|
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-377
|
|
Ottawa, 19 November 2002
|
|
Cable Public Affairs Channel Inc.
Across Canada
|
|
Applications 2002-0127-8 and 2002-0128-6
Public Hearing in the National Capital Region
6 May 2002
|
|
Licence renewal for CPAC; and issuance of a distribution order
|
|
In this decision, the Commission approves the licence renewal
applications by Cable Public Affairs Channel Inc. (CPAC) in respect
of its English- and French-language satellite-to-cable programming
undertakings. The Commission also approves the applicant’s plans
to expand the range of programming categories that make up the
service to include, among other things, long-form documentaries, and
CPAC’s proposal for a new funding model predicated on the
introduction of a new monthly subscriber fee. Further, the
Commission grants the applicant’s request that its service be
designated for mandatory distribution by broadcasting distribution
undertakings, and issues Distribution Order 2002-1 to this effect. |
|
Background |
1. |
Cable Public Affairs Channel Inc. (CPAC) is a federally
incorporated, not-for-profit company that is owned by companies in
the cable television industry. CPAC is licensed to provide, in
English and in French, a public affairs programming service that is
complementary to the exempt programming service that CPAC also
operates. The exempt service includes "gavel-to-gavel"
coverage of the proceedings of the House of Commons. It also
includes coverage of the committees of the House of Commons. The
exempt service has been operated by CPAC pursuant to House of
Commons and Provincial or Territorial Legislature Proceedings
Exemption Order, Public Notice CRTC 1992-6, 17 January
1992, (the Exemption Order) and in accordance with CPAC’s
agreement with the Speaker of the House of Commons. |
2. |
The "wrap-around" programming provided by CPAC’s
licensed service complements the exempt service, and consists of
both long-form programming and in-depth public affairs programming.
The long-form programming of the service as currently licensed
includes coverage of conferences and hearings of government
departments and agencies, and coverage of special events and public
inquiries. CPAC’s in-depth public affairs programming consists of
interviews, talk shows and in-depth reviews of key national events
and policy issues. |
3. |
Since CPAC’s inception in 1993, its licensed and exempt
services have been funded by payments made by broadcasting
distribution undertakings (BDUs) that distribute the service
(affiliates). Currently, these include the licensees of more than 80
licensed cable BDUs and two national direct-to-home (DTH) BDUs.
Together, they ensure the delivery of CPAC to well over 95% of all
BDU subscribers across Canada as part of the basic service.
Hitherto, there has been no basic rate authorized for CPAC. Thus,
subscribers have not been charged any direct fee for CPAC as part of
their subscription rate.
|
4. |
In The distribution of the House of Commons on CPAC,
Public Notice CRTC 2001-115, 6 November 2001 (Public Notice
2001-115), the Commission underscored the importance it places on
ensuring access by Canadians to coverage of the proceedings of the
House of Commons and its committees, and announced its decision to
ensure the availability of such coverage, in both official
languages, to most cable and DTH satellite subscribers across the
country. The amendments to the Broadcasting Distribution
Regulations (the Distribution Regulations) came into effect on 1
September 2002, making carriage of the proceedings of the House of
Commons and its committees mandatory for most BDUs (see Amendments
to the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations – Distribution
of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its various
committees, Public Notice CRTC 2002-72 of today’s
date). |
|
The renewal applications
|
5. |
In its renewal applications, the licensee proposed to introduce
certain new programming categories to its licensed service, and to
implement various other programming-related initiatives in the new
licence term. The programming changes proposed by CPAC include the
broadcast of programming drawn from category 2a1
(Analysis and interpretation), 2b (Long-form documentary) and
5b (Informal education/Recreation and leisure). These categories
would be in addition to category 3 programming (Reporting and
actualities) currently specified in the definition of CPAC’s
nature of service. Inclusion of these proposed new programming
categories would be through an amendment to CPAC’s existing nature
of service definition. CPAC’s plans also include expenditures on
improved closed captioning, enhanced French-language programming and
the provision of greater regional reflection. CPAC emphasized that
the proposed programming changes would not represent any significant
shift in the existing mandate of the service, but rather would allow
the service to more fully meet that mandate. |
6. |
CPAC noted that, from the time it was first licensed, the service
has been financed entirely by payments made by BDUs who distribute
it. The licensee submitted that rising costs and the increasingly
competitive state of the Canadian broadcasting distribution industry
have made the current CPAC funding model unsustainable. To replace
the existing method of funding, as well as to finance its new
programming plans, the licensee requested that the Commission
authorize CPAC to charge BDUs distributing the service a new monthly
per subscriber fee. The proposed maximum fee of $0.10 per month per
subscriber, increasing to $0.11 in the third year, would be for CPAC’s
licensed and exempt services, together. CPAC proposed that BDUs
absorb $0.03 of this maximum fee using their general revenues to
ensure that Canadians continue to receive the Parliamentary coverage
provided by CPAC at no charge. The remainder of the maximum fee
($0.07 in the first year and $0.08 thereafter) would be passed
through by BDUs to their subscribers, and the revenues used to
support the production and broadcast of CPAC’s complementary
wrap-around programming. |
7. |
CPAC further requested that the Commission authorize the
distribution of its service on a dual status basis. Under the
distribution and linkage requirements, when a specialty service with
dual status is distributed, it must be carried as part of the basic
service unless the licensee of the service agrees in writing to its
distribution as part of a discretionary tier.CPAC argued that a
Commission decision to accord its service dual status would ensure
that the service continues to be broadly available across Canada. It
stated that this would be consistent with CPAC’s public service
mandate and with the Commission’s policy for the distribution of
the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees. |
|
The process
|
8. |
In Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 2002-2, 1 March
2002 announcing CPAC’s renewal applications, the Commission sought
comment on the applicant’s programming plans, and on CPAC’s
proposal to institute a monthly fee. The Commission noted that only
certain analog specialty programming services have been authorized
for distribution on a dual status basis. Accordingly, the Commission
sought comment on whether it would be appropriate to license CPAC as
a specialty service with dual status, and on "any other options
and/or methods for according CPAC distribution on a dual status
basis, should the Commission wish to grant CPAC’s request."
Further, the Commission sought comment on the appropriate steps to
implement the various options and/or methods proposed. |
9. |
The Commission received 43 interventions addressed to CPAC’s
renewal applications and the Commission, in its deliberations, has
taken all into account. The vast majority of these were in support
of CPAC’s renewal and of the applicant’s proposed programming
plans. Five interveners, however, were opposed to one or more
aspects of CPAC’s renewal applications, including its request for
authority to broadcast long-form documentaries and programming in
other new categories, its proposal for mandatory carriage, and its
request for a regulated fee to fund the operation of the service.
The opposing interveners were the partners of Stornoway
Communications Limited Partnership (Stornoway), the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters (CAB), the National Film Board of Canada (NFB) and Mr.
Walter Naherny of Winnipeg. Two other interveners, namely Canadian
Cable Systems Alliance Inc. (CCSA) and the partners of Bell
ExpressVu Limited Partnership (Bell ExpressVu) did not oppose CPAC’s
renewal applications, but expressed certain concerns, CCSA about the
applicant’s proposal for a new monthly fee, and Bell ExpressVu
about CPAC’s request for mandatory distribution. In one further
intervention, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets
and Administration of the Senate of Canada also expressed concern
about certain of CPAC’s proposals, and requested that CPAC be
required to expand its coverage of the Senate’s activities. |
10. |
Based on its examination of the two applications before it, and
taking into consideration the views of interveners, the Commission
is satisfied that a long-term renewal of the licences issued to CPAC
for its French- and English-language satellite-to-cable programming
undertakings is justified. Accordingly, the Commission renews
CPAC’s licences from 1 December 2002 to 31 August 20092.
The licences will be subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1
to this decision, as well as to those contained in the licences to
be issued. |
|
Summary of the Commission’s determinations
|
11. |
In the following sections of this decision, the Commission
presents its analysis of, and its decision to approve, the applicant’s
programming plans, its proposals to modify the nature of its service
through an expansion of the range of programming categories offered,
and CPAC’s request to introduce a new maximum monthly fee, a
portion of which BDUs would pass on to their subscribers. Further,
the Commission examines the issue of CPAC’s coverage of the Senate
of Canada, and announces that it has amended the Exemption Order to
describe the programming provided by the exempt service as including
coverage of the Senate and its various committees. |
12. |
The Commission also announces its determination to grant CPAC’s
licensed service mandatory distribution by BDUs, on a national basis
and in both official languages, as part of the basic service.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 9(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act (the
Act), the Commission issues Distribution of the public affairs
programming service of Cable Public Affairs Channel Inc. known as
CPAC by persons licensed to carry on certain types of broadcasting
distribution undertakings, Distribution Order 2002-1, attached
as Appendix 2 to this decision, setting out the specific
requirements for CPAC’s distribution. |
|
Programming plans and initiatives
|
|
Nature of service – the addition of new program categories and
a definition of long-form programming
|
13. |
CPAC’s current conditions of licence stipulate that 100% of all
programming broadcast by CPAC be drawn from categories 3 (Reporting
and actualities) or 12 (Filler programming). CPAC applied to amend
its conditions of licence by expanding the authorized programming
categories to include category 2a (Analysis and interpretation), 2b
(Long-form documentary) and category 5b (Informal
education/Recreation and leisure). CPAC proposed to restrict, to a
maximum of 5% per semester, the amount of programming that would be
drawn from each of the categories of Long-form documentary and
Informal education/Recreation and leisure. CPAC also proposed to
replace Filler programming (formerly category 12) with current
category 12 (Interstitials). |
|
Interveners’ concerns
|
14. |
Although most interveners supported CPAC’s programming
proposals, four opposed the changes. The NFB and Stornoway expressed
concern that the proposed addition of documentary programming would
have a negative impact on newly launched specialty services in which
they have ownership interests, namely The Canadian Documentary
Channel and i channel, respectively. The CAB, and the CBC in
its capacity as licensee of Newsworld and Le Réseau de l’Information
(RDI), suggested that the changes would bring about a fundamental
and unacceptable shift away from CPAC’s current nature of service,
and towards the introduction of a service competing with other
existing services, contrary to Commission policy. The CBC also
argued that the licensee is currently in non-compliance as a
consequence of CPAC offering, as part of its service, programming in
categories other than those authorized in its nature of service
definition. The CBC further suggested that the programming and other
changes proposed by CPAC would effectively create a new service and
should thus have triggered a competitive licensing process. |
|
Applicant’s reply
|
15. |
CPAC, in reply to the interventions by the NFB, Stornoway, the
CBC and the CAB, stated that its proposed changes do not constitute
a significant shift in its mandate. CPAC argued that, in Licence
renewals, Decision CRTC 95-22, 20 January 1995 (Decision
95-22),
the Commission described the service as offering a variety of
complementary, contextual public affairs programming since 1996. The
licensee added that the proposed new programming categories, with
the exception of documentaries and informal education programming,
better reflect the types of programming CPAC was authorized to
provide in Decision 95-22. According to CPAC, it will continue
to be guided by the programming principles contained in Decision 95-22, including the principle that its programming should
"complement public affairs programming provided by other
Canadian programming services." It also confirmed the
following: |
|
We are not trying to expand the mandate, and we are not trying
to compete with [other] services. We are just trying to experiment
with things within that mandate and try to make that kind of
programming attractive to people.
|
16. |
CPAC emphasized that the "raison d’ętre and programming
cornerstone" of its service would continue to be "the
distribution to Canadians of live ‘gavel-to-gavel’ coverage of
the proceedings of the House of Commons, in both official
languages." It affirmed that other, long-form, non-editorial
programming would remain the principal component of its service and
would not be reduced "in any way, shape or form",
notwithstanding the addition of program categories that would
explicitly permit CPAC to broadcast documentaries and other in-depth
public affairs programming. It also stated that this long-form
programming would remain non-editorial in nature and that CPAC would
not air any "point-of-view" documentaries. |
17. |
In response to Commission questioning at the hearing, CPAC
proposed three mechanisms that would help to ensure that its
programming does not become directly competitive with other
services, that it continues to contribute to diversity, and that it
continues to complement the public affairs programming of other
Canadian broadcasting services. First, CPAC proposed the following
nature of service definition as a condition of licence: |
|
The licensee shall provide a national service that will provide
coverage of Canada’s Parliament, including coverage of the
proceedings of the House of Commons, coverage of the proceedings
of Committees of the House of Commons and of the Senate of Canada,
and coverage of other Parliamentary events, as well as other
public affairs programming consisting exclusively of
"long-form" programming or programming focusing on
local, regional, national and international civic affairs,
including the process and debates that underpin the operations of
democratic government and the development of public policy.
|
18. |
Second, CPAC proposed the following definition of long-form
programming: |
|
Long-form programming shall consist of programming that
provides extended coverage of public speeches, political
conventions, conferences, commissions of inquiry, public hearings,
proceedings of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the Federal
Court of Canada, proceedings of legislatures other than those of
the Parliament of Canada, press conferences, public ceremonies,
federal and provincial general elections, and other similar public
events of regional or national importance.
|
19. |
Third, CPAC proposed the addition of a condition of licence
specifying that: |
|
No less than 70% of CPAC’s programming each broadcast week
shall consist of long-form programming, coverage of the
proceedings of the House of Commons or coverage of Committees of
the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada.
|
20. |
As mentioned, CPAC also stated that it would restrict, to a
maximum of 5% per semester, the amount of programming to come from
each of the categories of Long-form documentaries and Informal
education/Recreation and leisure. With respect to this latter
programming category, the licensee further confirmed at the hearing
that it would not offer recreation and leisure programming despite
the fact that such programming forms part of category 5b. |
|
Commission’s analysis and determination
|
21. |
The Commission has considered the CBC’s comments regarding CPAC’s
compliance with its nature of service definition. The Commission has
also considered the licensee’s reply, including its comments about
CPAC’s mandate, as set out by the Commission in previous decisions
and particularly in Decision 95-22. The Commission notes that in
that decision, in addition to imposing the condition of licence with
respect to programming categories, the Commission acknowledged the
licensee’s intention to introduce new types of programming, such
as phone-in programs and factual interstitial programming. Under the
circumstances, the Commission is not prepared to conclude that CPAC
has been operating in non-compliance with its conditions of licence.
|
22. |
The Commission is further satisfied that the programming
categories proposed by CPAC are appropriate for this type of
service, and does not consider that the addition of this programming
should trigger a competitive licensing process. At the same time,
given the concerns of the CBC and of other interveners, the
Commission believes that there is a need, going forward, for greater
clarity in defining the nature and mandate of the service that CPAC
is to provide. The Commission considers that the proposed
amendments, the nature of service definition, and the other
restrictions proposed by CPAC and discussed further below, provide
this clarity. It also believes that they represent an appropriate
and effective response to the concerns of interveners by setting
clear, but reasonable limits on the amount and nature of in-depth
public affairs programming, including long-form documentaries, that
may be included in CPAC’s schedule. Further, the Commission is
confident that these factors, taken together, will ensure that CPAC’s
programming continues to contribute to diversity. |
23. |
CPAC’s proposed nature of service definition includes reference
to coverage of the House of Commons and the Senate. CPAC’s
coverage of the House of Commons and its committees is provided by
its exempt service pursuant to the Exemption Order. As noted above,
the amended Exemption Order includes Senate coverage in the exempt
service. Accordingly, the Commission modifies CPAC’s proposed text
in order to limit the nature of service to those elements that are
part of the licensed service, thereby arriving at the following,
amended nature of service condition of licence that will apply to
CPAC. |
24. |
The Commission is therefore imposing a condition of licence that
the licensee provide a national public affairs programming service
complementary to the exempt service it operates in accordance with
the Parliamentary and Provincial or Territorial
Legislature Proceedings Exemption Order appended to Public
Notice CRTC 2002-73, 19 November 2002 (the amended
Exemption Order), as may be amended from time to time, consisting
exclusively of long-form programming or programming focusing on
local, regional, national and international civic affairs, including
the process and debates that underpin the operations of democratic
government and the development of public policy. The condition of
licence requires that all such programming be drawn exclusively
from the categories: 2a (Analysis and interpretation);
2b (Long-form documentary); 3 (Reporting and actualities); 5b
(Informal education/Recreation and Leisure, but excluding recreation
and leisure); and 12 (Interstitials). |
25. |
Similarly, CPAC’s proposal for a condition of licence requiring
that a minimum of 70% of its programming consist of long-form
programming and Parliamentary coverage encompasses a programming
element, namely the Parliamentary coverage, that is not part of the
licensed service. CPAC has committed to broadcast long-form
programming in lieu of exempt Parliamentary coverage at times when
Parliament is not in session. However, because the length of
Parliamentary sessions and the amount of Parliamentary coverage may
vary widely, CPAC was unable to provide a breakdown of the amount of
long-form programming it would broadcast, as distinct from the
amount of Parliamentary coverage that would be provided as part of
its exempt service. |
26. |
In the absence of this information, it is not possible to
formulate a minimum percentage requirement for CPAC’s licensed
long-form programming that would be equivalent to CPAC’s proposed
minimum 70% requirement for the exempt Parliamentary coverage and
CPAC’s licensed long-form programming, combined. The desired
effect, that being to ensure long-form, non-editorial programming
remains the principal component of CPAC’s licensed service, may
nevertheless be achieved by placing a maximum limit of 30% on the
amount of programming in a broadcast week that may consist of other
than long-form programming. The Commission notes that 30% of CPAC’s
126-hour broadcast week equates to approximately 38 hours.
Accordingly, the Commission has decided to impose a condition of
licence limiting to not more than 38 hours in any broadcast week
the amount of CPAC’s licensed programming that may consist of
other than long-form programming. |
27. |
As proposed by the applicant, for the purpose of the licence
conditions set forth in this decision, "long-form
programming" is defined as: "programming that provides
extended coverage of public speeches, political conventions,
conferences, commissions of inquiry, public hearings, proceedings of
the Supreme Court of Canada and of the Federal Court of Canada,
proceedings of legislatures other than those of the Parliament of
Canada, press conferences, public ceremonies, federal and provincial
general elections, and other similar public events of regional or
national importance." |
28. |
Consistent with the licensee’s commitments, the Commission is
attaching a condition of licence that not more than 5% of the
licensed programming broadcast in each semester consist of
programming drawn from category 2b (Long-form documentary).
Similarly, it is a condition of licence that no more than 5%
of the licensed programming broadcast in each semester consist of
programming drawn from category 5b (Informal
education/Recreation and Leisure, but excluding recreation and
leisure). |
29. |
The Commission reminds the licensee that all programming drawn
from these and other categories must be consistent with the nature
of CPAC’s service, and must consist "exclusively of long-form
programming or programming focusing on local, regional, national and
international civic affairs, including the process and debates that
underpin the operations of democratic government and the development
of public policy." |
30. |
The Commission notes that the definition of long-form programming
set out above is fairly broad in scope and, on the face of it, would
appear to allow room for overlap between the programming broadcast
by CPAC and that aired by other broadcasting licensees. Indeed, the
CBC and certain other interveners were concerned about the
competitive impact that might result from the inclusion of long-form
documentaries in CPAC’s service. As mentioned, however, the
Commission is satisfied that the constraints applied by the
Commission in this decision concerning the amount and the nature of
such programming broadcast by CPAC serve as an effective response to
these concerns. For example, under the amendments, CPAC would
continue to be prohibited from airing any news programming that
might bring the service into direct competition with Newsworld or
RDI. As for i channel, that service may not broadcast reporting and
actuality programming, and is explicitly prohibited from providing
coverage of live events, programming that forms the mainstay of CPAC’s
service. |
31. |
Given the licensee’s commitments and the Commission’s
requirements, the Commission is further satisfied that CPAC will
contribute to diversity by providing a programming service that
continues to be specialized and focused, with an emphasis on the
provision of complementary category 3 programming, including the
gavel-to-gavel coverage of events that, in the past, few other
broadcasters have demonstrated any consistent interest in providing. |
|
Coverage of the Senate of Canada
|
|
Intervener’s concerns
|
32. |
The intervention submitted by the Standing Committee on Internal
Economy, Budgets and Administration of the Senate of Canada called
upon the Commission to require CPAC to provide "reasonable
amounts of Senate programming on a regularly scheduled basis, during
reasonable viewing periods." The intervention quoted the
provision contained in the Constitution Act, 1867 that
"there shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the
Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of
Commons." The intervention called for specific conditions of
licence to ensure that CPAC airs all programming produced by the
Senate, including a specific number of hours in weekly fixed
prime-time periods, as well as programming profiling the work of the
Senate. |
|
Applicant’s reply
|
33. |
In response to this intervention, CPAC stated that it was
committed to providing coverage of every Senate committee meeting
provided to CPAC and, at a minimum, to broadcasting eight hours per
week of such programming during periods when the Senate is sitting.
With respect to scheduling, CPAC stated that it would schedule
Senate committee proceedings equitably in relation to its scheduling
of committees of the House of Commons, and that it would work with
the Senate to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the
scheduling of such programming. Further, CPAC stated that it would
discuss with the Senate specific proposals that the Senate may wish
to put forward regarding the presentation of programs that would
profile the work of the Senate. |
34. |
Ultimately, CPAC proposed the following condition of licence
intended to reflect its commitment to Senate proceedings: |
|
CPAC shall broadcast all televised proceedings of Committees of
the Senate of Canada that are provided to CPAC by the Senate and,
subject to availability, shall broadcast a minimum of eight (8)
hours of such televised proceedings for each broadcast week in
which the Senate is in session. Televised proceedings of
Committees of the Senate shall be scheduled for broadcast
equitably in relation to CPAC’s televised coverage of
proceedings of the Committees of the House of Commons.
|
|
Commission’s analysis and determination
|
35. |
The Commission considers it important that the exempt service
provided by CPAC reflect the bicameral nature of Canada’s
Parliament by providing coverage of both the upper and the lower
houses. Accordingly, the Commission has amended the Exemption Order
to describe the programming provided by the exempt service as
including coverage of the Senate and its various committees, as
provided by the Speaker or appropriate committee responsible for
broadcasting matters (see the amended Exemption Order). |
36. |
As in the case of the broadcast of the proceedings of the House
of Commons and its Committees, the Speaker of the Senate or the
appropriate Senate Committee responsible for broadcasting matters
retains control over the programming. Coverage of the proceedings of
the House of Commons shall at all times have priority of access. The
Commission notes that both the intervener and the licensee
acknowledged that such priority is appropriate. The Commission
expects the licensee to enter into an agreement with the Senate with
respect to the broadcast of its proceedings. |
37. |
The Commission does not consider it appropriate to impose the
specific programming and scheduling requirements proposed by the
intervener, as these are areas in which the Commission does not
normally intervene. CPAC’s coverage of the proceedings of the
House of Commons and its Committees is governed by the Exemption
Order and CPAC’s agreement with the Speaker of the House of
Commons. The Commission has not imposed requirements with respect to
the nature, extent or scheduling of CPAC’s House of Commons
programming. Similarly, the Commission expects CPAC’s coverage of
the Senate to be governed by the amended Exemption Order and by CPAC’s
agreement with the Senate with respect to the broadcast of its
proceedings. |
38. |
The Commission notes CPAC’s commitments to schedule Senate
Committee proceedings equitably in relation to its televised
proceedings of the House of Commons, and to work with the Senate to
find a mutually satisfactory solution to the scheduling of such
programming. The Commission expects CPAC to do so. The Commission
also notes CPAC’s commitment to discuss with the Senate specific
proposals the Senate may wish to put forward regarding the
presentation of programs that would profile the work of the Senate.
The Commission encourages CPAC to give implementation of these
commitments its highest priority. |
|
Other programming matters
|
|
Programming principles
|
39. |
From the time CPAC was originally licensed, the Commission has
expected the licensee to adhere to six programming principles. The
Commission reiterates this expectation, but with two minor
amendments. The principles currently state that CPAC’s programming
will not contain any commercial content. As proposed by CPAC,
however, the Commission has decided to allow CPAC, by condition of
licence, to broadcast certain sponsorship messages. |
40. |
Specifically, by condition of licence, CPAC will be
prohibited from broadcasting commercial messages other than
sponsorship messages for closed captioning or described video. Such
sponsorship messages will be limited to identification of the name
of the sponsor. |
41. |
The principles have been amended to reflect this change. They
have also been amended to include reference to the Senate. This
latter change takes into account the Commission’s expectation that
CPAC will enter into an agreement with the Senate concerning the
broadcast of the proceedings of the Senate and its committees. |
42. |
Accordingly, the Commission expects CPAC to adhere to the
following principles: |
|
- CPAC must respect its agreements with the House of Commons and
the Senate;
|
|
- CPAC will not present its own editorial position in any of the
programming which it distributes;
|
|
- CPAC will present a balance of diverse points of view and, in
particular, represent the various views held by Canadians in the
different regions of the country;
|
|
- CPAC’s programming must reflect Canada’s dual linguistic
nature;
|
|
- CPAC’s programming will complement public affairs
programming provided by other Canadian programming services; and
|
|
- CPAC’s programming will not contain any commercial content,
with the exception of sponsorship messages for closed captioning
or described video.
|
|
Canadian content
|
43. |
With respect to Canadian content, and consistent with existing
requirements, the Commission is imposing a condition of licence
that not less than 90% of licensed programming broadcast by the
licensee in each semester of the licence term be Canadian.
Similarly, it is a condition of licence that not less than
90% of the licensed programming broadcast by the licensee during the
evening broadcast period be Canadian. |
|
French-language programming
|
44. |
In its applications, CPAC indicated that foremost among its
objectives is to increase its presence and its capabilities as a
bilingual public service, providing relevant information to
Canadians across the country in both official languages. The
licensee stated that its commitments to increase the amount of
original French-language programming aired on the service, over the
new licence term, include plans to transform its current Revue
Politique from a weekly into a daily, hour-long program dealing
with issues of particular relevance to Francophones. At the hearing,
CPAC indicated that 25% of its original, in-depth programming will
be in the French language. With respect to its long-form programming
originating in the French language, the licensee indicated that it
broadcasts what is available. It added that its goal is to increase
the amount of long-form programming originating in the French
language to a minimum of 20% of all of its long-form programming, in
proportion with the percentage of Francophones in Canada’s
population. CPAC further proposed to provide simultaneous
translation of all of its programming by the end of the licence
term. |
45. |
The licensee also indicated that in implementing its commitments
to enhance the French-language programming offered by its service,
CPAC would ensure that 25% of all licence fees spent on new
documentary programming are in respect of documentaries produced in
the French language. |
46. |
Taking into account the broad public interest served by CPAC’s
programming, and consistent with CPAC’s new status as a service
that will be paid for in large measure by subscribers, and that has
rights to mandatory distribution by BDUs in most English- and
French-language markets across the country, the Commission considers
as vital CPAC’s commitments and objectives regarding the provision
of service to Francophones. For this reason, the Commission
considers it appropriate to require CPAC to adhere to these
commitments and to achieve its objectives, not over the new licence
term, but in accordance with earlier, more specific deadlines. |
47. |
Accordingly, it is a condition of licence that CPAC
broadcast as many events as possible that originate in the French
language. At a minimum, 20% of all events broadcast in each
broadcast year must originate in the French language, beginning in
the broadcast year commencing 1 September 2003. |
48. |
The Commission is also imposing a condition of licence that
CPAC provide simultaneous translation for 100% of its licensed
programming, beginning on 1 September 2003. |
49. |
As a further condition of licence, not less than 25% of
the in-depth public affairs programming the licensee originates in
each broadcast year must be produced in the French language,
beginning in the broadcast year commencing 1 September 2003. |
50. |
The Commission further expects the licensee to adhere to its
commitment to ensure that a minimum of 25% of the amount it spends
on licence fees for documentary programming is spent on licence fees
for documentaries that are produced in the French language. |
|
Regional reflection
|
51. |
In its applications, CPAC made a commitment to enhance its
coverage of regional events. In the Commission’s view, it is
essential that CPAC’s programming reflect all of Canada’s
regions. In this regard, the Commission reminds the licensee that
programs originating in Canada’s National Capital Region should
continue to reflect people and communities across Canada. The
Commission further expects CPAC, consistent with the licensee’s
past practice, to broadcast events from each of Canada’s provinces
and territories in each broadcast year. |
|
Closed captioning
|
52. |
CPAC indicated that, under the arrangements it has with
Parliamentary authorities, the House of Commons and the Senate are
responsible for furnishing any closed captioning or sign language
that accompanies the programming they provide. With respect to its
licensed programming, CPAC made a commitment that, by the end of the
licence term, it would increase the levels of closed captioning it
offers to a minimum of 90% of all English-language programming, and
50% of all French-language programming. |
53. |
CPAC stated that, although it was willing to accept a condition
of licence requiring adherence to the commitment in respect of its
English-language programming, it would be unwilling to do so for
French-language programming, due in large part to the limited
availability of persons with training in providing real-time
captions for French-language programs. |
54. |
The Commission acknowledges the difficulties associated with
providing real-time captioning in French. At the same time, given
the importance it places on the delivery of adequate service to
viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing, the Commission considers it
essential that licensees make a special effort to overcome these
difficulties. Further, given CPAC’s mandate and its new
distribution status, the Commission concludes that it would be
appropriate to require CPAC to achieve its proposed captioning
levels by way of condition of licence. |
55. |
Accordingly, the Commission is imposing a condition of licence
that, beginning in the broadcast year commencing
1 September 2007, the licensee achieve minimum captioning
levels of 90% of all English-language programming, and 50% of all
French-language programming, that is broadcast during the broadcast
day. |
56. |
The Commission is satisfied that the licence condition pertaining
to the provision of captioning for French-language programming
provides CPAC with a realistic amount of time to find solutions to
the challenges it has identified. |
|
Promotion of SAP technology
|
57. |
CPAC made a commitment to allocate funds to provide financial
assistance to the licensees of Class 3 BDUs for the purchase of
technical equipment that would enable them to distribute CPAC’s
secondary audio programming (SAP) signals to subscribers. The
licensee indicated that this initiative would be carried out and
completed in the first year of its new licence term. CPAC also
committed to develop and fund a marketing campaign to increase the
awareness of its SAP programming among BDUs and their subscribers. |
58. |
The Commission expects CPAC to fulfil its commitment to provide
direct financial support to smaller cable operators for the purchase
of SAP modulators. It expects the licensee to file a report, by not
later than 31 December 2003, containing details of its
financial expenditures on this initiative, including a list of the
small cable systems who have benefited from the financial support.
The Commission also expects the licensee to fulfil its commitment to
promote the availability of its SAP signals by conducting a public
awareness campaign. |
|
Cultural diversity
|
59. |
All broadcasting licensees have a responsibility under the Act to
contribute to the reflection and portrayal of Canada’s cultural
diversity. Specifically, broadcasters have a responsibility to
ensure a broadcasting system that accurately reflects the presence
in Canada of cultural, ethnic and racial minorities and of
Aboriginal peoples. Not only does this mean that television
broadcasters such as CPAC must ensure that their on-screen portrayal
of such groups is accurate, fair and free of stereotypes, they must
also ensure that a full diversity of viewpoints is represented in
their programming. Given its mandate, CPAC’s role in this respect
is of particular importance. Indeed, there is a wide range of public
policy issues that are affected by Canada’s evolving cultural
diversity. |
60. |
CPAC provided the Commission with a list of events it has
covered, and of guests it has interviewed on air for the purpose of
disseminating information and viewpoints of specific relevance and
interest to minorities and Aboriginal peoples. CPAC also advised
that it monitors its own performance in this area on a continuous
basis: |
|
In particular, producers provide monthly reports to senior
management on the topics presented and guests appearing on-air to
ensure that CPAC’s programming maintains an overall balance of
points of view on issues of public concern and is reflective of
Canada’s cultural mosaic.
|
61. |
The Commission notes the intervention filed by the Communications
and Diversity Network supporting the "valuable and useful
service [that CPAC provides] to all Canadians", and encouraging
CPAC "to increase its coverage of conferences of interest to
minority communities." |
62. |
CPAC stated that it would be willing to file with the Commission
a corporate plan on cultural diversity, and to provide annual
reports on its progress in achieving the plan’s objectives. |
63. |
The Commission expects CPAC to assist in attaining the objectives
of the Act by ensuring that its programming continues to reflect
Canada’s cultural diversity. The Commission also expects the
licensee to adhere to its commitment to file a corporate plan on
cultural diversity, and expects it to do so within three months of
the date of this decision. |
64. |
CPAC’s corporate plan should include specific initiatives
relating to corporate accountability, the reflection of diversity in
programming, and community involvement and feedback, as outlined
below. |
|
Corporate accountability
|
65. |
CPAC’s plan should describe how CPAC will foster a corporate
culture that supports the reflection of cultural diversity in its
programming. Specifically the plan should: |
|
- set goals toward creating a corporate culture that supports a
programming service reflective of Canada's cultural diversity,
including its Aboriginal reality;
|
|
- identify a senior executive who will be accountable for
diversity practices and ensuring that management becomes more
reflective of Canada's multicultural reality;
|
|
- ensure that all managers receive appropriate training;
|
|
- ensure 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;
|
|
- set out the licensee's plans for hiring and retention of
visible minorities, as well as training in this area that it
will provide to staf
|
|
Reflection of diversity in programming
|
66. |
The plan should address how CPAC will ensure the presence of
people from diverse backgrounds in the programming that it produces
and that it acquires. As well, the plan should address the way that
Canada’s cultural diversity is portrayed in programming. More
specifically, the licensee should identify mechanisms to assess
progress in the following areas: |
|
- ensuring that on-air personalities reflect Canada’s
diversity;
|
|
- ensuring the use of people from minority groups as sources
regardless of whether the issue being discussed is particularly
related to a minority community, and;
|
|
- ensuring that programming from independent producers reflects
the presence and provides an accurate portrayal of visible
minorities.
|
|
Community involvement
|
67. |
The plan should also set out mechanisms that the licensee will
put in place to ensure that it receives effective input and feedback
from its viewers with respect to the reflection of cultural
diversity in its programming. |
|
Annual reports
|
68. |
The Commission further expects the licensee to file annual
reports on progress made to achieve the goals with respect to the
reflection of diversity that are set out in the plan. Such reports
should be filed no later than 31 December of each year of the new
licence term. |
|
Employment equity and on-air presence
|
69. |
CPAC filed a copy of its Employment Equity Policy with its
applications. At the hearing, the licensee confirmed that 50% of its
employees are female. It further advised that 10% of its staff is
composed of people who are visible minorities. |
70. |
The Commission considers that CPAC’s Employment Equity Policy
is in line with the Commission’s policies on that subject and with
respect to on-air presence. However, it encourages the licensee to
take concrete steps to address the current absence of members of
Aboriginal communities from its list of employees. |
|
Service to persons who are blind or visually impaired
|
71. |
In other recent licence renewal decisions, the Commission has
encouraged television broadcasters to expand the amount of video
description or described video3
programming they include within their schedules. In the case of
CPAC, SAP channels that might be used for this purpose are already
being used to provide service in the official language of the
minority. CPAC also stated that the nature of its programming does
not lend itself well to described video, and suggested that its
resources would be more effectively put to use if allocated to
improving its voice-overs and other audio elements of its
programming (i.e. audio description4). |
72. |
CPAC noted in this regard that much of the information it now
presents as text in any particular program, for example the
identification of an event, the names of on-air guests or the
telephone number for a call-in show, is also communicated orally.
CPAC nevertheless made a commitment to improve the quality of its
voice-overs of announcements presented as text. It also indicated
that it will explore with the appropriate authorities responsible
for providing the House of Commons and the Senate feeds the addition
of voice-over announcements to advise its audience of the end of a
parliamentary or committee session and of the resumption of CPAC’s
own programming. |
73. |
The Commission expects CPAC to fulfil its commitments by
continuing to provide audio description wherever appropriate. It
further expects the licensee to take steps to ensure that its
customer service responds to the needs of persons who are blind or
visually impaired. With respect to its proposed documentary
programming, the Commission expects CPAC to ensure that, through the
use of creative narration, such programming is produced with the
needs and interests in mind of those in its audience who are
visually impaired. |
|
New funding model and mandated distribution status for CPAC
|
|
Background
|
74. |
In Public Notice 2001-115, the Commission emphasized the
importance it places on ensuring access by Canadians to the
proceedings of the House of Commons and its various committees. It
deemed the televised coverage of these proceedings "vital to
the public interest" and essential to the attainment of the
objective stated in section 3(1)(d)(i) of the Act which states
that the Canadian broadcasting system should "safeguard,
enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic
fabric of Canada." The Commission further concluded that it is
CPAC’s coverage of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its
committees that makes CPAC a unique and valuable service, and that
continued access to such coverage by a majority of Canadians, in
both official languages, must be ensured. Accordingly, the
Commission announced its decision to ensure that coverage of these
proceedings is made available, in both official languages, to most
cable and satellite subscribers across the country. At the same
time, the Commission emphasized that it regards CPAC’s licensed,
wrap-around public affairs programming as a significant and valuable
service that complements its coverage of the proceedings of the
House of Commons. |
75. |
The distribution of the proceedings of the House of Commons and
its committees and, pursuant to the amended Exemption Order, the
proceedings of Parliament is now mandatory for most BDUs. However,
they have not been required to carry, hitherto, the licensed
programming service offered by CPAC. Nevertheless, this wrap-around
programming is currently distributed, as a service to the public and
without charge to subscribers, by most BDUs across Canada. Indeed,
the cable and DTH distribution industries have both demonstrated a
strong and consistent commitment to CPAC, over the years, through
their voluntary financial support and distribution of the service. |
76. |
In its applications, however, CPAC requested that it be permitted
to implement a new funding model for its licensed programming
service and proposed that the Commission accord its service a
distribution status that would ensure that the service continues to
be broadly available across Canada. |
|
Funding
|
|
Applicant’s request
|
77. |
In its written applications, CPAC expressed the view that its
shareholders and other BDUs who distribute the service are
"committed to continuing their support of the delivery of the
proceedings of the House of Commons and Parliamentary committees as
a public service, and at no charge to subscribers". It also
confirmed that the Board of Directors of the Canadian Cable
Television Association "has approved in principle the continued
distribution of the service to cable subscribers at no charge."
CPAC argued, however, that the current method of funding its
licensed service is no longer sustainable, and must now be replaced
by a regulated fee. |
78. |
Specifically, the licensee requested that the Commission
authorize CPAC to charge BDUs distributing the service a new monthly
per subscriber fee. The proposed maximum fee of $0.10 per month per
subscriber, increasing to $0.11 in the third year of the licence
term, would be charged in return for delivery to BDUs of CPAC’s
licensed and exempt services, together. CPAC proposed that BDUs use
their general revenues to absorb $0.03 of this maximum fee to ensure
that Canadians continue to receive, at no charge, the exempt
Parliamentary coverage provided by CPAC. BDUs could pass through the
remainder of the maximum fee to their subscribers. CPAC would
apportion the revenues from the pass-through portion, in roughly
equal measure, between the expenses associated with its existing
licensed wrap-around public affairs programming and the projected
costs of its proposed new programming plans and initiatives. |
|
Interveners’ concerns
|
79. |
In its opposing intervention, the CBC argued that, while CPAC
estimated expenditures in excess of $40 million to provide its
service since 1993, it did not file an accounting of these
expenditures. According to the intervener, such an accounting is
necessary if interested parties are to be able to properly assess
the costs of operating the service. The CBC also argued that it is
impossible to reconcile CPAC’s funding proposal "with the
fact that the cable industry willingly accepted the terms of the
Speaker of the House that it would provide a free service." The
NFB expressed similar views in its opposing intervention, and added
that the proposed pass-through fee would fund programming that would
be "injurious to existing specialty services." |
80. |
The CAB and Stornoway opposed the licensee’s proposal for a
pass-through fee because of CPAC’s plans to use the proceeds to
increase the amount and the scope of its programming. According to
the CAB, this would take the service "well beyond CPAC’s
historical mandate" and make it "a potential competitor to
other broadcasters." Stornoway claimed that CPAC’s proposal,
in conjunction with its request for dual status, would "provide
an unprecedented level of financial security for a channel which,
unlike newly licensed specialty channels, has had a decade to build
an audience and which enjoys the tremendous reach provided by its
analogue carriage." |
81. |
In its comments, CCSA submitted that, due to competitive
pressures from other distributors, many of its members would have no
room for movement in retail price "without a proportional loss
of subscribers to their competition." It added that these
members would thus be under intense pressure to absorb the
pass-through entitlement. Bell ExpressVu, however, noted that it
currently pays CPAC a fixed fee per subscriber that exceeds the
amount contemplated by CPAC in its funding proposal, and thus had
"no objection to the establishment of a fixed regulated
affiliation payment." |
82. |
Mr. Walter Naherny of Winnipeg opposed CPAC’s proposal to
implement a monthly fee that would be passed on to subscribers. Mr.
Naherny based his opposition on his opinion that CPAC’s service is
without value and is one of more than half of the cable-delivered
programming services he receives that "are never watched." |
|
Applicant’s reply
|
83. |
At the hearing, CPAC reiterated its position that the existing
funding model is no longer sustainable, since distributors are not
prepared to continue to bear all of the operating costs, even at
current levels. CPAC noted that competition facing distributors has
increased markedly in recent years, that there is a need to cut
costs, and that, for the cable sector at least, there is little
potential for future financial growth in the basic service. |
|
Commission’s analysis and determination
|
84. |
Based on the evidence gathered by the Commission in this
proceeding, the Commission concludes that rising costs and an
increasingly competitive environment have rendered CPAC’s existing
funding model no longer supportable. It is the Commission’s view
that, if CPAC’s service is to survive, subscribers will now have
to assume a portion of its operating costs. |
85. |
The Commission is satisfied that the licensee’s proposal to
introduce a fee to fund its Parliamentary coverage, as well as the
existing and proposed components of its licensed, not-for-profit
programming services, is both reasonable and appropriate. In
reaching this determination, the Commission has considered the views
of opposing interveners, including Stornoway, the CBC, the CAB, the
NFB and Mr. Walter Naherny of Winnipeg. The Commission has also
considered the comments filed by CCSA. |
86. |
Accordingly, by condition of licence, commencing 1 March
2003 and ending 31 August 2004, the Commission is authorizing the
licensee to charge broadcasting distribution undertakings
distributing CPAC a maximum fee of $0.10 per subscriber per month,
of which amount, $0.07 per subscriber per month will be used by CPAC
to fund its licensed public affairs programming service. Commencing
1 September 2004 and for the remainder of the licence term, the
licensee is authorized to charge broadcasting distribution
undertakings distributing CPAC a maximum fee of $0.11 per subscriber
per month, of which amount, $0.08 per subscriber per month will be
used by CPAC to fund its licensed public affairs programming
service. |
87. |
The above amounts of $0.07 and $0.08 represent the pass-through
portion of the maximum fee, and broadcasting distribution
undertakings will be authorized to pass through to subscribers this
portion of the fee. The remaining portion of the maximum fee, namely
$0.03 per subscriber per month, will be used by CPAC to fund its
coverage of the Parliament of Canada pursuant to the Exemption
Order, as amended today and as may further be amended from time to
time. Broadcasting distribution undertakings distributing CPAC will
pay this portion of the fee from their general revenues. |
88. |
In return for payment to CPAC of the maximum fee ($0.10 per
subscriber per month, increasing to $0.11 on 1 September 2004),
a broadcasting distribution undertaking will receive for
distribution to each subscriber the English- and French-language
versions of both CPAC’s licensed service and the exempt service
provided by CPAC pursuant to the amended Exemption Order. |
89. |
The Distribution Order set out in Appendix 2 to this decision
authorizes BDUs to increase the basic monthly fee paid by their
subscribers by no more than the pass-through portion of the maximum
fee, as specified above. |
|
Mandatory distribution status for CPAC
|
90. |
CPAC’s written application included a request that the
Commission accord its licensed service dual status. CPAC argued that
the broad distribution that this status would guarantee for its
service across Canada, would be consistent with the licensee’s
public service mandate and with the Commission’s policy for the
distribution of the House of Commons and its committees. |
|
Interveners’ concerns
|
91. |
Bell ExpressVu submitted, among other things, that granting CPAC
mandatory distribution status "would preclude a BDU from
accessing only the House of Commons feeds; or, another programming
licensee from incorporating the House of Commons feeds inside its
programming format." The CBC’s position was that this and
other aspects of CPAC’s renewal applications should have been
examined by the Commission in the context of a competitive licensing
process. As mentioned above, the opposition of both Stornoway and
the NFB to granting CPAC dual status was that this, in conjunction
with the proposed monthly fee, would give CPAC a competitive
advantage over existing and newly licensed specialty services. |
92. |
CCSA contended that the Distribution Regulations, as now amended
to require Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs to distribute the proceedings of
the House of Commons and its committees, will effectively require
that these licensees also distribute CPAC’s licensed service,
since the latter is wrapped around the former. CCSA therefore
concluded that "to accord CPAC dual status would accomplish
nothing that the regulatory amendments… have not already
achieved." Views similar to those of CCSA were also expressed
in the opposing interventions of the CBC and CAB. |
|
Applicant’s reply
|
93. |
At the hearing, it became clear that CPAC was seeking mandatory
distribution on the basic service, and not simply dual status. In
response to questions, CPAC identified three possible mechanisms for
implementing its request: licensing CPAC as a specialty service
having dual status, amending the provisions of the Distribution
Regulations to accord CPAC mandatory distribution, and issuing a
distribution order pursuant to section 9(1)(h) of the Act. CPAC took
the view that the simplest option for the Commission would be to
license CPAC as a specialty service with dual status. |
|
Commission’s analysis and determination
|
94. |
As noted above, distribution of the proceedings of Parliament, in
both official languages, is now mandatory for most BDUs. As stated
in Public Notice 2001-115, the Commission regards CPAC’s licensed
public affairs programming as a significant and valuable component
that complements the proceedings of the House of Commons and its
committees. Further, as wrap-around programming to these
proceedings, CPAC’s public affairs programming service is broadly
carried as an analog service on a majority of cable systems across
Canada, and is also available to all DTH subscribers. |
95. |
Given these circumstances, the Commission is of the view that the
benefits of according CPAC’s public affairs programming service
mandatory distribution status at this time outweigh the concerns of
interveners discussed above. In particular, the Commission is
satisfied that such status would be consistent with the nature of
the programming that CPAC provides, and with the important role this
programming serves in the Canadian broadcasting system as a window
on Canadian political life. Because CPAC is generally offered as a
wrap-around service to the coverage of the proceedings of Parliament
and its committees, and given that it is now mandatory that BDUs
distribute such Parliamentary coverage, the Commission is also
confident that granting mandatory distribution status to CPAC’s
licensed programming service would create little or no disruption or
inconvenience to either subscribers or BDUs. Moreover, the
Commission is satisfied that restricting CPAC to the broadcast of
limited sponsorship messages, coupled with the conditions of licence
set out earlier in this decision which clearly define CPAC’s
nature of service, would ensure that CPAC’s mandatory distribution
has no undue impact on other services. |
96. |
The Commission is satisfied that the licence renewal process has
afforded a full and appropriate opportunity to examine the issue of
granting CPAC mandatory carriage status, and for the reasons set out
in the previous two paragraphs, does not accept the CBC’s argument
that such carriage status should not be granted except as the result
of a competitive licensing process. |
97. |
The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to grant CPAC
mandatory distribution on the basic service of most BDUs. Given the
Commission’s view that CPAC’s licensed public affairs
programming is a significant and valuable component that complements
the proceedings of Parliament and its committees, the Commission
considers that the distribution status of CPAC’s licensed service
should mirror that of its exempt service. |
98. |
Although CPAC favoured a different mechanism for implementing its
request, the applicant stated at the hearing that it would accept
the use of section 9(1)(h) of the Act to effect mandatory carriage
on the basic service. The Commission considers that this mechanism
will achieve the objective of mandatory distribution of CPAC on the
basic service in the most direct and effective manner. |
99. |
Section 9(1)(h) stipulates that the Commission may, in
furtherance of its objects: |
|
require any licensee who is authorized to carry on a
distribution undertaking to carry, on such terms and conditions as
the Commission deems appropriate, programming services specified
by the Commission.
|
100. |
In recent years, the Commission has applied this provision to
ensure the national distribution of Voiceprint, APTN and the
French-language TVA network. The Commission considers that granting
CPAC mandatory carriage on the basic service will contribute to
maintaining and enhancing Canada’s national identity and cultural
sovereignty, and will thus further the objectives set out in section
3 of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 9(1)(h) of the Act, the
Commission issues Distribution Order 2002-1, attached to this
decision, setting out the specific requirements for the distribution
of CPAC’s licensed service. |
101. |
As stated above, these requirements mirror the distribution
requirements for CPAC’s exempt service described in Public Notice
2001-115 and implemented through amendments to the Distribution
Regulations. Specifically, Distribution Order 2002-1 requires all
Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs, and all DTH BDUs, to distribute CPAC as
part of the basic service. |
|
- DTH BDUs are required to distribute CPAC in both official
languages.
|
|
- All Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs are required to make available a
second audio feed of CPAC, in the official language of the
minority, using SAP technology.
|
|
- All Class 1 and Class 2 BDUs employing digital technology with
a capacity of 750 MHz or more are also required to make
available a separate video channel of CPAC, in the official
language of the minority, on either a digital or an analog
basis.
|
102. |
The model for the distribution of CPAC on Class 3 BDUs is the
same as that set out for the distribution of the House of Commons
service: |
|
- All Class 3 BDUs employing digital distribution (with 550 MHz
or more capacity) are required to provide CPAC, in both official
languages. These undertakings are granted flexibility with
respect to the technical means by which they distribute CPAC in
both official languages.
|
|
- Any Class 3 BDU whose system is fully interconnected must
distribute CPAC with the same distribution status in both
official languages as the system to which it is interconnected,
unless the Class 3 system does not have the channel capacity to
do so.
|
103. |
These requirements are implemented through Distribution Order
2002-1. |
104. |
As in the case of the distribution of the proceedings of the
House of Commons and its committees, the Commission strongly
encourages Class 3 BDUs employing analog distribution technology to
distribute CPAC on an analog channel. |
105. |
Similarly, the Commission considers that any Class 3 BDU
currently distributing CPAC, and whose system is not fully
interconnected, but that is owned by one of the four largest
multiple system operators (affiliated Class 3 systems), should
continue to distribute CPAC, and to make available a second audio
feed of the service, in the official language of the minority, using
SAP technology. The Commission strongly expects all affiliated Class
3 systems that are not currently distributing CPAC to distribute the
service, including the use of SAP technology.
|
106. |
The Commission has amended Exemption order for small cable
undertakings, appended to Exemption order respecting cable
systems having fewer than 2,000 subscribers, Public Notice CRTC 2001-121, 7 December 2001, to implement the digital distribution
requirements for exempt smaller Class 3 BDUs (see Exemption order
for small cable undertakings, appended to Public Notice CRTC 2002-74, 19 November 2002. |
107. |
The digital distribution requirements set out above shall come
into effect on 2 December 2002. |
|
Secretary General |
|
This decision is to be appended to each 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 Schedule I of
the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987
2 In Broadcasting
Decision CRTC 2002-238, 22 August 2002 the Commission granted a
three-month administrative renewal for the two broadcasting
licences, from 1 September to 30 November 2002.
3 Described
video, or video description as it is also known, consists of
narrative descriptions of a program’s key visual elements that
enable those who are blind or visually impaired to form a better
mental picture of what is occurring on the screen. Broadcasters
generally deliver described video programming to viewers using a
Secondary Audio Programming (SAP) channel.
4 Audio
description involves the provision of basic voice-overs of textual
or graphical information displayed on the screen. A broadcaster
providing audio description will, for example, not simply display
sports scores on the screen, but will also read them aloud so that
people who are visually impaired can receive the information.
|
|
Appendix 1 to Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-377
|
|
Conditions of licence for the French- and English-language
satellite-to-cable programming service provided by Cable Public
Affairs Channel Inc.
|
|
Nature of service
|
|
1 (a) The licensee shall provide a national public affairs
programming service complementary to the exempt service it
operates in accordance with Parliamentary and Provincial or
Territorial Legislature Proceedings Exemption Order, appended
to Public Notice CRTC 2002-73, 19 November 2002, as may be amended
from time to time, consisting exclusively of long-form
programming or programming focusing on local, regional, national
and international civic affairs, including the process and debates
that underpin the operations of democratic government and the
development of public policy. All such programming shall be drawn
exclusively from the categories: 2a (Analysis and interpretation);
2b (Long-form documentary); 3 (Reporting and actualities);
5b (Informal education/Recreation and Leisure, but excluding
recreation and leisure); and 12 (Interstitials).
|
|
(b) Not more than 38 hours in any broadcast week shall consist
of programming other than long-form programming.
|
|
(c) Not more than 5% of the licensed programming broadcast in
each semester shall consist of programming drawn from category 2b
(Long-form documentary).
|
|
(d) Not more than 5% of the licensed programming broadcast in
each semester shall consist of programming drawn from
category 5b (Informal education/Recreation and leisure, but
excluding recreation and leisure).
|
|
Canadian content
|
|
2 (a) Not less than 90% of the licensed programming broadcast
by the licensee in each semester shall be Canadian.
|
|
(b) Not less than 90% of the licensed programming broadcast by
the licensee during the evening broadcast period shall be
Canadian.
|
|
French-language programming
|
|
3 (a) The licensee shall broadcast as many events as possible
that originate in the French language. At a minimum, 20% of all
events broadcast in each broadcast year shall originate in the
French language, beginning in the broadcast year commencing
1 September 2003.
|
|
(b) The licensee shall provide simultaneous translation for
100% of its licensed programming, beginning on 1 September 2003.
|
|
(c) Not less than 25% of the in-depth public affairs
programming the licensee originates in each broadcast year shall
be produced in the French language, beginning in the broadcast
year commencing 1 September 2003.
|
|
Funding
|
|
4 (a) Commencing 1 March 2003 and ending 31 August 2004, the
licensee may charge broadcasting distribution undertakings
distributing CPAC a maximum fee of $0.10 per subscriber per month,
of which amount, $0.07 per subscriber per month shall be used by
CPAC to fund its licensed public affairs programming service.
|
|
(b) Commencing 1 September 2004 and for the remainder of the
licence term, the licensee may charge broadcasting distribution
undertakings distributing CPAC a maximum fee of $0.11 per
subscriber per month, of which amount, $0.08 per subscriber per
month shall be used by CPAC to fund its licensed public affairs
programming service.
|
|
(c) The licensee shall not broadcast commercial messages other
than sponsorship messages for closed captioning or described
video. Such sponsorship messages shall be limited to
identification of the name of the sponsor.
|
|
Closed captioning
|
|
5. Beginning in the broadcast year
commencing 1 September 2007, the licensee shall achieve minimum
captioning levels of 90% of all English-language programming, and
50% of all French-language programming, that is broadcast during the
broadcast day. |
|
Adherence to industry codes
|
|
6. 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 may be 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. |
|
7. 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 may be 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. |
|
Logging and recording
|
|
8. The licensee shall retain in a form
acceptable to the Commission, a program log or machine-readable
record or audio-visual recording of all of the programming broadcast
as part of its licensed programming service, in accordance with the
provisions set out in section 10 of the Television Broadcasting
Regulations, 1987. |
|
Definitions
|
|
For the purpose of these conditions of licence: |
|
"long-form programming" means programming that
provides extended coverage of public speeches, political
conventions, conferences, commissions of inquiry, public hearings,
proceedings of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the Federal
Court of Canada, proceedings of legislatures other than those of
the Parliament of Canada, press conferences, public ceremonies,
federal and provincial general elections, and other similar public
events of regional or national importance;
|
|
"broadcast day" means the period from 8:00 a.m. to
2:00 a.m.;
|
|
"broadcast month" means the total number of hours
devoted by the licensee to broadcasting during the aggregate of
the broadcast days in a month.
|
|
"broadcast week" means seven consecutive broadcast
days, beginning on Sunday;
|
|
"broadcast year" means the total number of hours
devoted by the licensee to broadcasting during the aggregate of
the broadcast months in a 12 month period, beginning on 1
September in any year;
|
|
"evening broadcast period" means the total number of
hours devoted by the licensee to broadcasting between 6:00 p.m.
and midnight during each semester; and
|
|
"semester" means the total number of hours devoted by
the licensee to broadcasting in a six-month period, beginning on 1
March and 1 September in any year.
|
|
Appendix 2 to Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-377
|
|
Distribution Order 2002-1
|
|
Distribution of the public affairs programming service of Cable
Public Affairs Channel Inc. known as CPAC by persons licensed to
carry on certain types of broadcasting distribution undertakings.
|
|
The Commission hereby orders, pursuant to section 9(1)(h) of the Broadcasting
Act, persons licensed to carry on broadcasting distribution
undertakings of the types identified in paragraph (a) below to
distribute CPAC's public affairs programming service in the manner
specified in paragraph (b) below, effective 2 December 2002, on the
following terms and conditions:
|
|
a) This Order applies to Class 1 and Class 2 distribution
undertakings, including multipoint distribution system
undertakings, licensees of DTH distribution undertaking, licensees
of Class 3 distribution undertakings that have a nominal capacity
of at least 550 MHz and that deliver any programming services on a
digital basis, and licensees of Class 3 distribution undertakings
whose distribution system is totally interconnected with another
system. These licensees are collectively referred to in this Order
as distribution licensees.
|
|
b) Distribution licensees shall distribute CPAC’s public
affairs programming service in the manner specified as follows:
|
|
i) Except as otherwise provided under a condition of its
licence, any Class 1 or Class 2 licensee operating in a
francophone market within the meaning of paragraph 18(4)(a) of
the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations shall
distribute CPAC’s public affairs programming service as part
of its basic service, including the main audio channel of that
service in the French language and an auxiliary audio channel of
the service in the English language.
|
|
ii) Except as otherwise provided under a condition of its
licence, any Class 1 or Class 2 distribution licensee operating
in an anglophone market within the meaning of paragraph 18(4)(b)
of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations shall
distribute CPAC’s public affairs programming service as part
of its basic service, including the main audio channel of that
service in the English language and an auxiliary audio channel
of the service in the French language.
|
|
iii) Except as otherwise provided under a condition of its
licence, any Class 1 or Class 2 distribution licensee that has a
nominal capacity of at least 750 MHz and that makes use of
digital technology for the delivery of any programming service
shall distribute CPAC’s public affairs programming service,
including the main audio channel of that service in the English
language, if the licensee is operating in a francophone market
within the meaning of paragraph 18(4)(a) of the Broadcasting
Distribution Regulations.
|
|
iv) Except as otherwise provided under a condition of its
licence, any Class 1 or Class 2 distribution licensee that has a
nominal capacity of at least 750 MHz and that makes use of
digital technology for the delivery of any programming service
shall distribute CPAC’s public affairs programming service,
including the main audio channel of that service in the French
language, if the licensee is operating in an anglophone market
within the meaning of paragraph 18(4)(b) of the Broadcasting
Distribution Regulations.
|
|
v) Any Class 3 licensee whose distribution system has a
nominal capacity of at least 550 MHz and that delivers any
programming service on a digital basis shall distribute the
English- and French-language versions of CPAC’s public affairs
programming service.
|
|
vi) Any Class 3 licensee whose distribution system is totally
interconnected with another system shall distribute the English-
and French-language versions of CPAC’s public affairs
programming service with the same distribution status as the
system with which it is interconnected, unless the licensee does
not have the technology to do so.
|
|
vii) Except as otherwise provided under a condition of its
licence, a DTH distribution licensee shall distribute as part of
its basic service the English- and French-language versions of
CPAC’s public affairs programming service.
|
|
c) Class 1 and Class 2 licensees shall not distribute CPAC's
public affairs programming service on a restricted channel unless
CPAC consents in writing to its distribution on such a channel.
|
|
d) Commencing 1 March 2003 and ending 31 August 2004,
distribution licensees distributing CPAC’s public affairs
programming service and the service CPAC provides pursuant to the Parliamentary
and Provincial or Territorial Legislature Proceedings Exemption
Order, as may be amended from time to time, shall pay to CPAC
the fee it charges, up to the maximum fee of $0.10 per subscriber
per month authorized under the terms of CPAC’s licence. For this
period, distribution licensees are authorized to increase the
basic monthly fee to be paid by their subscribers by no more than
the pass-through portion of $0.07 authorized under the terms of
CPAC’s licence.
|
|
e) Commencing 1 September 2004 and for the remainder of the
licence term, distribution licensees distributing CPAC’s public
affairs programming service and the service CPAC provides pursuant
to the Parliamentary and Provincial or Territorial Legislature
Proceedings Exemption Order, as may be amended from time to
time, shall pay to CPAC the fee it charges, up to the maximum fee
of $0.11 per subscriber per month authorized under the terms of
CPAC’s licence. For this period, distribution licensees are
authorized to increase the basic monthly fee to be paid by their
subscribers by no more than the pass-through portion of $0.08
authorized under the terms of CPAC’s licence.
|
|
f) Distribution licensees who remove a service in order to
comply with this Order may only remove a service carried on an
available channel.
|
|
g) Notwithstanding the foregoing, distribution licensees shall
not be required to distribute CPAC’s public affairs programming
service pursuant to this Order unless CPAC or a third party pays
for the satellite uplink and transponder costs with respect to the
transmission of its programming service.
|
|
h) Notwithstanding the foregoing, distribution licensees shall
not distribute CPAC’s public affairs programming service
pursuant to this Order if CPAC ceases to provide the House of
Commons programming service pursuant to Parliamentary and
Provincial or Territorial Legislature Proceedings Exemption Order,
as may be amended from time to time.
|
|
i) This Distribution Order shall remain in effect until such
time as the Commission amends or rescinds it.
|
|
For the purposes of this Distribution Order, available channel,
basic service, Class 1 licensee, Class 2 licensee,
Class 3 licensee, DTH distribution undertaking, licensed,
programming service and restricted channel carry the
meanings assigned to them in the Broadcasting Distribution
Regulations, as may be amended from time to time. |