Section I - Rationale for the Study
Page 4 of 11
1.1 Introduction
Even though some experts had predicted the end of traditional scheduled television, viewership is in fact increasing, even among the youngest viewers and despite the various parallel platforms. According to data collected in 2006, television remains the principal vehicle for passive entertainment.1 In addition, the quality of this traditional supply of television has risen with the advent of high definition and digital television.
Given the proliferation of technology that provides access to a wide range of content, the question that arises, and will arise with increasing urgency, is the following: what counts as Canadian television content and how can its creation, production and broadcasting to Canadian households be encouraged in a world ruled by strong competition? Moreover, in the context of Canada’s specific language situation, how can we ensure an adequate place for French and for the reflection of the official language minority communities (OLMCs), not only in terms of broadcasting to home television screens, but also with regard to the creation and production of Canadian television content?
This latter aspect is of particular interest to the Commissioner of Official Languages, who has sought to pursue the matter within the framework of his mandate to promote respect for the official languages in all areas of federal jurisdiction.
The Commissioner recognizes the changing television landscape and the influence of new kinds of media on Canadians, and especially among youth. He recognizes that these new types of broadcasting and distribution represent significant competition for traditional television and are prompting conventional television broadcasters to offer a wider range of products and services through new technologies. Youth, in particular, are major users of these services. That said, an analysis of the new platforms and their impact on the Canadian public are not part of this report’s objectives.
1.2 Legal framework and mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages
To help readers understand the legislative framework within which this study was carried out, it is worth recalling the main features of the mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
As an officer of Parliament, the Commissioner of Official Languages oversees the promotion and implementation of the objectives of the Official Languages Act. According to section 56 (Part IX) of the Act.
It is the duty of the Commissioner to take all actions and measures within the authority of the Commissioner with a view to ensuring recognition of the status of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit and intent of this Act in the administration of the affairs of federal institutions, including any of their activities relating to the advancement of English and French in Canadian society.
Federal institutions are subject to the Official Languages Act and must comply with it, particularly section 41 (Part VII), as amended in 2005, which reads as follows:
41. (1) The Government of Canada is committed to (a) enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and (b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.
(2) Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of the commitments under subsection (1). For greater certainty, this implementation shall be carried out while respecting the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces.
In order to promote the vitality of the Canadian English-speaking and French-speaking OLMCs and to support their development, the Commissioner of Official Languages is of the opinion that the federal government must encourage the growth of television production in these communities, i.e., French-language production outside Quebec and English-language production in Quebec.
This also means that, because French is a minority language outside Quebec, it is up to the federal government to promote its full recognition and use, ensuring, through positive measures if necessary, its presence on Canadian television as a reflection of the minority communities. The same goes for the English-speaking community in Quebec. The federal institutions examined in this study, with the exception of the Canadian Television Fund (CTF), are subject to the Official Languages Act. They are the following:
- Canadian Heritage (and the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office [CAVCO])
- the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
- the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
- CBC/Radio-Canada
- Telefilm Canada.
1.3 Objectives
This study examines the Canadian television production industry in relation to the Official Languages Act, and has three main objectives:
- Report on the production of television material—from conception to broadcasting—coming from Anglophone and Francophone OLMCs and identify the main obstacles facing producers from these communities;
- Determine the place of French in the Canadian television production industry and on the air, especially with regard to dubbing and children’s and youth programming;
- Make recommendations to the federal government under Parts VII and IX of the Official Languages Act, in order to ensure the continued development of a television production industry in a minority context and the vitality of French on Canadian television airwaves.
1.4 Context of the study
Because of their importance as linguistic expressions of Canadian culture, and taking into account the new provisions of the Official Languages Act (Part VII, section 41) that took effect in 2005, the Office of the Commissioner took an interest in the dual problem of television production in a minority context and the place of French on the air, specifically as they relate to programming for children and youth.
The Commissioner decided to conduct this study after having become aware of some changes in recent years as to how the CTF is administered and how it is used:
- The announcement of the Minister of Canadian Heritage’s decision not to appoint a representative of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada (APFC) to any of its five seats on the Board of Directors of the CTF;
- The publication of the report by the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma (SARTEC) and the Union des artistes (UDA)2 criticizing certain practices related to dubbing and the use of CTF funds for youth programming in French.
These two matters, which are discussed in more detail later in this report, raise important issues regarding the presence of the two official languages and the OLMCs on Canadian airwaves.
Representation and changes in funding allocations at the CTF
In 2003, the Canadian television industry was facing changes in the criteria of the CTF’s Licence Fee Program and the federal government’s reduced contribution to the CTF. The matter came before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, which recommended in its report to the government “to re-establish, indeed even increase, its contribution to Canadian television production and confirm it for the next five years.”3 The government of the day agreed to restore funding to the CTF for a maximum of two years, but did not increase it.
The Committee also recommended that the CTF set aside 15% of its French-language envelope for production outside Quebec. This proportion was intended to reflect “the relative weight of the francophone minority communities in the Canadian francophone population.”4 This position was justified, according to the Committee, by the fact that “[i]n cultural terms, [Francophone producers in minority communities] reinforce the socio-cultural identity of their community by giving it visibility and expression. In economic terms, they are synonymous with the creation of jobs for writers, actors, screenwriters and technicians in the audiovisual industry.”5 In its response, the government committed to ensuring that the CTF set aside a minimum of 10% of its French-language envelope for French-language productions in minority contexts, and this percentage was mentioned in the funding agreement between the CTF and Canadian Heritage, with the specification that this type of production is also eligible for regional incentives and broadcasters’ envelopes.
Following publication of the Committee’s report, an agreement was reached to appoint an APFC representative to the CTF’s board of directors in one of Canadian Heritage’s five seats.6 However, since 2006, after the publication of the Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons (2005), the Department decided to appoint only outside directors to the CTF’s board of directors, including Canadian Heritage’s Assistant Deputy Minister of Cultural Affairs. In her report, the Auditor General noted that the composition of the Board “opens the door to potential conflicts of interest, because the majority of the Board directors are nominated by associations whose members receive CTF program funding or have direct or indirect interests in the broadcasting or production of television programs.”7 It is worth noting, however, that the Assistant Deputy Minister has not sat on the Board since 2007. Canadian Heritage claims that the APFC no longer sits on the CTF’s board of directors because it does not meet the definition of an outside director. The APFC has been critical of the fact that other similar organizations are still on the Board.8
The SARTEC/UDA report
In February 2005, SARTEC and the UDA made public a report9 in which they criticized the fact that numerous English-language programs dubbed in French—most often abroad—are presented as French-language programs. This situation applies more specifically to animated series, especially co-productions, which are usually written in English but dubbed and “presented” as French-language programs. For youth series, the SARTEC/UDA report also identifies another kind of problem. The French-language series are produced in French, but their place on the air is decreasing compared to original English-language series (Canadian or other) dubbed in French.
The writers of the report argued that the federal government has contributed to this situation and their points of contention are the following:
- the lack of a breakdown by language for the tax credits offered by Canadian Heritage;
- the lack of reference to the criterion of language in the CRTC’s definition of “Canadian content;”
- the funding, from the CTF French-language envelope, of several English-language series;
- the recycling of English works, often dubbed in French abroad, which has been made possible by an inadequate definition of “original broadcast.”
This study will focus on the changes in funding allocation and representation at the CTF, as well as on concerns raised regarding official language television production in a minority context and the place of the French language in the production and broadcasting of children and youth programming.
The field of television production is also one of rapid changes. Even though in some cases the situation has improved, if only since the study began, it is important to look at the situation as a whole in order to gain a better understanding of the issues.
1.5 Methodology
The data required to achieve the objectives of the study were collected in two phases. First, we conducted a thorough literature review to obtain basic information on the regulations and on the various practices within the television industry, as well as on the types of programs, funding and the requirements to which certain channels are subject. The study mainly covers the period 2001–2002 to 2007–2008, where data were available.
Second, we contacted the leaders of Canadian television industry media associations and institutions in order to obtain their cooperation in identifying a contact person we could interview. All in all, we conducted 15 interviews based on this sample. The interviews, which were conducted in 2006 and were an hour and a half long, addressed issues regarding involvement in the development of television production in a minority context of the contact person’s organization, the role and responsibilities of the various players, the main policies and the legislative framework governing their activities, as well as the issues and challenges of official language television production in a minority context.
In the interest of transparency, the organizations and institutions that participated in the interviews were also invited to comment on the main themes of the draft of this report, validate information and update recent data. We highly appreciate their feedback.
This diversified data collection helped us develop a portrait of Canadian television production. The institutions and associations that participated in the study are in List 1. The results are presented in sections 3 and 4 of the report.
List 1
Institutions and Associations Interviewed for the Study10
| Representatives of institutions that govern and support the television medium
Producers and officials for television networks (whose licence conditions from the Canadian Radio-televison and Telecommunications Commission require expenditure on production in a minority context)
Associations representing the television industry or community associations12
|
1.6 Structure of the report
The report is divided into four sections. Section 1 sets out the objectives of the study, the overall and legislative context, and the methodology used.
Section 2 focuses on the Canadian television industry as a whole, and addresses broadcasting legislation, policy frameworks governing the licensing of the various channels and the mechanisms for supporting and funding television production.
Sections 3 and 4 present the results of the study in light of the initial objectives. Section 3 looks at television production in a minority context—that is, English-language production in Quebec and French-language production outside Quebec. It presents the achievements of recent years as well as the difficulties faced by producers from these communities. Section 3 also discusses the confusion resulting from the failure to distinguish between production in a minority context and regional production, a failure that complicates the analysis of participation by OLMCs in Canadian television.
Finally, Section 4 addresses the use of French on the air in Canada, through an examination of issues related to translation, dubbing and co-production agreements. More specifically, it looks at the application of CTF funding envelopes to children’s and youth programming and at the Canadian content of animation series. Sections 3 and 4 also present the Commissioner’s recommendations to the appropriate bodies.
Notes
1. Barry Kiefl, Trends in Canadian Television Audiences, New Technologies, Advertising and Programming, Appendix C in Canadian Film and Television Production Association’s Submission to Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2006-72, August 2006, p. 17.
2. SARTEC/UDA, Séries jeunesse et animation : Le jeune public francophone dépossédé de sa culture et privé de ses artistes, February 2005.
3. House of Commons, Francophone Television Production in Minority Environments, Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, November 2003, p. 4.
6. APFC, Letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, June 15, 2006, p. 1. For information purposes, Canadian Heritage currently appoints five of the 20 directors of the CTF. However the CRTC Task Force states in its 2007 report that a reduced board would be more effective and it recommends that direct beneficiaries of the funds not sit on the Board. Report of the CRTC Task Force on the Canadian Television Fund, www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/ctf2007.pdf
, June 29, 2007, p. 2. In the CRTC Report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage on the Canadian Television Fund (June 2008), the CRTC recommends creating two boards, one for each stream. The private sector stream would be composed of 11 members, with majority representation from contributing broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) as well as representatives of broadcasters and independent producers, Francophone and Anglophone. For the public sector stream, the structure of the board is to be determined (paragraph 74). There is no mention of OLMC producers.
7. Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, November 2005, p. 17.
8. In particular, the Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec and the Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFTPA). It should be noted that they have their own seats on the Board and are not among the five seats held by Canadian Heritage.
10. The names of the people interviewed remain confidential.
11. The CTF is not a federal public institution as such and is therefore not subject to the Official Languages Act. However, it does have an indirect relationship to the Act through contribution agreements it has made with Canadian Heritage, which has considerable influence over its governance.
12. The CFTPA, which represents Canada’s independent Anglophone producers, did not follow up on our invitation to participate in this study.
13. The English-Language Arts Network provided valuable input on the first draft of this study.
