More

services

possible

The question of how many new television services Canadians will see next year seemed to have been settled almost four months ago when the crtc – following a nine-month-long review – gave the green light to 10 new services.

But that question is being asked again as a sharp protest from the arts community has led to a re-examination of the crtc’s decision to limit new arts programming to Bravo! and A&D Television (formerly Arts et Divertissement).

Heritage Canada has given a panel of arts community members six months to formulate a plan for alternative programming services that could result in new services licensed and released before the scheduled January 1997 launch of the next round of services.

According to Sandy Crawley, national president of actra and a member of both the appeal coalition and the new panel, the appeal was intended to call the government’s attention to what a cross-section of the arts community felt was inappropriate interpretation of the Broadcasting Act by the crtc.

‘We felt the commission wasn’t fulfilling its mandate for cultural development under the Broadcasting Act, and we’ve gotten a suitable response (to the appeal) from Heritage Canada. I never thought they were going to take anyone’s licence away, but we never would have gotten attention without it.

‘Part of the purpose of having a broadcasting system in Canada is cultural development. The crtc has shied away from this, looking at licensing in terms of pure market forces – indeed they’ve worshipped at the shrine of market forcesÉbut the market system alone isn’t going to keep us alive,’ says Crawley.

Bill Allen, director of crtc public affairs, says the Broadcasting Act is the guiding force for the commission but that market forces can’t be ignored.

‘There are a number of questions to ask, including: Is there a market demand for this service? Do people want to see it? How is it going to be financed?

‘Balancing competing interests is the challenge, but the Broadcast Act is always priority.’

The six-member panel will spend the next few months discussing how an alternative programming service could be viable in this market.

Then, Heritage Canada Minister Michel Dupuy has said applications for aps may be made to the crtc, says Keith Kelly, national director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts and a member of the panel.

‘He told us that the rationale used in the creation of the committee, as opposed to directing the crtc to call for proposals, was that it may be a fast-track.

‘If we go to the crtc in six months with a well-articulated sense of what an aps looks like, we may be able to cut the program short,’ he says.

The crtc could hear these applications as early as February, although Susan Baldwin, director general, broadcasting policy for Heritage Canada, says it’s up to the crtc to decide whether it will give the application audience.

‘They can submit their application anytime, but it would be the crtc’s decision whether to make it part of the hearings or hold a separate session. It would probably depend on timing,’ she says.

The crtc says it won’t speak hypothetically about how it will treat early applications positioned as aps. To date, no individual or group has applied as an aps, says Allen.

Applications could be submitted as early as February 1995, a month after the launch of the new arts services and four months before the June 30 deadline for round two.

Executives at Bravo! and a&d say their agendas won’t change.

‘A study is something you do when you can’t give the people what they want. It’s a way of stalling for time,’ says Paul Gratton, station manager at Bravo!

‘I can’t conjecture whether or not something new might pass the test. I’ve spent enough time on thisÉI have to focus on getting the channel launched in January.’

While interested to learn where funding for an alternative service might come from, Pierre Roy, president and ceo of Premier Choix:tvec, a private broadcaster operating a&d, says the panel’s actions are of no consequence to the launching of a&d.

‘Nothing that is going on in the political arena will affect what I’m doing,’ says Roy.

The panel will meet for the first time within the next two weeks, generating a clear definition of an aps and exploring funding options will be priorities.

‘Alternative programming has been established as a separate class of programming service in section 3.1r of the Broadcasting Act. We need to establish what that clause means so the commission will have a better sense of what an aps looks like,’ says Kelly.

As for whether the system can support three, or possibly four, arts-related broadcasting services, Allan King, president of the Directors Guild of Canada and a panel member, is positive it can.

‘It’s not as if the broadcast system’s poverty stricken. I think if we exercise a little ingenuity, it’s possible to do the job.’

For his part, Crawley is advocating mandatory carriage and a not-for-profit structure for an alternative arts programming service.

As the committee looks at configurations for alternative programming services, others are pondering the larger question of the government’s seeming second-guessing of the crtc on its arts programming services licensing decisions and its reopening of the direct satellite transmission issue.

‘What the government is doing with the creation of this committee and their re-examination of the DirecTv decision, is send everyone who deals with the force the message that the government doesn’t trust the crtc,’ says Ian Morrison, spokesperson for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

‘The commission has no comment on that, other than to say that the government has every right to look at the overall policy,’ says the crtc’s Allen.

Other members of the aps panel include Louise Baillargeon, president and general director of L’Association des producteurs de films et de television du Quebec, Ivan Fecan of Baton Broadcasting, and Peter Grant, senior partner of McCarthy Tetrault. The cbc will also have input, according to Dupuy.