BY SEAN GRIFFIN Whether the Canadian Radio and Television Commission will grant a licence to CBC’s proposed French language’ station following hearings next month remains to be seen but already the campaign against the application has been Swept up in a wave of English- Canadian chauvinism. And, spurred by a predictable assortment of Tory and Liberal MPs, it threatens to call into question all the federal legislation So far proposed to promote the development of ‘Canadian content in radio, television and periodicals. Although the various detractors of Canadian content had been taking pot shots at such legislation as Bill C-58 — removing tax con- cessions to such magazines as Time and Readers Digest — they had failed to gather any significant Opposition — until the application for the French language station was submitted. : The opposition was particularly aroused by the fact that the proposed station, if given the go- ahead by the CRTC, will “bump” a U.S. station off the cable network. Already, one station — KIRO TV, Channel 7 — is to be bumped to make room for a new Station, Western Approaches, which had its application approved last year and is scheduled to go the air some time in September. Western Approaches is seeking to bump CHEK in Victoria instead, because of conflicts that will arise if still another CBC station in Victoria is granted a licence, but it is unlikely that the CRTC will accede to Western’s request because of the Commission’s policy of pre-empting U.S. stations before Canadian. The reallocation of television channels and the controversy over programming priorities has demonstrated the technological bottlenecks in the broadcasting industry and pointed up the deficiencies of Canadian content legislation which has not been backed up with the funds to give it any substance. On the technological side are the limitations of viewers’ television sets which have only 12 channels on which to receive signals from the cable companies. Three of these channels 2, 8 and 12, are considered “impaired” and not available for, cable transmission since the set’s built-in reception apparatus draws a weak signal from the broad- Casting station which interferes ‘with the cable signal. That leaves only nine useable channels — and all of them are occupied. Five U.S. stations, in- cluding PBS, Channel 9 combine with CTV, CBC, CHEK (Victoria) and Cable to take up the available Space. Most sets of recent manufacture do have UHF (ultra high frequency) capabilities — as op- posed to VHF (very — high frequency), on which regular channels are received — and most of the new applications being granted are for UHF licences, but the CRTC stipulates that cable companies convert the UHF signal _ to VHF in order that it be available to the maximum number of people including those whose television Sets do not have a UHF dial. Therein lies the problem. And most of the solutions involve Considerable expense to the television viewer. At a cost in the neighborhood of $75 to $100, cable subscribers could purchase a converter which ex- Pands the sets nine-channel range to some 30 or 36 channels. This is done by receiving signals from what is known as_ the “midband”? — between 6 and 7 on the dial — but this would entail even more cost to the subscriber Since cable companies are already demanding permission to increase Monthly rates before they’ll broadcast into the midband. ‘ abreast of THE DISTORTED TSSUE Eee MLN NASON EN SUA ETBS DSIRE SB SANBORN A ES A look at the controversy over French language TV The increasing clamor for more income by the cable companies — including a recent application which was denied, for pay ‘television — coupled with the failure of the companies to keep technological developments has also raised anew the demand that cable operators be taken over by the provincial government and operated as a public utility. The B.C. Federation of Labor voiced that demand in its sub- mission to the cabinet early last year, noting that the department of communications has the authority and such a move would facilitate the development of Canadian programming and would allow greater public participation. The case for nationalization is considered strengthened by the fact that Premier Cablevision, the major operator in Vancouver, is a huge multinational corporation with holdings in several countries. Although scarcely a decade old, cable companies have established a lucrative operation with more than $1,000,000 a month being collected in the Lower Mainland from subscribers fees. In return for cable rights, the various companies are required to provide a local station to which the public has access. All the com- munities serviced by cablevision have such stations but, for the most “part, the programming is only of limited, local interest. The Association for Public Broadcasting has sought, in conjunction with other organizations, to obtain cable licences and operate the stations co-operatively in order to increase community participation and give lower rates. At present, Capitol Cable Cooperative in Victoria has an application before the CRTC to take over the cable station there, a bid which has wide support from the community and the labor movement. ‘But the fundamental problem — the failure to develop a variety of popular Canadian programs throughout the country — remains unsolved. The problem, of course, is far wider than the shortcomings of cable stations and lies primarily with the federal government which, although it has taken some tentative steps, confusing directions. Under pressure from various quarters, ranging in opinion from the Committee for an Independent Canada, to offset the dominating influence of the U.S., the govern- ’ ment has proposed several pieces is moving in - of _ legislation aimed at strengthening Canadian content in the cultural media. Some of the more recent pieces include bills to remove tax concessions to U.S. magazines such as Time and Reader’s Digest which produce token Canadian editions, and legislation regulating cable companies which stipulate that companies broadcasting American stations must delete U.S. ad- vertising before sending the signal to Canadian viewers. At the same time, the govern- ment, has been implementing its policy on. bilingualism and it is under this policy as well as the terms of the Broadcast Act, passed in 1967, that the CBC is seeking to establish its French language station, a project that has been in the works for some time. The first cogent argument cited as a basis for opposition to the French station comes from population figures listed by the last census which show that only some 900 people in the station’s viewing are are unilingual in French while approximately 6,000 list French as their first language. In total, some 54,000 people in the area are bilingual, speaking both ‘French and English, although the figures, gathered in 1971, are probably somewhat conservative. by Harry Rankin RENEW NOW — OFFER EXPIRES JANUARY 31 Thus viewers are losing a U.S. station, the oppositionists argue, and are gaining a station which will be inaccessible to the vast majority of people. The argument is not without validity, especially considering the backlash that the station’s ap- plication has generated, a reaction aggravated by the fact that the CBC has apparently already begun to set up the station’s transmitter tower even before the application has been heard. The Federation des Franco- Columbiens is also concerned with the presumption of the CBC. in setting up the transmitter and has emphasized that the controversy surrounding the station is alienating English-speaking British Columbians from their French counterparts. Strangely enough, in submitting the Vancouver application to the CRTC, the CBC, for the first time, has asked for unilingual station — broadcasting in French. only. All other applications — there are French language TV stations in every province but Saskatchewan where a licence has been granted, however — have requested bilingual stations. Even the western regional director for CBC’s _French network, in- terviewed this week, was at a loss SSeS Special With a $6.00 sub you can receive RANKIN’S LAW at the reduced price of $6.00 (reg. $7.95). Renew your sub or buy a new one and we will send you RANKIN’S LAW or your choice of one or either of two other books, also at reduced prices. por A new sub cal or renewal = for: Name Address Please send: Rankin’s Law 4 (Enclose $12.00) Conscience for Canada [ | (Enclose $9.95) ‘Forge Glows Red 2 (Enclose $8.95) To: Mez. 3, 193 E. Hastings, Van., B.C.: I | | | | | / | | I i I I | I | | I | I | | ae ae a, Se ee aa ae 8 8 Oe AL BR oe Rote ss & ae eee oS che ergo” 40s Lee pate o Shrie we ee ales 0a, ee eee to explain why the application was for a solely French station. Under these circumstances, a more logical course for the CBC to pursue would be to include French language programs on its regular network as part of an introductory program to win public appeal and to widen the base of support for French language programming. Certainly several programs, including U.S. imports, presently being shown on the CBC network could be dropped to provide room. Policy or none, neither the federal government nor the CBC can legislate bilingualism; it can only promote it by developing programs to stimulate the general use of the French language. That, of course, will do nothing to mute the more strident voices campaigning against the station. Radio hot-liners have hardly disguised their appeal to bigotry and have used the opposition to challenge everything from the CBC to Canadian content. Several MPs, including Liberal Simma Holt and Tory Benno Friesen, have been waving “freedom of choice’ like a flag that always has the distinct look of the Stars and Stripes. Holt railed against the legislation removing tax con- cessions, complaining that Canadians won’t be allowed publications such as Time that have been circulated here “for years and years.” But the charge is utterly false. The legislation will do nothing to diminish the availability of either magazine. It will simply mean that Time and others will probably drop their token Canadian pages, a loss which will be little felt by Canadians since the pages were just that: token... and written from a American viewpoint. In the same way, the legislation calling on cable companies to delete U.S. advertising from U.S. stations broadcasting across the border is intended to repatriate advertising dollars which pour across the border by the millions each year. : The steps taken are only a beginning — and a small begin- ning, at that. And more conflicts are going to be created as long as the federal government fails to take what is the most important step: making funds available to promote and develop Canadian writers, producers, actors, musicians, directors and all the others who are vitally necessary to establishing a distinct Canadian presence in the film and television industry. When the present controversy has died down, that job will remain to be done. Offer a a PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JANUARY 23, 1976—Page 3. ;