|
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-81
|
|
Ottawa, 8 April 2002 |
|
Global Communications Limited
Toronto, Hamilton and Kitchener, Ontario |
|
TDNG Inc.
Toronto, Hamilton and Kitchener, Ontario |
|
Alliance Atlantis Broadcasting Inc.
Toronto, with rebroadcasting transmitters in Hamilton and Kitchener,
Ontario |
|
Craig Broadcast Systems Inc., on behalf of a
corporation to be incorporated
Toronto, with a rebroadcasting transmitter in Hamilton, Ontario |
|
Applications 2001-0864-8, 2001-0872-1,
2001-0873-9, 2000-2370-6, 2000-2369-8, 2000-2368-0, 2001-0859-9, 2001-0868-0,
Public Hearing at Hamilton, Ontario
3 December 2001 |
|
New television station for Toronto/Hamilton
|
|
The Commission, by majority vote, approves
the application by Craig Broadcast Systems Inc., on behalf of a corporation
to be incorporated (Craig), for a licence to operate an English-language
over-the-air television station to serve Toronto, with an additional
transmitter in Hamilton. The competing applications by Global Communications
Limited (Global), TDNG Inc. (TDNG) and Alliance Atlantis Broadcasting Inc.
(Alliance Atlantis) are denied. |
|
The programming of the new station will
include: |
|
- ethnic programming produced in English targeted to second and third
generation ethnic viewers who prefer to watch programming about their
communities that is in English. This programming would also serve as
cross-cultural or bridge programming between the ethnocultural communities
and official language groups.
|
|
- a weekly half-hour Aboriginal newsmagazine program. As well,
Aboriginal reporters will be engaged to ensure that issues affecting local
Aboriginal people will be reflected in daily news and information
programming.
|
|
- 14.5 hours of local programming each week between 6 p.m. and
midnight. Ten hours of this local programming will be non-news programming
and will include magazine-style programs concentrating on in-depth
explorations of local issues and investigative journalism, as well as a
locally-produced variety show.
|
|
- eight hours per week of priority programming broadcast between 7
p.m. and 11 p.m.
|
|
Craig will devote $15.4 million over the
licence term to independent production for the Toronto station. This money
will be divided between two funds. The New Voices Fund will
support ethnic programming, and the Priority Program Fund will support
the production of priority programs by the Greater Toronto Area’s small and
medium sized independent producers. |
|
A majority of the Commission (the majority)
considers that the licensing of Craig will: |
|
- bring a new western-based broadcasting voice to the Toronto/Hamilton
market, thus providing the market with a fresh perspective and approach to
television;
|
|
- provide a significant new platform to reflect the increasingly
multicultural nature of the Toronto market through its English-language
ethnic programming;
|
|
- reflect the unique perspective of Aboriginals living in an urban
environment through its weekly half-hour Aboriginal magazine program and
the contribution of its Aboriginal reporters to information programming;
and
|
|
- provide a showcase for independent Canadian productions.
|
|
Craig currently operates television stations
in Western Canada. The new Toronto station will increase the combined
potential reach of the Craig television stations from 18% to 42% of the
nation’s English-speaking population. The majority considers that this
increase will augment Craig’s ability to provide an additional strong
private television voice to serve Canadians, and that the new station will
also provide an opportunity for programs produced for Craig’s western
stations to be broadcast in the Toronto area and for programs produced for
the Toronto station to be broadcast in the West. |
|
Introduction
|
1. |
At the 3 December 2001 public hearing, the
Commission heard five competing applications for new television stations to
serve Toronto and other areas of Southern Ontario. Since all of the
applicants originally proposed to use channel 52 in Toronto, the applications
were mutually exclusive. However, at the hearing, Rogers Broadcasting Limited
(Rogers) indicated that it would be willing to establish its station on
another channel. In New multilingual ethnic station to serve Toronto,
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-82 issued today,
the Commission approved in part the application by Rogers for a new ethnic
television station to serve Toronto conditional on the use of a television
channel other than channel 52. The present decision deals with the remaining
competing applications by Global, TDNG, Alliance Atlantis, and Craig. |
2. |
This decision provides an overview of each of
the applications, an assessment of the applications, and then sets out, in
more detail, the commitments made by the licensee of the new station. The
terms and conditions for the new licence are set out in the Appendix. A
detailed discussion of the Toronto extended market and its ability to support
new television stations is set out in Introductory statement to decisions
approving two new television stations to serve Toronto/Hamilton,
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC
2002-17, 8 April 2002 (Public Notice
2002-17). The public notice
also sets out the background to this proceeding. |
|
Overview of the applications
|
|
Global
|
3. |
Global proposed to establish three new
television stations, one each in Toronto, Hamilton and Kitchener, with
program schedules that would consist entirely of Canadian programming. Global
characterized the stations as "purely Canadian." The primary focus of the new
stations would be to promote Canadian programming. They would provide another
window for Canadian programs, and give viewers an opportunity to sample
Canadian programs from new digital specialty programming services. The new
stations would broadcast Canadian programs from many sources, not just from
Global’s stations and specialty services. The applicant indicated that at
least 48 hours per week of programming on the "purely Canadian" stations
would be provided by licensees other than Global. Global also made a
commitment that at least 40 hours of programming on the proposed stations
would come from Canadian digital specialty services. |
4. |
Global would provide 22.5 hours per week of
local programming on each of the stations, but no news. It would also
broadcast 7.5 hours of regional programming that would appear on all three of
the new stations. None of the local or regional programs broadcast by the new
stations would also be broadcast by the Global stations CIII-TV or CHCH-TV.
Global forecast total revenues of $38,595,000 over the first seven years of
operation. |
|
TDNG |
5. |
TDNG proposed to establish three new television
stations in Toronto, Hamilton and Kitchener that would provide a service
known as "Hometown Television." The stations would be strongly oriented to
Canadian programming, with each broadcasting an 85% level of Canadian content
during the broadcast day, within the evening broadcast period and between 7
p.m. and 11 p.m. Each of the three stations would broadcast 32.5 hours of
local programming each week. Local programming would include 16 hours of
news. Most of the remaining Canadian programs on "Hometown Television" would
have a regional orientation. |
6. |
TDNG would rely on the independent production
sector as a source of Canadian programming. It indicated that it expected to
commission 1,230 hours of original programming a year from local and regional
independent producers. In order to finance such programming, the applicant
would devote a minimum of $64.3 million over the licence term to cash
investment in independent Canadian production. TDNG would also invest an
additional $22.874 million over the licence term to repayable equity
investments for selected productions. TDNG forecast total revenues of
$415,090,000 over the first seven years of operation. |
|
Alliance Atlantis |
7. |
Alliance Atlantis proposed to establish a new
television station in Toronto with additional transmitters in Hamilton and
Kitchener. The service would be known as "Greater Toronto Television," and
its local programming would be oriented to serve primarily those residents of
the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) who live outside the boundaries of the City of
Toronto. The applicant proposed to broadcast 41.5 hours of local programming
per week. Local programming would include 23.5 hours of news. News coverage
of the GTA would be facilitated through the establishment of five regional
news bureaus. |
8. |
The applicant proposed to broadcast a 60% level
of Canadian programming during the broadcast day, and 50% in the evening
broadcast period. One hundred and seventy-six hours of priority programming
broadcast during the broadcast year would be original. Seventy-five per cent
of the priority programming would be produced by independent producers
without significant ownership links to Alliance Atlantis. The applicant also
proposed to broadcast 26 half-hour episodes per year of original drama. These
drama series would be commissioned from the independent production sector,
and the total budget for each 13-episode series would range from $3 million
to $3.5 million. Alliance Atlantis forecast total revenues of $312,719,000
over the first seven years of operation. |
|
Craig |
9. |
Craig proposed to establish a new Toronto
station known as "Toronto One" that would also be available to viewers in the
Hamilton area by means of a rebroadcasting transmitter. The applicant
proposed to broadcast 14.5 hours of local programming each week between 6
p.m. and midnight, including 4.5 hours of news. Twenty percent of all of
Craig’s acquired Canadian programming, or about 12 hours of programming per
week, would be ethnic programming in English. It considered that this
programming would fill a void in the market, appealing either to second and
third generation ethnic viewers who preferred to view programming about their
communities in English, or to those who had not learned or retained their
language of origin but still wished to access programming about their
communities. This initiative would also provide cross-cultural or bridge
programming between the ethnocultural communities and the official language
groups. Craig would also broadcast a weekly half-hour Aboriginal newsmagazine
program, and engage Aboriginal reporters to ensure that issues affecting
Aboriginal people would be reflected in its news and information programming. |
10. |
Craig proposed to broadcast a 60% level of
Canadian programming during the broadcast day, and 50% in the evening
broadcast period. It would devote $15.4 million over the licence term
to independent productions commissioned by the Toronto station. This money
would be divided between the New Voices Fund, which would support
ethnic programming, and the Priority Program Fund, which would support
the production of priority programs. Some of Craig’s local programming would
be produced through alliances with Toronto Life magazine and Second
City Improv Productions. Craig forecast total revenues of $276,940,000
for the new station over the first seven years of operations. |
|
Assessment of the applications
|
|
The Global applications
|
11. |
Global proposed a model designed to have a very
limited impact on other Canadian stations serving the Toronto extended
market. First, the new stations would broadcast no non-Canadian programming;
all programming would be Canadian. Second, they would not compete with
existing stations by broadcasting news, an area where the existing non-ethnic
over-the-air stations concentrate their local programming resources. Instead,
the new stations would serve primarily as promotional vehicles for Canadian
programming. |
12. |
The Commission has carefully examined the
characteristics of the Toronto extended market and, in Public Notice
2002-17 issued today,
concluded that the Southern Ontario market is capable of sustaining the
establishment of an additional English-language over-the-air television
station that would compete directly with existing stations. In light of this
finding, and notwithstanding Global’s commitment to broadcast a 100% level of
Canadian programming, the Commission does not consider that Global’s
proposals make the best possible use of scarce public frequencies in the most
populated area of Canada, when considered in comparison with the proposals of
other applicants. |
13. |
Moreover, Global, through its ownership of
CIII-TV Paris and CHCH-TV Hamilton, currently operates two stations, not only
in the Toronto extended market, but also throughout much of Southern Ontario.
This is an exception to Building on success –A policy framework for
Canadian television, Public Notice CRTC
1999-97, 11 June 1999 (the
Television Policy) which states: "The Commission will continue its current
policy which generally permits ownership of no more than one over-the-air
television station in one language in a given market." Licensing any or all
of the "purely Canadian" stations proposed by Global would provide Global
with a third programming window. |
14. |
In light of the concerns set out above, the
applications by Global are denied. |
|
The TDNG applications |
15. |
Private English-language television stations are
required to broadcast a 60% level of Canadian programming over the broadcast
day and 50% Canadian programming in the evening broadcast period. Under this
traditional model, revenues obtained from foreign programming, the audience
for which is usually augmented through simultaneous substitution requirements
imposed on distributors, are then used to subsidize Canadian programming
which, in many instances, cannot recover its costs in the Canadian market.
Generally programs with higher production values enjoy higher audience
ratings. Under TDNG’s proposal to broadcast an 85% level of Canadian
programming in all regulated day parts, subsidization from similar amounts of
non-Canadian programming would not be available. The Commission therefore
explored the applicant’s business plan in light of the model that it
proposed. |
16. |
The applicant noted that its business plan was
based on modest tuning shares ranging from 1.2% in year one to 3.6% in year
seven of all viewing by those two years of age and older in the
Toronto/Hamilton market. |
17. |
The majority, while acknowledging the prima
facie attractiveness of TDNG’s commitments to Canadian content, local and
regional programming and independent production, is unconvinced that the
applicant’s business plan makes such commitments realistic or deliverable.
Specifically, the applicant’s financial commitments to programming,
particularly in prime time, appear insufficient to produce the quality of
programming required to provide reasonable assurance that Hometown Television
will achieve the audiences and advertising revenues necessary for success. |
18. |
TDNG has made commitments to build and staff
three stand-alone conventional television stations with all the
infrastructure required, and create in the order of 300 jobs. These stations
must be funded from advertising revenues which, in turn, can only be
generated by popular programs attracting significant audiences. |
19. |
The applicant made a total commitment of $87.1
million over the licence term to independent production. Of the $87.1
million, $22.874 million would be expended by way of repayable advances to
selected independent producers. The applicant’s business plan projects that
100% of these advances be repaid to the applicant in the same year as they
are received by the independent producers. The majority considers that this
is unrealistic. Telefilm Canada, for example, rarely recovers more that 40%
of such equity top-up payments and even these amounts are only recovered over
time, not in the same year as they are advanced to producers. |
20. |
The other element of the $87.1 million is the
$64.3 million dollars earmarked by TDNG for independent production over the
term of the licence. During the public hearing, considerable time was spent
evaluating how this sum would be broken down in terms of dollars spent per
hour of programming. The numbers arrived at are very low in comparison to
industry standards. For example, a total of $1,250,000 was budgeted for 130
hours of prime time documentaries. That works out to $9,615 per hour. Such a
cash investment is unlikely to purchase a competitive prime time product. |
21. |
During the hearing, TDNG indicated that the
applicant expected to add further value to the cash expended by way of "…the
services that we are going to be providing to them, the facilities, which is
probably worth equal amount again in a non-cash piece of that." However, the
value of access to facilities, newspaper archives and photo-libraries and
other services is difficult to evaluate. Even if the $9,615 is categorized as
a licence fee, it leaves independent producers scrambling for other sources
of funding, like the Canadian Television Fund, sources which are already
unable to meet demand. The fact is that at the end of the day only $9,615 per
hour has been earmarked by the applicant for the procurement of documentaries
that will be expected to compete for audience share and advertising revenues
with the multi-million dollar sit-coms, dramas and other programming offered
by TDNG’s competitors. |
22. |
Clearly, TDNG expects to compete successfully
because it has projected combined revenues of $415,090,000 over seven years
for the three proposed stations. The majority of the Commission remains
unconvinced that such expectations are realistic. The majority’s concern is
exacerbated by two other aspects of TDNG’s application. First, it plans to
pre-buy hundreds of hours of new programming in order to enjoy volume
discounts, thereby running the risk of being stuck with unpopular inventory.
Second, Hometown Television would be a stand-alone service since the stations
would be the only over-the-air stations operated by TDNG, a party that is new
and untried in the conventional television medium. |
23. |
In light of these concerns, the Commission, by
majority vote, denies the application by TDNG. |
|
Application by Alliance Atlantis |
24. |
Alliance Atlantis’ application was based on the
traditional model used by most other English-language over-the-air television
stations. It proposed a 60% level of Canadian programming over the broadcast
day and 50% Canadian programming during the evening broadcast period. |
25. |
Alliance Atlantis proposed to put special
emphasis on providing a new service to viewers in the GTA that live outside
the City of Toronto. The 23.5 hours of original local news that it would
broadcast each week would include material from news bureaus located in York,
Halton, Peel and Durham. Alliance Atlantis would also broadcast 26 half-hour
episodes of Canadian drama each year from independent producers, thus
increasing the amount of Canadian drama available to viewers in the market. |
26. |
The majority notes that, if the Alliance
Atlantis application were approved, this would mark the company’s entry into
over-the-air television broadcasting. As such it would be a stand-alone
player with respect to over-the-air television services. For reasons
described further in the next section of this decision, the majority
considers, in this case, it would be better to strengthen an existing player
in over-the-air television rather than to license a new player. |
27. |
The majority also considers that licensing
another Toronto television station emphasizing news would not complement the
programming services available to the extent that the programming proposed by
other applicants would. It notes that the applicant’s demand study
commissioned from Environics Research Group indicated that 75% of those
surveyed were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the news and
current affairs programming that covers the specific local area of the GTA in
which they live. |
28. |
In light of the concerns set out above, the
application by Alliance Atlantis is denied. |
|
The Craig application |
29. |
In the Television Policy, the Commission
stresses the importance of establishing strong players in the television
industry. The Television Policy notes that "in both English and
French-language markets, ownership groups have grown in size, become stronger
competitors in both domestic and international markets, and increased their
capacity to create appealing and popular programming for Canadian audiences."
It further notes that ownership consolidation has resulted in "efficiencies
and synergies which should provide increased investment in Canadian
programming and a greater likelihood of the export of that programming." In
New television station on Vancouver Island, Decision CRTC
2000-219, 6 July 2000, the Commission
noted the "importance of strong players in the television industry if its
regulatory objectives with regard to Canadian content are to be met in the
medium and long term in a rapidly changing broadcasting environment." |
30. |
Craig currently operates television stations in
Manitoba and Alberta. With a station in the Toronto extended market, the
potential reach of the Craig television stations would increase from 18% to
42% of English-speaking Canadians. The majority considers that this increase
in potential reach, which would result from a presence in Canada’s most
lucrative television market, would strengthen Craig’s ability to provide an
additional strong private television voice to serve Canadians. Ownership of a
Toronto station would provide an opportunity for programs produced for
Craig’s western stations to be broadcast in Toronto, and for programs
produced for Craig’s Toronto station to be broadcast in the West, thus
facilitating the exchange of programming between the regions. For these
reasons, the majority considers that, in this case, the strengthening of a
smaller existing regional player should take precedence over the introduction
of a new stand-alone player into conventional television broadcasting. |
31. |
Craig would devote 20% of its Canadian acquired
programming, or about 12 hours per week, to ethnic programs in the English
language. The applicant identified the Asian Television Network (ATN) as a
source of its ethnic programming. ATN is a national specialty service that
serves the South Asian communities of Canada. The applicant also identified
Fairchild Television as well as operators and potential operators of digital
specialty services as other possible sources of programming to fulfil its
commitment. |
32. |
The majority considers that Craig’s ethnic
programming in English would serve two purposes. First, as the applicant
indicated, it would provide a significant service to second and third
generation ethnic Canadians who have not learned or retained the languages of
their ethnic communities, yet wish to be able to view programming about these
communities. As well, this programming would help establish a cross-cultural
bridge that would introduce all Canadians to the multicultural reality of our
society. The majority considers that this commitment by Craig is a
significant step in reflecting and connecting Canada’s multicultural
community to broader audiences. It further notes that this would be the first
time that a significant level of ethnic programming in English would be
included in the programming of a non-ethnic over-the-air television station.
The broadcast of such programming on a conventional over-the-air television
station would make it available to the largest possible audience. |
33. |
Craig proposed to broadcast, on the new Toronto
station in the evening, the weekly half-hour Aboriginal newsmagazine program
Sharing Circle that is currently aired by the Craig stations in
Manitoba and Alberta. As well, Craig indicated that, if licensed, it would
engage Aboriginal reporters to produce segments reflecting the Toronto area
for Sharing Circle, and ensure that issues affecting Aboriginal people
are reflected in the Toronto station’s daily news and information
programming. |
34. |
Over the years, Craig has developed a strong
reputation with respect to the reflection of Aboriginal issues in its
programming. The majority considers that the commitments that Craig has made
for the Toronto station are significant and would bring programming for
Aboriginals and programming that discusses issues affecting Aboriginals to
the broad audiences that watch the programming of conventional television
stations. In New Type B FM Radio Undertaking, Decision CRTC
2000-204, 16 June 2000, the Commission,
noting the importance of the reflection of Aboriginals in the Toronto media,
licensed Gary Farmer, on behalf of an incorporated body to be known as
Aboriginal Voices Radio (AVR) to operate a Native radio station in Toronto.
The majority considers that the programming proposed by Craig would
complement that of AVR in that it would provide a television platform to
reflect the Aboriginal perspective in Canada’s largest broadcast market. |
35. |
Under Craig’s proposal, the new station would
broadcast 14.5 hours of local programming each week between 6 p.m. and
midnight. Four and a half hours of such programming would be devoted to the
news program Metro. The applicant, however, indicated that Metro
would be more of a newsmagazine than a traditional newscast, with each
edition including an investigative consumer report, segments dealing with
neighbourhoods, a Toronto Life update, as well as various feature
reports. Craig indicated that it planned to schedule its news and information
programming so that it appeared at times when other stations were not
broadcasting their newscasts, but not during drive times. |
36. |
The remaining ten hours of local programming in
the evening would include programs designed to provide in depth coverage of
issues and events in Toronto. As well, the station would broadcast a one-hour
local variety show each weekday evening, a weekly comedy program called
Second City Improv, as well as a weekly one-hour program called
New Voices to tell the story of the GTA’s multicultural communities using
drama, documentary and music. |
37. |
The majority considers that the local
programming proposed by Craig would complement the programming provided by
other television licensees. It also considers that the agreements that Craig
has established with Toronto Life magazine and Second City Improv
Productions are very valuable in that they would allow Craig, as a new player
in the Toronto area, to have access to the expertise of two parties with long
experience in entertaining and informing Toronto audiences. |
38. |
For the reasons outlined above, the Commission,
by majority vote, approves the application by Craig to establish a new
television station in Toronto, with a rebroadcasting transmitter in Hamilton. |
|
The new station’s commitments
|
39. |
In this section, the key commitments that Craig
has made for its new television station are identified and conditions of
licence and expectations are set out where applicable. The actual text of
each condition of licence is set out in the Appendix. |
|
Ethnic programming, Aboriginal programming,
Local programming |
40. |
Craig must fulfil the following commitments,
discussed in the previous section of this decision, as conditions of
licence: |
|
- to ensure that at least 20% of Canadian acquired programming broadcast
by the new station is ethnic programming in the English language.
|
|
- to broadcast at least 10 hours per week of local programming in
categories other than news, between 6 p.m. and midnight.
|
41. |
The licensee is expected to implement the
commitments it has made with respect to the broadcast of Aboriginal
programming and the hiring of Aboriginal reporters throughout the licence
term. |
|
Priority programming |
42. |
Under the terms of the Television Policy,
licensees of the largest multi-station ownership groups must broadcast at
least eight hours per week of priority programming between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m.
The largest multi-station ownership groups are defined as those groups that
are licensed to operate in several provinces and have a potential reach of
more than 70% of the Canadian television audience in their language of
operation. |
43. |
With its new Toronto station, Craig’s
conventional television stations will have a potential reach of 42% of
English-speaking Canadians. However, even though it would not qualify as one
of the largest multi-station ownership groups, Craig has made a commitment to
broadcast eight hours of priority programming per week between 7 p.m. and 11
p.m. Craig must adhere to this commitment as a condition of licence. |
|
Independent Production Funds |
44. |
Craig made a commitment to spend $15.4 million
on independent production over the licence term, divided between The New
Voices Fund and The Priority Program Fund. |
45. |
Money from The New Voices Fund will be
used to finance productions for the program New Voices, which will
tell the stories of Toronto’s multicultural communities. Over the licence
term, Craig has made a commitment to expend at least $6,650,000 from the
New Voices Fund for independently-produced ethnic programs in English,
and at least $725,000 for script and concept development for such programs,
not including administration costs. Craig must adhere to these commitments as
a condition of licence. |
46. |
Nearly $2 million of the money allocated to the
Priority Program Fund will be used by Second City Improv Productions
to produce the weekly program Second City Improv. The remainder of the
money will be available to other small and medium-sized production companies.
The aim of the Priority Program Fund is to give Ontario producers
enough money to be eligible for support from the Canadian Television Fund
that will serve to top up their licence fees and enable them to produce
high-quality, attractive programming. Over the licence term, Craig made a
commitment to expend at least $6,650,000 from the Priority Program Fund
on licence fees for priority programs, and at least $675,000 for script and
concept development for such programs, not including administration costs.
Craig must adhere to these commitments as a condition of licence. |
47. |
Money from both of these funds that is not
allocated to licence fees or script and concept development will be allocated
to administration. Combined administration costs over the licence term for
the two funds will total approximately $700,000. |
48. |
At the hearing, Craig indicated that the New
Voices Fund and The Priority Program Fund would each have its own
separate executive director, and the licensee is expected to fulfil this
commitment. |
49. |
Craig is further required, by condition of
licence, to submit audited annual reports to the Commission concerning
the receipts and disbursements for each of the funds. |
|
Advisory board |
50. |
Craig is expected to fulfil its commitment to
establish and maintain a Multicultural Advisory Board that will include high
profile members of ethnic communities in the area that the new station will
serve. The Board will give advice concerning how the new station’s
programming can best reflect the ethnic diversity of the Toronto area, and
will advise the management of the New Voices Fund on how to attract
independent producers who can develop programs to reflect the ethnic
communities. |
|
Cultural diversity |
51. |
The Commission expects Craig, and all other
television licensees, to contribute to a broadcasting system that accurately
reflects the presence in Canada of cultural and racial minorities and
Aboriginal peoples. The Commission further expects licensees to ensure that
their on-screen portrayal of all such groups is accurate, fair and free of
stereotypes. These expectations are fully in keeping with section
3(1)(d)(iii) of the Broadcasting Act, which states 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 aspirations, 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." |
52. |
Craig filed a Diversity and Employment Equity
Commitment with its application that set out policies and practices with
respect to creating and educating employees about diversity in the workplace.
The Commission notes that Craig will be asked to develop and submit a
corporate cultural diversity plan for all of its television stations and
specialty services as part of the process related to the group renewal of its
existing television stations taking place this year. |
|
Service to the hearing impaired |
53. |
Craig indicated that it would close caption all
local news and at least 90% of all programming during the broadcast day
throughout the licence term. The Commission has made adherence to this
commitment a condition of licence. |
|
Service to the visually impaired |
54. |
"Audio description" and "described video" are
methods of improving the service that television broadcasters provide to the
visually impaired. Audio description involves the provision of basic
voice-overs of textual and graphic information displayed on the screen. A
broadcaster providing audio description will, for example, not simply display
sports scores on the screen, but also read them aloud so that the visually
impaired can receive the information. |
55. |
Described video consists of narrative
descriptions of a program’s key visual elements so that people who are
visually impaired are able to form a mental picture of what is occurring on
the screen. These descriptions can be provided on the Secondary Audio
Programming (SAP) Channel. |
56. |
Craig indicated that it would provide audio
description for important graphic information such as weather alerts and
sports scores wherever appropriate. The Commission expects Craig to fulfil
this commitment. |
57. |
Craig further indicated that it would provide
described video for all programs produced through the New Voices Fund
and the Priority Program Fund. Craig must fulfil this commitment as a
condition of licence. |
58. |
The Commission further notes the increasing
amount of programming with described video that is available for acquisition,
particularly from U.S. sources. Accordingly, the Commission expects the
licensee to acquire and broadcast versions of programs that include described
video wherever possible. It also expects the licensee to take the necessary
steps to ensure that its customer service responds to the needs of visually
impaired viewers. |
59. |
In addition, the Commission encourages the
licensee to reach levels of described video that are similar to those set out
in the last licence renewal decisions for the conventional television
stations operated by CTV Inc. and Global. Specifically, the Commission
encourages Craig to provide two hours per week of described programming in
the first year of operation, and to increase this level so that it reaches
four hours per week in year five and in later years. At least 50% of this
programming should be original programming. |
|
Cable carriage
|
60. |
As indicated earlier, the new television station
will broadcast using two transmitters, one in Toronto and one in Hamilton. At
the hearing, the licensee confirmed that it would not expect any cable
distributor to carry more than one of these signals. It is incumbent upon
cable distributors to seek relief from the provisions of the Broadcasting
Distribution Regulations where necessary. |
|
Interventions
|
61. |
The Commission acknowledges and has considered
all interventions submitted in connection with the applications for new
television stations considered at the Hamilton hearing. |
62. |
These interventions included submissions from
the licensees of various over-the-air radio and television stations that did
not consider that the Toronto market could sustain new private television
stations that would compete with existing stations without an undue negative
effect on existing stations. The Commission discusses economic issues related
to the Toronto market in Public Notice
2002-17 issued today. The
Commission has also considered general interventions related to all the
applications for new television stations that were submitted by parties that
include those concerned with multicultural diversity, cable carriage of new
television services, independent production and distribution of programming.
It has also considered the interventions and letters of support related to
each of the applications. |
|
Secretary General |
|
This decision is to be appended to the
licence. It is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be
examined at the following Internet site:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca |
|
1"Priority programs" are defined in
Definitions for new types of priority programs; revisions to the
definitions of television content categories; definitions of Canadian
dramatic programs that will qualify for time credits towards programming
requirements, Public Notice CRTC
1999-205, 23 December 1999. |
|
Appendix to Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002–81
|
|
Terms and conditions of licence for the new television station serving
Toronto/Hamilton licensed to Craig Broadcast Systems Inc. (OBCI)
|
|
Terms
|
|
Subject to the requirements of this decision,
the Commission will issue a licence expiring 31 August 2008. This licence
will be subject to the conditions specified in this decision and in the
licence to be issued. |
|
The licence will only be issued and effective
when the undertaking is ready to begin operation. When the licensee has
completed construction and is prepared to commence operation, it must advise
the Commission in writing. If the undertaking is not constructed and ready to
operate within 12 months of today’s date, extensions to this time frame may
be granted, provided that the licensee applies in writing to the Commission
before the 12-month period or any extension of that period expires. |
|
The new station will operate, in Toronto, on
channel 52C with an effective radiated power of 59,000 watts and, in
Hamilton, on channel 45B with an effective radiated power of 10,000 watts. |
|
Because this licensee is subject to the
Employment Equity Act and files reports with Human Resources Development
Canada, its employment equity practices are not examined by the Commission. |
|
Conditions of licence
|
|
1. a) The licensee shall broadcast, at a
minimum, in each broadcast year, an average of eight hours per week of
Canadian programs in the priority program categories between 7 p.m. and 11
p.m., from Monday to Sunday. As defined in Definitions for new types of
priority programs; revisions to the definitions of television content
categories; definitions of Canadian dramatic programs that will qualify for
time credits towards priority programming requirements, Public Notice
CRTC 1999-205, 23 December 1999
(Public Notice 1999-205) the
priority program categories are: |
|
Canadian drama programs; Canadian music and dance and variety programs;
Canadian long-form documentaries; Canadian regionally-produced programs in
all categories other than News and information and Sports; and Canadian
entertainment magazine programs.
|
|
b) For the purpose of fulfilling the above-noted
condition, the licensee may claim the new dramatic programming credit set out
in Public Notice 1999-205 as
may be amended from time to time. |
|
c) The licensee is not entitled to claim the
dramatic programming credit set out in Certification for Canadian Programs
– A revised approach, Public Notice CRTC
2000-42, 17 March 2000. |
|
2. The licensee shall broadcast at least 10
hours per week of local programming in categories other than 1 (News), 12
(Interstitials), 13 (Public Service Announcements) and 14 (Infomercials,
promotional and corporate videos) between 6 p.m. and midnight. For purposes
of this condition, "local programming" means station productions or
programming produced by Toronto-based independent producers that reflects the
particular needs and interests of Toronto residents. |
|
3. At least 20% of Canadian acquired programming
broadcast by the licensee in each broadcast week shall be ethnic programming.
For the purpose of this condition, "ethnic programming" means programming in
English that is specifically directed to any culturally or racially distinct
group other than one whose heritage is Aboriginal Canadian, from France, or
from the British Isles. |
|
4. a) Over the licence term, the licensee shall
expend at least $6,650,000 in licence fees for independently-produced ethnic
programs in English, and at least $725,000 for script and concept development
for such programs. Administrative costs shall not be included in these
amounts. The programming funded by the amounts set out in this condition
shall not include any programming covered by conditions of licence 3 and 4b).
For purposes of this condition, "expend" means actual cash outlay. |
|
b) Over the licence term, the licensee shall
expend at least $6,650,000 on licence fees for priority programs, and at
least $675,000 for script and concept development for such programs.
Administrative costs shall not be included in these amounts. The programming
funded by the amounts set out in this condition shall not include
expenditures on any programming covered by conditions of licence 3 and 4a).
For purposes of this condition, "expend" means actual cash outlay. |
|
c) The licensee, beginning in the station’s
first broadcast year, shall submit annual reports to the Commission setting
out details concerning receipts and disbursements for both its New Voice
Fund and its Priority Programming Fund. The reports shall be filed
concurrently with its annual returns. |
|
5. The licensee shall caption 90% of all
programming during the broadcast day, including 100% of all news programming. |
|
6. The applicant shall provide described video
for all programming produced through the Priority Program Fund and the
New Voices Fund. |
|
7. The licensee shall adhere to the guidelines
on gender portrayal set out in the Canadian Association of Broadcasters'
(CAB) Sex-role portrayal code for television and radio programming, as
amended from time to time and approved by the Commission. The application of
the foregoing condition of licence will be suspended as long as the licensee
remains a member in good standing of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
(CBSC). |
|
8. The licensee shall adhere to the provisions
of the CAB's Broadcast code for advertising to children, as amended
from time to time and approved by the Commission. |
|
9. The licensee shall adhere to the guidelines
on the depiction of violence in television programming set out in the CAB’s
Voluntary code regarding violence in television programming, as
amended from time to time and approved by the Commission. The application of
the foregoing condition of licence will be suspended as long as the licensee
remains a member in good standing of the CBSC. |
|
Dissenting opinion of Commissioner Joan Pennefather
|
|
I respectfully disagree with the majority
decision in this matter. I would have licenced the proposal presented by TDNG
Inc. (TDNG) |
|
In my view, in not granting the licence
resulting from this hearing to TDNG, the Commission has missed an important
and timely opportunity, that is, to bring innovative local and regional
Canadian programming to Canadian viewers on over-the-air television. |
|
The Broadcasting Act, among other things,
calls for the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system to be
predominately Canadian, to be varied and comprehensive, and to be drawn from
local, regional, national and international sources. |
|
This hearing followed a call for applications
for television services to serve all or any of Toronto, Hamilton and
Kitchener, Ontario. Among other points, the Commission stated that it would
examine the contributions the proposed services would make to the objectives
of the Broadcasting Act, and in particular to the production of local
and regional programming (Public Notice
2001-51). In my view, TDNG ‘s
proposal met this objective most effectively, offering a substantial amount
of local and regional programming and an innovative approach to its
production and scheduling. If we consider as well the Canadian Television
Policy (Building on Success – A Policy Framework for Canadian Television
(Public Notice 1999-97)), the
TDNG application met, and even surpassed, the expectations of this policy and
in particular its goal to assure local and regional programming continues to
be available to Canadian audiences. |
|
It is important to remember that this hearing
was about over-the-air commercial television. What set the TDNG proposal
ahead of the others, in my view, was its programming schedule: 85% Canadian
content all day, every day, all week and all year. Their premise: an 85%
Canadian schedule is not only viable, but can also be accomplished by
presenting to viewers a high concentration of local and regional programming.
And this on three separate stations, in Toronto, Hamilton and Kitchener
respectively. The increased benefit to viewers in these communities was
evident. |
|
In looking at this schedule, there is another
factor to consider. What was proposed here was a new paradigm. That is, a
schedule which did not assume that a large quantity of American shows is the
only way to support Canadian over-the-air television station. This has
considerable merit and deserved to be given the chance to reach Canadian
viewers. As well, the Commission heard several serious concerns about a new
player chasing a limited supply of popular American shows for a typically
Americanized schedule, and the inflationary impact this would have on costs
and hence, in the standard paradigm, on the money available to invest in
Canadian programming. |
|
TDNG ’s schedule, albeit new and daring, was
backed, in my view, by a solid and viable financial plan, built on thorough
demand studies, and appropriate projections for revenues and market share. In
terms of the financing of the programming, I do not share the doubts
expressed by the majority and submit that a thorough review of the record
bears this out. |
|
In support of its 85% Canadian content schedule,
TDNG's production budget covered both internal production and commissions
from independent producers for one-offs and/or program series. Assurances
were provided regarding production funding for each of the stations. In terms
of the commissioned programs, which is the focus of the majority’s comments,
the applicant planned to provide a combination of licence fees, investment
financing and internal resources, with producers maintaining the rights to
programs and, of course, having the ability to enhance budgets through the
standard funding mechanisms. |
|
There was considerable discussion with the
applicant regarding the costs of programming. In assessing this matter, it is
very important to consider carefully the specific schedule, or the kinds of
programs proposed, be they documentaries (of many kinds), children’s, human
interest and other non-news shows. In my opinion, assuming only a certain
kind of "documentary" and fixing an arbitrary amount on its total production
cost, does not give a complete picture of the application. |
|
The application offered different programming
(which I believe is a point in its favor). The program budgets will vary.
Several examples of feasible production budgets for programs, including
documentaries, were presented by the applicant and intervening producers. As
a result, I consider the financing assumptions viable. Further, in looking at
the totality of the sources for productions, it is interesting to review the
applicant’s approach to equity investment. In my view, rather than being seen
as a doubtful strategy, this should also be assessed as an important
contribution to local and regional programming by one of Canada’s most
experienced media companies. The same can be said for the contribution of
internal resources, which included access to considerable archives, as well
as studios and equipment. Such resources can be extremely important for
producers, especially new ones. |
|
Again, as one of Canada’s leading media
companies, in discussing the benefits this would offer, and the challenges,
the applicant was forthright in offering the means to assure that programming
decisions would be editorially independent of newpaper interests, in a manner
which is in line with the Commission’s position in similar situations. |
|
TDNG’s program schedule and financial model are
indeed new approaches, and not without some risk. However, in my view, this
was a risk well worth taking, for viewers, producers, and in the interests of
balance and diversity in Canadian television. |
|
From a policy perspective, there is no doubt
that what was being offered would bring new voices and new formats to
Canadian over-the-air conventional broadcasting. As noted by a well-known
producer, intervening on behalf of TDNG: |
|
"The rich diversity of this part of the country (Southern Ontario) is
still not being reflected in its wonderful entirely because there is no
place for it." (Transcript, Volume 5, p 3665)
|
|
Again, from a policy perspective, I respectfully
submit that the TDNG application boldly addressed one of the key challenges
facing the Canadian broadcasting system now, and in the future. That is, how
to assure Canadian viewers have meaningful local and regional programming on
over-the-air commercial television. As said during the hearing by one of the
intervenors well versed in Canadian journalism and production : |
|
"It (Torstar) will not abandon local programming to run a network-wide
entertainment blockbuster instead of a municipal election, which has
happened in the case of some national networks. Local programming has to
take on a new importance in the multi-channel environment. The main
networks have abandoned it, or made it a very low priority. It will be
Hometown’s reason for existing." (Transcript, Volume 5, p. 3772)
|
|
This application offered an important
opportunity to further the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and the
Television Policy. With this in mind, and in full support of the points
raised by the Vice Chairperson of Broadcasting in her dissent, I would have
licenced the TDNG application. As demonstrated above, I do not agree that it
should have been denied for financial reasons. |
|
Dissenting opinion of Vice-Chair broadcasting, Andrée Wylie
|
|
I cannot agree with the decision of the
majority. |
|
I would have granted TDNG Inc. (Torstar)
broadcasting licences to operate over-the-air television stations in Toronto,
Hamilton and Kitchener, Ontario. |
|
Torstar’s applications were predicated on the
broadcasting of 85% Canadian content during the broadcast day, during the
evening broadcast period and during peak time, including eight hours of
priority programming weekly between 7:00 and 11:00 p.m. They were also
predicated on an intensely local schedule, more particularly a commitment to
broadcast 32.5 hours of local programming weekly on each of the three
stations. |
|
The majority licensed Craig Broadcast Systems
Inc. (Craig) to operate an over-the-air television station in Toronto, with a
retransmitter in Hamilton. Craig’s application was predicated on the
broadcasting of 60% Canadian content during the broadcast day and 50% during
the evening broadcast period, the minimum level currently required by the
Television Broadcasting Regulations, including eight hours of priority
programming weekly between 7:00 and 11:00 p.m. It was also predicated on a
commitment to broadcast 14.5 hours of local programming weekly in Toronto. |
|
One of the reasons, if not the principal reason,
underlying the majority’s denial of Torstar’s applications was the belief
that Torstar’s business plan could not be executed as filed. Torstar’s
proposals represent a departure from the business model for the provision of
over-the-air television that has developed to date. However, a balanced
analysis of all the elements of the applications does not reveal, in my view,
weaknesses as to their feasibility that warrant a denial on that ground. I
note that, at the hearing, seasoned independent producers agreed that
attractive programming could be produced within the base budgets proposed by
Torstar, when all elements were considered. Moreover, the business risk, if
business risk there was, would have been assumed by the applicant, a large,
successful Canadian multi-media corporation in the largest market in Canada. |
|
The recent trend toward concentration in the
television industry and the consequent focus on national audiences have led
to concerns about the continued availability of local programming for
viewers. Torstar’s proposals provided to the Commission an opportunity, not
only to license a new entrant in broadcasting, but to make possible, in the
largest market in Canada, the development of a new business model that would
bring to television viewers diversity, more Canadian content and more local
programming, in conformity with some of the core objectives of the
Broadcasting Act. |
|
What Toronto and Hamilton viewers will get
instead is, in large part, more of the same. In addition, licensing one more
television station based on the conventional business model to compete for
foreign programming and national advertising could have an impact on the
quality of service delivered to viewers by existing licensees in the markets
concerned. |
Date Modified: 2002-04-08 |