TORONTO — The Writers Guild of Canada has joined the ongoing debate regarding the funding of programs of national interest (PNI) that has Canada’s creative community pitted against the country’s three largest broadcasters ever since the CRTC reduced minimum PNI spending requirements in its May broadcasting decision on group licence renewals.
Following on the heels of the Canadian Media Producers Association’s (CMPA) response earlier today to yesterday’s open letter to the CRTC by Bell Media, Corus Entertainment and Rogers Media, the Writers Guild of Canada (WGC) released its own press release regarding PNI funding this afternoon.
Saying that the three English-language private broadcasters have attempted to “muddy the waters” with their joint full-page ad in The Hill Times yesterday, WGC argued the broadcasters are employing “the now-familiar tactic of pivoting to global Canadian programming expenditure (CPE) numbers” as a way to dodge the issue regarding the potential impact on PNI spending.
The press release from the Writers Guild of Canada is published below.
WGC Responds to Broadcasters’ Open Letter on Cabinet Petition
Toronto – August 3, 2017 — In a joint full-page ad and open letter in the Hill Times yesterday, the three large, English-language private broadcast groups — Bell Media, Corus Entertainment, and Rogers Media — attempted to muddy the waters with respect to petitions to the federal cabinet made by the Writers Guild of Canada (WGC) and other members of the Canadian creative community. The merits of those petitions, however, remain as strong as ever.
Firstly, in their open letter the broadcasters employ the now-familiar tactic of pivoting to global Canadian programming expenditure (CPE) numbers, notwithstanding the fact that the petitions clearly emphasize the potential impacts on “programs of national interest” (PNI), such as drama and documentary. The WGC pointed out the flaw in this argument here, and again when former CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais used it here. The WGC petition is about PNI, and pointing to CPE in the face of PNI concerns is a dodge, pure and simple.
Secondly, the broadcasters step on their own feet when they claim that being “forced to produce specific types of Canadian content” is “both disappointing and puzzling.” This statement appears to reject the CRTC’s entire PNI policy, which does that very thing, has done so since 2011, and was maintained in this year’s licence renewal decisions — decisions that the broadcasters suggest in their open letter must be allowed to stand. The WGC objects to the minimum levels of PNI spending being slashed for Bell and Corus, from their own historical spending to the lowest-common-denominator of 5% of revenues. If the PNI policy itself is “disappointing and puzzling,” the broadcasters could have said that at the CRTC (which they didn’t), and presumably should be launching their own cabinet petition now (which they aren’t). This is a classic attempt to have things both ways. Moreover, the broadcasters suggest that they don’t need regulatory minimums because it’s in their own interests to spend on PNI. If that’s the case, why argue for their reduction? If there is nothing to suggest their PNI spending levels will change going forward, why take out a full-page ad to fight against maintaining them?
Finally, the broadcasters employ the tiring rhetoric of the “protectionist past” pitted against the digital future. This conveniently ignores the advantages and protections that they have long enjoyed, and continue to enjoy under the Broadcasting Act, while they lament the obligations that come with them. Once again, they seek to have it both ways.
Reduced programming commitments to Canadian drama and documentary is only a “giant leap forward” if your vision of the future is less Canadian programming. Considering that the business strategies of these broadcasters has for decades been to resell foreign, predominantly U.S. programming into Canada, what they propose now looks more like a giant lurch backwards.
