Home > Publications > Reports > Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2008-12 – Review of English- and French-language broadcasting services in English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada

Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2008-12 – Review of English- and French-language broadcasting services in English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada

Robert A. Morin
Secretary General
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2 

Subject: Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2008-12 – Review of English- and French-language broadcasting services in English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada

Dear Secretary General,

  1. I would like to take this opportunity as part of the CRTC 2008-12 public hearing to share my thoughts regarding the accessibility of broadcasting services in both official languages. As Commissioner of Official Languages, my mandate is to take all measures needed to safeguard and strengthen the vitality of official language minority communities (OLMCs) and to promote the equal status of English and French in Canadian society. The vitality OLMCs depends on their ability to rely on institutions that are their own, including those in the area of broadcasting.

  2. I would also like to indicate my desire to appear at the public hearing to be held on January 13, 2009 at the conference centre on Promenade du Portage in Gatineau.
Introduction
  1. In Order in Council P.C. 2008-1293, the Governor-in-Council states that the CRTC must call for comments from the public and report on the following three issues no later than March 31, 2009:
    • Examine the availability and quality of English- and French-language broadcasting services in Anglophone and Francophone minority communities in Canada;
    • Identify any deficiencies and challenges in those communities in the provision of official-language broadcasting services;
    • Propose measures to encourage and facilitate access to the widest range of official-language broadcasting services in OLMCs and ensure that the diversity of these communities is reflected in the Canadian broadcasting system as a whole.
  1. The objectives of the Broadcasting Act, which assigns the CRTC responsibility for regulating and supervising the Canadian broadcasting system, complement the objectives of the Official Languages Act. Specifically, the Broadcasting Policy for Canada (Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act) refers to:
    • radio and television programming of equal quality in English and French;
    • a range of broadcasting services in both official languages;
    • reflection of linguistic duality;
    • the country’s regional diversity and the specific needs of regions.
  1. As a federal institution subject to the Official Languages Act, the CRTC is required to comply with Section 41 of Part VII of the Act (amended in 2005), which states that federal institutions must “ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation” of the Government’s commitment to “enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development, and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.”
A. February 2007 Audit Report
  1. On several occasions in recent years, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (OCOL) has encouraged the CRTC to demonstrate the leadership that is necessary in order to protect Canadians’ present and future language rights by giving greater consideration to issues related to linguistic duality when preparing its policies, guidelines and regulations, so as to comply with Section 41 of the Official Languages Act.

  2. In our last audit report on the implementation of Section 41 of the Official Languages Act at the CRTC (February 2007), I recommended that the CRTC make it a priority to review certain policies such as A Policy Framework for Canadian Television, the Community Radio Policy and the Policy to Increase the Availability to Cable Subscribers of Specialty Services in the Minority Official Language, and other relevant policies, to ensure that they are fully reflective of the organization’s obligations under Section 41 of the Official Languages Act. I also recommended that the CRTC implement a consultation mechanism that would allow it to better target the needs of OLMCs.

  3. The audit report pointed out the importance of the CRTC’s developing and implementing a policy and guidelines on official languages that would specifically address its own activities and take into account the organization’s obligations under Section 41 of the Official Languages Act.

  4. In my view, such an approach would allow the CRTC to make linguistic duality a priority in the earliest stages of developing or reviewing the policies and regulations that govern Canada’s broadcasting system. This approach would also make it possible to determine the potential impact of proposed measures on the development and vitality of the official language communities.

  5. I also recommended that the CRTC establish appropriate monitoring mechanisms to evaluate the implementation of Section 41 of the Official Languages Act, and that it take the necessary measures in cases of non-compliance.

  6. Since the audit, I have noticed a stronger resolve on the part of the CRTC to respond to the interests and needs of OLMCs. However, additional effort is still required if consideration of official languages is to become a reflex and be fully incorporated into all of the organization’s practices and policies. I plan to follow up on my audit over the coming year and to report publicly on the results.
B. Distribution Rules and Television
  1. In 2007, I supported certain applications for digital basic status. Like the CRTC, I believe that migration to digital must be looked at with due consideration of the linguistic duality that characterizes Canada’s broadcasting system. I was therefore pleased to learn that the CRTC had issued a mandatory carriage order under section 9(1)(h) of the Act, requiring distribution of RDI as part of basic digital service in English-language markets, and distribution of Newsworld in French-language markets.

  2. I wish to congratulate the CRTC on the new policies set out in Public Notice 2008-100, Regulatory Frameworks for Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings and Discretionary Programming Services, October 30, 2008. I am pleased to see that, as of August 31, 2011, the existing access rules for minority-language services applicable to terrestrial Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings (BDUs) will be replaced by a single rule requiring all licensed terrestrial BDUs to distribute one (1) minority-language service, where licensed to do so, for every ten majority-language services they distribute.

Direct-to-home undertakings and educational programming

  1. In Public Notice 2008-100, the CRTC also requires direct-to-home (DTH) undertakings to distribute one provincial educational programming service on the basic service within each region. However, there are no obligations regarding the language of these local educational services. I believe that DTH undertakings should offer subscribers both English and French educational programming when available.

  2. Recently, one DTH undertaking decided to withdraw TFO on a Canada-wide basis from the list of channels it offers. This strikes me as a step backwards. I wish to reiterate the important role played by French educational television in the development not only of the Franco-Ontarian community, but of all Francophone minority communities.
National Television Networks
  1. Canada’s broadcasting system uses frequencies that are in the public domain; through its programming, it provides an essential public service by serving as a tool to promote and preserve Canadian identity and culture. It is important that television services distributed nation-wide offer programming that reflects the diversity of their Canadian audience, including official language minority communities. Since 2001, the CRTC has imposed conditions on the TVA and TV5 networks to broadcast programming that would reflect the diversity of the Canadian francophonie.

  2. I applaud these initiatives and encourage the CRTC to take things a step further. When the CRTC approves the nation-wide distribution of television service, this service should be subject to specific licensing conditions with regards to broadcasting programs that would reflect official language communities.

Development and production in a minority setting: the case of TVA

  1. In 1998, the CRTC approved the nation-wide distribution of TVA and imposed license conditions aiming to reflect Francophone communities outside Quebec. In addition, the CRTC also asked TVA to broaden its news coverage so as to better serve Francophones living outside Quebec.

  2. In its 2004-2005 report to the CRTC on tangible benefits, TVA listed all priority programs it had broadcast between August 30, 2004 and August 28, 2005, representing a value of $18 million. None of these programs were produced outside the Montreal area. Yet in the same report, TVA stated that, since 2001, it had invested a total of $1 million to support the concept and script development outside Quebec, and that it had set aside $4 million per year for creators and production companies outside Quebec.

  3. It seems that TVA,s commitment with regards to the improvement in programming for Francophones outside Quebec therefore did not translate into sustained cooperation with minority-setting producers.

  4. Thus, without clear commitments and specific license conditions, there is very little demand from broadcasters for independent official language production from OLMCs. In my view, when licensees make specific commitments to developing and purchasing programming from minority communities, these commitments should be stated in the licence conditions. Also, the CRTC should monitor more closely the annual reports submitted by licensees with respect to the development and purchasing of programming from minority communities.

Television production and the definition of “regional reflection”

  1. Regional television production takes place within an environment that is regulated and supervised by the CRTC with a view to implementing the Broadcasting Policy for Canada. However, the CRTC has no policy on production in minority communities; it prefers to operate on a case-by-case basis when the licenses in question are renewed. The obligations imposed by the CRTC are limited to the “reflection” of Canada’s regions in television programs. This approach is problematic in several ways.

  2. The concept of “region” is fundamentally ambiguous. In fact, the CRTC identifies as regional those French-language programs in which the principal photography took place in Canada at a distance of more than 150 km from Montreal, as well as those English-language programs in which the principal photography took place in Canada at a distance of more than 150 km from Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver.

  3. Thus, regional production in French may include programs filmed regionally in Quebec, while English-language programs filmed in Montreal do not count as regional. As for English-language television, there are only two stations in Quebec other than the CBC: one that broadcasts Global network programs, and another that broadcasts CTV network programs. Both stations are located in Montreal. Neither Global nor CTV has a license condition dealing with minority community television production. Because they are not regional programs, some programs from Montreal production houses may not be considered priority programming by the CRTC even though these are English-language production houses in a minority setting.

  4. In order to ensure regional reflection, some CRTC decisions state that the Commission expects licensees to broadcast programs that reflect all regions of Canada. It also expects producers working outside major production centres to have an opportunity to produce programs for broadcast. However, it does not clearly state whether these regionally reflective programs must come from regionally-located production houses, or even whether a certain percentage of these programs must be made by producers from minority English- or French-language communities.

  5. Finally, since the CRTC’s expectations are generally not included in broadcasting license conditions, broadcasters have no real obligation to comply, either financially or in terms of their broadcasting activity.

  6. The CRTC must therefore clarify the notion of “regional reflection” by developing a specific policy on this matter. The new policy should clearly distinguish between regional production in the majority official language and regional production in the minority official language. Moreover, when individual licenses are renewed, the CRTC should insist that license conditions are obligations rather than mere expectations.

Local Programming Improvement Fund

  1. In Public Notice 2008-100, the CRTC establishes the new Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF). The CRTC is increasing BDU contributions to Canadian programming from 5% to 6% of gross revenues derived from broadcasting activities. The increase is expected to amount to about $60 million in the first year. This fund was designed to improve the quality of local programming in non-metropolitan markets.

  2. I am happy to see that the CRTC has deemed it appropriate to increase contributions from authorized BDUs to Canadian programming. However, the definition of non-metropolitan markets does not mention OLMCs. Also, according to the CRTC, the metropolitan markets of Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal and the English-language market of Ottawa-Gatineau will be excluded from the LPIF. Yet a significant proportion of members from these official language communities live in these metropolitan centres. Although they live in urban environments, these residents do not have access to a wide range of programming in their preferred official language or that reflects the particular realities of their cultural life.

  3. I propose that the CRTC modify the criteria of the LPIF so that stations serving urban OLMCs in metropolitan markets can benefit from this fund in order to produce their programming.

Major national and international events

  1. In its public notice, the CRTC is asking stakeholders to comment on measures it can take to promote television coverage of major national and international events in the language of the minority. As part of my duty, I am sometimes called upon to investigate the absence of adequate and equal coverage in both official languages during certain national events, such as federal elections or Remembrance Day ceremonies.

  2. This said, I would like to share with you my findings from when I examined this issue in the context of broadcasting the 2010 Olympic Games in both official languages. The television broadcasting license for this event in Canada has been awarded to a consortium consisting of CTV/TSN for English-language coverage and TQS/RDS for French-language coverage. The TQS and RDS networks are not, unfortunately, broadcast on basic channels throughout Canada. The broadcasting contract exists directly between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and CTVglobemedia, over which the government, the CRTC and OCOL have no jurisdiction.

  3. Following discussions among the different parties, including the federal government, VANOC and OCOL, CTVglobemedia promised to make the TQS/RDS signal available free-of-charge to BDUs while the Games are under way. It remains to be seen whether this solution will allow for sufficient access to television coverage of the Games in French.

  4. In such cases of national interest, the CRTC must support the broadcasting system not only in its role as a regulatory agency, but also in a leadership role, by reiterating the importance of linguistic duality as a central aspect of the broadcasting system, especially during events of great importance to the country.

  5. I believe the CRTC should encourage a spirit of cooperation between distributors and broadcasters. It should play a key role by reassuring them that it will support their efforts in this regard. This could be achieved, for instance, through exemptions from licence conditions or by suspending certain regulations in special cases.
C. Radio services

Community radio in a minority setting

  1. Community radio stations target an often small proportion of the population. In several provinces, they are also the only French-language alternative to Radio-Canada and the only stations that reflect the concerns of the local community. However, the economic burden of maintaining a community radio station can be enormous, and a large number of them are running deficits. These stations contribute not only to the development of official language minority communities and therefore to linguistic duality, but also to promoting Canadian culture as a whole.

  2. This is why I support the efforts of organizations such as the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada (ARC), the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec (ARCQ) and the National Campus and Community Radio Association (NCRA), which contribute to the development of minority community radio. I want to congratulate them on establishing the Community Radio Fund of Canada in May 2008. The CRFC supports the development of not-for-profit radio. In Decision CRTC 2007-359, the CRTC encouraged Astral Media Radio (Toronto) Inc. to consult with this coalition of organizations if it decided to direct funding to the campus and community radio sector.

  3. I support the creation of this ongoing fund to support community radio. I encourage the CRTC to continue to support the CRFC and to encourage other commercial radio licence holders to contribute to it and to work with the coalition.

  4. Recently, the coalition asked Canadian Heritage to invest in the development of community radio through the CRFC. It can hardly be emphasized enough that community radio serves and is especially important to certain remote communities, and that it has an ongoing need for financial support.

  5. Along the same lines, I am concerned by the fact that minority community radio stations are evaluated under the same criteria as other radio stations (commercial, majority-language radio, etc.) on their frequency applications. I am concerned that this might have a negative impact on diversity of voices and access to minority-language media in large centres.

  6. For instance, in the case of Radio Communautaire Franco-Ontarienne’s application in the National Capital Region, the CRTC stated in CRTC decision 2008-222 that approving this application would contribute to achieving the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, yet rejected the application for economic reasons.

  7. Similarly, in Decision CRTC 2008-222 concerning an increase in effective radiated power (ERP) by the Salt Spring Island station, the complaints of Radio communautaire Victoria were not taken into consideration. It is almost impossible for a community radio station to compete with commercial radio stations on an economic basis.

  8. In my view the CRTC must adopt positive measures that have due regard for the challenges facing community radio in minority settings. These measures should help community radio to develop and succeed because it contributes not only to the vitality of the minority official language, and thus to linguistic duality, but also to promoting Canadian culture in general.
D. CBC/Radio-Canada
  1. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC/Radio-Canada) is at the heart of Canadian broadcasting; moreover, this institution is wholly subject to the Official Languages Act. I believe that we must reaffirm its importance as an essential means of promoting, preserving and supporting Canadian culture. CBC/Radio-Canada has often successfully produced radio and television programming that depicts the country’s diverse linguistic realities and bridges the solitudes. We should congratulate them for this and encourage them to continue their unique contribution to Canadian programming.

  2. I do however have some concerns about how CBC/Radio-Canada delivers on its mandate and its impact on OLMCs. While our annual reports show that it has done quite well with regard to respecting Part VII of the Act, I nonetheless also feel compelled to point out that, every year, we receive complaints about CBC/Radio-Canada from the public.1

  3. CBC/Radio-Canada has a mandate to provide programming that reflects all aspects of Canada, including the manifold realities of OLMCs, and to narrow the gap between the French- and English-language cultures of Canada. However the 2008 annual report by CBC/Radio-Canada’s ombudsman indicates that viewers outside Quebec are concerned about how little of Francophone life outside Quebec is reflected on the air, particularly when it comes to news and public affairs. This is a matter which I myself raised when I appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in March 2007.

  4. It is important that CBC/Radio-Canada continue to reflect the aspirations and achievements of Canadians in all regions and locations. The Government and the CRTC should move to strengthen CBC/Radio-Canada’s role in regional programming.

  5. I also wish to highlight the role the CRTC could play by requiring direct-to-home services to distribute the signals of all the local television stations of the CBC’s English and French networks.

  6. I propose that the CRTC monitor the CBC more thoroughly with respect to the development and purchasing of original Canadian programs as well as programs produced in the minority communities.
E. New technologies
  1. In terms of new technologies, I would like to draw your attention to our September 2005 report, Bridging the Digital Divide: Official Languages on the Internet. Its recommendations are intended to ensure that Internet content is of equal quality in both official languages, especially on government Web sites, and to reduce the digital divide between Anglophones and Francophones. The report mainly focuses on three things: promoting the provision of French Internet tools; ensuring high-quality Internet content in English and French; and ensuring the implementation of a robust governance framework to this effect.

  2. It is therefore essential that these technological advances respect the basic rules of the Canadian broadcasting system. Under Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, the Canadian broadcasting system should serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada and must reflect Canada's linguistic duality.

  3. This is why the CRTC must look more thoroughly at new technologies in order to encourage the development of Canadian cultural content that fully reflects Canada’s linguistic duality. I am aware that the CRTC has launched a public consultation to review in greater depth the role of broadcasting in new media.

  4. I suggest that the CRTC propose new financial support measures for creators of new media (Internet, mobile) content, similar to those that already exist for radio and television, in order to help achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. Setting up a funding system, whatever form it may take, would provide a major incentive for the use of French in new media. The CRTC should explore potential sources of financing for creating and maintaining such support measures. The funding system could be based on a public-private partnership model such as that of the Canadian Television Fund, which would involve a contribution from the Government of Canada.
Conclusion
  1. The equality of English and French is a fundamental principle of the Canadian broadcasting system, and linguistic duality is a building block of this country. It is my earnest hope that the current review by the CRTC will place linguistic duality back at the heart of Canadian broadcasting.

  2. I trust that these observations will be useful to you.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Fraser

 

***End of document***


1. http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/docs/e/2007_08_e.pdf p.142