|
Decision
|
|
Ottawa, 4 August 1987
|
|
Decision CRTC 87-590
|
|
Cathay International Television Inc. Vancouver, British Colombia
|
In CRTC - Notice of Public Hearing 1987-36 dated 10 April 1987, the Commission called Cathay International Television Inc. (Cathay) to appear at a Public Hearing in Vancouver on 8 June 1987. The Notice stated that the Commission required Cathay to demonstrate that it had complied with the condition of licence imposed by the Commission in Decision CRTC 87-73 dated 30 January 1987, with respect to the provision that Cathay provide "as part of a single service on an ongoing basis, and in addition to Chinese-language programming, as a minimum, programming in two languages other than English, French or native Canadian by 30 April 1987, and that at least 15 hours per week be allocated to each language", failing which it must show cause why its licence should be renewed.
|
|
I. Background
|
Following a Public Hearing in the National Capital Region on 30 April 1985, the Commission approved, by majority decision, an application by Cathay for authority to acquire the assets of World View Television Limited (World View), the licensee of an ethnic (formerly known as "multilingual") regional pay television network serving the Province of British Columbia, and granted a broadcasting licence expiring 31 March 1987 to continue the operation of that undertaking (Decision CRTC 85-628 dated 1 August 1985). Approval of the Cathay application was conditional upon the licensee meeting the programming requirements set out in the decision.
|
|
At a subsequent public hearing in Vancouver on 5 November 1986, the Commission examined whether or not Cathay had complied with a condition imposed upon it by the Commission that it provide, in addition to the Chinese-language service it was proposing, at least 15 hours per week of programming in each of two languages other than English, French or native Canadian. Cathay admitted that it had not met this programming requirement within the specified one-year period. Cathay contended, that in order to retain its subscriber base, it would require a separate channel for its other-language programming.
|
Based on the evidence submitted, the Commission decided "to provide Cathay with a further opportunity to show its good faith". Accordingly, again by majority decision, the Commission, in Decision CRTC 87-73, renewed the licence of Cathay from 1 April 1987 to 31 August 1987, imposed a condition of licence requiring that by 30 April 1987 Cathay provide such programming on an ongoing basis as part of a single service, and said that it would schedule a public hearing for 9 June 1987 (re-scheduled to 8 June 1987) to examine Cathay's compliance with this condition of licence.
|
|
II. The Public Hearing
|
At the 1987 Vancouver hearing, the Commission examined whether or not Cathay was in compliance with the programming requirements set out in Decision CRTC 87-73.
|
|
Mr. Brian Sung, President and Managing Director of Cathay, stated that on 30 April 1987, Cathay introduced South Asian programming, on an unscrambled basis in what it termed a "prelude stage". He explained:
|
|
This was developed in order to gradually establish interest in the potential new and larger viewing audience and to establish credibility by actually demonstrating through variety and scope ... the Asian programming of Cathay Television.
|
|
He further explained that this "prelude stage" is to be followed by a short "preview stage" during which the South Asian programming will continue to be distributed on an unscrambled basis while Cathay actively solicits subscribers for this service. Mr. Sung stated that Cathay was using a single channel to distribute its Chinese and South Asian programs, but that in order to maintain its Chinese subscriber base, programs in languages other than Chinese are not aired in prime viewing hours. He stated that, Cathay, therefore, continues to seek a second channel on which its service would be redistributed in its entirety. Each of the two channels would, however, carry the same programs but at different times so that each ethnic group may have access to its own programs during popular viewing hours.
|
|
With respect to the requirement that Cathay distribute, in addition to Chinese, programming in at least two languages other than English, French and native Canadian for a minimum of 15 hours per week in each language, Mr. Sung reported that, initially, there had been confusion as to whether Hindi and Urdu, which are very similar in the verbal but not in the written form, could be regarded as distinct languages. He stated that Cathay had subsequently shifted its programming "to ensure that there would be at least 15 hours per week in Hindi and 15 hours per week in Punjabi".
|
|
At the public hearing a question was raised about whether Hindi and Punjabi should be considered as distinct languages in determining the licensee's compliance with its condition of licence. In this regard, Cathay submitted two letters of opinion from recognized language authorities, which demonstrated to the Commission's satisfaction that they are indeed separate languages. A further question arose about whether Hindi and Urdu should be considered as distinct languages. Little evidence was put forward in this regard and the Commission has not been dissuaded from considering Hindi and Urdu to be distinct languages.
|
|
While acknowledging that a Commission analysis of Cathay's programming undertaken during the week of 3 to 9 May 1987 revealed a shortfall of programs in the Punjabi language (191/2 hours in Hindi, 5 hours in Urdu and 9 hours in Punjabi), Mr. Sung maintained that the shortfall was due to a technicality. He argued that, had the Commission commenced its analysis on 30 April 1987, Cathay would have been shown to be in compliance because, on the mornings of 30 April and 1 May, there was sufficient Punjabi programming to meet the required 15 hours per week. Cathay offered to submit, and the Commission agreed to accept, the program logs for the week of 30 April to 6 May 1987. According to the licensee's statement accompanying the logs which were filed on 10 June 1987, there remained a shortfall of 33 minutes in the Punjabi programming. The logs show that in addition to 14 hours 27 minutes of programming in the Punjabi language, there were 17 hours 12 minutes of programs in Hindi and 5 hours 21 minutes in "other" languages. A Commission analysis of tapes of the licensee's programming for this same week found that there were 13 hours 52 minutes of programming in Punjabi, 17 hours 23 minutes in Hindi, 3 hours 17 minutes in "other" South Asian languages, and a further 1 hour 45 minutes of programming material directed to these distinct ethnic audiences.
|
|
Further, during the hearing, Mr. Sung admitted that on 30 April 1987, the Cathay service available to residents of Victoria did not comply with the condition of licence because programming tapes were being sent to the local cable company on a delayed basis. He assured the Commission that the Victoria cable television affiliate, Rogers Cable T.V. Limited, is now receiving the full package of Cathay programs, is descrambling the South Asian portion for the prelude period and that Cathay is, therefore, now in full compliance with its condition of licence in all areas where its service is distributed.
|
|
When asked at the hearing why Cathay had waited until April 30th to come into compliance, the licensee explained that because there are a significant number of East Indian languages spoken by the British Columbia ethnic population, it had been necessary to meet with many organizations and individuals from the various cultural communities to determine which languages were most prevalent in the communities to be served. He explained that the planning of the prelude and preview models had occupied a considerable amount of time as had the negotiations with cable companies with respect to unscrambling the South Asian portions of the Cathay service. The licensee also indicated that uncertainty with respect to the differences between the Hindi and Urdu languages had necessitated amendments to the programming plans, all of which had resulted in Cathay being ready to broadcast South Asian programming only on 30 April 1987.
|
|
At the hearing, Mr. Sung stated unequivocally that Cathay's intention had been to comply with the condition of licence effective 30 April 1987 and that the licensee is committed to continue to comply with the condition of licence, even if it is unable to obtain a repeat channel.
|
|
Mr. Sung informed the Commission that Cathay is working closely with Asian Television Network, which has been involved in multicultural broadcasting in Canada for several years. The President of Asian Television Network, Mr. Shan Chandrasekar, appeared at the hearing with the licensee and explained that with respect to producing programming for Cathay:
|
|
We didn't come in ... just because somebody needs [to fulfill] a statutory obligation. It's very important in terms of being a business as well as a responsibility to the South Asian community, that we provide decent, good programming that will be of significance to the growth of the community and so that the community can really appreciate [it] ...
|
|
Mr. Chandrasekar outlined the wide range of South Asian programming to be carried on Cathay, stating that:
|
|
The success of our venture in British Columbia will depend upon the nature of our community support and the availability of prime time viewing ... We feel the South Asian community in Vancouver has enormous potential to contribute to the growth and development of this service, and we hope to explore this opportunity to its fullest potential.
|
|
III. The Decision
|
|
The Commission has carefully examined all of the evidence before it including the statements made at the hearing. It has taken particular note of the licensee's effort to comply with its condition of licence as evidenced by the 34.5 hours of programming in South Asian languages distributed during the week of 30 April to May 6 1987, the marginal shortfall of Punjabi programming, and the licensee's assurance that it fully intended to be in compliance as of 30 April 1987. The Commission also notes the enthusiasm of Mr. Chandrasekar and his clear understanding of the need for quality programming which will satisfy the requirements of the diverse South Asian community residing in British Columbia.
|
|
Based on all of these factors, the Commission has concluded that Cathay has substantially complied with the condition of its licence which requires it to provide, as part of a single service on an ongoing basis, and in addition to its Chinese-language programming, as a minimum, programming in two languages other than English, French and native Canadian, by 30 April 1987, and that at least 15 hours per week be allocated to each language.
|
|
At the 8 June 1987 public hearing in Vancouver, the Commission did not have before it an application from Cathay for the renewal of its licence beyond 31 August 1987, although Cathay requested a full-term renewal at the hearing. Further, the Commission notes that the public has not had the benefit of any knowledge of the plans and intentions of Cathay in order that it might participate in the process in a meaningful manner. Accordingly, in order to allow the applicant sufficient time to prepare and submit a comprehensive renewal application, and for the Commission to schedule the hearing of such an application and to complete its deliberations, the Commission renews the licence of Cathay for six months only from 1 September 1987 to 29 February 1988.
|
|
The licence will be subject to the conditions specified in this decision and in the licence to be issued. The Commission will, in the near future, announce the date and location of the public hearing at which the renewal application will be considered.
|
|
It is a condition of licence that Cathay provide, as part of a single service, on an ongoing basis and in addition to Chinese language programming, as a minimum, programming in two languages other than English, French or native Canadian and that at least 15 hours per week be allocated to each language. The Commission continues to expect that the licensee will add programming in other languages in order to meet the needs of other linguistic communities.
|
Further, the existing conditions of licence relating to ownership, programming and the operation of the undertaking, as set out in the appendix to Decision CRTC 85-628, remain unchanged and continue to apply.
|
|
With respect to the issue of cable distribution, the Commission reaffirms that it would be willing to consider the re-distribution of Cathay's service on a repeat channel where all of its programming is distributed but is scheduled at different times so as to provide each of the ethnic groups with access to relevant programs during viewing hours appropriate to its distinct needs. In this regard, the Commission understands that the "mirror" channel concept put forth by Cathay at the hearing proposes that subscribers would have access to all of Cathay's programming on each of two separate channels but at different times.
|
|
The Commission further reaffirms that should Cathay wish to seek agreement with cable systems for a repeat channel, the Commission will expect it to submit monthly reports on the status of these negotiations. Moreover, the Commission is prepared to process expeditiously any applications from cable licensees seeking authority to carry such a repeat channel.
|
The Commission reminds the licensee and its cable affiliates that with respect to its prelude and preview periods, it is expected to adhere to the requirements set out in Public Notice CRTC 1985-6 dated 10 January 1985, including that which specifies that programming of pay television networks and specialty services distributed on an unscrambled basis "may not be exhibited by cable television licensees during major national broadcasting rating periods such as those conducted by BBM and Nielsen".
|
|
The Commission acknowledges and has taken into consideration the numerous appearing and non-appearing interventions addressing the issue of Cathay's compliance with its condition of licence.
|
|
Fernand Bélisle
Secretary General
|
|
|