Commercial Radio Policy 2006 vs. Commissioner Cram

The CRTC's unimpressive track record of enforcing its own conditions of license, let alone calling broadcasters to account for their broken promises of performance has been chastised by a dissenting Commissioner on the panel. It seems that emerging artists had better continue to rely on Canadian pay audio services and the Internet to find an audience.

Commissioner Barbara Cram says:

I disagree with my colleagues in the majority both as to not increasing the amount of Canadian Content but also the increased funding to FACTOR.

I understand my colleague Commissioner Langford will be further addressing the issue of Canadian Content and therefore I will not dwell upon it. I can only state that if the Commission had accepted the argument of a lack of commercial demand for Canadian music as a reason for not increasing Canadian Content at the time of the original Radio Policy in the 1970's Canadian airwaves would have retained its Canadian Content of single digit proportions and Canada's music industry would not have become the second - albeit now third largest in the world.

Having first decided not to increase Canadian Content, my colleagues in the majority were then faced with a dilemma. They had given a concession to radio broadcasters, there had to be something given back to the broadcasting system in return. They deemed a 'national' vehicle was required and, by default, FACTOR was chosen as it is the only association that purports to be 'national' in relation to the English music industry.

In its intervention with respect to the public hearing held in Regina in October of this year, CIRPA supported FACTOR notwithstanding that they had 'governance challenges'. CIRPA claimed these 'governance challenges' are being addressed. However, based on my eight years with the Commission, these challenges have only gotten worse. Witness the following allocations from FACTOR over the years:

% of funding	2001-2002	2004-2005	2005-2006	% of total Cdn pop'n 2002-2005
BC	24.3%	17.8%	15.8%	13.2%-13.2%
Alta	2.8%	1.6%	1.34%	9.9%-10%
Sask	1.3%	0.7%	0.24%	3.3%-3.1%
Man	1.7%	3.6%	3.6%	3.7%-3.6%
Ont	34.4%	48.7%	58.9%	38.2%-38.9%
PQ	20.8%	19.2%	14.9%	23.8%-23.5%
NS	10%	4.2%	3.2%	3%-2.9%
NB	1%	0.6%	0.07%	2.4%-2.3%
PEI	1.9%	1.4%	0.17%	0.4%-0.4%
NFLD	0.6%	0.6%	0.32%	1.7%-1.6%
YK and Terr	1.2%	1.5%	0.53%	0.3%-0.3%

Now whilst one cannot and should not expect complete regional or provincial parity, it is my belief that at least an effort should be made to move towards some semblance of parity but indeed it appears the numbers show exactly the opposite. FACTOR's monies come from the taxpayers of Canada in the approximate amount of $10 million dollars per annum and also from radio broadcasters all across Canada. It is indeed ironic that the Commission has been licensing many more new radio stations in Alberta in the recent past than in any other area of the country. And yet the benefits allocated by those new broadcasting entities to FACTOR definitely do not remain in the province. The profits of these new radio stations come from Alberta, the profits pay for the benefit monies to FACTOR and the FACTOR monies go elsewhere.

I am unaware as to how FACTOR's 'governance challenges' are being addressed; however, to date these efforts are producing perverse results. At least in 2004-2005 FACTOR participated in information sessions outside of Ontario, with one of them being in France. In 2005-2006, FACTOR held five 'information panels' in Toronto.

FACTOR has in the past defended its uneven allocations saying it gives money only to the best. I cannot accept this premise given the Canadian Idol experience where Kalan Porter from Alberta rose to the top along with Theresa Sokyrka from Saskatchewan. I also cannot accept that the Maritimes does not have some of the 'best' given the strength of the East Coast Music Awards.

Alternatively, maybe FACTOR is correct in saying they give money only to the best. Bruce Cockburn, Rita McNeil, and many other well established artists have received support from FACTOR in recent years.

My colleagues in the majority are giving the broadcasting system's money to an organization over which the Commission has no control and which has 'governance challenges' which, to date, empirical data shows have not been resolved but exacerbated.

I would have increased the Canadian Content requirement. Respectfully, I believe the majority decision has given us the worst of both worlds.

Link