Written Questions by Michel Morin about Community Programming
1) Assuming the Commission decided to grant community programming licenses throughout Canada, and assuming the Commission decided to grant half of one per cent (0.5%) of the contributions currently allocated to terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDU) to community programming licensees (by serving area in accordance to an established schedule), would you agree that the Commission requires the new community programming entity to raise the equivalent of half of one per cent (0.5%) of the revenues of terrestrial BDUs in the form of individual or collective memberships (municipalities and non-profit organizations) before granting the other half of one per cent (0.5%) of subscriber revenues to the new community programming entity?
The idea behind this suggestion is that ultimately, and in accordance to a Commission-established schedule, one per cent (1%) of the current revenues of terrestrial BDUs be available for community programming licensees provided they directly participate in funding based on active, recurring and predictable membership.
For example, Télé-communautaire in St-Donat, Quebec would sell its bingo cards as memberships instead of selling them as part of one of many fundraising activities. Members would no longer be simple users; they could vote at the annual general meeting and also identify more with their community-programming-licensee community television.
2) Should other conditions be imposed on community programming licensees?
Here are some examples. If they obtained half of one per cent (0.5%), should they be required by the Commission to produce a minimum of five hours of programming per week? Why not emphasize quality over quantity? I ask the question because you have unique hands-on experience. I also ask the question to large terrestrial BDUs that are in touch with local communities (Shaw Communications, Rogers, Videotron, etc.).
Of course, if they obtained one per cent (1%) of BDU contributions, they would already have collected a first half of one per cent (0.5%) through membership. Should the required minimum of community programming be augmented?
To provide you with another example, six hours instead of four, as is the case in Quebec to obtain the provincial government grant.
3) You are now working on an interactive community website. Assuming the Commission implemented this revenue-sharing proposal between corporate community channels as they are now being run by the BDUs and access community programming undertakings, who would be in the best position to run this interactive website and why?
In other words, the underlying question is: Who between the corporate community channel and the community programming licensee should accommodate new technologies such as those related to interactivity (video on demand and websites)?
4) Should the Commission establish an access programming percentage at peak hours, as is the case now for all hours (between 30 % and 60 %)?
By the end of this hearing, on May 4, I may want to ask other questions to all terrestrial BDUs. However these questions are in fact for everyone (CACTUS, the Fédération, cooperatives, etc.). So I would ask you to pay attention to discussions in this hearing keeping in mind that often those who do not respond or express an opinion will always be wrong, as they say.
Thank you. These were all my questions, Mr. Chairman.
- Date modified: