|
|
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-502
|
|
|
Ottawa, 19 November 2004
|
|
|
CHUM Limited, on behalf of Craig Media Inc.
Across Canada
|
|
|
Craig Media Inc., on behalf of a wholly-owned subsidiary corporation to be incorporated
Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario
|
|
|
Applications 2004-0514-3 and 2004-0546-6
Public Hearings in the National Capital Region
7 and 9 September 2004
|
|
|
Transfer of effective control of Craig Media Inc. to CHUM Limited; and Acquisition of assets - reorganization of Toronto One
|
|
|
The Commission approves an application by CHUM Limited (CHUM), on behalf of Craig Media Inc. (Craig), to transfer effective control of Craig to CHUM. In addition, the Commission approves the application by Craig, on behalf of a wholly-owned subsidiary corporation to be incorporated (Newco), to acquire the assets of the television programming undertakings CKXT-TV Toronto and its transmitter CKXT-TV-1 Hamilton, and CKXT-DT Toronto and its transmitter CKXT-DT-1 Hamilton.
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
1.
|
At the 7 and 9 September 2004 public hearings in the National Capital Region, the Commission considered two applications regarding ownership changes to broadcasting undertakings currently owned by Craig Media Inc. (Craig).
|
|
2.
|
The first application (application 2004-0514-3) concerned a request by CHUM Limited (CHUM), on behalf of Craig, to transfer the effective control of Craig to CHUM. The transfer of control would be accomplished by the sale of all of Craig's issued and outstanding shares to CHUM for a total cash consideration of $265 million.
|
|
3.
|
Craig is a privately held broadcasting company that owns broadcasting undertakings in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. It is the licensee of CKAL-TV Calgary and its transmitter CKAL-TV-1 Lethbridge; CKEM-TV Edmonton and its transmitter CKEM-TV-1 Red Deer; CHMI-TV Portage LaPrairie/Winnipeg; CKX-TV Brandon and its transmitters CKX-TV-1 Foxwarren, CKX-TV-2 Melita, and CKX-TV-3 McCreary. Craig is also the licensee of CKXT-TV Toronto and its transmitter CKXT-TV-1 Hamiton, and of CKXT-DT Toronto and its transmitter CKXT-DT-1 Hamilton (collectively known as "Toronto One"). In addition, through its subsidiaries, Craig is the licensee of the Category 1 specialty television service (Category 1 service) MTV Canada and the Category 2 specialty television services (Category 2 services) MTV2, TV Land and Stampede. Stampede is not yet in operation.
|
|
4.
|
CHUM owns conventional television stations, radio stations and analog specialty services across Canada. In addition, CHUM owns a number of Category 1 and Category 2 services.
|
|
5.
|
CHUM stated that Craig's decision to sell stemmed from a financial crisis brought on by weak financial results at Craig's stations in Western Canada and greater than expected losses at Toronto One.
|
|
6.
|
By this decision, the Commission approves, subject to the terms and conditions set out below, the application by CHUM for authority to acquire effective control of Craig.
|
|
7.
|
The second application (application 2004-0546-6) concerns Craig's request, on behalf of a wholly-owned subsidiary corporation to be incorporated (Newco), to transfer the assets of Toronto One to Newco (hereinafter collectively referred to as Toronto One). This reorganization of Toronto One was agreed to by Craig as part of its acquisition agreement with CHUM, for the purpose of facilitating the subsequent sale of Toronto One by CHUM.1 CHUM committed to sell Toronto One in order to comply with the Commission's common ownership policy.2
|
|
8.
|
By this decision, the Commission approves the reorganization of Toronto One.
|
|
|
Interventions
|
|
9.
|
The Commission received 102 interventions in connection with these applications. Most interveners addressed only the application dealing with CHUM's acquisition of Craig, while some interveners commented on both applications jointly. Sixty-three interventions supported the applications and 39 interventions set out comments about various aspects of the application. Concerns raised by interveners are addressed later in the relevant sections of this decision.
|
|
|
Transfer of effective control of Craig to CHUM
|
|
|
Programming plans
|
|
|
a) Programming orientation
|
|
10.
|
CHUM stated that, if the transaction were approved, there would be no major changes in the programming orientation of the conventional television stations it is acquiring, except in connection with the new programming proposed as part of its tangible benefits package, which is discussed below. CHUM also indicated that it would maintain the overall programming orientation of the Category 1 and Category 2 services.
|
|
|
b) Synergies
|
|
11.
|
CHUM submitted that approval of this application would enable it to reach 85% of English-speaking Canadians. It considered that this high level of national coverage would enhance its ability to amortize the costs of national program rights. CHUM submitted that the current Craig stations would benefit by being able to offer more popular and attractive programming to viewers.
|
|
12.
|
The applicant also argued that, under CHUM's ownership, the former Craig stations would be able to pay more to local producers, and that the quality of Canadian programming would improve because, as a large multi-station ownership group, CHUM would have better access to the Canadian Television Fund.
|
|
|
c) Local programming
|
|
13.
|
CHUM stated that it would increase the quality and extent of coverage of local news and other events for the newly acquired stations in Alberta and Manitoba. CHUM added that it would bring its "street-front/store-front" style of television to as wide an audience as possible by establishing storefront bureaus in Red Deer and Lethbridge, Alberta. CHUM submitted that these bureaus would help ensure that viewers in rural areas are reflected in the local programming broadcast on the Edmonton and Calgary stations.
|
|
14.
|
CHUM anticipated that at least a half-hour per week of programming would come from each of the storefront bureaus. This programming would highlight and showcase the opinions and events in the more rural areas of Alberta, where a significant proportion of the audiences for the Edmonton and Calgary stations resides.
|
|
|
d) Priority programming
|
|
15.
|
CHUM stated that, under its ownership, the former Craig television stations would continue to make a significant contribution to the Canadian independent production sector. CHUM stated that it would maintain the existing A-Channel Production Fund and continue to broadcast eight hours per week of priority programming, in addition to implementing the tangible benefits relating to independent production discussed later in this decision.
|
|
|
e) Ethnic programming
|
|
16.
|
CHUM stated that it planned to produce a weekly half-hour cross-cultural program, tentatively entitled Caravan!, that it would broadcast in prime time. Thirteen episodes based in the prairies would be produced each year, and CHUM would broadcast the programs on all of the television stations it operates.
|
|
|
CHUM's obligations
|
|
17.
|
The Commission reminds CHUM that it must fulfill all existing conditions of licence and commitments for the conventional television stations and the Category 1 and Category 2 services that it is acquiring.
|
|
|
Value of the transaction
|
|
18.
|
In Building on success - A policy framework for Canadian television, Public Notice CRTC 1999-97, 11 June 1999 (the Television Policy), the Commission stated that it generally expects applicants seeking Commission approval for transfers of control involving television broadcasting undertakings, including conventional, pay-per-view and specialty television undertakings, to make commitments to clear and unequivocal tangible benefits representing a financial contribution of 10% of the value of the transaction, as accepted by the Commission.
|
|
19.
|
The Commission is satisfied that $265 million appropriately represents the value of the transaction. Of that amount, $64 million was the value allocated to Toronto One. The Commission notes, however, that at the 1 November 2004 public hearing in the National Capital Region, the Commission considered an application requesting approval of the proposed sale by CHUM of Toronto One to TVA Group Inc. (TVA) and Sun Media Corporation (Sun Media) for $46 million, a difference of $18 million from the amount originally allocated to Toronto One. The Commission notes that CHUM has committed to pay benefits on this $18 million difference. Accordingly, the Commission considers that CHUM's tangible benefit commitments associated with its acquisition of Craig should be based on an aggregate transaction value that includes this $18 million difference as the value of Toronto One, not the $64 million originally allocated.
|
|
20.
|
As a result, the value of the transaction for the purpose of calculating the tangible benefits required of CHUM is $219 million, allocated as follows:
|
|
|
Broadcasting Undertakings
|
Value ($ millions)
|
|
|
Western Canada conventional television stations
|
173.5
|
|
|
MTV Canada (Category 1 service)
|
18.5
|
|
|
MTV2 and TV Land (launched Category 2 services)
|
9.0
|
|
|
Toronto One ($64.0 million minus $46 million)
|
18.0
|
|
|
|
219.0
|
|
|
Benefits payable on Category 2 services
|
|
21.
|
CHUM's proposed tangible benefits package of $21 million represents less than 10% of the Commission's approved transaction value of $219 million. CHUM submitted that it should not be required to commit to a tangible benefits package relating to the acquisition of the two launched Category 2 services, even though they have been valued at $9 million. CHUM noted that, unlike Category 1 services, Category 2 services are not protected against competition from other such services that offer programming of the same genre. CHUM argued that not requiring a tangible benefits package when Category 2 services are acquired would be consistent with the policy rationale stated in Call for comments on a proposed approach for the regulation of broadcasting distribution undertakings, Public Notice CRTC 1996-69, 17 May 1996 (Public Notice 1996-69). In that public notice, the Commission removed requirements for tangible benefits packages for transactions involving the sale of broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs). CHUM, nevertheless, did commit to allocate an additional $900,000 to its tangible benefits package in the event the Commission determined that benefits for the Category 2 services were required.
|
|
22.
|
The Commission acknowledges that Category 2 services are not guaranteed carriage by BDUs and do not enjoy protection from the entry of new services providing programming in the same genre. The Commission, however, notes that, for example, conventional television stations are not protected from competition and are subject nevertheless to the benefits test. The mere fact of the presence of real or potential competition does not exempt a programming service from requirements related to tangible benefits. The Commission further notes that Public Notice 1996-69 deals specifically and only with BDUs.
|
|
23.
|
The Commission accordingly requires CHUM to add $900,000 to the priority programming portion of its tangible benefits package, representing 10% of the combined value of the Category 2 services MTV2 and TV Land. The total benefits package required of CHUM in relation to its acquisition of Craig amounts to $21.9 million or 10% of the transaction value accepted by the Commission.
|
|
|
Tangible benefits
|
|
24.
|
The allocation of tangible benefits, as proposed by CHUM and adjusted by the Commission, is set out in the table below. The Commission notes that CHUM originally proposed to devote $10.5 million to priority programming funding but subsequently increased this commitment to $11.5 million. The additional $900,000 that has been added to this initiative to reach the total of $12.4 million represents the tangible benefits that the Commission determined CHUM must contribute related to its acquisition of the Category 2 services MTV2 and TV Land.
|
|
|
|
Value ($ millions)
|
|
|
Priority programming funding
|
12.400
|
|
|
Local programming and improved service
|
6.815
|
|
|
Social benefits and talent development
|
2.685
|
|
|
|
21.900
|
|
25.
|
A complete description of the tangible benefits package is set out in the appendix to this decision.
|
|
|
Allocation of priority programming funding
|
|
|
CHUM's proposal and positions of parties
|
|
26.
|
The priority programming funding of $12.4 million is allocated as set out in the table below. The Commission notes that CHUM originally proposed to allocate $10 million to expenditures and licence fees. The extra $900,000 that has been added reflects the $900,000 in tangible benefits related to the acquisition of MTV2 and TV Land, as discussed above.
|
|
|
|
Value ($ millions)
|
|
|
Expenditures and licence fees
|
10.9
|
|
|
Script and concept development
|
1.0
|
|
|
Revolving bridge financing
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
12.4
|
|
27.
|
CHUM made a number of separate and overlapping commitments concerning how the original amount of $10 million it earmarked for expenditures and licence fees would be spent.
|
|
|
- With regard to the type of programming that would result from the $10 million funding:
|
|
|
o a minimum of $5.0 million would be devoted to drama (category 7) projects;
|
|
|
o a minimum of $1.0 million would be devoted to culturally-diverse projects from ethnic and Aboriginal producers; and
|
|
|
o a maximum of $1.0 million would be reserved for additional funding of projects that have a significant interactive component.
|
|
|
- With regard to the amount that would be spent on independent production versus in-house production:
|
|
|
o of the $10 million, a minimum of $7.5 million would be made available to independent producers; and
|
|
|
o of the $7.5 million made available to independent producers, a minimum of $5.0 million would be made available to Alberta and Manitoba independent producers.
|
|
28.
|
In addition, CHUM stated that it planned to retain a local development officer based in Western Canada who would act as CHUM's point of contact in Western Canada and assist independent producers in Alberta and Manitoba to develop and pre-license their projects.
|
|
29.
|
Several interveners expressed concern about how the priority programming funding, especially the money devoted to expenditures and licence fees, would be allocated.
|
|
30.
|
The Alberta Motion Picture Industry Association (AMPIA) and the Manitoba Motion Picture Industry Association (MMPIA) both considered that the entire $10 million that CHUM had originally allocated for expenditures and licence fees should be in the form of licence fees that would be paid exclusively to Alberta and Manitoba independent producers. In addition, AMPIA considered that CHUM should be required to expend a minimum of 12% of the $10 million annually, until all the promised funding has been spent.
|
|
31.
|
The Directors Guild of Canada (DGC) and the Writers Guild of Canada (WGC) both considered that all of the priority programming funding, including not only the money allocated to expenditures and licence fees but also that allocated to script and concept development and revolving bridge financing, should be spent exclusively on independently produced 10-point Canadian drama.
|
|
|
The Commission's analysis and determinations
|
|
32.
|
The Commission considers that the priority programming initiatives put forward by CHUM are acceptable tangible benefits, and that CHUM's local development officer based in Western Canada will ensure that Manitoba and Alberta independent producers will be able to present their proposals directly to a CHUM representative.
|
|
33.
|
Generally, the Commission does not alter the allocation of benefits monies provided that the proposal meets the Commission's benefits criteria. However, in this case, since CHUM did not propose an allocation for the $900,000 associated with the Category 2 services, the Commission requires this money to be made available entirely to Manitoba and Alberta independent producers for priority programming expenditures and licence fees.
|
|
34.
|
With respect to the $10.9 million earmarked for expenditures and licence fees as part of CHUM's priority programming funding initiatives, once the $900,000 related to the Category 2 services is added, the Commission requires that CHUM fulfill the following separate and overlapping commitments:
|
|
|
- With regard to the type of programming that would result from the $10.9 million funding:
|
|
|
o a minimum of $5.0 million must be devoted to the production of programming from category 7 - drama;
|
|
|
o a minimum of $1 million must be devoted to culturally-diverse projects from ethnic and Aboriginal producers in cooperation with interested broadcasters such as Fairchild, ATN, Vision TV and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN); and
|
|
|
o a maximum of $1.0 million may be reserved for additional funding of projects that have a significant, integrated, interactive component that consists of more than basic marketing initiatives.
|
|
|
- With regard to the amount that must be directed to independent production versus in-house production:
|
|
|
o of the $10.9 million, a minimum of $7.5 million must be made available to independent producers;
|
|
|
o of the $7.5 million made available to independent producers, a minimum of $5.9 million must be made available to Alberta and Manitoba independent producers; and
|
|
|
o of the $1.0 million devoted to culturally-diverse projects, a minimum of $750,000 must be made available to independent producers. Of this $750,000, a minimum of $500,000 must be made available to Alberta and Manitoba independent producers.
|
|
35.
|
The Commission is satisfied that the revised tangible benefits package (as set out in the appendix) is significant, unequivocal and commensurate with the size and nature of the transaction. In addition, the Commission considers that the transformation of CHUM into the third major English-language television broadcaster in Canada, the revitalization of the Craig Alberta and Manitoba stations and the continuation of programming that reflects cultural diversity with a special emphasis on Aboriginal communities represent important intangible benefits to the Canadian broadcasting system. The Commission notes that CHUM must fulfill all of the existing conditions of licence for the former Craig broadcasting undertakings, except those for Toronto One.
|
|
|
Incrementality of priority programming funding and associated reporting requirements
|
|
|
CHUM's proposal and positions of parties
|
|
36.
|
In order to ensure that money spent on priority programming under CHUM's tangible benefits package is incremental to what the licensee would normally spend on such programming, it is necessary to establish a baseline.
|
|
37.
|
CHUM submitted that a baseline predicated on the priority programming expenditures of its own conventional television stations would be appropriate and indicated that it would be willing to work with the Commission to establish a suitable amount.
|
|
38.
|
The MMPIA and Manitoba Film and Sound (MF&S) filed a joint submission in which they suggested that the baseline for priority programming expenditures be based on the historical spending on such programming by both CHUM and Craig. The DGC and the WGC also considered that the appropriate baseline should be based on the combination of Craig's and CHUM's priority programming expenditures, with no exclusions. DGC and WGC emphasized that it was important that the baseline include Craig's priority programming expenditures in Alberta and Manitoba over the past few years. AMPIA recommended that a baseline be established based on the three-year average of Craig's priority programming expenditures.
|
|
|
The Commission's analysis and determinations
|
|
39.
|
Based on the record of this proceeding, the Commission is of the view that the baseline for establishing incrementality should be predicated on the combined priority programming expenditures of both CHUM and Craig, excluding Toronto One for the broadcast year ending 31 August 2004. The Commission considers that such an approach would take into account the historical priority programming expenditures of both CHUM and Craig, thus ensuring that the priority programming funding that CHUM has proposed as a tangible benefit is truly incremental to the priority programming expenditures made by both CHUM and Craig in the past.
|
|
40.
|
In order to establish the baseline amount, the Commission requires CHUM to file an audited report of priority programming expenditures for the 2003-2004 broadcast year as soon as it is available. This report should set out priority programming expenditures for both CHUM and Craig conventional television stations and should clearly separate on-going priority programming expenses from those relating to other incremental benefits.
|
|
41.
|
In order to ensure that the Commission and interested parties can verify that CHUM fulfills the commitments set out in its tangible benefits package, and that such expenditures are clearly incremental to those that would have otherwise been made over the next seven years, CHUM must fulfil the following reporting requirement:
|
|
|
For the 2004-2005 broadcast year, and continuing annually until the tangible benefits package for this transaction has been fulfilled, the Commission requires that CHUM include, with its annual return, a report on the expenditures it has made to fulfill the tangible benefits package. The report must be audited, and CHUM must consult with Commission staff prior to submitting the report to ensure that the format and the accounting methodology employed in its preparation are appropriate and clear.
|
|
42.
|
The Commission notes that, for several elements of its tangible benefits package, CHUM has proposed to spend a total amount of money over periods of up to seven years, but has not identified how much money will be spent each year. In such cases, the Commission expects CHUM to disperse the money in roughly equal parts during each broadcast year of the period proposed for each benefit, to the extent practicable, and not to wait until the final year(s) of the benefits period to discharge its commitments.
|
|
|
Transfers of ownership within the first licence term
|
|
43.
|
The Commission notes that Toronto One and the Category 1 and Category 2 services are being sold within their first licence terms. The Commission notes that Craig's decision to sell stemmed from a financial crisis brought on by weak financial results at Craig's stations in Western Canada and greater than expected losses at Toronto One. The Commission is therefore of the view that Craig's decision to sell was necessitated by financial hardship and does not raise any regulatory concerns.
|
|
|
Acquisition of assets - reorganization of Toronto One
|
|
44.
|
The Commission notes that the reorganization of Toronto One into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Craig is a prerequisite transaction to the completion of the acquisition of Craig by CHUM. After completing the reorganization and prior to being acquired by CHUM, Craig will remain in effective control of Toronto One.
|
|
45.
|
The Commission has not issued a broadcasting licence for CKXT-DT Toronto and its transmitter CKXT-DT-1 Hamilton because the requirements for the issuance of the licence have not yet been met. As stated in CKXT-TV Toronto - transitional digital television licence, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-65, 30 January 2004 (Decision 2004-65), pursuant to section 22(1) of the Broadcasting Act, no licence may be issued until the Department of Industry notifies the Commission that its technical requirements have been met and that a broadcasting certificate will be issued.
|
|
46.
|
The Commission will only issue the licence for CKXT-TV Toronto and its transmitter CKXT-TV-1 Hamilton once the vendor has surrendered the current licence to the Commission.
|
|
47.
|
The two licences will expire 31 August 2008, the current expiry date. The licence of CKXT-TV Toronto and its transmitter CKXT-TV-1 Hamilton will be subject to the same terms and conditions as those in effect under the existing licence. The licence of CKXT-DT Toronto and its transmitter CKXT-DT-1 Hamilton will be subject to the terms and conditions set out in Decision 2004-65.
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
|
48.
|
In light of the above, and subject to the requirements set out in this decision, the Commission approves (i) the application by CHUM on behalf of Craig to transfer the effective control of Craig through the sale of all of its issued and outstanding shares to CHUM, and (ii) the application by Craig to transfer the assets of Toronto One to a wholly-owned subsidiary company to be incorporated solely for that purpose.
|
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
|
This decision is to be appended to each licence. It is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca
|
|
|
Appendix to Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-502
|
|
|
Summary table of tangible benefits
|
|
|
Priority programming funding:
|
|
|
The following apply to all of the priority programming initiatives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Commitment to file annual reports as an accountability mechanism
|
|
|
- Final approval of programming that will be broadcast across CHUM's channels will rest with CHUM's Director of Independent Production, and decisions relating to programming from the Prairies will be based mainly on the recommendation of the development officer from the region and final approval will be determined at the local station level.
|
|
Benefit
|
Amount
|
Timeframe
|
Description
|
Expenditures and licence fees
|
$10,900,000
|
7 years
|
With regard to the type of programming that would result from the $10.9 million funding:
- a minimum of $5.0 million must be devoted to the production of programming from category 7 - drama;
- a minimum of $1 million must be devoted to culturally-diverse projects from ethnic and Aboriginal producers in cooperation with interested broadcasters such as Fairchild, ATN, Vision TV and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN); and
- a maximum of $1.0 million may be reserved for additional funding of projects that have a significant, integrated, interactive component that consists of more than basic marketing initiatives.
With regard to the amount that must be directed to independent production versus in-house production:
- of the $10.9 million, a minimum of $7.5 million must be made available to independent producers;
- of the $7.5 million made available to independent producers, a minimum of $5.9 million must be made available to Alberta and Manitoba independent producers; and
|
|
|
|
|
- of the $1.0 million devoted to culturally-diverse projects, a minimum of $750,000 must be made available to independent producers. Of this $750,000, a minimum of $500,000 must be made available to Alberta and Manitoba independent producers.
|
|
Script and concept development
|
$1,000,000
|
7 years
|
- For script and concept development for producers based in the Prairies
|
|
Revolving bridge financing
|
$500,000
|
7 years
|
- Bridge financing of CHUM supported projects to independent producers in Alberta and Manitoba;
- up to $100,000 per project will be made available in the form of a loan, recoupable within one year, covering legitimate elements of a production budget not immediately bankable - primarily the last 10% of the federal tax credit; and
- as monies are repaid, they will be made available to bridge finance additional projects
|
|
TOTAL:
|
$12,400,000
|
|
|
|
|
Local programming and improved service:
|
|
Benefit
|
Amount
|
Timeframe
|
Description
|
|
Improvements to local news and non-news programming by establishing bureaus in Red Deer and Lethbridge
|
$4,200,000
|
7 years
|
- $300,000 per year to be expended on each bureau (2)
- To be modelled after the CIVI-TV bureau in Nanaimo
- A weekly half-hour program tentatively entitled View from Outside, will highlight and showcase opinions and happenings of the more rural areas of the province
- The bureaus will be operational by the September following CRTC approval of the application (but in no event more than nine months following approval)
- A minimum of four full-time staff in each bureau
|
|
New cross-cultural program based on the Prairies
|
$2,615,000
|
7 years
|
- For the production of a new half- hour cross-cultural improvised comedy program based on the Prairies
- 13 half-hour episodes to be produced and aired across the CHUM group of stations
|
|
TOTAL:
|
$6,815,000
|
|
|
|
|
Social benefits and talent development:
|
|
|
A total of $2,685,000 has been allocated to Social Benefits and Talent Developmentand will be distributed in the following manner:
|
|
a) Aboriginal media initiatives
|
$230,000
|
|
b) Educational grants
|
$40,000
|
|
c) Media education
|
$270,000
|
|
d) Canadian broadcast heritage
|
$150,000
|
|
e) Developing Canadian production talent
|
$680,000
|
|
f) Industry support and development
|
$465,000
|
|
g) Film and television festivals and organizations
|
$850,000
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Details are provided in the following tables:
|
|
|
a) Aboriginal media initiatives
|
|
Benefit
|
Amount
|
Timeframe
|
Description
|
|
Aboriginal Voices Radio (AVR)
|
$75,000
|
2 years
|
- $50,000 will go to assist AVR with business development and planning in an effort to facilitate the launch of its various stations across Canada
- $25,000 to host a forum in Ottawa, Ontario on Aboriginal broadcasting
|
|
Indigenous Media Institute (Alberta)
|
$50,000
|
7 years
|
- To help launch the Indigenous Media Institute (Alberta), which will develop, implement and administer a post-secondary program of media training and study for Aboriginal Canadians
|
|
Dreamspeakers Film Festival (Edmonton, Alberta)
|
$70,000
|
7 years
|
- To fund the Dreamspeakers Film Festival
|
|
The Banff Centre-Aboriginal Screenwriters Program
|
$35,000
|
7 years
|
- To the Banff Centre to establish a program for Aboriginal screenwriters in partnership with APTN
|
|
TOTAL:
|
$230,000
|
|
|
|
Benefit
|
Amount
|
Timeframe
|
Description
|
|
Educational grants
|
$40,000
|
7 years
|
- To establish a number of scholarships to be awarded to students of Aboriginal or ethnic origin pursuing studies in broadcasting or journalism at one of the identified schools:
- Creative Communications Program, Red River Community College (Winnipeg, Manitoba)
- Media Production Program, Assiniboine Community College (Brandon, Manitoba)
- Journalism Program, Grant McEwan College (Edmonton, Alberta)
- Broadcasting Program, Mount Royal College (Calgary, Alberta)
- Motion Picture Arts Program, Red Deer College (Red Deer, Alberta)
|
|
TOTAL:
|
$40,000
|
|
|
|
Benefit
|
Amount
|
Timeframe
|
Description
|
|
Media Awareness Network
|
$250,000
|
2 years
|
- To support Media Literacies for the 21st Century - a public education initiative addressing the need to develop media literacy among young people
- Will be developed with educators in Alberta and Manitoba and piloted as a cross-institutional model in the two provinces, before being rolled out nationally
- Material will be distributed in collaboration with the Canadian Teachers' Federation
|
|
Alberta Association of Media Awareness
|
$10,000
|
One time contribution
|
- To conduct a two-day workshop for Alberta teachers relating to how to educate students on the importance of media awareness
|
|
Manitoba Association of Media Awareness
|
$10,000
|
One time contribution
|
- To conduct a two-day workshop for Manitoba teachers relating to how to educate students on the importance of media awareness
|
|
TOTAL:
|
$270,000
|
|
|
|
|
d) Canadian broadcast heritage
|
|
Benefit
|
Amount
|
Timeframe
|
Description
|
|
Canadian broadcast heritage
|
$150,000
|
7 years
|
- To develop initiatives to celebrate Canadian broadcast heritage, in collaboration with the Canadian Broadcast Museum Foundation, MZTV Museum, the Canadian Communications Museum, the Canadian Communications Foundation and the CRB Foundation/Historica
|
|
TOTAL:
|
$150,000
|
|
|
|
|
e) Developing Canadian production talent
|
|
Benefit
|
Amount
|
Timeframe
|
Description
|
|
Women in Media Foundation
|
$200,000
|
7 years
|
- To establish a series of scholarships and internships for Alberta and Manitoba women
|
|
National Screen Institute
|
$50,000
|
One time contribution
|
- A grant to establish the CHUM Diversity Partnership Program, which will be used to help train ethnic and Aboriginal filmmakers
|
|
Innoversity
|
$130,000
|
7 years
|
- To help bring delegates from Alberta and Manitoba to the annual Innoversity Creative Summit in Toronto, Ontario and to establish new awards for ethno-cultural producers
|
|
Canadian Film Centre
|
$125,000
|
One time contribution
|
- An endowment to establish a scholarship that will be used to send ethnic and Aboriginal filmmakers to the Centre for training
|
|
CFTPA Mentorship Program
|
$175,000
|
7 years
|
- To establish the Cultural Diversity Mentorship Program, under which Aboriginal and multicultural youth from Alberta and Manitoba will be placed with producers each year for a minimum of 30 weeks of training designed to foster the development of skills and knowledge of the film and television industries in a hands-on, practical manner
|
|
TOTAL:
|
$680,000
|
|
|
|
|
f) Industry support and development
|
|
Benefit
|
Amount
|
Timeframe
|
Description
|
|
Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television
|
$250,000
|
5 years
|
- To support the awards program
|
|
Production of public service announcement (PSA) on the V-Chip
|
$30,000
|
One time contribution
|
- To the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to create a PSA - English and French versions, captioned and described - related to the availability and use of the V-Chip
|
|
Women in Film and Television - Toronto
|
$10,000
|
In Year 1
|
- To assist the national industry coalition initiative that supports the participation, development and advancement of women in film and television
|
|
Center for Research Action on Race Relations
|
$50,000
|
5 years
|
- To fund ongoing work in the area of race relations and employment equity relating to the broadcasting industry
|
|
CWC Professional Development Scholarship
|
$105,000
|
7 years
|
- $15,000 per year to be used to conduct professional development events in Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg
|
|
MediaWatch
|
$20,000
|
One time contribution
|
- To support research in the area of diversity and gender issues and the media
|
|
TOTAL:
|
$465,000
|
|
|
|
|
g) Film and television festivals and organizations
|
|
Benefit
|
Amount
|
Timeframe
|
Description
|
|
Banff Film Festival
|
$350,000
|
7 years
|
- To support the Banff Film Festival
|
|
Calgary International Film Festival
|
$250,000
|
7 years
|
- To promote and showcase Canadian film
|
|
Edmonton International Film Festival
|
$105,000
|
7 years
|
- To promote and showcase Canadian film
|
|
AMPIA Cultural Diversity Award
|
$50,000
|
5 years
|
- For a cash award to be given to a production that makes a significant contribution to the reflection of Canada's cultural diversity
|
|
Manitoba Motion Picture Industry Association
|
$25,000
|
5 years
|
- To support the Blizzard Awards
|
|
Projections International Disability Film Festival
|
$70,000
|
7 years
|
- To support the Projections International Disability Film Festival
|
|
TOTAL:
|
$850,000
|
|
|
|
|
Footnotes:
The Commission notes that in Transfer of effective control of Toronto One to TVA Group Inc. and Sun Media Corporation, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-503, 19 November 2004, the Commission approves the sale by CHUM of Toronto One to TVA Group Inc. and Sun Media Corporation.
Paragraph 17 of Building on success - A policy framework for Canadian television, Public Notice CRTC 1999-97, 11 June 1999 states "The Commission will continue its current policy which generally permits ownership of no more than one over-the-air television station in one language in a given market."
|
Date Modified: 2004-11-19
|