Robert armstrong is a broadcasting and film consultant based in Montreal.

what is the future for Canadian content requirements for television over the next few years as new media and new players pervade the environment? The answer to this question depends upon a number of variables that are themselves evolving over time.

Until recently, Canadian content requirements were essentially determined by the Broadcasting Act and the crtc. The Act defined the general requirements and the crtc established specific requirements by means of policies, regulations and conditions of licence.

But following the 1991 revision of the Act, which broadened the scope for policy directions issued by the government of Canada, the government has begun to take a more active role in broadcast policy formulation.

A year and a half ago, crtc chairman Keith Spicer spoke of the withering away of the crtc as a regulatory agency. But there is no indication in the commission’s recent report to the government, ‘Competition and Culture on Canada’s Information Highway’ (May 1995), that the crtc is preparing to abandon its traditional approach to Canadian content requirements. On the contrary, the report is generally favorable to the maintenance of Canadian content requirements for new and existing programming services over the next few years and a central role for the regulator.

What are the domestic forces pushing for a reduction in the crtc’s Canadian content requirements for programming services? Generally speaking, they are potential new entrants such as the telephone companies and, to a lesser extent, established players who have been losing ground over the last few years, including conventional broadcasters.

Who is opposed to reduced Canadian content requirements for television? The creative community, the independent production sector, some existing broadcast services which are successfully fulfilling their Canadian content requirements and see the existing level of requirements as a barrier to entry by new competitors, as well as those opposed to potential new entrants for strategic reasons, such as the cable companies.

To what extent can Canadians expect a liberalization of cultural policy as it relates to television in the next few years?

In one sense, the issue of Canadian content on television can be summarized as follows – where will the crtc find its basic inspiration over the next few years: section 3 of the Broadcasting Act or section 7 of the Telecommunications Act?

Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act sets out the objectives of Canada’s broadcasting policy and refers to the safeguard, enrichment and strengthening of the social, economic and cultural fabric of Canada.

Its counterpart, section 7 (Canadian Telecommunications Policy) of the Telecommunications Act, refers only to the safeguard, enrichment and strengthening of the social and economic fabric of Canada. This is significantly different from the Broadcasting Act, which includes an overall cultural objective for broadcasting.

The Broadcasting Act requires the crtc to take broad cultural concerns into consideration when establishing television policy, while the Telecommunications Act does not. Consequently, in their desire to limit the crtc’s power to regulate new broadcasting operations and to reduce the commission’s extensive Canadian content requirements, potential new entrants to the television industry, including the telephone companies, look to certain aspects of the Telecommunications Act as a model for regulation.

DTH satellite policy

Where is government policy headed over the next few years?

One indication is provided by the recent history of direct-to-home satellite regulatory policy. As it has done in the past, in its approach to new direct broadcast satellite services, the crtc essentially sought to reinforce the current broadcasting system by favoring a consortium of existing players who have a stake in services likely to be affected by the advent of dbs. For a variety of reasons, the government tried to open up the market for dbs services.

Ultimately, as a result of public pressure, the government was forced to modify its position, but it appears to have succeeded in its objective of promoting competition.

In its orders issuing directions to the crtc (July 6), the government has endorsed and even strengthened its commitment to the current body of Canadian content requirements for television.

On the dbs issue, the government has been able to assert its authority over the regulatory agency and open up the market for new services. But public opinion has not allowed it to derogate from the principal tenets of Canadian content regulation for tv.

This said, the government has not been prevented from introducing several new wrinkles into the body of Canadian content policy for television. For example, among other things, the dth orders require a significant financial contribution to an independently administered production fund, not only from dbs distribution undertakings, but also from dbs pay-per-view programming undertakings.

Whereas the Report of the Policy Review Panel on DBS Satellite Broadcasting (April 1995) recommended that new dbs programming undertakings contribute to the independent production of Canadian programs ‘in the same manner’ as other ppv television services, the government’s order requires dbs ppv programming services to make a significant financial contribution to the production of Canadian programs that is to be ‘administered independently of the undertaking.’

In other words, whereas existing programming undertakings, such as the conventional broadcast, specialty and pay services, are required to spend targeted amounts on the production or acquisition of Canadian programs, dbs programming operators will carry an additional burden, that of contributing to an independent production fund.

In this way, the directive requires a resource transfer from dbs programming undertakings to Canadian production (not necessarily independently produced) that may end up exclusively on conventional services.

The government has taken a principle that hitherto has applied exclusively to distribution undertakings, such as cable operations, and applied it, not only to dbs distribution undertakings, but also to a new class of broadcast services – dbs ppv programming operations.

The question then arises as to what extent the commission will interpret this as a principle to be applied to other new and existing programming services.

What does the future hold?

Will the government of Canada continue to endorse the commission’s overall approach to Canadian content regulation or adopt some other strategy in the future? The answer to this involves several other questions, including the following:

– The future of Ministers Michel Dupuy and John Manley and the identity of their eventual successors;

– Who is to succeed crtc chairman Spicer and vice-chairman Fernand Belisle whose mandates are scheduled to terminate in the not-so-distant future;

– The ability of the u.s. government to pursue further its agenda for the liberalization of trade and the sale of u.s. cultural products and services in Canada, as it has successfully done in the recent case of Country Music Television (Canada);

– The ability of Quebec’s cultural industries, which continue to exercise considerable influence in Ottawa, to maintain significant pressure on the Canadian government after the Quebec Referendum;

– The ability of the Canadian independent production sector to clarify its strategic interests and to pursue actively its agenda.