 5 watt transmitters:

As the Fransaskois community is, for most part, rural, with farms that are constantly expanding, a five watt transmitter would not be strong enough to reach the francophone community. Five watts is just not realistic. With that type of transmitter, you could only broadcast in a small village and you would not have the desired impact on the community.⁴⁰

Mr. Robert Boulay of the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada agreed:

The basic idea is a very good one, except that five watts in Regina or Saskatoon, that is not too viable. We and the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise have often told the CRTC, whenever we had the chance, that it was very nice of them, but that it was like giving us a one horsepower automobile. So we ask that exceptions be made and that we be allowed up to 250 watts, or even 500 watts especially in urban areas. You have just been to the Prairies and have seen how vast the territory is and how spread out the francophones are. We are not going to set up 10 five-watt transmitters; that would not be acceptable.⁴¹

B. Local Broadcasting

The Broadcasting Act makes three references to local broadcasting. Section (3)(1)(i)(ii) states that: "the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should ... be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources." Section 3(1)(t)(i) states that broadcasting "distribution undertakings ... should give priority to the carriage of Canadian programming services and, in particular, to the carriage of local Canadian stations." And, Section 3(1)(t)(iv) notes that distribution undertakings:

... may, where the Commission considers it appropriate, originate programming, including local programming, on such terms as are conducive to the achievement of the objectives of the broadcasting policy ... in particular provide access for underserved linguistic and cultural minority communities.

Television

The CRTC defines local television as follows:

"Local television station" means, in relation to an undertaking, a licensed television station that (a) has a Grade A official contour that includes any part of the licensed area of the undertaking, or (b) has, where there is no Grade A official contour, a transmitting antenna that is located within 15 km of the licensed area of the undertaking.⁴²

In other words, a local television station is an over-the-air broadcast undertaking that reaches a particular audience via a transmitting antenna (or antennae) within a particular contour⁴³ (i.e., footprint) as defined in an undertaking's conditions of licence by the CRTC.

A key tenet of the CRTC's 1999 television policy is the delivery of local news and non-news programming by conventional, over-the-air broadcasters. Indeed, all licence renewals now require applicants to "demonstrate ... how they will meet the demands and reflect the particular concerns of their local audiences, whether through local news or other local programming."⁴⁴

It is extremely difficult, however, to say much about overall trends in the production of local news or non-news programming in Canada. This is because local and national news programming data tend to be aggregated for reporting purposes. Furthermore, because the CRTC does not impose uniform conditions of licence on each local station, trends quickly become difficult to evaluate, even within a particular market.⁴⁵

That said, it is possible to appraise the potential for the production of local programming based on available studio facilities. Figure 9.6 shows the number of local television stations in Canada with studio facilities for the period 1996 through 2002. Overall, the number of studio facilities operated by independent broadcasters during this period increased from 41 to 59. The most notable drops were with CTV, which reduced its facilities from 38 to 29 between 2001 and 2002, and CBC, which downsized from 52 to 47 owned or affiliated studio facilities between 1996 and 2002.

Radio

There are more than 750 radio stations owned and operated by Canadians that produce and deliver hundreds of hours of Canadian local programming each year. Most of these stations cover local news and events and rely heavily on advertising revenues from local businesses. Figure 9.7 shows the number of local AM and FM radio stations (public, private and not-for-profit) with studio facilities for the period 1996 through 2002. This figure shows an overall growth in the number of radio stations in Canada from 841 to 881 during this period.⁴⁶

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.

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:

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:

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.

Accordingly:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

Furthermore, and in light of the recommendations made in this chapter:

Endnotes