|
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-2
|
|
Ottawa, 21 January 2004
|
|
Introduction to Broadcasting Decisions CRTC 2004-6 to 2004-27
renewing the licences of 22 specialty services
|
|
In decisions issued today, the
Commission renews the licences of 22 specialty services from 1 March
2004 to 31 August 2010. All of the renewal applications were by the
licensees of services authorized by the Commission in September of 1996.
They were considered at the 26 May 2003 Public Hearing in the National
Capital Region. The May Public Hearing was the Commission’s opportunity
to review the licensees’ performance during their initial term, examine
their financial circumstances, and assess their contributions to the
Canadian broadcasting system. At the hearing, the Commission also
explored amendments proposed by certain of the applicants concerning,
among other things, their nature of service conditions of licence and
their per-subscriber wholesale rates for carriage by broadcasting
distribution undertakings as part of the basic service. |
|
This notice discusses the various issues
under examination at the hearing, and outlines the general approach the
Commission has decided to follow with respect to each issue. Details
regarding each applicant’s specific proposals for the new licence term,
and the conditions of licence and other obligations imposed by the
Commission on each service, are set out in the individual renewal
decisions that accompany this notice. |
|
Overview |
1. |
The 22 specialty services whose licence
renewals are the subject of today’s decisions were originally licensed
in September 1996 and commenced operations over the course of the
following four years. They are referred to throughout this notice as the
1996 services. Their licensees, and the numbers of their individual
renewal decisions, are listed in the appendix to this notice. |
2. |
At the time the 22 specialty services were
approved in 1996, there were 21 other analog specialty services then
already operating in Canada. Today, the landscape has changed
considerably. Almost 120 Canadian specialty services - both analog and
digital - are in operation, offering programming in a variety of genres.
These services are complemented by a list of more than 90 non-Canadian,
satellite-delivered television services that are eligible for
distribution by broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) in
accordance with the Commission’s distribution and linkage requirements1. |
3. |
In the 1995/96 broadcast year, the total
revenues earned by the 21 Canadian analog specialty services that were
then in operation were approximately $542 million. Last year, some 48
Canadian analog specialty services were in operation and earned revenues
amounting to just over $1.3 billion. Of this amount, over $439 million
was earned by the 1996 services. In the 2002 broadcast year, the average
profit margin before deductions for interest and tax earned by the
analog specialty service industry (the PBIT margin, or profitability
expressed as a percentage of revenues), was 19.4%. Eleven of the 1996
services earned PBIT margins that exceeded 20%. |
4. |
Some of the 1996 services now up for
licence renewal are experiencing financial losses. As indicated by the
above, however, the group as a whole is on a reasonably sound financial
footing. Accordingly, in Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing CRTC
2003-3, 21 March 2003 (the Notice of Hearing), the Commission advised
each applicant that, at the licence renewal hearing to be held starting
on 26 May 2003 (the May hearing), the Commission intended to examine
"the appropriateness of increasing the licensee’s contributions to
Canadian programming, in terms of the exhibition of Canadian content
and/or expenditure commitments, where existing commitments to Canadian
programming and/or to Canadian programming expenditures are low in
relation to other specialty services, or where the financial situation
or nature of service warrants it." |
5. |
The Commission also indicated in the Notice
of Hearing that it wished to consider various other issues at the
hearing, including the following: |
|
- the proposals by certain specialty licensees to increase the
wholesale rates they are authorized to charge BDUs, and the criteria
employed by the Commission in setting such rates;
|
|
- other proposals by licensees to amend their nature of service
conditions of licence (particularly where the changes would represent
a significant shift), for the purpose of ensuring that such amendments
are consistent with the Commission’s one-per-genre policy and its
objective of programming diversity;
|
|
- the mechanisms and policies that licensees have in place to ensure
that programming distributed over various time zones and intended for
adult audiences is sensitive to viewers’ concerns about violence in
television programming and is scheduled during the watershed hours of
9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. in all time zones;
|
|
- the service provided to subscribers who are blind or have a visual
impairment, and to those who are deaf or hard of hearing;
|
|
- the ways in which each licensee contributes to a broadcasting
system that accurately reflects the presence in Canada of
ethno-cultural minorities and Aboriginal peoples; and
|
|
- each licensee’s commitments to independent production, as well as
its contributions to regional production and reflection.
|
6. |
The following sections of this notice
outline the various issues that were examined at the public hearing, as
they touch upon the specialty services as a group, as well as the
general approach the Commission has decided to follow with respect to
each issue. Certain of these matters are revisited in the individual
renewal decisions that accompany this notice. The individual decisions
set out the details regarding an applicant’s specific proposals for the
new licence term, and the conditions of licence and other obligations
determined by the Commission for each service. |
|
Expenditures on, and exhibition of, Canadian programming
|
7. |
The Canadian programming requirements
imposed on specialty services at the time of licensing or at licence
renewal are determined by the Commission on a case-by-case basis. The
Commission’s requirements are based on such considerations as the genre
of the service proposed by the applicant, the availability of Canadian
programming falling within that genre, and the applicant’s other plans
and commitments. The Commission also takes into account the applicant’s
proposed wholesale fee and the type of carriage on BDUs that the service
would receive. As noted above, in the Notice of Hearing the Commission
indicated that it intended to examine the appropriateness of increasing
the licensees’ expenditure and/or exhibition requirements for Canadian
programming. |
8. |
At the May hearing, certain interveners
noted that the financial performance of many of the 1996 services had
well exceeded their original projections. These interveners were thus in
favour of expanding the obligations imposed on specialty services with
respect to Canadian program spending and exhibition. The Directors Guild
of Canada (DGC), for example, highlighted what it described as "the
growing importance of the commitments of specialty services to the
achievement of the goals of the Broadcasting Act." According to
the DGC, it follows that "those entities that are able to contribute
more to the Canadian broadcasting system in their renewal terms should
be required by the Commission to do so…". This view was also shared by
the Writers Guild of Canada (WGC), the Alliance of Canadian Cinema,
Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA), and by the Communication, Energy
and Paper Workers Union of Canada (CEP). |
9. |
A group of four independent producers who
appeared at the hearing argued that the system would benefit to a
greater degree if more money were spent on fewer programs. They
suggested that this would permit the production of better quality
programming. |
10. |
The most frequently expressed view among
the licensees of the 1996 services themselves was that the Commission
should not penalize their entrepreneurial success by imposing
requirements for Canadian program expenditures and exhibition that are
any more onerous than those that currently apply. Many of these
services, supported by their industry association, the Canadian
Association of Broadcasters (CAB), argued that any across the board
increases would be inappropriate due to the challenges the industry now
faces as a result of increased competition, audience fragmentation, and
uncertainties associated with the transition to digital distribution.
Licensees also suggested that the specialty industry has matured, and
that subscriber revenues and advertising revenues earned by specialty
services have reached a plateau. |
11. |
The Commission notes that there has been a
pattern over the past decade of growth in the advertising revenues of
specialty services, growth that has been sustained even in years when
the launch of new specialty services brought increased competition for
these revenues. The Commission also notes that the existing requirements
for Canadian program expenditures and exhibition were imposed at the
time of initial licensing, when the services had no track record upon
which to base projections. |
12. |
As indicated earlier, the average PBIT
margin earned by the specialty industry last year stood at a very
healthy level. Traditionally, the Commission has considered it
appropriate that a broadcaster’s profitability be taken into account
when assessing the contribution it should be called upon to make to the
Canadian broadcasting system. At the same time, the Commission agrees
with those who suggested that it would be unfair and, over the long
term, potentially counter-productive, for the Commission to increase the
requirements imposed on profitable specialty licensees to a degree that
would unduly penalize their entrepreneurial success and undercut their
motivation to continue pursuing increased profit margins. |
13. |
Based on its consideration of the record of
this proceeding, the Commission has therefore decided to adopt a
graduated approach in setting Canadian programming expenditure
requirements that the licensees of the 1996 services will be required to
meet during the upcoming licence term, based upon the historical average
PBIT margin for each service over the initial licence term. Using this
approach, incremental increases in Canadian programming expenditure
requirements for undertakings have been determined as follows. |
14. |
Licensees whose historical PBIT levels have
been in the 20 to 24% range will be required to increase their minimum
annual expenditures on Canadian programming by an increment of three
percentage points over the amounts specified in their existing
conditions of licence. Increments of four and six percentage points will
be required of licensees whose historical PBIT levels have been between
25 and 29%, and 35 and 39%, respectively. Licensees with historic PBIT
levels above 40% will be required to increase their minimum annual
expenditures on Canadian programming over the amounts specified in their
existing conditions of licence by an increment of seven percentage
points. Licensees having a historical PBIT of less than 20% will be
required to make minimum expenditures on Canadian programming at the
same levels required by their existing conditions of licence. |
15. |
The Commission is satisfied that this
approach is balanced and fair to all parties, taking into account the
past financial performance of each service, and its projections going
forward. The Commission notes that, under its approach, those specialty
services whose Canadian programming expenditure requirements have been
increased are still projected to achieve reasonable profit margins
throughout the next licence term, while those that have recorded PBIT
margins of under 20% during their first licence term have not been
required to increase their spending on Canadian programming at this
time. |
16. |
The Commission is of the view that it would
be more beneficial at this time to focus on increasing the amount that
the 1996 services spend on Canadian programming than on increasing the
overall amount of such programming that they exhibit. In this regard,
the Commission has taken into account the views of those interveners who
suggested that such an approach would allow licensees greater
flexibility to attract audiences and advertising revenues through the
scheduling of relatively less expensive, but popular non-Canadian
programming, while encouraging them to focus their resources on the
production of Canadian programming of higher quality. In adopting this
approach, the Commission has also been mindful of the demand currently
being placed on production funds such as the Canadian Television Fund (CTF).
|
17. |
For those specialty service licensees whose
condition of licence requirements with respect to Canadian programming
are altered by today’s decisions, the new requirements will come into
effect on 1 September 2004, the beginning of a new broadcast year. The
Commission considers that this lead time will provide licensees with
sufficient opportunity to adjust their programming strategies in
response. |
|
Eligibility of Canadian Television Fund top-ups as Canadian
programming expenditures
|
18. |
There was discussion at the hearing
concerning whether broadcasters should continue to be permitted to
claim, as part of their Canadian program expenditures, the amounts they
submit to the CTF as licence fee top-ups to trigger new productions. The
DGC, WGC and ACTRA, supported by CEP, argued in their submissions that
such top-ups should no longer count as a credit towards a licensee’s
Canadian programming expenditure requirements. The Canadian Film and
Television Production Association (CFTPA) agreed with this view in
principle, but argued that a licence renewal hearing did not provide the
best venue to examine all possible implications of the issue or reach
fully informed conclusions on the matter. The CFTPA was generally
supported in this view by broadcasters. Since not all interested parties
had the opportunity to comment during this proceeding, the Commission
has decided to make no determination on the issue at this time. |
|
Wholesale rates
|
19. |
Licensees of three of the 1996 services
proposed increases in their wholesale rates. Discussion at the May
hearing focused on the purposes served by the regulation of wholesale
rates and the criteria that the Commission should apply in setting them.
In their interventions, BDU licensees generally opposed the rate
increases proposed by the three licensees, and recommended that
decreases be ordered in the case of more profitable services. They
argued that decreases would oblige the specialty services to rely more
on advertising revenues and strive to achieve greater operational
efficiencies. Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco) and Quebecor Media Inc.
suggested that the wholesale rates of specialty services should no
longer be regulated. |
20. |
The licensees of specialty services
generally argued that wholesale rates for specialty services should
remain regulated, since these rates serve as a basis for negotiating
discretionary rates with BDUs. They were also of the view that the
regulation of wholesale rates by the Commission through a public process
was preferable to a system in which rates would be totally determined by
market forces or by a dispute resolution process. |
21. |
Interveners and applicants proposed
criteria for setting rates that included both objective and subjective
elements, such as the contributions made by a service to the
broadcasting system, its financial circumstances and its popularity
among viewers. Some proposed that there be a rate of return benchmark
for the specialty industry, or that the cost of programming in a genre,
particularly of Canadian programming, be considered. Other suggestions
were that rate setting should encompass consideration of the entire
broadcasting environment, including the current economic situation,
technological changes, competitive factors and synergies between
services. |
22. |
The Commission has considered the views of
the parties. As a general principle, the Commission considers that
specialty services should examine all possible alternative means to
expand their revenues, especially their advertising revenues, before
applying to increase their wholesale rates. In assessing the current
applications by three specialty licensees for rate increases, the
Commission has decided to follow the same approach as that followed in
other recent cases involving, for example, Newsworld and Vision TV.
Specifically, the Commission has been guided by the following
principles: |
|
- any increase granted by the Commission in the wholesale rate
charged by a specialty service must be devoted to incremental
programming-related expenditures;
|
|
- the new or enhanced programming that results must be consistent
with the undertaking’s nature of service conditions of licence; and
|
|
- no portion of the increase may go directly to enhancing a
licensee’s profitability.
|
23. |
The Commission’s application of these
principles in the decisions accompanying this notice has resulted in the
partial approval of increases in the wholesale rates charged by two of
the specialty services concerned (The Score and CTV Newsnet) and the
denial of any increase in the case of the third service (SportsNet). In
each of its two decisions granting partial approvals, the Commission has
required that annual reports be filed demonstrating that the licensee
has met the Commission’s expectations that incremental revenues earned
from the rate increase be directed either to maintaining programming
enhancements introduced following the original licensing decision or to
new programming improvements proposed in the licence renewal
application. |
|
Proposed amendments to nature of service conditions of licence
|
24. |
As indicated earlier, several licensees of
the 1996 services included requests in their renewal applications for
amendments to their nature of service conditions of licence. Eight
licensees proposed amendments that would either broaden the range of
subcategories of category 7 Drama programming identified in their
current nature of service conditions of licence or permit them to
include category 7 programming in their schedules for the first time.
Other licensees requested amendments that would add programming from
other categories, such as category 10 Game shows, or would alter other
programming elements included in their nature of service conditions of
licence. |
25. |
Several interveners, including Stornoway
Communications Limited Partnership, Alliance Atlantis Communications
Inc. (Alliance Atlantis), Pelmorex Communications Inc., Cogeco, TQS
inc., CHUM Limited and CTV Television Inc., expressed concern about any
change that would alter the nature of a particular service or would move
the service in a direction that would increase competition with other
specialty services, thereby lessening diversity and calling into
question the Commission’s one-per-genre policy for specialty services.
Global Television Network Inc. suggested that the proposals by certain
licensees to add non-Canadian drama would increase the competition, and
hence the price, for the rights to such programming. |
26. |
Several other interveners were supportive
of those applications that sought authority to introduce a Canadian
drama component to a service, or to expand the amount or the number of
subcategories of Canadian drama beyond those currently authorized.
Alliance Atlantis supported the broadcast of Canadian drama provided it
was "suitably themed". The CFTPA was also generally supportive of the
proposed amendments by specialty licensees to add or increase the
broadcast of Canadian drama, provided that the goals of genre protection
were taken into account. The DGC, WGC, ACTRA and CEP suggested that the
hearing could serve as a useful forum to explore a number of broad
issues surrounding Canadian drama, including an examination of the role
that specialty services should play in providing such programming. In
this context, they proposed that all specialty services be permitted to
air original Canadian drama. |
27. |
In light of the Commission’s
one-per-genre policy and its objective of maintaining programming
diversity, in examining the proposals seeking authority to add or
increase drama programming or for other modifications to a licensee’s
permitted programming, the Commission has sought to determine whether
each particular modification would be consistent with the nature of the
licensee’s service. The Commission has also examined each licensee’s
nature of service condition of licence to determine whether certain
other amendments might be warranted in the interest of greater
consistency, precision and clarity, and to reduce the potential for
misunderstanding or misinterpretation. In those cases where a licensee
has proposed to introduce a drama component to its programming service
for the first time, the Commission has required that the additional
component be in keeping with the licensee’s nature of service, and that
it be exclusively in support of Canadian drama programming. The
Commission’s determinations with respect to the proposed amendments to
each licensee’s nature of service conditions of licence are set out in
the individual decisions concerned. |
28. |
As regards the views of the DGC, WGC, ACTRA,
CEP and others that the hearing be used as a forum to explore questions
and concerns surrounding the overall presence of drama on Canadian
television, the Commission notes that, in Support for Canadian
television drama – Call for comments, Broadcasting Public
Notice CRTC 2003-54, 26 September 2003, it has initiated a separate
public process to consider those issues. |
|
Independent production
|
29. |
Section 3(1)(i)(v) of the
Broadcasting Act (the Act) states that the programming provided by
the Canadian broadcasting system should "include a significant
contribution from the Canadian independent production sector."
Accordingly, in their applications, the specialty service licensees were
asked to describe their commitments to the broadcast of programming
produced by non-related2
independent producers. The Commission’s concern is to ensure that
independent production companies unaffiliated with the licensee have
reasonable access to the licensee’s program schedule. |
30. |
The licensees’ responses varied as to the
amounts of independent production they committed to offer. Some
suggested that a specific commitment would be inappropriate, given the
nature of the service they provide. Others suggested that the concern
underlying the Commission’s request did not arise in their particular
instance because they did not own, or were otherwise unrelated to, a
production company. |
31. |
In its intervention, the CFTPA commented on
ten of the 1996 services that exhibited the types of drama, children’s,
documentary and performance programming that are created by the CFTPA’s
members. The CFTPA recommended that these licensees generally be
required to ensure that at least 75% of their original Canadian
programming is the product of independent producers. |
32. |
The Commission considers that it is
appropriate to establish obligations with respect to the use of
independent production. However, a standard approach for all specialty
services would not permit the Commission to consider the inherent
differences that exist between one genre of specialty programming and
another. Accordingly, the Commission has adopted a case-by-case
approach, as measured against a 75% benchmark. Because circumstances
change, it also considers it reasonable that such obligations be
identified for licensees who may not currently be related to any
production company. |
33. |
Accordingly, in the decisions that
accompany this notice, the Commission has called upon those specialty
service licensees that operate in genres other than sports, news and
current affairs to ensure that a certain minimum amount of the Canadian
content they broadcast consists of programming acquired from non-related
producers. The Commission has also stated that there should be an
emphasis in such programming on original, first-run programs. An
original, first-run program is defined in the Specialty Services
Regulations, 1990 as the "original exhibition of a program that has
not been distributed by another broadcasting undertaking licensed by the
Commission". |
34. |
Consistent with the Commission’s objective
of promoting greater regional reflection and increasing the exhibition
of programming produced outside of the major production centres of
Vancouver, Toronto and Montréal, licensees are expected to ensure that
their programming is broadly reflective of all of Canada’s regions, and
that producers from outside the major production centres have the
opportunity to produce programming for the services. |
|
Reporting requirements
|
35. |
The CFTPA, DGC, WGC and ACTRA, supported by
CEP, recommended that the Commission impose additional reporting
requirements on specialty services. Specifically, the CFTPA submitted
that licensees should file annual reports on the original productions
they commission or acquire, including information concerning the amounts
paid as licence fees to related parties and unaffiliated producers. The
DGC proposed that the Commission issue annual reports on the
expenditures by licensees in each program category. |
36. |
The Commission has considered the views of
these interveners, and has concluded that the existing reporting
requirements, coupled with the Commission’s ability to call upon a
licensee to provide additional information when such information is
required, renders additional reporting requirements unnecessary at this
time. |
|
Terms of trade agreements
|
37. |
In its intervention, the CFTPA raised
concerns that some broadcasters are asking independent producers to sign
licensing agreements that allow for the exhibition of a program on more
than one of the undertakings owned by a broadcaster. According to the
intervener: |
|
This push to license multi-platform exhibition rights raises
serious concerns for the production community since it undermines
the ability of the producer to negotiate separate licensing
agreements for each broadcast window, with the licence fee
determined by the value of each exhibition window. This type of
issue is the primary reason that the CFTPA wishes to develop terms
of trade agreements with the various broadcast ownership groups in
Canada.
|
38. |
The Commission notes the CFTPA’s concerns
in this matter. It considers that terms of trade agreements between
broadcasters and the CFTPA would be to the benefit of all elements of
the Canadian broadcasting system, and encourages the establishment of
such agreements. |
|
Reflection of Canada’s diversity
|
|
On-air presence
|
39. |
In the case of each broadcasting licensee,
the Commission examines the on-air presence of those employees falling
within each of the four groups designated under the Employment Equity
Act, namely women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and
members of visible minorities. Specifically, the Commission expects
licensees to ensure that the on-air presence of members of the four
designated groups is reflective of Canadian society, and that members of
these groups are presented fairly, accurately and in a manner that is
non-stereotypical. |
40. |
As discussed below, the broader initiatives
undertaken by each licensee with respect to cultural diversity should be
instrumental in addressing the on-air presence of those within the
designated groups. Based on data furnished by the 1996 specialty service
licensees regarding on-air staff, the Commission notes that women are
generally well represented, and that visible minorities are beginning to
gain representation in on-air positions. However, far too few on-air
positions are filled by Aboriginal persons or persons with disabilities.
The Commission expects licensees to take steps to address any gap in the
presence in their on-air staff of persons from all four designated
groups. |
|
Cultural diversity
|
41. |
Several interveners called upon the
Commission to ensure that the reflection and portrayal of Canada’s
diversity continues to be a high priority. The International Council for
Diversity in Film and Television, Center for Research – Action on Race
Relations, Inner City Films Inc. and L’Institut Pearson – Shoyama
Institute all emphasized the importance of the initiatives currently
being undertaken by the Commission and the industry, and urged the
Commission to ensure that specialty services also contribute to these
efforts. They called upon the Commission to require the filing of
detailed cultural diversity plans, coupled with annual reports on
progress, and to ensure that adequate resources are allocated to the
evaluation and monitoring of these plans. |
42. |
All broadcasting licensees, including those
that operate specialty services, have a responsibility to contribute to
the reflection and portrayal of Canada’s cultural diversity in
furtherance of the policy objectives contained in section 3(1)(d) of the
Act. Specifically, broadcasters share responsibility for assisting in
the development of a broadcasting system that accurately reflects
Canada’s ethno-cultural minorities and Aboriginal peoples. This also
means that broadcasters must ensure that the portrayal of such groups,
through their presence and participation on-screen, is accurate, fair
and non-stereotypical. |
43. |
To assist in achieving these objectives,
the Commission expects licensees to file corporate plans on cultural
diversity, detailing the measures they will take and procedures they
will follow to ensure that their ongoing responsibilities to reflect and
portray cultural diversity are properly discharged. The Commission also
expects licensees to support the ongoing work of the Task Force for
Cultural Diversity in Television initiated by Representation of
cultural diversity on television – Creation of an industry/community
task force, Public Notice CRTC 2001-88, 2 August 2001, and assist in
the development and implementation of best practices. |
44. |
Most of those specialty services whose
renewal applications are approved in today’s decisions belong to
corporate groups that have already filed these corporate plans. The
Commission expects these licensees to continue to work towards the
implementation of these plans. In the case of those licensees that have
not yet filed corporate plans, the Commission has notified them in
today’s decisions of the requirement that they do so by no later than
three months following today’s date. In addition, all licensees must
file annual reports with the Commission, detailing the actions they have
taken and the progress they have achieved towards attaining the
objectives of their corporate plans. |
45. |
As discussed further below, corporate plans
should include detailed, specific initiatives relating to each of the
three areas of corporate accountability, reflection of diversity in
programming, and community involvement. Corporate plans must also
specify how progress will be assessed with respect to the initiatives in
each of these areas. |
|
Corporate accountability
|
46. |
The Commission considers that
integration within a corporate plan of the elements set out below will
help ensure that a licensee’s corporate culture supports the reflection
of cultural diversity in the programming that is presented by the
service. In this section of its plan, the licensee should set goals
toward creating a corporate culture that supports a programming service
reflective of Canada's cultural diversity, including its Aboriginal
reality, by: |
|
- identifying a senior executive who will be accountable for
diversity practices and ensuring that management becomes more
reflective of Canada's diversity;
|
|
- setting clear goals for the manager of each undertaking for the
reflection of Canada’s diversity;
|
|
- ensuring that all managers receive appropriate training;
|
|
- ensuring that regular opportunities are provided for staff
assessment of progress made toward the reflection of diversity, as
well as for identification of future challenges; and
|
|
- setting out the licensee's plans for hiring and retention of
visible minorities and Aboriginal persons, as well as training in this
area that it will provide to staff.
|
|
Reflection of diversity in programming
|
47. |
The licensee’s plan should include specific
initiatives whose purpose is to ensure that the diversity of Canadian
society is reflected fairly and consistently in the programming
presented by the service. More particularly, the licensee's plan should
address the presence of people from diverse backgrounds, both in
programming that the licensee produces and in programming that the
licensee acquires. As well, the plan should address the way that
Canada’s diversity is portrayed in programming. |
48. |
In the case of services that provide news
and information programming, the licensee should identify mechanisms to
ensure that: |
|
- people from visible minority groups and Aboriginal communities are
used as sources, regardless of whether the issue being discussed is
particularly related to a specific community;
|
|
- stories about visible minority or Aboriginal communities do not
appear solely within the context of coverage of cultural celebrations
or reporting of negative stories;
|
|
- on-air personalities reflect Canada’s diversity; and
|
|
- reporters and journalists from visible minority and Aboriginal
communities are not assigned exclusively to covering stories of
principal concern to cultural groups.
|
49. |
In the case of services that provide
programming other than news and information, corporate plans should
address how the portrayal and presence of visible minorities and
Aboriginal peoples will be incorporated into all stages of the
production and acquisition of such programming, including decisions
about which programs will be broadcast. For instance, the plan should
address how the licensee will ensure that: |
|
- those responsible for casting make a concerted effort to hire
visible minority and Aboriginal actors in leading and recurring roles;
|
|
- those responsible for script development ensure that visible
minorities and Aboriginal persons are not portrayed in a stereotypical
manner; and
|
|
- programming from independent producers reflects the presence and
accurate portrayal of visible minorities and Aboriginal peoples.
|
|
Community involvement
|
50. |
The plan should describe the mechanisms
that the licensee will put in place to ensure that it receives effective
input and feedback from its viewers, and from the public at large, with
respect to the reflection of cultural diversity, including Aboriginal
cultures, in its programming.
|
|
Reflection of persons with disabilities
|
51. |
Don Peuramaki of Fireweed Productions Inc.
and the National Federation of the Blind: Advocates for Equality (NFB:AE)
both filed interventions expressing their particular concern about the
lack of reflection and portrayal provided by broadcasters of persons
with disabilities. Mr. Peuramaki stated that "People with disabilities
should not be ‘out of sight’ nor ‘out of mind’ in this critical industry
which shapes the perception of ourselves as a nation." According to the
NFB:AE, "True-to-life portrayals would serve the valuable purpose of
public education by showing the abilities of people who have a
disability." The CAB indicated in its appearance at the hearing that the
reflection of persons with disabilities is on its agenda and that the
CAB’s Joint Social Issues Committee would investigate the issue. |
52. |
The Commission considers that the presence,
portrayal and participation of persons with disabilities is an important
matter, one that is very much in need of thorough investigation by the
broadcasting industry. The Commission notes in particular the role that
broadcasters can play in helping create and reinforce positive attitudes
towards persons with disabilities. It therefore calls upon the CAB to
develop and file a plan, within six months of today’s date, outlining
the process it would propose be followed to examine issues surrounding
the presence, portrayal and participation of persons with disabilities
in television programming. In the meantime, the Commission expects all
specialty service licensees to take steps to ensure that members of all
four designated groups receive fair on-air representation and, in
particular, to redress the obvious absence of persons having
disabilities in on-air positions. |
53. |
The Commission notes that some broadcasters
have already expanded their definition of diversity to include persons
with disabilities. Indeed, the Commission considers that initiatives to
make programming more reflective and inclusive of Canada’s cultural
diversity can, in many cases, be extended or adapted to ensure fair,
balanced and inclusive reflection and representation of persons with
disabilities. Accordingly, the Commission calls upon these and all other
broadcasters to incorporate persons with disabilities into their
cultural diversity corporate planning. This should be reflected in the
annual reports on cultural diversity filed by broadcasters, beginning
with that due to be filed in December 2004. |
|
Service to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing
|
54. |
The Commission is committed to improving
service to television viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing. Over the
period since the Commission announced its policy on closed captioning
(see Introduction to decisions renewing the licences of
privately-owned English-language television stations, Public Notice
CRTC 1995-48, 24 March 1995), it has consistently encouraged
broadcasters to increase the amount of captioned programming they
provide. |
55. |
Those of the 1996 services operating in the
English language were generally required to provide closed captioning
for 90% of all programming by year seven of their licence terms. There
were exceptions to this general approach which took into account the
financial resources of licensees. Exceptions were also made where the
nature of the proposed service or the limited availability of captioned
programming in a particular genre warranted different captioning
requirements. In the case of those of the 1996 services operating in the
French language, in recognition of the more significant challenges
associated with captioning programming in that language, the Commission
expected licensees to meet their proposed captioning commitments and
encouraged them to exceed these commitments. |
56. |
The English-language specialty services
have generally committed to caption 90% of all programming throughout
the broadcast day in the new licence term. The French-language services
came forward in their applications with meaningful commitments for the
provision of closed captioning. |
57. |
In today’s renewal decisions, the
Commission has generally required the English-language services, by
condition of licence, to caption at least 90% of all programming during
the broadcast day. In most cases, this condition of licence will come
into effect on 1 September 2004. The Commission, however, has provided a
measure of flexibility in the case of certain licensees, specifically
those earning annual revenues of less than $10 million, and those whose
nature of service would make the immediate achievement of this level of
captioning difficult. The licensees of French-language specialty
services have been required, by condition of licence, to meet their
individual commitments to closed captioning, as set out in their
applications, and to achieve 90% captioning by the end of their licence
term. Licensees of ethnic specialty services have been expected to
provide captioning wherever possible. |
58. |
The Commission also asked all 22 applicants
to describe in their renewal applications the measures they have in
place or were planning to take in order to ensure the quality,
reliability and accuracy of their closed captioning. Concerns about the
quality of captioning and the absence of credible standards were
expressed in an intervention filed by Mr. J. Clark. The Commission notes
that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the CAB have quality
standards in place. It expects all of the specialty service licensees to
focus on improving the quality, reliability and accuracy of their closed
captioning, and to work with representatives of the deaf and hard of
hearing community to ensure that captioning continues to meet the needs
of that community. |
|
Service to persons who are blind or whose vision is impaired
|
59. |
Section 3(1)(p) of the Act states, as part
of the broadcasting policy for Canada, that "programming accessible by
disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting
system as resources become available for the purpose". Accordingly, it
is the Commission’s expectation that all broadcasters work toward
improving the accessibility of their programming for persons who are
blind or whose vision is impaired. |
60. |
Greater programming accessibility can be
achieved through the provision of "audio description" and/or of "video
description". Audio description consists of basic voice-over recitations
or descriptions of the text or graphic information that is displayed on
the screen. Although a measure of sensitivity and creativity on the part
of a broadcaster is necessary to ensure the quality and effectiveness of
audio description, no special equipment is required. All broadcasters
can, and should, provide audio description. |
61. |
Video description, or described video,
takes the form of a narrative description of a program’s key visual
elements which permits the audience to create a mental image of what is
on the screen. It is generally provided using the secondary audio
program (SAP) channel. |
62. |
In decisions renewing the licences of the
conventional television stations operated by the principal Canadian
ownership groups, the Commission introduced requirements for the
provision of video description by those television stations serving the
largest markets, beginning at a level of two hours per week of priority
programming in the first year, and increasing to four hours of such
programming in year five. The Commission further required that at least
half of the described video programming be original programming. |
63. |
In recent decisions renewing the licences
of specialty services, the Commission has expected licensees to provide
audio description wherever appropriate, to undertake upgrades to permit
the delivery of described video on a SAP channel, and to acquire and
broadcast described video programming wherever possible. Where
appropriate, the Commission also encouraged specialty service licensees
to provide at least one hour per month of described video programming,
increasing by an additional hour per month in each successive year of
their licence terms. |
64. |
Some parties intervening to the current
group of specialty service renewal applications argued that the
provision of audio description was essential and filled a basic need.
Several interveners wrote to ask for more described video programming,
and of better quality than is currently provided. Mr. J. Clark
recommended that all broadcasters should be required to air described
video programming, and called for the development of industry standards.
The NFB:AE also emphasized the importance of described video
programming. |
65. |
In its intervention, National Broadcast
Reading Service (NBRS) proposed that English-language specialty services
generally be called upon to provide levels of described video
programming equivalent to those required of conventional television
stations. NBRS noted, however, that not all specialty services offer
programming for which described video would be of benefit. Accordingly,
it recommended that services whose programming includes 80% or more of
news and information, sports, or music videos be exempted from
requirements to provide described video programming. |
66. ` |
The Commission is aware that certain of the
specialty service licensees whose renewal applications are under
consideration have the capacity to provide described video using a SAP
channel. Others suggested that they could acquire the necessary capacity
to do so. Still others, however, indicated that significant technical
upgrades would first be required. Overall, the 22 applications contained
few specific commitments to the provision of described video
programming. |
67. |
While parties at the May hearing suggested
that at least two of the larger BDUs may be ready to pass described
video programming through to their subscribers, the Commission expects
that others will need to overcome certain technical difficulties and
capacity constraints before they are also able to do so. In fact, many
of the specialty service licensees indicated that their reluctance to
make commitments to provide described video programming was due to
concerns regarding the ability of BDUs to make it available to their
subscribers. At the hearing, Alliance Atlantis indicated that it and
other members of the specialty services industry were working to find a
solution to these issues in cooperation with the Canadian Satellite
Users Association (CSUA). For its part, the Canadian Cable Television
Association (CCTA) suggested that the solution to certain of the cost
considerations and technical issues now faced by its members with regard
to their delivery of described video programming to subscribers may come
about with completion of the transition from analog to digital delivery
of programming to BDU subscribers. |
68. |
The Commission acknowledges the present
difficulties associated with the delivery of described video programming
to BDU subscribers via the SAP channel. It therefore applauds the
efforts of the CSUA to seek a solution to these difficulties, and
expects all other interested parties to contribute to these efforts. |
69. |
In the meantime, in the accompanying
renewal decisions, the Commission has decided to take a case-by-case
approach, which follows closely that proposed by NBRS, and which takes
into account the nature of each service. The Commission has thus not
imposed any specific requirements on services whose programming is
music-based, or is oriented towards sports, or news and information.
Rather, the Commission’s focus has been on services featuring those
types of programming, such as drama, documentary and children’s
programs, that best lend themselves to described video. Accordingly, in
the case of such services, and depending on individual circumstances,
requirements for the provision of described video programming have been
imposed as conditions of licence. |
70. |
In general, the required amount of
described video programming is set at two hours per week, increasing
after three years to three hours per week. Moreover, a minimum of 50% of
the hours of described video programming required on an annual basis
must be original programming. However, taking into account the
difficulties described above, the Commission has decided that these
requirements shall only come into effect on 1 September 2005, with the
increase to three hours per week beginning no later than 1 September
2008. This timetable should enable the specialty licensees to develop
their programming plans and make the necessary system upgrades. It
should also allow BDUs to make whatever system upgrades they require in
order that they may pass described video through to their subscribers. |
|
Programming delivered across time zones
|
71. |
In Policy on violence in television
programming, Public Notice CRTC 1996-36, 14 March 1996, the
Commission noted concerns expressed by parties that programs originating
in certain time zones were being delivered by satellite to viewers in
other time zones at hours that would be considered as inappropriate for
their broadcast, based on the programs’ content. The Commission
encouraged broadcasters whose services are distributed over various time
zones to be sensitive to their viewers when scheduling programming. |
72. |
Currently, the CAB’s Voluntary code
regarding violence in television programming stipulates that
programming containing scenes of violence intended for adult audiences
may not be broadcast before the late evening viewing period, defined as
9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and commonly referred to as the "watershed"
period. The CAB’s Code of Ethics contains a similar provision
that "sexually explicit material or coarse or offensive language
intended for adult audiences" may only be broadcast between 9:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. The codes specify that these guidelines apply to the time
zone in which the programming originates. |
73. |
The Commission has received complaints
about the availability, outside of the watershed period, of sexually
explicit or violent programming intended for adults. Many of these
complaints have been about programming distributed in western Canada,
but originating in eastern Canada. Some, however, have addressed
programming originating in western time zones, but distributed after
6:00 a.m. in eastern time zones. Accordingly, all specialty service
licensees were advised in the Notice of Hearing that the Commission
would wish to discuss with them the mechanisms and policies that they
may have in place to ensure that programming intended for adult
audiences and distributed over various time zones is sensitive to
viewers’ concerns, and respects the watershed period of 9:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m. in all time zones. |
74. |
Although some of the 1996 services provide
separate eastern and western feeds of their programming, most do not.
Many of the licensees that provide only a single feed contended that
their programming and scheduling policies are sensitive to viewers’
concerns about the airing of violent or sexually explicit program
material outside of the watershed period. They further suggested that
the effectiveness of these policies is strengthened by the use of such
other mechanisms as viewer advisories and the increasing availability of
V-chip devices in television receivers. The CAB also argued that these
existing approaches are sufficient, and that the costs associated with
the ideal solution, i.e., a separate feed for each service in each of
six different time zones, would be prohibitive, particularly in light of
the relatively few complaints on file and the fact that the matter was
not specifically raised as a concern in any intervention to the
proceeding. |
75. |
The Commission wishes to underscore the
importance it places on each broadcaster according proper sensitivity to
the concerns of its viewers with respect to the scheduling of
programming intended for adult audiences, taking into account the time
zone differences between where a program originates and where it is
received. The Commission expects licensees to demonstrate
responsibility, particularly in responding to any complaint. For the
time being, the Commission will not take further measures on this
matter. It will, however, monitor the situation, and is prepared to
intervene, if warranted, by requiring amendments to applicable codes to
ensure that the watershed period is respected regardless of time zone,
or by requiring national specialty services to provide time-shifted
signals. |
|
Secretary General |
|
This document is to be appended to the
licence of each of the services identified in the appendix. It is
available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at
the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca |