HERI Committee Report

MAINTAINING A SINGLE SYSTEM

Chapter 17
Globalization and Cultural Diversity

Through direct and indirect support Canadians have traditionally been willing to support broadcasting to advance public objectives. Other western democracies such as Australia, France, and Germany are no different; a certain amount of regulation and protection are seen as both beneficial and as an underpinning of their broadcasting systems. Finding the proper balance is always difficult and is a task the CRTC and other regulators struggle with on a daily basis.

This chapter reviews international considerations that are applying pressures on the diversity of the Canadian broadcasting system. To begin, it reviews cultural exemption strategies for international trade agreements. Next, it discusses proposals for the creation of an international instrument to protect cultural sovereignty. Thereafter, a brief discussion on international cooperation and coordination is presented. Finally, it discusses what witnesses told the Committee about various aspects of cultural diversity and the Canadian broadcasting system.¹

A. Cultural Exemption Strategies and International Agreements

It is important to remember that Canada's broadcasting policy is in fact a cultural policy. Rules of general application have raised concerns for the broadcast programming sector specifically. Section 2005 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA, 1987), (which was extended in 1992 to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)), and the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO, 1995) (including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)) were of primary concern to witnesses who appeared before the Committee.

Within the context of discussions concerning copyright, witnesses also raised the WTO's TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement and the Berne Convention (for authors' rights). Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act and other agreements were also mentioned.

Section 2005 of the Free Trade Agreement affirmatively removed cultural industries from the table in paragraph 1: "cultural industries are exempt from the provisions of this agreement." Paragraph 2, however, says that "a party may take measures of equivalent commercial effect in response to actions that would have been inconsistent with this Agreement but for paragraph 1." Cultural protection, in other words, is allowed but not without consequences.

Witnesses told the Committee that the cultural exemption strategy has had mixed results. The case of periodical publications, brought to the World Trade Organization by the United States, is a case in point. In 1997 the WTO ruled against certain Canadian measures, including a customs tariff and an excise tax on foreign split-run magazines.² Before coming to a bilateral 1999 agreement by which Canada was permitted to retain certain restrictions on advertising services, Canada was also threatened with possible retaliatory action pursuant to Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act. American law allows for unilateral action to be taken against unfair trading practices by foreign nations in related or non-congruent industries.

Figure 17.1 summarizes the basic principles of multilateral trade.

To date, Canada has always maintained a cultural exemption policy in the case of negotiations for a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and in other negotiations. For example, bilateral Canadian free trade agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and Israel all include cultural exemptions; however, unlike the Canada-U.S. FTA, none of these agreements allow for retaliation against non-conforming measures. Organizations such as the Canadian Conference of the Arts pleaded with the Committee to "[m]aintain exclusion of culture from trade agreements".³ Other witnesses, largely from the artistic community, agreed with this call. These include: the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec; the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters; the Association des réalisateurs et des réalisatrices du Québec; the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma; the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo; the Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec; and the Union des artistes.

The seven above-mentioned organizations are members of the Coalition for Cultural Diversity. The Coalition believes that cultural sovereignty — the right of a state to legislate in the cultural sector — should be non-negotiable. In this regard, they told the Committee that they have:

... established two principles to meet that goal. The first is cultural exemption. Culture should be excluded from any trade agreement, be it bilateral or regional, such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or international, such as GATT, GATS or the World Trade Organization. That's the first part. Let's begin by completely excluding cultural services, goods and products from any international trade treaty or agreement. Culture should be exempt from trade liberalization, because the laws which apply to it go completely against the cultural structure of a country such as Canada and of most other countries in the world, on the one hand; but on the other, we must manage cultural exchanges between countries.

How to achieve this? This is another aspect of the work of the Coalition. We should develop an international convention or an international organization which would manage cultural trade between countries. What we do not know is what form this international convention should take. What should it cover? How can we ensure that the principles contained therein will not go against the principles of organizations such as the World Trade Organization? In other words, we will have to make sure that there will be no retaliation. How can we make sure that this organization will have precedence over other trade agreements? The other question we must ask ourselves is: who will oversee it? Will it be the United Nations? Will it be a treaty similar to the Kyoto treaty on the environment? Should any other international organization oversee this convention? There is no consensus, no agreement.⁴

These are the two main approaches: exempting culture from trade agreements and creating an international covenant on cultural diversity. The Cultural Industries Sectoral Advisory Group (SAGIT) advanced the same two approaches on international trade in its 1999 report, New Strategies for Culture and Trade: Canadian Culture in a Global World, which was written within the context of digitization, convergence, emerging technologies, enlarging multinational corporations, and liberalizing international institutions. The SAGIT report also recognized two other possible strategies for trade in culture: to make no commitment on culture whatsoever; or to make agreements covering specific sectors, one-by-one.

A number of witnesses argued that cultural sovereignty concerns were unwarranted, or worse, that a cultural exemption could backfire. In their submission to the Committee, AOL Time Warner wrote that sovereignty concerns are unwarranted: "[a]ssistance to, and promotion of, Canadian culture can be accomplished in a manner which is consistent with existing and anticipated trade treaties."⁵ The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association (CMPDA) raised another objection:

... extending the cultural industries exemption ... fails to provide either transparency or certainty and leaves Canadian industries vulnerable to unilateral retaliation... The CMPDA recommends that Canadian cultural industries be put on the table in multilateral trade negotiations.⁶

The CMPDA's Vice-President, Ms. Susan Peacock, told the Committee that "exempting cultural industries from trade agreements does not mean there won't be any trade disputes."⁷ Indeed, as a case in point, in 1994 the CRTC granted the request of a Canadian country music station, New Country Now (NCN), to remove an American-owned country music station, Country Music Television (CMT), from the list of eligible specialty television services.⁸ After losing a court case, CMT threatened to remove Canadian artists from its non-Canadian services in the United States and elsewhere, and filed a Section 301 complaint. The office of the United States trade representative supported CMT's case. In 1995, the issue subsided following a business arrangement concluded by CMT and NCN in which CMT purchased a share of NCN and the Canadian channel rebranded itself as "CMT Canada."

Regarding the creation of an international instrument to protect the interests of cultural diversity, the degree of optimism ranged greatly among witnesses. Groups such as the Canadian Independent Record Production Association (CIRPA) indicated that they support "the concept of the New Instrument on Cultural Diversity put forward by the SAGIT although clearly this area is very complex and will require very close study to ensure the best possible outcomes."⁹ Similarly, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) noted that it:

... supports the call for the implementation of a global cultural pact, a New International Instrument for Cultural Diversity, to provide a permanent legal foundation for the right of states to support their own cultures. Until that Instrument can be implemented, Canada must be firm in its resolve to not make any commitments in trade negotiations that would further restrict, either directly or indirectly, our right to implement, maintain or modify the policies we need in Canada.¹⁰

Other witnesses supported the call of the Fédération nationale des communications, which would like Canada to altogether "denounce and reject any international economic agreement that attacks the right of states to set their own rules for the development and protection of culture and communications".¹¹ SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, warned the Committee that the government must move quickly and prudently. Their main concern was that relaxing trade rules would open a Pandora's Box:

For example, NAFTA's article 1106 creates obligations regarding performance requirements. SOCAN opposes article 1106, because it limits Canada's ability to develop our domestic economy by using performance requirements, such as Canadian content rules that require foreign investors to use Canadian labour, goods, or services.

In the absence of the NAFTA's cultural exemption, which in practice has not provided absolute protection, article 1106 would prohibit the application of Canadian content regulations to American investors. This would adversely affect SOCAN's members.

So far, article 1106 has not been an issue, because foreign investment is currently restricted in the broadcasting sector. The [C]ommittee must therefore carefully consider the Canadian content consequences that surely would result if Canada opens the broadcasting sector up to foreign investors. It is also important to stress that investor-state dispute provisions could expose our cultural measures to attack by foreign corporations.

As a result of the above concerns regarding the Government of Canada's current WTO position, we believe the proposed international instrument on cultural diversity referred to earlier must be concluded as quickly as possible.¹²

Similarly, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pointed out in its submission to the Committee that:

An important element of future trade negotiation in the area of cultural industries will be to define very clearly the nature of the CBC's mandate and funding. Otherwise, the CBC's funding could be exposed to trade actions.¹³

Since the late 1990s, the International Network for Cultural Policy (INCP), the International Network on Cultural Diversity (INCD), and others, have been working towards a new international instrument on cultural diversity, which would include cultural industries such as broadcasting. The INCP works with ministers of culture from around the world, while the INCD and others operate as non-governmental civil society organizations. Indeed, the very idea of a new international instrument (sometimes referred to as a Covenant or a Treaty) is a Canadian one, emanating from the SAGIT report. Figure 17.2 summarizes what a new instrument would, in the view of the SAGIT, accomplish.

In her comments to the Heritage Committee, the Minister of Canadian Heritage praised developing countries such as Mexico and Colombia for their concern about broadcasting issues.¹⁴ In March 2001 the INCP Working Group on Broadcasting in a Global Environment held its initial meeting at which a model of "sustainable communication ... based on democratic values and freedom of expression" and "a diversity of approaches" was discussed.¹⁵

On 2 November 2001, at UNESCO's 31st General Conference in Paris, France, the "Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity" was adopted.¹⁶ Thereafter, in Cape Town, South Africa on 14-16 October 2002, the INCP agreed that UNESCO was the appropriate international institution to house and implement an international instrument on cultural diversity.¹⁷

Other organizations, including La francophonie (whose membership includes Canada, Quebec, and New Brunswick), have made similar declarations and have parallel processes in place to encourage progress. Its Déclaration de Beyrouth (Beirut Summit, 18-20 October 2002) echoed the call from Cape Town:

We applaud the adoption of the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity. We support the principle of the development of a universal regulatory framework and we have consequently decided to contribute actively toward the adoption by UNESCO of an international convention on cultural diversity ...¹⁸. [Translation]

But this declaration also moved beyond the INCP approach and rejected any avenue running through the WTO or other trade agreements:

We believe, under the present conditions, that the preservation of cultural diversity means abstaining from any liberalization with the WTO relating to cultural goods and services, in order not to compromise the effectiveness of the instruments designed to promote and support cultural diversity¹⁹. [Translation]

On 12 December 2002, the Committee heard expert testimony from a distinguished panel: Mr. Denny Gélinas (Director General, Department of Canadian Heritage), Mr. Peter Grant (Senior Partner, McCarthy Tétrault), Mr. Ivan Bernier (law professor, Laval University), Mr. Robert Pilon (Executive Vice-President, Coalition for Cultural Diversity), Mr. Ken Stein (Chair, SAGIT for Cultural Industries) and Mr. Garry Neil (Coordinator, International Network for Cultural Diversity).

Each advocated continued Canadian action and most emphasized the pressing nature of time in the international arena. The four main options presented to Canada were: to continue to work for a UNESCO-based approach, to consider the inclusion of culture within trade agreements, to create a stand-alone instrument on the international stage, and to continue with domestic made-in-Canada programs. A mixture of these approaches might also be taken.

The Committee commends the works of the International Network on Cultural Policy (INCP), the International Network for Cultural Diversity (INCD), the Coalition for Cultural Diversity, and others who have been working towards a new international instrument on cultural diversity. The Committee is of the view that the New International Instrument on Cultural Diversity should play a key role in the protection of Canada's cultural sovereignty. It therefore strongly endorses and commends efforts by the Canadian government, industry and creative associations to promote measures at the international level that would guarantee the continued capacity of national governments to adopt and implement cultural policy without any interference from trade agreements. Accordingly:

B. International Cooperation and Coordination in Broadcasting Regulation

Notwithstanding assurances that our cultural sovereignty be protected, the Committee notes that the international arena represents an arena of considerable cultural significance, particularly in the areas of cooperation and coordination. Examples within the context of the Canadian broadcasting system include: international co-production agreements, the settlement of technical standards, and rules regarding business investment.²⁰

Corporate broadcasting concerns revolve largely around flexibility in a globalized environment. CanWest Global told the Committee that it believes that Canadian companies should be able to look beyond our borders and participate in the broader international broadcasting regime. On this particular point a representative told the Committee that "[t]he formation and evolution of Canadian media companies able to compete internationally should be an explicit goal of public policy ... allowing flexibility in the face of rapid change"²¹ Others, such as BCE, voiced support for international trade-rule relaxation as long as Canadians can enjoy material benefits.²² The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) agreed, adding that investment incentives and international agreements should be reviewed, especially relating to co-productions, development, and promotion.²³ For AOL Time Warner, new international agreements to support protectionist infrastructures are not necessary because technological progress is allowing for a greater diffusion of diverse domestic audio-visual material: "...the Internet and global pressures generally, are not threatening Canadian identity and are, in fact, leading to greater and more effective levels of Canadian content and expression".²⁴

In stark contrast to corporate concerns were those of civil society groups and creators. For these interests, the assurances of AOL Time Warner and others are not particularly comforting. Mr. R.H. Thomson, who appeared with ACTRA, explained that his group's opposition was not to foreign investment and trade agreements per se, but to the de-democratizing effect of delegating power to international treaty organizations or foreign owners that are disconnected from Canada's cultural concerns. A relaxation of any rules, it would follow, should not be signed until assurances are found to maintain Canada's rich tradition of government action in the name of cultural integrity. Mr. Thomson explained:

[Canada's] public policies are increasingly at risk from the restrictions written into international trade agreements. These restrictions are a result of trade liberalization policies ...

The political repercussion of trade liberalization ... is that the powers of my elected government ... are diminished, and my single democratic vote is downgraded.

The repercussion for ... an artist is that the cultural measures that successive Canadian governments have put in place for the last two generations, which were in large part responsible for remarkable achievements in writing, publishing, broadcasting, film production, television production, and other artistic enterprises, are regarded by the trade liberalization lobby as either trade barriers or trade-distorting subsidies.²⁵

Accordingly:

The Committee further believes that such a process should involve civil society stakeholders, where appropriate.

C. Cultural Diversity

It is useful to point out that the word "diversity" shares a common meaning in English and French. The Oxford English Dictionary suggests: "Being diverse, unlikeness: different kind, variety." Larousse defines it as : "caractère de ce qui est divers; variété. Différence, opposition." Since the underlying sense in both official languages has to do with difference and variety, it should therefore come as no surprise that witnesses who appeared before the Committee used the term "diversity" in many different ways in their discussions of the Canadian broadcasting system. These various perspectives can be separated for discussion purposes accordingly: diversity of views, diversity of representation and diversity of sources.

What the Committee Heard

When distinguished scholar and former CRTC chair Professor John Meisel addressed the Committee, he stressed the need to see a diversity of views in our broadcasting system and made note of two approaches to cultural diversity:

Canada's arts culture and what we might call our lifestyle cultures. Although paragraph 3(1)(d) [of the Broadcasting Act] does not explicitly refer to them in these terms, it unmistakably insists that broadcasting pay heed to them.

Arts culture, in which I include high and popular culture, is extremely varied in the land but most unevenly treated on radio and television. Some genres receive extensive coverage and attention. Others are virtually invisible and inaudible. Variety, or divergence if you prefer, is horrendously neglected and should not be. There is no MuchMusic for minuets.

By lifestyle culture I mean the patterns of values and behaviour exhibited by all sorts of groups linked by occupational activities, local pursuits, leisure activities, and other bonds that bestow on the groups shared experiences and often a sense of belonging. We talk of a business culture, a sports culture, an academic culture, and the culture of firms, corporate culture. It is striking that the broadcasting world lavishes an enormous amount of time on some of them, sports for example, and almost none on others. Consider, for instance, how important questions of religion are to a great many Canadians, and compare this with the attention — or I should perhaps say inattention — paid it by the broadcasting world. Are the myriad questions related to spirituality addressed remotely as effectively as those concerning sex or the consumption of automobiles or junk food?²⁶

Other witnesses expanded on this definition. For example, McGill University Professor Will Straw suggested that a diversity of views would best be facilitated with a larger number of different programming sources:

What I think is that diversity is not about us making programs in which every voice is represented, so much as it is about allowing a wider variety of sources of programming into Canada.²⁷

Echoing this same perspective, Ms. Deanie Kolybabi, of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network told the Committee:

I would agree that cultural diversity is largely representative of a variety of attitudes of practices and beliefs stemming from human experience in heritage, in age, in gender, in spirituality — basically, from where we come.²⁸

In his appearance before the Committee, Ryerson University Professor Matthew Fraser made the point that it is important to recognize that there are also generational differences that shape our views on culture and diversity. He explained:

On the diversity issue in general, I would invite the committee members to come to Ryerson where I teach, and speak to my students, who are 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 years old, and ask them how they consume media. I think most of this debate really is generational, and I would include myself, at 44, in the older generation. The elites today tend to be of that generation and older.²⁹

Finally, most witnesses who appeared before the Committee during its hearings on cross-media and foreign ownership also mentioned the importance of having a diversity of ownership to ensure a diversity of views in the Canadian broadcasting system. Chapter 11 provides more on this perspective.

Apart from stressing the importance of having access to a diverse range of views, witnesses also talked about the need for a diversity of representations. This issue is similar to the question of regional and local reflection in the broadcasting system. In this case, however, the question is whether different ethnic and racial groups are reflected or represented in the programs that Canadians produce and watch. Section 3(1)(d)(iii) of the Broadcasting Act suggests that the Canadian broadcasting system should:

Through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspiration, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of Aboriginal peoples within that society.

Thus, it was in the spirit of this requirement that several witnesses raised the question of representation.

Concerns about diversity of representation reflected the same types of concerns that many witnesses had about community and local reflection. That is: Do we hear and see ourselves in the media? Are there interviews, articles and stories by and about people from different groups?

Carleton University Professor Karim Karim gave perhaps the simplest explanation of this dilemma when he told the Committee:

In terms of cultural diversity and what it may mean, the way I approach this for this particular purpose is that within the context of broadcasting we have perhaps come to think of it as the physical presence on television or radio of various groups living in Canada. And this may not be the complete resolution of the problem as the [A]ct may have seen it. First of all, in different kinds of programming there tends to be a preponderance of one or another ethnic group. In advertising, for whatever reason, you rarely see, for example, people of Latin American, Arab, or South Asian origin.³⁰

Thus, the element he was underlining was the fact that we "rarely" see certain groups or types of people.

Ms. Deanie Kolybabi pointed out the scope of this reality for APTN: "In the case of APTN it's quite a challenge, because we have some 58 different cultures we are speaking to even when we're speaking to our own culture, our Aboriginal culture."³¹

Seen in another light, University of Calgary Professor Rebecca Sullivan told the Committee that she:

... would like to ... expand this notion of cultural diversity to consider such things as religion, as John Meisel pointed out, of sexuality and gender orientation, and of class and economics. When we deal with the question of diversity and attach this notion of culture to it we tend to avoid some of the real problems of social, political, and economic inequities and problems not merely in the way these different cultures are represented but in whether these groups are given access to the airwaves in an equitable fashion.³²

By way of illustration, she discussed the way the specialty service, PrideVision, was first made available to cable subscribers in Calgary:

During the digital cable rollout PrideVision was not given the same access as all the other stations, and it was not given that access based on some claim of community standards, namely we're only responding to the cultural needs of our audience. If you wanted PrideVision as part of the free package, you had to phone. ... You had to keep asking for it, whereas all the other stations were considered suitably Canadian in that they would not offend community standards. Well this was prejudicial treatment whether we like it or not.³³

The importance of respecting the cultural needs of the audience was also raised by Ms. Cynthia Reyes, Vice-President, ProMedia International Inc., who told the Committee that when her company interviewed over 300 Canadians about the Canadian media, many respondents:

... many of [whom were] ... from cultural minority communities, [expressed] ... feeling isolated from the mainstream media. It didn't really matter what their backgrounds were; there was a sense of total exclusion from the mainstream media. They feel it's over there, they're over there, and the twain doesn't meet.³⁴

She observed, however, that:

In fairness, if you look at our news programs across the country, you will see that something is starting to happen. Whether that is happening because of the CRTC's requirements in the conditions of licence renewal or just because people are becoming more aware of the opportunities in doing such things, we're not sure. But something is happening, and we want to note that.³⁵

That being said, Mr. Hamlin Grange, President, ProMedia International Inc., added that:

There is a critical need for research to inform public policy initiatives regarding full reflection and accurate portrayal of cultural and social diversity in broadcasting. For example, new and accurate qualitative and quantitative data on media usage of ethnic groups is required.³⁶

Finally, some witnesses suggested that cultural diversity is supported in part by having a large number of different sources of cultural artifacts (e.g., films and television programs). The following citation from Professor Will Straw captures well this particular perspective:

... for me, diversity has become really interesting. It's not just about the range of choices; it's about the range of sources. ...

I think American programming and its audiences are already getting very fragmented. It's lost its centre. You don't go to school every day any more and talk about the same program because no one watches the same program. People who come to Canada from different places bring with them their old movies, their old music, and so on. The more we allow that to come, in a variety of ways, over time we're going to create a new version of Canadian culture that's going to be more global, but is actually going to be less and less American.

I think that's kind of a compromise. We can't recentre Canadian culture any more either and expect everyone to be watching Da Vinci's Inquest or something else, but we can make the rich variety of Canadian culture probably different from American culture, and that will be our strength. I think that will make it also a very interesting place to be.³⁷

In other words, Canada is in a unique position. By opening our doors to a range of sources, we would, in the view of Professor Straw, strengthen Canada's cultural diversity, not weaken it. And we would have a richer culture — one that is more receptive to the world and less drawn to American programming.

Potential Solutions

As a whole, witnesses were divided on what should be done to encourage the Canadian broadcasting system to reflect and represent Canadians to each other, particularly given the sheer number of different types and groups of people within Canada. Several witnesses, when asked directly about how well the Canadian broadcasting system has done to "strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada," were quick to suggest it has been a success. For example, Professor John Meisel told the Committee that:

I think the Broadcasting Act has been extremely successful. I say that because I'm trying to imagine what Canada would have been like without it. Without it, we would have had just a complete replica of American services, and that would be it. So I think in that sense, the [a]ct has been very successful.

There are certain shortfalls, but the interesting thing is that the shortfalls are largely caused by the fact that the broadcasting system represents all too well the Canadian community. The things that are missing in the broadcasting system are also underplayed out there in the country.³⁸

Similarly, Professor Karim Karim told the Committee:

... on the whole, the [a]ct seems to be producing the kinds of results we want. When I look at the kind of diversity there is in the offerings in the 200-channel universe we have, it's remarkable. I don't know how many other countries have that.

And, much the same sentiment was echoed by Professor Rebecca Sullivan when she said:

As much as we have this collective history of constant hand-wringing over Canadian broadcasting, I think Canada is incredibly well poised. ... We probably have some of the most open and diverse airwaves in the world.³⁹

On the other hand, many witnesses also raised a number of different, but related, problems with current and possible approaches to diversity and ownership. This situation prompted Mr. Kirk Lapointe to tell the Committee that it will be hard pressed to find a one-size fits all solution. He explained:

[M]eeting the challenge of diversity is a remarkable uphill undertaking. It's not a matter of snapping one's fingers and making it true. It's not a matter of setting numerical targets, recruiting and promoting in particular ways, and tracking progress. It's a day-by-day grinding and methodical process that involves everyone in an organization in an unthreatening way building a more sophisticated media operation.⁴⁰

Other witnesses agreed that a simple approach is unlikely to work. As University of Calgary Professor Bart Beaty told the Committee:

One of the problems with cultural diversity is that we've had in the past a tendency to think that there's a way to make individual channels that the CRTC has reserved for minority voices ... that there's a way to make these perfectly. We believed that we could make this one channel that will speak to a particular subset of the Canadian population in a perfect fashion, that it will exactly represent what they want to see and how they want their voices to be heard. I don't think that's the case.⁴¹

Although some witnesses agreed with the idea that there should be a greater diversity of sources, at least two witnesses pointed out that there are substantial problems if one tries to run the entire broadcasting system on the basis of diversity as a paramount goal without paying suitable attention to other issues. For example, Ms. Deanie Kolybabi told the Committee that:

If we in fact are going to look at culturally diverse programming, we need first, I think, to look at the measurements we are using to value these programs, these initiatives and, and in fact these networks. ...⁴²

She went on to point out that the program funds (e.g., Telefilm and the CTF) are "largely triggered by Nielsen and BBM numbers"⁴³ and since these numbers do not truly measure Aboriginal audiences the APTN is put at a considerable disadvantage when it applies for funding. She concluded by saying:

I think we need to be very careful that in embracing diversity we are not over-expecting, to the detriment of the business model [that] these programs and these networks need to survive.⁴⁴

The business model was also on the mind of another witness, Mr. Kirk Lapointe, when he responded to a question from a Committee member about the financial viability of the industry in the "next five to ten years." Mr. Lapointe replied:

I happen to know that it is a delicate balance, that it's not simply a matter of saying let's let every service into the country that doesn't have the same kinds of conditions attached to its broadcasting that we impose on those that are in this country.

It would be absolutely catastrophic to do that. It may serve the consumer interests nominally, but increasingly it will lead to a diminution of the quality that already is there, and is already challenged and struggling, in Canadian programming. It's simply going to mean that those resources that are now being assigned will not be as available in the years ahead. It's a very simple equation.

I don't know why the argument continues to be circular about this. It appears that we are missing the real point about the viability of conventional broadcasting in our country right now and what its challenges are going to be over the next five to ten years. If we permit further erosion of that, then we put at risk what little we have left around Canadian indigenous programming.⁴⁵

Professor Bart Beaty also raised several points that support Mr. Lapointe's concerns about the ability of the broadcasting system to continue to provide indigenous Canadian programming. He explained:

... we're going to see fairly rapid technological change. We're beginning to see, for instance, the introduction of digital video recorders ... These focus the viewer's ability to select individual programs rather than channels. I think ten years from now programming will be much more important than channels. ...

If we're going to have a sustainable industry in the future for Canadian content, we really have to look at placing subsidies that we already have and developing them more fully and aiming those toward supporting programming, rather than channels.⁴⁶

In short, while the Committee heard a number of witnesses who offered convincing arguments that Canada's broadcasting policy and its approach to diversity has been successful, it also heard compelling evidence about the need to ensure that these policy expectations — as expressed in the Broadcasting Act — are met.

Section 3(d)(iii) of the Act states, for example that "the Canadian broadcasting system should ... through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations (emphasis added)... serve and reflect, among other things, the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society." Witnesses suggested that this is not necessarily the reality. For example Ms. Cynthia Reyes told the Committee that:

... independent professionals, those who do not work inside the media and who are trying to get either their ideas or themselves into the media ... [told them that] there's a dominant culture and language and a network of players inside the media that keeps them outside because they're not privy to that. They told us their skills are acquired outside of mainstream organizations, but even when they are mature professionals with solid skills and experience, they are only considered for entry-level jobs or short-term internships. They are not considered for senior-level or even intermediate roles in media organizations in the mainstream.⁴⁷

The Committee notes that the Broadcasting Act also includes a range of policy provisions aimed at enhancing the diversity of the Canadian broadcasting system, and that it heard compelling testimony about the need to ensure that these provisions can be met. Many of the recommendations in this report address the issue of diversity in a number of different ways. For example, giving the proposed Canadian Broadcasting Monitor (see Chapter 19) the mandate to look at the overall state of the broadcasting system, asking the CRTC to re-examine where public service broadcasters such as APTN and VisionTV are located in cable and satellite line-ups (see Chapter 7), and the proposal for the creation of a Local Broadcasting Initiative Program (see Chapter 9) that would respond to local initiatives could all play a role in encouraging greater diversity in the system. The Committee also suggests in Chapter 18 that appointments to the CRTC and the CBC Board of Directors should reflect a greater diversity of views and experiences, while a proposal in Chapter 16 calls on Canada's broadcasting distributors to be permitted to provide more channels that would appeal to Canada's multiracial and multicultural populations.

The Committee, however, would like to supplement what is contained in these proposals with a call for additional funding to ensure that the Broadcasting Act's provisions for greater diversity can be met. Indeed, the Committee sees it as essential that measures be taken to ensure that diversity remains a central tenet of the Canadian broadcasting system and its programming. Accordingly:

Endnotes